Malibu Surfside News - News Alert

Private Fireworks Shows for the Fourth of July in Malibu

2009-07-01T17:13:00.000-07:00

BY ANNE SOBLE

Every year, starting around June 30 through July 3, the telephone calls and emails come to the Malibu Surfside News offices inquiring, “Where are the offshore fireworks shows going to take place?”
Privately sponsored pyrotechnic displays are an integral part of the way the Fourth of July is celebrated in Malibu.
The city has announced that firework detonation permits have been issued for two private displays on Saturday, July 4.
Both of the 9 p.m. displays will be launched from offshore barges that are usually towed into place earlier in the day. One is set for the Malibu Colony area, the other for the 27900 block of Pacific Coast Highway.
Municipal officials also remind residents and visitors that fireworks are illegal everywhere within city borders. They are also outlawed by Los Angeles County in all of unincorporated Malibu.
Even the so-called “safe and sane” fireworks, which most fire department and law enforcement officials say are neither safe, nor sane, are outlawed in both jurisdictions.
Given the lack of recent rainfall and the current high fire danger everywhere in the Malibu area, illegal fireworks will be confiscated and those possessing them will face legal consequences.
Happy Fourth of July to all.

2009-06-24T14:45:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Malibu Surfside News - News Alert Blog:

Check Back Often

News Alert

2009-06-17T15:52:00.000-07:00

Drought Is No Longer Just an Ag Issue in California

•Malibuites Are Now Impacted by Need to Conserve Water

Joining other water agencies throughout the Southland that purchase water from the Metropolitan Water District or one of its 26 member agencies, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, which serves Malibu, has announced water conservation measures. Because of the ongoing drought, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the declaration of a Phase II Water Shortage in the District, requiring that customers cut their water usage to 15% below an average or pay substantial surcharges.

The cutbacks will require customers to use no more than 85% of the average amount of water used in the district during the 2004 to 2006 base period established by the wholesaler or face surcharges. The charges are two times the normal rate on water used that exceed the target amount by up to 15%, and three times the normal rate for any water used beyond that. If the water situation worsens, the district system could advance to a Phase III shortage, which would require customers to reduce by 20%.

For more information about the water restrictions or free conservation programs, call Melinda Barrett, Water Conservation Manager at 626-300-3362, or visit www.lacwaterworks.org

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

2009-06-11T01:27:00.000-07:00

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

• SMMC Adds Malibu Bluffs Parkland to Potential Campsites •

The California Coastal Commission followed staff recommendations and denied the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment submitted by the City of Malibu that included a prohibition on overnight camping on public parkland within its borders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Anne Soble

Malibu Charters Bus for Next Week’s Coastal Commission Meeting

2009-06-03T15:44:00.000-07:00

• Council Member Urges Large Turnout to Oppose Approval of Plan to Allow Overnight Camping

BY ANNE SOBLE

Concern that some Malibuites’ fears about public safety and wildfire danger will be translated by environmental and recreation groups as ploys to close public lands in the community to outsiders has led to an effort to encourage local residents to attend next week’s California Coastal Commission meeting and voice support for a ban on overnight camping in high fire areas.
Spearheading the effort is City Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, who almost singlehandedly turned her council colleagues around on the camping issue after three wildfires hit Malibu in 2007.
In an email, Conley Ulich said, “Malibu residents have an opportunity to participate and help keep Malibu safe from overnight campfire dangers by attending and voicing their concerns at the meeting of the California Coastal Commission on June 10, at the Marina Del Rey Hotel.”
She announced that the City of Malibu has chartered a bus that will leave City Hall next Wednesday at 8:45 a.m. Space is reportedly limited and those interested in taking the bus are asked to call 310-456-CITY to make reservations.
Conley Ulich said the “areas under consideration for overnight camping—Ramirez, Escondido and Corral Canyons—are ripe with fuel and are simply tinder boxes, which could become the site of Malibu’s next fire disaster if overnight camping is allowed.”
The council member added, “The next disaster may result in the loss of life and property and could certainly cost millions of dollars in firefighting efforts when our resources are already stretched beyond our limits.”
To counter anticipated charges of elitism, Conley Ulich said, “Malibu hosts over 16 million visitors each year. The citizens of Malibu are responsible custodians who want to preserve and protect the natural beauty of our coast.”
The council member equated the threat from overnight camping with the “environmental hazards posed by a proposed LNG facility off our coast.” She said, “We are grateful that the Coastal Commission acted as stewards of our environment then. We pray that they will continue to be responsible custodians and vote to deny dangerous overnight camping.”

