1 Bruce Westin

5757 Wayne Newton Blvd. #11721

2 Las Vegas, NV 89111
(702) 758-5630
3
brucewestin01@gmail.com
4
5 U.S. DISTRICT COURT

6 Central District of California

7 Bruce Westin Case No.

2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPRx
8
9 Plaintiff, 2nd Amended Complaint For:
10 v. (1) 42 U.S.C. 1983

11 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

City of Calabasas
12 Judge: Honorable George H. Wu
13 Date Action filed: January 27th 2021
Defendant.
14
Date set for trial:
15
I. NATURE OF THE CASE
16
17
1. There is a systemic failure of household sewage systems
18
19 within the City of Calabasas. Records provided by the City

20 indicate out of 133 septic systems there were 33 major failures

21 and 19 property owners refused orders by the City to have their
22
sewage disposal systems inspected (Exhibit 1). The latter
23
category likely challenged the City’s inspection ORDER b/c they
24
25 knew their sewage systems had already failed and any inspection

26 would be pointless.

27
28

-1-
 1 2. Taken together, the 33 major failures plus the 19 order

2 refusals equal a failure rate of approximately 39 percent.

3
4
3. However, the total failure rate in the relevant area of
5
Calabasas where Plaintiff is planning to build a residence along
6
7 Old Topanga Canyon Road is likely much higher still.

8
9 4. To date, Plaintiff has obtained 37 septic reports out
10
of the forty-one requested for the Old Topanga Canyon area (at
11
least one house has been demolished and has been removed from
12
the relevant list). Twenty of the aforementioned residences
13
14 utilize “seepage pits” sixteen to THIRTY THREE FEET deep where

15 raw sewage effluent is dumped – without treatment.

16
17
5. This same area is subject to HIGH LEVELS of GROUND
18
WATER and has at least ONE natural spring. Ground water has been
19
observed at depths as shallow as ONE FOOT deep (Exhibit 2, Page
20
21 2). The area in question is located primarily in a valley at the

22 base of the Santa Monica Mountains and per prior geological

23 reports is NOT a proper location for the use of DEEP seepage
24
pits (Exhibit 3, Page 2, ¶ 2).
25
26
27
28

-2-
 1 6. Nearly every septic report observed to date within the

2 Old Topanga Canyon area violates at least one or more

3
environmental or plumbing laws to varying degrees. Common
4
violations include:
5
(A) Bottom of seepage pit to groundwater clearance is 10
6
7 feet (California Plumbing Code, Appendix H 301.1(4) and per

8 County Code is 10 feet from highest known groundwater Los

9 Angeles Plumbing Code 11.38.760(F)

10
(B) Seepage pit distance to creeks and streams is at least
11
150 feet and for horizontal leach lines is 100 feet. (California
12
Plumbing Code, Appendix H, Table H 101.8) (Los Angeles Plumbing
13
14 Code 11.38.750)

15
16 7. In addition to environmental and health dangers created
17
by said failed sewage systems, the Old Topanga Canyon area of
18
Calabasas also has a rabid fly problem which Plaintiff has
19
documented through several Youtube videos (Exhibit 4).
20
21
22 8. On September 29th 2020 the Los Angeles County
23 Department of Agriculture advised Plaintiff to “...eliminate
24
breeding sites. These can be animal waste, compost, plant mulch
25
piles, ground covers, etc.” A failed sewage system can also be
26
27 considered a breeding site for flies and other disease carrying

28 organisms.

-3-
 1 City Mandated Inspections

2
3
9. On August 26th 2009 the City of Calabasas passed
4
Ordinance No. 2009-262 which required all residents obtain a
5
septic operating permit and undergo a mandatory inspection by a
6
7 licensed professional within 2 years of said ordinance’s

8 effective date (CMC K13 B1).

