City Council - Special Meeting

You're smart. Good morning. We have to give this right. kitchen. Hi

there. as well.

Okay. I kept trying [Music] to sit behind Yeah,

that's another story. I'm glad I'm grateful for that. I joke. Yeah. Thanks for coming. Oh yeah, I'm in the appellent. She likes no hearing aids. That's why we're kicking her, kicking her, hitting her, tapping her. I'm sitting behind you. Okay, good. Thank you. And that way, you know,

I said the other side. Oh, really? Of course they're going to speak to their side. Well, let them weren't here. No, they weren't here. Good point. It doesn't matter. No, I know that. But I'm saying it. They don't know what I know. Of course. Yes. From what I saw. I know, but they're going to say something else. Yeah. Let them. Yeah. Don't worry. I'm not worried. I'm not worried. I mean, I can't believe Right.

Well, we'll see. It'll be interesting. I probably won't be able to hear what they're saying, but it will be after. Just tell me after. It's so funny. My new philosophy is getting older. Oh, that's a positive way to look at it. What else can you do? You know,

okay, you know, I still Me and me too. I gota tell you I don't want the jet. It takes me a couple days to recruit. Yeah. Yeah. But she still [Music] thinks she needs to get up and run to see. She's going to miss her. Hi there.

You didn't find it. No. Totally lost. So I have to hit her. She's going to No. What we need to do, you want you want to sit up here while they're talking. I I'm gonna ask Mar because they're speaking. No, what we're going to do is we're going to get you a chair because what the city doesn't want is an EDA do this. Well, trying to take care of this. I Okay, here's the deal. I'm willing to be nice. I'm also willing to bring guns. Yay. Okay. We may need Bill That would be a Here's a platform.

Can't sit on that. Oh, there's a chair. Yeah. The drone footage done, the detailed drone footage. I'm sorry. This is from the first complicated unless you're going to talk. Well, we did the Grace drone footage with an FA. You did? Yes. I'm having trouble. It's okay. So, you're not speaking, Jefferson? I was just going to give my

I'm worried about speaking period, but I don't know. Is Bill speaking? Don't worry. They're both I hope not, but if I have to, I will. Well, because Jefferson has this important stuff. But the this was on the first. That's okay. That's where mine was. Okay. So, does Joe have it? Is this the one Joe put in the slow grow? No, she's Is your right ear better? They're both I know they're both bad. Which one's better? Okay.

Which one's better? Okay. So, that one's better. So, the chair needs to be over here. All right. I guess

I know. No, she doesn't. So, we don't have it. Okay.

Okay. I'm I recorded one of my neighbors and I couldn't believe my drive. Yeah, every day.

I know. You know what's shocking? They do it on purpose. I knew it. Now we have these new guys. No, I think

by the way

I Yeah, another She's asking them for something. I am

I will get better. What is the good news? I sent you an email last night saying and I didn't want to call you because I was afraid you couldn't hear me. No, I thought maybe it would be hard for you to talk to me on the phone. So, I sent you an email saying Well, I just thought for you to relax. I just wanted to make it easier on you.

That was nice. Sorry. And I didn't want to call you and frustrating so I thought it was fantastic. Oh, I wanted to tell you by the way I got I got another appointment downtown. So I have two

handi talking very people ask questions but you'll become one I kill all my

documentation. Can I just ask you since they were asking questionual

because I changed my [Laughter] I love that.

You look so beautiful. Me too. I wore red, too. I was exactly the same. Me too. Me too. I love it. That's where power. Okay, we're talking about who's donating. Well, I don't because nobody can donate to me. Nobody can donate to Joe. We have I don't need anybody. You might need a minute.

All right. So, have him you go over. All right. Who needs a minute? I'll take it. Oh, I'm sorry. Bruce. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was

26ent It was close.

I'd be sitting there where it says

when the opposite there's two appeals going. Okay. One is ours. recommending restoration is saying that basically he only has to restore. So I'm going to speak for three minutes on that. So when they call my name get me up.

Yes. I think they're probably not show If you can't

really talk to the I didn't how to turn down the sound so it rings this loud. I'll show you how to do that. Me too. Okay, that's fine. But going forward, I'll show you how to do it. Okay. I know. I know. It's not It's not It's not intuitive. You have to learn how to use it.

It's not intuitive, but sense you can't. If I wouldn't do this, you wouldn't be able to do it. I have to tell you how to do it. And once you do it yourself, okay, you have to visally learn

it. They're doing it in the same way.

Zoom. I got to go open the store. Your alarm went off last night. Homeless door. Okay. What can you do if he didn't get in? There's probably no crime in trying to open a door, is there?

Well, maybe. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, sometime last night I was awakened by a construction noise out of there. Oh, yeah. I don't know. gone down the dog came back worried about that.

Apologize for being late. [Applause] Give me a moment to get organized here. Um, the September 25th, 2025 special meeting in the Malibu City Council is now called to order. Inerson participants, if you would like to speak, please submit your request to speak form to the clerk. Remote participants, if you would like to speak, please join the Zoom webinar meeting printed on the agenda and raise your hand in Zoom when the item you wish to speak on is called. Um and a little bit about uh public speakers. The appellants will have their time to talk. There will not be additional time for public comment from the appellants on the cross. Mike

announcing that right. Trevor, we're going to have the appellants each have their time to speak on their since we have two appellants in this particular action. Yes. the the appellants will speak as part they each get 15 minutes and then people that are not part of the appellent group then may make public comment they have a three-minute limit. So if you're part of the appellent group on either appeal you will speak during your appellent time but you will not have be able to speak as general public comment against the other appeal

the two separate appeals. I have a question about I don't understand there's there's as I understand it there's two appeals which are basically related. There's one of them is by two different appellants the other is by one appellent. Who is the appellent or we are we having two hearings? We having one hearing and if we're having one hearing who's the appellant because there's two different appeals.

So the we have cross appeals here. So it's one hearing. It's what one project and there's multiple issues that have been raised. some by the applicant, some by opponents to it. And so, um, the parties that are part of the appeal, the groups that are appealing are limited by the 15 minutes. If because they're cross appeals that you feel there are more issues that need to be discussed, you could increase the amount of time that each appellant would have to um present and then to rebut. But, um, the the appellent group should be the the members of the appellent group should be speaking as part of that 15 minutes. And then the other part is the other three minute part is reserved for members of the public that aren't attached to either.

Yeah. But what's the order and who does rebuttal because you know there's Yes. So Christina, can you explain the order? Uh so it is the appellants who go first and the way we have typically done it is um who has submitted to us first a public comment card and um in this scenario it was the Malibu Township Council submitted first. They arrived here um first. Um, so then it'd be followed by the second appellant and then it's rebuttal from both appeals after after the public comment. Correct. After public comment, so it's uh Malibu Township Council. Who the members of the groups are?

So would you raise your hand if you're part of either Malibu Township Council or Slow Growth as the first appellent? Are we precluded from making a public comment? Although I happen to belong. No. Well, if you're representing Malibu Township Council as that appellent group, then your comments would be part of your 15minute presentation. I might I might have to do the first part there. I would like to do the second that you mentioned. And Bruce was shaking his head. I think you're right, Bruce. I usually do.

Okay. Let's let's have this decided by the council. Then we'll we'll be very open about this. Who would like to allow the appellants to have their 15 minutes on their own particular appeal and then have three minutes per person on the other appeal as general public? I I don't mean to make this too difficult, but I that's not the issue. Okay.

The issue the issue is there's an appellant which is an entity and there are members of the public who some of whom belong to that entity as a as a member some of whom do not all of whom are entitled to a threeminut comment on either appeal or both appeals for that matter. But I think the the now by way of example, I've attended coastal commission hearings at which the city of Malibu had a position, but I spoke as a member of the public for three minutes even though I'm on the city council for two whatever time they gave me. I think that's the point that Bill Samson is raising is that he's he's he's not only a member of the Malibu Township Council, I believe he's the current president or chair, but he's not here to speak in his capacity as a member of the Malibu Township Council. was here to speak as a resident of the city of Malibu or as a member of the public cuz anyone in the United States or in the world can come here and speak if they want to. We've established that before. So the question isn't um on what appeal are you speaking. The question is, do you have the right as a resident of the city of Malibu to speak even though you also happen to be a member of the entity that is making the appeal? Just as um in the past, we've also had um commercial representatives of a party who's on an appeal speak in their capacity as members of that commercial company that just wants to come here and speak. So, that's the issue. The issue is are you procluded from speaking as a member of the public because you happen to be a member of the appellent organization.

As I said, the way I see it is that each appellant has their time to speak and their 15 minutes as their appel appeal. Do we want to allow any individual to be able to speak as a member of the general public on the appeal that they are not part of the group? Right. Right. Right. Well, maybe I can say it a little differently. Sure. Um,

if you're one of the presenters for the appeal or the uh um applicant, then I think that's your time to speak. If you're the not pick on Bill, but if you're the president, you're making the presentation, um, that's your that's your moment. But if you're a member of the group, there's nothing to preclude you from uh participating as a as a public speaker. So if you're not part of the part of the 15minute presentation, that's your moment. If not, you're open to pickle public comment. That's how I would read it. Okay. All right. Do we have agreement on that or do we have another position?

I don't think what Doug says the same thing what Bruce said. Can I try to simplify? Yes, please. I'm going to just try. Um, so if the MTC, if let's just say Bill, is speaking on behalf of that for 15 minutes, he is no longer allowed to speak as a public figure, a public person on any of the other items. Is that right? On the other appeal.

On the other appeal, which is the other group's appeal, too. But other people can speak on both. Even if they're the even if you're a member of MTC, you can speak on the other appeal as well. It's just built. Uh that's would be the second part of the discussion. Do we want to allow people to have three minutes per appeal or do we want them to have three minutes? Right. Per the items. If we let them all talk, we'd be through with this by now.

The way the way I see it is f first of all, I don't I don't agree with the concept that because MTC filed a card first that um they're the primary appellent. I I think there are two appeals. There's no such thing as a cross appeal here like there is in a court in a in a regular court system. There are two independent appeals that happen to arise out of the same decision by the planning commission. And I don't know how you actually square figuring out who the appellant is unless you have two separate appeal hearings. And I'm not advocating we do that. But leaving the question of the order aside, it seems to me that the organizations each have a full 15 the the appellants in each of the appeals as appellants have 15 minutes to present through whatever combination of time they they happen to allocate themselves. Any person who's a member of the public who's not a speaker on behalf of a party is entitled to three minutes per appeal. So I would think that the answer is leaving aside the order. If Pat Healey, for example, speaking for coalition for slow growth, that's all she speaks for in her appeal. But with respect to the other side's appeal, she's a member of the Malibu community and she's entitled to three minutes. Bill Samson, for example, is not speaking on behalf of any organization with respect to either appeal. He's entitled to three minutes per appeal. whoever the lawyer is for the um appellent of owner of the property that lawyer is allowed to speak for three minutes if he wishes to in opposition to the well I guess he gets he gets a pelle time as they get a pelle time that's something we haven't even talked about right

yeah so if you're going to let people speak multiple times then you would need to do it for both sides this is not something we've ever done before but but the but the coalition for slow growth and the Melbour township council aren't appel aren't appelles They're only appellants. the applicant I think is an appellant and an appelity because

so this is very complicated and this probably should have been worked out in advance of the hearing beginning but I we need to figure out what the fairest way to do it is and my proposal is um I think you should just combine the two appeals as one um for purposes of speaking they should get a half hour not 15 minutes that they can allocate however they want as the parties and members of the public who are not speaking for a party can have up to six minutes to address the two appeals. Do we have consensus on that? I mean, is that legal?

Um, we're setting the procedure here. So, this is a little bit different than, you know, what we've done traditionally. Um, my preference would be that you you don't give like an un a 30 minute swath to split it between the different parties. Um, or if you are that you would give some additional time to the other side. We just want to make sure that it's fair for both sides to be able to have an equal opportunity. I see just the other way we could do it is we could have the two appeals presented separately but not do any deliberation on either appeal until after both appeals have been presented. So we could have the township council/ slowgrowth appeal presented. They get 15 minutes. The appel gets 15 minutes. The public members all get three minutes. When public comment when the hearing is concluded we then move to the next hearing. We hear the appel appellant um applicants appeal. We hear from any members of the public that are opposing the appeal. And then after the public comment is completely closed on that, we deliberate the two appeals because the results are going to apply to both of them.

Could I ask Trevor to maybe give us a recap of what we've done in the past? This can't be the first time this has come up. I think it is rare. Christina, I would I would defer to you about how we've dealt with it in the past.

Typically, if you are a member of the presenting party of either the appellant or applicant, you cannot make public comment because your time to speak is during the time you have presented upon. And then members of the public uh can speak whether they are part of the organization. If they are not part of that presenting group, they then get are are allowed three minutes but um they wouldn't be able to speak another three minutes historically is not what we have done for the other appellants's appeal. So it' be one three minute time for all members of the public and then uh the appellant gets 15 minutes and the other appellant gets 15 minutes.

What about the applicant? So in the times where the appellant and the applicant is one and the same, we have given them 15 minutes historically. 15 minutes each or just 15 minutes? 15 minutes overall. We had we had two appeals a month or so ago where where both appeals were opposed to the application. That was an easier type of issue. Have we h has the city council heard dueling appeals? Not not multiple appeals against the same project or in favor of the same project but dueling appeals where one is by the applicant and one is by the opposition at the same time.

Yes. And that is how it's done. They were uh given 15 minutes only and then the other one's given 15 minutes where there's an appellant who was also the applicant. Um they were given the 15 minutes. 15 minutes on each of the two appeals or 15 minutes to address the two appeals. 15 minutes to address the two appeals. Um, typically, and Christina, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. So, the each appellent party would have 15 minutes and then they usually save some time for rebuttal against the other or against other comments that have been made is typically how it's it's done instead of being granted extra time.

How about this? How about we allow 15 minutes per each appellant and then general public comment and then each appellant will get 15 minutes in order to rebut the public comment. Usually they have to choose how much they want to right the 15 minutes is a is a total and so they allocate is the typical process right so they would save

since there may be multiple things that come up during public comment allowing them some additional time to be able to rebut that. So if you want to maybe give each each of the three appellants 20 minutes then they can allocate it however they want between it because there is more to talk about. Would that be a solution? And then would people who are part of either appellent team be able to be public speakers for it. It sounds like the the purpose of the council is that if you're presenting the appeal then that's your time. If you're just a member of the group, you can go speak as a member of the public and you would get three minutes. We have a consensus on that in

favor of that approach. Uh the 20 minutes and because we do have a little more complexity here, the uh speakers that are presenting on behalf of the appellants lose their uh ability to make public comments and everybody else gets three minutes. And as Steve said, we'd already be through with this by now. No, we wouldn't. Are there two appellants or three appellants?

So, there's two appeals. One appeal is a co-appeal, if you will, between the Malibu Slow Growth Coalition and the um Malibu Township Council. And then the other appeal is from the applicant team. Okay. So, so the the 20 minutes for the appeal against the project are for the two not 20 minutes each. 20 minutes total for Township Council and Slow Grove because they filed one appeal, right? So, it's one appeal. That would be typical. Yeah. Yeah. They chose to combine, but it's still one appeal. They didn't file separate appeals by individuals. They could have, but they didn't. So, they put themselves together. Okay. So, we have consensus. We're going to give each appellant 20 minutes

to allocate between to allocate as presentation presentation and rebuttal. Use reserve however much time for rebuttal that you believe you need. If you are part of the appellent team, then you cannot speak as general public. So make your choice now. You're either on the team or you're off the team. that agree. Do they decide who's a part of the team? How do we determine? I'm not going to make a decision. It's up to them. Okay. So, sounds good to me. Bruce, if you have another suggestion, I'm we're happy to hear it.

I want Let's hear it. I made one before, but I'm I'm okay with this. Okay, we have consensus on that. Can you repeat what it is so everybody? 20 minutes per appellent. 20 minutes. Malibu Township Council and Slow Growth are considered one appellent. If you present during that 20 minute allocation, then you're procluded to speak as a member of the general public. If you don't speak during that 20 minutes, then you are free to put in a speaker slip for a threeminut public comment.

Could I just ask that we We ask if any of the parties have an opposition to that procedure so that there's a record that we're okay with it or not. I like that idea where we could ask if it's fair, mayor, or no. Let's see if they have any objection. Is there any objection from either the applicants that I think they should approach the mic and state whether they have an objection or not? And just about this is the applicants not not members of the public. Understand you're not this is an agendaized meeting. We should have a pledge of allegiance too. Thank you. We are going to get to that. Thank you. Okay, what my resignation may be pending. However, I have not am not and never have been a member of the coalition for so slow growth and I don't intend to be

ever, but but Malibu Township Council completed an an appellent application with slow growth. My resignation is pending. Okay. All I'm asking is can can we parties to the appeal? Yeah. Are you are you guys okay with the 20 minutes? And then I'll I'll let the applicant team speak. Is there a staff presentation? Right now it's just do you agree that you your appeal will be granted 20 minutes to use as you desire right

as part of your team. In our appeal, we have one appeal and slow growth is sharing it with the township council. I'm speaking for slow growth. Joe Drummond will be speaking for the township council within our aotted time. And then you will not either of you will not be able to speak as a member of the general public against the other appeal. On the second appeal, I will be speaking as a member of the public. We're not That's why we're saying that. Yes, I can. All right. Then I I'll have somebody else make my remarks for me who are a member of the public. Thank you. Okay. And the property owners team.

Good morning. Victor Dela Cruz with Manette Phelps. We have no objections to this structure. Thank you. Okay. So, we'll allow we'll have a staff presentation. Then we will have uh the Malibu Township Council Mal Slow Growth do their 20 minutes to allocate however they choose reserving a balance. Then the other appellent will do their 20 minutes to reserve as they require and then open it for general public comment then have the rebuttals then close the public hearing. Is that agreeable to everyone? Okay, great. All right. Uh, may we please have a roll call? Um, council member Conrad

here. Council member Stewart here. Uh, council member Yearing here. Mayor Prom Silverstein, present. Mayor Rigggins, yes. Uh, you have a quorum. Thank you. Um, the pledge of allegiance, please. Ready to reps nation indivisibley and justice for all. May we please have an approval of the agenda? Move to approve the agenda. Do we have a second?

I'll second. All in favor? I I none opposed. Okay. Now we will move on to our first order of business. Mayor, can I just make a quick reporting on the posting of the agenda? Well, you didn't include that in my script. My apologies. Oh, yes, you did. I skipped it. I apologize. Uh, the agenda for this meeting was originally published on September 12th, 2025. It was amended and posted on September 24th, 2025. Thank you very much. Actually, I should have suggested this when I move to approve the agenda. Are members of the staff who are not presenting on the appeal here for the second item only? Are there people here that are here only that wouldn't here be here for the appeal?

Currently only staff for the appeal are in the room, not for the second item later on. Okay. Suggested. Okay. Appeals of planning commission resolution 24-13 regarding coastal development permit number 22040 an application to restore a wetland buffer that was disturbed during to unpermitted weed abatement 23855 Civic Center Way owner Civic Center Way LLC appellants Malibu Township Council and Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth jointly and Civic Center Way LLC See Tyler, thank you.

Congratulations, Tyler, for being here. We're sorry we've taken you away from your family for this. So, Madam Mayor, before the set presentation, could we take disclosures? Okay. Who has disclosures? Council member Conrad, you want to start? Okay. Go ahead. I live up on the civic center. I've watched them just this property for years and I've occasionally called in to complain about that. It's I've watched the planning commission meeting on it. I've met with Pat Healey on it. I've met with the applicant and appellants on it. Um I'm sure Oh, I read the other report but didn't learn anything that wasn't in the report. Doug,

Doug, disclosure. Disclosures. I'm sorry. I didn't I have no disclosures on this. I did meet with the um uh appellant probably the applicant at on site um at the start of the uh uh original meeting we had back in whatever it was and I have made no other contact since then. Bruce,

so first of all, I've not discussed this appeal with anybody. Um, I I I people ask me all the time to talk to them about their appeal or their opposition to the appeal, and I always decline to do so. Um, because I believe it's inappropriate for um, quasi judicial hearings. I have to say that I I' I've always held back on saying this, but whenever I hear the disclosures by others about having conversations, I'd like to know everything that was said during that conversation as part of the public record. Otherwise, the public and I have no way of knowing whether there really was or wasn't any new information or how it was portrayed. So, I I think it's improper for people to be doing that. I know it's not technically illegal, but I think it taints everything that we do here as a quasi judicial um body. Um I have I I like Steve, I lived I live up on the um hill above the properties more than a,000 ft from the property or more than 500 feet. I think it's more than a thousand. So I've seen the discing activity as well. Um I factually not in the record something I have personal knowledge of is I I recall when the discing in question occurred. Um it was a day or two after a um city council meeting which is not discussed in the record either at which the issue for that um hearing. One of the issues of that council meeting was whether to settle a lawsuit that was brought by the now former owner of that property against the city to um include them in phase two of the sewer project. The prior prior owner that's like two owners ago had waved any rights to participate in the sewer. um on the basis that they intended for that property to remain undeveloped. The property was then acquired by somebody with knowledge that it would not be part of the sewer

project who had designs to develop the property. They sued the city for the entitlement to be part of the sewer project. And the city's then lawyer uh recommended to the city council that they agree to settle that lawsuit. Basically capitulate, not settle, just capitulate. And the benefit to the city, the only benefit to the city was you no longer have to defend a lawsuit that in my view the city would have won. Um I as a citizen back then since I wasn't on city council objected to that settlement. In fact, that was among among the various actions in the civic center area that was a reason for my running for city council in the first place. Um, I thought that our city council was not doing an appropriate job of protecting our um environment. In any event, a day or two after the city council approved that settlement, multiple people spoke in opposition to it. Uh, and and just to put a little more meat on the bone, the um city attorney's argument for why the city council should approve the settlement, and by the way, that's what it was. The city attorney was arguing for a settlement to be approved was, you're not approving any development. development will still have to come forward and be approved based on its merit. And my argument as a resident was if there's no sewer, there won't be any development to consider. And in any event, if somebody wants to develop the property, they can ask for a sewer in connection with a full development plan, but you're you're untying their hands right now by agreeing to the sewer. City council nonetheless approved it and a day or two later, this property was discked. um and members of the public spoke out against that at that time. I recall that. Um the other thing is I have witnessed um um wildlife which is um considered special species species of special concern under California law on that

property as well as on other properties in that area in the wetland area that everybody agrees is a wetland area as well as throughout the property elsewhere. Among among the wildlife I've witnessed on that property are egrets, either great white egrets or snow egrets. They're pretty hard to tell the difference between the two of them, but the two of them are different than other egrets, and they are um species of special concern under California law. I've also witnessed hawks u which regularly um draft through this area and I've witnessed them dive onto that property to feed from rodents that were on the property. uh and that was not in the wetland portion of the property. And the reason I say these things is that there I know there's an issue in the um appeals as to whether the property is in in its entirety and not simply a wetland at the um southern portion of the property. So those are my personal disclosures.

