Malibu Township Council’s appeal sets forth 20 bases for overturning Planning Commission’s approval

By Barbara Burke

Special to The Malibu Times 

The Malibu City Council will soon hold a public hearing concerning an exhaustive appeal filed by the Malibu Township Council seeking review of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Malibu Inn, a project that involves construction of a new 7,693-square-foot, 20-room motel above a new subterranean parking garage across from the Pier. 

The project also includes a surface parking lot, a rooftop deck with swimming pool, spa and bar area, grading, retaining walls, landscaping, a new onsite wastewater treatment system and authorization for the planning director to submit a letter of public convenience or necessity for the sale of alcohol. The project will be located at 22959 Pacific Coast Highway. Burdge and Associates Architects, Inc. / Surfrider Plaza, LLC represents applicant Alexander Hakim, who originally filed a permit request on June 11, 2018.

The Planning Commission approved the motel project on May 31, 2023. The MTC appealed to the City Council on July 27, 2023, raising 20 substantive challenges to the Commission’s project approval. On March 15, the City Council deferred consideration of the appeal, which had been slated for March 25. 

The project 

The proposed Malibu Inn Motel site sits across from the Malibu Pier between AviatorNation, the Chabad and its early child education center, and the Rabbi’s residence.

At the base of the proposed project is the entry lobby and reception area, together with an enclosed parking garage. The second and third levels contain the guest rooms and a commercial kitchen. The top floor contains a pool deck, elevator box, and roofed bar area. 

Appellant MTC asserts 20 challenges to the commission’s project approval, beginning with its assertion that the project is not correctly zoned. 

“This project is in the CV1 Zone,” MTC noted. “The CV designation provides for visitor serving uses that respect the rural character and natural environmental setting — this project does neither.” 

Rural character height is limited to two stories, while this project is four stories, the MTC notes, adding, “By unallowable excessive grading into the properties’ coastal bluff, this project does not respect the natural environmental setting.” 

The project’s status as a hotel or a motel

The gravamen of many of MTC’s claims center on its position that the project constitutes a hotel, not a motel, and therefore, if the project is to proceed at all, there must be a zone change to CV2, which would permit hotel use, a process that involves a Local Implementation Plan amendment. 

Focusing on definitions, the MTC notes that, as defined in the city’s Local Coastal Plan’s LIP, a “motel” is a “group of attached or detached buildings containing guest rooms, some or all of which have a separate entrance leading directly from the outside of the building to automobile parking spaces conveniently located on the lot or parcel of land and does not provide accessory uses such as restaurants and meeting rooms.” 

Applying that definition, the MTC argues, “This project does not meet the LIP’s definition of a motel, because none of the rooms have such separate entrances — indeed, none of the guest rooms are on the parking level.” Further, motels don’t serve alcoholic beverages or have a kitchen or food service and the applicant seeks to host meetings and functions such as weddings, bar mitzvahs, and similar gatherings. MTC also notes the property is directly adjacent to a synagogue and an early childhood education center, which violates ABC Control Act Section 23789 Rule 61.4, which permits ABC to prohibit the sale of alcohol near schools or churches. 

Coastal bluff grading 

MTC also asserts that the natural coastal bluff behind the proposed project will be destroyed if the project is approved because “the project will block more than one half of the coastal bluff and likely will further destabilize the bluff,” because the applicant intends to cut into the bluff significantly. MTC bolsters this argument by providing a 2014 memo written to the City Council by Adrian Hernandez, the same City of Malibu city planner who is tasked with working on this project. Hernandez’s memorandum, entitled “Local Coastal Program Interpretation No. 9,” states that “slopes that were historically created by wave action but are no longer subject to it may still be prone to erosion or stability hazard.” 

Against that background, MTC sets forth the significant cut grading plan the commission approved for this project.  

“According to the staff report, the 1.18 acre net lot area would undergo excavation of .77 acres — over three-quarters of an acre of coastal bluff and excavation of approximately 11,921 cubic yards of soil,” Hernandez’s memo states. That translates into more than 65 percent of the 1.18 acres being destroyed by cutting into the Coastal Bluff when the Planning Commission’s declaration approving the project says it is an admittedly unstable bluff. “No one has ever been allowed to grade a coastal bluff face,” MTC’s appeal states, claiming that the applicant has been granted a variance by the commission that is both detrimental to public interest and that also provides a special privilege, both of which are specifically proscribed by relevant city regulations.

