[5:49] Mhm.

[7:44] » Mhm.

[9:06] » Great.

[9:09] Okay, good afternoon. The June 8th, 2026

[9:12] regular meeting of the Malibu City

[9:14] Council is now called to order. In

[9:16] person participants, if you'd like to

[9:18] speak, please submit your request to

[9:19] speak form to the clerk. Remote

[9:21] participants, if you'd like to speak,

[9:22] please join the Zoom webinar meeting

[9:25] printed on the agenda and raise your

[9:26] hand in Zoom when the item you wish to

[9:28] speak on is called. May we please have a

[9:30] roll call?

[9:31] » Councilmember Conrad?

[9:32] » Here.

[9:32] » Councilmember Riggins?

[9:33] » Here.

[9:34] » Councilmember Stewart?

[9:35] » Here.

[9:35] » Mayor pro tem Pierson?

[9:36] » Here.

[9:37] » Mayor Silverstein?

[9:38] » Present.

[9:38] » You have a quorum.

[9:39] » Great. Do we have any speakers remote or

[9:42] in person?

[9:44] » We don't have any participants or raised

[9:46] hands on Zoom. I'm sorry, I'm looking at

[9:48] our one member of the public in the

[9:50] audience trying to confirm. Marissa, do

[9:52] you have a speaker slip for the closed

[9:53] session?

[9:54] » No.

[9:55] » Then no, we don't have any speakers for

[9:56] this item.

[9:57] » Okay, so we have no public speakers.

[9:59] That closes the opportunity to speak. We

[10:01] will now recess to close session to

[10:03] discuss the items listed on the close

[10:05] session agenda.

[10:07] We will reconvene at 5:30 p.m. or as

[10:09] soon thereafter as we are finished the

[10:11] close session to begin the regular

[10:13] session and hear the close session

[10:14] report.

[15:24] » Mhm.

[24:59] » Mhm.

[28:49] » Mhm.

[30:44] » Mhm.

[32:39] » Mhm.

[53:03] » Okay, good evening.

[53:05] The June 8th, 2026 regular meeting of

[53:07] the Melbourne City Council is now called

[53:09] back to order. In-person participants,

[53:11] if you'd like to speak, please submit

[53:12] your request to speak form to the clerk.

[53:14] Remote participants, if you'd like to

[53:16] speak, please join the Zoom webinar

[53:18] meeting printed on the agenda and raise

[53:19] your hand in Zoom when the item you wish

[53:21] to speak on is called. May we please

[53:23] have a roll call?

[53:24] » Councilmember Conrad.

[53:25] » Here.

[53:26] » Councilmember Riggins.

[53:28] » Here.

[53:28] » Councilmember Stewart.

[53:29] » Here.

[53:30] » Mayor Pro Tem Yuryin.

[53:31] » Here.

[53:32] » Mayor Silverstein.

[53:33] » Present.

[53:34] » You have a quorum.

[53:35] » Great. Doug, you want to lead us in the

[53:36] Pledge of Allegiance?

[53:39] » Please rise.

[53:40] Place your hand over your heart.

[53:42] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[53:44] United States of America and to the

[53:47] republic for which it stands, one nation

[53:50] under God,

[53:51] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[53:53] for all.

[53:55] » Thank you.

[53:57] Trevor, can we please get a closed

[53:59] session report?

[54:00] » Yes, at 5:00 p.m. the city council met

[54:02] in open session and recessed to closed

[54:04] session items listed on the posted

[54:05] agenda. All five council members were

[54:07] present and no reportable action was

[54:08] taken.

[54:09] » Thank you.

[54:10] May we please have a report on the

[54:12] posting of the agenda?

[54:14] » The agenda for this meeting was properly

[54:16] posted on May 29th, 2026 with the

[54:18] amended agenda posted on June 9th, 2026.

[54:21] The amended agenda and staff reports for

[54:24] item number numbers 1A1, 1A2, 1B8, 1B9,

[54:28] and 8A were properly posted, but through

[54:31] an administrative error, the staff

[54:33] report for item number 1B10 was not

[54:35] posted. Staff recommends continuing item

[54:38] 1B10 to the June 22nd meeting to allow

[54:40] the public time to review the full

[54:42] report.

[54:43] » Thank you, Kelsey. Can we have an

[54:45] approval of the agenda continuing

[54:47] including continuing item number 1B10 to

[54:50] June 22nd?

[54:50] » I'll move to approve the agenda with

[54:52] 1B10 being moved to the next meeting.

[54:54] » I'll second.

[54:55] » Any objections? All in favor?

[54:59] There being no objections and all in

[55:00] favor, it's passed.

[55:04] We'll now consider the consent calendar.

[55:06] Remote participants, please raise your

[55:08] hand in Zoom if you'd like to speak on

[55:10] the consent calendar.

[55:12] Do we have any speaker slips for the

[55:14] consent calendar?

[55:15] » No, we don't have any speaker slips. I'm

[55:17] looking at a last call to our desk. No,

[55:20] and we do not have any raised hands on

[55:22] Zoom for the consent calendar.

[55:23] » Okay, so there's no public comment on

[55:25] the consent calendar. Does any member of

[55:27] city council wish to pull any item on

[55:29] the consent calendar?

[55:34] I've got one or two. Hold on, let me

[55:36] find my notes.

[55:49] I'd like to pull 182.

[55:54] Uh

[55:55] I get a motion to approve the consent

[55:56] calendar exclusive of 182.

[56:00] » I'll make a motion to approve the

[56:01] consent calendar.

[56:02] » Second.

[56:04] » Anyone opposed?

[56:06] All in favor?

[56:07] » Aye.

[56:08] » Okay, so the consent calendar is

[56:09] approved except for 182.

[56:11] Um 182, I don't need a staff report.

[56:13] This is the

[56:15] um

[56:16] the written policy that came back, the

[56:18] resolution and policy that came back

[56:19] after we had our meeting and gave

[56:21] direction for some changes. Um I still

[56:23] have a couple of things I'd like to um

[56:25] raise with the staff. Um

[56:28] first of all, policy number 28, it

[56:31] seemed to me that that should be left

[56:33] the way it was. I hadn't focused on I

[56:35] hadn't focused on the fact that it was

[56:37] being reapproved

[56:39] because there's an inconsistency between

[56:41] policy 28 and resolution 2627

[56:45] and they used to have

[56:47] the resolution had primacy because it

[56:49] was adopted after the policy, but if we

[56:51] adopt them both at the same time,

[56:53] they're inconsistent with one another.

[56:55] So, my proposal to council is that we

[56:58] not adopt policy 27 28, maybe even just

[57:02] maybe even repeal it because it's taken

[57:04] care of in section um Roman Roman

[57:08] numeral 8.a

[57:11] in the resolution.

[57:14] I'm sorry, that's the wrong one. It's um

[57:16] sec I'm sorry, section VI.c.

[57:19] So, the the point is the used to the

[57:22] history of this is there was that

[57:23] policy, later on the city council

[57:25] adopted a resolution.

[57:28] The resolution is being amended to

[57:29] fine-tune it, but the policy was

[57:32] basically repealed even though it never

[57:34] said it was being repealed. If we adopt

[57:36] them both today, we're we're adopting

[57:38] two inconsistent

[57:40] documents.

[57:42] » Can you clarify where the um

[57:45] policy is? I didn't catch it.

[57:47] » Okay, policy 28 is the second document.

[57:50] Um section VI.C of the resolution

[57:54] deals with the same

[57:55] same issue.

[57:57] But it's more more complete and it has a

[58:01] slightly different concept.

[58:04] So, if we adopt them both, it's unclear

[58:05] what the rule is.

[58:09] So, I'd like to propose we just scrap

[58:11] the policy or or leave the policy

[58:12] unamended because it's it's been

[58:14] superseded already.

[58:15] Kelsey, do you want to say something?

[58:17] » Administratively, Mayor, at some point I

[58:19] would recommend either revising or

[58:20] repealing the policy only because it is

[58:22] confusing to have a policy on file with

[58:25] a different deadline than the city

[58:26] council resolution. So, ultimately, I

[58:28] think we should clarify that

[58:29] discrepancy.

[58:30] » So, my so my suggestion to council is

[58:32] that we either repeal policy 28 or put

[58:36] the words of section VI.C of resolution

[58:40] 2627 into the policy as opposed to what

[58:42] is there now because they are not the

[58:44] same and they ought to be.

[58:45] » Okay, that's clear.

[58:46] » Is there any discussion on this?

[58:48] Kelsey, is there any reason we need to

[58:49] keep the the policy?

[58:52] » I don't believe so. I think repealing it

[58:54] would be a fine solution.

[58:57] » Okay, in that case, what I'm going to

[58:58] I'm going to I'm going to add a couple

[58:59] other changes, but what I'm going to I'm

[59:00] just going to move later to repeal

[59:03] policy 28. The other thing is resolution

[59:06] 2627

[59:08] section VIII, so that's 8.A,

[59:12] I think we should add the words and

[59:15] there is an exigency requiring action

[59:17] more prompt than established by the

[59:19] timeline set forth here in to the end of

[59:22] the next to the last sentence of the

[59:24] two paragraphs.

[59:25] » Mayor, could we get the page number on

[59:27] that, as well?

[59:28] » I don't have the page number.

[59:29] Section VII.A.

[59:32] » Page eight, public hearings, VII.

[59:35] » Yeah. The second The original

[59:37] » It's VIII.A,

[59:40] public hearings for land use

[59:42] appeal/applications.

[59:43] » The second paragraph, the penultimate

[59:45] sentence. The original proposal had

[59:47] been, if there was an exigency, we could

[59:50] change the um

[59:52] timeline. And then, as a result of our

[59:54] discussion, that was changed to, if it's

[59:56] a government proposal. But I think But

[59:59] we lost the and there's an exigency part

[1:00:01] of it. So,

[1:00:02] my suggestion is that we add to the end

[1:00:03] of that sentence, and there is an

[1:00:05] exigency requiring action more prompt

[1:00:08] than that established by the timeline

[1:00:09] set forth herein.

[1:00:11] » I don't remember that we added that. I

[1:00:13] thought we just went with if it was

[1:00:16] related to a

[1:00:18] » Well, why should the government get a

[1:00:20] earlier schedule just just like that? I

[1:00:22] mean, there's a This is a reason for

[1:00:24] accelerating it. Not only not just

[1:00:26] because of the government's asking for

[1:00:27] something, but and there's not enough

[1:00:29] time to follow the timeline. Otherwise,

[1:00:31] why should they be treated any

[1:00:32] differently?

[1:00:33] » I understand that. I'm not disputing

[1:00:35] what you're suggesting. I'm just saying

[1:00:37] we didn't add that to our discussion

[1:00:38] when we had the discussion at the time.

[1:00:40] » The original proposal from the staff

[1:00:43] was, if there's an exigency.

[1:00:45] As a result of our conversation, they

[1:00:47] changed it to, if the government's

[1:00:48] proposing it. To me, it was implicit

[1:00:50] that the exigency for the government was

[1:00:52] part of the was part of what we were

[1:00:54] talking about.

[1:00:55] So, I think we did discuss it, even

[1:00:57] though no one said anything.

[1:00:59] But I This is a proposal to

[1:01:02] » How do we handle

[1:01:04] this? I don't remember, but

[1:01:07] » Well, it doesn't matter what we thought

[1:01:08] then. The suggestion is we add these

[1:01:10] words. Either the council is agreeable

[1:01:12] to doing that or not. So, I mean, just

[1:01:14] as a

[1:01:15] um straw poll, is that Is anyone else

[1:01:17] interested in doing that or

[1:01:19] » I think I need to hear

[1:01:20] » Where are you adding the words? Just

[1:01:22] Give me a real clear, crisp product.

[1:01:25] Let me Let me get my copy. Hold on. I'm

[1:01:26] » Page

[1:01:27] VII

[1:01:28] public hearings, then item A.

[1:01:30] And then

[1:01:32] Yeah, let's go through it together.

[1:01:33] » Hold on.

[1:01:35] » So, it's this paragraph, but then he

[1:01:38] said second paragraph.

[1:01:40] » A second para- It says on page seven.

[1:01:43] » Page seven.

[1:01:44] » Here.

[1:01:45] Um the next-to-the-last sentence or the

[1:01:47] penultimate sentence, "Modifications to

[1:01:49] the deadline shall be" Now, it's the

[1:01:51] wrong thing. Where is it?

[1:01:56] Hold on.

[1:01:58] Oh, it's a It's It's the sentence before

[1:02:00] that. "These deadlines may be modified

[1:02:02] at the discretion of the city manager

[1:02:04] and city clerk only for projects where

[1:02:05] the applicant is a public entity."

[1:02:07] » Page seven?

[1:02:08] » Yes.

[1:02:09] » What paragraph?

[1:02:10] » Third from the end of the paragraph that

[1:02:11] begins the page.

[1:02:14] » UK seven up here.

[1:02:15] » UK seven up here.

[1:02:18] » Oh, up here. Got it. Up here.

[1:02:21] » It's a It's

[1:02:22] » Page nine in our report.

[1:02:24] » Oh, okay. I'm I was talking about the

[1:02:25] page of the resolution. It says, "These

[1:02:28] deadlines may be modified at the

[1:02:29] discretion of the city manager and city

[1:02:31] clerk only for projects where the

[1:02:32] applicant is a public entity." And I'm

[1:02:34] suggesting that we add, "and there is an

[1:02:36] exigency requiring action more prompt

[1:02:38] than that established by the timeline

[1:02:40] set forth herein." So, that it's not

[1:02:42] simply because a public agency is making

[1:02:44] the land use request, but the public

[1:02:47] agency is making it and there's a reason

[1:02:48] why it can't wait.

[1:02:50] » And what is an exigency?

[1:02:52] » It means that it's

[1:02:53] » In here, so you're adding the word

[1:02:54] exigency?

[1:02:55] » I'm adding the words, "and there is an

[1:02:58] exigency requiring action more prompt

[1:03:00] than that established by the timeline

[1:03:02] set forth herein."

[1:03:03] » It's after That's before modification.

[1:03:05] That's before modification.

[1:03:06] » Correct.

[1:03:06] » I don't have a problem with that.

[1:03:08] » I don't even know what it means, so I'm

[1:03:09] not going to I'll abstain. But, thank

[1:03:11] you.

[1:03:11] » It's an emergency. Some Some

[1:03:13] » Okay. Expediency. So, like it's

[1:03:15] expedient. Okay, great.

[1:03:18] » There needs to be a reason that that

[1:03:20] they can't comply with the regular

[1:03:21] timelines.

[1:03:22] » The last change is VIB.2.

[1:03:26] So that would be page

[1:03:29] Um

[1:03:31] page five of the resolution,

[1:03:33] page seven of the report. There's a typo

[1:03:37] 2A near the bottom. It says the city

[1:03:40] council shall start the regular meetings

[1:03:41] promptly at 4:30 p.m. That should be

[1:03:43] 5:30 p.m.

[1:03:46] And I also suggest that we say after

[1:03:49] that before that sentence and

[1:03:52] or as soon thereafter as practicable if

[1:03:54] the meeting should commence with a

[1:03:56] closed session.

[1:03:57] Cuz that it shouldn't be some mandate

[1:03:59] that we start at a certain time when

[1:04:00] we're still upstairs in a closed session

[1:04:03] um talking about a closed session

[1:04:05] matter. I usually say that when we had

[1:04:07] recessed, but it's not in our protocol.

[1:04:10] So

[1:04:11] my motion is that we

[1:04:13] we repeal

[1:04:15] policy 28,

[1:04:17] we amend the resolution in two places.

[1:04:21] The first is that place where I talked

[1:04:22] about and there is an exigency and the

[1:04:24] second is

[1:04:26] um well to fix the typo from 4:30 to

[1:04:27] 5:30 and add the words or as soon

[1:04:30] thereafter as practicable if the meeting

[1:04:32] should commence with a closed session.

[1:04:35] Can I get a second for that?

[1:04:37] » I'll second.

[1:04:38] » And Mayor, before the vote if I could

[1:04:39] just clarify, we were review reviewing

[1:04:41] policy 28 during your discussion and

[1:04:43] comparing it to the resolution um and

[1:04:45] the only element in policy that is not

[1:04:48] recorded in the resolution as well is

[1:04:49] the guideline of

[1:04:52] for reports should not take more than 1

[1:04:54] hour of staff time to prepare background

[1:04:56] information. So is that something the

[1:04:57] council would like to add to the

[1:04:58] resolution to have one guiding document?

[1:05:02] » The resolution says that the that the

[1:05:04] council member shall prepare the report,

[1:05:05] right?

[1:05:18] » I'm trying to find it on here.

[1:05:22] Um individual members of the city

[1:05:24] council may place an item on the city

[1:05:25] council agenda for consideration by the

[1:05:27] council when less than 1 hour staff work

[1:05:29] is involved in preparing the item by

[1:05:30] providing agenda backup material to the

[1:05:33] staff.

[1:05:34] And then when more than 1 hour is

[1:05:35] necessary it has to go to the council.

[1:05:40] » But then it doesn't seem to be a

[1:05:41] question.

[1:05:42] » Yes, that's that's the concern I think.

[1:05:44] That's the section, Kelsey.

[1:05:47] » Correct, that's the section of the

[1:05:48] policy.

[1:05:51] » So

[1:05:54] instead of repealing the policy, it

[1:05:56] could just

[1:06:00] remove the implementation paragraph.

[1:06:02] Would that eliminate the conflict?

[1:06:05] » So here's what I would if if council

[1:06:07] wants to entertain that on the carryover

[1:06:11] part of the paragraph that is on page

[1:06:13] six of eight, which is page eight of the

[1:06:14] staff report,

[1:06:16] um it says individual city council

[1:06:19] members must submit a brief report to

[1:06:21] the council explaining their item and

[1:06:22] supporting materials for the items by

[1:06:24] this deadline. We could say if if the

[1:06:28] report will take more than 1 hour of

[1:06:29] staff time.

[1:06:36] » And that would be the proposed language

[1:06:37] to then allow the repeal 28 policy.

[1:06:40] » 28? Yes.

[1:06:43] » Steve, will you accept that as an

[1:06:44] amendment?

[1:06:44] » Yes.

[1:06:45] » Okay, is there any discussion on this

[1:06:47] beyond what we've already had?

[1:06:51] Is there any objection to these changes?

[1:06:54] All in favor?

[1:06:55] » Aye.

[1:06:56] » Aye.

[1:06:57] » Okay, unanimously passes. The consent

[1:06:59] calendar is addressed. Thank you very

[1:07:01] much for the accommodation on that.

[1:07:05] Ceremonial presentations. We'll now hear

[1:07:07] a presentation from by June Kang from

[1:07:11] Caltrans regarding um

[1:07:14] PCH improvements and shoreline

[1:07:16] protection.

[1:07:20] » Good evening everyone. Uh thank you for

[1:07:21] inviting me. Uh my name is June Kang.

[1:07:23] I'm the assistant division chief for

[1:07:25] Caltrans District 7 in program project

[1:07:28] management. I'm the basically a

[1:07:30] principal engineer who is in charge who

[1:07:31] is assigned to PCH and Topanga Canyon

[1:07:34] exclusively. So,

[1:07:36] I will be seeing you very often,

[1:07:38] hopefully,

[1:07:39] uh to give you more updates.

[1:07:45] Okay, uh I'm going to just talk about

[1:07:46] some of the projects that's been

[1:07:48] completed. Um

[1:07:50] Getty wall, catch from wall, and then I

[1:07:53] want to talk about little drainage pipe

[1:07:55] repairs that we're trying to do

[1:07:57] uh across PCH and through private

[1:08:01] property.

[1:08:02] Uh so, we're going to just have some

[1:08:04] discussion on uh rebuild efforts and

[1:08:08] uh Caltrans seawall repair, which is

[1:08:10] about 300 350 ft long seawall that we

[1:08:13] have.

[1:08:14] Um we are doing performing some

[1:08:16] non-emergency slope repairs on private

[1:08:19] property and we'll talk about pavement

[1:08:21] rehab project

[1:08:23] uh that is north of Asara Road to the

[1:08:25] Ventura County line.

[1:08:29] So, Getty Villa wall is done. So, we are

[1:08:32] just doing the safety review and

[1:08:35] uh we're going to be accepting the

[1:08:36] projects.

[1:08:37] It This was completed uh on schedule

[1:08:40] last month.

[1:08:42] This is a catch from wall also uh

[1:08:44] completed in in May.

[1:08:47] Um we're pretty proud of the how it

[1:08:49] looks.

[1:08:50] Uh it got all burnt out. Uh all the

[1:08:53] lagging right now it's all the cement.

[1:08:56] It looks like wood, but

[1:08:57] it worked it turned out really really

[1:08:59] well.

[1:09:02] Uh Uh we have about we identified about

[1:09:04] 60 drainage pipe across PCH.

[1:09:07] Uh

[1:09:08] and about 32 of them are on private

[1:09:11] parcels.

[1:09:12] So,

[1:09:14] these pipes were constructed in 1930s

[1:09:17] and maybe earlier.

[1:09:19] And some of them has corrugated metal

[1:09:21] pipes that got pretty much rotted out.

[1:09:23] Some of them has uh

[1:09:25] uh

[1:09:26] reinforced concrete pipes. But, some of

[1:09:29] the pipes pipes that that is basically

[1:09:31] damaged, we actually have to open it up

[1:09:34] and replace them. So, there will be a

[1:09:37] open trench replacement on these.

[1:09:40] Um we actually asked for additional

[1:09:42] money. Uh we identified 39 locations

[1:09:44] that would require replacements.

[1:09:47] So, we are trying to uh this is a kind

[1:09:51] of one of the one of the pages of the

[1:09:52] map that we're putting together so to

[1:09:55] identify where the drainage easements

[1:09:57] are

[1:09:58] and overlapping with the Google Maps so

[1:10:00] that people can see

[1:10:01] where these pipes are.

[1:10:04] So, uh

[1:10:06] we are right now working on right-of-way

[1:10:08] maps to provide the property owners and

[1:10:11] contact them. So, um and identifying our

[1:10:14] drainage easement so that we can

[1:10:16] actually begin repair work.

[1:10:19] Um

[1:10:20] but,

[1:10:21] it is very tough to get a

[1:10:24] uh

[1:10:25] uh temporary construction easement.

[1:10:28] So, uh

[1:10:30] what we are trying to do at this point

[1:10:31] is to contact the property owners with

[1:10:35] this approximate map

[1:10:38] and giving them a pretty much one-page

[1:10:41] paperwork saying enter a permit to enter

[1:10:44] and construct. So, it basically requires

[1:10:46] their signature and this way we can move

[1:10:48] in and

[1:10:50] build these drainages so that they can

[1:10:53] build their homes, uh especially the

[1:10:55] ones uh destroyed by fire and we'll

[1:10:58] follow up with a correct documentation

[1:11:01] so that uh we don't delay the

[1:11:04] construction of these homes.

[1:11:09] So, Rebuild Effort is going uh currently

[1:11:12] uh Caltrans was contacted by contacted

[1:11:14] by about 41 property owners

[1:11:18] and their representatives. Uh some of

[1:11:20] the improvements they're doing, of

[1:11:22] course, they're building their home

[1:11:24] within their property but driveways,

[1:11:27] uh the construction staging, um

[1:11:31] uh on a shoulder and live lanes and

[1:11:34] we're discussing drainage drainage

[1:11:36] easements and also we're trying to

[1:11:39] accelerate this uh permit approval

[1:11:42] process. So, we are putting together a

[1:11:45] programmatic encroachment permit.

[1:11:47] Basically, it's a simple blanket permit

[1:11:51] for

[1:11:53] uh

[1:11:54] most like simple stuff like staging and

[1:11:57] lane closures. So, as long as they um

[1:12:00] they can abide by uh specific provisions

[1:12:04] we provide, these permits will be issued

[1:12:08] not in weeks but in days. So, that's

[1:12:11] what we are working on right now.

[1:12:14] But, you have to understand

[1:12:16] the the FEMA and all these uh

[1:12:20] uh

[1:12:20] the the regulatory agencies that came

[1:12:23] came in for the rebuild efforts, they're

[1:12:26] asking the homeowners to raise their

[1:12:29] homes by a foot to 3 ft.

[1:12:33] That is causing a lot of problems

[1:12:36] uh especially ADA requirements on the

[1:12:39] driveways and the sidewalks.

[1:12:41] So, we are working closely with the

[1:12:43] builders

[1:12:45] um and if in some certain cases we will

[1:12:48] have to work with them to provide them

[1:12:49] with the some exceptions but it is

[1:12:52] becoming a very challenging. So,

[1:12:54] driveway permits should be pretty

[1:12:56] simple.

[1:12:58] Not anymore. Because all these changes.

[1:13:00] So, those permits will take a much

[1:13:02] longer than

[1:13:05] than expected.

[1:13:07] We are also shifting PCH toward the

[1:13:10] hillside from 2770 PCH to 2101

[1:13:15] PCH. So, that will provide

[1:13:19] build a home owners

[1:13:21] a little more shoulder room. So, current

[1:13:23] shoulder width there is 12 to 15 ft.

[1:13:27] After we shift the PCH by

[1:13:32] uh basically closing the middle turning

[1:13:35] lane,

[1:13:36] uh it'll be about 24 to 25 ft. So, they

[1:13:40] don't have to encroach into live lane.

[1:13:43] They can just close the shoulders and do

[1:13:45] their construction in that area so that

[1:13:49] uh

[1:13:49] they don't have to incur cost. It'll be

[1:13:52] easier for us. At least for those

[1:13:55] locations, um it's about 0.7 mi long

[1:13:59] closure or the the the shifting limits.

[1:14:04] But,

[1:14:05] uh the pavement project in that area is

[1:14:08] not going to come in

[1:14:09] till next couple of years. So, they will

[1:14:12] have at least 24 months or so for them

[1:14:15] to stage and build their foundations.

[1:14:19] After the foundations are built, they

[1:14:21] can build they can stage their

[1:14:22] construction on top of that. So, we are

[1:14:25] communicating this with all the builders

[1:14:28] and home owners. So, that shifting of

[1:14:32] the PCH in that segment will be

[1:14:35] starting this Thursday. So, we are

[1:14:37] hoping to complete it by

[1:14:39] uh coming Friday,

[1:14:41] but it might carry into um

[1:14:44] couple more days if if we face

[1:14:47] challenges there. So, but the shifting

[1:14:50] lanes will

[1:14:52] happen this coming Thursday night.

[1:14:55] » And you're you're removing the center

[1:14:56] lane?

[1:14:58] » Yes, so we're removing this turning lane

[1:15:00] because there's no place to go.

[1:15:02] » Okay.

[1:15:03] » We're just shifting it toward the

[1:15:04] hillside.

[1:15:07] This is Caltrans seawall that is located

[1:15:10] from 19232 PCH to 19302 PCH. It's about

[1:15:15] 350 ft long. It is very hefty seawall.

[1:15:18] It's about 2 ft thick.

[1:15:21] But because of fire and fire damage,

[1:15:26] the the the surface of the

[1:15:29] wall is kind of spalled out. So, all we

[1:15:31] have to do is go in there, clean it out,

[1:15:34] chip some bad concrete out, and then

[1:15:36] just patch it up.

[1:15:38] We were dealing with about 10 10

[1:15:40] property owners to get temporary

[1:15:44] construction easement.

[1:15:45] We've been working with them about

[1:15:47] » [snorts]

[1:15:47] » I believe about 6 months. A lot of them

[1:15:50] did not respond. So, we only got two

[1:15:54] signatures. So, our legal

[1:15:57] and and our right-of-way decided to

[1:16:02] to go ahead and repair this wall without

[1:16:06] the temporary construction easement from

[1:16:07] the private property owners because the

[1:16:10] wall is actually all within Caltrans

[1:16:13] right-of-way. But we do need to access

[1:16:16] it from the property in front. So,

[1:16:20] because of this non-action from the

[1:16:22] private property owners, we are going to

[1:16:24] repair it, and we're going to follow up

[1:16:26] again with a correct documentation for

[1:16:29] the right-of-way. So, that

[1:16:32] that that operation will begin within

[1:16:35] few weeks. So, we'll repair that.

[1:16:37] » And you can do the repairs without

[1:16:39] having the permission of the property

[1:16:40] owners. Is that what you're telling us?

[1:16:42] » So, we will be entering their property,

[1:16:44] yes, clearing in front of the wall.

[1:16:45] » As long as long as you get it done,

[1:16:46] okay.

[1:16:47] » Yeah. So, we we we did did talk to

[1:16:49] legal. We tried all avenues for about 6

[1:16:53] months, but we were able we weren't able

[1:16:55] to

[1:16:57] uh establish a good contact

[1:16:59] um and it was very difficult, but we

[1:17:02] will still follow up.

[1:17:07] Now, these these walls have its own

[1:17:10] utility holes that's already there.

[1:17:13] But but the problem is, as you know, uh

[1:17:16] Southern California Edison did

[1:17:17] underground.

[1:17:19] So, eventually the electrical lines has

[1:17:21] to come through

[1:17:23] uh separate utility openings

[1:17:25] through that wall. So, every property

[1:17:28] will have will get about four separate

[1:17:31] utility holes for future use.

[1:17:35] For example, sewer. I know the sewer

[1:17:38] line is not going to be there anytime

[1:17:40] soon, but we will have we will create an

[1:17:42] opening for them so that they can tap

[1:17:44] into it in the future. So, we're

[1:17:46] providing four openings per property,

[1:17:49] four additional uh utility openings.

[1:17:56] We have some drainage through there as

[1:17:57] well. So,

[1:17:59] uh Caltrans state drainage easement

[1:18:04] basically says,

[1:18:05] "Thou shall not build on top of it." So,

[1:18:09] you cannot build on top of it if we go

[1:18:12] strict by the rule. What but we're not

[1:18:14] going to do that. We have to we have to

[1:18:16] exist together, coexist. So, I am

[1:18:19] working with the developers and home

[1:18:21] builders so that if they can give us

[1:18:23] enough room around it

[1:18:25] for the future maintenance and

[1:18:27] replacement, and that's what we're

[1:18:29] working on. So, we are

[1:18:31] uh working on a creative solutions

[1:18:33] together. So, they do understand that we

[1:18:37] are not going to say thou shall not

[1:18:39] build on top. It doesn't make any sense.

[1:18:41] It'll It'll cut the property in half

[1:18:44] sometimes and you can't build anything

[1:18:46] on top. So, but but we are working

[1:18:49] together.

[1:18:52] Uh there were

[1:18:54] a few

[1:18:55] locations

[1:18:57] on PCH uh because of the fire damage um

[1:19:02] uh when when there was a

[1:19:04] firefighting efforts and cleanup efforts

[1:19:07] the slopes that is basically abutting

[1:19:10] the the PCH shoulder

[1:19:12] some of the locations are kind of

[1:19:14] eroded.

[1:19:15] Not This is not a shoreline

[1:19:19] uh issue. It's It's far away. That That

[1:19:21] location right there is about 100 to 150

[1:19:24] ft away from the wave action. So, but we

[1:19:28] have a slope issues there that is

[1:19:31] basically eroded enough that shoulder uh

[1:19:35] pavement is kind of breaking. So, it's a

[1:19:38] simple repair. We can do a slope slope

[1:19:41] grading 2:1. We can put some backfill

[1:19:45] material there. However, that material

[1:19:47] goes on to private property owners. So,

[1:19:50] we need the temporary construction

[1:19:52] easement for that. So, our design right

[1:19:55] now and Geotech is working to come up

[1:19:58] with a very simple design to basically

[1:20:02] feather the slope back to 2:1 slope. So,

[1:20:07] uh we have a we identified three

[1:20:08] locations.

[1:20:10] One of them as you can see is a big hole

[1:20:11] there. That's right by the shoulder.

[1:20:15] So, toward the private property owner.

[1:20:18] Photo on the right

[1:20:20] actually the right by the hole the Army

[1:20:24] Corps of Engineers put a lot of grading

[1:20:26] material on the side. They used that as

[1:20:29] a ramp to go in there and then clean uh

[1:20:31] clean the debris out. So, that similar

[1:20:35] repair could be done on these holes so

[1:20:38] that it'll be all graded nicely.

[1:20:42] But, again, this is all in private

[1:20:44] property, so

[1:20:46] we are working with the property owners

[1:20:48] to get the temporary construction

[1:20:49] easements to repair the slope.

[1:20:54] This is another location.

[1:20:57] The building foundation is right next to

[1:21:00] our shoulder edge and is settled. So, in

[1:21:04] this location we can go ahead and remove

[1:21:06] that concrete and again slope it down.

[1:21:09] And we will do some repairs on the

[1:21:11] pavement.

[1:21:14] Now, this was one of the locations that

[1:21:17] we had received some complaints, but

[1:21:19] this is all within private property and

[1:21:22] we're watching it very carefully. So,

[1:21:24] there is no way the that wave action

[1:21:27] could get to this slope

[1:21:29] and we don't think this is going to be a

[1:21:32] a threat to PCH, so we're going to go

[1:21:34] ahead and monitor.

[1:21:36] And this one also also

[1:21:39] It looks like private private property

[1:21:41] owner or

[1:21:43] previous developer has put a shotcrete

[1:21:46] on along the slope. But

[1:21:49] because of the fire and everything else,

[1:21:52] it kind of got eroded. So, there's some

[1:21:54] holes

[1:21:55] there's of some voids behind the

[1:21:57] shotcrete, but it is about 10 ft away

[1:22:01] from our shoulder line. So, we don't

[1:22:03] feel this is a threat to PCH, so we're

[1:22:05] going to go ahead and monitor.

[1:22:07] This is all within private property.

[1:22:12] We have a

[1:22:14] one pavement rehabilitation project

[1:22:15] that's currently

[1:22:18] advertised. It was advertised advertised

[1:22:22] in May 11th.

[1:22:23] Bid is opening Uh,

[1:22:25] end of June, June 25th. We are hoping to

[1:22:29] award it by end of July and begin

[1:22:32] construction in August.

[1:22:34] So, hopefully we'll complete this work

[1:22:37] by December

[1:22:38] of 2029.

[1:22:40] That's all the

[1:22:42] reports that I have.

[1:22:44] If anybody has any questions, I can

[1:22:46] answer them.

[1:22:47] » Thank you for that. Are there questions?

[1:22:49] Marianne?

[1:22:51] Let's start and just work our way down

[1:22:52] from there.

[1:22:53] » Okay. Um,

[1:22:54] if you could put the dates of the

[1:22:56] pavement rehab

[1:22:57] Well, I I think more of my question is

[1:22:59] what section of the highway is that

[1:23:01] pavement from where to where?

[1:23:03] » Serra Road all the way to the county

[1:23:05] line.

[1:23:06] That is the northern cap end.

[1:23:08] That includes the Pepperdine.

[1:23:10] » Okay. So, the one that was proposed for

[1:23:13] the east from McClure Tunnel to there is

[1:23:15] paused or what's the status on that one?

[1:23:18] » Currently is in design

[1:23:20] and most likely going into construction

[1:23:23] within a couple years.

[1:23:24] » Okay.

[1:23:25] Um, have you been able to contact all

[1:23:28] the property owners of the photos that

[1:23:31] you Do you need assistance with

[1:23:34] uh, making contact with any of the

[1:23:36] property owners, anything like that?

[1:23:37] » Not at this time. Uh, those were

[1:23:39] identified last September and we were

[1:23:43] monitoring them, but it was brought up

[1:23:45] to our attention saying, "Hey, this is

[1:23:47] falling apart.

[1:23:48] PCH is washing into the ocean." So, we

[1:23:51] went in there and actually we went there

[1:23:53] and actually did a complete review.

[1:23:55] Actually, I walked every every step

[1:23:58] there, every mile and we found those

[1:24:01] locations could use some repair. So,

[1:24:05] first thing that needs to happen is our

[1:24:06] design, our geotech needs to propose a

[1:24:10] solution first. Once that proposed

[1:24:13] design is is done, then uh, we have to

[1:24:17] initiate a right away process. So, our

[1:24:20] right away agent will

[1:24:22] uh,

[1:24:23] will contact those uh, property owners.

[1:24:26] But if we do have a trouble, I know you

[1:24:27] guys been helping us a lot. We will

[1:24:29] we'll let Yolanda know and everybody

[1:24:32] in the city so that you can help us out.

[1:24:34] But I think those three property owners

[1:24:37] were actually interested in seeing those

[1:24:41] slopes being repaired because they they

[1:24:44] did raise these concerns. So, I don't

[1:24:47] think we're going to have any problem

[1:24:49] contacting them and repairing

[1:24:52] slope within their property.

[1:24:54] » And then I'll I'll do this my final. I'm

[1:24:56] sure everybody else is going to contact

[1:24:57] other things.

[1:24:59] So, is there ever a case where Caltrans

[1:25:03] can

[1:25:04] actually do the shoreline protection on

[1:25:07] the private properties owners because it

[1:25:10] is going to help protect PCH? It seems

[1:25:13] like it's falling to a lot of our

[1:25:14] property owners in order to do that. Is

[1:25:16] there something that the state can do

[1:25:19] to help those property owners if there's

[1:25:21] a a permission that can be given by

[1:25:23] those property owners?

[1:25:24] » So, if it is an emergency that we know

[1:25:28] the PCH is threatened, it's including

[1:25:30] the shoulder, then we'll move in

[1:25:33] as a as emergency project to stabilize

[1:25:36] that section. But we don't see any

[1:25:39] portion other than the three location

[1:25:41] that we showed

[1:25:43] is threatening PCH.

[1:25:45] It it it's the photo it's looked really

[1:25:49] bad. So,

[1:25:51] I thought everything was falling apart,

[1:25:52] but when I when I when I was when I when

[1:25:55] I when I went out there, it was the

[1:25:57] photos were very misleading.

[1:25:59] So, we are looking at looking at PCH

[1:26:02] very carefully.

[1:26:04] One of the major shoreline protection

[1:26:07] that we're doing right now is Redner

[1:26:08] Beach.

[1:26:09] Uh

[1:26:10] it's right by

[1:26:13] the Getty Villa.

[1:26:15] There's a whole section of the ocean

[1:26:18] where

[1:26:19] in 30s there were some homes.

[1:26:22] County Beach is in Harbor actually

[1:26:25] bought those homes and they

[1:26:27] removed those homes to create a huge

[1:26:31] beach front. So it's a beautiful beach.

[1:26:34] It's and the the issue is that wave

[1:26:37] action is hitting the hillside. So it is

[1:26:40] washing out. So we are working with

[1:26:43] permitting agencies, especially Army

[1:26:44] Corps of Engineer to let them know,

[1:26:47] "Hey, we want to fix this." Beaches and

[1:26:49] Harbor actually asked us to fix it. So

[1:26:52] we are trying to shore

[1:26:54] shore that slope up. But Army Corps of

[1:26:57] Engineer is very strict and Coastal

[1:26:59] Commission is strict to the point where

[1:27:02] they don't like rock slope protections.

[1:27:06] It's a temporary fix, but it's most

[1:27:08] effective method that we know. So we are

[1:27:11] trying to convince them right now to

[1:27:14] shore that up. And we've been trying to

[1:27:16] do that for 3 years.

[1:27:17] » Is that the area east of Mastros?

[1:27:20] Um

[1:27:21] from Topanga to kind of the Getty Villa

[1:27:24] or

[1:27:25] » It's it's from the Getty Villa up about

[1:27:28] 1,000 ft. So we are shoring about 850 ft

[1:27:32] of that.

[1:27:33] » Okay. Thank you. I'll let others ask him

[1:27:35] that.

[1:27:36] » Steve, you're next.

[1:27:37] » Yeah, I got a couple.

[1:27:42] You talked about this, you know, the the

[1:27:43] drainage items. The Okay, are they on

[1:27:47] private If they're on private property,

[1:27:48] can you go there and fix those also?

[1:27:50] » That's correct.

[1:27:52] » You You don't need anybody's permission.

[1:27:54] » We have a drainage easement, but we will

[1:27:57] let them know and we are working with

[1:27:58] the builders to come up with a creative

[1:28:01] solution as I mentioned before. So we

[1:28:04] got to have a certain amount of room

[1:28:05] around the pipe

[1:28:07] under their property.

[1:28:09] » Here's the the

[1:28:10] I mean at least the concerns I'm

[1:28:12] hearing, I mean, I don't I don't know

[1:28:14] where PCH is is in danger, okay? And

[1:28:17] we've got this El Nino coming up here in

[1:28:19] the fall. I don't know what the heck

[1:28:20] that's going to do or not do. So, I

[1:28:22] mean, some of your things that say it's

[1:28:23] not close to the ocean now, but maybe

[1:28:25] before this El Nino blows in, who the

[1:28:26] hell knows? Are there any places you

[1:28:29] think you've got to do work where you

[1:28:31] need permissions from somebody to go do

[1:28:33] it that you don't have right now?

[1:28:37] » My plan at this point is concentrated on

[1:28:40] the drainage improvements.

[1:28:42] » I'm I'm talking about PCH in total. I

[1:28:44] mean, any any repairs that you're do you

[1:28:47] Look, this this is not a a Caltrans

[1:28:49] problem. This is a Malibu

[1:28:51] » Correct.

[1:28:52] » Survival problem. PCH goes down, we're

[1:28:55] screwed.

[1:28:55] » Correct.

[1:28:56] » Okay? And I would prefer not to have

[1:28:57] that happen. So, if we need to do if you

[1:29:00] need to do something and you need

[1:29:01] permission to do that, are you getting

[1:29:04] that permission or do you need to get

[1:29:05] that permission to do the appropriate

[1:29:07] work? And if not, what can we do to help

[1:29:10] I mean, Trevor, if there's something we

[1:29:11] can do from an emergency standpoint that

[1:29:13] says,

[1:29:14] "Go in and get it done." Right? I mean,

[1:29:17] I just think about that. I mean, look, I

[1:29:21] I don't want PCH to go belly up and

[1:29:24] we're sitting here doing nothing. And I

[1:29:25] I You're going to have a tough time

[1:29:27] reaching some of these property owners

[1:29:28] cuz they're not there anymore. And I

[1:29:30] don't know where the hell they are. Some

[1:29:31] of you know, some have gone, some

[1:29:33] they rented the places out to other

[1:29:35] peoples. I just want to make sure if

[1:29:37] you've got to do something before or if

[1:29:38] you if we or whoever have to do

[1:29:40] something to to make sure PCH is safe, I

[1:29:43] don't want anything slowing that down.

[1:29:45] So, if there's something slowing it

[1:29:47] down, let me know what that is and let's

[1:29:49] see what we can do to help you get that

[1:29:50] fixed. That to me Look, this is a huge

[1:29:53] priority for me,

[1:29:54] » Okay.

[1:29:55] » And for the whole city, I'm sure, not

[1:29:56] only me. All right.

[1:29:57] » Thank you so much.

[1:29:58] » Uh

[1:30:01] In terms of the place, you know,

[1:30:05] you've gone out walked PCH and I guess

[1:30:07] you have an idea of where the potential

[1:30:09] Is there some way you can give us some

[1:30:11] kind of a report that says, "Here are

[1:30:12] the locations where you think you need

[1:30:14] to do some work because PCH is in

[1:30:16] danger?" I just like to get that in

[1:30:18] front of the residents who live on

[1:30:19] there. Let them take a look at it and

[1:30:21] say, "Are they all included in there?

[1:30:22] Are there Are there places where we're

[1:30:24] missing?"

[1:30:25] Like I said, this is to me

[1:30:28] We're going to do this right. PCH goes

[1:30:30] down, we're in deep trouble. So, is

[1:30:32] there some way we can get some listing

[1:30:34] of of locations from you to say, "Here's

[1:30:36] where you think the the work has to be

[1:30:38] done?"

[1:30:39] » We have identified 60, again, the

[1:30:42] drainage pipe across the PCH. They are

[1:30:45] all working. We clean them out. So, and

[1:30:49] but they do require attention to rehab.

[1:30:52] That's why I said open trench and we

[1:30:53] need to replace those pipes.

[1:30:55] » The drainage ditches that I'm talking

[1:30:56] about, you know, the the highway being

[1:30:57] » Correct.

[1:30:58] » Getting undermined by the waves. Are

[1:31:00] there places where you can give us those

[1:31:02] locations? I just like to sit at the

[1:31:04] residents and sit back and say, "Yeah."

[1:31:06] I mean, they walk this thing every day,

[1:31:08] all right, whatever how many days

[1:31:09] you know, they can look at it and say,

[1:31:11] "Oh, we got everything included? If

[1:31:13] we're missing something, we can get that

[1:31:14] ahead of time versus trying to go back

[1:31:16] after the fact." So, if you can get us

[1:31:17] some kind of a report, a location, that

[1:31:20] would be very, very helpful.

[1:31:21] » Rightna Beach is the one.

[1:31:24] We need to fix that.

[1:31:25] » Yeah, yeah, I'm with you. That's that's

[1:31:26] exactly

[1:31:27] » That is the And we are I just had a

[1:31:29] meeting with Army Corps and Water Board

[1:31:31] on that, and they are holding pretty

[1:31:35] They're holding a very tough

[1:31:37] position. So, if you can help us out

[1:31:40] with talking to them, that would be

[1:31:41] great.

[1:31:42] » See what it is that you need help with?

[1:31:44] » It Army Corps engineer has a very

[1:31:46] specific

[1:31:48] uh guidelines.

[1:31:50] The temporary fix has to be within 500

[1:31:52] ft of encroaching into their their

[1:31:55] shoreline. And right now, our

[1:31:57] encroachment I can see is about 550 ft,

[1:32:02] and they're giving us a hard time.

[1:32:04] » I'm sorry to interrupt.

[1:32:05] » Army Corps is giving you a hard time.

[1:32:07] » Army Corps engineer.

[1:32:08] » Are you talking about the area near the

[1:32:09] Getty?

[1:32:10] » Yes.

[1:32:10] » That's not in the city of Malibu.

[1:32:12] » I understand. I understand.

[1:32:13] » So, I think what we're really talking

[1:32:14] about

[1:32:14] » PCH, right? It connects

[1:32:16] It connects, you know, Malibu, too. So,

[1:32:19] but as far as I understand, within the

[1:32:21] city of Malibu, there is no

[1:32:25] immediate threat at all.

[1:32:27] Because all the homes that was built and

[1:32:31] got even burnt out, they are the the

[1:32:34] roadway is far away enough that it's not

[1:32:36] going to

[1:32:37] » Weigh in. The El Nino comes rolling in,

[1:32:39] I don't know how far away it's going to

[1:32:40] be if that hits. So, look, let me close

[1:32:42] this thing out. Two things. One, if you

[1:32:45] need some If you I would like to get a

[1:32:47] listing of the areas on PCH where you

[1:32:50] think, you know, encroachment has to

[1:32:52] take place because of the damage to the

[1:32:54] road, so I can get it to the residents,

[1:32:56] they can take a look and say, "Yeah, I

[1:32:57] think we got everything covered." Second

[1:32:59] thing, if you

[1:33:00] If you need to get into some place, and

[1:33:02] in that way you get in, let us know. I'm

[1:33:04] not sure what we can do. Troubles got to

[1:33:06] do some work on But look, I do not want

[1:33:08] to have you sitting there, you know,

[1:33:11] watching the waves roll in while PCH is

[1:33:13] going away because you can't get to

[1:33:15] somebody and do that. This is This is

[1:33:17] important stuff for us. So,

[1:33:18] » Understood.

[1:33:19] » Mayor Pro Tem, we do have emergency

[1:33:21] declaration proclamations in place. So,

[1:33:22] if there's particular projects that need

[1:33:24] help with, if they want to, you know,

[1:33:25] reach out to city manager or myself,

[1:33:27] we're happy to

[1:33:28] » Help with that.

[1:33:28] » Okay, so just

[1:33:29] We are We need to help you and you need

[1:33:31] to help us. So, anything we can do,

[1:33:32] please yell.

[1:33:33] » Yes, we will do. Thank you.

[1:33:34] » Yeah, love to you. I'm sorry.

[1:33:35] » I love going after you cuz you said it.

[1:33:37] So, everything he said, and I mean, what

[1:33:40] I'm hearing from you, is that there's no

[1:33:43] emergency in Malibu.

[1:33:46] PCH is not undermined.

[1:33:49] » It is not.

[1:33:50] » It is not, my

[1:33:51] » It is not.

[1:33:52] I'm I'm I'm

[1:33:54] I'm assuring you that it's not.

[1:33:56] » Okay.

[1:33:56] » And if there's any chance that

[1:33:58] something's going to happen, all force

[1:34:00] will move in under a director's order

[1:34:02] emergency project. So.

[1:34:04] » Okay.

[1:34:04] » Yeah.

[1:34:05] » Well, Steve, you said it.

[1:34:08] » Doug.

[1:34:10] By the way, thank you very much for

[1:34:11] being here. This is This is really

[1:34:13] helpful. And what I'm going to ask you

[1:34:16] about is more to satisfy the questions

[1:34:19] that I think I know the answer to,

[1:34:21] but I know the public is going to hear

[1:34:23] your statements and they're going to

[1:34:24] want clarification. So, let me try and

[1:34:26] Let me try and ask the questions the

[1:34:28] public may want to know. The proverbial

[1:34:30] inquiring minds want to know. Uh if we

[1:34:32] can go back to your uh slide on the

[1:34:34] rehabilitation, you've got that at uh

[1:34:37] There it is.

[1:34:39] 2029.

[1:34:40] Um and that's from Sarah Retreat Sarah

[1:34:43] Road all the way to uh Ventura County

[1:34:45] line, correct?

[1:34:46] » Correct.

[1:34:47] » Can you be a little bit more specific

[1:34:49] about what that means by rehabilitation?

[1:34:51] Are you going to be taking up the

[1:34:52] concrete? Are you going to be putting

[1:34:53] asphalt on top of it? Tell me Tell us in

[1:34:56] short order what what that's going to

[1:34:58] mean and what the impact's going to be

[1:34:59] to the public.

[1:35:00] » It's basically a cold plane and overlay.

[1:35:02] Uh we call it capital

[1:35:05] um cap M.

[1:35:07] It's That's a capital maintenance uh

[1:35:10] project. What it does is that we take

[1:35:13] out about 3 in of the pavement and also

[1:35:16] we do perform dig outs. Is if the if the

[1:35:19] base failed, then we'll completely dig

[1:35:22] that out and fix it. So, you will have a

[1:35:24] beautiful rubberized asphalt concrete.

[1:35:27] So, it'll be AC. Uh beautiful pavement

[1:35:30] after we're done. Uh we are including

[1:35:33] some sidewalks, as you know, some bike

[1:35:35] lanes. Uh there are many things that the

[1:35:38] safety improvements that we're doing

[1:35:40] right now. All right. On that project.

[1:35:41] So, uh

[1:35:43] you will you will see a beautiful

[1:35:45] pavement. Uh all the intersection

[1:35:48] crosswalk will be all redone. Uh it is

[1:35:52] going to be uh really beautiful.

[1:35:54] » Okay. Along that line, some of that

[1:35:56] roadway is concrete. It looks to be in

[1:35:58] pretty good shape. Uh, what are you

[1:36:00] going to do with the concrete?

[1:36:02] » There is concrete.

[1:36:04] Um, as far as I know, it's all asphalt

[1:36:06] concrete. If there's a section that is a

[1:36:09] concrete, you we usually

[1:36:11] do either slab replacement or not. But,

[1:36:14] if he says it's all AC, as far as I

[1:36:16] understand.

