The controversy over the future of the Malibu Civic Center has always been portrayed as a dispute between “no growthers” and the rest of us normal people. I believed this portrayal until a look at the facts proved it unfair and that indeed, Malibu is facing a crisis. I’m amazed that the City Council we elected is not correcting a hideous legacy that our town inherited from L.A. County that will completely destroy the quality of life in Malibu.

In 1980, before cityhood, L.A. County projected there would be 385,000 residents in Malibu. To serve this population, the county zoned over 100 acres of commercial land in downtown Malibu – enough for a major metropolitan city. There are over 94 acres of vacant commercial land left (Mayor’s Report 3/01). If the landowners are given variances for their projects or do amenity swaps, this land will be improved with over 1,150,000 square feet of new buildings.

To give you a visual, this is roughly equal to 10 new Malibu Colony Plazas. (Ralphs shop-ping center is 120,000 from end to end.) The commercially developed acreage in the Civic Center will be larger than three South Bay Gallerias, one of the largest regional malls in L.A. County. Add to this the 5,000 parking spaces required for all this development and we will have so much traffic, noise and pollution that none of us will want to live in Malibu and the property values of houses within blocks of PCH will decrease significantly.

As a property rights activist, I am a strong defender of these property owners’ rights to build the projects allowed by the zoning code and reflected in the purchase prices they paid. But these developers do not have any right to ruin my quality of life and my property values by getting variances, increased density and crass development standards as proposed in the Civic Center Guidelines. (Zero lot setbacks, increase in building heights of 25 percent up to 30 feet, etc.)

The residents who are concerned about the scope of development have spent the time that City officials should be spending studying the matter. Far from being “no growth,” they are simply paying attention and are advocating smart growth – like every other small, beautiful and wealthy town in America. This is why they’re asking the City Council to make every effort to purchase as much open space in the Civic Center as possible, to avoid the commercial megatropolis that the County Planners from whom we seceded had envisioned.

Anne Hoffman

It isn’t often that within the space of one week you find two perfect examples of the contrast of the old way of doing business in Malibu and the new way of doing business in Malibu.

The old way:

The gathering of the opposition to any realistic Civic Center plan made its pitch at the Malibu Township Council meeting Saturday for a large undeveloped central park type of a plan for almost the entire undeveloped Civic Center area.

It’s not that there is anything wrong with their plan, it’s just that the only way to make it a go is to buy the 80 Civic Center acres. This means, for starters, spending roughly $95 million to buy it, then another $20 million or so to build it out, plus another $5 million or so to build a city hall, and another $5 million or so for the community center. Then there is the cost of unknown millions for the creek and wetlands element, and it’s now up to around $150 million, plus or minus.

Now I suspect they know they’re never going to raise that kind of money, so really what they’re proposing is a scorched earth policy. Fight any Civic Center development at every turn, block it, slow it down, and, in time, you may wear the other side out and ultimately they’ll sell cheap. It actually could work, but most likely it will end up in court and that gets very risky, as the next example will show.

The old City Council followed the old way of not looking for a reasonable middle ground when the city put in an extreme rent control ordinance for the mobile home parks, particularly Paradise Cove Mobile Home Park, almost 10 years ago. The mobile coach owners at that time were militant and had the ear of the City Council. The city fought every request for a raise in rents. The coach owners were constantly going to the district attorney, asking for criminal charges to be filed against the Kissels, owners of the Paradise Cove Park, for failure to maintain the park. It was a continuous battleground of charges and countercharges. People hated each other. Resale on the coaches was terrible because of the battle. Few wanted to live in a war zone and the battle went on for years. The mobile home park owners finally beat the city in court and the city ending up shelling out almost $2.5 million in damages, costs and attorney’s fees. Everyone lost and, after a while, many of the militants moved away.

At Bluffs Park, where the ball fields are located, the old way was to go to war with the state and the Coastal Commission and refuse to budge and give up the ball fields. The city practically sat on their hands, did nothing to find sites for new ball fields and virtually dared the state to kick the kids off the fields, which the state was of course loath to do. The relationship between the city and the state was horrible, antagonistic and perpetually angry.

The new way :

The voters got tired of all the negativity, kicked out the old guard and a new group took over and the first thing they did was to start talking to everyone. That meant the State Department of Parks, the Coastal Commission and to Roy Crummer, who owns a bunch of land up next to Bluffs Park. The new council actually talked to the Kissels, the owners of the Paradise Cove Mobile Home Park, who have two pending lawsuits against the city. The new guard worked on getting the coach owners to sit down with the Kissels and let them try and hammer out a deal everyone could live with.

Well, at the Monday council meeting it was announced a settlement has been reached with the Kissels. Actually, most of the deal was reached between the coach owners and the Kissels. The coach owners already voted on it and, I understand, by a vote of 104 yeas and 40 noes, they approved the new deal.

