Code aimed to ensure a positive, productive working relationship among City Council, city manager and employees, and public

In a civilized society, certain rules of civility that apply during discourse in a public meeting, when properly drafted, strive to ensure that government leaders, and those with whom they converse in open sessions and in less formal settings, can participate in meaningful dialogue, as is guaranteed by the first amendments to both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California.

On Oct. 15, the Malibu City Council considered and passed a code of conduct for all city officials. Formally entitled,“City of Malibu Code of Conduct for Officials, including members of the City Council, Boards, Commissions, and Committees, and the City Manager, City Attorney and Treasurer,” the enactment sets forth provisions that are aimed to“ensure a positive, productive working relationship among City Council members, the City Manager, city employees, Malibu residents and other members of the public.”

The staff report recites that on Sept. 27, 2023, the City Council adopted a strategic work plan identifying 20 items as“Priority Projects,” and under the core focus of “Top Workplace Culture,” the provision highlighted several key areas such as recruitment and retention, workplace morale, and employee culture. The report notes that part of that process included drafting a Code of Conduct “to ensure there is a standard for treating one another in a kind and professional manner.” 

A Policy Ad Hoc committee, consisting of Mayor Doug Stewart and City Councilmember Bruce Silversteincoordinated with staff to present the draft Code of Conduct, which passed by a 4-1 vote, with City Councilmember Steve Uhring abstaining. During discussion before the vote, most of those who spoke agreed that a standard of appropriate conduct is necessary in order to — as the Code states — “safeguard participatory democracy in Malibu.” 

“We have an employee handbook for staff to follow, but what really wasn’t present in a concise way was a Code of Conduct,” Mayor Stewart told The Malibu Times. “The code we have passed consists of six pages of guidance and sets forth rules of the road for those involved in city government and constituents — it’s a codification of what we’reresponsible for.”

Stewart noted that the city and all those encompassed by the code are also expected to adhere to the Roberts Rules of Order in official proceedings. 

During deliberations before the vote, Uhring opined that the genesis of drafting a code of conduct was a raucous May City Council meeting wherein councilmembers, members of the staff, members of the Malibu Township Council andmembers of the public debated about a pending permit for a motel to be constructed across from the Malibu Pier. 

Readers may recall that after that meeting, Adrian Fernandez, a city employee in the Planning Department, claimed he was verbally attacked by Uhring and others, verbally attacked by members of the MTC, had his life threatened by one of Uhring’s supporters, and that there was severe dysfunction in what Fernandez characterized as a toxic work environment. Fernandez has since left the City of Malibu and works as the community and economic development director for the City of Lomita.

“Passing the Code of Ethics and the discussion about that definitely involved the motel/hotel issue,” said Jo Drummond, MTC president, noting that organization sent a letter to the council protesting enactment of the code.

“Malibu Township Council participates civilly at city hearings over the past five years that I have attended as a resident or current president,” Drummond said. “Malibu Township Council denies the spurious allegations of the disgruntled, former city employee who wrote a deficient report recommending the Malibu Inn motel/hotel.”

Drummond added, “The MTC adamantly opposes the provision of the Code of Conduct policy that adds the ability of the majority of the council to remove commissioners and other appointees without the appointing councilmembers’approval thus limiting debate.”

Drummond referred to an enforcement provision in the code, which states that a majority of the council can, when itdeems an appointed commissioner’s behavior violative of the Code of Conduct, remove that commissioner without agreement from the councilmember who appointed that commissioner.

“I won’t sign the Code of Conduct!” Commissioner John Mazza told The Malibu Times. His objections parrot those of the MTC.  “The Code the council passed limits complete debate because those deliberating will know they face being removed from their post if what they say offends a majority of the City Council,” Mazza said.

Mazza characterized the provisions of the code that detail what constitutes behavior warranting a removal vote as “very vague.” 

During the City Council meeting, Silverstein noted that the provisions in the code are aspirational in nature.

“My goal was to make sure that there was absolutely nothing in here that was dictating activity which was legally permissible,” Silverstein said. “There is no restriction on any legally permissible activity, and not to mandate that anybody do anything.”

Some in Malibu strenuously object to the code provision concerning commissioner removal.

“Inserting the ability for a majority of three councilpersons to remove a minority councilperson’s appointee into the Code of Conduct exposes a political game plan,” Ryan Embree opined. “It’s just so wrong — it’s such a power grab!” 

Embree proposes adopting the City of Calabasas’ procedure for choosing commission members.

“It’s better to vet the candidates for a commission position in the appointment process,” he suggested. “Calabasas vets appointees as a whole and ratifies them as a whole — the vetting happens up front and the council votes for them.” 

For now, the Code of Conduct stands and includes the provision that a majority of the council can remove appointed commissioners. Notably, adoption of a Code of Conduct was urged by the California Joint Powers Insurance Agency, which has 33 city members, including Malibu, and advises participating cities on risk management best practices. Arecent meeting between the Malibu City Council and key staff with the JPIA addressed how the city’s representatives should comport themselves in the workplace, Stewart stated. He noted that minutes of that presentation are not available. 

