The prospect of an outside land use plan that would remove local authority entices potential candidates to run for City Council seats. Planning Commissioner Andrew Stern says he will run.

By Sylvie Belmond/Staff Writer

This Thursday, two busloads of Malibu residents and city officials, as well as others traveling by car, will fill the meeting room of the California Coastal Commission as it conducts a hearing on its draft land use plan for Malibu.

The land use plan, or local coastal plan (LCP), has raised the hackles of many in the city, as some feel the commission completely ignored Malibu’s input and needs when it drafted its version of the Malibu LCP.

The LCP has also stirred political interests, inspiring a few city officials to consider running for City Council seats in April.

The commission was given the authority to draft the LCP for Malibu when Bill AB988 was passed by the Legislature, because the city was taking too long to draft its own plan.

Many feel that the commission’s draft provides too much development, and would increase the amount of tourists and traffic.

It also demands that accessways to local beaches be opened up every 1,000 feet, which some think is outrageous.

A recent meeting at Webster Elementary School with Coastal Commission staff, where residents shared concerns but commission staff said nothing, was not conducive to any real solutions, said Ken Kearsley, city councilmember. Moreover, while the city is being sued because it allegedly did not hold enough hearings on its own draft LCP, it only gets one hearing from the Coastal Commission’s LCP, he said.

If the LCP goes through as proposed, the City Council and the City of Malibu will be under the authority of the Coastal Commission and “the great pasha, Peter Douglas [CCC’s executive director], is going to make the decisions,” said Kearsley.

Kearsley also feels the commission’s LCP may have adverse impacts on current development agreement discussions between the city and Civic Center property owners.

While Kearsley is still hopeful for some compromise, he felt both the Coastal Commission and the city would have to give and take some before they can truly come to the negotiating table.

But the LCP is not written in stone yet. This is the beginning of the process and the Coastal Commission has until Sept. 15, 2002 to finalize and adopt the LCP under Bill AB988.

Planning Commissioner Ted Vaill highlighted that AB988 requires coastal commissioners to consult with Malibu before they finalize a plan. The commissioners are required to deliberate and take into consideration what Malibu has to say about the plan, said Vaill, not just listen and nod their heads.

As they prepared for the commission hearing, Mayor Joan House and Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Jennings met with a consultant and with California Assemblymember Fran Pavley, hoping to resolve the issues with the Coastal Commission before the LCP is finalized. House and Jennings also plan to meet with Sen. Sheila Kuehl on the matter.

“Because Pavley was a Coastal Commissioner for three years, she should be able to help facilitate this impasse,” said House.

The LCP’s policies intend to protect natural resources and protect public access. To accomplish that goal, both the Coastal Commission and the city need to work together, said House.

LCP triggers interest in council seats

But before everyone sits down to discuss LCP with the commission, some changes may take place on the council. The LCP matters triggered the interest of two Planning Commission members who feel they would be qualified to help the city as it faces this particular challenge because they know how to deal with land-use issues.

Andy Stern, planning commissioner, announced he would run for a City Council seat in April 2002. Stern said his 3-year experience on the Malibu Planning Commission would be a valuable asset as the city faces unprecedented land-use challenges.

Stern wants to help the city navigate through these troubled waters and said he can be a stabilizing force on the council.

The LCP as proposed by the Coastal Commission threatens local control and will impact individual homeowners, said Stern. Furthermore, the city also faces the challenge of dealing with the pending development of nearly every vacant lot in the Civic Center area, said Stern. It has to deal with the ramifications of the defeat of Measure K, which adds to the land-use crisis because the city will lose the only ball fields it has, which are located at Bluffs Park.

“I am determined to do everything in my power to help find solutions that will meet the many challenges facing Malibu,” said Stern. “It’s a critical time.”

Ted Vaill, also a planning commissioner, is not sure whether he will run yet. Although he would personally like to run for a council seat, his family is not in favor of the idea because they are concerned about the dirty politicking that takes place when a campaign goes on.

Vaill has taken an aggressive position on the LCP, which he vehemently opposes. He has been quoted, saying the LCP was “a declaration of war on Malibu.”

As the political lines are drawn, Vaill said, if he runs he would be a candidate in the middle between conservative and liberal forces.

Robert Roy van de Hoek, who ran for council in November 2000, also announced he would run again in April. He favors environmental issues and, in contrast to the other candidates, supports the Coastal Commission’s position on the LCP, as evidenced in a recent guest editorial published a few weeks ago in The Malibu Times.

