Malibu City Council weighs support for proposed Pier to Pier Ferry Service
By Hayley Mattson · Sat Jul 18 2026
Debate over coastal transportation proposal aimed at improving emergency preparedness while raising questions about development and traffic
A proposal to launch a privately funded passenger ferry connecting Malibu with Santa Monica, Marina del Rey, Long Beach and San Pedro generated nearly two hours of discussion during the Malibu City Council meeting on July 13, as supporters promoted the project as a new transportation option and emergency evacuation resource while opponents questioned its long-term impacts on development, parking and the character of Malibu.
The proposal, presented by the nonprofit Pier to Pier, requests a letter of support from the City of Malibu to help move forward discussions with California State Parks, which owns the Malibu Pier. Organizers emphasized that they are not seeking any city funding, only the council's endorsement as they continue working toward launching the coastal ferry service.
City Manager Joe Irvin introduced the item, explaining that the concept had previously been presented to the council and that State Parks requested the city formally consider whether it wished to support the initiative.
The proposed service would operate in partnership with Harbor Breeze Cruises using Coast Guard-approved passenger catamarans, providing recreational ferry service between Malibu and other coastal destinations while also creating anothertransportation option during emergencies.
Patricia Maischoss, chair and CEO of Pier to Pier and a 23-year Malibu resident, told council members the idea was born from firsthand experience during the Palisades Fire and years of recurring closures along Pacific Coast Highway.
"This project did not begin in a boardroom," Maischoss said. "It began in a lived experience."
She explained that local residents watched evacuation routes become overwhelmed during the fire and believed Malibu needed another option if PCH became impassable.
"We watched the Palisades fire evacuation, and after years of PCH issues and closures, we felt it was time to have another option, and that's a ferry," she said.
Maischoss stressed that the organization is made up of Malibu residents — not developers — and said board members have collectively contributed thousands of volunteer hours without compensation.
According to the proposal, the ferry would initially connect Malibu to Santa Monica before expanding south to Marina del Rey, Redondo Beach, Long Beach and San Pedro. Organizers estimate the Malibu-to-Santa Monica trip would take approximately 30 minutes aboard 149-passenger catamarans powered by renewable fuel.
Initial ticket prices are projected to be about $50, with organizers seeking state subsidies to reduce fares for Malibu residents and students. The service would begin gradually with special-event trips before expanding to limited daily departures.
Maischoss also announced that California State Parks has expressed interest in repairing the deteriorating Malibu Pier, a project organizers hope could begin this fall. She said private investors have committed funding for infrastructure improvements elsewhere along the route, emphasizing that Malibu taxpayers would not be asked to finance the project.
Emergency preparedness remained one of the central themes throughout the presentation.
Retired U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Tim Sullivan, who lost his Malibu home in the 2018 Woolsey Fire, explained that Pier to Pier would not conduct evacuations itself. Instead, he said, the Coast Guard would coordinate maritime evacuations using numerous available vessels if a major disaster occurred.
Drawing on his experience managing emergency operations following Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita and the Sept. 11 attacks, Sullivan said establishing marine transportation infrastructure before a disaster occurs would provide another tool should Malibu once again become isolated by wildfire or other emergencies.
Board member Kevin Keegan described the emotional impact of the Palisades Fire and said the devastation convinced him to volunteer his professional experience to help improve Malibu's resilience.
"The hard and bitter truth is that Malibu looked like a war zone in January 2025," Keegan said, adding that the ferry proposal represents one of several solutions needed in what he described as a "post-Woolsey Fire, post-Palisades Fire world."
While several council members acknowledged the project's potential benefits, much of the evening centered on legal questions surrounding Senate Bill 79, California's recently enacted housing legislation designed to encourage higher-density development near major transit hubs.
Mayor Bruce Silverstein repeatedly questioned whether a ferry terminal at the Malibu Pier could legally qualify as a "major transit stop," potentially triggering provisions of SB 79 that many Malibu residents fear could encourage larger developments near the pier.
