Malibu City Council Attempts to Respond to Enviro Flak on Legacy Park

• Members Approve Design and Let Construction Contract on Debated Project Out to Bid

BY BILL KOENEKER

During a special Malibu City Council meeting last Thursday morning, some members used the opportunity during approval to bid out a construction contract and give final approval for Legacy Park to defend the city’s direction in building stormwater improvements on the Civic Center acreage, after being blasted by environmental groups and surfing organizations during an appeal hearing two weeks ago.
Councilmember John Sibert said there is an impression that the city is slowing down on wastewater treatment for the Civic Center and noted the belief that experts contend that most pathogens are carried into the ocean from stormwater runoff.
He said the city should not wait for three or four years to clean up the water from runoff when it could do so now. “Our message is not out there,” he said.
What the city regarded as its most damning evidence about what they consider the turnabout in positions by Santa Monica Baykeeper, Heal the Bay, the Malibu Surfing Association and Surfrider Foundations are letters produced by Mayor Andy Stern written by some of the groups almost three years ago.
In a letter signed by then executive director Tracy Egoscue on Baykeeper letterhead, the city is praised for its project. “As the concept proposal indicated, the detention basin and intermittent wetlands to be built with grant funds will benefit an area that received approximately 1.5 to 2 million annual visitors. Improvements to water quality will address a number of impaired beneficial uses, including rare, threatened and endangered species, estuaries and wetland habitat, wildlife habitat and contact and non contact recreation. The project will help manage stormwater, in turn aiding in compliance with the TMDLs applicable to Santa Monica Bay beaches and Malibu Creek,” Egoscue wrote.
Stern said the key issue the groups most vociferously protested was the city moving forward with stormwater at this time and allegedly turning its back on wastewater. The groups had accused the city of a bait and switch after they had agreed to endorse grant funds from government agencies. Talking about the 2006 endorsement letters and how they solely focused on stormwater improvements over three years ago, Stern said, “No one here is [talking] about wastewater.”
Continuing to read from the letters, Stern said a missive signed by Mark Gold, who heads up Heal the Bay, wrote, “Heal the Bay strongly supports the Malibu Civic Center Stormwater Management Project for funding under the SWRCB consolidated grant program.”
The letter goes on to state, “We would like to offer our enthusiastic support for the Malibu Civic Center Stormwater Management Project. This project is necessary to comply with the Malibu Creek Watershed and Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL requirements and implementation will help improve the water quality at Malibu Creek and Lagoon as well as Surfrider Beach.”
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said she could not truly understand the protests since in effect, it is environmental groups and surfers that are asking the city to delay cleaning up the stormwater runoff. “The environmental groups are saying, ‘Go on ahead and pollute.’ My vote was to not keep polluting,” she said.
Talking about the split on the council, Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner both voted no, the mayor said, “I know Pam and Jay have different views.”
Conley Ulich said, “At the end of the day, Sharon, Andy and John, they are on our side. We are all on the same side. We are standing together for this park.”
However, Stern turned toward her and snapped, “If you had a third vote, this meeting would not exist.”
The meeting before the council was to review the plans and design elements for the park and direct the staff to advertise the project for bid for a construction contract. That motion passed on a 4-0 vote, with Wagner absent.
The council spent a considerable amount of time hearing about the various design elements of the park, such as trying to make improvements fire proof by using metal instead of wood and explaining how different kinds of artwork would be used in the park.
The council approved the use of steel trellises, decided not to create an ad hoc committee to review the artwork as sought by Conley Ulich, but instead agreed to hold a public workshop for comments after the consultant brought forth a final design plan.
The council also agreed to curbs rather than wheel stops for parking for the diagonal spaces along the north side of the park on Civic Center Way.
Members on a 3-1 vote turned down medians on Civic Center Way, but agreed to look at the Malibu Green Machine’s plans for the median along Pacific Coast Highway after tentatively turning down a brick work center piece on Civic Center Way much like at Cross Creek Road.
Consultant and engineer Norm Haynie asked the council to reconsider not having any restrooms in the park, but was told there would be public restrooms in various locations throughout the Civic Center, including the library and at the city-owned Lumber Yard shopping center.
Malibu Chamber of Commerce CEO Rebecca Evans said she wanted to lobby for no medians on Civic Center Way and did not want to see wheel stops, but rather curbs on Civic Center Way.
The council debated for some time about how to continue with selecting artwork. Conley Ulich found fault with the gopher snake piece that children could climb on saying it might send the wrong message to children since there are dangerous rattlesnakes in the area.
She wanted artists directly contacted for input, but was persuaded by the consultant and other council members there needed to be a more organized way to gain public input.

Malibu Man Alleges Anti-Semitic Behavior at Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station: Possible Antithesis of Mel Gibson Brouhaha?

• Lawsuit Notice Says Deputies Appeared to Mimic Nazi Salute and Affect Yiddish Accents

BY ANNE SOBLE

In what could turn out to be the antithesis of the Mel Gibson anti-Semitism brouhaha in the summer of 2007, a Malibu man alleges that he was the subject of anti-Semitic behavior by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies at the Lost Hills Station last week.
Ed Meyer said that he served the Los Angeles County Counsel’s office on March 23 with a notice of claim that he filed pro se, acting as his own counsel, “seeking $2,000,000 in damages from the defendants for deprivation of the plaintiff’s civil rights, and other tortuous behavior of the defendants.”
Meyer, a TV producer, was last in the news locally for having helped to identify an arcing power pole as a factor in the start of the 2007 Malibu Canyon wildfire. Although there has still not been any official determination of culpability, the utility pole is perceived as the starting point of the blaze that claimed a number of homes, businesses and a church, and damaged a school, as well as Meyer’s property.
This time, however, Meyer’s concerns about how he was treated when he went to the Lost Hills Station on a matter concerning his 15-year-old son are arcing. He told the Malibu Surfside News on Tuesday that the anti-Semitic behavior occurred at the public counter at Lost Hills after the juvenile was reportedly charged with being 20 minutes in violation of the 10 p.m. curfew in Calabasas.
Meyer’s civil rights violation allegations are based on his contention that there was “ongoing anti-Semitic behavior” by deputies at Lost Hills while he was trying to file a public complaint concerning what he describes as a member of the sheriff’s department’s inappropriate handling of the curfew violation.
As he sought information and complaint forms at the counter at Lost Hills, the five-year Malibu resident alleges that a uniformed 911 operator “used a slight hand motion” that Meyer “could only interpret to be [an] attempt to mimic the Nazi Sieg Heil,” the German salute that translates as “Hail, Victory.” The raised arm gesture is also known as the Hitlergrusse, or “Hitler greeting.”
Meyer also alleges that this 911 operator and a second operator, as well as the watch commander on duty, appeared to be affecting a Yiddish accent, saying “whatever” in a distorted way to all of his inquiries and comments.
He states in the notice of claim that when he subsequently returned to Lost Hills to pursue the complaint filing, “the same uniformed 911 operator continually screamed out [Meyer’s] last name, making such extreme emphasis in such a way [an ostensible Yiddish inflection], so that the other deputies would identify it as a Jewish last name.”
The complaint further alleges that “unknown to the deputies there was sufficient light behind the one-way glass, the plaintiff clearly observed the watch commander and the two operators carry on a comedy routine that crossed the line on anti-Semitism, all taking turns yelling ‘whatever’ with Jewish accentuation.”
The notice of claim asserts that when Meyer “complained about their behavior, the watch commander also made an inappropriate and threatening gesture and further statements toward him.”
Meyer says he does not practice Judaism, but indicates that he has a Jewish grandmother, as well as family members who are Roman Catholics and other faiths.
The Malibu Canyon area resident is also critical of the way deputies treated his son and has emailed the Lost Hills commanding officer, Capt. Tom Martin, seeking the identity of a man he calls an “imposter” but who may be a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s undercover deputy. Meyer has a dark and hazy cell phone photo of the man who, along with another sheriff’s deputy, reportedly arrested the boy.
Meyer alleges in the email to Martin that when he asked the Lost Hills watch commander for that individual’s name so he could file complaint paperwork, “he could not even name his name, so I know that was an outright lie on [his] part.”
Meyer says he needs to be able to identify the man “shown arresting my son, carrying my son’s property (book bag), and escorting him into the sheriff’s vehicle.” He told Martin, “I would like his identity, so as to subpoena him, file criminal charges of impersonation, and to file a civil summons and complaint against him.”
The Malibuite further alleges that the two deputies “used extremely foul language, including many four-letter words to my 15-year-old juvenile son, so I need the imposter’s identity to file a complaint and further notice of claim.” He also alleges a deputy “made criminal threats to my juvenile son, and I would like to press criminal charges against [the deputy].
Meyer indicated to Martin that if he “can’t identify the imposter, please so indicate, and I will send the photo to the FBI [offices] in Westwood for possible identification.”
Lost Hills CO Martin told The News that he has received both the email and the notice of cause and the matter “is currently under investigation.” He said the sheriff’s department has a formal procedure for addressing complaints and Meyer’s concerns “will be taken seriously.”
Regarding the curfew violation, which Meyer said is a misdemeanor, he noted that when he was late driving to a shopping center in the area to pick up the boy, he was unaware there is a 10 p.m. curfew.
He alleges the 15-year-old was verbally abused, handcuffed, and put into a sheriff’s black-and-white for transit to Los Hills for fingerprinting and booking.
Meyer said his son believed the officers, one of whom was in plain clothes and the other in an LASD T-shirt and jeans, were trying to accost, or possibly kidnap him, and he became frightened and did not want to give them his real name.
The senior Meyer added that when he started to complain about the actions of the arresting officers, he was told that he would also be charged with a misdemeanor.
“We live in a police state,” Meyer said. “But I don’t intend to let them do this…someone has to stand up and be counted.”
Although Meyer prepared and served the notice of claim as a plaintiff pro se, he said he is in the process of bringing formal legal counsel on board. He has indicated, “The case when filed will likely rise to the federal court system.”

Malibu Officials Addressed Portable Toilet Conundrum Back in January

• City Council Was Told Permanent Outhouses Are Not Development and Appear to Be Unregulated

The porta-potty wars between a Malibu family and an American music icon have leaked their way around the world in recent weeks.
While most media reports have indicated that folksinger Bob Dylan and his people are remaining mum on the subject, the vast majority of the news stories also have reported that Malibu city officials had no comment on the matter.
However, when the complainant, Cindy Emminger, took her portable toilet saga to the city council in January of this year, not mentioning who the offending party was, the head of the building and planning department addressed the issue publicly.
Vic Peterson told surprised council members the matter is still under investigation by code enforcement and that usually precludes him from talking about the specifics, but he said the city does not have an ordinance prohibiting full-time use of an outhouse.
“We have spent a lot of time on this issue. We talked to the Los Angeles County Health Department, which has no regulation. There is no specific code we can cite,” the building official said.
At that time, Peterson confirmed that his staff had tried to deliver his business card to the guardhouse of the residence—he did not reveal the name of the party or the location—and they were warned that the code enforcement officer would be reported to authorities for trespassing. “They said they were going to sue the city,” he said.
Then Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich asked if the devices are considered development when they are used permanently. Peterson said, “No.” But the building official said the file was not closed on the matter. “We are not done,” he said.
The rest of the council did not comment on the issue.