[1:36:17] » Okay. Um, then the other questions I've

[1:36:19] got on the replacement pipes, uh, I

[1:36:22] understand that there's no house there.

[1:36:24] It's burned and so forth. Are there any

[1:36:26] homes that are,

[1:36:27] uh,

[1:36:28] in the 39, I think you said 39

[1:36:30] replacement pipes. Any homes that are

[1:36:32] still there that you need to deal with?

[1:36:36] » [sighs]

[1:36:36] » I think there

[1:36:38] as far as I understood, those homes are

[1:36:41] pretty much gone.

[1:36:42] » Okay.

[1:36:42] » Um, if and though if the home is still

[1:36:46] there, then we will work with the

[1:36:48] property owners to extend the pipe. So,

[1:36:50] our goal is to extend the pipe beyond

[1:36:52] their property line, so it doesn't dump

[1:36:54] the water onto their property.

[1:36:56] » So, this is you're replacing those old

[1:36:57] corrugated with, uh,

[1:36:59] like 24-in concrete pipe, is that what

[1:37:01] you're saying?

[1:37:02] » Yes. It is going to be all all, uh,

[1:37:04] reinforced concrete pipes. No more

[1:37:07] corrugated metal pipes. They they just

[1:37:09] rot out.

[1:37:10] » And by the way, I really appreciate the

[1:37:11] the lane shift. I know we talked to

[1:37:13] several people that are concerned about

[1:37:15] how they're going to do rebuilding.

[1:37:17] Um, and along with that is the permits

[1:37:19] that you talked about for access. Is

[1:37:21] there going to be a charge for that?

[1:37:23] Those permits.

[1:37:24] » So,

[1:37:25] permit will be charged because of

[1:37:27] there's a processing fee. But, it'll be

[1:37:29] very minimal.

[1:37:30] » Any idea how minimal minimal is?

[1:37:32] » I'm sorry. I I'll have to get back to

[1:37:34] you on that one.

[1:37:35] » [laughter]

[1:37:35] » That's right. I think if you just let if

[1:37:37] if somewhere we could post that, you

[1:37:39] know, a few hundred dollars is one

[1:37:40] thing. Thousands of dollars is something

[1:37:42] else. I mean, every everybody the city

[1:37:44] is waiving its fees for rebuilds life

[1:37:48] life, and we'd hope that you guys can,

[1:37:50] too, wherever you can.

[1:37:51] » Yes, the state has a very specific rule,

[1:37:55] you know, gift of the public funds, so

[1:37:57] we have to stick with the minimum, so

[1:38:00] but we do understand.

[1:38:01] » All right. Uh

[1:38:02] I think that's all I have, and as I said

[1:38:05] earlier, thank you very much for being

[1:38:07] here. This has been extremely helpful.

[1:38:09] Uh Mr. Mayor?

[1:38:10] » Yeah, I'm going to reiterate that, Ms.

[1:38:11] Kang. Thank you for

[1:38:13] the presentation. It's very informative

[1:38:14] and very helpful.

[1:38:16] Um

[1:38:17] Trevor already mentioned that we do have

[1:38:19] emergency declaration. I would imagine

[1:38:21] that gives us some ability to help you

[1:38:24] all. It sounds like your legal depart-

[1:38:26] from what I'm hearing is your legal

[1:38:27] folks are confident that you've got the

[1:38:29] authority to do what's necessary, but to

[1:38:31] the extent that they think there's any

[1:38:34] way in which further help from us could

[1:38:37] facilitate that, I'd recommend having

[1:38:40] them confer with our legal counsel

[1:38:41] sooner than later so that the problem

[1:38:43] doesn't have to be solved

[1:38:45] at in real time. We can maybe solve it

[1:38:47] now.

[1:38:47] » That's great. Thank you so much.

[1:38:48] » Um the lane shift, if I understood

[1:38:50] correctly, maybe I missed it, you said

[1:38:52] that's going to occur for 24 months?

[1:38:54] » Approximately 24 months before the other

[1:38:57] project will begin construction.

[1:38:59] » So, I mean, my suspicion is people are

[1:39:01] going to be rebuilding on the beach for

[1:39:03] many years, not 24 months. Is there

[1:39:06] going to be um the flexibility to leave

[1:39:08] it that way after 24 months that people

[1:39:11] can continue to take advantage of the um

[1:39:13] widened shoulder?

[1:39:15] » I'm not going to say no, but uh the

[1:39:18] design work as far as how the lane

[1:39:20] should be

[1:39:22] uh are done as far as, you know, maybe

[1:39:24] bike lanes will be there. So, there will

[1:39:27] be a flexibility for the future

[1:39:29] builders. Uh we will work with them,

[1:39:31] definitely, but

[1:39:32] » Keep that in mind because it's going to

[1:39:34] be a multi-year project.

[1:39:35] » Correct. It's going to be decades. I- if

[1:39:38] if, you know, it's going to be a long

[1:39:40] time.

[1:39:41] » And last one is, I mean,

[1:39:43] someone said the Getty Villa is outside

[1:39:45] of Malibu, but you know, consistent with

[1:39:46] Steve's point, if if the if PCH were to

[1:39:48] go down, that affects us. It really

[1:39:50] doesn't matter whether it goes down

[1:39:51] outside of Malibu or inside of Malibu.

[1:39:53] I'm usually one that's always saying,

[1:39:54] "Is that in Malibu or not?" But this

[1:39:56] doesn't really matter. We need to make

[1:39:57] sure PCH is

[1:40:00] stable.

[1:40:00] » That that is our goal.

[1:40:01] » But it's it's it's good to hear you

[1:40:04] basically

[1:40:06] um

[1:40:07] disclaim a lot of the rumors that that

[1:40:09] are going around that the road is ready

[1:40:11] to fall down. Sounds You're telling us

[1:40:13] it's not. There's a couple areas where

[1:40:15] there's some work needed to prevent

[1:40:16] future problems, but as of right now,

[1:40:18] there is no issue.

[1:40:19] » No. No, there's no issue.

[1:40:21] » Thank you. Does anybody else have any

[1:40:22] further questions?

[1:40:23] » I do.

[1:40:23] » Go ahead, Alan, and then Mary Anne.

[1:40:25] » Okay. [snorts]

[1:40:26] Um how often do you come to the Planning

[1:40:28] Commission meetings to kind of give them

[1:40:29] an update on all of this? Because I

[1:40:32] think it would be really good for

[1:40:33] Caltrans to come to those and

[1:40:35] communicate this 55 the million 55

[1:40:39] million dollar safety study that you

[1:40:40] have going on. And there's a lot going

[1:40:42] on. Um even the Corral Canyon Trout

[1:40:46] Tunnel.

[1:40:47] Um updates would be good for our

[1:40:49] residents to know about.

[1:40:52] » Any you know, as many times as you want

[1:40:54] me to be here. And my my position was

[1:40:57] created specifically for this reason.

[1:41:00] » Wonderful.

[1:41:00] » So, um

[1:41:02] you know, Gloria said, "You're it." So,

[1:41:04] I will be communicating with you.

[1:41:06] » Terrific.

[1:41:06] » And I

[1:41:07] I'm not doing anything else but PCH

[1:41:09] until then.

[1:41:10] » Well, we can make you an honorary member

[1:41:12] of our planning our work public works

[1:41:15] commission meetings.

[1:41:17] And you can come and sit in on them with

[1:41:20] me.

[1:41:21] Thank you.

[1:41:21] » All right. Mary Anne.

[1:41:23] » I I was just going to follow up. Um you

[1:41:24] gave a a certain set of addresses for

[1:41:27] that lane shift. Um

[1:41:30] will that Is that just the isolated

[1:41:32] area, or are you considering other

[1:41:35] spaces that may be able

[1:41:38] » This that neighborhood. I've heard of

[1:41:39] from people, but

[1:41:41] » These This area is very unique because

[1:41:43] it has middle turn lanes. So, we have

[1:41:45] enough room to shift. Other locations we

[1:41:47] do not. So, again, if there is other

[1:41:50] possibilities, we are willing to look at

[1:41:52] that. So, it it is not a closed door,

[1:41:55] but

[1:41:57] we going to try to help out as much as

[1:41:59] we can, anywhere we can. That was the

[1:42:03] order that I got to work with uh

[1:42:05] rebuilders. So,

[1:42:07] So, we that's what we're doing.

[1:42:09] » Thank you. Appreciate that.

[1:42:10] » All right. Thank you once again. Um

[1:42:13] Joe, did you have any questions?

[1:42:15] » No, I just uh want to thank uh June for

[1:42:18] being here. He's uh been a great partner

[1:42:19] on all of our coordinating meetings on

[1:42:21] PCH and rebuilding. I do know that Rob

[1:42:24] has a comment he wants to make if that's

[1:42:26] okay.

[1:42:26] » Okay. Let's Let's have that, and then

[1:42:28] we'll move on to the next item.

[1:42:29] » So, thanks. Um

[1:42:31] So, I'll be working with June for

[1:42:33] probably several years now, two two to

[1:42:35] five years now. Um

[1:42:38] kind of one thing that I want to bring

[1:42:39] council and the public to to know is

[1:42:42] uh when June got appointed to PCH and

[1:42:46] and and our ambassador to really kind of

[1:42:48] strengthen our relationship and

[1:42:50] coordination, it's made a huge huge

[1:42:52] difference, and um

[1:42:55] I you know, you guys are very good hands

[1:42:57] with June after I leave, and um

[1:43:00] I'm sure he'll be happy to come back and

[1:43:03] and, you know, give updates, go go to go

[1:43:05] to the meetings, and do stuff. He's been

[1:43:07] working really good with staff and

[1:43:08] giving us updates. He's He's very

[1:43:11] um

[1:43:12] proactive, and just just a really good

[1:43:15] partner. But, I I just wanted to share

[1:43:17] that with you.

[1:43:18] » Thank you, Rob. Okay, well, thank you

[1:43:19] very much. Once again.

[1:43:22] » Okay, that takes us to item

[1:43:26] three, and we have two commissioner

[1:43:28] reports. The first is Merrell May on

[1:43:31] behalf of the Public Safety Commission,

[1:43:33] and the next is Tiffany Murray on behalf

[1:43:35] of Public Works.

[1:43:47] » Hello, good evening Council.

[1:43:49] Um

[1:43:49] Mr. Ervin.

[1:43:51] Uh

[1:43:52] little report on the Safety Commission.

[1:43:53] The Safety Commission has gotten bigger

[1:43:55] under Susan Dwayne as recently,

[1:43:58] incorporating some of the departments to

[1:43:59] have a more cohesive umbrella. So, if

[1:44:01] anybody has any safety questions, the

[1:44:03] Sheriff's comes, fire liaisons, code

[1:44:05] enforcement. It's a pretty deep

[1:44:07] department right now. So, if you have

[1:44:09] any questions, call the city staff. Um

[1:44:13] regarding I'm appealing to everybody, if

[1:44:16] you see something that needs work, uh

[1:44:18] and I appreciate June being here. Um

[1:44:21] if you see anything on the highway,

[1:44:23] please call I hate to spring Travis up,

[1:44:25] but Travis is very effective with Public

[1:44:27] Works. And if it's not the city's

[1:44:29] responsibility, he'll would direct it to

[1:44:31] who is responsible. Cuz I made a request

[1:44:33] to Caltrans the other day, and they said

[1:44:35] it's going to be covered under this

[1:44:36] program. Well, holes, you know, if if

[1:44:39] they're going to start in August, and if

[1:44:40] we get get delayed, then those holes

[1:44:43] existing for cyclist hazards isn't going

[1:44:45] to be very good thing.

[1:44:48] I'm very concerned about drainage and

[1:44:50] what that means for the city, but I'm

[1:44:51] very concerned about fires and and the

[1:44:53] dry fuel and the and the low moisture

[1:44:56] content right now. And that was

[1:44:57] discussed a lot at the city at the count

[1:45:00] at the Safety Commission.

[1:45:01] The fire liaisons department here is

[1:45:04] really good. They will if you call them,

[1:45:06] they will come out and assess your

[1:45:07] property, suggest how to harden the

[1:45:10] homes, but also how to trim your brush

[1:45:12] to make it less susceptible to fire and

[1:45:15] loss. And if we don't lose homes, then

[1:45:17] we don't have to appeal Ms. Bundy to

[1:45:21] rebuild the homes. So, prevention here

[1:45:25] and a little proactive

[1:45:29] anti-firework

[1:45:31] can go a long way so that we don't have

[1:45:33] to go through these tragedies that we've

[1:45:35] gone through.

[1:45:37] Another thing that was talked about was

[1:45:38] the racing up Las Flores. So, if anybody

[1:45:41] has any ideas about how to deal with

[1:45:44] this out of control racing up Las

[1:45:47] Flores, we've made some suggestions.

[1:45:49] Um I'm sure Travis will get those at

[1:45:52] some point, but

[1:45:54] um

[1:45:55] it's it's a problem and we're aware of

[1:45:58] it.

[1:45:59] And the other thing the fire liaisons

[1:46:01] put on a little class the other day

[1:46:03] about how to use a fire extinguisher.

[1:46:05] So, people may want to carry a fire

[1:46:06] extinguisher in their cars. I'd never

[1:46:09] operated a fire extinguisher. I came

[1:46:11] They don't have that long of a life, but

[1:46:13] you learn how to use it most effectively

[1:46:15] and where to spray it in the fire to try

[1:46:17] to put the fire out. So, it was a very

[1:46:20] good program. I thank the safety

[1:46:22] department for putting that on.

[1:46:24] I'm going to abbreviate my comments now

[1:46:26] because there's a lot of to go on here,

[1:46:27] but please call and help

[1:46:30] um get this mitigation. Also, by the

[1:46:32] way, we've made some headway.

[1:46:35] Some of the K-rails in Malibu Canyon are

[1:46:37] going to go in next week and then a few

[1:46:39] after that. So, unfortunately,

[1:46:42] we lost Hunter Langley, but and somebody

[1:46:45] years before that, but they're about to

[1:46:47] make some improvement on that and that

[1:46:50] is great news.

[1:46:52] » Very quick question.

[1:46:53] » Go ahead, sir.

[1:46:56] » The fire department used to go around

[1:46:59] through the city. I don't know how how

[1:47:00] much that they covered. If your property

[1:47:02] had not been cleared, they would give

[1:47:04] you a notice and if you did not clear

[1:47:06] it, they'd go back and do and charge.

[1:47:07] How aggressive is the fire department

[1:47:09] this year in doing that? That to me is

[1:47:11] is a You know, I mean, I hear you tell

[1:47:13] them, you know, people got to call up,

[1:47:14] but I think if the person hasn't done

[1:47:17] anything, the chances of them getting

[1:47:18] off their buns to do that and make a

[1:47:20] call is is probably bad none. I think we

[1:47:23] need to make sure that there is some

[1:47:25] enforcement going on that says, "If you

[1:47:27] haven't cleared your property and you

[1:47:29] haven't made a fire safe, you got

[1:47:31] yourself a problem and we want to get it

[1:47:32] fixed." So, I just Do you have any idea

[1:47:34] what the fire department is doing?

[1:47:35] » I do not. I I think you mentioning it

[1:47:38] now is is effective to put people on

[1:47:40] notice that they should get busy. Um and

[1:47:43] I do not know what enforcement

[1:47:44] » Fire department. See how aggressive

[1:47:46] they're going to be in doing that. And

[1:47:47] if anything you can encourage them to be

[1:47:49] more aggressive, please do.

[1:47:50] » Absolutely.

[1:47:52] What I will say we we need to people

[1:47:54] need to take action with the fire

[1:47:55] liaisons. And if anybody else has any

[1:47:58] reason way to get these these palm trees

[1:48:01] which are across from HRL that are in a

[1:48:03] little valley there, get those removed.

[1:48:05] It's in sort of an environmental area.

[1:48:07] And the fire liaisons and everybody in

[1:48:09] the safety department know these are a

[1:48:11] hazard to the city, but still they're

[1:48:13] there. So,

[1:48:15] anyway. Thank you very much.

[1:48:17] » Marian.

[1:48:17] » Yes, sir.

[1:48:18] » I was just going to say I've seen

[1:48:20] um the county out with the bulldozers in

[1:48:23] Point Dume

[1:48:24] um on the vacant parcels. So, they are

[1:48:27] going out and they are doing some um

[1:48:29] disking and things like that on some of

[1:48:31] the vacant parcels that have high

[1:48:33] grasses and thing. But I don't know

[1:48:34] about any tree removal or anything like

[1:48:36] that.

[1:48:36] » A great job there at Heathercliff.

[1:48:38] Yeah. And also the county

[1:48:40] » The city did that. That's our property

[1:48:41] now.

[1:48:42] » Well, also the county has done some

[1:48:43] great work along Malibu along Malibu

[1:48:46] Canyon and Kanan cutting the brush back

[1:48:47] from the roads. And Caltrans has done a

[1:48:49] good job along PCH in many areas also to

[1:48:52] help prevent fire spread from the

[1:48:53] highways.

[1:48:54] » Okay.

[1:48:54] » Thank you very much.

[1:48:56] Tiffany.

[1:49:05] » Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem,

[1:49:08] members of the City Council, and City

[1:49:10] Manager.

[1:49:12] I'm Tiffany Murray, Vice Chair of the

[1:49:13] Public Works Commission, and I'm pleased

[1:49:15] to present our most recent report.

[1:49:17] The commission received a comprehensive

[1:49:19] update on operations, infrastructure

[1:49:21] projects, recovery efforts, and

[1:49:23] long-range planning.

[1:49:25] The department continues to balance

[1:49:26] day-to-day maintenance with major

[1:49:28] capital investments and post-disaster

[1:49:31] recovery while beginning broader

[1:49:32] discussions on community resilience.

[1:49:35] I would like to highlight several key

[1:49:37] takeaways starting with operations and

[1:49:39] infrastructure maintenance.

[1:49:41] Public Works is executing core

[1:49:43] maintenance and safety programs citywide

[1:49:46] including annual weed abatement and

[1:49:49] roadway cleanup, removal of temporary

[1:49:51] storm event infrastructure, deployment

[1:49:53] of seasonal traffic and safety message

[1:49:55] boards along the PCH,

[1:49:57] and ongoing ongoing repairs to drainage,

[1:50:00] roadway, and public facilities. These

[1:50:02] efforts support public safety and

[1:50:04] operational readiness during peak summer

[1:50:06] months.

[1:50:08] Turning to capital improvement program

[1:50:10] progress regarding progress regarding

[1:50:13] projects nearing completion, permanent

[1:50:16] State Park improvements are expected to

[1:50:18] be completed today

[1:50:20] with final landscaping continuing

[1:50:22] thereafter. Big Rock drainage repairs

[1:50:24] are entering final punch list and

[1:50:26] restoration phases.

[1:50:28] As for active construction, Las Virgenes

[1:50:30] Beach Road embankment rehabilitation is

[1:50:32] underway following post debris flows,

[1:50:35] post-fire debris flow, excuse me, and is

[1:50:38] expected to be completed this summer.

[1:50:40] Signal synchronization and speed camera

[1:50:42] infrastructure remain on track for later

[1:50:44] this year.

[1:50:46] Advancing through design and permitting,

[1:50:48] the Malibu Seafood undercrossing and

[1:50:51] Busch Drive roundabout continue through

[1:50:53] cooperative planning with Caltrans and

[1:50:55] Metro.

[1:50:56] Bluffs Park snack shack improvements

[1:50:59] have entered final design.

[1:51:01] Assistant Director Holden reports that

[1:51:04] 8,000 linear

[1:51:06] feet of cable will be installed in

[1:51:08] September and October as part of the

[1:51:10] regional broadband expansion. And PCH

[1:51:13] wastewater initiatives continue through

[1:51:15] assessment district and engineering

[1:51:17] phases.

[1:51:18] Beyond the progress

[1:51:20] on individual projects, the commission

[1:51:22] also spent considerable time looking at

[1:51:24] the bigger picture, specifically

[1:51:25] Malibu's long-term resilience strategy.

[1:51:28] Chair King Keegan raised the importance

[1:51:31] of water security and long-term resource

[1:51:33] planning. Commissioners also discussed

[1:51:36] climate adaptation, coastal resilience,

[1:51:38] wildfire mitigation, and enhancement

[1:51:40] regional partnerships.

[1:51:43] The commission looks forward to working

[1:51:44] with staff and leadership to develop a

[1:51:46] cohesive resilience framework for

[1:51:48] Malibu's future.

[1:51:50] In summary, the Public Works Department

[1:51:52] is making measurable progress on

[1:51:53] critical infrastructure while beginning

[1:51:56] a broader conversation about long-term

[1:51:57] resilience, ensuring the city's

[1:51:59] infrastructure, natural resources, and

[1:52:02] public services remain sustainable for

[1:52:04] future generations. Thank you.

[1:52:07] » Thank you, Tiffany.

[1:52:09] Okay.

[1:52:10] That takes us to

[1:52:13] the

[1:52:14] um

[1:52:16] city manager update.

[1:52:19] Good evening, Mayor and members of the

[1:52:20] City Council and members of the public.

[1:52:22] Um on May 28th and 29th, uh I

[1:52:26] facilitated a Kaizen

[1:52:28] uh process improvement effort with 30 of

[1:52:31] our

[1:52:32] um

[1:52:34] park uh planning and building staff as

[1:52:36] well as public works staff.

[1:52:38] Uh the effort here was to identify ways

[1:52:40] that we can streamline our rebuilding

[1:52:42] process and cut out wasted steps. Uh the

[1:52:45] theory behind the continuous improvement

[1:52:48] process that we were focused on was to

[1:52:50] make sure that we continue to make an

[1:52:53] effort to find any small or large

[1:52:55] improvement and work that system.

[1:52:59] Plan, check, do, act, basically. So, uh

[1:53:02] there was a secondary benefit of this

[1:53:05] that uh really

[1:53:06] allowed our two departments to come

[1:53:09] together after you know a year and a

[1:53:11] quarter

[1:53:13] just really grinding hard to provide

[1:53:16] capital improvement project upgrades and

[1:53:19] building permit issuance um

[1:53:22] the teamwork was seen we identified a

[1:53:26] few steps regarding residential rebuild

[1:53:30] development permits that we're going to

[1:53:31] cut out as well as some mandatory

[1:53:34] meetings at the beginning of the process

[1:53:36] Some of the things we've heard is that

[1:53:37] people have gone through their PV

[1:53:40] planning verification stage and then

[1:53:41] they get

[1:53:43] into the plan check and they didn't

[1:53:45] really realize what submittal

[1:53:47] requirements were

[1:53:48] 100% required of them. That's a

[1:53:50] communication error that we need to

[1:53:52] improve with information and

[1:53:54] coordination with the applicant. So

[1:53:57] I was really proud of the team for that

[1:53:58] effort. Yolanda Bondi our director of

[1:54:01] community development

[1:54:03] department

[1:54:04] is at the rebuild center every morning

[1:54:06] now from 9:00 to noon and since June 1st

[1:54:10] we've issued eight new

[1:54:12] building permits. That brings the total

[1:54:14] up to 58 which is really remarkable. So

[1:54:17] This isn't an effort that stops. I

[1:54:20] talked to the team about having a

[1:54:21] check-in here in another month or two.

[1:54:23] So it's really required of us to stay

[1:54:26] sharp and make sure that we

[1:54:28] provide the best value for our

[1:54:30] applicants who need to get back into

[1:54:31] their properties.

[1:54:33] Graffiti abatement program we've issued

[1:54:36] a started the pilot program effort

[1:54:40] To date 29 property owners have provided

[1:54:43] consent

[1:54:45] and graffiti's been removed from seven

[1:54:47] of the properties. We're going to

[1:54:48] continue to prioritize this effort

[1:54:50] on the east end of Malibu.

[1:54:53] Emergency management and fire monitoring

[1:54:56] Most recently our emergency operations

[1:54:59] center and incident management team was

[1:55:01] able to practice what we've been uh

[1:55:04] you know, put into reality what we've

[1:55:05] been practicing uh with our partners

[1:55:08] here.

[1:55:08] Uh the Sandy Fire in Simi Valley and the

[1:55:11] Jasper Fire in Malibu Canyon were both

[1:55:13] uh

[1:55:13] successfully contained in a quick manner

[1:55:16] uh posing no threat to Malibu.

[1:55:18] But, it also allowed us to coordinate

[1:55:20] with our regional partners and our

[1:55:22] internal communications team on how we

[1:55:23] were going to communicate to all of you

[1:55:26] through our various media platforms. And

[1:55:28] so, if you have feedback for us, I'm

[1:55:30] always open for feedback.

[1:55:33] Um

[1:55:35] Fire conditions, as you know, are

[1:55:37] increasing. Vegetation dries out,

[1:55:39] temperatures are on rise, and staff

[1:55:41] continues to emphasize home hardening,

[1:55:43] defensible space, and emergency

[1:55:45] preparedness.

[1:55:47] Residents are encouraged to complete

[1:55:48] Wildfire Ready, Set, Go now

[1:55:50] ahead of the peak fire season.

[1:55:53] Our fire liaisons continue to offer free

[1:55:55] home hardening assessments and Firewise

[1:55:58] support, and the Malibu Park uh has been

[1:56:01] recognized as the 15th Firewise USA

[1:56:04] community in the city limits, which is

[1:56:06] really remarkable for a city of our

[1:56:08] size.

[1:56:10] Uh reminder for

[1:56:12] anyone who has uh

[1:56:14] rebuilt property from the Woolsey Fire,

[1:56:17] uh the fee waiver program is ending on

[1:56:21] Tuesday, June 30th. Outreach efforts

[1:56:23] have has been underway, but I'm making

[1:56:25] sure everyone here uh hears that.

[1:56:29] Uh there was an update or some questions

[1:56:31] uh

[1:56:32] on Las Flores. I want to give uh all the

[1:56:35] community uh update on this. Bear with

[1:56:38] me.

[1:56:39] So,

[1:56:42] we've heard the feedback that's come up

[1:56:43] at the Public Works Commission, as well

[1:56:45] as Public Safety Commission.

[1:56:47] Uh staff is currently undertaking an

[1:56:49] assessment looking at the geometry of

[1:56:51] the roadway and identifying additional

[1:56:53] uh infrastructure measures that we can

[1:56:55] look to curtail speeds and loud noise

[1:56:58] cars cruising up and down Las Flores.

[1:57:02] The outcome of this assessment is going

[1:57:03] to be reported back to the Public Safety

[1:57:05] Commission as well as the Public Works

[1:57:07] Commission.

[1:57:08] And then staff will return with some

[1:57:09] improvements recommended

[1:57:11] actions that the City Council may be

[1:57:13] required to engage in there. So it's at

[1:57:16] top of our list and we're tackling that.

[1:57:19] And then tomorrow morning if you're able

[1:57:21] join city

[1:57:22] at 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. I'm sorry

[1:57:25] 10:00 a.m. Get that right.

[1:57:27] June 9th 10:00 a.m.

[1:57:29] Join the city of Malibu for the Nature

[1:57:31] Center renaming ceremony at Charmlee

[1:57:33] Wilderness Park and celebrating Walt and

[1:57:36] Lucille Kellers contributions to the

[1:57:38] Malibu community for over the past 50

[1:57:40] years. That's

[1:57:42] a special moment in our city's history

[1:57:43] so

[1:57:45] with that I have no other update mayor.

[1:57:48] » Does anybody have any questions?

[1:57:51] I'm going to call Sergeant.

[1:57:58] » Technically the way we have this set up

[1:57:59] this is part of your report.

[1:58:03] » Thank you.

[1:58:03] » [laughter]

[1:58:04] » I appreciate that.

[1:58:07] » Continuing on the city manager's report.

[1:58:10] Um

[1:58:11] Good evening City Council.

[1:58:12] Uh I have the current statistics for the

[1:58:15] month of May for the city of Malibu. So

[1:58:17] there were 26 part one crimes reported

[1:58:20] uh

[1:58:21] in the month of May. A majority of them

[1:58:22] 18 uh were theft

[1:58:26] Uh this brings the total for the year to

[1:58:29] 130 which compares to

[1:58:32] uh 94 for the same time last year so

[1:58:34] that's a 38% increase. However, the

[1:58:37] 5-year change is still down 35%.

[1:58:41] Um

[1:58:43] Couple of notable incidents that

[1:58:45] happened

[1:58:47] uh

[1:58:49] This one happened actually

[1:58:52] uh yesterday.

[1:58:53] uh

[1:58:54] 5:40 p.m.

[1:58:56] Lululemon across Creek.

[1:58:58] A

[1:59:00] suspect stole

[1:59:04] over $4,000 worth of

[1:59:06] yoga pants from the from the store

[1:59:09] and

[1:59:12] Let's see.

[1:59:14] Apparently this this suspect also

[1:59:20] committed the same crime at the

[1:59:22] Lululemon Calabasas. So

[1:59:25] we actually have a wanted poster that's

[1:59:27] going to be coming out for him.

[1:59:29] Um

[1:59:31] » [clears throat]

[1:59:32] » Another incident.

[1:59:34] This one occurred on the 20,000 block of

[1:59:38] Little Little Rock Way

[1:59:40] over in Big Rock community.

[1:59:44] A

[1:59:45] cement mixer was stolen off of

[1:59:49] one of the properties. So please

[1:59:51] It's a good reminder. Please lock up

[1:59:53] your valuables even the construction

[1:59:54] equipment

[1:59:56] so

[1:59:57] that it's not taken.

[2:00:02] Let's see.

[2:00:10] Uh

[2:00:11] Parker, can you bring up the picture of

[2:00:14] the Pepperdine?

[2:00:16] Not the other one.

[2:00:17] So on

[2:00:20] May 26th

[2:00:22] a 4-year-old

[2:00:23] uh

[2:00:24] child went missing from the campus of

[2:00:26] Pepperdine on the uh faculty housing

[2:00:28] area. And that child was missing for

[2:00:31] approximately 2 hours before we

[2:00:36] got involved. Um

[2:00:38] We searched for about an hour

[2:00:41] and were able we were able to locate

[2:00:43] that child at the neighbor's house

[2:00:45] locked in a closet accidentally.

[2:00:48] That child was actually playing with

[2:00:50] some other kids in the neighborhood

[2:00:51] nearby and for whatever reason went to

[2:00:54] their the kids the neighbors house and

[2:00:56] got locked inadvertently inside the

[2:00:59] closet, but

[2:01:01] we deployed our search and rescue, we

[2:01:03] played drones, we had a helicopter you

[2:01:05] might have seen flying overhead, we had

[2:01:07] scent dogs on the way.

[2:01:09] Um,

[2:01:10] we had pretty much every unit at the

[2:01:12] station there looking for this child.

[2:01:14] Unfortunately, uh,

[2:01:15] there's no foul play involved and they

[2:01:17] were in good health and

[2:01:20] it was an unfortunate accident, but

[2:01:21] worked out well at the end.

[2:01:24] Um,

[2:01:25] » How did you find the child?

[2:01:27] » We went back and did another search of

[2:01:29] the area and

[2:01:31] made sure we crossed off every

[2:01:34] t and dotted every i and found the child

[2:01:36] in the closet, so.

[2:01:40] Um,

[2:01:41] » [clears throat]

[2:01:42] » Parker, can you bring the other picture

[2:01:43] up? So, this past Saturday, um, the

[2:01:46] World Cup team from Qatar stopped in

[2:01:50] Malibu

[2:01:51] and

[2:01:53] they spent about an hour

[2:01:55] walking around, seeing the all the shops

[2:01:58] and saying hello to everybody and

[2:02:01] uh,

[2:02:02] it was good. Created small frenzy, not a

[2:02:05] big frenzy, but um, it was good, so.

[2:02:09] Um,

[2:02:10] finally,

[2:02:12] uh, Malibu Search Team was nominated by

[2:02:15] the Public Safety Department for a

[2:02:17] national action award for the National

[2:02:19] Association for Search Teams for their

[2:02:21] role in the Palisades fire, so uh, our

[2:02:24] station wrote a letter of support for

[2:02:26] them, so they are nominated. Hopefully,

[2:02:28] they win.

[2:02:29] So,

[2:02:30] uh, I have nothing further and I'm

[2:02:32] available for questions.

[2:02:35] » Does anybody have any questions?

[2:02:37] How do you feel the summit next year?

[2:02:41] » It's It's good question. I wish I knew.

[2:02:44] » So the small one or like just like you

[2:02:46] on the back of a truck?

[2:02:48] » Yeah, it could be attached to yeah,

[2:02:50] sure.

[2:02:52] » All right, thank you very much.

[2:02:53] » Mr. Mayor, with no more questions, I'd

[2:02:55] like to ask

[2:02:56] Ranger Tim to come up with MRCA. And

[2:02:59] it's tough for me to compete with

[2:03:00] Sergeant Sutherland on his report, but

[2:03:02] thanks for being a part of the city

[2:03:03] manager update.

[2:03:09] » Welcome back.

[2:03:11] » Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and

[2:03:12] respectable city council members and

[2:03:15] city manager. It's good to be back. I'd

[2:03:17] like to give the coastal ranger report

[2:03:19] for last month. Um in the last month, a

[2:03:21] total of 267 parking citations were

[2:03:24] issued. A total of 25 administrative

[2:03:27] citations were issued. Five for dogs on

[2:03:30] the beach at Lechuza Beach, and

[2:03:33] 10 for closed area at Escondido Canyon

[2:03:35] Park, and 11 for alcohol possession of

[2:03:38] alcohol at Lechuza Beach, and also two

[2:03:41] for smoking.

[2:03:43] And a one illegal filming site was

[2:03:45] issued at Corral Canyon Park.

[2:03:48] There were a total of three traffic

[2:03:49] citations issued involving two for

[2:03:51] exceeding speeds on PCH, and one for

[2:03:54] passing on a double yellow.

[2:03:57] Currently, there is a construction work

[2:04:00] of a repair and redesigning the trail at

[2:04:03] Escondido Canyon Park.

[2:04:05] Uh continuous ranger

[2:04:07] safety patrols are uh continuing to

[2:04:10] persisting at Escondido Canyon Park, and

[2:04:12] fortunately no incidents have been

[2:04:15] reported. A total of 1,120

[2:04:18] lb of trash have been collected at all

[2:04:21] of our coastal parks and beach access

[2:04:23] ways.

[2:04:24] And this concludes uh the MRCA ranger

[2:04:26] report for this last month.

[2:04:29] And uh any I'm open for any questions.

[2:04:32] » Does anybody have any questions?

[2:04:34] » I do.

[2:04:35] Hi, Ranger Tim.

[2:04:37] » How are

[2:04:37] » I'm well, thanks. It's

[2:04:39] nice to see you.

[2:04:40] » Likewise, thanks.

[2:04:42] » Um I think in a few meetings back we

[2:04:44] asked you a few questions. I was

[2:04:45] wondering if you had the answers to

[2:04:47] those questions.

[2:04:48] » Which ones?

[2:04:50] » They were

[2:04:52] um how many people come to visit since

[2:04:54] you were able to get the amount of trash

[2:04:56] weighed?

[2:04:57] » Mhm.

[2:04:57] » I thought we were thinking it was

[2:04:59] reasonable to know how many visitors

[2:05:00] come.

[2:05:02] » Yeah, we actually ordered a

[2:05:04] a counter

[2:05:05] » Okay.

[2:05:05] » Device so we'll be able to uh especially

[2:05:07] during the weekends get a approximate

[2:05:10] number of how many visitors do visit our

[2:05:12] parks. So that's in the process.

[2:05:14] » Great. So like the hikes and the parks

[2:05:16] and the beaches?

[2:05:17] » Mhm.

[2:05:17] » Okay.

[2:05:17] » Absolutely. Mhm. [clears throat]

[2:05:19] » Huh. And then you'll have like a report

[2:05:20] so you

[2:05:21] bring that information to council as

[2:05:24] well as how much pounds of litter has

[2:05:26] been picked up. You'll be like, "We had

[2:05:28] 2,000 visitors this weekend." Is that

[2:05:30] right? Okay, great.

[2:05:30] » Yes.

[2:05:31] » Thank you. And then um I think didn't we

[2:05:33] ask where the something about citations

[2:05:36] and where that money goes the last

[2:05:38] meeting. I'm trying to remember what the

[2:05:39] questions were.

[2:05:40] » Yes, that was the question posed. We've

[2:05:42] met

[2:05:43] at the staff level to follow up on that

[2:05:46] and are still collecting the data and

[2:05:48] plan to bring a report back to council.

[2:05:50] » Great, thanks.

[2:05:52] That's it for me.

[2:05:54] Um

[2:05:55] I guess I was wondering

[2:05:57] we also know when the trail maintenance

[2:05:59] is going to end. Do you know that? Like

[2:06:02] do you have an idea of when that'll be

[2:06:04] finished?

[2:06:05] » I I don't have an approximate date or

[2:06:07] time but we're in the process. It's

[2:06:09] moving pretty quickly.

[2:06:10] » Really well, I think. Yeah.

[2:06:12] » Good, nice to hear.

[2:06:13] » It's you guys have a great presence, you

[2:06:15] know, um the sign really helps right at

[2:06:19] that intersection that Ranger Chris put

[2:06:21] out.

[2:06:21] » Great, good to hear. Thank you.

[2:06:23] » You're welcome.

[2:06:24] » Yeah.

[2:06:26] » Um so I've been seeing on social media

[2:06:28] where there are visitors to the park

[2:06:30] that are there after sunset and they're

[2:06:33] becoming lost as to how to return. Um,

[2:06:37] is there signage that's either um

[2:06:42] lit up at night, has some type of

[2:06:44] reflective so that people know the way

[2:06:46] back to wherever

[2:06:48] they parked? Um Like I said, I'm just

[2:06:51] seeing social media posts where people

[2:06:52] are turning the wrong way, they're

[2:06:54] ending up um, on streets that don't lead

[2:06:57] them back out of the neighborhoods and

[2:06:59] things like that. So, are there any

[2:07:00] plans to improve

[2:07:04] visitor wayfinding so that they can make

[2:07:06] it back after dark if they say past the

[2:07:10] the closing date? That's closing times.

[2:07:14] » Good question. We do now have a ranger

[2:07:17] or public officer that's there at

[2:07:19] closing to make sure that everybody does

[2:07:22] get back to their vehicles safely. And

[2:07:25] we do clear the parking lot now. So, we

[2:07:29] do help them navigate back if they don't

[2:07:31] if they get lost or anything, but no

[2:07:32] reports have been

[2:07:34] addressed to us that someone's lost on

[2:07:36] the trail. So, but we do have a

[2:07:39] representative there now to close the

[2:07:41] park and clear it. After hours.

[2:07:44] » Is that at the parking lot portion or is

[2:07:46] that at the end of the private roadway

[2:07:49] and the trailhead?

[2:07:51] » Both areas. So, we have a representative

[2:07:54] that you know, goes back and forth to

[2:07:56] the trailhead, patrols throughout the

[2:07:58] roadway and the parking lot, make sure

[2:08:00] there's no vehicles still there. Or and

[2:08:02] also on PCH.

[2:08:04] » I think my colleague over here has a

[2:08:05] follow-up.

[2:08:06] » I think I know what you're talking

[2:08:07] about. There's been a few people

[2:08:08] walking, wandering at dark

[2:08:11] um, at the back of the trail. I think

[2:08:13] she reported it to you. She also

[2:08:15] reported it to Lost Hills and the city

[2:08:16] of Malibu. There's been two or three

[2:08:18] instances of people taking videos of her

[2:08:20] property kind of

[2:08:22] lost at night, maybe.

[2:08:25] Um

[2:08:27] That's what I'm re- pretty sure she's

[2:08:30] referring to.

[2:08:31] » Oh, that one. Yeah, it it was weird.

[2:08:34] There was like three people that were by

[2:08:36] the gate and by the end of the road

[2:08:39] we're still investigating that like who,

[2:08:41] what, where, why.

[2:08:43] » Yeah, it's just a lot of people kind of

[2:08:45] not a lot I should say there were just

[2:08:46] there people wandering around back there

[2:08:49] that's concerning.

[2:08:50] » We did we did send a night patrol unit

[2:08:53] cuz we have night patrol um at night

[2:08:56] that stays out on call. They did go to

[2:08:58] the the area to investigate. They didn't

[2:09:00] see those three individuals. I know what

[2:09:03] you're talking about that that report

[2:09:05] about 3 weeks ago I think.

[2:09:06] » Yeah, there was two different instances.

[2:09:08] » Mhm.

[2:09:09] » Yeah, thank you.

[2:09:10] » That was what our reference was but

[2:09:12] yeah, the the wayfinding I think you

[2:09:14] know

[2:09:14] » Yes.

[2:09:14] » Having better signage so people know

[2:09:17] it gets disorienting in the dark when

[2:09:19] you're you know, not from around the

[2:09:21] area or anything.

[2:09:21] » All right, so it's 7:00 and like that's

[2:09:24] good.

[2:09:25] Thank you very much for your

[2:09:26] presentation.

[2:09:26] » You're welcome.

[2:09:27] » Thanks, guys.

[2:09:28] » Let's uh move on to uh public comment.

[2:09:30] So um this is the time now for

[2:09:32] communications from the public

[2:09:34] concerning matters which are not on the

[2:09:35] agenda but for which the city council

[2:09:37] has subject matter jurisdiction.

[2:09:40] Remote participants, please raise your

[2:09:41] hand in Zoom if you would like to speak

[2:09:44] on this item.

[2:09:48] Kelsey, are we under the 3 minutes now

[2:09:51] under our new resolution or is there

[2:09:52] someone else?

[2:09:53] » Goes into effect July 1st. So we're

[2:09:56] still under the rules notice on this

[2:09:57] agenda. So each speaker will have 3

[2:09:59] minutes.

[2:10:00] » Okay.

[2:10:03] Oh, we're going to be here for a while.

[2:10:10] Is there a desire on the part of the

[2:10:13] council to implement tonight

[2:10:15] discretionarily

[2:10:17] the um schedule that we have adopted for

[2:10:20] purposes of meetings in the future? I'm

[2:10:22] not advocating that we do that, but if

[2:10:25] there's a desire on the part of council

[2:10:26] that we do that,

[2:10:28] um we can take a vote on it and see.

[2:10:30] » How many uh

[2:10:32] blue slips do we have?

[2:10:33] » Didn't count them. Is Do you have a

[2:10:35] counter or do I have to go through them?

[2:10:37] » I'm tallying right now and looking at

[2:10:38] Zoom as well. One moment.

[2:10:39] » Okay, plus we need to know about Zoom.

[2:10:43] » We have a long agenda tonight.

[2:10:49] And I think I know what's a large number

[2:10:51] of those are probably going to talk

[2:10:52] about.

[2:10:56] » With 16 in-person speakers and three on

[2:10:59] Zoom, we have 19 speakers. So, under the

[2:11:01] new model, time would reduce at 20.

[2:11:05] » We reduce it to what?

[2:11:07] » Time reduces at 20 speakers, so they

[2:11:08] would still have three.

[2:11:09] » Even under the new rule, we would still

[2:11:11] have a

[2:11:12] » 1 hour of public comment.

[2:11:13] » So, I unless somebody has a desire and

[2:11:16] to make a motion to shorten it, I'm

[2:11:18] inclined to say let's just vote

[2:11:21] Okay.

[2:11:22] First speaker will be Karen L. Harden,

[2:11:25] followed by John Johansen, and then

[2:11:27] Naomi Dibble.

[2:11:32] Or Deck.

[2:11:33] Yeah.

[2:11:34] » Good evening, mayor, council members,

[2:11:37] and city manager.

[2:11:39] I'm Karen L. Harden, executive director

[2:11:41] of Malibu Education Foundation, joined

[2:11:44] tonight by our board chair, Amber

[2:11:46] Vanderbilt. We wanted to take the

[2:11:48] opportunity in public comment to share

[2:11:51] that it's a big week for Malibu schools.

[2:11:54] Promotions from elementary to middle

[2:11:56] school, promotions from middle to high

[2:11:58] school, and Thursday is the 2026 high

[2:12:01] school graduation. And we have 105

[2:12:04] students graduating, 93 are heading to

[2:12:08] college, which is 89% of the class, 26

[2:12:12] points above the national average. And

[2:12:15] coming out of a difficult year, that

[2:12:17] says everything about our students and

[2:12:20] our community.

[2:12:21] Please check out the matriculation ad in

[2:12:24] this week's Malibu Times to see where

[2:12:26] everyone's headed. Here's a little

[2:12:28] preview for everyone. Um and I sent it

[2:12:30] around to the council this morning. Um

[2:12:33] we were uh just a little update on

[2:12:36] Malibu Education Foundation as well for

[2:12:38] everyone.

[2:12:39] Um we were established in January of

[2:12:41] '24. We launched that fall and in just

[2:12:45] over um 2 years, we funded 1 and 1/2

[2:12:50] million dollars in programs across our

[2:12:52] schools, including the founding and

[2:12:54] funding of middle school athletics,

[2:12:57] making a positive impact on every

[2:12:59] student in every grade at every school.

[2:13:03] And this could not have happened without

[2:13:06] the seed funding support of the city of

[2:13:08] Malibu. So, we wanted to take a moment

[2:13:11] to thank you for your support in making

[2:13:13] this all possible. Um despite a

[2:13:15] challenging launch year um for

[2:13:18] fundraising, we are focused on remaining

[2:13:20] on track to becoming self-sustaining and

[2:13:22] forward funding in the year ahead. Thank

[2:13:25] you.

[2:13:27] » Thank you.

[2:13:29] John.

[2:13:41] » Mayor, city council

[2:13:45] and uh

[2:13:46] everyone from Caltrans.

[2:13:49] Um

[2:13:51] I have here the manual for Caltrans.

[2:13:55] And it's 1,100 pages.

[2:13:58] This is the

[2:14:00] seventh edition

[2:14:02] and uh

[2:14:04] it was done in July of 2020.

[2:14:07] There's probably a few more manuals

[2:14:09] since then.

[2:14:11] Um

[2:14:12] to read these manuals and to get to know

[2:14:14] them and to understand them

[2:14:17] could take months.

[2:14:19] But we have AI.

[2:14:21] And I have AI on the phone.

[2:14:24] And

[2:14:26] AI

[2:14:27] a lot of people that are against it and

[2:14:29] a lot of people are for it.

[2:14:31] But it is what it is. And it is here.

[2:14:34] And it is here to help us.

[2:14:37] AI has learned everything about this

[2:14:39] manual.

[2:14:41] And if you have any questions

[2:14:43] you can ask. And it will tell you

[2:14:46] not only your answer but it will tell

[2:14:49] you where it got it from.

[2:14:51] Go ahead.

[2:14:56] Go Go ahead.

[2:14:59] Right there?

[2:15:01] Hello.

[2:15:09] » Hello, I'm Robert, an expert on the

[2:15:11] Caltrans Highway Design Manual, written

[2:15:13] by the Division of Design for use on the

[2:15:15] California State Highway System. All of

[2:15:17] my answers will include the Caltrans

[2:15:19] chapter number, topic number, and index

[2:15:21] number if applicable for cross-reference

[2:15:23] to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

[2:15:25] My objective is simple, to make highly

[2:15:27] technical transportation policy

[2:15:28] information more accessible,

[2:15:30] transparent, and understandable for

[2:15:32] those working to improve safety along

[2:15:34] Pacific Coast Highway and throughout the

[2:15:36] city of Malibu. How may I help you?

[2:15:40] » Robert, this is Nathan and we're in a

[2:15:42] public forum

[2:15:44] at the Malibu City Council.

[2:15:47] For context, the 21-mile Malibu Malibu

[2:15:51] corridor of Pacific Coast Highway is

[2:15:53] widely recognized as one of the most

[2:15:55] challenging and dangerous stretches of

[2:15:57] highway in California.

[2:16:01] Reckless

[2:16:02] » Thank you for sharing that.

[2:16:03] » Yeah, reckless speed speeding is a

[2:16:05] primary cause traffic fatalities in this

[2:16:09] area. Law enforcement and traffic safety

[2:16:12] uh data indicate that speed is a leading

[2:16:15] catalyst for the highways historically

[2:16:17] high rate of fatal accidents, which has

[2:16:19] claimed 60 lives since 2010.

[2:16:22] Can you tell us how we might be able to

[2:16:26] reduce the fatalities, lower the speeds,

[2:16:30] and also speak about the high number of

[2:16:34] driveways and the extreme speed

[2:16:37] differentials and dangers they pose?

[2:16:42] » In chapter two of the California MUTCD,

[2:16:44] which includes references to the

[2:16:46] California Vehicle Code,

[2:16:47] » Tiffany, thank you.

[2:16:49] That's the time.

[2:16:55] It would help if the person asked a

[2:16:57] question that's shorter.

[2:17:00] Thank you.

[2:17:02] » If you ever need a

[2:17:03] » Come, we're done. Next person.

[2:17:06] Naomi.

[2:17:12] After Naomi will be Carrie Clausen,

[2:17:14] Tiffany Murray, and then Joe Drummond.

[2:17:16] And Joe, you have 6 minutes assuming

[2:17:18] that your other people are here.

[2:17:22] » Hi, City Council. And I just wanted to

[2:17:24] say as a resident, um I'm really stunned

[2:17:27] that

[2:17:28] we have 12 appeals pending about the

[2:17:30] wireless and the 5G 5G.

[2:17:32] The decisions are not final. And yet

[2:17:35] four sites have already been built and

[2:17:38] turned on.

[2:17:40] So, we're asking for due process.

[2:17:45] Uh we don't understand how this is even

[2:17:47] possible.

[2:17:48] How does work get done before the

[2:17:50] hearings?

[2:17:52] We're appealing.

[2:17:53] And

[2:17:55] just asking that you would

[2:17:57] represent us in this way.

[2:18:00] Um

[2:18:02] why are the rules not being enforced?

[2:18:06] This is Malibu.

[2:18:08] We have a fire safety protocol for a

[2:18:10] reason.

[2:18:11] We have a process for a reason.

[2:18:15] And the telecom companies have just

[2:18:17] blown right past all of it.

[2:18:20] As I said, there's four

[2:18:23] that have been activated

[2:18:24] in residential

[2:18:26] communities.

[2:18:29] People are scared because of fire risks,

[2:18:32] because the work looks rushed,

[2:18:35] because due diligence was not done.

[2:18:39] They feel ignored.

[2:18:41] And instead of due process, we get

[2:18:43] construction crews finishing the job and

[2:18:47] flipping the switch before the the

[2:18:49] appeals even start.

[2:18:54] This is not how a city protects its

[2:18:56] residents.

[2:18:58] This is not how a city

[2:19:00] enforces its own laws.

[2:19:04] Please,

[2:19:05] please,

[2:19:07] stop this

[2:19:08] and hold staff accountable.

[2:19:12] Make the companies follow the rules like

[2:19:14] everybody else.

[2:19:18] Thank you so much. We're just asking for

[2:19:20] your help as residents

[2:19:22] to see that due process is done. Thank

[2:19:24] you.

[2:19:25] » Quick quick question. Can you please

[2:19:27] send those addresses, those four

[2:19:28] addresses to the city manager?

[2:19:31] » I'm sure we can. Thank you.

[2:19:35] » Carrie, your 3 minutes.

[2:19:36] » Thank you.

[2:19:37] Good evening, everyone.

[2:19:39] I'm Carrie Classby and um

[2:19:42] I'm just here as a member of Malibu for

[2:19:44] Safe Tech.

