Occasionally, it’s good to get out of town for a while.

Last year, around this time, I chose to leave the humble surroundings of the quaint Malibu Times for a foray into the hi-profile, hi-glamour, hi-income, hi-stress, hi-tech, hi-risk world of syndicated television.

National Enquirer TV was a producer’s dream. M.G.M had given us every conceivable toy. There were gleaming digital editing bays, dazzling computer-generated graphics, an arsenal of souped-up iMacs, lightening-speed Internet access and every killer application known to man (not to mention my totally rockin’ personal assistant Eddie.)

It’s been a year of 4:30 wake-up calls, 14-hour days, long commutes into the big city and non-stop ratings-driven hysteria–a year of no life and no sleep. Brushing my teeth and bathing became my biggest luxuries.

As the show wrapped I began to contemplate the future (and a serious loss of income.) So, the all-important question–should I leap right back into another show? Should I sign on for another round of studio suits with slick cell phones and language all their own? Should I look wide-eyed at the sound of vertically integrated companies, target market vehicles, aggregated channels, cable migration, media clustering and hard quality viewing options? No. I decided to shut down–at least for a little while. I needed the beach. I needed Guido’s. I needed Tony’s. I needed a bath. I needed the Times.

My first day back, I decide to dial up the voice mail I haven’t had time to check since early1999 and peruse the correspondence I haven’t had time to open since early 1999 and take note of all the people who have been looking for me since I, like, left the planet.

Weak, weighing 10 pounds lighter and looking 10 years older, I stagger into the Joni Mitchell-style canyon hideaway, which serves as the office of The Malibu Times. There I find a funky, comfy, shake shingle shrine where time stands still.

I am greeted by a fat feline, named Ginger, who is lounging on the flower-filled patio. An old fashioned typewriter bangs away as I boot up a Powerbook so prehistoric it belongs in the Smithsonian. The wind is whistling, the birds are singing and everything is just as I left it. Compared to the glitzy, whiz-bang tension-filled extravaganza from which I had emerged, it is a vision of Amish sensibility–blissfully low-tech. Green Acres meets Gilligan’s Island at Las Flores.

I stroll over to the office commissary (Duke’s) where the attentive staff is all smiles at the sight of my vaguely familiar face. Lingering over fish tacos and an ocean view, I go to work on this story. It’s old times at The Malibu Times. So, okay castaways–I’m back. Bring on the surfer dudes, the City Council and Caltrans. I’ve had eight hours sleep and I’ve reclaimed my life.

Occasionally, it’s good to get out of town for a while.

In the opening gun on the proposed long-term deal between the city and the Malibu Bay Company, the City Council authorized three workshops on a proposed park and community center on Point Dume, Friday.

By a 2-1 vote, with Mayor Tom Hasse and Mayor Pro Tem Joan House supporting, and Jeff Jennings dissenting, the council authorized the city Parks & Recreation Department to run workshops on the site to be donated by the Malibu Bay Company as an essential part of the proposed deal.

The workshops on the 19-acre site, fronting Pacific Coast Highway just east of Heathercliff Road, will take place before the June 27, 28 council hearings on the city-Malibu Bay Company deal.

At last month’s City Council meeting, many people, including Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy head Gil Segel, warned of rushing the deal through.

City Parks & Recreation staff, Parks & Recreation commissioners and, hopefully, volunteers would handle the workshops aimed at getting public input on a prioritized list of amenities for Heathercliff Park.

During public comment at the meeting, community education was emphasized. Parks & Recreation Commissioner Barbara Cameron put a priority on the city-wide mailing notice of the workshops.

“We should add a concise paragraph that the workshops are a very first step in getting an Environmental Impact Report,” she said, referring to the EIR on the city-Malibu Bay Company deal. “Community education is important.

“People are concerned about uses before a traffic study is done,” Cameron added. “The Council should educate the community about what issues are discussed in the EIR.”

Cameron and seniors activist Jo Fogg (Malibu’s Senior Citizen of the Year) said volunteers were crucially important to increase interest in the project. They were needed to prepare the mailings, host the workshops and summarize workshop responses.