9
10
10. Septic operating permits were to be valid for a period
11
of 5 years (CMC K13 B1).
12
13
14 11. However, said Ordinance was met with so much

15 resistance from residents with FAILED sewage systems that by

16 2011 the Ordinance was largely rescinded with the passage of
17
another Ordinance, No. 2011-284 on April 27 th 2011.
18
19
12. Today, over 10 years later almost nothing has been done
20
21 to resolve the problem of failed sewage systems within the City

22 of Calabasas.
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-
 1 13. The City of Calabasas is a very wealthy entity whose

2 tax base includes some of the most expensive real estate in the
3 state of California. These same tax monies are supposed to be
4
used to ensure public health and safety. The City is so wealthy
5
in fact they can allegedly use public monies to pay for a
6
7 $50,000 holiday party and a $35,000 trip to Dodger’s Stadium

8 (Exhibit 5, Page 3, ¶ 2)

9
10
14. The City’s spending habits are relevant when
11
considering California Public Resources Code which requires
12
governments to weigh the cost and benefits of public works.
13
14
15 15. The purpose of this lawsuit is to compel Defendant to
16 enforce existing health and building codes.
17
18
19
20 II. JURISDICTION and PARTIES

21
16. United States Code 1331 provides “The district courts
22
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
23
24 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

25
26
27
28

-5-
 1 17. The City of Calabasas continues to permit the operation

2 of failed sewage systems that are harmful to public health, the

3
environment and have created a nuisance.
4
5
18. Plaintiff rents several vacant lots within the City of
6
7 Calabasas from an associated trust (The Goose Trust) named after

8 a now elderly Australian Shepherd dog.

9
10
19. Defendant, City of Calabasas is located within the
11
jurisdiction of the Central District Court of California.
12
13
14 III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15 Old Topanga Canyon

16
17
20. The Old Topanga Canyon area of Calabasas extends
18
approximately 1 mile south of Mulholland Highway into the Santa
19
20 Monica Mountains. There are approximately 40 homes within the

21 subject area which operate septic systems (it is unclear where

22 the remaining 133 OWTS (Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems) are

23
located referenced in Exhibit 1.)
24
25
21. To date Plaintiff has received 34 septic reports out
26
27 of the 41 initially requested. 16 of those reports are

28 summarized below.

-6-
 1 Residences with Cesspools

2
3
22. A cesspool is a large hole in the ground where solid
4
and liquid human waste is dumped without any further treatment.
5
Due to the inherit health dangers created by cesspools they have
6
7 been outlawed in the state of California for all new

8 development.
9
10
Cesspool Example #1
11
12
23. 3477 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. utilizes a cesspool located
13
14 under a bathroom floor which is accessible via what appears to

15 be some sort of trap door (Exhibit 6). Said cesspool was found
16 to be in violation of municipal code laws.
17
18
24. The City identified corrective measures for 3477 Old
19
Topanga Canyon with a permit application to backfill said
20
21 cesspool dated March 22nd 2011 (Exhibit 7).

22
23
25. It’s unclear from the information provided by the City
24
if the above residence followed through on backfilling and
25
discontinuing use of said cesspool or what kind of sewage system
26
27 (if any) has been installed.

28

-7-
 1 Cesspool Example #2

2
3
26. 3485 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. also has a bathroom built
4
OVER a cesspool. The inspection report found the property to be
5
in violation of municipal code yet merely concludes with the
6
7 advice to have the cesspool pumped every 3-4 years (Exhibit 8,

8 Page 7).

9
10
27. Following said report the City found 3485 Old Topanga
11
Canyon Rd. to be a nuisance and ordered the cesspool to be
12
abandoned (Exhibit 9, ¶1).
13
14
15 28. The City has not responded to requests for corrective
16 measures (if any) actually taken for 3485 Old Topanga Canyon Rd.
17
18
Seepage Pits
19
20
21 29. At least Twenty residences in the subject area utilize

22 a seepage pit to dispose of raw sewage effluent. Most seepage

23 pits in question consist of one or more holes 16 to 33 feet deep
24
and 3 to 6 feet wide where raw sewage effluent is dumped (solids
25
are retained in a septic tank). No further treatment is
26
27 provided.