MTC Attorney Says Council Declines Tolling of Trancas Park Legal Action

2009-05-13T15:07:00.000-07:00

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

BY ANNE SOBLE

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

Still No Explanations for Major Malibu Power Failures

2009-05-08T13:27:00.000-07:00

Despite repeated efforts to determine why segments of eastern Malibu have been without electrical power since 4:42 a.m. Friday morning, neither Southern California Edison, nor the City of Malibu, are able to explain what happened.
A news release issued by the city on its Web site today stated that a power circuit that starts at Cross Creek and runs along Pacific Coast Highway went out this morning. This was reportedly a planned power interruption from 9 a.m. to approximately 3 p.m., but may or may not be related to the earlier blackout.
The city’s reverse 911 system sent calls and emails to all residents who are signed up at about 10 a.m. that indicated an outage was in effect from Carbon Canyon west that could last a day, which might mean anything from eight hours to 24 hours. That message assured residents that the water supply in Malibu is not affected.
City Emergency Services Coordinator Brad Davis, who said he initiated the reverse 911 communications, indicated that he had not been forewarned about the planned outage or the earlier east Malibu problem.
Davis added that he did not know whether the eastern outage was related to the undergrounding of utilities that is currently underway along Carbon Beach on Pacific Coast Highway.
No one from SCE, already under local fire on the issue of overloaded power poles increasing wildfire danger in the Malibu area, was responding to requests for more information.
—Anne Soble

State PUC to Address Issue of Overloaded Power Poles Next Week

2009-05-06T09:52:00.000-07:00

• Malibu Articles Helped Draw Attention to Connection to Wildfires

A state agency that regulates public utilities will hold a hearing next Wednesday to decide how to investigate the overloaded power poles that sparked the 2007 Malibu Canyon fire.

An administrative law judge for the California Public Utilities Commission said the "prehearing conference" will determine how utilities and state regulators will hash out the issue of just who is responsible for calculating safe loads for electric line poles that have been burdened over the decades with new cable TV and cell phone cables, antennas, power supplies and other heavy gear.

The hearing comes after the Malibu Surfside News reported that three overloaded poles snapped, in winds that they should have survived, causing a 3836-acre brushfire that took out the Malibu Presbyterian Church, a landmark castle, and 12 other structures.

The Southern California Edison company says it sold partial interest in power poles to four cell companies, and that the newcomers were responsible for calculating if the poles could hold the new gear.

The cell companies say Edison, as the original owner, bore the responsibility and charged the newcomers to calculate loads and inspect the poles.

The hearing is at 1:30 p.m. on May 13 at the PUC offices, 505 Van Ness Blvd., San Francisco.

—Hans Laetz

Friday Night Earthquakes Give Malibu a Jolt

2009-05-01T20:43:00.000-07:00

• Magnitude 4.4 Temblor Appears to Have Done Little Reported Damage; M 3.1 Quake Occurs Four and a Half Hours Later

Malibu and surrounding areas from Ventura County to the East San Fernando Valley felt what what appeared to be a series of two minor earthquakes Friday evening.

The first was a magnitude 4.4 temblor that struck at 6:11.13 p.m., according to United States Geological Survey seismologists who put the epicenter seven miles north of Leo Carrillo Beach and six miles south of Westlake Village in the Santa Monica Mountains (+34° 4' 8.76", -118° 52' 56.28").

That quake is tentatively determined to have occurred at a depth of 8.6 miles, possibly in one of the unnamed faults that crosses the mountains and connects to the Malibu fault that runs along the coastline on the ocean floor.

