Mayor Puts View Protection Task Force Members on the Defensive

• Critic of Draft Ordinance Admits He Has Not Read It

BY BILL KOENEKER

Supporters and critics of the municipality’s View Protection Task Force showed up at this week’s Malibu City Council meeting to sing the praises of the panel or else to second Mayor Andy Stern’s public comments bashing the workings of the task force for producing a work product that included an ordinance.
What struck some task force members were Stern’s remarks this week when he acknowledged he had not read the proposed law. “I did not look at it,” he admitted, but that did not stop the mayor from criticizing the panel’s work. “The depth and detail is not what we are looking for,” he added.
Stern said his comments about rejecting the idea that the panel should develop and then recommend a citywide ordinance was consistent with his position on the issue all along.
“None of us voted to draft an ordinance. We wanted you to talk to the public about what they want in an ordinance, to see what the public wanted. My desire is to move it along,” the mayor said.
Sam Hall Kaplan, the chair of the task force, insisted that drafting an ordinance was the charge of the council, reminding members of the motion that was approved by the council last year for the task force “to develop a city-wide ordinance.”
“The question before us was what type of ordinance would best serve Malibu,” Hall Kaplan added.
Task force member Barry Tyerman said the committee was a cross section of the community. “We tried to balance the interests of those seeking views and foliage owners, mindful of the city’s resources,” he said.
However, one task force member, who had been commended by task force members last week, said he was offended by the elimination of the Malibu Country Estates view protection regulations in its overlay district from the proposed ordinance and quit the panel effective Monday night.
“I told the committee to leave it alone. I am personally offended by the committee, which is run by a few power hungry people,” said Hiro Kotchounian, who was appointed by Stern. “They are exceeding their authority. The committee was not elected by the people.”
Task force member Susan Zimmer applauded Stern’s remarks and, without elaborating, said, “I want to thank the mayor for instructing the committee to not write an ordinance. The committee did not follow the council direction.” She went on to say the task force’s recommended ordinance follows too closely the Palos Verdes law, which is for a planned community. “It is not balanced or fair.”
Councilmember John Sibert said he was not too concerned about how the work product was delivered to the council. “It hasn’t come to us. It is only the beginning. I don’t care what form it comes in. I would like to see a minority report with a rationale and supporting evidence,” he added.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich noted she had viewed the meetings, which she described as “not peaceful,” and took place in “a toxic environment.” She said she was looking for three items from the panel. “One, come together to talk as adults. Two, mediation has to be an objective. Three, the cost not to be borne by the city. These trees are not that important in the realm of life. Have a dissenting view but be respectful,” she added.
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky pointed out to task force members the problem the city has had with crafting decisions, laws and projects. Citing the Trancas Canyon Park proposal as an example, she said no matter how many meetings, workshops or hearings are conducted, some folks want another meeting for another idea and there did not seem to be any endpoint.
The matter was not on the council’s agenda, consequently no action was taken by the council, nor was any date set for the item to come to the council dais. The task force has scheduled two public meetings, where it anticipates getting public feedback.

Overnight Camping Back in the Spotlight

• City and Conservancy Square Off Before Coastal Panel

BY BILL KOENEKER

The big showdown between the City of Malibu and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy about overnight camping before the California Coastal Commission takes place in Marina Del Rey on June 10.
The competing interests come in the form of two separate requests from Malibu and SMMC officials.
Malibu city officials are seeking a Local Coastal Program amendment that, among others things, would ban overnight camping within the city limits.
The action was taken by Malibu City Council members in reaction to strong opposition from the community to a plan proposed by the Conservancy that included trails connecting several coastal canyons and camping in those canyons.
When the city denied the SMMC’s request, the Conservancy submitted an application for what is called an LCPA override to make its own proposal to the Coastal Commission that includes the overnight camping and 32 major annual events in Ramirez Canyon where the SMMC is headquartered.
Coastal Commission head Peter Douglas has already critized the city’s stance, saying Malibu, like every other community, has an obligation to provide public access and recreation.
Not only has the matter struck a nerve with residents, but the municipality’s actions have reverberated far outside its borders and the CCC meeting is sure to be packed with environmental groups and other organizations viewing Malibu’s stance as an elitist attempt to keep people out.
For their part, Malibuites see the argument fashioned by an element of public safety since three fires have scorched the community in one year and the yearround threat in a high fire hazard area should be sufficient reason to not allow camping and campfires.

Water Board Could Fine Paradise Cove

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board is scheduled to meet on June 5 to consider assessing a $1.6-plus million civil penalty against the Kissel Company, owner of the Paradise Cove Mobile Home Park, for alleged violations of several of the board’s orders.
After a public hearing, when the board is expected to receive evidence and take testimony concerning the complaint, the panel is expected to consider whether to agree, modify or rescind the administrative civil complaint in the amount of $1,652,500.
According to RWQCB documents, the board also may meet in closed session on the matter.
The board’s action is being cheered by environmental organizations. “If the regional board approves the fine, it would be a big victory for Santa Monica Bay, as Paradise Cove Beach has routinely received failing grades on the Heal the Bay beach report card and the mobile home park is likely a main source of the pollution,” states a report from Heal the Bay.
For many years, Heal the Bay says it has pressured the board to issue fines for what it calls “egregious, continuous violations. We are ecstatic that this has finally occurred.” Members have been urging other enviros to attend the meeting to support the staff’s proposed enforcement action.
Another important public meeting is planned later in June that will be held in Malibu. Three members of the water board and its staff are scheduled to meet with Malibu city officials on June 17 to begin discussions about modifying the Memo of Understanding between the city and RWQCB for on-site wastewater treatment system permits.
The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to noon at Malibu City Hall. No action will be taken at the meeting by the board, according to RWQCB documents.
Last November, the board directed the staff to renegotiate the MOU after the city claimed it could issue a permit for its Lumberyard shopping center project and ran head on into the board and its staff, which argued it was not the municipality’s purview to do so.
Soon after, the staff recommended the board consider not only renegotiating the MOU, which is soon to sunset, but also to consider a prohibition of septic systems in the Civic Center.
The subsequent study of the MOU and proposed prohibition by the board staff also became the impetus for the Notice of Violations issued to Civic Center area properties by the staff several weeks ago, according to a RWQCB staffer.

County OKs Special ‘Red Flag’ Precautions for Upper Corral Canyon

• More Proactive Wildfire Protection for Vulnerable Unincorporated Area

BY ANNE SOBLE

Scars from the 2007 wildfire are still visible in upper Corral Canyon above the City of Malibu boundary line. Those grim reminders spurred county action to try to give the unincorporated area an extra measure of protection during red flag alerts.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, at the behest of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky who represents unincorporated Malibu, responded to recommendations made by fire officials because “its geography makes Corral Canyon uniquely vulnerable to hot, dry and windy conditions.”
This was exemplified by the Nov. 24, 2007 blaze that occurred after an illegal bonfire started by unauthorized visitors to the part of Malibu Creek State Park directly above the Corral Canyon community spiraled out of control. The blaze destroyed or damaged 98 residences and 45 outbuildings and threatened many more structures.
Among the regulations that will go into effect during a red flag alert are the prohibition of all non-emergency traffic and on-street parking in most areas north of the residential areas along Corral Canyon Road to limit access to the high-fire-danger area when the threat of wildfire is greatest.
The access prohibitions, which took effect immediately upon the board’s passage of the motion last week, will be enforced by what is described as “an enhanced Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department presence on all days that have red flag conditions.”
The added sheriff’s department protection will be funded by Yaroslavsky’s ongoing Operation Safe Canyon program.

Council Turns Down Malibu West HOA’s Preferred Park Plan

• Four Members Vote for Workshop-Based Alternative with More Grading and Roadway at Trancas Site

BY BILL KOENEKER

After wide-ranging debate complete with repeated calls by the mayor for order, a majority of the Malibu City Council this week turned down a plan designed by local architect Ron Goldman for Trancas Canyon Park that was privately commissioned by a number of Malibu West residents.
Instead, on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich dissenting, the council agreed to an alternative plan described as the outcome of a community design workshop on the continuing controversial park.
“I think it is almost criminal,” said Conley Ulich, who had earlier lost on her motion to conduct a community workshop to consider the Goldman plan and verify the $1 million plus cost savings said to be the result of his paired down design.
Conley Ulich insisted that during such uncertain economic times, the council should be more concerned about finances. The city does not have the money for the park.
The Conley Ulich motion lost on 3-2 vote when she could only garner Councilmember Jefferson Wagner’s vote.
Wagner earlier on had attempted to broker a deal with park supporter Justine Petretti, who was recently appointed to a municipal commission by the council, asking her if she would reach her contacts and ask them to consider the Goldman plan at some sort of workshop. “Enough is enough,” said Petretti, who rejected the suggestion and said it was time for the council to make a decision.
That sentiment was echoed by Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who said she did not think the Goldman plan had the input of the community.
Mayor Andy Stern agreed. “It wasn’t inclusive. Whether it is a good plan or a bad plan. It would be horrible to say, ‘Let’s go with the Goldman plan without a workshop.’ The big problem is with fairness. The people [who hired Goldman] with one point of view should have included other people,” he said.
Councilmember John Sibert had little to say during much of the meeting. “This is not a Malibu West park. This is a Malibu park,” he said in casting a vote for the alternative plan.
Much of the public testimony was from Goldman plan supporters, who said they liked the design because it increased the size of the dog park, eliminated all of the grading from the ridge by relocating the dog park and tot lot to the flat area reduced the size of the sports field, realigned the road way and reduced the number of parking spaces to 35.
Goldman said he took his inspiration from Malibu West residents who said the park needs to fit the lay of the land rather than moving the mountain.
Goldman also talked about how the plan eliminated all of the grading changes that would at the same time lessen construction costs by over $1 million. He said the only amenity that would be reduced in size is the sports field by 30 percent.
Earlier, the council had debated back and forth about the two plans and what were their pluses and minuses.
Conley Ulich talked about how the city’s Master Recreation Plan had no mention of a dog park and the higher priority was a teen center. She said the money could be spent for a better cause.
Barovsky said she wondered if park supporters would show up to endorse the Goldman plan since they had basically created their own at the design workshop. “The reductions were the result of the workshop. Everybody was compromising on one side,” she added.
Questions were asked about the cost of engineering plans for the Goldman design, but Wagner reminded everyone that the city still had to pay for the costs of working up engineering drawings for the alternative plan.
At the end of the evening, just before the vote, shouting started between members of the council and individuals in the audience. and the mayor, who several times lost control of the hearing, more than once had to yell out to call the meeting to order.