[2:19:45] We all know the FCC has the biggest

[2:19:48] influence in these decisions.

[2:19:50] However, it's been successful throughout

[2:19:52] California to protect residential areas.

[2:19:57] The the uh science is not settled on

[2:20:00] brain development and the wireless

[2:20:03] communication that's happening and we

[2:20:05] have layers on top of layers coming.

[2:20:07] So the the goal of Malibu um

[2:20:10] for SafeTech is to protect residential

[2:20:13] areas from the continued um

[2:20:16] you know, after 5G we have 6G coming.

[2:20:19] Just think about that. So our power

[2:20:21] poles are being loaded with all kinds of

[2:20:25] electrical

[2:20:27] let's say danger, especially in the fire

[2:20:30] zones and in fires, so

[2:20:32] I came to give my support for that.

[2:20:34] Thank you.

[2:20:37] » Thank you, Carrie.

[2:20:38] Tiffany, you're up.

[2:20:52] » Good evening, Mayor, council members and

[2:20:55] city staff.

[2:20:56] For transparency, I've already spoken

[2:20:58] tonight as vice chair of the Public

[2:21:00] Works Commission and these comments

[2:21:02] right now are my own as a private

[2:21:03] citizen

[2:21:04] and nearly 27 Malibu 27-year Malibu

[2:21:08] resident.

[2:21:10] In February, residents were

[2:21:12] [clears throat] given a two-day window

[2:21:13] to respond to 14 applications to upgrade

[2:21:16] existing wireless sites from 4G to 5G.

[2:21:19] Many of us never received the notice at

[2:21:21] all.

[2:21:22] Despite that, residents acted. They

[2:21:25] educated themselves, filed appeals, paid

[2:21:27] fees, and engaged in good faith.

[2:21:30] And yet 14 appeals sat unresolved.

[2:21:33] Hearings were postponed without clear

[2:21:35] communication. Residents and their

[2:21:37] attorneys could not get basic procedural

[2:21:40] updates. And last week, telecom

[2:21:43] crews activated at least four four of

[2:21:46] the poles while these appeals while

[2:21:49] these appeals remain pending.

[2:21:52] Updated hearing dates were were provided

[2:21:54] only just last Friday, but it should not

[2:21:57] have taken this long. We were in the

[2:21:59] dark.

[2:22:00] Updated hearing dates were provided

[2:22:03] Well, excuse me, this is not about

[2:22:04] opposing connectivity. It's about

[2:22:06] timing, transparency, and the integrity

[2:22:08] of the process.

[2:22:09] Malibu's residential wireless ordinance

[2:22:12] was identified as incomplete in 2021.

[2:22:16] That gap is a direct reason these 14

[2:22:18] applications were processed without

[2:22:20] clear residential standards.

[2:22:23] While other cities have acted, Mill

[2:22:25] Valley passed an emergency ordinance

[2:22:28] effectively blocking small cell

[2:22:29] installations in residential

[2:22:31] neighborhoods.

[2:22:32] Petaluma requires a 15-ft 1,500-ft

[2:22:36] spacing between facilities and prohibits

[2:22:38] installations within 500 ft of homes.

[2:22:42] Los Altos enacted a temporary moratorium

[2:22:45] before adopting strict setback rules.

[2:22:48] Malibu has already adopted ordinances

[2:22:51] limiting small cell sightings.

[2:22:54] Completing the residential component is

[2:22:56] not a new direction. It is finishing the

[2:22:58] work the city already began.

[2:23:01] So, I'm requesting two specific actions

[2:23:03] from each of you. One, please enact a

[2:23:05] temporary moratorium on new wireless

[2:23:08] installations in residential areas while

[2:23:10] the while the ordinance is completed.

[2:23:13] And two,

[2:23:14] place the residential wireless ordinance

[2:23:17] back on the agenda with great urgency.

[2:23:20] Because this is not just one

[2:23:22] installation of one single pole.

[2:23:24] It's the beginning of a network, and

[2:23:26] once this is in place, the opportunity

[2:23:29] to shape it is completely gone.

[2:23:31] The The decisions made now will define

[2:23:34] the character, safety, and lived

[2:23:37] experience of Malibu for years to come.

[2:23:39] That responsibility cannot be deferred.

[2:23:43] Thank you.

[2:23:46] » Thanks, Tiffany.

[2:23:47] All right, Joe, let's make sure that

[2:23:49] your

[2:23:52] people that have donated time are here.

[2:23:54] Are Peter and Janet here?

[2:23:58] Okay.

[2:23:58] And Patty?

[2:24:00] Okay, you have 6 minutes.

[2:24:02] » Honorable Mayor Silverstein, City

[2:24:04] Council, I want to personally thank Joe

[2:24:07] Ervin, City Manager, for

[2:24:09] helping my neighbors,

[2:24:11] Ikin Sherman, Ikin Gilliana Sherman get

[2:24:14] their permit today and for helping

[2:24:16] streamline everything for us fire

[2:24:18] victims. We appreciate you.

[2:24:20] Um, I also want to take this time to

[2:24:23] speak about when Malibu families are

[2:24:26] still recovering from a catastrophic

[2:24:27] fire disaster, it is unconscionable that

[2:24:29] our community's own fire protection

[2:24:31] volunteers are being tied up in

[2:24:33] litigation instead of being supported,

[2:24:35] equipped, and allowed to protect Malibu.

[2:24:37] I am asking the city to take immediate

[2:24:39] and public action regarding Brent

[2:24:41] Woodworth's conduct toward the Malibu

[2:24:43] Community Brigade. This is not just an

[2:24:45] internal nonprofit dispute. This is

[2:24:47] about a community-built, donor-funded

[2:24:49] fire brigade being taken from Malibu and

[2:24:51] used against the very people who created

[2:24:53] it. Malibu residents donated to the

[2:24:55] Community Brigade because they believe

[2:24:57] they were helping fund local trucks,

[2:24:59] equipment, training, and volunteers who

[2:25:01] would defend Malibu neighborhoods during

[2:25:04] catastrophic fires. They believe they

[2:25:06] were supporting a Malibu-based fire

[2:25:08] protection program rooted in this

[2:25:10] community, accountable to this

[2:25:11] community, and committed to this

[2:25:13] community. They did not donate so Brent

[2:25:16] Woodworth, who is listed by the Los

[2:25:18] Angeles Emergency Preparedness

[2:25:19] Foundation or LAEPF as its chairman and

[2:25:22] CEO, that he could take a Malibu-built

[2:25:26] brigade, fold it into his own outside

[2:25:28] nonprofit structure, control its trucks,

[2:25:30] funds, and equipment, and use that

[2:25:32] platform for his own personal and

[2:25:34] organizational gain, including ambitions

[2:25:36] to expand it far beyond Malibu, while

[2:25:38] suing and ousting the very volunteers

[2:25:40] who built this program. According to

[2:25:42] Brigade members, they spent months

[2:25:44] asking for financial transparency,

[2:25:46] accountability, and governance by the

[2:25:47] people who built, funded, trained for,

[2:25:49] and carried the Brigade through actual

[2:25:51] fire responses. Instead, LAEPPF

[2:25:54] responded with retaliation and lawsuits.

[2:25:57] To date, Mr. Woodward has not withdrawn

[2:25:59] what many residents view as a ludicrous

[2:26:01] $10 million lawsuit against Malibu

[2:26:03] community members who stepped up to

[2:26:05] protect the city during and during and

[2:26:08] after multiple catastrophic fires.

[2:26:10] Instead of releasing the trucks, funds,

[2:26:11] and equipment back to the Malibu

[2:26:13] community Brigade, Mr. Woodward appears

[2:26:15] to be using donor supported

[2:26:17] resources, community goodwill, and

[2:26:19] public safety assets as leverage in an

[2:26:21] expensive federal lawsuit against Malibu

[2:26:23] families who have defended the city over

[2:26:25] and over again. Most outrageously,

[2:26:28] according to Brigade members, LAEPPF is

[2:26:30] suing original members who built the

[2:26:32] program, trained for it, raised the

[2:26:34] funds that sustained it, and even helped

[2:26:36] save Brent Woodward's home during the

[2:26:38] Palisades fire. To expect their courage

[2:26:41] in a crisis and then sue some of those

[2:26:43] same people is not leadership, it is

[2:26:45] betrayal.

[2:26:46] Those are not abstract defendants. These

[2:26:48] are Malibu residents, volunteers,

[2:26:50] parents, neighbors, and community

[2:26:51] members who repeatedly put themselves in

[2:26:53] harm's way when our city needed them

[2:26:55] most. Donors gave money to protect

[2:26:57] Malibu, not to finance litigation

[2:26:59] against Malibu residents. I know

[2:27:01] personally what the Malibu community

[2:27:02] Brigade did for the city because they

[2:27:04] helped save something irreplaceable from

[2:27:06] our home. Before the Palisades fire hit

[2:27:09] while we were in India, Brigade members

[2:27:11] communicated with us through our Ring

[2:27:13] camera. Because of that communication,

[2:27:15] we were able to open our garage remotely

[2:27:17] and allow our neighbor into the house to

[2:27:19] retrieve the most precious item that we

[2:27:21] own, a certificate signed twice by

[2:27:23] Abraham Lincoln for Colin's

[2:27:24] great-great-grandmother

[2:27:26] who was the first female Postmaster

[2:27:28] General of the United States, one of.

[2:27:30] Our family may be Canadian, but we are

[2:27:32] also true Americans, and that piece of

[2:27:34] history could never have been replaced.

[2:27:36] While helping make that possible, the

[2:27:38] brigade also moved flammable items from

[2:27:40] outside our home into the garage to

[2:27:42] reduce immediate fire threat around the

[2:27:44] structure. That is what this group did.

[2:27:46] They did not just talk about public

[2:27:47] safety. They were the only ones who

[2:27:49] showed up for us. They communicated,

[2:27:52] they improvised, they protected homes,

[2:27:53] protected history, evacuated residents,

[2:27:56] and protected Malibu families. Not

[2:27:58] Brentwood worth's personal nonprofit

[2:28:00] apparatus, not a centralized structure

[2:28:02] controlled by people who do not live in

[2:28:03] Malibu,

[2:28:05] or have the same daily fire risk. Not an

[2:28:07] organization organization that sues its

[2:28:10] own volunteers, not a leadership model

[2:28:11] that treats Malibu's local fire

[2:28:13] protection capability as something to be

[2:28:15] owned, withheld, or weaponized. The

[2:28:17] Malibu Community Brigade is not

[2:28:19] Brentwood worth. It never was. The

[2:28:21] brigade is Kegan Gibbs, the Point Dume

[2:28:23] bombers, and the brave group of trained

[2:28:25] volunteers who built the program from

[2:28:27] the ground up. 92 and counting out of 98

[2:28:30] brigade members are fully committed to

[2:28:32] keeping Malibu's fire protection assets

[2:28:34] in Malibu and protecting Malibu homes.

[2:28:36] That should tell the council everything

[2:28:37] it needs to know.

[2:28:39] This senseless conflict needs to end

[2:28:41] now. To bind the hands of trained local

[2:28:43] volunteers, people willing to put their

[2:28:45] own lives for risk at risk for Malibu

[2:28:47] with lawsuits and legal red tape while a

[2:28:49] wildfire scarred community is still

[2:28:51] struggling to rebuild is not only tone

[2:28:53] deaf, it is heartless. The city should

[2:28:55] take immediate action. First, Brentwood

[2:28:57] worth should be removed from the Public

[2:28:59] Safety Commission. Someone pursuing

[2:29:00] litigation against Malibu community

[2:29:02] members while withholding or controlling

[2:29:04] resources intended for Malibu's public

[2:29:05] safety should not be sitting in a public

[2:29:07] safety advisory role for this city.

[2:29:10] Second, the city should send Mr.

[2:29:11] Woodward and LAEPF a formal letter

[2:29:14] putting them on notice, withdraw the

[2:29:15] lawsuit, release the funds, trucks, and

[2:29:17] equipment intended for Malibu Community

[2:29:19] Brigade, or provide a full accounting

[2:29:21] and refund of all Malibu donor

[2:29:23] contributions, including any city

[2:29:25] donations or public funds connected to

[2:29:27] this effort. Malibu residents supported

[2:29:29] this brigade because we need local

[2:29:30] capability, local accountability, and

[2:29:33] local resources.

[2:29:35] Mr. Woodworth should do the right thing

[2:29:36] now, withdraw the lawsuit, release the

[2:29:38] money, release the trucks, and stop

[2:29:39] standing in the way of Malibu protecting

[2:29:41] itself. And if he refuses, then the city

[2:29:43] and community should pursue every lawful

[2:29:45] remedy available to recover the assets

[2:29:47] and funds donated for Malibu's safety.

[2:29:50] The community brigade belongs to Malibu.

[2:29:51] It was built by Malibu volunteers,

[2:29:53] funded by Malibu donors, and trusted by

[2:29:55] Malibu families. It should never be

[2:29:57] seized from Malibu by anyone. Thank you.

[2:30:00] » No clapping. Hey, hey.

[2:30:03] » [applause]

[2:30:03] » Please Hey, we just adopted a resolution

[2:30:06] reinforcing the rule that we're going to

[2:30:08] stay decorous here. Just

[2:30:11] Just like that.

[2:30:12] Okay. Linda Gibbs, Scott Detrick, and

[2:30:15] then Mikey Pearson, and Mikey's got an

[2:30:18] extra minute if

[2:30:21] Stephen Johnson is still here.

[2:30:24] Okay, cool.

[2:30:24] » Hi, I

[2:30:26] Linda Gibbs. Hello, council.

[2:30:29] And um yeah. Um back in night uh 2021,

[2:30:34] not 1921, uh 2021, I was speaking um

[2:30:38] then about uh these 5G towers and

[2:30:43] with the lawyer that was helping. So,

[2:30:46] rather than speak about a particular

[2:30:49] uh thing, I want to just talk about

[2:30:50] trust.

[2:30:51] And [snorts] what happens is that we're

[2:30:55] losing trust in

[2:30:57] this process. When things don't get done

[2:31:01] and when um

[2:31:03] because of what you already heard, that

[2:31:05] these appeals are happening and before

[2:31:09] they're even finished. Um

[2:31:12] I just want to We have 12 appeals

[2:31:14] pending. These decisions are not final.

[2:31:17] Four sites, as you've heard, um there's

[2:31:20] fire safety protocol that was not

[2:31:22] completed in the uh residential

[2:31:26] um protocol that needs to be finished um

[2:31:30] and um rules um are not being enforced.

[2:31:35] Um

[2:31:36] this is how um Malibu should operate

[2:31:38] with its rules. Um

[2:31:41] This is not how public safety should be

[2:31:42] handled. I'm obviously reading a list

[2:31:45] and this is not how residents um should

[2:31:47] be treated. So just think about the

[2:31:49] trust that you want to um engender.

[2:31:51] Thank you very much.

[2:31:53] » Thank you, Linda.

[2:31:54] Scott

[2:31:58] Thank you uh Mr. Mayor, council, and

[2:32:01] city manager.

[2:32:04] Malibu is a special place.

[2:32:08] That's why we live here.

[2:32:11] One of the things that makes us special

[2:32:14] is all the volunteers.

[2:32:17] Arson watch, CERT, volunteers on patrol,

[2:32:21] and fire brigades.

[2:32:24] It's a volunteer group. Unfortunately,

[2:32:28] it appears that Brent Woodward has

[2:32:32] gone on some weird power trip.

[2:32:36] Mr. Woodward, please go back. You

[2:32:39] contributed a great deal in the past.

[2:32:43] Please rescind your lawsuit.

[2:32:46] Make it work. Work with the people and I

[2:32:49] urge the council to take every legal

[2:32:52] step

[2:32:53] if Brent won't voluntarily

[2:32:58] yield the stupid control issue that he's

[2:33:01] having.

[2:33:03] You guys

[2:33:05] need to take action. That's going to be

[2:33:07] tough.

[2:33:08] Secondly,

[2:33:11] I totally agree with Tiffany.

[2:33:15] We're public works commissioners. I've

[2:33:17] been on the commission for 10 years.

[2:33:19] Part of our work product

[2:33:22] is telecom.

[2:33:24] So, now we have small cell towers. We've

[2:33:27] never dealt with that

[2:33:29] on the Public Works Commission.

[2:33:32] I think the whole procedure is messed

[2:33:35] up.

[2:33:37] I think you guys should vote to have a

[2:33:40] moratorium until we can sort this out,

[2:33:44] determine

[2:33:46] if there's a danger,

[2:33:48] cuz I know there's several dangers.

[2:33:51] Technically, I don't know, but I know

[2:33:54] that you put them on a pole,

[2:33:57] and that pole, they're never going to

[2:33:58] want to take it down again.

[2:34:01] That's not what we want. We're fighting

[2:34:03] to underground, right?

[2:34:05] So, let's put the moratorium on right

[2:34:09] now, tonight,

[2:34:12] and have a broader discussion,

[2:34:14] and make sure these darn little things

[2:34:17] don't just proliferate all over Malibu.

[2:34:20] Thank you.

[2:34:22] » Thank you, Scott.

[2:34:24] Mickey.

[2:34:27] Mickey gets 4 minutes.

[2:34:31] » I'll try and make it shorter. I don't

[2:34:32] didn't even know I had an extra minute.

[2:34:34] Um thank you, City Council, and uh

[2:34:37] thank you, Joe and and Scott. That was

[2:34:39] unexpected, and wow.

[2:34:42] Um

[2:34:43] Mary Ann, I said I'd try and limit us to

[2:34:44] four. I think there's five of us. So, I

[2:34:46] apologize.

[2:34:47] Um I I just want to start off by saying

[2:34:50] the Community Brigade is not going

[2:34:52] anywhere.

[2:34:54] We are not leaving Malibu. We are not

[2:34:56] done by any stretch of the imagination.

[2:34:59] As a matter of fact, we're really busy,

[2:35:01] just really limited on resources.

[2:35:04] So, we've really been thinking a lot

[2:35:06] about who we are during this difficult

[2:35:08] time with litigation and all the other

[2:35:10] stuff going on.

[2:35:12] But, we really come down to thinking

[2:35:13] about our values.

[2:35:15] What are we about?

[2:35:16] And I'm going to share kind of the four

[2:35:18] values where I see them standing right

[2:35:20] now.

[2:35:21] Our highest value

[2:35:23] is to our brigade members.

[2:35:25] Number one, we want to be there for

[2:35:27] them.

[2:35:28] Number two, it's the community.

[2:35:31] And you know what? They're the same

[2:35:32] thing.

[2:35:33] There's absolutely no difference between

[2:35:34] them.

[2:35:36] Number three is to be in prepared.

[2:35:39] Our training,

[2:35:40] being ready to help out in whatever kind

[2:35:42] of disaster or need

[2:35:44] comes to Malibu.

[2:35:45] And number four, we could probably put

[2:35:47] on the MOA with the county.

[2:35:50] It'd be great to have. We don't need it

[2:35:52] to do what we've always done for all

[2:35:54] these last decades.

[2:35:56] So,

[2:35:58] thinking about that,

[2:36:01] we continue to work with our long with

[2:36:03] our partners that we that we have at the

[2:36:05] moment.

[2:36:06] Um Boys & Girls Club and the and the um

[2:36:08] long-term recovery group has been great.

[2:36:11] They've really helped us get back in

[2:36:13] some areas.

[2:36:14] Home hardening is underway. I think

[2:36:17] since March when we restarted, we've

[2:36:18] done over 30, I think 32

[2:36:21] assessments already, including uh two

[2:36:24] schools as well.

[2:36:27] We continue working on supporting

[2:36:28] Firewise communities and neighborhood

[2:36:30] preparedness efforts.

[2:36:32] Um

[2:36:34] actually this Sunday night we're doing a

[2:36:35] senior preparedness night at Duke's to

[2:36:37] help seniors be ready for disasters. I

[2:36:40] think we'll be downloading

[2:36:42] um you know, a couple apps here all

[2:36:44] night. Probably take a while, that's my

[2:36:46] guess.

[2:36:47] Um community education is big for us,

[2:36:50] too.

[2:36:51] Um

[2:36:52] what we're really after

[2:36:55] in the big scheme of things is culture

[2:36:57] change.

[2:36:58] We want to change the culture in this

[2:37:00] area and fire-prone our fire-prone area

[2:37:03] so that people can live successfully in

[2:37:06] this area

[2:37:07] and not burn down.

[2:37:10] And not suffer when a fire comes

[2:37:11] through.

[2:37:12] So, to that end, we are very involved

[2:37:15] with the school.

[2:37:16] We have the junior brigade, which um I

[2:37:19] have a note here saying we have 18

[2:37:20] people in that program right now.

[2:37:22] And that's fantastic. 18 people

[2:37:25] that are helping spread the word, that

[2:37:27] are going home

[2:37:29] and telling their parents what they can

[2:37:31] do to improve their house,

[2:37:33] their neighborhood.

[2:37:34] And that to us is is really

[2:37:37] a home run.

[2:37:39] During all this with uh limited

[2:37:41] equipment, um we got a few old trucks

[2:37:44] and, you know, wearing blue jeans,

[2:37:46] whatever it takes.

[2:37:47] Um

[2:37:48] we've been working on water supply and

[2:37:49] pump operations training, hose lays and

[2:37:53] mobile filling stations, uh field triage

[2:37:55] exercises and operational ready

[2:37:57] readiness training.

[2:38:00] We're continuing to try and equip our

[2:38:03] people with PPE and other equipment.

[2:38:05] Radios, we're working on affording

[2:38:07] radios now.

[2:38:08] Um I could go on, but I I just want to

[2:38:11] wrap this up. We also really appreciate

[2:38:14] the faith that you have put in us. That

[2:38:16] means everything. We know you've given

[2:38:18] us $200,000.

[2:38:20] We are not done getting that money back

[2:38:23] at all,

[2:38:24] and we will make sure that we pay that

[2:38:26] debt. And I just want to thank you for

[2:38:28] your support.

[2:38:30] » Thank you, Mikey.

[2:38:34] Keegan Gibbs.

[2:38:36] Is Cassandra Riera still here? Okay.

[2:38:39] Keegan Gibbs,

[2:38:41] and then Marshall

[2:38:43] Cobin, you've got 4 minutes assuming

[2:38:47] Colin is here. Okay.

[2:38:49] And then

[2:38:51] Aaron

[2:38:53] Marderosian.

[2:38:55] » Mardo.

[2:38:57] Um

[2:38:59] for me, I'm I'm just going to talk about

[2:39:00] community real quick. Uh Maryanne,

[2:39:02] you've been around the country with us

[2:39:03] speaking. Steve, you appointed me to

[2:39:05] public safety. We've done a lot

[2:39:07] together. Uh Alan, you've been a huge

[2:39:09] advocate for us and you've been a stud

[2:39:11] out or stud out out here

[2:39:13] um for our city. And then the huge

[2:39:15] donation. Doug, you've been incredible

[2:39:17] with

[2:39:19] all the early meetings with Fire Front

[2:39:20] Following. We were on the public safety

[2:39:22] together.

[2:39:23] Um

[2:39:24] and everything you're continuing to do

[2:39:25] with the brigade with us right now

[2:39:26] behind the scenes means a lot.

[2:39:28] And Bruce, I remember hugging you in

[2:39:30] your driveway after the Franklin fire.

[2:39:33] And that is what the brigade in this

[2:39:36] community is about. Is all of us working

[2:39:38] together, right? And all the people

[2:39:40] standing behind us.

[2:39:42] Um

[2:39:43] so that to me is just that's our North

[2:39:45] Star. And I'm up here just to tell you

[2:39:47] that

[2:39:49] you have my word and my integrity and my

[2:39:51] loyalty to my community is everything.

[2:39:55] And every step that we're taking trying

[2:39:57] to go through this process of this

[2:39:59] litigation,

[2:40:01] you are my North Star.

[2:40:03] The people back here, that's our North

[2:40:04] Star. Our community is our North Star,

[2:40:06] right? And I promise this Yeah, it's

[2:40:08] messy. It sucks.

[2:40:10] Um this has been the hardest year of my

[2:40:12] life for sure. The especially the last 6

[2:40:14] months. It's been a nightmare.

[2:40:16] But I just like I we lost our house in

[2:40:18] the Woolsey fire. I joke around that it

[2:40:21] was the best thing that ever happened to

[2:40:22] me because it gave me a sense of purpose

[2:40:25] in this program.

[2:40:27] And I know that this process that we're

[2:40:29] going through in this lawsuit,

[2:40:31] I genuinely feel lucky I'm in this

[2:40:33] position that I'm in. And to have the

[2:40:35] trust of the people here, of all you,

[2:40:38] and I know for me personally, I'm

[2:40:40] selfish that I think I'm going to become

[2:40:42] a better person through the whole

[2:40:43] process. So I feel thankful that I'm

[2:40:45] going through that process.

[2:40:46] Um

[2:40:48] and uh

[2:40:50] I just want to say like this has been

[2:40:51] the biggest honor of my life is to be a

[2:40:53] part of this program and to become

[2:40:56] friends with people like Colin who I

[2:40:58] probably never would have met before,

[2:41:00] even though he's from Big Rock and

[2:41:01] doesn't surf and like to be friends with

[2:41:04] Joe who is like I was always scared of

[2:41:06] before.

[2:41:08] Um

[2:41:08] Steven who just moved to Malibu, we got

[2:41:11] people from all over the community that

[2:41:13] are generally brothers and sisters now

[2:41:15] and I don't know of a different another

[2:41:17] program in Malibu that has ever done

[2:41:19] that and to me that's just that's what

[2:41:21] the beauty of the program is. It's not

[2:41:22] just the firefighting and all that. So

[2:41:25] you've got my word I'm doing my hardest

[2:41:27] to advocate for what's best for our

[2:41:29] community. So thank you.

[2:41:31] » Thank you Kegan. Marshall.

[2:41:38] And thank everybody for maintaining

[2:41:40] decorum.

[2:41:41] It's much appreciated.

[2:41:44] » I've got an incredible brigade story to

[2:41:46] tell.

[2:41:47] Um hi City Council. My name is Marshall

[2:41:49] Coben.

[2:41:50] I live in the northeast corner of the

[2:41:52] Malibu Colony in that row of houses that

[2:41:54] is adjacent to the Lagoon footpath.

[2:41:57] I walked that path back there a couple

[2:41:59] of months ago to see how they've been

[2:42:00] maintaining their brush.

[2:42:03] And I was appalled at what I saw.

[2:42:06] It was literally mountains of dried

[2:42:08] brush and leaves like someone was

[2:42:10] planning a bonfire behind our houses.

[2:42:13] Then I come to find out that it is their

[2:42:15] policy not to maintain their brush but

[2:42:19] that as a homeowner

[2:42:20] living adjacent to the State Park

[2:42:23] I could pay for a permit and do the work

[2:42:24] myself.

[2:42:27] This was pretty frustrating, made me

[2:42:28] pretty angry.

[2:42:31] But I applied for the permit and started

[2:42:33] making plans to do the work.

[2:42:34] Fortuitously, I had the brigade in the

[2:42:36] neighborhood to do some home hardening

[2:42:38] assessments for me and a few of my

[2:42:40] neighbors. We're up to eight in the

[2:42:41] Malibu Colony.

[2:42:44] And I was shocked

[2:42:46] when they offered to do the brush

[2:42:48] clearing for me

[2:42:50] as volunteers.

[2:42:54] So we set a date. I got a giant dumpster

[2:42:56] brought in, and last Monday and Tuesday

[2:42:59] 15 Brigade members showed up in uniform

[2:43:02] with chainsaws, rakes, and trucks

[2:43:05] and did the most incredibly efficient

[2:43:07] and well-organized job removing nearly 7

[2:43:10] tons of very dry fuel.

[2:43:14] This is a great example of what this

[2:43:16] community means to the people of the

[2:43:19] Brigade.

[2:43:21] Let's continue to show them what they

[2:43:23] mean to us.

[2:43:25] And here's a little video of the job.

[2:44:36] » That appears to be the end of the video.

[2:44:37] I think we can turn that off.

[2:44:40] Thank you.

[2:44:41] Aaron.

[2:44:43] » Uh good evening,

[2:44:44] uh Mr. Mayor, Council.

[2:44:46] Fellow community members, my name's

[2:44:47] Aaron Martirosyan.

[2:44:49] Uh I'm part of the community Brigade.

[2:44:52] Um over the last several months the

[2:44:53] brigade has been taking an inventory of

[2:44:55] the equipment we have available to us.

[2:44:58] Um, as some of you know and have heard,

[2:45:01] we have never had access to or the

[2:45:02] benefit of the vast amount of funds that

[2:45:04] were donated to us by our community uh

[2:45:07] with the intent and purpose of those

[2:45:09] donations being intended to purchase and

[2:45:11] provide us

[2:45:13] the volunteers on the ground

[2:45:15] um

[2:45:17] with proper equipment, personal

[2:45:18] protective equipment, and safe, reliable

[2:45:22] working vehicles. Uh all of the gear we

[2:45:24] currently do have in our possession was

[2:45:26] paid for and or is personally owned by

[2:45:29] several individual brigade members.

[2:45:32] Um, to date we still do not have any

[2:45:35] vehicles that would fully meet

[2:45:36] operational standards.

[2:45:38] Um

[2:45:40] despite all of this, we are not letting

[2:45:41] that stand in our way. We are continuing

[2:45:43] to do the best we can with what we have.

[2:45:45] Uh with brigade volunteers and even

[2:45:48] personal finances, we are working to

[2:45:49] fix, standardize, and make use of the

[2:45:51] equipment we do have in our possession

[2:45:53] including hoses, nozzles, tools, pumps,

[2:45:56] saws, and most important of all personal

[2:45:58] protective equipment. Um, which

[2:46:02] uh half of our 92 members never received

[2:46:05] in the first place.

[2:46:07] So once again, we've been reaching into

[2:46:09] our own pockets to provide ourselves the

[2:46:10] basic uh necessary essential equipment

[2:46:12] for ourselves.

[2:46:14] Um

[2:46:15] which matches our commitment to our

[2:46:17] community and the belief in our program.

[2:46:20] We are resilient and resourceful

[2:46:23] and will be here for Malibu

[2:46:25] um and this community this season and

[2:46:27] every other season in any way we can.

[2:46:29] Thank you.

[2:46:31] » Thank you.

[2:46:34] Okay, Dana Phillips. Is Dax Miller here?

[2:46:39] Okay. Then you've got 4 minutes followed

[2:46:41] by Nicole McGinnley and then Arno

[2:46:44] Coke You'll you'll help me with

[2:46:46] that.

[2:46:47] And then thank you, Coke. And then

[2:46:49] Christopher Sorensen will be our last

[2:46:51] in-person speaker.

[2:46:54] » Hi, thanks for giving me the

[2:46:55] opportunity.

[2:46:56] Um I'm just going to read a letter that

[2:46:58] I think you've all received from uh

[2:47:00] written by the brigade that is signed by

[2:47:02] 92 of the 98 of us.

[2:47:04] Uh to our community affiliated agencies,

[2:47:07] elected officials, donors, and fellow

[2:47:08] brigade members. For several months,

[2:47:11] many of us have raised serious concerns

[2:47:12] with the LAEPF quietly and respectfully.

[2:47:15] We asked for financial transparency,

[2:47:17] better governance, and appropriate

[2:47:19] authority over the program that brigade

[2:47:21] volunteers built, operated, funded, and

[2:47:23] carried forward through countless hours

[2:47:25] of work, training, and fire responses.

[2:47:27] Instead of meaningful accountability or

[2:47:29] collaboration, what has followed seems

[2:47:31] to be retaliation in an attempt to

[2:47:33] silence concerns and completely

[2:47:35] disregard our contributions. The LAEPF

[2:47:38] chose to file lawsuits with meritless

[2:47:40] allegations against some of the very

[2:47:41] people who built this program, raised

[2:47:43] the money that sustained it, and helped

[2:47:45] to establish its credibility and

[2:47:46] operational success.

[2:47:48] Two of the individuals, actually three,

[2:47:50] being sued are among those of us who

[2:47:52] responded during the Palisades fire and

[2:47:54] helped save Brentwood residents' own

[2:47:55] home when it was under threat despite

[2:47:57] public narratives that failed to

[2:47:59] acknowledge those efforts. That moment

[2:48:01] has become symbolic of a larger systemic

[2:48:04] problem in the culture of the LAEPF

[2:48:06] organization.

[2:48:07] Trust has been broken by the leadership

[2:48:09] of the LAEPF with us, the volunteer

[2:48:11] body.

[2:48:12] Not because of one disagreement, but

[2:48:14] because of an ongoing pattern of

[2:48:15] centralized control, lack of

[2:48:17] transparency, poor communications, and

[2:48:19] decisions that we believe have

[2:48:21] repeatedly put ego, ownership, and

[2:48:23] authority ahead of the people who

[2:48:24] actually built the brigade into what it

[2:48:26] became, and what the program is meant to

[2:48:28] serve, the community. Many of us stayed

[2:48:31] silent because we wanted to protect the

[2:48:32] program and respect a decision a

[2:48:34] discussion process, while hoping Brent

[2:48:37] and the LAEPF would adequately address

[2:48:39] our concerning

[2:48:41] Even after filing a meritless lawsuit by

[2:48:43] LAEPF, there was still a push for us to

[2:48:45] stay quiet while restructuring was

[2:48:46] mediated.

[2:48:48] Integrity is the core of the fire

[2:48:49] service, and there comes a point where

[2:48:51] where remaining silent starts to

[2:48:53] compromise the very value that this

[2:48:54] brigade was built on. We've reached that

[2:48:56] point. As volunteers of the and members

[2:48:59] of the brigade, we can no longer support

[2:49:01] or remain subordinate to any

[2:49:02] organization in which Brent Woodward or

[2:49:05] the LAEPF retains authority over the

[2:49:07] brigade program in our community. The

[2:49:09] trust necessary to continue under that

[2:49:12] leadership no longer exists for those of

[2:49:14] us signed here in the volunteer body,

[2:49:16] nor for the many supporters and

[2:49:17] stakeholders who helped build this

[2:49:19] effort alongside us.

[2:49:22] We continue to be passionate about the

[2:49:23] program and the mission that remains

[2:49:26] intact. The relationships, training,

[2:49:28] operational knowledge, and commitment

[2:49:29] that has built this brigade still exist.

[2:49:31] Our commitment to our partners, LA

[2:49:33] County Fire, our donors, and what our

[2:49:35] community remains strong.

[2:49:37] What no longer exists is confidence in

[2:49:39] LAEPF's leadership structure or its

[2:49:41] intentions with the community this

[2:49:43] program is meant to serve. We deserve

[2:49:45] and we are committed to implementing

[2:49:46] governance that is transparent,

[2:49:48] accountable, collaborative, and worthy

[2:49:50] of the people supporting it.

[2:49:52] Respectfully, the members of the

[2:49:53] community brigade. Thank you.

[2:49:59] » Thank you.

[2:50:00] Nicole.

[2:50:07] » Hi everybody.

[2:50:08] Nice to be here. Nice to see you all.

[2:50:11] Um first of all, I am so inspired to be

[2:50:14] alongside all of these outstanding

[2:50:16] citizens and call them now comrades.

[2:50:20] So,

[2:50:21] um I'm here uh for a couple different

[2:50:23] things, uh one of which is to say thank

[2:50:26] you for all that you guys do on behalf

[2:50:28] of

[2:50:30] the AYSO board. Um we received our grant

[2:50:33] uh funding from you guys, and so I

[2:50:35] really appreciate that. That grant is

[2:50:37] going to allow

[2:50:39] for Soccer Sundays culture to be um a

[2:50:43] lot more hospitable for our families to,

[2:50:46] you know, we really serve an interesting

[2:50:48] demographic in the fact that our kids go

[2:50:51] to schools all over Malibu, over the

[2:50:54] hill, but Soccer Sunday, oh, excuse me,

[2:50:57] Soccer Saturdays and softball

[2:51:00] are some of the glue of our community,

[2:51:02] and um it really brings everybody

[2:51:04] together even if they live 30 minutes

[2:51:06] away from each other. It's a great time.

[2:51:08] So, thank you very much for that.

[2:51:11] Um but on on a not so happy note, uh

[2:51:17] I

[2:51:20] want to just skip through a lot of this

[2:51:22] because a lot of people said everything.

[2:51:24] I'm I'm not an appellant,

[2:51:26] as you know, on um those

[2:51:29] 12 uh appeals,

[2:51:33] but I did work very hard with several of

[2:51:36] you and this um council and the two

[2:51:38] prior councils

[2:51:40] to put fire safety protocol into our

[2:51:45] ordinance, our and to update our telecom

[2:51:48] ordinance so that we had a leg to stand

[2:51:52] on as a city.

[2:51:55] It's very disappointing

[2:51:57] to be in a process when our residents

[2:52:00] have appealed, and as people mentioned,

[2:52:03] they did everything that they needed to

[2:52:04] do in order to make sure when they saw

[2:52:08] the application and it didn't follow the

[2:52:10] safety protocol that they believe,

[2:52:13] excuse me, they believed could be

[2:52:14] followed, that they appealed.

[2:52:17] And now all of a sudden these sites are

[2:52:19] just being installed. I had people

[2:52:20] texting me, "Why are these people out

[2:52:23] here? What's going on?"

[2:52:25] Some people called into the city, "Can

[2:52:27] you put a stop order on this?" We've I

[2:52:29] mean, it's it was just a really

[2:52:32] um disturbing

[2:52:34] to say the least. There is a process and

[2:52:37] that fire safety protocol which we

[2:52:39] meticulously worked on

[2:52:42] as it's not being upheld. It's meant to

[2:52:44] be a checklist item at the beginning of

[2:52:47] the application process.

[2:52:50] It didn't happen.

[2:52:52] This has got to be re- re-looked at,

[2:52:55] please.

[2:52:56] And all of these years of hard work

[2:52:59] we cannot be installing unchecked

[2:53:01] equipment especially electrical

[2:53:04] equipment into our fire-prone community.

[2:53:08] So, I I am with everybody with that. So,

[2:53:11] thank you very much for your time.

[2:53:12] » Thank you, Nicole.

[2:53:13] Arna?

[2:53:25] » Good evening.

[2:53:27] I am uh

[2:53:29] wearing two hats tonight.

[2:53:32] » [laughter]

[2:53:35] » Pun intended.

[2:53:38] Number one, GEO remains the biggest

[2:53:41] point of contention for the fire

[2:53:44] rebuilders.

[2:53:46] Uh residents sometimes suggest that they

[2:53:49] are that the uh GEO consultants are just

[2:53:52] trying to make bank at the expense of

[2:53:54] fire survivors.

[2:53:56] Uh I personally [clears throat] don't

[2:53:57] believe that. Um I believe they are

[2:54:00] doing what they're supposed to do,

[2:54:02] consult.

[2:54:04] And write diligent reports and comments.

[2:54:06] Conciatore's did, FEMA did, and PB5

[2:54:08] does.

[2:54:10] Um the issue is they are left not to

[2:54:14] consult, but to decide.

[2:54:18] And impose atrocities on residents that

[2:54:20] are not appropriate.

[2:54:22] I think the consultants do need to

[2:54:24] consult.

[2:54:28] With the regular process following their

[2:54:30] consultation where a city official then

[2:54:33] derives a decision based on the

[2:54:35] resident's geo report

[2:54:37] and the consultant's

[2:54:39] consultation

[2:54:40] and not decision.

[2:54:43] Number two,

[2:54:45] I spent a night in a fire and lost my

[2:54:46] house.

[2:54:48] I joined the community brigade last fall

[2:54:50] to better protect my family and my

[2:54:52] community.

[2:54:54] As it appears now, Rick Wodworth, who

[2:54:56] claims to have a similar goal, is not

[2:54:58] only threatening the livelihood of

[2:55:00] people who

[2:55:01] protected this community community

[2:55:03] including his own house risking their

[2:55:06] lives, but is also depriving the willing

[2:55:08] people of the brigade of equipment they

[2:55:11] needs to have available to protect the

[2:55:13] city of Malibu

[2:55:14] tomorrow.

[2:55:16] Your houses.

[2:55:18] And I hope none of you ever needs a hug

[2:55:20] from Kivi Keegan after a fire.

[2:55:24] We had a warning shot already this year.

[2:55:25] The Sandi fire would have burned

[2:55:27] straight down to the ocean

[2:55:30] if it just had it had enough wind.

[2:55:33] On its path happens to be also the house

[2:55:35] that I'm renting right now. And my wife

[2:55:38] was wondering, should we get a U-Haul

[2:55:41] and just park it into the driveway in

[2:55:43] case that wind changes a little bit?

[2:55:47] If that happens tomorrow, the fire

[2:55:49] trucks and equipment of those who want

[2:55:51] and can help

[2:55:54] will sit locked up

[2:55:56] while your houses burn.

[2:56:01] If that happens,

[2:56:03] Brent will have blood on his hands.

[2:56:06] And I believe we need to protect him

[2:56:08] from himself.

[2:56:11] Thank you.

[2:56:13] » Thank you, Anna.

[2:56:15] Christopher Sarson.

[2:56:22] » Hello council, mayor, Putnam and Malibu

[2:56:25] City Council.

[2:56:27] Um my name is Christopher Swanson. I'm

[2:56:28] principal architect at Swanson

[2:56:29] Architects.

[2:56:30] Um

[2:56:31] we're currently designing a large swath

[2:56:33] of rebuild projects on the uh Las Tunas

[2:56:36] beach area and I'm here to speak about

[2:56:38] the overhead utility lines that are

[2:56:40] still up.

[2:56:41] Um our understanding is uh that the high

[2:56:43] voltage line from Edison has been

[2:56:45] undergrounded. However, um

[2:56:49] we do not understand that there's any

[2:56:50] active plan in place to underground all

[2:56:53] the five low voltage lines that are

[2:56:54] still floating in the air.

[2:56:56] Um I think every homeowner that we have

[2:56:58] spoken to and every community community

[2:57:00] member that we're aware of and have

[2:57:02] spoken with has strongly supports the

[2:57:04] undergrounding of these lines. Uh this

[2:57:06] is not just a design issue. It's about

[2:57:07] safety, resilience, and preserving the

[2:57:09] natural beauty of Malibu.

[2:57:11] Um

[2:57:12] » [clears throat]

[2:57:12] » We have this

[2:57:13] once-in-a-lifetime opportunity with all

[2:57:15] this uh work in the city to beautify it,

[2:57:18] to put these lines underneath the

[2:57:19] ground. The corridor is the main

[2:57:21] entrance to Malibu where everyone sees

[2:57:23] Malibu from Santa Monica and Los Angeles

[2:57:25] and it creates the first impression of

[2:57:26] the city.

[2:57:27] And uh we can be a success to

[2:57:29] undergrounding at Carbon Beach.

[2:57:31] Uh everyone sees how beautiful it is

[2:57:33] when you come along that and all the

[2:57:34] lines are neat the ground all of a

[2:57:36] sudden like you can relax and breathe.

[2:57:38] Of course it's Billionaire's Beach. We

[2:57:39] understand they could afford to do that.

[2:57:41] Um the rest of the beach from there all

[2:57:43] the way to Topanga uh

[2:57:45] that needs to happen as well. So I would

[2:57:48] like to ask if there's a current plan to

[2:57:49] underground that we're not aware of cuz

[2:57:51] we've been in contact with public works

[2:57:53] and they're not aware of a plan that

[2:57:54] would they've expressed to us. Um

[2:57:57] if there is uh not a plan in place, we

[2:57:59] urge the City Council to please help

[2:58:01] support an initiative and action plan as

[2:58:03] soon as possible. We understood that

[2:58:05] these lines would have been

[2:58:06] undergrounded by now and we thought we

[2:58:08] heard that that was actually happening

[2:58:09] but it hasn't. Uh with the scale of the

[2:58:11] rebuilding currently underway with 450

[2:58:13] beach homes that are homes that are

[2:58:15] going to be rebuilt, it's critical

[2:58:16] opportunity now to make a lasting effort

[2:58:19] and improvement to beautify the city of

[2:58:20] Malibu. So, we appreciate your time and

[2:58:22] support, and thank you.

[2:58:24] » Thank you.

[2:58:26] Three people on Zoom?

[2:58:32] Is that correct?

[2:58:34] » Two of the speakers who raised their

[2:58:36] hands when the item was called have

[2:58:37] lowered their hands. We have one speaker

[2:58:39] remaining.

[2:58:40] » Who's left?

[2:58:41] Thank you.

[2:58:42] Lonnie.

[2:58:59] » Hello. Can you hear me?

[2:59:00] » We can, Lonnie. Go ahead.

[2:59:03] » Can you hear me?

[2:59:04] » Yes, Lonnie.

[2:59:05] » Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you,

[2:59:06] everyone. I wanted to make sure.

[2:59:08] Um good evening, Council. Um my name is

[2:59:11] Lonnie Gordon, and I'm the executive

[2:59:13] director of Malibu for Safe

[2:59:14] Telecommuting.

[2:59:15] Um and I want to speak to you about

[2:59:17] something that's very basic tonight, um

[2:59:20] that might have not have been explained

[2:59:22] clearly to you or a lot of the people

[2:59:24] who are in the audience.

[2:59:26] Um people have talked about the cell

[2:59:29] sites tonight, these small cell sites,

[2:59:32] 5G cell sites,

[2:59:34] and what they're actually for.

[2:59:36] Others are here tonight to give input,

[2:59:38] which you've already heard about the

[2:59:39] process that's currently being disputed,

[2:59:42] but my speech is pretty simple.

[2:59:45] Um most people hear 5G and assume it

[2:59:47] means better phone service. That's not

[2:59:51] what And that's what the ads imply, more

[2:59:54] bars, fewer dropped calls, but these

[2:59:57] small cell sites are not being installed

[3:00:00] to improve anyone's phone calls. Please

[3:00:03] hear that.

[3:00:04] They're not fixing coverage. They're not

[3:00:06] helping us communicate during

[3:00:08] emergencies.

[3:00:10] These sites are being installed for data

[3:00:12] systems, not for voice service. They

[3:00:16] support things like connected devices,

[3:00:18] sensors, cameras, and the growing world

[3:00:21] of automated data data-driven

[3:00:24] technology. That's the purpose.

[3:00:27] So, the question comes up for us is

[3:00:29] simply, why do we need this type of

[3:00:31] equipment on small residential streets?

[3:00:35] Why do we need industrial-grade hardware

[3:00:37] placed 20 to 30 ft from people's homes,

[3:00:40] bedrooms, and property lines, especially

[3:00:43] when it does not improve their ability

[3:00:45] to make a phone call?

[3:00:47] And this becomes even more concerning

[3:00:49] when we learn that four of these sites,

[3:00:52] which you've heard tonight, have already

[3:00:53] been activated without permission,

[3:00:56] before the appeals have ever been heard,

[3:00:59] and before the fire safety protocol was

[3:01:01] completed.

[3:01:03] Residents deserve to understand what

[3:01:05] these facilities actually do, as we all

[3:01:08] do. And residents deserve to know that

[3:01:11] these sites are not improving their

[3:01:13] phone service.

[3:01:15] And residents deserve to say a say in

[3:01:19] whether this type of infrastructure

[3:01:21] belongs in front of their homes.

[3:01:23] That's it, plain and simple. Thank you,

[3:01:26] guys. Good night.

[3:01:27] » Thank you, Annie.

[3:01:29] Hey.

[3:01:29] » Mayor, one of the speakers we documented

[3:01:31] raising their hand at the appropriate

[3:01:33] time has raised their hand again. Do you

[3:01:35] want to hear their public comment? They

[3:01:36] may have had an issue with the

[3:01:37] technology.

[3:01:38] » Yeah, I I I if they had their hand up

[3:01:39] before and they have their hand up now,

[3:01:41] go ahead. What's your

[3:01:42] » Ryan.

[3:01:47] » Uh thank you. I did not lower my hand,

[3:01:49] so there was a problem with the

[3:01:50] software. Um I don't know about that

[3:01:52] other speakers, who they were, but uh

[3:01:54] that might have happened to them as

[3:01:56] well.

[3:01:57] Um I want to speak uh partly on the

[3:01:59] telecom issue is that the uh

[3:02:01] telecommunications commission needs to

[3:02:03] be reactivated to handle these issues,

[3:02:05] because they're very technology

[3:02:08] specific. Uh it's not particularly what

[3:02:11] the public works commission does and as

[3:02:13] in the city of Calabasas, they anoint

[3:02:15] their commissioners with the

[3:02:17] authority to make uh initial

[3:02:19] quasi-judicial determinations to comply

[3:02:22] with the shot clock and so they beat the

[3:02:24] clock.

[3:02:25] I think you should just copy their

[3:02:26] ordinance and do the same thing.

[3:02:30] So, the second [clears throat] is one of

[3:02:31] the appeals

[3:02:33] um for 30145

[3:02:36] Morning View

[3:02:38] is a um step backwards. It's to take

[3:02:42] pole-mounted antenna,

[3:02:44] remove it, and install a an antenna

[3:02:48] uh like a bird on a wire uh a distance

[3:02:51] away from the pole to transmit

[3:02:54] sticking up from the uh stranded wire.

[3:02:57] This is a conversion to a different type

[3:03:00] of facility and it doesn't comply with

[3:03:02] the 6409

[3:03:04] um

[3:03:05] a provisions of the federal uh act as I

[3:03:08] understand it because it is not a like

[3:03:10] type facility. It exists, it was an

[3:03:13] operating facility,

[3:03:15] but this is

[3:03:16] uh first of all, it doesn't comply with

[3:03:18] the the hardening aspect, which is the

[3:03:21] goal after the Woolsey fire,

[3:03:24] which you should be administering. None

[3:03:26] of these uh 12 appeals incorporate

[3:03:29] battery backup as a hardening measure,

[3:03:30] by the way.

[3:03:32] We're not interfacing with our utility

[3:03:34] providers like we used to when we had a

[3:03:36] telecommunications commission and we

[3:03:38] were getting cooperation.

[3:03:40] So, I just want to put that in

[3:03:42] perspective. Uh the other one, 29515

[3:03:46] Rainsford Place, again a strand

[3:03:48] mounting, dangling from a wire.

[3:03:51] So, um that's not the way you harden

[3:03:53] things. You harden them by burying the

[3:03:56] radio equipment in the ground in a

[3:03:58] concrete vault

[3:04:00] so that it is not burned out with a

[3:04:02] wildfire and has room for heavy battery

[3:04:05] backup to run this facility so people

[3:04:08] get their evacuation notices

[3:04:10] to leave.

[3:04:12] Uh second, let's talk about public

[3:04:14] safety. Um the issue on Las Flores is

[3:04:17] you need a couple motorcycle officers

[3:04:19] with radar guns. We bought four

[3:04:21] state-of-the-art ones after uh

[3:04:24] well, 2 years ago

[3:04:26] and we'd already had four

[3:04:27] state-of-the-art ones, so then we had

[3:04:29] eight. Uh four of them kind of

[3:04:31] disappeared or walked away, but we got

[3:04:33] them back again and so we have plenty of

[3:04:35] these, plus the sheriff they the CHP has

[3:04:38] them built into their vehicles. So we

[3:04:40] need to do some radar speed enforcement

[3:04:42] and fix that road problem

[3:04:44] uh and not burden public works with

[3:04:46] additional projects on that road. Thank

[3:04:48] you.

