Martin Sheen says he closed his Washington Mutual bank accounts, opposing the development of Ahmanson Ranch.

By P.G. O’Malley /Special to The Malibu Times

Malibu resident and environmental activist Martin Sheen recently added his name to the long list of public officials and community organizations who oppose the development of Ahmanson Ranch, a 3,000-home residential and commercial project planned near the head of Malibu Canyon near Calabasas.

Sheen joined movie producer Rob Reiner and HBO President of Executive Planning Chris Albrecht at a press conference Nov. 14 in front of the Canoga Park branch of Washington Mutual, the Seattle-based financial institution that plans to break ground on the development in early 2003.

The purpose of the event was to announce the formation of Rally to Save Ahmanson Ranch, a coalition of Los Angeles and Ventura County organizations that are against the project and want the land, which is part of the Santa Monica Mountains zone, to remain undeveloped.

At the press conference, Sheen told a gathering of environmentalists, local residents and elected officials he closed his Washington Mutual bank accounts two months ago. In a take-off on his Emmy Award-winning role in the TV series “West Wing,” he declared the property a federal preserve and “off-limits to Washington Mutual and anyone else.”

A spokesman for Washington Mutual, which acquired the 90-acre parcel when it bought out Home Savings, insists the Ahmanson project is environmentally sound and will provide much-needed housing for Southern California.

“Science, not celebrities, will decide the future of the project,” said a bank spokesman, referring to elaborate studies the developer has undertaken to protect any environmental resources that might turn up on the property, including two endangered species discovered after the project was approved.

“We have created a model of smart growth that balances the preservation of natural resources with the needs of people,” said Guy Gniadek, president of the Ahmanson Land Company, in a press release. “We’re confident that the more thoughtful environmentalists know about this planned community, the more they will like it.”

Neither Reiner nor Albrecht live in areas likely to be affected by the project and both insist what they object to is a “new city” being planned in the Santa Monica Mountains. Reiner, who championed Proposition 10, the anti-tobacco initiative, says he’s particularly concerned about “horrendous air pollution” that will result if the project is allowed to add as many as 40,000 to 50,000 more cars on the Ventura Freeway, which is already running more than 100 percent beyond capacity.

Washington Mutual disputes these figures, claiming its studies indicate a little more than 37,000 new vehicles a day. The company also points out that once completed, the project will preserve the majority of the acreage as open space.

Both supporters and critics admit one of the unique challenges of the development is that it’s planned for Ventura County but the only access will be through Los Angeles County communities. L.A. planning and health officials are already on record about financial costs to the county to clean up traffic and air and water pollution during construction, and once the development is up and running. Planners in Ventura County overseeing the development insist, however, that adequate environmental safeguards are in place that will minimize negative downstream effects on Malibu, Calabasas, West Hills and other northern San Fernando Valley communities.

Ventura County approved the Ahmanson Ranch development in 1992 in an elaborate deal between the developers, the National Park Service and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy that saved 4,000 acres in nearby Cheesebro and Palo Camado canyons and required the developers to acquire and then deed 7,000 acres of additional parkland to the public.

Both sides are currently awaiting the results of a supplemental environmental impact report (EIR) from Ventura County due out sometime in December. The revised report was called for when a rare plant, the San Fernando Valley spineflower thought to be extinct, and the red-legged frog were discovered on the property.

Reiner and other coalition members insist the old EIR is outdated and want a new report to address other changes that have taken place in the area in the 10 years since the first report was made public. At least three of the five-member Ventura County Board of Supervisors disagrees, and Supervisor Frank Schillo described the three well-meaning celebrities as falling into a trap based on misinformation.

Beyond the stated goal of a new EIR, there were also hints that an elaborate public information campaign might be in the works designed to put pressure on Washington Mutual to give up the development entirely.

“Once the truth is exposed,” said Reiner, “we want to sit down with Washington Mutual and put together a coalition to talk about buying back this land.”

Currently the bank has signaled no interest in being open to such discussions. The developers stand by the project as a sound example of smart growth and have hired former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to promote it as “green” development.

“Malibu Days” is a term of irony coined to epitomize the heat and frustration many county and state politicians have experienced when phoned by influential Malibu citizens who complain about permit restrictions on their homes or other uniquely Malibu issues of environment or land use.

It has been reported that such pressure from Malibu nabobs over a standoff between the city and the California Coastal Commission on an early city draft of a local coastal plan (LCP) led frustrated legislators to pass AB988, the law specifically ordering the commission to write its own LCP for Malibu.

However, at a commission hearing on Nov. 15, both Mayor Joan House and Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Jennings attempted to distance the present City Council from its predecessors and the rancor that had developed between the city and various county and state agencies in the past.

