Malibu Surfside News

Private Fireworks Shows for the Fourth of July in Malibu

2009-07-01T17:51:00.000-07:00

BY ANNE SOBLE

Every year, starting around June 30 through July 3, the telephone calls and emails come to the Malibu Surfside News offices inquiring, “Where are the offshore fireworks shows going to take place?”
Privately sponsored pyrotechnic displays are an integral part of the way the Fourth of July is celebrated in Malibu.
The city has announced that firework detonation permits have been issued for two private displays on Saturday, July 4.
Both of the 9 p.m. displays will be launched from offshore barges that are usually towed into place earlier in the day. One is set for the Malibu Colony area, the other for the 27900 block of Pacific Coast Highway.
Municipal officials also remind residents and visitors that fireworks are illegal everywhere within city borders. They are also outlawed by Los Angeles County in all of unincorporated Malibu.
Even the so-called “safe and sane” fireworks, which most fire department and law enforcement officials say are neither safe, nor sane, are outlawed in both jurisdictions.
Given the lack of recent rainfall and the current high fire danger everywhere in the Malibu area, illegal fireworks will be confiscated and those possessing them will face legal consequences.
Happy Fourth of July to all.

Malibu Officials Are Closer to Taking Possession of New Municipal Center

2009-07-01T17:47:00.000-07:00

• Estimated Time Frame for Move-In Is Nine Months

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu officials moved one more step closer to acquiring a new City Hall, when the 10-day appeal period for bankruptcy court came and went and there were no new bidders on the property.
“We still have to close escrow,” said City Manager Jim Thorsen. The city this week published a Request for Proposal for architectural services for the new City Hall.
The city held the winning bid for the purchase of the 35,000-square-foot building located directly behind the current City Hall when they offered $15 million for the building that was the former home of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and currently houses the Malibu Performing Arts Center.
Thorsen said the city is expected to close escrow at the end of July, when all of the money turns over for the acquisition.
Current plans call for the city to take the money out of the general fund to meet the end of July deadline. Those general funds would be replaced by the certificates of participation that will be used to cover the financing.
The city manager said he hoped that the move into the new quarters could be made in about nine months.
City officials are still discussing the specifics of moving out of their current building before the lease ends in three years. They have said that they will not make double payments.
“We are still looking at subleasing,” Thorsen said.
The city is currently paying $800,000 rent annually for the 15,647 square feet it now occupies at the current City Hall.
There is still three years on the lease, or about $2 million owed in rent to the landlord who has said that the city will not be let out of its lease.
City officials say the COPs will be paid back over a 30-year period from the savings in rent payments.

City Employee Is Suspected in Fatal Hit-and-Run of Man Cycling on PCH

2009-07-01T17:44:00.000-07:00

• Father and Son Bicyclists May Have Been DUI Victims

BY BILL KOENEKER

Two bicyclists en route to Malibu while participating in a major annual cycling event were hit by a motorist on Pacific Coast Highway who was allegedly driving under the influence. The man’s vehicle struck the pair, killing one and seriously injuring the other, then the driver reportedly fled the scene of the accident.
The alleged driver, Robert Sanchez, 30, of Oxnard, was subsequently apprehended and taken into custody, according to law enforcement authorities.
Sanchez, 30, who is employed by the City of Malibu as a records clerk, was reportedly driving along the 34000 block of Pacific Coast Highway near Nicholas Canyon at 1:27 a.m. on Sunday when he allegedly crossed over the fog line and struck Rodrigo “Rod” Armas, 45, of Tehachapi, a Los Angeles County deputy probation officer.
Armas died at the scene and his son Christian, 14, suffered leg injuries. The injured boy was transported to UCLA Medical Center where he is listed in stable condition with numerous broken bones.
Armas is survived by his wife Shelly, his son Christian and two daughters, ages 9 and 12, according to a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department press release.
The father and son were competing in an annual 200-mile “Grand Tour” event sponsored by the Los Angeles Wheelman Ride and were on the last leg of the race when the incident happened, according to an LASD report.
Authorities allege that Sanchez left the scene of the accident and continued along PCH for a short distance, before he abandoned his vehicle and hid out in the brush.
The City of Malibu staffer was found about two hours later by deputies, who arrested him and took him into custody. Pending the investigation, the case could involved charges of vehicular manslaughter, driving under the influence and felony hit and run.
Sanchez was released on $100,000 bail, according to a spokesperson for the Malibu/ Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station.
A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office said on Tuesday morning that charges had not yet been presented, but that would probably take place on Wednesday after the Malibu Surfside News goes to press.
City Manager Jim Thorsen verified that Sanchez is an em[ployee of the City of Malibu, Thorsen described his position as an administrative assistant.
When asked whether the current allegations might have any effect on Sanchez’s employment status, Thorsen replied, “He is still employed by the city.”

School District Delays Action on MHS Lights

2009-07-01T17:21:00.000-07:00

• Outlines Restrictions and Impacts

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board of education opted at its June 25 meeting to postpone voting on two critical and controversial components of the school district’s attempt to obtain a permit for temporary athletic field lighting at Malibu High School. An attempt to install permanent field lighting at the campus as part of Measure BB funded improvements revealed the fact that the school has been operating temporary lighting without a permit.
Temporary and permanent athletic field lighting violates both Malibu’s Local Coastal Program and a special condition imposed on the MHS property by the California Coastal Commission. The June 25 agenda contained a resolution to attempt an override of the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program. That item has now been moved to a special meeting on July 1 at the district offices in Santa Monica. The board will also be voting on July 1 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration developed by staff and consultants for the temporary lighting project.
An errata section has been added to the MND, clarifying several items. The errata acknowledges that lights have been in use for six instead of seven years. It also acknowledges that complains about the lights were received. The district had maintained that no complaints were ever received from residents. That statement has now been modified to no “formal” complaints, after a barrage of letters from residents describing numerous and multiple complaints made to school authorities.
Other changes include an increase in the number of generators from one 50 kW generator to two, which are now estimated to produce 62.17 decibels instead of the 42.50 decibels originally stated. The district has also accepted evidence for the City of Malibu that the nearest residence is 550 feet from the field, not 1000 feet as stated in the MND.
An operating plan with a number of restrictions has also been added. The revised plan restricts lighting to football games and practices; requires the posting of signs describing the permitted lighting use; and limits the use of the portable lights to “eight football practices until 7:30 p.m. and eight football games until 10:30 p.m.” for a maximum total of 62 hours per year.
The new restrictions also stipulate that “the temporary lights shall only remain on the athletic field during the football season and shall be removed thereafter; and that the district will contract with a third party vendor to monitor the athletic field and ensure that the program is “compliant,” and offers the assurance that “if the portable lights are used in excess of the 16 nights, the next football season shall be prohibited from using lights on the athletic field.”
According to district staff, once the resolution and MND are in place, the next step will be presenting the appeal to the Coastal Commission. Project supporters are hoping this can be accomplished before the start of the fall football season. Night games are already on the athletic program agenda.
The MHS field lighting issues were postponed, but the board voted to proceed with another controversial issue: a district plan to take two private homes in Santa Monica through eminent domain to make way for a measure BB funded expansion of Edison Language Academy Charter School, a bilingual magnet elementary school located in the Pico neighborhood in Santa Monica that serves both district and out-of-district children. The two families have repeatedly refused to sell their homes.
Shinobu Maruyama, who has lived in her home since 1952, was offered $1.89 million for her property, which is next door to the school. Maruyama’s next-door neighbor Mary Hernandez has lived in her home since 1966, raising four children there. After renting the house for years, the Hernandez family was able to purchase the property in 1999. They have received an offer of $1.99 million from the district. Both women have stated that they do not wish to sell and that they would not be able to afford to continue to live in the area if the district forces them out.
“As of this date, in spite of the district’s good faith efforts at negotiated acquisition, no agreements have been reached with Maruyama and Hernandez,” the staff report for the June 25 meeting stated. The report also stated that it has always been the district’s preference to purchase the homes through negotiations, not eminent domain.
“I don’t even want to think about not living there,” Hernandez said. “It’s going to be hard.”
Oscar de la Torre was the only member of the board who opposed the resolution. “The acquisition of the land is a benefit for the future of public education in the community and I respect everyone’s vote, but for me personally it was something that I just couldn’t do,” de la Torre said, pointing out the irony that the new dual-language academy will be displacing residents who represent the ethnic and economic diversity the school is intended to serve.
The resolution adopted by the board will authorize the district to seek court-granted authority as a government entity to take the private land for public use. The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District has six months to file the necessary paperwork in court. According to the staff report, the district will be required to make several findings, including showing that the parcels are needed for the project. The district will also have to prove that the project “is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury.” The district will also be required to pay “fair market value” for the properties. The owners are expected to challenge the district’s legal right to eminent domain.
The board’s decision to approve the resolution is being criticized by district observers who have been calling for a rethink of the Edison expansion plan in light of rapidly declining attendance and the district’s current $12 million deficit.
Santa Monica resident and education activist Jim Jaffe, in an open letter to the school board dated June 13, called for the district to “revisit the need for building a new Edison school and other BB projects in light of pessimistic enrollment projections and economic conditions.”
“Malibu parents need to know what the district is doing in town and not just at home,” one parent told the Malibu Surfside News. “[The district has] money to pay to tear down houses and build new buildings but they don’t have enough money to keep the buildings they already have open, staffed and maintained. They just shut down one of Samohi’s six houses. We keep hearing that they’re going to close Point Dume [Elementary School], but they have the money to do this [at Edison]. It’s crazy”

Water Improvements Planned for Trancas Said to Be Independent of Plans for Shopping Center Growth

