[11:00] Right.
[11:18] The January 12th, 2026 regular meeting
[11:20] of the Maliba City Council is now called
[11:22] to order. Inperson participants, if you
[11:24] would like to speak, please submit your
[11:25] request to speak form to the clerk.
[11:28] Remote participants, if you would like
[11:29] to speak, please join the Zoom webinar
[11:31] meeting printed on the agenda and raise
[11:33] your hand in Zoom when the item you wish
[11:35] to speak on is called. May we please
[11:37] have a roll call.
[11:38] >> Council member Conrad
[11:39] » Council member Conrad
[11:39] >> here.
[11:39] » here.
[11:40] >> Council member Stewart
[11:41] » Council member Stewart
[11:41] >> here.
[11:41] » here.
[11:41] >> Council member Yuring
[11:42] » Council member Yuring
[11:42] >> here.
[11:42] » here.
[11:42] >> Mayor Prom Silverstein,
[11:44] » Mayor Prom Silverstein,
[11:44] >> present.
[11:44] » present.
[11:44] >> Mayor Rigggins
[11:45] » Mayor Rigggins
[11:45] >> here.
[11:45] » here.
[11:45] >> You have a quorum.
[11:46] » You have a quorum.
[11:46] >> Thank you. Uh, let's do the pledge of
[11:48] » Thank you. Uh, let's do the pledge of
[11:48] allegiance, please.
[11:53] [snorts]
[11:55] » Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the
[11:58] flag of the United States of America and
[12:02] to the republic for which it stands, one
[12:04] nation under God, indivisible, with
[12:08] liberty and justice for all.
[12:13] » May we please have an approval uh may we
[12:16] please have a report on the posting of
[12:17] the agenda?
[12:18] >> The agenda for this meeting was properly
[12:20] » The agenda for this meeting was properly
[12:20] posted on December 23rd, 2025.
[12:23] >> May we please have an approval of the
[12:24] » May we please have an approval of the
[12:24] agenda. Staff is requesting item 1 B6 to
[12:27] be continued to a date uncertain.
[12:31] >> 1 B6 is what?
[12:32] » 1 B6 is what?
[12:32] >> 1B6 is the Kimley Horn.
[12:34] » 1B6 is the Kimley Horn.
[12:34] >> Okay. Extension.
[12:35] » Okay. Extension.
[12:35] >> I'll make a motion to approve the
[12:37] » I'll make a motion to approve the
[12:37] agenda.
[12:37] >> I'll second.
[12:38] » I'll second.
[12:38] >> All in favor?
[12:39] » All in favor?
[12:39] >> That was with with 1 B6 continue to
[12:41] » That was with with 1 B6 continue to
[12:41] data.
[12:42] >> 1B6 continue. Yes.
[12:46] » Uh no votes against.
[12:50] Okay. Honda consent.
[12:53] Do we have any speaker slips for the
[12:54] consent?
[12:55] >> No, we only had one speaker slip for 1B6
[12:58] » No, we only had one speaker slip for 1B6
[12:58] which has been continued and will not be
[12:59] heard tonight. And we do not have any
[13:02] raised hands on Zoom for the consent
[13:03] calendar.
[13:04] >> Okay. Uh does any may want to pull
[13:06] » Okay. Uh does any may want to pull
[13:06] anything?
[13:07] >> I'd like to pull uh number five 1B5.
[13:10] » I'd like to pull uh number five 1B5.
[13:10] Just want to get a little more
[13:12] information about where we are on that.
[13:13] >> Okay. Do you want a staff report or do
[13:15] » Okay. Do you want a staff report or do
[13:15] you just have questions?
[13:17] >> Um I've just got some Well, I got
[13:21] » Um I've just got some Well, I got
[13:21] questions. Let's do it that way.
[13:22] >> Okay. I'll I want to pull one B4,
[13:25] » Okay. I'll I want to pull one B4,
[13:26] please.
[13:26] >> Okay. So, one B4, 1 B5.
[13:29] » Okay. So, one B4, 1 B5.
[13:29] >> 1 B10.
[13:30] » 1 B10.
[13:30] >> 1 B10.
[13:31] » 1 B10.
[13:31] >> You want to join in?
[13:32] » You want to join in?
[13:32] >> Yeah, I'm done. [laughter]
[13:34] » Yeah, I'm done. [laughter]
[13:34] >> So, four, five, and 10 are being pulled.
[13:36] » So, four, five, and 10 are being pulled.
[13:36] Can we have an approval of the remainder
[13:39] of the items?
[13:39] >> I'll make a motion to approve the rest
[13:41] » I'll make a motion to approve the rest
[13:41] of the agenda.
[13:44] >> Consent calendar.
[13:45] » Consent calendar.
[13:45] >> And the consent calendar.
[13:47] » And the consent calendar.
[13:47] >> I'll second.
[13:47] » I'll second.
[13:47] >> All in favor? I
[13:49] » All in favor? I
[13:49] >> I
[13:50] » I
[13:50] >> Okay.
[13:51] » Okay.
[13:51] Uh so let's start with 1B4.
[13:56] Uh resolution extending the declaration
[13:59] of the existence of a local emergency
[14:00] regarding conditions on Pacific Coast
[14:02] Highway.
[14:03] >> I just had some questions. I seem to um
[14:05] » I just had some questions. I seem to um
[14:05] I just want to get clarity on this. Um
[14:09] because we vote on this every meeting.
[14:11] Um we vote to approve it. And if PCH is
[14:16] in a state of perpetual emergency
[14:18] declaration, does that give us anything
[14:21] um special privileges or I mean we have
[14:24] things like roundabouts and we have uh
[14:27] improvement projects. Does that have
[14:29] anything
[14:30] that is
[14:33] so having a declared state of emergency
[14:35] does give the city certain um additional
[14:37] powers? It does not impact the
[14:39] development projects that are being
[14:41] considered though. Those are in al
[14:43] related to the state of PCH but um are
[14:45] not required to be done under a state of
[14:47] emergency.
[14:53] Okay. I mean it's pretty like when you
[14:55] read it it's pretty indepth that it's
[14:57] you know we're it's the data statewide
[15:01] integrated traffic
[15:04] how dangerous it is resulting in the
[15:06] death of 23 people. Are we always going
[15:09] to be in this state of emergency? Is
[15:11] there ever going to be like a moment
[15:12] where we feel safe on PCH and we lift
[15:15] it?
[15:17] >> I don't know if that's something it just
[15:19] » I don't know if that's something it just
[15:19] comes back to councils over and over and
[15:21] over again, I guess.
[15:24] >> Uh, council member, this was this was in
[15:27] » Uh, council member, this was this was in
[15:27] re in response to the Palisades fire and
[15:31] relative kind of activity that was
[15:33] around that
[15:34] >> 2023. It was for the deaths of the
[15:36] » 2023. It was for the deaths of the
[15:36] >> Yes, the emergency was declared at the
[15:38] » Yes, the emergency was declared at the
[15:38] direction of the council. Um any state
[15:40] of emergency does have to be reviewed
[15:42] and renewed by the council every 60 days
[15:44] or it is terminated. Um so if the
[15:46] council still thinks there is need for
[15:48] those additional powers, the additional
[15:50] spending that can be authorized in their
[15:52] city manager authority, you would need
[15:53] to continue the state of emergency. If
[15:56] you the council determines that isn't
[15:58] necessary, then we can bring back a
[15:59] termination.
[16:00] >> Got it. My recollection is I actually
[16:02] » Got it. My recollection is I actually
[16:02] brought that to council initially after
[16:05] the um the deaths of the um students and
[16:09] um the I think it's stated in there it's
[16:12] it we're going to be in an emergency
[16:13] until Calrans actually fixes it and
[16:15] we're no longer in an emergency and
[16:17] since we don't have the power to fix it
[16:19] ourselves
[16:20] >> and since the emergency does continue
[16:22] » and since the emergency does continue
[16:22] until it's fixed
[16:23] >> and since unfortunately the law requires
[16:25] » and since unfortunately the law requires
[16:25] us to reaffirm this every third every 60
[16:27] days
[16:28] >> it's going to have to just keep
[16:29] » it's going to have to just keep
[16:29] appearing on our consent calendar. I
[16:32] mean, it would be better if we could
[16:34] just say it shall be there until we
[16:35] declare otherwise,
[16:37] >> but we have to keep declaring it so
[16:39] » but we have to keep declaring it so
[16:39] because they continue to leave the
[16:40] problem. You know, they're making some
[16:42] incremental changes,
[16:44] >> but it's it's still a dangerous place
[16:46] » but it's it's still a dangerous place
[16:46] and it's still an emergency. Yeah, in my
[16:48] view, it is.
[16:49] >> I agree. I vote on it every two weeks.
[16:51] » I agree. I vote on it every two weeks.
[16:52] I'm very um I'm just interested in how
[16:54] that works because like at what point do
[16:56] we feel that it's not dangerous anymore?
[16:58] But I guess that we'll cross that bridge
[17:00] when we cross it. Maybe it's two years
[17:02] without death. I don't know. I
[17:05] >> think we'll know it when we see it.
[17:06] » think we'll know it when we see it.
[17:06] >> Okay. Well, um just wanted to double
[17:10] » Okay. Well, um just wanted to double
[17:10] check on that because we vote on it.
[17:13] That's it. Thank you.
[17:14] >> Would you like to pick a motion or
[17:16] » Would you like to pick a motion or
[17:16] >> I'll move that we approve that one.
[17:18] » I'll move that we approve that one.
[17:18] >> Yeah, I want to continue approving it.
[17:20] » Yeah, I want to continue approving it.
[17:20] So,
[17:20] >> you'll second.
[17:21] » you'll second.
[17:21] >> Second. Okay. All in favor? I I none
[17:24] » Second. Okay. All in favor? I I none
[17:24] opposed. Okay. Okay. 1B5.
[17:28] >> Yeah, I pulled 1B5 primarily because as
[17:31] » Yeah, I pulled 1B5 primarily because as
[17:31] I read this, we got a serious problem on
[17:33] Insul Canyon with this U um storm drain
[17:38] pipe. And I'm just wondering if we're
[17:41] going to not approve the repair, which
[17:42] makes sense. I read the read the report.
[17:44] It looks like it's in a lot worse
[17:46] condition than when you first envisioned
[17:47] it. But are we what kind of risk are we
[17:49] taking? And is it still serviceable now?
[17:52] I I just want to just want to know what
[17:55] we're looking at since it seems to have
[17:56] gone downhill since we put out the
[17:58] original RFP.
[18:01] >> That is an excellent question, council
[18:03] » That is an excellent question, council
[18:03] member. The answer to that is yes, it is
[18:06] still serviceable. We will be going
[18:07] through an expedited redesign. The pipe
[18:10] still does require repair, but we do um
[18:14] believe that it can withstand um
[18:16] upcoming storms, especially after this
[18:18] recent storm that it went through. but
[18:20] it will be um expedited and and
[18:22] hopefully repaired soon.
[18:25] >> I'm assuming that you're not going to be
[18:26] » I'm assuming that you're not going to be
[18:26] able to put a liner in it like you like
[18:28] you proposed. It look from what what I
[18:30] read here, it looks like it's in pretty
[18:31] bad shape. So, you're going to have to
[18:33] dig it out.
[18:35] >> The exact method has not been identified
[18:38] » The exact method has not been identified
[18:38] yet. Um but it will be a lot more
[18:40] extensive than the liner which was
[18:43] originally anticipated.
[18:44] >> Okay. All right. I just want to know if
[18:45] » Okay. All right. I just want to know if
[18:46] we had a safety issue here. It doesn't
[18:47] sound like we do, but if we get on it
[18:49] quickly, we can solve it. That's right.
[18:51] All right.
[18:52] >> Correct.
[18:52] » Correct.
[18:52] >> Uh, I'll make a mo That satisfies me.
[18:54] » Uh, I'll make a mo That satisfies me.
[18:54] I'll make a motion to approve.
[18:56] >> Do we have a second?
[18:57] » Do we have a second?
[18:57] >> I'll second.
[18:58] » I'll second.
[18:58] >> Okay. All in favor?
[18:59] » Okay. All in favor?
[18:59] >> I
[18:59] » I
[18:59] >> I
[19:01] » I
[19:01] none opposed. Uh, 1B10.
[19:04] >> I ask that be pulled.
[19:06] » I ask that be pulled.
[19:06] >> Yes. I guess my question is are we
[19:09] » Yes. I guess my question is are we
[19:09] required to terminate that declaration
[19:12] at this time or can we leave or do we
[19:14] have discretion to leave it in place at
[19:16] least one more um two-month session I
[19:21] guess because I know it's rained a lot
[19:25] but we you know this is the time of year
[19:28] when historically we're in danger so it
[19:30] seems to me that it's a little premature
[19:32] to pull it
[19:34] >> um well according to the criteria period
[19:37] » um well according to the criteria period
[19:37] that were established by this council.
[19:39] Um, we've more than met like cuz there
[19:43] was you know 2 in of rain, we've had
[19:45] more than 12 in of rain. Live fuel
[19:48] moisture should be greater than 80. It's
[19:50] now at 166%.
[19:54] And there are no fire weather watches or
[19:57] red flag warnings in the foreseeable
[19:59] future. So
[20:01] I I think that we have far exceeded the
[20:04] criteria and it's appropriate to um
[20:10] terminate it at this point.
[20:13] >> It doesn't mean and I just want to say
[20:15] » It doesn't mean and I just want to say
[20:15] it doesn't really change what we do. Um
[20:18] our staff is out all the time removing
[20:20] encampments. This just provides us a
[20:24] little, you know, extra tools and
[20:26] justification for moving quickly in
[20:30] areas, but we do this every day. And so
[20:34] it's not like we stop doing it. So I I
[20:38] think we're still protected.
[20:40] >> What would the upside of removing it
[20:41] » What would the upside of removing it
[20:41] then be? Because once it's removed, it's
[20:43] hard to get back and we know that we're
[20:45] just going to go back into dry season,
[20:47] >> right? Well, the whole point of an
[20:48] » right? Well, the whole point of an
[20:48] emergency is that you don't just declare
[20:51] them for any reason, right? So, we put
[20:53] the criteria in there so that we can be
[20:55] consistent. And I mean, it could be in
[20:59] some respects, and Trevor would have to
[21:02] correct me if I'm wrong, but it provides
[21:04] some legal coverage that you're
[21:05] consistent. You have criteria. It's
[21:08] triggered when you meet the criteria,
[21:10] and we we terminate it when we hit the
[21:12] other criteria. So then somebody
[21:14] couldn't accuse us of just having an
[21:17] ongoing emergency and using that to say
[21:21] violate their civil rights or whatever
[21:23] may be.
[21:24] >> That's correct. And if it drops, you'll
[21:26] » That's correct. And if it drops, you'll
[21:26] bring back a new resolution to go reimp
[21:28] implement the the state of emergency.
[21:31] Correct.
[21:32] >> Correct.
[21:33] » Correct.
[21:33] >> Has the fire department been consulted
[21:35] » Has the fire department been consulted
[21:35] about whether this is appropriate at
[21:37] this time?
[21:38] Not specifically because but they would
[21:40] definitely agree and we consulted with
[21:42] them on the criteria but it's it's not
[21:45] within our um
[21:49] um sorry process to get approval from
[21:52] the fire department but we do get the
[21:54] data from the fire department
[21:56] like the live fuel moisture is provided
[21:58] to us by the fire department.
[22:00] >> Right.
[22:04] I I don't support withdrawing this at
[22:05] this time, but we'll see what the vote
[22:07] is, I guess.
[22:09] >> Well, what would um
[22:12] » Well, what would um
[22:12] what would the benefit of not
[22:15] withdrawing it at this time be?
[22:18] >> I think there are some incremental
[22:19] » I think there are some incremental
[22:19] benefits that are set forth in the
[22:21] declaration or else we wouldn't have
[22:22] done it in the first place. So, I would
[22:24] like to see it remain in place at least
[22:26] through the end of February as we've
[22:29] historically done it. I know the
[22:30] criteria have been satisfied or at least
[22:32] I'm hearing that they are, but I'm still
[22:35] I'm still concerned given the time of
[22:37] year and given the history that this is
[22:40] premature.
[22:40] >> Is there any reason why we can't keep it
[22:42] » Is there any reason why we can't keep it
[22:42] on? I mean, it's a problem with PU.
[22:44] >> Well, we've we've met the criteria.
[22:46] » Well, we've we've met the criteria.
[22:46] >> We've met the criteria.
[22:48] » We've met the criteria.
[22:48] >> So, there's okay.
[22:51] » So, there's okay.
[22:51] >> But the criteria to meet it is no longer
[22:53] » But the criteria to meet it is no longer
[22:53] in place,
[22:54] >> right? And I think to for our own like
[22:56] » right? And I think to for our own like
[22:56] as a city our credibility so that when
[22:59] we're declaring this that we're
[23:01] consistent we have criteria and we're
[23:04] not just say using it as a tool to do
[23:08] thing. I mean we use it as a tool but in
[23:10] the situation where there's high fire
[23:13] danger
[23:15] where we're not we're not in fire danger
[23:17] right now. Thank goodness. Yeah.
[23:19] >> And we're not in fire danger because the
[23:21] » And we're not in fire danger because the
[23:21] live fuel moisture is at such a high
[23:24] level.
[23:25] >> Correct.
[23:26] » Correct.
[23:26] >> Um are there other things behind besides
[23:29] » Um are there other things behind besides
[23:29] the uh f the vegetation
[23:34] having moisture in it that
[23:37] um that there are other things that can
[23:40] occur that can still
[23:42] occur that we're mitigating by having
[23:45] this in place?
[23:48] Not sure. [laughter]
[23:49] >> Yeah, I know that was I did not.
[23:51] » Yeah, I know that was I did not.
[23:51] >> I mean, it is possible that the live
[23:52] » I mean, it is possible that the live
[23:52] fuel moisture could go down because
[23:54] we're having these Santa Ana winds, but
[23:56] because the live fuel moisture is so
[23:58] high, it's highly unlikely that it would
[24:03] bring it down enough to create a danger.
[24:06] >> And the long-term um weather forecast is
[24:09] » And the long-term um weather forecast is
[24:09] one that
[24:10] >> correct
[24:10] » correct
[24:10] >> doesn't anticipate having these red flag
[24:13] » doesn't anticipate having these red flag
[24:13] conditions or anything in it. When was
[24:15] the last time we approved this?
[24:17] >> The last
[24:17] » The last
[24:17] >> year. Uh, last year.
[24:20] » year. Uh, last year.
[24:20] >> No, no, no.
[24:22] » No, no, no.
[24:22] >> I'm sorry. When was the the last date
[24:24] » I'm sorry. When was the the last date
[24:24] that this came before this council that
[24:25] we approved this? Was it just one?
[24:28] >> When did we do it originally? Like the
[24:29] » When did we do it originally? Like the
[24:29] last year in September?
[24:31] >> But didn't we do it again at some point
[24:33] » But didn't we do it again at some point
[24:33] in time?
[24:34] >> The most recent extension of this
[24:36] » The most recent extension of this
[24:36] particular state of emergency was
[24:38] November 24th, 2025.
[24:39] >> Okay. And when would that die a natural
[24:41] » Okay. And when would that die a natural
[24:41] death if we didn't affirmatively
[24:43] terminate it?
[24:44] >> I'm looking at that now and it looks
[24:45] » I'm looking at that now and it looks
[24:45] like it would be January 23rd, 2026.
[24:48] >> Okay. So, I I don't see why we we need
[24:50] » Okay. So, I I don't see why we we need
[24:50] to take any action on this. I would just
[24:52] leave it be and if it's really
[24:55] appropriate to terminate it, let it die
[24:57] on its own.
[25:02] » Has anybody said something to you um
[25:05] with regards to this? Did somebody reach
[25:07] out and say Malibu?
[25:09] >> No. Oh, okay.
[25:10] » No. Oh, okay.
[25:10] >> No, no,
[25:12] » No, no,
[25:12] >> I think it's just the fact that the
[25:14] » I think it's just the fact that the
[25:14] conditions were met back in the fall
[25:16] when we approved it and now with all the
[25:18] rain, the conditions have changed.
[25:21] >> Um, just the conditions change so vastly
[25:25] » Um, just the conditions change so vastly
[25:25] and frequently here.
[25:28] >> I don't want to have to go through
[25:30] » I don't want to have to go through
[25:30] probably won't change until midsummer
[25:34] at the at the soonest. Mhm. And this
[25:37] would expire in next January 2020.
[25:40] >> No, just like in a couple weeks.
[25:42] » No, just like in a couple weeks.
[25:42] >> Yeah.
[25:42] » Yeah.
[25:42] >> So, it's expiring anyway if we don't
[25:45] » So, it's expiring anyway if we don't
[25:45] take action.
[25:45] >> If we don't take action.
[25:47] » If we don't take action.
[25:47] >> So, do we have a motion for something?
[25:51] » So, do we have a motion for something?
[25:51] >> I'll make a motion to let it expire
[25:53] » I'll make a motion to let it expire
[25:53] naturally.
[25:54] >> Deny.
[25:55] » Deny.
[25:55] >> I'll second it.
[25:57] » I'll second it.
[25:57] >> What What's the motion, Trevor? So, the
[25:59] » What What's the motion, Trevor? So, the
[25:59] motion is to take no action on this item
[26:02] with the council's understanding that
[26:04] the state of emergency will lapse on
[26:06] January 23rd.
[26:07] >> Yes. To allow it to lapse,
[26:10] » Yes. To allow it to lapse,
[26:10] >> right? Unless we unless we somehow for
[26:12] » right? Unless we unless we somehow for
[26:12] some reason redo it on the 24th.
[26:15] >> We had new circumstances.
[26:17] » We had new circumstances.
[26:17] >> Yeah, exactly.
[26:19] » Yeah, exactly.
[26:19] Okay. All in favor?
[26:21] >> I I Okay.
[26:21] » I I Okay.
[26:22] >> None opposed.
[26:24] » None opposed.
[26:24] >> All right. So, that concludes the
[26:26] » All right. So, that concludes the
[26:26] consent calendar. Do we have any
[26:29] presentations or anything to take us to
[26:32] 6:30?
[26:33] >> We don't have any presentations and we
[26:36] » We don't have any presentations and we
[26:36] don't have any commissioner updates, but
[26:38] we will have a city manager update for
[26:39] you.
[26:39] >> Okay, let's have our city manager
[26:41] » Okay, let's have our city manager
[26:41] update, please.
[26:42] >> Thank you, Mayor Council. And um I'm not
[26:45] » Thank you, Mayor Council. And um I'm not
[26:45] going to be 45 minutes until 6:30. So um
[26:49] but
[26:50] >> well, Sergeant Sodelin's here, so we
[26:51] » well, Sergeant Sodelin's here, so we
[26:51] never know.
[26:52] >> That is true. That's true.
[26:53] » That is true. That's true.
[26:53] [clears throat]
[26:54] No, but happy happy new year and good to
[26:56] see good to see everybody and um just
[26:59] want to say thank you for this
[27:00] opportunity to kind of fill in and help
[27:03] with the transition to have the new sue
[27:05] manager Joe come in. I'm excited to have
[27:08] him come in. Um it's going to be a big
[27:10] benefit to the city and I see a lot of
[27:13] good things that are come out of that.
[27:15] So um a couple things that I want to
[27:18] bring up is that we had over 10 inches
[27:20] of rain dur during this break and we
[27:22] were quite busy. Uh the good thing was
[27:24] that no major issues to report. Uh but I
[27:28] I do want to thank public works, our
[27:31] maintenance department, our staff. Um
[27:34] they were out here working on Christmas
[27:36] Eve, Christmas Day and New Year's Eve or
[27:40] New Year's Eve. Uh um kind of making
[27:43] sure the roads are are clear and
[27:45] monitoring storms and doing a really
[27:47] good job with that. So, just really want
[27:49] to thank them for actually taking time
[27:51] during during the holiday break to do
[27:53] that. Um, but unfortunately, the rains
[27:56] did have um some impact on the skate
[27:59] park. Um, there was a lot of uh water
[28:02] and um it's it's it's causing some
[28:06] issues with the construction. Uh the
[28:08] contractor is working and trying to make
[28:10] sure that all of the the ground is kind
[28:13] of gets dry and so you can get back to
[28:14] working again. And so we're working with
[28:16] them to come up with a date when he can
[28:18] have have that completed. So, um, thank
[28:21] the rain for this this little delay.
[28:25] Um,
[28:27] there's there's several rebuild meetings
[28:29] that they're that occurring this uh next
[28:31] couple of weeks. We have the geotech
[28:33] workshop this Wednesday from 11 to 1.
[28:36] There's design professional workshops on
[28:39] Thursday from 11 to 12:30 and a FEMA
[28:43] fire rebuild workshop on January 21st
[28:46] from 9 to noon.
[28:48] Um, also want to point out on February
[28:51] 4th at 10:00 a.m. there's a ribbon
[28:54] cutting for the PCH signal
[28:56] synchronization project. We're gonna
[28:58] we're gonna
[29:00] kick that project on or finish that
[29:02] project off and have a nice little
[29:04] ceremony on kind of that completing that
[29:06] project. Um, but I also want to point
[29:08] out and congratulate public works. Um,
[29:11] and I'm a little biased because I'm up
[29:13] here. I can I can do that, right? I can
[29:15] but um congratulate public works on
[29:18] receiving the project of the year award
[29:20] for um for the PC signal sync project.
[29:25] So they applied for a transportation
[29:28] project and from APWA Ventura County
[29:31] chapter and got that. So that's a big
[29:33] accomplishment. Um after that uh they'll
[29:36] be applying for the national um project
[29:40] of the year at APWA conference which is
[29:42] in uh Houston.
[29:44] >> The signal sign
[29:46] » The signal sign
[29:46] is that project now working. It's
[29:49] there's there's a few things that we're
[29:51] trying to get get fixed. As you as you
[29:54] remember, we had that accident at the
[29:55] corner of Civic Center and PCH or I mean
[29:58] web away and PCH that knocked out that
[30:01] that signal controller that needs to be
[30:03] replaced and once that is then it'll be
[30:05] fully fully function. Right now it's
[30:06] it's partially functional. It's kind of
[30:08] working but once that's done once that's
[30:10] replaced then it'll be fully functional.
[30:11] Okay, cool.
[30:11] >> Yeah.
[30:13] » Yeah.
[30:13] Um
[30:15] then uh uh yeah, lastly um Monday,
[30:19] January 19th, city will be closed for
[30:22] Martin Luther King Day. And uh now I'm
[30:26] going to hand it over to Director Bundy
[30:27] so she can give an update on fire bills.
[30:32] >> Ask a couple clarifying questions first.
[30:34] » Ask a couple clarifying questions first.
[30:34] >> Go ahead.
[30:35] » Go ahead.
[30:35] >> Um the FEMA workshop, I believe that's
[30:37] » Um the FEMA workshop, I believe that's
[30:38] virtual, not in person.
[30:41] >> Yes, that is correct. the female wor uh
[30:43] » Yes, that is correct. the female wor uh
[30:43] will be uh virtual.
[30:44] >> Okay. So, um all the coastal properties
[30:49] » Okay. So, um all the coastal properties
[30:49] that are out there in the world and any
[30:51] uh people who are associated with
[30:52] coastal properties, make sure you tune
[30:54] into that. I think it's going to be
[30:55] really important. Thank you.
[30:58] >> Thank you. Good evening, council. Happy
[31:00] » Thank you. Good evening, council. Happy
[31:00] new year. Um giving you a brief update
[31:04] on our fire rebuilds. Uh to date we have
[31:07] received uh 209 planning applications
[31:11] submitted 147 of them have received an
[31:14] approval. We are currently h working
[31:17] with 43 families on their uh building
[31:19] plan check and we have issued 22 permits
[31:23] which are under construction. We have
[31:26] also issued 491 total permits on the
[31:29] affected area. is constitute repairs,
[31:33] removals, new structures. Uh and that is
[31:36] the numbers that we have. Wanted to
[31:39] share very briefly with the council and
[31:41] with the community um what is uh going
[31:44] on on beach properties that are uh
[31:47] gotten approval back in um the beginning
[31:51] of um August. Uh was currently our
[31:55] pouring foundation systems. the seaw
[31:57] walls has been uh on place [snorts]
[32:00] and then um a big rock we have a
[32:04] property that is already framing. So um
[32:07] just wanted to share that with the um
[32:10] council and with the community and also
[32:12] just a brief brief update. Um um we
[32:16] continue working on a streamlining our
[32:19] processes. Uh the next one uh to qualify
[32:22] for the streamline is the commercial
[32:24] tenant improvement projects. Uh this
[32:26] will signifies that um the eligible
[32:29] tenants uh uh projects can be reviewed
[32:33] and over-the-counter with planning and
[32:35] building safety staff. Um the
[32:38] eligibility for this will be an interior
[32:40] alteration only for offices and small
[32:43] retails under 3,000. And so that is
[32:46] currently uh something that we already
[32:48] are doing. Um and that concludes my
[32:51] presentation.
[32:53] >> Thank you so much.
[32:54] » Thank you so much.
[32:54] >> Quick clarifying question. Thank you so
[32:55] » Quick clarifying question. Thank you so
[32:56] much. I'm excited about the Streamland
[32:57] uh commercial tenant improvements. I
[33:00] didn't hear restaurants or cafes. Are
[33:03] they included?
[33:04] >> I heard boutiques and offices.
[33:07] » I heard boutiques and offices.
[33:07] >> Yeah, this uh does not include um a mop
[33:10] » Yeah, this uh does not include um a mop
[33:10] sink,
[33:11] >> restaurants. Well, and that's what we
[33:13] » restaurants. Well, and that's what we
[33:13] kept it very for very small small
[33:15] interior scope of work. Uh yeah, that's
[33:18] something that we can do over the
[33:20] counter. uh if it's a minor alteration
[33:23] in any um B occupancy and M occupancy
[33:27] some restaurants that have less than 50
[33:30] uh occupants are considered B occupancy.
[33:33] So that will also encapsulate uh any
[33:35] restaurants that OKAF that falls under
[33:39] that description.
[33:40] >> Okay. What does B stand for?
[33:42] » Okay. What does B stand for?
[33:42] >> F offices. It's under the building code
[33:45] » F offices. It's under the building code
[33:45] is defined as uh offices and a small uh
[33:49] small businesses. Okay.
[33:51] >> One of the exemptions is that if they
[33:53] » One of the exemptions is that if they
[33:53] had less than 50 occupancies for a
[33:55] restaurant, it can be classified as a B
[33:58] occupancy.
[33:59] >> That's great. I mean, cuz small. So,
[34:02] » That's great. I mean, cuz small. So,
[34:02] let's say somebody needs a sign. This is
[34:04] over the counter.
[34:05] >> Yes.
[34:06] » Yes.
[34:06] >> Oh, great.
[34:07] » Oh, great.
[34:07] >> Yes.
[34:07] » Yes.
[34:07] >> Mop sink type of
[34:08] » Mop sink type of
[34:08] >> Yes. And also um they can also we have a
[34:13] » Yes. And also um they can also we have a
[34:13] uh in our design portal they can submit
[34:17] it electronically also to set up the
[34:19] appointment if they want to do it
[34:20] virtually we can do it virtually or in
[34:23] person.
[34:24] >> Great. Thank you.
[34:26] » Great. Thank you.
[34:26] >> I think the most important thing for no
[34:28] » I think the most important thing for no
[34:28] matter what it is that you're doing have
[34:29] a basic site plan showing um where
[34:33] everything's going to be located and
[34:34] where entrance and exits are. that helps
[34:38] um facilitate approvals because those
[34:40] are the a lot of the um
[34:43] >> interior
[34:45] » interior
[34:45] uh circulation plan is a lot of what the
[34:48] the code is looking for. I'm not
[34:50] >> that is correct. Mayor uh are the means
[34:52] » that is correct. Mayor uh are the means
[34:52] of erases something that uh even when we
[34:55] have an existing uh uh property we are
[34:59] going to be asking on the means of
[35:01] safety remains as required per the fire
[35:05] code and the building and safety code.
[35:09] >> Yeah. Um Yolanda, we we keep hearing in
[35:12] » Yeah. Um Yolanda, we we keep hearing in
[35:12] the um press that the city of Los
[35:14] Angeles has 1,200
[35:17] building permits for homes for
[35:19] structures destroyed in the fire. Um
[35:22] which sounds incredible to me whenever I
[35:24] hear it. And I know you've said that
[35:25] there's some issue of transparency.
[35:27] Could could you talk about that a little
[35:29] bit?
[35:30] >> Yes. Um our understanding is that total
[35:33] » Yes. Um our understanding is that total
[35:33] amount of permits is uh the effect the
[35:36] permits issue on the affected area. We
[35:39] do have the same number um the same um
[35:42] line that we are capturing our numbers
[35:45] for us. It's 491 total uh permits,
[35:48] building permits have been issued on
[35:49] that affected burn area which constitute
[35:53] um damages, repairs, new single family
[35:57] residents that we have issued. So
[35:59] everybody is encapsulating all of the
[36:01] total permits in one number.
[36:04] >> Right. And I'm familiar with the fact
[36:05] » Right. And I'm familiar with the fact
[36:05] that we we disclose both. We we state
[36:07] how many permits have been issued for
[36:09] everything and anything that needs to be
[36:10] done after the fire as well as we are
[36:12] very straightforward about the fact that
[36:14] there are only what's the number for
[36:17] actual permits to build a a house that
[36:19] was burned to the ground?
[36:20] >> That is correct. Uh for us it was
[36:22] » That is correct. Uh for us it was
[36:22] >> 22
[36:23] » 22
[36:23] >> transparency. Yeah, we have 22.
[36:25] » transparency. Yeah, we have 22.
[36:25] >> Okay. Do we have any idea what the city
[36:27] » Okay. Do we have any idea what the city
[36:27] of Los Angeles has issued in terms of
[36:28] that comparable permit that we're
[36:31] talking about?
[36:32] >> I have been I have been asking their
[36:33] » I have been I have been asking their
[36:34] building official. They haven't given me
[36:35] that number. I do not have it. I uh
[36:38] certainly can share with you that the
[36:40] incorporated county area has only issued
[36:43] nine permits.
[36:44] >> Right. And I and I I think that what's
[36:45] » Right. And I and I I think that what's
[36:45] happening is this we the city of Malibu
[36:48] and the unincorporated area are being um
[36:51] disserved by the city of Los Angeles's
[36:54] fabrication of what it's doing. Um, I
[36:56] would actually like the city council to
[36:58] authorize us to by any means necessary,
[37:02] including an Freedom Information Act
[37:03] request or a California Information Act
[37:05] request to find out from the city of Los
[37:06] Angeles what they truly are doing
[37:08] because they're hurting the um the
[37:11] morale of the residents who are working
[37:14] very hard and our staff are working very
[37:16] hard to get people building permits to
[37:19] build their homes by lying basically
[37:21] that they have 1,200 homes being
[37:23] reconstructed, which is just it's just
[37:25] completely untrue.
[37:26] So could could we do what we need to do
[37:30] to find out in including take legal
[37:32] action if necessary to find out exactly
[37:34] what the city of Los Angeles really has
[37:36] issued for people to build a house back.
[37:40] >> We certainly can initiate that if that's
[37:42] » We certainly can initiate that if that's
[37:42] the direction of council.
[37:44] >> I don't know that we can do a formal
[37:46] » I don't know that we can do a formal
[37:46] resolution, but I think a sense of the
[37:48] council is probably there. I I certainly
[37:50] support it and I think you're very much
[37:52] on target. They've got what 10 times the
[37:55] number of uh burns burns in the palisade
[37:58] that we do and we don't know how many uh
[38:01] rebuilds they have. So we'd like to know
[38:03] how we're doing.
[38:05] >> We don't have an item on the agenda to
[38:06] » We don't have an item on the agenda to
[38:06] give a direction on that, but if there
[38:08] is uh interest from the council, I'm
[38:10] sure staff can go out and bring
[38:12] information back to the the city council
[38:14] on an item if necessary to authorize.
[38:16] >> Well, it sounds like Yolanda has been
[38:19] » Well, it sounds like Yolanda has been
[38:19] working behind the scenes trying to get
[38:21] that information. and it hasn't been
[38:23] able to. So I think what mayor promstein
[38:26] is suggesting is that we
[38:28] >> ratchet it up to a formal request and so
[38:31] » ratchet it up to a formal request and so
[38:31] is that something that we can just
[38:33] direct staff that we would like them to
[38:35] put in a
[38:36] >> I I what I'd ask for is consensus. could
[38:38] » I I what I'd ask for is consensus. could
[38:38] we bring this back as an item for next
[38:40] meeting where we can give direction,
[38:43] take a vote and give direction if we all
[38:44] agree to actually do a um California
[38:47] information request if necessary of all
[38:49] the building permits and we can then go
[38:51] through the building permits and find
[38:53] out exactly what they're for so that the
[38:55] public will have a truthful
[38:56] understanding of what's going on.
[38:58] >> Well, I'm in favor of of doing what you
[39:00] » Well, I'm in favor of of doing what you
[39:00] just said, but I think we can probably
[39:01] do the uh public records request even
[39:04] beforehand. I'm assuming that you
[39:07] Everybody just help us get this
[39:09] information. Yeah,
[39:09] >> she's probably trying to do the
[39:10] » she's probably trying to do the
[39:10] [clears throat] same thing.
[39:11] >> Well, you just need to get her from
[39:12] » Well, you just need to get her from
[39:12] they're in the same boat we have. I've
[39:14] spoke with them.
[39:15] >> Yeah. Okay. I
[39:17] » Yeah. Okay. I
[39:17] >> The problem is, you know, look, I I'm
[39:19] » The problem is, you know, look, I I'm
[39:19] I'm never one to be worried about
[39:21] rocking the boat. I understand a lot of
[39:22] politicians don't want to rock the boat
[39:24] and accuse the city of Los Angeles of
[39:26] lying or put them to the trouble of
[39:28] telling the truth, but I don't care
[39:29] about that. I want I want to know what's
[39:31] going on.
[39:31] >> It should be a fairly easy number to
[39:33] » It should be a fairly easy number to
[39:33] attain given Yeah.
[39:35] >> They just won't tell [clears throat] it.
[39:36] » They just won't tell [clears throat] it.
[39:36] So if we have to, we might have to do a
[39:38] uh a legal request. But so that's why if
[39:41] if you if you're unable to learn the
[39:44] answer informally by the time of our
[39:46] next meeting, I'd like to be it on our
[39:47] agenda to take whatever legal action we
[39:49] need to take to find out formally.
[39:51] >> I think you have a report on um the
[39:54] » I think you have a report on um the
[39:54] information we're able to bring and then
[39:56] uh the ability for the council to take
[39:57] further action or give direction to
[39:59] staff.
[39:59] >> Yeah.
[40:00] » Yeah.
[40:00] >> Okay. All right.
[40:02] » Okay. All right.
[40:02] >> Thank you. Um, and you know, I want to
[40:04] » Thank you. Um, and you know, I want to
[40:04] commend you and the staff for everything
[40:05] you are doing and trying to do to
[40:08] increase the numbers in Malibu. Um, I
[40:11] just think, you know, people need to
[40:12] understand it took until about twothirds
[40:16] of the way into the last year before
[40:18] Yolanda was empowered basically to start
[40:20] taking control because we still had the
[40:22] two separate departments and we were
[40:25] lacking um, stewardship at the uh, top.
[40:29] And um I I'm impressed by the way things
[40:31] have been moving since Yolanda has been
[40:33] given that charge and including with the
[40:35] um streamlining of things that are
[40:37] completely outside the rebuild process
[40:38] and which keeps coming back to us month
[40:40] after month with new things. It's great.
[40:42] Thank you.
[40:43] >> Thank you.
[40:44] » Thank you.
[40:44] >> I Anybody Oh, Doug.
[40:47] » I Anybody Oh, Doug.
[40:47] >> Yeah, Doug has
[40:48] » Yeah, Doug has
[40:48] >> Yeah. Um, Yolanda, if you could put your
[40:51] » Yeah. Um, Yolanda, if you could put your
[40:51] chart back up there, I'd like for you to
[40:53] kind of give us a a narrative of what
[40:56] you see as being the the barriers or the
[41:00] stumbling blocks for people to move
[41:02] forward. I mean, I we've got roughly 700
[41:06] homes that are destroyed, right? Roughly
[41:08] that number because I keep seeing that
[41:10] number going all over the place. I've
[41:11] seen low 600s to up to 700, but we've
[41:14] got a oh 200 or so planning review and
[41:18] then we've got 43 and 22. What's what's
[41:21] holding people back in each one of those
[41:24] categories? The planning review and then
[41:26] building plan check. What's keeping them
[41:27] from getting their plan checks? I mean,
[41:29] I'm hearing everything from insurance to
[41:32] um desire. I mean, what's what's your
[41:34] sense of what's going on?
[41:38] >> Thank you for this question.
[41:40] » Thank you for this question.
[41:40] Um it's really hard to pinpoint exactly
[41:43] what's going on, but what I'm hearing a
[41:45] lot from the homeowners is um insurance,
[41:49] right? um insurance and also the number
[41:51] of requirements that the city has. Um,
[41:55] meaning we are we are per the California
[41:59] for the state of California to require a
[42:03] set of plans that that has all the
[42:05] structural calculations, all the title
[42:07] 24, all the green building code
[42:09] requirements or your civil plans or your
[42:12] technical plans, your seaw walls, your
[42:14] on-site wed treatment systems, your um
[42:18] FEMA regulations uh to make sure that
[42:20] also in some instances we have our our
[42:24] coastal reports. So, it's a layer after
[42:28] layer of estate requirements that the
[42:31] homeowners need to put together in order
[42:34] to come in through building and safety.
[42:36] So, acknowledging the number of
[42:39] requirements that were not able to be
[42:42] flexed because these are building and
[42:44] safety requirements that is one of the
[42:47] biggest thing. Uh also being a regional
[42:50] disaster, the number of design
[42:53] professionals that are working with the
[42:56] different the different jurisdictions
[42:58] and the different owners um is limited
[43:02] and sometimes we need to wait for them
[43:05] to respond or for them to complete the
[43:07] information that is required. Uh so I
[43:10] think one of them is is is that right
[43:13] and then the financial portion of it
[43:15] >> and that's in the 4322 4322 on the
[43:19] » and that's in the 4322 4322 on the
[43:19] building in safety.
[43:20] >> Is there since we're on that that
[43:22] » Is there since we're on that that
[43:22] segment, is there anything that you
[43:26] would like to see change that we could
[43:27] do? I I realize the legal side it's got
[43:29] to be the way it is, but is there
[43:32] anything we can be doing?
[43:33] >> Yes. Uh continue meeting one- on-one
[43:36] » Yes. Uh continue meeting one- on-one
[43:36] with the design professionals. That is
[43:39] helping out. Uh, like I mentioned, I've
[43:42] been coming in every Friday to meet with
[43:45] the homeowners or the design
[43:47] professionals, and we're working with
[43:49] right now with five families to get them
[43:51] approvals. Uh, during the holidays, we
[43:55] had a few coming in and meet with us,
[43:58] >> but I felt that a lot of our design
[44:01] » but I felt that a lot of our design
[44:01] professionals also took uh time off. Uh,
[44:04] so I think we are regaining that
[44:07] momentum again.
[44:09] uh also to add through all of this the
[44:12] storms even if we issue two more permits
[44:15] because of the storms they they will not
[44:17] be able to start right so um that is
[44:20] what can we do more I think is the
[44:23] one-on-one with the design professionals
[44:25] and the families uh to get them through
[44:28] a point where the plans are completed
[44:30] and give them an a a permit that is the
[44:33] number one thing that we need to do more
[44:35] and what I want to see more is having
[44:37] those 43 get a permit. Uh so what are
[44:40] we're working right now this week is uh
[44:43] staff is going through all of those uh
[44:46] properties 43 that we that that we are
[44:49] under review and highlighting the ones
[44:52] that we have seen twice so we can set up
[44:54] meetings with those families and those
[44:57] design professionals to move those
[44:59] projects ahead. Uh sometimes people are
[45:02] think of a project has many things that
[45:05] they need to work on. Uh we are um we're
[45:09] meeting okay let's meet with your
[45:10] architect let's get all those items for
[45:12] the architect done okay it's done let's
[45:14] meet with your civil let's meet let's
[45:16] take all of that done okay that is done
[45:18] so we're taking portion by portion so we
[45:21] can move things along um in order to
[45:24] help expedite it
[45:26] as far as theund uh 209 that are under
[45:30] planning submittals
[45:32] uh we still have those almost 300 homes
[45:35] that need to come
[45:37] for uh for uh the planning department to
[45:40] start reviewing it and we have not seen
[45:43] that. Um we're going to continue doing
[45:46] the um like our interim uh city manager
[45:49] Duba mentioned the uh community meetings
[45:53] because those are very critical uh
[45:55] communication and our website and also
[45:58] for us to continue working with the
[46:00] design professionals. One thing that is
[46:02] happening on Wednesday, uh the
[46:04] geotechnical guidelines uh for fire
[46:07] rebuilds are uh they're we're going to
[46:09] have pro uh uh amendments to it to make
[46:12] it uh more clear and simple. So those
[46:15] are being uh presented on Wednesday. On
[46:18] Thursday, we're having another meeting
[46:20] with the design professionals to share
[46:22] that information and also to ask how can
[46:25] we help you move your project moving
[46:27] forward. Um
[46:30] there's a lot to do. I we uh there's a
[46:34] lot a lot to do.
[46:36] >> I know uh in our discussions of quick
[46:38] » I know uh in our discussions of quick
[46:38] conversations I know for you it's that
[46:40] one agenda at a time. Each house each
[46:42] family is one agenda. So and I echo what
[46:45] Bruce said. My gosh, I don't know what
[46:47] we'd be doing without you and I don't
[46:49] know what we'd be doing without your
[46:50] team. And uh I I see them in action. You
[46:53] walk in the door, you see them talking
[46:54] to people. It's a one-on-one
[46:56] conversation. and I'm really proud that
[46:58] you're doing that.
[47:00] >> Thank you. And yeah, it is a whole city
[47:02] » Thank you. And yeah, it is a whole city
[47:02] effort and um we're committed and and I
[47:07] know that there's still a lot of
[47:09] challenges and continue working with the
[47:11] community and every family to feel that
[47:13] we are there for each one of the
[47:15] families. That's the most critical thing
[47:17] for all of us.
[47:18] >> I can't speak for the entire council,
[47:20] » I can't speak for the entire council,
[47:20] but I you know for me, anything you
[47:22] need, anything your team needs, we'll be
[47:24] glad to try and get it for you. Okay.
[47:26] >> Thank you, sir.
[47:28] » Thank you, sir.
[47:28] Can we get the chart back up again?
[47:35] What is going on?
[47:38] Um, okay. So, are those numbers
[47:41] cumulative or they're all separate?
[47:43] You'd have to add them all up to have
[47:45] the total that somebody has filed some
[47:47] kind of an application at this point or
[47:48] is there overlap?
[47:50] >> Uh, for the first line, right, for the
[47:53] » Uh, for the first line, right, for the
[47:53] planning phase,
[47:54] >> Mhm. 62 under planning review. So 62
[47:58] » Mhm. 62 under planning review. So 62
[47:58] homes are going uh through the uh
[48:01] planning entitlement phase which is your
[48:03] are they building like for like do they
[48:05] need a little bit more? Uh so those are
[48:07] the ones uh 147 are separate. So those
[48:12] 147 already obtained the planning
[48:14] approval.
[48:16] >> Okay. So basically you add all of these
[48:18] » Okay. So basically you add all of these
[48:18] up and that's how many have at least
[48:19] started the process
[48:21] >> on the upper portion of it. Yes. So 62
[48:25] » on the upper portion of it. Yes. So 62
[48:25] plus 147, that's the 209 that I was
[48:29] talking to you about.
[48:30] >> Okay.
[48:30] » Okay.
[48:30] >> There's two parts to every rebuild. Your
[48:34] » There's two parts to every rebuild. Your
[48:34] planning phase and your building uh and
[48:36] safety phase, which is your construction
[48:38] plans,
[48:39] >> right? I understand that. But so the 60
[48:41] » right? I understand that. But so the 60
[48:41] um five are part of the 209.
[48:44] >> Yes.
[48:45] » Yes.
[48:45] >> Okay. And
[48:48] » Okay. And
[48:48] look, it's it's it's my understanding
[48:49] and we'll be talking about this later.
[48:50] there. So, my understanding we we've
[48:52] done pretty much what we can legally to
[48:55] um to streamline the planning phase.
[48:59] We've, you know, we we've the governor
[49:01] through through his good grace has
[49:03] adopted the executive orders and then
[49:04] we've amended the municipal code. We've
[49:07] pretty much streamlined as much as we
[49:09] can the planning aspect of it. Um the
[49:12] building aspect of it, I know you're
[49:14] working hard to try to get people
[49:16] through the building part, but it's a
[49:18] state code and we have less flexibility,
[49:20] right? We have no we have next to no
[49:21] flexibility. Um are there more things we
[49:25] have the power to do below the line on
[49:28] the building part of this or are we just
[49:30] constrained by the building code full
[49:32] stop?