SMMUSD Budget Woes May Mean School Wish Lists Will Have to Be Pared

• Samohi Advocates Challenge Equity of the Allocation of Dollars for Malibu High

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The board of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, grappling with a $12 million deficit this year, heard a somber report on the state and district’s economic outlook from Financial Oversight Committee chair Cynthia Torres at its March 19 meeting in Santa Monica.
“We must continue to respond flexibly to an extremely difficult and fluid economic environment,” Torres said. “We are concerned that the economic picture in California is continuing to worsen.”
Torres’ warnings were repeated by district Superintendent Tim Cuneo, who said that he is concerned that in the next 18 months, “revenues will not be what we hoped and anticipated.” The superintendent outlined plans to develop his own budget committee that would incorporate a wide range of district representatives. He also stated that he had plans to meet with the district’s high school students, and to seek their input.
Three members of the Santa Monica High School Associated Student Body spoke at the meeting, protesting budget cuts that would include elimination of Samohi’s dean of students. “Budget cuts [at Samohi] are not the best thing,” John McQueeney, the Samohi ASB vice president, stated. “There are no budget cuts in Malibu. There are 1292 students [in Malibu] and 3253 at our school. So I’m thinking maybe we should share the budget cuts, or significantly drop them towards Malibu.”
“Why us?” Samohi ASB president Dona Davoodi asked the board, calling the Samohi students the district’s greatest constituents. “We spend the second least amount of money, while Malibu is spending all the money they want and not getting any cuts,” she said.
Jean-Michel Hoffman, the Samohi ASB Speaker of the House, told the board that “Samohi generates the most revenue for SMMUSD, yet we receive the least subsidy. We’re taking about cutting the most from our school to eliminate staff that directly serves students.”
Hoffman said that, when he tried to express his concerns to district officials, he was told that the matter was an “adult” issue. “We’re more aware than many of you think,” Hoffman said. “Often times we know what is best for us.” He described blogs where he said students are discussing budget options, and suggested that there are other ways to cut costs and increase revenue, ranging from interdistrict permits to turning the lights off in the afternoon. “Students must be brought into this process. There’s a wealth of knowledge and creative thinking. Bring us into this discussion,” Hoffman said.
“We all welcome comments and input,” Cuneo replied, outlining plans to bring the budget crisis discussion to students at all three district high schools. Cuneo also invited students and the community to a district budget workshop on May 5 in Santa Monica. “We welcome you to be there,” he said.
In an effort to avert cash shortfall problems, the board approved a resolution authorizing the potential for short term loans up to $10 million that could be used to cover cash shortages if the state defers payments. According to staff, “Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, or TRANS, are short-term financing used by school districts to manage temporary fiscal year cash flow deficits.” Jan Maez, the district’s chief financial officer, told the board that the notes were an emergency measure to insure that the district would not run out of cash at the end of the year and would only be used if needed.
The board also discussed the potential for interdistrict permits to help bring revenue. Many Santa Monica schools, including Samohi, cannot take additional students, but Juan Cabrillo and Point Dume Elementary schools and Malibu High School are experiencing declining attendance and could accommodate additional students, according to district officials.
“What kind of marketing have we done in our Malibu schools?” asked board vice president Barry Snell. “Malibu schools [will be] very much impacted [by declining enrollment] over next five years. Interdistrict permits could be very helpful. I’m not sure were doing the right kind of advertising.”
“I get a lot of calls,” Maez told the board. “Many people want to transfer their child into Samohi at ninth grade. What I tell them is that the board has decided Samohi is at capacity, however we do have permits available for Malibu High School and there are buses available, so that’s always the case, and occasionally there are people who say, ‘You know what, that sounds good’ and they do it, so we always tell them that is an option.” Maez added that the district’s interdistrict permit information phone message currently states that the district is offering permits for K-9 in Malibu.
“It would be pretty poor form to go into Agoura or another district and say ‘Send your kids our way.’ We aren’t going to do that,” Assistant Superintendent Mike Matthews said, adding that the district “won’t max out with permits. We refuse to go to the very limit with permits.”
Matthews described the policy as a useful budgeting tool. “It helps bottom line. Helps us balance things out,” he said.
“The first criteria is our need,” Snell said. “The reality of it is space available.”
Although students usually attend schools in the district where they reside, SMMUSD has a policy that allows a limited number of students from other districts to transfer to district schools, with the children of Santa Monica and Malibu city employees currently taking precedence. The board, at its next meeting, is expected to amend the policy to place district alumni who work in Santa Monica or Malibu at the top of the list, and to limit permits in Santa Monica schools to kindergarten through sixth grade. Malibu schools will continue to accept permits from kindergarten through ninth grade. The district anticipates offering 200 interdistrict permits for the 2009-10 year. The application period for the permits opens on March 31. The district granted 150 permits last year.

Board of Ed Approves BB Funds Earmarked for Malibu Campuses

• Middle/HS Septic System Plan Costs Raise Red Flag

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Several Malibu-related Measure BB issues were on the agenda of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board of education meeting in Santa Monica last Thursday. The board voted to approve $306,000 in Measure BB funds to replace Webster Elementary School’s fire alarm system, and $265,000 to replace the Point Dume Elementary School gas line and furnace.
The board also approved $102,005 more in BB funds for the consultant firm of PBS&J for additional California Environmental Quality Act environmental document services at Cabrillo, Grant, McKinley, Rogers, and Webster elementary schools.
According to the district’s chief financial officer Jan Maez, the district anticipates that categorical exemptions will be required for the majority of BB work at most of the elementary schools, but Webster is expected to require a more complex process that calls for a mitigated negative declaration for plans that involve changes to the parking lot and new perimeter fencing, according to the district.
On another Malibu-related BB project issue, the board voted to approve $10,000 for consultant services from IPC, Inc. for “septic system construction, operations, and maintenance and consulting services at Malibu Middle/High School for the Measure BB program,” according to the agenda.
Asked to clarify the necessity for the expense, BB project consultant Tom Tomeoni explained that “A member of the BB Advisory Committee, [Malibu Bay Company’s David] Resnick, has extensive experience with development in the Malibu area, including the procurement, design and construction of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems, and in discussing how we will go forward with the project it became apparent that the operating costs, the maintainability of the system, was going to be a critical factor.”
Tomeoni described the role of the IPC consultant as a “peer reviewer,” who will review the design team’s conceptual design and “make recommendations about the type of treatment system.” Tomeoni added that “At the end of the day we need to install a reliable system that will be cost effective to maintain and operate over the life of the system.”
“So, this $10,000 buys us the expertise to get to the point where we know how much it costs,” board member Kelly Pye asked, summing up the issue .
Board President Ralph Mechur requested that staff provide a report on the OWTS project at the May 7 meeting in Malibu. “I know this is something we weren’t completely aware of the scope of the work,” Mechur said. “We keep seeing pieces of it, we need some kind of review.” He added that the Malibu community also needs “to see the scope of the work.”
Malibu residents have repeatedly raised concerns at MHS Measure BB public workshops that the wastewater improvement plan had the potential to be more complex and considerably more expensive than the district’s consultants initially estimated.
The consultant said monitoring wells were scheduled to be drilled over the weekend of the March 21-22, and groundwater identification would be commencing. “We’ll have significantly more info by May 7,” Tomeoni added.
After brief discussion, the board agreed to wait until the May 7 meeting to vote on whether to continue the planning process for the controversial MHS Measure BB field lighting project. The athletic improvement plan, which includes four to six 70-80-foot-tall lights, is an “add alternative,” which means it can only be budgeted if there is BB money still available after all necessary or core projects at the campus are completed.
The school district faces a major obstacle with the lighting plan because lights of this type are prohibited by both the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan and the school’s Coastal Development Plan issued by the California Coastal Commission. The lighting plan has also met with stiff opposition from many in the community.
The school’s recent use of temporary field lighting has violated a special condition imposed by the Coastal agency in the form of a deed restriction on the school property that bans athletic field lighting. The district plans to seek an amendment from Coastal to legally permit temporary lights for the 2009-2010 football season. The amendment appeal is expected to also be on the agenda for the May 7 meeting in Malibu.

Clover Heights Proposed as Parking Solution for Morning View Problems

• Recommendation Slated for Study

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu Park residents came this week to the Malibu City Council meeting ready to praise the council and its staff for a municipal report that made short-term recommendations to alleviate the parking problem and congestion on Morning View Drive in and around the public school campus.
But what they went away with was a proposal by Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich to open up Clover Heights for school parking.
“Spread the pain and spread the love. It is a public street. We should do that,” she said, insisting the city could carve out 20 spaces on the Malibu Park road that ends in a cul de sac adjacent to the school campus.
However, before there was an opportunity to debate the proposal, City Manager Jim Thorsen said the matter would have to be brought back to the council. It was not on the agenda and the council could not vote on it without public notice.
“We have not vetted that out. We will bring that back at the second meeting in April,” said Thorsen, who indicated there were questions about road width, if the parking would be considered legal and a host of other unanswered questions.
Thorsen said the city was also working with the school district to open up 30 additional parking spaces. “That could be an option,” he added.
Some Malibu Park residents complained they had been working on the issue for far too long and the school district had dug in its heels.
Councilmember Jay Wagner agreed. “Be prepared for more foot dragging. Twenty or 30 more spaces is not the solution,” he said.
Malibu Park resident Marshall Thompson suggested a police officer on the scene starting immediately would help. “The superintendent is more protective of asphalt than children,” he added.
Mayor Andy Stern disagreed. “Somebody said the superintendent does not care,” said Stern, adding that is not true, but stopping short of offering an answer. “I don’t know the solution,” he lamented. “The kids’ input is vital. The whole area was not built for three schools and everybody driving.”
The council agreed to receive and file the traffic report and wait to hear from the city manager next month.

Design Consultant Chosen for Library

• City Council Approves $98,000 Contract

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council this week approved a contract for a design firm to develop the first phase of remodeling plans for the Malibu Library.
LPA, of Irvine, a design firm that has extensive experience designing over 20 libraries, was tapped by the council.
Richard D’Amato, an architect and LPA principal, gave a presentation, talking about the firm and its background, and offered some preliminary ideas for the local library.
He said every library needs a hero and a story to tell and suggested maybe the Rindge family or Frederick Hastings Rindge might be the focus for the library.
However, council members were quick to dissuade D’Amato of such an idea, telling him the Rindges ran everybody off the Malibu and gated the ranch to keep the public out, calling them trespassers. “The Rindge family didn’t want anybody here,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who was the first to scoff at the idea. “They were kind of elitists, they kept the public out”
Councilmember Jefferson Wagner initially came to their defense. “They kept the railroad out and they did not carry guns [only the hired help did],” he said, but then added. “They did keep a federal magistrate out.”
Barovsky countered that she saw pictures of May Rindge packing heat. “May did carry a gun,” said added, asking why not have the consultant look into dolphins as Malibu’s heroes.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, who has spearheaded efforts to find money for the library and recommended improvements for the aging facility, endorsed the suggestion about the dolphins and told the consultant since Malibu made dolphins honorary citizens it should be something to consider.
Watching the meeting tape, Malibu Surfside News editor Anne Soble wondered why no one suggested Malibu’s first fully documented residents, the Chumash.
D’Amato then shifted gears and talked about using Legacy Park as the focus of the library and its story. Others, who spoke during public comment, enthusiastically talked about creating an entrance to the library in front of the park and using it as the interior repository for information and educational purposes on Legacy Park.
The head of the county library system Margaret Donnellan Todd told council members she was very excited by the choice of LPA after she talked to several clients in different library systems who praised the firm for being able to listen to the community and to reflect their wishes.
Conley Ulich said she wants the library to become what she called a library of the 21st Century.
Of the 42 proposals, a panel of raters consisting of the city’s library consultant, a representative from the Los Angeles County Library, and representatives from the cities of Malibu, Agoura Hills and Calabasas recommended LPA, for the contract, according to city officials.
The rating panel indicated they felt LPA would be “extremely compatible” with the city and the project.
LPA’s experience includes the design of over twenty public libraries and has designed more LEED accredited buildings in California than any other architectural firm, according to a municipal staff report.
Last year, the city and county executed a memo of understanding that identified the use of $3.6 million of what are called set-aside funds for improvements to the Malibu Library. The MOU offers vehicles for the city and county to work together in improving the interior and exterior of the building.
The library was built by the county in 1970 and is located on county-owned Civic Center property.