Okay. Um I uh reviewed the staff report. I reviewed the planning commission meeting from February 5th, 2024 and I um looked at historical photos through the the decades. Um I did not meet with either um appellant or applicant. Um time just got away from me and I that didn't happen. So was there anything that is not in the record that you saw in your review of these documents? No, it was california.org and just looking at the property through history similar to the historical record that was already in the the report.

Okay. And council Uring, just to clarify, you said you had called in about the discing. That was just a report that there had been discing going on on the property. And was that um when the prior owner was the owner of the property? I wasn't keeping track of the owner. I was keeping track of the fact they shouldn't be doing the discount. Did you know when it when that when it happened? I mean, it happened for years. I mean, but it was How long ago? It was like five years ago was last time. Yeah, at least I mean I can't tell you who the owner was. I was not paying attention. Is it wasn't motivated by any issue with the owner or the current owner. It was just you saw. I didn't care who the owner was. You shouldn't be doing that. To my knowledge, the current owner hasn't disced the property without the last discing occurred under the prior ownership. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

There's one more one more thing I had written down I forgot to say. Also, in addition, the other thing I learned is that egrets are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended from time to time. Okay, Tyler, will you please lead us off?

Sure. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Um, we'll just get straight into it. So, um, this project, uh, is located in the Civic Center area. Uh, it is, uh, north of Civic Center Way and Pacific Coast Highway and just west of Stewart Ranch Road. Um, this property is often referred to as the Smith parcel, um, and is currently undeveloped. Uh, and as we've been discussing, uh, there is, um, currently a mapped wetland on the site. A little bit of background history on this one. So, um, in 2019, as mentioned, there was some unpermitted weed abatement that was conducted by, uh, the prior owner. Um and then in June 2020, a code enforcement violation was issued on the property for the unpermitted weed abatement into the ESHA buffer. Uh and then in 2021, the new owner who currently owns the property um purchased this property and uh you know took the necessary steps to try to amend the code enforcement violation and in July of 2022, they submitted their application. Um, as the application was processed on September 28th, 2022, this item was considered by the environmental review board. Um, to which the applicant adjusted their habitat restoration and monitoring plan, their HRMP, which we'll be discussing today, uh, based on some recommendations that the ERB gave them. They they did um make all the suggestions of the ERB. on February 5th, 2024, this item was considered by the planning commission. And then the planning commission did approve this project with some added conditions which I which I will be getting into. Uh and then within 10 days from that planning commission approval, uh the two appeals we're discussing tonight or today, appeal 2402 was filed by uh both the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth and the Malibu Township Council as a co- appeal. And then a a separate appeal was filed by the applicant and owner uh appeal 24003.

Uh so this was the project description in the original approval that was modified by the planning commission. Um so they extended the uh restoration buffer area uh not just to the 100 ft that's required by the LIP but to 150 ft. Uh and a lot of that was just based on you know obviously there's a discussion between what is the correct meats and balance of the wetland and the planning commission wanted to make sure that adequate area was being restored. Um the other uh consideration the planning commission made was again uh incre by increasing that 150 ft they are increasing the um the restoration area from 1.69 69 acres to 2.5 acres by extending 50 ft in all directions. Another condition that is being contested by one of the appellent groups uh was also added by the planning commission and that is that uh all invasive species that are within this uh buffer area shall be removed um as part of the ongoing maintenance and their uh root structure shall be removed entirely. the uh applicant and appellant have some issues with um this condition. So, going now into the the two appeals. First, I'll start with appeal 24002. That's from the co-appeal between Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth and the Malibu Township Council. Um their points can be summarized as basically that the incorrect wetland delineation was used by the planning commission that a larger area should be restored and they in general support the 1998 and 2018 reed wetland delineations. The 1998 was actually a 2002 SOS officially but Edith Reed did both of the wetland delineations and that's uh this appellent group um thinks that those should be considered. The other appeal which is also the applicant 2403 they they don't object uh

to the bounds that were selected by the planning commission because the planning commission ultimately chose their wetland delineation as the meets and bounds but they do not agree with the 150 ft uh buffer restoration where the LIP requires 100 ft and as mentioned they are contesting the condition 15 specifically that they have to remove all the invasive species and their root structures. Here's a a good snapshot of kind of the disputed uh wetland boundaries. So, the um applicant is uh kind of in the darker the lower area, the darker colors, the blue, orange, and green. That was the all the various uh wetland delineations they've done uh throughout the years. Um and they've kind of combined all those which I'll get into on the next slide for their official wetland uh meets and bounds. Um the the appellent group, one of the appellent groups, Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth Township Council, uh want the city council to consider the pink and the yellow outlines, which are the older Edith Reed um delineations. the yellow being the 1998 and the purple pink being the uh 2018. This was the um area to be restored. So again, uh planning commission picked the blue outline there as the wetland delineation which was the applicant's wetland delineation from 2023 2024. Um and then the area in green there was the proposed area to be restored. that area has been extended an additional 50 ft in all directions, if you will, uh by the planning commission. We received a lot of correspondence uh for this hearing. Many participants um there's kind of a common theme from the the correspondents we received. They want to ensure that the proper wetland

and buffer areas are restored and they are asking council for the most part to choose the greater wetland areas uh that were uh than than what was approved by the planning commission. Their preference again being the uh Somos wetland delineation 2002 the 1998 or the ED3 delineation in 2018. So there's been a lot of comment there's been a lot of discussion uh really um the issues kind of boil down to two two issues which for the council to consider and they are you know which wetland bounds should the applicant use in their habitat restoration monitoring plan. we should decide that. And then were the planning commission's extra conditions uh justified? So, we do not have a recommendation tonight uh or today. We are asking for the council to consider both appeals and then provide staff with some direction on what it is we we want to do next. We do have a uh a draft resolution in case you do want to take action. If you do decide to uphold the planning commission approval, how it was approved and deny both appeals, that is in your report for consideration. Thank you.

Sorry. Do we have any clarifying questions from the council? Just have one. Tyler, in the planning commission meeting, I thought there was some resolution dealing with if they want to build something and they they got to use a path going through property that doesn't belong to them, they've got to get some permission, which I think goes without saying, but I didn't see that included in the report today. Yeah, it wasn't in the report, but it's a condition of approval in the resolution uh that mimicked what the planning commission required, which is basically if they access the site through the neighboring property to the uh east, they have to gain that owner's permission uh prior to. So, it's just a condition of approval, but it's not in this document we're dealing with today. Is it? We could we could consider it. Yeah, it's part of the

I just I didn't see that. I just was wondering why we pulled it out. Is that part of the proposed resolution? Tyler, it's for part of the proposal. So, it's in the resolution if you Right. that was submitted. So, does this property does this property have a um access point or is it landlord? I mean, the applicant can speak to it better than I can, but from what I understand that the um the the area from Steuart Ranch Road is a little inaccessible, and so the better point of access is through the parcel directly to the uh to the east. Okay. It's it's it's not landlocked. It just is difficult to access from the road.

Well, some properties have a um easement already over another property. I was inquiring whether or not this had a dedicated easement on title for access. I don't believe they do have it for that property, which is why the condition was added that they must gain approval from that owner and supply it to the city. Great. Thank you. I I have a couple questions. Could you put back up the um second I think it was the second slide that showed the chronological order of things.

Yeah. Okay. So, my first question is um in the third bullet point, what does it mean to amend a code enforcement violation? Um, oh, that might be uh uh maybe just could have used different wording, but it's they're trying to, you know, they're trying to address the code. Address it. Yeah. Okay. Not not get it changed, but actually respond to it. No, no, you're right. Respond to it. Yeah. Um, now the code enforcement violation was it says issued. I don't really know what that means, but um that occurred before the property transferred ownership. Correct. Right. What does it mean to issue a code enforcement violation as used in that sentence?

Well, an ov, a notice of violation was basically given to the property owner letting them know that, you know, the city has a violation on their property. That violation is carried on, lives with the property. So, the new owner basically inherited that violation. Okay. So, the the the prior owner had formal notice that the city believed that there was a violation. Correct.

Uh to my understanding, yes. It was issued in 2020. is and is is that something that's publicly available once it's issued to the property owner or is it something that's simply between the city and the property owner? Um there are there are we we don't disclose code violations are aren't um fully you know public information like this the what we're discussing here is but if someone came in and and asked you know for a lot of specific details some of them may you know depending on what what what is being disclosed and maybe Trevor can help I believe the notice of violation is a publicly disclosable record um some internal code enforcement files and active code enforcement would not be

so so if I were looking to acquire this property after this notice occurred. I would have access to the um notice if I sought to get it. Once you're the owner, yeah, you're privy to, you know, No, I'm talking about if I were if I were a third party who were looking to acquire the property, would I have a way to obtain a copy of the notice other than through the um owner of the property volunteering it to me? I I think there's a part of the city's website where they list all the violations assigned to the property. So if you wanted to do the search, you could find it there. Right. Can I get a I'm sorry, a clarifying question. Was this just a code enforcement case or was this a notice of violation that was recorded against the property and title?

I don't think it was recorded. No, this was just an open code violation case with the city. Yeah. Tyler, do you know if the purchaser was aware of the violation at the time of purchase? They say they weren't. That's why I'm asking. I don't know that for sure. I don't know. Okay. Would there be an obligation of the prior owner to disclose that as part of So I just I'm just trying to understand factually what happens publicly because I know in the record the owner the current owner the applicant states that it did not know that there was a violation when it acquired the property and I'm trying to understand what public information would have been available at the time to test that assertion.

Aren't disc aren't uh these things have to be disclosed by realtors? So, and it and it sometimes it doesn't happen. This happens a lot actually. And in fact, you know, people may have, you know, we see it with the fire rebuilds. People may have unpermitted structures that are not disclosed when they purchase this property and it comes up when they're doing their rebuild. So, I would say that it is the onus of the realtor to, you know, let that person know, do their due diligence and let that person know. But, but yes, there is publicly available information if they go searching for it. That

that's all I was trying to find out. I mean, I I I believe that the prior owner had an obligation to make disclosure whether it was publicly available or not, but I'm just trying to understand whether a search of public records would have revealed the information. And what I'm hearing is the answer is yes. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. Doug, yeah. Uh Tyler, can you bring up your slide with the uh approval area from the planning commission? Yeah. Uh that one right there. Uh two questions. One is the green area is that the 150 or the 100 foot? That's just the 100 foot. Okay.

So the applicant the applicant is contesting the 150 foot. So we have not seen a revised plan. So this would be if you can imagine this green area is to be restored and with an additional 50 ft in all directions. Okay. Um so then it gets into the question of access. There was a mention I think of a foot path but not a driveway. Is that correct? It was a Yeah, maybe the applicant can weigh more in on that. I just know that the So, we see Civic Center Way here directly south. I just know that direct access from Civic Center Way is challenging. So, you can see part of the parcel to the east there to the right of your screen. Uh that's the parcel that they would be trying to access through.

Okay. But, uh this was my question when I first saw this. If you're going to access it through the parcel to the uh east and assume that the gray area um is not where they're planning to access, you'd be accessing through the wetlands. Does that work? Well, the wetland ends before the property boundaries. The property boundary is indicated in the black lines there, right?

And the the green is the wetland buffer. So, there is a difference and and we may get into that today. Um their proposal was to just restore the wetland buffer. It was their assertion that the wetland, you know, wasn't modified. It was just a buffer. And so this project is just to restore the green area. But the issues are had a bigger wetland boundary, had this blue boundary been bigger, then the area to be restored shall also be be larger. Yeah. My my drift in this question is if it's a wetlands area or a wet wetland buffer, are you able to use that as an access point?

Um, it depends what you do. So, if you're just kind of I would say walking through maybe not the wetland, but the wetland buffer area, that's fine. If you have to do grading or do vegetation removal, that could be an issue similar to why we're here today. Okay. And looking at this map a little little greater as I see the green area to the west. If you were to expand that 50 feet, then the access point we just mentioned, no matter how hard it would be to come off Civic Center Way, you're now preluded because you're going to be probably at the lot line to the west. So it would totally block off access along Civic Center Way if it was 150 ft.

Yeah, it would depend on their their how they access. So if they, you know, then they would obviously have to restore that, too. If they made any, you know, degradation of the of the site, they that would be part of the restoration area. Yeah. Because where I'm coming into this is if there ever is going to be development on this site, you've got to have access. And it looks like we're rapidly reaching a point on this property, whether it's coming from the east or coming from the south, you can't get there. uh the it's landlocked is going back to what uh I believe Maryanne made the question about and it's we'll leave that for the discussion but I want to know what the boundaries were here. So thank you very much

Tyler could you uh navigate to the other um figure two um that has the E to3 lines on it. Is this one okay? Yeah, that's perfect. So if we imagine that green area over the buffer, there's still area of the property though that is not in dispute whether or not it's part of the the buffer area that goes beyond. So that upper part of the property is beyond either the 100 or 150 foot buffer, whatever is decided. and there's still accessible area from neighboring properties that don't cross into a buffer area.

So, I guess it depends on what is decided. Um, if if a greater wetland is decided, you know, the buffer area would also increase. And so, it could like let's say the pink line is decided to be taken, it could render basically the south southern portion, you know, all ESHA. And so yes, there would be if this site was to be developed in the future, they would have to figure out access probably from a different location or you know go propose a variance of some sort to kind of get something approved through that site. But there is area that's outside of the ESHA andor ESHA buffer even at 150 ft buffer area that from a neighboring

um it's going to be pretty close. So, you know, added an extra 50 ft. It's add an extra 50 ft to this exhibit here in the green. That kind of takes us to the top of that particular You're getting pretty close to that other uh property boundary to the west. Well, I just want to say that by by stating that there's property that is not ESHA that is prejudging the ultimate issue, one of the ultimate issues in this appeal because the entire area is mapped ESHA. One of the things that the city council has to do today is decide whether that map is or is not accurate. So to say that there's non-esha on that property is prejudging whether an issue in the appeal.

I have not made that determination. So I apologize if my words gave you that impression and I would appreciate you stop putting words in my mouth. Okay. So staff reports complete. Okay. Um any other additional clarifying questions? Okay. So we'll go to public comment. So the first appellent team will have 20 minutes.

Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm good. You're all right. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. So Pat, you're going to have 20 minutes. I'm I'm sharing it with the Malibu Township Council, so I I'll be about five minutes. Okay. Okay. And then and then Joe will take over. Okay. And then um any time that you want to have left over for rebuttal, whatever Joe has left over will be I hopefully five minutes. Okay. Okay. You have a total of 20 minutes though. So please uh begin.

Okay. I have to switch glasses now. Okay. Good morning council. This parcel is a rare ecological treasure. Under your stewardship, we hope to to see it restored and protected to its the fullest extent possible. The applicant will still be able to develop a project, but that should not come at the expense of severe permanent ecological loss. Under the LIP, a wetland includes not only the pond, but the upland areas that exhibit either hydrarology, hydric soils, or wetland vegetation. Wetland vegetation, their roots and seeds in a drought don't die. They go dormant till the rain comes. Illegal disting almost the entire property was reported in 2019 and 20 after se after the 7-year drought ended. This illegal disting inev inevitably caused many wetland plants the roots and seeds to be destroyed. The Lucas delineation cannot be legally used to establish the wetland boundary because the city never required the the LIP 3:1 mitigation as compensation for the illegal dissing of almost the entire escher parcel. Lucas was then hired by the city to create a 100 foot buffer around their delineation without the required mitigation. But before one can place a buffer around the wetland, you must determine the wetland's boundary. Until the wetland boundaries are determined and the required 3:1 mitigation for the illegal disting is in place, a buffer is premature. So therefore, you have to reject the lucose bufferation and city restoration plan. The current staff report said you can use historical data in making your decision. Therefore,

previous wetland delineation boundary can be used. There have been two previous delineations. Edith Reeds in 1998 for Silus deleted the wetland at 3.4 acres. In 2018, 20 years later, after the sixth year of a drought, Edith Reed for the city delineated the wetland at 2.8 acres, only 6/10 of an acre, less than it was 20 years before. We recommend the council direct the applicant to prepare, excuse me, a wetland restoration plan based on the 3.4 acre SUS delineation or at the very least the 2.8 AC 8 acre 2018 delineation and require the for the illegal disting the 3:1 mitigation restoration required under the LIP after you decided the most accurate of the three wetland delineations and required the 3:1 mitigation the planning commission's recommended 150 buffer can be placed around the mitigated area both in 2018 2018 both the 2018 delineation done after six years of drought and the Lucas delineation after seven years of drought. So naturally the wetland size is smaller. On the other hand in 1998 3/4 3.4 4 acres of wetland is the most scientific delineation since it was conducted before the illegal disting before the drought and prior to the installation of the larger storm drain which draws water from the wetland. A photo from 2023 shows the entire parcel flooded an area greater than the sus delineation in the average in the future with average or above average rainfall. This three quart 3.4 for acres with the

required mitigation uh once again can flourish. In fact, it were for not the loss of if in fact if it was not for the loss of wetland water due to the enlarged storm drain, this could already be happening. Since the end of the drought, the rainfall in 2019 2020 was almost 15 inches in 2122 almost 19 inches in 22 23 almost 28 1/2 in and 23 24 over 25 in. For these four years after the drought, the annual rainfall was above the average of 14 and 3/4 in. If the council approves the city buffer plan placed on the 1.4 24 acre delineation without the mitigation. You're locking in the smallest wetland boundary ever, ignoring the unpermitted discing of the majority of the parcel and the irrevocable irrevocable harm done by discing to the wetland plant plants and seeds. Also, required findings for this LAP um for the CDP cannot be made. Thank you.

Thank you. So, um, is I'm on Zoom. Can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead, please. And, um, any time that you want to have left over will be part of this rebuttal. Okay. Is there a slideshow, Parker? Ahead. It is present.

Next slide. So, this is our precious civic center wetland after the rains. Every winter and spring, it remains fully saturated. This is not occasional pooling. its persistent wetland hydrarology. The most important issue not addressed in the staff report today or in the report we received is the 3:1 restoration requirement in the LIP which would ensure this entire property would remain open protective space. I will be talking about this in my comments later in the next present in my presentation. If we can go to the next slide and play the video. This video shows the 2019 and 2020 illegal discing. The entire mapped environmentally sensitive habitat area ESHA area was discked despite claims that it was not. Workers were also digging watering mud outside even Lucas' wetland and buffer boundary here. That proves wetland hydrarology extends far beyond the line Lucas drew in the latest delineations. Even at the height of drought, it went all the way near the palm trees where it is always wet. And that is beyond the 3.4 for acres that Edith Reed even um delineated. The next slide, this is a photo of the aftermath of the discing of which destroyed wetland vegetation across the entire parcel. This was a wholesale clearing, not a minor disturbance. The next slide, if we could play the video. At the corner of Steuart Ranch Road and Civic Center Way, storm drains continue to siphon water out. This video is from February 7th, 2024, which shows flows actively draining the wetland. Until these outlets are capped or reduced, this habitat cannot recover and it will never have its equilibrium. So, this really should not be happening.

You can see the water coming down from the wetland to these drains. The next slide, this shows the degradation of the civic center. Compare 2016 to today. In 20 2016, the civic center was lush and green. In 2025, it's paved and degraded. Residents number one priority in the city's own community land survey was open space. In the next slide, if you could play the video, this is trash, debris, and dead fronds littering the supposed sanctuary. The wetland has not been protected as ESHER requires. A 2013 study by Huffman and Carpenter for the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy focused on restoring civic center wetlands beginning with the Chile cookoff lot. It documented that the Malibu Creek wershed wetlands in the area support extraordinary biodiversity. This wetland is in the Malibu Creek wershed. over 450 vertebrae species including nine federally endangered birds, two fish, and one plant with dozens more state listed or candidate species. The next slide. Between Edison's ESHA destruction, which the appeal still has yet to be heard by the coast commission over 5 years later, and the discing here, we are losing every last patch of civic center open space. Next slide, please. The definition of a wetland in the city's own LIIP is crystal clear. Wetlands are defined where any one of three indicators exist. Hydrarology, hydric soils, or hydrophites, which are wetland plants. Not all three, not two, just one. Next slide, please. Lucas's delineation has the wrong standards. They required all three indicators. That's the wrong test. Our law only

requires the presence of wetland vegetation. By ignoring this, Lucas excluded areas that clearly qualify. Next slide, please. Why Lucas's work is incomplete? It mapped only the green, blue, and tan areas. It ignored long established wetlands in the yellow and pink boundaries, which were delineated by renowned veteran wetland biologist Edith Reed. The yellow line during the rainy season of 1998. It studied only the undisked portions, leaving out the majority of the ESHA habitat, and it subtracted nearly one acre of wetlands year-over-year during drought. Out of 68 sample sites, 67 showed wetland hab vegetation present. Lucas miscal mclassified 34 of those as non-wetland. In reality, nearly the entire sample set confirms wetland vegetation, which under Malibu's LIP is sufficient to qualify as wetland. Meanwhile, Edith 3's 2018 delineation identified 2.8 acres of wetland versus 1.74 by Lucas included salt grass and alkaline bull rush true wetland species. And she submitted a recent memo reaffirming her delineation remains valid and that Lucas mclassified multiple sample sites and this was commissioned by the city itself and then ignored. Next slide, please. Our code requires restoration of wetlands at a 3:1 ratio. Edith reads 2.8 acres, therefore equals 8.4 acres of restoration. That's more than this 7 plus acre lot, which means the entire parcel should be restored as per Malibu codes. Next slide, please. In the rainy years, the wetland floods to the palm trees. This is larger than Edith Reed's 1999 SOS delineation done during the rainy season at 3.4 acres. But wetlands don't shrink, as Pat said, they recover when discing stops. With

weed abatement, native replanting, and storm drain capping, this whole parcel would thrive again as wetland and upland habitat. And the reason that they need the 3 to one restoration is because it is very difficult to restore a wetland. Next slide. if you could play the video. Under Malibu's LIP, the 3:1 restoration requirement mandates full parcel restoration. If this is not enforced, then at minimum, SQA requires a full EIR to evaluate impacts to these atrisisk species which are a part of the Malibu Creek watershed and many are protected. Slide. Next slide, please. So we are calling to restore and protect this last green space in the civic center. Preserve the usher that supports the birds, wildlife, and our community's health. Restore the last open green space in the civic center. Leave a legacy of ecological responsibility and community pride. Our ask is simple. Restore Edith Reed's delineation as the baseline. Apply the city's 3:1 restoration requirement and protect this wetland for both wildlife and future generations. and I'll leave whatever time is remaining for rebuttal. Thank you.