2009-07-01T17:19:00.000-07:00

• Site Owner Says He Doesn’t Need Upgrades to Develop

BY BILL KOENEKER

Both the shopping center owner and water district officials have indicated that water improvements currently planned for Malibu West and the Trancas area are not tied to the planned expansion of Trancas Country Market.
“It has nothing to do with the TCM remodel/expansion and is not a requirement for our project,” said Dan Bercu, who heads the ownership of the Trancas shopping center. “The water upgrade for western Malibu is an infrastructure improvement by Water District 29 at their choosing.”
Some Malibu West residents have questioned whether the replacement of small pipes with larger ones and the addition of a new regulation station will only benefit the remodeling project for Trancas Country Market and may have been designed primarily for that purpose.
But Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29 officials say the work, which already have been approved and funded, is a long-term planned expansion of the water delivery system in western Malibu and predates Bercu’s ownership of what is now called the Trancas Country Market center.
The existing distribution system conveys domestic water through a 30-inch steel pipe located beneath Pacific Coast Highway. The distribution main has a maximum size of 30 inches and reduces to 16 inches as the line passes in front of the Trancas and PCH supermarket and shops complex.
There is an existing 12-inch water pipe that branches from the 16-inch pipe at the intersection of Trancas Canyon Road and PCH and fills the Trancas Canyon water tank, which holds 500,000 gallons.
There is also a pair of one-million-gallon water tanks near Nicholas Beach that are filled by the current 14-inch water main.
“The proposed regulating station planned at the south-east corner of the market parking lot will not decrease water pressure. The proposed regulation station and cross-country pipe replacement upgrade will introduce redundancy and reliability to the existing water distribution system, wrote Quang Tran, an engineer for Burdge and Associates, the architects of the planned shopping center expansion, who explained the developer’s assessment of the county’s project and its impact on the area of the development.
“The existing static water pressure around the Trancas market area is about 130 psi,” Tran continued. “Once the planned improvements are completed the static water pressure for the area is expected to continue to be 130 psi or greater.”
Tran said he was told by a Waterworks District 29 engineer the pipe replacement upgrades will increase water capacity for the existing water supply system. He added that a significant portion of the water infrastructure improvements will be installed on the Trancas market property and will benefit those residents around the Trancas market area.
The Waterworks District 29 Web site describes the cross-country replacement as a project that consists of installing 540 feet of new 10-inch-diameter steel water main between Morning View Drive and Paseo Canyon Road to replace an existing aging water main in the same area.
“This project will also include the replacement of 500 feet of a four-inch-diameter water main located on Pacific Coast Highway and relocation of a pressure regulating station to improve fire protection flow in the area,” the Website states.
“The water district has continued to make improvements in western Malibu where households have multiplied faster than the district has been able to keep pace.”
Last year, the district replaced approximately 7200 linear feet of 12-inch-diameter steel water main to replace an existing six-inch-diameter water main along Broad Beach Road. The project also included replacement of a two-inch-diameter pipeline on Bunnie Lane and a four-inch-diameter pipeline serving Cottontail Lane with an eight-inch-diameter pipeline and connects both to the new 12-inch-diameter water main on Broad Beach.

United States Geological Survey to Do Critical Water Study of Malibu Lagoon

2009-07-01T17:17:00.000-07:00

• Research Will Occur Simultaneously with EPI Analysis

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu city officials are cheering what they are claiming is another benefit derived from the water quality symposium last April—a proposed water quality study by the United States Geological Survey to address “recurring water quality issues related to nutrients and fecal indicator bacteria in Malibu Lagoon and Surfrider Beach.”
“It was determined that the work could be done concurrently with ongoing epidemiological studies of fecal indicator bacteria exposure and human health effects along Malibu beaches that is being done by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project,” wrote City Manager Jim Thorsen, in a memo to council members.
The city council agreed last week, without comment, to authorize Thorsen to execute a joint funding agreement between the city and the USGS for the $223,325 program with the municipality covering $183,325 of the cost and the USGS providing the remaining $40,000.
The acting director of the USGS California Water Science Center indicated that the study would include collection of chemical and isotopic data from special test wells.
Ten existing wells will be sampled for major ions, such as calcium, magnesium and sodium, selected trace elements, nutrients and the stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen. Salinity will be determined.
Water from selected wells in areas believed to be impacted by septic discharges also will be analyzed for nitrogen contaminants, and oxygen isotopic composition of the nitrate molecule.
“These data will be used to evaluate the source of nitrate contamination (human and animal sources versus chemical fertilizers). Water from selected wells also will be analyzed for selected tracers of fecal indicator bacteria contamination,” a USGS document states.
Direct-current resistivity surveys, will also be done. Results will be used to determine the thickness and lithology of alluvial deposits in the area.
Review of the existing data of fecal indicator bacteria collected by local agencies from streams, lagoon and near shore water in Malibu will be used for a data base. Also planned for study is the, groundwater exchange with near-shore ocean water. Measurements of groundwater discharge to Malibu Lagoon and collection of bacterial “source tracking” data will be gathered
“Data collected from this study will be analyzed to determine the suitably of techniques utilized in this study for determining the source of nutrients and FIB to Malibu Lagoon and near shore ocean water. Results will be presented in letter format to the City of Malibu at the end of the project,” wrote Eric Reichard, the acting director of USGS CSC.

Publisher’s Notebook

2009-07-01T17:15:00.000-07:00

• ‘A Grand Old Flag’ •

ANNE SOBLE

“She’s a grand old flag. She’s a high flying flag. And forever in peace may she wave.” Even when paraphrased as done here, George M. Cohan ever so gloriously celebrates America’s paramount symbol of all that the nation stands for in the eyes of the world. That standing, for the most part, has been for freedom, but rare instances of oppression have been woven into the rubric of a philosophy steeped in morphing definitions of independence and democracy.
The Stars and Stripes may be one of the most readily recognizable symbols of any kind anywhere. The flag is flown at nearly every public location imaginable—not just post offices, government buildings and schools, but all of the other places where Americans gather. It is the visual manifestation of the collective identity of a population that is more diverse than most of the other nationalities in the world.
The American flag is also one of the most successful marketing icons in history. It graces back pockets of blue jeans, front pockets of T-shirts, tennis shoes, scarves, hats, swimwear and other attire; as well as jewelry, watches, dinnerware, throw pillows, linens and an unlimited list of home decor items.
Most Americans have the colors red, white and blue so ingrained in their subconsciousness that they don’t think of them as a design element. Although some sources attribute moral values to the colors, the consensus is they were not perceived that way when the flag was designed. The committee in charge of designing the first flag in 1777 was likely adhering to British tradition in the use of color and striping.
Despite the look of the flag changing more than two dozen times, using different colors has never been considered. From a graphics perspective, the tri-color combination is an attention-getter. It is not surprising that Old Glory is a preferred backdrop in so much advertising, from automotive ads (back when auto companies still had budgets that included advertising) to real estate open house promotions.
Technically, all uses of the flag are regulated by Congressional Acts and Presidential Decrees in the U.S. Flag Code. The Code outlines the requirements for the display and use of the Stars and Stripes. Setting aside the issue of the use of the flag in political statements, which for the most part involves First Amendment rights, what some people might consider disrespectful use of the flag design, such as for nude body art, toilet seat covers, underwear and other uses best left out of a family newspaper, is not generally restricted.
On the Fourth of July, unfurl Old Glory proudly. Plan an impromptu salute, not just to the symbol that was created by sewing together pieces of fabric, but to the fabric of the nation for which it stands.

Malibu Is Top Bidder on Building Slated to Become City Hall

2009-06-24T18:37:00.000-07:00

• Current Landlord Indicates Intention to Hold Municipality to the Remainder of Its Lease

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu city officials announced this week that they were the only and winning bid at $15 million in an auction to acquire the building that was the former home of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and currently houses the Malibu Performing Arts Center.
The purchase of the 35,000-square-foot building, accessed off Stuart Ranch Road and located directly behind the current City Hall, will be funded through the issuance of certificates of participation.
Certificates of participation, or COPs, are a commonly used form of lease purchase financing that does not require voter approval. The lease purchase agreement is divided and sold to multiple investors in fractions, similar to stocks.
The COPs will be paid back over a 30-year period from the savings in rent payments, according to a municipal press release, which indicated there will be no extra cost to the taxpayers.
The city is currently paying $800,000 rent annually for the 15,647 square feet it now occupies at the current City Hall.
“This means we will be making payments toward our own building instead of paying rent, and I’m thrilled to have a permanent home for City Hall,” said Mayor Andy Stern. “The long-term cost savings and added value to our residents was the driving force of this purchase.”
There is still three years on the lease, or about $2 million owed in rent to the city’s landlord, Miramar Property Investment.
Miramar’s general partner Patricia Gartland told the Malibu Surfside News that the company was not prepared to let the city out of its lease.
Stern and other city officials are indicating that they are prepared to sublease the building if necessary.
Gartland said, “Any tenant is allowed to sublease, but it has to be pre-approved by Miramar.”
It was a full day of pins and needles last Friday for council members as they gathered in closed session, staying in touch during the auction proceedings with city operatives and attorneys to be able to discuss the upper limit council members were willing to go.
The bidding was supposed to start at 10 a.m. but was halted by 12:30 p.m. when a potential bidder showed up but then was not considered qualified by the judge, who gave the party several hours before the bidding would resume.
The auction resumed at about 2 p.m. when the city made its successful bid and no other bidders returned or showed up.
There is the matter of a 10 day appeal process, but municipal officials seem confident they will win out.
Stern said space planners and architects would immediately begin looking at the building that currently houses a 500-seat theater, recording studio, rehearsal space, banquet facilities and office space.
The mayor, who said he thought the city could move in within six months, said it is hoped the city can utilize some of the production facilities to create a revenue stream. He also indicated that municipal officials do not want to make double payments—to have to pay for the debt acquired and the lease payments on the current offices.
Council members, at this week’s regular session, agreed to a contract with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth and Stone and Youngberg to provide the services invoved in issuing certificates of participation to fund the acquisition. Those firms were used by the city to provide COPS for the acquisition of Legacy Park.
If the city issues $15 million or less in COPs, the investment banking and underwriting services will be $117,500, according to a staff report.
Since only a small area of the Malibu Performing Arts Center has been built out as office space, major interior design changes will be required.
“In order for the building to be functional as a city hall, the city will need the services of an architect to redesign the interior space. An RFP will have to be issued for architectural design services, according to a staff report.

