Law Permitting Cannabis Outlets Approved by City Council

• Members Vote to Limit Number of Pot Pharmacies to Two Existing Operations

BY BILL KOENEKER

Siding with its planning commission, the Malibu City Council this week refrained from placing a ban on pot pharmacies, but agreed to limit the number of them in the city to two. The planning panel had recommended allowing three dispensaries.
The council had approved several moratoriums on new facilities during the past several years when it learned there were no specific provisions in the city’s zoning code for permitted uses of cannibis dispensaries after two started doing business in Malibu.
Much like the hearing at the planning commission meeting, dozens of people from Malibu and outside of the city, including a doctor, an attorney and patients showed up to urge the council to allow the facilities and explain why they should. No one spoke in opposition to allowing pot pharmacies in the community.
Several council members appeared reluctant to allow the use. “I don’t know what to do,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who was adamant about approval being limited to one dispensary. “I don’t see three shops.”
Councilmember Jefferson Wagner said he was personally opposed to them, but was swayed by so much public testimony and written comments in support. “I have compassion for the people who need it. Most of the community has been for it,” he said.
Councilmember John Sibert said he had two relatives who are sick and rely on medical cannabis therapy. “I can see one or two, but not three. It makes sense to keep it regulated and keep an eye on it,” he added.
Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich said she wanted to tighten the conditions, such as keeping the facilities at least 1000 feet away from schools, parks, churches and other such establishments. The commission had recommended 500 feet.
Conley Ulich also wanted to make sure the dispensaries would be subject to a public review by the Conditional Use Permit process. The staff recommended the two facilities must obtain a CUP to operate.
“This is very difficult. It would be remiss to deprive the right that the people of the state voted for. My gut is telling me to allow one,” the mayor said.
LIBRARY AGREEMENT
With the head librarian of Los Angeles County, Margaret Todd, looking on, the council unanimously approved a memo of understanding with the county for Malibu Library facilities and services. It essentially means, for the time being, the city will be staying in the county library system.
The MOU establishes a structure for the expenditure of excess funds uncovered by the city, which will be used for improvements to the public library.
“It has been a four-year process,” said Conley Ulich, who had spearheaded municipal efforts that resulted in the discovery of the excess funds belonging to the Malibu Library.
“I am pleased with the agreement. I am looking forward to getting to the renovations,” said Todd.
Barovsky praised Todd for her efforts. “You were our advocate with the county. It is hard to work with the county,” she said.
The memo provides a way for the city and the county to work together in making improvements to the exterior and interior of the building, interior renovations and the construction of an outdoor patio known as the “Room with a View.”

Malibu City Council Revises Minutes of April Meeting in Response to Allegations by Local Journalist

• Freelancer Raises First Amendment and Brown Act Issues

BY ANNE SOBLE

A local freelance journalist, who is challenging what he contends are City of Malibu actions that may infringe on First Amendment rights in the community via a secret deliberative process that also violates state law, took his case to City Hall Monday night.
Hans Laetz, with three decades of experience as a broadcast news manager and print reporter, is a self-described “midcareer law student, working part-time for three news organizations.”
He raises concerns about what Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich has repeatedly at press conferences and in individual interviews and emails called a “committee, or a commission” charged with coming up with a draft ordinance to address the mayor’s contention that paparazzi are endangering local residents and something has to be done to curb their actions.
Conley Ulich, ostensibly on her own, enlisted the aid of Ken Starr, of Monicagate notoriety and the dean of Pepperdine Law School, where the mayor is an adjunct professor, to assemble what was called “an independent attorney association” at an April city council meeting. Her colleagues, by consensus vote, gave her a green light to pursue the matter.
The mayor has refused to name those who have attended subsequent meetings, but a recent email from her to the Malibu Surfside News includes CC’s to four other members of the Pepperdine Law School faculty. Conley Ulich has not responded to inquiries about whether these individuals have taken part in discussions.
The mayor proposed her “project” shortly after a Pepperdine Law School conference in early April entitled “Free Speech and Press in the Modern Age: Can 20th Century Theory Bear the Weight of 21st Century Demands?”
An announcement states, “This conference will examine whether these theoretical models [e.g. First Amendment rights] remain valid and compelling bases for the continued development of free speech law in the 21st century in areas presenting major challenges of our modern age.”
This tenor was perceived by some unfettered press advocates as paralleling additional restrictions on free speech and press, especially when the conference notes the need to reflect the “age of terrorism,” construed as reflective of the White House use of 9-11 as a manipulative image.
At the Monday council meeting, the members revised the minutes of the April meeting where the “independent attorneys association” was approved to reflect that no group was formed and that Conley Ulich is acting solo.
City Attorney Christi Hogin prepared a lengthy memo on the matter, then on the one hand diminished the role of what is in the city minutes, while exhibiting concern that they be “corrected” in response to Laetz’s allegations.
Seemingly admonishing the council for “getting a little loosey-goosey” with terms and concepts, Hogin then said, that even though the council used the term independent attorneys association in April, some three months later, the council could clarify that wasn’t what it meant, prompting Laetz to respond, “That was the biggest tap dance I’ve heard from a lawyer in a long time.”
After the meeting, Laetz said, “That the city council would appoint our mayor to do this in the first place baffles me, that they allow her to do it in secret troubles me even more. The fact they felt it necessary to cover their tracks is astounding.”
In a subsequent communication, Laetz said, “The heart of the issue is a meeting that occurred in secret between two city council members and Judge Starr last spring, unannounced to the public, at which the city committee bounced around purported problems with paparazzi, and how Judge Starr would be able to fashion a new ordinance that would continue the Supreme Court’s trend of limiting free speech activities, such as in the infamous ‘Bong Hits for Jesus’ case.”
“The Malibu city attorney has given terrible advice to the mayor and council. Her reading of the open meetings law ignores specific sections that extend its coverage to ‘one-person committees’ set up by a legislatory body to handle specific subject matter.
“The city attorney has also eviscerated the law intended to preserve the public’s right to observe and participate in lawmaking, by using such arguments as no formal action was taken because the committee was authorized by a consensus vote, or that no city staff was assigned to the committee, making it not official.”
Laetz indicates that he is in contact with a number of First Amendment and journalist rights organizations, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (see story on page 3), that are interested in these issues.
Earlier in the meeting, Conley Ulich announced that she would be attending meetings of the Los Angeles City task force addressing paparazzi concerns. That group has also expressed interest in framing a measure to curb the photographers who focus on celebrities.
At first the mayor used the words “our task force” to describe a meeting she was scheduling for this Friday at 11 a.m. at City Hall “with anyone who wants to attend,” but her colleagues quickly jumped up and corrected her language.
Councilmember Andy Stern told Conley Ulich, “You declared it. We have nothing to do with it.”
Councilmember John Sibert was the first of the other members to specifically address Ulich’s choice of Starr for the drafting of a city ordinance. He said, “Ken Starr is not my choice to write laws in Malibu.”

ACLU Says It’s Not Involved in Malibu Mayor’s Paparazzi Plan

• Local Office Looks at Reporter’s Case

BY ANNE SOBLE

The American Civil Liberties Union, the national advocacy organization whose mission is to preserve the protections and guarantees of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, has indicated that it is not involved in Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich’s efforts to consider ways to curb paparazzi activities in Malibu.
Spokespersons for the national and Southern California affiliate offices of the ACLU indicated to the Malibu Surfside News on Tuesday that no participation is under consideration, despite Conley Ulich’s on again-off again reference to it taking part. The mayor’s latest comment affirming ACLU participation was at this week’s city council meeting.
The ACLU, which has taken on what it calls the “Imperial Presidency” of the Bush Administration for assaults on constitutionally protected rights in areas as diverse as privacy and torture, is adamant about preventing efforts to distinguish paparazzi from traditional media because of their dilution of First Amendment rights.
Tessie Borden, a communications specialist with the ACLU of Southern California affiliate office, quotes staff attorney Peter Bibring that “efforts to separate paparazzi from other journalists would make any legislation less defensible [in court].”
Borden indicated that she is in contact with Hans Laetz, the freelance journalist who is challenging the City of Malibu over Conley Ulich’s project to draft an anti-paparazzi ordinance. He contends it is in violation of the Brown Act, the state open meetings law, and a potential threat to First Amendment rights of all journalists.
Borden says that before the ACLU decides whether it will become a party to a legal action, such as one that Laetz says he is now considering filing, the matter goes through an intake process that is ultimately contingent on a determination by the group’s legal committee.