The deal is that the Kissels get a sizable but preset rent raise for the next seven years and they will fix the septic systems at a cost of about $2.2 million without passing the costs on to the coach owners. And there is a special escape clause to protect low and elderly moderate-income owners. Additionally, there are no more lawsuits, no more uncertainty, and no more potential swords hanging over everyone’s head. It happened because the coach owners and the Kissels were reasonable and the city was fair and didn’t try to stick it to one side to protect political allies, as often has happened in the past.

The same thing is happening on Bluffs Park. They’re very close to a deal, a land swap where Roy Crummer is going to give up a hunk of land on the Bluffs for new ball fields, so the ball fields can be moved.

The state then gets its land back, and Crummer gets to build his eight single-family residences. It’s not quite a done deal, but it’s very close. It’s complicated because it involves the state, the city, a private developer, the Coastal Commission and probably some other agencies to make it work, but everyone is trying.

I suspect we’re facing the same choice in the Civic Center. We can negotiate some realistic choices and tradeoffs or just bury our heads in the sand and pretend we can have it all. If we take the latter course, it probably means more years of warfare.

As Kermit the Frog whimsically sang, “It’s not easy being green.” Our President George W. is finding that out this week as he offers environmentalists a few bones in honor of Earth Week. It’s not easy displeasing your conservative political base and having the real Greens question your motives. And Dubya isn’t even a frog. If you kiss him, you will not get a prince.

Nonetheless, I empathize with his predicament. I’ve been trying to be green for years, but my best green plans always seem to hit snags. Oh, the whole world isn’t calling me names because I’ve reneged on promises to cut CO2 emissions. And I’m not pushing to despoil the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and the Gulf of Mexico with drilling rigs (and seriously ticking off my brother, who worries about getting reelected). All I’m trying to do is get rid of some really old telephone poles.

This is not as easy as it might seem. PG&E had no trouble when it replaced them with new ones several decades back. They simply asked us to allow them to park their rigs on our property while they were doing the work and in return they would give us all the used poles. Of course, some of them had been hit by 18-wheelers, but we needed a whole bunch of fence posts, so it seemed like a good deal at the time. What did we know?

The power companies were smart back then, and they had lots better PR when they were trying to sell as much electricity as possible. They talked people into building Gold Medallion All Electric Homes, so they wouldn’t have to share any revenue with the propane vendors. As recently as 1995, when we asked them to extend our power line a half-mile farther to serve our new house, they said they would charge $500 less if we installed air conditioning. And they would rebate part of the cost if we could talk the guy at the back of our canyon into hooking up to the grid. We tried, but he said he’s getting on just fine with his diesel generator. Yuck. Now they don’t want us to turn on the air conditioner or anything else before 7 p.m. since they can’t buy any power because they can’t or won’t pay their bills.

Anyway, 30 years ago we took the pre-owned poles and built fences and used a few of them to shore up the sagging roof on the old hay barn, circa 1947, which continued to sag but remained upright until a few weeks ago, when it met its demise amid terrific wind and rain.

So we called the local guy who takes care of cleaning up decrepit buildings, broken trees and the like. For a whopping fee, he knocks it down and carts off the remains. Well, almost all the remains. The 10-foot poles he won’t touch.

The local dump/transfer station won’t take telephone poles or railroad ties or anything else that’s been treated with creosote. I don’t blame them, but what are we supposed to do with the darned things? We’re told (with a wink) maybe we could just bury them. Well, no, I don’t think so. If the landfill is worried that creosote will leech into the groundwater, then I’m worried about that too. Oh, well, who would know, he says. I would know. Our wells are pumped from that groundwater. It’s bad enough the guy with the diesel generator might be letting diesel fuel seep into the aquifer, and he’s upstream, so to speak, from our wells. Besides, it’s just not the green thing to do.

So the old hay barn gets knocked apart and carried off and we’re left with a pile of very used poles, their tops pitted and splintery and their bottoms shiny black with smelly creosote. These things are going to be harder to lose than old tires. They’re never going to decompose. And you can’t burn them because it would foul the air with enough acrid, black smoke to choke a diesel engine. The AQMD folks would have us arrested.

So guess what? This morning I get a notice from PG&E that our power will be turned off for a few hours April 26 so they can upgrade the lines, weather permitting. This is ironic because every time we have any significant weather the power goes out anyway. Also, when semi drivers veer off course and crash into the poles, which they do with alarming frequency.

What if I could talk the PG&E guys into taking back the poles? Maybe they could convince the bankruptcy court that these are valuable assets and could be used to help pay off their creditors. Maybe the PG&E officials are going to be looking for work soon or trying to get elected to something. Maybe they can improve their image if they do the green thing and take responsibility for their polluted poles.

What I need is a hotshot political consultant to make my case with the power company. Maybe I can borrow one from George W. After all, I’m just trying to do the right thing here. Nobody said it was easy being green.

