Malibu Power Pole Issue Remains in Public Spotlight as New Details Are Unveiled

• Cellular Providers Say Edison Charges the Firms for Inspections While Absolving Itself of the Duty to Do Them

BY HANS LAETZ

Two power poles that snapped in Malibu Canyon and sparked the disastrous October 2007 fire were originally installed in 1957, and had last been “intrusively inspected” by Southern California Edison in 1990, according to documents obtained by the Malibu Surfside News.
Although Edison electric officials maintain that wireless phone companies were responsible for calculating safe wind and weight loads on the poles as they installed heavy new cables and antennas, the phone companies counter that Edison not only takes responsibility for the inspections of electric poles but bills the firms for them.
The electric utility and the four wireless phone companies may find themselves going after each other for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages alleged in civil lawsuits filed after the 2007 fire, which took out 10 houses, a church, two schoolrooms and a landmark castle as Santa Ana winds whipped sparks from the downed poles into an inferno.
On Monday, the firestorm of controversy entered Malibu City Council chambers, when an Edison electric company spokesperson said the firm wants to work with local governments to improve statewide pole safety regulations. On the same day, company lawyers filed documents objecting to a state-ordered investigation into pole safety because the company is concerned about defending itself against the fire-related lawsuits.
The city council directed the city attorney to investigate how the city might intervene in a formal investigation launched by the California Public Utilities Commission into utility pole safety, and the Edison company’s claim that calculating safe wind and weight loads placed on poles it installed are the sole responsibility of wireless phone and cable TV companies. These firms paid Edison for access to tens of thousands of wooden poles across 11 California counties decades after Edison installed them.
An attorney for the four cellular telephone companies alleged to state investigators that Edison not only has a state-approved inspection program for add-on cables and antennas, but actually sends bills to cell companies for its annual drive-by safety inspections.
“We are facing a really bad situation,” said Mayor Andy Stern at Monday’s council session. “It’s horrifying thought that poles that were put up decades ago are now being loaded with more and more wires and everyone is saying ‘It’s not my responsibility,’” he said.
Councilmember Jefferson Wagner said he shared the mayor’s concerns, and Pamela Conley Ulich asked for the city to work with nearby coastal towns to come up with a common plan to demand underground powerlines in hazardous locations. The state investigation, however, is limited to whether the lines are safe under existing regulations.
The council’s remarks came after Edison government relations liaison Mark Olson stood before them to read a prepared statement, the company’s first reaction after the Malibu Surfside News began investigating the issue earlier this month. “Because of pending litigation,” Olson said, “Southern California Edison is unable to comment on an investigation by the Public Utilities Commission into the fire.
“However, SCE and other regulated utilities, including telecommunications and cable providers, currently are working with the PUC, state, and local fire agencies and other key stakeholders in a public rulemaking to review potential changes in statewide regulations,” Olsen read into the record.
Edison is taking a similar tack at the state regulatory body, where it complained in documents released Monday that the state probe into what happened as Santa Ana winds swept Malibu Canyon Road at 4:30 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007 “calls for the disclosure of information and materials protected by applicable privileges including, but not limited to, the privileges for attorney-client communications and attorney work product.”
Edison attorney Brian Cardoza wrote that the power company was being asked to provide safety calculations for poles that had been altered over the years by four cellular phone companies. “Those utilities which added facilities to the poles...would be the best source of relevant [safety study] documents generated by them or at their request.”
The Edison attorney provided inspection records that show poles holding up the 66,000 and 16,000-volt circuits were visually inspected every year since at least 1992, but the two primary load-bearing poles had last been subjected to an “intrusive inspection” in 1990.
But the two poles were installed in 1957, a purported fact not addressed in the Edison report and only brought to light by an attorney for the four cellular phone companies. That lawyer represents companies that appear to be at odds with the power company over liability for what the state says was an illegal overloading of the poles, causing them to topple in 50-mph winds when they should have been able to withstand 92-mile gusts.
Even though the poles appear to have been placed on the lip of windy Malibu Canyon decades before the new fiber optic cables were even invented, Edison argued this week that the poles were not overloaded “because the general design practices of the [SCE] Transmission Department required poles to be constructed with enough safety factor allowance to satisfy the light loading requirement.”
Edison repeated its earlier assertion that the cell companies that bought partial ownership of the poles—AT&T, NextG, Sprint and Verizon—were responsible for the safety of the added weight because of industry “custom and practice...to take adequate precaution to ensure that their facilities fully comply” with PUC safety rules for utility poles.
“This concept is well understood,” the Edison lawyer stated.
Not so, said the written arguments from the consortium of wireless phone companies who stand as codefendants in the civil lawsuits. Lawyer Peter Hanschen told the PUC that the joint pole sharing arrangement has precise agreements that show “SCE does in fact perform wind loading calculations or verifications to determine whether a new pole addition will cause the pole to exceed minimum safety factors.”
The phone company attorney said Edison had taken possession of the downed poles and has only allowed phone company experts to look at one side of the damaged gear. The phone companies’ experts “have not to date been allowed to perform any tests on the poles,” wrote Hanschen.
The phone companies began installing fiber optic trunk cables on the Eisenhower-era poles beginning in 1990, and ending in 2004. In the midst of that, Edison added its own fiber communications trunk to the poles, which also supported six large cables carrying a total of 82,000 volts, as well as Edison-owned streetlights and power supply cables for them, cellular antennas and crossbeams, and electric meters to measure how much power the cellular systems should be billed.
But cell phone company inspections of the poles appear from the PUC filings to be even more cursory than the power company’s. “Verizon Wireless’ inspection approach includes visual patrol-type inspection of the Verizon Wireless fiber network each time a contractor is sent to a job site,” wrote Hanschen. “Under [the] Verizon Wireless inspection program, the contractor would have visually inspected the communication facilities on the poles in question as it traversed Malibu Canyon on the way to and from the job site to perform maintenance on other poles.”
Since Verizon contractors often had assignments in Malibu, “the contractors probably would have traveled on Malibu Canyon Road, thus performing visual inspection of Verizon Wireless’ fiber facilities,” the attorney wrote.
“The poles almost certainly were visually inspected by [Verizon predecessor] AirTouch when it first added the facilities in 1995, as the approach of visually inspecting each pole that one works on, as well as the immediately adjoining poles, is customary in the industry,” he wrote.
State requirements for more stringent safety inspections of utility poles, the phone company lawyer wrote, only apply to power companies.
PUC officials solicited the comments from the electric and wireless companies last January, as they opened an unusual investigation after getting a staff report that revealed the dispute over pole safety measurements. The probe is open-ended and there is no target date for new rules to be voted on, should they be found necessary.
But the myriad lawsuits filed by property owners tallying losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars may take much longer to work through the courts, observers said.

