Malibu Surfside News: June 2009

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Malibu Is Top Bidder on Building Slated to Become City Hall

• Current Landlord Indicates Intention to Hold Municipality to the Remainder of Its Lease

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu city officials announced this week that they were the only and winning bid at $15 million in an auction to acquire the building that was the former home of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and currently houses the Malibu Performing Arts Center.
The purchase of the 35,000-square-foot building, accessed off Stuart Ranch Road and located directly behind the current City Hall, will be funded through the issuance of certificates of participation.
Certificates of participation, or COPs, are a commonly used form of lease purchase financing that does not require voter approval. The lease purchase agreement is divided and sold to multiple investors in fractions, similar to stocks.
The COPs will be paid back over a 30-year period from the savings in rent payments, according to a municipal press release, which indicated there will be no extra cost to the taxpayers.
The city is currently paying $800,000 rent annually for the 15,647 square feet it now occupies at the current City Hall.
“This means we will be making payments toward our own building instead of paying rent, and I’m thrilled to have a permanent home for City Hall,” said Mayor Andy Stern. “The long-term cost savings and added value to our residents was the driving force of this purchase.”
There is still three years on the lease, or about $2 million owed in rent to the city’s landlord, Miramar Property Investment.
Miramar’s general partner Patricia Gartland told the Malibu Surfside News that the company was not prepared to let the city out of its lease.
Stern and other city officials are indicating that they are prepared to sublease the building if necessary.
Gartland said, “Any tenant is allowed to sublease, but it has to be pre-approved by Miramar.”
It was a full day of pins and needles last Friday for council members as they gathered in closed session, staying in touch during the auction proceedings with city operatives and attorneys to be able to discuss the upper limit council members were willing to go.
The bidding was supposed to start at 10 a.m. but was halted by 12:30 p.m. when a potential bidder showed up but then was not considered qualified by the judge, who gave the party several hours before the bidding would resume.
The auction resumed at about 2 p.m. when the city made its successful bid and no other bidders returned or showed up.
There is the matter of a 10 day appeal process, but municipal officials seem confident they will win out.
Stern said space planners and architects would immediately begin looking at the building that currently houses a 500-seat theater, recording studio, rehearsal space, banquet facilities and office space.
The mayor, who said he thought the city could move in within six months, said it is hoped the city can utilize some of the production facilities to create a revenue stream. He also indicated that municipal officials do not want to make double payments—to have to pay for the debt acquired and the lease payments on the current offices.
Council members, at this week’s regular session, agreed to a contract with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth and Stone and Youngberg to provide the services invoved in issuing certificates of participation to fund the acquisition. Those firms were used by the city to provide COPS for the acquisition of Legacy Park.
If the city issues $15 million or less in COPs, the investment banking and underwriting services will be $117,500, according to a staff report.
Since only a small area of the Malibu Performing Arts Center has been built out as office space, major interior design changes will be required.
“In order for the building to be functional as a city hall, the city will need the services of an architect to redesign the interior space. An RFP will have to be issued for architectural design services, according to a staff report.

City Readies New Court Fight with Conservancy

BY BILL KOENEKER

City Attorney Christi Hogin announced at this week’s Malibu City Council meeting that members had unanimously authorized her to proceed with a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission over its denial of the city’s Local Coastal Program Amendment and approval of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s override LCPA.
Hogin talked about how the SMMC was allowed by the Coastal Commission to utilize “an obscure provision” of the Coastal Act that allowed the Conservancy to submit an LCPA override. “The Coastal Commission made law in Malibu,” said Hogin.
The CCC staff acknowledged it was only the second time in its history it had allowed an override provision and the first was under a different set of circumstances. The city attorney also talked about challenging what she called procedural errors.
When asked after the meeting about legal strategy, Hogin said, “Certainly, a centerpiece of the city’s challenge will be the improper use of the override provision of the Coastal Act.”
But that won’t be the only legal angle. “We have other claims that we will raise as well, including the inadequacy of the environmental review and the violation of due process,” added Hogin.
The city attorney said a new lawsuit will be filed. The municipality had filed a legal complaint months before the commission meeting, but that lawsuit was dismissed after the judge said the city had to complete the administrative process.

School District Is Next to Mount an Assault on City’s Local Coastal Plan

• Claims Municipal Laws on Outdoor Lights Don’t Apply

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

Following in the wake of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s successful override of the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program, it appears that the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District is now also attempting to circumvent the municipality’s LCP.
According to the agenda for the June 25 board of education meeting, district staff received a letter from the City of Malibu dated June 10 informing them that the athletic field lighting planned for Malibu High School “is not a permitted use in the Institutional Zone, or any zone within the City of Malibu, with or without a conditional use permit.”
The letter, which addressed the district’s Mitigated Negative Declaration document, raised numerous concerns about the proposed lighting plan.
“The baselines used for assessing potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, noise, recreation and transportation/traffic are inaccurate insofar as the baseline conditions described incorporate unauthorized activities ( i.e., the operation of temporary night lights),” the letter states.
“Any environmental analysis that includes current illegal uses and activities in the baseline...is inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and necessarily skews the analysis towards a finding of no impact.”
The letter repeatedly states that the lighting project would violate the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan, as well as city lighting and zoning codes.
The letter also challenges the MND’s accuracy regarding the location of neighboring residences—what the district says is 1000 feet, the city says is 550 feet. It also questions the district’s findings on biological resources, noise and air quality impacts and the impact on the “scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas” that are protected under the Coastal Act.
The district’s response to the city’s concerns was to draft a resolution to essentially override the city’s LCP and forge ahead with the plan on the basis that the MHS athletic field “is a classroom facility even though it does not have four walls.”
District staff state in the agenda that “per Government Code section 53094, the California Legislature has authorized school districts to exempt themselves from local zoning codes for classroom facilities.” The report goes on, “It is recommended that the board of education adopt Resolution 08-50 to exempt the Malibu High School Football Lighting Project from the City of Malibu’s zoning code because the project is not a permitted use therein.”
A representative of the City of Malibu’s planning department informed the Malibu Surfside News that the department has not received a coastal application at this time, but he added that he anticipates that the upcoming coastal permit application will be submitted to the city, and said that the city is aware that project’s Coastal Commission appeal is “just around the corner.”
The plan requires an amendment from the California Coastal Commission before it can implemented.
According to the district, MHS has used unpermitted lights for a limited number of nights per year since 2003, when a wealthy patron reportedly donated the funds for rental lights for homecoming night. Plans to install permanent lights as part of the district’s Measure BB improvement plan were revealed in August of 2008. The plans immediately raised the issue of legality when it was disclosed that the school had agreed to a special condition permanently prohibiting temporary or permanent athletic field lights in order to receive a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission in 2000.
The agenda states, “Unfortunately, neither the district nor the California Coastal Commission can locate the agreement, which may not have been ultimately executed.” However, the district has acknowledged that it has violated the permit’s lighting restriction.
Initially, Measure BB funds were tapped to pursue a Coastal Commission amendment to permit the temporary lights for the 2009-10 season. However, opponents to the project challenged the use of bond money allocated for safety and improvement projects to legalize a project that had never been permitted. Critics estimate that the temporary lighting permit project has cost the district some $100,000 in general funds.
The board will be voting on Thursday to authorize an additional $34,000 to the consultant firm of Cuthbertson and Associates to “expedite the CCC amendment process.”
The board will also be voting to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration developed by staff and consultants for the temporary lighting project. Once the resolution and MND are in place, the next step will be presenting the appeal to the Coastal Commission. Project supporters are hoping this can be accomplished before the start of the fall football season. Night games are already on the athletic program agenda.
The board of education’s decisions on Thursday are expected to be closely scrutinized by both City of Malibu officials and a growing coalition of Santa Monica parents who claim that Santa Monica schools are being disproportionately singled out for budget cuts and are calling for Malibu schools to shoulder more of the burden of the district’s estimated $12 million shortfall.

Malibu Gets Its First Look at New Marine Life Protection Law

• Lively Debate Is Expected to Follow

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibuites took part in the first public disussion of what might be in store for the local coastline in terms of possible more stringent conservation measures at a public workshop last week that addresed implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act, 10 years after its passage.
The local part of the process is called the South Coast Project. This is a regional stakeholders group and blue ribbon panel that is developing alternative protection proposals for public comment.
Several plans involving reserve areas and other Marine Protection Areas or MPAs have been developed for Malibu.
Of nearly dozens of arrays recommended for Malibu, there will be several layers of reviews by various groups, which will be subject to public hearings before a final overlay district is recommended to the state Fish and Game Commission for consideration.
Potential MPAs for the Southland, including Malibu, have been submitted for various evaluations. A science advisory team will look at the proposals, as will the state Department of Fish and Game. Guidance is provided by the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force, whose membership includes former Malibu City Council member Ken Kearsley.
A final set of recommendations will be developed by October of 2009 for consideration by the state Fish and Game Commission.
The presentation held last week at City Hall was not part of the formal process and not one of the meetings where folks could give public comment.
The 20-minute presentation that was followed by questions and answers dealt with the history of the MLPA since it was approved by state lawmakers in 1999.
Malibuites learned about the specific goals of the act and the different designations for protection.
The process, in the main, deals with levels of extraction in terms of the taking of marine life.
A State Marine Reserve prohibits all extractive activities, and at the same time may limit access and human activities including walking, swimming, boating and snorkeling. Some diving may be restricted.
A State Marine Conservation Area limits recreational and or commercial extractive activities. In a SMCA, the managing agency may permit research, education and recreational activities, and certain commercial and recreational harvest of marine resources.
A State Marine Park prohibits all commercial extractive activities and potentially some recreational activities. Any human use that would compromise protection of the species of interest, natural community or habitat or geological, cultural or recreational features may be restricted by the managing agency.
All of the protected areas may permit research, education and monitoring.
The process for designating MPAs has been completed for the North Coast and the Central Coast. The Central Coast includes the Northern Channel Islands.
There are several proposals being talked about in Malibu. Attendees were shown maps that can be accessed at the website marinemap.org. The maps show the proposed arrays. Attendees were told most public piers are exempt from the MPAs, but not private piers are not.
Various configurations were shown for Point Dume and the stretch of coast along the coves to Paradise Cove. Some of the proposals showed most or some of Big Dume Cove included in either a SMR or SMCA.
Malibuites were urged to keep their eyes open for a series of open houses held this summer, none in Malibu, where the public will be allowed to review the MPAs, comment on the draft MPAs and provide input on particular areas of interest. The closest open houses will be in Oxnard on July 8 and Marina Del Rey on July 7.