School Board Begins to Pare Budget to Reflect Decreased Income

• Recent Defeat of State Ballot Measures Regarded as Clear Message from Angry California Voters

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Faced with another round of difficult budget decisions just days after Californians rejected ballot initiatives 1A-1E in the state special election, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board of education, at its May 21 meeting in Santa Monica, voted to increase some class sizes and trim $700,000 from special education, among other measures to cope with the worsening financial crisis.
“Voters sent a very clear message to us,” Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association president Harry Keily told the board. “We have to plan what this district will look like, absent any other revenues. Solutions must be local. We can no longer rely on Sacramento to provide the services we need.”
“The governor is suggesting reductions that will impact this current year,” assistant superintendent and chief financial officer Jan Maez announced. We’re expecting [cuts] in the range of $344 per average daily attendance,” she explained. That would amount to $3.8 million, although the district won’t know the exact number until the May revise of the state budget is official and there is still the hope that federal stimulus money may help offset the the deficit.
However, Maez warned that the district cannot count on federal assistance, and that the deficit will continue to grow unless there are reductions, with the real potential for the deficit to reach $12.3 million next year and to keep climbing. Maez stated that by the third year the district could be $23 million “in the hole.”
“This is a very difficult situation that we’re facing,” Maez stated. “There are no sacred cows in budget planning anymore.”
The board listened to concerns from parents about the proposed cuts to special education, some expressing concern and confusion over how the district arrived at the proposed reduction amount, but voted in the end to approve realigning the program to eliminate $700,000.
The board also approved $300,000 in cuts from contracted services, as well as a reorganization plan for Santa Monica High School’s house system that involves eliminating one of the six houses, despite a strong outcry from Samohi parents.
All Samohi students are assigned to a house, a sort of school within the school, which has its own principal and advisors and offers many of the required courses “in house.”
The Samohi reorganization will eliminate a house principal, outreach specialist, administrative assistant, office specialist, security officer and two advisors, as well as cut the services of the houses teacher leaders and librarian for a savings of around $700,000.
The reductions are anticipated to increase the ratio of students to advisors. Most of the board approved the plan as the least drastic option, however, board member Maria Leon-Vazquez expressed concern, requesting that district staff look to all the district schools to find ways to make reductions, including those in Malibu.
Santa Monica parents and student representatives have complained that Samohi, which is the largest school in the district, is facing the deepest cuts.
All middle and elementary schools in the district will be affected by increased class size increases. The board voted to approve an increase of three students per classroom at the K-3 level, for a total of 23:1, an option, staff said, that was made possible by a reduction in penalties at the state level.
Staffing for middle and high schools will be rolled back to 2008-09 levels, with 32:1 in grades 6-12 instead of 31:1. Grades 4-5 will remain at 30:1. District staff has indicated that it anticipates a savings of approximately $1.9 million for the 2009-10 school year from the class-size increases.
The staff report states that the change will not require the layoff of certificated personnel. However, district parents can expect more difficult budget decisions in the near future.
“Everything can’t be a top priority,” Keily acknowledged to the board. “When we are honest, eventually we’re all going to have to be part of it. [You will have to] do things we and you don’t want to. At least we aren’t one of those districts that are insolvent.”

Publisher’s Notebook

• Close California’s Pre-Budget Loopholes First •

ANNE SOBLE

Winston Churchill would probably chomp on his cigar and growl as his oft-cited quote about the Royal Air Force’s role in the Battle of Britain in 1940: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” has been reconfigured in various permutations to describe last week’s California special election results.
Exempli gratia: Never have so few voters had a major impact on not only so many Californians, but also on so many elected and appointed officials, especially those who have been part of the political landscape since before the term-limits era.
Only about one-fourth of eligible voters went to the polls, but they were of a decidedly like mind. Even the often noteworthy differences between Northern and Southern Californians fell by the wayside as those casting ballots thumbed their noses at the governor, both houses of the legislature, the lobbyists and anyone else willing to publically align themselves with state government.
A resounding majority of the voters in every county in California rejected Propositions 1A (the tax extension/rainy day reserve measure), 1C (borrowing from state lottery funds), 1D (borrowing from children’s development funds) and 1E (borrowing from mental health programs). A majority in all counties also voted for 1F, which froze elected officials’ pay in lean budget years. Three counties short of unanimity voted against 1B, which would have required the state to start paying back over $9 billion in funds to public schools in two years.
The governor, who was not even in California on Election Day (some media pundits say he is not a registered absentee voter and are asking whether he passed on the election altogether), and many legislators now are threatening the voters with retribution for their attempt to actually have a say in the policy process (in a format that the governor himself devised and expected to breeze to victory).
All efforts at a “teach-the-voters-a-lesson” backlash must be challenged. The state’s serious financial flaws are not in needed expenditures but in special interest loopholes that are built into the budgetary process before dollars are ever allocated for such critical priorities as education, health services, firefighting, infrastructure maintenance and so on. Sacramento can try to pretend that the current budget has been pared to the bone, but corporate lobbyists and other big campaign donors have been immune from the cutting process for too long.

Planning Staff Says No to a Second Malibu Pot Pharmacy

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu Planning Commission is being asked by its planning staff to deny a permit for a pot pharmacy currently in operation in the city because it is too close to a park.
The owners and operators of Green Angel Collective, a medical marijuana dispensary, want the planning panel at its June 2 meeting to issue a Conditional Use Permit for the business, which has been operating several years and is located in the Old Courthouse Square Plaza.
Malibu’s ordinance requires that a pot pharmacy shall “not be located within a 1000 feet radius of a church, temple, or other places used primarily for religious worship, or a playground, park, library, licensed child day care facility, nursery school or school.”
“The Green Angel Collective proposes to operate in its existing location which is located within 1000 feet of the Las Flores Creek Park,” wrote the city’s Associate Planner Ha Ly.
However, Green Angel’s attorney, Steven Schectman, argues that there is no way to get to the park by vehicle, bicycle or on foot from the facility to the park that is not more than a 1000 feet.
“The applicants are aware that a newly opened park that contains a playground area that may be ‘as a bird flies’ within a 1000 feet circumference from the subject premises, however, the use of the circumference “as a bird flies' method of measure is not relevant in order to achieve the clear intent and purpose of the specific location and development standards,” wrote Schectman.
The attorney went on to say that the city’s standards are for the purpose of preventing or limiting contact between citizens using any of the parks or churches or other locations and any of the services associated with a medical marijuana dispensary.
“As such, because of the impossibility of accessing the park by any other means other than public streets, sidewalks or any other means of access that is less than 1000 feet, it is the applicants' position that their current location is in compliance with the clear intent of the [law],” he added.
As evidence, municipal planners received photographs to demonstrate that the proposed location is about 1431 feet from the park entrance on Rambla Pacifico and approximately 1684 feet from the park entrance on Las Flores Canyon Road
Planner Ly takes exception to that. “However, [the municipal code] states that a medical marijuana dispensary ‘shall not be located with a 1000 foot radius of a…park’ the proposed use is located within a 1000 foot radius of the park. The distance between the entrance of the park and the use is irrelevant. Accordingly, the finding cannot be made,” she wrote.
The applicants and their attorney countered. “These aerial photos conclusively demonstrate that there is no pedestrian, motor vehicle or bicycle means of access to a newly opened park. As such because of the impossibility of accessing the park by any other means other than public streets sidewalks or any other means of access that is leas than 1000 feet, it is the applicants' position that their current location is in compliance with the clear intent of section 17.66.120,” Schectman added.
Another potential problem might loom for Green Angel given that the planning staff received correspondence of a print-out of an online forum discussion between registered members on Weedtracker.com celebrating that the pot pharmacy’s “lounge is open.” There were such comments as, “You can test your medicine as long as you have a designated driver. PS We have now added two HVY glass pieces.” Malibu’s law does not allow onsite consumption of marijuana.
With that in mind planning staff made a site visit. “Staff cannot verify conclusively whether the meeting room is used as a smoking lounge and staff cannot conclude if the online posting was submitted by the operators of Green Angel. However, the photograph provided by the user appears to be similar to the meeting room indicated on the site plan,” the staff report states.
Schectman also indicated that if the commission sides with its planner, the applicants are requesting a variance from the 1000-foot rule.
“The variance is sought because my clients have clearly properly addressed standards and intent of [the municipal code] yet the city has indicated that it will require strict compliance with the words of the ordinance as it relates to the proximity of parks,” the attorney wrote in amending the application to include a variance request.

Task Force Produces Draft View Protection Ordinance for Malibu

• Public Urged to Weigh In with Input on the Proposal

BY BILL KOENEKER

A majority of Malibu’s View Protection Task Force approved a draft view ordinance at its meeting May 18. When finalized, the matter will go before the city council for consideration.
“It was an arduous task, we were aided by the fact we had several accomplished lawyers, including a land use expert,” said Chair Sam Hall Kaplan.
The panel, which will conclude its task within the nine months it was given to do so (after getting a three-month extension from the council, which had originally given the panel a six-month sunset clause), has scheduled another meeting on Thursday May 28, at 3 p.m. in council chambers.
The council had debated about what kind of work product it wanted from the panel, but it ultimately decided to leave that determination up to the task force.
Panelist Barry Tyerman called the draft document the first step of the work. “We have two more meetings, we hope to see significant input from the public. After all it was the people who passed Measure E [the advisory measure on the ballot],” he said.
Tyerman added the majority of the panel believe they have come up with a balanced ordinance that is based on other cities and will withstand court challenge. “It is based on other ordinances tested by the courts,” he added.
“We didn’t try to reinvent the wheel,” agreed task force member Harold Greene, who praised the workings of the task force and the members on it. “Besides three lawyers, we had a real estate broker, Lucille Keller from the General Plan Task Force, officers of homeowners associations and others representing the whole length of Malibu,” said Greene, who noted the task force was also able to call on members and HOA officers of the Malibu Country Estates where a view protection ordinance is already in place.
“We had a chance to find out what worked and did not work. We agonized over every word,” Greene said.
The task force member said the idea of the proposed law is to create a mechanism that involves the city itself to the minimum extent possible. “We encourage private discussions, there is mediation and arbitration before its gets to the city,” Greene added.
The focus of the task force at this point is to get as much public feedback as possible during the next two meetings, according to the task force member, who said he hoped interested individuals will go on-line to the city’s website, read the draft document and submit written questions for task force response.
“We really want public comment,” added Greene, indicating the public will also have ample chance to vet the proposed law when it reaches the city council because another series of public meetings will be held if the council moves forward.
Hall Kaplan noted what he thought the task force successfully accomplished. “The thrust of the ordinance is to encourage neighbors to resolve questions of offending foliage amongst themselves and the best way the task force agreed to do this is to draft a strong view protection ordinance,” he said.
Calling it the Malibu View Restoration/Preservation Ordinance, the new law would permit a resident’s view to be restored to what existed at the time the homeowner purchased the property. If there was no view at that time, then the resident has no recourse under the proposed law.
The draft ordinance unfolds in pages of definitions of what constitutes views, foliage, trimming, heading and at last resort spells out the process of how trees may be cut down.
The process urges neighbors to first talk. If discussions between the foliage owner and the applicant fail and the initial reconciliation attempt is unsuccessful, then the matter can proceed to mediation, which is voluntary for the foliage owner. “If mediation is accepted, the parties shall mutually agree upon a mediator whose costs are the responsibility of the applicant.”
According to the draft, “if the parties still do not agree with the assistance of a mediator, the applicant shall have the right to submit the dispute to arbitration, appealable exclusively to the city council or its designee in a public forum. The parties shall bear their own costs and provide their own evidence and documentation.”
“The arbitrator has the authority to engage the services of an impartial qualified arborist, the costs that shall be paid by both the foliage owner and the applicant. Any order by the arbitrator to trim, remove or any replacement plantings shall be paid by the applicant. Continuing maintenance is paid by the foliage owner.
“The applicant and/or the foliage owner may file a notice of appeal of the arbitrator’s order to the city council or its designee.
“Any final order shall be expeditiously enforced by the City of Malibu. A final order shall be either the arbitrator’s order if not appealed, or the decision of the city council or its designee on appeal,” the proposed law states. “In the event any party fails or refuses to comply with any order…the city shall have the right to perform or engage third parties to perform the required work to comply with the order [and] invoice the responsible party.”