[3:04:49] » Thank you, Ryan. Did the other person

[3:04:51] raise their hand again or not?

[3:04:53] » No, we checked for their name and they

[3:04:54] appear to have left the meeting.

[3:04:56] » Okay.

[3:04:58] Okay, that concludes public comment.

[3:05:00] Brings it up here. I'm going to actually

[3:05:01] go first for a change.

[3:05:03] Um just to get out of the way first of

[3:05:05] all, what have I been doing? Um

[3:05:07] the one major thing was Doug and I as

[3:05:09] the A&F subcommittee um spent a lot of

[3:05:12] time preparing for the meeting at which

[3:05:14] we made recommendations of grants from

[3:05:17] the general fund. Um many hours of work

[3:05:20] went into getting ready for that

[3:05:21] meeting. The meeting I think was three

[3:05:23] three and a half hours long. We heard

[3:05:25] from many applicants and made

[3:05:27] recommendations that the city council

[3:05:28] will be hearing

[3:05:30] in the next few weeks.

[3:05:31] Um so two big issues tonight obviously

[3:05:35] from the residents. And and thank you

[3:05:37] all for bringing these to our attention

[3:05:40] and and speaking and um for the brigade

[3:05:42] folks, I I I I know there's litigation.

[3:05:44] I haven't read the complaint, but um

[3:05:46] you've got a safe forum here. Everything

[3:05:48] you say in a public city council meeting

[3:05:51] is um statutorily privileged and cannot

[3:05:54] be used against you in a legal

[3:05:56] proceeding.

[3:05:57] Uh so um by all means, if you've got

[3:05:59] further things that you need to share

[3:06:00] with us,

[3:06:01] come do it here where you can do so

[3:06:03] safely.

[3:06:05] Um

[3:06:07] I know very One thing that wasn't

[3:06:08] mentioned tonight, I know I know very

[3:06:10] little about this and I I I guess I like

[3:06:11] a copy of the complaint from somebody if

[3:06:13] they

[3:06:13] provide it to me. Um I understand one

[3:06:16] thing that's being challenged is the use

[3:06:17] of the name and if that's an issue, um

[3:06:20] you guys you know, it would seem to me

[3:06:21] that you could very easily overcome

[3:06:23] that.

[3:06:25] Um funding, I think that we having

[3:06:29] contributed a substantial sum need to

[3:06:31] understand better what's going on and um

[3:06:34] what if any assistance we can provide to

[3:06:37] um making it right.

[3:06:40] And so, what I'm going to suggest is

[3:06:41] that we bring back the consideration of

[3:06:44] whether we want to create an ad hoc

[3:06:45] committee to look into this and um

[3:06:48] decide whether to recommend to the city

[3:06:50] council that we provide some assistance

[3:06:52] or facilitation.

[3:06:54] Um and I don't have a ton of time, but

[3:06:57] I'll say, you know, as an attorney, I'm

[3:06:58] happy if somebody wants to just bounce

[3:07:00] some ideas, I'm happy to look at your at

[3:07:02] what's going on.

[3:07:04] And um you know, subject to not being um

[3:07:07] capable of being sued for malpractice,

[3:07:09] happy to provide you my input um because

[3:07:12] you guys are important. Um I will

[3:07:14] mention just on a on a personal note, I

[3:07:16] mean, I do I I appreciate everything you

[3:07:18] guys did with my home. Um you saved it

[3:07:20] from being burned down to the ground.

[3:07:22] Unfortunately, the way fair plan works,

[3:07:24] I wish you had let it burn to the

[3:07:25] ground.

[3:07:27] Um

[3:07:28] but that that's an issue for the

[3:07:29] insurance commissioner and and and the

[3:07:31] legislature.

[3:07:33] Um with respect to the um small cell

[3:07:37] sites, I am going to ask that the we get

[3:07:40] a consensus if we have one to bring back

[3:07:43] an urgency ordinance at the next meeting

[3:07:45] before we go on break for a month um to

[3:07:49] create this moratorium. At least, you

[3:07:51] know, to consider whether to adopt an

[3:07:53] urgency ordinance and have it there so

[3:07:55] that we can adopt it if we if the

[3:07:56] decision is made to do so.

[3:07:58] Um and I I want to thank all of the

[3:08:01] speakers. Tiffany called me

[3:08:03] um to find out what could be done about

[3:08:05] this. I said, "Organize folks to come

[3:08:07] talk at City Council. It's the most

[3:08:09] effective way to get something done."

[3:08:10] It's uh you know, and not to pass the

[3:08:13] buck, but it's it's a lot easier for me

[3:08:15] and for all of us to hear to have

[3:08:17] something brought up at City Council

[3:08:19] meeting and and advocated than it is for

[3:08:21] us to put it together in the first

[3:08:22] instance. So,

[3:08:24] amazing that you put it together. I

[3:08:25] think that was 2 days ago we spoke. So,

[3:08:27] way to go. Um so, but I would like to

[3:08:30] ask if we have a consensus to bring back

[3:08:32] the consideration of an urgency

[3:08:33] ordinance with an ordinance that if we

[3:08:35] decided we wanted to adopt it, would be

[3:08:37] there.

[3:08:38] And I'd also like to get um a consensus

[3:08:42] whether or not we have an urgency

[3:08:43] ordinance to get on our docket sooner

[3:08:46] than later the residential ordinance

[3:08:49] because that was something that we were

[3:08:51] working on during COVID, pre-fire.

[3:08:55] Um it fell through the cracks. It never

[3:08:57] should have. Um it's helpful to hear now

[3:09:00] that there are other jurisdictions that

[3:09:02] have adopted residential um ordinances.

[3:09:05] I know one issue that was troubling for

[3:09:07] the City Council years ago was not um

[3:09:10] wanting not wanting to be the test case

[3:09:13] or you know, leading the way, but now if

[3:09:15] there are others that we could simply um

[3:09:18] replicate what they've done, that's

[3:09:20] something worth considering. So, I would

[3:09:22] like to see us have a consensus to bring

[3:09:24] that back. And then have some comments I

[3:09:26] want to make about the appeal process,

[3:09:27] but can we get a consensus on bringing

[3:09:30] back an item at the next meeting um by

[3:09:32] considering whether to adopt an urgency

[3:09:34] ordinance creating a moratorium?

[3:09:36] » Uh well, I've got it on my list to to

[3:09:38] talk about here as well. Uh it was my

[3:09:41] understanding we had the toughest

[3:09:42] ordinance supposedly in the United

[3:09:44] States. And yet, what's troubling first

[3:09:47] off is I'm hearing people say we're not

[3:09:49] following it. Which is a

[3:09:52] That's a huge concern to me. It's It's

[3:09:54] one thing to decide what the ordinances

[3:09:56] are, but if we don't

[3:09:57] operate under them, they do us no good.

[3:10:00] So, I'd like to maybe put this in two

[3:10:01] steps. And one is to get a report back

[3:10:04] from the city manager as to where we are

[3:10:07] on this. If we've got complaints that

[3:10:08] aren't being followed up on, appeals,

[3:10:11] then that's a concern. And I see Yolanda

[3:10:13] is almost ready to spring into action.

[3:10:15] » Can can we take this in order cuz I I

[3:10:17] I'm not done with my comments, and I do

[3:10:18] want to talk about the appeal process.

[3:10:20] But the first thing I'd like to do is

[3:10:21] just find out if we have a consensus to

[3:10:23] bring back an urgency ordinance

[3:10:26] consideration.

[3:10:26] » I'd like to make it two parts. One would

[3:10:28] be that we get a report from the city

[3:10:30] manager about where our ordinance is in

[3:10:32] operation right now, and then recommend

[3:10:35] a

[3:10:35] bring it back for consultation as to

[3:10:37] what we could do about it.

[3:10:38] » Okay. Well, sounds like you're not

[3:10:40] supporting bringing it back at the next

[3:10:41] meeting, and my concern is

[3:10:43] » Supporting

[3:10:43] » Oh, okay. Just two things at the meeting

[3:10:45] rather than one. All right. That's fine.

[3:10:46] I'll take that as an amendment to the

[3:10:48] consensus.

[3:10:49] Um

[3:10:50] Let's go down the line. See if there's

[3:10:51] any

[3:10:52] » I'm in favor of I would like to learn

[3:10:54] more about this whole appeal. Who's

[3:10:57] doing that? Is that staff? Or do we have

[3:10:58] a appeals officer? I have a lot of

[3:11:00] questions. So, I think we bring it back

[3:11:02] and talk about solutions. I wasn't a

[3:11:05] part of the whatever you guys did in

[3:11:07] COVID, so it'd be good for me to know

[3:11:10] about this.

[3:11:10] » Just to be clear, that includes bringing

[3:11:12] back a draft ordinance that if we decide

[3:11:15] it's appropriate to adopt it on an

[3:11:17] urgency basis, it would be here and we

[3:11:18] could have it. We won't have to say,

[3:11:20] "Oh, that'll wait until mid-July or

[3:11:21] August."

[3:11:22] » Yeah. Steve?

[3:11:23] » Let's do that.

[3:11:24] » Yes. Maryanne?

[3:11:27] » 100%.

[3:11:28] » Okay. So, you have direction for that

[3:11:30] for the next meeting.

[3:11:31] » What kind of moratorium are we talking

[3:11:33] about?

[3:11:34] » Small cell sites until such time as we

[3:11:36] can figure out whether we want to permit

[3:11:39] them or not permit them in residential

[3:11:41] areas.

[3:11:44] » Staff can bring that back. I think there

[3:11:45] are issues with federal preemption that

[3:11:47] have to be dealt with, but that'll be

[3:11:48] part of the report.

[3:11:49] » Okay.

[3:11:50] But but we we what we're asking for is a

[3:11:52] draft ordinance that if the council

[3:11:54] determines it's appropriate and

[3:11:56] important to to uh on an emergency basis

[3:11:59] to adopt it, it'll be here and we won't

[3:12:00] have to wait another month while these

[3:12:02] continue to be installed to get that.

[3:12:05] The second issue was um we I I would

[3:12:08] like to get a consensus whether or not

[3:12:09] we adopt an urgency ordinance to

[3:12:12] relatively soon, you know, let's say no

[3:12:14] later than the beginning of August,

[3:12:16] bring back the actual residential

[3:12:18] ordinance for consideration. And we

[3:12:21] could use Mill Valley, Petaluma, and Los

[3:12:23] Altos as possible springboards to start

[3:12:27] with.

[3:12:29] » Can we make that all part of the same I

[3:12:30] mean it

[3:12:31] I'm expecting a report from the city

[3:12:33] manager's office

[3:12:35] that ought to include where our

[3:12:36] ordinance sits. I mean they what we

[3:12:38] talked about about a year ago, it was

[3:12:40] actually

[3:12:42] those those other places we had a tough

[3:12:43] ordinance than they had, but let's do a

[3:12:45] comparison.

[3:12:47] » Yeah, I'm I'm not sure that we do. I

[3:12:48] mean I I think what happened was, if I

[3:12:50] remember correctly, um we adopted a

[3:12:53] residential ordinance quickly, um then

[3:12:55] we did the

[3:12:57] the the broader one and we were supposed

[3:12:59] to come back and work on the residential

[3:13:01] one more, but we never did. It never

[3:13:02] came back.

[3:13:05] So, what I'm asking is, separate and

[3:13:07] apart from whatever we do at the next

[3:13:09] meeting, we get on a future, not too not

[3:13:12] too distant city council meeting, the

[3:13:14] question of whether the residential

[3:13:17] whether Do we even have a residential

[3:13:18] ordinance?

[3:13:19] Is it Is it an issue of our residential

[3:13:21] ordinance the residents want to be

[3:13:23] tougher, or is it an issue of we don't

[3:13:24] even have one?

[3:13:27] » We do have one, and we have been um

[3:13:32] following the ordinance. We receive uh

[3:13:36] 20 applications for existing wireless

[3:13:39] that they needed to do an upgrade.

[3:13:42] Out of those 20, 12 of them were appeal.

[3:13:47] And so, for clarification on the prior

[3:13:50] item that um

[3:13:52] Mayor you brought to our attention.

[3:13:54] The um

[3:13:57] the urgency ordinance that you're

[3:13:58] proposing is even for upgrades of

[3:14:02] existing um poles and systems?

[3:14:06] Just one clarification from you.

[3:14:09] » I'm sorry.

[3:14:10] » On moratorium.

[3:14:13] So, we are So, we can prepare the uh

[3:14:16] urgency ordinance in accordance to your

[3:14:17] direction.

[3:14:18] » What I What I'm going to suggest is that

[3:14:21] the staff or city manager's office work

[3:14:24] with the Malibu for Safe Tech and find

[3:14:26] out what it is they're asking for by way

[3:14:29] of a moratorium so that that can then be

[3:14:31] presented to us for consideration.

[3:14:34] I think they understand the technology

[3:14:35] way better than I could try to pretend

[3:14:37] to understand it sitting here.

[3:14:39] » What I What I understand that to be is a

[3:14:41] small small cell, but we'll we'll reach

[3:14:44] out if that's the

[3:14:45] will of the council.

[3:14:46] » And my understanding I I only know this

[3:14:48] second hand or third hand, but that some

[3:14:50] of the um supposed upgrades were were

[3:14:55] to non-existent things that could be

[3:14:57] upgraded is one of the issues.

[3:14:59] Um so, we're going to want to understand

[3:15:01] that more. Um but let let's just finish

[3:15:03] out this and then I want to finish up my

[3:15:05] comment. So, do we have support for

[3:15:07] without regard to the moratorium

[3:15:08] bringing back a consideration of

[3:15:11] toughening our residential ordinance?

[3:15:15] » I'm in favor of taking a look at

[3:15:16] toughening it up if we can. But I do

[3:15:18] think uh Trevor's correct. We do have to

[3:15:20] work within the federal I I absolutely

[3:15:22] » No one's suggesting that we violate

[3:15:24] federal law.

[3:15:25] Ellen?

[3:15:26] » Yes.

[3:15:27] » Steve?

[3:15:28] » Yeah, actually

[3:15:29] » I mean, do Do we have We've been dealing

[3:15:31] with this for a long time. I've I mean,

[3:15:32] I've heard these people have come before

[3:15:34] I don't know how many times complaining

[3:15:36] about these cell towers. Do we have the

[3:15:38] expertise

[3:15:40] that we need to make sure we're making

[3:15:42] the right decision? Because I don't know

[3:15:44] enough about this to be

[3:15:46] » We've got We've got lawyers at BBK who

[3:15:48] are expert in this area, and the Malibu

[3:15:52] for Safe Tech has an has a lawyer who

[3:15:54] also is superiorly expert and superior

[3:15:57] to BBK, but superiorly expert in this

[3:15:59] area. And I think between them we can

[3:16:02] hear the

[3:16:02] » Just make sure we're getting good I

[3:16:04] mean, the stuff coming back to us is

[3:16:05] something that if we approve it, it will

[3:16:07] work because we've been

[3:16:10] I mean, they keep complaining and we

[3:16:11] have we keep talking about it, but we're

[3:16:12] not doing anything. So.

[3:16:14] » Yeah. Mary, are you okay with bringing

[3:16:16] back an item to consider

[3:16:18] um to put in greater teeth into our

[3:16:20] residential ordinance?

[3:16:22] » I am, and I just I want to make sure we

[3:16:24] have a right-of-way and we have a

[3:16:25] residential, so there's two different

[3:16:27] components to it.

[3:16:29] » I don't think we're talking about the

[3:16:30] right-of-way.

[3:16:31] » Okay.

[3:16:32] Perfect.

[3:16:33] » Okay.

[3:16:34] Now, I would like to understand this

[3:16:36] appeal issue a little better. Um

[3:16:38] who to whom does an appeal go?

[3:16:44] » There's an independent hearing officer

[3:16:45] that hears hears the appeals of the uh

[3:16:47] the current appeals of the types of

[3:16:49] projects that were appealed.

[3:16:50] » Okay, so it doesn't involve the planning

[3:16:51] commission or the city council.

[3:16:53] » Correct.

[3:16:53] » And um is there a stay of the order

[3:16:56] that's under appeal like there is when

[3:16:58] the planning commission approves

[3:16:59] something, or does it just go forward

[3:17:01] until it's stopped?

[3:17:03] » The permit isn't final until the final

[3:17:05] decision, so it should not construction

[3:17:06] should not be starting

[3:17:08] » Okay.

[3:17:08] » Until the uh permit has actually

[3:17:10] uh reached finality and there's been a

[3:17:12] resolution of the appeal.

[3:17:13] » Hold on, Doc. Okay, so um so what are we

[3:17:16] doing about these

[3:17:18] um

[3:17:19] facilities that are being constructed or

[3:17:22] whatever the proper terminology is

[3:17:24] despite the fact that there's an appeal

[3:17:25] pending.

[3:17:27] » I think it was brought to the attention

[3:17:28] of

[3:17:28] » We had issue uh code enforcement uh

[3:17:30] cases uh for those properties. Uh we are

[3:17:33] also sent uh have sent a letter to the

[3:17:36] those facilities.

[3:17:37] » Okay, so there's also been stop work

[3:17:39] orders issued as well.

[3:17:40] » Yes.

[3:17:40] » Yeah, I'm going to suggest that you know

[3:17:41] this is not one-offs by a resident who

[3:17:44] doesn't understand what they're doing.

[3:17:45] These are big boys and they ought to

[3:17:47] know what they're doing and what they're

[3:17:48] allowed to do and not allowed to do. And

[3:17:49] this is this is egregiously offensive to

[3:17:52] me. If what they're doing is despite the

[3:17:54] pending of an appeal which which

[3:17:56] prevents their permit from becoming

[3:17:58] effective, they are going ahead and

[3:18:00] exercising self-help. That's insanity

[3:18:03] that we're allowed that I mean I

[3:18:04] understand we're doing certain things we

[3:18:06] can do, but if we need to go to court to

[3:18:08] get an injunction against this kind of

[3:18:09] activity, I think that's something that

[3:18:11] the city needs to start looking into

[3:18:12] doing because it this is unacceptable.

[3:18:17] Um so those are my comments.

[3:18:20] Um Doug.

[3:18:22] » Yep.

[3:18:23] » Uh just a quick follow-up. Is there a

[3:18:24] shot clock on this appeal process? I

[3:18:26] thought that's one of the issues.

[3:18:29] Are we

[3:18:30] and I'm like Bruce. I'm very concerned

[3:18:32] that if we've got uh either appeal

[3:18:34] process or any part of the ordinance

[3:18:36] that we're not following up on, but if

[3:18:38] we're not enforcing it that worries me

[3:18:41] as well.

[3:18:42] So is there a shot clock?

[3:18:44] » There are shot clocks attached. I would

[3:18:46] I would

[3:18:47] I would suggest not discussing the

[3:18:49] merits of the pending appeals. The shot

[3:18:51] clocks are part of the the issues I

[3:18:52] think that are in the appeals.

[3:18:54] » Yeah. Just wanted to bring it up. You've

[3:18:56] answered my question. Thank you.

[3:18:58] All right. Um

[3:19:00] we talked about the wireless ordinance.

[3:19:01] That was my second item I wanted to talk

[3:19:03] about. Um

[3:19:05] let me say this.

[3:19:06] I'm one of the many fathers of what is

[3:19:09] the brigade. There are many of us, many

[3:19:11] of us.

[3:19:12] It goes back to as Keegan mentioned the

[3:19:15] fire fund following that came out of a

[3:19:17] report that was actually done by

[3:19:19] Brentwood's organization that talked

[3:19:22] about fire fund following.

[3:19:24] And when we got the right fire chief,

[3:19:27] Chief Moroni, and Richard Smith,

[3:19:29] we got the brigade. And we changed the

[3:19:31] name got changed because of the optics

[3:19:34] to the community brigade.

[3:19:36] And

[3:19:37] it's the right system, the right

[3:19:39] process, and it's a force multiplier.

[3:19:42] And I will tell you that many of us are

[3:19:45] working on a resolution to this law

[3:19:47] lawsuit issue. There are many of us

[3:19:49] doing it.

[3:19:51] And

[3:19:53] if you look at federal courts, and this

[3:19:55] is a trademark issue, is the reason why

[3:19:57] they're in federal court,

[3:19:59] they all end up in settlements. Nobody's

[3:20:01] Nobody's going to go to trial on this.

[3:20:03] So, what we're trying to do is to get

[3:20:05] this resolved a lot quicker than waiting

[3:20:07] for it to settle out.

[3:20:09] So, just be aware that there's

[3:20:12] things going on. I'm glad you guys are

[3:20:14] here.

[3:20:15] Uh you speak up well for your uh

[3:20:18] dedication and the volunteerism of

[3:20:20] Malibu.

[3:20:21] I know when I was the mayor and we had

[3:20:23] the fires, I kept telling people Malibu

[3:20:25] is a town of volunteers. Whether it's

[3:20:28] the CERT team, the arson watch, the

[3:20:30] VOPs, the brigades,

[3:20:33] Boys and Girls Club, you name it. We've

[3:20:35] got volunteers all over this town, and

[3:20:37] that's what makes it special.

[3:20:38] And our brigade is probably the most

[3:20:41] visible at this very moment because

[3:20:43] we're in fire season in May.

[3:20:46] I don't remember that in my 26 years

[3:20:48] I've lived here. So, we've got We've got

[3:20:50] to deal with this and get it dealt with

[3:20:52] as quickly as we can. And all I can tell

[3:20:54] you is there's a lot of hands trying to

[3:20:56] trying to lend a hand, okay?

[3:20:58] Um

[3:21:00] next thing I want to talk about, and

[3:21:02] I'll be quick on on my rest of my

[3:21:04] comments,

[3:21:05] we have Penn and Teller with us tonight.

[3:21:09] Mary Ann and Halen made the

[3:21:12] made the offensive tower disappear It's

[3:21:16] and

[3:21:16] in downtown Melbourne. So my

[3:21:18] congratulations to you.

[3:21:20] » I was like, "What are you talking

[3:21:21] about?"

[3:21:23] » It

[3:21:24] » I don't know which is which.

[3:21:25] » It it it I don't know which one's Pam

[3:21:27] and which one's Helen.

[3:21:28] » Obviously

[3:21:30] » [laughter]

[3:21:31] » And they they were the most reluctant

[3:21:33] two people in the world when somebody

[3:21:34] said, "Well, you got to pick the color."

[3:21:36] And it was like, "Oh." Everyone of us

[3:21:38] started looking around like, "Not me."

[3:21:40] And they took it on and

[3:21:42] as my wife said, "Where'd it go?"

[3:21:45] » [laughter]

[3:21:45] » So, congratulations on that.

[3:21:48] Um

[3:21:49] I also want to mention on the ANF

[3:21:51] project for the grants. This is really

[3:21:53] tough. We had $150,000

[3:21:56] to divvy up and I think there was like

[3:21:58] 700 over $700,000 in requests.

[3:22:01] And

[3:22:03] for the first time in the four years now

[3:22:05] that I've done this and I think Bruce

[3:22:06] has done it equally number of the maybe

[3:22:09] more.

[3:22:10] We actually had a room full of of

[3:22:12] applicants. They got a chance to hear

[3:22:14] each other's story.

[3:22:15] And hear why it was so critical to get

[3:22:18] the money that they got.

[3:22:20] And

[3:22:22] it raised the bar

[3:22:24] because what we were really telling them

[3:22:25] is, "All right, there's $5,000 for

[3:22:27] this." And they see how impactful it

[3:22:29] was.

[3:22:30] Every person that got money and even the

[3:22:32] ones that didn't get what they wanted or

[3:22:34] didn't get anything at all realized

[3:22:36] what's expected of those donations. So,

[3:22:39] our our thanks to everybody that asked

[3:22:41] for the money and our appreciation to

[3:22:43] those that use it wisely. And go back to

[3:22:46] times past.

[3:22:47] We put $100,000 in the prior two years

[3:22:50] in the

[3:22:51] in for two years to the brigade. And it

[3:22:54] was meant to be the seed money to help

[3:22:56] get you guys started.

[3:22:57] So, for that reason, as I said, many

[3:23:00] fathers and many of us have been helping

[3:23:02] as much as we can.

[3:23:04] Last thing I want to mention

[3:23:06] uh casing process.

[3:23:08] Um

[3:23:09] those of us that have been in management

[3:23:11] organizations for a long time have heard

[3:23:13] this with a variety of names. It all

[3:23:16] many of you probably didn't even know

[3:23:17] what it what the city manager was

[3:23:19] talking about.

[3:23:20] But you've heard it in different names

[3:23:22] uh

[3:23:23] continuous improvement process,

[3:23:25] participatory management. What it

[3:23:27] amounts to is a bottom-up

[3:23:30] top-down hands-on

[3:23:33] cut the elephant into small pieces and

[3:23:35] make it better.

[3:23:36] And it is a sign of a true mature and

[3:23:39] well-run organization when they

[3:23:41] implement something like this. And my

[3:23:42] hats off to the city manager for doing

[3:23:44] it. It's a nice improvement and uh

[3:23:47] I applaud you and full support. So with

[3:23:50] that, that's the end of my comments. Uh

[3:23:52] Mayor, call on somebody else.

[3:23:53] » Thank you, Doug. Who wants to go next?

[3:23:55] » I will.

[3:23:56] Thank you. Um all right. I think we've

[3:23:58] said a lot about the 5G. I really have

[3:24:00] to understand more. I took a call with

[3:24:02] Lonnie Gordon and that still wasn't

[3:24:04] enough. So I'm excited to have that come

[3:24:06] back.

[3:24:07] Um I have been really wanting to discuss

[3:24:10] this at the dais. I'd like council

[3:24:11] consensus to remove Brent Woodward from

[3:24:14] the ex officio um position.

[3:24:17] I don't know how or

[3:24:18] » We can't do that now, but you can ask

[3:24:20] for a consensus to bring it back as a

[3:24:22] proposal.

[3:24:22] » Could we bring this back, please?

[3:24:24] » Second.

[3:24:24] » Thank you.

[3:24:25] Okay. Got direction on that.

[3:24:27] » Anybody oppose that? I think we're

[3:24:28] probably unanimously in agreement. Bring

[3:24:30] that back next meeting.

[3:24:32] » Thank you.

[3:24:33] Um yes.

[3:24:36] What's going on with the brigades is

[3:24:37] pretty awful. Um

[3:24:41] you know, I think

[3:24:43] what they represent to me at least is

[3:24:45] community volunteerism at its best.

[3:24:48] Everybody up here said it really well.

[3:24:51] Um

[3:24:53] I think

[3:24:54] you know, we'll just

[3:24:57] take it as it comes and one step at a

[3:24:58] time

[3:25:00] because uh

[3:25:02] I believe that this community needs it.

[3:25:04] Um I feel safer here with it. I want you

[3:25:07] guys show you people showing up to my

[3:25:09] house or to help me with my animals. I

[3:25:12] know you, you know me. Our kids play

[3:25:14] soccer together. Like it's is a very

[3:25:18] important It's very important to me that

[3:25:21] you guys are I mean, his daughter's best

[3:25:24] friends with my daughter right over

[3:25:26] there. This is this is what it's about.

[3:25:28] So, I surf with that guy, next to that

[3:25:32] guy.

[3:25:33] Um anyway, I would um

[3:25:37] like to learn more about the 5G appeals

[3:25:40] and this hearing officer that we have

[3:25:42] because I'm wondering how the a hearing

[3:25:45] officer works cuz I see how the Mobile

[3:25:48] Home Park Commission kind of conducts

[3:25:50] itself.

[3:25:51] And

[3:25:53] yeah, Steve's face says it all.

[3:25:55] Um and I'm just wondering if that's an

[3:25:57] option to also like do a hybrid or

[3:26:00] hearings

[3:26:01] um officer for the Mobile Home Parks

[3:26:04] because there's appeals that come up and

[3:26:06] then you can use this person as it comes

[3:26:08] versus

[3:26:09] you know,

[3:26:11] anyway, that's something that we can

[3:26:12] think about. I'm not looking for

[3:26:14] much on that. I would like to know why

[3:26:17] the HRL palm trees are still

[3:26:20] an issue.

[3:26:22] When we have Does anybody know? Cuz this

[3:26:24] comes up every other meeting the palm

[3:26:26] trees aren't HRLs. They're not? Not the

[3:26:29] ones across the street. Are they

[3:26:31] actually on

[3:26:32] school property?

[3:26:33] » Yeah.

[3:26:33] » Pepperdine?

[3:26:34] » No.

[3:26:35] » School Santa Monica Malibu Unified.

[3:26:37] » Okay, not the county, so it's a

[3:26:39] district.

[3:26:41] Okay, that's good to know. Thank you. Uh

[3:26:43] hey, appeals, brigade.

[3:26:48] Do we know how the fire started, Sandy?

[3:26:52] Even going back to Kenneth.

[3:26:54] We don't. It's kind of hard to

[3:26:56] Yeah, I heard that um there was a snake

[3:26:59] a bird dropped a snake on a power line.

[3:27:02] I swear, I promise that was told to me.

[3:27:06] I don't remember.

[3:27:08] But, that was how

[3:27:12] dog ate the homework. It would be so

[3:27:14] great to know how these fires start. Um

[3:27:18] I really wanted to thank our city

[3:27:20] manager and our staff. They helped pick

[3:27:23] out the pole color and we walked through

[3:27:25] it together and Mary Anne and I were

[3:27:27] like, which one? And they're all

[3:27:29] basically the same version. So, that was

[3:27:31] a very much team effort and the Kaizen

[3:27:34] that you put together, I do feel like

[3:27:35] it's a this is what leadership is

[3:27:38] supposed to look like in a city is

[3:27:40] exercises like that.

[3:27:43] I'm excited for Malibu's future.

[3:27:45] And

[3:27:46] um

[3:27:48] that's it, really. I want to keep the

[3:27:50] movie going, right?

[3:27:53] Oh, I watched the ANF meeting. I thought

[3:27:54] it was really good. And ooh,

[3:27:57] I mean, I didn't

[3:27:59] That's it for me.

[3:28:01] » [snorts]

[3:28:02] » Okay, Steve and Mary Anne, you would

[3:28:03] like to come up.

[3:28:04] » Real quick, I just want to reiterate

[3:28:06] what city management mentioned earlier.

[3:28:08] Tomo- uh tomorrow morning 10:00 Charmlee

[3:28:11] Park is a uh

[3:28:13] naming of the nature center for Walton

[3:28:15] and Lucille Keller. Walt Keller was the

[3:28:17] mayor of Malibu's first mayor. Lucille

[3:28:19] had been right behind him the whole

[3:28:20] time. This is an important thing for

[3:28:22] those folks. I think that this this is

[3:28:24] long overdue. So, if you can make it up

[3:28:26] there, please do.

[3:28:28] Uh I want to congratulate the tower. I

[3:28:29] live up on the knolls and I look down on

[3:28:31] that tower and it is gone. I mean, you

[3:28:33] did a hell of a job. So, thank you very

[3:28:35] much on that one.

[3:28:36] Uh

[3:28:38] I

[3:28:39] I I drove by, you know, the Wine Shop

[3:28:41] property. It sits on the corner of PC

[3:28:44] Malibu Canyon and PCH. It looks like the

[3:28:47] people that were using that are gone.

[3:28:49] Now, I don't know that for certain, but

[3:28:51] it appears that there was nobody up

[3:28:52] there the other day when I drove by. It

[3:28:54] was lit up last night, but I don't know

[3:28:56] if that's just a remnant. So, just keep

[3:28:58] your eyes on that because remember what

[3:29:00] they're supposed to do is replace

[3:29:01] replace

[3:29:03] put it back to what it was when they

[3:29:04] started and you know, based upon what

[3:29:06] we've seen from SEC, they're not real

[3:29:08] anxious to do that. All right, so just

[3:29:10] keep that on your radar screen so we

[3:29:12] don't you get lost in that one. And then

[3:29:14] the other thing and this is just an

[3:29:16] article I was reading the other day.

[3:29:17] Apparently, somebody has got a

[3:29:19] desalination program that they they're

[3:29:22] testing that they're going to put in off

[3:29:24] the coast of Malibu. And this thing's

[3:29:25] pretty neat because you know, the prior

[3:29:27] ones require energy and a whole bunch of

[3:29:29] stuff and they leave a lot of solid

[3:29:30] residue. Apparently, this one goes down

[3:29:32] deep. It is the the

[3:29:34] force of the water the ocean pushes the

[3:29:37] salt water through the desalination

[3:29:39] thing, cleans up the salt. No

[3:29:41] electricity is needed and apparently,

[3:29:43] it's we're going to see if it works.

[3:29:45] I mean, it's an interesting process if

[3:29:47] it does. So, we just should keep our

[3:29:49] eyes on. There I am, back to you.

[3:29:52] » Okay.

[3:29:53] So, I attended the county water plan,

[3:29:56] but I didn't hear anything about that

[3:29:59] project.

[3:30:01] But other things

[3:30:02] that they county and the state and many

[3:30:05] others around the

[3:30:07] the area are doing to ensure that we do

[3:30:10] have water for residents and proper use

[3:30:15] of water and identifying sources. A lot

[3:30:18] about recycling water is going on right

[3:30:20] now. So, some interesting things

[3:30:22] happening with that. I attended the

[3:30:25] Clean Power Alliance board meeting and

[3:30:28] just everybody remember we've got almost

[3:30:30] 100% participation in 100% green for our

[3:30:34] clean energy. So, look for that on your

[3:30:36] bills.

[3:30:38] And graduation is this week.

[3:30:41] I have it on my calendar for high school

[3:30:43] graduation on Wednesday and middle

[3:30:45] school promotion on Thursday. So, if you

[3:30:48] want to see some fun, head on over to

[3:30:50] the high school. It's up on the the main

[3:30:53] field and it's always great to see all

[3:30:55] the kids

[3:30:57] with their energy and the excitement

[3:30:59] that they've got for completing their

[3:31:01] education.

[3:31:03] And then the big thing, I think before

[3:31:05] our next meeting we're also going to be

[3:31:06] having the ribbon cutting on June 20th

[3:31:09] for the skate park. So if you haven't

[3:31:11] already got that on your calendar,

[3:31:13] that's going to be an exciting thing to

[3:31:15] celebrate our permanent skate park.

[3:31:17] So come on out to that Bluff Park at

[3:31:20] 12:30 I believe.

[3:31:22] And the biggest thing for the region

[3:31:24] that we've got going on, the World Cup

[3:31:25] starts on Friday. So whoever your team

[3:31:28] is or you're going to go out and and

[3:31:30] support, hopefully USA. But

[3:31:33] there you have to ride transit to get to

[3:31:38] what they've rebranded Sofi as Los

[3:31:40] Angeles Stadium. So

[3:31:43] transit lines are supposed to open up 3

[3:31:44] hours before the games. There's a

[3:31:46] variety of hubs around the region

[3:31:49] that you have to ride. First game like I

[3:31:52] said was Friday and if you can't make it

[3:31:55] to

[3:31:58] the game, there are a lot of community

[3:32:01] areas.

[3:32:02] Koreatown's got some celebrations,

[3:32:04] Farmers Market's got some. You know,

[3:32:06] there's some things going on Hollywood

[3:32:08] Highland and some other things. So

[3:32:11] root on all your favorite teams for the

[3:32:13] World Cup and let's have a great summer.

[3:32:16] Thanks.

[3:32:18] » Okay, one last thing.

[3:32:20] I didn't say this before to the the

[3:32:22] Brigade folks or whatever you're going

[3:32:23] to call yourselves going forward. If if

[3:32:26] you need some funding to go forward in

[3:32:29] the near term, I can't speak for the

[3:32:31] whole council but you know, let us know

[3:32:33] what it is you you need or looking for

[3:32:36] offline and and come back and make a

[3:32:37] presentation for that and maybe there'll

[3:32:40] be some funding.

[3:32:41] » I heard that they were looking for a

[3:32:42] council letter.

[3:32:44] Like that was the second ask. I wasn't

[3:32:46] sure if

[3:32:47] That did. That's right. Well, I actually

[3:32:49] I didn't ask I asked I said that I would

[3:32:51] like to get a consensus but I never

[3:32:52] followed up on it for an ad hoc

[3:32:54] committee to report back to the council

[3:32:56] on what if anything we can do to be of

[3:32:58] assistance. Is there some support for

[3:32:59] that? To bring it back an item to

[3:33:01] whether to create that?

[3:33:02] » Yeah, that's fine.

[3:33:03] » Yeah, I agree.

[3:33:05] » I agree. Hopefully we've got it fixed

[3:33:06] before then but let's let's do it. I

[3:33:08] mean that's

[3:33:09] an easy item to have on the

[3:33:11] on the agenda to discuss whether to have

[3:33:12] an ad hoc and to create one if we agree

[3:33:14] to.

[3:33:15] Okay. Let's take a recess.

[3:33:18] » Mayor, if I may sorry sorry to

[3:33:19] interrupt. Just want to really quick

[3:33:21] with the um

[3:33:24] draft ordinance ordinance for a

[3:33:26] moratorium.

[3:33:27] We're going to work to bring that the

[3:33:28] next meeting.

[3:33:30] And then regarding the second the

[3:33:32] consensus you gathered from the council

[3:33:34] on the residential ordinance.

[3:33:37] Um that's something that'll trail a

[3:33:39] little behind as it was discussed but

[3:33:40] » As I said August or so.

[3:33:42] » Okay. And what we will do with that

[3:33:44] first touch with the council is talk

[3:33:45] about a schedule or if there's need for

[3:33:47] more time but we'll get it going by

[3:33:49] then.

[3:33:49] » Okay.

[3:33:50] » Okay. Thank you. All right, let's take a

[3:33:52] um

[3:33:53] 10-minute recess.

[3:36:39] » Mhm.

[3:42:24] » Mhm.

[3:49:07] » If everyone could return to the dais or

[3:49:09] the chambers, the meeting will resume

[3:49:11] shortly.

[3:52:02] » [laughter]

[3:52:04] » Who is Dana?

[3:52:06] I'm going to ask.

[3:52:08] » [laughter]

[3:52:19] » Okay, we're we're coming back in

[3:52:20] session.

[3:52:23] If you want to keep talking, please go

[3:52:25] out in the hallway.

[3:52:32] Okay, we're

[3:52:32] » Or no.

[3:52:33] » We are back in session. We're at item

[3:52:35] 5A.

[3:52:38] Collection of fees for implementation of

[3:52:40] the California Integrated Waste

[3:52:42] Management Act within the Malibu Garbage

[3:52:44] Disposal District.

[3:52:46] Um

[3:52:47] if you are on Zoom and you would like to

[3:52:49] speak, please raise your hand. I have

[3:52:52] one speaker slip. If anybody else wants

[3:52:55] to speak on this item, get your slip in

[3:52:56] now.

[3:52:58] And could we please have a staff report?

[3:53:04] » Good evening, Mayor Silverstein,

[3:53:05] honorable council members. The

[3:53:07] resolution before you

[3:53:09] Thank you. The resolution before you is

[3:53:11] resolution number 2628 for the

[3:53:13] collection of fees for the

[3:53:15] implementation of the California

[3:53:16] Integrated Waste Management Act within

[3:53:18] the Malibu Garbage Disposal District.

[3:53:20] This is an item brought to City Council

[3:53:21] annually.

[3:53:24] The city of Malibu is divided into two

[3:53:26] distinct service areas for disposal

[3:53:28] service. Of these two areas is a Malibu

[3:53:30] Garbage Disposal District, which

[3:53:32] provides services to the eastern half of

[3:53:34] Malibu from the eastern city limit near

[3:53:36] Topanga Beach Drive, and then to John

[3:53:38] Tyler Drive and all of Malibu Road.

[3:53:41] The district is established in 1949 and

[3:53:43] has been under a contract managed by the

[3:53:45] County of Los Angeles. Universal Waste

[3:53:47] Systems, also known as UWS, is the

[3:53:49] current contracted waste hauler.

[3:53:53] On the screen is LA County's map of the

[3:53:54] Malibu garbage disposal district. For

[3:53:56] ease of reference, I've added this red

[3:53:58] outline just to show the city's

[3:54:01] jurisdictional boundaries in relation to

[3:54:03] the district itself, which is outlined

[3:54:05] in blue.

[3:54:06] The bits of pink you might see are

[3:54:07] supervisor

[3:54:09] supervisorial district 3, and this map

[3:54:11] is also available on the county's

[3:54:13] website.

[3:54:17] In response to AB 939, the city council

[3:54:19] approved a policy for the reduction and

[3:54:21] diversion of solid waste from local

[3:54:23] landfills. In 1993, council adopted

[3:54:26] resolution number 93169 establishing a

[3:54:29] fee structure that would be collected to

[3:54:31] fund Malibu's waste reduction and

[3:54:32] recycling program.

[3:54:34] In 2003, city council adopted resolution

[3:54:36] 0330 authorizing the fees to be assessed

[3:54:39] on county tax rolls annually and

[3:54:41] authorizing the city to collect these

[3:54:42] fees.

[3:54:44] Property owners in the district pay the

[3:54:46] fee authorized by resolution 93169

[3:54:50] through the county's assessor's office

[3:54:53] tax roll, which is then collected by the

[3:54:54] city.

[3:54:56] This process is repeated annually as

[3:54:58] required by the county.

[3:54:59] The fees for the district must be placed

[3:55:01] on property tax rolls for fiscal year

[3:55:02] 2026-2027

[3:55:04] by August 10th, 2026.

[3:55:08] So, to ensure the city remains on track

[3:55:10] for this August 10th deadline, staff is

[3:55:12] conducting a public hearing and

[3:55:14] recommending adoption of resolution 2628

[3:55:17] to authorize collection of the county

[3:55:19] tax roll for the cost of implementing

[3:55:21] the city's source and reduction source

[3:55:23] reduction and recycling element and the

[3:55:25] household hazardous waste element

[3:55:26] imposed by resolution 0330.

[3:55:29] » Thank you for that. Does anybody on

[3:55:31] council have any questions before we go

[3:55:32] to public comment?

[3:55:34] Doug?

[3:55:34] » Uh quick question. West of John Tyler

[3:55:38] the

[3:55:39] the I think it's Waste Management is who

[3:55:42] How does this fee work for them? Do we

[3:55:43] pay It's paid directly to them and then

[3:55:46] the city gets their money, or is that

[3:55:47] how it works?

[3:55:48] » Right. So, also part of AB 939, we have

[3:55:51] the collection of fees from our

[3:55:52] permitted haulers. Those are collected

[3:55:54] uh quarterly. So, we see those from all

[3:55:57] of our permitted haulers, including

[3:55:58] Waste Management.

[3:55:59] » Okay, thank you.

[3:56:01] Any other questions?

[3:56:03] Okay. Dean Winner, you're the only

[3:56:05] public speaker that's in person. Who's

[3:56:07] on Zoom? Anybody?

[3:56:09] » There are no raised hands on Zoom.

[3:56:10] » Okay. So, you'll be our only public

[3:56:12] speaker.

[3:56:13] » Yeehaw.

[3:56:16] Thank you. Um

[3:56:18] myself and a few of the owners had

[3:56:20] written Jeff Prang's office to get the

[3:56:23] Malibu garbage refunded from the

[3:56:25] property taxes. We were all very happily

[3:56:27] surprised that we got checks last week.

[3:56:31] Um this got brought to my attention by

[3:56:33] someone who's paying attention more than

[3:56:35] I was.

[3:56:36] So, what I wanted to ask everybody to

[3:56:37] look at is the assessment roll that's

[3:56:39] attached to this. It includes the burn

[3:56:42] zone.

[3:56:42] And we're certainly not going to get

[3:56:44] service

[3:56:45] » [laughter]

[3:56:45] » Uh anytime soon. So, we would ask that

[3:56:48] the burn zone addresses get removed by

[3:56:50] this before you forward it on, please.

[3:56:53] Otherwise, I know it's a small amount of

[3:56:55] money, but within the neighborhood and

[3:56:57] within the community community, we're

[3:56:59] we're looking for signs that people are

[3:57:02] looking out for us all the time. And we

[3:57:03] know it's really easy to overlook

[3:57:05] things, and this is a really small

[3:57:07] amount of money, but what it says to a

[3:57:09] large group of people is that, "Hey, we

[3:57:11] didn't pay attention and know all these

[3:57:13] addresses are in here. We're going to

[3:57:14] charge you for it, and then, you know,

[3:57:16] you'll have to ask for a rebate." So,

[3:57:18] please take that under consideration.

[3:57:20] » Thank you, Dean.

[3:57:21] All right, close this public comment. Um

[3:57:23] staff,

[3:57:24] what, if anything, can we do about that?

[3:57:27] » Definitely. So, we are in contact with

[3:57:30] the county. They're the ones that assess

[3:57:32] the parcels. So, this is something that

[3:57:34] they do

[3:57:35] that may differ from what the city may

[3:57:38] do in terms of land use designation, as

[3:57:40] well as assessment of the parcels. So,

[3:57:44] the way that the county works is they

[3:57:46] assess every parcel from developed as

[3:57:49] well as vacant. And from what I've

[3:57:52] communicated with the county on, they

[3:57:54] will be assessing all damaged or

[3:57:56] destroyed fire parcels as vacant

[3:57:58] parcels. So, there is a very significant

[3:58:00] reduction in the assessment tax roll.

[3:58:03] » Say that last part, please.

[3:58:04] » There's a significant reduction in the

[3:58:07] assessment tax tax roll. So, they still

[3:58:09] will be charged,

[3:58:10] however, they will be will be

[3:58:12] significantly decreased. But, I can

[3:58:15] still communicate with LA County to

[3:58:17] emphasize the importance of

[3:58:19] » Not charging them at all.

[3:58:21] » Yes, that's right.

[3:58:22] » Um is there some language that we could

[3:58:25] add to what we're being asked to approve

[3:58:27] that would communicate that request, or

[3:58:31] is it Should we just leave it at the

[3:58:33] staff's going to ask?

[3:58:38] » If you're asking city manager

[3:58:40] or me?

[3:58:42] » Um

[3:58:42] » First question is whether whether

[3:58:43] there's language we could actually add

[3:58:45] to this without

[3:58:47] affecting the validity of what we're

[3:58:49] being asked to do. Uh

[3:58:51] Does anyone know the answer to that?

[3:58:52] » I have an idea. I mean, I was just

[3:58:55] the recommended action is is listed for

[3:58:57] council, and and I think you could

[3:58:59] actually add a statement that says and

[3:59:01] direct the city manager and staff to

[3:59:05] um

[3:59:06] inform LA County that um

[3:59:08] city council's desire is to have no

[3:59:10] assessment. We could do that.

[3:59:13] » Okay. I'll move that we um

[3:59:15] approve adopt this with that um

[3:59:17] » Can I ask a couple questions?

[3:59:18] » Yeah, I'm just making a motion for

[3:59:20] purposes of discussion. So, the motion

[3:59:22] is to adopt the resolution, but to add a

[3:59:24] direction to the city manager to um

[3:59:27] inform the county of our strong desire

[3:59:29] that they not charge people whose

[3:59:32] homes were burned to the ground.

[3:59:36] Is there a second for that?

[3:59:38] » I'll second.

[3:59:39] » Okay, it's for discussion only. Good.

[3:59:41] Brienne.

[3:59:42] » So, I just want to understand the fees.

[3:59:44] Is this monthly, annually? How often is

[3:59:47] this amount?

[3:59:48] » For the county, it is annually.

[3:59:51] » So, a property that's not vacant that

[3:59:54] actually is getting

[3:59:56] I I guess I'd never looked at this up

[3:59:57] close.

[3:59:58] So, [clears throat]

[3:59:59] $36.25 for their

[4:00:03] It's annual amount.

[4:00:05] » It's not for the trash service, right?

[4:00:06] This is for a recycling at

[4:00:08] » This is for the trash service fees

[4:00:11] that the LA County Assessor's Office

[4:00:14] collects. So,

[4:00:17] there's a different amount than what is

[4:00:18] shown on Attachment 3. Attachment 3,

[4:00:21] typically you'll see the $7.20.

[4:00:24] That is what the city collects from the

[4:00:25] county.

[4:00:27] » Okay.

[4:00:28] Okay. So, the property owner's not

[4:00:30] paying $7.25.

[4:00:32] That's just the portion that the city

[4:00:35] gets reimbursed or gets directed to or

[4:00:39] » That's right.

[4:00:40] » Okay. I was like, I I want to change.

[4:00:43] Can we have this on the west side cuz

[4:00:46] I'm paying way more than that for my

[4:00:48] stuff. Um

[4:00:50] No, that's it. Thank you.

[4:00:53] » Any further discussion?

[4:00:56] Okay, all in favor?

[4:00:57] » Aye.

[4:00:58] » Anyone opposed?

[4:00:59] Okay, passes.

[4:01:01] 5B.

[4:01:03] Um Assessment District 98-1 Big Rock

[4:01:05] Mesa. Please raise your hand in Zoom if

[4:01:09] you'd like to speak on this item and

[4:01:10] you'll be called after the staff report.

[4:01:12] I don't have any

[4:01:14] speaker slips at this moment.

[4:01:18] Okay.

[4:01:19] Anyone else wants to put in a speaker

[4:01:21] slip, get up now and do it. Otherwise,

[4:01:24] you won't be called.

[4:01:25] Staff report, please.

[4:01:30] » Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

[4:01:32] This evening, we're here to conduct a

[4:01:33] public hearing for the Big Rock Mesa

[4:01:35] Assessment District 98-1.

[4:01:38] This district was originally established

[4:01:40] by LA County and um 1983. This is in

[4:01:44] response to stabilizing the hillside

[4:01:47] from some storms that hit in the early

[4:01:49] '80s. Then in 1998, we established the

[4:01:53] Malibu's Assessment District 98-1.

[4:01:59] This year's assessment, we're assessing

[4:02:01] for a single-family residence $1,118.89.

[4:02:07] This is a increase of $36.79

[4:02:11] from last year's assessment. For a

[4:02:13] condominium, their assessment this year

[4:02:16] is $923.09.

[4:02:19] This is an increase of $30.36.

[4:02:24] This is a map of the boundary of Big

[4:02:26] Rock. It's pretty extensive. They have

[4:02:28] over 200 parcels in this district.

[4:02:31] So, this evening, we come to you to

[4:02:33] conduct a public hearing to add the tax

[4:02:35] um the assessments to the tax rolls by

[4:02:38] adopting resolution number 26-29.

[4:02:42] Um and this will be for the new fiscal

[4:02:44] year of 2026-2027.

[4:02:50] » Thank you. Does anybody on council have

[4:02:52] any questions?

[4:02:54] Doug.

[4:02:55] » Quick question. Applies to vacant and

[4:02:57] improved properties both, correct?

[4:02:59] » That's correct.

[4:03:03] » Okay.

[4:03:04] No speaker slips, yeah.

[4:03:07] Okay.

[4:03:07] Um how many people on Zoom?

[4:03:10] » There are no raised hands.

[4:03:12] » Okay, lock that in.

[4:03:13] Dean Winner, Terry Davis,

[4:03:16] D.D. Graves, and then Joe Drammer has 4

[4:03:18] minutes.

[4:03:26] » So, I've raised this issue before. I

[4:03:28] filed a formal protest with the clerk

[4:03:31] relative to what we're looking at from

[4:03:33] the beach and the delinquencies in the

[4:03:36] current accounts. I believe that

[4:03:39] ultimately, under the fire situation

[4:03:42] we're under, would qualify as a formal

[4:03:44] protest. Um, I won't get into it. I

[4:03:47] submitted a lot of documentation.

