The 90-degree weather, dust, sweating bodies, odors of incense, outlandishly clad and bull-horn yelling protesters, and the eventual arrival of riot police on the streets of downtown was a stimulating direct contrast to the calm, air-conditioned, organized quiet drone of the Democratic National Convention inside the Staples Center last week.

On the streets and corners of Figueroa Street and Olympic Boulevard people voiced their opinions and outrage over issues ranging from opposition to abortion, INS border abuse, LAPD brutality and festering politics.

Charles Delvalle, a computer technician for the 29 Palms Marine base, dressed as Uncle Fester from “The Adams Family,” was carrying a sign championing “Uncle Fester for President.”

“I figure I could do a better job than Uncle Sam,” said Delvalle. “The country and the convention has been festering too long.”

Not everyone was protesting an issue or problem.

Rachel, a petite blond, blue-eyed woman, with her six equally blond blue-eyed children, were all carrying signs claiming to the population at hand “Jesus loves you.”

“I’m just standing for Jesus Christ,” she said as to why she was there.

And then there were the militant protesters.

“It’s going to get gory with Gore,” abortion protesters yelled repeatedly through a bull-horn as they propped up huge signs depicting the gruesome aftermath of third-trimester abortions.

Inside the convention center, “Go Al go” was the contrasting chant by delegates during Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore’s speech Thursday night where he detailed large ideas such as day care and preschool for all children of America and healthcare for all Americans.

The seeming goal of all, inside and outside the convention center, was to get their message out to the public-at-large. And, with the teeming roaming media–all may have accomplished that.

The earlier part of the last day of the convention was calm out in the streets. Few police were seen until a couple of protesters got heated up over differing views.

Men carrying signs that said “Jail to the Chief” (a pun on “Hail to the Chief”) and “God Hates Sin” were confronted by a whistle-blowing young man wearing a paper hat that said “Pink Newsletter Press.” A full-blown argument ensued, with a crowd following the men across the street and then . . . seemingly out of nowhere, a battalion of police cars filled with riot police packed the intersection.

Filing into formation, the police advanced on the scene grunting “huh!” in unison as they surrounded the crowded corner, forcing journalists, protesters and looky-loos away. A man was arrested as TV and print journalists shoved microphones into his face vying for a “comment” as the police led him away.

This type of scene was nowhere to be found inside the convention center, as secret service, LAPD, and SWAT team members lined the halls and walls of the building.

Allowed access backstage where the really important stuff happens — make-up, prepping and lounging in the Laker’s locker room before a speaker goes onstage to rattle off what every other speaker has rattled before them,– I entered the halls of the elite.

The secret service, looking just like they do in the movies–black suits, black ear-pieces and extremely serious expressions, lined the halls of backstage. They appeared too formidable for me to snap any photos, or ask anyone any questions, much less breathe more than was necessary lest I be carried away for threatening the lives of the important ones by taking up too much oxygen.

During Gore’s speech the delegates dutifully waved their flags and chanted encouragement.

One reporter had highlighted pre-released speech notes, saying that those were the key parts of the speech that would receive the most applause and approval– and he was right.

Whereas outside, no one had notes, just their burning desire to be heard, ending their evening by marching from the Staples Center to police headquarters one last time before the end of a raucous week.

The November ballot initiative, designed to force all large commercial developments onto future ballots, arrived at its first major test this week when Malibu City Attorney Steve Amerikaner returned to the City Council with his written legal analysis of the controversial measure.

“In my opinion, there is a high likelihood that a court will find the initiative ordinance unconstitutional . . . ,” said Amerikaner.

That, and several other perceived legal flaws in the proposed ballot measure, immediately set off a legal brawl with the backers of the initiative, whose attorney, Bradley Hertz, faxed a written response to The Malibu Times summarily characterizing the city attorney’s legal opinions as follows: “Supposed legal attacks on the initiative should be seen for what they really are — political attacks.”

The council has been previously somewhat skeptical of the ballot measure being pushed by Gil Segel, Marilyn Dove and several on the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy. They had earlier instructed the city staff, including the city attorney, manager, planning director and others, to advise them as to the legal, financial and administrative impacts of the initiative so that councilmembers could decide if they want to write a ballot argument in opposition to the initiative.

Amerikaner’s analysis pointed out several legal problems with the initiative, which, if his predictions are correct, could pose major legal hurdles for initiative backers.

Amerikaner said in his analysis: “There are substantial uncertainties about the meaning and scope of the initiative . . . ” Certain provisions of the initiative are “susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations” and it “appears likely” that litigation will result.