MTC asserts that cutting the bluff could significantly compromise residences above the proposed project, and therefore, the geology of the site needs to be studied in an Environmental Impact Review. As a corollary to those arguments, the MTC also asserts that the retaining wall approved by the commission is excessively high and the building itself, when measured accurately to include the above-grade portion of the parking structure, is four stories, twice the amount allowed by the Code. 

MTC bolsters its assertion by stating “the so-called 29 sub-terrain parking spaces are actually above grade — placing a berm around an above grade structure does not make it subterranean.” MTC asserts the record — and the measurements in it — are flawed and, when calculated correctly, mandate concluding “this project is 44-plus feet high at a minimum.” In support of that claim, MTC notes that an April 2020 traffic study in the record and an onsite wastewater treatment system design report both refer to a “three-level motel.”

Accordingly, the Township argues that both the height and number of stories are misrepresented and when correctly assessed they violate both the Malibu Municipal Code and the LIP.

MTC’s concerns regarding noise, wastewater treatment, setbacks and traffic 

Other concerns expressed by MTC in its 37-page appeal include alleged noise violations — no sound study was performed with regard to the implications for noise affecting the Chabad’s Rabbi house, religious school, and synagogue directly east of the motel. Further, MTC notes the pool is not open to the public as required by law — see www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-lip-final.pdf (“pool uses permitted only if available to the general public as to pools in both CV-1 and CV-2 zoned properties”). 

With regard to the project’s on-site wastewater treatment center, the Township Council opines that “The applicant has not complied with the original project’s effluent flow per gallon in the water banned area — there is also another lot’s future expansion area located on the lot (referring to AviatorNation) which is not allowed. Two septic systems cannot be on the same lot.”  MTC also asserts, “The septic system is far too small for the hotel and employees, especially when there is a large event, such as a wedding. This will guarantee a bad water report and cannot be mitigated.”

MTC also objects to the fact that there is zero rear setback, which, it states, “is COMPLETELY against the codes and is a privilege given SOLELY to the applicant, no other buildings along PCH have this.” 

In a similar vein, MTC asserts the applicant was improperly accorded favorable treatment with regard to parking, stating, “The Malibu Beach was denied lifts for additional parking, yet this hotel was easily approved for this. The approval is inconsistent with similar applications as it permits off-site parking in excess of 300-feet walking distance.” 

In short, MTC asserts that the parking situation needs to be analyzed in an EIR and that the project, as approved by the commission, will cause a loss of public parking. “The project needs to be studied in conjunction with the traffic circulation and offsite parking impacts created by the Sea View Hotel, the Malibu Beach Inn, Nobu, Soho House, Malibu Pier, The Farm Restaurants on the Pier, Malibu Ryokan, Surfrider Motel, Aviator Nation as well as Surfrider beach parking east of the Adamson house,” the appeal says. “Since this project was first proposed over 10 years ago, no EIR has been prepared, although many projects have been planned or completed in the general area which require inclusion in an EIR.” 

Further, MTC asserts that a traffic study is required, noting that the area is subject to extreme gridlock, especially in the summer.

Low-cost accommodations were also not addressed adequately by the commission, according to MTC, whose argument centers on the Coastal Commission’s mandates that, when feasible, lower-cost accommodations must be provided to help the public access the coast. Instead of going through a usual cost-based analysis which sets forth rates that a hotel charges regularly and what reduced rates they will offer those needing to pay less and for how many rooms such reduced rates will be offered, the commission’s approval simply states that the applicant must pay an in-lieu fee to meet this mandated criteria. 

Possible Chumash cultural resources necessitate an EIR, MTC asserts

In an email provided to The Malibu Times by MTC, Barbara Tejada, supervisor of the Cultural Resources Program for the Los Angeles District of California State Parks, states “The Malibu Inn Motel/Hotel site is likely a satellite use area of the village of Humaliwo and it would be important at the very least to have a Phase I archaeological survey and Phase II archaeological testing conducted on the property to ensure that cultural deposits are not encountered. In addition to archaeological artifacts, state law also now protects “tribal cultural resources” which can be both cultural and natural resources of significance to the tribes.