Planning Panel Slated to Rehear La Paz Projects

• Proposals Set to Be Aired Next Week

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu Planning Commission is scheduled once again to hear two proposed plans for the La Paz commercial development in the Civic Center next week on Aug. 5.
The two separate projects, one including a development agreement that calls for a donation of a City Hall, are tentatively scheduled to be heard by the city council on Sept. 22. The development agreement project, if approved by the council, will require review and approval by the California Coastal Commission.
Revised plans for a wastewater treatment system that utilizes reuse is the key new feature to be considered by municipal officials.
A press release issued by Schmitz and Associates, the land use consulting firm spearheading the permit process, boasts the new system is a no net discharge system, meaning 100 percent of the wastewater is reused.
Treated wastewater will be used entirely for in-building toilet flushing and then used for landscape irrigation. All of the project’s wastewater will be recycled and reused.
That will result in no rise in groundwater levels and no groundwater mounding onsite or offsite to adjacent properties, according to the press release, which further states that the system will produce an annual savings of over 3,000,000 gallons of water.
The size of the projects remains the same, as does the development agreement. Of the seven buildings proposed for one parcel, five are strictly retail, while two of the buildings are both retail and office and both have 175-seat restaurants. The four buildings slated for another parcel would be a combination of office and retail. Another parcel would consist of a 20,000-square-foot city hall. The total amount of retail space would be 69,502 square feet with 62,929 square feet of office space.
The alternative plan that does not include a city hall feature and would be smaller, would include two restaurants of 175 seats each and be mostly retail space. The office space proposed under the alternative plan is 29,655 square feet. The retail space would remain at 69,502 square feet.
Last Jan., the planning commission held a public hearing and recommended that the council approve the smaller project that did not include a development agreement.
The city council was supposed to hear the matter on March 24, but that hearing was continued until May 12. On April 3, the applicant submitted a new wastewater management system.
“Since the planning commission did not have the opportunity to provide a recommendation on the projects with the revised wastewater systems or the updated [Environmental Impact Report], staff determined that the project should return to the planning commission so that the recommendation would be based on the most accurate information available,” wrote a staff planner.
The wastewater report indicates that, if the larger project is approved, the proposed storage tank requirement for use of all recycled water is 800,000 gallons. The alternative option would require a 400,000-gallon storage tank.
The entire wastewater volume that results after in-building reuse will be needed for landscape irrigation. The site’s irrigation water demand will require extra water in addition to treated effluent. “This additional water demand will be provided by potable water or extracting groundwater,” the report states.

New Traffic Signals Are Among the Proposals to Impact Traffic on PCH

• California Incline Project Work Could Result in Backups

BY HANS LAETZ

The City of Santa Monica is crowing that “years of persistence have paid off,” and a new traffic signal will be installed this fall on Pacific Coast Highway midway between the California Incline and Chautauqua Boulevard.
The signal will be placed next to the city’s new public beachfront recreation center at 415 Pacific Coast Highway, a stretch of road that bears 80,000 cars per day and is the main route into Malibu from the Westside.
But Santa Monica engineers say the signal will be demand-activated and only affect southbound through traffic on Highway 1. “Northbound traffic will always get a green ball, it will only be southbound traffic that gets stopped so left turns may cross the highway,” said Caltrans spokesperson Maria Raptis in Los Angeles.
The City of Malibu’s new traffic light at Corral Canyon Road, beset be design delays, is also set to be installed this fall. Although PCH is heavily traveled there, the amount of traffic on the highway in Santa Monica is much greater.
Santa Monica engineers are also finishing design agreements with Caltrans on a stabilization project for the earthen cliffs that tower above PCH in Santa Monica.
That project is set to go out to bid this fall, with construction equipment allowed in the northbound lanes during non-rush-hour traffic.
A bigger Santa Monica project has gone back to environmental review, as residents of Santa Monica Canyon have asked for greater consideration of the temporary traffic congestion that is expected when the California Incline bridge is torn down and replaced.
Mark Cuneo, a Santa Monica engineer, said the city is working on plans to add a second lane to the ramp from PCH to Ocean Avenue, next to the Santa Monica Pier. But Cuneo said traffic backups in the pier area may be a problem once the Incline is closed to PCH motorists heading to Santa Monica.
“We don’t want to have the people get fed up with the detour and want to use the canyon route” on Entrada Drive and Seventh Street in order to reach downtown Santa Monica.
Other projects, including Los Angeles Department of Water and Power plans to build a massive underground power duct between Sunset and Chautauqua boulevards, have been pushed back, Cuneo said.

• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Malibu City Council Dynamics

BY ANNE SOBLE

This week’s Malibu City Council meeting was an intriguing study in the role that communication plays in the political process. We were told that the minutes of the council meetings are not to be relied on, actually, “they don’t matter all that much [as] they are not a legal binding contract,” according to the city attorney.
As for the council members’ actions, it’s not what they say or do, but what they think that they are doing that matters, regardless of the appearance or the language that is employed in the decision-making process.
Watching members of the city council state their sense of the April meeting at which the mayor asked them for their permission to meet with Ken Starr, which they now say wasn’t necessary because it involves only her, but they granted it anyhow, offers some interesting insights into council and staff interpersonal dynamics.
If the mayor didn’t need their approval to act independently in exploring a paparazzi law in a non “formal” way not covered by government transparency laws, why didn’t staff or her colleagues tell her that? Or was all that snickering during the discussion prior to their consensus vote an indication of something more?
Perhaps the city attorney hit the proverbial nail on the head when she told her employers that “you get a little loosey-goosey” when deliberating municipal business.
Was the majority of the council members too dismissive of the importance of a possibility that First Amendment rights in Malibu could be curtailed by legal practitioners who buy into right-wing conspiracy theories of the world and want to limit and control the communication of ideas, thus enabling those now in power to clamp down on anyone who disagrees?
Or was it that some council members take such a narrow view of free speech rights that they could openly joke about the mayor’s project, ignoring the potential for First Amendment constraints in a community of arts professionals and others who thrive in a free and open environment? Only one council member has voiced concern that Starr is not a good fit for Malibu in this regard.
Perhaps council members should also be admonished for being loosey-goosey at press conferences, in emails and in other communications in which they use inaccurate terminology. On the paparazzi project, the words commission, committee and group were quoted repeatedly in local and national media reports describing what the council has now decreed does not exist.
Since the official minutes are not meant to be taken at face value and can be revised at will, months after the fact, citizens will have to rely primarily on videos of meetings to be certain what is taking place at City Hall. That is, until the videos start to show the gaps and pauses of editing, or simply disappear from the archives.
Maybe there’s something to all that conservative paranoia, after all.

