Ramirez Canyon residents and city officials descended on the California Coastal Commission en masse last Thursday, asking it to deny the new application that would allow a highly intensified commercial use of the facility formerly known as the Streisand Center.

After two hours of public testimony, the commissioners continued a decision until April.

An October application by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy had been continued to allow its modification. The conservancy refiled in December, requesting a more intensive use of the facility.

The secluded, wooded, residential property, which includes a creek designated as an environmentally sensitive habitat area, was donated to the conservancy in 1993 by Barbra Streisand, with the understanding that it be used as an environmental studies think tank. Streisand’s representative at the commission meeting said she was opposed to this project, and she in fact had her name removed from the center. [See Letters to the Editor, A4.]

Residents who filled a hotel ballroom said intense use of the center for fund-raising by the cash-strapped conservancy is severely compromising the fragile environment of the canyon and creating traffic and public safety issues on the narrow, privately owned road.

Rick Cappell, a canyon resident and real estate developer who has five children, said, “If I were to come before you as a developer and suggest these conditions on residential land, you would put me in a strait jacket. This is a small residential community with a very inadequate road. There is an inordinate amount of traffic in an area where children are playing. There is a potential for overuse of the septic system, leading to pollution of the creek where our children are playing and our animals are drinking.”

In the past, the conservancy was reluctant to even come before the Coastal Commission with an application, and the Coastal Commission was apparently equally reluctant to take legal action against a sister state agency. The conservancy was using the facility for offices and for some commercial events long before it made its coastal application. In October, the conservancy finally applied to the commission for “after-the-fact” approval to convert the five single-family residences into offices and to operate a commercial enterprise on the property.

Area homeowners were willing, according to their news releases, to accept recommendations made by the Coastal Commission staff as a result of concerns over attracting “dense populations of commercial visitors to a site located at the end of a relatively narrow, winding road.” The earlier restrictions on commercial activities included: restricting all functions to 40 participants or less, no more than 72 such events annually, requiring the conservancy to transport guests in no more than seven vans to the site from private offsite parking (excluding the Winding Way Trailhead lot), improving the septic systems and submitting a revised plan for the adequate, immediate evacuation of all assembled guests.

The conservancy then exercised its one-time right to postpone the scheduled November hearing and submit an amended application.

Its December application asks for much more. It wants to convert the property into a public park (Ramirez Canyon Park), the right to hold year-round, small (40 guests or less) events from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., 365 commercial special events (with 150-200 participants), and 260 canyon and guided tours (up to 40 participants).

Another major difference between the two applications is public access.

The October application did not allow general public access to the gated site, nor any public parking or trails with access to nearby National Parks Service lands, staff says. The December application proposes free “interpretive” trails and recreational facilities geared to “disabled and elder groups in conjunction with the conservancy’s public outreach activities.”

Homeowner and attorney Mindy Sheps said, “We’re for public access and information, not commercial use.”

Mayor Carolyn Van Horn, referring to a 1993 promise by conservancy Executive Director Joseph Edmiston of no “public use” of ingress and egress, said, “I thought [the property] would never be dedicated for park purposes. I think it is important that this was the basis of how it would be used.”

Staff analyst Mary Nichols told the audience staff recommended approval because of the added public access component, a Dec. 15 meeting with state and county fire officials, and a Jan. 10 “approval in concept” by county Fire Chief Jim Jordan of an emergency access, onsite parking and “best management practices” plan. Additional problems would be addressed by special conditions.

“I think it is well understood that the residential septic system was not designed for groups of 200,” she said.

George Hoffman, a 28-year resident, said he has seen several fires in the area, notably one in 1982 that burned down to Paradise Cove. “The fire department will not come in until the firestorm has passed,” he said. Even when they do come, people will not be able to get out because it is difficult to get past a firetruck. “Knowing the limited access of that street, are you prepared to accept the risk for citizens if such a disaster occurs?” Responding to a commissioner’s question about the land’s legal status, commission Executive Director Peter Douglas said it is public property owned by the state but not run by the parks department. The conservancy is bound by its charter.

“This has the potential for being a wonderful setting and a wonderful addition to education, but we have to consider the residents who have lived here a long time,” he said.

One commissioner characterized the December proposal, with its 11 special conditions, a “draft.”

At the stroke of 12, the lights stayed on, planes did not fall from the sky and the world did not come to an end. Now that the bug bit the dust and the panic is behind us, what does the New Year really have in store? According to Malibu’s top psychics, good things are underway in year 2000.

“The number is a two, which means a balance between opposite forces,” says resident psychic Averi Torres. “Using intuition is more important than ever, but it looks fabulous. I like what I see.”

Famed psychic Kyle Mathews agrees. “There will be some uncertainty during the first three months, but then a positive cycle will begin.” Mathews says we will be entering a time of spiritual growth. “People have been living with fear and anxiety,” he observes. “Now, they are searching for something deeper. They will let go of that fear and find more meaningful relationships.”

Mathews and Torres believe the new focus on positive energy is something you can bank on. Despite recent corrections, they say, the stock market will remain super hot, especially in the field of innovation and in the high-tech sectors. “I love tech stocks,” says Torres. “I feel bio-tech firms will do really well this year.” Some major medical advances are also on the horizon. “In the next three to five years, there will be a major breakthrough in something very important,” says Mathews, “possibly cancer or AIDS.”

