[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,74,86],{"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6259862,"mediaKeyId","3137127-0578689dd99d22ab94be523854ed27ff","parentId",3137127,"title","Malibu council narrows rebuild sewer study, signals preference for Hyperion tie-in and asks staff to seek engineering funding","audioSeconds",4781,"startMs",441000,"endMs",5222000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3137127-0578689dd99d22ab94be523854ed27ff&start=441&end=5222","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3137127-0578689dd99d22ab94be523854ed27ff/thumbnail_441000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6259862/Malibu-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Malibu-council-narrows-rebuild-sewer-study-signals-preference-for-Hyperion-tie-in-and-asks-staff-to-seek-engineering-funding","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6259862-ecfc5e0acbd6c2028331c6113be2550c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770037875&Signature=W9yi3nVIYCBLhuMUgbBB~HOmBhauqOb-D99a-3FFcW41cmNoepZzyHyWoTPL3SkxjZn~94V2RwUhcbJFrzsO13au5jXKp5h7pysVq-lSD373HmbPcCqdY5ch1TAxAYsbH9gZCaApN8D2mFmGq51pfBpxoNk~uKhmOCLX0441iSPdBJnAUbr6bIJCxFAsl2wWJeAfjvqm-w7rGPwzSCjqZ-fSDc94G4plxEyQBJ9wYqHNo~T3QjaYkLKVrA9QoJD4M8h7Hm9gnHfd4e13J85eEVTYStCUTzGMfIT1kgJQPEX50nCXOpEVDbZSAC7vjofevJbUE4udNhxKxb16cw-N8Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Malibu, CA","date","2025-04-28T08:56:52.043Z","article","Malibu City Council and staff spent the April 23 work session reviewing five wastewater options to serve beachfront parcels damaged in the Palisades fire and directed staff to pursue further analysis and early engineering work on a connection to Hyperion.

The city’s public works presenter, identified in the record as Rob, laid out five alternatives: (1) connect affected Pacific Coast Highway parcels to the city’s Civic Center water treatment plant via roughly 32,000 linear feet of pipeline (listed cost $188,000,000; schedule about 65 months; about 461 parcels affected); (2) a long pipeline to Las Virgenes/Tapia (about 58,000 linear feet; $261,000,000; ~69 months); (3) build a new Malibu wastewater treatment plant (listed cost shown in slides as about $232,000,000; schedule about 82 months); (4) connect to the Los Angeles Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant (about 27,500 linear feet; $124,000,000; ~65 months); and (5) replace or repair on‑site septic systems (estimated $100,000–$150,000 per septic system; new seawalls if required were estimated separately at about $500,000 in Rob’s presentation).

Why it matters: staff’s analysis showed very different capital costs and multi‑year schedules for each choice and included estimates of cost per parcel. Council members and residents repeatedly raised the near‑term problem of how homeowners could rebuild within the next months to years if the sewer option chosen required five‑plus years to construct.

Key details from the presentation and discussion

- Rob: “The pipeline to actually do it turned out to be 32,000 linear feet, and it has 461 properties,” and later summarized the options and their schedules and costs, noting material lead times and construction challenges on PCH.

- On regional regulation and onsite systems, staff member Yolanda summarized recent guidance from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the city’s Local Agency Management Plan (LAMP). She said the board’s interpretation requires advanced or secondary treatment for many beachfront on‑site wastewater treatment systems under the city’s LAMP.

- Mark Gold, chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission water working group, urged the city to evaluate sewer alternatives in tandem with undergrounding and other resilience measures: “If Malibu determines to go forward with a sewer system, then build the sewer system in conjunction with undergrounding all sorts of other infrastructure on PCH so that you're not doing it separately and tearing up PCH twice.”

Public comments and concerns

Dozens of residents, property owners, engineers and consultants spoke during the public comment period. Common themes included: concern about the time and cost of constructing regional sewer lines; fear that homeowners may be forced to pay large, up‑front costs for new septic systems and seawalls if sewers are delayed; and suggestions for interim measures such as portable treatment units or temporary low‑pressure systems.

What the council directed or agreed (next steps)

- Council members signaled consensus around exploring Option 4 (a Hyperion tie‑in) as the primary path to study further while continuing work on viable alternatives (including Las Virgenes/Topanga and on‑site strategies). At one point the mayor asked for consensus and said, “let's go with number 4.” This was treated as a direction to staff, not a formal adopted ordinance or vote.