To put it into non-lawyer-like language, assuming the initiative passes, the losers in any subsequent land battle will, more likely than not, end up suing the city. And, because of the ambiguities in the language, they may have a reasonable chance of success in the courts of overturning decisions by the voters or the city.

According to the city attorney, because the way the initiative is worded, and the election requirements that it imposes, it may run afoul of a couple of specific state laws, which could result in certain projects being automatically approved. The voters of Malibu, even if they pass the initiative, cannot change state law. Two of the principal state laws, the Permit Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map, both of which became law with heavy input from the construction industry, require that cities take action on permit applications within specified periods of time. If they don’t, the projects may be deemed approved; in fact, approved without conditions.

Amerikaner’s reading of the initiative is that it could, in certain circumstances, stumble over these state-imposed time limits with significant negative possibilities, which means that developers might be able to manipulate the initiative law to produce exactly the opposite of what was intended by the initiative.

Probably most important, Amerikaner said there are parts of the initiative that are of “questionable constitutionality.” The specific words he uses in his advice to the council is are: “In my opinion, there is a high likelihood that a court will find the initiative unconstitutional . . . ,” referring specifically to the portions of the initiative that would permit voters to decide about variances, conditional use permits, or subdivision map approvals, all of which are considered non-legislative acts.

“It is well-established that the California courts will invalidate any effort to place before the voters a non-legislative act,” said Amerikaner, underlining this part in his analysis, perhaps to emphasis his opinion that this portion of the initiative may be particularly legally precarious.

Hertz was sharply critical of the city attorney’s memo to the council. In his faxed response to the Times Hertz said the initiative was drafted by two prominent law firms: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Bagatelos & Fadem and met all constitutional, statutory and common law legal principals. He added that, “Proponents and supporters of the Malibu Right to Vote on Development Initiative stand behind their petition and ask that the voters not be fooled by the political rhetoric and scare tactics.”

We phoned back to inquire whether or not the opposition was going to have a written legal response to the legal questions raised in the city attorney’s memo, but by press time we had not received a reply.

In a meeting held Monday at City Hall for The Malibu Times and the Malibu Surfside News, also attended by the city attorney, manager and planning director, both Surfside reporter Bill Koeneker and myself had an opportunity to ask questions and follow-up questions in an informal setting.

Questions arose about certain projects, particularly Civic Center commercial projects that were already in the development pipeline. For example, the Malibu Bay Company is pursuing a dual-track in the development of their Civic Center properties.

On one hand, they’re attempting to negotiate a development agreement with the city, but they also simultaneously have applications in to develop the Chili Cook-off site and the Ioki parcel adjacent to the current City Hall. Amerikaner was clear that the people of Malibu have a legal right to vote on and reject the development agreement if they so choose. However, what’s not yet clear is how the initiative would impact the other applications, including the MBC applications that are already being processed, since they include some things that can be legitimately voted on by the people and some things that are highly legally suspect for a ballot.

When asked how he could be candid with the council in a situation where he might later be called on to defend the very same ordinance that he was criticizing, Amerikaner said he saw his responsibility to give the council the very best legal advice he could.

Since, by law, he had to give them this advice publicly, and since there is no pending litigation, his summary was in effect: You give them your best judgment and let the chips fall where they may.

This was significantly different than Hertz’s opinion that the legal analysis given the council was politically driven.

Additionally, in City Manager Marilyn Leucks’ memo, analyzing the initiative, she indicated that there would not be any financial impacts from the initiative, but was also clear the analysis did not include possible legal costs, which they decided could not be estimated because of their speculative nature.

A fight that’s almost half as old as this country continues to flare up in Malibu over the definition of where private beachfront property ends and state-owned lands begin.

Since the early 1800s, court cases have been debated as to what constitutes the line dividing private and public-owned property.

The State Lands Commission (SLC) says one thing, property owners another, and even with issues not relating to ownership but with where one can hold a film shoot, state rangers say yet another.

Beachfront property owners do know the boundaries that lie to the east, the north and the south, of their property; however, west, or seaward, is where the problem arises.

When homeowners want to build-out on their property seaward, perhaps adding just a deck, they may be told they cannot because they are encroaching on state land. They may even be told their existing property already is encroaching on state lands.

This has not only caused a problem with property owners, but also for people like Doreen Consol, executive director of the Malibu Bar Association, and an employee of Malibu Locations Etc, Inc.

Consol helps location scouts for film, television and print shoots to find not only homes but beaches to film on. During one such shoot, Consol said that a State Parks and Recreation ranger had stopped the shoot, in addition to other reasons, because he claimed they were on state land.