[49:33] >> These state regulations are pretty much
[49:35] » These state regulations are pretty much
[49:35] black and white and so there's no
[49:37] flexibility for that. Uh I think one of
[49:40] the things that we need to continue
[49:42] reminding the community is that the
[49:44] governor did ex uh allow every home to
[49:48] be rebuilt under the previous building
[49:52] code. Uh knowing that we are going to
[49:55] have a code change and there's a lot
[49:57] more restrictions on the new code that
[50:00] the governor says okay let's continue
[50:02] building under the 2023 code
[50:04] >> separate from fire.
[50:05] » separate from fire.
[50:05] >> Separate for fire. Yes. So that is one
[50:07] » Separate for fire. Yes. So that is one
[50:07] thing that uh sometimes I feel people
[50:10] still have that question and so uh that
[50:14] is also a benefit um because a lot of
[50:16] design professionals are used to those
[50:19] that code right now right that they have
[50:21] been working with it for three years
[50:23] they know what to expect they know the
[50:25] type of the type of things uh
[50:27] calculations they need to give us uh so
[50:30] that is that is good
[50:32] >> okay next question of the um 65 below
[50:35] » okay next question of the um 65 below
[50:36] the
[50:36] Do we know how many of them are um
[50:38] owners that lost their home versus
[50:40] people who acquired the property?
[50:42] >> All of them are homeowners that Yes.
[50:46] » All of them are homeowners that Yes.
[50:46] Those 22 that you have approval.
[50:49] Absolutely. Those are your homeowners
[50:51] that day one jump in and are really
[50:55] involved on coming in and asking
[50:57] questions. Also those 43.
[50:59] >> Excellent. Okay. Thank you.
[51:01] » Excellent. Okay. Thank you.
[51:01] >> Yes. [snorts]
[51:02] » Yes. [snorts]
[51:02] >> I thank you again for all of this. Um I
[51:05] » I thank you again for all of this. Um I
[51:05] was curious do you guys have like a
[51:07] timeline so
[51:09] for the 43 in building plan check let's
[51:12] say is there a
[51:14] some sort of mechanism in which you're
[51:17] able to track where everything is and
[51:19] then illustrate that so it's like 15
[51:23] days or where a little bit more nuanced
[51:26] I'm looking for
[51:27] >> yeah um the we have a database uh that
[51:31] » yeah um the we have a database uh that
[51:31] it will show the turnaround times
[51:34] >> um I do have to admit that uh through
[51:36] » um I do have to admit that uh through
[51:36] the change of consultants in November
[51:39] and in October uh we did have a big
[51:42] hiccup because we needed to um on board
[51:46] a new geotechnical coastal engineering
[51:50] environmental health uh companies.
[51:53] >> So that took a little bit of hiccup on
[51:55] » So that took a little bit of hiccup on
[51:55] getting everything up up to speed on
[51:58] what we were committed to do the reveals
[52:00] to.
[52:01] >> Yeah. our first review uh we were
[52:03] » Yeah. our first review uh we were
[52:03] committed to do a 10 uh working days and
[52:07] I can honestly tell you in front of uh
[52:09] in this uh that due to those changes in
[52:14] companies we were not able to stay with
[52:17] the 10day turnaround time
[52:19] >> and that's why it was so important for
[52:21] » and that's why it was so important for
[52:21] us to uh meet with the archite
[52:25] architects and the families and start
[52:27] working on the items that have been
[52:30] completed to facilitate a faster
[52:33] turnaround time.
[52:34] >> Great.
[52:35] » Great.
[52:35] >> The second submitts is a five day
[52:37] » The second submitts is a five day
[52:37] turnaround time uh reviews.
[52:40] >> Five day. So second submitted
[52:45] » Five day. So second submitted
[52:45] this review in five days.
[52:46] >> That's amazing.
[52:48] » That's amazing.
[52:48] >> Yeah. And so but also think about it. We
[52:51] » Yeah. And so but also think about it. We
[52:52] we we
[52:53] receive a project, we review it, and
[52:56] then we give it corrections with 10
[52:58] days. Then those corrections go back to
[53:01] the design team. Sometimes this takes
[53:04] two weeks, three weeks, it depends,
[53:06] >> right? The city has a commitment and
[53:08] » right? The city has a commitment and
[53:08] then once it's out of the city's hands,
[53:10] if it goes to the designer, it's out of
[53:12] your hands and it's in [clears throat]
[53:13] their hands and then the owner has to
[53:14] deal with their design team, which could
[53:16] take three months, but at least the city
[53:18] is not being scapegoed for taking too
[53:21] much time is what I'm trying to avoid.
[53:23] >> Yeah. and and we still have a lot of
[53:25] » Yeah. and and we still have a lot of
[53:25] work to do on staying with those 10 days
[53:28] turnaround time. I need to acknowledge
[53:30] that and and with you because it has
[53:33] been difficult to stay with those 10 10
[53:35] turnaround times but that is the efforts
[53:38] to continue uh working on that.
[53:40] >> Great. So there is a goal for that now
[53:42] » Great. So there is a goal for that now
[53:42] that the hiccups have kind of been
[53:43] sorted hopefully you know with the
[53:46] change of consultants a 10day goal is
[53:49] where we're working.
[53:50] >> Yes. Yes.
[53:51] » Yes. Yes.
[53:51] >> That's terrific. And then I have a
[53:53] » That's terrific. And then I have a
[53:53] second question. Um over the holiday
[53:55] unfort you know I got a bunch of emails
[53:57] from um a gentleman about an update with
[54:01] rebuild rights. I really need clarity on
[54:04] I think and I don't even know how to
[54:07] explain this but the original owner
[54:12] go ahead
[54:16] um being the authorized it's Abe Oman.
[54:20] Does anybody know what I'm talking
[54:22] about?
[54:22] >> Yeah, I think the question I think was
[54:24] » Yeah, I think the question I think was
[54:24] um does the right for like forlike
[54:26] rebuilds flow with the property? Is that
[54:29] the question?
[54:30] >> It it's more complex. I have this
[54:32] » It it's more complex. I have this
[54:32] something to talk about during council
[54:34] member comments and actually ask for a
[54:35] consensus for something on that.
[54:37] >> Okay.
[54:37] » Okay.
[54:37] >> Because I I think it's premature to do
[54:39] » Because I I think it's premature to do
[54:39] that at this point in time. We can if
[54:40] you
[54:41] >> Oh, I don't know what the proper time
[54:42] » Oh, I don't know what the proper time
[54:42] is. I just want to make sure I don't
[54:43] forget because I end up forgetting and
[54:45] then I'm like
[54:46] >> you'll be around later
[54:47] » you'll be around later
[54:47] >> the meeting first to talk about it.
[54:48] » the meeting first to talk about it.
[54:48] >> I'll be here.
[54:49] » I'll be here.
[54:49] >> Yeah.
[54:49] » Yeah.
[54:49] >> Okay. Great. We'll wait. I'm cool with
[54:51] » Okay. Great. We'll wait. I'm cool with
[54:51] that
[54:52] >> because I think that's more substantive
[54:53] » because I think that's more substantive
[54:53] than just asking questions at this
[54:55] point.
[54:55] >> Perfect.
[54:58] » Any more questions for Yolanda?
[55:01] >> And just um I just want to clarify. So
[55:04] » And just um I just want to clarify. So
[55:04] that that 10day turnaround is not a
[55:06] guarantee of an approval. That's a 10
[55:07] days to identify things that don't
[55:10] comply with the minimum code standards
[55:12] for the building code.
[55:13] >> That is correct. This is what we call
[55:15] » That is correct. This is what we call
[55:15] the first uh review in which uh usually
[55:18] we issue corrections
[55:20] >> and then on the second round that five
[55:22] » and then on the second round that five
[55:22] days you're hoping that it's you're able
[55:25] to do it so much faster because the
[55:27] design professional has addressed those
[55:30] deficiencies
[55:32] um to meet the minimum code standards
[55:34] and you're you're doing a quality check
[55:36] uh to confirm that.
[55:38] >> Yes, that is correct. Okay, Doug.
[55:40] » Yes, that is correct. Okay, Doug.
[55:40] >> Um yeah, probably more of a
[55:41] » Um yeah, probably more of a
[55:42] clarification. I know early on when we
[55:44] were talking about uh turnaround times
[55:46] and so forth, there was a concern that
[55:49] additional um identified items would
[55:52] would appear every time they came
[55:53] through the cycle. Um I know it's
[55:56] happened to me when I was building my
[55:58] house 25 years ago. How are we handling
[56:01] that? How are we handling that?
[56:02] >> We're trying to handle that with the
[56:04] » We're trying to handle that with the
[56:04] consultants um u having consistency on
[56:09] what they're reviewing. We're also
[56:11] trying to handle it when we when they're
[56:14] resubmitting
[56:15] um when we're meeting in person with
[56:18] that with those design professionals.
[56:20] We're able to capture why do they give
[56:23] you the that correction that shouldn't
[56:24] be a corrections. So those are being
[56:26] addressed as quality control when staff
[56:29] is meeting also with with the homeowners
[56:32] and the design professionals. And also
[56:34] that's why we have set up uh monthly
[56:36] meetings with the design professionals.
[56:38] this started since September uh to start
[56:42] addressing all of those items, right?
[56:44] What is that we need to do better as a
[56:46] city? How can we help them uh get a
[56:49] better understanding or or what is that
[56:52] is being done that we should not be
[56:54] doing? So, that is helping out also with
[56:57] the design professional.
[56:58] >> I guess I I I want to make sure that
[57:00] » I guess I I I want to make sure that
[57:00] we're on the record with this. I'm not
[57:02] trying to hold you to 100%. But we're
[57:04] not identifying new items in these uh
[57:07] cycles of reviews. Is that correct? So
[57:09] you get the first round and unless it's
[57:11] a correction on something that you
[57:13] corrected, we're we're coning it down.
[57:16] >> That is what what it should be.
[57:18] » That is what what it should be.
[57:18] >> Right.
[57:19] » Right.
[57:19] >> Uh sometimes occurs that on the first
[57:21] » Uh sometimes occurs that on the first
[57:22] metal information was not given
[57:24] completely. Let's said um and I have
[57:26] seen this and I'm just can give you an
[57:28] example. a homeowners came in uh they
[57:31] wanted to put a pool uh they but they
[57:34] wanted the pool to be in a separate
[57:35] submetto. So on the first review with
[57:39] the structural calculations for the pool
[57:42] was not submitted. Then through a
[57:44] conversation with the homeowner
[57:46] um we figure out well it's best to have
[57:50] the whole permit moving forward instead
[57:52] of separating it. Uh so they submitted
[57:55] the calculation the structural
[57:57] calculations for the pool and the second
[57:59] sumeto. So those are new corrections
[58:02] because we never got to see it at the
[58:04] beginning.
[58:08] » I have one more set of questions.
[58:10] >> So um I'm still I'm still interested in
[58:14] » So um I'm still I'm still interested in
[58:14] these apples to oranges comparisons that
[58:16] we're getting. So, um, there was also a
[58:18] press release this week by Cal Matters
[58:20] that was, um,
[58:23] it's puff as far as I'm concerned, but
[58:25] it says that more than 2600 residential
[58:28] permits have been issued between the
[58:30] Palisades and Aladena. Um, which is
[58:33] roughly one in every five of nearly
[58:35] 13,000
[58:37] homes lost. That's that's a direct
[58:39] quote. Um, two questions if you know the
[58:42] answer. The first is, are they including
[58:43] Malibu when they say Aladena and
[58:46] Palisades? Are they just are they
[58:47] talking about the fires? Are they
[58:48] talking about the areas Aladena and
[58:50] Palisades?
[58:51] >> I'm not sure what uh source you are
[58:54] » I'm not sure what uh source you are
[58:54] mentioning that. Um usually yes. When
[58:58] they um the press does do a uh um a
[59:03] report on numbers, they try to include
[59:07] Malibu under the Palis incident. Uh but
[59:10] I'm not sure specifically on this.
[59:12] >> Yeah, I'm not sure because it's it's an
[59:13] » Yeah, I'm not sure because it's it's an
[59:13] odd formulation. They don't say eaten
[59:15] and al eaten and palisades fires. They
[59:17] say aladina and palisades. Um, which
[59:20] leads me to another question. They say
[59:22] they they say residential permits. Do we
[59:24] know what that means? Because I could be
[59:27] looking at this and think that well
[59:28] we've issued 147 permits, planning
[59:31] permits. We haven't issued building
[59:33] permits yet. Are do we know what they
[59:36] mean by permit residential permits?
[59:38] Um, not knowing the source is hard for
[59:41] me to tell you, but when somebody says
[59:43] residential permits, it's usually
[59:45] residential building permits. Um, but I
[59:49] again, I don't know the source of what
[59:50] you're looking at.
[59:51] >> Okay.
[59:52] » Okay.
[59:52] >> But that could go to just like we're
[59:54] » But that could go to just like we're
[59:54] reporting that we have issued 491
[59:56] permits that include repairs and other
[1:00:00] things, which is separate from 22 homes.
[1:00:04] So, it kind of it sounds like depends on
[1:00:07] the bucket that you're trying to fill.
[1:00:09] You know, do you want to just say you've
[1:00:11] issued
[1:00:12] >> almost 500 permits, which we have, but
[1:00:15] » almost 500 permits, which we have, but
[1:00:15] that doesn't get to the heart of what
[1:00:16] people really want, which are the
[1:00:18] houses.
[1:00:18] >> Every time I try to figure out what's
[1:00:20] » Every time I try to figure out what's
[1:00:20] going on elsewhere, it's just it's
[1:00:22] opaque.
[1:00:22] >> Yes.
[1:00:26] Anything else, Steve? You have you've
[1:00:28] been quiet.
[1:00:29] >> Yolanda, thank you very much [laughter]
[1:00:30] » Yolanda, thank you very much [laughter]
[1:00:30] for what you've been doing. You're doing
[1:00:31] a heck of a job.
[1:00:32] >> Thank you, sir. Uh the only thing I
[1:00:34] » Thank you, sir. Uh the only thing I
[1:00:34] would just re you know this the process
[1:00:36] of the design professionals taking some
[1:00:39] time before they get back back to you in
[1:00:41] terms of once you give them the the
[1:00:42] material. My experience over the years
[1:00:45] I've been doing this stuff. I mean I get
[1:00:46] a call from a customer or resident who
[1:00:49] says I'm being held up and we chase it
[1:00:51] down. It's their design professional
[1:00:53] who's holding up and are getting stuff
[1:00:54] back to us. So the more you can make
[1:00:56] that visible for the people who are
[1:00:58] building their homes. I think it's
[1:00:59] [laughter] gonna help us because they
[1:01:01] don't know who to blame, right? I mean,
[1:01:04] uh,
[1:01:04] >> and my hope is that we don't blame each
[1:01:06] » and my hope is that we don't blame each
[1:01:06] other. My hope is that we work together
[1:01:09] and that really is critical on my design
[1:01:12] professions and even the contractors
[1:01:14] that we are on that same page. There's
[1:01:16] so much work for us to do ahead. And
[1:01:19] some of the home the architects that got
[1:01:22] an approval, uh, I'm asking them, you
[1:01:25] know, we already have a template. use
[1:01:27] this template for the next permit that
[1:01:29] you're coming in. That way you don't get
[1:01:30] a lot of corrections. But it does we
[1:01:34] cannot do this by ourselves and
[1:01:37] the families really need us. So I
[1:01:41] Yes, it's it's a big task ahead of us.
[1:01:44] >> Okay. All right. We're we're eating up
[1:01:46] » Okay. All right. We're we're eating up
[1:01:46] all that time. Um do you have any more?
[1:01:49] Okay. Um I'm guessing Sergeant Sodelin,
[1:01:53] >> when is the point in the meeting when we
[1:01:55] » when is the point in the meeting when we
[1:01:55] do council consensus to move an agenda
[1:01:57] item forward? Um to request ADA to go in
[1:02:03] the beginning of the
[1:02:04] >> Oh. Um well, we adopted the we can when
[1:02:07] » Oh. Um well, we adopted the we can when
[1:02:08] we finish up this and
[1:02:09] >> perfect.
[1:02:10] » perfect.
[1:02:10] >> Let's get this done. See where we how
[1:02:13] » Let's get this done. See where we how
[1:02:13] close we are to 6:30 and then we can
[1:02:14] talk about reordering an item.
[1:02:17] >> Thanks.
[1:02:19] » Thanks.
[1:02:19] Hi.
[1:02:20] >> Hi.
[1:02:20] » Hi.
[1:02:20] >> What's been going on the last few weeks?
[1:02:23] » What's been going on the last few weeks?
[1:02:23] >> Not a lot, which is good. Just a lot of
[1:02:25] » Not a lot, which is good. Just a lot of
[1:02:25] rain. Happy New Year, city council. We
[1:02:27] are in 2026, which means I have
[1:02:30] December's crime statistics, which will
[1:02:33] give us the uh year end uh total and we
[1:02:37] can compare that to the previous years.
[1:02:39] So in December there was a total of 16
[1:02:46] reported part one crimes and if we
[1:02:49] remember part one crimes are uh
[1:02:52] homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults,
[1:02:54] robbery, burglary, lararseny, grand
[1:02:56] theft auto and arson. So some of the ser
[1:02:58] most serious crimes. So there was only
[1:02:59] 16 reported and that brings the total
[1:03:02] for 2025 to 261
[1:03:06] for the entire year. This compares with
[1:03:08] 440 for the previous year 2024. So
[1:03:12] that's a 40.7%
[1:03:14] decrease. Now you could say that uh the
[1:03:16] Palisades fire had something to do with
[1:03:18] that and that's certainly yes. But the
[1:03:21] 5-year change the 5-year uh change from
[1:03:24] 2020 the average is a 35% decrease. So
[1:03:27] it's in the same ballpark. So uh we are
[1:03:30] certainly moving in the right direction.
[1:03:32] So I'm very happy to see that. Um we
[1:03:35] [clears throat] also have the uh traffic
[1:03:38] uh collision information for the entire
[1:03:40] year and so that follows the same trend.
[1:03:43] So there was year to date uh for 2025
[1:03:47] there was 176 total collisions in the
[1:03:50] city. Um but the year prior there was
[1:03:53] 327 and so that's a 46% decrease which
[1:03:57] is great to see. Um more significantly
[1:04:00] injury collisions dropped 41%. So there
[1:04:03] was 59 for 2025 compared with 100 for
[1:04:06] the year prior. Um
[1:04:10] DUI collisions were also down. There was
[1:04:13] a total of three last year. This
[1:04:15] compares with 11 from the year prior. So
[1:04:19] all in all people are seem to be slowing
[1:04:21] down. Obviously the construction zone
[1:04:23] has something to do with that. But uh it
[1:04:27] shows that slower speeds mean fewer
[1:04:29] collisions and fewer people being
[1:04:30] injured. So
[1:04:32] >> shocking shocking to to think that but
[1:04:34] » shocking shocking to to think that but
[1:04:34] that is the case. So uh moving forward
[1:04:38] for 2026. So the sheriff's department uh
[1:04:41] has a couple different goals. Um the
[1:04:46] first one we're going to keep up with
[1:04:48] PCH safety. Um in terms of fatal
[1:04:52] collisions, there was only one fatal
[1:04:53] collision last year and that was not on
[1:04:55] PCH. That was on Decker Canyon. So,
[1:04:57] there was zero fatal collisions on PCH
[1:05:00] last year, which is what we are hoping
[1:05:03] for every year. So, we're going to keep
[1:05:04] on uh pressing on PCH safety. So, with
[1:05:08] that, speed cameras uh are hopefully
[1:05:11] going to be installed this year. Uh
[1:05:14] there's a roundabout project that the
[1:05:15] city and the Cal Transit Sheriff's
[1:05:18] Department are collaborating on. Um we
[1:05:21] are also planning a to do a GUI
[1:05:23] checkpoint uh in the near future. Uh,
[1:05:26] and we're going to continue with uh
[1:05:28] enforcement on PCH uh our motors and the
[1:05:31] city is um graciously providing extra
[1:05:35] funding for additional traffic
[1:05:37] enforcement. So, we are going to
[1:05:39] continue that and continue uh to enforce
[1:05:42] the traffic laws and keep everybody safe
[1:05:44] on PCH.
[1:05:46] Um, another
[1:05:48] point that we are going to focus on in
[1:05:50] 2026 is public safety during the
[1:05:53] recovery. And by that I mean uh
[1:05:55] homeowners properties. Uh we want people
[1:05:58] to rebuild and be secure in their
[1:06:01] property leaving construction equipment
[1:06:02] which is very very expensive
[1:06:05] construction construction material. Um
[1:06:08] we want that to be secure and we want
[1:06:10] people to not have to worry about
[1:06:13] another tragedy on top of what they
[1:06:15] already went through. Uh with that our
[1:06:18] camera registry we want to push that out
[1:06:20] again because that will be very
[1:06:22] beneficial.
[1:06:23] uh to synchron synchronize with our
[1:06:26] real-time watch center. People can
[1:06:28] integrate their cameras and that way we
[1:06:30] can have real-time access if they so
[1:06:32] choose or we'll be able to do follow-up
[1:06:34] investigation. So, uh our camera
[1:06:37] registry is vital for that. Um
[1:06:42] we're also going to focus on the
[1:06:44] homeless population that Malibu has and
[1:06:47] continue collaborating with our host
[1:06:48] team and our the outreach teams for
[1:06:50] housing for the homeless population. and
[1:06:53] we're going to uh continue enforcement
[1:06:55] of all applicable laws uh as it relates
[1:06:58] to the homeless. So, we are still on a
[1:07:00] downtrend on the homeless population and
[1:07:02] we want that to continue and hopefully
[1:07:06] 2026 will be much better in 2025.
[1:07:09] So, I am available if anyone has
[1:07:11] questions.
[1:07:12] >> Anyone have any questions for the
[1:07:13] » Anyone have any questions for the
[1:07:13] sergeant?
[1:07:15] >> I do.
[1:07:15] » I do.
[1:07:15] >> Thank you. Okay, go ahead.
[1:07:17] » Thank you. Okay, go ahead.
[1:07:17] >> Thank you. Um do you have a substation
[1:07:19] » Thank you. Um do you have a substation
[1:07:19] update?
[1:07:21] So the latest update is the city council
[1:07:25] approved the radio tower which is one of
[1:07:28] the major hurdles to the substation. Uh
[1:07:31] the county can now start the certificate
[1:07:35] of occupancy and accepting ownership of
[1:07:38] that. uh the lead time that I had heard
[1:07:41] from our uh internal services division
[1:07:44] on getting that tower uh installed with
[1:07:47] all the proper equipment is uh 10 to 12
[1:07:50] months lead time. So that's timeline
[1:07:54] we're looking at and hopefully uh this
[1:07:56] time next year we'll have better clarity
[1:07:58] on when we can start moving in.
[1:08:00] >> Thank you. Um, I was also wondering if
[1:08:04] » Thank you. Um, I was also wondering if
[1:08:04] um you had an update on the machete man
[1:08:07] that I think I heard about over the
[1:08:09] weekend.
[1:08:09] >> Machete man.
[1:08:10] » Machete man.
[1:08:10] >> There was a man we with a machete at
[1:08:13] » There was a man we with a machete at
[1:08:13] Ralphs or Malibu Road. You didn't hear
[1:08:16] about that? It was on my citizen app
[1:08:18] that you're there.
[1:08:20] >> So, I've been on bereavement leave so I
[1:08:21] » So, I've been on bereavement leave so I
[1:08:22] don't have Yeah, I don't have the latest
[1:08:24] information,
[1:08:25] >> but
[1:08:26] » but
[1:08:26] >> I will look into that for you.
[1:08:27] » I will look into that for you.
[1:08:28] >> Thank you. Yeah, it seems like that's
[1:08:29] » Thank you. Yeah, it seems like that's
[1:08:29] the weapon of choice that I keep hearing
[1:08:31] about here. I hope he's brush clearing
[1:08:34] with his machete, but um do you also al
[1:08:37] have any like in uh information on
[1:08:39] parking citations around the East
[1:08:41] Winding Way area for the last two weeks?
[1:08:43] I know that the city has their own
[1:08:44] parking. I wasn't sure if the sheriff's
[1:08:47] also have like some data on that.
[1:08:49] >> We do. Um,
[1:08:52] » We do. Um,
[1:08:52] so I don't have specifically for that
[1:08:54] area, but um, parking violations and
[1:08:59] citations in general, uh, we issued
[1:09:02] 44,000
[1:09:04] and change last year.
[1:09:06] >> Mhm.
[1:09:07] » Mhm.
[1:09:07] 44,000
[1:09:08] >> just the deputies or accumulated between
[1:09:11] » just the deputies or accumulated between
[1:09:11] all
[1:09:13] >> that is a good question. I I don't know
[1:09:15] » that is a good question. I I don't know
[1:09:15] if this includes the city
[1:09:17] >> parking enforcement, but the total on
[1:09:19] » parking enforcement, but the total on
[1:09:19] here is 44,439
[1:09:22] >> in the city limits avail.
[1:09:27] » That's a lot. Um
[1:09:29] >> that's why we hired parking enforcement
[1:09:31] » that's why we hired parking enforcement
[1:09:31] to help.
[1:09:31] >> Yeah. Do we get like a report from the
[1:09:33] » Yeah. Do we get like a report from the
[1:09:33] parking enforcement like Dian?
[1:09:35] >> I don't do Do you want Susan to
[1:09:37] » I don't do Do you want Susan to
[1:09:37] >> Oh, maybe I'll ask I'll put it in my
[1:09:39] » Oh, maybe I'll ask I'll put it in my
[1:09:39] council comments. I'll ask you about
[1:09:41] that after. Um, so 44,000 tickets in the
[1:09:46] city of Malibu for 2025.
[1:09:49] >> It seems like a lot, but when you put in
[1:09:50] » It seems like a lot, but when you put in
[1:09:50] perspective, I mean, Malibu sees
[1:09:52] millions of people
[1:09:53] >> totally
[1:09:54] » totally
[1:09:54] >> in the summertime.
[1:09:55] » in the summertime.
[1:09:55] >> Yeah.
[1:09:55] » Yeah.
[1:09:56] >> So, it's a tip of the iceberg of the
[1:09:59] » So, it's a tip of the iceberg of the
[1:09:59] actual amount of vehicles that come
[1:10:00] through the city. So,
[1:10:01] >> right. Um, I was also curious why do we
[1:10:05] » right. Um, I was also curious why do we
[1:10:05] get how many DUI checkpoints a year? Is
[1:10:07] it one, two, four, and then? I believe
[1:10:10] uh through the OTS grant there's two
[1:10:13] that are funded.
[1:10:15] >> Okay.
[1:10:16] » Okay.
[1:10:16] Okay.
[1:10:18] Oh, and you've been doing work with your
[1:10:21] right of entries, your ROE's,
[1:10:24] >> right? Let of agency.
[1:10:26] » right? Let of agency.
[1:10:26] >> Well, yeah, the letter of agency.
[1:10:28] » Well, yeah, the letter of agency.
[1:10:28] Exactly. Correct.
[1:10:28] >> Because I know that if you're trying to
[1:10:30] » Because I know that if you're trying to
[1:10:30] help with crime on people's properties,
[1:10:33] they also have to have that letter. Is
[1:10:35] that correct?
[1:10:36] >> It would be very beneficial. Yes. We we
[1:10:38] » It would be very beneficial. Yes. We we
[1:10:38] saw a massive influx of them submitted
[1:10:41] to us when we originally did the uh
[1:10:44] >> I signed mine.
[1:10:45] » I signed mine.
[1:10:45] >> Yeah, the public outreach on it.
[1:10:47] » Yeah, the public outreach on it.
[1:10:47] >> Okay, that's it. Thank you.
[1:10:49] » Okay, that's it. Thank you.
[1:10:49] >> Mhm.
[1:10:51] » Mhm.
[1:10:51] >> Uh by the way, on those letter of
[1:10:53] » Uh by the way, on those letter of
[1:10:53] agencies, they do expire. Is that
[1:10:54] correct?
[1:10:55] >> So, you got to do it every year.
[1:10:56] » So, you got to do it every year.
[1:10:56] >> I believe they're every two years.
[1:10:58] » I believe they're every two years.
[1:10:58] >> Every two years. Yes. Okay. Just a
[1:10:59] » Every two years. Yes. Okay. Just a
[1:10:59] reminder for that.
[1:11:01] >> You left out what I thought was the most
[1:11:03] » You left out what I thought was the most
[1:11:03] significant thing. your two deputies
[1:11:06] that decide to go swimming on December
[1:11:08] 19th. Uh, Deputy Matkin and Gregorian.
[1:11:12] >> Gregorian, correct?
[1:11:13] » Gregorian, correct?
[1:11:13] >> Two heroes. If there ever was two
[1:11:16] » Two heroes. If there ever was two
[1:11:16] heroes, um, the video of that was
[1:11:19] astounding. I hope there's recognition
[1:11:21] in the future for them.
[1:11:22] >> There will be.
[1:11:23] » There will be.
[1:11:23] >> Can we tell hear the story of what
[1:11:25] » Can we tell hear the story of what
[1:11:25] occurred?
[1:11:26] >> Why don't you tell it?
[1:11:27] » Why don't you tell it?
[1:11:27] >> Sure. So, um, I don't have the exact
[1:11:30] » Sure. So, um, I don't have the exact
[1:11:30] date, but I know it was, uh, several
[1:11:32] weeks ago. Um, paragliders were
[1:11:36] disoriented in the fog and crashed in
[1:11:38] the ocean uh several hundred feet off
[1:11:41] the shore. And the deputies responded
[1:11:43] immediately saw them in peril stuck in
[1:11:47] their their cords from the paragliders
[1:11:50] or from the apparatus. and they without
[1:11:52] hesitation took off all their gear, took
[1:11:54] their boots off and went in in full
[1:11:56] uniform and swam out and cut the
[1:11:59] paracords off from around them. And
[1:12:03] according to the deputies that they were
[1:12:04] uh in shock and they were trying to pull
[1:12:07] the deputies under to try and get out of
[1:12:09] the water and deputies did a great job
[1:12:11] and rescued them and they are real
[1:12:14] heroes.
[1:12:16] So, and uh we told the sheriff about it
[1:12:19] when he was here last week and he was
[1:12:21] very very happy to meet them in in
[1:12:24] person. So, I'm sure there will be some
[1:12:26] recognition coming their way.
[1:12:28] >> One of the guys was here last week.
[1:12:29] » One of the guys was here last week.
[1:12:29] >> He [clears throat] was guy with the big
[1:12:31] » He [clears throat] was guy with the big
[1:12:31] mustache. Y
[1:12:32] >> Oh, that was him.
[1:12:33] » Oh, that was him.
[1:12:33] >> And he's actually one of the special
[1:12:34] » And he's actually one of the special
[1:12:34] assignment deputies for Malibu.
[1:12:36] >> Oh, awesome.
[1:12:37] » Oh, awesome.
[1:12:37] >> And that water was about 60 low 60
[1:12:40] » And that water was about 60 low 60
[1:12:40] degrees temperature
[1:12:42] >> and they were in their duty uniforms.
[1:12:44] » and they were in their duty uniforms.
[1:12:44] >> Yep. Um, as a somebody that took
[1:12:46] » Yep. Um, as a somebody that took
[1:12:46] lifeguard training, I can only imagine
[1:12:48] how those people struggled to try and
[1:12:51] push the deputies down so I could get
[1:12:53] up. It's it's an amazing story and they
[1:12:56] truly are heroes.
[1:12:57] >> So,
[1:12:58] » So,
[1:12:58] >> what area amounted?
[1:13:00] » what area amounted?
[1:13:00] >> I'm not sure actually. I don't
[1:13:02] » I'm not sure actually. I don't
[1:13:02] >> thought it was up by you. I mean by a
[1:13:04] » thought it was up by you. I mean by a
[1:13:04] point June headlin
[1:13:07] I heard
[1:13:08] >> Steve
[1:13:10] » Steve
[1:13:10] >> you're good.
[1:13:10] » you're good.
[1:13:10] >> Anybody else?
[1:13:12] » Anybody else?
[1:13:12] >> Thank you and thank you to all the first
[1:13:14] » Thank you and thank you to all the first
[1:13:14] responders out there. I appreciate all
[1:13:16] the hard work and let's hear to a
[1:13:18] >> happy new year.
[1:13:19] » happy new year.
[1:13:19] >> A good new year.
[1:13:20] » A good new year.
[1:13:20] >> Thank you.
[1:13:22] » Thank you.
[1:13:22] >> Okay.
[1:13:22] » Okay.
[1:13:22] >> Hi. Just wanted to really quickly follow
[1:13:24] » Hi. Just wanted to really quickly follow
[1:13:24] up on Halen's question about the parking
[1:13:26] force. I just want to let you know that
[1:13:28] we are right now planning to bring back
[1:13:31] a a comprehensive report on how the
[1:13:33] whole parking enforcement program has
[1:13:35] gone for the last year and a half
[1:13:37] because we'll be looking at renewing the
[1:13:39] contract. So, I think if you can wait a
[1:13:42] little bit, we'll be ready to give you a
[1:13:43] full report and give you all the details
[1:13:45] you want at that time.
[1:13:47] >> That would be super. Are there like
[1:13:49] » That would be super. Are there like
[1:13:49] specific location specific like
[1:13:50] hotspots? Do you think that'll be
[1:13:52] >> We can have that information. Yes.
[1:13:54] » We can have that information. Yes.
[1:13:54] >> Fantastic. Thank you so much.
[1:14:01] Okay. So, we filled up all the way to
[1:14:03] 6:30.
[1:14:05] Um, before we begin our agenda, does
[1:14:08] anybody want a restroom break?
[1:14:10] >> Okay.
[1:14:11] » Okay.
[1:14:11] >> I would like to ask to move item 8A to
[1:14:14] » I would like to ask to move item 8A to
[1:14:14] the beginning of our meeting.
[1:14:16] >> Uh, so do you want to do public comment
[1:14:17] » Uh, so do you want to do public comment
[1:14:18] first or do you want to do that and then
[1:14:21] come back to 4 A? I think public comment
[1:14:24] but then as far as we go into our
[1:14:26] program for the evening 8A is the
[1:14:29] beginning.
[1:14:29] >> So do 4A and then move 8A before 5A.
[1:14:34] » So do 4A and then move 8A before 5A.
[1:14:34] >> What's 5A
[1:14:35] » What's 5A
[1:14:35] >> there? So we have public comment is item
[1:14:38] » there? So we have public comment is item
[1:14:38] 4 A. We have council member comments is
[1:14:40] item 4B. And then on the agenda, the
[1:14:43] first item for discussion is item 5A,
[1:14:45] the building standards code. So, would
[1:14:47] you like to hear 8A after public
[1:14:50] comment, after council comments, or
[1:14:52] after the building code?
[1:14:55] >> After council comment?
[1:14:56] » After council comment?
[1:14:56] >> After council comments.
[1:14:57] » After council comments.
[1:14:57] >> Okay. So, do 4 A and 4 B, then 8A, then
[1:15:00] » Okay. So, do 4 A and 4 B, then 8A, then
[1:15:00] the remainder of the agenda.
[1:15:01] >> Yeah. Okay. Anybody want to second that?
[1:15:03] » Yeah. Okay. Anybody want to second that?
[1:15:03] >> I'll second that.
[1:15:04] » I'll second that.
[1:15:04] >> All in favor?
[1:15:05] » All in favor?
[1:15:05] >> I I
[1:15:06] » I I
[1:15:06] >> I.
[1:15:07] » I.
[1:15:07] >> Okay. So, 4 A. Um, do we have any raised
[1:15:10] » Okay. So, 4 A. Um, do we have any raised
[1:15:10] hands for general public comment?
[1:15:16] There are four raised hands.
[1:15:18] >> Okay. So, let's give them 30 seconds and
[1:15:21] » Okay. So, let's give them 30 seconds and
[1:15:21] then hold it at um and I have all my 4A
[1:15:24] comments in. So, no more additional 4A
[1:15:27] comments. Ann, you're starting us off.
[1:15:31] Followed by Michelle Shane, followed by
[1:15:34] Mrs. Marissa Coughlin.
[1:15:44] Hello, this is Ann Kamarasque. There's a
[1:15:46] lot of floors in my world.
[1:15:49] 44,000 tickets, 444 estate news. Here we
[1:15:53] are. And so, uh, this is a picture of a
[1:15:58] radio at the Tower of Power of Santa
[1:16:00] Monica. That's a handheld radio putting
[1:16:03] out approximately four to five watts,
[1:16:05] probably four watts. And I was able to
[1:16:09] transmit all the way from Pasar Robless
[1:16:12] down to the Mexican border and to Las
[1:16:15] Vegas with that radio. Both sides of the
[1:16:18] hill. And I did copy uh Mr. Stewart,
[1:16:22] Councilman Stewart. And Halen, you know
[1:16:24] all about it. So I don't understand why
[1:16:28] we don't make this a priority over these
[1:16:30] other well ill thought out projects.
[1:16:34] This one works. and we've been working
[1:16:37] very hard. Uh can I please have a next
[1:16:39] slide?
[1:16:40] This is a license and if you look
[1:16:43] closely it says for the prevention of
[1:16:46] it's for the firewatch for high fire
[1:16:49] danger areas issued by the federal
[1:16:51] communications commission. This license
[1:16:54] is a gift to the city of Malibu, not the
[1:16:58] government of Malibu, a nonprofit within
[1:17:00] Malibu. Next, please.
[1:17:03] This is where you can listen to any
[1:17:06] radio transmission around the globe and
[1:17:09] the universe from Malibu. It's Malibu
[1:17:13] public safety on the scanner. And this
[1:17:16] is available 24/7. So any communication
[1:17:19] you make on this radio can be heard here
[1:17:23] unencrypted in the clear. Next, please.
[1:17:26] This is a list of frequencies used by
[1:17:29] another community 50 miles away from
[1:17:32] here.
[1:17:33] This is their firewatch. They have never
[1:17:35] burned unlike Malibu and the Palisades.
[1:17:39] Why? Because they care.
[1:17:42] So, next, please.
[1:17:45] That's the last one. Oh, back to me,
[1:17:47] please. So, uh me.
[1:17:52] No,
[1:17:55] » we can see you're there.
[1:17:57] >> Hello, Ber. This is a radio. This is it.
[1:18:01] » Hello, Ber. This is a radio. This is it.
[1:18:01] I just communicated this morning on a
[1:18:04] similar radio from my bedroom, which is
[1:18:06] what where do I live anyway? Uh,
[1:18:09] Paradise Cove area, whatever. I don't
[1:18:11] know what it is, but up there, I
[1:18:13] transmitted on my other radio 50 miles
[1:18:16] from here to the community 50 miles from
[1:18:19] here on a handheld radio. So, it's kind
[1:18:23] of why we're advocating to put something
[1:18:24] up on Catalina. And uh, with all due
[1:18:27] respect to the sheriff,
[1:18:29] A handheld radio works just fine at the
[1:18:32] Santa Monica College. To wait a year for
[1:18:34] that is absurd. To have your tower
[1:18:37] installed, you know, I support the
[1:18:39] tower, but not where it's at, and it
[1:18:42] kind of doesn't look too safe to me.
[1:18:44] [snorts] 10 bolts holding it down.
[1:18:47] Perhaps it should be revisited. But
[1:18:49] thank you very much.
[1:18:51] >> Thank you.
[1:18:51] » Thank you.
[1:18:51] >> Appreciate it. I'd like Michelle needs
[1:18:53] » Appreciate it. I'd like Michelle needs
[1:18:53] to be changed.
[1:18:54] >> Followed by Marissa, followed by Brian
[1:18:57] » Followed by Marissa, followed by Brian
[1:18:57] Merrick.
[1:19:05] Happy new year.
[1:19:07] >> Happy new year.
[1:19:08] » Happy new year.
[1:19:08] >> Good evening, city council.
[1:19:11] » Good evening, city council.
[1:19:11] This city council has mandated a state
[1:19:14] of emergency on PCH for over a year.
[1:19:17] Tonight, I want to discuss how we can
[1:19:19] actually end it.
[1:19:22] The solution is straightforward. If you
[1:19:24] speed on PCH, you lose your license. And
[1:19:28] that's how we stop speeding.
[1:19:31] On our PCH, law enforcement has issued
[1:19:34] 5,100
[1:19:35] citations so far in 2025,
[1:19:39] a 59% increase from 2023.
[1:19:43] Across California in 2024,
[1:19:46] 18,000 drivers exceeded 100 miles an
[1:19:50] hour.
[1:19:52] They're choosing their thrills over our
[1:19:55] lives.
[1:19:57] Fines don't deter them only losing their
[1:19:59] license do.
[1:20:01] You're rolling your eyes and say this is
[1:20:04] obvious. Come on, Michelle. We all know
[1:20:08] this. How is this different?
[1:20:11] We now have a blueprint.
[1:20:13] The state's new fast pilot project uses
[1:20:16] administrative action to send high-speed
[1:20:19] tickets straight to the DMV for
[1:20:22] immediate license review. Bypassing the
[1:20:25] courts entirely. That's the key.
[1:20:28] Administrative action.
[1:20:31] No waiting for court dates, no delays,
[1:20:34] swift certain consequences.
[1:20:37] Here's my call.
[1:20:40] Here's my call to action. Let's use our
[1:20:42] influence in Sacramento to expand fast
[1:20:45] for Malibu through administrative
[1:20:48] action. If you go 25 miles per hour over
[1:20:51] the speed limit on PCH or double the
[1:20:54] speed limit, you'll be sub subject to
[1:20:57] immediate DMV review. And if you speed
[1:21:00] on PCH, you lose your license.
[1:21:03] In 1955,
[1:21:05] Connecticut did exactly this with
[1:21:08] outcomes with automatic suspension.
[1:21:12] Speeding dropped 53%
[1:21:15] in one year.
[1:21:18] We have the lobbyists. We have Senator
[1:21:21] Ben Allen. We have the global spotlight.
[1:21:25] Let's stop just renewing an emergency
[1:21:29] and lead the state out of one. If you
[1:21:33] speed on PCH, you lose your license. And
[1:21:37] that's the law we need to fight for.
[1:21:42] >> Thank you, Marissa. Followed by Brian,
[1:21:47] » Thank you, Marissa. Followed by Brian,
[1:21:47] followed by Kevin Keegan.
[1:21:54] » Happy New Year, members of the council.
[1:21:56] Some good news. I'm going to add two
[1:21:58] planning verifications approved today
[1:22:00] for the fire array bills. and I was
[1:22:03] successful in that. Um, something that
[1:22:05] did occur to me after all the years of
[1:22:07] community members here um, fighting for
[1:22:10] the separation of the school district,
[1:22:12] if there's anything that the council
[1:22:14] could consider um,
[1:22:17] implementing and expediting the rebuilds
[1:22:19] only because that funds our school
[1:22:21] district and we're going to have without
[1:22:23] the tax base, we're going to have some
[1:22:25] issues with that and some funding for
[1:22:27] the council as well. Uh I'd like to uh
[1:22:32] one of the issues that I'm dealing with
[1:22:33] with some of the fiber mills. I was
[1:22:35] fortunate I was invited to a meeting
[1:22:37] with about 20 of the homeowners who live
[1:22:39] in the like Oxnard and moved around and
[1:22:42] they do have concerns and they have
[1:22:44] concerns about some of the FEMA
[1:22:46] regulations because they're either going
[1:22:48] to have to have a breakaway garage or an
[1:22:51] elevator to get to their front door.
[1:22:53] Some of these people are in their 80s
[1:22:54] and 90s and they just won't rebuild if
[1:22:58] they have to do that. Uh the Palisades
[1:23:00] fire did not Palisades did not lose any
[1:23:03] houses on the beach. They were all on
[1:23:06] inland. So that's the big difference
[1:23:07] between our process and theirs. Um the u
[1:23:14] oh the yeah the two BBs I told you about
[1:23:16] the sports signs. And this is totally
[1:23:18] off base. There was a sports sign for
[1:23:20] two of our championships and it used to
[1:23:22] be on by the bluff park and when they
[1:23:25] built those homes on the south uh west
[1:23:28] east corner, they took the sign down and
[1:23:31] those of us that put those original the
[1:23:32] original sign up would like to either
[1:23:34] put it so it can be seen on PCH and
[1:23:37] Malibu Canyon either on the park side or
[1:23:39] in the uh easement setback the city
[1:23:42] easement for the utilities there. So
[1:23:44] I'll bring that to the planning
[1:23:45] department such but I just want the
[1:23:47] council to know about that. Um there
[1:23:49] there is a lot of still misinformation
[1:23:52] going around about what to do with the
[1:23:54] fire rebuilds, how to do it, and um I'm
[1:23:58] going to talk to uh Director Bundy about
[1:24:01] some of the things that were shared with
[1:24:02] me in the meeting. And I think it's
[1:24:04] things both she and Tyler Eaton can
[1:24:07] handle, but I wanted to bring that to
[1:24:09] the council's attention. And I'll
[1:24:11] continue when I get more things. Thank
[1:24:12] you.
[1:24:14] >> Okay, Brian, followed by Kevin Keegan,
[1:24:16] » Okay, Brian, followed by Kevin Keegan,
[1:24:16] followed by Darren Graves.
[1:24:23] Hello everybody. Um, appreciate the
[1:24:25] opportunity. I'm going to try and fit in
[1:24:27] three minutes what our experience has
[1:24:29] been so far working through the process
[1:24:31] to get the permit. And we are one of the
[1:24:34] first on the beach to get the permit.
[1:24:35] So, we're kind of like a guinea pig and
[1:24:37] I'm going to tell you what went right
[1:24:38] and what went wrong. So, um, or at least
[1:24:41] perceived. Now, some of these things
[1:24:42] have changed because of what Bun Yolanda
[1:24:46] had said um about the uh changing of the
[1:24:49] guard, but the PV process for the most
[1:24:50] part, it worked really smoothly. Um we
[1:24:53] had a 1930s house with zero plans, zero
[1:24:57] anything. So, we were starting from
[1:24:59] scratch. We literally started on January
[1:25:01] 8th, hired our architect, and moved
[1:25:02] forward. So, um, if things are presented
[1:25:05] in a clear manner in a thorough
[1:25:06] demonstration, they're they're able to
[1:25:08] make their thing, you know, they're able
[1:25:10] to make their determinations as to what
[1:25:12] was there and what what's good for us.
[1:25:13] So, it worked real well. It bogged down
[1:25:15] in coastal engineering with someone
[1:25:17] named Miss Doyle who was very
[1:25:19] problematic. Um, at and we ended up
[1:25:22] being for uh 38 business days in coastal
[1:25:25] plan before we ever got a response from
[1:25:27] any submitt. And this was during PV. So
[1:25:30] um and she to our face told us that she
[1:25:32] would have an answer by the afternoon
[1:25:34] only to go days without answering.
[1:25:35] Finally I sought help from some council
[1:25:37] and Yolanda and it it changed. Um so
[1:25:41] then we move into the R RDP where once
[1:25:43] again it was fairly quick you know as
[1:25:45] long as you have your information
[1:25:46] together and you get it out to them. I
[1:25:48] mean I think we had very few corrections
[1:25:50] but again this time it was environmental
[1:25:52] health and coastal engineering which I
[1:25:54] think is the same person miss Doyle that
[1:25:56] was 30 business days and again had to
[1:25:59] seek help from Yolanda and the council
[1:26:01] to get to get them to respond to us. So
[1:26:04] I don't know which number I am on that
[1:26:06] thing because we don't we have a
[1:26:08] building permit but we don't have a
[1:26:11] permit for the septic or the seaw wall.
[1:26:13] So I don't think we're fully permitted.
[1:26:14] So we're maybe one of those other
[1:26:16] numbers. Um, we do have a bill for the
[1:26:20] septic, a permit bill. So, maybe we're
[1:26:22] done with septic now. Um, but we don't
[1:26:24] know. Um, the seaw wall, the seaw wall
[1:26:26] is crazy because we started out working
[1:26:29] with our neighbor and they were all for
[1:26:31] it and then they sold to the New Zealand
[1:26:32] toy makers. So, we're out of luck and
[1:26:35] we're also an end property where we're
[1:26:37] the last house that burns. So, we
[1:26:38] literally have to build a box. We're
[1:26:40] being told that uh by our coastal um
[1:26:44] design guy it's 8,000 to 10,000 a foot
[1:26:47] for a seaw wall and we got 360 ft
[1:26:50] because we have to build a box. So now
[1:26:52] we're we're sitting and from what I
[1:26:54] understand maybe Rob can answer this but
[1:26:56] we're in where um uh the municipal code
[1:26:59] calls for a variance for a seaw wall
[1:27:03] that's up against PCH and CALR is
[1:27:06] seeking that. So, we're hung up in
[1:27:08] public works and we've been there since
[1:27:09] December 4th when we submitted. Um, we
[1:27:12] resisted these toy guys, but um, you
[1:27:15] know, unfortunately insurance isn't
[1:27:17] going to come close to covering what
[1:27:18] it's going to cost us to rebuild. Lloyds
[1:27:20] of London given us 11,000 for a seaw
[1:27:23] wall, not foot, 11,000. So, um, you
[1:27:27] know, our seaw wall is going to be 3.2
[1:27:29] million. Thank you, Brian.
