The Malibu City Council provided consensus direction to move regular meeting start times from 5:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., part of sweeping changes aimed at improving meeting efficiency and public participation amid concerns about historically long sessions.
Council members Bruce Silverstein and Steve Uhring expressed opposition during the discussion, arguing that the earlier start would exclude working residents and potential council candidates from participating.
"I think 2:00's a non-starter," Uhring said, referring to staff's original proposal for a 2 p.m. start time. "I don't know how the people who are actually working can deal with that."
Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Silverstein called the earlier meeting time "a non-starter" and warned it could interfere with council members' and participants' work schedules.
The council also directed staff to include provisions that the general public comment will not begin before 6:30 p.m., even if other agenda items conclude earlier. If business wraps up before that time, the council will move to subsequent items and return to public comment after 6:30 p.m.
City Clerk Kelsey Pettijohn said the changes address long-standing problems with meeting length and public participation. Malibu meetings have historically run four to five hours, with typical sessions averaging four hours in 2024, she said.
"One of the consequences of the late meetings is that we do often see public participation drop off after general public comment, so we don't have as much engagement on the scheduled items where the city council can actually deliberate and take action," Pettijohn told the council.
The changes come as Malibu grapples with increased workload from Franklin and Palisades fire recovery efforts, which have added to already lengthy agendas.
Under new remote participation rules being developed, residents wanting to speak via Zoom must register in advance using a webinar format by 10 a.m. on meeting days and sign up for specific agenda items. The council rejected proposals requiring participants to appear on camera or use their real names, citing legal concerns about anonymous speech rights.
"Members of the public do have a right to anonymous speech at public meetings, and requiring on camera participation may infringe on that," Pettijohn said.
The council directed staff to eliminate audiovisual presentations during general public comment, though they will still be accepted for scheduled business items. Staff cited time constraints and technical challenges for the restriction.
For land use appeals, the council provided consensus that staff reports be published 30 days before hearings, with applicants and appellants required to submit materials 10 business days in advance. General public comments and audiovisual materials for appeals must be submitted three business days prior to meetings.
The council also directed staff to explore filming all commission meetings, expanding beyond the current practice of recording only City Council and Planning Commission sessions.
"I would love the other commission meetings to be filmed," said council member Haylynn Conrad.
Public speakers unanimously opposed moving public comment to the end of meetings, calling it 'extremely damaging' to public participation. However, the council's direction maintains public comment in its traditional early evening time slot.
The council provided consensus to limit ceremonial presentations to five minutes and restrict them to one meeting per month. Staff will also schedule more special meetings specifically for lengthy land use appeals to prevent them from extending regular meeting agendas.
The changes are expected to take effect with updated rules of procedure planned for adoption by the end of September, pending final council approval. The council recognized the modifications could impact future candidates' ability to serve, but Mayor Marianne Riggins supported an "incremental" approach to improving meeting efficiency.
The new 4:30 p.m. start time represents a compromise from the staff's original 2 p.m. proposal, which faced widespread opposition from both council members and residents who said it would exclude working people from civic participation. Three council members expressed support for the compromise time during the discussion, while two opposed it.