Planning Panel to Hear Both Farmers Market Applicants at Same Meeting

• Attorney for Local Ed Group Raises Issues of Favoritism

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The City of Malibu Planning Commission last week voted to postpone hearing a request by Malibuites Remy O’Neill and Debra Bianco of the Malibu-based nonprofit Cornucopia Foundation for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a farmers market. The commission will wait until a second applicant completes the necessary paperwork and will hear both applications at the same meeting.
Malibu’s farmers market has a long and complicated history, which was spelled out in the staff report accompanying the meeting agenda. According to the report, the original Cornucopia Foundation market received a Conditional Use Permit from the city planning commission in 2001 to hold a weekly market at the county-owned parking lot of the Malibu courthouse and library. However, in 2004 the market was determined not to be a permitted use. The following year, Cornucopia’s market was suspended.
For the next four years, the market was caught in a catch-22 situation between the city and county, neither apparently willing to issue a permit until the other had.
In 2006, in addition to Cornucopia’s ongoing application attempt, two other organizations—John Edwards of Raw Inspiration, a company that runs a dozen farmers markets throughout the Southland, including the popular Brentwood and Old Town Calabasas farmers markets, and Jeannie Yamatoto of IHCenter, a nonprofit organization that “sponsors projects that are devoted to a vision of ecological and humanitarian stewardship that benefits all of creation,” according to the center’s website—also submitted applications. All three applications were withdrawn in 2008 due to inactivity. Earlier this year, the Cornucopia Foundation was able to contact a representative of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, who indicated a City of Malibu CUP should be issued first, enabling the process to move forward.
Cornucopia applied for a CUP with the City of Malibu in March 2009. Raw Inspirations applied shortly after, but apparently its application did not include all of the necessary elements.
“We need to figure out some way to do this,” Commissioner Jeff Jennings stated at the start of the planning meeting. “Ordinarily, if someone wants a CUP they own the property or have a lease. We have a set of competing entities that both want a CUP. If we issue one, it precludes the other, or even worse, it leaves the county to decide.” Jennings moved that the hearing be postponed until the applications could be heard together.
Commissioner John Mazza disagreed, arguing that the market depended on having a summer season, and a delay would put the decision off until the end of summer. “This is a time sensitive thing,” he said. “The applicant has gone through a bunch of hoops. It’s really the county’s decision who to lease it to.”
Planning staff confirmed that the Raw Inspiration application was incomplete, and indicated that the applicant “would have to be proactive” to complete the requirements in time for an Aug. 4 hearing date.
Mazza advocated a “first come, first served” approach, but met with opposition from Commissioner Joan House.
“I want the best farmers market. I don’t want 65 percent produce. I want more, or you end up with a flea market as far as I’m concerned,” House said, echoing a criticism that was levied by many at the previous incarnation of Cornucopia’s farmers market during its final year.
The current Cornucopia Foundation application states, “Merchandise will include fruits, vegetables, nuts, honey, flowers, nursery stock, jams, juices, pickles and olives. Other products that do not fall under the agricultural category, such as baked goods, soaps, perfumed oils, etc. will also be available,” in addition to a variety of prepared foods.
Mazza asked, “If two applications are completed and qualify, is it up to planning to deny one or both?” Assistant city attorney Greg Kovacevich replied that any combination was possible, including approving both applications and assigning different days for the two markets, or leaving the county to determine which applicant it would prefer.
“I would rather leave it to the city,” House said.
The board voted three to two, with Mazza and Commissioner Regan Schaar dissenting, to postpone the item and hear both applications on Aug. 4.
David Solinger, an attorney for Cornucopia, is already questioning the planning commission’s decision. In a letter that was read at the June 22 city council meeting, Solinger stated, “This application was complete, properly agendized, and a properly noticed public hearing. The Planning Department Staff Report recommended approval of their CUP, and the applicant was fully prepared to present at the hearing.
“A hearing on the Cornucopia application was postponed solely to accommodate a request to operate a farmers market by a second applicant, in spite of the fact that the second application remains incomplete. Cornucopia’s application has been deemed complete since May 11, 2009,” the letter continued.
“A review of historical submissions by Cornucopia will disclose that Cornucopia has consistently been placed in a position of overcoming obstacles to a market, while favorable treatment has been granted to others. For five years, Cornucopia has led the way in overcoming the obstacles of any Farmers’ Market operation at the site due to zoning and code issues, not of their making. For five years, Cornucopia has spearheaded the passage of the ZTA resolving the city’s zoning glitch as well as brokering the resolution of impasse between L.A. County and the city for the use of the county property. Now after five hard years of effort, Cornucopia is in a position to legally reopen its farmers market once again.”
Solinger has requested that the council instruct the city attorney to investigate the facts surrounding the planning commission’s postponement of the CUP.

City and Water Board Members Meet on Issue of Issuance of Discharge Permits

• Session Focuses on Need for Improved Communications

BY BILL KOENEKER

Four members of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and its staff met with two Malibu City Council members and their staff, including the city manager and city attorney, last week, to talk about the memo of understanding between the two entities that controls who issues wastewater discharge permits in Malibu.
The meeting on Wednesday first started in the conference room but had to be moved because of an overflow crowd to the council chambers.
City Attorney Christi Hogin said she thought it was important for everyone, including the public, to understand what is on the table.
“To understand why there is this negotiation, state law requires that onsite water treatment systems get permits from the regional board. The memo is an agreement between the city and the RWQCB for single-family residences and commercial. It is an enormous staff effort. The memo defines those lines. The city is not obligated to do it,” she noted.
Under the current agreement, the city issues permits for single-family homes and some commercial systems under 2000 gallons per day. The board issues permits for all other commercial buildings.
Board member Fran Diamond went on to explain. “This the first MOU of the board and in the state. The MOU is for five years. It is time to renegotiate. Obviously, there are some problems, but we are not pointing fingers,” she said.
Diamond made it clear, though, that the brouhaha between the city and the board was over who would issue permits for the city’s Malibu Lumber Yard shopping center, which is what prompted the current review. “That was a very big issue. Some board members were very upset with that. The MOU was not working to get to that point,” she said.
“I agree,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky. “You can’t move forward if you don’t know where you were. The MOU accomplished a lot. It has been a good process up until now.”
Some board members took time drilling city staffer Craig George about where the city was in their process to account for all of the existing wastewater systems in the city.
Talk then focused on how better communications can be maintained between the two agencies.
There was also some discussion about who was supposed to monitor what and who was supposed to do water testing.
That is when the finger pointing began. A municipal official wanted to know why the board was backlogged seven years on some notices of violation.
Whereupon board member Madelyn Glickfeld, a Malibu resident, said some systems in Malibu were polluting and exceeding standards. Barovsky shot back, “You don’t shut those down? We do.”
Glickfeld countered the board cannot be the public works department for Malibu.
Barovsky pursued her line of questioning wanting to know when the RWQCB gets the monitoring reports and why NOVs are not sent out then, but seven years later.
Glickfeld said the board’s work has to be put into context because it oversees a large area of Southern California. “Are you testing water quality?” she asked. Barovsky answered by saying, “The MOU says you are supposed to do that.”
The panelists talked about how to define monitoring and what issues should be explored by the staffs compiling a list of issues.
Then it was the public’s turn to comment. Tom Ford, the executive director of the Santa Monica Baykeeper, acknowledging the group has gone to court to settle some of the issues, insisted permitting should be stopped in the Civic Center. “Stop development in the Civic Center,” he said.
Mark Gold, the president of Heal the Bay, said that 18 years ago he did his doctoral dissertation on human fecal pollution in the waterways of Santa Monica Bay. “Can we put that to rest? We know the water quality. The MOU did not work. “We strongly support a moratorium [in the Civic Center],” he added.
Several representatives from surfing organizations spoke, saying the lagoon and Surfrider Beach “is a toilet that is full and overflowing,” and “toilet water is dripping in my mouth and nose.”
City official insisted they were working on the problem, but being sued by the very organizations that were urging them on held the municipality back. “I don’t know how we can work faster,” said Councilmember John Sibert.

More No Smoking Zones OK’d by the City Council

• Outdoor Dining and Public Events

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council this week, with some debate, agreed to put up no smoking signs in outdoor dining areas and at public events. After some wrangling with the city attorney, the council agreed to add a requirement that restaurant owners must provide ashtrays or receptacles of some sort to dispose of butts.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit smoking within 20 feet of an outdoor dining area. Businesses with outdoor dining areas would be required to post and maintain “no smoking” signs conspicuously within the area, according to a staff report.
The ordinance would also prohibit smoking within 20 feet of any public event, except within a designated smoking outpost. Violators would be subject to the city’s administrative citation procedures, and possibly to other criminal and civil fines and penalties.
City Attorney Christi Hogin also announced at the onset of the meeting, the council agreed to file a lawsuit against Los Angeles County.
A disagreement between the county and the California Contract Cities Association, which includes the City of Malibu, has stalled the city-county law enforcement services agreement. The county currently is only agreeing to extend the matter to August 23, 2009, according to city documents.
The CCCA had entered into agreements with the county in July 2004 for it to provide services to CCCA member cities including law enforcement services. As part of that agreement, the CCCA and the county agreed to establish a liability trust fund to pay for various expenses and losses associated with law enforcement services, according to City Manager Jim Thorsen.
An oversight committee and claims board were established to oversee the operations of the fund and make recommendations regarding claims.
However, in March 2007 and again in December 2008 the county made withdrawals from the fund to reimburse itself for the costs of settling three lawsuits arising from three known assaults by a county sheriff’s deputy while on duty in 2002 and 2003. The CCCA, the oversight committee and the claims board all objected.
“The CCCA disagreed with the county over which agency should bear the legal and fiscal responsibility and burdens related to criminal acts committed by sheriff’s deputies when those acts occurred while providing services covered by the agreements with contract cities. In September the CCCA filed a claim with the county related to the withdrawals,” Thorsen wrote in a memo to the council.
The current agreement between the city and county is due to expire on June 30 to provide more time to settle the dispute. However, when the CCCA requested that its member cities extend the current agreement for one year the county agreed only to the August 30, 2009 timeline.

Local Award-Winning Swim Coach Honored on School’s ‘Wall of Fame’

Longtime Malibu resident, Pepperdine University head swim coach, and a noted photographer in his spare time, Nick Rodionoff was recently included among the ranks of those honored on the Birmingham High School Wall of Fame.
Rodionoff taught at Birmingham for many years and coached the school teams to an impressive number of swim awards. In 1999, the school named its new pool the Nick Rodionoff Pool.
During his years of coaching high school, Rodionoff’s swimmers won 10 Los Angeles City swimming championships ad had a dual meet record of 324-3, winning 99 percent of their competitions. Rodionoff’s swimmers won 36 league championships and included over 36 high school All Americans in their ranks.
Rodionoff has been coaching at Pepperdine for the past 36 years, the last 10 of which he was the head swim coach and diving coach. His career at the school will end because of the university’s decision to terminate its women’s swim program.
Rodionoff has created a legacy of accomplishments in coaching that has earned him numerous accolades. In 2002 and 2009, he was named the Pacific Collegiate Swimming and Diving Conference (PCSC) coach of the year. He coached the PCSC diver and swimmer of the year in 2002, 2008 and 2009.
Rodionoff won the Fred A. Cady Memorial Coaches Diving Award, which is presented to coaches who have dedicated 25 or more years to diving and have developed outstanding talent in the U.S. National Diving Program and international competitions, including the Olympic Games. Rodionoff was also a candidate for Olympic diving coach.
On the national level, he was the only coach in the United States to have coached national champions in swimming and diving. He coached a finalist is 12 straight national diving championships; and he coached swimmers in 38 national age group records.
The longtime Malibuite also coached the women’s relay team to the short course national 200 meter freestyle record; he was named to the U.S. Swimming and Diving Hall of Fame in Florida and inducted into the National High School Athletic Coaches Association Hall of Fame—the fifth coach from California to be named.
Rodionoff coached the UCLA diving team from 1964 through 1974. He then moved to Pepperdine University in 1974 to coach men’s diving. During his 35-year tenure at the school, the team won 11 conference championships.
Rodionoff started the women’s program in 1987, and until 1991, the women divers were undefeated and six women divers have won the conference and qualified for the NCAA.
He became head coach in 2000 and during this time, he said Pepperdine’s swimmers have broken 11 school records out of 20 possible; and made records over 75 times—out of 100 possible—that are the Pepperdine women’s swimming all-time best times.
Rodionoff and the swimmers expressed disappointment when the school announced this year that it was cutting the women’s program because of the difficult financial environment, but they won a reprieve to finish the season.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Coastal Commission Approves SMMC Efforts to Expand Public Use

• Malibu Bluffs Parkland Is Added to List of Possible Locations for Overnight Camping