West Malibu Park Plans to Go Back Before City Council

• Some Design Changes Could Occur

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council is scheduled to consider modifications to the design of Trancas Canyon Park at its meeting next week on Tuesday, May 26.
Last month, the council directed the staff to make grading and retaining wall changes for the park for review and directed planners to conduct a public workshop.
“The item is being presented to the council for consideration for three reasons. First, the city council must decide whether it wishes to incorporate some, all or none of the recommended modifications. Second, if the council wishes to make modifications, the council must determine whether the approved project with modifications is in compliance with conditions of approval in Coastal Development Permit No. 07-086 and other related entitlements. Finally, the city council must analyze whether the modifications require any discretionary approvals or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report,” wrote the city’s Associate Planner Joseph Smith, who indicated the costs of the site plan changes would add about another $153,500 to the cost of the $3 million-plus project.
The report goes on to state that the proposed modifications to the approved project do not trigger the need for a supplement or addendum to the certified EIR or any further environmental re-view under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Smith’s staff report also talks about what planners think are the key topics covered in the community design workshop in April, such as reducing the overall size of the park, park components, security and fencing, traffic and access to the park, intensity and hours of park use, water infrastructure and sustainability.
Based on public comments and other input, Smith outlined the proposed modifications to the approved project including reducing grading from a total of 126,528 cubic yards of cut and fill to 77,502 cubic yards of cut and fill.
Other proposed modifications call for the reduction of dog park total area from 1.04 acres to .65 acres, sizing down the group picnic area from 5200 square feet to1500 square feet, taking the plans for the playground area from 10,000 square feet to 7300 square feet, reducing the number of shade structures from seven to three, allowing only eight picnic tables from the approved 24, reducing benches from 17 to 11 and designing a total of 45 parking spaces instead of 64. The basketball half-court would be eliminated.
“No further discretionary approvals would be required to effectuate the proposed modifications to the approved project,” according to Smith.

Some Malibu West Park Critics Prepare Their Own Plan

BY ANNE SOBLE

As the Malibu Surfside News goes to press, a group of Malibu West residents announced they will hire a local architect to create an alternate Trancas Park design for possible consideration.
Lynn Norton told The News that several neighbors of the proposed park are hiring Ron Goldman to design another option because they “want to address the 77,000 cubic yards of grading, as well as some other design issues that still exist in the new plan.
“We want to be able to show the city council something that most people in the neighborhood will like, instead of only telling them what we don’t like.”
Norton added, “The neighborhood plan will show how a simple reduction in the size of the sport field, plus a creative design that utilizes the existing space well, will save significant money, time, and tens of thousands of cubic yards of grading.”

Yet Another Delay for Trancas Center

• Adequacy of Its Environmental Review Is Questioned

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu Planning Commission hearing to consider permits and entitlements for the proposed expansion and remodeling of the Trancas Country Market center was again continued, according to city officials.
The matter was first supposed to have been heard on April 21, but was continued at that time. A new hearing date had been set for May 5, but that date was continued to a “date uncertain,” according to planning department documents.
Municipal planners announced this week there would be further delays. The project is being subjected to another environmental review, which begins May 28 and ends on June 27. No hearing date has been set.
Acting Planning Manager Stefanie Edmondson said, based on the public comments received, the staff decided to resubmit the document for further review.
Dan Bercu, who heads up ownership of the commercial property, said he was told the planning department needs more time.
“City staff taking more time to make the Initial Study better and clearer is best,” said Bercu, when asked to comment. The shopping center owner initially said he did not want to hazard a guess when the next hearing might be. “I really don’t want to say after what has already happened with two continued hearings. The longer it takes this, the harder it is for local businesses to succeed,” he added.
While Bercu said he is attempting to get all of the permitting in one phase, plans call for phasing the construction of the expansion. “We have to get the wastewater [systems] first, then the two new restaurants, then the other new buildings,” he said.
Residents on Surfside Way, the street above the old Riders and Ropers site where over 11,000 square feet of shops and offices are planned, met several weeks ago with Bercu to talk about the project.
Some of them expressed surprise when the design plan they were shown earmarked a lumberyard on the site below their homes.
The city had received a 16-page analysis pointing out the defects of the planner’s determination of a Mitigated Negative Declaration from a neighbor on Surfside Way, Hans Laetz, who stated that the Initial Study and MND are faulty and need to be rewritten.
Laetz’s submission indicates that there are many issues that were not analyzed in the MND.
“Although the project designers and owners are undertaking a generally sound renovation and expansion of a neighborhood service that is vitally needed by residents of western Malibu, serious problems are either created, allowed to continue, or simply not addressed in the Notice,” he wrote.
Laetz told the Malibu Surfside News the MND does not need to proceed to an Environmental Impact Report if vital questions can be addressed through the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Laetz’s report indicates the environmental review fails to answer questions about impacts to the lagoon and the nearby ocean, does not address the lagoon waters on the property, fails to describe the quantity and quality of the water that runs through the site into the Pacific Ocean via Trancas Creek and incorrectly states that there are no known habitat conservation plans for the property. The National Park Service has put the lagoon property on its wish list for acquisition, according to Laetz.
His report goes on to address many more issues that Laetz states were not addressed by the current level of review.
The application seeks permits for the remodel and expansion of an existing shopping center including a 37,372 square foot expansion to the existing commercial shopping center located at the corner of Trancas Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway.
The plans call for new parking to be located across the street from the existing center, two new alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems, landscape, hardscape and the temporary relocation of an existing karate studio into a triple-wide modular unit during construction. The project includes a site plan review for construction in excess of 18 feet, a variance for grading in excess of 3000 cubic yards, a variance for the reduction of a required side yard setback, a minor modification to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent, and three conditional use permits to allow for two restaurants and the addition of over 500 square feet of an existing commercial development.

MHS Septic Woes and Field Lighting Plans Require More Funds

• Mystery Sewer Lines Need Study

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Malibu High School’s Measure BB-funded septic system upgrade and permanent athletic field lighting plan are expected to receive additional funding at the Santa Monica-Malibu School District board of education’s May 21 meeting.
At the same meeting, the board will discuss a staff recommendation to “realign the Special Education budget to reflect historical expenditure patterns with a reduction of $700,000,” and to cut an additional $300,000 from district-wide contracted services in an effort to offset the district’s financial woes.
According to the agenda, line items in the budget that could be eliminated or reduced could potentially include the district’s communications consultant, certificated personnel support, legal costs, district policy support, a facility permit consultant, and technology consultants.
The Special Education reductions could come “as a result of analysis reviewing several years of expenditure patterns in Special Education.” According to the staff report, “There were some very specific areas that were consistent from year to year.” These areas included: legal costs, non-public school and non-public agency contracts and instructional assistant allocations.
The board of education is also expected to vote to increase some class sizes, including an increase of three students per class for grades K-3 for a total ratio of 23:1. Staff reports that the “state has reduced penalties for going over the 20:1 level, making this a financially viable option.” According to the agenda, staff anticipates that “these changes will result in a reduction of approximately $1.9 million in expenditures in the 2009-10 school year,” and will not require certificated layoffs.
While the district scrambles to cope with the budget crisis, the measure BB juggernaut, which can be used only for building and safety improvements, moves forward. The controversial MHS permanent field lighting plan is expected to receive an additional $35,000 for Culbertson and Associates to “expedite and coordinate the review by the California Coastal Commission.”
The lighting plan, which is an “add alternative” that can only be built if adequate funding is available after the “core” projects have been completed, has received vocal criticism from the Malibu Park community.
An analysis of existing septic systems at the Malibu Park campus that is required as part of the Measure BB improvement project at the high school has uncovered “additional sewer lines in the area near the Bus Barns not previously known to the district,” according to the agenda. Staff is recommending the board approve an additional $1900 for the Drew Lewis Company to perform “sewer drain line surveys and investigation services,” for a total contract amount of $9900.
Additional funds are also on the agenda for the firm of Topanga Underground for septic system investigations at Webster Elementary School in the amount of $30,000 for a total contract of $210,021. Topanga Underground is also expected to receive an additional $30,000 for septic system investigations at Pt. Dume Marine Science Elementary School, for a total contract amount of $240,021.
Webster’s aging wastewater system recently received a notice from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and district consultants have previously indicated that the Point Dume system may also be found to be in violation.
The public portion of the SMMUSD meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m., on Thursday, May 21, in the Santa Monica City Council Chambers: 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica. The agenda is available on the district’s website at smmusd.org

Council Subcommittee Recommends Taxing of Short-Term Home Rentals

• TOT Would Apply to 30-Day-or-Less Lease of Residences

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Administrative and Finance Subcommittee of the Malibu City Council finalized its recommendations last week for the proposed budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 that will now go to the full council for consideration.
Among the more innovative and potentially revenue rich proposals is the possible implementation of a law now on the books that allows the city to collect the so-called Transient Occupancy Tax, or TOT on the short-term rental of private residences.
As now written, the Malibu TOT law can be applied to short-term rentals that are 30 days or less per tenant.
This apparently means that residents who lease out homes or condos for the entire summer to one tenant may be exempt from the TOT, whereas those who lease to multiple tenants in the same time frame are subject to the tax.
This and other issues related to the TOT proposal are expected to be clarified when the city council holds a public hearing on next fiscal year’s budget at its meeting on Tuesday, May 26.
If the full council agrees to the TOT, the city would begin to notify property owners about the collection of the tax, which would become effective on July 1.
The subcommittee, which consists of Councilmembers Sharon Barovsky and John Sibert, recommended the TOT as another way to collect revenue as the city’s coffers shrink due to less revenue coming in this year and even less projected for next year.
Despite the law’s broader scope, Malibu has only been enforcing the TOT on hotels and motels, not on short-term private rent-outs.
Preliminary estimates of the revenue that could be generated by the collection of the tax are about $200,000, according to city staff.
The staff had recommended and the subcommittee concurred with a one-time $25 registration fee for each property to the city’s fee schedule to reflect the cost of providing the registration service.
Since the tax is already on the books, it requires no new action.
The subcommittee is also charged with suggesting to the council how much money and to whom general fund grants should be given. The city received 25 applications totaling $605,000. The proposed budget includes just $75,000 for the general fund grant program. Last year, the city budgeted and spent $200,000 before it realized revenues were going to be down.
The A&F subcommittee recommended some of the awards should be released only upon receipt of matching funds.
The panel recommended $8000 to Children’s Lifesaving Foundation as a matching grant and awarded $5500 as a matching grant to the Malibu Film Society, Malibu Foundation for Youth and Families got the nod for a $5500 matching grant and the Malibu Green Machine a $5000 matching grant. No strings were attached to grants of $5000 each to New Directions, Safety Harbor Kids and Meals on Wheels. Several groups received $2000 each including The Nature of Wildworks, One Book, One City, Malibu High School AVID. Friends of Malibu Urgent Care Center also received a $2000 matching fund grant.
Malibu High School Grad Night got $1000, while California Wildlife Center received a $1000 matching grant. Malibu Mountain Rescue was awarded a $1000 match and Operation Interdependence was awarded a $1500 matching fund grant. Children’s Creative Workshop was given a $1500 matching fund grant.

