Malibu Surfside News

Malibu Surfside News - MALIBU'S COMMUNITY FORUM INTERNET EDITION - Malibu local news and Malibu Feature Stories

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

La Paz Plans Set to Go to City Council

• Center Proposal Continues to Be Mired in Controversy

BY BILL KOENEKER


A highly controversial shopping center/office complex known as La Paz planned for the Civic Center area is scheduled for Malibu City Council consideration Sept. 22.
Malibu La Paz Ranch, as it is formally known, consists of two projects, a development agreement that includes a larger shopping center in exchange for donation of a city hall and a smaller project without a city hall.
The matter was heard in January by the planning commission, which recommended the smaller version with no city hall.
In April, the applicant submitted a new wastewater collection treatment and re-use system for the projects, which is described by the planning staff as “materially different than the previously reviewed onsite water treatment system.” The new system has been reviewed and incorporated into the final environmental impact report, according to planners.
Several weeks ago, a newly installed planning panel refused to rehear the matter and urged the application to be forwarded to the city council.
Folks in Malibu are divided into camps about whether they support another large-scale shopping center, even if it has offices.
Theories abound about what is going on behind the scenes. It was only two weeks ago that the public learned that the protocol for hearing the matter was directed by the city attorney’s office rather than the planning staff.
Questions linger about why the planning commission gave up its authority to approve or give a thumbs down to the project that was within their jurisdiction—the smaller project—if indeed it did.
The larger project contains a development agreement and is outside the scope of the commission’s jurisdiction since they cannot approve a DA, but can only make recommendations. The city council must decide and even then the development agreement must go to the California Coastal Commission for final approval.
The commissioners’ unusual action was said by some to be “not doing their job,” but others were equally vocal, wondering whether they were merely reasserting their authority in the matter.
Others have said the move was political in the sense that by not rehearing the matter, it will force the city council to consider the planning panel’s original recommendation.
That commission included John Sibert, who is now on the city council. No one knows whether Sibert will recuse himself since he has already made a recommendation. What would eventually happen to the projects if the council can only muster a 2-2 vote? A tie means a motion fails.
Another question that has been posed time and again, even to the consultants, is why fight so hard for an additional 12,000 square feet that involves giving so much away—a 20,000-square-foot city hall and then has to lease another 10,000 to 20,000 square feet before construction begins.
“That is a good business plan and answers almost all of the questions,” he said.

National Parks Commission Visits Malibu

• Distinguished Panel Kicks Off Project in SMMNRA

BY ANNE SOBLE


A year-long, blue ribbon commission put together to recommend policies for the National Park System in its second century held the first of five nationwide meetings this week, with the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area taking center stage.
The group called the National Parks Second Century Commission is headed by former U.S. Senators J. Bennett Johnston, Jr. (D-La) and Howard Baker (R-TN). Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is also listed as a co-chair.
NPSSC’s formation was announced three weeks ago, and the local two-day meeting convened without fanfare Monday in a Westlake hotel.
The first day’s session featured bus trips to public park sites in the Malibu area, including Solstice Canyon. Even though Solstice is still recovering from last year’s devastating wildfire, it put on a show of its natural beauty on a picture-perfect day, providing many of the first-time visitors with a vivid picture of the site’s uniqueness.
Senator Johnston, who was among those visiting Solstice Monday afternoon, said of the NPSSC’s formation, “Never before has a group of this caliber, independent and non-partisan, convened to conduct a comprehensive examination of the state of the national parks today, and their potential for the future. ”
The commission’s efforts are expected to result in a formal report late next year. National Park system supporters hope it will provide impetus to alter the pattern of deep budget cuts that have beset most government agencies in recent years.
The NPSSC’s roster includes a distinguished cross-section of judges, state and national legislators, academics in an array of disciplines from institutions ranging from Brooklyn College to UCLA, and representatives of public and private recreation groups and related interests.
Subsequent meetings of the NPSSC will be held at Yellowstone National Park, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Lowell National Historical Park and Gettysburg National Military Park.
SMMNRA Superintendent Woody Smeck said, “The selection of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area as the initial meeting location underscores the strategic importance of urban national parks. It also recognizes the model programs of NPS, California State Parks, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and others in preserving resources and connecting urban and suburban audiences to nature and places of historical significance.”
Smeck had previously announced that “during the meeting, we will have an opportunity to provide commissioners with a brief tour of the mountains and discuss challenges and opportunities for managing parks in a complex urban-wildland interface. A panel of distinguished conservationists and park advocates will also share their views.”
Among those who spoke at the two-day session were Joseph Edmiston, the executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and Robert Garcia, the executive director of the City Project, an outspoken critic of the City of Malibu’s refusal to agree to overnight camping on parklands in the city, a dispute that is expected to reignite soon before the California Coastal Commission.
No one from local governments that border, or are encompassed by the SMMNRA, took part in the program that also included: Jon Jarvis, National Park Service regional director of the Pacific West Region; Linda Dishman, the executive director of the Los Angeles Conservancy; and Paul Saffo, the director of the Institute for the Future, Media-X Research Network at Stanford University.

Idea of a City Hall at West Malibu Farm Gets Razzed

BY HANS LAETZ


The special citizens committee considering Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich’s idea to build a new city hall at Point Dume got off to a contentious start Monday, with the mayor’s two appointees absent.
The committee discussed at length what it was that the Malibu City Council expected them to come up with, with some members saying the proposed consensus to draft a wish list without studying potential negative impacts was a waste of time.
The definite buzz from the committee, however, was that its members by and large felt the proposed conversion of one of Malibu’s last farms to a municipal center was a terrible idea.
The members elected Point Dume activist and Planning Commissioner John Mazza to serve as chair, and he asked committee members to draft a wish list of what the members, and the general public, think should be built at the 9.84-acre hilltop farm at the north side of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway at Heathercliff Drive.
The site, between Vital Zuman Farm on one side and Malibu Stage Company on the other, is for sale for $4.9 million, and the city manager has said it would cost $200,000 for an option to purchase the land, and an environmental impact report costing about as much to go through with the deal.
City Manager Jim Thorsen has determined that the site could support a building of about 85,000 square feet without violating the city’s 15 percent building density rules, if the city were to change its zoning from residential to commercial zoning, similar to the Point Dume stores on the other side of PCH.
Thorsen had an aerial photo of the blufftop farm delivered to the meeting, which showed a rough outline of what Mazza said was a building “90 percent the size of the La Paz” commercial center proposed for the Civic Center area.
One issue of contention at Monday’s meeting was whether such details as traffic counts, geologic maps, specific noise impacts or rezoning issues should be examined by the committee, or whether the group was simply designed to hold public hearings to determine a “wish list” and compile some rough pros and cons.
“The one thing we need to look at is the zoning, because without changing the zoning, some of these proposals would never fly,” said committee member Susan Tellem, who lost a bid for a city council seat last year.
But Mazza said specific items like that should be left to the city council members. “It’s way above our pay grade, telling the city council what they can do with zoning.”
The committee members ended up agreeing to quickly schedule two public hearings at City Hall to gauge the opinion of as many Malibuites as possible, compile the list and as many pros and cons as it can assemble for each idea, including a city hall, lumberyard, teen center, senior center, athletic fields, or the status quo.
That last option is apparently very popular among members of the committee, many of whom at one time or another during the meeting expressed disdain for building a city hall on the blufftop site above Zuma Canyon, one of the last agricultural vestiges of a bygone Malibu.
But Mazza kept reminding them that the decision-making power rests with the city council, and the committee has been charged only with taking testimony and gathering options.
Members Alan Berliner and Al Giuliani said they live off Bonsall Drive downhill from the site, and indicated that they are worried about lights, density and sewage disposal.
Carol Randall, who lives on PCH near Big Rock, said she was opposed to moving City Hall to the western part of the city, which some advocates have pointed out is the population center of Malibu. “Doing that will do nothing more than split the city in half,” she said.
Tellem and longtime environmental activist Jo Ruggles said they were opposed to developing the site with a city hall.
No public voices were expressed in favor of the western Malibu city hall concept at Monday’s meeting, which was attended by one member of the public and two reporters.
The committee members are Charleen Kabrin and Giuliani, appointed by Councilmember Sharon Barovsky; Daniel Stern and Kathy Wisnicki, appointed by Conley Ulich, Mazza and Randall, appointed by Councilmember John Sibert; Lester Tobias and Dusty Peak, appointed by Councilmember Jefferson Wagner, and Berliner and Ruggles, appointed by Mayor pro tem Andy Stern. By consensus, the council appointed Tellem and Michael McDonell as at-large members.
The committee members, when introducing themselves, revealed the committee is made up entirely of veteran Malibu residents, with lengths of residency ranging from 11 to 49 years. The 10 committee members who were present said they had a total of 242 years in residence here.
The committee will meet to hear from the public and draw up its wish list at 6 p.m. next Thursday, Sept. 4, and again at the same time Monday, Sept. 15, at Malibu City Hall, 23815 Stuart Ranch Road.

New Approach to Curb Heavy Local Water Use

BY BILL KOENEKER


The revelation recently that much of Malibu’s potable water is actually consumed for outdoor usage came as a surprise to some city officials.
However, that was not new information for Waterworks District 29 and other water agency officials, who have been attempting to deal with the fact that a number of large residential landscapes Malibu use up disproportionately more water for irrigation than all of the rest of the city’s households for drinking water and other indoor uses.
The water district had tried a tier approach to make customers pay more when they reach a threshold, which, so far, has not worked. The wealthy landowners simply are paying the extra thousands of dollars to keep irrigating their gardens and lawns
Another approach is about to be tried by the West Basin Municipal Water District, which is a purveyor of potable water to Malibu’s water district. Prop 50 funds of $1.2 million were awarded to the water district for a large landscape water conservation, runoff reduction and educational program. “This project will be implemented throughout the West Basin’s service area, with a heavy emphasis in the City of Malibu, where there are a significant number of large landscapes and an Area of Biological Significance,” states a press release.
The project has been designed to address runoff problems and reduce outdoor water use by 20 to 50 percent by providing weather-based irrigation controllers and management solutions. The water savings are expected to have an impact on the district by delaying the need for new water supplies at a cost far below that of those supplies.
The targeted landscape sites will include large landscapes, schools, parks, homeowner associations, facility landscapes and residential sites over 1500 square feet. The total project cost is $2.8 million.
The money was awarded at a much-ballyhooed ceremony last month in Los Angeles where Lester Snow, director of the State Department of Water Resources handed over a mock check to Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Burke and a handful of other agency officials.
Buried among the 14 projects was WBMWD’s proposal, chosen out of about 2000 projects identified by a plan called the Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. There are several other important local projects that may impact Malibu by utilizing Prop 50 and Prop 84 money. None of the funding is going directly to the City of Malibu.
Another $426,000 was awarded to what is called the Malibu Creek Watershed Conservation Project. The project proponent is the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District and the City of Westlake Village.
Plans call for the reduction of urban runoff to the ocean in the watersheds creeks.
It is a two-fold program that combines and integrates a project first started by Westlake Village to reduce urban runoff and conserve water on city-owned lands with another project developed by the LVMWD to reduce urban runoff and conserve water on residential parcels in the Malibu Creek watershed.
Water officials contend the program could serve as a model for other cities in the watershed and help reduce runoff caused by homeowner’s inattentiveness to irrigation scheduling.
Another $78,366 was turned over to the Mountains Restoration Trust for removal of exotic plants and weeds in Solstice Canyon.
The National Park Service owns much of the canyon land that is being restored for introduction of the federally endangered steelhead trout. The plans call for the eradication of several species invasive weeds and plants. The focus of the project is riparian understory restoration and enhancement. Non-native ornamental trees will also be removed.
The larger project includes restoring work areas damaged during barrier removal, removal of non-native invasive plant species from side channels and adjacent slopes and removing debris from adjacent slopes that could enter the stream course.
During the past few years, NPS had removed most of the barriers and then the fire burned through the canyon, closing the park and resulting in the delay of further restoration.

