Council Denies Appeal of Trancas Park OK and Moves It Ahead

• Residents Concerned about Heavy Grading Had Urged that Hilltop Ridge be Spared

BY BILL KOENEKER

Despite pleas to “Save Trancas Ridge,” the Malibu City Council, on a 3-2 vote, denied appeal of planning commission approval of plans and permits for Trancas Park. Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner dissented.
The planning commission had approved the plans and permits for the park, which include a multi-use sports practice field, a dog park, a tot lot, parking spaces for 64 cars and 126,000 cubic yards of grading for the seven-acre park on a 13.6 acre site along Trancas Canyon Road.
Conley Ulich said she wants to see the park built, but wants to find out if the ridgeline, where critics say caves and rock outcroppings support wildlife, could be saved and not destroyed.
“I can’t support [denying the appeal]. I would like to have more information,” she said.
Many of the critics suggested the council consider an alternative, but some council members brushed that idea aside.
“I think you people who said they wanted an alternative do not really know the alternative,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who said the other choices offered more grading and retaining walls than the current design. Barovsky added that she thought that after the ridgeline was shaved down, it would look better than what currently exists. “You will probably have a more spectacular view,” she said, to which the audience loudly shouted, “No.”
Councilmember John Sibert, who was the swing vote, said he would support the park, but with some contingencies. “But I am not happy about it,” he said. Sibert said the massive grading gave him heartburn.
Critics of the park had shifted the focus from how much grading to what would be graded, and many Malibu West neighbors said the destruction of a ridgeline where the dog park and tot lot were planned was objectionable and should be stopped.
The controversy swirling around the park seemed to have escalated in the last few weeks, as critics became more vociferous in their complaints.
Council members said they had received several dozen emails each, and a DVD. The Save the Ridge campaign even posted a YouTube video.
The heightened emotional level of the controversy was evident Monday night when posters were swirled, and tee-shirts with slogans were worn. Audience members, who waved cards that said “Save the Ridge,” were chastised more than once when they cheered during public testimony. Mayor Andy Stern told them to wave their hands rather than make noise.
Wagner singled out one email he said broke the decorum of the council’s office. He said the e-mail was from Mona Loo, a longtime Barovsky political campaign organizer and community activist.
A copy of the email obtained by the Malibu Surfside New read, “Dear Councilmembers, If you don’t vote in support of Trancas Park, we’re going to come and make yellow circles on your lawn.” It was signed, “Yours drooly, Cindy and Honey Loo.”
Loo, who has spearheaded the campaign for a dog park, apologized for the communication and said it was meant as a joke.
Supporters expressed dismay that, so late in the game, critics were attempting to jeopardize the future of the park after 10 years, 27 public meetings and hearings before the planning commission and city council.
Mike Matthews expressed that concern when he told the council. “I am wildly in favor of the park. I’m afraid any delays will not be short delays. They might be terminal,” he said.
The mayor said the opposition’s talking points crystallized for him when he heard critics said they were for the park, “not just this one, or they supported the park, but somewhere else.”
“These are code words. That is a code word for no,” said Stern.
His reaction was to numerous individuals who insisted they had supported the park all along until the information was revealed about how much grading was planned. The park plans call for 126,000 cubic yards of grading, or as one speaker said, “That is 126 times more than the city’s legal limit.”
Malibu attorney Frank Angel said he represented appellants Robert Belvin and Mark Davis. Angel was insistent that the council order the preparation and circulation of a revised Draft Environmental Impact Report.
“The significant new information is contained among other things, in the grading plan review report,” Angel said.
Angel ticked off a laundry list of technical information that was either incorrect or incomplete. “The final EIR for the project is fundamentally and basically inadequate as an information disclosure document,” added Angel.
What new items the council did add to the park plans were recommendations from the Malibu West Homeowners Association.
Those conditions include no smoking, closing the park on red flag days, added security measures, noise mitigation measures, specific park hours, no amplified music, and no special events, among other conditions. The staff was directed to bring back the revised resolution for council scrutiny.

Corral Residents There in Force as First Fire Defendent Sentenced

• Turnout Sends Strong Message that They Now Expect to Play a Part in the Legal Process

BY ANNE SOBLE

The first of the five men charged with contributing to the start of the November 2007 Corral Canyon wildfire was sentenced last Thursday to five years probation and 300 hours of community service.
Although some of the residents who lost their homes in the devastating blaze contend that Brian David Franks’ sentence is much too light, the fire victims attribute that to the plea bargain having been negotiated before they got involved in the legal process.
The 28-year-old’s plea deal requires him to testify against two other Los Angeles men deemed most culpable for the wildfire that claimed 53 homes, dozens of other structures and resulted in several firefighter injuries.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney charges that Brian Alan Anderson, 23, and William Thomas Coppock, 24, as well as Franks, expanded an illegal campfire started by two Culver City men, Eric Matthew Ullman, 19, and Dean Allen Lavorante, 20, in a known party cave on state property at the top of Corral.
Alcohol containers, food wrappers and bundled firewood were traced to the suspects. Reports of other participants having contacted authorities have circulated but have not been substantiated.
The two Culver City men have been charged separately. The preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence for them to stand trial is scheduled for this Thursday, Feb. 26.
Arraignment for Anderson and Coppock is currently set for Monday, March 2, but may be delayed because Anderson has a new attorney. Prior discussion of a trial by early summer may be precluded by the counsel change.
The Franks legal team has contended from the start that his degree of responsibility was less than that of his companions because he tried to put the fire out. Corral residents counter that he did not call 911 to report that the wildfire had begun to spiral out of control when he left the scene.
The terms of the sentencing by Judge Leslie Dunn were negotiated by Deputy District Attorney Ann Ambrose, who some residents are starting to publicly criticize for not having involved the fire victims as is now mandated by Prop 9 passed last November.
Almost three dozen Corral residents attended the hearing, many of them sharing their personal experiences during the Santa Ana wind-whipped blaze.
Dunn also ordered Franks to stay away from the Corral Canyon area unless he is doing mandated court-supervised fire abatement work, such as brush clearance. He is prohibited from using alcohol or drugs, and was ordered to pay legal costs and restitution still to be negotiated.
Beverly Taki, the coordinator of the Operation Recovery group now asserting itself as “Team Corral,” said, “This was the first of our battles on our way to victory. [Our] statements will let the Anderson and Coppock defense teams know that there is a strong mobilized team of residents ready and able to influence a jury.”
Taki indicated that she agrees with those who say “the sentencing of Franks was an insult and truly not in accord with the criminal actions and devastation that the fire caused to those Malibu families.’’ The OR spokesperson added, “I believe if the DA’s office had the foresight to contact any of the victims, they would not have agreed to this settlement.”
DDA Ambrose is scheduled to go on leave before any trial of Anderson and Coppock appears likely to take place. Judge Susan Speer is tentatively slated to handle the future proceedings.

City Council Wants More Time before Entering Morning View Traffic Fray

• Meeting to Try for a Broader Cross-Section of Opinions

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District experienced what some saw as a setback this week with its Malibu High School Measure BB improvement plans, when a traffic and safety plan for Morning View Drive that district consultants had helped craft with city staff was postponed by the Malibu City Council until March 23.
Responding to public pressure, the council decided not to hear the Morning View Drive traffic and parking item until it had an opportunity to obtain more input.
“I am going to do that,” Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said. “ There are a lot of kids here. I am going to move that it be continued for my own reasons,” she said, “But I hate to do that at the end of the evening and have everybody stay for no reason.”
“We have to stay,” quipped Mayor Andy Stern
“I received a lot of emails,” Barovsky said. “And I’ve actually talked to both sides on this. The one thing I find very troubling, obviously there is a horrible problem with traffic on Morning View, and I agree with that but the thing that bothers me is a group got together to solve the problem and they left out the other half and I think we need to get 50 percent of the people left out of 100 percent of the problem. You have a problem. I did check out the MPSC, Malibu Park Safety Coalition. As far as I know, [it] did not extend [an invitation] to the PTA and parents to come to their meetings and planning sessions.
“I want to continue this, not for a long time but a very brief time and I want to at least have a council member to sit in to hear because I’ve been told that there are other solutions. There has to be a solution up there, it may not be this solution,” Barovsky said. “Maybe it isn’t taking parking out. The parents also have to recognize that residents have problems. You can’t just ignore that. No solution is going to work when you’ve got 50 percent of people saying they hate this solution. It’s doomed to failure.”
The council agreed to direct staff to organize a meeting between MPSC, parents, students, the PTA, school officials, two members of the Youth Commission, Mayor Andy Stern and Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, and then to bring the matter back to the city council in a month.
The plan that was not considered included recommendations to install limited parking signs on the school side of Morning View Drive that would prohibit parking during pick-up and drop-off hours of 7-9 a.m. and 1:30-3:30 p.m.; increase law enforcement presence during pick-up and drop-off at the school, work with the school district to encourage students with permits to park on campus instead of on the street; send parking and circulation information to students and parents; work with the district to find alternate school parking options; and monitor short-term changes through the end of the year, with a provision to allocate up to $30,000 from the Undesignated General Fund Reserve.
Prior to the council meeting, school district Superintendent Tim Cuneo expressed optimism that the plan would help solve campus gridlock and safety problems.
“We’ve been working with the City of Malibu and the neighbors,” Cuneo told the board of education at its Feb. 19 meeting. “We believe we have resolution. The city is putting together an item to meet the interests of the neighborhood and the school.”
Two district-sponsored, Measure BB-funded workshops have focused exclusively on traffic and parking issues and have involved the services of a professional traffic consultant. Both meetings were attended by school officials and members of the public. The district has lauded the meetings as a positive example of community and school cooperation, in sharp contrast to the field lighting issue that the superintendent has called “contentious and divisive.”
Despite the publicized meetings, many parents expressed frustration in emails to the city council, stating that they had been unaware of the city’s plans, and had not been included in the process. Others had criticism for MPSC’s proposals, which were included in the city staff report. The MPSC position paper outlined concerns that included emergency vehicle access and the lack of a safe way for students to exit vehicles and enter the school, but the group stance upset some parents because it contained recommendations for limits on street parking and suggestions that students could walk to school from Pacific Coast Highway.
The staff report is available on the city Web site at www.ci.malibu.ca.us, the school district’s Measure BB improvement plans for Malibu High School are located on the district Web site at smmusd.org

Local School Board Formalizes Hiring of Superintendent

• Sizable Pay Increase for Top Job and Budget Cut Specifics Dominate Meeting

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The board of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District unanimously voted to appoint Tim Cuneo as permanent superintendent at its Feb. 19 meeting in Santa Monica. The vote took place during an emotionally charged session that included public comment from numerous parents, students, teachers, school nurses and concerned residents who had rallied in an attempt to avert the district’s first round of budget induced layoffs.
Cuneo was appointed interim superintendent in July of 2008, after the abrupt departure of Superintendent Dianne Talarico the previous month. Cuneo was initially expected to stay only until a permanent replacement could be found. The board instead decided to negotiate a permanent arrangement with Cuneo, who had received praise for his handling of several district issues, including the special education controversy, rather than attempt to start over with a new candidate.
Cuneo’s official appointment had been expected to take place at the Feb. 5 board meeting in Malibu. It was delayed because the contract was not yet ready. When the contract was finally released, it raised concerns with some community members when it was revealed to contain a nearly 35 percent pay increase over that of the previous superintendent.
“So why wasn’t the proposed contract posted online?” wrote Jim Jaffe, in a letter to the Malibu Surfside News. “Is there something about the $270,400 annual package ($220,000 salary; $38,400 for housing; and $12,000 for auto and cell phone) that the Board might find difficult justifying during hard times? What are the implications of the timing of this action when the district is currently in sensitive bargaining negotiations with both employee unions?”
The district confirms that Cuneo’s contract consists of an agreement to employ for a term starting Feb. 1, 2009 and ending July 31, 2011, and includes a package consisting of $220,000 per year, in addition to “standard fringe benefits” for health and welfare, disability insurance, vacation, sick and personal leave time, an automobile and phone allowance of $1000 per month and housing allowance of $3200 month.
“I don’t like what I see tonight,” Santa Monica resident Richard MacKinnon told the board at the start of the meeting. “I don’t enjoy that a general discussion of the budget comes after the action items, if you may or may not fire people, after you may or may not hire the superintendent, after you may or may not consider his contract in light of the dismissals that are coming on. That’s not the way to do it. I think the process has gone wrong. I think it’s a pity. What are you going to do to insist to keep the cuts away from the kids, from the instruction, the schools, and make the process conform to that desire rather than other way around?”
“People will talk about tough times, we’ll continue to talk about those tonight,” board President Ralph Mechur said, defending the district’s salary agreement with Cuneo. “In some sense it’s ‘oh well, it’s tough times.’ We have to do our work; we have to do good work. We have to be careful, we have to be really careful about the decisions we make. One of the most important decisions we can make is in having a superintendent who will guide us through these tough times.”
The board, which received harsh criticism from the teachers union for excluding them from the decision-making process when Talarico was selected as superintendent in 2006, promised transparency and a higher degree of community input when it began the search for a replacement for Talarico last year. Mechur explained the board’s rational in moving forward with Cuneo’s appointment without continuing the search for an outside candidate as “the decision we had to make when Mr. Cuneo was brought on as interim superintendent was whether the intention was to move forward with a process which would have been open, more a public process, for finding a permanent superintendent and that would have taken through the remainder of this year.”
Mechur described Cuneo as someone “who has gotten to know the community, is respected by the community, someone who has brought the district back together, and will provide a foundation to move ahead in these difficult times.”
Board member Ben Allen expressed enthusiasm for Cuneo’s appointment but recommended that the board make important documents like the superintendent’s contract available to the public in advance in the interest of transparency.
“We were in trouble when [Cuneo] came on board,” board member Maria Leon Vazquez said, adding that she has seen four superintendents come and go during her time on the board of education. “It’s been a long two years. I don’t know if there’s anyone else out there who could have hit the ground running.”
“[Cuneo] is willing to listen, adjust, work collaboratively. He’s someone who can lead,” Board member Oscar de la Torre said, describing the superintendent’s pay package as something that “keeps our district competitive.”
“I think someone who works hard deserves to receive compensation that matches their effort,” de la Torre added.
“I’ve never been in a community that was so supportive,” Cuneo said, thanking the board. “These are the times that schools have never faced. I’m committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure we meet the needs of every child the best we can with the resources we have,” he said.
The community, exhibiting the kind of support the new superintendent applauded, turned out in force to speak out for two district elementary school music teachers, two nurses and three intervention councilors whose jobs are on the line. Speakers lined up to argue against the layoff recommendation. Parents of music students and those with children who have health concerns spoke out, so did many district nurses and music teachers. Many said they had learned about the agenda item only that day and had rushed to the meeting to protest the layoffs.
District staff advised the board to cut the seven positions in advance of the district March 15 budget deadline, warning “a layoff could be given and later rescinded, but not after March 15,” and called the layoffs “prudent.” Not one speaker during public comments appeared to share that view.
“In our district we’ve had a collaborative model for a long time, and we’d like to keep it that way,” Harry Keily, the president of the Santa Monica Malibu Teachers Association, said. “The priorities need to be kids, teachers, classrooms. Those who have the most should make the first sacrifices. Cuts need to come from the top. We don’t believe these proposed cuts reflect the core values of the district.”
“The district has an obligation to provide for the welfare of both students and staff,” Malibu High School nurse Ellen Relles, who has been with the district for 35 years, reminded the board. She stated that the layoffs would mean a loss of 10 nursing hours a week. “That is a negative impact to every school in the district,” she said.
“I don’t feel comfortable [voting],” Leon Vazquez said, when the issue was discussed by the board, “We haven’t had the discussion [about the budget]. This piece comes before the discussion. $600,000 [for the seven positions] is nothing. We can find it somewhere else.”
“I’m unable to support this,” board member Jose Escarce said, echoing Leon Vazquez. “I need a better understanding.” The rest of the board agreed.
Vice President Barry Snell called for transparency. “This is not the way we should be going about this,” he said, adding that he recognized that district cuts “will be severe.”
De la Torre suggested the board look into a pay freeze for district employees receiving in excess of $100,000 or $150,000 to help offset the deficit and avert layoffs.
The board scheduled a budget workshop for March 4 to discuss their options, and agreed unanimously to table the proposed layoffs until the March 5 meeting in Malibu.

