FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH TO VISIT MALIBU ON SATURDAY, APRIL 28

First Lady Laura Bush will be the 2007 Seaver College commencement
speaker and receive a Pepperdine Honorary Doctor of Laws degree on
Saturday, April 28, 2007, AT THE MALIBU CAMPUS.

Commencement begins at 10:30 a.m.

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND MALIBU CANYON ROAD WILL BE IMPACTED FROM 5 a.m.
through 2+ p.m. BECAUSE OF SECRET SERVICE AND OTHER CROWD MANAGEMENT
CONTROLS.

Two Young Entrepreneurs Imbue Their Fashion with ‘Style’

BY SONJA MAGDEVSKI

For Asher Ross and Kurtis Major, their work day starts by checking the surf. If it’s good, they’ll be riding waves “until they can’t move”—all the while being inspired to create the next design. This is precisely what motivated them to start their clothing company, Culture and Propaganda. As the third generation of their families to grow up in Malibu, they say it is impossible to live here and not be influenced by its natural environment.

So whether they are surfing, fishing or enjoying the sunset or sunrise, they are working, absorbing their past, present and the beauty that surrounds them as those before them have done.

“All our family and friends live in Malibu,” Ross says. “Our families lived here when it was just the sticks.” “A cowboy town,” Major interjects. “When you are from Malibu, it is in your blood,” Ross continued. “It also means you are a little crazy from birth,” Ross laughs. “Because coming from a small town….” Major adds. “That we can come from a place so incredibly beautiful is amazing—your imagination just opens up,” Ross concludes.

Ross and Major have known each other since childhood and, in high school, persuaded their art teacher to teach them printmaking. She agreed, as long as they worked hard and started with the basics, which they did.

They learned silk-screening, stamping, everything they needed to add another dimension to their art work. They would spend hours drawing and painting (which they still do), trading sketch books. Taking up where the other left off.

They knew they wanted to print their art on shirts, which to them was the same as printing on canvas or wood, “Just another way to express our artistic values,” Ross says. “Except now, it’s kind of cool to have art you can wear.”

They knew they had to have a great name to sell clothes. They already had the Propaganda part of it down, but needed another element. In 2004, while sitting in Major’s kitchen drawing and “yelling at each other,” as they say, someone threw the word Culture into the mix and it all made sense. Culture and Propaganda was officially born.

To truly make it a reflection of their life and their art, every design is handmade in a collaborative effort. The purpose of their work is manifested in a fictional character they have created named Clyde Jackson who they say is a legend. “Clyde is basically the embodiment of what Kurtis and I do. He represents Malibu and the shared nature of our work,” Ross says. “I couldn’t agree with you more,” Major adds. “Clyde’s essentially the embodiment of Malibu, with no limit to its content and no limit to its colors.” “It’s our emotional expression put out there.”

Culture and Propaganda now sells more than 20 products, consisting of short-sleeve and long-sleeve t-shirts, sweatshirts, and tank tops for men and women made in downtown LA in super-durable and ultra-comfortable material printed in a variety of colors with designs named “PR Shark,” “Cry Baby,” “Fun Lover,” and “Sad Eyes.”

They say it takes about 300 hours of work to come up with an agreed-upon design, since out of a 200-page sketch book covered in artwork, they may only glean two or three designs. But all of their efforts are paying off.

While their clothing is not yet widely distributed, this summer Ross and Major will unveil a number of new stores, as well as a variety of product placement in films that can not yet be revealed because of contractual obligations. “Put it this way, this summer, the A-list of the A-list will be wearing Culture and Propaganda.”

They have already received impressive acclaim for a young company run by young men, having been featured in a number of media outlets including Fashion TV and People magazine. They also participated in a 2007 Oscar suite party hosted by actor Mark Wahlberg, and collaborated with local Malibu band Simon Dawes to design a t-shirt sold at Simon Dawes concerts. On May 3, Culture and Propaganda will be featured in the “30 Under 30” awards celebration hosted by Entertainment Tonight, where LA’s hippest and hottest actors, musicians and entrepreneurs are honored.

Ross, 21, and Major, 20, say all of this recognition is incredible for simply doing what they love to do. It is almost grounding, they say, to be recognized for their hard work and honesty, and for being themselves.

They both agree that they couldn’t have made it anywhere without the tremendous help and support from their families, friends, and business mentors who have provided the encouragement, knowledge and guidance to help them move forward. Their next goal, they say, is to one day soon wake up and be dressed head to toe in Culture and Propaganda clothing.

Next to everything being designed by hand, their number one requirement for their shirts is that they are made from durable material that is ultra comfortable.

City Council ‘Reorganizes’ with Mayoral Gavel Transfer

• Ceremonial Exchange Brings Visibility to the Council Member with the Title of Mayor

BY BILL KOENEKER

The mayoral title rotated in traditional fashion when the outgoing mayor, Ken Kearsley this week turned over the gavel for the largely ceremonial position to the incoming mayor, Jeff Jennings.

Jennings, who has served on the council for 12 years, took over the top post for the third and final time when the Malibu City Council met for its reorganization meeting. Jennings is serving the last year of his term and will be forced out by the voter-enacted term limits.

Kearsley, who will also be termed out, made outgoing remarks saying he did not want to talk about himself, but wanted to direct attention to the council and what it had accomplished in the last year.

The outgoing mayor boasted the council had spent upwards of $10 million for public works projects in which 96 percent of the project costs were paid for from grants obtained by the municipality.

Kearsley claimed that no other city had accomplished such a feat. He praised the staff, including Grants Coordinator Barbara Cameron and City Manager Jim Thorsen, for helping undertake such a feat. “Prior to this council there had been very little paid for in grants,” he said.

The outgoing mayor also claimed that just one employee separated from Malibu during the past year, reversing what had been year after year of staff turnover. “They now want to stay here. We heard all the rhetoric during the past campaign [about staff turnover]. It is not true,” he said. “They want to stay because of the council.”

Kearsley did not say what caused the reversal from when the current council had to replace the city manager, several department heads including public works and parks and recreation and other top posts and several planners.

The outgoing mayor ticked off a list of accomplishments and acquisitions, including three new parks: Las Flores, Trancas and Legacy parks. He described the Civic Center park as the “showpiece for everybody in Los Angeles.”

“People can come and look at it. It is our number one priority,” he added, saying that all of this had been accomplished and the council still managed to grow a reserve fund of $14 million.“That is an amazing figure for this city.”

Kearsley also talked about how the council had brought back City Attorney Christi Hogin in a successful effort to reduce the litigation of the city.

“There were 17 active cases in November 2001. We now have four active lawsuits. This council decided to get out of the litigation business,” he added.

The outgoing mayor did not reveal if the litigation costs were also lowered. The current council voted for extensive and expensive litigation against the California Coastal Commission, which after a lengthy courtroom battle, beat back the city’s challenge of the hotly contested Local Coastal Program.

The outgoing mayor also contended that the morale of the citizens has changed for the better and that civility is the key word of the council. “In other cities it is like open warfare,” added Kearsley, referring to many other municipalities where the opposing elements to the reigning power structure still take on the status quo. Malibu’s opposing elements have either been co-opted or nearly gone underground.

Kearsley concluded by praising his wife for “being the den mother” of Malibu. “She is the cheerleader,” he added.

Jennings seemed to acknowledge that the outgoing mayor had somewhat stolen his thunder saying, “Ken said a lot of what I was going to say.”

Despite his previous experience in the role as mayor, Jennings said the post still presented challenges. “You are the public face or voice of the city. You must represent the feelings and voice of the city and carry out that role,” he said.

The incoming mayor said the biggest change he has seen on the council during his tenure is what he called the division of labor. He contended when the city was young it was more difficult for council members to work together. He said that has changed dramatically and pointed out how various parings of council members had produced results as each member spearheaded their own causes. “It is that kind of thing working together and taking on our own projects,” he said.

Jennings also said he now realizes that government does seem to move at a slower pace than he anticipated. “The last time I was mayor, five years ago, I said things were just breaking. I thought that was the next year. But now thing are really breaking,” the incoming mayor noted, saying that the city was making strides in changing the actual physical landscape of the municipality, referring to the acquisition of parklands including Legacy Park and the old Malibu lumber yard site and how that will change Malibu. “Things are being built. There is a physical change in the city,” he said.

Jennings offered up a list of pending legislation from a proposed view protection ordinance to formula retail law. It will be very interesting. There is a lot going on next year,” he said and concluded by praising the staff asserting things are moving much more smoothly than in earlier years.

Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich was sworn in as mayor pro tem.