Thanks. You have 8 minutes and 3 seconds left. Thank you. Okay, so now we will go to the other appellant slapplicant and you will have 20 minutes. And if you want to leave any time for rebuttal, please take care for that. I had a presentation uh that was emailed to the city. Steph's getting it up right now. Parker's pulling it up. Excuse me. I'm sorry. She can't hear your missing. So, we're not trying to stomp on your good. You want to see? You want to sit? You sure?

Okay. You can begin when you're ready.

Okay. Good morning, Mayor Rigggins and honorable uh council members. I'm Victor Dela Cruz from Manette Phelps Phillips. I'm here on behalf of Civic Center Way LLC, the owner of the property. As we explained in our appeal, when my client purchased this property in June 2021, they never imagined that they would find themselves filing a CDP application to repair unpermitted weed abatement work undertaken in a wetland buffer by the prior owner. That is because the prior owner did not disclose the violations and the ensuing enforcement activity to my client during the sale. Be that as it may, when my client received the violation notice, they immediately hired a biologist and got to work to make things right. They filed an application to restore the 100t buffer area just as the city's code enforcement manager and the city biologist asked them to do. Specifically, they submitted a habitat restoration and monitoring plan to the city in July 2022, more than 3 years ago. So, nobody should accuse my client of not wanting to act quickly to protect the wetland. As you can see from this August 2021 letter, at that time, the city biologist agreed upon the location of the wetland. It was marked by flags and my client was then directed to apply for a CDP to restore the agreed upon 100 foot buffer based on the flagged delineation consistent with the coastal commission's July 2021 violation notice which stated that the commission had found in a prior staff report that quote wetlands as defined in section 30121 of the coastal act occupied the southern third of the Smith property. And I should add that the coastal commission also noted that discing had occurred within the buffer area, not the wetland itself, which means that all the old delineations you are being told apply by the other appellants would be

inconsistent not just with the city biologist approved delineation, the city's violation notice, but the coastal commission's violation notice as well. As such, the purpose of the CDP was to ensure that the planning commission would have a chance to weigh in on the methods and the means by which the restoration work was to take place. It was not geared at moving the goalpost at the last minute in response to political pressure. We have read the correspondence riled up by the appellant calling for restoration of the entire property, calling for a stop to development. I've seen references to shopping malls, to office buildings, you name it. Anything and everything to create a political circus. We don't understand where that's coming from. It has nothing to do with the violation notice. Let's make some things clear. One, my client has applied to do exactly what city staff asked them to do based on the coastal commission's direction, restore a 100 ft wetland buffer. And the question that was before the planning commission was whether they agreed with what my client was proposing to do within that 100 foot buffer. No less, no more. Number two, my client's application has nothing to do with development of the property. My client has no plans to develop it. They don't have adequate ingress and egress to the site as was asked by one of the council members. They don't have water. They don't know if there's a market for anything here. And frankly, they don't know if it's worth the effort. If something is proposed in the future, then that's when a conversation about the entire site would be appropriate. That is not what is today is about. And I want the appellants to listen very carefully to this one. This is my client's CDP application. What does that mean? Whatever the city council approves to today, my client has to agree to it by signing a version of the affidavit

that you see on the screen and agreeing to the conditions of approval. My client is not going to agree to create a wetland where there is none. My client is not going to agree to a 150 ft buffer that has no relation to the LIP and city staff's request for a 100 ft buffer. My client is not going to agree to a wetland delineation that is based on politics rather than science. There is a wetland delineation that was approved by the city's biologist, approved by the city's environmental review board and worked on by senior biologists with decades of experience in their field. We know science is under attack in this country, but my client will not stand for it in this case. They should be applauded for their efforts to quickly resolve the issues created by their predecessor. And if the city does not want my client to do the work he was asked to do by city staff, then we will simply withdraw our application. Now, it is beyond my comprehension why the appellants would want us to withdraw our application. My client has applied to do comprehensive restoration work within the 100 foot buffer that you see on the screen right now. that entire green area. That is a very large portion of the property and it's going to be extremely expensive to do. Why wouldn't you want my client to do this work as soon as possible? It is the Malibu Township Council's right to ask for whatever they want. But they're only hurting their cause because they have successfully delayed restoration for several years. And now, if they have their way today, maybe for many years. If you don't want us to do this work, that's fine. Again, we'll withdraw the application. So, let's get to the meat of our appeals. I already explained and showed you that the violation notice explicitly referred to a 100 ft ESHA buffer and required the property owner

to apply for a CDP to address the restoration of the wetland wetlands esha buffer. The planning commission however expanded the buffer area to 150 ft not based on any science but simply out of a desire to try and appease the appellent group since they were contesting the wetland delineation. First a 150 ft buffer requirement is not consistent with the city's LIP LI section 4.8.2D 2D which you see on the screen requires that a wetlands mitigation plan quote provide a 100 ft restored buffer as measure from the upland limit of the wetland area. Our habitat restoration monitoring plan provided a 100 ft buffer which is fully consistent with the LIP. Likewise a 100 ft buffer has been provided at the property since the late 1980s when wetlands were first delineated. Now there is one mechanism by which the city could increase the buffer to greater than 100 ft. That would be if my client was bringing a project to you for new development pursuant to section 4.6.1b which you see on the screen. So, if we were proposing the shopping center that everyone is worried about or the office building or some other type of development, which we are not, it would be within the city's jurisdiction as part of the negotiation that takes place for new development rights to say, "You want an office building? Well, then we'll want your site plan to keep all new development 150 ft away from the wetland." But we don't have a new development application before you right now. There is nothing to buffer from and the LCP is clear that in the absence of the development plan 100 ft is appropriate. Rest assured that if a development application ever gets filed, the appellants will have a bite at the apple end and that is the appropriate time to determine based on whatever is proposed what is needed to best protect

the wetland. All that being said, we do want to address what has been said about the wetland delineations in ESHA. Tony Bonamp who has worked on the various reports over the years is here today to answer any questions and can join via video you might have about the wetland delineation and I urge you to engage him. So much has been thrown out at the wall here by people who do not have training or understanding of wetland science. So if you're going to consider any non-expert analysis then you should engage with someone that has actual training in the field. A few things you should know in response to the appeal that was filed. As a threshold matter, I know science and technical expertise is under challenge in our country, but here in California, the Coastal Commission still believes in and requires reports based on science. Wetland delineations require expert biologists and at a basic level we take issue with the appeal using language such as quote we googled or the inclusion of photographs to spitball what the wetland might be or otherwise ignoring established professional guidance to support an agenda. No, photographs of the property during a storm when even the roads are still wet in the photographs that they're showing do not establish the limits of a wetland. Yet, that is what is argued in the photos and correspondence that has been submitted. And I'll get into that later, but the Arid West supplement, which are the guidelines for wetland delineations, require them to be based on average conditions defined as 50 out of 100 years, which just illustrates that the appeals are simply coming out of left field. With respect to the LCP mapping, the entire property as ESHA, we all know that's a red herring. If the Coastal Commission thought the whole property was ESHA, it wouldn't have taken issue with work in a wetland buffer. it would have taken issue with all the discing outside of the buffer too. From a simple common sense standpoint, that is your

best indication that what the appellants want has nothing to do with where the coastal commission is on this. It is also common knowledge that the northeast portion of the site long ago included a greenhouse business and the entire property is not. As such, biologist reports over the years have established that the entire site is not consistent with LIP section 4.3. C which provides that notwithstanding the maps ESHAS are to be established based on sightspecific biological studies. Even the LCP map which you have on your screen says this. The asterisk note at the bottom right hand corner states boundaries of ESHA may change location over time due to varying circumstances. This map is not intended to depict fixed boundaries of Echas. With respect to the delineation, appellants would like to rely on a 2002 report from Edith Reed. Never mind that this report would also defeat that the whole site is ESHA. But putting that aside, the Reed report is based on a delineation that was conducted in December 1998, 27 years ago, using the Army Corps of Engineers 1987 delineation manual. That 1987 delineation manual issued 38 years ago has obviously been superseded since. Now, do you think the appellants wants to you want to use that report because of the science or simply because it shows the biggest wetland? Let's talk about the science. Edith Reed, who prepared the 22 2002 report, later prepared a 2018 report for the city where she changed the wetland boundaries substantially. Most of the positive determinations for hydric soils in wetland hydrarology recorded on data

sheets for the 2002 report would no longer meet the requirements of current guidelines by a long shot. And indeed in 2018, Reed noted that at the time of the 1998 fieldwork, the site's hydraology was not well understood. So, it's a bit suspect that everyone now wants to go to the one based on bad science. So, Edith Reed knew that what she was doing in 2002, but what she was doing in 2018 was not correct. Now, Reed's later 2018 report, while better, was still flawed because it was based on only two data points. That is why city staff thought that the GLA report from 2019, which was based on numerous paired pits along at the northern edge, was necessary. Because Reed did not have sufficient data points due to budgeting issues, she had inadvertently included a large thicket of pampas grass and patches of carnation splurge within the northwestern corner of her delineation, both of which are obviously not consistent with wetland. But get this, the 2019 GLA report was ultimately not good enough for the city staff either. Why was the 2019 report not good enough for city staff? Because the city requires wetland delineations to be less than 2 years old. So GLA updated the 2019 delineation in 2024, which had the result of actually slightly expanding the wetland area. The delineation that city staff ultimately approved for the wetland buffer includes the outermost edges of each of the 2019 and 2024 GLA delineations. So it is actually especially conservative in that context. I should add that it defies common sense

that the Coastal Commission would accept a 2002 or 2018 delineation for a CDP when there is a city biologist approved 2024 delineation. Our CDP needs to be based off of a recently approved delineation per the city's standards. Finally, let me say a few things in defense of the existing delineation. The appellent takes issue with an update to a 2019 delineation on the grounds that 2019 was immediately after the end of a 7-year drought. But that statement, if anything, just illustrates that they don't understand the science of wetland delineation, which again uses long-term data for determining wetland boundaries based on three separate indicators. the predominance of hydrophic vegetation, the predominance of hydric soils, and wetland hydraology defined as inundation or soil saturation in the upper 12 in for a minimum of 14 days during an average rainfall year. Regardless, even if you believe the appellance assertion that rainfall the years before your delineation are absolutely relevant and the beall end all, the 2019 delineation captured below average and above average rainfall years. And the 2024 update was conducted following the two wetest back-to-back years in recorded Southern California history. They don't tell you that. Respectfully, my client has worked very hard to do the right thing here. They do not appreciate being vilified for doing exactly what the Coastal Commission and city staff asks them to do. The question before you today are simple. One, would you like the buffer to be restored or not? And two, if you do want the buffer restored, will you correct the small technical error about Pampus Grass as we requested in our file appeal and which we believe was inadvertent? It's

difficult to get into everything with all the noise, but it is important to point out that if you want the restoration to be done in a in a in a manner that does not inadvertently harm the site, that's what you would want to do in connection with the restoration. So, I had know I have four minutes. I will leave the rest for for rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, now we'll hear from the general public. I don't have any speaker slips. Parker, do we have anyone online? Three raised hands. Okay. Could you hold it at the three raised hands, please?

Okay. So, our first one is Leticia Aloy. Thank you. Followed by Scott Dietrich, followed by Tiffany Murray. Please come to the podium and you'll have three minutes. Does it start now? Soon as you start, you'll see the clock. It'll go up in the upper leftand corner.

Okay. Thank you again, Leticia. Hello. Good morning. Um, I live I'm an owner in Malibu Canyon Village up here in the condos. I observed in 2020 these bulldozers, which by the way, they were brush clearance for 26 years I've lived here. Never did I ever see anything like this in all the time I've lived here. And it was done purposely so they could build on this land. That was third point. Now whether or not they told this new company, I mean, isn't there a way to find that out? Can you send a demand letter? Because I'm sorry, but they need to restore this property back to its original habitat. This is marked ESHA. There's there's nothing there's no confusion in this. This land is marked Esha for a reason. There's there were frogs down there. The ecots, ducks. I've seen bluebirds down there. They've come to my balcony. The hawks are on my balcony. This land was ruined. It needs to be restored. And in case it wasn't clear, we've been on this since 2020. I wrote an email to the coastal commission which started this whole thing and Pat and everybody else jumped on it, thank God, and my neighbor was also on it. She she took uh the video. My pictures were included in Joe's presentation. And uh we've we've watched them destroy this property. It it needs and as far as that Lucas report, that is not right. It it's not right that we've been fighting this for five years. We've been here. We've all been here present. The city council got my letters too and we've asked them to restore this property since 2020 back to its natural habitat. And uh to the full just like Joe said, it needs to be completely restored. And

I don't know about this buffer business, but you know, I'm not a lawyer. I but I will say we do need a new report and the company should be charged for this. Not not Malibu City. And if you want to go after Third Point, go after them. I mean, let's see. Let's see who disclosed what to who. I don't buy that story. I'm sorry. Anyway, I would like you to investigate it. Please investigate it further and help us. Please help us restore this land and protect this land. It's been here for years. That's it, I think. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Scott Dietrich, followed by Tiffany Murray, followed by Jan Rall and Peter Rulich. Is he here? Is he here? He has to be present to give you a minute. Okay. Okay. Scott, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. And Bill Samson will give me a minute. Um, you guys have a difficult decision. you're being asked to split the baby in a way. And I feel sorry for the uh gentleman from the Civic Center Way LLC. Um I believe them when they say that this was not disclosed. That however is irrelevant to this hearing. I think what we need to do is go back to the I don't know how many prior owners who said as Bruce brought up that they were never going to develop the property. Why? Because they knew they probably couldn't get anything because of the extensive wetland. Now that wetland I think we've seen evidence over many years has been destroyed and undermined. It's been disc which as Pat said cuts the root systems out especially in the drier areas uphill. Then there's the big drainage. Um, the drain. I don't know why you're draining a wetland. That seems contradictory to me. So, I think we want to go back to what Edith, city biologist, initially saw. She saw an extensive wetland at what is it 3.4 acres. That is at least the boundary. Now I don't know if the current owner is responsible for

restoration 3 to one for violating. It seems that at one point city staff told them they had to do this 100 foot buffer. Um, if that is true, I say if that is true, then I think we have to give them some consideration because they think they're alleging that they think that they're following what staff asked them to do. That's what makes this a very difficult project. But what I don't like from the applicant civic center way LLC is they're bribing you. They're threatening you. They're saying if you don't agree to our much smaller standard, we're not going to do anything. I don't know if they can do that. It seems to me that they're responsible for what happened on their property, even if they didn't do it, if it was done under prior ownership. And that discing clearly undermined. We've all seen over, you know, I've been here 50 years. It's always been a wet land and it's shrunk because of the illegal activity and that has to be corrected. So, thank you for dealing with this, putting it into a special meeting where we could have a full discussion.

Okay, Tiffany, followed by Jan, followed by Jefferson. Minute. I don't think he used it. That's up to him. He was credited with four minutes whether he used it or not. That's Thank you, Madam Mayor. I thought I was getting an extra minute from someone. I don't have a slip for anybody to give you an extra minute. Bill's already used his extra minute. Okay. So, you have three minutes. If you have somebody who wants to donate you a minute, then Well, her husband just left. She can't even get the minute. So, Okay. I don't. So, go ahead with your three minutes. Oh, does she have extra? No. Okay. I'm sorry. All right. It's okay. I will do my best.

Okay. Um

Okay. Good morning, Mayor. Mayor Prom and Council members, I am Tiffany Murray. I've lived in Malibu for over 26 years, and I live on Bonszel, it's miraculous that Malibu still has a wetland, one of the last of its kind, a living jewel that shelters migratory birds, frogs, butterflies, and coyotes. And yet today it sits behind a cheap plastic fencing scarred by illegal discing and draining with garbage washing in its ponds. We are watching it fade as if it will simply be forgotten once the wildlife disappears. But wetlands are not wastelands waiting to be developed. They are biological super systems as rich in life as rainforest and coral reefs. And they have superpowers. They absorb storm water like sponges, protecting homes and coastlines from floods. They filter and cleanse our water. They lock away immense stores of carbon in their soils, making them one of the most effective natural climate solutions we have. Stamford University calls this natural capital, the stock of living systems, soil, water, forests, wetlands that underpins our economy and our very survival. Like financial capital, natural capital grows and compounds when it is invested in. So when Malibu properly restores this wetland, it is not just an expense. It becomes an appreciating asset. Every dollar invested in west wetland restoration saves seven to10 in avoided flood damages. Proximity to healthy ecosystems raises property values by as much as 20%. This is not just environmentalism. This

is wealth creation, resilience, and security for our community. And yet today, this entire p parcel mapped as ESHA is being offered only partial restoration. But by law, ESHA remains ASHA even when it has been illegally degraded. We cannot reward destruction by restoring only a fraction of what it was lost. The least damaging, most responsible choice and the only choice that honors Malibbo's local coastal program is to restore the entire parcel. We are at a turning point. We can either treat this wetland as a scar on a map or we can embrace it and elevate it as the true sanctuary that it is. A nursery for birds, frogs, and fish. A buffer against storms. A bank of natural capital that increases Malibu's wealth while protecting its soul. A sage once said, "If you believe it is possible to destroy, then believe it is possible to repair." Tonight, I ask you to believe in repair, to choose restoration, not just of a wetland, but of our relationship to the land itself. Thank you.

Thank you, Jan. Followed by Jefferson. Good morning, mayor and members of the city council. Please require restoration of the 7 acre ESHA that has been discked over the years in which I am an eyewitness to. As members of the city council, you already know more than anyone else that Malibu is like no other place on earth. The air is fresh, the sunsets are world famous, and the people are a unique breed, and there's no dress code in Malibu. It is a precious resource and a gift from our creator that we are grateful for every day. We, the residents of Malibu, have a responsibility to treasure this place and to protect it. We are witnesses to this incredible beauty that permeates every inch of this particular 7 acres of ESHA designated wetland property in question. I know personally from over a decade now from witnessing, observing, and photographing the wetland's diverse ecosystem, from my condo's balcony, and by walking by it daily. This land is a marsh and full of wildlife. It is a sacred biome. This is why Malibu Bay Company did not elect to be included in the phase 1 sewage hookup. What we have seen on this land is priceless. As the sun rises from behind the hills, the grass sparkles with endless dew drops that birds and butterflies stop to lap up. In the yucka plants, we've seen brightly colored wild parrots, finches, hummingbirds, blue jays, sparrows, and the redtail hawks that nest in the palm trees of the wetland and feed their young from the fertile ground below and teach their young to take their first flight over the wetlands. We have seen with our own eyes the rare white snowy owl with giant eyes swoop from the wetland to our balcony to stare at us

inquisitively as they flutter their wings as to say hello when it rains as it did many times in the past. The entire 7 acre property floods and the endangered frogs begin a symphony that sounds like a bayou song on which we have affectionately termed lake Malibu. Mer ducks, white cranes, gracefully fish on the shores daily. Every day we can see brush rabbits, California ground squirrels, lizards, foxes, and even bobcats weaving in and out of the palms and shrubs. We witness with our eyes and ears the coyotes from the deep den deep hidden den in the wetland bushes prey and roam freely on the wetland. At night, mountain lions and coyotes prowl and howl at the moon while bats dark across the sky sty sky. All this and more will disappear. Any development near this wetlands will disrupt, destroy, dislodge and erase erase the entire ecosystem. Be it from excess light, sound, chemicals, pollution or the relentless digging of the land. This sacred wetland ecosystem will die. Since the seven acres are ESHA, the entire seven acres should be resto restored. For what we destroy, we silence forever.

Thank you. Thank you, Jefferson. Um, he had to leave. Oh, okay. Can Can I just He wanted to submit. I'm sorry. And he he can provide it to staff. Oh, okay. Okay. So, we'll go to our three speakers online. Tony Bombamp. Tony, are you there? Yes, I'm here. I I'm here to answer questions. I'm the I am the biologist who did the the delineation in 2018 19 and 23. And so I'm here to answer questions as uh

as part of the applicant team appellent team. Okay. Next speaker, Colin Drummond. call in. Are you available? Uh, I am. I have a video to play. Parker, do you have that ready? Yeah. So, it should play with sound and I'm going to speak over it when it comes up. Okay. I'll let you know when it starts. Go ahead.

I'm speaking as a um amateur bird photographer um here. Um, tucked off the Pacific Coast Highway, this land might look uh unassuming at first glance, but it's an alive, thriving coastal wetland pulsing with beauty. Coyotes, redwing, blackirds, egrets, um, that's a snowy egret. Um, insects, wild flowers, all sharing this rare parket of an ecosystem that still survives here in Malibu. Um, California has already lost 90% of its historic wetlands. Along the coast, more than 95% are gone. Wetlands are currently disappearing three times faster than forest. What's left is incredibly valuable, not just for wildlife, but for our shared future. This site supports life in every form, from native grasses and flowering plants to the insects that pollinate them. uh to the birds that migrate uh thousands of miles across u the Pacific flyway. Nearby Malibu Lagoon has recorded over 320 bird species, according to EIRD, a sign of how rich and active these ecosystems are. This site connects directly to that web of life. Wetlands clean our water. They store carbon. They absorb flooding. And they offer something we can't always measure. Quiet wonder, a place for stillness, uh, connection, and restoration. In the city's recent Malibu Lands engagement, residents uh, repeatedly identified open space as a top priority for how we steward land. It's only logical that the same value be extended here to Esha, even if it's privately owned today. This wetland is part of the Malibu Creek watershed, which according

to Huffman and Carpenters 2013 study supports more than 450 vertebrae species, including 12 federally listed as threatened or uh endangered. It's easy to overlook a patch of wildland until it's gone. But once it's paved, drained, and changed, there's no bringing it back. We have a chance right now to choose preservation over destruction. This isn't just empty space. It's full of species, stories, and meaning. It's the last living wetland in Malibu. Let's honor it. Let's keep it wild. Please restore this land as open space uh for the animals, for the water, uh for Malibu. Thank you very much.