Publisher’s Notebook

• Double-Edged Politics •

ANNE SOBLE

There was no small amount of irony—along with usual array of tensions—at this week’s Malibu City Council meeting, as citizens were treated to an example of the political maxim that not only can an issue live by the crowd, it can die by the crowd. Of course, that’s a terrible transmogrification of the concept, but the reality is political tables are easily turned in a small town and the example of the Morning View Drive parking imbroglio vividly illustrates this.
Some of the people who helped broker a deal to eliminate public parking on Morning View Drive are the same individuals who not long ago mobilized large numbers of citizens to show up at City Hall and force the city council to back away from an impending agreement on overnight camping with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Negotiations had been duly completed. A supportive staff report was crafted. The opponents of camping used strongly worded newspaper letters, non-stop email campaigning and top-notch political organization to kill the plan.
However, this week, some of those same citizens were on the other side of the lobbying process. Thus they shouldn’t have been too surprised to see that very similar tactics worked to get the Morning View Drive plan that they had shepherded to completion, including extensive municipal staff consultation and support, postponed at Monday night’s meeting. Some well-crafted rallying cries on the very effective high school communications network started the ball rolling. As more and more parents realized that their children would be directly affected, and that school volunteers and part-time staff would be adversely impacted, a groundswell was in the making.
Some might not agree, but a parallel to the current Morning View situation was when the city council several years ago attempted to implement traffic flow changes in the Webb Way-Civic Center area, partly, critics alleged, at the behest of a council member’s close political ally. The council approved the Webb Way proposal with minimal public input, set up concrete barriers, and appeared dumbfounded when the populace erupted and demanded the project be dismantled. It is unlikely this council wants to face a repeat of that scenario. Someone in our not-too-distant political past described hockey moms as pit bulls with lipstick, some local PTA moms (and dads) might make those pit bulls look like cuddly kittens.
This Malibu City Council is easily intimidated by groundswells, especially if none of the members has a personal stake in the issue’s outcome. The council members do not, for the most part, espouse consistent public policy orientations. Whenever that type of open-ended pragmatism prevails, head counts and waving signs may matter more than any notion of comprehensive policy.

Owl Issues Continue to Plague Malibu High School Plans

• District Approves More Funding to Study Possible Environmental Impacts on the Vicinity

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Malibu Park’s owls were on the agenda again at the Feb. 19 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board meeting.
The item, which was described in the agenda as “Contract Amendment #4 is to provide for wintering burrowing owls and raptor foraging surveys in support of the athletic field project” caused some confusion.
“About the owls,” board member Ben Allen asked. “My understanding was there was a study already done. Is there additional work that needed to be done?”
“This is a request to increase a contract for additional biological study in the Malibu Park area because of some changes we’re making to the project in terms of the parking lot configuration, so they had to expand the scope of the original study,” Jan Maez, assistant superintendent and chief financial officer, told the board.
“If you recall some of those changes to the parking lot configuration have to do with resolving some of the traffic and parking issues on campus,” Maez said. “This is just to make sure that with the change that there wasn’t any impact on the wildlife.”
Satisfied with the clarification, the board passed the recommendation to approve Amendment #4 with Glenn Lukos Associates “to provide additional biological support services for wintering burrowing owls for the athletic field lighting project, for the Measure “BB” program, in the amount of $5050, for a total contract amount of $48,100.”
The proposed parking lot, which could potentially contain 250 parking stalls, would be located on the ridgeline above the athletic field.
Residents, who are charging that the new parking lot would have a negative effect on the neighboring ESHA, as well as block the existing horse easement also claim there have been sightings in the past of the burrowing owl that is the primary subject of the biological study. The small owl, with its distinctive yellow eyes, hunts during the day.
Residents have charged that the district’s consultants have not adequately addressed the issue of sensitive or threatened animal populations on the school’s 35-acre property that incorporates two mapped Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, and a substantial area of California coastal sage scrub habitat.
School neighbors state that the school property is also the home or foraging ground of a variety of raptors, including peregrine falcons, which nest adjacent to the school; kites; hawks; kestrels; and several species of owls.
The Malibu Surfside News, on a recent visit to the school property, observed evidence of one raptor roost and documented a California Species of Special Concern that is not a raptor; the chaparral thrasher, a bird whose song has been compared to that of the old world nightingale.
Several proponents of the parking plan have contended that the urgent need for safe parking at the campus should outweigh environmental concerns.
District Superintendent Tim Cuneo, in an open letter to the community, has scheduled a public workshop to address the MHS field lighting issue, which he called “contentious and divisive,” for March 2. The issue is expected to be addressed at the March 5 board of education meeting in Malibu as well.
Information on the planned Measure BB improvements at MHS is available at the district’s Web site: smmusd.org.

A Giraffe Stands Out Even in Malibu’s Star-Studded Environment

• An Out-of-the Ordinary Celebrity Was Spotted Enjoying the Ocean and the Sand at Westward

BY ANNE SOBLE

At about the same time all the paparazzi were focusing their lenses on the participants in a hot music video shoot in eastern Malibu last week, a celebrity of greater stature was charming and disarming surprised beachgoers and passersby at Westward Beach.
Willie G, a four-year-old giraffe with enough movie and TV commercial credits to make many a SAG member green with envy, was frolicking away on the sand last Thursday.
Trained and handled by Los Angeles animal expert Bob Dunn, Willie G was taking part in a candy commercial being shot for overseas viewing.
As a hay eater, Willie G doesn’t have to worry about providing personal testimonials for any edible products he helps to sell.
Dunn said the gregarious giraffe was born in the United States and bottle-fed from two weeks of age. He described Willie G as “friendly and curious,” and said the giraffe “enjoyed his visit to the beach.”


READY FOR HIS CLOSE-UP—Willie G is as interested in the photographer, as the photographer is interested in him. The four-year-old giraffe is an entertainment industry professional.
Photo MSN/George Hauptman

Farmers Market Sparks Fervor at City Meeting

BY BILL KOENEKER

A standing room only crowd listened at the Malibu City Council meeting Monday evening, as members of Cornucopia pleaded with council members to help them facilitate a farmers market.
“We are here to recruit you for a farmers market. All it requires is a Conditional Use Permit. The county can give us a lease next week,” said Cornucopia Vice President Remy O’Neill. “We are not here for a hand out or a bail out. We are here for a piece of paper.”
The loud vocal show of support forced Mayor Andy Stern to call for quiet and suggested folks shake their hands rather than yell and applaud.
Children were brought up to the dais holding the awards Cornucopia has won over the years. “It looks like we gave you a commendation,” said Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich.
“Will you give us a permit?” asked Cornucopia President Debra Bianco. “The county has said yes. The school said yes, Kids said yes. Please, it is up to you. We can do this in thirty days.”
The pair was followed by more supporters, one who read a letter from the principal of Juan Cabrillo Elementary School endorsing Cornucopia.
Principal Barry Yates, in the letter to council members, wrote, “An important part of our green effort is the unique and ongoing relationship we have developed with Cornucopia. They have been an educational partner and resource for all of our children. Juan Cabrillo believes in the Farm to Market to Fork Program and the revenues derived through the program would be used to support and expand the educational experience at Cornucopia for Cabrillo’s children. This is why I support the granting of a CUP for Cornucopia. Reopening the farmers market will benefit our school's environmental mission.”
Another supporter told the council of 1400 signatures gathered in support of the group getting permits for a market.
One parent said she brought her children to the city council meeting because she could not explain to them why the market was closed and hoped the council could shed some light on that.
Although the matter was not on the agenda, Councilmember Sharon Barovsky asked about the status of the permit. “I am confused. When did you apply for permit?” she asked.
O’Neill said the application was submitted in 2005. “We were told the city was talking to the county and [the permit] was taken off the table,” O’Neill answered.
Barovsky said she wanted to know who in the county had told Cornucopia a lease could go to them. “Who told you that?” she asked. “Susan Nissman [Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s aide],” answered Bianco.
“Put in your application and your problems are solved,” concluded Barovksy.
The chambers erupted into shouts of thank you and noise as Cornucopia supporters apparently took Barovsky’s word to heart.
The problems between the operators of the farmers market and the city began years ago, when the city indicated it had wrongly zoned the parking lot at the county-owned Civic Center complex where the market was held and the market would need to be halted until the zoning snafu was resolved. After the zoning was changed, then problems surfaced because the county indicated it would not hand out a lease until the city issued a CUP. However, the city insisted it could not issue a CUP until the organization had a lease in hand. The situation produced a stalemate and Malibu has been without a farmers market since then.

City, College and County Discuss Malibu Campus

• Plans Consist of Acquiring Old Sheriff’s Station for School

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu Public Facilities Authority, formed through a joint powers agreement between the City of Malibu and Santa Monica College, is scheduled to meet on Friday, Feb. 27 at Santa Monica College at 10 a.m.
The panel, which is comprised of Councilmembers Sharon Barovsky and John Sibert, college officials and a technical advisory committee made up of college and municipal officials, has been meeting behind closed doors for several months during its sessions.
The authority is currently in discussions with Los Angeles County about acquiring the old sheriff's station for a college satellite campus.
After the county Board of Supervisors approved entering into negotiations, the panel has apparently gotten bogged down in the details of the negotiations which include the price and terms of payment.
Since the matter has been discussed in closed session, no one was willing to talk about it.
Acknowledging that he could not publicly discuss the matter, City Manager Jim Thorsen, who is on the technical advisory committee, said the closed sessions allow the panel to talk about the negotiations in a strategic manner.
“Everybody agrees on the deal,” said Thorsen, who said the ongoing negotiations are on the terms of price and payment. “That is why it is done in closed session,” he added.
A year ago last January, the board gave the green light to sell the old sheriff's station, which is a portion of the county-owned Malibu Civic Center complex, to the Santa Monica Community College district for an education center.
Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky has been a vocal advocate of the sale despite Sheriff Lee Baca voicing opposition.
Some of the conditions that Yaroslvasky said the county would insist on is if the property ceased to be in public use it would revert back to the county. Additionally, county officials have said that any sale would have to take into account the ongoing county uses at the civic center complex, including parking and the needs of various other county departments housed at the complex.
The center comprises about 9.2 acres and consists of two buildings that together include 85,260 square feet. The main building houses the courthouse, public library and public works office space. The second building is the site of the former sheriff's station and is a free-standing building. The sheriff’s station was decommissioned in 1991.
The civic center was constructed in 1963. The municipality maintained its city hall at the station for several years before it moved to its current location.

Council Bans Skateboarding on Steep Canyon Roads

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council, by unanimous vote this week, agreed to outlaw skateboarding on the city’s narrow, winding canyon roads where media attention has focused on the growing popularity of skateboarders careening down steep hills.
Several speedboarders came to the council to urge them to reconsider the ban, suggesting their background as parents, their responsible citizenship and their insistent focus on safety should be brought into the equation.
However, that did not fly with Councilmember Jefferson Wagner, who said, “These are three responsible skateboarders. But for every three, there are a dozen that are not safe. I have a residence on Latigo. I know,” he said.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich said she is a bike rider who likes to ride on such steep roads such as Decker Canyon Road. She said she wanted the ban clarified.
City Attorney Christi Hogin said the law would still allow skate boarding on sidewalks, and designated bike lanes, but not on public lands and not on public roadways.
Council members were told the impetus for the new law originated with the California Joint Powers Insurance Association, the city’s insurer, which contacted the municipality due to recent articles about skateboarding in Malibu.
“Many other cities have also had this activity take place, some of which have resulted in injury and litigation,” said the city’s Administrative Services Director Reva Feldman. “In order to prevent possible injury to members of the public and to protect the city from possible litigation, CJPIA has suggested that the city adopt an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding and other similar activities in certain areas of the city and in particular on public streets.”
Feldman noted another city suffered a seven-figure judgment against it after a skateboarder hit a rough patch in the road and his family successfully sued.
The staff suggested certain canyon roads be posted and advised that if other city streets pose a hazard they would return to the council for review.

