Sheriff’s Dept. explains high cost

of crime fighting.

By Ken Gale / Special to The Malibu Times

Violent crime has fallen dramatically in Malibu since the city incorporated 10 years ago. From a high of 840 incidents in 1991 to a low of 315 in 1999 and 316 last year, the latest figure available, violent crime is down 63 percent in this affluent city by the sea, according to the L.A. County Sheriff’s Dept.

Violent crimes are labeled “Part I” crimes by the Sheriff’s Dept. They include homicide, assault, rape and theft.

The Malibu pattern roughly followed the national downward trend in violent crime during the 1990s. The high-flying economy, with more people working and making higher wages, is often given as a significant factor in the crime drop.

However, local sheriff’s officials cannot attribute the drop in Malibu violent crime to any one specific factor.

Sheriff’s Capt. Jim Glazer said candidly, “I don’t know why” crime went down in Malibu. Glazer is commander of the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station, which polices Malibu and many other cities on both sides of the Santa Monica Mountains, as well as the canyons in between. “My department does not take credit,” he said.

Still, noting the apparent downturn in the economy, Glazer said, “When it (crime) turns around and goes up–and it surely will–it won’t hurt to have a good law enforcement program in place.”

Glazer made his comments at a recent meeting of the Malibu City Council Subcommittee on Finance and Administration. The subcommittee was reviewing the sheriff’s budget, looking for possible ways to cut back.

In the past, Councilmember Jeff Jennings has suggested the city might divert money from the sheriff’s budget to spend on its own youth programs.

Sheriff’s Det. Todd Kosisko touted the department’s juvenile intervention teams in high schools, involving students in law enforcement role-playing scenarios and a teen court program in which students judge and sentence their peers cited for minor offenses for possibly helping with the downward trend in local crime.

Such programs, Glazer said, give students the confidence to “come forward freely” if they have information about a crime on campus.

At $4.34 million, Malibu’s contract with the Sheriff’s Dept. eats up more than one-fifth of the entire city budget. That about equals the budget percentages of two neighboring cities, Agoura Hills and Calabasas, which also contract with the Sheriff’s Dept.

Malibu has a much smaller population than either of those cities (13,300 compared to 22,150 for Agoura Hills and 20,450 for Calabasas).

A big reason that Malibu pays a much higher dollar figure for law enforcement, according to Lt. Tom Bradstock, commander of the sheriff’s substation in Malibu, is traffic–especially on Pacific Coast Highway.

It is estimated that more than 35,000 cars travel through Malibu each day on PCH.

In the year 2000, Malibu had a total of 356 traffic accidents (including PCH), compared to 140 for Calabasas and 86 for Agoura Hills (these figures do not include accidents on the 101 Freeway). Traffic ticketing also requires more deputies. It takes more traffic deputies to patrol Malibu roads than for Agoura Hills and Calabasas combined.

Despite its lower population, Malibu also had a higher percentage of Part I crimes: 37 percent for Malibu, 34 percent for Agoura Hills, and 29 per cent for Calabasas.

These higher crime figures are largely attributed to beachgoers and other transients passing through the city on PCH. There are no statistics on how many of those crimes are against Malibu residents, but Glazer said “better than half of the crimes” committed in Malibu are burglaries from cars, and most of those occur in beach parking lots.

Due to the extra visitor/transient activity in Malibu, it takes about twice as many deputies to police the city than are used in either of the other two cities. In a 24-hour period Malibu employs 19.4 deputies over two shifts. Calabasas has 10.4 deputies, Agoura 9.4.

The subcommittee, led by councilmembers Jennings and Tom Hasse, will report its findings and recommendations regarding the sheriff’s budget to the City Council at a later date.

Public expresses concern over number of variances required and traffic problems in the area. Some request an environmental impact review before going forward with approval of the development.

By Sylvie Belmond / Staff Writer

A proposed office building in the Point Dume area that has been the center of controversy among homeowners and councilmembers lately was the center of attention at a Planning Commission meeting on Monday night.

This planned 14,950 square foot semi-circular office complex, to be located on a 2.29-acre lot on Portshead Road between Kanan Dume and Heathercliff Roads, would require eight discretionary approvals from the commission before going forward with construction.

The project consists of four attached structures that would house approximately 12 offices and provide 60 parking spaces for tenants.