Compliments to your photography. Um, do we have another speaker, Ryan?

Ryan, go ahead. Brian, I've uh I moved into the condominium project adjacent to this parcel in 1984. I have over 40 years of direct observation of this property and its history of performance u subsequent to the El Nino's including 1983 before I moved in and 1995 when the Malibu Lagoon Bridge of Pacific Coast Highway sank and had to be replaced. So, I've seen it and I wanted to call witness to the fact that this is a historic wetland and it it doesn't go by the last or the most cherrypicked wetland determination by like Tony the last guy from way far out of town. I don't know is he from San Bernardino? You need to ask him where his expertise really lies. But uh the history is that there are hydraulic storm water runoff plans recorded with the city of Malibu from approximately uh the year 2000 2001 to 2004 for existing drainage and modifications from the parcel at 2391 Civic Center Way. They were by hydraulic engineer Ron A. Marks. M A R KS I also want to say that the current owner and the buyer of this property had its own due diligence requirements and I don't buy it for a minute that these savvy attorneys don't realize that that there were newspaper articles written about this illegal destruction public information was readily available and I'm sure they can get all of their money back and more if there was a non-disclosure. So that's not a problem

here. Um the demands stated by the developer applicant are outrageous. The whole project here is an incremental destruction, changing of the goalpost, the chipping away and sighting of loopholes to try to create a buildable area on the northern portion of this parcel for which the prior owner tried to and obtained entitlements to join a sewer district. You don't need to pay all that money to get rid of sewage if you can't build anything on your property. And second, you can't say you need it to someday receive treated uh reclaimed water to irrigate your plants because they got plenty of water. They could store it on site and pump it back up. So, you got to understand this is for maximum development potential. And no, none of this be that as it may because history includes all this history going back a hundred years is an obvious wetland and significant area. and I ask that you restore it to the largest known delineation of record in the last 50 years. And that ought to be the starting point, if not the entire parcel.

Thank you, Ryan. Okay, that'll conclude our public speakers. Okay, so um rebuttals. Pat Oh, who's doing the rebuttal for Slow Coalition Mala Township Council? you or Joe? Can they split it? I'm good. Of course. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Um, do you want to reserve some time for Joe to do rebuttal also? Uh, well, we'll see where it goes. Okay,

no problem. Um this this property is designated ESHA and because it was illegally dised um

it's still ESHA and needs to be destroyed and restored rather rather than destroyed. um the Lucas delineation, even if you agree with it, what he what the city failed to do is put in the 3 to1 mitigation for this illegal discing and that has to be done. the fact that the um the applicant didn't do his due diligence and is an experienced uh real estate developer uh should be a warning sign that he he assumed the risk of this property and has to restore it. Now he's saying he doesn't want to restore it because um he'll withdraw his application. Well, if he wants to do that, that's fine. But be but before he develops anything, he has to restore this property um because it's his responsibility. Um so uh we're asking the council to uh require the 3 to one wetland mitigation for the ent on the ini for the entire disc site that was illegally discked. And we'd like the 150 buffer and um and that we'd like the council to um insist that staff block off the illegal drainage up from this parcel due to the enlarged storm drain and um acknowledge the full extent of the illegal disting and hold the applicant account accountable for its restoration. Thank you. Will Joe be using the remainder of the time? Pat,

sure I can. Okay, perfect. Joe, you have six minutes and 20 seconds. Okay. Yeah, I She can use the remainder of my time. Perfect. Thank you.

I I was just going to say that slow growth or MTC has never mentioned any development for the wetland parcel. We do know that the original owner had kept care of it and protected the entire lot as ESHA which has not occurred and at minimum for the past five years. The science actually shows that the wetland delineation is larger than what the applicant has that the applicant is threatening to withdraw the application to not take care of the code enforcement violation where they destroyed the entire parcel of ESHA. That actually is a heinous statement. The applicant states the predominance of wetland vegetation is required to determine wetland habitat. It is not required. It is it simply needs to be present. There is plenty of this in the disk and undisk portion. Requiring a wetland restoration plan based on the 3.4 4 acre SOS delineation as the baseline or in at the very least the wetland boundary determined by Edith Reed in 2008 should be completed and we should and require the LIP 3:1 wetland mitigation for the full area disturbed by illegal discing. This is required because as Pat stated, native root systems were ripped out of the entire parcel and needs years and much space to in ensure the restoration of the wetland or you can require the 150 foot buffer on the largestation ever. Please direct the staff to prevent the illegal drainage also from the enlarged wetland outlet to the to of for the storm drain and acknowledge the full extent of the illegal discing and hold the applicant accountable for restoration of the wetland and the 150 foot buffer. The Malibu Township Council and Malibu Coalition of Slow Growth asks the council to deny the property owner's appeal and uphold the appeal of our of us. The property owner is Civic Center Way LLP, an out of town corporation

owned by Global Asset Capital. They are not familiar with Malibu and its delicate resources. According to their website, Global Asset Capital is a global private equity investment firm with interest in real estate, structured finance, and venture capital. The applicant is the chief operating officer and chief financial officer of this firm. The owner is an experienced investor in real property and in this instance, it failed to perform its due diligence by not checking with the city to see if there were any violations or other claims against this ESHA designated property prior to purchasing it. Even though the violation was created by the previous owner's Third Point Land Company LLC, the violation runs with the land and is now the current owner's responsibility. While we commend the owner for engaging Glenn Lucas and associates to perform a delineation and restoration plan based on the city staff's recommendation to mitigate the illegal discing violation, it is not binding on the city council. It is not city council's job to uphold the city staff's recommendations or the applicant's recommendations, but rather to uphold the LIP provisions on protecting this wetland parcel, which was illegally discked by Third Point without a coastal development permit permit, resulting in the destruction of sensitive wetland plants and seeds. The owner's remedy is against Third Point, which is the owner pursued through a lawsuit and the parties we understand settled an agreement. Also, the the greenhouse was on the Bell property and the application for restoring was tolling um was to stop daily enforcement, code enforcement, daily fines. And in 1996 was a year of a million frogs climbing up the hill into condos. Many of them were um endangered. So I do believe if you do not restore this whole property, you have to do a squa EIR to study the the at risk species in there. And I

think the easiest thing is to just make them restore the entire thing and that's it. Thank you. Thank you. You still have two minutes. Do you want to use it? Two minutes. Um, you've your time's already been donated as public comment. All right. I'm just giving you an opportunity. You have two minutes left if you would like to use it. Um I I guess the only thing I can say is um that

the property is entire was entirely mapped ESHA and it cannot be changed. It it cannot change when there's a wetland on it. I mean there's there and there's plenty of animals. There's plenty of species. There is that report that I just sent you, I think last night, that shows all of the animals and wildlife and endangered species there that need to be protected and need to be studied if you are going to not not ask for the full restoration of the property. That's basically what we are saying. So, thank you.

Okay. May I ask Trevor a question real quick? Trevor, our party's not entitled to sir rebuttal if they just simply save their time. No, you you get one shot at rebuttal is our practice even though there's two appeals. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So, if we'll reset the clock, um the other appellent, they'll restore your amount of time. I think I was at 4:16, but uh so uh I think I I'll just clarify as as a threshold matter that we are not here requesting any sort of mercy. Uh there's a lot of questions being asked about, you know, whether we knew or didn't know and so forth. You know, we are doing exactly what staff asked us to do. We're doing exactly what the Coastal Commission asked us to do and we we we we didn't complain about the fact that the prior buyer, I'm sorry, the prior seller did not disclose this information to us. So, I just want to be clear about that. Um, I also want to address the the 3:1 ratio that the appellants continue to talk about. Um, that stems from section 4.8.2 of the LI. And, um, what they neglect to point out is the beginning part of 4.8.2, to which states that quote any new development that includes dyke or fill development in wetlands for a use permitted under the coastal act and the LCP shall include mitigation etc etc as follows. And then it talks about the 3:1 ratio that would apply if there was a situation where you were doing a dyke or fill development within a delineated wetland. We are talking about a direct impact within a wetland in connection with a specific project. This project that we are pursuing right now is simply a restoration plan. So you don't get punished for a restoration plan by being asked to do even more at a 3:1 ratio. That is not what this LIP

section refers to. So I want to be clear about that. Um, with respect to the um, position that somehow we are bribing the city council by stating that we're only going to do what is in our CDP application, I want to provide you a simple example. Let's say we were proposing a home that was a,000 square ft because the zoning allowed us to do a,000 square ft and we wanted to do a a craftsman style home. Okay. But the neighbor next door doesn't want us to do that 1,000 square foot home even though that's what we're allowed to do by the zoning. So they come forward with an incredible request that you know we that the only thing that we should do because we should be promoting really high density in Malibu and we should have a lot of people uh to meet the regional housing needs assessment allocation and so forth that we instead should do a a a 15story apartment building and it should be a uh a French chateau style building. Okay. We would obviously in that context refuse to do that 15tory French chateau. That is not what we applied for. And that's the same context here. We applied for a specific coastal development permit to do what we thought city staff and the coastal commission wanted us to do. than someone who doesn't want that to be done for whatever alternative mode it is because they're worried that somehow we're setting up some sort of precedent for a delineation for future development and there's some some sort of grand Mcavelian scheme here um is trying to stop that. So they come up with this other alternative that they know we would never agree to do. That's all that's going on here. It's not a bribe. If the city does not want us to do the project that we have proposed, which was consistent with the goalposts that were set up at the very beginning, we'll start all over and we'll try to figure it out. But that's not going to be good for the city because right now

you are getting a lot of restoration work. The wetland needs it now. We're being portrayed as a boogeyman that somehow doesn't. You know, we see those videos. We also love the wetland ourselves. We want to do the right thing. We want to restore the buffer area and we're asking for the opportunity to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that'll conclude public comment and appellent comment. Can I ask one question of the applicants council? Sure. Just before we close the public comment,

just another question for you is it is there currently um any lawsuit, threat of lawsuit, settlement or um forbearance agreement with the prior owner? There there was uh litigation that was filed previously uh and uh I was not the attorney at of uh at the time. So I was engaged for this particular project. What I do understand is that there was some sort of confidential settlement agreement that was reached through that litigation. So So your client has sued the seller of the property and reached some kind of a settlement the terms of which we are unaware of and aren't going to be permitted to learn. That is correct. Okay. Thank you.

Did I get that right? I may have It's not really confidential. Oh, okay. The terms are not confidential. Okay. You're going to be asked to disclose them now. Can you can you then can you then tell us what the terms are? Sure. Please come to the mic and please state your name and relationship to the

Sure. Uh Julian Stone Croberg. I helped uh acquire this property. Um we were seeking recision for our purchase because we were fraudulently induced to pie it as they breached their reps and warranties. It was determined that the seller had inadequate financial means to grant us recision. So as a settlement, we decided to um just wash our hands of other things, take over the property and com and you know settle both counter claims and claims against and our claims against them. Sorry, I you need you need to be a little more specific than that. What I mean if you were did you just abandon your claims or did you get something in return?

Uh what we got in return was that they dropped their claims against us and that we put the matter to bed. What were they on? What were their claims against you for breach of uh breach of contract and joint venture agreement? It wasn't just a simple sale. It was also a joint venture where they were going to be acting as the development partner. So, it was a more complicated case. Okay. So, so let me understand. You purchased the property with an agreement that you would share in some future benefits from the property and then you settled for them giving up those future benefits. So, in essence, you paid less as a result of the settlement.

Uh yeah, I'm sorry. like rec and and that's why I I said at the very beginning of this when I came back for my rebuttal that we are not here asking for mercy. We are simply trying to apply the LIP and are trying and are trying to comply with what was asked for us asked to us by the city and the coastal commission and uh we've responded right so so if if we were asking for some sort of special dispensation where we were saying oh don't make us comply with the LI because of all this history all of this would be relevant but I don't see how it's relevant right now

I see I don't see how it's relevant that you weren't the owner at the time but it's in the report and it's in your papers and it's in your letters So, since you've introduced it, I'm trying to understand I'm trying to understand what other facts might bear on that. And it sounds to me from what I'm hearing that um you've been compensated in in some manner by the seller for the fact that the property is impaired and um you're now asking us to further alleviate the um the damage. Well, no. I think that they're I'm sorry if I may speak. So, what my understanding is that there's a code violation against this property

and in order to rectify that and close the code enforcement case, there has to be a restoration of the ESHA is the city's position and that's what be before us is their application in order to close that code violation. Okay. Didn't say anything that was contrary to that. My other question, you can answer this or Mr. Boamp can answer it. Is who who hired him? Who who hired who? Mr. Boamp. Uh, we we we hired him for this matter to do the new delineation. He's your client. You're his client. Correct. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I I can only speak to the fact that Look, I think it's it's

that's all I wanted to know factually. Whose client is he? Who's his client? Per city per city requirements, right? If we were asked to apply for a CDP, the only way we could apply for a CDP is by hiring the consultant. Not not suggesting you did anything improper. I'm just asking a question of fact. If I could have rescended this property to the priority, believe me, we understand you're property owner. You hired somebody to be your representative. That's fine. Who would like to start us off?

I'll do a couple quick ones, but I got there's going to be more coming down the line. Uh, I disagree with the applicant in terms of you're not threat you're not you're not trying to bribe us, you're threatening us. And and that to me is a nasty thing to do and it doesn't give me much confidence that we should trust you guys any further than we can throw you. So just whatever that's worth. U I I am concerned with this. I agree with the speakers who have talked about the value of this wetlands. I mean, I've lived above it for 30 plus years now and it is it's on the Pacific flyway and it provides a a space for these animals that are coming down the the coast to stop for a while, get some rest and get a good meal. And I think that's the appropriate thing for us to be contributing to. And and it's consistent with our our general plan and the things we're supposed to be doing as a city. We are supposed to be protecting the environment, supposed to be protecting our natural the the neighbors out there. So, I think we really have to make sure we focused on that as we go through this decision-m process. Tyler, this I guess the question is is this has this property the entire piece of property been delineate or been classified as ESHA?

Um, we have our biologist also and feel free to weigh in Courtney. Um to my understanding the the site is mapa. That is correct. The entire site is mapped asa. Um I can't recall if we did a full bio assessment for the whole site but the wetland delineation was the bio the bio document that was done for the site which determined the bounds of the wetland. My my question is this. If it's mapped esha and they destroy the part of the esha that's above the wetland, why isn't that included somewhere in this restoration process we're talking about? Um, shouldn't it be? I mean, somebody's going to have to fix that, right?

I can look up and see if we have a bio assessment on file to for the rest of the site, but um the the determination uh at the time that this application came in from uh the you know, as the applicant mentioned, there was a code enforcement site visit with a city biologist at the time where they determined the meets and bounds of the wetland. determined that the area that was impacted by the discing was actually the buffer of the wetland and the agreement was to restore that wetland buffer.

I understand that. But but I mean the evidence that we've seen in front of us with the videos of the discing and the and the extent of that discing certainly seemed to indicate that the esha that was above that which is you know defined as an esha right was destroyed and and I don't think we're allowed to do that. I'm gonna ask the biologist real quick. Courtney, do you uh do you recall in reading the biological materials if any of the rest of the site was designated as ESHA in the materials? Um, no. I do not recall if any of it was defined as in the materials. I do not believe that we required a biological assessment.

Why do I Oh, sorry. No, go ahead. Please finish. Oh, no. I was just trying to remember what the date of that site visit was um for the record, but I'm having a hard time remembering. Did you come out and visit the site?

I did, but again, I'm I'm having a difficult time remembering when it was. I know it was when Doug worked was the code enforcement officer. So, I'm I'm entirely not sure. I'm I'm you know and you got to explain to me why if if the esha the rest of the property defined as was not included in the biological study that you're you're referring to what the health difference does it make it was previously defined as doesn't that have some basis for us in terms of what decisions we make yeah let me uh take a second to see what has been submitted by the team I mean technic usually too in their wetland delineations they will provide additional information for the surrounding habitats And perhaps there's some whether they did or they didn't what difference does it make the question is

well that's what the so the code requires okay just because something is mapped ESHA does not mean it is ESHA right the code actually specifically says that the applicant's sight specific biological studies will determine the limits of ESHA and that's what we have to rely on for for this project so we're saying in no time during the history of this city has somebody come up with a biological assessment that that's all no I'm not saying that what I'm saying is that's what the LCP requires like we get one of those at some point in time. I look I just it it's it's been brought up I don't know how many times in today's presentation and I'm just trying to understand at least my understanding is okay and I could be wrong is that if you destroy ESHA you're required to fix it. So

and and I don't see that listed any place or anybody even discussing that in terms of the staff report and if we're doing a restoration seems to me that should be included in there someplace. We'll see what you can find out and get back to us on that one. Well, before I So, you know, going back through the report, historically, the upper portion of the property was used as a nursery up until it looks like around 2007. And I'm going to guess that the Canyon Fire in 2007 ceased that. That's when um the nursery operations ceased on the adjacent property to the east. I thought the property was in the Bell property, not this property. Now, you can see from these photos, um I'm on I don't know what page I am in the staff report. It's going back.

Tyler, you got to figure that. Let me know. Tyler,

may I just um Tyler, you and I have a lot of have had a lot of discussions about different provisions of the municipal code and the LIP and I've learned some things from you and I think you've learned some things from me. I just want to say I I think your statement is incorrect that the determination of whether maps is in fact or is not ESHA is based on the applicant's study. Um that's one factor in the code and in fact the city council has to decide that it's not ESHA before it becomes not ESHA. I'm going to go over the code later, but I I I think you you gave them a little too much credit in that statement. Well, it specifically does say that, but I think you're referring to that it says the other caveat is it's the applicant sight specific biological study plus available evidence, right? What you're referred but what I said was not incorrect. What I said was part of the equation to determine.

Fair enough. Let's find out. Okay. I a couple just you know another two comments on the presentation we got from the lawyer is one I I didn't think much of your examples of the 15 15story apartment building and the second thing when you did your opening presentation you talked about people were were concerned that this was going to be a shopping center and you didn't know where that came from. So if you'd like to come up here's an example of the document your client put together defining what they wanted to build on that property. 50,000 square feet of commercial development. Looks like a shopping center to me. So, just I'm just saying if we're going to be, you know, honest about everything, we got to make sure we're doing that correctly to everybody. And you guys want to take if you want this, I got one here for you. I'll give you to you later.

What is So, where did this come from, please? I got came on I picked it up this morning. I thought that was third point. Is that the current owner or the prior owner? Was this correspondence submitted? No, this was correspondence I got this this morning. I picked it up this morning. I discovered it this morning. Christina, was this distributed to the council? No, I didn't get a I need a moment to check. Where did it come from? I printed it out this morning when I I found the document that talked about that. Okay. This was in your Yeah. Okay. This we should have disclosed this before. So, I would suggest that we give the applicant a chance to look at this.

I offer a copy brief opportunity to respond. If you want a copy, come on up and get you one. Or Tyler's got one over there if you want to get one from him. Uh, okay. Well, hold on. So, wait. We did. We haven't given the applicant a chance to look at it. He didn't got to go get a copy of it. Can someone give a a copy of the If you want to come up to the city clerk's Hey guys, you can see it. And then we'll give him an opportunity to I got other stuff. you can look take a look at and come back at the end. It's my presentation, Mary. I mean, I could I could provide I just want to be clear how many how many other documents we've got coming.

Okay. There was a requirement Tyler you or somebody mentioned a requirement that says the city requires a wetlands delineation every two years. Is that correct? Yeah. It's not codified, but it is our policy because environmental conditions can change. What What changes? What what what require what requires you to make that policy? Courtney, do you want to weigh in on why it's important that we have updated uh what the city policy? What's the city's position? I I I'll talk to

Yeah, that is the city's position because again um environmental conditions can change as we just looked in these different various reports of the wetland delineations from 1998 to 2018. There was definitely they're agreeing to some type of shift in the wetland bound. So environmental conditions do change and we require, you know, we don't rely on a wetland determination that was done 30 years ago for a project that's coming in today. You rely on the conditions that are

boundaries changed. I think they they said we had previous boundaries that were not we're not adhering to. And as a matter of fact, I got a document this morning that I think came from the applicant's lawyer that states back talks about the delineation backtoback years since rainfall record has been maintained. This shows that wet line boundaries shift very little. That's from that's from their side. Sure. I again was this was this document part of the correspondence just something I got to me. I just want to remind the council real I just want to make sure that everything is in the plan.

It's a letter from from the applicants council. I I just And if I could real quick, council member, I appreciate it. I just want to remind the council the staff does not have any um any uh recommendation on this project. We presented both facts and if you want to accept a larger wetland, that's totally within the I'm not I I don't dis dismiss the effort you guys have put in and the work you've done. So, I'm not trying to do that. What I'm trying to do is is get some to identify some of the discrepancies that I'm dealing with. I mean, you know, I and when I remember the planning commission meeting, there was a whole bunch of discussion about the wetland being a living body and it moved all over the place. I've been living up on the hill for 30 years. That wetland's been there for 30 years. I don't see it moving. And when you look at those pictures of the with the rain in there, and that's what I remember. Every time there's been a rain, that's what happens to that wetlands. Uh, so that you know, I'm just again trying to get the facts down so I know what the heck I'm voting for is important for me. So I'm just and I apologize for dragging that out. Uh, I do have a you know the the drainage for the with the sewer the drain we have on the chili cooker on the on the property there. Does that where is Tony Boamp around? You on Tony?

Ask a question. Huh? Okay. That's reopening the public hearing. Okay. Uh well, let me let me stop there. I'll come back. I got more stuff. But at least that was my first questions that I I tried to get answered and some I did, some I didn't. Okay. Madam, if you if you want to offer the applicant the chance to address this, you want to address that. This was printed off of where did it come off of on the internet? The internet? I did I did a search this morning, found it. So if you look at the uh the bottom of the document, it says calaman company.com.

That is not us. The date is July 21st, 2020. It is a document that was used to market the property. It is in no way represents anything that might I apologize for accusing you of doing that, but the question of where do people get concerned about a shopping center coming from? This isn't helping you at all. That that was the third point. um proposal which when they settled the lawsuit over the um sewer, they had a plan for the property. Okay, cool. Marian, let somebody else go. Okay, who would like to go next?