Trancas Park Neighbors Kick Off ‘Save the Ridgeline’ Effort

• Residents Say City Appears Unaware of How Much Land Alteration Is Required by Project

BY BILL KOENEKER

Shifting the emphasis from how much grading is proposed to create Trancas Park, critics are now focusing on the ridgeline they say will be destroyed by the proposal.
The Malibu City Council is scheduled to hear an appeal of the planning commission’s approval of the park plans, which include a multi-use sports practice field, a dog park, a tot lot, parking spaces for 64 cars and 128,000 cubic yards of grading for the seven-acre park on the 13.5-acre site along Trancas Canyon Road. The meeting is set for Monday, Feb. 23, at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall.
“Save the Trancas Ridgeline” is the new rallying cry for critics. The effort has even spawned a video on YouTube called “Save Trancas Ridge.” The video highlights the ridge where critics contend the city will shave off 125,000 cubic yards, including a rock outcroppings and a cave.
The video cites the city code that prohibits the removal of prominent rock outcroppings and caves and accuses the city of approving a destructive plan that will obliterate what are described as natural features that support habitat for hawks, bats and other creatures.
The video, which pans across the ridge and downwards towards Trancas Creek, urges the public to attend the city council meeting next week to convince local lawmakers that an alternative plan will allow for the park amenities, but save the ridge.
There are actually two appeals by two groups of individuals seeking to overturn the planning panel’s approval.
Both sets of appellants have criticized the grading approved for the northern ridge of the park, where the dog park, tot lot and picnic area are to be sited, because the area has to be “significantly altered by extreme cuts into steep slopes and the playing field has to be filled and elevated 10 to 13 feet.”
The appellants are also asking the city council to consider alternatives that avoid development of the upper ridge and prevent so much landform alteration.
OTHER BUSINESS
In other action, the city council is poised to adopt an ordinance establishing a penalty schedule for administrative citations.
The fines would range from $100 for first time violations, $200 for a second violation of the same law within one year or a $500 fine for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
Last summer, the council adopted an ordinance that established the administrative citation procedures. The staff was then directed to bring back a proposed penalty schedule for the citations. The government code allows a local agency to enact an ordinance making any violation of any law enacted by the local agency subject to an administrative fine.
The proposed law is primarily aimed at zoning and building code violations as a means to beef up the code enforcement officers’ ability to seek compliance with individuals responsible for violations.
However, what the city refers to as “the administrative penalty procedures,” can also apply to a wide array of the city’s ordinances, including the ban on plastic shopping bags, health code violations, noise and the ban on expanded polystyrene food packaging, among a myriad of other city ordinances.
The municipality’s proposed law also sets out a hearing procedure with the right of judicial review with the decision of the hearing officer appealable within the court system.
Indicating the city plans to maintain a get-tough attitude, the ordinance states that those who are cited, don’t win their appeal and still refuse to pay the fine, may be subject to a lien procedure.
“Imposition of a lien must stem from a citation for the condition or use of real property, or any improvement thereon, that is owned by the citee,” the proposed ordinance states.
Staff conducted a study of nearly a dozen cities near and around Malibu, including Agoura Hills, Westlake, Calabasas and Thousand Oaks and found they all utilized the $100 to $500 fine schedule.

‘Soft’ Opening Slated for Shopping Center on City-Owned Site

• So-Called ‘Lumber Yard’ Complex Is Now Indicating It Should Be Finished Sometime in March

BY BILL KOENEKER

Another date set for the opening of the so-called Malibu Lumber Yard shopping center, the first week of February, has come and gone with the beleaguered city-owned mall still under construction.
“We plan a soft opening in March,” said Fiona Hutton, a spokesperson for Richard Weintraub, the developer, who with city officials had announced last year they believed the former lumberyard would be open for shoppers in October, 2008.
Delays on permitting caused a schedule revision that called for the upscale center to open just days before Christmas to take advantage of the height of the shopping season.
That deadline went nearly unnoticed when municipal officials and the developer sought a crucial wastewater permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
By the beginning of 2009, with a permit in hand, the next opening date was announced as the second week of February.
With construction still ongoing, shoppers have had no opportunity to explore the makeover of the beloved lumberyard.
“We will have a formal grand opening in the summer. I don’t know when in March we’ll open,” added Huttton, who said the shopping center would gradually fill from the springtime through summer with tenants. Besides the high-end boutiques, a bakery and two restaurants are planned.
Hutton said the center was not completely filled up and negotiations were still ongoing with various prospective tenants.
She said signed tenants include James Perse, J. Crew, Andrianna Shamaris, Crumbs Bake Shop, Kitson, Tory Burch, Intermix, Alice+Olivia, Theory, Maxfield and Planet Blue Kids.

Proponents of View Preservation Legislation May Learn the Task Is Not Quite as Easy as They Think

• The Rancho Palos Verdes Model Held Up by Many May Have Its Own Issues

BY BILL KOENEKER

Proponents of a local view preservation ordinance have long pointed to a law currently in effect in Rancho Palos Verdes as a possible model for Malibu application.
Following a 67 percent vote in the affirmative last year on a citizens advisory ballot measure, the Malibu City Council created the View Preservation Task Force Committee to determine what might work here. Just last week they extended the life of the committee for three more months.
However, trouble is brewing in Rancho Palos Verdes, where a lawsuit has erupted between longtime neighbors when city officials ordered families to cut down trees after a complaint was filed.
Pivotal to both communities is Coleen Berg, the consultant for RPV, who handles mediation for that city and was hired by Malibu as a consultant for the task force.
A dispute resolution mediator by training, Berg is described by Rancho Palos Verdes city officials as being successful in helping parties negotiate private agreements. Up until recently, most view restoration cases have been resolved at the mediation level. A Rancho Palos Verdes staff report states that only two of the 18 view restoration cases filed since 2005 had to be formally resolved by the planning commission, representing about a 90 percent success rate.
The city had previously used volunteer mediators, but contend their lower success rate warranted hiring a paid professional.
However, several municipal administrators, including some Rancho Palos Verdes officials, have criticized the city’s view restoration law and point to the City of Tiburon’s as a better model.
One of the biggest differences is the timeline. Most ordinances protect the view that existed when the current owner bought the land. In Rancho Palos Verdes, residents can keep trees at the height they were when the ordinance was enacted.
During the VPTFC’s six-month tenure, Berg has lead the Malibu panel through a series of discussions about what kind of law Malibu wants to enact.
Should the ordinance consider preservation or restoration?
What criteria should be used in determining what is the appropriate restoration action?
Other considerations the task force or its ad hoc committee have talked about include aesthetic quality of trees, location, soil stability, privacy such a visual and auditory, climate control or shade, wildlife habitat provided by trees, or if the trees are protected and how that should be defined.
The critical timeline element has also been discussed by the panel. Will the proposed ordinance go back in time to restore views or preserve what exists today, or both?
It gets more complicated. What if there is no physical evidence of a pre-existing view? Can a newly created lot create a view? What if a property owner had a view, but wants to improve it? What if a property owner has physical evidence of a pre-existing view and wants it restored? Restored to what and when? Again, the timeline becomes critical. Should the view be restored to when the lot was created, the property purchased, the effective date of the ordinance or the date the city was incorporated?
The Malibu committee has also discussed defining the actual purpose of the ordinance.
The City of Tiburon’s reads, “Establish the right of persons to preserve view or sunlight which existed at the time since they purchased or occupied a property from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees.”
The City of Laguna Beach’s reads, “Recognize that every real property owner in the city is entitled to a process to resolve conflicts that negatively impact view equity, in order to preserve a reasonable amount of the view and/or sunlight benefiting such real property, which exist after either the property acquisition date or the effective date of the ordinance codified.”
The City of Sausalito’s code reads, “The extent of the view that existed at the time claimant(s) purchased the property. (Is the party attempting to create, enhance or restore a view?).
Ranch Palos Verdes’ purpose reads, “Restoration back to the city’s original intent in the General Plan. Recognizes vista points and view lots as natural resources and ‘calls for their protection.’”
Given a purpose is established, then restoration criteria must be established. And that is just the beginning. The task force is studying pages and pages of examples to explain how the rest of the procedure works in other cities and what can be done in Malibu.
Vic Peterson, who heads the city’s planning and building departments, praised the committee’s work to date, but explained the task force is only halfway there.
“The task force has considered six of the 13 potential components of an ordinance, as provided by the consultant. These components include view, viewing area, foliage, unit of measure, boundaries and allowable foliage height. The remaining seven points that still need to be addressed include preservation and/or restoration, outside agency limitations, pre-application procedures, application process, governing body decision making process, governing body choices of action and appeal process,” he wrote in a memo to the council.
Peterson also said, in addition to reviewing the components provided by the consultant, the task force will participate in a mock case, which will allow the task force to review all of the components as a whole and readdress any concerns or issues that may arise. “Coming to an agreement is not a simple matter,” he added.

It’s One Green versus Another in the Synthetic Turf War

• Issues of Health and Safety Surface to Challenge Maintenance Cost Savings

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

It may look green, but critics charge that synthetic turf is anything but environmentally friendly, and plans to install an artificial playing surface at the Malibu High School football stadium as part of the Measure BB improvement project are starting to come under fire from Malibu residents. A number of speakers during public comment at the Feb. 5 SMMUSD meeting in Malibu, blasted plans to install the artificial playing surface at the school.
James Edwards, a longtime Malibu resident and the principal of Oxnard High School, spoke out against the synthetic turf planned for the MHS playing field, citing multiple health hazards and injury concerns. He told Malibu Surfside News in a telephone interview that none of the high schools in his district have synthetic turf, despite the fact that thet are all much larger than MHS and sponsor a higher number of field activities.
In a letter that appeared in the Feb. 12 Malibu Surfside News, Marshall Thompson, who is a Malibu Park resident and a member of the recently formed Malibu Park Safety Coalition, wrote that “The synthetic surface proposed for the athletic fields requires treatment with a number of sanitizing and maintenance chemicals, which can find their way into the ocean. The materials are also linked to dangerous multiple-drug resistant staph infections.”
Malibu isn’t the only community facing a synthetic turf battle. According to the Jan. 22 Mercury News, the San Jose Unified School District board of trustees recently voted no on artificial grass. In Connecticut, two legislators are proposing legislation to place moratoriums on new synthetic turf, in response to an announcement in that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection is undertaking a yearlong study on the safety and environmental impact of artificial turf.
The New York City Council is also currently considering a temporary ban on artificial turf fields, after a recently installed field in Harlem was discovered to contain unsafe lead levels, and in September, 2008, California’s attorney general filed suit against three artificial turf manufacturers, alleging that their products contain lead levels that exceed state-mandated limits. The Center for Environmental Health, a California-based watchdog organization, is pursuing legal action against several others, on the same charges.
Turf manufactures are defending their products, pointing out that many have voluntarily consented to meet new federal lead standards developed for toys and children’s products as part of the Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008. However, critics claim that synthetic turf presents multiple environmental risks in addition to lead, which is used to color the material green and can also be found in the crumb rubber made of recycled shredded tires that is used as fill for most synthetic turf fields.
Synthetic turf can allegedly contain a cocktail of toxic chemicals and heavy metals, including chromium, arsenic, cadmium, benzopyrene and toluene—all substances that have the potential to cause cancer and other serious health concerns through direct contact and by leaching into soil and groundwater and contaminating runoff.
Critics of synthetic turf have also claimed that it can also lead to a higher incident of injury. A survey taken in 2004 by the NFL Players Association found that 85 percent of football players prefer to play on natural turf, citing a higher risk of injuries and fatigue on synthetic turf, which, unlike natural grass that remains cool due to transpiration, absorbs and retains heat, leading to the potential of increased heat related illness and injury. Allegations that the material harbors multiple-drug resistant staph, or MDRS have also surfaced.
Many professional athletes, including soccer icon David Beckham, have blasted synthetic surfaces. “As professional athletes, you can’t play a game like soccer on that sort of field. The reaction of players and what it does to your body, as a soccer player, you [need] two or three days off for that. Every game, every team should have grass, without a doubt,” Beckham told the Washington Post in 2007.
The Conneticut-based nonprofit health organization Environment and Human Health published a 2007 report on synthetic turf that stated that studies have conclusively demonstrate that the tire crumbs used as fill in synthetic turf “release chemical compounds into the air and ground water. Thus, tire crumbs constitute a chemical exposure for humans and for the environment.”
The EHH report concluded that “There is enough information now concerning the potential health effects from chemicals emanating from rubber tire crumbs to place a moratorium on installing any new fields or playgrounds that use ground-up rubber tires until additional research is undertaken.
Drainage failures are another major concern, according to numerous reports, as is maintenance. Animal waste from birds or dogs cause the material to deteriorate as can sweat from players, sports drinks, sunflower seed hulls, salt air and wind-blown debris. Synthetic fields are also vulnerable to vandalism and not suitable for all spots activities.
“Birds and other wildlife will poop on it; chewing gum and other detritus becomes embedded in it,” Marshall Thompson told The News in a telephone interview. “To keep it safe for players the surface is treated with expensive and toxic chemicals and their equally expensive machinery and of course the labor to keep it clean. Plastic grass gets very hot in sunlight so it requires periodic water sprinkling to keep field temperatures down to a comfortable level. Contaminated water runoff is a real concern with the ocean less than a half mile away,” Thompson continued.
“There are no apparent savings to water usage or maintenance costs over natural grass turf. The single justification for plastic grass is that it withstands the wear and tear of much higher levels of use. Levels consistent with a regional sports facility, not the needs of a small local high school in a rural residential neighborhood,” Thompson concluded.
Evidence presented at www.athleticturf.net, which describes itself as an online resource for outdoor athletic field managers, confirms that the synthetic material requires extensive maintenance.
Measure BB plan consultant Tom Tomeoni at the Feb. 5 SMMUSD board meeting in Malibu also confirmed that the synthetic turf requires special maintenance, but stated the material is desirable because it can withstand more extensive use than grass.
There has not been any show of support for synthetic turf from the community to date. Its support base may become visible when the SMMUSD board of education hears more public comment on the issue when it meets in Malibu on March 5.