The second shaker, a magnitude 3.1 quake (or possible aftershock) registered at 10:34:14 p.m. in the same area. but closer to the surface at a depth of 4.2 miles.

Posting to the blog after the first temblor had to wait until a thorough check of the main house and all of the outbuildings indicated that the worst of the impact was some slightly askew paintings and picture frames.

The three Tonkinese cats that had catapulted through the house on the way to cover have now emerged cautiously and appear none the worse for wear. Outside, the howling dogs quickly quieted down and resumed their nocturnal inactivity.

If the first temblor had occurred after dark, I wouldn't have been able to look outside and see the llama herd head to high ground in the upper corral and cluster there in what I call its "circle-the-wagons" formation. The last tine I saw the llamas do this was about a year ago when P-1, one of the National Park Service-collared mountain lions, was ambling along the property perimeter on his way to the creek for a drink of water.

As for the quake itself, magnitude 4.4 is technically classified as minor, even though this one was sharp enough to send you to a doorframe, but not powerful enough to make you consider heading outdoors. The 3.1 event was barely noticeable.

I am monitoring the USGS data on the temblors and will update the post as more information becomes available.

—Anne Soble

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

2009-04-29T16:10:00.000-07:00

• 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

2009-04-23T21:27:00.000-07:00

• 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

2009-04-19T20:48:00.000-07:00

• 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

2009-04-08T17:39:00.000-07:00

• 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

2009-04-03T12:16:00.000-07:00

• 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.

Malibu May Not Have Ability to Regulate Outhouses

2009-03-18T19:38:00.000-07:00

Preliminary investigation into the City of Malibu’s ability to regulate the use of outdoor portable privies that are being used as permanent toilet facilities appears to indicate that there is no law on the books that prohibits this.

Thus, the city currently cannot prevent any private property owner who wishes to put what was traditionally called an outhouse on his or her land from doing so, if no other code violations are present.

This could have major ramifications in a community that is facing the possible implementation of a mandatory state program of fees and requirements for the inspection and upgrading of private septic tanks.

Some residents have already indicated at public workshops on the proposed state regulations that, if they are faced with potential five-and-six-figure price tags to bring their septic tanks into compliance with new laws, they might have to resort to placing outhouses at their back doors.

Could there be a day when a Malibu real estate ad might read: Elegant living room, custom kitchen, four spacious bedrooms...and ocean view outhouse?

—Anne Soble

Morning View Drive Meeting

2009-03-11T16:41:00.000-07:00

A public meeting to discuss contentious Morning View Drive traffic and parking issues is scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, at 6:30 p.m. in the Malibu High School library.
The meeting will be attended by two members of the Malibu City Council and representatives of the municipal Public Works Department, who are gathering input for presentation when the city council considers the Morning View issues at its meeting on Monday, March 23.
The meeting is open to all stakeholders in the resolution of these concerns.

Malibu Canyon Road Closure Friday

2009-03-06T10:02:00.000-08:00

The City of Malibu just issued word that Malibu Canyon Road is now closed in both directions between Pacific Coast Highway and Mulholland Highway due to a downed power pole.
The closure is expected to last until 3 p.m. today.

Malibu Issues Expected to Draw Crowd to This Week's School Board Meeting at City Hall