Torres says other medical milestones may include tele-medicine, a practice that will link doctors and patients in a way that vital signs can be transmitted electronically.

The new millennium will be an exciting time, not just for the body, soul and bank book but for the heart as well. According to Torres, “the coming year is a tremendously powerful year for love.” After the hectic ’80s and ’90s, new sensitivities and sensibilities could change the way we view the world. “When we hit burnout, we have to re-evaluate and take a look at our family and spiritual values. We are approaching the age of Aquarius, and it is a definite time for inner enlightenment.”

So whether it’s Wall Street, Main Street, medical breakthroughs or spiritual marvels, local seers say things are looking up. In any case, yesterday’s gone and the future is now.

About 35 Point Dume residents met Saturday to protest what they see as the city’s selective code enforcement in their neighborhood, where homeowners say they are being singled out for even the most minor violations.

Longtime residents say they are being treated like criminals by the city’s code enforcement officer, who has cited unpermitted sheds, structures, playhouses, barns, guest units or partition walls and even the lack of a two-car garage. And those who think their nonconforming structures were “grandfathered” may be in for a rude surprise.

“We should expect equal, legal, ethical and fair application of the law and should not be singled out for selective enforcement,” said resident Paul Major.

Much of the confusion comes from Los Angeles County’s approval of larger homes before Malibu incorporated, older residents say. So the rural character of Point Dume has been compromised, and older homes are being held to a newer standard.

Several Point Dume homeowners complained to the City Council in December, claiming the city’s selective enforcement of its zoning code amounts to “economic cleansing.”

In the past, the city has responded only to complaints from neighbors about nuisances, eyesores and the like. However, Gail Sumpter, the city’s new code enforcement officer, is apparently taking a more aggressive approach, cruising Point Dume in search of violations, residents say.

Vic Peterson, the city’s building official to whom Sumpter reports, said, “I’m not aware of any new directives from the council on code enforcement. We still respond only to complaints, but with the proviso that if we go out on a complaint and see a similar violation next door or across the street, we would write that up too. Usually that has to do with new construction without permits. If you don’t do that, you’re accused of selective enforcement.”

The City Council voted in December to change the code to make violations a misdemeanor with a $1,000-per-day fine for any code violation concerning building and safety, and zoning. “That doesn’t change the policy of enforcement, it just changes the penalty,” Peterson said. “We respond probably quicker to safety issues than normal zoning issues.”

“In mid December, Pat Daniels and Debbie Purucker and myself met with council members Carolyn Van Horn and Walt Keller as concerned citizens,” said Major. “I also talked informally with Joan House regarding the current new crackdown. The consensus was that we shouldn’t keep City Manager Harry Peacock out of the loop, but he refused to meet with us on those issues.”

The residents say they tried to set up an appointment to talk about guideline policies for staff as to how the building and zoning codes were enforced. “They declined to meet with us. We were told that we would have to take it up with the code enforcement officer directly regarding her policies and procedure.”

One resident said he was cited on an alleged code violation and was told in a letter from Sumpter she would not grant an extension, but that if he didn’t invite them on the property voluntarily, she would get a court order within three days to inspect the property.

“We had to ‘voluntarily’ let her inspect the property with a building inspector two days before Christmas. We were told these things [unpermitted structures] were grandfathered in if they were built before incorporation.”

But the burden of proof is on the current homeowner, who often has no idea when and under what circumstances the structures were built by previous owners. They seldom have records or copies of permits with the necessary information and say the city has no records either.

The county turned over its old building records to the city after incorporation, but many records apparently didn’t make it to City Hall. Peterson said he had no knowledge of any records lost by the city. “As I understand it, we received the records from the county when the city incorporated. Someone might have a problem finding their records because the county didn’t give it to us.”

When documentation can’t be found, some things could be checked against the city’s aerial photos. “We have aerial photographs that go back to incorporation, taken the day of incorporation, I think,” Peterson said.

In cases of old outbuildings, the county often would issue an approval of occupancy if there were no safety hazards. “It was a friendlier atmosphere,” Major said.

Peterson said a homeowner could go to the city’s Planning Department to document that the unpermitted structure is in conformance with county zoning codes in effect at that time and to determine if the property had appropriate zoning for that kind of structure.

“They would look at the setbacks, and if there was no problem, they would get approval to apply for an after-the-fact permit from the Building Department. Then, an inspection by Building and Safety would determine if in its current condition it is up to code or if some improvements had to be made. It could vary drastically from case to case, but a utility shed probably wouldn’t be a problem.”

The Malibu Board of Realtors has weighed in on the side of the residents. Similar issues were raised in 1993 by Realtor Paul Grisante. Terry Lucoff, of Fred Sands Malibu Office, said Realtors support the core issue of total grandfathering and they don’t want to have to police this because they’re held to a higher standard of full disclosure when property is sold.

Former City Attorney Christi Hogin issued a memo in 1993 to the General Plan Task Force recommending it adopt a grandfathering resolution approved by the City Council, but subsequently it was not written into the zoning ordinance.

“It’s an issue of fairness to all people in the community. It’s not fair for some people to queue up and go through the process and for others to go around it and get away with it,” Peterson said. “We try to be reasonable and assist people before it’s turned over to the city prosecutor. We can show that.”