Publisher’s Notebook

• Rain Spoken Here •

ANNE SOBLE

Those of us who live in “country Malibu” revel in the kind of weather we are now experiencing. Not only are our creeks flowing freely, but all the waterfalls on the back acreage are joyously cascading down rock formations, providing musical accompaniment for birds singing more brightly than ever. The horses, goats and llamas always find the perfect blend of outdoors and shelter to suit their fancy. The dogs play tag with rain showers, then collapse with contentment. As for the landscaping, mine as well as nature’s is so seductive that even when a powerful storm cell breaks open above you, you don’t rush for cover.
I can hardly believe that only a few months ago, I was facing the unpleasant reality that the water level in my decades-old well was dropping below the submersible pump, and I was going to have to bring the unit up and add more line—no minor task 100 or so feet below the surface. I summarized my options and even looked into water delivery services, in case the situation took a turn for the worse and I had to consider drilling a new well to meet the need for acres of irrigation and livestock lines. As I knew too well, the entire state was entering its third year of drought. There was no denying the seriousness of the situation.
The typical urbanite/suburbanite, and that includes many of the residents of Malibu’s more densely developed areas, gives little thought to what comes out of his or her faucets. If there’s no water, there’s an emergency number to call. But coming from a farming and ranching heritage that spans dozens of generations on three continents, I may have a genetic predisposition to disregard the hardships that are inherent in a rural lifestyle. There are no emergency numbers to call when there is no rain. That doesn’t mean that there are no lines of communication in times of crisis. It’s just that they can run the gamut from profanity in moments of anger to prayer in moments of calm.
Those who depend the most on nature don’t feel its fury any less. We need the rain, but when there is too much, such as right after a wildfire, flooding can be severe. If the creek jumps its banks, the hay rolls that have been stockpiled can only do so much to keep the waters in check. Preparedness has its limits when the coefficient of the water’s speed is the amount of rainfall divided by the interval between storms.
Someone stopped by the newspaper offices earlier and good-naturedly muttered something about my fixation with the weather. He said that the rain is bad for his business, as well as mine. On one level, I suppose I can agree with that. A primitive, prehistoric reverence for rain is either quintessentially logical or illogical. Perhaps it is comparable to learning to speak one’s first language. The lexicon of rain includes calamity and woe, but without it, there is no life.

Publisher’s Notebook

• Rain Spoken Here •

ANNE SOBLE

Those of us who live in “country Malibu” revel in the kind of weather we are now experiencing. Not only are our creeks flowing freely, but all the waterfalls on the back acreage are joyously cascading down rock formations, providing musical accompaniment for birds singing more brightly than ever. The horses, goats and llamas always find the perfect blend of outdoors and shelter to suit their fancy. The dogs play tag with rain showers, then collapse with contentment. As for the landscaping, mine as well as nature’s is so seductive that even when a powerful storm cell breaks open above you, you don’t rush for cover.
I can hardly believe that only a few months ago, I was facing the unpleasant reality that the water level in my decades-old well was dropping below the submersible pump, and I was going to have to bring the unit up and add more line—no minor task 100 or so feet below the surface. I summarized my options and even looked into water delivery services, in case the situation took a turn for the worse and I had to consider drilling a new well to meet the need for acres of irrigation and livestock lines. As I knew too well, the entire state was entering its third year of drought. There was no denying the seriousness of the situation.
The typical urbanite/suburbanite, and that includes many of the residents of Malibu’s more densely developed areas, gives little thought to what comes out of his or her faucets. If there’s no water, there’s an emergency number to call. But coming from a farming and ranching heritage that spans dozens of generations on three continents, I may have a genetic predisposition to disregard the hardships that are inherent in a rural lifestyle. There are no emergency numbers to call when there is no rain. That doesn’t mean that there are no lines of communication in times of crisis. It’s just that they can run the gamut from profanity in moments of anger to prayer in moments of calm.
Those who depend the most on nature don’t feel its fury any less. We need the rain, but when there is too much, such as right after a wildfire, flooding can be severe. If the creek jumps its banks, the hay rolls that have been stockpiled can only do so much to keep the waters in check. Preparedness has its limits when the coefficient of the water’s speed is the amount of rainfall divided by the interval between storms.
Someone stopped by the newspaper offices earlier and good-naturedly muttered something about my fixation with the weather. He said that the rain is bad for his business, as well as mine. On one level, I suppose I can agree with that. A primitive, prehistoric reverence for rain is either quintessentially logical or illogical. Perhaps it is comparable to learning to speak one’s first language. The lexicon of rain includes calamity and woe, but without it, there is no life.

Hearing Date Set for Legacy Park Appeal

The Malibu City Council is scheduled to hear an appeal by several environmental and surfing organizations of the planning commission’s approval of Legacy Park on March 9.
Santa Monica Baykeeper, Heal the Bay, the Malibu Surfing Association and Surfrider Foundation have jointly filed an appeal and will ask the city council to overturn the planning panel’s approval of permits and entitlements for a detention pond or basin for stormwater storage, restoration of coastal habitat and a public park.
The groups’ contention is that the project as designed will not address what they consider Malibu’s most serious water quality issue, the disposal and treatment of sewage from the commercial development in the Civic Center area.
The Legacy Park project at one time included plans for an integrated wastewater and stormwater management system, but the city halted plans for the former, saying it was not feasible to use Legacy Park for this purpose.
The groups have taken issue with that decision, and it appears they and the city may be headed to the courtroom where a judge will ultimately decide the matter.

Many Assurances about Malibu High Were Not Put in Official Documents

• Coastal Comission Permit Conditions Are Lynchpin for Contentions of Disregarded Promises

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

It’s a Sunday morning at 9 a.m. Killdeer and western sandpipers have taken the field at Malibu High School’s football stadium, engaged not in a game but in a hunt for breakfast. In the air above them, a pair of western kingbirds are hunting airborne insects. A scattering of residents are out walking, enjoying the February sunshine and the view of the ocean. In the background, raising above the sounds of softball practice and a tennis game from the brush on the berm beside the field comes the song of the California thrasher, which has been described as being like that of the old world nightingale.
It doesn’t look like it, but this field and the hillside beside it have become a battleground in a conflict between residents and environmentalists on the one side and the school district and sports parents who want to see the school’s athletic program remain competitive.
At the heart of the conflict are three elements of school improvement plans that are being funded by Measure BB bond money: permanent field lighting that would consist of four or six 70-to-80-foot high light poles that have the potential to be in use 203 nights a year; synthetic turf that would replace the grass football field and is being criticized because of its potential to be a health and environmental hazard; and a parking lot consisting of a possible 250 stalls that would run the length of the ridge along the athletic field, and according to critics, will block a deeded trail easement, as well as have the potential to create additional light pollution and negatively affect the coastal sage scrub ecosystem and watershed adjacent to the ridge.
Most residents have been supportive of plans to remodel an existing building and replace the library and administrative buildings with Measure BB funds. They have also praised plans to improve safety and traffic flow, and are quick to point out that they have been providing input and suggestions for the project, but the improvements to the football stadium have raised a red flag.
“I keep hearing people say ‘you should have realized you were buying a house near a school,’” one Sunday morning walker told the Malibu Surfside News. “I think it’s maybe time that the school district realizes that it has built a school in an environmentally sensitive area. It needs to start behaving responsibly. Malibu Park is a little residential pocket surrounded by Zuma Beach and thousands of acres of National Park land. You can’t just do what you want here. You have to respect the law. You have to honor your promises.”
According to residents, the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District has failed to do just that. In 1994, when the school was starting its football program, a letter from then Principal Michael Matthews assured residents “There are no plans to have night games at any time. There is no electrical infrastructure to support a new lighting system. In the long-term future of the sports activities here, I do not see a need for lighting.”
When the school received its Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission in 2000 to install the football field, it agreed to eight special conditions. Special condition six was in the form of a deed restriction prohibiting temporary or permanent athletic field lighting, to “protect the nearby scenic areas and native wildlife from avoidable disturbance that would otherwise be associated with nighttime use of the football stadium/ track and field facility,” according to the language in the Coastal Commission staff report on the permit.
Residents say that within a few years of the CDP being issued, the school was using rental lights for night games, funded, according to the school, by contributions from parents.
In 1991, when plans to upgrade Malibu Park Junior High into a full fledged high school were presented, Santa Monica parents protested the plan, claiming that the new school would be a “brain drain,” and strip needed funding away from Santa Monica. Santa Monica and Malibu residents sat on opposite sides of the room at meetings, like relatives at a wedding. Some members of the Santa Monica group wore black armbands, according to reports published in the Los Angeles Times.
Before approving the controversial new school in April of 1991, the board of education adopted revisions in an effort to reconcile the two sides.
District officials, according to a Los Angeles Times article dated March 31, 1991, announced that the new high school “would not have the array of classes and extracurricular activities of Santa Monica High,” in an effort to ease tensions between the two groups. In the April 18 L.A. Times, Eugene Tucker, who was superintendent at that time, is quoted saying “The orchestra and other extracurricular programs would also be scaled to an appropriate size. There [will] be no football team and no business or industrial arts in the foreseeable future.” However, none of the restrictions appear in the language of Malibu high School’s mission statement, or in the minutes of the board of education meeting, when MHS was approved.
Residents are citing this history of past dealings as a reason not to believe assurances from the current school board that their concerns will be heard and that any future promises will be honored.
Malibu Park resident Jay Griffith stated at the Feb. 5 board of education meeting that the school told him when the lights first appeared that they would be “for homecoming night only, just one night. Now it’s six weeks and they want 203 nights. It’s a slippery slope now turned into a landslide.”
“Five or six night games for a high school of 755 students makes no sense in terms of this size expenditure—people should be outraged as the state moves to cut $7 billion [from education],” Harriet Pollen told The News.
These concerns are echoed by her husband, Oxnard High School Principal James Edwards, who told The News that his campus, which has 3100 students, has an average of 25 to 30 nighttime events a year, including soccer, band practice and other events in addition to football. He questioned the need for permanent lighting at MHS and the 203 night number, adding that “The Pacific View League schools have been asked to cut back on night activities. When you flip the switch it’s $120 hour for the first hour, and $90 per hour after that [for electricity]. Supervision is massive. We’re really watching everything with the budget cuts.”
Some critics of the project believe the 203-night number does make sense, if the district plans to rent the facility out as part of a community use agreement it will be negotiating with the city.
“It all makes sense when one realizes it’s about a regional recreational center, not Friday Night Lights,” one resident told The News.
The current board of education, at its Feb. 5 meeting in Malibu, expressed dismay that MHS has been operating temporary lights without a permit. The board approved funds that won’t come from Measure BB to pursue a Coastal Commission amendment to permit temporary lighting for this year’s football season. The board also offered assurances to concerned residents that the district will listen to their concerns and work with them to find a solution that works for the school, the parents and the neighborhood.

Skateboarding Ban Considered

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council is poised to consider at its next meeting outlawing skateboarding on the city’s narrow, winding canyon roads, where media attention has focused on the growing popularity of skateboarders careening down steep hills.
The proposed ordinance would require posting signs prohibiting skateboarding on Tuna Canyon Road, Big Rock Canyon Road, Las Flores Canyon Road, Carbon Canyon Road, Malibu Canyon Road, Corral Canyon Road, Latigo Canyon Road, Kanan Dume Road, Trancas Canyon Road and Encinal Canyon Road. Fines would range from $25 to $100.
The impetus for the new law originated with the California Joint Powers Insurance Association, the city’s insurer, which contacted the municipality due to recent articles about skateboarding in Malibu.
“Many other cities have also had this activity take place, some of which have resulted in injury and litigation,” wrote the city’s Administrative Services Director Reva Feldman in a memo to city council members. “In order to prevent possible injury to members of the public and to protect the city from possible litigation, CJPIA has suggested that the city adopt an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding and other similar activities in certain areas of the city and in particular on public streets,” the memo stated.
Municipal officials had the idea vetted with both the Harry Barovsky Memorial Youth Commission and the city’s Public Safety Commission. Both panels discussed the prohibition and made its own set of recommendations.
The youth panel advised the council to approve the new law, but indicated a preference that the city only post signs prohibiting skateboarding in areas that are hazardous, such as the steep canyon roads.
The Public Safety Commission weighed in on the matter and drew nearly the same conclusions.
“The commission recommended that the council adopt the proposed ordinance prohibiting skateboarding and similar activities in areas of the city where injuries could occur due to steep terrain or other hazardous conditions,” Feldman noted.
The staff suggested certain canyon roads be posted and advised that if other city streets pose a hazard they would return the ordinance to the council for review.