[4:03:49] There's a number of issues in there. At

[4:03:51] the end of the day, I ask you to take

[4:03:53] that under advisement. Um, there is

[4:03:55] absolutely no question that the hill

[4:03:57] needs to be dewatered. Okay? I don't

[4:03:59] want anybody misinterpreting that that's

[4:04:01] what I'm trying to do.

[4:04:03] The issue is, I believe, without getting

[4:04:05] into the specifics of the letter, is

[4:04:08] that the district is not formed properly

[4:04:10] and that it is flawed and I've made

[4:04:13] specific requests of the city to engage

[4:04:16] to get it looked at again as it should

[4:04:18] appropriately be done.

[4:04:20] Beyond that, there's also a couple of

[4:04:22] other requests that I included at the

[4:04:24] bottom. Um, I think public works did an

[4:04:27] outstanding job putting the trunk lines

[4:04:29] in for the drainage off the bluff. There

[4:04:31] are still challenges. I thank those of

[4:04:34] you that uh had Caltrans come here

[4:04:36] tonight and speak and give an update was

[4:04:38] much appreciated. Um, but there's still

[4:04:40] work that needs to be done in in that

[4:04:43] area. Okay? There's there's drains that

[4:04:45] have not been fixed. And YAE has been

[4:04:47] doing a good job with the patchwork.

[4:04:50] However, they've taken action in a good

[4:04:52] way near term to put things together,

[4:04:55] but more needs to be done, especially if

[4:04:57] we got heavy storms coming to us

[4:04:59] quickly. So, the two things I ask is the

[4:05:03] report that was issued that's a part of

[4:05:05] this request tonight is a year old.

[4:05:09] A lot of activity has happened in the

[4:05:10] last year. I'd like there to be some

[4:05:12] type of report that tells us what's been

[4:05:14] happening to current day, if at all

[4:05:17] possible. I know YAE does a great job

[4:05:20] and has that. I would ask that the city

[4:05:22] take some action to bring that report up

[4:05:24] to current date and put that out for the

[4:05:26] public.

[4:05:27] The second thing is the NPDES permit.

[4:05:31] Um, it expired a while ago. Um, I

[4:05:34] believe the city's working under

[4:05:36] administrative rights from the water

[4:05:37] board, but you we do not have an

[4:05:39] actively approved permit from what I can

[4:05:41] tell. So, I'd like to understand if you

[4:05:44] could uh speak to the status of the

[4:05:46] water district permit for that area as

[4:05:48] well. Thank you.

[4:05:51] » Thanks, Dean.

[4:05:52] Terry.

[4:05:58] » Good evening. Um,

[4:06:00] this evening I'm speaking as uh

[4:06:02] president of Big Rock Mesa Property

[4:06:04] Owners Association.

[4:06:06] And uh good evening, Mayor, Council, and

[4:06:09] Joe. Um,

[4:06:11] the Big Rock Mesa Property Owners

[4:06:13] Association greatly appreciates the

[4:06:15] information regarding the Big Rock AD

[4:06:19] that Dean Winner has presented to the

[4:06:21] council. Actually, he submitted this his

[4:06:23] protest letter and all of that

[4:06:25] information in there. He does bring up

[4:06:28] some really important issues. While

[4:06:30] individual members of our community may

[4:06:33] support certain findings and

[4:06:34] recommendations, the BRMPOA

[4:06:37] is not at this time in a position to

[4:06:40] endorse any kind of action that would

[4:06:42] delay or withhold authorization of

[4:06:45] additional funding for the assessment

[4:06:47] district over the next 12 months. Nor

[4:06:50] can the board support any action that

[4:06:51] could interrupt or impede the ongoing

[4:06:54] monitoring, maintenance, or mitigation

[4:06:56] efforts necessary to address water

[4:06:59] infiltration, ground movement, and other

[4:07:01] conditions that may contribute to ground

[4:07:03] instability. As the Department of Public

[4:07:06] Works is aware, the BRMPOA has

[4:07:08] previously raised concerns regarding how

[4:07:11] benefit has been determined within the

[4:07:13] assessment district and how that

[4:07:15] determination should be evaluated moving

[4:07:17] forward. We have also engaged in

[4:07:20] discussions with public works leadership

[4:07:22] regarding significant potential changes

[4:07:25] to the existing assessment district.

[4:07:27] Changes that as previously suggested by

[4:07:30] the director of public works may

[4:07:32] ultimately require the formation of a

[4:07:34] new assessment district.

[4:07:37] The Palisades fire unfortunately

[4:07:39] interrupted these important discussions.

[4:07:42] Today our community remains focused

[4:07:45] on the immense task of rebuilding homes,

[4:07:47] restoring lives, and recovering from the

[4:07:50] disaster. The continued functionality of

[4:07:53] the infrastructure is essential to

[4:07:55] public safety, property protection, and

[4:07:57] slope stability throughout the area.

[4:08:00] Accordingly, the BROMPA supports

[4:08:03] approval of the assessment district. We

[4:08:05] also respectfully request a firm

[4:08:07] commitment from you, Mayor Silverstein

[4:08:10] and City Council, and that the city will

[4:08:12] actively pursue the issues and

[4:08:14] inequities identified in Mr. Wenner's

[4:08:17] findings and continue working

[4:08:19] collaboratively with the Big Rock

[4:08:21] community to ensure that all who benefit

[4:08:23] from the system contribute fairly to its

[4:08:26] support. Specifically, we ask that the

[4:08:29] city return to the community within the

[4:08:31] next month if possible with a clear

[4:08:33] response to these concerns and a road

[4:08:35] map for moving forward. Our goal is a

[4:08:40] fair, sustainable, and reliable funding

[4:08:42] structure that protects both the

[4:08:44] residents of Big Rock and the many

[4:08:45] members of the public who rely on this

[4:08:47] critical corridor and public highway. We

[4:08:51] appreciate your attention to these

[4:08:53] matters and look forward to working

[4:08:54] together toward a long-term solution

[4:08:57] that balances equity, public safety, and

[4:08:59] the continued resilience of our

[4:09:01] community.

[4:09:02] Respectfully, Terry Davis for the board

[4:09:06] and the community.

[4:09:07] » Thank you, Tara.

[4:09:08] » Thank you.

[4:09:09] » Didi.

[4:09:15] » Thank you, City Council, for your time

[4:09:18] in supporting Malibu and our

[4:09:19] communities.

[4:09:21] My name is Didi Graves. Our family home

[4:09:24] burned in the fire on the beach, and we

[4:09:27] are in the process of rebuilding it.

[4:09:29] Uh I was notified of the assessment for

[4:09:32] the Big Rock Mesa Assessment District

[4:09:34] 98-1.

[4:09:36] The map includes all of the properties

[4:09:38] on the beach. We have no control over

[4:09:42] the water that goes into the Mesa or is

[4:09:45] pumped out of the Mesa, but

[4:09:48] we are being assessed and have been

[4:09:49] assessed for this.

[4:09:51] Um

[4:09:54] Malibu says they want to help us

[4:09:56] rebuild, but if we're going to be

[4:09:58] assessed

[4:10:00] with the Big Mock Mesa, we're also told

[4:10:02] that we will probably be assessed by the

[4:10:05] um

[4:10:06] sewer system coming in. This all takes

[4:10:09] away from

[4:10:11] the possibility of our rebuilding our

[4:10:13] homes.

[4:10:16] I want my beach house back. Hopefully,

[4:10:18] we can afford it.

[4:10:19] I'm 81 years old, and I want to sit on

[4:10:23] my deck, listen to the ocean, look at

[4:10:26] the sunset. Thank you.

[4:10:31] » Thank you, Didi.

[4:10:34] Joe.

[4:10:37] Joe gets 4 minutes.

[4:10:40] » Honorable Mayor and City Council

[4:10:42] members, I appreciate Terry and the Big

[4:10:44] Rock Mesa Property Owners Association,

[4:10:46] of which I'm a board member, for

[4:10:47] formalizing these concerns and putting

[4:10:49] forward a responsible position. The

[4:10:51] dewatering system must continue, but the

[4:10:53] way the assessment district is

[4:10:55] structured needs to be revised and

[4:10:57] revisited. No one wants to interrupt

[4:10:59] monitoring, maintenance, or mitigation

[4:11:01] of a system that protects slope

[4:11:02] stability, homes, public safety, and

[4:11:04] PCH. In fact, the system should be

[4:11:07] improved, expanded, and brought into a

[4:11:08] more reliable long-term condition,

[4:11:10] especially after the Palisades fire. And

[4:11:13] Rob has been working on that. We love

[4:11:15] you.

[4:11:16] But that is exactly why the city must

[4:11:17] now take a hard look at who truly

[4:11:19] benefits from this infrastructure. This

[4:11:21] system does not only benefit individual

[4:11:23] Big Rock homeowners, it protects a

[4:11:25] critical public corridor. It protects

[4:11:27] access along PCH. It supports emergency

[4:11:30] access, evacuation, utility access,

[4:11:32] coastal access, and public land access.

[4:11:35] That means the city should determine

[4:11:37] whether Caltrans and MRCA also receive

[4:11:39] special benefit from the dewatering

[4:11:41] system and should be included in the

[4:11:43] assessment district or in a future

[4:11:45] reformed district. Caltrans benefits

[4:11:47] because the system helps protect the

[4:11:49] stability and functionality of Pacific

[4:11:51] Coast Highway. MRCA benefits because

[4:11:53] stable access throughout the area

[4:11:55] supports public access to open trails,

[4:11:58] space, emergency response, fire road

[4:12:00] motorways, and land management

[4:12:01] responsibilities. If these public

[4:12:03] agencies rely on this protected

[4:12:05] corridor, they should not be treated as

[4:12:07] outside observers while private

[4:12:08] homeowners alone are asked to carry the

[4:12:10] cost. The issue is not whether

[4:12:12] dewatering should continue, it must

[4:12:14] continue. The issue is fairness,

[4:12:15] accountability, and whether all

[4:12:17] benefiting parties are paying their

[4:12:19] proper share, especially after

[4:12:21] everything Big Rock has been through,

[4:12:22] after losing so many homes, after the

[4:12:24] trauma of the fire, and while families

[4:12:26] are still trying to rebuild. It is not

[4:12:28] fair or sustainable to ask this one

[4:12:30] neighborhood,

[4:12:31] especially DD,

[4:12:33] to carry costs that also protect public

[4:12:35] infrastructure, public access, and

[4:12:37] public agencies. We are seeing patchwork

[4:12:40] repairs, old reports, unanswered

[4:12:42] questions, and uncertainty about future

[4:12:44] upgrades. If major upgrades are

[4:12:45] required, residents cannot simply be

[4:12:47] told after the fact to pay whatever

[4:12:48] costs are passed through without a

[4:12:50] transparent review of benefit

[4:12:52] responsibility and agency participation

[4:12:54] participation. So, we are asking the

[4:12:56] council to bring back a formal agenda

[4:12:58] item on the future of of assessment

[4:13:00] district, including whether Caltrans,

[4:13:02] MRCA, and any other public entities

[4:13:05] receiving special benefits should be

[4:13:06] included. Please approve what is

[4:13:08] necessary to protect Mount public safety

[4:13:10] now, but also direct staff to return

[4:13:11] with a clear roadmap, timeline, and

[4:13:13] legal analysis for a fairer long-term

[4:13:15] structure. Thank you.

[4:13:17] » Thank you, Joe.

[4:13:19] That concludes public comment.

[4:13:21] Back up the city council.

[4:13:28] Then I'll jump into this at once.

[4:13:30] » And mayor, that closed the public

[4:13:31] hearing, correct?

[4:13:32] » I thought I said that. If I didn't

[4:13:33] » Close public comment closes the public

[4:13:35] hearing.

[4:13:35] » Closes the public hearing. Thank you.

[4:13:38] Got you.

[4:13:40] » I think the request we got from the

[4:13:42] residents tonight makes some sense. You

[4:13:43] know,

[4:13:44] approval we have to approve tonight to

[4:13:46] make sure we take care of, you know,

[4:13:47] what we got to take care of.

[4:13:49] But if there are other issues that are

[4:13:51] currently involved in this assessment

[4:13:53] district that requires some review,

[4:13:56] let's review them and come back with a

[4:13:58] you know, let us know. I don't know if

[4:13:59] we have to do today or tomorrow that

[4:14:01] quickly, but if there's if there are

[4:14:03] inconsistencies or inequities in that

[4:14:05] thing, let's fix it. Have them come back

[4:14:07] and tell us what they could have to do.

[4:14:08] So,

[4:14:09] I think that's the public works job.

[4:14:12] » I think my my suspicion is a lot of

[4:14:15] these things were considered in the past

[4:14:17] in connection with the formation

[4:14:20] and um

[4:14:22] there's history that we don't know.

[4:14:24] Um

[4:14:24] » Then just tell us that, but I mean

[4:14:25] » No, I get I get that. I I I assume if

[4:14:27] we're if we're going to if we approve

[4:14:29] this tonight, this is going to be the

[4:14:31] rule for the next year. So, even though

[4:14:33] the request that these things be

[4:14:35] examined and we make a commitment to

[4:14:37] look to um address them

[4:14:40] um was made for the next month or so, I

[4:14:43] it seems to me that so long as we

[4:14:44] examine the questions and have an answer

[4:14:47] by by the time this comes back for

[4:14:49] approval again next year, it's the same

[4:14:51] thing as if it happens in the next month

[4:14:52] or two. Nothing's going to change

[4:14:54] between now and then in any event.

[4:14:56] Um

[4:14:57] so does that does that make sense to

[4:14:59] you, Steve?

[4:15:00] » Yeah, I I I just think we got to respond

[4:15:02] to the question. I mean,

[4:15:03] in a timely manner, but you know, if

[4:15:06] it's next year, it's next year.

[4:15:07] » I mean our staff is overwhelmed right

[4:15:10] now with lots of things and we added a

[4:15:11] number of things tonight already, but

[4:15:14] seems to me that it's a fair request to

[4:15:16] next time this is presented to address

[4:15:19] those issues in advance of the

[4:15:20] presentation and to the extent there's

[4:15:22] anything that's determined to be

[4:15:24] inappropriate to address that as well.

[4:15:27] Um, I suspect there is a procedural

[4:15:29] issue of it having been in place for

[4:15:30] however many years it's been in place

[4:15:32] and not been challenged up till now.

[4:15:34] And I suspect that there are substantive

[4:15:36] questions about how you assess if you

[4:15:38] can public agencies.

[4:15:40] And I suspect that there's also an issue

[4:15:43] potentially involving the settlement

[4:15:44] that occurred years ago that may have

[4:15:46] some

[4:15:47] um, substantive indica- implications for

[4:15:50] this. I just but I think it's not too

[4:15:53] much to ask that Trevor in this in the

[4:15:55] first instance sometime over the next

[4:15:57] few months take a look at these

[4:15:58] questions so that by the time this comes

[4:16:00] back to us next year we're better we're

[4:16:02] all better informed. And if there are

[4:16:04] solutions then we can talk about them.

[4:16:07] That make sense?

[4:16:08] » I I have no problem with that.

[4:16:10] » [clears throat]

[4:16:10] » Doc.

[4:16:11] » Yeah, and Bruce, I think you've said it

[4:16:13] well and Steve, the the issue

[4:16:16] isn't the amount of money that's

[4:16:18] collected and I think in my

[4:16:21] listening everybody's comments

[4:16:23] everyone is confident that the E

[4:16:25] operation that

[4:16:27] the consultants we have operating this

[4:16:29] and the public works is doing an okay

[4:16:31] job with it. So, the amount of money

[4:16:33] isn't going to change. The question is

[4:16:34] who pays and how's it divvied up?

[4:16:38] Um, and

[4:16:39] you know, somebody on the beach really

[4:16:41] isn't doing watering the beach

[4:16:44] and at the same time Caltrains does have

[4:16:46] a benefit out of it. So, the the

[4:16:48] question is how do we spread out the

[4:16:50] expense?

[4:16:51] » [clears throat]

[4:16:51] » I do think

[4:16:52] uh the the

[4:16:54] homeowners association made an excellent

[4:16:55] point. Don't mess with it tonight. Get

[4:16:58] it approved, keep it in operation,

[4:17:01] and then [clears throat] let's figure

[4:17:02] out what we're going to do about it. And

[4:17:03] I was going to turn to the city manager

[4:17:05] as I heard this and go, you know, how do

[4:17:06] we fit this in with everything else

[4:17:08] we've got going on? Any recommendation

[4:17:10] of how we can address [clears throat]

[4:17:12] the issue we got to deal with 12 months

[4:17:14] from now when this comes back?

[4:17:16] » Yes.

[4:17:16] » That's a great question and I

[4:17:17] appreciated the mayor's comment there

[4:17:19] that it There's some time to work this

[4:17:21] into our work planning efforts.

[4:17:24] We're in the process of creating

[4:17:25] assessment districts on PCH and that's

[4:17:28] an effort that's large. Uh this is no

[4:17:30] small task, but I think if the council's

[4:17:34] direction is to give that leeway for the

[4:17:36] next 12 months, we can figure that out

[4:17:39] and fit it into the work plan to bring

[4:17:41] back a report for council to consider.

[4:17:43] » We need to make sure that we stick a pin

[4:17:45] in this. We We do bring it back. I don't

[4:17:47] I don't want us to be sitting here a

[4:17:48] year from now going, "Who took care of

[4:17:49] this?" We didn't take care of this.

[4:17:52] » Well, I think we're going to include

[4:17:53] that as a formal direction when we when

[4:17:55] we move for whatever we're going to do

[4:17:56] tonight.

[4:17:57] Um

[4:17:59] is this a situation like the um the

[4:18:01] trash that we just did where the vacant

[4:18:03] properties that have been that that

[4:18:05] aren't vacant intentionally, but are

[4:18:06] vacant as a result of the fire um

[4:18:09] can be provided some kind of

[4:18:10] dispensation or

[4:18:12] are we locked into where we are because

[4:18:14] of the traditional model?

[4:18:17] » So, they would be

[4:18:19] assessed the same as a home that's

[4:18:21] currently standing. This supports the

[4:18:23] operations and maintenance of the

[4:18:24] district, the Duarte Wing system.

[4:18:28] » Right. My question is is is there a room

[4:18:30] for doing anything about the fact that

[4:18:32] they are vacant?

[4:18:34] » Not that I recall, no.

[4:18:37] » It's based [clears throat] on the

[4:18:38] engineer's report also, so it would to

[4:18:41] make sound of change on that would need

[4:18:42] to be gone through that kind of process,

[4:18:44] correct?

[4:18:45] » That's correct.

[4:18:45] » I mean, if we it do anything would also

[4:18:47] then require everybody else being

[4:18:49] changed in a way to make up the money,

[4:18:51] right?

[4:18:51] » Yes.

[4:18:52] » I think it's outside of our ability to

[4:18:53] do anything tonight, if at all.

[4:18:57] Does anybody want to make a motion on

[4:18:58] this one?

[4:18:59] » I'll make a motion to approve it with

[4:19:00] the uh stipulation that before this

[4:19:03] comes back to us a year from now, we

[4:19:04] have got a review of uh

[4:19:07] » [clears throat]

[4:19:08] » The area and portion of the assessment

[4:19:12] district.

[4:19:13] » Review the issues that are

[4:19:14] [clears throat] raised by the protest.

[4:19:15] I'll say it that way.

[4:19:16] » That's That's a good way to put it.

[4:19:17] » I'll second that.

[4:19:19] » Any further discussion?

[4:19:21] Anyone opposed?

[4:19:23] All in favor?

[4:19:24] » Aye.

[4:19:24] » Okay, unanimously passed.

[4:19:31] All right, now we do Cal de Marco

[4:19:34] um

[4:19:35] assessment district 98-2.

[4:19:37] Again, please raise your hand in Zoom if

[4:19:39] you'd like to speak on this item, and

[4:19:41] you will be called after the staff

[4:19:42] report. And if anybody here wants to

[4:19:45] speak, get your speaker slip in.

[4:19:47] Do we have any speakers here?

[4:19:49] » No, we don't have any speaker slips for

[4:19:51] this item.

[4:19:51] » Okay, anybody on Zoom yet?

[4:19:55] » There are no raised hands in Zoom.

[4:19:57] » Okay. Staff report, please.

[4:20:00] » Good evening again, Mayor and Council.

[4:20:02] Tonight, we're here to conduct a public

[4:20:04] hearing for the Cal de Marco assessment

[4:20:06] district 98-2.

[4:20:08] Again, this district was formed in

[4:20:10] 1977-1978

[4:20:13] to um improve the stability of the

[4:20:15] landslide. And then, the city also is um

[4:20:18] formed an assessment district in 1998.

[4:20:21] And that was for additional landslide

[4:20:22] movement from the El Nino.

[4:20:25] This evening, we have

[4:20:27] the assessments [clears throat] for

[4:20:28] fiscal year 2026-2027.

[4:20:31] For a single-family home, the new

[4:20:34] assessment will be $1,343.62.

[4:20:38] This is a decrease of $600

[4:20:42] and $65.64.

[4:20:45] Um for a condominium, it is

[4:20:48] $1,108.49.

[4:20:52] This too is a decrease of $540.90.

[4:20:57] And then for a single family home um

[4:21:00] classified as B, that assessment is

[4:21:03] $671.81.

[4:21:05] This too is a reduction of $327.82

[4:21:10] from the previous fiscal year. And as

[4:21:12] you can see through the various types of

[4:21:14] classifications, there is a reduction

[4:21:16] for the new fiscal year that was

[4:21:19] attributed to a high fund balance at the

[4:21:21] end of the current fiscal year. We had a

[4:21:24] um less delinquencies than we had

[4:21:26] anticipated and less expenditures than

[4:21:29] we had anticipated.

[4:21:32] With that being said, we are asking that

[4:21:35] the council adopt resolution number 2630

[4:21:38] levying the assessments for the

[4:21:40] maintenance, the repair, and

[4:21:41] improvements for the assessment district

[4:21:44] 98-2

[4:21:46] for the new fiscal year.

[4:21:47] » Thank you. Are there any questions?

[4:21:51] Did anybody join us on Zoom?

[4:21:55] » No, there's still no raised hands.

[4:21:57] » Okay, that closes the public hearing.

[4:22:01] Anyone on council have anything to say?

[4:22:03] » I'll make a motion to approve.

[4:22:06] » Staff recommendation.

[4:22:09] » I'll second.

[4:22:11] » Anybody opposed?

[4:22:13] All in favor.

[4:22:14] » Aye.

[4:22:15] » Okay, that passes unanimously.

[4:22:18] We could do the same thing again now for

[4:22:19] assessment district 98-3 Malibu Road.

[4:22:23] Please raise your hand in Zoom if you'd

[4:22:24] like to speak on this item and you'll be

[4:22:26] called after the staff report.

[4:22:28] If you're here and you'd like to speak,

[4:22:30] get your card in now. Staff report,

[4:22:32] please.

[4:22:36] » Good evening. This is our last public

[4:22:38] hearing for the assessment districts.

[4:22:42] This is the Malibu Road Assessment

[4:22:43] District 98-3. It too was formed in 1977

[4:22:48] due to heavy winter storms in those

[4:22:49] years and then again was formed in 1998

[4:22:53] as the Malibu Assessment District 98-3

[4:22:56] due to the El Nino storms.

[4:22:59] For the assessments for the new fiscal

[4:23:01] year

[4:23:02] for a single family home classified as

[4:23:05] the letter A, their assessment is

[4:23:07] $1,432.48.

[4:23:10] This is an increase of $47.10.

[4:23:14] For a condominium classified as A, their

[4:23:18] assessment is $1,181.80.

[4:23:22] This is an increase of $38.86.

[4:23:26] And then for a single family home

[4:23:28] classified as B, their assessment is

[4:23:30] $716.24.

[4:23:33] This is an increase from the previous

[4:23:34] fiscal year of $23.55.

[4:23:38] And then for the condominiums classified

[4:23:40] as B, their assessment is $465.56.

[4:23:45] This too is an increase of $15.31

[4:23:48] for the new fiscal year.

[4:23:50] This evening we ask that you adopt

[4:23:52] resolution 2631 living levying the

[4:23:55] assessment districts for assessment

[4:23:57] district 98-3 for the new fiscal year.

[4:24:00] » Thank you. Does anybody have any

[4:24:01] questions?

[4:24:03] I have no speaker slips. I assume nobody

[4:24:05] has submitted one. Is anybody on Zoom?

[4:24:07] » No, there are no raised hands in Zoom.

[4:24:09] » That closes the public hearing. Brings

[4:24:11] it back to council. Does anybody have

[4:24:13] anything to say?

[4:24:14] » I'll make a motion to approve staff

[4:24:15] recommendation.

[4:24:16] » Second.

[4:24:18] » Any discussion?

[4:24:20] Anyone opposed? All in favor? I. Okay,

[4:24:23] that unanimously passes.

[4:24:26] Brings us to

[4:24:28] zoning text amendment number 25003,

[4:24:31] an amendment incorporating

[4:24:33] new state law and clarifications to

[4:24:36] title 17 of the Malibu municipal code to

[4:24:38] update regulations related to accessory

[4:24:41] dwelling units. Please raise your hand

[4:24:44] in Zoom if you'd like to speak on this

[4:24:46] item and you'll be called after the

[4:24:47] staff report. And if you're present and

[4:24:49] would like to speak, please get your

[4:24:50] speaker slip in.

[4:24:52] Staff report, please.

[4:24:54] » Good evening, Mayor Silverstein and

[4:24:55] members of the council. This item is an

[4:24:57] update to the city's accessory dwelling

[4:24:59] unit or ADU ordinance.

[4:25:01] I'll briefly go over the purpose,

[4:25:03] proposed amendments, and staff's

[4:25:04] recommendation.

[4:25:07] This update uh brings chapter 17.44 of

[4:25:10] the municipal code into compliance with

[4:25:12] state ADU law

[4:25:14] and addresses two components. First, in

[4:25:16] November 2024, HCD or the California

[4:25:19] Department of Housing and Community

[4:25:21] Development reviewed the city's

[4:25:22] currently adopted ordinance and

[4:25:25] identified 10 items to correct or

[4:25:26] clarify.

[4:25:28] Second, the legislature passed several

[4:25:29] new ADU bills that are required to be

[4:25:31] incorporated.

[4:25:33] The Planning Commission reviewed the

[4:25:34] amendments across three hearings and

[4:25:36] recommended the approval unanimously on

[4:25:38] April 20th.

[4:25:41] As a frame to the amendments, the city

[4:25:43] cannot be more restrictive than state

[4:25:44] law allows, so the discretion is narrow

[4:25:46] in this case.

[4:25:49] The amendments fall into three groups.

[4:25:51] First, HCD compliance items. Um this

[4:25:54] concerns um correcting statutory

[4:25:56] cross-references,

[4:25:57] um fire access language, ADUs on

[4:26:00] multifamily lots, um coastal

[4:26:01] applicability, among others.

[4:26:03] Um and second is new state legislation,

[4:26:06] um addressing um topics like unit

[4:26:08] sizing, processing timelines, um the

[4:26:11] number of detached ADUs on multifamily

[4:26:13] lots, and HCD's enforcement authority.

[4:26:17] Um there's also several local provisions

[4:26:19] um and one clarification. Um tonight's

[4:26:23] amendments only concern the zoning code.

[4:26:25] A corresponding local coastal program

[4:26:27] amendment or LCP will return to the

[4:26:29] council separately for the coastal

[4:26:31] commission process.

[4:26:35] There is a proposed setback exception.

[4:26:37] Again, this is one of those

[4:26:38] discretionary policy choices in front of

[4:26:40] the council tonight. It's specific to

[4:26:41] Malibu. Many beachfront properties

[4:26:44] rebuilding after the Palisades fires are

[4:26:46] only 35 to 40 ft wide. So state law lets

[4:26:50] the rebuilt home keep its original

[4:26:51] setbacks, but an attached ADU would have

[4:26:55] to meet the standard 4-ft side and rear

[4:26:57] setbacks. And this is

[4:27:00] creating some difficulties on these

[4:27:02] narrow beachfront lots

[4:27:04] and often times can make it ADU

[4:27:06] difficult or infeasible.

[4:27:08] The a proposed exception is a

[4:27:10] streamlining measure and lets an

[4:27:12] attached ADU on a beachfront fire

[4:27:14] rebuild match the setback already in

[4:27:16] place for the replacement structure. It

[4:27:18] is deliberately narrow, so it's

[4:27:20] beachfront lots only, attached units

[4:27:23] only,

[4:27:24] and it would not reduce the setback

[4:27:26] beyond the replacement structure. All

[4:27:28] safety standards would continue to apply

[4:27:30] in full force.

[4:27:32] The county fire department and city

[4:27:34] building official must both confirm

[4:27:36] building and fire code compliance,

[4:27:37] including the requirements on openings

[4:27:39] near property lines. All other ADU

[4:27:42] standards would continue to apply as

[4:27:43] well.

[4:27:46] On process this item was noticed in the

[4:27:48] newspaper, on the city's ADU web page,

[4:27:50] and by courtesy email to interested

[4:27:52] parties. Staff has received no public

[4:27:54] comments as of this presentation. The

[4:27:56] ordinance is also exempt from CEQA. With

[4:27:59] that, staff recommends the council

[4:28:00] introduce the ordinance on first reading

[4:28:02] and direct staff to schedule a second

[4:28:04] reading for adoption on June 22nd.

[4:28:07] Following adoption, staff will transmit

[4:28:09] the ordinance to HCD for review as

[4:28:11] required by law.

[4:28:13] » Thank you. Does anybody on council have

[4:28:15] any clarifying questions?

[4:28:18] I have no speaker slips. Is there

[4:28:20] anybody on Zoom?

[4:28:24] » No, there's no raised hands in Zoom.

[4:28:26] » Okay, that closes the public comment and

[4:28:28] the public hearing to the extent that

[4:28:29] that is a hearing.

[4:28:32] Um, excuse me?

[4:28:34] » Um,

[4:28:35] I'm sorry, could

[4:28:36] » We had submitted something via email our

[4:28:39] presentation earlier.

[4:28:40] » Did you submit a speaker slip to speak

[4:28:42] on the item?

[4:28:44] As a blue slip to speak on this item on

[4:28:46] the agenda?

[4:28:46] » Well, I I did, you know, I thought that

[4:28:49] » All right, it sounds like

[4:28:50] a written public comment was submitted.

[4:28:52] Let's move on.

[4:28:53] » I I believe the member submitted a

[4:28:55] PowerPoint intending to present it, but

[4:28:56] we have not received a blue speaker slip

[4:28:58] from them for this item.

[4:28:59] » Yeah, so there's no speaker slip. I I

[4:29:01] So, that closes public comment and or is

[4:29:03] it a hearing or is it just a comment on

[4:29:05] this one?

[4:29:06] » You can close public comments.

[4:29:08] » Excuse me?

[4:29:09] » You can close public comment.

[4:29:10] » Okay, closes public comment. Who on

[4:29:12] council would like to speak about this?

[4:29:15] If anything.

[4:29:18] » I've got one issue, maybe two.

[4:29:22] And it goes back to the safety element

[4:29:24] that we looked at earlier, which I think

[4:29:26] it's now part of our general plan,

[4:29:28] right? And somewhere in this document

[4:29:30] when I read it, it said that, you know,

[4:29:31] this thing is is subject to conditions

[4:29:34] of our general plan.

[4:29:35] And the problem I got is the safety

[4:29:38] element or the original version of the

[4:29:40] safety element said if if there's

[4:29:42] additional development on a street with

[4:29:44] only one access,

[4:29:46] that

[4:29:48] additional development was going to be

[4:29:50] restricted, okay? And I think the reason

[4:29:52] was because, you know, if when the fire

[4:29:54] starts, if we got too many people trying

[4:29:56] to get out of a single access point, the

[4:29:58] chances are we could lose some of them.

[4:30:00] Uh,

[4:30:02] now when the safety element came

[4:30:03] forward, they changed that, okay? Uh,

[4:30:07] they they

[4:30:08] agreed Well, let me go back.

[4:30:11] And and when we did the safety element,

[4:30:13] for some reason the council or the

[4:30:15] decided that ADUs do not do not I should

[4:30:19] not be considered as additional

[4:30:20] development. Now, I don't know how you

[4:30:21] get to that point. If I'm if I'm

[4:30:23] building an apartment building, I got 50

[4:30:26] people there. If I build 50 ADUs, I got

[4:30:28] the same problem I had with putting them

[4:30:30] all in one building. So, it seems to me

[4:30:32] that there is there is an issue there.

[4:30:34] So, what the staff did is two things.

[4:30:36] One, they ignored when they when they

[4:30:39] talked about in egress from the sing a

[4:30:42] street with a single

[4:30:44] uh

[4:30:46] way to get in and out, they totally

[4:30:48] ignored the ADUs.

[4:30:50] And then, the second thing they did was

[4:30:52] was suggest that if if there's going to

[4:30:54] be a restriction of whether they could

[4:30:56] build or not build on that street, they

[4:30:58] turned it over to the fire department.

[4:31:01] Which if if you remember the last

[4:31:02] meeting we had with the Heather Cliff

[4:31:04] property, the fire department didn't

[4:31:06] even come and look at the damn thing.

[4:31:08] All right? So, we they had you know,

[4:31:09] they get I get no idea what how they're

[4:31:11] going to work with this one. I think if

[4:31:13] I went to the staff and asked them what

[4:31:15] conditions they put in place with the

[4:31:17] fire department to decide whether they

[4:31:19] could or could not do the building. I

[4:31:21] don't think we asked them that question.

[4:31:23] I think we just went to the fire

[4:31:24] department and said, "You guys take care

[4:31:26] of it." And that causes me a problem.

[4:31:28] I mean, cuz the fire department is not

[4:31:30] we they they demonstrated they're not

[4:31:32] reliable in terms of going out and

[4:31:34] making decisions that are going to

[4:31:35] impact the safety of our residents. And

[4:31:38] I'm I'm coming back to the To me, the

[4:31:40] fire issue is the big one.

[4:31:42] Look, I mean, we know we're going to get

[4:31:43] additional fires. We know that we you

[4:31:46] know,

[4:31:46] and we lost people on Big Rock with the

[4:31:48] fires because they couldn't get out one

[4:31:50] way. So,

[4:31:52] you know, at least if I were going to

[4:31:53] air, I'd air on the side of caution that

[4:31:55] says, "If if you want

[4:31:59] to building ADUs and they're on a

[4:32:00] one-way street, someone should make a

[4:32:02] determination and it can be the staff

[4:32:04] working with the fire department, not

[4:32:06] the fire department alone, whether you

[4:32:07] can put the ADUs there, but make that

[4:32:10] decision based upon whether those ADUs

[4:32:12] are going to a negative impact on people

[4:32:14] trying to get out during a fire.

[4:32:16] Now, I don't know if we wanted to do

[4:32:17] that. I mean, I'm I'm going to We're

[4:32:18] going to bring back the safety element,

[4:32:20] I think, at some point in time. So, I'm

[4:32:21] wait I'll wait to make the argument

[4:32:23] there. If we want to argue do it

[4:32:25] tonight, I'll do it tonight. But, I do

[4:32:27] think that's an issue that I got a

[4:32:28] concern with. Uh you know, we're we're

[4:32:30] risking people's lives, and that's not

[4:32:32] what we're supposed to be doing.

[4:32:36] That's my comment.

[4:32:38] » Do you have a question for the staff, or

[4:32:39] is it just a comment?

[4:32:40] » Uh

[4:32:41] I think

[4:32:42] I think safety having a comment back on

[4:32:44] there.

[4:32:45] » Yes. Uh thank you, Council Member

[4:32:47] Yeargin. Um Tyler Eaton, our Assistant

[4:32:49] Community Development Director, is

[4:32:50] online, and he is going to

[4:32:53] uh provide you with uh comments.

[4:32:57] » Mayor and Council, can you hear me okay?

[4:33:00] » Got you, Tyler.

[4:33:01] » Okay. Sorry, I'm battling a cold, so

[4:33:03] forgive me for not being there tonight.

[4:33:05] Um

[4:33:06] yeah, uh Mayor Pro Tem, understood. Hear

[4:33:08] you completely, and you did make those

[4:33:10] comments for the safety element. So, uh

[4:33:13] those are well understood, and we're

[4:33:14] going to try to address those

[4:33:16] uh when we come back on some of the

[4:33:18] general plan amendments.

[4:33:19] Um but, speaking directly to um

[4:33:23] the ADUs,

[4:33:25] if you recall, we did try to press

[4:33:27] forward with the state um

[4:33:30] the two means of egress argument. That

[4:33:32] was rejected. Trevor can attest to

[4:33:35] uh the many meetings we've had with HCD

[4:33:38] trying to get through the two means of

[4:33:40] egress. We also settled with um

[4:33:43] um

[4:33:44] What was the other one, Trevor, we

[4:33:45] settled with? Those two means of egress

[4:33:46] and um

[4:33:48] another one related to access that that

[4:33:51] both were were were basically rejected,

[4:33:53] and they told us basically we have to

[4:33:54] just rely on fire code for ADUs

[4:33:56] specifically.

[4:33:58] » When did we make those requests to the

[4:33:59] to the state, or were were made before

[4:34:01] the Paradise Stage fire, or after the

[4:34:03] Paradise Stage fire?

[4:34:05] » Uh uh before and and during. So, um

[4:34:08] before the policy as far as the first

[4:34:10] ADU ordinance and then um since the

[4:34:12] policy as far as we've had many meetings

[4:34:14] with HCD where they've kind of held

[4:34:16] firm. We have sent in a letter to HCD. I

[4:34:19] think it's attached to your packet,

[4:34:20] Patrick, if uh it's in this one or was

[4:34:22] in the planning commission one where we

[4:34:25] laid out our arguments to HCD and they

[4:34:28] still were holding firm that you know,

[4:34:31] they have they haven't allowed any

[4:34:32] jurisdiction to use that argument uh

[4:34:34] regarding two means of egress to reject

[4:34:36] an ADU.

[4:34:37] » My understanding is the county does it.

[4:34:38] In the county, you've got to have they

[4:34:40] can they can restrict

[4:34:41] ADUs if there's only one way's access

[4:34:44] out of it of street. Ain't that correct?

[4:34:47] » The county did attempt that as well, but

[4:34:48] their their ADU ordinance has been

[4:34:50] rejected from what I understand, too.

[4:34:52] So, that portion of their ordinance has

[4:34:54] not been certified by HCD as far as I

[4:34:56] understand.

[4:34:58] » I got to go back I thought cuz I thought

[4:34:59] I read something that had them, but I'll

[4:35:01] go back and check that. We can We can

[4:35:03] bring it back when you get to the safety

[4:35:04] element. But, I do think it's Look, it's

[4:35:06] an it's an issue.

[4:35:08] I mean, again, at the very least, we

[4:35:10] should be working with the fire

[4:35:11] department and understanding what

[4:35:12] criteria they're going to use if they're

[4:35:14] going to make that decision. Are they

[4:35:15] going to show up? In the Heather Court

[4:35:18] with property, I don't think the

[4:35:20] fire guy, whoever made the

[4:35:21] recommendation, even went to the street

[4:35:23] to look at it.

[4:35:24] I mean, that's that what we should be

[4:35:26] doing. We're supposed to be protecting

[4:35:27] the residents, especially in in a in a

[4:35:30] high, you know, fire zone. Uh so, I just

[4:35:33] don't trust the fire department in the

[4:35:34] way that we the relationship we have

[4:35:36] with them right now on these issues that

[4:35:38] they're going to do what they have to do

[4:35:39] to protect them. So,

[4:35:41] somehow figure that one out, too.

[4:35:44] » So, I I'd like to understand more about

[4:35:46] this certification issue because, you

[4:35:48] know,

[4:35:49] it in the normal course,

[4:35:51] a city adopts a law or a state does,

[4:35:54] whatever. You adopt a law and it either

[4:35:57] exceeds

[4:35:58] your authority or it doesn't. And in in

[4:36:00] this case, we've got a state law, so

[4:36:02] which preempts us. It It sets the

[4:36:04] parameters, but we might have a

[4:36:06] different view than HCD on what we're

[4:36:08] allowed to do under the state law than

[4:36:10] they do. And in the ordinary course, you

[4:36:11] would adopt the law you think is right.

[4:36:13] And if somebody wants to say that

[4:36:15] there's an unenforceable provision, they

[4:36:17] can challenge it in court. And if it's

[4:36:19] unenforceable, it's not part of the law.

[4:36:21] And if it's enforceable, it is.

[4:36:24] Um but here we're we have to ask an

[4:36:26] agency to permit us to go forward with

[4:36:29] our statute in order for it to be

[4:36:31] effective. That That Is that Is that

[4:36:33] what I'm understanding?

[4:36:36] » Practice from HCD on many of their

[4:36:39] requirements, whether it be a housing

[4:36:42] element update or certain laws requires

[4:36:45] them to certify that there's compliance

[4:36:47] with their expectations.

[4:36:48] » Consequence if we want to do something

[4:36:50] and we're actually right under state law

[4:36:52] about the ability to do it, but HCD

[4:36:54] won't certify it?

[4:36:56] » Well, I they can have uh

[4:36:59] Tyler, I'll take a got first attempt,

[4:37:00] then you can jump in. But I mean, there

[4:37:02] there can be consequences for grants.

[4:37:05] Um

[4:37:06] that's one experience I've I've

[4:37:08] witnessed in the past. But what else you

[4:37:10] got, Tyler?

[4:37:12] » Definitely. And And also, I would say

[4:37:13] that um a lot of times uh arguments can

[4:37:17] be made that if you don't have a

[4:37:18] certified ADU ordinance, for example,

[4:37:20] then you have to default to state law.

[4:37:21] And in this case, we do meet state law,

[4:37:23] but it's a Malibu tailored ordinance.

[4:37:25] For example, state law allows up to

[4:37:27] 1,200 square feet. If you recall, we

[4:37:30] limited ours to 1,000. And so, it's

[4:37:32] important for us to have a certified ADU

[4:37:34] ordinance so that we um

[4:37:37] can can can uh adhere to our law and not

[4:37:40] the state's.

[4:37:41] » Can we have a certified state ADU

[4:37:43] ordinance and then also separately have

[4:37:45] a another ordinance that's not certified

[4:37:47] that puts further restrictions on it if

[4:37:49] we believe that those restrictions are

[4:37:51] lawful?

[4:37:55] » Trevor, you want to take that one?

[4:37:56] » Well, you would be effectively amending

[4:37:57] the ADU statute, so it would technically

[4:37:59] have to go to HCD. I think they put

[4:38:00] through a provision, didn't they in the

[4:38:02] last round, Tyler, that if it doesn't

[4:38:04] get certified by HCD, then you default

[4:38:07] on all provisions to state law?

[4:38:10] » Yes.

[4:38:10] » So, there would be consequences, you

[4:38:13] know, to us if if we do have a

[4:38:15] non-compliant version. The other option

[4:38:17] would be, of course, you could go to

[4:38:18] court, you know, and seek an injunction

[4:38:20] or seek declaratory relief about a

[4:38:22] provision. There's a cost involved in

[4:38:24] that, that's why it's not often done in

[4:38:26] the policies that have been pushed

[4:38:28] forward by the courts have shown

[4:38:29] deference to HCD. It's been difficult

[4:38:31] for jurisdictions to seek to restrict

[4:38:33] ADUs. Right, Councilman?

[4:38:35] » Well, I'll tell you where I am on this

[4:38:37] is I don't like the fact that we can't

[4:38:40] um

[4:38:41] limit these to areas that have at least

[4:38:44] two forms of ingress and egress.

[4:38:46] Steve, you and I lost that battle two

[4:38:49] years ago before a one-person different

[4:38:52] City Council.

[4:38:53] » Right.

[4:38:53] » So, whether it would be worth having the

[4:38:56] battle again today is unknown.

[4:38:58] » Well, it's just the Palisades fire

[4:39:00] showed up in the year room.

[4:39:01] » But that's right. Now, I I understand

[4:39:03] the fact The facts are

[4:39:04] » And you learn some The Palisades We lost

[4:39:06] people in the big rock cuz they couldn't

[4:39:07] get out.

[4:39:08] » So, the question is, I guess, for Helen,

[4:39:10] are you Do you want to engage in this

[4:39:12] debate anew, or should we just stick

[4:39:14] with where we are because otherwise we

[4:39:17] already had this discussion and decided

[4:39:20] that we could not restrict ADUs to

[4:39:23] neighborhoods that had the streets that

[4:39:25] had two forms of ingress and egress.

[4:39:27] » Well, um we have council members that

[4:39:30] might have changed their tunes after

[4:39:32] Palisades as well. I don't want to speak

[4:39:34] for anybody else. I have no idea, to be

[4:39:36] honest with you. Um I I don't think it's

[4:39:38] smart to add density to roads that we

[4:39:41] know are dead ends, but I also don't

[4:39:44] really have the appetite to go into some

[4:39:47] war with the state about it. Um

[4:39:50] So, what exactly are you asking?

[4:39:53] Of of us, of me?

[4:39:56] To

[4:39:58] » I'm just not sure where we want to go

[4:39:59] with this. I mean, if we if we adopt

[4:40:01] this, we're conceding the point.

[4:40:03] » Right.

[4:40:04] » Right. I mean, I'm not sure how we can

[4:40:05] change it in a safety element if we've

[4:40:07] already conceded the point in a statute.

[4:40:10] » Malibu is made up of one roads. I mean,

[4:40:13] they're all dead ends in

[4:40:15] » Yeah.

[4:40:16] » So, what basically we're saying is let's

[4:40:17] just restrict

[4:40:19] » No, what I'm saying is

[4:40:21] if if there there are I have no problem

[4:40:24] if somebody with with knowledge and

[4:40:26] understands what they're talking about

[4:40:27] looks at a road and says it's okay to

[4:40:29] put ADUs there, it's not going to cause

[4:40:31] anybody a problem, I have no problem

[4:40:33] with them doing that. I just have a

[4:40:35] problem with we absolutely decide we're

[4:40:37] going to do anything about it. All

[4:40:39] right? I mean, cuz there are some roads

[4:40:40] you can't get out of.

[4:40:41] » Mhm.

[4:40:42] » And you know, if there's there's a fire,

[4:40:43] we're going to lose a few people.

[4:40:45] » Steve, it seems to me you're making a

[4:40:46] more nuanced argument than we had 2

[4:40:48] years ago, which was 2 years ago the

[4:40:49] question was, do we restrict them to

[4:40:52] streets that have two ways in and out?

[4:40:54] Now you're saying, okay, I accept the

[4:40:56] fact that we have to permit it if it's

[4:40:59] safe.

[4:40:59] » Be some places that are safer than

[4:41:01] » A block-by-block determination made when

[4:41:03] an ADU is sought to be built, right?

[4:41:05] » There's got to be some some rules or

[4:41:06] something we're going to use to

[4:41:07] determine whether it's safe or not.

[4:41:09] That's all. And if those rules apply,

[4:41:11] then then build it. They don't apply,

[4:41:12] you can't build it.

[4:41:13] » Tyler, has that nuance been considered

[4:41:15] by HCD?

[4:41:18] » So, yeah, we've we've tried multiple

[4:41:20] projects, maybe not that ex- specific

[4:41:22] one. They keep defaulting to just rely

[4:41:24] on fire code. They just want us to rely

[4:41:26] on fire code.

[4:41:28] Um we can always come back with more if

[4:41:29] you guys want us to. Uh it's been a

[4:41:31] losing battle so far is all all I can

[4:41:33] say. We we've tried different angles.

[4:41:36] » Maybe as the mayor you want to try

[4:41:39] with HCD.

[4:41:41] Um

[4:41:44] I don't I mean, what do other one-way

[4:41:46] ins and one-way outs in high fire

[4:41:48] severity zones do? There's got to be

[4:41:50] other ones.

[4:41:51] » Or maybe there's not.

[4:41:53] » Well, no, like meaning other cities.

[4:41:56] That are built in the Santa Monica

[4:41:57] Mountains. Kind of

[4:41:59] » Unique. Okay.

[4:42:00] » That's

[4:42:00] That's the county.

[4:42:02] » Oh, what do they do? What do their ADU

[4:42:05] » Tyler just said they got rejected.

[4:42:07] » Mhm.

[4:42:07] Mhm. And if the worst thing we get

[4:42:09] rejected, we don't want to get rejected.

[4:42:12] » I don't know what we do.

[4:42:13] » Rejection hurts.

[4:42:14] » I don't have a rejection to

[4:42:15] » I'm just kidding. I don't care about

[4:42:16] rejection. But um we don't really want

[4:42:19] to get our our ADU ordinance rejected.

[4:42:22] » I'm not saying we got to get we That's

[4:42:24] what we're saying we have to get

[4:42:25] rejected. I'm not saying we have to get

[4:42:26] rejected. I'm saying we should be

[4:42:27] somehow make the argument that said,

[4:42:29] "Look, we can lose people's lives.

[4:42:31] People will die if they get on a street

[4:42:33] and they can't get out in a fire."

[4:42:35] Right? I mean, that's

[4:42:37] And we saw that in Big Rock. Now, you

[4:42:39] want to see more of that? Then just do

[4:42:41] nothing. At least we should fight if we

[4:42:44] if we are concerned with the safety of

[4:42:46] the residents in a fire zone, we should

[4:42:49] we should be serious about that and do

[4:42:51] what we can to try and protect them.

[4:42:52] That's my whole point. Are we under a

[4:42:54] current deadline? Is this time

[4:42:56] sensitive?

[4:42:57] » Yes. But this I would suggest that if

[4:43:01] you want to consider this issue, you

[4:43:03] you know, it can be brought back as a

[4:43:05] report on this particular issue about

[4:43:07] the ingress and egress or staff can get

[4:43:09] direction to push it HCD again, but I

[4:43:11] would suggest that you do adopt this to

[4:43:13] avoid being under default state law and

[4:43:16] to have a compliant

[4:43:19] ADU ordinance

[4:43:21] moving forward. If you want to try to

[4:43:22] adjust it, you can always try to adjust

[4:43:23] your ordinance in the future.

[4:43:26] » How do we bring it back to do that?

[4:43:28] » Would you bring it back to do that?

[4:43:30] » I'm just Look, if if we just pass it and

[4:43:32] let it go, it's it's done. Right? And

[4:43:35] this topic will not come back again. I

[4:43:37] think it's an important enough topic

[4:43:39] that we should at least consider it.

[4:43:41] » We can I mean, you could push this

[4:43:43] forward and you could bring back a

[4:43:44] report to consider initiating an

[4:43:46] amendment to make the change that you're

[4:43:48] talking about and have a and have a

[4:43:49] report from staff on that.

[4:43:51] » If our safety element's been um

[4:43:54] approved, cuz that's another element.

[4:43:56] » Um and in that report it did say

[4:44:00] I mean

[4:44:01] » I paraphrase, but like think twice about

[4:44:03] building on one way ins and outs.

[4:44:07] It did, I thought. Didn't it?

[4:44:09] » Yeah, for it was a Tyler, I believe in

[4:44:11] the safety element it was for like a new

[4:44:13] um development of multiple lots.

[4:44:15] » Right. Subdivision.

[4:44:16] » Yeah, subdivision. I thought it was

[4:44:18] Yeah.

[4:44:19] » What All right, let me ask this again as

[4:44:21] cuz I'm not sure I got a direct answer.

