Malibu drivers breathed a collective sigh of relief Tuesday when the city’s only stationary car wash was granted a reprieve.

After considering staff reports of numerous violations of Malibu Car Wash & Detail’s conditional use permit — weighed against testimony by about 30 residents, who waited four hours to voice strong support for owner Justin Silvers — the Planning Commission voted unanimously not to revoke the permit.

Most of the violations cited by staff were for parking cars awaiting or following service in spaces other than the seven allotted for the popular business.

The problem was not that Silvers wasn’t doing a good job. It was that he was doing such a good job customers were taking up too many spaces and double parking in a traffic lane while arranging for the services they wanted.

Silvers’ representative Alan Block noted the alleged violations were not proven by code enforcement officers and that most were a misunderstanding of what was actually taking place.

Most of those who spoke said they were in the habit of driving up to the car wash, stopping long enough to say they wanted a wash, wax or detail, parking their car and bringing back the keys. All said they shopped, lunched, had doctor’s or salon appointments, watched their kids play or take dance classes and used the center’s other facilities while their cars were serviced.

Several merchants and one dentist said the car wash was good for their businesses and thus had no adverse impact on parking.

“He’s an asset to my business, good for all the other businesses,” said Bernie Safire, whose salon is adjacent to the car wash. “He’s part of the community.”

Most said the business was environmentally friendly because it saved thousands of trips to Santa Monica or the Valley, and that cleaning cars on streets and driveways washes detergent and wax down storm drains and into the ocean.

Property Manager Greg Kozak noted the dates of the alleged parking violations were on Saturdays and Sundays when there is a lot of space vacant. “At least 20 assigned spaces are not in use.”

Block also noted, “Revocation of a vested interest should take a higher standard than application for a new CUP.”

In 1993, Silvers had to make a $65,000, nonrefundable payment for the Malibu Country Mart lease and was granted a CUP.

The permit was modified in August 1998 approving expansion of the use. At that time, modifications included limiting washing to the existing washing bay (stall 7) and detailing and spot checking to stalls 1 through 6 along the westerly property line. A new condition stated, “Customer parking shall be limited to parking stalls 52 through 54 only. Vehicles shall not be served in these parking stalls.” The use was also limited to washing and detailing only and prohibited window tinting, engine steam cleaning, dent removal and other uses not involving the exterior washing of a vehicle and detailed cleaning of the vehicle. The vote at that time was 4-1 in favor with Commissioner Ken Kearsley against.

This time, commissioners seemed inclined to allow the permit to remain but with new restrictions. Planning Director Craig Ewing reminded commissioners the cited violations involved specific restrictions they had added to the permit over his recommendation. “The problem is regulating behavior. It’s difficult for city planning departments to do. The conditions . . . are putting us in a baby-sitting role. You need to decide if you want this use here but not impose conditions.” Ewing said. “Don’t limit parking for the car wash to those spaces.”

Commissioner Andrew Stern agreed. “We set the staff up. We set impossible conditions. There’s clearly a necessity for this business. I don’t want to see the CUP taken away. We should relax the standards.”

Commissioner Jo Ruggles said, “I don’t think there was intent to set it up to fail. I agree the standards should be relaxed. I would not revoke the permit. Amend it.”

Commissioner Ed Lipnick said he thought violations had occurred but, “What we’ve seen here doesn’t meet the standard of proof for revocation.”

Kearsley said, “I believe he [Silvers] is too successful. He tries to compromise to get around the conditions. We should get rid of the standards so we don’t force him into violations.”

Ewing suggested the best way to keep people from double parking in the traffic lane is to have it red striped as a fire lane that must be kept clear. This is to be done within 90 days, after which sheriff’s deputies can ticket anyone parked in the fire lane.

Commissioners voted 5-0 to eliminate regulations on how cars are parked and to open up the use of the seven spaces on the west wall. Washing is still confined to the one bay that has a drain, and the electric spray compressor that restricts water flow may be used there.

After the meeting adjourned, Silvers said, “I’m very, very happy at the turnout. I’m proud to be in Malibu.”

In other action, the Planning Commission heard several hours of discussion on a zone text amendment relating to the definition and application of the stringline rule for establishing beachfront setbacks on beachfront lots. Kearsley and Lipnick favored the averaging method advocated by architects Ron Goldman and Norm Haynie; Stern proposed bringing the city’s rule into line with the Coastal Commission’s as applicants ultimately must satisfy those guidelines. Ruggles and Kabrin agreed. The vote was 5-0 to continue the matter to Jan. 17.