28

-8-
 1 Failed Seepage Pit Example 1

2
3
30. 23317 Valdez Rd. utilizes two 20 foot deep and 4 foot
4
wide seepage pits for raw sewage effluent. During examination
5
the inspector opted not to perform a “hydraulic load test” which
6
7 would test the seepage pit’s absorption abilities due to

8 concerns for “illicit” doo doo discharges b/c of high effluent

9 levels. Sewage odors were also observed prior to examination.

10
(Exhibit 10, page 3, ¶ 2.5)
11
12
31. To mitigate said failed sewage system 23317 Valdez was
13
14 required to pump it’s seepage pits on a WEEKLY BASIS (Exhibit

15 10, Page 6, ¶ 4.2) and install a new sewage system by March 1 st

16 2012 (Exhibit 10, Page 8, ¶ 5.1)
17
18
32. The City has not responded to requests for corrective
19
measures (if any) actually taken for 23317 Valdez Rd.
20
21
22 Failed Seepage Pit Example #2
23
24
33. 3404 Dorothy Rd. utilizes two seepage pits 26 and 33
25
feet deep respectively. The first seepage pit was observed to be
26
27 full and over flowing into the second pit which was indicated as

28 being 50% full. A “brief” hydraulic load test was performed

-9-
 1 which further indicated system absorption failure (Exhibit 11,

2 page 3, ¶ 2.4 to 2.6)

3
4
34. The suggested corrections for 3404 Dorothy Rd. were to
5
simply “permit” the second seepage pit which itself is failing
6
7 under a “legal non-conforming operation status.” (Exhibit 11,

8 page 4, ¶ 3.5) Such a suggestion does NOT comply with current

9 building or health codes and ignores the reasons WHY these

10
seepage pits are failing and will likely continue to fail.
11
12
35. At 26 and THIRTY THREE feet deep these seepage pits are
13
14 likely operating well into the ground water table for this area,

15 which probably explains why the first pit was observed to be

16 overflowing and why the second pit will likely fail.
17
18
Failed Seepage Pit Example #3
19
20
21 36. 3506 Old Topanga Canyon utilizes one seepage pit 27

22 feet deep and 5 feet wide. During inspection Twelve feet of

23 standing effluent was observed (Exhibit 12, Page 6) which would
24
likely indicate a clogged pit and or the seepage pit is
25
inundated with ground water. However, this system still
26
27 apparently passed inspection with an overall “excellent” rating.

28 (Exhibit 12, Page 8)

- 10 -
 1
2 37. The same standards applied to the failed seepage pit at
3
23317 Valdez should apply here where the City noted “The OWTS at
4
the subject property has failed because seepage pits in good
5
working order should be fully capable of absorbing and treating
6
7 all effluent they receive and not contain high standing effluent

8 levels....” (Exhibit 10, Page 4, ¶ 3.2.1)

9
10
38. Los Angeles Plumbing Code states “The seepage pit(s)
11 must be sized to absorb a quantity of clear water in 24
12 hours equal to FIVE TIMES the volume of the septic tank.”
13 (Section H 401.3.)

14
39. The hydraulic load test for 3506 Old Topanga Canyon
15
only introduced 50 gallons of water for a system that should be
16
designed to accept 5,000 gallons in 24 hours. (Exhibit 12, Page
17
6)
18
19
Failed Seepage Pit Example #4
20
21
22 40. 3411 Dorothy Rd. utilizes one seepage pit 17 feet deep

23 and 5 feet wide. During testing the homeowner refused to allow a

24 hydraulic load test. (Exhibit 13, Page 7) The purpose of such a

25
test is to measure the septic system’s ability to absorb sewage
26
effluent which is basically the primary purpose of the entire
27
evaluation.
28

- 11 -
 1
2 41. There is a strong possibility the hydraulic load test
3
was refused b/c the homeowner knew his septic system had failed.
4
5
Failed Seepage Pit Example #5
6
7
8 42. 3416 Dorothy Rd. appears to have 1-2 seepage pits with