Therefore, MTC asks the city to amplify the wording of the ordinance approving this project as it fails to require work to stop if a cultural resource is found during grading, the extensive bluff excavation or any site disturbance. The current language of the ordinance only states that such work cessation shall occur if potentially culturally significant cultural resources are found during construction or during geologic testing. 

“It is likely that significant cultural resources or a Chumash burial site could be found on this site,” MTC asserted, adding, “When the clock tower building two properties to the east was under construction a Chumash burial site was found and excavated.”

Overall, MTC asserts that the Planning Commission did not conduct an impartial hearing and that “given the fact that the requisite findings to support allowing this project to proceed cannot be made because of so many code violations, this decision is most obviously contrary to law.”

Readers should note that as of press time, MTC’s filed appeal has not been posted on the city’s website, but a 488-page staff pertaining to the project has been. https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/6041?fileID=45307

The Malibu Times will update readers concerning when the City Council will consider the Malibu Township Council’s appeal.

State-mandated inspections for multi-residential dwellings must be completed by Jan. 1, 2025

By Barbara Burke

Special to The Malibu Times

A group of building and architectural professionals, members of homeowners associations, and citizens who own condominium complexes or other multi-residential dwellings in the City of Malibu met with representatives of the city on March 12 to learn how to comply with a new, state-mandated requirement entitled Exterior Elevated Elements (E3) Program, which mandates that, by Jan. 1, 2025, E3s in multi-family buildings with three or more dwelling units must be inspected by a California-licensed architect, or a California-licensed civil or structural engineer. Affected properties include condominiums, apartments, hotels, motels, vacation timeshare properties, dormitories, fraternities and sororities, and social rehabilitation centers. 

The meeting was led by Building Safety Department Official Yolanda Bundy who carefully explained what the new law requires and what building elements it concerns.  E3’s include balconies, exterior walkways, decks, exterior stairs and landings, and guards and associated handrails, Yolanda stated. The new requirements were implemented by the City of Malibu as mandated by the California Legislature’s enactment of SB 721 and SB 326, cumulatively referred to as the Balcony Inspection Bill. On Sept. 17, 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed the bills into law.  SB 721 relates to commercial apartment buildings, while SB 326 relates to condominiums or multi-family housing that are controlled by residential condominium associations. 

The bills were enacted in response to the tragic deaths of six Berkeley students in 2015 at an apartment complex due to the collapse of a balcony. Readers may recall that in 2021, 9 people were injured when a balcony at a beachfront Malibu home collapsed, sending victims onto rocks below.

To comply with the new laws, in February, the Malibu City Council approved an ordinance requiring inspections that comply with state standards.  The ordinance requires periodic inspections on multifamily buildings with three or more attached units. Owners have until Jan. 1, 2025, to complete the first inspection. For those structures that pass such inspections, another assessment must be completed every six to nine years, depending on the property’s classification. 

Attendees sought clarity concerning how to comply with the law. Bundy explained that the inspection report is a legal document that will be part of a property’s report.

“The goal of this program is to ensure that buildings are safe for occupants and visitors,” Bundy emphasized. “We here at the city are here to help you comply with the requirements and answer all of your questions.”

Materials distributed by the city provided more details, stating, “The program’s purpose is to safeguard public safety by maintaining the strength of structural components supporting E3s.” 

Program objectives include identifying wood-framed E3s exhibiting significant deterioration due to wood-destroying organisms such as fungal decay or insect infections, identifying steel-framed E3s exhibiting significant section loss due to corrosion, and ascertaining whether the extent of deterioration or corrosion poses a significant compromise to the load-carrying adequacy of structural components supporting E3s. Inspectors should try to locate the water source if wood is being destroyed by organism infestation or corrosion is observed in wood or steel framing. 

“The assessment is first done by a Tier 1 screening and a Tier 2 evaluation and remediation, if necessary,” Bundy said. “Those terms are defined in the American Society of Civil Engineers Code 41-17.”

She explained that Tier 1 screenings must be completed by a California-licensed architect, civil engineer, or structural engineer. If a Tier 2 remediation is required, the owner should schedule an appointment with the building official to confirm the extent of remediation required. One accomplishes that by emailing Senior Civil Engineer Andre Ketchedjian at  aketchedjian@malibucity.org or calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 299. 