City Readies New Court Fight with Conservancy

2009-06-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

BY BILL KOENEKER

City Attorney Christi Hogin announced at this week’s Malibu City Council meeting that members had unanimously authorized her to proceed with a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission over its denial of the city’s Local Coastal Program Amendment and approval of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s override LCPA.
Hogin talked about how the SMMC was allowed by the Coastal Commission to utilize “an obscure provision” of the Coastal Act that allowed the Conservancy to submit an LCPA override. “The Coastal Commission made law in Malibu,” said Hogin.
The CCC staff acknowledged it was only the second time in its history it had allowed an override provision and the first was under a different set of circumstances. The city attorney also talked about challenging what she called procedural errors.
When asked after the meeting about legal strategy, Hogin said, “Certainly, a centerpiece of the city’s challenge will be the improper use of the override provision of the Coastal Act.”
But that won’t be the only legal angle. “We have other claims that we will raise as well, including the inadequacy of the environmental review and the violation of due process,” added Hogin.
The city attorney said a new lawsuit will be filed. The municipality had filed a legal complaint months before the commission meeting, but that lawsuit was dismissed after the judge said the city had to complete the administrative process.

School District Is Next to Mount an Assault on City’s Local Coastal Plan

2009-06-24T18:32:00.000-07:00

• Claims Municipal Laws on Outdoor Lights Don’t Apply

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Following in the wake of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s successful override of the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program, it appears that the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District is now also attempting to circumvent the municipality’s LCP.
According to the agenda for the June 25 board of education meeting, district staff received a letter from the City of Malibu dated June 10 informing them that the athletic field lighting planned for Malibu High School “is not a permitted use in the Institutional Zone, or any zone within the City of Malibu, with or without a conditional use permit.”
The letter, which addressed the district’s Mitigated Negative Declaration document, raised numerous concerns about the proposed lighting plan.
“The baselines used for assessing potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, noise, recreation and transportation/traffic are inaccurate insofar as the baseline conditions described incorporate unauthorized activities ( i.e., the operation of temporary night lights),” the letter states.
“Any environmental analysis that includes current illegal uses and activities in the baseline...is inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and necessarily skews the analysis towards a finding of no impact.”
The letter repeatedly states that the lighting project would violate the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan, as well as city lighting and zoning codes.
The letter also challenges the MND’s accuracy regarding the location of neighboring residences—what the district says is 1000 feet, the city says is 550 feet. It also questions the district’s findings on biological resources, noise and air quality impacts and the impact on the “scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas” that are protected under the Coastal Act.
The district’s response to the city’s concerns was to draft a resolution to essentially override the city’s LCP and forge ahead with the plan on the basis that the MHS athletic field “is a classroom facility even though it does not have four walls.”
District staff state in the agenda that “per Government Code section 53094, the California Legislature has authorized school districts to exempt themselves from local zoning codes for classroom facilities.” The report goes on, “It is recommended that the board of education adopt Resolution 08-50 to exempt the Malibu High School Football Lighting Project from the City of Malibu’s zoning code because the project is not a permitted use therein.”
A representative of the City of Malibu’s planning department informed the Malibu Surfside News that the department has not received a coastal application at this time, but he added that he anticipates that the upcoming coastal permit application will be submitted to the city, and said that the city is aware that project’s Coastal Commission appeal is “just around the corner.”
The plan requires an amendment from the California Coastal Commission before it can implemented.
According to the district, MHS has used unpermitted lights for a limited number of nights per year since 2003, when a wealthy patron reportedly donated the funds for rental lights for homecoming night. Plans to install permanent lights as part of the district’s Measure BB improvement plan were revealed in August of 2008. The plans immediately raised the issue of legality when it was disclosed that the school had agreed to a special condition permanently prohibiting temporary or permanent athletic field lights in order to receive a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission in 2000.
The agenda states, “Unfortunately, neither the district nor the California Coastal Commission can locate the agreement, which may not have been ultimately executed.” However, the district has acknowledged that it has violated the permit’s lighting restriction.
Initially, Measure BB funds were tapped to pursue a Coastal Commission amendment to permit the temporary lights for the 2009-10 season. However, opponents to the project challenged the use of bond money allocated for safety and improvement projects to legalize a project that had never been permitted. Critics estimate that the temporary lighting permit project has cost the district some $100,000 in general funds.
The board will be voting on Thursday to authorize an additional $34,000 to the consultant firm of Cuthbertson and Associates to “expedite the CCC amendment process.”
The board will also be voting to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration developed by staff and consultants for the temporary lighting project. Once the resolution and MND are in place, the next step will be presenting the appeal to the Coastal Commission. Project supporters are hoping this can be accomplished before the start of the fall football season. Night games are already on the athletic program agenda.
The board of education’s decisions on Thursday are expected to be closely scrutinized by both City of Malibu officials and a growing coalition of Santa Monica parents who claim that Santa Monica schools are being disproportionately singled out for budget cuts and are calling for Malibu schools to shoulder more of the burden of the district’s estimated $12 million shortfall.

Malibu Gets Its First Look at New Marine Life Protection Law

2009-06-24T18:30:00.000-07:00

• Lively Debate Is Expected to Follow

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibuites took part in the first public disussion of what might be in store for the local coastline in terms of possible more stringent conservation measures at a public workshop last week that addresed implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act, 10 years after its passage.
The local part of the process is called the South Coast Project. This is a regional stakeholders group and blue ribbon panel that is developing alternative protection proposals for public comment.
Several plans involving reserve areas and other Marine Protection Areas or MPAs have been developed for Malibu.
Of nearly dozens of arrays recommended for Malibu, there will be several layers of reviews by various groups, which will be subject to public hearings before a final overlay district is recommended to the state Fish and Game Commission for consideration.
Potential MPAs for the Southland, including Malibu, have been submitted for various evaluations. A science advisory team will look at the proposals, as will the state Department of Fish and Game. Guidance is provided by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, whose membership includes former Malibu City Council member Ken Kearsley.
A final set of recommendations will be developed by October of 2009 for consideration by the state Fish and Game Commission.
The presentation held last week at City Hall was not part of the formal process and not one of the meetings where folks could give public comment.
The 20-minute presentation that was followed by questions and answers dealt with the history of the MLPA since it was approved by state lawmakers in 1999.
Malibuites learned about the specific goals of the act and the different designations for protection.
The process, in the main, deals with levels of extraction in terms of the taking of marine life.
A State Marine Reserve prohibits all extractive activities, and at the same time may limit access and human activities including walking, swimming, boating and snorkeling. Some diving may be restricted.
A State Marine Conservation Area limits recreational and or commercial extractive activities. In a SMCA, the managing agency may permit research, education and recreational activities, and certain commercial and recreational harvest of marine resources.
A State Marine Park prohibits all commercial extractive activities and potentially some recreational activities. Any human use that would compromise protection of the species of interest, natural community or habitat or geological, cultural or recreational features may be restricted by the managing agency.
All of the protected areas may permit research, education and monitoring.
The process for designating MPAs has been completed for the North Coast and the Central Coast. The Central Coast includes the Northern Channel Islands.
There are several proposals being talked about in Malibu. Attendees were shown maps that can be accessed at the website marinemap.org. The maps show the proposed arrays. Attendees were told most public piers are exempt from the MPAs, but not private piers are not.
Various configurations were shown for Point Dume and the stretch of coast along the coves to Paradise Cove. Some of the proposals showed most or some of Big Dume Cove included in either a SMR or SMCA.
Malibuites were urged to keep their eyes open for a series of open houses held this summer, none in Malibu, where the public will be allowed to review the MPAs, comment on the draft MPAs and provide input on particular areas of interest. The closest open houses will be in Oxnard on July 8 and Marina Del Rey on July 7.

Planning Panel to Hear Both Farmers Market Applicants at Same Meeting

2009-06-24T18:29:00.000-07:00

• Attorney for Local Ed Group Raises Issues of Favoritism

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The City of Malibu Planning Commission last week voted to postpone hearing a request by Malibuites Remy O’Neill and Debra Bianco of the Malibu-based nonprofit Cornucopia Foundation for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a farmers market. The commission will wait until a second applicant completes the necessary paperwork and will hear both applications at the same meeting.
Malibu’s farmers market has a long and complicated history, which was spelled out in the staff report accompanying the meeting agenda. According to the report, the original Cornucopia Foundation market received a Conditional Use Permit from the city planning commission in 2001 to hold a weekly market at the county-owned parking lot of the Malibu courthouse and library. However, in 2004 the market was determined not to be a permitted use. The following year, Cornucopia’s market was suspended.
For the next four years, the market was caught in a catch-22 situation between the city and county, neither apparently willing to issue a permit until the other had.
In 2006, in addition to Cornucopia’s ongoing application attempt, two other organizations—John Edwards of Raw Inspiration, a company that runs a dozen farmers markets throughout the Southland, including the popular Brentwood and Old Town Calabasas farmers markets, and Jeannie Yamatoto of IHCenter, a nonprofit organization that “sponsors projects that are devoted to a vision of ecological and humanitarian stewardship that benefits all of creation,” according to the center’s website—also submitted applications. All three applications were withdrawn in 2008 due to inactivity. Earlier this year, the Cornucopia Foundation was able to contact a representative of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, who indicated a City of Malibu CUP should be issued first, enabling the process to move forward.
Cornucopia applied for a CUP with the City of Malibu in March 2009. Raw Inspirations applied shortly after, but apparently its application did not include all of the necessary elements.
“We need to figure out some way to do this,” Commissioner Jeff Jennings stated at the start of the planning meeting. “Ordinarily, if someone wants a CUP they own the property or have a lease. We have a set of competing entities that both want a CUP. If we issue one, it precludes the other, or even worse, it leaves the county to decide.” Jennings moved that the hearing be postponed until the applications could be heard together.
Commissioner John Mazza disagreed, arguing that the market depended on having a summer season, and a delay would put the decision off until the end of summer. “This is a time sensitive thing,” he said. “The applicant has gone through a bunch of hoops. It’s really the county’s decision who to lease it to.”
Planning staff confirmed that the Raw Inspiration application was incomplete, and indicated that the applicant “would have to be proactive” to complete the requirements in time for an Aug. 4 hearing date.
Mazza advocated a “first come, first served” approach, but met with opposition from Commissioner Joan House.
“I want the best farmers market. I don’t want 65 percent produce. I want more, or you end up with a flea market as far as I’m concerned,” House said, echoing a criticism that was levied by many at the previous incarnation of Cornucopia’s farmers market during its final year.
The current Cornucopia Foundation application states, “Merchandise will include fruits, vegetables, nuts, honey, flowers, nursery stock, jams, juices, pickles and olives. Other products that do not fall under the agricultural category, such as baked goods, soaps, perfumed oils, etc. will also be available,” in addition to a variety of prepared foods.
Mazza asked, “If two applications are completed and qualify, is it up to planning to deny one or both?” Assistant city attorney Greg Kovacevich replied that any combination was possible, including approving both applications and assigning different days for the two markets, or leaving the county to determine which applicant it would prefer.
“I would rather leave it to the city,” House said.
The board voted three to two, with Mazza and Commissioner Regan Schaar dissenting, to postpone the item and hear both applications on Aug. 4.
David Solinger, an attorney for Cornucopia, is already questioning the planning commission’s decision. In a letter that was read at the June 22 city council meeting, Solinger stated, “This application was complete, properly agendized, and a properly noticed public hearing. The Planning Department Staff Report recommended approval of their CUP, and the applicant was fully prepared to present at the hearing.
“A hearing on the Cornucopia application was postponed solely to accommodate a request to operate a farmers market by a second applicant, in spite of the fact that the second application remains incomplete. Cornucopia’s application has been deemed complete since May 11, 2009,” the letter continued.
“A review of historical submissions by Cornucopia will disclose that Cornucopia has consistently been placed in a position of overcoming obstacles to a market, while favorable treatment has been granted to others. For five years, Cornucopia has led the way in overcoming the obstacles of any Farmers’ Market operation at the site due to zoning and code issues, not of their making. For five years, Cornucopia has spearheaded the passage of the ZTA resolving the city’s zoning glitch as well as brokering the resolution of impasse between L.A. County and the city for the use of the county property. Now after five hard years of effort, Cornucopia is in a position to legally reopen its farmers market once again.”
Solinger has requested that the council instruct the city attorney to investigate the facts surrounding the planning commission’s postponement of the CUP.