- Staff (Rob) was asked to bring a formal funding item to the first regular council meeting in May requesting authorization to hire an engineering consultant to prepare design and feasibility work. Rob acknowledged he will “proceed forward on bringing an item to council first meeting in May to get a consultant on board.”

- The council agreed that the city’s Wastewater Advisory Committee and existing experts should work with staff; members discussed an ad hoc approach and asked staff to place related items on the next agenda so the council can create a task force/ad hoc committee if desired.

No formal vote on sewer option adoption

No ordinance or binding vote adopting a sewer build option occurred at the work session. Council discussion produced a consensus direction to prioritize further work on the Hyperion connection and to return with scope and funding proposals for engineering and financing analysis.

Ending

Staff will return to council with a funding request for a design/feasibility consultant at the first regular meeting in May and coordinate the Wastewater Advisory Committee and outside experts to produce a clearer feasibility, cost, timeline and funding plan. Residents asked the city to address interim solutions and seawall resilience while long‑lead infrastructure is planned and built.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Work Session April 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Malibu City Council and staff spent the April 23 work session reviewing five wastewater options to serve beachfront parcels damaged in the Palisades fire and directed staff to pursue further analysis and early engineering work on a connection to Hyperion.","taxTitle","Malibu City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",70912,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":75,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":76,"_40":77,"_42":78,"_44":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6259853,"Self‑certification for rebuilds divides council; no formal action taken",2769,8898000,11667000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3137127-0578689dd99d22ab94be523854ed27ff&start=8898&end=11667","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3137127-0578689dd99d22ab94be523854ed27ff/thumbnail_8898000.jpg","/articles/6259853/Malibu-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Selfcertification-for-rebuilds-divides-council-no-formal-action-taken","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6259853-ff2b56580649063910f7862e5e90ab96/orig.mp4?Expires=1770037875&Signature=FH210rWC4QoA8oeNMjZ5Fb2hblRo13NGbzlgREgfHFSNWtGT5-kVxGE-ajmXpxZDYU-hASwg2Zb3GTYzavNtKydfLLJT2WNoWxmkdYJrP5tkwsKWrAXz3nuwWVGtWGEjyAvnXDUpruYzb6L6FCXaOj9Vhzrqyb2b81K9e6O7g8S3kghH98rHau-8JxS7gU0MJPs-DPKJYOWxVuto37npy4arF55VCLPuttWGXFEzC7aEuK4w2MKpK4sW3a3B09CHWJC0kT2Zm1IHAxlY9f9QDvOfeTW7AZLMmpt4YTls56PlPP5x8HuyaTAGH0nYyepqUiuN2PYqc6TGsKFQz9vNYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff presented information on self‑certification programs used elsewhere and outlined potential benefits and risks for Malibu’s fire rebuilds. The discussion produced no formal vote; council members were split and several asked staff to return with a formal proposal if the council wished to proceed.

What staff presented

Yolanda summarized examples from other jurisdictions, noting New York City, San Diego County and Bellflower have self‑certification programs of varying scope. She explained the program variants she reviewed generally preserve required agency approvals (planning, fire, environmental health) and still require inspections; where audits later find noncompliance, projects can be required to return to the city for review. In her summary she emphasized the technical and insurance risks tied to moving some plan‑review responsibilities from city staff to private certifiers.

Public and council comments

Speakers from the public and several council members offered contrasting views: some residents and designers said self‑certification could save time for homeowners and noted other jurisdictions use it; others warned of increased risk and cited examples of post‑self‑certification rescinds in other cities. One council member said the city’s existing staff and review process are doing essential life‑safety work and cautioned against removing that second set of review. Another pointed out some programs limit self‑certification to flat areas and exclude hillside or coastal hazard zones.

Council action or follow‑up

There was no formal motion to adopt a self‑certification program at the April 23 session. A straw poll recorded several council members opposed, some undecided and at least one supportive voice. Staff told the council that directing staff to draft a formal self‑certification proposal for council consideration would be an appropriate next step; the council did not adopt that direction at the meeting but discussed placing a proposal on a future agenda.

Why it matters

Self‑certification changes which parties carry upfront plan‑review responsibility and shifts some risk to project certifiers and property owners. Proponents argue it can reduce approval time; opponents warn it can increase the risk of unsafe or noncompliant construction and of later costly corrections that affect neighbors.