School Board OKs Plans to Expedite MHS Night Lights

• Residents Claim Assurances of No Permanent Lighting

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN


At its Aug. 21 meeting, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board voted to approve hiring a firm of consultants to facilitate negotiating a new Coastal Development Permit with the California Coastal Commission to allow permanent field lighting at the Malibu High School athletic field.
This is a move that may be hotly contested by some Malibu Park area residents.
CAA Planning is the company that has been selected to “support preparation, coordination, filing and presentation of an amendment to CDP-04-99-276 to the California Coastal Commission in support of the field lighting portion of the Malibu High School Measure BB project in an amount not to exceed $7000,” according to the meeting agenda.
Rented lights have been used for MHS’s nighttime athletic events but even this temporary lighting measure has been controversial.
The existing CDP for the campus (CDP-04-99-276) specifically prohibits either temporary or permanent field lighting. This position is endorsed by many of the school’s residential neighbors.
Former and present members of the Malibu Park Homeowners Association contend that the athletic field was permitted with the condition that it would not have permanent field lighting.
A letter that is dated June 10, 1994, from former MHS principal Michael Matthews to members of the Malibu Park HOA, which was written when the fields were first being negotiated, supports this position.
It states, “There are no plans to have any night games at any time. I do not see a need for night games.”
The existing CDP, issued by the coastal commission in 2000, specifically prohibits both temporary and permanent field lighting.
However as the school’s sports program grew, and the booster organization for MHS programs became a strong school force, this curb was ignored.
At its Oct. 18, 2007 meeting, the board of education approved the Malibu High School portion of Measure BB to “proceed with the design and entitlement process as part of the Measure BB program.”
Included in that project is a provision for lighting of the MHS athletic field.
According to school district staff, “[Through] recent reviews and inquiries, including contacts with the CCC staff, it has been determined that an amendment to CDP-04-99-276 may be required. In order to expedite and coordinate the preparation, coordination and filing of an amendment to the CCC, a specialist consulting firm is required. CAA Planning has extensive successful experience with the CCC process, including applications for similar school district projects.”
Members of the current Malibu Park HOA board of directors who were contacted have begun voicing concerns about the plan, which is viewed by some of them as a breach of promise.

Verizon Says Some Sales Reps Erred in Pitch for FiOS Service

• Traditional Copper Telephone Wiring Is Not Slated for Removal as Claimed Door-to-Door

BY HANS LAETZ


Some door-to-door contractors working for the Verizon telephone company were “overzealous” when they incorrectly told Malibuites that their traditional telephone service is being removed, and that customers must sign up for a new digital package using fiber-optic lines, a Verizon spokesperson confirmed.
But customers, consumer activists say, may have fallen for the sales pitch and signed up for a new type of telephone service that is not rate controlled, and can lose dial tones after a power outage.
A Verizon official said last week that errant sales crews selling its FiOS-brand fiber service would be retrained. Spokesperson Jon Davies said persons who purchased bundled cable TV and Internet service under incorrect impressions would be allowed to undo the deal.
In an email to the reporter, Davies wrote, “ All the sales teams are continually educated on how to sell FiOS—they are definitely not authorized to say that the upgrade is in any way mandatory. We’ll be going back to the door-to-door sales teams—and the group that was in Malibu that day particularly—to make sure they are clear on the situation and try to prevent this from recurring.”
A telecommunications expert at The Utility Reform Network said people who count on their phones to work during disasters should know that new fiber-based services rely on a small battery at the customer’s house, unlike old-fashioned copper-wire service.
“If you’re going to replace new technology for old, shouldn’t the new phones be as reliable as the old?” asked TURN analyst Regina Costa. “Anybody in Malibu who wants a phone that will work after a fire comes through and takes out power lines, would be crazy to give up their old copper-wire service.”
Costa said the agents’ sales pitch “sounds like a violation of FCC policies” and a violation of promises made by the company after congressional hearings into the matter revealed abuses last year.
Earlier this month, a journalist was among others who were told at home that “copper-wire” phone service is being removed from all houses and businesses in Malibu, a claim that state regulators and utility watchdogs said was misleading and inaccurate.
Inaccurate, but effective, according to the results in one west Malibu neighborhood, where a majority of the houses on the reporter’s street signed up for FiOS, and signed contracts giving up regulated copper phone service.
College-age marketers, wearing Verizon ID badges but working for a marketing company called NCSC on commision, blanketed the Malibu Park neighborhood early this month. One sales rep told persons that the phone company “is pulling out the copper wires from every house, and replacing them with fiber-optics.”
Residents were offered several bundled packages of cable TV, Internet and phone service, which included low prices guaranteed for two years, and a signing bonus of free long-distance service.
Residents were told that they did not have the option to retain “plain-old telephone service,” or POTS, despite the fact that federal and state laws require universal access to old fashioned, rate-regulated phone service. Governments regulate traditional phone service, but not the FiOS bundles that include TV and Internet services.
A customer sales agent also told one Malibu resident that his family could still elect to receive POTS via Web-based phone services after the copper was removed, but claimed not to know that these alternatives also would require buying high-speed Internet access.
That agent told a Malibu resident that the PUC had approved the changeover and removal of copper wiring, and that choosing the status quo was not an option.
Although the CPUC has lost many regulatory powers, it still sets the basic telephone line charge for Verizon. Since those powers do not extend to FiOS, customers have no guarantee for prices after the two-year contract is over.
The Verizon FiOS system is a $23 billion nationwide initiative to convert as many of its customers as possible from copper wires strung as long as 60 years ago into state-of-the-art fiber lines. Those digital lines already extend onto almost every Malibu street, and now Verizon wants to entice customers away from the older, less-profitable General Telephone Company copper network.
But consumers are not told that switching from old copper phone lines removes competition, in the form of smaller companies that won access on the “last-mile” of monopoly phone line in a 1986 telecom deregulation law. That also means DSL, a low-cost alternative from other companies, is also eliminated as an option.
And the new fiber lines require electrical power at the customer’s house, and phones will go dead in as little as four hours after the power goes out. In addition, the standby batteries must be replaced every year or so by the customer, at the customer’s expense, or the fiber phones will go dead moments after Edison electrical service goes out.
“During the Big Sur fires this summer, the entire upper Carmel Valley had the power turned off by the firefighters, and all of a sudden, a bunch of people didn’t have phone service,” Costa said. “Reverse 911 calls couldn’t come in, and people couldn’t call out.
“Anybody who knows about this should be very scared over the concept of switching away from copper wires.”

• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Thespian Thermodynamics

BY ANNE SOBLE


When we first began hearing the latest rumblings involving the Malibu Stage Company a few weeks ago, we wondered whether the newspaper should get drawn into yet another round of what could become “she said, he said” accusations and recriminations, most of which don’t meet our criteria for news, let alone submit to the basic journalistic tenets of substantiation.
Then the first letter to the editor arrived last weekend, and it was clear that an editorial decision had to be made. Do we enable anew what happened last time the MSC board imploded? At that time, the clash deteriorated into alternate epistles of charges and countercharges that a number of readers bluntly informed us was more than they wanted to know about the group’s interpersonal dynamics.
One has to ask whether these public altercations have stunted Malibu Stage Company’s potential? The recurring soap opera format of the internal machinations of MSC may befit the artistic temperament of some of the participants, but critics say that it may have prevented the kind of planning, preparation and community insight that could have kept theater seats packed with enthusiastic local residents for performance after performance.
Certainly, there have been excellent MSC productions that deserve the critical acclaim they received. Too many Malibuites, however, appeared uninterested—whether because of subject matter, seasonal scheduling, or other causes—in offerings that might have been better suited to an environment with a larger population base and the ability to draw on a more diverse audience.
One local actor friend put it this way; “There was often much better drama at the Malibu Stage board meetings than at its performances.” He wasn’t denigrating the productions, in which he, and others who quietly express similar views, participated, but to reflect a concern that MSC’s “Sturm und Drang” may have kept the effort from accomplishing even more than it did.
Malibu is a magic place and part of that magic is the many people who have the ability to bring together extraordinary talents to perform on stage, work backstage and provide all of the other skills required to bring a first-rate production to fruition. Some of these people made Malibu Stage’s highlights possible. But how many more of them would have stepped forward, if the counter-productive internal battling was not so rife?
There is potential for a professional theater company and an amateur repertory group to both thrive in Malibu. Having taken part in each in a past life, I look back fondly on the joys and the differences between the two forms of creative expression. But I have to ask whether trying to mix them is a classic case of oil and water. When one adds their respective attorneys to the cauldron, what results has an alchemy all its own.

Ventura County Action Enables Opening of County Line Fire Station

• Improved Communications Is Goal of State-of-the-Art System

BY ANNE SOBLE


A decision by Ventura County Planning Director Kimberly Rodriguez to approve its state-of-the-art radio communications setup paves the way for the staffing of the new Fire Station 56 at western Malibu’s flank in the sliver of the 90265 zip code under Ventura jurisdiction.
Kristina Roodsari, the Ventura County planner on the project told the Malibu Surfside News, “The Local Coastal Appeal period ended on Aug. 25 at 5 p.m. No one appealed the planning division’s decision of Aug. 14. Therefore, a Notice of Final Decision approving the project was filed with the Coastal Commission on Aug. 26.”
The still-to-be scheduled opening of Ventura County Fire Station 56 on Pacific Coast Highway is viewed as good news by many Los Angeles County Malibuites who vividly remember wildfires over the years that headed south and southeast from Ventura County to threaten their homes.
Despite earlier contentious hearings over possible view impacts, expert technical testimony said Rodriguez’s decision to approve construction of a 55-foot monopole tower with a 20-foot whip antenna and four eight-foot whips at the sides will greatly improve communications along the coast from Pt. Mugu.
The Ventura planning director’s ruling calls for replacement of the equipment as communications technology advances to further reduce its visibility along the scenic stretch of coast at County Line.
Paul Bell of the Ventura County Fire Department said the opening date for the station is contingent on noticing for the tower project, its construction, and completion of the work.

Paragliding Club Removes Public Lands from Site List for Members

• Pilot in Bluffs Crash Urges Continued Use of Park Sites in Use for Years

BY ANNE SOBLE


The Malibu Paragliding Club has revamped its website, removing references to Malibu Bluffs Park and Corral Canyon public parkland as among the club’s “registered and insured” sites that are available for launching and landing private paragliding equipment.
The deletion was requested by Joseph Edmiston, the executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, following two recent paraglider accidents—one of them fatal—in the Malibu area.
MPC appears to have removed a link to a commercial paraglider tandem ride and lessons operation that was also contacted by Edmiston and told its use of parkland was unauthorized.
Edmiston has asked the MPC about the ostensible scouring of an area of Malibu Bluffs Park for a launch site. Club officials did not respond to the query, but Claude Fiset, the owner of the Ojai-based commercial operation, conjectures that “a December fire triggered by a tourist BBQ-ing [may have] cleared a large part of the field,” then added that “an instructor from Santa Barbara cleared the area [noting that he is] not sure why, as [he has] never seen him use that area.”
Paragliders have openly used local sites, especially Malibu Bluffs Park, to launch and land for years, and some residents are now asking why public agencies did not take action until the two accidents.
That’s why the pilot in the first mishap on July 16 that sparked a small brushfire at Bluffs Park, asks why anyone “would want to shut down the launch sites. Pilots and Malibu people have been enjoying paragliding for years here.”
Joe Castaldo added, “Paragliding has not hurt anyone on the ground. PG is a national sport around the world with millions of pilots in meets and competitions, but here in the U.S. there are less than 10,000 due to needless restrictions on PG and other sports.”
Castaldo’s description of his July equipment fire is included in this week’s Letter to the Editor section.
In an earlier email, Jai Pal Khalsa, the president of the Malibu Paragliding Club, contends that paraglider use is as valid as any other public use of parklands.
He said, “The freedom of our club members to soar through the air is a legal and valid recreational use like any other recreational use, but places no burden on the land below.”
Khalsa said, “Freedom to recreational use of public lands, while preserving the natural and native environments, should be protected for all. Do [site regulators] propose a Nanny state in which government tells us what we can and can’t do?”
Paragliding critics, however, raise local trespass issues and voice concern about public endangerment and the potential for more accidents, if there is no regulation of PG activities on public parkland.

