[11:18] Right, the January 12, 2026 regular meeting in the Malvis City Council is now called to order. In person participants, if you would like to speak, please submit your request to speak form to the clerk. Ramo participants, if you would like to speak, please join the Zoom webinar meeting, printed on the agenda. And raise your hand in Zoom when you item you wish to speak on is called. May we please have a roll call? Councilmember Conrad, here. Councilmember Stewart. Here. Councilmember Yaring. Here. Mayor pertain Silverstein. Present. Mayor Regan. Here. You have a quorum. Thank you.

[11:47] Let's do the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

[11:55] Ready to get.

[11:57] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

[12:02] and to the Republic for which it stands.

[12:04] One nation, under God, indivisible, was liberty and justice for all.

[12:13] May we please have a report on the posting of the agenda?

[12:18] The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 23, 2025.

[12:22] May we please have an approval of the agenda?

[12:25] Staff is requesting item 1b6 to be continued to a date uncertain.

[12:32] 1b6 is the Kimmy Horn.

[12:34] Okay.

[12:35] Extension.

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

[12:37] I'll second.

[12:38] All in favour?

[12:39] Aye.

[12:40] With 1b6, continue to a date.

[12:42] 1b6, continue.

[12:43] Yes.

[12:46] No votes against.

[12:50] Okay.

[12:50] On the consent.

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

[12:55] No, we only had one speaker slip for 1B6, which has been continued and will not be heard tonight and we do not have any raised hands on Zoom for the consent calendar.

[13:04] Okay, does it may want to pull anything?

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

[13:10] I just want to get a little more information on where we are on that.

[13:13] Okay, do you want to staff report or do you have questions?

[13:18] I've just got some mail.

[13:20] I got a question.

[13:21] Let's sit down.

[13:21] Okay.

[13:23] I want to pull 1v4, please.

[13:26] Okay. So, 1v4, 1v5.

[13:29] 1v10.

[13:30] 1v10.

[13:31] I want to join in.

[13:33] I'm done.

[13:34] So, 4, 5, and 10 are being pulled.

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

[13:39] I'll make a motion to approve the rest of the agenda.

[13:43] Consent calendar.

[13:45] And the consent calendar.

[13:47] I'll second.

[13:47] All in favor?

[13:48] Hi.

[13:49] Okay, so let's start with one before resolution

[13:57] extending the declaration of the existence

[13:59] of a local emergency regarding conditions on specific coast by way.

[14:02] I just had some questions.

[14:04] I seem to, I just want to get clarity on this, because we vote on this every meeting, we

[14:12] vote to approve it, and if PCH is in a state of perpetual emergency declaration, does that

[14:19] that give us anything special privileges or I mean, we have things like roundabouts and

[14:26] we have improvement projects, does that have anything that is?

[14:32] So having a declared state of emergency does give the city certain additional powers.

[14:37] It does not impact the development projects that are being considered though.

[14:41] Those are all related to the state of PCH, but are not required to be done under a state

[14:47] of emergency.

[14:53] I mean, it's pretty like when you read it, it's pretty in depth that it's, you know,

[14:57] So we're, it's...

[15:00] The data statewide integrated traffic, how dangerous it is, resulting in the death of 23 people. Are we always going to be in this state emergency? Is there ever going to be like a moment where we feel safe on PCH and we lift it? I don't know if that's something. It just comes back to councils over and over and over again, I guess.

[15:24] This was in response to

[15:28] to the palisades fire and relative kind of activity that was around that.

[15:34] So it was for the death.

[15:36] Yes, the emergency was declared at the direction of the council.

[15:40] Any state of emergency does have to be reviewed and renewed by the council every 60 days or it is terminated.

[15:46] So if the council still thinks there is need for those additional powers,

[15:50] the additional spending that can be authorized in their city.

[15:52] Managers authority, you would need to continue the state of emergency.

[15:55] If I cancel the terms that isn't necessary, then we can bring back a termination.

[16:00] Got it.

[16:00] My recollection is I actually brought that to council initially after the, the deaths of

[16:06] the students and the, I think it stated in there, it's, we're going to be in an emergency

[16:13] until counterins actually fixes it and we're no longer in an emergency and since we don't have

[16:17] the power to fix it ourselves and since the emergency does continue until it's fixed and since

[16:23] Unfortunately, the law requires us to reaffirm this every 60 days.

[16:28] It's going to have to just keep appearing on our consent calendar.

[16:31] I mean, it would be better if we could just say it shall be there until we declare otherwise.

[16:36] But we have to keep declaring it so because they continue to leave the problem.

[16:41] They're making some incremental changes, but it's still a dangerous place, and it's still a murderous, in my view, it is.

[16:48] I agree, that's why I vote on it every two weeks, I'm just interested in how that works because at one point do we feel that it's not dangerous anymore, but I guess it will cross that bridge when we cross it, maybe it's two years without death.

[17:04] I don't know.

[17:05] No, when we see it.

[17:06] Okay, well, I just wanted to double check on that because we vote on it. That's it, thank you.

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

[17:15] I'm going to approve that one.

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

[17:20] So you'll second.

[17:21] Second.

[17:22] Okay.

[17:22] All in favor?

[17:23] Aye.

[17:24] Metapost?

[17:25] Okay.

[17:25] 1v5?

[17:28] Yeah.

[17:28] I pulled 1v5 primarily because as I read this, we got a serious problem in Siliconian with this

[17:35] It's a storm drain pipe, and I'm just wondering if we're going to not approve the repair,

[17:42] which makes sense.

[17:43] I read the report, and it looks like it's in a lot worse condition than when you first

[17:47] envisioned it.

[17:48] But what kind of risk are we taking, and is it still serviceable now?

[17:52] I just want to know what we're looking at since it seems to have gone downhill since we

[17:58] put out the original R&P.

[17:59] That is an excellent question, Councilmember. The answer to that is, yes, it is still

[18:06] serviceable. We will be going through an expedited redesign. The pipe still does require repair.

[18:12] But we do believe that it can withstand upcoming storms, especially after this recent storm

[18:19] that it went through. But it will be expedited and hopefully repaired soon.

[18:25] I'm assuming that you're not going to be able to put a liner in it like you propose it look from where I read here it looks like it's in pretty bad shape. So you're going to have to dig it out.

[18:35] The exact method has not been identified yet but it will be a lot more extensive than the liner which was originally anticipated.

[18:44] Okay. All right. I just want to know if we have a safety issue here it doesn't sound like we do but if we get on quickly we can solve it.

[18:50] That's right, all right.

[18:52] Correct.

[18:52] I'll make a, that satisfies me.

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

[18:56] Do we have a second?

[18:57] I'll have a second.

[18:58] Okay, all in favor?

[18:59] Aye.

[19:01] None opposed?

[19:02] One, be ten.

[19:04] I ask that people.

[19:06] Yes.

[19:07] I guess my question is are we required to terminate that declaration at this time?

[19:13] Or can we, or do we have discretion to leave it in place at least one more two months?

[19:20] session, I guess, because I know it's rained a lot, but this is the time of year when

[19:28] historically we're in danger, so it seems to me that it's a little premature to pull

[19:33] it.

[19:34] Well, according to the criteria that were established by this Council, we've more than

[19:42] met, because two inches of rain, we've had more than 12 inches of rain.

[19:47] Life-yone moisture should be greater than 80.

[19:50] It's now at 166 percent and there are no fire weather watches or red flag warnings in the foreseeable future.

[19:59] So I think that we have far exceeded the criteria and it's appropriate to terminate it at this point.

[20:13] It doesn't mean I just want to say, it doesn't really change what we do.

[20:17] So our staff is out all the time, removing campments.

[20:21] This just provides us a little extra tools and justification for moving quickly in areas.

[20:31] But we do this every day, so it's not like we stop doing it, so I think we're still protected.

[20:40] What would the upside of removing it then be?

[20:42] Because once it's removed it's hard to get back, and we know that we're just going to go back into dry season.

[20:46] Right. Well, the whole point of an emergency is that you don't just declare them for any reason, right?

[20:52] So we put the criteria in there so that we can be consistent. And I mean, it could be in some respects, and

[21:00] Trevor would have to

[21:01] correct me if I'm wrong, but it provides some legal coverage that you're consistent. You have criteria.

[21:07] It's trigger when you meet the criteria, and we terminate it when we hit the other criteria.

[21:13] So then somebody can accuse us of just having an ongoing emergency and using that to

[21:20] say violate their civil rights or whatever, maybe.

[21:24] That's correct.

[21:25] And if it drops, you'll bring back a new resolution to go and implement the COV emergency,

[21:31] correct?

[21:32] Yes.

[21:33] Has the fire department been consulted about whether this is appropriate at this time?

[21:38] No, specifically, because they would definitely agree and we consulted with them on the

[21:43] criteria, but it's not within our, sorry, process to get approval from the fire department,

[21:53] but we do get the data from the fire department.

[21:56] Like the Lightfield Moisture is provided to us by the fire department.

[22:00] It's

[22:05] drawing this at this time, but we'll see what the vote is, I guess.

[22:09] Well, what would the benefit of not withdrawing it at this time be?

[22:18] I think there are some incremental benefits that are set forth in the declaration or also

[22:22] wouldn't have done it in the first place.

[22:24] So I would like to see it remain in place at least through the end of February as we've

[22:28] historically done it.

[22:30] I know the criteria have been satisfied, at least I'm hearing that they are, but I'm still

[22:36] concerned given the time of year and given the history that this is premature.

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

[22:42] I mean, is there a problem that could do?

[22:43] Well, we've met the criteria.

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

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

[22:50] I think it's no longer in place.

[22:54] Right, and I think for our own, like as a city,

[22:57] our credibility so that when we're declaring this,

[23:00] that we're consistent, we have criteria,

[23:03] and we're not just, say, using it as a tool to do things.

[23:08] I mean, we use it as a tool, but in the situation

[23:11] where there's high-fire danger.

[23:15] We're not in fire danger right now, thank goodness.

[23:19] And we're not in fire danger because the life-y old moisture is at such a high level.

[23:25] Correct.

[23:27] Are there other things besides the vegetation having moisture in it that there are other things that

[23:39] that can occur, that can still occur, that we're mitigating by having this in place?

[23:47] Not sure.

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

[23:50] Yeah, I mean, it is possible that the life human moisture could go down because we're having these

[23:55] Santa Ana Wins, but because the life human moisture is so high, it's highly unlikely that it will bring it down

[24:03] enough to create a danger.

[24:05] and the long-term weather forecast is one that doesn't anticipate having these red flag

[24:13] conditions or anything in it. When was the last time we approved this?

[24:17] The last year? No.

[24:21] I'm sorry. When was the last date that this came before this council that we approved this?

[24:27] When did we do it originally like the last year in September?

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

[24:33] The most recent extension of this particular state emergency was November 24th, 2025.

[24:39] Okay, and when would that die a natural death if we didn't affirmatively terminate it?

[24:44] I'm looking at that now and it looks like it would be January 23rd, 2026.

[24:48] Okay, so I don't see why we need to take any action on this.

[24:52] I would just leave it be and if it's really appropriate,

[24:56] re-determinate it later, die on its own.

[25:02] Has anybody said something to you with regards to this?

[25:06] Did somebody reach out and say, Malibu?

[25:08] No.

[25:09] Oh, OK.

[25:10] No.

[25:11] No.

[25:11] I think it's just the fact that the conditions were met

[25:14] back in the fall when we approved it.

[25:17] And now with all the rain, the conditions have changed.

[25:22] Just the conditions changed so vastly and frequently

[25:26] here.

[25:27] I don't want to have that particular, probably won't change until mid-summer at the soonest.

[25:36] And this would expire in next January, 2020, just like in a couple weeks.

[25:41] Yeah, so it's expiring anyway.

[25:44] If we don't take action, we don't take action.

[25:46] So do we have a motion for something?

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

[25:53] So it's denied.

[25:55] I'll second it.

[25:57] What's the motion?

[25:58] So the motion is to take no action on this item.

[26:02] What the council is understanding that the state of emergency will lapse on January 23rd.

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

[26:10] Unless we somehow, for some reason, redo it on the 24th.

[26:14] We have new circumstances.

[26:17] Yes, exactly.

[26:19] Okay. All in favor?

[26:20] All right.

[26:21] All right. So that concludes the consent calendar. Do we have any presentations or anything

[26:30] to take us to 630? We don't have any presentations and we don't have any commissioner updates but

[26:37] we will have a city manager update for you. Okay. Let's have our city manager update. Thank

[26:42] you, Mayor Council. And I'm not going to be 45 minutes until 630. So, but we have a

[26:52] That is true, that's true.

[26:54] Nobody happy, happy new year, and a good to see everybody, and I just want to say thank

[26:59] you for this opportunity to kind of fill in and help with the transition to have a new

[27:05] humanitarian job come in.

[27:06] I'm excited to have them come in.

[27:09] It's going to be a big benefit to the sea, and I see a lot of things come out of that.

[27:16] So a couple things that I want to bring up is that we have over 10 inches of rain during

[27:21] during this break and we were quite busy.

[27:23] The good thing was that no major issues to report, but I do want to thank, of course,

[27:30] our maintenance department, our staff, they were out here working on Christmas Eve, Christmas

[27:37] Day, and New Year's Eve kind of making sure the roads are clear and monitoring the storms

[27:46] and doing a good really good job with that.

[27:48] So it's just really you want to thank them for actually taking time during that during holiday break to do that

[27:54] But unfortunately the rains did have some impact on the skate park. There's a lot of water and

[28:04] It's it's it's causing some issues with the construction

[28:07] The contractors working and trying to make sure that all of the ground is kind of get dry and so you get back to working again

[28:15] And so we're working with them to come up with a date one you can have that completed.

[28:20] So thank the rain for this little delay.

[28:26] There's several rebuild meetings that are occurring this next couple of weeks.

[28:32] We have the geotech workshop this Wednesday from 11 to 1.

[28:36] There's design professional workshops on Thursday from 11 to 1230.

[28:41] and a FEMA Fire Rebuild Workshop on January 21st, from 9 to noon.

[28:48] I also want to point out on February 4th at 10 a.m., there's going to be a ribbon cutting for the PCH signal synchronization project.

[28:57] We're going to kick that project off or finish that project off and have a nice little ceremony on kind of completing that project.

[29:06] But I also want to point out and congratulate Public Works.

[29:11] And I'm a little biased because I'm up here, I can do that, right?

[29:15] But congratulate Public Works on receiving the Project of the Year Award for

[29:21] the PCH Signal Sync Project.

[29:24] They applied for a transportation project and from APWA from Terracan,

[29:31] and got that. So that's a big accomplishment. After that, they'll be applying for the national project of the year at APWA conference, which is in Houston.

[29:44] The single seat, single seat. Is that project now working?

[29:49] There's a few things that we're trying to get fixed. As you remember, we had that accident at the corner of Civic Center and PCH.

[29:57] I may wipe away in PCH that

[30:00] Knocked out that signal controller. That needs to be replaced. And once that is, then it will be fully, fully functioned. Right now, it's partially functional. It's kind of working. But once that's done, once that's replaced, it'll be functional. Okay. Okay.

[30:15] Then, yeah, lastly, one day, January 19th, City Hall be closed for Martin Luther King day. And now I'm going to hand it over to director Bundy, so she can give an update on

[30:29] by Rebels.

[30:31] I ask a couple clarifying questions first.

[30:34] Go ahead.

[30:35] The FEMA workshop, I believe that's virtual, not in person.

[30:40] Yes, that is correct.

[30:42] The FEMA workshop will be virtual.

[30:45] Okay.

[30:45] So all the coastal properties that are out there in the world and then the people who are associated

[30:52] with coastal properties make sure you tune into that.

[30:54] I think it's going to be really important.

[30:56] Thank you.

[30:58] Thank you.

[30:58] Good evening, Cancel, happy new year, giving you a brief out day on our fire rebuilds.

[31:06] Today we have received 209 planning applications submitted, 147 of them have received an approval.

[31:15] We are currently working with 43 families on their building plan check, and we have issue 22 permits, which are in their construction.

[31:24] We have also issued 491 total permits on the affected area, this constitute repairs,

[31:33] removals, new structures, and that is the numbers that we have.

[31:38] Wanted to share very briefly with the Council and with the community.

[31:43] What is going on on beachfront properties that are gotten approval back in the beginning

[31:51] of Agas. It was currently our pouring foundation systems. The Seawalls has been on place.

[32:00] And then a big rock. We have a property that is already framing. So I just wanted to

[32:08] share that with the Council and with the community and also just a brief update. We continue

[32:17] working on a streamlining our processes.

[32:20] The next one to qualify for the streamlining is the commercial tenant improvement projects.

[32:25] This will signify that the eligible tenants projects can be reviewed in and over the

[32:33] counter with planning and building safety staff.

[32:37] The eligibility for this will be an interior duration only for offices and small retails

[32:44] under 3,000, and so that is currently something that we already are doing, and that concludes

[32:50] my presentation. Thank you so much.

[32:54] Thank you so much. I'm excited about the Streamland commercial tenant improvements.

[33:00] I didn't hear restaurants or cafes. Are they included?

[33:04] There are boutiques and offices.

[33:06] Yeah. This does not include

[33:11] And that's why we keep it very, very small, small interior scope of work.

[33:17] Yeah, that's something that we can do over the counter.

[33:21] If it's a minor alteration and any B occupancy and M occupancy.

[33:27] Some restaurants that have less than 50 occupants are considered B occupancy.

[33:32] So that will also encapsulate any restrooms that are on OCAFES that falls under that description.

[33:40] Okay.

[33:41] What is B stands for?

[33:42] FES offices.

[33:44] It's under the building courtesy finest offices and it's more businesses.

[33:51] One of the exemptions is that if they had less than 50 occupancies for a restaurant, it can

[33:56] be classified as a B occupancy.

[33:59] That's great.

[34:00] I mean, it's small.

[34:01] So let's say somebody needs a sign. This is over the counter. Yes. Oh, great. Yes.

[34:07] Mopsing type. Yes, and also they can also we have a in our design portal. They can

[34:16] submit electronically also to set up the appointment. If they want to do it virtually, we can

[34:21] do virtually. Oh, in person. Great. Thank you. I think the most important thing for no matter

[34:28] what it is that you're doing have a basic site plan showing where everything's going to be located

[34:34] and where entrance and exits are that helps facilitate approvals. Those are a lot of the

[34:45] interior circulation plan is a lot of what the code is looking for. I'm not.

[34:50] That is correct, my dear. Are the means of egresses is something that even when we have an existing

[34:56] In property, we are going to be asking on the means of regard of safety remains as required for the fire code and the building and safety code.

[35:09] Yeah, you know, we keep hearing in the press that the City of Los Angeles has 1200 building permits for homes, for structures destroyed in the fire, which sounds incredible to me whenever I hear it.

[35:24] And I know you've said that there's some issue of transparency, could you talk about that a little bit?

[35:29] Yes, our understanding is that total amount of permits is the effect the permits issue on the affected area.

[35:38] We do have the same number, the same lines that we are capturing our numbers.

[35:45] For us it's 491 total permits, building permits have been issued on that affected burn area,

[35:51] which constitute damages, repairs, new single-family residents that we have issue.

[35:59] So everybody is encapsulating all of the total permits in one number.

[36:04] Right, and I'm familiar with the fact that we disclose both.

[36:07] We state how many permits have been issued for everything and anything that needs to be done after the fire,

[36:11] as well as we are very straightforward about the fact that there are only,

[36:16] what's the number for actual permits to build a house that was burned to the ground?

[36:19] That is correct. For us, it was 22.

[36:23] Transparency, yeah, we have 22.

[36:25] Okay. Do we have any idea what the City of Los Angeles has issued in terms of that comparable permit that we're talking about?

[36:32] I have been asking, they're building official, they haven't given me that number. I do not have it.

[36:37] I certainly can share with you that the incorporated county area has only issue 9 permits.

[36:43] That's right.

[36:44] And I think that what's happening is that we, the City of Malibu, and the unincorporated area are being

[36:51] diserved by the City of Los Angeles's fabrication of what it's doing.

[36:56] I would actually like the City Council to authorize us to, by any means necessary,

[37:02] including the Freedom Information Act, request, or California Information Act, of course,

[37:05] to find out from the City of Los Angeles what they truly are doing.

[37:08] Because they're hurting the morale of the residents who are working very hard and our staff who are working very hard to get people building permits to build their homes by lying basically that they have 1200 homes being reconstructed, which is just it's just completely untrue.

[37:26] So, could we do what we need to do to find out, including take legal action if necessary,

[37:33] to find out exactly what the City of Los Angeles really has issued for people to build a

[37:37] house back?

[37:39] We certainly can initiate that if it does the direction of council.

[37:44] I don't know that we can do a formal resolution, but I think a sense of the council is probably

[37:49] there.

[37:49] I certainly support it, and I think you're very much on target.

[37:52] They've got, what, 10 times the number of burns, burns in the policy that we do.

[37:59] And we don't know how many rebuilds I have, so we'd like to know how we're doing.

[38:04] You don't have an item on the agenda to give a direction on that, but

[38:07] if there is interest from the council, I'm sure staff can go out and

[38:12] bring information back to the city council and an item that's necessary to authorize.

[38:16] Well, it sounds like Yolanda has been working behind the scenes,

[38:20] That means trying to get that information it hasn't been able to.

[38:23] So I think what Mayor Proton-Sourci is suggesting is that we ratchet it up to a formal request.

[38:31] And so if that's something that we can just direct staff that we would like them to put in a-

[38:37] What I guess was consensus could bring this back as an item for next meeting where we can give direction,

[38:43] take a vote and give direction if we all agree to actually do a California information request if necessary of all the building permits.

[38:50] And so we can then go through the building permits and find out exactly what they're for so that the public will have a truthful understanding of what's going on.

[38:58] Well, I'm in favor of doing what you just said, but I think we can probably do the public records request, even before hand.

[39:05] I'm assuming that you can just help us get this information.

[39:09] She's probably trying the same thing.

[39:11] Well, you just need to get it from them.

[39:12] They're in the same boat we have.

[39:14] I was going to go with you.

[39:14] Yeah, okay.

[39:17] The problem is, you know, look, I'm never one to be worried about rocking the boat.

[39:21] I understand a lot of politicians don't want to rock the boat and accuse the City of Los Angeles

[39:25] of lying or put them to the trouble of telling the truth, but I don't care about that.

[39:30] I want to know what's going on.

[39:31] It should be a fairly easy number to attain given, yeah.

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

[39:36] So, if we have to, we might have to do a legal request, but so that's why if you're unable

[39:42] able to learn the answer informally by the time of our next meeting.

[39:46] I'd like to be on our agenda to take whatever legal action we need to take to find out formally.

[39:51] I think you have to assess that.

[39:52] A report on the information we're able to bring and then the ability for the council to take further action or

[39:58] give direction to the staff.

[39:59] Yeah, okay.

[40:01] All right.

[40:01] Thank you.

[40:03] And I want to commend you and the staff for everything you are doing and trying to do to increase the numbers in Malibu.

[40:09] So I just think, people in some sense, it took until about two-thirds of the way into the last year before Yolanda was empowered basically to start taking control because we still had the two separate departments and we were lacking stewardship at the top.

[40:29] And I'm impressed, by the way, things have been moving since Yolanda has been given that charge.

[40:34] And including with the streamlining of things that are completely outside the rebuild process and which keeps coming back to us month after month with new things, it's great, thank you.

[40:43] Thank you.

[40:45] Anybody out there?

[40:47] Yeah, if you could put your chart back up there, I'd like for you to kind of give us a narrative of what you see as being barriers or the stumbling blocks for people to move forward.

[41:04] We've got roughly 700 homes that are destroyed right roughly at number because I keep seeing that number going all over the place.

[41:11] I've seen those 600 step to 700, but we've got a 200 or so planning review and we've got 43 and 22.

[41:21] What's holding people back in each one of those categories?

[41:25] The planning review and building plan check, what's keeping them from getting their plan checks?

[41:28] I mean, I'm here and everything from insurance to desire, I mean, what's your sense of what's going on?

[41:37] Thank you for this question.

[41:41] It's really hard to pinpoint exactly what's going on, but what I'm hearing a lot from the home owners is insurance, right?

[41:50] Insurance and also the number of requirements that the city has, meaning we are,

[41:56] We are per the California, per state of California, to require a set of plans that has all the structural calculations of the Title 24, or the Green Building Code requirements, or your civil plans, or your technical plans, your CWALS, your on-site weighted treatment systems, your FEMA regulations to make sure that also in some instances we have our coastal reports.

[42:24] So it's a layer after layer of state requirements that homeowners need to put together in order to comment through building a safety.

[42:36] So acknowledging the number of requirements that were not able to be flexed because these are building and safety requirements.

[42:46] That is one of the biggest things.

[42:48] also being a regional disaster, the number of design professionals that are working with the different jurisdictions and the different owners is limited and sometimes we need to wait for them to respond or for them to complete the information that is required.

[43:09] So I think one of them is that, right? And then that financial portion of it.

[43:15] And that's in the 4322 on the building in safety.

[43:20] Is there, since we're on that segment, is there anything that you would like to see change that we could do?

[43:28] I realize the legal side, it's got to be the way it is.

[43:30] But is there anything we can be doing?

[43:33] Yes, continue meeting one-on-one with the design professions.

[43:38] That is helping out.

[43:40] Like I mentioned, I've been coming in every Friday to meet with the homeowners or the design professionals and we're working with right now with five families to get them approves.

[43:53] During the holidays, we had a few coming in and meet with us, but I felt that a lot of our design professionals also took time off.

[44:04] So, I think we are regaining that momentum again,

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

[44:13] even if we issued two more permits,

[44:15] because of the storms, they would not be able to start, right?

[44:18] So, that is, what can we do more?

[44:22] I think it's the one and one with the design professionals

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

[44:28] where the plans are completed and give them an upper permit.

[44:32] that is the number one thing that we need to do more.

[44:35] And what I want to see more is having those 43 get a permit.

[44:39] So what are we working by now this week is staff is going through all of those properties

[44:46] 43 that we are in the review and highlighting the ones that we have seen twice.

[44:53] So we can set up meetings with those families and those design professionals to move those projects.

[44:59] Thanks.

[45:00] Okay. Sometimes people are, think of a project has many things that they need to work on. We are. We're meeting, okay, let's meet with your architect. Let's get all the science or the architect done. Okay, it's done. Let's meet with your civil. Let's take all of that. Okay, that is done. So we're taking portion by portion so we can move things along in order to help expedite it.

[45:26] As far as the 209 that are on the planning submittals, we still have those almost 300 homes that need to come in for the planning department to start reviewing it, and we have not seen that.

[45:43] We're going to continue doing the like our interim city manager to mention the community

[45:52] meetings because those are very critical communication and our website and also for us

[45:59] to continue working with the design professionals.

[46:02] One thing that is happening on Wednesday, digital technical guidelines for fire rebels are we're

[46:09] We're going to have amendments to it to make it more clear and simple.

[46:14] So those are being presented on Wednesday.

[46:18] On Thursday, we're having another meeting with the design professionals to share that information.

[46:23] And also to us, how can we help you move your project moving forward?

[46:30] There's a lot to do.

[46:33] There's a lot, a lot to do.

[46:35] I know in our discussions a little quick conversation I know for you it's one agenda at a time each house each family is one agenda

[46:43] So and I echo what Bruce said my gosh, I don't know what we'd be doing with that you and I don't know what we'd be doing with that

[46:50] your team and I see them in action you walk in the door you see them talking to people it's a one-on-one

[46:56] conversation and I'm really proud that you're doing that. Thank you and a giant as a whole city effort and

[47:03] and we're committed and I know that there's still a lot of challenges and continue working with

[47:10] the community and every family to feel that we are there for each one of the families that's

[47:16] the most critical thing for all of us. I can't speak for the entire council but I know for me

[47:21] anything you need anything your team needs will be glad to try and get it for you okay thank you sir

[47:28] can we get the chart back up again what

[47:36] is going on okay so are those numbers cumulative

[47:41] They're all separate, you'd have to add them all up to have the total that somebody has filed some kind of an application at this point, or is there overlap?

[47:50] For the first line, right, for the planning phase, 62 under planning reviews.

[47:57] So 62 homes are going through the planning and item and phase, which is, are they building like for like? Do they need a little bit more?

[48:06] So those are the ones, 147 are separate.

[48:11] So those 147 are ready to obtain the planning approval.

[48:16] Okay, so basically you add all of these up, and that's how many have at least started the process.

[48:21] On the upper portion of it, yes.

[48:23] So 62 plus 147, that's the 209 that I was talking to you about.

[48:30] Okay.

[48:30] There's two parts to every rebuild.

[48:33] your planning phase and your building in safety phase, which is your construction

[48:38] plan?

[48:39] Right.

[48:39] So I understand that.

[48:40] So the 65 are part of the 209.

[48:44] Yes.

[48:45] Okay.

[48:47] And look, it's my understanding, and we'll be talking about this later, so I understand

[48:51] you.

[48:51] We've done pretty much what we can legally to streamline the planning phase.

[48:58] We've, you know, we've had the governor through his good grace has adopted the executive orders and then we've mended municipal code.

[49:06] We've pretty much streamlined as much as we can the planning aspect of it.

[49:12] The building aspect of it, I know you're working hard to try to get people through the building part but it's a state code and we have less flexibility or actually we have no, we have next to no flexibility.

[49:21] or are there more things we have the power to do below the line on the building part of this or are we just constrained by the building code full stop?

[49:33] These state regulations are pretty much black and white and so there's no flexibility for that.

[49:39] I think one of the things that we need to continue reminding the community is that the governor did allow every home to be rebuilt under the previous building.

[49:51] code. Knowing that we are going to have a code change and there's a lot more restrictions

[49:57] on the new code. The governor says, okay, let's continue building under the 2023 code.

[50:04] Separate from fire? Separate for fire, yes. So that is one thing that sometimes I feel

[50:09] people still have that question. And so that is also a benefit because a lot of design

[50:17] and professions are used to those that code right now, right?

[50:20] That they have been working with it for three years.

[50:23] They know what to expect.

[50:25] They know the type of things, calculations they need to give us.

[50:29] So that is good.

[50:32] Okay, this question of the 65 below the line.

[50:36] Do we know how many of them are owners

[50:39] that lost their home versus people who acquired the property?

[50:42] All of them are homeowners that, yes.

[50:45] Yes, those 22 that you have approval, absolutely.

[50:50] Those are your homeowners that they want, jump in and are really involved on coming in

[50:56] and asking questions.

[50:58] Also those 43.

[50:59] Excellent.

[51:00] Okay.

[51:00] Thank you.

[51:01] Yes.

[51:02] Thank you.

[51:04] Again for all of this.

[51:05] I was curious.

[51:06] Do you guys have like a timeline so for the 43 in building plan check, let's say these

[51:13] Is there some sort of mechanism in which you're able to track where everything is and then

[51:19] illustrate that?

[51:20] So it's like 15 days or we're a little bit more nuanced I'm looking for.

[51:27] Yeah, we have a database that it will show the turnaround times.

[51:34] I do have to admit that through the change of consultants in November and in October we did

[51:41] have a big hiccup because we needed to own more a new technical coastal engineering

[51:49] environmental health companies so that took a little bit of hiccup on getting everything

[51:56] up to speed on what we were committed to do that reveals to our first review we were committed

[52:04] to do a 10 working days, and I can honestly tell you in front of

[52:08] this, that due to those changes in companies, we were not able to stay with the 10 day turnaround time.

[52:19] And that's why it was so important for us to meet with the architects and

[52:25] the families and start working on the items that have been completed to facilitate

[52:31] eight faster turnaround time.

[52:34] Great.

[52:35] The second submetals is a five-day turnaround time reviews.

[52:40] Five days, so the second submetal,

[52:45] that's amazing.

[52:48] Yeah, but also think about it, we receive a project,

[52:55] we review it, and then we give it corrections within days,

[52:59] then does corrections go back to the design team.

[53:02] Sometimes it takes two weeks, three weeks, it depends.

[53:06] Right. The city has a commitment, and then once it's out of the city's hands, if it goes to the designer, it's out of your hands, and it's in their hands, and then the owner has to deal with their design team, which can take three months, but at least the city is not being scapegoated for taking too much time is what I'm trying to avoid.