City and Water Board Members Meet on Issue of Issuance of Discharge Permits

2009-06-24T18:27:00.000-07:00

• Session Focuses on Need for Improved Communications

BY BILL KOENEKER

Four members of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and its staff met with two Malibu City Council members and their staff, including the city manager and city attorney, last week, to talk about the memo of understanding between the two entities that controls who issues wastewater discharge permits in Malibu.
The meeting on Wednesday first started in the conference room but had to be moved because of an overflow crowd to the council chambers.
City Attorney Christi Hogin said she thought it was important for everyone, including the public, to understand what is on the table.
“To understand why there is this negotiation, state law requires that onsite water treatment systems get permits from the regional board. The memo is an agreement between the city and the RWQCB for single-family residences and commercial. It is an enormous staff effort. The memo defines those lines. The city is not obligated to do it,” she noted.
Under the current agreement, the city issues permits for single-family homes and some commercial systems under 2000 gallons per day. The board issues permits for all other commercial buildings.
Board member Fran Diamond went on to explain. “This the first MOU of the board and in the state. The MOU is for five years. It is time to renegotiate. Obviously, there are some problems, but we are not pointing fingers,” she said.
Diamond made it clear, though, that the brouhaha between the city and the board was over who would issue permits for the city’s Malibu Lumber Yard shopping center, which is what prompted the current review. “That was a very big issue. Some board members were very upset with that. The MOU was not working to get to that point,” she said.
“I agree,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky. “You can’t move forward if you don’t know where you were. The MOU accomplished a lot. It has been a good process up until now.”
Some board members took time drilling city staffer Craig George about where the city was in their process to account for all of the existing wastewater systems in the city.
Talk then focused on how better communications can be maintained between the two agencies.
There was also some discussion about who was supposed to monitor what and who was supposed to do water testing.
That is when the finger pointing began. A municipal official wanted to know why the board was backlogged seven years on some notices of violation.
Whereupon board member Madelyn Glickfeld, a Malibu resident, said some systems in Malibu were polluting and exceeding standards. Barovsky shot back, “You don’t shut those down? We do.”
Glickfeld countered the board cannot be the public works department for Malibu.
Barovsky pursued her line of questioning wanting to know when the RWQCB gets the monitoring reports and why NOVs are not sent out then, but seven years later.
Glickfeld said the board’s work has to be put into context because it oversees a large area of Southern California. “Are you testing water quality?” she asked. Barovsky answered by saying, “The MOU says you are supposed to do that.”
The panelists talked about how to define monitoring and what issues should be explored by the staffs compiling a list of issues.
Then it was the public’s turn to comment. Tom Ford, the executive director of the Santa Monica Baykeeper, acknowledging the group has gone to court to settle some of the issues, insisted permitting should be stopped in the Civic Center. “Stop development in the Civic Center,” he said.
Mark Gold, the president of Heal the Bay, said that 18 years ago he did his doctoral dissertation on human fecal pollution in the waterways of Santa Monica Bay. “Can we put that to rest? We know the water quality. The MOU did not work. “We strongly support a moratorium [in the Civic Center],” he added.
Several representatives from surfing organizations spoke, saying the lagoon and Surfrider Beach “is a toilet that is full and overflowing,” and “toilet water is dripping in my mouth and nose.”
City official insisted they were working on the problem, but being sued by the very organizations that were urging them on held the municipality back. “I don’t know how we can work faster,” said Councilmember John Sibert.

More No Smoking Zones OK’d by the City Council

2009-06-24T18:25:00.000-07:00

• Outdoor Dining and Public Events

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council this week, with some debate, agreed to put up no smoking signs in outdoor dining areas and at public events. After some wrangling with the city attorney, the council agreed to add a requirement that restaurant owners must provide ashtrays or receptacles of some sort to dispose of butts.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit smoking within 20 feet of an outdoor dining area. Businesses with outdoor dining areas would be required to post and maintain “no smoking” signs conspicuously within the area, according to a staff report.
The ordinance would also prohibit smoking within 20 feet of any public event, except within a designated smoking outpost. Violators would be subject to the city’s administrative citation procedures, and possibly to other criminal and civil fines and penalties.
City Attorney Christi Hogin also announced at the onset of the meeting, the council agreed to file a lawsuit against Los Angeles County.
A disagreement between the county and the California Contract Cities Association, which includes the City of Malibu, has stalled the city-county law enforcement services agreement. The county currently is only agreeing to extend the matter to August 23, 2009, according to city documents.
The CCCA had entered into agreements with the county in July 2004 for it to provide services to CCCA member cities including law enforcement services. As part of that agreement, the CCCA and the county agreed to establish a liability trust fund to pay for various expenses and losses associated with law enforcement services, according to City Manager Jim Thorsen.
An oversight committee and claims board were established to oversee the operations of the fund and make recommendations regarding claims.
However, in March 2007 and again in December 2008 the county made withdrawals from the fund to reimburse itself for the costs of settling three lawsuits arising from three known assaults by a county sheriff’s deputy while on duty in 2002 and 2003. The CCCA, the oversight committee and the claims board all objected.
“The CCCA disagreed with the county over which agency should bear the legal and fiscal responsibility and burdens related to criminal acts committed by sheriff’s deputies when those acts occurred while providing services covered by the agreements with contract cities. In September the CCCA filed a claim with the county related to the withdrawals,” Thorsen wrote in a memo to the council.
The current agreement between the city and county is due to expire on June 30 to provide more time to settle the dispute. However, when the CCCA requested that its member cities extend the current agreement for one year the county agreed only to the August 30, 2009 timeline.

Local Award-Winning Swim Coach Honored on School’s ‘Wall of Fame’

2009-06-24T18:24:00.000-07:00

Longtime Malibu resident, Pepperdine University head swim coach, and a noted photographer in his spare time, Nick Rodionoff was recently included among the ranks of those honored on the Birmingham High School Wall of Fame.
Rodionoff taught at Birmingham for many years and coached the school teams to an impressive number of swim awards. In 1999, the school named its new pool the Nick Rodionoff Pool.
During his years of coaching high school, Rodionoff’s swimmers won 10 Los Angeles City swimming championships ad had a dual meet record of 324-3, winning 99 percent of their competitions. Rodionoff’s swimmers won 36 league championships and included over 36 high school All Americans in their ranks.
Rodionoff has been coaching at Pepperdine for the past 36 years, the last 10 of which he was the head swim coach and diving coach. His career at the school will end because of the university’s decision to terminate its women’s swim program.
Rodionoff has created a legacy of accomplishments in coaching that has earned him numerous accolades. In 2002 and 2009, he was named the Pacific Collegiate Swimming and Diving Conference (PCSC) coach of the year. He coached the PCSC diver and swimmer of the year in 2002, 2008 and 2009.
Rodionoff won the Fred A. Cady Memorial Coaches Diving Award, which is presented to coaches who have dedicated 25 or more years to diving and have developed outstanding talent in the U.S. National Diving Program and international competitions, including the Olympic Games. Rodionoff was also a candidate for Olympic diving coach.
On the national level, he was the only coach in the United States to have coached national champions in swimming and diving. He coached a finalist is 12 straight national diving championships; and he coached swimmers in 38 national age group records.
The longtime Malibuite also coached the women’s relay team to the short course national 200 meter freestyle record; he was named to the U.S. Swimming and Diving Hall of Fame in Florida and inducted into the National High School Athletic Coaches Association Hall of Fame—the fifth coach from California to be named.
Rodionoff coached the UCLA diving team from 1964 through 1974. He then moved to Pepperdine University in 1974 to coach men’s diving. During his 35-year tenure at the school, the team won 11 conference championships.
Rodionoff started the women’s program in 1987, and until 1991, the women divers were undefeated and six women divers have won the conference and qualified for the NCAA.
He became head coach in 2000 and during this time, he said Pepperdine’s swimmers have broken 11 school records out of 20 possible; and made records over 75 times—out of 100 possible—that are the Pepperdine women’s swimming all-time best times.
Rodionoff and the swimmers expressed disappointment when the school announced this year that it was cutting the women’s program because of the difficult financial environment, but they won a reprieve to finish the season.