BY ANNE SOBLE

The California Coastal Commission followed staff recommendations and denied the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment submitted by the City of Malibu that included a prohibition on overnight camping on public lands within its borders.
After almost 10 hours of reports and testimony at the panel’s meeting in Marina del Rey on Wednesday, June 10, the commission unanimously approved a competing LCPA override submitted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The agency wants to expand public camping and other uses on its holdings in the area.
A ban on overnight camping was sought by the Malibu City Council after initial efforts to reach a compromise with the SMMC on the issue met with vocal opposition from some members of the community who view overnight camping as a source of wildfire danger even though no California wildfire has ever been attributed to legal camping.
The plan proposed by the SMMC includes trails connecting coastal canyons and camping in Escondido, Corral and Ramirez canyons, as well as increased use of SMMC property in Ramirez, and some residents voice concern that these areas would not be adequately patrolled and be subject to misuse endangering public safety.
A sizable contingent of municipal officials and local residents went to the hearing on a bus charted by the city. Supporters of the SMMC plan were bused to the meeting by the public access advocacy group The City Project.
Malibu testimony, including that by the city attorney, the city manager, members of the city council and a large contingent of residents, focused primarily on safety and wildfire issues, but representative after representative from visitor recreation and inner city advocacy groups stressed issues of public access, social justice and civil rights.
Several commission members expressed puzzlement that the City of Malibu continued to push for a ban on overnight camping, which is legal throughout the state on public lands, even though CCC staff and previous panel action had indicated, as the commission’s executive director, Peter Douglas, stated, “That a ban on camping was not subject to negotiation.”
A number of speakers and several coastal commissioners also indicated that they perceive a contradiction between expressions of concern about legal overnight camping by city officials and the Los Angeles County fire department and the ongoing approval by both entities of residential development in high fire-risk areas.
SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston told the panel that nine new residences were approved for the Ramirez area during the time that opposition was voiced against expanded use of SMMC property at the end of the canyon.
Several pro-camping speakers reiterated the contention that no wildfires have resulted from legal use of campgrounds. It was noted that, apart from rare lightning strikes and rarer acts of criminal arson, most wildfires result from downed power lines or equipment sparks from power tools, discarded cigarette butts, backyard grills and other aspects of residential development in wildland areas.
However, to help allay fire concerns, Edmiston said the Conservancy would work with Los Angeles County fire officials to have stringent wildfire safety and evacuation policies in place when specific park use plans come back before the commission. He said this would include SMMC undertaking, at its expense, the removal of private landscaping on Ramirez Canyon Road that has illegally spilled over onto the roadway. Edmiston said this would improve access and make the area safer for residents, as well as visitors.
Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan said the Conservancy’s camping plans would make all of the areas that are proposed for this activity “much safer.” Wan, a Malibu resident whose own home has been threatened by wildfire, told the local residents, “Camping isn’t the problem. Legal camping is not the source of fires.”
With a consensus on the wildfire safety issue, the commission reiterated its mandate to make public parklands accessible to all of the people of California. Commissioners unanimously determined that the city’s proposed Land Use Plan amendment would diminish the range of potential access and recreational uses in the City of Malibu and is “inconsistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act,” as the staff had reported.
Although a number of Malibu residents repeatedly referred to the millions of people who visit local beaches, the notion of exclusion marked much of the testimony by speakers in support of the SMMC proposal for overnight camping. When one speaker decried what he called Malibu’s “arrogance of self-entitlement,” locals in the audience, who were subsequently chastised by the CCC counsel, loudly booed him.
From an advocate for the disabled who criticized what she called Malibu’s “separate but equal” handicapped proposal to Spanish-speaking mothers and grandmothers who spoke passionately about the impact of the outdoors on their families, the need to make the Santa Monica Mountains accessible to everyone affirmed the CCC staff report.
Immediately before the commission vote, Edmiston sought a revision to add another area for camping that the SMMC executive director said would address all of the Malibu resident concerns expressed at the hearing.
Edmiston said utilization of some of the 80 acres of state-owned Malibu Bluffs property—land that was originally acquired for camping in 1976 but encountered strong local opposition at the time—should calm most residents’ fears about canyon fires that are swept seaward by powerful Santa Ana winds through difficult to defend residential areas.
The SMMC head said the Malibu Bluffs site offers ample parking, is at the water’s edge, near a fire station, and accessible to all law enforcement and other safety personnel because of its proximity to Pacific Coast Highway.
Because many of the Malibu attendees had to leave the meeting early because of the bus schedule, they did not learn until much later that the Coastal Commission approved this change when it approved the Conservancy’s overall request.

City Attorney and SMMC Head Don’t Rule Out Resumption of Negotiations

• Malibu Has 60 Days to Consider Filing Legal Challenge

BY ANNE SOBLE

The unanimous action by the California Coastal Commission disallowing a municipal ban on overnight camping could serve as a catalyst to bring the City of Malibu and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy back to the negotiating table, or it could lead to yet another round of contentious legal wrangling over the issue.
All parties indicate that it may be too soon to determine which course of action will follow. Malibu City Attorney Christi Hogin said the city has 60 days from the June 10 meeting date to file a lawsuit challenging the commission’s decision.
Hogin told the Malibu Surfside News on Tuesday, “There is always room to negotiate; the courtroom is not the best place for public entities to work out their differences, so I would hope that there would be opportunities to explore agreement.”
SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston said after last week’s CCC action, “My door remains open. The question is not whether or not the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy will compromise, it is whether or not the Ramirez Canyon folks and the Malibu City Council will. Neither of these entities seems willing to budge even an inch.”
Edmiston told The News that “the Coastal Commission has unequivocally set the direction for public access and camping in Malibu.” He added that “our consultants are hard at work preparing the Public Works Plan and the EIR. We hope to have public hearings on both of these documents in early fall.”
But City Attorney Hogin expressed concern with the commission’s decision-making process; that the equal access and social justice arguments that appeared to have swayed the coastal panel were not legal arguments. She said, “I think there is a sense among some that Malibu residents seek to limit public access for nefarious reasons. In this case, the criticism is not well taken because the city’s proposed LCP amendment was centered around creating additional access (including trails and public transportation).”
While many proponents of the SMMC parks plan were critical of Malibu residents, Edmiston does not paint the community with a broad brush. He believes the Conservancy has a support base of local people who value the open space protections the agency has helped to create, but indicated, “Outreach to supporters is difficult because they are intimidated by other neighbors in Malibu.”
“He added, “I’ve gotten phone calls and e-mails saying, ‘I’m with you, but just can’t say so in public.’ I understand the difficulty of Malibu residents speaking out in our favor, and frankly don’t expect our supporters to be vocal. After all, they have to live with their neighbors in the checkout line at [the supermarket].”
But as Malibu’s city attorney sees it, the issue is not a popularity contest or the merits of the camping debate but that “the Coastal Commission enacted a law in Malibu. That means that a statewide executive branch agency of appointed members exercised the powers of the elected city council.”
Hogin said, “The commission used an obscure section of the Coastal Act which, under particular circumstances, authorizes the Coastal Commission to ‘override’ a city's certified LCP where necessary to facilitate a regional energy facility or public works project.”
Of the exercise of the authority by the CCC, Hogin said, “All coastal cities: beware.”
Although the Conservancy calls its parks package a “public works plan,” or PWP, the city attorney said that it is not a “public works plan,” even though the SMMC “sought to treat it that way,” and seek an “override” of the city’s LCP, which would change those parts of the LCP with which the Conservancy’s plans were inconsistent.
Hogin noted that “the advantage to the Conservancy of a PWP is that no individual coastal development permits are required to build improvements contemplated by the PWP.”
The city’s chief counsel described the Conservancy projects as a “purported ‘public works plan’,” while acknowledging that “aspects of the Conservancy’ plan were positive and its overall goal [of] improved recreation areas linked by a trail system...was one the city shared.”
That notwithstanding, the city contends that “certain proposals in the ‘plan’ (such as adding parking spaces, restrooms, trailheads, camp sites) are ‘development’ within the meaning of the Coastal Act and the city contends that the improvement proposals are more appropriately addressed by obtaining a coastal development permit consistent with the LCP. Moreover, the plan proposed new uses and policies inconsistent with the certified LCP; accordingly, the appropriate legal mechanism in accordance with the Coastal Act to achieve the Conservancy’s goals was to amend the LCP.”
The city’s main legal contentions with respect to the PWP are that it does not qualify as a “public works project” under the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 30515, and the Conservancy is not authorized to undertake public works projects.
“If the Conservancy anticipated the uses, plans, policies and development proposals comprising its Enhancement Plan at the time the city’s LCP was being adopted and certified by the commission, the commission is not authorized to process an amendment to the city’s LCP, except as provided in the Coastal Act.”
Hogin stresses that “there is no evidence of a public need for the Conservancy’s comprehensive Enhancement Plan policies and proposed development standards. Desirable recreation improvements and improved access strategies do not trigger the provisions of the Coastal Act that allow for an LCP override in narrow circumstances for certain necessary energy facilities and public works projects.”
The city attorney added, “There is no evidence that failure to adopt the Enhancement Plan and its particular policies and development standards will have an adverse effect on public welfare.”
Edmiston, however, told The News, when speaking of Ramirez Canyon in particular, “After all these conditions that the Coastal Commission imposed, everyone will be safer.”
He said, “Ramirez Canyon will have a full 20-foot roadway for the safety—not just (or even primarily) for the campers at Ramirez Canyon Park—but for all the 52 homes along this road. Based on what the fire department is requiring and what was said at the Coastal Commission hearing, I’m sure the commission will issue the Conservancy a permit to remove all obstructions illegally placed in the right of way. Removal of these obstructions should be welcomed by everybody.”
The SMMC head said, “Malibu will be safer with hikers (always with cell phones) on the trails, mountain bike units on patrol, and park rangers supervising the campgrounds.”
He said, “I’m sanguine about the future because over the past 30 years we have faced this situation many times. For example, the parks and overlooks along Mulholland Drive were as controversial back in the ’80s as Malibu is now. But today, the Mulholland Drive overlooks are gems of the city: well patrolled and maintained, and this fact is universally recognized.”
It isn’t certain how this public policy debate is ultimately going to play out. If the city and the SMMC continue to talk past each other, the acrimony could continue unchecked.
With the City of Malibu focused on the letter of the law and the Conservancy primarily concerned with pragmatic public policy results, the negotiating table might be the best way to avoid the kind of prolonged legal wrangling that only benefits those accruing billable hours.

CCC Testimony Reflects Disparities between Views

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu city officials gave it their best shot on why there should be a ban on overnight camping in Malibu before the California Coastal Commission last week, but when the testimony by inner city groups and individuals talking about civil rights and social justice was over, it was clear whose comments swayed the panel.
Mayor Andy Stern and other municipal officials unsuccessfully attempted to explain how close the city’s Local Coastal Program amendment was to the override version submitted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
However, at the same time Stern and other municipal officials also accused the commission staff of not acting in good faith with Malibu’s submittal.
“We want an integrated trail system. We want a functional transportation system. We want balanced park use and ESHA projection. We understood a ban on camping would be controversial. But we did not consider the commission staff bar all of our proposed access enhancement policies,” he said.
City Manager Jim Thorsen was somewhat tougher on the commission staff. “We were assured we would get a fair shake. However, the commission staff made no effort to discuss this application. We ask that you take our application seriously,” he said.
City Attorney Christi Hogin accused the commission staff of failing to analyze any of the other issues of the city’s LCPA. “We have gotten the short shrift,” she said.
Hogin talked about how the entire amendment process is a chance for local government and the commission to work out policies, but the override which coastal officials acknowledged had only been used one other time in the history of the commission, was undermining that dialogue.
Council members Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner took a different tack in urging the commissioners to postpone a decision.
Wagner attempted to explain just how difficult, under the rules and regulations of the state, it was for him to light one match on public lands when doing special effects implying the state was now about to allow campers to have cooking equipment with fewer protections.
Conley Ulich challenged the state to prove its case that there was a lack of affordable campgrounds near Malibu.
Conley Ulich offered to go camping with commissioners that evening. Her point, she said, was that despite near summertime, there were still 133 campsites available at nearby parks. “We already have 324 sites,” she added.
Councilmember John Sibert agreed and said it was important for the state to do a needs test for camping. Sibert also insisted the commissioners could not ignore the fire hazards as outlined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department officials. “Take no action, until you can talk to the fire experts. Postpone the hearing,” he said.
Many other Malibu groups and organizations spoke with emphasis on fire safety. A movie was shown of the tragedy of the Corral Canyon fire in 2007.
Lucille Keller, representing the Malibu Township Council, insisted campsites cannot be made fire safe.
Then it was the Conservancy’s turn. SMMC executive director Joe Edmiston said the city’s argument wasn’t so much stopping fire, but rather Malibu’s attempt to stop people from entering the canyon lands of Malibu. “There is no public camping in Malibu. There is a private camp. Yes. It costs $45 to $75 per night,” said Edmiston, who showed slides of fire pits at the private campground. Thirty years this has been there,” he said.
Edmiston asked rhetorically, “Is there nothing redeemable about the city’s LCPA?”
He went on to explain there were many of the same policies, but the overnight camping ban created “irreconcilable differences.”
Edmiston went on to say one of the newest mandates of the SMMC is its outreach mandate from the state to serve all ethnic groups.
Edmiston’s wife, Pepper, spoke about how the happiest days experienced by their recently deceased son, a disabled youth wracked by seizures, was the outdoor camping experience.
That was the theme repeated throughout the rest of the day, as speaker after speaker talked about how inner city children benefited from outdoors experiences and gained a precious few hours or days away from the noise and confusion of the city. Malibu, by its overwrought concern for fire, was keeping these children out of Malibu. It became a matter of social justice and civic rights.
Charles Thomas, who represents Outward Bound, said there was a need for the outdoors, a need for nature. “You folks out there are not getting it. It has become a social justice issue, a moral right,” he said.
Thomas said he admired how the folks of Malibu had peace and quiet, but lamented how the “kids of Mar Vista don’t have it.”
“It is the great divide. The folks of Malibu have a little piece of heaven and are trying to protect it. I’m asking you to share it,” Thomas added.
A speaker from the Latino Urban Forum said the concern was that Malibu’s actions are an attempt by the people who live by the public’s resources to limit access. “You portray hikers as arsonists. There is an attitude of arrogance and of self-entitlement. It doesn’t cut it,” he said.
SMMC proponent Catalina Alafaro said everybody wanted access to the parks and talked about how much her kids wanted to be a part of it.
Robert Garcia of the City Project said it is a civil rights issue and urged the commission “to apply the civil rights laws and the Coastal Act.”
Even the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s thumbs down for both LCPAs was seemingly blunted by other testimony.
Mark Massara from the Sierra Club said Malibu has been a fire hazard area for thousands of years. He said, “Everyone who lives there has chosen to live in Malibu in spite of the fire danger.”