Next Sidebar in Ferrari Saga Is Slated to Start

• ‘Homeland Security’ Angle in Spotlight

BY ANNE SOBLE

The man alleged to have created a paratransit agency that was subsequently connected to the spectacular 2006 Enzo Ferrari crash in Malibu is scheduled to appear in Alhambra Superior Court on May 15 to answer misdemeanor charges of unlawful use of a badge.

Yosuf Maiwandi, 39, of Bradbury, pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor charges related to the alleged 2005 founding of the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority, in a Monrovia automotive repair shop, that became linked to the crash of a $1.5 million Enzo Ferrari in Malibu in February, 2006, that became an international mass media whirlwind.

The SGVTA was set up as a private nonprofit entity with five buses to provide free paratransit service for the elderly, infirm and disabled in Monrovia and Sierra Madre.

Founders of the group were quoted at the time of the Enzo crash as corroborating reports that the paratransit agency had its own police department, complete with a chief of police, weapons, badges and mission statement.

In one of the SGVTA documents formerly posted on the agency’s web site, it stated that its quasi-police efforts were necessary because “mass transit is faced with perhaps its greatest challenge ever—the post 9/11 era.”

Sources cited at the time of the Enzo crash indicated that former Swedish video game executive Bo Stefan Eriksson, 45, since adjudicated to be the driver of the totalled super-car and sentenced to three years jail time for grand theft charges related to the crash, supposedly brought video monitoring skills to the organization.

A major unanswered piece of the crash scene puzzle concerns the identity of the individuals who apparently facilitated Eriksson’s departure from the accident scene without his being arrested, or even booked, as it appears that the SGVTA’s five board members were issued police badges.

Among the issues that may come to light in next month’s trial are the bureaucratic procedures used for creating quasi-law enforcement agencies such as this paratransit agency.

The possibility that a small shuttle service could seek government status and funding, even if it was run out of an auto repair shop and had its after-hours telephone calls answered by an out-of-state answering service, can also shed light on the workings of so-called homeland security legislation and a myriad of civil rights and other civil liberties issues in what appears to be a climate of growing paranoia.

How the transit agency became linked to the crash of the rare Enzo and the role of its representatives at the accident scene where Eriksson was reportedly described as “a deputy commissioner with the agency’s anti-terrorism unit” is also expected to be addressed.

Moments after the crash occurred, two unidentified men showed up at the Pacific Coast Highway accident scene and flashed badges that were sufficiently “official” looking to convince the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies at the scene that they were authentic law enforcement agents.

Assuming that the more obvious questions are answered at next month’s trial, most Ferrari crash saga observers expect there will be another new series of questions of increased complexity that will start the inquiry cycle all over again.

Engineer Hired by City Says Municipal Plans for Legacy Park Design ‘May Not Pencil Out’

• Public Turnout Is Low at First Session Exploring Site Options for Major Endeavor

BY BILL KOENEKER

An engineering consultant, who is doing the design work for Legacy Park, told a sparsely attended joint meeting of the city council and the planning commission last week that the ultimate plans for the wastewater and stormwater projects may not work out to the extent municipal officials hoped for.

“It may not pencil out,” said RMC Engineering consultant Steve Clary, who said the constraints because of the size of the 15-acre parcel coupled with the requirements for stormwater use may not allow for seasonal storage of wastewater.

The discussion had focused on how after the park is set up for storage for processing for the stormwater treatment facility how much land would be left over for storage of wastewater during the rainy season when little landscape irrigation is needed and groundwater levels are already high.

Clary said it would be difficult to obtain the needed seasonal storage capacity of treated water for reuse in the dry summer months.

“We would need a pretty large parcel of land, and it wouldn’t be cheap. We don’t have the financial ability. We are not doing that,” said the consultant, who also explained about the problems of using reclaimed water for firefighting. Clary also was emphatic in explaining how stormwater and wastewater would not be commingled.

Because the city is a lot further along on its plans for stormwater treatment, the discussion about the improvements to the park centered on the various ways that system would or could operate including using a permanent water feature for aesthetic reasons.

Clary was openly frank in discussing the engineering problems connected with developing the park, including deed restrictions, groundwater levels, restrictions placed on the property because of grant money utilized to acquire the site and other constraints.

A good deal of time was spent discussing how and what kind of system could be set up to capture the stormwater runoff for processing in the plant. How much is processed per day. What would be the size and dimension of a storage pond or basin based on numerous criteria.

Some council members and commissioners were keenly interested in how often the clean water system would be able to comply with state mandated discharge requirements.

Clary explained that compliance especially 100 percent is actually not required and can be very expensive. He said many government entities make a trade off-possibly attempting to reach 75 percent compliance or in some instances even 98 percent compliance. “It makes a difference on trade-offs. Compliance of the last two percent requires twice the [detention] basin [size],” he added.

An alternative to a detention basin is what is called a subsurface flow wetland. There is no open water and the wetlands are engineered using a gravel trench with bulrushes and others plants to create the wetlands. The gravel allows more water and soil interaction and provides ten times the treatment capacity as a conventional wetland, according to Clary. The subsurface wetland is also a natural treatment system and because there is no open water creates no opportunities for mosquito breeding.

During public comment, Terry Lucoff wanted to know if the dispersal of water meant discharging into the creek. Clary said there is no direct discharge. That the plan calls for dispersion through the soil. The exception is during the height of the storm season when there is more water than the system can handle.

John Mazza asked if the need for wastewater disposal would overshadow the recreational aspects of the park. “Are we creating a park with public funds for higher [building] density?” he queried.

Clary said the current thinking is that treated wastewater flows may go back to the leachfields of commercial users for dispersal. “We never intended to collect wastewater from homes and go back to the house’s leachfield,” he added.

It was David Resnick who pointed out that the use of additional acres for subsurface wellands are not amenable for wastewater dispersal.

Yes, agreed the consultants. Every acre used for subsurface wetlands cannot be used for wastewater dispersal. That creates another engineering challenge and leads to the limited ability to store enough treated wastewater for later reuse.

Resnick also wanted to know how important is the proposed Linear Park to the current plans for Legacy Park. He was told it was not part of the forum for the consultants. However, City Manager Jim Thorsen said it would ultimately be a part of the plans.

Local development consultant Don Schmitz wanted to know if there were any plans to take water out of the creek or lagoon and clean it and return it to its source. He was told there was no such plan.

After about two hours, the meeting was turned over to landscapers from the engineering company who talked about the look of the park and what amenities could be included also given the deed restrictions and other constraints.

Publisher’s Notebook:

Getting It Right—SB 412 and LNG Terminals

BY ANNE SOBLE

The strategy didn’t work last year. California Senate Bill 426 was allowed to die a merciless death, which may say a lot about the kind of backroom dealing that goes on in Sacramento. Some of the more visible anti-Cabrillo Port critics weren’t ready to jump on the legislative bandwagon against liquefied natural gas. But that doesn’t mean that Senator Joe Simitian’s current effort that predates the California State Lands and California Coastal commissions’ actions on CP will get more respect this time around. On March 23, Simitian introduced a “spot bill” in the form of SB 412, which announced the intention of the Legislature to enact a law addressing the siting and construction of LNG facilities off California’s cost. As is the case with spot bills, specific provisions were added as the bill worked its way through the legislative process. But the clear message of the two agencies on Cabrillo Port may make a difference in the wording of the new bill, barring backroom manipulation and the political expediency that is contingent on what the governor is going to do by the conclusion of the 45-day deadline for his “decision” on CP. The first round of provisions, read amendments, were added last Thursday, April 16. It sends a clear signal that, if SB 412 becomes law as it is, the LNG industry is going to have to step up its already extensive lobbying efforts tenfold.

The linchpin of the proposal is that the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission be mandated to “make a liquefied national gas needs assessment study that assesses demand and supply for natural gas and alternatives to natural gas to meet energy demands, and to determine the need for the state’s projected natural gas demand” that would be started no later than Jan. 1, 2008, and finished no later than Nov. 1, 2008. The study would be financed by fees from permit applications for LNG terminals. The bill would prohibit the commission from issuing a certificate to an applicant that does not update information to a matrix system at least once a month. The bill would require the governor to disapprove any application unless it meets all the requirements established by SB 412 (to be known as the LNG Terminal Evaluation Act). More public agencies would be drawn into the decision-making process, including the California Public Utilities Commission, the Coastal Commission, State Air Resources Board, State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game. Federal agencies with evaluative roles include the Office of Homeland Security, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of Defense (and all of the Armed Services), as well as the U.S. Coast Guard. This sounds formidable because the process is supposed to be formidable. Whether Simitian’s colleagues are courageous enough to follow his lead is yet to be determined. Whether SB 412 will undergo major revision is the other key variable in the equation.