9 at least one pit measuring 31 feet deep and 6 feet wide. At

10
least one pit had 5 feet of standing effluent/ground water at
11
the bottom and a hydraulic load test was NOT performed. (Exhibit
12
14, Page 7)
13
14
15 43. There is a strong possibility a hydraulic load test
16 was NOT performed b/c at THIRTY ONE FEET deep this seepage pit
17
is basically functioning as a shallow well/MASS GROUND WATER
18
POLLUTER. It would be extremely unlikely this pit could safely
19
process sewage effluent.
20
21 *** Also keep in mind the well hole that nearly swallowed

22 “Baby Jessica McClure” on October 14th 1987 was only 8 INCHES

23 wide and 22 feet deep. This well/seepage pit could easily
24
swallow a small car not to mention a person!
25
26
27
28

- 12 -
 1 Failed Seepage Pit Example #6

2
3
44. 3418 Dorothy utilizes one seepage pit 22 feet deep and
4
5 feet wide. However, it’s not clear how this was determined
5
other than through building records as the report indicates the
6
7 pit had “no access” and a hydraulic load test was not performed

8 (Exhibit 15, Page 7)

9
10
45. Yet even without access to the system’s most crucial
11
component it appears the property was still given a “conditional
12
pass” by the CITY to continue operating it’s likely failed
13
14 sewage system. (Exhibit 15, Page 10)

15
16 Failed Seepage Pit Example #7
17
18
46. 23367 Valdez Rd. utilizes one seepage pit 25 feet deep.
19
As early as November 1st 1994 raw sewage effluent was observed
20
21 running downhill from the residence and even bubbling up in the

22 street (Exhibit 16, Page 1, line #2) (it’s unclear if this was
23 the same observed “Spring” in later Geological reports......).
24
25
26
27
28

- 13 -
 1 47. At some point this property entered into foreclosure

2 proceedings (likely due to legal measures taken by the City) and

3
a new owner subsequently purchased the property on the condition
4
necessary repairs would be made. However, the septic report
5
provided by the City dated July 18th 2011 indicates continued
6
7 use of the same type of sewage system (a seepage pit) which

8 previously failed at this exact same property . (Exhibit 17,

9 Page 6, highlighted)
10
11
48. The septic report for 23367 Valdez indicates a
12
hydraulic load test was performed but does not indicate how much
13
14 water was introduced during the test. Effluent and or ground

15 water was observed at approximately 21 feet deep. (Exhibit 17,

16 Page 6, highlighted).
17
18
49. Though substantially better than the septic report for
19
many ADJACENT homes such as 23317 Valdez which had near OVER
20
21 FLOWING seepage pits (Exhibit 10, page 3, ¶ 2.5) assuming this

22 report is true, the seepage pit at 23367 Valdez Rd. is still

23 operating on top of an area with groundwater as shallow as ONE
24
foot deep.
25
26
27
28

- 14 -
 1 Failed Seepage Pit Example #8

2
3
50. 3442 Dorothy utilizes one seepage pit 16 feet deep and
4
5 feet wide (Exhibit 18, Page 3). No hydraulic load test was
5
performed and fluid levels were not indicated. This is likely
6
7 another refusal/failed septic and does not comply with Ordinance

8 2009-262. This report is of very little value other than to

9 indicate the depth of the seepage pit which at 16 feet likely

10
does not comply with ground water separation laws.
11
12
Failed Seepage Pit Example #9
13
14
15 51. 3508 Old Topanga Canyon utilizes one seepage pit 20
16 feet deep and 5 feet wide. Four feet of effluent or ground water
17
was observed prior to hydraulic load testing (Exhibit 19, Page
18
7).
19
52. Final grading results are not indicated for the
20
21 hydraulic test, however it was observed the effluent level rose

22 approximately 3 feet following the introduction of water to the

23 system.
24
25
53. The property is located downstream from Valdez Rd. and
26
is within 50 feet of a seasonal creek along Old Topanga Canyon
27
28 (Exhibit 19, Page 4)