Closure of One Malibu Elementary School Is Part of the Budget Debate Now Going On

• SM Parents Want to Spread the Pain

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

As the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District continues to grapple with what its staff describes as “a potentially massive budget problem” in the form of a projected $12 million shortfall over the 2009-10 FY, Santa Monica parents are crying foul.
The board of education voted as expected at its June 4 meeting to approve increases in class sizes; cut contract services accounts in districtwide departments by $300,000 and to “realign” the Special Education budget “to reflect historical expenditure patterns” by a $700,000 reduction; and scale back Tier II and III categorical funding by five percent for 2009-10; but it was the vote to eliminate one of the six houses in Santa Monica High School’s house system that caused a storm of outrage.
“Staff makes this recommendation knowing very well that this is a critical issue to teachers, parents, and students. Staff also believes that the house system has been very successful at Santa Monica High School, particularly in the area of personalizing education for students. It is staff’s intent to continue to support this very successful house system,” the staff report stated. The change is expected to save the district approximately $500,000.
Parents, students and teachers and representatives of the PTA council vehemently refuted the house restructuring plan, calling the proposed cut “devastating,” and “a knife in the heart.” One speaker accused the board of “breaking your promise.” Another questioned the staff report’s enrollment numbers, implying that the district deliberately misinterpreted Samohi’s statistics. “I have a problem with the enrollment numbers. To imply that we have fewer students than we actually have is really disingenuous and dishonest.”
“[This is] a bad decision that should be not voted upon this evening,” education activist Richard Mckinnon said, blasting the plan. “I believe it hurts the students who need these schools most. We don’t run public schools for people who are high achievers, who can make decisions and choices and go elsewhere, people such as yourselves. Your kids will always be OK. It’s the kids who have no choice about our school who the houses help most. It’s never the AP classes that get bigger. It’s always the kids at the other end who need the most help.”
A number of Santa Monica parents accused the district of unfairly burdening Samohi with the majority of the cuts. “Why are you picking on Samohi?” One outraged parent demanded to know. “You need to look at the elementary schools, the Malibu schools, they can be consolidated.” His views were echoed by others during the lengthy and emotionally charged public comment period.
In the end, the board voted to go ahead with the plan to eliminate House A. However, two advisers and one outreach specialist from the house received a reprieve and will retain positions in the district for at least one more year. Wendy Wax Gellis, the principal of Samohi’s House A for the past six years, who has also been involved in the school’s special education program, will take a pay cut and be reassigned to Malibu Middle School as assistant principal.
The plan to transfer Wax Gellis also received extensive criticism. Many special education parents protested that she was needed at Samohi. Others criticized the district because notice from Superintendent Tim Cuneo went out on the Friday before the board met to officially vote on the issue, indicating to district observers that the decision had already been made and that the vote was a formality only.
The issue of school closure or consolidation is unlikely to go away. Longtime education activist Jim Jaffe and Samohi Alumni Association president is a vocal proponent of closing one of Malibu’s three elementary schools and consolidating two of the Santa Monica campuses. He asked the district in an open letter following the June 4 meeting if the Proposed FOC Focus for FY 2009-10 will include “the possible closure of a Malibu elementary, combining the SMASH and Muir operational budgets.”
“There is nothing that won’t be reexamined” Jan Maez, the district’s assistant superintendent and chief financial officer, stated at the start of the June 4 meeting. “This is certainly not the end.”
In his letter, Jaffe also asked the district to “revisit the need for building a new Edison school and other BB projects in light of pessimistic enrollment projections and economic conditions, continue to evaluate the administrative costs at district headquarters, and (given that adjusting staffing to the current levels of enrollment is essential to all future budget planning) explore establishing clear certificated and classified staffing formulas.”
Ironically, at the June 4 meeting the board voted to approve $156,597 in Measure BB funding for projects ranging from photovoltaic energy development to environmental screening services. Measure BB funds can only be used for safety and construction. Some critics of the districtwide renovation and building plan are questioning how BB funded new facilities will be staffed, or even if there will be enough students to make use of them as enrollment declines and the budget crisis continues to plague the district.
Some members of the board of education appear to be pinning their budget salvation hopes on additional parcel taxes. “We need to look at some revenue enhancement models,” board member Oscar de le Torre said on June 4. “There has to be a way to do some fundraising or go back to the voters for a limited parcel tax. If not, we’re going to have to make some huge cuts.”
School districts across California will be asking residents to approve parcel taxes this summer. Palos Verdes, South Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge and Rowland Heights are already planning vote by mail campaigns, although critics predict that getting enough votes to pass the proposals may be difficult, especially in communities where foreclosures and job loss continue to spiral out of control. Voters in the communities of Pleasanton, Mt. Diablo and Redwood City have already defeated emergency parcel tax initiatives.
In the meantime, Jaffe has more questions for the board of education: “Have board members reviewed the individual school and department expenditure budgets proposed for 2009-10 and compared them to last year’s? If not, then why not? Shouldn’t Board decisions be driven more on data and less on politics and emotion? If the Board has reviewed the individual expenditure budgets, then why were they excluded from public review for the first time in four years? What happened to the promise for more transparency; not less?”
“Wait until next year,” Jaffe told the Malibu Surfside News, referring to the deteriorating budget situation. “You haven’t seen anything yet.”

Council Misses Key Aspects of CCC Hearing to Rehash ‘Legacy’ Debate

• Members Squabble Over Design and Animal Symbolism

BY BILL KOENEKER

At a special hearing on Legacy Park last week, the Malibu City Council, who had left the all-important California Coastal Commission meeting on overnight camping to talk about lizards, snakes and artwork, got into a heated discussion about finding unanimity on approval of the Civic Center park.
Inexplicably, the council meeting was scheduled on the same date as the Coastal Commission hearing and all of the council, including the city manager showed up for the City Hall meeting on various art elements, donor recognition and educational exhibits of Legacy Park.
Further development of the park is stalled because of a lawsuit filed by the Santa Monica Baykeeper over the city’s approval of the Environmental Impact Report, permits and entitlements.
A debate ensued when Mayor Andy Stern asked a question of both Councilmembers Pamela Conley Ulich and Jefferson Wagner, who had wholeheartedly participated in choosing artwork, signage and other elements for the park, but had previously voted against the approval of Legacy Park. “You got everything you asked for, if I bring this back is it still a no vote?” he asked.
Conley Ulich said she would “have to think about it. I personally feel this is three-fourths the way. We still need to address wastewater.”
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said, “I agree with you we need to address wastewater. Mark Gold agrees, but it is five years down the road. But we can start to clean up the lagoon now. I never understood why we should not clean up 90 percent of the pollution now instead of waiting five years. We have all promised to clean up Surfrider. I want to clean it up now.”
However, City Manager Jim Thorsen said he was concerned the council’s discussion was “getting off track.”
That did not stop the debate from continuing. Stern insisted he would not support the recommendations sought by Wagner and Conley Ulich on the art elements.
Wagner said he thought the ultimate plans for the park were a “wise use of funds and wise use of land. The park will be an element of wastewater. It is going to change.”
“Then what are we talking about?” asked Barovsky. “At some point, we have to build it.”
“I am trying to find out how we can formulate this,” said Stern. “We found we can work together on the details. So why not a unanimous vote on the park?”
Barovsky said she agreed with Stern. “Why not a unanimous vote on the park? I want to vote for it to be an unanimous vote,” she added.
Stern again turned to his colleagues. “Will you vote tonight to approve the park, then we are unanimous on Legacy Park?”
“It is not on the agenda before us,” answered Conley Ulich.
Stern said he was trying to understand. “We are unanimous on the park work, but you are not in favor of going forward with the park. So it is still 3-2 to move forward with the park, but 5-0 for the artwork? Help me here I am just trying to understand,” said a clearly frustrated mayor.
Whereupon, Councilmember John Sibert spoke on the issue for the first time that evening. “It doesn’t do any good to generate pejorative comments. Everything doesn’t happen at the same time. Even Shelly Luce of the Baykeeper said yes, we should go forward with Legacy Park.”
Wagner said, “This park is going to change including wastewater and purple pipe in the future.”
“It is completely inconsistent,” said Stern, talking about Wagner’s and Conley Ulich’s positions. “Let’s just move the [art element] resolution with the changes,” said Barovsky. “I’ll second that,” said Wagner. The matter was approved on a 5-0 vote.
Earlier, the council was given an update about the exhibits and signage in the park, where the donor plaques would be located and how panels were to be used to tell the story of Malibu.
Council members were told the panels would talk about the Chumash, the ranching era of Malibu, the coastal area becoming populated, the story of Malibu potteries and surfing history. It was pointed out there should be some discussion about the history of fire and how it has impacted the community and the eco-system.
The consultants also explained how large-scale mosaic animals would be placed in the park including the red-legged frog, a California newt, a gopher snake and horned lizard in the dry creek bed.
Conley Ulich said she had concerns about a gopher snake being used for the large-scale animals which can be utilized for children to play on.
She said that was the wrong idea to give to young children, since the snake looked like a rattlesnake.
Dr. Richard Ambrose, one of the consultants, agreed there was a similarity and suggested a king snake. “Your right a gopher snake has the same coloration,” he said. “One difference is the king snake eats rattlesnakes.”
But Conley Ulich persisted. “Could we pick a different type of animal?” she asked. Barovsky suggested a rabbit and Wagner recommended a squirrel.
Wagner, later on, continued his suggestion about adding squirrels, both tree and ground species, to the mix and said he thought the horned lizard, which he said is not as prevalent in Malibu was not a good pick. He suggested an alligator lizard or blue belly, which he said were common in Malibu would be more ideal.
Ambrose answered that the horned lizard was chosen just because of the reasons given by Wagner. “The horned lizard is not very common. They look so neat. They are charismatic, perhaps to a biologist. The horned lizards are more striking,” Ambrose added. “The squirrels are a really good idea. I d expect to have squirrels in the park.” The council continued to hear about habitats, donor tiles and signs, for the recycled water used for irrigation, stating, “Do not drink.”
According to a staff report, the overall cost to design and construct the park is estimated to be $15.6 million. The project construction and management costs could be funded from a various sources including the city’s general fund, a state revolving fund loan and if the need arises, other public financing instruments.
Currently, the city has $6.1 million in public donations and grants. The municipality is applying for $8.4 million in federal stimulus funding through the state revolving fund loan.

View Protection Task Force to Conclude Effort

BY BILL KOENEKER

The City of Malibu View Protection Task Force met for its last scheduled meeting last week to get final input from the public about its recommendations for a proposed ordinance. The proposal was again approved by the panel 6-3. The measure had previously been approved by the task force on a 7-2 vote.
A city planner said the measure would go before the city council at the end of summer when it will consider the suitability of the task force’s recommendations and whether to initiate an ordinance.
Depending upon the actions of the council, the matter if initiated, would go through another round of public hearings proceeding to council subcommittee, then forwarded to the planning commission and then the council for possible final enactment.
There were several members of the public, who came to testify. Several individuals who are in favor of the proposal told task force members their biggest concern is the will of the city to enforce such a law.
Homeowner Steve Garber said his concern was not getting a view ordinance, but rather enforcement. Garber said any law passed by the city is useless unless there is strong enforcement. “We have been trying to get [enforcement about an issue] for two and half years. [Former enforcement head] Gayle Sumpter refused to deal with it. The only power is that one department. The need is multiple enforcement,” he said.
Point Dume resident Dusty Peak told panelists during his career as an electrician one of the primary topics of homeowners’ discussions was their view and the loss of that view.
“There is a way to have trees to give privacy and still offer a view. But we need enforcement. We wouldn’t be going through this if the city enforced the current laws,” he said.
Homeowner Josh McKay talked about what he thought might be another problem in dealing with the proposed ordinance. “Malibu consists of old poor Malibu and the new bright go-getters. It is a diabolical situation. The arbitration part of the law will impact severely old Malibu. They don’t have the resources of new Malibu. Old Malibu doesn’t have the bank account. They should not have to pay onerous fees,” he added.
Task force member Harold Greene said there is a possibility that if Pepperdine University gets grant money to do it, they would set up an arbitration panel to assist the city.
Panelists also talked briefly about the city council’s unanimous directive to get a minority report.
Greene said there was no procedural way for the task force to deal with the matter. “It is not on the agenda. This is our last meeting. We cannot deal with any more agenda items. We are not bound by that,” he said.
Task force member Barry Tyerman said the practical result is anybody can submit anything to the council. “A minority of one, two, three or four can submit comments to the council. I don’t think anybody needs to be constrained,” he said.
Panelist Lou Lamonte, who is one of the minority members and had earlier pointed out the council directive, said he was going to do what was requested by the council and submit a minority report.