BHP Rejects Conclusion that Cabrillo Port Is Dead

• Governor Says He Will Rule on Controversial LNG Facility That Was Denied Key Permits

BY HANS LAETZ

The week after BHP Billiton lost its request to build its Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas terminal off Malibu, the company still says it does not know what it will do. But a company spokesperson rejects any conclusion that the project is dead.

The State Lands Commission’s last week vote left the ship without a place to anchor, with no pipeline route ashore, and without the required approval for the environmental package that took four years to put together, noted activist Susan Jordan.

That vote was followed last Thursday by the California Coastal Commission, which voted 12-0 that the factory ship should be denied permission to violate California and federal green laws in more than 20 ways.

The twin decisions set the Australian company adrift in a sea of confusion over the offshore LNG facility’s future.

“Is this dead? I think it is mortally wounded,” said Jordan, executive director of the California Coastal Protection Network.

After the initial rejection Monday, BHP Billiton went into the California Coastal Commission meeting Thursday and placed a high stakes bet: company officials sat silently and refused to present their case that the proposed $1 billion LNG ship would be good for California.

Billiton had gone into the meeting in Santa Barbara desperately trying to win a delay. CCC Executive Director Peter Douglas said federal law does not allow anyone to delay the hearing for any reason, and the only way BHP Billiton could have stopped proceedings was to withdraw, scrapping four years and tens of millions of dollars in work.

“We realize this puts the commission in an embarrassing position, but that is the path they chose,” Douglas said.

BHP LNG International President Renee Klimczak sat in the audience for most of the eight-hour session, and refused repeated offers from the commission to testify or rebut what was said by the 40 persons who spoke against the project. Not one person testified in its favor.

The company’s silence did not go over well with several commission members, and the bet was lost. “It’s annoying that we put our staff through this and then the applicant chose not to respond at the hearing,” said Mary Shallenberger before she voted against it.

Another commissioner said the company’s silence “points to a certain tendency on behalf of BHP to provide less information rather than more.” Ben Hueso said, “If BHP wants to do business in the United States, they need to learn to provide more information and act responsibly. We feel very protective of our coastline.”

A convoluted and confusing federal law requires BHP to win both a federal and a state permit for the project. The Coastal Commission vote scuttles the federal permit, but Billiton can appeal that decision to Washington, where the U.S. Secretary of Commerce can overturn it.

The state permit, meanwhile, must be acted upon even though the Lands Commission earlier last week rejected its environmental studies and lease application. That means Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger must make a public decision about Cabrillo Port by May 21, even though the company does not have its mandatory environmental study, or permission to park the ship and lay pipes.

Lawyers outside the process said state agencies have wide power to reject environmental impact reports and lease applications for any reason. The unlikelihood of a lawsuit overturning the State Lands Commission vote makes the project effectively dead in the eyes of some observers.

Billiton company spokesperson Patrick Cassidy said to a reporter who posed that conclusion last week, “We still are digesting the comments made Monday and today, and it’s way too early for us to speculate on what steps we can take.” He appeared to be reading a statement written before the vote was taken.

Cassidy and other company officials would not say if a lawsuit would be filed, or speculate on the possible grounds on which a suit might be based.

The governor was in Washington last week, and, in a news conference there, backed away from his earlier support of LNG as a greenhouse gas reducing bridge fuel.

“The governor needs to step in here with a clear message,” CCPN’s Jordan said, “and veto Cabrillo Port now.”

At the Santa Barbara meeting, the City of Malibu was represented by Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Andy Stern. Conley Ulich blasted BHP Billiton officials for trying to delay the matter and asked, “Where are they speaking…behind closed doors?” She said, “I’d like to hear from them here at this meeting, in public, and [have them] explain to us just what exactly it is they intend to do now.”

Stern concentrated on the lack of solid evidence that more natural gas is needed in California, or that prices would drop if Cabrillo Port were to be built.

Malibu actor Pierce Brosnan sat through four hours of testimony before he spoke. The actor used his two minutes to again call on Schwarzenegger to reject Cabrillo Port in the spirit of his environmentalist credentials. “I know our governor has worked hard to reduce global greenhouse gases, and to sign AB 32,” Brosnan said.

“I would like to note that the Terminator may be doing his job globally, but Agent 007 is doing it locally,” quipped Commissioner Khatchik Achadjian.

Remy O’Neill, representing the Malibu Township Council, said the U.S. is behind developing countries on some environmental issues and cannot afford to add greenhouse gas to the globe. “We are even behind China in our vehicle emissions standards. For people at these hearings, air pollution mitigation doesn’t mean let’s make a deal. It means don’t add more pollution.”

Ironically, CCC executive director Peter Douglas revealed early in the meeting that he and BHP officials may have been close to solving a major smog problem that helped derail Cabrillo Port at the Lands Commission: the tremendous amount of greenhouse gas that the project would generate in the extraction, liquefaction, transport and reheating of natural gas.

One scientific expert at last Thursday’s hearing estimated the project would emit an amount equal to 40 percent of the greenhouse gas now being emitted by the people and businesses of New York City.

But Douglas said BHP Billiton and the state had been near agreement on converting the entire trans-Pacific LNG fleet to complete natural gas operations.

“We did talk to BHP about running their tankers on natural gas [exclusively], and I thought they had agreed to do that,” Douglas said. “But given the turn of events in the last couple of days, we never got back to that issue.”

Three More SoCal LNG Projects Work Their Way through System

BY HANS LAETZ

The apparent scuttling of the proposed BHP Billiton ship off Malibu’s northern end does not end the local concern about liquefied natural gas terminals in nearby waters.

Another Australian energy firm, Woodside, is expected to file its application soon to locate an LNG terminal 22 miles south of Point Dume. And two other companies are poised to apply for offshore LNG regasification projects near Oxnard and Long Beach.

The lead agency handling the Woodside application will be the City of Los Angeles, because its natural gas pipeline would come ashore near Los Angeles International Airport. That means the L.A. City Council will have veto power on the project that is being marketed as OceanWay.

There are several key differences between the Woodside and Billiton proposals, and company officials have said they watched Cabrillo Port’s opponents and tried to design a project that environmentalists may find more acceptable.

OceanWay, unlike Cabrillo Port, would use outside air to warm the cryogenically chilled LNG. Woodside officials say that will eliminate 90 percent of the smog that the BHP project would have generated, and would also eliminate the floating aircraft-carrier-sized terminal that would have been stationed off the Malibu coast for up to 40 years.

OceanWay would use a permanent submerged buoy that would rise up to access LNG carriers from below, and regasify the liquid on board the transit vessels.

Woodside officials say that OceanWay would be located 22 miles off the nearest mainland, at Point Dume, and about 20 miles from Catalina Island. The curvature of the earth would obscure the LNG carriers from all but high elevations in Malibu.

Of more concern to Ventura County residents, Northern Star Natural Gas is also readying its application to convert a 40-year-old oil-drilling platform into an LNG terminal. That company also plans to use ambient air regasification, to lessen the smog impact as compared to Cabrillo.

But environmental activists note the oil rig project, being marketed as “Clearwater Port,” is just 12.6 miles off the beachfront houses at Oxnard, and add that a new Congressional study places into doubt existing computer projections about the impact of an LNG fire on open water.

A third project, proposed by Tidelands Natural Gas of Texas, would locate a submerged buoy similar to the Woodside project somewhere offshore San Pedro.

All of these proposals need environmental review, and BHP Billiton went through four years of study, hearings and controversy before a decision was reached.

In the meantime, momentum may be building in the California Legislature for a comparative licensing procedure that would also assess whether the state really needs more imported fossil fuels.

State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, has said that this year’s bill will be more thorough than one that almost passed last year.

BHP ‘Newsletter’ Slamming Critics Said to Be Counterfeit

BY HANS LAETZ

The chief spokesman for BHP Billiton in Texas says an e-mail newsletter purportedly from the company that is making the rounds on the internet “is not authentic company communication.”

The “Cabrillo Port News” has been mailed to supporters of the proposed LNG terminal, and resembles mailings that the company has issued in the past. It makes disparaging remarks about Cabrillo Port opponents.

BHP spokesperson Patrick Cassidy was reached at home in Houston by the Malibu Surfside News Monday night and asked if the company had issued the mailing. After investigating it, he said Tuesday that the newsletter’s message was unapproved and was not authentic.

The company has in the past used a Ventura public relations company to issue a Cabrillo Port newsletter, and a spokesman for that company was not available for comment.

Cassidy said the latest version of the newsletter was not approved by him and does not meet the company’s policy of always quoting its own officials.