[1:27:30] >> So, yeah. But, I mean, it kind of fits
[1:27:33] » So, yeah. But, I mean, it kind of fits
[1:27:33] in, but it's definitely going to change
[1:27:34] the demographics.
[1:27:40] Kevin, uh, followed by Darren, followed
[1:27:42] by Scott Jer.
[1:27:44] [clears throat]
[1:27:47] I'm Kevin Keegan. Technology
[1:27:50] advancement, individual rights, and
[1:27:51] public health are important issues for
[1:27:53] the Malibu community that I believe need
[1:27:56] thoughtful attention in 2026. For
[1:27:59] example, a front page headline in the
[1:28:01] Malibu Times on Christmas Day shared,
[1:28:03] quote, "Study finds lasting health
[1:28:06] impacts from Palisades fire." Close
[1:28:08] quote. With a sub headline that
[1:28:09] explained, quote, "New research reveals
[1:28:12] prolonged health u heart, lung, and
[1:28:15] systemic health effects for Malibu
[1:28:17] residents." Close quote. Back on
[1:28:20] November 10th, I pointed out that the
[1:28:21] city missed an opportunity to emphasize
[1:28:23] public health in the city's current
[1:28:25] strategic plan. In the wake of a
[1:28:27] pandemic and in historic wildfires, it
[1:28:30] is a potential mistake to overlook
[1:28:31] public health as that Christmas Day
[1:28:34] headline suggests. Furthermore,
[1:28:37] a shortcoming in the city's strategic
[1:28:39] plan is the lack of a serious technology
[1:28:41] investment or point of view being
[1:28:43] offered by the council. As I've said
[1:28:45] here on December 8th, the future has
[1:28:48] arrived. AI, robots, autonomous
[1:28:50] vehicles, and more are all advancing
[1:28:52] rapidly. With some for foresight and
[1:28:56] initiative, Malibu can preserve its
[1:28:57] rural character and rehabilitate our
[1:28:59] local economy by embracing emerging
[1:29:02] technologies of our future. Just as
[1:29:04] important, by taking action in 2026, the
[1:29:07] city of Malibu can help strengthen its
[1:29:09] cyber defenses and our individual
[1:29:11] rights, such as the right to privacy,
[1:29:13] which I believe is a founding value of
[1:29:15] Malibu's community and culture. A place
[1:29:18] to begin is to have a serious public
[1:29:20] discussion about what is reasonable. For
[1:29:22] example, what is reasonable regarding
[1:29:25] what decision an algorithm gets to make
[1:29:27] versus what decisions our council, city
[1:29:29] staff, businesses, and community members
[1:29:32] get to make? What is reasonable
[1:29:33] regarding collection and protection of a
[1:29:36] citizen's personal data? What is
[1:29:38] reasonable regarding the number of
[1:29:39] cameras recording a city citizen's daily
[1:29:42] whereabouts? Surveillance, tracking,
[1:29:44] monitoring, and profiling are
[1:29:46] infiltrating society and communities
[1:29:48] without serious public debate. To put a
[1:29:51] fine point on it, cameras are
[1:29:53] proliferating at breakneck pace in cars,
[1:29:56] kitchens, front doors, phones, drones,
[1:29:59] and more. More more Moreover, in my
[1:30:01] opinion, AI and surveillance
[1:30:03] capabilities are better and more
[1:30:05] powerful than anyone in this room fully
[1:30:08] understands. Simultaneously, new law
[1:30:11] enforcement techniques like geo fencing
[1:30:14] take advantage of legal gray areas that
[1:30:16] erode individual citizens human rights,
[1:30:19] including our fourth amendment
[1:30:20] protections. We need serious advocates
[1:30:23] who understand what is happening and are
[1:30:25] willing to lead with courage. The future
[1:30:27] has arrived and if we do not do not
[1:30:30] answer those questions ourselves then
[1:30:32] others will answer the questions for us.
[1:30:35] 2026 offers a critical window of
[1:30:37] opportunity in Malibu for debate and
[1:30:39] action. Thank you.
[1:30:42] >> Thank you.
[1:30:43] » Thank you.
[1:30:43] >> Thank [clears throat] you Darren
[1:30:44] » Thank [clears throat] you Darren
[1:30:44] followed by Scott followed by Marilame.
[1:30:56] Uh good evening and happy new year uh
[1:30:59] honorable mayor, city council members,
[1:31:01] interim city manager. Uh
[1:31:02] congratulations.
[1:31:04] Um so I wanted to start off by thanking
[1:31:07] you once again for all the strides you
[1:31:09] made last year um helping the rebuilding
[1:31:11] community. I have a slide that I want to
[1:31:13] share with you and it is in regards to
[1:31:15] what um Brian, I think his name is, was
[1:31:18] talking about. So this is uh from the
[1:31:21] approved planning verification for my
[1:31:23] family's property. It is a drawing that
[1:31:25] describes three things. Uh the upper
[1:31:29] left drawing is the existing septic
[1:31:31] system. The two drawings in the middle
[1:31:33] on the upper line are affordable septic
[1:31:36] replacement systems and the drawing on
[1:31:39] the far right on the upper side is the
[1:31:41] OW or the AOTS and shoreline protective
[1:31:44] device which was recommended by Mrs.
[1:31:47] Doyle of Cotton Shireers starting in
[1:31:49] February of last year. So per the seven
[1:31:52] or the $10,000 linear foot cost uh to
[1:31:56] build that shoreline protective device,
[1:31:58] it would have cost my family upwards of
[1:32:00] $800,000 just for the shoreline
[1:32:03] protective device. So I wanted to extend
[1:32:04] a very big thank you to everybody who
[1:32:07] made the effort to allow us to follow
[1:32:09] the provisions of the lamp and release
[1:32:12] the December 8th memo. Um, this has a
[1:32:14] huge effect on the beachfront homeowners
[1:32:16] who are rebuilding and everybody should
[1:32:19] have the ability if they don't add
[1:32:21] plumbing fixtures to save 800 grand or
[1:32:25] more. This is one of the smallest
[1:32:26] properties, so everybody else would have
[1:32:28] to pay a lot more. Um, so thank you.
[1:32:31] Also, in regards to I guess making
[1:32:35] things easier for the city staff, um I
[1:32:38] would suggest moving back towards the
[1:32:40] electronic plan review uh process
[1:32:44] because such a process would eliminate
[1:32:46] the communication hiccups which are
[1:32:48] still present. I say that because in my
[1:32:50] planning verification which I submitted
[1:32:52] on December 1st, I got one comment from
[1:32:54] Bureau Veritoss. It took them 10 days to
[1:32:58] issue the comment. I addressed it within
[1:33:00] one business day. Then it took them four
[1:33:02] days to have one question about the
[1:33:04] comment. They didn't ask me anything,
[1:33:06] but they emailed darrend
[1:33:08] doiciledesigns.com
[1:33:10] the email, which was a question. Well, I
[1:33:12] don't work there, so I didn't get the
[1:33:14] email until 3 days later and then I
[1:33:17] addressed it and I got an approval the
[1:33:19] next day. Um, so hiccups like that would
[1:33:22] be eliminated by electronic plan review.
[1:33:24] That's why I would suggest moving back
[1:33:25] towards that model if you could. Thank
[1:33:27] you,
[1:33:30] >> Derek. I'm gonna want a clarification on
[1:33:32] » Derek. I'm gonna want a clarification on
[1:33:32] the comment you made. So, just make sure
[1:33:34] we talk. Okay. [laughter]
[1:33:37] >> Uh Scott
[1:33:39] » Uh Scott
[1:33:39] and our final in person is Mel May.
[1:33:52] » Thank you. I was just checking because
[1:33:54] uh really this would come from Sawa but
[1:33:57] uh she's in Dubai. Um and happy new
[1:34:03] year. Congratulations Rob. Um,
[1:34:06] [clears throat]
[1:34:07] so Saul was in contact with our assessor
[1:34:12] LA County Dennis Pring
[1:34:14] who has been trying to revise
[1:34:18] how much these rebuild disasters the
[1:34:22] victims get taxed very much favorable to
[1:34:26] us. He tried to get uh legislation
[1:34:30] that didn't go through. So, he's made an
[1:34:33] executive decision to try to cut how
[1:34:39] much we're going to assess these burned
[1:34:42] out lots. And that's going to be very
[1:34:44] favorable to us as residents, those who
[1:34:49] can't live back in. I mean, there's
[1:34:51] nothing worse. You're paying this huge
[1:34:53] tax on a place that's a disaster that
[1:34:57] you can't live in. And then you start
[1:35:00] adding in all the cost of, oh, I've got
[1:35:04] to pay the mortgage and I've got to pay
[1:35:08] this astronomical tax that doesn't make
[1:35:11] sense anymore. So, you know, that's kind
[1:35:14] of a good note in a very difficult
[1:35:16] situation. and we wanted, you know, the
[1:35:20] city and you guys to know about that.
[1:35:23] Thank you.
[1:35:24] >> Thank you, Merryill.
[1:35:30] » Hello and good evening. Thank you for
[1:35:32] your time. Um, I wanted to bring up a
[1:35:34] few safety things which you probably all
[1:35:36] are aware of because you get my emails,
[1:35:38] but I wanted to publicly come here. The
[1:35:41] situation at Corral Canyon is
[1:35:44] disastrous.
[1:35:46] the center dividers, channelizers. Uh I
[1:35:50] think there's one up about four from the
[1:35:52] end, 15 to 20 down. That is a very bad
[1:35:56] percentage. The last time I was
[1:35:57] successful getting those channelizers
[1:35:59] replaced was about on the 29th when I
[1:36:01] had to appeal suggesting that maybe
[1:36:03] Santa Claus and the elves come and help.
[1:36:06] When I made that email, it was fixed in
[1:36:09] three days. Again, it is the worst
[1:36:11] condition it has ever been at right now.
[1:36:18] Mr. Silverstein, you have a creative
[1:36:20] mind with legal perspective. I don't
[1:36:23] know if there's any way to hold CALR or
[1:36:26] the contractor accountable for a
[1:36:29] horrendous safety condition which exists
[1:36:31] down there right now.
[1:36:34] Maybe there's a penalty. Maybe if they
[1:36:36] don't fix it within a certain amount of
[1:36:37] time, we can take it and do it. But
[1:36:41] everybody that travels through there
[1:36:42] right now, I I I'm amazed that we
[1:36:44] haven't had a head-on collision in a
[1:36:46] fatality. I mean, everybody speeds the
[1:36:48] rough maybe the road is so rough. It
[1:36:50] might be a strategy to have a rough road
[1:36:53] to get people to go slower. I mean,
[1:36:55] there were some holes that were gigantic
[1:36:57] the other day. I had several people
[1:36:59] complain to me about it. Okay, crosswalk
[1:37:01] awareness. So, that's one. Crosswalk
[1:37:03] awareness. I almost got hit twice
[1:37:05] crossing at Zumearez in the crosswalk
[1:37:06] when the light was on. people turning
[1:37:08] out of Zoomerz, not seeing me. I'm
[1:37:11] standing in the crosswalk raising my
[1:37:13] hands. My neighbor got hit three weeks
[1:37:15] before that in the hospital for a while
[1:37:17] now going through rehab. We've made some
[1:37:19] headway with our crosswalks in towns.
[1:37:21] I've also submitted some emails about
[1:37:22] some enhancements for that with
[1:37:24] pictures. The Zuma underpass, when
[1:37:27] that's closed, it makes PCH more
[1:37:30] dangerous. People back up to Paradise
[1:37:33] Cove in the summertime when we can't use
[1:37:34] that underpass. I don't know how many
[1:37:37] geographical acres there are above that
[1:37:39] Zoomer underpass where water comes
[1:37:42] through there. Little sand and debris
[1:37:44] goes onto the concrete and then we can't
[1:37:45] clear it, putting everybody at risk on
[1:37:48] PCH. There is some progress on that, I
[1:37:50] understand, but I think there needs to
[1:37:53] be better um water storage tanks,
[1:37:55] allowing people to use water storage
[1:37:57] tanks so that we have more water
[1:37:58] storage. I know that we were working on
[1:38:00] that. I don't know if the supervisors
[1:38:02] have signed off on it yet. potholes,
[1:38:04] patches, cracks, please. That has to be
[1:38:07] better. Um, I appeal to everybody
[1:38:11] residents that come here or that live
[1:38:13] here, when you see a problem on PCH,
[1:38:15] safety-wise, potholes, traffic hazards,
[1:38:18] reported to public works. I'm sorry,
[1:38:20] public works, but they'll report it to
[1:38:22] CALR.
[1:38:23] You can also report it to CALR.
[1:38:26] um home hardening things. Please do
[1:38:29] brush clearance and incorporate home
[1:38:30] hardening into your so that we don't
[1:38:33] have to rebuild homes in the future.
[1:38:35] >> Thank you.
[1:38:35] » Thank you.
[1:38:35] >> Thank you.
[1:38:37] » Thank you.
[1:38:37] >> Do we still have four raised hands?
[1:38:39] » Do we still have four raised hands?
[1:38:39] >> Yes. First is Nick Corey.
[1:38:43] » Yes. First is Nick Corey.
[1:38:43] >> Nick, are you there?
[1:38:46] » Nick, are you there?
[1:38:46] >> Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Okay.
[1:38:47] » Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Okay.
[1:38:47] >> Yes, please go ahead.
[1:38:49] » Yes, please go ahead.
[1:38:49] >> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh so, good
[1:38:51] » Wonderful. Thank you. Uh so, good
[1:38:51] evening everyone. Um, you I'd really
[1:38:54] like to take this opportunity to address
[1:38:57] my good buddy Steve Yuring.
[1:39:00] Stevie, it has been 543 days since your
[1:39:04] property was cited for building without
[1:39:07] a permit.
[1:39:09] 543.
[1:39:12] That's almost 78 weeks, my man.
[1:39:15] For most people in Malibu, a violation
[1:39:18] like that triggers threatening letters
[1:39:19] from the city attorney, mounting legal
[1:39:22] fees, repeated inspections, and a long
[1:39:25] chilling effect on their lives and
[1:39:27] homes.
[1:39:29] This message is usually loud and clear.
[1:39:32] Comply immediately or else. But not for
[1:39:35] you, my friend, because it must be nice
[1:39:38] being a city council member. Must be
[1:39:41] nice being a former NTC presidente and
[1:39:45] it must be nice living under a different
[1:39:47] set of rules. You can build without
[1:39:49] permits. You can put up illegal fencing.
[1:39:54] You can place storage sheds right on the
[1:39:56] property line with whatever you want
[1:39:58] inside of them. And somehow enforcement
[1:40:02] never seems to arrive.
[1:40:04] Meanwhile, you spend your time making
[1:40:06] sure the rest of Malibu doesn't get what
[1:40:08] it wants or needs. You delay projects.
[1:40:12] You obstruct solutions.
[1:40:14] You scrutinize everyone else while your
[1:40:18] own violations sit untouched for nearly
[1:40:20] a year and a half. Let me let me go back
[1:40:23] and remind you. 543
[1:40:25] days.
[1:40:28] That doesn't happen by accident, Steve.
[1:40:30] It happens because the system is being
[1:40:32] bent to protect insiders.
[1:40:35] It happens because connections matter
[1:40:37] more than compliance. And it happens
[1:40:40] because accountability in this city
[1:40:42] appears to depend on who you are, not
[1:40:45] what you've done. The result is two very
[1:40:49] different Malibus.
[1:40:51] One where ordinary residents face
[1:40:53] immediate threats, legal costs, and
[1:40:56] fear.
[1:40:58] And another where powerful people can
[1:41:00] ignore the rules indefinitely, confident
[1:41:03] that nothing will happen.
[1:41:06] 543
[1:41:08] days without resolution.
[1:41:11] 78 weeks without consequences.
[1:41:18] This makes a mockery of fair
[1:41:21] enforcement. So yes, Steve, it really is
[1:41:24] good to be you. Thanks.
[1:41:30] » Next speaker,
[1:41:32] [clears throat]
[1:41:33] >> Gary Harkness.
[1:41:35] » Gary Harkness.
[1:41:36] Gary, are you there?
[1:41:38] >> Yeah, I'm here. Thank you. Um, I just
[1:41:41] » Yeah, I'm here. Thank you. Um, I just
[1:41:41] want to make a comment about um what I
[1:41:44] believe the uh MTC would do if uh
[1:41:49] Michelle Shane's idea were uh taken up
[1:41:51] and they would probably fight it just
[1:41:53] like they did the PCH safety
[1:41:55] improvements.
[1:41:56] But um
[1:41:58] just generally I want to talk about the
[1:42:00] fact that this isn't an attack on
[1:42:02] Malibu's history or on residents who
[1:42:04] have volunteered their time out of real
[1:42:06] concern for this community. The question
[1:42:09] that I have is much more simpler than
[1:42:11] that and that is whether the Malibu
[1:42:13] Township Council is a legitimate public
[1:42:16] civic organization today. And I would
[1:42:19] argue it isn't. The MTC was created in
[1:42:22] 1947,
[1:42:24] uh, long before Malibu was a city. At
[1:42:26] that time, it served a real purpose.
[1:42:28] There was no local government, no
[1:42:30] elected council, and no local voice.
[1:42:33] Township council helped fill that gap,
[1:42:34] and in doing so played an important role
[1:42:36] in Malibu's early history. But that role
[1:42:40] ended in 1991 when Malibu incorporated.
[1:42:42] We now have an elected city council,
[1:42:45] public commissions, open meeting laws,
[1:42:47] financial disclosures, and
[1:42:49] accountability to every voter in the
[1:42:50] city. Those are the institutions meant
[1:42:53] to govern Malibu. The MTC, however, did
[1:42:56] not step aside. It continued on as a
[1:42:58] private organization, one that is not
[1:43:01] elected, not representative of full
[1:43:03] community, not subject to public
[1:43:05] transparency laws, and not accountable
[1:43:07] to voters. Membership is selective and
[1:43:10] participation depends on paying dues. By
[1:43:13] definition, that is not a public civic
[1:43:15] body. Yet, the MTC regularly portrays
[1:43:18] itself as speaking for Malibu as a whole
[1:43:21] while filing appeals, initiating
[1:43:24] lawsuits, and forcing costly delays to
[1:43:26] projects approved through public
[1:43:28] process. Those costs are paid by the
[1:43:30] city and its residents, not by the
[1:43:32] organization imposing them. That creates
[1:43:35] a serious imbalance. A small private
[1:43:38] group is able to stall or block public
[1:43:40] decisions without having to answer to
[1:43:41] the public without having to run for
[1:43:44] office or operate in the open. That
[1:43:46] isn't how democratic decision-making is
[1:43:48] supposed to work. Advocacy is not the
[1:43:50] issue. Any group has the right to
[1:43:52] organize, lobby, and even litigate. But
[1:43:56] advocacy groups need to be honest about
[1:43:58] what and who they are. The MTC is not a
[1:44:00] governing body, and it does not
[1:44:02] represent Malibu as a whole. If we care
[1:44:04] about Mal Malibu's future, which I think
[1:44:06] we all do, we should be strengthening
[1:44:08] our elected institutions, not allowing
[1:44:11] private organizations to operate as a
[1:44:13] second layer of authority without public
[1:44:15] accountability. Thank you so much. I
[1:44:18] also want to say, Mayor, thank you.
[1:44:19] You've been doing a really great job
[1:44:21] running this meeting since you've taken
[1:44:22] the gavl and I appreciate it.
[1:44:26] Okay, our next speaker,
[1:44:31] » CC Lee.
[1:44:33] >> CeCe, are you there?
[1:44:42] » Hey everybody.
[1:44:44] Hi everybody. Can you hear me?
[1:44:46] >> Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
[1:44:49] » Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
[1:44:49] >> Okay.
[1:44:51] » Okay.
[1:44:51] I want to I want to begin by
[1:44:53] acknowledging that the city of Malibu
[1:44:55] conducted a thor a thorough and
[1:44:56] professional evaluation of the two
[1:44:58] Norfolk Island pine trees at Cross Creek
[1:45:01] uh road. The city engaged in certified
[1:45:03] experts documenting its findings held
[1:45:05] public meeting. I do not dispute the
[1:45:07] significant time, effort, and resources
[1:45:09] were dedicated to assessing these trees.
[1:45:11] Nor do I deny the safety considerations
[1:45:13] were raised. However, my concern is not
[1:45:14] with the thoughtfulness of the process.
[1:45:16] It's the direction, balance, and timing.
[1:45:18] You crackies. At every stage, the city's
[1:45:21] effort appeared to have been focused on
[1:45:22] building a case for why the tree should
[1:45:25] be removed rather than devoting equal
[1:45:27] effort to exploring how the tree, the
[1:45:30] longestablished habitat that supported
[1:45:32] could be preserved. There was no
[1:45:34] meaningful discussion of treatment
[1:45:35] options, structural mitigation,
[1:45:38] selective pruning, or long-term
[1:45:39] management strategies that could have
[1:45:40] reduced the risk while keeping these
[1:45:42] trees standing. Instead, the trees
[1:45:44] themselves were broadly labeled as
[1:45:45] unsafe. First of all, if anyone see a
[1:45:47] Norfolk pine tree branch, they're really
[1:45:49] lightweight. They're like a feather. I
[1:45:51] have a house in Texas where I have golf
[1:45:52] balls swinging harder than the the
[1:45:54] branches would ever fall. First of all,
[1:45:56] they're not an oak tree. This is
[1:45:58] troubling because by logic, virtually
[1:46:00] every mature tree in Malibu could be
[1:46:02] deemed as liable. When are we liable for
[1:46:05] people's luck? It's more you're more
[1:46:08] likely to die of lightning striking than
[1:46:09] a tree branch falling you. And I, you
[1:46:10] know, I apologize. I have hearts for
[1:46:12] those people. But an oak tree is very
[1:46:13] much different than a norol pine which
[1:46:16] touches the gates of heaven. All trees
[1:46:18] have been all trees have dead branches.
[1:46:20] All trees require maintenance. The
[1:46:21] standard response in the urban forestry
[1:46:23] is not wholesale removal but risk
[1:46:25] management, pruning, monitoring and
[1:46:27] targeting mitigations in cases rather
[1:46:29] than removing specific hazards. The city
[1:46:31] treated the trees as a legal exposure to
[1:46:34] eliminate it altogether. Equally
[1:46:36] concerning is a lack of effort to
[1:46:38] preserve or transition the wildlife
[1:46:39] habitat that existed in these trees for
[1:46:41] nearly for years. No planning was
[1:46:44] presented to relocate or phase the
[1:46:46] existence nesting activity. No treatment
[1:46:48] stabilization or any of this proposed.
[1:46:51] What I'm saying is let's get this tree
[1:46:53] back. There's plenty off the 405 in the
[1:46:56] 101. It's a nor pine. It's the trees the
[1:46:58] birds like. If you've ever tent camped,
[1:47:01] you don't want the trees to move. We
[1:47:02] want these trees back there because it
[1:47:04] gives these kids a 20 second break from
[1:47:06] their cell phone. We've already taken
[1:47:08] all the joys and pleasures out of every
[1:47:10] other existence of their lives and
[1:47:12] forced them on technology that they
[1:47:14] can't even eat. But we're over here
[1:47:17] saying that it's okay to put a bay leaf
[1:47:19] back into a native society. None of that
[1:47:21] place is native. Okay? You're not going
[1:47:23] to win with this one. We would like the
[1:47:25] birds back in underneath the underneath
[1:47:27] the same North Folk pine trees. Let's
[1:47:29] add a waterfall because I have the exact
[1:47:31] same structure at my place with the
[1:47:33] waterfall. It would have cleaned the
[1:47:35] poo. And let's put the trees back for
[1:47:37] those amazing birds that are immigrants
[1:47:39] to our city. And we want those back. We
[1:47:42] do not want to become the land of the
[1:47:43] pigeons and rats and mosquitoes. And
[1:47:45] please ask everybody to turn off their
[1:47:47] lights. It's basic common knowledge and
[1:47:49] how a mosquito thing works. Please,
[1:47:52] please, let's enforce these dark sky
[1:47:54] ordinances.
[1:47:54] >> Thank you very much. And our final
[1:47:57] » Thank you very much. And our final
[1:47:57] online speaker,
[1:47:59] >> Joe Drummond.
[1:48:01] » Joe Drummond.
[1:48:01] >> Joe, are you there?
[1:48:05] » Hi. Can you hear me?
[1:48:06] >> Yes, we can.
[1:48:08] » Yes, we can.
[1:48:08] >> Mayor and council members and interim
[1:48:10] » Mayor and council members and interim
[1:48:10] city manager Dau. I'm speaking this
[1:48:12] morning from India following the painful
[1:48:14] anniversary of the Palisades fire, a
[1:48:17] fire that destroyed my home and the
[1:48:18] homes of 170 of my Big Rock neighbors
[1:48:21] along with nearly 600 members of our
[1:48:23] broader Malibu community. We hope this
[1:48:25] year brings healing and progress for us
[1:48:26] all. In our neighborhood, we also lost
[1:48:29] two lives, Hack Wong and Betty Omira.
[1:48:31] Their deaths are a solemn reminder that
[1:48:33] this is not just about buildings. It's
[1:48:35] about people, safety, and the cost of a
[1:48:37] failure. One year later, recovery has
[1:48:39] not kept pace with loss. I appreciate
[1:48:41] Yolanda's update on rebuilding. So far,
[1:48:43] only 22 rebuild permits have been
[1:48:45] issued. One of those is ours, and we are
[1:48:47] grateful, but we cannot start until the
[1:48:49] rain cease. Hundreds of families remain
[1:48:51] displaced, placing paying mortgages,
[1:48:53] taxes, insurance, and rent while living
[1:48:55] in limbo. 3.2 million for a seaw wall is
[1:48:58] also ridiculous. That is not recovery
[1:49:00] speed, and it must change. I'm glad item
[1:49:02] A is finally before you tonight and
[1:49:04] prioritize finally. Thank you. Because
[1:49:06] rebuilding must and can move faster. The
[1:49:08] city has both the legal authority and
[1:49:10] the legal obligation to ensure
[1:49:12] [clears throat] fire survivors can
[1:49:13] return to their homes in a timely
[1:49:14] manner. The governor's emergency orders
[1:49:16] make this clear. Wildfire rebuilding
[1:49:18] must be fast-tracked and streamlined,
[1:49:20] not slowed by unnecessary barriers. That
[1:49:23] obligation also extends to new property
[1:49:25] owners. New owners must be authorized
[1:49:27] agents in mapped hazard areas to access
[1:49:29] the same postfire rebuild pathway except
[1:49:32] for fee wavers. It is critical for fire
[1:49:34] victims in their 70s and 80s who cannot
[1:49:36] endure the rebuild process to be able to
[1:49:38] sell their lots. If new owners cannot
[1:49:40] use the same rebuild pathway, those
[1:49:42] families may be unable to sell at all,
[1:49:44] effectively creating a taking and a
[1:49:46] significant financial burden for the
[1:49:48] city. Concerns about corporate takeovers
[1:49:50] or short-term rentals should not be used
[1:49:52] to block recovery. The president has
[1:49:54] recently directed Congress to curb
[1:49:55] corporate acquisition of single family
[1:49:57] homes, which should dissuade these
[1:49:59] theaters. The state should have done
[1:50:00] this. Many of us watched the lay let it
[1:50:03] burn they let us burn rally in Pacific
[1:50:05] Palisades this week. The message was
[1:50:07] unmistakable. This is not just a fire.
[1:50:09] It was a systems failure. And unless we
[1:50:11] fix those systems, we will repeat it.
[1:50:13] That means updating water infrastructure
[1:50:15] so hyd hydrants don't run dry during
[1:50:18] firestorms. Undergrounding utilities and
[1:50:19] telecoms withce so hazardous poles and
[1:50:22] exposed wires are removed and
[1:50:24] neighborhoods aren't constantly torn up
[1:50:25] or roads blocked during rebuilding.
[1:50:27] Ensuring county fire keeps fire
[1:50:29] motorways clear. And requiring the MRCA
[1:50:31] to manage brush adjacent to communities
[1:50:33] instead of allowing it to fuel fires
[1:50:35] that destroy homes and native habitat.
[1:50:37] perhaps enlisting the homeless to use
[1:50:39] their machetes up there as as Halen
[1:50:41] suggested. That made me smile for the
[1:50:43] first time this year. Honestly, thank
[1:50:44] you. Please let tonight mark a real
[1:50:47] commitment to recovery speed, public
[1:50:48] safety, and getting families home in
[1:50:50] honor of those we lost and those are who
[1:50:52] are still waiting. Thank you so much.
[1:50:57] » And then that concludes our Zoom. And I
[1:51:02] do have one speaker slip that got
[1:51:05] paper clipped to something else. So,
[1:51:06] Norm, you can round us out.
[1:51:13] » Good evening, honorable city council
[1:51:16] members. Uh, I'll be short. Um,
[1:51:21] the issues associated with the reigns
[1:51:25] um
[1:51:27] have not gone away yet. Uh, have not
[1:51:30] passed. Um, I was happy to see the
[1:51:33] emergency extended because what happens
[1:51:37] when it rains from a geotechnical point
[1:51:39] of view is the water percolates down and
[1:51:44] sooner or later it hits a potential
[1:51:46] slide plane. When it hits that slide
[1:51:49] plane, then you've increased the driving
[1:51:53] force with the water and you have
[1:51:56] decreased the resistance to to the slide
[1:52:01] occurring.
[1:52:03] There are many large slides that occur
[1:52:06] three, four, five months after heavy
[1:52:09] rains.
[1:52:11] That's the first thing. The second thing
[1:52:13] is I've often seen confusion between
[1:52:17] building permits and construction
[1:52:20] permits. People consider it the same.
[1:52:23] But in fact, other people think when
[1:52:27] they get all the approvals from the
[1:52:29] planning department and from the geology
[1:52:32] department and from all the other
[1:52:33] departments, they think they've got
[1:52:34] building permits. But they don't because
[1:52:37] building permits are basically
[1:52:39] construction permits and all they have
[1:52:42] in their hands is an approval from all
[1:52:45] the various departments in the city.
[1:52:48] That's it. Thank you very much for
[1:52:50] listening.
[1:52:51] >> Thank you, Dorm. So that'll close public
[1:52:53] » Thank you, Dorm. So that'll close public
[1:52:53] comment. We're back up. We're going to
[1:52:55] do council member comments very early in
[1:52:57] the evening. Who wants to start?
[1:53:01] Don't all jump.
[1:53:03] I have more I guess questions and com.
[1:53:05] Yeah, please start. Okay, thank you. I
[1:53:07] will. All right. Well, um
[1:53:14] so many um
[1:53:17] so I was curious if the city has um
[1:53:20] well, thanks for the public. I'll start
[1:53:21] with the public's um I do wonder about
[1:53:24] an K's radios.
[1:53:27] Have we explored this model of radio?
[1:53:30] Those radios are everywhere. In fact, uh
[1:53:33] the CR team has a a radio that does
[1:53:36] basically the same thing.
[1:53:37] >> Okay.
[1:53:37] » Okay.
[1:53:37] >> That there's nothing unusual about those
[1:53:39] » That there's nothing unusual about those
[1:53:40] radios. And I looked at the license that
[1:53:43] it is designed for La Habra is where I
[1:53:46] think it was really meant to be.
[1:53:47] >> Yeah.
[1:53:47] » Yeah.
[1:53:47] >> And I assume that she has a license
[1:53:49] » And I assume that she has a license
[1:53:49] ownership of the license, but they're
[1:53:51] very common.
[1:53:52] >> Got it. I might get one. Just have one
[1:53:55] » Got it. I might get one. Just have one
[1:53:55] at my house.
[1:53:56] >> It's not that easy.
[1:53:58] » It's not that easy.
[1:53:58] >> It's not?
[1:53:59] » It's not?
[1:53:59] >> No. Oh, darn. Nothing is easy. Um,
[1:54:02] » No. Oh, darn. Nothing is easy. Um,
[1:54:02] Darren, did we So, did we move away from
[1:54:06] electronic plan review?
[1:54:08] I'm just curious because in his con in
[1:54:10] his comment, he asked to go back to
[1:54:12] electronic plan review, but I wasn't
[1:54:14] sure if we moved away from electronic
[1:54:17] plan review. Say it again.
[1:54:22] Sorry.
[1:54:31] Good evening city council. Uh we have
[1:54:33] not moved away from uh electronic
[1:54:36] review. Um most of it uh the submettos
[1:54:39] are through an electronic portal. Um I
[1:54:43] think the difficulties comes when we uh
[1:54:46] do not have an automated system and
[1:54:49] things are being done manually. I see.
[1:54:51] Uh we also have the ability to do plant
[1:54:54] check through a software that is called
[1:54:56] blue beam. Um so we are also working on
[1:55:00] uh utilizing that software to a greater
[1:55:03] um
[1:55:05] >> area so when a plan is submitted
[1:55:08] » area so when a plan is submitted
[1:55:08] everybody can see that set of plans and
[1:55:10] that's what we have. We we don't have
[1:55:12] that.
[1:55:12] >> I see. So, so Blue Beam, was that what
[1:55:15] » I see. So, so Blue Beam, was that what
[1:55:15] was in the U Baker Tilly report as far
[1:55:18] as the suggested technology that the
[1:55:20] city because I wonder if we're putting
[1:55:22] our energy into Blue Beam, which is
[1:55:24] inadequate or
[1:55:26] less than if we were to put that energy
[1:55:28] into a new type of system, that would be
[1:55:32] more
[1:55:32] >> Blue Beam is a uh plan check uh software
[1:55:36] » Blue Beam is a uh plan check uh software
[1:55:36] system uh that most of the jurisdictions
[1:55:38] are using. Um, additional to Blue Beam,
[1:55:42] there's a permitting automated software
[1:55:45] system that the city does not have.
[1:55:48] >> Oh, should we have that? Should we get
[1:55:50] » Oh, should we have that? Should we get
[1:55:50] that? I'd be interested in looking into
[1:55:53] whatever that is,
[1:55:55] >> council member. Yeah, we're looking into
[1:55:57] » council member. Yeah, we're looking into
[1:55:57] that. And one of the things about Blue
[1:55:58] Beam for most of these programs that do
[1:56:01] the permitting software is they work
[1:56:03] hand in hand with each other. So that's
[1:56:05] something that uh yeah we're looking
[1:56:07] into and kind of we'll provide
[1:56:10] >> what is that name of the program that
[1:56:12] » what is that name of the program that
[1:56:12] you're looking into.
[1:56:14] >> It's there's there's a number of
[1:56:16] » It's there's there's a number of
[1:56:16] programs uh and vendors that that have
[1:56:19] permitting software that have there and
[1:56:21] so we're um I think it was before all
[1:56:25] the fires and everything else too. we
[1:56:27] were kind of moving towards kind of
[1:56:29] implementing some type of permitting
[1:56:32] software and then we've had a
[1:56:34] >> so we're it's it's still something that
[1:56:36] » so we're it's it's still something that
[1:56:36] we're kind of looking to and I see
[1:56:38] Christopher can say some more yes
[1:56:42] >> Chris maybe you could give us enlighten
[1:56:44] » Chris maybe you could give us enlighten
[1:56:44] us um as our resident expert on
[1:56:47] >> yes
[1:56:48] » yes
[1:56:48] >> sure good good evening
[1:56:49] » sure good good evening
[1:56:49] >> adoption of new software
[1:56:51] » adoption of new software
[1:56:51] >> so uh um we I'm in the process as you
[1:56:55] » so uh um we I'm in the process as you
[1:56:55] know I've only been here about eight
[1:56:57] weeks now. So, I'm in the process of
[1:56:59] evaluating where our technology projects
[1:57:01] are at. Um, the city did undertake an
[1:57:03] RFP process, I believe, two to three
[1:57:06] about two years between two and three
[1:57:08] years ago that um identified Tyler
[1:57:11] Technologies as the preferred solution.
[1:57:14] >> Yeah,
[1:57:14] » Yeah,
[1:57:14] >> that proposal remains valid for another
[1:57:17] » that proposal remains valid for another
[1:57:17] few months from the the company. And so
[1:57:20] I have re um engaged a project team that
[1:57:23] includes our IT team um as well as
[1:57:27] Yolanda's team to begin evaluating um
[1:57:32] validating that Tyler is still the right
[1:57:33] fit for us to be able to move forward.
[1:57:35] And hopefully in the next uh before that
[1:57:38] that um proposal expires, if it if it's
[1:57:43] fits for us, we will initiate a project
[1:57:45] with them. So we will be coming to
[1:57:47] council with a contract proposal um
[1:57:50] provided that is the you know we still
[1:57:53] believe that is the best path forward
[1:57:54] for us.
[1:57:55] >> So that's going to that's the phase for
[1:57:57] » So that's going to that's the phase for
[1:57:57] the next few weeks.
[1:57:58] >> Great. Thank you. I look forward to that
[1:57:59] » Great. Thank you. I look forward to that
[1:57:59] update. Um and then I was yeah I so I
[1:58:06] helped with the Jeff praying the
[1:58:07] assessor. I think it would be important
[1:58:09] to Scott and Sala's point for us to like
[1:58:12] look into how we can help support the
[1:58:14] assessor's office with that tax. I don't
[1:58:17] know. Do we get council consensus to
[1:58:19] look into that for the next meeting?
[1:58:22] >> So, are you talking legislatively help
[1:58:24] » So, are you talking legislatively help
[1:58:24] him out or
[1:58:25] >> the lobby? Yeah, we lobby. We help
[1:58:27] » the lobby? Yeah, we lobby. We help
[1:58:27] strategically legislative
[1:58:31] put pressure on where we can. Well,
[1:58:34] let's go back to the Woolseie fire when
[1:58:37] um what we did there. We made sure that
[1:58:40] everyone's uh tax basis transferred to
[1:58:45] their new home. Um that took legislative
[1:58:48] action. I believe that's what uh the
[1:58:50] assessor is doing. It's not a problem to
[1:58:53] immediately reassess the property right
[1:58:55] now um for the the damage done in the
[1:59:00] fire. And that's one of the reasons why
[1:59:01] the city only had a 1% increase in
[1:59:04] property tax this year.
[1:59:06] >> He normally would have had a 2% increase
[1:59:07] » He normally would have had a 2% increase
[1:59:07] just if nobody had done anything.
[1:59:09] >> But the um as I understand it from and I
[1:59:12] » But the um as I understand it from and I
[1:59:12] had a conversation with him about this.
[1:59:14] If you look at a typical uh tax bill,
[1:59:17] it's got two components. It's got the
[1:59:18] land and the improvements. And if the
[1:59:20] house burned, they immediately took the
[1:59:22] improvements off and backdated that to
[1:59:23] the fire.
[1:59:24] >> So that's already been done. So only the
[1:59:27] » So that's already been done. So only the
[1:59:27] land value is still there. And if you
[1:59:29] look at Proposition 13 values, those are
[1:59:31] very reduced as well. The real question
[1:59:32] is about the going forward, how long
[1:59:35] does the uh uh Proposition 13 values
[1:59:38] stay with the new home or the
[1:59:40] replacement home. And that's uh got more
[1:59:43] to do with the 10% extra and so forth if
[1:59:46] we like. I think they'd be glad to come
[1:59:47] in from the county and give us a update
[1:59:49] on that. Yeah.
[1:59:50] >> But I think it's well underway for
[1:59:52] » But I think it's well underway for
[1:59:52] everybody. It's aladina palis eaten and
[1:59:55] it's very common process now for the
[1:59:57] fires unfortunately.
[1:59:59] >> Okay, thank you for that. Um Mel's
[2:00:02] » Okay, thank you for that. Um Mel's
[2:00:02] comments about Carl Canyon which I had
[2:00:05] questions on um an update. I think it
[2:00:08] would be great if we could get updates
[2:00:09] on I guess big projects that affect
[2:00:12] everybody like the Corral Canyon corner
[2:00:15] of PCH because it is a mess. I see that
[2:00:18] work there has been halted. I don't I
[2:00:20] would like to know why when they're
[2:00:22] going to restart it and what the
[2:00:23] timeline is if you have that information
[2:00:25] in Trim City Manager
[2:00:27] >> Dub
[2:00:30] when they're going to restart.
[2:00:32] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll get that
[2:00:34] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll get that
[2:00:34] information.
[2:00:34] >> Okay, cool.
[2:00:35] » Okay, cool.
[2:00:35] >> There was a stop work order on that uh
[2:00:38] » There was a stop work order on that uh
[2:00:38] that work uh due to some archeological
[2:00:42] findings.
[2:00:44] Yeah, I would like to know when the
[2:00:45] start work order is going to be in
[2:00:48] effect after it's been about three
[2:00:51] months, I think.
[2:00:52] >> Uh I think uh when we were there was a
[2:00:56] » Uh I think uh when we were there was a
[2:00:56] >> I've forgotten where I heard it, but it
[2:00:57] » I've forgotten where I heard it, but it
[2:00:57] was Lee Haber.
[2:00:58] >> Yeah.
[2:00:59] » Yeah.
[2:00:59] >> Said that uh should be starting very
[2:01:01] » Said that uh should be starting very
[2:01:01] soon on that again.
[2:01:02] >> And then is there like an overall
[2:01:04] » And then is there like an overall
[2:01:04] timeline like we have to live with this
[2:01:06] for the next two years, nine months?
[2:01:09] >> Two years ago it was supposed to be
[2:01:11] » Two years ago it was supposed to be
[2:01:11] finished or something.
[2:01:11] >> Two years.
[2:01:13] » Two years.
[2:01:13] >> Yeah. Once again, we'll provide kind of
[2:01:15] » Yeah. Once again, we'll provide kind of
[2:01:15] kind of an over overall update on all
[2:01:17] those
[2:01:18] >> Yeah.
[2:01:18] » Yeah.
[2:01:18] >> projects. Yeah.
[2:01:19] » projects. Yeah.
[2:01:19] >> Thank you. And the per are there such
[2:01:21] » Thank you. And the per are there such
[2:01:21] things as permanent channelizers or is
[2:01:23] that not something that we want because
[2:01:25] we want them to be removable like as far
[2:01:27] as a safety mechanism because it seems
[2:01:29] like these channelizers that we live
[2:01:30] with and the medians are constantly
[2:01:34] coming off and then they're in the road
[2:01:36] and it becomes this update uh
[2:01:38] maintenance issue. there any other
[2:01:40] solution to that
[2:01:41] >> for for those uh uh temporary
[2:01:44] » for for those uh uh temporary
[2:01:44] construction ones? There's that's what's
[2:01:46] kind of needed if or but there they do
[2:01:49] make different ones that would probably
[2:01:52] be more u can last a little longer.
[2:01:56] Those ones that are out there are
[2:01:57] typically you put them out there that
[2:01:59] they're not meant to be for an extended
[2:02:02] period of time what we're seeing now.
[2:02:03] So, I think they need to look at revisit
[2:02:06] that for any type of long-term solution
[2:02:08] for that type of channelizers.
[2:02:10] >> Okay. I like the idea of looking into
[2:02:12] » Okay. I like the idea of looking into
[2:02:12] somehow where the city can have um
[2:02:16] oversight.
[2:02:17] I think Merryill asked Bruce if um there
[2:02:21] was some legal
[2:02:23] something in which the city could take
[2:02:25] over if there's negligence or and we can
[2:02:28] kind of assert
[2:02:30] our power.
[2:02:33] >> You know, funny you should ask that
[2:02:34] » You know, funny you should ask that
[2:02:34] because you asked earlier about what
[2:02:36] benefit do we get from the declaration
[2:02:38] of local emergency highway.
[2:02:41] >> Bruce, I'm weaving. I've advocated for
[2:02:43] » Bruce, I'm weaving. I've advocated for
[2:02:43] the past year or more that we actually
[2:02:46] do have the ability under that
[2:02:47] declaration to take matters into our own
[2:02:50] hands, but we've been advised otherwise.
[2:02:54] >> Are we is there no nothing that we can
[2:02:57] » Are we is there no nothing that we can
[2:02:57] do as far as taking matters into our
[2:03:00] hands? Calrans has jurisdiction over PCH
[2:03:04] and
[2:03:05] we can work with them is the better
[2:03:08] practice to improve things on PCH. If we
[2:03:10] want to try to make changes on PCH, uh
[2:03:13] we would likely run into issues with
[2:03:15] them. There is power under our
[2:03:18] declaration to take some actions to
[2:03:20] address emergency situations, but um you
[2:03:24] will be taking on a lot of risk if
[2:03:25] you're trying to make improvements or do
[2:03:27] work on CALR directly. this risk.
[2:03:31] >> Just said this goes back to I think
[2:03:34] » Just said this goes back to I think
[2:03:34] before you were elected and you know we
[2:03:36] had debate up here multiple times about
[2:03:39] the fact that we could just take matters
[2:03:40] in broad hands and if it turns out we're
[2:03:43] wrong you know let let Calrans go to the
[2:03:46] courts and and deal with the public
[2:03:48] relations of trying to stop us from
[2:03:50] doing things that make our city safe but
[2:03:53] was never able to get a majority of city
[2:03:55] council to agree to take any action. Oh,
[2:03:58] interesting. It came down to that to the
[2:04:01] majority. So, um the Zoomer's crosswalk
[2:04:05] is dangerous as we know. Somebody got
[2:04:08] hit there a few weeks ago. Um but I
[2:04:10] don't know the solution. So, we see that
[2:04:13] there's these kind of dangerous
[2:04:16] situations in Malibu over and over and
[2:04:18] over again and this isn't going away.
[2:04:21] So, what is the solution? Do we have a
[2:04:23] solution to something that we know is I
[2:04:25] mean, when does it become negligent on
[2:04:26] our part? because we know that it's
[2:04:28] dangerous. So if like the city of Malibu
[2:04:31] is basically up here on tape saying that
[2:04:33] this is a dangerous situation, at what
[2:04:35] point are we taking on that risk just
[2:04:37] inadvertently?
[2:04:40] >> The so what I would suggest is if if
[2:04:44] » The so what I would suggest is if if
[2:04:44] anybody sees any dangerous situation on
[2:04:47] PCH a crosswalk, let let myself know or
[2:04:51] let public works uh staff know. Uh we
[2:04:57] have weekly meetings with Calrans on
[2:04:59] this and this and and uh that can be
[2:05:01] documented on what could be done in
[2:05:03] those situations. So it's a it's a it's
[2:05:06] Cal Transit and the city have have been
[2:05:08] real kind of meeting like I said weekly
[2:05:11] and it's been very good collaborative
[2:05:12] kind of work and so the more information
[2:05:15] we have and the more kind of insights we
[2:05:18] we hear from the public and and council
[2:05:20] we can kind of reate that information to
[2:05:22] them and once it's put on their
[2:05:24] attention it does put pressure on them
[2:05:25] to go resolve those situations
[2:05:28] for them
[2:05:29] >> and then it gives it gives us the
[2:05:30] » and then it gives it gives us the
[2:05:30] ability to kind of follow up and request
[2:05:34] more information and see if there's
[2:05:36] action taken from them.
[2:05:38] >> Well, I mean, are there other mechanisms
[2:05:41] » Well, I mean, are there other mechanisms
[2:05:41] or warning lights or signs or something
[2:05:43] we can put in crosswalks? Um, you know,
[2:05:47] what do other cities do when they've got
[2:05:49] highways [clears throat] going through
[2:05:50] their city and they're noticing, you
[2:05:53] know, I know like down in Palisades,
[2:05:56] they added the extra even we've added
[2:05:58] some places where we have more flashing
[2:06:00] lights and things like that. Are there
[2:06:02] other uh technologies that we can add to
[2:06:04] our intersections to make crosswalks
[2:06:07] more apparent to drivers?
[2:06:09] >> Remember the roundabouts. That's one of
[2:06:10] » Remember the roundabouts. That's one of
[2:06:10] the things Cal Transit's going to do to
[2:06:12] bunker walkways to the roundabouts.
[2:06:14] They're going to have we hit the button,
[2:06:15] the lights end up go across. So, it's
[2:06:18] there. It's there. It can be done. It's
[2:06:20] got to find somebody to do it.
[2:06:22] >> It it's just it's Yeah, there's there's
[2:06:24] » It it's just it's Yeah, there's there's
[2:06:24] a lot of different options in in the
[2:06:27] tool belt for those situations. And it's
[2:06:29] just uh looking at those and getting
[2:06:33] with Calransit to do something that can
[2:06:35] be done there. There's there's a number
[2:06:37] of things you can do. There's there's um
[2:06:39] just just like council member mentioned,
[2:06:42] there's flashing flashing lights and if
[2:06:44] people cross, there's flashing can can
[2:06:47] go across and there's there's
[2:06:49] >> there's a there's a several different
[2:06:51] » there's a there's a several different
[2:06:51] options they can they can do that.
[2:06:53] >> It's a signalized intersection anyway.
[2:06:55] » It's a signalized intersection anyway.