- 15 -
 1
2
3 Failed Seepage Pit Example #10
4
5
54. 3471 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. utilizes three seepage
6
7 pits, the first is 12 feet deep and the other two are 16 feet

8 deep. The first pit was observed to have 4 feet of

9 effluent/ground water prior to hydraulic load testing. The other

10
two pits were observed to be dry (the report does not indicate
11
if the aforementioned pits are located at different elevations
12
(Exhibit 20, Page 2).
13
14
15 55. 3471 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. is located within 50 feet
16 of a seasonal creek along Old Topanga Canyon Rd (test report
17
incorrectly indicates no water source within 50 or 600 feet of
18
septic system (Exhibit 20, Page 5)
19
20
21 Septic Systems with horizontal leach lines

22 Failed Septic System Example #1

23
24
56. 3265 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. utilizes a septic tank
25
“which is 10 feet deep” that discharges to an unknown location
26
27 which is “believed” to be a leach line somewhere on the

28 property. (Exhibit 21, Page 3)

- 16 -
 1
2 57. The property serviced by this unknown sewage system is
3
a 2291 square foot 3 bedroom 3 bathroom house on a rather small
4
8,860 square foot lot. A hydraulic load test was not performed
5
and it is unknown if this sewage system is functional.
6
7
8 58. 3265 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. is located within 100 feet

9 of a seasonal creek along Old Topanga Canyon.

10
11
12
Failed Septic System Example #2
13
14
15 59. 3271 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. utilizes a 1200 gallon
16 septic tank which drains into a dispersal field in a unknown
17
location (Exhibit 22, Page 8)
18
19
60. The system failed a hydraulic load test which
20
21 introduced an unknown amount of water for 15 minutes that

22 resulted in the effluent level rising approximately 4 inches in

23 the septic tank (i.e. the plumbing is backing up and exam
24
failed) (Exhibit 22, Page 8).
25
26
27 61. The property is located within 50 feet of a seasonal

28 creek along Old Topanga Canyon.

- 17 -
 1
2 Failed Septic System Example #3
3
4
62. 3319 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. utilizes one septic tank
5
which drains into a leach field in a unknown location. (Exhibit
6
7 23, Page 2)

8
9 63. The system passed a hydraulic load test (Exhibit 23,
10
Page 2, ¶ 4) however the report did note the inspector would
11
require more time to locate where the effluent was draining to.
12
(Exhibit 23, Page 2, ¶ 5)
13
14
15 64. 3319 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. is within 50 feet of a
16 seasonal creek along Old Topanga Canyon (Google Maps).
17
18
Failed Septic System Example #4
19
20
21 65. 3141 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. utilizes one septic tank

22 which drains into a unknown location. (Exhibit 24, Page 7)

23
24
66. This septic passed a hydraulic load test and despite
25
not knowing WHERE the effluent drains to the system was given an
26
“excellent” rating. (Exhibit 24, Page 9)
27
28

- 18 -
 1 67. However, the report does indicate an outhouse on the

2 property which did not pass inspection. (Exhibit 24, Page 9)

3
4
68. 3141 Old Topanga Canyon Rd. is located within 50 feet
5
of a seasonal creek along Old Topanga Canyon Rd. (Exhibit 24,
6
7 Page 4)

8 IV.CONCLUSION

9
10
The City of Calabasas appeared to be implementing the
11
correct policy measures with passage of Ordinance 2009-262 on
12
August 26th 2009. Said Ordinance was overall effective (even with
13
14 the order refusals) in gathering data and attempting to learn

15 the extent of the environmental and health problems created by

16 private sewage systems.
17
18
Apparently, once it became more clear the City of Calabasas
19
and many of it’s residents were faced with a rather significant
20
21 public health problem from failing sewage systems City leaders

22 chose to ignore the problem with the passage of yet another

23 ordinance on April 27th 2011 (number 2011-284).
24
25
26
27
28

- 19 -
 1 Now, over 10 years later the problem still persists with

2 some of the worst environmental violators still operating

3 outdated and illegal sewage systems. In the same way it’s
4
illegal for a poor person on say “Skid Row” to urinate in the
5
street it should also be illegal for a rich person to basically
6
7 do the same thing.

