In March 1999, the Crummer Trust filed a Tentative Tract Map with the City of Malibu seeking approval of eight custom home lots on 24.9 acres. The RR-2 zoning assigned to the Crummer property in the General Plan permitted 12 dwellings. The application I filed as agent for the Crummer Trust was in compliance with the General Plan and municipal ordinances.

In October 1999, Roy Crummer was asked by a City Council member if he would consider making a charitable gift of land to the municipality sufficient in size to accommodate the sports fields and parking the city was going to lose at the Malibu Bluffs State Park as a result of the city’s ground lease expiring in April 2002. If the Crummer family would do this, the city would enter into a Development Agreement with the Crummer Trust awarding it vested entitlements. The councilmember felt certain a majority of the council would uphold this proposal. A public opinion poll of registered Malibu voters in 1998 indicated by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent that local citizens would support the city entering into a development agreement with property owners of undeveloped property whenever public benefits like land for sports fields could be acquired at no cost.

In response to this request, the Crummer Trust submitted a revised Tentative Tract Map to the city in December 1999 showing where a Little League baseball diamond, a Pony League baseball field, and a soccer field for the children of Malibu could be located without harming the market value of Crummer’s property, provided the city agreed to certain restrictions. Did the city have to agree to award Crummer more than eight houses to get the land gift? No. Crummer asked for no more than what the Interim Zoning Ordinance permitted on eight three-acre minimum-sized lots. That is what Crummer was entitled to if no gift of land had been made. Crummer neither sought nor was offered any exceptions or variances from existing general regulations. The city was giving nothing away.

Did the city propose to back off on requiring Crummer to pay for essential environmental impact report studies? No. Crummer was required to do costly geology, seismic, soils, water, waste management, slope stability, hydrology, drainage, traffic and plant, and animal habitat studies.

Isn’t the Crummer site impacted by three active earthquake faults? How can the city permit houses to be built on seismically endangered land? To address that matter, the city geologist specified the depth and the breadth of the geologic studies that Crummer would have to undertake. Three sizable trenches were dug across the Crummer property to allow licensed geologists, including the city and state geologist, to enter the trenches and examine any observable fractures in the soil. Two were found. But the ruptures were embedded in soils that were more than 30,000 years old. It was clear to all that the faults were inactive. They represented no risk to development.

Won’t the irrigation of city sports fields and the eight Crummer lots contribute to undermining the earth and the movement of Malibu Road and the houses along it toward the sea? Geology studies on the Crummer site reveal bedrock slopes toward Pacific Coast Highway and not toward the sea. Furthermore, the city engineer is requiring Crummer to develop a drainage system that will collect and filter water to conduct it harmlessly from the site, protecting surrounding properties. Wastewater will be collected and piped to an on-site package sewer plant where it will be treated and re-used to irrigate the city sports fields as well as the eight residential lots. There is no environmental problem with the site that cannot be mitigated to the city’s satisfaction.

Why does the Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council believe the community will support a development agreement with the Crummer Trust? The public is receiving a gift of 7.2 acres at no cost for replacing sports fields at Malibu Bluffs State Park, and Crummer is getting no more than the right to develop eight lots on a site that qualified for 12 lots under the RR-2 zone. The city is requiring Crummer to comply with all existing general regulations. If the city rejects Crummer’s generous donation of park land, the city would have to look elsewhere for comparable acreage which it has been unable to find. The Crummer Trust would continue processing its subdivision plan for approval without any direct land benefits accruing to the city. There is no sensible reason for this mutual arrangement to be opposed.

