Downtown Hearing Was A Surfers’ Tour de Force

• Municipal Officials Explore Options

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu city officials have made it clear the decision by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board last week to prohibit septic systems in the Civic Center and surrounding areas is just the first step in what could be a lengthy administrative procedure that might even include litigation.
Municipal officials indicated they are exploring all options in response to the ban imposed by the board on a 5-2 vote last Thursday at a nine-hour meeting.
“The city is weighing its options in response to the vote,” said Councilmember Andy Stern in a press release—one of his last actions as mayor. Current Mayor Sharon Barovsky used even stronger language about litigating the matter (see separate story).
That first option would be to appeal the board’s decision to the state board which must approve the regional board’s decision.
“The city is considering a request to the State Water Resources Control Board to reject the regional board’s ban on Malibu’s septic systems at an upcoming state board meeting,” a municipal press release states.
While board members, who accepted what was called an eleventh-hour alternative crafted by the RWQCB staff that extended the time frame of the ban for existing systems until 2015 for commercial and 2019 for residential. They characterized the prohibition as a means to compel city compliance, municipal officials have responded with a somewhat recalcitrant approach.
“In casting its vote on November 5 for the prohibition on septic systems, the regional board rejected a more targeted and economically feasible wastewater treatment plan offered by the City of Malibu. The city’s wastewater plan had garnered widespread support from the community, businesses and other stakeholders,” a City of Malibu press release states, even though some of these premises are challenged.
That stance was soundly rejected by the surfing community represented by the Malibu Surfing Association, Surfrider Foundation and others. Surfers blamed the polluted waters of Surfrider Beach on the city and its foot-dragging on a centralized sewer system in the Civic Center.
However, individuals who spoke later were left scratching their heads over why the surfers all got three minutes and everybody who wasn’t with the group only got one minute to speak.
The board faced a standing-room-only crowd. Attendees spilled over into another room to hear and see the meeting on a large-screen video, while the board deliberated among themselves about what they might want to exempt and whether to accept the staff’s proposed alternative to its original recommendations.
The majority did not want to put back into the basin plan amendment an exemption for zero discharge systems that had been removed just days before the hearing. Board members did agree on exemptions for the so-called pipeline projects, new development in the city close to receiving permits.
Board members also talked about exempting those beachfront homes on Malibu Road and in the Colony the city had sought to remove from the prohibition area if all of their systems were required to have disinfection installed.
Though some board members seemed willing, RWQCB Executive Officer Tracy Egoscue insisted the exemptions were not possible.
Earlier in the hearing, the RWQCB staff gave a staff report, and then Malibu city officials put on a 60-minute presentation that included several council members’ testimony.
Councilmember John Sibert, who cited his credentials as a scientist, said the problem was complex, not simple and that a “box of tools” was needed rather than a hammer.
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said she believed the city and the board were “on the same page,” but had reached a “kind of confrontational mode.”
But it was Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich’s comments that caused the most commotion among board members and the board’s attorney.
She compared the weekly beach report card between Malibu Surfrider Beach to the grades at Santa Monica Pier. She read the number of days that Santa Monica, which has sewers, had more flunking marks than Surfrider. She insisted those remarks be included in the record and concluded, “We will end up in court.”
The city’s presentation included a discussion by researchers and scientists about recent studies of the lagoon and Surfrider Beach, which seemed to vindicate the city’s position. But those studies have not been completed nor had any peer review.
However, despite all of the scientists that testified on behalf of the city, it was Mark Gold, the president of Heal the Bay, who got most of the board’s attention.
Gold was insistent that the board go through with the prohibition, but gave his blessing to some of the city’s requests.
The city alternative proposed a smaller wastewater treatment facility that would target the users with the potentially highest impact to the watershed. Gold concurred that the proposal was valid.
Gold was subsequently asked about his position and how it did or did not align with the city’s. He said he favored allowing for the disinfection for advanced treatment systems as an option and reiterated he was not in favor of doing away with the prohibition. “The city says the Civic Center and the Serra Retreat area should be sewered. We concur. Allow the city’s options for other areas or one pipe to a small plant,” he said.
After several more hours of public testimony wrapped up, Egoscue offered the staff alternative with the new compliance schedule and the exemptions for pipeline projects.
She said the staff was also willing to change the western boundary of the prohibition area to exclude Pepperdine University and Winter Canyon. The justification being that groundwater and surface runoff does not impact the lagoon or Surfrider Beach.
At the same time, the board’s counsel said Conley Ulich’s remarks would not be entered into the record as requested and the U.S. Geological Survey studies cited by the city would also not become part of the record. The rationale: RWQCB staff never got the requested information from the city until oral testimony and consequently had no opportunity to review the evidence.
Some board members during deliberation asked RWQCB staffer Wendy Philips why the zero-discharge systems were removed from the exemption list. She said it was because of oversight problems and how the systems would require land use controls, which are beyond the purview of the regional board.
Board members queried the staff about how peer review was undertaken for the staff’s technical memos, why Winter Canyon was deleted and talked at length about the disinfection proposal of the city for beachfront homes.
One board member asked, if the board had no authority to determine what kind of system would replace the prohibited septic tanks, why the city’s idea for disinfection of exempting advance treatment systems was being turned down.
Egoscue told board members that septic systems do not work in high-risk areas such as the chronically polluted area of Malibu. “They are not working,” she said.
The board’s executive officer said that disinfection might reduce bacterial loads but contended questions remain about other standards such as nitrogen loads in the water.
Some board members pressed on, asking why the staff was not considering some of the city’s ideas since Gold had presumably endorsed them. “Why are we not considering them?” asked a board member. “The staff has a separate opinion. Gold can answer for himself,” replied Egoscue.
Board member Madelyn Glickfeld, who lives in Malibu, said the problem as she understood it, was too often Malibuites judge the performance of septic systems on whether they back up, smell bad or have to be pumped too often, otherwise, they are considered operating in good condition. “But no one has any idea,” she said of the actual performance of the systems.
Glickfeld also defended the technical memos produced by the staff, which were excoriated by many as old science and incomplete. She led staffers through a series of questions about how the memos were subjected to peer review. Satisfied with the staff’s work, Glickfeld said she could support the staff’s proposal and the subsequent alternative staff recommendations.
Glickfeld asked if the advanced systems required by the city for new development in the last several years could somehow be exempted. She wondered if the city could allow the advanced systems and allow the discharge into some community system. She was told not the way the current prohibition was drafted. That it was not possible. No other elaboration was offered nor sought about such an assertion.
In a short time, a motion was made and the board cast the vote that may seal Malibu’s wastewater management fate.