After months of jockeying, the City Council took the predictable way out Monday and decided to send the Malibu Bay Company proposed development agreement out for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). They also decided to send several other larger and looming questions to the November 2000 ballot to let the voters decide.

In November, Malibu voters are not only going to have to pick a new president to run their country, but they’re also going to have to decide from a multitude of options how they want their city governed in the future.

The EIR

In major action the council decided, not unexpectedly, in a 5 to 0 vote, that the best way to answer many of the questions raised by the opponents of the proposed development deal between the City of Malibu and the Malibu Bay Company, was to hire the experts and have them do the necessary studies to try and cull out the facts from the politics.

The opponents of the project, principally the same people who are pushing the ballot initiative that would take away from the council the final control for the Civic Center land-use decisions and give it directly to the voters, wanted the council to delay the EIR. They charged that the project was ill-defined and not yet ready for an EIR. However, obviously aware that the council was not going to refuse to send it out for an EIR, which, according to Councilmember Jeff Jennings, would have been tantamount to the council killing the project, they had a Plan B.

The plan included a list of many of the things they wanted to see covered in the EIR, principally the overall cumulative impacts of all commercial projects in the Civic Center build-out. City staff indicated that one of the early steps in the EIR process is a public meeting where citizens will have an opportunity to tell EIR consultants what questions they want to see studied in the EIR.

The ballot initiative

In what can only be called a photo finish, the PAC that calls the “Malibu Right to Vote on Development Initiative,” which we call the Segel Initiative, made it onto the November 2000 ballot in a cliffhanger.

The Los Angles County Registrar of Voters completed its verification of the signatures on the initiative petition on Friday. They reported there were 1,741 valid signatures collected, which is 20 percent of the registered voters in Malibu. That meant the PAC had met the statutory requirements for calling a special election and the council was legally required to put the initiative on the next ballot.

Remaining, however, are some undecided legal questions. But the city attorney’s recommendation, which the council followed, was to put the matter onto the ballot anyhow (see accompanying story entitled ‘Legal battle’) and essentially to worry about the legal questions later. In a move, however, that clearly showed the councils feeling about the development initiative, however, they voted 5-0 to delegate two councilmembers, Tom Hasse and Jeff Jennings, the authority to write the opposition to the initiative for the ballot pamphlet if they so chose, and agreed in advance that the signatures of all five council members would go onto the opposition statement to the initiative.

The referendums

The council approved two referendums to also go onto the November 2000 ballot, which the council itself had initiated.

The first referendum approved for the ballot will ask voters if they want the right to approve all commercial development or mixed commercial-residential development of more than 30 acres. If the voters say yes, that means the council would first have to approve the Civic Center project and then send it to the voters, who would give the final word. Although the referendum does not mention the proposed Malibu Bay Company Development deal by name, it is the only parcel that is more than 30 acres in the city, and the referendum the council is proposing is actually a referendum on the deal. Those proposing the initiative argued unsuccessfully against this referendum, charging it would only confuse the voters. But it was clear from the council’s comments that they wanted to offer the voters an alternative to the proposed Segel Initiative. Councilmember Jeff Jennings dissented in the 4 to 1 council vote, arguing that the council was elected to make that decision and not pass it on to the voters. The majority said they had always contemplated the voters would have the final word on the Malibu Bay Company project and, in fact, had made campaign promises to that effect.

In the other council-generated referendum, the council voted 5-0 to put an advisory referendum onto the ballot to ask voters of Malibu if they would be willing to approve a $15 million bond issue, with the assessments to be added to property taxes, to purchase land for public amenities like a park, ball field or a wetlands. Although this is purely advisory, it would give the council some idea if there has been a shift in public sentiment from a poll taken a few years ago that indicated voters were not interested in financing public facilities with a bond issue.

In other action the council:

• Gave final approval to the Pt. Dume Preserve deal (the Headlands) and chose the option that included a shuttle bus, at an estimated cost to the city of $50,000 per year. It also decided to put 10 parking spots onto the preserve side (oceanside) of the street.

• Awarded a $58,000 contract for the Morning View Drive sidewalk project and directed the walking surface be changed from concrete to decomposed granite.

• Approved a revised Interim Code Enforcement Policy relating to written complaints, home occupations, pre-1993 unpermitted structures and extension of compliance deadlines (evictions). They also indicated, informally, that they want the Code Enforcement Task Force to come up with enforcement appeals procedures to be read by a neutral individual or individuals.

