Dear Editor, 

Malibu City Council has term limits. The presidency has them. Congress does not. There are people who have been serving in Congress WAY too long and have lost touch with what it is like to make ends meet in the “real world.” Congressmen and senators are supposed to be “representatives” who come from the ranks of ordinary citizens where they experience all of the challenges of making a living, being an employee, paying taxes, making payroll, taking professional risks. But, increasingly, they are “lifer” politicians who spent most of their adult lives in politics with little depth-of-life experience amongst ordinary folk. The main risk that congressmen and senators have is getting re-elected. This is every two years for a congressman and every six years for a senator. One of the ways to ensure they get re-elected is to have the support of their party. The way to ensure the support of their party is by “party loyalty.” How often do they support their party’s agenda? This goes for both political parties. Take our congressman, Brad Sherman, for example. Brad Sherman is on his 14th term (28 years at the end of this term) as a congressman. He has been in three different congressional districts because he has gone through two separate re-districting cycles, which happen every 10 years. Congressman Sherman has a 100 percent rating from the “Five Thirty Eight” political tracking organization of supporting his party’s (Biden) administration. 100 percent. That is party loyalty. That kind of loyalty leads to your party’s support for re-election to 14 terms. We need representatives who think for themselves and not simply vote 100 percent in line with their party, no matter which party it is. The way to get there is to have someone who thinks for themselves and is not so desperate for re-election that they will simply vote in lockstep with their party. It is VERY difficult to dislodge an incumbent, but it can be done. This is the only “term limit” imposed on Congress: that which is delivered by the voters. But it takes an engaged citizenry. Congressman Sherman is being challenged this next election by several candidates from his own party and a couple from the Republican Party. One of those candidates is Larry Thompson, a successful entertainment and movie industry executive who was born into very humble roots in a small town in Mississippi and then came out to the very competitive world of Hollywood. That line of work is in a world of problem-solving in dynamic situations where collaboration, cooperation, teamwork, and communication skills are essential to mission accomplishment. That environment provides a great depth of life experience and skill set to getting things done with diverse groups of people. The equivalent of “party loyalty” has zero value in that arena. Larry Thompson has had a very successful career and should be enjoying the fruits of his hard labor. But like many Americans, he is looking around and is very concerned that the current direction of America is a grim one. Rather than relax in the afterglow of his considerable success and hard work, he is rolling up his sleeves to get to work for the country that gave him such great opportunities. Common sense for the country and for the citizens, not party loyalty, is his primary concern. Although unanimously endorsed by the California State Republican Party, Larry promises to bring common sense, not necessarily strict party-line, solutions the challenges facing the country. If you don’t need the job and the support of the party to be re-elected, because you have already had a successful career in the private sector, it gives you the ability to do the right thing. You are negotiating from a position of strength. Look around you at the country and our state. Do you like the direction its going? Do you like our involvement in a proxy-war with Russia? Like the open border? How about the cost of living, interest rates, price of fuel, and the $13 trillion debt? How about the lack of enforcement of our laws or the incredible increase in homelessness? Do you think we are heading into the “Golden Age” of America or a “Dark Age”? Are you concerned for your kids’ future? Think back to the Founding Fathers. Do you think they envisioned “lifer” politicians when they crafted to Constitution — or did they want representatives of the population who had spent their time developing the life skill set that actually creates jobs and makes the country work? Do you think we need common sense from our congressional representative, or do we need more party loyalty? That goes for either party by the way. If you think things are going well for America, you can vote for the “party loyalty” candidate. If not, you might look into what your congressman has been supporting and give a fresh look at those, like Larry Thompson, that would like to replace him and be your representative and bring common sense and not party loyalty to congressional decision-making. Only you can enforce term limits on Congress. After all, our congressmen and senators only represent the people who control this country: You and me. We all have to assume the responsibility of “We The People” and get engaged. Do we want a “Golden Age” or a “Dark Age” for our future? Let’s choose wisely and thoughtfully.

