Additional monies, totaling more than $100,000, are allocated for pollution cleanup in Malibu.

By Sylvie Belmond/Staff Writer

The Department of Engineering Services for the City of Malibu, created this fiscal year, made its first report at the City Council’s quarterly review meeting on Oct. 24. The department’s primary work involves water quality and land development matters.

The new department reported on an up-note, announcing a $550,000 grant that was recently received from the California Urban Streams Program of the Department of Water Resources to restore Las Flores Creek.

This grant is in addition to $500,000 in funds allocated by the California Integrated Waste Management Board to clean up three point sources of pollution in Malibu (see story page A3) and a $2 million grant from the governor’s Clean Beach Initiative, adopted July 1 this year.

The department wants to eliminate sources of water pollution so that no storm water treatment facilities are needed in the future.

“A big source of problems is dry weather runoff, like over-irrigation,” Rick Morgan, city engineer.

Other quarterly reports:

The city is moving forward on an economic development of the General Plan that it will discuss at a Business Roundtable meeting on Friday at City Hall.

Julia James, administrative services director, reported the city is on target financially.

Malibu adopted a budget of $19,589,658 and expects to spend $20,477,566 during this fiscal year, which began on July 1, 2001.

The differential represents amounts adopted in the previous fiscal year that were required to be carried over. Multi-year capital projects are carried over and each has associated revenues with them, explained James. But these revenues have not been formerly adopted into the budget yet.

Malibu has $8.1 million in reserves with $1.6 million saved for a new City Hall and $700,000 designated for Building Safety reserves; $5.8 million is available for emergencies, disasters or unanticipated economic reversal.

A new city Web site, developed by Kirk Biglioni of Pandemic Media, will be operational by February 2002. The site will feature a local news section, a community calendar, a library of minutes, and a search engine and permit applications in PDF format.

Dial-A-Ride: The city is looking at cost-saving options because of anticipated reserve cuts. Staff may work on a registration process so riders would have an identification card. New provider options are also being considered.

The City Council reaffirmed its opposition to the Ahmanson Ranch development proposal, which would be upstream from the Malibu Lagoon between the San Fernando Valley and Agoura Hills. The project includes more than 3,000 homes,

Two local environmental activists defend state’s coastal plan, without reading it.

By Ken Gale/Special to The Malibu Times

A guest editorial in The Malibu Times last week, which lambasted critics of the California Coastal Commission’s Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for Malibu, appears to have been the launching of a campaign for a City Council seat next April by biologist and ecology activist Robert Roy Van de Hoek.

“I’m planning to do it,” said Van de Hoek, about running for City Council in an interview Friday. Van de Hoek is co-chair of the Sierra Club California Coast & Ocean Committee as well as a marine biology teacher. Asked how he would find the time for the council, he said, “I’ll find the time. It will be good to have a biologist and an educator on the City Council.”

He and fellow Malibu resident Marcia Hanscom were among five environmentalists who signed the editorial. However, both of the two Malibu-based activists admitted they had not actually read the full LCP before publishing their broadside.

Nonetheless, they accused critics of the Coastal Commission LCP of making “inflammatory and groundless claims” against the Coastal Commission, and they called for a lowering of the “rhetoric and misleading statements.”

Specifically, they attacked claims by many City Council members that the Coastal Commission “has taken away local authority,” is not “susceptible to reason” and “will not listen to the people of Malibu.”

All false claims, said the editorial.

“It’s clear that they didn’t read the LCP,” responded Councilmember Tom Hasse.

The editorial said a new LCP would benefit Malibu. “Well, duh,” said Hasse, “That’s why we’ve been working on one for the last five or six years.”

The editorial also said Malibu officials reneged on an agreement to work with the Coastal Commission on an LCP last year. But Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, who, with Councilmember Jeff Jennings, met with Coastal commissioners last fall–said, “Had he (Van de Hoek) bothered to ask, he would have discovered memos of the meeting which clearly show the city did its level best to work with the Coastal Commission to bring forward an LCP that would best serve Malibu residents as well as the larger community.”

Barovsky, who defeated Van de Hoek in the council race last November, wrote a response to the editorial that appears in The Malibu Times this week (see page 4).

The three other people who signed the editorial are leaders of other prestigious environmental groups. They are Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network; Joel Reynolds, senior attorney for the National Resources Defense Council; and Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay.

