SMMUSD officials and Malibu leaders differ on progress of mediation 

More salvos are being exchanged between the City of Malibu and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District now that mediation to separate into two separate school districts is on pause.

Mediation stopped when in July Malibu chose to proceed with its petition to the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) in its decades-long pursuit of becoming a stand-alone school district or what’s known as“unification.”

On July 18, SMMUSD released a statement saying it opposes the city’s unification petition “after the city abandons a mutually agreed upon timeline of the unification process.”

But in a letter to the editor of The Malibu Times (which can be seen on Page A2 of this issue), Malibu Mayor Pro Tem and Malibu school unification subcommittee member Marianne Riggins claims it was Santa Monica leaders who are responsible for delays and the pause in mediation. Riggins termed the mediation sessions as “unproductive.” 

The Malibu City Councilmember said, “In May the parties agreed there would be a completion of the Operation and Joint Powers Agreements and that they would be presented to the communities for comment by the end of July and through August 15. We haven’t been able to complete the Operation and Joint Powers Agreements, so those timelines have not been adhered to.”

Riggins explained that if those timelines weren’t adhered to, then proposed September meetings for the district and public meetings to adopt the approval of the three agreements — the Revenue Sharing Agreement, Operations Agreement, and Joint Powers Agreement —could not be finalized for adoption in October.

“We haven’t been able to come to a final agreement on the Operation Agreement or the Joint Powers Agreement and the mediation sessions have been unproductive in getting those finalizations,” Riggins said, adding that the public was to be able to review them prior to a school board meeting and provide comments. “There just isn’t time in the calendar in order to have that comment period.”

Riggins’ letter to the editor also claimed that the last few mediation sessions were poorly attended by the SMMUSD team and missing “key members.” She explained, “When you’re negotiating you need to have the decision-makers available and if they’re not all able to attend the meetings as scheduled it makes it difficult to come to a conclusion and an agreement of what you’re mediating.

“I believe the city remains committed to mediation and we are happy to mediate, but the district has made it a stipulation that if we are moving forward with our petition at the county committee that they’re not willing to continue mediation. The petition was on pause while the parties worked together.

“I think that we’ve done a tremendous amount of work. The Revenue Sharing Agreement shows that there is a financially viable way for the districts to be separated and that the financial best interest of all students is maintained.”

Earlier this year a major milestone was announced with a Revenue Sharing Agreement (RSA), but not ratified. The RSA would have Santa Monica receiving payments from Malibu to make up for a loss in the district’s funding. Under some scenarios, the transfer of Malibu property tax revenue would end by the 2041/2042 school year or in roughly 18 years. The RSA would still ensure sufficient funding for a Malibu Unified School District.

With mediation on pause, LACOE is expected to schedule a hearing to determine the next steps. Riggins said, “The city is ready, able, and available to schedule mediation sessions” if SMMUSD wants.  

“We are here. We feel it’s been incredibly productive and we’re very happy with the results so far and we would love to iron out these final items,” she said. “We feel there’s a way to conclude this but we also felt that since the mediations weren’t productive, it was time for us to continue to move forward with the county committee process. I appreciate all the hard work by all the parties.”

Asked for comment on Riggins’ recent letter, SMMUSD School Board Vice President and unification sub-committee member Jon Kean replied by email:

“SMMUSD remains committed to a fair and equitable unification and is continuing its work to achieve that outcome even in light of the recent actions of the City of Malibu. A mutually agreed upon timeline that could lead to a negotiated unification agreement with public votes in three months remains on the table if the city decides to honor its prior commitment.”

Parents hope to solve dilemma after district cancels general education bus service

A brain trust of Malibu parents and city leaders are proposing solutions to what the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District said it was unable to do — offer general education bus service to Malibu students.

Malibu families who for decades have relied on what parent leaders call a “fundamental school service” for general education bus transportation where stunned by a SMMUSD email announcement June 25 notifying parents that due to a severe bus driver shortage the district would be unable to provide bus rides to Malibu schools at the start of the upcoming year beginning Aug. 22. There is currently no general education bus service for Santa Monica students offered by the district. Students receiving special education services in either city will not be affected.

