City Council - Special Meeting

test This

Okay. Um, the August 27th, 2025 special meeting of the Malibu City Council is now called to order. Please remember comments are only for the items listed on the agenda. Inerson participants, we will have the opportunity to speak on each policy after a staff presentation. When the policy you wish to speak on is called, please line up at the microphones in the aisles. So, we have one on this side, we have one on this side. Remote participants, if you would like to speak, please join the Zoom webinar meeting printed on the agenda and raise your hand in Zoom when the policy you wish to speak on is called. May we please have a roll call. Council member Conrad, here. Council member Stewart here. Council member Yuring here. Mayor Prom Silverstein present. Mayor Reagan

here. You have a quorum. We'll do the pledge. It's okay if you're not able to. No, I'm not. We're not able to stand here. Begin. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. May we please have a report on the posting of the agenda. The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 22nd, 2025. Uh we may have an approval of the agenda. Move to approve the agenda.

I'll second.

All in favor? I. None objections. Um the meeting will have a 12 pm recess for lunch. We will reconvene at 1 p.m. Um and before we get started, I just want to say a couple things. One, um there was a terrible shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis this morning, and I just want to um send our thoughts and prayers uh to everybody in the city of Minneapolis that's going through that tragedy. Um with regards to this session um I will just ask uh we can have our comments brief. We want to hear from the audience but we also want to deliberate and we want to get through everything that is here. Um if you do have common comments um maybe if you can choose one speaker to speak on those so that we can move faster and that your thoughts can get to us and we can give our thoughts back. Um, we want to try and get through the beginning relatively quickly. Um, and then maybe have a little bit more time for some of the items that might need uh further discussion and a little bit more robust conversation.

May I have an a clarifying question? Yes. So, if I have a question that maybe somebody holds the answer to, am I allowed to ask the audience? We'll play it by ear, but we'll try and keep it timing because I think the best thing is to get information and and make sure everybody's up to date and as what they need to make decisions. Awesome. Are we using the 3minut shot clock? We're going for one minute right now just to try and keep things brief, but like I said, if we're timely and effective and we get things moving, maybe we can be a little bit looser, but we've just got to see how we can get through because I think we all want to get these items settled. Is that flexible? Maybe we can we could play it by ear. If people aren't feeling heard, we could give them

like I said, we want to have dialogue, but at the same time, we also want to complete our agenda. So, is is this open for discussion or this is the way we're doing it? Let's see how it goes and then we can revisit it. How does that sound? Do we have a lot of um Zoom? Right now, we have five members of the public on Zoom. Um I've seen it go between five and eight in the last 10 minutes.

Okay, perfect. Um so our work session on the rebuild policies to facilitate the rebuilding of structures damaged or destroyed by um the fires of recent uh the council will hold the work session to consider rebuild policy document to facilitate the rebuild structures destroyed of natural disasters. Members of the public will have an opportunity to speak on each policy after a staff presentation. So we'll begin with our staff presentation. Good morning, mayor, council. Uh, thank you. Tyler Eden, principal planner. Um, Yolanda Bundy to my left, community development director. We're going to have a brief, uh, presentation to open it up about, uh, just some general things and then we can get right into the policy items. Uh just as a reminder to give some context about um some of what we're going to talk about today, uh the governor issued a multitude of executive orders, but the one that's going to come to play today is N2025 issued February 13th, 2025. This basically gives the context of the rebuild plus 10% um for footprint and height for the Palisades fire. Um, a little bit more of the background. U, following the governor's order, we adopted uh, ordinance 524, which set the um, zoning regulations for the rebuild. I just wanted to share um, some statistics with the group. Um, this is um, just a snapshot of the approvals that some of our design professionals have been able to obtain in the planning uh, phase. And the reason we want to show this is because um we wanted to just shed some light about um you know a lot of professionals are successfully navigating through the process as it is and um we don't hear from them that much and so we just wanted to bring to light

that you know as is uh the the policy or the rebuild ordinance has been successful. um a lot of people we have heard from uh are in that last category who are you know need a little bit more to to get through and that's what we're here to talk about today. Um to couple that we wanted to kind of give a snapshot of uh neighborhoods and how they're doing. So, uh, this is a snapshot currently of, uh, Big Rock and, um, you could see that those, uh, purple circles are, uh, planning applications that have been submitted, while the, um, blue squares are planning applications that have been approved. So, just wanted to share this with folks that, you know, your neighbors are getting their applications in, they're getting approvals. Uh so we encourage you to come to the rebuild center and um help us get you back home.

Pass it to you. Yeah. And just briefly um again we want to invite everybody to the rebuild center one-stop center. Um also reminding everybody our first permit was already issue under construction. This was a beachfront property, but we are also working uh to uh possibly very soon, hopefully the end of the week, to issue the uh property on Rock Point uh their sec a second permit.

Uh and then lastly, um there's been some confusion about I think what the city's role is versus what the design professionals are supposed to do. So, uh the city is a reviewing body. So, we're going to review your project for conformance. Um, we issue permits and approvals as long as your project conforms with the regulations. Um, what your design professional is is the creator. They are the design professional. They're going to design your home and submit the application to the city. They're going to coordinate between uh the private technical specialists that that are needed to kind of design your home. Your design professional should be advocating for more. uh it's uh the city is not going to point out hey you know you're missing a thousand square feet do you want that if you ask us we will help you facilitate that no doubt but just wanted to make it clear um it should not be expected that the city is going to point out um extra square footage or things your design professional should really be advocating for uh extra things that you may want and then the city will help you kind of facilitate how to get to that to that goal Tell her because when you say advocate from where you mean advocate to the client that they maximize what they're entitled to, not advocate to the city that we should expand the rights that we have given them. Correct.

That's correct. Advocate for the client. And then we want to remind everybody, I know there has been a lot of conversation in the past days uh regarding plan check process, geology requirements, fixture counts. Those are items that will not be covering in today uh today the uh solely intend to have this special meeting as clarification on planning uh ordinance. So just want to make that clear. We will come back uh to council and provide clarification and also uh share uh information on plan check process.

All right. And final slide before we get into the policies. Just want to give everyone a snapshot of what our agenda for today. We have 16 policy items we're going to cover. We have 6 hours to cover them as it currently stands. A little less than that now. Um if evenly distributed that would be 23 minutes per policy. Our goal is to kind of tackle the low hanging fruit first. So the less debated topics we've uh we've categorized into nine items and we're going to try to tackle those in the first 90 minutes and that'll be 10 minutes per item. uh that gives us more time for the more debated topics uh that most people are going to be interested in. And if we stick to that timeline, we'll have about 38 minutes per item for those ones. Um so one policy at a time and um the speakers can weigh in on each issue. So you're not limited to just one time to speak.

And we remind everybody um we will have again two microphones, but we also are getting um the questions from the people and the families that are um that are at home. Uh so also we are following uh council's direction. So for us is just to provide a brief agenda of how we see this working for you. Okay. So is everyone okay with that agenda? As long as it's a bit flexible, we kind of play things by ear. We're not rigid. I'm good with it. Yeah. Everyone else concur.

We'll see how it goes. Exactly. Right. All right. So, I guess we'll just get into um issue number five. So, again, this section we're going to try to cover nine items, 10 minutes per item. So, issue number five is regarding uh basements and then we added sorry, I'm going to giving you a sneak peek of what's to come. um basements and then in red um

um just so the five policies uh the policies that we foresee uh a reviewing on the first I'm going to give the numbers so everybody either at home or in here knows um what we're going to be uh the the order of it we're going to go over issue number five number six number seven 9 11 12.

You say that one more time. 5 6 7 9 5 6 7 9 11 12 Thank you.

All right. All right. So, the first one we're going to discuss is basement. And then I added subterranean garages just so there's no um ambiguity uh about what the expectation is. So, um there are some folks who have been asking if if people who know the code um if you're building a new house from scratch, the first 1,000 square ft of your basement is exempt from total development square footage. And so, some folks have been asking if they can get the 1,000 square ft for free, uh not part of the 10%. Uh the staff's current policy has been as has been the policy um for many years for these rebuilds is the 110% includes any newly proposed basement. So uh you don't get that 1,000 for free. You get the 10% uh square footage that's allowed. And then you'll see this as a common theme each topic we go through. We're going to quickly go through some pros and cons if it was allowed, if it wasn't allowed. So Yolanda, do you want to

Yes. and and so for us is to establish and have a a document that uh kind of uh not only for the uh council but also for the community on that decision making. Uh so for uh basements if I if it's not allowed it will limit excavation needs. It will reduce grading retaining walls requirements storm drain modifications. It will also minimize drainage impacts. Um it will prevent uh safety failures. it will prevent also environmental protection. We will see less disturb uh uh coastal habitat. Uh so just to bring that on the safety portion of it.

Yeah. And for mission statement which is really kind of like the city's overall vision right and mission and what we were about. Um this would be inconsistent with the city's practice if we allowed basements. Uh like I said it's been historically only the 10%. Um, people might be thinking, "Oh, well, in Woolseie was allowed a basement, but that was only allowed via a two-step process." And that's probably why you're familiar with it. Then that process is not allowed under this um under this fire. Um, some future impacts, there would be more substantial grading to the site, more landform alteration, and as Yolanda mentioned, uh, that excavation comes with more retaining walls and draining devices, so more impacts to the environment. And just to clarify, basements aren't allowed on beachfront properties regardless.

That is correct. And I'd like to clarify also, basements would change the the character of a like for like as it as the uh code is currently written. Yes. Because if you didn't have it the day before the fire and you're asking for it after the fire, it changes the like for like plus 10%. Correct. Thank you. And so that is a presentation. We will open the microphones to uh everybody that is here that want to comment uh for the council. Okay. So if you do want to comment on basement subterranean garages, please go to one of the microphones. Do we have any raised hands on Zoom?

Not at this time. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Abra, I'll speak on behalf of MRTF. We are okay with what you guys presented. Could you Can you speak up? We are okay with what was presented. Okay, great. Don, council members dodge this in case you've forgotten who I am. Uh, improvisation.

Please get a taller pole. So I understand the intent and and what you're deliberating on here. I would just give you one example. Uh we have a fire rebuild on Real Pacific Co that already had a as you know a lot of the structures are notched into the hillside going up already had subterranean garages and they were adequate to put maybe a horse and carriage in there or a very small Volkswagen. And so it's a bonafide uh basement parking garage. And so having some latitude with your staff to uh be able to address that would be advantageous. And then the other thing I would point out is yes uh basements require some excavation. Uh but you do have a strict basement standard. It's not really lantern alterations. It's underneath the structure. It's got to be at least uh 85% below ground. So having some room on that be helpful.

Any raised hands? Can do can do we like comment after if I want to comment after a comment just like more dialoguey dialogueish. Thank you. Sure. Thanks. I would say for the first part of your comment Don from my point of view if you had it before the fire this subterranean carriage thing you get it back. That's what I would advocate for and that's my comment. Thanks, Ch. I just wanted to remind everyone that the two-step process that was in place for Woolseie was allowing people up to 70% which we got removed because that's not right. You have to actually it was a 50%.

But there were homes that got 70%. I got the spreadsheet anyway. Um, if if people are allowed to have a thousand square feet basement without their house running down, there should be some way maybe an APR or something for people like Don Clients who can actually put it. I mean, nobody in Big Rock is going to do it, but I mean, if if there if it is incentivizing people to rebuild, then it should be something possibly that can be allowed. That's all I'm saying. Okay. Can I ask Joe, please summarize that so I could understand what you're asking.

If like if somebody wants to rebuild an ad, like if they have say maybe a two or 3,000t house and they want to put the basement, yes, they can apply through I think it's regularly a CDP. Is it for a basement or is it just an APR? It just depends how it's how it's done. Yeah. I mean, if it's an APR, I think that's fine. I would imagine that that would be possible. Okay. I would imagine that. Well, I want to make a clarification. I'd like clarification. You have two options for this fire. Two options. You have a rebuild plus 10% or you have a CDP for a brand new home. That's right. This is as clear as it can be.

So, if they did not have the basement before the fire, I would I would say that it's a new process. You're not like for like you're asking for something new. You get a CDP. then you have to get a CDP. That is what I would imagine. Not going to encourage people to get basement. That's all I'm saying. I mean, if it's going to help one or two people rebuild rather than But if it's if and I hear you. I just think if we stick with the executive order, which is what I would like to do today, it is what it is the day before the fire, even with fixture accounts and septics and things like that. So, I appreciate you letting me have a banter.

Okay. Thank you, Lisa. Hello. Um, I don't have an opinion on this one. Well, maybe you should reserve your comment then since we already

but I want to provide more information. So, we make decisions based on full information, not partial. So, for basements, the first 10,000 square feet don't count and then each additional square foot counts half of TDSF. So, if we're doing like for like in TDSF and we're using the TDSF definition, if basements they don't count for new development, there's an argument that could used for the same thing. I can agree with hailing too that if it wasn't there before, you are not entitled to to build it again. And then just one nuance on the safety um descriptions from Yolanda. There's also a good safety thing where using a basement you lower your lowest elevation, therefore your foundation could be more efficient if you don't have shallow bedrooms. It's just for you guys to have full information, but I agree with a to. If you don't want to go for this one, I'm okay with it.

Thank you. Still no raised hands. Correct. We still don't have any raised hands on Zoom for this topic. Okay. Um, so we'll close comment for now unless there is a a clarifying question or something. So, back up to the council. Anybody want to start? I agree with Abe. I love it. I mean, look, that's what we're he's he's our ambassador, so I I agree with his position. I agree with staff's position, so it's nice that Abee's position aligns with staff's position. Um, any other comments?

Uh, yeah, I agree that with staff on this and um, you know, I appreciate the fact that everybody wants to push to see what they can get and that's that's the role of the professionals. See what you can see what you can stretch. But like for like and I go back to the uh agreement we have with the governor which is in the February 13th package as much as it is elsewhere. Get people back in the home they had before. If you want to build a better home or a different home or whatever you know suits your fancy that's the CDP. And uh I don't want to fall into the trap we did with Woolseie with the 50%. I want this to be as expedited as we can. And by the way, if you look at the Wily fire, 78% of the homes that were rebuilt are like for likes. Now, they may have the 50% rule in it, but it's like for like, and we need to push this so we can get this done and over the finish line. Um, it's going to be my theme all day today is let's get these homes in the permit uh construction permit side, away from planning, get it out of planning, get it in construction, get a permit, get it in the ground. Okay,

Bruce. Bruce, a house that didn't have a basement is not like a house that does have a basement. So, if we're doing like for like, it means what you had before gets put back. There's no basement if you didn't have one. Not even a 10% basement as your 10% addition. Um, and lastly, I hope that the staff will not take Don's invitation to give any latitude beyond whatever the rules are. That is exactly what is going to screw things up. The rules are the rules. You play by the rules, you don't get any favors. I I'm good with this. I just wanted to ask Bruce to clarify the last part of that rule bending thing.

Well, Don said that he's hoping without regard to what rule we adopt that there can be some accommodation. I don't know what that means after slippery slope. Yeah. Okay. But it was there before. No, if it was there before, it's part of what's like for like, but I s I heard a desire to have it more. And I can assure the council. Sorry. And Mr. Smith can tell you himself, I give him a hard time and he does not get any benefits from our staff. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I am good to go on this. Okay. Um, so number five, it seems pretty clear. We're going to stay with the PV for like for like or like for life was 10%. If it's anything different, if you want to add a basement, you're going to be going with a coastal development permit. Okay.

Do we need to uh as a process, do we need to have a voice on this or how do you want to do it? Kelsey, Trevor. No. If the council's proposing changes, that would be helpful in the form of a motion, but we're going to bring this all back for a final action. Yeah, we we don't need to summarize because we're just going to take the feedback and then bring it all back like on consent or something or or something. Okay.

By the way, just to be clear, that does not mean that no one is entitled, no one can you have a right to a basement. You just don't have a right to a basement under the PV. So, you can have a basement if you want to prolong your process. if you want to follow the coastal development permit process. Right. Okay. So, the next one I have on my list is water tanks and pools for fire safety.

Yes. So, we just wanted to um kind of similarly to what we just discussed actually uh as as we may recall uh water tanks and pools that are recommended by uh an agency are allowed to be built um for if they're used for fire protection. Um, we just want to clarify that if you are allowed to build a water tank or pool that uh the tank will not count towards TDSF. So, you're not impacted by your 10% option. That's all this is. I have a clarifying question. Yes. Um, if somebody were building a brand new house today and they wanted a pool, is that part of their TDSF or not? Historically, it has been. Yes, we It was part of the TDSF. So, we wanted

Not the TDSF. What was that question of their whether pool counts as not a pool? I'm sorry. A water tank though because it's an enclosed structure. Historically those have been counted. Uh but a pool no because there's no roof on a pool. Pool does not. Sorry for the miscommunication. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Yeah. And this is only for rebuilds that we're talking about. Yeah. If you want to do a new construction, it's a whole different animal. That's a CDP. Exactly. So, this is to clarify water tanks which would normally be counted are not going to be counted for the rebuild process. So, you're not dinged on your 10%. Okay. Hing. Um, real you guys want us to do pros and cons? Are you good? Please do pros and cons quick.

Uh, just really briefly. Um, adequacy for fire flow. Uh, we also feel additional on-site protection and community safety. Yeah. And we already mentioned with the with the for the vision and mission statement. Um, it would it would impact potentially TDSF and allow more TDSF. However, it would allow for a larger water supply in these fire affected areas. Okay. Um, Steve, just a second. If you do want to comment on this, please come to the microphone. I I have one clarifying question as he's coming up. When we talk about having pools in, you're going to have a dra there's a requirement for a draft system to the curb, right? Correct.

Got it. and we're working with the fire department for the standards that will apply uh uh when the uh properties come on to review. Okay, ready for comments. Luis, yes. Can can come closer. Clarify what how is the process to to go for this? So, you need to first get your PD approved in planning and then you need to apply for an RDP. What do you need for the from the fire department? So it's all together separate permits. Are the fees waved to let's think for their residents and how to go for these things and make it fast for them.

Uh let's wait till we have but just note that Don

water tanks for firefighting purposes are critical infrastructure specifically exempted in the governor's executive orders. It is not the fault of the property owners who lost their homes that our water district has sat on their pencils for decades and not upgraded the system. And the chief told us all the way back right after the fire at the first community meeting that he would allow people to have on-site water storage tanks. I readily acknowledge that pools are very effective also for fighting fires, but they they're also pools. Uh if you want to interpret that as critical infrastructure, that's certainly your prerogative. But absolutely on-site water storage tanks so that people can rebuild their homes in area where there are substandard fire flows should be completely exempt.

Just want to emphasize what Yolanda you just stated the the development standards uh as quickly as we can get them out better. A lot of the families are inclined to build a pool. Thank you. Um do you want to clarify the process in order to get I'm sorry. Yes, we have somebody online. Yes, we do. We have Wade Major. Okay, Wade, we're giving you a minute, so be quick.

I won't even need the whole minute. Um, this is this is also an insurance issue. Um, if we want people to move back and we want to keep our residents, uh, a lot of them in these areas are at risk of skyrocketing insurance rates. I've talked to people at top of Corral and Top of Lato, they can't believe what they're even getting from Fair Plans. So you you you allow the water tanks, you give them latitude for the water tanks, insurance rates come down, more likely to hold on to our residents.

So if you couldn't hear him clearly, he was talking about the benefit of having water tanks or pools with the insurance rates that that will allow homeowners to possibly um either get insured or have a more favorable insurance rate for the additional safety precaution. Madame Mayor, can we request that the media team try and turn the volume up a little bit with I know the people in the audience couldn't hear Wade and u maybe they could do something about for us as well. So Tyler, if you'll review what the process for um applying for these types of permits.

Thank you. So, if you all recall in March, we created a rebuild development permit. And that's what was to give you the ability to um get brand new structures you never had before. And one of those structures is a water tank or pool uh to meet adequate fire flow. Um the process is first um it needs to be recommended or required. Um so, you know, you can't just have a pool if if a government agency is not recommending or required. that can be from city, that can be from the fire department, um from other uh jurisdictions that have uh authority over that issue. Um and then after you receive planning approval, your project will go uh it's it's a one plan check just for everyone. So uh whereas planning, we have to kind of do these separate entitlements by the law. Uh your project in plan check will just be one whole whole project. I'll pass it to you.

Yeah. So we're trying to make this as seamless as possible. uh when uh applications come through uh planning uh you will still show the the location of the pool and the water tank. Uh so that way you don't have to change your plans from planning to construction building and safety. Uh when it comes to building safety, it's just one application and we will review everything at once. Okay, Steve, I agree with staff position just with a real clarification that these are only for rebuild. This is not for brain. we got to make because that yes, we're going to get pushed on that.

On this one is only for rebuilds and also I forgot to mention fee waivers. Uh this also has been included on on on what council decided on fee waivers. So this will qualify on fee wavers. Yeah, just real quick on the fee waver. So uh anything to facilitate the rebuild plus 10% and any necessary infrastructure. So anything approved under an RDP is covered under the fee waiver. Bruce.

So, I I I want to support this one and I suspect we will ultimately get there, but I just want to make clear something. You know, we we can't be playing games here. We have we have laws that we have to follow. The governor's order is a procedural rule that suspends the Coastal Act. It doesn't affirmatively grant any building rights of any sort. It simply takes away one of the procedural hurdles that exists under our law right now. Otherwise, um the MMC now it was a big give that we got that you can have a water tank if if it's recommended or required and it's a big give now the fire department has said yes that's good that'll solve the water flow issue whether it does or doesn't count towards TDSF is a completely separate question from anything in the governor's order or the ordinance that we adopted I have no problem with the pro with the idea of amending our municipal code to define TDS TDSF differently to exclude a water tank that fits this qualification. But I don't see how we can as a policy matter interpret these rules to exclude something from TDSF which isn't part of these procedural rules. So, I have a hard time supporting just disregarding our law to accomplish a good result. Bad. There's a saying in law that bad facts make bad law because you want to either want to punish someone that seems to be doing something wrong that the law doesn't prevent or you want to benefit someone that seems to be doing something right that the law doesn't permit. And I think that's what this is. So, I'd have no problem with bringing back a municipal code amendment to exclude water tanks from TDSF, but I don't know how we can interpret the existing code that way. I think that's the point of this is to

this is a extension of the law and I'll let Trevor do you have any clarifying points on that? I mean, I believe that this policy is going to be the vehicle to allow uh this. before he does it. The point is the policies are supposed to be policies for interpreting how you qualify for a PV, not what you're entitled to do. That's a different code that we haven't addressed.

Well, and and I think my in theory I like this, but in practicality I have concerns. I have concerns about the placement, where the tank's going to go. I have the size of the tank, how tall is the tank, what's the footprint of that, and um you know, cautioning to people, you are still going to have to adhere to building standards even to get this. So, if your property is in a challenged area, you still may not get it just because you have a policy that outlines how you could get it. And

and that is correct. the size of the tanks, the location, the how they're going to be uh uh the attachments, the materials, all of that is dictated either by the fire code or the building um or the building code. Um I think is it's an important clarification, but as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, we are trying just to concentrate on planning. I I guess it's good to remind everybody there still need to comply with building and safety and the fire department requirements and uh and any other policies that we have.

And just for a real quick clarification, we also have it written into this policy that you it's still subject to the other design standards, setback height, etc. for the zoning district.

Okay. Um and the other, you know, I went back and I looked at the the Woosey meeting and they talked about water tanks and one of the concerns that the um council member Peak at that time had was um the materials of the tank because if it is full of w water and it melts, all that water is now going to be just put out on the ground and you know depending where it may be located. So, I think making sure that we have um tank requirements that to the best of their ability that are going to um ensure that it stays through a firestorm.

Yes. And the uh standards that we're getting from the fire department are um material standards that are being used on the whole region. Uh so this is all not only vetted by uh our codes and but also by the different organizations and and we will provide that information to the community on what is the required materials for this area because that what you mentioned is extremely important. Doug, I'm gonna let Hayen go.

Um yeah, I saw that same meeting which was interesting. I think we've learned a lot and if the fire department has requirements and you guys were very very diligent here, I couldn't imagine you are saying any sort of water tank there's size limitations materials um I personally do think they should have pools in water tanks and it should not go against their TDSF oh well two things first off um I want to hear from Trevor but before we get to Trevor just want to make a comment anybody that's been a boy scout on a campfire uh camping trip has learned how to boil water in a paper cup and um it's the same thing I think you'll find in the water tank that the water evaporates before it uh catches fire.

Anyway, uh 12 oz cup and a 5,000gallon tank are significantly different. Hyper cup. Try it. Anyway, Trevor, what's the story on PDSF? Sure. So, there's two separate issues here. So, one is that um not counting this as part of the 10% for the governor's order. That's not a problem. We don't need to make any changes for that. That can go through. Tyler, if you're talking about changing how we're applying TDSF under a municipal code, that may need to come back as a as a uh zone text amendment. We'll take a closer look at that. But, you know, looking into this, if we're trying to change the definition of it, unless there's an exception,

the code just doesn't ex doesn't explicitly say that this needs to be counted. If you imagine in practicality, these things are full of water, so you can't access these things. Um, so we can make that clarification if we need to. I was hoping that this policy document was strong enough. Yeah. And one last thing, uh I want to be clear that when we put tanks in, as well as my comment about the pools, there is a drafting system so the fire department can access it at the curb. Uh otherwise, it's just a big water tank.

That is uh correct. You are correct. I think a lot of the um the conversation in council is the safety and and I agree those are very important topics. be assured that all of the requirements from the fire department, building and safety, the building code, and all of our regulations for safety standards are going to be a priority when reviewing this type of systems.

I I have a question and a comment. So question is, first of all, from a planning standpoint, not building standpoint, from a planning standpoint, what rules govern where you're going to put this non-countable additional tank? uh how you place you know how do how do you plan for it for a separate and apart from actually constructing it.

Sure. And just to remind the council if we were sticking on our goal we're about 15 minutes on this one but we'll uh continue on the uh as is as stated in the policy you're still going to have to require with the zoning all other zoning requirements. So setbacks height you're not going to be able to have a 50ft tall tank. Uh you're going to be allowed to have an 18t tall tank with perhaps you know additional height for with the site plan review. So, we're still going to be re relegating you to the same stuff. You can't develop it on a bluff, for example. All the zoning requirements are still going to be in place. Same as any accessory structure. Tyler, is the is the point of this policy that the water tanks don't count for TDSF only for fire rebuild? Just TDSF for fire rebuilds.

We we may need to because otherwise if we're saying that it's not TDSF because it's not an inhabitable structure, that could be an issue because whether it's for a fire rebuild or just someone building one, I wouldn't see a way that you'd be able to parse that. But we can look take a closer look and if it's the intention of the council, the direction is that you don't want to count it for fire rebuilds, but you do want to have that count in for regular construction, then we, you know, we'll bring something back to

that was the comment I was going to make is that's the point. I I I don't think we can as a just interpret as a policy matter the definition of TDSF to be different in one circumstance than in another. Um, as the code is currently written, either a water tank does or doesn't count towards TDSF, no matter who you are and no matter what circumstance you are, as a matter of the policy of like for like, we can exclude it from the 10% by by interpreting this, but I don't see how we get around TDSF. So if we were to say that we view TDSF to not include water tanks, that means across the board for the whole city and if we say that it does it does it is part of TDSF, then it has to apply to a rebuild unless we adopt a code provision that says otherwise. And I want to say I I I think it's a sticky issue all even even just adopting the code amendment, but I suspect that there's a consensus for doing it. But I don't see how we can do this as a policy matter. I would agree with Bruce. I do think that that it is a code requirement. Um I think there are a lot of justifications beyond the fire safety. Um that was the other things that were brought up in the meeting um back in 2019 was also, you know, critical water supply if we're cut off. You know, part of Malibu had a boil notice for 72 hours, 98 at six hours, something like that. So, um, you know, having that water supply in the event of an emergency, I think is also a reason, but I do agree that I think we need to bring it back and have a a discussion as to, um, an adjustment in the municipal code.

Yeah, fair enough. We'll work with the city attorney. So, that that means until we amend the code, unfortunately, anybody who's planning right now and wants to include a water tank, it has to count towards TDSF until we amend the code otherwise. But it does not need a coastal development permit. That's correct. the RDP permit that we've already adopted. Correct. Is what they would need. We already have a permit type for water created a permit type for water tanks. Yes. But they do need to count the TDSF until it we take up the policy change. That's what it's on the municipal code. Yes.