• Decided not to change the municipal election date from April, as the system appears to be working fine since Malibu seems to get much higher voter turnouts in the council elections than just about any other municipality.

• Appointed community activist and former City Council candidate John Wall as the sixth member of the Flood Mitigation Plan Committee and rejected zero-growth activist Patt Healy for the spot.

• Approved an RFP for design services to develop plans for a neighborhood park and a 2000 square foot community building on city-owned properties along Las Flores Creek.

Getting ready to disrupt the Democratic National Convention next week, protest organizers conducted an action camp in Malibu recently.

The Ruckus Society, based in Berkeley, Calif., prepared activists for the planned protests in what they call a “Democracy Training Camp” that took place on a bluff overlooking Los Angeles. The private land is owned by a friend of the movement.

The Ruckus Society, first organized in October 1995, is a nonprofit organization that specializes in training people to practice civil disobedience safely and effectively, according to camp organizers. This last camp, however, co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Action Resource Center, Global Exchange and Just Act, was different than others before it. The training was not as tactically focused as the other camps have been. This one tried to build more unity among the races and classes. The teachers focused more on media and strategic campaign.

“Nonviolence is the core of training,” said Han Shan, Ruckus’ program director.

“In mass protest situations, if you sit down, cops will usually back off,” she said. “There are ways of posturing. Art and pageantry. Peaceful, open confrontations. Camp was about imparting skills. It was a forum to build unity.”

Camp began when the sun came up each morning and ended during all hours of the night. Those attending the camp slept few hours every evening.

“It was just such a rare opportunity,” said Shan.

The camp was composed of about one third Los Angeles residents, one third Bay Area residents and one third of people from all over the country. The ages of the campers ranged from 14 to 90 years of age.

“The youth has a lot of insight,” said Shan of the teenagers who were in attendance. “They have a lot to say that adults can really learn from.”

Some of the speakers at the camp included Sen. Tom Hayden, Michael Fronzie and Granny D, a 90-year-old woman from the inner city who has been speaking to activists for many years.

The Ruckus Society offered a wide variety of manuals to its campers, such as a “Media Manual,” a “Climbing Manual,” “Hanging Yourself From a Billboard,” an “Action Planning Manual,” a “Scouting Manual,” “Video Camera Tips,” “Climber’s Knots” and “Longwire’s Communications Manual.”

The people of The Ruckus Society say they are not protesters, just proactive.

They’re seen by many as people expressing anger, which they are, but camps, such as the recent one, teach activists how to express this anger in a constructive manner, rather than a harmful one organizers said. They say they do not want to be painted in a negative way or scare people.

A fight is brewing against an onsite sewage treatment bill that was recently passed, with an 8-2 vote, by the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.

The bill, AB885, would shift regulatory control of onsite sewage treatment systems from cities and counties to state and regional water quality control boards.

The impact on Malibu is the loss of local control over the regulation of septic systems to the state and giving more power to regional boards regarding regulation. Cost is another concern of Malibu if owners are required to fix or replace entire septic systems.

However, provided in the bill is the ability of the Legislature to encourage the state board to make loans to residents who spend more than .5 percent of their property’s assessed value complying with new regulations.

Local agencies would also be reimbursed for costs if these costs are a direct result of mandates by the state.

The purpose of the bill, according to its author Assemblymember Hanna-Beth Jackson, is, “By establishing statewide performance standards for septic systems, AB885 will ensure these sources do not continue to contribute to the chronic beach closure problem nor degradation of other state waters.”

The California Association of Realtors (C.A.R.) is the largest known group opposing the bill and has recently sent out e-mails to local Realtors in Malibu to garner help in the fight against the bill.

“Septic systems ought not to be the business of the state and regional boards,” said Eileen Reynolds, a legislative advocate for C.A.R.

C.A.R believes the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) are “overwhelmed with their responsibility to regulate big picture nonpoint source issues, without having to focus on [individual systems].”

A statewide survey should be done on sewage treatment systems, said Reynolds.

“We think that ought to be done ahead of regulation,” she said. “We’d like to see a survey done and funded . . . how huge of a problem is there, if there is a problem, statewide.”

“The author is assuming there is a problem statewide,” said Reynolds.