[2:06:55] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like being in Hawaii
[2:06:59] » Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like being in Hawaii
[2:06:59] and they have flags on each side of the
[2:07:02] street and the pedestrians pick up a
[2:07:04] flag and walk across the street with the
[2:07:06] flag. I mean, do we have to go that
[2:07:08] simple just to get attention? Is
[2:07:11] >> I saw some place on YouTube they put
[2:07:13] » I saw some place on YouTube they put
[2:07:13] bricks on the side of the road and it
[2:07:16] seemed to have an impact. So, I don't
[2:07:18] know.
[2:07:19] I would be very much interested in
[2:07:20] looking into some of those options.
[2:07:24] Lighting, flag, anything that kind of
[2:07:27] helps. This seems to be have gone on
[2:07:30] longer than I've been here. I mean,
[2:07:32] maybe it's time to look into different
[2:07:34] options for crosswalks, especially the
[2:07:37] one at Zumeres.
[2:07:39] Um, since there was two accidents there,
[2:07:40] I guess.
[2:07:42] >> Yeah. So, we'll bring it up with Calrans
[2:07:44] » Yeah. So, we'll bring it up with Calrans
[2:07:44] with that.
[2:07:45] >> Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Moving on. So
[2:07:48] » Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Moving on. So
[2:07:48] Brian Eric um Doyle problem sorry that
[2:07:51] sounds terrible congratulate him
[2:07:53] congratulations. Um so when he talks
[2:07:57] about septic and seaw walls and PCH
[2:07:59] shoring up right does is there an answer
[2:08:02] to that or is that like do we know if he
[2:08:05] has to pay for septic which he's doing?
[2:08:08] What I'm hearing is then he has to pay
[2:08:10] for a seaw wall which it sounds like now
[2:08:12] it's going into the Pacific Coast
[2:08:14] Highway shoring up. So, is there like a
[2:08:16] clear roadmap for beachfronts with
[2:08:20] regards to who's shoring up the highway
[2:08:23] or if they're because the last I heard
[2:08:25] it was kind of vague and I would love an
[2:08:27] update on if CALR says we'll shore up
[2:08:30] the highway and the residents don't have
[2:08:32] to.
[2:08:34] >> Yeah. Um uh at this time uh septic
[2:08:38] » Yeah. Um uh at this time uh septic
[2:08:38] systems and seaw walls are are the
[2:08:42] responsibility of the homeowner.
[2:08:44] Got it. Um the existing walls that are
[2:08:49] right next to PCH, uh CLR has been
[2:08:52] working with their engineers to assess
[2:08:54] each one of them.
[2:08:56] >> Um we have information that there is uh
[2:08:59] » Um we have information that there is uh
[2:08:59] about three three properties that they
[2:09:02] own that [clears throat] that that
[2:09:04] portion that wall. Um and they are going
[2:09:07] to be uh shoring uh and and specifically
[2:09:12] there's three properties
[2:09:14] >> um as far as
[2:09:17] » um as far as
[2:09:17] CR paying for the retaining wall that is
[2:09:21] on the um
[2:09:24] property owners property.
[2:09:26] >> Uh CR is stating is hasn't stayed that
[2:09:29] » Uh CR is stating is hasn't stayed that
[2:09:29] they're going to be paying for it.
[2:09:31] >> Got it. Thank you. Um,
[2:09:35] » Got it. Thank you. Um,
[2:09:35] okay.
[2:09:37] Oh, Michelle Shane, that sounds like a
[2:09:39] great idea. I Maryanne and I will be in
[2:09:42] Sacramento. We can work on that if we
[2:09:45] have direction, too. Um, I was wondering
[2:09:48] if the city of Malibu has a coastal
[2:09:51] commission meeting representative. So,
[2:09:53] is there somebody whose responsibility
[2:09:55] to keep their eye on the coastal
[2:09:57] commission agenda as far as things that
[2:10:00] come before them like the uh parking
[2:10:02] that's now coming to Leo Coreo from
[2:10:05] their last meeting?
[2:10:07] Yes, the community development
[2:10:09] department uh is in charge of keeping an
[2:10:11] eye on that. We also have recurrent
[2:10:14] meetings with the staff from the uh
[2:10:16] coastal commission. Um the last meeting
[2:10:19] we had, it was in December. We're
[2:10:21] setting up another meeting uh at the
[2:10:23] beginning of March to introduce our new
[2:10:25] city manager.
[2:10:26] >> Oh, fantastic. Did you guys hear about
[2:10:28] » Oh, fantastic. Did you guys hear about
[2:10:28] the Leo Creo parking? Because Leo Creo
[2:10:30] is in the city of Malibu. It's not. So,
[2:10:32] you wouldn't even have heard about it.
[2:10:35] >> Doesn't matter.
[2:10:35] » Doesn't matter.
[2:10:36] >> That's county.
[2:10:36] » That's county.
[2:10:36] >> County. Okay, perfect. I'm glad to hear
[2:10:39] » County. Okay, perfect. I'm glad to hear
[2:10:39] that you guys are on that. Um I wanted
[2:10:43] to thank you all for um the extra hour
[2:10:46] for the seniors in the multi-purpose
[2:10:48] room. They're very happy and I really am
[2:10:51] grateful and appreciative. They're like,
[2:10:53] "Wow, two hours. I don't know if we
[2:10:55] could stay here that long." I know it's
[2:10:57] three. Well, you could cut it down. It's
[2:10:59] an experiment. It's kind of like if
[2:11:01] nobody stays then, you know. And chair
[2:11:03] yoga was a su success next door
[2:11:05] simultaneously. I was wondering, are you
[2:11:08] guys um removing and replacing the
[2:11:10] carpets? Did I hear a rumor?
[2:11:15] Well, I think from some of the water
[2:11:16] damage, wasn't there a requirement to
[2:11:18] replace
[2:11:20] the water damaged?
[2:11:21] >> I'm sure it's under a certain amount, so
[2:11:23] » I'm sure it's under a certain amount, so
[2:11:23] we don't really need to know about it.
[2:11:25] >> Uh, yes. Uh, thank you, council member,
[2:11:28] » Uh, yes. Uh, thank you, council member,
[2:11:28] for the question. Um, there is what we
[2:11:31] did as a patch job is we had some extra
[2:11:34] carpet tile that we replaced. So, um,
[2:11:38] that's working out pretty well until the
[2:11:40] the whole project will come forward and
[2:11:43] we'll we will replace that carpet in in
[2:11:45] the multi-purpose room and senior
[2:11:47] center.
[2:11:48] >> And will they will everybody go back to
[2:11:49] » And will they will everybody go back to
[2:11:49] the bluffs for that period of time or it
[2:11:52] will be like an overnight thing and
[2:11:53] we'll never know what happened.
[2:11:54] >> We will try our best to do it on the
[2:11:57] » We will try our best to do it on the
[2:11:57] weekend so it doesn't disrupt
[2:11:59] programming.
[2:12:00] >> Great. Um, thank you. I was wondering,
[2:12:03] » Great. Um, thank you. I was wondering,
[2:12:03] it came up today about the green waddles
[2:12:05] that are everywhere. Are those just for
[2:12:08] So they're um I could be calling them
[2:12:11] not waddle. They might not be waddles,
[2:12:12] but they're neon green and they're on
[2:12:13] PCH and they're on hillsides and they're
[2:12:15] also in the medians. So I was wondering
[2:12:18] if that's for temporary purposes for the
[2:12:20] rain or are we planting something and
[2:12:23] those are
[2:12:24] more long term?
[2:12:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. Those are those are um
[2:12:28] » Yeah. Yeah. Those are those are um
[2:12:28] protective devices that CALR place
[2:12:31] within the median to prevent erosion.
[2:12:33] And if they did some cleanup work along
[2:12:36] the slope over there and and the curb
[2:12:38] and the shoulder area and so to prevent
[2:12:40] any more erosion, that's what they they
[2:12:42] place in there to to help that erosion.
[2:12:45] >> Got it.
[2:12:47] » Got it.
[2:12:47] >> What's the difference between the green
[2:12:48] » What's the difference between the green
[2:12:48] ones and the used to be brown ones?
[2:12:50] >> Yeah.
[2:12:51] » Yeah.
[2:12:51] >> The color.
[2:12:52] » The color.
[2:12:52] >> That's it.
[2:12:55] » That's it.
[2:12:55] >> No, I mean they're they're basically the
[2:12:57] » No, I mean they're they're basically the
[2:12:57] same kind of thing. It's just it's just
[2:12:58] a different color. H
[2:13:02] >> that's it. I mean, you go on.
[2:13:05] » that's it. I mean, you go on.
[2:13:05] >> Well, I was just gonna ask about plastic
[2:13:07] » Well, I was just gonna ask about plastic
[2:13:07] sandbags. Go
[2:13:08] >> because I know there was an issue with
[2:13:10] » because I know there was an issue with
[2:13:10] um I believe there was
[2:13:12] >> for the emergency rains and everything
[2:13:15] » for the emergency rains and everything
[2:13:15] um questions about some plastic sandbags
[2:13:18] that were at a giveaway spot. I'm
[2:13:20] assuming it was the county since it was
[2:13:22] on their land that the giveaway was. So,
[2:13:24] are we just making sure that all partner
[2:13:27] agencies know that plastic sandbags are
[2:13:30] not allowed and even in emergency
[2:13:33] situations, we should do our best to
[2:13:36] have burlap or other available?
[2:13:39] >> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That was
[2:13:41] » Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That was
[2:13:41] something that just kind of came up and
[2:13:43] we got with our county and they we're
[2:13:46] going to correct that.
[2:13:47] >> Yeah. When I heard about I called the
[2:13:48] » Yeah. When I heard about I called the
[2:13:48] county that same day and they recognized
[2:13:51] that they were not supposed to give us
[2:13:52] plastic bags. So hopefully we won't see
[2:13:54] those again.
[2:13:55] >> Yeah.
[2:13:57] » Yeah.
[2:13:58] >> Um do we have an actual timeline for the
[2:13:59] » Um do we have an actual timeline for the
[2:13:59] skate park?
[2:14:04] » Not yet. We're we're still kind of
[2:14:06] looking at all of the lock all the the
[2:14:10] uh the ponding and the mud and debris in
[2:14:13] there to kind of see when when they can
[2:14:14] really get back in there and and finish
[2:14:17] up all that area.
[2:14:19] Can I offer to rent some drying
[2:14:21] equipment and some other things to so we
[2:14:23] can get that board as quickly as
[2:14:25] possible?
[2:14:27] >> Stand out there with a band.
[2:14:29] » Stand out there with a band.
[2:14:29] >> Hair blowers.
[2:14:30] » Hair blowers.
[2:14:30] >> I I mean, the good thing is um with with
[2:14:33] » I I mean, the good thing is um with with
[2:14:33] this wind and and the weather this week,
[2:14:35] too, it's supposed to be warmer, so it's
[2:14:36] going to it's going to help that process
[2:14:38] quicker. So, we'll see how this goes and
[2:14:41] get the contractor to start going quick.
[2:14:44] >> Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Kristen. I have
[2:14:46] » Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Kristen. I have
[2:14:46] another question for you. Um, there's
[2:14:48] two or three burnt trees on the Bluffs
[2:14:50] Park. They've been there on and off. I
[2:14:52] mean, they've just kind of creepy
[2:14:53] looking. You know which ones I'm talking
[2:14:55] about?
[2:14:56] >> I believe so. Yes.
[2:14:57] » I believe so. Yes.
[2:14:58] >> Are they our property or MRCA?
[2:14:59] » Are they our property or MRCA?
[2:14:59] >> They are MRCA property.
[2:15:01] » They are MRCA property.
[2:15:01] >> So, I believe that we're able to brush
[2:15:04] » So, I believe that we're able to brush
[2:15:04] clear that because it's 200 feet from a
[2:15:07] structure. We're I think that we are
[2:15:10] allowed to take those out with
[2:15:13] permission maybe. But we should probably
[2:15:15] think about doing that. We can work with
[2:15:17] MRCA to figure out a solution. Um, are
[2:15:21] you referring to the trees on PCH?
[2:15:23] >> They're like on PCH right off I don't
[2:15:26] » They're like on PCH right off I don't
[2:15:26] know behind the community building.
[2:15:28] They're like creepy looking. Um, burnt
[2:15:31] just a reminder of the three fires that
[2:15:33] we had. Um, it's like right behind the
[2:15:36] community centers, so I believe we're
[2:15:38] within the footage of a structure.
[2:15:41] >> Okay.
[2:15:41] » Okay.
[2:15:41] >> Um, that would be super. And I wanted to
[2:15:44] » Um, that would be super. And I wanted to
[2:15:44] thank the the beach cleanup crew for the
[2:15:47] community community brigade who cleaned
[2:15:49] the beach yesterday and um I would like
[2:15:51] to join that in the future and bring my
[2:15:54] kids. It was very sad to see how much
[2:15:56] debris is still out there. The mangled
[2:15:59] rusty metal bed frames. Um it's very
[2:16:02] sad. And that is all my questions really
[2:16:06] and comments.
[2:16:09] Next
[2:16:11] >> gentlemen.
[2:16:13] » gentlemen.
[2:16:13] >> All too.
[2:16:15] » All too.
[2:16:15] >> I'll do it. Um, [clears throat] first
[2:16:17] » I'll do it. Um, [clears throat] first
[2:16:17] off, I want to thank Candace Bond for
[2:16:19] her service. Um, you know, she's not
[2:16:22] here tonight to say thank you in person.
[2:16:23] Hopefully, she's watching it or she'll
[2:16:25] get it uh indirectly, but uh she was a
[2:16:28] real gift from the from the community
[2:16:31] for the community and we'll always be
[2:16:33] grateful to her for that. And um you
[2:16:36] know, Rob, thank you for filling in
[2:16:38] until we get the next city manager uh on
[2:16:41] board and looking forward to having him
[2:16:43] March 2nd. Um in terms of things that it
[2:16:46] did, uh we've had a very eventful week
[2:16:48] this last week. We had the remembrance
[2:16:51] program on Wednesday, uh here at city
[2:16:53] hall, and city staff, I think, did an
[2:16:55] excellent job with that. It was tough to
[2:16:57] remember, um where we all were. It was
[2:17:00] difficult to remember where we were the
[2:17:02] same time a year ago. And uh it was deja
[2:17:06] vu for some of us as we walked into the
[2:17:07] multi-purpose room for um snacks and
[2:17:10] treats and realized that was where the
[2:17:12] EOC was and it was it was uh going full
[2:17:15] steam at the same time uh a year ago. Um
[2:17:20] I'll make a comment I made before. We
[2:17:23] can rebuild, but we can never forget our
[2:17:25] race of damage done to so many lives.
[2:17:27] And um unfortunately Malibu's had a
[2:17:30] string of uh bad luck on fires. If you
[2:17:33] go back to the Woosey fire, basically
[2:17:35] the entire city has been subject to some
[2:17:38] kind of a flame issue in the last seven
[2:17:41] or eight years. And um we got to do what
[2:17:44] we can to keep the fires out of Malibu.
[2:17:46] And when they are here, and I go back to
[2:17:48] Chief Moron's comment, your house has to
[2:17:50] be able to defend itself. And there's no
[2:17:53] way to have a fire truck in front of
[2:17:55] every house or one on every street. So,
[2:17:57] we got to do what we can to make sure
[2:17:58] that they're safe. Uh, I already
[2:18:00] mentioned about the two deputies uh that
[2:18:02] were heroes. Um, couple quick things.
[2:18:06] Speed cameras. Rob, do we have a update
[2:18:08] on when we're going to get those uh RFPs
[2:18:10] out?
[2:18:13] >> So, yeah, we So, thanks for thanks for
[2:18:16] » So, yeah, we So, thanks for thanks for
[2:18:16] reminding me. Yeah, we uh this last week
[2:18:19] that we did do interviews with I believe
[2:18:23] it was four or five different vendors
[2:18:26] and um uh staff is kind of compiling all
[2:18:29] that that information and um we are uh
[2:18:34] going to be making a selection here and
[2:18:35] and bringing out to city council soon on
[2:18:37] a vendor. So that should be coming here
[2:18:40] I I want to say within February or so.
[2:18:44] >> Okay. And what's the timeline to put
[2:18:46] » Okay. And what's the timeline to put
[2:18:46] them in once we select that?
[2:18:47] >> So once that's done too, right now we're
[2:18:49] » So once that's done too, right now we're
[2:18:49] we we are looking to trying to get um
[2:18:53] the the big critical item is actual
[2:18:57] polls for the for the cameras and for
[2:19:00] the speed feedback signs and and we're
[2:19:02] trying to get a date on when those going
[2:19:05] to come in. We're we're hoping this this
[2:19:07] spring. Um and and we're checking with
[2:19:09] Calrans to see if they have any within
[2:19:12] their stock so they can just trade us
[2:19:15] and and get them even sooner. So I'm so
[2:19:17] I'm pushing that this next couple of
[2:19:18] weeks and trying to get an answer on the
[2:19:21] poll situation because that's that's the
[2:19:23] really the the critical path.
[2:19:25] >> Okay. I know uh in a report from CHP
[2:19:28] » Okay. I know uh in a report from CHP
[2:19:28] that we get, they pull maybe one over
[2:19:32] 100 mph speeder every two or three
[2:19:34] months, but when we get the speed
[2:19:36] cameras in, we'll know who's speeding
[2:19:37] and where. We'll know who's been naughty
[2:19:39] or nice, so to speak, and uh that'll
[2:19:42] that'll help us uh I think tell the
[2:19:44] story on the fast system as well. I'm
[2:19:46] looking at Michelle and u I think that
[2:19:49] that data will be beneficial. So looking
[2:19:51] forward to getting those cameras in to
[2:19:53] see what we can do. uh on the radio. I
[2:19:55] didn't mean to be dismissive of u uh
[2:19:58] ENK, but
[2:20:00] radios are peripherally peripheral and
[2:20:05] prolific all over uh Southern
[2:20:07] California. In fact, that's one of the
[2:20:08] issues. The frequencies are jam-packed.
[2:20:11] There aren't any spare frequencies. And
[2:20:14] uh the one that she's talking about is
[2:20:16] dedicated to the La Ham La Habra um I
[2:20:20] think arson watch equivalent. And uh the
[2:20:24] fact that she's got one of the radios,
[2:20:25] that's great. I know she used to be in
[2:20:28] Ahabra, but um we've got plenty of
[2:20:31] radios here. The issue is not uh radios.
[2:20:34] It's about the ability to have strong
[2:20:35] signals on the tower for the sheriff's
[2:20:38] department. Um the search team has got
[2:20:40] its own radio system. Uh the Rick's
[2:20:42] radio system is what the county uses for
[2:20:45] the entire county with interchange with
[2:20:47] other uh like the fire department and
[2:20:49] the sheriff's department. Um the state
[2:20:53] parks and so forth. Everybody's got an
[2:20:54] interconnected system. You just need to
[2:20:56] have the strong towers where they can
[2:20:58] all work. So it's it's not a case of uh
[2:21:02] trying to find another radio system. And
[2:21:05] um if you're a ham radio operator, you
[2:21:07] can use those radios all you want to,
[2:21:09] but you got to get a license. in
[2:21:11] technician classes. Take you one day to
[2:21:13] get it. And by the way, most of the
[2:21:15] search team has ham radio licenses in
[2:21:18] addition to the uh city radio. Okay,
[2:21:20] that's all I got.
[2:21:23] >> Steve.
[2:21:24] » Steve.
[2:21:24] >> Yeah. Okay. First, let me wish everybody
[2:21:26] » Yeah. Okay. First, let me wish everybody
[2:21:26] happy new year. Uh I guess I didn't see
[2:21:29] anybody getting arrested, so I guess
[2:21:30] everybody was fairly calm during that
[2:21:33] time frame. Uh, I want to thank public
[2:21:36] works and I know it was Robert Tatiana
[2:21:39] who led the charge to keep the roads
[2:21:40] open and deal with all the rain. That
[2:21:42] was a heck of a job and we do appreciate
[2:21:44] it. I mean, made life a heck of a lot
[2:21:46] better. Um,
[2:21:49] there have been a number of articles
[2:21:51] regarding people doing soil testing. Uh,
[2:21:54] and in some cases they found out that
[2:21:55] there were some debris in the soil that
[2:21:57] they
[2:21:59] didn't want to have there. Uh, and I
[2:22:01] just I got two notes over the course of
[2:22:03] the last couple weeks. There are two
[2:22:04] programs that are free. If anybody wants
[2:22:06] to do soil testing, you can get that
[2:22:08] done for free either through USC.
[2:22:11] They've got a program called clean uh
[2:22:14] just Google that and they give you
[2:22:16] details on that one. And then LA public
[2:22:18] work, LA public health also has a soil
[2:22:21] testing program uh that's free. I mean,
[2:22:24] so you put your soil in a little plastic
[2:22:26] bag and you send it to them and I think
[2:22:28] it's like seven days they'll get back to
[2:22:29] you and tell you what's there. So, if
[2:22:30] you're interested, there's some places
[2:22:32] you can go to get that done.
[2:22:34] Uh,
[2:22:38] I want to just note I I attended this
[2:22:39] this uh
[2:22:42] palisades remembers event we had here in
[2:22:44] city hall. Uh, and I'll tell you one of
[2:22:47] the at least from my perspective. Uh, I
[2:22:49] mean, I talked to a number of the
[2:22:50] residents who were here and it was I was
[2:22:53] just glad to see that their spirits were
[2:22:57] still up. I mean, you know, they're
[2:22:58] still planning to rebuild. They're
[2:23:00] they're keeping their spirits about
[2:23:01] them. They're working hard at it. So, at
[2:23:03] least I mean, I went home that night and
[2:23:05] felt better than I I felt reading all
[2:23:07] these articles about stuff that wasn't
[2:23:09] happening. So, uh, it was just good to
[2:23:11] hear. And then finally,
[2:23:16] I was going to comment on our two
[2:23:17] anonymous callers that we get every, you
[2:23:20] know, this has been going on for a year
[2:23:21] and a half now. Uh, ever since we voted
[2:23:23] down the, uh,
[2:23:26] motel, they were trying to, you know,
[2:23:28] that brothers and, uh, Doug Bur are
[2:23:31] trying to build over on PCH. Uh, and I
[2:23:34] don't I don't apologize for voting
[2:23:35] against that hotel. That was a bad idea.
[2:23:38] Uh, and I'm not going to, you know,
[2:23:42] just for your information,
[2:23:45] the city has been in contact with my
[2:23:47] property
[2:23:49] and I don't have a problem. So, and I'm
[2:23:52] not, you know, I'm not going to go
[2:23:53] through the details. It's none of their
[2:23:54] business, but we we have done that. Uh,
[2:23:58] with that, back to you, mayor
[2:24:01] >> Chris.
[2:24:03] » Chris.
[2:24:03] >> Okay. So, you know, the sergeant said
[2:24:05] » Okay. So, you know, the sergeant said
[2:24:05] earlier [clears throat]
[2:24:06] with hope 2026 be better than 2025.
[2:24:09] If that's not the case, we're all in
[2:24:10] trouble. So, here's for a good year. Um,
[2:24:14] so have a couple couple minor comments
[2:24:16] and I'll get to um the more significant
[2:24:18] one. Um, there have been a lot of
[2:24:19] questions, Rob, about these various
[2:24:21] items Mel raised. Um, Zuma underpass. It
[2:24:24] seems like it was open and fixed for a
[2:24:27] while and now it's not again. What
[2:24:29] What's the prognosis? What's going to go
[2:24:31] on there? I I I think it's an issue
[2:24:33] about the sand removal and and I think
[2:24:35] the the county and beaches and beaches
[2:24:38] and harbor and Calrans are kind of
[2:24:39] working through through all those kind
[2:24:41] of issues about removing.
[2:24:42] >> Is it going to be another year again
[2:24:43] » Is it going to be another year again
[2:24:43] before it gets done? And
[2:24:45] >> no, I think it it's something that we're
[2:24:46] » no, I think it it's something that we're
[2:24:46] going to be pushing I'm going to be
[2:24:47] pushing hard on them to try to try to
[2:24:49] get that resolved. I think the issue
[2:24:51] previously was that it they removed it
[2:24:54] once a and they needed a a continuing
[2:24:58] permit to actually do it from previous
[2:25:00] years because it it's it's going to
[2:25:01] happen over and over again and they got
[2:25:03] to make sure that's kind of they have
[2:25:05] the correct permit to to do that
[2:25:07] correctly over the years.
[2:25:08] >> All right. Thanks. Um you know and um
[2:25:11] » All right. Thanks. Um you know and um
[2:25:12] there's been some comments about an K's
[2:25:14] comment about the radios. I it's one
[2:25:16] thing I was to say cuz I I I think it
[2:25:18] was unfair the statement that the Habra
[2:25:21] Heights has not burned and I think she
[2:25:23] said apparently they care. Uh I looked
[2:25:26] at their very their fire hazard severity
[2:25:29] map after she made that statement and
[2:25:31] with the exception of a few blocks of a
[2:25:33] multi- you know many many mile area um
[2:25:37] that that that town does is not only not
[2:25:40] a well first of all we're we're entirely
[2:25:42] a very high fire hazard severity zone.
[2:25:44] every inch of Malibu. Um, not one inch
[2:25:47] of that area is a very high fire hazard
[2:25:49] severity zone. With the exception of
[2:25:51] those few blocks, none of that area is a
[2:25:54] high fire hazard severity zone, a
[2:25:58] moderate fire severity zone. No, no
[2:26:02] severity zone of any sort. It's it's
[2:26:03] just a clean slate. You know, it's like
[2:26:06] areas of the valley here where they're
[2:26:08] just concrete jungles. I'm not saying
[2:26:10] that's a concrete jungle, but it's it's
[2:26:11] not a higher it's not a fire zone. So,
[2:26:14] it was just very unfair for someone to
[2:26:16] suggest that um some other jurisdiction
[2:26:18] cares and that the proof of that is that
[2:26:20] they have radios and that's why they
[2:26:21] don't burn. That's that's nonsense. Um
[2:26:25] so for the past couple months there's
[2:26:28] been this issue of this was alluded to
[2:26:30] earlier by Halen the whether the U
[2:26:32] rebuild rights travel with the land and
[2:26:35] we all know that with respect to
[2:26:37] planning they do that under our
[2:26:39] municipal code and and and even under
[2:26:41] the um coastal act when it applies when
[2:26:44] you have a um catastrophe and you're
[2:26:46] rebuilding it doesn't matter whether
[2:26:48] it's the person who owned the property
[2:26:49] at the time um it could it can be a
[2:26:52] buyer um what has come to our attention
[2:26:55] is that um the building code does
[2:26:58] provide that in a lands an active
[2:27:00] landslide area um unless it's the um
[2:27:04] owner at the time of the casualty or
[2:27:06] their quote was it authorized
[2:27:08] representative whatever that means um
[2:27:12] there is not the ability to rebuild
[2:27:14] other than to go through some very
[2:27:16] difficult process maybe even not at all.
[2:27:18] So, um Trevor or um Yolanda or anyone
[2:27:22] else that has knowledge about this um
[2:27:25] what is the answer? And if and if the
[2:27:27] answer is we just don't have an answer
[2:27:28] yet, that's fine. But I we need to get
[2:27:30] this clarified
[2:27:33] >> clarification. Is that just for
[2:27:35] » clarification. Is that just for
[2:27:35] landslides or is it okay just for
[2:27:37] >> landslides? Is it having to do with like
[2:27:39] » landslides? Is it having to do with like
[2:27:39] for like fire rebuilds?
[2:27:40] >> It it applies to any rebuild for even
[2:27:43] » It it applies to any rebuild for even
[2:27:43] for catastrophe in a land active
[2:27:46] landslide area. So, it overrides all the
[2:27:49] stuff in our municipal code and the
[2:27:51] coastal act and it it cuts off a buyer
[2:27:55] of property from taking advantage of the
[2:27:57] rebuild ability.
[2:27:58] >> So, it's not the active
[2:27:59] » So, it's not the active
[2:28:00] >> it's not a landslide on that particular
[2:28:01] » it's not a landslide on that particular
[2:28:01] property, it's a landslide area.
[2:28:04] >> Okay. Maybe Yolanda can shed some light
[2:28:06] » Okay. Maybe Yolanda can shed some light
[2:28:06] on that. [snorts]
[2:28:09] >> Yes. Good evening. Uh this comes as a
[2:28:11] » Yes. Good evening. Uh this comes as a
[2:28:11] section of the uh county building code
[2:28:14] uh 110
[2:28:16] 4.2.6. six. Um, and it states that um
[2:28:22] properties that are lost on the uh an in
[2:28:25] an active landslide are able to rebuild
[2:28:28] [applause]
[2:28:28] with uh several conditions. Uh the first
[2:28:32] condition is that it needs to be a like
[2:28:35] for like same area, no additional
[2:28:37] fixtures, no additional bedrooms. And
[2:28:40] then uh another statement states and I
[2:28:43] don't have that quote in front of me um
[2:28:46] that the permits the building permits
[2:28:48] can be issued to the property owner
[2:28:52] their heirs or a authorized agent.
[2:28:56] >> Yeah. Okay.
[2:28:57] » Yeah. Okay.
[2:28:58] >> And so that is how it's written. Um, and
[2:29:05] » And so that is how it's written. Um, and
[2:29:05] after the fires, we went back to the
[2:29:07] county trying to get an understanding of
[2:29:10] where this came from. Um, when this was
[2:29:15] added to the county code, uh, it was
[2:29:18] added, uh, I understand on the n in the
[2:29:21] '90s after, um, an incident that
[2:29:25] happened.
[2:29:27] Besides that, I haven't been able to get
[2:29:30] a lot of information on why it was
[2:29:32] written this way.
[2:29:34] So, the question from the community is
[2:29:38] since it's written that only the
[2:29:40] homeowner uh their heirs or the
[2:29:43] authorized agent uh can we can issue the
[2:29:46] building permits, can they sell the
[2:29:48] land? And so that is the question.
[2:29:53] um talking it over with uh Trevor,
[2:29:57] we started looking at
[2:30:00] first it was a concentration on helping
[2:30:02] rebuild everybody that had lost the
[2:30:05] property there. And so we concentrated
[2:30:07] on those homeowners that wanted to do
[2:30:10] like for like. Now the question comes uh
[2:30:13] what if how can I sell my property if
[2:30:16] I'm not able to rebuild? Um we're trying
[2:30:20] to find a definition on what an
[2:30:22] authorized agent um can signify for this
[2:30:27] property owners. But moreover, we are
[2:30:30] also seeking
[2:30:32] um the assistant of the county since
[2:30:34] this is a section of the county code
[2:30:37] trying to have an understanding of why
[2:30:39] that was written and also if there is a
[2:30:41] way to change it and allow the property
[2:30:45] owners to sell the property. Um, so
[2:30:48] that's where we are right now.
[2:30:50] >> Thank you for that, Yolanda. That and
[2:30:52] » Thank you for that, Yolanda. That and
[2:30:52] that's consistent with my understanding.
[2:30:53] Um, so
[2:30:56] I I had thought I had heard that we were
[2:30:58] a little further in into it than that,
[2:31:00] but that's that's actually makes sense
[2:31:01] to me. So, what I'd like to do is I'd
[2:31:03] like to ask for a consensus to bring
[2:31:05] back an item for the council to take
[2:31:07] some affirmative action that would give
[2:31:10] you greater ammunition in dealing with
[2:31:12] the county, whoever, because I came to
[2:31:15] the conclusion myself after studying the
[2:31:17] problem that um it does require some
[2:31:19] kind of a legislative fix. I don't know
[2:31:21] whether the governor can fix it through
[2:31:22] an executive order. I doubt it actually.
[2:31:25] I think it does require some kind of a
[2:31:26] legislative fix. I'll be surprised if a
[2:31:29] proper interpretation of the way it's
[2:31:31] written now would permit a subsequent
[2:31:33] owner to um take advantage of the
[2:31:36] provision. So I I think it needs to be
[2:31:38] addressed. I think I understand the
[2:31:41] concept was I mean if you think about it
[2:31:44] in an active landslide people probably
[2:31:46] shouldn't build full stop. um even if
[2:31:50] the house has been um destroyed, nobody
[2:31:53] though had in mind that there'd be a
[2:31:55] catastrophe of this nature where entire
[2:31:57] neighborhoods were wiped out. And um it
[2:32:01] may be that an extraordinary situation
[2:32:02] of like this requires an extraordinary
[2:32:04] exception to the statute that they have
[2:32:06] in place. So, um, I'd like to bring this
[2:32:09] back as an item where we can maybe
[2:32:11] fashion a letter of support or or do
[2:32:13] something or maybe authorize us to
[2:32:15] affirmatively work for our lobbyists,
[2:32:17] but we need to do something not to
[2:32:20] define a an authorized agent as as
[2:32:22] someone who buys it because I think
[2:32:23] that's a silly way to address it. It's
[2:32:26] kind of like the only way you can do it
[2:32:27] under the existing statute, but actually
[2:32:28] get the county to agree to engraft an
[2:32:31] exception for the Palisades fire and
[2:32:34] possibly for other wildfires. Um, so can
[2:32:37] we get a
[2:32:38] >> Mayor the staff would support that we
[2:32:40] » Mayor the staff would support that we
[2:32:40] would to bring back an item to discuss
[2:32:42] it. You know, I think we could bring
[2:32:43] more information and options here for
[2:32:45] the council.
[2:32:46] >> Yeah, and I I fully support this. Um,
[2:32:48] » Yeah, and I I fully support this. Um,
[2:32:48] and you know, I've reached out to the
[2:32:51] county supervisor already to initiate
[2:32:53] conversations about this because I do
[2:32:56] think it's something at the county level
[2:32:57] that we need to work, you know, one
[2:33:00] looking back through all the um the
[2:33:03] original reason why they put it into
[2:33:05] their code and then also they've amended
[2:33:08] it several times. So, what is the intent
[2:33:10] of what it is it's supposed to be? So, I
[2:33:13] fully support that. I'm actively, you
[2:33:15] know, reaching out to the um
[2:33:16] supervisor's office to also have those
[2:33:18] conversations because I think it is
[2:33:20] something that it's time that we get a
[2:33:22] better definition and why it's there and
[2:33:24] and to um put the places in so that
[2:33:28] properties can be subsequently sold um
[2:33:32] regardless of whether the house is
[2:33:34] rebuilt or not.
[2:33:35] >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. And just to uh
[2:33:37] » Yes. Thank you, mayor. And just to uh
[2:33:37] give credit to the mayor, uh she put us
[2:33:39] in contact with Dylan Sin. uh he is the
[2:33:43] regional planning deputy uh with Lindsey
[2:33:46] Horvat. Uh he is trying to set up a
[2:33:48] meeting with the building official from
[2:33:50] the county so we can have this
[2:33:52] conversation um and see how we can
[2:33:54] handle this for our property owners.
[2:33:58] >> If I could ask a quick question, I
[2:34:00] » If I could ask a quick question, I
[2:34:00] understand the point that's been posed
[2:34:04] so far about uh in an active landslide,
[2:34:06] but what constitutes an active
[2:34:08] landslide? What what is this saying that
[2:34:11] everything in Malibu is in this or is it
[2:34:14] just big rock or what? It's big rock.
[2:34:16] >> No. And so we're not talking about all
[2:34:19] » No. And so we're not talking about all
[2:34:19] those 597 properties. They don't fall
[2:34:22] under this. They only uh the only
[2:34:24] properties are possibly the ones that
[2:34:27] are on big rock and not all of them. Uh
[2:34:30] what constitute an active landslide. the
[2:34:33] state of California they have the
[2:34:35] mapping um assigned and and and and
[2:34:39] designated what is an active landslide
[2:34:41] and this is where this information come
[2:34:44] from. So uh we're talking about big rock
[2:34:48] 170 uh 70 some properties we lost on
[2:34:51] that area
[2:34:53] not everybody is selling the property.
[2:34:55] Uh so it's for those that are would like
[2:34:57] to sell the property giving them an uh
[2:35:00] the ability to sell the property.
[2:35:02] >> I would think in the palisades there are
[2:35:04] » I would think in the palisades there are
[2:35:04] some areas that are in that active
[2:35:06] lands. I know the map now that you
[2:35:07] mentioned which one it is. I've seen
[2:35:08] that map. Um but I would think it also
[2:35:11] affects palisades.
[2:35:13] >> Yes, that is correct.
[2:35:14] » Yes, that is correct.
[2:35:14] >> Yes. There's several areas I I I mean I
[2:35:17] » Yes. There's several areas I I I mean I
[2:35:17] can I can provide next time that we come
[2:35:20] to that to council with what um with our
[2:35:23] conversations with the county uh we can
[2:35:26] provide a list of what areas within our
[2:35:30] burn area are the ones affected uh by
[2:35:33] this section of the code.
[2:35:34] >> Yeah. This the simple solution actually
[2:35:36] » Yeah. This the simple solution actually
[2:35:36] it may be too broad for the county but
[2:35:38] the simple solution would just be say
[2:35:39] heirs successors and assigns and and
[2:35:42] that would fix it completely. Harris is
[2:35:46] >> I'm definitely in favor of bringing it
[2:35:47] » I'm definitely in favor of bringing it
[2:35:47] back.
[2:35:48] >> The other issue is, as I understand it
[2:35:50] » The other issue is, as I understand it
[2:35:50] though, even that that provision also
[2:35:52] unlike the like for like plus 10%,
[2:35:55] there's no plus 10%. Is that accurate?
[2:35:59] >> At the beginning of the rebuild back in
[2:36:02] » At the beginning of the rebuild back in
[2:36:02] uh February of this year, that was the
[2:36:04] first question from uh a lot of our uh
[2:36:07] property owners on that on the uh
[2:36:09] landslide areas. Um
[2:36:12] the building code as you know chapter
[2:36:14] one stays as is that is as the
[2:36:17] interpretation of the building official.
[2:36:19] Back in February um I was able to write
[2:36:22] a interpretation for that like for like
[2:36:25] to be consistent with our planning um or
[2:36:29] zoning ordinance. So we did authorize
[2:36:32] that no more area also constitute that
[2:36:35] like for life plus 10 to be
[2:36:38] >> aligned. No more means no more than
[2:36:40] » aligned. No more means no more than
[2:36:40] 110%.
[2:36:41] >> Yes. Yes.
[2:36:42] » Yes. Yes.
[2:36:42] >> Good for you. Thank you.
[2:36:44] » Good for you. Thank you.
[2:36:44] >> All right. Those are my comments.
[2:36:47] » All right. Those are my comments.
[2:36:47] >> Do we have this coming back officially?
[2:36:49] » Do we have this coming back officially?
[2:36:49] >> Sounds like it.
[2:36:50] » Sounds like it.
[2:36:50] >> Okay. It sounds like consensus on that.
[2:36:55] » Okay. It sounds like consensus on that.
[2:36:55] >> Thank you.
[2:36:55] » Thank you.
[2:36:55] >> I guess I'm up. Um Rob,
[2:36:59] » I guess I'm up. Um Rob,
[2:36:59] sewer update for those PCH properties.
[2:37:02] Um what is the latest and when's it
[2:37:06] going to be before council? when are we
[2:37:08] going to make a decision on that?
[2:37:11] [laughter]
[2:37:12] >> So, um, yeah, we're planning on bringing
[2:37:15] » So, um, yeah, we're planning on bringing
[2:37:15] it back on the first meeting in
[2:37:17] February. I'm crossing my fingers that
[2:37:20] there's a couple things that we're kind
[2:37:21] of working on, but I that's kind of
[2:37:23] where we're kind of landing. I I think
[2:37:25] we're in good shape to kind of at least
[2:37:28] have a discussion, let you know where we
[2:37:29] are with that, but um, so that's that's
[2:37:33] that's where we are with the PCA sewer.
[2:37:36] >> Great. Yeah, that definitely just to let
[2:37:38] » Great. Yeah, that definitely just to let
[2:37:38] everybody know we're keeping their foot
[2:37:40] on the gas on that one so that people
[2:37:42] can know whether or not that's a a real
[2:37:44] possibility or if repair andor uh reuse
[2:37:48] of their existing septic and and all
[2:37:50] that's [clears throat] going to be their
[2:37:51] option. Um so every time we have
[2:37:55] Sergeant Sodeland is here. Is it
[2:37:57] possible to ask CHP? I know they um give
[2:38:03] an update to the public safety
[2:38:05] commission on their work. Um would it be
[2:38:08] possible to maybe ask if they could
[2:38:10] attend
[2:38:11] um one of our council meetings and give
[2:38:14] us an an update of the work that they're
[2:38:16] doing um on a you know even just once a
[2:38:21] month basis so we can hear from them on
[2:38:23] the the work that they're doing since
[2:38:26] they've been here now what two years.
[2:38:30] [laughter]
[2:38:31] >> Okay great thank you very much. Um, and
[2:38:34] » Okay great thank you very much. Um, and
[2:38:34] then the other thing that's come up
[2:38:36] that, you know, kind of going off on
[2:38:38] some of the stuff that Bruce was asking
[2:38:39] for, um,
[2:38:42] it seems like historically we we've just
[2:38:45] been kind of living with the, uh,
[2:38:48] geological information in Big Rock and
[2:38:51] it's been, I think, quite some time
[2:38:53] since we've had a comprehensive
[2:38:56] um, report done on the activity of the
[2:39:00] landslide. the
[2:39:03] um [sighs] dewatering wells. Um
[2:39:07] could we initiate a a report of you know
[2:39:13] what is the status of that landslide
[2:39:15] now? Is it active? Is it dormant? Have
[2:39:18] the dewatering wells worked? um just get
[2:39:21] a so we just have an updated
[2:39:25] comprehensive overview and not just
[2:39:27] going on 30 or 40 years worth of
[2:39:29] information.
[2:39:31] >> So uh so we have our our landsite
[2:39:35] » So uh so we have our our landsite
[2:39:35] assessment consultant that actually does
[2:39:38] all the monitoring and um and operations
[2:39:42] of of Big Rock. They can go over the
[2:39:45] data. they can go over kind of what
[2:39:47] they've done and we can kind of go over
[2:39:49] really kind of all the work um our staff
[2:39:54] has been done to replace
[2:39:56] probably majority of the equipment
[2:39:58] that's out there from the from the from
[2:40:00] the Palisades fire. So we can provide an
[2:40:03] update if if that works with that or you
[2:40:05] looking for
[2:40:06] >> I think I'm looking for a little bit
[2:40:08] » I think I'm looking for a little bit
[2:40:08] more comprehensive. I think that's a
[2:40:09] portion of it. Um, but and I don't
[2:40:13] expect this to be done in a quick I mean
[2:40:15] I think this is something that we're
[2:40:16] going to have to do an RFP for and you
[2:40:19] know do a comprehensive thing but I
[2:40:21] think that there's a lot of questions
[2:40:22] out there as to just how active that
[2:40:25] landslide is. Is it you know is it still
[2:40:28] mapped with the state of California and
[2:40:31] should it still be mapped? Are there
[2:40:33] things that should be so we just get
[2:40:35] more information about
[2:40:37] >> Yeah. So I I will get with director
[2:40:40] » Yeah. So I I will get with director
[2:40:40] Bundy and I will kind of look to
[2:40:41] strategize on how we can provide that
[2:40:43] information and see how steps we can do
[2:40:45] for that too. But the easiest thing is
[2:40:48] to get an update from our uh consultant
[2:40:51] that's actually doing the monitoring and
[2:40:54] operating of the big rock deatering and
[2:40:56] we can we can provide that.
[2:40:58] >> Is that y and associates? Ye no ye
[2:41:02] » Is that y and associates? Ye no ye
[2:41:02] >> it's like
[2:41:03] » it's like
[2:41:03] >> what's yay
[2:41:03] » what's yay
[2:41:04] >> yay yay and associates because I went to
[2:41:05] » yay yay and associates because I went to
[2:41:05] a meeting recently. Well, not recently,
[2:41:07] but it might have been like a few months
[2:41:09] ago where they did a presentation and
[2:41:10] talked about the dewatering and the
[2:41:12] successes and I think it was public
[2:41:14] works. Um, but it might be good to have
[2:41:17] that here cuz
[2:41:18] >> I would also like
[2:41:20] » I would also like
[2:41:20] >> But how does that work within the whole
[2:41:22] » But how does that work within the whole
[2:41:22] comprehensive? So, when the geologists
[2:41:24] are looking at a house that's being
[2:41:25] built or in this case the rebuild of
[2:41:28] over a hundred homes,
[2:41:29] >> it it's it's a little bit more
[2:41:31] » it it's it's a little bit more
[2:41:31] complicated than that. That's something
[2:41:32] that Yolanda and I will have to look
[2:41:33] into and kind of strategize on how it
[2:41:36] how we can present that information and
[2:41:38] have a path forward on get you that what
[2:41:40] you're looking for.
[2:41:41] >> So, do we do do the other council
[2:41:43] » So, do we do do the other council
[2:41:43] members agree that that's something I
[2:41:44] think that the city should initiate so
[2:41:46] that we just have a more upto-date
[2:41:48] >> I'd like that picture of what especially
[2:41:50] » I'd like that picture of what especially
[2:41:50] if we're going to be discussing this
[2:41:52] council um authorized in a landslide
[2:41:55] area. I need to understand what is an
[2:41:57] active landslide. I've heard over and
[2:41:58] over that it's not an active landslide.
[2:42:00] What I heard from Yolanda though, and
[2:42:02] maybe I misunderstood, was it this isn't
[2:42:04] really a factbased question. There's a
[2:42:06] map. It's the legal definition of the
[2:42:09] landslide area for purposes of the code
[2:42:11] is what the state tells us. So unless
[2:42:13] the state is convinced to change its
[2:42:14] maps, we're stuck with that designation
[2:42:17] just like the very high fire hazard
[2:42:18] severity zone.
[2:42:19] >> Is that accurate?
[2:42:20] » Is that accurate?
[2:42:20] >> Yeah, that is correct. the uh the state
[2:42:22] » Yeah, that is correct. the uh the state
[2:42:22] of California has their own geologists
[2:42:24] that do all the mapping for the state of
[2:42:26] California on the all the geohazardous
[2:42:29] uh areas and that's how it functions. I
[2:42:32] will have to go back and and and see how
[2:42:35] can the map be changed if it what is the
[2:42:41] possibilities or
[2:42:43] >> well you you shouldn't need to do that.
[2:42:44] » well you you shouldn't need to do that.
[2:42:44] That's probably something our council
[2:42:45] can do. That's a legal question of can
[2:42:47] the map be changed and if so under what
[2:42:49] circumstances? I just think I've heard
[2:42:51] for the past year that it's not a
[2:42:54] >> it's not a landslide area and the
[2:42:57] » it's not a landslide area and the
[2:42:57] residents seem to be very passionate
[2:42:59] about that and so I've been going with
[2:43:01] it because I just assume that we all did
[2:43:02] our due diligence. But if I'm hearing
[2:43:04] now that we are questioning it, maybe
[2:43:07] it's good to have those answers.
[2:43:08] >> I said it's, you know, this is not an
[2:43:10] » I said it's, you know, this is not an
[2:43:10] unusual situation in the law. We it
[2:43:13] really isn't whether factually we agree
[2:43:15] or disagree with it. It's whether it's
[2:43:17] mapped as such. So, we [clears throat]
[2:43:18] need to deal with the state and get them
[2:43:20] to not map it as such if it's really not
[2:43:23] properly mapped.
[2:43:24] >> Okay.
[2:43:25] » Okay.
[2:43:25] >> But to your point, I think if you go
[2:43:27] » But to your point, I think if you go
[2:43:27] back, this is where we have conflict
[2:43:28] about what constitutes a slide area
[2:43:30] because you go back two years ago and
[2:43:32] the same homeowners in Big Rock were
[2:43:34] saying it was an active slide area.
[2:43:35] >> Right.
[2:43:36] » Right.
[2:43:36] >> Now, they say it's not, but yet the
[2:43:37] » Now, they say it's not, but yet the
[2:43:38] state maps say something else. So, we've
[2:43:39] got to we've got we got to see what
[2:43:41] we're dealing with here.
[2:43:42] >> They were making the argument for
[2:43:43] » They were making the argument for
[2:43:43] purposes of local zoning decisions,
[2:43:45] which we have discretion over. this is a
[2:43:47] state law issue. We need to get we need
[2:43:49] to have the state map examined.
[2:43:52] So, I mean at the very least maybe we
[2:43:55] need to have a little bit more education
[2:43:56] of how this is determined, what the
[2:43:59] steps are and um
[2:44:02] >> yeah um we can um if council agrees with
[2:44:05] » yeah um we can um if council agrees with
[2:44:05] this, we can have our new geotechnical
[2:44:09] firm uh do a presentation for council on
[2:44:11] how the maps are uh established uh and
[2:44:16] show you
[2:44:18] um how those how those came about and
[2:44:23] try to get information on how if those
[2:44:26] maps can be changed
[2:44:28] >> and then along with the other local
[2:44:30] » and then along with the other local
[2:44:30] information from the dewatering.
[2:44:31] >> Yeah. Let's just Yeah. Let Yolana and I
[2:44:34] » Yeah. Let's just Yeah. Let Yolana and I
[2:44:34] kind of get together and we'll
[2:44:35] strategize on how we can do.