Rick Mullen, Malibu

Dear Editor,

Pacific Coast Highway is our most important and often only way to travel and transport for so many activities like schools, work, and life. People use it as a speedway unfortunately, as we all know and condemn. People use it for scenic drives, which in many ways we are blessed to have as part of our lives in Malibu. People use it to distinguish our wealth — do you leave on the “oceanside of PCH” or the “other” side — but I couldn’t be happier living in Malibu PERIOD. But now PCH has turned into “Prison Car Hour” — driving towards Santa Monica in the mornings during the week puts you in traffic prison for 30 minutes to an hour. We all know that there is no reasonable alternative and for those of us who have jobs, schools, and part of our lives in that direction, this PCH project literally puts us in prison for days of our lives in total.

While I don’t know the exact specifics of the project — I do see the work being done, because our family drives by that area six to 10 times per day, with the overall work minor at best — I have never seen a true reason to block an entire lane. So while I do not question the overall project validity, the way this project is being managed is about as bad as one can imagine.

Time: When is the worst time to cut eastbound PCH to one lane? Weekday mornings, of course, so the project starts around 7 a.m. and is usually done by 2 p.m. How about letting those hard workers sleep in a little longer — start the lane cut at 10:30 a.m. and not so early in the worst traffic hours.

Labor: I see usually one truck doing some work on the side of the street. How about 10 trucks and cut the six-month project in three weeks — we would be done by now.

Lanes: Why are we closing lanes going both ways doing construction or road work at the same time? There is no back-up going westbound in the morning even with one lane. How about cutting that to one lane and making the eastbound two lanes while the project is going on — my 7-year-old pointed this out to me without any clues from me.

Overall, I just feel our time is not being considered at all in this project, and while I know we are not in a prison, here is my math of the time wasted and taken for no valid reason in this project: Six months = 26 weeks = 130 days. Take on average 30 minutes per day (and that’s a low estimate) — you just took 65 hours of our lives — take out eight hours of sleep and this puts all daily drivers in a prison-like setting for four full days or more!

Please fix this problem — quickly!

Erik Hochstein, Malibu

Dear Editor, 

Unintended consequences, at least you hope it is unintended.  

I have been cycling Pacific Coast Highway (this is the part that seems to be required to establish some sort of “I live here” credibility) since 1980. In the early 2000s, I cycle-commuted to work from Malibu to downtown LA three times per week. I have witnessed some bizarre situations and behaviors. The saddest incident was the death of a cyclist that was forced into the road by K-rails put up by the Jewish Center when they were doing landscaping. The cyclist was hit by a food truck and killed. I don’t remember if any charges were ever brought against anyone for this avoidable death.  

History seems to repeat itself.

The speed control signs now posted along PCH may be deterrents for speeding drivers. The location of the digital warning devices is about as detrimental to safety as you could possibly conjure up. I can only imagine the meeting and planning that went into the creation and location of those signs. Did the discussion ever go to “this will force cyclists right into traffic”?

We are all saddened by the recent events and the 58 deaths memorialized with the white tires. Unless we are ready to put multiple ghost bikes (bikes painted white to note a dead cyclist) alongside the tires, then let’s figure out a better placement of those speed control warning boxes and do it now.

Whoever is responsible for locating these signs needs to get it together and stop creating problems.  

As is usual in Malibu, I am sure this letter will create a backlash of anti-cyclist rhetoric. Let’s get real. Thousands of cyclists use PCH to access some of the best cycling in the world, that is not going to stop. We can stop doing stupid things to further make PCH a killing field.

Stupid is as stupid does, and the consequences of stupid in this situation are deadly.

Michael Johnson, Malibu 

Dear Editor, 

The following is a letter to the Honorable Mayor Uhring and City Council:

I expected to see the two access requirements within the proposed resolution after your serious direction to planning staff from the last council meeting on this. I was extremely disappointed and surprised at the staff’s recommendation to not add this important provision into the ordinance for all our safety.