Teachers Union Prexy Tells School Board Health Benefits Are Foremost

• Draws ‘Line in the Sand’ over Members’ Medical Coverage

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Angry and concerned teachers co-opted a special meeting of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board of education meeting last Thursday that was supposed to focus on reviewing and updating district policies.
The teachers were there to protest an issue that was not on the meeting agenda—a proposal to cut employee medical benefits as a way to partially close the gap on a potential $10 million revenue decline in the district over the next 18 months.
A week earlier, at the May 7 board of education meeting in Malibu, Harry Keily, president of the Santa Monica Malibu California Teachers Association, backed by two dozen district teachers, told the board that he was there to “publicly express displeasure with the district.”
Keily stated on May 7 that health care “is the single most important issue” for teachers. “We are not in denial about the economy,” he said. “We know that class sizes will be larger and there will be fewer teachers...but no one impacts children more.”
Keily warned the board that “a line has been drawn in the sand” and that the teachers intended to continue with a “public expression of displeasure” at future meetings. Keily honored that promise, packing the May 14 meeting at the district office with a standing-room-only crowd of unhappy educators.
Over a hundred district teachers, some with their children and family members, were there in what Keily called a show of “unity and solidarity.” Keily is proposing that the district tap its reserves to maintain funding for teacher health care, on the basis that the rainy day the reserve is intended for has arrived.
Board members replied that they are listening and attempting to do their best in what one board member described as “a disastrous potential budget.”
The agenda for the May 14 meeting was supposed to be devoted to the staff recommendation to review and update administration, personnel and board by-laws. The revisions are required so the district can maintain its policies and administrative regulations in compliance with state and federal educational codes and law.
According to the staff report, the board’s decisions will be adopted at a subsequent board of education meeting, when district staff will recommend that “the board delete all current policies, administrative regulations in these articles and adopt those reviewed and recommended for Board adoption.”
Once approved, the new articles will go into effect on Aug 1, 2009. A second board of education meeting is scheduled for May 28, to continue the process with articles pertaining to business and non-instructional operations, students and facilities. A third meeting on the revisions is also planned but a date has not yet been announced.

Malibuites Concerned about Rehab Proliferation Gather Signatures for Their Cause

• Critics of Clustering Face an Uphill Battle with Sacramento

BY ANNE SOBLE

Incidents involving patients at local drug rehabilitation facilities that neighbors say have posed serious threats to public health and safety are spurring an effort to ask the City of Malibu to pass laws that would limit the number of employees at a home-based business, and apply those curbs to businesses operating in adjacent residential properties.
The neighbors say the trend toward clustering rehab facilities in neighborhoods, even on the same street, bypasses zoning laws and adversely impacts quality of life.
Previous calls for curbs on rehab proliferation have failed because these facilities are regulated by the state and largely have been exempted from local control. The rehab industry has potent lobbyists in Sacramento and contributes generously to campaign coffers.
Some rehab operators also have used largess to ingratiate themselves with local organizations and that has helped mute concerns about where they locate. In addition, they often pay top dollars for the houses they purchase.
The contingent of concerned Malibuites hopes that the city council will support their efforts to get the state policies exempting rehabs from residential zoning laws changed.
To do this, they have launched a petition drive at the website www.ipetitions.com/petition/rrr/ that reads: “We call on the California State Senate and Assembly to pass new regulations which would mandate the following:
1. No more than one six-bed facility per square mile.
2. Mandatory non-smoking policies for all patients and staff at any facility located in any wildfire-prone area.
3. The total number of patient beds for all facilities in any one community must not exceed the estimated actual need for that community.
4. Facilities accepting patients who do not live in that community must be restricted to areas zoned for commercial medical facilities, and must be prohibited from using properties in residential neighborhoods.
5. All rehabs must otherwise abide by the same regulations which apply to other commercial medical facilities.
6. All rehabs must publish 3-, 6-, and 12-month success/recidivism rates for all patients receiving care at their facility.”
The matter is slated for airing at the May 26 city council meeting.

More Bids Received for RFP on City-Owned Webb Way Building

More Bids Received for RFP on City-Owned Webb Way Building

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council is expected to talk about proposals it has received for the commercial building it owns on the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Webb Way at a closed-door session on Tuesday, May 26 before its regularly scheduled meeting.
Three more bid proposals for the building formerly occupied by Coldwell Banker have been received by municipal officials.
The Request for Proposal schedule was extended after the city received only one bid from Anawalt Lumber that was deemed too low by the staff. It will be the first time the council has discussed the Anawalt bid.
Anawalt wanted to open up a 4000 square foot full service hardware store and use the rest of the half-acre property utilizing temporary structures to store lumber and other lumber products.
Since then, responses have been received by Tony Dorn, a broker with Beitler Commercial Real Estate. Dorn said he represents two longtime local businesses, including Malibu Urgent Care Center and another full retail operation that would share the space. “It would be finding a home for two long-term local businesses,” said Dorn, who indicated he could not release the name of the retail operation at this time.
Richard Weintraub, of Weintraub Financial Services, which has partnered with the municipality on the Malibu Lumber Yard shopping center, has also submitted an offer. He is considered the front-runner by some because of his close ties to municipal officials. Weintraub was not immediately available for comment.
Mike Tuchman and Marty Olejarczyk, representing Ace Hardware, also responded to the RFP.
In its RFP, the city requested a minimum rental amount of $428,000 per year, which is $7.37 a square foot and seeks a long-term partnership of 20 to 35 years for the stand-alone building consisting of 4949 square feet.
The council held a special closed door session last week to talk again about acquiring property for a city hall.
City Manager Jim Thorsen huddled with the council on Wednesday morning to talk about the price and terms of payment for acquiring the Malibu Performing Arts Center, at one time owned by the Vineyard Christian Fellowship. There was no reportable action taken, according to City Clerk Lisa Pope.
The council has had a series of closed sessions to talk about the property, which is located just north of the current City Hall.

City May Consider Enforcing Law on Malibu’s Not-So-Secret Biz of Big Ticket Home Summer Rentals

ablamati

• Cash-Strapped Municipality Looks at All Options

BY BILL KOENEKER

One of Malibu’s cottage industries that has more to do with mansions than cottages—the widespread use of private residences as summer rentals for hefty price tags—could become one of the ways to help the City of Malibu come to grips with the reality that it has a longer wish list of things to do than it has revenue to do them.
The Malibu City Council’s Administrative and Finance Subcommittee was struggling this week to come up with its recommendations for the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and providing recommendations for the full council to consider how to hand out grant money.
The subcommittee, which consists of Councilmembers Sharon Barovsky and John Sibert, met Monday morning and then again Tuesday afternoon after the Malibu Surfside News went to press.
The panel is expected to propose new ways to generate revenue by considering recommending the city collect Transient Occupancy Tax, or TOT, on short-term rent-out of private homes.
The major media have a field day reporting price tags on Malibu summer rentals of $125,000 or more a month, with the norm being more like numbers of $75,000 to $100,000 for the summer. Many of the renters are large corporations who often rent the same house on an annual basis to provide perks for their executives and their families.
Some property owners have indicated that they rent out their homes for one or two months with the income more than paying for their mortgages, taxes, annual utilities and other costs. Many say they use the rental duration as time to travel, also covering their travel costs with the revenue.
The city’s municipal code currently allows for such a tax, but Malibu has only been enforcing the TOT on hotels and motels, not on the short-term rent-out of private homes, according to a staff report prepared by the city’s Administrative Services Director Reva Feldman.
Preliminary estimates of the amount of revenue that could be generated by the collection of the tax are about $200,000, according to Feldman, but even a casual observation of the summer rental market indicates that the amount could be much higher than that.
If the council agrees to enforce the TOT on private homes when it approves the budget, property owners who use their properties for short-term rentals will be required to register with the city and obtain a transient occupancy residency certificate.
“Staff recommends adding a one-time registration fee of $25 per property to the city’s fee schedule to reflect the cost of providing this registration service,” Feldman added.
Since the tax is already on the books, it requires no new legal action. Its enforcement could prove to be lucrative given the number of summer rentals that are regularly advertised. Those ads and the numerous property columns and websites that these high-end summer rentals are often featured on could also prove to be a way to monitor homeowners who don’t seek permits if enforcement is begun.
The need to capture additional dollars for city coffers comes at a time when the municipality is experiencing a drop in revenue since last fiscal year and is projected to remain at least $1 million lower for the next fiscal year.
The subcommittee has also been charged with suggesting to the council how much money and to whom general fund grants should be given. The city received 25 grant applications totaling $605,040. The proposed budget includes just $75,000 for the general fund grant program. Last year, the city budgeted and spent $200,000 before it realized revenues would be down.
However, the A&F panel is recommending that funding for the grant fund program be increased if additional funds become available.