Jackson noted that “siting and construction standards by themselves have failed to protect the beneficial uses of our waters. In some cases it is because the systems are extremely old, out-dated or in disrepair. In others, changed land use, with larger families or denser development, have overloaded the design capacity of the septic systems or the soil into which they empty.”

However, Reynolds said that C.A.R. does not believe there is a one size fits all solution to regulation of septic systems.

“Coastal areas in Southern California are way different than coastal areas in Northern California,” she said. Soils are different, the weather and topography are different.”

Another fear of C.A.R’s is that statewide septic system regulation would affect local land-use decisions.

If the bill becomes law, along with California RWQCBs and the (SWRCB), the State Department of Health Services, the California Coastal Commission, the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health and other entities would be consulted in the regulation of the permitting and operation of onsite sewage treatment systems

An aspect of the bill that did appeal to C.A.R. was that all private contractors, pumpers and inspectors of onsite sewage treatment systems would be required to register with the SWRCB.

“They did throw us that bone,” said Reynolds.

However, Reynolds said, “They decided to take it out because it didn’t appease us.”

Malibu city personnel did not return phone calls to The Malibu Times concerning the bill. However, in the comments portion of the bill analysis, Malibu is quoted as asserting “local agencies should deal with sewage treatment systems.”

Malibu Township Council, Inc., was also listed as those opposing the bill. Those in support of AB885 are: the California Association of Environmental Health, Administrators, Center for Marine Conservation Planning and Conservation League, Sierra Club and a group called Surfers Tired of Pollution.

Funding in the amount of $300,000 is provided in the budget for the SWRCB to develop the requirements contained in AB885.

Bill highlights:

• The State Water Quality Control Board would adopt regulations for permitting and operating sewage treatment systems constructed on or after January 1, 2004 and systems that would cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination. Noted in the comments section of the bill analysis is that AB885 applies to systems that are constructed on or after January 1, 2004, but “clarification is needed to ensure that replace or repaired systems are addressed.”

• Minimum operating standards, maximum contaminant levels, delegation of authority to qualified local agencies, corrective action taken if the systems fail to meet set standards and guidelines for conducting onsite sewage sanitary surveys would be included in the regulations.

• Local agencies would be required to conduct a sanitary survey of onsite sewage treatment systems within jurisdictional coastal zones. However, the bill would not preempt local authorities from adopting standards for onsite systems that are more stringent than the SWQCB regulations.

• Loans would be made to property owners who incur costs that exceed .5 percent of their property’s currently assessed value by complying with newly set standards.

Rumors were all the rage this weekend as stargazers, paparazzi and plain folks pondered the biggest wedding since Babs and Brolin. Malibu braced itself for a media circus as beautiful people Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston prepared their beachside nuptials. We knew there would be a bash, but many vexing questions remained. Where would it be? When would it be? What would they wear?

“I heard it’s all a hoax,” griped Pete McKellar of Country Liquors. “Someone said it was on Thursday. I was getting all excited here, hoping to sell out of box cameras.”

“No way,” countered Steve Spina. “There are all these party trucks up on Encinal. This is Malibu. If it happened, you’d know. Besides,” he argued, “how many weddings take place on Thursday?”

Determined to uncover the truth, The Malibu Times went straight to the top.

“It’s definitely today,” said ET’s all-knowing executive Rick Joyce. “Lee Bacca has closed off the air space over Point Dume. It’s one thing to pull something over on the media, it’s another to get the sheriffs involved.”

Let’s face it, folks, Bill Clinton has zipped into town with Hanks, Geffin and Katzenberg in tow and garnered nary a yawn. But this — this is Brad and Jennifer.

“Did you read the Enquirer,” queried Mike Walker, gossip guru at the world’s largest tab, “we knew all about it.”

Satellite trucks roared up and down the coast as if preparing for the raid on WACO. Limos were out in force and Lost Hills called in reinforcements.

The big shindig took place on Saturday night at Marcy Carsey’s spectacular beach front estate. The place was transformed into a tented playground worthy of the gloved one himself. A huge white canvas seemed to have enough space for an expansion team while balloons the size of blimps dotted the sky.