“Offering an opinion about people’s opinions would seem to be the very type of circular argument the (newsletter) writer is complaining about,” Cassidy said. “This wouldn’t make it through company editors.”

Gibson Brouhaha Prompts Bill on Sale of Public Safety Info to Media

• Assemblymember Cites Tainting of Fair Trial Rights

BY ANNE SOBLE

It may not quite be “sell a news tip, go to jail,” but it’s close. AB 920 would make it a crime for public safety employees to sell information to media outlets as part of an official effort to clamp down on payments made for celebrity news by broadcast, print and Internet media outlets.

The measure, authored by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica/Malibu), was recently introduced at the request of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which is still conducting an intensive in-house investigation of whether information related to the DUI arrest and verbal outbursts by Malibuite Mel Gibson was illegally made public.

Documents from the Malibu incident’s arrest file appeared on a celebrity-oriented website within hours and led to an international media maelstrom.

Computer files and other records belonging to the arresting officer in the high profile case, Deputy James Mee, were removed from his home under court order but the department has not disclosed the results of their analysis or any other aspects of the review.

LASD Chief Roberta Abner, who heads the division overseeing the investigation, told the Malibu Surfside News on Tuesday, “It is still an open investigation, but a conclusion is anticipated in the near future.”

Brownley has indicated that she “has no direct knowledge” that information was sold in the Gibson case, but notes that LASD has been concerned about the possibility that scoop-hungry media outlets are offering money to public safety officers for information.

Spurring AB 920 is her concern that such sales could “taint the right to a fair trial.”

Brownley’s measure would add Section 146g to the Penal Code. It targets peace officers, including sheriff’s deputies, police officers, and California Highway Patrol officers, as well as generic law enforcement agency employees and trial court employees.

If it becomes law, violations could be subject to misdemeanor charges. Misdemeanor charges could also apply to a reporter or media rep who offers to pay any of these individuals for information.

AB 920 states that individuals are guilty of a misdemeanor if they:
1) Disclose information obtained in the course and scope of his or her official duties in exchange for compensation or consideration.
2) Solicit the exchange of information obtained in the course and scope of official duties for compensation or consideration.
3) Solicit a peace officer, law enforcement employee, or trial court employee to disclose information obtained in the course and scope of official duties in exchange for compensation.

In a statement introducing the bill in the Legislature, Brownley said, “In the age of instant information and Internet sites, such as the ‘Smoking Gun’, ‘YouTube’, ‘TMZ,’ and other ‘non-traditional’ media outlets, the pressure to ‘break a story’ has raised concerns that some of these news websites may attempt to gain inside information on a story of a breaking event by paying a peace officer to obtain the information prior to its proper legal and timely release.”

If this takes place, she said, “This is a breach of the public trust, and, if violated, should be a crime. By adding a Penal Code section to prohibit peace officers or court officials from profiting or making any type of financial gain by providing proprietary department information, which is information gained by a member of a law enforcement agency in the performance of their duties, relating to the performance of those duties, and is not readily available to members of the general public, would dissuade both the peace officer and media outlet from engaging in this activity.”

The measure passed the state Assembly Public Safety Committee last week. It will undergo additional committee review before going for a final vote.

AB 920 has the formal support of the California Peace Officers Association, the California Police Chiefs Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California. There is no registered opposition.

Edison Tree-Trimmers Cut Fiber-Optic Lines Leased to Charter Cable on Monday

• Accident Leads to 10-Hour Shutdown

BY ANNE SOBLE

Subcontractors for Southern California Edison working in Santa Monica cut a fiber-optic line leased to Charter Communications for high-speed Internet service to Malibu that shut down 7600 customers for over 10 hours on Monday.

Craig Watkins, Charter vice president for communications, said that at about 10:30 a.m., tree trimmers working for Edison cut an OC 48 fiber-optic line that Charter leases from the company.

Watkins said Charter was “held hostage until [Edison] could get the line repaired” and described the incident as “hugely disappointing” for the firm and its customers. Service did not resume until 7:30 to 8 p.m. in most parts of Malibu.

The Charter spokesperson noted that even though work crews were on the site within a few hours, the glass fibers have to be individually spliced, and this type of repair work is time consuming.

Mark Olson, a rep for SCE, said the company leases out its unused fiber-optic line, but he said there is “no guarantee of continuity of service on leased lines,” and added that it is the lessee’s responsibility to make alternate arrangements when problems occur.

Olson said the trade-off is leasing “means lower costs and less construction overhead and is usually to everyone’s advantage.”

But Watkins said there are guarantees, and added that “Malibu’s unique geography” was a factor in deciding to lease lines from Edison. He said that Charter is planning to implement a backup line within 60 days to provide alternate access for Malibu.

In addition, local environmentalists raised the issue of why trees are being trimmed this time of year because it is peak nesting season for many bird species.

Publisher’s Notebook: A Green Fairy Tale

‘The Governor and Cabrillo Port’

BY ANNE SOBLE

In honor of Earth Day, and with apologies to the Brothers and Sisters Grimm, we find ourselves wondering whether some of the critics of California’s newly-celebrated enviro pop star just don’t understand what’s going on in local energy politics. The script goes something like this: What if Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to send the BHP Billiton offshore liquefied natural gas facility to a watery grave, but is waiting until the last minute so he can take full credit for its demise? The governor won’t do anything until the May 21 deadline under the assumption that by then most people will have forgotten the valiant efforts of the two state agencies that courageously stood up to the international energy and mining behemoth this month and denied its efforts to wreak environmental havoc in the waters off Malibu and Oxnard. But then politics is less about facts than it is about images, isn’t it? This is even assuming that one isn’t talking about elected officials who are seeking reelection or higher office. Schwarzenegger may not be able to run for President of the United States, at least, not yet, but he certainly seems to be running for the post of Planet Earth’s environmental savior.

This is the man pictured balancing the world on his index finger. He says green is “hip” and “sexy.” What can this be but prelude to a studiously choreographed extravaganza that dwarfs the exploits of Conan and the Terminator? On May 21, Schwarzenegger will step forward on a well-lit stage that is verdantly draped, surrounded by a chorus of ethnically diverse school children, and he will say, “Hasta la vista, Cabrillo Port,” while members of the media take notes in rapt adoration. The world will applaud, and the governor will be crowned Emperor of Green.

You say this is nonsense? No one believes this can happen because Sacramento insiders say the fix is in? Huge donations, the hiring of friends and former staffers, the lavishing of a PR and lobbying budget that rivals the GNP of small nations, and an inherent disdain of Greenies and conservation, i.e. limits, restraints and self-control, will prevail? Perhaps, but if the fairy tale doesn’t come true, it becomes a horror story.

Council Agrees to Six New Speed Advisory Signs on PCH

BY BILL KOENEKER

Six new signs that were supposed to cost less than $100,000 will be installed along Pacific Coast Highway at various locations along the City of Malibu’s coastal strip to advise motorists of their speed. The Malibu City Council, at a recent meeting, agreed to use general fund monies in lieu of immediate funding from federal dollars slow in coming for the construction of the speed advisory signs.

At the council’s next meeting, members are expected to award a contract and authorize the locations for placing the signs on PCH.

The current federal funding, council members were told, does not allow for the construction to start until much later.

Council members were criticized by some of the public for allocating general fund money for the expenditure, but some members defended the action.

“If it saves one life, it is worth it [even] if we do not get reimbursed,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky.

The reimbursement is expected to come from federal funds more formally known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, also known as TEA-21. Councilmember Jeff Jennings said he wanted to know where TEA funds were being spent, given the promises made about how the money would be used for improvements on PCH that are not evident. He asked the staff to provide a list of how the money has been spent to date.

The mobile speed advisory boards are expected to cost possibly as much as $130,000.

The staff told council members they are currently working on getting the federal funds, but the process will not be completed until about July.

News Alert 04.12.2007

Coastal Commission Casts Unanimous No Vote on Cabrillo Port

•BHP Billiton Takes the Fifth as Opponents Blast Project at Hearing in Santa Barbara•

By Hans Laetz

BHP Billiton placed a high stakes bet Thursday when it told the California Coastal Commission it would sit silently and refuse to present its case that the proposed $1 billion liquefied natural gas terminal complies with state coastal laws.

It lost. In a unanimous 12-0 vote, the commission ruled today that Cabrillo Port does not comply with federal and California environmental laws, and sent the Australian company adrift in a sea of confusion over the offshore LNG facility’s future.

“Is this dead? I think it is mortally wounded,” said California Coastal Protection Network executive director Susan Jordan.

BHP Billiton went into the meeting in Santa Barbara desperately trying to win a delay in the hearing, based on the Monday night decision by the California State Lands Commission to reject the controversial project’s environmental impact report and lease.