Beach Volleyball Gold Medalist Has Strong Point Dume Ties


SOLID GOLD—Former Malibuite Todd Rogers, right, and Phil Dalhausser won gold medals in men’s beach volleyball at the Beijing Olympics, Rogers, nicknamed “Professor,” grew up here, as did his parents Heidi Schreiber and David Rogers, who met and were married here. His grandparents, longtime Malibuites Dick and Toby Schreiber, still live on the Point. Todd Rogers, his wife and their two children now live in Solvang. Cheering Rogers on in Beijing were his parents, his uncle and his other grandfather, Tom Rogers, who also was a Point Dume resident for many years.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Carbon Homeowner Seeks View Corridor

• Applies for OK to Demolish House on Las Tunas Beach

BY BILL KOENEKER


A highly controversial proposal by the co-founder of the Hard Rock Cafe empire, Peter Morton, who has built a mansion on Carbon Beach, to create a view corridor by demolishing a house on Las Tunas Beach has some beachfront neighbors up in arms.
The Malibu Planning Commission was asked to weigh in on the matter at its meeting this week after the Malibu Surfside News went to press.
Morton is seeking a demolition permit for a single-family home located at 19862 Pacific Coast Highway to create the offsite view corridor.
Several months ago, Morton, through his permit expediters, the law firm of Latham and Watkins, had originally sought a similar permit for a beachfront home on La Costa Beach, which raised the ire of neighbors there who immediately hired attorneys and began fighting the request.
Morton, at the time, withdrew his application and the matter was seemingly dropped.
However, the application has quietly resurfaced with the new Las Tunas Beach location and a new set of neighbors expressing concerns about the arrangement.
Currently, the city’s Local Coastal Program does not allow for offsite view corridors, consequently the request would require approval by the California Coastal Commission, as well as the city council, for an LCP amendment.
Morton’s successful attempt to build a beachfront mansion has a long history, even after the California Coastal Commission issued a permit in 2001.
The mansion kept getting bigger, and by 2004 more numerous special conditions were imposed, including the creation of an on-site public view corridor equal to 20 percent of the width of the property frontage along PCH.
The view corridor requirement imposed by the commission never was acted upon, and privacy walls and landscaping exceeded city and commission regulations.
In 2007, the applicant purchased the La Costa property and subsequently dropped plans there after strenuous objections by the neighbors.
Recently, Morton purchased the Las Tunas property and proceeded to attempt to obtain an after-the-fact permit for the landscaping and walls and a request for an LCP amendment to permit off-site view corridors instead of the required on-site view corridors.
Alan Block, who represents one of the property owners originally objecting to the La Costa Beach proposal, said Morton has sweetened the pot for municipal officials.
“The applicant is now further proposing to contribute $1 million to the Legacy Park project if the amendments are approved,” he wrote in a letter to city officials objecting to Morton’s latest proposal.
Susan Shaw Noble, who is handling the donations for Legacy Park, said she did not know of any negotiations and was not aware of any promises by Morton to contribute more money to the city’s park fund.
She acknowledged Morton had already contributed $25,000 for acquisition of the park property.
Block also wrote in his 14-page letter that there is no justification for the proposed amendments.
“Further, the approval of the requested amendments would set an extremely negative precedent which would allow wealthy individuals to transfer the burdens of their proposed developments to off-site neighborhoods regardless of the on-site negative consequences of the same, wrecking havoc on public views,” he concluded.

Edmiston Says Illegal Use of Malibu Parkland by Paragliders Will Be Cited

• SMMC Executive Director Sends Emails to Promoter and Club Officer about Local Launch Sites

BY ANNE SOBLE


In the wake of two paragliding accidents in a month, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Executive Director Joe Edmiston has informed a promoter of the growing sport that his commercial paraglider activities on SMMC/Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority holdings are not authorized.
Edmiston told the Malibu Surfside News this week, “A paraglider would need a specific permit to launch or land on SMMC property (except, of course, in an emergency). We have issued no such permits, and would be very careful before we would issue one.”
In the first formal action in response to last month’s paraglider accident at Malibu Bluffs Park that sparked a small brushfire and a fatal crash in Corral Canyon two weeks ago, Edmiston sent an email to Claude Fiset on Aug. 13, that “neither you nor your organization, nor any other person or entity has take-off or landing rights on any property of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy or of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.”
Edmiston also emailed the president of the Malibu Paragliding Club, which has a Los Angeles mailing address, that it must cease referring to Malibu Bluffs Park and Corral Canyon as the club’s ”insured and regulated” sites, and requested “unless and until a permit is issued, please remove all references to any property of the SMMC or MRCA from your web site and any other promotional or informational material.”
Edmiston told MPC president Jai Pal Khalsa, “Also on that site is a photo of paragliders using a spot, apparently on the Bluffs Park, where vegetation has been removed to make for a landing/ takeoff zone. Damaging the vegetation on property of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy or that of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority is a misdemeanor.”
The SMMC executive director subsequently told The News that an acre or more of vegetation in the center of Bluffs Park “has been scoured,” adding, “This is a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code, and if we find out who did it, we will prosecute.”
Reiterating statements made to Fiset, Edmiston told the MPC president, “Neither you, nor your club, nor any other organization or individual has the permission of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy or the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority to take off, land, or otherwise operate a paraglider, ultralight aircraft or any other similar craft. This applies to the state property at Malibu Bluffs Park, Corral Canyon, and all other property of the SMMC or MRCA.”
He told Khalsa, the group may apply for a permit through the chief ranger of the MRCA, and “as with any special use, the questions of public safety, environmental impact, and effect upon other park visitors will be thoroughly evaluated. And in the case of this and any other extreme sport, liability will be a prime consideration in deciding whether or not to issue a permit.”
In the email to Fiset, who reportedly conducts a highly successful commercial venture involving paragliding lessons and tandem rides, Edmiston said use rights only exist “pursuant to my explicit permission, in writing, and filed in the offices of the Conservancy and the Authority.”
In addition, the SMMC executive director told Fiset, “We note persistent media reports that [quote you stating that] you and/or your organization, the “Malibu Paraglider” web site, have some understanding or agreement with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy with respect to take-off and landing on Malibu Bluffs. There is no such agreement, and you know it.”
Edmiston added, “Nor is there any agreement with the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, which both owns parkland in Malibu and administers that of the Conservancy.”
In a subsequent email to The News, Edmiston said, “Now that Fiset has been warned, the instructions are to cite.” He said the rangers will “enforce the rules on our parkland, and I doubt that [Fiset] will risk violating [them].”
Fiset did not respond to a request from The News for comment on the SMMC communication in time for this week’s issue.
Several attempts were made by telephone and email to contact Khalsa for a response. In an email on Monday, he indicated that, due to a death in his family, he was unable to address The News’ numerous questions about the club’s relationship to Fiset’s operations, or the group’s arrangements to use public or private land as paraglider launch and landing sites.
Khalsa sent The News an email that appears to try to dissociate the club from Fiset’s commercial venture. He said MPC, which he described as a “California non-profit corporation [is] not affiliated with any school operations or commercial operations,” however, the MPC home page has a prominent link labeled “Malibu Paraglider School” that goes to Fiset’s instruction web site.
In addition, club “rules” name Fiset as the chief guide/instructor for use of club sites and establish fees to be paid to him or a designee for specific services.
Khalsa also told The News that the reference to Jonathan Langbehn, the man killed on Aug. 8, as a Malibu Paragliding Club member was inaccurate, stating, “I never knew or met him,” and he added that Langbehn was flying a non-motorized craft, which differs with earlier reports on the crash.
Both Fiset and Khalsa have indicated a belief that Langbehn might have suffered a heart attack, but Lt. Fred Corral of the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office told The News that he died from “blunt force injuries” when he crashed into the hillside.
Khalsa has not yet responded to the inquiry that the club web site gives the impression that only MPC members were allowed to launch from “club sites,” which reportedly may have been done by Langbehn, or whether Fiset also used these sites for his private students.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has still not formally addressed whether land that it owns in Corral Canyon was used as the launch site in the fatal accident. Residents in Corral Canyon say they have repeatedly taken their concerns about paraglider activities to the DWP, but no action appears to have been taken.

Fire Department Reiterates Rambla’s Emergency Needs

• Access Road Could Assist First Responders and Evacuees

BY BILL KOENEKER


Malibu city officials recently received official support for their position approving an access road for Rambla Pacifico when a fire department official wrote the city sharing its viewpoint.
The city, which issued an emergency permit for work to begin on an evacuation route and the Rambla Pacifico Road Association suffered a setback when a Los Angeles judge issued an injunction halting any construction.
“As the assistant fire chief responsible for the City of Malibu, along with neighboring cities and unincorporated areas of the Santa Monica Mountains, I am writing to you to express our department’s support of these road improvements. In the event of a major wildland fire—an occurrence our department feels is inevitable given the extremely dry conditions that currently exist—this access would allow for a much more timely evacuation of the residents in the upper Rambla area. It is important to note that having Rambla Pacifico Road as an emergency evacuation route would also heighten the safety of those trying to evacuate,” wrote Joseph Graham, assistant fire chief, Division VII, central regional operations bureau of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
Graham acknowledged that his department “currently has alternate access to the upper Rambla area,” but connecting upper and lower Rambla to allow emergency access to the area directly from Pacific Coast Highway would “dramatically improve response times to the area.”
The fire department official explained that an emergency evacuation route that currently exists for the residents requires them to travel up into the canyon before they would be able to come back down. “This could very well direct them into a fire area instead of away to an area of safety,” he added.
The new evacuation route would also allow improved access for first responders, “especially for those resources coming from out of the area or other agencies who would not be as familiar with the alternate private road.”
Graham said his department agrees with the city that an emergency exists.
“Given the drought, the three fires in Malibu last year and the past six weeks when thousands of fires burned, we also support the conclusion made by the city that an emergency as defined in the city’s Local Coastal Program, does in fact exist,” he added.
Residents have been trying to reopen Rambla since the 1984 slide. The most recent group, the road association, was formed after the 1993 fire, after homeowners saw that the lack of access caused so many homes to burn.
“Unfortunately the entire community loses as a result,” said Scott Dittrich, who heads up the road association.
The Rambla leader maintains his group is composed of 65 member households. “The road would provide access during a fire or other emergency to nearly 1000 people,” he said.
Dittrich and others state that most of the members of the road association are inside the city, with a smaller percentage outside municipal boundaries.

Caltrans Deals with Another Malibu Sign Snafu: PCH Zone Is Still 50

• Trancas Area Not Slowed to 45

BY HANS LAETZ


Caltrans officials say they really didn’t mean to knock five miles an hour off the speed limit on Pacific Coast Highway at Trancas this summer, and Monday announced plans to remove a new “Speed Limit 45” sign on the southeast-bound road.
“We apologize if there was any confusion,” said spokesperson Jeanne Bonfilio Monday. “We’ll have someone out there this afternoon to assess it, and replace it with the right sign.”
The impromptu lowering of the posted speed on southbound PCH past Zuma Beach went unnoticed by government officials for three weeks, and was to be corrected within hours after a Malibu Surfside News reporter called the Caltrans media office in Los Angeles to inquire if it was a mistake.
Traffic Sgt. Philip Brooks at the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station said he was unaware of the change, and did not think motorists have been ticketed for going 50 in a 50 zone that is posted at 45.
The PCH confusion comes in the same summer that county road workers posted different speed limits in either direction on two adjacent chunks of Kanan-Dume Road. That snafu was ironed out when the speed limit on all of the roads from the city limits to Mulholland Highway was raised from 50 to 55 mph.
Speed limits on state Highway 1 have been unchanged for at least a decade, Bonfilio said, and longtime residents said they could not recall them ever being different than 45 east of Malibu Canyon Road, 55 west of Trancas Canyon Road, and 50 in the middle.
“The speed limits on Highway 1 remain the same,” Bonfilio said Monday.