It was a celebration done in grand Hollywood style with a reported price tag of $1 million. According to Mark Cetner, the happy couple shelled out $350,000 for a party planner and glorious grub, $300,000 on lighting and party rentals, $100,000 for security and $75,000 for flowers. Friends in attendance included Courtney Cox, Lisa Kudrow and David Schwimmer. The evening wrapped up with a bang and a $20,000 fireworks display.

One could only imagine what was taking place inside. The media didn’t have much of a chance. They were kept far away on a bluff near Encinal Canyon, missing out on much of the glitz and glam.

The evening seemed to sail along smoothly without a parachute-happy party crasher in sight. In the end, the throngs of telescopic lense-toting-picture-takers came home with a few shots of a large white tent and a panoramic view. But it’s not over yet. Several media outlets are said to be in a bidding war to obtain some exclusive rights to the official photos. Seems like the kind of attention that Al and George can only envy.

The 17-member Code Enforcement Task Force, appointed by the City Council and charged with the responsibility of delivering recommendations back to the council by next month, is moving closer to meeting its goal. The goal was to return to the council with a set of recommendations to improve the highly controversial code enforcement policies of the City of Malibu, which was a major issue in the last City Council election and continues to be a constant source of media attention.

Monday’s meeting produced a set of recommendations that was the result of several months of task force meetings every Monday night, plus additional meetings of task force subcommittees, with each subcommittee handling a different area of the code enforcement issue.

Those recommendations were then voted on by the task force to be sent as its recommendation to the council for action.

“There was a lot of discussion and we reached conclusions on a half dozen items,” said John Miller, task force chair, who indicated that normally the task force does not make this much progress in one sitting.

Starting with a debate on the most difficult of the hot button topics, the task force debated the recommendations of the sub-committee, chaired by James Schoenfeld, which dealt with the issue of unpermitted structures (also sometimes referred to as grandfathering, second units, or guesthouses). Many of the unpermitted structures have been in place for years, built by previous owners, and the question of how to safely legitimize those structures was a difficult one for the task force. The problem was that one could legitimize the structures if able to prove they met the standards when it was buil. The burden and the expense of proving that was financially and factually overwhelming to most people. Only people with large resources to hire experts could tackle the proof problem, and many on the task force felt that the playing field was not level for those with lesser financial means. In a near unanimous decision, 13 of the 14 members voted to adopt the rule that it should be conclusively presumed that the unpermitted structures were built when the house was first permitted. What that means is, if a house was first permitted, for example, in 1953, all the improvements would be legitimate if they met the county rules in effect in that year, even though the improvement might actually have been built years later.

“This is about as lenient as we can get,” said a task force member.

A second sub-committee, chaired by Marissa Coughlan, drafted recommendations for a new set of rules related to renovations and rehabs of existing legally permitted family dwellings. The problem they were dealing with was the expense, complexity, and time and effort involved in making even the most minimal remodels.

While the current cap for a single-family dwelling is 18 feet in height, Coughlan’s subcommittee recommended raising the height cap to 28 feet, unless the neighborhood standard or geological reasons dictated otherwise. The impact was that people would not be forced to go to the Planning Commission for variances, which is currently the case if they want to go over 18 feet. This was the most controversial of their recommendations. It barely passed 8 to 6 with several in the minority expressing uneasiness with the impact it might have on people’s ocean views.

To deal with the problem of what to do when the laws relating to setbacks change after a house is built, they decided, 13 to 1, to recommend that setback rules for remodels should follow the rules in effect when the structures were legally permitted unless there is an encroachment into an ESHA, or a slope issue or a geology problem. In others words, follow the rules that were in existence at the time the house was built.

Another area of great unhappiness in the body politic was the requirements for what the task force described as the “ologies.” That is archaeology, biology and geology. Since the old City Council had passed a whole set of rules regarding archaeology and biology requirements, the task force voted 12 to 2 to eliminate these costly requirements in a renovation of an existing dwelling. They left the requirement of a geological review but only in areas that are identified as geologically problematic. They also recommended that in second story additions the opinion of the applicant’s licensed geologist or geotech, regarding the appropriateness of the soil to handle the footings, should be acceptable. Meaning, the city shouldn’t require applicants to duplicate the studies using the city’s people.

Their expressed hope was that this decision would ease the high cost of remodeling for residents.

The council also agreed unanimously that no new land survey will be required if the old survey is less than five years old.

Next Monday the task force will vote on a number of other recommendations and then the entire matter will ultimately go to the City Council for decision.