But it doesn't count towards 10%. So So in other words, if if you're substantially below your TDSF and you want to add a water tank, it doesn't count towards your 10%. You can still expand your home, but you can't expand it to the point where plus the water tank gets you over TDSF. If you're if you're already there or butdding up against it, unfortunately, that would mean under the existing code, you'd have to shrink your house, right? Yes. And uh for what it's worth, as we discussed earlier, pools do not already count. So, if you get a pool, it doesn't count. But this is specifically for water tanks. Madam Mayor, can we uh bring this to a head because we are we got enough? Yeah. Well, we've got I think two

count specifically um the water tanks as it doesn't count the pools which are pretty much the same the same the same thing. The code says specifically that TDSF that the it doesn't say specifically. That's the point I was making. So you don't have to modify the code. It's a policy that we that the city has been implementing which has been adopted until now to not count the pools but do count the um tanks. So code doesn't need to be changed. It's not specifically indicating the well we're going to take that up at a future discussion. We're for today's thing.

So it's it's an easier process. We don't have to modify code. We just have to adopt a different policy. it would need to be changed if you want to treat the fire rebuilds different from regular construction for fire rebuilds just in general. I think we understand the council's direction. We'll work with the city attorney's office. We'll come back with what the issues are if we do need to change the code. Can you summarize the council's direction since I'm on it? I think it's the staff uh the staff policy, but that the code should come back for a potential amendment. Will this hold up rebuilds?

No. And and and so we are going to be sensitive to the applications that we had. We my understanding and uh you can correct me if I'm wrong. Uh water tongs will be allowed. The only thing is a TDSF definition that needs to come back to you uh uh for council consideration. Yeah. And if this will be come back relatively quickly, people will be able to make plans on that. We could adopt an emergency ordinance. I mean, it will take a little bit of time to move that through if that's the will of the council and if that's necessary, but I think we have the policy on direction from the council to move forward. And we will take into consideration every application that we currently have.

Let's just make clear that we are in agreement on that. I mean what what what I'm hearing is it's anticipated that an ordinance going to come back to us whether urgency or regular and we are going to vote at least a majority to amend the municipal code to exclude from the calculation of TDSF a water tank that fits this description here for a fire rebuild. Are a majority of us going to support that? Not even seeing it yet. I mean not I support that. a fire rebuild or all a fire rebuild. Fire rebuild. Fire rebuild. To be clear, we're not taking up the actual item today. This is a direction to bring an item back.

But the staff otherwise can't start excluding that from their preliminary calculations. So, do we have at least three votes to do that? Yes. When we when it comes forward, I believe so. I believe so. Yes. Okay. I want to just make sure that this does not hold up the rebuilds. I don't want to hear we change definitely hold up the rebuilds. I'm just reminding you that the governor's order, the last one, N2925, gave you all the the wherewithal to change policy and to interpret the laws the way and that's what we're doing. But you're asking for a whole MMC amendment.

That is absolutely 100% wrong. And I want to make sure everyone understands that because we keep hearing it. It is wrong. The governor's order does not grant any rights with respect to planning or building. It eliminates the coastal act. It is a procedural rule. It says so in the preamble and that's exactly what the words of the order say and anyone that keeps interpreting it otherwise is confusing the public. And what I was alluding I'm and I just want to be clear what I was saying is that we aren't doing our policy. We're taking it from that. So, that's what I'm thought.

Okay, we're going to go ahead. Um, I think staff is clear on where we are. Council's clear on where we are. I still wanted Okay, I No, if you have a question, I would like to just clear this up. I would like Dean to have a chance if he'd like to speak. I'd like Trevor to finish his statement. We have time. I know we're in a hurry. I don't want to hurry through this. We've waited a month. Well, longer than that. So, if you have something to say, please.

I don't wish to argue either. The thing that I'm harping on is relative to this whole process that started with the LCP amendment back in February is that a term and I don't have a dog in this fight right now, right? But relative to a term like TDSF, it's tied to the LCP which means it is tied to the Coastal Act and all the flow down is there therefore suspended. I know we don't like it. I don't necessarily like it either, but I think we need to get past this and get moving on implementing the EO or you are making the decision to be more strict on us than you need to be. Yeah, the municipal code has TDS.

I can I I can sum up. Yeah, the total development square footage is defined in the LP and in the municipal code. It's a standard that applies in both of them. They apply differently in different situations, but it is a a restriction on development in both. Um it is uh you know to clarify a little bit about the governor's order that does remove the coastal development permit requirement for structures that are within 10% and for the accessory structures are required for it. Also u removes the SQA requirements. Um it doesn't affect our local municipal code and that's what we're dealing with here. And the issue um when it comes down to it is um under the governor's order, we're all in agreement that you know this doesn't require a coastal development permit um that it falls within the exemption of the governor's order. The only issue is total development square footage. How that definition is applied under our municipal code and the will if the it was will the council that tanks no matter what don't count for don't count towards TDSF. That would be a policy change that we could potentially put through here since it's not specified black and white in there. We would want to provide notice, but if we're going to have a TDSF definition that doesn't include um water tanks for fire rebuilds, we need to put something in the code most likely to um parse out that and make a differentiation between that. that seems to be the the if that is the uh will the council of the direction on the policy front staff will bring out the appropriate measures to implement that. And just to add to that by knowing that council is supported of this decision the applications that are currently coming in we will be moving along as per what you stated. So no one will be um waiting for the urgency ordinance or for you guys to come and come back.

Excellent. And let let me just say one thing or two things. First off, uh if you're not close to your uh TDSF, it doesn't matter anyway. And secondly, just so everybody's clear, when we set up the municipal code uh changes back in February or March, the whole thing was we took out everything in the municipal code for the Franklin and and Palisades fire that related to uh squa and coastal commission. It's a standalone. The only place you have to look for guidance is the municipal code for your rebuilds and a like for like for palis aids in Franklin.

I just want to make one last point which is that I know everyone who needs this or wants this likes this change. I guarantee every single thing we do to accommodate rebuilds in a way that makes them larger is going to aggravate someone in the neighborhood that had either that's in an existing home or that's in another home that's going to be built yet that's going to find that the property next to them or in front of them is different materially than it was before the fire. That's why we need to constantly think about whether to grant these expansions or not. Because it's not just the people who want to build, we need to consider. It's the people who are still living there, the people whose houses have been destroyed that have not yet even begun to think about what they want and the rest of the city for that matter.

Okay. And mayor, I just want to note since you reopened public comment, we still don't have any other um Zoom speakers, but we are up to 12 participants. Thank you very much for that. Okay. So, um we're done with item number six. Moving on to item seven, combining square footage with close structures.

All right, so this one is um reflective of what the code states. So the code if you're building um say you had a vacant parcel and you're building from scratch, um you're the distance between your two buildings. So if they're primary structures, let's say uh you have a multif family lot and it's two primary dwellings, uh those would have to be 10 ft apart. If you have a single family lot with a primary home and um you know accessory detached gym, let's say that would have to be at least 6 ft apart. So this is just saying that um it's okay to combine when you're within 10 ft or less that it's okay to combine those into the square footage of the primary home instead of having to be rebuilt as separate structures. If you're more than 10, and I have a uh visual here, if you're, let's say, 50 feet away, greater than 10, you will not be allowed to combine that square footage with your primary structure. Uh, some some pros and cons. Um, no, no safety issues on this one. Um, uh, in terms of the the residents, it gives them more freedom to design their home, more flexibility to add square footage if if those structures are close enough. Um the council could find that it might be inconsistent with the uh MMC in terms of each structure needing to be rebuilt uh back plus 10%. Um this uh for some positives this could lead to uh some more consolidation of development so it's not so spalled out on the lot. Uh and so that could al ultimately result in uh some some good environmental impacts and lessen the fuel modification impacts on the environment. Any clarifying questions?

Any community comment? And mayor, I just want to note we were having technical difficulties with the mic. So, if everyone could come to the right side of the room, there's a good chance we could put the regular mic back. It's a much better mic. We can work on that, but we might have to disrupt the meeting. So, let us work on that for the afternoon. Absolutely. Okay. Abe, go ahead. Tyler, if you can uh expound on why the 50 feet rule. Oh, uh 50 feet is not necessarily the requirement. That's just the part of my exhibit. But um the rule is actually if you are greater than 10 ft. So this one shows that the two blue structures are within 10 ft, those can be combined. Anything greater than that would be a no-go.

And the thought process behind not allowing the combining of anything beyond 10 ft is what? It's based on what the code allows for separation between structures. And so there's a code requirement that structures should be at least 10 ft apart and if they're accessory structures at least 6 feet apart. So we're saying that if you're non-conforming and you're closer than that, then okay, you can combine, but if you're conforming, we're not going to allow you to do something um that would potentially make it non-conforming.

So our comment on this is if that could be addressed, that'd be great. In the scheme of things, if we scaled it as like it, love it, got to have it, it's in the like it category for us in the sense uh that there aren't that many cases where this will be applicable.

Um there are definitely people who want to combine structures. Let's say there's a big rural lot, especially um maybe not for this fire so much, but in Woolseie, there was a lot of large lots that were impacted and they may have had like 15, not 15, but let's say five structures sprawled out. Uh some people want say, "I don't want that uh barn anymore. I want to put it as part of my house." It's it it could be, you know, not uncommon and it it actually consolidates the development um in a more compact and concise manner. So, and would adopting this give residents more freedom to have control over their own decisions and lives and homes?

It depends who you ask. I think what Abe's point was that it may not because we're we're we're providing a constriction, but we're providing a constriction within what the code allows already. Sure, Luis. I was was I was going to ask that. So I don't know if you're exactly giving more freedom or more constraints. So if there's two structures that exist existed before the fire that they were just five feet away from each other, you are making them combine. Okay. No, it's a choice of the you're giving them the chance to combine if they want. Is this a zoning code or a safety code? The separation between two structures. Uh this is speaking specifically to the zoning code, but

there's also a provision in the building code that the structures have to be separated. That is that is correct. There is uh chapter uh chapter six of the building code and separation. So yes, so are you going to be enforcing that code after planning or you're going to be okay? This is existing and confirming. We're okay also in building and safety. We are not um the state of California did not um uh did not flex the building code. So the building code requirements might must apply. So why don't we just apply them in zoning? Therefore, there's no changes back and forth.

I don't think it's going to be a um and and I think now we're dealing right now in the weights of of what the requirements on on fire separations. So under building code and then the fire code, there is a minimum requirement for a structure that are located on the same parcel to have a a minimal separation without the uh a firewall. Uh so you can have something within 3 ft of each other and have a firewall. Um and so there I mean like I like I said we are going out into the weights of design, right? And I don't I don't think that this is the appropriate, but we can set up a meeting and go over it.

So, yeah, Louise, I think what the basic is is this is just giving flexibility to the property owners. If they no longer want to have that out building and it's within 10 ft of the existing building, they can combine that into the structure. It's their choice. It's not a requirement. They'll still have to require all the the building code requirements, giving more freedom. That's good. But it's limiting that freedom to when the structures are only within 10 ft or six feet if it was a primary and accessory. Correct. Uh for this policy, we just did 10 feet. But if the council wanted to consider the six foot one, we could we could do that as well. To rule, there's 10 for primary structures and six for this is a design issue. So I would recommend going to the rebuild center if you have a specific property that you want to

that needs to be clear for everybody to understand. Um, wait. Now that I'm thinking about it, if it's within 10 ft, six would be within 10. So that's fine. It would be able to be combined. So you're fine. But it depends on the definition of each structure. No, no, no. So we're saying all structures, if you're within 10 ft, you can they're just using an example of a gym and Yeah. So that's why we use 10 to be the wider of the two. Do we have any online speakers? No, we don't have any raised hands on Zoom. Okay. Sorry, that was just an audio test we were doing to make sure it'll be louder. Doug.

Uh yeah, I just want to clarify that when we talk about these uh uh accessory uh buildings that we're adding, these are habitable. It's not a storage shed. It's not a a a barn. It's not an empty garage. It's got to be habitable before the fire that you're compressing together into the house. That That's true. And I did write that in the policy as well. So, it's the last sentence. Unhabitable structure. Um the unhabitable portion must be maintained. So the uses do matter. Thank you. So if they had a detached garage but they want to make it an attached garage, they still have to maintain that use of a garage.

Yeah. 400 ft² uninhabitable garage area would have to be come back as 400 ft garage attached. Now I just want to clarify that because we kept saying uh accessory accessory buildings and so forth. It's not a shed. It's got to be a it's got to be a livable space beforehand. Thank you, Council Member. That's great clarification. Okay. And this um has nothing to do with ADUs. So what we decide here doesn't bleed into the ADU stuff. Okay. Bruce,

I I know we have great flexibility to interpret the governor's order, but we can't ignore the words. And the governor's order talks about both primary structures and accessory structures. And they both say they have to be in substantially the same location. And in fact with respect to accessory it says relative to the primary structure. To my English mind that means if something is substantially depart apart from the primary structure it's no longer qualified for exemption if it's joined with the primary structure because it's not um substantially in the same location relative to the primary structure. We are probably going to adopt the interpretation of substantially same location meaning you can move it around a little bit. I think it's up to 50%. So the way I would think of this is if you've got a accessory structure which can be shifted no more than 50% of its pad to meet the primary structure then it's still in substantially the same location visav the primary structure. But if it's more of a distance than that, it's not. And to me, that's just simple English. So, I don't see how we have room to disregard these words.

Well, I mean, I think that goes back to us being able to use our municipal code for the benefit if the homeowner no longer wants to have that detached structure, but then they're not exempt from the Coastal Act. Trevor,

I mean, what we're talking about here is comes down to what is substantially in the same location, right? So, I think the staff's trying to put sort of numbers on here and saying if it's with right, if within 10 ft, then we consider that to be within substantially the same location. That's why they could be combined. I think he's already said they have to have the same use. there's nothing in the government's world that prohibits them attaching, you know, so if it's within this, I think we would have the leeway to be able to, you know, put through this policy if if it was, you know, not substantially in the same footprint, then we run into the problem that you're talking about. Hence why they've set the distance at 10 feet and not 15 ft. I believe that's correct.

Would it would it still be technically an accessory structure or would it now be one larger primary structure? Uh, let's say it was a habitable detached structure that could be used as habitable square footage for the main home. Um, to council member Stewart's point, if it was a detached garage, it would have to be an attached garage. The reason I asked that is because again, the governor's order allows the suspend suspends the act when you rebuild substantially the same your primary structure and any accessory structure. It it doesn't give you the right to be excused from the coastal act to build a much larger primary structure which eliminates an accessory structure as as the tradeoff for that. And I think this is a slippery slope.

I mean, I think it's it's a matter of how they're using their TDSF and we're allowing the homeowner. They had that TDSF before. So now we're putting a limit on just how far you can draw that bubble out to capture those things. Um, and that's at 10 ft. And as Trevor indicated that we can make that determination if that's within substantial that it's allowing them to actually reduce their footprint in some ways.

There's a lot of deference given to the cities to interpret this. So it'll be difficult for someone to challenge it. So, it's a question for you about how technical you want to be on this. You know, um I think you have the flexibility to make the interpretation proposed by staff. If you want to, you know, you know, tow a a more technical stricter line and make them remain separate structures, you know, you could do that too.

And I just want to add for the residents, you know, I know we get a lot of animosity towards us because, you know, we're holding the line on something, but this is this is it. You know, it's it's complex issues. So, we're trying to be as flexible as we can be. Uh, we're we're really the balance. So, we we're hearing sides of very very tight and and you all want something on the other spectrum, right? We're trying to keep it within all the rules and the laws to to get you what you want but still be within the law.

And the purpose of the governor's order was to eliminate technical red tape and to, you know, make it easier for people to rebuild. If you can rebuild an accessory structure that would come up, you know, inches from the primary structure, is there really a distinction or a difference between attaching them? These these are the this is why there's flexibility for the council here too. Are are do we have statutory limits on the number of accessory structures somebody can have? Uh it's just no. Uh like for a new development, no. It's based on TDSF and peral coverage and other things. Okay. I I support this interpretation.

As do I. I support whatever makes it easier for the staff to give the residents what they should have and so I support that. I agree with staff position. Agreed. So it looks like you have consensus on that one. All right, moving along to number nine. 10% must comply.

Yes. So just simply um you're allowed to do up to a 10% addition. We're just saying that that 10% has to comply. So, what does that look like here? The the old house was in blue and they're adding this new portion in yellow. It's might be hard to see, but those dash lines right next to the yellow box are the setbacks that are required for the slot. And so, you see here that this new addition is uh in line with the setbacks. If it's not in line with the setbacks or the height, that still may be allowed. Uh it's just a different vehicle. Um, so if it's triggering a a site plan review for encroachment into a setback or height more than 18 feet, uh, we may ask you to to, uh, process an administrative plan review with a site plan review. It's still a rebuild plus 10%, so you're still qualified for the fee wavers if you're eligible and things like that, but it's just, uh, a different vehicle other than the PV to get you what you're what you're asking for. Uh in terms of pros and cons, there's really no uh substantial safety concerns in terms of the mission statement. It's con it's forcing it to be consistent with the city's design standards. Uh if not required, then you could have new portions of the home that do not meet the setbacks and could potentially uh and height requirements could could lead to uh unintended view impacts, unintended encroachments near neighbors where they don't want it to be. the SPR uh process is there to notify your neighbor so they have a chance to let us know if there's going to be any issues with that.

And just to clarify, so the new area has to meet the setback. So even if the old home is able to be rebuilt and it did not conform with the setbacks, um this new portion would or you would have to um apply for the site plan review in order to request that u matching line. That's correct. and it may or may not be granted depending on the circumstances. Okay. Um, any other clarifying questions? Do we have any comments from Luca? Go ahead. Yeah.

Yeah. Um, I'd like to know if this applies across across the regulations or development or just to plans and TDSF. In other words, does this apply when I want to add square footage to a second story? It does. It does. as so if you're within the envelope of the previous building that's totally fine. You're within your realm of your PV. Um if you add volume over 18 ft that was not there before, it will trigger a sip line review. An SPR APR, not not a CDP. Correct. As long as you're within 10%.

So meaning that if I'm within the 10% I'm going beyond 18 ft, my neighbor is going to be able to know that I'm doing this by having story polls or whatever it is that that it takes. and so we're all aware of what's going to happen and we can say yes or no to it. That's correct. Thank you. Hey, do we have any online speakers? No, we don't have any raised hands. Okay, great.

In addition to the setback, I think one of the things that we're continuing to see is folks aren't clear that the 10% is capped at your TDSF. So, we need to include language to clarify that as well. So, the reason it's not in the policy document is because it's in the law already. So, our ordinance 524 already says uh TDSF will be a limitation on your 10%. If council wants to, we can add more clarity, but it it's in the law. And so, I'd like to add um is this something you see tripping up people?

Yeah, it has come up again and again. Folks, um routinely think the 10% is sort of a given and then they come back and check against the TDSF and then they have to dial their plans back down. So, I think we need to communicate that. Uh, but it's probably not a policy, but probably was something we need to put out there and and and put into our guidance documents so people can see it right up front. I think it already is because we discussed this in March. We did it. We had a lot of discussion about this earlier. So, we may should have been clear. You were there. No, no, I know we may have. No, we did it at a public meeting.

If I know it's I'm not sure how much of the public we see the same faces over and over. If this is something that is people we don't I know people they email me I don't know them they're not here but they're like please help me please help me hermit anything that we can do it seems very low hanging to clarify whatever might be complicating things yeah I mean we are plugged in here this group here obviously you see a lot but there's a lot number of folks that aren't as plugged in so well there's 700 right we kind of know we see the same people but hopefully other people will rebuild. Th

this is again a consequence of the false interpretation that's floating around that some people are uh some prof building professionals are facilitating that the governor's order grants an additional 10%. It does not nor does our ordinance. These are procedural rules. You are still subject to all the existing zoning rules. So long as you don't exceed 10% and can comply with those zoning rules, you get a PV. That's what this is about. It doesn't you're not granted an additional 10% of anything.

Uh I and I'm sorry just just to add I think this was mentioned at the beginning of the conversation. Uh a lot of conversation has been done on this policies before for the CDS to make sure that we continue sending the message out. Uh we also stated at the beginning that if this is will be for clarification for all of the design professionals that still have a question. This presentation is going to be recorded. It's going to be put on our website and we will work on um possibly put every every documentation on our on on on our rebuild center but also on our website. Before you speak um let Louise speak.

Thank you Marian. Three questions. Well, I agree with this. Okay. Um, number one is this ordinance from March is still not public on the website on the code, right? When is going to be published because it's been 5 months. Yeah. So, it is available on the website. It's just to your point, it's a little trickier if you're not familiar with navigating it because I think people are used to going in our e-code and just finding the code section. Unfortunately, our third party uh e-code system takes a little bit of time. We're on them. I'm nodding at the city clerk over here. we're on them. They It's It's out of our hands. But if you just search 524, ordinance 524 in the ecode or on the website, you'll be able to find the ordinance. Okay. So, we should

and also this is part of the existing municipal code. This isn't a new section that was adopted. This is already existing in our municipal code.

The well the specific definition that anything above 18 ft you are not granted at 10%. That's not specifically defined only with this ordinance. So people outside professionals outside of Malibu they don't know this. They are used to the palis and they're used to aladina. They come here and as Bruce says they feel that they are entitled to something they they are not. So by helping them with advertising this which leads into my second and third question. The second question is this process of turning a PV into an APR with a site plan review which is great and I thank Tyler for encouraging everybody to take that route too. How much time does that add to your timeline? Let's be clear with that. I think it's between three and four months extra.

No. How what? So, correct. How long do you think it 21day noticing requirement and we're putting them out? But big picture Tyler, not only the noticing like arranging your surveyor to get your story polls properly placed, getting the story poll certified, getting your mapping services, getting the noticing, having the staff. I know. So that's something that that you have to discuss with your owner. That's not something but the residents need to understand when they make these choices of oh no worries let's go for a site plan review it adds a lot of time to your timeline. Let's explain them let's explain this to them.

Well the city can explain the city's portion of it but anything that's outside the city's control that's something that the property owner and their design professionals have to discuss. Okay. Well, there's one. Am I am I correct that if you go for the site plan review, you trigger the potential for appellet um review? Yes. So, and and if there's a PV, you do not. Correct. Correct.

Okay. So, and and this is a critical critical thing for everyone to understand. If you stay within the PV guidelines, you have clear sailing once the city authorizes your your plan. Once the planning department authorized your plan doesn't go to the planning commission, doesn't come here and clearly doesn't go to the coastal commission. The minute you go outside that, but by the way, you may you may be triggering the um coastal act at that point too because you might be in excess of 10%. But leave that one aside. But if as long as if you're even outside the Coastal Act, if you have an site plan review, your neighbor spitefully or otherwise can file an appeal. suspends your permit until the planning commission acts on it. Your neighbor spitefully or otherwise, actually someone a mile away, can file an objection and come to the city council. You might be 2, three years before you get your approval if you go outside of PV. That's the beauty of this like for like pure and simple.

Yeah. Let's go back to the fact we're pushing the idea of like for like if you decide you want to put a second story on a house within your envelope and it's going to treat trigger a site plan review that's but remember Doug this site plan review is for within plus 10%. We're people are not asking for more than 10% is within plus 10. I know so I agree with Bruce please don't do site plan reviews it can add three years to your permit. The last question, Yolanda announced that the department is working on a very cool uh rebuild guide, right, with a consultant with graphics. When is that going to do with this particular So, when is that going to be ready for everybody to see? Okay, we we'll answer that.

Joe, did you have a question? So if a house that burned down in the fire was over 18 feet but not increasing in any height then no SPR is required. That's true. No height uh no increase in height nor volume. Right. So if they're moving into an area where no structure was before above 18 ft then they need story pools. Correct. Okay. And I just want to say we have a story pull waiver program. If you can if you can to make it clear as day through visual analysis that you're not going to have any impacts on views, we can we can assess that as well.

I I have a clarifying question on that because I think there's some complexity here that that does need to be addressed. So, um there's a 20 foot legal non-conforming home that burns. Only onethird of the second story was 20 ft. The rest of it was 16 ft. Do they have the right under uh without an SPR to extend the second floor at 1 in sidewise to the same 20 whatever I said foot height that they had before or does that trigger an SPR?

That triggers an SPR for the portion above 18 feet. Yes. Okay. So what if they want to move the location of the higher portion of the property? So from one side to the other. Correct. That also triggers a site plan review because it's outside the envelope of the previous home.

Okay. I I I I think a lot of diagrams and words would be helpful for the community on this one because I I I think there there's a lot of subtlety in what you can and can't do if you're 10% to stay out of an SPR. We are currently working on an infographics uh specifically for this policies and ordinance. We wanted to make sure that we go through this process. Uh so we're working on that.

I just want to real quick I just want to also say it's also to help encourage people to develop those new portions within or or or moved portions within what the code allows. So 18 ft. If you're within 18 ft and below and within 10% your footprint, that's still a PEV. So it's just it's just prohibiting not prohibiting but it's making it a little harder to get something that's moving above 18 ft. It's all so it's all about encouraging people to conform with the code.

All right. Let me give you another hypothetical so I understand this. So let's say you've got a legal non-conforming home that's over height. You still have TDSF le left. Can you expand the non non-conforming? Can you expand the conforming portion of your house where because you have a legal non-conforming home, are you outside of getting an additional anything? I think we covered that with the you can't expand the nonconformity. You can't expand the non-conformity. You could get more TDS. That's the whole point of this policy is the 10% must comply.

Okay. So, you can get an extra 10% up to TDSF no matter what your pre-existing house was, just not beyond beyond the setback, beyond the height limit, all those things. Well, you can apply for a site plan review. I'm talking within those everything I say is to keep within a PV. Uh again, anyone who doesn't stay within a PV, I think is, you know, I want to say crazy, just you're going to buy yourself an extra year or two of of stay within the PV.

I don't disagree with you on that. I just want to be clear that they can apply whether or not it will be granted and yes, it's going to add time to their thing. I just don't want people hearing you can't do that. We've already approved a few APR SPRs and without any neighbor complaints. So is definitely doable. Okay, Luca, very quickly.

So, um I'd like to point again that um there's been fingerpointing on professionals a few times already and there's a combination of factors here. One, if someone decides to pick a professional who's not familiar with the process in Malibu and all these meetings and what has happened since the fires, that's, you know, a risk that they that they incur into and that's unfortunate, but that's just how it is. Um, and the other part is that when you have an uh a professional like myself and some that are here that are here all the time and they know the nooks and crannies and the if knots and if if butts or whatever, we're here to advocate not for ourselves but for our clients who are citizens of this, you know, and people have been, you know, harmed by these fire from these fires. So I I I feel that we're blamed for trying to push for trying to push the envelope. We're just trying to apply what the rules are and make sure that the rules are interpreted properly. It's what six months after the fires. Uh we determined we went through this process the first time in May in March. We changed the code. It's still not clear.

Thank you. So we keep going back and forth because the code is still not clear. We're trying to deliberate. The code is clear. It's a matter of the policies are not clear. Okay. And that's why we're here today. Right. Do we have any online speakers? No, we don't have any raised hands. So, we'll close public comment. I just wanted to comment on Luka. I see you're frustrated. I get it. Guess what? We get blamed, too. They get blamed, too. It's the easiest person to point the fingers, right? The design professional, the expediter, it's the council. They're incompetent. This is not a perfect process by any stretch. These guys get blamed. We're all going to get blamed. It's something that we all just kind of have to No, but my point is in this in this

I I understand. We're just I think we should not point fingers amongst each other. We were Everybody's pointing fingers at everybody. I've heard negative comments about professionals already four times. I've heard negative comments about me 15 times between us. But we we're going to have a break and you guys can have a discussion. Thanks. Talk to me anytime. directly.

But, you know, that that does raise though another issue. I've heard somebody say this about some people that aren't familiar with our codes who think that whatever it is they can do somewhere else they can do here. I mean, as a lawyer, I know that I only practice law in the state in which I am licensed to practice law because every law has different every state has different laws. And and an easy example everyone will understand is in California, you can you can you can buy and smoke pot. There's a lot of states where that's both a state and federal. It's a federal crime everywhere, but it's a state crime. You can't just assume the law is the same. Any when you're hiring professionals, make sure your professionals understand Malibu law because, you know, if they come in here thinking they're going to apply the Los Angeles building code or the Los Angeles zoning codes, they're going to screw you up. You just got to hire someone that knows what Malibu's laws are. And that's not a problem with Malibu. That's a problem with making sure the professional understands what rules apply.

Okay. Um, do we have consensus on staff's recommendation? I agree with staff's recommendation. I'm in Bruce. Yes. Yes. Hale. Yes. Okay, that's five. Okay. Uh, rooftop decks number 11.