No Malibu Candidates Are in Upcoming School Board Race

• Five Sign Up to Campaign for Four Available Seats

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN


No additional candidates have submitted nominating petitions for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Nov. 3 board of education election, despite an extended filing period that ended on Aug. 13.
The extension occurred because Kathy Wisnicki, one of four incumbent board members eligible for reelection, and the board’s only Malibu representative, failed to pull papers by the original Aug. 8 deadline.
The election is for four of the seven seats on the board. Incumbents Jose Escarce and Maria Leon-Vazquez are both seeking their third four-year term. Ralph Mechur, who was appointed to fill a vacated seat, is running to finish out that seat’s two-year term.
Running against the three incumbents are two longtime Santa Monica residents and Santa Monica High School alumni.
Chris Bley is a U.S. government and history teacher who has participated in campaign work for the Democratic party during the 2000, ’04 and ’06 elections, and has served in the Peace Corps.
Ben Allen is a 2008 Berkeley law school graduate who recently finished serving as a UC Student Regent. He is also active in the Democratic party.
Judith Meister, a PTA leader who had pulled papers to run, has announced that she is withdrawing from the race. Meister failed to receive endorsements from two key groups: the Teachers Union and the City of Santa Monica’s formidable tenants rights group Santa Monicans for Renters Rights.
Both organizations chose to endorse Escarce, Leon-Vazquez, Mechur and Allen. Escarce, who received strong support from the Teachers Union, initially failed to win a SMRR endorsement by one vote.
In an unusual move, the 13-member SMRR steering committee, meeting in closed session, overruled the membership and voted to endorse Escarce.Leon-Vazquez.
Leon-Vazquez, Mechur and Allen received both the SMRR and Teachers Union endorsements without complications.
The new board will have significant issues to face, including the selection of a new permanent superintendent of schools to replace Dianne Talarico, who departed last month.
The current board brought in interim head Tim Cuneo who will stay until the new board decides on a permanent replacement.
This election marks the first time is over 20 years that Malibu has been left without a local candidate for the board of education that oversees school issues in both cities.

• The Publisher’s Notebook •

It’s Time to Get Sirius in Malibu

BY ANNE SOBLE


You’ve heard and seen the same phrase ad nauseum for several weeks from nearly every newscaster and many print columnists—the dog days of summer. It usually means that the user is desperate to come up with something to speak or write about during the time of year when it seems that everyone is either on vacation, recuperating from just having returned from vacation, or preparing to go on vacation.
In journospeak, dog days often means that interesting news has ground to a halt, and there is a need to resort to the B-list of stories and features held in reserve for this kind of communications slowdown. Even though that doesn’t seem to happen very often in Malibu, as the recent parable of the mayor and the paparazzi would appear to illustrate, local newsrooms are not immune to the phenomenon.
When there are days that are too hot and too humid for most of us, many fall back on the tendency of the ancient Greeks to use celestial landmarks as a shorthand for just about everything. Because this weather often coincided with the time of year (mid-August) that the star Sirius, which appears in a constellation with the shape of a dog, rose with the sun, the time of year became known as the dog days.
Rather than it being the putdown of indolent animals that it seems in today’s parlance, connection to Sirius meant association with the brightest star in the sky after the Sun. It is a star that in reality is nearly 30 times brighter than the Sun, but it is located so much farther away from Earth that it seems smaller.
Whenever municipal political squabbles are in remission, Pacific Coast Highway is too crowded for unnecessary commuting and incoming emails are down to a point where they are almost manageable, everyone is able to change their pace accordingly.
The irony in the concept of dog days may be that most real canines have already figured out all of the hot and humid weather aspects and use them to their advantage. They have decided that a long afternoon nap is the best way to get through days too uncomfortable for business as usual.
If this editor thought about it, she would follow the lead of her canine companions, instead of sitting here and trying to come up with something different to write about this week. After all, scientists have recently documented the benefits of taking canine-like breaks during the day. Maybe we all should start to take Sirius more seriously.

‘Road to Nowhere’ Removed to Help Restore Malibu Watershed

BY NICOLE KLIEST


In a tedious effort to remove what many call “the road to nowhere,” Santa Monica Baykeeper partnered with high school student Hershel Weintraub to restore Las Virgenes Creek in Malibu Creek State Park last weekend.
Santa Monica Baykeeper, the City of Malibu, and Weintraub will all benefit from this project. Weintraub will earn the rank of Eagle Scout, which according to Baykeeper’s Carolyn Craft “only 2 percent of scouts ever achieve.”
“This project is a win-win-win for Santa Monica Baykeeper, Herschel, and Malibu,” Craft said. “…Baykeeper receives help with an important restoration project…and Malibu will have another section of its watershed restored.”
Last Saturday and Sunday, Baykeeper and friends and family of Weintraub gathered to work in the hot sun and remove the abandoned road that is causing erosion and creek pollution caused by runoff from the road.
Baykeeper’s director of watershed programs, Mark Abramson, says Baykeeper is committed to improving water quality and health in Santa Monica Bay. Abramson presented this community service project to Weintraub.
“The problem with the road is that it’s creating a significant amount of erosion near the trail, “Abramson said. “It’s also causing extreme bank erosion on Las Virgenes Creek itself.”
The group removed parts of the road by essentially cracking, and ripping up the road. After prying up the large sections of asphalt volunteers hauled the pieces out by hand using wagons and wheelbarrows, loaded them into trucks, which then drove to dumpsters at the beginning of the park.
“Herschel liked the idea of being able to destroy stuff,” Abramson joked. “That’s what I think he initially liked about the project, but he’s been getting all kinds of equipment ready, and has done an amazing job doing his part. This is going to be a real improvement for the environment.”

Malibu Photographer’s Exhibit Illuminates Aspects of the Holocaust

• UCLA Surgeon Brings Unique Perspective to the Horrors of World War II

BY ROBBY MAZZA


Since the end of World War II, there have been public denials of the Holocaust. With this resurgence of denials by such notables as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, controversial American David Duke and the late chess champion Bobby Fischer, Malibu resident Richard Ehrlich's latest photography work, “The Holocaust Archives at the International Tracing Service, Bad Arolsen,” is an answer to the Holocaust deniers.
In his portfolio, which will be on exhibit at the Craig Krull Gallery in Santa Monica from Aug. 26-30, are photographs of Schindler’s list as well as records of horrific atrocities that occurred in the Nazi concentration camps.
While traveling in 2004, Ehrlich said he read about the International Tracing Service, located in Bad Arolsen, Germany and its archives of over 50 million Nazi documents involving more than 17 million people. He knew he had to see and perhaps photograph it.
After several futile attempts to gain access to the low-profile organization, he contacted someone in the State Department who got him access immediately. What he discovered during two trips in 2007 was something that he characterizes as life changing.
“I went over on the strength of not knowing what I was going to find,” he said. “I knew it would be interesting, but I didn’t know if it would be worthy of a photographic project, and it turned out to be great.”
Not only did the ITS give him access to everything in their archives, which are housed in several buildings, they also provided him with a guide who pointed out some of the more interesting documents.
Ehrlich took over 1000 pictures, and culled them down to a 54-photo exhibit, which was first shown at the American Jewish Committee’s annual meeting in New York, in May where it was viewed by more than 1000 people.
The committee chose 28 of the photos for its portfolio and accompanied each picture with a detailed caption. This exhibit, and possibly more of Ehrlich’s ITS pictures, will be on display next week at the gallery. It is in seven museums around the world, including the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., the Musee d’Art in Paris and the Special Collections at the UCLA Young Research Library.
The exhibit shows the horrors of the concentration camps, as well as the obsessive record keeping of the Nazis. “Overall, the funny thing is [the Nazis] were meticulous in their record-keeping—even though what they were doing was just so horrible-they wrote everything down,” Ehrlich says.
Examples of this are his photographs from ledger books with records of the number of lice removed from each prisoner as they arrived at the camps. Perhaps one of the most jarring is yet another record from Hitler’s birthday celebration documenting the execution of one person every two minutes for an hour, which was ordered by Himmler.
“What’s in [the ITS archives] is what’s left,” says Ehrlich. “At the end of the war things happened very quickly and they tried to destroy the records, but they couldn’t, there was too much. Even with all the destruction, there were still 50 million pieces of paper left.”
Ehrlich says that this exhibit is especially important because the ITS is in the process of digitalizing its archives, making them more accessible to people. “It’s been interesting, because although this place is not a secret, they’ve kept it inaccessible for the most part since 1951—even relatives of Holocaust victims had a difficult time getting any documentation, and I don’t really know why,” he says. “I think it has to do with money—reparations—because even though the International Red Cross runs it, it’s paid for by the German government.”
This was not Ehrlich’s first glimpse into the concentration camps. In 1958, while studying at Cornell University, he visited Poland, Czechoslovakia and Russia as an exchange student and he saw a crematorium at Auschwitz. “They’ve knocked them down, subsequently, but I remember it vividly,” he says, describing the experience as “mind-bending.”
Ehrlich, who has lived in Malibu since the early 1970’s, is a surgeon at UCLA. His interest in photography started at an early age, but was sidelined when he pursued his medical career. He picked photography up again about seven years ago “in a very serious manner” and his work has been shown in various museums and galleries around the world.
His photographs cover a wide range of subjects, including his travels in Namibia (which has been published as a book, “”Namibia: The Forbidden Zone”) and Vietnam, as well as the construction of the UCLA Medical center, and Malibu, all of which can be viewed on his website ehrlichphotography.com. “I’ve been fortunate to be very successful in a short period of time,” he says.
Ehrlich is currently working on his latest project, “The Art of the Body: the Body as Art,” which he expects to complete in six months and will be published as a book. “Being a doctor, I always wanted to do something that tied into it and I have a project using X-rays and MRIs.”
He says, “Because I’m a physician, I’ve gotten access to things most people don’t see.” He emphasizes that the exhibit is “not about diseases or medical things, per se, but about the beauty of the body—the artistic side.”
For now though, Ehrlich is concentrating on his exhibit, “The Holocaust Archives at the International Tracing Service, Bad Arolsen,” and ensuring that images of this time stay alive so that history does not repeat itself.
“I didn’t know much about the Holocaust, but of course, now after this project, I know so much and it's a life-altering experience, there’s no question about it. You can’t believe anything like this ever happened.”

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Commission Pulls La Paz Off Agenda

• Majority of Planning Panel Wants It Sent to City Council

BY BILL KOENEKER


In a surprising action called “shocking” by the applicant’s consultant, the Malibu Planning Commission last week voted 3-2 with Commissioners Jeff Jennings and Ed Gillespie dissenting, to take off the agenda a scheduled hearing for the proposed La Paz shopping center/ office complex planned for the Civic Center.
“It doesn’t belong on the agenda,” said Commissioner Joan House, who made the motion to strike the matter.
Municipal planning officials had put La Paz before the commission again after a previous panel made recommendations to the city council about approving a scaled back version, but gave thumbs down to an expanded version that includes a City Hall and development agreement.
Some commissioners indicated the applicant was, in effect, getting a second bite from the apple, because the staff insists the revisions to the project, which include a new wastewater system, were not enough to warrant recirculation of the environmental documents, but there is enough difference to require the commission to again review the project.
However, Chair House and Commissioners John Mazza and Regan Schaar said the planning panel had spent hours and several hearings on the matter and urged that it be forwarded to the council.
Assistant City Attorney Greg Kovacevich insisted the commission review the matter, saying they were not doing their job.
Initially, Jennings asked Kovacevich what would be the consequences, if any, of the commission taking it off the calendar.
The assistant city attorney did not answer the question at first and then said, “You can’t decide you don’t want to do your job.” Later. when it became clear the planning panel was moving forward with the House motion, he indicated the city could possibly be exposed to litigation because of the commission’s action.
At times, the deliberations became a matter of panelists debating with Kovacevich about what the commission could or would not do.
Later, the applicant’s representatives were able to comment. “I am shocked that there would be any attempt to squelch [the public hearing]. We need to speak to the specifics,” said Don Schmitz, a land use consultant for the applicant.
Jennings argued the matter should be heard by the commission. “We have a revised EIR. It is our job to decide. It is a changed EIR. I don’t know what is going on here,” he added.
When the opponents’ attorney, Alan Block, who is representing Eric and Tamara Hughes Gustavson, the owners of property next to the proposed commercial complex, spoke he said the planning commission has no authority to reconsider its prior resolutions or change its prior recommendations to the city council.
Block said the city’s municipal code did not sanction the hearing.
Both Schaar and Mazza had reiterated that position, saying it was the staff determination to bring the matter back to the planning commission, the city council had never directed such a move and, in fact, had voted that the previous council would not hear the matter, but rather the newly elected body.
However, the attorney for the applicant, Stanley Lamport, said the commission’s action would create a conundrum for the applicant, since the city council had before it the older plans and not the revised project.
“It is a strange position. This is the only way we can proceed. This is the only way to go through the process,” he added.
Block said he disagreed. “It is the same project, the same staff report. It should not be here [before the commission],” he said.
House, who was attending the meeting via teleconference call from Boston, seemed to weary of the debate and began to call the question, meaning it was time to stop talking and take a vote. However, no one seconded her call and Gillespie, who was chairing the meeting, let deliberations continue until comments concluded.
From the get-go, La Paz has followed a somewhat different path, given that the alternative proposal was handled as a separate project, and the staff’s determination that the commission would not use its authority to act on any aspects of the projects, but simply make recommendations to the city council.