The Optimum Boot Camp, a two-month fitness program founded at Venice Beach by celebrity fitness guru Raphael Verela, has landed in Malibu. The Boot Campers are now maximizing their fitness potentials to the sound and sight of rolling ocean surfs and early morning sunrise hues at Surfrider Beach, three days a week, between 6-7:30 a.m. An evening class will soon begin there, too.

I was inspired to check into “the camp” by the recent cancer-caused death of a family friend three days before her 53rd birthday.

I joined the Boot Camp to get back in shape after the appearance of a couple of years of stress-induced excess body fat! It was dramatic the way I put on the weight, so I needed extreme measures to get it off.

I was attracted to the military-style format of the class. I figured if one wants to develop discipline, especially as it relates to the body, the military is a good place to start. Plus, I figured it would be fun working out at the beach with a group of other insane individuals.

It is fun. However, it is also a lot of hard work. Verela and the other certified trainers are firm yet compassionate.

Camp includes free parking, a free fitness evaluation, cardiovascular/aerobic and anaerobic (weight) training, a nutritional program, kick boxing, plus the assistance of four certified fitness trainers.

I arise around 4 a.m. I gulp down a protein shake, then cruise down PCH for 6 a.m. warm-ups. Some days, the warm-ups alone — stretching, push-ups and side-straddle hops, for instance — can pump my heart rate beyond its target.

Then, the obstacle course begins. I crawl under barbed-wire fences, jump over hurdles, attempt to climb ropes and do arm pull-ups and legs squats. Just when my body thinks it’s over, Verela or another trainer instructs me to report to the muscle training station.

After about 15 minutes of stressing-out my muscles, one of the instructors yells a command to begin the obstacle course again. After about three rounds, it’s time for kick-boxing. As I run to the designated kick-boxing area, I think to myself that I’ve surely lost my mind.

After 20 minutes of high intensity kick-boxing, the class is taken on a 30-minute soft-sand jog.

At the end of class when I can feel my way past all this over-exertion, I think about all the additional advantages of working out with Optimum. The cost is about $75 per week, a good deal considering the $25-per-hour cost of kick-boxing classes alone, or personal trainers, who average about $50 per session.

Camp meets every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, sunshine or rain. Says Verela: “People need to be re-educated about the nondangers of working out in cold weather or rain. If you think about it, you’re not going to feel cold while your heart is pounding at 190 beats per minute. As a matter of fact, the cold weather can actually be a benefit, because it helps cool down your body while exercising.”

The key to fitness, of course, is combined exercise with proper eating. So, I’m in good shape (literally and figuratively) as long as I keep showing up for class and following the nutritional program I’ve been given.

And the class gets me up and out of bed early in the morning, three days a week. This is a good thing. The rest of the time is spent recuperating from the trauma of exerting my body beyond maximum expectation.

For former residents Roger Goldingay and Saria Kraft, last week’s resolution of the environmental crimes case against mobilehome park owner The Kissel Company was good news. They had testified, one for 4-1/2 days, one for five hours, about a failing septic system which frequently leaked sewage in and around the Paradise Cove mobilehome park.

The criminal case, titled “People of the State of California versus The Kissel Company,” was settled last Thursday when mobilehome park owner Kissel pled no contest to 14 counts of illegally discharging sewage. The six-week trial, heard by Malibu Municipal Court Judge Lawrence Mira, resolved 45 counts of criminal charges filed by the L.A. County District Attorney for 21 sewage spills that occurred in 1997 and 1998 in or near the park.

“The spills I documented were a small percentage of the total number” said Goldingay, a 17-year resident. “Instead of fixing or replacing the system, [Kissel] pumped pits out daily and took the wastewater to a leach field on the property and dumped it. The horrible smell 10 feet from our living room was equivalent to harassment.”

There were numerous overflows into the children’s playground, exposing people to all forms of infectious bacteria, Goldingay added. “We were living under Third World conditions in one of the most beautiful and environmentally conscious cities in the world.”

According to Deputy District Attorney Rob Miller, who prosecuted the case, Kissel pled no contest to 14 counts of violating Health & Safety Code Section 5461, illegal discharge of sewage. The court sentenced Kissel to three years probation, imposed a $50,000 fine, which would be stayed if the company fulfilled all terms of the probation, and imposed a $1,400 restitution fine.

Under the terms of the probation, Kissel must immediately implement a preventive maintenance program to stop any further spills in the park, Miller continued. Kissel also must design and install an adequate new septic system within a “reasonable period of time,” Miller said.

In addition, Kissel must select and fund a wastewater disposal expert to continuously report on the progress of the maintenance program and new septic system, Miller continued. The initial reporting date is Jan. 7. As a further indication of the court’s supervision, the expert is to be paid through a trust account and only upon the court’s order, Miller said.