District Seeks to Validate High School Field Lights

• Claims ‘Exemption’ from Restrictions

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The controversial Measure BB Malibu High School athletic field lighting plan was back on the agenda at the May 7 Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District meeting in Malibu, but not for a vote, which left some board of education members confused.
Originally, the item was scheduled to return for a board vote on whether or not to continue moving forward with the expensive project, which is an “add alternative” and can only be included in the BB improvements if funding is still available after the ‘core” projects are completed.
The MHS project has recently encountered additional BB expenses in the form of escalating septic system costs, as well as the revelation that the Morning View Drive right of way is actually 55 feet and not 50 feet, meaning plans for the new buildings and front entrance have to be reconfigured. A costly water supply upgrade required to bring the property up to fire safety code has also been added.
Instead of taking a vote on the item, the board heard an update from the district’s assistant superintendent and chief financial officer Jan Maez, who explained that the district is moving forward with plans to apply for a temporary lighting permit for the 2009-2010 football season. The temporary lighting plan is not part of the BB improvements and is being funded through other sources, although project critics claim some of the field studies and data presented in the district’s Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project appear to have been paid for with Measure BB funds before the distinction was made.
The school’s Coastal Development permit, issued by the California Coastal Commission, contains a condition specifically prohibiting temporary or permanent athletic field lighting on the property. This lighting also violates the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan. The school has disregarded this prohibition for several years by bringing in temporary lights for the football season.
After several public meetings, Maez had arranged an ad hoc committee of district staff, lighting advocates and residents, in an effort to reach an agreement on the issue of permanent lights.
“The community has come forward with a great number of concerns, a great number of objections” Maez told the board. She explained that the ad hoc committee had met once and was scheduled to met again soon, with “the charge of completely ID-ing all concerns” and bringing back to the board “a plan that would allow the project with permanent lighting to move forward.”
Maez explained that an application for an amendment to the CDP is still being prepared and is a separate issue from the permanent lighting plan. The district’s Mitigated Negative Declaration was released on Monday, and some residents are already crying foul over its contents.
The MND states that: “The [temporary] light standards will be placed on the site during the football season and removed at the end of the season. The lights will be 53 feet in height with a 5’ x 5’ x 3’ base. Each light standard would have six 1500-watt metal halide fixtures and would be operated by diesel powered generators. The fixtures will be shielded to reduce light spill and reduce glare.
The City of Malibu’s building code requires a building permit for “light standards which exceed 30 feet (9144 mm) in height.” In addition, the Malibu Local Coastal Program states that “exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity fixtures, shielded, and concealed to the maximum feasible extent so that no light source is directly visible from public viewing areas. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities in scenic areas designated for residential use shall be prohibited.”
The district states in the MND that it believes it is exempt from the LCP and city code because the property is zoned institutional: “There are no restrictions in the development standards for Institutional in the LCP, nor do the lighting restrictions purport to apply to public uses. Therefore there is no conflict with the LCP on this point.”
The MND claims that “No residual impacts on aesthetics would occur,” and elaborates by stating “private views are not significant,” and that “night lighting for football games is a natural concomitant to a high school,” although the report does disclose that public views on PCH and Zuma Beach would potentially be impacted by the lights. “Sky glow will be visible from limited locations along PCH and Zuma Beach...on foggy or rainy nights sky glow may appear stronger,” the document states.
The MND also declares that “the operation of the night lighting for such a limited duration each year, combined with the past use of the lights without complaint show that the limited football lighting is not annoying.”
The MND says that no complaints have ever been received during the years the unpermitted lights were in use. It bases this statement on a “personal communication with Virginia Hyatt, Director of Procurement, Contracts and Construction Management for Santa Monica, Malibu Unified School District.”
Residents contest that claim, stating that numerous complaints have been made to the school and the residents are troubled that no record of these complaints was made. “Many people did complain, but I guess not to the right agencies,” one school neighbor told the Malibu Surfside News.
Residents also contest the district’s statement that “The proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans as the project is confined to the existing high school site,” and the claim that there is “no sign of owl use in the study area.”
Embattled residents are already voicing dismay with the findings in the MND, but they have won at least one victory: the district concedes in the MND document that “the night lighting is in violation of CDP 4-99-276, condition 6, which prohibits outdoor lighting for all athletic fields [on the school property].” The document goes on to blame the state Coastal Commission, stating that the original agreement in final form was “never transmitted to the high school.”
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study Environmental Checklist, as well as all referenced documents, are available for public review at the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District offices at 1651 Sixteenth Street, Santa Monica. Copies of the MND are also available at Malibu High School, the Malibu Library and the Santa Monica Library.
Public comment, directed to Jan Maez, may be submitted in writing to the district office address or in an email by 5 p.m. on June 10. For questions, comments or additional information, contact Maez at jan.maez@smmusd.org, or 310-450-8338 ext. 268.

School District Wants City to Provide Fix for MVD Traffic Issues

• 150-Space Ridgetop Parking Lot and Degradation of ESHA Could Kindle Opposition to Plans

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

At its meeting in Malibu last week, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education revealed that it is hoping to pass the buck to the City of Malibu for traffic and safety improvements on Morning View Drive in front of Malibu Middle and High School and Juan Cabrillo Elementary School.
A revised Measure BB improvements project parking and traffic safety plan for the two campuses was presented at the meeting. It outlined the on-site addition of a 150-space parking lot on the ridge above the high school football stadium, up from the original suggestion of 110 spaces, presented in December of 2008, but down from a more ambitious plan, proposed in February, of a 250-plus-space lot, on what the district’s consultant described as an ecologically sensitive coastal sage scrub environment.
According to project consultant Tom Tomeoni, the campus is currently 76 parking spaces short of City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan requirements. The 150-space lot proposal, together with plans to restripe the main north lot, would give the district a total of 384 spaces, 33 more than the city requires.
The proposed new lot is not without problems. The ridgetop location will require what many think will be more extensive grading than the district consultants are currently anticipating, as well as coastal sage scrub replacement, and the addition of ramps and stairs to access the bluff top location. A deeded equestrian trail will also have to be relocated.
Security is also a concern. New perimeter fencing is part of the plan, not just for the new lot but for the entire campus. The district may encounter stiff opposition to the new lot’s conspicuous bluff-top location from Malibu Park residents.
Even the restriping and reconfiguring of the existing north lot is not free of issues. Tomeoni claimed that development in the area of the north lot predated the Coastal Act, meaning that the district had the right to “redevelop certain areas” that otherwise would be protected. “We still have to be sensitive to environmental concerns,” Tomeioni said. “We will be diverting drainage away from the ESHA.”
Traffic and safety plans presented at the meeting also include rerouting pick-up and drop-off at Juan Cabrillo away from the front and into a new parking lot carved out of the playground at the back of the campus. Two new traffic roundabouts were also suggested. The first would be located in the center of the north parking lot, near the Boys and Girls Club. The second would be placed on Morning View Drive, in front of the main driveway into the north parking lot. Unspecified “PCH/ Morning View intersection improvements were also on the diagram presented at the meeting, along with continuing plans to install a dedicated right turn lane from Merritt Drive into the proposed new lot.
Board of education members, having just been told that the district is required to spend $500,000 to upgrade the campus waterline and bring the property’s water supply up to fire safety standards, and an additional $250,000 to move the proposed new library and front entrance back five feet because the Morning View Drive right of way turned out to be 55 feet, not the 50 feet the architects had anticipated, balked at the $2.5 million price tag for the parking, traffic and safety improvement plans.
Earlier in the meeting, the board heard from a delegation of teachers publicly expressing displeasure over proposed cuts to health benefits and a grim report from Financial Oversight Committee chair Cynthia Torres, who stated that the district’s funding projections were overly optimistic.
“I’m not prepared to vote for the full amount, “ board member Oscar de la Torre said. “We need to meet with the city to see what a partnership with the city [of Malibu] would look like.
“There’s two pieces to this,” board president Ralph Mechur said, explaining that half of the money requested was “related to work on campus,” and that money for off-site improvements would not be spent unless the city is involved. “It’s a very intricate situation,” Mechur said.
Malibu resident and former City of Malibu safety commissioner Ryan Embree wanted to know why the morning View Drive traffic roundabout was being presented to the public at the school board meeting before it had been presented to the city, especially since the board is expecting the city to foot the bill for the plan. He said that, from his experience, it would be a good idea to budget funds to cover the cost of removing the feature and apologizing for it afterwards. “A 40-foot school bus isn’t going to do well on a 50 foot street with a turn-around,” he said.
“It’s a valid concern,” Tomeioni replied. He explained that the district would donate enough right-of-way to accommodate an 80-foot diameter for the proposed Morning View Drive roundabout, and added that the plan has been “reviewed by two traffic engineers. We are satisfied. Remember now, there are no perfect solutions.” The diagram that accompanied the presentation did not indicate the location of residential driveways on the opposite side of Morning View, nor address the potential impact the change might have on those residences.
“Is it right this plan hasn’t been before the city?” board member Ben Allen asked.
Jan Maez, the assistant superintendent and chief financial officer for the district, replied that Malibu’s city manager Jim Thorsen has seen the plans. “I believe there has been enough vetting by the school district,” she said. “It is appropriate to consider [the plan] at this time.”
Malibu Park resident Hans Laetz applauded the new parking lot but had concerns about the proposed changes at Juan Cabrillo. “I don’t think this plan is going to fly. It’s not acceptable in the neighborhood. It’s a dangerous lot to exit from onto Morning View Drive,” he said. Laetz also decried the loss of what he described as a delightful playground at the elementary school to accommodate the proposed traffic changes, and warned the district that, just because the school might have a right to bulldoze in the ESHA did not make it right to do so.
MHS PTA representative Colleen Baum did not agree. “I think the plan is great,” she said. “I think this is the best plan we’re going to get. It improves Malibu High in a way that pleases me—it’s 99 percent better than what we have.”
The board agreed only to fund the on-site portions of the plan and to ask the City of Malibu, which is also anticipating a budget shortfall, to cosponsor the rest of the project.

Chumash Seek Role as Local Ocean Monitor

• Want More Commercial Constraints

BY BILL KOENEKER

Chumash leader Mati Waiya announced this week that the group Wishtoyo Foundation intends to play a role in the implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act, a state law to provide protection for marine life and ecosystems by providing protection for various marine habitats.
Waiya said he met with stakeholders recently to talk about the tribe’s interest in safeguarding the ocean waters from Leo Carrillo State Beach to Point Dume.
He said the area, which currently contains some of the best last kelp beds in Southern California and has been designated an area of biological significance, could become a tribal marine protected area. Waiya said no other area tribes have taken part in the MLPA process in this manner.
The MLPA stakeholders group is attempting to develop a dataset for tribal uses that would facilitate creation of the highest form of protection known as a Marine Protected Area, or MPA.
MPAs are discrete geographic areas designed to protect or conserve marine life and habitat, according to the state Department of Fish and Game.
The South Coast group plans public workshops on MPAs for its study region in June and July.
Some of the goals of including tribal information are to build a collaborative relationship with traditional cultural users in the study region. The data collected would include tracking where cultural uses occurred and what resources were or are gathered.
Staffers, who have gathered the data in the northern region, acknowledge for many areas there was no tribal contribution, especially in the central and southern part of the study region.
The process has strived to include representation of tribal uses in the southern portion of region.
The Chumash spokesperson said he envisions an area that is free of all commercial fishing, but left open to spear fishing, netting and pole fishing.
Waiya said stakeholders have visited the Chumash village at Nicholas Canyon that for several years has been the showcase of the Wishtoyo Foundation.
“If we protect [the ocean here], imagine what it will be like after seven or 10 years of recovery,” Waiya said, while acknowledging it will take effort to keep the commercial squid and lobster fishermen out of the area.
Waiya said not only could tribal members be the eyes and ears for reporting violations in waters earmarked for special status, but residents along that stretch of Malibu’s shoreline might also want to participate.
The South Coast study region is the third MLPA study area to undergo the regional MPA planning and design process. The regional process started in the summer of 2008 and is scheduled to continue through 2009.
The law, enacted in 1999, directs the state to design and manage a system of marine protected areas in order to protect marine life, habitats and ecosystems, as well as improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems.