High School Sports Lights Ignite Board Session on BB Funding

• School’s LCP Includes a Deed Restriction Prohibiting All Outdoor Athletic Field Lighting

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Plans to install Measure BB-funded field lighting at Malibu High School again received withering criticism from residents, this time at the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Board of Education meeting at Malibu City Hall.
Board members listened to public comment from nearly 40 speakers on various aspects of the planned measure BB improvements at Malibu High School. The meeting, which started late and ran past 11 p.m., drew a crowd so large that a room divider had to be opened to accommodate the overflow.
The audience had questions and concerns on topics ranging from septic system improvements to a plan to install synthetic turf at the stadium, but as expected, the controversial plan to install four or six 70-to-80-foot tall light poles that could be used up to 203 nights a year, and would be, according to one of the consultants at the meeting, as bright as a full moon, received the most comment.
The lighting plan, which would violate both the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan and MHS’s California Coastal Commission-issued Coastal Development Permit, has been at the center of a firestorm of controversy since residents first learned of it in August.
An agenda item that would have authorized an additional $17,850 in Measure BB funds to the consultant firm of CAA to facilitate an application to the California Coastal Commission for permission to use temporary field lighting for the 2009 football season was challenged prior to the meeting, with the argument that, although the board authorized $7000 in BB funds for CAA to pursue a permit for permanent field lighting in August, the temporary lights are a separate issue from the BB plan and cannot be funded with bond money.
When the Coastal Commission issued the high school’s LCP for the football field, it imposed a special condition on the school in the form of a deed restriction prohibiting “all outdoor lighting for the athletic fields, whether temporary or permanent.” The restriction “shall run with the land, binding all successors and assigns,” according to the text of the amendment, dated Sept. 22, 2000.
The wording gives the following justification for the condition: “Special condition six will protect the nearby scenic areas and native wildlife from avoidable disturbance that would otherwise be associated with nighttime use of the football stadium/track and field facility.”
As a result of the district’s plan to install permanent field lighting as part of its BB improvement program, the Coastal Commission become aware of the illegal use of temporary field lighting to light a limited number of football games a year. The district, which had planned to seek a permit for the permanent lighting, must now also attempt to negotiate an amendment for the temporary lighting with the coastal agency, but not do so, opponents of the project argued, with BB money.
“We have been told that you may seek an amendment from the Coastal Commission and the City of Malibu for the use of temporary lighting. Clearly, temporary lighting is not eligible for BB funding and the use of bond money for this purpose would be even more egregious,” Steve Scheinkman, a member of the newly formed Malibu Park Safety Coalition, told the board.
“Measure BB, the Santa Monica-Malibu Schools Safety and Repair Measure, was approved by the citizens of Santa Monica and Malibu with the understanding that the revenues would be used to improve health, safety and class instruction—the exact words of BB,” Scheinkman said. “Nowhere in BB’s text is new athletic field lighting identified as a critical need.”
“The only reference to athletic fields in the project list is in the section that relates to renovations, repairs and upgrade projects, Scheinkman stated. “This cannot be stretched to include new field lighting at MHS—the lighting does not legally exist today and you cannot renovate, repair or upgrade something that does not exist. Violations of the use of bond revenues are serious matters,” he warned the board.
The board agreed that the temporary lighting was not in the scope of BB and removed that item from the consent calendar. However, they voted to proceed with the application by switching the $17,850 to another source. Calls to the district’s chief financial officer to ascertain that source of the funds were not returned before the Malibu Surfside News went to press.
During public comment, longtime Malibu Park resident Judi Hutchinson spoke to the board about the history of MHS. “Malibu High School was established as a small academic high school with a small athletic program, not to compete with [Santa Monica High School],” Hutchinson told the board. “Specifically, no football,” she said, referring to promises made by an earlier board of education and then Superintendent Eugene Tucker in April of 1991 to reassure irate Santa Monica parents and teachers who opposed the formation of a high school in Malibu.
“Mr. Matthews [the MHS principal in 2000 when the football field was built] assured us there would be no night games at any time. If we seem adversarial, it’s because of our past relations with the school,” Hutchinson said.
“What’s with the lights?” school neighbor Jay Griffith asked. He said that when the temporary lights first appeared, he was told, “They were just for homecoming. One night. Now [it’s] six weeks, 203 nights. It’s a slippery slope now turned into a landslide.”
Malibu Park resident Marshall Thompson praised the sustainable aspects of the improvement plan, but called the field lighting “a glaring eco-contradiction.”
“I don’t believe you have the right to unilaterally bring enormous change to our local environment,” Thompson told the board. “Don’t you see what a contradiction this is?”
Not everyone was opposed to the lighting plan. “Friday night games have brought a lot of value,” head football coach Ray Humphrey said. He credited the school’s night games for the team’s star player recently having been accepted to Princeton University.
Some parents suggested that the school stick with temporary lighting. John Ellis, who called himself a “football parent,” stated he was “adamantly opposed to permanent lighting for anything but football.” He suggested that the district “add the word ‘only’ to football season. It would go a long way towards compromise.”
Another resident agreed that the temporary lights weren’t the problem. “I don’t think very many people are concerned with Friday night football: it’s 70-80-foot poles, 365 days a year.”
Members of the football team described playing under the lights as an “incredible” experience.
“It’s magical,” Dustin Kramer said. “I can’t talk about the legal aspect, but from a kid’s perspective there is something different about it. Every high school student should have the opportunity.”
However, legal issues were the central concern for many. Steve Uhring, speaking for the Malibu Township Council, summed up the field lighting opposition’s position by reading aloud from the Vision Statement of the City of Malibu’s General Plan:
“Malibu is a unique land and marine environment and residential community, whose citizens have historically evidenced a commitment to sacrifice urban and suburban conveniences in order to protect that environment and lifestyle, and to preserve unaltered natural resources and rural characteristics. The people of Malibu are a responsible custodian of the area’s natural resources for present and future generations.”
Uhring asked the board to “use the Vision Statement as a guideline as how you will interact with the neighbors who surround the school.”
Board member Kelly Pye called Uhring’s excerpt from the General Plan “instructive,” and said that the board would continue to “grapple with issues and keep an open mind.”
“We have broken our word in the past,” Pye said. “The residents were reasonable [about temporary lighting]. We can come to a reasonable conclusion.”
“I want to be respectful to all sides,” board member Oscar de la Torre said. He added that this was the first time he had heard 203 days of use. “I’d like a little clarification,” he said.
Jan Maez, assistant superintendent and chief financial officer, replied that “203 was a number discussed and announced in an effort to be really open and transparent.” She added that there were “no real plans.” However, the project consultants’ PowerPoint presentation appeared to contradict this assertion with text that recognized “increased intensity of use (noise, traffic)” among environmental and community issues, but also listed an “increase from nine nights to 200 nights a year,” with the recommendation to “study and fine tune hours of use, types, permitting.”
“There needs to be time to discuss how to proceed,” board vice president Barry Snell said. “I apologize. When I heard we had lights without permits, I was unhappy. I understand this is a rural area, we need to be sensitive to neighbors who let us have [temporary] lights without a ruckus.”
Board president Ralph Mechur added that temporary lighting was “clearly not BB in any way, and moved to change the source of funding. “The application will come back. It’s on record, in the minutes.”
Lights weren’t the only BB issue. One speaker was in favor of lights, but concerned with plans to install a 250-space parking lot on the ridge above the football stadium. “I would assume the board [will] take into account that it is rural,” she said, seeking reassurance the lot would not affect the equestrian center.
“We’re constrained by coastal sage brush,” project consultant Tom Tomeoni said, but he did not address the issues of trail easements, which some equestrians are concerned will be blocked, or drainage from the proposed lot into an unnamed blue-line stream located east of the site identified as a potential Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.
James Edwards, a Malibu resident who is the principal of Oxnard High School questioned plans to install synthetic turf at the stadium. He outlined the costs of synthetic turf, including $30,000 a year for chemical disinfectant and $20,000 to maintain field condition. He told the board that, in his experience, there is no savings in water for the synthetic turf because sprinklers must be used to maintain the field “at a temperature suitable for play,” and that, contrary to the consultant’s assurances, a drainage system would be required.
“What is the rational for synthetic turf?” Boardmember Ben Allen asked the consultant. Tomeoni replied that it offered more extensive use, but he acknowledged “there are maintenance issues with synthetic turf.”
“Why are we even talking about lights?” local Cindy Vandor demanded to know. “Coastal will never let you do it. The number one need is public safety,” she said, adding that planned traffic and safety improvements, which had been praised earlier in the meeting as an example of the community and the consultants working together to find practical solutions, “are not a comprehensive plan until we include Juan Cabrillo.”
Vandor also cautioned the board that septic system improvements required by the school have the potential to be a major expense. “Septic will cost you a fortune,” she said, calling the lighting and synthetic turf plans “silly frills” in “the current bad economic climate.”
The BB critic warned that those so-called frills could lead to lawsuits. “Your staff has kept you in the dark,” Vandor said.
“We need to involve Cabrillo,” board member Maria Leon Vazquez agreed. “We need a comprehensive view involving all schools [in the area].”
“Safety first,” Pye added. “Cabrillo has to be in the mix. We are moving in the right direction. There’s more work to be done. I share your concerns with septic. I know it’s a big concern in Malibu. Getting all these [issues] on the table is the first step to solving them.”
The board agreed to meet with consultants and the public before its next Malibu session and walk the MHS campus to see the areas of concern firsthand. Additional outreach meetings were also proposed.
“I’m tired of meetings,” one resident told the Malibu Surfside News after the five-hour session. “I’ve been to every one and they still aren’t listening. They don’t seem to understand that the lights are illegal. That they’re breaking the law.”
“In my mind, it’s not a debate over lighting at the school,” said another audience member, “but whether Coastal and the city will change course and allow night lighting in other public areas. It sets a precedent.”
The next SMMUSD meeting is scheduled for Feb. 19, at Santa Monica City Hall. The next meeting in Malibu will be March 5. Information on the MHS Measure BB improvement plan is available online at: www.smmusd.org or malibuhigh.smmusd.org/BB/bbindex.html

Possibly Pilfered Palms Prompt Persistent Police Probe

• Controversial Trees Mysteriously Disappeared from Malibu High School Grounds Two Weeks Ago

BY ANNE SOBLE

How do what is now said to be as many as 85 palm trees disappear from the grounds of Malibu High School without anyone questioning their removal, or being able to provide any information on their current whereabouts?
That’s the question now being investigated by the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station after the school reported the alleged theft of the trees on Saturday, Jan. 31.
MHS principal Mark Kelly told the Malibu Surfside News, “We at Malibu High did not authorize or know the trees were being removed. Similarly, no one at our district office authorized their removal.”
Kelly said, “Our information indicates that several individuals in two white trucks came to campus, removed the trees and filled the holes. I checked with our district office staff who reported that they had not authorized anyone to remove the trees.”
The principal added, “We are at a loss as to who took them and have reported their removal to the Sheriff’s Department.”
Kelly said, “We have heard from both our director of maintenance and operations and the chief financial officer who both reported having no knowledge that the trees were being removed. These were the two individuals with whom we were discussing our options.”
Kelly indicated that the school and the district had been exploring whether some of the trees might remain on campus if moved to other areas on the grounds where they would be less intrusive.
The possibly purloined trees were planted on the campus 12 weeks ago—over the Thanksgiving weekend—under similarly puzzling circumstances, with no public notice of the landscaping project having been provided, by members of the Shark Fund landscaping committee.
As soon as the trees were in the ground, residents in the Malibu Park area began raising the issue that when fully grown, the queen palms could adversely impact their ocean views.
The trees are also viewed as highly flammable, and concerns were expressed about the appropriateness of their use as landscaping in a wildfire prone area.
Kelly said the school had hoped to “recapture some of the financial loss” from removing the trees by selling them to other schools in the district.
The principal added that district staff was in the process of getting an estimate of what it would cost to remove the trees when it appears the palm pilferers took them without permission.
Kelly said that, at this point, the MHS landscaping committee “is not seeking to do any new improvements but have committed to maintaining the many past projects that have been completed in the last several years.”
Mary Hughes-O’Leary, the former head of the landscaping group, told The News there are two witnesses to the incident, both on staff at the school, who have been asked to report what they saw to detectives at Lost Hills.
She puts a value of $10,000 on the missing trees and the labor involved in their planting.
Hughes-O’Leary said, “I was shocked when I learned what happened. I couldn’t believe it was true.” She said, “I am sure someone in the neighborhood hired people and removed [the trees].”
The former Malibu High parent said there were potential buyers for some of the trees to help the volunteer landscaping group partially recoup their loss.
Hughes-O’Leary said, “Most of the visitors to the school come for sports events. There should be more than chain link and asphalt for them and the students.”
In a letter to the editor this week, she urges anyone with information about the incident to call the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station at 310-456-6652.