State and Federal Agencies Blast Legacy Park Specifics

• Municipal Environmental Review Board Gets Latest Word about Major Concerns

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu’s Environmental Review Board met this week to discuss the Environmental Impact Report and other documents related to making improvements at Legacy Park on Wednesday after the Malibu Surfside News went to press.
The panel had some of the latest agency comments about the city’s plans for Legacy Park and heard numerous reservations, complaints and concerns about the city’s current plans.
The most recent letter from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, which funded grants to the city and considers itself, “a major partner in the purchase,” cited several concerns about the plans, including the proposed use of Legacy Park for wastewater dispersal, which “were discussed only on the programmatic level.”
SMBRC insists the “actual cumulative effects on local groundwater and in Malibu Creek and lagoon of the dispersal of stormwater, urban runoff and treated wastewater may be significant and must be dealt with in a comprehensive manner before proceeding with any one phase of the project.”
The commission, which awarded Malibu $2.5 million in grants, reminded the city of the terms of the grant and then warned that the detention pond proposed is different than vegetated retention basins first cited by the city and represents a “deviation.” The city would have to apply for a deviation from those original plans.
“The detention pond, as currently planned, would occupy only a small fraction of the 15-acre site. We believe that a larger treatment wetland is a much more appropriate alternative for Legacy Park and would more effectively accommodate additional storm flow capacity and allow for the greatest treatment potential,” wrote the agency’s executive director and environmental scientist.
They also took exception to Malibu’s habitat restoration plans, saying the proposal is not native to the area and they support the re-introduction of local native plant species.
A top scientist for the Regional Water Quality Control Board said Malibu lacked documentation for potentially significant impacts pertaining to groundwater, hydrology and water quality impacts.
“Additional public review is necessary because the new design for Malibu Legacy Park proposes to dispose of 33,000 gallons per day in an area where Malibu Lumber will dispose of 17,000 gallons per day and adjacent properties have septic systems which rely on continued groundwater separation. We believe cumulative hydrological limitations should be assessed early in the permitting and construction process because the assimilative capacity of Malibu Valley might preclude future and adjacent projects,” wrote Rebecca Chou, chief of the groundwater permitting unit of RWQCB.
The National Marine Fisheries Service told the city the EIR is inadequate because it does not describe the actual effects of the project on steelhead and critical habitat within Malibu Creek.
The regional administrator charged the impacts from stormwater runoff detention and treatment before release into Malibu Creek are not addressed.
“The final EIR must describe the effects either adverse and beneficial of the proposed action on endangered steelhead and their critical habitat, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act,” wrote Rodney McInnis.
Two environmental organizations also took issue with the plans and urged another approach.
“The stormwater and wastewater components of the project should be designed and completed in parallel,” wrote Heal the Bay staff members.
The environmental group also indicated the project should include “significantly greater treated stormwater storage capacity,” and more study is needed on hydrology and water quality impact.
The Santa Monica Baykeeper had a retired professor of soil and water resources review the hydrology and water quality technical reports and told city officials he believes the project “is also likely to raise groundwater levels and worsen groundwater quality in the project area.”
Dr. Byron Shaw indicated there is no recognition that there are already serious groundwater elevation and water quality problems on the park property and that use of the property to dispose of stormwater via infiltration and evapotranspiration “will only make these conditions worse.”
The Baykeeper analyst also noted the stormwater treatment facility relies on a detention pond that is capable of storing only eight acre feet and that no analysis is presented on how frequently this capacity will be exceeded and untreated water discharged as surface water.
The ERB is charged with reviewing the city’s application to construct a public park, linear park and stormwater treatment components on the 15-acre site and make recommendations to the planning commission.
The proposal, which will require a coastal development permit, conditional use permit and a variance, includes grading, accessory structures, a bridge, master sign program, stormwater pipelines, street improvements, parking spaces, habitat restoration and trails, according to a public notice.
The amount of paperwork and the size of the documents for Legacy Park have become so large, city officials have indicated that due to the size of the attachments, the report will not be posted on the city’s website, but rather the entire ERB agenda packet has been posted to the city’s FTP site.
City officials recently attempted to get the public more involved in review of the park’s improvements and scheduled two workshop meetings. However, municipal officials complained the public turnout was low and the meetings did not attract community interest.
“On Wednesday night, the staff and consultants outnumbered the residents,” said Councilmember John Sibert. “There were seven on Saturday.”
Sibert said he was sorry there were not more Malibuites at the workshops. “There were even signs and ads, but still that got very few folks,” he said.
The workshops were designed as an informal effort to gather as much input as possible from Malibu residents about what they want to see installed in the park in the way of amenities.
The date for submitting comments to the Environmental Impact Report has passed.
Currently, the park plans are described as a facility that will be home to five ostensible coastal habitats and is being billed as Southern California’s only coastal prairie habitat.

Freelance Journalist Challenges Workings of Municipal Paparazzi Panelists

• City Attorney Says ‘Group of Experts’ Is Not Covered by Open Meeting or Public Access Laws

BY ANNE SOBLE

A local freelance journalist is challenging the makeup and procedures of a City of Malibu policy process charged with the task of possibly drafting an ordinance to control what municipal officials perceive as inappropriate and unsafe behavior by paparazzi in the community.
Hans Laetz, who has spent three decades in news management, primarily in the broadcast arena, submits articles to a broad cross-section of area publications, including the Malibu Surfside News. He is not representing any of these publications in his clash with City Hall.
Laetz asserts that a municipal paparazzi panel has met twice in closed session, actions he contends violate state governmental transparency legislation, including the Brown Act, the state open meeting law. He indicates that the group has produced a draft ordinance, a copy of which he has requested from the city.
Laetz made these points in an email exchange with Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich. He has distributed copies of the most recent emails on Monday to print and broadcast media, as well as journalism organizations.
In one of the emails, Laetz wrote, “California Government Code § 54952 (b) requires advance agendas, public documents and open meetings for “a commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decision-making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body.”
He added, “The committee is by any reading a temporary advisory body created by formal action of the city council. Calling it ‘independent’ does not make it so. This task force is an official City of Malibu advisory panel, created and charged by a city council act, and is without doubt under the Brown and Unruh acts.”
However, City Attorney Christi Hogin responded on Tuesday that the meetings in question are not a violation of the Brown Act, or any other state mandate, because even though the paparazzi panel is referred to as a committee in public discusssion, no committee was technically formed. Hogin said that the meetings involve a group of “experts” assembled by the mayor that does not involve staff time.
In short, it would appear that this non-committee is no different than any other bunch of people sitting around a kitchen table who decide to develop public policy options, which, as an aside, led to the term “kitchen cabinet” to reflect undue unofficial political influence.
Yet Conley Ulich uses the term “committee” when discussing the matter with Laetz in emails and when talking to The News, in addition to referring to “committee membership.” And, in a separate email to Laetz, Councilmember Sharon Barovsky referred to the group as an “ad hoc committee.”
As for Laetz’s assertion of the existence of a draft ordinance, the mayor said the meetings have produced what she describes as “suggestions” and she indicates she has not gone through all of them. She said one of the approaches “on the table” is the Malibu Surfside News editorial position that no additional legislation is required.
Conley Ulich added that the group that has met so far consists of several attorneys but that is not the “committee’s final membership.” She indicated there is a question of whether the American Civil Liberties Union, originally touted as a participant, is going to take part in the non-committee.
Because the names of the participants in the panel headed by Pepperdine Law School Dean Kenneth Starr have not been made public, this has earned the group the sobriquet the “Starr Chamber” among journalists who question the need for additional legislation beyond existing state paparazzi laws and are concerned Starr might weaken local First Amendment rights.
Laetz told The News that a red flag is raised by Starr’s role in the Alaska student banner case that resulted in U.S. Supreme Court restriction of student free speech rights that were affirmed by the high court 39 years earlier.
That case also prompted conflict of interest discussions concerning Starr’s representation and the justices on the Supreme Court who are paid by Pepperdine to take part in university seminars.
Laetz is lobbying the mayor for membership in the so-called “group of experts,” asserting that, as a freelancer, he can bring this specialized perspective to issues related to the paparazzi, the majority of whom are also uncredentialed freelancers.
In his pitch for panel membership, Laetz writes, “Although I do not have the J.D. [yet] or pedigree of Dean Starr...I am a third year law student [at the Ventura College of Law] who will specialize in First Amendment law [and] feel I have more than a passing understanding of First Amendment and criminal law and precedent.”
Laetz and Conley Ulich were slated to meet on the issues he is raising at City Hall on Friday.

• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Malibu’s De Facto Paparazzi Doings

BY ANNE SOBLE

I am already on record as opposing any municipal legislation to put curbs on paparazzi, or any other members of the media, credentialed or otherwise, even ones who behave in ways I may personally abhor because I will accept no abridgement of the right of free speech that does not jeopardize public safety. I stand with Thomas Jefferson that if I have to choose between government and a free press, I will opt for the free press. Sadly, there are too many times when I think this would have been particularly applicable in Malibu public policymaking.
I feel compelled to return to the city’s exploration of a draft ordinance to curb inappropriate paparazzi behavior in light of the exchanges between a local freelance journalist and the mayor and city attorney that continued long after the rest of the pages of this week’s issue of The News had been put to press. The City of Malibu has shot itself in the foot on policy issues as disparate as the poorly crafted Measure M and what may become the equally disastrous Legacy Park boondoggle. Its de facto paparazzi panel may be another.
If a local government ever needed transparency to save it from itself, the City of Malibu may be it. If the city wants to stop photographers from driving unsafely, blocking public walkways, or harassing children near schools, the laws are already on the books. The state Paparazzi Act, traffic and trespass laws, and child endangerment measures are there for the enforcement. The city should put the legal system to work and leave the First Amendment alone.
I have been equally forthright in my concern that the man who turned the Clinton family foibles into a national pastime, nurturing the worst of prurient celebrity fascination, and turned an Alaskan teenager’s harmless prank banner of “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” into a repressive curb on young voices is not the person to steer Malibu’s public policy on the media.
If free speech and communication cannot flourish unfettered, even if immature or tasteless by traditional norms, at our institutions of learning, how can we develop a citizenry unafraid to speak up when the emperor has no clothes, starts a war without cause, or cripples an economy on behalf of the favored few? My fear is a Starr Chamber would extend those Alaskan free speech curbs to press and non-press alike.
Malibu does not need non-committees of unnamed experts selected by unknown criteria. Governmental secrecy is the watchword of those who would dictate to others in their own self-interest.