Um, okay. So, rooftop decks. So, we're we're just saying here that um you know, there's been a lot of concerns especially for the beach the ones the properties just land side of PCH where they may be the most impacted by the FEMA raising of the beachfront properties. And so, we just wanted to let people know rooftop decks are not prohibited. They've actually been allowed on numerous cases throughout the city's history. Uh beachfront specifically is specifically mentioned in the code as being allowed uh rooftop decks. Um, so we just wanted to say that we're going to facilitate rooftop decks where we can if you're proposing one. Um, we're just going to put some uh conditions on them so that people know uh, you know, you can't have furniture above the railing height. We might prohibit the use after 10 p.m. We might have some extra restrictions on lighting and music just to make sure you're you're being neighborly. Um, but other than that, we just want to say they are allowed with those conditions. Here's a a picture of um from La Hoya area uh kind of showing you what a rooftop deck. So in this example that uh those conditions would not let that um umbrella be above the uh railing line there. Uh so safety concerns no none here. Um, again, the code does not prohibit rooftop decks, uh, but it does have impacts of privacy to the neighbors. And so, we have some conditions we're going to add to try to mitigate that. Um, and that's it.

Trevor, you're saying that under our rule, that umbrella in that picture couldn't be there. Um, while in use, we, you know, if you're sitting out there on your balcony and you have an umbrella, you know, you're you're you're probably okay. If you leave it up overnight forever, uh, it could be a code violation. if if it's a condition of approval on your permit. And so that comes down to enforcement, right? So that then leads to I got to call the city, I got to call a code enforcement person, they have to come out. Is that right? It does, but at least it provides a vehicle for the city to take action. Okay. Steve, we haven't got a chance to help enforcing this.

Yeah, that's your problem. I mean, I'm serious. We We can't afford We don't force it today. We're not going to enforce it tomorrow. It's almost impossible to do that. I mean, you got the problem not only of the of the the furniture up there, but the lighting that takes place and the noise. I mean, this is something that's going to make the neighborhood less friendly. Uh, so I I have a problem. you know, you got to put some real strict rules around there and also make sure you got somebody that's going to enforce this stuff because up to this point in time, we have not I mean, I get calls all the time from people who have got rooftop decks and you know, nothing happens. They call up and nobody changes anything. So,

that's where I'm coming from. So, are you saying that we shouldn't have rooftop decks or that we shouldn't worry about the items until we can figure out how to enforce them, we shouldn't have them? I mean, but we're putting rules in place that we can't enforce. I mean, that what how you want to do that. Okay. Can we take comment on this? What? No, let's have this discussion. Come on. Um, do you have a clarifying question? Are you Are we We're approving the rooftop deck, not the umbrella. The umbrella is just We're not approving anything.

Well, we're discussing, right? So, the umbrella is kind of not part of this discussion. The the only piece is that uh standard condition is that you can't leave stuff up overnight that's above the railing height so it doesn't block people. That's that's just provided informationational. Okay. And tell me who's going to enforce that. Well, okay. Um do we have any online speakers? No, we don't have any raise hands on Zoom. Don, you're closest. We'll let you go first. Thank you. Very gracious. If you do want to speak, if you could line up, that would be

rooftop decks are already completely permissible under both the municipal code and the local coastal program. The development standards have been debated as ad nauseium. We know exactly what they are. Staff is completely correct that the railing is part of the height calculation, whatever that may be. There are limitations on landscaping which goes over that prescribed height. Uh, and it has to be consistent with the dark skies ordinance for the city of Malibu. What I'm taken aback by was the verbiage that I saw in there that you're not allowed to use it after 10:00. That's not right. Of course, a property owner can go up and sit on their deck at 11:00 or whatever hour suits them and look at the stars. What they're not allowed to do is have amplified music and create a nuisance. So there's been a lot of discussion about staying consistent with the code. This is really very simple. Stay consistent with the existing code that we have right now. I don't think you've got a policy interpretation. And if in fact you went in a direction of not allowing rooftop decks, that would be a very detailed policy amendment by this council.

Thank you, Luis.

Thank you. I agree with Don. Um I don't think this should be a policy to interpret. Um but I think we could add a friendly reminder for the people who are not used to building Malibu that rooftop decks is not like let's say you had a house that was 15t height. So you can increase your height to 16 and a half and now you can put a a roof on top of it. You cannot do that because the railing which the minimum by code is 42 in counts as height. Therefore, you have to drop your maximum height three and a half feet to have a roof deck. So, you have a lower roof. If you didn't have your roof deck before, it's important to explain this for dummies so people have less mistakes, less back and forth, less stuff over burden and all of that. And then there's one more thing that I think AB is going to mention somewhere in the code for beachfronts. You can go up to 25. And it will be also good to explain how is that allowed with railing. Thank you.

Okay. And I just want to comment on that. That's what the rebuild center for. That's what talking with staff is for is to get that. I'm just making my thing. Staff is there to tell you what the rules are so that you can comply. They are a resource in order for that um information. Read the code. uh 100% in agreement with what Don stated, so I won't restate it. Is it 25 ft?

Uh so the LCP, it's inconsistency in the in the codes. Uh we have two codes, as everyone knows, a municipal code and a local coastal program. In the local coastal program, it does allow the railing to go up to 25 ft only specifically for beachfront lots. Um in the municipal code, that uh that grant is not there. And so the municipal code is driving this or as this uh rebuild because the LCP is suspended and so we are requiring 24 ft max unless you fill it fit it within the envelope of the previous structure then you're still within a PV. Okay, that's good clarification, Danny.

Hi. Yeah, Don said everything I wanted to say uh before I got in line. He said it much better than I would. I would just add that uh to even think about removing rooftop rooftop decks from Malibu seems a long bridge. They're a part of Malibu. Um you talk about an unfriendly neighborhood, they're a part of those neighborhoods, I think. And you know, I also think that if an umbrella is left up overnight and god forbid code enforcement doesn't take care of it, it's not the end of the world. neighbors cause much bigger problems than an umbrella. So, thank you.

Thank you. Um, may I ask are we was this intent? Um, originally the intention was to remove rooftop decks. No, that was never the intention of this. I just want to keep the reality and the facts in the forefront. I don't believe anybody was trying intending to take away Malibu's rooftop decks. I think we just have to iron some of this stuff out. Is that right? Yeah. These this is just uh these policies have been developed by staff and these have what been applied over you know not just the last 6 months but also you know historically and it's bringing this to the forefront for the council. Some of these are palisate specific um but it's just to give to share with the council and then provide an opportunity for input or adjustment if needed.

But I'm just making sure that I'm hearing and reading correctly. This is not whether or not we're going to have rooftop decks. No. If you wanted to stop rooftop decks, we'd probably need a code amendment. It would be a bigger problem. Definitely don't want to stop rooftop decks. I want to stop trying to control everything and try to um let people live their lives here. So, Sawa,

so um I don't need the rooftop top deck. I don't need it, but the my neighbor just below me um has a beautiful house, but has absolutely no view. And they can have an amazing view if they have rooftop deck. They called me. They asked if they can put one or if it's going to bother me. and I said absolutely not. People who are going to have parties and have noise and have lots of light are going to do it whether it's on top of a roof or in a backyard. So, it's really irrelevant. Excellent comment. Thank you, Joe. I just wanted to reiterate the whole step down thing for the balcony rooftop decks. So, it has to be three and a half ft lower for the railing. Is that

Yeah. So, what uh Luis was saying is that because the uh building code requires a 42-in safety railing, um you have to account for that in your envelope if if you don't have the height allowance. So, you might have to drop the ceiling height and to account for a rooftop deck if you didn't have it before. So, it it really can't be on anyone's roof. It has to be below the roof. So, it shouldn't block anyone's view. Depends on the design. If you, let's say you have a singlestory house like a lot of folks in Big Rock and it's part of your 10%, then you could just completely add a rooftop deck and keep the same roof height of your house as you had it before. But it steps it has to step down at least 3 and 1/2 ft because of the railing.

Your maximum height would be Yeah. If it's under 18 feet with the 42 inches if your previous height you're saying was under 18t and within your 10% is the important part. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So if you have a 15 foot high house, you would get another 42 in on top of that or you would have to reduce your 15 ft by 42 in in order to comply with it.

So yeah, 15 feet you get about a foot and a half as part of your 10%. So you have to design again going back to the design and it's not to throw anything but you guys are the creators create a a design to help your client get that rooftop deck that they want within the rules of the code. But as long as you can put it in the policy written that way so people don't real that they realize it has to be not on top again that's one of those things that these are this is why we have a staff this is why we have a rebuild center so they are available to explain these nuances of these codes so when you're designing your home that's one of the it's written down

the height is the height of your home and what you get and then how you design that to be with incorporating these other features are part of that. Maybe it's easier to understand that the railing height is the height of your building. That's right. That's that's as long as it's written down that the railing height is as high as it can go. Okay. I think that one's incredibly simple. If you have a 15t house, it can go up to 16.5 ft with the PV. If you want a deck, that's part of your height. So, your roof is going to have to be 4 and 1/2 ft below that total height, that 16.5 ft height. 3 and 1/2 ft.

I also want to add that this is incredibly simple possibly to us and to them and uh to them being the planners, but this is not incredibly simple stuff to the normal person doesn't usually have their house burned down and then have to think about all this PV. I would love like a guide, like you were saying, Yolanda, a guide book. A lot of people are visual learners. A lot of people need to be explained multiple times since this isn't n like their nature. There's not intuitive stuff.

And every time we come to council and we hear the feedback, we're trying to address everything. It's just the limitations on hours on the day that we can work. But we are really trying our best to provide that information. Would your Pepe and Smith help? They are helping out. We are also having another consultant help out. So, we are trying to be as fast as we can. I I appreciate that because I do know that time is of the essence and to help people that aren't here at these meetings and watching the stuff on YouTube just handing a guide book just then they'll determine this is too much for me. I want to sell my property or I think I can do this. I got it right. Thank you.

I can assure everybody you can do this. I have seen lots and lots of property owners do this. I apologize for taking but you know it just takes time to come in talk with staff. They'll guide you through it. They are there to help. We've added and supplemented staff so that there are plenty of people to do that. So please utilize that resource. I'm sorry you're brand new. I don't know your name. So um McFaden. I'm an architect with Verge Architects.

Oh okay. So, um, Tyler, um, I would ask with the language, could you please include a cl policy clarification allowing that the railings be allowed to go to 25 ft, which is consistent with the LCP if you are within your 10% your PV sort of 10% for height.

So, because I'm going leave it up to the council and so do you do you all understand the issue that I think Abe also mentioned? So, so there's a discrepancy in our two codes. The municipal code basically allows you to go up to 24 feet. The LCPA allows you for only for beachfront projects to be clear up to 25 ft by right only to include the railing of your rooftop deck. Do we want to grant that for beachfront properties? So, so I'm hearing you clearly clarifying beachfront properties in rebuilds only Palisades fire, not it's allowed for beachfront anyway.

That's like for like correct to be to be clear, it's uh been inconsistently applied to be honest with you. Uh when you when you approve a project, a CDP, you have to comply with the LCP and the MMC. the MMC is more restrictive and so if it's done appropriately it should not be. However, uh to Carmel's point and she could probably bring up a couple examples, uh it has probably been allowed a time or two. Yeah, I've got three projects in the past few years that that has been allowed with no problem. I think my suggestion would be that we bring back an MMC amendment so that we have consistency between the MMC and the LCP.

Yeah. Well, let's let's be careful about one thing. When you start raising the FEMA flood line, uh you're going to be raising these houses and you you very well could have a house that's going up 3 to 5 feet on elevation and now you're going to add more on the height. I'm just trying to get consistency between our MMC and our LCP. So, if they process a coastal development permit with our LCP, they would be able to get that. Our MMC doesn't have that same language. So, I think we should do a cleanup on this so that they are consistent. And then whether or not the PV and your design allows you to do that within your 10% that's

discussion. I I agree with that. But I say I it sounds to me like right now the city's been consistently illegally permitting rooftop decks with the railing up to 25 ft on the beach because

not if they apply for No. No. Even if you apply for, you need a green light under the LCP and a green light under the MMC when the LLC when the LCP applies. If you have a red light on either of the two, you're stuck. It sounds to me like there's a red light on the MMC right now and always has been and therefore any permission to go up to 25 ft under the LCP historically was illegal and improper. Um, we could easily say, "Oh, well, those shouldn't have been, but they were." and no more going to do that. I agree with Maryanne. Since it's already occurring for years, it sounds like it hasn't done any mischief. We should probably bring back an MMC amendment. Do we have to go through the Zerasis and all that crap or can we just need to go through?

Seems like it's a quick thing to just bring in line. Thank you. There may be other things too that we may we've talked about another one initiating potentially like the water tanks clean up ordinance. I would support bringing that back to clean that up and and conform the MMC to the LCP. I support that. And there's also a list of other items that we are going to bring back to you. Um just a reminder as the group knows the the consolidation of the two departments just happened. So that's that is priority on the list to bring back the inconsistencies and so that you are going to see that very soon.

Yeah. You know I I hope that the staff in the future won't because it feels it's trying to accommodate somebody give them the ability to do something if the law says you can't do it. So and not stop them from doing something the law says they can do. All right. No, just give me a second. Trevor, could you opine on the legality between the LCP and the MMC? If it's not written in the MMC, but it is in the LCP, can they get a coastal development permit adhering to the LCP design standards currently or are they concluded because the MMC is not consistent?

The requirement is that you comply with both the LCP and our municipal code for all projects. Um, if there's a conflict between them, the LCP will control. Although we can accept if it in a few circumstances such as if we have things put in that are more protective of um you know the environment or coastal resources or things like that we can put those types of changes in. In in this circumstance you probably have issues because these are all on the beach. So there's the appeal jurisdiction goes to the coastal commission. The coastal commission has told us that they won't apply our municipal code standards and they just go by the LIP when they put this through. Trevor, can I can I can I add one point of clarification, Trevor? Is that yes, the LCP does say that the LCP says when there's a conflict between the two codes, the LCP rules. However, the MMC says when there's a conflict between the two, the stricter of the two shall apply,

right? It actually a conflict does not mean one's more restrictive than the other. A conflict means one says you can do this. not not not that this is a limit, but that you affirmatively have the right to do this and the other says you can't, that would be a conflict. But where one grants you um a limit that's higher than the other or a limit that's bigger than another, that's not a conflict to apply the lesser. So these are technical subtle legal nuances.

If the MMC has a lower limit than the LCP, the LCP limit is not a right, it's a limit. So the lower limit applies. If one grants something, that would be a different story. And there's very few, if any, circumstances where you've got an affirmative grant of a right under one that is prohibited by the other. Hay, I was just going to ask a clarifying question, but so the one side that says no, wouldn't that be restrictive? which the more restrictive will apply. The only time there would be an arguable legal conflict would be where one says notwithstanding that restriction, you can do this. Okay, I think we're going to need to bring this back for clarification.

We don't need to go too down right down the rabbit hole. If there's consensus here to make them consistent and to go with the LCP standard and we hear you, council, we really hear you. This will be uh this will be prioritized. So it sound it sounds like real quick. Are we leaning towards 25? leaning toward 25 for me. I I do want to talk when we bring it back for the council uh decision on the municipal code. We need to discuss what happens when you got FEMA increases. Yeah. Because that may block somebody's view. You may, you know, have a whole different structure there. And it's 25 ft just for the

beach. Beach railing on the beach front. And so just to be clear, since we may have to come back for the water tank issue, if we all recall, we can just couple this in with that as part of the rebuild ordinance update. Um, and to just be clear, uh, to the architects out there that it's not codified yet, so we're not going to allow it until it's codified, but we can still move you through the processes as much as we can. That was my question. I don't want this to then bite back at us saying that they're still waiting for us to give them answers and it's our fault that we're holding them up. Is that I'm hearing that that's not going to happen.

So, just like with the water tanks, we're going to facilitate them as much as possible. However, um we may not be able to issue final permit until these amendments get through, but it will be a priority for us to get these amendments through very quickly. And knowing that you are in favor of this, we will continue moving them through the construction review documents on building safety. Um Doug, I just wanted to say the last 12 in are view permeable. So it would not block anyone's view.

I concern is more about the height elevation to match the FEMA issue. So if we have to raise the whole elevation up for the house for say three or five feet to meet the new FEMA standards even for a like for like now you've got a house up higher and now you're you've got two numbers one's elevation and one's height of the house. So what do we ended up with? Are you going to have a house that's 35 ft above the Yeah, that that's a little later discussion. That's a later discussion. Arno

Steph has been criticized in the past for making rebuild difficult and what I'm seeing tonight and looking through documents is that you're clearing the path. You have fantastic ideas that we love and and support. One is the water tanks, one is the rooftop decks, and there are more to come. And for the water tanks, we're in consensus, the residents and the staff, and you're going an extra round. And for the rooftop decks, staff made a beautiful suggestion. We're in support of it. And looks like we're also going a bit of an extra round. And I would like to continue to see you as a body that clears the path for the fire rebuilds and doesn't induce more complexity and other rounds. What I'm hearing is that we're in for the most part in favor of the rooftop decks. We just want to clean up a inconsistency between our code standards on a separate issue. So it's making sure that going forward that our MMC and our LCP are consistent. So

okay, it it's it's actually making it better in the long run because there won't be this ambiguity or confusion and everything will be um the same. Yeah, like it or not, we want to actually amend the code to make permissible that which the staff is recommending, which right now is impermissible. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Well, I just want to make sure that we're not delaying anything because we did wait a month for this. I don't want to wait another month. I want to make sure that we're if we're all in agreement, let's get this done today and then come back with whatever else you have to come back with.

Yeah. And come I I agree with Don's comment to start that a lot of other people agree with. I don't think there should be a policy on this one because this is already the law. I mean, we I think we need to come back and amend the law on the 24 versus 25 foot, but the rest of this is superfluous. And in fact, I think he's right also about the language in here being potentially problematic that you can't use your deck after 10 p.m. So, I would just leave this one out altogether. Yeah. U Steve, go ahead. And then

no one comes to me to tell the future, but I'm going to tell you, uh, you better get your compliance people in place because the story I'm getting, the people who who are buying the lots and building on the beach, short-term rentals, okay? And the people in short-term rentals don't care about our policies. They, you know, they don't care about how I'm just so you you just make sure you got a compliance program ready to go because they're going to keep them busy. And we are waiting uh waiting. We are waiting uh every decision for future impacts. So we are keeping tab. I

I also want to be clear that this does not stop people from applying for rooftop decks right now. Whether or not the council agrees with this policy or not, uh you can apply for a rooftop deck. The the extra that Carmel wants added is just to go up to 25 ft. So if you're within 24 ft, you're you're totally good as as you are right now. So just want to make sure that's clear. Don't wait for this amendment if you're within the rules already.

I I suspect a lot of res not a lot of some residents might be very upset with this, but to this the only time we can talk because we're, you know, to Steve's point, um the Coastal Act suspended for rebuilds. I suspect we could add a condition to all rebuild permits that they can't be short-term rental because we're not subject to the Coastal Commission telling us we can't do that. just throwing that out there as something to think about going forward for the beach.

And I think you're that's something I've thought about. I mean, we're going to have this racist meeting and that's one of the ones I want to bring up because I think there's going to be they just approved where the uh restaurant with the big Mexican guy standing up with the they had I mean behind I think they doubled the amount of short-term rentals they can have in that piece of property behind there. So, this push for short-term rentals and like I said, all these guys that are that are buying the property on the beach, I think they've got dollar signs in their eyes. Uh, so I think it's coming. We could we could provide that when a property on the beach transfers ownership, it can't have short-term rentals if it's been approved as a rebuild. I'm just just throwing that out.

We're going off script on that one. So, I I agree that that's something we need to to deal with and we we should have a robust discussion about that. Um, so any online speakers? No, we don't have any raised hands on Zoom. Okay. Are we clear on rooftop decks? Well, let's make sure we know what we're agreeing to. I think uh the idea of taking this as already a matter of a settled uh municipal code is correct. We do need to bring it back for clarification or or uh correction on the MMC and the LCP, but I don't think the I think the policy is fine the way it is.

I propose that the direction be that we just eliminate policy 11 because I think it adds complexity to an ex system that already exists and that we also give direction to bring back an amendment to add the additional foot on the beach for the railing. Does that work with staff? I just the point of this is to provide more clarity. Uh, and so I prefer a policy, we prefer a policy to get for clarity. Okay. Uh, but but what I did hear is direction to come back for 25 feet. That's a separate thing. Also, I heard some um push back on the 10 p.m. Yeah,

we can nix that if you want. I think um my recollection in the dark skies ordinance that lights have to be turned off and after 10 p.m. obviously the noise ordinance um kicks in more substantially. So people can still use those areas. They can still use their backyard. They could still use their roof deck, but they have to comply with noise and dark skies. And so we'll keep the we have dark sky noise in there. We'll keep that but we'll eliminate you just that you can obviously use your um you should be able to facilitate the use of your entire home day within the rules of more clear yeah noise and lighting.

Does the existing rule bar lighting and music or does it have limitations on lighting and music? Um, so there are dark sky codes that would bar lighting already uh prior to 10 o'clock. But this um if depending on the height, yes, you're not allowed to have height above 18 ft, example, on a residential property uh uh for unless for safety. Okay, but but what about a deck that doesn't exceed that height? That's why we would impose conditions. That's the point of our policy is to let you know that yes, you can have a rooftop deck, but we are going to impose conditions for uh protection of the neighborhood.

Right. This this policy as written though doesn't distinguish between a rooftop deck that's ex in excess of the otherwise prohibited height, you know, the limited height or at or below that height. This just says bars, lighting, and music, which I read to mean any any rooftop deck. Well, it it's any rooftop deck because even a 15ft tall deck could have privacy issues against your neighbor. So, you cannot play music on a 15t rooftop deck. There would be limitations to Right. This says bars. It says bars. It are we are we barring music and lighting on the rooftop decks? Um we can uh we can clarify I think with as long as you're within the your you know the noise ordinance. Is that only barring after 10 p.m. That's how it reads in here. Yeah.

No, it doesn't read that. It it it reads it's it's a separate a separate three separate I'm just trying to get clarification. Was that was that a condition that's after 10 p.m. it's turned off or you cannot have any music or lighting? That was not my addition. So um if the uh there was no intent to bar lighting, we can we can make it clear when we come back that um just within the rules, but it's put putting limitations on music and lighting so that they don't become a nuisance that are consistent with our existing code standards with regards to dark skies and the noise ordinance.

I think if you just stick with our existing uh uh ordinances and requirements, you're fine. Okay. You don't need to add this as a second item. That's why I said I think policy 11 is extraneous and maybe is going to cause more bischieft than benefit. Okay. Okay. Uh they are consistent with what we would require for a CDP. So that's what you know we do require some extra stuff for CDPs is uh specifically for rooftop decks like the furniture for example that's been developed through the planning commission over time. You're comment in on the next one. Okay. Yes, we we we are falling behind on our I know we are we're about

they they put this on the agenda for clarification. I've a lot of people in my zones who are doing rooftop decks. Is this going to cause them a delay because you're not voting on something today to approve this? No. Okay. They have you guys can move. Do you need clarification on the rooftop decks to move people through the process today? We don't but you know seems like people do. So that's what that's why we added it. No problem. Not staff, but but residents. Some residents have Yeah. need need clarification. We're going to take a five minute break. Can you go on five? Yeah. Just we're we're we're clear on this one. We're going to go to the next policy when we come back. Okay. We're going to keep this policy. Correct. Correct. All right.

I I just wanted to make sure we have till 6 p.m. tonight. Correct. Am I 400 p.m.? Okay. With a lunch break of one hour. Okay. Just want to make sure everybody's aware. And we

because there's use of the room and so they anticipate there's going to be bodies. It'll get warmer. I'm good. Thanks.

Okay, we're back in session. So, um, by my count, we concluded number 11. We're on to 12. Tyler, I'm sorry. Um, number 12, survey requirement.

All right. So, um, there's been a couple instances where, you know, in the planning phase, we're we're trying to we hear we hear, uh, some residents, you know, surveys can be costly. And so, we've been trying to find alternatives to, um, verify the rebuild plus 10% where you're located and things without requiring a survey. But, to be honest, it's been a little challenging. And so we're just saying here that whenever, you know, we're going to go through the records, we have historical surveys, approved plans, and coastal commission county records. However, if there's a discrepancy, let's say on your assessor record that says your lot area was um you know, 10,000 square feet to make it easy, but all other records we have say 5,000 square ft. we may ask for a survey to verify the lot area because it it depends on how much TDSF you're allowed and things like that. So, we're just letting people know that surveys may be required um if there's a discrepancy.

Okay. Any clarifying questions? I have one.

Okay. Um, so I'm just curious why we're not just adopting the executive orders just full like Bruce says full stop just like why are we not just doing that? Well, I think as Tyler explained that um on most cases they probably can go by, but then there there could be records that aren't showing a um a clear amount of square footage andor lot size, things like that. And in that case, the staff wants the extra um ability to be able to calculate those things. You said it much better than I just did, so please why not repeat?

Right. Right. So there there I can give you one specific example where we were trying to use their assessor data but their assessor data had their lot area let's say it was 20,000 square ft and they had other data that we had on record that showed that the lot area was 30,000 square ft. Now if we give them the 30,000 they can have their extra 10% if we square footage. If we stick to the 20 thou,000 they could not have the TD the the square footage that they were asking for. So in those cases when there's a discrepancy, we're just asking for a clean survey to prove what the actual lot area is.

And and with this policy, we just want to make sure that we have accuracy and reliable information that is going to be required at the time that they come in construction documents. I think I I I appreciate that. I think I meant overall like just overall we have these orders. Why don't we just follow them as we instead of adding all this other stuff? I'm just wondering why we don't just follow the executive orders because the executive the executive order does nothing more than suspend the operation of the coastal act. It does not in go into our municipal code and make any changes whatsoever.

If I could real quick, um there's going to be in the next phase when we get to the larger items, we're going to talk about like for like in 10%. I think that's the time where we want to talk about that so we can hopefully try to keep things moving on the easier ones and we we are following the governor's orders for sure and it is some areas of it you know there's you know you know what existed before you know these are things that were that there is room for us to interpret under the order but we are definitely following the orders so I have two questions clarifying questions is the survey necessary in any in any instance to make sure that the home has not crossed the lot line or is it simply a matter of trying to figure out how large the property is? [Music]

The survey is important because it has accuracy on it. It it cannot cross any lot lines. I mean this is your what is your entitle within your property rights on property lines. But my question, are we are we finding that within the fire destroyed properties where people are going to build back like for like there are prop there are structures that were built across the lot line. Uh it's not uncommon on beachfront lots especially on the very east side of town. What about on the land?

Not as common because those those parcels are usually larger but there could be structures like a like a perimeter wall or a Yeah. How about if we limit it to the primary structure? Are we finding that there's any primary structures that are that that are arguably across the lot line such that a a survey is necessary? There's 108 applications right now and and and Tyler and I are not doing the reviews. It's hard for us to provide you with that information. Um I I think for me we really need direction on this and I want to keep us on point and I know that you're asking the questions

for the purpose of deciding what direction I think makes sense. Um the other question I have is is the excess is the assessor's um assertion of the um size of the lot ever um larger than the lot as I mean I I hear where it can be smaller. Is it ever larger? Yeah, there's discrepancies. So it could go either way where like we have a survey on file that shows lesser and the assessor showed more. Let's say we did a survey back. Yeah. Okay. And Bruce just up in Melbourne where I live. Uh there there are properties there that go across the lot line and they're there. I mean, nobody ditching about it, but that's what it is.

Doug.

All right. Um I'm not going to wait for the speakers. I want to bring this up and see if if we really have this addressed properly. I understand along the coastal s coastal uh areas there's always been this comment that oh people and especially the eastern side have built over onto the CALR property easements or whatever line might be on that side and then I heard from some people I have some respect for they said wait a minute goes both ways PCH has actually pushed itself into some of the property lines property owners property just they have pushed into some of CALR properties. Uh so are we requiring in this movable area and the part of this is the old sage about uh the mountains are trying to push PCH under the ocean and the ocean's trying to take it away. So, as these houses are trying to go back on the same spot they had before, are we verifying that they're in the proper place and they're within their lot line or is this and what I'm really coming up to is are you going to have to do a survey for every house along the beach?

We are verifying location. Uh, and that is what is critical to have an accurate survey. Um, but it sounds like you got to do it for every my my expectation would be every house along the beach is probably gonna have to have a service. It is part of the construction permits uh process. So there was a has been a lot of discussion on having just one-step process instead of having a planning review and a building review. So we just want to make it clear that if we are going to be asking for this documentation.