Gold told The Malibu Times there was never any discussion of politics or of Van de Hoek’s intention to run for City Council. “It’s absolutely critical for Heal the Bay to not get involved in politics, we’re just not supposed to at all,” he said. But he added, “Let’s face it, a lot of things we work on as an organization are controversial in Malibu.”

Gold noted it was highly unusual for the five signatories to come together on a single issue, “but I think what was different this time was that the coastal resources in Malibu are just so extraordinary that you have this unique coalition of groups signing off, saying, ‘Let’s look at this more as an opportunity rather than a reason to fight.'”

Although he said he had “not read it completely yet,” Van de Hoek gave some idea of the kinds of changes he would seek in the LCP, as well as, perhaps, his priorities as a member of City Council.

His issues had nothing to do with the furor over the past few weeks over rezoning that would allow hotels in the Civic Center and at Malibu Bluffs Park across from Pepperdine University among other things.

Van de Hoek’s concerns about those portions of the LCP he had read focused on very specific ecological issues–sea lions and birds, for example.

“The maps in (the LCP) show that sea lions are present on the coast and indicate places where they come up on the beaches to rest,” he noted. “But the plan doesn’t say that there are harbor seals and other kinds of seals here, too. So I’ll be offering very constructive criticism in regard to how we take care of marine life in our community and designating ESHAs (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas).”

As for the Civic Center, where the Coastal Commission draft would change the zoning from “small business” to “visitor serving,” Van de Hoek said, “The whole area would be better to be an expanded and restored wetlands, and that would be visitor serving.”

Visitor serving usually implies restaurants, overnight lodging and stores. Van de Hoek, explaining how his vision would be visitor serving, said, “It would be very pro-business oriented in terms of making a high-quality environment place for tourists. But more than that–don’t get focused on tourists, pleas –it’s for the residents, for education of future generations of children that live here in Malibu, with boardwalks and walking paths through there.”

In a separate interview Friday, Hanscom, executive director of the Wetlands Action Network, said she had only started to read the Coastal Commission LCP draft, but planned to read it over the weekend in preparation for a commission staff public hearing in Malibu on Tuesday of this week.

She also said she had never read either of the two LCP drafts that were prepared by Malibu but rejected by the commission. She complained that she was told a copy of the city’s LCP would cost $47, “and we’re a nonprofit group that doesn’t have that kind of resources.” On top of that, she said, “There were no public hearings on the LCP draft that was submitted by the city manager.”

Told, however, that there had been several public hearings (three council sub-committee and two full City Council hearings), she said she had never been informed of those meetings and that, “I have asked over and over for Wetlands Action Network to be added to the list of information whenever anything related to coastal planning comes up.”

“I think they’re both still out there somewhere in the wetlands,” Hasse commented about the two activists.

Councilmembers, residents and community activists give their final say on a long-debated bond that will designate funds for purchase of open land, parks, ballfields and maybe a community center.

By Sylvie Belmond/Staff Writer

The hotly debated $15 million open-land bond, called Measure K, will go before Malibu voters on Tuesday.

Malibu residents will show that either they trust the City Council to spend the funds from the bond according to their wishes, or not.

Opponents to the bond, however, argue that the priorities on how to spend the money are not the same for everyone.

Measure K asks voters for their approval on a bond intended to acquire land for public purposes, such as parks, playing fields and community centers, and to serve Malibu residents and protect natural areas. Fifteen percent of the funds would be available for improvements or construction. The bond would be funded by a tax assessment averaging $22 per $100,000 assessed value over a 20-year period.

Opponents argue the measure is too broad.

They are distrustful about putting a blank check into the council’s hands. “You cannot go to the bank and borrow $15 million to build a dream without collateral,” said Tom Fakehany, chair of the Lily’s Caf Steering Committee, which opposes the bond. “But that’s exactly what they’re asking us to do.”

However, supporters believe the goal is clear. The bond does two good things at once, explained Deirdre Roney, a children’s activist who supports the measure. “It lets the city create parks and helps to decrease traffic and development.”

But as the arguments draw to a close for supporters and opponents, City Council members also came to have a conflicting opinion about the bond. On Monday, Councilmember Tom Hasse, who took a neutral stand about the measure this summer, decided to oppose the bond. He justified that the bond cannot deliver all that it promises.