Malibu Chumash Village to Host Klamath Riverkeeper Event

• Local Groups Join Ranks with Organizations Seeking Removal of Four Dams

BY ANNE SOBLE

The activist group Ventura Coastkeeper is hosting a fundraiser on Saturday at the Nicholas Canyon County Park Chumash village to support a sister environmental organization’s fight to remove four dams and restore one of the state’s great rivers, the Klamath.
According to the event’s organizers, “At stake are the traditional cultures of California’s three largest Native American tribes as well as the state’s commercial and sport salmon fisheries.”
Mati Waiya, who is the head of Ventura Coastkeeper and a member of the Chumash tribe in the area, has spearheaded local cooperation with Klamath Riverkeeper.
Waiya says, “It’s important that we support one another’s struggles because all things and all struggles for justice are connected.”
He adds that is why he is working with the international Waterkeeper Alliance to launch a Tribal Waterkeepers program.
Klamath Riverkeeper’s objective is to convince PacifiCorp, which is overseen by Warren Buffet, to remove four dams on the Klamath River that have reportedly led to dramatic declines in the salmon population, as well as massive blooms of toxic blue green algae.
According to Klamath Riverkeeper’s Regina Chichizola, “Buffet’s PacifiCorp is creating an ecological disaster and native people and commercial salmon fishermen are paying the price.”
Chichizola says this weekend’s event is important to help fund the group’s actions on “this critical concern, “Funds raised will help the Klamath Riverkeeper and the Karuk tribes’ actions to solve the Klamath crisis,” she said.
Recently, Klamath Riverkeeper, along with members of the Karuk, Yurok, and Hoopa tribes, disrupted Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, in an attempt to draw national attention to what is happening.
According to Chichizola, PacifiCorp is owned by Mid-American Energy, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway ,and Buffett is president and majority shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway.
Chichizola says, “We want Buffett and PacifiCorp to know that as long as there is no business as usual for salmon fisherman on the Klamath, there will be no business as usual for them either.”
The groups hope that additional political and economic pressure will come from environmentalists who do not want to see the river destroyed.
The event that will be held at Wishtoyo Foundation’s Chumash Village at Nicholas Canyon County Park will feature traditional songs and regalia from the local Chumash community and the Ohlone dancers, as well as performers from the Klamath River tribes.
Organizers say the highlight of the evening will be a dinner of traditional fire-roasted Klamath salmon.
“Once you have a taste of what could be lost, you quickly become a supporter of our struggle,” said Leaf Hillman of the Karuk Tribe.
The groups taking part in the event hope to raise $75,000 to support their campaign efforts, including the cost of experts to assist with a nuisance lawsuit against Buffett’s PacifiCorp that is now headed to trial.
The July 26 event is set for 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the site that features a reconstruction of a Chumash village and a spectacular view of the waters the Chumash people once traversed in numbers.
Donations to assist the Klamath campaign are requested.
Malibuites interested in attending the event can obtain additional information from Waiya at 805-794-1248, or Chichizola at 541-951-0126.

Malibu City Council Considers Cannabis Outlets

BY BILL KOENEKER

Will the Malibu City Council allow pot pharmacies within the city limits? That is the question that may be answered next week when the council considers a recommendation from its planning commission calling for allowing three medical marijuana dispensaries.
The council had approved several moratoriums on the facilities when it was learned there were no specific provisions in the city’s zoning code for permitted uses of such dispensaries after two started doing business in Malibu.
Despite a staff recommendation to prohibit the pot pharmacies in Malibu, the planning commission recommended an ordinance conditionally permitting up to three dispensaries within the city at one time in any commercial zoning district, subject to specific conditions.
The staff planner has another suggestion if the council follows the planning panel's recommendation. “In order to facilitate the three dispensary limit and ensure that existing dispensaries are given priority to those three permits, staff recommended a provision requiring that existing medical marijuana dispensaries obtain a conditional use permit within 90 days of adoption of the ordinance,” wrote Kathleen Mallory, a contract planner for the city.
Mallory, still pushing for a prohibition, prepared an alternative ordinance for the council to consider prohibiting the use or banning any new dispensaries within the city.
Consequently, Mallory is presenting the council with two recommendations, the planning commission’s, or hers, to ban pot pharmacies.
During the planning commission hearings, several experts, an attorney and various patients and their families came to urge the council to allow the pharmacies to continue to operate in the city.

Malibu City Council Decides to Litigate Overnight Camping Bid Override

• Challenges CCC Head’s Decision to Allow SMMC Plan

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin announced this week that the Malibu City Council, in closed session, unanimously directed her to initiate litigation against Peter Douglas, the executive director of the California Coastal Commission, over his decision to allow a Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Local Coastal Program Amendment override.
Later in the evening, Hogin said she would have the lawsuit served this week. “It is a pretty narrow legal question,” she said.
Douglas told the Malibu Surfside News he thought the litigation was a waste of taxpayers’ money. “It is a squandering of public resources. I wonder if the city council would be so free to spend the taxpayers’ money if it were their own,” Douglas said about the litigation.
The CCC head said the issue is clear to him, “The Coastal Act does provide for Coastal Commission review when there is a broader public interest that is denied by the local government.”
As for the city’s LCP amendment, Douglas said, “It is a waste of time. It is a non-starter.”
The announcement of the lawsuit overshadowed the agenda item later in the meeting when the council also unanimously agreed to adopt a resolution that finds that the SMMC park plan, which includes overnight camping, is not a type of development subject to the LCP override provisions, and reaffirmed the city’s LCP amendment pending before the state panel.
Hogin said the council’s vote on this item is as important as the litigation, since it is a parallel process to convince the Coastal Commission of the city’s actions.
Malibu’s reaction is a direct result of Douglas determining that a plan proposed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is eligible for an LCP amendment override that, in effect, would sidestep the city’s objections to the conservancy’s plan.
The SMMC plan calls for overnight camping facilities within park boundaries in Ramirez Canyon Park, Escondido Canyon Park and Corral Canyon Park, as well as a comprehensive program for acquiring land for and improving the Coastal Slope Trail and extensive use of facilities at the Ramirez Canyon location of the SMMC’s headquarters.
Hogin had already called Douglas’ decision extraordinary and accused the conservancy of employing what she referred to as “tactics” that try to bypass the city by seeking the override.
As is the case whenever public camping is an issue, there was nearly a standing-room-only crowd at the council meeting. Many of the speakers blasted Douglas and Joe Edmiston, the executive director of the SMMC, for their positions.
However, council members cautioned the public that personal attacks would not prove successful before the Coastal Commission.
“If you make personal attacks on Joe or Peter, they won’t work. Tell them you are afraid your house will burn down. That might work,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky.
Councilmember John Sibert agreed. “We have got to talk respectfully to the Coastal Commission. Personal attacks don’t work,” he said.
Mayor Pamela Conley Ulrich, who thanked her colleagues for approving litigation on the contentious matter said, “This is not about keeping people out of the mountains, it is about keeping fire out.”