Enviro and Surf Organizations Appeal Legacy Park Approvals

• Move Could Be Precursor to Legal Action against City

BY BILL KOENEKER

To no one’s surprise, a coalition of environmental and surfing groups is appealing the planning commission’s decision approving the permits and entitlements for Legacy Park.
The Santa Monica Baykeeper, Heal the Bay, the Malibu Surfing Association, and Surfrider Foundation have jointly filed an appeal of the approval by the planning commission for plans to build a detention pond or basin for stormwater storage, restoration of coastal habitat and public park.
The groups are asking the city council to overturn the planning panel’s approvals.
The specter of delay or litigation was so strong at the planning commission meeting, one commissioner unsuccessfully put forward a motion to delay approval for a year because of the concerns expressed by the enviro groups and the potential for lawsuits.
In a statement issued this week, Baykeeper said the project as designed “will not meet water quality standards and does not address Malibu’s most serious water quality issue, disposal and treatment of sewage from commercial developments in the Civic Center area.”
The 100-plus pages of submittals and exhibits turned over to the city by the Baykeeper including material from a San Francisco-based attorney hired by the group has led some to think the environmental organizations are simply completing administerial requirements before they sue Malibu. The Baykeeper currently has two other lawsuits pending against the city in the courts.
“Legacy Park was originally intended to provide a desperately needed comprehensive solution to the chronic water quality problems of Malibu Creek, Malibu Lagoon and Surfrider Beach,” said Tom Ford, executive director of the Baykeeper.
The Legacy Park project originally included a plan to address wastewater effluent and sewage in the Civic Center area. “The wastewater treatment system element of the project was removed a few weeks ago, almost six months after the public comment period closed,” the press release mistakenly goes on to state.
However, the Malibu Surfside News revealed over a year ago the city was not moving forward with the wastewater component, but only the stormwater element.
An appellant letter sent to the city states over a dozen objections to both the approvals and conditions granted by the planning panel last month.
Items the enviro groups object to include the proposed detention pond, which they contend has not been adequately analyzed for adverse public health impacts; that the installation of an irrigation system on the Legacy Park site has not been adequately analyzed for adverse hydrology and groundwater impacts; and the planned grading of 113,000 cubic yards has not been analyzed geotechnically. The review document “impermissibly defers analysis of project impacts and mitigation until after project approval.”
Other plans, such as habitat restoration for vernal pools, details about landscaping, a water quality mitigation plan, erosion control plan and vegetation removal, also “impermissibly defer analysis of project impacts and mitigation.”
In a 15-page appeal summary, the appellants take aim at the Legacy Park Environmental Impact Report, indicating there are numerous faults and inadequacies contained in the document.
The appeal charges that the EIR impermissibly piecemeals the Legacy Park project to avoid the required California Environmental Quality Act analysis, and that the EIR fails to analyze significant environmental impacts from the project. It also contends the revised Final EIR fails to adequately analyze cumulative hydrology impacts.
The appellants also extensively cite how the EIR fails to respond to specific comments.
“The Legacy Park EIR falls significantly short of the requirements of CEQA. Consequently, the planning commission’s resolution No. 09-11 certifying the EIR violates CEQA,” wrote the appellants in their conclusion.

CCC Appeals Off-Site View Corridor

• Approval Is Challenged as a Major Procedural Error

BY BILL KOENEKER

The California Coastal Commission is filing an appeal of Malibu’s approval of Peter Morton’s request for a complicated off-site view corridor proposal that requires a Local Coastal Program amendment. Simultaneously, Morton promised a $1 million donation for Legacy Park.
Coastal Commissioners Sara Wan and Mary Shallenberger are listed as the appellants.
The complex scheme involves allowing an after-the-fact permit at Morton’s Carbon Beach mansion, while calling for the demolition of a single-family residence on Big Rock Beach to create an off-site view corridor as mitigation for obstructing public views.
The city conditioned the permit to not become effective until the applicant obtained an LCPA from the Coastal Commission.
“To approve a [permit] concurrently with an associated LCP amendment, as the city has done in this case, is inconsistent with the certified Local Coastal Program. The required findings cannot be made,” the appeal letter states.
The appellants indicate that when the Malibu planning commission approved the LCPA, it was difficult to predict if the LCPA would be approved or approved with modifications by the Coastal Commission. “Until such time as the LCP amendment is certified, it is not possible to determine if the project will be consistent with the LCP, as amended,” the appeal letter goes on the state.
The proposal by Morton, the co-founder of the Hard Rock Cafe empire, initially ran into opposition from neighbors, when he proposed the view corridor be placed along La Costa Beach.
When he moved the proposal to Big Rock Beach after a failed attempt at Las Flores Beach and sweetened the deal with a pledge of $1 million, city officials approved the application, once assured that no neighbors protested.
The matter was then approved by the city council, as the proposed LCPA must be approved by the city council as well as the Coastal Commission.

Publisher’s Notebook

• Thoughts Down Under and Hereabouts •

ANNE SOBLE

Despite my readiness to support challenging Australia’s corporate energy behemoths over unwanted and unneeded liquefied natural gas terminals in Southern California and elsewhere, my personal ties with Down Under preclude the eco-enviro differences ever becoming personal. Even if I did not know the wildfire-ravaged communities of Oz’s state of Victoria as well as I do, I, and, all of Malibu, would bemoan the tragic loss of hundreds of lives and nearly a thousand homes as over 400 blazes rage unchecked through southeastern Australia.
Victoria’s coast has a climate and topography similar to ours. This is an area prone to wildfires, where local Aussies traditionally took care of themselves, but intense development has resulted in a more urbanized population that expects public services to always be able to respond to crisis, which they don’t always have the personnel or equipment to do. Sound familiar? Malibuites know firsthand what an out-of-control wildfire fueled by 60-plus mph winds is like. However, despite Malibu having suffered comparable property losses, the human toll has never been as great. That arson may be playing a part in the Australian fires is totally reprehensible.
Malibuites are not just watching this tragedy on a human level, because it has major implications for local public policy as Los Angeles County explores how to employ the Oz “stay and defend” concept in our own wildfire situations, where there will also never be enough personnel and equipment when one or more major conflagrations are out of control. Prudent public policy must balance how to enable those who know what to do in the face of wildfire and have the will to do it, with getting people who do not have this wherewithal out of harm’s way without shutting down Pacific Coast Highway. There cannot be an arbitrary dictum that only addresses part of this complicated quandary.
••••
Hopefully, no censure will result from addressing wildfire issues while Malibu is still drying out from a troika of rainstorms, and looking ahead to another series of wet weather fronts in the next 10 days. It’s true that our rain gauges runneth over and the creeks are freely flowing. The lush verdancy is intoxicating, but that intoxication should not cloud the fact that California is in its third year of record drought. Even if this winter’s rainfall is above average, that may not circumvent the imposition of stringent water controls in Southern California and statewide during the months ahead. The drought created by the current climate changes has a direct influence on wildfire patterns. The two factors are so intertwined that we cannot discuss one without considering the other.
••••
It is ironic that the rain that we so desperately need can exacerbate a complex array of water quality issues that are too often viewed simplistically. Fire, weather, and water are all inexorably linked. The problems cross city, county, state, national, and continental lines. They have to be responded to with a comprehensiveness that acknowledges that everyone has a stake in the solutions.

Pot Pharmacy Permit Granted by Planning Commission

BY BILL KOENEKER

A request for the city’s first pot pharmacy permit was granted last week, when the Malibu Planning Commission gave the OK for the entitlement.
The planning panel’s formal action was, on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Regan Schaar dissenting, to grant a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary.
Last summer, the city council adopted an ordinance to allow two dispensaries in the city as a conditionally permitted use in all commercial zones.
Previously, the city had enacted a moratorium after it discovered there were two dispensaries already operating, but Malibu had no zoning regulations to deal with the stores.
In contrast to those hearings and meetings about municipal action, at last week’s hearing there were no speakers, nor, according to the staff, were there any correspondence or complaints from the public.
The owners of PCH Collective successfully sought the CUP to allow for the operations of the pot pharmacy, which has been doing business in Malibu for several years.
When Chair Joan House said she visited the site, Commissioner Jeff Jennings quipped, “Did you score any?”
Regaining seriousness, House, who noted that, given Schaar’s previous complaints about another local dispensary, she wanted to see the operations up close.
“I was impressed by the collective. There was no smell. It was very neat, very tidy. No inhaling on the premises. You buy and leave. It is used like a pharmacy,” she added.
The panel was about to vote on the matter when Commissioner Ed Gillespie asked to speak.
He said he wanted to know about the other dispensary in town, saying he had looked at its Web site, where the operator advertised about an on-site smoking lounge and a free sample for visitors. Those activities violate the city’s rules.
“I have no first hand knowledge [about those activities],” said Gillespie, who asked for the status of the other dispensary known as Green Angel.
Commissioners were told the operators of Green Angel were in the process of applying for a CUP.
Gillespie said he also wanted to know if the dispensaries were against federal law. Assistant City Attorney Greg Kovacevich answered, “Yes, but not exactly. They could be seized by the feds. The violation is for possession of a controlled substance. I don’t know that will happen with this administration.”
Earlier in the day, several dispensaries on the Westside were raided and all materials, including marijuana, money and other paraphernalia were seized, according to a Los Angeles Times story.
Gillespie, who said he supported the idea of folks being able to get the medicine they needed, said he wanted to know how controls could be tightened up.
Reading from an article in the Malibu Surfside News, Gillespie quoted how local law enforcement officials said it was easy even for teens to get documentation to obtain medical marijuana.
“To me this shows we need controls. My position is the people who need this, I’m for 100 percent. I’m still uncomfortable with the controls and how easy it is to get this,” he said.
Commissioner John Mazza said he too visited the site and said while he was there an individual came in with a card that the operators verified by calling the doctor. Patients do not get prescriptions, but rather recommendations from physicians,” he said.
“They made sure it was real and made sure the person and the doctor was real,” added Mazza.
Mazza also said there were other safeguards that Malibu required that were not in effect in other jurisdictions.
The vote was taken, Schaar voted no, but made no comments during the meeting about her continued opposition.
The store claims it has patient records for over 1000 individuals who live within the 90265 zip code and employs 16 security cameras.

White House Signals Move Away from Oil and Gas Dependence in New Energy Plan

• Direction Validates Local Opposition to Recent Bid for New Drilling Off Coast

BY ANNE SOBLE

Less than two weeks after the California State Lands Commission vetoed the first new oil drilling proposal off the state’s coast in 40 years, the White House is taking steps toward developing a national energy policy along lines that differ sharply from the views of the previous Administration.
On Tuesday in Washington, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced an offshore energy plan with a strong emphasis on renewable resources.
The strategy first calls for “extending the public comment period on a proposed 5-year plan for oil and gas development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf by 180 days, assembling a detailed report from Interior Department agencies on conventional and renewable offshore energy resources, holding four regional conferences on the findings, and expediting renewable energy rulemaking for the [OCS].”
“To establish an orderly process that allows us to make wise decisions based on sound information, we need to set aside the Bush Administration’s midnight timetable for its OCS drilling plan and create our own timeline,” Salazar said.
On its last business day in office, the Bush Administration proposed a new five-year plan for offshore oil and gas leasing. Salazar said the deadline for public comment on that plan—March 23—does not provide enough time for public review or wise decision-making on behalf of the nation’s taxpayers.
“The additional time we are providing will give states, stakeholders, and affected communities the opportunity to provide input on the future of our offshore areas,” he said. “The additional time will allow us to restore an orderly process to our offshore energy planning.”
Salazar said this evaluation of the proposed plan also requires that more information be obtained about offshore resources.
Salazar directed the United States Geological Survey, the Minerals Management Service, and other departmental scientists to report on offshore resources—conventional and renewable—along with information about potential impacts in 45 days.
Based on those reports, the Department of Interior will address any information gaps related to the more than 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf, an area about three-fourths the size of the United States.
“To gather the best ideas for how we accomplish the task of gathering the offshore information we need, I will convene four regional meetings in the 30 days after MMS and USGS publish their report,” Salazar said. One of these will be on the West Coast, where all interested parties will be able to offer recommendations “on how to move ahead with a comprehensive offshore energy plan.”
Salazar added that he will create a framework for offshore renewable energy development, so that DOI can incorporate wind, wave, and ocean current energy into its offshore energy strategy. “The Bush Administration was so intent on opening new areas for oil and gas offshore that it torpedoed offshore renewable energy efforts,” he said.
When in the U.S. Senate, Salazar helped craft and pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that required Interior to move quickly and issue, within nine months, rules and regulations to guide the development of offshore energy resources, such as wind, wave, and tidal power. The Bush Administration left office without putting any regulations in place “because it was not their priority,” the Secretary said, “notwithstanding the requirement of the law.”
“I intend to issue a final rulemaking for offshore renewables in the coming months, so that potential developers know the rules of the road,” Salazar said. “This rulemaking will allow us to move from the ‘oil and gas only’ approach of the previous Administration to the comprehensive energy plan that we need.”
“We need a new, comprehensive energy plan that takes us to the new energy frontier and secures our energy independence,” Salazar said. “We must embrace President Obama’s vision of energy independence for the sake of our national security, our economic security, and our environmental security.”
By adding the 180-day extension to the original 60-day public comment period, interested parties will have been provided eight months to offer input on the proposed plan. The current comment period opened on Jan. 21.

Council Says Yes to Outdoor Smoking Ban

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council, on a 4-1 vote with Mayor Andy Stern dissenting, agreed to direct the staff to prepare a smoking ban in many of Malibu’s outdoor venues.
The council’s action was prompted by a recent state of tobacco control report card that gave the city an “F” grade.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich brought the matter before her colleagues to consider a smoking ban much like in other cities such as Glendale, which scored an “A” grade.
After much debate about the details, the council agreed to have the staff draft an ordinance that would outlaw smoking in outdoor dining areas and outdoor public events with the proviso that a smoking outpost be established. The smoking area was defined as a site away from the public where smokers could congregate to puff away.
“We should be able to accommodate those weak-willed addicts and give them a place to smoke,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who is a smoker.
Currently, the city has smoke-free outdoor areas in entryways, meaning around public buildings and recreation areas, such as the city’s ban on smoking at the beach.
Stern did not elaborate on his dissenting vote.