Interim City Attorney Trevor Rusin acknowledged that the law has not yet been interpreted by the courts.
Although current guidance issued by the California Department of Housing and Community Development indicates a privately operated ferry would not qualify as a transit-oriented development stop, Rusin cautioned that no legal precedent currently exists and said his office could prepare a formal written legal opinion for the council.
Council members also questioned organizers about parking, ridership projections, emergency operations and the practicality of ferry service.
Maischoss said organizers have identified potential private parking agreements near the pier for between 70 and 150 vehicles during initial operations while continuing to study long-term parking solutions. She emphasized that the ferry is intended as a recreational service rather than a commuter transit system.
Public comment reflected sharply divided opinions.
Documentary producer, PCH Safety advocate and Malibu resident Michel Shane urged council members to support the proposal, arguing that Malibu's dependence on a single evacuation route has become increasingly dangerous.
"No community should rely solely on a single lane of asphalt for its safety," Shane said, adding that the ferry is intended to complement — not replace — existing transportation infrastructure.
Malibu Pier concessionaire Jefferson Wagner focused on the deteriorating condition of the historic pier, estimating that approximately $5.3 million in repairs are needed to replace aging pilings and structural supports.
Wagner, who has extensive maritime experience operating vessels from the Malibu Pier, said restoring the pier would benefit the entire community by reopening businesses, increasing visitation and preserving one of Malibu's most recognizable landmarks regardless of whether ferry service ultimately proceeds.
The Malibu Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce CEO Maryam Zar endorsed the proposal, calling it an innovative investment that could support local businesses, improve coastal connectivity and provide another transportation alternative as Malibu continues recovering from the Palisades Fire.
Not everyone was convinced.
Longtime resident Bill Sampson urged the council to proceed cautiously, expressing concern that the ferry could unintentionally increase development pressure around the Malibu Pier despite organizers' assurances that the project has no connection to real estate interests.
"I don't want this city getting behind anything that might put condos, big buildings" near the pier, Sampson told the council.
Another longtime resident speaking remotely questioned whether repairing the pier should depend on a commercial ferry proposal at all, suggesting Malibu instead focus on restoring sport fishing operations while continuing to improve emergency evacuation planning.
Throughout the evening, one point drew widespread agreement: the Malibu Pier requires significant repairs, and Malibu continues to face transportation challenges exposed by recurring Pacific Coast Highway closures and recent wildfires.
Following nearly two hours of discussion, Councilmember Doug Stewart made a motion to approve the letter of support for the Pier to Pier initiative, adding language stating that the endorsement was made "with the understanding that SB 79 will not apply." Stewart emphasized that the council was not approving the ferry service itself, but simply allowing the proposal to continue through the review process. Councilmember Marianne Riggins quickly seconded the motion, while Mayor Pro Tem Steve Uhring questioned whether the added language would have any legal effect. "It doesn't stop anything. It doesn't change anything," Uhring said, arguing that the statement would provide little protection if the state later interpreted the law differently.
Mayor Bruce Silverstein reiterated his concerns that the council was being asked to assume an unknown legal risk without first receiving a formal legal opinion from the city's attorneys. He said that while current guidance from state agencies suggested SB 79 would not apply to a privately operated ferry, the legislation remained untested in court and could be interpreted differently in the future. Silverstein argued that before endorsing the proposal, the council should receive a detailed legal analysis addressing whether the ferry terminal could eventually qualify as a transit-oriented development stop under state law. Other council members countered that the legislation was intended to encourage housing near major high-capacity transit systems — not a small recreational ferry — and noted that future changes in state law are always possible regardless of the council's decision.
Ultimately, the council voted 3-2 to approve the letter of support, with Stewart, Riggins and Councilmember Haylynn Conrad voting in favor, while Mayor Pro Tem Steve Uhring and Mayor Bruce Silverstein voted against the motion. The approval allows Pier to Pier to continue working with California State Parks and other agencies as the proposal advances, but it does not constitute approval of the ferry service itself. Significant planning, environmental review, permitting, and additional public discussions will still be required before passenger service could become a reality.