[53:22] Yeah, and we still have a lot of work to do on a stain with those 10 days turnaround time

[53:28] I need to acknowledge that in and with you because he has been difficult to stay with those 10 10 turn around times

[53:36] Right, but that is the effort to continue working on that great

[53:40] So there is a goal for that now that the hiccups have kind of been sorted

[53:44] Hopefully, you know with the change of consultants a 10-day goal is where we're working. Yes

[53:50] Yes, yes, terrific.

[53:52] And then I have a second question over the holiday, and I got a bunch of emails from a gentleman about an update with rebuild rights.

[54:02] I really need clarity on, I think, and I don't even know how to explain this, but the original owner,

[54:12] good,

[54:16] being the authorized, it's Abe Oesman, does anybody know what I'm talking about?

[54:22] Yeah, I think the question I think was there's the right for light-for-light rebuilds flow with the property sent to question

[54:30] It's more complex. I have this something to talk about the

[54:33] Personal number comments and actually ask for consensus for something on that, okay

[54:37] I think it's premature to do that at this point. No problem

[54:40] Oh, I don't know what the proper time is. I just want to make sure I don't forget because I end up forgetting and then I'm like

[54:46] You'll be around later the meeting first talk about it. I'll be here. Yeah, okay great. Well wait. I'm cool with that

[54:52] Because I think that's more substantive than just asking questions at this point.

[54:55] Perfect.

[54:58] Any more questions for you, London?

[55:01] And just, I just want to clarify, so that 10 days turnaround is not a guarantee of an

[55:06] approval.

[55:07] That's a 10 days to identify things that don't comply with the minimum code standards for

[55:12] the building code.

[55:13] That is correct.

[55:14] This is what we call the first review in which usually we issue corrections.

[55:19] And then on the second round that five days, you're hoping that you're able to do it so much faster because the design professional has addressed those deficiencies to meet the minimum code standards and you're doing a quality check to confirm that.

[55:37] Yes, that is correct.

[55:39] Yeah, probably more of a clarification, I know early on when we were talking about turnaround times and so forth, there was a concern that additional identified items would appear every time they came through the cycle.

[55:56] I know that's happened to me when I was building my house 25 years ago.

[55:59] So are we handling that, how are we handling that?

[56:02] We're trying to handle that with the consultants having consistency on what they're reviewing.

[56:10] We're also trying to handle that when we, when they're resummeting, when we're meeting in person with those design professionals, we're able to capture.

[56:22] Why do they give you the other correction?

[56:24] That shouldn't be a correction.

[56:25] So those are being addressed as quality control when staff is meeting also with the homeowners

[56:31] in the design professionals.

[56:33] And also that's what we have set up monthly meetings with the design professionals.

[56:38] They started since September to start addressing all of those items, right?

[56:44] What is that we need to do better as a city?

[56:47] How can we help them get a better understanding or what is that is being done that we should

[56:54] not be doing?

[56:54] So, that is helping out also with that design professional.

[56:58] I guess I want to make sure that we're on a record with this, I'm going to try to hold you

[57:02] to 100 percent, but we're not identifying new items in these cycles of reviews, is that correct?

[57:09] So, you get the first round and unless it's a correction on something that you corrected,

[57:14] we're calling it down. That is what it should be.

[57:18] Right.

[57:19] Sometimes it occurs that on the first submittal information was not given completely.

[57:24] Let's say, and I have seen this and I'm just can give you an example.

[57:29] A homeowners came in, they wanted to put a poll, but they wanted a poll to be in a separate

[57:35] submittal.

[57:37] So on the first review, with the structural calculations for the poll was not submitted.

[57:43] But then through a conversation with the homeowner, we figure out what is best to have the

[57:50] hopper met moving forward instead of separating it.

[57:53] So they submitted the structural calculations for the pool and the second submittal.

[58:00] So those are new corrections because we never got to see it at the beginning.

[58:08] I have one more set of questions.

[58:09] So, I'm still interested in these apples to orange as comparisons that we're getting.

[58:17] So, there was also a press release this week by Cal Matters that was, it's puffed as far as I'm concerned.

[58:24] But it says that more than 2600 residential permits had been issued between the palisades in Al-Tedena,

[58:32] which is roughly one in every five of nearly 13,000 homes lost.

[58:38] That's a direct quote.

[58:40] Two questions if you know the answer.

[58:42] The first is, are they including Malibu when they say

[58:44] Al-Tedina and Palisades?

[58:46] Are they just up at the fires?

[58:48] Are they talking about the areas Al-Tedina and Palisades?

[58:51] I'm going to share what source you are mentioning that.

[58:55] Usually, yes, when they depressed us to a report on numbers,

[59:05] They try to include Malibu under the policy's incident, but I'm not sure specifically on this.

[59:12] Yes, I'm not sure, because it's an odd formulation.

[59:14] They don't say eaten in palisades fires, they say Al-Tedena and palisades, which leads me to the other

[59:20] question, they say residential permits.

[59:24] Do we know what that means?

[59:26] Because I could be looking at this and think that while we've issued 147 permits, planning

[59:31] permits, we haven't issued building permits yet.

[59:34] Do we know what they mean by residential permits?

[59:39] Not knowing the source is hard for me to tell you, but when somebody says residential permits that you shoot residential building permits.

[59:48] But again, I don't know the source of what you're looking at.

[59:51] Okay.

[59:52] But that could go to just like we're reporting that we have issues 491 permits that include repairs.

[1:00:00] Other things, which is separate from 22 homes. So it kind of sounds like depends on the bucket that you're trying to fill. You know, do you want to just say you've issued almost 500 permits, which we have, but that doesn't get to the heart of what people really want, which is the houses. Every time I try to figure out what's going on elsewhere, it's just it's opaque. Yes.

[1:00:26] Anything else? See, you have been quiet.

[1:00:29] A lot of the thank you very much for what you've been doing.

[1:00:31] You're doing a heck of a job.

[1:00:32] Thank you, sir.

[1:00:33] The only thing I would just recommend, you know, the process of the design professionals

[1:00:38] taking some time before they give back to you in terms of once you've given the material.

[1:00:43] My experience over the years I've been doing this stuff.

[1:00:46] I mean, I get a call from a customer, a resident, who says, I'm being held up and we chase it

[1:00:51] down.

[1:00:51] It's their design professional who's holding up and are getting stuff back to us.

[1:00:55] So the more you can make that visible for the people who are building their homes, I think

[1:00:59] it will help us because they don't know who to blame, right?

[1:01:04] And my hope is that we don't blame each other.

[1:01:07] My hope is that we work together.

[1:01:09] And the really is critical on my design professions.

[1:01:12] And even the contractors that we are on that same page.

[1:01:16] There's so much work for us to do ahead.

[1:01:19] And some of the architects that got an approval, I'm asking them.

[1:01:24] You know, we already have a template.

[1:01:27] Use this template for the next format that you're coming in,

[1:01:30] that way you don't get a lot of corrections,

[1:01:31] but it does, we cannot do this by ourselves

[1:01:35] and our deaf families really need us.

[1:01:38] So I, yes, it's a big task ahead of us.

[1:01:44] All right, we're eating up all that time.

[1:01:47] Do you have any more?

[1:01:50] Okay, I'm guessing Sergeant Sotalin.

[1:01:51] one. One is the point in the meeting when we do council consensus to move in agenda item

[1:01:57] forward. To request to 8 a to go in the beginning of the.

[1:02:04] Oh, well, we adopted that we can when we finish up this and perfect. Let's get this done.

[1:02:12] See where we're how close we are to 630 and then we can talk about reordering the item.

[1:02:17] Thanks.

[1:02:20] What's been going on the last few weeks?

[1:02:21] which is good, it's a lot of rain. Happy New Year City Council, we are in 2026 which means I have December's Crime Statistics which will give us the year end total and we can compare that to the previous years.

[1:02:38] So, in December there was a total of 16 reported part one crimes and if we remember

[1:02:49] part one crimes are homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults, robbery, burglary,

[1:02:55] larceny, grand theft auto, and arson, so some of the serious crimes, so there was only 16 reported.

[1:03:01] And that brings the total for 2025 to 261 for the entire year.

[1:03:07] This compares with 440 for the previous year of 2024, so that's a 40.7% decrease.

[1:03:15] Now you could say that the policy has fire at something to do with that, and that's

[1:03:18] certainly yes, but the five year change, the five year change from 2020, the average

[1:03:25] is a 35% decrease, so it's in the same bulk arc, so we are certainly moving in the right

[1:03:31] direction, so I'm very happy to see that.

[1:03:34] We also have the traffic collision information for the entire year and so that falls the same trend so there was a year-to-date for 2025, there was 176 total collisions in the city.

[1:03:51] But the year prior, there was 327, so that's a 46% decrease which is great to see.

[1:03:59] More significantly, injury collisions dropped 41%, so there was 59 for 2025, compared with 100 for the year prior.

[1:04:10] DUI collisions were also down. There was a total of three last year. This compares with 11 from the year prior.

[1:04:18] So all in all, people seem to be slowing down. Obviously, the construction has something to do with that.

[1:04:24] but it shows that slower speeds mean fewer collisions and fewer people being injured.

[1:04:31] So shocking to think that, but that is the case.

[1:04:36] So moving forward to 2026, so the Sheriff's Department has a couple different goals.

[1:04:45] The first one, we're going to keep up with PCH safety.

[1:04:51] In terms of fatal collisions, there was only one fatal collision last year and that was

[1:04:54] not on PCH, that was on Decker Canyon.

[1:04:57] So there were zero fatal collisions on PCH last year, which is what we are hoping for

[1:05:03] every year.

[1:05:04] So we're going to keep on pressing on PCH safety.

[1:05:08] So with that, speed cameras are hopefully going to be installed this year.

[1:05:13] There's a roundabout project that the city and the Cal Trans and Sheriff's Department

[1:05:18] our collaborating on. We are also planning to do a GUI checkpoint in the near future.

[1:05:26] We're going to continue with enforcement on PCH, our motors, and the city is

[1:05:33] graciously providing extra funding for additional traffic enforcement. So we are going to continue that

[1:05:39] and continue to enforce the traffic laws and keep everybody safe on PCH.

[1:05:48] Another point that we are going to focus on in 2026 is public safety during the recovery.

[1:05:54] And by that I mean homeowner's properties.

[1:05:57] We want people to rebuild and be secure in their property, leaving construction equipment,

[1:06:02] which is very, very expensive, construction material.

[1:06:07] We want that to be secure, and we want people to not have to worry about another tragedy

[1:06:13] to be on top of what they already went through.

[1:06:16] With that, our camera registry,

[1:06:19] we want to push that out again

[1:06:21] because that will be very beneficial

[1:06:24] to synchronize with our real-time watch center.

[1:06:27] People can integrate their cameras

[1:06:29] and that way we can have real-time access if they so choose

[1:06:32] or we'll be able to do follow-up investigation.

[1:06:35] So our camera registry is vital for that.

[1:06:39] But we are also going to focus on the homeless population in Malibu has and continue collaborating

[1:06:48] with our host team and our outreach teams for housing for the homeless population.

[1:06:53] And we're going to continue enforcement of all applicable laws as it relates to the homeless.

[1:06:59] So we are still on a downtrend on the homeless population and we want that to continue.

[1:07:04] And hopefully, 2026 will be much better in 2025.

[1:07:08] So, I am available if anyone has questions.

[1:07:12] Anyone have any questions for the sergeant?

[1:07:15] Hi, thank you.

[1:07:16] Okay, go ahead.

[1:07:16] Thank you.

[1:07:17] Do you have a substation update?

[1:07:21] So, the latest update is the City Council approved the radio tower, which is one of the major hurdles to the substation.

[1:07:30] The county can now start the certificate of occupancy and accepting ownership of that.

[1:07:39] The lead time that I had heard from our internal services division on getting that tower

[1:07:47] installed with all the proper equipment is 10 to 12 months lead time.

[1:07:52] So that's timeline we're looking at and hopefully this time next year we'll have better clarity

[1:07:58] on when we can start moving it. Thank you. I was also wondering if you had an update on the

[1:08:05] machete man that I think I heard about over the weekend. There was a man with a machete

[1:08:12] at Ralph's or Malibu Road. You didn't hear about that? Oh it was on my citizen hat. So I've been

[1:08:20] on bereavement leaves so I don't have the latest information but I will look into that for you.

[1:08:27] Thank you.

[1:08:28] Yeah, it seems like that's the weapon of choice

[1:08:30] that I keep hearing about here.

[1:08:32] I hope he's brush clearing with his machete,

[1:08:35] but do you also have any,

[1:08:37] like information on parking citations

[1:08:40] around the east winding way area for the last two weeks?

[1:08:43] I know that the city has their own parking.

[1:08:45] I wasn't sure if the sheriff's also have some data on that.

[1:08:49] We do.

[1:08:52] So I don't have specifically for that area,

[1:08:55] but parking violations and citations in general, we issued 44,000 and change last year.

[1:09:07] 44,000?

[1:09:08] Just the deputies or came out of between all.

[1:09:12] That's a good question, I don't know if this includes the city, parking enforcement but the total

[1:09:19] on here is 44,439.

[1:09:22] In the city limits of mail?

[1:09:23] Correct.

[1:09:24] I've been looking to wow more about that.

[1:09:29] That's why we hired parking enforcement in here.

[1:09:31] Yeah, I think we got a report from the parking enforcement, like buy-on.

[1:09:34] I don't know.

[1:09:35] Do you want Susie to?

[1:09:37] Oh, maybe I'll ask.

[1:09:38] I'll put it in my council comments.

[1:09:40] I'll ask you about that after.

[1:09:43] So 44,000 tickets in the city of Malibu for 2025.

[1:09:47] Why?

[1:09:48] It seems like a lot, but when you put it in perspective, I mean, Malibu sees millions

[1:09:52] of people in the summertime.

[1:09:55] Yeah.

[1:09:55] So, that's the tip of the iceberg of the actual amount of vehicles that come to the

[1:10:00] city.

[1:10:01] I was also curious why, do we get how many DUI checkpoints a year?

[1:10:07] Is it one, two, four, and then?

[1:10:09] I believe through the OTS grant, there's two that are funded.

[1:10:16] Okay. Okay. Oh, and you have been doing work with your right of entries, your ROEs, right?

[1:10:24] Do you mean the letter of agency? Well, yeah, the letter of agency is exact. Correct. Yeah.

[1:10:28] I know that if you're trying to help with crime on people's properties, they also have to have that

[1:10:34] letter. Is that correct? It would be very beneficial. We saw massive influx of them submitted to us.

[1:10:41] We originally did the I sign my yeah the public outreach on it. Okay, that's it. Thank you

[1:10:50] By way on those letter of agency's they do expires that correct

[1:10:55] So you gotta do it every I believe they're every two years every two years. Yeah, okay, just a reminder for that

[1:11:01] You left out when I thought it was the most significant thing your two deputies that decided to go swimming on December 19th

[1:11:19] I hope there's recognition in the future for that.

[1:11:22] There will be.

[1:11:23] Can we talk here in the story of what occurred?

[1:11:25] Well, why don't you tell us.

[1:11:27] Sure, so.

[1:11:28] I don't have the exact date, but I know it was several

[1:11:32] weeks ago.

[1:11:35] Paragliders were disoriented in the fog and crashed into the

[1:11:38] in the ocean several hundred feet off the shore and the deputies responded and

[1:11:43] immediately saw them in peril stuck in their their cords from the paragliders

[1:11:49] or from the apparatus and the hesitation took off all their gear took their

[1:11:54] boots off and went in in full uniform and swam out and cut the paragcords off

[1:12:00] from around them and according to the deputies that they were in shock and they

[1:12:06] They were trying to pull the deputies under to try and get out of the water and deputies

[1:12:10] did a great job and rescued them and they are real heroes.

[1:12:16] So we told the sheriff about it when he was here last week and he was very, very happy

[1:12:22] to meet them in person.

[1:12:24] So I'm sure there will be some recognition coming that way.

[1:12:27] One of the guys was here last week.

[1:12:29] He was.

[1:12:30] He got with the big mustache.

[1:12:31] Yeah, right.

[1:12:32] Oh, that was him.

[1:12:33] And he's actually one of the special assignment deputies from Alvuk, so yeah.

[1:12:37] And that water was about 60, low 60 degrees temperature and they were in their duty uniforms.

[1:12:44] Yeah, as somebody that took a lifeguard training, I can only imagine how those people struggled

[1:12:49] to try and push the deputies down so they could get up. It's an amazing story and they truly are

[1:12:56] I'm very happy to have you.

[1:12:57] What area am I with?

[1:13:00] I'm not sure.

[1:13:01] I don't want to.

[1:13:02] I thought it was up by you.

[1:13:03] I mean, by a point you and

[1:13:05] it was up by you.

[1:13:07] I thought it was up by you.

[1:13:07] I thought I heard.

[1:13:08] Steve.

[1:13:09] Good.

[1:13:10] Anybody else?

[1:13:12] Thank you.

[1:13:13] And thank you to all the first

[1:13:14] responders out there.

[1:13:16] Appreciate all the hard work.

[1:13:17] And let's hear to it.

[1:13:18] Happy New Year.

[1:13:19] Happy New Year.

[1:13:22] I just wanted to really quickly follow up on Hanlon's question about the parking

[1:13:26] enforcement.

[1:13:27] I just want to let you know that we are right now planning to bring back a comprehensive

[1:13:32] report on how the whole parking enforcement program has gone for the last year and a half

[1:13:37] because we'll be looking at renewing the contract.

[1:13:39] So I think if you await a little bit, we'll be ready to give you a full report and give you

[1:13:44] all the details you want at that time.

[1:13:47] That would be super are there like specific location specific like hotspots? Do you think that we can have that information? Yes

[1:13:54] Fantastic. Thank you so much. Okay,

[1:14:01] so we filled up all the way to 6.30

[1:14:06] Before we begin our agenda, does anybody want to rest your break?

[1:14:10] Okay, I would like to ask to move item 888 to the beginning of our meet

[1:14:15] So do you want to do public comment first or do you want to do that and then come back to for a?

[1:14:22] I think public comment, but then as far as we go into our program for the evening, 8A is the beginning.

[1:14:29] So do 4A, and then move 8A before 5A?

[1:14:34] What's 5A?

[1:14:35] There, so we have public comment is item 4A.

[1:14:38] We have council member comment is item 4B, and then on the agenda, the first item for discussion is item 5A, the building standards code.

[1:14:46] So would you like to hear 8a after public comment, after council comments, or after the building

[1:14:53] been cut.

[1:14:54] But if your council come up.

[1:14:56] After council come up.

[1:14:57] Okay.

[1:14:57] So do 4 a and 4 b, then 8 a.

[1:15:00] Okay. Then the remainder of the agenda. Yeah. Okay. Second. Second. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay. So 4a. Do we have any raised hands for a general public comment?

[1:15:16] There are 4 raised hands. Okay. So let's give them 30 seconds and then hold it in. And I have all my 4a comments in. So no more additional 4a comments. And you're starting us off.

[1:15:30] Followed by Michelle Shane, followed by Mrs. Marissa Coughlin.

[1:15:45] And Kamarask.

[1:15:46] There's a lot of floors in my world, 44,000 tickets, 4444 State News, here we are.

[1:15:54] And so this is a picture of a radio at the Tower of Power at Santa Monica.

[1:16:01] That's a handheld radio putting out approximately four to five watts, probably four watts.

[1:16:06] And I was able to transmit all the way from pass the road list down to the Mexican border and to Las Vegas with that radio.

[1:16:17] Both sides of the hill.

[1:16:19] And I did copy Mr. Stewart, Councilman Stewart and Helen, you know all about it.

[1:16:25] So I don't understand why we don't make this a priority over these other, well, it'll dot out projects.

[1:16:34] This one works, and we've been working very hard.

[1:16:38] Can I please have a next slide?

[1:16:40] This is a license, and if you look closely, it says for the prevention of,

[1:16:46] it's for the fire watch for high fire danger areas issued by the Federal Communications Commission.

[1:16:53] This license is a gift to the city of Malibu, not the government of Malibu, a nonprofit within Malibu.

[1:17:01] Next, please.

[1:17:03] This is where you can listen to any radio transmission around the globe and the universe

[1:17:10] from Malibu. It's Malibu Public Safety on the scanner, and this is available 24-7. So,

[1:17:18] any communication you make on this radio can be heard here, unencrypted in the clear.

[1:17:24] next, please. This is a list of frequencies used by another community 50 miles away from here.

[1:17:33] This is their fire watch. They have never burned unlike Malibu and the palaces. Why? Because they

[1:17:40] care. So next, please. That's the last one. I'll back to me, please. So, me? No?

[1:17:56] Hello, Billor. This is a radio. I just communicated this morning on a similar radio from my bedroom, which is what?

[1:18:07] Or they live, anyway, a paradise cove, whatever it is. But up there, I transmitted on my other radio 50 miles from here to the community 50 miles from here on a handheld radio.

[1:18:21] So it's kind of why we're advocating to put something up on Catalina.

[1:18:26] And with all due respect to this sheriff,

[1:18:29] a handheld radio works just fine at the Santa Monica College.

[1:18:33] To wait a year for that is absurd.

[1:18:36] To have your tower installed.

[1:18:37] You know, I support the tower, but not where it's at.

[1:18:42] And it kind of doesn't look too safe to me.

[1:18:44] Tone bolts holding it down.

[1:18:46] Perhaps this should be revisited.

[1:18:49] But thank you very much.

[1:18:50] Thank you.

[1:18:51] Appreciate it.

[1:18:52] I'm okay.

[1:18:53] Michelle, say.

[1:18:53] I'm being changed.

[1:18:54] Followed by Marissa, followed by Brian Merrick.

[1:19:05] New year?

[1:19:06] Happy New Year.

[1:19:08] Good evening, City Council.

[1:19:11] This City Council has mandated a state of emergency on PCH per over a year.

[1:19:17] Tonight I want to discuss how we can actually end it.

[1:19:21] The solution is straightforward.

[1:19:23] If you speed on PCH, you lose your license, and that's how we stop speeding.

[1:19:31] On our PCH law enforcement has issued 5,100 citations so far in 2025.

[1:19:39] A 59% increase from 2023.

[1:19:43] Across California in 2024, 18,000 drivers exceeded a hundred miles an hour.

[1:19:50] They are choosing their thrills over our lives.

[1:19:57] Finds don't deter them only losing their license to.

[1:20:01] You're rolling your eyes and say, this is obvious.

[1:20:06] Come on Michelle, we all know this.

[1:20:08] How is this different?

[1:20:10] We now have a blueprint.

[1:20:13] The state's new fast pilot project uses administrative action to send high-speed tickets

[1:20:19] straight to the DMV for immediate license review.

[1:20:24] By passing the courts entirely, that's the key administrative action.

[1:20:31] No waiting for court dates, no delays, swift certain consequences.

[1:20:37] Here's my call.

[1:20:39] Here's my call to action.

[1:20:41] Let's use our influence in Sacramento to expand fast for Malibu

[1:20:46] through administrative action.

[1:20:48] If you go 25 miles per hour over the speed limit on PCH or double the speed limit, you will

[1:20:55] be subject to immediate DMV review and if you speed on PCH, you'll lose your license.

[1:21:03] In 1955, Connecticut did exactly this with outcomes with automatic suspension, speeding

[1:21:12] dropped 53 percent in one year.

[1:21:16] We have the lobbyists, we have Senator Ben Allen, we have the global spotlight.

[1:21:25] Let's stop just renewing an emergency and lead the state out of one.

[1:21:32] If your speed on PCH, you'll lose your license.

[1:21:36] And that's the law we need to fight for.

[1:21:42] Thank you, Marissa, followed by Brian,

[1:21:47] followed by Kevin Keegan.

[1:21:53] Happy new year, members of the council.

[1:21:56] Some good news.

[1:21:57] I'm going to add two planning verifications approved today for the fire rebuilds.

[1:22:02] I'm a success on that.

[1:22:04] Something that did occur to me after all the years of community members here fighting for

[1:22:10] the separation of school district, if there's anything that the council could consider implementing

[1:22:17] and expediting the rebuilds only because that funds are school district.

[1:22:21] And we're going to have, without the tax face, we're going to have some issues with that and some funding for the council as well.

[1:22:29] I'd like to, one of the issues that I'm dealing with was some of the fire memorials.

[1:22:35] I was fortunate I was invited to meeting with about 20 of the homeowners who live in the, like Oxnard, and they moved around.

[1:22:42] And they do have concerns and they have concerns about some of the FEMA regulations because they're either going to have to have a break away garage

[1:22:49] or an elevator to get to their front door.

[1:22:53] Some of these people are in their 80s and 90s

[1:22:55] and they just won't rebuild if they have to do that.

[1:22:59] The palisades fire did not,

[1:23:01] palisades did not lose any houses on the beach.

[1:23:04] They were all on inland,

[1:23:06] so that's a big difference between our process and theirs.

[1:23:13] Oh, the two views I told you about.

[1:23:16] The sports signs, and this is totally off-base.

[1:23:18] There was a sports sign for two of our championships and it used to be on by the bluff park and when they built those homes on the south west east corner

[1:23:28] They took the sign down and those of us had put those original that original sign up would like to either put it

[1:23:34] So it can be seen on PCH and Malibu can neither on the park side or in the easement setback the city easement for utilities there

[1:23:43] So I'll bring that to the planning department such but I just want to counsel know about that

[1:23:48] But there is a lot of still misinformation going around about what to do with the fire

[1:23:54] rebuilds, how to do it.

[1:23:57] And I'm going to talk to director Bundy about some of the things that were shared with

[1:24:02] me in the meeting.

[1:24:03] And I think it seems both she and Tyler Eaton can handle.

[1:24:08] But I wanted to bring that to the council's attention.

[1:24:10] And I'll continue when I get more things.

[1:24:12] Thank you.

[1:24:14] Okay, Brian, followed by Kevin Keegan, followed by Darren Graves.

[1:24:22] Hello everybody, I appreciate the opportunity.

[1:24:25] I'm going to try and fit in three minutes what our experience has been so far,

[1:24:30] working through the process to get the permit.

[1:24:32] And we are one of the first on the beach to get the permit.

[1:24:35] So we're kind of like a guinea pig and I'm going to tell you what went right and what went wrong.

[1:24:40] So we're at least perceived.

[1:24:42] Now, some of these things have changed because of what

[1:24:45] Bunt Yolanda had said about the changing of the guard.

[1:24:49] But the PV process, for the most part,

[1:24:51] it worked really smoothly.

[1:24:53] We had a 1930s house with zero plans, zero anything.

[1:24:57] So we were starting from scratch,

[1:24:59] we literally started on January 8th,

[1:25:01] hired our architect and moved forward.

[1:25:03] So if the things are presented in a clear manner

[1:25:06] in a thorough demonstration, they're able to make their thing,

[1:25:10] you know, they're able to make their determinations

[1:25:11] as to what was there and what's good for us, so it worked real well.

[1:25:14] It bogged down in coastal engineering with someone named Miss Doyle, who was very problematic.

[1:25:21] And we ended up being for 38 business days in coastal plan before we ever got a response

[1:25:27] from any submittal, and this was during PV.

[1:25:30] And she, to our face, told us that she would have an answer by the afternoon, only to go days

[1:25:34] without answering.

[1:25:35] Finally, I sought help from some council and Yolanda, and it changed.

[1:25:39] So then we move into the RDP where once again, it was fairly quick, you know, as long as you have your information together and you get it out to them, I mean, I think we had very few corrections.

[1:25:50] But again, this time it was environmental health and coastal engineering, which I think is the same person in the store.

[1:25:56] That was 30 business days, and again had to seek help from Yolanda and the council to get them to respond to us.

[1:26:03] So, I don't know which number I am on that thing, because we have a building permit, but we don't have a permit for the septic or the seawall.

[1:26:13] So, I don't think we're fully permitted, so we're maybe one of those other numbers.

[1:26:17] We do have a bill for the septic, a permit bill, so maybe we're done with septic now, but we don't know.

[1:26:25] the sea wall, the sea wall is crazy because we started out working with our neighbor and they were all for it and then they sold to the New Zealand toy makers.

[1:26:34] So we're out of luck and we're also an end property where we're the last house that burns so we literally have to build a box.

[1:26:40] We're being told that by our coastal design guy, it's 8,000 to 10,000 a foot for a sea wall and we got 360 feet because we have to build a box.

[1:26:51] So now we're sitting in from what I understand maybe Rob can answer this, but we're in where the

[1:26:58] municipal code calls for a variance for a seawall that's up against PCH and Cal

[1:27:05] Trans is seeking that. So we're hung up in public works and we've been there since

[1:27:09] December 4th when we submitted. We resisted these toy guys but you know

[1:27:15] unfortunately insurance isn't going to come close to covering what it's going to

[1:27:18] cost us to rebuild the Lloyds of London given us 11,000 for a seawall.

[1:27:23] Not foot, 11,000.

[1:27:26] So, you know, our seawall is going to be 3.2 million.

[1:27:29] I'm not a brilliant.

[1:27:30] So, yeah, I mean, it's kind of fiction.

[1:27:33] But these double-managements are about.

[1:27:40] Kevin, follow by Darren, followed by Scott Teacher.

[1:27:47] I'm Kevin Keegan.

[1:27:49] Technology advancement, individual rights, and public health are important issues for

[1:27:53] the Malibu community that I believe need thoughtful attention in 2026.

[1:27:58] For example, a front page headline in the Malibu Times on Christmas Day shared quote,

[1:28:04] study finds lasting health impacts from policy its fire, close quote, with a subheadline

[1:28:09] that explained quote, new research reveals prolonged health, heart, lung and systemic health

[1:28:16] effects for Malibu residents, close quote.

[1:28:19] Back on November 10, I pointed out that the city missed an opportunity to emphasize public

[1:28:23] in the city's current strategic plan.

[1:28:26] In the wake of a pandemic and in historic wildfires,

[1:28:29] it is a potential mistake to overlook public health

[1:28:32] as that Christmas Day headline suggests.

[1:28:35] Furthermore, shortcoming in the city's strategic plan

[1:28:39] is the lack of a serious technology investment

[1:28:41] or point-of-view being offered by the council.

[1:28:45] As I've said here on December 8th, the future has arrived.

[1:28:48] AI, robots, autonomous vehicles, and more are all advancing rapidly.

[1:28:53] With some foresight and initiative, Malibu can preserve its role character and rehabilitate

[1:28:59] our local economy by embracing emerging technologies of our future.

[1:29:04] Just as important, by taking action in 2026, the city of Malibu can help strengthen its

[1:29:09] cyber defenses and our individual rights such as the right to privacy, which I believe is

[1:29:14] is a founding value of Malibu's community and culture.

[1:29:18] A place to begin is to have a serious public discussion

[1:29:20] about what is reasonable.

[1:29:22] For example, what is reasonable regarding

[1:29:24] what decision an algorithm gets to make

[1:29:27] versus what decisions are council, city, staff, businesses,

[1:29:31] and community members get to make?

[1:29:32] What is reasonable regarding collection and protection

[1:29:35] of a citizen's personal data?

[1:29:37] What is reasonable regarding the number of cameras

[1:29:39] recording a citizen's daily wearabouts?

[1:29:42] surveillance, tracking, monitoring, and profiling are infiltrating society and communities

[1:29:48] without serious public debate.

[1:29:51] To put a fine point on it, cameras are proliferating at breakneck pace in cars,

[1:29:55] Kitchens, front doors, phones, drones, and more.

[1:30:00] More over, in my opinion, AI and surveillance capabilities are better and more powerful than anyone in this room fully understands. Simultaneously, new law enforcement techniques, like geofencing, take advantage of legal gray areas that erode individual citizens, human rights, including our fourth amendment protections. We need serious advocates who understand what is happening and are willing to lead with courage. The future has arrived and if we do not

[1:30:29] do not answer those questions ourselves, then others will answer the questions for us.

[1:30:35] 2026 offers a critical window of opportunity in Malibu for debate and action.

[1:30:40] Thank you.

[1:30:43] Thank you, Darren, followed by Scott, followed by Marilyn Lee.

[1:30:56] Good evening and happy new year.

[1:30:58] Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, Interim City Manager.

[1:31:02] Congratulations.