Okay. So along the beach, you're not going to be able to do a a assessor's report. I mean, one one thing I read in this is square footage. To go back to I think to Bruce's comment, but now I think the question is lot line. Where is it? And even though the governor's order gave mean high tide protection, it only covers the the water side. It doesn't necessarily cover the beach, the land side. So are you going to have to do a survey for every house? Yeah. So to Yana's point, there there's going to be required implant check on almost all cases, probably all cases. And so I think if you want to just we can just say that surveys are required period. We were trying to give uh flexibility because we got some push back from residents about you know in the early phases maybe to kind of get them through get them an approval to not require in that phase and that's what this policy is written for. But they will be required because we do have to approve those lot lines. It's very important that they don't go on neighborhood properties or onto PCH property and things like that. And I guess that brings up the question if the governor's order says you can put your house back on the beach slide where it was before. Are we how are we managing that? Because if the

by by complying with the law by complying with the law. Good answer. Not only that, I I just want to say once again, and and I know people don't like to hear this, but it's what the order says. I'm not making this up. The order doesn't say you can put your house anywhere. The order says so long as you put your house in certain places, you're suspended from the Coastal Act. It doesn't affirmatively grant you anything. So, to say it that way is is to further um promote this misunderstanding of how the governor's order works. The governor's order doesn't give anyone a right to build in any particular place. It says as long as you build in a certain place, the coastal act is suspended.

Well, are we ready for speakers or go ahead? Let me look while your speakers. Do we have any online speakers? Yes, we have one raised hand.

Okay. Um Abe, we'll take her in person first and then we'll go online. Abe, go ahead. Uh it it makes sense. The only point would be to clarify additional points that the surveyor it'll be helpful for them to mark. We have seen on occasion that the surveyor puts out a plan. They don't shoot some important items and then they have to come back. For instance, the top of slab to know where we are rebuilding from is a very crucial point to establish the baseline. So it'll be helpful to sort of have some sort of a a guidance, a document that indicates what are all the points that are necessary. So when the surveyor comes out, they shoot all of it all at once and they don't charge separately uh to make a second visit. But overall, we are very much in alignment.

Can I ask a clarifying question, Tyler? Yes. uh to Abe is that in the staff's responsibility to clarify that or is that in the Yes, I do have a clarifying point in our checklist. We do have all we do list what we expect in a survey and so we can give the information information is available on our checklist already. So have you seen this checklist? Yeah. Do you still feel like this checklist is not clear enough? Well, I mean, I think the the issue has been that some in some items in the checklist may not be applicable. Some cases it may be applicable. So, um that conversation I think may be may be helpful to be had.

Yeah. But in a specific to the survey, um do you feel that we have the correct information on the survey line um to make sure that it's clear or you need more information on the survey line? We'll take another look at it. Okay. We will send you a link. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Louis. And to that to that end, it doesn't make sense to put out a guide yet. If we don't have all of the information because I keep thinking a guide, you know, like a picture guide or whatnot, but until we have all of this information, you're just going to be printing up packets. And so what we have council, I think what it is is we have a bunch of different materials available. So, all of this information we were all talking about is available in the ether.

I think Yolanda's plan is to get it all into one comprehensive guide for them all. So, it's a one-stop booklet of all of the details, which sounds great. Um, I was just wondering because if things change, then you're updating the booklet. We don't want to change things because hopefully nothing will change after today. Right. Well, that's what I'm saying because you keep asking about the booklet, Luis. I know. I know. And LA city has one since 2011 or so. And it's and city of Malibu has one also. It's just

well Lester wrote a really good book, but I don't know if the city of Malibu has a comprehensive guide, but I'm not going to speak about that. I want to thank a staff because this is actually something this thing with the surveys is something that I pushed for remember back in February. I asked you Marian and this was especially because we needed to wait for the debris removal and in order for people to get started with the projects, they couldn't get their survey until the debris removal was done. Now the debris are are are more under the way. So survey is going to be required no matter what. And I appreciate what they said, Tyler. Oh yeah, you're going to need before you get your permit. After plan check, you need your survey. 100% of the cases.

After plan check, this is speaking for the planning process to help people move forward in the early stage is all.

There you go. So the Tyler is trying to help people get moving and I really appreciate that. But I want to remember also the other reasons why a survey is important is to the limit where your boundary is to calculate your setbacks to calculate your maximum TDSF. So you need to in the checklist it needs to include that the surveyor has to tell you how much area you have of a steep slopes steeper than one one. You also should limit any slopes steeper than 3:1 because it's another setback. Okay. And those uh slopes have to be calculated with a five foot contour system. So if any residents hire a surveyor from outside of Malibu, they need to know how to calculate the slope like Malibu wants.

That's why you go to the rebuild center and you get the information from staff. Newark.com gives it to you for free more or less like within 1% of precision. I mean I'm actually not against what he's saying in terms of if we want to require one in the planning phase that's fine. We wrote this policy uh like Louis said for for one of his comments that he represented a few maybe Lucas still represents a few that need it. But if this is no longer needed, you know, the preference is maybe just to require a survey up front. It just is going to be more time and money up front for the homeowner. Luka.

Yeah. Um I definitely agree with both. I mean, I understand the the what you're trying to do is to have people get through the planning PV process as fast as possible, but in reality, what's going to happen is this. This might potentially bite them back very bad because you can approve in concept, sure, we are more or less, you know, within the envelope, within the location, and that's all fine. But then once we get in uh building and safety and we do get a proper survey done then this house might have to shift 3 4 feet in any direction. If it happens to shift in a steep area then you can't build there at all. So I understand what the what the just and the meaning of this is but I I would like to stress the fact that is it's really fundamental that people have a surve a proper survey done in the planning phase and uh and that the reason why this is important should be explained clearly so that you know people that hire or in the process don't feel that they're you know it's it's not a burden it's something you really need.

Okay. And then we have someone online still. Yes, we have Wade Major. Wade, we couldn't hear you very well last time, so if you could um get as close to your speaker as possible. All right. Is this close enough? A little bit better.

A little better. Okay, I'll try to talk more loudly and and embarrass myself. Um uh everybody has said all the all every I agree with everything that's been said. Surveys are super important for a whole litany of reasons, but obviously Malibu, like Steve pointed out, Malibu nulls, Malibu is notorious for just being a surveyor's nightmare because land movement over the years everywhere. It's just it's the nature of the city. Um our our surveyor, for example, said, you know what, most of the old monuments have rotted or else um Edison just tore them up when they were trenching Big Rock. So this is this is an ongoing problem and I suspect that the trenching everywhere and on PCH is wiping out monuments too. So surveyors are going to have a real challenge regardless but the surveys do have to be done. But separate from that maybe I can offer a suggestion that would that would help in some of these respects for you know in trying to establish what was there before. if your information disagrees with what is with the assessor. I've been urging people to file a change of information, a change of data form, which we did and we filed it in March and then in April they said it'll take another two months and I called yesterday and they said we're not even close because Altadena because Palisades it's just the the the assessor's office is overwhelmed with these forms. So I don't know how long it's going to take them. But if we want to expedite that process, perhaps it is okay for the form that we submitted to the assessor to provisionally just submit that to planning so that they can see here this is what we are telling the assessor was was not accurate on their records and what we're asking them to change.

Also make a note of that. Maybe there's a way of just kind of trying to push these two processes in parallel rather than asking people to just wait however long it's going to take the assessor to get around to it. Okay. Thank you, Don. In regards to surveys, the fire rebuilds are not a huge part of our firm's practice. I think we got somewhere north of 15 of them. We're helping people out. Uh we've done surveys, basemap surveys, boundary and topo on all of them. And Tyler, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we were told on all the beach uh properties that to get the planning verification that the base mapap survey was a submittal requirement already.

Yeah. And that's because um to council member Stewart's point, it's more it's harder to determine if you're on your neighbor's property or not. And that's why for beach, we have been asking for more in the planning phase. I think another aspect of that on the beachfront properties is also you're requiring coastal engineering and and and uh septic system design and so the three-dimensional geomorphology is a real important component of that as well. So for what it's worth, council members,

thank you Joe. Um, I just wanted to say that our architect requires a survey, but the survey doesn't always show the overhangs, the sixoot overhangs, those are shown in the tax assessor's packet. So if if there's a way I mean I guess when ARCSAR is is available the tax assessor packets for every home will be plugged into that and people will be able to see where their setbacks are from the sixoot overhangs and etc. So I don't know if this can come into play or if tax assessor packets should be in the submitt as well as on top of surveys. I don't know. Do you have something to say Bruce? No. Okay, thank you. That's it.

Okay. Any other public comment? No, we don't have any raise hands. Well, I think I'm going to ask the clarifying question between the tax assessor packet and a survey if do you guys do you have some more information on that nuance? I don't think I'm familiar with it. Uh the survey would rule uh if we have one. Okay. Um, do you guys use like Google map, Google Earth or any sort of satellite imagery? And how far back do you go? Is there guidelines on on that? Because

we we have um yeah, we have aerial imagery, especially on the coast, you know, there's some great resources that date all the way back to the 70s um but 1760s, but um this is for determining where your your structures are located. And one of the key points of the governor's order is to make sure you're substantially within the same footprint. And so sometimes it gets tricky depending on the, you know, the characteristics of your site. Right. Okay. Thank you, Chris.

So, you know, people talk about property rights all the time. The one sank or sank property right is that you own what you own and not more than what you own and no one else owns what you own. I I don't see how the city can issue a permit to construct anything on a property that may not be the property of the person who seeks to construct it on. So unfortunately, I mean, it seems odd to talk about needing a survey to rebuild a house that was situated there yesterday, but that house may not have been permitted on it might not have been in the proper place. So, I don't see how you can get around the the city can't just voluntarily grant permits to rebuild where it may not be permissible. I what I would do though is I I I would make it in the first instance a requirement of all rebuilds that there be a survey of any bill period. But the disc the city should have the discretion to not require it where clearly where the city determines that it's clearly not a problem. Um and second is the qu I think the more important question is though what kind of survey is going to be required? I mean is there are there lesser forms you know we talk about people want lesser geological assessment which I don't think could be done but are there forms of lesser surveys that can be accepted where it's not a difficult question of whether it's close to a border or not.

So just clarification on that the city uh has never issue a permit without a proper survey. It is a requirement under the building and safety process. I think I want to bring back again that we are discussing a planning policy. So think of your um your first step to your fire rebuild. Um staff um for the benefit of the uh community uh families uh went ahead and allowed uh the possibility of not having the survey at the time of submitts. But they are required at the time of the complete they submit met through building and safety

and if there's a survey in the city's files from a prior from when the property was built before that's that's already taken care of under the planning u review that that is that that is being used. What about for building purposes? We need actually an accurate um survey. So if the so we're leaving it up to the design professionals, right? Uh we I'm not a lawn surveyor and when you said can you go lesser on a lawn surveyor there's a specific technical information on what Abe just mentioned before of how many monuments do you need? What are the what are the checklists that you need to do?

I'm asking a different question I think. Um so planning approvals already been obtained but there was no survey. Um, you're now at the point of getting your building permit and you have a survey from 10 years ago when the house was constructed 10 years ago before it burned. Does a new surve is a new survey required now or is that survey that's in the file the survey that matters? We are requiring new surveys. What is the point of that? What is the point of that? Things change over time. So your boundaries, believe it or not, might change over time. There could be illegal, you know, grants of easements and stuff that that never got c that never got memorialized and and so um topography also changes as our, you know, nonmovement,

our geomorphologist will tell you topography changes, right? So, okay. So, so before any house can be rebuilt, there must be a a current survey in the file that is going to be required under building safety. So, I think maybe I'm just finally getting this. So, you're just asking when the survey will be required. Are we going to require it at the planning submittal phase or are we going to um allow them to go through planning without that and then they will be required regardless at the building safety plan check? That is correct. That is yes. So, it's just moving when that document is required to be included in the packet. So,

so it seems to me that someone who's cautious and doesn't want to waste money is going to get their survey done up front. But if they want to wait, that's their business and they do it at their own peril. Unless there are some cases where planning absolutely needs it in order to make a determination because the records or other items are inconsistent to be able to justify. I I would say even then if I mean they're if somebody's foolish enough to submit a plan that might be over the property line, get their planning approval, find out a year later that they're not going to be able to build that house because they crossed the property line. That's we'll hear about let them let them take that risk.

But there's also a TDSF consideration that we're encountering currently, right? Same issue. if they want to avoid you know we we could force them to have a survey to be um protective of them but if somebody wants to take that risk let them take that risk okay but I think planning is having issues because sometimes there are some inconsistency and it's staff is going to go with the more conservative calculation that's provable

or sometimes when it's uh we can't make a determination we will require a survey in the planning phase uh To Mayor Proton's point, completely agree. Some of the architects said the same thing. It's best practice to get your survey done upfront. It's just best practice. However, we've been facilitating homeowners who want to, you know, they may not have the money or the time to wait right now and we have enough information to at least give them a planning approval. We've allowed those people to go through. So, this is just again in the planning phase only. Do we want to require a survey or only when there's a discrepancy?

Well, let me two questions. I think Lewis made a real good point when he did his presentation of the impacts and the cost you can get problems you can run into if you need you got a bad survey to begin with. But from your experience, have you had many instances where you've taken a look at what you know whatever you're using right now for the planning survey and had to change it when you get back to the building and safety. Has there been a a lot of There's been some but not a lot. It's, you know, it's not it's not common for us to be super off in terms of where they're located, but it it does it does happen. Okay. So, it's it's a risk. It's really what your risk tolerance is. Okay.

Have you seen somebody coming with a 10-year-old survey and then a new survey and things have changed and then you're stuck in some legal or tugofwar? I mean, that just seems like such a can of worms. Um, what precedes? What's the obviously it would be the current, right? But then you have the neighbor that's saying one thing. So that's like a hornet's nest. That was my clarifying comment. I I don't know what to do about that. I think that going in blind without a survey seems crazy to me. You you know, you take a road trip, you need a map. I think I think for staff is trying to be trying to listen.

Yeah. Trying to listen. uh knowing that um there's a lot of challenges for our families and so we want to be able to be flexible and give options but it's also a risk that the families are taking. If if I could make a make a proposal, I think um now that I understand it better, if I if I a light went off, if we could say that in the planning phase, a survey is required, but it's up to the planning uh area to be able to wave that until the permit phase. Is that what you guys are asking for? [Music] Yes, that's what we're asking for.

I I I'm in support of that. I think that's that helps the people that are trying to figure out where they're going to start. If you know, if you got a 10acre parcel, you don't need to have a survey to to do the minute. This is like your map. Yeah. Where you start. Got it. I'm in I'm in favor of if we if that's what this says, required, but waveable in the planning phase, but required for permit. We'll make that amendment if that's what the council agrees to. First,

let me throw this out as a general non-pater paternalistic matter. I think somebody should be able to get their survey as late as they want to get their survey and that's their issue. Um, I like Doug's compromise to that. But having said that, I want to go the other direction, which is I don't want the staff to be blamed

three years from now, wrongfully blamed three years from now for someone who went forward on faulty information or insufficient information and finds out down the road that they can't do what they've been planning to do for two years and spend a lot of money doing it. And I'm thinking maybe to be paternalistic is beneficial to the city in this instance because if we require a survey from everybody from day one, which they're going to have to have before they build that house no matter what, nobody's going to be in a position of a shifting landscape literally down the line that they're going to then blame on the city, the city council, or maybe even their architects or their other professionals. So I would actually say let's just put it as a requirement from day one. You can't get your approval without a survey. And then, you know, going forward that's not going to shift.

Do we have consensus on that? I think I think Doug's proposal that says leave it up to the staff. Well, require it, but their discretion require discretion because if you got a 10 acre property, you may not need it. So, I mean, if you leave it up to the staff, I guarantee the staff's going to make a decision to to excuse it sometime and then it's going to get challenged.

What would you guys rather have? We'd rather have it that they have it at the beginning. Um I agree that we don't want to go back and forth with the families especially if they get think of it they get an approval from planning and it's month number eight. It takes them to submit their building and safety on month number nine and then we come back and give him corrections and on and a few months later or a few weeks later and we'll tell you you know what you're it your survey is incorrect. I need to send you back to the planning department for if that's the cleanest path for the staff I'm with you.

Not only that now the staff doesn't have to say to someone no I'm not going to grant you the discretionary excuse. They just say, "Look, it's the rule. I have to apply the rule." I I I agree with that. Is that I understand the staff's position and I concur. I I think we're all in agreement on that one. Okay. So, no. So, no discretionary exceptions. You just require the survey. Can Abe say something? I'd rather we don't open public comment on this one. I think we're pretty clear. I'm not comfortable to do any straw poll until I hear from Abe if he has something on this. Can I hear it, please? Thank you. Right. Well, we let him tick. We let every public speaker just Abe. He's our ambassador. Can't do that. It's all

I mean, I think the families are going to be very okay with this with what you guys are discussing because the initial thought was they may not need a survey at all even in plant check. But now when it's clear that that's not an option, I think they'll be 100% on board with that. That's number one. The question really is if and this is a real situation that's why I ask if somebody had a survey from 2024 or 2023 which is not 10 years back and the chances that things have shifted are extremely minute we will uh re I mean I'm we are going through a lot right now let's review that carefully if it's a scenario so we can um talk about it after this okay

thank you thank you for allowing that anyone else oh well I was going to say we can't that's done. Another reason why surveys are extremely important to don't get a survey without your preliminary title report that shows your easements and make sure that you measure measure your lot depth subtracting your access easements. That's all required in the outline require and your surveyor should know that. So thank you for that reminder. If people hire outside surveyors. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, um we're pushing it five minutes till noon. Are we a hard stop at noon? So,

we're rejecting this policy. We're making a policy. Surveys are required. Yes. Yes. I just I So, we do one more. Well, I do. You think we can get it in? I mean, do we have a hard stop at noon? No, we just wanted to provide notice that there would be a lunch break and I'd ask the council to provide direction when it recesses for lunch of when specifically you'll come back so the public has that information as well. Perfect. Yes,

the next three items that we will would like to propose be uh heard PF2, PF3, PF4, and I was going to suggest that we do PF4 because I think that's going to be the quickest. Okay. So, we'll do PF4. When we come back, we'll do PF2 and then PF3. Okay. Is that okay?

That works for me. So, PF4, I mean, I think Trevor can correct me if I'm wrong, but we really weren't subject to SB9 before, so it's not really applicable to us. Do you want me to do an intro? The governor order? Yeah. You want to tell us?

I can I can do an intro. No problem. So, um and in and you know outside of the governor's order, um mayor, I think that is totally true. I think this is an extra protection because the coastal act is is suspended in the fire areas. And so, we're just ensuring that SP9 will not apply. Uh we're just extra layer of protection. Didn't take that nuance. Yeah. Perfect. Wasn't that order temporary? There was a second paragraph that there's there was a temporary part, but there's also a non-temporary part that was Okay. Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this? Okay. We don't have any raised hands on Zoom.

Okay. So, we're going to close that. So, um are we good with just ask recommendation on that one? Yeah. Why did we strike Franklin by the way?

Uh that was my error. So, um Franklin fire did get added to some of the governor's orders. However, I don't believe it got added to the uh plus 10% orders. So, it's still meaning the coastal act is still in effect for um Franklin Fire where uh they are they they did get part of the state emergency. So, they get the benefits of um you know that declaration, but they weren't added to you know what the Palisades fire had in terms of the Coastal Act suspension. So, we're we're still covered by the Coastal Act for Franklin Fire and Broadfire. Does the suspension does the permissible suspension of SB9 exist in the in the jurisdiction where the fire was or only in the specific boundary of the fire? I'll ask Trevor to weigh in, but it's it's to make sure that there can be no legal argument that because of the coastal act suspension in the fire palisades fire area that we have protection under the governor's order and then this uh policy.

Yeah, that's correct. Okay. But within the boundaries of the fire area or LA County or so is it the footprint of the fire or is it the 90265 for Malibu purposes? It's the fire affected area within 90 within the Malibu jurisdictional boundaries. But you could make the argument that our entire city was affected by the fire. Yeah. But I mean the the impact is only on people where the coastal life would be suspended because otherwise it wouldn't be an issue for them. Okay. So, just so if your house didn't burn down, your lot is not within that governor's order. And if your house did burn down, your lot is. Is that how this works? Which order are we talking about?

The one that allows the suspension of SB9 at the discretion of the jurisdiction or does it apply throughout the zip code if the city wants to apply it? I think I can explain this as well. Um the governor's order in terms of the coast suspension is or only for structures that were destroyed or substantially damaged. So to your point, I get that I'm talking now about the SB9,

right? So to your point, if it's a vacant parcel, let's say that is not uh suspended from the coastal act for new development, which a lot split would be and still be subject to a CDP in a coastal act. So we're protected no matter what. This is an extra layer to ensure that if you do qualify for the governor's order, if your lot qualifies for the governor's order, that that lot is still covered under the protections of uh this policy. Okay. It's just prophylactic. It's just an additional an additional protection to ensure that we don't have um this issue here in the city.

We think we're protected. You know, we're you know, we're a little cold. Let's add an extra blanket to make sure we sleep warm through the night. Perfect. Okay. Um, with that, do we want to break? It is noon and then we come back clean at 1 as advertised and we we're accepting this policy. Yes. P4. We're inconsistent with that. Okay. 1:00. We're we are in recess and we'll return quicker than that. Why do we need to wait? I don't because that's what it was noticed.

Well, we noticed a lunch break. Um, so the public staff and the council all have a chance to have a break and a lunch. Um, if you wanted a shorter break, you could, but you can't return earlier than 1 since we did publish the time. You could keep working and take a shorter break. Um, but I'd ask when you break for lunch not to return any earlier than 1 since that was the time published on the agenda. So I think it's also to make sure our staff gets their 1 hour lunch break that they're entitled to legally. Okay. So we can't start earlier than one. So if you want to shorten it, you would should do another policy now if you want to shorten your lunch break. Correct. But people are starting staff gets an hour lunch. Is that right? Well, you should give them an hour break if you got it.

All right. So 10 1:00. I don't need it.

Thanks. What's the name of the place you go to?

I think something comes up. No. Uh, we are back now in session. Is there any special wording I have to say? Yeah, you're just calling the meeting back to order. Okay, we are back in order. So, um, I have it that we are on PF2 Seawword projections. Where's Danny? I know he's going to be interested. Yes, council. Um, F2, uh, PF2 is next. Yes. Okay, let's go.

All right, so PF2 um this is basically so we may all be familiar that the executive order says that the structure cannot expand farther seawward. However, the beachfront properties are very um constricted in um the areas where they can kind of move and put 10%. So, uh, this policy just says that the structure is still not moving further seawward to be in compliance with the governor's order. But if you, let's say you have a, and I'll have an exhibit here. Let's say you have a second story area that is set back farther from your first story area. Your first story area is part of the structure that will not be expanding farther seawward. But if you can meet the string lines, you can add some square footage on the second floor. Um, and it still will not quantify the building moving farther Cword.

Okay. Does anybody have any questions on that? Do we have any public comment? I don't see anybody. Do we have anybody online? No, we don't have anyone lined up at the mic and we don't have any raised hands on Zoom. Lloyd, so you don't have to get up and down. Do you have any comment on this one? Okay. All right. Um, council comments. It's pretty straightforward. It's pretty straightforward to me. Yeah. I I recommend taking suggestion, Chris.

Yeah. I I I'm fine with the where this lands. I just want to note that the description of the issue is this is the flip side of the governor's order doesn't authorize anything. The governor's order doesn't preclude further expansion. It simply doesn't suspend the coastal act so long as you don't further expand. So it it it's neutral as to what you can or can't do. It just deals with whether the coastal act does or doesn't apply. Okay. So, I just think we should be careful in our wording about that so as not to give the wrong impression about what the governor's order does. Okay. So, we'll we'll we'll tailor it so that it's not it's not expressly saying that the governor's order to be consistent with the governor's order allowing this. It's just referencing that um in reference to the governor's order, this will not constitute uh you know um uh an enactment of the coastal act.

Yes. For for purposes of the suspension of the governor's order, this is the way we're going to interpret it. Understood. Okay. Anybody have any are we all in agreement? We're going to stay with staff's recommendation per Bruce's comment. I'm fine with it. Okay, great. That was the fastest one so far. Um, building code required interior access PF3. Yes. So, there's another Palisades fire only. Um, there were no speakers on that last one, right? Didn't I say that? Correct. Uh, we called for speakers and none none came to the podium and none raised their hands. Okay.

This is another Palisades fire only. very early on there were um some residents specifically for beachfront that were concerned that you know again because they're so constricted that um there may be requirements were requiring them to go up in height due to FEMA and now their their um finished floor might not be on grade with PCH anymore. So there might be some required interior accesses that require them to, you know, get up to the grade that is being required by FEMA. And so they did not want those building code required interior accesses to be counted towards the 10%. And so our policy is to allow them to not count that if it's building code required. So if I understand this would be say from a um building code compliant garage structure up into there might be a set of stairs or a lift or something like that that that would be exempt from the 10%.

That is correct. Um so we can provide um safety acres and and ingress and eress for the families and just being considerate that staircase or a lift um square footage cannot be count towards the 10% because it is a requirement by the building code. Okay. Just and just being flexible for the families.

Clarifying question if I could. Uh what about an elevator? I mean, it's as I was thinking about this, it you already most of these homes already have two stories anyway. So, what is it they would be adding in? Would it be like a twotory and a half house uh with the to the grade level and now they need an elevator down or how what are we what are we talking about stairs or we're talking about specifically stairs? Okay. Uh that is what is required. The code does not require an elevator. It does require for means of eress a staircase. Okay. Interior staircase. So that's what we're talking about. So an elevator is totally excluded from this, right?

If the council decide to include it, it's up to the council. Yeah. I I don't know that we want to be promoting an elevator, but uh I just want to make sure I knew it was only stairs. Okay. It is required only staircase on the building code.

All right. Well, but okay, I'll wait for my comment to it. Um, do we have any is anybody in the audience want to speak on PF3? Please come to the mic. I was just going to point out that uh that might be for emergency situations where their power might be out. So, an elevator would not be too helpful. That's why it's calling out just for staircases. Thank you. Anyone online? Yes, we have one speaker, Wade Major. Wade, we're still not have Yeah.

Can you hear me? I can hear you. Yeah, just a just a question. Well, we're still having trouble hearing you. So, anything you can do to try and increase your volume, that would be great. Okay. It's it's a it's a just a question. What happen if and when the FEMA study is either made uh invalid because of an executive order or they just say, you know what, this study was never any good in the first place. We're going to junk it. If if the FEMA study goes away, what happens? Yes, T. That's um I just don't think that's for this topic. That's if you know, we can talk about if all the time, but if that happens, we're going to have to adjust some things in our code anyway. So,

well, I mean, in theory, maybe we wouldn't. They just because they wouldn't need to design an interior staircase to meet this change in grade if that if the elevations were changed the other way, right? That's true. But there there are other things than just this section that trigger FEMA. So, yeah, once they get the approval, then it would we wouldn't be counting it at this if that later is invalidated. It wouldn't change, you know, the approval. We wouldn't go back, right? Does that conclude our public speakers? Yes, that closes public comment. Okay, back up to the council, Bruce.

Yeah. Um, if it if we're going to do this, I like the way it's written because it is limited to the FEMA issue and the interior staircase. As as a policy matter, my understanding of the 10% d the the origination of the 10% was it was to account for this exact type of thing. building code changes over the years that would if enforced decrease the amount of interior space that a house had. The thought was if we give you an extra 10% all around then if there's a requirement that you do something different like have a thicker wall for example or have a um have something on your roof like solar panels hypothetically that would increase the height. you're not going to lose interior space by abiding by this new code because the 10% will take care of it. Seems to me this is exactly that type of thing. You're already accounting for it with the additional 10% and that this is really double counting. So, I'm sympathetic to people who need to take the space, but it seems to me that if it's not going to amount to more than 10%, it's really a double it's a it's a it's it's giving on top of giving. And I don't see why the need is for it.

Anyone else? Okay. So, I'm crystal clear. We're talking about counting staircases as TDSF just in fire rebuilds based on the FEMA flood elevations. The staff is recommending not counted towards the 10%. Is that right? Okay. Yeah. Because the changes are negligible. I understand the point may prom but it's just a negligible difference and so it's just get you know people have to do this to meet ADA requirements and stuff. It's you know help help people uh meet building code but also not get penalized because of that. It's not TDSF. It's it's it's the 10%

the 10% square footage. Yeah. Does count towards TDSF. Yeah. TDSF does not count on beachfront anyway. So Oh, right. Yes. I knew that. That's why I didn't say it before. Thanks for the clarification. Okay. Okay. Long as we're moving along and and this item was brought to you um again listening to a few design professionals that are um helping families on Breach from Properties. Okay. Just a quick question. How many square feet are we talking about? Uh

I'm trying I've been trying to envision what a stair how many square feet a staircase takes. Wow. Calculators are out. It's 36 by 36. Um, plus the landing and inches. Yeah. Yeah. Um, what about if they need a ramp to accommodate for wheelchairs and or other things which because that obviously is going to have some.

So, just clarification, um, single family residents do not trigger accessibility only apartment complexes. do the need of having a a ramp uh as elder community needs that yes that will be review but it's not required um if council decides to add for that the ramp and then that will be uh discretion by the council. So, I guess that would just be my question is do we want to consider um the need to design for a ramp? And it's obviously it's going to have a bigger footprint than just a 3x3 to whatever the the height is from the the garage or patio to the structure. I I'm just putting out there to ask the question so we at least cover it.