Um I'd like to take a stab at a couple things. I'm trying to find who's right or where the gray area is between what the appellants have said and what the applicant has said about the basis for some of the decisions or uh their statements. And let me kind of take it through one by one. And Tyler, um, this may be we're not opening public comments, so we're looking I'm looking for staff's comments on this 3:1 ratio. Um, I believe, uh, the applicant, let's call it the applicant as opposed to the appellant, um, stated this did not apply. And I noticed that it was never mentioned in the, uh, letters from Doug Clevener and the Coastal Commission. Is the applicant correct or we're

I think I don't think the applicant was perfectly correct because I would disagree that um the way it's written is not just related to dikes. There is that section about dikes that he read. However, uh the application before the council is to restore the wetland buffer and that's the difference here. The if if we make a determination if there was enough evidence to determine that the actual wetland was impacted and needed to be restored then yes. uh the 3 to1 ratio. There's some stuff in there about uh performance bond. There's some stuff in there about um uh open space deed restriction that would I would recommend if we're going to determine that the wetland was in fact impacted and the wetland uh needs to be restored that we add those conditions so that we demonstrate compliance with the LCP.

Okay. Do we have the comment was made that the disc was only done in the buffer zone. Correct. Do we have validation for that? That's what I believe was validated by the code enforcement manager at the time and the biologist during the site visit that was confirmed. Was Courtney the biologist? I believe so. Courtney, were you do does do you remember um I believe this is when I just took it over from Dave Crawford. Um I believe apologies I'm in the field today so I'm trying to frantically pull some things up. I was not anticipating being online. Apologies.

Um, I'll have to look that date up and see if it was me. I believe it was. Okay. Can we circle back to that while she's checking on it? Um, so the question would only apply to the 3 to one if we thought there was damage to the uh wetlands itself. Correct. Um and it's I guess the question is what defines whose definition of where the wetlands is. If we say it's bigger than what we were saying on the map that you have up there now, then we might have impact on the wetland area.

Correct. And if I I would say that if if a one of the Edith Reed uh wetland delineations are chosen as the bounds of the wetland, then their proposal would actually encroach into the actual wetland now. and and then we I would recommend adding those conditions so that they demonstrate compliance with the LCP.

Okay. Um let me ask another question. I didn't realize that there was this drainage system for wetlands. I didn't realize we drained wetlands. That seems like it's counterintuitive to everything that we do. There's two big drain uh pipes there and actually the water is flowing out of them. Is is that something that is counter to the wetland definition or is that uh supported by the wetland definition.

Yeah, I we'll have to look up the wetland definition definition, but I don't even recall the drainage. I think it's a a newer phenomena that I've been uh you know in the the newer correspondence. I don't remember the drainage being in the initial appeal. So, I kind of would have to do some more research to see what what is actually the impact from this uh alleged drainage. I didn't see anything about the drains in there. It's it's more of a question of mine is why would we be draining a wetland? Uh, it seems counterintuitive. I agree. I agree. We I don't think we would. So, uh, if there was some type of drainage permit for some type of development, that's different. But again, I'd have to do all that research. We don't know. I don't know offhand. I've just heard hearay at this point. Can I shed some light on?

Um, well, I was going to ask, is there somebody from the public works department that could talk to us about the Civic Center storm water drains? Sure. It's uh working hours, so maybe we can pull someone. Okay. I think that would be helpful because I think part of creation of Legacy Park. Um Sure. If that's a if that's a a permanent issue then um our community development development director recommends a break so we can kind of pull together the staff. Okay. I think that's a

if I recall in the planning commission meeting they asked Tony about bo camp about that issue and and I believe his response was something about what happens is when the water reaches a certain level it drains. I mean it and it uh it's reducing the water left in the wetland. So that it's currently taking place out there. Yeah, I don't disagree. I I would highly recommend too also just I know that um I appreciate you know um this is very biologically heavy and so I would recommend that we rely on the biological professionals to answer these questions about you know whether the drainage influences the wetland and how it influences the wetland. It's it's scientific and it's it's it's not exactly um it's it's better left to the professionals to address those comments.

We don't have anything in the record about how the drainage does or does not impact the wetland other than the argument from the applicant. Correct. Correct. I haven't done enough research to determine how how this drainage impacts the wetland if it if it if it does. Okay. I'm going to recommend that we take a break. It's 12:30. It's a good time for a restroom in a stretch. Um, so we're going to take a 10-minute break. Um, please do not interact with the council members. Um, all communication um should Yes, the the the public hearing has been closed. All the evidence has been received. So, please do not discuss um having contact with the council members about the project during the break.

Before we break, I just have a question. Could somebody reach out to public works during the break and and ask them if the drain was part of the um civic center project that occurred following the Woolsey fire? The the project that involved the um fence and some minor um grading and and other work along Civic Center Way. I think that the drain might have been part of that, but I could be wrong. I think it predated that, but we'll get confirmation from public works on that. So, we're back at 12:40. Let's go 12:45 just to allow public works a little bit more time. So, okay. Thanks.

But in something Yeah. If it's if it's that big an emergency, I do not wish to be resuscitated. No, but don't forget there's no payones anymore. I've heard that. I've actually seen a couple in weird spots.

I tell Not the same as he says. Okay, we're back.

So, prior to the break, we had asked if uh the possibility of public works staff was available to join us. Uh city manager Bond or community development director. Do we have any? Yeah, sure. Um yes, so uh Travis will be joining us shortly. Uh he's on his way. What we do know, we're trying to figure out exactly what drainage system that they uh the applicants or the appellants are referring to. Um the only one that came to mind in Travis's mind as we were just kind of doing a recollection was the one on the corner of Steuart Ranch Road and Civic Center Way. So, he has to kind of come in and dig a little deeper to see if there is a drainage uh issue with this exact site. There wasn't one to his knowledge, but he will he will be here shortly. Um Okay.

And I just can I explain one more thing? Council member Yearing had an question about the um whether the rest of the site was ESHA. We did find in their biological studies submitted for the site that there was evidence provided that there uh the rest of the site did not support uh the habitat. Um so that was reviewed by the biological team and the applicant team. That report come from? It's in our files for um the the uh the biological studies that were applied for the project for for this project. this. Yes. So, it was done by the same biologist that did the study for the wetlands.

Typically, it is done by the biologist and I believe it was here. I just received snapshots of it, but it is uh supplied by the applicants biologist and reviewed by our biologists. I I first of all, I would like to see whatever it is we're being told so that I can read it for myself. the others. It when you say it was determined not to be Esha, are Esha generally Esha or wetland which is because there's been a a a conflation of the two a lot in

definitely not wetland right that that for sure because that the wetland delineation went into very much detail um um what I was sent is just snippets of uh determinations that no other a stream coastal shade scrub etc were present on the rest of the site. So, so the the definition I'm gonna I'm gonna be getting into this with my comments, but the definition of ESHA in our code includes among other things um wild types of wildlife that are there located there. Is that part of the analysis that was done? Um that not not exactly what I saw, but it was more related to the vegetation.

Right. And I've seen this a lot in in these discussions as we focus on one aspect of a definition and ignore other aspects of definitions, which doesn't get us very far as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I I'm going to get into the the statute itself, but the statute specifically refers to um wildlife on what I talked about before is the special species list of California, which there is wildlife that I've witnessed on that property. So absent a biological study that's not just the um plants but also the the animals. I don't see how you can come to those conclusions. Not you Tyler but I don't see how that those conclusions could be reached one way or the other. Madame Mayor, can I continue on? I had a few more questions.

Yes, please. Um Tyler, I hate to make this sound like 60 questions or 100 questions, but um in reading through the volumes we've got back here, one of the things that came up that I noticed about the the the dates of the reports is that the uh core of engineers and coastal has sort of changed the rules for what constitutes wetlands. It seemed like there was different the definitions had evolved over time. Is that is that true? And um uh um yeah, that's a good question. I don't have that information uh at this moment if how how or when it's evolved over time.

Uh let me see if I can find Let's see. I got so many things tabbed here. I hadn't I hadn't really been ready to uh ask that question. Um

I think that was the uh we we also the city what um just to yeah just to kind of give some more context usually the city uh reviews everything within the LCP's uh frame and the LCP does have a definition of wetland and just like we do with ESHA the coastal commission may be modified their interpretations their uh over time but we stick to our Malibu LCP which is what we did for this project. So just for context,

yeah, what I was looking what I was looking at was in the Lucas report, I think is one of the places I saw it. Um the core of engineers had changed the requirements uh for wetlands definition and maybe Courtney can answer this as well. Um and there was also coastal had changed their requirements or or this uh not necessarily requirements but what constituted wetlands and that's one of the reasons why the area had shrunk from the 202 uh reports down to what we were seeing now in the 24 reports which also comes back to perhaps your requirement for the two-year uh review. Not trying to feed you the answer, but is this

No, let's uh I think we should ask Courtney and she would know better than I. Courtney, do you have a comment on that? So, I would definitely defer to Tony for the words that were in his jurisdictional delination, but certainly they changed with different administrations um especially as of late.

Okay. So, what does that what does that do? Because what I'm looking for is to find the basis for trying to draw the lines here. Uh I I'm not happy about trying to do a subjective, oh this is what was done in 2002 or this is what it looked like out of the window. I'm trying to find a factual foundation to call what is the the border of the wetlands. And and that's why I mentioned, you know, with all of this stuff, with all the different changing interpretations from the Coastal Commission, it's good to lean on that stuff for guidance, but we still have to rely on our Malibu LCP. Uh, at the end of the day, for example, um, I believe the Coastal Commission's uh, stream definition is much more defined and the criteria to determine a stream is much more defined than ours is. Ours is pretty general. And so, at the end of the day, we can't use coastal commissions. maybe and we can use that as guidance perhaps, but at the end of the day, we have to make sure it complies with our LCP. And so, what I would recommend is just relying on the wetland definition that is in our LCP. And I can pull it up if you would like.

Let's bring that up again. And uh I'm looking at I guess the uh applicants environmental report, wetlands report, the Lucas report I believe it is from 23 updated in 24. Does Courtney concur that that meets the LCP requirement or not? I did concur. Yeah, I I'm I can pull up the biological review, but I believe that I did concur with the jurisdictional delineation. Okay. And the restoration of the wetland buffer

because that came up to on page 608 of our package. Um, and I'll try and read it here. It's uh in the discussion based on the predominance of vegetation with an indicator status of FAC or wetter. The site currently contains approximately 1.84 acres of potential wetlands in accordance with the current interpretations of the coastal staff and the coastlac wetlands definitions. Uh that's just the first part of the uh discussion there. So it's 1.84 acres. Um, how does how does this match in Lucas with what ours requirement is?

Can you repeat? So, are you asking how many acres the wetland is? Can you repeat the question?

I'm Well, I'm trying to match. As I said earlier, I'm We've got competing um interpretations or statements. We've got the appellants uh interpretation. We have uh what the applicant's interpretation is. Now I'm trying to find out what the staff's interpretation is and you know a basis for determining what the borderline is going to be for the wetlands. And I'm looking at um Luc Lucos's um uh memorandum is page 609, pardon me, 609 in the uh package we have in front of us. And it just says it comes up to 1.84 acres of potential wetlands area. And I'm just trying to see how that matches with uh what the now I now I see the LCP is our guideline what our guideline is. And it it references in his statement the uh interpretations by coastal staff and the coastal act wetlands definitions which in quick reading of ours seems to be similar. Yeah, I I mean I I I'm sorry, I'm trying to pull up page 609 um of the staff report. I just have all of his reports up, so I don't have the staff report up, but I I will pull that up. Um and I agreed with Glenn Lucos's um wetland delineation. Um I felt that at the time he took into account the prior wetland delineations while also presenting um a number of data points um that were very recent and um gave evidence of wetland or non-wetland features and I felt that it um you know he followed the definition of a wetland per the LIP and

I also felt that he followed the Army Corps of Engineers um wetland delineation guidelines um that you have to follow when you when you conduct a jurisdictional delineation. Okay. So the I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but it sounds like the 1.84 acres is the city's opinion of what the wetlands is. Yes, we concurred uh the staff concurred with the um the GLA uh assessment. Okay. And that's on the map that we have seen earlier. That's the solid hash area on the map. Um the blue the blue outlined area. Yes.

I'm not going to ask you to bring it back up because I can bring it back up. But yeah, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. It's uh so we're talking about the wetland and the wetland buffer. So remember those are two separate things that we're discussing here today. The wetland is the area in blue uh the outline in blue and that's the one point just to clarify for the record that's the 1.84 acres that um we can the city staff concurs is the wetlands area. Uh yes.

Okay. All right. Um, and then the other question I have is, uh, the 100 versus the 150 buffer. Um, once again, the applicant made the comment that you can go to higher than 100 ft if we're doing development, but we're only are we is it the staff's opinion that we're restricted to the 100 ft because there's no development? I I think the planning commission and the city council has uh jurisdiction to to require more than what the LIP requires.

So it is within our authority to be able to do that. I would say so unless Trevor city attorney wants to add if if it's needed to make the requirements to in the CDP and it's and it's rational and proportional to the uh impact then yeah you could okay but um the fact that the applicant had the comment that it was only it was only applicable to make it larger than 100 ft if there was development. We're not we're not constrained by that. Not sure exactly which which reference. I think it was in his presentation. He had a a statement. Uh I didn't copy it down.

I think the reference that the applicant team was making was that uh there is no new development and therefore there's no they wouldn't meet that definition. I think that's arguable. I think even vegetation removal can fall under the definition of new development. So I'd be careful with I don't necessarily would say that what constituted the code enforcement was not necessarily new development. New development has a wide ranging things. It does doesn't just mean structural development. I'm just trying to make sure we have a foundation if we want to make decisions. Okay. That's all I have right now, Madam Mayor. If somebody else wants to take it.

Let me have one quick comment to Doug. In my at least my understanding when we heard about the the change from what the earlier delineations were to this one is when the first delineation was done there was a set of rules from the army corps of engineers those rules changed so that so that the new delineation meets those new rules but it doesn't say that the original delineation didn't identify a wetlands and I just there was a at least in my mind there's a difference between what it said and what a conclusion was it could have Edith Edith could have been correct identifying that wetland it where it was. It's just that in the current set of rules there's a different way they got to do more what the hell they got to do to determine it. So okay

I'm just trying to see where the foundation Mike I'm just trying to see where the foundation is. Gotcha. Yeah, Bruce. All right. Sure.

First of all, um I want to compliment everyone that spoke. I mean, I I think that uh Mr. um sorry, I forget your name. The lawyer for the um applicant, very good legal argument, very eloquent. I I appreciate everything you said. I as a lawyer, I I I understand the arguments you're making. Um of course, we haven't heard an argument from a lawyer representing the other side. So, it's always easy to make the best argument when you're the only lawyer speaking. um the residents who spoke and the other appellant u very eloquent um very um environmentally sensitive and um we need to consider both of those things obviously um I'm going to start off with where I'm going to where I come out at least as of now still haven't heard the rest of the comments and the deliberation but I believe that the appeal of the Malibu Township Council and the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth is spot on in almost every respect respect and I I don't mean to say everything they say absolutely everything they say is right but I think that what they're seeking is right and we had a a resident um who was it um Victoria Hand who wrote in and I think summarized it very well that what should be required is a wetland restoration oh actually yeah based on the 3.4 24 acre delineation as the baseline. I've been convinced that the 3:1 wetland mitigation is not appropriate. I'll talk about that. I think I the lawyer actually convinced me that um that that's that doesn't apply here. I I thought it did, but I I now understand it doesn't. Um I'm not sure about the 150 foot buffer actually, and I think that the drainage absolutely needs to be investigated and determined whether it's having any impact. Um, as I said earlier, the the discing began almost immediately after the city granted sewer rights to this property,

which I I I can't disregard that. I don't I don't believe in coincidences. I can't disregard that. And also, we've heard testimony, I don't know this firsthand, but we've heard testimony that the type of um discing that occurred here was a normal. I mean, I remember the argument being made back then, well, we disc it every year and and um Steve noted that he's seen it repeatedly over the years. I think other residents have said they've seen it over the years, but not with bulldozers. Um this was this was an extraordinary version. And basically, it um wiped out the upper portion of the property which was mapped. Whether it is or is not ESHA is a determination to be made but unless and until it's made otherwise the property is ESHA. Um the conditions for which the subsequent delineations were made in 2023 24 were following the disking not in advance of the disking. We're following the um the the concurrent almost destruction of the Bell property and we're also following the storm drains being put into operation and I don't know whether they were put in operation back with the legacy park project or whether that was part of the civic center improvement project that occurred more far more recently but before this delineation occurred. So there are a confluence of factors that went into altering the topography and the ecology of the property that make it impossible to know what the results of a delineation would be had those things not occurred. And I'm going to get into this later, but our code tells us that when there has been destruction of ESHA, you can't take into account the now destroyed condition

in determining whether there is or is not ESHA. And that makes perfect sense. You can't destroy it and then say, well, it's not there, so ha, I get to move forward now. Um, and again, this entire property is mapped. Um the 3:1 issue I I Mr. Dea Cruz, right? Is that last name? Mr. Dea Cruz pointed out that that code provision only applies where there's um a dam dyke or um fill to the wetland area. And having read the code after he said that up here, I I agree that that's what it says. And there are the next provision, the one that's at issue here, just says the CDP. doesn't say the CDP associated with the phil or the dyke, but I think that's the natural way to read the language. Section 4, what is it? Sorry. Whatever that section is, it it's got four separate provisions. I think they all deal with only when you're doing development that includes fill or dyke in wetland. This didn't do that. So, the 3:1 to my mind doesn't apply. Now, I heard Tyler say the city historically though or does consider it to apply.

Let me let me just explain how and I come I I understand what you're saying. If I could um just the way that the code is kind of formatted and the way that is applied based on the formatting. So, usually if something is to subsequently follow that, it would be listed as a sub point to that main point. This was a separate main point and so typically you have to meet all the criteria in the main point if that makes sense. Well, I it makes perfect sense. I'm well aware of that. I applied all kinds of rules of statuto construction as I was looking at the code to try to figure out which way which way I come out. Um, had it said ACDP cannot be issued in the subsequent provisions, not the CDP, then I would have agreed with Tyler of what you're saying, but since it says the CDP, I think it's a reference to the CDP that's being discussed in the first section. So, I think all of those sections deal with the Phil or the dyke. Um, and if that's the way to read the statute, the 3 to1 would not come into play. Um, there's another provision in there though I do want to talk about. But, but any event, I I understand the city saying that if if if the um wetland itself was impaired by work, not simply the buffer, then the 3:1 would apply. As much as I think that would be a great way to to apply the law, I don't think that's the way our code works, unfortunately. I I think that um even if you destroy wetland, not through a fill or dyke, that provision doesn't apply. Unfortunately, that you know, and I believe in applying the law the way the law is written. Um there's another provision in there, though, when you get down to E, I think it is, that says that property that's been restored by 3:1 previously has to never be um impaired again. And I had thought, it's not in our record here, so I'm asking for this. I thought that this wetland actually was the result of a restoration of 3 to one from a prior destruction that occurred by the bay company. So now we're going back three or four owners. I thought

that there was work done that had resulted in the impairment of the wetland that had been delineated originally and as a result of that the coastal commission required a 3:1 uh reparation that resulted in the wetland that's there today. Am I am I mistaken in that recollection? Uh so that would be something that happened in the 1990s, I'm assuming, right? Um I don't have that information in front of me, so I have to dig it up. It's on page 268 of our report of the uh Oh, so it's in the it's in the applicant's study is what I'm hearing. So this this was a this is already a restored wetland that was restored three

exactly what the summary says from the I believe it's a SU study. So, so that would

page 26 2 Yeah, 268 summary 1A created freshwater march that okay start one the south part of the property contains 3.4 4 acres of corpse jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the US which is of two types. A created freshwater march that is an artif art artifact of impaired drainage under the adjacent road civic center way and plantings that were established by Maloo Bay Company as mitigation for other projects. B. a seasonal salt grass wetland located between the marsh and the upland zone and extending around two willow clumps on the west side of the property. Portions of the seasonal wetland are dry in summer and disturbed from discing, but salt grass persists as the dominant plant species.

Okay. My my question is whether this was previously restored 3 to one as per per the statute. That doesn't say, right? doesn't it does that's why it would have been before LCP anyway so I don't know the history of that and it just says mitigation so I'm not sure if it was mitigation for something done on site or from a different site

well it's important to understand that to me because the because 4.8.2e states that an area of wetland that has been restored 3 to one historically can't ever be impaired full stop again. And what that means to me is that whatever delineation would have occurred as a result of the restoration project if it was a 3:1 project has to be the delineation you live with forever thereafter notwithstanding the general rule that the delineation can shrink or grow afterwards. Actually I think it could grow but I don't think it can ever shrink as a matter of statute. So it's important to understand how this wetland was created in the first place. I and we don't have a record one way or the other. We don't have a record of when the um drains came into play and how if at all they impact the um size of the wetland.

Although Travis is here I he may be able to talk about that. Okay. Well, I I we hear that is do you want to skip to that responding to those questions or do you want to I'm I'm fine to hear the answer to that since he's here because he doesn't have to stay here unnecessarily. Can you repeat the question though real quick? There's been discussion of drains that um at the corner I think it's the corner of web and civic center that take water from this area that's claimed to be a wetland or parted part of some of which are some of which is a wetland. Um when did they come into operation?

So there is there's an inlet. It's a dual inlet at the corner of Stewart Ranch and Civic Center. Um, I'd have to double check, but I believe there was an existing one before we did Legacy Park. But, um, at Legacy Park, so basically the dual inlet is if that whole entire area exceeded the surface flow, it would go into the first inlet, which then directs it to Legacy Park where it gets recycled and treated and used for irrigation, what not. If it exceeded that, it goes into an existing box coververt that's owned by the county that's in the corn in the same area. But that we're talking that entire area would have to get to a certain level to even get to that. It doesn't drain just any R, you know, random rain event. It doesn't go in there.

There there was a civic center improvement project more recently. Did that involve anything to do with that drain? Did was the drain system improved or increased or anything like that? No, no, no. We the there were drains and stuff added along Civic Center Way, but they're not on that side. So there there there are a couple catch basins on that side, but they go to the opposite side. And then there's one at the um it'd be the same corner, but it ties directly into that inlet. But nothing that has anything to do with this parcel. What do you mean by they go to the opposite side?