State Lands Commission Denies PXP-EDC Offshore Oil Drilling Proposal

• Malibu Opponents Addressed Issues of Precedent, Enforceability, Transparency and Safety

BY ANNE SOBLE

Despite a hearing room packed with Santa Barbara supporters, many of them focused on local budgetary needs rather than environmental issues, the California State Lands Commission voted 2–1 last Thursday to oppose a proposal for two offshore subsurface oil leases that would have allowed Plains Exploration & Production, known as PXP, to slant drill 17 new oil wells into state tidelands from a federal platform currently in operation.
The oil-drilling proposal, the Tranquillon Ridge Oil and Gas Project, was brokered by the Environmental Defense Center for two Santa Barbara civic groups, Get Oil Out! and the Citizens Planning Association. The complete text of the proposal was not available for public review during the approval process because of a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
EDC chief counsel Linda Krop described the package that could have resulted in the cessation of oil drilling at up to four oil platforms off Santa Barbara and provided land donations and funding grants to the immediate area as “an air-tight agreement” that could provide important benefits and “end oil drilling,” even as she said its largely sub rosa drafting was “a long, strange trip.”
Although EDC had pieced together a coalition of 25 environmental organizations, most of them in the Santa Barbara area, the State Lands staff’s recommendation that the project be rejected because of unenforceability, transparency and safety issues was beginning to prompt some of the larger enviro groups to reconsider their level of support.
The SLC staff held steadfast to its concern that the lynchpin of the EDC-brokered package—the setting of the date 2022 for termination of production by up to four Santa Barbara oil rigs (three of which involved partnerships that were not clearly spelled out in the agreement)—was not enforceable, which testimony by Ellen Aronson of the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior indirectly confirmed, but the proposal’s supporters at the hearing appeared to disregard.
The disregard lent credence to testimony by Penny Alia of Orange County that “there’s people in this room who are supporting this [proposal] who have never seen it.”
The State Lands staff concerns were dismissed by Steven Rusch, PXP vice president of environmental, health, safety and government affairs, who trivialized them with “I’m sure the sky could fall in [too].” Rusch described the staff criticisms as “hypothetical speculation” and said negative scenarios postulated in the staff report were “far-fetched.” On the transparency issue, he said, “PXP has released what’s appropriate.”
But a sizable contingent of Malibu opponents to the deal testified to the contrary at the hearing in Santa Barbara, reinforcing the concerns in the staff report.
Echoing the views of many local environmentalists, the Malibu City Council and the Malibu Coastal Lands Conservancy were Sara Wan, Steve Uhring, Judy Fogel, Larry Wan and Remy O’Neill, part of a late-hour mobilization effort that hammered away at the issues of precedent, enforceability, transparency and safety.
Sara Wan, a member of the California Coastal Commission who was speaking as an individual, told the panel, “This deal will not end drilling. It is not enforceable, [and the secret] confidentiality agreement allows the painting of a picture that is not true. ”
Wan added that, notwithstanding the testimony on behalf of the proposal by the cash-strapped Santa Barbara fire department, law enforcement agencies and other special interests that would follow, “Our resources are priceless. You cannot put a cash value on that, and you shouldn’t.”
Steve Uhring, speaking for the Malibu Coastal Lands Conservancy, which had hired EDC to lobby against the BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port liquefied natural gas project that was turned down by State Lands on a 2-1 vote in 2007, emphasized MCLC’s concerns on the transparency issue, saying, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Larry Wan, who is actively involved with two land conservancies, said the land conveyances held out as carrots in the PXP proposal have serious title issues, and he questioned financial compensation for transactions that might be inappropriate but, because of “the lack of transparency,” couldn’t be adequately examined.
Concern about increased danger of oil spills and the precedent-setting nature of a decision to allow the first new drilling on the California coast in 40 years and how that would have the potential to open up the rest of the coast to drilling was reiterated repeatedly by the Malibu critics.
When the project’s supporters took over the podium, although a few of them stressed the hope that the project would take up to four of the 23 oil platforms off their shores out of production (but not necessarily removed), most of the speakers from Santa Barbara repeated a variant of the refrain, “We need the money” that was proffered by the project, including upfront fees, ad valorem taxes and royalties to the state.
But after several hours of public testimony, while acknowledging the state’s financial problems, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, resuming the post of chair of the three-member State Lands panel at this meeting, and state Controller John Chiang voted against the leases.
Thomas Sheehy, sitting in for his boss, state Director of Finance Michael Genest, who usually sends a surrogate to SLC meetings, voted in favor of the motion he made to approve the proposal.
Sheehy had openly lobbied for the PXP package throughout the meeting. He said, “In our state’s cash crisis, we cannot turn a blind eye to the financial benefits.”
The deputy finance director appeared to be spinning so intently for the project that, at one point, Garamendi chided him with, “I notice the governor [now] supports offshore oil drilling, “ which Sheehy ignored.
When casting his no vote, Garamendi said the proposal is “not in the best interests of the state,” which is the commission’s charge when assessing public policy. He said, “This issue is important to the entire state...and the nation [because] it would provide a precedent for ‘drill, baby, drill’ proponents to urge Congress and the White House to resume offshore oil drilling.”
Paraphrasing Genesis 25:29-34 from the Old Testament, the lieutenant governor said, “I am not about to sell the California birthright—the most fabulous coast anywhere in this world—for an immediate meal.”
Nagging concerns about full disclosure were never allayed. Controller John Chiang stressed that the confidentiality clause in the agreement precluded all of it from being made public until the last minute. “On anything to do with public lands,” Chiang said, “The public should be able to review all documents.” He cast his no vote without further comment.
After months of agency requests to make the agreement public, PXP agreed during the meeting to make all documentation available, instead of the “substantive” elements not covered by their confidentiality agreement with EDC.
But most observers agreed this was too late to alleviate critics’ suspicions. And it was not clear at the meeting whether EDC had agreed to disclosure of the terms related to its compensation.
Midway through the five-hour hearing, Garamendi had offered Texas-based PXP the option of continuing the matter “so some of the [contested] issues could be explored further,” but CEO James Flores responded, “We could continue to learn about this project for the rest of our lives. We want action taken today.”
Flores said, “This agreement is for political support...If things change, people get sued,” and he added that “people in this room are depending on this capital,” without elaborating on who and which capital.
Garamendi told Flores, “Then it will be up and down on the project,” and on the day after the 40th anniversary of the disastrous Santa Barbara oil spill that spurred the state policy against offshore oil drilling for four decades, the majority voted down.
POSTMORTEM
After the meeting, EDC chief counsel Linda Krop told the Malibu Surfside News, “The project is dead. No public agencies can override this…unless there is some sort of political change.” She did not rule out the possibility that PXP might decide to come back to the State Lands Commission with a revised proposal. PXP officials did not respond to MSN requests for comment.
Krop said she was “caught by surprise” by the strong opposition from Malibu, because “everyone in Santa Barbara was thrilled with this.” She said, “Whatever we tried to do…we did not realize there was so much concern.”
The attorney said the EDC “took the case on contingency” but because the financial arrangements between the advocacy group and PXP have not been made public yet, it is not known how much money might have changed hands if the project had been approved.
However, some of the project’s critics are now asking whether a financial agreement of this nature involving an environmental advocacy group can result in unqualified bias for a project, and if the monetary stake and the potential conflict of interest can result in bad public policy decisions.
As for the enforceability issue and the possibility that the oil rig owners could have been forced to continue production by the federal Minerals Management Service, Krop said that was a “minor risk” when compared to the benefits as she perceived them. “We tried to be creative...it didn’t work out.”
However, Coastal Commission member and environmental activist Sara Wan, speaking to The News after the hearing, said, “All of the concerns were expressed to Krop by State Lands staff and others.” She said EDC’s downfall may have been thinking “that it had the political clout to override the objections” to the proposal.
Wan said she is deeply troubled by the possibility of conflict of interest issues because of the undisclosed terms of the contract. “We don’t know, was EDC getting legal expenses, or lobbying fees, or?” Answers to these questions are important to the environmental community, she said.
Of the State Lands Commission’s action itself, Wan said, “I have great admiration for Garamendi and Chiang. In the face of strong pressure, they stood up for principles. They did what’s right.”

High School Light Fight to Be Aired at School Board Meeting

• Fireworks Expected Thursday at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall When BB Development Is Reviewed

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Malibu High School’s Measure BB improvement plan is expected to be the hot topic at the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board of education meeting in Malibu on Thursday, Feb. 5. Opponents and proponents of various aspects of the proposed improvements, including the controversial permanent athletic field lighting plan, are expected to attend in force.
District plans to install permanent field lighting at Malibu High School continued to spark questions and criticism from residents at the third and final Measure BB improvement plan community outreach meeting last week.
Design and sustainability was the theme of the meeting, and consultants for the project discussed many aspects of the improvement plan that had not been presented in detail at the previous two outreach meetings.
Many residents, some armed with protest signs, came to the meeting to oppose the field lighting plan, which would include four or six 70-to-80-foot high light poles that could potentially be used 203 nights a year, but also to explore other aspects of the improvements package.
Plans for enlarging a proposed new parking area, waste and stormwater disposal and emergency fire access raised questions, but most speakers had praise for classroom and library construction plans that incorporate natural light and fresh air and utilize recycled and sustainable materials.
“We want to make sure everybody who wants to speak gets an opportunity,” MHS Principal Mark Kelly told the crowd who packed the school library. “We will answer any questions that we can answer, and also we will take that information back with us, as we continue the process. What we want to do is get [your] comments. We won’t freeze you out.”
The presentation began with a look at plans to incorporate sustainable and green elements into the new buildings. According to Kevin O’Brien, a spokesperson for HMC Architects, the goal of the new construction is to meet state-mandated green building criteria for schools, and achieve a “Collaborative for High Performance Schools rating.” The CHPS Web site defines High Performance Schools as “environments that are not only energy and resource efficient, but also healthy, comfortable, well lit, and containing the amenities for a quality education.”
According to O’Brien, the new building, which will contain the library, classrooms and administrative offices, and the middle school building that will be remodeled, will feature recycled materials, and incorporate natural lighting and ventilation, and energy efficient, vegetation-covered, green roof systems, one of which could double as an outdoor classroom.
Photovoltaic panels will be incorporated, although O’Brien said that the goal for the PV installations “is not to be energy neutral but to cut down on energy use, and so students can see them work.”
O’Brien discussed recycled materials that will include brick from the current library and administration building that is slated to be demolished. “We’ll be trying to reuse as much brick as possible, but it will take some testing to reclaim them,” he said.
Landscaping for the project will incorporate native plants. “As a firm we believe landscaping and building design should be integrated,” O’Brien said.
The school’s onsite wastewater treatment system will be upgraded, and there will be “a net gain in restrooms,” O’Brien said, although he was unable to give specific details.
Parking areas will be equipped with bioswales to absorb rain runoff, and the roof plantings on the new buildings would also reduce runoff. “We’re trying to get away from the old idea of getting water away as fast as possible.”
Fire safety plans will include new fire alarms and sprinkler systems, as well as one new hydrant that will be placed by the basketball courts where the temporary facilities that will house the library and administration buildings during construction will be located.
Cindy Vandor, a fire safety activist who has been working on an emergency fire plan for neighboring Malibu West, suggested that the school needs an onsite drafting hydrant located at the pool.
Steve Scheinkman, a member of the recently organized Malibu Park Safety Coalition, expressed concern that school buses are currently being loaded in the fire lane and wanted assurances that this would change. “The [access] requirement is 150 feet from the truck,” Scheinkman said. “Today you would not have any access. This is kind of a critical point.”
Revised plans for a potential new parking lot also generated questions from residents, and a number of concerns. The proposed expanded lot would run parallel to the football field along the ridge that separates the school from the equestrian center. With this plan, the current parking lot and drive way could be used for an onsite pick-up and drop-off turnaround. The consultants indicated that this plan could allow for traffic and fire safety advocates to potentially be constructed, joining the proposed parking lot to the existing driveway.
“There go all our trails,” said a woman in the audience, referring to bridle paths that cross the proposed parking lot area and connect the equestrian center to western Malibu Park. “That’s an ESHA,” said another, they can’t build there.”
The consultants told concerned residents that lighting for the new parking area would be “minimal,” and that “all the light would be contained,” however, they agreed that 15-to-20-foot light poles would be required throughout the parking lot for safety.
“It’s all being studied,” Julian Capata, a spokesperson for the consultant firm PBS&J, reminded the group. We don’t have concrete answers. Nothing is off the table, and nothing is concrete.” He added that the public will have the opportunity to comment on the EIR, and that there will be at least one public meeting on the EIR, as well as the potential for additional public outreach meetings. “We’re going to study your suggestions. All of your comments will be part of the record.”
Residents were told that the district is moving ahead with its plans for field lighting, and that district representatives will go to the California Coastal Commission “very soon” to see if they can “get permission to use temp lights next season.”
The existing Coastal Development Permit for the campus (CDP-04-99-276) specifically prohibits either temporary or permanent field lighting, and the CCC is aware that the district’s temporary lighting is in violation. Critics of the lighting plan are quick to point out that athletic lighting is also prohibited by the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program, as is construction over the height of 28 feet.
The consultant told the audience that as a result of public comment at the previous meeting, daytime viewshed analysis will now be incorporated into the plan, as well as a viewshed from Zuma Beach. Noise and parking and pathway light analysis will also be included.
“I heard you loud and clear,” Kelly said. “No 203.” He was referring to the maximum number of nights the proposed lights might be in use that had received a firestorm of criticism at the last meeting.
“Don’t cram it down our throats,” Scheinkman said. “We aren’t going away. We have a lot of standards. We aren’t asking you to operate on a different standard. I can’t have lights in my backyard. If we’re bound to do it, we’re going to make sure you do.”
“I am a resident of Malibu Park,” Victoria Epstein said. “The school is my neighbor. I’m asking you to be a good neighbor and abide by the LCP. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Harriet Pollon, representing the Malibu Township Council, expressed concern that a joint use plan being negotiated between the district and the City of Malibu could lead to the fields being used extensively not by students but by the public.
“Oxnard operates seven different [high school] fields, most are on 25 times a year, including grad night,” Pollon said. “What exactly are you going to use our school for? We don’t have a police department. In Oxnard, every high school has a policeman. We don’t have that option. Can you handle an incident? Can you even deal with the traffic?”
“The state of California is bankrupt,” Cathy Cadieaux said. “We’re in major trouble. I don’t see where the money is going to come from. The school can’t operate the bathrooms up there, and yet we’re putting in 1300 seats? If you guys push through with all these big lights, you’re going to want to use them. Malibu is not the suburbs. We say no.”
“The great majority [of use] would be practices, not for outside things,” Measure BB advisory committee member Laura Rosenthal responded, adding that she hopes the lights would be an asset to adults as well as children. “I would like to see adult soccer. I love having things here.” She added that “this city voted for this facilities bond, we have to do this.”
“Malibu is unique because of its lack of lighting,” Point Dume resident Dusty Peak said. “These lights are very invasive. It still works without the lights. I suddenly feel like this parking lot, loop road, this whole thing keeps getting bigger. We’ve expanded the parking lot. It’s right on the ridgeline. We have ridgeline rules. I don’t know where the middle ground is. The ball starts rolling, and you can’t stop it.”
“I moved here 35 years ago because it’s rural residential and my kids could walk to school,” Pat Greenwood said. “The sports program is incredibly important, I completely support the school, but with [a] few things in mind: being a good neighbor and following the city LCP, keeping in mind the rural character, knowing the city LCP prohibits lighting. I was on the parks and recreation commission. One of the things we learned is that lighting is not permitted. It’s a wonderful thing to do the renovations, but follow the city rules relative to lighting.”
“This is not a community versus school situation,” Vandor said. “We are the same people. We didn’t vote for facilities, we voted for safety. This wasn’t a wish list, it was a needs list. Pay attention [or] we’re going to litigate the hell out of you,” she admonished the district representatives.