[4:44:23] Um if we were to adopt this proposal,

[4:44:26] which does which ought to satisfy HCD

[4:44:29] the way it is, and they certify it,

[4:44:33] can we then

[4:44:34] adopt a stand-alone piece of legislation

[4:44:38] which adds an additional restriction,

[4:44:41] and who cares whether they certify that

[4:44:43] one or not? We we have it and we seek to

[4:44:45] enforce it if we think it's lawful.

[4:44:48] » You [snorts] mean we it's this is our

[4:44:50] zoning code. We can go and, you know,

[4:44:51] amend our our zoning code. Um and if you

[4:44:55] do that, you

[4:44:57] and we're amending the ADU ordinance, we

[4:44:59] could run into um issues that they could

[4:45:01] decertify us, you know, for making

[4:45:03] changes to it cuz they certified it in a

[4:45:05] particular um form.

[4:45:08] » So, would we have Would we have to amend

[4:45:10] the ADU ordinance? Couldn't we just

[4:45:13] adopt a stand-alone ordinance that

[4:45:15] adds that requirement?

[4:45:17] » You can, but I mean it's anything that

[4:45:19] affects the ADU ordinance is supposed to

[4:45:20] be, you know, brought to HCD because it

[4:45:23] all interacts cuz you're going to have a

[4:45:24] section of ADU ordinance, and then

[4:45:25] you're going to want to add an

[4:45:26] additional section that's talking about

[4:45:28] ADUs, whether they, you know, have two

[4:45:30] forms of exit or not, right? Egress.

[4:45:32] » So, Tyler, Trevor, you're saying so what

[4:45:34] we can't do. What can we do?

[4:45:36] » What can we do?

[4:45:37] So,

[4:45:38] I I what I would I would say is there is

[4:45:41] would recommend getting this across so

[4:45:43] we have a compliant, you know, ordinance

[4:45:45] with HCD. And if you want to bring back

[4:45:46] an If you want to explore this, have

[4:45:48] staff bring you back options for

[4:45:50] um

[4:45:51] you know, analysis on this particular

[4:45:53] change to it to making a change to the

[4:45:55] amendment, the consequences of

[4:45:57] potentially doing it, and the ways that

[4:45:59] you could accomplish it.

[4:46:01] » You would say?

[4:46:03] » It sounds like it's extortion. I mean,

[4:46:05] we we have to approve what HCD's telling

[4:46:07] us or else HCD, whether they have the

[4:46:10] right to do it or not, denies a

[4:46:11] certification, and then there are

[4:46:13] adverse consequences.

[4:46:14] It's It's ridiculous way the law is

[4:46:16] built.

[4:46:17] » I'll make a motion that we do it we say

[4:46:19] we approve this and the new Trevor says

[4:46:21] we have staff bring us back some some

[4:46:23] options to say how do we deal with this.

[4:46:26] If we have to if those options are good,

[4:46:28] we figure out how to take it to HCD and

[4:46:30] see what the hell they say.

[4:46:35] » Is there a second?

[4:46:36] » Well, I I've got some idea I got some

[4:46:38] things I'd like to bring up, too. I I

[4:46:40] hear you, and we may I may back you on

[4:46:43] it. If I could

[4:46:44] » Go ahead. The floor is yours.

[4:46:45] » All right.

[4:46:47] Let's talk about on page uh six of nine

[4:46:51] in 17.44.080

[4:46:55] the last sentence in the first

[4:46:56] paragraph, ACD flagged ADUs with deed

[4:46:59] restrictions as inconsistent with state

[4:47:01] law.

[4:47:03] We've got HOAs in town that have

[4:47:07] deed restrictions that allow the HOA,

[4:47:10] and then within those HOAs, there may be

[4:47:12] deed restrictions about

[4:47:15] ADUs.

[4:47:16] Uh

[4:47:18] Are we saying that that

[4:47:21] that provision

[4:47:23] overrides the HOA's ability to say they

[4:47:26] don't want to have an HOA HOA I'm sorry,

[4:47:29] ADU in their HOA?

[4:47:31] » Too many letters.

[4:47:32] » Yeah, you got too many letters.

[4:47:33] Yeah.

[4:47:34] » Could you clarify where which paragraph

[4:47:36] you're talking about?

[4:47:37] » Yeah.

[4:47:38] » [clears throat]

[4:47:38] » It's page six of nine.

[4:47:41] And the question in the last sentence of

[4:47:43] the first paragraph of 17.44.080

[4:47:48] is HCD flagged ADU deed restrictions is

[4:47:52] inconsistent with state law.

[4:47:55] And in my reading of that

[4:47:59] every every official HOA, and I'm going

[4:48:01] to talk about a

[4:48:02] uh

[4:48:03] voluntary association, but if you've got

[4:48:05] deed restrictions like for a planned

[4:48:07] unit development

[4:48:09] quite often within those it says there's

[4:48:11] no separate buildings allowed or you

[4:48:13] can't have more than this number of

[4:48:15] square feet or whatever. Are we saying

[4:48:17] that that now those provisions are

[4:48:21] mute? And by the way, that might be a

[4:48:23] way to have the uh

[4:48:26] one way in and out for a lot of these

[4:48:28] associations that have the ability to

[4:48:31] have deed restrictions or

[4:48:32] have restrictions on what can be built.

[4:48:36] » Maybe Tyler needs to clarify

[4:48:38] what they flagged in the or

[4:48:42] staff that's here in the room.

[4:48:43] » Patrick, uh feel free to weigh in. I can

[4:48:45] start. They um

[4:48:48] the deed restrictions I'm talking about,

[4:48:49] we had some deed restrictions in our

[4:48:50] code related to like um

[4:48:53] you know, you have to

[4:48:55] uh report your units and things like

[4:48:57] that. There There's a lot of things that

[4:48:59] they said can only be applicable to

[4:49:00] JADU. So, it wasn't necessarily related

[4:49:03] uh HOAs or anything like that. It was

[4:49:05] deed restrictions that we had codified

[4:49:07] that we were placing on each property as

[4:49:09] these ADUs got processed.

[4:49:10] They just said that's unlawful. They can

[4:49:12] only be applied to JADU.

[4:49:13] » So, it's a restriction on the

[4:49:16] recording the city to take out of its

[4:49:17] ordinance. It doesn't deal with an HOA.

[4:49:18] HOA has different powers and abilities

[4:49:20] to restrict. So, this isn't overruling

[4:49:23] any ability of an HOA to take action.

[4:49:25] » Yeah, we're country estates. Came up in

[4:49:27] the planning commission a couple of

[4:49:29] weeks ago and they have restrictions in

[4:49:31] terms of what you can do with ADUs.

[4:49:33] » That's right.

[4:49:34] » Exactly. So, so like you saw there Mayor

[4:49:37] Pro Tem, we would still enforce the the

[4:49:39] codified uh

[4:49:41] regulations of the of the country

[4:49:43] estates.

[4:49:44] » Tyler, I think

[4:49:45] » So, the country estates rules would

[4:49:46] would overrule.

[4:49:49] » We recommended denial for that project,

[4:49:50] yes.

[4:49:52] » It sounds to me Tyler,

[4:49:53] » [clears throat]

[4:49:54] » Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I think

[4:49:55] what I'm hearing you say is that this is

[4:49:57] only talking about deed restrictions

[4:49:59] we've imposed as a condition to getting

[4:50:01] an approval of a permit. This has

[4:50:03] nothing to do with a deed restriction

[4:50:05] that might have been voluntarily agreed

[4:50:07] upon at some point in time. They're not

[4:50:09] invalid. We just can't demand deed

[4:50:11] restrictions as a condition.

[4:50:13] [clears throat]

[4:50:14] » That's correct.

[4:50:15] » Or was it the deed restrictions we were

[4:50:17] requesting such because

[4:50:19] it had something to do with short-term

[4:50:21] rentals if I'm recalling it properly.

[4:50:25] » I don't know if those were the deed

[4:50:26] restrictions but

[4:50:28] it does only deal with restrictions that

[4:50:30] our prior ordinance was requiring people

[4:50:31] to put on in order to get an ADU and

[4:50:33] it's just saying under state law we were

[4:50:35] there

[4:50:36] we were constrained and we weren't able

[4:50:37] to enforce those.

[4:50:38] » Their goal their goal is to liberalize

[4:50:40] ADUs so any restrictions they see as a

[4:50:42] negative.

[4:50:43] » Again, it's only for the cities. It

[4:50:45] doesn't affect the HOA. That's That's

[4:50:47] not what we're We're not limiting the

[4:50:49] HOA's ability to impose their own

[4:50:51] restrictions.

[4:50:52] » I have a vague recollection of what Mary

[4:50:53] Ann just mentioned. I didn't we require

[4:50:56] some deed restriction that you wouldn't

[4:50:57] short-term rental your ADU?

[4:51:02] » That's correct.

[4:51:02] » Correct. And yes, that's what HCD

[4:51:04] commented on.

[4:51:05] » That's being That's what they're telling

[4:51:07] us we can't do.

[4:51:07] » That's not the one though, right? Is

[4:51:08] that the one that

[4:51:09] They They did The deed restriction

[4:51:11] conditions a few things. It's the um

[4:51:13] separate no separate sale of the unit.

[4:51:14] It talks about the the characteristics

[4:51:16] of the unit um and then also

[4:51:18] um

[4:51:19] let's see.

[4:51:22] Those are the Yes, those are the main

[4:51:23] ones.

[4:51:24] I believe the short-term rental deed

[4:51:25] restrictions to allow it, isn't that

[4:51:27] correct?

[4:51:28] » On the J

[4:51:29] » On a J On a owner-occupied JADU, yes,

[4:51:32] but not a an standard ADU.

[4:51:34] » Yes. Think about that. I'm building I'm

[4:51:37] building ADUs in

[4:51:39] a street with only one access way,

[4:51:41] and I'm I'm going to turn them into

[4:51:42] short-term rentals with a bunch of

[4:51:44] people that have never been through a

[4:51:45] fire, have no idea what the hell they're

[4:51:47] doing in a fire.

[4:51:48] Uh how many of those do you think we're

[4:51:49] going to lose?

[4:51:51] I'm just saying this you know, we just

[4:51:53] there's got to be some way that we can

[4:51:54] protect

[4:51:55] ourselves in a fire.

[4:51:57] » Well, ACD's position on that one also

[4:51:59] seems inconsistent with the policy of

[4:52:01] the ADU statute by the state cuz it's to

[4:52:04] increase housing stock and to increase

[4:52:06] short-term rentals is not increasing

[4:52:08] housing stock.

[4:52:08] » No, they're they're allowing the short

[4:52:10] the prohibition on short-term rentals to

[4:52:12] remain for owner-occupied JADUs,

[4:52:14] correct?

[4:52:15] » JADU

[4:52:15] » That's correct. JADUs owner-occupied.

[4:52:17] » It's allowing the short-term rental

[4:52:18] prohibition to

[4:52:19] » Remain

[4:52:19] » JADU

[4:52:20] » But not for an ADU.

[4:52:21] » Not for the ADU.

[4:52:23] » Yeah, that's just that's just converting

[4:52:24] a room.

[4:52:25] » Yeah.

[4:52:25] » In your

[4:52:26] » So what they're saying is that

[4:52:27] a statute which is designed to create

[4:52:30] more long-term housing can't be used We

[4:52:33] can't within that statute restrict

[4:52:36] short-term rentals and we have to allow

[4:52:38] this long-term housing to become a

[4:52:39] short-term rental. That's That's a That

[4:52:42] seems like an agency out of control.

[4:52:45] » Well, it it it also brings up the

[4:52:46] question of if you've got a HOA

[4:52:50] and I'll take for instance the one I

[4:52:52] live in,

[4:52:53] there are no less than 30-day rentals

[4:52:56] allowed. So

[4:52:57] » It sounds like that's still enforceable.

[4:52:59] » Yeah. Well,

[4:53:01] the HOA is saying you can't do that. And

[4:53:03] if we are saying that the HOA rules do

[4:53:06] apply or don't apply, HOA is saying do

[4:53:09] apply.

[4:53:09] » Yeah, we're not affecting There's

[4:53:11] different layers of restrictions you

[4:53:12] have to comply with. We only deal with

[4:53:13] restrictions on, you know, city

[4:53:15] approvals that you're seeking. HOAs, you

[4:53:18] know, enforce their own rules, have

[4:53:19] their own subject rules, same like the

[4:53:20] federal government and the state

[4:53:21] government.

[4:53:22] » So, that there's

[4:53:24] as we just found out the other day when

[4:53:26] we had an HOA meeting here, I think

[4:53:28] there was like 100 HOAs, whether they be

[4:53:32] condominiums or whatever. And they get

[4:53:35] to call the shots, is what you're

[4:53:36] saying. If the H- if the HOA is a formal

[4:53:39] HOA, then they can they can decide if

[4:53:41] they want to have ADUs.

[4:53:43] And whether or not their street is a

[4:53:44] one-way in and out.

[4:53:45] » Uh Tyler, Patrick, this ordinance does

[4:53:48] not affect any ability of an HOA to

[4:53:50] impose restrictions, correct?

[4:53:53] That'll be worked out between the HOA

[4:53:54] and the the property owner is doing it.

[4:53:56] Yes. We are not we're not interfering

[4:53:58] with that.

[4:53:59] » Councilmember Stewart, the difference

[4:54:00] The difference with the Country Estates

[4:54:01] is that a lot of their regulations and

[4:54:04] their CC&Rs are codified in our code.

[4:54:06] And that's why we enforce them as a

[4:54:07] city. So, if your HOA regulations are

[4:54:09] not codified in our code, the city will

[4:54:10] not enforce those. So, it's upon the HOA

[4:54:13] to then enforce their own laws.

[4:54:14] » That's That's fine. Uh HOA, it's up to

[4:54:16] the HOA to decide they're going to do it

[4:54:18] or not.

[4:54:19] » So, so how how hard have we pressed for

[4:54:22] the ability leaving aside the ingress

[4:54:23] and egress, how hard have we pressed for

[4:54:25] the ability to

[4:54:27] require the deed restriction on not

[4:54:29] separating the ADU

[4:54:31] by a segre- segregated sale and not

[4:54:34] using them for um short-term rentals?

[4:54:39] » We probably haven't pressed that issue

[4:54:40] that hard. Our main focus has been

[4:54:42] egress uh and fire safety.

[4:54:44] » It's the way it is the way our law is

[4:54:46] right now, you can't put an ADU on your

[4:54:48] property and then sell that ADU,

[4:54:50] basically um

[4:54:52] subdividing your property, even though

[4:54:54] not technically doing so, because you

[4:54:56] still own the land, but the ADU becomes

[4:54:58] the property of somebody else. We can

[4:55:00] Can we push to keep that as a

[4:55:02] restriction?

[4:55:05] » Uh so, Mayor, just to clarify

[4:55:07] what you're speaking of is actually um

[4:55:09] statutorily codified. So, the um

[4:55:11] short-term rental and the separate sale,

[4:55:13] that's already part of state law. So,

[4:55:15] what HCD director is, "Hey, this is

[4:55:17] already codified. There's doesn't need

[4:55:20] to be this extra layer of um you know um

[4:55:24] uh recordation of the deed restriction."

[4:55:26] But, it is

[4:55:27] what you're mentioning is a requirement

[4:55:28] for ADUs.

[4:55:30] » I would I would like us to press to have

[4:55:32] to keep that because just because it's

[4:55:34] not necessary doesn't mean it won't

[4:55:36] become necessary at some future date.

[4:55:39] So, the legislature two years from now

[4:55:40] could decide in their infinite wisdom to

[4:55:43] allow them to be sold separately. But,

[4:55:45] if you've got a deed restriction, then

[4:55:47] changing the law wouldn't allow that

[4:55:49] particular unit to be sold separately.

[4:55:51] Um but, if you don't have it as a deed

[4:55:53] restriction, then they're we're at their

[4:55:55] mercy. They can change the law they

[4:55:57] want.

[4:55:58] » Pat, can you can you double-check? I

[4:55:59] think it might also be written into our

[4:56:01] ordinance

[4:56:02] um

[4:56:04] that that state law provision.

[4:56:06] And that's why they want us to hold the

[4:56:07] line on deed restriction.

[4:56:09] » It is, yes. It's um

[4:56:11] under 17.44.080.

[4:56:15] Um starting page um

[4:56:18] 18. So, it would be um subsection B,

[4:56:22] rental term, and then D, no separate

[4:56:24] conveyance.

[4:56:26] » So, it's already in our existing code.

[4:56:28] » And that is part of the existing code,

[4:56:30] yes.

[4:56:30] » So, if they remove it from state law,

[4:56:32] we'd still have it in our code as long

[4:56:33] as we were certified.

[4:56:35] » Yeah, but then they would threaten to

[4:56:36] decertify our code if we keep it in

[4:56:38] there, right? If they decide to change

[4:56:40] it.

[4:56:42] » Yeah, if they decide to change it.

[4:56:44] » I mean, look, the state legislature's on

[4:56:45] a tear to take out single-family uh

[4:56:48] zoning.

[4:56:49] » Yeah.

[4:56:50] » And this is just another example of it

[4:56:52] where they're uh using HCD to impose

[4:56:56] this

[4:56:57] uh take Coronado where you take one

[4:56:59] house and you have four lots out of it.

[4:57:02] I mean, it's it's it's amazing what's

[4:57:04] taking place around the state. And I

[4:57:06] think we're somehow protected by our

[4:57:07] LCP, but uh

[4:57:10] you know, this is where we're being

[4:57:12] shoved to.

[4:57:14] All right, do you have any other further

[4:57:15] » Yeah, I got one other question. The one

[4:57:16] above it about processing and timing.

[4:57:20] Before we approve this, I want to make

[4:57:22] sure that

[4:57:23] we can live with what they've got in

[4:57:24] here. This is paragraph this second

[4:57:26] paragraph in that section, same page is

[4:57:28] six.

[4:57:29] The timing for this is so fast.

[4:57:33] Um

[4:57:34] you got 15 days to do um

[4:57:37] resubmittal, which you got 15 days to

[4:57:39] apply

[4:57:40] uh to complete the ADU application, and

[4:57:43] you got to have a planning commission uh

[4:57:47] uh

[4:57:48] response within 60 days.

[4:57:50] I mean, are we able to function in this?

[4:57:53] I This city's never turned around a

[4:57:55] planning commission appeal in 60 days.

[4:58:00] » Yes, so under the municipal code, not

[4:58:03] all ADUs are subject to planning

[4:58:05] commission approval, um and staff is

[4:58:06] working on um streamlining and um

[4:58:09] different handouts and resources to help

[4:58:12] um expedite the process um and as well

[4:58:15] staff training.

[4:58:16] » Well, wait.

[4:58:17] » Patrick, we don't have a choice on the

[4:58:18] processing, right?

[4:58:19] » And yes, that's that's correct. Yes, and

[4:58:21] that's directly from state law, and it's

[4:58:23] 15 business days, so it excludes

[4:58:25] weekends, holidays, um

[4:58:27] » Are we guys My point is when you look at

[4:58:30] the first sentence,

[4:58:31] uh

[4:58:32] it says the city must determine

[4:58:33] completeness of an ADU application

[4:58:35] within 15 business days,

[4:58:37] provide a written uh

[4:58:39] » [snorts]

[4:58:39] » List of missing items and so forth.

[4:58:41] Resubmittals are reviewed within 15

[4:58:43] days, and then

[4:58:45] um

[4:58:46] if the city does not respond within the

[4:58:47] deadline, applicants may appeal

[4:58:49] completeness determinations and denials

[4:58:51] to the planning commission.

[4:58:52] I mean,

[4:58:54] are we able to function with those

[4:58:55] deadlines?

[4:58:56] » Yes, we are. We have created a

[4:58:57] checklist. We also are now that we are

[4:59:00] one team, community development,

[4:59:02] planning and building and reviewing at

[4:59:03] the same time. Uh so we do have even on

[4:59:06] our database a trigger for when those

[4:59:09] application comes in and uh an email is

[4:59:11] sent to the uh person that is reviewing

[4:59:14] it to make sure that we stay with those

[4:59:16] deadlines.

[4:59:17] » Okay.

[4:59:18] All right. Um

[4:59:20] » The motion was made by Steve.

[4:59:23] » Yeah.

[4:59:24] » I I just want to add one more thing that

[4:59:25] um yeah, I just want to show you guys

[4:59:26] there's not a proliferation of these. Uh

[4:59:28] just to you know, rest assured we we get

[4:59:30] what like five a year, Patrick, so it's

[4:59:32] not like

[4:59:34] you know, they're clamoring at our door.

[4:59:35] So So to Yuliana's point, they're

[4:59:37] definitely manageable. Uh we have a

[4:59:38] process. Um

[4:59:41] we've we've been handling it.

[4:59:43] » The number of applications that we have

[4:59:44] received in the past uh

[4:59:47] 3 months uh it's about two.

[4:59:50] The most that we're seeing right now as

[4:59:52] is for the fire rebuilds.

[4:59:54] And under the fire rebuilds there

[4:59:56] because they're part of the same

[4:59:57] structure, we're keeping up with the

[4:59:59] streamlined process for for rebuilding.

[5:00:03] » You're not seeing anything now but but

[5:00:04] I'll tell you what once we change this

[5:00:05] law and makes it easy for them to get

[5:00:07] built, you may see a bunch more coming

[5:00:08] in.

[5:00:10] Money. People are going to put them in

[5:00:12] to get money. That's why they're there.

[5:00:15] So what's a what's the motion against?

[5:00:17] » Steve, want to repeat your motion?

[5:00:18] » The motion was that we approve this

[5:00:20] tonight that we ask staff to come back

[5:00:22] with a

[5:00:24] analysis

[5:00:25] of what we can do to to deal with access

[5:00:29] in and out of one-way streets

[5:00:31] uh

[5:00:32] » Requirement to forms of egress.

[5:00:34] » Two, yeah. And and you know, to try and

[5:00:36] protect our residents from in during the

[5:00:38] course of a fire.

[5:00:40] And I got no problem if you know, if

[5:00:41] this decision comes back to say, "Look,

[5:00:44] you know, if if it's a one-way only

[5:00:45] street with one way of in and out, if

[5:00:47] the staff has got a set of rules that

[5:00:49] they can use that determine that it's

[5:00:51] safe to do that, go ahead and do it."

[5:00:54] But there's got to be some guidance that

[5:00:55] we have for for everybody so we know

[5:00:57] what the hell we're doing.

[5:00:58] » Involving the fire department at this

[5:01:00] process is going to be critical for us.

[5:01:03] Uh so, we will work with the fire

[5:01:05] department on this that way you get a

[5:01:07] response from community development

[5:01:09] department and the fire department uh

[5:01:12] when we come back.

[5:01:13] » Yeah, I want to know what the fire

[5:01:14] department's criteria is for if they're

[5:01:16] going to make a decision, what are they

[5:01:17] looking at? Because last time we found

[5:01:19] out they didn't look at anything.

[5:01:21] » We will make sure that that happens and

[5:01:23] bring that back to you.

[5:01:25] » Is there a second? I'll second it.

[5:01:27] Is there any further discussion?

[5:01:29] » And that would be the introduction of

[5:01:31] ordinance number 535, an ordinance of

[5:01:33] the city of Malibu approving zoning text

[5:01:34] amendment number 25-003, an amendment to

[5:01:37] title 17 zoning of the Malibu municipal

[5:01:39] code to update accessory dwelling unit

[5:01:41] regulations and determine the amendments

[5:01:43] are exempt from the California

[5:01:44] Environmental Quality Act and sorry, I

[5:01:46] think you were raising your hand.

[5:01:47] » I haven't spoken yet, so you know, just

[5:01:49] like that chance if that's okay with

[5:01:51] everybody.

[5:01:54] I haven't spoken yet, so I was just

[5:01:56] hoping to get my chance, so.

[5:01:57] » Okay. I was just you if you had any

[5:01:58] comments.

[5:01:59] » I mean, I think I I understand

[5:02:01] everyone's concerns on the the egress

[5:02:05] and I think it is really important. I

[5:02:06] think it is something that we need to

[5:02:09] um

[5:02:10] highlight more with the fire department

[5:02:11] and there should be greater rules. But,

[5:02:14] you know, this isn't adding additional

[5:02:16] square footage to a property. This is

[5:02:18] square footage that um

[5:02:22] the zoning code and our local coastal

[5:02:25] program determines based on the property

[5:02:27] size they can have. So, if they were to

[5:02:31] add

[5:02:32] you know, the same amount of square

[5:02:33] footage to their house

[5:02:36] you can add it's not adding any

[5:02:37] additional vehicles. It's still the same

[5:02:40] amount of potential people on that

[5:02:42] property. So, I just I think that's one

[5:02:44] thing that we need to consider

[5:02:47] when we're having this conversation.

[5:02:48] This doesn't necessarily increase

[5:02:51] density on the lot. It's just another

[5:02:54] bedroom or actually

[5:02:57] Not necessarily. I mean, you can have an

[5:02:59] 8,000 square foot home and have

[5:03:02] 10 people living in it.

[5:03:10] I don't know. Who how who's living in

[5:03:12] the house?

[5:03:12] » Yeah, clearly it doesn't necessarily do

[5:03:15] that. A a 1,000 square foot home could

[5:03:17] have 10 people in it and 10,000 square

[5:03:19] foot home could have one person in it.

[5:03:21] But, when you take averages and look at

[5:03:23] a whole bunch of them, what you're going

[5:03:25] to find is

[5:03:27] people aren't going to increase the

[5:03:28] number of people in their home just

[5:03:29] because it's a bigger house, but they

[5:03:31] are going to increase the number of

[5:03:32] people on the lot when they add a

[5:03:33] separate dwelling unit. That's exactly

[5:03:36] what they're for. That's why the law was

[5:03:37] designed to create additional space for

[5:03:39] new people.

[5:03:39] » Not disagreeing with that. I'm just

[5:03:41] pointing out the fact that the amount of

[5:03:45] units on there doesn't necessarily mean

[5:03:48] that there are going to be more people

[5:03:50] trying to escape from that home in the

[5:03:53] event of an emergency.

[5:03:54] » No, it doesn't necessarily mean it, but

[5:03:55] on average it will mean it.

[5:03:56] » Just wanted to say my piece. That's all.

[5:03:58] » I appreciate that. I mean, I think that

[5:03:59] just the notion the name additional

[5:04:01] dwelling unit means that I think that

[5:04:04] the intention is to have additional

[5:04:06] dwelling there whether it's like aging

[5:04:08] in place and having a nurse or your

[5:04:09] child isn't quite going to college yet

[5:04:11] and they need to

[5:04:13] launch. Um you know, keeping people

[5:04:16] together is awesome. I also see I hear

[5:04:19] that it's not about square footage, it's

[5:04:21] just about like

[5:04:22] emergency reactions and

[5:04:25] being in a high fire severity zone. So,

[5:04:29] I'm in favor of looking into that as

[5:04:31] we're responsible with also um

[5:04:35] approving this tonight and then

[5:04:39] continuing

[5:04:40] the discussion.

[5:04:42] Thank you.

[5:04:43] » Thank you. Good.

[5:04:44] » Are there any further comments?

[5:04:47] Let's take a voice vote on this one.

[5:04:51] » Mayor Pro Tem Merin?

[5:04:52] » Yes.

[5:04:53] » Councilmember Stewart?

[5:04:54] » Yes.

[5:04:55] » Councilmember Conrad?

[5:04:56] » Yes.

[5:04:57] » Councilmember Riggons?

[5:04:58] » Yes.

[5:04:59] » Mayor Silverstein?

[5:05:01] » Yes.

[5:05:01] » Motion carries.

[5:05:02] » Okay.

[5:05:05] 6A,

[5:05:07] Building Board of Appeals. We'll now

[5:05:08] hear that item, authorization to

[5:05:10] advertise recruitment and direction of

[5:05:12] member qualification standards.

[5:05:15] Please raise your hand on Zoom if you

[5:05:17] would like to speak on this item, and if

[5:05:19] you're here in person and you'd like to

[5:05:21] speak, get your slip in.

[5:05:23] Let's have a staff report.

[5:05:25] » [snorts]

[5:05:26] » Good evening, City Council.

[5:05:29] On May 11th, staff presented an

[5:05:31] education and an update presentation on

[5:05:33] the Building Board of Appeals. At that

[5:05:36] time, Council recommended that staff

[5:05:38] bring back additional items

[5:05:41] to afford your discussion.

[5:05:43] These items in front of you, um, is the

[5:05:46] request from staff for your direction.

[5:05:49] So, item number one,

[5:05:52] board continuity.

[5:05:54] Does the Council would like to retain

[5:05:56] the existing members who confirmed

[5:05:58] willingness to serve or conduct an open

[5:06:02] public recruitment for some of all the

[5:06:04] seats, uh, on the Building

[5:06:06] Board of Appeals?

[5:06:08] Two,

[5:06:09] revising the qualification standards.

[5:06:12] Would the Council would like to retain

[5:06:14] the current Malibu Municipal Code, uh,

[5:06:17] section 15.04.050,

[5:06:21] with the current standards,

[5:06:24] uh, or adopt a Council policy defining

[5:06:28] the experience and the training that

[5:06:30] will qualify an individual to pass upon

[5:06:34] for the Building Board of Appeals?

[5:06:36] Three,

[5:06:37] geographically eligibility.

[5:06:40] Does Council would like to have uh,

[5:06:42] provide direction on this applications

[5:06:46] that city the the city of Malibu

[5:06:50] get applications only for Malibu

[5:06:52] residents or have work or practice

[5:06:55] professionally within Malibu for 10

[5:06:57] years or be qualified by experience and

[5:07:01] training with no geographic requirements

[5:07:04] consistent with the current code.

[5:07:06] For

[5:07:08] recruitment outreach

[5:07:10] If recruitment is authorized

[5:07:12] we would like your direction to prepare

[5:07:14] and publish the a building board of

[5:07:16] appeals member application and

[5:07:18] recruitment announcement.

[5:07:21] Just to provide the council and the

[5:07:23] community with a recap with our May 11

[5:07:26] meeting

[5:07:27] the building board of appeals is a state

[5:07:30] mandate it requires that every city to

[5:07:34] have and provide a formal appeal process

[5:07:37] for building official decisions.

[5:07:39] Um

[5:07:41] to remind the community and the council

[5:07:44] the board existed and the memberships

[5:07:47] have been there since um many years and

[5:07:52] they have been part of

[5:07:55] our website.

[5:07:57] They were formally reaffirmed on

[5:08:00] February 10th of 2025. We have five

[5:08:02] members that were appointed and

[5:08:04] reaffirmed on February 10th of 2025.

[5:08:07] Since then

[5:08:09] 7 years that I can

[5:08:11] testify

[5:08:12] we have not had the board reconvene.

[5:08:17] The scope and the authority of the board

[5:08:19] just quickly reminding the council and

[5:08:22] the community

[5:08:24] this board is to hear any appeals of a

[5:08:26] building official action. It can also

[5:08:30] approve alternate methods of construct

[5:08:32] construction materials. It can also help

[5:08:34] evaluate research report for alternate

[5:08:36] methods. And also section 102 of the

[5:08:40] California Building Code, they can

[5:08:42] provide interpretation.

[5:08:45] So, where are we with the current

[5:08:46] Building Board of Appeals members?

[5:08:49] We have five members.

[5:08:52] Three of them we reached out and with

[5:08:56] the help of the City Clerk's office,

[5:08:58] we were able to get that information.

[5:09:02] Three of them would like to continue

[5:09:04] being part of the Building Board of

[5:09:07] Appeals.

[5:09:08] One

[5:09:10] has submitted a resignation and one has

[5:09:13] passed away.

[5:09:16] Compared to other jurisdictions, last

[5:09:18] time we brought you different

[5:09:20] jurisdictions comparisons on how their

[5:09:22] boards were

[5:09:24] were integrated. Council also told us

[5:09:28] provide us with coastal cities and then

[5:09:31] coastal cities that we can relate. Um

[5:09:35] So, in this list you will see we have a

[5:09:39] comparison of the structure of the

[5:09:41] boards. For the county, they have five

[5:09:44] members, one an architect, one general

[5:09:46] contractor, one is an attorney and two

[5:09:49] structural engineers.

[5:09:50] They serve at the pleasure of the Board

[5:09:52] of Supervisors. City of South Pasadena

[5:09:55] also

[5:09:57] has five members, one architect, one

[5:10:00] builder, one attorney, two civil

[5:10:02] structural engineers, each one with a 10

[5:10:05] years of experience. They also serve at

[5:10:07] the pleasure of the Pasadena City

[5:10:09] Council.

[5:10:10] City of Santa Barbara,

[5:10:12] they have qualified by experience and

[5:10:14] training. They hear both not only there

[5:10:18] the Building Board of Appeals, but also

[5:10:20] the Fire Code of Appeals. They have also

[5:10:23] a four-term

[5:10:24] a four-year term.

[5:10:27] There's also the ability to have two

[5:10:29] members with disabilities for

[5:10:31] accessibility appeals. Uh the city of

[5:10:34] Newport Beach has seven members. They

[5:10:36] qualify by experience and training and

[5:10:38] building construction. They are building

[5:10:40] service equipment, fire protections, and

[5:10:43] no residence requirements for the city

[5:10:46] of Newport Beach. They also have a

[5:10:48] four-year staggered term. The city of

[5:10:51] Hermosa Beach has five qualified by

[5:10:54] experience and training, no residence

[5:10:56] requirement. The building official uh

[5:10:59] serve as a non-voting ex officio uh

[5:11:02] member and has no term limits at the

[5:11:04] pleasure and serve as the pleasure of

[5:11:06] the city council.

[5:11:07] The city of Malibu uh

[5:11:09] currently under our ordinance and uh

[5:11:12] municipal code, uh we have defined as

[5:11:15] qualified by experience and training. No

[5:11:18] specific license disciplines or year of

[5:11:20] requirements uh for those five members.

[5:11:23] Uh the members just not need to be a

[5:11:25] city officer or employees of the city,

[5:11:27] and they also serve at the pleasure of

[5:11:29] the city council.

[5:11:32] Uh

[5:11:33] two uh just a quick uh highlight, uh LA

[5:11:37] County and South Pasadena mirror the

[5:11:39] disciplines

[5:11:40] uh more with the specific uh experience.

[5:11:44] Uh

[5:11:45] Like um

[5:11:47] has such as attorneys, construction

[5:11:49] engineers, and architects.

[5:11:52] Um your direction.

[5:11:55] Would you like to continue having the

[5:11:57] board continue uh continue? Uh we have

[5:12:00] three members that have confirmed

[5:12:02] willingness to serve. We will have two

[5:12:05] open uh recruitments at large.

[5:12:07] Uh would you like to retain the

[5:12:09] qualification standards just as we have

[5:12:12] it on the municipal code? Or would you

[5:12:14] like to adopt a city policy with a

[5:12:17] specific disciplines

[5:12:19] uh and backgrounds and licenses for this

[5:12:21] uh um members of the board?

[5:12:24] Geographically eligibility. Would you

[5:12:26] like to um not require a geographic

[5:12:30] eligibility or would you like to have a

[5:12:32] Malibu residency with a minimum 10 years

[5:12:35] of Malibu professional practice?

[5:12:38] Also, if you would like to authorize

[5:12:40] recruitment, so those are the items just

[5:12:43] to keep in mind for your discussion.

[5:12:47] If you decide to look more deep into the

[5:12:52] qualification standards options, there

[5:12:55] is four,

[5:12:57] retaining what we have, which is a

[5:12:59] qualified by experience training with no

[5:13:02] license or certifications as current

[5:13:05] stand stands in our municipal code. This

[5:13:09] will be very consistent with the city of

[5:13:11] Newport Beach, Hermosa Beach and Santa

[5:13:13] Barbara. Or would you like to adopt a

[5:13:15] city policy?

[5:13:17] This could be an administrative document

[5:13:19] that will establish preference

[5:13:21] disciplines and expertise to guide

[5:13:23] council and appointment authority. It

[5:13:25] can implement be implemented right away.

[5:13:29] Also, there's an option C.

[5:13:31] You can we can amend the municipal code,

[5:13:35] go through a legislative action

[5:13:37] requiring public noticing, hearing and

[5:13:40] adoption and ordinance based on the

[5:13:42] current staff analysis.

[5:13:44] And

[5:13:45] and subject to the building code

[5:13:47] moratorium.

[5:13:50] Just a few and this is on your

[5:13:54] staff report. I wanted to provide you

[5:13:57] with

[5:13:58] a list of disciplines for your

[5:14:00] consideration.

[5:14:01] At the end, we are looking for your

[5:14:03] direction.

[5:14:05] Example, if you have a structural

[5:14:07] engineer on the board, they can provide

[5:14:10] with

[5:14:11] more structural expertise and

[5:14:13] background, foundation disputes, seismic

[5:14:16] design, hill structure systems. A

[5:14:19] geotechnical engineer can also have the

[5:14:22] expertise on landslide zones, expansive

[5:14:24] soil, coastal bluffs, site stability

[5:14:27] determination. An architect can also

[5:14:30] provide and bring to the board an

[5:14:32] alternate methods or materials,

[5:14:34] code interpretation,

[5:14:36] general contractor can have the practice

[5:14:39] field performance

[5:14:41] that might needed on the board. As far

[5:14:45] as an attorney on construction

[5:14:46] administrative law, they can provide

[5:14:49] with

[5:14:50] more judicial review and written

[5:14:52] response. So, just for your for your

[5:14:55] information.

[5:14:57] And then, geographically eligibility

[5:15:01] options,

[5:15:03] you might decide, you know, we are good

[5:15:04] with the current requirements as

[5:15:06] assistant municipal code. We don't need

[5:15:08] to have a geographic requirements

[5:15:11] limiting the pool of

[5:15:14] of people that can apply for this

[5:15:17] boards. Um

[5:15:19] or you can require and restrict it only

[5:15:22] to

[5:15:23] um community members that may have a

[5:15:27] strong community connection.

[5:15:29] Just for your consideration, the

[5:15:31] population is small and so, insufficient

[5:15:35] pool of qualified professionals. We

[5:15:37] might face that, but just wanted to

[5:15:39] provide you

[5:15:40] more information that 10 years of Malibu

[5:15:43] professional practice.

[5:15:45] Um you will have Malibu specific

[5:15:48] standards

[5:15:50] that can help the board make the

[5:15:51] decisions.

[5:15:53] Um as far as fiscal impacts and

[5:15:56] appointment requirements, just very

[5:15:58] briefly,

[5:16:00] this will require for us to have public

[5:16:02] notices, printing and stuff, time for

[5:16:04] application processes, and appointment

[5:16:06] preparations. We have added it to the um

[5:16:10] new budget.

[5:16:12] And as far as the appointment

[5:16:14] requirements, it will follow the exact

[5:16:16] thing that we follow for any other

[5:16:18] uh commissions.

[5:16:21] So, the item uh in front of you um for

[5:16:24] your discussion

[5:16:26] um

[5:16:27] with the app recommended actions,

[5:16:29] continuity of the board, you would like

[5:16:32] you would like to retain it or

[5:16:33] reconstitute it.

[5:16:35] Would you like to look at the

[5:16:36] qualification standards? Would you like

[5:16:38] to retain the the current standards or

[5:16:41] adopt a city policy?

[5:16:43] Would you like to look at the

[5:16:44] geographically eligibility as far as

[5:16:48] residency?

[5:16:49] And

[5:16:51] if you also would like to authorize

[5:16:53] staff to open the um

[5:16:57] appeals member application and

[5:16:59] recruitment announcement. With that,

[5:17:01] concludes my presentation um in front of

[5:17:04] you uh we are here, your city attorney,

[5:17:06] your city clerk,

[5:17:08] and your community development director

[5:17:09] to answer any questions you may have.

[5:17:12] » Thank you for that presentation.

[5:17:14] Um does anybody have any qualifying

[5:17:15] questions before we go to the public

[5:17:17] comment?

[5:17:19] Right. Is there anybody on Zoom?

[5:17:23] » There are no raised hands.

[5:17:24] » Okay, so there will be no public comment

[5:17:26] from Zoom. We have four speaker slips,

[5:17:27] Marissa Coughlin, Dean Winner, Darren

[5:17:30] Graves, and Danny Smith in that order.

[5:17:41] » Thank you, members of the council.

[5:17:43] Uh I'm one of the individuals that's

[5:17:45] currently on the Board of Appeals.

[5:17:47] Uh just to address some of the things

[5:17:49] that Miss Bendy discussed, I've lived

[5:17:52] here since 1968.

[5:17:54] My husband was a licensed contractor for

[5:17:56] 61 years. I gave up my license in '84

[5:18:00] because I was doing planning and permit

[5:18:02] expediting and there was no point paying

[5:18:04] all that insurance and workers' comp for

[5:18:06] two licenses.

[5:18:08] Um uh I've [clears throat] uh

[5:18:10] uh

[5:18:11] I think that the board should be

[5:18:12] utilized more efficiently than it has

[5:18:15] been. There were many times when I saw

[5:18:17] what we we could implement or assist

[5:18:20] with something the council was

[5:18:21] discussing. And I I hope that it stays

[5:18:25] in place and I would like to be

[5:18:26] reconsidered to remain. Thank you.

[5:18:30] » Thank you, Merissa.

[5:18:31] Dean.

[5:18:36] » [clears throat]

[5:18:40] » I think it's healthy as it's been Excuse

[5:18:42] me. [clears throat] I think it's healthy

[5:18:43] as it was outlined relative to being a

[5:18:44] tool for the city. If we have to use it,

[5:18:47] I'm afraid it really means we're not

[5:18:48] going to be streamlined cuz we should be

[5:18:50] able to work these things out. The thing

[5:18:52] I wanted to point out relative to Malibu

[5:18:54] professional practice, should we go down

[5:18:57] this path, please consider what's

[5:18:59] written here says that it ensures that

[5:19:01] board members have first-hand experience

[5:19:03] with the types of projects and disputes

[5:19:06] that arise in Malibu specifically. The

[5:19:08] single largest issue I've had since

[5:19:11] we've been trying to rebuild is is not

[5:19:13] with the current staff and the way how

[5:19:15] we've progressed, but in the past, as

[5:19:18] well as with our current contractors,

[5:19:20] people have a hell of a time letting go

[5:19:21] of the Coastal Act and the LCP.

[5:19:24] And [snorts] with like-for-like

[5:19:25] rebuilding, it doesn't apply. So, please

[5:19:27] take that into account with candidates

[5:19:29] because if we have candidates who refuse

[5:19:32] to implement the law under the executive

[5:19:34] orders,

[5:19:35] we got a problem.

[5:19:36] And that's one of the biggest issues

[5:19:37] we're dealing with as like-for-like

[5:19:39] rebuilders.

[5:19:40] Um, so I'm not throwing stones at the

[5:19:42] city.

[5:19:43] We have it with our contractors as well.

[5:19:45] And the owners don't know enough to

[5:19:46] stick up for themselves.

[5:19:48] Um, so, you know, I don't see this as a

[5:19:50] panacea. It's a nice thing to have

[5:19:52] should people need it. Um, but please

[5:19:55] take it into account when you're putting

[5:19:56] people on this board. Thank you.

[5:19:59] » Thanks, Dean.

[5:20:00] Darren.

[5:20:08] » Uh, good evening, honorable mayor,

[5:20:10] honorable city council members, city

[5:20:11] manager. Uh I want to thank you for,

[5:20:14] you know, digging around and finding

[5:20:16] this and agendizing the Building Board

[5:20:18] of Appeals uh as it is uh mandated

[5:20:21] board, and as the city is now rebuilding

[5:20:24] approximately 14% of its residences, it

[5:20:27] may be called into uh hear appeals every

[5:20:30] now and again.

[5:20:32] Um

[5:20:33] I would state that the intent of this

[5:20:34] board is to uh determine the intent of

[5:20:38] the building code as it relates to a

[5:20:40] written appeal

[5:20:41] upon a decision made by the building

[5:20:43] official.

[5:20:44] And um

[5:20:46] as such, the Malibu Rebuild Task Force

[5:20:48] and I believe that this Building Board

[5:20:50] of Appeals needs to be populated by

[5:20:52] professionals who know the building code

[5:20:54] uh and its applicability to the homes,

[5:20:56] motels, and offices that are being

[5:20:58] constructed in Malibu.

[5:21:00] » [snorts]

[5:21:00] » The majority of the projects in Malibu

[5:21:02] Malibu appear to be single-family

[5:21:04] dwellings, and the build the Building

[5:21:05] Board of Appeals should be populated by

[5:21:07] those individuals

[5:21:09] who understand the type of construction

[5:21:12] in Malibu. That means the California

[5:21:14] Building Code, the California

[5:21:15] Residential Code, the Malibu Municipal

[5:21:17] Code, and potentially the Coastal Act if

[5:21:20] it's not a rebuild.

[5:21:22] Um so, we believe that the board should

[5:21:25] be repopulated. Uh I don't think that

[5:21:27] the current members all have the

[5:21:29] qualifications uh that are recommended

[5:21:31] by the Building Board of Appeals.

[5:21:33] Um I would like the city council to

[5:21:35] adopt a resolution which requires the

[5:21:38] applicants to demonstrate proven

[5:21:39] experience in the building design and

[5:21:41] construction industries, as well as the

[5:21:43] legal profession which relates to these

[5:21:45] areas of expertise. Licensed

[5:21:47] professionals would be preferred, and um

[5:21:50] knowledge of the local building codes is

[5:21:52] required.

[5:21:53] Uh the eligible applicants need not

[5:21:55] reside in Malibu because that will

[5:21:57] reduce your potential applicant pool

[5:22:00] greatly, and you don't need to live here

[5:22:02] to understand issues that are being, you

[5:22:04] know, appealed here. There's Laguna

[5:22:06] Beach, Hermosa Beach, Santa Barbara.

[5:22:08] Professionals all over the state could

[5:22:09] have these thoughts and, you know, judge

[5:22:12] these appeals correctly.

[5:22:14] Um and finally, please recruit as soon

[5:22:16] as possible. Uh the fact that one of

[5:22:18] these board members is deceased and has

[5:22:20] been for 3 years is kind of alarming

[5:22:23] because if there was an appeal that was

[5:22:24] heard tomorrow, that lawyer wouldn't be

[5:22:27] here to, you know, give his legal advice

[5:22:29] to the board during that appeal. So,

[5:22:32] thank you once again, and um

[5:22:34] uh please consider our stance.

[5:22:37] » Thank you, Darren.

[5:22:38] Last speaker is Danny Smith.

[5:22:41] Okay.

[5:22:43] That closes public comment. Bring back

[5:22:45] City Council. Who would like to start?

[5:22:49] » I might suggest if if

[5:22:51] we get past the general comments that we

[5:22:53] take each one of these recommended

[5:22:55] categories, each one of the sections,

[5:22:58] and just do a consent or

[5:23:00] consensus on which one we want to go

[5:23:02] with.

[5:23:03] Looks like there's four or five

[5:23:04] different uh

[5:23:05] » Can you put the slide back? Sorry to

[5:23:07] interrupt, Doug, but I really like the

[5:23:09] visual on the the slide of what we're

[5:23:12] Is that it?

[5:23:14] I think there's a different one.

[5:23:16] There was a different one.

[5:23:17] Oh.

[5:23:18] Was that it? There was another one that

[5:23:20] was less wordy.

[5:23:21] » Yeah.

[5:23:22] But each one each one of the each one of

[5:23:24] those is a

[5:23:25] uh

[5:23:25] » Okay, direction.

[5:23:26] » Yeah.

[5:23:27] » Okay. Well,

[5:23:29] we can vote on which sides.

[5:23:32] So, board continuity, retain who we've

[5:23:34] got or open it all up and start over.

[5:23:39] I see there's two pathways to that. I'd

[5:23:43] start over and they can re um

[5:23:46] submit if they'd like.

[5:23:48] » Well, let's let's just figure out first

[5:23:50] whether we should address it the way

[5:23:52] Doug just suggested or whether we want

[5:23:53] to all make general comments about all

[5:23:55] the categories and then and then vote on

[5:23:57] this.

[5:23:58] So.

[5:23:58] » What's quickest?

[5:24:00] And most thorough?

[5:24:03] » Well,

[5:24:05] there's probably efficiencies in both

[5:24:07] directions. So, it's just a question of

[5:24:09] who who wants to which way do we want to

[5:24:11] proceed? Doug Doug's already stated his

[5:24:12] preference.

[5:24:14] Does anybody object to that one?

[5:24:15] » I would say take them one at a time and

[5:24:17] just power through it.

[5:24:18] » Steve, you're okay with that?

[5:24:19] » Yeah.

[5:24:20] Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

[5:24:21] » All right. So, it it sounds looks like

[5:24:22] we got at least a majority already.

[5:24:23] Let's let's go that way. So, Doug, why

[5:24:26] don't you start

[5:24:27] with the first issue?

[5:24:28] » First one? First one's uh board

[5:24:30] continuity.

[5:24:33] Uh board continuity.

[5:24:36] We've got um

[5:24:38] actually seven positions and I think we

[5:24:40] need to fill all seven.

[5:24:42] » If I

[5:24:43] If I may really quick, sorry to

[5:24:44] interrupt, but the the two alternates

[5:24:46] are not positions that

[5:24:49] we're eligible to my knowledge to to to

[5:24:52] fill as part of this.

[5:24:53] » There are no alternate positions that

[5:24:55] are provided for in the code.

[5:24:56] » I thought there were.

[5:24:57] » We looked into this issue um since the

[5:24:59] body hadn't been looked at very closely

[5:25:01] in many years. Reading the code, it only

[5:25:03] has a provision provision for five

[5:25:05] members. I was able to find what I

[5:25:07] believe was the original appointment

[5:25:08] item from 1997

[5:25:10] um where staff had recommended the

[5:25:12] council appoint two alternates, but

[5:25:14] there was no justification or code

[5:25:15] references to support that. So, we don't

[5:25:17] recommend appointing alternates at this

[5:25:19] time.

[5:25:20] » Okay, so we got we got five positions.

[5:25:23] All right.

[5:25:24] All right.

[5:25:25] » No, thank you.

[5:25:26] » Clark, it's already we've got two

[5:25:28] positions for us to fill.

[5:25:30] Um

[5:25:31] I'm indifferent whether we ask them to

[5:25:34] reapply or or not. Uh

[5:25:37] honestly, I think it's going to be

[5:25:38] difficult to fill these positions

[5:25:40] because they're unpaid

[5:25:42] and

[5:25:44] it it if you have too many sessions, I

[5:25:46] mean it

[5:25:47] like the planning commission, if you're

[5:25:49] going to meet every month,

[5:25:51] um it's a lot to ask of a

[5:25:53] especially if they don't live in the

[5:25:54] city. So, um

[5:25:57] I'm in I'm inclined to say that uh

[5:26:00] we ask everybody to reapply.

[5:26:02] We're doing it the first three people to

[5:26:04] be considered will be the three that are

[5:26:06] willing to serve. And then see if we can

[5:26:08] do uh

[5:26:10] what we do about the other two. And the

[5:26:12] rest of the standards here.

[5:26:16] So, I'm I'm in favor of um

[5:26:18] I guess it's

[5:26:22] I guess we only have an A and B option.

[5:26:24] There's a

[5:26:25] uh open recruitment for the

[5:26:28] for the two at large.

[5:26:30] For open open recruitment for all

[5:26:32] positions. But encourage the three that

[5:26:34] uh are on the board to reapply.