On July 10, concerned Malibu parents and Superintendent Dr. Antonio Shelton met. 

Shelton explained the district’s problems in recruiting and hiring new drivers. But a group of determined Malibu parents met with sympathetic city leaders last week to brainstorm solutions and they have presented two options to the district for approval.

On July 22, two options were delivered to SMMUSD officials for consideration as a solution to getting Malibu kids across town to Webster Elementary and Malibu Middle and Malibu High School. The first option is to hire a bus company that already has an existing contract with the district for bus service in Santa Monica. District officials had earlier claimed there was a deficit of drivers and that many of the nine contracted bus companies they use are often unreliable, taking bigger jobs at the last minute, leaving SMMUSD students stranded and often without notice.

But the parent group says at least one contracted company says it does have a surplus of certified drivers. That bus company has also submitted an offer for full service solely for Malibu routes.

The second option has two other bus companies that also have present contracts with SMMUSD submitting new bids for the district to consider. As of July 26, the district had only responded that they had received the proposed options from the Malibu group, but had not yet responded with a definitive answer. A source did confirm that SMMUSD officials are contacting the transportation companies, reviewing bids, and assessing what may be possible. That process could take a few more days.

The group of concerned parents, which includes MHS/MMS PTSA President Kevin Keegan and AMPS (Advocates for Malibu Public Schools) President Wade Major, said they are optimistic that a solution will be made available in time for the first day of school scheduled Aug. 22.

In an email, Keegan wrote: “The bottom line is, we believe SMMUSD is accountable and responsible for providing the general education bus service to Malibu families and students who are enrolled in Malibu public schools, especially those students with a track record of using this bus service and families who were told the bus service will be provided.

“SMMUSD has the budget to provide general education bus service in 2024-25. The existing budget underscores SMMUSD’s responsibility to ensure the service is operational by the start of the school year.

“What Malibu parent leaders who stepped up to help solve this problem have proven is simply that options, alternative short-term solutions exist. The primary challenge SMMUSD has shared, which is essentially that recent bus driver recruitment efforts have failed, does not abdicate the responsibility to provide the service.

“Transferring the burden of this responsibility to parents on one of the most dangerous primary access roads to schools in California [PCH] struck us in Malibu as unacceptable.

“This is not about national trends or other inconveniences. This about potential disruptions to families’ lives. This is about students being unfairly removed from the system. This is about parents being burdened with unnecessary stress. And this is about many teachers being uncertain of what their classroom rosters will be.

“SMMUSD’s announced potential cancellation of general education bus service is not solely about administrative challenges.  The heart of the matter is the potential negative impact on students, parents, teachers, and families.

“Dozens of enrolled students and their parents are anxiously awaiting the announcement of a resolution.  That is why we (Malibu parent leaders) are working hard to find creative solutions and, at the moment, we are encouraged that SMMUSD responded timely and earnestly this week.”

The Malibu Times will continue to report updates.

UPDATE: the item has been postponed to a date uncertain.

The California Coastal Commission (CCC) will hold a public hearing on the Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority (MRCA) application for a coastal development permit for the Lechuza Beach Public Access Improvements Project on Friday, August 9, at 9 a.m. at King Gillette Ranch. The Malibu Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 1 on the MRCA’s application for the project. However, the adopted resolution denied the requested conditional use permit for an onsite wastewater treatment system and ADA-compliant restroom, and added conditions to provide public access to the beach in the event of a fire. The Planning Commission’s decision was appealed to the California Coastal Commission by the MRCA. The hearing agenda and staff report are available on the CCC website at coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2024/8.

MIT science writing professor shares tales and lessons learned from the South Sea Bubble’s financial crisis

A packed room full of attendees eagerly awaited the presentation by prolific author Thomas Levenson, science writing professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, discussing his newest book, which brilliantly details the archetypal stock market crash of the early 18th century known as the South Sea Bubble. Levenson’s June 25 lecture was the first in this year’s Malibu Library Speaker Series. 