City Faces Revenue Decline But Official Stresses That This Is Not a Deficit

• Malibu Takes In $1.2 Million Less than Anticipated

The Malibu City Council’s Administrative and Finance Subcommittee learned on Tuesday that the city is expected to take in $1.2 million less than was anticipated in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2008-2009. General fund expenses have been cut to reflect that change.
The revelation came when the city’s Administrative Services Director Reva Feldman unveiled the proposed budget for 2009-2010 totaling $36.5 million at the meeting.
“It is not a deficit, it is not a shortfall,” said Feldman. “We are going to spend less now that we know we are getting less.”
The top finance officer for the municipality indicated the spending cuts would come from reducing personnel, hiring less contract employees and reducing general fund grants, among other cutbacks.
Shifting back to the proposed budget, Feldman indicated that after transfers of $3.4 million to capital improvements projects, the projected general fund reserve at the end of June 30, 2010, would be $13.3 million.
The administrative services director noted that new funding sources will kick in for next fiscal year’s budget, including what is called Measure R funding from the federal stimulus package which should add up to $511,411. About $500,000 will be used for the annual street overlay program. Future year funding should amount to approximately $120,000 yearly, according to Feldman.
Unlike most cities, Malibu is still getting more in property taxes with a projected increase of three percent, but that it is down from previous years when the increase was five to six percent.
Another hit in revenue declines, according to Feldman, is fewer dollars from licenses, permits and service charges. A decline is projected from building permits and related fees, planning permits, as well as fees from recreation classes.
At the same time, there are anticipated spending increases for FY 2009-2010, including another $169,000 increase for law enforcement. The contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has climbed to a $5.8 million price tag for Malibu.
Other increases include $11,411 for crossing guard services each year to the high school, $50,000 for tree maintenance, and numerous other items.
Feldman said proposals that have been cut out from the proposed budget for the next fiscal year—unless the projected revenue stream increases— includes $350,000 for new software for the planning department, $20,000 for new ledger software and $35,000 for an additional sheriff’s deputy.
The proposed budget for the next fiscal year provides for 77 full-time equivalent employees. Three positions will be eliminated for a savings of $300,000 for FY 2009-2010.
Feldman is recommending a two-percent CPI increase for next year’s budget, though the percentage change was zero.
The capital improvements budget for 2009-2010 is $13 million and comes from special funding sources.
                                             — Bill Koeneker