Ending

No self‑certification program was adopted. Council members and staff agreed further discussion is warranted; placing a detailed staff proposal on a future agenda remained an option for council members to pursue.","Staff presented possible self‑certification approaches used in other jurisdictions and outlined risks and limits. Council members, staff and the public were sharply divided; no formal council adoption occurred, and staff said a formal proposal could be brought back for council consideration if directed.",{"_32":87,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":88,"_40":89,"_42":90,"_44":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6259858,"Staff presents streamlined geotechnical and coastal guidelines; council and residents press for faster, clearer rebuild rules",417,6312000,6729000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3137127-0578689dd99d22ab94be523854ed27ff&start=6312&end=6729","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3137127-0578689dd99d22ab94be523854ed27ff/thumbnail_6312000.jpg","/articles/6259858/Malibu-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Staff-presents-streamlined-geotechnical-and-coastal-guidelines-council-and-residents-press-for-faster-clearer-rebuild-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6259858-5f73f36586cbbb165d03bc50e0825579/orig.mp4?Expires=1770037875&Signature=bNYWnd1Pv011hikLSb0h4fR16YAUFWfM84eKf5GWjF-aZfkaeyQLjx6YBJ5COmfYAzRtw1pi0AFj2qJPZMK9-N~sxl4J9fcxG0b-hUed1rNcTAlcu8iIlKWbnxG9MNrOYFx8he5eHHvQkVcsMwfcuvfQqujBgaKVK3HAP-IETA2bEToME70BD9Sz~-0X1PEvaFDZf9dxtGVgJC0DHU0ggrH6t8u~pcNEtYzqlJMhFvYqrTfyCa~qIVk5y4ZsqN4A1JaiBd7MHyCUmIW6mnc8G5eqcOYKF~M7hn3r0IJ7YMxGkiDa-1YYIecwPNFuN24o5o3Q2ousFqgaRLoQM73Mkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Malibu staff presented a new set of geotechnical and coastal engineering guidelines intended to accelerate post‑fire rebuild reviews and make expectations clearer for designers and property owners.

Planning and building staff member Yolanda summarized the city’s approach, saying the guidelines are “based on the codes” and that the city had released a streamlined fire‑rebuild geotechnical and coastal engineering worksheet and guidance posted at maliburebuilds.org. She noted the city follows the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) chapter 18, Title 24 of the California Building Standards, and the city’s municipal code provisions that govern geotechnical and coastal reviews.

Mike Phipps, a city geotechnical consultant, added historical context: the sections of code addressing beachfront and landslide hazards have evolved over many decades and are intended to address life‑safety risks posed by earthquakes, landslides and liquefaction.

Public response and contested points

Several residents and building professionals urged the city to use a targeted, lower‑cost “limited” geotechnical report process for properties with long histories of stability (Big Rock was cited repeatedly) rather than imposing extensive subsurface borings and full slope‑stability studies for every rebuild. One commenter advised that some rebuild lots have long monitoring records and instrument arrays that could substitute for deep subsurface testing.

Council reaction and policy context

Council members recognized the tension between life‑safety rules and the governor’s earlier direction to expedite rebuilds. Several members said the state’s building code remains binding; council members and residents asked the city to pursue state relief where the CBC and other codes unintentionally slow like‑for‑like rebuilding.

What staff will do next

- Staff said the new fire‑rebuild geotechnical worksheet and the one‑stop rebuild center are already in use and that the city has met with dozens of design teams and applicants.

- Staff will continue applying the published guidelines and will work with property owners and design teams to clarify when a limited report is appropriate; the record shows council members asked staff to pursue state‑level avenues for additional relief if required to speed rebuilds.

Ending

The geotechnical guidelines provide a written path for many rebuilds, but residents and some council members asked for additional, case‑by‑case flexibility and for continued outreach to state officials to reduce barriers for like‑for‑like reconstruction in stable locations.","City staff described updated geotechnical and coastal engineering guidelines and a fire‑rebuild worksheet intended to speed plan review. Residents and some council members urged additional state‑level relief or streamlined local processes for like‑for‑like rebuilds, especially in known stable areas such as Big Rock.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Malibu council narrows rebuild sewer study, signals preference for Hyperion tie-in and asks staff to seek engineering funding

Self‑certification for rebuilds divides council; no formal action taken

Staff presents streamlined geotechnical and coastal guidelines; council and residents press for faster, clearer rebuild rules