[1:31:04] So I wanted to start off by thanking you once again for all the strides you made last year.

[1:31:09] I'm helping the rebuilding community.

[1:31:12] I have a slide that I want to share with you, and it is in regards to what Brian, I think his name is, was talking about.

[1:31:19] So this is from the approved planning verification for my family's property.

[1:31:24] It is a drawing that describes three things.

[1:31:28] The upper left drawing is the existing septic system.

[1:31:32] The two drawings in the middle on the upper line are affordable septic replacement systems.

[1:31:37] And the drawing on the far right on the upper side is the AWTS and shoreline protective device which was recommended by Mrs. Doyle of Cotton Shire starting in February of last year.

[1:31:51] So per the $10,000 linear foot cost to build that shoreline protective device, it would have cost my family upwards of $800,000 just for the shoreline protective device.

[1:32:03] So I wanted to extend a very big thank you to everybody who made the efforts to allow us to follow the provisions of the lamp and release the December 8 memo.

[1:32:14] This has a huge effect on the beachfront homeowners who are rebuilding and everybody should have the ability if they don't add plumbing fixtures to save 800 grand or more.

[1:32:25] This is one of the smallest properties so everybody else would have to pay a lot more.

[1:32:30] So thank you also in regards to, I guess, making things easier for the city staff, I would suggest moving back towards the electronic plan review process, because such a process would eliminate the communication hiccups, which are still present, I say that because in my planning verification, which I submitted on December 1st, I got one comment from Bureau Veritas, it took them 10 days to issue the comment.

[1:32:58] I addressed it within one business day, then it took them four days to have one question about the comment.

[1:33:04] They didn't ask me anything, but they emailed Darren at domiciledesigns.com, the email, which was a question.

[1:33:12] Well, I don't work there.

[1:33:13] So I didn't get the email until three days later, and then I addressed it, and I got an approval the next day.

[1:33:20] So hiccups like that would be eliminated by electronic plan review.

[1:33:24] That's why I'd suggest moving back towards that model if you could.

[1:33:27] Thank you.

[1:33:30] I'm going to want to clarification on the comment you made, so just make sure we talk.

[1:33:37] Scott, and our final in person is Meryl May.

[1:33:52] Thank you.

[1:33:52] I was just checking because, really, this would come from Sawow, but she's in Dubai.

[1:34:01] And happy new year, congratulations, Rob.

[1:34:06] So, I was in contact with our assessor, LA County, Dennis Prang, who has been trying

[1:34:16] to revise how much these rebuild disasters, the victims get taxed.

[1:34:23] Very much favorable to us.

[1:34:27] He tried to get legislation that didn't go through.

[1:34:32] So he's made an executive decision to try to cut how much we're going to assess these

[1:34:41] burned out locks.

[1:34:43] And that's going to be very favorable to us as residents, those who can't live back

[1:34:50] in.

[1:34:51] I mean, there's nothing worse.

[1:34:52] You're paying this huge tax on a place that's a disaster that you can't live in.

[1:34:58] And then you start adding in all the costs of, I've got to pay the mortgage.

[1:35:06] And I've got to pay this astronomical tax that doesn't make sense anymore.

[1:35:11] So, that's kind of a good note in a very difficult situation.

[1:35:18] And we wanted the city and you guys to know about that, thank you.

[1:35:24] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:35:25] Hello

[1:35:31] and good evening, thank you for your time.

[1:35:33] I wanted to bring up a few safety things, which you probably all are aware of because you get my emails, but I wanted to publicly come here.

[1:35:41] The situation at Corral Canyon is disastrous.

[1:35:46] The Senator Dividers channelizers, I think there's one up about four from the end, 15 to 20 down, that is a very bad percentage.

[1:35:56] The last time I was successful getting those channelizers replaced was about on the 29th when I had to appeal

[1:36:02] Suggesting that maybe Santa Claus and the elves come and help

[1:36:05] When I made that email it was fixed in three days. Again, it is the worst condition. It has ever been at right now

[1:36:14] Mr

[1:36:18] Silverstein you have a creative mind with legal perspective. I don't know if there's any way to hold

[1:36:25] on CalTrans or the contractor accountable for our horrendous safety condition, which exists on there right now.

[1:36:34] Maybe there's a penalty, maybe if they don't fix it within a certain amount of time, we can take it and do it.

[1:36:40] But everybody that travels through there right now, I'm amazed that we haven't had a head on collision in a fatality.

[1:36:46] I mean, everybody speeds the rough, maybe the road is so rough, it might be a strategy to have a rough road to get people to go slower.

[1:36:54] I mean, there were some holes that were gigantic the other day.

[1:36:58] I had several people complaining about it.

[1:37:00] Okay, crosswalk awareness.

[1:37:01] So that's one, crosswalk awareness.

[1:37:03] I almost got hit twice crossing the Zoom Res in the crosswalk

[1:37:06] when the light was on.

[1:37:08] People turning out of Zoom Res, not seeing me.

[1:37:11] I'm standing in the crosswalk, waving my hands.

[1:37:13] My neighbor got hit three weeks before that

[1:37:15] in the hospital for a while, now going through rehab.

[1:37:18] We've made some headway with our crosswalks in towns.

[1:37:21] I've also submitted some emails about some enhancements

[1:37:23] for that with pictures. The Zuma underpass, when that's closed, it makes PCH more dangerous.

[1:37:31] People back up to Paradise Cove in the summertime when we can't use that underpass.

[1:37:35] I don't know how many geographical acres there are above that Zuma underpass where water

[1:37:41] comes through there. It's a little sand and debris goes onto the concrete and then we can't clear it.

[1:37:46] Putting everybody at risk on PCH. There is some progress on that I understand, but I think

[1:37:52] There needs to be better.

[1:37:54] Water storage tanks that allow people to use water storage tanks so that we have more water storage.

[1:37:59] I know that we were working on that.

[1:38:01] I don't know if the supervisors have signed off on it yet.

[1:38:04] Potholes, patches, cracks, please, that has to be better.

[1:38:08] I appeal to everybody, residents that come here or that live here.

[1:38:14] When you see a problem on PCH, safety wise, potholes, traffic hazards,

[1:38:19] reported to public works, I'm sorry, public works.

[1:38:21] But they'll report it to CalTrans, you can also report it to CalTrans.

[1:38:27] Home-hardening things, please do brush clearance and incorporate home-hardening into your, so that we don't have to rebuild homes in the future.

[1:38:34] Thank you.

[1:38:35] Thank you.

[1:38:36] Do we still have four raised hands?

[1:38:39] Yes, first is Nick Corey.

[1:38:43] Nick, are you there?

[1:38:45] Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me okay?

[1:38:47] Yes, please go ahead.

[1:38:48] That's wonderful. Thank you. So good evening, everyone.

[1:38:54] I'd really like to take this opportunity to address my good buddy, Steve Yearing.

[1:39:00] Steve, it has been 543 days since your property was cited for building without a permit.

[1:39:11] 543. That's almost 78 weeks, my man.

[1:39:15] For most people in Malibu, a violation like that triggers threatening letters from the city attorney.

[1:39:21] Mounting legal fees, repeated inspections, and a long, chilling effect on their lives and homes.

[1:39:28] This message is usually loud and clear, complying immediately or else.

[1:39:35] But not for you, my friend, because it must be nice being a city council member,

[1:39:40] must be nice being a former MTC president day and it must be nice living

[1:39:46] under a different set of rules. You can build without permits, you can put up

[1:39:51] illegal fencing, you can place storage sheds right on the property line with

[1:39:57] whatever you want inside of them and somehow enforcement never seems to

[1:40:03] arrive. Meanwhile you spend your time making sure the rest of Malibu doesn't get

[1:40:08] what it wants or needs. You delay projects, you obstruct solutions, you scrutinize everyone else

[1:40:16] while your own violations sit untouched for nearly a year and a half. Let me go back and remind you

[1:40:24] 543 days. That doesn't happen by accident, Steve. It happens because the system is being bent to

[1:40:33] protect insiders. It happens because connections matter more than compliance. And it happens

[1:40:40] because accountability in this city appears to depend on who you are, not what you've done.

[1:40:47] The result is two very different Malibu's. One, where ordinary residents face immediate threats,

[1:40:55] legal costs, and fear. And another, where powerful people can ignore the rules indefinitely,

[1:41:02] confident that nothing will happen.

[1:41:07] 543 days without resolution. 78 weeks without

[1:41:13] consequences.

[1:41:18] This makes a mockery of fair enforcement. So yes Steve, it really

[1:41:24] is good to be you. Thanks.

[1:41:29] Next speaker.

[1:41:33] Gary Harkness. Gary, you there? Yeah I'm

[1:41:38] So here thank you, I just want to make a comment about what I believe the MTC would do if Michelle Shane's idea were taken up and they would probably fight it, just like they did the PCH safety improvements.

[1:41:55] But just generally I want to talk about the fact that this isn't an attack on Malibu's

[1:42:02] history or on residents who have volunteered their time out of real concern for this community.

[1:42:08] The question that I have is much more simpler than that, than that is whether the Malibu

[1:42:13] Township Council is a legitimate public civic organization today.

[1:42:18] And I would argue it isn't.

[1:42:19] The MTC was created in 1947, long before Malibu was a city, at that time it served a real purpose.

[1:42:28] There was no local government, no elected council, and no local voice.

[1:42:33] Township council helped fill that gap, and then doing so played an important role in Malibu's early history.

[1:42:38] But that role ended in 1991 when Malibu incorporated.

[1:42:43] You know, have elected city council, public commissions, open meeting laws, financial disclosures,

[1:42:48] and accountability to every voter in the city.

[1:42:51] Those are the institutions meant to govern Malagu.

[1:42:54] The MTC, however, did not step aside.

[1:42:57] It continued on as a private organization,

[1:43:00] one that is not elected, not representative of the full community,

[1:43:04] not subject to public transparency laws

[1:43:06] and not accountable to voters.

[1:43:08] Membership is selective and participation depends on paying dues.

[1:43:12] By definition, and that is not a public civic body,

[1:43:15] But yet the MTC regularly portrays itself as speaking for Malibu as a whole.

[1:43:21] Well, filing appeals and asserting lawsuits, enforcing costly delays to projects approved

[1:43:27] through public process.

[1:43:28] Those costs are paid by the city and its residents, not by the organization and posing them.

[1:43:34] That creates a serious imbalance.

[1:43:37] A small private group is able to stall or block public decisions without having to answer

[1:43:41] the public about having to run for office or operate in the open. That isn't how democratic

[1:43:47] decision-making is supposed to work. Advocacy is not the issue. Any group has the right

[1:43:52] to organize lobby and even litigate, but advocacy groups need to be honest about what and who

[1:43:58] they are. The MTC is not a governing body and does not represent Malibu as a whole. If we

[1:44:04] care about Malibu's future, which I think we all do, we should be strengthening our elected institutions,

[1:44:10] Not allowing private organizations to operate as a second layer of authority without public accountability.

[1:44:17] Thank you so much, I also want to say Mayor, thank you, you've been doing a really great job running this meeting since you've taken the gavel and I appreciate it.

[1:44:26] Our next speaker.

[1:44:31] CC Lee.

[1:44:33] CC are you there?

[1:44:46] Yes, we can hear you, go ahead.

[1:44:47] Okay, I want to begin by acknowledging that the City of Malibu conducted a thorough and professional evaluation of the two Norfolk Island pine trees.

[1:45:00] Cross Creek Road. The city engaged in certified expert documenting its findings held public meeting. I do not dispute the significant time effort and resources we're dedicated to assessing these trees. Nor do I deny the safety considerations were raised. However, my concern is not with the thoughtfulness of the process. It's the direction, balance, and timing, you crack amamies. At every stage, the city's effort appeared to have been focused on building a case for why the tree should be removed rather than devoting equal effort to exploring how the tree, the law,

[1:45:30] Long established habitat that supported could be superb.

[1:45:33] There was no meaningful discussion of treatment options, structural mitigation, selective

[1:45:38] running or long-term management strategies that could have reduced the risk while keeping these trees standing.

[1:45:42] Instead, the trees themselves were broadly labeled as unsafe.

[1:45:46] First of all, if anyone see it in Norfolk pine tree branch, they're really lightweight, they're like a feather.

[1:45:50] I have a house in Texas where I have golf ball swing and harder than the branches would ever fall, first of all.

[1:45:56] they're not an oak tree. This is troubling because by logic virtually every mature tree in

[1:46:01] Malibu could be deemed as liable. When are we liable for people's luck? It's more, you're more

[1:46:07] likely that I have lighting striking than a tree branch following you and I, you know, I apologize,

[1:46:11] I have hearts for those people but an oak tree is very much different than a Norfolk pine which

[1:46:15] touches the gates of heaven. All trees have been, all trees have been branches. All trees require

[1:46:21] maintenance. The standard of response in the urban forestry is not full-scale removal but risk

[1:46:25] management, pruning, monitoring and targeting mitigations in cases rather than removing specific

[1:46:30] hazards. The city treated the trees at the legal exposure to eliminate it altogether. Equally

[1:46:36] concerning is a lack of effort to preserve or transition the wildlife habitat that existed in

[1:46:41] these trees for nearly years. No planning was presented to relocate or phase the existence

[1:46:46] nesting activity. No treatment stabilization or any of this proposed. What I'm saying is let's get

[1:46:52] this tree back. There's plenty off the 405 in the 101. It's a Norfolk point. It's the trees,

[1:46:58] the birds like if you've ever camped, you don't want the trees to move. We want these trees back

[1:47:03] there because it gives these kids a 22nd break from their cell phone. We've already taken all the

[1:47:09] joys and pleasures out of every other existence of their lives and forced them on technology that

[1:47:14] they can't even eat. But we're over here saying that it's okay to put a bay leaf back into a

[1:47:20] the native society, none of that place is native.

[1:47:22] Okay, you're not going to win with this one.

[1:47:24] We would like the birds back and underneath the,

[1:47:26] underneath the same waterfall countries,

[1:47:28] let's add a waterfall, because I have the exact same structure

[1:47:32] at my place with the waterfall.

[1:47:34] It would have cleaned the pool.

[1:47:35] And let's put the trees back for those amazing birds

[1:47:38] that are immigrants to our city, and we want those back.

[1:47:41] We do not want to become the land of the pigeons and rats and

[1:47:44] mosquitoes, and please ask everybody to turn off their lights.

[1:47:47] It's basic common knowledge and how to mosquito thing works.

[1:47:51] Please, please let's enforce these dark sky ordinance.

[1:47:54] Thank you very much and our final online speaker.

[1:47:59] 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] Mayor and council members and interim city manager DeBo.

[1:48:11] I'm speaking this morning from India following the painful anniversary

[1:48:14] of the Palisades fire, a fire that destroyed my home

[1:48:18] in the homes of 170 of my big rock neighbors along with nearly 600 members of our broader

[1:48:23] Malibu community. We hope this year brings healing and progress for us all. In our neighborhood,

[1:48:28] we also lost two lives, Hac Wang and Betty Mu Umira. Their deaths are a solemn reminder that

[1:48:33] this is not just about buildings, it's about people safety and the cost of a failure. One year later,

[1:48:38] the recovery has not kept pace with loss. I appreciate you land as updated on rebuilding.

[1:48:42] So far, only 22 rebuild permits have been issued. One of those is ours and we are grateful,

[1:48:47] but we cannot start until the rain cease.

[1:48:50] Hundreds of families remain displaced, placing, paying,

[1:48:53] mortgage tax is insurance and rent while living as a limbo.

[1:48:56] 3.2 million for a sea wall is also ridiculous.

[1:48:59] That is not recovery speed and it must change.

[1:49:01] I'm glad item A is finally before you tonight

[1:49:04] and prioritized finally thank you

[1:49:05] because rebuilding must and can move faster.

[1:49:08] The city has both the legal authority

[1:49:10] and the legal obligation to ensure fire survivors

[1:49:12] can return to their homes in a timely manner.

[1:49:14] The Governor's emergency owners make this clear, wildfire rebuilding must be fast-tracked

[1:49:19] and streamlined, not slowed by unnecessary barriers.

[1:49:22] That obligation also extends to new property owners.

[1:49:25] New owners must be authorized agents in mapped hazard areas to access the same post-fire

[1:49:30] rebuild pathway except for fee waivers.

[1:49:33] It is critical for fire victims in their 70s and 80s who cannot endure the rebuild process

[1:49:37] to be able to sell their lots.

[1:49:39] If new owners cannot use the same rebuild pathway, those families may be unable to sell it

[1:49:44] all, effectively creating a taking and a significant financial burden for the city.

[1:49:48] Concerns about corporate takeovers or short term rentals should not be used to block recovery.

[1:49:53] The president has recently directed Congress to curb corporate acquisition of single-family

[1:49:57] homes, which should just weigh these fears.

[1:49:59] The state should have done this.

[1:50:01] Many of us watched the lay let us burn, they let us burn rally in Pacific policy this week.

[1:50:06] The message was unsuitable, this is not just a fire.

[1:50:09] It was a systems failure, and unless we fix those systems, we will repeat it.

[1:50:13] That means updating water infrastructure so hydrants don't run dry during firestorms,

[1:50:18] undergranting utilities and telecoms with SE, so hazardous poles and exposed wires are removed

[1:50:23] and neighborhoods aren't constantly torn up or roads block during rebuilding, ensuring

[1:50:27] county fire keeps fire motorways clear and requiring the MRCA to manage brush agitations

[1:50:32] to communities.

[1:50:33] Instead of allowing it to fuel fires that destroy homes and native habitat, perhaps enlisting

[1:50:38] the homeless to use their machetes up there as Halen suggested that made me smile for the

[1:50:43] first time this year, honestly, thank you.

[1:50:45] Please let tonight mark a real commitment

[1:50:47] to recovery speed public safety and getting family's home

[1:50:50] in honor of those we lost and those who are still waiting.

[1:50:53] Thank you so much.

[1:50:57] And then that concludes our Zoom.

[1:51:01] And I do have one speaker slip that got paper clip

[1:51:05] to something else, so Norm, you can round us out.

[1:51:13] Good evening, honorable city council members.

[1:51:17] I'll be short.

[1:51:21] The issues associated with the rains have not gone away yet, I have not passed.

[1:51:31] I was happy to see the emergency extended because what happens when it rains from a geographical point of view

[1:51:40] is the water percolates down and sooner or later it hits a potential slide plane.

[1:51:47] When it hits that slide plane, then you've increased the driving force with the water

[1:51:55] and you have decreased the resistance to the slide occurring.

[1:52:02] There are many large slides that occur three, four, five months after heavy rains.

[1:52:11] That's the first thing, the second thing is, I've often seen confusion between building permits and construction permits.

[1:52:20] People consider it the same, but in fact, other people think when they get all the approvals from the planning department, and from the geology department and from all the other departments, they think they've got building permits, but they don't.

[1:52:37] because building permits are basically construction permits, and all they have in their hands is an approval from all the various departments in the city.

[1:52:48] That's it. Thank you very much for listening.

[1:52:51] Thank you, Doyle. So that a close public comment. We're back up. We're going to do council member comments very early in the evening.

[1:52:58] Who wants to start?

[1:53:00] Don't all jump.

[1:53:03] I have more, I guess, questions and comments.

[1:53:05] Yeah, please start.

[1:53:06] Okay, thank you, I will.

[1:53:08] All right, well,

[1:53:11] so many, so I was curious if the city has, well, thanks for the public.

[1:53:21] I'll start with the publics.

[1:53:23] I do wonder about ANK's radios.

[1:53:26] Have we explored this model of radio?

[1:53:30] those radios are everywhere in fact the certain team has a radio that does

[1:53:36] basically the same thing. There's nothing unusual about those radios and I've

[1:53:41] looked at the license and it is designed for Lahabra as far I think it was

[1:53:46] really meant to be. And I assume that she has ownership of the license but they're

[1:53:51] very common. Got it. I might get one. Just have one at my house. It's not that easy.

[1:53:57] It's not.

[1:53:59] No.

[1:53:59] Oh, darn it.

[1:54:00] Nothing is easy.

[1:54:02] Um, Darren, did we, so did we move away from electronic plan review?

[1:54:08] I'm just curious because in his comment, he asked to go back to electronic plan review.

[1:54:14] But I wasn't sure if we moved away from electronic plan review.

[1:54:19] Say it again.

[1:54:22] Sorry.

[1:54:31] Good evening, City Council.

[1:54:32] And so we have not moved away from electronic review.

[1:54:37] Most of it, the submittals are through an electronic portal.

[1:54:42] I think the difficulties comes when we do not have an automated system and things are being done manually.

[1:54:51] We also have the ability to do plan check through a software that is called blue beam.

[1:54:57] So we are also working on utilizing that software to a greater area.

[1:55:06] So when the plan is submitted, everybody can see that set of plans, and that's what

[1:55:10] we have.

[1:55:11] We don't have that.

[1:55:12] I see.

[1:55:14] So, so Bluebeam, was that what was in the Baker-Tilly report as far as the suggested technology

[1:55:20] that the city, because I wonder if we're putting our energy into Bluebeam, which is inadequate

[1:55:24] or less than if we were to put that energy into a new type of system, that would be more.

[1:55:32] Blue beam is a plan check software system.

[1:55:37] The most of the jurisdictions are using additional to blue beam, there's a permitting,

[1:55:44] automated software system that the city does not have.

[1:55:48] Oh, should we have that?

[1:55:50] Should we get that?

[1:55:51] I'd be interested in looking into whatever that is.

[1:55:55] Council member, yeah, we're looking into that.

[1:55:57] And one of the things about blue beam for most of these programs that do the permitting software is they work hand-to-hand with each other.

[1:56:05] So that's something that, yeah, we're looking into and kind of provide.

[1:56:09] What is that name of the program that you're looking into?

[1:56:14] There's a number of programs and vendors that have permitting software that have there, and so we're I think it was before all of the fires and everything else to you, we're kind of moving towards kind of implementing some type of permitting software and then we've had it, so it's still something that we're kind of looking to see Christopher.

[1:56:39] for.

[1:56:39] Oh, thank you.

[1:56:40] There's some more.

[1:56:41] Yes.

[1:56:42] Maybe you could give us unlikeness as our resident expert on.

[1:56:47] Yes, sure.

[1:56:48] Good evening.

[1:56:49] Adoption of new software.

[1:56:51] So we, I'm in the process.

[1:56:55] As you know, I've only been here about eight weeks now.

[1:56:57] So I'm in the process of evaluating where our technology projects are at.

[1:57:02] The city did undertake an RFP process.

[1:57:04] I believe two to three, about two years, between two and three years ago.

[1:57:08] that identified Tyler technologies as the preferred solution.

[1:57:14] That proposal remains valid for another few months

[1:57:18] from the company.

[1:57:19] And so I have re-engaged a project team

[1:57:23] that includes our IT team as well as Yolanda's team

[1:57:28] to begin evaluating, validating that Tyler is still

[1:57:33] the right fit for us to be able to move forward.

[1:57:35] and hopefully in the next, before that proposal expires, if it fits for us, we will initiate

[1:57:44] a project with them. So we will be coming to Council with a contract proposal, provided

[1:57:50] that is, you know, we still believe that is the best path forward for us. So that's going

[1:57:55] to, that's the phase for the next few weeks.

[1:57:57] Great. Thank you. I look forward to that update.

[1:58:01] And then I was, yeah, so I helped with the Jeff Prang assessor.

[1:58:08] I think it would be important to Scott and Sal was point for us to like look into how we can help support the assessor's office with that tax.

[1:58:17] I don't know, do we get council consensus to look into that for the next meeting?

[1:58:21] So are you taking legislatively help him out or the lobby, yeah, we lobby, we hope strategically legislative for pressure on where we can?

[1:58:34] Well, let's go back to the Woolsey fire, when we did there, we've made sure that everyone's tax basis transferred to their new home.

[1:58:46] That took legislative action, I believe that's what the assessor is doing.

[1:58:51] It's not a problem to immediately reassess the property right now, for the damage done in a fire.

[1:59:00] And that's one of the reasons why the city only had a 1% increase in property tax this year.

[1:59:05] Normally what I had a 2% increase just if nobody had done anything.

[1:59:09] But the design understanding from, and I had a conversation with him about this.

[1:59:14] If you look at a typical tax bill, it's got two components.

[1:59:18] It's got the land and the improvements.

[1:59:20] And if the house burned, they immediately took the improvements off.

[1:59:22] In fact, they did that to the fire.

[1:59:24] So that's already been done.

[1:59:26] So only the land value is still there.

[1:59:28] And if you look at Proposition 13 value, those are very reduced as well.

[1:59:32] The real question is about the going forward.

[1:59:35] How long does the Proposition 13 value stay with the new home or the replacement home?

[1:59:40] And that's got more to do with the Timberson extra and so forth.

[1:59:45] If you like, I think they'd be glad to come in from the county and give us an update

[1:59:49] on that.

[1:59:50] But I think it's well underway for everybody.

[1:59:52] It's healthy in a palisades heat and it's a very common process now for the fires, unfortunately.

[1:59:59] Okay.

[2:00:00] Thank you for that. Merrill's comments about Corral Canyon, which I had questions on an update. I think it would be great if we could get updates on, I guess, big projects that affect everybody like the Corral Canyon corner of PCH, because it is a mess. I see that what work there has been halted. I don't, I would like to know why when they're going to restart it and what the timeline is if you have that information.

[2:00:25] in terms of the manager.

[2:00:27] Do block.

[2:00:32] Yeah, I'll get that information.

[2:00:34] Okay, cool.

[2:00:35] There was a stop work order on that.

[2:00:38] That work.

[2:00:41] Do the smart logical findings.

[2:00:44] Yeah, I would like to know when the start work order is going to be an effect.

[2:00:49] After it's been about three months, I think.

[2:00:52] I think when we were.

[2:00:54] There was a.

[2:00:55] I forgot where I heard it, but I saw Lee Hayber said that he should be starting very soon on that again.

[2:01:02] And then is there like an overall timeline, like we have to live with this for the next two years, nine months?

[2:01:09] Two years ago, this was to be finished, just a little bit.

[2:01:12] Yeah, once again, we'll provide kind of an overall update on all those projects, yeah.

[2:01:19] Thank you.

[2:01:20] And are there such things as permanent

[2:01:22] channelizers, or is that not something that we want?

[2:01:25] Because we want them to be removable,

[2:01:27] like as far as a safety mechanism, because it seems

[2:01:29] like these channelizers that we live with

[2:01:30] in the mediums are constantly coming off,

[2:01:34] and then they're in the road,

[2:01:35] and it becomes this up to maintenance issue.

[2:01:39] Is there any other solution to that?

[2:01:41] For those temporary construction ones,

[2:01:45] that's what's kind of needed,

[2:01:47] But they do make different ones that would probably be more, can last a little longer.

[2:01:56] Those of us that are out there are typically you put them out there that they're not meant to be for an extended period of time what we're seeing now.

[2:02:03] So I think they need to look at revisit that for any type of long term solution for that type of generalizers.

[2:02:10] Okay, I like the idea of looking into somehow where the city can have oversight.

[2:02:17] I think Merrill asked Bruce if there was some legal something in which the city could

[2:02:24] take over if there's negligence or we can kind of assert our power.

[2:02:33] You know, plenty should ask that because you asked earlier about what benefit do we get from

[2:02:37] in the declaration of local emergency.

[2:02:40] I'm leaving.

[2:02:41] I'm leaving.

[2:02:42] I've advocated for the past year or more

[2:02:45] that we actually do have the ability

[2:02:47] under that declaration to take matters

[2:02:49] into our hands, but we've been advised otherwise.

[2:02:53] Are we, there's no nothing that we can do

[2:02:57] as far as taking matters into our hands?

[2:03:00] CalTrans has jurisdiction over PCH

[2:03:03] and we can work with them is the better practice to improve things on PCH.

[2:03:10] If we want to try to make changes on PCH, we would likely run into issues with them.

[2:03:15] There is power under our declaration to take some actions to address emergency situations,

[2:03:22] but you will be taking on a lot of risk if you're trying to make improvements

[2:03:27] or do work on CalTrans directly.

[2:03:29] That's a risk.

[2:03:31] Just that this goes back to, I think, before you were elected and we had debate up here multiple

[2:03:38] times about the fact that we could just take matters and throw in hands.

[2:03:42] And if it turns out we're wrong, let CalTrans go to the courts and deal with the public relations

[2:03:48] of trying to stop us from doing things that make our city safe.

[2:03:52] But was never able to get a majority of city council to agree to take any action?

[2:03:57] How interesting. It came down to that, to the majority. So, the Zoomers crosswalk is dangerous, as we know somebody got hit there a few weeks ago, but I don't know the solution.

[2:04:12] So we see that there is these kind of dangerous situations in Malibu over and over again. And this isn't going away. So what is the solution?

[2:04:22] Do we have the solution to something that we know is, I mean, when does it become negligent on our part because we know that it's dangerous?

[2:04:29] So if, like the city of Malibu is basically up here on tape saying that this is a dangerous situation, at what point are we taking on that risk just inadvertently?

[2:04:39] So what I would suggest is, if anybody sees any dangerous situation on PCA agent at Crosswalk,

[2:04:49] let myself know or let Public Works staff know, we have weekly meetings with CalTrans on this,

[2:05:00] and that can be documented on what can be done in those situations.

[2:05:04] So, it's a, it's, Cal Transit City, I've been real kind of meeting, like I said, weekly and it's been a very good collaborative kind of work and so, but more information we have and more kind of insights we hear from the public and council, we can kind of read that information to them.

[2:05:22] And once it's put on their attention, it does put pressure on them to go resolve the situations or

[2:05:27] and issues for them and then it gives us the ability to kind of

[2:05:32] follow up and request more information and see if they're actually taking from them.

[2:05:38] Well, I mean are there other

[2:05:40] mechanisms or warning lights or signs or something we can put in crosswalks?

[2:05:46] You know, what do other cities do when they've got highways going through their city?

[2:05:52] And they're noticing, you know, I know, like, down in palisades, they added the extra light.

[2:05:58] Even we've added some places where we have more flashing lights and things like that.

[2:06:01] Other technologies that we can add to our intersections to make crosswalks more apparent to drivers.

[2:06:09] Yeah, remember the roundabout, just one of the things Kel trans is going to do on the walkway so the roundabout.

[2:06:14] If there are any of, we hit the button of the lights and that we can go across.

[2:06:18] So it's there, it can be done, it's gotta find somebody to do it.

[2:06:22] It's just, yeah, there's a lot of different options in the tool belt for

[2:06:28] those situations and it's just looking at those and getting with

[2:06:33] CalTrans that to do something that can be done there.

[2:06:36] There's a number of things you can do, there's just like council member mentioned.

[2:06:41] There's flashing lights and people across, there's flashing, you can go across, and there's several different options they can do that.

[2:06:53] It's a centralized intersection.

[2:06:55] I mean, like, being in Hawaii and they have flags on each side of the street, and the pedestrians pick up a flag and walk across the street with the flag.

[2:07:06] I mean, do we have to go that simple just to get attention, is?

[2:07:11] I saw some places in YouTube, they put bricks on Saturday.

[2:07:15] And it seemed to have an impact, so I don't know.

[2:07:19] I would be very much interested in looking into some of those options, lighting, flag, anything that kind of helps.

[2:07:28] This seems to be have gone on longer than I've been here.

[2:07:31] I mean, maybe it's time to look into different options for crosswalks, especially the one

[2:07:37] at Zoom res since there was two accidents there, I guess.

[2:07:42] Yeah, so we'll bring it up with, Cal friends, with that.

[2:07:45] Thank you.

[2:07:46] Okay.

[2:07:47] Sorry, moving on.

[2:07:48] So, Brian Merrick, dual problem, sorry, that sounds terrible.

[2:07:52] Congratulations.

[2:07:53] Congratulations.

[2:07:55] So when he talks about septic and seawalls and PCH shoring up, right, is there an answer

[2:08:02] to that?

[2:08:03] Or is that like, do we know if he has to pay for septic, which he's doing, what I'm hearing

[2:08:09] is that he has to pay for a seawall, which it sounds like now it's going to the Pacific

[2:08:13] Coast highway shoring up.