National Park Service EIR Comments Raise Concerns about Trancas Park

• City Council Excluded Information from Discussion

BY BILL KOENEKER

What appeared to be a crucial document for a minority of the Malibu City Council members, when the three-member majority rejected overturning an appeal of the approvals and entitlements for Trancas Park, turned out to be a detailed four-page letter from the National Park Service.
Unlike their colleagues supporting the controversial park, Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner said they believe there was new information, including the NPS letter, that warranted the council rehearing the park plans, which include 165,000 cubic yards of grading, primarily to develop space for a dog park, tot lot and access to those facilities.
At one point, Conley Ulich held up the letter and tried to draw attention to it, but the NPS input was brushed aside by some majority members who said its extensive comments, which may not have been to their liking, arrived too late for these members to be willing to consider them.
The letter is signed by Woody Smeck, the superintendent of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, which oversees thousands of acres in the Trancas Canyon area.
Though the letter states Smeck and other NPS officials assume a neutral position and do not support nor oppose land development and praises the city’s efforts to provide additional recreation amenities, the comments question whether the city’s consultants have fully reviewed issues concerning biological resources, water quality and recreational and scenic resources in the Environmental Impact Report.
It notes that one issue barely, or not at all, discussed at any of the 27 meetings or public hearings is the potential water quality impacts created by a dog park.
The Park Service letter indicates concern that a dog park may seriously impact water quality at Trancas Creek, Trancas Lagoon and the westernmost area of the county beach at Zuma.
According to NPS officials, the EIR did not go far enough in analyzing design features that would reduce potential water quality impacts from the dog park.
“The draft FEIR needs to analyze potential water quality impacts from the dog park. Currently, the document only reviews potential impacts from the large balfield, with a discussion on the merits of artificial versus natural turf. There is no impact analysis for the dog park. Potential nitrogen absorption and carrying capacity of the ground beneath the proposed dog park [needs study].”
The NPS letter also takes issue with the proposed uses of a decomposed granite surface for the dog park. “Dog urine infiltration cannot be controlled. DG would not provide a substrate that could buffer the infiltration of urine into the ground. As an alternative, we encourage the city to consider material that could absorb urine and be replaced periodically,” the letter goes on to state.
Smeck indicates that NPS officials, in partnership with other agencies and organizations, is seeking funding to acquire the former Trancas Riders and Ropers property and ultimately restore the lagoon.
The letter goes on to state that the EIR should describe project design alternatives that would prevent off-site migration of nutrient pollutants. “A build-up of urine in the decomposed granite could be carried off in storm event flow or may infiltrate groundwater. The downstream recipient waterway is Trancas Creek, where the nutrients may contribute to water quality impacts, including at the Trancas Lagoon area.”
Addressing other concerns, the Park Service letter questions the appropriateness of the amount of grading and impacts to the rocky outcrop cliff side habitat.
“The grading amounts to landform alteration to conform the site to desired development at the expense of scenic, biological and water quality impacts. For example, the proposed complete removal of the rocky outcrop habitat takes away a feature of vital interest to trail users,” the SMMNRA head stated.
The NPS concludes, “Alternative three, calling for a reduced dog park, tot lot and picnic area, reduces grading and would reduce impacts in each of these categories. We suggest further evaluation of alternative three.”

Mayor Says City Looks Out for Taxpayers

• ‘Tough-Nosed Landlord’ Stance Is Mandated by Debt

BY BILL KOENEKER

Mayor Andy Stern was the keynote speaker last week at a Malibu Chamber of Commerce event where he spoke about the state of the city.
Stern started off by talking about what the city had accomplished during the last year and what legislation and permits were enacted and granted, respectively.
The mayor saved some of his most extensive remarks for how Legacy Park was acquired and the subsequent business dealings of the city since then. Though there has been significant opposition from outside groups about improvements to the park, there has been little criticism from locals, except fallout on how the city in its role as landlord is perceived as impacting commercial rents and small businesses.
“People have never understood that deal for the taxpayer,” said the mayor, who noted the council elected to pay for the land acquisition by using the rents of the commercial buildings acquired in the purchase to pay back debts incurred on the $25 million deal.
“I want to share our frustration. It is difficult to be a city and a landlord,” said Stern, adding that the public does not seem to understand why the city cannot subsidize a severely needed local business, such as a hardware store, or allow a non-profit, such as the Boys and Girls Club, to move into any of the vacancies on city property.
He said that if the city offered what would amount to subsidized rents, it would not be able to pay off the debt that must be satisfied and that, in effect, such a subsidy to reduce rents would become a gift of public funds.
“We have to be a hard-nosed landlord. We are doing it as a business deal, not as a non-profit. It is the best deal for the taxpayer, but it is frustrating,” said Stern, who did not directly address whether the city as a landlord is impacting commercial rents in the Civic Center as some local business people have suggested.
The mayor also touched on the state of the municipality’s finances and said that, unlike many California cities, Malibu is in much better shape financially. “We started out as a deadbeat,” quipped Stern, meaning the city had almost no money, but due to conservative spending habits has produced a sizable general fund reserve.
“I read where we were in dire straits. Why would anybody write that?” he said, then indicated that, in actuality, the city is expecting a slight decline in revenue over the next year due to a downward trend in gas taxes, sale taxes and declining property taxes.
The mayor acknowledged city officials expect a $700,000 shortfall in permit fees. “We will have to trim that revenue shortfall. In general we are in good shape,” he added. He said the retail sales taxes should be offset when the city-owned Lumber Yard opens up and the Malibu Creek Plaza is once again filled with tenants.
Stern said the vacant look at the plaza “ is not businesses going out of business. That is just not true. It doesn’t look as good right now.”
Stern opened up the discussion to the audience by asking the predominately business crowd how the city could help. He said, “Anybody can make a buck on any day in July, but how do you do it on a rainy day in the middle of February?”
The mayor then told the chamber audience, “You said help business people. I don’t know what the city can do for you. Malibu is different.”
The mayor encouraged people to share creative solutions they might have to offer the rest of the business community.
Participants discussed ways to capitalize on the name of Malibu, utilizing a “secrets of Malibu” marketing campaign, and establishing some kind of visitors center, either in the chamber’s office, a separate kiosk, or at Legacy Park.

Filing Deadline Nears for Malibu Sewer Assessment Refunds

• Notarized Affidavit Due by March 31

BY ANNE SOBLE

Eligible Malibu property owners, who have not already done so, have only a week and a half left to file for the second round of partial refunds of Malibu sewer project assessments they paid when the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors—then Malibu’s governing body— levied assessments for the construction of a regional sewer system in 1989 that would never be built by the county.
The sewer project, a longstanding objective of the county that was expected to spearhead major development in the Malibu area, was supported by local business interests and owners of large undeveloped parcels, but provided the impetus for an incorporation effort that galvanized residents the length and breadth of the coastline. Cityhood was overwhelmingly approved at the polls on June 15, 1990, and the city was inaugurated on March 28, 1991.
The county had funded the sewer proposal and design with the sale of approximately $34.6 million in county improvement bonds. The approval of incorporation sounded the sewer’s death knell, and the new City of Malibu and the county negotiated an agreement in 1993 that led to the redemption of these bonds. The agreement required the county to refund the monies assessed after the deduction of all costs for sewer system planning, design and administration.
The first round of partial refunds was made in 1994. Assessments paid on or before Jan. 1, 1991, were refunded to the payer. Assessments paid after Jan. 1, 1991, were paid to the recorded owner of the property as of January 1994.
The second and final refunds, approximately $1700, are now being disbursed upon application by owners of assessed parcels in 1994, but they must apply by March 31.
A notarized affidavit attesting to ownership and payment status is required for each address for which an application for a refund is being filed.
Some property owners who received the first round of refunds are learning that there are possible address glitches affecting the second round. The News has been contacted by individuals recounting their personal difficulties getting back into the refund loop and asking whether other people are encountering similar problems.
A telephone information line to inquire about refunds and application procedures is available in the office of the Assistant Treasurer and Tax Collector downtown. Questions can be directed to Mina Palinay at 213-974-6302. Calls are not always returned quickly, according to a number of residents.
Email inquiries can be sent to mpalinay@ttc.lacounty.gov

Study Provides Ammo for Malibu Septic Critics

• Stanford Research Project Says Leakage Pollutes Ocean

BY ANNE SOBLE

The California Sea Grant Program of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography is drawing attention to an ongoing study by scientists at Stanford University with major implications for Malibu wastewater management.
Titled “Submarine discharge of nutrient-enriched fresh groundwater at Stinson Beach, California is enhanced during neap tides,” the research seeks to show how septic tanks affect coastal water quality.
The conclusions by the multidisciplinary team studying the Northern California community that has served as a poster child for successful use of septic tanks on the coast does not bode well for local proponents of their use.
The article first appeared in the academic journal Limnology and Oceanography in 2008 and is now beginning to attract the attention of the mainstream media.
The researchers, funded by CSG and NOAA, assert that their fieldwork demonstrates that septic tanks leak nitrogen and phosphate into coastal waters that can trigger algal blooms. They report finding elevated levels of these so-called nutrients in the surf zone during periods of high groundwater flows to the beach.
Following freshwater pulses, they observed four-day elevations in chlorophyll-a levels—a proxy for phytoplankton concentrations. Noting that it is difficult to attribute any single algal bloom to the presence of higher than normal nutrient levels, the link between nutrification and algal blooms is said to be generally acknowledged for marine and freshwater ecosystems.
In a CSG statement, Alexandria Boehm, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University said, “Our project is one of the first in California to show definitively that septic tanks can affect coastal water quality through submarine groundwater discharge.”
Most research on septic systems has focused on their effects on terrestrial ecosystems, Boehm noted, adding that “the value of this project is that it shows they can also impact marine ecosystems via polluted groundwater discharging directly to the ocean.”
In theory, the nutrient spikes detected off Stinson Beach could have come from polluted creeks or runoff but the scientists don’t think that was the case because their fieldwork was conducted in summer when, they said, groundwater is the only, or primary, source of freshwater to the coast.
The scientists also ruled our fertilizers “because of the concomitantly high levels of human fecal indicator bacteria detected in groundwater samples collected between the septic systems and the shoreline.”
The researchers said they were not surprised to find a link between septic systems and beach water quality. “It is what we expected,” Boehm said.
The team emphasizes that its findings should not be viewed as site-specific. They note that septic systems in other communities, they cite Malibu among them, share “the [same adverse] potential environmental implications for beach, ocean and river ecosystems.”
Because of the same concerns explored in the Stanford study, the California legislature has directed the State Water Resources Control Board to establish state regulations for septic systems. California and Michigan are currently the only two states in the country that do not have statewide regulations for septic systems.
Malibu critics of the proposed state regulations and the concomitant threat of local sewering often cite a lack of data showing that septic systems contribute to actual water-quality problems, which is why the CSG and related agencies are pushing for more public awareness of this research project.
The Stanford team has quantified the impact of septic systems on coastal waters at one California location, documented their effects on groundwater and ocean water quality, and determined that, in general, on-site wastewater treatment “is an important environmental concern and may require additional regulatory attention.”