2009-03-03T23:23:00.000-08:00

The Santa Monica-Malibu Malibu School has released an amendment to its March 5 board of education meeting agenda that slices nearly $4,278,000 from a staff recommended Malibu Middle and High School Measure BB budget increase request, leaving $1,610,000 “to provide additional scope on-site wastewater treatment system.” The other “required” improvements to the campus, which include a controversial plan to build a 250-stall parking lot on the bluff behind the football stadium and implement traffic and safety measures have been put on hold.
The amendment states that the Measure BB Advisory Committee reviewed the recommended Board Approval of the proposed budget reallocation on March 2 and “recommended the board approval of the on-site waste water scope addition only.”
Staff and consultants are expected to return to the Site Building Committee for the Malibu project for further review of the traffic, parking and safety issues. “Additional studies will be performed to determine options, alternatives and recommendations for traffic, parking and safety scope and budget additions to the Malibu Project,” the amendment states, although the district recognized in the meeting agenda that “Historically, traffic and parking has been a challenge for both the school and local community at the Malibu campus since the high school was added in the 1990s.”
The meeting, scheduled to take place in the Malibu City Council chambers, starting at 5:30 p.m. this Thursday, March 5, is anticipated to draw a sizable crowd. In addition to the now greatly reduced MHS Measure BB budget increase request, the board is expected to take action on several other hotly contested issues, including district-wide layoff plans and budget crisis-induced cutbacks that received public outcry at the board’s Feb. 19 meeting in Santa Monica, and the Measure BB Malibu High School Field Lighting Plan that has already drawn extensive community criticism this week in Malibu at a district-sponsored workshop on Monday.
District staff has recommended that the board approve plans to “proceed with the completion of design, environmental analysis and California Coastal Commission amendment application for the athletic field lights, despite the fact that the lighting project is an “add alternative,” a project that cannot be constructed until the district can be certain that “adequate funds remain in the program, after core program requirements have been successfully bid and awarded,” according to the district.
The staff has also recommended that the district agree to four self-imposed conditions, which Malibu residents opposed to the project have blasted as empty rhetoric.
These conditions include limiting the athletic field lighting to “educational purposes only;” requiring any future proposals of non-district use from the City of Malibu or third party users to apply separately for CEQA and Coastal Commission approval; “best practices,” including “review for consistency with the Coastal Act,” which the district is currently violating through its use of nonpermitted temporary lighting at the campus that violates its Coastal Development Permit and the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program; and a “defined operating plan that has been thoroughly reviewed with the public and school community.”
The March 5 meeting agenda and amendment are available on the district Web site at www.smmusd.org

White House Signals Move Away from Oil and Gas Dependence in New Energy Plan

2009-02-11T16:35:00.001-08:00

February 11, 2009

• Potential Changes Illustrate Importance of Local Opposition to Recent Bid for New Drilling Off Coast

BY ANNE SOBLE

Less than two weeks after the California State Lands Commission vetoed the first new oil drilling proposal off the state’s coast in 40 years, the White House appears to be taking steps toward developing a national energy policy along lines that could differ sharply from that of the Bush Administration.
On Tuesday in Washington, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced an offshore energy plan with a strong emphasis on renewable resources. “I intend to issue a final rulemaking for offshore renewables in the coming months, so that potential developers know the rules of the road,” Salazar said. “This rulemaking will allow us to move from the ‘oil and gas only’ approach of the previous Administration to the comprehensive energy plan that we need.”
“We need a new, comprehensive energy plan that takes us to the new energy frontier and secures our energy independence,” Salazar said. “We must embrace President Obama’s vision of energy independence for the sake of our national security, our economic security, and our environmental security.”
When in the U.S. Senate, Salazar helped craft and pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that required Interior to move quickly and issue, within nine months, rules and regulations to guide the development of offshore energy resources, such as wind, wave, and tidal power. The Bush Administration left office without putting any regulations in place “because it was not their priority,” the Secretary said, “notwithstanding the requirement of the law.”
The new strategy first calls for “extending the public comment period on a proposed 5-year plan for oil and gas development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf by 180 days, assembling a detailed report from Interior Department agencies on conventional and renewable offshore energy resources, holding four regional conferences on the findings (one on the West Coast), and expediting renewable energy rulemaking for the [OCS].”
“To establish an orderly process that allows us to make wise decisions based on sound information, we need to set aside the Bush Administration’s midnight timetable for its OCS drilling plan and create our own timeline,” Salazar said.
On its last business day in office, the Bush Administration proposed a new five-year plan for offshore oil and gas leasing. Salazar said the deadline for public comment on that plan—March 23—does not provide enough time for public review or wise decision-making on behalf of the nation’s taxpayers.
“The additional time we are providing will give states, stakeholders, and affected communities the opportunity to provide input on the future of our offshore areas,” he said. “The additional time will allow us to restore an orderly process to our offshore energy planning.”
Salazar added that he will create a framework for offshore renewable energy development, so that DOI can incorporate wind, wave, and ocean current energy into its offshore energy strategy. “The Bush Administration was so intent on opening new areas for oil and gas offshore that it torpedoed offshore renewable energy efforts,” he said.