She said the ranger said where the seaweed on the beach was indicates where the last high tide was, which meant that was where state land begins — at the mean high tide line.

The mean high tide line is apparently what determines where private property ends and public land begins in coastal areas.

“The mean high tide line is always the big deal,” said Consol. “What is it, does everyone think the mean high tide line is the same thing, is everyone informed? Everyone has a different opinion.”

Reg Browne, president of Pacific Engineering Group, is a coastal engineer and has testified in cases that involved the dispute of where private property boundaries lie.

“The legal definition [of the mean high tide line] is where the land intersects the elevation of the mean high tide,” explained Browne. “The mean high tide is a certain distance above the mean sea level (mean sea level is when the ocean is at rest with no tides) [which is] 1.9 feet.”

This measurement was established after a series of surveys over a period of 19 years off the L.A. Harbor.

Browne said that in Malibu that line can vary, on average, 80 feet between summer and winter.

However, when the sudden movement of land, called avulsion, is cause by the natural forces of water, it does not change where the line will be. Most of the time, property lines are moved by only a few inches or feet.

In certain cases, where beachfront property has changed due to artificial causes, property owners have had to tear down what they have built. One problem debated in courts is in trying to determine what is artificially caused.

Curtis Fossum, senior staff counsel for the State Lands Commission (SLC), said about boundary disputes: “Ninety percent of the time there is no problem whatsoever. In a few instances we have asked an owner to move their property back and they do that. There’s only been a couple of instances where that has been a problem.”

One of those instances involves Fred Patrick, a local contractor who purchased a 50-year-old house at Las Tunas State Beach about 10 years ago.

“Six months later the state came in and claimed they owned the entire property,” said Patrick.

The problem started when Patrick applied for a permit to put in a bulkhead (a wall that if placed in front of the property would protect the home from incoming waves).

“They said not only are we not going to give approval [for the bulkhead], but we’re going to take your land,” said Patrick.

This was because groins had been put in at the Las Tunas beach property where Patrick’s home was, which artificially caused sand to build up, extending the property beyond state owned land.

“Groins more or less fixes the beach at that location,” said Fossum.

According to court rulings on a myriad of other land dispute cases, when an area is artificially changed, it does not change where the property line will be. Before the groins were put in, the mean high tide elevations intersected the land farther back.

The SLC gave Patrick the option of signing a lease to keep his home on the property but he did not want to go that route.

Patrick and the SLC went to court over the dispute, and in the end Patrick had to cut his house nearly in half, said both Fossum and Patrick.

“I’m hurt,” said Patrick, “I’m just a builder. I’ve built here in Malibu for many years . . . I don’t have those kind of dollars to work with.”

“The SLC, since 1938, has been the responsible agency for managing the state’s water bodies,” said Fossum. “Malibu has [had] the most development on the beaches in the past 40 years. We look at those projects and take the facts we have as to the location of the boundary–where it is and has been, and try to make the best judgment as to where the line is.”

The battle continues with other property owners.

Norm Haynie, a civil engineer and local resident and developer, has been involved in court battles since 1997 over the determination of where his Lechusa Villas Beach property boundary lies.

Haynie said that court rulings regarding the use of the mean high tide line contradict the public resource code, which he said requires that property lines are “easily ascertainable.”

“The way the appellate court has interpreted the law, the Coastal Commission and the SLC can deny use of all property,” said Haynie.

“What happened with Haynie is that he was relying on an old 1930s survey that showed the beach was quite wide,” explained Fossum.

Joe Barbieri, deputy attorney general, said that the court has responded ‘yes’ there is a certainty–a legal definition of where property boundaries lie on the coast.

“What’s uncertain is where that boundary is any one day,” said Barbieri.

Actor and Malibu resident Stacey Keach was turned down again on Monday by the Planning Commission in his request to subdivide a property on Winding Way.

Keach has been trying for the past 25 years to subdivide his property and almost succeeded when the area was under the jurisdiction of L.A. County.

“I was very disappointed,” said Keach. “Naturally I’m going to appeal.”

The commission was concerned that it may create a precedent by allowing the split, which included zoning variances that would create a parcel smaller than the norm in that area.

The interim zoning code provides slope/density guidelines that require lot sizes to be a minimum of 3.9 acres, because the average slope of the existing parcel is 34.9 percent. However, the applicant had requested a variance for the slope/density factor requirement to allow for lot sizes of 2.3 acres and 3.6 acres.

The commissioners concurred that this subdivision would not be consistent with the general plan.

“I don’t see justification to this application,” said commissioner Richard Carrigan, who had visited the site and stated that he wishes everyone was as fortunate as Keach to own such a piece of property.