Declining membership and financial hardships close down nudist resort in unincorporated Malibu.

By Laura Tate/Editor

Once again, nudists who have frolicked in the canyons of Topanga for more than 30 years, and then in the mountains of Malibu for less than a year, are out of a sanctuary to practice their belief that playing sports, exercising, dancing, and practically just about any other activity are better naked than clothed.

The nudist, or naturist, resort Elysium Institute is closing.

A statement on Elysium’s Web site by Elizabeth Meltzer, a board member who with her husband Sanford purchased the land and home at the organization’s most recent location, said: “Due to financial impact of September 11 and declining Elysium member numbers, my husband and I are unable to continue paying for the Malibu property and its many overhead expenses. We must put the property up for sale.”

The Meltzers purchased a home and land on Mulholland Highway near Decker and Encinal canyons early last year after Elysium members were informed the Topanga location was being sold.

Started by the late Ed Lange in the early ’60s, Elysium has put up several battles to operate in Topanga. Shortly after the resort opened, sheriff’s deputies raided the property arresting dozens for indecent exposure. The battle lasted 25 years and finally, in 1993, Lange was able to legally keep his utopia open for nudists, provided the resort adhered to stipulations of a conditional-use permit. Lange, who was a photographer for the magazines Life, Harper’s Bazaar and Vogue, also published several magazines and photography books including, “Family Naturism in America” and “Fun in the Sun: Nudist and Naturist Living.” Ironically, not only did the Topanga Chamber of Commerce finally accept the institute as a member, but Lange was also voted as the Chamber’s Citizen of the Year in 1995. He died the same year.

The ax fell when his daughters, Dana and Lisa Lange, decided to sell the property last year. Elysium members scrambled to come up with the $1.5 million the Langes were asking, but came up short by $400,000.

That’s when the Meltzers stepped in.

However, the rescue did not last long. In a recent letter to Elysium members, Meltzer explained that a major blow was that banks were unwilling to refinance the property after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Unfortunately, for all of us, ‘money talks’ and Elysium doesn’t have any,” said Meltzer in her letter.

Meltzer said that a dozen or so members might continue Elysium as an AANR (American Association for Nude Recreation) non-landed travel club.

Another factor in the resort’s decline was that planning and site improvements were not completed in order to get permits to “officially reopen Elysium.”

Membership rates were not too out-of-the-sphere at $350 per year for individual memberships with a daily $12 gate fee added. Couples and families could join for $450 plus the gate fee, and students and seniors got a bargain at $250 per year.

Despite the low rates, membership declined from a high of 1,500 at Topanga to around 600 when the resort opened in Malibu, said Noel Pugh, a member of Elysium since 1982. Pugh came to the resort after meeting someone who lived there. Pugh, a cartoonist and a masseur, drew cartoons and caricatures for The Malibu Times in the mid-’80s.

“I was greeted with such warmth and companionship, my life became instantly entwined with that of Elysium, and I soon moved in,” said Pugh. He became the in-house masseur for the resort.

Pugh believes the distance of the new location plus the fact that it isn’t as “idyllic” as the Topanga location led to the decrease in membership.

“Topanga was particularly bucolic and green,” he said.

Pugh said he has long since analyzed why some people feel more comfortable “throwing their clothes off” than others.

“At one point I thought it might have to do with religious or puritanical [reasons],” he said. “But people here come from diverse types of backgrounds,” from conservative to liberal.

Pugh decided it “must be a naturist gene” that allows some to feel more comfortable nude.

He did admit that Elysium had its share of people who used the environment for their sexual benefit. He paralleled that with religious organizations–people who claim to be religious and attend church in order to meet women or men. However, he said it’s much easier to make direct connections when there’s nudity involved.

Lange’s idea of his camp, which made it different than others, was that members were not required to be nude and physical contact was allowed. However, sex was not allowed, as Lange wanted it to be a family resort.

“Even though nudity was the norm here, it wasn’t necessary,” said Pugh. “As we talk, I have shoes, socks, slacks on, [because I want to.]”

Pugh is one of two senior residents who must find a new place to live. He said he has his name on several affordable housing lists, but is looking for some place local.

“I felt I fit in,” said Pugh of Elysium. “I felt it was my home. Now, I may have to go back to being a regular … whatever.”

Already, the Web site for Elysium has been limited to Meltzer’s statement, links to other naturist sites, e-mail and the Journal of Senses Magazine, which is published by the Elysium Institute.

Gone are the calendars of events, photographs and announcements of parties.