[2:08:15] So is there like a clear roadmap for beachfronts with regards to who's shoring up the highway

[2:08:23] or if there is the last I heard it was kind of vague and I would love an update on if

[2:08:29] CalTrans says we'll shore up the highway and the residents don't have to.

[2:08:34] Yeah. At this time, septic systems and sea walls are the responsibility of the homeowner.

[2:08:44] Got it. The existing walls that are right next to PCH,

[2:08:50] Coltrance has been working with their engineers to assess each one of them.

[2:08:56] We have information that there is about three properties that they own that portion that wall, and they are going to be showing, and specifically there's three properties.

[2:09:14] As far as car trans pain for the retaining wall that is on the property owners property, car trans is stating, it hasn't stayed that they're going to be paying for it.

[2:09:31] Got it.

[2:09:32] Thank you.

[2:09:34] Okay.

[2:09:37] Michelle Shane. That sounds like a great idea. Mary Ann and I will be in Sacramento. We can work on that if we have direction too.

[2:09:47] I was wondering if the city of Malibu has a coastal commission meeting representative. So is there somebody whose responsibility to keep their eye on the coastal commission agenda as far as things that come before them like the parking that's now coming to Leo

[2:10:04] from the last meeting?

[2:10:07] Yes, the Community Development Department is in charge of keeping an eye on that.

[2:10:12] We also have recurring meetings with the staff from the Coastal Commission.

[2:10:18] The last meeting we had, it was in December,

[2:10:21] we're setting up another meeting at the beginning of March to introduce our new city manager.

[2:10:26] Oh, fantastic.

[2:10:27] Did you guys hear about the Leo-Coreo parking?

[2:10:30] Leo-Coreo is in the city of Malibu.

[2:10:31] It's not so you wouldn't even have heard about it doesn't it that's County County okay, perfect

[2:10:38] I'm glad to hear that you guys are on that

[2:10:42] I wanted to thank you all for the extra hour for the seniors in the

[2:10:47] Multi-purpose room. They're very happy and I really am grateful and appreciative

[2:10:52] They're like wow two hours. I don't know if we could stay here that long. I know it's three

[2:10:57] Well, you could cut it down. It's an experiment

[2:10:59] It's kind of like if nobody stays then, you know, and Chair Yoga was a success next door simultaneously.

[2:11:07] I was wondering, are you guys removing or replacing carpets that I hear a rumor?

[2:11:15] I think from some of the water damage, was there a requirement to replace

[2:11:19] the water damage? I'm sure it's under a certain amount so we don't really need to know about it.

[2:11:25] Yes, thank you, Council Member for the question.

[2:11:29] There is what we did as a patch job is we had some extra carpet tile that we replaced.

[2:11:37] So that's working out pretty well until the whole project will come forward, and

[2:11:43] we will replace that carpet in the multipurpose room and senior center.

[2:11:48] And will everybody go back to the bluffs for that period of time?

[2:11:51] Or it will be like an overnight thing and we'll never know what happened?

[2:11:54] But we will try our best to do it on the weekend, so it doesn't disrupt programming.

[2:12:00] Great.

[2:12:00] Thank you.

[2:12:02] I was wondering, it came up today, about the green waddles that are everywhere.

[2:12:06] Are those just for, so they're, I could be calling them not waddles, they might not be waddles,

[2:12:12] but they're neon green and they're on PCH and they're on hillsides and they're also in

[2:12:16] the mediums.

[2:12:17] So I was wondering if that's for temporary purposes for the rain, or are we planting something

[2:12:22] Anything in those are more long-term?

[2:12:26] Yeah, those are protected devices at CalTransplace within the median to prevent erosion.

[2:12:33] And if they did some cleanup work along the slope over there and the curb and the shoulder area.

[2:12:39] And so to prevent any more erosion, that's what they placed in there to help that erosion.

[2:12:44] Got it.

[2:12:47] What's the difference between agreements and the used to be grounds?

[2:12:50] Yeah.

[2:12:54] I mean, they're basically the same kind of thing, it's just a different color.

[2:13:02] I mean, if you go on, I was going to ask about plastic sandbags.

[2:13:07] Because I know there was an issue with, I believe there was for the emergency rains and everything, questions about some plastic sandbags that were at a giveaway spot.

[2:13:20] I'm assuming it was the county since it was on their land that the giveaway was.

[2:13:24] So we're just making sure that all partner agencies know that plastic sandbags are not allowed.

[2:13:31] And even in emergency situations, we should do our best to have burlap or other available.

[2:13:39] Yeah, absolutely.

[2:13:40] That was something that just kind of came up and we got with our county and

[2:13:45] we're going to correct that.

[2:13:47] When I heard about it, I called the county the same day and they recognized that they were not supposed to give a test today, so hopefully we won't see those again.

[2:13:58] Do we have an actual timeline for the skate park?

[2:14:04] No, yeah. We're still kind of looking at all the ponding and the mud and debris in there to kind of see when they can really get back in there and finish up all that area.

[2:14:19] Can I offer to rent some drawing equipment and some other things to so we can get that

[2:14:24] form for this quickly as possible?

[2:14:27] I'll stand out there with a fan.

[2:14:29] I mean, the good thing is what does and the weather this week too, it's supposed to be warmer.

[2:14:36] So it's going to it's going to help that process quicker.

[2:14:39] So we'll see how this goes and get the contractor to start calling quick.

[2:14:43] Yeah.

[2:14:44] Okay.

[2:14:45] Sorry, Kristen. I have another question for you. There's two or three burnt trees on the

[2:14:49] bluff's park. They've been there on and off. I mean, they've just kind of creepy looking.

[2:14:54] You know what ones I'm talking about? I believe so. Yeah. Are they our property or MRCA?

[2:15:00] MRCA property. So I believe that we're able to brush clear that because it's 200 feet from a structure. I think that we're allowed to take those out with permission maybe, but we should probably think about doing that. We can work with MRCA to figure out a solution. Are you referring to the trees on PCH? They're like on PCH right off, I don't know, behind the community building. They're like creepy looking.

[2:15:29] Just a reminder of the three fires that we had, it's like right behind the community

[2:15:36] centers, so I believe we're within the footage of a structure that would be super.

[2:15:43] And I wanted to think that the beach cleanup crew for the community brigade who cleaned

[2:15:48] the beach yesterday, and I would like to join that in the future and bring my kids.

[2:15:54] It was very sad to see how much debris is still out there.

[2:15:58] The mangled rusty metal bed frames is very sad.

[2:16:03] And that is all my questions, really, and comments.

[2:16:09] Thank you.

[2:16:13] Bill, I'll do it.

[2:16:15] I'll do it.

[2:16:16] First off, I want to thank Candace Bond for her service.

[2:16:21] And she's not here tonight to say thank you in person.

[2:16:23] Hopefully she's watching it or she'll get it indirectly.

[2:16:26] But she was a real gift from the community for the community and we'll always be grateful to her for that.

[2:16:35] And Rob, thank you for filling in until we get the next city manager on board.

[2:16:42] And looking forward to having him March 2nd.

[2:16:45] In terms of things that we had a very eventful week this last week, we had the remembrance program on Wednesday.

[2:16:52] here at City Hall and City Staff, I think, did an excellent job with that.

[2:16:56] It was tough to remember where we all were.

[2:17:00] It was difficult to remember where we were at the same time a year ago.

[2:17:04] And it was deja vu for some of us as we walked into the multi-purpose room

[2:17:08] for snacks and treats and realized that was where the EOC was.

[2:17:13] And it was going full steam at the same time a year ago.

[2:17:17] So, I'll make a comment maybe before we can rebuild, but we can never forget our race

[2:17:25] of damage done to so many lives.

[2:17:28] And unfortunately, Malibu's had a string of bad luck on fires.

[2:17:33] If you go back to the Wolsey Fire, basically the entire city has been subject to some kind

[2:17:38] of a flame issue in the last seven or eight years.

[2:17:42] And we got to do what we can to keep the fires out of Malibu.

[2:17:46] and when they are here, and I go back to the chief

[2:17:48] and Roni's comment, your house has to be able

[2:17:50] to defend itself.

[2:17:52] And there's no way to have a fire truck in front

[2:17:54] of every house or run on every street.

[2:17:57] So we've got to do what we can to make sure that they're safe.

[2:18:00] I already mentioned about the two deputies

[2:18:02] that were heroes.

[2:18:04] Couple of quick things.

[2:18:06] Speed cameras.

[2:18:06] Rob, do we have an update on when we're

[2:18:09] going to get those RFPs out?

[2:18:13] So yeah, we, so thanks for reminding me

[2:18:16] Yeah, we, this last week that we did do interviews with, I believe it was four or five different vendors.

[2:18:26] And staff is kind of compiling all that information and we are going to be making a selection here and bringing

[2:18:36] that to City Council soon on a vendor.

[2:18:38] So that should be coming here, I want to say it would in February or so.

[2:18:44] Okay, and what's the timeline to put them in once we select them?

[2:18:47] So once that's done to, right now, we are looking to try to get the big critical item is actual polls for the cameras and for the speed feedback signs, and we're trying to get a date on when those are going to come in, we're hoping this spring.

[2:19:08] And we're checking with calisthency if they have any within their stock so they can just trade us and get in and sooner.

[2:19:16] So I'm pushing at this next couple weeks and trying to get an answer on the poll situation because that's the really the critical path.

[2:19:25] Okay, I know in a report from CHP that we get, they poll maybe one over 100 mile an hour's speeder every two or three months.

[2:19:34] But when you get the speed cameras in, we'll know who's speeding and where, who's been

[2:19:39] naughty or nice, so to speak.

[2:19:41] And that will help us, I think, tell the story on the fast system as well.

[2:19:46] I'm looking at Michelle, and I think that data will be beneficial.

[2:19:51] So looking forward to getting those cameras in and see what we can do.

[2:19:54] On the radio, it didn't mean to be dismissive of NK, but radios are perfectly peripheral

[2:20:03] and prolific all over Southern California.

[2:20:08] In fact, that's one of the issues and frequencies of jam packed,

[2:20:11] there aren't any spare frequencies.

[2:20:13] And the one that she's talking about is dedicated to the La Habra,

[2:20:20] I think, parts of watch equivalent.

[2:20:23] And the fact that she's got one of the radios, that's great.

[2:20:26] I know she used to be in the Habra, but we've got plenty of radios here.

[2:20:31] the issue is not radios. It's about the ability to have strong signals on the tower for the

[2:20:37] sheriff's department. The cert team has got its own radio system. The rick's radio system is

[2:20:43] what the county uses for the entire county with interchange with other, like the fire department

[2:20:49] and the sheriff's department, the state parks, so forth. Everybody's got an inter-connected system.

[2:20:55] You just need to have the strong towers where they can all work, so it's it's not a case of

[2:21:01] Trying to find another radio system and if you're a ham radio operator you can use those radios all you want to

[2:21:09] Which I get a license and technician class to take you one day to get it and by the way most of the asserting as

[2:21:16] Ham radio licenses in addition to the city radio, okay, that's all I got

[2:21:23] Yeah, okay. First thing which everybody happy new year. I guess I think anybody getting

[2:21:29] arrested so I guess everybody was fairly calm during that time frame. I want to thank

[2:21:35] public works and I know Robert Tatiana who let the charge to keep the roads open and you

[2:21:41] will have the rent. It was a heck of a job and we do appreciate it. I mean, it made the

[2:21:45] heck a lot better.

[2:21:49] There have been a number of articles regarding people doing soil testing

[2:21:53] In some cases they found out that there were some debris in the soil that they didn't want

[2:21:59] to have there.

[2:22:01] And I just, I got two notes over the course of the last couple of weeks.

[2:22:04] There are two programs that are free.

[2:22:06] If anybody wants to do soil testing, you can get that done for free, either through USC.

[2:22:11] They've got a program called Clean, just Google that and give you the details on that one.

[2:22:17] And then LA Public Health also has a soil testing program that's free.

[2:22:24] I mean, so you put your soil in a little plastic bag and send it to them.

[2:22:27] And I think it's like seven days I'll give back to you and tell you what's there.

[2:22:30] So if you're interested, there's some places you can go to get that done.

[2:22:37] I would just not, I attended this,

[2:22:42] palisades,

[2:22:43] remembers event we had here in City Hall.

[2:22:46] And I'll tell you, one of the leads from my perspective.

[2:22:48] I mean, I talked to a number of the residents who were here and I was just glad to see that their

[2:22:56] spirits were still up. I mean, you know, they're still planning to rebuild, they're keeping their

[2:23:01] spirits at the bottom, they're working hard at it. So at least, I mean, I went home and I felt

[2:23:05] better than I felt reading all these articles about stuff that wasn't happening. So it was just good

[2:23:11] here. And then finally, I was going to comment on our two anonymous callers that we get every,

[2:23:19] you know, this has been going on for a year and a half now. Ever since we voted down the

[2:23:26] motel, they were trying to, you know, that, that keen brothers in Doug Berger trying to build

[2:23:31] over on PCH. And I don't apologize for voting against that hotel. It was a bad idea. And I'm not going

[2:23:39] You know, just for your information, the city has been in contact with my property and I don't have a problem.

[2:23:52] So I'm not going to go to the details of the snow of their business that we have done that.

[2:23:58] With that, back to you, Mayor.

[2:24:01] Okay, so the sergeant is earlier with Hope 2026 to be better in 2025.

[2:24:08] If that's not the case, we're all in trouble.

[2:24:11] So here's for a good year.

[2:24:14] I said a couple of minor comments that I'll get to more significant one.

[2:24:19] There have been a lot of questions Rob about these various items, Merrill raised, Zuma underpass.

[2:24:24] It seems like it was open and fixed for a while, and now it's not again.

[2:24:29] What's the prognosis, what's going to go on there?

[2:24:31] I think it's an issue about the stand removal, and I think the county and

[2:24:37] beaches Harbor and California's are kind of working through all those kind of issues above removing.

[2:24:42] Is it going to be a year again?

[2:24:44] I think it's something that we're going to be pushing and I'm going to be pushing hard on them to try to get that resolved.

[2:24:49] I think the issue previously was that they removed it once, and

[2:24:56] And they needed a continuing permit to actually do it from previous years because it's going to happen over and over again.

[2:25:02] And they got to make sure that's kind of, they are the permit to do that correctly over the years.

[2:25:08] All right, thanks.

[2:25:11] And there's been some comments about Anne Kay's comment about the radios.

[2:25:15] One thing I was to say, because I think it was unfair, the statement that the Hobber Heights has not burned.

[2:25:22] And I think she said apparently they care.

[2:25:25] I looked at their fire hazard severity map after she made that statement, and with the exception of a few blocks of a multi, many, many mile area, that that sound is not only not a, well, first of all, we're entirely a very high fire hazards and areas of every inch of Malibu,

[2:25:45] not one inch of that area is a very high fire hazard.

[2:25:49] the severity zone. With the exception of those few blocks, none of that area is a high

[2:25:54] fire-higher severity zone, a moderate fire severity zone, no severity zone of any sort.

[2:26:03] It's just a clean slate. It's like areas of the valley here where they're just concrete jungles.

[2:26:09] I'm not saying that's a concrete jungle, but it's not a fire zone. So it's just a very unfair for

[2:26:15] someone to suggest that some other jurisdiction cares, and that the proof of that is that they have radios, and that's why they don't burn.

[2:26:22] That's nonsense.

[2:26:25] So for the past couple of months, there's been this issue of, this was alluded to earlier by Helen, whether the rebuild rights travel with the land.

[2:26:34] And we all know that with respect to planning, they do, that under our municipal code, and even under the coastal act when it applies.

[2:26:43] When you have a catastrophe in your rebuilding, it doesn't matter whether it's the person who owned the property at the time, it can be a buyer.

[2:26:53] What has come to our attention is that the building code does provide an in-lands and active landslide area unless it's the owner at the time of the casualty where their quote was authorized representative, whatever that means.

[2:27:11] There is not the ability to rebuild other than to go through some very difficult process, maybe even not at all.

[2:27:18] So Trevor or Yolanda, or anyone else that has knowledge about this, what is the answer?

[2:27:26] And if the answer is we just don't have an answer yet, that's fine, but we need to get this clarified.

[2:27:34] Is that just for landslides or is it just for landslides?

[2:27:37] Yes, they did have any to do with like fire rebuilds.

[2:27:40] It applies to any rebuild for even for catastrophe in a land active landslide area.

[2:27:47] So it overrides all the stuff in our municipal code and the coastal act.

[2:27:52] And it cuts off a buyer of property from taking advantage of the rebuild ability.

[2:27:58] It's not a landslide on that particular property, it's a landslide area.

[2:28:04] Okay, maybe along the conchets and wait on that.

[2:28:08] Yes, good evening.

[2:28:10] This comes as a section of the county building code, 110 4.2.6.

[2:28:18] And this states that properties that are lost on the, and an active landslide are able to rebuild.

[2:28:28] out with several conditions.

[2:28:31] The first condition is that it needs to be alike for

[2:28:35] like, same area, no additional fixtures, no additional bedrooms.

[2:28:40] And then, another statement states and I don't have the code in front of me.

[2:28:45] That the permits, the building permits can be issued to the property owner,

[2:28:52] their heirs, or a authorized agent.

[2:28:57] And so that is how it's written and after the fires, we went back to the county trying

[2:29:08] to get an understanding of where this came from, when this was added to the county code.

[2:29:17] It was added, I understand on the 90s, after an incident that happened, besides that,

[2:29:28] I haven't been able to get a lot of information on why it was written this way.

[2:29:34] So, the question from the community is, since it's written that only the homeowner,

[2:29:41] their airs or the authorized agent can we can issue the building permits.

[2:29:47] Can they sell the land?

[2:29:49] And so that is the question.

[2:29:53] Talking it over with Trevor, we started looking at.

[2:30:00] First, it was a concentration of helping rebuild everybody that had blast the property there. And so we concentrated on those homeowners that wanted to do like for like. Now, the question comes, what if, how can I sell my property if I'm not able to rebuild? We're trying to find a definition on what an authorized agent can signify for this property owners.

[2:30:28] But moreover, we're also seeking the assistance of the county since this is a section of the county code trying to have an understanding of why it was written and also if there is a way to change it and allow the property owners to sell the property.

[2:30:48] So that's where we are right now.

[2:30:50] Thank you for that, Your Honor. And that's consistent with my understanding.

[2:30:54] So, I had thought I had heard that we were a little further into it than that, but that's actually makes sense to me.

[2:31:02] So, what I'd like to do is I'd like to ask for consensus to bring back an item for the council to take some affirmative action that would give you greater ammunition in dealing with the county wherever, because I came to the conclusion myself after studying the problem that it does require some kind of a legislative fix.

[2:31:21] I don't know whether the governor can fix it through an executive order, I doubt it actually.

[2:31:24] I think it does require some kind of a legislative fix.

[2:31:27] I'll be surprised if a proper interpretation of the way it's written now would permit a subsequent owner to take advantage of the provision.

[2:31:36] So I think it needs to be addressed.

[2:31:39] I think I understand the concept was, I mean, if you think about it in an active landslide, people probably shouldn't build full stop.

[2:31:49] Even if the House has been destroyed, nobody, though, had in mind that there'd be a catastrophe of this nature where entire neighborhoods were wiped out.

[2:32:00] And it may be that an extraordinary situation of like this requires an extraordinary exception to the statute that they have in place.

[2:32:07] So I'd like to bring this back as an item where we can maybe fashion a letter of support, or do something, or maybe authorize us to affirmatively work of our lobbyists.

[2:32:16] But we need to do something not to define an authorized agent as as someone who buys it because I think that's a silly way to address it.

[2:32:25] It's kind of like the only way you can do it out of the existing statute, but actually get the county to agree to engraft an exception for the Palisades fire and possibly for other wildfires.

[2:32:36] So can we get a consent?

[2:32:38] Mayor, for example, the staff will support that to burn back on item to discuss it.

[2:32:42] I think we could bring more information and options here for the council.

[2:32:45] Yeah, and I fully support this and I've reached out to the County Supervisor already to initiate conversations about this, because I do think it's something at the county level that we need to work.

[2:32:59] One, looking back through all the original reason why they put it in their code, and then also they've amended it several times, so what is the intent of what it is it's supposed to be?

[2:33:12] So I fully support that.

[2:33:14] I'm actively reaching out to the supervisor's office to also have those conversations because I think it is something that it's time that we get a better definition and why it's there and to put the places in so that properties can be subsequently sold regardless of whether the house is rebuilt or not.

[2:33:34] Yes, thank you mayor and just to give credit to the mayor.

[2:33:38] She put us in contact with Dylan's ceiling.

[2:33:42] He is the regional planning deputy with Lindsay Horvath.

[2:33:46] He is trying to set up a meeting with the building of Fisher from the county.

[2:33:51] So we can have this conversation and see how we can handle this for our property owners.

[2:33:57] If I could ask a quick question.

[2:33:59] I understand the points that's been posed so far about in an active landslide.

[2:34:06] What constitutes an active landslide?

[2:34:09] What is this saying that everything in Malibu is in this or is it just a big rock or what?

[2:34:16] No, and so we're not talking about all those 497 properties.

[2:34:21] They don't fall under this.

[2:34:22] They only properties are possibly the ones that are on BICRAC, and not all of them, what constitutes an active landslide.

[2:34:33] The state of California, they have the mapping assigned and

[2:34:39] designated what is an active landslide.

[2:34:41] And this is where this information comes from.

[2:34:44] So we're talking about BICRAC 170, some properties we lost on that area.

[2:34:51] Yeah, not everybody is selling the property.

[2:34:55] So it's for those that will like to sell the property, giving them the ability to sell

[2:35:02] the property.

[2:35:03] I would think in the palisades, there are some areas that are in an active place.

[2:35:06] I know the map now that you mentioned, which is when it is, I've seen that map, but

[2:35:10] I would think it also affects palisades.

[2:35:12] Yes, that is correct.

[2:35:14] There's several areas.

[2:35:15] I mean, I can provide an example that we come to that to counsel with our conversations with the county.

[2:35:25] We can provide a list of what areas within our burn area are that once affected by this section of the code.

[2:35:34] The simple solution actually, it may be too broad for the county, but the simple solution is just to say errors, successors, and assigns, and that would fix it completely.

[2:35:47] The other issue is, as I understand it, though, that provision also unlike the like for

[2:35:54] like plus 10%, there's no plus 10%, is that accurate?

[2:35:59] At the beginning of the rebuild back in February of this year, that was the first question

[2:36:05] from a lot of our property owners on the landslide areas.

[2:36:10] Yes, the building code, as you know, chapter one is as the interpretation of the building official.

[2:36:19] Back in February, I was able to write a interpretation for that like for like to be consistent with our planning ordinance, so in ordinance.

[2:36:30] So we did authorize that no more area also constitute that like for like plus 10 to be aligned.

[2:36:38] I mean, no more means no more than 100 and 10%.

[2:36:40] Yes, yes, yes.

[2:36:42] Good for you.

[2:36:42] Thank you.

[2:36:44] All right, those are my comments.

[2:36:46] We have this coming back officially.

[2:36:49] Sounds like it.

[2:36:50] Okay.

[2:36:51] This sounds like consensus on that.

[2:36:55] Thank you.

[2:36:55] I guess I'm not raw sewer updates

[2:37:00] for those PCH properties.

[2:37:03] What is the latest and when's it gonna be before council?

[2:37:08] When are we gonna make a decision on that?

[2:37:13] So yeah, we're planning on bringing the first meeting in February.

[2:37:18] I'm crossing my fingers that there's a couple of things that we're kind of working on.

[2:37:22] But that's kind of where we're kind of landing.

[2:37:25] I think we're in good shape.

[2:37:26] I kind of at least have a discussion to let you know where we are with that.

[2:37:30] But so that's where we are with the PC server.

[2:37:35] Yeah, definitely, just to let everybody know we're keeping our foot on the gas on that one so that people can know whether or not that's a real possibility or repair and or reuse of their existing septic and all that's going to be their option.

[2:37:51] So, every time we have any search and

[2:37:55] soda lindas here, is it possible to ask

[2:37:59] CHP? I know they give an update to

[2:38:03] the Public Safety Commission on their work.

[2:38:07] Would it be possible to maybe ask if they could attend

[2:38:12] one of our council meetings and give us an

[2:38:15] update of the work that they're doing on a

[2:38:19] You know, even just once a month basis so we can hear from them on the work that they're

[2:38:24] doing.

[2:38:25] It's, they've been here, you know, what, two years?

[2:38:31] Okay, great, thank you very much.

[2:38:34] And then the other thing that's come up that, you know, kind of going off on some of the

[2:38:38] stuff that Bruce was asking for, it seems like historically we've just been kind of living

[2:38:45] with the geological information in Big Rock and it's been, I think, quite sometimes since

[2:38:53] we've had a comprehensive report done on the activity of the landslide, the dewatering

[2:39:06] Can we initiate a report of, you know, what is the status of that landslide now?

[2:39:16] Is it active? Is it dormant? Have the dewatering wells worked?

[2:39:20] Just get, so we just have an updated comprehensive overview and not just going on 30 or 40 years worth of information.

[2:39:32] So we have our our plan state assessment consultant that actually does all of the monitoring and

[2:39:41] an operation of a big rock, they can go over the data, they can go over kind of what they've done and we can kind of go over really kind of all the work.

[2:39:53] Our staff has been done to replace probably majority of the equipment that's out there from the.

[2:39:59] from the balance states fire.

[2:40:01] So we can provide an update if that works with that

[2:40:04] or are you looking for more?

[2:40:06] I think I'm looking for a little bit more comprehensive.

[2:40:08] I think that's a portion of it.

[2:40:11] But, and I don't expect this to be done in a quick,

[2:40:14] I mean, I think this is something that we're gonna have to do

[2:40:17] an RFP for and do a comprehensive thing.

[2:40:21] But I think that there's a lot of questions out there

[2:40:23] as to just how active that landslide is.

[2:40:26] Is it still a map with the state of California, and should it still be mapped?

[2:40:33] Are there things that should be, so we just get more information about?

[2:40:38] So I will get with Dr. Cambundi and I will kind of look to strategize on how we can provide that information and see how steps we can do for that too.

[2:40:46] But the easiest thing is to get an update from our consultant that's actually doing the monitoring and

[2:40:54] and operating of the big rock dewatering,

[2:40:56] we can provide that.

[2:40:58] Is that ye and associates?

[2:41:00] Ye?

[2:41:01] Yeah, ye?

[2:41:02] Yeah, it's like.

[2:41:03] What's new?

[2:41:03] Yeah, and associates, because I went to a meeting recently,

[2:41:06] well, not recently, but it might have been like a few months ago

[2:41:09] where they did a presentation and talked about the rewatering

[2:41:12] and the successes, and I think it was public works,

[2:41:15] but it might be good to have that here,

[2:41:18] because I would absolutely.

[2:41:20] But how does that work within the whole comprehensive,

[2:41:22] So when the geologists are looking at a house that's being built, or in this case, the rebuild of over a hundred homes.

[2:41:30] It's a little bit more complicated than that, but something that you'll want to and I will have to look into and kind of strategize on how we can present that information and have a path forward on it, get you that what you're looking for.

[2:41:41] So do we, do the other council members agree that that's something I think that the city should initiate so that we just have a more up to date?

[2:41:47] I'd like that picture of what, especially if we're going to be discussing this council authorised in a landslide area.

[2:41:55] I need to understand what is an active landslide. I've heard over and over that it's not an active landslide.

[2:42:00] What I heard from Yolanda, though, and maybe I misunderstood was, this isn't really a fact-based question.

[2:42:06] There's a map, the legal definition of the landslide area for purposes of the code is what the state tells us.

[2:42:13] So unless the state is convinced to change its maps, we're stuck with that designation,

[2:42:16] We should just like the very high fire has its everities on.

[2:42:19] Is that accurate?

[2:42:20] Yeah, that is correct.

[2:42:21] The state of California has their own geologists that do all the mapping for the state of California.

[2:42:27] And all the geohaster is areas and that's how it functions.

[2:42:32] I will have to go back and see how the map can be changed.

[2:42:38] What is the possibilities or?

[2:42:44] That's probably something our council can do.

[2:42:46] That's a legal question of kind of the map to be changed, and if so, what under what circumstances?

[2:42:50] I just think I've heard for the past year that it's not a, it's not a, an amplified area.

[2:42:57] And the residents seem to be very passionate about that.

[2:43:00] And so I've been going with it because I just assumed that we all did our due diligence.

[2:43:04] But if I'm hearing now that we are questioning it, maybe it's good to have those answers.

[2:43:08] I said, you know, this is not an unusual situation in the law.

[2:43:12] It really isn't whether, factually, we agree or disagree with it.

[2:43:16] It's whether it's mapped as such.

[2:43:18] So we need to deal with the state and get them to not map it as such,

[2:43:22] if it's really not properly mapped.

[2:43:24] Okay.

[2:43:25] But to your point, I think if you go back, this is where we have conflict

[2:43:28] about what constitutes a side area, because you go back two years ago,

[2:43:32] and the same homeowners and big rock were saying it was an active side area.

[2:43:36] Right.

[2:43:36] No, they say it's not, but you have to state maps to say something else.

[2:43:39] So we've got to see what we're dealing with here.

[2:43:42] They were making the argument for purposes of local zoning decisions, which we have discretion over.

[2:43:47] This is a state law issue.

[2:43:48] We need to have the state map examined.

[2:43:52] So, I mean, at the very least, maybe we need to have a little bit more education of how this is determined, what the steps are.

[2:44:02] We can, if Council agrees with this, we can have our new geotechnical firm do a presentation

[2:44:10] for Council on how the maps are established and show you how those came about and try

[2:44:23] to get information on how if those maps can be changed.

[2:44:28] And then along with the other local information from the dewatering.

[2:44:31] So yeah, let's just, yeah, let you want to kind of get together.

[2:44:34] We'll strategize on how we can do it.

[2:44:36] Yeah, so even if it's just an educational workshop so that our cells in the community can better

[2:44:41] understand how this is designated and what goes into this decision.

[2:44:48] And if it's still applicable or, you know, if a slide can be mitigated into no longer being

[2:44:54] a hazard.

[2:44:55] I guess.

[2:44:56] This is kind of, I don't know, okay, I said enough.

[2:45:02] Second, concludes. I have two more points. I'd like to propose a council item for who can attend the zone captain meeting so that we can put this to rest for the future. Because I believe that there's a brown act issue if more than two attend. So how should we go about that?

[2:45:24] That's

[2:45:26] our city attorney.

[2:45:28] You can just sign an item and then we can have a discussion with the whole council and you guys can decide who's going to attend.

[2:45:38] Great.

[2:45:39] Well, I think that, you know, is there a question? Is it a brown act?

[2:45:43] Yes.

[2:45:44] Those are city meetings.

[2:45:45] They cannot have more than two council members present.

[2:45:47] Okay.

[2:45:50] Okay.

[2:45:51] I mean, I was going.

[2:45:53] I was going.

[2:45:54] I had gone.

[2:45:55] and then he'll jump in, so I'm gonna let her go.

[2:45:58] You got him, I'll pass, I'll pass.

[2:46:00] We could also do a rotation.

[2:46:01] I got out of the things I can do.

[2:46:03] I think existence is really important on this.

[2:46:04] Yes.

[2:46:05] Okay, well thanks then.

[2:46:07] I will, do we have to memorialize that

[2:46:09] or put that in writing or?

[2:46:11] Is there consensus from the council

[2:46:13] that you'd wish to bring back an item?

[2:46:15] Not if we've just decided, which I feel like we have,

[2:46:18] unless we have to vote on it.

[2:46:23] Sounds to me like it always is the case that two people can go and the issue is just resolved

[2:46:29] by Steve.

[2:46:30] I agree.

[2:46:31] I think it's, I feel good about that.

[2:46:33] Yeah.

[2:46:34] There's no council action, but if council member hearing is not attending, then there is

[2:46:38] an issue.

[2:46:38] No need to bring it back.

[2:46:39] And the capital zones are, meetings are happening in every Wednesday, from 3 to 4, sometimes

[2:46:45] from 3 to 5.

[2:46:46] So now that we have the decision from Council, we will be sure to invite Council Member Conrad and Mayor Riggins.

[2:46:55] Thank you.

[2:46:58] It's a public meeting.

[2:47:01] I thought we were able to say this is audience.