“Money for Nothing: The Scientists, Fraudsters and Corrupt Politicians Who Reinvented Money, Panicked a Nation, and Made the World Rich,” dives into the most famous financial scandal of modern financial capitalism and entertainingly details the birth of the modern idea of money.

“Money for Nothing: A Cautionary Tale,” the author’s projection screen’s title said. Of course, when one is delvingdeeply into historical, detailed finance developments and concepts, the subject matter can be quite serious, from the start.

Not so when you’re listening to Levenson. His first power point panel had to be — really had to be — an image of Dire Straits, whose epic song from the 1985 song titled “Money for Nothing,” gave him the idea for his book’s title.

Then we were off on a journey into earlier, but not, we learned, simpler times. Times when — surprise, surprise — those with power sometimes abused it and those with great assets insatiably craved for more and so, they threw caution and common sense to the wind and totally disregarded adhering to scruples, all to obtain more and yet more assets.  

As the Financial Times incisively described Levenson’s broad thesis, his work posits that “by the turn of the 18th centurythe power of mathematics and habits of observation associated with the scientific revolution created new ways to think about the future.” Thus, great thinkers and theorists of those times, including Isaac Newton and astronomer Edmond Halley, developed a framework for conceptualizing money and money systems.

Readers enjoy being thrust into the nascent world of debt finance and share trading in 18th-century London’s Exchange Alleys on Cornhills, where famous establishments, including Jonathan’s and Garraway’s coffee houses, became progenitors of the modern London Stock Exchange, serving as early venues for the trading of shares and commodities.They also learn about how Newton managed the Royal Mint. 

Levenson explains in detail with clarity, and by cleverly focusing on intriguing details concerning historical figures, Britain’s national debt, which escalated enormously to fund its incessantly waging wars in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century.  

“For 22 of the 30 years before the South Sea Bubble, British forces fought multiple opponents across two hemispheres,” Levenon noted, pausing to let that reality settle into attendees’ consciousnesses. 

The solution to the Crown’s need to fund such incessant pugilance was — surprise, surprise — to borrow more and more. The South Sea Company, which was originally formed to supply slaves to Spanish America, lent money to the government for fees, trading notes, and offering shares to the public. The Bank of England was founded to facilitate lending to the British government, he stated.

“Credit was essentially a weapon of war,” Levenson said, quoting Daniel Defoe’s, “The Chimera,” published in 1720, which said “Foreigners have been heard to say … That there was no getting the better of England by battle … that while we had thus an inexhaustible Storehouse of Money, no superiority in the field could be a match for the superiority of the Treasure.” 

However, ultimately, England found itself spending at least 31 percent of revenue to service debt, Levenson explained. The Crown’s solution, facilitated by the South Sea Company, was to fashion a debt-for-equity swap on an unprecedented scale. By doing so, Britain dominated Europe at the time, outwitting, out-warring and outspending its arch rival France, which did not adopt such a sophisticated financial market.

“The drivers of the cataclysmic rise were first, market manipulation — South Sea directors pumped liquidity into the market with options, loans and margin sales, and they delayed share transfers to constrain supply on Exchange Alley,” Levenson said. “Leveraging, they implemented what were then still novel and hence unfamiliar, trading tools, including margin sales, put-and-call options, and forward contracts.”

Those dynamics accounted for two of the three key ingredients needed to trigger a financial market disaster. One of the other essential factors was then — and, as we all learned in 2008 remains, Levenson noted — human folly. 

Investors were driven by speculation and inflated the company’s shares. Ultimately, their frenzy culminated in the collapse of the South Sea Company in 1720. Investors who succumbed to the investment frenzy and lost greatly when the house of cards collapsed included the wealthiest man in Britain at the time and, none other than Sir Isaac Newton, a renowned intellectual of his time, who initially profited after cashing in his South Sea shares early on, thereby garnering great gains.

However, Newton could not resist investing again and, Levenson quipped, “ultimately, lost his shirt.” Newton, Levenson also noted, later told his niece that he could calculate the movements of celestial bodies but he could not discern the madness of people.