MTC Attorney Says Council Declines Tolling of Trancas Park Legal Action

• City of Malibu Says Suit Is Untimely in Spite of Statute of Limitations

BY ANNE SOBLE

The attorney representing the Malibu Township Council in a lawsuit filed last month that seeks to overturn the city council’s approval of Trancas Canyon Park, has learned that the Malibu City Council turned down an MTC offer to toll the litigation for 90 days in closed session this week.
As it was going to press, the Malibu Surfside News learned that the MTC’s counsel, longtime local attorney Frank Angel, was informed of the council’s action in a voicemail from Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin.
The civic organization had offered to toll, or stop the clock, on its legal action while a city-hosted workshop took place that may or may not lead to any substantive changes in the controversial park plans when they go before the city council again on May 26.
The MTC indicated it had to file when it did because the law under which legal action can be taken against the project, the California Environmental Quality Act, has a statute of limitations. Any legal challenge of the park plans originally approved by the city council on March 9 that were noticed on March 24 would have expired. The MTC action was filed April 23. Tolling is a way to preserve rights despite statutory deadlines.
Angel said what he finds most puzzling is that Hogin’s latest message is similar to public comments she made when the suit was filed. He said she indicated “the lawsuit was not timely,” which he said is comparable to saying, “You should forfeit your rights [to sue].”
Angel added that Hogin, who had earlier alerted The News that word of council action had been transmitted to the MTC attorney, also said park critics should have waited to see what the council does on May 26, but Angel countered, “If they did, then it would be too late to do anything about it.”
Angel said the city has a 60-day deadline from the date of service to prepare an administrative record and proceed with the case. Since the city was not willing to stop the clock, the burden is now on it to respond to why it should not rescind the permits it granted itself and decertify the Environmental Impact Report for the project, according to CEQA requirements.
MTC’s legal brief argues that the city certified a Trancas Canyon Park EIR that was incomplete, and failed to prepare and circulate a revised draft EIR “despite the addition to the final EIR of significant new information after circulation of the draft EIR,, but prior to the certification of the final EIR.”
Angel said not addressing or considering this new information in the draft EIR means the public was deprived of a “meaningful opportunity to know of and thus offer comments on substantial adverse environmental effects.”
Another reason Angel said he is puzzled by the council’s refusal to agree to a standstill is the city’s acute financial state. “If a plan is approved that is acceptable to all parties, Malibu will have expended unnecessary funds on litigation.”
The MTC showed good faith, he said, and he is concerned that the council action might mean it intends to ignore the park’s critics.

SMMUSD Forum Addresses Ways to Apply Special Ed Recommendations

• Controversy-Dogged Program Needs New Director

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District recently hosted its second Special Education collaborative forum at John Adams Middle School in Santa Monica.
The workshops are an outgrowth of the recommendations presented in March of 2008 as part of an independent evaluation of the district’s special education program by the consulting firm Lou Barber and Associates.
As a result of recommendations made during the first forum, in fall of 2008, the May forum focused on how to assist special education students to successfully transition from one level to the next, with an emphasis on the major transitions between preschool and kindergarten; middle school and high school; and high school and college.
Keynote speakers at the event included Petite Konstantin, the executive director of L.A. Goal, an organization whose “educational, vocational and recreational programs provide opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities to increase their independence and employability,” according to the group’s Web site, and actor and artist Brad Silverman, who is also active in L.A. Goal, has Downs syndrome, and is an advocate for children with disabilities.
In the second half of the event, forum participants were divided into smaller groups and invited to share their experiences with transitions in the school district.
The district itself is experiencing a period of transition as it grapples with the challenge of restructuring its special education program, which has been the subject of controversy for several years leading up to the Lou Barber review.
District officials are currently seeking a new director for the troubled department. Ruth Valadez, who was hired by the district in December of 2006, resigned in February to become director of the Lynwood Unified School District’s special education program.
Parents of children in the special education program have complained that Valadez was difficult to work with, and have described relations with the former director as “contentious.”
Special education consultant and retired teacher Jeanne Davis has been serving as interim director until SMMUSD selects a replacement. She has indicated that she is not interested in becoming the permanent director.
According to the district, 40 applications for the director’s position have been received. A panel of parents, teachers and administrators are conducting the first round of interviews.
Recommendations will then be made to Superintendent Tim Cuneo and senior staff. District officials have stated that they intend to take what they are describing as a “different approach,” during the hiring process, by asking “key” educators in the state for recommendations.

View Protection Task Force Continues to Move Forward

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu View Protection Task Force will participate in a mock case this week and use the opportunity to revise the proposed ordinance components and previous decisions they have made about the proposed law.
Their facilitator, Coleen Berg, prepared a summary of the task force decisions to date, which opens a window on the workings of the panel over the past several months.
Calling it the Malibu View Restoration/Preservation Ordinance, the new law would “permit a resident’s view to be restored to that which existed at the time the homeowner purchased his or her property. If at the time of purchase the property has no view whatsoever, they may not under this ordinance apply for view relief.”
Once a property owner has obtained what the task force is calling a view restoration/preservation order, they have the right under the proposed law to restore their view to the “standards and conditions stated on the order.”
The panel came up with definitions, such as what constitutes a viewing area—“that portion of the residence (excluding bathrooms, closets, garages and hallways) from which the primary view is observed. A property shall have only one primary view area. The primary view area shall be determined by the applicant and the governing party.”
Some of the definitions are much like what the city has already established: “The primary view area shall be assessed from a single fixed location and direction in the structure. The width of the primary view corridor shall extend the entire width of the protected primary view not to exceed a maximum of 180 degrees.” The city is the controlling agent for determining the view, but the applicant can appeal.
Foliage is also defined and the panel talked about the criteria used to help determine whether a view is being significantly impaired by foliage.
Such criteria includes the foliage position within the view frame, single component views versus a multi-component view, such as a view of the ocean, pier and canyons contrasted by a single view of the ocean.
“Foliage that entirely obscures one of components of a “multi-component” view is more likely to be found to create significant impairment than foliage that impairs the same degree of view of a ‘single-component’ view,” the Berg report states.
Members agreed that greater weight should be given to prominent landmarks or other significant features, such as views of the “Queen’s Necklace,” piers, and Point Dume.
“As a result foliage which impairs a view of any of historic landmarks is more likely to be found to create significant view impairment,” the report states.
Criteria were also established for restoration action because of a “significant/unreasonable obstruction has occurred.”
The panel came up with a list of 17 “unweighed factors,” in determining or considering appropriate restoration action.
Some examples: Whether removal or trimming of the foliage fill causes an unreasonable infringement of the indoor or outdoor privacy of the foliage owners. Whether trees are protected trees. What is the soil stability provided by the tree or trees considering soil structures, degree of slope and extent of the tree’s root system. Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use of the tree owner’s property.
Once it has been determined that there is significant view impairment and trimming or removal is needed, the task force says the city should put in place what they call a restorative action hierarchy.
Meaning removal of a tree should be of the last resort. Actions considered should first include thinning, and or heading of branches where possible, then removal if no other action can be taken. Heading or topping should be preferable to removal. Tree removal should only be considered when all other restorative actions are judged ineffective in restoring the primary view.
The panel also took into account defining various trimming actions and deciding when replacement foliage is appropriate.
Guidelines were also laid out about what actions the homeowner should take before filing a formal application, such as talking to the neighbor, having an arborist’s report made and contacting the neighbor in writing about the concerns of the applicant.
If the matter is not resolved at that step, then panelists have determined that mediation should be the next step. Mediation costs will be the responsibility of the applicant.
The task force has also tentatively decided on what should be the required elements of the application and that the applicant should submit as much evidence as possible.

Notice Is Given about Senior Exemption from Parcel Tax

Residents who will be 65 years old or older on June 30 are eligible to apply for a senior exemption from the Measure R parcel tax, according to school district officials.
The qualified residents must own and occupy their properties as their primary residence and may apply for the 2009-10 exemption. The applications are now being accepted and must be submitted by Friday, July 31, 2009.
In May, the school district will mail forms to all of those who previously qualified for the exemption. First-time applicants may request the exemption application from the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School district offices or download a form using the link: SMMUSD Measure R Senior Exemption Information page. Additional details can be found on the site.

Budget Dominates Council Review

• Baykeeper Litigation Could Cost City $1.6 Million

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council got is first look at the proposed budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 at a special quarterly meeting last week. Though there was no discussion about it at the meeting last Wednesday night, the document reveals what kind of war chest is planned to defend against three lawsuits that have been filed against the city by the Santa Monica Baykeeper over alleged violations of water quality standards, approval of permits and entitlements for the La Paz shopping center and office complex and city approval of permits for Legacy Park.
It is projected that the city will spend $750,000 this fiscal year in litigation expenses associated with the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Santa Monica Baykeeper’s lawsuit against the city. An additional $400,000 is budgeted in the proposed budget for FY 2009-2010. “If the city does not prevail, an additional $500,000 could be expended for a total litigation cost of over $1.5 million,” wrote Administrative Services Director Reva Feldman, in a staff report.
The council also learned that, despite the Baykeeper lawsuit, the city is proceeding with a construction bid for Legacy Park.
“It is going out to bid in two weeks. It is a good time to put it out because of the economic climate,” said City Manager Jim Thorsen. The awarding of the bid is expected in July 2009.
During a brief discussion of other budget issues, the council learned that currently there is only $258,725 earmarked for funding for Trancas Park.
Some council members seemed taken aback. “It is the only funding we have obtained,” said Feldman, who noted the staff would come back to the council about additional funding. Members were told at the present time no more grant money has been captured. “In the budget item, that is what we recommend,” added Feldman.
Thorsen said the council always has the option to finance the $3 million plus cost of the park by utilizing certificates of participation, the financing used to purchase Legacy Park. “There are COPs, if we are short of new grants,” Thorsen added.
Members were also told that the city owes $1.1 million for a special city employee retirement account.
The federal government is requiring that cities calculate and fund the amount of other post-employment benefits, such as retiree health care costs and to fund these ongoing costs as well as any other incurred liability. The city’s current liability is $1.1 million. The city’s annual ongoing expense will be about $275,000 a year, which includes approximately $200,000 to remain current with retiree benefits for existing employees and $75,000 toward the accrued liability of $1.1 million. A trust can be established with CalPers.
On the revenue side, the council was informed Malibu issued 58 still photo permits and 72 motion picture permits during the third quarter of the fiscal year resulting in $55,000 in revenue. Annually, the city collects approximately $300,000 in revenue generated from the film permits, according to Feldman.
A program that does not make money for the city, but also does not incur costs directly is Dial-a-Ride, a cab service for seniors and the disabled. The cab fare is one dollar and is subsidized by a grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Prop A money. During the third quarter, the program provided 806 rides to registered riders. Annually, the city allocates $125,000 of Prop A funding for the program.
Municipal officials say the economic downturn is being felt by the planning department. Code complaint activities are on the rise, a common occurrence during hard times. The code enforcement activities have increased in both the area of complaints and in those areas where the city is proactive, according to Vic Peterson, who heads up the building and planning departments.
“Some property owners are turning garages into rentals, we are experiencing more construction projects without permits, and there is an increase in properties being rented out for unpermitted units,” Peterson wrote in his staff report.
Also impacting his department were a number of city-generated public works projects during the last two fiscal quarters. No fees were assessed or collected for such services as processing, reviewing and permitting of city projects, including Trancas Park, Legacy Park and phase one and two of Las Flores Park, “resulting in a significant imbalance of revenues versus expenditures in several categories,” according to Peterson.
The council did not discuss either matter.
The council also learned City Clerk Lisa Pope was sworn in as the first vice president of the City Clerks Association of California and City Clerk’s Department of the League of California Cities.