A $73 fine will be issued to vehicles for pedestrian safety violations starting Jan. 1, 2025

In addition to the speed cameras that are quickly approaching Malibu, the city announced the adoption of Assembly Bill 413, which prohibits the parking or stopping of vehicles within 20 feet from marked and unmarked crosswalks or within 15 feet of any crosswalk with a curb extension.

At the end of 2023, Gov. Gavin Newson signed into law SB 413, making it illegal in California to park within 20 feet of the approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, whether or not there is a red curb painted or a sign. It is commonly referred to as the Daylighting Law. Daylighting is the practice of removing parking spaces near crosswalks and intersections to improve public safety by increasing the visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists for drivers. 

During the City Council meeting on Monday, Oct. 28, Public Safety Director Susan Dueñas and Public Safety Liason Luis Flores answered questions and concerns about the parking regulations. The council shared concerns about residents who don’t have parking or parking garages near their homes and are getting cited.

“Per the bill, curb zones have to be marked, but the goal is to essentially start issuing citations and notifying drivers that they’re in violation of the Daylighting Bill if they’re parked too close within that 20 feet mark of a marked or unmarked crosswalk,” Flores said. 

The city is currently issuing warning citations through their parking enforcement staff; there is no fine associated, but as of Jan. 1, 2025, they will start issuing citations. The fine is $73 due to pedestrian safety.

Andy Lyon spoke at the meeting and said some residents at Carbon Canyon are receiving citations. Lyon said the citations are “out of control.” 

“They’ve been going crazy on the front license plate ticket, so out of control,” he said. “He’s just walking up and down and giving people $58 nonrefundable tickets; they should’ve been doing that all along, they’ve been dinging everyone $58 tickets, when they could’ve been giving these warning tickets. I don’t see what this with parking enforcement front license plate tickets, it just seems like a big money grab, they’re just going after people, they’re not parking in the red, they’re not blocking entrances, to me that’s just out of control and we really need to look into directing these guys [parking enforcment] to something else.”

City Council adopted the resolution but not after receiving some clarification from city staff about residents who don’thave parking available.

Mayor Pro Tem Marianne Riggins asked what the city is doing to warn the residents.

Flores said the city is informing the community with using social media to educate them about the penalties.

According to the report, “The City’s Public Safety Department has also begun a public education campaign to inform the community about the new law. As part of this, the city’s parking enforcement team and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Volunteers on Patrol are issuing warnings.”

Riggins asked again what the city is doing to help those residents besides issuing “warnings citations.”

“I don’t know how we’re going to address that issue to help them, but I do know that pedestrian safety is very important, so there is a reason why this bill was put into place,” Dueñas said. 

The city council asked Dueñas if the city will be repainting red curbs that need to be repainted. Dueñas said she will need to speak to the Public Works Department. The Malibu Times will follow up with the Coastal Commission about signage, and if they will implement signs in designated areas.

Commission approves application to allow for an emergency pull-out area near Escondido Beach Road

Interim City Attorney Trevor Rusin attended the Planning Commission on Monday to assist with any questions the commissioners had and ensured the meeting ran smoothly.

The first item addressed was Administrative Coastal Development Permit Amendment No. 23-001, Site Plan Review No. 24-001 and Demolition Permit No. 24-046; an application to amend Administrative Coastal Development Permit No. 20-069 for the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development; including a site plan review for height over 18 feet not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof. 

Commissioner Kraig Hill asked questions in regards to the driveway, and if the driveway was reviewed or approved by the fire department. After a brief rebuttal, the commission received and filed the application.

The commission moved on to Administrative Coastal Development Permit No. 24-016; an application to install a new onsite wastewater treatment system. The commission received and filed the application.

The commission approved Administrative Plan Review No. 21-093 and Variance No. 24-014; an application to allow for an emergency pull-out area on 27254 Pacific Coast Highway, continued from Oct. 21.

The commission raised concerns and asked if Caltrans or the resident were responsible for the fence. The commission approved the proposal with Hill abstaining.

One applicant said, “The problem we’re having here tonight is trying to build a safety pull-out with the applicant and its neighbors; I feel like there’s resistance to it — that’s why we see a lot of non-permitted development in Malibu … Why am I trying to do this the right way, permitted, when I’m having this opposition?”

After a break, the commission moved on to Coastal Development Permit No. 20-056, Variance Nos. 21-024, 21-027, and 24-022, Site Plan Review No. 21-017, and Minor Modification No. 21-009, and Code Violation No. 24- 070; an application for the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence with an attached three-car garage, onsite water treatment system (OWTS), hardscape, landscaping, and grading; including variances for development on slopes greater than 2.5 to 1, a reduction of the required 100-foot setback from an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and a reduction of the parkland setback; a site plan review for construction above 18 feet in height not to exceed 24 feet for a flat roof, and a minor modification for a reduction of the front yard setback. 

After addressing concerns with the driveways, the commission motioned to continue the application to a date uncertain.

The last item addressed was the 2025 Calendar of Planning Commission Meetings.

The next planning commission is on Nov. 18.