[2:47:05] If you're going to have three Councillors participating, then we would need to go and notice it is a special meeting.

[2:47:09] I mean, even though we're spread out in a-

[2:47:11] I'm not talking, and not even discussing anything with each other.

[2:47:15] And I'll-

[2:47:15] Yes, it doesn't fall under a ceremonial exception.

[2:47:17] It's not a community meeting put out by a third party organization.

[2:47:20] It's not another notice commission meeting which would fall under the brown act as well.

[2:47:25] So, anytime you have three council members present, discussing city business,

[2:47:30] it's a meeting of the brown act unless an exception applies.

[2:47:32] There's not an exception to apply to this.

[2:47:34] This is a city-organized meeting.

[2:47:37] Okay, thank you.

[2:47:39] One last thing. Do we have consensus? Should we put on the next agenda, the mobile home park?

[2:47:45] I mean, there's been a lot of back and forth with some of the residents that live in the mobile home park,

[2:47:51] because there's a meeting on Thursday at 1.30.

[2:47:53] But if there's something that they've decided, we can talk about it at the next meeting for council.

[2:47:59] Well, can't the head of that commission just come and give us a report?

[2:48:03] Yeah, so we have an item coming in the first meeting in February for that for

[2:48:10] a revised ordinance. Okay, so that's coming. Great. Thank you.

[2:48:15] Is that okay? Is that conclude council comments? Do we want to break before we dive in to 8 a.

[2:48:22] Okay, so we're going to take let's be back here at 8.25.

[2:48:29] Let's go over let's actually be back here at 825.

[3:06:00] Okay, we're back from our amended agenda. We're on the item A.

[3:06:10] So,

[3:06:13] who's giving the presentation?

[3:06:18] A, hailer? Okay, Bruce? Sure. I wish I'd actually done a power point. Okay, so I'm hoping the council have all read this. I know that the residents have.

[3:06:33] This is a proposal to adopt a City Council resolution that will formalize many of the policies that I think we've informally already put into place, as well as put some additional meat on their bones.

[3:06:51] So I'll just walk through them.

[3:06:52] I mean, it starts off with a just a general statement of policy, which is, which I think we all agree on,

[3:07:00] which is that we declare, but this will not just be for the fires that have occurred.

[3:07:06] This will be a policy of the city of Malibu going forward in less than until a future, if we adopt it,

[3:07:12] in less than until a future City Council were to change it, for dealing with casualties,

[3:07:17] It's natural casualties of this site.

[3:07:20] So it says we declare it to be the policy of the city of Malibu to facilitate the expeditious,

[3:07:26] efficient, and economical rebuild of all structures in the city, destroyed, or

[3:07:31] materially damaged by wildfire earthquake, which is yet to come.

[3:07:36] Flood, landslide, mudslide, or similar disaster, key now,

[3:07:41] Now, in substantially the same location as the destroyer damage structure, and in a lake for lake matter that does not exceed 100% of the area height or bulk of the structure destroyed or materially damaged.

[3:07:55] So this is basically memorializing as a city council policy that we want when there are disasters of this nature to see rebuild in a lake for lake matter.

[3:08:08] And we want to encourage them to be able to be done in an efficient, expeditious, and economical manner.

[3:08:15] So then we get into what are we going to do pursuant to that policy if we adopt it?

[3:08:20] First of all, we're going to ensure that nobody that works for the city directly or as an outsider.

[3:08:28] It's going to impose any requirements that aren't in the law.

[3:08:31] So, and a great example of that is, remember, we spent a lot of time dealing with what is going to be the base elevation on the beach.

[3:08:42] And we did a lot of back and forth with staff and experts, and we came to the understanding that the only applicable law outside of, the only applicable law was it had to be FEMA plus one.

[3:08:54] I guess one could argue that wasn't even the law, but that was the only applicable restriction that was other than something we would make up.

[3:09:02] There was no other federal, state, county, or city, law in place that would dictate the height.

[3:09:08] But we needed to adopt a policy of what the height was going to be, what the base level elevations could be.

[3:09:14] Well, had we employed this policy from day one, and this will be if we have this policy, one day one going forward,

[3:09:22] We wouldn't have had to have any of that discussion.

[3:09:24] The staff would have simply looked at what the law is, come to the recognition that the only applicable law was being a plus one, and applied it.

[3:09:32] And the City Council would not have had to have been involved in that, the community wouldn't have had to be involved in that, and a lot of time would have been saved.

[3:09:39] I'm not smart enough to know what all the other situations are going to be.

[3:09:43] None of us are, I suspect, going forward that are going to come up, and someone's going to say, well, what are we going to do in this circumstance?

[3:09:49] The answer we're saying should be very clear.

[3:09:53] Forget what you might want to see done.

[3:09:56] Let's look to the law, let's look to federal law, because that governs here,

[3:09:59] whether we like it or not, a state law, the county law, and our existing municipal code.

[3:10:04] And don't impose any restriction or requirement whatsoever that's not already embedded in those laws.

[3:10:10] Now we also have the ability obviously to look at our municipal code and say, let's liberalize that.

[3:10:15] That, we can't liberalize it beyond the requirements of a superior law, but

[3:10:19] we can liberalize it where it's more strict.

[3:10:23] But any event that says don't apply any rule that's not already in place,

[3:10:26] don't go looking for more restrictions.

[3:10:30] There's a provision in here that I've heard a lot of comments about in two different directions.

[3:10:36] It says in so doing any doubt, and by the way, again, only for

[3:10:42] like for like rebuilds, not for a non-disaster build and not for a rebuild that's not in tune

[3:10:50] with like for like.

[3:10:51] If somebody wants to build something that's 150% of what was there, this doesn't apply

[3:10:56] to them whatsoever.

[3:10:58] So when we're doing that, any doubt respecting the application of a legal requirement, we're

[3:11:04] the manner of its application respecting a like for like disaster rebuild.

[3:11:08] Should be resolved in favor of the city's policy to facilitate this expeditious rebuild.

[3:11:14] And to that end, this is the one I've heard a lot of comments in both directions.

[3:11:18] Whenever there's a difference of opinion on an issue that the Director of Community Development Department defined as the CDD Director, and we know that at this moment in time that you'll on the recognizes to be a difference of opinion upon which reasonable professional civil engineers might differ.

[3:11:34] The city's staff shall defer to the stamped and certified decision of the civil engineer.

[3:11:39] There's other language in there.

[3:11:41] Now, let's make clear what that means.

[3:11:43] It doesn't mean that some residents have said in advocating for this.

[3:11:48] Whatever my design professional says, I'm now going to get that and the city's going to have to defer to it.

[3:11:53] Because your design professional may be advocating for something, which the CDD director doesn't believe is within the reasonable range of alternatives that are available.

[3:12:03] into the building code.

[3:12:06] What it does mean is that where there's a range of alternatives

[3:12:11] that are available, all of which satisfy the applicable code, it's usually got to do

[3:12:15] with safety, where there's a range of things that could be done to satisfy the safety requirement.

[3:12:21] Some design engineers are going to say, we want to do the absolute strongest thing possible.

[3:12:25] In fact, some are going to say more than what's required. Others are going to say,

[3:12:28] I want to do the owner of the property may say, I want to do the absolute minimum that I'm

[3:12:33] required to do to meet the law. And what this is saying is when it comes to the staff

[3:12:39] as long as in the opinion of the director, and obviously it will also be lower level people

[3:12:46] who will first look at the question, as long as it's something which does fall within

[3:12:51] that range, we're not going to debate with the resident or their design professionals as

[3:12:57] to whether they ought to be doing something better or more safe.

[3:13:01] As long as it's at the level that is the minimum required by the law,

[3:13:05] again, this is consistent with the first thing.

[3:13:08] We're not going to impose any rule greater than the law.

[3:13:10] So the FEMA thing would be a great example.

[3:13:13] I think some people had advocated at one point, FEMA plus one, isn't really good enough.

[3:13:18] There should be some greater allocation for sea level rise.

[3:13:22] We wouldn't be thinking about those things.

[3:13:24] It's just a question of what is a reasonable application of the law?

[3:13:30] The next thing is that we are encouraging that every reasonable and legally permissible effort

[3:13:38] be pursued to liberalize the process for securing building code approvals, again, for like-for-like

[3:13:44] disaster rebuild.

[3:13:48] You know, this is not an indication of doing anything that's not both reasonable and

[3:13:54] So, these are policies, these are to make clear that we want to see homes rebuilt, we want to see them be rebuilt, like for like as best we can, and we want to make it as painless as possible to do it, recognizing obviously we can't solve insurance issues, we can't solve state laws that are more onerous than we might want them to be, we're stuck with them.

[3:14:22] This says that we will, where we find an issue that is impacting our residents, that we don't have the ability to overcome.

[3:14:33] We will advocate to the state that it look into the issue and see what can be done to help relax the requirement.

[3:14:41] The answer may be there is nothing that could be done.

[3:14:43] But again, we will do what we can do to try to get the requirement relaxed.

[3:14:48] So that if it's relaxed, more people can do more.

[3:14:55] So a lot of other particular things, which I think I'll just leave it to others to come.

[3:15:01] Item 4, which I think is an important one, is that when dealing with the like for like disaster rebuilds, it's imperative that our staff members are focused on finding ways to get to yes. And importantly, this states, by the same token, when we're not dealing with disaster rebuilds, we need the staff to still be focused on the mission statement and the vision statement.

[3:15:29] And the reason for this paragraph is, it's been said to me and I grew up it by the staff.

[3:15:36] How do we justify going out of our way to bend over backwards to get this done over here?

[3:15:42] And then when someone else comes to us and wants the same accommodation, not provide that.

[3:15:47] How do we, how do we decide who's entitled to an accommodation and who's not?

[3:15:51] And the answer is right here in a city council policy, if it's adopted, if it's a disaster rebuild.

[3:15:55] And it's a, which means it's a lake for lake and it came out of the disaster.

[3:15:59] We're gonna use all of these tools in our toolbox that we can to make it as easy as possible.

[3:16:05] And this says when someone who's doing a regular 5,000 square foot build on point doom,

[3:16:11] and they want the same accommodation, and they're saying, why am I not getting it?

[3:16:15] The answer is right here, because this policy of the city council is that you're not getting that.

[3:16:20] This is for the rebuilds.

[3:16:22] It's not to say that you're not going to get fair treatment if you're building something large or new, but you're just not going to get the special treatment that we are creating for disaster rebuilds.

[3:16:34] Other than that, most of the things in here are things that Yolanda has already told us she has put into place or is putting in place, and this is, again, at kind of codifying from a city council standpoint, that these things we agree with them.

[3:16:50] And one may ask, why do we need to do this?

[3:16:53] Why bother putting this in writing?

[3:16:55] Well, first of all, it shows that we support what's being done.

[3:17:01] Secondly, we would like to think Yolanda's going to be with us for the indefinite future.

[3:17:08] But who knows what can happen?

[3:17:11] Yolanda, something could happen to Yolanda.

[3:17:13] We want to make sure whoever's in that position knows this is the city council's policy.

[3:17:17] this is what their marching orders are.

[3:17:20] And more important, down the line, you have five years from now, we're going to have another disaster.

[3:17:25] And when we do, we don't have to sit 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 will come up and the city council,

[3:17:35] then we'll have to decide what to do with the new issues.

[3:17:38] But there'll be a policy.

[3:17:39] They can pull it out of the drawer, they read it, they know exactly how to deal with these issues.

[3:17:43] they weren't one-offs for the Palisades fire.

[3:17:46] They were things we learned about how to make this process better,

[3:17:50] and we are now putting our impromatour on them and saying, henceforth,

[3:17:55] when there's a casualty of this nature, this is the way to approach it.

[3:17:59] So, I'm sure I'm going to hear from other council members what's wrong with these things,

[3:18:03] because that's just the way this works.

[3:18:05] But I think a lot of this is a no-brainer.

[3:18:09] I know the residents, for the most part, want this.

[3:18:11] And one of our roles as City Council members is to try to do as best we can what our constituents want

[3:18:18] So this is an effort to do that

[3:18:21] To do it in a way that doesn't put undue pressure on the staff in a way, which I actually think makes it easier for the staff

[3:18:30] because it gives them further clear direction as to how to do things and

[3:18:34] How do you want anything?

[3:18:39] I think we can open it up to public comment and council comments.

[3:18:45] We can answer any questions there might be first from the council, but you know, this also

[3:18:50] was written as a result of sitting here and at other meetings for the last year, listening

[3:18:56] to residents' comments, hearing debate on the council, hearing from the staff, so it's all

[3:19:03] All in effort to consolidate everything that we've been doing for the past year, what we've learned makes sense.

[3:19:12] It doesn't address the things I think that we didn't think make sense, and with hope, this or some version of it will get approved.

[3:19:19] I think that we've done a great job as council, I think the staff has done a great job, like we've been through a disaster.

[3:19:25] And it's been a year, and the residents, we've listened, and it's been hours and hours and hours and hours of information, really.

[3:19:32] and this is a culmination of it, and like Bruce said, God forbid we have an earthquake in

[3:19:38] a year or eight months or something. It's sort of just a playbook of what we've done,

[3:19:45] memorializing this, so it's not all wasted. So I mean, I've gone through hundreds of hours of

[3:19:50] ex-counsel members meetings through Woolsey to see what they've done. Things like this are just

[3:19:56] important for the future to be able to just kind of pull up and say this is how

[3:20:03] Palisay's is dealt with and I certainly do not want this to come across as a

[3:20:07] criticism of anybody on staff or in general. It just seems like we're counsel

[3:20:12] people and we make policies and this is a policy and it and we've talked about it so

[3:20:17] we just want to memorialize it. And if there weren't for the Brown Act we would have

[3:20:22] sat down together at a conference room and hammered it out but we aren't allowed to do

[3:20:26] That would have been really fun if we could have done this together, but instead this is the process in which

[3:20:32] We have to do it in under these lights. That's it

[3:20:38] I mean, I think I'd like to define a flat pad that came up

[3:20:43] Maybe merit like being building safety you know

[3:20:46] What a flat pad is that's something that I need to clarify

[3:20:55] We've talked about case managers over and over and over again

[3:20:58] That's in number five.

[3:21:03] Continuous support advocacy, problem resolution.

[3:21:05] These are all things that they're doing anyway.

[3:21:08] It's just kind of putting it in permanence.

[3:21:16] Any council members have clarifying questions

[3:21:18] before we go to public comment?

[3:21:21] How many online speakers do we have?

[3:21:25] There's one raise hand.

[3:21:26] Two raise hands.

[3:21:28] Give it 30 seconds.

[3:21:29] Okay, Kevin Keegan, followed by Danny, and Leah's here, and Luis is here, okay.

[3:21:43] And then after Danny, it's Darren.

[3:21:52] I am Kevin Keegan.

[3:21:54] This disaster rebuild policy resolution proposed tonight is a step toward addressing the City Council specific action items.

[3:22:02] may approve ten Silverstein described in his article published by the Malibu Times in July of last year.

[3:22:09] While overdue, I thank Council members Silverstein and Conrad sincerely for focusing attention on what the City Council with his unique powers can do to accelerate the disaster rebuild process in Malibu.

[3:22:22] The two Council members are offering a pro-rebuild path forward, meanwhile the City staff are doing all they can within their current capabilities.

[3:22:30] What's missing is focused policy action like this resolution.

[3:22:34] I have a few general comments and questions.

[3:22:37] This policy resolution is forward thinking, highlighting future threats of quote, wildfire,

[3:22:42] earthquake, flood, landslide, mudslide, or similar disaster, close quote.

[3:22:47] This council has an opportunity to better position residents to be able to rebuild exponentially,

[3:22:53] whenever a disaster strikes.

[3:22:54] Where appropriate to help address liability concerns, consider including a mandatory assumption of risk and release signature step if residents choose to engage in an expedited disaster rebuild process.

[3:23:08] For item number two in the proposed resolution, I ask for consideration in that paragraph of replacing the words, words must and should with the word shall.

[3:23:17] Item number six in this proposed resolution offers a real opportunity for residents who are rebuilding.

[3:23:24] Specifically, item six states, quote, there must also be a measurable time period between submission of a completed PV plan check or

[3:23:32] building permit application and approval or deny thereof, close quote.

[3:23:37] But many Malibu property owners one are estimated time frames for rebuild projects.

[3:23:42] A time-free zone around rebuilds hinders the process, giving property owners a reasonable level of predictability around what the time commitment for disaster rebuild process will entail would offer current residents helpful incentives to stay and rebuild.

[3:23:58] Lastly, item number eight is important because it states, quote, the city shall establish targets, goals and metrics for reviews that are published and tracked to identify areas of continuous improvement, close quote.

[3:24:10] I also ask in that statement in number 8 be revised to include approvals along with reviews.

[3:24:17] So it would read the city shall establish target schools and metrics for reviews and approvals.

[3:24:23] Those are my comments and questions on this resolution.

[3:24:27] Tonight, please make those edits and approve this policy resolution for disaster rebuilds in Malibu.

[3:24:32] Thank you.

[3:24:34] Thank you.

[3:24:35] Danny, followed by Darren,

[3:24:39] followed by Arno,

[3:24:42] you have five minutes.

[3:24:44] Thank you.

[3:24:45] This is historical policy making to meet an historical moment.

[3:24:50] It is a bold and visionary plan for the present, as well as it must be said the future.

[3:24:56] We lost 700 homes.

[3:24:58] We're going to lose more.

[3:25:00] That is the reality of living in this special place.

[3:25:03] This, we choose how we respond to these events, and it has to be said, we must do better.

[3:25:13] Twenty-two permits in a year.

[3:25:16] It is unfathomable failure.

[3:25:21] The low bar set by the Woolsey Fire has somehow been outdone.

[3:25:25] It's as if we're playing limbo with our own failures.

[3:25:29] How low can we go?

[3:25:31] A couple of points.

[3:25:33] points, please don't let the words self-certification be heard tonight.

[3:25:39] That's not what this is.

[3:25:40] This is not self-certification.

[3:25:42] Self-certification is homeowners going off on their own until the inspectors show up.

[3:25:47] This is homeowners and their professionals submitting plans, an inherent peer review process

[3:25:53] and debating reasonable professional opinions.

[3:25:56] There's nothing being done blind here or under cover.

[3:26:00] Please don't let the word liability risk, words liability risk come out of your mouth.

[3:26:06] Other jurisdictions are doing this and they're doing more.

[3:26:10] Half the homes in Malibu today have assumptions of risk recorded against them because 20 years

[3:26:14] ago, somebody wanted to remodel and they were told by Malibu that you're in a seismically

[3:26:18] hazardous area.

[3:26:19] Yeah, I know.

[3:26:20] We're in Southern California.

[3:26:22] So these waivers of liability are something that Malibu has always been comfortable employing.

[3:26:26] Let's do it again, if we have to.

[3:26:29] In fact, I have one.

[3:26:30] Let me read it.

[3:26:31] Residles.

[3:26:32] Property owner desires to take certain actions.

[3:26:36] Property owner desires to assume all risk relating to and arising from the issuance of a building permit

[3:26:41] for said addition, repair, rehabilitation, and remodel work, including risks relating to the city's negligent issuance of such a building permit.

[3:26:50] Going on, assumption of risk.

[3:26:51] Property owner hereby assumes all risk of damages to the property, blah, blah, blah.

[3:26:55] out of the city issuing the building permit.

[3:26:58] Release, property owner hereby releases and discharges city, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims for losses, damages, or liabilities.

[3:27:07] We have these, so please Trevor, don't tell anybody that this can't be done, or it's even hard to do.

[3:27:14] It's in your computer.

[3:27:16] This resolution will provide a framework for our recovery, you know in your hearts that it is needed.

[3:27:22] If this city has a hope of resuscitation, if our businesses have a hope of surviving,

[3:27:29] we have to get these houses back online, expeditiously, efficiently, economically.

[3:27:38] I'm staring at photos and the hallway tonight of my neighbor's house is burning down.

[3:27:45] We have to help.

[3:27:47] We have to do all we can, and I'm sorry, you haven't.

[3:27:54] Now is your chance.

[3:27:55] Please vote for this.

[3:27:56] If you do not vote for this, this most impactful of policy resolutions,

[3:28:01] then you are directly complicit in what continues to be a disastrous recovery.

[3:28:08] This will be your legacy, and for some of you, you will be running against it in November.

[3:28:15] 22 permits in a year.

[3:28:16] Your plane from behind now is the time to play catch-up.

[3:28:20] Thank you.

[3:28:21] Thank you.

[3:28:22] Thank you.

[3:28:22] Darren, followed by Arno, followed by Scott Deuter.

[3:28:32] Good evening, once again, and thank you for taking the time to listen, but also thank

[3:28:37] you for putting this together.

[3:28:39] It was a pleasure to read that this was coming up onto the Council agenda again.

[3:28:45] And please vote in favor of it.

[3:28:48] Earlier, there was some discussion about what is the lag between planning verification and

[3:28:53] building plan check.

[3:28:54] and my family were in that lag, and the lag is due to the timeline to design something, it does take time.

[3:29:02] So this resolution of efficient, expeditious, and economical provisions to help everybody reduce that timeline is very much appreciated.

[3:29:10] We submitted for our PV on December 1st, got it on December 23rd, our submittal date for our building plan check is June of this year, and that's because of geotechnical considerations, coastal engineering considerations, structural engineering considerations.

[3:29:23] MEP design considerations, and the time it takes to put together a planning application and a plan check set.

[3:29:30] I'm also anticipating an approval in October of 2026, and that takes into consideration two rounds of back checks if needed.

[3:29:38] I say that I know it sounds crazy, but I've been responsible and I've obtained approvals for

[3:29:45] change orders that are upwards of 30,000 square feet within two days in hospitals and

[3:29:51] health care centers in California.

[3:29:53] So if that's possible, then a 1,200 square foot house on the beach should be possible within three months.

[3:29:58] This resolution is-

[3:30:00] Is a right step in that direction.

[3:30:04] I would like to ask one thing, and it's just to approve it and also to require design professional engagement in the process. This resolution defends the intent of the code if there's ever a discrepancy between Yolanda, Tyler, a plan checker, and the design professionals. Well, it's a design, design professionals job to reference the code.

[3:30:29] So defend their design in relation to the code, and that should be what we are building.

[3:30:36] So item one of this resolution defends that notion, and so I'm in full support of it.

[3:30:41] So thank you once again for your consideration.

[3:30:43] Thank you.

[3:30:45] Arnau, you have four minutes followed by Scott Dietrich followed by Janet Volk.

[3:30:55] Good evening.

[3:30:56] Tell everyone how that.

[3:30:58] Could you give it four minutes please.

[3:31:01] Thank you.

[3:31:02] Thank you.

[3:31:03] Once in a while I learn new English words.

[3:31:07] I learned one last week to show something through,

[3:31:11] like to shoot chickens into a chicken coop.

[3:31:14] A lot of items, some only formalities,

[3:31:19] took months to implement.

[3:31:22] Wouldn't it be nice to have a plan in the drawer

[3:31:24] that we could pull out when a disaster happens

[3:31:27] and snap our fingers and do all those things immediately

[3:31:30] for future disaster survivors.

[3:31:35] We had formalities that we knew we would implement, like, for example, the fee waiver program

[3:31:41] that took us nine months to implement.

[3:31:46] There's a host of other things that were discussed in council meetings and eventually

[3:31:50] approved, like fee waivers, MEP, AOW2S for beachfront, wave-uproach, fixture accounts, implementing

[3:31:57] zones and zone captains, review time, fuel modification, landscaping, and this goes on.

[3:32:04] Each item was passed like a kidney stone.

[3:32:11] This is not an invitation to go into the weeds and dissect each of those items for the purpose

[3:32:16] of derailing the key point.

[3:32:18] I just mentioned them here for everyone to remember that we did not just spend time on educating

[3:32:24] the rebuilders, but that significant changes were made, many of which need to be preserved

[3:32:31] and the key point is we need to be faster next time. We need to be prepared on a different level.

[3:32:42] There's not an accusation that those decisions took an undue amount of time. The city had to be run.

[3:32:48] There

[3:32:51] were other top priorities like people dying on PCH.

[3:32:56] Things had to be flushed out and we learned as we went.

[3:32:59] We can blame the people who made those decisions and we can have compassion, but it doesn't

[3:33:06] change the fact that it did take a long time.

[3:33:10] We couldn't drop everything and do only rebuilds.

[3:33:13] We won't next time.

[3:33:15] We need to prepare.

[3:33:16] I want you to remember that voting yes on this item doesn't approve a specific list

[3:33:24] of things that will then railroad future councils and the future city of Malibu into

[3:33:30] do things that will be to their disadvantage.

[3:33:36] So what this plan that we have in our draw will effectively look like in detail will be subject

[3:33:43] to being fleshed out and decided upon, deliberately, intelligently and with discretion.

[3:33:52] But each and every one of you by voting on this agenda item will show colors,

[3:34:01] show if

[3:34:02] you are re-electable or not,

[3:34:06] because you will say yes to 8a because you understand Malibu

[3:34:10] and have you have genuinely comprehended what went wrong in this year.

[3:34:20] Or you

[3:34:20] won't know because you have not comprehended what happened last year and do not

[3:34:24] understand Malibu and what it means to respond appropriately to a disaster. I

[3:34:33] trust you do understand.

[3:34:39] Let's show this through from

[3:34:44] Malibu and for the future

[3:34:47] Dr. Elderly and the future children that will lose everything,

[3:34:56] thank you.

[3:35:00] Scott, followed by Janet, followed by Abroy.

[3:35:07] Good evening again.

[3:35:11] Bless you.

[3:35:11] On

[3:35:14] January 8th,

[3:35:19] we were in shock.

[3:35:20] That shock carried on through much of the year.

[3:35:26] We're now over it.

[3:35:28] We've heard so much input.

[3:35:31] But on why we need this type of measure, policy decision by you guys.

[3:35:41] I'm not a Geotechnical Engineer,

[3:35:46] but I know something about mathematics.

[3:35:50] 22 permits in one year translates into 27 years to rebuild 600 homes.

[3:36:02] We can't wait that long. Our staff, Yolanda Tyler and the rest are busting their bucks.

[3:36:11] You guys are working overtime. I had to laugh at that one guy who wanted to criticize

[3:36:16] Steve saying you guys are having fun up there. Maybe not. I'm a zone captain in Rambla Pacifico.

[3:36:28] One of my neighbors at 3, 2, 9, 4, Rambla is 82 years old.

[3:36:36] He got immediately into planning and trying to move it forward.

[3:36:45] Now some of his delay was due to his geotechnical engineer because I was talking to Yeland and

[3:36:52] I don't have that paperwork.

[3:36:54] work. But there's too much that carries on and goes on and goes on. And it does relate

[3:37:02] to GEO with this proposal. I think it frees up Yolanda to push things through. It's going

[3:37:14] to make it easier, not more difficult because there are certain things that need to be done.

[3:37:21] Now, what I do have is a bit of common sense, and if a house has been there for 40 years

[3:37:32] and the slab's still good and there's no cracks and it's certified by a geotechnical engineer,

[3:37:39] you should be able to assume that it can be rebuilt.

[3:37:44] like for like not even like for like plus 10 that's kind of a simple assumption

[3:37:51] that I think we could utilize so I do urge you pass this it's a wonderful

[3:38:00] step forward and it really emphasizes that you guys are behind rebuilding and

[3:38:08] and quickly, thank you.

[3:38:10] Thanks Scott, Janet, followed by Abe, followed

[3:38:17] by Brian, Merrick.

[3:38:21] Good evening, all of you.

[3:38:24] These remarks are targeted toward putting the requests in AA into a sort of a positive historical perspective on our own very special city.

[3:38:34] And to do that, I'd take you back to 1993, 1994, to the old Topanga fire that burned 369 homes.

[3:38:43] of which 268 were in a brand new city of Malibu.

[3:38:49] And the Malibu City Council and the planning personnel

[3:38:53] all were tired and helped our family

[3:38:56] build a highly resilient house

[3:39:00] that would, in fact today,

[3:39:03] withstand the onslaught that came with the 2025 fire.

[3:39:08] And this was not a quick and easy rebuild

[3:39:10] like the very first fire permit after the 1993 fire.

[3:39:15] This was for a literal like for like, very simple home,

[3:39:19] same foundation, the top of Big Rock,

[3:39:21] just a couple months to get that permit.

[3:39:24] Instead, we put in a new foundation,

[3:39:27] we moved ground level, square footage up to the second floor.

[3:39:31] We added lots of fire resistant materials and variety

[3:39:34] of other things, all rebuilt on the same footprint,

[3:39:38] and within 10% of the original size.

[3:39:42] Now without the support of the council members at that time,

[3:39:47] that includes some names.

[3:39:49] You'll be familiar with Walt Keller, John Harlow,

[3:39:53] Carolyn Van Horn, Joan House, Jeff Kramer,

[3:39:57] as well as the city manager, Carmani,

[3:40:00] and planning director Bernard.

[3:40:03] We were able to be number, permit number 32.

[3:40:06] two, okay, exactly one year after the fire took our home.

[3:40:13] That was November 3rd, 1994.

[3:40:16] And do you know who was one of the planners who worked with our architect and

[3:40:22] our contractor?

[3:40:25] Yep, Councilmember and now Mayor, Mary Ann Riggins, so yes, you?

[3:40:34] I was in here in 93 and 94 we have evidence that you stamped it actually well

[3:40:43] not me I swear okay all right well you must have been there mentally I didn't

[3:40:47] say the total of 2.5 I know I'm sorry don't cut her time on that one so shall I

[3:40:58] take you out then yes please okay we'll take you out I as much credit as I'd

[3:41:01] I love to take, I can't.

[3:41:03] But we do believe you can do it, Mary-Anne.

[3:41:06] Right.

[3:41:07] And we know it can be done in council members

[3:41:11] and the planners need the discretion and the tools

[3:41:15] to do their job and that we know you can do that.

[3:41:18] So we are personally forever grateful for all the health

[3:41:22] that we receive from the council and from planning.

[3:41:27] And we hope that the current council

[3:41:29] So it can be sort of like Walt, John, Carolyn, Joan, and Jeff, and get this move this forward

[3:41:36] because we know you can do it.

[3:41:38] Thank you.

[3:41:41] Averyway and Brian Merrick and Merza.

[3:41:48] All right.

[3:41:48] Well, happy New York Council.

[3:41:50] It's good to see you.

[3:41:51] I'm going to make three points in favor of the resolution.

[3:41:57] You heard Scott mentioned GO.

[3:41:59] So, if you sort of take a big picture of you unquestionably, particularly for the

[3:42:04] Landside Homes, geo is the number one gating item.

[3:42:08] And I'm not saying this from a city standpoint.

[3:42:11] I'm actually saying this from an overall perspective, which is the homeowner is taking, it takes

[3:42:17] weeks and months for the homeowner's geo staff to get the report back to them.

[3:42:22] Then it takes several weeks for the city to review it, and then it's followed by several

[3:42:27] weeks of deliberations over the recommendations.

[3:42:30] So if there is anything which I know AIDA will effectively streamline that process, to an

[3:42:37] extent, and there were other discussion which is going to be helpful as well, which we heard

[3:42:41] earlier this evening, GEO needs to be the number one priority in terms of accelerating the

[3:42:48] rebuilds.

[3:42:49] The second point, and Danny touched upon this as well, is we heard chatter that this is

[3:42:54] It's about removing oversight or letting the homeowners run wild.

[3:42:59] It's far from that.

[3:43:00] There is no circumventing of any sort of due diligence.

[3:43:03] In fact, it's the opposite when there is license share at stake.

[3:43:09] People tend to get more conservative.

[3:43:11] And the design teams tend to make recommendations that are more conservative.

[3:43:15] And this we heard firsthand from the city of LA as well.

[3:43:20] The third point, which is perhaps the most interesting one, is the chatter leading up to this meeting is that apparently 8A is a developer's dream, it is exactly the opposite of that.

[3:43:34] Developers would welcome complexities that would push the homeowners and the rebuilders into the arms of the developers because they have the wherewithal, they have the knowledge, they have the budget, they have the resources and they have the understanding to tackle all of this.

[3:43:48] the homeowners and the rebuilders don't.

[3:43:51] So this is exactly the opposite of being a developer's dream.