I thought we weren't in the design field. It's not in the design field. I'm just saying that we're this is going to be limited to a very specific access point to the house. Do we want to consider as people are aging in place that they have the ability to I don't um have that design option. So I think they a discussion that's all. Oh, okay. I love a discussion. I think we cross they cross that bridge when they're there. I don't know if it's it's necessary for us to talk about ramps right now. Okay. So, we're just going to stick with stairway uh allowance of square footage that way.

And the staff will be conscious in um about how to how we move forward with this. Um I mean, you're talking about uh 9 square feet. Um there's a landing that is required. It's going to be less than 20 square ft,

right? And because of that, that's like I don't understand why I don't understand why we're doing this. I mean, someone on the land who I said who had thin walls that were perfectly fine 50 years ago that needs to double or triple their thickness today. That's the point. The point is they're not going to lose any of their interior space because now they can push their house out 10% which is even after taking into account the thicker wall. They're going to end up having more space. They're going to have less more space than someone who already had a thick wall who now expands it. This is what the 10% was for. And what I don't know why we're carving out one particular exception to make their 10% why more than anyone else is as it is we're already giving the FEMA flood plane not taking not changing the height that you still get your full elevation above that. I just it to me it's a slippery slope because once we approve this someone else is going to identify something that the code's requiring them to do that's causing them to sacrifice space and they're going to come and say it's not fair to me. you gave them the extra 10 feet on top of the 10%. I should get another 10 or 20 or whatever feet here because everyone's got different code requirements. I think the 10% eats it all up without any problem.

I think the way the policy is written makes it clear that is for FEMA FL elevations purposes and is for uh emergency eress. Uh I don't know if you saw that slide for that we had for safety. uh it makes it clear uh we wanted to document the reason why we're bringing this to you. But then again as the council um criteria we will we will follow council directions. We um again repeat this this is in multiple meetings that we're meeting with uh pro uh property owners and architects that this brought out. So want to say to the community and our families that we are doing our due diligence, listening and bringing these items to you for your decision.

Okay. So I'm seeing a number of people stand up. We closed public comment already. Does the council want to hear from our speakers? Yes, please. I was if I'm the only one with my position and we're going to adopt the policy, do we really need to hear from because they're they're going to argue that I'm wrong. Okay, we're in. Have a seat, Luis. I think we're gonna Okay. So, um, do do you want to note your objection as a no to this or are you No, I made my I I made the point and I think we're going to see other people complaining down the line.

Okay. Anybody else want to Are we in consensus with staff recommendation? Okay. Thank you. Um, hey, now we're into the hard stuff. Yes. And so the items for the um the three next items uh is issue number four, issue PF1, issue number one. So again, I repeat, issue number four, issue number PF1, and issue one. Okay, now correct me if I'm wrong. I thought we did number four previously. one.

Um, this is the CL. So, we're going to start with four because you didn't fully bake it. You you almost fully, you know, we're almost there, but I just want to show you what we haven't read here is what I believe the council said last time. Just want to make sure that's what we're agreeing to. Okay.

So, we kept the same language we had before, which was, you know, and and this is in the all disaster section. So, this applies to all disasters. So we kept that you know our regular practice of the city incorporation being the limit on when building permits and stuff are required for all other fires. However, in red is what I believe the council wanted from our last meeting which is for properties that were affected by the 2025 Palisades fire. lawfully erected will also mean any structure that existed just prior to the Palisades fire that could be built back as long as the structure was not part of an open code enforcement violation filed with a city and not illegal. In this last part, you guys can help me form, but I just wrote this is what I got from the last meeting. Illegal in this case meaning a structure or any part of the structure that could not be legally permitted in any instance. Okay. Any clarifying questions on this?

Okay. If you do have comment on this, if you could start lining up. This is number four. And do we have any speakers online? No, we don't have any raised hands at this time. ready for public comment. Okay, Luca.

I think again it's a matter of clarity between um and distinction between legally and conforming. So any structure that's been built without a permit technically is illegal. What we're asking or what what the point is here is to allow people to rebuild um elements that were not permitted but were conforming to code. Meaning that if they were to apply for a permit today to rebuild something that was there, they would be granted it because it was built in a legal way or within the parameters of of the law that I think is avoidant. Okay. Can I while Tyler

I just wanted that's a little not not what we're saying here. I'm sorry, but we are saying that uh basically uh if this ex structure existed just existed on your site prior to the fire, whether it was permitted or not permitted, needed a discretionary request or not, and did not have code enforcement, then basically you're allowed to keep it is what I believe the council said last time. And a confir conforming structure, but it could be conforming or non-conforming. that's covered in a different section of the code. I think the caveat to this is that it needs to comply with the code with the building code.

And the reconstruction reconstruction and also that it's fully within your property if it crosses off a property line. It then um the the justification of this deviation from previous is because of the governor's order how it's written. That's what I believe the council Yes, this was a council decision uh from our last meeting. So, I just want to make sure we captured it. Okay. Uh Luis,

thank you. I agree 100% with the staff and with your previous decision on this. I have a quick comment about the format workshops, you know, um there's something written, we have a comment on what is written, then you have a discussion. Sometimes we can bring something valid to the conversation. I understand you're trying to go go, but if you can be a bit more flexible, we're already limited to one minute. We have something to add. I have something to add in in what Bruce was saying. You can design a stair and it counts towards TDSF only once if the stairs line up with the above uh floors. Is that correct, Tyler? That's not what we That's not that stairway that we're talking about for this case.

Repeat. This was to access the home from outside some thing, not from an interior stair. But the that stair is going to have to comply with the setbacks with the previous footprint is going to have to be enclosed. Therefore, you can make it so it lines up exactly with the floor above and it doesn't count counts twice towards TDSF. So, there's ways, but again, I was agreeing with Bruce and on this one, I agree with all of you. Thank you. Okay, Drew.

I I have a question before we can do that. Is it considered illegal if the pro so you build something without a permit? It would require a variance for that to have been built. So maybe it's 50 feet high. Are we saying that that is that's going to be counted or are we saying things that have a variance are considered to be illegal and you don't get credit for them? the discussion we had last time we end we debated that and we ended up landing on even if you had require even if you would have required a variance basically you're you're being excused it's it's being um cleansed my reasoning for going that far was we've seen appeals where everyone's debating whether a variance is or isn't required I mean more often than not you know whether a variance is required 50 ft's a good example it's pretty clear but we've seen appeals where Is there an NSHA or isn't there an NSHA? Because if there is an NSHA, you need a variance. If there's not an ASHA, you don't. And I was hoping and I think the council agreed we could avoid having to get into those issues on a rebuild and just assume whatever they had there was okay unless it crosses a property line or some other clearly illegal provision that you could not have approved no matter what.

Okay. I just want to be clear so when staff applies this that they understand that. So basically anything you get credit for anything that's on your property. The new structure that you're going to replace it with will need to comply with current codes. But you're getting the full credit for anything that was built. It was built on a bluff. It was built you know on high you know current codes remaining current building code as long as it didn't go over someone's property line pretty much. Um they're getting credit for it. Yeah. And this is only applicable to Palisades fire. It is not retroactively to any other incident that we What about future what future dis I want to talk about that that's that's a comment I have listed not as a policy specific policy right

so it's okay so there's two parts of it I'll go back there's the city current standard that we've always applied which is in black which is what we presented to you the red is specifically signifies palisades fire only and is in red and that's what was added by the council and future. Correct. We are doing the LCPA so that we don't ever have to do this again. This isn't an LCPA. Well, we're doing all of this for palisades and future fires. Well, there's two sections of this policy document. The the part that would give you basically the variance part that we're talking about for full credit, that's only for the Palisades fire. Correct.

Correct. If we finish public comment, I have some I have some statements about that because I think we're mixing apples and oranges again with the governor's order and and our law. And Drew,

I was going to say I understand the broad latitude that you guys have because of six governors uh declarations, but um I think I have to agree with Steve the comments that he made at the last meeting in regards to this uh for future disasters and that type of thing. basically you guys are going to be incentivizing people not to pull permits by and um I just think that this is really uh a very very slippery slope. What about you're basically creating existing new development that could be would not be non-conforming today and I think that's those are lines in the sand that you should should really think about crossing.

Danny Hi, Abe had to step out, so I'm speaking on behalf of the task force. Uh, we agree with staff's recommendation. Thank you. Okay, solid.

It's very important to recognize that this has been given already to anybody who built before 1991. And what we're talking about are those people who built after 1991 or those houses that were built after 1991 to basically give them the same allowances that was given to prior 1991. I I I can tell you I don't understand.

Okay. So origin because of when the city became a city when Malibu became a city there was a rule that anything that was built before Malibu became a city because you don't have the the permits in town you know in house that the people can just prove what they had and can have it rebuilt. But people who built after 1991 do not have the same uh they they cannot do the same because the city has the records. But when you guys debated, you you decided that no, they should be treated the same because some permits might not be, you know, some records might not be complete or whatever other reason to treat people the same whether the the house was built before 1991 or after 1991. Thanks.

No. Yes. Can someone explain it better than I do? I think Bruce, you you know exactly what I'm saying. I'm going to wait till after everybody comments before I explain. Okay. Can I explain it more or are you No, I we'll we'll we'll we'll figure that one. Ara, thank you though. I'm a little confused. Me, too. Because we me I am because I felt this was decided on a month ago and now it sounds like we're having a debate about it. So, I hope we can just button it up and give it a thumbs up. Thank you. Do we have anyone online? No, we don't have any raised hands on Zoom.

Okay, so that'll conclude public comment. Bruce, lead us off.

Okay, so first of all, I I I don't think we should be revisiting what we decided before, which was that we we we are going to basically just allow reconstruction of whatever was there before without any assessment of whether it was permitted or not permitted. even whether it whether permitted with or without a variance permitted in any way and as long as it could be lawfully approved tomorrow if we wanted to approve it ought to be able to be rebuilt. Um I think this is too limiting the language in red because I do think that we should just say it's too limiting and it's also too broad at the same time for properties affected. But I would change it to for structures destroyed or substantially um damaged because it doesn't apply to parcels, it applies to a structure. So I would say for for structures destroyed or substantially damaged and I would just say by a wildfire, full stop. Now, that's not going to apply to the next fire, nor is it going to apply to the Woosey fire, unfortunately, because the Coastal Act still applies to those. Th this is a situation where it's only going to work under our municipal code where the governor's order has excused the Coastal Act. Because if the governor's order hasn't excused the Coastal Act, the more restrictive provision of the LCP is going to kick in. If the coastal commission should ever allow us to change the LCP to get rid of that restriction, which I don't think would be a bad thing, then we already have our municipal code ready to go with the broader provision would be my view. So there's no harm in broad in making the MMC provision broad enough to encompass any wildfire destruction because it's just not going to apply anyway when the LCP kicks in. But if there should ever be another exception where the LCP doesn't kick in, we'll already have it built into the MMC that we don't have to address it again. I

don't buy the princ the the the the boogeyman that people are going to overbuild intentionally hoping to have their house burned down to the ground in a wildfire 5 years from now to be excused and be able to build it back again. That to me that's insanity. Someone builds a 50-ft house tomorrow, we're going to go make them tear it down. We're not going to wait until a wildfire comes and takes it down and then let them build it again. Um so I I I and Saw I understand your point. Your point is that um if you had an illegal structure prior to the cityhood, but no one could show whether it was legal or illegal. Basically, it just be it became cleansed going forward. And then if a fire destroyed that one, you were allowed to rebuild it. It was considered legal and non-conforming even though it really was illegal and non-conforming. and she's saying why not treat all properties today like they were treated back then. The argument would be because now we've got better records. It's now the city's records since then. But I I you know this is an extraordinary circumstance. I would say let's just make it a broad rule. The LCP is going to narrow it where the LCP applies. So let's just go for it.

We don't we don't make people tear their houses down. Bruce, I'm saying you said we don't. It doesn't happen. So, and you know this is and it goes back to the other other argument he made earlier that says I'm the neighbor and I look down and I say, "Geez, how did they get that place? They got one of those. I want to do the same thing. I know they built it without a permit. If they did, why can't I do it?" So, I'm just, you know, this this does open up some issues back to bite us in the butt. There has to be some burden of proof somewhere that they had a structure on the property that they're building back that wasn't 50 feet tall. We're not talking about like a tower that they're going to build. It's like a shed that they put.

It could be. It could be if they build something that's double TDSF or they have to prove it though. You're right. It had to have been there. The burden of proof the the burden of proof is a lot easier because now a goo image might look up your property and see exactly what's on it. You can look online.

I can tell you the only reason that I was in favor of anything along these lines was because the governor's order, I was told the governor's order specifically allowed any structure that existed. Um, if that's not the case, then I'm with how our policy has always been. If you don't have reasonable proof that it was lawfully created or there's some reason to believe it was created lawfully, then you have to get a permit separate from your PV in order to legalize it.

So for clarification, the governor took the term lawfully out of the revised, right? He originally had that in there in the act that's in the order that that superseded the that order that you're referring to. He took the word lawfully out and that's why we're having this dilemma. But to Maryanne's point that just excused the coastal act that's a suspended the coastal act even if it was illegal the coastal act suspended. When you go to rebuild you still have to look at our law. And Marian saying she was under the impression that the governor had suspended our law as well which he didn't. Then I we have to go back because then if they would would have required an APR

I have got Woolsey families contacting us because they want this applied to their properties. We can't I'm still in I'm still in favor of this whether we're required to do it or not because this is an extraordinary circumstance. I wish we could do it for everybody. We can't. the governor only allows us to do it in this instance because he suspended the Coastal Act. It's not going to apply again unless the governor suspends the Coastal Act again for some other circumstance. But you and I I just support it even though it's not something that otherwise could ever have been accomplished.

But you're saying that our municipal code should apply. And so if those items would have required an administrative plan review to build them and they didn't go through that process to get it there, they built it without getting a municipal permit. Yeah. You're still the problem is you're this is going to cause if we don't do this all of a sudden 50% or more of the rebuilds are going to become subject to scrutiny for whether they did or didn't have legal aspects fire that has been disaster that has plagued this city through the years and they've all resulted in delays

and we're still talking to the Irelands about their property from Woolseie and I want to avoid that because it's heartbreaking. So, um, we're still meeting with them. They came today. I would like to avoid the mistakes we've made in the past.

I I would not say they were a mistake. I would say that we were following the law, that if it was reasonable to see that it was built without the benefit of permits, that that's not an excuse to keep it. If the property had structures and there's and this burden of proof is on the applicant and it's in the executive order. This is in the executive order from the governor. Correct. But this is saying palisades only. Yeah. If it's palisades only and it's in the executive order,

then we're bound to I feel I'm bound to do that. But if it's not written that way and they should have been subject to our municipal code, then I I've got questions about that because we've got too many. This isn't a one-off having this fire in our community. This is a common occurrence. And so I I'm really looking for for where where legally we stand on this. And this isn't going to be retroactive to Woolseie. So it's not going to make a difference to those properties.

I know. Which is heartbreaking. That's why I want to do it better this time. And so we don't have from 5 years from now the Ireland type family coming to the podium crying doing IVF because they want to get the structures back that they had. That's really what that's about. They had structures and they need to get them back. I don't know necessarily that their issues are specific to this. I think they've got other different issues. Let's just avoid making the same mistakes over again. All right. Look, what mistake is what mistake are we trying to avoid? I just want to make sure I understand. People had structures that burnt due to a reason beyond them, right?

And they can prove that they were there, not 50 feet because we would not put a 50ft tower there in 1990. They should get that back. Even though they built it illegally. Correct. You know, and I'll just I'm and if the city didn't catch it, the city didn't catch it. There's no proof. Just like when my kids got his hand in the cookie jar and he's had 10 cookies. I didn't catch it. Did it happen? Does a tree fall in the forest? I mean, we can't prove that it's even illegal if there's no enforcement out on it. Sure, you can. You can prove it don't have permits for it. If there's no open enforcement on it. Well, you know, I'm just saying I'm getting phone calls now from from residents who have got illegal structures going up next door to them that they can't get it stopped. Can't stop it.

That's a separate issue. And and I all we're doing is is encouraging people to continue to do that. I you know I we saw the same thing with the Wilsy fire. Almost every single meeting on the planning commission somebody came up and had illegal structures they had built. At that point we made them go back and get a permit if they wanted to rebuild it. Uh because that seemed to be treating everybody equally. That's you know it's all I'm trying to do is I think one of the things we have to do in this thing is is agree. You know, I feel sorry for the people that lost stuff, but I got a whole bunch of people who are left. I just think there should be some equal way of making everybody whole. So, that's where I am.

It's very clear that we are two two so far on this and we're going to have a tiebreaker. Um, I say this to me is a matter of practicality. this one. Um, the governor, first of all, the governor's order does, the fact that lawful was taken out of the governor's order, the governor's order, again, I'm going to say this like a broken record, the governor's order doesn't authorize anything to be constructed. Nothing. We could have a municipal act that says no property that was burned could ever be rebuilt. We could have that. And the governor's order wouldn't override that and allow them to be rebuilt. The governor's order simply suspended the coastal act. So, let's take that off the table. The question is, what do we want to do? What do we want to be able to do for the families that lost their homes in the Palisades fire? Do we want to excuse their obligation to prove the legality of what was there or do we want to make them prove that they had approvals for what was there before they're going to be allowed to rebuild? And my answer is I don't want to put them through that because what's going to happen is 50 to 75% that are going to be put through that are actually going to be put through that to ultimately established they they did have lawful permission to build what they had there. A number of them are going to fail to be able to prove they had lawful permission even though in fact they did. And some are going to get away with replacing something that was illegal that they would not have gotten the approval for. Yes. This won't apply to Woolseie. That's unfortunate. It can't apply to Woolseie because the governor didn't suspend the Coastal Act for Woolseie. And we can't by changing the municipal code give them any greater rights. Yes, it ought to apply to future wildfires, but we can't give I mean, we can say it in our municipal code all we want. It's not going to change the fact that unless the governor suspends the Coastal Act going forward, even if we've excused this in the municipal code, it'll still

be subject to the LCP going forward. So, as a practical matter, no matter what words we use, this is only going to apply to Palisades fires. I and as a practical matter, we absolutely ought to extend this courtesy to the people who are I mean, Joe, for example, I suspect if we don't interpret it this way, she's now her her PV now got be re-examined because the question will then be did some of the things that went into her like for like have approvals or not? We don't know. Um, as of right now, it's assumed that it was fine because it was there. And that's please, this is not a this is not a conversation right now. So, I'm in favor of just saying if it was there, it was there. We've already said if it was subject to active code enforcement investigation, that's not going to get the benefit of the presumption. But anyone who's had a house that was sitting there already, the neighbors weren't complaining, it burned down. Presumably, the neighbors wouldn't have been complaining the day afterwards. Let them have back what they had and let's not put them through the rigoral of proving that they had authorization. And I would go so far though as to say make it in the MMC applicable to all wildfires because as a practical matter that won't have any force unless the LCP's amended. But if the LCP ends up getting amended, it'll necessarily be for good reason. And we'll already have done what we now have taken six months to or eight months to get to. It'll already be in the code next time for when that happens.

So that's that's what I'm uh for staff clarification. Just for staff clarification, um we have an incident of a whole new home being built with a permit. You will be okay with the whole entire home. I think last time we said expressly that one was not going to count. Okay. Just want to make it clear. an entire structure did not have a permit. We were not going to include that. That was maybe that should be said in here. Also, it was going to be if it couldn't have been built legally at all or it had no permits whatsoever. Okay. So, we'll add it to our But that if it had no permit, then it can't be rebuilt. Maybe we speak exactly.

You just said it could be. Maybe we speak exactly to that situation that says if this was supposed to be a vacant parcel and we'll work on the with our legal about getting it strong, but if this was supposed to be a vacant parcel, it cannot be a structure cannot be placed on it. Something along those lines because that's what I think this specific issue is. Well, let me be clear. Was that house in code enforcement or was it discovered after the fact? It was discovered after the fact. Okay, go ahead. Okay. Next.

All right. Um, let's go back to what our First off, I'm disappointed we're bringing this back up again for this amount of discussion. I thought we had this settled, but let me read the governor's uh order that came out the second time around. And I'll insert where he changed it. Says on I guess it's uh section 2 A. Don't need to get too specific. says primary structures and facilities that are substantially the same location as and do not exceed 110% of the footprint and height of the primary structure and facilities that existed immediately before the emergency. It used to say legally existed immediately before the governor took that out and it was part of our recommendation. In fact, two of the people that had a lot to do with it are sitting at opposite ends right here. And look, we told the governor, we told everybody the idea of all these changes was to get people back in a home they had before. And if you take this out, you're in a position of prove to me that everything was legal. That room that you built in the garage, was that legal? Was it not? I don't know. Nobody knows because there's no code enforcement and no permit necessarily for that. So, look, our best answer for this to get people back in their homes is to say if you meet the requirements as we've got here in the policy, we're good to go. And we've got ways to verify how the house how the house looked and where it was positioned and how many stories it was and how many feet it was. That's all available to us today. The one thing that's disappointing out of all this is that we didn't have more strict code enforcement. And I think going forward, that's one of the caveats we got to have. I mean, to think that somebody could build a house without a permit is mind-boggling, but that's an exception. So, the new ha new property has to be built according to the code. It's got to be in the right place on the property. It's got to meet the existing zoning

requirements, etc., etc., etc. So, we're not talking about incentivizing somebody to have their house burned down. We're talking about getting people back in their home. So, I'm in favor of of doing this. And I reluctantly agree with Bruce. I think we need to take out the language about the Palisades fire. Um, oh, that may be confusing and I'm I'm probably leaning more toward the idea, let's leave the Palisades fire language in here just so that we can come back at a later date and change it if necessary in a in a Can I mel correct a couple things or try to understand a couple things? Bruce, you in your statement you said that you thought these people had permits for the for the property or the majority of them could show they had permits for the property. I don't I don't know how you come up to that conclusion. I don't believe that's true. Second thing, you said the neighbors were okay with it. Well, I'll tell you the way our compliance code works. If you put your if you complain about something, you got to put your name to it. And I think that just a lot of people don't want to get into a fight with their neighbor. So, supposedly complaining about something, they'll sit there and stay quiet. They don't necessarily like it. They think they got cheated, but they don't say anything. Uh, back to people building house. I There's a developer in Malibu right now that has got a string of properties he built. All of which you've got were built some portion of those were built without permits. It's going on today. Going on big time, and we don't stop it. So, you know, I just, you know, we're sending a message. Look, I'd like to believe that everybody is straightforward, honest, believes the rules, and we'll adhere to them, you know, to the day they die. It's not true. I mean, my experience on the planning commission said there were a bunch of people that built illegal illegal structures. We're hearing today there's a bunch of people we illegal structures trying to deal with. I just don't want to, you know, continue that process down without having some

governor that says that's the wrong thing to do. So that's and I think if if we do this the way we got it structured right here, we're sending a message to people say go for it. All right. I mean, you get caught, you get caught, you don't get caught. And if you if you know down the road, you may end up getting away with it without having any problem. So that's it.

Steve, I hear you. I think that my take-home message is that we actually have to have better enforcement. And until we have that, we can't punish the people whose homes have burnt because of our fail. I would say our failure for have not having stringent enough code enforcement. We like to complain, but then when it put when I get the emails that the neighbors building, they're sending it in to the building department. And if they're not getting dinged, that's on us. But it's not on the residents. People are going to How could it not be on the res? If you're building something illegally, it's on you. It's on us to enforce the wet. Well, you know,

it's not on my It's It's our responsibility in my opinion, the governments to enforce the rules, to enforce the codes, to keep the residents safe. That's the government. I'd like to deal with that because if I go out and rob a bank and nobody comes after me, that's okay for me to do. If the government if the government can't enforce what I'm doing wrong, I get to do it. I like that rule. I mean, I'll buy that. It also I don't disparage code enforcement too much because we have a policy if no one complains about something then it's not you know we don't go around monitoring you know what people are doing to on the property.

So I I think we need to draw this one to a close. I'm going to propose that we direct the staff to adopt a policy along the lines of what's here. But again I I would change the language from properties affected by to structures destroyed or substantially damaged by. I think we should go with any wildfire. I don't think we should limit this to the Palisades. We can debate whether we should go that far. And then the exception should be except those that had active um code an open code enforcement or a a um parcel for which no permit existed to construct the dwelling that the structure that um was destroyed. not not a not a not that they necessarily didn't have the full permit to do what they wanted, but that where there was no permit to construct the structure that was destroyed.

That'll just put people back where they were with the exception of the people that just illegally built a house. Uh and that's what we want to do. We want to get you back in your homes. I can support that if you uh let's leave the palisites in. Yeah, I I would I would be cons I I I definitely like the uh damaged or destroyed language. That's that's that's a good addition here. But if you put it for any wildfire, I'm worried there could be other contingencies where the coastal act wouldn't apply. They could have some impacts that we're not thinking of. Okay. To get to get to get at least a three, I'll take that part out. First, it was easy. Um, okay. So, my understanding for structures affected by the 2025 Palisades fire.

No, for for structures destroyed or substantially damaged by Okay. Um, because everyone's affected. Yeah. So it's it's the staff re the staff language was brought back with that addition uh that change to it and then the addition basically dealing with the completely unpermitted house is what the change is. Is that correct? That was what was proposed. Yeah. Yeah. And I think we have a 3-2 support for that. Well, if it's limited to the Palisades fire, you've got my support on it.

Okay. If you want to change our municipal code for future, then I suggest that we put it with our other group of um amendments that we're going to debate about the municipal code. Um and I would like at that time to consider having it retroactive to for what it's worth. I'm sorry, but that is not the staff's recommendation. If that's mayor proms and that's voted, of course, that's what we'll do. But this is a specific nuance for the Palisades fire because of the governor's order. Yeah, this could open up a can of worms. Uh it's not our that's not our recommendation. So many permits have been processed from Woolsey already. You would be potentially reopening.

Yeah, we're we're going to limit it to to Palisades. Yeah. And this is going to be limited to Palisades. I'm saying if we're going to bring back a policy ch a MMC change to change the language in our code for other things. I'm saying at that time what I want to see in there is including the possibility of retroactive but it won't even work retroactively because the LCP is going to apply no matter what. We can have that discussion when we bring it back.

Can I I just want to make sure we got something clear here. I think uh Tyler, if I could ask you the question. I thought we were uh doing what you had requested. We're limiting this to the Palisades fire only. Yes. But I don't I don't recommend the second thing is coming back with a code change to to do it for everyone else. I I I think our legal and community development director do not agree with that. I I agree with you as well. I agree with Bruce on this that uh we've got a coastal commission issue that needs to be uh addressed and they're not going to satisfy that by changing the municipal code.

Yeah. And one of these slides that is not showing up but we were going to show you because this is been this is going to be unprecedented and for staff we will follow you direction until you tell us no. But we need to also document that this was your decision, your decision only on the approved set of plans because we are going to have property owners, not right now, but when construction starts because we see this all the time and I'm not I'm not against it. I ju just hear me. We're going to have property owners and they say, "Why did you approve this?" So I I need to show them with our stamp of approval when they bring their attorneys to us. This is what our city council using the governor's office authoriz uses to do. Just want to make sure that it's clear for everybody. Also, there might be properties that are very close to a bluff or very close to an slope that even though they was they were done unpermitted, they would under the building code, they would not be able to rebuild that portion. I just want to make it clear for everybody that

Okay, but hold on a second. I thought what we just proposed here is your red line red language with it is is we went back to the three-hour discussion that you originally had. We are again we had a three-hour discussion on the previous meeting. We are respectful of council. So we went back and word by word we added to what you recommend us to bring back to you. So on this one we really want to make it clear is we're this is we are following what council wants us to do.

Yeah I I really appreciate those comments Yolanda. Two takeaways. One is I mean three actually. One is this actually is going to make the job of the staff much easier because there is no need to determine whether something was or wasn't permitted. The only thing that you need to do is determine whether it was or wasn't there. That's one. So that makes it your job easier. Two, when someone comes and complains that you allowed something to be built that was there before and wants to know why, the answer is because it was there before. Full stop. No need to explain anything other than that. Three, thank you for clarifying. This is a planning issue. This is not a building issue. If there is a reason, a safety reason why an approvable plan cannot be rebuilt because it creates a a safety issue. We're not saying anything about that today. Nor do we have any authority to say anything about that. So, you can you can build what you had before so long as you can establish you had it before, unless you're not able to build it because there's a safety problem. Bruce, I know you like to say that, you know, your response is going to be adequate, but I'll tell you what, if somebody comes in and says, "How come they got to build it and I didn't?" And your answer is going to be because they had a built before. The answer says, "Well, maybe I should be build something before also." I'm, you know, look, we're going to you're going to vote get the when they come back and ask you why they got there. I was I voted against it. Just

and we and we need to improve our enforcement and force the tear down of that house that's purposely built wrong. You know, there's another I mean, is it it just says what it says in the executive order. If we're going toward with the I'm just obsessed with this because it says the footprint and height of accessory structures that existed immediately before this emergency and that are substantially in the same location relative to the PI primary structure. I mean, it's just what it says here. You could you could tell the neighbor that this is what the governor said for this fire.