Thomas Ashley Agent for the Crummer Trust

Since the great cost of removing the Rindge Dam in Malibu Canyon is a subject its advocates seldom acknowledge, here are some actual and potential benefits of leaving the Rindge Dam standing guard over this unique wilderness area:

1. Preservation of the dam protects a multimillion-dollar asset of the taxpayer and conserves $40 million or more of taxpayer funds anticipated to remove it; 2. Maintains the half-mile-long aquifer behind the dam holding 10 million gallons of water; 3. Dam and reservoir could be rehabilitated and serve as a back-up water supply to the City of Malibu, thereby maintaining historic water rights of Malibu; 4. Keeping the existing aquifer behind the dam would not lower the water table in the steep canyon walls, which could possibly upset the present geologic equilibrium causing a catastrophic collapse of Malibu Canyon Road; 5. Using the dam as a giant catch-basin to trap toxic chemical or sewage spills or tainted runoff from the upper watershed (note this use, Heal the Bay, Surfrider Foundation, et. al); 6. Maintain the wetland above the aquifer behind the dam and possibly enhance this wetland by simply adding flash boards where the spillway gates once existed; and, 7. Potential tapping of the aquifer behind the dam for fire repression or filling of fire department pumper tanks in the middle of the mountains rather than having to go to the coast or upper watershed to refill pumper tanks at time of recurring fire incidents.

Those wishing to tear down the dam give little credence to the above uses and do not want to talk about the dam as a guardian of a rich wilderness area now unfit for animal, aquatic or plant life. The dam is a formidable obstacle discouraging humans from traversing the canyon which has hazards such as snake bites, poison oak or slip and fall injuries sustained in this rugged area not amenable to quick rescue of injured hikers. More humans hiking in the canyon presents an awesome fire danger to hikers and downwind property owners if a hiker tosses a lit cigarette into the brush or fails to fully extinguish an illegal camp fire. Finally, to tear down the dam is to destroy this engineering marvel of the SMMNRA and violate laws protecting this historic property with ties to the landmark Adamson House at Malibu Lagoon.

Ronald L. Rindge

I recently received a note from Sister Mai, the Buddhist nun who came through Malibu two weeks ago and stayed during the rain before continuing on her peace walk and journey up the California coast.

She wrote, “It is people that I meet who help to inspire the walk — we can all do our part in the world to make it a better place. So, many thanks. ….

“The walk so far has been wonderful. Continue to meet all sorts of weird and kind folks — the only thing I can complain of is sore feet. I’m making sure to rest adequately this time — last year in France I tended to overdo it. The ocean makes for extremely powerful company — its presence undeniable. Some days it is calming and soothing, other days livening and inspirational. The simplicity of life itself and all its wonders never cease to amaze me. Every day continues to be a new challenge…

“Please send my love to Oscar and the guys [at the Labor Exchange] and a big kiss to Casper [the dog].”

The postmark was from Santa Barbara, where she is earning survival money by dog sitting.

Mona Loo

There must have been a leak. An insider must have gotten hold of all the Oscar ballots some late night last week. This shadow insider must have ducked into a heavily guarded Academy of Motion Pictures vault, snatched up those prized, crimson-ribboned envelopes, and let the information out into the world.

Either that, or this year’s gala was simply a predictable affair with statues going strictly to fan favorites. Because it seems the world, including Malibu, knew beforehand who the mysterious and closed-lip Academy would tap with Oscar last Sunday evening.

In The Malibu Times’ Oscar ballot contest, in which readers could take their guess at who would “win,” the nominee receiving the most votes was, in almost every category, the same one the Academy placed in the winners circle.

Lynne Masri, Malibuite and official Malibu Times Movie Guru, must have been paying close attention. She correctly predicted 11 out of 15 winners — though, oddly, she missed best movie, best actor and best screenplay. Masri topped more than 100 other guessers, who sent in ballots from as far away as Cote St. Luc, Canada and New York City. The average score was 10 correct, but one shot-in-the-dark guesser managed to get only two right. For her astuteness, Masri wins 10 free passes to the New Malibu Theatre.

The categories with the highest amount of successful predictions were best actress (Julia Roberts), cinematography (“Crouching Tiger”), and best makeup (“The Grinch”). The slots most often missed by ‘Bu-ites were best supporting actress (Marcia Gay Harden, whose win for her role in “Pollock” supplied one of the few surprises of the evening) and best film editing (“Traffic”).