Seven-year park resident Saria Kraft said she was pleased by the outcome, noting children often couldn’t get to the playground without going through sewage. “The most frustrating thing about the situation was trying to get action,” she said. “I’m very happy about the outcome because it took many of us so long to get the attention of public agencies.”

Effect on other cases

The criminal case resolution will affect at least two other cases growing out of the Paradise Cove Mobilehome Park disputes.

A recent Superior Court decision vacated the city’s 1998 denial of Kissel’s application for a rent increase. The City Council is to discuss a response to that decision in a closed session before its meeting Monday.

The city can either appeal to a higher court or send the matter back to the Rent Stabilization Commission for further hearings. Settling 1994 and 1995 federal cases over Malibu’s rent control ordinance has cost the city more than $2 million.

In another civil case, a number of the coachowners are suing Kissel for failure to maintain the park properly. It is set for trial in January.

“Santa Monica Bay is dying a death of 11 million cuts. We all have impact,” says Santa Monica BayKeeper Steve Fleischli, a lawyer and the executive director of the environmental organization that watches over the health of the local bay.

With his reputation as an iconoclast and self-described as controversial, he believes in rigorous enforcement of environmental laws and does not specifically advocate any other solutions — not sewers, not population control.

He poses a universal solution: “Deal with it right at the source.” To Malibu, he says, “We’ve taken a hard line on the septics in the L.A. region, but we’re not pro sewer,” adding, “We want whatever system is decided on to achieve water quality standards.

“If you can find a system that works on your lot with your ground-water table so you don’t impact water quality, I don’t care if it’s a septic or a sewer.”

From his office — a boat that tours the bay — he says he has watched beach visitor use decline as the level of fecal matter from polluted runoff in the bay has risen. He sees sea lions choked by fishing lines and dolphins starving to death because the plastic in their stomach gives them a feeling of fullness. “There is some sort of plastic in 70 percent of sea-bird species,” Fleischli cites.

He counts about a dozen lawsuits the BayKeeper presently has filed against polluters, including a billion-dollar suit against the city of Los Angeles arising out of the city’s leaking sewer system.

Sewage flowing through broken sewer pipes has invaded L.A.’s drain system. The suit asks the city to repair the pipes. It also asks the city to find illegal hookups, where users have installed illegal ties to the sewer system to avoid sewer charges.

Malibu residents and businesses should check their own property for illegal drains; so should the city of Malibu. “Cities slap homeowners on the wrist. City storm-water management agencies in Los Angeles have never fined anyone for storm-drain violations or illegal dumping violations.” The BayKeeper plans to change that.

Fleischli, who holds a triple degree in economics, environmental conservation, and environmental population and organismic biology, says it is absolutely possible for individuals and businesses to turn a financial profit while never harming the environment. “In the long run, it’s in the economic best interests to deal with environmental issues.”

Cities oppose environmental measures to deal with pollution at the source, arguing they would scare businesses away. “We have economic studies showing a mere 0.1 percent to 5 percent increase on the overall cost of a project, which can be amortized over the life of the project.” Otherwise, he says, in the long run, the public pays for the problem at the end of the system.

He urges setting aside a portion of each parcel of land for a treatment device. Current technology fits in a corner of a parking lot or a portion of a basement.

Such technology can only add jobs, not eliminate them. “Think of a creative solution. People are attracted to it, and you make the money you’re entitled to.” Meanwhile, a “healthy” economy will reallocate jobs that do not contribute toward a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment, he suggests.

Postulating a worst-case scenario for Malibu 20 years from now, he says: “Malibu Creek is paved. Surfrider Beach is permanently closed because sewage is overflowing daily.”

To stop the damage now, he suggests, Tapia should be reclaiming more of its water and upstream development must act responsibly. “Don’t leave it for people at Malibu Creek to deal with it. Think about it as it is created,” he insists.

“Throw a cigarette butt out the window, it ends up on Surfrider. Don’t wash cars on the street, wash it on the lawn. If you think it will kill the grass, think what it’s doing to the bay. Don’t rake leaves into storm drains, use them for mulch.”

Which raises landfill questions. “I don’t think the landfill people would say the solution is to allow it to go into the ocean,” he counters.

Use different packaging and recycle, which are methods done “at the source.” He urges a change in consumer habits: Buy plastic that is recyclable and recycle it, or buy items that do not have plastic packaging. Properly compost waste, including animal waste products. “Be sure horse manure is not running into Malibu creeks.”

Today’s school children are educating their parents, which Fleischli hopes will take care of residential problems in the future. As for businesses, “I’m a big fan of enforcement,” he says. “If your business doesn’t deal with its environmental effects, you have wrongfully profited.”