Council Members Criticize Planning Commission Action

BY BILL KOENEKER


Some Malibu City Council members took the planning commission to task for the majority decision refusing to rehear a request for a proposed shopping center office complex known as La Paz (see story at left).
The council stopped short of taking any action, but had sharp words for what happened.
A previous planning panel had heard the request and made recommendations and a majority of the current commission last week indicated the matter should be forwarded to the council since they considered the revisions insubstantial and had no authority to rehear the matter.
“I watched the planning commission meeting,” said Councilmember Andy Stern. “It was very clear Greg [Kovacevich], our assistant city attorney, said it was their task to hear it and the majority of the council did not hear it.”
Stern said he watched as Kovacevich cautioned the commission that by not hearing the matter, they might expose the city to litigation. “I don’t know what might happen. I don’t know if the city might get sued,” he said.
Stern said he could not recall a committee or commission “flat out ignoring the advice of the city attorney.”
Councilmember John Sibert talked about another aspect of the commission meeting. “There were a couple of events that bothered me,” said Sibert, who had previously served on the planning commission for six years.
Sibert said the way some commission members “dressed down” the staff “is wrong. The city operates like a corporation. We are the board of directors. If there are issues with the staff, it should never be laid out in public. The city staff should not be chastised by the commission.”
“I agree with John,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky. “If I turned and started yelling at [Planning Manager] Stacey Rice, they can’t respond. They can’t say,. ‘Mrs. Barovsky, you are dead wrong.’ They are not permitted. They can go to [City Manager] Jim Thorsen. It is just really not fair.”
Barovsky said she watched the meeting and heard the accusations made against Vic Peterson. “I am mystified. Why Vic? That item was placed on the agenda by the city attorney. That is the process she thought we should follow. “I’m a little bewildered why Vic would get blamed. I agree with John to go after the staff is wrong. And sometimes you don’t have all the facts,” she said.
Barovsky said there was a majority of the commission that had not heard the La Paz application, including former Councilmember Jeff Jennings, who now serves on the commission, and new Commissioners John Mazza and Ed Gillespie.
“It upsets me the commission would vote not to hear something the majority had not heard,” she concluded.
Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich was absent, and Councilmember Jefferson Wagner had no comment on the meeting.
The comments were prompted by Realtor Paul Grisanti who said he was “flabbergasted” by what happened at the commission meeting last week.
“I’ve never heard of a planning commission meeting where everybody is there and the planning commission removes it from the agenda. What happened there?” he asked.

Judge Issues Injunction Nixing Permit for Rambla Fix

• City Forges Ahead and Approves Focused EIR for Geotechnical Study

BY BILL KOENEKER


A Los Angeles Superior Court judge disagreed with Malibu city officials this week about the urgency of issuing an emergency coastal development permit for construction of an evacuation route along the old Rambla Pacifico Road alignment and issued an injunction halting any work.
A group calling itself the Vista Hidalgo Neighborhood Association had filed the lawsuit, successfully obtained a temporary restraining order several weeks ago and convinced the judge that there is no emergency.
The legal tangle focuses on what constitutes an emergency, and whether it has to be something unexpected.
City Attorney Christi Hogin said the city cited the drought, the fire season in progress, the thousands of fires that had burned in the state recently and increasingly limited access in the upper canyon because of landslides.
“The judge said he did not think that qualified as unexpected,” said Hogin, explaining why she believes the judge ruled against the municipality.
The VHNA, which comprises several homeowners on Rambla Orienta that are in the city, apparently fears that work on the slide-prone area may damage their homes.
The Rambla Pacifico Road Association, most of whose members are outside the city but include a number of politically active residents, was granted the emergency permit, and contend they had tried to convince the other homeowners that the road work would create improvements to the stability of their neighborhood.
The upper canyon residents say they fear that without the emergency access, there will be another major disaster not only for them but also for homes in La Costa where a shower of uphill wildfire embers could destroy homes as in the 1993 inferno.
At this point, the city attorney said the legal issues are probably moot since the permit was for 90 days and any trial date was most likely six months away.
The city has never issued a special permit before. The permit issued by the city would have allowed a graded access road for emergency evacuations only and could not be used on a daily basis.
There have been failures on Hume Road and Saddle Peak Road that have reduced traffic to one lane. The city contends that would leave a situation where fire trucks and evacuees would be attempting to share a one-lane road.
While council members did not discuss the legal matter at this week’s city council meeting, they did approve a contract for the preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report because of concerns about geotechnical issues. The contract was awarded to Rincon Consultants, Inc.
With Councilmember Sharon Barovsky dissenting, the council agreed to take off the agenda another measure to consider whether to approve deferral of fees, including but not limited to plan check, inspection and consulting fees, related to the Rambla Pacifico Road reconstruction until such time as the road is approved for construction.
The majority agreed to have the city manager discuss and negotiate with the road association about the matter.
The council was reminded by local activist and council watcher Ryan Embree that the question of deferral of fees, if contingent upon approval, needs to be corrected and a time limit should be placed on any arrangement that is made.

Malibu City Council Members May Act to Formalize Dissociation from Mayor’s Paparazzi ‘Project’

• Agenda Item Is Considered that ‘Undoes What Wasn’t Done’

BY ANNE SOBLE


Prompted by a public comment by a local real estate agent who said his clients were calling and “asking what the hell is going on with [all the media coverage] of the paparazzi ordinance,” several Malibu City Council members reiterated their contention that none of the statements that have been made by Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich on the controversial issue has official sanction.
Those comments notwithstanding, Mayor pro tem Andy Stern, who was chairing Monday night’s meeting in Conley Ulich’s absence, said he is considering whether to take action to “put an item on the agenda of the council’s next meeting—when the mayor will be present—to eliminate whatever it is we did.”
Appearing stymied by the public confusion that ensued during the media blitz over the mayor’s views on the issue of paparazzi regulation, Stern said, “ I don’t know what to do [but] I want out of something that doesn’t exist.”
Stern’s comment about the “something that doesn’t exist” is a reference to what Conley Ulich intermittently calls her “task force of one” or her “one-person committee” that is unofficially exploring the feasibility of drafting an ordinance to curtail what she thinks is “reckless and dangerous” paparazzi behavior in Malibu.
Stern said, “If there’s a task force to eliminate, I’ll put it on the agenda to eliminate it.”
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky agreed, saying, “We are looking very silly out there...I wish people would think before they talk [but, in any case,] these are not the city’s views.”
That there is a perceptual problem regarding the officialness of what the mayor is doing has been evident in international media reports that have the city “contracted” with Pepperdine Law School Dean Ken Starr, controversial in his own right and a narrow constructionist of free speech rights, to draft anti-paparazzi legislation.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California has gone on record, stating that any new and unnecessary paparazzi constraints will not pass legal muster because of the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The council members’ comments may reflect the kind of complications that can result from the dissonance that occurs when someone with the title of mayor is using that title when participating in an activity that is supposedly being undertaken as an individual citizen—the individual’s words and actions can have the appearance of official imprimatur.
The city council is now on summer hiatus. It will hold its next meeting on Monday, Sept. 8.

Uncertainty Appears to Mark Start of School Board Race

• Barring Last-Minute Filings—May Be First Time in 20 Years There Is No Malibu Candidate

BY SUZANNE GULDIMANN


Six candidates, three of them incumbents, and none of them a Malibu resident, have pulled papers to run for three full-term seats and one partial (two-year) term on the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board in the November election.
Incumbents Jose Escarce and Maria Leon-Vazquez are both seeking their third four-year term. Ralph Mechur, who was appointed to fill a vacated seat, is running to finish out that seat’s two-year term. Running against the three incumbents are Judith Meister, Chris Bley and Ben Allen.
As of Friday’s deadline, Kathy Wisnicki, the only Malibu resident on the seven-member board, did not pull papers to run for a second term. Because of this, the deadline for applicants has been extended until Wednesday, Aug. 13, after the Malibu Surfside News goes to press.
The powerful tenants’ rights organization Santa Monicans for Renters Rights recently endorsed incumbents Mechur and Leon-Vazquez, together with newcomer Ben Allen. They did not endorse the third incumbent, Escarce, who failed to get the required 55 percent by one vote.
Then, in a surprise turnaround, the 13-member SMRR steering committee, in a closed-door meeting on Saturday, made the unusual decision to overruled the membership and vote to endorse Escarce. There were reportedly no dissenting votes at the closed-door meeting, although several committee members opted to abstain.
Escarce, despite being backed by both the teachers union and SMRR leader Denny Zane, met stiff opposition from a group of parents of special education students who are concerned about the special education controversy that led to a review of the district’s program earlier this year, and culminated in the resignation of Assistant Superintendent Tim Walker amid a firestorm of controversy.
Judith Meister, a PTA leader, also failed to secure a SMRR endorsement. Instead, Allen, a Samohi alumnus and recent law school graduate received the third SMRR endorsement.
Meister, who has served on the district PTA council executive board since 2003 is a past president of both the Santa Monica High School and John Adams Middle School PTSA, and has worked for the City of Santa Monica for the past eight years in managerial positions ranging from beach and pier manager to asset manager. Meister has an MBA in management from UCLA and an MLS from the University of Rhode Island.
Meister told The News that she sees “a need for more open communication on the board.” She said that she plans to spend time in Malibu learning local concerns.
“I want to participate,” Meister said. “This board will have important decisions. We need to restore trust.”
Ben Allen is a Santa Monica native who graduated from Samohi. He has an MA in Latin American studies from Cambridge University and was in the 2008 law school graduating class at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall, where he served last year as UC Student Regent. He has worked as a communications director for Congressmember Jose Serrano (Dem-NY), and as Latin American program assistant with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
Chris Bley also grew up in Santa Monica and is a Samohi alumnus. Bley has a BA is history from the University of Colorado and currently teaches history and government in the neighboring community of Brentwood. An active participant in the Democratic party, he says that he has spent 12 years participating in campaign work. Bley has also served in the Peace Corps. He said in an interview with The News that he ‘jumped into the race” because of Special Education. “I was upset about how the IEPs (individual education plans) were settled,” he said. I want to keep Special Education in the spotlight.”
Incumbent Jose Escarce, who is seeking a third term on the school board, is a senior natural scientist at RAND, where he conducts research on health policy, including health economics, managed care, physician behavior, racial and ethnic disparities in medical care, and technological change in medicine. He also teaches at UCLA, and holds both a medical degree and a Ph.D.
Maria Leon-Vazquez, who is also seeking a third term on the school board, has been active as a community advocate in Santa Monica for 30 years. She has served as a board member for the Community Corporation, which is a provider of affordable housing in Santa Monica. She has also served on the board of Westside Legal Services, and has chaired the Santa Monica Commission on the Status of Women.
Ralph Mechur, an architect, was appointed mid-term to fill a vacancy on the board, He is running to complete the remaining two years of that term. According to Merchur’s web site, his architectural firm, established in 1992, focuses on affordable housing and social service projects.
Mechur has served for eight years on the Santa Monica Planning Commission, where he addressed the Third Street Promenade Specific Plan and the Santa Monica Pier Expansion Plan.
He has also been a member of the SMMUSD Financial Oversight Committee, and the president of the district’s Education Foundation, a nonprofit that raises funds for student programs.
With the extended deadline, additional candidates are anticipated to also throw their hats into the ring in what is expected by most school district observers to become a close and hotly debated election race.

• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Malibu Water Woes

BY ANNE SOBLE


With all the water in the Pacific Ocean along Malibu’s shoreline, one might not think that lack of water is much of a concern, but it may be one of the most important issues facing the community today. Right now, the official consensus is that Malibu has a little over a two-day supply of water if there is a major line break, or other interruption in flow from Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29.
Two days of water storage should be insufficient solace when one is dealing with a water line system that is five decades old in parts and subject to the geologic instability that is rife along the coastline. The Malibu City Council should make it a top priority to address ways to help improve the local water supply as much and as quickly as possible.
Money is in short supply at every level of government and in every facet of public operations, but money spent to assure adequate water availability for local use and firefighting can prevent untold costs if it means sufficient water to meet a crisis.
If land is available for additional water storage tanks in the Point Dume and Serra Retreat areas, this should be explored sooner rather than later. Every step that can take the community to a doubling, if not more, of its water capacity, should be at the top of a public needs assessment list.
Local residents who have provided constant reminders of the vulnerability of the water line in the Las Tunas area, at the so-called Pacific Coast Highway “bump,” should be lauded for preventing governmental authorities from the ostrichitis that prevails when competing priorities clamor for attention.
The bottom line is the city is going to have to get in step with other communities that are clamping down hard on excessive water users. County Waterworks has to be prodded to increase penalties on the water gluttons who refuse to acknowledge the Southland’s desert roots and pour thousands and thousands of gallons of this limited resource into alien lawns and greenery that further constrain an already constrained water supply.
As for the city’s ostensible attitude of never having met a development it didn’t like, water limitations need to be recognized. If there is inadequate water and the developer doesn’t have a special connection to Mother Nature and an assurance of regular rainfall, perhaps the project should be put on hold. Instead of cultivating an international reputation for trying to mess with the First Amendment, Malibu should pay attention to its resource needs.

Fluoride in Water Supply Is Not a Dead Issue for Some

• Litigation over ‘Forced Medication with Unapproved Drug’

BY BILL KOENEKER


Several months ago, news stories and letters to the editor focused on the announcement that fluoride would be added to the water provided to Waterworks District 29 which serves Malibu.
The fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies and for most folks the issue was ended with resignation.
Not so for some, who are continuing to challenge not only the efficacy of fluoride in the water supplies, but the political process of how it got into the local water supply.
Activist Bob Singer, who has been involved in many local actions, is trying to keep the case for opposition to fluoridation alive, including raising money for the Safe Drinking Water Legal Fund, an undertaking of the San Diego-based Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, which plans to litigate what it calls “a violation of constitutional rights to be free of bodily intrusions by forced medication with an unapproved drug.”
Singer and others contend the issue of exposing an entire populace to the treated water has been settled in favor of anti-fluoride activists.
The local activist cites from his half-inch-thick whitepaper research to show that fluoridation has no effect on reducing tooth decay, that the chemical is a toxic substance and is a health hazard to vulnerable members of the population.
“If you are a customer of the Department of Water and Power or any Metropolitan Water District member agency [Waterworks District 29] you should demand that your district send a letter telling the MWD to remove hydrofluosilicic acid and its contaminants from the water,” he said.
Singer seems clear about the research which makes a distinction. “It is totally accurate to state that ingested fluoride provides no significant reduction in tooth decay. However, it is not accurate to say that fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, as topically it can have an impact,” he added.
The political activist insists the law AB733 does not even mandate the chemical because a water district with 10,000 connections was required to fluoridate, if and only if funding was made available by third party funders, not ratepayers.
“In this case, you can verify with the DWP if any funds were ever granted to cover the operations and maintenance or any significant amount of the capital improvement costs. Rate payers paid and continue to pay to have the water poisoned with a hazardous waste,” he added.
Singer is quick to point out that most water filters on the market do not remove fluoride unless they are specifically manufactured to do so. The expensive reverse osmosis water filters will remove up to 90 percent, according to Singer, but are not suitable if you want to avoid bathing in the fluoridated water.
“Instead, why not help the plaintiffs who are now prepared to file a constitutional claim in federal court to protect our rights under the 9th and 14th amendments,” Singer urges.
For more info, log on to Keepers-of-the-Well.org or call 800-728-3833.

Carbon Beach Homeowner Wants to Transfer View Corridor Impacts

• Seeks to Demolish House on Las Tunas Beach to Accomplish Goal

By Bill Koeneker


A highly controversial proposal by the cofounder of the Hard Rock Cafe empire, Peter Morton, the owner of a mansion on Carbon Beach, to create a view corridor by demolishing another house on Las Tunas Beach has some beachfront neighbors up in arms.
The Malibu Planning Commission has been asked to weigh in on the matter at its meeting next week.
Morton is seeking a demolition permit for a single-family house located at 19862 Pacific Coast Highway to create the offsite view corridor.
Several months ago, Morton, through his permit expediters, the law firm of Latham and Watkins, had originally sought the same permit for a beachfront home on La Costa Beach that raised the ire of neighbors there who immediately hired attorneys and began fighting the request.
Morton, at the time, withdrew his application and the matter was seemingly dropped.
However, the application has quietly resurfaced with the new Las Tunas Beach location with a new set of neighbors expressing their concerns about such an arrangement.
Currently, the city’s Local Coastal Program does not allow for off-site view corridors, consequently the request would require approval by the California Coastal Commission, as well as the city council, for a LCP amendment.
Morton’s attempt to build a beachfront mansion has a long history, even after the California Coastal Commission issued a permit in 2001.
The mansion kept getting bigger and, by 2004, more numerous special conditions were imposed, including the creation of an on-site public view corridor equal to 20 percent of the width of the property frontage along PCH.
The view corridor requirements imposed by the commission never were acted upon and privacy walls and landscaping exceeded city and commission regulations.
In 2007, the applicant purchased the La Costa property and subsequently dropped plans for that after strenuous objections by neighbors.
Recently, Morton purchased the Las Tunas property and once again proceeded with attempting to obtain an after-the-fact permit for the landscaping and walls and a request for an LCP amendment to permit off-site view corridors instead of the required on-site view corridors.
Alan Block, who represents one of the property owners originally objecting to the La Costa Beach proposal, said Morton has sweetened the pot for municipal officials.
“The applicant is now further proposing to contribute $1 million to the Legacy Park project if the amendments are approved,” he wrote in a letter to city officials objecting to Morton’s latest proposal.
Susan Shaw Noble, who is handling the donations for Legacy Park, said she did not know of any negotiations and was not aware of any promises by Morton to contribute more money to the city’s park fund.
She acknowledged Morton had contributed $25,000 some time ago for acquisition of the park property.
Block also wrote in his 14-page letter that there is no justification for the proposed amendments.
“Further, the approval of the requested amendments would set an extremely negative precedent, which would allow wealthy individuals to transfer the burdens of their proposed developments to off-site neighborhoods regardless of the on-site negative consequences of the same wreaking havoc on public views,” he concluded.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Controversy Dogs Rambla Pacifico Fix

• City Awaits Court Decision and Says EIR Is Now Needed

BY BILL KOENEKER


It may be still a cliffhanger how a judge will rule in the City of Malibu v. Vista Hidalgo Neighborhood Association on whether to halt an emergency permit for construction of an evacuation route along the old Rambla Pacifico Road alignment next Monday morning, but the municipality will proceed full speed ahead on Monday night when the city council is poised to approve a contract for an Environmental Impact Report.
Last month, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order against the city until Aug. 11 when the court will hear arguments about whether municipal officials were justified when they issued an emergency coastal development permit for the road.
The controversy over the road spilled over from the courtroom last week to the council chambers when proponents and opponents showed up to testify on behalf of their positions.
The Hidalgo HOA argues that there is no emergency and even if there was an emergency, the road that is contemplated is not geologically stable.
City planners apparently acknowledge more study is needed and now want what is called a Focused Environmental Impact Report done.
“An initial study and mitigated Negative Declaration were previously prepared for the project, however, because of substantial concerns about geotechnical issues, the city has decided to prepare a Focused EIR. As such the city obtained the services of Rincon Consultants, Inc.,” a planning staff report states.
The proposed consultant’s budget of $36,768, plus $11,030 for city management and administration, has been reviewed and is considered acceptable to the Lower Rambla Pacifico Road Owners Association, the group that is seeking the repair of the road and has to reimburse the city for the costs. Rincon is also expected to be awarded a contract to become the city’s biological consultant.
Plans, as articulated by the consultant, call for the reconstruction and realignment of Rambla Pacifico, which was destroyed by a landslide in 1984. The proposed 1800 linear foot road segment will re-establish linkage between the northern and southern sections of Rambla Pacifico. The road will be private and gated with the LRPROA owning the street and the rights of easement. The public street easement held by the city on the destroyed road will be vacated prior to the finalization of the new road. Locked boxes will provide access when needed by emergency personnel.
Rincon has already issued their initial assessment in a memo to municipal officials.
“Extensive geological investigations have been performed at the site, and it is acknowledged that the road will not meet a safety factor of 1.5. Therefore, there is some risk that construction and operation of the road may result in further movement of the landslide,” the missive from Rincon to the city states.
Rincon indicated they are not proposing formal peer review of the geotechnical analyses already reviewed by the city geologist and prepared for the project. However, those views have been challenged by other experts in the ongoing court case.
“Rather, the EIR analysis will rely primarily on the findings of the geotechnical analyses and bring forward the discussion of landslide instability and potential risks into a format readily understandable by the lay public,” the Rincon geologist will confirm site conditions through a general field reconnaissance to aid in interpreting the existing reports,” the memo goes on to state.
The council is also scheduled to explore whether the city could defer fees including plan check, inspection and consulting fees related to the project.
The fees would be paid by the applicants once the construction of the road is approved, according to a city staff report.
Councilmember Sharon Barovsky is requesting the council consider deferring the fees.

Council Supports State Fees on Paper and Plastic Bags

• Bill Now in the Legislature Seeks to Impose a 25-Cent First-Use Tab on Both

BY BILL KOENEKER


The Malibu City Council recently agreed to support a proposed Assembly measure that would establish a statewide 25-cent fee on single-use plastic and paper bags.
Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch) is sponsoring AB 2058, which is described as a measure that will deter usage of the bags by large grocery stores and pharmacies by charging a statewide fee.
The city’s environmental programs coordinator Jennifer Voccola, in her staff report wrote, “This bill will help enhance the state’s recreational and tourism economy by protecting beneficial uses of resources, improve the quality of life for residents, free valuable landfill space and restore our environment to a cleaner and healthier state.”
However, opponents of the bill, who have spent thousands of dollars on advertising in opposition to the measure, contend the proposal would cost the average California family “over $400 per year.”
A proponent of the bill countered that if that same family began bringing a reusable bag to the market, it would not cost them anything. “That is the whole point of the bill,” he said.
The bill passed the Assembly and was sent in May to the Senate for committee assignment.
AB 2058 would also allow local jurisdictions greater flexibility in establishing local bag fees and would repeal the preemption clause on locally imposed fees for single use plastic bags, according to Voccola.
The city council recently banned plastic bags and the law went into effect with the provision that businesses would have several months before they needed to comply with the law.

September Prelim Set for Three Corral Fire Suspects

• Judge Describes Actions of Los Angeles Trio as ‘Callous’ and ‘Careless’

BY HANS LAETZ


The three men accused of playing with fire during last Thanksgiving weekend’s monstrous Santa Ana winds—and torching 55 Malibu houses as a result—will hear the details of the prosecution’s case at a preliminary hearing on Sept. 26.
“With three defense attorneys, I would expect we are going to need half a day,” said prosecutor Ann Ambrose, in court on Tuesday.
During a brief court appearance before Judge Leslie Dunn in the Van Nuys Superior Courthouse Tuesday, the three Los Angeles men agreed to the date.
Brian Alan Anderson, accused of being the leader of the trio, remains free on a $230,000 bail. William Thomas Coppock is out on a $100,000 bond, and Brian David Franks is free on his promise last winter to appear in court, after a judge found him to be with no criminal record and a small flight risk.
Criminal defendants usually learn the extent of the charges against them at the preliminary hearing, but an earlier courtroom decision by the judge holding a bail hearing revealed many of the acts that occurred the night of November 23-24 that resulted in the worst fire loss in Malibu in 13 years.
That fire took out 55 homes as it roared down Corral, Solstice and Escondido canyons, causing as much as $600 million in insurance claims. Homeowners are in the process of suing the State Parks Department and other public agencies for allegedly allowing the arsonists free reign in a dangerous area, after numerous requests had been made to close the road at night and better patrol the area.
At that bail hearing last January, Judge Michael Kellogg described the L.A. men’s actions as “callous” and “careless.” Kellogg also summarized the alleged crimes charged to the three men as he set the bail amounts.
The state reportedly has evidence that Anderson ordered his drunken friends to kick burning logs out of a cave overlooking the San Fernando Valley, at the north dead end of Corral Canyon Road, as near-hurricane force, 90-degree hot winds blew the embers into the dark canyon below.
“There is nothing to show me that there wasn’t this callousness,” Kellogg said at the bail hearing, “and a high level of carelessness. And all the sorries in the world don’t change that.”
Anderson, Coppock and Franks had allegedly stolen between three to four packages of precut firewood from the Ralph’s Market at Malibu Colony. Coppock also allegedly purchased lighter fluid, and someone bought a case of either 18 or 30 cans of beer and hard liquor.
Following ATM records, sheriff’s arson investigators tracked down the three alleged arsonists, who each stand charged with three felonies: recklessly causing a fire with great bodily injury, recklessly causing fire to an inhabited structure, and arson during a state of emergency. Each count carries a sentence of between two-to-four years.
Also accused in the case are Dean Allan Lavorante and Eric Matthew Ullman, two Culver City men who had started a small bonfire at the cave that the three other men took over, and it subsequently became a large fire that went out of control.
Lavorante and Ullman are charged with the same crimes, but are being tried separately because the evidence against them is different than that for the three L.A. defendants. The pair are free on bail and will face another court date later this month.