Council to Hear Trancas Condo Plans

• City Planning Commission Vetoed LCP Zoning Request

BY BILL KOENEKER

A controversial proposal that would include creating an open space buffer in an area next to where condominiums would be built along Trancas Canyon Road is scheduled to be heard by the Malibu City Council next week. The request was recently denied by the planning commission.
The planning panel unanimously recommended the council deny a request for a Local Coastal Program amendment that would designate currently zoned RR-5 land to public open space and multifamily dwellings for a vacant 35-acre parcel.
The commissioners, instead, recommended the city council direct the applicant to return with an Environmental Impact Report detailing specifics of the project.
West Malibu and Malibu West residents have expressed opposition to the proposed zone changes and argue the developer should only be allowed to build the seven homes zoned for the property.
Various owners attempting to develop the property have sought to build condos on the land, seeking up to 30 to 40 units.
The price differential could be significant, with some observers suggesting the total revenue from such an endeavor could amount to $60 million dollars or more, compared to seven homes, which might garner $25 million or less.
This is not the first development scheme offered. The property has been the focus of other zoning change proposals and a proposed development agreement between the developer and the city that fell apart after litigation.
An indicator of how high the stakes are for the developer, some commissioners indicated they got phone calls from former Gov. Gray Davis, who tried to lobby them on behalf of the applicant’s proposal.

Appeal of Trancas Park Plans to Go to the Council

• Amount of Grading Raises Hackles

BY BILL KOENEKER

When Malibu West homeowners found out how much grading was required for the proposed Trancas Canyon Park, an informal carefully crafted “deal” came undone and a fight was on with City Hall.
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Feb. 23, when west Malibu critics will urge the council to overturn the planning commission’s approval of the permits and entitlements for the construction of a seven-acre public park on a 13.5 acre site along Trancas Canyon Road.
The planning panelists had approved the park, which includes a multi-use sports practice field, a dog park, a tot lot, parking space for 64 cars and 128,000 cubic yards of grading.
There are actually two appeals and several appellants. Teresa Campeau and Clara Thie filed the first appeal. The second appeal was filed by John Norvet, Mark Davis and Robert Belvin.
Both sets of appellants have criticized the grading approved for the northern ridge of the park where the dog park, tot lot and picnic area are proposed to be sited because that area has to be “significantly altered by extreme cuts into steep slopes, and the playing field has to be filled and elevated 10 to 13 feet.”
The appellants are asking the city council to consider alternatives that avoid development of the upper ridge and prevent so much landform alteration.
Another complaint of the appellants is their concern that so much grading, in a known geologically sensitive area, might create the potential for “seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides, given the huge amount of fill that has already been dumped on the site—80 feet deep in spots.”
Another complaint of the appellants deals with the problems of a dog park in a residential area. They say noise coming from a dog park precludes it from being so close to Malibu West and no dog park should be allowed.
Appellants also felt that the concerns of many critics were ignored by the commission.

TMDL Proposed for Trash in Malibu Creek

• Water Panel Seeks Comment on Need for Oversight

BY BILL KOENEKER

Public comments are currently being accepted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on whether to incorporate a total maximum daily load requirement, more commonly known by its acronym TMDL, for trash in the Malibu Creek watershed.
The change would be considered an amendment to the water quality control plan for the Los Angeles Region.
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board last year adopted an amendment to the plan to incorporate a TMDL for trash in the entire 109 square mile watershed.
In RWQCB language, Malibu Creek is the receiving water body for urban and storm runoff from a network of storm drains, tributaries, creeks and lakes.
Malibu Creek and some of its tributaries, including Medea Creek, Lindero Creek and Las Virgenes Creek have been identified as impaired water bodies because of many factors, including not meeting water quality standards for trash as defined by the Clean Water Act.
Experts contend the trash comes from everywhere, including adjacent land areas, roadways and direct dumping. Point sources such as storm drains area are also considered sources of trash discharge into the Malibu Creek watershed.
Detailed information about TMDLs and their importance is available at: www.waterboards. ca.gov
A hearing date before the regional board on this matter has not yet been scheduled.
Comments can be emailed to: commentletters@waterboards. ca.gov

Corral Fire Suspects Rescheduled (Again)

BY ANNE SOBLE

Arraignment of two Los Angeles co-defendants charged with starting the Corral Canyon wildfire of November 2007 that destroyed 53 homes and damaged another two dozen structures was postponed again last Thursday, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office.
Brian Alan Anderson, 23, and William Thomas Coppock, 24, are now scheduled to be arraigned on Monday, March 2, in Van Nuys Superior Court. Anderson, Coppock and Brian Franks, 28, who has already pled guilty and is slated for sentencing, are involved in one prosecution case.
Two Culver City men face the same charges in a second case. Eric Matthew Ullman, 19, and Dean Allen Lavorante, 20, are due back in court on Feb. 26, when a date is expected to be set for a hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence for the pair to also stand trial.
The prosecution charges that the two groups of men went to a notorious rave cave on state parkland atop Corral Canyon to drink and party.
The Culver City men allegedly started a bonfire that the L.A. trio took over and allowed to get out of control in reckless disregard of strong winds and low humidity.
Corral Fire burnouts and neighbors have been monitoring the trial closely. Some are privately grumbling that attorneys for the defendants are engaged in “defense by delay” and drawing out the legal proceedings to try give their clients greater advantage.

Publisher’s Notebook

• Shedding Light on School Issues •

ANNE SOBLE

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District has a permanent superintendent as of this Thursday who told the Malibu Surfside News last week that Malibu’s views are important to the district, and he assured the community that his administration will be responsive and transparent as it meets local educational needs.
There’s a tremendous reservoir of goodwill toward public education in Malibu. Residents wish the superintendent success as he tackles the challenges facing all of the school systems in California. But Malibuites want a say in how these challenges are faced, even if they cannot always make the trek to the regular school board meetings that are held in the late afternoon in Santa Monica.
One way Malibuites can participate is to be able to view replays of board meetings in a timely fashion. The superintendent was surprised to learn that meetings held at the Santa Monica district offices are not promptly posted on the district Web site, often taking two to three weeks after a meeting, or longer, to become available. If this problem can be remedied, it will go a long toward preventing the blindsiding of locals on key issues.
When the school board meets in Malibu, as it does a few times a year, residents should turn out in force. This month’s meeting is set for 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 5, at City Hall. Among the issues expected to take center stage is whether the illegal Malibu High School athletic field lighting system, in contravention of City of Malibu and California Coastal Commission agreements, should be sanctioned; and a new proposal calling for field lights atop poles up to 80 feet tall that could be used for as many as 203 nights a year should move forward.
Just as Malibuites don’t want the horizon marred by a liquefied natural gas terminal or oil drilling rigs, some residents contend that eight-story-tall poles would sully their sightlines, and the lighting would impair their quality of life and adversely affect the environment.
The possibility of compromise between humans is always preferable to conflict, and it would not appear that the issues here require a Solomon-like decree. The field lights are part of a bigger package of changes proposed for the campus that needs fine-tuning with extensive input from the people immediately affected by it: the residents of Malibu Park; the entire school population and community at large; and the Coastal Commission charged with looking at the project’s implications for those who come to Malibu to enjoy the views.
It is ironic that the district is awash in funds for structures as it struggles to find dollars for teachers and classroom supplies. Although there is no doubt that the proposition-happy special interests in California needed to be reigned in with specificity, this has led to an edifice complex gripping public institutions, causing them to be more concerned with image than substance. There is something wrong when construction takes precedent over instruction in such dire financial times.

SM Baykeeper to Host ‘Online Party’

BY NICOLE KLIEST

Santa Monica Baykeeper is launching its first annual EcoGala, an event that is to be held entirely online. In an effort to lower the group’s environmental footprint, Laurie Feldman, the director of development and marketing for Baykeeper is trying to turn conventional fundraising on its head.
Feldman, who has been in the nonprofit business for 20 years and actively involved in fundraising for the last four is the creator of this approach.
“Traditionally, fundraising is event focused,” Feldman said. “In order for people to raise money, they have to spend money, or they have to come to a party. I think people are ready to embrace change and donate without attending an event.”
EcoGala is an online “party” that takes everything one would see at an actual event and translates it online. Activities include an online auction, monthly contests and drawings, electronic gifts, a tribute journal and blog. Guests even have the opportunity to bid on items donated by celebrities, including Barbra Streisand and Jack Johnson.
“There is a lot of time and energy that goes into planning an event,” Feldman said. “From getting talent to stage production to meals, a lot of money is spent. [With EcoGala] over 90 percent of the money is going to the organization.”
The online event launched Feb. 3 and will run until Dec. 31, with a goal of raising $200,000. The proceeds will go to Baykeeper’s program.
“We have an advocacy program that holds polluters accountable,” Feldman said. “We have a watershed program that restores creeks and waterways that make their way to the ocean. We also have a kelp restoration and monitoring program in which we are trying to restore the kelp forest.”
Because EcoGala is considered a progressive way of planning an event, progressive, eco-friendly promotion strategies are being enacted.
“I’m trying to take Obama’s message of social networking,” Feldman said. “We’re using online resources such as Facebook and YouTube. I think it’s going to work that way because we’re out there social networking via the Internet. I want to help the environment so we’re sending emails, talking about it and getting people engaged [as well as approaching publications like the Malibu Surfside News for articles].”
The Web site also released a video of the president of Heal the Bay, Mark Gold, advocating the event. Other popular endorsers include Barbra Streisand and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“By hosting the event online, Santa Monica Baykeeper is taking fundraising to the next level environmentally,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chair of Waterkeeper Alliance. “There’s no need to get in your car, no dishes to wash and no need to put on a tux, everything from the auction to the tribute journal will be online. A great creative way to raise funds without taxing our resources.”
“As a longtime supporter of Santa Monica Baykeeper, I support and commend their innovative efforts to raise funds without taxing the earth,” Barbra Streisand said. “I look forward to participating in more events like this that are creative and fun.”
Another upside to the EcoGala being held online is the personal cost to the attendees. They can donate $5, or they can donate $10,000. Anyone can participate and can donate whatever they wish.
To find out how to “attend” the event, visit the EcoGala’s Web site at, www.ecogala.smbaykeeper.org.

SMMUSD Board Will Address BB Plans

• MHS Improvement Project Is on the Agenda for Discussion

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Malibu High School’s Measure BB improvement plan will be on the agenda as a discussion item at the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board of education meeting in Malibu on Thursday, Feb. 5. Although the athletic field lighting plan is expected to dominate (see story on page 2), that is just part of the agenda.
According to the meeting agenda, “Over 40 written comments and e-mails have been received from neighboring residents, community groups, public agencies, and other organizations. A total of over 150 members of the public, school community and public agency staff have participated in the five public meetings including over 70 speakers.”
The discussion and related presentation planned for the Feb. 5 meeting “is intended to bring the public and the board up-to-date on these efforts, as well as highlight the public and agency input received.” According to the agenda, the board is anticipating that “staff will return to the March 5 board meeting with specific scope and budget recommendations, especially as related to traffic and parking.”
The board will also be voting to approve additional funds for several key of the plan. One of these items includes $8046 for renderings of the proposed field lights, that are required “as part of the Environmental Impact Report process at MHS and the associated public meetings.”
District staff report that additional renderings are required “to represent the athletic field lighting in various configurations and at different times of day.” The renderings are intended “to demonstrate to the community the impact of the proposed lighting at the public meeting. This effort is also required in support of the application to the California Coastal Commission for a Coastal Development Permit.”
A related amendment would allow for “additional professional planning services to support the CCC approval of the [lighting] project. In order to expedite and coordinate the preparation and filing of an amendment to the CCC.” The amendment request acknowledges that the CCC’s CDP specifically prohibited either temporary or permanent field lighting, and states that “recent communications with CCC staff indicate that an amendment to CDP-04-99-276 may be required, if permanent lighting is anticipated in the MHS athletic field project.”
The board is also expected to approve an amendment to the contract with Glenn Lukos Associates to provide “additional biological support services and public outreach meetings support for the athletic field lighting project,” in the amount of $8970, to “approve the survey and identification of a known Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area near the Malibu High/Middle School site, and to approve additional support to the public outreach meetings for the project.”
The SMMUSD board meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 5, at Malibu City Hall. For more information and the agenda, visit the district’s Web site at: www.smmusd.org