Public Probe into Possibly Purloined Palms

2009-02-06T12:24:00.000-08:00

• Controversial Trees Mysteriously Disappear from Malibu High School Grounds Last Saturday •

How do 70-plus palm trees disappear from the grounds of Malibu High School without anyone questioning their removal, or being able to provide any information on their current whereabouts?
That’s the question now being investigated by the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station after the school reported the alleged theft of the trees over the weekend.
MHS principal Mark Kelly told the Malibu Surfside News, “We at Malibu High did not authorize or know the trees were being removed. Similarly, no one at our district office authorized their removal.”
Kelly said, “Our information indicates that several individuals in two white trucks came to campus, removed the trees and filled the holes. I checked with our district office staff who reported that they had not authorized anyone to remove the trees."
The school principal added, “We are at a loss as to who took them and have reported their removal to the Sheriff's Department."
Kelly said, “We have heard from both our director of maintenance and operations and the chief financial officer who both reported having no knowledge that the trees were being removed. These were the two individuals with whom we were discussing our options.”
Kelly indicated that the school and the district had been exploring whether some of the trees might remain on campus if moved to other areas of the campus where they would be less intrusive.
The tree were planted on the campus 12 weeks ago—over the Thanksgiving weekend—under similarly puzzling circumstances, with no public notice of the landscaping project having been provided.
Residents in the Malibu Park area have voiced concern that when fully grown, the queen palms could adversely impact their ocean views.
The trees are also viewed as highly flammable, and concerns were expressed about the appropriateness of their use as landscaping in a wildfire prone area.
Kelly said the school had hoped to “recapture some of the financial loss” from removing the trees by possibly selling them to other schools in the district.
The principal added that district staff was in the process of getting an estimate of what it would cost to remove the trees when it appears the palm pilferers took them without permission on Saturday.
Kelly said that, at this point, the MHS landscaping committee “is not seeking to do any new improvements but have committed to maintaining the many past projects that have been in completed in the last several years.”
—Anne Soble

School Board Meets in Malibu This Week

2009-02-04T19:59:00.001-08:00

Malibu High School’s Measure BB improvement plan will be the key item of local interest on the agenda at the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education meeting in Malibu on Thursday, Feb. 5.
Proponents and opponents of various aspects of the proposed improvements, including the controversial permanent athletic field lighting plan, Morning View Drive traffic improvement options, alternate ways to increase student parking, and overall campus development, will have an opportunity to address the board.
The school board meeting will get underway at 5:30 p.m at Malibu City Hall.

###

State Lands Commission Denies PXP Offshore Oil Drilling Proposal

2009-01-29T17:44:00.000-08:00

• Panel Votes 2–1 against EDC-Brokered Package •

BY ANNE SOBLE

Despite a hearing room packed with Santa Barbara supporters, most of whom focused on local budgetary need instead of environmental impact, the California States Land Commission voted 2–1 Thursday to oppose a proposal for two offshore subsurface oil leases that would have allowed Plains Exploration and Production, known as PXP, to slant drill 17 new oil wells in state tidelands from a federal platform currently in operation.

The proposal, the Tranquillon Ridge Oil and Gas Project, was brokered by the Environmental Defense Center for two private Santa Barbara civic groups. EDC chief counsel Linda Krop described the package that would have provided land donations and funding grants to the immediate area as "an air-tight agreement" that would provide important benefits and "end oil drilling," even as she said its drafting was "a long, strange trip."

Others in the room were not convinced. Much of the hearing held in Santa Barbara took on the air of a semantics lesson, with nuanced interpretations of who could or could not enforce the agreement, when would or would not money flow from the project and how much, and who could or could not remove oil platforms, if production was terminated by PXP.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, resuming the post of chair of the three-member panel, and state Controller John Chiang voted against the leases. Thomas Sheehy, sitting in for state Director of Finance Michael Genest who usually sends a surrogate to SLC meetings, voted in favor of the motion he made to approve the proposal.