Publisher’s Notebook

• The Nature Connection •

ANNE SOBLE

Every generation of every culture on this planet has lore about the curative powers of nature. Perhaps because the human species likely originated under the stars on the open soils of the grassy plains of Africa, the notion of being part of a boundless natural world is hard-wired into our DNA.
Although powerful social, economic and technological forces conspire to keep more and more humans indoors and tethered to machines, this should only be one aspect of who we are. We belong outdoors in the unpredictable and unstructured natural world. The well-being of the species will be increasingly imperiled, if we don’t appreciate the role that contact with nature plays in our health and our happiness.
The outdoors has been in the forefront of Malibu’s community consciousness for the last several months in what might appear to be two disparate debates, although they are not. Reflecting their role in the origin and the perpetuation of the species, women have been key participants in both of these local debates.
These women may not acknowledge their commonality, and some might even object to the association (wrongly, I would contend), but the self-described “Malibu moms” fighting for Trancas Canyon Park and las madres and las abuelas of inner city recreation groups seeking expanded use of Malibu’s public parklands are fighting for the same cause.
Watching the Malibu City Council meetings and last week’s California Coastal Commission hearing, one is struck by the fact that even when these women are speaking different languages, they often use the very same words and gestures. And they most certainly share the same passionate desire to create access to the outdoors for their progeny.
When Trancas Canyon Park is completed in whatever its final form and some Malibu campgrounds are open to public use, wherever and whenever that will be, the children on whose behalf these battles are being waged will ultimately enjoy the public access that has been created. Visitors will find their way up Trancas to picnic and play fútbol, and Malibuites from the canyons may be able to camp overlooking the water’s edge. Even if there are language barriers between their parents, all of the children intuitively will speak the universal language of nature.
Perhaps the acrimony and the litigiousness that now prevail in the community will be superseded by the joy and wonder to be experienced in these special places, when we are in close contact with the earth and our eyes are tilted toward the sky. The fate of future generations depends on nurturing this physical connectivity with the planet as a way to find respite from the turmoil that wracks our world.

Malibu Municipal Officials Look

Toward Auction for New City Hall

BY BILL KOENEKER

Later this week, Malibu city officials may find out if they have acquired a new City Hall if their $15 million bid is accepted for the building that houses the Malibu Performing Arts Center. An auction is scheduled for June 19.
The city council has scheduled a closed session on that same day at 10:30 a.m. to discuss the possible terms of payment and other details of acquiring the 35,000 square foot property from the former owners, the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Malibu.
The attempt to acquire the building has proceeded behind closed doors as allowed by law because lawmakers are able to discuss real estate negotiations, personnel matters and litigation in closed sessions.
The matter has been discussed repeatedly by the city council over the past several months in closed sessions but there has been no public discussion about the matter.
City officials themselves have been tight-lipped about the proceedings. When asked to comment on the current state of affairs, the Assistant City Manager /Administrative Services Director Reva Feldman said, “The city submitted a bid for $15 million.”
There has been much fanfare about the center because so many A-lister rock and pop artists have played the 500-seat theater in a building that includes banquet facilities, a recording studio, dance studios, film and television production facilities and office space.
The city for years has designated a fund reserve for acquiring a city hall. There is currently $1.7 million in that fund. The municipality currently leases 17,000 square feet for $800,000 per year, according to Feldman.
Even some city hall critics have looked favorably on the potential deal, saying that the matter would be financially sound even for the cash strapped city since the high rent payments could go for debt service and that the city already has money stashed away.
Some local environmentalists are delighted with the idea that the city would take over an existing building instead of adding more development to the Civic Center area.
One group lamenting the sale is comprised of church members. Church officials still talk about whether there would still be a place for them in the building, but in a pastoral letter on the church’s blog, it was acknowledged that the city’s plans for the building would not include a home for the church.
“Could the building still be purchased and used for Kingdom purposes? Yes. This would require some Christian investor or consortium of investors. If you believe this is God’s highest intention for our property, join us in praying for His purposes in Malibu.”

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Coastal Commission Approves Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Efforts to Expand Malibu Camping on Public Parklands

Thursday, June 11, 2009

California Coastal Commission Meeting on the Issue of Public Overnight Campsites in the City of Malibu: News Bulletin and Preliminary Analysis

• SMMC Adds State-Owned Malibu Bluffs Acreage to List of Potential Campsites •

After almost 10 hours of reports and testimony at the panel’s meeting in Marina del Rey on Wednesday, June 10, the commission unanimously approved a competing LCPA override submitted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which wants to expand public camping options and other uses on its holdings in the area.

A ban on overnight camping was sought by the Malibu City Council after its initial efforts to reach a compromise with the SMMC on the controversial issue met with strong opposition from members of the community who view overnight use as a source of increased wildfire danger even though no major California wildfire has ever been attributed to legal camping.

The plan proposed by the SMMC includes trails connecting coastal canyons and camping in those canyons, as well as increased use of SMMC property in Ramirez Canyon, and some residents voice concern that these areas would not be adequately patrolled and are subject to misuse that could endanger public safety.

Malibu testimony, including that by City Attorney Christi Hogin, City Manager Jim Thorsen, members of the city council and the Malibu Township Council, and a large contingent of residents, tried to keep the meeting’s focus on safety and wildfire issues, but a disconnect quickly became evident as representative after representative from recreation and inner city advocacy groups shifted attention to issues of public access, social justice and civil rights.

Several commission members expressed puzzlement that the City of Malibu continued to push for a ban on overnight camping, which is legal throughout the state on public lands, even though CCC staff and previous panel action had indicated, as the commission’s executive director, Peter Douglas, stated, “That a ban on camping was not subject to negotiation.”

A number of speakers and several coastal commissioners also indicated that they perceive what appears to be a contradiction between expressions of concern about legal overnight camping by city officials and the Los Angeles County fire department and the ongoing approval by both of residential development in high fire risk areas.

SMMC Executive Director Joe Edmiston told the panel that nine new residences were approved for the Ramirez area during the time that opposition was being raised to his personnel using the road for events at SMMC property at the end of the canyon.

Several speakers reiterated the contention that no wildfires have resulted from legal use of campgrounds. It was noted that, apart from lightning strikes and rare acts of criminal arson, most wildfires result from downed power lines or equipment sparks from power tools, discarded cigarette butts, backyard grills and other causes that reflect residential development in wildland interface areas.

However, to try to allay fire concerns, Edmiston said the Conservancy would work with Los Angeles County fire officials to have stringent wildfire safety and evacuation plans in place when specific park use plans come back before the commission. He said this would extend to SMMC undertaking, at its expense, the removal of private landscaping on Ramirez Canyon Road that has illegally spilled over onto the roadway. Edmiston said this would improve access and make the area safer for residents, as well as visitors.

Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan said the Conservancy’s camping plans would make all of the areas that are proposed for this activity “much safer.” Wan, a Malibu resident whose own home has been threatened by wildfire, told the local residents, “Camping isn’t the problem. Legal camping is not the source of fires.”

With a consensus on the wildfire safety issue, the commission reiterated its mandate to make public parklands accessible to all of the people of California. Commissioners unanimously agreed that the city’s proposed Land Use Plan amendment would diminish the range of potential access and recreational uses in the City of Malibu and is “inconsistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act,” as the staff had reported.

Although numerous Malibu residents repeatedly referred to the millions of people who visit local beaches, there was an exclusionary undertone to much of the testimony by speakers who supported the SMMC proposal for overnight camping. When one speaker decried what he called Malibu’s “arrogance of self-entitlement,” locals in the audience, who were then soundly chastised by the CCC counsel, loudly booed him.

From an advocate for the disabled in a wheelchair who criticized what she called Malibu’s “separate but equal” handicapped proposal to Spanish-speaking grandmothers who spoke passionately about the impact of the outdoors on their families, the need to make the Santa Monica Mountains accessible to everyone bolstered the CCC staff recommendations.

Immediately before the commission vote, Edmiston sought a revision to add another area for camping that the SMMC executive director said would address all of the Malibu residents’ concerns. He said utilization of some of the 80 acres of state-owned Malibu Bluffs property—land that was originally acquired for camping in 1976 but encountered strong local opposition at the time—should calm most residents’ fears about canyon fires being swept seaward by Santa Ana winds through difficult to defend residential areas.

In addition to having ample public parking, Edmiston said the Malibu Bluffs site is at the water’s edge, near a fire station, and accessible to all law enforcement and other safety personnel because of its proximity to Pacific Coast Highway.

After the commission members approved the addition of the site to the LCPA override, there was a palpable tension throughout the meeting room, a reflection that this latest Edmiston gambit will likely put the city’s proclamations of its public welcome mat to yet another test.

—Anne Soble

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

City Council Allocates $3.5 Million for Trancas Canyon Park

• Action Taken Despite Ongoing Controversy that a Better Park Plan Is Proposed by Residents

BY BILL KOENEKER

Even though some Malibu residents continue to lobby for an alternate park design that they contend is less environmentally damaging and more cost-effective, the Malibu City Council proceeded one step further toward implementation of its approved plans for Trancas Canyon Park.
When the Malibu City Council approved the budget for FY 2009-10 Monday night, the majority of members agreed to allocate $3.5 million for building Trancas Canyon Park.
The motion, approved on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich dissenting, was made by Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who was quick to point out the measure was merely setting up a designated fund for financing park construction and not an appropriation, which is an actual commitment of dollars from city coffers. Currently, the city has a little less than $300,000 set aside for its construction.
“What is the allocation for?” asked Conley Ulich, who was then told it was for Trancas Park.
“You want a designated fund of $3.5 million for the Trancas dog park?” Conley Ulich chided.
Whereupon, Barovsky slowly turned toward Conley Ulich and, while staring her down, challenged, “Do you want to fight?”
The room went silent except for titters from reporters. A silenced Conley Ulich looked on as Barovsky went on to explain what a designated fund reserve is, much like the reserve funds set aside for building or acquiring a city hall.
That was not the only time during the evening that the proposed pocket park that has split the Malibu West neighborhood and turned into a political football was mentioned.
Park critic Audra Lembertas, at the beginning of the meeting told council members her name was on a petition that she said was misrepresented by park supporter Justine Petretti as a petition signed by community members endorsing the proposed park approved by the council.
“I was surprised to find my name among them since I was at that meeting urging the council to examine the Goldman plan before committing to the current design. I had not signed any letter in favor of the city’s park since before the extent of the required grading was disclosed last fall. The letter presented to the council in my name does not represent my current position, nor the current position of many of my neighbors also on the list, whose signatures were collected at the same time, as mine since before the grading revelations. It does not represent my position. It should not have been presented as support of the present park plan,” she added.
Barovsky brushed aside the petition misrepresentation issue saying, “I don’t want to think if somebody plopped down a petition…it does not hold a lot of sway.” She said she did not vote for the Goldman plan because it reduced the size of the sports field and “cut the dog park in two.”
However, Conley Ulich had earlier countered that a petition is what drove the dog park since no need for a dog park is found in the city’s Master Recreation Plan.
Councilmember Jefferson Wagner asked if there was language in the city’s documents that bans league play. “There is nothing in there,” he said.
City Attorney Christi Hogin responded, “It is definitively in there. No league play as a condition of approval.”
Conley Ulich added that did not mean another council could not change such a restriction.
Councilmember John Sibert said not even if it was deed restricted would that stop another council from undoing what the current council did.

Council Wants Minority Report from View Protection Task Force Dissenters

• Observers Start to Question Whether City Wants a Law

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council left no doubt Monday night it wants a minority report from its View Protection Task Force, which meets Tuesday night for the last time after the Malibu Surfside News goes to press.
When Mayor Andy Stern turned to his colleagues this week and said, “I thought everyone wanted a minority report,” council members unanimously answered in the affirmative.
Stern said he wanted the council members’ views because he said he had watched the last task force meeting where members talked about whether they had a mandate from the council. The sentiment of the majority of the panel seemed to be only two members of the city council had expressed an interest in directing minority panelists to write a minority report and there was no mandate from the council.
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who along with Stern had previously showed an interest in such a report, said, “If people want to write a minority report they can. You can’t shut people up. I want to see a minority report as well as a majority report.”
Chair Sam Hall Kaplan, when told of the council action, said, “I have always encouraged a minority report. It is up to the minority to write it. I look forward to reading the minority report.”
On Tuesday morning, Hall Kaplan said a majority report or cover letter was prepared and would be discussed at the task force meeting later that day.
Minority members, after the last meeting, were asked if a minority report was ready. They indicated a report was being readied but not yet finished. They said the report would be a critique of the proposed ordinance recommended by the majority for council consideration.