“The South Sea Bubble was not isolated to Britain,” Levenson noted, adding, “It was an international financial collapse.”

“Disaster, or Triumph?”

Levenson’s next presentation slide asked that question.  His thesis is that it was the latter because, ultimately, a fully functional bond market emerged.

“Securitization was not invented in the 2000s,” Levenson noted, launching into a discussion of the relevance of the South Sea Bubble in our current financial markets. 

As Levenson noted, French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de DeTocqueville observed long ago regarding America’s commercial life and the early republic’s history of financial disruption, “The return of these commercial panics is an endemic disease of the democratic nations of our age … it may be rendered less dangerous, but it cannot be cured.”

The Q&A was just as enthralling as Levenson’s presentation. Oddly, some attendees observed, the human being still hasnot learned not to use financial instruments to create risk too boldly — think 2008’s debacle. There was talk of how much risk is present in the shadow banking sector now, with lots of risk that is not discernible on the books. “Now, crypto is like that,” Levenson said, “on steroids.”  

Malibu’s John Mazza, who attended is a Malibu planning commissioner, and was once was a professional in the world offinance publishing. Mazza perfectly summed up Levenson’s brilliant book and presentation: “In our present economy, there is nothing more important than understanding the money cycle. This book does a good job of doing that.”  

The takeaway from Levenson’s work is, as the bard so aptly said in “The Tempest,” “What’s past is prologue.”  

A consortium of agencies and professionals will present the Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report

The Topanga Lagoon Restoration Park project is making headway, with a proposed final environmental impact report now available for public comment and an online community meeting planned for Aug. 5. The proposed FEIR identifies a number of closely related alternatives considered for the project, as well as the preferred alternative. 

Located on the eastern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains, the project site includes Topanga State Park, which is managed by California State Parks; Topanga Beach, which is owned by the county and managed by the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors; and a Caltrans Right-of-Way along Pacific Coast Highway and Topanga Canyon Boulevard. The Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains manages the grant for the project. 

Why the restoration project is being proposed

The project report is proposed to improve the quality of the lagoon and surrounding area for humans and other species. The report gives a nod to the Topanga Lagoon’s heritage, informing that the name Taopaa’nga means “where the water meets the rocks,” in the language of the Gabrieleno and Tongva tribes who once inhabited the location. 

In the last 150 years, 95 percent of coastal wetlands in California have been lost to development. Topanga Lagoon was once 30 acres, but is only less than one acre and its mouth is artificially pinched by development, according to the report. Despite those strictures, the lagoon hosts a robust population of endangered tidewater gobies and a small reproducing population of endangered steelhead trout. The lagoon also supports a significant “run” (repeat appearances to spawn) of California grunion. At least 1 million visitors a year visit the beach.

The effort aims to restore and protect precious biological and cultural resources, create an integrated coastal access program, address responses to emergencies, add a visitors’ interpretive center and a trail system, and proactively address the effects of sea level rise in the lagoon ecosystem, one of the last Southern California coastal wetlands. 

The restoration project aims to protect as well as to improve the biological, cultural, and recreational attributes of the lagoon by expanding it from 1 acre to from 7 to 10 acres, reconstruct the PCH bridge to accommodate a wider lagoon that will improve endangered fish passages to the ocean, and enhance coastal habitats and relocate Topanga Beach facilities and the helipad inland to protect them from wave damage. The project will also include placement of native soils in the nearshore to nourish area beaches, will protect two critically endangered fish and their habitats and will improve coastal access and visitor services while providing for more resilient beach areas. 

The preferred alternative, which was selected after receiving extensive public, agency, land manager, and residents’ input, calls for restoration of the lagoon as well as restoring up to 15 units of the historic Topanga Ranch Motel.

The project will not impact the quality of surfing

Importantly, there will be no change to the surf break or beach berm and restoration evacuation will not occur on the existing beach berm that separates the lagoon and the ocean, according to the team that developed the project. Further, according to the team, “There will be no change to the natural breaching pattern, which is driven by storm events and the project is not expected to affect the existing cobble dominated shoreline which is responsible for the surf conditions.” 