Tension Evident at H2O Symposium

• City and Regional Water Board Engage in PR Battle

BY BILL KOENEKER

The City of Malibu’s Water Quality Symposium held last week at Pepperdine University was supposed to be the municipality’s counteroffensive to the shaky relationship between Malibu and the staff and members of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
However, the LA-RWQCB may have gotten the upper hand in the public relations battle when it released a lengthy list of Malibu commercial Notices of Violation and missing permit directives to the media the week before the conference.
That impression was reinforced when LA-RWQCB Senior Water Resources Control Engineer Rebecca Chou used her scheduled time to discuss the NOVs. She said this was saving “the best for last” at the end of the morning session.
Chou said, “Malibu is on our mind because of beach pollution, more so than Santa Monica.”
The senior agency engineer said while doing research on the memo of understanding between the city and the LA-RWQCB that is currently being considered for modifications or rescission, many unpermitted facilities in Malibu were discovered and an evaluation was launched.
She said there are 53 commercial facilities in the Civic Center, and of those 27 are unpermitted.
Chou indicated businesses are already generating more wastewater than the environment can sustain. “Malibu beaches are not safe,” she added, pointing out a newspaper article on the subject, as opposed to agency data.
City Councilmember John Sibert, who emceed the conference, emphasized after she spoke that “the City of Malibu is not the permitting agency. [This oversight] is the responsibility of the board.”
Privately, one council member called Chou’s and presumably the board’s decision to utilize the symposium as a forum as “the 500-pound gorilla in the room.”
What did not go unnoticed by the audience was that after Chou’s presentation and the break for lunch, Jonathan Bishop, the chief deputy director of the State Water Resources Control Board, who moderated an afternoon panel discussion and took questions from the attendees, said he would not allow any of the questions submitted by the public about the NOVs because “it would be inappropriate.” He did not elaborate.

Carroll O’Connor Widow Scam Viewed as Elderly Abuse

• Two-Year Probe of Malibu and Other Billings Leads to an Arrest

BY ANNE SOBLE

Growing national concern about elder abuse struck close to home with the arrest last week of a Carpenteria man suspected of bilking longtime Malibuite Nancy O’Connor, the 79-year-old widow of actor Carroll O’Connor, out of approximately $100,000 in bogus home improvement bills for family residences in Malibu and Westwood.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s detectives issued an announcement stating that Kevin Duggan, 40, who does not possess a state contractor’s license, allegedly scammed O’Connor by altering invoices for materials, double billing for services, purchasing personal items, and submitting bills from other clients.
The case began in 2007, when O’Connor’s daughter-in-law Angela began reviewing her husband’s mother’s finances after dementia set in.
Detectives from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Major Fraud Detail and investigators from the Contractor’s State License Board culminated a two-year investigation when they served search and arrest warrants at Duggan’s Carpenteria home.
Duggan was arrested on suspicion of Financial Abuse of an Elder 368(d) PC and Grand Theft 487(a) PC. He is being held in lieu of $70,000 bail.

M 4.4 Quake Rocks Malibu

BY ANNE SOBLE

Malibu and the surrounding areas were rocked by a minor earthquake and subsequent aftershock last Friday evening.
The first event was a magnitude 4.4 temblor (a quake below 5.5 is catagorized as minor) that struck at 6:11.13 p.m., according to United States Geological Survey seismologists who put the epicenter seven miles north of Leo Carrillo State Beach and six miles south of Westlake Village in the Santa Monica Mountains.
According to USGS, the quake was determined to have occurred at a depth of 8.6 miles, possibly in one of the unnamed faults that crosses the Santa Monicas and connects to the Malibu fault that runs along the coastline on the ocean floor.
The second shaker, a magnitude 3.1 aftershock, registered at 10:34:14 p.m. in the same area, but closer to the surface at a depth of 4.2 miles.

School District Says Controls Are in Place for ‘Swine’ Flu

• Monitoring of N1H1 Virus Continues

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Although only three cases of swine flu, the H1N1 influenza virus, have been reported so far in Los Angeles County, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District isn’t taking chances. Messages from Superintendent Tim Cuneo were sent home with all district students last week and this week, reassuring parents that the district’s nurses are “in regular contact with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to insure that district staff and parents are up to date with the latest health information and classroom hygiene measures.”
“While experts are uncertain about the spread and duration of the virus in California, the people affected thus far are reporting only mild to moderate symptoms,” Cuneo wrote.
“As a school community, we want to do all that we can to reduce the likelihood of virus exposure. The Center for Disease Control is advising that people follow general infection control practices and good hygiene to reduce transmission of all viruses. By taking simple precautions like washing hands often, covering their mouth when they cough or sneeze, students can reduce their chances of getting the flu. The experts also advise that whenever your child is sick, you do not send him or her to school.”
Malibu High School Principal Mark Kelly sent his school’s students home with advice forwarded from Point Dume Elementary school principal Chi Kim.
“When situations like Swine flu permeate throughout news media outlets, it is difficult to know what information we share with our young people. That is a family decision that needs to take into account age of the child, level of information, and how much information would bring about an unnecessary fear. It is our charge as the adults in our caring community to model rational and reasonable thinking. When we stay calm, our young people usually follow suit.”
Government officials appear cautiously optimistic that the threat of swine flu appears to be lessening, although the World Health Organization continues to warn that it is still too early to tell if the recent outbreak of the H1N1 influenza has peaked.
H1N1 is believed by scientists to be the same strain of flu virus that caused the deadly 1918 flu pandemic. A swine flu scare in 1976 in the U.S. led to one documented flu-related death. However, the 1976 event resulted in multiple fatalities and cases of a paralyzing neuromuscular disorder called Guillian-Barre syndrome, not from the virus but from an inadequately tested vaccine used to combat it.
Flu prevention tips are available on the district Web site at http://www.smmusd.org/. Updates on the Swine flu epidemic are available at the Center for Disease Control’s Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/

Malibu Issues Clog School Board Meeting

• Field Lighting—Parking—Wastewater—Traffic Flow

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Malibu High School’s controversial athletic field lighting plan is back on the agenda at the Thursday, May 7, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board meeting that will take place in Malibu.
The board of education is also expected to vote on the latest version of a plan to increase parking on the campus, which could potentially include a 150-space parking lot on the bluff behind the football field, necessitating the relocation of the existing equestrian easement and coastal sage scrub habitat replacement, as well as ramps and stairs to access the lot and the installation of new fencing to “secure the perimeter of campus.” A presentation on the revised parking plan will be presented at the meeting.
An on-site wastewater treatment system facility with an access road is being proposed for the area north of the new parking lot. Additional funding for septic system work and monitoring for MHS and Juan Cabrillo Elementary School is also on the agenda, as are plans to bring the campus water supply system up to current fire safety standards. Planned improvements will “ensure a minimum of two hours of adequate water flow to fire hydrants serving the Cabrillo and Malibu campuses.”
A discussion is also expected on the recently disclosed revelation that the Morning View Drive right of way actually consists of 55 feet, rather than the 50 feet that the district’s consultants have used to design MHS’s proposed new front entrance, library and administration buildings.
At the board meeting of March 5, the MHS Measure BB improvements construction budget was increased to $31,985,000 with the addition of funding for improvements to the OWTS.
At that time, an additional $4,278,000 was under consideration for traffic, parking and safety related improvements. Staff is now recommending that the board approve a smaller budget increase for those issues of $2,459,000, bringing the total construction budget for the Measure BB Malibu Middle and High School Campus Improvements Project to $34,444,000.
Advocates of MHS’s field lighting plan are concerned that each additional expense incurred during the BB planning process could mean that the chances for approval of permanent nighttime athletic events at the campus are reduced. The controversial lighting plan is an “add alternative” that can be funded only after “core” projects are completed.
The board will receive an update on the status of the lighting of the athletic field at Malibu High School. The district is facing two critical legal issues on this matter: the campus’s current Coastal Development Permit, issued to the district by the California Coastal Commission, contains a special condition prohibiting athletic field night lighting at the campus; and lighting of this type is also prohibited by the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Plan.
For several years, the school has used unpermitted temporary portable lighting for what the district estimates has been, on average, 10 days per year during the fall and winter months. The district plans to seek an amendment to the campus’s CDP to permit temporary lights for the 2009-10 football season.
On Feb. 5, the board authorized the preparation of an amendment application to the CCC. It had been anticipated that the application would be presented at the May 7 meeting. However, the agenda states only that a “mitigated negative declaration is currently being prepared by CAA Planning, Inc. and “should be ready for publication in May.” Even if the temporary lighting amendment is not yet complete, the board is expected to approve plans to continue pursing the permanent lighting plan.
The public portion of the board of education meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m., in the council chambers at Malibu City Hall. The agenda is available at the district Web site: www.smmusd.org

Malibu Country Mart Plans Series of Special Thursdays

• Center Kicks Off Summer Events

BY ANNE SOBLE

Beginning Thursday, May 7, the Malibu Country Mart will commence a new feature at the popular shopping center. Entertainment, refreshments, special values and store discounts will be offered every Thursday evening at the Country Mart from 5-8 p.m. during the summer months.
Noted singer-songwriter Arlene Kole is the featured artist at this week’s event. She and her family—her husband, her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend—will all perform.
Kole describes her style as folk music with pop sensibilities and says that much of her lyrical content relates to family and relationships. Kole just released her first CD titled, “One Day…”
The Malibu Country Mart is already a major commercial hub in the community with its diverse mix of 65-plus high-end boutiques, art galleries and restaurants in more than 80,000 square feet of centrally located retail space.
Among the enticements for Malibuites to adopt an “if-it’s-Thursday-we’re-going-to-the-Mart” attitude for the summer are Chrome Hearts, Juicy Couture, Earnest Sewn, John Varvatos, Oliver Peoples, Sigerson Morrison, 7 for All Mankind and Nobu. Vince, Cocoon Furniture and Morgane Le Fay are expected to be opening soon.
With Malibu Country Mart’s beautiful gardens and sculptures, outdoor dining and picnic areas, abundant free parking, and one of the most popular children’s playgrounds to be found anywhere, Koss Real Estate invites all members of the community to stop by and enjoy the summer happenings at what is often described as one of the most unique shopping destinations in the country.