[5:26:39] Yeah?

[5:26:40] » Um I'm just I think just open it up. I

[5:26:44] actually the two or three that are

[5:26:46] there, I think they're expediters. And

[5:26:48] I'm not sure if that's with it within

[5:26:50] hour. I don't I need a definition I

[5:26:52] guess of because I don't see that being

[5:26:56] the criteria, right? So, there's

[5:26:58] architect, lawyer, civil engineer. Are

[5:27:00] we opening it up to expediters?

[5:27:03] » Just for clarification for the council.

[5:27:06] Uh Lisa Niles is a licensed architect,

[5:27:10] uh also a contractor. I believe um

[5:27:13] Marissa is a

[5:27:15] contractor, uh licensed contractor.

[5:27:18] » I built the development center

[5:27:21] » Okay, Marissa, this is not a time for

[5:27:22] conversation. That's Please

[5:27:24] » Good to be clarified. I appreciate that.

[5:27:26] Um are we going with So, I just think

[5:27:28] that if these felt uh people want to

[5:27:31] reestablish themselves, they just

[5:27:33] resubmit. We can see their applications

[5:27:35] like we do with other things, and then

[5:27:37] it's a public forum in which we discuss

[5:27:40] the five or 10 people that come forward.

[5:27:43] And then we all kind of straw man or

[5:27:47] That's how I'm seeing it. I've never

[5:27:48] done an at-large election.

[5:27:52] Is that how it works?

[5:27:54] » Yes, at-large appointments to boards and

[5:27:56] commissions that typically a notice is

[5:27:58] sent out to solicit names.

[5:28:01] Staff will review those. We prepare an

[5:28:03] agenda item, bring it back and the

[5:28:04] council will vet them.

[5:28:06] » We look at resumes, we look at

[5:28:07] experience, if they're you know, okay.

[5:28:09] » Make public comment, make their case.

[5:28:11] » Make their case, public comment, it's a

[5:28:13] thing. Um okay, so that was my number

[5:28:15] one.

[5:28:16] » Okay, Steve.

[5:28:19] » I I think the

[5:28:20] earlier comment was saying it's going to

[5:28:22] be tough to fill though.

[5:28:24] It's going to be tough to fill these

[5:28:25] positions is is right the spot on.

[5:28:29] Uh

[5:28:31] you know, Lisa Nieles is an architect

[5:28:34] and her father her father is a very

[5:28:35] famous architect.

[5:28:37] Uh

[5:28:39] Lisa's been around a long time. You

[5:28:41] know, she knows her stuff probably

[5:28:42] better than anybody else in the city.

[5:28:45] All right? I mean, she's been working on

[5:28:46] So,

[5:28:48] I don't know why I'd want to bounce

[5:28:49] those people off.

[5:28:52] So, who's the third one?

[5:28:54] » Len Hecox.

[5:28:55] » Len Hecox. He's out of He's out of San

[5:28:57] Clemente or some place, right?

[5:28:59] » That is correct.

[5:29:00] » What does he do?

[5:29:01] » I think he's just an expediter.

[5:29:03] » Yes.

[5:29:04] » I used him.

[5:29:06] Well, he's an expediter.

[5:29:08] » Okay.

[5:29:10] I'd like to get another other than an

[5:29:12] expediter to get a a

[5:29:14] some kind of professional going in this

[5:29:15] slot.

[5:29:16] » Yeah, um you know, we agreed we're going

[5:29:18] to do these one at a time and it and it

[5:29:20] doesn't make sense, but you know, if we

[5:29:21] were to go, for example, with the

[5:29:23] county's regimen where it specifies the

[5:29:25] types of positions, that would

[5:29:27] automatically disqualify

[5:29:29] one of our five one of our four.

[5:29:31] So,

[5:29:34] only get three. One of our three, that's

[5:29:36] right.

[5:29:37] Um but let let's continue, but just keep

[5:29:40] that in mind that if we were to adopt

[5:29:42] the rules of specifying

[5:29:44] um

[5:29:44] » Why?

[5:29:45] » Their their profession because because

[5:29:46] Expediter wouldn't qualify.

[5:29:48] » So, we should narrow it down from the

[5:29:49] beginning of what expertise

[5:29:51] » No, under our current statute, it does

[5:29:52] it it's okay. Just has to be someone

[5:29:54] who's expert in the field, whatever that

[5:29:56] means.

[5:29:57] » And we're good with it, then we're good

[5:29:58] with

[5:29:58] » My take, I keep I keep Marissa and I

[5:30:00] keep Lisa Niles and let's

[5:30:02] put out where

[5:30:03] » Okay.

[5:30:03] » Where we get the other three people

[5:30:05] from.

[5:30:06] » Mary Ann?

[5:30:07] I was just going to say I I mean, I have

[5:30:09] no um

[5:30:11] issue with the people who are willing to

[5:30:13] serve on that, but I think for public

[5:30:16] clarity and disclosure that getting a

[5:30:19] list of their qualifications

[5:30:21] would put it the mind at ease that the

[5:30:24] people that

[5:30:27] may get appointed again do have

[5:30:30] um

[5:30:30] the qualifications and the knowledge in

[5:30:32] order uh to be able to do that. So, I

[5:30:35] would not that they won't get

[5:30:37] reappointed because I think we are going

[5:30:39] to have a really small pool. Um and

[5:30:41] anybody who's willing to serve, but just

[5:30:43] for public disclosure that we we know

[5:30:45] what their credentials are and they're

[5:30:47] documented um

[5:30:49] would be my inclination.

[5:30:51] » Yeah, I concur with that. I I I think

[5:30:53] that makes sense. I I would expect that

[5:30:56] I'm

[5:30:57] Marissa and

[5:30:59] um

[5:31:01] Who was the other one there?

[5:31:01] » Lisa Niles.

[5:31:02] » Lisa are clearly qualified and in all

[5:31:05] probability, if they applied and we

[5:31:07] looked it up, would be reappointed, but

[5:31:09] you never know. You never know who else

[5:31:11] would apply that that might be a

[5:31:12] superior candidate. Until we until we

[5:31:14] see, we won't know.

[5:31:16] » And I don't want to discount Lynn's

[5:31:17] qualifications cuz I don't know Lynn's

[5:31:19] qualifications. I know he has a very

[5:31:21] robust

[5:31:23] um

[5:31:24] amount of experience. I just don't know

[5:31:26] the details of that experience. So, he

[5:31:27] may actually have qualifying things

[5:31:30] » So, it's it's

[5:31:31] » To bring to the conversation.

[5:31:32] » It sounds like from a straw vote

[5:31:34] standpoint, we're all in agreement that

[5:31:35] we should open this up for uh

[5:31:37] recruitment. Um I I'm just throwing this

[5:31:40] out. I'm not really sure where I'd come

[5:31:41] up with The county has a board of five.

[5:31:46] What What would people think about

[5:31:47] asking if we could just use their board?

[5:31:52] » I would [snorts] rather try and recruit

[5:31:54] for our own so that we

[5:31:56] We need that local knowledge and I don't

[5:31:59] know that the county's

[5:32:01] necessarily has people who

[5:32:06] meet that qualification.

[5:32:07] » Yeah, so let me I wrote this down as a

[5:32:08] note and and I'm not saying I disagree

[5:32:11] cuz I don't know where I come out, but

[5:32:12] this point about local knowledge, Daron

[5:32:14] made the point they need to be familiar

[5:32:15] with the MMC and the Coastal Act. We're

[5:32:17] talking about building here. Uh why

[5:32:19] would somebody who's an architect or a

[5:32:23] um an engineer, especially, need to know

[5:32:25] anything about Malibu to be able to

[5:32:27] apply the building code?

[5:32:29] » It's funny this came up earlier on a

[5:32:31] call. Um it could go either way, but I

[5:32:33] do think that with the local coastal

[5:32:35] plan and the coastal zone and the

[5:32:38] beaches, there are unique

[5:32:41] » Aren't they planning issues?

[5:32:43] » Yeah.

[5:32:45] » I mean once once you've gotten your plan

[5:32:46] approved

[5:32:48] I mean Maryanne, I I'm It's a genuine

[5:32:49] question. I'm not debating the point.

[5:32:52] » I mean, I just I really think that

[5:32:54] having people that are familiar with

[5:32:57] Malibu would bring

[5:33:00] um more reassurance to anybody who's

[5:33:02] before the board that they're not just

[5:33:04] getting strangers from out of town.

[5:33:06] » That they actually are part of our

[5:33:07] community or close to.

[5:33:09] » And I I could see where where where

[5:33:11] somebody would actually prefer a

[5:33:12] stranger who's not part of the Malibu

[5:33:15] system, so to speak, that they're

[5:33:16] fighting against and trying to get a

[5:33:18] different decision.

[5:33:20] » We could open it up to outside of

[5:33:21] Malibu, just see what you get. Maybe you

[5:33:24] you get applicants.

[5:33:26] » All right, let's move on to the next

[5:33:27] point.

[5:33:28] » What

[5:33:28] » Qualifications.

[5:33:30] I'll go first. I I like the county

[5:33:32] system.

[5:33:33] I think it makes sense to have specific

[5:33:37] expertise that you're you're looking

[5:33:39] for. It's not what we have right now.

[5:33:41] What we have right now is as long as

[5:33:42] you're involved in the building industry

[5:33:43] in some way or another,

[5:33:45] you're qualified. I like the fact that I

[5:33:47] mean, being an attorney, I guess I'm

[5:33:48] partial to attorneys, but I think having

[5:33:50] one lawyer who's familiar with the

[5:33:52] building industry is going to bring

[5:33:56] it brings something to the to it that we

[5:33:58] don't have right now and that it ought

[5:34:00] to be on there. I like the the concept

[5:34:02] of two engineers. I like an architect

[5:34:04] and general contractor. And actually, if

[5:34:06] we were to go with that, it would at

[5:34:07] least

[5:34:08] it Marissa and Lisa could still be

[5:34:10] qualified even with those qualifi- even

[5:34:12] with those restrictions.

[5:34:15] » Could we see the list that the county

[5:34:17] does? Thank you.

[5:34:22] » This is a list a list for comparable

[5:34:24] jurisdiction structures.

[5:34:27] » And when it says attorney, it means an

[5:34:28] attorney with building

[5:34:30] » Experience.

[5:34:31] » Litigation experience. Some sort. Yeah.

[5:34:36] » One architect, one general contractor,

[5:34:38] one attorney with construction

[5:34:40] experience, two structural engineers, 10

[5:34:43] years of experience.

[5:34:45] » I like that.

[5:34:47] Do you want them licensed?

[5:34:47] [clears throat]

[5:34:48] » Well,

[5:34:50] » I like the difference between the

[5:34:51] general contractor and the competent

[5:34:53] builder.

[5:34:55] » Yeah, here's the issue I have [laughter]

[5:34:57] with that idea of having these

[5:34:59] specificity the specificity.

[5:35:01] You're going to have to deal with the

[5:35:02] people that are willing to take the

[5:35:03] position. And it'd be great if we had

[5:35:06] four architects that wanted it and then

[5:35:07] you got to pick one. And you got uh

[5:35:10] six building

[5:35:11] uh engineers structural engineers.

[5:35:14] We're going to have to see who really

[5:35:15] applies. We can always sort it out based

[5:35:18] [clears throat] upon what the applicant

[5:35:20] pool is. But honestly, I think the first

[5:35:23] thing we got to be cognizant of we got

[5:35:24] to be able to staff it with five people

[5:35:26] that we trust to make the decision.

[5:35:28] And then, if we got a plethora of of

[5:35:31] applicants, then we can pick and choose.

[5:35:33] » We could We could adopt a list of

[5:35:36] recommended position you know,

[5:35:38] recommended expertise subject to the

[5:35:40] fact that if you can't meet them, you

[5:35:43] can do something else.

[5:35:44] » Yeah. I think that's already on the this

[5:35:46] uh number two B, adopt a city council

[5:35:49] policy defining the experience and

[5:35:51] training that would qualify an

[5:35:52] individual on past board matters.

[5:35:54] Um

[5:35:56] um pertaining to building construction.

[5:35:58] And we could

[5:36:00] seek to fill the uh panel with those

[5:36:02] people, but you're going to have to take

[5:36:04] what you got if uh we don't get very

[5:36:07] many applicants.

[5:36:08] » Yeah.

[5:36:09] » I hate to say we

[5:36:10] » For sure. That's why I was thinking

[5:36:11] asking the county if we could use theirs

[5:36:13] would be perfect cuz they've got the

[5:36:14] five already.

[5:36:15] » They're also paid. They get paid, too.

[5:36:16] » They're compensated.

[5:36:17] » That's true.

[5:36:18] » Yeah.

[5:36:18] » We could pay them.

[5:36:19] » I think we just see what we get, try not

[5:36:21] be too restrictive, open it up, and then

[5:36:24] » Yeah.

[5:36:24] » Is any any body

[5:36:26] » We already have three that want to do

[5:36:27] it, so.

[5:36:28] » So So explain how you would couch that.

[5:36:31] » Um

[5:36:33] I would couch that as everybody who

[5:36:35] wants to do it can put their resumes in,

[5:36:39] their applications in. And then um I do

[5:36:42] think it's a it's good to have for us

[5:36:45] a um algorithm of one practicing

[5:36:47] architect, one licensed general

[5:36:48] contractor, one attorney, two structural

[5:36:50] under near engineers.

[5:36:52] We see who comes back.

[5:36:54] » So something like the city council

[5:36:56] should strive to fill the seats with

[5:36:58] these qualifications.

[5:36:59] » Yeah.

[5:37:00] » [snorts]

[5:37:01] » Yeah.

[5:37:01] » The most you can ask.

[5:37:02] » Anybody disagree Anybody I mean, does

[5:37:04] anybody want to just keep it as the as

[5:37:05] the current parameter, which is just

[5:37:07] five people who are qualified in the

[5:37:09] industry?

[5:37:09] » Well, that's the same

[5:37:10] » If you If we're going to fill this, you

[5:37:11] get it done in our lifetime.

[5:37:13] » Yeah.

[5:37:13] » I mean, I think there's a list There's a

[5:37:16] list that says, "Here's what you can be.

[5:37:17] You can be a contractor, you can be an

[5:37:19] architect."

[5:37:20] These are the qualifications we're

[5:37:21] looking If you've got those

[5:37:23] qualifications, apply. Okay? And we'll

[5:37:26] see what we get on that.

[5:37:28] I don't think we go out there and ask

[5:37:29] for a lawyer. We may get a lawyer, we

[5:37:31] may not get a lawyer.

[5:37:33] » You got it.

[5:37:34] » That's it. I mean, I think whatever the

[5:37:37] current list of requirements are that we

[5:37:38] think we need, if you if you fill one of

[5:37:41] those, you you can apply for the job.

[5:37:43] » Trevor, you want to say something?

[5:37:44] » Yeah, are you proposing to bring back a

[5:37:46] formal policy or are we talking about

[5:37:48] maybe add this to the application as

[5:37:50] preferred criteria?

[5:37:51] » I think we're talking about creating a

[5:37:52] policy which we may or may not want to

[5:37:54] later

[5:37:55] um

[5:37:57] codify.

[5:37:58] » Okay. And so, do you is this part of the

[5:38:00] direction to give staff to bring back a

[5:38:01] policy at this point or is this

[5:38:03] » Well, we're we need to finish the the

[5:38:05] points that we're discussing first.

[5:38:07] » I I think Well, one thing is if you look

[5:38:09] at the direction following your

[5:38:11] your staff request city council

[5:38:13] direction,

[5:38:14] and I think if we just tell them to take

[5:38:16] B,

[5:38:17] 2B, we're there. And if we get too

[5:38:20] specific, remember, we've got this

[5:38:22] this issue of AB 1130.

[5:38:24] So,

[5:38:26] be careful about this degree of

[5:38:28] standards.

[5:38:29] » The other item that I want to put in

[5:38:32] highlight for you is that you're not

[5:38:35] limited to that licensees, right?

[5:38:38] There's geotechnical engineers that you

[5:38:40] can hire. You can also engineers to

[5:38:42] this. So, it's

[5:38:44] you can make it broad,

[5:38:47] um and then as you receive the

[5:38:49] application, then you make the

[5:38:50] selections of who you want on the board.

[5:38:53] » Yeah, I'd post on Geo.

[5:38:55] » Mhm.

[5:38:57] » All right, [snorts] so what about local

[5:38:58] versus non-local? It seems to me that we

[5:39:01] should not constrain this to people who

[5:39:02] live in Malibu.

[5:39:03] » Yeah, I think one of the one of the

[5:39:06] selling points for somebody to volunteer

[5:39:08] for this

[5:39:09] is if I'm a professional in

[5:39:12] Beverly Hills,

[5:39:13] I can add to my resume that I'm on the

[5:39:16] uh

[5:39:17] Board of Appeals in Malibu.

[5:39:18] » Yeah.

[5:39:19] » That's the whole idea. You and you may

[5:39:21] never get called for it, but it looks

[5:39:23] like a good line on your resume.

[5:39:25] And you've got qualifications. You're

[5:39:27] You're knowledgeable. So, yeah, I think

[5:39:29] one of the ideas about being wide open

[5:39:32] for geography is to get people from

[5:39:34] other areas, especially if they've got

[5:39:36] an expertise in other cities, and they

[5:39:38] can talk about, "Well, this is being

[5:39:39] done in that city and this city."

[5:39:41] » That makes sense. You know, and if if we

[5:39:43] should get to the point where we're

[5:39:44] having difficulties filling the

[5:39:45] positions, what does the county pay per

[5:39:47] meeting?

[5:39:48] » I don't have that information, but I I

[5:39:50] can get it for you.

[5:39:51] » Okay.

[5:39:53] Who else has something to say on the

[5:39:55] geographical requirement?

[5:39:58] » I agree with Doug. I mean, we're

[5:40:02] too small too small a pool of people

[5:40:05] here in Malibu.

[5:40:06] If so, you know, I think if we can get

[5:40:07] so many good from the outside, we got to

[5:40:09] take advantage of that.

[5:40:11] » Miriam?

[5:40:13] » Agreed.

[5:40:15] » All right. So, sounds like we have a

[5:40:16] motion to give direction to the staff to

[5:40:19] come back with a proposal to open

[5:40:22] recruitment for all five positions, to

[5:40:25] establish a policy which sets forth

[5:40:28] qualifications

[5:40:30] in those five area in those four areas,

[5:40:33] but not require mandating that we limit

[5:40:36] who is appointed to those five spots,

[5:40:40] and not limiting it to being Malibu

[5:40:42] residents. Does that sound all right?

[5:40:44] » Any others?

[5:40:45] » And then we also would be requesting

[5:40:47] them to do the recruitment outreach.

[5:40:49] » Yes.

[5:40:49] » Yeah.

[5:40:50] » Will they have to come back, I guess,

[5:40:51] with a formal

[5:40:53] Do we need to come back with a formal

[5:40:54] policy of some sort before we do the

[5:40:56] recruitment, or can it all be done

[5:40:57] without coming back to us?

[5:40:59] » I definitely recommend discussing your

[5:41:01] policy, establishing the qualifications

[5:41:03] before opening a recruitment.

[5:41:07] » All right. So, I'll I'll move that we

[5:41:08] give the staff that direction.

[5:41:11] There a second?

[5:41:12] » I'll second.

[5:41:14] » Anyone to

[5:41:16] » All in favor?

[5:41:17] » Aye.

[5:41:17] » Aye. Okay, you have your direction.

[5:41:19] Thank you for that.

[5:41:21] Um it is after 10:30, which means we

[5:41:24] have to vote on proceeding. We still

[5:41:26] have three items. I understand that 7A

[5:41:29] is time sensitive.

[5:41:30] So, um

[5:41:32] I'm going to We're going to take them

[5:41:34] one at We're going to do them one at a

[5:41:35] time. I'm going to suggest that we're

[5:41:38] not likely to get to 7B and 7C. And

[5:41:41] actually, what I'd like to do is ask

[5:41:42] that we take 8A right now first. If we

[5:41:45] can get a vote of four votes to do that,

[5:41:48] and then we can talk about 7A.

[5:41:50] So, can Can we do 8A?

[5:41:53] » I mean, I would like to see some of the

[5:41:55] residents that I know go home tonight.

[5:41:58] So, if we could move 7

[5:42:01] B, no, 7C

[5:42:03] up, that would be great and get it off

[5:42:06] the agenda.

[5:42:08] » Well,

[5:42:08] » Okay, it's getting late.

[5:42:10] 7A is I mean, I think we got to do it.

[5:42:12] » We have to do 7A.

[5:42:13] » It Councillor, your microphone.

[5:42:15] » It's getting late. I think 7A is is

[5:42:18] important.

[5:42:19] But that's phase two of the

[5:42:22] uh waste water treatment

[5:42:23] » We have to do 7A. I'm I'm going to say

[5:42:25] it right now. I'm going to not vote in

[5:42:26] favor of moving beyond 7A.

[5:42:28] » Yeah, I I I'm I'm with you on that one.

[5:42:30] » Which means that there will not be four

[5:42:32] votes.

[5:42:33] So, we'll we'll vote on it when we get

[5:42:35] to it, but people who are here should

[5:42:37] understand that that's what where we're

[5:42:38] going to be.

[5:42:40] » [snorts]

[5:42:40] » When you say there's not going to be

[5:42:41] four votes, if you vote against

[5:42:42] something, you still have a chance for

[5:42:43] four votes.

[5:42:45] » No, Steve and I are going to not vote to

[5:42:46] proceed.

[5:42:47] » Okay, okay.

[5:42:50] » Do you want to just continue those other

[5:42:52] items to a future date to let everybody

[5:42:53] else go if you want to make the decision

[5:42:55] final?

[5:42:56] » Can we do that out of order? Can we vote

[5:42:58] to not do something out of order?

[5:42:59] » You can vote right now to continue all

[5:43:01] items except for 7A to the next meeting.

[5:43:04] » Okay, well, eight How long is 8A going

[5:43:05] to take?

[5:43:08] » Depends how many people put their hands

[5:43:10] up to

[5:43:11] » Yeah, let's stick with 7A. Let's stick

[5:43:12] with that

[5:43:14] one.

[5:43:14] » Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So,

[5:43:15] there's 7A, which is the wastewater

[5:43:18] treatment. Then there's 7B, which is the

[5:43:20] additional, which they've been here for.

[5:43:22] And then there's the ferry, right? So,

[5:43:24] what we're asking to do I don't see an

[5:43:26] 8A. Is there something I'm missing?

[5:43:28] » 8A is the

[5:43:29] appointment of an alternate

[5:43:30] » And I. I mean you or you or you.

[5:43:34] It's that.

[5:43:36] Um that'll be really quick. So, what

[5:43:37] we're asking the council to do is to

[5:43:39] either continue the meeting

[5:43:42] » Yes.

[5:43:44] All right, let me let me try this cuz

[5:43:46] Trevor's saying we can do it out of

[5:43:47] order, which I didn't appreciate we

[5:43:48] could do. I'm going to ask if we are

[5:43:51] willing to go forward after 7A with 7B.

[5:43:55] I'm going to vote no.

[5:43:58] » I'm a no.

[5:44:00] » So, that can't go forward if there are

[5:44:02] not four votes in favor.

[5:44:04] Are we going to go forward with 7C? I'm

[5:44:06] going to vote no.

[5:44:07] » I'm a no.

[5:44:09] » I'm a yes.

[5:44:11] But that doesn't mean anything cuz you

[5:44:13] need four.

[5:44:14] » That's right.

[5:44:15] So, we're not going to do 7C. Are we

[5:44:17] going to do 8A?

[5:44:20] » I would like to get everything off the

[5:44:22] agenda that we possibly can. So, I'm a

[5:44:24] yes to get it done.

[5:44:26] » I'm fine with 8A, Steve.

[5:44:29] » 8A was the

[5:44:30] » Appointment of an alternate for MR MRCA.

[5:44:35] I think it's going to take a minute.

[5:44:37] » It'll take a minute and a half.

[5:44:38] » I think we can do that. I'll take it in

[5:44:40] a minute and a half.

[5:44:40] » Doug, Mary Ann?

[5:44:42] » I'm good to go.

[5:44:44] » We need four votes.

[5:44:45] » Yeah.

[5:44:46] » Yeah, I'm in.

[5:44:47] » I'm in it. Are we supposed to be doing

[5:44:49] it like this?

[5:44:50] » What? What?

[5:44:50] » Are we supposed to be doing it like

[5:44:52] this?

[5:44:52] » I think we're just taking a straw vote

[5:44:53] right now to see if you want to continue

[5:44:55] all the other items and let people go.

[5:44:56] And so, you're

[5:44:58] polling the council about which ones

[5:45:00] you're going to have four votes for to

[5:45:01] continue.

[5:45:03] Is it that's the situation and you can

[5:45:04] just continue the other items right now

[5:45:06] with a motion and then let everybody go

[5:45:08] home.

[5:45:08] » Good night. I'm sorry. I wish we all did

[5:45:11] this at the beginning of the meeting.

[5:45:15] » So

[5:45:17] are we going to have four votes to go

[5:45:18] forward with 8A or not? That's what I'm

[5:45:19] trying to find out.

[5:45:20] » I'm a yes.

[5:45:21] » All right. Okay. All right. And

[5:45:24] technically, do we have four votes to go

[5:45:25] forward with 7A which we are told is

[5:45:27] time sensitive?

[5:45:29] » I am a vote yes.

[5:45:30] » Yes. Keep it

[5:45:31] » Keep trains on the tracks.

[5:45:32] » Yeah.

[5:45:33] » I'm in.

[5:45:34] » So is that a motion to

[5:45:37] call 7A and then

[5:45:38] » All right, let's do it technically.

[5:45:39] Motion to call 7A.

[5:45:41] » And then also continue item 7B and 7C.

[5:45:44] Do you want

[5:45:44] » Well, they're they're different votes,

[5:45:46] so that's why I wasn't putting them

[5:45:47] together. I'll

[5:45:48] second the motion to do 7A.

[5:45:50] » Okay.

[5:45:51] » Yeah, let's do 7A.

[5:45:52] » Anyone opposed? All in favor? Aye. Okay,

[5:45:55] so 7A we're going to continue.

[5:45:57] I mean, we're going to continue onward.

[5:45:59] » We're going to hear it now. We're going

[5:46:00] to hear it now.

[5:46:02] » All right. Um

[5:46:05] Mayor, I did just want to clarify it's

[5:46:07] up to the council's discretion. Did you

[5:46:09] want to take a motion to continue item

[5:46:11] 7B and 7C to provide that notice to the

[5:46:13] public or else they will wait here

[5:46:15] waiting to see if this item is heard.

[5:46:16] » We had done that.

[5:46:18] » We need a motion.

[5:46:19] » We understood the straw poll and the

[5:46:20] discussion, but if you want to take that

[5:46:22] act as a body now, it would be one of

[5:46:23] the two.

[5:46:24] » Here's my quandary.

[5:46:25] What's the most How do you formulate

[5:46:27] that motion when we're not up to the

[5:46:29] item?

[5:46:30] » It's similar to when we modified on

[5:46:32] approval of the agenda or when you come

[5:46:34] to the item, you can make a motion to

[5:46:36] continue item 7B and 7C to the June 22nd

[5:46:41] regular meeting.

[5:46:41] » What if we got three votes to continue

[5:46:43] and then we get to it and there's not

[5:46:45] four votes to do it?

[5:46:47] » Well, the motion to continue the items

[5:46:48] to a future meeting could fail and then

[5:46:50] the council just won't be able to

[5:46:52] provide that confirmation to the public

[5:46:54] and they'll need to wait and see if you

[5:46:55] have your supermajority to continue

[5:46:57] hearing it tonight.

[5:46:59] » Is until you actually continue the item,

[5:47:00] it can still be called.

[5:47:02] » So, if we vote if we were to vote now on

[5:47:04] to continue 7C 7B and 7C and that fails,

[5:47:09] we still have to vote on whether to hear

[5:47:11] it when we get to it.

[5:47:12] » That's why I was like, "Okay, well,

[5:47:14] sure. I'll move to continue 7B and 7C to

[5:47:18] a future meeting."

[5:47:20] » I'll second.

[5:47:23] » All in favor?

[5:47:25] » I.

[5:47:26] » I.

[5:47:26] » All opposed?

[5:47:29] » I'm opposed.

[5:47:31] » Maryanne, you're the tiebreaker.

[5:47:34] » Why does this keep happening?

[5:47:38] What

[5:47:39] What did you vote?

[5:47:40] » He voted

[5:47:41] » I I want to

[5:47:41] » He voted yes. So, then I'm going to vote

[5:47:43] yes. Let's just

[5:47:44] » Okay.

[5:47:45] » To have a fight over who's going to

[5:47:47] » Thank you. It wouldn't It wouldn't be a

[5:47:49] fight. It would just prolong the agony.

[5:47:50] Um

[5:47:51] Thank you. So, all right. So, now we've

[5:47:53] officially continued 7B and 7C.

[5:47:57] Let's continue and I think we were going

[5:47:59] to go forward with with 7A. So, let's do

[5:48:01] 7A.

[5:48:03] » Do we need a Tell like about a date?

[5:48:05] » We'll vote for that when we get to it.

[5:48:07] » Okay.

[5:48:08] » No one's here for it anyway.

[5:48:09] » No, we continued it to the next meeting.

[5:48:11] » We're going to reschedule 7B and 7C for

[5:48:14] the June 22nd meeting. The council still

[5:48:16] has to consider item 8A and will either

[5:48:19] make that appointment or continue that

[5:48:20] item to a future meeting date.

[5:48:22] » You got it. Exactly.

[5:48:23] » Thank you, Kelsey. And can it be early

[5:48:25] on the agenda or

[5:48:28] do I have to get a vote on that?

[5:48:29] » We'll have to vote on that when we have

[5:48:31] the agenda put forward.

[5:48:32] » Okay.

[5:48:36] » Can we have the staff All right. So, we

[5:48:38] are on 7A.

[5:48:40] Um let me give the official

[5:48:44] Civic Center Wastewater Treatment

[5:48:45] Facility Phase 2 update. This is a

[5:48:48] receive and file, I believe. Right?

[5:48:51] Um please raise your hand in Zoom if

[5:48:53] you'd like to speak on this item and

[5:48:54] you'll be called after the staff report.

[5:48:56] And are there any

[5:48:58] cards for people here?

[5:49:02] We have the staff report, please.

[5:49:05] » Mr. Mayor, um, city, uh, city council,

[5:49:09] before I start my presentation, I would

[5:49:11] like to announce that representative of

[5:49:14] the regional water board are here and

[5:49:16] they probably submitted a card to speak,

[5:49:19] but, uh, they're here present in the

[5:49:21] audience.

[5:49:23] And, um, this is the update on the

[5:49:26] memorandum of understanding between the

[5:49:28] regional board and the city for the

[5:49:30] phase two of Civic Center waste, uh,

[5:49:33] wastewater treatment facility.

[5:49:35] And the first slide is gives, uh, gives

[5:49:38] you the points why this update are

[5:49:40] important. Phase two is the next major

[5:49:43] implementation step of the Civic Center

[5:49:46] wastewater program.

[5:49:48] Uh, design, uh, must be modified due to

[5:49:50] cultural resources constraint and, uh,

[5:49:53] MOU amendment, uh, updates the

[5:49:56] implementation path and, uh, phase three

[5:50:00] trigger is consistent with the prior

[5:50:03] versions of the MOU.

[5:50:06] A quick project background, uh,

[5:50:08] September 2010, uh, state water board,

[5:50:14] um,

[5:50:15] announced the Malibu septic prohibition,

[5:50:17] uh, which, um, created a map

[5:50:21] and, uh, was phases, it was a phased

[5:50:23] implementation program.

[5:50:25] Uh, phase one was completed in September

[5:50:28] of 2018.

[5:50:30] Phase three, the city, uh,

[5:50:32] proceeded, uh, advanced with design and

[5:50:34] environmental review after phase one was

[5:50:36] completed,

[5:50:38] and, but the cultural resources issue

[5:50:40] required revision to, um, to the prior

[5:50:43] phase two approach.

[5:50:47] Phase two accomplishments include the

[5:50:49] delivery of phase one of the initial

[5:50:52] waste water treatment facility and waste

[5:50:55] water treatment and collection system.

[5:50:57] The phase one was completed before the

[5:51:01] applicable regulatory deadline.

[5:51:04] System provides treatment capacity,

[5:51:07] injection wells, and recycled water

[5:51:10] reuse capacity.

[5:51:13] The changes that happened with phase two

[5:51:16] were due to the cultural resources

[5:51:19] discovered along the proposed at that

[5:51:22] time Serra Retreat alignment of the

[5:51:25] pipeline.

[5:51:27] It is not

[5:51:29] because of that it could not proceed as

[5:51:32] previously designed.

[5:51:34] The proposed approach that you see

[5:51:37] before you today is separate Serra

[5:51:40] Retreats from immediate phase two

[5:51:42] construction path.

[5:51:45] Serra Retreat alternative would be

[5:51:47] evaluated through separate feasibility

[5:51:49] study process.

[5:51:53] And this is all included in amendment

[5:51:56] number four to the MOU.

[5:51:59] Certain Malibu Road properties moved

[5:52:02] from phase

[5:52:04] three into phase two now because Serra

[5:52:06] Retreat was eliminated from phase two.

[5:52:10] The um

[5:52:12] separate feasibility study process for

[5:52:14] Serra Retreat is being established but

[5:52:16] by this amendment.

[5:52:18] Area three is separated into um

[5:52:23] Phase three is separated into three

[5:52:25] areas, area one, area two, and Serra

[5:52:28] Retreat.

[5:52:30] And the prior phase three trigger

[5:52:33] framework

[5:52:35] is maintained

[5:52:36] at the same as was in previous MOU.

[5:52:41] Here is the map. This is the updated

[5:52:44] Malibu septic prohibition map and you

[5:52:46] can see all these highlighted areas

[5:52:49] which you have

[5:52:51] phase one in yellow, the phase one that

[5:52:54] was completed.

[5:52:55] Then you have [clears throat]

[5:52:57] phase two in tan color and this was

[5:53:00] modification was made to extend it to

[5:53:03] the western Malibu Road.

[5:53:06] Um

[5:53:07] and then you have the purple color, you

[5:53:10] have phase three

[5:53:13] which um

[5:53:14] has three areas.

[5:53:17] Area one is by the Malibu Pier.

[5:53:22] Area two is near the Civic Center Way uh

[5:53:27] and Malibu Canyon Road and phase three

[5:53:31] Serra Retreat is a now a separate

[5:53:34] separate area.

[5:53:39] The um

[5:53:42] uh framework that triggers phase three

[5:53:45] now in this amendment four stays

[5:53:48] consistent with the prior MOU.

[5:53:52] Um the water quality monitoring results

[5:53:55] are the one that are going to show us if

[5:53:57] the after implementation of phases one

[5:54:01] and two, phase three is going to be

[5:54:03] triggered.

[5:54:05] Um phase one and two um

[5:54:08] test results will show the bacteria and

[5:54:11] nitrogen reduction and if the if the

[5:54:15] goals set by MOU are achieved then

[5:54:19] achieved, then phase three will proceed

[5:54:23] will proceed with exception of not

[5:54:25] contributing properties.

[5:54:28] Uh

[5:54:28] phase one and two quality improvements

[5:54:31] are not achieved

[5:54:33] then

[5:54:34] the phase three will not be required and

[5:54:38] that will be considered that the lack of

[5:54:40] improvements

[5:54:41] that did not show the

[5:54:45] that phase three septic system

[5:54:49] will be the factors that will will be

[5:54:51] contributing to the water quality issue.

[5:54:56] Um here is a tentative implementation

[5:54:58] schedule.

[5:55:00] Uh tonight uh you're you're hearing this

[5:55:03] update. After that um

[5:55:07] the MOU will be published for the public

[5:55:09] comment.

[5:55:10] On July 2026, next month, the regional

[5:55:13] board can will consider the MOU

[5:55:15] amendment. Uh and we're planning bring

[5:55:18] it to the city council in August of

[5:55:21] 2026.

[5:55:23] Um

[5:55:24] the next um milestone will be uh CEQA

[5:55:27] addendum and coastal development permit

[5:55:29] amendment if required. We have a

[5:55:31] February 28th targeted for that date.

[5:55:34] Uh April uh 2028 uh phase two redesign.

[5:55:39] October 2028 assessment district

[5:55:42] formation.

[5:55:44] Uh we're looking at March of 2029 of at

[5:55:47] the construction contract award. And uh

[5:55:50] September 2030 for construction of phase

[5:55:54] two and um

[5:55:55] to meet the operation construction

[5:55:57] operation deadline.

[5:56:00] And uh this concludes my presentation,

[5:56:03] and um I'm available to answer questions

[5:56:06] as well as the um

[5:56:08] people from regional board.

[5:56:11] » Does anybody have any clarifying

[5:56:12] questions? Maryann?

[5:56:14] » Well,

[5:56:15] I don't know if it's

[5:56:17] August 2026 city council consideration

[5:56:21] the MOU amendment. And then February

[5:56:23] 2028

[5:56:26] Why is there such a long lead time

[5:56:28] between I mean, it's like 18 months.

[5:56:32] Am I

[5:56:33] not understanding

[5:56:35] » Yes.

[5:56:35] » What amendment or addendum is?

[5:56:38] » Yeah, thank you for this question.

[5:56:40] Um there is a there is a project

[5:56:42] redesign

[5:56:44] um

[5:56:45] that will [clears throat] will have some

[5:56:47] financial consideration

[5:56:49] that are put into the schedule. And also

[5:56:52] salary treat feasibility study,

[5:56:55] community outreach, securing easement.

[5:56:58] There is a lot of work that's happening

[5:57:01] in between. And in in the attachment to

[5:57:05] the staff report, there is a more

[5:57:07] detailed schedule that shows more more

[5:57:10] steps. I just provided

[5:57:12] major milestones.

[5:57:22] » I just want to make sure that we

[5:57:23] understand this correctly because you

[5:57:25] described what happens that

[5:57:27] phase three does not go forward if

[5:57:30] phases one and two do not produce the

[5:57:32] results that are desired or or or

[5:57:36] contemplated. That was what I always

[5:57:38] understood, but the last time we were

[5:57:40] together it sounded like we were being

[5:57:42] told it was the other way around. So I

[5:57:44] just want to make sure that we have it

[5:57:45] straight now. The way you described it

[5:57:48] is absolutely the way it works, right?

[5:57:50] » Yes. Yes. Yes, Mayor, you are absolutely

[5:57:53] correct. The last time there was a error

[5:57:56] made in the

[5:57:57] MOU language that the last time we

[5:57:59] brought it in front of you. And this

[5:58:02] amendment corrects it to the previous

[5:58:04] version of an MOU and matches the

[5:58:06] previous language and now it it is

[5:58:08] correct.

[5:58:09] » Okay. Now, does that mean that if if

[5:58:11] phase if pursuant to the MOU phase three

[5:58:14] is not required, the water board is

[5:58:16] done, they they they they are

[5:58:18] contractually bound to let us proceed

[5:58:20] without doing phase three?

[5:58:22] » Correct.

[5:58:22] » Or Yes.

[5:58:23] » Correct.

[5:58:24] » Okay.

[5:58:25] And what what are you what are other

[5:58:27] presenting this to us tonight, what if

[5:58:29] any guidance are you looking for from

[5:58:31] the city council?

[5:58:33] » Uh we would like to make sure you don't

[5:58:36] have any comments on the MOU. We wanted

[5:58:38] to present it before it goes

[5:58:41] with opens to the public comments and

[5:58:43] before it goes to the regional water

[5:58:45] board

[5:58:47] to make sure you don't have any

[5:58:48] additional comments any questions on the

[5:58:51] language of the MOU.

[5:58:52] » Okay. But before but

[5:58:54] whether we give you comments or not

[5:58:56] tonight, it's still going to come back

[5:58:57] for a hearing on whether to submit it as

[5:59:00] our

[5:59:01] as the MOU or whether to agree to it.

[5:59:04] » It goes to the

[5:59:05] the next step. It will goes for the

[5:59:07] public comments and then it goes to the

[5:59:09] board and then it comes back to the city

[5:59:11] council for the MOU approval.

[5:59:13] » Okay.

[5:59:14] » Tonight is just an update.

[5:59:15] » It tonight. I can't Tatiana, I think

[5:59:18] After the public comment period, the

[5:59:21] regional board will be presented with

[5:59:23] the MOU to approve and it's for my

[5:59:26] » Correct.

[5:59:26] » A public comment period. Not not it's

[5:59:28] going to come back here and we're going

[5:59:29] to have public comment. It's a it's just

[5:59:31] a notice goes out to the public and they

[5:59:33] can or don't have to make comments.

[5:59:35] » Correct.

[5:59:35] » Correct. The board yeah, the board's

[5:59:37] release it for the public comment period

[5:59:39] then it goes to the board and then it

[5:59:41] comes back to you.

[5:59:42] » So so although the report has said

[5:59:43] basically it it's make your comments now

[5:59:45] or forever hold your peace to the city

[5:59:47] council, right?

[5:59:48] » Yes.

[5:59:49] » Okay.

[5:59:50] Okay. Anyone else have any questions?

[5:59:53] We have four speaker slips. I just want

[5:59:55] to make a note we've been accepting

[5:59:56] tonight speaker slips that have come in

[5:59:58] during the staff report

[6:00:00] and because there was some confusion

[6:00:02] about that over the past few meetings.

[6:00:05] The

[6:00:05] resolution we adopted tonight when it

[6:00:07] goes into effect says you must submit

[6:00:10] your comment cards before the staff

[6:00:12] report begins. Otherwise they will be

[6:00:14] rejected. So we've been lenient in the

[6:00:17] future you have to have it in when the

[6:00:20] item is called.

[6:00:22] We have four speakers, Marissa Coughlin,

[6:00:23] Danny Smith,

[6:00:26] Jenny Newman, and Jeff

[6:00:29] Fawcett.

[6:00:36] » Thank you. Uh Director Holden's said

[6:00:38] everything and so I don't need to speak.

[6:00:40] Thank you.

[6:00:42] » Thank you, Marissa.

[6:00:43] Danny.

[6:00:46] » I need to speak.

[6:00:48] Um the staff report uh clarified

[6:00:51] something today which you asked about,

[6:00:52] Mayor, uh which is that phase three will

[6:00:54] only be implemented if they discover

[6:00:56] that phase two is successful in reducing

[6:00:59] nitrogen levels.

[6:01:00] Let me say that again.

[6:01:02] Phase three will only be implemented if

[6:01:06] they discover that phase two is

[6:01:07] successful,

[6:01:09] which means every homeowner in the

[6:01:10] colony and on Malibu Road is a guinea

[6:01:14] pig for an unsubstantiated whim of the

[6:01:17] Regional Water Board.

[6:01:19] They don't even know if this will have

[6:01:20] an effect.

[6:01:22] It's a $200,000 fact-finding mission for

[6:01:25] each assessed homeowner.

[6:01:28] Who negotiated this deal?

[6:01:31] Which city manager, which staff members,

[6:01:34] which law firm?

[6:01:36] Trevor, I think this probably predates

[6:01:38] you. I don't know if it predates BBK,

[6:01:40] but if our MOUs and our negotiations and

[6:01:43] our agreements with state-level agencies

[6:01:45] are us just consistently rolling over to

[6:01:48] nonsense, illogic,

[6:01:51] and spiteful impulses, I will make sure

[6:01:54] going forward that the city gets the

[6:01:57] legal prowess that we deserve and that

[6:01:59] we are paying for.

[6:02:01] I will not sit by and allow a lack of

[6:02:03] scientific substantiation, hunches, or

[6:02:07] targeted retribution terrorize the

[6:02:09] residents of this city.

[6:02:12] There is a reason that we face algae

[6:02:14] blooms in the early spring after the

[6:02:17] heavy winter storms. It is because

[6:02:19] surface level runoff brings the

[6:02:22] heightened nitrogen levels from

[6:02:24] fertilizers, from animal waste, from

[6:02:26] decomposing organic matter, not

[6:02:28] supposedly underperforming septic tanks

[6:02:32] that operate the same way year-round.

[6:02:36] If the water board is so dead set on

[6:02:39] improving our sanitary infrastructure

[6:02:42] without any evidence and only a

[6:02:44] conveniently targeted hypothetical,

[6:02:47] then they can bloody well pay for it as

[6:02:50] they did in the state of New York when

[6:02:51] they underwent their septic improvement

[6:02:53] program.

[6:02:54] Were that the case and they were on the

[6:02:57] hook for the investment, I think we'd

[6:02:59] find they suddenly care a lot less.

[6:03:02] I'd like to see a little more backbone

[6:03:05] out of this city. Thank you.

[6:03:07] » Thank you, Jenny.

[6:03:09] Jenny.

[6:03:14] » [snorts]

[6:03:19] » Good evening, Mayor Silverstein and

[6:03:21] council members. Thank you for the

[6:03:23] opportunity to speak. I'm Jenny Newman.

[6:03:25] I'm the assistant executive officer at

[6:03:27] the Los Angeles Regional Water Board.

[6:03:29] Also here is Jim Kang. He's the section

[6:03:31] manager

[6:03:32] of the groundwater permitting section at

[6:03:35] the water board. We are here to strongly

[6:03:37] support implementation of phase two of

[6:03:39] the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment

[6:03:41] Facility and the amendment to the MOU

[6:03:44] that will facilitate the implementation

[6:03:46] of phase two.

[6:03:48] It's an important step to improve water

[6:03:50] quality in Malibu Lagoon and at the

[6:03:52] beach to protect public health and the

[6:03:54] environment.

[6:03:55] Um the revisions to the MOU will ensure

[6:03:58] that phase two moves forward.

[6:04:01] Uh we'd like to thank city staff for

[6:04:03] their cooperation and hard work and

[6:04:05] patience uh throughout the amendment

[6:04:07] process. Thank you to

[6:04:10] um your interim city attorney and the

[6:04:12] city council for pointing out that error

[6:04:14] that we've corrected. And, um,

[6:04:18] just next steps,

[6:04:20] once the

[6:04:21] um, the LA water board staff, we plan to

[6:04:24] bring this to our board for adoption at

[6:04:26] their July 23rd meeting.

[6:04:29] Once the MOU is approved by all parties,

[6:04:32] staff look forward to working with city

[6:04:34] staff on moving forward with this

[6:04:36] important water quality improvement

[6:04:38] project. Thank you.

[6:04:42] » Thank you, Jenny.

[6:04:43] Jeff.

[6:04:52] » Thank you, Mayor, uh, council members,

[6:04:55] uh, city manager, and Trevor.

[6:04:58] My name is Jeff Foller. I've been up

[6:04:59] here before. I'm with Sarah Canyon.

[6:05:02] Um,

[6:05:03] and I just wanted to clarify a couple

[6:05:05] things on this most recent version of

[6:05:07] the MOU before you. Um, a couple of

[6:05:10] things, if you could put the map of the,

[6:05:12] uh, district up,

[6:05:14] uh, on the screen, I'd appreciate it.

[6:05:17] There's two [clears throat] items on

[6:05:19] this particular things that affect

[6:05:21] Sarah.

[6:05:22] And there's always been a big misnomer.

[6:05:25] The Sarah Retreat is the Franciscans,

[6:05:29] uh, who have a retreat on top of a, uh,

[6:05:32] hill inside of our neighborhood. Um, but

[6:05:36] it gets a little bit confused, but I

[6:05:38] wanted to point out to you that

[6:05:40] in the new drawing of phase, what they

[6:05:43] call phase three Sarah Retreat, which is

[6:05:45] Sarah Retreat portion of it,

[6:05:47] it it includes properties within our

[6:05:50] association,

[6:05:52] which were previously in phase three,

[6:05:55] uh, of the, uh, prior MOUs, which means

[6:05:59] that those properties, which are

[6:06:01] primarily up Sweetwater Mesa, are now

[6:06:05] obligated to go under the testing

[6:06:07] program and compliance within the new

[6:06:09] Sarah program

[6:06:11] designed. That's not so much of a

[6:06:14] problem from my perspective cuz I don't

[6:06:17] own one of those properties, but if you

[6:06:19] did own one of those properties that was

[6:06:20] previously in phase three and now you're

[6:06:23] looking at a situation of inspection and

[6:06:26] possible compliance require requiring

[6:06:29] advanced systems and so forth.

[6:06:32] I think it's a bit of a burden on these

[6:06:34] properties that were previously in the

[6:06:37] third phase. The other part of it is is

[6:06:40] that we have two entries into our

[6:06:41] neighborhood as most of you know. Sarah

[6:06:44] Road is one

[6:06:46] and Cross Creek Road is the other. On

[6:06:48] Cross Creek Road coming in from the

[6:06:50] Civic Center,

[6:06:52] there are five properties which are part

[6:06:54] of the Sarah Canyon neighborhood and are

[6:06:57] part of our association. And those five

[6:06:59] properties are now required to connect

[6:07:03] in the phase phase two. So they've kind

[6:07:06] of bifurcated or separated them from the

[6:07:10] neighborhood and I can tell you right

[6:07:11] now that they're not going to be

[6:07:13] thrilled about that particular thing.

[6:07:15] Oh, you got everybody excluded or put

[6:07:17] into this special thing except our five

[6:07:20] properties.

[6:07:22] So I think that's going to be a

[6:07:23] difficult discussion. Anyway, thank you

[6:07:26] for your time this evening and kind of

[6:07:28] review that.

[6:07:29] Thanks.

[6:07:30] » Thank you.

[6:07:32] Anybody on Zoom?

[6:07:34] » There's one raised hand from Ryan.

[6:07:37] » Okay, let's hear from Ryan.

[6:07:39] » I want to thank you for paying attention

[6:07:42] to this. This history goes back a long

[6:07:45] time to violations from 20 2005, 6, and

[6:07:50] 7.

[6:07:52] Mainly from commercial properties along

[6:07:53] Cross Creek Road that have addressed and

[6:07:57] are have been included in a newly

[6:07:59] constructed

[6:08:01] uh,

[6:08:02] large capacity sewage treatment plant

[6:08:05] which the city voluntarily agreed to

[6:08:07] construct under the original MOU.

[6:08:11] Uh, the property I have is in a

[6:08:13] condominium complex of three, actually

[6:08:17] four complexes which are tied together

[6:08:20] in an existing assessment district which

[6:08:23] successfully treats the water to state

[6:08:25] permit standards which gravity feeds

[6:08:28] into a different aquifer which is called

[6:08:31] the Winter Canyon Aquifer which goes out

[6:08:35] directly [clears throat]

[6:08:36] under PCH to the Pacific Ocean at

[6:08:38] Amarillo Beach.

[6:08:40] Most people don't know that's the name

[6:08:42] of the beach on Malibu Road.

[6:08:44] Um,

[6:08:45] the city conducted many studies uh,

[6:08:47] during the early uh, years and before

[6:08:50] Legacy Park was construction constructed

[6:08:53] and the uh, storm water treatment

[6:08:55] facility in front of Whole Foods was

[6:08:57] created and we've chipped away and

[6:09:00] solved the pollution problem.

[6:09:03] I I understand the corrective nature of

[6:09:05] defining the trigger for phase three.