So, Mayor Prom is actually absolutely right on on this. The governor's order, and I've said this a thousand times since January, the governor's order does not allow anything. It just says that the rebuild plus 10% footprint and height as we know it is suspended suspends the coastal act and SQA. That's it. So the the the local ordinance still applies. Local land use law still applies. Local building code still applies. Yeah. So this is relaxing our local interpretation of our code. That's what I'm intending to do is to relax a little. Can we call it uh I think we have it. Um Steve, you're dissenting. Yeah.

Okay. So 41 Steve descent. And the only reason is because the governor's order on my part. If this was did not have that, I would be sticking with our wellestablished 25-year policy that we already have in the city. So and for all those people who want that that aren't part of the Palisades fire, I apologize. This is going to substantially expedite the ability of people to get back what they lost. That's what we're all about here. Okay. Um so we're on to PF1 deemed complete applications.

Yes. Give me a sec to uh pull it back up and hopefully we have our um audio visual. Shy, you might want to come up to the front and talk already. So, be be prepared. Okay. So, um have we lost video? We are filming the meeting. Um I meant for in

not displaying um the projector on our projector. H There we go. Okay. Um Okay. Um All right. So, there are a few instances um where the uh um a homeowner has a project that has been in the pipeline for a long time or maybe a short time, but they had a project in the pipeline. They were just about done. Their application was deemed complete. In this, you know, a lot of cases it was like an addition to their home. and um you know right before unfortunately right before they were able to get permits for it they the fire came through and and destroyed their property. Uh and so some residents are asking that we allow them to finish that application in congruence with their rebuild plus 10%. So, this will be, if you recall from the Woolseie, like a two-step process specifically for these type of um people who were subject, you know, made it to the finish line but just couldn't pull a building permit prior to the fire. Uh, and they would be able to finish their application in conjunction with the rebuild plus 10%. Um the issue that um I believe these homeowners are going to speak about is uh their issue involves a site plan review because uh it's it was a twotory addition and they're asking that we finish that. So it's still subject to story polls. It's still subject to scrutiny from the neighbor if it impacts views and could may ultimately not be approved. Uh however um they're asking if we can include uh that as part first of all in the first instance allow this the the old application to to move forward and then two all make sure that it can include discretionary requests.

Thank clarifying questions. Yeah. Do we know how many, if any, other structures in the city were destroyed and had a pending application that had not yet been approved for a remodel? We're looking at less than 10. But they're that many. Mhm. Up to 10. Mhm.

Okay. Okay. And quick question I have. So, you're not asking just to have the permit continue on the paperwork, but to rebuild the existing house they had before and add 10%. This would be to rebuild the house they had for before plus 10%. That would qualify under the PV, but then to also allow them to finish getting a permit for that addition that they already had in the pipeline that was deemed complete prior to the fire. Okay. And is there a cut off point that you're recommending for how far they are in the process? It would have to be deemed complete by the city.

Their application is deemed complete. You're talking about the final things like a site plan review and that sort of thing, right? So, if they were deemed complete, that means they were, you know, months away or weeks away from obtaining approval um from for or potentially before the application is complete, but now we want to add 10% to it.

No. Um Okay. So before the fire, they had an existing househ and and they had a singlestory home. They wanted to before the fire add a second story addition to their home that was beyond 10%. Let's say that's 30% of the previous square footage. Um they were going to add that the story pools were about to go up. Application was deemed complete. Before the story pools go up, before we could permit the project, their house burned down in the fire. So they're asking to rebuild their house but also be allowed to finish the application for their second story which would be greater than 10%. Okay. So I'm sorry.

So it's not just taking the the prior application for say 2,000 square feet increase to 3,000 and then add another 10%. Or not. Um, I would recommend limiting the 10% to, and maybe the homeowner disagree with me, but um, limiting the 10% to the previous structure, but allowing them to move forward with the proposed addition that was deemed complete. So, so they get the 10% plus the 30%. But the 10% is based on the That's it. But they get both of those. The 10%. Well, they may or may not get the Well, maybe not. But that you know if we are going to allow the 10% my recommendation would be to only allow it for the previous structure not you get the I understand what you're saying

you only get 10% of the structure that was actually dam I got it I don't I could be wrong and I want to make sure this I I don't think what you just described is what says in the proposed policy. In fact I think they're the opposite. Uh but I could be confused. Well, I I read this policy to say this proposed policy to say that if they had an application that was complete, um it can be processed so long as it did not require an SPR. So, the one that has the story polls, and this is why I think we have some people that are going to speak today, the one that would have required the SPR under this policy, they'd have to start from scratch. So, can I explain? Yeah,

I wrote it to include the site plan review. um our our city attorney advised against it um for some legal reasons. It's up to the council to determine which which one they want. Uh and we have some home own home own home own home own home own home own home own home own home own home own home owners that can speak to their situation. It's obviously up to us to decide what we want. But I just want to make I just want to make sure I understand what I'm reading here. Correct. Whether it's you personally or proposing the draft the draft does say that because we advised against it. However, an original draft that you did not see did not include this language. We could go either way.

Yeah. The the concern being this is just saying a application. You could be applying for something that needed all kinds of different approvals. It's not something that's approved. There were no findings made that you should be able to get that. So that's it. Maybe shortcircuiting the discretionary approval process. I have a further compromise that I think is going to work after we hear from the public. Okay. We public comment. Okay. I apologize. I don't need

I don't think I've met everyone. I'm Kathy Wowski. I'm Shai's wife. Um we lost our home on Roach Chica and during the Palisades fire. Um and we want we have a lot of gratitude for the rebuild center. They have been really helpful. Lots of information and really helpful through this process. But that being said, we have been having us submitted per plan. We have been stuck in planning verification for 99 days as of today. Um because we there's no process for navigating endstage permits before the fire. Um we were we had all we had our permit in for two and a half years. We followed all of the rules uh for the permitting process and um we endstage permit. We had scheduled story polls but they weren't up yet and our addition would have been 20% so above the 10% for like for like um we are deep in this process and we would love to rebuild the home that we had thought that we were going to get. Um we had been open with our intentions with our neighbors for this process. um we are not on the ocean side and so we have the seabboard bluff behind us. I don't think that we would be a we would be affecting anyone's views but obviously we do we would just like the opportunity to go through the process um of doing our planning verification.

Thank you. Thank you question. Yes, if you are shy very quick question if you just are you are you asking you get the your you the house you redesigned. Okay. Do you want to get the 10% on top of that or are you just happy getting what the redesign was? For in our case, we're just we just want what we were about to do. You're not worried about the extra 10% coming in. We can't afford the extra 10%, Steve. Yes. Just trying to Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. No. But for at least in our case, at least in our case. Do you have any other comments? Because it's your turn. No. No. No.

Okay. Danny, do we have anyone online? No, we don't have any raised hands at this time.

Speaking for the task force, again, we approve of and and uh we like staff's recommendation. Speaking for myself, uh I have somebody in my zone who's who went through this process. Um he had done the story polls almost two years ago. This is a multi-year process to add on to his uh garage, I think. And um the story polls were up two years ago because it was right after we bought. But he was so close. And these are the people you want to talk about um people doing things illegally, these are the people that went through the process. They're trying to do everything right. And side note, the the reason people do things illegally is because the building department's extremely inefficient, but that's for another day. Um these are people trying to do things right. Please don't make them wait until they build their house, as I understand it, and then have to go through this new application to do the addition. Makes sense. Thank you. Thanks. True.

I know the TDSF is not necessarily part of the fire rebuilds, but if the letting them have it doesn't push them beyond what the TDSF would have been on the property, I think you guys should let them have it. Thank you, Jeff. I just wanted to get clear if it w if it did require an SPR after they'll just have to put the story polls back up again. Okay, that's fine. And I know that they're rushing those for the fire rebuilds. Thank you. Okay, any other public comments? No, we don't have any raised hands on Zoom. Okay, another clarifying question I forgot to ask. Well, we're back up to the the DSO.

Well, just a question. Um are there any properties where the um structure was destroyed and it was fully permitted approved to move forward but had not yet done so? Uh no. Uh and that was one of the first item that came out of the governor's office. Any uh property that was um that went through the process with building permits as of 2019 will allow them just to move forward. That's their That's their like. Yeah. And and and there was none of them. I did see a house in the Rambla Pacificico neighborhood that was framing a few weeks ago. Is that was

If you can give me the address, we can look into it. They may not have a permit. I'll start if no one else wants to. Yeah. Go ahead.

All right. This one is difficult for me. Emotionally, I want to just say do whatever we need to do to get this done. And by the way, by way of disclosure, um these are my neighbors. My my displaced neighbors. I'm displaced. They're displaced. Um but I don't believe that disqualifies me from uh discussing their project. Um this is basically option four from Woolseie that we were that was not legal. I say that because the the way the this is a um remodel or addition to a existing single family dwelling which is exempt from the LCP. Um which has an exemption rather from the CDP requirement. Um so if there hadn't even if there hadn't been a fire they wouldn't have needed a full CDP. They would just go through the MMC basically. Uh my understanding is that the Coastal Commission won't allow us to approve additions to non-built rebuilding homes. That those are a lot of words. I mean, a house that burned that was existing but now is not existing. The Coastal Commission says that's not an existing house for purposes of building an addition to it. Um, but for that I would say that we ought to allow the SPR to proceed on the hypothetical house that's sitting there that isn't really there anymore. Um, I don't know that we can get I don't know that we can lawfully get there and I I want to hear from the other council members and and our council on that because if we can lawfully get there I I jumped there at a heartbeat. But I don't know if we can lawfully get there. Um what I think we need to do at a minimum though is direct the staff to to just to

expedite a um CDP on these properties, whatever ones they are that require additional, you know, that went through the process already and that were on in the process of getting approval. I mean, it seems to me it's it's just not an existing house. I don't I don't know how you get around that. Go ahead. just for you guys to all consider and um if we do do that um they may then not be eligible for the fee waiver because they would be greater than 10%. So we just consider

I would think the council could carve that out as well. I mean I I think that this is one of those situations where I think we need legislative approval for an exception that's very fact specific for the 1 to 10 properties that qualify for it. But I don't think we can do it in a way that actually violates the LCP. Um, I I'm concerned that the remodel here that's in the works doesn't qualify for the governor's order, is still subject to the Coastal Act, and because of that, we don't have the authority to treat it as an existing structure. I'll leave others to tell me I'm wrong, which I hope I am.

I'd like to find a way to let them do this. I mean, it just, you know, they didn't, but Assuming we go forward with this, what will they have to go through? They don't have to go to the planning commission if they got variances. How do how do we deal with all that stuff? For their particular case, it' be a site plan review. If a neighbor complained, let's say there was a a primary view determination impacted, we might deny it. Um if if there wasn't, a neighbor could still appeal and that could go before the planning commission. Are there many variances involved with this project? You aware of the no variances but the site plan review site plan review clean sheets project is that a

well it needs a site plan review so wherever you feel that need is a clean sheets or not but as clean as we're going to get it's cleaner than a variance um it's still appealable to the planning commission so it's a director level decision but it's appealable to the planning commission can I ask a clarifying question okay so you said that there's 10 of these possible applications Um, do any of those I just want to make sure that we're not narrowing in on this single one. Did any of the other applications have a variance attached to them?

If you want to make it specific to variances, we can talk about that, but um, we didn't go individually every single one. Um, uh, this this homeowner is the one, you know, who have we've been talking this through with. The other ones haven't really come forward yet. Okay. All right. Anybody else have questions? Yeah. Uh I'm confused about just where we are in the permit process. You said it was it was permitted or ready to be permitted. To me that means that we don't have a coastal development permit requirement. Do we it it was not yet permitted. It was on the cusp.

Maybe I could clarify a few things. So these are all no CDPs. These 10 projects these are all municipal code um with a potentially discretionary site plan review. maybe a variance. We don't know about that. Um, and so the difference from this and the two-step process that went we talked about before was that these applications were all in and complete before the fire happened. So you're under planning and zoning law, you're entitled to the state of the code at the time when you make your application, it's deemed complete. So, the argument being here that this is not a two-step because we're not you're not going forward getting your PV plus 10% and then putting a new application and then processing them at the same time. Um, this would be something that was applied for previously for the the prior house. And so, that would be the argument that you would that if the council so disposed to, you know, move forward on this is that this is not the two-step because of this was applying to the prior house. It's um it's not going to grant the approvals. You're still going to make the approvals have to happen at the director level or if it's appealed to the planning commission. Correct. We're not just giving them these permits. They will have to go through the process for those parts. Um but we would cons we would go forward and process it and the 10% would only apply to the structure that was actually destroyed. Is that correct?

Well, that's if the 10%'s even allowed in the first instance because another alternative you could say uh is that that is their 10%. Like they they can't be granted anything more if it's greater than 10%. Yeah, Trevor, how are how are you getting to the conclusion that the addition is part of the like that was there that's being replaced such that the coastal act is excused for the addition? So the argument would would be I don't think that you could argue that you would get 10% of the addition because that's not a structure that was damaged or destroyed in it. No,

I get that. I can see I could see getting to a point I I I think we wouldn't likely, but I could see saying as long as it was deemed complete, it's actually deemed there and for like for like purposes, what was that? That's that hypothetical house was there already and we're out of the coastal act and we just do a PV. But if the addition that doesn't exist yet isn't part of what was there, I don't see how we're out of the coastal act for purposes of the addition today. We're out of the coastal act for the existing house. We're out of the coastal act for another 10% of the existing house if they want that. But I don't see how we get out of the coastal act. We go to the ex we go to the LCP. There's an exclusion for this, but it only applies if the house is already in existence, not to the one that burned down. You understand my question?

I I I do. And and there is definite risk that this could be challenged, you know, based, you know, based on that. Um because you're you're saying the exemption for why it doesn't need a coastal development permit is based on the the fact that it's an addition to an existing structure. the ex the structure existed at the time that the application was deemed complete. So that's basically what you're sort of going to rely on is that it was exempt at the time the application was, you know, deemed complete. Um, and then you're but it it's it's difficult. There's a lot of discretion given to the city under the under the governor's code how these things are interpreted and how the the uh the ability of the of the coastal commission or the people to go and challenge, you know, the city's interpretation, how it's going to act under it. It's not without risk. I'm saying if you want to go down this path, that would be the justification for it. There's also the justification for it that, you know, the two-step is a valid process and that the Kulsa Commission had it wrong. You know, that was just an opinion that they sent to the city saying that the two-step process, you know, was uh not allowed and and the city adopted a policy that, you know, brought it to an end. We did approve a number of of of applications through the two-step process under the argument that the fire rebuild was exempt. And then if they had actually built it, you also are allowed to add an additional, you know, um

50%. Yes, you can add that on to it. So,

so I'm I'm going to throw something out that I didn't think I was going to come in here supporting. Let's see where the council is on this because we're talking about less than 10 properties. Uh what would you all think about? We have we have extremely broad discretion to decide what was there. What what mean what is a like what means like for like whether what was there? What was there? Um, are are are at least three of us willing to go so far as to say that any primary dwelling which was destroyed in the fire, which had a pending application that was deemed complete without regard to what further process was required is considered what was there before the fire and can be built as a like for like full stop. No need for an SPR. It's it is the PV the the hypothetical structure that was going that was applied for is what you can get a PV for even though it was not yet approved. I

think it's it's really liberal construction of the governor's order but we are given extremely broad authority under the governor's order to get out of the coastal act and I'd be prepared to go there for less than 10 properties. Yeah. Uh if I could put uh two cents in. I was actually going to go somewhere close to that. I I know in your draft you have here about plus 10% and so forth but I think if the house has been deemed the application complete deemed I'll get it yet deemed a complete application whatever that I'd like to define what that means and I agree with Bruce as long as they don't take another 10%.

Yeah try you know that it's the house that was in process and nobody's going to try and add 10% onto it. I'm fine with that. I think we need to define what deemed complete is. I don't know about the site plan review. I'm I'm still kind of open on that. But I think that's the house that was there before in my mind, especially if it was 10 properties for as long as we keep the application that was in process in process. If if if you deem it to be what was there before, you wouldn't even need a site plan review because now you're just replacing what you had. Yeah. But I I wonder if in fairness to the neighbors that even though they may have been burned out

and council member Stewart and Trevor can add to this um deem complete is a very uh specific term in the land use law and so that means your application you've you've satisfied all the application requirements and so it's like an official statement from the city saying that you so it's a major milestone uh that your project is now de so it's a known land use uh term. It means it's ready to be passed on but it has not yet been approved. Correct. So, uh, for these 10 houses, those have all received this this designation. Correct. These are only for deemed complete applications. So, what's your recommendation regarding the site plan review? I know it says in here does not require a site plan review, streamline modification or variance.

You know, full full transparency, me and the city attorney are a little differing on this. Um, I think it's just it's it's uh there's only a handful of these and um the the ones who really want it happen to have a site plan review. Uh just doing kind of basic analysis. It doesn't look like there's really going to be much impacts. We're still going to analyze for impacts and it could still be denied. Make that very clear. It could be still be denied if we cannot make the findings. Uh so it's still going through the same process that we would have treated it had the house survived.

Okay. I'm I'm going to go with Bruce on this that uh if we're not adding any additional we're not trying to do the 10%. It's a plan. It's the application that's on the table and has been deemed complete. I'm willing to go with that. Let's hear from Halen. Oh, I'm with them. I've been with them. I've been I mean I don't even know why we're still talking about this. It's 2:30. I'm good. I'm really good. Okay. Thank you.

And you know And to back what Trevor mentioned earlier, there's there's a semi-precedented for what we did with this two-step thing and under Woolseie. So, I got no problem with that. The only question I have is, you know, typically when this house would have gone up, there would have been some review by the residents. They'd have if there was an issue, they would I mean, how do we make sure that occurs for all these houses we're talking about? I just don't want to pass on the you know, there's some rules that we have to we got to live with each other, right? And I want to make sure that if some if there's if there is an issue that whoever is raising has a chance to raise it and get it resolved before we

they do. Yes. So in a site plan review process we have them do story polls which we're not going to we're still going to require them to do. Okay. They they understand that. And for all these properties we're talking about everybody's going to be treated the same. They're going to have to go through, you know, make the effort to demonstrate what the hell they're building. So, the resident if they got an issue, they can if a neighbor can can uh can show us that they have an established PVD and this twotory addition would impact their PVD, we may not be able to make the finding to allow this. Cool. Then I'm I'm in. Long as we're long as we're doing that, everybody has a chance to look at it, I don't have a problem. Let

Let me try to word smmith this a little bit because I there's some complication here. Why don't we say this is going back to a different policy now why don't we say that like for like includes any structure which had a um deemed complete application provided however um it cannot have 10% more and it still must be subject to SPR if it would have been under the deemed under the deemed complete application. In other words, we're not words we're not making this we're not making this an exception to the like for like we're we're actually putting some additional requirements on this one. But I don't see how we can otherwise get there.

I think I think if the people went through the effort and you know and they did they got the permit they did all the work they got it ready to go to make them go back and redo it again. I think it's crazy. uh as long as is again long I just don't want to skip the step where residents who live next to it if there's any issue they as long as we give them that I'm a happy camper. Okay. Um I just want to clarify we can do an SPR with a PV. It doesn't require it going to an APR. It's an inside baseball question. That's why it'll explain if I need to.

Does it need APR? Does the PV with an SPR require an APR because that's the only way to attach the SPR or will it can we do a PV with an SPR?

Well, traditionally that would have been the two-step and that's what we were planning to do. But, uh, the mayor prom he's he's talking about something different. He's talking about treating it as a like for like and and so that would be its own application on it on its own which would I would recommend still probably an APR so we can document this whole scenario and that it applies to this policy and things but it would be a separate application that that is for one rebuild project that includes that extra square footage. If if Mayor Prom is if the like for like as far understanding the his interpretation of like for like is accepted uh but the the the plan was just to process the APR like an addition like kind of like a two-step actually what what I was proposing is we say that for per like for like for purposes of being able to have a PV approval includes whatever was there and whatever was going to be added to to it so long as the application was deemed complete. Provided, however, that in the latter circumstance, the PV itself will not be sufficient to move forward, you will also still have to process an SPR for the addition.

And so, it is a like for like it is going into the PV category in the first instance. That way, we're we're we're saying we're in the governor's order. We're out of the coastal act. We're not dealing with exemptions to the coastal act, but we are imposing as a matter of the municipal code an additional requirement for the PV that they're eligible for, which is that they still have to get an SPR. So, this is being treated the same as if you're doing a like for like, but you decide to recalibrate your structure to go more above 18 ft. It would need a site plan review. Yes. Okay. We would I think we would want if that's the direction of the council we should we might need to discuss how how to work exactly it's a PV with a site plan review.

Yeah. And that so my question is can a PV have a site plan review without the APR? Have we been processing with an APR? That's doesn't hasn't existed but I don't believe there's anything that precludes us from doing doing that. It's not required. It just needs a site plan review because the PV is the fundamental document. It's over 18 ft. Yeah. So, it needs a site plan review. You need to make those findings. And I'm just I'm making sure because I know in the past there are certain types of applications that you can't attach a site plan review to. I I um

so I just recommend processing it as an APR to not set a precedent. Um I understand what you're saying, Mayor Prom. I just think it's easier to document and be consistent with past practice. Um, what's an APR administrative plan with you? It's it's honestly going to be the same thing. We're just talking about the name what we're going to call it, but um so that we do not do not um convolute what a planning verification is because a planning verification is a defined term in our code. Let's not let's just we can call it an APR. We'll write a notice of decision. We'll detail exactly what the situation is. And that will be the record. We should process the same as we've been doing that for the Okay,

that suggestion gets us where we want to go. And if that works for them, I think we should go with what they want. Okay. But we but we need to go back to the policies that defines like for like and add in language that includes a structure that exist that that was approve that a structure for which a remodel permit had been submitted and substantially and and whatever those words are that would be part of what a like for like means. The next policy is like for like so okay taking notes. Yeah, I think I think we got the direction on this one, right? Anything else you guys need? Nope. Okay,

so to be clear, house existed before the fire. They had an application in that was deemed complete. These include not just the speakers that we had here, but other ones that may or may not have contacted the city yet. Um, it's a very defined group that will be able to continue to proceed um as if their addition had ex existed prior to the fire. Correct. And the our intent is to contact the rest of the applications and the family so we can have this meeting with them. Cool. I'm in this. Thank you. Good luck on your campaign. Okay. So, we're on for like for like now

for time's sake. It's 2:30. How many more? Um I just want to make sure we're budgeting. We have five more items. Okay. And then if we don't get through it, do we set up another meeting? How does this work? Let's see how we get there first. Okay, let's just let's power through these. I think what's next?

Yeah. So, what is what is a like for like? Um, a like for like means that a structure that is compliant with if applicable LIP 13.4 or MMC section 17.60.020 O2C in that it is cited in the same general location is within 110% the same height bulk and square footage of the previous structure. Um the design of the structure may change. For example, a craftsman style design may be rebuilt as a modern design as long as the structure is within 110% the same height, bulk and square footage of the previous structure. So what does that look like? Uh this is an approved project um where you could see their previous home outline in the dash red. They had these chimneys that kind of made these horns, if you will. And the new structure, uh, they they lowered the height. They're staying within mostly the envelope. Uh, and this is, you know, easy easy does it approval for a like for like. Uh, so it's a different design of the home than previously had, but they're within their volumes and massing and square footages and heights. Um, there's no substantial safety issue. Um, this is consistent with our mission statement for rebuilds and our our um past city practice. Uh, I know there's going to be some conversations about bulk probably. Um, we have a we have a specific item just on bulk, so we can hopefully do that there. But if bulk is removed, uh, as we've stated multiple times, it could have unended big impacts on views.

Okay, any clarifying questions? Anybody want to speak on this? Luka. Yeah, I just want to bring up uh on the previous case. Actually, it's very important that the language states the PV when it comes to fire department. If if they need any exceptions done by the fire department, that's how I understood it. If it doesn't have a PV designation in front of it, it's just treated as an APR, then the fire department will not potentially, you know, give the discounts or not discounts, but allowances that they would for PVs. That's just the technicality. Thank you for clarifying that. Are you going a

speaking on behalf of the task force? Uh we are fine with uh bulk as it stands. The only comment that we'll make is it still not completely well understood. So we have to continue to communicate this better to the design professionals and the residents. Okay. So the bulk is coming up. That's not it. This is like for like networks. I understand that. But we're going to have a specific thing on bulk in a moment. I just wanted clarity. So like for like plus 10% but if it's above if the 10% is above 18 ft that needs an SPR. So it's a PV with an SPR. Okay. If it's different from what was there before. Okay.

It is an APR or it's a PV for is okay. Hold on. Please let the staff uh answer the staff questions. Uh, it is an APR with an SPR if you trigger any of those volumes over 18 ft. Yes. Can you repeat that one more time? My apologies.

So, you're no longer qualified for planning verification if you um have massing or part of your square footage above 18 ft in height. You're triggering a site plan review and we process those traditionally with an administrative plan review. It's still a rebuild plus 10%. You're still allowed the the fee waivers, but you have to go through that process because you're triggering the site plan review. You're you're actually no longer a like for like and you're not within the governor's order and you're in the coastal act. Well, not necessarily. If you're going over 18 ft, you're adding your 10% height.

No, no, no. The governor's order is footprint and height. So, in this case, let's say they already had a 20 foot tall house. They are adding to their second story, sticking with 20 feet. that's still compliant with the governor's order uh but is outside of the allowance for applying verification as it stands today. Thank you. Do we have anybody online? No, we don't have any race hands and we have way in person now so we'll hear them much better. So thank you. This one bleeds into bulk. Are we going to discuss bulk today? Yes. Yes.

100%. Cool. So then for the sake of speed, the thing about APR, I know that Halen wants to cut red tape. If we make a change now and we allow PVs to have the SPR and not turn them into APRs, we will cut some red tape, right? But I don't know legally we can do that. That's why I don't know if legally we can do that. That's why I was asking the question. I believe the issue is that in order to attach neighborhood

again, we'll let staff and we'll let our city attorney opine on that. Okay, I still have some seconds. I can maybe finish my thought. Okay, thank you so much. So, uh my understanding of why PBS turn into APRs is because SPRs require neighborhood character findings and those historically need to be they cannot be attached to PVS. They have to be attached to APRs. Is that correct?

So, to answer your first question real quick, the um in the law that was a dot. So, I keep asking you guys to please read the law because it says that when you have new bulk outside of the old bulk, it's triggering uh the site plan review that's listed in the law that we we passed. So, so to to Mayor's point, we'd have to go change the law. But my question is not that. It's about this pure procedural. Can we attached neighborhood character findings to PVs instead of APRs? Neighborhood character is something that is attached to a site plan review. And so therefore, sitebel plan reviews can be attached to PBS or or they have to be APRs no matter what.

There's nothing that procedurally um prohibits that, but I do not recommend that. Uh it's just going against standard practice. Maybe we it's time to change a standard practice and make it easier. So Luis, I'm going to say it does not benefit you in any way. You're just calling uh a red apple a green apple. It's still an apple. You still have to go through a site plan review process. You still have to put up story polls. still have to notice your neighbors. We still have to issue a notice of decision. So you you're thinking that it changes the process. It does not. It's still a site plan review. Whether we call an APRP is irrelevant. Okay. Thank you. Um I'm sorry. Do we have any online speakers? She said no. No, we don't have any race hands.

Okay. So I'll close public comments. We're back up to the dice. Anybody want to start? Anybody have questions on like for lake? I'll go with the staff recommendation. Anybody else? I'll go with staff recommendation. Me too. Me three. Four.

I I I I support the policy as written, but I am concerned that it is inconsistent with the statute we adopted, which I think we misadopted when we do adopted it. Um, I've been talking to residents and professionals about this issue of square foot height and bulk or square foot height or bulk. And I think the code that we the ordinance that we adopted is wrong. But to the extent that the words are what they are, this policy is more restrictive than the code we adopted. Um, the code we adopted says you get an additional 10% of each of those three. The LI provision that I think we were trying to model says you get up to 10%. You're limited by not going over 10% of any of those three. And there's a diametric distinction between those two alternatives. The reason we used the broader language in adopting our ordinance is because we simply pulled the same language that was used after Woolseie, which I also think was the wrong words. I I believe that the council didn't you they didn't have the last five years to think about these things and they didn't have I think as good guidance back then, but I think they used the wrong words in Woolseie. they went with words that are different than the LCP when they were trying to model the LCP into the MMC. So, as a result of that, what we've got is if you're under the Coastal Act and you have to get an LC and you have to get a CDP, you get an exclusion from that so long as you don't exceed any of those three.