Measure K, the $15 million open-land bond, appeared to be going down to defeat with more than half the vote counted as of midnight on Tuesday.

The vote at press time was 942 to 642 in favor of the bond, with three of six precincts counted along with a sizable portion of the absentee ballot.

But that was only a 59 percent favorable vote. The measure requires a 67 percent vote to pass.

With more than half the precincts reporting, it would require a 74 percent yes vote from the other three precincts in order to reach the two-thirds vote mandate.

While not conceding defeat last night, city Councilmember Sharon Barovsky said, nonetheless, if the bond goes down, “I will be very, very sad.”

She also was critical of Councilmember Tom Hasse, the only councilmember to oppose the bond. “If it doesn’t pass, he’s responsible,” said Barovsky. “He defeated the bond and he should be ashamed. He has alienated every supporter he ever had in this town.”

The bond money was to be used to buy land for parks, playgrounds, ball fields, trails and a community center as well as to protect natural areas and wildlife. It allotted $12,775,000 for the purchase of land and $2,225,000–15 percent of the total-for improvements and construction on the land.

A major opponent of the bond measure was former city Councilmember John Harlow, who was also a member of the Lily’s Cafe steering committee, which led the opposition to the bond.

Its defeat, Harlow said, “Tells you Malibu voters read the arguments and are much more conservative than what people think they are. I think that’s especially true when it comes to spending even a dollar in taxes.”

The Lily’s group criticized the bond issue for promising too many things while limiting the amount of money that could be spent on building new ball fields and recreational facilities, thus leaving most of the land to be acquired as open space.

Harlow pointed out that Malibu demographics have changed over the past five or six years, with “young families moving in” who would be more interested in using land acquired for recreational purposes rather than open spaces.

Tom Fakehany, another leader of the Lily’s Cafe opposition group, said, “We hope that we can sit down with the City Council and the coalition group that drew up the bond issue to write a new one for the next election that would do what more people want it do.”

Fakehany said his group was never opposed to the idea of a bond; they just wanted it to be more specific about what it would do.

Mona Loo, chair of the citizens steering committee that helped draft the language of the measure, said, “If you can defeat something like this just on distrust and negativity, then we are a very sad community.”

As Malibu residents prepared to cast their votes on Tuesday, arguments for and against the open-land bond, Measure K, came to the finish line, with some dirt flying between the two sides.

Last week, Councilmember Tom Hasse abruptly switched sides and joined the opposition. He even called potential voters on Tuesday, encouraging them to vote against Measure K.

Hasse and Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy (MCLC) President Steve Uhring, who supports the bond, vehemently disagree on the bond’s merits, and brought their quarrel to the public arena when they exchanged words in letters to the editor that were published last week in local newspapers.

Opponents have declared the language of the $15 million bond, which would be used to buy land for parks, playing fields and perhaps to build a community center as well as others items, not specific enough. Supporters say everyone will benefit from it.

In a letter to the editor to The Malibu Times last week, Uhring called Hasse a liar.

Uhring said Hasse contradicted himself, first suggesting that two property owners in the Civic Center would consider selling land to the city in his February 2001 Mayor’s Report, and then saying there are no willing sellers.

Land in the Civic Center area has long since been a target for purchase not only by bond supporters, but also by the MCLC for wetlands.

Hasse faxed a letter to 1,000 households in Malibu, responding to the allegations by Uhring. “Once again the politics of personal destruction rears its ugly head,” began Hasse in his letter.

Hasse said that Uhring failed to note that he used the word “consider” in his February 2001 Mayor’s Report when referring to Pepperdine University and Malibu resident Tosh Yamaguchi possibly selling to the city. Furthermore, it was in the context of a possible development agreement with the city, having nothing to do with the bond.

And in his March 2001 Mayor’s report, Hasse states: “I can tell you from my two-year experience on the City Council’s ad hoc negotiating committee, that none of the six property owners who own 99 percent of all the remaining vacant commercially zoned property in Malibu are willing sellers.”

Hasse, in his letter to residents this week, said he was “quite alarmed” when he learned Uhring became a member of the bond steering committee.

The MCLC is an organization whose stated goal is to buy property in the Civic Center for restoration of wetlands, he said. That is where the organization would want to spend the bond measure money.

It is no secret that the MCLC wants to acquire land in the Civic Center to reduce some of the construction that could take place there, said Uhring. However, he said the MCLC does not plan to petition to use any of the bond funds to achieve that goal. Instead, the organization is raising funds independently for the wetlands, according to a letter to the editor from the MCLC published a few months ago.