Plea Bargain Efforts May Be Underway for Two of the Five Corral Fire Suspects

• Culver City Duo’s Complicity Seen as Separate Scenario

BY HANS LAETZ

A plea bargain may be in the works for two Culver City men who are accused of helping to set the Thanksgiving weekend Corral Fire that burned an estimated half billion dollars in property in Malibu.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed to postpone last Friday’s scheduled arraignment for the pair, Dean Allen Lavorante and Eric Matthew Ullman, because “talks” are being conducted on the case.
Attorneys would not be specifically quoted, but hinted that the case against these two men may be settled with a plea agreement this summer.
Lavorante and Ullman are described by prosecutors as the lesser perpetrators in the chain of events in which two groups of men crossed paths in a cave on the hot, windy night of Nov. 23, when gale-force, 90-degree winds were blowing towards Malibu.
The two Culver City men allegedly took their dates for a romantic bonfire in a notorious party cave at the northern end of Corral Canyon Road, overlooking the San Fernando Valley.
According to trial judge Michael Kellogg, who read a description of the arson investigation at an earlier court hearing, the Culver City men were in the cave with the women when Los Angeles residents Brian Allen Anderson, William Thomas Coppock, and Brian David Franks, arrived and kicked them out.
The three L.A. men are accused of getting drunk, adding cords of wood to the small bonfire, and then kicking burning logs down a cliff into heavy brush, as dry winds raked the area.
At the earlier bail hearing, Judge Kellogg said all five defendants should have known that open fire is prohibited in the fire-prone mountains, and that red flag broadcasts had been made for days before the fire broke out,
The judge, a Malibu resident, also noted that large signs prohibiting fire are located just down the road from the caves.
Kellogg had previously agreed with the Culver City men’s attorneys that the case against Lavorante and Ullman is different from the case against the three other men, who allegedly stoked the initial small fire into a raging inferno.
“There are two separate factual scenarios, I understand that very well,” the judge said last winter.
Lavorante’s lawyer, Ben Pesta II, has said the level of guilt for the two Culver City teens is much less than the other three. “At the very worst this was an act of incaution that had horrible consequences that everyone regrets,” he said.
Despite the varying levels of culpability, all five men are charged with the same crimes: recklessly causing a fire with great bodily injury, recklessly causing a fire to an inhabited structure, and arson during a declared emergency.
All three of those crimes are felonies, each carries a sentence of between 2-4 years in state prison.
All five men are free on bail or personal recognizance pending trial. Anderson, Coppock and Franks are scheduled to have their next court appearance Aug. 5, when a preliminary hearing date will be set.
At the preliminary hearing, the prosecutors will have to present enough evidence to a judge to warrant a trail.
If no plea agreement is reached with Lavorante and Ullman, they face arraignment Aug. 21.
As many as 55 houses in Corral, Latigo and Escondido canyons were gutted in the predawn fire Nov. 24. No official damages total has been released, but $513 million in claims have been presented by residents to government agencies.

City Council Delays Action on Malibu Pot Sales Law

• Planners Seek More Time to Study Thorny Matter

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council put off making any decision this week about allowing the operation of marijuana dispensaries in the municipality after the staff asked for more time.
The planning commission brushed aside planners’ calls for a complete ban on medical marijuana dispensaries and insisted on a recommendation for an alternative ordinance that would allow at least three cannabis outlets within city limits.
The planning panelists attached a number of conditions and performance standards to the limit of three that would be allowed.
The matter was scheduled to be heard this week by the council, but the staff is seeking until the end of the month in order to further analyze the alterative ordinance suggested by the commissioners and to recirculate environmental documents.

• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Wildlife and the State’s Fires: Sounds of Silence

BY ANNE SOBLE

Two weeks ago, the Malibu Surfside News was among those on the scene with a firsthand account of how the U.S. Coast Guard airlifted eight young condors that were not ready for release from their holding pen at Molera State Park in Big Sur to another shelter at Pinnacles National Monument as a wind-driven holocaust veered toward their quarters. They are safe but wildlife experts remain concerned about the 43 condors living in the wild in this area. Three chicks in nests within the ravaged burn zone are a top priority. It is now thought that one of the nests has burned. The danger is still so high and the access so constrained that it may be some time before an accurate evaluation of the birds’ status is completed. The more than two dozen mature condors that live in the Big Sur area are banded with transmitters that beam radio signals. Nearly another dozen are fitted with the latest GPS devices. Transmission from one of these was received from the Atascadero area, 100 miles away.
The condors are but one example of what the more than 1700 wildfires have done to the state’s wildlife population and habitat. Fire is a natural part of California’s overall ecosystem, and wildlife has learned to adapt to it and thrive from its benefits. But this year’s fires were so big and so hot that the wildlife toll is unprecedented. It will take years for burned wildlife habitat to heal. Reports of disoriented birds and animals and sightings of charred remains of the smallest to the largest of species abound. Some of the animals that did not die may have been forced into habitat that is not be as hospitable, or be subject to increased inter-species conflict. Fires denude the land of critical vegetation, even encasing the soil in a impenetrable crust. These conditions take time to heal.
Hundreds of years ago, the Chumash set small fires, “smokes,” in Malibu to cut back foliage to promote acorn gathering and access to small game. The chaparral burned lightly every dozen or so years, removing deadwood and enriching plants. Today’s fires are so super-fueled that they burn at intensities that the best-equipped firefighters are powerless to control. These fires are especially damaging to species that are few in number and location dependent. Steps must be taken to protect them, or the state’s wildlands will turn into wastelands devoid of the majesty that is California’s glorious natural heritage.