Morning View Traffic Problems Workshop Explores Some Solutions

• Mayor Promises City Funding for an Additional Crossing Guard to Make the Area Safer

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Morning View Drive school traffic and parking issues were in the spotlight again last week, this time at a community meeting hosted by the City of Malibu’s Public Works Department. The workshop, which was held at the request of the Malibu City Council, included Malibu Mayor Andy Stern; Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich; the Malibu High School and Juan Cabrillo school principals; representatives from both school PTAs; two members of the city youth commission; a representative of the Malibu Park Safety Coalition; the president of the Santa Monica-Malibu board of education; the district superintendent; an assortment of city and district staff and consultants; law enforcement representatives; and a handful of parents and area residents greatly outnumbered by the officials.
A traffic and parking improvement plan developed by city staff with input from MPSC recently came under fire from parents of students and the MVD campuses when it was presented to the city council. The council pulled the item from the agenda, requesting that the concerned parties meet to craft a revised plan.
“We’re here to spur discussion, try to resolve issues, build a consensus,” City Manager Jim Thorsen stated at the beginning of the meeting, stressing that the focus was on short-term solutions for the chronic traffic congestion on Morning View Drive.
It’s a complicated problem,” MHS principal Mark Kelly said. “If Morning View Drive is restricted, more parking needs to be found on campus. We are exploring some things that might help.” Kelly suggested that a different bus turnaround might be possible, and added that “everyone needs to take responsibility for safe driving. Carpooling is strongly encouraged.”
“We all recognize it could be much better, It’s not school versus neighbors.” MHS parent and former school board member Kathy Wisnicki said, summarizing the issues. “We’re looking into some alternatives, exploring some things that might help.” She suggested that some areas of asphalt on the MHS campus could potentially be restriped to add parking spaces and also suggested that buses could possibly be rerouted so that they don’t block the exit from the student parking.
Steve Scheinkman, a Morning View Drive resident representing MPSC, clarified his organization’s position, explaining that he had never advocated student parking on PCH or a complete parking ban on Morning View. “We’re not trying to get cars not to park on Morning View Drive,” he explained, adding, “We’re asking for restrictions in three places, two are already restricted.”
Scheinkman’s primary suggestion consisted of removing 15-20 parking spaces from in front of the auditorium on the school side of Morning View Drive during school hours to prevent parked cars from blocking the turn lane into the school driveway and the entrance to Juan Cabrillo Elementary School, and enforcing existing parking restrictions.
Scheinkman also suggested that a time change be made in the rest of the green, restricted parking areas to attempt to get cars out by 2:15 p.m., freeing up room to accommodate more cars when school officially ends. This could be facilitated, he said, by assigning those areas to seniors who do not have a sixth period; and eliminating parking on the ocean side of Morning View Drive in front of Juan Cabrillo to create a right side passing lane to allow through traffic to pass cars waiting to turn into the elementary school. Both of these suggestions met with objections.
Youth Commission representatives Gianna Fote and Erica Posey, students at the high school, pointed out that seniors are the only students able to obtain parking permits, which usually sell out within hours of being made available in the fall, and that seniors would have no incentive to park on the street.
“There aren’t that many kids that leave early,” Fote said. “We’re really tight on parking. Every morning it’s a struggle to find a place to park. Maybe adding more before taking [any] away would be really practical.”
“It’s a public street,” Kelly said. “It’s hard for me to say, ‘I need you to park on the street but I can’t guarantee you a place.’”
“It’s a public street,” Stern concurred. “I don’t think we have the ability to restrict it during the day.”
“No changes can be made until new parking is in place,” Scheinkman said. “We’re not going to come up with a perfect solution,” he said. “This isn’t about convenience, it’s about safety. There’s going to have to be a compromise.”
Christine Hiends, the Juan Cabrillo PTA president, expressed concern about the passing lane plan in front of the elementary school. “Be really careful about the crosswalk,” she warned. “It may need an extra person.”
Cabrillo parent Janet Siderman agreed, adding that the school needs another traffic director and a crossing guard. “[the solution] might be as simple as getting two more people,” she said.
Pressed to comment on the elementary school traffic situation, principal Barry Yates said, “The bottom line in safety. We need two or three more people out there [directing traffic].
“If there’s a need for it we’ll do it,” Stern said. The city, not the school district, currently foots the bill for the existing traffic director. The mayor’s offer to add additional traffic controllers/ crossing guards was greeted with enthusiasm by many in the audience, especially after district superintendent Tim Cuneo announced there was no way the district could afford the expense.
Cuneo also said that he could never recommend using instructional areas for parking purposes, nixing potential plans to restripe part of the asphalt for additional parking.
He explained that a suggestion made by Malibu Park resident and MHS parent Hans Laetz that involved parking schools buses off campus on city property and freeing up the bus barn area for student parking was unlikely to work. “We’ve actually explored the option to move the buses. No one wanted us to put the buses there,” Cuneo said.
“The school and city will get together over the next weeks,” Thorsen said, concluding the meeting. He said he was optimistic that the workshop may have at least produced a partial solution.
Other participants agreed. “I nearly fell out of my chair when Mayor Stern said he would get us a crossing guard and traffic controller,” one parent told The Malibu Surfside News after the meeting. “We’ve asked for that for years,” another said. “I guess maybe we just didn’t ask the right people.”

Publisher’s Notebook

• Malibu Neighborliness •

ANNE SOBLE

Someone like myself who has lived most of her life unable to see a neighbor’s house without getting in a vehicle and driving to the location, and is still lucky enough to enjoy the same lifestyle in rural Malibu, may not be the best person to shed light on disputes between neighbors. Perhaps because there’s so much open space around them, people who live in rural areas tend not to engage in the wrangling prevalent on mainland Malibu.
Not only are squabbles rare, but there’s tremendous support when it’s needed: when a dog strays, it’s returned home; when a meandering mountain lion is in the area, the word spreads quickly; when a llama figures out how to open a corral gate and heads for the beach, someone rounds him up; and more seriously, when there’s a medical emergency or natural calamity, such as fire or flood, a network springs into action.
The rural lifestyle binds neighbors in a way the urban and suburban lifestyles usually do not. As most of Malibu trends toward the latter, people no longer seem to rely on each other as much. The petty annoyances inherent in daily living can become insurmountable, if there are no bonds. And the big-ticket differences of opinion create confrontations fraught with anger and recrimination.
Many, if not most, of the hot-button community concerns in Malibu today are neighbor-related issues: view protection, parking and traffic flow, sports field lighting, park amenities, shopping centers, wildlife intrusions, and yes, even the portable toilet dispute now sniffing its way around the world.
Whatever the reason neighbors are at odds, it is necessary to codify ground rules for the resolution of their differences, aka laws. Sometimes, laws facilitate compromise. Other times, they set up rigid rules that apply in all circumstances. These neighborly clashes may seem amusing to those on the outside, but they are serious, sometimes too serious, for the parties involved.
It doesn’t matter whose latrine it is, portable toilets shouldn’t be acceptable as permanent sanitation installations in any city’s municipal code. Meant for construction sites, major crowd events, or public areas where plumbing is not feasible, their use should be temporary. The outhouse should be relegated to its place in pre-indoor plumbing history.
If property owners are unwilling to let employees into a main house, or a guest house, for the biology breaks that all humans require and are assured by law, a simple lavatory—commode and wash basin—can be put in a structure such as a guardhouse. This has been done in other guardhouses on Point Dume. Whatever the housing, in addition to providing basic wastewater plumbing, there should be a way for people to heed the well-used adage about washing their hands.
Outdoor portable privies serving as permanent plumbing need to be regulated as a land use issue as well as a possible public health problem. Of course, there are concerns about aesthetics, such as visual blight and odor, but basic hygiene and personal dignity shouldn’t be overlooked.

City Council Considers New Law for Sex Offenders

• Measure Modeled After County Ordinance Provides Additional Residential Restrictions and Off-Limit Areas

BY BILL KOENEKER

New rules for registered sex offenders that are currently in place in other cities and the unincorporated areas of the county will be considered by the Malibu City Council at its meeting next week.
The county, in accordance with Jessica’s Law, the proposition approved by the voters in 2006 that imposed certain restrictions on sex offenders including allowing cities and counties to impose further residential restrictions, adopted an ordinance in January, 2009 placing additional residential restrictions on sex offenders. The cities of Palmdale, West Covina, El Monte, Long Beach and Pomona have also adopted similar ordinances, with County Supervisor Mike Antonovich requesting other cities throughout the county adopt the ordinance to ensure consistency for a countywide effort.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich sought to put the matter on the council agenda.
The current law, under consideration by Malibu, prohibits a registered sex offender from renting or occupying the same single-family dwelling or unit in a multi-family dwelling where another sex offender resides.
A registered sex offender is also prohibited from renting or otherwise occupying the same guest room in a hotel with another sex offender. Also, a sex offender is prohibited from renting or occupying a guest room in a hotel as a permanent resident if there is another guest room in that hotel that is already rented by another sex offender as a permanent resident.
The law also applies to landlords in that the responsible party is prohibited from knowingly allowing units in single-family homes, multi-family dwellings or hotels from being rented or occupied by more than one registered sex offender.
The law does not apply to those persons who are legally related by blood, marriage or adoption.
The ordinance also does not include a single-family dwelling that is a residential facility such as a group home that serves six or fewer persons.
The new law would provide additional public spaces where children congregate and are off limits to registered sex offenders. In addition to public and private schools and local parks, the county’s law includes other public places such as childcare centers.
The county law establishes what it calls a child safety zone, which includes any area located within 300 feet of the nearest property line of a child care center, public or private school, park, public library, commercial establishment that provides a child’s playground either in or adjacent to the establishment, a location that holds classes or group activities for children and any school bus stop.
The county indicates there are about 1438 registered sex offenders in the unincorporated areas of the county. Approximately 397 of those registered sex offenders are on parole.