Coastal Commission Approves SMMC Efforts to Expand Public Use

2009-06-17T16:06:00.000-07:00

• Malibu Bluffs Parkland Is Added to List of Possible Locations for Overnight Camping

BY ANNE SOBLE

The California Coastal Commission followed staff recommendations and denied the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment submitted by the City of Malibu that included a prohibition on overnight camping on public lands within its borders.
After almost 10 hours of reports and testimony at the panel’s meeting in Marina del Rey on Wednesday, June 10, the commission unanimously approved a competing LCPA override submitted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The agency wants to expand public camping and other uses on its holdings in the area.
A ban on overnight camping was sought by the Malibu City Council after initial efforts to reach a compromise with the SMMC on the issue met with vocal opposition from some members of the community who view overnight camping as a source of wildfire danger even though no California wildfire has ever been attributed to legal camping.
The plan proposed by the SMMC includes trails connecting coastal canyons and camping in Escondido, Corral and Ramirez canyons, as well as increased use of SMMC property in Ramirez, and some residents voice concern that these areas would not be adequately patrolled and be subject to misuse endangering public safety.
A sizable contingent of municipal officials and local residents went to the hearing on a bus charted by the city. Supporters of the SMMC plan were bused to the meeting by the public access advocacy group The City Project.
Malibu testimony, including that by the city attorney, the city manager, members of the city council and a large contingent of residents, focused primarily on safety and wildfire issues, but representative after representative from visitor recreation and inner city advocacy groups stressed issues of public access, social justice and civil rights.
Several commission members expressed puzzlement that the City of Malibu continued to push for a ban on overnight camping, which is legal throughout the state on public lands, even though CCC staff and previous panel action had indicated, as the commission’s executive director, Peter Douglas, stated, “That a ban on camping was not subject to negotiation.”
A number of speakers and several coastal commissioners also indicated that they perceive a contradiction between expressions of concern about legal overnight camping by city officials and the Los Angeles County fire department and the ongoing approval by both entities of residential development in high fire-risk areas.
SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston told the panel that nine new residences were approved for the Ramirez area during the time that opposition was voiced against expanded use of SMMC property at the end of the canyon.
Several pro-camping speakers reiterated the contention that no wildfires have resulted from legal use of campgrounds. It was noted that, apart from rare lightning strikes and rarer acts of criminal arson, most wildfires result from downed power lines or equipment sparks from power tools, discarded cigarette butts, backyard grills and other aspects of residential development in wildland areas.
However, to help allay fire concerns, Edmiston said the Conservancy would work with Los Angeles County fire officials to have stringent wildfire safety and evacuation policies in place when specific park use plans come back before the commission. He said this would include SMMC undertaking, at its expense, the removal of private landscaping on Ramirez Canyon Road that has illegally spilled over onto the roadway. Edmiston said this would improve access and make the area safer for residents, as well as visitors.
Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan said the Conservancy’s camping plans would make all of the areas that are proposed for this activity “much safer.” Wan, a Malibu resident whose own home has been threatened by wildfire, told the local residents, “Camping isn’t the problem. Legal camping is not the source of fires.”
With a consensus on the wildfire safety issue, the commission reiterated its mandate to make public parklands accessible to all of the people of California. Commissioners unanimously determined that the city’s proposed Land Use Plan amendment would diminish the range of potential access and recreational uses in the City of Malibu and is “inconsistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act,” as the staff had reported.
Although a number of Malibu residents repeatedly referred to the millions of people who visit local beaches, the notion of exclusion marked much of the testimony by speakers in support of the SMMC proposal for overnight camping. When one speaker decried what he called Malibu’s “arrogance of self-entitlement,” locals in the audience, who were subsequently chastised by the CCC counsel, loudly booed him.
From an advocate for the disabled who criticized what she called Malibu’s “separate but equal” handicapped proposal to Spanish-speaking mothers and grandmothers who spoke passionately about the impact of the outdoors on their families, the need to make the Santa Monica Mountains accessible to everyone affirmed the CCC staff report.
Immediately before the commission vote, Edmiston sought a revision to add another area for camping that the SMMC executive director said would address all of the Malibu resident concerns expressed at the hearing.
Edmiston said utilization of some of the 80 acres of state-owned Malibu Bluffs property—land that was originally acquired for camping in 1976 but encountered strong local opposition at the time—should calm most residents’ fears about canyon fires that are swept seaward by powerful Santa Ana winds through difficult to defend residential areas.
The SMMC head said the Malibu Bluffs site offers ample parking, is at the water’s edge, near a fire station, and accessible to all law enforcement and other safety personnel because of its proximity to Pacific Coast Highway.
Because many of the Malibu attendees had to leave the meeting early because of the bus schedule, they did not learn until much later that the Coastal Commission approved this change when it approved the Conservancy’s overall request.

City Attorney and SMMC Head Don’t Rule Out Resumption of Negotiations

2009-06-17T16:04:00.000-07:00

• Malibu Has 60 Days to Consider Filing Legal Challenge

BY ANNE SOBLE

The unanimous action by the California Coastal Commission disallowing a municipal ban on overnight camping could serve as a catalyst to bring the City of Malibu and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy back to the negotiating table, or it could lead to yet another round of contentious legal wrangling over the issue.
All parties indicate that it may be too soon to determine which course of action will follow. Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin said the city has 60 days from the June 10 meeting date to file a lawsuit challenging the commission’s decision.
Hogin told the Malibu Surfside News on Tuesday, “There is always room to negotiate; the courtroom is not the best place for public entities to work out their differences, so I would hope that there would be opportunities to explore agreement.”
SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston said after last week’s CCC action, “My door remains open. The question is not whether or not the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy will compromise, it is whether or not the Ramirez Canyon folks and the Malibu City Council will. Neither of these entities seems willing to budge even an inch.”
Edmiston told The News that “the Coastal Commission has unequivocally set the direction for public access and camping in Malibu.” He added that “our consultants are hard at work preparing the Public Works Plan and the EIR. We hope to have public hearings on both of these documents in early fall.”
But City Attorney Hogin expressed concern with the commission’s decision-making process; that the equal access and social justice arguments that appeared to have swayed the coastal panel were not legal arguments. She said, “I think there is a sense among some that Malibu residents seek to limit public access for nefarious reasons. In this case, the criticism is not well taken because the city’s proposed LCP amendment was centered around creating additional access (including trails and public transportation).”
While many proponents of the SMMC parks plan were critical of Malibu residents, Edmiston does not paint the community with a broad brush. He believes the Conservancy has a support base of local people who value the open space protections the agency has helped to create, but indicated, “Outreach to supporters is difficult because they are intimidated by other neighbors in Malibu.”
“He added, “I’ve gotten phone calls and e-mails saying, ‘I’m with you, but just can’t say so in public.’ I understand the difficulty of Malibu residents speaking out in our favor, and frankly don’t expect our supporters to be vocal. After all, they have to live with their neighbors in the checkout line at [the supermarket].”
But as Malibu’s city attorney sees it, the issue is not a popularity contest or the merits of the camping debate but that “the Coastal Commission enacted a law in Malibu. That means that a statewide executive branch agency of appointed members exercised the powers of the elected city council.”
Hogin said, “The commission used an obscure section of the Coastal Act which, under particular circumstances, authorizes the Coastal Commission to ‘override’ a city's certified LCP where necessary to facilitate a regional energy facility or public works project.”
Of the exercise of the authority by the CCC, Hogin said, “All coastal cities: beware.”
Although the Conservancy calls its parks package a “public works plan,” or PWP, the city attorney said that it is not a “public works plan,” even though the SMMC “sought to treat it that way,” and seek an “override” of the city’s LCP, which would change those parts of the LCP with which the Conservancy’s plans were inconsistent.
Hogin noted that “the advantage to the Conservancy of a PWP is that no individual coastal development permits are required to build improvements contemplated by the PWP.”
The city’s chief counsel described the Conservancy projects as a “purported ‘public works plan’,” while acknowledging that “aspects of the Conservancy’ plan were positive and its overall goal [of] improved recreation areas linked by a trail system...was one the city shared.”
That notwithstanding, the city contends that “certain proposals in the ‘plan’ (such as adding parking spaces, restrooms, trailheads, camp sites) are ‘development’ within the meaning of the Coastal Act and the city contends that the improvement proposals are more appropriately addressed by obtaining a coastal development permit consistent with the LCP. Moreover, the plan proposed new uses and policies inconsistent with the certified LCP; accordingly, the appropriate legal mechanism in accordance with the Coastal Act to achieve the Conservancy’s goals was to amend the LCP.”
The city’s main legal contentions with respect to the PWP are that it does not qualify as a “public works project” under the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 30515, and the Conservancy is not authorized to undertake public works projects.
“If the Conservancy anticipated the uses, plans, policies and development proposals comprising its Enhancement Plan at the time the city’s LCP was being adopted and certified by the commission, the commission is not authorized to process an amendment to the city’s LCP, except as provided in the Coastal Act.”
Hogin stresses that “there is no evidence of a public need for the Conservancy’s comprehensive Enhancement Plan policies and proposed development standards. Desirable recreation improvements and improved access strategies do not trigger the provisions of the Coastal Act that allow for an LCP override in narrow circumstances for certain necessary energy facilities and public works projects.”
The city attorney added, “There is no evidence that failure to adopt the Enhancement Plan and its particular policies and development standards will have an adverse effect on public welfare.”
Edmiston, however, told The News, when speaking of Ramirez Canyon in particular, “After all these conditions that the Coastal Commission imposed, everyone will be safer.”
He said, “Ramirez Canyon will have a full 20-foot roadway for the safety—not just (or even primarily) for the campers at Ramirez Canyon Park—but for all the 52 homes along this road. Based on what the fire department is requiring and what was said at the Coastal Commission hearing, I’m sure the commission will issue the Conservancy a permit to remove all obstructions illegally placed in the right of way. Removal of these obstructions should be welcomed by everybody.”
The SMMC head said, “Malibu will be safer with hikers (always with cell phones) on the trails, mountain bike units on patrol, and park rangers supervising the campgrounds.”
He said, “I’m sanguine about the future because over the past 30 years we have faced this situation many times. For example, the parks and overlooks along Mulholland Drive were as controversial back in the ’80s as Malibu is now. But today, the Mulholland Drive overlooks are gems of the city: well patrolled and maintained, and this fact is universally recognized.”
It isn’t certain how this public policy debate is ultimately going to play out. If the city and the SMMC continue to talk past each other, the acrimony could continue unchecked.
With the City of Malibu focused on the letter of the law and the Conservancy primarily concerned with pragmatic public policy results, the negotiating table might be the best way to avoid the kind of prolonged legal wrangling that only benefits those accruing billable hours.