Archaeologist Challenges Malibu City Manager’s Perceptions on Access to Site

By E. Gary Stickel.
Principal Archaeologist for the Farpoint Site

I am in receipt of City Manager Jim Thorsen’s letter to Congressman Henry Waxman, dated June 9, 2008. I will assume his letter represents the official position that the City of Malibu is taking with regard to the Farpoint Archaeological Site (State of California Registered Site: CA-LAN-451).
He has misrepresented my position on the site issue and has other inaccuracies in his letter. So I will take this opportunity to set the record straight and again urge the city to preserve and protect this most important site. He states in his first sentence to Mr. Waxman, “…regarding Dr. E. Gary Stickel and his desire to gain access to a privately owned property in the City of Malibu in order to continue his investigation of the site.” And in his second paragraph he states: “Unfortunately, the City does not have the authority to grant Dr. Stickel access to this private property.”
My letter to Congressman Waxman (which precipitated his letter to the City to which he responded), did not mention at all any desire of mine to “gain access to…(the) property…” which he mentioned, but I did ask him “…if (he)…would be so kind to write a letter to the City of Malibu urging them to stop ignoring their civic duty and to take steps (any steps) to save this most important site…”
I have made it always clear to the City (in my previous correspondences with it) and in my recent lectures to the Citizens of Malibu and elsewhere such as at the Santa Barbara Natural History Museum, that my primary goals are to stop the piecemeal destruction of the Farpoint Site which the owner has been engaged in over the last year and a half and to preserve the site. I have photographs documenting those irresponsible site destructions. The issue is not about me versus the property owner. The issue is solely about the fact that the Farpoint Site needs protection and preservation, neither of which the City of Malibu is doing anything about. The city seems to have a callous disregard of the many site destructions that have been going on for the last year and a half and the city has done nothing to stop such irresponsible destructive behavior.
All parts of the Farpoint Site are significant and deserve protection. For example, if we were to find one human tooth, which could be associated with the Clovis Culture occupation at Farpoint, we could do DNA analysis of it to help establish which of two presently competing theories for the origin of America’s first inhabitants is valid. Who knows if that crucial piece of evidence has already been lost by the destructions that have occurred? But if the destructions continue unabated, it is certain that irretrievable evidence critical to the scientific understand of America’s first nation and to the world community by attempting to create this diversionary “smokescreen” of his created alleged issue that he says I want to “gain access” to the site—a smokescreen to keep the City of Malibu from addressing the real and main issue which is its responsibility to try to protect the site for all Americans. I am not obsessed with “gaining access” to the site on that owner’s property as he tries to imply. As a matter of fact, I have been contacted by two owners (neighbors to the property he mentioned in his letter) who probably have the Farpoint Site extending onto their parcels. They are appalled at the attitude of the owner of the above-mentioned property and the irresponsible stance of the City of Malibu, which has been permitting the destructions of the site without challenge. These other property owners have offered to allow me to excavate on their property because they are excited and proud to contribute to our Nation’s cultural heritage. So his manufactured issue of my allegedly wanting to “gain access” will not stand up to scrutiny and will not serve to divert concerned Citizens from the real issue: that the Farpoint Site needs to properly preserved and conserved.
He also states in his letter “We (the City) believe this is an issue that is best resolved between Dr. Stickel and the property owner.” And he also states “…it is incumbent upon Dr. Stickel to compel the property owner to allow entry to the property.” Again he misrepresents my position and his intent is clear to me that the city is trying to relegate the issue to just “a petty dispute” between the two parties, rather than the real issue that the City of Malibu must do the responsible, right thing and be proactive and assume its responsibility to protect the cultural resources within the city’s jurisdiction—and in particular the Farpoint Site, the most significant and important of its cultural resources discovered to date.
He also states, incorrectly in my opinion, that “The owners of the property have met all of the City of Malibu’s legal requirements for archeology review.” The owner of the subject property terminated my team’s services before the Monitoring Report (with its final mitigation recommendations) could be completed. The city therefore, as far as I’ve been informed, has not had the property owner complete the final part of the Mitigation Report (with the Monitoring Report addendum). The city is in legal breach of conduct by not requiring this formalized process to be completed—as it has required for many other homebuilders in Malibu. The City of Malibu, in my opinion, has not complied with its own legal requirements for such projects, to wit: “City Municipal Code Chapter 17.54:The intent of these provisions is to avoid the damage to or destruction of important cultural resources within the city.”
Also under 17.54.020: “For the purposes of this chapter… ‘Important cultural resource’ may include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Has a special quality such as older, best example…etc.”
For as he should know, Farpoint has yielded the oldest archaeological dates for the City of Malibu and is the only Clovis Culture site identified within the City Limits. Furthermore, the City of Malibu General Plan states: The city shall identify, designate, protect and preserve areas, sites (of) historic (and) cultural…or archaeological significance.” And: “The City shall avoid the destruction or alteration of cultural resources.”
In addition, the Honorable Milford Wayne Donaldson, State Historic Preservation Officer, regarding the Farpoint Site, has just informed me:
“There are no restrictions placed upon a private property owner with regard to normal use…However, a project that may cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of a registered property may require compliance with local ordinances of the California Environmental Quality Act.”
Given all the recent site area destructions to the Farpoint Site, I fail to see how the city is in legal compliance as he says it is. Why has the City failed in its legal obligations to the Farpoint Site? Perhaps he is personally unaware (but the City of Malibu is aware) that Dr. Dennis Stanford, Chief Archaeologist at our National Museum, in his astute letter about the Farpoint Site stated:
“…the (Farpoint) site is extremely important… Hence the site is of national significance and requires an interdisciplinary research program and protection.”
Why has the City of Malibu ignored this significant recommendation from our National Museum? Also, state Historic Preservation Officer Milford Wayne Donaldson stated in his letter to the City of Malibu of October 6, 2006:
“I would encourage the City of Malibu to please give careful consideration to the preservation of this unique archaeological resource.”
Why has our state’s preservation officer been ignored by the City of Malibu?
Furthermore, the State of California’s Native American Heritage Commission stated in its letter to the City of Malibu of November 21, 2006:
“The discovery of the Clovis point at this site has statewide as well as national significance: it is the farthest west in the United States that there has been such a find…The Commission recommends to the City of Malibu that consideration be given (for) ‘avoidance’ as defined in 15370 of the CEQA guideline when significant cultural resources are discovered…”
Why has the state’s Native American Heritage Commission been ignored by the City of Malibu?
Moreover, Dr. Jerry Howard, the Curator of Archaeology for the new Arizona Museum of Natural History wrote to the City of Malibu in July 2007:
“I still urge the Malibu City Council to do everything in their power to protect and preserve this important site.”
Dr. Howard as well as colleagues and institutions around the nation all see what the right thing to do is. Why has the City of Malibu ignored all these top-level recommendations?
Two federal agencies have stepped in to help in the effort to document and preserve the Farpoint Site: the Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation’s radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Arizona. Why has the City of Malibu ignored all recommendations to get it to do the right thing and try to protect what’s left of the site (even if it doesn’t at present have, as it claims, the legal authority to do so)? The City of Malibu could at least send a letter to the owner of the property urging that all site area destructions cease and that the owner be a responsible custodian of the most important cultural resource in the City of Malibu.
The City of Malibu needs to comply with all the national and state institutions that have urged the right course of action regarding the Farpoint Site.
I urge Mr. Thorsen to do the right thing and urge the city to allow him to send a letter to the owner urging responsible custodianship of the Farpoint Site and a revised letter should be sent to Congressman Waxman, a letter that present and future citizens of Malibu will value as “doing the right thing” about this most ancient site in the city. If we don’t do right by the past, how can we do right by the future?

Malibu Says Conservancy Is Sidestepping City on Override

• Attorney Disagrees with Coastal Commission Action

BY BILL KOENEKER

The move to employ what Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin calls a “tactic” to sidestep the city’s objections to overnight camping and other measures in a Local Coastal Program amendment by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy was facilitated by what Hogin describes as an “extraordinary decision” granted by Peter Douglas, the executive director of the California Coastal Commission.
The city council is scheduled to meet on the matter at its regular meeting next Monday night.
The sometimes scathing comments of the city attorney are contained in a recently released staff report by Hogin that takes aim indirectly at SMMC head Joe Edmiston and Douglas.
In what everyone agrees is a “complicated matter,” the SMMC applied for what is called an override to the city’s LCP amendment that Hogin charges allows the city’s document to be amended as “the conservancy desires and over the city’s objections.”
The SMMC plan calls for overnight camping facilities within park boundaries in Ramirez Canyon Park, Escondido Canyon Park and Corral Canyon Park, comprehensive program for acquiring and improving the Coastal Slope Trail and extensive uses at Ramirez Canyon Park at the SMMC’s headquarters.
Hogin indicated the commission staff informed the city that the conservancy had applied for an LCP override and that the commission staff had made a preliminary determination that the SMMC proposed development is subject to the override procedure.
Hogin said she sent a letter to the CCC staff objecting to the preliminary determination.
The city attorney writes in her report the SMMC has made several attempts to put through a plan sidestepping the municipality, such as “using the Public Works Plan and not an LCP amendment or Coastal Development Plan, the conservancy believed it had charted a course to project approvals that avoided the city almost entirely.”
The city, on the other hand, wants the SMMC to employ the mechanism of an LCP amendment so Malibu “would be able to assume the role reserved in the Coastal Act for local government with respect to the sort of planning contemplated by the substance of the conservancy’s proposal.”
The city attorney goes on about the compromises reached by both the state agency and city when Edmiston elected to go before the city for an LCP amendment.
In an understatement, Hogin notes that the conservancy was “dissatisfied with certain modifications that the city council made.” Edmiston was furious, showed it at the meeting and told the city council members so. He accused municipal officials of reneging on a tentative deal between SMMC and city officials.
Hogin indicates that with the SMMC “unhappy with the proposed LCP amendment and unwilling to allow the statutory public process to run its full course, the conservancy employs a tactical maneuver and requests an LCP override.”
The city attorney accuses the conservancy of abandoning the public review process of the LCP amendment “before it has concluded.”
She goes on to accuse the conservancy of disregarding the modifications made by the city, which “developed from the extensive public review process.”
Edmiston counters that he believes it was the conservancy that had made the compromises and then the city council wanted more when it made additional modifications to the LCP amendment, eliminating overnight camping and immensely reducing the number of events that could be held at SMMC’s headquarters at Ramirez Canyon Park.

Planning Commission to Rehear the La Paz Project

• Wastewater System Update Is Cause

BY BILL KOENEKER

In a somewhat unprecedented move, the Malibu Planning Commission is being asked to rehear the proposed La Paz shopping center and office complex planned for the Civic Center area at its Aug. 5 meeting.
Last January, the commission adopted recommendations approving a permit for the construction of a 99,117-square-foot commercial office and retail complex, but turned down an alternate plan, including a development agreement that would have allowed an 112,058- square-foot project that would have included a donation of land for a new 20,000-square-foot city hall along with a cash payment to the city for use toward the construction of the new city hall.
According to a city planner, the applicant submitted a new wastewater collection, treatment and reuse system for the projects, “which is materially different than the previously reviewed onsite wastewater treatment system.”
The new system has been reviewed and incorporated into the final environmental impact report.
The purpose of the public hearing, according to a municipal planner, is to obtain recommendations for the city council on the revised project.
The makeup of the planning panel has changed since the matter was last heard with new Commissioners Jeff Jennings, John Mazza and Ed Gillespie on board. Panelist Regan Schaar was the only dissenting vote on both projects during the last hearing, saying she did not want to recommend any project given the objections of the water district to the then current plans and complaints by the neighbors about view issues.
The projects planned for over a dozen years seemed to encounter smooth sailing until a second hearing by the commission when hundreds of Malibuites showed up, many in favor of the proposals.
During the final hearing, the water district came forward objecting to the approval of the Environmental Impact Report and urging the commission not to approve the requests because of an inadequate water supply.
After the commission’s recommendation of approval of the smaller project, there was much discussion about if the former council should hear the proposal or if the hearing should be delayed until the newly-elected council could weigh in on the projects.
The former council agreed to allow the newly-installed council to hear the matter. That was the plan until the sudden shift in direction. Neither council discussed sending the matter back to the planning commission.
The application has been treated differently than most. Planners and apparently the city attorney decided to initially have the planning commission hear the matter, but make only recommendations, despite having the jurisdiction over the smaller project, but not the larger, which it could not do, because of the proposed development agreement that only the council can approve—there was and is no reason that the commission could not exercise its quasi-judicial authority and vote thumbs up or down on the permits before them for the smaller project. Why the commissioners themselves have not publicly discussed relinquishing their authority remains unclear.