Construction Bids Sought for Malibu’s Legacy Park Project

• Lawsuit Does Not Stop the Clock

BY BILL KOENEKER

Notwithstanding the Santa Monica Baykeeper suing the City of Malibu over its approval of Legacy Park, the city sent out a notice for construction bids recently.
At the same time, the city council is meeting this week to discuss the details of artwork and signage it wants for the park.
“It is a good time to seek bids,” said the city’s Public Works Director Bob Brager. “There is no injunction, so it is a good time to do it.”
The public works director said, given the economic times, it is extremely difficult to determine how low the bids will come in. “There are a lot of firms with so few projects. We might be surprised at how they will bid just to get work,” he said.
The bid seeks a contractor who can build an eight-acre stormwater detention pond and park facility that includes grading, concrete and asphalt, concrete pavement, concrete pavers, decomposed granite walkways, concrete curb and gutters, landscaping, irrigation systems, plantings and vegetation, pedestrian bridge, kiosks, stormwater channel tie-ins, reinforced concrete, ductile iron and PVC piping, storage tank, drain inlet structures, buried piping, ornamental metal cantilevered trellis structures, electrical work, pump, station wet wells, valve vaults, manholes, crosswalks, gross solids removal devices, piping.
The bids will be opened on July16.
The city did not give an estimate of the costs in the bid notice.
The agenda for the special meeting this week on Wednesday night, after the Malibu Surfside News goes to press, calls for the council to review the plans and design elements of the park for the art element, donor recognition, and educational exhibits.

State Fiscal Woes and Local School Funding Crisis Take Center Stage at Rep’s Meeting

• Cities May Have to Help Schools More

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

The dire straits of the California budget was in the spotlight, when California Assemblymember Julia Brownley, who represents Malibu and Santa Monica, and is the chair of the Assembly Education Committee and a former Santa-Monica-Malibu Unified School District board member, spoke recently at Edison Elementary School in Santa Monica.
“We are going to have to make some very deep cuts,” cautioned Brownley. The recent ballot initiatives “offered something for everyone to hate. I wasn’t proud of them,” she said. “Understandably, people are really angry.”
Brownley said that the message that came to Sacramento in the wake of the massively unpopular special election was that “The voters want legislators to find a solution. The governor wants ‘cuts only.’ We’re wrestling with his cuts only [plan]. We also have a cash problem. It’s true we’re going to run out of cash in June.”
“[California State Controller] John Chiang is asking the legislature to come up with a credible budget by June 15,” Brownley said, adding that while Chiang’s date may be unrealistic, a budget by the end of June may still be within reach.
Brownley is also optimistic that an initiative to change the two-thirds super-majority vote requirement for the state’s annual budget to a simple majority rule may appear on the ballot as soon as 2010. She does not, however, see the two-thirds majority rule governing tax increases changing any time soon, although she stated that Proposition 13, which imposed the super-majority rule and limited property tax increases in 1978, is now “less of a holy grail,” and that there are efforts being made to “nibble around the edges” of the law.
“If the legislature makes all of the cuts California will be the only state that has eliminated its health and safety net,” Brownley said. She blasted plans to close parks—seven of the over 200 state parks slated for closure are in her district—and Schwarzenegger’s continuing push for offshore oil drilling leases, for what she described as “very short-term gains.” Brownley also condemned the governor’s proposals to strip money from schools, transportation, and higher education, and eliminating many welfare programs, calling the plans draconian.
Brownley described education as arguably the “civil rights issue of today,” and added that California now ranks 50th “in every important [education] indicator.” She called the situation intolerable. A major part of the problem is the bewildering complexity of the current education funding system, which Brownley described as “convoluted, complicated, and cobbled together.”
“In my opinion, [the system] has lost track of students completely. It’s become a cottage industry in Sacramento. The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District does an extraordinary job, but as a board member I took it at staff’s word. I had to depend on the chief financial officer. It should be simple [and] make sense—so simple we could all understand it.”
Although cities in California expect to experience their own cuts in state funding, they nevertheless may be asked to contribute more to public school districts that serve their residents.
At the start of the event, NPR commentator Sandra Tsing Loh, screened a short film called ‘Burning Mom” about her 2008 “Children’s Rally” in Sacramento to protest education cuts, and the whole California education funding system that she described as a “huge, weird, Willy Wonka-like Rube Goldberg machine.”
Brownley told the audience that she is attempting to simplify that system with AB 8, which will, according to the language in the bill, “Simplify the formulas for allocating funding to each local agency,” and includes “rational and equitable allocation of funding to each local educational agency,” as well as “predictability and stability of funding,” and “support for accountability by providing transparency of state revenue allocation rules as well as expenditure decisions at the local level.”
The bill is currently wending its way through the legislative process. Brownley said that it has received a “positive response” from the governor’s office. Asked by an audience member what parents and community members can do to help, Brownley replied that letters and e-blasts are effective tools. “I’m a believer,” she said, suggesting that pressure needs to be placed not on the legislators who are already on board, but on the ones who she says are holding the process up. “They should be squirming,” she said. “But they don’t squirm easily.”

Pot Pharmacy Placement Proviso Prohibited by Planning Panelists

• Location Is Too Close to Park According to Muncipal Code

BY BILL KOENEKER

Amid pleas from medical marijuana patients and complaints from neighbors, the Malibu Planning Commission last week turned down a request for a variance for a pot pharmacy currently open to allow it to operate 1000 feet from a park, which is not allowed by city code.
The owners and operators of Green Angel Collective, a medical marijuana dispensary, wanted the planning panel to issue a Conditional Use Permit and a variance for the business that has been operating for several years in the Old Courthouse Square Plaza despite being located 1000 feet from Las Flores Canyon Park.
Malibu’s ordinance prohibits a pot pharmacy from being located within a 1000-foot 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.
Assistant City Attorney Greg Kovacevich told the commission it could deny the request without prejudice and allow the applicants to come back with a zone text amendment to change the law as it currently stands for the 1000-foot radius.
“This is called a use variance and it is prohibited by state law. We can issue variances for development standards but not zoning uses,” said Kovacevich, in explaining why the commission could not vote for the variance.
Green Angel’s attorney Steven Schectman unsuccessfully argued that the commission was biased and favored the other pot pharmacy operating in town and alleged that his client could not get a fair and impartial hearing.
He also countered 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 and that the spirit of the law was complied with.
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.
“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 said.
Commissioner Jeff Jennings disagreed. “It looks like it is going to take a zone text amendment. You get the city council to change the law. The law is written pretty clearly. It is the radius. There is no way this body can grant a variance. The ZTA is the only way you are going to get where you need to go,” he said.
“I do agree with Jeff that you could come back with a ZTA,” said Commissioner John Mazza.
Panelist Ed Gillespie agreed with his colleagues. “My heart goes out to people who need this medication. We have to abide by the law. Our hands are tied,” he said.
“This is not a case of whether medical marijuana is useful,” pointed out Chair Joan House, who said her family of doctors have supported medical marijuana as a legitimate use for various medical maladies. “It is a process of just obeying the law.”
At first, the commission voted on a motion to allow the CUP application to go forward and put a time limit on when the applicant could apply for the ZTA.
However on a 2-2 vote with Commissioner Regan Schaar absent, that motion was defeated.
A second motion to vote the staff recommendation simply denying the variance request without prejudice passed on a 3-1 vote with Mazza dissenting.

Hearing on $1.6 Million Cove Fine Continued

• MoHo Park Ownership Allegedly Violated RWQCB Orders

BY BILL KOENEKER

A hearing to consider a $1.6 million civil penalty against the Kissel Company, owner of the Paradise Cove Mobile Home Park, for alleged violations of several of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s orders was continued to a December hearing date after a nearly 14-hour session.
The board took public testimony during its morning session when it received evidence and testimony concerning the complaint, but got bogged down in how to interpret the statute that would allow it to agree to the administrative civil complaint in the amount of $1,652,500.
“We knew the staff had asked for three hours and that Kissel had asked for four hours,” said Kirsten James, a water quality director with Heal the Bay, who explained that everyone had anticipated a long hearing, but had no idea how long it would go. When asked to comment on the board’s action, James said it seemed “ridiculous” that the board put the matter off until the end of the year.
Ultimately, board members agreed to allow both sides an agreed to allow both sides an opportunity to submit written reports based on case law concerning the specific statute that would allow for such a fine.
During the morning session, environmentalists, including Kelly Meyer, a Malibuite who said she regularly paddles out past the cove, and Mark Gold, who heads up Heal the Bay, testified that they think cove waters are polluted because of the alleged actions, or lack of action, by Kissel.
For many years, Heal the Bay says it has pressured the board to issue fines for what it calls “egregious continuous violations.” Members have been urging other enviros to support the RWQCB’s staff enforcement action.

Publisher’s Notebook

• Malibu Pioneers Boycott Politics •

ANNE SOBLE

Political boycott is a time-honored tradition in America. Boycott was instrumental in the attainment of national independence. Boycott was an integral tool in the fight for the civil rights of people of color, women and gays in this country. And boycotts have served a critical international function, bringing errant foreign nations into the fold. Who knew that Malibu would be the next front line in the use of the boycott as a political tool?
Perhaps governmental scholars at the world’s major universities will have cause to explore how the use of the boycott in Malibu could revolutionize the nature of small-town public policy-making. The premise goes something like this: a few advocates for a cause show up at local city council meetings and say that they have told their unnamed and uncounted hordes of supporters to boycott the meeting because the spokespersons will represent them.
Think of the advantages. Malibuites will no longer have to attend long, and often tedious, meetings. By boycotting meetings, residents not only save time, but they also can save gas and babysitter costs; they won’t miss favorite TV shows; and the list goes on. In addition, if citizens don’t have to speak on behalf of an issue, they don’t have to prepare statements. They don’t have to be bothered with specifics. They don’t even have to think the issues through.
If boycotting becomes the norm, city council members could reap the greatest benefit of all. If council meetings are boycotted, they will be a lot shorter. There will be much less testimony to have to process, as there won’t be dozens and dozens of speakers who want podium time. With less need for council members to have to weigh the merits of the arguments on all sides of an issue, decision-making should be a lot easier. Council members might not even have to think at all.
Even the media could benefit from regular boycotting. Fewer payroll hours would have to be allocated to covering meetings. Since journalists would have fewer quotes to contend with, the writing of articles would be simpler and take less time.
Indeed, one is almost overwhelmed when one realizes what an improvement the boycott of city council meetings would be over the present cumbersome democratic system of one person-one vote, fairly represented and carefully counted.
Of course, it should be noted that boycotting is based on the honor system, but is anyone the least bit concerned that spokespersons would consider inflating the number of people who are participating in their boycott? Shucks, everyone knows there is nothing as squeaky clean as municipal politics.