ACLU Affirms that It Will Not Take Part in Malibu Paparazzi Project

• Says Mayor’s Unofficial Effort to Draft Legal Curbs ‘Cannot Succeed’

BY ANNE SOBLE


The Southern California affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union affirmed on Tuesday the position that was stated last week in the Malibu Surfside News that the ACLU is not and will not be a participant in Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich’s solo unofficial task force to try to curb paparazzi activity in Malibu.
In a letter printed in entirety on page four, Peter Eliasberg, the SoCal ACLU’s First Amendment specialist says, “While we appreciate Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich’s effort to reach out to the ACLU by asking us to participate in her task force meeting in September, we believe it is an effort that cannot succeed, and therefore we are respectfully declining the invitation.”
Eliasberg says, “The ACLU does not condone reckless or aggressive behavior on the part of paparazzi, and recognizes that the First Amendment is not a shield that allows photographers or other journalists to violate laws that protect public safety. However, a task force to draft a new law to curb paparazzi is unnecessary because generally applicable local and state laws—such as laws that forbid trespass, assault, reckless driving and blocking the sidewalk—already exist to address most of the abuses people cite when they demand new laws to deal with the paparazzi.”
He adds, “These laws are consistent with the First Amendment, and enforcing them does not require the passage of new laws.”
The ACLU counsel notes that “previous efforts to draft new laws to address paparazzi – including efforts involving noted legal scholars—have uniformly resulted in legislation that, if adopted, would have violated the First Amendment in numerous ways.”
Eliasberg says, “The most common problem is that these laws attempt to single out photographers, or photographers who sell their pictures. It is a major red flag to subject persons taking pictures or attempting to make a living by taking pictures—activities that are presumptively protected by the First Amendment—to special burdens.”
He concludes, “It should not matter in the eyes of the law whether the person blocking a celebrity’s entrance or exit to a restaurant, for example, is an overzealous fan or a paid photographer.”
Gordon Smith, the communications director for the local ACLU, contacted The News this week to confirm the accuracy of last week’s article, as well as the contents of an email from the newspaper’s publisher to Conley Ulich that countered her contention that anyone who wants to be apprised of her actions is a participant in those efforts.

Unofficial Paparazzi ‘Project’ Holds Its First Public Meeting

• Status of Effort Is Even Ambiguous to Those Taking Part

BY ANNE SOBLE


Last Friday, Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich convened the first public meeting of the seven sessions held so far of what she variously called her task force of one or her one-person committee to address what she describes as the “unbearable situation” related to paparazzi activity in Malibu.
Sgt. Josh Thai and Deputy Edwin Tamayo represented the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and explained the laws on the books related to the paparazzi and the difficulty of monitoring their activities at all times, in addition to overseeing all of the other law enforcement issues in the community.
Thai said that it’s important for local residents to play a part in preventing paparazzi abuses by serving as the sheriff’s department’s “eyes and ears” and “letting us know when there are incidents that demand a response.”
The mayor, however, kept insisting that the Beverly Hills Police Department had “other tools” at its disposal and had “no paparazzi problem.”
She told the deputies that the LASD should look to BHPD’s operations for direction, even though the deputies expressed surprise at there being any other legal options. Thai assured the mayor that if the city passes new laws that are upheld, the sheriff’s department will enforce them.
In what appeared to be a departure from the official Malibu City Council stance, Conley Ulich told the small gathering, “We are trying to get a sheriff’s sub-station out here. We are out here in Timbuktu...in the wild. I think the people out here don’t feel safe. They need somewhere close to go.”
The mayor also suggested consideration of putting up satellite-controlled cameras in commercial centers, or other public zones, to record the paparazzi’s activities. She said, “People in the community would put up money for this, so it would not cost the city.” The areas that are monitored, the mayor said, would be “safe zones” that people could drive to if they think they are threatened by the paparazzi.
Taking an active part in the meeting was attorney Michael Schwimer, who represents Skylar Peak, the Riviera II Property Owners Association beach marshal who says he was injured while trying to prevent paparazzi from harassing beachgoers and trespassing on the group’s private property on June 21. A brawl ensued that drew international media attention.
Schwimer told the group that met last week, he refers to them as “volunteers,” that the paparazzi could come under the auspices of existing anti-gang laws and possibly even the Rico Act that pertains to organized crime.
The 2007 law school graduate and longtime local resident and surfer told the Malibu Surfside News after the meeting that the “paparazzi can be viewed as known lawbreakers that associate together.” He said, “They purposely break laws pursuing and antagonizing subjects with complete disregard for public safety.’ Schwimer concludes, “There’s no question that anti-gang laws would apply to the paparazzi.”
Short of being able to utilize criminal law constraints, Schwimer suggested that the project participants should look at licensing, bonding, insurance requirements and other ways “to provide a chain of liability.” He said his preferred target for regulation is not the individuals with cameras, but the media outlets that purchase their wares.
Although he also agrees that there are already useful laws on the books to address many of his concerns, “there is not enough of a police presence to enforce everything.” He wants to see more readily applicable economic disincentives put into place.
Schwimer said he does not believe the paparazzi are entitled to the same First Amendment rights as what he calls “normal journalists” and thinks the First Amendment allows “reasonable restrictions of time, place and manner on those in the commercial arena.”
Also taking part in the two-hour meeting were two members of the Pepperdine Law School faculty, Prof. Barry McDonald and Associate Dean Shelley Ross Saxer, who indicated that they have been engaged in gathering research material related to paparazzi issues for Conley Ulich that will be shared with the Los Angeles City efforts on this, as well as be made available to the public.
Saxer expressed surprise that the session last Friday was not an official city meeting, another reflection of the confusion concerning the exact status of Conley Ulich’s project. Similar confusion was evident at Thursday’s meeting in Los Angeles where all of the other officials were there as designated representatives of their cities.
A consensus of Friday’s group was that special emphasis should be placed on protecting “children at local schools from the paparazzi.” Conley Ulich cites instances of alleged harassment of offspring of celebrities and singled out the activity at the Point Dume Marine Science School campus. She also disclosed locations where some of the celebrities live on Point Dume and said they need closer attention.
The mayor appeared to espouse enactment of strict regulation of photography on local campuses that could have far reaching implications, including the prevention of the taking of photos at public events by established local media.
Schwimer later voiced the contention that if all journalists are faced with restrictions, they will be less likely to espouse paparazzi rights.
Conley Ulich has announced she will host a public meeting on the paparazzi issue on Monday, Sept. 29, from 4 to 5 p.m. at City Hall. She said, “All the moms in Malibu are going to show up to complain about the paparazzi.” Noting that “one or two mothers can change the world,” Conley Ulich said the mothers are her “secret weapon.” She said mothers are going to get involved in this because they “can feel when people want to do harm, even if they can’t put their finger on it.”

Non-Legislative Regional Task Force Also Takes Aim at Paparazzi

• City Reps Seek Restrictive Laws

BY ANNE SOBLE


Last Thursday’s meeting of a regional task force convened by Los Angeles City Councilmember Dennis Zine “is not a legislative body,” he declared, as representatives—all there officially but Malibu Mayor Pamela Conley Ulich—from L.A., Malibu, Calabasas, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood explored issues related to “unsafe” activities of the paparazzi.
Views ran the gamut from Zine’s “they act like a pack of wolves, stalking their prey” to West Hollywood Councilmember John Duran’s reflection that “one person’s garbage tabloid story is another person’s major news story.”
Similarly, perspectives were affected by recognition that in Beverly Hills, “star home tours are big business,” and West Hollywood’s residents believe that the creative processes that make Southern California the entertainment center that it is require the “artistic freedom” provided by unfettered First Amendment rights.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca was present. He said he was there to “listen.” LAPD Police Chief William Bratton sent a report, but indicated that he did not attend because he thought the “meeting was a waste of time.”
Bratton said celebrities are not entitled to any protections that are not available to the public at large, and the laws now on the books adequately cover the concerns expressed by the elected officials.
Serving as ostensible poster boys for the need to enact stringent laws to redress celebrity abuses were rock musician John Mayer, who said this must be important because “you got a rock star out of bed at 8 a.m.,” and actors Milo Ventimiglia and Eric Roberts.
The trio uniformly called for legal constraints to prevent paparazzi from endangering lives and “causing celebrities to name their children after fruit.” They all agreed that they love their fame, but they want it on their terms.
They and representatives from the Screen Actors Guild put strong emphasis on the need for credentialing, licensing and forms of legal redress in case of the need to seek damages.
They said that while acknowledging what are described as serious First Amendment concerns that are critical to the entertainment industry.
Mayer actually may have been on target when he said, “We live in a brand new [technological] world, the etiquette is not outlined yet. Right now the term paparazzi is as loose as the term porn star.”
Even as Mayer said, “It’s not about the photographer, it’s about the behavior,” he asked whether paparazzi vehicles could be required have a “P” on their license plates.
Conley Ulich’s contribution to the suggestion box was a “separate 9-1-1 number for celebrities.” They would get identification numbers known only to law enforcement agencies.
Nick Stern, a British celebrity photographer, told the panel that “there’s a lot of collusion between celebrities, their agencies and the publications” that buy celebrity photos.
Stern said these celeb-oriented media want the paparazzi to be independent contractors “so there’s no accountability,” and said he thought that licensing would end that.
One city rep asked whether the Internal Revenue Service might get involved because large cash transactions and undeclared income may be involved. The federal immigration agency was also mentioned, as panelists indicated they think many of the paparazzi are foreign nationals in the United States on expired tourist visas.
The consensus was that test laws should be proposed that attempt to stretch the First Amendment to address the privacy and public safety issues that drive the participants’ concerns.
At one point in the meeting, Zine said “Malibu has contracted with Ken Starr to draft a law.” Conley Ulich tried to explain that she is a task force of one, but the L.A. council member continued to refer to all the participants as representatives of their cities.
Legal scholars and journalism interest groups are starting to weigh in on all of the extremely complex issues that are involved, and who represents whom is going to take on increased importance.