District Touts Ambitious Plans for Samohi

• Malibu Students Could Have a More Pronounced Choice Between a Close Small School
in a Suburban Setting and a Farther Away Hi-Tech Campus with a Euro/Urban Vibe

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Superintendent Tim Cuneo recently presented the district’s ambitious plans to redevelop Santa Monica High School and integrate the campus into the Santa Monica Civic Center as part of a long-range joint use project with the City of Santa Monica, that would create an 80-acre campus.
Before Malibu High School opened in the ’90s, Samohi was the sole public school option for Malibu students. A number of Malibu families still prefer to send their children to the larger school. Some of them see the Santa Monica campus as a shorter commute for students who live at the eastern end of Malibu. Other Malibu proponents of the 3500-student school say that it offers those attending a wider range of subjects and opportunities, including access to Santa Monica City College, that may soon increase even more.
Exact enrollment numbers for Malibu residents at Santa Monica High School are not made public. School district officials maintain that the SMMUSD data collection and provision systems cannot provide a breakdown of students by zip code or city.
The joint use proposal that has just been unveiled would provide new sports and educational facilities and create a promenade to connect the current campus to the Civic Center. The plan is estimated to have a total cost of $235 million.
Samohi’s Measure BB improvements are the first part of the plan, according to the district. BB-funded campus improvements will include a new science and technology building that will feature 15 science labs, 18 additional classrooms, a new computer lab, and an auto shop. This phase of the plan, paid for out of the $57 million allocated to the school as part of Measure BB, will also include an office for the campus “house system,” relocation of the softball field to the west side of campus and upgrading the athletic fields “on an interim basis.” according to district plans. Upgrades and retrofitting are also planned for several aging buildings, including the history, language and business buildings.
Athletic facility improvements are also part of the plan, which calls for a new full gym, a practice gym, a dance studio, a weight room and an Olympic-sized pool, as well as a new, synthetic turf football field with an an eight-lane CIF track and 3000 seat stadium, six tennis courts and a subterranean parking facility with 500 parking spaces that will be constructed under the stadium. Additional phases, which the district has previously said may require additional bond money or fundraising, could potentially be funded at least in part by the City of Santa Monica Redevelopment Agency if the joint use plan is approved.
The final phase of the proposed joint use plan would include a new baseball field, softball field, improvements to wastewater infrastructure and to Samohi’s Greek Theatre and a second subterranean parking garage. Semi subterranean portions of the new parking could potentially double as rental space for uses that could include government office space or art studios. The parking facilities could also provide replacement of pier parking park and park and ride alternatives for the Expo Line, according to the plans.
Central to the proposal is a 60-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle “promenade” through the high school campus that will “provide pedestrian and bicycle access to the Civic Center Campus, the pier, beach, and Palisades Park for the under-served Pico neighborhood,” according to the project planners.
They say, “The creation of the Seventh Street Promenade, connecting the resurrected 7th Street overpass with the new Michigan Avenue Promenade will connect the downtown and north side of the City to the Samohi and Civic Center campuses. In fact, this will create a full bicycle path from 7th Street through the downtown and Civic Center to the beach and back up to 7th Street.”
Ordinarily, neither the Malibu nor Santa Monica city councils have jurisdiction for improvements on SMMUSD campuses, but the joint use study places the Santa Monica City Council in the position of assessing Samohi’s eligibility for redevelopment funding.
According to the school district, the Civic-Center Joint-Use Project “expands the supply of publicly accessible open space in the City of Santa Monica by adding 14.5 acres of the Santa Monica High School Campus into the public domain.”
While the Santa Monica community has so far been largely supportive of the plan, some even comparing the design to European school campuses with their strong emphasis on bicycle transit, critics are questioning how the cash-strapped district, which is facing a projection of declining enrollment, in addition to a state budget crisis-generated $12 million shortfall this year alone, plans to pay for maintenance, upkeep and increased security costs for an expanded campus.
The Santa Monica City Council is expected to hold a study session on the joint use proposal at its meeting on Tuesday, March 24.

Malibu City Council Majority Goes Out of Its Way to Burn Enviro Bridges

• Three Members Say No to Appeal of Legacy Park and Slam Groups that Champion Ocean Causes

BY BILL KOENEKER

How can city officials play fair when what is before them is their own project? “They don’t” was the answer of environmental groups and surfing organizations that appealed to the Malibu City Council this week to overturn the planning commission’s narrow approval for the Environmental Impact Report and permits for Legacy Park. The council voted 3-2 to deny the appeal with Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner dissenting.
The sense of inequity started at the beginning, when the city manager put on a nearly 45-minute presentation that gave ample time to the city’s consultants and staff to rebut the appellants’ reasons why the council should reconsider the matter.
Then Mayor Andy Stern turned to representatives of Heal the Bay, Santa Monica Baykeeper, Malibu Surfing Association and Surfrider Foundation and told them they had a total of 15 minutes to address the council.
“We should have the same time as the applicant. It is not fair,” said Tatiana Gauer, an attorney for Baykeeper.
Inequity was also evident in the way audience members were handled when they ignored council policy to not applaud after presentations or comments by speakers.
When applause took place after the city’s presentation and was not halted by the mayor, one wag in the audience shouted “No applause” to even things up.
The Baykeeper attorney urged the council to not proceed with the EIR and permits because a proper review was not done and there was new information that should be considered.
Heal the Bay head Mark Gold, who was on the city’s Technical Advisory Committee for Legacy Park, asked the council if they knew how “bizarre” it was that major environmental groups and surfing organizations were the opposition. “It is not the promise of what Legacy Park was supposed to be,” he said. “The project does not address wastewater issues.” He noted that much of the information presented by the consultants is not contained in the EIR.
Gold warned what would happen if the city continued to ignore the entire picture of wastewater disposal and not commit in writing to a Civic Center system. “You will continue to see us as the opposition,” he said.
That message was repeated by representatives of Surfrider Foundation and the Malibu Surfing Association: They reiterated that the groups were not trying to stop a park, but were more interested in solving the city’s pollution problems so that it will be safe to surf at Surfrider Beach “When will this city clean up the beach?” asked one rep.
The groups also said that testimony given by the consultants Monday night was not previously part of the record and accused city officials of reneging on a deal after the groups had helped raise money for the park. “You asked for input and you ignored it,” a surfing rep charged.
Each council member reacted differently to the criticism after public testimony was closed.
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky seemed the most incensed and attempted to set the record straight. “Don’t tell me I’m in favor of development. I stood in front of Ralph’s with a tin can,’ she shot back, demanding to know where the environmentalists were when the city was raising money to acquire the land.
Stern chimed in, “I wanted the Chili Cook-off [property] with no restrictions. You are wrong,” he quasi-shouted to an allegation that he is pro-development.
Barovsky said the council had originally considered a wastewater plant on the Legacy Park site, but contends that she was urged by the same groups, now protesting about wastewater, to do away with that plant.
At one point, Barovsky and local surfing activist Bob Purvey got into a shouting match. Barovsky said, “I don’t want to hear from you. Come back when you have a science degree.”
Barovsky said she did not want to hold up or stop the Legacy Park project for seven years for a wastewater EIR.
Stern echoed that same theme, using hats that he said were a black hat and a green hat to symbolize the politicians and the environmentalists respectively. “Now the environmentalists are wearing the black hat,” he said.
Conley Ulich discussed the nature of long-term partnerships. She said her mother advised that she should pick Mr. Right instead of Mr. Right Now.
“There are concerns about wastewater that have not been addressed. I am going with my gut and am not going to settle for Mr. Right Now,” she said.
However, Conley Ulich cautioned that delaying the project would mean no clean water for Malibu Surfrider Beach for a much longer time. “Be careful surfing out there. You have put some time between yourself and the rightful wave,” she said.
Councilmember John Sibert said that science should guide decisions rather than ideology. He said experts have said that it is the pathogens from stormwater runoff that pose the greatest dangers for surfers and swimmers. “The stormwater is a big problem. This will treat about all of this water. That is what you should care about,” he said.
Wagner said he likes the park, but would support the critics. “I will support you, but it has got to stop,” he said, meaning that delays in the short term would not help the environment.
Wagner said many questions are left unanswered on how the Lumber Yard center’s leachfield would impact the park and the groundwater, and how much more detail was needed about the shortfalls of the Legacy Park land for wastewater disposal. “That is the issue we want to answer for these groups,” he said.

School Board Members Get an Earful at Meeting Held in Malibu

• 250-Space High School Parking Lot and Synthetic Turf Installation May Not Survive Cuts