CCC Testimony Reflects Disparities between Views

2009-06-17T16:02:00.000-07:00

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu city officials gave it their best shot on why there should be a ban on overnight camping in Malibu before the California Coastal Commission last week, but when the testimony by inner city groups and individuals talking about civil rights and social justice was over, it was clear whose comments swayed the panel.
Mayor Andy Stern and other municipal officials unsuccessfully attempted to explain how close the city’s Local Coastal Program amendment was to the override version submitted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
However, at the same time Stern and other municipal officials also accused the commission staff of not acting in good faith with Malibu’s submittal.
“We want an integrated trail system. We want a functional transportation system. We want balanced park use and ESHA projection. We understood a ban on camping would be controversial. But we did not consider the commission staff bar all of our proposed access enhancement policies,” he said.
City Manager Jim Thorsen was somewhat tougher on the commission staff. “We were assured we would get a fair shake. However, the commission staff made no effort to discuss this application. We ask that you take our application seriously,” he said.
City Attorney Christi Hogin accused the commission staff of failing to analyze any of the other issues of the city’s LCPA. “We have gotten the short shrift,” she said.
Hogin talked about how the entire amendment process is a chance for local government and the commission to work out policies, but the override which coastal officials acknowledged had only been used one other time in the history of the commission, was undermining that dialogue.
Council members Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner took a different tack in urging the commissioners to postpone a decision.
Wagner attempted to explain just how difficult, under the rules and regulations of the state, it was for him to light one match on public lands when doing special effects implying the state was now about to allow campers to have cooking equipment with fewer protections.
Conley Ulich challenged the state to prove its case that there was a lack of affordable campgrounds near Malibu.
Conley Ulich offered to go camping with commissioners that evening. Her point, she said, was that despite near summertime, there were still 133 campsites available at nearby parks. “We already have 324 sites,” she added.
Councilmember John Sibert agreed and said it was important for the state to do a needs test for camping. Sibert also insisted the commissioners could not ignore the fire hazards as outlined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department officials. “Take no action, until you can talk to the fire experts. Postpone the hearing,” he said.
Many other Malibu groups and organizations spoke with emphasis on fire safety. A movie was shown of the tragedy of the Corral Canyon fire in 2007.
Lucille Keller, representing the Malibu Township Council, insisted campsites cannot be made fire safe.
Then it was the Conservancy’s turn. SMMC executive director Joe Edmiston said the city’s argument wasn’t so much stopping fire, but rather Malibu’s attempt to stop people from entering the canyon lands of Malibu. “There is no public camping in Malibu. There is a private camp. Yes. It costs $45 to $75 per night,” said Edmiston, who showed slides of fire pits at the private campground. Thirty years this has been there,” he said.
Edmiston asked rhetorically, “Is there nothing redeemable about the city’s LCPA?”
He went on to explain there were many of the same policies, but the overnight camping ban created “irreconcilable differences.”
Edmiston went on to say one of the newest mandates of the SMMC is its outreach mandate from the state to serve all ethnic groups.
Edmiston’s wife, Pepper, spoke about how the happiest days experienced by their recently deceased son, a disabled youth wracked by seizures, was the outdoor camping experience.
That was the theme repeated throughout the rest of the day, as speaker after speaker talked about how inner city children benefited from outdoors experiences and gained a precious few hours or days away from the noise and confusion of the city. Malibu, by its overwrought concern for fire, was keeping these children out of Malibu. It became a matter of social justice and civic rights.
Charles Thomas, who represents Outward Bound, said there was a need for the outdoors, a need for nature. “You folks out there are not getting it. It has become a social justice issue, a moral right,” he said.
Thomas said he admired how the folks of Malibu had peace and quiet, but lamented how the “kids of Mar Vista don’t have it.”
“It is the great divide. The folks of Malibu have a little piece of heaven and are trying to protect it. I’m asking you to share it,” Thomas added.
A speaker from the Latino Urban Forum said the concern was that Malibu’s actions are an attempt by the people who live by the public’s resources to limit access. “You portray hikers as arsonists. There is an attitude of arrogance and of self-entitlement. It doesn’t cut it,” he said.
SMMC proponent Catalina Alafaro said everybody wanted access to the parks and talked about how much her kids wanted to be a part of it.
Robert Garcia of the City Project said it is a civil rights issue and urged the commission “to apply the civil rights laws and the Coastal Act.”
Even the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s thumbs down for both LCPAs was seemingly blunted by other testimony.
Mark Massara from the Sierra Club said Malibu has been a fire hazard area for thousands of years. He said, “Everyone who lives there has chosen to live in Malibu in spite of the fire danger.”

Closure of One Malibu Elementary School Is Part of the Budget Debate Now Going On

2009-06-17T16:00:00.000-07:00

• SM Parents Want to Spread the Pain

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

As the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District continues to grapple with what its staff describes as “a potentially massive budget problem” in the form of a projected $12 million shortfall over the 2009-10 FY, Santa Monica parents are crying foul.
The board of education voted as expected at its June 4 meeting to approve increases in class sizes; cut contract services accounts in districtwide departments by $300,000 and to “realign” the Special Education budget “to reflect historical expenditure patterns” by a $700,000 reduction; and scale back Tier II and III categorical funding by five percent for 2009-10; but it was the vote to eliminate one of the six houses in Santa Monica High School’s house system that caused a storm of outrage.
“Staff makes this recommendation knowing very well that this is a critical issue to teachers, parents, and students. Staff also believes that the house system has been very successful at Santa Monica High School, particularly in the area of personalizing education for students. It is staff’s intent to continue to support this very successful house system,” the staff report stated. The change is expected to save the district approximately $500,000.
Parents, students and teachers and representatives of the PTA council vehemently refuted the house restructuring plan, calling the proposed cut “devastating,” and “a knife in the heart.” One speaker accused the board of “breaking your promise.” Another questioned the staff report’s enrollment numbers, implying that the district deliberately misinterpreted Samohi’s statistics. “I have a problem with the enrollment numbers. To imply that we have fewer students than we actually have is really disingenuous and dishonest.”
“[This is] a bad decision that should be not voted upon this evening,” education activist Richard Mckinnon said, blasting the plan. “I believe it hurts the students who need these schools most. We don’t run public schools for people who are high achievers, who can make decisions and choices and go elsewhere, people such as yourselves. Your kids will always be OK. It’s the kids who have no choice about our school who the houses help most. It’s never the AP classes that get bigger. It’s always the kids at the other end who need the most help.”
A number of Santa Monica parents accused the district of unfairly burdening Samohi with the majority of the cuts. “Why are you picking on Samohi?” One outraged parent demanded to know. “You need to look at the elementary schools, the Malibu schools, they can be consolidated.” His views were echoed by others during the lengthy and emotionally charged public comment period.
In the end, the board voted to go ahead with the plan to eliminate House A. However, two advisers and one outreach specialist from the house received a reprieve and will retain positions in the district for at least one more year. Wendy Wax Gellis, the principal of Samohi’s House A for the past six years, who has also been involved in the school’s special education program, will take a pay cut and be reassigned to Malibu Middle School as assistant principal.
The plan to transfer Wax Gellis also received extensive criticism. Many special education parents protested that she was needed at Samohi. Others criticized the district because notice from Superintendent Tim Cuneo went out on the Friday before the board met to officially vote on the issue, indicating to district observers that the decision had already been made and that the vote was a formality only.
The issue of school closure or consolidation is unlikely to go away. Longtime education activist Jim Jaffe and Samohi Alumni Association president is a vocal proponent of closing one of Malibu’s three elementary schools and consolidating two of the Santa Monica campuses. He asked the district in an open letter following the June 4 meeting if the Proposed FOC Focus for FY 2009-10 will include “the possible closure of a Malibu elementary, combining the SMASH and Muir operational budgets.”
“There is nothing that won’t be reexamined” Jan Maez, the district’s assistant superintendent and chief financial officer, stated at the start of the June 4 meeting. “This is certainly not the end.”
In his letter, Jaffe also asked the district to “revisit the need for building a new Edison school and other BB projects in light of pessimistic enrollment projections and economic conditions, continue to evaluate the administrative costs at district headquarters, and (given that adjusting staffing to the current levels of enrollment is essential to all future budget planning) explore establishing clear certificated and classified staffing formulas.”
Ironically, at the June 4 meeting the board voted to approve $156,597 in Measure BB funding for projects ranging from photovoltaic energy development to environmental screening services. Measure BB funds can only be used for safety and construction. Some critics of the districtwide renovation and building plan are questioning how BB funded new facilities will be staffed, or even if there will be enough students to make use of them as enrollment declines and the budget crisis continues to plague the district.
Some members of the board of education appear to be pinning their budget salvation hopes on additional parcel taxes. “We need to look at some revenue enhancement models,” board member Oscar de le Torre said on June 4. “There has to be a way to do some fundraising or go back to the voters for a limited parcel tax. If not, we’re going to have to make some huge cuts.”
School districts across California will be asking residents to approve parcel taxes this summer. Palos Verdes, South Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge and Rowland Heights are already planning vote by mail campaigns, although critics predict that getting enough votes to pass the proposals may be difficult, especially in communities where foreclosures and job loss continue to spiral out of control. Voters in the communities of Pleasanton, Mt. Diablo and Redwood City have already defeated emergency parcel tax initiatives.
In the meantime, Jaffe has more questions for the board of education: “Have board members reviewed the individual school and department expenditure budgets proposed for 2009-10 and compared them to last year’s? If not, then why not? Shouldn’t Board decisions be driven more on data and less on politics and emotion? If the Board has reviewed the individual expenditure budgets, then why were they excluded from public review for the first time in four years? What happened to the promise for more transparency; not less?”
“Wait until next year,” Jaffe told the Malibu Surfside News, referring to the deteriorating budget situation. “You haven’t seen anything yet.”