$295 Million College Bond Measure Set for Ballot

BY BILL KOENEKER

The board of trustees of the Santa Monica Community College District approved a measure Monday night calling for a bond election on Nov. 4, asking the voters to approve $295 million for safety and modernization of college campus facilities.
If approved by the electorate, the $295 million bond money would go to replace deteriorating buildings, construct, equip and modernize math and science buildings, and include funding for the Malibu High School Library and educational improvements.
Santa Monica improvements include renovation or replacement of Corsair Stadium, the replacement of the math and science extension building and replacement of health/PE/fitness/dance building among many other improvements.
While a needs assessment is being undertaken, the SMC staff identified a possible joint-use learning center for Santa Monica College, Malibu High School and Malibu Middle School. College staff and the school district staff have been meeting to discuss this concept. Meetings of users from the two agencies are ongoing.
The ballot language from Measure S previously approved by the voters in November 2004 committed $25 million to Malibu and requires an assessment prior to making improvements in Malibu for an instructional facility, according to a college district staff report.
The needs assessment is being conducted in three phases, an inventory of resources, now underway, several public workshops to be moderated by John Jalili, the former city manager of Santa Monica and former interim city manager of Malibu with the assistance of Gensler architectural firm and a community survey conducted by mail and online.
The Malibu area of the district includes the unincorporated area of Malibu in addition to the city. The Malibu portion of the college district is roughly contiguous with the 90265 zip code and includes Pepperdine University.
The inventory of resources will result in a database of existing educational, cultural, recreational, health, career training, community and related services and resources in the Malibu portion of the college district.
This phase of the work is expected to be completed in August. Jalili was hired, on a consultant’s basis, by the board on Monday night and the first workshops are planned for late summer, according to the staff report.
At the same time, citing the increased burden of additional stormwater and wastewater that would be generated by a new Santa Monica College educational center planned for the Malibu Civic Center, the board also approved a $2.5 million payment for improvements to Legacy Park sought by the City of Malibu.
The trustees had already paid the city earlier $2.5 million in bond proceeds for the acquisition of the Legacy Park property.
The action authorizes another $2.5 million in bond proceeds to be used for a treatment facility.

County Moves to Extend 55-mph Speed Limit to More of Kanan Road

• Increased Speeds Could Have Impact on Wildlife as Well as Motorists on Mountain Route

BY HANS LAETZ

County road engineers have agreed that having two different speed limits in either direction for the same stretch of any road is confusing, and have raised the maximum speed to 55 miles per hour on all of Kanan Dume Road from Mulholland Highway down to Malibu.
But the National Park Service says it was not consulted about the move, which likely increases the danger to mountain lions and other animals of getting hit by vehicles on the high-speed route traversing the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
And, as if to inaugurate the new legal speeds, a motorcyclist was flown to a hospital in a helicopter Sunday afternoon after he pulled out from a stop sign and collided with a van in the new 55 zone. Investigators would not go so far, however, as to blame high speed for the wreck.
Last week, new 55 signs were posted on all segments of the 5.3 miles of Kanan-Dume from Mulholland Highway south to the Malibu city limits, a section of roadway that the county’s engineer says has a lower accident rate than similar twisting routes with steep grades.
Department of Public Works engineer Paul Barbe said statistics show Kanan-Dume to have a reported accident rate of .46 wrecks per million vehicle miles driven, much lower than a rate of 1.82 crashes that would be considered normal on a similar road.
“The 85th percentile speed is by state law the speed that is considered reasonable and prudent, and when we review speed limits we are required to survey the road and we determine what is reasonable and prudent,” Barbe said.
But what may be prudent for drivers can be deadly for animals, and the National Park Service says it wasn’t consulted about the change, even though the road bisects a federal park. “Given the choice from a wildlife standpoint, slower speeds are better because drivers can be more vigilant and have more reaction time,” said science chief Ray Sauvajot at the local National Park Service headquarters.
High-speed vehicles killed two mountain lions in recent years, both on Malibu Canyon-Las Virgenes Road. “And people should know there are mountain lions right now in Zuma and Trancas canyons, right next to this road.
“Our biggest concern is that carnivores like mountain lions, cougars and coyotes get hit in greatest propensity along roads that draw highway speeds and traffic volumes in wild areas, like Kanan-Dume,” he said.
But the parks ranger is not sure if any federal or state wildlife laws were broken, as he had just learned of the higher speed from a reporter.
“We are not really a regulatory agency, and if we had been consulted, we would have said it is not a good thing for the wildlife issue,” he said.
The 55 zones replace the old 50-mile-an-hour limits that had been in effect for decades on the route, which includes tunnels and an eight-percent downgrade as the route drops 1600 feet in elevation from Mulholland to Malibu. They also modify the situation that existed for a month where the road had 50 mph north/55 mph south limit on one section, and the reverse on another, a condition that Barbe said “was confusing and counter-intuitive.
“We shouldn’t have speed limits that are different northbound from southbound on any road,” the engineer noted.
Although some tight curves on the new 55-mph section have recommendation signs as low as 35 mph, Barbe said the yellow warnings are “comfort speeds” for people in standard sedans. The traffic engineer said he is “comfortable” with the existing sight lines at the several intersections in the curving road, including the Mulholland Highway crossing.
At that intersection Sunday, a westbound motorcyclist pulled out from the stop sign in front of a van going north in the new 55 zone that was driven by an off-duty firefighter. The cycle hit the side of the van, throwing the biker to the pavement.
“He had cuts, bruises and was in considerable pain” as he was loaded into a county fire helicopter for a trip to the hospital, said CHP officer Mike Joslin. No citations were issued, and Joslin said the speed of the van was known.
Kanan Road north of Mulholland, which still has a 50-mph limit, is being evaluated for higher legal speeds, said Barbe.
The road is under jurisdiction of the county Department of Public Works. Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s office had no comment on the speed limit.
The City of Malibu’s existing 50 mph at the bottom of the hill remains in effect, although the first 50 sign for downhill travelers is a quarter-mile into the city, past a curve.

• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Malibu Wildfire: More Ready than Not

BY ANNE SOBLE

The brushfire at Mulholland and Las Virgenes on the Fourth of July was as routine as a fire can be in the unpredictable urban-wildland interface, but the swift and ample response of personnel and equipment was reassuring in the face of the extraordinarily incendiary conditions statewide. Even with some local forces assisting neighbors to the north, just as they would assist us if circumstances were the reverse, there were several hundred personnel marshalable to instantly squelch the makings of an inferno if it had gotten out of control. In addition to some 225 crew members, there were 27 engines, four helicopters, eight patrols, two backup trucks, four paramedic squads, nine camp crews, two water tenders, a hazmat crew, five battalion chiefs, one assistant chief and one deputy chief.
This response is indicative of the state of ground readiness in which the county fire department intends to remain for some time. In addition to the ground forces, there are 10 aircraft in the county’s air arsenal. The Fire Hawks and the Bells, the workhorses of the county helicopter fleet, are kept available and ready to go around the clock.
Still, more is better. In the case of specialized aircraft, much better. The SuperScoopers aren’t here yet, since their contract is based on the archaic notion of an end-of-year fire season. Los Angeles County doesn’t bring in these Canadian fire-swallowers until the fall. The Erickson Air-Crane helitanker is not here either, as it is on the same schedule. Until the Board of Supervisors accepts the responsibility for acquiring this equipment year-round, fire preparedness is incomplete. Yes, these craft cost money, and the county is cash-strapped, but compare the numbers to the toll of a raging wildfire.
Though they are still fledgling, there are private efforts underway to solicit private funding to assure the year-round presence of major air artillery for firefighting. The hope is that donors might contribute to firefighting as they contribute to medical research, in order to make a major contribution to society. For now, it’s difficult to listen to officials talk about fire season, even though the calendar makes a mockery of the concept. Fire is a year-round game of ready-or-not. Malibu is more ready than not, but can never be too ready.