[2:44:36] >> Yeah. So, so even it's just an
[2:44:38] » Yeah. So, so even it's just an
[2:44:38] educational workshop so that ourselves
[2:44:40] and the community can better understand
[2:44:43] >> how this is designated and what goes
[2:44:46] » how this is designated and what goes
[2:44:46] into this decision and if it's still
[2:44:49] applicable or you know if a slide could
[2:44:51] be mitigated into no longer being a
[2:44:54] hazard I guess is kind of I don't know.
[2:44:58] Okay, I've said enough. All right,
[2:45:02] that concludes.
[2:45:04] >> I have two more points if Do you have
[2:45:06] » I have two more points if Do you have
[2:45:06] Sorry. Um I'd like to propose a council
[2:45:09] item for who can attend the zone captain
[2:45:11] meetings so that we can put this to rest
[2:45:13] for the future. Um because I believe
[2:45:16] that there's a Brown Act issue if more
[2:45:18] than two attend. So how should we go
[2:45:23] about that?
[2:45:27] » Consult our city attorney. You can just
[2:45:29] set an item and then we can have a
[2:45:30] discussion at the at the
[2:45:34] with the whole council and you guys can
[2:45:35] decide who's going to attend.
[2:45:38] >> Great. Well, I think that you know is
[2:45:41] » Great. Well, I think that you know is
[2:45:41] there a question? Is it a Brown Act?
[2:45:43] >> Yes, it's a those are city meetings.
[2:45:45] » Yes, it's a those are city meetings.
[2:45:45] They they cannot have more than two
[2:45:46] council members present.
[2:45:47] >> Okay. [clears throat]
[2:45:50] » Okay.
[2:45:51] >> Just for what it's worth, I mean, I was
[2:45:52] » Just for what it's worth, I mean, I was
[2:45:52] going
[2:45:53] >> I was going and and
[2:45:55] » I was going and and
[2:45:55] then H jumped in. So, I'm going to let
[2:45:57] her go. You got them. I I'll pass. I go
[2:46:00] to the
[2:46:00] >> We could also do a rotation.
[2:46:01] » We could also do a rotation.
[2:46:01] >> I got other things I can do.
[2:46:03] » I got other things I can do.
[2:46:03] >> I think consistency is really important
[2:46:04] » I think consistency is really important
[2:46:04] on those things.
[2:46:05] >> Okay. Well, thanks then.
[2:46:07] » Okay. Well, thanks then.
[2:46:07] >> I will.
[2:46:08] » I will.
[2:46:08] >> Do we have to memorialize that or put
[2:46:10] » Do we have to memorialize that or put
[2:46:10] that in writing or
[2:46:11] >> is there consensus from the council that
[2:46:13] » is there consensus from the council that
[2:46:13] you'd wish to bring back an item?
[2:46:15] >> Not if we've just decided, which I feel
[2:46:17] » Not if we've just decided, which I feel
[2:46:17] like we have, unless we have to vote on
[2:46:19] it. But
[2:46:22] >> um
[2:46:23] » um
[2:46:23] >> sounds to me like the it always is the
[2:46:26] » sounds to me like the it always is the
[2:46:26] case that two people can go and the
[2:46:29] issue was just resolved by Steve.
[2:46:30] >> I agree. I think it's I [clears throat]
[2:46:32] » I agree. I think it's I [clears throat]
[2:46:32] I feel good about that.
[2:46:33] >> Yeah, there's no council action but if
[2:46:35] » Yeah, there's no council action but if
[2:46:35] if council member hearing is not
[2:46:37] attending then there isn't an issue, no
[2:46:38] need to bring it back.
[2:46:40] >> And the captains are uh meetings are
[2:46:42] » And the captains are uh meetings are
[2:46:42] happening every Wednesday uh from 3 to
[2:46:44] 4, sometimes from 3:00 to 5:00. So, now
[2:46:47] that we have the decision from council,
[2:46:49] we will make sure to uh invite uh
[2:46:52] council member Conrad and Mayor uh
[2:46:54] Riggins.
[2:46:55] >> Thank you.
[2:46:56] » Thank you.
[2:46:56] >> Thank you.
[2:46:57] » Thank you.
[2:46:57] >> Can't we just can't we just uh separate?
[2:47:00] » Can't we just can't we just uh separate?
[2:47:00] It's a public meeting. I thought we were
[2:47:02] able to to audience.
[2:47:05] >> If you're going to have three council
[2:47:06] » If you're going to have three council
[2:47:06] members participating in that, we would
[2:47:07] need to go notice it as a special
[2:47:08] meeting.
[2:47:09] >> Even though we're spread out in the
[2:47:11] » Even though we're spread out in the
[2:47:11] >> they're not talking and not even
[2:47:13] » they're not talking and not even
[2:47:13] discussing anything with each other.
[2:47:15] It doesn't fall under a ceremonial
[2:47:17] exception. It's not a um community
[2:47:19] meeting put on by a third party
[2:47:20] organization.
[2:47:21] >> It's not another notice commission
[2:47:22] » It's not another notice commission
[2:47:22] meeting which would fall under the Brown
[2:47:24] Act as well.
[2:47:25] >> So there's anytime you have three
[2:47:27] » So there's anytime you have three
[2:47:27] council members present discussing city
[2:47:29] business, it's a meeting under the Brown
[2:47:31] Act unless an exception applies and
[2:47:32] there's not an exception that apply to
[2:47:33] this. This is a city organized um uh
[2:47:37] meeting.
[2:47:38] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:47:39] » Okay. Thank you.
[2:47:39] >> Um one last thing, do we have consensus?
[2:47:42] » Um one last thing, do we have consensus?
[2:47:42] Should we put on the next agenda the
[2:47:44] mobile home park? I mean, there's been a
[2:47:46] lot of back and forth with some of the
[2:47:48] mobile the residents that live in the
[2:47:50] mobile home park because there's a
[2:47:51] meeting on Thursday at 1:30, but if
[2:47:54] there's something that they've decided,
[2:47:55] we can talk about it at the next meeting
[2:47:57] for council.
[2:47:59] >> Well, can't the the head of that
[2:48:01] » Well, can't the the head of that
[2:48:01] commission just come and give us a
[2:48:03] report?
[2:48:04] >> Yeah. So yeah, we have an item coming in
[2:48:07] » Yeah. So yeah, we have an item coming in
[2:48:07] the first meeting in February for for
[2:48:10] that for a revised or ordinance.
[2:48:12] >> Okay.
[2:48:13] » Okay.
[2:48:13] >> So that's coming.
[2:48:14] » So that's coming.
[2:48:14] >> Great. Thank you.
[2:48:15] » Great. Thank you.
[2:48:16] >> That's it.
[2:48:16] » That's it.
[2:48:16] >> Okay. Does that conclude council
[2:48:18] » Okay. Does that conclude council
[2:48:18] comments?
[2:48:19] >> Do we want a break before we dive into
[2:48:21] » Do we want a break before we dive into
[2:48:21] AA?
[2:48:23] >> Okay. So we're going to take Let's be
[2:48:25] » Okay. So we're going to take Let's be
[2:48:25] back here at 8:25, please.
[2:48:28] >> Thank you.
[2:48:29] » Thank you.
[2:48:29] >> Well, yeah.
[2:48:31] » Well, yeah.
[2:48:31] >> Always go over. Let's actually be back
[2:48:32] » Always go over. Let's actually be back
[2:48:32] here at 8:25.
[3:06:00] Okay, we're back. Um,
[3:06:04] from our amended agenda, we're on to
[3:06:05] item 8A.
[3:06:11] So,
[3:06:13] who's giving the presentation?
[3:06:17] >> Bruce A. Hala. Okay,
[3:06:20] » Bruce A. Hala. Okay,
[3:06:20] >> Bruce.
[3:06:21] » Bruce.
[3:06:21] >> Sure. [laughter]
[3:06:23] » Sure. [laughter]
[3:06:24] Wish I had actually done a PowerPoint.
[3:06:26] Okay, so
[3:06:28] I'm hoping the council have all read
[3:06:30] this. I know that the residents have.
[3:06:33] Um, this is a proposal to adopt a city
[3:06:37] council resolution
[3:06:39] that will formalize
[3:06:41] many of the policies that I think we've
[3:06:43] informally already um, put into place as
[3:06:47] well as put some um, additional meat on
[3:06:49] their bones. Um, so I'll just walk
[3:06:52] through them. I mean it starts off with
[3:06:54] a just a general statement of policy
[3:06:57] which is which I think we all agree on
[3:07:00] which that we declare and by the way
[3:07:02] this will not just be for the fires that
[3:07:05] have occurred. This will be a policy of
[3:07:07] the city of Malibu going forward unless
[3:07:10] and until a future if we adopt it unless
[3:07:12] and until a future city council were to
[3:07:14] change it uh for dealing with um
[3:07:16] casualties mass natural casualties of
[3:07:19] this type. So it says, "We declare it to
[3:07:22] be the policy of the city of Malibu to
[3:07:25] facilitate the expeditious, efficient,
[3:07:27] and economical rebuild of all structures
[3:07:29] in the city destroyed or materially
[3:07:32] damaged by wildfire, earthquake which is
[3:07:35] yet to come, flood, landslide, mudslide
[3:07:38] or similar disaster.
[3:07:41] key now in substantially the same loca
[3:07:43] in in substantially the same location as
[3:07:46] the destroyed or damaged structure and
[3:07:48] in a like forlike manner that does not
[3:07:49] exceed 10% of the area height or bulk of
[3:07:53] the structure destroyed or materially
[3:07:54] damaged. So this is this is basically um
[3:07:58] memorializing as a city council policy
[3:08:01] that we want when there are disasters of
[3:08:04] this nature to see rebuilds in a lake
[3:08:07] like forlike manner. um and we want to
[3:08:10] encourage them to be able to be done in
[3:08:12] an efficient, expeditious and economical
[3:08:14] manner.
[3:08:15] So then we get into what what are we
[3:08:17] going to do pursuant to that policy if
[3:08:19] we adopt it. First of all, we're going
[3:08:22] to ensure that nobody that works for the
[3:08:26] city directly or or as an outsider is
[3:08:29] going to impose any requirements that
[3:08:31] aren't in the law. So, um, and and a
[3:08:34] great example of that is you remember we
[3:08:36] we spent a lot of time dealing with what
[3:08:39] is going to be the base elevation on the
[3:08:41] beach. And we did a lot of um back and
[3:08:44] forth with staff and experts and we came
[3:08:47] to the understanding that the only
[3:08:49] applicable law outside of uh the only
[3:08:52] applicable law was it had to be FEMA
[3:08:54] plus one. I guess one could argue that
[3:08:56] wasn't even the law, but that that was
[3:08:58] the only applicable restriction that was
[3:09:00] other than something we would make up.
[3:09:02] There was no other federal, state,
[3:09:04] county, or city law in place that would
[3:09:06] dictate the height. But we needed to
[3:09:10] adopt a policy of what the height was
[3:09:12] going to be, what the base level
[3:09:13] elevations could be. Well, had we
[3:09:15] employed this policy from day one, and
[3:09:19] this will be, if we have this policy on
[3:09:21] day one going forward, we wouldn't have
[3:09:23] had to have any of that discussion. the
[3:09:24] staff would have simply looked at what
[3:09:26] the law is, come to the recognition that
[3:09:28] the only applicable law was FEMA plus
[3:09:30] one and applied it and the city council
[3:09:32] would not have had to have been involved
[3:09:34] in that. The community wouldn't have had
[3:09:35] to be involved in that and a lot of time
[3:09:37] would have been saved. I'm not smart
[3:09:39] enough to know what all the other
[3:09:41] situations are going to be. None of us
[3:09:43] are, I suspect, going forward that are
[3:09:46] going to come up and someone's going to
[3:09:47] say, "Well, what are we going to do in
[3:09:48] this circumstance?" The answer we're
[3:09:51] saying should be very clear. forget what
[3:09:54] you might want to see done. Let's look
[3:09:56] to the law. Let's look to the federal
[3:09:58] law because that governs here whether we
[3:10:00] like it or not, the state law, the
[3:10:02] county law, and our existing municipal
[3:10:04] code and don't don't impose any
[3:10:06] restriction or requirement whatsoever
[3:10:09] that's not already embedded in those
[3:10:10] laws. Now, we also have the ability
[3:10:12] obviously to look at our own municipal
[3:10:13] code and say, well, let's liberalize
[3:10:15] that. We can't liberalize it beyond the
[3:10:17] requirements of a superior law, but we
[3:10:19] can liberalize it where where it's more
[3:10:21] strict. But any event, this says don't
[3:10:24] apply any rule that's not already in
[3:10:26] place. Don't don't go looking for more
[3:10:28] restrictions.
[3:10:30] Um, there's a provision in here that I'
[3:10:32] I've heard a lot of comments about in in
[3:10:34] in two different directions. It says in
[3:10:37] so doing any doubt respecting and by the
[3:10:40] way again only for like forlike
[3:10:42] rebuilds, not for new build, not for a
[3:10:45] non-disaster build and not for a rebuild
[3:10:49] that's not in tune with like for like.
[3:10:51] If somebody wants to build something
[3:10:52] that's 150% of what was there, this
[3:10:55] doesn't apply to them whatsoever.
[3:10:58] So when we're doing that, any doubt
[3:11:01] respecting the application of a legal
[3:11:03] requirement or the manner of its
[3:11:05] application, respecting a like forlike
[3:11:07] disaster rebuild shall be resolved in
[3:11:09] favor of the city's policy to facilitate
[3:11:12] this expeditious rebuild. And to that
[3:11:15] end, this is the one I' I've heard a lot
[3:11:16] of comments in both directions. Whenever
[3:11:19] there's a difference of opinion on an
[3:11:20] issue that the director of community
[3:11:22] development department defined as the
[3:11:24] CDD director and we know that at this
[3:11:26] moment in time that's Yolanda uh
[3:11:28] recognizes to be a difference of opinion
[3:11:30] upon which reasonable professional civil
[3:11:33] engineers might differ. The city staff
[3:11:36] shall defer to the stamped and certified
[3:11:38] decision of the civil engineer. There's
[3:11:39] other language in there. Now let's make
[3:11:42] clear what that means. It doesn't mean
[3:11:44] as some residents have said in
[3:11:46] advocating for this, whatever my design
[3:11:49] professional says, I'm now going to get
[3:11:51] that and the city's going to have to
[3:11:52] defer to it because your design
[3:11:54] professional may be advocating for
[3:11:56] something which the CDD director doesn't
[3:11:59] believe is within the reasonable
[3:12:01] reasonable range of alternatives that
[3:12:03] are available under the building code.
[3:12:07] What it does mean is that where there's
[3:12:09] a range of alternatives that are
[3:12:12] available, all of which satisfy the
[3:12:13] applicable code, it's usually got to do
[3:12:15] with safety, where there's a range of
[3:12:17] things that could be done to satisfy the
[3:12:18] safety requirement.
[3:12:20] Some design engineers are going to say
[3:12:23] we want to do the absolute strongest
[3:12:25] thing possible. In fact, some are going
[3:12:26] to say more than what's required. Others
[3:12:28] are going to say, I want to do the the
[3:12:30] owner of the property may say, I want to
[3:12:32] do the absolute minimum that I'm
[3:12:33] required to do to meet the law.
[3:12:35] And what this is s saying is when it
[3:12:38] comes to the staff, as long as in the
[3:12:41] opinion of the director and and
[3:12:44] obviously it'll also be lower level
[3:12:46] people who will first look at the
[3:12:48] question. As long as it's something
[3:12:50] which does fall within that range, we're
[3:12:53] not going to debate with the resident or
[3:12:55] their or their design professionals as
[3:12:57] to whether they ought to be doing
[3:12:59] something better or more safe. as long
[3:13:02] as it's as long as it's at the level
[3:13:04] that is the minimum required by the law.
[3:13:05] Again, this is consistent with the first
[3:13:07] thing. We're not going to impose any
[3:13:09] rule greater than the law. So, the FEMA
[3:13:12] thing would be a great example. I think
[3:13:13] some people have advocated at one point
[3:13:16] FEMA plus one isn't really good enough.
[3:13:18] There should be some greater um
[3:13:20] allocation for sea level rise. We
[3:13:22] wouldn't be thinking about those things.
[3:13:24] It's just a question of what is a
[3:13:27] reasonable application of the law.
[3:13:30] Um the next thing is that we're
[3:13:33] encouraging that every reasonable and
[3:13:36] legally permissible effort be pursued to
[3:13:39] liberalize the process for securing
[3:13:41] building code approvals for again for
[3:13:43] like for like disaster rebuilds.
[3:13:47] Um
[3:13:49] you know this is not an indication of
[3:13:52] doing anything that's not both
[3:13:53] reasonable and legal. So these are
[3:13:56] policies. These are these are to to make
[3:13:58] clear that we want to see homes rebuilt.
[3:14:01] We want to see them be rebuilt like for
[3:14:03] like as best we can and we want to make
[3:14:05] it as painless as possible to do it.
[3:14:08] Recognizing obviously we can't solve
[3:14:10] insurance issues. We can't solve state
[3:14:13] laws that are more ownorous than we
[3:14:15] might want them to be. We're stuck with
[3:14:17] them.
[3:14:19] Um
[3:14:22] this this says that we will where we
[3:14:25] where that we find an issue that is
[3:14:28] impacting our residents that we don't
[3:14:31] have the ability to overcome. We will
[3:14:35] advocate to the state that it look into
[3:14:38] the issue and see what can be done to
[3:14:39] help relax the requirement. The answer
[3:14:41] may be there is nothing that could be
[3:14:43] done. But again, we will do what we can
[3:14:45] do to try to get the requirement relaxed
[3:14:48] so that if it's relaxed, more people can
[3:14:51] do more.
[3:14:55] There's a lot of other particular things
[3:14:58] which I think I'll just leave it to
[3:14:59] others to comment on. Um, item four,
[3:15:02] which I think is an important one, is um
[3:15:06] that when dealing with the like forlike
[3:15:08] disaster rebuilds, um, it's imperative
[3:15:11] that our staff members are focused on
[3:15:15] finding ways to get to Yes.
[3:15:19] And importantly, this states, by the
[3:15:21] same token, when we're not dealing with
[3:15:23] disaster rebuilds, we need the staff to
[3:15:26] still be focused on the mission
[3:15:28] statement and the vision statement. The
[3:15:30] reason for this paragraph is it's been
[3:15:33] said to me and I agree with it by the
[3:15:35] staff. How do we justify going out of
[3:15:38] our way to bend over backwards to get
[3:15:40] this done over here and then when
[3:15:42] someone else comes to us and wants the
[3:15:44] same accommodation, not provide that?
[3:15:47] How do we how do we decide who's
[3:15:48] entitled to an accommodation and who's
[3:15:50] not? The answer is right here in a city
[3:15:52] council policy. if it's adopted, if it's
[3:15:54] a disaster rebuild and it's a which
[3:15:56] means it's a lake like for lake and it
[3:15:58] came out of a disaster, we're going to
[3:16:00] use all of these tools in our toolbox
[3:16:02] that we can to make it as easy as
[3:16:04] possible. And this says when someone
[3:16:07] who's doing a regular 5,000 square foot
[3:16:10] build on Point Doom and they want the
[3:16:12] same accommodation and they're saying
[3:16:14] why am I not getting it? The answer is
[3:16:16] right here because this policy of the
[3:16:18] city council is that you're not getting
[3:16:19] that. you're this is for the rebuilds.
[3:16:22] It's not to say that you're not going to
[3:16:24] get fair treatment if you're building
[3:16:26] something large or new, but you're just
[3:16:28] not going to get the special treatment
[3:16:30] that we are creating for disaster
[3:16:32] rebuilds.
[3:16:34] Um, other than that, most of the things
[3:16:36] in here are things that Yolanda has
[3:16:38] already told us she has put into place
[3:16:42] or is putting in place. And this is
[3:16:44] again kind of codifying from a st from a
[3:16:46] city council standpoint that these
[3:16:48] things we agree with them. And one might
[3:16:51] ask why why do we need to do this? Why
[3:16:53] why bother putting this in writing?
[3:16:55] Well, first of all, it it shows that we
[3:16:59] support what's being done. Secondly,
[3:17:03] you know, we would like to think
[3:17:04] Yolanda's going to be with us for the
[3:17:06] indefinite future, but who knows what
[3:17:10] can happen. Yolanda, something could
[3:17:12] happen to Yolanda. We want to make sure
[3:17:14] whoever's in that position knows this is
[3:17:16] the city council's policy. This is what
[3:17:18] their marching orders are. And more
[3:17:20] important, down the line, you know, 5
[3:17:22] years from now, we're going to have
[3:17:23] another disaster.
[3:17:25] And when we do, we don't have to sit
[3:17:27] down here and recreate the wheel again.
[3:17:29] It's already here. It'll be in a policy.
[3:17:32] Maybe there'll be new issues that'll
[3:17:33] come up and we'll have to and the city
[3:17:35] council then will have to decide what to
[3:17:36] do with the new issues, but there'll be
[3:17:38] a policy. They can pull it out of the
[3:17:40] drawer. They read it. They know exactly
[3:17:42] how to deal with these issues. They
[3:17:44] weren't oneoffs for the Palisades fire.
[3:17:46] They were things we learned about how to
[3:17:49] make this process better. And we are now
[3:17:51] putting our improtor on them and saying
[3:17:54] henceforth when there's a casualty of
[3:17:56] this nature, this is the way to approach
[3:17:58] it. So, I'm sure I'm going to hear from
[3:18:01] other council members what's wrong with
[3:18:03] these things because that's just the way
[3:18:04] this works. But I think a lot of this is
[3:18:08] a no-brainer. I know the residents for
[3:18:10] the most part want this and one of our
[3:18:13] roles as city council members is to try
[3:18:15] to do as best we can what our
[3:18:17] constituents want. Um so this is an
[3:18:19] effort to do that. Um to do it in a way
[3:18:22] that doesn't put um undue pressure on
[3:18:25] the staff in a way which I actually
[3:18:28] think makes it easier for the staff
[3:18:30] because it gives them further clear
[3:18:32] direction as to how to do things. And um
[3:18:35] Helen, you want to add anything?
[3:18:36] >> Nope. That was sent same ditto.
[3:18:41] » Nope. That was sent same ditto.
[3:18:41] >> I think we can open it up to public
[3:18:43] » I think we can open it up to public
[3:18:43] comment and council comments.
[3:18:45] >> Well, we can answer any questions there
[3:18:46] » Well, we can answer any questions there
[3:18:46] might be first from the council. But you
[3:18:48] know the other thing is you know this
[3:18:50] also was written as a result of sitting
[3:18:53] here and at other meetings for the last
[3:18:55] year listening to residents comments um
[3:18:59] hearing debate on the council hearing
[3:19:02] from the staff. So, it's it it it's all
[3:19:04] an effort to um consolidate everything
[3:19:07] that we've been doing for the past year.
[3:19:10] What we've learned makes sense. It
[3:19:12] doesn't address the things I think that
[3:19:14] we didn't think make sense and it in
[3:19:16] with hope.
[3:19:17] >> Yeah.
[3:19:17] » Yeah.
[3:19:17] >> This or some version of it will get
[3:19:18] » This or some version of it will get
[3:19:18] approved.
[3:19:19] >> I think that we've done a great job as
[3:19:20] » I think that we've done a great job as
[3:19:20] council. I think the staff has done a
[3:19:22] great job. Like we've been through a
[3:19:24] disaster and it's been a year and the
[3:19:27] residents, we've listened and it's been
[3:19:29] hours and hours and hours and hours of
[3:19:31] information really and this is a
[3:19:33] culmination of it. And like Bruce said,
[3:19:35] God forbid we have an earthquake in a
[3:19:38] year or eight months or something. It's
[3:19:42] sort of just a playbook of what we've
[3:19:44] done u memorializing this. So it's not
[3:19:47] all wasted. So I mean I've gone through
[3:19:49] hundreds of hours of ex- councsil
[3:19:51] members meetings through Woolseie to see
[3:19:54] what they've done. Things like this are
[3:19:56] just important for the future to be able
[3:19:59] to um to just kind of pull up and say
[3:20:01] this is how Palisades was dealt with.
[3:20:04] And I certainly do not want this to come
[3:20:06] across as a criticism of anybody on
[3:20:09] staff or in general. It just seems like
[3:20:11] we're council people and we make
[3:20:13] policies and this is a policy and it and
[3:20:15] it and we've talked about it. So, we
[3:20:17] just want to memorialize it. Um,
[3:20:20] >> and if it weren't for the Brown Act, we
[3:20:22] » and if it weren't for the Brown Act, we
[3:20:22] would have sat down together in a
[3:20:23] conference room and hammered it out, but
[3:20:25] we aren't allowed to do that.
[3:20:26] >> That would have been really fun if we
[3:20:28] » That would have been really fun if we
[3:20:28] could have done this [clears throat]
[3:20:29] together,
[3:20:30] >> but instead this is the process in which
[3:20:33] » but instead this is the process in which
[3:20:33] we have to do it in under these lights.
[3:20:36] Um, that's it. I mean, I think I'd like
[3:20:39] to define a flat pad that came up. Um,
[3:20:43] maybe like being in building and safety,
[3:20:45] you know,
[3:20:47] what a flat pad is. That's something
[3:20:49] that I need to clarify for my own.
[3:20:54] Um, we've talked about case managers
[3:20:57] over and over and over again. Um, that's
[3:20:59] in number five.
[3:21:01] Um,
[3:21:03] continuous support, advocacy, problem
[3:21:05] resolution. These are all things that
[3:21:06] you they're doing anyway. It's just kind
[3:21:09] of
[3:21:11] putting it in permanence.
[3:21:15] Okay. Um, any council members have
[3:21:17] clarifying questions before we go to
[3:21:19] public comment?
[3:21:21] >> How many online speakers do we have?
[3:21:25] » How many online speakers do we have?
[3:21:25] >> There's one raised hand. Two raised
[3:21:27] » There's one raised hand. Two raised
[3:21:27] hands.
[3:21:28] >> Give it 30 seconds.
[3:21:32] » Give it 30 seconds.
[3:21:32] Okay. Um, Kevin Keegan followed by Danny
[3:21:38] and
[3:21:39] Leah's here and Luis is here. Okay. Um,
[3:21:43] and then after Danny, it's Darren.
[3:21:52] » I am Kevin Keegan.
[3:21:54] This uh disaster rebuild policy
[3:21:57] resolution proposed tonight is a step
[3:21:59] toward addressing the city council
[3:22:01] specific action items Mayor Pro Tim
[3:22:04] Silverstein described in his article
[3:22:05] published by the Malibu Times in July of
[3:22:08] last year. While overdue, I thank
[3:22:11] council members Silverstein and Conrad
[3:22:13] sincerely for focusing attention on what
[3:22:16] the city council with its unique powers
[3:22:17] can do to accelerate the disaster
[3:22:20] rebuild process in Malibu. The two
[3:22:22] council members are offering a
[3:22:24] pro-rebuild path forward. Meanwhile, the
[3:22:26] city's staff are doing all they can
[3:22:28] within their current capabilities.
[3:22:30] What's missing is focused policy action
[3:22:33] like this resolution. I have a few
[3:22:35] general comments and questions. This
[3:22:37] policy resolution is forwardinking,
[3:22:40] highlighting future threats of quote
[3:22:41] wildfire, earthquake, flood, landslide,
[3:22:44] mudslide, or similar disaster close
[3:22:47] quote. This council has an opportunity
[3:22:49] to better position residents to be able
[3:22:51] to rebuild expeditially whenever
[3:22:53] disaster strikes. Where appropriate to
[3:22:56] help address liability concerns,
[3:22:59] consider including a mandatory
[3:23:00] assumption of risk and release signature
[3:23:03] step if residents choose to engage in an
[3:23:05] expedited disaster rebuild process. For
[3:23:08] item number two in the proposed
[3:23:10] resolution, I ask for consideration in
[3:23:12] that paragraph of replacing the word
[3:23:15] words must and should with the word
[3:23:17] shall. Item number six in this proposed
[3:23:20] resolution offers a real opportunity for
[3:23:22] residents who are rebuilding.
[3:23:24] Specifically, item six states, quote,
[3:23:26] "There must also be a measurable time
[3:23:28] period between submission of a completed
[3:23:31] PV plan check or building permit
[3:23:33] application and approval or denial
[3:23:35] thereof." Close quote. What many Malibu
[3:23:38] property owners want are estimated time
[3:23:40] frames for rebuild projects. A time-free
[3:23:43] zone around rebuilds hinders the
[3:23:45] process. Giving property owners a
[3:23:47] reasonable level of predictability
[3:23:49] around what the time commitment for
[3:23:51] disaster rebuild process will entail
[3:23:53] would offer current residents helpful
[3:23:55] incentives to stay and rebuild. Lastly,
[3:23:58] item number eight is important because
[3:24:00] it states, quote, "The city shall
[3:24:02] establish targets, goals, and metrics
[3:24:05] for reviews that are published and
[3:24:06] tracked to identify areas of continuous
[3:24:09] improvement." Close quote. I also ask,
[3:24:12] can that statement in number eight be
[3:24:14] revised to include approvals along with
[3:24:16] reviews? So, it would read, the city
[3:24:19] shall establish targets, goals, and
[3:24:21] metrics for reviews and approvals. Those
[3:24:24] are my comments and questions on this
[3:24:26] resolution tonight. Please make those
[3:24:28] edits and approve this policy resolution
[3:24:30] for disaster rebuilds in Malibu. Thank
[3:24:33] you. Thank you Danny followed by Darren
[3:24:39] followed by Arno.
[3:24:43] >> You have five minutes.
[3:24:44] » You have five minutes.
[3:24:44] >> Thank you.
[3:24:46] » Thank you.
[3:24:46] This is historical policym to meet an
[3:24:49] historical moment. It is a bold and
[3:24:52] visionary plan for the present as well
[3:24:54] as it must be said the future. We lost
[3:24:57] 700 homes. We're going to lose more.
[3:25:00] That is the reality of living in this
[3:25:03] special place.
[3:25:06] We choose how we respond to these
[3:25:08] events. And it has to be said, we must
[3:25:11] do better.
[3:25:13] 22 permits in a year. It is unfathomable
[3:25:18] failure.
[3:25:21] The low bar set by the Woosey fire has
[3:25:23] somehow been outdone. It's as if we're
[3:25:26] playing limbo with our own failures. How
[3:25:29] low can we go?
[3:25:32] A couple of points. Please don't let the
[3:25:34] word self-certification
[3:25:36] be heard tonight.
[3:25:39] That's not what this is. This is not
[3:25:40] self-certification. Self-certification
[3:25:43] is homeowners going off on their own
[3:25:45] until the inspectors show up. This is
[3:25:48] homeowners and their professionals
[3:25:49] submitting plans, an inherent peerreview
[3:25:52] process, and debating reasonable
[3:25:55] professional opinions. There's nothing
[3:25:57] being done blind here or undercover.
[3:26:00] Please don't let the word liability risk
[3:26:03] words liability risk come out of your
[3:26:05] mouth. Other jurisdictions are doing
[3:26:08] this and they're doing more. Half the
[3:26:10] homes in Malibu today have assumptions
[3:26:12] of risk recorded against them because 20
[3:26:14] years ago somebody wanted to remodel and
[3:26:16] they were told by Malibu that you're in
[3:26:18] a seismically hazardous area. Yeah, I
[3:26:20] know. We're in Southern California.
[3:26:22] So these waiverss of liability are
[3:26:24] something that Malibu has always been
[3:26:25] comfortable employing. Let's do it again
[3:26:27] if we have to. In fact, I have one. Let
[3:26:30] me read it. Recitals.
[3:26:33] Property owner desires to take certain
[3:26:35] actions. Property owner desires to
[3:26:37] assume all risk relating to and arising
[3:26:39] from the issuance of a building permit
[3:26:41] for said addition, repair,
[3:26:43] rehabilitation, or remodel work,
[3:26:44] including risks relating to the city's
[3:26:46] negligent issuance of such a building
[3:26:49] per permit. Going on. Assumption of
[3:26:51] risk. Property owner hereby assumes all
[3:26:53] risk of damages to the property blah
[3:26:55] blah blah out of the city issuing the
[3:26:57] building permit. Release. Property owner
[3:27:00] hereby releases and discharges city its
[3:27:02] officers, employees and agents from any
[3:27:04] and all claims for losses, damages or
[3:27:06] liabilities.
[3:27:08] We have these. So please, Trevor, don't
[3:27:11] tell anybody that this can't be done or
[3:27:12] it's even hard to do. It's in your
[3:27:15] computer.
[3:27:16] This resolution will provide a framework
[3:27:18] for our recovery. you know in your
[3:27:21] hearts that it is needed. If this city
[3:27:24] has a hope of resuscitation, if our
[3:27:26] businesses have a hope of surviving, we
[3:27:29] have to get these houses back online
[3:27:32] expeditiously,
[3:27:33] efficiently, economically.
[3:27:38] I'm staring at photos in the hallway
[3:27:41] tonight of my neighbor's houses burning
[3:27:43] down.
[3:27:45] We have to help. We have to do all we
[3:27:48] can. And I'm sorry you haven't.
[3:27:54] Now is your chance. Please vote for
[3:27:56] this. If you do not vote for this, this
[3:27:58] most impactful of policy resolutions,
[3:28:01] then you are directly complicit in what
[3:28:04] continues to be a disastrous recovery.
[3:28:08] This will be your legacy. And for some
[3:28:10] of you, you will be running against it
[3:28:12] in November.
[3:28:15] 22 permits in a year. You're playing
[3:28:17] from behind. Now is the time to play
[3:28:19] catchup. Thank you.
[3:28:21] >> Thank you, Darren. Followed by Arno,
[3:28:26] » Thank you, Darren. Followed by Arno,
[3:28:26] followed by Scott Der.
[3:28:32] » Uh, good evening once again and thank
[3:28:34] you um for taking the time to listen,
[3:28:37] but also thank you for putting this
[3:28:38] together. Um it's it was a pleasure to
[3:28:41] read that this was coming up onto the
[3:28:43] council agenda again and um please vote
[3:28:47] in favor of it. Uh earlier there was
[3:28:50] some discussion about what is the lag
[3:28:52] between planning verification and
[3:28:53] building plan check and um my family
[3:28:56] we're in that lag and the lag is due to
[3:28:58] the timeline to design something. It
[3:29:00] does take time. So this resolution of
[3:29:03] efficient, expeditious and economical
[3:29:05] provisions to help everybody reduce that
[3:29:08] timeline is very much appreciated. Um we
[3:29:10] submitted for our PV on December 1st,
[3:29:12] got it on December 23rd. Our submittal
[3:29:15] date for our building plan check is June
[3:29:17] of this year and that's because of
[3:29:19] geotechnical considerations, coastal
[3:29:21] engineering considerations, structural
[3:29:23] engineering considerations, MEP design
[3:29:25] considerations, and the time it takes to
[3:29:27] put together a planning application and
[3:29:29] a plan check set. I'm also anticipating
[3:29:32] an approval in October of 2026 and that
[3:29:34] takes into consideration two rounds of
[3:29:37] back checks if needed. I say that I know
[3:29:39] it sounds crazy, but I've been
[3:29:41] responsible and I've obtained u
[3:29:44] approvals for change orders that are
[3:29:47] upwards of 30,000 square feet within 2
[3:29:50] days in hospitals and healthcare centers
[3:29:52] in California. So if that's possible
[3:29:54] then a 12,200 foot house on the beach
[3:29:56] should be possible within 3 months. this
[3:29:59] resolution is a right step in that
[3:30:01] direction. Um [clears throat] I would
[3:30:05] like to ask one thing and it's just
[3:30:09] um to approve it and also to require uh
[3:30:14] design professional engagement in the
[3:30:16] process. This resolution defends the
[3:30:19] intent of the code if there's ever a
[3:30:20] discrepancy between Yolanda Tyler a plan
[3:30:24] checker and the design professionals.
[3:30:26] Well, it's the design design
[3:30:27] professional's job to reference the
[3:30:29] code, defend their design in relation to
[3:30:32] the code, and that should be what we are
[3:30:35] building. So, item one of this
[3:30:37] resolution defends that notion, and so
[3:30:39] I'm in full support of it. So, thank you
[3:30:41] once again for your consideration.
[3:30:44] >> Thank you, Arno. You have four minutes,
[3:30:48] » Thank you, Arno. You have four minutes,
[3:30:48] followed by Scott Dietrich, followed by
[3:30:50] Janet Faulk.
[3:30:55] Good evening to everyone. Have I could
[3:30:58] you push that yet?
[3:30:59] >> Could you give them four minutes,
[3:31:00] » Could you give them four minutes,
[3:31:00] please? Thank you.
[3:31:02] >> Thank you. Once in a while, I learn
[3:31:05] » Thank you. Once in a while, I learn
[3:31:05] [sighs]
[3:31:06] new English words. I learned one last
[3:31:08] week. To shoe something through, like to
[3:31:12] shoe chickens into a chicken coop. Shoo.
[3:31:15] You know, real quick.
[3:31:17] A lot of items, some only formalities,
[3:31:20] took months to implement. Wouldn't it be
[3:31:23] nice to have a plan in the drawer that
[3:31:25] we could pull out when a disaster
[3:31:26] happens and snap our fingers and do all
[3:31:29] those things immediately for future
[3:31:32] disaster survivors.
[3:31:35] We had formalities that we knew we would
[3:31:39] implement like for example the fee waver
[3:31:41] program that took us nine months to
[3:31:43] implement.
[3:31:46] There's a host of other things that were
[3:31:48] discussed in council meetings and
[3:31:50] eventually approved like fee wavers,
[3:31:52] MEP, AOWTS for beachfront, wave uprush,
[3:31:56] fixture accounts, implementing zones and
[3:31:58] zone captains, review time, fuel
[3:32:01] modification, landscaping, and the list
[3:32:03] goes on. Each item was passed like a
[3:32:07] kidney stone.
[3:32:11] This is not an invitation to go into the
[3:32:14] weeds and dissect each of those items
[3:32:16] for the purpose of derailing the key
[3:32:18] point. I just mention them here for
[3:32:20] everyone to remember that we did not
[3:32:22] just spend time on educating the
[3:32:25] rebuilders.
[3:32:28] But that significant changes were made,
[3:32:30] many of which need to be preserved. And
[3:32:32] the key point is we need to be faster
[3:32:35] next time.
[3:32:37] We need to be prepared on a different
[3:32:40] level. This is not an accusation that
[3:32:43] those decisions took an undue amount of
[3:32:45] time. A city had to be run.
[3:32:51] There were other top priorities like
[3:32:52] people dying on PCH.
[3:32:56] Things had to be fleshed out and we
[3:32:58] learned as we went. And we can blame the
[3:33:00] people who made those decisions and we
[3:33:02] can have compassion,
[3:33:05] but it doesn't change the fact that it
[3:33:07] did take a long time. We couldn't drop
[3:33:11] everything and do only rebuilds. We
[3:33:14] won't next time.
[3:33:16] We need to prepare.
[3:33:19] I want you to remember that voting yes
[3:33:21] on this item doesn't approve a specific
[3:33:23] list of things that will then railroad
[3:33:27] future councils and the future city of
[3:33:29] Malibu into do things that will be to
[3:33:32] their disadvantage.
[3:33:36] So what this
[3:33:38] plan that we have in our draw will
[3:33:40] effectively look like in detail will be
[3:33:42] subject to being fleshed out and decided
[3:33:45] upon deliberately, intelligently
[3:33:50] and with discretion.
[3:33:53] But each and every one of you by voting
[3:33:55] on this agenda item will show colors,
[3:34:01] show if you are reelectable or not.
[3:34:06] because you will say yes to 8A because
[3:34:09] you understand Malibu and have you have
[3:34:12] genuinely comprehended
[3:34:15] what went wrong
[3:34:17] in this year
[3:34:20] or you vote no because you have not
[3:34:22] comprehended what happened last year and
[3:34:24] do not understand Malibu
[3:34:27] and what it means to respond
[3:34:29] appropriately
[3:34:31] to a disaster.
[3:34:33] I trust you do understand.
[3:34:39] Let's chew this through.
[3:34:44] » For Malibu
[3:34:46] and for the future elderly
[3:34:49] and the future children
[3:34:53] that will lose everything.
[3:34:57] Thank you.
[3:35:00] Scott followed by Janet followed by
[3:35:03] Abroy.
[3:35:07] » Good evening again.
[3:35:11] » Bless you.
[3:35:11] >> On
[3:35:15] January 8th,
[3:35:19] we were in shock. That shock carried on
[3:35:22] through much of the year.
[3:35:26] We're now over it. We've heard
[3:35:30] so much input
[3:35:33] on why we need this type of measure
[3:35:38] policy decision by you guys.
[3:35:42] I'm not a geotechnical engineer,
[3:35:46] but I know something about mathematics.
[3:35:50] 22 permits
[3:35:54] in one year
[3:35:56] translates into 27 years to rebuild 600
[3:36:01] homes.
[3:36:03] We can't wait that long. Our staff,
[3:36:06] Yolanda, Tyler, and the rest are busting
[3:36:09] their butts.
[3:36:11] You guys are working overtime. And I had
[3:36:13] to laugh at that one guy who wanted to
[3:36:16] criticize Steve saying, "You guys are
[3:36:19] having fun up there." Uh, maybe not.
[3:36:24] I'm a zone captain in Rambla Pacificico.
[3:36:28] One of my neighbors
[3:36:31] at 3294 Rambla is 82 years old. He got
[3:36:38] immediately
[3:36:41] into planning
[3:36:43] and trying to move it forward. Now, some
[3:36:46] of his delay was due to his geotechnical
[3:36:49] engineer cuz I was talking to Yolanda
[3:36:52] and I don't have that paperwork. But
[3:36:55] there's too much that carries on and
[3:36:59] goes on and goes on and it does relate
[3:37:03] to GEO.
[3:37:05] With this proposal,
[3:37:08] I think it frees up
[3:37:10] Yolanda to push things through. It's
[3:37:14] going to make it easier,
[3:37:16] not more difficult
[3:37:19] because there's certain things that need
[3:37:21] to be done. Now, what I do have is a bit
[3:37:24] of common sense.
[3:37:26] >> [snorts]
[3:37:26] » [snorts]
[3:37:26] >> And if a house has been there for 40
[3:37:30] » And if a house has been there for 40
[3:37:30] years [snorts]
[3:37:32] and the slab's still good and there's no
[3:37:35] cracks and it's certified by a
[3:37:37] geotechnical engineer, you should be
[3:37:40] able to assume
[3:37:43] that it can be rebuilt like for like,
[3:37:46] not even like for like plus 10. That's
[3:37:50] kind of a simple assumption that I think
[3:37:54] we could utilize.
[3:37:56] So I do urge you pass this. It's a
[3:38:00] wonderful step forward and it really
[3:38:05] emphasizes that you guys are behind
[3:38:07] rebuilding and quickly. Thank you.
[3:38:10] >> Thanks Scott Janet followed by Abe
[3:38:16] » followed by Brian Mayer.
[3:38:21] Good evening to all of you. These
[3:38:24] remarks are targeted toward putting the
[3:38:26] requests in 8A into a sort of a positive
[3:38:30] historical perspective on our own very
[3:38:33] special city.
[3:38:35] And to do that, I take you back to 1993,
[3:38:37] 1994 to the old Tanga fire that burned
[3:38:41] 369 homes, of which 268
[3:38:46] were in a brand new city of Malibu.
[3:38:50] and the Malibu City Council and the
[3:38:52] planning personnel all worked hard and
[3:38:54] helped our family build a highly re
[3:38:58] resilient house that would in fact today
[3:39:03] withstand the onslaught that came with
[3:39:05] the 2025 fire.
[3:39:09] And this was not a quick and easy
[3:39:10] rebuild like the very first fire permit
[3:39:13] after the 1993 fire. This was for a
[3:39:16] literal like for like uh very simple
[3:39:19] home, same foundation, the top of Big
[3:39:21] Rock. Just a couple months to get that
[3:39:23] permit. Instead, we put in a new
[3:39:26] foundation. We moved ground level square
[3:39:29] footage up to the second floor. We added
[3:39:31] lots of fire resistant materials and a
[3:39:34] variety of other things. All rebuilt on
[3:39:36] the same footprint and within 10% of the
[3:39:40] original size.
[3:39:43] Now, without the support of the council
[3:39:45] members at that time, that includes some
[3:39:49] names you'll be familiar with, Walt
[3:39:50] Keller, John Harlo, Carolyn Van Horn,
[3:39:55] Joan House, Jeff Kramer,
[3:39:57] as well as the city manager, Carman, and
[3:40:00] planning director, Bernard. We were able
[3:40:03] to be number permit number 32.
[3:40:07] Okay. exactly one year
[3:40:11] after the fire took our home. That was
[3:40:14] November 3rd, 1994.
[3:40:16] And do you know who was one of the
[3:40:19] planners who worked with our architect
[3:40:22] and our contractor?
[3:40:25] Yep.
[3:40:27] Council member and now mayor, Maryanne
[3:40:29] Rigggins.
[3:40:32] So, yes, you
[3:40:34] >> I wasn't here in 93.
[3:40:37] » I wasn't here in 93.
[3:40:37] [laughter]
[3:40:37] in 94. We have evidence that you stamped
[3:40:40] it actually.
[3:40:43] >> It's not me, I swear. [laughter]
[3:40:45] » It's not me, I swear. [laughter]
[3:40:45] >> Okay. All right. Well, you must have
[3:40:46] » Okay. All right. Well, you must have
[3:40:46] been there mentally
[3:40:48] until 2005.
[3:40:50] >> You're really a [laughter] good story.
[3:40:51] » You're really a [laughter] good story.
[3:40:51] >> I I know. I'm sorry. Don't cut our time
[3:40:54] » I I know. I'm sorry. Don't cut our time
[3:40:54] on that one.
[3:40:57] » So, shall I take you out then? Huh?
[3:40:59] >> Yes, please.
[3:40:59] » Yes, please.
[3:40:59] >> Okay, we'll take you out.
[3:41:01] » Okay, we'll take you out.
[3:41:01] >> As much credit as I'd love to take, I
[3:41:02] » As much credit as I'd love to take, I
[3:41:02] can't.
[3:41:03] >> But we do believe you can do it,
[3:41:04] » But we do believe you can do it,
[3:41:04] Maryanne. Right.
[3:41:07] and uh we know it can be done and um
[3:41:10] council members and the planners you
[3:41:12] know need the the the discretion and the
[3:41:15] tools to do their job and that we know
[3:41:17] you can do that. So, we are personally
[3:41:21] forever grateful for all the help that
[3:41:23] we receive from the council and from
[3:41:24] planning uh and uh we we hope that the
[3:41:29] current council can be sort of like
[3:41:31] Walt, John, Carolyn, Joan, and Jeff and
[3:41:35] get this move this forward because we
[3:41:37] know you can do it.
[3:41:38] >> Thank you.
[3:41:40] » Thank you.
[3:41:40] Uh Abroy and Brian Merrick
[3:41:45] and uh Mr.
[3:41:48] All right. Well, happy new year,
[3:41:49] council. It's good to see you. Um, I'm
[3:41:52] going to make uh three points in favor
[3:41:54] of uh the resolution.
[3:41:57] Uh, you heard Scott mentioned GEO. If
[3:42:00] you sort of take a big picture view,
[3:42:03] unquestionably, particularly for the
[3:42:04] landside homes, GEO is the number one
[3:42:07] gating item. And I'm not saying this
[3:42:09] from a city standpoint. And I'm actually
[3:42:11] saying this from an overall perspective,
[3:42:14] which is the homeowner is taking
[3:42:17] it takes weeks and months for the
[3:42:19] homeowner's GEO staff to get the report
[3:42:21] back to them. Then it takes several
[3:42:23] weeks for the city to review it and then
[3:42:25] it's followed by several weeks of
[3:42:28] deliberations over the recommendations.
[3:42:30] So if there is anything which I know ADA
[3:42:34] will effectively streamline that process
[3:42:37] to an extent and there were other
[3:42:39] discussion which is going to be helpful
[3:42:40] as well which we heard earlier this
[3:42:42] evening go needs to be the number one
[3:42:45] priority in in terms of accelerating the
[3:42:48] rebuilds. The second point and Danny
[3:42:51] touched upon this as well is we heard
[3:42:53] chatter that this is about removing
[3:42:55] oversight or letting the homeowners run
[3:42:57] wild. Um it's far from that. There is no
[3:43:01] circumventing of any sort of due
[3:43:02] diligence. In fact, it's the opposite.
[3:43:06] When there is lensure at stake, people
[3:43:09] tend to get more conservative and uh the
[3:43:12] design teams tend to make
[3:43:13] recommendations that are more
[3:43:15] conservative. And this we have heard
[3:43:17] firsthand from the city of LA as well.
[3:43:20] The third point which is perhaps the
[3:43:22] most interesting one is the chatter
[3:43:25] leading up to this meeting is that
[3:43:27] apparently ADA is a developers dream. It
[3:43:31] is exactly the opposite of that.
[3:43:34] Developers would welcome complexities
[3:43:37] that would push the homeowners and the
[3:43:39] rebuilders into the arms of the
[3:43:41] developers because they have the
[3:43:43] wherewithal, they have the knowledge.