A morphological modeling study was conducted by Integral Consulting in cooperation with a surfing group to assess the potential of the project to affect the beach morphology and surf conditions. The study is included in the FEIR. 

Proposed timeline for the project and approval and payment procedures

After the project’s environmental review phase ends, the design phase will begin and will last approximately two years as officials complete engineering design and complete permit applications. Construction will run from 2027 to 2032. An additional year will be required if sewer extension is selected as the preferred wastewater treatment option.  

A technical advisory committee including representatives of all permitting agencies, local wetland restoration experts and landowners and managers is providing direction and setting constraints to ensure that the project meets all requirements. Moffatt & Nichol Engineering, Chris Nelson and Associates, and Environmental Services Associates have provided design, engineering, and modeling support. The National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area provided technical support regarding special-status species issues. Other expert consultants were engaged to provide technical expertise and onsite biological and cultural resources and geological characteristics.

The project will be reviewed as mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a process that will include the lead agencies, California State Parks and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, completing the required environmental documents that analyze the project’s potential and its various alternatives to affect the human and natural environment.  The public and regulatory agencies have an opportunity to comment on the project during several parts of the process, including during the 60-day public comment period. The lead agencies will consider public and agency comments and will consult with the landowners involved, Caltrans and Los Angeles Department of Beaches and Harbors to finalize the document and approve a preferred alternative. 

The project must be approved by the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Los Angeles County. The City of Malibu also maintains the project must seek and obtain its approval.

The City of Malibu’s comment letter

The city issued a comment letter concerning the project in April, noting that the project is required to comply with the City of Malibu’s laws as a portion of the project is within the city. Further, the letter noted the project must comply with Municipal Code Chapter 14.04 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control) and Chapter 15.20(m) (Floodplain Management) because it is within a FEMA mapped Flood Zone that is administered by the City of Malibu.  

One of the city’s recommendations was that the applicant should verify the local MS4 permit requirements as stated in the Watershed Management Plans.  The comment noted that the project may need to meet the water quality discharge requirements set forth in the North Santa Monica Bay Watershed Management Plan, which covers the City of Malibu and Los Angeles County and Flood Control. 

Malibu residents’ concerns

At its April City Council meeting, the council considered a letter from Lawrence S. Wiener, an attorney with RWG Law, sent on behalf of residents located adjacent to the western boundaries of the project site who feel they may experience negative impacts due to the lagoon restoration project.  

The letter set forth various concerns, including that the project report must adequately analyze transportation and emergency access and evacuation impacts should Topanga Boulevard be closed due to mudslides.  Further, the residents maintained that the report does not adequately analyze impacts to the adopted Evacuation Plan for the City of Malibu, which identifies Topanga State Beach Parking as a “Safe Refuge Area.” Temporary closure of the parking area for five years conflicts with the adopted evacuation plan, the residents asserted. The letter also maintains that the report needs to adequately address traffic concerns caused by the project that would impact residents and businesses during construction, which will last for a minimum of five years but might be quite a bit longer.  

Finally, the residents’ letter expressed concerns that moving the existing helipad, which is located west of the lagoon on the Malibu side of the existing bridge, to the east of the lagoon places the helipad on the other side of the extended bridge from Malibu. The draft final environmental impact report, the letter asserted, should discuss impacts of the helipad relocation on Malibu-based first responders who would need to cross the bridge to access the helipad in situations where the bridge could potentially be obstructed due to an earthquake, fire, flood or landslide. 

Public meeting scheduled

Residents are invited to learn more about — and provide input on — the Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report for the lagoon restoration project. To learn more about the project and to receive updates, visit topanga lagoon restoration.org.

A virtual community meeting will be held on Aug. 5 from 6 to 8 p.m. To participate in the meeting, go to 

www.TopangaLagoonRestoration.org. One can also dial-in by phone by calling (888) 788-0099, using webinar ID (849) 0708-2769. The meeting will be available on YouTube afterward. If residents have queries, they can email topangalagoonrestoration@gmail.com.  