As the commission debated, they talked about a zoning text amendment initiation that could affect future subdivision requests for that area, but increased density may follow if such an amendment is made.

Commissioner David Fox indicated that this area seemed to enjoy a lot of open spaces and subdivision would change the character of the neighborhood.

In other matters, another property owner who was looking forward to building a house on Anacapa View Drive where he plans to live after retirement, had his proposal approved by the commission in a 5 to 0 vote.

But an important issue in his case, which may affect future property owners who want to build in that area, is inadequate water resources.

The commission suggested that when lack of water is an issue for a specific area, the city could implement a building moratorium for that particular location in the future until the problem is resolved.

As he was talking about the Anacapa home, commissioner Andy Stern said that the city should look into whether or not standards are adequate for that neighborhood because water is being trucked in every day. “It’s a traffic problem and a fire hazard,” he said.

But since the homeowner had accommodated neighbors’ concerns by moving the house down slope to minimize the impact on viewsheds and reducing the height of the proposed home from 28 to 18 feet, as well as planned to have water tanks on the property in the best possible location to appease neighbors, the commission approved the project unanimously.

The building of one new, two-story home on Sea Vista was almost approved, but was continued because the commission did not think neighbors had a chance to voice their concerns since they were not properly notified. The commission voted in favor of a short continuance to Sept. 5 to allow for rebuttals.

Aside from issues that were on the agenda, the commission also heard a couple of speakers who came to share their concerns about Pepperdine University’s request to increase the dumping of treated water onto Winter Canyon and the bluffs above Malibu Road in case of emergencies.

This increase would consist of 250,000 gallons of treated effluent per day. The problem is that Pepperdine has historically and illegally discharged water in that canyon in the past. David Kagan and Melanie Goudzwaard, on behalf of the Malibu Road Property Homeowners Association, clearly indicated they are against this request.

“We think the current approach is a Band-Aid solution,” they said as they asked the city to take action on this matter. “Property owners cannot dump water this way and Pepperdine should be held to the same standards.”

In the past, Councilmember Ken Kearsley has suggested that a committee be established to facilitate communication between the city and Pepperdine, said Carrigan.

Pepperdine’s continued growth has always had a big impact on the City of Malibu and there is not much the city has been able to do about it thus far, since the university sits outside city limits.

Barry Hogan, city planning director, introduced two new assistant planners, Sheila Powers and Andrew Ho, at the Monday meeting.

And last, but not least, a father and mother with their young baby, who waited for about three hours, were given approval from the commission on a variance for a road extension. They have been waiting for years to receive the variance — it took less than 10 minutes to be approved after finding they had met all the requirements.

“If you build it, they will come,” was the motto at the Malibu Pier Concession Planning meeting on Thursday.

However, the lack of parking spaces clearly became the main concern as potential concessionaires brainstormed about the future of the Pier.

As it stands, no budget has been set aside by the California Dept. of State Parks and Recreation to acquire additional parking. Businesses could invest in it themselves, said Hayden Sohm, Superintendent for the Malibu Sector of the Dept. of Parks and Recreation.

The 100 or so parking spaces currently available were already too few 25 years ago; therefore, some suggested that a two-story structure be built to accommodate more cars.

This could be done at the current lot, but blocking views of the ocean may be a concern. Another option may be to use a vacant lot across the Pacific Coast Highway. The Pier no longer owns property across the street, however, and arrangements would have to be made with current property owners.

But to make the concessions viable, availability of parking is a key concern and stakeholders are making sure that planners take this concern into account.

Shared mooring for fishing boats and water taxis, a Pier shuttle bus and use of nearby Surfrider Beach parking facilities were some of the ideas raised to help solve the problem.

Other concerns, such as the impact of noise and increased traffic were discussed. A traffic bottleneck already occurs on PCH before the bridge at Cross Creek Road, and any increase in traffic, pedestrian or vehicular, would be a problem.

Possible solutions include a pedestrian overpass to access the pier if a parking lot is made available on the north side of PCH. A shuttle service from the Civic Center was also suggested.

Before the closure of the pier, annual visitation was estimated to be 350,000. In 1998 the state worked with the City of Malibu to reconstruct the pier.

“It’s a number one priority in the Angeles District,” said Sohm.

Phase I, working on the structural soundness of the pier, was completed in June of this year and Phase II is scheduled to begin Sept.

Phase II will be completed by December, unless unexpected problems come up. Phase III will include work on the buildings themselves, ensuring they are structurally sound so the concessions can make improvements that will accommodate their businesses.