The staff mentions a random letter from State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to Rancho Palos Verdes that they would need to provide evidence that this restriction would be required to protect public safety. Rancho Palos Verdes has not had as many deadly and devastating wildfires as Malibu and the whole city is NOT designated a VHFHSZ as we are. Also according to this map with data from the California Public Utilities Commission we are a higher risk fire hazard/prone area:

abc7news.com/fire-near-me-california-danger-map-wildfire/10733648/

The cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, Angels Camp, and Corte Madera all restrict ADUs similarly in high fire hazard zones and have so far suffered no ramifications. HCD has also granted the city of Portola Valley permission to continue restricting ADUs in fire hazard zones. Portola Valley provided expert analysis and robust scientific evidence to support the need for the restrictions. From the HCD evaluation: “Fire Prohibitions — The Ordinance states that ‘ADUs are prohibited on parcels smaller than one acre whose direct vehicular access is from a road or cul-de-sac which (1) has a single point of ingress/egress and (2) has a width of less than eighteen feet.’ The Ordinance’s findings go into detail explaining the nature of the fire risk and the Town’s approach to risk management, outlining a fuel hazard study specific for the purpose and mapping where evacuation could be constrained in an emergency. The use of these locally chartered studies and the fifty pages of documents included in the May 25, 2023 email speaks to the great care and consideration the Town has put into risk management. HCD appreciates the thoughtful analysis.”  So please use some of our existing Flame Mappers study findings on this, etc. and include this in the ordinance keeping this restriction.

Given that LA County Planning gives two access restrictions in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, I don’t understand why staff completely ignored this in their report and are putting our community at risk. During Woolsey, traffic was backed up Big Rock Drive and other canyon roads for hours not to mention the PCH for a minimum of 5 hours putting evacuees‘ lives in jeopardy. This kind of traffic trapped and fatally burned many victims of the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise and could easily happen here. Adding more dwellings and intensity of use in these areas without two egresses will make evacuation in a disaster even worse. When these roads become clogged, no cars can escape, and no emergency vehicles can get through to fight the fire or assist people to escape. In addition, the proliferation of ADU’s in these areas will increase the amount of combustible fuel, leading to a higher number of ignition sources and the likelihood of rapid spread of wildfire.

Also several of the red stars on the Malibu maps at the end of the staff report that are indicating the streets that do not have two egresses actually do have two accesses to the PCH, such as Morningview Drive, so there can be more ADUs than actually projected. These maps in the staff report have some errors. And the stars that are correct would hinder evacuation down these small, windy roads to the PCH so they should NOT be discounted just because there are so many limited access roads in our city. This is WHY we are such a fire prone area.

To accommodate the very few people who need ADUs in our neighborhoods without the two egresses you can do as Oakland does and provide: “Approved application for Reasonable Accommodation Request due to a disability of an ADU occupant or a need to accommodate a live-in caregiver for a person with disability i.e. for aging in-laws. The Reasonable Accommodation Request must include a reason for the exception.”

Thank you for fixing the ordinance, adding the required studies to keep all of Malibu safe.

Jo Drummond, Malibu 

Dear Editor,

It started with Laura Rosenthal and her campaign to slow traffic down on the PCH with her slow your pace on the PCH and force people to slow down.

On Monday [Jan.8] Paul Grisanti advised drivers to turn on their emergency flashers in construction areas in Malibu. This is reckless and dangerous advice, and the City Councel is, in fact, making the highway more dangerous.

Most accidents on the PCH are caused by reckless driving or people going 20 or more miles over the speed limit. People in the center lane slowing down to impede traffic will only cause more accidents.

It would be safer for the City to advocate slower traffic should stay in the right-hand lane and not prevent people from driving at a normal speed on the PCH.

What the City is doing is asking a driver in one car to virtually block traffic for all cars behind them, which may include ambulances, fire trucks, and the police.

Your position is not supported by experts or well thought out.

Terry Lucoff, Malibu

Dear Editor,

Thank you so much for sharing the story of the 18-year-old reckless driver. I hope they take away her license for at least five years. Please let us know the outcome.

Toni Webb, Malibu