“The workshops are a basis of information critical for Proposition 12,” said Cameron, referring to the recently passed parks bond measure. “We need the information as part of the city’s Parks Master Plan.”

“We should use volunteers to hold costs down and increase interest in the project,” said Fogg, referring to the $7,570 bid of City Parks Consultant Takata Associates for running the workshops. “Volunteers would spread the word around.”

Jennings dissented because he did not see the necessity of having an extra series of workshops when there would be so many of them on the city-Malibu Bay Company deal.

“We will have lots of critical issues,” he said, referring to City Manager Harry Peacock’s statements about the necessity for formulating a project for the EIR.

Jennings also said he had “trouble” with the mailing component of the council’s action.

“We will probably have 12 hearings for the EIR,” Jennings said. “These [Heathercliff Park] ones might not be the most important.”

A morning meeting June 17, at Point Dume, as well as June 21 and 22, were mentioned as possible dates for the workshops.

Deciding to use city personnel and volunteers rather than consultants Takata Associates saved the city $5,000. Takata had bid $7,570 for preparing, leading and summarizing the workshops. The council authorized $2,500 for the workshops and mailing, which includes $970 for postage.

As the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District board members are preparing to allocate funds for the next fiscal year, the Special Education Department says they need an additional $1.25 million more than last year’s budget.

At a board meeting Thursday, the SM-MUSD superintendents of Special Education, Laurel Schmidt and Rose Ecker, presented a comprehensive plan for the 2000-2001 school year that would shape up the district-wide program and bring it back to compliance.

“Are we willing to think outside of the box and take some risks?” said superintendent Neil Schmidt. “We’re at a juncture where we have to take a really hard look at how we’re going to invest in our children.”

Board members spontaneously agreed to discuss forming a new position called “Assistant Superintendent/Student Services” at another meeting which took place Wednesday.

“That would allow us the leadership we need and the connections with county and state,” said Ecker.

“It is my strong belief that because of the depth and breadth of responsibilities and challenges facing Special Education/Student Services, including our responsibility and commitment to continuously looking at ways of doing a better job to meet the needs of all our students, it is important that the board approve the establishment of this position,” said Neil Schmidt.

Special Ed outlined a plan that calls for

• Building new classes and buildings to relieve overcrowding,

• Providing occupational and physical therapy services at schools using district personnel

• Establishing services and training personnel for autistic students

• Adding support staff, reading specialists and speech pathologists

• Increasing the central office staff.

Although the new plan would reduce the amount of money currently being paid to agencies, the projected amount is partly attributed to hiring district personnel, training teachers and hiring Inclusion Specialists for eventual integration of special education and regular education.

In other action, the board heard that bid packages for district-wide school modernization are going through.

Portions of Bid Package 1C, for upgrades for the physically handicapped at Pt. Dume and Webster school campuses, were distributed to contractors by Monday.

Plans for the scopes of work for Bid Packages 2B and 2C (Recreation Fields, Panelized/Portable classrooms and the Recreation Buildings) were also distributed by Monday.

Plans for Bid Package 3A, for Malibu High School’s wider, all-weather track and expanded staff parking, will be distributed by next Monday.

Board members fine-tuned the measure to be added to the general election ballot this November for a $98 parcel tax for the next ten years, adjusted annually according with the Consumer Price Index-Urban.

The date for the public hearing on the issue will be June 29.

The tax, otherwise known as Proposition K, would generate more than $3 million in revenues starting in 2001-2002.

In his report, the superintendent released an assessment of “Unmet Programmatic and Operational Needs.”

While the exact cost per program or need was not written, the total cost in this early assessment is reckoned at $12-15 million.

While the superintendent held the floor, he officially announced his and his assistant’s retirement next year in June.

Referring to recent controversial commission decisions, Planning Commissioner Charleen Kabrin Monday asked the commission to have a “land use” attorney present at future commission meetings.

A city attorney had attended meetings for years, until there were budget constraints, said commissioner Kabrin.