[3:43:56] In fact, the developers would want you to reject AIDA.

[3:44:00] Thank you.

[3:44:02] Thank you.

[3:44:04] Brian, Merrick, and then Marissa.

[3:44:17] Thanks again, I just hear a little bit to finish up on what I started earlier,

[3:44:22] which is for your benefit to a certain extent.

[3:44:26] But I'm in favor of this because I do believe that this has been around.

[3:44:31] We wouldn't, I think the City of Malibu really fails a lot of the time throughout its history by not planning for things in the future.

[3:44:41] So I like the idea that we're thinking about that.

[3:44:44] I just want to note that while we're about to get our permit, I hope we're almost 800,000 into this with all the fees and

[3:44:53] everything that we're doing to try and rebuild this beach house and it's only 3800 square feet.

[3:45:00] Some of the things that we ran into that maybe you need to look upon would be the fire department for two or three weeks. I think that may have been solved but the fire department, you know, requested a fuel modification plan for our b-chance. Okay, so those are just reasonable things, right? And finally, it got overturned. I don't think Halen's question was totally answered by the CalTrans thing. I did talk to Rob. You should ask Rob again about what we talked about as far as municipal code of the city of Malibu requiring a very

[3:45:32] We're not really new seawalls, we're trying to replace something that was there before, and that's what's holding its up currently from what I understand, this is from my architects.

[3:45:42] So based on this, what is the definition of a wildfire? Is it a declared disaster by the state or federal?

[3:45:50] I mean, or is it a wildfire, just like, hey, it started in the canyons and it burned one house like who gets the benefit from this?

[3:45:57] So what are the definitions of that?

[3:45:59] Is there a limit on how many houses must be destroyed for that to kick in, right?

[3:46:05] And then how much of a structure does this apply to like a guest house?

[3:46:10] What exactly are we talking about as far as that goes?

[3:46:13] And how much of that structure can be destroyed before it kicks in?

[3:46:17] What if only 50% or what if 25% of it was destroyed?

[3:46:21] Do you get the benefits of this?

[3:46:24] I tend to agree with what I've heard up here from these other people for the most part.

[3:46:28] So I just want to make sure that there aren't weird little loopholes for people.

[3:46:34] But otherwise, I think pre-planning is a good idea, thank you.

[3:46:39] I'm going to say you're the final in person and then we'll go to our online speakers.

[3:46:43] Hello,

[3:46:48] my concern is with some people who I'm representing now, having trouble based on the VE zone elevations doing the BFE plus one foot, because they're going to either have a detached garage separate and then they'll have to have an elevator to take them to their front door or something and some of the property owners have lived here for a long time in their senior citizens.

[3:47:13] One of them has a wife in a wheelchair, and he would have to accommodate her getting it.

[3:47:19] The ADA, there's no ADA compliance in the rebuild formula.

[3:47:24] I tried to look around that, but I went back to the Stanford Act as amended in 2013.

[3:47:31] And that's under, that controls FEMA, and correct me if I'm just not remembering that our disaster was not federally declared.

[3:47:39] it? Am I incorrect? I'm yes or no? It was. Okay. So even given that, if there's a way

[3:47:49] to do a work around, because if they don't have insurance, FEMA, or anything to replace

[3:47:55] it, they're all, you know, under-insured, many of them are under-insured. The ones that

[3:47:59] have the VE zone of like 27 or something are going to have trouble even rebuilding.

[3:48:08] And

[3:48:09] I think if we can find an avenue, and I can go over with any of you individually, or something else, to reflect on how we're implementing it.

[3:48:19] Because it's okay to say foot plus ten, but if you can't even put it in the same place and you have to put it higher, then the previous house, because you have to meet the base flood elevation plus a foot for your finished floor structural across member, then that's a problem for a lot of these people.

[3:48:36] I've been running into it.

[3:48:38] I've got four projects right now that are having this problem.

[3:48:41] Most of them are down by Topanga.

[3:48:43] And also another thing I think that if CalTrans

[3:48:47] and this addresses the septic issue too, if CalTrans

[3:48:51] wants their highway to stop sliding into these things,

[3:48:54] they should pay for the retaining walls that protect their highway.

[3:48:59] And then that also impacts the way that a bulkhead

[3:49:03] that is designed to protect a septic system.

[3:49:06] Okay, Bruce is confused, but I don't want to give you too much detail because nobody understands

[3:49:10] it.

[3:49:11] I could talk to you individually, but I think that there are some avenues that might be

[3:49:16] helpful to them if they're having trouble putting it in the same footprint and not have

[3:49:20] to have a break-away garage or separate access.

[3:49:24] Okay, Bruce is dying to ask me something, I need to tell you.

[3:49:27] Do you want to ask a question?

[3:49:28] I appreciate the information and knowledge you bring to these meetings on these matters, but I'm really having a difficult time tying any of these comments to the item that's on the agenda.

[3:49:40] No, and I apologize that we've been dealing with for the past year, so is there a point that I'm missing?

[3:49:45] No, no, you're not missing.

[3:49:47] I just wanted to get that in because other times when I've spoken I haven't had the opportunity to get it in and this is all transpired prior to those since those other times.

[3:49:57] This is a little civil-loved circulation.

[3:49:59] I just not provide in here being the last person.

[3:50:01] I got it.

[3:50:02] Okay.

[3:50:02] Thank you.

[3:50:04] Okay.

[3:50:05] Do we still have two hands?

[3:50:07] Yes.

[3:50:07] Okay.

[3:50:08] Joe Dremond.

[3:50:12] Joe, are you there?

[3:50:15] Yes.

[3:50:16] I have a couple of numbers.

[3:50:17] Item matters because it addresses the single biggest cause of fire, rebuild delay.

[3:50:22] Not because we can say standards, but rebuilds on previously developed stable blocks and mitigated

[3:50:27] landslide areas, full geotechnical investigation should not be required, and big rock we receive

[3:50:33] landslide monitoring reports every single year which consistently show no measurable movement

[3:50:37] for at least three decades. Regardless, prescriptive building codes already allow construction in

[3:50:43] landslide areas when conservative design standards are met. This is the law today here and internationally,

[3:50:49] so the mere presence of a map landslide go and should not be used to justify months of additional

[3:50:54] studies where long-term stability is already documented. Under current practice geotechnical

[3:50:59] alone takes eight months or more, even for like-for-like rebuilds of homes that lawfully and safely

[3:51:04] supported existing homes through storms, earthquakes, and fire fires for decades. Many built before

[3:51:09] 1970. After Woolsey and Palisade, one of the best actions the city took was removing cotton

[3:51:14] shires from built rebuild review. By wielding their power over rebuilds projects were repeatedly

[3:51:19] easily solved by unnecessary and escalating requirements.

[3:51:22] By contrast, when you land a Bundy intervened, project moved forward appropriately.

[3:51:27] In my own case, the 64-square-foot deck built before the fire, she allowed staff to rely

[3:51:32] on a standard engineering practice and deferred to my life and structural engineer.

[3:51:36] That deck was negligible in sizing risks like our rebuilds, and it remained standing today.

[3:51:40] So there is precedent here.

[3:51:42] Meanwhile, my 84-year-old neighbor on seaboard of the first permit issued in Big Rock was required

[3:51:47] large and install 19 caselines under an uninhabited garage.

[3:51:50] Any practicing geologist or engineer will tell you that is overkill.

[3:51:53] And serve it of calculations would demonstrate this immediately.

[3:51:57] This is about process failure, not safety.

[3:51:59] Using conservative engineering assumptions informed by area-wide geotechnical data and observed

[3:52:04] historical site performance is standard practice and fully protective of public safety.

[3:52:09] Correcting the single requirement could reduce total rebuild for emitting timelines to roughly

[3:52:12] three months instead of nine months to two years and allow you to land our city attorney

[3:52:17] and council to be seen as champions of recovery. The current approaches financial devastation.

[3:52:22] Families are forced to carry mounting monthly expenses and fees while navigating a fragmented

[3:52:26] plan check process marked by late surprise reviews that rendered advertised 10 day timelines

[3:52:31] meaningless. We support this funding decision to hire the Santa Rosa Geotechnical Review Consultants.

[3:52:36] This must support recovery not incentivize complexity. You may hear this item enable self-certification

[3:52:41] are undermined staff, it does neither.

[3:52:44] Engineers already carry legal responsibility, staff still would use plans, inspectors and

[3:52:48] geologists remain on site during construction, the city retains full enforcement authority.

[3:52:53] The Governor's emergency orders require cities to streamline a lot of fire rebuilding.

[3:52:57] We are asking council to direct staff to allow conservative prescriptive engineering assumptions

[3:53:02] to rebuild up to 10%, rely on area-wide geotechnical data and long-term historical performance, assign

[3:53:08] I'm one accountable plan check lead with full disclosure of requirements and reviews on intake and force clear binding review time lines with just in with state mandates.

[3:53:16] The city is legally responsible for enabling recovery not for allowing the city.

[3:53:20] Thank you, Joe.

[3:53:20] What's next speaker?

[3:53:25] Tina Siegel.

[3:53:27] Tina, are you there?

[3:53:29] I'm here. Can you hear me?

[3:53:31] Yes, we can.

[3:53:31] Please go ahead.

[3:53:33] Okay, first of all mayor and council member, thank you for taking time to hear what I have to say.

[3:53:37] My name is Tina Siegel, our family have been Malibu homeowners for over 50 years.

[3:53:43] 50 years ago, two families pulled their resources to buy their dream home for $200,000 or less.

[3:53:49] They weren't millionaires, just two families who dreamed of owning a home on the most beautiful beach in California, LaCosta.

[3:53:57] Over 50 years of four generations, creating the best memories any family could ever imagine.

[3:54:02] birthday parties, fishing with grandpa, swimming all day,

[3:54:06] batchisms, grinning runnings, taking our blue and red

[3:54:09] rafts all the way to Toys and Sports,

[3:54:11] Hickory Burgers, and watching endless summer for the

[3:54:14] millionth time at Mount Augustinima.

[3:54:16] One year ago, we watched all those memories go up in

[3:54:20] flames, all but three homes gone, 60 some homes destroyed.

[3:54:26] Walking onto that property, my property last week,

[3:54:29] wall after wall after wall covered in graffiti I just wet. I was one of the

[3:54:35] first to hand in person all the documents we were asked to submit with great

[3:54:40] hope of a speedy process due to promises fees would be waived and the process

[3:54:45] would be streamlined. Sadly those promises were not upheld. My plans submitted

[3:54:51] long ago rejected twice already still await the first step of a permit. I'm so

[3:54:57] Go tired of answering the question, how's the rebuild going?

[3:55:01] Please adopt this resolution.

[3:55:04] Please let us rebuild quickly so we can go back home.

[3:55:09] Thank you.

[3:55:11] Thank you.

[3:55:12] That'll conclude our public comments.

[3:55:16] Hey, who wants to go first?

[3:55:25] Rochanda?

[3:55:33] You know, listening to the comments, I get, I guess, one major impression.

[3:55:39] No matter what we do, it's not going to be good enough.

[3:55:42] That's what we do.

[3:55:44] I mean, yeah, but we listened to that.

[3:55:46] Again, we had this topic on the agenda.

[3:55:49] And we were all over the place.

[3:55:54] And that's going to make it more difficult.

[3:55:59] I guess I get two thoughts.

[3:56:04] One, the Bruce described it, you know,

[3:56:09] I still think falls under the category of self-certification

[3:56:12] of the applicants,

[3:56:17] engineer, developer, whatever the heck it is, trying to come up with a range of what is available or not available.

[3:56:25] And whether, how they get the city planner to agree that that range is exists, and how they're going to, how they're going to pick and choose from that, I don't understand yet.

[3:56:37] I mean, I just think that presents more complexity to the whole building issue.

[3:56:44] second thing I think we just got to realize just because I put a piece of paper

[3:56:49] together it says you know we're going to this is going to get done in four days

[3:56:54] this means going to happen that way I don't know how many of you have worked inside

[3:56:58] of a corporation trying to get things done and you got to go back I mean we

[3:57:02] started off with nothing right I mean this this was a we went from zero to

[3:57:09] however many miles an hour we're going through right now it took us a while to get

[3:57:12] You don't do that overnight, and I'm just afraid if we sit down and say, okay, we're going to get it done in four days or five days, and that's going to be the absolute limit of what we're going to do.

[3:57:24] We're not always going to get there. I mean, I think everybody's trying.

[3:57:28] And I think if I've seen anything take place, we talked about it earlier in the meeting.

[3:57:35] I think your line day has made huge strides in making this thing work better, and I think there are more strides to come.

[3:57:42] I think she's got a huge task of trying to train all these consultants she got in there.

[3:57:47] You got to keep those guys on track, that's just that's not easy.

[3:57:50] I mean, we had to bring in a whole do staff of people to try and get all this stuff done.

[3:57:55] And that has certainly slowed things down.

[3:57:57] And I don't think this resolution is going to make a difference in that.

[3:58:01] So I've got some concerns about what this is actually going to accomplish for us.

[3:58:05] And I was going to meet the comments I heard to folks giving us.

[3:58:09] I mean, I don't know if it's going to get you what you want.

[3:58:14] I may have more to say, but let somebody else go for a while.

[3:58:19] Okay.

[3:58:24] First off, I hear the cries for making things work better.

[3:58:30] And if you look back on what the city has done,

[3:58:33] and I'm not trying to take, say, we could have done things better,

[3:58:38] we changed the municipal code.

[3:58:40] We've got the governor to change the rules for CEQA and Coastal Commission that are permanent.

[3:58:48] These are built under the Malibu Municipal Code now.

[3:58:52] We've made major changes to get to where we are.

[3:58:55] And don't forget this city, when I got voted in to this office, the city's philosophy was

[3:59:02] do everything you can to not have a building be added to this inventory.

[3:59:07] And that's part of what's actually written into this, you know, there's two different rules.

[3:59:11] Rebuilds are one thing, new constructions are another.

[3:59:15] So, yeah, we had a system set up that was designed to slow-walk everything as opposed to expedite anything.

[3:59:24] And we made some pretty good changes to that.

[3:59:25] And a lot of these are permanent changes.

[3:59:28] So, yeah, it's a different world than we had a year ago tonight.

[3:59:33] But we still need things to be improved.

[3:59:36] And Yolanda has done a lot of things to make things better.

[3:59:40] We hadn't even implemented the Baker Tilly Report,

[3:59:43] which was a critical part about how we could make our planning

[3:59:46] and building a safety process better.

[3:59:49] That would even consider.

[3:59:51] So there's a lot of baggage that need to be cleared out of the way.

[3:59:55] Now, I'm not saying this isn't a step in the right direction,

[3:59:58] but I got a lot of problems with this.

[4:00:00] And I've also heard some words that people have said in the public comments that are designed

[4:00:08] to say, if you take this route, you're wrong. Let's see if we really are wrong. And let me

[4:00:15] take you through a couple of things. First off, I've got a question to Bruce and Hailey.

[4:00:20] Why didn't you have the city staff associated with you on this? It's one thing that had the

[4:00:26] the council, which has to do with this in public, but why is this not, as it says in here, the attached resolution in this report was provided by Mayor Pro Tem Silverstein and Council Member Conrad, this report is not contained analysis or recommendations prepared by the staff.

[4:00:41] We have some of the best people in town and in the area, and we didn't talk to them. How come?

[4:00:52] Because we're elected officials and we are these policies, we spoke to them,

[4:01:00] we spoke to them, and this is our, this is inside of our purview from what I've understood.

[4:01:07] We're counsel, this is, we make policy, this is policy, we did speak to them, I spoke to them.

[4:01:16] So, yeah, the answer is, first of all, it's not an accurate premise that there was no conversation, so it's kind of like when did you stop beating your wife type question, and I know it was intentional.

[4:01:28] But the fact is, we did have conversations, I'm going to come back to them, but we've been operating without a city manager for a year.

[4:01:37] When this fire came, we didn't have our permanent city manager, he had gone AWOL.

[4:01:42] We did bring in a very competent interim, but it was an interim who was here more to keep the peace and make sure the lights stayed on and provide an empathetic view to the residents because she was a resident, but she was not a city manager who had the ability to deal with these kinds of policy issues, big picture issues.

[4:02:06] So, we didn't have a city manager, even the subordinate staff at the senior level was gone.

[4:02:13] They ditched us after the fire.

[4:02:15] In fact, they ditched us because they didn't like the fact that the city council was making

[4:02:19] policy decisions that were ultimately redundant to everybody's benefit.

[4:02:24] They were upset with the fact that they thought we were outside of our lane, but we weren't.

[4:02:28] We were actually completely in our lane.

[4:02:31] Yolanda is stretched ridiculously thin.

[4:02:35] She's concentrating on running the program, not designing the programs, even working

[4:02:41] on that too, but she's stretched extremely thin, so is Tyler.

[4:02:46] And it's not our job to speak with the subordinate staff, we don't actually not even allow to.

[4:02:51] So we came to all, we had all these town hall meetings, we had multiple special city council

[4:02:58] meeting, there was all kinds of input from the staff, from the residents, from other city council members.

[4:03:06] And as a result of taking all of that in, we took the laboring or of actually writing something up because we didn't have a staff that had the bandwidth or in the case of the senior management, the experience to do it.

[4:03:20] We stepped up to the plate and we did what needed to be done.

[4:03:23] We then did meet with Tyler and Yolanda, and we heard their comments.

[4:03:29] They weren't happy with everything we did, but you know what, as much as we love them

[4:03:35] and want them to do the great job they're doing, it is as Helen just said, our job to establish

[4:03:41] the policies and the rules and it's their job to implement them.

[4:03:46] And we actually made a lot of changes to the language, to accommodate concerns that were

[4:03:52] raised by a lot of the entire about some things that maybe we had gone further than they,

[4:03:57] we had gone even further than they would, much we had gone further than they would like

[4:04:01] in some areas that we kept it, but in other areas where we were receptive to the comments

[4:04:05] and we made changes and now we can hash it out, but I don't think it's a basis for rejecting

[4:04:12] this that, well said it's not a basis for actually what we didn't deal with the staff because

[4:04:16] we actually did, and if the question is why did you deal with the lower level staff, again,

[4:04:24] you know as well as I do. We're not even allowed to do that. But we're not ordinary times.

[4:04:30] Right, and the way that I see it, this is policy and we're policy makers, and people have, I mean,

[4:04:36] they've elected us. We're in a position. We're not implementers. We are looking at problems,

[4:04:42] and we are supposed to solve them and we're supposed to put them into policy.

[4:04:46] And then we go to the staff who's extremely competent and they implement it.

[4:04:51] And this is us doing our job in my opinion.

[4:04:54] And I would be very proud of a council that would be doing this if I was on that side of

[4:04:59] the audience.

[4:05:03] Other questions?

[4:05:04] Well, I have other questions.

[4:05:05] I hear you, but I'll say a disagreement on this because one of the things that you learned

[4:05:11] in leading large numbers of people, is you have to build a consensus.

[4:05:15] People have to be willing to follow you, not just take your orders.

[4:05:20] And that's the difference between policy 100% versus consensus building.

[4:05:26] And I would, I'm not going to put them on a spot, but I'd love to know whether or not

[4:05:30] you'll want to, and the rest of the staff thinks this is something that ought to be

[4:05:35] implemented or not, or how, which parts they disagree with.

[4:05:38] But we're not going to do that tonight.

[4:05:39] Let's just comment that, you know, all my career, we both had very successful careers

[4:05:45] in different areas, and a lot of people that were very successful in both of those areas

[4:05:50] do it based on the belief that consensus building is critical, and a lot of others do it on

[4:05:55] the basis that they actually understand what needs to be done, and they get it done whether

[4:05:59] other people agree or not.

[4:06:01] And there are plenty of failures in both ways, and there are plenty of successes in both

[4:06:04] ways.

[4:06:04] is one of those ways or for the other is not necessarily better.

[4:06:08] The result is what matters.

[4:06:11] That's right.

[4:06:11] And that's one of the things you want to try and ensure.

[4:06:14] And I think building a consensus is better.

[4:06:16] But that's all right.

[4:06:17] We'll get past that.

[4:06:20] I'm a little taken back by the comment recommended action

[4:06:25] to request the mayor of Pro Tem and Silverstein

[4:06:27] and Council Member Conrad, discuss to provide direction

[4:06:30] on the attach resolution.

[4:06:31] This is because the staff didn't put this together.

[4:06:36] Look, let's go back to how this City Council works, and

[4:06:38] what our resolutions are and how we work.

[4:06:41] We all have the ability to make this Council member proposals.

[4:06:47] The staff also puts things on the agenda.

[4:06:49] When they put them on the agenda, they prepare a report.

[4:06:52] When we prepare something, they don't create a report for us.

[4:06:57] In fact, this is one of the reasons I ran for City Council five years ago, for the first time.

[4:07:00] I was offended by the fact that the staff was micromanaging the City Council.

[4:07:06] I don't mean the staff at the, the staff as in, like Yolanda's level.

[4:07:10] I mean, the van city manager, they were micr, she was micromanaging the City Council.

[4:07:15] City Council couldn't get anything on an agenda, they wanted it, unless it went through the boss.

[4:07:20] But that was not the right boss.

[4:07:23] So, we don't get the staff won't prepare report for us when we do something like this.

[4:07:27] The only way we can get a staff report is if we take six months to go through this consensus-building activity and have it changed in all kinds of ways and have them then prepare a report, that's their recommendation, but this is not a staff recommendation, this is a city council member recommendation, it's from two out of five, and I think that we're entitled to the respect of having it reviewed on the merits and the mere fact that we presented it as opposed to the

[4:07:57] the staff presenting it is not in and of itself a meaningful objection.

[4:08:00] No, my question was really, what are you asking this council to do?

[4:08:04] Adopt this resolution?

[4:08:05] It says direction.

[4:08:07] I was just trying to figure out because it says direction on the attached resolution.

[4:08:13] Yeah, the direction would be approve the resolution.

[4:08:15] You know, look, we didn't write this, we didn't even write this, this, this front report.

[4:08:20] We didn't have any approval of this front report.

[4:08:22] I would have written a different way.

[4:08:24] All right.

[4:08:24] I don't have a problem with much of what's in here, but I do have a problem with your number one and number two paragraph.

[4:08:35] And one of the comments I want to read back hurts several times about the geology.

[4:08:44] People have been reaching out to Santa Rosa to get their input.

[4:08:49] And there's really two different versions of their input from Santa Rosa.

[4:08:53] And I want to read the part about geology.

[4:08:57] This is from the chief building official, in fact, last week, I guess it's a Jimmy Bliss.

[4:09:05] And he says, and this is addressed to Joe Drummond and a variety of other people.

[4:09:09] And I'm included on this, I think some of the council members.

[4:09:14] And here's the quote, the California Building Residential Code did not allow the building official to waive requirements in general only to interpret them.

[4:09:22] You see the California Residue Code so-and-so.

[4:09:25] Many of the properties destroyed by our fires were up in the hills and a combination of

[4:09:29] fire and subsequent demolition, grading operations significantly changed many of the soil properties,

[4:09:35] conditions in those areas.

[4:09:37] And the hills here is quite common for the slope and state of the soil to require geotechnical

[4:09:42] report anyways, and the reports typically recommend peer and great being foundations.

[4:09:47] On a case-by-case basis, where we were sometimes able to accept mostly in the flatter regions

[4:09:53] affected by the fires, older geotechnical reports for those properties of subdivisions.

[4:09:58] The only time the building official can allow work to proceed without a geological report

[4:10:03] is when they have sufficient evidence knowledge of a specific site to determine the proposed

[4:10:08] design is okay without it.

[4:10:10] Anywhere affected by, in their case, Bay mud, sandy soils, landslide areas, expansive

[4:10:16] soils, compressible soils, or areas on significant slopes would not typically fall in

[4:10:21] this category.

[4:10:23] Geotechnical reports are an important part of ensuring your future homes and businesses

[4:10:27] are built in a safe manner.

[4:10:30] I'd also highlight the fact that, you know, you're not doing this just for the home that's

[4:10:34] being built, but for everybody around it, to be down slope of a failing hillside, just a second.

[4:10:40] Yeah, just down slope of a failing hillside, where a house is going to fall on your house, that's not just a concern of the home builder of the home that's failing, but it's everybody around it, not to mention the values of properties.

[4:10:57] Especially when it could have been avoided by having the proper construction.

[4:11:00] I concur 100% with everything you just said, and I've said it myself in the past.

[4:11:07] And there's absolutely nothing in the language here if you read it word for word that says anything to the contrary.

[4:11:13] All right. I disagree.

[4:11:15] So let's talk about the language.

[4:11:17] Well, let's talk about structure here.

[4:11:19] You got two different ideas.

[4:11:22] And I know the comment was made.

[4:11:24] Let's don't make this self-certification.

[4:11:26] Wait a minute.

[4:11:27] What is this?

[4:11:28] When you look at number one, it says to that end, whenever there's a difference of opinion on an issue that the director of community development department recognizes to be different of opinion upon which reasonable professional civil engineers might differ.

[4:11:41] The city staff shall defer to the stamped and certified decision of the civil engineer employed by the applicant.

[4:11:48] So long as the engineer is a California licensed civil engineer, experience and particular practice that's implicated by this controversy and so forth.

[4:11:58] Now, what that does is say in self-certification, the homeowner or builder is responsible and takes the liability for the self-certification.

[4:12:11] In fact, it is recorded as such on the title.

[4:12:14] Now, on the title report, what you've done though here is to say that if you give me an engineering report,

[4:12:24] or say geology or structural and we don't agree with it,

[4:12:29] your applicant wins.

[4:12:31] Now, hold on, it's what I'm reading, but hold on.

[4:12:36] And if that's the case,

[4:12:37] we're gonna issue a building permit

[4:12:40] and now the city takes the responsibility.

[4:12:42] So it doesn't say that, but to the extent

[4:12:46] you're concerned that it suggests

[4:12:48] that that's the point of this discussion now

[4:12:50] is we should tweak the words to get to the point

[4:12:52] where we all reached an agreement on what it should be.

[4:12:55] But let me just give you an analogy, because I was thinking about this in response to Steve's comment

[4:12:59] too earlier, where he said that it looks like a version of self-certification.

[4:13:05] And I am not sufficiently versed in building code issues to be able to give a specific example in

[4:13:12] the building code, maybe along the cache. But I'll give you an analogy in the law, which I think

[4:13:18] works pretty well. When there's a jury decision or at a bench trial, a judge's decision and

[4:13:25] somebody appeals, the question on appeal is not, is the party who lost right in the arguments

[4:13:33] about why they shouldn't have lost? The question isn't, should the party have, who won, should they

[4:13:39] have won? The question is, is there a basis in the record to support the decision that the jury

[4:13:46] the judge reached. What this is intended to do, and that's a pretty, that's a more liberal

[4:13:52] standard than this, by the way, what this is intended to do is say, when the appellate

[4:13:57] judge here, Yolanda, or whoever's in Yolanda, see at the time, looks at a range of

[4:14:03] alternatives, and the one that is being advocated by the homeowner is within one of those

[4:14:09] alternatives that she believes is fair and appropriate and fits the requirements.

[4:14:14] that notwithstanding the fact that she might personally have reached a different decision

[4:14:19] had she been on the jury, she'll affirm the decision that's being presented to her because

[4:14:25] it falls within a range of reasonable approaches. It doesn't say that if it isn't within that range,

[4:14:32] in her judgment, that she will approve it. It says that if it's in that range, so as long as it hits

[4:14:39] the range, even if it's at the bottom end and she likes to be more cautious than that, and she would

[4:14:43] rather than be 20% better than the minimum requirement.

[4:14:47] She won't impose that requirement on them

[4:14:49] because they've hit the minimum that they're required to.

[4:14:52] So, she's saying, if I run a jury,

[4:14:55] I might not have, I had a rule for that party,

[4:14:57] but I understand why that party...

[4:15:00] Already won. It's a fair and just result, and I'm going to therefore go with it. Okay. Bruce, we're not going to court a lot. Let me give you a, let me give you a hundred percent example of why this is fatal. And I also will tell you why this is a developer's dream.

[4:15:17] The developer that wants to build like for Lake Riverville. You bet. Let's take my house built in 1998 to 2000. I have a very well respected architect engineer came up and said,

[4:15:31] I said, for my house, it's going to have a, and the contractors I do know is, a post-tension

[4:15:36] slam came to the city, and they said, that's a fast.

[4:15:42] You're on a hillside slope.

[4:15:44] You need 23 K-sides.

[4:15:47] The extra cost in 2000 was about $100,000, today that's $500,000.

[4:15:53] That's within the range you just described, a post-tension slam by a contractor that's experienced

[4:16:00] in Malibu versus what the city required.

[4:16:03] Now, 20 years later, the hillside down the street

[4:16:07] for me failed.

[4:16:09] $7 million to fix the project.

[4:16:13] And my house, one of the comforts I had was, I'm on 23 K-sons.

[4:16:18] The house had been on just the post-tension slab.

[4:16:21] Might have moved more.

[4:16:23] And we would have a different problem.

[4:16:25] But here's the advance.

[4:16:26] Here's what happens.

[4:16:27] And let's take our guys to New Zealand

[4:16:28] and just to pick on them for them.

[4:16:30] Who's some of the people that are promoting some of this

[4:16:34] may actually have a relationship with them.

[4:16:37] They're going to have this property,

[4:16:39] these units constructed in China.

[4:16:42] And you can have a California engineer in China,

[4:16:46] certify whatever they're doing,

[4:16:48] structural design and so forth.

[4:16:49] How's the city going to override that with your language

[4:16:52] that says that there's a range of possibilities

[4:16:55] within their determination, professional determination.

[4:17:00] And the answer is, well, you might lose your license.

[4:17:02] The city's not overriding anything.

[4:17:04] Since not overriding anything.

[4:17:05] The city is in the first instance evaluating the proposal.

[4:17:09] And this is where you get a question who is right.

[4:17:13] So you got the engineer in China who is certified by California

[4:17:19] is licensed.

[4:17:20] And he says, or she says, I think the structural design works.

[4:17:24] works for us in other places it's within the range of possibilities as opposed to having

[4:17:31] the city decide what's confident. Now hold on for us if you've got 16 lots and you can

[4:17:38] build them for a half a million dollars cheaper the developer just picks up 8 million dollars

[4:17:43] worth of profit. You're creating a straw man? No I'm not creating a straw man. I'm giving an example

[4:17:48] where this is going to go.

[4:17:50] And the reason why I say this, if you had self-certification,

[4:17:54] the homeowner developer would have to be responsible for it.

[4:17:58] And this is the reason why the major home builders

[4:18:01] in the United States, or at least in San Diego and Phoenix,

[4:18:04] have said we're not touching self-certification

[4:18:07] because we're responsible for it.

[4:18:08] But when you take the approach you have here,

[4:18:11] the city becomes responsible for it.

[4:18:13] I think you'd be a lot better off

[4:18:15] if we didn't have any part of this right here at number two.

[4:18:18] And let the city staff make the decision because it's our permit that's on it, our name.

[4:18:24] And by the way, one of the things that isn't mentioned here,

[4:18:29] who's got the liability insurance for a bad decision by the outside engineer?

[4:18:34] The answer, hold on.

[4:18:36] Did you know that California doesn't require liability insurance for any engineers?

[4:18:42] I'm going to submit to you that you're misreading this, and I think a lot of people are, first of all, the language in here about stamped and certified decision of the civil engineer employed by an applicant, so long as such civil engineer is a California license civil engineer experience in the particular practice that is implicated by the item and controversy is not an indication of who has to be relied upon.

[4:19:08] It's actually a requirement before you even get to the question of whether you consider what they're proposing.

[4:19:14] So in other words, if someone who doesn't have these qualifications presents something, this doesn't apply at all.

[4:19:23] This does not say that when someone has those qualifications, the city is obliged to do as they say, which I think is what you're assuming,

[4:19:32] and I think what Steve was assuming too, in the way he was describing it.

[4:19:35] What this says is that, first of all, if it's not someone who meets those qualifications, they're irrelevant.

[4:19:41] They just, you know, they're showing the door.

[4:19:43] If they do meet those qualifications and they present a plan, and the city reviews the plan.

[4:19:48] And the city is satisfied that the plan meets the legal requirements.