But while opponents to the project say they appreciate the discreet and well-designed building, created by architect Edward Niles, they also expressed concerns about how traffic will impact the area, which already has a hazardous traffic pattern.

A nearby elementary school, existing businesses and the Pacific Coast Highway access already create traffic problems on certain days.

Neighbors also want the commission to consider future developments on nearby properties, such as the adjacent Malibu Bay Company’s (MBC) parcel, which may be developed into athletic fields, and a recreation center if the development agreement goes through, before they approve this project.

But as he presented the project, Niles emphasized that Malibu has a great need for office space.

“There is a big demand for office space in Malibu because Malibuites don’t want to commute,” said Niles.

This complex would provide office space for local attorneys, accountants, writers and headhunters, he said, reassuring neighbors and commissioners that this building is not designed for large corporations or customer-serving businesses like restaurants or stores.

However, to get the project built, the applicant is requesting:

• A site plan review for a height increase above 18 feet

• A conditional use permit for construction exceeding 500 square feet

• A variance for exceeding the 1,000 cubic yard grading limit

• A variance for placing the parking lot in the required front yard setback

• A minor modification for reducing the Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) setback

• A minor modification for reducing front yard setbacks

• A sign permit

These variances made the neighbors uneasy because they did not want any precedent to be set.

To mitigate the possible impacts, neighbors asked the commission to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Of the three commissioners who were present, only Andrew Stern seemed uncomfortable about the possible impacts. He indicated that he may opt for an EIR to have a more thorough examination of the matter.

“How can we ask for a mitigation project on somebody else’s property?” asked Ed Lipnick, commission chair, as he spoke about the problematic intersection, which is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, not the city or the property owner.

California Environmental Quality Act requirements were also brought up by Ozzie Silna, an active community member, who said this project and the MBC proposed project on the adjacent property might include some contradictions with state rules.

Moreover, parking issues on Portshead were also touchy because the California Coastal Commission is opposed to no-parking signs in coastal zones.

After testimonies from the public and from the applicant, the commission continued the matter to October, giving time to both parties to thoroughly evaluate the impact of this development and possible mitigation measures.

The commissioners also considered a resident’s concern about lack of notification, and agreed it may be a good idea to start posting large signs on properties where impending commercial developments may take place to be sure nearby residents are properly notified, which is the current procedure in the cities of Santa Monica and Calabasas.

The Malibu Realty Company, long a fixture of the Malibu real estate scene, is closing its doors at the end of this week. All of its agents, about 30 in number, have been told they should seek em-ployment elsewhere.

At a hastily called, tearful meeting on Aug. 9, the agents were told the agency and its real estate, which has been up for sale since its founder, Charles Willson, died a short time ago, had found a buyer and a deal was signed. The names of the new buyer or buyers were not disclosed, as part of a confidentiality agreement.

The sale of the company includes the smallish 1,500 square foot real estate office at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Cross Creek Road, which is being shut down for repairs at the end of this week. The building will be closed for termiting and renovation, and it is anticipated it will remain closed for approximately three months, reopening sometime in November.

In addition to the sale of the company and its name, there is also the real estate, which includes the Cross Creek Road building, another small building at Point Dume located at Pacific Coast Highway and Heathercliff Road, which sits on a commercially zoned half acre or so, and a lease on an office in Topanga Canyon. It is rumored the buyer has a lease option on both the Point Dume property and the Topanga lease.

Many of the Malibu Realty agents, like Elsie Muslin, Tom Bates, Bill Mason and Libby Sparks, are longtime Malibu Realty agents, having worked with Charles Willson for years, and are community activists. Although all knew the agency and real estate were up for sale, the sudden speed of the transaction and the short time they were given to leave left some of them, who asked not to be quoted, quite upset and hurt after long years of service to the company.

The Malibu real estate community, which is relatively small, is alive with rumors about who the purchasers might be, whether it is a large company from the outside entering what they perceive as a lucrative high-end market, or perhaps some local heavy-hitting agents who had decided to strike out on their own.

The last few years has seen a large amount of consolidation in the Southern California real estate industry and there is a constant stream of rumors about new agencies opening, although very few have actually taken the step.