“The city understands the frustration of the Coastal Commission in having so many Malibu Days consuming your overloaded agenda,” House told the commissioners.

“This council has turned around the reputation the city had with other agencies,” she said. “We are no longer the poster child for the Regional Water [Quality] Control Board, but a leading member of their team. We have an excellent relationship with Senator (Sheila) Kuehl, Assemblymember Fran Pavley, Director (Rusty) Areias of California State Parks, Supervisor (Zev) Yaroslavsky of Los Angeles County, and Caltrans, to name a few.”

Jennings said, “We are a new City Council. We ran on a platform to improve our relations with governmental agencies (and) we were elected by an overwhelming majority to do [just] that.”

Councilmember Sharon Barovsky frowns on warning of illegal guidelines from Sprint/PCS attorney regarding installation of cellular and other wireless communications facilities that would mar the appearance of the city’s “rural and natural residential” areas.

By Ken Gale/Special to the Malibu Times

In the wake of the Nov. 6 defeat of Measure K, the $15 million land acquisition bond proposal, city councilmembers at Tuesday’s meeting expressed support for another try next year.

“We’re not going to give up, we still think it’s a good thing for the community,” said Mona Loo, who helped lead the drive for Measure K.

Former mayor, John Harlow, a leader of the opposition Lily’s Cafe Steering Committee, said his group was “willing to become part of the process of planning” for a new bond measure. But he indicated his group would insist that ball fields and recreational uses take precedent over open-space usage in any new bond proposal.

Harlow also said the Lily’s Cafe group wanted Tom Hasse–the only city councilmember to oppose Measure K–to be a part of any working group for a new bond measure.

Hasse said he would support a new bond measure, but expressed doubt that any new working group of Malibu citizens could accomplish “the level of specificity” needed to get a two-thirds vote for it.

Measure K failed to get a necessary two-thirds approval by only about five percentage points.

Mayor Joan House said she favored a new bond measure, but stressed any working committee “should have as wide an array of people as possible, because you and I know that in order to get a two-thirds majority you don’t want an organized opposition.”

It was pointed out in order for a new bond measure to get on April’s ballot, it must be prepared and approved by the City Council by Jan. 9, at least 88 days before the election.

On another matter, House revealed that because of low passenger use, the city spent an average of $60 a day, per passenger for the Malibu shuttle bus between Westward Beach and Point Dume Headlands during the summer. According to an analysis by the Parks and Recreation Department, there were only 4.7 riders per day. The total cost to operate the shuttle for a year is $66,000.

The city began the shuttle in an agreement with the California Coastal Commission. The cost analysis was to be sent to the commission in hopes of coming up with a less expensive alternative.

In another matter, the City Council may have heard the beginning of what could become a drawn-out legal battle concerning installation of facilities throughout the city for cellular phones and other new wireless technologies.

The city has received applications for placement of several wireless facilities on public rights-of-way. Many of these are metal or concrete cabinets placed on sidewalks or along roadways.

A Sprint/PCS consultant told the council it wants to upgrade facilities in the city to “third-generation technology” for wireless telephones, wireless Internet, better paging services and streaming video.

But the boxes are unsightly, and in proposed guidelines for wireless facilities, the Public Works Department said many of the facilities as proposed, were “not in concert with the appearance of the city’s rural and natural residential neighborhoods.”

Noting the Federal Tele-communications Act of 1996 favors the development of new technological infrastructure; Sprint/PCS attorney John Flynn warned the guidelines “are not legal. If you do adopt these guidelines, you’re going to be creating troubles for yourselves, troubles you don’t need.”

Councilmember Sharon Barovsky replied to Flynn’s warning, saying, “I don’t think you come to council with a grenade in your teeth. And if you have a problem and you think we’re breaking the law, I’d like you to be really specific about it.”

The council referred the matter back to city staff, recommending they hold further meetings with utilities representatives.

In other matters, the council voted to change the speed limits on several streets from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour because of their narrow, residential nature and because they have no pedestrian walkways. The streets are Birdview Avenue, Boniface Drive, Fernhill Road, Portshead Road and Cross Creek Road. Most other streets in Malibu are posted at 30 miles per hour.

The council also agreed to hire a consultant to study the city’s costs for various policing services provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Malibu residents and officials fill up the room at a coastal hearing to finally voice their concerns directly to commissioners regarding the Coastal Commission’s draft local coastal plan for Malibu.

By Ken Gale /Special to the Malibu Times

The shrill war of words between Malibu and the California Coastal Commission jumped to a higher plane last week and took on a new tenor.