[6:09:08] However, the uh, technical memo number

[6:09:11] four was never proven and it was

[6:09:13] disproven by the city's US Geological

[6:09:16] Survey report which was a peer study

[6:09:19] almost ready to be completed and well,

[6:09:22] you know, the water board had to have

[6:09:24] their prohibition hearing in November of

[6:09:26] 2009

[6:09:27] and just go for broke, get the time and

[6:09:29] try to get away with it.

[6:09:32] The executive director was

[6:09:34] quickly departed. That was Tracy Egoscue

[6:09:37] and other people uh, bear the brunt, but

[6:09:40] it was a total taking by making the

[6:09:42] properties uninhabitable.

[6:09:45] Now, our condominium association has

[6:09:47] operated this uh, with the County of Los

[6:09:50] Angeles operated plants successfully for

[6:09:53] all these years and paid to have it

[6:09:55] rebuilt.

[6:09:56] And it has an extended remaining life.

[6:09:59] The original lasted 38 years.

[6:10:02] And there's about a third or half of

[6:10:04] that useful life remaining. The main

[6:10:07] point is that gravity discharge does not

[6:10:10] require electricity and it doesn't

[6:10:13] raise the water table in the Civic

[6:10:14] Center and it does not pollute Malibu

[6:10:16] Lagoon according to technical memo

[6:10:18] number four, which was never proven.

[6:10:20] None of this was actually ever proven

[6:10:22] and the report that Jim Thorson, our

[6:10:25] city engineer and city manager was

[6:10:27] working on disproved it. And that's why

[6:10:29] we got stuck with this.

[6:10:31] So, I request that the

[6:10:33] properties connected to our existing

[6:10:35] assessment district be moved into phase

[6:10:37] three

[6:10:39] with the option to connect any time

[6:10:41] earlier

[6:10:42] as necessary to the city's plan.

[6:10:45] Thank you.

[6:10:46] » Thank you, Ron.

[6:10:48] That concludes public comment.

[6:10:51] Back to city council.

[6:10:53] » I have a question.

[6:10:54] Is the provision that we've been talking

[6:10:56] about with the under what circumstances

[6:10:59] phase three does not have to go forward

[6:11:01] anywhere other than in provision

[6:11:05] um

[6:11:07] article two

[6:11:09] subsection

[6:11:11] C sub paragraph

[6:11:15] three?

[6:11:16] Where is that the place where that's set

[6:11:18] forth?

[6:11:18] » That's the place where it's Yeah, where

[6:11:21] it sets that provision.

[6:11:22] » Okay, so here's my comment for the for

[6:11:24] the council to consider. Um this is

[6:11:26] stated

[6:11:28] the way this is stated, it says under

[6:11:30] what circumstances phase three is

[6:11:31] required to go forward. It does not

[6:11:34] state under what circumstances phase

[6:11:36] three is not required to go forward. It

[6:11:39] may be implied, but it is not expressed

[6:11:42] and I would like to see it expressed.

[6:11:44] So, my suggestion is

[6:11:47] um actually it's it's subsection two. I

[6:11:49] I I I referred to the wrong I said

[6:11:51] three.

[6:11:52] Um it says should the city and the Los

[6:11:54] Angeles Water Board determine that the

[6:11:55] implementation of phase one and phase

[6:11:57] two has resulted in bacteria and

[6:11:59] nitrogen reduction as set forth in

[6:12:02] 2C1 above, the city shall proceed with

[6:12:05] implementation of phase three excluding

[6:12:07] any properties the Los Angeles Water

[6:12:09] Board concludes and the city has

[6:12:10] demonstrated to have no contribution to

[6:12:12] bacteria or nutrient impacts to the

[6:12:14] Malibu Creek and Malibu Lagoon. I would

[6:12:16] add the following sentence.

[6:12:18] In the absence of such determination,

[6:12:20] the city shall not be required to

[6:12:22] proceed with phase three.

[6:12:28] Rob, you're you're raising your hand?

[6:12:36] This This says when it would be required

[6:12:38] to but it doesn't excuse performance.

[6:12:40] » We'll

[6:12:43] we'll maybe we can bring it up to the

[6:12:44] regional board and see if they can add

[6:12:46] that. That's the whole purpose

[6:12:48] for this meeting and this update is to

[6:12:50] get these little comments, get these

[6:12:52] discussions we can have it with the

[6:12:53] regional board so we can add those in to

[6:12:55] the to the final document. So I think I

[6:12:58] think it's a very good comment and and

[6:13:00] we can

[6:13:01] put that in and see how we we can

[6:13:02] incorporate that in.

[6:13:05] » Does anybody else have any other

[6:13:06] comments?

[6:13:08] » Can I ask for clarity one more time what

[6:13:10] that language was added?

[6:13:12] Sorry, Mayor.

[6:13:13] » It's okay.

[6:13:14] » It's on page 16 of the staff report.

[6:13:18] Um item two, I would add in between the

[6:13:21] two sentences that are there the

[6:13:22] additional sentence says in the absence

[6:13:24] of such determination, the city shall

[6:13:27] not be required to proceed with phase

[6:13:28] three.

[6:13:31] » My um one and only comment on this is

[6:13:34] Mr. Fowler brought up some concerns. Has

[6:13:37] the city addressed them with him and or

[6:13:40] did you guys get that?

[6:13:44] » Yeah, I I understand. I'd like some

[6:13:46] clarification as to which

[6:13:48] » Me, too.

[6:13:48] » Properties and

[6:13:50] » You guys must have discussed this with

[6:13:53] Jeff from Serra Retreat.

[6:13:54] » Yes, correct. I've had

[6:13:57] several several several conversations

[6:13:59] » So, he still sounds concerned.

[6:14:04] » On

[6:14:05] which which one particular?

[6:14:08] » The five houses?

[6:14:09] » The five houses that are on Civic Center

[6:14:10] Way or or on on Cross Creek will be

[6:14:13] connected in phase two.

[6:14:14] And and there's a line that goes right

[6:14:17] now there's a line on Civic Center Way

[6:14:19] that just goes right past uh Whole

[6:14:22] Foods. And and that line will continue

[6:14:24] up connecting those properties around

[6:14:26] around the the west side of Malibu

[6:14:28] Creek.

[6:14:29] » Okay.

[6:14:30] » They're

[6:14:31] » Were they always in phase two?

[6:14:33] » They're always in phase two.

[6:14:35] » Okay. Thank you.

[6:14:39] » Sweetwater Mesa

[6:14:41] » Jeff, sorry. No, we don't have comment

[6:14:44] at this

[6:14:44] » Send me an email if you're still

[6:14:47] confused or

[6:14:48] » Does somebody wish to have Jeff come up

[6:14:50] and ask him a question? Otherwise, he

[6:14:51] can't just comment from the uh

[6:14:53] » I mean, I would like just clarity on to

[6:14:55] make sure that we're all on the same

[6:14:57] page in the same hearing on

[6:14:59] on this. So, yes, please come up.

[6:15:01] » So, Jeff, could you please come up to

[6:15:02] the uh microphone?

[6:15:08] » So, those five properties that are on

[6:15:10] Cross Creek Road were always in phase

[6:15:14] two and continue to be in phase two.

[6:15:17] But, Serra Retreat has been taken out of

[6:15:20] phase two now.

[6:15:22] But, they are part of Serra Retreat. So,

[6:15:24] they're not being taken out of phase

[6:15:26] two. is the long and short of it. And

[6:15:29] the properties up Sweetwater Mesa, which

[6:15:31] is on the other side

[6:15:33] the properties up on the top part of

[6:15:35] Sweetwater Mesa were in the old phase

[6:15:39] three.

[6:15:40] But, now they're in the Serra Retreat

[6:15:42] special area. So, they're subject to

[6:15:46] analysis and planning and determination

[6:15:49] as to whether or not they're going to

[6:15:50] have to upgrade their septic systems to

[6:15:53] advanced system or whatever it was.

[6:15:55] Whereas before, when they were in phase

[6:15:58] three, they're subject to the criteria

[6:16:00] that if there's no improvement in the

[6:16:02] watershed, phase three's not going to go

[6:16:05] forward.

[6:16:07] » I followed the first part about the five

[6:16:09] being left in, but what can you repeat

[6:16:11] the last the second the other part

[6:16:13] again?

[6:16:13] » Yeah, up Sweetwater Mesa, the top

[6:16:16] portion of Sweetwater Mesa where many

[6:16:18] large estates are.

[6:16:21] Um they were previously in phase three.

[6:16:24] » And what are they now?

[6:16:25] » Now Now they're in Serra Retreat, that's

[6:16:27] special phase two.

[6:16:31] » Well, wait, aren't they in phase three?

[6:16:33] » Phase three.

[6:16:34] » It It's It's not It's not really phase

[6:16:37] three because the date criteria for

[6:16:40] compliance is earlier than phase three.

[6:16:44] » And and phase

[6:16:45] » There's going to be an inspection and a

[6:16:46] program designed for Serra Retreat.

[6:16:50] To be determined, okay? And then

[6:16:53] compliance with that program is required

[6:16:56] prior to phase three, if I'm not

[6:16:59] mistaken.

[6:17:00] Right?

[6:17:01] » That doesn't sound right. Is that

[6:17:02] correct?

[6:17:03] » So,

[6:17:04] » The Serra Retreat uh phase three

[6:17:07] includes

[6:17:08] a feasibility study. Based on that

[6:17:11] study,

[6:17:12] um

[6:17:14] that's going to make a determination on

[6:17:16] how all those properties in Serra

[6:17:18] Retreat are going to meet the water

[6:17:19] quality objectives in the septic

[6:17:21] prohibition.

[6:17:23] Um so, that's a little different than

[6:17:26] phase three. The other phase three

[6:17:28] it's up by Malibu Knolls, and the other

[6:17:31] phase three is on PCH

[6:17:34] over there by Serra.

[6:17:35] » So, let's do it this way. Suppose phase

[6:17:38] two is completed

[6:17:40] » Correct.

[6:17:41] » And the bacteria and nitrogen levels

[6:17:44] have not depleted to the point where

[6:17:46] phase three is required to go forward.

[6:17:48] Under those circumstances, is there

[6:17:50] something that these properties in Sarah

[6:17:53] Retreat, including the ones that Jeff

[6:17:54] just mentioned, would still need to do,

[6:17:57] notwithstanding the fact that phase

[6:17:58] three is not going forward?

[6:18:00] » The answer is yes.

[6:18:01] » Yes.

[6:18:01] » On page On page 14

[6:18:03] » What What is it?

[6:18:04] » On page 14 During phase two, the city

[6:18:08] shall [snorts] require properties in

[6:18:09] Sarah Retreat area shown from the red

[6:18:11] colored outline to implement

[6:18:14] interim measures to reduce nitrogen and

[6:18:16] and bacteria loading prior to the start

[6:18:19] of phase three.

[6:18:20] » Okay.

[6:18:23] » That's That's as I read your

[6:18:25] presentation

[6:18:27] you've got phase three, part one, phase

[6:18:30] three, part two, phase three, part

[6:18:32] three.

[6:18:33] And you're saying that

[6:18:36] it doesn't make any difference whether

[6:18:38] you're in

[6:18:39] the number one

[6:18:41] or number two. It's

[6:18:43] You're in phase You're in phase three.

[6:18:45] » So let me just clar- clarify. The

[6:18:48] triggering effect

[6:18:50] would be applicable to those properties

[6:18:53] and what is it? Um phase three.

[6:18:57] Phase three, area one and three.

[6:19:01] Not Not Sarah Retreat.

[6:19:03] » Okay.

[6:19:04] » So, because what I was saying, cuz your

[6:19:06] your map up there

[6:19:07] and I got confused I just thought it was

[6:19:09] a typo.

[6:19:10] Phase Phase three, area one

[6:19:14] gets done, you got a timeline for that,

[6:19:17] and then you've got a timeline later for

[6:19:19] area two. Is that right?

[6:19:22] » So

[6:19:23] So, area So, phase three, area

[6:19:26] one and two have the same timeline.

[6:19:29] » Okay.

[6:19:31] » Phase three, Sarah Retreat has its own

[6:19:34] separate timeline where they have to do

[6:19:36] feasibility study

[6:19:38] and look at methods on how they will

[6:19:42] achieve the water quality objectives.

[6:19:44] » But that that map should say phase three

[6:19:47] Serene Retreat area three, right?

[6:19:51] » It says phase three.

[6:19:53] Serene Retreat, which is a different and

[6:19:56] that's how it's labeled in the MOU.

[6:19:59] » Okay.

[6:20:00] » If [clears throat and snorts] you if you

[6:20:01] can look at the legend, there is a

[6:20:03] project areas in the red boundary shows

[6:20:07] phase three Serene Retreat and the cyan

[6:20:10] phase three one and two.

[6:20:14] » Okay, so let me

[6:20:15] let me go through this the way I

[6:20:16] understand it. First of all, as to the

[6:20:19] five properties that were in phase two

[6:20:23] and are still in phase two,

[6:20:25] I even though they're not getting the

[6:20:27] same benefit of the others, I can

[6:20:29] understand why the water board would

[6:20:31] keep those five in. I don't have an

[6:20:33] issue with that because they're not

[6:20:34] getting worse treatment than they had

[6:20:36] before. They're getting the same

[6:20:37] treatment. They're just not getting the

[6:20:38] benefit of being excluded.

[6:20:41] What I'm hearing, if it if it's correct,

[6:20:43] is that there are some additional

[6:20:44] properties that were in phase three

[6:20:49] to begin with that would never need to

[6:20:51] go forward if the nitrogen and hydrogen

[6:20:54] what's the other thing?

[6:20:56] If the if the two measures didn't drop,

[6:20:58] they'd never have to do anything

[6:20:59] further, but they've now been added into

[6:21:02] this special early remediation group. Is

[6:21:05] that accurate?

[6:21:05] » Correct.

[6:21:06] » Okay.

[6:21:07] That seems unfair.

[6:21:09] That they should have to do that at the

[6:21:11] to to in order to get the other ones

[6:21:13] out, they should have to be subjected to

[6:21:15] something new. That sounds wrong to me.

[6:21:17] So, can we work to adjust that so that

[6:21:20] they are in

[6:21:21] phase three full stop, not special phase

[6:21:24] three. Otherwise, it's not why would we

[6:21:27] be agreeing to help Sarah retreat out at

[6:21:29] the cost of other people?

[6:21:31] » Yeah, we can Yeah, we can add that

[6:21:32] comment and we can work with the reason

[6:21:34] board to see if we can clear that up.

[6:21:36] » Okay.

[6:21:36] » Yeah.

[6:21:37] » And do we need to to add

[6:21:40] If I heard Jeff correctly, there is the

[6:21:45] area of the neighborhood of Sarah and

[6:21:47] then there's the retreat itself.

[6:21:50] » Well, Sarah Retreat is a Franciscan

[6:21:52] retreat on top of the bluff in the

[6:21:55] middle with a big cross

[6:21:57] and it's been there for 50 years or 60

[6:21:59] or 75 years.

[6:22:01] » But the whole neighborhood's called

[6:22:02] Sarah Retreat.

[6:22:03] » And but people refer to the neighborhood

[6:22:05] as Sarah Retreat because that's the

[6:22:07] common name for it.

[6:22:09] We fixed that with our association by

[6:22:12] calling it Sarah Canyon Property Owners

[6:22:14] Association. So, we use the term Sarah

[6:22:17] Canyon.

[6:22:17] » And that's what I'm suggesting. Should

[6:22:19] we make that distinction?

[6:22:21] » I don't see why we need to

[6:22:23] » I'm asking the question.

[6:22:24] » This is though

[6:22:26] I think we need to give Rob some

[6:22:28] guidance on this issue.

[6:22:30] Um if the city goes back to the water

[6:22:33] board and says we we're not willing to

[6:22:36] sacrifice these properties that are in

[6:22:38] phase three to this

[6:22:41] hybrid phase three.

[6:22:43] Um and water board says, "Well, then

[6:22:46] we're not agreeable to taking the Sarah

[6:22:48] neighborhood properties out of phase

[6:22:50] two, where do we go?"

[6:22:52] That needs to I think we need to figure

[6:22:54] that out up front, right?

[6:22:56] » Sarah properties are out of phase two

[6:22:57] that the the uh

[6:23:00] cultural

[6:23:01] things they found on Sarah Road has

[6:23:03] moved them out of phase two. So,

[6:23:05] » I know, but but the cost of moving them

[6:23:07] out of phase two was to add these other

[6:23:08] properties into this hybrid.

[6:23:10] » I don't know how they figured their cost

[6:23:12] out. I mean, they somebody just

[6:23:14] they they were not in before, they

[6:23:16] shouldn't be in now and I don't know why

[6:23:17] they are.

[6:23:19] » Is is is someone that's here from the

[6:23:21] water board capable to address this?

[6:23:24] Could you come up? Thank you.

[6:23:31] How did those additional properties end

[6:23:32] up getting flipped into a into this

[6:23:34] preliminary group?

[6:23:37] » Um

[6:23:39] So, the reason I'm I'm not sure the

[6:23:42] additional properties, are you talking

[6:23:43] about the five properties in phase two?

[6:23:45] » No, the ones that are in Sweetwater

[6:23:48] Mesa.

[6:23:49] » On the northeast corner.

[6:23:50] » So, the the area labeled phase three

[6:23:53] Sarah Retreat in the red outline or just

[6:23:55] a small portion of those?

[6:24:00] » So, those weren't Are you saying that

[6:24:01] those properties Oh, I I came up to

[6:24:03] answer a different question

[6:24:05] um about the interim measures

[6:24:07] requirement.

[6:24:08] » Yeah, what what I understand we're being

[6:24:09] told is that

[6:24:12] phase the the the pure phase three,

[6:24:16] forget before this was rejiggered, the

[6:24:18] the pure phase three

[6:24:20] um included certain properties that now

[6:24:22] are in this hybrid phase three in at the

[6:24:25] same time as other ones which were in

[6:24:27] phase two are being moved into the

[6:24:28] hybrid phase three at the same time. So,

[6:24:31] the question is, why did additional

[6:24:33] properties that were always in phase

[6:24:35] three to begin with, why are they now in

[6:24:37] the hybrid in the hybrid phase three?

[6:24:41] » I'm sorry, I don't understand which

[6:24:43] additional properties are now in phase

[6:24:44] three that weren't in the phase three

[6:24:46] before.

[6:24:46] » Rob, could you explain that?

[6:24:48] » So, yes, so so

[6:24:50] I I so I believe a couple a couple of

[6:24:53] things in here and then

[6:24:55] um

[6:24:56] when we first looked at the issue of the

[6:24:59] cultural resources

[6:25:01] and we looked at ways how we could kind

[6:25:03] of

[6:25:05] come up with solutions to still meet the

[6:25:07] water quality objectives and and and

[6:25:09] still meet the

[6:25:11] the criteria to meet in the the nitrogen

[6:25:13] and bacteria reduction.

[6:25:15] We looked at first swapping out the same

[6:25:18] flow from Sara Retreat over to those

[6:25:21] properties on Malibu Road. So, you got

[6:25:23] an equal flow, so we can meet those kind

[6:25:26] of the flow requirement.

[6:25:28] The second part was looking how we could

[6:25:30] address Sara Retreat all as all as one

[6:25:34] unit rather than split it up into into

[6:25:37] two separate units

[6:25:38] on

[6:25:40] for Sweetwater Mesa and for Sara

[6:25:42] Retreat. That was just something that we

[6:25:44] just we

[6:25:45] the city and the regional board put

[6:25:47] together to look at a a way to

[6:25:50] streamline this, make this a a little

[6:25:52] bit cleaner and easier for

[6:25:54] implementation down the road. So, if

[6:25:57] council believes that and that we need

[6:25:59] to go back to including the Sweetwater

[6:26:02] Mesa section in in a standalone phase

[6:26:06] three,

[6:26:08] we can look at that and have the

[6:26:09] discussion with the regional board.

[6:26:11] » Okay, well, that makes sense. Since we

[6:26:12] have Jenny here, what I'm trying to

[6:26:13] understand is what what what their

[6:26:15] likely response is going to be.

[6:26:16] » Can you identify which properties we're

[6:26:18] talking about for her?

[6:26:19] » Well, hold on a second. Within one of

[6:26:21] the questions, did the boundary change

[6:26:24] for

[6:26:24] phase three? Isn't that really the

[6:26:26] issue?

[6:26:28] Because you're talking about properties

[6:26:29] being added.

[6:26:31] Were they inside the boundary before or

[6:26:33] not inside the boundary?

[6:26:34] » What I'm hearing is they were always in

[6:26:36] the boundary for phase three, but

[6:26:37] they're now in the boundary of this

[6:26:40] phase three, but which must do some

[6:26:41] preliminary abatement process that isn't

[6:26:44] otherwise necessary if

[6:26:46] » If you're in phase two.

[6:26:47] » They're in the upper northeast corner.

[6:26:48] » Yeah. Yeah.

[6:26:51] » I'm looking at the upper east corner

[6:26:53] northeast corner of this map and it it's

[6:26:56] all grouped together under phase three

[6:26:58] Sara Retreat.

[6:26:59] » Right.

[6:27:00] » So, those

[6:27:02] facilities used to be [clears throat] in

[6:27:03] phase two.

[6:27:06] » Jeff is saying that certain of them were

[6:27:07] in phase three even though the rest of

[6:27:09] it was phase two. I don't know whether

[6:27:11] that's accurate, but

[6:27:12] » Mayor, I I've got a little if you can

[6:27:15] see on the screen there's a

[6:27:17] marker.

[6:27:18] I got it so

[6:27:21] if I if I understand correctly it's

[6:27:25] I'm going to do an outline of the

[6:27:27] properties with that were in

[6:27:30] the that was the that was the phase

[6:27:32] three.

[6:27:34] Over here on this side.

[6:27:37] So all these Sweetwater Mesa properties

[6:27:40] that were on the the east side.

[6:27:43] » And was it a conscious determination to

[6:27:46] subject them to the preliminary

[6:27:49] things that need to be done or did it

[6:27:51] just get done in the wash?

[6:27:53] » It was done to to make this phase to

[6:27:57] make this area treat just just more

[6:27:59] concise more just just easier to kind of

[6:28:02] implement

[6:28:03] implement them together

[6:28:05] and that was the only reason why we were

[6:28:07] kind of discussing it.

[6:28:08] » So Jenny, what I'm understanding is what

[6:28:10] what Rob just outlined was always

[6:28:13] purple.

[6:28:14] To the right of that to the left of that

[6:28:16] was was phase two.

[6:28:18] That got shifted into phase three but

[6:28:20] subject to this preliminary requirements

[6:28:22] still but in doing that what was left to

[6:28:26] the side which was always the pure phase

[6:28:28] three now got shifted into this new

[6:28:30] provision. Was that intentional? Is that

[6:28:33] something that would have been in the

[6:28:33] system?

[6:28:33] » Yes, I I understand now. I

[6:28:35] thank you for your indulgence and

[6:28:38] explaining it to me and yes. The reason

[6:28:41] that the properties all of the

[6:28:43] properties

[6:28:45] east of Malibu Creek were no longer

[6:28:49] considered for phase two was because of

[6:28:51] the discovery of the cultural resource.

[6:28:54] And

[6:28:55] so they

[6:28:58] so they are all in phase three now. All

[6:29:01] the properties to the east of Sara

[6:29:04] Retreat because it's not possible to

[6:29:06] connect them to

[6:29:09] the wastewater treatment facility in

[6:29:11] phase two.

[6:29:13] » Right, but that's not the issue. The

[6:29:14] issue

[6:29:14] Yeah. The additional The ones that were

[6:29:16] in phase three to begin with

[6:29:18] might never have to do anything.

[6:29:20] » Before

[6:29:21] » But now, by virtue of them being called

[6:29:25] the sewer retreat area, they're going to

[6:29:27] have to do this preliminary abatement

[6:29:30] work that they otherwise wouldn't have

[6:29:31] had to do.

[6:29:32] » I understand. We need to look at the

[6:29:34] numbers, but that we could There is a

[6:29:37] like a teal blue line outlined for area

[6:29:40] two and one. We could consider drawing

[6:29:44] that outline around those properties

[6:29:46] that were originally in phase three.

[6:29:48] » That seems fair to me if that if you'd

[6:29:50] be willing to do that, that would work

[6:29:52] for me.

[6:29:53] » So, just

[6:29:54] just one more thing. Um

[6:29:56] and Jenny pointed out a good thing.

[6:29:58] Um

[6:29:59] » Oh.

[6:30:01] » I mean, even if they're in phase three

[6:30:03] in the in the the traditional phase

[6:30:06] three, the same issue is going to comply

[6:30:08] with

[6:30:09] the issue of a pipeline in sewer retreat

[6:30:12] and the cultural resources. So, Jenny

[6:30:14] pointed out it's always going to be an

[6:30:16] issue with doing a septic or sewer line

[6:30:19] in that in that area. So, the reason

[6:30:22] that we're

[6:30:23] creating this phase three is to is to

[6:30:26] potentially eliminate having to trench

[6:30:28] and put a pipeline [clears throat]

[6:30:30] and collection system through a very

[6:30:33] sensitive cultural resource.

[6:30:34] » I mean it.

[6:30:36] » And if I may add, so the water board's

[6:30:39] position is that the data will show that

[6:30:42] phase three is needed. We do think that

[6:30:45] that that this technically supported

[6:30:47] that the septic systems are causing the

[6:30:49] impairment in the lagoon and the and the

[6:30:51] beach. And so, when that when So, from

[6:30:54] our perspective, we think that phase

[6:30:55] three will go forward, and these

[6:30:57] properties being on the far east side of

[6:31:00] this phase three sewer Retreat area may

[6:31:03] have trouble with connecting because

[6:31:05] that it put issue with the cultural

[6:31:07] resource will always be there. So,

[6:31:10] if uh um

[6:31:12] they would be required to connect and

[6:31:13] then there would be another prolonged

[6:31:15] way to try and figure out how to connect

[6:31:17] them.

[6:31:21] » I'm I'm still not clear on why the ones

[6:31:25] that are to the far right that were in

[6:31:28] phase three to begin with are now

[6:31:32] being moved up to doing something before

[6:31:34] phase three comes into effect, if it

[6:31:36] ever comes into effect.

[6:31:38] » And then

[6:31:40] so that was just done purely for

[6:31:42] efficiency to make all of Sarah Retreat

[6:31:45] have in the same requirement, knowing

[6:31:47] that

[6:31:48] that there were

[6:31:49] probably never be a way to get a sewer

[6:31:53] connection line or

[6:31:55] a sewer system underground constructed

[6:31:58] in that area. To offset that, let's

[6:32:02] you know, we talked about maybe there's

[6:32:04] a way we can just combine all of all in

[6:32:06] one, make it efficient, and and make it

[6:32:09] kind of easier to implement. But, if if

[6:32:12] council thinks that's you know, you you

[6:32:14] want to go back and include them in

[6:32:15] phase three, the thing that I I would

[6:32:19] kind of look look to and we'll work with

[6:32:22] the regional board on this is that those

[6:32:24] properties on the Sweetwater Mesa,

[6:32:27] instead of

[6:32:28] yeah, they'll still be tied to phase

[6:32:30] three, that the trigger and effect, but

[6:32:31] maybe

[6:32:32] instead of solving a sewer line, they'll

[6:32:34] have to do some type of septic upgrade,

[6:32:37] like maybe what they'll have to do the

[6:32:38] rather the rest of Sarah Retreat.

[6:32:41] So, that's that's an option too that we

[6:32:42] can discuss and talk about.

[6:32:46] » If you're confused now, you should have

[6:32:47] been here when they were originally

[6:32:48] coming up with this plan. Everybody was

[6:32:51] confused, and they still are. All right?

[6:32:54] I mean, there It's best I can recall,

[6:32:56] and I say it through every one of the

[6:32:58] damn meetings, all right?

[6:32:59] Uh

[6:33:00] Sara Retreat.

[6:33:02] They never did any testing in Sara

[6:33:03] Retreat. Now

[6:33:05] Sara Retreat tested their own wells

[6:33:08] and found those wells were were had no

[6:33:10] pollution in them whatsoever.

[6:33:13] Regional board didn't do anything. They

[6:33:14] just said you got to hook up.

[6:33:16] I live up on the knolls. If I pee today,

[6:33:19] I'll be dead before all of that stuff

[6:33:20] hits the ocean, all right? I mean

[6:33:23] this it's back to what

[6:33:25] Danny was saying

[6:33:27] uh

[6:33:29] » Okay, but we're we're we're not here to

[6:33:30] re-tread all this stuff.

[6:33:31] » Well, yeah, I know, but I re-tread it

[6:33:33] every time I have to go through this

[6:33:34] stuff because this this was

[6:33:36] it it it was done

[6:33:39] again. And nobody was was the pollution

[6:33:42] coming down the creek? Don't know.

[6:33:44] Nobody tested it.

[6:33:46] Uh so it's just just

[6:33:48] I see where you're confused cuz we're

[6:33:50] all confused when this thing started

[6:33:52] out, and we still are.

[6:33:54] » Mary, did you say something about

[6:33:56] » Well, so looking at this map, I'm a

[6:33:58] little confused. Um the color

[6:34:02] So along Pacific Coast Highway over the

[6:34:04] bridge

[6:34:06] and

[6:34:07] there are some properties

[6:34:12] I'm trying to figure out. So

[6:34:14] the

[6:34:16] blue line that's surrounding the purple

[6:34:18] shaded area, which is Surf Rider, the

[6:34:21] pier

[6:34:22] and the restaurants that are along

[6:34:23] those.

[6:34:25] There's no connection, right? I'm not

[6:34:27] I'm just seeing a phantom line across

[6:34:29] the bridge?

[6:34:31] » Um you're you're talking about um

[6:34:34] history area one, right?

[6:34:38] » Yes.

[6:34:39] » Yes.

[6:34:40] Yeah, there are there is no line. There

[6:34:42] is just it shows just the properties

[6:34:44] » No clean line that continues

[6:34:47] along Pacific Coast Highway and hits

[6:34:50] Jack in the Box.

[6:34:51] » Uh

[6:34:51] it it just, it just, it just circles

[6:34:54] around the properties. You might see

[6:34:56] that there is a like a gap which

[6:34:59] on the Pacific Coast Highway itself, but

[6:35:02] yeah, it includes the properties on the

[6:35:03] south side and the north side of PCH.

[6:35:06] » Okay.

[6:35:07] Um

[6:35:09] So, essentially everything that's in

[6:35:12] Phase 3 Sarah

[6:35:14] Property Owners Association is going to

[6:35:16] be subject subject to upgrading their

[6:35:19] septics from traditional to alternative

[6:35:23] regardless.

[6:35:24] » Based Yes, based on the feasibility

[6:35:26] study.

[6:35:26] » With no proof whatsoever that they're

[6:35:28] polluting.

[6:35:30] » I All you need to do All we need to do

[6:35:32] here is move the border of Phase 3 Sarah

[6:35:36] Retreat to the left and leave the

[6:35:41] remaining part of it as it always was as

[6:35:43] pure Phase 3.

[6:35:45] » Yeah.

[6:35:46] » That requires the water board agreeing

[6:35:48] to that. That's all. I mean, I I don't

[6:35:50] know whether that's going to be

[6:35:51] something they'll be willing to do or

[6:35:52] not. And if they're not willing My

[6:35:53] question is if they're not willing to do

[6:35:55] it, where we're going to Where are we

[6:35:56] going? Are we still Do we want to just

[6:35:58] live with the existing MOU?

[6:36:00] Which does Which sounds like we can't

[6:36:02] because of the cultural resources.

[6:36:05] » And And Mayor,

[6:36:07] um I I think it's

[6:36:10] I I think it's just a matter of timing

[6:36:12] that if if we keep that the old Phase 3

[6:36:15] in Phase 3 and um

[6:36:19] they'll still be

[6:36:22] potentially applicable for the

[6:36:24] feasibility study. Maybe they'll have

[6:36:26] they'll have to upgrade their septic

[6:36:27] system, but it it it'll all be dependent

[6:36:30] upon the triggering effect on Phase 3 if

[6:36:32] they have to or not.

[6:36:33] » No, no, the way it is right now, if

[6:36:36] Phase if if the testing doesn't show the

[6:36:39] need to proceed with Phase 3, then the

[6:36:41] part that is the traditional original

[6:36:43] Phase 3 doesn't have to do anything

[6:36:45] either in connection with Phase 3 or

[6:36:47] before phase three.

[6:36:48] » Correct.

[6:36:49] » And if the test and and that'll be the

[6:36:51] same And and okay, so in the Sarah

[6:36:54] Retreat area, which was phase two, which

[6:36:56] would now have to do go forward, won't

[6:36:58] have to go forward unless phase three's

[6:37:00] required, but they are still required to

[6:37:02] do something else anyway that wasn't

[6:37:05] there before.

[6:37:07] But that additional requirement is now

[6:37:08] being imposed on the Sweetwater Mesa

[6:37:10] area, which wasn't there before. So,

[6:37:13] they're now going to be subjected to

[6:37:14] this additional burden that they didn't

[6:37:16] have before. And if phase three doesn't

[6:37:19] go forward, they will have had to have

[6:37:20] lived with that even though they

[6:37:21] otherwise would have been excused from

[6:37:23] anything. That does not seem right to

[6:37:25] you.

[6:37:25] » What what what what I'm saying is

[6:37:27] I I

[6:37:28] you know, I think I'm agreeing with you.

[6:37:30] And it's just a matter of just kind of

[6:37:32] redrawing that section in phase three

[6:37:35] and putting some requirements in there

[6:37:37] that are similar to to make sure that

[6:37:40] there's

[6:37:43] there's a method to if it has to go

[6:37:45] through, this is this is how they're

[6:37:47] going to do it.

[6:37:49] Because

[6:37:50] because originally they had a sewer line

[6:37:52] going through their property

[6:37:54] to the to the streets and there's no way

[6:37:56] of

[6:37:57] putting a sewer line in Sarah Retreat

[6:37:58] with without disturbing the cultural

[6:38:00] resource. So, that's why all those

[6:38:03] properties in Sarah Retreat are going to

[6:38:04] look at

[6:38:06] um

[6:38:07] feasibly study to see how what they can

[6:38:09] do like like upgrade their septic

[6:38:11] systems.

[6:38:13] » Does that include the Sweetwater Mesa

[6:38:14] property?

[6:38:15] » Correct. Correct.

[6:38:16] » They won't be able to get a sewer line

[6:38:17] either?

[6:38:18] » Correct.

[6:38:21] Sweetwater Mesa comes off of Sarah Road.

[6:38:26] » There's a big mountain there. They

[6:38:29] How are they going to get a sewer line

[6:38:30] anyway?

[6:38:32] Pump stations?

[6:38:35] It's a It's a significant

[6:38:37] » Potentially.

[6:38:40] » Rob, wouldn't it be better just to,

[6:38:43] uh, take phase three and have area three

[6:38:46] and area four?

[6:38:48] » That's That's essentially what I'm

[6:38:50] saying.

[6:38:51] » That That solves the problem. Area four

[6:38:53] becomes the old phase three.

[6:38:56] And

[6:38:57] phase three area three is the one that's

[6:39:01] subject to the testing.

[6:39:02] » Correct.

[6:39:04] » That solves it.

[6:39:05] » Yep.

[6:39:07] » And so I have clarity, we don't even

[6:39:09] know if the bacteria is being caused by

[6:39:12] the septics.

[6:39:16] And we're doing all of this.

[6:39:19] Yeah.

[6:39:21] » Yes, the water board has found that

[6:39:22] these systems are a source of are are

[6:39:25] are source of bacteria and and nitrogen

[6:39:27] to the lagoon and to the beach.

[6:39:30] » That out?

[6:39:30] » Through the TMDL, through subsequent,

[6:39:33] um, modeling and monitoring efforts and

[6:39:36] through the, um,

[6:39:39] the the prohibition and the technical,

[6:39:41] uh, support for that. But that's that's,

[6:39:44] you know, like as pointed out, that was

[6:39:45] that was old and there's been subsequent

[6:39:47] studies to,

[6:39:49] um, to affirm the the linkage between

[6:39:52] the septic systems and the bacteria.

[6:39:54] » We've never seen those studies.

[6:39:56] » I'd love to see them. Well, have they

[6:39:57] been proven that they're human-based

[6:40:01] biological and nitrogen sources or is it

[6:40:04] » Bird?

[6:40:05] » Right.

[6:40:06] » Um, there's there's both kinds. Mostly

[6:40:09] it Most of the information is of the

[6:40:12] indicator bacteria, which don't

[6:40:14] distinguish between human animal, but

[6:40:16] there is some, um,

[6:40:18] human, uh,

[6:40:20] human source, uh, studies, but they're

[6:40:22] they're much smaller. Yeah.

[6:40:24] » Can we get those studies that

[6:40:25] demonstrate that you talked about there?

[6:40:28] Are they available?

[6:40:29] » Sure. One of them is the, um, the the

[6:40:32] city's, um, you know, defining of the

[6:40:36] the the Stone Environmental Report and

[6:40:39] the

[6:40:40] the that were done in in in response to

[6:40:43] the TMDL to define the contributing area

[6:40:46] of this the septic systems. We can send

[6:40:48] that to you.

[6:40:50] » Yeah, look guys.

[6:40:51] » Yeah, look notwithstanding Danny's great

[6:40:53] advocacy and if we were back 15 years

[6:40:55] ago what we would do today, we can't

[6:40:57] relitigate this. We have a contract.

[6:41:00] We need to go forward with our contract

[6:41:01] and what changes are going to be

[6:41:02] » What changes are going to be made. I

[6:41:03] don't think it matters if we relitigate.

[6:41:05] I don't think we're Look, they've got to

[6:41:06] prove If you don't do what they want,

[6:41:07] they're going to find you 10,000 bucks a

[6:41:09] day.

[6:41:10] Right?

[6:41:11] » Well, we have an agreement on what work

[6:41:13] on what on how to solve that problem.

[6:41:14] » I'm saying that that was that was the

[6:41:16] threat they gave everybody. If you

[6:41:17] didn't look out

[6:41:19] 1,000 bucks a day or 10, I can't

[6:41:20] remember what the number was.

[6:41:22] » It depends on the violation, but this

[6:41:24] would you would need to if the

[6:41:27] if the agreement went away, the board

[6:41:30] could exercise its authority.

[6:41:31] » Exactly.

[6:41:31] » Essentially to require advanced

[6:41:33] treatment systems for all of these.

[6:41:34] » Right.

[6:41:35] » But we think it's better for everyone to

[6:41:37] do centralized wastewater treatment

[6:41:39] package treatment plants.

[6:41:41] Keep local control with

[6:41:43] » I agreed. I I would love to see

[6:41:46] clean water in the ocean and in the

[6:41:47] creek. I got no problem with that stuff.

[6:41:49] I I got a concern of the way I was doing

[6:41:52] this. I mean, if I go to this the thing

[6:41:53] you got phase two for for Sarah Retreat.

[6:41:56] During phase two, it's essentially

[6:41:57] required properties in the Sarah Retreat

[6:42:00] area shown through the color to

[6:42:02] implement interim measures to reduce

[6:42:04] nitrogen and bacteria loading prior to

[6:42:06] the start.

[6:42:07] What are you going to reduce it from?

[6:42:09] What What was the baseline you started

[6:42:10] with? So, how are you going to know if

[6:42:11] you reduced it?

[6:42:13] » The city's been conducting monitoring

[6:42:14] under the MOU to establish the baseline.

[6:42:17] » But they've they've been doing

[6:42:18] monitoring of

[6:42:19] bacteria from Sarah Retreat?

[6:42:21] » And there's a specific that that's not

[6:42:24] where the the trigger is triggered.

[6:42:26] There's specific sites that everyone

[6:42:27] agreed on in the lagoon and along the

[6:42:29] beach.

[6:42:30] » Okay, I'm I'm not saying that, but this

[6:42:31] thing here that you got to reduce your

[6:42:33] nitrogen and bacteria coming from Sara

[6:42:36] Retreat, Sara Canyon.

[6:42:38] So, what what is the baseline that

[6:42:40] you're going to use to say here's where

[6:42:41] it is today and here's how I'm going to

[6:42:43] tell know if we reduced it.

[6:42:45] » That's not part of the MOU. The baseline

[6:42:47] is established

[6:42:48] » It says it says page 40. That's exactly

[6:42:49] what it says.

[6:42:51] I mean, that's what I'm reading.

[6:42:52] » It says from Sara Retreat.

[6:42:54] » Yeah.

[6:42:56] » Yeah.

[6:42:57] » Okay.

[6:42:57] » During phase two, the city shall require

[6:42:59] properties in the Sara Retreat area

[6:43:01] shown within the red colored outline in

[6:43:03] exhibit A to implement interim measures

[6:43:05] to reduce nitrogen and bacteria loadings

[6:43:07] prior to the start of phase three.

[6:43:09] » That's got nothing to do with the

[6:43:10] baseline.

[6:43:10] » Yeah, that has nothing to do with the

[6:43:11] test.

[6:43:12] » How are you going to know if you reduce

[6:43:13] it if you don't know where you're

[6:43:14] starting from?

[6:43:15] » The baseline is established in the

[6:43:17] lagoon and the beach. That's where the

[6:43:18] baseline. And and it's saying if if

[6:43:21] after you implement phase two, if if

[6:43:24] that if the reductions aren't seen in

[6:43:26] the lagoon and at the beach, then then

[6:43:30] we were wrong. The water board was wrong

[6:43:32] and there was no

[6:43:33] » Phase. This They got to do this during

[6:43:35] phase two.

[6:43:35] » Yeah.

[6:43:37] » In Sara Canyon.

[6:43:38] » You're mixing apples and oranges.

[6:43:40] » No, I'm not. I'm

[6:43:41] I know exactly what I'm mixing.

[6:43:43] » The The testing for determining whether

[6:43:45] phase three goes forward or not is in

[6:43:46] the two locations that she just

[6:43:48] identified. Separate and apart from

[6:43:50] that, the properties that were in phase

[6:43:53] two before that are being moved into

[6:43:55] phase three are going to be subjected to

[6:43:57] a requirement that they reduce their

[6:44:00] specific

[6:44:01] um

[6:44:02] outflow.

[6:44:03] That's what that other provision is.

[6:44:04] Nothing to do with the baseline. It's

[6:44:06] got nothing to do with the lagoon.

[6:44:07] They're required to

[6:44:08] » I didn't say anything. I'm I'm just

[6:44:10] going to I'm just trying to understand.

[6:44:11] If I live in Sara Canyon and I've been

[6:44:13] told I got to reduce my nitrogen, what

[6:44:15] am I reducing it from?

[6:44:16] » Whatever it is now.

[6:44:17] » How do you know what it [clears throat]

[6:44:18] is now?

[6:44:18] » Yours. You've got to change yours.

[6:44:21] Yours. You've got to upgrade your

[6:44:23] system.

[6:44:23] » How do you know it's producing any

[6:44:24] nitrogen and bacteria? How how know

[6:44:26] that?

[6:44:26] » That's not the deal. We've already let

[6:44:28] » Yeah, I'm I'm just I said this this is

[6:44:30] the same thing we went through before. I

[6:44:31] mean this this is

[6:44:32] » Let's look at this one.

[6:44:33] » A little bit crazy.

[6:44:34] » This this was whether it was litigated

[6:44:36] or not has been resolved.

[6:44:38] » Yeah.

[6:44:38] » And now we're talking about how we put

[6:44:40] together the settlement agreement. I

[6:44:41] think the solution for the people that

[6:44:43] are in old three

[6:44:46] is to bifurcate it as we just said.

[6:44:49] There becomes a new area

[6:44:52] phase three area three

[6:44:54] and there's area four.

[6:44:56] Area four is exempt from this.

[6:45:00] Uh

[6:45:02] in our this

[6:45:03] call it interim step.

[6:45:05] And only if that is sewer is required do

[6:45:07] they have to come into the sewer system.

[6:45:09] Is that correct, Ron?

[6:45:11] » I I'm I mean I would

[6:45:14] not say that they would have to come

[6:45:15] into the sewer system because once again

[6:45:18] the only way to get a sewer line up into

[6:45:20] into Sweetwater Mesa is Sarah Road.

[6:45:23] That's where the cultural resources and

[6:45:25] that's where the pipeline is. So, those

[6:45:27] properties in the old three which isn't

[6:45:31] Sweetwater Mesa probably would have to

[6:45:33] go through and do the same thing as

[6:45:35] Sarah Retreat would do is just upgrade

[6:45:37] their septic systems or do package

[6:45:39] plants.

[6:45:40] » Okay, but we can we can define

[6:45:42] area three and area four as two separate

[6:45:46] areas

[6:45:47] » Correct.

[6:45:47] » Duties.

[6:45:48] » Correct.

[6:45:49] » I think that's the that's really the

[6:45:50] request that the council is pivoting on

[6:45:52] at the moment.

[6:45:53] » Yep.

[6:45:53] » Uh and if

[6:45:55] » We can

[6:45:56] define that, I think we can get a

[6:45:57] resolution here to get your approval.

[6:45:59] » But But that's why I wanted to come

[6:46:00] back. Jenny, that's why I was asking

[6:46:02] where do you think you're likely to come

[6:46:04] out on that? Are you are you willing to

[6:46:06] let the ones that were in phase three to

[6:46:08] begin with stay in pure phase three?

[6:46:10] They won't have to upgrade their systems

[6:46:12] unless we have to go forward with phase

[6:46:13] three.

[6:46:16] » Preliminary, I think we would. We need

[6:46:18] to get together with the stakeholder

[6:46:20] group that we formed when we were

[6:46:22] negotiating this amendment. So, we won't

[6:46:24] be able to bring this to our board in

[6:46:26] July. But, um we we and we need to check

[6:46:30] the math to make sure that our

[6:46:32] assumptions about the triggers still

[6:46:34] holds cuz we want the agreement to

[6:46:37] work for the water board as well.

[6:46:39] Um but, it seems like it could work.

[6:46:42] There is

[6:46:44] maybe the timing issue at the end.

[6:46:46] Would

[6:46:47] I don't know if you guys do that sort of

[6:46:49] thing here at the cap. We'll work that

[6:46:50] out with with your staff. Um but,

[6:46:53] um what if

[6:46:55] uh

[6:46:56] on the

[6:46:57] » [laughter]

[6:46:57] » Um what if at the um you know, at the

[6:47:00] end of of phase two,

[6:47:03] um it's shown that phase three needs to

[6:47:05] connect.

[6:47:06] Um

[6:47:08] phase three needs to connect to

[6:47:09] something

[6:47:10] » Yeah.

[6:47:11] » By a certain date. I don't know if then

[6:47:13] those properties in the newly defined

[6:47:14] area four would have the time to connect

[6:47:17] under the the MOU timeline. So, we would

[6:47:20] just need to make sure we look at that

[6:47:21] carefully.

[6:47:22] » Yeah, it's it's it's it's it's a timing

[6:47:24] thing and then they wouldn't connect.

[6:47:27] They would more likely have to

[6:47:29] do the same treatment as the rest of the

[6:47:31] territory and either package plant or

[6:47:33] upgrade to advanced systems.

[6:47:37] » Okay.

[6:47:39] How do we make a resolution?

[6:47:40] » Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you

[6:47:41] very much.

[6:47:42] » Good job. Thank you. Thank you.

[6:47:43] » And how do how do we make a uh

[6:47:45] » Well,

[6:47:46] could I make another comment?

[6:47:50] Well, one, I wanted to address Danny.

[6:47:51] So, I appreciate your passion and

[6:47:53] everything and it has been it's

[6:47:56] duplicate of what has gone on for the

[6:47:58] last almost two decades on this.

[6:48:01] Um I then I think what everybody's

[6:48:02] question has been consistently what is

[6:48:05] the cause of this pollution? Is it

[6:48:08] human caused or is it um

[6:48:11] animal or um

[6:48:13] other bacteria that are causing it. So,

[6:48:17] it's been fought. It's been fought, it's

[6:48:19] been fought. You can go back and look at

[6:48:20] everything and the the city did put up a

[6:48:22] really strong defense and did reports

[6:48:25] and and everything else and this is

[6:48:27] where we're at. So, I just wanted to

[6:48:29] address that comment. So,

[6:48:31] » All right. Have we given adequate

[6:48:33] direction?

[6:48:34] » What I'm hearing is

[6:48:36] sorry Trevor, but

[6:48:39] this map needs to be modified and shared

[6:48:41] with the water board. It's going to show

[6:48:43] areas three and four as discussed.

[6:48:46] Depicting the old phase three as the

[6:48:49] delineating line. And then there

[6:48:51] probably should be some discussion about

[6:48:54] the timing for the the

[6:48:56] phase area four cuz that might be out of

[6:49:00] the bounds of the time limits in the

[6:49:02] current MOU.

[6:49:03] Is that fair clarity? Is that

[6:49:05] » And then also that

[6:49:07] » [clears throat]

[6:49:08] » Additional language that the mayor had

[6:49:09] suggested for

[6:49:11] the trigger and effect. I like that one.

[6:49:15] » The phase three shall not be triggered.

[6:49:17] » I think this shows the wisdom of having

[6:49:19] I told people they could go home an hour

[6:49:21] ago.

[6:49:27] » Are we all finished?

[6:49:28] » Yeah.

[6:49:28] » Oh, what about Okay, do we want to do

[6:49:31] the

[6:49:32] alternate or not?

[6:49:35] » Yes, let's I would vote

[6:49:36] » We need four votes in favor of moving

[6:49:38] forward. So,

[6:49:39] » Yes. Wait, wait, what are we doing? Oh,

[6:49:41] the alternate

[6:49:43] alternate.

[6:49:44] » All right, four more votes.

[6:49:46] Maryanne?

[6:49:47] » Yes.

[6:49:47] » Steve?

[6:49:48] » No.

[6:49:49] » Kalen?

[6:49:50] » Yes.

[6:49:51] » Doug?

[6:49:51] » Yes.

[6:49:52] » I'll go with yes on this one. Okay, who

[6:49:54] wants to be the alternate? Is it Do we

[6:49:55] have to take public comment?

[6:49:57] » We do need to take public comment, so I

[6:49:59] will note if anyone would like to speak

[6:50:01] on item 8A, the appointment of the Santa

[6:50:03] Monica Mountains Conservancy Advisory

[6:50:05] Committee alternate, please raise your

[6:50:07] hand on Zoom now. I can tell you we did

[6:50:09] not receive any speaker slips for this

[6:50:11] item.

[6:50:12] I'm giving people a few more moments.

[6:50:14] » Yes.

[6:50:15] » We do not have any raised hands on Zoom.

[6:50:17] » Okay, so that will close public comment.

[6:50:19] Who wants to be the alternate?

[6:50:21] » I'll do it.

[6:50:23] » I'll do it. And by the way, we're not

[6:50:25] even sure they're going to let us have

[6:50:26] an alternate. We've got conflicting

[6:50:28] response about who you can or you can't.

[6:50:31] But whether it's official or not,

[6:50:34] there'll probably be two of us there

[6:50:35] whenever we can.

[6:50:36] » Doug Doug wants to be the unofficial

[6:50:37] alternate. Anybody else?

[6:50:40] All right, all in favor of Doug being

[6:50:41] the unofficial alternate.

[6:50:43] » Well, he's the official alternate.

[6:50:45] » I

[6:50:45] » Authorized by the council.

[6:50:47] » All right, any objections? [snorts]

[6:50:48] All right, Doug, you're the alternate.

[6:50:50] We are adjourned.

City Council Regular Meeting

Transcript