[3:43:45] They have the budget. They have the
[3:43:46] resources and they have the
[3:43:47] understanding to tackle all of this. the
[3:43:49] homeowners and the rebuilders don't. So,
[3:43:52] this is exactly the opposite of being a
[3:43:56] developer's dream. In fact, the
[3:43:57] developers would want you to reject ADA.
[3:44:00] Thank you.
[3:44:02] >> Thank you,
[3:44:04] » Thank you,
[3:44:04] >> Brian, Merrick. And then, um, Marissa,
[3:44:17] » thanks again. Um I just here a little
[3:44:21] bit to finish up on what I started
[3:44:22] earlier which is you know for your
[3:44:24] benefit to a certain extent but I'm in
[3:44:27] favor of this because um I do believe if
[3:44:30] this has been around we wouldn't you
[3:44:32] know I think the city of Malibu
[3:44:35] uh really fails a lot of the time
[3:44:37] throughout its history by not planning
[3:44:39] for things in the future. So I like the
[3:44:42] idea that we're thinking about that. Um,
[3:44:44] I just want to note that while we're
[3:44:46] about to get our permit, I hope we're
[3:44:49] almost 800,000 into this with all the
[3:44:52] fees and everything that we're doing to
[3:44:54] try and rebuild this beach house and
[3:44:56] it's only 3,800 square ft. Um, so some
[3:45:00] of the things that we ran into that
[3:45:01] maybe you need to look upon would be,
[3:45:04] uh, the fire department for two or three
[3:45:07] weeks, I think it may have been solved,
[3:45:08] but the fire department, you know,
[3:45:10] requested a fuel modification plan for
[3:45:12] our beach house. Okay. So, those are
[3:45:14] just reasonable things, right? Um, and
[3:45:16] finally, it got overturned. Uh, I don't
[3:45:18] think Halen's question was totally
[3:45:20] answered by the CALR thing. I did talk
[3:45:23] to Rob. You should ask Rob again about
[3:45:25] what we talked about as far as municipal
[3:45:27] code of the city of Malibu requiring a
[3:45:29] variance from CALR for all new seaw
[3:45:32] walls. We're not really new seaw walls.
[3:45:34] We're trying to replace an something
[3:45:36] that was there before. And that's what's
[3:45:38] holding us up currently from what I
[3:45:39] understand. This is from my architects.
[3:45:42] Um so based on this uh uh like what is
[3:45:46] the definition of a wildfire? Is it a
[3:45:48] declared disaster by the state or
[3:45:50] federal? I mean or is it a wildfire just
[3:45:52] like hey it started in the canyons and
[3:45:54] it burned one house like who gets the
[3:45:56] benefit from this? So what are the
[3:45:58] definitions of that? Um is there a limit
[3:46:00] on how many houses must be destroyed for
[3:46:03] that to kick in? Right. Um and then how
[3:46:06] much of a structure is does this apply
[3:46:09] to like a guest house? What what what
[3:46:11] exactly are we talking about as far as
[3:46:12] that goes? And how much of that
[3:46:14] structure can be destroyed before it
[3:46:16] kicks in? What if only 50% or what if
[3:46:19] 25% of it was was destroyed? Do you get
[3:46:22] the benefits of this? I um I tend to
[3:46:25] agree with what I've heard up here from
[3:46:26] these other people for the most part.
[3:46:28] So, um you know, I just want to make
[3:46:31] sure that there aren't weird little
[3:46:33] loopholes for people, but otherwise, I
[3:46:35] think pre-planning is a good idea. Thank
[3:46:37] you,
[3:46:39] >> Marissa. You're the final in person and
[3:46:41] » Marissa. You're the final in person and
[3:46:42] then we'll go to our online speakers.
[3:46:47] » Hello. Um I my concern is with some
[3:46:51] people who I'm representing now having
[3:46:54] trouble based on the VE zone uh
[3:46:56] elevations doing uh the BF plus one foot
[3:47:01] because they're going to either have a
[3:47:03] detached garage separate and then
[3:47:05] they'll have to have an elevator to take
[3:47:07] them to their front door or something.
[3:47:09] And some of the property owners have
[3:47:10] lived here for a long time and they're
[3:47:12] senior citizens. One of them has a wife
[3:47:14] in a wheelchair and he would have to
[3:47:16] accommodate her getting it. The ADA,
[3:47:20] there's no ADA compliance in the in the
[3:47:22] rebuild formula. Uh I tried to look
[3:47:25] around that, but I'm I went back to the
[3:47:28] Stanford Act as amended in 2013 and
[3:47:31] that's under and that controls FEMA and
[3:47:33] our and correct me if I'm just not
[3:47:36] remembering that our disaster was not
[3:47:38] federally declared.
[3:47:40] Am I incorrect?
[3:47:43] I'm yes or no.
[3:47:44] >> It was
[3:47:45] » It was
[3:47:45] >> it was okay. So even given that if
[3:47:48] » it was okay. So even given that if
[3:47:48] there's a a way to do a [snorts]
[3:47:51] workaround because if they don't have
[3:47:53] insurance FEMA or anything to replace
[3:47:55] it, they're all, you know, underinsured,
[3:47:57] many of them are underinsured. The ones
[3:47:59] that have the VE zone of like 27 or
[3:48:02] something are going to have trouble even
[3:48:04] rebuilding and the cost to do that is
[3:48:07] going to be a lot more for them. So I
[3:48:09] think if we can find an an avenue and I
[3:48:12] can go over with any of you individually
[3:48:14] or something else to reflect on on how
[3:48:18] we're implementing it because it's okay
[3:48:20] to say footprint plus 10 but if you
[3:48:22] can't even put it in the same place and
[3:48:24] you have have to put it higher than the
[3:48:28] previous house because you have to meet
[3:48:30] the base flood elevation plus a foot for
[3:48:32] your finished floor structural
[3:48:34] crossmember. Then that's a problem for a
[3:48:36] lot of these people. I've been running
[3:48:37] into it. I've got four projects right
[3:48:39] now that are having this problem. Most
[3:48:41] of them are down by Tanga. And also
[3:48:44] another thing I think that that if
[3:48:46] Calrans wants to and this addresses the
[3:48:49] septic issue too. If CALR wants their
[3:48:52] highway to stop sliding into these
[3:48:54] things, they should pay for the
[3:48:56] retaining walls that protect their
[3:48:58] highway. And and then that also impacts
[3:49:01] the way that a bulkhead is designed to
[3:49:04] protect a septic system.
[3:49:06] Okay, Bruce is confused, but I can I
[3:49:08] don't want to give you too much detail
[3:49:09] because nobody understands it. I could
[3:49:11] talk to you individually, but I think
[3:49:13] that there are some avenues that that
[3:49:15] might be helpful to them if they're
[3:49:17] having trouble putting it in the same
[3:49:19] footprint and not have to have a
[3:49:21] breakaway garage or separate access.
[3:49:24] Okay, Bruce is dying to ask me
[3:49:26] something. I can just tell. Do you want
[3:49:27] to ask
[3:49:28] >> part
[3:49:29] » part
[3:49:30] I I appreciate the information and
[3:49:31] knowledge you bring to these meetings on
[3:49:33] these matters but I'm really having a
[3:49:35] difficult time tying any of these
[3:49:37] comments to the item that's on the
[3:49:39] agenda tonight as opposed to other
[3:49:41] things that we've been dealing with for
[3:49:42] the past year. So is there a point that
[3:49:45] I'm missing?
[3:49:45] >> No.
[3:49:46] » No.
[3:49:46] >> Okay.
[3:49:46] » Okay.
[3:49:46] >> No, you're not missing anything. I just
[3:49:48] » No, you're not missing anything. I just
[3:49:48] I was just wanted to get that in because
[3:49:51] other times when I've spoken I haven't
[3:49:52] had the opportunity to get it in and
[3:49:54] this has all transpired prior to those
[3:49:56] since those other times.
[3:49:57] >> This is a little sensation
[3:49:59] » This is a little sensation
[3:49:59] snuck right in here being the last
[3:50:01] person.
[3:50:01] >> I got it.
[3:50:02] » I got it.
[3:50:02] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:50:04] » Okay. Thank you.
[3:50:04] >> Okay. Um do we still have two hands?
[3:50:07] » Okay. Um do we still have two hands?
[3:50:07] >> Yes.
[3:50:07] » Yes.
[3:50:07] >> Okay.
[3:50:08] » Okay.
[3:50:08] >> Joe Drummond.
[3:50:12] » Joe, are you there?
[3:50:15] >> Yes. Council members, this item matters
[3:50:19] » Yes. Council members, this item matters
[3:50:19] because it addresses the single biggest
[3:50:20] cause of fire rebuild delay, not because
[3:50:22] it weakens safety standards. For
[3:50:24] rebuilds on previously developed stable
[3:50:27] lots and mitigated landslide areas, full
[3:50:28] geotechnical investigation should not be
[3:50:31] required. In Big Rock, we receive
[3:50:33] landslide monitoring reports every
[3:50:35] single year, which consistently show no
[3:50:37] measurable movement for at least three
[3:50:38] decades. Regardless, prescriptive
[3:50:41] building codes already allow
[3:50:42] construction in landside areas when
[3:50:44] conservative design standards are met.
[3:50:46] This is the law today here and
[3:50:48] internationally. So, the mere presence
[3:50:50] of a map landslide zone should not be
[3:50:52] used to justify months of additional
[3:50:54] studies where long-term stability is
[3:50:56] already documented. Under current
[3:50:58] practice, geotechnical alone takes eight
[3:51:00] months or more, even for like for-like
[3:51:02] rebuilds of homes that lawfully and
[3:51:04] safely supported existing homes through
[3:51:05] storms, earthquakes, and prior fires for
[3:51:08] decades. Many built before 1970. After
[3:51:10] Wolsey and Palisade, one of the best
[3:51:12] actions the city took was removing
[3:51:14] cottonsh from bu rebuild review. By
[3:51:16] wielding their power over rebuilds,
[3:51:18] projects were repeatedly stalled by
[3:51:20] unnecessary and escalating requirements.
[3:51:22] By contrast, when Yolanda Bundy
[3:51:24] intervened, projects moved forward
[3:51:26] appropriately. In my own case, a 64
[3:51:28] square foot deck built before the fire,
[3:51:30] she allowed staff to rely on a standard
[3:51:33] engineering practice and deferred to my
[3:51:34] licensed structural engineer. That deck
[3:51:36] was negligible in size and risk like our
[3:51:38] rebuilds and it remains standing today.
[3:51:40] So there is precedent here. Meanwhile,
[3:51:42] my 84year-old neighbor on Seabort, the
[3:51:44] first permit issued in Big Rock was
[3:51:46] required to install 19 quesons under an
[3:51:49] uninhabited garage. Any practicing
[3:51:51] geologist or engineer would tell you
[3:51:52] that is overkill. Conservative
[3:51:54] calculations would demonstrate this
[3:51:56] immediately. This is about process
[3:51:58] failure, not safety. Using conservative
[3:52:00] engineering assumptions informed by
[3:52:02] areawide geotechnical data and observed
[3:52:04] historical site performance is standard
[3:52:06] practice and fully protective of public
[3:52:08] safety. Correcting this single
[3:52:10] requirement could reduce total rebuild
[3:52:11] permitting timelines to roughly three
[3:52:13] months instead of 9 months to two years
[3:52:15] and allow Yolanda or city attorney and
[3:52:17] council to be seen as champions of
[3:52:19] recovery. The current approach is
[3:52:20] financial devastation. Families are
[3:52:22] forced to carry mounting monthly
[3:52:24] expenses and fees while navigating a
[3:52:25] fragmented plan check process marked by
[3:52:28] late surprise reviews that render
[3:52:29] advertised 10-day timelines meaningless.
[3:52:32] We support Miss Bundy's decision to hire
[3:52:33] the Santa Rosa Geotechnical Review
[3:52:35] Consultants. This must support recovery,
[3:52:37] not incentivize complexity. You may hear
[3:52:40] this item enables self-certification or
[3:52:42] undermines staff. It does neither.
[3:52:44] Engineers already carry legal
[3:52:45] responsibility. Staff still review
[3:52:47] plans. Inspectors and geologists remain
[3:52:49] on site during construction. The city
[3:52:51] retains full enforcement authority. The
[3:52:53] governor's emergency orders require
[3:52:54] cities to streamline wildfire
[3:52:56] rebuilding. We are asking council to
[3:52:59] direct staff to allow conservative
[3:53:00] prescriptive engineering assumptions for
[3:53:02] rebuilds up to 10%. Rely on area wide
[3:53:05] geotechnical data and long-term
[3:53:07] historical performance. Assign one
[3:53:09] accountable plan check lead with full
[3:53:10] disclosure of requirements and reviews
[3:53:12] on intake. Enforce clear binding review
[3:53:14] timelines consistent with state
[3:53:16] mandates. The city is legally
[3:53:17] responsible for enabling. We're probably
[3:53:19] not prolonging the discussion.
[3:53:20] >> Thank you, Joe. Please.
[3:53:23] » Thank you, Joe. Please.
[3:53:23] >> Next speaker,
[3:53:25] » Next speaker,
[3:53:25] >> Tina Seagull.
[3:53:27] » Tina Seagull.
[3:53:27] >> Tina, are you there?
[3:53:29] » Tina, are you there?
[3:53:29] >> I'm here. Can you hear me?
[3:53:31] » I'm here. Can you hear me?
[3:53:31] >> Yes, we can. Please go ahead.
[3:53:33] » Yes, we can. Please go ahead.
[3:53:33] >> Okay. First of all, mayor and council
[3:53:35] » Okay. First of all, mayor and council
[3:53:35] member, thank you for taking time to
[3:53:37] hear what I have to say. My name is Tina
[3:53:39] Seagull. Our family have been Malibu
[3:53:41] homeowners for over 50 years. 50 years
[3:53:44] ago, two families pulled their resources
[3:53:46] to buy their dream home for $200,000 or
[3:53:49] less. They weren't millionaires, just
[3:53:51] two families who dreamed of owning a
[3:53:53] home on the most beautiful beach in
[3:53:55] California, Lacosta. Over 50 years of
[3:53:58] four generations creating the best
[3:54:00] memories any family could ever imagine.
[3:54:03] birthday parties, fishing with grandpa,
[3:54:05] swimming all day, baptisms, grunion
[3:54:07] runningings, taking our blue and red
[3:54:09] wraps all the way to toys and sports,
[3:54:11] hickory burgers, and watching Endless
[3:54:13] Summer for the millionth time at Mount
[3:54:15] Vu Cinema. One year ago, we watched all
[3:54:18] those memories go up in flames, all but
[3:54:21] three homes gone, 60ome homes destroyed.
[3:54:26] Walking onto that property, my property
[3:54:29] last week, wall after wall after wall
[3:54:32] covered in graffiti, I just wept. I was
[3:54:35] one of the first to hand in person all
[3:54:37] the documents we were asked to submit
[3:54:39] with great hope of a speedy process due
[3:54:42] to promises, fees would be waved, and
[3:54:44] the process would be streamlined. Sadly,
[3:54:47] those promises were not upheld. My plans
[3:54:50] submitted long ago, rejected twice
[3:54:53] already, still await the first step of a
[3:54:56] permit. I'm so tired of answering the
[3:54:59] question, how's the rebuild going?
[3:55:02] Please adopt this resolution. Please let
[3:55:05] us rebuild quickly so we can go back
[3:55:08] home. Thank you.
[3:55:11] >> Thank you. That'll conclude our public
[3:55:14] » Thank you. That'll conclude our public
[3:55:14] comments.
[3:55:16] Hey, who wants to go first?
[3:55:25] » Roshamba,
[3:55:33] you know, listening to the comments, I
[3:55:35] got I guess a one one
[3:55:38] major impression. No matter what we do,
[3:55:40] it's not going to be good enough. No
[3:55:42] matter what we do, I mean, yeah, we
[3:55:45] listen to again, we had this topic on
[3:55:48] the agenda, this this and we were all
[3:55:51] over the place. Uh, and that's going to
[3:55:55] make it more difficult.
[3:55:59] I guess I got two thoughts.
[3:56:03] one
[3:56:05] the
[3:56:08] as Bruce described it and I still think
[3:56:10] falls under the category of
[3:56:11] self-certification of the uh
[3:56:17] applicants engineer can developer
[3:56:20] whatever the heck it is trying to come
[3:56:22] up with a range of what is is available
[3:56:24] or not available and whether how how
[3:56:27] they get the city planner to agree that
[3:56:30] that range is is exists
[3:56:33] and how they're going to how they're
[3:56:34] going to pick and choose from that I
[3:56:35] don't understand yet. I mean, I just
[3:56:37] think that prevent presents more
[3:56:39] complexity to the whole building issue.
[3:56:44] The second thing I think we just got to
[3:56:46] realize just because I put a piece of
[3:56:49] paper together that says, you know,
[3:56:51] we're going to this is going to get done
[3:56:53] in four days, doesn't mean it's going to
[3:56:55] happen that way. I don't know how many
[3:56:57] of you have worked inside of a
[3:56:59] corporation trying to get things done
[3:57:01] and you got to go back. I mean, we
[3:57:02] started off with nothing, right? I mean,
[3:57:04] this this was a we went from zero to
[3:57:09] however many miles an hour we're going
[3:57:11] through right now. It took us a while to
[3:57:12] get there. You don't do that overnight.
[3:57:14] And I'm just afraid if we sit down and
[3:57:16] say, "Okay, we're going to get it done
[3:57:17] in 4 days or 5 days, and that's going to
[3:57:20] be the absolute limit of what we're
[3:57:22] going to do."
[3:57:24] We're going to make people because
[3:57:25] you're not always going to get there. I
[3:57:26] mean, I think everybody's trying and I
[3:57:29] think if I've if I've seen anything take
[3:57:31] place, we you know, we talked about it
[3:57:33] earlier in the meeting. I think Yolanda
[3:57:36] has made huge strides in making this
[3:57:38] thing work better. Uh and I think there
[3:57:40] are more strides to come. I think she's
[3:57:43] got a huge task of trying to train all
[3:57:46] these consultants you got in there. You
[3:57:47] got to keep those guys on track. That
[3:57:49] just that's not easy. I mean, we had we
[3:57:51] had to bring in a whole new staff of
[3:57:53] people to try and get all this stuff
[3:57:54] done. and that has certainly slowed
[3:57:56] things down. And I don't think this
[3:57:58] resolution is going to make a difference
[3:58:00] in that. So, I've got some concerns
[3:58:02] about what this is actually going to
[3:58:04] accomplish for us or how it's going to
[3:58:06] meet the the comments I heard two folks
[3:58:08] giving us. Right. I mean, I don't know
[3:58:11] if it's going to get you what you want.
[3:58:14] Uh I may have more to say or let
[3:58:16] somebody else go for a while.
[3:58:20] » Okay. Um,
[3:58:24] first off, I hear this hear the cries
[3:58:27] for making things work better.
[3:58:30] And if you look back on what the city
[3:58:33] has done, and I'm not trying to take uh
[3:58:36] say we have we could have done things
[3:58:37] better. We changed the municipal code.
[3:58:40] We got the governor to change rules for
[3:58:43] sequo and uh coastal commission that are
[3:58:47] permanent. These are built into the
[3:58:50] Malibu Municipal Code. Now, we've made
[3:58:52] major changes to get to where we are.
[3:58:55] And don't forget this city. When when I
[3:58:57] got voted in to this office, the city's
[3:59:00] philosophy was do everything you can to
[3:59:03] not have a building be added to this
[3:59:06] inventory. And that's part of what's
[3:59:09] actually written into this. You know,
[3:59:10] there's two different rules. Rebuilds
[3:59:12] are one thing. Uh new construction is
[3:59:14] another. So yeah, we had a system set up
[3:59:18] that was designed to slow walk
[3:59:20] everything as opposed to expedite
[3:59:22] anything. We made some pretty good
[3:59:25] changes to that and a lot of these are
[3:59:26] permanent changes. So yeah, it's it's a
[3:59:30] different world than we had a year ago
[3:59:32] tonight, but we still need things to be
[3:59:35] improved and Yolanda has done a lot of
[3:59:38] things to make things better. We hadn't
[3:59:41] even implemented the Baker Tilly report
[3:59:43] which was a critical part about how we
[3:59:45] could make our planning and building and
[3:59:47] safety process better that would even
[3:59:50] even considered. So there's a lot of a
[3:59:52] lot of baggage that need to be cleared
[3:59:54] out of the way. Now, I'm not saying this
[3:59:56] isn't a step in the right direction, but
[3:59:58] I got a lot of problems with this. And
[4:00:01] I've also heard some words that people
[4:00:04] have said in the uh public comments that
[4:00:07] are designed to say, if you take this
[4:00:10] route, you're wrong. Well, let's see if
[4:00:12] we really are wrong. And let me take you
[4:00:16] through a couple of things. First off, I
[4:00:17] got a question to Bruce and Halen. Why
[4:00:21] didn't you have the city staff uh
[4:00:24] associate with you on this? It's one
[4:00:25] thing to have the council which has to
[4:00:27] do this in public, but why is this not
[4:00:30] as it says in here, the attached
[4:00:31] resolution in this report was provided
[4:00:34] by Mayor Pro Tim Silverstein and council
[4:00:36] member Conrad. This report does not
[4:00:38] contain analysis or recommendations
[4:00:40] prepared by the staff. We have some of
[4:00:42] the best people in town and in the area
[4:00:46] and we didn't talk to them. How come?
[4:00:51] Halen
[4:00:52] >> because we're elected officials and we
[4:00:54] » because we're elected officials and we
[4:00:54] are these are policies.
[4:00:57] >> We spoke to them.
[4:01:01] » We spoke to them and we're this is our
[4:01:03] this is inside of our purview from what
[4:01:05] I've understood. We're council. This is
[4:01:08] we make policy. This is policy. We did
[4:01:11] speak to them. I spoke to them.
[4:01:15] >> How that? So yeah, the the answer is
[4:01:18] » How that? So yeah, the the answer is
[4:01:18] first of all, it's it's not an accurate
[4:01:21] um premise that there was no
[4:01:23] conversation. So it's it's kind of like
[4:01:24] when did you stop beating your wife type
[4:01:26] question and I know it wasn't
[4:01:27] intentional. Um but the fact is we did
[4:01:30] have conversations. I'm going to come
[4:01:31] back to them, but we've been operating
[4:01:34] without a city manager for a year. When
[4:01:37] this fire came, we didn't have our
[4:01:40] permanent city manager. he had gone aw.
[4:01:43] We did bring in a very competent
[4:01:45] interim, but it was an interim who was
[4:01:49] who was here more to um keep the peace
[4:01:52] and make sure the lights stayed on and
[4:01:55] and and and provide an empathetic view
[4:01:58] to the residents cuz she was a resident,
[4:02:00] but she was not a city manager who had
[4:02:02] the ability to deal with these kinds of
[4:02:04] policy issues, big picture issues. So,
[4:02:06] we didn't have a city manager. Um, even
[4:02:10] the subordinate staff at the senior
[4:02:11] level was gone. They ditched us after
[4:02:14] the fire. In fact, [clears throat] they
[4:02:16] ditched us because they didn't like the
[4:02:17] fact that the city council was making
[4:02:19] policy decisions that were um that that
[4:02:22] ultimately redounded to everybody's
[4:02:23] benefit. They were upset with the fact
[4:02:25] that they thought we were outside of our
[4:02:27] lane, but we weren't. We were actually
[4:02:28] completely in our lane. Um, Yolanda is
[4:02:33] stretched ridiculously thin. She's
[4:02:35] concentrating on running the [snorts]
[4:02:38] program, not designing the program.
[4:02:40] She's even working on that, too. But
[4:02:42] she's stretched extremely thin. So is
[4:02:45] Tyler. And it's not our job to speak
[4:02:47] with the um subordinate staff. We don't
[4:02:49] we actually aren't even allowed to. So
[4:02:52] we came to all we had all these town
[4:02:55] hall meetings. We had multiple special
[4:02:58] city council meetings. There was all
[4:03:01] kinds of input from the staff, from the
[4:03:03] residents, from other city council
[4:03:05] members. And as a result of taking all
[4:03:08] of that in, we took the laboring ore of
[4:03:12] actually writing something up because we
[4:03:14] didn't have a staff that had the
[4:03:15] bandwidth or in the case of the senior
[4:03:18] management, the experience to do it. We
[4:03:20] stepped up to the plate and we did what
[4:03:23] needed to be done. We then did meet with
[4:03:25] Tyler and Yolanda and we heard their
[4:03:28] comments. They weren't happy with
[4:03:30] everything we did. But you know what? As
[4:03:34] much as we love them and want them to um
[4:03:37] do the great job they're doing, it is,
[4:03:39] as Halen just said, our job to establish
[4:03:41] the policies and the rules, and it's
[4:03:44] their job to implement them. And we try
[4:03:48] we actually made a lot of changes to the
[4:03:50] language to accommodate concerns that
[4:03:52] were raised by Yolanda and Tyler about
[4:03:55] some things that maybe we had gone
[4:03:56] further than they we had gone even
[4:03:58] further than they much we' gone further
[4:04:00] than they would like in some areas that
[4:04:02] we kept it but in other areas where we
[4:04:04] were receptive to the comments and we
[4:04:06] made changes and now we can hash it out
[4:04:10] but I don't think it's a basis for
[4:04:11] rejecting this that um well said it's
[4:04:15] not a basis for rejecting that we deal
[4:04:16] with the staff because we actually did
[4:04:18] and you know if if the question is why
[4:04:21] didn't you deal with the lower level
[4:04:23] staff again you know as well as I do
[4:04:25] we're not even allowed to do that
[4:04:27] >> right
[4:04:27] » right
[4:04:27] >> but but we did
[4:04:29] » but but we did
[4:04:29] >> we are not in ordinary times
[4:04:30] » we are not in ordinary times
[4:04:30] >> right and the way that I see it this is
[4:04:32] » right and the way that I see it this is
[4:04:32] policy and we're policy makers and
[4:04:34] people have I mean they've elected us
[4:04:37] we're in a position we're not
[4:04:39] implementers
[4:04:41] we are looking at problems and we are
[4:04:43] supposed to solve them and we're
[4:04:44] supposed to put them into policy
[4:04:46] And then we go to the staff who's
[4:04:48] extremely competent and they implement
[4:04:50] it. And this is us doing our job in my
[4:04:53] opinion. And I would be very proud of a
[4:04:56] council that would be doing this if I
[4:04:58] was on that side of the audience.
[4:05:03] » Other questions?
[4:05:04] >> Well, I have other questions. Uh, I hear
[4:05:07] » Well, I have other questions. Uh, I hear
[4:05:07] you, but I will I would take a
[4:05:08] disagreement on this because one of the
[4:05:10] things that you learn in leading large
[4:05:13] numbers of people is you have to build a
[4:05:15] consensus. People have to be willing to
[4:05:17] follow you, not just take your orders.
[4:05:20] And that's the difference between policy
[4:05:23] 100% versus consensus building. And I
[4:05:27] would I'm not going to put them on the
[4:05:29] spot, but I'd love to know whether or
[4:05:30] not Yolanda and the rest of the staff
[4:05:33] thinks this is a something that ought to
[4:05:35] be implemented or not or how which parts
[4:05:38] they disagree with. But we're not going
[4:05:39] to do that tonight.
[4:05:40] >> Well, just a comment that you know, you
[4:05:41] » Well, just a comment that you know, you
[4:05:41] know, all my career, we both had very
[4:05:45] successful careers in different areas
[4:05:47] and a lot of people that have been very
[4:05:49] successful in both those areas do it
[4:05:50] based on the belief that consensus
[4:05:52] building is critical. And a lot of
[4:05:55] others do it on the basis that they
[4:05:56] actually understand what needs to be
[4:05:58] done and they get it done whether other
[4:05:59] people agree or not. Uh and there are
[4:06:02] plenty of failures in both ways and
[4:06:03] there are plenty of successes in both
[4:06:04] ways. One of those ways over the other
[4:06:06] is not necessarily better. The result is
[4:06:09] what matters.
[4:06:11] >> That's right. And that's that's one of
[4:06:12] » That's right. And that's that's one of
[4:06:12] the things you want to try and ensure.
[4:06:14] And I think building a consensus is
[4:06:16] better. But that's all right. We'll get
[4:06:18] past that. Um I am a little taken back
[4:06:22] by the uh comment recommended action at
[4:06:25] the request of the mayor pro Tim and
[4:06:27] Silverstein and council member Conrad
[4:06:29] discuss and provide direction on the
[4:06:31] attached resolution.
[4:06:32] >> But this is because the staff didn't put
[4:06:35] » But this is because the staff didn't put
[4:06:35] this together. Look, let's go back to
[4:06:37] how this city council works and what our
[4:06:39] resolutions are and how we work. We all
[4:06:42] have the ability to make propose council
[4:06:45] member proposals.
[4:06:47] The staff also puts things on the
[4:06:49] agenda. When they put them on the
[4:06:50] agenda, they prepare a report.
[4:06:53] >> When we prepare something, they don't
[4:06:55] » When we prepare something, they don't
[4:06:55] create a report for us. In fact, this,
[4:06:57] you know, this is one of the reasons I
[4:06:58] ran for city council 5 years ago for the
[4:07:00] first time. I was offended by the fact
[4:07:02] that the staff was micromanaging the
[4:07:05] city council. And I don't mean the staff
[4:07:07] at the staff as in like Yolanda's level.
[4:07:10] I mean the then city manager. They were
[4:07:12] micro she was micromanaging the city
[4:07:14] council. City council couldn't get
[4:07:16] anything on an agenda that it wanted
[4:07:18] unless it went through the boss, but
[4:07:21] that was not the right boss. So, we
[4:07:23] don't get the staff won't prepare report
[4:07:25] for us when we do something like this.
[4:07:27] The only way we can get a staff report
[4:07:28] is if we take six months to go through
[4:07:31] this consensus building activity and
[4:07:34] have it changed in all kinds of ways and
[4:07:36] have them then prepare a report. That's
[4:07:38] their recommendation. Okay? But that's
[4:07:40] this is not a staff recommendation. This
[4:07:42] is a city council member recommendation.
[4:07:45] It's from two out of five.
[4:07:47] >> And [snorts and clears throat] I think
[4:07:48] » And [snorts and clears throat] I think
[4:07:48] that
[4:07:50] we're entitled to the respect of having
[4:07:52] it reviewed on the merits and the mere
[4:07:55] fact that we presented it as opposed to
[4:07:56] the staff presenting it is not in and of
[4:07:58] itself a meaningful objection.
[4:08:00] >> Now, my my question was really what are
[4:08:02] » Now, my my question was really what are
[4:08:02] you asking this council to do?
[4:08:04] >> Adopt this resolution, right?
[4:08:05] » Adopt this resolution, right?
[4:08:05] >> It says direction. I was just trying to
[4:08:07] » It says direction. I was just trying to
[4:08:07] figure out because it says direction on
[4:08:09] the attached resolution.
[4:08:13] Yeah, the direction would be approve the
[4:08:15] resolution. You know, look, we didn't
[4:08:16] write this. We didn't even write this
[4:08:18] this okay, this front report. We didn't
[4:08:20] have any approval of this front report.
[4:08:22] I would have written it differently.
[4:08:24] >> All right. Um,
[4:08:27] » All right. Um,
[4:08:27] I don't have a problem with much of
[4:08:29] what's in here, but I do have a problem
[4:08:31] with your number one and number two
[4:08:33] paragraphs. And one of the comments I
[4:08:37] want to read back uh I've heard several
[4:08:40] times about the geology
[4:08:44] people have been reaching out to Santa
[4:08:46] Rosa um to get their input and there's
[4:08:50] really two different versions of their
[4:08:51] input uh from Santa Rosa and I want to
[4:08:54] read the part about geology. Uh this is
[4:08:58] from the chief building official in fact
[4:09:01] last week uh I guess it's uh Jimmy Bliss
[4:09:05] and he says and this is addressed to uh
[4:09:07] Joe Drummond and a variety of other
[4:09:09] people and I'm included on this along
[4:09:11] with I think some of the city the
[4:09:12] council members and here's the quote the
[4:09:15] California building and residential
[4:09:16] codes do not allow the building official
[4:09:18] to wave requirements in general only to
[4:09:21] interpret them. see the California
[4:09:23] residential code. So and so many of the
[4:09:26] properties destroyed by our fires were
[4:09:28] up in the hills and the combination of
[4:09:29] fire and subsequent demolition grading
[4:09:32] operations significantly changed many of
[4:09:34] the soil properties conditions in those
[4:09:36] areas. In the hills here, it is quite
[4:09:39] common for the slope and state of the
[4:09:40] soil to require a geotechnical report
[4:09:42] anyways and the reports typically
[4:09:45] recommend peer and great beam
[4:09:46] foundations on a case-byase basis where
[4:09:50] we were sometimes able to accept mostly
[4:09:53] in the flatter regions affected by the
[4:09:54] fires older geotechnical reports for
[4:09:56] those properties of subdivisions. The
[4:09:59] only time the building official can
[4:10:00] allow work to proceed without a
[4:10:02] geological report is when they have
[4:10:04] sufficient evidence knowledge of a
[4:10:06] specific site to determine the proposed
[4:10:08] design is okay without it. Anywhere
[4:10:11] affected by, in their case, bay mud,
[4:10:13] sandy soils, landslide areas, expansive
[4:10:16] soils, compressible soils, or areas on
[4:10:19] significant slopes would not typically
[4:10:21] fall in this category. Geotechnical
[4:10:24] reports are an important part of
[4:10:26] ensuring your future homes and
[4:10:27] businesses are built in a safe manner.
[4:10:30] Um, I'd also highlight the fact that,
[4:10:33] you know, you're not doing this just for
[4:10:34] the home that's being built, but for
[4:10:36] everybody around it. To be downs slope
[4:10:38] of a failing hillside. Just a second.
[4:10:40] >> Yeah.
[4:10:41] » Yeah.
[4:10:41] >> Yeah. Just downs slope of a failing
[4:10:43] » Yeah. Just downs slope of a failing
[4:10:43] hillside where a house is going to fall
[4:10:46] on your house. That's not the that's not
[4:10:49] just a concern of the home builder of
[4:10:51] the home that's failing, but it's
[4:10:53] everybody around it, not to mention the
[4:10:54] values of properties,
[4:10:57] especially when it could have been uh
[4:10:59] avoided by having the proper
[4:11:00] construction.
[4:11:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I concur 100% with
[4:11:04] » Yeah. Yeah. I I I concur 100% with
[4:11:04] everything you just said, and I've said
[4:11:05] it myself in the past, and there's
[4:11:07] absolutely nothing in the language here,
[4:11:09] if you read it word for word, that says
[4:11:12] anything to the contrary.
[4:11:13] >> All right. I disagree, I disagree. Um,
[4:11:16] » All right. I disagree, I disagree. Um,
[4:11:16] >> so let's talk about the language.
[4:11:17] » so let's talk about the language.
[4:11:17] >> Well, let's talk about structure here.
[4:11:19] » Well, let's talk about structure here.
[4:11:19] You got two different ideas. And I know
[4:11:23] the comment was made. Let's don't make
[4:11:24] this self-certification. Well, wait a
[4:11:26] minute. What is this? When you look at
[4:11:29] number one, it says to that end,
[4:11:31] whenever there's a difference of opinion
[4:11:33] on an issue that the director of
[4:11:34] community development department
[4:11:36] recognizes to be different of opinion
[4:11:38] upon which reasonable professional civil
[4:11:40] engineers might differ, the city staff
[4:11:42] shall defer to the stamped and certified
[4:11:44] decision of the civil engineer employed
[4:11:46] by the applicant so long as the engineer
[4:11:49] is a California licensed civil engineer
[4:11:51] experienced in a particular practice
[4:11:54] that's implicated by this controversy
[4:11:55] and so forth.
[4:11:56] >> Yes.
[4:11:58] » Yes.
[4:11:58] Now what that does is say in
[4:12:01] self-certification
[4:12:03] the homeowner or builder is responsible
[4:12:06] and takes the liability for hold on for
[4:12:10] the for a self-certification. In fact
[4:12:12] it's recorded as such on the title. Now
[4:12:15] uh on the title report what you've done
[4:12:18] though here is to say that if you give
[4:12:20] me a u
[4:12:23] engineering report say geology or
[4:12:26] structural and we don't agree with it
[4:12:29] your applicant wins.
[4:12:32] >> No hold on it's what that's the way I'm
[4:12:35] » No hold on it's what that's the way I'm
[4:12:35] reading it. But hold on and if that's
[4:12:37] the case we're going to issue a building
[4:12:39] permit and now the city takes the
[4:12:41] responsibility.
[4:12:43] >> Okay. So, so it doesn't No, but this is
[4:12:44] » Okay. So, so it doesn't No, but this is
[4:12:44] the point. It doesn't say that. But to
[4:12:46] the extent you're concerned that it
[4:12:48] suggests that, that's the point of this
[4:12:50] discussion now is we should tweak the
[4:12:51] words to get to the point where we all
[4:12:53] reach an agreement on what it should
[4:12:54] mean.
[4:12:55] >> But [snorts] let let me just give you an
[4:12:56] » But [snorts] let let me just give you an
[4:12:56] analogy because I was thinking about
[4:12:58] this in response to Steve's comment too
[4:13:00] earlier
[4:13:00] >> where he said that um it looks like a
[4:13:03] » where he said that um it looks like a
[4:13:03] version of self-certification. And I I
[4:13:06] am not sufficiently versed in building
[4:13:09] code issues to be able to give a
[4:13:11] specific example in the building code.
[4:13:14] Maybe Yolanda can let me let me just but
[4:13:16] I'll give you an analogy in the law
[4:13:18] which I think works pretty well. When um
[4:13:22] there's a jury decision or or at a bench
[4:13:24] trial, a judge's decision, and somebody
[4:13:26] appeals, the question on appeal is not
[4:13:30] is the party who lost
[4:13:32] right in the arguments about why they
[4:13:34] shouldn't have lost. The question isn't
[4:13:36] should the party have who won should
[4:13:39] they have won. The question is, is there
[4:13:41] a basis in the record to support the
[4:13:44] decision that the jury or the judge
[4:13:46] reached?
[4:13:48] What this is intended to do, and and
[4:13:50] that's [clears throat] a pretty that's a
[4:13:51] more liberal standard than this, by the
[4:13:53] way. What this is intended to do is say
[4:13:56] when the appellet judge here, Yolanda or
[4:13:58] whoever's in Yolanda's seat at the time,
[4:14:01] looks at a range of alternatives and the
[4:14:05] and the one that is being advocated by
[4:14:07] the homeowner is within one of those
[4:14:09] alternatives that she believes is fair
[4:14:12] and appropriate and fits the the
[4:14:14] requirements. Then notwithstanding the
[4:14:16] fact that she might personally have
[4:14:18] reached a different decision had she
[4:14:20] been on the jury, she'll affirm the
[4:14:23] decision that's being presented to her
[4:14:25] because it falls within a range of
[4:14:27] reasonable approaches. It doesn't say
[4:14:30] that if it isn't within that range in
[4:14:33] her judgment that she will approve it.
[4:14:36] It says that if it's in that range, so
[4:14:38] so long as it hits the range, even if
[4:14:40] it's at the bottom end, and she likes to
[4:14:42] be more cautious than that, and she
[4:14:43] would rather them be 20% better than the
[4:14:46] minimum requirement, she won't impose
[4:14:48] that requirement on them because they've
[4:14:50] hit the minimum that they're required
[4:14:51] to. So, she's saying, "If I were on the
[4:14:54] jury, I might not have I might not have
[4:14:56] ruled for that party, but I understand
[4:14:59] why that party won. It's a fair and just
[4:15:02] result, and I'm going to therefore go
[4:15:03] with it." Okay, Bruce, we're not done
[4:15:05] court of law, but let me give you let me
[4:15:07] give you a 100% example of why this is
[4:15:11] fatal. And I also will tell you why this
[4:15:14] is a developer's dream.
[4:15:17] >> A developer that wants to do a lake for
[4:15:19] » A developer that wants to do a lake for
[4:15:19] lake rebuild.
[4:15:20] >> You bet.
[4:15:20] » You bet.
[4:15:20] >> Okay,
[4:15:21] » Okay,
[4:15:21] >> let's take my house built in 1998 to
[4:15:24] » let's take my house built in 1998 to
[4:15:24] 2000. I have a very wellrespected
[4:15:29] architect engineer came up and said,
[4:15:31] "For my house, it's going to have a And
[4:15:33] the contractors out here don't know
[4:15:35] this. A post-tension slab
[4:15:38] came to the city and they said, "Not so
[4:15:41] fast. You're on a hillside slope. You
[4:15:44] need 23 quesons.
[4:15:47] The extra cost in 2000 was about
[4:15:50] $100,000. Today that's $500,000. That's
[4:15:53] within the range you just described. A
[4:15:55] post-tension slab by a a contractor
[4:15:59] that's experienced in Malibu versus what
[4:16:01] the city required.
[4:16:03] Now, 20 years later, the hillside down
[4:16:07] the street from me failed. $7 million to
[4:16:10] fix the project and
[4:16:13] my house, one of the comforts I had was
[4:16:16] I'm on 23 quesons. The house had it been
[4:16:19] on just a post-tension slab might have
[4:16:22] moved more and we would have a different
[4:16:24] problem. But here's the advant here's
[4:16:26] what happens. And let's take our guys in
[4:16:28] New Zealand just to pick on them for a
[4:16:30] minute. who some of the people that are
[4:16:31] that are uh promoting some of this may
[4:16:35] actually have a relationship with them.
[4:16:37] They're going to have this property
[4:16:39] these units constructed in China
[4:16:43] and you can have a California engineer
[4:16:45] in China certify whatever they're doing
[4:16:48] structural design and so forth. How's
[4:16:50] the city going to uh override that with
[4:16:52] your language that says that there's a
[4:16:54] range of possibilities within uh their
[4:16:57] determination, professional
[4:16:58] determination? And the answer is well,
[4:17:01] you might lose your license.
[4:17:02] >> No, the city's not overriding anything.
[4:17:04] » No, the city's not overriding anything.
[4:17:04] City's not overriding anything. The city
[4:17:06] is in the first instance evaluating the
[4:17:09] proposal.
[4:17:09] >> Let me and this is where you get a
[4:17:12] » Let me and this is where you get a
[4:17:12] question. Who is right? So you got the
[4:17:14] engineer in China who is certified by
[4:17:18] California is licensed and he says or
[4:17:22] she says I think this structural design
[4:17:24] works. It works for us in other places.
[4:17:26] It's within the range of possibilities
[4:17:29] >> aso as opposed to having the city decide
[4:17:32] » aso as opposed to having the city decide
[4:17:32] what's what's competent or not. Now hold
[4:17:35] on Bruce. If you've got 16 lots and you
[4:17:38] can build them for a half a million
[4:17:39] dollars cheaper, the developer just
[4:17:42] picks up $8 million worth of profit.
[4:17:44] >> You're creating a straw man.
[4:17:46] » You're creating a straw man.
[4:17:46] >> No, I'm not creating a straw man. I'm
[4:17:47] » No, I'm not creating a straw man. I'm
[4:17:47] giving you an example of where this is
[4:17:49] going to go. And the reason why I say
[4:17:52] this, if you had self-certification,
[4:17:55] the homeowner, developer would have to
[4:17:56] be responsible for it. And this is the
[4:17:59] reason why the major home builders in
[4:18:01] the United States, at least in San Diego
[4:18:03] and Phoenix, have said, "We're not
[4:18:05] touching self-certification because
[4:18:07] we're responsible for it." But when you
[4:18:09] take the approach you have here, the
[4:18:11] city becomes responsible for it. I think
[4:18:14] you'd be a lot better off if we didn't
[4:18:15] have any part of this right here in
[4:18:17] number two and let the city staff make
[4:18:21] the decision because it's our permit
[4:18:23] that's on it, our name. And by the way,
[4:18:26] one of the things that that isn't
[4:18:28] mentioned here, who's got the liability
[4:18:31] insurance for a bad decision by the
[4:18:33] outside engineer? Okay,
[4:18:34] >> the answer. Hold on. Did you know that
[4:18:36] » the answer. Hold on. Did you know that
[4:18:36] California doesn't require liability
[4:18:38] insurance for any engineers?
[4:18:42] >> I'm going to submit to you that you're
[4:18:43] » I'm going to submit to you that you're
[4:18:44] misreading this.
[4:18:45] >> All right.
[4:18:45] » All right.
[4:18:45] >> And I think a lot of people are. First
[4:18:47] » And I think a lot of people are. First
[4:18:47] of all, the pro the language in here
[4:18:49] about stamped and certified decision of
[4:18:52] the civil engineer employed by an
[4:18:55] applicant so long as such civil engineer
[4:18:57] as a California licensed civil engineer
[4:18:59] experienced in a particular practice
[4:19:00] that is implicated by the item in
[4:19:02] controversy
[4:19:03] is not an indication of who has to be
[4:19:07] relied upon. It's actually a requirement
[4:19:10] before you even get to the question of
[4:19:12] whether you consider what they're
[4:19:14] proposing. So in other words, if someone
[4:19:16] who doesn't have these qualifications
[4:19:18] presents something, this doesn't apply
[4:19:19] at all. This does not but but this this
[4:19:24] does not say that when someone has those
[4:19:26] qualifications, the city is obliged to
[4:19:29] do as they say, which which I think is
[4:19:31] your what you're assuming and I think
[4:19:32] what Steve was assuming too in the way
[4:19:34] he was describing it. What this says is
[4:19:36] that first of all, if it's not someone
[4:19:38] who meets those qualifications, they're
[4:19:40] irrelevant. They just, you know, they're
[4:19:42] shown the door. If they do meet those
[4:19:44] qualifications and they present a plan
[4:19:46] and the city reviews the plan and the
[4:19:49] city is satisfied that the plan meets
[4:19:52] the legal requirements, then
[4:19:54] notwithstanding the fact that there may
[4:19:56] be some better way to do it that is more
[4:20:00] conservative than the applicable legal
[4:20:02] requirement, the city won't impose that
[4:20:04] additional legal requirement. This is
[4:20:06] another This is an example of how to
[4:20:08] apply the rule that's being set forth
[4:20:12] which says don't impose any rules that
[4:20:15] aren't in the law. So, it's a straw man
[4:20:18] to say that this means we're going to
[4:20:20] have to do it because they say it's
[4:20:22] within a reasonable range. The
[4:20:24] determiner of whether it is or is not
[4:20:26] within the range is the city. So the
[4:20:30] city has already made a decision that it
[4:20:32] is in fact in the range and it's saying
[4:20:36] that's the end of the analysis.
[4:20:37] >> Who in the city makes that decision?
[4:20:39] » Who in the city makes that decision?
[4:20:39] >> Yeah. Who's going to do that? Who
[4:20:40] » Yeah. Who's going to do that? Who
[4:20:40] >> makes you got to have that?
[4:20:41] » makes you got to have that?
[4:20:41] >> The director of the community
[4:20:44] » The director of the community
[4:20:44] development department. It says it
[4:20:46] explicitly. Now, that person, whoever it
[4:20:48] is at the time, right now it's Yolanda,
[4:20:51] can certainly in the first instance have
[4:20:54] other members of the staff make the
[4:20:55] recommendation or even the decision if
[4:20:58] she wants to defer it to them. She's not
[4:20:59] cuz she's the building the um official
[4:21:02] >> the building official. So, she is making
[4:21:04] » the building official. So, she is making
[4:21:04] these decisions as it is right now. All
[4:21:07] this is is saying again in two different
[4:21:10] sentences in a paragraph, we're only
[4:21:12] going to require what the law requires.
[4:21:15] We're not. And again, and I'm confident
[4:21:16] Yolanda is doing exactly that. No.
[4:21:18] >> And this is Yolanda's doing exactly
[4:21:20] » And this is Yolanda's doing exactly
[4:21:20] that. She's not requiring anything that
[4:21:22] the law doesn't require because it's not
[4:21:23] her job to invent new rules. It's her
[4:21:25] job to apply the law. And she's applying
[4:21:27] the law as she understands it. Again,
[4:21:30] this is a future-looking document. This
[4:21:33] is to make sure that the next city
[4:21:35] council with the next disaster doesn't
[4:21:37] have to take 9 months to get to this
[4:21:39] point and that the next community
[4:21:40] development director when this happens
[4:21:43] 10 years from now doesn't have to spend
[4:21:45] 9 months to get to this point and maybe
[4:21:47] that person won't have the same approach
[4:21:49] Yolanda has and will want to maybe that
[4:21:51] Lauren Doyle would be the community
[4:21:53] director or a person I don't mean Lauren
[4:21:56] a person like that and this is saying
[4:21:59] don't do what you were doing do what the
[4:22:01] law requires. So it's it's just I I
[4:22:04] don't understand how you're getting this
[4:22:06] point that um we have to follow
[4:22:08] somebody. We don't [snorts] this makes
[4:22:10] very clear over and over again the law
[4:22:14] governs and the decision of the
[4:22:16] community development direct depart
[4:22:18] development department director is going
[4:22:20] to decide what the law is.