Council Misses Key Aspects of CCC Hearing to Rehash ‘Legacy’ Debate

2009-06-17T15:59:00.000-07:00

• Members Squabble Over Design and Animal Symbolism

BY BILL KOENEKER

At a special hearing on Legacy Park last week, the Malibu City Council, who had left the all-important California Coastal Commission meeting on overnight camping to talk about lizards, snakes and artwork, got into a heated discussion about finding unanimity on approval of the Civic Center park.
Inexplicably, the council meeting was scheduled on the same date as the Coastal Commission hearing and all of the council, including the city manager showed up for the City Hall meeting on various art elements, donor recognition and educational exhibits of Legacy Park.
Further development of the park is stalled because of a lawsuit filed by the Santa Monica Baykeeper over the city’s approval of the Environmental Impact Report, permits and entitlements.
A debate ensued when Mayor Andy Stern asked a question of both Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner, who had wholeheartedly participated in choosing artwork, signage and other elements for the park, but had previously voted against the approval of Legacy Park. “You got everything you asked for, if I bring this back is it still a no vote?” he asked.
Conley Ulich said she would “have to think about it. I personally feel this is three-fourths the way. We still need to address wastewater.”
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said, “I agree with you we need to address wastewater. Mark Gold agrees, but it is five years down the road. But we can start to clean up the lagoon now. I never understood why we should not clean up 90 percent of the pollution now instead of waiting five years. We have all promised to clean up Surfrider. I want to clean it up now.”
However, City Manager Jim Thorsen said he was concerned the council’s discussion was “getting off track.”
That did not stop the debate from continuing. Stern insisted he would not support the recommendations sought by Wagner and Conley Ulich on the art elements.
Wagner said he thought the ultimate plans for the park were a “wise use of funds and wise use of land. The park will be an element of wastewater. It is going to change.”
“Then what are we talking about?” asked Barovsky. “At some point, we have to build it.”
“I am trying to find out how we can formulate this,” said Stern. “We found we can work together on the details. So why not a unanimous vote on the park?”
Barovsky said she agreed with Stern. “Why not a unanimous vote on the park? I want to vote for it to be an unanimous vote,” she added.
Stern again turned to his colleagues. “Will you vote tonight to approve the park, then we are unanimous on Legacy Park?”
“It is not on the agenda before us,” answered Conley Ulich.
Stern said he was trying to understand. “We are unanimous on the park work, but you are not in favor of going forward with the park. So it is still 3-2 to move forward with the park, but 5-0 for the artwork? Help me here I am just trying to understand,” said a clearly frustrated mayor.
Whereupon, Councilmember John Sibert spoke on the issue for the first time that evening. “It doesn’t do any good to generate pejorative comments. Everything doesn’t happen at the same time. Even Shelly Luce of the Baykeeper said yes, we should go forward with Legacy Park.”
Wagner said, “This park is going to change including wastewater and purple pipe in the future.”
“It is completely inconsistent,” said Stern, talking about Wagner’s and Conley Ulich’s positions. “Let’s just move the [art element] resolution with the changes,” said Barovsky. “I’ll second that,” said Wagner. The matter was approved on a 5-0 vote.
Earlier, the council was given an update about the exhibits and signage in the park, where the donor plaques would be located and how panels were to be used to tell the story of Malibu.
Council members were told the panels would talk about the Chumash, the ranching era of Malibu, the coastal area becoming populated, the story of Malibu potteries and surfing history. It was pointed out there should be some discussion about the history of fire and how it has impacted the community and the eco-system.
The consultants also explained how large-scale mosaic animals would be placed in the park including the red-legged frog, a California newt, a gopher snake and horned lizard in the dry creek bed.
Conley Ulich said she had concerns about a gopher snake being used for the large-scale animals which can be utilized for children to play on.
She said that was the wrong idea to give to young children, since the snake looked like a rattlesnake.
Dr. Richard Ambrose, one of the consultants, agreed there was a similarity and suggested a king snake. “Your right a gopher snake has the same coloration,” he said. “One difference is the king snake eats rattlesnakes.”
But Conley Ulich persisted. “Could we pick a different type of animal?” she asked. Barovsky suggested a rabbit and Wagner recommended a squirrel.
Wagner, later on, continued his suggestion about adding squirrels, both tree and ground species, to the mix and said he thought the horned lizard, which he said is not as prevalent in Malibu was not a good pick. He suggested an alligator lizard or blue belly, which he said were common in Malibu would be more ideal.
Ambrose answered that the horned lizard was chosen just because of the reasons given by Wagner. “The horned lizard is not very common. They look so neat. They are charismatic, perhaps to a biologist. The horned lizards are more striking,” Ambrose added. “The squirrels are a really good idea. I d expect to have squirrels in the park.” The council continued to hear about habitats, donor tiles and signs, for the recycled water used for irrigation, stating, “Do not drink.”
According to a staff report, the overall cost to design and construct the park is estimated to be $15.6 million. The project construction and management costs could be funded from a various sources including the city’s general fund, a state revolving fund loan and if the need arises, other public financing instruments.
Currently, the city has $6.1 million in public donations and grants. The municipality is applying for $8.4 million in federal stimulus funding through the state revolving fund loan.

View Protection Task Force to Conclude Effort

2009-06-17T15:57:00.000-07:00

BY BILL KOENEKER

The City of Malibu View Protection Task Force met for its last scheduled meeting last week to get final input from the public about its recommendations for a proposed ordinance. The proposal was again approved by the panel 6-3. The measure had previously been approved by the task force on a 7-2 vote.
A city planner said the measure would go before the city council at the end of summer when it will consider the suitability of the task force’s recommendations and whether to initiate an ordinance.
Depending upon the actions of the council, the matter if initiated, would go through another round of public hearings proceeding to council subcommittee, then forwarded to the planning commission and then the council for possible final enactment.
There were several members of the public, who came to testify. Several individuals who are in favor of the proposal told task force members their biggest concern is the will of the city to enforce such a law.
Homeowner Steve Garber said his concern was not getting a view ordinance, but rather enforcement. Garber said any law passed by the city is useless unless there is strong enforcement. “We have been trying to get [enforcement about an issue] for two and half years. [Former enforcement head] Gayle Sumpter refused to deal with it. The only power is that one department. The need is multiple enforcement,” he said.
Point Dume resident Dusty Peak told panelists during his career as an electrician one of the primary topics of homeowners’ discussions was their view and the loss of that view.
“There is a way to have trees to give privacy and still offer a view. But we need enforcement. We wouldn’t be going through this if the city enforced the current laws,” he said.
Homeowner Josh McKay talked about what he thought might be another problem in dealing with the proposed ordinance. “Malibu consists of old poor Malibu and the new bright go-getters. It is a diabolical situation. The arbitration part of the law will impact severely old Malibu. They don’t have the resources of new Malibu. Old Malibu doesn’t have the bank account. They should not have to pay onerous fees,” he added.
Task force member Harold Greene said there is a possibility that if Pepperdine University gets grant money to do it, they would set up an arbitration panel to assist the city.
Panelists also talked briefly about the city council’s unanimous directive to get a minority report.
Greene said there was no procedural way for the task force to deal with the matter. “It is not on the agenda. This is our last meeting. We cannot deal with any more agenda items. We are not bound by that,” he said.
Task force member Barry Tyerman said the practical result is anybody can submit anything to the council. “A minority of one, two, three or four can submit comments to the council. I don’t think anybody needs to be constrained,” he said.
Panelist Lou Lamonte, who is one of the minority members and had earlier pointed out the council directive, said he was going to do what was requested by the council and submit a minority report.

Publisher’s Notebook

2009-06-17T15:56:00.000-07:00

• The Nature Connection •

ANNE SOBLE

Every generation of every culture on this planet has lore about the curative powers of nature. Perhaps because the human species likely originated under the stars on the open soils of the grassy plains of Africa, the notion of being part of a boundless natural world is hard-wired into our DNA.
Although powerful social, economic and technological forces conspire to keep more and more humans indoors and tethered to machines, this should only be one aspect of who we are. We belong outdoors in the unpredictable and unstructured natural world. The well-being of the species will be increasingly imperiled, if we don’t appreciate the role that contact with nature plays in our health and our happiness.
The outdoors has been in the forefront of Malibu’s community consciousness for the last several months in what might appear to be two disparate debates, although they are not. Reflecting their role in the origin and the perpetuation of the species, women have been key participants in both of these local debates.
These women may not acknowledge their commonality, and some might even object to the association (wrongly, I would contend), but the self-described “Malibu moms” fighting for Trancas Canyon Park and las madres and las abuelas of inner city recreation groups seeking expanded use of Malibu’s public parklands are fighting for the same cause.
Watching the Malibu City Council meetings and last week’s California Coastal Commission hearing, one is struck by the fact that even when these women are speaking different languages, they often use the very same words and gestures. And they most certainly share the same passionate desire to create access to the outdoors for their progeny.
When Trancas Canyon Park is completed in whatever its final form and some Malibu campgrounds are open to public use, wherever and whenever that will be, the children on whose behalf these battles are being waged will ultimately enjoy the public access that has been created. Visitors will find their way up Trancas to picnic and play fútbol, and Malibuites from the canyons may be able to camp overlooking the water’s edge. Even if there are language barriers between their parents, all of the children intuitively will speak the universal language of nature.
Perhaps the acrimony and the litigiousness that now prevail in the community will be superseded by the joy and wonder to be experienced in these special places, when we are in close contact with the earth and our eyes are tilted toward the sky. The fate of future generations depends on nurturing this physical connectivity with the planet as a way to find respite from the turmoil that wracks our world.

Malibu Municipal Officials Look

2009-06-17T15:53:00.000-07:00

Toward Auction for New City Hall

BY BILL KOENEKER

Later this week, Malibu city officials may find out if they have acquired a new City Hall if their $15 million bid is accepted for the building that houses the Malibu Performing Arts Center. An auction is scheduled for June 19.
The city council has scheduled a closed session on that same day at 10:30 a.m. to discuss the possible terms of payment and other details of acquiring the 35,000 square foot property from the former owners, the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Malibu.
The attempt to acquire the building has proceeded behind closed doors as allowed by law because lawmakers are able to discuss real estate negotiations, personnel matters and litigation in closed sessions.
The matter has been discussed repeatedly by the city council over the past several months in closed sessions but there has been no public discussion about the matter.
City officials themselves have been tight-lipped about the proceedings. When asked to comment on the current state of affairs, the Assistant City Manager /Administrative Services Director Reva Feldman said, “The city submitted a bid for $15 million.”
There has been much fanfare about the center because so many A-lister rock and pop artists have played the 500-seat theater in a building that includes banquet facilities, a recording studio, dance studios, film and television production facilities and office space.
The city for years has designated a fund reserve for acquiring a city hall. There is currently $1.7 million in that fund. The municipality currently leases 17,000 square feet for $800,000 per year, according to Feldman.
Even some city hall critics have looked favorably on the potential deal, saying that the matter would be financially sound even for the cash strapped city since the high rent payments could go for debt service and that the city already has money stashed away.
Some local environmentalists are delighted with the idea that the city would take over an existing building instead of adding more development to the Civic Center area.
One group lamenting the sale is comprised of church members. Church officials still talk about whether there would still be a place for them in the building, but in a pastoral letter on the church’s blog, it was acknowledged that the city’s plans for the building would not include a home for the church.
“Could the building still be purchased and used for Kingdom purposes? Yes. This would require some Christian investor or consortium of investors. If you believe this is God’s highest intention for our property, join us in praying for His purposes in Malibu.”