Speaker after speaker from Santa Barbara repeated a variant of the refrain, "We need the money" that would have come from the project—upfront fees, ad valorem taxes and royalties. But Garamendi, paraphrasing Genesis 25:29-34 before he voted, said, "I will not sell the California birthright--the coast-- for an immediate meal."

Sheehy's desire to push the project was evident throughout the testimony, as he repeatedly tried to undercut the SLC staff recommendation against the project, calling it "hypothetical speculation" and "far-fetched."

The staff's primary concern was that an oil drilling termination date of 2022—the lynchpin of the EDC package—was not enforceable, which testimony by Ellen Aronson of the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior indirectly confirmed, but the proposal's supporters appeared to disregard.

A sizable contingent of Malibu opponents to the PXP deal testified at the hearing, expressing concerns voiced by local environmentalists, the Malibu City Council and the Malibu Coastal Lands Conservancy. Among the Malibuites who spoke were Sara Wan, Steve Uhring, Judy Fogel, Remy O'Neill and others who were part of the late-hour opposition turnout.

Wan told the commissioners, "This deal will not end drilling." Concern about increased danger of oil spills and the precedent-setting nature of a decision to allow the first new drilling of the California coast in 40 years open entire coast was reiterated by the local critics.

Garamendi said his no vote was based on the determination that the proposal was "not in the best interests of the state," the commission's charge when assessing public policy. He said, "This issue is important to the entire state...and the nation [because] it would provide a precedent for 'drill, baby, drill' proponents to urge Congress and the White House to resume offshore oil drilling."

Nagging concerns about full disclosure were also a factor. Chiang raised the issue that the confidentiality clause in the agreement precluded all of it from being made public until the day of the hearing." On anything to do with public lands," Chiang said, "The public should be able to review all documents."

Sheehy had appeared to be spinning so intently for the project throughout the meeting that Garamendi chided him with, " I notice the governor [now] supports offshore oil drilling, " which Sheehy ignored.

Midway through the meeting, Garamendi had offered Texas-based PXP the option of continuing the matter "so some of the [contested] issues could be explored further," but CEO James Flores responded, "We could continue to learn about this project for the rest of our lives. We want action taken today."

Garamendi replied, "OK, we vote up or down," and two hours later, on the day after the 40th anniversary of the disastrous Santa Barbara oil spill that spurred the state policy against drilling for four decades, the majority voted down.

Note: Full details and analysis of the CSLC decision will follow in the print and online editions of The News..

Private Oil Deal Could Set Precedent for Renewed Offshore Drilling along the California Coast

2009-01-28T17:00:00.000-08:00

BY ANNE SOBLE

As city, state and federal lawmakers have begun asking questions and challenging assumptions, Plains Exploration and Production’s Tranquillon Ridge oil drilling proposal for off the coast of Santa Barbara could be taking on water.

A package brokered for the firm known as PXP by the Environmental Defense Center with two private Santa Barbara civic groups largely remained under the radar as it went through the county approval process, but a recent wave of letters from officials in Malibu and other coastal communities have put it squarely in the spotlight.

The Malibu City Council and the Malibu Coastal Lands Conservancy, the group that helped fund the successful effort to kill a liquefied natural gas terminal off the local coast in 2007, are opposing the project.

Details about the PXP package are available in an article in this week’s print and online editions of the Malibu Surfside News. The News ran a report on the PXP project on its Blog last weekend, when word of the matter going before the California State Lands Commission on Thursday, Jan. 29, started raising antennae among area environmentalists.

A grassroots campaign is currently underway to try to marshal opposition to the plan that would allow slant drilling of 17 new wells in state tidelands from Platform Irene, a facility with an oil spill record, the first such drilling allowed in 40 years. In return, PXP would shut down its operations by 2022, and make land donations and contribute funding for air and water quality control programs in the Santa Barbara area.

Local enviros are concerned approval by the three-member CSLC would set a precedent and open the door to more new offshore drilling along the entire California coast, including Malibu, as well as undermine efforts to get the Obama administration to reinstate the federal drilling moratorium.