[4:19:54] Then notwithstanding the fact that there may be some better way to do it that is more conservative than the applicable legal requirement,

[4:20:02] the city won't impose that additional legal requirement.

[4:20:06] This is another, this is an example of how to apply the rule that's being set forth,

[4:20:12] which says don't impose any rules that aren't in the law.

[4:20:17] So it's a straw man to say that this means we're going to have to do it because they say it's within a reasonable range.

[4:20:23] The determiner of whether it is or is not within the range is the city.

[4:20:29] So, the city has already made a decision that it 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] Yeah, who's going to do that?

[4:20:39] You're going to have to say, you're going to have to say, you've got to have that.

[4:20:41] The Director of the Community Development Department, it says it explicitly.

[4:20:47] Now, that person, whoever it is at the time, right now, Gelanda, can certainly, in the

[4:20:52] first instance, have other members of the staff make the recommendation, or even

[4:20:57] the decision if she wants to defer it to them, she's not, because she's the building

[4:21:01] official.

[4:21:03] So she is making these decisions as it is right now.

[4:21:06] All this is, is saying again, in two different sentences in a paragraph,

[4:21:11] we're only going to require what the law requires.

[4:21:15] And again, I'm confident Yolanda is doing exactly that.

[4:21:18] And this is, Yolanda is doing exactly that.

[4:21:20] She's not requiring anything that the law doesn't require, because it's not her job

[4:21:24] to invent new rules, it's her job to apply the law, she's applying the law, she understands it.

[4:21:30] Again, this is a future-looking document, this is to make sure that the next City Council with the next disaster doesn't have to take nine months to get to this point, and that the next community development director, when this happens ten years from now, doesn't have to spend nine months to get to this point.

[4:21:46] And maybe that person won't have the same approach you'll want, it may be that Lauren Doyle would be the community director, or a person who I don't mean Lauren, or a person like that.

[4:21:57] And this is saying don't do what you were doing, do what the law requires, it's just, I don't understand how you're getting this point that we have to follow somebody.

[4:22:09] We don't.

[4:22:10] This makes very clear, over and over again, the law governs and the decision of the community

[4:22:16] development department, department director, is going to decide what the law is.

[4:22:22] All right, thank you.

[4:22:23] Can I just jump in, because I think we're going to end up going around the circles here.

[4:22:27] And by the way, one last thing, I wouldn't support this, but if your problem is with that sentence,

[4:22:33] you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[4:22:37] If you have a problem with particular sentence, we talk about taking the sentence out or changing the sentence,

[4:22:42] but there's still a whole bunch of other stuff in here that I'm not here in criticism.

[4:22:46] Oh, well, we haven't gotten to that yet, so just thank you.

[4:22:49] Well, let me just one thing here, because I think when you have Steve, myself, and Doug, all rating this,

[4:22:58] and we're all rating it a certain way, that maybe it's not written in a way that you intend,

[4:23:04] that it's not coming across how you're intending to be.

[4:23:10] What I think that we, if we were to look at this, one thing that we need to be doing is that just further

[4:23:19] stipulating that minimum code requirements when it comes to the building code is what is accepted across the board.

[4:23:28] If somebody wants to propose higher construction standards than a minimum code, they're welcome to do that.

[4:23:37] But the building code is very clear as it is the minimum code standards.

[4:23:43] And the design professionals that are out there also are in this choosing to recommend higher code standards.

[4:23:54] But the minimum code is all they need to be so I think that you know we're reading this I think in a similar manner

[4:24:03] So I don't think it's intended to say what you think it is so at the very minimum

[4:24:10] We need to go through number one and really clarify

[4:24:14] What the intention is and how it can be improved to actually say

[4:24:20] minimum code standards is what should be applied.

[4:24:23] I just want to bring up one thing.

[4:24:25] When you talk about having a building official, make a decision.

[4:24:29] Which you really are back to the same system we have today, where the applicant

[4:24:33] submits their proposed engineering for structural or geology or whatever.

[4:24:39] And then the city has employed people to review it.

[4:24:44] And if the city's reviewers say that you need to do this and

[4:24:48] this because of their local knowledge of the hillsides or the structural issues.

[4:24:54] Who wins in that argument?

[4:24:56] And the answer should be since we're issuing the building permit and

[4:24:59] we're the ones taking the liability for the decision, it should be our city staff that makes a call.

[4:25:05] It's exactly what it's asked for to somebody that has nothing to lose.

[4:25:09] Once again, it's exactly what it says.

[4:25:11] And secondly, I take issue repeatedly when residents say this or

[4:25:14] Or I should say when the people that appear before us in land use matters appear to say this, and I take issue and you say it, and I don't think you do it intentionally, we don't have liability just because somebody does something that ends up years later being a problem.

[4:25:27] The standards for liability for when a city or any other when a municipality approves a permit are extremely narrow, and they're not at all just because it was wrong or shouldn't have been approved that you have liability.

[4:25:40] It's a red herring, and it shouldn't come into the conversation, which should be deciding what makes sense not being concerned about fake liability.

[4:25:48] I have a bill on one site.

[4:25:50] I'm assuming yes, after the girls got killed on PCH.

[4:25:53] They're not getting a judgment, are they?

[4:25:54] That's a web, they're suing.

[4:25:56] Well, I'll just say, here's the other thing.

[4:25:57] If you go to Gore Hills, over by the wildlife crossing, that whole hillside fell away with houses and the city of a Gore Hills got responsibility for

[4:26:09] planning process that they didn't do properly.

[4:26:12] So you can say all you want to about it being a red area, but that's not the way it works in real life.

[4:26:16] I've heard now so much conflicting information.

[4:26:22] I've heard that we're not liable as the city that we are liable if something goes wrong.

[4:26:29] What is the fact of the matter?

[4:26:32] Are we, if you have a certified, is the building department liable?

[4:26:41] Because I have waivers of indendity, I have heard so many different things now.

[4:26:47] Every permit requires the, I think it's too indemnifying to defend the, the city that's a requirement.

[4:26:52] The city also has a number of immunities that are, you know,

[4:26:56] required that protect the city and negligence related to the issuance of permits.

[4:27:02] So there's a lot of protections for cities that are built in there, but it's not impossible

[4:27:07] for a city to get sued or move, but it's difficult for a city to face liability over the approval

[4:27:19] of a permit.

[4:27:20] And are there waivers in which people sign when they're building?

[4:27:25] It's a sign-in indemnity provision is a requirement to identify and defend the city.

[4:27:34] Other types of, depending on the permit, there are other things, assumptions of a risk,

[4:27:39] or other types of documents that are required to be signed as well.

[4:27:42] You know, it doesn't make the point, and I agree from what I've said before.

[4:27:45] The mere fact that the applicant indemnifies the city doesn't, first, if a third party gets harmed,

[4:27:53] that is not very meaningful because easily the liability if there were one could exceed the wherewithal of the applicant to satisfy a judgment and then somebody would be looking to the city as well.

[4:28:07] And I don't ever make decisions on whether there will or won't be potential liability, I mean, I've been a lawyer for 40 years and when I represent my clients, that's what I tell them, don't ask me the question, what will my potential liability be if I don't do the right thing?

[4:28:21] The question is, what's the right thing to do?

[4:28:24] Because if you do the right thing in the first instance,

[4:28:27] you're not going to have a liability be concerned about.

[4:28:30] Could you get sued? Sure.

[4:28:33] The great thing about this country is it takes $75 for a filing fee or whatever it is,

[4:28:37] and anyone can sue anybody for anything.

[4:28:40] But the judicial system works it out.

[4:28:42] And as Trevor said, it's not impossible to be liable for something

[4:28:46] when you're a municipality approving a building permit.

[4:28:48] But it's extremely rare and it would require something a lot more than simply having made the wrong decision and we shouldn't be

[4:28:54] We shouldn't be getting all tied up worrying about liability when we should be trying to decide what's the right thing to do

[4:29:01] Let me just go in and you know think of the discussion we've had here

[4:29:06] however long now, okay

[4:29:09] How do you think this is gonna be absorbed by the staff when they start going through this thing?

[4:29:15] I mean, you think it's going to be a complex thing for everybody to understand and they

[4:29:19] should be know what the hell we're doing, and we do it right.

[4:29:22] And let me give you this process that said we can trust the professionals.

[4:29:28] Go back to the motel who was being built across from the pier.

[4:29:33] All right?

[4:29:33] Doug Burr has been constructing stuff in the city for a long, long time.

[4:29:37] And he proposed a garage that subterranean garage that really wasn't subterranean.

[4:29:42] All it was was built on the same level they put some dirt around the side and call this up to her any and the staff approved it

[4:29:49] Staff approved it

[4:29:51] So I'm just saying you know look

[4:29:54] To some point we have to we're paying Yolanda and her staff a lot of money and not a lot of money

[4:30:00] Probably not enough in line to apologize for that. But I mean, that's their job. That's where they hire these. Look, I don't, I don't know how many of these permits you've taken a look yet, or cable is taken a look yet. They've come into your channel. You don't, you've never seen one of these things. These people have, and we're paying them to do that. And they're good at it. And I don't want to take it away from them. That's exactly what you're doing. You're taking it away from them ability to do. And that's wrong. It does not take away anything.

[4:30:29] And it doesn't say trust anybody whatsoever.

[4:30:32] It actually says before you even get to have the benefit of a doubt, you have to be all these things.

[4:30:39] It's a licensed professional in the proper standard, in the proper field.

[4:30:43] But what this ultimately says is that it is the city that makes a decision as to whether the proposal is within a range that the law permits.

[4:30:57] We're just, that's exactly right, we're not really changing, we're memorializing it, it says community director, we're trusting her, we're, this is what we're doing, we're just putting it pen to paper, voting on it, if there are things that you don't like, we can change some of those things.

[4:31:14] And we still haven't heard Mary-Anne's objections, and I'm not sure, I don't think Doug's finished either, but I mean, Steve, I really, I hear you coming at this from a standpoint of being defensive that this is a criticism that we haven't done things right, that the residents, no matter what aren't going to be satisfied.

[4:31:28] That is not at all the purpose of this, and in fact, I didn't hear from the comments at all that this is something that they're going to be dissatisfied with no matter what we do.

[4:31:36] they wanted more. They may want more, but they're allowed to ask for everything and anything they want.

[4:31:44] They could ask for us to build their houses for them and to put them up tomorrow.

[4:31:47] This mentality of that they're not entitled to ask for things is strange to me.

[4:31:53] This has been pervasive that I've been noticing for a very long time since I've been here.

[4:31:58] And I don't really appreciate it because I'm a resident. And if my house burned down,

[4:32:02] I would be here hoping to get what I needed from my council.

[4:32:06] They are entitled to these things and the staff is entitled to have a great working relationship here.

[4:32:12] Everybody is entitled. We can do everything at once.

[4:32:15] We don't have to exclude one party and we're defending another.

[4:32:19] This us against them thing is so bizarre to me.

[4:32:23] We're trying to do what council people do.

[4:32:25] We're trying to support staff.

[4:32:27] We're not criticizing staff.

[4:32:29] We think we've done a fabulous job.

[4:32:31] We're also trying to listen to residents, and also we know we are in a disaster prone city, so instead of not preparing for the next one, we have tools that we can just trust, but there's so much mistrust.

[4:32:46] You know, and also after the fire, the staff, after taking some time, came to us with a bunch of municipal code amendment proposals, and we didn't necessarily, a lot of it, we didn't understand exactly what they meant.

[4:32:58] The residents didn't understand what they meant.

[4:33:00] We had to have meetings to talk about what they meant.

[4:33:03] We tweaked some of the words, man.

[4:33:05] We listened to the explanations.

[4:33:07] We didn't just have a knee-jerk reaction of, you know, no, we don't like the fact that this is being proposed.

[4:33:12] We don't want to make changes.

[4:33:13] We listened.

[4:33:14] We knew that they were coming from the right place.

[4:33:17] That they were intended to benefit the residents.

[4:33:19] We wanted to make sure we didn't go too far and do the wrong thing.

[4:33:22] All the right things that we should be doing now with this, too.

[4:33:25] But the mere fact this isn't coming from the staff.

[4:33:27] and the mere fact that there may be questions about what it means means we should be having

[4:33:31] a discussion about what does this mean should we change this word or shouldn't we change

[4:33:36] this word do we like this concept or don't we like this concept and that's what we're

[4:33:40] trying to do but we shouldn't just be like oh there's problems so let's throw this out

[4:33:45] we don't do this which is the sense which is what I sense is the attitude we're not saying

[4:33:49] to throw the whole thing out but the problem that you presented here is and I'm using number

[4:33:54] Section 1, the idea that the applicants professional wins in the conversation.

[4:34:01] I know if I was turning the end of plan for rebuilding, and I had an architect that presented something,

[4:34:09] I want the city staff to be the quality control to make sure that's correct.

[4:34:14] And not just say, oh, you submitted it by, and you're going to license the stamp, go for it.

[4:34:18] It's not what it says.

[4:34:20] That's what it says.

[4:34:21] Everyone out there knows it's not what it says.

[4:34:23] Yes, every single one of these residents knows that's not what it says.

[4:34:26] Our lawyer knows that's not what it says.

[4:34:29] Yes, go.

[4:34:31] I'm sorry.

[4:34:34] I know that you are the policy makers, but that I'm the implementer and it really states what I'm getting out of it, that it is to the same engineer submit in the plans that they're going to be the one.

[4:34:48] The way is written and it's not clear for interpretation and I'm just letting you know as my recommendations are your building official.

[4:34:55] The other thing that I want to make clear on assumption of risk and release.

[4:34:59] When an assumption of risk and release for your technical is submitted, as fill out, we still do a review.

[4:35:07] We put the minimum core compliance.

[4:35:09] We ask for structural calculations, we ask for Title 24, we ask for your technical engineers report.

[4:35:18] So what the assumption of risk and release is letting the property owner know that, hey, there is a risk on your property.

[4:35:29] We will not be able to issue a permit if we don't feel that it's safe.

[4:35:35] So, when we put our staff for compliance, when we do a review, it's safe for the intended

[4:35:42] use.

[4:35:44] The assumption of risk is that the proposed structure is still deemed safe, but it's acknowledged

[4:35:53] to be in a geohaser area.

[4:35:55] That's all it is.

[4:35:58] The interpretation, the number two, when you're state that liberalize the process of security and building court approval.

[4:36:08] I am not sure what your statement indicates, because as a building official and as a representative for your building safety,

[4:36:18] we are here to the mandatory minimum building court compliance.

[4:36:23] So, it's now for us to make it more liberal, more flexible, or more stringent.

[4:36:29] We need to be neutral.

[4:36:33] The other statement that is a paragraph to eliminate the need for

[4:36:38] your technical analysis, for a life for life disaster rebuilt, to be reconstructed on

[4:36:44] flat paths.

[4:36:50] And this goes back to minimum court compliance.

[4:36:53] If it's already required, as a building official, there is no way to implement this, if this is happening on an active landslide.

[4:37:07] So for implementation, paragraph one and two needs a little more work, because I would not be able to implement it.

[4:37:19] It goes against the building code.

[4:37:22] And just like I said, the Doug I agree with everything you just said, I truly do.

[4:37:27] And I don't think that's what this says.

[4:37:29] It says that where there are issues like that, we should explore ways to get around them.

[4:37:35] Explore, doesn't say you have to succeed.

[4:37:38] It says, look at it as hard as possible and see if there are ways to get what needs to be done done.

[4:37:44] If not, it can't be done but I want to ask the city attorney because I'm sure it's with it.

[4:37:48] Does this say that we have to defer to license professionals anywhere?

[4:37:59] We're talking about section one.

[4:38:01] Let's do one first, yeah.

[4:38:02] Does this say legally?

[4:38:04] Does this say we have to defer to license professionals?

[4:38:06] Because that was not what was intended, and I don't believe the word say that.

[4:38:13] Well, you have the city staff shall defer to the stamped and certified decision of the civil engineer employed by an applicant.

[4:38:18] So long as such, there are license basically in California and experienced in that, so you do have that language.

[4:38:25] would read the whole sentence from the beginning.

[4:38:28] To that end, whenever there is a difference of opinion on an issue that the Community Development Department,

[4:38:35] CDD Director, direct, connects us to be a difference of opinion upon which reasonable professional civil engineers might differ.

[4:38:42] The city staff shall defer to the stamped and certified decision of the civil engineer employed by the applicant.

[4:38:47] So wouldn't in order to meet the first requirement,

[4:38:52] doesn't the city have to first decide it meets the law?

[4:38:56] It comes down to the community development director,

[4:39:02] believes that there's a difference of opinion,

[4:39:08] basically a reasonable difference of opinion about the issue.

[4:39:12] If there can't be a reasonable difference of opinion,

[4:39:14] then this community development director would not have to defer.

[4:39:17] That's the intention, right?

[4:39:19] Right. If there's not a, if the community director does not determine it's a reasonable proposal, then they don't have to defer to it.

[4:39:29] So the gatekeeper is the city at all times.

[4:39:34] And again, if the language needs to be tweaked to make it even clearer, let's talk about tweaking the language,

[4:39:39] but let's not get held up thinking it means something different than it does, and then saying no,

[4:39:45] So, why don't we try to find a way to get to yes?

[4:39:48] If I could, and I want to go to Mary Ann, but isn't this the process, if it's what you think it is, that we're already doing right now, the applicant submits the geology report.

[4:40:00] The city looks at it and says no, we don't agree with it, and the city wins, which you're saying the city loses.

[4:40:07] Now, if there's always this within a range of what could be possible, my slab examples are perfect example.

[4:40:13] post-entian slaves are built everywhere, but they're not built in Malibu on my street.

[4:40:22] First of all, I think it is exactly what we're doing now after six to nine months of hashing it out,

[4:40:30] which I commend Yolanda and her staff for getting to that point.

[4:40:34] I commend the City Council for getting to that point as well.

[4:40:37] And this is intended to memorialize where we've gotten to and where the staff has gotten to

[4:40:43] without a formal policy that approves where they've gotten to.

[4:40:47] So I think it really does do nothing more than memorialize as a City Council policy where

[4:40:52] we are.

[4:40:54] And to the extent that anyone here believes the language goes further than that, or even

[4:41:00] worse, if anyone here thinks the language goes to a point which is inappropriate or unlawful,

[4:41:05] let's fix the language to make sure that it doesn't.

[4:41:09] But the point is, this is supposed to provide a road map not only for now, and it's actually

[4:41:14] the road map that's already been built.

[4:41:16] A road map for now, but a road map for the future, so that the next disaster, as Arno said,

[4:41:22] you just pulled out of the drawer, and there it is, it's already there.

[4:41:25] It's not a question of, well, what did we do last time?

[4:41:28] Let's think about it, and do we agree that we should do the same thing this time?

[4:41:31] It's a policy that could be pulled out and applied.

[4:41:35] It doesn't have to be created again.

[4:41:37] You don't have to keep reinventing the wheel every time we have an disaster.

[4:41:41] So yes, it is what we're doing now.

[4:41:43] As I said, it was a result of sitting here for the past year.

[4:41:48] It's like after me.

[4:41:49] The thesis, it's the culmination, it's the end result, it feels like a little bow is put

[4:41:54] on it, it's a closure, it's a document.

[4:41:58] And again, if you don't like some of the things, it's open for a discussion, but to just throw

[4:42:04] out because I think you think what it says, or you're interpreting it in a way that you believe

[4:42:11] is possibly. And maybe you need to we need to take a little bit more time and you guys

[4:42:17] need to reread it. Yeah, but you know, this is the problem of the Brown Act week. This is your

[4:42:21] way. You can talk to each other about this and get it done. Let me defer to Mary and I talked

[4:42:26] long enough. Okay, so I hear the community. I hear what you're saying. I hear what you want. Everything

[4:42:33] else. I appreciate the council members that put this together. I appreciate what the

[4:42:42] other council members have said to this. I think that my

[4:42:51] first pass through this, I just

[4:42:53] kept writing micromanaging staff, micromanaging staff, micromanaging staff. Now that I've had

[4:42:59] I had a chance to hear from the council members who put this together and hear from the

[4:43:06] community and everything else.

[4:43:09] Here that there are people who don't understand what exists in the city process, what has

[4:43:16] been done by previous councils, going back all the way to the 93 fire that was right on

[4:43:23] the city hadn't even gotten its feet settled yet, and then this major disaster happens.

[4:43:30] And then the mudslides following them, I think that the municipal code and the local

[4:43:40] coastal program had the exemptions and the natural disaster rebuild codes already

[4:43:49] in them.

[4:43:50] I think that it's been a policy of all the councils that have encountered the disasters.

[4:43:57] 93, 2007, 2018, they have all led with, we want people to rebuild their homes.

[4:44:07] Now, the problem is, we don't know why people didn't rebuild after Woolsey.

[4:44:13] The city had some responsibility on that, COVID had some other responsibility on that.

[4:44:18] And there are a lot of external, extenuating circumstances that have led to people not rebuilding.

[4:44:27] And we do need to acknowledge that.

[4:44:29] We do need to acknowledge that people are underinsured, that they had life circumstances

[4:44:35] that took them in a different direction when it came time to rebuild.

[4:44:40] I appreciate this document in as much as that I know that there are people who are looking

[4:44:46] for the city to just have a policy of, yeah, we're going to be very conservative on new buildings,

[4:44:54] but when it comes to rebuilding, it's all hands go.

[4:45:00] I think our codes say that already. Obviously, our community doesn't think that. Obviously, there are council members that don't think that. And so, you're looking to have something that makes it very clear that rebuilding gets priority over everything. I think the things that we've done over the last year have shown that this particular council feels this way. I think that the staff, I know that they were in the EOC emergency operations

[4:45:29] center and they were already looking at the codes and what needed to be modified because

[4:45:35] of the nature of where this particular disaster hit and they did that after Woolsey, they

[4:45:41] did it after palisades and they'll do it after the next one, though I don't know what

[4:45:47] other things could be needed after those two disasters to be honest with you, but I'm sure

[4:45:53] there will be something.

[4:45:55] Given that we've been talking about this for an hour and a half, we still have other

[4:45:59] things on the council, I would suggest that we schedule a workshop to actually sit down

[4:46:04] and go through what this, because I think there's three of us up here that don't read this,

[4:46:12] the same way that the two people that put this together, and it needs some more time in order

[4:46:19] in order to get to a place that I think any of us would feel comfortable with supporting it and moving it forward.

[4:46:29] So my suggestion is that we pause on this and finish the rest of the business on our agenda.

[4:46:36] I'm interestingly, Helen and I had wanted this to be a workshop from the day we presented it.

[4:46:41] And again, because of the way the city was being run at the time because we're still semi-rutterless.

[4:46:48] I don't, with no disrespect intended, but you know, we don't, we don't have a permanent

[4:46:52] city manager who's been a city manager.

[4:46:56] We had wanted this to be a workshop.

[4:46:58] I think a lot of the issues that we're dealing with tonight in an awkward way could have

[4:47:02] been dealt with in a lot better way.

[4:47:05] But we didn't have the right to call a workshop.

[4:47:07] We had the right to put it on an agenda.

[4:47:10] And it's been on the agenda now for two months.

[4:47:12] And we've been trying to get it to the point where we actually, our attention, the very first

[4:47:16] we had it on there was to say, let's put this on a workshop, so I actually concur with that.

[4:47:23] I also didn't feel that, you know, a lot of this stuff has already been done.

[4:47:29] Almost all of it's already been done. So the urgency of getting this in place is less than it was, as you know,

[4:47:37] keeps being said, I wrote an article about the six months ago.

[4:47:41] And I'm remiss for not having pressed to have it put on the agenda back then.

[4:47:45] So, to the residents, I apologize for not having done that.

[4:47:49] But, you know, a good example of in here is this has a provision towards the end of paragraph two about finding ways to let people use their existing septics and their existing foundations.

[4:48:01] And until a couple of weeks ago, the being able to use your existing septic system, if it wasn't destroyed, was still a gating issue.

[4:48:09] And it was finally, and it was resolved, to the, you know, by our great staff, Yalanda took the lead on that.

[4:48:14] And that was resolved.

[4:48:16] This has been pressing for that.

[4:48:18] I've been saying that in writing for many months,

[4:48:21] Helen has been, and it was in this proposal.

[4:48:24] And the events have passed the requirement that we try to find a way to get it done.

[4:48:30] We still have to find a way if possible to let people use foundations.

[4:48:33] Maybe that's already been done, but it has.

[4:48:36] So again, these are not creating new rules.

[4:48:41] These are memorializing as policy that which we've all struggled with so

[4:48:47] mightily and gotten to the point of doing.

[4:48:50] But having a workshop, I support that, I suspect talent does.

[4:48:53] Let's schedule a workshop if I feel bad suggesting there's a residence that we have to wait a little while longer,

[4:49:01] but maybe it makes sense to do it once Joe comes in.

[4:49:04] And we can do it and he can coordinate with the staff better, the way it would have been done.

[4:49:08] had come from the staff in the first place. But, you know, let's just not throw this out. I think

[4:49:14] it's an important piece of policy that we owe it to the community to put into place and we owe it

[4:49:20] to future city councils to put into place. I disagree with that, but I'd rather they have the

[4:49:25] opportunity to think

[4:49:29] about the specific nature of those disasters, when and if they come, how they

[4:49:35] that city wants to respond and that council wants to respond at that time, where we've already got

[4:49:39] I just want to go back to the opening comments that Doug made regarding getting some feedback

[4:49:44] from the staff in terms of what you know I had the experience.

[4:49:49] We filled the company all right we did it under this rule so we're going to get it down

[4:49:54] in two years period all right so we made up what we thought was the right rule but we sat

[4:49:58] down with everybody in that company and we said here's what we're going to do and they have

[4:50:03] a chance to come back to say that works that's going to work that's stupid all right and

[4:50:08] And so when we got to the end of making the final decision, even though we thought we knew exactly what the hell we're supposed to be doing,

[4:50:13] we got better input as a result of talking to them.

[4:50:16] So I just don't think we want to do this without a conversation with the folks who actually have to do the work,

[4:50:21] because they've forgotten more about this than I'm ever going to know.

[4:50:23] Yeah.

[4:50:25] Before you start healing, I just wanted to address things.

[4:50:28] So the foundation said since Wolsey, it's the same policy they were using in Wolsey.

[4:50:34] So that's not something that just got done.

[4:50:37] It has been, the documents have been available.

[4:50:41] People have been able to get, for the rebuild center,

[4:50:43] they've been able to get it from the website.

[4:50:46] So that goes back, you know, six years,

[4:50:49] where it's already been in process.

[4:50:52] So that's what I'm kind of talking about,

[4:50:53] that there's, there's information that's out there,

[4:50:56] but people aren't either adopting it or whichever.

[4:51:01] So go ahead.

[4:51:01] And I think, so what I've heard from,

[4:51:04] from, I mean, forever is just to be proactive and to not—and to be less reactive.

[4:51:10] And I felt that, you know, these are unprecedented earthquakes or unprecedented, fires are

[4:51:17] unprecedented. If another council—I know I would totally appreciate just having a guide

[4:51:23] book—and I don't have to adopt it—but with my council members at that time, I could

[4:51:27] say, well, this is what they did in 2025. This works, this works, this doesn't work. And

[4:51:31] And it might save them time, and it might not, but having that option of the information is so important just to have this sort of structure and foundation for the city.

[4:51:41] Because to me, somehow it feels a little irresponsible for us to go through all of this, and I'm grateful that we have it on video.

[4:51:48] But to have these documents in policy, if I was a council member in ten years, and I go, oh my god, they lived through policies and they didn't have a policy from that.

[4:51:56] I think I would feel like it was irresponsible.

[4:52:01] So that to me, I think there's a little bit of defensiveness

[4:52:04] and everybody should sleep on this

[4:52:07] and because it's not intended again to criticize

[4:52:10] or say that anybody's doing a bad job in my opinion.

[4:52:14] It's literally like, it's our job to make policy

[4:52:16] and we've explored all of these things for a year

[4:52:19] and we're putting into a document.

[4:52:21] So we'll sleep on it and we'll come back to it

[4:52:23] in a workshop, I think,

[4:52:25] because that would be great, as Bruce said, I was hoping for an open dialogue with people

[4:52:30] where we don't have to be up here doing this in a very structured format. So, do we vote

[4:52:38] on that? I mean, do we need a vote on this or are we just directing staff?

[4:52:46] I think there's consensus from the body to schedule a workshop and it will be after the new City

[4:52:51] the new city manager to schedule a workshop with the new city manager.

[4:52:55] So, yeah.

[4:52:57] And so, one of the comments is I had comments generally for the community too.

[4:53:01] I don't think Danny and others have said so.

[4:53:04] I do not believe it's fair though to be calling 22 building permits a monumental failure.

[4:53:12] There are plenty of reasons why it has taken, the time it's taken for the ones to be approved to be approved.

[4:53:19] And I do believe that it doesn't help to be criticizing the staff as claiming a failure.

[4:53:27] And whoever said it was Scott, the math is 22 and one year means it'll take 27 for all of them.

[4:53:33] There's an exponential improvement, it's not that you're going to get 22 a year every year.

[4:53:38] And there's going to be plenty of the dark going to be built full stop because people are just going to decide they're not capable.

[4:53:43] And that happens every time, everywhere, despite the best of abilities.

[4:53:48] So I think the staff is doing an amazing job, and this was intended to memorialize a lot of the things that they've done already, and to try to put them in place.

[4:53:57] And whatever we vote on this doesn't prove electability or not electability because I'll tell you, I'm not electable no matter what, because I'm turned out.

[4:54:08] Okay, so we're going to move on to the next item.

[4:54:12] Okay, so around 5 a.

[4:54:14] Thank you all for your comments.

[4:54:18] There are things in here that are workable and probably need to be documented.

[4:54:22] But I think there are issues that we have with this, some of its language, some of its philosophy.

[4:54:29] But I would encourage everybody in the phrases used oftentimes in management, participatory management.

[4:54:36] It's amazing what the people on the shop floor know that the engineers in the offices don't.

[4:54:41] And that's where you start getting this all together.

[4:54:43] Go back to the state's point.

[4:54:46] When you build it with a team,

[4:54:48] you'd be surprised how much better it's going to be.

[4:54:50] This is a very inhibited process.

[4:54:51] Yeah, I mean, the genuine question.

[4:54:53] If this was something you were trying to accomplish

[4:54:56] and you had these ideas and you thought they made sense

[4:54:59] and you were dealing with a city who staff was overwhelmed

[4:55:03] with the rebuild process and didn't have time

[4:55:06] to do the normal evaluation of something.

[4:55:09] And you had a city manager who wasn't willing to impose this on the staff and appropriately so.

[4:55:16] And you're not allowed to talk to the staff beyond the city manager and the director level.

[4:55:22] How would you go about getting your consensus from the staff to be able to present something to the city council?

[4:55:27] It's a failure if you're not able to sell the concept to somebody.

[4:55:31] And honestly, if your job is a leader and

[4:55:36] And I think it's Michelle has a comment that he always puts on his emails.

[4:55:40] He can't explain it to a six-year-old you don't know what you're talking about.

[4:55:44] So that's where I think you have to be able to sell the concept that we need to have this and invest the time.

[4:55:50] And honestly, we've spent enough time right now.

[4:55:52] We could have gotten a lot of his input on this and

[4:55:56] be able to build some of this and come back with maybe iterations.

[4:56:00] Look, it takes time to build a successful result.

[4:56:04] And that's what it, it's Steve's point, it, you got to, you got to work through the

[4:56:10] mines and get the census note. It's not the five of us up here to do this.

[4:56:16] That's what we're trying to do. I think that there's a misconception that we're not trying

[4:56:20] to do that, but I think that Bruce, we've asked for workshops over and over and over again.

[4:56:25] We've asked for collaborations with desks that are down there where we can talk about these

[4:56:29] things. This is strange facts notion that you're saying that we're not building consensus.

[4:56:36] The Brown Act is not a consensus building activity.

[4:56:40] Okay, I'm sorry. We really have other stuff we need to. Let's talk about this at the

[4:56:45] workshop. We can have an encounter of items in the future, but we've got some things that

[4:56:50] we need to do tonight. I think we all have heard each other. We're willing to talk and flesh

[4:56:56] this out some more, nobody's dismissing it slight out of hand.