Public Workshop on Trancas Park Slated for Thursday

• Meeting Has Been Rushed Despite Possible Delay of Council Finalization

A public workshop to explore the possibility of modification to plans approved by the Malibu City Council for Trancas Canyon Park will be hosted by the Parks and Recreation Department on Thursday, April 23, from 4 to 6 p.m., in the council chambers at Malibu City Hall.
The staff-directed workshop was scheduled after three council members at the April 13 meeting voted to allow residents another opportunity to review the specifics of the park plans and provide input on possible revisions, although it appears unlikely that there is a council majority for major changes in the park's more controversial elements or support for consideration of some of the more recent proposals for the site, such as a solar farm.
In its present form, the park planned for city-owned land at 6050 Trancas Canyon Road includes a multi-sport athletic field, picnic area, playground, basketball court, dog park, restroom building and parking.   
The park proposal has generated major friction between residents of the Malibu West area. Park critics say adjacent residents would be adversely impacted by the traffic, noise, loitering, pollution, water consumption and other issues the park raises.
The amount of grading required by the plans is also a major source of contention. Critics say extensive grading and landform alteration is only being allowed because the city is both the applicant and the permitting agency, and it is granting itself more than would be allowed to applicants in other circumstances.
The matter was originally slated to go back to the council for finalization on May 11, but may now go back to members for action on May 26, which has some observers questioning why there was a rush to schedule the workshop in a manner that precluded more public notice.

                                                                               —Anne Soble

Santa Monica Baykeeper Files Third Lawsuit Against City of Malibu

• Enviro Group Says Legacy Park Project Environmental Impact Report Violates State Law 

BY ANNE SOBLE

Santa Monica Baykeeper filed a lawsuit against the City of Malibu in Los Angeles Superior Court Wednesday morning, challenging the legality of the city’s approval of the Legacy Park Project. The project is the subject of a heated battle between environmental and ocean recreation groups and city council members who see the project as a cornerstone of their accomplishments.

In addition to challenging the pollution control capability of the stormwater runoff project, Baykeeper contends that the Legacy Park certified environmental impact report does not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. 

Explaining the need for filing, Tatiana Gaur, staff attorney for SMB said,  “We tried to work with the city to resolve the inadequacies of the Legacy Park Project and the project EIR to make sure the chronic water quality problems of Malibu Creek, Malibu Lagoon and Surfrider Beach are dealt with." 

In addition, Gaur said, “Certifying the project EIR without additional review after fundamentally changing the project also violates state laws designed to ensure meaningful public participation in the city’s planning process to achieve maximum protection of the environment.”
Wednesday's filing is the latest in a troika of lawsuits by the activist enviro group against the city, and it prompted a swift and sharp rejoinder from municipal officials disputing the premises of the lawsuit and calling into question Baykeeper's motives for the filing.
“Clean water does not flow from courtrooms,” said City Attorney Christi Hogin in one of the press release's numerous acerbic statements, “I understand that lawsuits are useful against those who refuse to take action. However, where there is a city as committed to success as Malibu, the lawyers need to get out of the way and let the engineers fulfill the will of the community.”

But Gaur told the Malibu Surfside News that the city's so-called commitments can be viewed as a case of "emperor's new clothes" syndrome. The Baykeeper staff counsel said city officials appear to be engaged in "denial and avoidance. They continue to dig themselves in deeper and deeper, and try to blame us and others for their own shortcomings."

Gaur said Baykeeper's goal is "to force the city to take responsibility for the protection of public health...to do proper environmental analysis and to allow pubic participation...in the process." She said that instead of doing this, Malibu officials "have put up a wall. They don't want to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with them. They refuse to hear constructive criticism."

Baykeeper and other groups' criticism includes that the Legacy Park project as originally crafted was a comprehensive plan to address pollution from failing septic leachfields and polluted stormwater and urban runoff in the Civic Center area that was then segmented by the city because of perceived cost and siting issues, as well as, some contend, by political and financial pressures.

“By removing the wastewater treatment element from the project description and allowing septic effluent discharge from the Malibu Lumber Yard development at the Legacy Park site, the city not only fails to solve existing water quality problems, but it actually makes them worse,” said Tom Ford, executive director of Santa Monica Baykeeper. 

Ford said, "The city denied our appeal of the planning commission’s decision to approve the project and left us no choice but to file another lawsuit."
Baykeeper officials also contend that because the City of Malibu was both the project proponent and the lead agency reviewing Legacy Park under CEQA, there was "clear bias and discrepancies at the city council’s appeals hearing where city staff were allocated almost three times as much time for their presentation than the environmental groups who appealed the planning commission’s Legacy Park project certification."