Freelance Reporter Says Lawsuit Not Needed Now

• Local Resident Had Threatened Litigation over Closed Meetings and Unavailable Documents

BY ANNE SOBLE


In an email to members of the Malibu City Council on Monday, local newspaper freelancer Hans Laetz said that the opening of last week’s meeting on the paparazzi to the public and the agreement to make research documents public satisfy the concerns he recently raised about municipal Brown Act violations.
Laetz wrote, “Continuous openness is mandatory as the city evaluates a possible paparazzi ordinance, and had that policy been in effect from April 30 forward it would have spared all of us much time and hassle. The people’s business can only be conducted in public, and contrary to the city attorney’s opinion, the Brown Act specifically covers any committee that the city council OKs, even a committee of one, and even if the original vote is less formal than usual.”
On whether he intends to litigate on the issues he raised, Laetz wrote, “The mayor's welcome policy change certainly removes the need for a lawsuit...In good faith, no lawsuit can be filed so long as the city is holding public sessions.”
Laetz said the decision not to litigate at this time does not mean he is not going to continue to personally monitor the mayor’s solo efforts to possibly draft legislative restrictions on paparazzi activities in Malibu.
He said that because the latest official meeting of what he has dubbed the “MaliPapCom” was open to the public, “We learn that the city is researching how freelance reporters and photographers can be forced to buy insurance, bonds, or business licenses, and pay special taxes in Malibu.”
Laetz expressed concern that “freelance journalists would be prohibited from covering items of public interest at or near schools, and that the city would start defining what is “acceptable journalism” to weed out paparazzi from those of us covering legitimate news.”
Laetz said, “None of that is constitutional, advisable or needed,” adding that “the real problem is that the few deputies patrolling Malibu cannot be everywhere, and the existing laws we have are not being enforced.”
Laetz said, “Any local effort to protect basic constitutional rights must include appropriate court action should secret meetings resume, documents for a public committee be withheld, or unconstitutional ordinances—that even the local police say are ridiculous and unenforceable— get passed by our city council.”

Ruling Due on Communications for Malibu’s County Line Fire Station

• Improved Equipment Is Expected to Benefit the Coast

BY ANNE SOBLE


A decision by Ventura County Planning Director Kimberly Rodriguez is expected within 40 days after a hearing last Thursday on a radio communications setup for an as yet unopened new Fire Station 56 at west Malibu’s flank in the sliver of the 90265 zip code that is located under her jurisdiction.
Although the area that includes Yerba Buena and Deer Creek roads has little or no official interaction with the rest of Malibu, which is located in Los Angeles County, boundary lines blur when wildfire rages through heavily chaparraled areas of ranches and rural compounds.
The opening of Ventura County Fire Station 56 on Pacific Coast Highway is viewed as good news by many Los Angeles County Malibuites who remember wildfires that headed south and southeast from Ventura County to threaten homes as far west as Encinal and Decker canyons, such as the Greenmeadow Fire in 1993. Ventura County firefighters were on the front lines, assisting their Los Angeles counterparts to prevent that fire from meeting with the Topanga Fire on Malibu’s eastern flank.
Holding up the opening of the new station is a dispute over views of the communications setup at the location.
Faced with threats to stall the station and preclude it from having clear communications along the coast, the Ventura County Fire Department enlisted the aid of Motorola to conduct a study that would produce recommendations of minimum height and size to assure full range. The report recommends a 55-foot tower with a 20-foot whip and four eight-foot whips at the sides.
Motorola confirms the fire department contentions that equipment is necessary to improve coverage of the coast in areas where radio signals regularly drop out and to boost the relay from key equipment at Point Mugu.
Abbe Berns, the assistant director of fire services for the VCFD has presented the VCFD contention “that the proposed design is the best for the site and maximizes ability to alert, talk in and talk out and provides radio redundancy, which can be critical in an emergency, while being protective of the public safety channels.”
Kristin Roodson, the county planner on the project, told the Malibu Surfside News, “Both sides spoke at last week’s hearing and because it was a planning director level hearing, it is solely up to Rodriguez to make the decision that will determine the fire station’s opening.”

• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Celebrityitis: Malibu and the First Amendment

BY ANNE SOBLE


After watching and listening to two meetings on the need to protect celebrities—and oh yes, possibly all of the rest of us—from the perils of what was variously described as “a pack of wolves stalking their prey” and “the wild West,” it’s hard to escape the conclusion that even city officials are not immune to the call of the cult of celebrity.
Academic tomes are flourishing that address the sociological and psychological implications of popular preoccupation with those who are famous, in large part, for being famous. Certainly, some of the famous have talent, but others are just good at attracting attention. Some studies contend that celebrity worship is a key driving force in society.
That there is a symbiotic relationship between those who seek publicity and those who can provide it is self evident and also in need of clarification. It’s well known that some publicists call the paparazzi when their clients will be out and about. And personnel at well-known hot spots have a cottage industry providing the paps with tips for cash. And shouldn’t anyone going to a hot spot know what to expect?
A panel of Los Angeles area municipal officials who have already dispatched all of their cities’ more serious issues, is looking at how to protect those whose careers hinge on high visibility from being visible when they don’t want to be. They invited three entertainers to air their views and treated them with a deference usually reserved for heads of state.
When an actor, who acknowledged that he was sued for a $100,000 settlement for “swatting at” a paparazzi, said at the hearing, “[Celebrities] name their kids after food just to have permissible food they are allowed to love in their lives,” the city officials didn’t ask what that had to do with paparazzi, they nodded solemnly and acted as if it was one of the most profound things they’d ever heard.
Then there was the rock musician who lamented his fate as a paparazzi object, in large part because he’s connected to the Jennifer who was connected to the “Bra” in Brangelina. For the most part, the paparazzi aren’t driven to photograph talent, they are sniffing out what the Victorians called scandal. They primarily deal in salaciousness, and the American media consumer is a heavy-duty user of the legal substance.
Malibu’s mayor, in her unofficial capacity at the L.A. panel meeting, said the celebs “are moving out of Malibu” because of the paparazzi, in a tone suitable for the city just having been ravaged by a 7.9 magnitude earthquake. No one told that to Garth Brooks and Tricia Yearwood, Mel Gibson or Mark Harmon when they bought additional new digs recently. And of course, David Geffen and Larry Ellison don’t begin to know what they’re doing, buying up local properties. Ditto everyone else who wants to live here.
No doubt all of the Malibu celebrities will reconsider their mass exodus if the mayor’s suggestion that celebs get their own 9-1-1 line to report paparazzi incidents is implemented. After all, celebrities shouldn’t have to compete with bank robberies or murder attempts if they are in danger of being photographed when they don’t want to be.
The state doesn’t have a budget yet. California cities are coping with serious fiscal issues. But if there’s a way to demonstrate to celebrities that they deserve more special treatment than the rest of their constituents, some city officials are ready to tackle the job. At present, there doesn’t seem to be a cure for this kind of celebrityitis other than a good dose of political and legal reality.

Malibu Half of ’60s Duo Peter & Gordon Relishes Their Return to the Stage

• But Award-Winning Music Producer and Manager Peter Asher Doesn’t Intend to Give Up His Day Job

BY ANNE SOBLE



When the British-Invasion ’60s duo of Peter & Gordon decided to go their separate ways after four years of hit records and legions of adoring fans, Peter Asher spent almost four decades producing and managing some of the biggest names on the American pop-rock scene.
Asher spent more than 30 of those years living in Malibu, drawn by “the sea and the sand,” savoring a lifestyle that he has enjoyed, despite weathering more natural calamities than he can count.
The sea and the sand is the setting of the next performance to mark Peter & Gordon’s now three-year-long reunion. The pair will play at a free concert at the Santa Monica Pier on Aug. 21. Asher says, “It’s at the beach, which I love, and the first time we’ve played L.A. for 40 years.”
Asher’s especially enthusiastic that the concert he describes as “casual” will draw family members and friends, including people he has worked with over the years, and adds, “But mainly, I hope that people will come and have fun.”
Asher said the pair had been asked many times to get back together for a concert. They had joined for the annual New York Beatlefest and played a few other dates in the 1980s, but he was wrapped up in music production and Gordon—Gordon Waller—had his own career as a performer.
Then Asher remembers, “Two and a half years ago, Paul Shaffer [of the “Late Night” David Letterman Show] was putting on a concert for a recently paralyzed Mike Smith of the Dave Clark Five with a British-Invasion theme.”
The now 64-year-old Asher says, “That was a hard one to say ‘no’ to, it was such a good cause.” But he says at that point in time, “Saying yes was one thing, but getting back to do it [took] concentrated practice.”
The pair’s performance was so well received, that gig led to another, and Asher says there have now been “20 or so.” As for future requests for the duo to perform, he says, “I will do it whenever it fits in with my day job.”
The origins of Peter & Gordon are staples of music lore. Asher—who has dual British and American citizenship—and Waller were schoolmates and pop music enthusiasts in London.
Asher’s family was close to Paul McCartney, who dated one of the Asher daughters, and even lived for a time in the family’s home.
Through this connection, Peter & Gordon, who had now joined ranks as British pop musicians and began attracting attention, obtained their first and biggest hit in 1964, John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s work “World Without Love.”
Peter & Gordon are often described as “the Everly Brothers of the British Invasion.” The pair used harmony, played acoustic guitars in tandem, and recorded a string of hit songs that blended folk, blues and rock with their Brits sense of easy listening music.
Their versions of “All My Trials” and “500 Miles” resulted in a recording contract that led to 10 U.S. Top 40 hits between 1964-1967, including eight in the Top 20.
The pair’s debut single, “World Without Love,” was number one in May 1964. Peter & Gordon were the first British act to score that feat in the wake of the Beatles’ success earlier that year, thereby reaffirming the cultural phenomenon now known as the British Invasion.
The duo went on to subsequent hits with additional Lennon and McCartney songs, “Nobody I Know” and “I Don’t Want to See You Again,” as well as “Woman” (that was ostensibly written by McCartney under a pseudonym).
Peter & Gordon toured all over the world and performed on most of the major TV shows on both sides of the pond, from “Thank Your Lucky Stars” and “Top of the Pops” in the U.K, to the “Ed Sullivan Show,” “Shindig” and “Hullabaloo” in the U.S.
The pair enjoyed a four-year, ten-hit-song run and many successful concerts, but they “amicably went their separate ways in 1968,” according to Asher.
There were fans who expressed puzzlement that the pair split up when they did, but the amicability of the decision has been reiterated repeatedly, and is often described as a factor in the ease of their reunion.
For Asher, the end of Peter & Gordon marked the beginning of what would be years of award-winning music production and performer management.
Asher then became in charge of the A&R department at The Beatles’ Apple Records label, where he produced James Taylor’s first album.
Asher was so convinced of Taylor’s talent that he decided to leave Apple and move to the United States as Taylor’s manager. Asher says he had “always wanted to go to America.”
He produced successful Taylor recordings for decades to follow.
Asher became a top-rung producer, widely credited with playing a major role in shaping the California sound of the 1970s.
He produced records for and managed Linda Ronstadt, who lived in Malibu in the 1980s, with whom he says he “is exceptionally proud to have worked.”
Also on the list are Kenny Loggin, Billy Joel and many others. Asher also worked on hit albums for artists as diverse as Cher and 10,000 Maniacs.
When asked what it was like to work with such a broad array of performers, some of whom had reputations as strong or difficult personalities, he simply says, “I am a diplomat.”
Among major awards are albums for Ronstadt, including “Heart Like a Wheel,” “Simple Dreams,” “What’s New,” and “Cry Like a Rainstorm, Howl Like the Wind.”
The pair even joined ranks at a concert, the video of which surfaces regularly on YouTube. Asher’s voice is often heard in the background on his clients’ albums.
When Peter & Gordon appeared at a benefit concert—a tribute to the music of Elton John and Bernie Taupin at Carnegie Hall last October, their performance of John’s and Taupin’s “I Want Love” brought the crowd to its feet.
But the rave reviews and the portent of cult status notwithstanding, Asher stresses that he is “holding on to his day job.”
He remains a record producer and music executive for as eclectic a group of performers as ever.
In 2007, he moved into his new role with Simon Renshaw at Strategic Artist Management, a company that represents the Dixie Chicks, Clay Aiken, and Bo Bice.
In addition to another Malibuite, Pamela Anderson, whose TV reality show recently premiered, Asher manages Everclear, which released a CD earlier this year, and the Webb Sisters, currently touring with Leonard Cohen.
Asher has said when he was described as a music icon that he might prefer to be thought of as a music iconoclast. Iconoclastic icon might be a suitable compromise.
PHOTO

TOGETHER AGAIN—A benefit concert for a fellow musician reunited the ’60s duo Peter & Gordon on stage for the first time in 38 years. The show in August 2005 at B.B. King’s in New York that brought Peter Asher and Gordon Waller together for their first public performance since 1968 was a fundraiser for Mike Smith, the now deceased keyboardist and lead singer of the Dave Clark Five who had been paralyzed in an accident. Their performance was met with resounding enthusiasm and led to nearly two dozen performances, including their first Los Angeles area gig—at the free concert series at the Santa Monica Pier—on Thursday, Aug. 21, at 7 p.m.