8
9 Though a rich person may pay significant property taxes,
10
part of those same property tax monies need to be utilized for
11
public works and not holiday parties and trips to Dodger’s
12
Stadium. In this case public works may include extending the
13
14 existing sewer system ONE mile to service the 40 homes in

15 question.
16 V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
17
Constitutional Violation
18
19
70. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
20
21 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68 of this Complaint.

22
23 71. Defendant has the sole responsibility to enforce the
24
municipal codes within the city of Calabasas to “ensure that all
25
new and existing OWTS in the City of Calabasas are
26
27 environmentally safe and free of health hazards” (Calabasas

28 Municipal Code, Appendix K, Introduction, 2nd paragraph).

- 20 -
 1
2 72. Defendant has willfully chosen to ignore and not enforce
3
applicable environmental and building laws which has permitted
4
the operation of NUMERIOUS failed sewage systems that endanger
5
public health, harm the environment, and create a nuisance.
6
7
8 73. These failed sewage systems are subject to overflowing,

9 create ground water pollution, produce noxious odors and are

10
breeding grounds for disease carrying organisms.
11
12
74. The dangerous and nuisance conditions resulting from
13
14 failed sewage systems Defendant has neglected to regulate

15 interfere with Plaintiff’s enjoyment of his property and violate

16 Plaintiff’s 5th Amendment Right against depravation of property.
17
18
Plaintiff herein seeks equitable and injunctive relief.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 21 -
 1 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for a judgment against

3
Defendant for:
4
5
1. Require Defendant to enforce current environmental and
6
7 building laws pertaining to the safe operation of all Onsite

8 Waste Water Treatment Systems and provide homeowners a

9 reasonable timeframe to make necessary corrections.
10
11
2. Require Defendant to develop a viable plan to discontinue
12
allowing residents to dispose of sewage using cesspools, seepage
13
14 pits, or any other method which pollutes the ground water,

15 seasonal creeks, or jeopardizes public health.

16
17
3. Require Defendant to test and monitor ground water supplies
18
near Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems for bacterial and
19
chemical (nitrate) and other cancer causing pollution. If higher
20
21 than normal levels of pollutants are discovered to require

22 Defendant to implement corrective measures.

23
24
25
26
27
28

- 22 -
 1 4. Require Defendant to provide updated operational testing

2 data on a 5 to 10 year basis for all Onsite Waste Water

3
Treatment Systems which continue in operation to monitor
4
environmental damage.
5
6
7 5. Costs of lawsuit herein.

8
9 6. Any other relief as the court deems appropriate.
10
11
12
Dated: May 19th, 2021
13
14
15
16
17 Bruce Westin ________________
18 Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 23 -
(Exhibit 1)
(Exhibit 2, Page 1)
(Exhibit 2, Page 2)
(Exhibit 3, Page 1)
(Exhibit 3, Page 2)
(Exhibit 3, Page 3)
(Exhibit 3, Page 4)
(Exhibit 3, Page 5)
(Exhibit 4)
Gary Lysik forced out as Calabasas city manager | The Acorn https://www.theacorn.com/articles/gary-lysik-fire-as-calabasas-city-manager/

Gary Lysik forced out as Calabasas city manager

May 10, 2020

By Ian Bradley
ianbradley@theacorn.com

Calabasas City Manager Gary Lysik resigned under pressure this week following
several months of staff and City Council criticism relating to his job performance
and ethical standards.

The council held six closed door sessions to discuss the embattled chief executive
before making Monday’s announcement. Lysik took the city’s top managerial post in
August 2018.

Mayor Alicia Weintraub made the announcement at a digital town hall meeting. The
council met prior to the public meeting to review Lysik’s job performance for the
�nal time and to seal his fate. The resignation was accepted by Weintraub and
council members Mary Sue Maurer and James Bozajian. Councilmembers Fred
Gaines and David Shapiro, longtime Gary Lysik supporters, protested the move.