[4:22:22] >> Okay.
[4:22:23] » Okay.
[4:22:23] >> All right.
[4:22:23] » All right.
[4:22:23] >> And can I just jump in because I think
[4:22:25] » And can I just jump in because I think
[4:22:25] we're going to end up going around
[4:22:26] circles here.
[4:22:27] >> And by the way, one last thing. If if
[4:22:28] » And by the way, one last thing. If if
[4:22:28] the pro I wouldn't I wouldn't support
[4:22:31] this, but if your problem is with that
[4:22:33] sentence, you don't throw the ba the
[4:22:35] baby out with the bath water.
[4:22:37] >> If you have a problem with a particular
[4:22:39] » If you have a problem with a particular
[4:22:39] sentence, we talk about taking the
[4:22:41] sentence out or changing the sentence,
[4:22:42] but there's still a whole bunch of other
[4:22:44] stuff in here that I'm not hearing
[4:22:45] criticism of.
[4:22:46] >> Yeah.
[4:22:46] » Yeah.
[4:22:46] >> Oh, well, we haven't gotten to that yet,
[4:22:47] » Oh, well, we haven't gotten to that yet,
[4:22:47] so just hang on.
[4:22:50] Well, let me just one say one thing here
[4:22:52] because I think I think when you have
[4:22:55] Steve, myself, and Doug all reading this
[4:22:58] and we're all reading it a certain way
[4:23:01] that maybe it's not written in a way
[4:23:04] that you intend that it's not coming
[4:23:06] across
[4:23:08] how you're intending it to be. What I
[4:23:11] think that we if we were to look at
[4:23:13] this, one of the things that we need to
[4:23:15] be doing is that just further
[4:23:19] stipulating that minimum code
[4:23:22] requirements when it comes to the
[4:23:23] building code is what is accepted across
[4:23:28] the board. If somebody wants to propose
[4:23:33] higher construction standards than a
[4:23:35] minimum code, they're welcome to do
[4:23:37] that. But the building code is very
[4:23:39] clear as it is the minimum code
[4:23:42] standards and the design professionals
[4:23:46] that are out there
[4:23:48] also are in this choosing to recommend
[4:23:53] higher code standards but the minimum
[4:23:56] code is all they need to be. So I I
[4:23:59] think that you know we're reading this I
[4:24:02] think in a similar manner. So I don't
[4:24:05] think it's intending to say what you
[4:24:07] think it is. So at the very minimum, we
[4:24:10] need to go through number one and really
[4:24:13] clarify what the intention is and how it
[4:24:17] can be improved to actually say minimum
[4:24:21] code standards is what
[4:24:22] >> can be applied.
[4:24:23] » can be applied.
[4:24:23] >> I just want to bring up one thing. When
[4:24:25] » I just want to bring up one thing. When
[4:24:25] you talk about having the building
[4:24:27] official make a decision, what you
[4:24:30] really are back to the same system we
[4:24:31] have today where the applicant submits
[4:24:35] their proposed engineering for
[4:24:36] structural or geology or whatever and
[4:24:39] then the city has employed people to
[4:24:42] review it. And if the city's reviewers
[4:24:46] say that you need to do this and this
[4:24:48] because of their local knowledge of the
[4:24:51] hillsides or the structural issues,
[4:24:54] who wins in that argument? And the
[4:24:56] answer should be since we're issuing the
[4:24:58] building permit and we're the ones
[4:25:00] taking the liability for the decision,
[4:25:02] it should be our city staff that makes
[4:25:04] the call.
[4:25:05] >> It's exactly deferred to somebody that
[4:25:07] » It's exactly deferred to somebody that
[4:25:07] that has nothing to lose.
[4:25:09] >> Once again, it's exactly what it says.
[4:25:11] » Once again, it's exactly what it says.
[4:25:11] And secondly, I I take issue repeatedly
[4:25:13] when residents say this or or I should
[4:25:15] say when the people that appear before
[4:25:16] us in in land use matters appear say
[4:25:18] this and I take issue when you say it
[4:25:20] and I don't think you do it
[4:25:21] intentionally. We don't have liability
[4:25:23] just because somebody does something
[4:25:24] that ends up years later being a
[4:25:26] problem. Um the standards for liability
[4:25:29] for when a city or any other when a
[4:25:31] municipality approves a permit are
[4:25:34] extremely narrow and they're not at all
[4:25:37] just because it was wrong or shouldn't
[4:25:39] have been approved that you have
[4:25:40] liability. It's a it's it's a uh red
[4:25:42] herring and it really shouldn't come
[4:25:44] into the conversation. We should be
[4:25:45] deciding what makes sense, not being
[4:25:47] concerned about fake liability
[4:25:50] suing us after the girls got killed on
[4:25:52] PCH.
[4:25:53] >> They're not getting a judgment, are
[4:25:54] » They're not getting a judgment, are
[4:25:54] they?
[4:25:55] >> They're suing. Well, hold on a second.
[4:25:57] » They're suing. Well, hold on a second.
[4:25:57] Here's the other thing. If you go to
[4:25:58] Agura Hills over by the wildlife
[4:26:00] crossing, that whole hillside fell away
[4:26:02] with houses and the city of Agura Hills
[4:26:05] got uh responsibility for uh the
[4:26:09] planning process that they didn't do
[4:26:11] properly. So, you can say all you want
[4:26:13] to about it being red herring, but
[4:26:14] that's not the way it works in real
[4:26:16] life.
[4:26:16] >> I've heard now um so much conflicting
[4:26:21] » I've heard now um so much conflicting
[4:26:21] information. I've heard that we're not
[4:26:24] liable as the city that they we are
[4:26:27] liable if something goes wrong. What is
[4:26:30] the fact of the matter? Are we if you
[4:26:35] have a certified
[4:26:39] is the building department liable
[4:26:41] because I have waiverss of indemnity. I
[4:26:44] have heard so many different things now.
[4:26:47] Well, every permit requires the
[4:26:49] applicants to indemnify and defend the
[4:26:51] the city. That's a requirement. The city
[4:26:53] also has a number of immunities that are
[4:26:56] um you know require that that uh protect
[4:26:59] the city and negligence related to the
[4:27:01] issuance of permits. So, there's a lot
[4:27:03] of protections for cities um that are
[4:27:05] built in there, but it's not impossible
[4:27:07] for a city to to get sued or to lose. Um
[4:27:11] but it's it's a difficult uh it's
[4:27:14] difficult for a city to um face
[4:27:18] liability over the approval of a permit.
[4:27:20] >> And are there waiverss in which people
[4:27:22] » And are there waiverss in which people
[4:27:22] sign
[4:27:25] >> when they're building?
[4:27:26] » when they're building?
[4:27:26] >> It's uh they sign an indemnity um
[4:27:29] » It's uh they sign an indemnity um
[4:27:29] provision is as a requirement to
[4:27:32] identify and defend the city. um other
[4:27:35] other types of dependencing on the
[4:27:36] permit there are other things
[4:27:37] assumptions of risk
[4:27:39] >> um or other types of documents that are
[4:27:41] » um or other types of documents that are
[4:27:41] required to be signed as well
[4:27:42] >> but you know I mean Doug made the point
[4:27:43] » but you know I mean Doug made the point
[4:27:43] and I agree with him I've said it before
[4:27:45] the mere fact that the um applicant
[4:27:48] indemnifies the city doesn't first if if
[4:27:52] a third party gets harmed that is not
[4:27:55] very meaningful because easily the
[4:27:57] liability if there were one could exceed
[4:27:59] the wherewithal of the um applicant to
[4:28:02] satisfy a judgment
[4:28:04] And then somebody would be looking to
[4:28:05] the city as well. And I don't ever make
[4:28:08] decisions on whether there will or won't
[4:28:10] be potential liability. I mean, you
[4:28:12] know, I've been a lawyer for [snorts] 40
[4:28:13] years and when I represent my clients,
[4:28:15] that's what I tell them. Don't don't ask
[4:28:17] me the question, what will my potential
[4:28:19] liability be if I don't do the right
[4:28:21] thing? The question is, what's the right
[4:28:23] thing to do? Because if you do the right
[4:28:26] thing in the first instance, you're not
[4:28:28] going to have a liability to be
[4:28:29] concerned about. Do could you get sued?
[4:28:32] Sure. The great thing about this country
[4:28:34] is it takes $75 for a filing fee or
[4:28:37] whatever it is and anyone can sue
[4:28:38] anybody for anything, but the judicial
[4:28:41] system works it out. And as Trevor said,
[4:28:44] it's not impossible to be liable for
[4:28:45] something when you're a municipality
[4:28:47] approving a building permit. But it's
[4:28:49] extremely rare and it would require
[4:28:50] something a lot more than simply having
[4:28:52] made the wrong decision. And we
[4:28:54] shouldn't be t we shouldn't be getting
[4:28:56] all tied up worrying about liability
[4:28:58] when we should be trying to decide
[4:29:00] what's the right thing to do. Let me
[4:29:02] just give you think of the discussion
[4:29:04] we've had here
[4:29:06] however long now. Okay.
[4:29:10] How do you think this is going to be
[4:29:12] absorbed by the staff when they start
[4:29:14] going through this thing? I mean, you
[4:29:15] think it's going to be a complex thing
[4:29:18] for everybody to understand and make
[4:29:19] sure they know what the hell we're doing
[4:29:20] and we do it right. And let me give you,
[4:29:22] you know, this process that said we can
[4:29:25] trust the
[4:29:27] professionals. go back to the uh motel
[4:29:30] that was being built across from the
[4:29:32] pier. All right. Doug Burg has been
[4:29:34] constructing stuff in the city for a
[4:29:36] long long time. And he he proposed a
[4:29:39] garage that a subterranean garage that
[4:29:41] really wasn't subterranean. All it was
[4:29:43] was built on the same level. They put
[4:29:45] some dirt around the side and called the
[4:29:46] subterranean. And the staff approved it.
[4:29:49] Staff approved it. Right. So, I'm just
[4:29:52] saying, you know, look,
[4:29:54] to some point we have to we're paying
[4:29:56] Yolanda and her staff a lot of money.
[4:29:58] I'm not a lot of money and probably not
[4:30:00] enough Yolanda. I apologize for that.
[4:30:02] But, but I mean, that's their job.
[4:30:06] That's why they hire these. Look, I
[4:30:08] don't I don't know how many of these
[4:30:09] permits you've taken a look at or
[4:30:11] Kayla's taken a look at that have come
[4:30:12] into your chron. You don't you've never
[4:30:14] seen one of these things.
[4:30:16] >> These people have and we're paying them
[4:30:18] » These people have and we're paying them
[4:30:18] to do that and they're good at it. And I
[4:30:21] don't want to take it away from them.
[4:30:22] That's exactly what you're doing. You're
[4:30:24] taking it away from their ability to do
[4:30:26] and that's wrong.
[4:30:27] >> It does not take away anything from
[4:30:29] » It does not take away anything from
[4:30:29] anybody. And it doesn't say trust
[4:30:31] anybody whatsoever. It actually says
[4:30:34] before you even get to have the benefit
[4:30:37] of a doubt. You have to be all these
[4:30:38] things, a licensed professional in the
[4:30:40] proper standard in the proper um field.
[4:30:43] But what this ultimately says is that it
[4:30:46] is the city that makes a decision as to
[4:30:49] whether the proposal is within a range
[4:30:53] that the law permits.
[4:30:55] >> That's what the city's doing today.
[4:30:56] » That's what the city's doing today.
[4:30:56] >> Fine. So then what's your problem?
[4:30:58] » Fine. So then what's your problem?
[4:30:58] >> That's exactly right. We're not really
[4:31:00] » That's exactly right. We're not really
[4:31:00] changing. We're memorializing it. It
[4:31:02] says community director. We're trusting
[4:31:04] her. We're This is what we're doing. We
[4:31:07] are just putting it pen to paper, voting
[4:31:10] on it. If there are things that you
[4:31:11] don't like, we can change some of those
[4:31:14] things.
[4:31:14] >> Yeah, we still haven't heard Maryann's
[4:31:15] » Yeah, we still haven't heard Maryann's
[4:31:15] objections, and I'm not sure I don't
[4:31:17] think Doug's finished either, but I
[4:31:18] mean, Steve, I I really I hear you
[4:31:20] coming at this from a standpoint of
[4:31:22] being defensive, that this is a
[4:31:23] criticism, that we haven't done things
[4:31:25] right, that the residents, no matter
[4:31:26] what, aren't going to be satisfied. That
[4:31:28] is not at all the purpose of this. And
[4:31:30] in fact, I didn't hear from the comments
[4:31:31] at all that this is something that
[4:31:33] they're going to be dissatisfied with no
[4:31:35] matter what we do. And
[4:31:37] >> say that they wanted more.
[4:31:39] » say that they wanted more.
[4:31:39] They may want more,
[4:31:40] >> right?
[4:31:40] » right?
[4:31:40] >> But that's fine. That's the They're
[4:31:43] » But that's fine. That's the They're
[4:31:43] allowed to ask for everything and
[4:31:44] anything they want. They could ask for
[4:31:45] us to build their houses for them and to
[4:31:47] put them up tomorrow.
[4:31:48] >> This mentality of that they're not
[4:31:49] » This mentality of that they're not
[4:31:49] entitled to ask for things is strange to
[4:31:52] me.
[4:31:53] >> This has been pervasive that I've been
[4:31:55] » This has been pervasive that I've been
[4:31:55] noticing for a very long time since I've
[4:31:57] been here. And I don't really appreciate
[4:31:59] it because I'm a resident. And if my
[4:32:01] horse my house burned down, I would be
[4:32:03] here hoping to get what I needed from my
[4:32:05] council. They are entitled to these
[4:32:08] things and we're entitled
[4:32:10] to have a great working relationship
[4:32:12] here. Everybody is entitled. We can do
[4:32:14] everything at once. We don't have to
[4:32:16] exclude one party and we're defending
[4:32:19] another. This us against them thing is
[4:32:21] so bizarre to me. We're trying to do
[4:32:24] what council people do. We're trying to
[4:32:26] support staff. We're not criticizing
[4:32:29] staff. We think we've done a fabulous
[4:32:31] job. We're also trying to listen to
[4:32:32] residents and also we know we are in a
[4:32:35] disasterprone city. So instead of not
[4:32:39] preparing for the next one, we have
[4:32:41] tools that we can just trust. But
[4:32:44] there's so much mistrust,
[4:32:46] >> you know, and also after the fire, the
[4:32:48] » you know, and also after the fire, the
[4:32:48] staff after taking some time came to us
[4:32:51] with a bunch of municipal code amendment
[4:32:54] proposals and we didn't necessarily a
[4:32:56] lot of us we didn't understand exactly
[4:32:58] what they meant. The residents didn't
[4:33:00] understand what they meant. We had to
[4:33:01] have meetings to talk about what they
[4:33:03] meant. We tweaked some of the words. We
[4:33:05] listened to the explanations. We didn't
[4:33:07] just have a knee-jerk reaction of, you
[4:33:09] know, no, we don't like the fact that
[4:33:11] this is being proposed. We don't want to
[4:33:12] make changes. We listened. We rec we
[4:33:15] knew that they were coming from the
[4:33:16] right place, that they were intended to
[4:33:18] benefit the residents. We wanted to make
[4:33:20] sure we didn't go too far and do the
[4:33:22] wrong thing. All the right things that
[4:33:23] we should be doing now with this, too.
[4:33:25] But the mere fact this isn't coming from
[4:33:27] the staff and the mere fact that there
[4:33:28] may be questions about what it means
[4:33:30] means we should be having a discussion
[4:33:32] about what does this mean? Should we
[4:33:34] change this word or shouldn't we change
[4:33:36] this word? Do we like this concept or
[4:33:38] don't we like this concept? And that's
[4:33:40] what we're we're trying to do. But we
[4:33:41] shouldn't just be like there's problems
[4:33:44] so let's throw this out. We don't do
[4:33:45] this which is the which is what I sense
[4:33:47] is the the attitude. We're not saying to
[4:33:50] throw the whole thing out, but the
[4:33:51] problem that you've presented here is,
[4:33:53] and I'm using number section one, the
[4:33:56] idea that the applicants professional
[4:33:59] wins in the conversation. I know if I
[4:34:02] was turning in a plan for rebuilding and
[4:34:05] I had an architect that presented
[4:34:08] something, I want the city staff to be
[4:34:11] the quality control to make sure that's
[4:34:13] correct and not just say, "Oh, you
[4:34:15] submitted it by and you got a license
[4:34:17] stamp. Go for it.
[4:34:19] >> It's not what it says.
[4:34:20] » It's not what it says.
[4:34:20] >> That's what it says.
[4:34:21] » That's what it says.
[4:34:21] >> It's not. Everyone out there knows it's
[4:34:22] » It's not. Everyone out there knows it's
[4:34:22] not what it says. Every single one of
[4:34:24] these residents knows that's not what it
[4:34:26] says. Our lawyer knows that's not what
[4:34:28] it says. Ask them.
[4:34:31] >> I I I I'm sorry.
[4:34:34] » I I I I'm sorry.
[4:34:34] >> I know that you are the policy makers,
[4:34:37] » I know that you are the policy makers,
[4:34:37] but that I'm the impletor.
[4:34:39] And it really states
[4:34:42] what I'm getting out of it that it is to
[4:34:45] the civil engineers submitting the plans
[4:34:46] that they're going to be the one. The
[4:34:48] way it's written, it is not clear for
[4:34:50] interpretation and I'm just letting you
[4:34:52] know as my recommendations are your
[4:34:54] building official. The other thing that
[4:34:56] I want to make clear on assumption of
[4:34:57] risk and release when an assumption of
[4:35:00] risk and release for technical is
[4:35:02] submitted
[4:35:03] is is is filled out, we still do a
[4:35:06] review. We we for the minimum code
[4:35:09] compliance. We ask for structural
[4:35:11] calculations. We ask for title 24. We
[4:35:14] ask for your technical engineers uh
[4:35:17] report. So what the assumption of risk
[4:35:20] and release is letting the property
[4:35:22] owner know that hey there is a risk on
[4:35:26] your property.
[4:35:28] We will we as a city we would not we
[4:35:31] would not be able to issue a permit if
[4:35:33] we don't feel that it's safe.
[4:35:36] So when we put our safe uh stamp or
[4:35:39] compliance when we do a review is safe
[4:35:41] for the intended use
[4:35:44] the uh assumption of risk is agrees that
[4:35:48] the proposed structure is still deemed
[4:35:50] safe but is acknowledged to be in a
[4:35:54] geohazard area. That's all it is.
[4:35:59] the interpreta the number two when you
[4:36:01] say that um
[4:36:04] liberalize the process of securing
[4:36:07] building code approval. I am not sure
[4:36:09] what your uh statement indicates uh
[4:36:12] because as a building official and as a
[4:36:15] the representative for your building and
[4:36:17] safety we adhere to the mandatory
[4:36:20] minimum building code compliance.
[4:36:24] So it's not for us to make it more
[4:36:26] liberal, more flexible or more
[4:36:29] stringent. We need to be neutral.
[4:36:33] Uh the other statement that is said on
[4:36:36] paragraph 2, eliminate the need for
[4:36:38] geotechnical analysis for a life forlife
[4:36:40] disaster rebuild to be reconstruct on
[4:36:45] flat paths.
[4:36:50] And this goes back to minimum code
[4:36:53] compliance. If it's already required as
[4:36:56] a building official,
[4:36:59] there is no way to implement this if
[4:37:02] this is happening on an active
[4:37:04] landslide.
[4:37:06] Um so for implementation
[4:37:10] um paragraph one and two
[4:37:14] uh needs a little more work
[4:37:16] um because I would not be able to
[4:37:18] implement it. it it goes against the
[4:37:21] building code
[4:37:22] >> and I and on just like I said to Doug, I
[4:37:24] » and I and on just like I said to Doug, I
[4:37:24] agree with everything you just said. I
[4:37:26] truly do. And I don't think that's what
[4:37:28] this says. It says that this it says
[4:37:30] that where there are issues like that,
[4:37:32] we should explore ways to to get around
[4:37:35] them. Explore doesn't say you have to
[4:37:37] succeed. It says look at it as hard as
[4:37:40] possible and see if there are ways to
[4:37:42] get what needs to be done done. If not,
[4:37:45] it can't be done. But I I want to ask
[4:37:46] the city attorney because I'm I'm
[4:37:47] serious with this. Does this say that um
[4:37:51] we have to defer to licensed
[4:37:53] professionals anywhere?
[4:37:59] » We're talking about section one.
[4:38:01] >> Let's do one first. Yeah. Does this does
[4:38:03] » Let's do one first. Yeah. Does this does
[4:38:03] this say legally? Does this say we have
[4:38:04] to defer to licensed professionals?
[4:38:06] Because I that was not what was intended
[4:38:07] and I don't believe the words say that.
[4:38:13] Well, you have the city staff shall
[4:38:14] defer to the stamped and certified
[4:38:16] decision of the civil engineer employed
[4:38:17] by an applicant so long as such they are
[4:38:20] licensed basically in California and
[4:38:22] experienced in that. So you do have that
[4:38:24] language.
[4:38:25] >> Read the whole sentence from the
[4:38:27] » Read the whole sentence from the
[4:38:27] beginning
[4:38:28] >> to that end. Whenever there is a
[4:38:30] » to that end. Whenever there is a
[4:38:30] difference of opinion on an issue that
[4:38:32] the community development direct uh
[4:38:34] development department CDDD director
[4:38:36] direct recognizes to be a difference of
[4:38:38] opinion upon which reasonable
[4:38:39] professional civil civil engineers might
[4:38:41] differ. the city staff shall defer to
[4:38:44] the stamped and certified decision of
[4:38:46] the civil engineer employed by the
[4:38:47] applicant.
[4:38:48] >> Right. So wouldn't in order to meet the
[4:38:50] » Right. So wouldn't in order to meet the
[4:38:50] first requirement, doesn't the city have
[4:38:53] to first decide it meets the law?
[4:38:57] you're um it comes down to the comm the
[4:39:00] community development director believes
[4:39:03] that uh there's a the difference of
[4:39:07] opinion upon basically a reasonable
[4:39:09] difference of opinion about the issue.
[4:39:11] If there's if there can't be a
[4:39:13] reasonable difference in opinion then
[4:39:15] this community development director
[4:39:16] would not have to defer. That's the
[4:39:18] intention. Right.
[4:39:19] >> Right. if if there's not a if the
[4:39:20] » Right. if if there's not a if the
[4:39:20] community director does not determine
[4:39:22] it's a reasonable interpreta a
[4:39:24] reasonable proposal then they don't have
[4:39:26] to defer to it.
[4:39:29] >> So the gatekeeper is the city at all
[4:39:33] » So the gatekeeper is the city at all
[4:39:33] times. And again if the language needs
[4:39:36] to be tweaked to make it even clearer,
[4:39:38] let's talk about tweaking the language,
[4:39:40] but let's not get held up thinking it
[4:39:42] means something different than it does
[4:39:44] and then saying no. Why don't we try to
[4:39:46] find a way to get to yes?
[4:39:48] >> Hold on a second. If I could, and I want
[4:39:50] » Hold on a second. If I could, and I want
[4:39:50] to go to Maryanne, but isn't this the
[4:39:53] process? If it's what you think it is
[4:39:55] that we're already doing right now, the
[4:39:57] applicant submits the geology report,
[4:40:00] the city looks at it and says, "No, we
[4:40:02] don't agree with it." And the city wins,
[4:40:05] but you're saying the city loses.
[4:40:07] >> Now, if for as long as it's within a
[4:40:09] » Now, if for as long as it's within a
[4:40:09] range of what could be possible, my slab
[4:40:11] example is a perfect example. Post
[4:40:13] tension slabs are built everywhere,
[4:40:16] but they're not built in Malibu on last
[4:40:19] street.
[4:40:22] Um, first of all, I think it is exactly
[4:40:24] what we're doing now after 6 to9 months
[4:40:28] of hashing it out, which I commend
[4:40:32] Yolanda and her staff for getting to
[4:40:34] that point. And I commend the city
[4:40:35] council for getting to that point as
[4:40:36] well. And this is intended to
[4:40:39] memorialize where we've gotten to and
[4:40:41] where the staff has gotten to without a
[4:40:44] formal policy that approves where
[4:40:46] they've gotten to. So I think it really
[4:40:48] does do nothing more than memorializes a
[4:40:51] city council policy where we are. And to
[4:40:54] the extent that anyone here believes the
[4:40:56] language goes further than that, or even
[4:41:00] worse, if anyone here thinks the
[4:41:01] language goes to a point which is
[4:41:03] inappropriate or or unlawful, let's fix
[4:41:06] the language to make sure that it
[4:41:08] doesn't.
[4:41:09] But the point is this is supposed to
[4:41:11] provide a road map not only for now. And
[4:41:14] it's it's actually the road map that's
[4:41:15] already been built. A road map for now,
[4:41:17] but a road map for the future so that
[4:41:20] the next disaster, as Arno said, you
[4:41:22] just pull it out of the drawer and there
[4:41:24] it is. It's already there. It's not a
[4:41:26] question of well, what did we do last
[4:41:27] time? Let's think about it and do we
[4:41:29] agree that we should do the same thing
[4:41:31] this time. It's it's it's a policy that
[4:41:33] could be pulled out and applied. It
[4:41:35] doesn't have to be created again. You
[4:41:37] don't have to keep reinventing the wheel
[4:41:39] every time we have a disaster. So yes,
[4:41:41] it is what we're doing now.
[4:41:43] >> As I said, it was a result of sitting
[4:41:46] » As I said, it was a result of sitting
[4:41:46] here for the past year after
[4:41:49] >> thesis. It's the culmination. It's the
[4:41:51] » thesis. It's the culmination. It's the
[4:41:51] end result. It feels like a little bow
[4:41:53] is put on it. It's a closure. It's a
[4:41:56] document. Um and again, if you don't
[4:41:59] like some of the things, it's open for a
[4:42:01] discussion. Um, but to just throw it out
[4:42:05] because I think you think what it says
[4:42:07] or you're interpreting it in a way that
[4:42:09] you believe
[4:42:11] is possibly I maybe you need to we need
[4:42:14] to take a little bit more time and you
[4:42:15] guys
[4:42:17] need to reread it.
[4:42:18] >> Yeah, but I mean you know this is the
[4:42:20] » Yeah, but I mean you know this is the
[4:42:20] problem of the Brown Act. We this is the
[4:42:21] only way we can talk to each other about
[4:42:23] this and and get it done.
[4:42:24] >> Let me defer to Maryanne. I've talked
[4:42:26] » Let me defer to Maryanne. I've talked
[4:42:26] long enough.
[4:42:27] >> Okay. So [snorts] I hear the community.
[4:42:30] » Okay. So [snorts] I hear the community.
[4:42:30] I hear what you're saying. I hear what
[4:42:31] you want. Everything else,
[4:42:35] um, I appreciate the council members
[4:42:38] that put this together. I appreciate
[4:42:41] what the other council members have said
[4:42:43] to this. Um,
[4:42:46] I think that
[4:42:50] [sighs and gasps] my first first pass
[4:42:52] through this, I just kept writing
[4:42:54] micromanaging staff, micromanaging
[4:42:56] staff, micromanaging staff. Now that
[4:42:59] I've had a chance to hear from the
[4:43:00] council members who put this together,
[4:43:03] I'm
[4:43:05] and hear from the community and
[4:43:06] everything else
[4:43:10] hear that there are people who don't
[4:43:13] understand
[4:43:14] what exists in the city process, what
[4:43:16] has been done by previous councils going
[4:43:19] back all the way to the 93 fire that was
[4:43:22] right on the
[4:43:25] the city hadn't even gotten its feet
[4:43:27] settled yet. and then this major
[4:43:29] disaster happens and then the mudslides
[4:43:31] following them. Um,
[4:43:34] I think that the
[4:43:39] the municipal code and the local coastal
[4:43:41] program had the exemptions and the
[4:43:44] natural disaster rebuild
[4:43:47] um codes already in them. I think that
[4:43:51] it's been a policy of all the councils
[4:43:54] that have encountered the disasters
[4:43:57] 93 2007
[4:44:00] 2018
[4:44:02] they have all led with we want people to
[4:44:05] rebuild their homes. Now the problem is
[4:44:09] we don't know why people didn't rebuild
[4:44:11] after Woolseie. The city had some
[4:44:14] responsibility on that. COVID had some
[4:44:17] of the responsibility on that and there
[4:44:20] are a lot of external extenduating
[4:44:24] circumstances that have led to people
[4:44:26] not rebuilding and we do need to
[4:44:28] acknowledge that. We do need to
[4:44:30] acknowledge that people are underinsured
[4:44:32] that they had life circumstances that
[4:44:36] took them in a different direction when
[4:44:38] it came time to rebuild.
[4:44:41] I appreciate this document in as much as
[4:44:43] that I know that there are people who
[4:44:45] are looking for the city to just have a
[4:44:48] policy of yeah, we're going to be very
[4:44:51] conservative on new buildings, but when
[4:44:55] it comes to rebuilding, it's, you know,
[4:44:58] all hands go. I think our codes say that
[4:45:01] already. Obviously, our community
[4:45:04] doesn't think that. Obviously, there are
[4:45:07] council members that don't think that.
[4:45:09] And so you're looking to have something
[4:45:12] that makes it very clear that rebuilding
[4:45:14] gets priority over everything. I think
[4:45:17] the things that we've done over the last
[4:45:19] year have shown that this particular
[4:45:21] council feels this way. I think that the
[4:45:24] staff I know that they were in the EOC
[4:45:28] emergency operations center and they
[4:45:30] were already looking at the codes and
[4:45:32] what needed to be modified because of
[4:45:35] the nature of where this particular
[4:45:37] disaster hit. And they did that after
[4:45:40] Woolseie. They're do did it after
[4:45:42] Palisades. And they'll do it after the
[4:45:44] next one. Though I don't know what other
[4:45:47] things could be needed after those two
[4:45:50] disasters to be honest with you, but I'm
[4:45:53] sure there will be something. Um, given
[4:45:56] that we've been talking about this for
[4:45:57] an hour and a half, we still have other
[4:45:59] things on the council. I would suggest
[4:46:01] that we schedule a workshop to actually
[4:46:04] sit down and go through what this
[4:46:07] because
[4:46:09] I think there's three of us up here that
[4:46:11] don't read this the same way that the
[4:46:13] two people that put this together. Um,
[4:46:16] and it needs some more time
[4:46:19] and order to get to a place that
[4:46:22] I think any of us would feel
[4:46:26] comfortable with supporting it and
[4:46:29] moving it forward. So my suggestion is
[4:46:31] that we pause on this and finish the
[4:46:34] rest of the business on our agenda for
[4:46:36] >> Interestingly, Helen and I had wanted
[4:46:37] » Interestingly, Helen and I had wanted
[4:46:37] this to be a workshop from the day we
[4:46:40] presented it. And again, because of the
[4:46:43] way the city was being run at the time
[4:46:45] because, you know, we're still we're
[4:46:46] still somewhat semi-rutterless. I don't
[4:46:49] with no disrespect intended, but you
[4:46:51] know, we don't we don't have a permanent
[4:46:52] city manager who's who's been a city
[4:46:54] manager. Um, we we had wanted this to be
[4:46:57] a workshop. I think a lot of the issues
[4:47:00] that we're dealing with tonight in an
[4:47:02] awkward way could have been dealt with
[4:47:03] in a lot better way. Um, but we didn't
[4:47:06] have the right to call a workshop. We
[4:47:07] had the right to put it on an agenda.
[4:47:10] Um, and it's been on the agenda now for
[4:47:12] two months and we've been trying to get
[4:47:13] it to the point where we actually our
[4:47:15] intention the very first night we had it
[4:47:17] on there was to say
[4:47:19] let's put this on a workshop. So, I
[4:47:21] actually concur with that. Um, I also
[4:47:24] didn't feel that I, you know, a lot of
[4:47:27] this stuff has already been done. Almost
[4:47:29] all of it's already been done. So, the
[4:47:32] urgency of getting this in place is less
[4:47:35] than it was as you know. Um, keeps being
[4:47:38] said, I I wrote an article about this 6
[4:47:40] months ago. Um, and I'm remiss for not
[4:47:42] having pressed to have it put on the
[4:47:44] agenda back then. So, to the residents,
[4:47:47] I apologize for not having done that.
[4:47:49] Um, but you know, a good example in here
[4:47:52] is this has a provision towards the end
[4:47:54] of paragraph 2 about finding ways to let
[4:47:57] people use their existing septics and
[4:47:59] their listing and their existing
[4:48:00] foundations. And until a couple weeks
[4:48:02] ago, the being able to use your existing
[4:48:04] septic system if it wasn't destroyed was
[4:48:08] still a gating issue and it was finally
[4:48:10] and it was resolved to the to the, you
[4:48:11] know, by our by our great staff. Yolanda
[4:48:14] took the lead on that and we got and
[4:48:15] that was resolved. This has been
[4:48:17] pressing for that. You know, I've been
[4:48:18] I' I've been saying that in writing for
[4:48:20] many months. Halen has been and it was
[4:48:23] in this proposal and the events have
[4:48:25] passed the requ the requirement that
[4:48:28] that we try to find a way to get it
[4:48:29] done. We still have to find a way if
[4:48:31] possible to let people use foundations.
[4:48:34] Maybe that's already been done, but
[4:48:35] okay, it has. So again, these are not
[4:48:38] these are not creating new rules. These
[4:48:41] are these are memorializing as policy
[4:48:45] that which we've all struggled with. so
[4:48:47] mightily and gotten to the point of
[4:48:49] doing. But having a workshop, I support
[4:48:51] that. I suspect Tailon does. Let's let's
[4:48:53] let's schedule a workshop. I if you know
[4:48:57] I I feel bad suggesting to the residents
[4:48:59] that we'd have to wait a little while
[4:49:00] longer, but maybe it makes sense to do
[4:49:02] it once Joe comes in.
[4:49:03] >> Yeah.
[4:49:03] » Yeah.
[4:49:04] >> And we can and we can do it and he can
[4:49:06] » And we can and we can do it and he can
[4:49:06] coordinate with the staff better the way
[4:49:08] it would have been done had it come from
[4:49:09] the staff in the first place. But, you
[4:49:12] know, let's just not throw this out. I
[4:49:14] think it's an important piece of policy
[4:49:17] that we owe it to the community to put
[4:49:19] into place and we owe it to future city
[4:49:20] councils to put into place.
[4:49:22] >> I disagree with that, but I'd rather
[4:49:24] » I disagree with that, but I'd rather
[4:49:24] they have the opportunity to
[4:49:28] to think about the specific nature of
[4:49:32] those disasters when and if they come,
[4:49:34] how they that city wants to respond and
[4:49:37] that council wants to respond at that
[4:49:38] time where we've already got the things.
[4:49:40] I just want to go back to the opening
[4:49:41] comments that Doug made regarding, you
[4:49:43] know, getting some feedback from the
[4:49:45] staff in terms of, you know, I had the
[4:49:48] experience. We rebuilt the company. All
[4:49:50] right? We did it under this rule that
[4:49:53] we're going to get it done in two years
[4:49:54] period. All right? So, we made up what
[4:49:57] we thought were the right rules, but we
[4:49:58] sat down with everybody in that company
[4:50:00] and we said, "Here's what we're going to
[4:50:02] do." And they had a chance to come back
[4:50:04] and say, "That works. That's going to
[4:50:06] work. That's stupid." All right? And so
[4:50:08] when we got to the end of making the
[4:50:09] final decision, even though we thought
[4:50:11] we knew exactly what the hell we're
[4:50:13] supposed to be doing, we got better
[4:50:14] input as a result of talking to them. So
[4:50:16] I just don't think we want to do this
[4:50:18] without a conversation with the folks
[4:50:20] who actually have to do the work because
[4:50:21] they forgot more about this than I'm
[4:50:23] ever going to know.
[4:50:24] >> Yeah. Before you start, I just and I
[4:50:27] » Yeah. Before you start, I just and I
[4:50:27] wanted to address things. So the
[4:50:28] foundation thing, the foundation's set
[4:50:30] since Woolseie. It's the same policy
[4:50:33] they were using in Woolseie. So that's
[4:50:35] not something that just got done. It it
[4:50:38] has been the documents have been
[4:50:40] available. People have been able to get
[4:50:42] it for the rebuild center. They've been
[4:50:44] able to get it from the website. So that
[4:50:47] goes back, you know, six years where
[4:50:49] it's already been in process. So that's
[4:50:52] what I'm kind of talking about that
[4:50:54] there's there's information that's out
[4:50:55] there, but people aren't either adopting
[4:50:58] it or
[4:50:59] >> I whichever. So go ahead. And I think um
[4:51:03] » I whichever. So go ahead. And I think um
[4:51:03] so what I've heard from from I mean
[4:51:06] forever is just to be proactive and to
[4:51:08] not and to be less reactive and I felt
[4:51:11] that you know this is these are
[4:51:13] unprecedented
[4:51:15] earthquakes are unprecedented fires are
[4:51:17] unprecedented um if another council like
[4:51:19] I know I would totally appreciate just
[4:51:21] having a guide book and I don't have to
[4:51:25] adopt it but with my council members at
[4:51:27] that time I could say well this is what
[4:51:28] they did in 2025 this works this works
[4:51:30] this doesn't work and it might save them
[4:51:32] time and it might not. But having that
[4:51:34] option of the information is so
[4:51:36] important just to have this sort of
[4:51:38] structure and foundation for the city.
[4:51:41] Um because to me somehow it feels a
[4:51:43] little irresponsible for us to go
[4:51:44] through all of this and I'm I'm grateful
[4:51:47] that we have it on video but to have
[4:51:48] these documents and policy. If I was a
[4:51:51] council member in 10 years and I'd go,
[4:51:53] "Oh my god, they live through Palisades
[4:51:54] and they didn't have a policy from
[4:51:56] that." I think I would feel like
[4:52:00] it was irresponsible. So that to me I
[4:52:03] think there's a little bit of
[4:52:04] defensiveness and everybody should sleep
[4:52:06] on on this and because it's not intended
[4:52:09] again to criticize or say that anybody's
[4:52:12] doing a bad job in my opinion. It's
[4:52:14] literally like it's our job to make
[4:52:16] policy and we've explored all of these
[4:52:19] things for a year and we're putting it
[4:52:20] into a document. So, we'll sleep on it
[4:52:22] and we'll come back to it in a workshop,
[4:52:24] I think, because that would be great. As
[4:52:26] Bruce said, I was hoping for an open
[4:52:29] dialogue with people where we don't have
[4:52:31] to be up here doing this in a very
[4:52:34] structured format. Um, so do we vote on
[4:52:39] that
[4:52:41] >> draw? I mean, do we need a vote on this
[4:52:43] » draw? I mean, do we need a vote on this
[4:52:43] or are we just directing staff? I think
[4:52:46] there's consensus from the body to
[4:52:47] schedule a workshop
[4:52:49] >> and it will be after the new city
[4:52:51] » and it will be after the new city
[4:52:51] manager
[4:52:52] >> to schedule a workshop with the new city
[4:52:53] » to schedule a workshop with the new city
[4:52:53] manager.
[4:52:54] >> So yeah,
[4:52:57] » So yeah,
[4:52:57] >> I just want one other comment is I had
[4:52:59] » I just want one other comment is I had
[4:52:59] comments generally for the community
[4:53:01] too. I I don't think Danny I don't and
[4:53:03] others have said this too. I do not
[4:53:05] believe it's fair though to be calling
[4:53:07] 22 building permits a monumental
[4:53:11] um failure. There are plenty of reasons
[4:53:14] why it has taken the time it's taken for
[4:53:17] the ones to be approved to be approved.
[4:53:19] And I do believe that it doesn't help to
[4:53:22] be criticizing the staff as as claiming
[4:53:25] a failure. Um, and whoever said it was
[4:53:28] Scott, the math is 22 in one year means
[4:53:31] it'll take 27 for all of them. You know,
[4:53:34] there's exponential improvement. It's
[4:53:36] not it's not that you're going to get 22
[4:53:37] a year every year. here and there's
[4:53:39] going to be plenty that aren't going to
[4:53:40] be built full stop because people just
[4:53:41] are going to decide they're not capable.
[4:53:43] I mean that happens every time
[4:53:45] everywhere despite the best of
[4:53:47] abilities. Um so I I think the staff is
[4:53:50] doing an amazing job and this was
[4:53:52] intended to memorialize a lot of the
[4:53:53] things that they've done already and to
[4:53:55] try to put them in place. And um
[4:53:58] whatever we vote on this doesn't prove
[4:54:00] electability or non-electability because
[4:54:01] I'll tell you I'm not electable no
[4:54:03] matter what because I'm turned out.
[4:54:08] Okay. So, um, we're going to move on to
[4:54:11] the next item. Yeah.
[4:54:12] >> Okay. So, we're on to 5A.
[4:54:14] » Okay. So, we're on to 5A.
[4:54:14] >> Thank you all for your comments.
[4:54:16] » Thank you all for your comments.
[4:54:16] >> I I'd like to make one quick comment.
[4:54:18] » I I'd like to make one quick comment.
[4:54:18] There's there are things in here that
[4:54:20] are workable and probably need to be
[4:54:21] documented,
[4:54:22] >> but I think uh there's issues that we
[4:54:25] » but I think uh there's issues that we
[4:54:25] have with this. Some of it language,
[4:54:27] some of it's philosophy, but I would
[4:54:30] encourage everybody and the phrase
[4:54:32] that's used often times in management,
[4:54:34] participatory management. It's amazing
[4:54:36] what the people on the shop floor know
[4:54:39] that the engineers in the offices don't.
[4:54:41] And that's where you start getting this
[4:54:43] all together. Go back to Steve's point.
[4:54:45] When you build it with a team, you'd be
[4:54:48] surprised how much better it's
[4:54:50] >> this is a very inhibited process.
[4:54:51] » this is a very inhibited process.
[4:54:51] >> Yeah. I mean, Doug, genuine question.
[4:54:53] » Yeah. I mean, Doug, genuine question.
[4:54:53] You know, if if this was something you
[4:54:55] were trying to accomplish and you had
[4:54:57] these ideas and you thought they made
[4:54:58] sense and you were dealing with a city
[4:55:01] whose staff was overwhelmed with the
[4:55:04] rebuild process and and didn't have time
[4:55:06] to do the normal evaluation of something
[4:55:09] and you had a um city manager who wasn't
[4:55:13] willing to impose this on the staff and
[4:55:15] appropriately so and you're not allowed
[4:55:17] to talk to the staff beyond the city
[4:55:20] manager and the director level. How
[4:55:22] would you go about getting your
[4:55:24] consensus from the staff to get to be
[4:55:25] able to present something to the city
[4:55:27] council?
[4:55:28] >> It's a failure if you're not able to
[4:55:29] » It's a failure if you're not able to
[4:55:29] sell the concept to somebody. And
[4:55:32] honestly, if if your job as a leader,
[4:55:35] you and I think it's Michelle has a
[4:55:38] comment uh that he always puts on his
[4:55:39] emails, you can't explain it to a
[4:55:41] six-year-old, you don't know what you're
[4:55:43] talking about. So, that's where I think
[4:55:46] you have to be able to sell the concept
[4:55:47] that we need to have this and invest the
[4:55:49] time. And honestly, we've spent enough
[4:55:52] time right now, we could have gotten
[4:55:54] Yolanda's input on this and been able to
[4:55:56] build some of this and come back with
[4:55:58] maybe iterations.
[4:56:00] It look it takes time to build a
[4:56:03] successful result. And that's what I
[4:56:06] Steve's point. It you got to you got to
[4:56:09] work the the minds and get the consensus
[4:56:12] built. It's not the five of us up here
[4:56:15] to do this.
[4:56:16] >> That's what we're trying to do. I think
[4:56:18] » That's what we're trying to do. I think
[4:56:18] that there's a misconception that we're
[4:56:20] not trying to do that. But I think that
[4:56:22] Bruce, we've asked for workshops over
[4:56:24] and over and over again. We've asked for
[4:56:25] collaborations with desks that are down
[4:56:27] there where we can talk about these
[4:56:29] things. Um the this strange fact notion
[4:56:33] that you're saying that we're not
[4:56:35] building consensus. The Brown Act is not
[4:56:37] a consensus building activity.
[4:56:40] >> Okay. I'm I'm sorry. We We really have
[4:56:42] » Okay. I'm I'm sorry. We We really have
[4:56:42] other stuff we need to Let's talk about
[4:56:44] this at the workshop. We can have it in
[4:56:47] council gu items in the future, but
[4:56:48] we've got some things that we need to do
[4:56:51] tonight. I think we all heard each
[4:56:53] other. We're willing to talk and flush
[4:56:56] this out some more. Nobody's dismissing
[4:56:58] it slight out of hand. We're not shoeing
[4:57:01] it away. We're just giving us an
[4:57:04] opportunity where we can actually have a
[4:57:07] more robust long-term conversation. So,
[4:57:09] I would like us to move on to 5A before
[4:57:12] we have to start calling all these
[4:57:14] things special things. So
[4:57:18] 5A, do we have a staff report? Anybody
[4:57:22] wants to comment, put in a speaker slip
[4:57:24] for 5A, please do so now or forever hold
[4:57:26] your peace.
[4:57:30] Do we have anybody online?
[4:57:33] >> We have no speaker slips and one raised
[4:57:35] » We have no speaker slips and one raised
[4:57:35] hand.
[4:57:36] >> Okay.
[4:57:36] » Okay.
[4:57:36] >> Yolanda, will you please guide us
[4:57:38] » Yolanda, will you please guide us
[4:57:38] through here, please?
[4:57:39] >> Yes. Um should it's a very short
[4:57:42] » Yes. Um should it's a very short
[4:57:42] presentation.
[4:57:44] Uh just uh as a background on December
[4:57:47] 8th uh we brought to you city council
[4:57:50] emergency ordinance number three uh 531U
[4:57:55] uh to incorporate the new uh state
[4:57:58] building codes uh and also bring the
[4:58:01] first reading of the ordinance. Um at
[4:58:03] that time we recommend to do a second
[4:58:06] reading of the ordinance. Uh and that is
[4:58:09] what we're doing uh this evening. Any
[4:58:12] clarifi clarifying questions by council?
[4:58:16] >> Okay,
[4:58:17] » Okay,
[4:58:17] >> just one quick qu one quick question.
[4:58:20] » just one quick qu one quick question.
[4:58:20] How much flexibility do we have to make
[4:58:22] changes to this or not accept it?
[4:58:25] >> None.
[4:58:26] » None.
[4:58:26] >> No.
[4:58:27] » No.
[4:58:27] >> Yeah. It's it's a state law. We just
[4:58:29] » Yeah. It's it's a state law. We just
[4:58:29] need to adopt it, right?
[4:58:30] >> Yes. Uh we're following uh county's uh
[4:58:33] » Yes. Uh we're following uh county's uh
[4:58:33] recommendations. We also have added our
[4:58:37] uh usual recommended amendments uh due
[4:58:40] to our climatic uh regional and
[4:58:43] geotechnical issues that the city has
[4:58:46] very similar to what we had in 2020 uh
[4:58:50] three and under the building code
[4:58:51] adoption
[4:58:52] >> and this does not apply to the uh
[4:58:55] » and this does not apply to the uh
[4:58:55] rebuilds because we're still under the
[4:58:57] 23 code. Correct.
[4:58:59] >> That is correct. the uh state of
[4:59:01] » That is correct. the uh state of
[4:59:01] California, the governor u um provided
[4:59:04] an executive order in which they he
[4:59:07] allows uh fire rebuilds to rebuild under
[4:59:10] the 2023 code. Uh there is an option uh
[4:59:15] if any of the fire rebuilds that are
[4:59:17] moving forward, they would like to
[4:59:19] comply with the new code. Um they are
[4:59:21] allowed to do that. And to just to
[4:59:24] disclose to council, I have uh four
[4:59:27] properties that decided to move forward
[4:59:29] with the 2026 codes.
[4:59:31] >> Okay. Thank you.
[4:59:34] » Okay. Thank you.
[4:59:34] >> Any other questions? Public comment,
[4:59:37] » Any other questions? Public comment,
[4:59:37] please.
[4:59:41] » Joe Drummond.
[4:59:44] >> Joe, are you there?
[4:59:46] » Joe, are you there?
[4:59:46] >> Hi. Yes. People are saying they can't
[4:59:49] » Hi. Yes. People are saying they can't
[4:59:49] hear me. Can you hear me?
[4:59:50] >> We can hear you. Oh, sorry. We can hear
[4:59:52] » We can hear you. Oh, sorry. We can hear
[4:59:52] you.
[4:59:54] >> Okay. Well, I'm speaking tonight
[4:59:55] » Okay. Well, I'm speaking tonight
[4:59:55] specifically on the adoption of
[4:59:57] California Building Code section 106.3
[5:00:00] to work exempted. A key provision from
[5:00:03] the state and county code is being
[5:00:05] omitted. And if that omission is not
[5:00:07] corrected, it will continue to cause
[5:00:09] unnecessary hardship for mal residents.