The company’s silence did not go over well with several commission members. “It’s annoying that we put our staff through this and then the applicant chose not to respond at the hearing,” said Mary Shallenberger before she voted against it.

Another commissioner said the company’s silence “points to a certain tendency on behalf of BHP to provide less information rather than more.” Ben Hueso said, “If BHP wants to do business in the United States, they need to learn to provide more information and act responsibly. We feel very protective of our coastline.”

Legal experts said the company’s only alternative at this point is to file an eleventh hour lawsuit aimed at overturning the environmental decision, a suit that they said would be all but impossible to win.

But a company spokesman said no decision has been made yet on taking legal action.

“We still are digesting the comments made Monday and today, and it’s way too early for us to speculate on what steps we can take,” said company spokesman Patrick Cassidy.

The Coastal Commission vote can be overturned by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. But after Monday’s State Lands Commission decision, the Cabrillo Port initiative appears dead in the water.

BHP LNG International President Renee Klimczak had told the Coastal Commission at the start of the hearing that the company would not state its case on why it should win permission to build its Cabrillo Port LNG terminal 13.8 miles off the Malibu coast.

Klimczak sat in the audience for most of the eight-hour session, and refused repeated offers from the commission to testify or rebut what was said by the 40 persons who spoke against the project. Not one person testified in its favor.

“We came here to listen to what people are saying,” said BHP spokesman Patrick Cassidy after the unanimous defeat of a project in which his company had invested four years and tens of millions of dollars. As to the possibility of a lawsuit, Cassidy would not deviate from a written press statement that the company would evaluate its options.

That’s been the company line since the stern rejection of Cabrillo Port by a 2-1 majority of the State Lands panel. That action sent to the recycling heap the 3000-page Cabrillo Port environmental impact study written over the past three years that said the project violated environmental laws in at least 20 areas.

State Lands also refused to allow the company to lay its pipelines across state-owned tidelands at Ormond Beach, Oxnard. That action effectively killed the project’s federal permit.

But laws require the parallel state application process to continue on a mandated fast track. Company lawyers spent the last two days trying to convince state and federal agencies to postpone the Thursday commission hearing on that parallel state permit.

CCC executive director Peter Douglas said federal law does not allow anyone to delay the hearing for any reason, and the only way BHP Billiton could stop proceedings was to withdraw its 2003 application and scrap nearly fours years and tens of millions of dollars in efforts. BHP did not want to do this.

“We realize this puts the commission in an embarrassing position, but that is the path they chose,” Douglas said.

The project, although legally killed in the eyes of the federal government, must still proceed through the state approval process, which also calls for a decision on the state permit by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“The governor needs to step in here with a clear message,” CCPN’s Jordan said, “and veto Cabrillo Port.”

The governor was in Washington Thursday, and, in a news conference there, backed away from his earlier support of LNG as a greenhouse gas reducing bridge fuel.

“[LNG] is one of those things where you don’t want to go and protect on the one side, the environment, and have less greenhouse gas emissions, and then on the other hand, you create more,” the governor told the San Francisco Chronicle political blog.

For the third daylong meeting in eight days, Malibu was represented by Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Andy Stern. Conley Ulich blasted BHP Billiton officials for trying to delay the matter and asked, “Where are they speaking…behind closed doors?” She said, “I’d like to hear from them here at this meeting, in public, and [have them] explain to us just what exactly it is they intend to do now.”

Stern concentrated on the lack of solid evidence that more natural gas is needed in California, or that prices would drop if Cabrillo Port were to be built.

Malibu actor Pierce Brosnan sat through four hours of testimony before he spoke. The actor used his two minutes to again call on Schwarzenegger to reject Cabrillo Port in the spirit of his environmentalist credentials. “I know our governor has worked hard to reduce global greenhouse gases, and to sign AB 32,” Brosnan said.

“I would like to note that the terminator may be doing his job globally, but Agent 007 is doing it locally,” quipped Commissioner Khatchik Achadjian.”

Remy O’Neill, representing the Malibu Township Council, said the U.S. is behind developing countries on some environmental issues and cannot afford to add greenhouse gas to the globe. “We are even behind China in our vehicle emissions standards. For people at these hearings, air pollution mitigation doesn’t mean let’s make a deal. It means don’t add more pollution.”

Ironically, CCC executive director Peter Douglas revealed early in the meeting that he and BHP officials were close to solving a major smog problem that helped derail Cabrillo Port at the Lands Commission: the tremendous amount of greenhouse gas that the project would generate in the extraction, liquefaction, transport and reheating of natural gas.

One scientific expert at Thursday’s hearing estimated the project would emit an amount equal to 40 percent of the greenhouse gas now being emitted by the people and businesses of New York City.

But Douglas said BHP Billiton and the state were near agreement on converting the entire trans-Pacific LNG fleet to complete natural gas operations.

“We did talk to BHP about running their tankers on natural gas [exclusively], and I thought they had agreed to do that,” Douglas said. “But given the turn of events in the last couple of days, we never got back to that issue.”

News Alert

Cabrillo Port Meeting Timetable

Thursday, April 12:

California Coastal Commission hearing and vote at

Doubletree Resort, 633 E. Cabrillo Street, Santa Barbara.

9 a.m. on.

SEEING A BLUE SEA–Emulating the ocean they hope to protect from a controversial floating liquefied natural gas storage and regasification facility dubbed Cabrillo Port that Australian energy conglomerate

BHP Billiton wants to build, close to 1000 people gather for a 5 p.m. rally outside Monday’s California State Lands Commission hearing in Oxnard. Toddlers, teenagers, the middle-aged and senior citizens don bright blue T-shirts that describe the controversial LNG project as “risky, dirty and dangerous.” On the back, the shirts say “No BHP LNG” and “terminate the terminal.”

MSN Photo/Frank Lamonea

Cabrillo Port Dealt Major Blow by State Lands Commission

• It’s Watch and Wait After Panel Votes Two to One to Deny Subsea Pipelines for LNG Project

BY HANS LAETZ

With a highly-publicized defeat for Cabrillo Port still echoing along the California coast, BHP Billiton officials have not ruled out a lawsuit as they head into a second state hearing this week in Santa Barbara.

A company official said Tuesday they were still analyzing why the California State Lands Commission voted 2-1 against accepting the project’s environmental impact report and request to lease state tidelands to bring natural gas into California from overseas.

But California courts grant state agencies broad power to reject environmental impact reports, and environmental attorneys question how the company would overcome the finding by the commission that the liquefied natural gas terminal would violate federal and state environmental standards in 20 areas.

Any lawsuit filed by BHP Billiton would be a voyage into uncharted legal waters, lawyers said, as no offshore port applicant in U.S. history has ever been rejected by a local state and then filed suit.

Monday night’s vote appeared to be a significant victory for coastal advocates and environmentalists from Oxnard and Port Hueneme, the cities nearest the proposed LNG terminal. Oxnard police said 3000 protesters politely swarmed the Oxnard Performing Arts Center Monday afternoon, with about 800 at any given time squeezed inside the hearing room.

“This shows that the commission cares about far beyond the stars in Malibu, and that they were thinking globally,” said Malibu activist Keely Shaye-Brosnan.

“Let them sue,” said California Coastal Protection Network director Susan Jordan. “We knew all along, since 2004, that this project could not meet the Clean Air Act. The company knew that too, and they should have adjusted.”

Commission chair John Garamendi, the state’s lieutenant governor, and John Chiang, the state controller, provided the two-vote majority, with a representative for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s appointee casting the lone affirmative ballot.

Anne Sheehan, the deputy director of finance, representing DOF Director Michael Genest, said Cabrillo Port would bring California a necessary “bridge fuel” as it weans itself from coal and oil-fired energy sources. But the other two panelists, both Democrats, pointed out that the project will not come on line until 2012 at the earliest.

“This project does not fulfill an immediate need,” Garamendi said at the end of a grueling 12-hour public hearing that allowed more than 130 people to testify.

Garamendi said the project’s environmental studies proposed 18 alternatives, “and rejected every one of those 18 alternatives out of hand without considering them.”

It was the project’s air pollution impact that troubled Garamendi and Chiang the most. “This isn’t going to clean the air in the immediate area of the project,” Chiang said.

“I also have serious reservations about locating an LNG plant along our beautiful California coast,” he said. “There are also clear threats to marine life and human safety.”

The vote was greeted by polite whoops and hollers from the crowd of 800 people in the Oxnard Performing Arts Center, a crowd that had been warned several times by Garamendi not to applaud or make comments—at the threat of expulsion.