Every single ‘Bu-ballot predicted that Roberts would claim best actress for her performance in the real-life-hero role in “Erin Brockovich.” Of course Roberts did, in fact, go home with Oscar on Sunday. And even way before the four-minute acceptance speech there never seemed to be any doubt in the matter. Perhaps the dead giveaway was when one network’s pre-show announcer asked her colleague, hours before the show began, why it had taken Julia Roberts so long to finally win an Academy Award.

“Gladiator” took just about every statue that ‘Bu-ites predicted it would. A moody Russell Crowe accepted his award for best actor, and the effects-laden period epic stormed off with the best-picture statue.

Maybe the hottest and most closely watched category was that of best director. The talk of the banquet — the one-time knight of independent film and now Hollywood’s hottest captain, Steven Soderbergh — came to the show with two invitations (Best Director nominations for “Erin Brockovich” and “Traffic”), as the first director to get two nods in the same year since 1938. Ang Lee, director of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” had won the Directors Guild of America award in the category earlier in the month. And Ridley Scott helmed the massive fan fave “Gladiator.”

While it looked as if Soderbergh had an advantage by holding two out of the five slots, his double nomination more likely hurt him by splitting votes for him between two movies. Academy members couldn’t simply vote for Soderbergh; they had to pick one of his movies. And to win, the double nominee had to pull in more votes on one movie than Lee or Scott did on theirs. Soderbergh did just that to win Oscar for “Traffic,” which also brought Steve Gaghan a statue for best adapted screenplay.

Host Steve Martin, citing the format change from “and the winner is” to “the Oscar goes to,” noted that, of course, this cannot be considered a competition. But if it were, the category for best supporting actor was probably as great a rout as that of best actress. “Traffic’s” golden boy, Benicio Del Toro, hailed as the Latin Brando, breezed to the podium to grab the award that presumably will go right next to his new Screen Actors Guild statue of the same class.

And for the future? Keep an eye on Hollywood goldie girl Kate Hudson, who floated into the Shrine Auditorium as gracefully and as confidently as she played Penny Lane in “Almost Famous,” a role that garnered her a Golden Globe award.

Re: “Why teens are troubled” letters to the editor, March 22. Thank you, Richard Schaefer, for speaking up about the reasons children are killing each other in this country. Your letter covered all the things that need to be recognized as a whole: hate music, divorce, drugs, violent movies, sexualized TV programs, violent video games, both parents working long hours, and you even had the courage to bring up two subjects in our liberal and secularized society, one accepted and one taboo: abortion and God. Thank you for having the strength to speak up about those two subjects that quite often cause backlash by those who support one and have banished the other.

Thank you for writing this letter; it needed to be said.

Alethea Guthrie

Your article (March 8) reported interview data with school administration only. I believe that this article was one-sided and did not report the full picture for the students and parents. Your article was clearly not accurate and not fully truthful.

To remedy this reporting, I believe you should interview students and parents to report properly on this subject. You should choose an adequate number in each category (call parents in the school handbook (30 percent), ask students in each grade (30 percent), interview teachers in every grade (30 percent), ask the Jteam — the sheriff juvenile team — to assess a number of questions. Of primary importance might be:

1. If you knew of a student or friend who had possession of a gun, what would you do?

2. Who do you feel you should tell? How and when would you tell? Do you feel you could tell someone and when would you tell? Is there a phone number to call or a place to leave a note, if you wanted to tell? Do you feel safe in telling so that you would not feel like a “squealer”?

3. How would you decide to tell and why? Why would you not tell?

4. Do you know of a friend who has a gun?

5. Do you feel safe reporting or sharing information about your friends who you think might be “at risk”? Would you want to report issues about guns, drug use or other concerns? Do you want to ask for advice for your friends or about how to handle advice for your friends?

You may find your survey exposes critical information in direct opposition to the belief, which our school administration believes to be true, and which you reported in your article to be true. This survey information may prove to be vitally important to necessary changes which our administration needs to make, yet believes may not be necessary or critical.

Gail S. Copley