County Public Works provides overview of the plan’s process, which is integral to insurance program 

“As the recipient of 59 percent of the watershed’s waters, Malibou Lake is vulnerable to fast water during rainfall/flood conditions,” Shannon Ggem of Malibou Lake Mountain Club explained. “The 2018 Woolsey Fire left bare soil for 68 upstream miles, and the sediment washes down, filling the basin, causing flooding to the historic community’s streets and homes.”

Residents of Malibou Lake gathered on July 18 for a presentation by the Los Angeles County Public Works Department regarding the updating of the county’s Floodplain Management Plan due in 2025, which is integral to the National Flood Insurance Program.

“The National Flood Insurance Program is a federal program and homeowners can get flood insurance if their community is part of the NFIP — flood insurance is required for federally backed mortgages and disaster assistance,” David Pohl, a department civil engineer explained. “A community is required to have a floodplain management plan updated every five years and this meeting is the first step in the process of updating Malibou Lake’s 2025 plan update.”

A community rating system is a voluntary program with the NFIP, he stated. A floodplain management plan consists of a strategy of programs, projects, and measures aimed at reducing the adverse impact of the flood hazard in a given community. Pohl said, adding that “the FMP mission statement is to protect life, property, the economy and the environment of unincorporated Los Angeles County by identifying and communicating risks and sustainable actions to reduce flood hazards and thereby enhance a community’s resilience.”

The responsibility for flood hazard mitigation lies with many actors — the Public Works Department, local governments, communities and property owners, he noted. The goals of the FMP are to enhance community resilience to the impact of flood hazards while maximizing opportunities for local water sources.

Pohl noted that the Department informs residents and stakeholders what flood risks they face, based on the best available data and science. The next step in the process is to try to increase the resilience of infrastructure and critical facilities from flood hazards. In developing the plan, the department accounts for flood risk in land use and planning, while also preserving, enhancing, or restoring the natural environment’s floodplain functions without increasing flood hazards.

Part of the calculus in defining flood risks includes conducting a repetitive loss area analysis so as to develop the mitigation plan for areas, such as Malibou Lake, with multiple losses from flooding. Repetitive loss areas are determined by using insurance claims, FEMA flood zones hazard areas, flood depth mapping, topographic maps, and other flood maps, Kohl noted.

Malibou Lake is a repetitive loss area and an FMP committee, composed of representatives from local government, nonprofit groups, town councils, members of the board of directors for Malibou Lake Mountain Club, and members of the general public. 

Locals attending the informational session noted that the workshop was informative and constituted a good first step in providing residents of Malibou Lake with a voice in the process.

There are several problem areas that are prone to repetitive funding, Pohl noted, referring to a map showing which parts of Malibou Lake and its surroundings are problematic, and stating that, starting in 2022, FEMA employs a risk rating, based on available data, and the rating and factors unique to a parcel determine flood risk rates for a given home or company.

Addressing the insurance issues concerning the FMP further, Patricia Wood, Senior Civil Engineer, noted that FEMA also uses disaster modeling in computing flood insurance.

How the locals view flood mitigation

“Some of the homes near where I live have experienced flooding and sometimes, the rain is so intense that the fire department has to close access to the gate on Mulholland,” Malibu Lake resident Mike Kerze said. “One used to be able to fish for trout and catfish, but not now. At one point, the rain was so high that the fence between Malibou Lake and Paramount Ranch was damaged because there was eight to nine feet of mud there.”

Kerze noted that areas in the community near the lake are currently being dredged and the department is conducting sewer work near the Medea Bridge. “The bottom of the dam area holds between 20 to 30 feet of sediment,” he said. “My dream is that they dredge the lake to a sufficient degree that we can reintroduce trout and blue gills.”

The meeting was the first step in the process of composing the 2025 plan, Kohl explained, noting that there will be future opportunities for the community to review the FMP once a draft plan is completed.

For more information, readers can go to pw.lacounty.gov/wmd/nfip.