The hearing was punctuated by a large late-afternoon rally outside the Oxnard Performing Arts Center, where Oxnard Police estimated 2000 persons listened to speeches outside the hall. Parking spaces within blocks of the Arts Center were taken, prompting some would-be participants to circle the area in their cars, honking horns.

At the end of the rally, a large number of participants tried to enter the hall, but most of the seats were already taken, and Garamendi sternly ordered the aisles cleared.

At one point in the evening, opponents of the project were asked to stand up and raise their hands: nearly every person in the 800-seat auditorium quietly rose to their feet.

Garamendi then asked them to sit down, and for project backers to stand up. Seven people were counted.

Most of the testimony plowed familiar ground. Christine Rodgerson, president of the Malibu Association of Realtors, told the commissioners, “I am concerned that this project has a negative impact on property values.” She said, “One of the main reasons why people move to Malibu is for the clean air.”

John Mazza, representing the Malibu Township Council, said the BHP Billiton project “has gathered the most interest since a company tried to put a nuclear power plant in an earthquake zone in Malibu—and that was 37 years ago.”

The hearing lasted 12 hours, and a rough tally showed 16 speakers favoring the terminal, and 111 opposed.

Project supporters said the project would bring a badly needed, clean burning fuel that can replace coal-fired electricity in the state’s grid. “We need to find some other source for this energy, and if not from this project, where?” asked Will Reed, spokesman for the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

“I don’t think this is about environmental issues, and I don’t think this is about fish,” said Donna Worley, a Burbank resident. “I think this is about of rich people down in Malibu who don’t want to see this thing in their ocean views, and these people have spent a lot of money to scare you to death.”

But the bad news started early for Cabrillo Port. Garamendi started the hearing with a series of blistering questions to the State Lands Commission staff and Billiton’s attorney-lobbyist Craig Meyer.

In a rapid-fire set of terse questions, Garamendi asked if the project’s impact report included greenhouse gas emissions for the entire trans-Pacific supply chain, estimated by one scientist at 66 times greater than the amount of emissions at the unloading terminal alone.

“Those emissions are not within this project, because if the gas were not to come here, it would be going to somewhere else,” the company’s attorney said.

A skeptical Garamendi interrupted: “Then we are not to be concerned about the greenhouse gas issue?”

Garamendi and Chiang also peppered Lands Commission staff with questions about the report’s reliance on four-year-old data on the state’s natural gas needs, and said the foundation for the needs assessment is faulty.

Commissioners also said they were unhappy with BHP Billiton’s effort to mitigate the emissions of nitrogen pollution by rebuilding the engines of a pair of tugboats plying the waters between San Pedro and San Francisco.

Garamendi noted that the contract for the tugboats lasts 15 years, and the project will be releasing hundreds of tons of smog upwind of Malibu and Ventura County for 40 years or more.

Garamendi also criticized the company for saying in its application it had plans to sell the natural gas in California, when the company’s spokesman said it would be shipped through California to “points beyond.”

“Is that in the EIR?” Garamendi asked. “It’s not, but it seems to be an important point. How much gas is to be imported through Mexico? The EIR does not say that either.”

BHPB LNG International President Renee Klimczak ended the marathon public hearing with a reminder of the company’s main contention that “without natural gas you will not be able to replace coal for electric generation, and natural gas is a very efficient fuel for vehicles.”

The commission’s executive director, Paul Thayer, told the commission there are negative impacts that cannot be mitigated in any way. “For example, the chance for a catastrophic event is fairly remote, but that is kind of like rabies—chances are low of getting that, but once you do, it is fairly drastic.”

Although Monday’s hearing may end up fatally derailing Cabrillo Port, state and federal laws require the application process for the $1 billion plant to continue to proceed on a parallel track. That means the California Coastal Commission will still hold its daylong hearing on Cabrillo Port Thursday in Santa Barbara.

And the governor still has about seven weeks left to make a decision as well. “I do believe that liquefied natural gas should be a part of California’s energy portfolio,” Schwarzenegger said in his statement after Monday’s vote.

“Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel and an LNG facility to serve our state would make California less vulnerable to variations in supply and price. Despite the action taken today by the State Lands Commission, my office, pursuant to federal law, is using the allotted 45-day review period to make sure that the project meets strict standards of public and environmental safety,” the governor said.

The Coastal Commission hearing starts at 10 a.m. at Fess Parker’s Doubletree Resort, 633 E. Cabrillo St., Santa Barbara. It will be webcast live by the commission at: http://www.coastal. ca.gov/mtgcurr. html.

LNG Watch

Keeping Score

BY HANS LAETZ

Cabrillo Port is dead. Or is it?

Confusing announcements from the governor’s office (see page 3), Environmental Defense Center, the California Coastal Commission and BHP Billiton muddied the waters after Monday’s landmark rejection of the Australian company’s LNG project’s pipeline application.

BHP Billiton wasn’t talking beyond its statement that it was considering all options.

But late Tuesday, attorneys for BHP Billiton tried to have the project’s airing removed from this week’s Coastal Commission agenda. CCC Executive Director Peter Douglas said in a telephone interview that the delay request was denied.

“BHP’s lawyers spoke with our lawyers, and made the request to pull the item,” Douglas said. “They were told that would be impossible unless BHP agreed to drop its entire application, as there is no mechanism under federal law for the matter to be delayed.”

Other attorneys have said the federal law is more than confusing, as it creates a two-track state and federal approval process for any proposed deepwater port. Monday’s action by the California State Lands Commission rejected the final environmental impact report, and separately refused to allow BHPB’s gas pipelines to cross state tidelands.

Here’s where it gets complicated: although CSLC action killed the pipeline permit, federal laws require the state to continue processing the state permit request. That means Coastal must still hold a daylong hearing Thursday on a project request that the federal government may have no way of approving.

And it means the governor must still come up with a public decision on an LNG ship that analysts say has no chance of being built.

BHP Billiton could sue to overturn the State Lands Commission vote, but winning such a suit would be unprecedented and could take years in the courts, attorneys said.

Governor’s Office Signals that Cabrillo Port License Is Still His to Determine

• Action to Approve, Modify or Deny Due by May 21

BY ANNE SOBLE

The ink is barely dry on the determination of one state commission concerning aspects of BHP Billiton’s Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas facility and a second panel is expected to act this week, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is indicating that he will have the last word.

A statement to the Malibu Surfside News late Tuesday by Louis Mauro, Schwarzenegger’s Chief Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary, attempts to clarify his role in the LNG facility approval process but compounds growing uncertainty.

The statement skirts the issue of whether Monday’s California State Lands Commission action “killed” the controversial offshore floating storage and regasification unit by indicating that decisions of the CLSC and the California Coastal Commission can be challenged in court and overturned, but the governor’s authority on this is separate and constant.

Mauro’s analysis places emphasis on the licensing process itself, indicating, “The federal Deepwater Port Act (33 U.S.C. ß 1501 et seq.) establishes the requirements for the federal government to issue a license to operate a deepwater port in federal waters. The proposal by BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. for an offshore Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility requires a license under the federal Act.”

Mauro continues, “The federal Act provides that the federal government may not issue a license without approval from the Governor of an adjacent coastal state. (33 U.S.C. ß 1503(c)(8).) In this instance, the adjacent coastal state is California. Pursuant to the federal Act, Governor Schwarzenegger has 45 days from the last federal hearing on the matter to communicate his approval, his approval with conditions, or his disapproval of the project. If the Governor does not communicate his decision within 45 days, approval is presumed under the Act. (33 U.S.C. ß 1508(b)(1).)”

Mauro notes, “The last federal hearing on the matter occurred on April 4, 2007. Thus, the Governor’s 45-day review period has commenced.”

In light of this 45-day clock, the Schwarzenegger legal adviser says that “the Governor’s Office is conducting a careful and thorough review of the matter and the Governor has not made any decision on this project. Governor Schwarzenegger’s decision is due by May 21, 2007.”

The one-page analysis breaks down the different state reviews of the licensing process in this way: “The State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission are responsible for reviewing different and distinct aspects of the proposed project pursuant to different laws. The Governor reviews whether a federal license should issue in federal waters, but the State Lands Commission reviews whether a lease of state lands should be approved for a proposed pipeline over state lands (within three miles offshore). And the California Coastal Commission reviews whether the project is consistent with California coastal laws.”

Acknowledging that “the State Lands Commission voted to disapprove a lease of state lands for the pipeline, and it did not certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project [and] the California Coastal Commission will hold a hearing on the project [Thursday, April 12].” Mauro’s analysis does not appear to regard either action as terminating the Cabrillo Port project.