Weintraub said a replacement search would get underway immediately and, that in Gary Lysik            Courtesy photo

the meantime, Robert Yalda, head of the city’s public works department, would take

By continuing to browse or by clicking 'Accept', you agree to our sites privacy policy. Accept Privacy policy

(Exhibit 5, Page 1)
1 of 4 5/13/2021, 1:16 AM
Gary Lysik forced out as Calabasas city manager | The Acorn https://www.theacorn.com/articles/gary-lysik-fire-as-calabasas-city-manager/

The �rst closed-door meeting about Lysik’s performance came in early April after he published a blog post on the city’s
website that was seen as making light of domestic abuse during the pandemic.

In the post, Lysik noted that deputies from Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station had responded to several reports of domestic strife
within the city, which he attributed to the ongoing stress of isolation and social distancing during the coronavirus
lockdown.

“Understandably, we’re all battling frayed nerves, so here are some ways you might be able to eliminate at least a portion
of the tension,” the former city manager wrote. “Ladies, go ahead and just let him have the remote. It will be yours again as
soon as the stay put orders are lifted. Guys, don’t be pigs. Pick up after yourself and place the toilet seat down. Yes, I’m
chuckling.”

Bozajian and Maurer, along with staffers at city hall and several Calabasas residents, said they were upset by the
irreverent tone of the post, which was quickly taken down.

Weintraub said the post did not re�ect the opinions of the City Council.

Lysik’s blog was later discovered to be published using a service called City News Alerts, a company registered to Karen
Lysik, the city manager’s wife. It’s unclear if Lysik used city funds to pay his wife for the services rendered, or why the city’s
own web service was not used instead.

Gaines, a longtime supporter of Lysik, said the former city manager was a “big part of the success of the city of Calabasas
over the last 15 years.

“He is a true expert in municipal �nance, and I, for one, will miss his advice and counsel,” Gaines said.

Lysik’s troubled tenure began long before his April blog post.

In March he became the target of a complaint brought against him by Community Services Director Jeff Rubin, who
alleged that Lysik, along with City Council member David Shapiro, created a hostile work environment after Rubin reported
instances in which he believed the city had violated state and local laws.
By continuing to browse or by clicking 'Accept', you agree to our sites privacy policy. Accept Privacy policy

(Exhibit 5, Page 2)
2 of 4 5/13/2021, 1:16 AM
Gary Lysik forced out as Calabasas city manager | The Acorn https://www.theacorn.com/articles/gary-lysik-fire-as-calabasas-city-manager/

about unnecessary spending by Lysik and Shapiro. Rubin also raised questions about nepotism at city hall.

Rubin wasn’t the �rst to allege mismanagement.

An anonymous letter circulated by a high-level city employee in 2019 detailed numerous allegations about misuse of city
funds.

Among the issues voiced in the letter was the ongoing employment of Deborah Steller, the city’s media, library and
information services director, who collected her more than $200,000 annual salary for a period of 14 months after she left
the city of Calabasas and moved to Petaluma, Calif., more than 400 miles away. The city was remiss in not replacing
Steller sooner and continuing to pay her a full salary while she worked remotely, the letter said.

Rubin and other city o�cials, including several City Council members, also voiced concern about a $50,000 holiday party
put on by the city in January 2019. Lysik planned the event and hired his wife and sister-in-law to help execute the evening,
even paying them with city funds. The party, which was held at Calamigos Ranch just months after the Woolsey �re, was
budgeted for a quarter of what the city ended up paying.

During Lysik’s tenure as chief executive the city leadership also came under �re for spending $35,000 on a promotional
night at Dodger Stadium.

The complaints didn’t stop there.

Lysik was criticized for hiring his son to work in various positions at city hall without having proper experience. While
Calabasas carries no laws against nepotism, the younger Lysik was given a $60,000 contract job to work in the city’s
�nance department—a position for which he reportedly was not quali�ed, and for which he was chosen over other
employees who had been with the city longer. His father was alleged to have given him the full-time position as a means
to circumvent a state law regarding contract employees, despite the city being on a hiring freeze at the time.