“We’re happy that Hasse came out against the bond measure,” said John Harlow, another member of the Lily’s Caf committee.

The rest of the council responded that Hasse’s views are ill suited. His actions are a handicap to Malibu’s desire to work on recreation solutions. “He doesn’t represent this council,” said councilmembers.

In further support of the measure, supporters say the city will gain leverage with other state agencies. “A yes on the bond gives us credibility and power for Malibu’s future,” said Roney.

State Parks will let Malibu temporarily stay at Bluffs Park if the city proves it is trying to acquire parks for itself, said Roney.

Supporters believe that Measure K will help hold off over-development.

“If K is defeated, developers will develop all of their land instead of selling some of it to the city for open space,” said Roney.

Skeptics view the final results differently, especially if some environmentalists who are part of the coalition that supports the bond have their way with the money. Fakehany pointed out that 35 percent of the land in the city is already owned by government agencies and dedicated as open space.

Former Councilmember Harlow said the bond is poorly written. State matching funds should be committed before the bond measure is presented to voters, he said. What’s more, supporters should identify willing sellers, so voters know what properties would be bought with bond money. As of now, proponents have not mentioned any willing sellers, specifically in the Civic Center area.

Proponents disagree, saying they have not presented specific properties because they do not have the money yet.

“Buyers can’t target something before it’s for sale,” said Lloyd Ahern, bond committee member.

The open-land picture is different for proponents and opponents as well. Councilmember Ken Kearsley, an avid supporter of the bond, said the bond money would only be used to buy land for ballfields and parks.

“Wetlands are not supported by this council,” he said.

Mona Loo, bond committee chair, concurred with Kearsley.

“The only time wetlands would be built is if a new council gets elected that favors wetlands,” said Loo.

Even the wetlands activists agree, that’s why they’re doing their separate campaign, said Loo.

Opponents are skeptical. They said the bond language is a trap that requires open space to be kept as such, without recreational amenities.

Opponents are also concerned that the majority can change on the council based on quorum. If two councilmembers are absent, a quorum of three can decide on a matter, said Fakehany.

But Kearsley strongly disagreed. When a vote like that comes up, he, Jeff Jennings and Mayor Joan House will be there, he responded. “We will be there if they have to wheel us in on the way to the cemetery,” said Kearsley.

Some opponents felt double-crossed.

Doug O’Brien, a Lily’s Cafe committee member, who participates on the Parks and Recreation Commission, argued that, after 10 years of work, the council ignored the committee’s input on solutions to acquire land for ball fields and community centers.

“The whole thing is a sham,” said O’Brien, who thinks the city should have used the money it already has to pay for parks.

Also, opponents say that ball fields and parks could be obtained through current development agreements that are being discussed, such as the Crummer Trust and Malibu Bay Company. The latter would give 19 acres in the Point Dume area to the city in exchange for allowable development on its property.

In the end, voters will decide on the validity of these arguments and those who show up at the polls will determine the fate of the bond.

The Point Dume Community Services District (PDCSD), founded almost 20 years ago, is an organization without a home.

Candidates running for a position on the district’s board of directors hope to change that. However, some of the solutions offered to provide a new home base for the district’s services are not agreeable to all.

The district rented space at Point Dume Elementary School when the school was closed in the 1980s and early ’90s. The district hosted community classes and activities for community during that time.

But now, the district is squeezed out of its space because the school is open.

The PDCSD still uses a small office at the school, which is provided free of charge. However, revenues have drastically decreased,, because profits from space it rented to outside entities is disappearing.

Now, the Point Dume community will elect three board members for the district on Nov. 6 (the election is closed to all other Malibu residents). Five candidates are running for the three available seats.

Beverly Hammond, publisher, has already served as president of the board of directors for the district during the last several years.

It was her idea to approach the Malibu Stage Co. to see if the district could manage the theater for the company in exchange for use of the facilities.

However, some Zuma Canyon residents oppose the idea of using the facility in their neighborhood for anything other than the theatrical productions. A conditional-use permit is currently before the Planning Commission on that matter.

Others do not view the decision to use the theater as simple.

“It’s a complex issue,” said Charleen Kabrin, a charter member of the district. “I don’t think the community is even aware of this option.” Traffic circulation is already problematic in Zuma Canyon and Kabrin said she understands that residents in that area are not happy. “I think we need to look in our own backyard first,” she said.