In a letter to the board of directors of the Malibu Association of Realtors (which is running in its entirety in our Letters to the Editor section), the board president, Beverly Taki, said, “Today is a sad day in the history of Malibu real estate. Our colleagues who have been reliable agents for Malibu Realty have been instructed to remove their belongings and to associate with another brokerage by next Friday, August 17. This is a shock for our fellow members and we need to offer our condolences and encouragement as they determine the next phase in their real estate career.”

Day laborers. You see them on street corners and near businesses throughout the city.

But while the workers are looking for an opportunity to earn some money, businesses and neighbors in areas where they gather have concerns about safety and other issues.

In Malibu, aside from the Labor Exchange, which is a safe place designated to help laborers assemble and find work, workers also congregate in the Heathercliff and Trancas areas near two banks, leaving some customers feeling ill at ease.

As a result of these concerns, ordinances were created to try to ban solicitation of work in certain situations.

Agoura Hills was the first city in the nation to enact an ordinance that banned labor solicitation in 1991. Other cities, including Malibu and L.A. County, followed suit.

The ordinances are similar: It is prohibited to solicit work or money from a moving vehicle in any public street, highway, sidewalk or driveway and it is also prohibited to do the same while the occupant of a vehicle. Also, it is prohibited to solicit work or money from a location within a commercial parking area without the permission of the property owner.

But after the county enacted the ordinance, it was challenged in federal court two and a half years ago on grounds that a day laborer’s right to announce their availability for work is protected under the First Amendment. It took almost a year and a half for the judge to make a decision and declare it unconstitutional.

This decision had an impact in other places, like Agoura and Malibu, because L.A. County sheriff’s deputies stopped enforcing the ordinances in surrounding cities even if the ordinance still existed, until a ruling about the constitutionality of laws banning laborers from looking for work is cleared.

Residents’ concerns

Jim Castro, L.A. County Sheriff’s special assignment deputy, said people often express their concerns to him when they see him on the field.

“Sometimes day laborers interfere with local businesses and pedestrian traffic,” he said.

But “arresting them and citing them is not our goal. We go out of our way not to cite them,” he added.

As an option, Castro encourages laborers to go to the Malibu Labor Exchange.

Castro said the number of day laborers can go up to 20 or 40 in any given location when he is not around, but when he patrols the areas where they gather it goes down to five or 10.

The special assignment deputy splits his time between Agoura and Malibu, dedicating 20 hours to each city.

“Another complaint I get a lot of,” said Castro, ” is cat calls to women.”

Yet, Castro said this problem may be due to sociocultural differences; while some women may consider these calls complimentary in some cultures, others do not as they may feel threatened by this behavior.

Otherwise, Castro concurred that the laborers “come out here for the same reasons that a lot of us live here and work here–the totality, better jobs and better pay.”

Oscar Mondragon, director of the Malibu Labor Exchange, said: “These rules (city ordinances) have been set from a safety point of view.”

If a driver wants to approach workers he has to stop in a safe place to do so, but if an employer wants to solicit a worker from his or her car, that is prohibited, said Mondragon of the Malibu ordinance.

As he spoke about workers who gather in other areas in an attempt to get work, Mondragon explained that the exchange does go to these areas but “we have no way to force them here.”

Competition and an already set base of clients discourage the workers from going to the Labor Exchange, he said.

The workers’ perspective

“From our perspective working is not a crime, it’s a fundamental human right,” said Pablo Alvorado of the Coalition for Humane Immigrants’ Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), an organization that fought against the L.A. County ordinance.

In an effort to form a national strategy that will improve working conditions for day laborers and prevent the creation of ordinances forbidding their presence, a conference took place at Cal State Northridge recently.

“Our local government should focus on providing more opportunities rather than dedicating resources on law enforcement,” said Alvorado. “A dialogue needs to take place between enforcement authorities and the workers themselves.”

“We don’t believe that the day laborer issue is a problem; it’s a social phenomenon,” he said.

In the meantime, the enforcement of illegal activities while allowing laborers to solicit work can be a balancing act for law officials.

“Sheriff Lee Baca has ordered his deputies in L.A. County to stop the enforcement of any ordinance banning labor solicitation,” said Alvorado. “That doesn’t mean that they (the deputies) can’t go to a corner and see what is happening with day laborers.

“If they see illegal activities like drinking and urinating, they may intervene,” he explained.