Financial records show Carson Lysik drew two paychecks from the city for several months in 2019.

The elder Lysik worked for the city for 17 years. He was the Calabasas chief �nancial o�cer for 15 years and city manager
By continuing to browse or by clicking 'Accept', you agree to our sites privacy policy. Accept Privacy policy

(Exhibit 5, Page 3)
3 of 4 5/13/2021, 1:16 AM
Gary Lysik forced out as Calabasas city manager | The Acorn https://www.theacorn.com/articles/gary-lysik-fire-as-calabasas-city-manager/

“As I step away from public life in Calabasas to take this time with my family, I will miss my work here, but will do so
wishing the city the best in the coming years,” Lysik said in a statement.

He said he was proud to have led the city through the great recession and that he had helped it achieve the highest bond
rating for municipalities. A statement by the city said Lysik’s �nancing efforts saved “millions of dollars” during
construction of a new city hall, library and senior center over the past two decades.

“Calabasas �nancial stability and positioning has matured over the past two decades, and I’m very proud to have helped
guide that growth,” he said.

Follow Ian Bradley on Twitter @Ian_reports.

By continuing to browse or by clicking 'Accept', you agree to our sites privacy policy. Accept Privacy policy

(Exhibit 5, Page 4)
4 of 4 5/13/2021, 1:16 AM
(Exhibit 6)
(Exhibit 7)
(Exhibit 8, Page 1)
(Exhibit 8, Page 2)
(Exhibit 8, Page 3)
(Exhibit 8, Page 4)
(Exhibit 8, Page 5)
(Exhibit 8, Page 6)
(Exhibit 8, Page 7)
(Exhibit 8, Page 8)
(Exhibit 9)
(Exhibit 10, Page1)
(Exhibit 10, Page 2)
(Exhibit 10, Page 3)
(Exhibit 10, Page 4)
(Exhibit 10, Page 5)
(Exhibit 10, Page 6)
(Exhibit 10, Page 7)
(Exhibit 10, Page 8)
(Exhibit 10, Page 9)
(Exhibit 10, Page 10)
(Exhibit 10, Page 11)
(Exhibit 10, Page 12)
(Exhibit 11, Page 1)
(Exhibit 11, Page 2)
(Exhibit 11, Page 3)
(Exhibit 11, Page 4)
(Exhibit 11, Page 5)
(Exhibit 12, Page 1)
(Exhibit 12, Page 2)
(Exhibit 12, Page 3)
(Exhibit 12, Page 4)
(Exhibit 12, Page 5)
(Exhibit 12, Page 6)
(Exhibit 12, Page 7)
(Exhibit 12, Page 8)
(Exhibit 16, Page 1)
(Exhibit 16, Page 2)
(Exhibit 16, Page 3)
(Exhibit 17, Page 1)
(Exhibit 17, Page 2)
(Exhibit 17, Page 3)
(Exhibit 17, Page 4)
(Exhibit 17, Page 5)
(Exhibit 17, Page 6)
(Exhibit 17, Page 7)
(Exhibit 17, Page 8)
(Exhibit 18, Page 1)
(Exhibit 18, Page 2)
(Exhibit 18, Page 3)
(Exhibit 18, Page 4)
(Exhibit 18, Page 5)
(Exhibit 21, Page 1)
(Exhibit 21, Page 2)
(Exhibit 21, Page 3)
(Exhibit 23, Page 1)
(Exhibit 23, Page 2)
(Exhibit 23, Page 3)
 Type your text

(Exhibit 24, Page 1)

Type your text
(Exhibit 24, Page 2)
(Exhibit 24, Page 3)
(Exhibit 24, Page 4)
(Exhibit 24, Page 5)
(Exhibit 24, Page 6)
(Exhibit 24, Page 7)
(Exhibit 24, Page 8)
(Exhibit 24, Page 9)