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The first round of budget crisis-induced layoff decisions, postponed from the Feb. 19 meeting in Santa Monica, was on the agenda for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board of education meeting on March 5 in Malibu, along with items dealing with the Measure BB-funded field lighting plan and onsite wastewater treatment improvements for Malibu High School.
After hearing what board vice president Barry Snell described as “two long nights of passionate discussion,” the board voted unanimously to retain two elementary school music teachers and two school nurses and eliminate just one position, an intervention councilor who was already leaving the district.
“I won’t be able to support this item in any way,” Board member Jose Escarce said. The entire board agreed.
“One of the things I’ve heard is that there may have been some other options,” board vice president Barry Snell said. “I’d like to ask my board members to give one more opportunity to hear possible other plans.”
Board member Oscar de la Torre suggested a “top down” cuts workshop, to see if administrative cuts could be made before more teaching positions are put on the line.
The board expressed the hope that they would have a clearer picture of the district’s budget status after the state budget’s May revise. The district is currently facing a shortfall of approximately $4 million dollars.
With budget concerns still in mind, the board voted to approve $1.6 million in additional Measure BB money to fund onsite wastewater treatment system improvements at Malibu High School, which staff hopes will be paid for out of the BB project construction escalation account. The agenda item had initially contained a request for $5,888,000 “to provide additional scope for parking, traffic, safety, onsite wastewater treatment system, and other required improvements to the Measure BB Malibu Middle and High School Campus Improvements project, for a total construction budget of $36,263,000.” An amendment reduced the requested allocation and limited the scope of the additional funds to OWTS. Community members have spoken out repeatedly at public meetings, expressing concern that Juan Cabrillo had not been incorporated into the the traffic plan. Maez concurred. “It’s very important to include Juan Cabrillo,” she said, recommending the formation of a “design charrette” that would “really get out there and explore other options. “A traffic and safety workshop that will focus on short-term remedies is scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, at 6:30 p.m. at the school.
A PowerPoint presentation on the wastewater improvements revealed that $1 million of the $1.6 million would go for a secondary treatment plant. Project consultant Tom Tomeoni explained that the campus has 10 separate systems, four at Juan Cabrillo and six at MHS, that require upgrades to comply with regional water quality requirements. “It has been identified that wastewater [on the campus] has some serious critical conditions,” he said. “There are some immediate cautions,” he added. Tomeoni caused a stir when he described potential plans to re-inject treated water from the secondary plant back into the ground.
“You’d better double that figure,” Point Dume resident Dusty Peak told the board. “I’ve been on WACO [the City of Malibu’s Wastewater Advisory Committee] for five years. I don’t think you will be allowed to re-inject it.” He suggested that that an alternate dispersal plan be developed.
Some Malibu Park area residents expressed cautious optimism that the funding cut would spell the end of plans for a controversial 250-space parking lot that would be constructed on the bluff overlooking the athletic field.
In response to public comment stating that the proposed lot would block a deeded equestrian trail, Maez acknowledged that “there may be an equestrian trail that would have to be rerouted. It may be necessary to accommodate that in our plan.” She also acknowledged that the district recognizes that the area on the ridgetop is an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, although only the ESHA on the eastern side of the campus was marked on the map that accompanied the presentation.
The board’s primary concern was how to fund all of the aspects of the project. “What are the plans for dealing with the contingence that either this project [traffic and safety] or the parking project or the combination won’t be fundable out of the assumption of escalation?” Escarce asked. “What provisions have we taken to take current core projects at this school and make them add alternates in order to replace them with this project and the parking that might actually be more important?”
“I don’t want to speak for [the BB site committee] Maez said, “but I think they would find it very difficult to take so much out of core.” She added, “We feel confident there is money in escalation.”
“Think about this very carefully,” Escarce cautioned. “Develop a systematic approach. Make sure that one school doesn’t cannibalize the savings from other school sites.”
“We want to make sure these programs stay within reasonable cost,” Snell said.
“There’s clearly savings in the escalation line item in the budget that would cover this particular project,” Maez said of the OWTS. The BB [committee] is charged with looking at the whole program. They’re concerned with this. They wanted some more work done on this before they would be willing to make the recommendation to put this much more in this part of the project.”
Cost was also a concern with the final major discussion item on the agenda, whether the board should approve continuing the MHS Measure BB-funded athletic improvement plan and “proceed with the completion of design, environmental analysis and California Coastal Commission amendment application for the athletic field lights” with four “self-imposed conditions” or “suspend further design and consultant support to the field lighting portion of the scope of work.”
The athletic improvements are “add alternatives” that can be included only if there is money available after the campus’s BB-funded core projects are completed. The proposed athletic improvements include $334,329 for concrete bleachers; $103,601 for two additional tennis courts; $1,692,256 for artificial turf; and $429,069 for permanent field lighting.
The plan is complicated by the fact that the school’s Coastal Development Permit, issued by the California Coastal Commission in 2000, contains a special condition prohibiting the use of temporary or permanent field lights. The lights would also be in violation of the City of Malibu’s Coastal Development Plan. Critics familiar with the Coastal permit process have charged that the current light project cost projection does not begin to address the cost of an appeal to the California Coastal Commission for an amendment, estimated by some to have the potential to easily exceed the actual $429,069 price tag for the actual lights.
The lights have been a hard sell outside of the school community. Residents have expressed ongoing concerns that the lights will have a negative environmental impact and that the school will not honor use agreements. The current board acknowledged that there has been a history of bad faith, and stated that the community deserved an apology for years of illegal temporary field lighting at the campus.
Maez revealed that residents had been correct at last week’s workshop when they challenged the statement that the school had used the lights for just four football games last year. “We have calculated that there were six practices last year in addition to the four games,” she said, adding that there was “no way to totally monitor” light use.
Maez said that the 80-plus nights proposed at the workshop “were probably not acceptable,” and said that she had heard resident concerns that any plans including lights, also cover amplified noise. “Any plan must address volume, duration,” she said. The project consultant also recognized for the first time that the lights would have a negative impact on dark skies.
Community members also weighed in. Despite the late hour—midnight—more than a dozen people had stayed to comment on the issue, most expressing opposition to the lighting plan. Malibu residents Steve Uhring and Carol Gable both read from the Coastal Development Permit that prohibits lighting. “You don’t want to go to Coastal with opposition,” Uhring warned. “We’ll be lined up like jets at LAX [to testify at Coastal].”
Gable reminded the board that MHS was built in an ESHA area, referring to the 7000 acres of National Park that surround Malibu Park on three sides and Zuma Beach on the forth. “Nothing in the environment has changed,” she said.
“From zero to 80 seems pretty drastic to me,” MHS football player Hap Henry told the board. One of only three advocates for the lights who stayed to speak at the meeting, Henry advocated a more moderate approach to the lighting plan that would focus, at least for now, on football. Henry reminded the board that team practice starts in May.
“Would the litigation costs come out of BB or general fund?” Malibu resident Ryan Embree asked the board. “You may flat out lose everything.”
“[The district] made a real mistake operating without a permit. I think the district should apologize,” Allen said. “Litigation isn’t in anyone’s interest.” Allen added that the proposed self imposed controls “don’t go far enough.”
“Every site was asked to come up with plans and some were ideal plans that may not get funded,” Board member Maria Leon Vazquez. “I can’t support moving forward with this plan without consensus. I don’t think we have consensus. I don’t think everyone was involved in the process.”
“I couldn’t go as far as saying no lights at all,” Snell said, but he expressed concern over the environmental safety of the synthetic turf.
Maez said that the elements could be taken separately, which is a change from staff’s position at last week’s meeting, when it was stated that elements had to be taken together as a package. Tomeoni informed the board that the concrete stadium seating had already been approved in 2000 and needed no further approvals. “We could go out and build it now,” he said. The lights must go to the Coastal Commission. The synthetic turf and tennis courts will go to the City of Malibu planning commission for approval.
Mechur preferred to keep all of the elements in. “It’s cheaper to do these things now. We’ve gone far enough along, I would like to keep them in,” he said
The board, which had already moved to postpone a vote on the item until a later meeting, adopted Maez’s suggestion that staff “call together a smaller committee of neighbors and Measure BB site committee members to come to the table. ”It was also recommended that the district involve the City of Malibu in the discussion. The board members also resolved to visit and walk the site in person before taking action on the item.
“Only good behavior over time creates trust,” Maez said.

Council Adopts Fines Schedule for When Malibuites Misbehave

• Added Enforcement Efforts Planned

Use a plastic bag and get hit with a fine? Well, maybe. It is technically possible, since the Malibu City Council recently adopted 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, council members adopted an ordinance that established 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 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 officer’s ability to seek compliance fromindividuals with violations.
However, what the city refers to as “the administrative penalty procedures,” can also apply to a wide array of city ordinances, including the ban on plastic shopping bags, health code violations, noise, and the ban on expanded polystyrene food packaging.
The municipality’s ordinance measure, soon to be enacted, 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, those who are cited, don’t win their appeal and still refuse to pay the fine may be subject to a lien procedure.
A dozen cities, including Agoura Hills, Westlake, Calabasas and Thousand Oaks use the same fine schedule.

Malibu Skateboarding Ban Is Much Broader than It First Appeared to Be

BY BILL KOENEKER

Local skateboarders, who were assured by the city spinmeisters that the ordinance banning the sport only applied to steep mountain roads in the city, may be surprised to learn the ban as finally codified is a lot broader in scope.
Even a quick reading of the summary of Ordinance 334 approved by the Malibu City Council two weeks ago will prove so.
The city attorney, with the council concurrence, expanded the ban to include any public facility, but what that turns out to mean in the lexicon of law is far more widespread that many adherents of the sport might have thought.
The city now says that public facilities include buildings, parks, plazas, courtyards, parking lot walkways, paths, loading docks or any public utilities.
“The ordinance would also prohibit skateboarding in any roadway (except designated bike paths or lanes) and on any ramp designed to afford access for disabled persons, as well as skateboarding in any manner that constitutes a nuisance, or is inherently dangerous. Additionally, the ordinance would allow owners of private property to request that the city council declare their property ‘No Skateboarding Zones,’” states the legal notice with a summary of Ordinance 334.
Two weeks ago, the council passed the skateboarding ban that many people thought only had to do with the steep mountain roads where skateboarders, also known as speedboarders, have been gaining extensive media attention that resulted in the municipality’s insurer asking for a law to diminish the city’s liability if accidents or untoward incidents took place.

Critics Unsuccessfully Urge Council to Reconsider Its Trancas Park Action

• Majority Says No New Info Warrants Reconsideration

BY BILL KOENEKER

Critics of Trancas Park as it was recently green-lighted by the Malibu City Council got a second bite at the apple at this week’s meeting, when the agenda item for permits and entitlements previously approved by the council was pulled off the consent calendar.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, who, with Councilmember Jefferson Wagner, was ta dissenting vote at the hearing two weeks ago, pulled the matter and council members were faced with a well-organized campaign of critics who wanted to testify again before the council.
City Attorney Christi Hogin explained the council’s options, since they had already had a hearing and voted on the matter.
She said the item was brought back before the council since the changes made to the resolution must be formalized and then reviewed by the council.
“If you don’t like it, you can re-notice the hearing or vote for the resolution as stated by the staff,” she said.
It did not take critics long to ask for revisiting the matter. They began urging the council to vote to reconsider the resolution and approve a motion for another hearing. Dozens spoke to the council, as dozens more cheered them on and insisted new information was given to council members that warranted another public hearing.
Attorney Frank Angel, on behalf of the appellants, recommended the council vote for reconsideration. “Do the right thing, direct staff to revisit the Environmental Impact Report,” he said.
However, Conley Ulich, who made a motion for a new hearing, could not pick up a third vote. “It is never too late to do the right thing. I hope to resolve this without litigation,” she said, in urging the majority of the council to support her motion.
Repeated threats by park critics seem to suggest that litigation is imminent.
However, Councilmembers Sharon Barovsky, John Sibert and Mayor Andy Stern were not inclined to revisit the issues.
Barovsky said she wanted to move forward and had not been convinced by anything put forward in the public testimony Monday night.
Sibert said he had wrestled with the matter but was not in favor of revisiting any of the issues since so many people wanted the park. Stern stated he did not hear anything different this week than he did two weeks ago.
Then a war of words broke out between Conley Ulich and the mayor. Conley Ulich said she thought the council could be culpable if anything untoward happened in the park especially because of geology concerns.
She also argued there was enough evidence to demonstrate the Environmental Impact Report is flawed and would not hold up in court. She began to cite evidence when Stern accused her of laying down a case for the potential plaintiffs.
They were interrupted by Barovsky who called for a vote on the motion, which failed on a 3-2 vote, with Conley Ulich and Wagner voting for the motion.
After some more quibbling and a condition sought by Sibert to include water conservation measures as a condition, a resolution that upholds the planning commission’s approval of the entitlements was approved on a 3-2 vote, with Wagner and Conley Ulich again dissenting.