“We are here to meet with owners to clarify exactly what repairs must be done to remediate any concerns,” Bundy said. “Those who need to repair their E3s must obtain the necessary permits, and if urgently needed repairs are required, we can help an owner get the permits expeditiously.”

Noting that there are 25 condo associations in Malibu and each one has 100 or more units, Bundy acknowledged the extent of the program, but emphasized that the city stands ready to help owners to ensure they comply with the laws.

Attendees expressed concerns about the expenses they would incur to comply with the new law. Further, several stated that many architects would not want to conduct the inspections due to liability concerns.

Architect Richard Sol noted that some condos in Malibu were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and owners may face significant expense in complying with the law. Then, there were concerns regarding who to find a proper.

“It might be very helpful as you try to find a professional to conduct the assessment to contact the original architect or the builder of record because they are already familiar with the property,” Bundy noted.

For more information go to Malibucity.org/E3.

Future Information Meetings are Scheduled:

April 4, from 12 to 1 p.m.

April 9, from 3 to 4 p.m.

May 16, from 12 to 1 p.m.

Commissioners suggested providing background information on each lot’s restrictions, such as parking 

The Planning Commission began Monday night’s (March 18) meeting by addressing options for community outreach tactics to seek community input and ways to engage the community for suggestions to the city’s owned vacant lands.

On Feb. 12, the City Council awarded the contract for outreach and engagement related to city-owned vacant land to Tripepi Smith & Associates. The outreach and engagement plan are to identify top facility priorities and develop a master plan for the future uses of the city’s vacant properties.

On Sept. 27, 2023, the City Council approved the city’s first Strategic Plan list to help focus and prioritize staff efforts on the most important projects that city staff need to work on. As part of that plan, the council identified the need for a comprehensive outreach and education program to engage the Malibu community and stakeholders for the future uses of the vacant lots owned by the city.

“The successful utilization of city-owned vacant land requires a robust outreach strategy that engages stakeholders, fosters collaboration, and promotes public participation,” the agenda says. “The city is committed to maintaining transparency and accountability throughout the process by providing regular updates on the status of our engagement efforts.”

The five vacant lots mentioned were, the “Chili Cook-Off” Lot, (23575 Civic Center Way); the “Triangle” Lot (23800 Civic Center Way); “Heathercliff” Lot (29136 Pacific Coast Highway); the “Trancas” Lot (6103 Trancas Canyon Road); and the “La Paz” Lot (23467 Civic Center Way).

Commissioners were asked to provide feedback and comments. The commission pitched the local newspaper, the radio, social media platforms, and other community meetings or gatherings the city can host to bring awareness on these workshops. 

Commissioner Skylar Peak suggested using the newspaper to direct people to in-person presentations and workshops. Peak also suggested having meetings online and having them recorded and available to watch afterward. 

“I think it’s just hard to get the input, I think people are better suited being here in-person,” Peak said. 

Commissioners also suggested to provide a reference guide and background information on each lot such as each lot’s restrictions and what they can have, such as parking lot. 

“Getting the people who don’t go to meetings to come are the most important,” Commissioner John Mazza said. “You have to go out and approach those people who are going to use those services, so it’s not biased.”

Mazza recommended not using the radio or newspaper because Malibu is a transient community. 

“I would doubt that 20 percent of the people read The Malibu Times, and I guess that 5 to 10 percent listen to KBUU Radio,” Mazza said. “So we need to have something that’s much more obvious.”

Mazza said it needs to grab the attention of specific groups such as homeowners associations, and the Malibu Chamber of Commerce. 

Chair Kraig Hill said he thinks the newspaper ads will be beneficial. Hill also suggested encouraging people to sign up for email notifications. 

The commission motioned to receive and file an Extension of Coastal Development Permit No. 17-001.

The commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. 21-053, continued from March 4, 2024. Site Plan Review No. 22-005, and Demolition Permit No. 23-003 – An application to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence, attached garage, attached guest house, and pool cabana, onsite wastewater treatment system, landscaping, and associated site improvements.

The commission approved Coastal Development Permit No. 21-014 and Demolition Permit No. 23-005 – An application for the construction of a new one-story single-family residence and associated development.

The commission motioned to continue Coastal Development Permit No. 23-019 and Site Plan Review No. 23-024 – An application for a new single-family residence, a second unit, and associated development, to a date April 15, with a request for staff to clarify commissioners concerns. 