[4:57:00] We're not chewing it away.

[4:57:02] We're just giving us an opportunity where we can actually have a more robust long term conversation.

[4:57:09] So I would like us to move on to 5A before we have to start calling all these things special things.

[4:57:15] So

[4:57:18] 5A, do we have a staff report?

[4:57:21] Anybody wants to comment, put it in a speaker's slip for 5A, please do so now or forever hold your piece.

[4:57:27] Do we have any online?

[4:57:33] We have no speaker slips and one raised hand.

[4:57:37] Nolanda, will you please guide us through it here, please?

[4:57:39] Yes.

[4:57:41] It's a very short presentation.

[4:57:44] Just a background on December 8, we brought to you, City Council, emergency ordinance, number

[4:57:52] for 3.531U to incorporate the new state building codes,

[4:57:59] and also bring the first reading of the ordinance.

[4:58:03] At that time, we recommend to do a second reading

[4:58:06] of the ordinance, and that is what we're doing this evening.

[4:58:12] I think Claire Frank questions, but I cancel.

[4:58:16] Just one quick question.

[4:58:19] How much flexibility do we have to make changes to this or not accept it?

[4:58:25] None.

[4:58:26] No.

[4:58:27] Yeah.

[4:58:28] It's a state law.

[4:58:29] We just need to adopt it.

[4:58:30] Right?

[4:58:30] Yes.

[4:58:31] We're following county's recommendations.

[4:58:34] We also have added our usual recommended amendments due to our climatic regional and geotechnical

[4:58:44] issues that the city has.

[4:58:46] It's very similar to what we had in 2023 under the Building Corridor option.

[4:58:52] And this is not applied to the rebuilds because we're still under the 23 correct.

[4:58:59] That is correct.

[4:59:00] The set of California, the governor, provided an executive order in which he allows fire

[4:59:08] rebuilds to rebuild under the 2023 code.

[4:59:12] There is an option if any of the fire rebels that are moving forward, they would like to

[4:59:19] comply with the new code, they are allowed to do that.

[4:59:23] And just to disclose to council, I have four properties that decided to move forward

[4:59:29] with the 2026 codes.

[4:59:31] Okay.

[4:59:32] Thank you.

[4:59:34] Any other questions?

[4:59:36] Hello comments, please?

[4:59:41] Joe Drummond.

[4:59:44] Joe, are you there?

[4:59:46] Hi, yes, people are saying that you can't hear me.

[4:59:49] Can you hear me?

[4:59:50] We can hear you?

[4:59:51] Sorry.

[4:59:52] We can hear you.

[4:59:53] Okay.

[4:59:54] Well, I'm speaking tonight specifically on the adoption of California Building Code Section

[4:59:58] to 106 points.

[5:00:00] I agree to work exemptive, a key provision from the state and county code is being omitted. And if that admission is not corrected, it will continue to cause unnecessary hardship for mental residents. The state code explicitly provides that a built increment is not required for decks, walks and drive away is not more than 30 inches above grade, not over any basements or store it below and not part of an accessible route. I can personally attest to the consequence

[5:00:29] of a meeting that is provisioned.

[5:00:31] It took more than three years

[5:00:33] to permit my 64-square-foot pre-standing deck,

[5:00:37] which remained standing even after the fires,

[5:00:40] which was designed using prescriptive engineering assumptions

[5:00:42] by the way, which is routine worldwide.

[5:00:46] It is not rocket science to rebuild our homes

[5:00:49] in a simple engineering science.

[5:00:51] For our simple deck, what should have been a simple administrative

[5:00:54] review became a provolone process involving multiple geotechnical

[5:00:59] studies, escalating fees, and even threats of a variance, later confirmed by the city attorney

[5:01:05] to be unnecessary. A small, free-standing debt under 30 inches of off-grade is deported

[5:01:11] by a modest concrete foundation should not be treated like a major addition or a hillside

[5:01:17] structure. These are low-ribbist projects that should be resolved in months, not years.

[5:01:22] I respectfully ask the council to do one of two things. Restore the work incentive provision

[5:01:27] and exactly as written in a state code or adopted it with a clear size cap such as 200 square feet

[5:01:33] for DEX to ensure it applies only to true small low impact projects. Equally important,

[5:01:39] the city might just clearly explain what process applies to work exempted work.

[5:01:43] In my case, the lack of clarity led to code enforcement action and a three-year or deal,

[5:01:48] despite acting in good faith under the state code, to be clear this change would not affect DEX attached

[5:01:53] to hire stories, elevated funds, residents, or other structures that are bitter

[5:01:57] mentally required, both permitting and safe to review. Those protections would

[5:02:01] remain fully intact. Directing this submission in this item would be a small

[5:02:06] but meaningful reform when that aligned Malibu with state law and reflects a

[5:02:11] shared commitment to making everyday projects simpler, clearer, and more

[5:02:14] reasonable for the residents. I urge you to correct this as part of item 5A. Thank

[5:02:19] Thank you.

[5:02:21] So I can conclude our public comment.

[5:02:28] Yes, those are all the public speakers.

[5:02:31] Okay, so public comments close.

[5:02:34] Any comments by council?

[5:02:36] I have a question.

[5:02:37] So what Joe is asking is what we just heard we couldn't do, which is to change it.

[5:02:42] Is that what I'm hearing?

[5:02:44] I'm sorry?

[5:02:47] I have a graphic.

[5:02:50] Oh.

[5:02:50] And just to make it clear, and I have a copy of the code in front of me from the 2025 code.

[5:02:55] Let me just show the council that I have the actual code right here.

[5:03:00] Everybody here.

[5:03:01] Thank you.

[5:03:02] I have a copy of the sheet with section 105, what permits are exempted.

[5:03:09] And none of them are asking for decks to be excluded or not permitted.

[5:03:15] So we're staying with the regulation, and I can pass these to councils to read it.

[5:03:18] In addition, I want to clarify that permits are not required for decks that are 30 inches above, and so I put a graphic together.

[5:03:30] What we're talking by now on the situation of one of our residents is the foundation system.

[5:03:37] It was a deep in foundation caught into the hill with an unpermitting grating, and that triggered the permit requirements, so just to clarify that for cancer.

[5:03:50] I'll make a motion to approve staff recommendation.

[5:03:54] I'll second.

[5:03:55] I'd like to make a comment.

[5:03:57] Please.

[5:04:00] I've been trying to understand some of these things for years.

[5:04:04] We're told all the time we don't have any discretion.

[5:04:09] I'm reading the report, it expressly says, pays two or four after the chart, that these provisions apply to all building occupancies throughout the state, whether or not adopted by a local jurisdiction.

[5:04:28] However, local governments will typically pass ordinances adopting those parts of the code

[5:04:33] by reference, which they seek to amend in accordance with local conditions and to establish

[5:04:39] administrative provisions. So it says, basically, local governments tend to affirmatively adopt these

[5:04:47] even though they don't have to, but they also might seek to amend them. And then it says local amendments

[5:04:53] The amendments must be specific to each edition of the code.

[5:04:58] State law requires amendments to the standards be based on a governing body's expressed findings that such modification is necessary, reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.

[5:05:10] So this says very clearly we actually could, if we chose to, and we had bases for doing so, make amendments, even though this is the state default law.

[5:05:22] We never study whether there are things that we believe we ought to be doing as exceptions to these rules, because we're told all the time that these are the rules like them or take them or not, that we have to adopt.

[5:05:36] Actually, we don't have to adopt them at all, if we don't adopt them, they're the law, and if we do adopt them, they're also the law, and we also have the right to change them, if we have a basis for doing so.

[5:05:46] But we've never once been told what basis we could apply to make changes if we did want to, if we did feel they were appropriate or necessary.

[5:05:56] So, you know, I think I said last time when we brought this up at midnight, we're doing this too fast.

[5:06:02] I don't really understand enough about it.

[5:06:04] We haven't had public input, but, you know, it's not the case that just because the State adopted it, we have no choice but to adopt it.

[5:06:10] It says you're very clearly.

[5:06:12] We can make changes if they're appropriate, based on appropriate findings, but I've never been told what kinds of changes we might be able to make, and what findings we would have to make to make them.

[5:06:22] So, Jolanda, can you explain?

[5:06:26] Yes.

[5:06:27] And thank you, Mayor Perten.

[5:06:32] If you read the following ordinance, actually the ordinance does have the amendments.

[5:06:39] In addition, page 21 of the court adoption findings, those are the amendments unto the court.

[5:06:48] and states if the conditions were administrative,

[5:06:53] climatic, geological, geological, administrative,

[5:06:58] topographical.

[5:07:00] So we did provide amendments

[5:07:03] and this is regular amendments due to our location.

[5:07:09] So this document was released for public for public viewing.

[5:07:17] I remember the end of November, so it has been a transparent document for the past, I will say, close to 40 days.

[5:07:31] I appreciate that, so in a sense that it's been published.

[5:07:35] When we did the housing element, we would have somebody come here and present to us all the things we were doing, explain why we were doing them.

[5:07:42] give us our options as to whether we would do other things.

[5:07:48] We have different approaches to things up here.

[5:07:53] Some council members are of view that if the staff thinks something makes sense and it's

[5:07:59] complicated and technical, it gets presented and we just approve it.

[5:08:04] Some, like I'm one of them believe we should be fly speccing everything and making our own decisions

[5:08:10] whether we think they make sense or not, and then go forward, and others, I guess, have somewhere in between.

[5:08:16] But the process we follow, I appreciate that these are here, and I know you and others have taken a lot of time to put it together.

[5:08:25] But these aren't things we were presented with.

[5:08:28] Why are we doing this one?

[5:08:29] Does this one make sense?

[5:08:31] Are there alternatives to what's being proposed that we could be doing?

[5:08:34] Is there more than what we're being proposed we could be doing?

[5:08:37] And it's because there's just too much to do.

[5:08:39] I get that, but I feel like a lot of these things are presented to us as fake.com please, because we really don't have the

[5:08:50] basis to make a decision to the contrary, so it's either take it or leave it. And that's not a criticism, so much as it's an explanation of where we are.

[5:09:00] So that's pretty much why I abstained from this last time and

[5:09:04] Just the process, the way the city operates in general, and I'm sure other cities operate like that.

[5:09:11] It bothers me as someone who's used to getting into the weeds and deciding whether I think things make sense or not.

[5:09:19] But yes?

[5:09:20] I believe the amendments that are proposed are done to be consistent with the county.

[5:09:25] And I think the amendments are only allowed if there's stricter than what's already required by the state building.

[5:09:31] That is correct, the court cannot be, those are minimum state compliance.

[5:09:38] The only way that the city can change it needs to be more restrictive.

[5:09:42] In order to propose those amendments, we need to make a justification.

[5:09:48] In addition to that, as you stated, Mayor Pro Tem, yes, if the city didn't adopt any codes,

[5:09:57] then automatically the California court becomes our building court.

[5:10:04] Okay, so-

[5:10:05] Let me just finish.

[5:10:08] We did bring in urgency ordinance, because we usually adopt the county, the county

[5:10:16] codes.

[5:10:17] This state of California requires that 30 days after the adoption, finally needs to be done

[5:10:25] and through the California State Building Standard Commission, so the city can be in regulations and stay in compliance with the building groups.

[5:10:36] Well in it, so the report at least doesn't say that the only kinds of amendments that are permissible are more restrictive amendments.

[5:10:45] I can provide you a copy of the adoption of the, of an ordinance and what it states that it needs to be more restrained.

[5:10:55] So there's under no circumstance can a-

[5:10:59] You can flex the code.

[5:11:01] The municipality believe that there's a requirement that's too stringent and relax it, no matter what findings they make.

[5:11:06] Okay, that's what I was reading this to mean, so if that's not what it says, I take that back.

[5:11:11] Yeah, and now I can provide a copy of a state documentation which will give you more information on that I apologize

[5:11:18] That's okay, so all the changes we're making then are making more stringent the building code then would otherwise be imposed upon us by the state

[5:11:27] That is correct. Okay, and but but they're also they have been proposed in the first instance by the county

[5:11:35] They're not really our changes so much as we're just adopting them.

[5:11:39] Some of them are county and some of them are specific to the city.

[5:11:43] An example, septic systems.

[5:11:47] We have a plumbing code that we follow.

[5:11:50] There's a number of plumbing fixtures that I allow per your toilets and laboratories.

[5:11:59] stories. And so we were able to change that to give credit to property owners of what

[5:12:08] you see in low-flow toilets. So that was one of the changes that we showed our community

[5:12:16] can take advantage of using low-flow toilets and have more fixtures. So that's just an

[5:12:24] an example of what was included on the ordinance.

[5:12:28] Okay, so let me ask this kind of harking back a little bit to the conversation we had earlier about the rebuilds.

[5:12:35] But I understand the new code's not going to apply to rebuild, so this is not a specific issue with them.

[5:12:40] But if we were operating in post-Wolsey,

[5:12:45] where we didn't have a governor's order saying the old code is going to continue to apply,

[5:12:50] Then when we adopt a new code, which we add additional more stringent requirements to,

[5:12:57] wouldn't we then be making it more difficult for a rebuild that otherwise would have been the case?

[5:13:02] Had we not adopted those additional standards?

[5:13:08] Do you follow my question?

[5:13:11] I'm sorry.

[5:13:13] I'm sorry.

[5:13:15] I'm sorry.

[5:13:16] I'm sorry.

[5:13:17] I'm sorry.

[5:13:23] I'm sorry.

[5:13:24] What I'm hearing is that he's wondering that if we're just defaulting on what our

[5:13:30] requirements are to by law, we just automatically the new code gets imposed without the additional

[5:13:39] adoption that the county goes through.

[5:13:45] Is it more stringent for the people?

[5:13:48] What I'm hearing is every full of these pages of single space

[5:13:52] These requirements are things that we're adding as additional burdens and as everyone knows in the ordinary course of new builds, I'm perfectly fine with that.

[5:14:03] And we have, fortunately in this particular instance, a governor's order that says, in a case of these rebuilds, we're not going to oppose these new requirements.

[5:14:13] but actually we are imposing them on Woolsey, right?

[5:14:16] Because we're saying that if you had lost your home in a different fire,

[5:14:20] we're going to adopt these more stringent requirements than the state's imposing on you.

[5:14:24] Well, if the application came in prior to the new adoption of the code,

[5:14:31] we are not imposing new. They're staying within the, when the application was submitted.

[5:14:37] Right. But if tomorrow,

[5:14:40] 6 months from now, one of the 40% of the homes that still hasn't applied to be rebuilt or whatever the percentage is,

[5:14:47] they come in with a like for a like rebuild.

[5:14:50] If we were not to adopt this, then they'd be operating under a less stringent code than the one that we're being asked to adopt, right?

[5:14:57] Okay.

[5:14:58] Let's talk in part policy.

[5:15:00] For Woolsey. Woolsey. Yeah, Woolsey did not follow the executive order. Right. So we will have to comply with the new codes. So would we have a way, for example, to say, we're imposing these additional more stringent requirements, but not with respect to a casualty rebuild so that when someone comes in with their Woolsey rebuild three months from now. So the building code is for safety and for resiliency, right? Yeah. So,

[5:15:30] So we are following the executive order from the state of California and allowing the 2023 code for the policies.

[5:15:41] There's nothing for woolseafire and it's been more than seven years, right?

[5:15:50] So forget whether we should or shouldn't do it.

[5:15:54] I'm just asking factually, isn't it accurate that if we adopt this,

[5:15:58] Then that means that when someone comes in to rebuild a property that was destroyed

[5:16:04] in a fire, other than the palisades fire.

[5:16:07] And Franklin fire and brought fire, yes, will see fire will follow under any Topanga

[5:16:13] fire that never, they never rebuild in 1993 and they decide to come back tomorrow to submit

[5:16:19] an application.

[5:16:20] Yeah, it would trigger the current code 2026.

[5:16:24] And if there's a fire six months from now, and a hundred homes are lost, and they don't have an executive order to exempt them from anything, then the state code, if we didn't do anything, which would apply to them, would be less stringent than the code we're being asked to adopt tonight.

[5:16:43] They will need to comply with the current code.

[5:16:45] Right, but the state code that would be the default, if we don't do anything, would be less stringent than the one we're adopting.

[5:16:52] I guess I'm trying to understand your question.

[5:16:54] You're trying to say, let's flex the code for any rebuilds that happened.

[5:17:01] I mean, I'm just trying to understand what we're going on this.

[5:17:04] And I'm trying to give you the information that you ask, that you want me to give you.

[5:17:10] I guess I'm saying, is it an accurate statement that if a fire were to wipe out a large number

[5:17:17] of homes in future, three months from now?

[5:17:22] And the owners of those homes were to seek to rebuild them like for

[5:17:26] like, and they don't have the benefit of an executive order.

[5:17:28] Then by adopting this tonight, we would be creating a code that is more stringent than

[5:17:35] the state code that would otherwise apply by default to those rebuilds.

[5:17:38] Is that accurate or inaccurate?

[5:17:40] That's I'm trying to find out.

[5:17:41] You will be, I mean, the code that you're adopting is more stringent than the 2023 code.

[5:17:47] No, but it's also more stringent than the 2025 code because we're adopting various additional requirements to it.

[5:17:55] The amendments and the pages of amendments.

[5:17:58] But okay, notwithstanding the chaos that that would occur, you're really going to create an

[5:18:07] environment of uncertainty because people aren't going to know which ones staff's going to have.

[5:18:14] Okay, what date did this happen?

[5:18:16] Which code do I get here and the consistency and the resale and, yeah, they're under the state code, but they're not actually under the adopted code of the city.

[5:18:29] I mean, what's the purpose of going down this intellectual discussion?

[5:18:34] And it's also a layer that you add into it, right?

[5:18:39] Remember how we say that you cannot, the minimum codes cannot be lower than, right?

[5:18:46] So let's say you, under what justification, climatic, topographic, or geographic, can we make

[5:18:58] an assumption that any rebels, future rebels next year or the following year, do not need to

[5:19:06] comply with this code.

[5:19:10] And I guess I'm asking Trevor to answer this question because I don't know

[5:19:13] how to answer that question. Well,

[5:19:18] which question? A proposal of allowing fire rebels, future fire

[5:19:25] rebels not to comply with this code and comply with. I would think you would want to be careful.

[5:19:31] Let me look at these are like, not allowing wood shake roofs, I mean, do you really want to take that out?

[5:19:36] I mean, is that something we want to allow fire rebuilt to do?

[5:19:40] If you want to go and make adjustments to this, I think, suggest that we pass the code tonight.

[5:19:45] So the county code provisions apply to everyone else in the city.

[5:19:49] If you want to go look at adjusting some of this, you can look into it.

[5:19:53] If you want to have more direction or something about particular provisions of what the county has adopted.

[5:20:00] There's all the consistency.

[5:20:01] Mayor Putham is commose concern on fire rebuilds, if there is not an executive order, what codes will trigger?

[5:20:08] Yeah, let me ask.

[5:20:09] So that is a question.

[5:20:10] Let me ask this question.

[5:20:14] Are we able, look, we have a state code.

[5:20:18] The state code presumably has been combed over by intelligent and experienced people,

[5:20:24] and they've decided from a statewide standpoint, this is the minimum standard that makes sense.

[5:20:28] We have a county that's going further and adopted more stringent requirements.

[5:20:34] Are we in a position where we could adopt all the county's amendments only with respect to non-casualty rebuilds going forward?

[5:20:44] So that when there's another casualty, the more, the less restrictive standards of the state which we have the right to follow by themselves alone would apply.

[5:20:56] But we are nonetheless imposing the more restrictive ones on new bills going forward.

[5:21:02] So that way when someone loses their house, they come to us and complain about item number seven on this page that's imposing this greater expense to them that they wish they didn't have to absorb.

[5:21:16] That they wouldn't have to make, they wouldn't be able to make that argument because we'd say no, look, all we did was go by the minimum state standard, you have to apply, but you have to comply with the state.

[5:21:23] And we gave you a pass on everything that we adopted that otherwise applies to new builds.

[5:21:32] Do we have the ability to make all of these additions, these exempt, these amendments, which are all more stringent,

[5:21:38] applicable only in the case of a non-casualty rebuild?

[5:21:43] And then what happens in a casualty rebuild that adopts?

[5:21:47] They would be under the state minimum law.

[5:21:50] But why would you want to do that?

[5:21:51] You're creating a second-class structure.

[5:21:54] Yeah, you might want to adopt the modern, you know, all the studies that we're doing with higher

[5:22:01] combustations and why is the county better than the state because they're specialized to our

[5:22:07] particular area. And so they're taking into account the special nature that occurs within Los Angeles County.

[5:22:15] It's also AIDS I think by all the cities do it is so that contractors are familiar with the county

[5:22:21] the county building codes, and then they can apply it the same throughout.

[5:22:28] I would want to look closely if this is something you want to explore, making a carve out for

[5:22:36] fire rebuild for other ones, we could take a look into it.

[5:22:40] I want to just on the fly, put that through, and I know you want to ask concerns.

[5:22:44] You cannot divide, I mean, the statement on chapter one is that this applies to every single new construction.

[5:22:56] Even if it's a fire rebuilt, it will be considered under the building code as a minimum,

[5:23:03] minimum for safety, for resiliency, for safety of our city.

[5:23:09] You cannot divide, okay, I want to do one portion of the population.

[5:23:16] I will do it on one court, and one portion of the other population I will do in another court.

[5:23:21] We will be against the stay law.

[5:23:25] No, no, first of all, we're doing exactly that right now, pursuant to the executive order.

[5:23:29] We're applying the older law.

[5:23:31] Because the governor has put that exception, not because the city of Malibu would decide it.

[5:23:37] I get that, but you said it would be against state law.

[5:23:39] I'm saying no, let's adopt the state law for everybody.

[5:23:45] And then let's also adopt more stringent ones for new bills.

[5:23:49] That doesn't say that if you have a fiery bill,

[5:23:52] you're going to get a less stringent than the state law.

[5:23:55] But you're going to get a less stringent than the county law.

[5:23:58] So it's not fair.

[5:23:59] So we have the right to do.

[5:24:01] Okay.

[5:24:01] I think people want modern building.

[5:24:04] Okay.

[5:24:05] And I would have perspective your, you know, and Bruce, let me give you another example.

[5:24:12] I just picked up one page here, and it's page 15, the top item.

[5:24:16] It says you've got to have sheer walls because we're in a high seismic sound.

[5:24:21] I mean, to leave that out would be suicidal.

[5:24:24] But it is out with respect to all the rebuilds from the pellets.

[5:24:27] No, it's in the prior one.

[5:24:29] A lot of this is continuation of what was in the prior years.

[5:24:33] It's things like the solar panels that are required in 20, 26 or whatever, just new one.

[5:24:42] You're talking about in the 23 zone, you don't have to do that.

[5:24:47] All I'm saying is, understand that all these conditions that are in here, a lot of, in fact, I think most of, are continuations in the ones that were there before.

[5:24:56] So it's okay, I understand.

[5:24:59] Okay, so we'll call the question, we have a first and we say have a second.

[5:25:03] Do we want to do a roll call, or-

[5:25:06] I just put the motion with staff's recommendation.

[5:25:09] Yes.

[5:25:10] I didn't see the attorney, did you want to read the title of the ordinance?

[5:25:12] Well, I read it the last one, so I don't need to read it.

[5:25:15] Second time.

[5:25:16] That's you really want me to.

[5:25:20] You want a roll call?

[5:25:21] Yeah.

[5:25:23] All in favor?

[5:25:24] Aye.

[5:25:24] Those opposed?

[5:25:25] First, none, that's same, you said aye, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, so okay, it's after 1030, do I want to hear a motion to hear item 6A?

[5:25:40] On my commotion, I hear items 6A.

[5:25:42] That was second.

[5:25:43] On favor?

[5:25:44] Aye.

[5:25:46] Okay, it's about our fire rebuilding ambassador.

[5:25:52] We want to staff report?

[5:25:54] No.

[5:25:56] Okay. Do we have any public comment?

[5:25:59] No, we don't have any speaker slips or raised hands on Zoom for item 6A.

[5:26:03] Okay, so we're back up here on the council.

[5:26:06] I asked months ago if we could put this on the agenda to discuss it and in light of the fact that we are now months later and things are operating.

[5:26:16] The way they are now, I would just withdraw the request.

[5:26:22] Okay, so where does that leave us that we're not going to go, we're going to continue without a fire reviled ambassador and this is going to conclude.

[5:26:31] I think this is like the official termination that we lacked prior, right, this clues is that chapter.

[5:26:37] So do we need to do a motion on this or is it a withdrawn request?

[5:26:42] Just withdraw it.

[5:26:43] Well, but does that satisfy the requirement of the original resolution?

[5:26:50] Or expired.

[5:26:52] Yeah, I think the investor had expired and the ambassador did resign as well.

[5:26:58] I think this was bringing back a report that the council had wanted before that had taken

[5:27:03] place and it would have been happened and so now the report's gone through.

[5:27:07] If the council wants to re-implement it or put it in but if they want to take no action

[5:27:10] I don't think anything is required here tonight.

[5:27:12] Kelsey, correct me if I'm wrong.

[5:27:14] That's correct, you don't have to take an action if you'd like, you can make a motion to determine that you will not move forward with the position, but the resolution did expire.

[5:27:23] So there is no decision currently.

[5:27:25] That's my motion, but you just said.

[5:27:26] Is there a second?

[5:27:28] I'll second.

[5:27:29] All in favor?

[5:27:30] Aye.

[5:27:32] Okay, I'm over here to hear item six feet.

[5:27:36] I'll make a motion to hear item six feet.

[5:27:38] Second.

[5:27:38] All in favor?

[5:27:39] Aye.

[5:27:40] Okay.

[5:27:41] Can we have a staff report, please, on 6B?

[5:27:49] Yes.

[5:27:50] Yeah.

[5:27:55] If I may, Madam Mayor, this presentation may generate considerable discussion.

[5:28:06] There's already been significant discussion that's ensued this evening.

[5:28:11] We don't have anything urgent requiring the Council to provide direction on this this evening.

[5:28:18] If we were to continue it to the next available meeting, that would still be consistent with

[5:28:26] what staff would need to fulfill the intent of the Council going forward.

[5:28:32] I'll make a motion to agree with what he just said.

[5:28:35] Well, just ever since we already started the hearing, do we have to hear the public comment?

[5:28:38] We haven't subsequently done anything, so if you want to move to continue the item, you could do we have any public speakers on it?

[5:28:45] Kessie?

[5:28:45] Yes, we have one speaker slip, but no raised hands.

[5:28:49] I would recommend that you let him speak.

[5:28:51] Since he's waited a long time, you don't have to, if you can continue it, but let me sensibly hear the public speaker in that adjourn.

[5:29:00] Mr. Schoenlin, do you

[5:29:05] understand we're going to actually, we're going to have you hear your public comment, but we're going to bring this back in the future.

[5:29:11] Thank you.

[5:29:12] Restart it.

[5:29:14] But we want to hear you.

[5:29:15] Good evening.

[5:29:16] Council Member.

[5:29:17] Mayor.

[5:29:19] I'm representing an American Polo Federation.

[5:29:23] I want to bring to the City of Malibu a big sport elite that is polo.

[5:29:28] I'm working with Pacific Palisette to see where we can feel and we can find a land to do

[5:29:36] this sport.

[5:29:36] And one other thing we need to bring is fun for the victims, victims for the fire.

[5:29:46] And we want to open school for a keynote therapy for adults and kids with disabilities.

[5:29:57] please.

[5:30:00] So the other thing that we I'm from Argentina, so I hope you understand. I want to bring

[5:30:07] a tournament that was most important that was made in Montecito, Santa Barbara, Palm Beach,

[5:30:15] Wellington. I think it will be very important for the City of Malibu to have a big tournament

[5:30:21] here. And so I'm looking for a land to build a two-field of Polo.

[5:30:33] If I can ask

[5:30:34] quite how much land do you need? For two-field of Polo is about 200 by 150 meters. 200 meters by

[5:30:44] I want 15 meters.

[5:30:46] Can you?

[5:30:46] Yes, it's very important.

[5:30:49] You're talking about horses, horse polo?

[5:30:51] Yes, we want to teach polo.

[5:30:54] We want to bring college to practice.

[5:30:59] So it's a lot of involvement of polo.

[5:31:02] So if some visit is for math to me,

[5:31:05] what does that drive like?

[5:31:07] And sort of like 200 becomes like 600 feet.

[5:31:11] OK.

[5:31:11] And that doesn't include the stables in the viewing area and so forth.

[5:31:16] Right, because it's so a whole field I think is like a football field.

[5:31:21] Yes.

[5:31:22] Pretty, pretty big.

[5:31:23] And it has to be grass.

[5:31:25] How many horses are you talking for two teams?

[5:31:31] 32 horses.

[5:31:32] So the other thing is we want to build an arena.

[5:31:38] So, to do a tournament in a Birmingham, they did a tournament, it was very good.

[5:31:47] So, I would just say that it was unofficial.

[5:31:52] Right.

[5:31:53] It's benefited.

[5:31:53] Nice as it would be.

[5:31:54] I just don't think we have any land.

[5:31:56] Yes.

[5:31:57] I saw, coming from Canon Road, I saw a lot of land in that area.

[5:32:03] So, our city does not go very far.

[5:32:05] We only go about a mile.

[5:32:08] We don't even go about a mile.

[5:32:09] What about on the front here?

[5:32:11] I think it would be too small.

[5:32:13] Yeah.

[5:32:13] No, I think that would be possible.

[5:32:16] And you have a permanent polo field and polo school.

[5:32:20] Yes, I would be.

[5:32:22] I tell you, they can bring a sponsor here,

[5:32:26] bring a lot of money to the city.

[5:32:28] And also, no, I tell you, this polo is big money.

[5:32:33] It's huge.

[5:32:34] It's good money.

[5:32:35] Yeah, so they still play in a long time in Wellington,

[5:32:39] and beach, Boca Raton, and I think will be nice and malew.

[5:32:45] You 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 and I can help you?

[5:32:51] We can talk about it.

[5:32:52] Yeah.

[5:32:52] Maybe.

[5:32:53] I would say on the topic of the equine therapy,

[5:32:58] I mean, we do have an equestrian center.

[5:33:02] It's very small in comparison to what the numbers you're talking about.

[5:33:05] But if you were just doing the equine therapy, there might be something.

[5:33:12] So, I would encourage you to talk with our community services department because we are looking at different possibilities of these things.

[5:33:22] Well, at least you start with one field.

[5:33:24] And you need a flat field.

[5:33:26] Yes.

[5:33:27] We will be alive.

[5:33:29] Yeah, we're not living at you.

[5:33:32] It's just so limited here in Malibu,

[5:33:34] like just the land, you know,

[5:33:36] because then you're going to be parking,

[5:33:38] because it brings...

[5:33:40] You saw what is on the seato?

[5:33:42] I've been doing it.

[5:33:43] Yeah, it's beautiful.

[5:33:45] Yeah, but it's not a large place,

[5:33:47] so we can build here.

[5:33:49] Malibu, I think, will be great.

[5:33:52] So thank you very much for your comment.

[5:33:54] We are going to have this discussion again.

[5:33:56] I think Council Member Conrad will talk to you

[5:33:58] You know, and like I said for any equine therapy please talk to about our equestrian to see if there's a smaller thing.

[5:34:07] I think we're going to finish the meeting out tonight.

[5:34:10] I am going to request that we adjourn the meeting in memory of Darlene Dubray, who died recently.

[5:34:21] She was an active cert member from Malibu since 2015.

[5:34:25] She played a key role during the Wolsey Fire and assisted with past distribution following the Palisades Fire.

[5:34:33] Even though she was also displaced from her home due to smoke damage,

[5:34:38] Darlene loved surfing, biking, and was well known at the senior center, participating in many of their activities.

[5:34:46] Darlene had a sweet and caring nature and never had an unkind word to say about anyone.

[5:34:51] One, Darlene will be missed by many people who knew and

[5:34:56] loved her, and that was put together from Susan Dwayneus and public safety.

[5:35:02] So just want to make that acknowledgement of adjournment, so with that we are adjourned.

[5:35:07] Thank you.

[5:35:08] Thank you.

City Council Regular Meeting January 12, 2026

Transcript