“It would be appropriate to have a land use attorney present, so decisions on projects involving, for example, the determination of a beach stringline might not end up in court,” she said.

Kabrin might have been referring to a series of decisions on the stringline (a rule of thumb for determining how far seaward beachfront homes can extend on the beach) of the Carbon Beach home of David Perez.

Throughout much of 1999 and the beginning of this year, decisions were made for and against Perez and the neighbor who was appealing, Gil Segel.

Newly elected commission chair Ed Lipnick suggested that Interim Planning Director Henry Engen convey to the City Council the request for city attorney presence. The money should be added as a “line item” on the budget the Planning Department is submitting to the council, Lipnick said.

Highlights of the proposed two-year budget (for fiscal years July 1, 2000; June 30, 2002) include:

Current planning budget

Current planning includes implementation of the 14 recommendations of last year’s Permit Streamlining Audit by the end of 2000, writing and adopting a permanent Zoning Ordinance by the end of the year, and forwarding policy questions to the commission within 30 days of identification. Within the proposed current planning budget of $151,620, the department wants to add an Associate Planner and increase the hours of a clerk.

Advanced planning budget

Advanced planning goals are: to revise the administrative draft of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) into a public hearing draft after it is reviewed by the staff of the California Coastal Commission, complete the LCP environmental review by the end of 2000, and have the City Council review and approve the LCP by the end of Fiscal Year 2001. The LCP Implementing Ordinance would also be completed by the end of Fiscal Year 2001.

Zoning administration budget

The proposed zoning administration budget of $491,600 includes: goals of processing all applications within the time limits established by the California Permit Streamlining Act; conducting inter-departmental review of all discretionary development applications within 30 days of receipt; providing staff analysis and recommendations to the planning commission which lead to acceptance of staff recommendations at least 75 percent of the time; and providing customer-oriented service by telephone and at the public counter so that complaints to the City Council are less than one per month.

Reassuring people this was just the beginning of the process, the City Council voted 2-to-1, with City Councilman Ken Kearsley dissenting, May 23, to set three public hearings on the city’s proposed long-term development deal with the Malibu Bay Co.

Hearings are set for June 27, June 28 and July 5 or July 6 to define a project for an environmental impact report. The meetings take place in various locations of the city.

The council will then debate the project at its July 10 meeting.

Before public comment, City manager Harry Peacock said hearings were not a referendum on the merits of the agreement, but to define a project for an environmental impact report.

“We will not be approving the development agreement or donation agreement,” said Peacock, noting that copies of the documents were available at City Hall.

“When the council meets July 10, it needs to modify the agreements solely for the purpose of going for environmental review.

“The agreement will go before the Planning Commission in fall or winter, and come back to the council in ordinance form,” Peacock added.

Reacting to comments by resident Candy Clark and Mayor Pro Tem Joan House that sewage standards and legal descriptions were not spelled out in the agreements, Malibu Bay Co. spokesman Dave Reznick said the standards could be added the first week in June. Peacock noted the legal descriptions are being prepared but add little to the agreements.

“This is simply the beginning of the process. There will be many hearings after June,” noted Peacock.

Kearsley and city councilman Jeff Jennings said calls for negotiations with eight other Civic Center landowners before hearings on the Malibu Bay Co. deal could not be accommodated.

Time is of the essence and the opportunity for comprehensive negotiations had been missed with rejection of the Civic Center Specific Plan, said Jennings and Kearsley in response to comments by Malibu Township council president Frank Basso and residents Art London and Daniel Frumkes.

“If this were three years ago, when we talked about the Civic Center Specific Plan, it would have been a lot easier to achieve the goal of coordinated planning,” said Jennings.

‘What we are talking about is not the standard development process, where the city calls all the shots. We are talking about an agreement here,” he said. “We are getting something in return for giving something up. That process requires everything to be subject to negotiation, including timing of the process.”

“One of the disasters in this city was rejection of the Civic Center Specific Plan,” said Kearsley in response to Peacock’s comment that no one could agree on the Civic Center Specific Plan project to be reviewed.