To view the rest of the meeting visit, malibucity.org.

Legal dispute over proposed unit for family member goes all the way to state Supreme Court

By Barbara Burke

Special to The Malibu Times

Like many Malibu and American families, Jason and Liz Riddick have undertaken the responsibility of ensuring that Liz’s elderly and ailing mother’s needs are met and they decided that the mother, Renee Sperling, should live with them. Liz serves as Sperling’s primary caretaker.

With three kids, three adults, and pets, the Riddicks’ West Malibu neighborhood home is cramped, which is not only uncomfortable, but also concerning because such close conditions are not recommended for Sperling, who is immunocompromised, according to Sperling’s physicians.

In July 2020, The Riddicks applied for a permit to build “a new 414-square-foot ADU and a 157-square-foot addition to the existing residence that included a new primary bathroom.” 

What followed is yet another iteration of the ever-familiar tension between private landowners’ desires to use their property to fit their needs and a local government’s constraints against how private landowners can alter their residences.

On June 7, 2021, following communications between the  city and the Riddicks, the city’s Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the Riddicks’ request for an ADU permit. The commission concluded that a Coastal Development Permit was required for the project and refused to approve one, finding that the project did “not  conform to the Local Coastal Plan as it violates residential development standards for required minimum rear and side yard setbacks and maximum allowed total development square footage and total  impervious lot coverage.”  

On June 28, 2021, the Riddicks appealed the commission’s denial of their requests for an ADU permit. On Aug. 19, 2021, the City Council denied their appeal.    

On Sept. 2, 2021, the Riddicks resubmitted plans to the  city, advising that the new plans contained a modification: “[T]here will be no addition to the primary residence. Instead, the proposed space originally put forth as an addition to the primary residence is now designated as part of the ADU.” The Riddicks maintained the revised project was exempt from the CDP requirement, and therefore entitled to ministerial review and approval.  

However, the city attorney responded that the proposed project required a CDP, without specifically addressing  the Riddicks’ modified plans. 

Therefore, the parties became embroiled in litigation. A little bit of procedural history regarding the parties’ litigation helps readers to understand the current status of the Riddick-City of Malibu dispute.

The procedural history of the parties’ litigation

On Nov. 18, 2021, the Riddicks filed a complaint against the city asking the court to rule that the city “had a  clear, present, and ministerial duty to review and approve the Riddicks’ ADU permit application, and the Riddicks had a clear, present, and beneficial right to approval of their permit application.” 

They asserted that their ADU project was exempt from the CDP requirement and should therefore be approved ministerially under state ADU standards set forth in Gov. Code, § 65852.2.  

Chapter 13 of the city’s Local Coastal Plan establishes the process for the review of all development within the city’s coastal zone to ensure that it is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Act. Section 13.4.1 of that chapter exempts “[i]improvements to existing single-family residences” from the requirement of a CDP, with certain exceptions. 

The interpretation of that section’s exemption is at the core of the dispute between the parties. The Riddicks maintain their situation is not within the exemptions in Section 13.4.B, and hence, they should get their permit from the city, which should process the application ministerially. Whereas, the city maintains that its interpretation of those exemptions requires a CDP and further, its interpretation of the statute is entitled to great deference by reviewing courts. 

The trial court sided with the Riddicks. On the issue of giving deference to the city’s interpretation of Section 13.4.1, the trial court explained that “the proper  interpretation of the [section] is a question of law for the [c] ourt’s independent interpretation. The [c]court is certainly not bound by the city’s (or commission’s) interpretation. Furthermore, the city’s interpretation is not a long-standing opinion on this issue.  In fact, the city (and commission) ha[ve] admittedly reversed  course with this decision. These circumstances weigh against finding deference.”  

As to whether the language of Section 13.4.1 unambiguously exempted the Riddicks’ project from the CDP requirement, the trial court concluded that “the plain language of the statute fits [the Riddicks’] interpretation far better than the city’s  interpretation.” 

Accordingly, on Sept. 19, 2022, the trial court entered a judgment for the Riddicks directing the city to process the Riddick’s application for an ADU.

However, the city appealed. The appellate court, in a published and precedential opinion, also ruled for the Riddicks on this issue, ruling the Riddicks need not apply for a coastal development permit. 