So there's an inlet on say the north side captures the water. it under the street. It connects to the south side and then it continues down towards Legacy Park. So, does it divert the water from the area that is a wetland? It's picking up surface flow on the street just like it did before originally. It's nothing that's changed. So, you're saying that the improvement was done to upgrade the facility but not increase its capability? It was done along the street to capture the normal flow that was always flowing all the way down the street. Now we nothing got diverted from going down that way.

Well, if it wasn't being captured and it needed to be captured through the improvement, where was it going? It was flowing down to what way? Down to the inlet that was already down there. So, so, so in other words, the the water is coming from the Civic Center plant and down down the street Stewart Ranch Road into I'm sorry, Civic Center Way into this inlet and has nothing or sounds like it doesn't have any impact on the wetland as it sits on that on the primary property. Okay. Anybody else have questions?

Just clarifying, it sounds like it's more for flood control. If you're talking about well if the water gets high in the wetlands area you're not taking the water off that is what you're saying or are if it ex if the water were to exceed a certain amount in that area it would um sheet flow towards that inlet. Yes. Similar to what it would would have done originally where it would flood the intersection. Okay. But we're not draining the you're saying we're not draining the wetlands. It's just the overflow and once the overflow is stopped, the water remains there. Correct. Okay.

Okay. But and and just to be clear, and we're not in any way depriving any water from reaching the wet land. Not not in any way, shape, or form. No water that used to reach the wetland would cease reaching it as a result of the work that was done. Okay. Anybody else have questions before we or Yeah. Will any future questions or can we let Travis return to his other duties? Everybody happy. Thank you very much, Travis. We appreciate you coming in from the field. No.

Okay. So, um I'm not sure where I left off before, but so the entire property is mapped as ESHA. We we can make a decision that it's not, but as of right now, it is. Um, can you pull up the um exhibit that I sent you? It's it's it's from the um presentation by um the Malibu Township Council. It was I just captured a picture from that that I asked could be displayed. It's the one that shows the difference between 2019 and today

was it the comparison in development? Yeah. Is that Well, does that help at all? the comparison and

Okay, thank you. that the correct one.

Yeah. I mean, I think this is an important exhibit. I I hadn't appreciated the degree of degradation of the environment before seeing that. I mean, I I I kind of anecdotally understood it, but this really brought it home to me. This is a disgrace for Malibu. This flies in the face of what we're about here. Um, and the anecdotal knowledge I had of this again is is one of the reasons I ran for city council in the first instance. I I did not think that our city was acting as an appropriate um steward for the environment, which is this is just one example throughout the city. But the the the difference between the amount of open green space in 2016 and the concrete covered jungle in 2025 is unforgivable. Um and I and I think that that's relevant. the now this issue I'm I'm I'm glad we heard the owner say the fact that they didn't know of the um the alleged vi of the violation is irrelevant because and I think that's the same thing as when people come in here and complain that someone shouldn't be granted permission to develop a house because they're not going to own it. It it really is you know it's an interesting nuance but it's not legally relevant and I agree with that. Um, it troubles me how our law basically relies so much on the applicant to tell us what to do rather than us looking at what needs to be done. And and and I and this is this gets into the the coll small colly I was having with Tyler earlier. I the language does say the applicant study, but it also then says and other independent evidence. And I think the city sometimes um relies too

much on the applicants studies and not enough on the other independent evidence. But in any event, it's it's for the city council to decide. And when when Doug asked questions like, is it the city's position that the um smallest delineation of the wetland is the proper one? No, it's not. It's an employee of the city's position. It's not the city's position. The city's an entity. It speaks through this council. So that's a decision we have to make. What is the city's position? So, it's the city's staff is telling us that they agree with this, but it's it's that's not the fact that it's the city's position. Um, I think I was clear. I said staff. No, you said city multiple times. Okay. This guy even spoke.

Um, anyway, so um trying to read some of the writing I added on here. I also there were there were some colloquy earlier. Um both Doug and Maryanne has some questions about what would be the consequence of finding a larger wetland and a large and therefore also a larger buffer not the buffer would be bigger but the buffer would start at a further area and wouldn't that cause this property to be landlocked would it cause it to be undevelopable and I think I think Mr. Dr. Jer Cruz said, and I I agree with this, whether he said it or not, that's irrelevant for us. We we are not to concern ourselves with what the consequences of our determinations will be as far as if there is greater ESHA or if the entire property is ESHA. That will be for the applicant and the city to decide at a future date what the consequences are when and if they propose some kind of development and ask for a variance or some other discretionary approval. We cannot be concerned today whether our decision as to what is in fact there or what should in fact be there u what the legal consequences of that are those will be debated in the future today we are faced with the question of what is the wetland and and I don't mean what is in fact the wetland today what what should the wetland be as a notwithstanding the destruction of some of the asha um and if that means that the property becomes less developable, so be it. I think Mr. De Cruz said a couple times, we should be relying on science, not on um our anecdotal beliefs or conjectures. Um the problem with the science I talk about, you know, computer programs are about as scientific as you get. They're they're they're just mathematical. They're they're logical. Whatever you program it, it's going to necessitate a

conclusion. Well, and and science is the same way, but it it depends on what facts you put into the equation before you you find out what the science results in. And so the science is unquestionable, but the factors that are put into the science are what the question is. It it's in computer programming, they call it garbage in, garbage out. Um, these scientific studies, as I said, were performed after the discing occurred. These scientific studies were performed after the bell property which is part of the buffer which is not shown on the pictures because the pictures only show the property in question but the the buffer even at 100 ft goes into the adjoining property. Nature sees no municipal boundaries. Those are ma those are man-made. So the um this ecosystem is throughout multiple properties. It's not simply the property in question and the properties adjacent to this even the storm drains which may have predated this discing have altered the ecology. So you can't go scientifically you can't say what was there in 2019 based on studies that are being done on that property in 2023. It's just it just it's that defies science. It defies logic. You can't do it. And in fact, our code expressly states, let me find the language. Um, any area mapped as ESHA shall not be deprived of protection as ESHA as required by the policies and provisions of the LCP on the basis that habitat has been illegally removed, degraded, or species that are rare or especially valuable because of their nature or role in an ecosystem have been eliminated. And again, like I said, that makes sense. You can't you can't go blow it up and then say, "Well, it's not there, so now I don't have to do anything." That's that the question is what was there, not

what is there. Um, I'm disturbed. I'll get into the reason why this matters, but as I understand it, there really is not a biological survey of this property. There's there's there's a survey of the um the plant life, not of the um animal life, which is part of the analysis. Um and I also want to note the although what the planning commission decides is not technically relevant. I always take note when the commissioners who I deem to be um pro-development vote against a development and I take note of when the commissioners who are pro- environment vote in favor of a development to me when when John Maza or or Craig Hill used to be Craig Hill vote in favor of something that's important information to me because that tends to tell me that they've ex they are very critical and they've looked at all the problems and they've overcome them and um when um Dennis Smith, Tyler Peak, Drew Leonard vote on on something, it tells me that um when they prevent something, it tells me that ought to be prevented. Well, they all supported this enlarged buffer. I think that the council ought to take note of that because um that's an unusual circumstance where they go against the city's recommendation, the city staff's recommendation. Um, I I want to note also, um, it's interesting to me that there's a condition on here that the property can't nothing can be done unless the property is accessed with the permission of the neighboring property owners. Um, I don't know how that bulldozer got on the property or how the drill with another large piece of equipment got on the property without trespassing on the neighbors properties unless they gave permission. Um so the destruction itself it looks looks to me like not only was it improper under our code, it might

have violated the um property rights of the adjoining properties. Um so the ESHA determination again again we we keep conflating wetland with ESHA. The entire property is mapped ESHA. A large portion of the property at one point was delineated wetland. There is a buffer which is both wetland buffer as well as ESHA. U but the whole property is mapped ESHA and um under our law if property is not mapped ESHA it can still be ESHA if it could be shown that it is. If it's mapped ESHA it can still be not if it could be shown that it's not. But the maps are kind of the starting point. and our code in section 4.3, the LAP in section 4.3. Uh, first of all, and I think it's important to read all of these provisions, and I'm sorry if this is boring to lay people, but it's it's not to me as a lawyer, and I'm sure it isn't to Mr. Dea Cruz. 4.3 is ESHA determination. A any area not designated on an ESHA overlay map that meets the environmentally sensitive area definition is ESSHA and shall be accorded all the protection provided for ESHA in the LCP. Um the city shall determine the physical extent of habitat meeting the definition of environmentally sensitive area on the project site based on the applicant's sight specific biological study as well as available independent evidence. And by the way, I I don't believe the applicant study included a study of the um the of the wildlife on the property. I think it's simply a study of the hydraology um and of the wetland. It goes on to say, "Unless there is sight specific evidence that establishes otherwise, the following habitat areas shall be considered a so this is whether

or not it's mapped. The following areas are ASHA. one, any habitat area that is rare or especially valuable from a local, regional, or statewide basis. And we're given no guidance in our code as to how to determine whether an area is rare or especially valuable. But we've heard testimony from multiple residents, and you just talk to people on the street, they'll tell you the same thing, that they believe this is an a a rare and especially valuable parcel. In my view, as one of five people, this is a rare and especially parcel, at least locally, if not regionally. Could be statewide, but it's certainly locally. Second, any habitat area that contributes to the viability of plant or animal species that are designated or are candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered under state or federal law. Um I didn't do substantial study of all the um species that of of animal or plant life that is on that property but as I noted I have personally seen egrets. Egrets are protected by a international treaty. Egrets are on the California special list. Next is any habitat that contributes to the viability of species that are designated fully protected or quote species of special concern close quote under state law. So again, that that's actually where I should that comes in. Egrets are species of special concern. So are the hawks. And I suspect there are other animals and plants on that property that I know nothing about that are, but we don't have a bottom line is we don't have a record one way or the other of what else is there. Um any habitat that contributes to the viability of species for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity. For example, plant species eligible for state listing is demonstrated by their designation as 1B rare or endangered in

California and elsewhere or designation as two rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere by the California Native Plant Society. We have got nothing in the record that tells us whether there is or is not such habitat. Um, streams, I don't know if there's we didn't get into the definition of streams. That was subject to an appeal a while ago. I know it's a very broad definition, but I don't know whether there is or is not a stream on this property. I'm I'm assume that one's not there. But anyway, all of those things are ESHA. And so I I just don't get how we can be told by the city biologist that it's her opinion that the whole property is not ESHA when it's in fact mapped ESHA and when there is evidence of some of these things which cause it to be ESHA and where there is not a full study that would eliminate every one of these things as being on that property throughout the property. Going on. The next thing that the code says, if the applicant's sight specific biological study or other independent information contains substantial evidence that an area previously shown on the ESHA overlay does not contain habitat that meets the definition of environmentally sensitive area, then the city shall determine the physical extent of habitat that does meet the definition of environmentally sensit sensitive area on the project site. So, what what I understand that to mean is, okay, we've we've got a sightspecific biological study prepared by the client of the applicant. And and and I'll add as a as a litigator for 40 years, um I know for a fact experts will pretty much come out where their client wants if they any way possibly can. I I can't tell you how many times I've been in court where one expert says the sky is blue and the other expert says the sky is red. I mean, that's an exaggeration, but I've I've seen valuation disputes that are tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars apart from one another. Both

credible, both again based on garbage in, garbage out. More times than not, the real answer lies between the ex the battle of the experts. Occasionally, one is absolutely correct and the other is absolutely wrong, but rarely are they absolutely right. Um, but any event, we we we we have a sightspecific biological study, but if someone else can tell me I'm wrong, I don't believe it studied the wildlife. I don't believe it studies whether the entire property is or is not ESHA. It simply studies the wetland. And that's not the only thing that is that's not the only thing that's important. And again, the other Echer, if it is Esha, which has undeniably been destroyed, has impact on the wetland. Um, but the code goes on to say, and I I said this before, any area mapped as ASHA shall not be deprived of protection as a as required by the policies blah blah blah if it's been destroyed. Um, it says that if the city finds that the that an area previously mapped as ESHA does not meet the definition of ESHA, a modification shall be made to the ESHA maps, but it shall be considered an LCP amendment subject to approval of the coastal commission. So even we don't get the final say on whether it is or is not ESHA if it's mapped ESHA. We can only recommend to the coastal commission that they limit the ESHA that was previously mapped. It does go on to say that if we determine that it's not ESHA despite the fact that it's mapped as ESHA, we may permit may permit not are required to permit but may permit development consistent with our determination notwithstanding the fact that the coastal commission has not yet ruled. I don't quite understand why it says that, but it does say that. But it doesn't say we're required to. And and what I'm going to suggest is that at a bare minimum, whatever we decide today, we decided subject to the Coastal Commission agreeing that this property is not ESHA. And I don't think they will. I And I don't And I don't think it

isn't. And and I'm just going to ask, yeah, do you have an hour left of testimony to read? Okay. Because Halen hasn't had a chance. And I really haven't had a chance yet. I I don't have an hour, but I'm happy to um defer to others and come back to my other comments later. So,

can I ask you a quick question? Are we expanding this to include a determination of ESHA or not? Well, I think it's important to understand what part of the property is ESHA because if the ESHA has been impaired, that could impact the delineation of the wetland because the um flow of the water would be different from the undisked property which could not have been permitted to be disced if it was Asha to the wetland versus the um discked property. I just want to make one last point before I do before I do pause. This this point about um the the applicant saying through its representative, if you don't approve the CDP, you're going to be stuck with what's there. No, if we don't approve the CDP, we need to enforce our law. We need to go to court. We need to get injunctive relief. We need to get an order requiring that this property be properly restored. An order that the defendant that the applicant does not need to consent to, an order that will be imposed upon them. Maybe there'll be a settlement of that litigation. Maybe there won't. Maybe we'll lose that litigation. I don't think so. I I think that though that telling us you either have to accept our view, which which I believe is wrong, that this is a smaller thing and that we then encapsulate that. We launder the money for them. In essence, we say, "Okay, we're going to take the dirty work that was done." I don't mean by this owner because this owner didn't do it. But we're going to take the dirty work that was done of impairing this property and we're going to basically codify it as acceptable by approving a CDP that's city authorized and and the threat that if we don't do that the property will remain forever impaired. That's wrong. It won't remain forever impaired. If in fact it's been impaired as I believe it has, a court will adjudicate that for us. and we need to start taking serious our enforcement activities and not settling them by allowing people to get away with it like this.

Tyler, I you were motioning. Did you have something?

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure it is clear. I we were able to look up and I can share it. Um Christina, if you don't mind um that in the biological technical study that was supplied by the applicant team, they do make a summary statement and with evidence in here. I haven't read the whole report. It's a very long document, but I would again suggest or recommend that we rely on the experts, the our city biologist and perhaps Mr. Bomb if you if you so obliged. But this is Mr. Bomb's the applicant's summary that says, however, as addressed in detail below, the 5.45 acre area. So, we'll read the first paragraph. It's important to note that the 7.1 acre parcel is map environmentally sensitive habit. We all agree on that. It is. However, as addressed in the detail below, 5.54 acre area surrounding the well does not support special status plants, animals, or vegetation alliances and does not meet the city of Malibu definition of ESHA. So, we can go through this report if we need to, but I just want to say they did supply evidence that they were required to do to make these uh findings. Our experts, city's experts reviewed these and and you know, made determination whether uh they agree or not. So Court Courtney um did a biological study of the property and determined that there were no um specially protected animal life on the property.

She did not know, but that is not the city's practice. And if if I I suggest if we take that route, we're going to need uh a lot more biologists on staff to do bio studies for every property. I I I don't understand how the city can review a study and conclude it's right without independently confirming the facts that underly the studies. Con conclusions. I just don't understand.

Perhaps Courtney, you can um explain to us how it is that you you know take all the evidence in and she did do a site a site um visit on this property. So, Courtney, how how do you just in general read a a regular application and and determine whether the findings in an analysis are accurate? So obviously it is a difficult process without visiting the site. Um I essentially read their methodology. Um I read through all of their occurrences of special status species both plants and wildlife. Um and of course while I'm doing this I use all of the knowledge that I have on the prevalence of these species or the likelihood of these species occurring. Um and then um I do look at um you know the photos that are provided. So a lot of the times the photos that the applicant provides can be um telling or you know give information and oftentimes I will uh you know either I mean if I don't accept it I'll kick it back to them obviously with follow-up questions um if there isn't enough information but essentially um just looking through the report making sure that all of the information is makes sense to a certain degree again without visiting the site. Um, and making sure that the photos line up with some of the text that is written. Um, and yeah, a yeah, without doing a site visit, the photos are really heavily relied upon and same with the um the mapping that is provided. I will say that I did I did ask for an extra map and I did not receive it. So, the last letter that I have on file for this

project is an incomplete um from me asking for more information. So, Courtney and then um it's my understanding that you did do a site stud um site inspection with Doug, right? I think we we confirmed that. And I'm not saying you did a bio bio assessment. That's a specific ask or or a wetland delineation. She did not do that. But um is there some type of confirmation of the study that you you do on site when you are asked to go uh visit these areas?

So that was a very um specific uh site visit um in June of 2022 that was done uh with code enforcement prior to the jurisdictional delination and this uh biotic you know assessment report being submitted. So that was not a confirmation of wetland or ESHA. That was not, you know, a delineation of wetland or ESHA. That was with code enforcement and um the applicant uh prior to any reports being submitted.

So that was not a confirmation of on-site conditions. So, so then uh uh just throwing it out there if the council feels more comfortable that perhaps um you know maybe we can keep the discussion going but we if if they're not comfortable with the applicant's sight specific biological study that uh is shown right here and they prefer that the staff go on-site and confirm what they're reading in the report. That's something we can maybe set up. Yeah, it would be more it would be uh obviously more than just a site visit. So sometimes if I disagree with a biological assessment, I will visit the site or if I am tasked by city council or planning commission, I will visit a site after a report has been turned in, you know, and reviewed. Um and that is also very limited in scope. I have not I have yet to conduct a biological assessment or jurisdictional delineation for the city in any capacity. So that um is a very detailed process as you can see by Tony's reports, Edith's reports, it's a detailed process. So that that's perfectly fine. We can go that direction, but it is more detailed than a simple, you know, one-hour site visit.

I I just want to make the point I I I am not challenging the validity of the Lucas or Mr. Brook's analysis. Um I I I accept that there is a valid sightspecific study by an expert that was hired by the um applicant and I don't I'm not accusing them and don't believe they did anything improper. I just know that experts have wide latitude in determining what underlying facts they put into their analysis before they reached their conclusions. And I don't fault Courtney in any way for reading the report and concluding that based on the anal based on the findings that were used to support the conclusions that it made sense that it it it added up and made sense. But I do not as one person on this council accept that that is a sufficient way for the city to educate the city council on these types of questions. it it is not sufficient in my mind to simply review a report and conclude that it makes sense. I believe that especially in an area such as this which is very important ecologically and to our mission and vision in Malibu that we have an obligation to in determining what the independent evidence is to actually develop the independent evidence and not simply accept the non-independent evidence that was submitted in a report by an expert who was hired by and paid by the applicant. Okay, I'll be quick. Do you want to go, Marian?

No, I want you to go first, please. Um, well, um, so I guess I'm ready to vote. Um, I I don't if that's not ESH, I don't know what is. Usher is very slippery to me, but um I'm ready to go forward. Thank you. Okay. Um, Tyler or Christine, could you Hello. I would just like the record to reflect we are dropping our application. It is 1:45 p.m. We will be withdrawing. Thank you. Well, I think you should wait until the council makes a determination before you make that.

Uh, we've decided that the the best approach for us is to withdraw the application at this point in time. So, so you can you can continue this. I mean, obviously the council is free to to do whatever it wants, but at this point in time, there is no application on the table. Does that mean this is moot at this point? Trevor, I I don't know what you're celebrating. We're not getting a restoration of the wetland at this point. There's all it is is an open code enforcement case that they may or may not act upon. It could be bigger. How about recording it this time? Yeah. I mean, it wasn't

Okay, we're not going to have back and forth. I did just want to make a point that on that February 2025 picture that was brought up. While I agree that there was the development of the Whole Foods site and the park at Cross Creek, that was two months after the Franklin fire and much of that area had burned. So just wanted to make that note to confirm. This is just a straight withdrawal. This is not asking continuence to withdraw and and change the application. This is just withdrawing the application. That was a fine waste of four hours. That is correct. We are withdrawing our application. If the city would like to continue its enforcement activity and have discussions about a subsequent application that we should file or however they want to pursue it, we will engage in that process. Okay.

All right. That concludes item 1 A. Um, are we ready to move on with 2A? I heard

ready.

Sean, make sure staff's ready for item 2A. If staff could just have a moment to uh change gears. Thank you. How about we start at uh 155? Thank you. We're just gonna if you have to

Thank you. [Music] You do it. Are you want me to s ready? Hey, I used to play volleyball. Okay, we are back. Item 2A.

May I help you? I'm just waiting for it to be called because I'm so tired after that. Okay. Well, why don't you take that first seat because we're going to have a staff report and I have some other questions. Oh, you are? Yeah. Very quick one.

Sure. Very quick one. Um, just I we don't even really have to discuss them too much. I'll just explain to you what it is in your staff report real quick. So, what is in red is basically the black text was always been there and the red has been added by the council prior last discussion. So, uh this is just confirming that bulk is really the um defining factor now, right? Um so, we all agreed that um if if your square footage puts you if your square footage puts you over or at the bulk limit, then you can't get height. you're you're you're like that that balloon. So that let me know if you have any issues with that verb verbiage. Um this one there was no really issue with the 50% just showing you what we what we agreed to. Um, this one is again, we showed this one basically for the Palisades fire that a lawfully erected structure, a legal structure if you will, will be anything that existed uh just before the fire as long as it didn't have code enforcement. Um, and then specifically, if the parcel was identified by the Los Angeles County Assessor as uh vacant, then that any structure on that parcel would be considered illegal and not be allowed to be built back. Um, this one is um a clarification ad that is not in your report. I just added this morning is um this was always meant to say basements and subterranean garages just to be clear. Uh, it was in the last um policy that we discussed. I just want to make sure it's in the final document. So, basements and subterranean garages per the code are exempt from the thousand square foot typically if you're building new new homes. Uh, this is just to make sure there's no confusion. both basements and subterranean garages are included that they will not be included uh you know or not be given free I guess here uh no net loss we went over that there was no real change there uh just real quick on policy 10 we're going to

come back with an item on this so this is um this is to be to to be determined still uh rooftop decks you had us remove some language that we had in there about privacy and things and we reduced it to basically just making sure that the conditions uh are are requiring the lighting to comply with the dark sky ordinance. So we we changed that here. Uh policy 12 staff will require a survey in the planning phase. Before it was, you know, we would be lenient where we could, but now we're going to be straightforward and make sense because we are we're going to need a survey anyway in the rebuild process. Uh these are Palisades fire only topics. This was uh if you remember that um that one couple who had the complete deemed complete application were basically saying if your project was deemed complete even if you had a site plan review or another discretionary request other than a variance you allowed to continue that project. I did add some language here uh just to be transparent about if let's say you had an addition that put you over the 10%. So let's say that family their addition that they did put them over what would have been allowed under the rebuild plus 10%. That is their 10%. So they don't get the addition plus an additional 10%. If that makes sense.