Corral Fire Suspect Cases in Holding Pattern

• Date for Pair Viewed as Less Culpable Is Continued to Fall

BY ANNE SOBLE

Last Thursday, two Culver City men, Eric Matthew Ullman, 19, and Dean Lavorante, 20, charged with three counts related to starting the 2007 Corral wildfire that claimed 53 homes and dozens of other structures, were in Van Nuys Superior Court for a preliminary set hearing that was rescheduled to Sept. 15.
Attorneys for two Los Angeles men who are similarly charged and have pled not guilty, Brian Alan Anderson, 23, and William Thomas Coppock, 24, have filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss in their separate proceedings that is currently slated to be heard May 29.
Only the case against the third member of the L.A. contingent, Brian David Franks, 28, has been concluded with a plea bargain sentence of probation and community service that requires him to testify against Anderson and Coppock, the two who are deemed most culpable in starting the November 2007 wildfire by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Burnouts and their neighbors in Corral Canyon have been present at most of the court hearings and expressed impatience with delays extending proceedings to almost two years after the fire occurred.

Malibu Paparazzi Trial Date Delayed until August

BY ANNE SOBLE

Two Malibu men charged in what started out as a high-profile paparazzi battery case because of the peripheral involvement of media magnet Matthew McConaughey, which may return it again to the public spotlight, were in court on May 1 and learned that a trial date of Aug. 7 has been set on the charges.
Jury selection for the trial in the battery case brought by the district attorney against longtime residents Skylar Martin Peak, 24, and Philip John Hildebrand, 30, was slated to begin this week but is now expected to be vacated.
The men are each charged with one misdemeanor count of battery for their roles in the June 2008 ruckus at Little Dume Beach that led to a local call by some city officials for controls on the paparazzi.
That effort ran into major civil liberties roadblocks and was ultimately dropped.

Malibu Ferrari Guy Remains Confined in Sweden Prison

• Uppsala Police Keep Malibu Posted on Legal Proceedings

BY ANNE SOBLE

Although police in Uppsala, Sweden, are tight-lipped about the specifics of the fraud and other charges faced by Bo Stefan Eriksson, the former gaming company executive and reputed mobster who became an international media figure when he crashed a $1.5-plus million Ferrari Enzo on Pacific Coast Highway in 2006, they keep Malibu apprised of courtroom proceedings by email.
Chief Inspector Christer Nordström, the spokesperson for the Uppsala County Police in the city where Eriksson is being held, said a third detention hearing was held last week for Eriksson and the two men arrested with him in April. Detention hearings are usually held every two weeks in the Swedish justice system.
Eriksson and one man, Köse Mehmet, are to remain in custody another two weeks. They go before the court again on May 13.
The remaining suspect, Håkan Mattsson, was released from the detention center on April 27.
Nordström’s email reiterated the stock Swedish police response to media inquiries,“While the preliminary investigation is going on, [there is] full secrecy.”

Publisher’s Notebook

• Malibu’s Disposable Nature •

ANNE SOBLE

I had hoped that devoting a cover of The News to nesting birds and a plea to spare their young might make a difference in enough people’s tree trimming habits. While I am pleased that so many people sent us word that our message prompted a delay in cosmetic arbor work, there are still those whose commitment to a pruning timetable surpasses any desire to give nature leeway when it is most vulnerable.
This little tyke (yes, that’s a human hand the baby bird is sitting on) is a casualty of a recent tree trimming assignment that inexplicably couldn’t—or wouldn’t—be postponed for a few more weeks until most young birds have left their nests.
Instead, this tiny puffball of white down—tentatively identified as a baby screech owl—is now at one of the area’s avian rehab facilities, where it was taken after it was found on the ground, still half in its shell, next to the remnants of a shredded nest and other broken eggs. The bird’s prognosis is regarded as “challenging” at best, as most of the babies ripped from the avian counterpart of the womb too soon don’t make it. Is the symmetry of a few tree limbs worth such meaningless loss of bird life?
Not all of the wildlife endangered by humans at this time of year is in trees. Although coyotes may have their detractors among some writers of letters to the editor, they are an intrinsic part of the natural balance in our area. Young coyotes are now starting to assert themselves, and this can mean more sightings than usual until the critical sense that our species is to be avoided kicks in, as it ultimately does, if we don’t make the mistake of leaving out food or other enticements that attract wild animals.
The same is true with other young wildlife—I encountered a feisty opossum and two curious raccoons last week—that inadvertently crosses the imaginary lines between wilderness and civilization that zig-zag throughout all of Malibu. Whenever possible, we should give these critters the space they need to make a hasty retreat and not subject them to capture and relocation, or an even worse fate.

Water Quality Symposium Emphasizes Tension Between Science and Regulation

BY BILL KOENEKER

A beach lifeguard steps down from his stand, walks to the water’s edge and takes a sample of seawater from his hand-held device. Within a short time, the lifeguard posts the results of his water quality testing on his stand and beachgoers are alerted to any possibility of whether the water they are entering is clean or polluted.
That was one of the scenarios painted at last week’s water quality symposium sponsored by the City of Malibu, where scientists, experts and water quality regulators all gathered to hear the latest on the science of water quality and how such research can contribute to how regulators oversee the growing number of policies and laws to ensure clean water for all.
The idea, said Malibu Councilmember John Sibert “is to get folks in the same room and find out what they are doing and what they know or don’t know.” The afternoon session, according to Sibert was devoted to “how do we get to the outcomes and not just the processes.”
Stephen Weisberg, who is the executive director of the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, an agency described as a research entity that serves as the interface between science and water quality management, said the goal of same day water testing is not science fiction, but a near reality.
Currently, ocean users find out about bacterial contamination of water hours, days or sometimes weeks after the incident may have occurred and/or is continuing.
Weisberg said that while microbial measurement technologies in Southern California are some of the best in the nation, the problem still remains—the results lag by 24 to 96 hours. “The solution? Results in two hours by measuring DNA and utilizing molecular technologies,” he said.
He noted the new methods, which he predicted might be in place by 2012, offer faster methods, new indicators and source indicators.
“We are going to get to the point of putting instruments at the lifeguard stands,” he added.
Another method currently under testing is mooring testing equipment in the water and streaming web information from instruments anchored to the ocean floor. The installation can also be mounted on piers.
Weisberg indicated the new methods can measure much more, such as determining a human source or other sources such as from birds, dogs or horses or other animals such as cows. “What is the source? What is the pathogen? It can be more site specific,” he added.
The more precise the information, the more details are needed by researchers and regulators.
Other research discussed at the morning session included what kinds of information is being gathered to assist in such specificity.
Eric Stein, who is the principal scientist at the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, where he is the head of the watershed department, talked about how his research grew out of discussions about Malibu Creek, a highly polluted or “impaired stream.”
Those talks developed into a regional project to determine what the baseline is for water quality for streams.
“What is the appropriate level of constituents? What is the background water quality of these streams throughout Southern California? Are pathogens consistent across the region? Is there a difference? Why?” Stein said those were some of the questions he hoped to answer.
The scientist explained how the study was conducted throughout Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties by taking water samples of over a dozen clean streams.
The criteria were those that had little or no development or human impacts in the watershed to see what the water quality looked like throughout the year
The conclusions reached were there was a certain amount of bacteria in natural streams, but research determined it was non-human.
There were seasonal effects. The bacteria was higher in the summer. Was it because of warmer stream temperatures or activity around the stream? “We don’t know,” he added, but another conclusion was reached, the background level of bacteria seemed to be consistent across Southern California.
Two other researchers presented material that in effect highlighted the tough choices regulators have to make and how some assumptions.
Randal Orton, who heads up the resource conservation unit at Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, which operates a sewage treatment plant along Malibu Creek, offered observations that there is a geological influence on the water quality of Malibu Creek. He showed attendees maps of the geological formations within the Malibu Creek watershed and noted one of the larger deposits is called the Monterey formation, the same strata that is oil bearing in Southern California, except within the Malibu Creek watershed the formation has no geological structure to capture the oil.
Orton said using Heal the Bay research, he found there is phosphorus in the various soil types and formations of rock in the watershed. “It is like a large bag of fertilizer at the head of the watershed,” he said. He pointed to sulphur springs in Ahmanson Ranch and other areas just north of the 101 freeway. He said there is also selenium in the water, but there is no known human source. “There is a close coincidence with geology and water quality,” he said, adding that Cold Creek, usually pointed out as one of the most pristine in the Santa Monica Mountains, is brackish.
The LVMWD spokesperson contended there is high level of phosphorus in the background level of streams in the watershed. There are also heavy metals present, according to Orton.
Another researcher talked in detail about how he measures the physical movement of water. John Izbicki, who works for the United States Geological Survey, said, “When we understand the movement of water, we understand the movement of bacteria.”
He went on to explain how he uses radioisotopes to follow water movement and discussed how his research is conducted. “We look at DNA. We look at DNA specific to humans,” he added.
While his research applied to a sewage line in Santa Barbara, Izbicki elaborated on how he needed to measure the tides and groundwater movement.
Dick Otis, the president of Otis Environmental Consultants, talked about septic systems versus sewage plants and what is appropriate for different communities.
The second half of the symposium was a panel discussion, including both researchers and regulators talking about how the science is implemented into regulation.
“This is what we now know. How can we apply this to regulation?” asked Sibert.
“[That is] the biggest challenge,” answered Weisberg. “Different fecal sources pose different threats to humans. The science is not as advanced.”
“We need to rethink past testing,” added Orton.
Jonathan Bishop, who heads up the State Water Resources Control Board said, “We have moved from generalized testing, easier to cite, easier to comply. The new technology for testing, involves more monitoring, more testing, but government is moving to less regulations because of finances.”
Sibert asked the panelists, “How much do we need to know?”
Otis said we don’t want to be paralyzed by what we don’t know. “Best management practices need to protect resources, if it can't maybe we need prohibition. We have to find where best to spend money,” he said.
Randal added, “There are costs in filling the knowledge gap. If the consequences mean to cities to implement something.”
Sibert asked, “Are we too focused on Total Minimum Daily Loads?”
Bishop answered in the affirmative. “There are ways to get to the endpoint, create a matrix of impacts. We can’t spend forever doing science. The integration of chemicals and stressors shows up on the resources,” he added.
Panelists, taking advantage of the opportunity to exchange ideas, continued to discuss new theories and potential solutions for several more hours.