As his father pointed out to him, Fleischli is working toward the day when he puts himself out of his job.

A just-released California Coastal Commission staff report recommends a ban on gatherings of 200 participants at the Streisand Center on Ramirez Canyon Road. The recommendation, if adopted, would outlaw weddings and other large group activities that the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has used as a money-making venture since Barbra Streisand gave the 22-acre property to the state government in 1993.

The center, with its three houses, is located deep in Ramirez Canyon. It was intended to be open for events with as many as 400 guests. Ramirez Canyon neighbors have been fighting these uses.

The report, slated for review by the Coastal Commission in January, cites the inadequacy of a dead-end road that would serve as the only evacuation route in the event of a fire. The road is only 12 to 15 feet wide in some stretches, according to the staff. Any attempt to bring the route up to Fire Department standards would harm the creek as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). It described Ramirez Canyon as “a relatively remote location where wildfires are common, served by a substandard road and lacking an alternative evacuation route, and where no sewer system exists….”

The staff also described the septic system as “woefully inadequate.” It suggested that the proximity of the septic tanks and leachfields to Ramirez Canyon Creek makes the facility inappropriate for large gatherings. Citing findings of a consultant, the report said the septic disposal system would be substandard even for routine residential use.

The report urges the commission to approve the use of the facility for 12 day-use events per month with no more than 40 guests at each function. The conservancy would be allowed to collect fees for these events, but it would not be allowed to use the facility at any time for groups of more than 40.

The conservancy’s request was far more ambitious, although it had dropped a proposal for one 400-participant event per year. It now seeks permission for weddings and fund-raisers up to 30 times a year for groups of up to 200 participants. It also seeks approval for an average of six garden tours per month for up to 40 guests, and 24 business retreats and other one-day meetings per year that would include 30 guests per event.

Even for the smaller events, the staff would set stiff conditions:

• The use of shuttle vans and offsite parking.

• The vans are to enter and exit by caravan, and to remain onsite during the event to permit an immediate evacuation of the participants in the event of an emergency.

• Use of “Best Management Practices” — to prevent runoff of grease from parking areas to the riparian corridor of Ramirez Canyon Creek.

• The conservancy would assume the risk for injuries stemming from the hazards of flood, erosion, and wildfire, and would “indemnify and hold harmless” the commission with respect to its approval of the project.

• All of the terms would be included in a deed restriction that would run with the land and bind any successor owner.

The report warned use of the road in a fire is all the more dangerous in light of extensive plantings of pines and eucalyptus that would “explode” at high temperatures and could easily make the road impassable. It also noted none of the existing buildings could withstand a raging mountain wildfire, and therefore no refuge exists on the property for groups of 200. It cited the likelihood of panic among the guests as they attempt to flee the site. Commercial functions of 200 guests would also bring others to the site — caterers, portable toilet and other equipment rental services, and florists.

Ruth White of the Ramirez Canyon Homeowners Association told The Malibu Times the findings of the staff report have not prodded settlement efforts. “Everybody is always open to negotiations,” she said, adding nonetheless that the community has no choice but to challenge the state agency. She described Ramirez Canyon as a “dead-end” and a potential inferno, where access is limited to a wooden bridge.

“I’m at all times open to negotiations,” said White. She warned, however, that the terms have to be written in stone. Describing herself as an environmentalist, she explained each issue starts with what is reasonably possible to do. “I bear no malice toward that conservancy,” she said, insisting however that citizen oversight and regulation are required.

The residents have retained Defenders of Property Rights, a Washington, D.C., legal foundation, to press forward their legal claim that an easement all homeowners share in Ramirez Canyon Road limits any use to what is consistent with a residential neighborhood.

Mindy Sheps, a neighbor active in the Ramirez Canyon Preservation Fund, confirmed the conservancy’s motion for summary judgment will be argued in court Dec. 3. She noted the conservancy claims that because it is a unique creature under state law, the homeowners cannot seek injunctive relief to halt its commercial activities. Sheps said the only remedy the conservancy says is available is “inverse condemnation” — a remedy that would attempt to measure the loss in dollars. “We don’t want the money,” said Sheps, urging peace and serenity must be restored. She noted, however, the damages would likely be high, and it would be “a foolish thing for the government to spend money on.”

Asked whether the neighbors were blocking the conservancy from defraying the costs of its mission, Sheps remarked that the only legitimate activity relating to its purpose is the use of the property to house some 16 staffers. Denying the suggestion that the property is a white elephant, she suggested the conservancy could sell the land, recoup some $15 million and move elsewhere.