Reiterating the point about finality, the Schwarzenegger legal advisor concludes, “Because the decisions by the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission may be subject to legal challenge and review, and may not be final, the Governor will continue his review of the application for a federal license. If the Governor fails to communicate a decision within 45 days, he will be deemed to have approved the project. His continuing review will ensure that he can take appropriate steps to protect the environment and the people of California.”

Mauro’s statement and an earlier press release attributed to the governor are described by Susan Jordan, the director of California Coastal Protection Network, the group spearheading opposition to Cabrillo Port, as “troubling [because it means the governor is] prepared to ignore the State Lands Commission decision and proceed with his own review of the project.”

Publisher’s Notebook: Do Earth Day Right

Don’t Let Up in Cabrillo Port Fight

BY ANNE SOBLE

The communities of Malibu, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Barbara and their neighbors received an Earth Day present two weeks ahead of schedule on Monday night with the denial of pipelines for the controversial Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas floating storage and regasification unit that international energy conglomerate BHP Billiton would like to see stationed off the local coast for 40 years. But it’s clear this week that this gift needs protection as there are round-the-clock negotiations to try to render the decisive action of the California State Lands Commission meaningless. Phalanxes of attorneys are pouring over the convoluted language of the state and federal licensing process for projects such as Cabrillo Port. Some of these lawyers and energy consultants are the same people who had a hand in writing the Deepwater Port Act and now hope to use the Byzantine legal processes they helped create to their own advantage.

These backroom machinations make a resounding denial of the project by the California Coastal Commission an imperative and mean that pressure on Governor Schwarzenegger to veto Cabrillo Port must continue. Similarly, the Congressional investigation of the Environmental Protection Agency has to remain in the media spotlight. Documents that show White House manipulation of the EPA have to be made public. The scuttlebutt in Washington is that Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez’ staff has begun exploring ways that the Administration’s catch-all phrase, “national security,” might be used in California to not only override CCC action, but any other adverse rulings on LNG projects. Bush has already thumbed his nose at Canada’s environmental objections to an LNG facility off the Maine coast. The independent voters of the Golden State won’t fare much better. Cabrillo Port should not be allowed to become the symbol that not only is California unable to control its energy destiny, it also is reluctant to take aggressive stances to alter the pattern of planetary exploitation and degradation that is the touchstone of contemporary society. This year, we might have a chance at a real Earth Day celebration.

Cabrillo Port Dealt Major Blow by State Lands Commission

• Panel Votes 2 to 1 to Deny Subsea Pipelines for Controversial Offshore LNG Project •

BY HANS LAETZ

Cabrillo Port is dead. Maybe.

By a 2-1 vote late Monday night, the California State Lands Commission rejected the application by Australian energy conglomerate BHP Billiton to build a $1 billion floating liquefied natural gas terminal some 13.8 miles off the coast of Malibu.

The vote cannot be appealed to any state agency. But BHP Billiton could file a lawsuit; something that officials on both sides said would be a voyage into uncharted legal waters.

And Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement late Monday vowing to continue to investigate whether Cabrillo Port should be approved, as the convoluted set of federal laws governing the issue does not legally stop the application process even though the project right now does not have permission to lay its pipes across state tidelands, and thus has no way to transfer its gas ashore.

The governor also said it would be premature for him to announce any decision on Cabrillo Port at this time.

Monday’s vote was unquestionably a significant victory for coastal advocates and environmentalists from Malibu, Oxnard and Port Hueneme, the cities nearest the proposed LNG terminal.

“This shows that the commission cares about far beyond the stars in Malibu, and that they were thinking globally,” said Malibu activist Keely Shaye-Brosnan.

“We’re just digesting this thing, and we’ll have a statement tomorrow,” said Patrick E. Cassidy, the company’s Houston vice president for communications. “We remain committed to this process.”

That process may mean a lawsuit, which is the only recourse for BHP Billiton, which would stand to profit by $50 billion by some estimates over the 40-year-life of the project. Numerous calls to BHPB officials went unreturned Tuesday morning.

“Let them sue,” said California Coastal Protection Network director Susan Jordan. “We knew all along, since 2004, that this project could not meet the Clean Air Act. The company knew that too, and they should have adjusted.”

Commission chairman John Garamendi, the state’s lieutenant governor, and John Chiang, provided the two-vote majority, with a representative for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger casting the lone affirmative ballot.

Anne Sheehan, the deputy director of finance representing the governor’s office on the commission, said Cabrillo Port would bring California a necessary “bridge fuel” as it weans itself from coal and oil-fired energy sources. But the other two panelists, both Democrats, pointed out that the project would not come on line until 2012 at the earliest.

“This project does not fulfill an immediate need,” Garamendi said at the end of a grueling 12-hour public hearing that allowed more than 130 people to testify.

Garamendi said the project’s environmental studies proposed 18 alternatives, “and rejected every one of those 18 alternatives out of hand without considering them.”

But it was the project’s air pollution impact that troubled Garamendi and Chiang the most. “This isn’t going to clean the air in the immediate area of the project,” Chiang said.

“I also have serious reservations about locating an LNG plant along our beautiful California coast,” he said. “There are also clear threats to marine life and human safety.”

The vote was greeted by polite whoops and hollers from the crowd of 800 people in the Oxnard Performing Arts Center, a crowd that had been warned several times by Garamendi not to applaud or make comments—at the threat of expulsion.

The hearing was punctuated by a large late afternoon rally outside the Oxnard Performing Arts Center, where Oxnard Police estimated 2000 persons listened to speeches. Parking spaces within blocks of the Arts Center were taken, leading many Malibu residents to circle the area in their cars, horns honking.

When the rally ended, a large number of participants shuffled into the hall, but as most of the 800 seats were already taken, Garamendi sternly ordered the aisles cleared.

At one point in the evening, opponents of the project were asked to stand and raise their hands: nearly every person in the 800-seat auditorium stood up in a quiet show of force.

Garamendi then asked them to be seated, and for project backers to stand up. Seven people rose to their feet.

Much of the testimony plowed familiar ground. Christine Rodgerson, president of the Malibu Association of Realtors, told the commissioners, “I am concerned that this project has a negative impact on property values.” She said, “One of the main reasons why people move to Malibu is for the clean air.”

John Mazza, representing the Malibu Township Council, said the BHP Billiton project “has gathered the most interest since a company tried to put a nuclear power plant in an earthquake zone in Malibu—and that was 37 years ago.”

By the hearing’s end, a rough tally showed 16 speakers favoring the terminal, and 111 opposed.

Project supporters said the project would bring a badly needed, clean-burning fuel that can replace coal-fired electricity in the state’s grid. “We need to find some other source for this energy, and if not from this project, where?” asked Will Reed, spokesman for the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

“I don’t think this is about environmental issues, and I don’t think this is about fish,” said Donna Worley, a Burbank resident. “I think this is about of rich people down in Malibu who don’t want to see this thing in their ocean views, and these people have spent a lot of money to scare you to death.”

The bad news started early for BHP Billiton. Garamendi began the hearing with a series of blistering questions to the State Lands Commission staff and the company’s attorney-lobbyist Craig Meyer.

In a rapid-fire set of terse questions, Garamendi asked if the project’s impact report included greenhouse gas emissions for the entire trans-Pacific supply chain, estimated by one scientist at 66 times greater than the amount of emissions at the unloading terminal alone.

“Those emissions are not within this project, because if the gas were not to come here, it would be going to somewhere else,” the company’s attorney said.

A skeptical Garamendi interrupted: “Then we are not to be concerned about the greenhouse gas issue?”

Garamendi and Chiang also peppered SLC staff with questions about the report’s reliance on four-year-old data on the state’s natural gas needs, and said the foundation for the needs assessment is faulty.

Commissioners also said they were unhappy with BHP Billiton’s effort to mitigate the emissions of nitrogen pollution by rebuilding the engines of a pair of tugboats plying the waters between San Pedro and San Francisco.

Garamendi noted that the contract for the tugboats lasts 15 years, and the project will be releasing hundreds of tons of smog upwind of Malibu and Ventura County for 40 years or more.

Garamendi criticized Billiton for saying in its application that it had plans to sell the natural gas in California, when the company’s spokesman said it would be shipped through California to “points beyond.”

“Is that in the EIR?” Garamendi asked. “It’s not, but it seems to be an important point. How much gas is to be imported through Mexico? The EIR does not say that either.”

BHP LNG International President Renee Klimczak ended the marathon public hearing with a reminder of the company’s main contention that “without natural gas you will not be able to replace coal for electric generation, and natural gas is a very efficient fuel for vehicles.”