Coastal Commission Approves Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Efforts to Expand Malibu Camping on Public Parklands

2009-06-14T12:28:00.000-07:00

Thursday, June 11, 2009

California Coastal Commission Meeting on the Issue of Public Overnight Campsites in the City of Malibu: News Bulletin and Preliminary Analysis

• SMMC Adds State-Owned Malibu Bluffs Acreage to List of Potential Campsites •

After almost 10 hours of reports and testimony at the panel’s meeting in Marina del Rey on Wednesday, June 10, the commission unanimously approved a competing LCPA override submitted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which wants to expand public camping options and other uses on its holdings in the area.

A ban on overnight camping was sought by the Malibu City Council after its initial efforts to reach a compromise with the SMMC on the controversial issue met with strong opposition from members of the community who view overnight use as a source of increased wildfire danger even though no major California wildfire has ever been attributed to legal camping.

The plan proposed by the SMMC includes trails connecting coastal canyons and camping in those canyons, as well as increased use of SMMC property in Ramirez Canyon, and some residents voice concern that these areas would not be adequately patrolled and are subject to misuse that could endanger public safety.

Malibu testimony, including that by City Attorney Christi Hogin, City Manager Jim Thorsen, members of the city council and the Malibu Township Council, and a large contingent of residents, tried to keep the meeting’s focus on safety and wildfire issues, but a disconnect quickly became evident as representative after representative from recreation and inner city advocacy groups shifted attention to issues of public access, social justice and civil rights.

Several commission members expressed puzzlement that the City of Malibu continued to push for a ban on overnight camping, which is legal throughout the state on public lands, even though CCC staff and previous panel action had indicated, as the commission’s executive director, Peter Douglas, stated, “That a ban on camping was not subject to negotiation.”

A number of speakers and several coastal commissioners also indicated that they perceive what appears to be a contradiction between expressions of concern about legal overnight camping by city officials and the Los Angeles County fire department and the ongoing approval by both of residential development in high fire risk areas.

SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston told the panel that nine new residences were approved for the Ramirez area during the time that opposition was being raised to his personnel using the road for events at SMMC property at the end of the canyon.

Several speakers reiterated the contention that no wildfires have resulted from legal use of campgrounds. It was noted that, apart from lightning strikes and rare acts of criminal arson, most wildfires result from downed power lines or equipment sparks from power tools, discarded cigarette butts, backyard grills and other causes that reflect residential development in wildland interface areas.

However, to try to allay fire concerns, Edmiston said the Conservancy would work with Los Angeles County fire officials to have stringent wildfire safety and evacuation plans in place when specific park use plans come back before the commission. He said this would extend to SMMC undertaking, at its expense, the removal of private landscaping on Ramirez Canyon Road that has illegally spilled over onto the roadway. Edmiston said this would improve access and make the area safer for residents, as well as visitors.

Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan said the Conservancy’s camping plans would make all of the areas that are proposed for this activity “much safer.” Wan, a Malibu resident whose own home has been threatened by wildfire, told the local residents, “Camping isn’t the problem. Legal camping is not the source of fires.”

With a consensus on the wildfire safety issue, the commission reiterated its mandate to make public parklands accessible to all of the people of California. Commissioners unanimously agreed that the city’s proposed Land Use Plan amendment would diminish the range of potential access and recreational uses in the City of Malibu and is “inconsistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act,” as the staff had reported.

Although numerous Malibu residents repeatedly referred to the millions of people who visit local beaches, there was an exclusionary undertone to much of the testimony by speakers who supported the SMMC proposal for overnight camping. When one speaker decried what he called Malibu’s “arrogance of self-entitlement,” locals in the audience, who were then soundly chastised by the CCC counsel, loudly booed him.

From an advocate for the disabled in a wheelchair who criticized what she called Malibu’s “separate but equal” handicapped proposal to Spanish-speaking grandmothers who spoke passionately about the impact of the outdoors on their families, the need to make the Santa Monica Mountains accessible to everyone bolstered the CCC staff recommendations.

Immediately before the commission vote, Edmiston sought a revision to add another area for camping that the SMMC executive director said would address all of the Malibu residents’ concerns. He said utilization of some of the 80 acres of state-owned Malibu Bluffs property—land that was originally acquired for camping in 1976 but encountered strong local opposition at the time—should calm most residents’ fears about canyon fires being swept seaward by Santa Ana winds through difficult to defend residential areas.

In addition to having ample public parking, Edmiston said the Malibu Bluffs site is at the water’s edge, near a fire station, and accessible to all law enforcement and other safety personnel because of its proximity to Pacific Coast Highway.

After the commission members approved the addition of the site to the LCPA override, there was a palpable tension throughout the meeting room, a reflection that this latest Edmiston gambit will likely put the city’s proclamations of its public welcome mat to yet another test.

—Anne Soble

City Council Allocates $3.5 Million for Trancas Canyon Park

2009-06-10T15:59:00.000-07:00

• Action Taken Despite Ongoing Controversy that a Better Park Plan Is Proposed by Residents

BY BILL KOENEKER

Even though some Malibu residents continue to lobby for an alternate park design that they contend is less environmentally damaging and more cost-effective, the Malibu City Council proceeded one step further toward implementation of its approved plans for Trancas Canyon Park.
When the Malibu City Council approved the budget for FY 2009-10 Monday night, the majority of members agreed to allocate $3.5 million for building Trancas Canyon Park.
The motion, approved on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich dissenting, was made by Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who was quick to point out the measure was merely setting up a designated fund for financing park construction and not an appropriation, which is an actual commitment of dollars from city coffers. Currently, the city has a little less than $300,000 set aside for its construction.
“What is the allocation for?” asked Conley Ulich, who was then told it was for Trancas Park.
“You want a designated fund of $3.5 million for the Trancas dog park?” Conley Ulich chided.
Whereupon, Barovsky slowly turned toward Conley Ulich and, while staring her down, challenged, “Do you want to fight?”
The room went silent except for titters from reporters. A silenced Conley Ulich looked on as Barovsky went on to explain what a designated fund reserve is, much like the reserve funds set aside for building or acquiring a city hall.
That was not the only time during the evening that the proposed pocket park that has split the Malibu West neighborhood and turned into a political football was mentioned.
Park critic Audra Lembertas, at the beginning of the meeting told council members her name was on a petition that she said was misrepresented by park supporter Justine Petretti as a petition signed by community members endorsing the proposed park approved by the council.
“I was surprised to find my name among them since I was at that meeting urging the council to examine the Goldman plan before committing to the current design. I had not signed any letter in favor of the city’s park since before the extent of the required grading was disclosed last fall. The letter presented to the council in my name does not represent my current position, nor the current position of many of my neighbors also on the list, whose signatures were collected at the same time, as mine since before the grading revelations. It does not represent my position. It should not have been presented as support of the present park plan,” she added.
Barovsky brushed aside the petition misrepresentation issue saying, “I don’t want to think if somebody plopped down a petition…it does not hold a lot of sway.” She said she did not vote for the Goldman plan because it reduced the size of the sports field and “cut the dog park in two.”
However, Conley Ulich had earlier countered that a petition is what drove the dog park since no need for a dog park is found in the city’s Master Recreation Plan.
Councilmember Jefferson Wagner asked if there was language in the city’s documents that bans league play. “There is nothing in there,” he said.
City Attorney Christi Hogin responded, “It is definitively in there. No league play as a condition of approval.”
Conley Ulich added that did not mean another council could not change such a restriction.
Councilmember John Sibert said not even if it was deed restricted would that stop another council from undoing what the current council did.

Malibu Surfside News

Private Fireworks Shows for the Fourth of July in Malibu

Malibu Officials Are Closer to Taking Possession of New Municipal Center

City Employee Is Suspected in Fatal Hit-and-Run of Man Cycling on PCH

School District Delays Action on MHS Lights

Water Improvements Planned for Trancas Said to Be Independent of Plans for Shopping Center Growth

United States Geological Survey to Do Critical Water Study of Malibu Lagoon

Publisher’s Notebook

Malibu Is Top Bidder on Building Slated to Become City Hall

City Readies New Court Fight with Conservancy

School District Is Next to Mount an Assault on City’s Local Coastal Plan

Malibu Gets Its First Look at New Marine Life Protection Law

Planning Panel to Hear Both Farmers Market Applicants at Same Meeting

City and Water Board Members Meet on Issue of Issuance of Discharge Permits

More No Smoking Zones OK’d by the City Council

Local Award-Winning Swim Coach Honored on School’s ‘Wall of Fame’

Coastal Commission Approves SMMC Efforts to Expand Public Use

City Attorney and SMMC Head Don’t Rule Out Resumption of Negotiations

CCC Testimony Reflects Disparities between Views

Closure of One Malibu Elementary School Is Part of the Budget Debate Now Going On

Council Misses Key Aspects of CCC Hearing to Rehash ‘Legacy’ Debate

View Protection Task Force to Conclude Effort

Publisher’s Notebook

Malibu Municipal Officials Look

Coastal Commission Approves Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Efforts to Expand Malibu Camping on Public Parklands

Thursday, June 11, 2009

California Coastal Commission Meeting on the Issue of Public Overnight Campsites in the City of Malibu: News Bulletin and Preliminary Analysis

Contributors

Links

Previous Posts

Archives

City Council Allocates $3.5 Million for Trancas Canyon Park