Among their concerns, critics point to the ever-present danger of oil spills. Last December, a nearly 2000-gallon spill occurred from the same platform that ruptured 40 years ago on Jan. 28, creating the disastrous multi-million-gallon Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. Of the over three-dozen offshore spills greater than 40,000 gallons since then, one-third have occurred within the last 10 years, despite the industry’s claims of improved safeguards.

Critics say environmental concern and sound public energy policy confirm that drilling proposals are shortsighted, irresponsible and based on misconceptions about the world oil market; the risk to coastal ecosystems and wildlife, quality of life, as well as tourism and fishing industries, is too great; and increased offshore drilling is not the answer to energy problems.

The State Lands Commission staff has recommended rejection, saying there is no guarantee a key element of the PXP package, which is essentially a contractual agreement between private parties, the eventual shut-down of its drilling operations, can be enforced. The State AG’s office has raised concerns about confidentiality requirements of the agreement that may preclude full disclosure of all of its terms.

If approved by the CSLC, the proposal would then go before the California Coastal Commission, probably at its February meeting. Although the Coastal Commission has the power to regulate coastal development, it has limited authority on offshore projects, and can only vote on the extent of a project’s mitigation measures, not veto it as bad public policy.

Opponents are trying to organize a late-hour email campaign against the project, urging residents to address their concerns to: Gail Newton, Division Chief Environmental Planning, California State Lands Commission, at newtong@slc.ca.gov

Thursday’s State Lands meeting is scheduled for noon at the Hotel Mar Monte in the El Cabrillo Room on the second floor. 1111 East Cabrillo Blvd.
Santa Barbara.

2009-01-24T16:52:00.000-08:00

MALIBU ENVIRO WATCH:

Deal Goes Before State Agencies that Could Lead to Resumption of Offshore Oil Drilling in California

• No Longer under the Radar—Questions Are Being Raised about PXP Proposal •

BY ANNE SOBLE

No sooner has the death knell sounded for a major liquefied natural gas project off the coast of Southern California, than the specter is being raised of the resumption of offshore oil drilling if a privately brokered deal in the Santa Barbara area receives the approval of the California State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission within the next three weeks.
The proposal has major implications for Malibu as it could open the doors to oil leasing and exploration in state and federal waters now that the federal moratorium has been lifted and the Minerals Management Service, an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior responsible for offshore oil and gas leasing, announced the sites of possible new lease sales this month, including some in Southern California.
The deal set to go before State Lands Commission on Thursday, Jan. 29, coincidentally the 40th anniversary of the catastrophic Santa Barbara oil spill, cited as one of the catalysts for the development of the contemporary environmental movement, could set back that movement, despite some enviro groups backing the proposal in seeming disregard of its broader implications.
The package was brokered for two Santa Barbara groups—Get Oil Out and the Citizens Planning Association—with Texas-based Plains Exploration and Production, or PXP, to allow 17 new wells at Tranquillon Ridge, the first from a federal platform into state reserves since the moratorium.