‘Twist of Lemmon’ Is a Son’s Tribute to a Legend

• Longtime Malibuite Was Quintessential Actor and Family Man

BY FRANCINE BROKAW

June 27 marks the eighth anniversary of the passing of Hollywood legend Jack Lemmon. To honor his life and career, Sony Home Entertainment has compiled a collection of five new-to-DVD films by the legendary performer who could perform both comedy and drama to perfection. “He never could understand why there had to be delineation between comedy and drama,” his son Chris Lemmon explained. “He really felt that they should be able to go hand in land.”
Chris Lemmon, who wrote the book “A Twist of Lemmon: A Tribute to My Father,” added, “It’s very well reflected in this collection, too. But he really felt that the two should be able to go hand in hand, and it’s something that he did, I think, seamlessly. If I had to give you an example of that, the first film that comes to mind would be ‘The Apartment,’ where he was able to weave comedy and drama. Now obviously I.A.L. Diamond and Billy Wilder don’t stink as writers, and Billy’s not a lousy director either. It really was one of the most important films ever made, and one of his greatest performances. But I don’t see anybody else playing that part but Jack Lemmon. ”
Without hesitation the younger Lemmon stated, “The most dramatic film would have to be ‘Save the Tiger,’ by all means. And I think that he would agree with me on that choice. The most comedic film would have to be one of my very favorites of his which would be ‘The Great Race.’ I thought he was absolutely brilliant and I will defend that choice all day long. I think it’s a truly classic great comedy.”
Malibuite Jack Lemmon loved his beach house because, as Chris explained, “It was the escape.” Jack Lemmon handled a high-powered career with grace, but often that would take a toll on the man. “It takes a lot of concentration to go what he did and to run a career like his. And I think that he liked to get away from it. And I think that (the beach) was the place where he went where he could get away from it.” The younger Lemmon emphasized the fact that his father was happy when he was working. “He loved to work,” but, “that’s not all there is to running a career. There’s a lot more to it than that. And it takes an enormous amount of concentration, work, effort, all the above, and every once in awhile, man, you just really need to get away, and so I think that's what the beach house was for him.”
Recently this journalist wrote that Tom Hanks comes the closest to the abilities of Jack Lemmon in that he also has a great talent for both comedy and drama. “I completely concur,” said Chris Lemmon, who said another actor who is in the same category is Kevin Spacey.
“I think Tom would be a worthy successor. And I’ll tell you, off camera as well he has the same dignity that pop had and the same emotional generosity.” Chris Lemmon said that at a tribute for his father, or as he calls him, Pop, Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson sat and talked with the younger Lemmon and his wife Gina for two hours. “They just sat and chatted and shot the breeze. And not only were they just delightful and we hit it off famously and had a great time speaking with them and got along marvelously, but the whole time in the back of my head I was thinking, ‘this guy doesn’t need to do this.’He’s just basically a really good guy, and that’s what Pop was, of course. So I would say that he would be a worthy successor not only on screen but off.”
The Jack Lemmon Film Collection contains the films “Phffft” from 1954, “Operation Mad Ball” from 1957, “The Notorious Lady” from 1962, “Under the Yum, Yum Tree” from 1963, and “Good Neighbor Sam” from 1964, encompassing 10 years of his incredible career which spanned over half a century. Sony heard that Chris wanted to do something new and different, and they got together for this project. Originally Chris Lemmon thought about putting all the big films into one collection, but explained, “You can’t cross collateralize the studios anymore.” He also said about putting all the biggies together,”It would have been a mistake because it would have lacked personality and originality.”
“These are all first releases of this type for these films, and to take these wonderful old gems and clean them up and give them immortality on DVD made a lot of sense. But then I thought about it a little more and I thought there’s a much better reason that this marriage works well, and that’s because these five films actually represent a cross section of Pop’s career.
“They really reflect a great deal of growth in him as an actor, almost a blossoming from a rising superstar to box office number one guy, by the time he finished doing ‘Good Neighbor Sam,’ so you see a great progression in him, not only artistically but personally because he was the everyman, because he did imbue so much of his performances with so much of himself and utilize so much of his personality in his performances.”
The bonus documentary in the collection is basically an overview of Chris book, which is both an autobiography of his own life combined with a biography of his dad’s life. The book is a fun read. It tells the tales of the father/son fishing trips, the continuous attempts of the elder Lemmon to make the cut at Pebble Beach, his love of cars and bad driving, and more fun snippets from the Lemmons.
“I think one of the great regrets, maybe the only one that he had was— and I laugh about it every time I think about it because it’s just so typically Lemmon—the fact that for 35 years he played the AT&T Pebble Beach Golf Tournament with one goal in mind, which was to make the cut and play on Sunday. He didn’t care if he won it or even placed. He just wanted to play on Sunday. All he wanted to do was to make the cut, and in 35 stinking years, he never did.”
Originally Chris Lemmon wrote the book because his daughter came to him in tears one day because she felt other people knew her grandfather better than she did. That broke his heart so he put pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard, and wrote about his dad and their time together. The book is still a success, having been originally published three years ago with the paperback coming out last year, and the author still goes on book tours. Now the book and the DVD collection are combining to provide the public with a closer look at the life and career of Jack Lemmon.
Would Chris Lemmon, who looks and sounds like his father and is also an actor, ever want to play his dad on screen or on the stage? He thinks for a few seconds before saying that he’s thought about it and he feels Kevin Spacey would be a better choice. But Chris Lemmon would take the part of Walter Matthau, Jack Lemmon’s pal and co-star on many occasions. He does a fabulous impression of Matthau.
Chris joined his father in the acting business, and his daughter is planning on following her dad and grandfather. Chris Lemmonproudly claims, “She’s going to be a big star. Oh man, she’s good.”
There are only a few actors who could hope to measure up to the caliber of Jack Lemmon. He was unique. “He was truly the icon of acting. He was the smiley and the sad face. He was able to walk that tight line. He was able to seamlessly weave the comedy and the drama - the pathos and the exultation.” Chris Lrmmon said the greatest gift his father ever gave him “was just magic, because he was magic. Why do you think he said ‘Magic Time’ before every take? He was a human leprechaun and just being around him was magical.”

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Coastal Staff Says No to Request for Overnight Camping Ban

• Commission Report Recommends Approval of S.M. Mtns Conservancy’s Override Version

BY BILL KOENEKER

The California Coastal Commission staff has recommended that the panel deny the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment submitted by the City of Malibu that includes a prohibition on overnight camping.
Instead, the CCC staff is recommending that the commission approve a competing proposed LCPA override submitted by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
The ban on overnight camping was requested by the Malibu City Council in reaction to strong opposition from the community to a plan proposed by SMMC that included trails connecting coastal canyons and camping in those canyons.
If the commissioners agree with the staff report, the SMMC victory might be short-lived, given some recently published pronouncements by SMMC’s executive director, Joe Edmiston, who has been quoted as expressing concerns about the major economic impacts to Conservancy operations because of the serious financial straits in Sacramento.
The showdown between the SMMC and the City of Malibu is scheduled for June 10 at the Marina Del Rey Hotel in MDR at the afternoon session. The two entities’ submittals are being heard by the commission back to back.
The commission staff has recommended the coastal panel endorse the following findings: “Notwithstanding the city council’s findings that the LCPA would enhance public access and recreation opportunities, the commission finds that prohibiting camping outright throughout the city without any consideration for site-specific environmental or other factors would have the opposite effect, by diminishing public access and recreation opportunities within the city.”
The commission staff also indicated the city’s LCPA would reduce lower cost public access and recreation opportunities and the availability of lower cost overnight accommodations for visitors within the city.
“Without adequate overnight accommodations, including those that are lower cost, the potential of recreational uses is limited to day use by members of the public who live in close proximity to the Santa Monica Mountains. The commission finds that the proposed LUP amendment will diminish the range of potential access and recreational uses in the City of Malibu and is therefore inconsistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act,” the staff report adds.
On the other hand, the commission staff noted it has before it an alternative version of the parks plan submitted by the SMMC in its override version, which staff is recommending the commission approve with modifications.
“The revisions are necessary because as submitted the LCP amendment is not adequate to ensure conformity to applicable policies,” the staff report states.
The major revision to the section about overnight camping in the SMMC document is to include language that the low-cost visitor-serving camp facilities include low impact campsites.
“Low impact campsites (and associated support facilities, including where appropriate, picnic tables, potable water, self-contained chemical/composting restrooms, shade trees, water tanks, portable fire suppressing apparatus, and fire-proof cooking stations) are ‘carry-in carry-out’ campsites, accessed by foot or wheelchair and which have an educational or interpretative component, including signage related to the natural resources of the Santa Monica Mountains. Low impact campsites, as defined, constitute a resource dependent use. Access to low impact campsites shall be supported by parking areas and designated ADA drop-offs located in non-Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.”
When the city denied 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 overnight camping and 32 major events in Ramirez Canyon where the SMMC is headquartered.
Not only has the matter struck a nerve with residents, but the municipality’s actions have reverberated far outside the city’s borders. 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 year-round threat of a conflagration in a high fire hazard area should be sufficient reason to not allow camping and campfires.

County Sups Declare Water Shortage in Malibu Service Area

County Sups Declare Water Shortage in Malibu Service Area

BY ANNE SOBLE

All the talk about drought in California and the need to conserve one of the state’s most problematic and legally entangled resources hit closer to home on Tuesday when the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors declared a water shortage emergency in Malibu and the other communities served by Waterworks District 29.
The declaration includes the requirement that residential water users cut their water consumption by 15 percent or face higher water rates.
District 29 is under the auspices of the L.A. County Department of Public Works. Customers will be sent the specifics of the cutback and the base on which reductions are to be determined with their next billing statement.
The prospect of greater surcharges for water users that exceed the average amounts for their parcel sizes has also been discussed but there have been no moves to implement additional charges on mega water wasters in the latest declaration.

Malibu High’s Distinguished School Status Is Withdrawn

• Data Computation Error Is Cause

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

In April, the California Department of Education announced that Malibu High School had been designated a California Distinguished School for 2009. The school has subsequently been withdrawn from the list by the CDE as the result of a “technical change” in MHS’s data that affected the school’s initial eligibility as a candidate, according to MHS principal Mark Kelly.
“After carefully assessing our data, reviewing our case with district staff, and consulting with the CDE, we have accepted the change in an open letter to the school community. “We do so in fairness to all schools that met the initial eligibility criteria. While our status may have changed, the core commitment of ensuring a high quality education to our students has not changed.”
In order to be eligible for an invitation to apply for the award, MHS had to to meet a number of federal and state criteria, including the No Child Left Behind program, Academic Performance Index (API), and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which includes achieving certain “academic achievement benchmarks” for all “numerically significant subgroups within the school.” The application was followed by extensive screening and a review process that included a site visit” designed to validate the full implementation of the submitted practices.
According to Kelly, “When the state first posted the 2008 achievement results for SMMUSD in August, it was noted that the students with disabilities subgroup was not accurate. Students were correctly as members of this group and were largely undercounted. SMMUSD submitted data corrections to CDE in October and in February; the corrections were finalized and submitted to the CDE on March 10. On April 29, the CDE reposted achievement data for SMMUSD schools,” Kelly wrote.
“It was at this time that we learned that Malibu High did not meet its Academic Performance Index (API) growth target in the students with disabilities sub-group, which schools must do to be eligible as a Distinguished School candidate. This information was not known at the time the CDE invited schools to apply. We entered the process believing we met all eligibility requirements and engaged in it in good faith. The process included approval of our application and a comprehensive site visit that yielded substantial praise from the visiting team of educational leaders,” Kelly stated.
Kelly pointed out that, while the school did not receive its CDS designation, it did post achievement gains in all areas. “Schoolwide, we posted an eight-point gain in our API, an eight-point gain in our white subgroup and a one-point gain in our students with disabilities subgroup.”
In order to qualify for the award, MHS would have needed to demonstrate a 12-point achievement gain for the disabilities subgroup. Students with disabilities at the Malibu campus, as well as their families and teachers, receive extra support from the Malibu Special Education Foundation, a non-profit started in 2002 to fund programs for children with disabilities, according the organization’s website. However the district’s special education program has been under fire from parents for several years, and is currently facing a $700,000 budget cut for the 2009-10 year.
According to the CDE, the schools awarded the CDS represent about 10.9 percent of California’s 2400 middle and high schools. Only 341 schools met the eligibility criteria based on their student achievement. Schools keep their CDS certification for four years. The program alternates between upper and lower schools; elementary schools that meet the program’s criteria will receive the award in 2010.

Transient Tax Applies to Short-Term Rental of Private Residences in Malibu•

Application of Tax to Rehab Center Stays to Be ‘Voluntary’

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu City Council last week decided to apply the Transient Occupancy Tax now on the books to short-term rental of private homes, and in a novel approach, to also tax the city’s drug rehabilitation facilities with the stipulation that the tax for short-term drug rehab stays would be voluntary.
The council’s action followed the recommendations of its administrative and finance subcommittee that were made when it opened up a budget hearing last week and was seen as a way to help shore up city coffers.
At the same time, members decided to add a provision about trying to get TOT money from drug rehab facilities. The city attorney called it a novel approach and members agreed to make the tax voluntary to avoid the action being challenged in court. Some members joked about who would pay a voluntary tax, but the businesses might consider doing so to deflect some of their local critics.
The city announced it would begin collecting the TOT on the short-term rental of private homes effective July 1 and published a legal notice to that effect.
The notice indicates that, if citizens are renting a home, apartment, condominium or vacation property for any period of 30 days or less, they must register the property with the city and submit a 12 percent occupancy tax.
Because the tax is on the books, it requires no new action. It is estimated the tax could add $200,000 revenue annually.
In addition, the council was told there might be a greater drop in revenues, including $700,000 that might be taken back by the state.
If enacted by Sacramento, the city would lose eight percent of its property taxes to the state. While this has not yet impacted the city’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, council members talked about where cuts could be made if the state dips into city coffers.
Mayor Andy Stern suggested the city could forgo its wastewater studies in the Civic Center to make up the shortfall. The council agreed and gave it a tentative go-ahead if the need arises.
The council is scheduled to consider adopting the FY 2009-2010 budget at its next meeting on Monday, June 8.

State Lands Slams Governor’s Bid to Bring Back PXP Project

BY ANNE SOBLE

The State Lands Commission minced no words responding to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to reverse the panel’s rejection of the first new oil drilling proposed for off the California coast in 40 years.
Meeting in Santa Monica this week, the commission passed a resolution urging legislators not to go along with Schwarzenegger’s back door bid to revive the controversial Plains Exploration and Production, or PXP, drilling project off the Santa Barbara County coast that the commission majority killed in January.
Under the PXP plan, the firm sought to drill into state waters from a platform it owns in federal waters beyond the three-mile limit. In return, the company made legally challengeable offers to close down that platform and others by 2022, as well as donate 4000 acres of land for public use.
Malibu environmentalists were among those who lobbied against the original PXP proposal, and they supported SLC members Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and state Controller John Chiang in opposing the governor’s latest effort.