Two new candidates hope to bring new blood to the PDCSD.

“I am interested in running because I want to help find new facilities for the service district,” said John Mazza, a 29-year Malibu resident.

Mazza hopes to provide executive and financial knowledge to the organization. In an effort to provide a place where general clubs and organizations can meet and recreate, Mazza wants to begin with a community-wide survey to help find out what spaces are available and how they could be obtained.

Richard Garvey also wants the community to participate as the district re-visits its purpose.

The 20-year resident of Point Dume has been actively involved in local associations and said he wants to help direct the PDCSD in the right path. “The community should be made aware of what the district is, what it can do based on what the community wants,” he said.

Currently, the district is also looking at possibilities that may come up if the Malibu Bay Company development agreement goes through.

A primary accomplishment of the district is the establishment of the Cameron Community Park in Point Dume, but that, too, could be lost because Point Dume elementary has expressed concerns about sharing the park. The park sits on school property, but improvements were provided by the PDCSD. Dog waste and excess trash after weekends have been problematic. To help, the PDCSD applied for a grant from the city for a subsidy that could pay for park supervision and cleaning.

Karen Verham, a teacher, is also running for a position on the board. She was unavailable to comment for this story.

A local environmental group maps 342 drains, finding the point sources of pollution in the Santa Monica Bay.

By Carolanne Sudderth/Special to The Malibu Times

Two local conduits achieved notoriety recently when Santa Monica Baykeeper released its storm drain report. Malibu outlets at Paradise Cove and in the Escondido Beach area were named in the “Dirty Dozen”–12 drains that have exceeded state health standards for both E. coli and coliform in at least four out of six snapshot sampling events.

Other offenders are located at Will Rogers Beach and at the end of Rose Avenue in Venice.

“I think that everybody here knows that the bay has water quality problems,” said Steve Fleischli, executive director of the Santa Monica Baykeeper.

The report will blaze trails for regional water quality management, said David Beckman, senior attorney for the National Regional Defense Council. He described the report as “a litany of water quality violations that affect health and marine life.”

“It’s really an indictment of the city’s attempt to control pollution,” said Beckman.

Municipal authorities have been unwilling to collect information on contamination, and regional authorities have been unable to do so, said Fleischli. The report provides a recipe where a detailed investigation could begin.

Once every three months, 70 volunteers walked 46 miles of Santa Monica Bay between Palos Verde and Malibu Point, walking the beach one mile at a time, collecting samples, and mapping the number of drains and outlets. The samples they collected form a “snapshot” of the bay at a given point in time.

The idea is to locate and eliminate point sources of pollution.

All 342 storm drains in the Santa Monica Bay have been documented–using photographs and satellite technology.

“We need to go back up into the watersheds and find out who’s dumping and hold these people accountable,” said Fleischli.

Three-quarters of the drains exceed standards for contact recreation by 50 percent and most of the effluvium collects in the surf zone. Contaminants include heavy metals–lead, zinc, copper and mercury–as well as bacterial pollution, some of which comes from raw sewage spills. Most of the pollution, however, comes from runoff from streets, gutters and lawns. Of samples collected, 50 exceeded standards for acute toxicity.

Only 70 to 80 of the drains are flowing at any given time–but that’s more than enough to have an effect on the bay.

“Just because it does not flow to the beach doesn’t mean it’s not a hazard, because many times, children and families will play in the drains,” said Fleischli.

The acute effect on wildlife is death. On a chronic level, pollutants affect the growth of algae– the base of the food pyramid on which all animal life is built.

And then there’s the grease. A surfeit of grease can cause a drain to back up. Very large kitchens can clog very large drains. Forty percent of all sewage spills occur because of grease blockages. The slop backs up and oozes out from beneath manhole covers. (Others are due to cracked and aging sewer pipes.)

The source of the grease is local restaurants, said Fleischli.

The number of backups is particularly noteworthy in Pacific Palisades, Fleischli said. “And it’s in a fairly remote location, so the city’s not always going to be on top of it when it does break.”

In addition to health effects, pollution affects the local economy to the tune of “billions and billions of dollars.” Santa Monica Bay beaches are sought out by 45 million visitors annually, said Fleischli.