Hasse initially supported the bond, and even helped to create Measure O, the precursor to Measure K, approved by voters last year.

Hasse then became hesitant about the measure when opposition emerged on the basis that the bond language was vague. Opponents do not want to give $15 million to the City Council without specific designations as to where the money should go.

“I don’t understand why he changed position,” said Councilmember Sharon Barovsky about Hasse’s decision to switch sides. “We voted 5-0 for that bond and that language.”

Barovsky, speaking about the Hasse/Uhring feud, said she wants to stay focused on the issue.

“If the bond passes, the council has set its priorities,” said Barovsky, “and it will stick with those, no matter what or where personal animosities lie. I, for one, intend to stick to it [the priorities].”

Residents and city staffers turned out in force to blast the commission about not including city input in the latest draft land use plan.

By Carolanne Sudderth/Special to The Malibu Times

Malibu residents packed an auditorium on Tuesday to give the California Coastal Commission a piece of their mind over the draft Land Use Plan (or Local Coastal Plan) proposed for Malibu at an informal public workshop at Webster Elementary School.

Upset that the commission drafted a plan for Malibu without city or local input was a main contention of most residents and city staff. Also, some feel the plan would overdevelop Malibu.

“If the Coastal Commission’s plan is implemented, all we’re going to have is shopping centers and overnight hotels,” said Pat Healy of the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth.

Attempts to develop a LCP for Malibu began in 1977, shortly after the Coastal Act went into effect. At that time, Los Angeles County held jurisdiction. Its supervisors successfully submitted a Land Use Plan in 1982, which was certified in 1986. After its incorporation, the new City of Malibu developed a General Plan of its own.

When a Malibu draft LCP was submitted to Coastal Commission staff in March 2000, the city was informed verbally by commission staff that the document “was not sufficient in detail or content to meet the requirements of the Coastal Act.”

Meanwhile, the Coastal Commission drafted a Malibu LCP of its own, which was finally released to the city last month.

Speaking for the City Council, indicating the rancor that exists between the city and the commission, City Manager Katie Lichtig led the charge at the workshop, expressing her displeasure that there had been “little or no effort” to engage the city’s participation, “even though the city made repeated [efforts]. We believe that it violates the basic concept of the Coastal Act–the reliance on local governance and procedure. To date, the city attempts to be involved in the development of the LUP have been in vain.”

Planning Director Barry Hogan echoed her sentiments.

“We feel that the draft LUP far oversteps its bounds,” he said. “It makes every decision subject to the Coastal Commission, and to date, the commission has turned a deaf ear.”

However, there were no commission ears to hear on Tuesday. None of the Coastal Commissioners made it to the meeting, nor did Executive Director Peter Douglas–a fact that did not go unnoticed or over easy with those in attendance.

Malibu resident Georgia McBurney was one of several who took offense when staff said they would try to get transcripts of the meeting to commissioners prior to the formal hearing on Nov. 15.

“Do you understand,” McBurney asked, “that having to attend this meeting [Nov. 15] only two weeks after makes this meeting seem like a charade? I just wonder if these hearings are doing any good.”

Malibu’s elongated footprint lies entirely within the Coastal Zone, in principle, placing the entire city under Coastal Commission jurisdiction.

Concerns about the commission draft plan included new restrictions on current homeowners, ostensibly to protect fragile coastal ecosystems, while at the same time implementing protection measures that could encourage future development.

Malibu Parks and Recreation Commissioner Laura Rosenthal emphasized the need for balance. “What you’re asking us to do is to give up the little that we have for the residents and the children for the sake of visitors.”

Geoffrey Hunter asserted that some of the language was unclear. ” ‘Life-extending activities’ could be interpreted as [meaning] I can’t even paint the house–I can’t paint the roof.”

Parks and Recreation Commissioners joined soccer moms in pleading for the preservation of Bluffs Park.

The five Little League fields currently shared by the Pony League, AYSO and other youth groups, they said, are far more valuable than the site would be as passive recreation–or an RV park.

Dermot Stoker, also a parks commissioner, urged the Coastal Commission to “set aside whatever differences you may have” and work with the city government to “come up with a document you can be proud of.

“Please work with us,” he asked, and let’s start afresh.”

The Coastal Commission will conduct a hearing on Nov. 15 in downtown L.A. at the Hyatt Regency, 711 Hope Street, at 9 a.m. Most of the day will be devoted to the Malibu LCP.