When the Coastal Act is gone, under our existing MMC provision that we adopted, you're entitled to 10% of each one of those three. I don't think any one of us intended that and I think we need to go back and change those words. This policy models what I think we intended to do. But this policy does not equal what we said in the statute. And I'm I'm against saying things in a policy that are contrary to a statute. So I think either we need to change the statute to be the same as this policy or we need to broaden this policy in a way that I don't want to broaden it. But I don't see how we can narrow a statute through a policy. Trevor, did you follow that?

I did not. I'll just put it out there. So, if you can simplify, I I would have to go back and look at the language. I understand what you're what you're saying, Bruce, but I we need to go back and look at the language. So, we we can go and and look at that and if we think any adjustments need to be brought back when this comes back in consent, we could address it. So, I I I like this policy. I think this policy makes sense as does everyone else already. They've said, "I do believe, however, this policy um takes away rights that are stated in ordinance 525 or whatever the number is." And that's problematic. I think we need to go back and look at that ordinance. Does the Well, good question. Doesn't bulk cover put the limitations on this and we're going to go to bulk.

The bulk limitation is inconsistent with the statute we adopted. I have I just for the record I have a different you know I don't quite agree with that but I for for for the sake of it I think that's a longer discussion uh and we can bring it when we bring it back with our water tanks and we can we can highlight this area and we can talk if we want to strengthen it or if there's words that we can add or sentences we can revise to to to make it up to standard. I I just want look here's the express language of the ordinance. Structures that were damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster may be permitted at the discretion of the planning director through approval of a planning verification to increase the square footage, height or bulk permitted by this title by 10%. That means you could you can increase your bulk by 10% because it's one of the three things you're allowed to increase by 10%. The LCP says it the other way around. It says that you're excluded so long as you don't exceed 10% of any of these three. I I think that's what we intended to do, but that's not what this says, unfortunately.

Yeah. No, I I hear I hear you. Uh the policy, I think we all agree reflects what this the city has always applied and so we've always applied it that way. But if we want to make the legal stronger, we can definitely it sounds like we have agreement on the policy and we can look at whether an adjustment to the code should be recommended when this comes back if there going to be some other recommendations on the code as we know and I just want to make clear because it triggers me when I hear come back discuss um I just want to make sure that people can continue in the process while we are also doing this other stuff. This does not delay any processes. the city is not deliberating further. As the policy is written is how it's been being applied. Say it one more time.

As the policy is is written in front of you is how it's being applied. Okay? So if we agree to the policy, then you're agreeing to the way the staff has always applied it and will continue to apply it. But to Mayor Prom's point, there's some legal language that we may need to strengthen and we can definitely bring that back. Thank you. Okay. So, do we have consensus on like we do, but is this the appropriate place to talk about whether bulk's applied when the height is not added or is that going to be in the bulk itself discussion? We have a whole policy dedicated to bulk and I think it's just we're getting there. Yeah. Okay. We're getting there. So, I'm sorry. Your question.

Okay. Are we all in on what like for like is with staff's recommendation? I am. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. substantially the same location. So the uh let me just give the numbers for the next four and the last items on the uh item on the agenda. Issue number two, issue number three, issue number eight, and finally issue 10. So we'll go with number two. But just so everybody knows, I I may take discretion to move 10 depending on the time because I want to make sure we get to that one.

Okay. Okay. So, number two is substantially the same location. Um, if you recall, we just changed this language uh to kind of mimic uh some language in the governor's order uh back in March. And um basically the way we're applying substantially within the same location. I'll show you a visual here. Um the this is this a very crude drawing of a original footprint right on top of a bluff indicated by the strategic lines there in red. And um this uh potential project would move out stay within the same footprint by 50% but move it in a safer location on their property a little farther away from the bluff that would that would be allowed under a PV substantially the same location. Uh if you completely move outside of the original more than 50% outside the original footprint you are in a different location and that would uh we actually approved that to be processed under a dimminimous waiver. So the LCP still applies, but it can be processed under a dimminimous waiver if you wanted to go farther than substantially the same footprint. And then um some pros and cons we can give you on this one. So um just to consider uh ge geologic and uh geotechnical hazardous. So in a stability uh seismic risk we also if we if we continue I mean it will reduce the exposure to the bluff retreat and it will allow structures to um to have a more stable foundation system. Uh yes. And then um in terms of our mission statement and design standards, it could help projects get closer to consistency with what would be required if they were built today and making them safer. Um and then this flexibility allows homeowners to ch choose a more ideal location rather than keeping them very tight within where they were before. And then a more conservative

view uh as I said would kind of block them in. Just let you know again that we do have a dimminimous waiver option if you need to completely relocate. Okay. Any clarifying questions? Yeah, I have one. If the house is over 18 ft, is it going to be allowed to be moved to and can be considered still in the same general location? If it's over 18 ft, in that case, there may be some more bulk outside of where it was before and it may trigger site plan review in that case. So it meets a rebuild plus 10% but to account for the potential view impacts it's triggering that site plan review

right. So how is that accounted for in the words of the policy what you just said? Um yeah okay we can we can make it clear because um it's like you would have to read the law and then the policy but you're saying let's kind of put it in the policy to make it clear that if that situation applied to you you may be subject to a site plan review. Do I hear that correctly? That's just consistent with how you determine when a site plan review is is is required. So, right, if they take the same house and the area where they're blocking over 18 feet, if that stays the same, they rotate the house, then you might not need a site plan review. It's if they move the whole thing. So, a space that wasn't blocked. I think if you rotate, you need the site plan review, right?

It depends if there's uh you relocate and there is new massing above 18 feet outside of what was there before. Yeah. Yeah. So any so anytime there's any structure any part of the structure above 18 feet that part of the structure can't be moved without a site pin review. Yes. Okay. Not even one inch. Right. Yes. Okay. Clarifying question. Yeah. Another clarifying question on the beachfront properties. Uh, I always think of those as being somewhat locked in place, but what are you what's the application of this to beachfront properties?

Yeah, you're right. They they can't really move very much. So, there's not much they they and they can't go farther seawward, so they they can't even choose that option, but maybe um they want to move further landward for whatever reason. It's it's a potential. Um, and then that's a good point, um, Council Member Stewart, that um the SPR wouldn't apply to beachfront because they're allowed by right to go up to 24 ft. So, just to make that clarification, Beachfront wouldn't be subject to a site plan review. Um, but to answer your question, they they are locked in for the most part. Some lots are a little bigger. They may be able to move, but for the vast majority of Beachfront, they're kind of locked into where they were. Thank you.

Okay. Clarifying. Okay. Public speakers. Joe,

I I do think Abe would say the Malibu Real Task Force complies with the staff recommendation. Of course, you have seen my plans, Bruce, so you know that. Um, if if you're going off it would it's more for convenience and safety and etc. But um I know Craig Hill asked me to say he wouldn't be able to rebuild if he couldn't move move up to 50% off of his lot for geo reasons. And he also says moving a footprint should not be a problem if it otherwise complies with code and doesn't affect views. All of our homes are under 15 ft. So and we're not going above 15 ft because our CCNRs don't allow it. So and I'm having a sloped roof. So it shouldn't bulk shouldn't be a factor. So thank you

Luis and the online speakers. No, we don't have any raised hands at this time.

I think that this policy is good. It's going to help people like uh the one that Joe just mentioned for geology reasons. I think that we need to define footprint very well. What entails footprint? So in the LIP we have definitions for development area, we have for TDSF, we have for a lot of things. Footprint needs to be clearly uh defined because some people feel that may feel that their impermeable driveway is consistent with footprint. Some people think that is a roof overhang. Some people think that. So there's many things that the more defined we are or maybe the opposite. Maybe the less defined we are the more we help the residents. And I also want to thank Bruce for clarifying that you cannot move anything above 18 ft. This needs to be advertised to all the design professionals. If there was something existing above 18 feet, you cannot move. You have to create is not bulk is envelope. It's exactly same shape that you had before. You can play within. You cannot move not even one. Thank you.

So to clarify, you can move it. You need a site plan review and an ABR. Yes. You can't do it with just a PVA, right? Um, anyone else? Was it? Okay, good. Uh, we're public comments closed. We're back up here. Steve, I think part of our job is to make this place safer after we're done than we were before we started. And this will help us do that. So, I'm in favor of this. Okay. Anyone else?

This is the way it's been done for a long time. If I were doing it from scratch today, I would say you can only move at all so long as there's a safety reason associated with it. But this is the way it's always been done. So, I'll support this. I'll support it as well. Yeah, me too. Okay. Um, the only thing I was going to comment on was No, I've forgotten it. So, oh, um, when Luis was talking about being clearer on what is defined as the footprint, I thought we had already talked about it that in March. So, is that being has that been

because we talked about building pad and Yes. So, is it the building pad and footprint? Yeah, actually I can pull up uh I actually have a good little visual for this if you allow me to. It's part of my extra extra if we can bring up the slide please. So there's a difference between a primary development pad we lost

which is what which is what we approved and this is an old slide so it had the old language but we approved what's called a primary development pad and that was just to give people wiggle room to move accessory structures like if you need a new OWTS or retaining wall along your property so you're not b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b beded to that area. However, the primary structure needs to go back substantially in the same location. That's to meet the governor's order and that's to meet our our law. Okay.

So, so here in yellow is the building footprint and the building needs to go back substantially within that footprint. But in this case, the 50% would allow that building to move as legally um shift a little bit up to 50% of this the massing basically, you know, footprint of this house. Right. Okay. I hate to ask, but can I listen to what Luca has to say? I know I didn't realize he Oh, okay. Um do you want to speak? I would love to know more about this. So, if he's allowed,

so I think Luke in this case is uh in many cases. In this case also, he's right into wanting to determine specifically the terms. Um you showed the picture um Tyler of the aerial showing the the footprint of the house being where the eaves of the the of the roof is. That's actually not the footprint. Or it could be although the footprint is, you know, exterior wall to exterior wall. is it within you know the the umbrella of the of the eaves. So I think there needs to be a more clear and defined u definition for each term um so that we're everybody's clear especially us when we're trying to redesign something.

Thank you Luka and we will add it to the infographics that we're working on. Thank you so much. Maybe for like a glossery or like however you do it but just that's actually a valid policy question. I mean, yes, we we need to decide, I guess, whether the footprint does or does not include the overhang, right? It it counts towards TDSF. That's already established, but whether it is or isn't part of a footprint, I guess, is an open policy question. True. To Luca's point, uh, did not intend to count the roof line as the footprint. It would be the perimeter of the exterior walls. Well, what do we think? Could be the windows.

Yeah, you just want to clarify. This is a 2D I mean aerial view. So I understand I understand the point but uh I think most people would not count the roof overhangs as part of the building footprint. That's the exterior walls of my opinion. It is part of the square footage. Right. For TDSF purposes. Yes. Right. So for purpose of the 10% calculation, it's part of the base that gets added to 10 10% added to it.

So we can get into that too. I don't want to get us too off topic. Um the city has and we have a policy a separate policy that was approved a long time ago on this is that if you have overhangs that extend from your home more than six feet those can be those are counted as total development square footage. Yes, that that is true but they're not counted towards your footprint. It's it's a separate it's a separate thing. Okay. So should we today or at some other point soon after today decide whether we do or don't want to include that in footprint? if you we have it as a an additional policy item for you to consider. Not not that we're recommending you to, but we got some questions about overhangs and if you want to uh come back with more discussion on that, we can't. Well, well, as of right now, you're saying it as of right now, you're saying when someone brings an application that the footprint is not does not include the overhang and you're comfortable taking that position and applying it across the board. So, okay. So, I did not mean for it to get this complex, but apparently we need a defined footprint. So, I understand I understand the point now. So, I'll just we'll say that it sounds like it needs some clarity. We'll come back with some clarity on the issue. Just it's for your benefit because I don't want people to argue that you're applying footprint different to different people or that you're applying it wrong. 100%.

Are you foot a straw? I like the wall to wall idea, but yeah, I'm wall to- wall. Wall to wall. Yep. Do you want to weigh in? You're welcome to. Or feel like I need a little bit more information. Okay. And you do you want to I'm happy with wallto- wall, but um again that means that there's going to be a different 110% calculation for the footprint than there is going to be for the square footage.

Now what time is getting into very nuanced things right now? There's a difference between footprint and there's a difference between what we're allowing people to count as square footage. That's that it's not for today unfortunately because that's going to be a back and forth conversation. I I hear what you all are saying. We'll come back with what we call the footprint and then we can have this more in-depth combo. Is that okay? Yeah. You you could have a a ranch house that's a perfect square, right? And your footprint if you have overhangs, your footprint is going to be smaller than your square footage for purposes of deciding what you can add 10% to.

Well, typically the square footage is calculated from wall to wall, not the overhangs. I can explain the the thing because I know where that policy came from. So one thing to what Bruce was saying come to the mic please.

And so like we were saying earlier if any projection is more than six feet then whether it's open or not you consider that as square footage. um in the rebuild process, right? Um I think it would be fair to count any areas that were projecting more than 6 ft as development square footage, developed square footage to which we can add 10%. The reason is because if I were to want to rebuild exactly the same house, exactly the same house today, if I were to reddesign the house with this overhang of six uh of six feet per um overhang, I have to count that as part of the TDSF. So whether it's open or not to make it easier or fair to count as uh the square footage that we can or allowed to build they should be counted as um TDSF

my understanding is that is what's being done right that's what I understand it is happening some the footprint is a different concept does not would not include that right so if if you had a very long overhang that exceeded a distance of 10% of your footprint from the footprint, you wouldn't be able to bring a wall to the full end of the overhang because you'd only be allowed to extend your footprint by 10%. That's the point I'm making.

No, that's that's that's the point. That's again what I'm what I'm not saying is that you do have a projection that's six feet and 10% would be 60 in whatever. Um, if you're not allowed to move, if you're not allowed to consider that part under the overhang as being part of the structure, then you wouldn't be able to rebuild that structure again. According to the bulk and and

I don't I don't mean to make this overly complicated, but to qualify for the governor's order, you can't exceed 10% of your footprint. If the footprint is smaller than the um full first floor of your house, including your overhang smaller, that means that the space, if you want to expand your walls, you may not be able to expand your walls the same full distance that you could expand your square footage because you're only allowed to expand your footprint up to 10% or else you're pushed into the Coastal Act. Right? So there's a dist distinction between footprint which technically would not consider that area as being part of the house or extendable

and the actual square footage of the house by our terms. So the two have to match or I would not be able to even rebuild exactly was there before. Yeah. That's what I'm trying. That's right. Unfortunately. Yes. That's exactly what Yeah, I was going to say Malibu has local codes that address all this. Why can't they just I I always thought that they applied what the standards are for new construction to this in regards to if it's a

The problem is that that this came into effect more recently than these homes were built. And so it's kind of adjusting to take into account what current policy is versus what policy was when the houses were built and footprint and existing area even though it's counted and stuff. Yeah. I but existing area can be included as part of your PV though, right? That like if you had a covered porch or something like that that was existing prior to the fire, you guys are going to be allowing that anyways, right? So, so as I said, local municipal codes should just apply. Ch.

And I just wanted to clarify the overhang six foot overhang is where the setback would be, not the footprint. Is that is that the same? I guess that's where I'm They're different terms. They are different terms. Uh overhangs can extend into setbacks whereas the building cannot. Okay, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Okay, no public comments reclosed. Um are we good here with um substantially the same location? If that would work. Yeah, we were. Okay, perfect. Okay, we're almost there.

So, no, we've got three. Three is bulk. Eight is no net loss. Yes. Which and then wave action report and sea level rise. And I know both bulk and sea level rise are going to be conversation items. So no debt loss. Is that a fairly quick thing or is that something that's going to be significant for anything if we miss it?

It's not that big. It's not that big. The only reason uh we put it in this category um we have to comply with state law and we have a housing element that um we have to abide by certified housing element and no net loss provisions are in our housing element as well as state law.

Uh so so there's some um families that had multifamily homes that can't afford to or for multitude of reasons don't want to or can't afford to build back a a forplex or a 5plex. And so they're asking to build back just a smaller single family home. The current policy is to be consistent with state law that they have to replace those units lost. So we're we're requiring them to build back if say they had three units a triplex, they can build back a single family home because the zoning allows it, but they have to replace those units loss with ADUs so that they maintain three units on the parcel. So, those units are no net loss and compliant with state law. Um, I do have to advocate for a family who's been who's been calling uh a lot and consistent uh about this and I added I don't know if if um you know there's so anyone has any other items to discuss about this but I added this in red uh that's not in your packet because I believe in in talking to my uh talking to the um special counsel on on housing issues there is a little bit of latitude. It's not strictly black and white. If the city can make the findings, so on a case-byase basis, there may be a a way for um someone to reduce density. Not it's not going to be very common, but there is a way. So, I didn't want to outright prohibit it. I'll let the council uh debate that uh and and hopefully help this family if there is latitude within the state law.

Do we want to take this one up right now or do we want to take the other ones? Um, we just got a nice presentation, so let's let's do it. Okay, we just heard from Trevor, Tyler, I'm so sorry. Halen, Haley, um, public comment or questions? Yeah. Does anybody have any comments on no net loss? Anybody online?

No, we don't have any raised hands. Looks like we have one coming up. just to advocate for a couple of neighbors on the beach. At the end of the day, they want to downsize as as he said um for their own reasons. Um and at the end of the day, I'm not an expert, but understanding no net loss by reading it. Um this was not a planned demolition. So therefore, no new it shouldn't qualify as a net loss. it's rebuilding based on a wildfire and disaster event. So I would ask you to consider that because under the state law it really doesn't qualify as no net loss.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Public comments closed.

The big concern on this one is that if you allow that downsize, you may have to upzone other properties in certain circumstances. So it it could require the city to do some kind of reszoning. This one's tricky for me only because I want people to do what they want to do with their property, but it becomes then not like for like. So then we start going away from what I've been advocating for, which is if it was there and the governor and it's the fixture count, great for the environment because you're going lower for the fixture count. But then you have these other people that are just becomes a little bit I would say they this is their property. They want to do what they need to do on it. The problem then becomes where do we draw the line with the like for like

does density mean size or just number of dwelling units? It's the number of dwelling units that matters under state law. So, so nobody's you can reduce the size of your duplex to a much smaller duplex, right? And you could, if you really don't want to have two, you can just treat your duplex as a single dwelling. You don't have to rent it out to anybody. So this really doesn't as a practical matter impact anything anyone does. It just matters where a wall is versus a door. Well, it also matters like if you have to build a kitchen in each unit, how many bathrooms you need, how many bedrooms. So it does affect cost. Okay. How many kitchens, right?

You know, we've had two different opinions of what this that loss means. you know, I mean, is there somebody who could we should talk to to sort of give us a and I don't want to raise it and cause us more problem. I mean, is there some source we could go to that says, is Dean right or we right? Tyler said he got the the special attorney. Yeah, he's spoken with Todd. Todd's very familiar with it and he's had a number of discussions with Tyler. So, we're happy with

Yeah, there there's a little bit from my understanding there's a little bit of latitude, not much. And Trevor brings up some great points about what the implications could be if we allow it. All I'm saying is where state law allows the flexibility, if we can find an option for this family, if we want to put some bumpers on it, to Trevor's point, we could. Um, from my understanding, it's not a black and white issue. Um, you just have to make some findings that it's compliant with the housing element. I I support this. All the addition is saying is if it's legal, it can be allowed, right? I'm fine.

I'm fine with that. But I I agree this is really not a like for like if we're taking a a triplex and turning into a single. Um and I like the idea of having ADUs or or somewhere. I think the intention to be clear, full transparency, I think the intention of staff is that this wouldn't be granted if it would require an immediate upzoning of a different property. Is that correct? Correct. and we can maybe when we come back we'll write I'll work with Trevor and and and Todd and we'll get the language down pat. Okay.

Yeah. I think that's just my concern that that at least we have to put an asterk by it for a future council to understand that they may be forced to upzone because of this decision, but it's unknown at this time whether or not that would happen. So, okay, great. Okay, so that one's taken care of. Bulk. Bulk seems to be the biggie. Bulk or wave action? I think I think three. I'd like bulk, please. Okay, let's knock it out. Let's try and be as efficient as possible though because I really The wave action needs attention. So Oh, wait. Did we vote on wave action or bulk?

No, we haven't yet, but we're going to go for bulk. I'm just requesting that we be very tight with this one because I want to give wave action sufficient time. Yeah, if

I could give everyone a pat on the back because we got through a lot so far. So, very much appreciate it. 14 of 16 so far. So, that's very very good. Thank you so much. Um, issue number three is bulk. It's a it's a complex one. Um uh so the LIP although may argue you know not in effect for the uh Palisades fire uh does define bulk because it's always existed in the coastal act and it's existed in our LIP exemptions and that is the total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure. So we're just saying to since it a definition does exist in the LIP, let's just treat it the same for uh the Palisades fire or all fires that bulk means that as as defined interior volume interior cubic volume. So I have some you may have all seen this. I know Luis is much better than me at uh visual demonstrations, but I wanted to just keep it consistent uh so that we can try to get to the point here. So, the only difference from, you know, our discussions back in March that I've added to this visual is a view of the ocean to hopefully help illustrate the picture that I'm trying to paint here. So, uh this is Malibu and Point Doom is there in the back. Um this is the outcome if no bulk is um put in place. And so if you follow strictly the governor's order and you allow that, we have a footprint in height like almost a two-dimensional kind of review and no third dimension volutric review. It could allow for unintended massing to be impacting blue water views of or whitewater views, water views of the ocean. Uh the way the staff applies, it's very common to go to a modern design. So people who who back in the day, you know, their houses were built in those times which were very common to have a pitched roof, it's very common now to have a flat roof. And that those are the applications we're seeing. And so um when you do that transition from a

pitch to a flat, we're just asking you to temper the 10% bulk so that you don't create that visual impact. it may result or it will result in most cases that you don't get your 10% height, but that's the trade-off that you get for getting some volume um in the in the lateral direction. So, what do those two look like side by side? And the left is if no bulk and the right is if how it's currently applied with bulk. And so just wanted to illustrate for everyone the intention of this is you're still going to get, you know, perhaps additional roof heights and you're still going to get your the design you want, but this will this better protects the community and the view impacts that are so important to this community. Um, and and and we plan for the entire community. We want to give you everything you want, but we also got to make sure your neighbors uh are not heavily impacted by the result. How do people uh show bulk? Um it's been done multitude of ways. I'll give you a couple examples here. These are approved plans. Um one, this is it's not in color, but on the top you could see the previous home and that was the cubic. They did it in cubic meters. The volume of the previous home. They went to a more modern design below and they were able to demonstrate to us that they're within their cubic volume. They didn't even go up to 10%. they were just within below what they had before. Uh this is another rendition. Uh the green being the um the green being the new structure and the gray being the old structure as again common place to go from a lot of pitched roof elements to uh a lot of flat elements. Um, and so the bull kind of keeps tempers the the project so that it stays within the massing and doesn't have any, if you can imagine the on this one, the height of the structure is kind of those uh columns to the ends there

and that could be let's just say 28 ft to make it um and you don't exceed 10% volume. That's okay. But volume itself is a delimiting factor. And as I understand it, the city is allowing the square footage to increase up to 10% irrespective of how much volume that adds. To me, that's improper because you're allowing more than 10% volume in that circumstance. Um, so it's just it's a third dimension. So, I mean it I'll probably demonstrate my my lack of math skills, but I I think if you've got a 1,000 square foot square foot home, it's 100 square 100 cubic feet. 100 square feet, I'm sorry, thousand square feet, 100 cubic feet. Um, you can in and if it's under 18 feet, you can make it higher so long as you don't add more than another 100 square feet and more than another 10 cubic feet. If you're adding more than either of them, you got to shave something off to get to the to the limit. If you want to expand it sideways, that's fine, too. But you're limited to 100 square feet going out, and you're also limited to 10 cubic feet going out. And if you go beyond either one of them, you got to you got to decrease it. So, I think it's an easy definition. Volume. The balloon example, I think, was perfect. You can squeeze your balloon, but you can't squeeze it so it goes out more than 10%. You can't squeeze it so it goes up more than 10%. But you can't and you can also add a little more air, but you can't add so much more that gets you more than 10% volume. So volume is just simply a mathematical deliminating factor and it ought to be applied that way. And I don't understand why it's not.

Okay. Inside this is

inside this is the bulk. That's what I'm understanding. after months and months of different people telling me different things and me going, "I don't understand it. I do understand it. Here's your bulk." The problem that I'm seeing with this is that if we don't understand it and we're regular people and then we have people that are hiring people that may not be from Malibu and they find this to be kind of a resistance and it's confusing. I worry that this becomes some hypo like a roadblock for people to then their designers to give up that because what I've noticed is that he WDE's gone but he has a different definition and he has a different definition. You have a definition. Sounds like you've got the same definition.

Cubic units. Cubic units. I looked it up on chat GBT and it was pretty clear. They also gave me a cube and I failed math. But it's not just us that we've been studying this ad nauseium. It's what this does to applicants when they're with their design professionals and maybe the design professionals don't know what bulk is and then it becomes I just want to make sure it's super well clear defined across the board. So understood.

Thank you. Um, do we want to are we going forward as the direction that staff needs to apply it the way mayor prom read because we can most certainly do so that's going to have some restrictions on the residents. So we had some flexibility uh worded into it and and so I I will mo we will most certainly do that uh because I believe mayor prom is making the argument that that's the literal wording of the code and I don't disagree with that. Um, so if that's the direction we're receiving, we will start doing that tomorrow.

If if not, if if you guys do agree with maybe the way staff's interpreting it because it's a little more flexible, when we come back to rewrite this section, we can write it more in line with how staff's been applying it so that it's in the code. Can I say what I'm proposing isn't limiting it. I mean, it it is one of the three expansions that you're entitled to. It's limited to what the staff's been doing. I don't understand how you can interpret the way you're inter the way you're you're you know you're just you can't do something and just call it an interpretation. There's no interpretation of the word volume or or or bulk that allows you to apply it on one dimension and disregard it on another dimension. That's not an interpretation. That's just a policy that you've created. It's a it's a valid policy to create if if one wants to. For the record, it's been a long that's been blaming. I know. I'm just saying just for the record, I didn't just create it for for this fire. It's been a longstanding policy from the way the city staff has applied it. But my point is it you we we could easily as a normative matter adopt that as a policy, but it would not be an interpretation of what the word bulk means because the word is not interpretable to mean it only applies to width and not to height. So if the council wants to go there, I think we need new words altogether in the code because the words that are in the code are not capable of being interpreted that way.

Um yeah, sorry Doug. No, I I'll formulate I just I want to stay away from interpretations like neighborhood character. I want to be very clear um moving forward the pitfalls that we've we've all talked about and bulk seems already like this thorn in our side. It is also not in the government governor's order. But I want to make staff's life. I want to learn from our mistakes. Like I said, it sounds like had Vulk been in the Woolseie, you wouldn't be in these lawsuits. So, I want to support that. But I also it's this slippery slippery little word.

So what I'm proposing is that we we adopt the definition of bulk as cubic units or volume and that it be one of the three limiting factors. It's it's just math at that point. And may I suggest you you already directed us to come back to kind of rewrite this based on another section that we discussed. So we'll just we'll come back and we'll have this discussion more in depth with with our um our our code amendment. If I could ask a question here and what I was saying at the beginning, why isn't bulk the ultimate determination of how much space expansion you have? And that it is yeah, but but you might not be able to go high enough to take up all your bulk,

right? But 10% is your limit on height and 10% expansion on footprint. But you can play with those all you want to, but you can't exceed the bulk. Correct. Yes. Yes. Is that the way we're applying it today or not?

What what mayor prom is is saying is that um the square footage is also should be included in that and that maybe that's what you're also saying, council member Stewart. And yes, we could starting tomorrow be very literal with the with with with the way it's worded. Yes. The way I I sent you an email and I sent it to some other people and they all and I think people agreed that the way you think about this it's it's really it's really simple the way you can think about it. Draw a box that was what you had before. Expand it by 10% of the footprint. Expand it by 10% of your square footage. Expand it by 10% of your height. Now, if your height goes over 18 feet, knock off when what went over 18 feet as your addition because you're not going to be allowed to have that to stay within a PV and out of the Coastal Act. If you're if what you have left after you've complied with TDSF, because you got to knock off anything that goes above your TDSF, so long as you're within your setback, you now have your your maximum box. If that maximum box has more than 10% volume than your prior box, you need to carve off some more of your additional space to get down to no more than 10% additional volume. It's very simple.