The parties’ battle continues as the city seeks discretionary review in the California Supreme Court

On March 13, the city issued a statement saying, “At issue in the cause of action decided in the Riddicks’ favor was the city’s interpretation of the language in its Local Coastal Program (LCP). Even though the California Coastal Commission published a memorandum that supported the city’s interpretation, the Court of Appeal gave no deference to this interpretation. The city believes the Court of Appeal’s decision departs from the deference due a city (particularly when supported by the Coastal Commission itself) in the interpretation of its own LCP. The city will be seeking review from the California Supreme Court. For more information, see the court decision: 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B323731.PDF.”

The Riddicks are extremely frustrated that the city is seeking the highest California court’s discretionary review.

Liz Riddick is upset, stating, “Malibu utterly fails to build its share of new housing, and wastes taxpayer money to deny a tiny granny flat all the way to the Supreme Court.  All our family has done is follow the plain language of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program. Malibu’s existing LCP states that attached structures like our ADU do not require a coastal development permit.” 

Liz continued, “What this means is that attached ADUs anywhere in Malibu that meet statewide ADU requirements are not subject to Malibu’s onerous TDSF and side-yard setbacks, which the city relies upon to block the creation of affordable housing. That is why the city deleted the language that protects the ability to build an attached ADU from the LCP as part of the flawed ADU ordinance it recently approved, and sent to the Coastal Commission for comment.”

In Liz’s analysis, the city is wasting both time and taxpayer money. “Instead of wasting the community’s time and money filing frivolous appeals, Malibu should craft an ADU ordinance that is lawful, and actually allows small scale and environmentally conscious ADUs to be constructed here,” she said. “The appellate court judges virtually laughed at the city’s law firm when Malibu’s attorney tried to redefine the plain English in Malibu’s LCP and call it deference. 

“Apparently Malibu’s city government prefers to continue to waste the community’s time and taxpayer money on frivolous appeals which hurt all of us in the long run. It’s outrageous!”

Jason Riddick agreed: “Malibu continues its stalling campaign against the property rights of residents by going to absurd lengths to prevent our modest 460-square-foot backyard ADU. The city already found that our planned ADU has no adverse environmental impact. Malibu has lost in court twice now, yet they’re continuing to waste time on a meritless petition for review, only about 5 percent of which are ever even granted. The city makes these poor choices without community input, behind closed doors, at the behest of financially interested outside lawyers, who are funded with our tax dollars. It’s a shame, but we’ll win in the end when they are forced to give us our permit.”  

The city did not agree to a Malibu Times request to interview a city official regarding this case. Rather, it relies on statements made in its press release.      

The city has filed its petition for review in the California Supreme Court and the Riddicks will respond in due course. The Malibu Times will keep readers informed as this is an important issue concerning attached ADUs in Malibu.

Community members continue to advocate for a safer road for all

On Feb. 26, members of Streets are for Everyone and Fix P.C.H. and other officials gathered on the corner of PCH and Webb Way for a moment of silence as they added another Ghost Tire, bringing the number to 59. Last month, the latest Ghost Tire was placed in honor of 32-year-old Jose Alfonso De Lira Piedra, who was killed in December last year. 

On Dec. 24, at 6 p.m., Los Angeles County Fire Department and deputies from Lost Hills Station responded to a vehicle versus motorcycle traffic collision on 33400 Pacific Coast Highway. The male motorcyclist, was identified as De Lira Piedra, of Burbank. According to authorities, a black vehicle was backing out of a driveway on the south side of PCH when it crashed into Piedra. He died at the scene of the crash.

The City of Malibu released a statement on the incident on social media.

“The city’s thoughts are with all those affected by this tragic event. The city is committed to working with Caltrans in its efforts to improve safety conditions on PCH while simultaneously exploring ways that the city can address PCH safety concerns within its jurisdictional ability.”

After the tragic incident that took the lives of four Pepperdine students — Deslyn Williams, Niamh Rolston, Asha Weir, and Peyton Stewart — in October 2023, family, friends, and community members have been advocating to make PCH safer for all motorists and pedestrians.

The Ghost Tire memorial was placed a month after the incident occurred. The names of the four students were placed, as well as the names of every person killed along Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu since 2010.