Publisher’s Notebook

• Malibu Lines Up the Lawsuits •

ANNE SOBLE

Was it that many years ago when one could watch Malibu City Council meetings and hear council members and the city attorney say, well, maybe it was true that a project was somewhat large for a neighborhood, but if it wasn’t approved, the city would get sued? When citizens voiced concern about pollution, traffic, wastewater disposal, blocking public trails, or other local issues, the response usually was something like “those guys have the bucks and the legal teams, so Malibu should knuckle under and save the money.”
The high cost of defending litigation in Malibu, nearly all of which is handled by outside counsel at top dollar, was a ceaseless mantra and helped to foster an atmosphere of intimidation among citizens who were encouraged to think that there was no alternative but to watch the community slowly be robbed of its personality and scale, even as other communities in the state successfully passed quality-of-life laws and won legal challenges against them.
However, now that the spotlight is on challenges to the city on environmental concerns and public interest issues, a council majority appears to be taking the opposite tack. Council members who quaked when developers roared, puff up their chests at those concerned about pollution, water safety, traffic or other quality-of-life issues. When environmentalists or public agency officials go before the council, they are sneered at openly. The mayor’s gavel is wielded on behalf of those who agree with the council and against those who question its policies. Cronies boo and hiss with impunity at speakers whose stature is acknowledged on local, state and national levels.
But this is about more than civility. It is neither happenstance, nor politics, that drives this willingness to let the litigation chips fall where they may with environmental groups and public interest agencies. Alternative voices to current municipal policies have no recourse but the courts because an intransigent council is consumed by a focus on meeting financial obligations that have been criticized from their inception. Quality of life has become secondary to a finance-driven beast that must be fed, even if it means transforming the community into a clone of every other upscale area on either coast. Those who say Malibu is a backwater that needs to be metamorphosed into Beverly Hills, TriBeCa, or the Hamptons, are clueless about Malibu and probably will never comprehend why it has the cachet it has around the world.
Some residents might not like this new dependency, but they may need the enviros and others to litigate to help prevent what is special about Malibu from being eradicated to meet the misguided constraints that have been foisted upon the community. In a Ponzi scheme, people lose money. In a Malibu scheme, they lose Malibu.

Childhelp Wings Chapter Begins in Malibu

BY SONJA MAGDEVSKI

Malibu City Councilmember and former Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich held a luncheon at her home last week, to launch the Malibu chapter of Childhelp, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to the treatment and prevention of child abuse and neglect. Specifically, the Malibu chapter will feature the Wings program of Childhelp, where mothers and daughters join together in support of community service and advocacy.
“Four children die each day from child abuse and neglect in this country, and as a mother my heart aches to hear this,” Conley Ulich stated amidst a roomful of more than 40 guests. “I was told that is the equivalent of two jumbo jets going down filled with children. So whatever we can do to help that is what we are here to do.”
Conley Ulich first became involved with Childhelp upon meeting her husband, David, who has been an attorney for the organization for 25 years. After her recent mayoral rotation, Conley Ulich found she had more time to dedicate to this cause. “This is something that I have wanted to do for a long time,” she said. “My daughter is getting older, and I want to show her the love of giving so she can experience how good that makes you feel.”
In attendance to address the group were Childhelp’s founders, Sara O’Meara and Yvonne Fedderson, who started the organization in 1959. At the time, the young actresses who played the girlfriends to Ricky and David Nelson on “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet,” were sent on a goodwill government-sponsored tour to visit American troops in Japan.
Having arrived during typhoon season, they encountered 11 homeless children wandering the streets of Tokyo after a storm and, as O’Meara told the group, “It was a sight to behold and after all of these years we still can’t get it out of our minds.”
The children were of mixed heritage, she said, fathered by American servicemen during the Korean War, and were living on the streets, turned away from orphanages because of the stigma attached to them. The children were “freezing, without any shoes, their knuckles were cracked and bleeding from the cold and they tried to wrap themselves in the large camel-haired coats we were wearing to keep warm.”
O’Meara and Fedderson took the children back to their hotel room where they bathed them and fed them, and unbeknownst to them, began their journey in service that continues to this day. After realizing these children’s plight, they returned to the U.S. and raised enough money to eventually build four orphanages that soon housed more than 1000 Japanese- American children.
Word of their work spread and, in 1966, they were invited by the U.S. government to establish similar institutions in Vietnam to house abandoned Vietnamese-American children during the Vietnam War. They built five orphanages, a hospital and a school that continued to operate until all American troops were evacuated from Vietnam in 1975. At that point, O’Meara and Fedderson helped organized Operation Baby Lift that brought thousands of children to adoptive families in the U.S.
The following year, Nancy Reagan, then California’s First Lady, approached them to focus their attention on the problem of child abuse in the United States, which she called “America’s best kept secret,” which had recently been cited as the number one cause of death in young children.
From that point forward, the two women expanded their mission to save children from abuse and neglect. Their work has garnered them four Nobel Peace Prize nominations and currently, their organization helps children throughout the United States, Canada, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam.
Focusing on advocacy, prevention, treatment and outreach, Childhelp has prevention programs in 14 states, a national hotline serviced 24 hours a day that can assist people in 140 different languages, two residential treatment programs with one, the Childhelp Merv Griffin Village in Beaumont, California, that houses and treats 84 severely abused children, in addition to many other programs, such as the WINGS program promoted by Conley Ulich.
After fielding questions from guests, O’Meara and Fedderson explained that cases of child abuse unfortunately are rising, particularly in times of economic crises, such as the one we are currently facing. “We are loaded to the gills in all of our programs,” O’Meara said. “When you have stress in a community people tend to take out their frustrations on children and those most vulnerable.”
For more information on Childhelp, visit their website at www.childhelp.com.

Enviro and Surf Groups Challenge of Legacy Park Approvals

• City Council Appears Posed to Ignore Their Appeal and Approve Project Construction Bids

BY BILL KOENEKER

At its regular meeting next Monday night, the Malibu City Council is scheduled to hear an appeal by several environmental groups and surf organizations of the municipal planning commission’s approval of plans for the development of Legacy Park.
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 on the 15-acre parcel formerly known as the Chili Cook-Off site.
At the same time, depending upon the appeal outcome, the city council is set to review the final plans and design element for Legacy Park, direct the staff to advertise the project for bid and prepare a Request for Proposal for construction management services for the project, touted by some on the council as the major accomplishment of their governance.
However, the appellants who are trying to stop the project and may proceed to seek to do so in the courtroom if the appeal does not go their way, contend that the project, as it is currently designed, will not address what they consider Malibu’s most serious water quality issue, the disposal and treatment of sewage from 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 wastewater system, saying it was not feasible to use Legacy Park for this purpose.
The coalition of challenging groups hase disagreed with that decision, and it appears they and the city are on a collision course. It may be up to a judge to ultimately decide the matter.
It was revealed recently that construction costs for improvements to bring about Legacy Park might be as high as $15 million, according to a memo to council members.
The revelation was made in a staff report written by Barbara Cameron, the grants coordinator for the city, who recommended the municipality apply for a $8.4 million loan from what is called the State Revolving Fund, which allows cities to apply for long-term, low interest loans for specific construction projects. The Legacy Park project is likely to be eligible for the program, Cameron said.
City officials have expressed the hope that the project could then be eligible for a state “loan forgiveness” program and the money would, in essence, become a grant.
Currently, the city has raised $6.1 million from grants and private donations for the project. That includes $2.5 million from Santa Monica College, $2 million from the Annenberg Foundation and another $1 million from the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space grant program, according to city officials.
Last week, without comment, the city council approved going forward with an application for the loan.
The staff has indicated there are still a few design issues they would like the council to give direction on and input, including what type of material should be used for trellis work, whether medians should be installed along Civic Center Way, if wheel stops can be used in lieu of curbs and how artwork needs further consideration.
The memo also discusses the independent Technical Advisory Committee’s review of the park plans and indicates that all comments and suggestions made by the TAC were fully discussed and evaluated “and either implemented or determined not viable for the Legacy Park site.”
Municipal officials insist the design for Legacy Park includes substantial pollution reduction for Malibu Creek, the lagoon and Santa Monica Bay. “The project meets the goal for compliance with bacteria for Total Minimum Daily Loads as imposed by the State Water Board. In addition, the project reduces the amount of stormwater discharged into the creek and maximizes the reuse of both stormwater and treated effluent for irrigation,” wrote the city’s Special Projects Manager Granville “Bow” Bowman.

Two Corral Fire Suspects Proceed to Pre-Trial as Two Others Await Prelim

• Court Proceedings Move Slowly

BY BILL KOENEKER

Two of the three Los Angeles men charged with a role in starting the November, 2007 Corral Canyon wildfire were arraigned week in Van Nuys Superior Court on Monday.
Brian Alan Anderson, 23, and William Thomas Coppock, 24, both pleaded not guilty to three counts of starting the wildfire that claimed 53 homes, dozens of other structures and resulted in several firefighter injuries.
The pair were ordered to appear in Van Nuys Court, Department V, for a pre-trial hearing on April 3, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office.
Anderson and Coppock are charged with recklessly causing a fire with great bodily injury, endangering inhabited structures and arson during a declared state of emergency.
The District Attorney’s office has prepared a case that portrays the two Los Angeles men as the most culpable of the five individuals facing charges in connection with the devastating blaze.
Last Thursday, Eric Matthew Ullman, 19, and Dean Lavorante, 20, both of Culver City, who are charged with starting an illegal campfire near a known party cave at the top of Corral were in court for a pre-trial hearing on the same three charges.
That matter was continued to April 30 for what the DA’s office called a preliminary set/reset hearing, which means the matter could be continued at that date and reset for another day. The DA’s spokesperson said they could make no comment about what issues, if any, might have arisen to prompt this action.
Brian David Franks, 28, also charged with contributing to the fire, was sentenced two weeks ago to five years probation and 300 hours of community service in a plea bargain that requires him to testify against Anderson and Coppock.
Franks’ sentence was met with howls of protests from local fire victims, who said the penalty was an insult and not in accord with the resulting devastation of the fire.

District Session to Try to Calm MHS Lights Clash Exacerbates Issue

• Opponents of 80-Foot-Tall Stadium Lights Say Proponents Violate School E-System Rules