And that's it. Those were the changes. Okay. Any clarifying questions from council? Um are I are there speaker slips that need to be passed to me? Do we have any online speaker requests? If you would like to speak, please fill out a speaker slip.

And online, we have six hands raised on Zoom.

Okay, if you could hold it at those six hands, please. Okay. So, first we have Marissa, followed by Luis, followed by Lloyd Ahern. Thank you, members, for hanging in for this. Appreciate it. Um, I'm going to put some of my comments aside because Tyler indicated that item the wave action item is going to be in a separate hearing and I hope you can go do that as quickly legitimately as Trevor suggests. And um so my only comments at this point then would be on the rooftop decks. I want to make sure that um that those are open air rooftop decks as previously and that um trelluses are not added on top of that adding additionally to the height because I know he's talking about furniture not higher than the handrail. So to have consideration for that they can't add an you know canopy or something above that because that's that becomes a view blockage issue for other fire rate bills in the area. So um and then my other comment was surveys I always do uh the seawwood projections he clarified. Well that's it. That's the end of my story.

Okay great. Thank you. Everything else is a holdover. Thank you. All right, Luis followed by Lloyd.

Hello, council. Listen, licensed architect. I want to start by thanking the additional clarity because it makes my job easier even though I disagree with the final outcome about uh issue number one. So when discussing policy, it is important to first state the intent behind it, right? in the case of bulk in this case sorry in the case of this bulk amendment under issue number one the intent as I understand it is noble it is to help protect views under 18 ft where the MNC and the LAP currently don't provide any protections and this is going to stay forever in fire reilds in in Malibu right so this is an amendment that is going to be like this forever however in practice this interpretation does more harm than good in my opinion for two reasons One, it imposes additional limitations on applicants who wish to increase both area and height. It is important the diff the difference between and and or. We had an and before we have an or now instead of uh sorry within the 10% maximum which was clearly the intent in the governor's executive order. I know that the governor doesn't allow anything but he states an intent and that's my interpretation of his intent here. The second point here is that views under 18 ft are already protected by the 10% maximum additional height limitation. With or without this amendment, this amended bulk rule, neighbors have the same ability to increase portions of their rebuilds by up to 10% in height, potentially blocking the same views. The only difference is that under the bulk interpretation right now the resulting houses are going to be a smaller overall yet with the same view blockage potential. The outcome of this bulk rule is simple smaller homes but no

additional protection for views under 18 ft one. But I agree that also the other intent was when you want to change when you wanna when you had a house that had pitch roof and you want to make a flat roof that require better rules but the bulk is not the solution. In Ventura they measure from the midpoint of your pitch roof and there's many other options that with a proper workshop with architects and staff we could have come up with a better role. But again, uh, one last general question about the rebuild policies. Is the council understanding that these planning rules have to also apply to other agencies or should you have further discussions for each agency? If so, when? Because the reality is that right now fire victims cannot rebuild per these policies if the other agencies are not aligned matching their policies with planning like with issue number one. Right.

And if you want, we can discuss further. Thank you. Do you understand what that last portion is? Um Luis, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that um you want I one we're going to be aligned. That's one for we're all one department. So um you know, these are planning policy interpretations that will you know we're going to make a the planning division is going to make a determination on and then the other um divisions will follow suit. But are you asking that we do like like the geo policy for example we have a geo guideline are you asking that that also have its own separate kind of workshop that we did here

no ideally with this we're done right but the other agencies need to understand that these rules also apply to the what other agencies for example with environmental health right that's a department within the city so alo other agencies or departments okay right they're all going to be following the planning rules because right by now they are not letting you build all of those uh all of those divisions are under community development department. So we are one department uh with different divisions and this uh planning policies are going to implement through that development. They are going to go through okay because as of two weeks ago environmental health didn't have direction that these policies apply to them.

So when are they going to be applying to them? Luca, please deal with that off offline. Luka, I'm sorry. Luis, Luis, why don't you just we'll talk offline about the specific problem and we'll we'll address it. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you, Lloyd. Hi. Apologies, Luca.

Um, my name is Lloyd Ahern, and last night at 6:00, I found out about this meeting. And it's the FEMA plus one and the bulk and volume are the two biggest things we're going to have. And this room is empty. You could shoot a gun and miss everybody because there's nobody here. And also why are we now not having the person that's talking this discussion right now the people that are watching on television couldn't see the architect what what happened to the policy that you guys had for since we can talk about that at time do you have a comment about the rebuild policy

pardon me do you have a comment about the rebuild policy

yes I do I just want to know the people should be the well The the the the thing has got to do with hearing what we have to say is last night at six o'clock I found out about this. I called my architect and he had a thing with this kid. As you know, Tommy Torres passed away. I got a new thing. I want to get him up to speed. This room would be full of architects if we had given even three days notice and we would had the Bruce's idea of the the workshop where you have a somebody from the planning department and a and a city councilman and a thing it would all be worked out and people would be happy. But right now this is I think we got to do this again. This is not fair and I don't understand in the future and maybe I'll talk about it at Monday's meeting because you're right Maryanne I'll talk about

I will answer your question regardless the these policies are from the eight-hour meeting that we had on three weeks ago August 27th so a month ago we had an 8 hour meeting where we went through

I listened to it from January 7th till probably May 1st First, I was in a hospital bed or in a wheelchair watching you guys, watching you promote her making that rebuild center. Everybody was happy. It was I It was unbelievable what you guys did. I was addicted to this thing because that's the only way I could find out what was going on. So, all of a sudden, I don't I'm I watched that agenda thing on the on our website like mad. I found out last night from a phone call at six o'clock. So, we should not and I'm and I'm saying this I'm coming in peace. We should not have done this so fast because this is the two big things are FEMA one and uh and bulk and volume.

The FEMA's not on this one. That's I know. But I'm saying that the two big ones they should be agendaized. Thank you. Longer Joanne.

Yes. I guess I'm a little bit of a novice and not quite understanding everything, but I can honestly say that I'm standing here nine months later and I still don't have a home and I see no path forward to the home. The only thing I see honestly, and I'm sorry, but I see roadblocks. I see all the reasons why something's not happening versus how it can happen. And when I heard after the house was burnt down and I heard like for like, I was all over it. Like for like and 10%. Okay. A given is an additional 10%. Nowhere did I hear like for like 10% bulk. Nowhere. And that's all I am saying is, you know, now instead of trying to move forward in building a home, I am looking to sell the land and get out of Malibu. And it's really sad because right now, sense of home is very important to a lot of people, especially me. And I don't feel that we should be talking about something now that should have happened nine months ago with regards to bulk. So everybody was on the same page. And you know it I don't I'm not going to just stand back and say nothing. It was like for like plus 10, not like for like 10% with all of the code upgrades and the and the and the width of the walls and the whatever. So thank you, Luca. Um, yes. I'd like to pick up on both the

points that were made earlier. Um, you're correct. This is, uh, a follow-up to a meeting, a the 8 hour meeting in which I was present back in in August, but the changes that were done since have not really been debated. And the fact that um this item has been added to the agenda 10 minutes before the deadline for it to be added, I think speaks a lot to what this process has been going through. There's been a debate through with this with this bulk situation since day number one. We had a meeting. We had this very beautiful uh workshop where everybody the consensus of everybody was sitting on the table um uh composed of maybe 15 20 architects summing more than 300 years of experience in Malibu specific agreed that the bulk definition was wrong. City council was convinced differently. you went ahead and and uh uh applied a definition that you were comfortable with and we tried to adapt our design to it. Three weeks ago, this interpretation changed one more time and so we have to readapt one more time to a change that was not expected. Um then the reasons why council has has determined that this uh might have been the correct way to go. I don't even want to get into because we we're beating the a dead horse as they say over and over again. But the fact that people have not been given the proper amount of time to digest what this next change or uh new change has been uh has been imposed to them is I think um unfair and kind of sad and thank you anyways.

Thank you. That'll include our in person. We have six online. That is correct. Ryan, uh, you're you can speak. Ryan, are you there?

Ryan, you should be unmuted. Yeah, I'm getting three layers of unmute here, by the way. Okay. Well, we can hear you, so go ahead.

Okay. As as far as the uh question goes to reinterpreting codes, you really should be considering what the codes were at the time of the destruction. I I think maybe that's a legal concept, but changing the goalposts later. Um I I I don't know. I'd really like to get Trevor's opinion on that one because uh getting creative on on how you reinterpret um existing LCP conditions uh without guidance uh directly from the state puts the city in kind of a precarious position. Of course, you're making all the residents lobby for you. Now, I may be off base. I said I'm not a lawyer, but um getting creative with how you interpret what is is or what is bulk and what is height. You know, we we have our own 30some years that we know what height and bulk are. The residents know what height and bulk is too in general, not just the applicants. So, we need to respect our own history and our own policies going forward as well as uh other guidance and metrics that come before you. Thank you. Okay, next speaker.

Next is Danny. Go ahead, Danny. You should be unmuted.

Hi, council. Thank you for your continued service. Um, quickly on issue number four on rebuilding what was there. I think the redline language here is imprecise and could cause inadvertent issues. In the second to last sentence, it says, "A structure can be built back as long as it was not part of an open code enforcement violation by the city and not illegal." That last word is the issue. The problem is that illegal can mean unlawful and unlawful can mean something that was built simply not to code. I don't believe that is what you're intending as it contradicts everything that comes before it. And after the last meeting, it seemed like you simply wanted to carve out an exception and disallow the rebuilding of one particular house that was constructed entirely without permits. I think this can be made clear in the writing by striking the words and not illegal in that second to last sentence. And then modifying the final sentence to read, if the parcel was identified by the LA County assessor to be a vacant parcel before the fire, any structure located on the parcel shall not be considered lawfully erected for the purposes of this policy. That should accomplish what you want and eliminate potentially contradictory policy language. Okay. on bulk. I'd ask that you rethink this entire issue. Why are we adding bulk restrictions at all to PV rebuilds? Do you understand the extra work and the complications this adds? The burden it places on planning staff? The burden it places on architects trying to calculate interior volume of extremely intricate irregular structures such as homes. This is an eighth grade geometry homework by a long shot. What you are doing is discouraging rebuilds. You just heard it in front of you. Needlessly complicating the process, adding one more layer of no to struggling fire survivors. To what end? Here's the math. By the way, if you were to simplify things and allow people to expand by 10% square footage and 10% height, just like they're doing in every

other jurisdiction, the absolute worst that could happen is that interior volume, your precious bulk, increases by 21%. That's the math. That's the worst case. Is 21% going to destroy the character of Malibu? Is it worth adding one more trial to what we as rebuilding homeowners are already facing? Relax restrictions. Stop adding them. You are doing great harm. Thank you. Thanks. Next speaker. Next is Joe Drummond. Hi there. Can you hear me?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you for coming up with these policies. Thank you, Yolanda, for um for confirming that these policies will go through the entire rebuild process, not just planning. That's important. I'm just noting that as of today, 145 rebuild permits have been issued in both LA city and the county, yet there's only two in Malibu. Um, and I am hoping that I have heard recently through a meeting with Candace that I wasn't able to attend because I'm in Toronto. Um, that the goal is to have a 100 permits issued by the end of the year, which I really do hope can happen, especially with all these policies. And with regards to bulk, I do if you had to do any changes to that, I would just say if it doesn't if it is not going to block someone's potential view, let them have their bulk. And that's it. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Next speaker. Next is Andrew Sheldon. Go ahead, Andrew. Are you there?

Yes, I'm here. Thank you. I am encouraged that you're making a separate item for I uh issue number 10. Very very important issue. I'm a registered licensed civil engineer and I'm working on many of these rebuilds and the base flood elevation plus one is just very impractical. creates many difficulties for setting garage elevations that don't put the garage halfway through the first floor and second floor projecting out into somebody's bedroom or kitchen. It really needs to be thought through carefully and I hope that the city staff will take some time to look carefully at this issue and advise the council properly on it. Thank you.

Thank you. And uh next is William Reid. William, are you there? Hear me? Should I hold up? Um William, we can hear you. I'm I did not lower my hand. I'm sorry. I spoke once. Thank you. That's right. Do we have William? Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Are you William? Yep. This is William. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Um, regarding that, I know the issue isn't being covered today regarding the FEMA number 10. Um, I just want to ask, is there going to be any further discussions for the public regarding coming up with a policy regarding that? I'd like to reiterate some of those challenges um with spatial configuration when you're you're basically have a max for that flood plane elevation dealing with both garages, MEP systems, and otherwise. Um, is there a chance to kind of provide feedback? That item will be scheduled for a future hearing. Yes,

future, but it's not scheduled yet. Okay. Um, the regarding the bulk, I'd like to re reiterate everything everyone said. Um, I do have one sort of technical question. Um, if bulk is becoming the primary consideration for determining that like for like, is there a circumstance when one might be able to achieve both square footage 10% and height 10% but still remain below the bulk 10%. And would that be accepted? We'll have staff address that question after your comments, after all comments are completed. Okay. Thank you. Do we have another one?

Last one is Darren. Darren, are you there? Hello. Hi, Darren. We can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes.

Oh, good afternoon. Um, so I take issue with the staff recommendations for bulk, uh, the requirement for a civil survey at the planning verification phase and the requirement for a wave uprush study at all. Um, I think as evidenced by the comments you've heard previously, uh, bulk is too loose of a definition to be a limiting definition on fire rebuilds as it's currently understood, which is barely. It really just gives the staff the ability to say no to any application, right? It's too loose for actual actual interpretation by the architects. So, the city staff can use it to say no regardless of what is actually being presented. Um, my opinion regarding the civil survey requirement at planning verification is that it will limit the applicant pool uh by the end of the year to very low numbers. um the civil surveyors that are licensed that will work in the Malibu area so few that they don't have the capacity to perform surveys at the rate needed to get applications in by the end of the year. Um, it was my understanding that the city wanted to approve a hundred permits by the end of the year, but I doubt you will get a hundred new planning verification applications by the end of the year based on what I've heard from civil surveyors who are eight weeks out to get a survey done. So, for instance, if I booked a survey today, I wouldn't get it completed until the end of October at best case, which means I wouldn't have the ability to submit my planning verification until November 1st, which means I probably wouldn't get a planning verification approval by the end of the year. And thus, I would be required to maybe comply with CBC 2025 versus CBT 2022, which would add probably 20 to $50,000 to my rebuild

project. Um, which kind of coincides with what Ryan Embry said about the code that we should be, you know, building upon. I agree with him. I think anybody who's in an AHJ would agree that January 7th should be the date that triggers the building code that we should be applying in this case, not 2025 or any future mythical code that maybe Cottonshers, you know, alludes to. That kind of ties into my issues with the wave uprush requirement, um, which I voiced at the previous meeting and which I emailed you all about. I know it's not up for discussion right now, but considering the last meeting you had with geotechnical consultants and coastal engineers wasn't agendaized as a public comment, I kind of have no option except to say now that I took issue with that entire meeting. I think the fact that Cottonshers spoke as if they were state representatives was a big issue. It was way beyond the realm of being a geotechnical consulting firm for any entity and I think they should be told.

Thanks Darren. Sorry. Uh that concludes our public comment. Correct. There are no more raised hands and no more public comment cards. Okay. Um Tyler, there were a couple things with bulk and um that were brought up. Could you Yeah. re-educate us and continuing to educate us, please.

Well, sure. The the the one um I forget his name. I apologize, but um the the issue, can you have a 10% height and a 10% square footage and then meet the 10% bulk? I honestly don't believe you can. I don't think it mathematically works. Um because you only can go one way or the other. Um the way the staff was applying it before, I'm just going to say, uh was we were trying to be a little, you know, flexible. uh and we were we were giving people 10% square footage, you know, pro bono, if you will, and then we we're applying really uh bulk to the height equation. And it only really came into play if you're going from pitch to flat. And so in those cases, they weren't getting a 10% height increase either uh because they weren't going up to their max pitch. They were always being tempered to just help preserve some views. Um so now the the the um the requirement will be basically that um for the most part unless you're building exactly like for like completely within the same envelope we will probably need a um uh like a volutric study to just confirm that the new volume does not exceed 10% the previous volume.

Okay. Can I ask clarifying question? Yes. Okay. So from the architect's meeting which was the workshop that we attended to then when we voted which I heard it's you know when I voted for bulk it was to support staff then because it was something that you guys seem to think would be easy and helpful

and if I could the uh I'm totally up for if we want to keep you know I'm trying to get people we are all trying to get people back into their homes. more we dwell on these, the the the more people are hesitant. And I I just want to ask people, do not hesitate. Come in right now. We we'll help you with what you got. But we do got to stick within the laws. The intent for staff is to preserve views because what we know what happens is if you don't temper the height or don't temper the volume of these structures, there's going to be a lot of view impacts that result from this. And so I know you don't see it now, but it's just what we've seen throughout the previous fire rebuilds that they can get out of hand if there's not these little checks in place.

So may I ask, has something changed again since my balloon demonstration? Has it gotten complicated, much more restrictive? I would say it's got more it's got more refined and it is more restrictive than the original staff application of it.

I understand. Thank you. I will not I do not want to tolerate anything that's going to make it harder for residents. I don't want any red tape that's going to impede this. So, I abstained from my vote last meeting. Um, and that was because I I seriously believe that the more that we're putting on residents that have lost everything, the less likely they're going to want to stay in this city because I know I wouldn't. Um, was that it for for that or do I start going into my Whatever you'd like to do.

Okay. Thank you, mayor. Well, I'd like a burrito. Um, okay. So, I'm just Yeah. Um, so I just have some notes here which are basically do we have a meeting scheduled for the wave upbrush FEMA plus one on the books yet? Yes, we're bringing that item on the um Monday meeting. Um September 29th. Yes. Oh, thank you. Great. Okay. So September 29th. Lloyd, you got that everybody? I can see it. Yes, we're putting an amendment to it.

Okay. But it's not there now. So, be prepared. It will be on the the Friday amendment usually comes out. Okay. Thank you. My next question is um Marissa's question about open air trellises and or covered. Is that If you want, we could put in um some additional clarification. I don't believe it would really affect anything because um a trellis would be part of the structures height and so that would be factored into the 10% and it would be limited anyway.

I also don't want to add anything. I want to make if we were going to take away, I think it's great to take away, but I don't want to add to this where it has to go back and then back and then back. So what for us to achieve this what would be the best like way forward that the trellis on top of a deck would be part of the structures height and would not be allowed if it exceeded perfect thank you um okay so we asked we kind of got to bulk are we voting on anything right now today or we we are okay yeah you're you're approving this has been brought back to match your comments and this is to make sure that it does and if it does then

uh we'll get your approval Perfect. Thank you. I'm so sorry, Joanne. That's really what I wanted to say. Um, Oak is changing too much, too complicated. Um, I want to stop changing the goalposts. I don't want to be labor any this anymore. Um, we need to stop adding and changing and we need to get to building. I literally wrote that. Um, Danny, let's go over number four. So I have clarity on what happened with number four. Okay. So may I ask if the wording is correct on number four current policy illegal versus lawful that would be you right or who would be

Yeah. So we I can start it Trevor and feel free. Um you know the term illegal was specific from one of the council members and it it did get voted on to to use that. Um, we can change it though. We're not married to it. Um, I didn't actually Danny's last comment about the changing the last sentence that made sense to me and um totally to change it from shall not be considered illegal to um shall not be considered lawfully erected. How do I was going to actually also I had a comment on that. It wasn't wasn't the direction that it just is not part of open code enforcement except for parcels that were completely empty. Should we just delete where it says and not illegal?

We can totally. Yeah. If that if that's causing confusion, we can. But someone a council member had used specifically the term illegal and that got voted on. So that's why it was in No, no, I'm not questioning you. I'm just explaining why it's there. So I think at the last meeting we talked about and you know what would be considered illegal and it was basically only a site that had nothing on it that had something built would be considered illegal. Even something that required a variance, I believe, was not considered to be illegal unless open code enforcement was. No, we specifically talked about the example of a um property that it turns out the structure was across the property line. That one too. Yeah. Well, and and so then we want to we I have some language that can fix this.

Okay. Okay. But I before you one of the things I want you to consider when you're proposing that language is um I just want to make sure so with the LA County assessor they don't change the designation of the property until a CFO is issued. So, if there was a property that was legally issued a building permit but had not received its CFO, um it would still be allowed to be rebuilt because it was under that previous permit. Okay. Yeah, because that's covered in the first paragraph of the policy. They had a building permit in that case.

Okay. Perfect. So, um do you have any other comments you want to make? I do. Are we going to do a straw poll or are we going to just go down the line? I guess because then I can wait for discussion. How do you want how Why don't we go ahead and hear everybody's initial comments? Okay. This is supposed to be what we outlined after that long meeting before. Um if if people want to make changes or such like that then we can. Okay. Steve, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I I'm good. Are you done? Yeah. Okay. Steve, do you want to make any comments? Go ahead,

Doug. Uh I don't have any comments on the municipal code. the LCP changes. I just want to make a comment on the speaker that said the building code applicability uh we're we have a waiver to stay with the current building code. Is that correct?

Um and I appreciate that you're asking that question just because um there's need to be a lot of more clarity and not more no more rumors. Um so the executive order N2925 uh exempt um the fire rebuilds from complying with the 2025 code. So they're going to be granted to continue under the 2022 building code which is for us is a 2023 county code because that's the one we adopted. There is a provision that it stays uh that the only uh applicable item that is going to be uh on the 2025 is the one presented by the fire marshall and adopted by the California uh building standard commission. Those are the only items that will apply. What this means is that the fire code uh reviews will be under the 2025 code. There's a little bit of confusion on that. So, I'm getting in uh uh we're having communications with the fire marshall. So far, the determination is going to be that all of the residents that are having to be reviewed by the fire code will also follow the 2022 code. So, more information to come on that. Uh but it's um I think every agency is making the effort to be considerate that the 2020 two code is the one that we need to stay with.