The commission’s executive director, Paul Thayer, told the commission there are negative impacts that cannot be mitigated in any way. “For example, the chance for a catastrophic event is fairly remote, but that is kind of like rabies—chances are low of getting that, but once you do, it is fairly drastic.”

Although Monday’s hearing may end up fatally derailing Cabrillo Port, state and federal laws require the application process to continue to proceed on a parallel track. That means the California Coastal Commission will still hold its daylong hearing on the project Thursday in Santa Barbara, and its action remains an important component of this process.

The governor has until May 21 to take a formal position as well. His position would be critical if Billiton files a legal appeal and is successful in court.

Still shying from a formal stance on Cabrillo Port, Schwarzenegger said in a statement after Monday’s vote, “I do believe that liquefied natural gas should be a part of California’s energy portfolio.”

The governor added, “Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel and an LNG facility to serve our state would make California less vulnerable to variations in supply and price. Despite the action taken today by the State Lands Commission, my office, pursuant to federal law, is using the allotted 45-day review period to make sure that the project meets strict standards of public and environmental safety.”

The Thursday Coastal Commission hearing starts at 10 a.m. at Fess Parker’s Doubletree Resort, 633 E. Cabrillo St., Santa Barbara. It will be webcast live by the commission at its website: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html .

Feds Defend LNG Fast Track as Clock Starts

Opponents Dominate First of Three Cabrillo Port Hearings in Eight Days

By Hans Laetz

In an unusual burst of anger from a federal official, a U.S. Maritime Administration official lashed out against a coastal activist who had just accused his agency of rushing a decision on the BHP Billiton liquefied natural gas terminal.

The tempers flared Wednesday night at the first of three public hearings in eight days on the BHP Cabrillo Port LNG terminal.

The dramatic exchange was sparked when coastal advocate Susan Jordan charged that federal agencies were deliberately rushing the decision-making process by requiring three public hearings be held within eight days.

As she ran out of her allotted time, Jordan said California is “captive to federal efforts to fast-track this project. In my humble opinion, holding this hearing tonight is a grave disservice, and your agency owes an apology to the people in this room.”

Keith Lesnick, the Deepwater Ports program director for MARAD, pointed his finger at Jordan as she walked away: “Just a minute. I am offended that you would stand there and say that Maritime and the Coast Guard would have scheduled it this way. The state agencies were all in on this.”

“Now you wait a minute,” Jordan said as she took the podium. “I listened to you and now you listen to me. I have been talking to all the state agencies and they all have said you rushed them into this.”

Lesnick interrupted Jordan, and said he disagreed.

Jordan directs the California Coastal Protection Network, the group coordinating the legal battle against the proposed $800 million terminal. The City of Malibu has chipped in $50,000 to that fight.

The fireworks enlivened the only public hearing that the Coast Guard and Maritime Administration will hold on the controversial request by Australian energy company BHP Billiton to station a floating LNG terminal 13.8 miles off the coast at Malibu’s north end. More than 40 persons spoke at the hearing attended by close to 250 people that served as a warm-up to Monday’s key vote by the California State Lands Commission, the only state agency with final power to approve or deny the project.

Two Malibu City Council members, Andy Stern and Pamela Conley Ulich, told the federal officials that the communities of Malibu and Oxnard are united in opposing the LNG port.

“I get accused of being a NIMBY,” Stern said, “but I want to tell you something, this is the first time that the city councils of Malibu and Oxnard have ever stood united on any one thing.” The Port Hueneme City Council, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District and the Ventura County Board of Supervisors have also unanimously taken anti-Cabrillo Port stands.

Tim Riley, an anti-LNG activist from Oxnard Shores, noted that “every single elected public official” who testified, spoke against the project. “That’s what so remarkable, the hardworking blue collars are agreeing with the rich and famous,” he said.

Six speakers supported the BHP Billiton plan. Don Facciano, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Association, called the LNG port and the clean energy it would import “a win-win for both the taxpayers of Ventura County and all of California as well. We all remember the energy crisis of a few years ago, not only the embarrassment but the fact that the lights went out and then the taxpayers were forced to foot the bill.”

Hank Locayo, a senior activist who has written numerous newspaper commentaries favoring the project, said it was important for seniors as well as the small businesses that drive California’s economy.

And Glenn Hening, a former Malibu resident who is now campaigning for the LNG plant, said federal officials believe it would be safe. “If we can’t trust the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration, then...all of us should just stay home because it would be too dangerous to go outside our homes.”

More typical were comments such as those by Lucille Keller, a longtime Malibu activist who said the floating terminal “is an experimental and potentially-deadly technology, and should not be approved unless there is established science to support BHP safety claims.”

Larry Godwin, a retired Point Mugu Navy engineer, said a recent Congressional study that is not mentioned in the project’s environmental reports makes that evaluation invalid. “There is no doubt that the computer-generated safety zones in the report are fabricated and cannot be used to judge the safety zones for the general public,” Godwin said. “There is no doubt that the worst case scenario will happen at some time, and there must be no compromise for the public safety.”

Mike Stubblefield, who lives near Oxnard, also noted that the Coast Guard wrote and publicly released a 168-page safety study for a floating LNG plant proposed for Long Island Sound, but will not do the same for Cabrillo Port. The Coast Guard admitted in its East Coast study that it does not have enough people or ships to guard that terminal.

“This is an outrageous double standard that our community will not accept,” he said.

No employee of BHP Billiton spoke at the meeting, and a local camera crew hired by the company recorded public comments. A small group of BHP Billiton officials watched from the back of the hall, including Rebecca McDonald, London-based president of the company’s gas and oil division and a former high-ranking Enron official.

In an interview, McDonald said she was confident that the company would be able to build an LNG terminal that meets the “Best Available Control Technology” standard for its exhaust, a key matter that might scuttle the project if federal regulators impose tight air quality standards.

Activists said they are keeping their powder dry for next Monday’s State Lands Commission hearing, when a vote will be taken.

Testimony from the first hearing will result in federal officials announcing a decision within 90 days.

Revised Earthquake Fault Zone Maps Are Available for Review

• Major Change Is Coast Fault Status

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu municipal officials have given notice that the proposed revised earthquake fault zone maps for the area are now being made available for public scrutiny.

The preliminary review map of the proposed Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zones in Malibu was released to the city on Feb. 16 and the public is now being told about the revisions this week.

The major revision to the map is the removal of the fault zone designation to the Malibu Coast fault splay at the Bluffs Park.

The site has been plagued by the active designation and a number of former property owners, including General Motors, have dropped plans for a think tank or other use because of perceived geological problems on the site.

The property was sold about one-and-a-half years ago, but no development plans have been made public at this time.

“That is the major revision [to the Malibu map]. The AP zone next to the Bluffs Park site has been removed,” said Chris Dean, the city’s geologist.

Dean had no answer to why the local public was being noticed about the revisions in early April instead of when the review period began on Feb. 16.

“We have the documents on display. We got the notice out. This is a preliminary. There is more than three months before the final map is issued,” added the city geologist.

Dean also noted that there were no other revisions on the preliminary map. “There are no changes to the rest of the AP zone in the Civic Center. No additions on Point Dume,” he added.

Municipal officials describe earthquake fault zones as regulatory zones that encompass surface traces of active faults that have a potential for future surface fault rupture. The zones are established for about 500 feet on either side of the surface trace. The maps show the general location of the proposed fault zones within the city.

An active fault may pose a risk of surface rupture to existing or future development. A fault study may be required before the parcel can be subdivided or before most structures can be permitted. If the property is developed, the Alquist-Priolo Act requires disclosure by the seller to any buyer for all real estate transactions.

Detailed maps can be seen at Malibu City Hall, or at California Geological Survey offices in Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles, or can been viewed at the CGS website at www.consrv.ca.gov/CGSINEWS/news.

Cabrillo Port Critics Hold Briefing Before Key Hearing

BY ANNE SOBLE

A coalition of concerned residents and members of the Malibu Chamber of Commerce, Malibu Association of Realtors, Sierra Club and other organizations has scheduled an LNG briefing this Thursday at Malibu City Hall to prepare for next week’s critical California State Lands Commission hearing on subsea pipelines for the controversial Cabrillo Port project.

The local briefing will take place in the Malibu City Council chambers on the ground floor at 23815 Stuart Ranch Road, starting at 6:30 p.m.

The State Lands Commission meeting is set for Monday, April 9, starting 10 a.m. at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center at 800 Hobson Road. A 5 p.m. session will take additional testimony.

The three-member panel will vote on two 21-mile long, 24-inch diameter pipelines to transfer liquefied natural gas to Southern California Gas Company’s existing natural gas transmission system from the nearly 1000-foot-long, 214-foot-tall floating storage and regasification unit proposed by Aus