Marsha Moss, Angeles District Concession Specialist, said that her role is to assist the district as they develop the concession contracts.

“This is the very beginning stage of that,” she said.

Moss said she will develop a proposal based on the suggestions made at the meeting. Contracts may be executed by March 2002, she said, and the concessions could open by June of that same year, but nothing is set in stone yet.

The group of participants at the meeting suggested that restaurants, sport fishing, a visitor center with a souvenir shop and tackle shop would be desirable for both the local community and visiting public. Malibu does not currently have a visitors’ center. Educational and nonprofit groups could take part in the venture as well, which could include local artists, so that the pier will have an artsy feel, not just a commercial feel.

So far, no decisions have been made as to whether the concessions should be under one master concessionaire or subleased to multiple concessionaires.

There are restrictions regarding adaptive use so the exterior of the historic buildings on the pier will not be altered.

Competitiveness between the restaurants on land and potential restaurants on the pier will also be considered.

Concerns about ancillary businesses and law enforcement were other issues discussed at the meeting.

The Highway Patrol controls the two lanes of the PCH while the Sheriff’s Dept. handles the parking lanes, so coordination is important. Two sets of plans will be drawn up, depending on the availability of parking spaces.

Public restrooms should be made available for the visiting public and a viable recycling program should be instilled, said one stakeholder.

Finally, a MalibuPier.com Website may be created to advertise the pier worldwide and inform local residents about the ongoing work and re-opening of the pier, which was constructed in 1945 and has 9,000 square feet of leasable space.

Concessionaires have ceased operating on the pier since 1996 after damages suffered during the stormy El Nino period.

“When we closed up I thought we were gonna close for two weeks,” said Phil Kemp, owner of the Sports Fishing business that was on the pier. “It’s been five years.”

The Democrats came to town last week demonstrating their firm belief in the party, any party, and the bigger the better. From Malibu beach compounds to hip downtown eateries, they ate, drank and made merry as if they had stopped thinking about tomorrow. They gathered at swanky hotels (The Peninsula, The Four Seasons, The Bel Age), trendy clubs (The Rumba Room, The Conga Room, The Sunset Room) and splashy studio backlots (Sony, Universal, Paramount).

Delegates, power-players and beautiful people began the days’ activities with breakfast, limoed to lunch, sailed to cocktail parties, shuffled to the convention, ran off to dinner and wrapped it all up at swinging all-night soirees.

The good times kicked into high gear days before the convention. Serious highrollers headed up the coast where major “Friend of Bill” Barbara Streisand hosted a $100,000-a-couple luncheon to raise money for the Clinton Library. The presidential motorcade snarled traffic along Pacific Coast Highway, vexing those on their way to the Colony where Michele Willens and David Corvo were throwing a high-profile media mixer. The impressive guest list included broadcast luminaries Brian Williams, Jeff Greenfield and Chris Matthews, politicos like Mickey Kantor, pundits like Arianna Huffington and celebs like Billy Baldwin.

The buzz was on veep-nominee-to-be Joe Lieberman.

“It’s a good choice,” insisted Greenfield. “The country’s come a long way in the last 50 years.”

Whether Joe and Co. will win the election, well … ,”that remains to be seen.”

The week’s boozing and schmoozing amounted to a head-turning array of beltway superstars and Hollywood hotshots–think “ET” meets “Face the Nation.” The cast of the “West Wing” met the real thing at an on-set party. The President received an Academy Award at the Governor’s Monday night bash and the Creative Coalition featured a line up that included George Clooney, John Travolta, Ted Field, Harry Hamlin, Goldie Hawn and Joan Rivers.

But it wasn’t all fun and games. Several get-togethers addressed serious issues.

On July 15, the Regent Beverly Wilshire was a who’s who of California’s Democratic contingent. That is where first lady Sharon Davis hosted a luncheon with the likes of Senators Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Governor Gray Davis, Representatives Loretta Sanchez, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.

Sponsored by the pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-education organization called “Emily’s List,” speakers discussed the election strategy of today and the need to win tomorrow.

“We want to remind all Americans of how very important the next president will be,” the governor explained. “There will be two, if not more, appointments to the Supreme Court and a woman’s right to choose could be in serious jeopardy.”

Davis had high praise for the accomplishments of the Clinton-Gore administration, saying, “Let us pay back those who have given us the greatest prosperity we have ever enjoyed and help us get the right people elected in November.”

On the following two nights, Al’s pals turned out in force at convention central. It was “Go Joe,” “Four More for Gore” and an explosion of red, white and blue. By Friday, the tables had cleared, the banners came down and the delegates staggered home. The party’s over and now the real work begins.