At the hearing, it was reported in the media that Legacy Park proponents were allowed to boo and jeer the speakers raising environmental concerns. The perception of collective rudeness extended to some of the members of the city council and staff.
Ford emphasizes that SMB was a strong supporter of the Legacy Park project as originally planned but watched as its written comments and voiced concerns at public hearings were "blatantly ignored when the Malibu City Council approved the EIR without the wastewater treatment system and without doing an in-depth analysis of environmental impacts as required by CEQA."
Santa Monica Baykeeper's other two pending lawsuits against the City of Malibu include a state court challenge of the city’s approval of land use entitlements for the controversial La Paz development in the Malibu Civic Center area, which includes the possibility of a donation of land to the city that might be used for a wastewater treatment facility, but its critics say the project itself raises numerous environmental concerns.
The other lawsuit was filed in federal court last year under the U.S. Clean Water Act and addresses the overriding concern of many in the environmental community that the city’s public actions and policies cause or contribute to poor water quality in Malibu Creek and at Surfrider Beach.

Baykeeper's Gaur concludes that Malibu city officials are going to have "move on" and stop "seeking credit for their mistakes." Going back her emperor's new clothes reference, she said, "They have to stop acting as if they are solving problems when they aren't...and stop expecting others to behave as if they are."

Malibu's Ferrari Guy Is Back in Jail in His Native Sweden: Crashed Rare Enzo in 2006

• Stefan Eriksson Faces Charges Similar to Ones Faced in 1990s•

By Anne Soble

The Swedish former high-rolling gaming executive and reputed mobster who became an international media figure when he crashed a $1.5 million-plus Ferrari Enzo on Pacific Coast Highway in 2006, was arrested in Stockholm this week on suspicion of grand theft, fraud, assault and related charges.
Stefan Eriksson, now 47, is currently in jail in Uppsala, Sweden, where he formerly served prison time in the 1990s for convictions on racketeering, counterfeiting and other charges related to his role in what locally was dubbed the Uppsala Mafia.
Uppsala Police Station Commander Stefan Hallberg told the Malibu Surfside News by telephone on Friday that Eriksson, a Swedish national, was arrested in Stockholm on Monday, March 30, and was brought before a district court judge on Thursday, April 2, for a detention hearing.
Eriksson is currently in jail in Uppsala (there is no bond provision in the Swedish justice system). The judge gave the attorney of the man known as "Ferrari Guy" and the "Ferrari Swede" two weeks to gather defense evidence and set a tentative date for his return to court of April 16.
Hallberg said the specifics of the charges could not be detailed, "but they are substantial...and are viewed as more superior than normal." The Uppsala official added that the Swedish justice system does not drag out proceedings in cases like this.
Eriksson's case is being handled by the Roteln-för-Grova-Brott department, which only addresses crimes of a felony nature.
Hallberg said Eriksson has a Stockholm address, but also was using an address in Germany, which is where he headed when he was deported from the United States after serving time for offenses related to the ownership of crashed Ferrari and other luxury sports cars.
Two other men were arrested in Stockholm this week in connection with the related charges. Warrants were issued for the trio’s arrest in March. There are reports that the men had been under surveillance as part of an ongoing investigation, but no further specifics are being made available at this time.
Eriksson, a cult figure in his native Sweden, has the mob moniker of "Tjock Steffe" or "Fat (or Thick) Stevie," from his days as a key player in Uppsala organized crime. Eriksson was arrested and sent to prison in Uppsala in 1994 following conviction for a laundry list of charges related to organized crime activity.
After release from Swedish prison, Eriksson headed to London, where he lived a lavish lifestyle as a highly paid executive for Gizmondo, a handheld gaming device company that went bankrupt under suspicious circumstances in 2006.
Gizmondo financed Eriksson's love of fast sports cars, including the red Enzo that split in half when it crashed on PCH west of Trancas, while traveling at speeds of excess of 160 mph.
Despite his ostensible inebriation at the time of the accident, Erickson was released at the crash scene by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies who bought his story that he had connections to U.S. Homeland Security agency operations. Erikkson was subsequently arrested on charges of drunk driving, embezzlement, auto theft, and felony weapons possession.
After lengthy court proceedings and several changes of legal counsel, Eriksson eventually pleaded no contest to DUI charges and then plea bargained on charges of embezzlement and gun law violation and was sent to California state prison.

When Erikkson was released from state prison in January 2008, he was immediately deported from the United States and had faded from public view until the recent arrest.