Yeah, that's where that's where I am. Yeah. Yeah. Everybody else sit there, Steve? Yeah. You know, one qu you mentioned you're getting a lot of lawsuits. Does that impact what you want us to do? what you want this or they're not impacting your decision on what you want to do with bulk. Is that a fair statement? No, this is really to um to protect neighbors is the Okay, so we're going to we're going to Okay, gotcha.

I'm not I'm not ready because I just see everybody in the audience pacing and wanting to talk. So, I am not ready until I hear some more feedback. Sorry. Okay. So I I don't want to allow the feedback because I want to have enough time for the the next thing. So um I'm going to make one more point just the people that want to eliminate bulk just want more than than than they've been given up till now. It it's not a question of complexity of analysis. It's not a question of limiting what you had before because you're getting more no matter what. They just want more than more. It's that simple.

Not true. It's not true. Okay. So, I'm going to abstain, but you guys go ahead. You got four votes for Bruce's interpretation. Yep. And we'll do that starting tomorrow. We'll rewrite this to to match that. But when we come back, just uh hear me out, C May Pro, if you will, and then maybe we can decide what what way we want to go for the city and we can write the law that way. Uh but but yes, I I don't I don't disagree with you that um we'll start uh interpreting that it that way uh today. Everything.

All right. So, we're going to move on to our final item. Congratulations. We made it through 15 of 16 wave action report and sea level rise. So, we've got 30 No, we've got 23 minutes to get through this one. Okay. So, um last one is uh is a wave action report required for beachfront rebuilds uh for planning verification. And the code section is in um basically talks about new construction on beachfront lots must have their lowest finished floor to be determined by a comprehensive wave action report which which calculates things other than FEMA. It calculates sea level rise. Um and then um our our our our current policy, but it's been, you know, it it it's been um it's kind of a case- by case basis is that uh because the LCP defines new development in a certain way that that excludes uh rebuilds. We were only using uh FEMA, the required FEMA plus one, BFE plus one as the standard for the house. However, the new structures if you had to build the seaw wall or an OWTS then um that is you know potentially new construction and subject to a wave action report um uh but that the code requires under MMC 1540 110 and then uh as Yolanda will get into uh there's an additional debate which I have at the at the bottom here about um if we do you know go with sea level rise uh require requirements and a wave action study to what limit are we uh reviewing is it the LIP currently uh requires a 100redyear uh but the LIP for palisades fire is suspended um so we don't have that uh to fall back on and so we have to come up

with a standard that is uh practical and safe for the rebuilds on the beach

thank you Tyler and this is a very technical decision um so I'll go through some of the safety concerns. Um, I also would like the uh coal engineer uh reviewers to give you feedback before you make the determination. And in addition, a technical section for all the coastal engineers that are reviewing our projects that are doing the design um has is being set up for September 9. Uh so they can give us feedback on this item. But I will go through the items and then um then we'll hear from the community. Uh safety concerns with that the sea level rise in integration. Uh we will have uh possible future flood risk. Rebuild may comply with FEMA current base flood elevation but still will be vulnerable to long-term sea level rise wave brush and a storm surge. public safety. Um, we might experience inadequate elevated homes or seaw walls that might fall under extreme events. Endangering residents and neighborhood uh properties. Infrastructure resilience on site wastewater systems and seaw walls not designed for the sea level ride may require premature replacement or create an environment a hazarding environment. We are also concerned with PCH and adjacent properties that could be at risk. I have another slide for um pros of adding sea level rise consideration. Sea level rise wave action reports. Future uh proofing incorporates anticipated hazardous into the designs. Improve structural resilience. Public safety reduces long-term risk of inundation, collapse or seaw wall

failure. And it will have an environmental protection that encourage adapted sea design se walls design with u minimized beach loss and ecological damage. Um, I think we won a mic. Oops. To provide council with the requirements as for the building code, ASCE for uh 24 and other standards that are not part of the municipal code, but are applicable quotes with respect to coastal engineering and sea level rise mandates. Good afternoon. Uh what I want to go through is we did a comprehensive review of all of the various codes, guidelines, and elements that might apply. Um looking for um you know, where is sea level rise specified and spelled out? Uh and this is you know, this is a very dynamic situation. Um, the one thing I want to make clear to uh the council is that the the FEMA the FEMA maps uh which were all updated in 2016 and it was about a 5-year process before those maps became official in 2021. The the technical studies that went into all of that mapping that determined those base flood elevations did not consider any sea level rise whatsoever. So um my concern our concern with uh the the current policy and just you know building to FEMA baseline elevation is that um you know sea level rise is not taken into

consideration at all and you know a lot of the homes uh I would I would guess the average age of the homes along the coast uh is anywhere from 50 to over a hundred years. There's a couple that we've seen that were built uh prior to 1925. And we're we're designing projects for the future. Um and the question is how far out should we look? Uh what is in the LCP is 100 years. Uh most coastal cities up and down California uh utilize 75 years. The California Coastal Commission when they appeal projects, they always refer to 75 years. I've never understood honestly the 100red-year requirement in our LCP. Um, but we went through we went through every possible code. Um, I mean, we looked at the coastal engineering guidelines that were created in 2014 um, uh, by the reviewing uh, companies that were here before we were. Um, we went through the Malibu Municipal Code, um, the California Building Code 2022, um, and we looked at, uh, ASCE 24, uh, which is being updated for the 2026 building code, but I understand that these these are all going to be built to 2022 standards. Is that correct, Yolanda?

Anything that is submitted uh, under this year will be 22 standards. uh any new projects that come in on um December, I'm sorry, January of 2026, then they will need to comply with the new codes. So, I don't know how much detail you want me to go into here, but um the um you know, the coastal engineering guidelines automatically require uh incorporation of sea level rise into wave upbrush studies. Um there's a couple of relevant sections of the Malibu Municipal Code um that um imply that seal of Arise should be considered indirectly. Uh those are related to OWTS design. Um those are sections 15.40.110A and 15.42.140 C.2. Um the California Building Code uh does not mention sea level rise at all except for in relation to marine oil terminals. Um appendix G of the California Building Code um refers to the ASCE 24-14 standard. Um that standard did not include any effects of climate change including sea level rise. um but it is in the ASC 24-24 which is going to be part of the 2026 building code. So they are finally um ASCE standard is finally starting to consider um climate change uh using a base project life of 50 years.

Can I ask you a quick question? Yeah. What does ASC stand for? Uh American Society of Civil Engineers. Thank you. Can I also ask a quick question? What I'm hearing is that sea level rise is not in the codes like correct. Oh, it's not it's not in the building codes. It's not in the building codes, but it's been in the it's been in the LCP as long as the LCP has been in existence. Okay. Um, if you could just if you've got a couple more point I want to get to public comment on this and

Yeah. Well, and our I think our other concern is and you know, we've actually seen a few reports submitted already and and the coastal engineers are are incorporating sea level rise. Um, and I don't know that it's creating significant design constraints. I don't think that it is. They're they're they've been using up to four and a half ft of sea level rise in their wave upbrush calculations. Um, so the big concern is if we're only relying on the FEMA maps for finished floor elevations for structures, um, we think that's creating a false sense of security um, for the properties.

Okay. Um, if you're here to speak for public comment, I I just want everybody to get lined up. That's all. I also want to mention um u that we did receive a uh a comment letter from another coastal engineer that is recommending a 50 a year uh sea level rise and that's what it it triggers um it triggered me to just we need to get feedback from other coastal engineers. Um the meeting uh that it has been set up for September 9 uh it will also be attended by the structure engineers association. So can they also provide feedback not only on our geotechnical guideline, our coastal guidelines but get everybody in the technical uh in a technical session. And I was um my intent and hopefully is that um our AHOD committee for the fire rebuilds can attend that meeting so they can ask the specific questions to different coastal engineers and not and not only our consultants. I'm hearing that um in several meetings that you that there's an appetiz from other people that are doing this type of design and so the September 9 will allow to have those technical conversations and for you council to hear directly from them um and and and and get feedback so we can provide a safe policy for your city. Okay. Uh clarifying questions and then let's get to public.

Uh just a quick help for me. We talk about 50 year, 75, 100 year. Can you give me a a number of what the sea level rise is associated with each one of those periods?

Sure. And it's based upon rising from what baseline? So um under the under the regular LCP, uh 100 years is 6.6 feet of sea level rise. um the 75-year uh scenario and and actually there's also risk profiles for those. So 100year intermediate to high risk scenario is 6.6 ft. Um 75-year intermediate risk scenario um is 2.9. intermediate to high. Uh well, the 75-y year intermediate to high and uh which is the same as the 100red-year intermediate is 4.5 ft. So, we've got this. It really depends on on the risk scenario and the and the length of time.

Okay. What is it for 50 years? Uh two. Yeah. 2 point uh well it was it was 2.5 ft in the coastal vulnerability study that looked at a project life of 50 years. We know 2.9. Okay. We can get you that specific information but and that's off a baseline of where it is today or last year or 10 years ago. I think it's 20 I think it's 2012. 2012. I'm going to have to check on that. And just anecdotally, I don't think there's been a lot of sea level change in since 2012

because it's a it's a parabolic curve. All right. Thank you. Go ahead. Excuse my ignorance on this. Is a wave action report a term of art? A term of art? Yes. Yes. They usually call it wave usually called wave up wave up study. W up wave upbrush study which is part of a coastal engineering report. Yeah. The wave upbrush is the actual part where you figure out how high the wave you know will run up on the coast and then the other aspects of the coastal engineering report are the recommendations to address that.

Okay. But so a wave action report itself is not really a thing. Okay. So, so let's I mean the reason I'm asking that is because this is asking if if a certain type of report is required and if that type of report doesn't exist in that name, I don't know how to even begin to answer that question. So, what exactly what what scientific document or you know what exact document are we referring to as to whether we are or aren't going to require a wave up study? Okay. So, and what and where would I look to find a definition of what an a wave upbrush study is and how it's performed?

You could refer to the coastal engineering guidelines. You would also refer to the Army Corps of Engineers coastal engineering manual. Would I refer to any statute or is it those types of regulatory and explanatory things that you just identified? I I'm sorry. Which would I find it in any federal or state statute? Uh I don't know because I don't I'm not familiar with all of the federal state statutes. I do believe you would probably find it in the um FEMA FEMA regulations.

Okay. And it's in our local Malibu municipal code, right? I want to So, so you you believe can we get clarification on that whether whether it's part of the FEMA regulations? Yolanda, do you know? No, I don't know. And that's why it's such a technical information that I want to make sure that that you're uh getting the information from the experts. This is important for me to understand. I mean, I I I wouldn't understand if it's built into FEMA, at least through the regulations, which arguably are legal, arguably aren't legal. I don't know these days under um Supreme Court president, but at a bare minimum, I want to know what we're looking at. And it doesn't differ from person to person as far as what type of document we're talking about.

When we were doing the code review, we didn't look at the federal statutes. We were looking at state and local. And then the ASCE24 is referenced in the FEMA and the building code. Right. Well, and state would be relevant to me too. My baseline is I want to understand what if we if we eliminated the municipal code, if we eliminated the LCP, I want to understand what we're left with as far as what we're mand mandated to abide by.

We can get that answer. We're gonna we have a memo that we prepared for Yolanda. We're going to update that. We'll include that in that. and then we can provide that to the ad hoc committee. Thank you. Can we go over if we have to? Yes. Yeah. We have space available and if staff available we can continue. Sorry. Okay. Interrupt. Um

Lloyd. Where where did Lauren go? Oh, there she is. Hi. Hi. Were you at the uh meeting down in Long Beach with u when they had the coastal experts about a year ago, two years ago representing Malibu? Yes, I was.

Okay. So, this is good. There was a guy a coastal engineer for uh San Clemeni. What? from u uh Eureka to Imperial Beach, San Diego. All every expert I sat at a table with Jack Ainsworth, the head of the coastal commission. I just sat down and there he was. Everybody that was anybody was there. And when they get finally everybody talked and it was that thing that u uh um Croanti wanted us to join that we didn't join but it was a huge disadvantage for us because we should have should have done it.

But the guy that said it the best about who knows what about coastal was the guy that 30 seconds. Okay. Noah has a projection. Um, FEMA has a projection and the coastal commission have a projection. And the he started out his his thing by nobody knows anything because we don't and they gave the three projections. All three of them were big experts and all three of them were completely different. So I think the September 9th thing you're saying is get Chanel, David Weiss, Reg Brown and

yes, all of them invited. Uh we also are going to post it on our website to and seek other coastal engineers around uh to make sure that uh they participate on this technical uh session so we can get feedback from them. Yeah. Great. Thank you.

Thanks, Danny. Um the current policy is it possible to pull that document back up uh should be what's approved. You don't want a single house on the beach going an inch higher than it has to go. Um everybody's worried about neighbors, the city as a whole views today. Imagine the calls and the complaints you're going to get when my house goes up 10 feet instead of five. And you had a chance today to stop that. uh wave action reports, wave uprush studies, they're used interchangeably in the Malibu code. They're not FEMA doesn't care. FEMA plus one should be where we are. Um I just wanted to point out one last thing. I think the last three lines of this are contradictory. A wave action report is necessary for newly required structures such as OWTS systems parenthesis existing and new. Um, I don't know how to reconcile those for newly required structures, including existing structures. That seems like a mistake. Uh, but I could be reading it wrong. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. We can clarify that the wave uprush study is required for the o for the protection the shoreline protection device that would protect either existing or new systems. Okay. Carl.

Uh, Carl Randall. Uh I'm here to to recommend uh FEMA plus one. It is an extremely conservative model as it is. My house for instance will be going up 10 ft as will the other 39 homes on Las Flores Beach that burned. So it's already a very conservative model. Um my home is also one of those 100 homes that was there. So I' I'd like you to focus on that. We had we had our coastal engineers look at this and uh finally after much discussion I asked them where I should really be in reality in this situation and they obviously won't go on record with it but they thought four or 5 ft shorter than where FEMA was for the next 100red-year program. That's what they suggested. We've asked them to give that opinion letter to the city. They are uncomfortable doing that. We've called several other coastal engineers who also agree with that assessment. They are very uncomfortable doing that because they'd like to do business in the city of Malibu going forward. So, just take that all in. Thank you all.

Thank you. Joe, you skipped Dean. Dean, you let her go first. That's okay. Okay. Um, if if it'sif if the 50 ft projection for wave up versus 2.95 2.9 ft, that's much less than what FEMA requires. So, I don't know why we would require that on top of the FEMA. And um I think that would save the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional reviews by the consultants. So I think it's just an an additional step that isn't required if you're already I mean if it's for a new seaw wall or a new outs fine but not for anything existing. Thanks.

So I think that leads to a um thanks Joe. Um, for staff's question, the 2.9 is in addition to FEMA plus one, correct? No, that's not how it works. Okay, that's not how it works. So, let's hear from Dean, and if you could explain that to me, that would be fabulous.

So, the FEMA standard with the FEMA firm does include some wave upbrush in it. Um, so that should be taken into account and it will with any study that was done. um ACCE is covered because that's where the one foot the FEMA plus one the one foot is the freeboard per ASCE 24. So those things are already incorporated in what we're talking about with FEMA plus one. The the problem with wave up Russian sea level rise to give it a different viewpoint. My immediate neighbor who got certificate of occupancy in 2023 had 75 ft of sea level rise in it. Okay. For that to change dramatically is just ridiculous. As was stated earlier in the text, if oil terminals, which I know well, don't have to be increased and it's not legislated, you shouldn't be worried about my septic system that's tucked up under PCH. So, I think we're inflating this more than it needs to be. And FEMA plus one is more than reasonable with what's going on. The other thing that you need to understand is as Carl said, having a contractor forum can be misleading too because they want to comply with what they believe the city wants instead of offering their true opinion. If it comes through us, you will get their true opinion.

Thank you. Anyone online? Yes, we have one speaker, Darren Graves. Darren, we've been having audio issues, so if you can speak loudly, we'd appreciate it. Okay. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? I everybody here. Okay, we're good.

Okay. Um I'd say I agree with everybody who spoke against the wave upbrush report. Um asking every beachfront owner to get a wave up rush study or coastal recommendation would also require that homeowner to keep that firm on retainer to review every aspect of their project application which is standard practice and actually required for the purposes of getting a wave up rush study. So the costs are going to be far greater than just the report. It's going to be a review every time you t change the drawings. Um also I think this is a clear case of Cottonshshire's overstepping considering they're bringing forth some sort of phantom code which has yet to be written. That is not applicable to anybody who's in the room right now. Anybody who's building a home on the beach is going to do it for themselves. At least I am. And I'm going to be there for 50 years watching the the sea level stay the same as it currently is today. So, I'm not worried about the future code and I don't think you should be either. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else pop up? No, there are no more raised hands. Okay. So, I'll close public comment. So I had asked a question to have an explanation about the 2.9 versus FEMA plus one and just if you can educate us on what all these terms are um and what the effect are going to be on the the houses and the coast and what we're going to see.

Okay. So the FEMA based flood elevations were based on technical reports that ran wave up rush calculations on beach profiles and you know they start with a certain tide level, a certain water level and they run the design waves in on that and come up with a a wave upbrush value and it's an elevation. um no sea level rise was considered in those calculations and this was back in 2015 2016 when these reports were done. Um, in in contrast, what the coastal engineers do in Malibu is they utilize the same water levels that were used in the in the FEMA report and then they add a certain amount of sea level rise to that to come up with a new base water level, which we call the still water level, and they run the waves in on that, and you end up with typically a higher wave upbrush, um, more significant wave over topping. ing of the seaw walls etc. and and greater typically greater loading on piles and and seaw walls. So um I don't know I mean I I I can't think of another way to explain it um other than you know FEMA did wave up brush in order to come up with these elevations. There was just no sea level rise included in it. Um the other thing is uh actual sea level rise has been recorded at both SE the Santa Monica and the LA tide gauges. Um the LA record goes back further. Um and it's been uh currently it's it's averaging 1.55 millimeters a year. If you do the math on that over a 100 years

if it was linear um that's 15.5 cm or about 6.1 in. So on a linear basis, sea level is rising 6 in every hundred years. And the thing is, you know, sea level rise science is rapidly evolving. It's rapidly changing. And we keep seeing new reports coming out with new recommendations. Those get adopted by agencies like the coastal commission and set policy. Um so what we're dealing with right now is um sea level rise curves that are not linear. They they are um they are exponential. They they get steeper as you go further out in time. And what that represents is uncertainty about what we don't know about climate change in the future. um the steepest curves, the most extreme conditions uh assume that that you know all the glaciers and the po polar ice caps are melting. Um and there's a lot of uncertainty about how quickly that will happen. So, um I don't what I'm concerned about is that um I'm afraid people are being dismissive of the fact that seal of a rise is actually occurring and u and we are experiencing it.

I have a quick question. Sorry, thank you clarifying. Um is this in the executive order this FEMA flood plane thing? Is this something the governor because I know the governor wave coastal commission. I'm just wondering where all like all this is coming from. Is this just an add-on to

FEMA is is codebased. Um the the requirement to include sea level rise for the most part for Malibu was included for houses was included in the LCPIP. So when the governor waves the LCPIP, any of the language that goes along and requirements that goes along with sea level rise for house structures goes away. What remains is what's left in the MMC regarding coastal engineering studies that include sea level rise um for shoreline protection devices and on-site wastewater treatment systems. And indirectly that can affect the finished floor elevation depending on how high the seaw wall has to go and what your clearance has to be above that structurally.

I see. So if I were to buy a non burned out lot um let's say Malibu colony I would have to adhere to this new flood plane FEMA notion. Everyone has to comply with the FEMA maps. This is whether the wave upbrush um and the sea level rise requirements are going to be stacked on top of it.

They would be if you need if you need a coastal development permit, you have to do it. And so any house that gets a CDP is going to be set at that level. We don't need to use a 100redyear level because there's no um coastal development permit required for these projects. So these will look different from projects that go through that process. And then there's uh debate about where to set that level since we have discretion on this. I think Yolanda said there's a they're having a bunch of experts come in. So, you may want to hold off and see what comes out of that before making a final determination on this. So, maybe this one comes back with I don't know if you want a separate item or when this comes back with it with the staff recommendation about what if any change.

There's an insurance component, right, with this too, right? it you must comply with the FEMA maps or you're going to have a huge problem with insurance and then there's also environmental impacts if it's if there is sea level rise not accounted for and it over tops you know the walls or has stronger impacts on you know these houses but there's also an expense in doing this any time you go up and there's also visual impacts um the higher everyone's going to go up as it is and what that is so it's a balance you know for the council to consider and I I think it's a good idea to get away weigh in from the other experts before you make your final decision on this it's a complicated ated technical topic. Well, and what I was going to say, you know, Carl made the example. Carl's house previously, all you saw was the garage. So, 8 ft tall.

Uh the garage and then six foot wall. That's all you saw with the with the um just quick two stories. If we go in the seat, if we're going to hear testimony, if we could hear it from the mic so that um everyone on Zoom can hear it as well.

That's fine. No, no, no. So um so where where when you used to drive down the highway a lot of these were just one story barely shown even with this FEMA you're now going to see probably two stories. So if we have to go even higher than that the visual effects along our coastline from Carbon Beach to Tanga are going to be significant. So this is very important that we get this right. So Bruce,

yeah, I agree with everything everybody said so far. Um, preliminarily say the very first thing I need to understand and I think we all need to understand is what are the legal minimum? Well, Danny said it perfect. I think we don't want to require one inch higher than we have to require. Um, so the question for me is what is the base that we have to require? And when I ask that, I don't I don't mean under the municipal code because we have the ability to rewrite the municipal code if we wish to. And I don't mean under the LCP because the LCP doesn't apply for the Palisades fire rebuilds. So what is the law for the minimum height that a beachfront property in California has to be built to under state and federal law? That's the first question for me. That's that's the minimum because we can't go below whatever fa federal and state law mandates. Once we establish that the question is then do we as a normative matter want to add one inch to that for any reason. The reasons I could understand are environmental. We we might we are we are more protective of the environment here than others are in many places. And the question would be do we feel a need to go higher for some environment for est some establishable environmental benefit recognizing as I think it was said that the higher you go you also cause other environmental damage so anesthetic damage um we want to make sure that we're satisfied that by going only by a state or federal law mandate we're not endangering our residents. Um, and I guess I'm more concerned about endangering a neighbor than I am about endangering the owner of the property. That's paternalistic. If someone wants to build their own property to a standard that's set by federal and state

law and it turns out that that's not adequate for safety. It's close call is where I go, but I I tend to say, you know, if you want to take a chance with yourself, take a chance with yourself. It's it's federal and state laws okay with that. But I'd want to understand that it's not going to endanger the neighbors who aren't making that decision in agreement with you. Um, but I think at the at the end of the day, the the most important thing is going to be just to understand what is the minimum we're allowed to mandate. Um, because we can't mandate less. Um, and then the only question is should we mandate more? And I think we're going to need to be super careful in not mandating any more that we than we absolutely feel is necessary. So the first question is a legal question. The second question is a I guess engineering question. to for you guys to advise us. But I suspect at the end of the day, all of those issues have been already figured out by the federal and state government. So whatever their minimum is ought to be one we'd be satis satisfied to live with.

Was that a question? No, that was comment because I don't think you know what the federal and state guidelines are, right? We don't. And that's why I think we need to know. And I'm wondering, you know, that's not something we've been asked to

you know, one thing we could do, we we we could just say in the municipal code going forward for for Palisades, fire rebuilds, the mandate is whatever state and federal law mandates. It's, you know, and then leave that to need to be determined by the lawyers representing the people who are building. But I mean, you know, we just eliminate any additional requirement under our law. The coastal act requirement's already been eliminated by the governor. We can eliminate for a like for like. Remember, if you don't do like for like, you're stuck with the LCP. Um, and we could eliminate it for the under the MMC for a like for like and then it's just a question of lobby your go your congressman and your state assembly member if you think the state and federal standards are too stringent. If I could offer up a little clarification, um the state the the sea level rise um analysis was done by state various state agencies and so that was guidance issued for the state. You know, I think Malibu's issue is that that made its way into the LCP only. So there is state guidance about sea level rise. Um I don't know if if there's any federal mandate. Um, we need to look in the FEMA um flood plane manual and coastal construction manual.

Doug. All right. Um, putting back on my banker hat from years ago, the FEMA flood uh program, insurance program is the one that sets the standard for um uh height above rivers and lakes and everything else. So, I think the FEMA plus one is and without knowing exactly where you're getting that uh number is the baseline uh minimum standard because if you don't have construction requirements at that level, you don't get flood insurance and that way you don't get mortgage, you can't get a mortgage. Um so, do we know what the FEMA plus one is? And by the way, does it vary along the coast or is it all one number?

This is the tricky part, right? Um it varies along the coast and in some cases uh it is for one house next to another and we have ran up a natural beach. That's why you get the 4ft difference. But the other thing is not all beaches are equal, right? There are beaches in Malibu that are wet beaches. So you're already starting from a place where the waves are acting on the existing seaw walls at the east end compared to Carbon Beach and Lacosta where you still have beach right left to to keep the waves further away from the structures.

That's where I was going with this is that's really your your minimum requirement is whatever the FEMA number is. Is that correct? The FEMA plus one number is actually your minimum requirement. that is the minimum requirement for the lowest horizontal structural member and then the wave upbrush study is the one for the seaw walls um that's in the MMC because all the seaw walls are below below the FEMA flood plane elevation so you know and you give me a rough idea of how where that baseline is because you're saying 20 27 or so is that 27 feet above the We know

it's it's 20 it's 27 feet uh reference to NAVD to to a DATM that the city uses mandates for their surveys. NAVD88. It's a survey data. Can you tell us what that put that in English for me? Where where's it's close to sea level. It's 2 feet uh above sea level. Above mean sea level. Low tide. High tide. Mean tide. Mean high tide. Uh it's it's uh I I I can't remember which it is, but mean mean low low water. I mean there's a whole bunch of different references. So it's not really anything to do with low tide, high tide. It's core of engineers. I understand jargon.

All right. But if we say 27, just for people that are watching this on uh YouTube in the future or even tonight or here, when we say 27 above that number, we're not talking about 27 ft above sea level, are we? No. Yes. Yes. Yes, we are.

Yeah. We're not talking about 20. Yeah. We're talking about an absolute elevation relative to a specific datim, right? So, everybody has to understand what that specific datim is so that they know where they are up above. For example, where it's at 27, that portion of PCH is ranges from 21 to 25. The elevation of PCH from 21 to 25. And the for those 12 houses, the FEMA flood elevation is 27. So the bottom of your horizontal beams are going to be at 28 and the house is going to be

that's what I'm trying to establish is not only where we get the minimum number but for people that are thinking you know what is this going to do to my house and that's the reason why I wanted you to come back and say you know PCH is a baseline how much higher above PCH is this okay so yeah that house the the houses those 12 houses that are in FEMA flood zone 27 are going to be about 8 ft above PC How does that how does that look compared to the other houses along PCH that are in the burn zone? Are those higher or lower? Um, well, there aren't any really left there. So, I understand, but the houses along the that burned in that whole strip along PCH from Carbon Mesa to Topanga.

Mhm. Uh, are they all going to be I think depending on the depending on what was there before, right? Because what you're allowed to do is take your building envelope and move it up. Correct. But I'm talking about right your pre-fire building height, right? As I understand it, you're allowed if you had a three-story house, you can keep your threetory house raised above FEMA flood plus one. Right. I'm talking about the elevation of the base floor. So if the base floor moves up, how much higher are we looking along PCH?

Multiple elevations. It all depends on the house. That's my point. It all depends on the house. It depends on the FEMA flood zone. The FEMA flood zone along PCH goes from 18 at the lowest to 27 at the highest at this one section. And PCH fluctuates from elevation 18 to elevation 35. In some cases, it's at 35. So there is not one sizefits-all. It's really going to be based upon some kind of a measurement relative to that house at that in that particular location. Okay. Yes, sir.

I'm reminded by Doug's questions about the insurance. I It's my understanding, tell me if I'm wrong, that it's it's not just a question of whether the homeowner who builds can get the FEMA insurance, but if if everyone doesn't comply, if we don't mandate compliance with it, nobody will get it. Isn't that right? That's what I thought Rob explain. Is Rob I believe that is correct. Right. So, the flood plan. So we I mean so we we have to mandate compliance with the FEMA flood plane requirement in order to preserve the ability of people on the beach to get insurance. Um

and off. That's right. And off. So and then the then the question to me would be then I mean this to start off with where we started with is is a wave action report or whatever we're going to call it required? To me the answer is what does FEMA require? Let's just require what FEMA requires. I don't know that FEMA addresses on-site wastewater treatment systems. We'd have to talk with public works about that. I think what FEMA is more concerned about is the structures and flowing not obstructing flood waters laterally. Right. That's really their what they're concerned about and not creating debris fields that end up getting thrown into other people's houses. I I'm not sure we're going to be smart enough tonight or this afternoon to figure this out.