View Preservation Task Force Debates How to Handle Minority ‘Anti’ Report

• Charges and Countercharges Traded over Draft Measure

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu’s View Preservation Task Force held its first public hearing since it released a draft of the ordinance it is recommending for city council consideration and the session was sparsely attended.
Since there were only two members of the public at the mid-day meeting to comment on the document, the task force took up several other items, including how to deal with a minority report three members want to submit.
Task force members indicated they hoped the next public hearing on June 9 at 6 p.m. in council chambers would produce a larger turnout. Some members acknowledged that Thursday afternoon at 3 p.m. might not be the best time for public participation.
The task force took up a good deal of its proceedings discussing whether the panel should respond to the abrupt departure of task force member Hiro Kotchounian, who resigned from the task force in an emotional display last week at a city council meeting.
Kotchounian, who was appointed by Mayor Andy Stern, complained he had told the task force not to meddle with the Malibu Country Estates view protection regulations that were enacted through its special overlay district status, but the panel “snuck in” deleting the MCE status in favor of a city-wide coverage for MCE. He also called the task force members “power hungry.”
Chair Sam Hall Kaplan told his colleagues Kotchounian attended the meeting when task force members voted for recommending deleting the MCE overlay district and putting it under the umbrella of the proposed citywide ordinance. “He was here. He voted for it,” he added.
Task force member Barry Tyerman, in a letter to City Hall, wrote, “The task force voted that the draft ordinance under discussion would take precedence over and in effect repeal the MCE ordinance. Mr. Kotchounian voted with the majority in that decision and a provision to that effect was included in the draft ordinance in its meeting on Monday, May 18, 2009. I trust you will agree that this hardly constitutes “sneaking anything in.”
Members then debated whether there should be a response from the committee. Some agreed. Some disagreed.
Task force member Lucille Keller cautioned the panelists. “If there is no correction of the record, it will be used over and over to poison the good word of the task force,” she said.
The task force was then told there was no formal letter from the outgoing panelist and there could be no response from the task force, but they could speak as individuals to respond to the allegations.
Whereupon, the task force consultant Colleen Berg wanted it made clear there are major differences between Malibu’s proposed law and the one it is modeled after in Palos Verdes. The draft has already been unfavorably compared to PV’s ordinance. She cited four major differences including the restoration date of the two, foliage height, criteria and proposed processes. “This is not the PV ordinance,” she insisted.
The task force then turned its attention to further discussion on a minority report. Task force members Lou Lamonte, David Frankel and Suzanne Zimmer, who indicate they are opposed to the current draft ordinance, want the task force to sanction a minority report. The minority also wanted the panel to put the minority report on the task force agenda. Hall Kaplan suggested the minority report simply be submitted and could be turned over to the council. “Not submit it to the vote of the task force,” he suggested. Minority members objected. “This committee does not formally want a minority report,” said Zimmer.
Berg asked the minority members what they were looking for and how they wanted to impact the process. “So what do you want?” she asked.
Minority members then talked about whether they were formally directed to do so by the council. Some panelists insisted the task force had never been directed to consider a minority report.
“Instead of a minority report, what about each task force member presenting their points of disagreement?” Berg asked.
After the meeting, minority members were asked if they could share some of their views about what are their objections. They were asked if they thought there was a need for an ordinance of if they supported a voluntary program or no program whosoever All three members said they supported an ordinance, but not the one the task force had approved.
When asked why they believed it was necessary to have a task force sanctioned minority report, they said the matter should be put on the task force agenda for a chance to sway other members.
When asked if the minority report was ready, the three said it was still being developed. They offered no timetable for when the document might be presented to the planning commission or city council.
Two council members last week had indicated they wanted to see a minority report, but no formal motion or directive was given.

New Morning View Parking Measures Appear to Work

• Everyone Is Cautiously Optimistic

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN

After months of discussion between the City of Malibu and school district representatives, consultants, parents, students and Malibu Park area residents, parking changes have been put into place in front of Malibu High School on Morning View Drive in an effort to improve traffic flow and safety.
Students and parents had advance warning in the form of a joint notice issued from the city and the school explaining the changes, which was sent home with students and also placed on the front windshields of street-parked cars.
The changes, which went into effect the week of May 18, include a ban on street parking on a 250-foot area in front of the school auditorium during peak drop-off and pick-up hours of 7 to 8:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and Noon-1:30 p.m. on Fridays. The restricted times will only be in effect while school is in session.
An additional 13 parking spaces have been allocated on campus to accommodate students displaced by the change. A new crosswalk is also part of the plan, and the city has arranged for additional crossing guard services.
“It’s still kind of new,” MHS Assistant Principal Phil Wenker told the Malibu Surfside News. “Students are still getting used to the new crosswalk.” Wenker added that the plan seemed so far to be working and that students, parents and residents were cooperating with the change.
Malibu Park residents are expressing cautious optimism that the new measures will help. “It’ll always be chaos in the afternoons,” one neighbor told The News, “we all know that, but at least it may be a more orderly chaos, safer for everyone, and that’s a start.”

Publisher’s Notebook

• Misrepresentation and Malibu Politics •

ANNE SOBLE

A retired military man and I were good-naturedly bantering about local politics and came up with a riddle. What do the folks in the War Room during the Bush Administration have in common with the Malibu City Council majority’s stance on Trancas Canyon Park? They both believe that despite skyrocketing financial costs, adverse public opinion, major environmental impacts and common sense, they should ignore reality and “stay the course.”
Perhaps the council majority is too embarrassed to acknowledge that its well compensated consultants— who benefit from the most overengineered project that city money can buy—have been shown up by a ragtag cluster of residents who, in a short time, found someone with local sensibilities able to craft a plan for the park that has garnered near universal acclaim. Or could this be a classic case of hubris, as in how dare the riffraff muck with those in power?
Embarrassment is certainly warranted for the extent that this majority parrots what appears to be an ever dwindling minority of diehards who want what they want when they want it and will resort to any means to get their way. Perhaps that is also why it appears that a majority of council members were so readily dupable by the flailing of sheets of paper in the air that were alleged to contain the signatures of 150 or so people who “want the city-approved park plan.”
The council members did not even look at the so-called roster of park supporters because, if they had, they would have seen that it was actually a two-year old document signed by people who merely wanted an EIR on the as yet undesigned park project. Some of these people are now signing a counter petition and are considering whether to act on allegations that their names may have been used fraudulently. Other signatories no longer reside in Malibu, and there is even an effort to verify whether one is still alive.
If the council members didn’t even bother to look at this seemingly important list of names, what other documents have been passed off at City Hall as something other than what they were? What does this say about the making of important public policy that critically affects city residents’ day-to-day lives and pocketbooks?
Compounding this carelessness is the quaint notion promulgated by the current mayor that any form of “silent” contempt or ridicule, such as the handwritten signs that were directed at the lone council member who appears to care about municipal finances, and, one could assume, raised middle fingers, is acceptable council chamber behavior.
What if there is more to the War Room riddle than is obvious at first reading?

Local Athlete Skateboards His Way onto New Extreme Sports Show

BY NICOLE KLIEST

High-profile Malibu personae come in all sizes and shapes, as well as representative of a vast array of skills and talents.
Nine-year-old Malibu youth, Tom Schaar is in the upcoming Disney XD show called “Next X.” The show is a reality series for young people that features five up-and-coming BMX and skateboarding athletes. The show premieres June 8 at 7:05 p.m.
Disney XD in association with ESPN developed the show. It is the second Disney XD project developed with ESPN, following “SportsCenter High 5.” Each of the eight short form episodes is two minutes long. The show concludes with a half-hour special Aug. 10. “Next X” presents five amateur athletes paired with five professional athletes.
Schaar said this was the biggest surprise of the show for him. He was paired with professional skateboarder Chris Cole. “I didn’t know there were going to be pros there,” Schaar said. “So when I first saw they were there, I was so excited to work with a pro.”
Thrasher Magazine and Transworld Skateboarding named Chris Cole Skater of the Year in 2005. He also competed at X Games earning gold in 2006 and 2007. Cole is known for his ability to skate a variety of surfaces, including quarterpipes, ledges, banks, and trails.
The other professional athletes are BMX freestyle rider Scotty Cranmer, BMX street rider Van Homan, skateboarder Billy Marks, and skateboarder Lincoln Ueda.
The series was filmed at Camp Woodward West in Tehachapi, California. The other four athletes include 12-year-old Ian Bradley from New Hampshire, 12-year-old Mitchie Brusco from Washington, 11-year-old Matty Cranmer from New Jersey, and 11-year-old Micah Wu from Kentucky.
“We got to skate together and have fun,” Schaar said about the other amateurs. “I had a good time and a good experience.”
Schaar lives on Pt. Dume and has been skateboarding for over four years. He recently competed in the California AM contest. He does other sports such as snowboarding, baseball, and soccer, but he says skateboarding is his favorite.
Skateboard cognoscenti say the young skater is known for his incredible acrobatics. The native Californian is also a “big-air trani” skateboarder who does bowl and vert at the advanced level.
His skills include a mute backside 360 over the 25-foot gap on the mini-mega ramp. He also can land a frontside 540/rodeo flip and a backflip.
Schaar started skating at five and entered his first competition at six. “My brother [John] started skating, and I really wanted to try it, and I stuck with it,” Schaar said. “[My goal] before I turn 10 is to do the mega-ramp. It is 70 feet tall, and it’s really big.”
If Schaar accomplishes this goal, he will be the youngest to do so. Schaar also became the youngest person to compete in the expert division at King of the Groms for two consecutive years (2008-2009). In February, he was awarded All Out Athlete by Fuel TV. He is the youngest person to receive this honor.
Professional skateboarders Bucky Lasek, Bob Burnquist and Steve Badillo are among those mentoring Schaar and encouraging him to try new tricks and develop a signature style, while never losing sight of the fact that skateboarding should be fun.
When he’s not breaking records, competing, or working on a new trick, Schaar leads the life of a traditional nine-year-old with a full schedule of school and family activities. He also enjoys playing with his two dogs, Rosie and Ollie.

Malibu Surfside News

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Malibu Is Top Bidder on Building Slated to Become City Hall

City Readies New Court Fight with Conservancy

School District Is Next to Mount an Assault on City’s Local Coastal Plan

Malibu Gets Its First Look at New Marine Life Protection Law

Planning Panel to Hear Both Farmers Market Applicants at Same Meeting

City and Water Board Members Meet on Issue of Issuance of Discharge Permits

More No Smoking Zones OK’d by the City Council

Local Award-Winning Swim Coach Honored on School’s ‘Wall of Fame’

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Coastal Commission Approves SMMC Efforts to Expand Public Use

City Attorney and SMMC Head Don’t Rule Out Resumption of Negotiations

CCC Testimony Reflects Disparities between Views

Closure of One Malibu Elementary School Is Part of the Budget Debate Now Going On

Council Misses Key Aspects of CCC Hearing to Rehash ‘Legacy’ Debate

View Protection Task Force to Conclude Effort

Publisher’s Notebook

Malibu Municipal Officials Look

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Coastal Commission Approves Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Efforts to Expand Malibu Camping on Public Parklands

Thursday, June 11, 2009

California Coastal Commission Meeting on the Issue of Public Overnight Campsites in the City of Malibu: News Bulletin and Preliminary Analysis

Contributors

Links

Previous Posts

Archives

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

City Council Allocates $3.5 Million for Trancas Canyon Park

Council Wants Minority Report from View Protection Task Force Dissenters

Construction Bids Sought for Malibu’s Legacy Park Project

State Fiscal Woes and Local School Funding Crisis Take Center Stage at Rep’s Meeting

Pot Pharmacy Placement Proviso Prohibited by Planning Panelists

Hearing on $1.6 Million Cove Fine Continued

Publisher’s Notebook

‘Twist of Lemmon’ Is a Son’s Tribute to a Legend

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Coastal Staff Says No to Request for Overnight Camping Ban

County Sups Declare Water Shortage in Malibu Service Area

Malibu High’s Distinguished School Status Is Withdrawn

Transient Tax Applies to Short-Term Rental of Private Residences in Malibu•

State Lands Slams Governor’s Bid to Bring Back PXP Project

View Preservation Task Force Debates How to Handle Minority ‘Anti’ Report

New Morning View Parking Measures Appear to Work

Publisher’s Notebook

Local Athlete Skateboards His Way onto New Extreme Sports Show

Contributors

Links

Previous Posts

Archives