[5:00:12] The state code explicitly provides that
[5:00:14] a building permit is not required for
[5:00:17] decks, walks, and driveways not more
[5:00:20] than 30 in above grade, not over any
[5:00:23] basement or story below, and not part of
[5:00:26] an accessible route. I can personally
[5:00:28] attest to the consequences of omitting
[5:00:30] this provision. It took more than three
[5:00:33] years to permit my 64 square foot
[5:00:36] freestanding deck which remained
[5:00:38] standing even after the fires which was
[5:00:40] designed using prescriptive engineering
[5:00:42] assumptions by the way which is routine
[5:00:45] worldwide.
[5:00:46] It is not rocket science to rebuild our
[5:00:48] homes. It is simple engineering science
[5:00:51] for our simple deck. What should have
[5:00:53] been a simple administrative review
[5:00:55] became a prolonged process involving
[5:00:57] multiple geotechnical studies,
[5:01:00] escalating fees, and even threats of a
[5:01:02] variance, later confirmed by the city
[5:01:04] attorney to be unnecessary. A small
[5:01:07] freestanding deck under 30 in of off
[5:01:10] grade supported by a modest concrete
[5:01:12] pile foundation should not be treated
[5:01:14] like a major addition or a hillside
[5:01:17] structure. These are low risk projects
[5:01:19] that should be resolved in months, not
[5:01:21] years. I respectfully ask the council to
[5:01:23] do one of two things. Restore the
[5:01:25] working center provision exactly as
[5:01:27] written in a state code or adopted it
[5:01:30] with a clear size cap such as 200 square
[5:01:33] ft or decks to ensure it applies only to
[5:01:36] true small low impact projects. Equally
[5:01:39] important, the city must clearly explain
[5:01:41] what process applies to work exempted
[5:01:43] work. In my case, the lack of clarity
[5:01:45] led to code enforcement action and a
[5:01:47] three-year ordeal despite acting in good
[5:01:49] faith under the state code. To be clear,
[5:01:51] this change would not affect decks
[5:01:53] attached to higher stories to elevated
[5:01:55] beachfront residents or other structures
[5:01:57] that legitimately require full
[5:01:59] permitting and safety review. Those
[5:02:01] protections would remain fully intact.
[5:02:03] Directing this commission in this item
[5:02:05] would be a small but meaningful reform.
[5:02:08] One that aligns Malibu with state law
[5:02:10] and reflects a shared commitment to
[5:02:12] making everyday project simpler,
[5:02:14] clearer, and more reasonable for the
[5:02:15] residents. I urge you to correct this as
[5:02:18] part of item 5A. Thank you.
[5:02:22] So that can conclude [clears throat] our
[5:02:24] public comment. Can we
[5:02:29] » Yes, those are all the public speakers.
[5:02:30] Okay. So, public comments closed. Any
[5:02:34] comments by council?
[5:02:36] >> I have a question. So, what Joe is
[5:02:38] » I have a question. So, what Joe is
[5:02:38] asking is what we just heard we couldn't
[5:02:40] do, which is to change it. Is that what
[5:02:43] I'm hearing?
[5:02:44] >> I'm sorry.
[5:02:45] » I'm sorry.
[5:02:45] >> I have a
[5:02:47] » I have a
[5:02:47] >> I have a um a graphic. Oh. Uh and just
[5:02:51] » I have a um a graphic. Oh. Uh and just
[5:02:51] to make it clear and I have a copy of
[5:02:52] the code in front of me from the 2025
[5:02:54] code. Uh let me just show the council
[5:02:57] that I have the actual code right here.
[5:03:00] Everybody here,
[5:03:01] >> thank you.
[5:03:02] » thank you.
[5:03:02] >> I have a copy of the sheet uh what uh
[5:03:05] » I have a copy of the sheet uh what uh
[5:03:05] section 105 what permits are exempted
[5:03:09] and none of them uh uh at asking for
[5:03:12] decks to be excluded or not permitted.
[5:03:15] So we are staying within regulation and
[5:03:17] I can pass this to councils to read it.
[5:03:19] Uh in addition, I want to clarify that
[5:03:22] uh permits uh are not required for decks
[5:03:25] that are uh 30 in above. And so I put a
[5:03:29] graphic together. What we're talking
[5:03:31] right now uh on the situation of uh or
[5:03:35] one of our residents is the foundation
[5:03:37] system. Um it was a deepen foundation
[5:03:40] cut into the hill with an unpermitting
[5:03:42] grading. Uh and that trigger the uh
[5:03:44] permit requirements. Uh, so just to
[5:03:47] clarify that for council
[5:03:50] >> Steve, go ahead.
[5:03:51] » Steve, go ahead.
[5:03:51] >> Yeah,
[5:03:52] » Yeah,
[5:03:52] >> I'll make I'll make a motion to approve
[5:03:53] » I'll make I'll make a motion to approve
[5:03:53] staff recommendation.
[5:03:54] >> I'll second.
[5:03:56] » I'll second.
[5:03:56] >> I'd like to make a comment,
[5:03:57] » I'd like to make a comment,
[5:03:57] >> please.
[5:04:00] » please.
[5:04:00] >> I've been trying to understand some of
[5:04:02] » I've been trying to understand some of
[5:04:02] these things for years. We're told all
[5:04:05] the time we don't have any discretion.
[5:04:09] Um, I'm reading the report.
[5:04:12] It expressly says page 204 after the
[5:04:16] chart
[5:04:18] um that
[5:04:20] these these provisions apply to all
[5:04:23] building occupancies throughout the
[5:04:24] state whether or not adopted by a local
[5:04:27] jurisdiction.
[5:04:28] However, local governments will
[5:04:30] typically pass ordinances adopting those
[5:04:32] parts of the code by reference which
[5:04:35] they seek to amend in accordance with
[5:04:37] local conditions and to establish
[5:04:39] administrative provisions. So they you
[5:04:41] we says basically local governments tend
[5:04:45] to affirmatively adopt these even though
[5:04:47] they don't have to but they also might
[5:04:50] seek to amend them. Uh and then says
[5:04:53] local amendments must be specific to
[5:04:56] each addition of the code. State law
[5:04:58] requires amendments to the standards be
[5:05:00] based on a governing body's express
[5:05:02] findings that such modification is
[5:05:04] necessary reasonably necessary because
[5:05:07] of local clatic geological or
[5:05:09] topographical conditions. So this says
[5:05:11] very clearly we actually could if we
[5:05:14] chose to and we had bases for doing so
[5:05:17] make amendments even though this is the
[5:05:19] state default law.
[5:05:21] Um, we never study whether there are
[5:05:25] things that we believe we ought to be
[5:05:27] doing as exceptions to these rules cuz
[5:05:30] we're told all the time that these are
[5:05:31] the rules like them or take them like
[5:05:34] them or not that we have to adopt.
[5:05:37] Actually, we don't have to adopt them at
[5:05:38] all. If we don't adopt them, they're the
[5:05:39] law. And if we do adopt them, they're
[5:05:41] also the law. And we also have the right
[5:05:43] to change them if we have a basis for
[5:05:45] doing so. But we've never once been told
[5:05:48] what bases we could apply to make
[5:05:50] changes if we if we did want to if we
[5:05:53] did feel they were appropriate or
[5:05:54] necessary. So, you know, I think I said
[5:05:57] last time when we brought this up at
[5:05:59] like midnight, we're doing this too
[5:06:02] fast. I don't really understand enough
[5:06:04] about it. We haven't had public input.
[5:06:06] But, you know, it's not the case that
[5:06:07] just because the state adopted it, we
[5:06:09] have no choice but to adopt it. It says
[5:06:11] here very clearly, we can make changes
[5:06:13] if they're appropriate based on
[5:06:14] appropriate findings, but I've never
[5:06:16] been told what kinds of changes we might
[5:06:19] be able to make and what findings we
[5:06:21] would have to make to make them.
[5:06:22] >> So, so Yolanda, can you explain?
[5:06:26] » So, so Yolanda, can you explain?
[5:06:26] >> Yes. And uh uh thank you. Um
[5:06:30] » Yes. And uh uh thank you. Um
[5:06:30] Mayor Prom, the if you read the
[5:06:34] following ordinance, actually the
[5:06:36] ordinance does have the amendments. Uh
[5:06:40] in addition uh page 21 of the code
[5:06:43] adoption findings, those are the
[5:06:46] amendments down to the uh code and it
[5:06:50] states if the decision the conditions
[5:06:52] were administrated, climatic,
[5:06:54] geological, geological,
[5:06:57] uh administrative, topographical. Um so
[5:07:00] we do we did provide amendments and this
[5:07:03] is regular amendments due to the our
[5:07:07] location. Uh so this document was uh
[5:07:12] released uh for public uh uh for public
[5:07:17] viewing. I remember uh the end of
[5:07:20] November. Uh so
[5:07:22] it has been a transparent document uh
[5:07:27] for the past I will say uh close to 40
[5:07:31] days.
[5:07:31] >> I I appreciate that. So in the sense
[5:07:33] » I I appreciate that. So in the sense
[5:07:33] that it's been published. I mean, you
[5:07:35] know, like when we did the housing
[5:07:36] element, we would have somebody come
[5:07:38] here and present to us all the things we
[5:07:40] were doing, explain why we were doing
[5:07:42] them, give us our options as to whether
[5:07:44] we would do do other things. Um,
[5:07:48] again, we, you know, we we have
[5:07:50] different approaches to things up here.
[5:07:52] Some some council members are of the
[5:07:56] view that if the staff thinks something
[5:07:58] makes sense and it's complicated and
[5:08:00] technical, it gets presented and we and
[5:08:02] we just approve it. Um, some like I I'm
[5:08:06] one of them believe we should be fly
[5:08:08] specking everything and making our own
[5:08:10] decisions whether we think they make
[5:08:11] sense or not and and then go forward and
[5:08:14] others I guess have somewhere in
[5:08:15] between. But um the process we follow,
[5:08:20] you know, I I appreciate that these are
[5:08:21] here and and I know you and others have
[5:08:23] taken a lot of time to put it together,
[5:08:25] but these aren't things we were
[5:08:27] presented with. Why are we doing this
[5:08:29] one? Does this one make sense? Are there
[5:08:31] alternatives to what's being proposed
[5:08:33] that we could be doing? Or is there more
[5:08:34] than what we're being proposed we could
[5:08:36] be doing? And it's because there's just
[5:08:38] too much to do. I get that. Um, but I I
[5:08:42] feel like a lot of these things are
[5:08:45] presented to us as fay.com please
[5:08:47] because we really don't have the basis
[5:08:51] to make a decision to the contrary. So,
[5:08:53] it's either take it or leave it. And
[5:08:54] that's not a criticism so much as it's
[5:08:56] an explanation of where we are.
[5:08:59] Um, so that that's that's pretty much
[5:09:01] why I abstained from this last time. And
[5:09:04] just the process, the way this city
[5:09:07] operates in general, and I'm sure other
[5:09:08] cities operate like that, it it it
[5:09:11] bothers me as someone who's used to
[5:09:13] getting into the weeds and deciding
[5:09:15] whether I think things make sense or
[5:09:16] not.
[5:09:19] >> Anybody else? Yolanda, I believe the the
[5:09:22] » Anybody else? Yolanda, I believe the the
[5:09:22] amendments that are proposed are done to
[5:09:23] be consistent with the county and I
[5:09:25] think the amendments are only allowed if
[5:09:27] they're stricter than what's already
[5:09:28] required by the
[5:09:30] >> the state building code.
[5:09:32] » the state building code.
[5:09:32] >> That is correct. Uh the code cannot be
[5:09:35] » That is correct. Uh the code cannot be
[5:09:35] um those are minimum state uh
[5:09:37] compliance. The only way that the city
[5:09:40] can change it needs to be more
[5:09:41] restrictive. Uh in order to uh propose
[5:09:44] those amendments uh we need to make a
[5:09:47] justification. In addition to that, uh,
[5:09:50] as you stated, uh, Mayor Prom, um, yes,
[5:09:54] uh, if the city didn't, uh, adopt any
[5:09:57] codes, then automatically, uh, the
[5:10:00] California code, uh, becomes our
[5:10:03] building code.
[5:10:04] >> Okay. So, so,
[5:10:05] » Okay. So, so,
[5:10:05] >> uh, let me just, let me just finish. Um,
[5:10:09] » uh, let me just, let me just finish. Um,
[5:10:09] uh, we did bring an urgency ordinance
[5:10:12] because we usually adopt the county, um,
[5:10:15] the county codes. Uh the state of
[5:10:18] California requires that uh 30 days
[5:10:21] after after the adoption
[5:10:24] uh filing needs to be done through the
[5:10:26] California state uh um building standard
[5:10:29] commission uh so the city can be in uh
[5:10:33] regulations and stay in compliance with
[5:10:34] the building codes.
[5:10:36] >> Well, wait a minute. So this the the
[5:10:38] » Well, wait a minute. So this the the
[5:10:38] report at least doesn't say that the
[5:10:40] only kinds of amendments that are
[5:10:41] permissible are more restrictive
[5:10:44] amendments. I I can provide you a copy
[5:10:47] of of of adoption of the of of the um of
[5:10:52] of an ordinance and what it states that
[5:10:54] it needs to be more resting.
[5:10:55] >> You can so so there there's under no
[5:10:58] » You can so so there there's under no
[5:10:58] circumstance can a flex municipality
[5:11:01] believe that there's a requirement
[5:11:03] that's too stringent and relax it no
[5:11:05] matter what findings they make. Okay,
[5:11:06] that's that's what I was reading this to
[5:11:08] mean. So if I if that's not what it
[5:11:10] says, I take that back.
[5:11:11] >> Yeah. and I I can provide a copy of uh
[5:11:13] » Yeah. and I I can provide a copy of uh
[5:11:13] state um documentation which uh will
[5:11:16] give you more information on that. I
[5:11:18] apologize.
[5:11:19] >> That's okay. So So all the changes we're
[5:11:21] » That's okay. So So all the changes we're
[5:11:21] making then are making more stringent
[5:11:24] the building code than would otherwise
[5:11:26] be imposed upon us by the state.
[5:11:28] >> That is correct.
[5:11:29] » That is correct.
[5:11:29] >> Okay. And but we but they're also they
[5:11:32] » Okay. And but we but they're also they
[5:11:32] have been proposed in the first instance
[5:11:34] by the county is what you're saying.
[5:11:35] They're not really our changes so much
[5:11:38] as we're just adopting them. Some of
[5:11:39] them are county and some of them are
[5:11:41] specific to the city. An example
[5:11:45] uh septic systems. Uh we have a plumbing
[5:11:48] code that we follow. There's a a number
[5:11:51] of plumbing fixtures that are allowed
[5:11:54] per your um toilets and and lavatories
[5:12:00] and um
[5:12:03] so we were able to change that to give
[5:12:05] credit uh to property owners that were
[5:12:08] using lowflow toilets. So that was one
[5:12:12] of the the changes that we so our
[5:12:15] community can take advantage of of using
[5:12:18] lowflow toilets and and have more
[5:12:22] fixtures.
[5:12:23] So that's just an example of of what was
[5:12:26] included on the ordinance.
[5:12:28] >> Okay. So let me ask this. I I this kind
[5:12:31] » Okay. So let me ask this. I I this kind
[5:12:31] of hearken back a little bit to the
[5:12:32] conversation we had earlier about the
[5:12:34] rebuilds, but I understand the new
[5:12:36] code's not going to apply to rebuilds.
[5:12:37] So this is not a specific issue with
[5:12:39] them, but if we were operating in um you
[5:12:44] know postwoolie where we didn't have a
[5:12:46] governor's order saying the old code is
[5:12:49] going to continue to apply then when we
[5:12:51] adopt a new code which we add additional
[5:12:55] more stringent requirements to wouldn't
[5:12:58] we then be making it more difficult for
[5:13:00] a rebuild than otherwise would have been
[5:13:02] the case had we not adopted those
[5:13:03] additional standards?
[5:13:08] How do
[5:13:09] >> do you follow my question?
[5:13:11] » do you follow my question?
[5:13:11] >> Trying to know where where where are we
[5:13:13] » Trying to know where where where are we
[5:13:13] going with the your question.
[5:13:16] I mean the the the standard state code
[5:13:18] would have been but the county codes
[5:13:23] I think what I'm hearing is that he's
[5:13:26] wondering that if we just defaulting on
[5:13:28] what our
[5:13:30] requirements are to by law we just
[5:13:34] automatically the new code gets imposed
[5:13:37] without the additional
[5:13:40] um adoption that the county goes
[5:13:41] through.
[5:13:42] >> Mh.
[5:13:45] » Mh.
[5:13:45] Is it more stringent for the
[5:13:48] >> What I'm hearing is every all these
[5:13:50] » What I'm hearing is every all these
[5:13:50] pages of of single space requirements
[5:13:53] are things that we're adding as
[5:13:55] additional burdens and you know as
[5:13:58] everyone knows in the ordinary course of
[5:14:00] new builds I'm perfectly fine with that.
[5:14:03] Um, and we have fortunately in this
[5:14:06] particular instance a governor's order
[5:14:08] that says in the case of these rebuilds,
[5:14:11] we're not going to impose these new
[5:14:13] requirements. But actually, we are
[5:14:14] imposing them on Woolseie, right?
[5:14:16] Because we're we're saying that if you
[5:14:18] had lost your home in a different fire,
[5:14:20] we're going to adopt these more
[5:14:22] stringent requirements than the state's
[5:14:23] imposing on you. Well, if the
[5:14:25] application uh came in um prior to the
[5:14:29] new adoption of the code, we are not
[5:14:32] imposing new. They're staying within the
[5:14:34] within when the application was
[5:14:36] submitted.
[5:14:37] >> Right. But if but if tomorrow,
[5:14:40] » Right. But if but if tomorrow,
[5:14:40] 6 months from now, one of the 40% of the
[5:14:43] homes that still hasn't applied to be
[5:14:45] rebuilt or whatever the percentage is,
[5:14:47] they come in with a like forlike
[5:14:49] rebuild. If we were not to adopt this,
[5:14:53] then they'd be operating under a less
[5:14:54] stringent code than the one that we're
[5:14:56] being asked to adopt. Right.
[5:14:58] >> We're talking for policy or for we'll
[5:15:00] » We're talking for policy or for we'll
[5:15:00] see.
[5:15:00] >> Woolseie.
[5:15:01] » Woolseie.
[5:15:01] >> Yeah, we'll see. Well, Woolseie did not
[5:15:04] » Yeah, we'll see. Well, Woolseie did not
[5:15:04] follow the executive order,
[5:15:06] >> right? So,
[5:15:06] » right? So,
[5:15:06] >> so we will have to comply with the new
[5:15:08] » so we will have to comply with the new
[5:15:08] codes.
[5:15:09] >> So, would we would we have a way, for
[5:15:11] » So, would we would we have a way, for
[5:15:11] example, to say we're imposing these
[5:15:14] additional more stringent requirements,
[5:15:15] but not with respect to a casualty
[5:15:18] rebuild?
[5:15:21] So that when someone comes in with their
[5:15:23] wooy rebuild three months from now.
[5:15:25] >> So the building code is for safety and
[5:15:27] » So the building code is for safety and
[5:15:27] for resiliency, right?
[5:15:29] >> Uh so uh
[5:15:33] » Uh so uh
[5:15:33] >> we are following the executive order
[5:15:35] » we are following the executive order
[5:15:35] from the state of California allowing
[5:15:37] the 2023 code for the palace. Right.
[5:15:41] >> There's nothing for wooly fire and it's
[5:15:44] » There's nothing for wooly fire and it's
[5:15:44] been more than seven years. Right.
[5:15:46] >> Right. Uh so
[5:15:49] » Right. Uh so
[5:15:49] um
[5:15:51] >> I'm forget forget whether we should or
[5:15:53] » I'm forget forget whether we should or
[5:15:53] shouldn't do it. I'm just asking
[5:15:54] factually. Isn't it accurate that if we
[5:15:57] adopt this then that means that when
[5:16:00] someone comes in to rebuild a property
[5:16:03] that was destroyed in a fire other than
[5:16:06] the Palisades fire
[5:16:08] >> and Franklin fire and broad fire. Yes.
[5:16:10] » and Franklin fire and broad fire. Yes.
[5:16:10] that we'll see fire will follow under or
[5:16:13] any topanga fire that never they never
[5:16:15] rebelled in 1993 and they decide to come
[5:16:18] back tomorrow to submit an application.
[5:16:20] >> Yeah. it will trigger the current code
[5:16:23] » Yeah. it will trigger the current code
[5:16:23] uh 2026
[5:16:24] >> and and if there's a fire 6 months from
[5:16:27] » and and if there's a fire 6 months from
[5:16:27] now and 100 homes are lost and they
[5:16:31] don't have an executive order to exempt
[5:16:33] them from anything then the state code
[5:16:36] if we didn't do anything which would
[5:16:38] apply to them would be less stringent
[5:16:39] than the code we're being asked to adopt
[5:16:41] tonight.
[5:16:43] >> They would need to comply with the
[5:16:44] » They would need to comply with the
[5:16:44] current code.
[5:16:45] >> Right. But the state code that would be
[5:16:47] » Right. But the state code that would be
[5:16:47] the default if we don't do anything
[5:16:49] would be less stringent than the one
[5:16:51] we're adopting.
[5:16:52] >> I guess I'm trying to understand your
[5:16:54] » I guess I'm trying to understand your
[5:16:54] question. You're trying to say uh let's
[5:16:56] flex the code for any rebuilds uh that
[5:16:59] happens. Um I I I mean I'm just trying
[5:17:02] to understand where we're going on this
[5:17:04] and I'm trying to give you the
[5:17:06] information that you ask that you want
[5:17:09] me to to give you. I I guess I'm I'm
[5:17:11] just asking is it is it an accurate
[5:17:13] statement that if a fire were to wipe
[5:17:16] out a large number of homes in futurero,
[5:17:20] you know, 3 months from now, and the
[5:17:23] owners of those homes were to seek to
[5:17:25] rebuild them like for like and they
[5:17:26] don't have the benefit of an executive
[5:17:28] order, then by adopting this tonight, we
[5:17:32] would be creating a code that is more
[5:17:34] stringent than the state code that would
[5:17:36] otherwise apply by default to those
[5:17:37] rebuilds. Is that accurate or
[5:17:39] inaccurate? That's what I'm trying to
[5:17:40] find out.
[5:17:41] >> You will be I mean the the the code that
[5:17:44] » You will be I mean the the the code that
[5:17:44] you're adopting is more stringent than
[5:17:46] the 2023 code.
[5:17:48] >> No, but it's also more stringent than
[5:17:49] » No, but it's also more stringent than
[5:17:49] the 2025 code because we're adopting
[5:17:53] various additional requirements to it.
[5:17:55] >> Amendments,
[5:17:56] » Amendments,
[5:17:56] >> the amendments, the pages of amendments.
[5:17:58] » the amendments, the pages of amendments.
[5:17:58] But okay, the notwithstanding the chaos
[5:18:03] that that would occur, you're really
[5:18:05] going to create a an environment of
[5:18:09] uncertainty because people aren't going
[5:18:11] to know which ones staff's going to
[5:18:13] have, okay, what date did this happen?
[5:18:16] Which code do I get here? and the
[5:18:18] consistency and the resale and yeah,
[5:18:22] they're under the state code, but
[5:18:24] they're not actually under the the
[5:18:26] adopted code of the city. I mean,
[5:18:30] >> what's the purpose of going down this
[5:18:32] » what's the purpose of going down this
[5:18:32] intellectual discussion?
[5:18:34] >> And it's a it's also a layer that you're
[5:18:36] » And it's a it's also a layer that you're
[5:18:36] adding to it, right? Um, remember how we
[5:18:39] say that you cannot the minimum codes
[5:18:43] cannot be lowered down.
[5:18:44] >> Mhm.
[5:18:45] » Mhm.
[5:18:45] >> Right. So, let's say Yeah. you um under
[5:18:49] » Right. So, let's say Yeah. you um under
[5:18:49] what justification,
[5:18:52] climatic,
[5:18:54] topographic or geographic
[5:18:57] can we make an assumption that any
[5:19:00] rebuilds, future rebuilds next year or
[5:19:04] the following year do not need to comply
[5:19:06] with this code?
[5:19:09] I and I I guess I'm asking Trevor to
[5:19:12] answer this question because I don't
[5:19:13] know how to answer that question. Well,
[5:19:18] Which question?
[5:19:19] >> Um, a proposal of allowing fire
[5:19:23] » Um, a proposal of allowing fire
[5:19:23] rebuilds, future fire rebuilds not to
[5:19:26] comply with this code and comply with
[5:19:29] >> I I would think you would want to be
[5:19:30] » I I would think you would want to be
[5:19:30] careful. I mean, look at these are like,
[5:19:32] you know, not allowing wood shake roofs.
[5:19:34] I mean, do you really want to take that
[5:19:36] out? I mean, is that something we want
[5:19:37] to allow fire rebuilds to do? Um, if you
[5:19:40] want to go and make adjustments to this,
[5:19:42] I think, you know, suggest that we pass
[5:19:44] the code tonight. So this the county
[5:19:46] code provisions apply to everyone else
[5:19:49] in the city. If you want to go look at
[5:19:51] adjusting some of this, you know,
[5:19:52] Yolanda can look into it if you want to
[5:19:54] have more direction or or something
[5:19:56] about particular um provisions of what
[5:19:58] the county is adopted. There's also
[5:20:00] concern
[5:20:01] >> Mayor Pro's concern on fire rebuilds. Uh
[5:20:04] » Mayor Pro's concern on fire rebuilds. Uh
[5:20:04] if there's not an executive order, uh
[5:20:07] what codes will trigger?
[5:20:08] >> Yeah, let me ask.
[5:20:08] » Yeah, let me ask.
[5:20:08] >> Uh so that is the question.
[5:20:10] » Uh so that is the question.
[5:20:10] >> Let me ask this question. Um,
[5:20:14] » Let me ask this question. Um,
[5:20:14] are we able I mean, look, the we have a
[5:20:17] state code. The state code presumably
[5:20:19] has been combed over by very by
[5:20:22] intelligent and and experienced people
[5:20:24] and they've decided from a statewide
[5:20:26] standpoint, this is the minimum standard
[5:20:27] that makes sense. We have a county
[5:20:29] that's gone further and adopted more
[5:20:32] stringent requirements. Um, are we in a
[5:20:36] position where we could adopt all the
[5:20:38] county's amendments only with respect to
[5:20:41] noncasualty rebuilds going forward so
[5:20:45] that when there's another casualty, the
[5:20:48] more less the less restrictive standards
[5:20:50] of the state, which we have the right to
[5:20:53] follow by themselves alone, would apply,
[5:20:57] but we are nonetheless imposing the more
[5:20:59] restrictive ones on new bills going
[5:21:02] forward. So that that way when when when
[5:21:04] someone loses their house and they come
[5:21:05] to us and complain about item number
[5:21:08] seven on this page that's imposing this
[5:21:11] greater expense to them that they wish
[5:21:12] they didn't have to um absorb
[5:21:16] that they wouldn't have to they wouldn't
[5:21:17] be able to make that argument because
[5:21:18] we'd say no look all we did was go by
[5:21:20] the minimum state standard. You have to
[5:21:22] apply with you have to comply with the
[5:21:23] state and we gave you a pass on
[5:21:27] everything that we adopted that
[5:21:29] otherwise applies to new bills. Are we
[5:21:32] do we have the ability to make all of
[5:21:33] these additions these exa these except
[5:21:36] these amendments which are all more
[5:21:38] stringent applicable only in the case of
[5:21:40] a non-casualty rebuild
[5:21:44] >> and then and then what happens in the
[5:21:45] » and then and then what happens in the
[5:21:45] casualty rebuild that adopts
[5:21:47] >> they would be under the state minimum
[5:21:50] » they would be under the state minimum
[5:21:50] law
[5:21:50] >> why would you want to do that you're
[5:21:52] » why would you want to do that you're
[5:21:52] creating a secondass structure
[5:21:55] >> yeah you might want to adopt the modern
[5:21:57] » yeah you might want to adopt the modern
[5:21:57] you know all the studies that we're
[5:21:59] doing with prior combustation and
[5:22:03] >> why why is the county better than the
[5:22:04] » why why is the county better than the
[5:22:04] state?
[5:22:05] >> Well, hold on a second.
[5:22:06] » Well, hold on a second.
[5:22:06] >> Because they're they're specialized to
[5:22:07] » Because they're they're specialized to
[5:22:07] our particular area and so they're
[5:22:09] taking into account the special nature
[5:22:12] that occurs within Los Angeles County.
[5:22:15] >> It's also it aids I think by all the
[5:22:18] » It's also it aids I think by all the
[5:22:18] cities do it is so that contractors are
[5:22:20] familiar with the county code and the
[5:22:22] county building codes and then they can
[5:22:24] you know apply it the same throughout.
[5:22:26] Um,
[5:22:28] I would want to look closely if this is
[5:22:30] something you want to explore making a
[5:22:32] carveout for for uh, you know, fire
[5:22:36] rebuilds. Um, for other ones, we could
[5:22:39] take a look into it. I wouldn't want to
[5:22:40] just on the fly put that through. And I
[5:22:42] know Y has concerns about you cannot
[5:22:46] divide. I mean the statement on on
[5:22:50] chapter one state this applies to every
[5:22:53] single new construction even even if
[5:22:57] it's a fire rebuilt it will be
[5:23:00] considered under the building code as a
[5:23:02] minimum minimum for safety
[5:23:06] for resiliency for safety of our city.
[5:23:10] You cannot divide. Okay. I wanna do
[5:23:15] uh one portion of the population I will
[5:23:17] do on one code and one portion of the
[5:23:19] other population I will do in another
[5:23:21] code.
[5:23:21] >> Yeah.
[5:23:22] » Yeah.
[5:23:22] >> We will be against against the state
[5:23:24] » We will be against against the state
[5:23:24] law.
[5:23:25] >> Well, we're No, no. Well, first of all,
[5:23:26] » Well, we're No, no. Well, first of all,
[5:23:26] we're doing exactly that right now
[5:23:28] pursuant to the executive order. We're
[5:23:30] applying an older law which
[5:23:31] >> because the governor has put that
[5:23:33] » because the governor has put that
[5:23:33] exception, not because the city of
[5:23:35] Malibu decided that
[5:23:37] >> I I get that. But you said it would be
[5:23:39] » I I get that. But you said it would be
[5:23:39] against state law. I'm saying no
[5:23:40] wouldn't let's adopt the state let's
[5:23:41] leave let's let's adopt the state law
[5:23:43] for for all for everybody and then let's
[5:23:46] also adopt more stringent ones for new
[5:23:49] builds that that isn't saying that if
[5:23:51] you have a fire rebuild you're going to
[5:23:52] get a less stringent than the state law
[5:23:56] >> but you're going to get a less stringent
[5:23:57] » but you're going to get a less stringent
[5:23:57] than the county law
[5:23:58] >> yeah that's right so it's not
[5:23:59] » yeah that's right so it's not
[5:23:59] >> which we have the right to do
[5:24:01] » which we have the right to do
[5:24:01] >> okay um I think people want modern
[5:24:04] » okay um I think people want modern
[5:24:04] building
[5:24:05] >> okay
[5:24:05] » okay
[5:24:05] >> and from staff perspective you're
[5:24:08] » and from staff perspective you're
[5:24:08] >> you
[5:24:09] » you
[5:24:09] And Bruce, let me let me give you
[5:24:11] another example. I just picked up one
[5:24:12] page here and it's page 15, a top item.
[5:24:16] It says you got to have sheer walls
[5:24:18] because we're in a high seismic zone. I
[5:24:21] mean, to leave that out would be
[5:24:24] suicidal,
[5:24:24] >> but it is out with respect to all the
[5:24:26] » but it is out with respect to all the
[5:24:26] rebuilds from Pelit.
[5:24:27] >> No, it's in it's in the prior one. A lot
[5:24:30] » No, it's in it's in the prior one. A lot
[5:24:30] of this is continuation of what was in
[5:24:31] the prior years. It's things like the
[5:24:35] solar panels uh that are required in 20
[5:24:39] 26 or whatever this new one
[5:24:42] because we're in the in the 23 zone. You
[5:24:45] don't have to do that. All I'm saying is
[5:24:49] understand that all these conditions
[5:24:50] that are in here, a lot of them, in
[5:24:52] fact, I think most of them are
[5:24:54] continuations of the ones that were
[5:24:55] there before. So, it's
[5:24:58] >> okay. I understand.
[5:25:00] » okay. I understand.
[5:25:00] >> Okay. So, we'll call the question. We
[5:25:01] » Okay. So, we'll call the question. We
[5:25:01] have a first and we have a second. Do we
[5:25:03] want to do a roll call or
[5:25:06] >> I just the motion was staff's
[5:25:08] » I just the motion was staff's
[5:25:08] recommendation?
[5:25:09] >> Yes.
[5:25:10] » Yes.
[5:25:10] >> And city attorney, did you want to read
[5:25:11] » And city attorney, did you want to read
[5:25:11] the title of the ordinance?
[5:25:12] >> Well, I read it at the last one, so I
[5:25:14] » Well, I read it at the last one, so I
[5:25:14] don't need to repeat it second time
[5:25:16] unless you really want me to.
[5:25:20] » You want to roll call?
[5:25:23] >> All in favor?
[5:25:24] » All in favor?
[5:25:24] >> I.
[5:25:24] » I.
[5:25:24] >> Those opposed?
[5:25:26] » Those opposed?
[5:25:26] >> None. Abstain.
[5:25:29] » None. Abstain.
[5:25:29] You said I. I'm sorry I didn't hear you.
[5:25:32] Okay. Um, it's after 10:30.
[5:25:36] Do I want to hear a motion to hear item
[5:25:39] 6A?
[5:25:40] >> I'll make a motion. I hear item 6A.
[5:25:42] » I'll make a motion. I hear item 6A.
[5:25:42] >> I'll second.
[5:25:43] » I'll second.
[5:25:43] >> All in favor?
[5:25:44] » All in favor?
[5:25:44] >> I.
[5:25:45] » I.
[5:25:45] >> I.
[5:25:46] » I.
[5:25:46] >> Okay. It's about our um fire rebuild
[5:25:50] » Okay. It's about our um fire rebuild
[5:25:50] ambassador.
[5:25:52] We want a staff report.
[5:25:54] >> No.
[5:25:55] » No.
[5:25:56] >> Okay. Do we have any public comment?
[5:25:59] » Okay. Do we have any public comment?
[5:25:59] No, we don't have any speaker slips or
[5:26:01] raise hands on Zoom for item 6A.
[5:26:03] >> Okay, so we're back up here at the
[5:26:05] » Okay, so we're back up here at the
[5:26:06] council.
[5:26:06] >> I asked months ago if we could put this
[5:26:08] » I asked months ago if we could put this
[5:26:08] on the agenda to discuss it. And in
[5:26:11] light of the fact that we are now months
[5:26:13] later and things are operating the way
[5:26:16] they are now, I would just withdraw the
[5:26:18] the request.
[5:26:22] » Okay.
[5:26:22] >> So, where does that leave us? that we're
[5:26:25] » So, where does that leave us? that we're
[5:26:25] not going to go we're going to continue
[5:26:26] without a fire rebuild ambassador and
[5:26:28] this is going to conclude.
[5:26:31] >> I think this is like the official
[5:26:32] » I think this is like the official
[5:26:32] termination that we lacked prior and
[5:26:35] this closes that chapter.
[5:26:37] >> So do we need to do a motion on this or
[5:26:40] » So do we need to do a motion on this or
[5:26:40] is it a withdrawn request and
[5:26:43] >> just withdraw it?
[5:26:44] » just withdraw it?
[5:26:44] >> Well, but does that satisfy the
[5:26:47] » Well, but does that satisfy the
[5:26:47] requirement of the original
[5:26:49] resolution?
[5:26:50] >> It already expired. Yeah, I think it
[5:26:52] » It already expired. Yeah, I think it
[5:26:52] that the ambassador already expired and
[5:26:56] uh the ambassador did resign as well. I
[5:26:59] think this was bringing back a report um
[5:27:01] that the council had wanted before that
[5:27:03] had taken place and it was didn't happen
[5:27:05] and so now the report's gone through. If
[5:27:07] the council wants to reimplement it or
[5:27:09] put it in, but if they want to take no
[5:27:10] action, I don't think anything is
[5:27:11] required here tonight. Kelsey, correct
[5:27:13] me if I'm wrong.
[5:27:14] >> That's correct. You don't have to take
[5:27:15] » That's correct. You don't have to take
[5:27:15] an action. And if you'd like, you can
[5:27:17] make a motion to determine that you will
[5:27:19] not move forward with the position, but
[5:27:21] the resolution did expire. So there is
[5:27:24] position currently.
[5:27:25] >> That's my motion. What you just said?
[5:27:27] » That's my motion. What you just said?
[5:27:27] >> Is there a second?
[5:27:28] » Is there a second?
[5:27:28] >> I'll second.
[5:27:29] » I'll second.
[5:27:29] >> All in favor? I
[5:27:31] » All in favor? I
[5:27:32] >> Okay.
[5:27:33] » Okay.
[5:27:33] I hear to hear item 6B.
[5:27:36] >> I'll make a motion to hear item 6B.
[5:27:38] » I'll make a motion to hear item 6B.
[5:27:38] >> A second.
[5:27:39] » A second.
[5:27:39] >> All in favor? I I
[5:27:41] » All in favor? I I
[5:27:41] >> Okay. Can we have a staff report,
[5:27:42] » Okay. Can we have a staff report,
[5:27:42] please, on 6B?
[5:27:46] This is receive and file, right?
[5:27:49] >> Um,
[5:27:51] » Um,
[5:27:51] >> yeah,
[5:27:55] » if I may, Madame Mayor, this this
[5:27:59] presentation may generate considerable
[5:28:02] discussion.
[5:28:04] >> Um,
[5:28:06] » Um,
[5:28:06] there's already been significant
[5:28:08] discussion that's ensued this evening.
[5:28:11] Uh we don't have anything urgent
[5:28:14] requiring the council provide direction
[5:28:16] on this this evening. Um if we were to
[5:28:19] continue it to the next available
[5:28:21] meeting
[5:28:22] um that would still be consistent with
[5:28:26] what stat staff would need to fulfill
[5:28:29] the uh intent of the council going
[5:28:32] forward.
[5:28:32] >> I'll make a motion to agree with what he
[5:28:34] » I'll make a motion to agree with what he
[5:28:34] just said.
[5:28:35] >> Well Trevor, since we already started
[5:28:37] » Well Trevor, since we already started
[5:28:37] the hearing, do we have to hear the
[5:28:38] public comment?
[5:28:39] >> We haven't substantively done anything.
[5:28:40] » We haven't substantively done anything.
[5:28:40] So, if you want to move to continue the
[5:28:43] item, you could. Do we have any public
[5:28:44] speakers on it, Kelsey?
[5:28:45] >> One.
[5:28:46] » One.
[5:28:46] >> Yes, we have one speaker slip, but no
[5:28:48] » Yes, we have one speaker slip, but no
[5:28:48] raised hands.
[5:28:49] >> I I would recommend that you let him
[5:28:51] » I I would recommend that you let him
[5:28:51] speak
[5:28:52] >> since he's waited.
[5:28:52] » since he's waited.
[5:28:52] >> He's waited a [clears throat] long time.
[5:28:54] » He's waited a [clears throat] long time.
[5:28:54] You don't have to. You could continue
[5:28:55] it, but [cough]
[5:28:57] >> doesn't make sense to hear the public
[5:28:58] » doesn't make sense to hear the public
[5:28:58] speaker and then
[5:29:00] >> Mr.
[5:29:04] Thank you.
[5:29:05] >> So, do you understand we're going to
[5:29:06] » So, do you understand we're going to
[5:29:06] actually we're going to have hear your
[5:29:08] public comment, but
[5:29:09] >> we're going to bring this back in the
[5:29:11] » we're going to bring this back in the
[5:29:11] future and
[5:29:11] >> Thank you.
[5:29:12] » Thank you.
[5:29:12] >> restarted. So, but we want you to hear
[5:29:14] » restarted. So, but we want you to hear
[5:29:14] what you
[5:29:15] >> Good evening,
[5:29:16] » Good evening,
[5:29:16] >> council member, mayor.
[5:29:19] » council member, mayor.
[5:29:19] >> I'm representing an American Polo
[5:29:21] » I'm representing an American Polo
[5:29:21] Federation. I want to bring to the city
[5:29:24] of Malibu a big sport elite that is
[5:29:27] Polo. I'm working with Pacific Palis to
[5:29:31] see where we can fill we can find a land
[5:29:35] to do this sport and one of the thing
[5:29:39] what we we need to bring is fund for the
[5:29:43] victims victims for the fire and we want
[5:29:47] to open a school for
[5:29:51] eotherapy for um adults and and kids
[5:29:56] with disabilities. is um so the other
[5:30:00] thing that we I'm from Argentina so I
[5:30:03] hope you understand
[5:30:06] >> um I want to bring a tournament the most
[5:30:09] » um I want to bring a tournament the most
[5:30:09] important that was made in Monteito
[5:30:13] Santa Barbara Palm Beach Wellington I
[5:30:16] think is will be very important for the
[5:30:19] city of Malibu to have a big tournament
[5:30:22] here
[5:30:24] so I'm looking for a
[5:30:27] to build two fields of polo.
[5:30:33] » Um, if I can ask a qu, how much land do
[5:30:36] you need?
[5:30:37] >> Uh, for two field of polo is about 200
[5:30:40] » Uh, for two field of polo is about 200
[5:30:40] by 150 m. 200 m by 150 m.
[5:30:46] >> Large.
[5:30:47] » Large.
[5:30:47] >> Yes, it's very large.
[5:30:49] » Yes, it's very large.
[5:30:49] >> You're talking about horses. Horse horse
[5:30:51] » You're talking about horses. Horse horse
[5:30:51] polo.
[5:30:52] >> Yes. Yeah. We want to teach polo. We
[5:30:54] » Yes. Yeah. We want to teach polo. We
[5:30:54] want to bring
[5:30:56] college you know to practice. So it's a
[5:30:59] lot
[5:31:00] >> involvement of polo.
[5:31:02] » involvement of polo.
[5:31:02] >> So if somebody
[5:31:04] » So if somebody
[5:31:04] math to me what does that three and so
[5:31:08] it's like 200 becomes like 600 ft.
[5:31:11] >> Okay.
[5:31:11] » Okay.
[5:31:11] >> And but that doesn't include the stables
[5:31:14] » And but that doesn't include the stables
[5:31:14] and the viewing area and so forth,
[5:31:16] >> right? Because it's so a polar field I
[5:31:19] » right? Because it's so a polar field I
[5:31:19] think is like a football field.
[5:31:21] >> Pretty big.
[5:31:22] » Pretty big.
[5:31:22] >> Pretty pretty big. And it has to be
[5:31:24] » Pretty pretty big. And it has to be
[5:31:24] grass.
[5:31:25] >> Yes, we
[5:31:26] » Yes, we
[5:31:26] >> How many horses are you talking for two
[5:31:29] » How many horses are you talking for two
[5:31:29] teams?
[5:31:29] >> Um 32 horses.
[5:31:34] » Um 32 horses.
[5:31:34] >> The other thing is um
[5:31:36] » The other thing is um
[5:31:36] >> we want to build an arena so to do a
[5:31:40] » we want to build an arena so to do a
[5:31:40] tournament, you know, Burbank they did a
[5:31:42] tournament and was very good. So
[5:31:48] >> yeah, [clears throat]
[5:31:49] » yeah, [clears throat]
[5:31:49] >> I I would just say this is unofficial,
[5:31:52] » I I would just say this is unofficial,
[5:31:52] right? as benefit and nice as it would
[5:31:54] be. I just don't think we have any land.
[5:31:56] >> I saw coming from Canon Road. I I saw a
[5:32:00] » I saw coming from Canon Road. I I saw a
[5:32:00] lot of land in that in that area.
[5:32:03] >> So, our city does not go very far. We
[5:32:05] » So, our city does not go very far. We
[5:32:05] only go about a mile. We don't even go
[5:32:08] up a mile.
[5:32:09] >> What about on the front here?
[5:32:11] » What about on the front here?
[5:32:11] >> I think would be too small.
[5:32:13] » I think would be too small.
[5:32:13] >> Yeah.
[5:32:13] » Yeah.
[5:32:13] >> No, I think that will bring that would
[5:32:15] » No, I think that will bring that would
[5:32:15] be possible. And you're talking about a
[5:32:17] permanent polo field and polo school
[5:32:21] traveling.
[5:32:22] >> I tell you the I I can bring a sponsor
[5:32:25] » I tell you the I I can bring a sponsor
[5:32:25] here, bring a lot of money to the city
[5:32:28] and also No, I tell you is this polo is
[5:32:32] big money.
[5:32:33] >> It's huge. It's good money.
[5:32:35] » It's huge. It's good money.
[5:32:35] >> Yeah. So they still playing for a long
[5:32:37] » Yeah. So they still playing for a long
[5:32:38] time in Wellington, Palm Beach,
[5:32:40] Pocaraton
[5:32:42] and I think will be nice invaluable. You
[5:32:45] know they are doing in Santa Barbara.
[5:32:47] >> Can I give you my card?
[5:32:49] » Can I give you my card?
[5:32:49] >> Can I give you [clears throat] my card
[5:32:50] » Can I give you [clears throat] my card
[5:32:50] and I can help you? We can talk about
[5:32:52] it.
[5:32:52] >> Yeah,
[5:32:53] » Yeah,
[5:32:53] >> maybe. Okay.
[5:32:53] » maybe. Okay.
[5:32:53] >> Yeah.
[5:32:54] » Yeah.
[5:32:54] >> I would say if on the the topic of the
[5:32:57] » I would say if on the the topic of the
[5:32:57] ecoin therapy, I mean we do have um an
[5:33:00] equestrian center. It's very small in
[5:33:03] comparison to what the numbers you're
[5:33:05] talking about,
[5:33:06] >> but um if you were just doing the ecoin
[5:33:09] » but um if you were just doing the ecoin
[5:33:09] therapy, there might be something. So, I
[5:33:12] would encourage you to talk with our um
[5:33:15] community services department.
[5:33:16] >> Mhm.
[5:33:17] » Mhm.
[5:33:17] >> Um because we are looking at
[5:33:21] » Um because we are looking at
[5:33:21] different possibilities of
[5:33:22] >> Well, at least to start with one field
[5:33:24] » Well, at least to start with one field
[5:33:24] >> and you need a flat field.
[5:33:26] » and you need a flat field.
[5:33:26] >> Yes.
[5:33:26] » Yes.
[5:33:26] >> Yeah. We will we'll [laughter]
[5:33:29] » Yeah. We will we'll [laughter]
[5:33:29] we'll be
[5:33:29] >> I'm not laughing at I we're not laughing
[5:33:31] » I'm not laughing at I we're not laughing
[5:33:31] at you. It's just so limited here in
[5:33:33] Malibu like just the land,
[5:33:36] >> you know, cuz then you're going to need
[5:33:37] » you know, cuz then you're going to need
[5:33:37] parking
[5:33:38] >> because it brings
[5:33:40] » because it brings
[5:33:40] >> Mhm. You saw what is Monteito?
[5:33:42] » Mhm. You saw what is Monteito?
[5:33:42] >> I think Yeah, it's beautiful.
[5:33:44] » I think Yeah, it's beautiful.
[5:33:44] >> Yeah, but it's not a large place. So, we
[5:33:48] » Yeah, but it's not a large place. So, we
[5:33:48] can build here and Malu I think will be
[5:33:50] great.
[5:33:51] >> Um so, thank you very much for your
[5:33:53] » Um so, thank you very much for your
[5:33:53] comment. We are going to have this
[5:33:55] discussion again. Um, I think council
[5:33:57] member Conrad will talk to you, you
[5:33:59] know, and like I said, for any ecoin
[5:34:01] therapy, please talk to about our
[5:34:03] equestrian to see if there's a a smaller
[5:34:05] thing. Um, I think we're going to finish
[5:34:08] the meeting out tonight. I am going to
[5:34:12] request that we adjourn the meeting in
[5:34:15] memory of Darlene Dubrey
[5:34:19] um, who died recently. She was a active
[5:34:23] C member for Malibu since 2015. She
[5:34:26] played a key role during the Wolsey fire
[5:34:28] and assisted with past distribution
[5:34:31] following the Palisades fire. Even
[5:34:33] though she was also displaced from her
[5:34:35] home due to smoke damage,
[5:34:38] Darlene loved surfing, biking, and was
[5:34:41] well known at the senior center
[5:34:43] participating in many of their
[5:34:44] activities. Darlene had a sweet and
[5:34:47] caring nature and never had an unkind
[5:34:49] word to say about anyone. Darlene will
[5:34:52] be mess be missed by many people who
[5:34:55] knew and love her and that was uh put
[5:34:58] together from Susan Dwanius in uh public
[5:35:01] safety. So just want to make that
[5:35:04] acknowledgement of um adjournment. So
[5:35:06] and with that we are adjourned.
[5:35:09] >> Thank you.