PXP maintains that the project falls under an exception in the California Sanctuary Act, which otherwise prohibits new oil and gas leasing in state tidelands, because resources from Tranquillon are reportedly being pilfered from a well in federal waters, and the state is losing money in royalties.
CSLC staff, which has recommended against the project, says drainage is minimal and the state already receives 50 percent of royalties from the well in question.
Monies from the new drilling would go into the cash-strapped state General Fund. But what also gives the project momentum is that, in exchange for the right to develop the Tranquillon lease, the company would agree to stop its offshore oil drilling operations by 2022 and make major land donations and financial contributions for air quality improvements in the Santa Barbara area.
Ironically, the environmental law firm that brokered the deal for the local groups and is shepherding it though the approval process is the same one hired to help successfully kill the BHP Billiton Cabrillo Port LNG project northwest of Malibu in 2007.
That firm, Environmental Defense Center, also Santa Barbara based, is now lobbying for the PXP package, the specific terms of which, including any payment to EDC and others, largely remain closeted.
Equally important, EDC has used its considerable clout in the environmental community to bring other enviro organizations on board.
The Malibu Surfside News is making requests for information about the terms of the deal brokered by EDC, but previous media requests for more information have been denied and honoring such requests is reportedly precluded by the terms of the confidentiality agreement with PXP.
It is this secrecy that prompted the State Attorney General's Office to question the enforceability of any provisions in the deal to cease oil production by a set date, or even the so-called benefits that might accrue to the greater Santa Barbara area.
In addition, the CSLC staff in its recommendation of denial, cites similar concerns about the unknown terms of the package and the overall unenforceability of a private agreement.
Commission observers report the three-member CSLC may be spit 2-1 against the deal, as it was on Cabrillo Port, which would kill the proposal. But there is strong political pressure on its members because of the package's support base and the state budget crisis. Because the PXP deal is only now beginning to attract attention, public opposition is in its early stages.
Although Governor Schwarzenegger has talked the talk of no drilling off California, some Sacramento insiders say the state’s cash crunch may change his walk on the issue. The State Lands member expected to vote for the deal so far is the governor's director of finance, Michael Genest.
The other two members of the commission, both of whom opposed Cabrillo Port, are being lobbied aggressively on behalf of the project.
However, Malibu Assemblymember Julia Brownley and other state legislators have voiced their concerns about the PXP package in a letter to CSLC member Lt. Gov. John Garamendi on Jan. 12. The dozen members of the Assembly Coastal Caucus stressed the uncertainty of the project fostered during what they describe as the “drill here, drill now, pay less” hysteria when gas prices skyrocketed.
The Coastal Caucus letter states, “[The proposal] breaks California’s longstanding statewide ban on new offshore oil leasing in state waters and exposes our coastal resources to irreparable damage from spills. Our coastal resources that provide economic benefit in terms of tourism, recreation, scenic beauty, coastal land real estate value, wildlife, etc are priceless and should not be sold and certainly not by a group of [private organizations].”
Also, on Jan. 22, Malibu’s State Senator Fran Pavley sent a letter to the third CSLC member, Controller John Chiang, who now chairs the panel, stating, “We caution that premature approval of this lease without a robust discussion and statewide vetting of the long-term consequences it holds for all of California and the nation would be ill advised.”

If the State Lands Commission approves the drilling project, it is expected to be on the agenda of the California Coastal Commission's meeting in February. The Coastal Commission does not have the broad policy review options of State Lands. The CCC's authority on the matter is limited to determining whether the project is mitigated to the greatest extent feasible.

Coastal Commissioner and Malibu resident Sara Wan told The News this week that she is concerned the proposal "changes a 40-year opposition to offshore drilling and sets a terrible precedent, opening up the possibility of drilling everywhere along the coast."

Wan said, "We need to send a clear message that the coast of California is not for sale. There is no amount of money that can make up for the damage to coastal resources and the coastal economy when there is an oil spill." She said it is particularly important that this be the message that state agencies send to Congress and the Obama Administration as federal oil drilling policy is undergoing review.

Among broader concerns that some critics say are being disregarded by the groups that have jumped on the PXP bandwagon is the project's continuation of the nation's fossil fuel dependence and that it undermines the overall goals of the environmental movement in general.
The CSLC meeting is scheduled for noon on Thursday, Jan. 29, at the Hotel Mar Monte, 1111 East Cabrillo Boulevard in Santa Barbara.

2009-01-21T19:30:00.000-08:00

MSN News Alert—January 21, 2009

Snarls Due to Midday PCH Lane Closure Make Locals Snarly

The Monday-through-Friday—from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.—closure of one westbound lane of Pacific Coast Highway from Jan. 21 until Feb. 27 in the Cross Creek area—approximately from Serra Road to west of the Malibu Lumberyard site—did not start out auspiciously.

On first day of the lane closure to accommodate work on the city-owned property that will house an upscale mini-mall complex, commuters reported delays of from 15 minutes to 30 minutes, with some drivers saying they had to sit on the Malibu Creek bridge for much of that time.

If there are any significant rainstorms while the work is in progress, traffic observers say more serious snafus could result.

—Anne Soble