IN THE SPIRIT

Local notables David Foster, Whoopi Goldberg and Olivia Newton-John helped the Red Cross celebrate the good deeds of pal Jane Seymour at this year’s American Red Cross Spirit Awards. Jane was named the organization’s humanitarian of the year for her commitment to philanthropic causes and positive contributions to television shows like “Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.” The Emmy Award-winning actress has a long history with the Red Cross, saying, “My mother was a Red Cross nurse during the war. I was a member when I was young in England too, so the Red Cross has been a running theme in our family, and something like that means a great deal to all of us.”

STARRY, STARRY NIGHT

The celebrity traffic was bumper-to-bumper at the Regent Beverly Wilshire as half of Hollywood turned out for Cedars-Sinai’s Research for Women’s Cancer 5th annual “An Unforgettable Evening” dinner. The big draw was most definitely hot power couple Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas who received The Courage Award. Mingling in the crowd were the likes of locals Harry Hamlin and Lisa Rinna as well as Sylvester Stallone, Tom Arnold, Kirk Douglas — heck, even Denise Rich was there.

The unforgettable evening got some heavyweight help with Tom Hanks, Kate Capshaw and Steven Spielberg serving as honorary co-chairs and Jay Leno taking the stage as emcee. The program took an unexpected turn when Robert Downey Jr. joined Sting for a rendition of “Every Breath You Take” bringing the crowd to its feet.

The annual fundraiser for the Women’s Cancer Institute will add another $1.5 million to its efforts to treat and prevent breast and ovarian cancer. The crusade is one that is close to home for Michael Douglas. “Both my own mother, Diana, and my stepmother, Anne, are cancer survivors thanks to early diagnosis,” he explained. “That’s why we share this award with every family that has supported a loved one through this terrible disease.”

IT’S ONLY SAX

It was B.B. King on guitar and Bill Clinton on sax at this year’s “A Family Celebration” benefit at the Regent Beverly Wilshire. The blues legend teamed up with Hollywood’s favorite former prez for a rockin’ jam session. It couldn’t have been a better way to top off an evening of performances by boy band ‘N Sync, salsa sensation Marc Anthony, good ol’ boy Dwight Yoakam and soul man Ray Charles. Before showing off his musical side, the former president took the stage with Elizabeth Taylor who presented him with this year’s Award of Merit.

While I understand justifiable anger, sometimes we do go too far with our words when we express that anger. I am inviting you (Sam Birenbaum) to take a look at some things.

You are correct about the responsibilities that dog owners have to others and their property, but labeling folks is not helpful. You have given a label to those who love their pets as “animal idolaters.” Most of the pet owners in Malibu don’t ‘worship’ their pets, but they do give them love and receive great joy from them. No one should worship an animal, or mere human for that matter. Giving love and receiving enjoyment are not synonymous with idolatry.

You accuse people who have a love for their pets as “anthropomorphizing” them and aggressively labeling it as a “deranged mental and emotional pathology.” Maybe some people are more inclined to love a pet because animals do not make a conscious choice to harm and attack as humans do. They do not judge and aggressively label as humans do. When an animal does inflict harm, it is quite often because a human has abused the animal, trained it to attack for their own ego gratification, or lack of being a responsible person. Animals attack by instinct and do not have the capacity to make a conscious choice. Humans attack verbally and physically by choice.

You also assume that many have pets as a replacement for a child or friends and call it “twisted.” Not everyone has a calling to have children, and some folks enjoy their own company enough to not need a group of friends to feel good about themselves or to feel accepted. Some people have human family members who have stepped on them, abused them, and abandoned them. Humans are not always as wonderful as you seem to make them out to be.They may be superior in intelligence, but many lack superiority in spirit.

Alethea Guthrie

The Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy are raping Malibu. Pristine beaches don’t stay that way with 37 parking spaces paved on the sand. Up on Broad Beach Road a man named Norm Haynie is pushing to make a private beach public because he can’t build on the sand.

Are we to be another Santa Barbara or Playa Del Rey or Palos Verdes where the sand is so dirty you can’t even tell it’s sand?

The state accesses are not maintained as it is now. Will the Coastal Commission pay for trash pick-up and patrol the beach at night? Will the Coastal Commission post signs on the private beaches and educate the public about lot lines?

Are any of the Coastal Commission or Coastal Conservancy members aware of what conservation means? Increased use of an area threatens the very essence and beauty of its natural ebb and flow.

Why always the push toward public use and resentment of private property? Why push and shove people who are not vested in the interest of respecting nature – why pit the people who are working at maintaining a quality of life with the people who don’t care about leaving piles of trash on the beach for the ocean to take away?

Who is Norm Haynie? Who are the Coastal Conservancy members? Why do they get to decide Malibu’s fate? Who said there can’t be private beaches?

J. Johnson