Okay. Thank you. It's nice to have the clarification. Thank you, Bruce.

Sure. First of all, um in response to Lloyd's point about the timing, um when I got this yesterday, I was actually surprised that we were going to be doing this today. I thought it was going to be one too complicated to do today today on the fly and two um there wasn't adequate not there was legally adequate notice but there really wasn't as a practical matter adequate notice to the public. Um, then I went through this and I realized that it it for the most part I'm going to talk about some minor exceptions, but for the most part, this just tracks u what we did through that 8 hour meeting earlier. And I was thinking of objecting to having this done today, but I thought, you know, I don't want to try I don't want to slow things down and any further pushing this down the road slows things down. And since this is sufficiently close to what we did after that entire process, I I view this as like a second reading, even though technically it's the first time we're seeing the words. So, I I didn't have a problem with it. I I will say though, uh a week or so ago, Halen and I had a video conference with Luca and some of his clients, including Joanne, and they asked us what's going to happen on the 25th about these issues. And we said, "Nothing. Don't worry about it. You don't have to worry about this meeting because it's not on the agenda." And that's why I was very surprised to see it thrown onto the agenda yesterday. Same thing. They asked us, "What about the 29th?" We said, "No, nothing on the agenda for the 29th about the building issues either." And now I'm hearing that we're going to have an amended agenda that has a very complicated issue where the public's only going to get a couple days notice. So I don't want to slow things down, but I I I do think they should get adequate time to organize themselves and come in here and provide their reasoned arguments. Um but I'm not asking that we put this one off now because I think this is sufficiently close to what we previously decided. Um some very specific issues. Um, on one, oh, this is on the bulk thing. I I I disagree with the comments that are opposed to including the bulk. I could go through the long statutory history of why it's there. I I recounted this to

Luca and his clients, and I sent him an email about it. Um, it's not something we just made up. I It's It's been in the LCP um for a long long time with respect to fire rebuilds. Um, all we're doing is applying the same rule in the MMC going forward for fire for these fire rebuilds. Um, I reject the argument that it makes things complicated. I know the architects don't want it to be a restriction. It's not that they don't know how to apply it. It's that they don't want to apply it. There's a difference between not knowing how to do something and not wanting to do something or believing it ought not to be required. But it's a mathematical calculation. I don't believe it is imposing on people in a way that they can't otherwise rebuild. And I I have a hard I really have a hard time believing that the denial of the additional bulk that would result from more square footage or more height is preventing anybody from being able to replicate for the most part what they had before. Um, the reason that it's a problem to not include the bulk is for pitched roof houses because the way our staff interprets height is if you have a 24 foot high pitched roof and you can your height is 24 foot and that means you could then build a flat roof 24 foot house which substantially alters what you had and is not in any way, shape or form like for like. If the interpretation of height were that the same type of roof has to be applied, then I'd feel differently about the bulk issue. But the bulk really causes um mischief when it comes to uneven roofs um because of the way we interpret height. I was surprised that we were interpreting it that way when I learned about it. So I I I think we should just stick with what we hammered out after eight hours on that prior meeting. Um, on issue number four, I I I would propose that we reddraft it along the

lines of what I think we discussed as follows. I'm looking at the red language now. Um, I'm re for properties affected by the 2025 Palisades fire only. Actually, I thought we talked about using language for for for structures that were destroyed or substantially damaged by because everybody's property arguably is affected. But um,

that was correct. Yeah, I thought we I remember having that discussion. So, it should say for structures dam destroyed or substantially damaged by the 2025 Palisades fire only. quote lawfully erected shall also mean that any structure that existed prior to the 2025 Palisades fire can rebuilt be re can be built back as long as the structure was neither not not neither PN small little italicized I closed PN part of an open code enforcement violation by the city strike and substitute or um Romanet 2 PN I I closed PN um not capable of being approved even through a discretionary approval. I think that was the point we were trying to make was that if you have something that just could not be authorized by the city no matter how much it wanted to give you the permission to do it, you can't rebuild it. Um otherwise I would So that's my suggestion for how to change this.

You keep the last sentence though also for um Oh, and then the other one I I have a problem with that also. To me, I thought the concept was if you actually if you lacked a building permit to put anything on your property, it wasn't it had nothing to do with the county assessor. If you if the city never gave you a permit to build a house and you built a house, that house wasn't going to be permitted to be rebuilt. So, it had nothing to do with the assessor. It had to do if you if we don't if if we didn't give you a building permit and you built a house without a building permit, you can't have that house back. You got to get a building permit. Well, I mean, the only problem with that is there's a lot of uh houses that, you know, predate the city and so what if they could not come up with a building permit?

Yeah, but but aren't we really talking about houses that have been built in the last 10, 20 years, the ones that are the issue or or is the one that you're concerned about something that's been there for 30, 40 years without ever having you're talking about the parcel that's vacant? Yeah.

That's supposed to be vacant. I mean, yeah, that that was probably built within the last 10, 20 years. Yeah. But this policy would affect um you know structures that were you know a lot older than that. I'd be I'm I thought what we were talking about was built houses structures built since cityhood that lacked a building permit. Full stop. Never got a building permit. Somebody just erected a house. And we can look on our files and there either is a building permit or there's not a building permit. Not arguing about the size whether it was right. Not arguing about the placement. If you put a structure on your property that you had no right to put on your property because we didn't give you a permit, you shouldn't get to rebuild that. Otherwise, you get to build back anything that was there. That was what I understood to be the concept. Okay. Does do others agree with that?

Well, I think what Tyler is suggesting is that there may be cases where there is not permit history for a property because we did not receive it from the county or it was lost or What I'm suggesting is just just forgive anyone that predates. So in the in the crazy case that someone built a home before cityhood that the county never caught and the city never caught, they're they would be good in that scenario. It's been there for 40 years and no one's complaining about it cuz it's not subject to an open code violation. Just want to make sure that was distinguish that's a distinguishing factor there is now we're changing the time the point in time.

I think we're really talking about people that have built a house in the last 5 or 10 years, right? That didn't have a permit. So, let's let's not go for overkill when all we need to do is worry about post. We could even say in the last 10 years. I just I don't Okay, Trevor, I might need your help on this one because it's just it's it's just dangerous like if something needed a coastal development permit or like it's in the middle of a stream or if it's in like something could be, you know, violently against the Coastal Act, you know. But I think Bruce makes that point earlier on the other items that if it needed that it couldn't be approved no matter what without um

those could be those things could be approved because a variance. Those would actually be allowed. I think the exception you were talking about is just a a vacant lot that had no permits whatsoever and they built a home on it. That was the Yeah, I'm I'm just saying as a practical matter, we we we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And what we're really talking about is in the last I I think 10 years is fine, but in the last 20, 30 years since we have records because we would be the gr the city would be granting the permit. If the city didn't give you a permit and your structure was built

at a time when you needed a permit from the city, then you shouldn't get to build it back. If it's if it's predates the city, we don't know whether there was or wasn't a permit. There's no way to ever find that out. Okay. So, maybe um if a single family home was constructed after the city's incorporation without permits, that would also be prohibited. Is that what we're looking at? I would just say a structure that was that was a structure that was con that was erected post cityhood that lacked a building permit. Okay, let me I I'll work on something. Does that make sense to others? It makes sense to me.

That part makes sense. Okay. Yeah, it makes sense. It's I can go back to the prior one though. I want to make sure because I was contempt with the way the prior sentence was because it's not part of an open code enforcement violation by the city and not illegal. Uh open code violation could be say a dark skies uh violation. Um, it would be for the for the structure, but if you wanted us to be more specific about that, we could. Well, see, my concern is when you say when you when you say you got an open code violation and Bruce handed on to it. So, it does say as um as long as as long as the structure was not part of an open code enforcement case.

Yeah, structure was neither part of an open code, right? So for me that stands that say somebody built a barn or some other um accessory building that would have required a permit but they built it without the benefit of permits and now we have an open code enforcement case. This is not allowing them to build that back um as part of their rebuild. They have to go and get whatever type of permit is required for that particular structure because I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure that we don't when we say structure um structure is not part of an open code violation and I'm just using the example of a dark skies or that's

so making sure that the I see what you're saying is related to the construction of the structure not an accessory violation. That's how it would be applied. Yeah. Do we need to word it that way to be clear for others in the future? Well, that's why I reread it because I think it does say that. But if you if there's language that you suggest that we can strengthen that, I'm totally, you know, can add it because it does say can be built back as long as the structure was not part of an open code enforcement. So in this case, the structure would be the lighting, right? So the lighting would not be able to be built back, but the structure that the lighting sits on. Let's say let's say they added illegal lights to the barn. Yeah.

The lights won't be able to get back. And that's that's that's for every rebuild anyway because the dark sky ordinance is so all new rebuilds have to be dark sky compliant. So I just I just didn't want to make it where if you had an open code violation of any open code violation, you've denied the That's not That's not how I read it. It's okay. As long as Sorry, Melissa. We want to make sure somebody in five years Yeah. interprets it the same way you're interpreting it. Sure. I'm open for suggestions if uh can we just keep issue four off of what we approved today and have that one brought back on Monday or the following week so that we can get it right. Is that the only one that we have issue with?

I I've got some more just a little more comments on PF1, but one clarification on that. We can we can do that. um is the so we have the language and then there's the last sentence that this was an exception that that the the council had talked about that if there was a vacant lot and you constructed something on it. We we talked the discussion today has shifted a little bit from that. Is the intention that if someone builds any type of structure, whether primary or secondary, on a on a vacant lot, that it would be prohibited, or are we only saying a primary dwelling that's built without permits on that?

My view is it ought to be any material structure, so primary or secondary. I mean, like Maryann's example of a barn, I mean, if if you built if it's post cityhood and you build a barn, you shouldn't have built the barn. Okay? and and but that does not include illegal unpermitted additions to a house. It's only an entire structure, right? We need to bring this back when we got a little more thought. I know, but I want to get direction about what they want to be able to craft it. So, they're bring I I thought that we had that discussion that we were just going to give up on modifications to to structures that themselves were permitted that if they hadn't been the subject of an open code violation and they've been there, so be it. We're letting them go. Yeah. Unless they went over property lines.

Unless they went over property lines. Don't don't lose sight of all I'm saying is when we say an open code violation let's be careful we don't I agree that's why I think agree yeah that's the only thing it's not about a small shed or something like that let's define what the open code violation seriousness has to be it has to be related to the construction of the structure yes that the creation of that structure is the code violation not a um yeah so that could be an illegal addition Right? So, if you did an illegal edition

and your neighbors complained about it and a violation was opened, then you have to deal with that. If you put an addition on without permission and no one complained about it, you're just going to get to keep your addition, provided it wasn't. And the only thing we're looking at is what's lawfully erected. That's all that we're determining as part of this. So, getting into some of these uh lighting issues and and other parts probably wouldn't even be part of that, but we can add clarity to it. I think that sounds like enough for for me. Tyler Yolanda, is that enough to bring it back on Monday? Yes. Yes, we do have enough. I think for me also it's just uh not only additions but alterations on code enforcement. So, uh I just want to add that to it. We'll bring something back. It's really just to make it clear for future

Yes. staff that if somebody comes in and you know they're looking at this that they like Doug said that they don't knock them for a a code enforcement that's related to lighting or some other and just so we ha just just so we have it I don't want to keep coming back if we don't get it exactly right. So, Council Member Stewart's point was making making it very clear that the open code enforcement has to speak to the structure. We're making it more clear and not something else, not just some random o code enforcement violation, right? And and then uh Mayor Prom Silverstein was are we taking his verbatim because he read specifically what he wanted. I

I think that was good language. I think we may we can look at it and see if it needs further adjustment. That should be the baseline um for the the second to last sentence and then I think we need to work on the last sentence based on what we've heard from the the council up here. Okay. I I have just one I want to go back to an item Tyler mentioned earlier. If you've got a structure that is violating the environmental co I mean they built on a blue line stream. All right. And they're polluting. You think wouldn't let them rebuild that the way it was because you wouldn't be able to get a permit for that. You under No, under what you guys directed that would be allowed. Yeah. I'm just if it's not active code enforcement and it's not a new independent structure.

I just think there's some of those we just got to be careful with. I mean that you know if we're going to screw up the environment by letting them do what they did before and it's wrong, we should correct that. Yeah. My my my view is we we we had this discussion at length during that 8 hour meeting and where I thought we came out was uh we understand that this is going to allow some things that we really wouldn't want to allow, but if you if you tried to craft the language to catch all of those nuances, you're going to end up capturing a whole bunch more that you don't intend to and slow the whole process down. I don't I don't want to slow it down or add too much more to it. But I'm just saying that there's something that is environmentally incorrect. And

the problem is under whose standard? Because we we hear appeals all the time. One one side says there's nothing wrong with this. It doesn't violate this rule. The other side says it does. The staff's going to then have to get into calling balls and strikes on every single one of those ones where somebody makes an objection. That's why it was felt that a concrete example of you don't have a permit or you do was a better way to go. Tyler, do you expect to get many issues where there is an environmental issue with the way it's being built or was built?

Um, probably not just because I mean there going to be some, but um I think to Council Member Servicing for Mayor Prom's point, um, most of the time it's going to be stuff that people have lived with for the last 10 to 20 years. And so they won't even re they won't even notice. This is really just to make sure like look, I don't want to make it any more complicated than we have. If you're happy with that, I'm happy. It's usually issues with slopes, right? It's like the It's like the the Sarah retreat one we were talking about where this person we identified that this person just was living off the grid. We really just want to make sure they don't can't rebuild. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Coming to the last point. Yes. Which is um issue number PF1.

Um that was a complicated one and I don't think this language comp properly captures where we where I remember we came out. So I'll just going to summarize it first and you can tell me whether you think it captures it or not. I thought what we were saying was that if if you've if you're deemed complete um but you didn't have an app if you're deemed complete and you had an approval, it's as if it's there now. You get to move forward with whatever was approved. Um if it was deemed complete but not approved, if it would have required any kind of discretionary approval and the site plan was was the example, um you still must go through the process of getting that approval. you can but but it's it's still considered like for like and gets you out of the Coastal Act, but you still must go through our internal processes of getting that discretionary approval. And this says may have to do that. Um it's it's a must. It's not a may. If if you had deemed complete but didn't have an approval that was discretionary, you need to go through the process that's necessary to get that discretionary approval. So there's a couple ways in which this language I think needs to be massaged if if everyone agrees that was what we determined to get us to that result. This sounds like you guys can forgive that process if you want to.

What's wrong with what's wrong with having them have May there? Because if it's a minor item, they may be able just to wave it. Um I thought that they were going to have to they had were processing an administrative plan review. I'm sorry I'm waiting. the the house was we just need you the house we talked about was a very was a specific example I believe they were going to have an over height home their addition was over 18 ft over 10% therefore even though they had their application completed it was going to have to go to a hearing of some sort to determine whether anyone objected on community doesn't require hearing so a site plan review can be uh approved by the director um um but it can be appealed

but it had to go on a consent calendar for the commission and somebody could could pull it, right? No. So, a site plan review is an administrative approval that can be approved by the director. If it is appealed, it can be appealed to the planning commission. Okay. Like the the May would eliminate in some circumstances the ability to have an appeal if somebody wished to pursue one. And it seemed wrong. I thought we had this discussion that your home that burned, which you were thinking of making a change to and had applied for, but would have to be going through that process now would be excused from going through that process as well. I think that goes above and beyond anything that we intended to do.

Now, I think we talked about that it was either going to require an RDP or it was going to need an APR as the primary secondary. It was going to do a PV for its fire rebuild and then there was either going to be a redevelopment permit or an administrative plan review permit required plus the discretionary permit for SPR or something like that.

Yeah. And I I thought I actually heard and I wrote it in here that the that the both the deancomplete application and the rebuild are the like for like in those instances. I do remember the council saying that and so it would actually just be treated as one application. We probably just process one APR that memorializes the rebuild plus the deemed complete application.

I I don't Sorry, Doug. Um I I feel that if we deviate from what was agreed upon with the public that was here when we agreed upon it. I do not want to deviate from whatever we said at that meeting because then it opens up. We've changed it and we've kind of stirred the pot too much. So I think this does I think this deep this is what I worry about because we've been thanked they are putting they're plowing ahead. They've been like, "Thank you, thank you, thank you." And now we've kind of backpedled and I want to make sure

we do we do have language in here. We did we did explain that that um they they may have to submit additional documentation aka the SPR information and the city uh the city uh the site plan review it says may but we can change it to shall be denied if the city cannot make the required findings listed in the MMC. So, we have that written in here and that was what was agreed to. It was not that you're you're going to that um couple knew that their their SPR was still up for consideration. It wasn't a deacto approval. We were going to allow them to process the application as they as they were. But if their neighbor complains and their height impacts a a protected view, we cannot make the site plan review findings. We might have to deny that site plan review. That's what they agreed to. Let me just make this comment. We're trying to figure out how to move people along quickly. And the word may gives you the flexibility for the staff to call u out what needs to be done. When you put must in there now you've got solid you got solid guide rails that you can't get around. I would really encourage us to stick with the May and just, you know, we may not get everything perfectly right, but the staff will have the flexibility to move this along quickly. And that's the whole idea.

Yeah. So, so I I wasn't suggesting it must be denied. Um, and I don't think that's what we discussed whatever time it was ago. I thought what we discussed was if the deemed completed application requires a site plan review, minor modification or string modification, it shall still have to go through the city's ordinary process for obtaining that authorization. So in other words, you don't you don't get a PV. This is requiring you to comply with whatever rules otherwise apply. Still maybe it would say and such approvals must still be obtained.

Yeah, that was the point. That was the point where because if you're rebuilding more cuz I think we do say that but you don't want to leave it up for interpretation. You want you want to make it very specific that it says you still must comply with MMC section X. Could we just delete the part where it starts with May and just say and such approval must still be obtained comma such approval must still be obtained. Yeah, that's that that was what we discussed I believe and that's the intention too is if you need a site plan review this does not shortcut you past it. You still need it, right? That was always the intention. So the language was not meant to deviate from that. It was what was agreed upon. But if you that makes it more clear. Does that Does that change work for you, Tyler? Works for me. Does that work for the council approach? Yeah, it works for me.

I'm okay with that. Okay. Do we need to pull PF1 and four? Is it four? I I think we're going to continue four and we'll bring that back with on Monday with the uh number 16. So why don't I just um I'll take everything that we agreed on holy out of red text. I'll come back with the whole document with the red text on these two sections four and PF1 and then we'll also discuss number 10 on Monday and then we'll so you'd rather just bring it as one complete policy. Oh, I just want the whole policy just to be solidified,

but staff can this is a policy document, so staff can still apply directed by the council immediately. Right. I I I would like to actually move that we approve everything in here just like we do on a consent when we pull things. I'd like to move that we approve this policy document except we omit for today PF4. I mean, so number four, um, and PF1 and 10 already says it's got to be decided at a later date. I'd like to actually just get these approved. Do you want to just approve PF1 with the change that we just talked about? Then you would only bring back number four. If you can articulate it to us in a concrete way that we can approve it. Sure.

Yeah, it would just be the change. It would it would delete the text that reads um it may be denied if the city cannot make the required findings list in the MMC and so that it will just say such approval must still be obtained. I'm I'm good with that. So I' I'd move that with that alteration to PF1 we approve everything in here except for four and um recognizing that 10 still needs to be determined. I'll second. I have a question before I vote on anything. Um,

so Monday night we have an appeal. We have a pretty fat agenda. Um, I want to get to this stuff obviously, but I don't know how we're going to do it all. I did think that appeals were supposed to be on special meetings like today where because there's going to be a lot of public for that. It's a very controversial antenna. So that was the direction of the council for all of the appeals moving forward. This one had already been noticed by the time we heard that item at the last council meeting. So that's why this one uh the one on Monday is outside of the new cycle that you guys adopted. All further appeals will be done at uh special meetings. But also um that one had been noticed for that date. So we just could not move it.

I don't have a solution. I just don't know if doing all of this on Monday night. We can move to um continue that one. We can't do it today, but on Monday we can move to continue it and take a vote on that. Or we could vote to move this agenda item earlier in the agenda so that it could be taken care of before the I would like to remind the council that appeal is the one where we anticipate um supervisors Horvath office will be in attendance. So that may be a challenge. We can discuss that at that night that there are a variety of options that we can take on that night to make sure that we complete all business.

Okay. Um Okay. So, uh we have a motion in a second for everything included in this except for item number four and 10 and PF1. I thought we just do the PF1's included. Oh, I'm sorry. Trevor's language. Okay. Yeah. The motion was to approve to bring back number four and then approve the rest the the balance of um staff's recommendation with the change that I read it into policy PF1. Yeah, that's the motion.

Does that mean that no more bulk conversations? It's over. Well, and what I was going to suggest, I'm just double checking to make it clear that um Director Bundy um has a lot of um meetings and outreach uh scheduled upcoming for fire rebuilds and that um maybe additional education on this particular item is included in those those items.

Thank you, mayor, and thank you for uh the microphone. Um yes uh want to uh stay uh invite all the uh families. We're going to have several meetings coming up and it's going to be on our website and advertise. The plan is to meet with all the families uh monthly um with the design professionals also monthly and with your uh fire uh zone capabants every week. Um we will include education and um on policy but what is coming up for next week our first meeting will be um Arch start will go in live on September 30th on October 1st we'll be meeting with uh uh zone capitans to go over how that is going to be um rolled over and uh the implement the how how to use it and then on October Second, on this uh uh on this location, we will be meeting with all of these design professionals to show how they can use Arch Star and hopefully diminish the amount of corrections that we are seeing uh during the building and safety. I also would like to take a little time to happily announce that we have selected um our new assistant community development director and want to thank uh introduce you Tyler Eaton. Um he has gotten a position and very blessed and happy that and welld deserved uh promotion for him.

Congratulations. Well earned. Okay. Um, we have a vote to take. Yes. I just want to confirm that motion was uh Mayor Promps and it was seconded by you, Mayor. Go for Doug. He wants to do. You got it. That's fine. Uh, let's do a roll call. Mayor Pro Tim Silverstein. Yes. Uh, Council Member Stewart, yes. Uh, Council Member Conrad, no. Council member Yearing, yes. Mayor, yes. Uh motion carries. Thank you. And if there's no other business, city manager. All right. This meeting is adjourned.