Council backs Pier-to-Pier ferry concept in 3-2 vote Play

The Malibu City Council gave three thumbs up and two thumbs down to the Pier-to-Pier proposal — a plan from Malibu residents to reconstruct a boat landing at Malibu Pier and use it for coastal trips into Malibu from Marina del Rey and Santa Monica.

Council members Bruce Silverstein and Steve Uhring said the idea was reckless because they think ferry service might open Malibu up to concentrated residential development under a new state law.

The group of volunteers presented their concept for the boat service — designed to take traffic off PCH — to the city council Monday night. And in an emergency like a fire, the Coast Guard and other maritime officials could use the ferry docks as an emergency evacuation access.

The city council approved a letter of support to California State Parks, which will make the ultimate decision.

Patricia Keeney Maischoss wanted the city council to know: this is not a real estate deal. She envisions scheduled service — a 30-minute ride from the Malibu Pier to the Santa Monica Pier, then another six minutes to Venice, and another six minutes to Marina del Rey. Estimated fare would be around $50.

Maischoss said the ferry will cost around $50,000 a day and is being paid by private funding from family offices — not developers. Santa Monica will require a $25 million investment, which investors have committed to. She said the group is not asking the City of Malibu for any funds, and is offering a lift for small businesses along the route and potential future revenue for the city through a disembarkment tax structured through an agreement with state parks.

Maischoss envisions only a few trips out to Malibu at first — oriented more toward bringing tourists out to Malibu than bringing commuters in to the L.A. ports. She said only three round trips per day, five days a week, are envisioned. Those will not run when the weather is bad, or when a south swell makes docking at Malibu Pier problematic.

The concept of the Blue Highway has changed as its Malibu backers refine it. It was first pitched as a transit service; now the idea is a recreational boat to haul excursion passengers out to Malibu.

But there are worries that adding a ferry landing to Malibu Pier might cause the state to view central Malibu as being served by mass transit — and that would open up the area for dense residential structures.

Maischoss made it clear the idea is NOT to force Malibu to add dense residential development around the ferry landing at Malibu Pier.

"If people think this is all about real estate, it is not. It is all about giving people an alternative to PCH," she said.

But two council members said they worry that bringing ferry service into Malibu would trigger Senate Bill 79, which would allow denser residential projects.

Mayor Bruce Silverstein also hammered away at how many Malibu residents would use the ferry, as opposed to tourists coming out to Malibu. That led to this exchange:

SILVERSTEIN: "How many of you expect to come to Malibu in a year?"

MAISCHOSS: "Again, 149 passengers per trip, three trips a day, five days a week. This is not mass transit."

SILVERSTEIN: "And where are the Malibu residents who are going to use the ferry going to park their vehicles?"

MAISCHOSS: "We have a parking agreement that is right by Zuma Jay's. We are also curb mapping with rideshare so they will take them to that parking lot, not the pier. It is the same walk that people make with kayaks and surfboards from Zuma Jay's shop. It's right on the other side of the Greek eatery. We have an agreement for 70 to 100 spaces to start."

SILVERSTEIN, in a doubting tone: "Those have been approved by the planning commission?"

MAISCHOSS: "We have just begun ferry plan writing. We just have a non-binding parking agreement."

SILVERSTEIN: "You can't use other people's parking lots just like that."

Indeed, Malibu's zoning codes do not allow offsite parking like that proposed by the ferry advocates.

A few Malibu residents oppose the plan. Bill Sampson: "It's the most congested part of our city. Adding to it is a bad idea. I don't think it's something that our city ought to be behind at this time."

But a lot of residents favor the ferry as a possible evacuation route. Michel Shane: "Its purpose is to avoid being on the road during critical moments. We realized this during the fire — trapped on the only route out with flames behind us. No community should rely so late on a single lane of asphalt for its safety."

A parade of Malibu residents spoke in favor of the ferry concept, like Denise Degarno:

"The Malibu I grew up in — we had a boat, we had a big fishing boat. I went with my dad all the time. All the locals went on it. We rode horses to school. We rode them to the market. That's Malibu. That's the heart of Malibu. These people are all our neighbors. They don't turn it into condo haven or Newport Beach. And we're not even asking you to say yes. We're asking you to say, 'sure, let's see where it goes, let's be our community and explore this.' That's the way we used to operate."

But that did not sway Silverstein and Uhring. Silverstein said the support of Santa Monica and other beach cities is irrelevant.

"When I hear those cities are doing this — Santa Monica, Long Beach, and others — and that we should too. This is not Santa Monica. This is not Long Beach. Those are all cities with sewers. They have high-rises. They have dense neighborhoods. They are exactly what Malibu seeks not to be. So it's never an argument to me that all these other coastal cities are doing it and we should be part of it also."

Silverstein once again reminded the council that he is a lawyer, and said his reading of SB 79 puts Malibu in jeopardy of allowing high-density residential development near the pier if it approves the ferry landing.

"I think it is reckless for us to proceed on the basis of a new law which the plain language applies — without at least getting a considered opinion from our city attorney that says it will not."

Marianne Riggins interrupted: "I would say that the plain language does not apply here when you read through it. It is very clear that it is high-density transit that the legislature is focusing on. And the state is trying to ensure that the housing is built near these high-density transit areas because they want people to have access. They don't want to have people spread out. I would ask that question — we've got a lot of business that we have to do and I think it's time that we move onto our other work."

In the end, the council voted 3 to 2 to support the Pier-to-Pier ferry concept, with Silverstein and Uhring voting no.

The discussion on the Pier-to-Pier concept ate up so much time Monday night that there was no time to discuss the proposal to construct a pedestrian underpass below PCH at Malibu Seafood. At 10:30 Monday night, the city council decided to put that off until August 4th.

Maybe.