School Board Announces Selection of Interim Superintendent

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

After several weeks of interviews, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education has at last decided on an interim superintendent.
The board is scheduled to approve the appointment of Tim Cuneo as interim superintendent of the district at its meeting on Thursday, July 10.
Cuneo replaces Dianne Talarico, who accepted a position in Northern California last month.
Some observers were surprised by the board’s decision to import another superintendent—Cuneo is from San Jose, and has spent years working for Silicon Valley area school districts.
Talarico, brought in from Ohio to head the SM-MUSD, stayed barely two years before moving on to the Bay Area, where she had previously taught for over 20 years—rather than select a more local candidate.
However, the board, in an official press release, states that “Cuneo brings extensive experience in all aspects of K-12 education, including student achievement, curriculum development, governance, budget management, and community relations.”
“After hearing from parents, assessing our needs, and interviewing four highly qualified former superintendents, we are thrilled to offer the interim superintendent position to Tim,” said Board President Oscar de la Torre.
“As the district continues to provide excellent education for its students, Mr. Cuneo’s experience will be a critical and strategic part of our plan to strengthen governance, improve special education, and implement school construction plans as outlined in Measure BB. He brings extensive background in board protocol, policy development, and team building, which will deliver an immediate benefit to our district.”
The board has indicated that it hopes to have a permanent superintendent in place by the start of next year.

New Policies on Firefighting Announced at Town Hall

• Authorities Emphasize Need for Personal Preparedness and Self-Reliance during Crises

BY BILL KOENEKER

While over a thousand fires burned in North­ern California, Malibu res­idents came together with fire officials, city personnel and other governmental representatives to talk about fire safety in the aftermath of the three local fires last year.
Homeowners learned that some changes have already been implemented while firefighters and authorities prepare for the next probable disaster.
Los Angeles County Chief P. Michael Freeman announced that water-dropping helicopters will now automatically be dispatched at night to fight fires. He ex­plained in the past it was a decision made on a selective basis. Freeman said fixed wing craft would still be relegated to flying only during daylight hours.
The fire chief also announced that there will be increased pre-deployment of firefighters. “Fire­fighting response is much of a race,” he said, as he explained how high winds and exceptionally dry vegetation created flying em­bers that managed to get ahead of the fire line and burn homes.
Freeman showed video clips of the two most recent Malibu fires that demonstrated how flying em­bers sometimes ignited ornamental vegetation, thereby dooming some homes to ashes. “Orna­mental plants can be a major contributor,” he noted.
Besides the emphasis on brush clearing, Freeman said it is equally important to look at structures to determine if there are small openings where embers can lodge during a firestorm.
Freeman, as well as city officials and the sheriff, emphasized that lives are the top priority.
Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich, who had spearheaded the town hall, agreed. “Property can be re­placed, people cannot,” she said.
Conley Ulich was blunt about how residents should respond, “Trust in self reliance, you cannot depend on the government.”
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca emphasized there were at least four things that needed to be done better. “We must get better at mass communication, re­stricting access in hazardous ar­eas, protection of utilities and have an evacuation plan,” he said.
Baca also talked about mandatory evacuation. “We do not issue orders arbitrarily. What if you stay? We do not have time to make arrests, but we prefer you leave. If you do stay, you will be in a closure. You may need supplies for two to four days. At the end of the closure, shops may still be closed. If you leave, fire and police will not let you back in,” he added.
The city’s emergency prepar­edness coordinator, Brad Davis, said the city began immediately to change things after the lessons learned during the fire.
He said the notification system has been upgraded. The survival guide is finished and mailed out. “We will have more Red Cross shelters,” he added.
Davis introduced a local resident who has spearheaded neighborhood plans. Cindy Vandor of Malibu West spoke about how the canyon subdivision has become cognizant of grants and help that can be obtained from various outside agencies.
She said the neighbors want to make sure the edge of the subdivision that is surrounded by wildlands is clear of vegetation, and that residents understand the need for an adequate water supply.

Sheriff Baca Urges Local EOC Facility But County Has Other Plans

BY BILL KOENEKER

To thunderous applause, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca told the crowd at last week’s town hall meeting that he wants to bring a state-of-the-art emergency operations center training facility and policing station to the old Malibu sheriff’s station.
“It is a very exciting concept,” seconded Captain Tom Martin of the Lost Hills Sheriff’s station. “To have an actual training facility in this area.”
The law enforcement representatives talked about how the training campus proposed for the station closed in 1991 would have access to the radio relay tower, heliport and fuel pumps already in place. It would consist of two classrooms and the EOC.
Martin said the office space might also be used by the Cali­fornia Highway Patrol or the fire department.
Martin made the case that while Malibu is a safe community, more that 43 percent of the ar­rests in the Lost Hills jurisdiction occur in Malibu. He said a local substation would re­duce travel time for officers and the public.
Baca talked about how disaster personnel would benefit from being in a perfect location for training because of the geographic features and the fact that there are 50 percent more disasters than anywhere else in the county.
But what wasn’t discussed is that the building is owned by the county and its use is determined by the board of supervisors. And currently, the board is in negotiations with Santa Monica College to sell the building for its use.
Baca had made it clear months ago that he was displeased with any other county plans for utilizing the station for anything but law en­forcement.
However, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who said he did not want to engage in any war of words with Baca, confirmed that the county owns the building and any disposition of the property is determined by the board of supervisors.
Yaroslavsky indicated that the county is proceeding with sale of the property and negotiations have reached a breakthrough. “We are ac­tively negotiating with the college. I personally have spoken with the president of the college. We are looking at preserving some space for a substation,” said Yaros­lavsky, who added the plans for acquiring the property call for tearing down the building.
The supervisor said the first time anyone in the county heard about the sheriff’s plans for an EOC in the complex is when they read about it in the Malibu Surfside News.
“Nobody was consulted. Neither myself, the chief executive officer, the fire department. The EOC training center came out of left field. It does not make sense to have a fixed EOC in various regions. We have an EOC in East Los Angeles. You have got to be mobile in places liked Malibu and Santa Clarita. You can’t be a prisoner of a fixed asset. That is why we spend thousands of dollars on vans, trucks and other mobile units,” he said.
The supervisor indicated he believes it will be no more than two months before a sales deal is finalized and a term sheet brought back to the board. “The voters have said they wanted a college. The county, the city and the college have been working on this,” he said.

Young White Shark Drops By Malibu for Six-Day Visit

• Juvenile Male Placed in Point Dume Holding Pen Decided the Menu Wasn’t to His Liking

BY ANNE SOBLE

A juvenile white shark that was accidentally caught by a commercial fisherman last Tuesday spent six days in the Monterey Bay Aquarium holding pen at Paradise Cove before being released into the ocean on Sunday.
The shark, a young-of-the-year shark—that’s a shark less than 12 months old—measured four-foot, nine inches in length.
First described by an MBA spokes­person as navigating well in the pen, the shark was offered food—primarily mackerel caught locally by the field team. White sharks this age are fish-eaters.
Ken Peterson of MBA said the staff usually makes a decision on whether to tag and release a shark from the pen, or bring it to Mon­terey as a candidate for temporary exhibit, within two to three weeks of the time it is put in the pen.
But this shark was not swimming as well in confinement as the MBA staff wanted, and hadn’t eaten any of the fish put out for him. Even though it was possible the shark was eating schools of baitfish swimming in the pen, they could not quantify his intake.
Peterson said, “The evaluation of the folks in the field, supported by our white shark team in Mon­terey and our veterinarian, was it was in the best interests of the animal to tag him and release him back to the wild.”
In addition to the young male released last weekend, MBA re­search colleagues have field-tagged and released three other juvenile white sharks since the Memorial Day weekend.
MBA began the white shark field research program in 2002 and brought three animals to the aquarium for periods up to six months in 2004, 2006 and 2007. All three were tagged and re­turned to the wild.
The tag on the most recent re­lease, in February of this year, just popped off about halfway up the Sea of Cortez. The data from the tag is being analyzed for information about depths and water temperatures during the shark’s travels.
A second tag, that reports only his approximate position, is still on the shark and will transmit for another couple of months until the battery runs out.
Scientists at the aquarium indicate a preference for calling the animals white sharks rather than use the popular term great white shark in order to downplay the sensationalism of the commercial demonization of the species.