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The Malibu High School library was filled to capacity, as representatives of the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District faced the growing ire of Malibu residents at a school district-sponsored workshop on Measure BB funded plans to install permanent field lighting and synthetic turf at the high school football stadium.
The community was asked, in a letter of invitation from district Superintendent Tim Cuneo, to attend the workshop “with an open mind and willingness to listen,” but community members made it clear from the start of the meeting that they expected school representatives to also listen, even if the questions asked were, in the words of one district official, “difficult to hear, and difficult to answer.”
“Over the weekend, we got together and read the Local Coastal Plan, the LCP,” plan critic Steve Uhring said at the start of the meeting. “We read the last time you applied to the Coastal Commission for a permit and the response they had, and we looked at it and said, ‘all these things seem to indicate that permanent night lighting is not something that they want to put in Malibu.’ What makes you believe that the rules that apply to everybody else in Malibu in terms of night lighting don’t apply to the high school?”
“I think one of the primary answers to that question is that we are a public school and that does make a difference as we are moving forward,” SMMUSD assistant superintendent and chief financial officer Jan Maez replied.
“We don’t believe we are exempt from the LCP. We do believe that we have to go through the Coastal Commission process,” Maez elaborated. “I don’t think there is anyone in this room from the school district who would support the use of the temporary lights without the Coastal Commission permit, and that is precisely why we ask the board to have us move forward on getting that permission on the temporary lights.”
“What about the past six years?” asked school neighbor Jay Griffith, referring to the length of time of the school’s use of unpermitted temporary lighting.
“I can’t go back and change that, and I’m not here to offer an explanation,” Maez replied. “The purpose of tonight is to talk about the uses that we see for the field and the lighting of that field and ask you—that through the presentation—that you look at what is being proposed to the board.
“One of the things I think could be very valuable from this community is to help us with what those conditions [will be],” Maez said, adding “What suggestions you might have about conditions for the use of those fields as lit fields.”
Carey Upton, the district director of theater operations and facility permits, informed the audience that he has been working with the school on developing the MHS field improvement plan.
“We have decided to let the city joint use plan go,” Upton said. “I’m sort of sad about that. I think that it’s a loss for our city. But, at the time when they have a desire to add greater use, then at that point the city can go back and go through this process.”
Upton gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the current and projected uses of the field.
“[We’re] paying a lot more attention to what the real needs are for the school,” Upton said.
The audience was told that the current daytime use, consisting of football, boys and girls soccer, boys lacrosse and track and field constitutes 177 days, or 383 daylight hours, of use.
However, Upton added that, “Overall, the [current] use is around 1000 hours, but we don’t have great statistics.”
Upton’s statement that the temporary lights were limited to four nights last year—a total of 22 hours—was met with a roar of protest from the audience.
“That is patently not true,” Griffith said. “The lights were up for seven weeks. I look directly at the field.”
“This is the information I have from the school,” Upton replied.
“They were used for practice and everything,” another neighbor called out.
“I told you this is how many nights a year they’re on,” MHS Principal Mark Kelly replied.
“This is just not so, I see them,” Griffith shot back, echoed by a chorus of “but we live here. We see them,” from other residents.
“You don’t hold by your agreements,” Griffith said. “Who’s to say, going forward, you’re not going to disregard what you say today?”
In an attempt to get the meeting back under control, Upton presented the district’s reasons for the proposed field upgrades, which include: “practice time for multiple teams, additional field time during daylight savings time.”
Synthetic turf “is needed to support current educational use,” which the district representative explained was a Title IX requirement.
According to the presentation, the plan would also “allow for consecutive rather than concurrent games; allow for larger participation and audiences for home games—creating a greater sense of community.”
“It makes our teams and school programs more competitive,” Upton said.
Upton stated that the current need is for 44 nights—106 hours—but projected a future need for a range of 50 to 82 nights of use per year, or a total of between 110 to 185 hours of light use. The operating plan would be reviewed by the every five years and the district would reserve the right to request Coastal Commission approval for increased usage as demand grows.
“We’re going to have to sit down and do this again in five years?” Griffith said. “That’s why we don’t want lights.”
The district also revealed that it regards the synthetic turf and the lights as a “package,” and the district is unlikely to consider one without the other.
Upton stated that the synthetic turf, with an installation price tag of approximately $1.5 million, is required because “grass burns out too fast.”
Upton, who acknowledged that he “wasn’t an expert on synthetic turf,” dismissed numerous health and environmental concerns that the audience raised about the artificial playing surface. “Artificial turf is not perfect, but in my experience it weighs better,” he said.
School neighbor Steve Scheinkman pointed out that if the field improvement package costs the $2.5 million the district estimates, and the lights are used for the projected 103 hours a year, then the cost for the night lighting would equal $4000 per hour over the 10-year life span that the district anticipates for the synthetic turf.
“Does the district believe the use is cost effective?” Uhring asked. yes,” Maez replied.
“I’m concerned about governance,” Uhring continued. “Let’s assume that you’ve had 84 nights. Who is the person who can say you can’t have 85? What happens if the rules are breached?”
“Personnel action,” replied Maez, who acknowledged that “the lack of credibility is a given.”
“Why would you go ahead and apply for a permit when these things haven’t been worked out?” Scheinkman said.
Asked who would control the lights, Maez replied that the lighting company, Musco, would have the ability to switch the lights off or on at any time from the company’s headquarters in the Midwest.
I’ve called Musco seven times,” Griffith said. They never returned my calls.”
“They’re in the business of selling lights,”Maez replied. “I don’t imagine any of you are buying lights.”
“We feel like we’re doing all the listening and the district has already decided,” Point Dume resident Dusty Peak said.
“You have gone far beyond BB, 48-year Malibu resident Lucile Keller told the district representatives. “I think you have gone to your internal community for support. That community rolls over ever four years. You need to keep the support of the taxpayers. You don’t have that right now. I think you have a status problem here. I am appalled by the amount of money. This is a horrendous amount of money.”
“The first tenet of good sportsmanship is following the rules,” Griffith said, outlining a long list of community grievances that he said the school has refused to address. “Credibility is nonexistent. You are asking us to open a blank checkbook. In five years we have to go through this again. 84 nights? It’s crazy.”
“Lights are a violation of everything this community stands for,” another resident stated, calling for rules to “limit it to a lot fewer than 84 nights.
“There is little or no trust between the community and the school,” Malibu Park resident Simon James said. “We need to rebuild trust. I was disappointed on the governance. It’s like the fox guarding the hen house. We need consequences for violations that have teeth.”
Hap Henry, a MHS football player, called the issue “more complicated than I had presumed. I’m being victimized,” he said. You guys need to compromise.”
Most of the residents who attended the workshop were not in the mood to compromise. They expressed anger that the field lighting issue was already on the Thursday school board agenda, and that this workshop was, in one participant’s words, “just a dog and pony show.”
Inflammatory emails that have appeared on a school-sanctioned group email list and Web site were also blamed for deepening the divide between the district and the community.
Community members at the meeting expressed dismay at what they described as abusive and inaccurate rhetoric that they say has been essentially condoned by the school through the lack of moderator intervention on the e-list. The list’s rules state that “it reserves the right to accept, reject, or edit post for content in these cases, but not limited to: excessive length, duplication, profanity, vulgarity, personal/ethnic/class slurs, false information,” according to a participant with the rules.
“I wasn’t going to speak today,” resident Judi Hutchinson said. “We’ve said it all and you’re not listening, but my neighbor, Tom O’Meara, called. He said, ‘I want you to go and tell them how much we’re opposed to the field plan.’ He worked with me and [then principal Mike] Matthews [in 1994, when the football program was started]. He loved the fields. He used to walk there, he and his dog. He can’t walk well any more. I told him I would tell you.”
“I’m sorry if there’s a feeling that this project has grown,” Maez said at the end of the meeting. It obviously feels different to you.”
The field improvement project is on the agenda for the March 5 SMMUSD board meeting at Malibu City Hall, Thursday, Mar. 5, starting at 5:30 p.m. The MHS Measure BB improvement plans are available on the district Web site: www.smmusd.org

Publisher’s Notebook

• Malibu, SMMUSD and the Law •

ANNE SOBLE

The people of Malibu strongly support public education. They are eager to get behind local schools in their striving to be the best possible institutions of learning that they can be. Whether Malibuites have children currently in local schools, have grown children who formerly attended local schools, or have never sent a youngster to public school, they are aware that strong schools mean a strong community, and a strong community contributes to strong real estate values.
So why then are so many people on all sides of so many current local school issues saying loudly that they are fed up with what they believe to be a district administration that has been doing things behind closed doors for so long that it has forgotten that it is supposed to answer to the community it serves? From the special education brouhaha that exploded two years ago to the parking and athletic field lighting issues today, it is difficult not to ask if this is a district that prefers to rule by decree.
Not only do some district officials seem not to be perturbed when it is disclosed that they have acted illegally, some of them also make public statements that eerily sound as if they think that the legal system applies differently to schools. Participants at meetings where these issues arise say these statements reflect a condescension that adds insult to injury for members of the community who already think the district is not to be trusted.
Carried to its conclusion, do school personnel who molest students, or those who steal from district coffers, answer to a different set of rules? If not, why do some district officials think they have special dispensation from municipal zoning laws or state environmental protection legislation? No one wants to think the district believes that there are two sets of laws, one for the citizen riffraff who show up at meetings to take part in the policy process, and another for the policymakers. Didn’t we just hold a national election that addressed this sort of governmental imperiousness?
The SMMUSD repeatedly promises accountability and transparency, then brings consultants to Malibu who don’t have a clue about the community and regard requests for information with irritation. The district has to face up to the need to work with residents on all sides of every issue, hear their views, then look for common ground that balances disparate interests.
Finally, after years of entreaty, the school board is now posting its meetings online in a timely manner. It even appears as if the district is scheduling more public meetings in Malibu. What’s that about the squeaky wheel? Next, the district has to demonstrate that it isn’t going to dictate school policy, but create it by consensus in an atmosphere marked by mutual respect for all.

Pepperdine Sports Fall on Hard Times

• School Drops One Sports Program and Gives Another Program a Reprieve

BY BILL KOENEKER

The nation’s financial meltdown has hit Pepperdine University, according to school administrators, who first announced during spring break that one athletic program will be cut after the current season and that all major areas of the university are expected to reallocate 10 percent of their budget back to the school.
Then, this week, Pepperdine announced that one of the programs, the women's swimming and diving team would compete for one more season, but will be disbanded following the 2009-10 school year.
Longtime Malibuite and swim coach Nick Rodionoff said he was shocked by the initial announcement. “Wednesday we had a staff meeting and they told us how well we were doing. Then on Friday they told us the team was being terminated effective immediately,” he said.
Rodionoff said the students were told via email while they were off campus because of spring break. “It was truly a disaster. We are calling it Black Friday, also because of the other announcements that were made,” he said.
The university’s department of athletics had originally agreed but decided to drop both women’s swimming and diving and men’s track following the 2008-09 school year.
The one-year extension had to do with what school officials call outside assistance, covering the women’s program for another year.
Rodionoff thinks it had something to do with the immense amount of support in emails and calls that deluged the school.
School officials in a press release talked about the difficult economic times reaching the campus. “The last thing that we want to do is reduce opportunities for our students at Pepperdine, but the current economic realities dictate that budget cuts must be made. We reviewed each of the athletic programs that we offer, taking into account such things as conference membership, level of competition and financial impact to the institution, and this is what had to be done,” said Pepperdine Director of Athletics John Watson.
However, later when university officials had reconsidered, Watson said, “Allowing the swimming and diving program to continue for one season will allow those returning, particularly our seniors, to properly conclude their athletic experience at Pepperdine, hopefully with a strong finish and new school records.”
Rodionoff said by Monday morning, after a flood of inquiries, administrators relented. “They decided to give us one more year and do right by the kids. That was huge. Now we have a year to regroup,” he added.
Ultimately, the total number of varsity teams that Pepperdine sponsors will be reduced from 16 to 14, with seven men’s squads and seven women’s teams.
Rodionoff said there was even talk among some parents about trying for funding outside the school’s circle. “I want to thank all for the support we got,” added Rodionoff, acknowledging he would be out of job if the termination of the team is carried out. “There may still be a way to carry on,” he said.
However, Watson in the school’s press release, seemed to send out a warning about such thinking. “I also do not want to build false hopes. There is no university funding available to continue the program beyond the 2009-10 academic year.
Pepperdine’s women’s swimming and diving program has been sponsored by the school since the mid-1980s.
School officials indicate they will continue to honor the existing scholarship agreements with its swimmers and divers through the remainder of their eligibility. There are 31 members on the team. Rodionoff said half of the team is on the honor roll.
The men’s track team consists of ten members and was first sponsored by the school in the 1930s. The program was disbanded when the university moved to Malibu in 1972. The program was reinstated for the 2008 spring season as an extension of the men’s cross-country program.
The entire process has left Rodionoff still bewildered. “What I was told was that all departments had to cut 10 percent. I didn’t know that meant cut one program 100 percent. I had no idea,” he said.
Interestingly, given all the brouhaha about the Malibu High School football program, Pepperdine is a non-Bowl Championship Series school, and never wanted a football team.