Malibu resident and film producer Michel Shane began promoting his film “21 Miles in Malibu” back in May 2023. He has been at every press conference, White Tire memorial, and the most recent City Council meeting on March 11 to continue his advocacy for not only the film but also the message behind the film, the education. 

“I feel like my film can be a great vehicle for the city by having the city as one of our sponsors for this film and being a story that’s about Malibu for Malibu, it only makes sense that the city supports it,” Shane said at the meeting. “I would like very much to continue working on making this film, the film that creates the change that’s necessary.”

Shane hopes the film will influence new drivers to learn the rules of driving. 

“If people’s attitudes don’t change, then you are just really reinforcing it,” Shane said. “My altruistic goal is to make it safer for everyone, whether it’s me or the next person, and everyone goes up from there.”

Shane said he is also working on a project that involves video games.

“What is the one thing they all have in common? They all play games, they all play on their phones, so I am working to develop a program that will take what we need to know from driving, what we need to know about speeding, create a game that they will want to play, and guess what’ll happen, they’ll learn the road, they’ll learn what’s going on without being lectured or forced to read something, and that will change their mindset,” Shane said.

Since the tragic accident, the community has been urging the city and Caltrans to make PCH safer, such as completing projects and bringing back CHP to enforce speeding on PCH. 

“What needs to really be done is someone needs to go look at PCH, figure out which areas have to be slowed down, why they need to be slowed down, and that doesn’t mean having another five-year study,” Shane said. “So I think what the community has to realize is they have a voice. We just have to keep the pressure up.” 

Shane said they will be screening the film at Malibu High School on May 1 for students and parents, with speakers such as Sheriff’s Capt. Jennifer Seetoo, and LA County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath. 

“We are going to be doing it in Calabasas and surrounding communities — anyone that’s using PCH — to just bring in awareness,” Shane said. “Yes. It’s a beautiful road, and yes, it’s a wide-open road, but yes, it can also take your life.”

Ceremonial/Presentations: 

1. Recognition of Environmental Sustainability Director Yolanda Bundy’s receipt of the Los Angeles Basin Section Supervisor of the Year Award from the California Water Environment Association.
2. Los Angeles County Fire Brigade Program Update

New Items: 

1. Mayors’ Monarch Pledge. Recommended Action: 1) Authorize Mayor Uhring to sign the National Wildlife Federation Mayors’ Monarch Pledge, renewing the City’s commitment to save the monarch butterfly; and 2) Direct staff to implement measures to meet the commitments of the Mayors’ Monarch Pledge in support of monarch and pollinator conservation in the Malibu community.
2. Trancas Canyon Park Playground Resurfacing Project. Recommended Action: 1) Approve the award and authorize the Mayor to execute a construction contract with Robertson Industries, Inc. in the amount of $197,151.31 for the construction of the Trancas Canyon Park Playground Resurfacing, Specification No. 2109; and 2) Authorize the Public Works Director to approve any potential change orders up to 15 percent of the contract amount.
3. Proposed Advocacy for Changes to the California State Vehicle Code to Deter Excessive Speeding on PCH. Recommended Action: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 24-14 advocating for changes to the California State Vehicle Code and requesting State and County officials work collaboratively to increase safety on Pacific Coast Highway, and 2) Authorize the City Manager to send a letter to named officials in the resolution along with the resolution to advocate for these changes.
4. Investment Report for the Month Ending February 29, 2024. 
5. Townsend Public Affairs Inc. Grant Writing Services Report.

Ordinances and Public Hearings:

1. Ordinance No. 516 to Amend Malibu Municipal Code 2.04.030 and Modify the Official Holidays of the City of Malibu.
2. Amendment to Malibu Municipal Code Chapters 15.40, 15.42, and 15.44 To Requires Additional OWTS Requirements for Home Occupation Uses that Place Additional Strain on the OWTS.
3. Updated Developer Fee Program for the Benefit of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County.
4. Appeal No. 23-004 – Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-24 (22959 Pacific Coast Highway; Appellant: Malibu Township Council; Applicant: Burdge and Associates Architects, Inc.; Property Owner: Surfrider Plaza, LLC).

Council Items: 

1. Council Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Recommended Action: Councilmember Riggins may make a new appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

To view the full City Council Agenda, visit malibucity.org/virtualmeetings.