For the first time since commission staff revealed its draft of a local coastal plan (LCP) for Malibu in September, the city had a chance to raise its concerns before the actual commissioners themselves at a hearing in downtown Los Angeles on Nov. 15.

The 11 commissioners were in a conciliatory mood, even after listening to nearly four hours of comments from residents, community activist groups and city politicos.

To start with, Commission Chair Sara Wan announced the commission would not act on its staff plan until January, after it had studied all the comments from residents as well as officials of the city. Wan also appointed herself and fellow Commissioner Cynthia McClain-Hill as a subcommittee to work directly with Malibu officials to create a final LCP.

“I believe we can do this,” said McClain-Hill. “I invite you to sit down at a table with Chair Wan and me. Let’s go over this draft paragraph by paragraph to work out the issues that you have.”

Other commissioners urged concerned citizens to make direct contact with them. They seemed to be opening the way for the city and its activists to circumvent recent problems with Coastal Commission staff and establish new lines of communication.

Lack of communication has been a major bone of contention between the city and commission staff, headed by Executive Director Peter Douglas.

Douglas, in a letter to Mayor Joan House, accused the city of refusing to cooperate with the commission to draft a plan despite efforts to include city-planning staff.

At the hearing last week, Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Jennings refuted Douglas, saying, “We have attempted to have conferences with the commission staff–we have the complete exchange of e-mails between us requesting to be included in the process–but there was a complete and resounding silence and refusal to meet with us.”

And there were other ruffled feathers to be smoothed.

“There has been a new fanaticism and self-righteousness at the Coastal Commission that often ignores the realities and demands unscientific, ridiculous compliance with pat formulas … that add to homeowner frustration, expense and actual taking of private property without compensation,” longtime Malibu environmental activist Jeff Harris told the commission.

There were arguments that the LCP designated too many ESHAs (environmentally sensitive habitat areas), making it impossible to build a new home on vacant land. Others said there were not enough ESHAs in the plan to protect natural resources, such as the Malibu creek and lagoon.

Some called for open Civic Center land to be designated as wetlands, thus protecting it from commercial development.

Others argued that zoning at the Civic Center area should remain “commercial general,” allowing for low-density offices and other businesses. The draft LCP changes the zoning in the Civic Center from commercial general to “no less than 50 acres of visitor-serving commercial uses, including overnight accommodations…” To many speakers that invoked dark images of a hotel and chain restaurants.

Jennings brought up an over-arching concern regarding the process of appealing permits for new construction that some have said will make the Coastal Commission the city’s planning commission. Often neighbors can stop construction of a new home for years by raising issue of property setbacks, slope density, habitat protection and even glare from windows–all things that may require appeals for permits from the commission–in order to keep new construction out of their line of sight.

Jennings cited policies in the LCP that declare, “natural vegetation buffer areas and riparian habitats shall be protected” and that Malibu is “a highly scenic area” whose “visual qualities shall be protected and, where feasible, enhanced.” He argued that this broad language could restrict construction almost anywhere in Malibu.

“You will become the court of last resort for people with a lot of money dragging out the process as long as possible,” he told the commission.

Coastal commissioners, who come from all parts of California, appeared ready to deal on these and other issues.

“We’re not interested in serving as a planning commission for Malibu,” said McCain-Hill.

“I’m assuming the commission is going to be making quite a few changes in the months to come,” said Commissioner Mary Nichols of Sacramento, who, as resources secretary for the state of California, is also an advisor to Gov. Gray Davis.

She quoted a Davis credo in negotiations: “Nobody gets what they want, but everybody gets what they absolutely need.”

The LCP, Nichols said, “needs to honor and respect the needs of Malibu.”

Commission staff at the outset of the hearing made one major concession. It recommended support of a development agreement that would allow ball fields and a recreation center now on state park land at Malibu Bluffs Park to be transferred to adjacent land, owned by Crummer Trust.

The state is turning the playing fields back to a natural habitat. Crummer Trust is offering six acres of bluffs land for recreation in exchange for the right to develop eight residential plots on adjoining acreage.

The commission staff draft LCP designated zoning for the Crummer property as “visitor-serving,” which would have prohibited homes and killed the deal. It now recommends the zoning be designated “residential.”

Wan, who is a Malibu resident, had several criticisms of the staff LCP. She called for more “mixed-use” zoning, such as parks and recreation areas within areas zoned for commercial use.

“We could better specify wetlands, she said. “The definitions are somewhat ambiguous.”

“There are quite a bit of changes I would like to see be more specific,” Wan continued. “We should have some significant changes.”

The next public hearing on the Coastal Commission’s draft LCP will be in January. A final draft is scheduled to be certified by September 2002.