Monroe’s Restaurant on Westward Beach Road recently changed owners, and to avoid any complications from the estate of Marilyn Monroe, its name has been changed as well. After a short renovation, the restaurant will reopen late August under its new name, The Gray Whale.

Thomas Averna, the new owner, worked for many years as a waiter at Monroe’s and at the other restaurants that occupied the site. He bought the eatery from his sister and brother-in-law, former Malibu residents Donna and Richard Chesterfield.

“I finally saved up enough money to buy the place,” he said.

The restaurant’s previous name, and the photos of the legendary actress that adorned its walls, regularly brought assertions from representatives of the estate of Marilyn Monroe that the restaurant lacked the licensing rights to use the Monroe name. Averna said that Chesterfield defended the name choice by saying he had a relative from his native Great Britain with the Monroe name.

“Richard would always get calls from the estate of Marilyn Monroe,” said Averna. “He would always say he was related to a Welsh tenor named Sam Monroe.”

Because Averna can claim no relation, he changed the restaurant’s name. He also promises new paint and carpeting, and a few changes to the menu.

“But, it will still be fine dining,” he said.

If you’re looking to build or remodel in Malibu, you may want to take a look at a new sign that hangs in City Hall. It notes changes to planning fees that were approved at Monday’s City Council meeting.

Last November, the council directed staff to review and update the fees charged to applicants for planning approvals and to compare those fees with those charged by other cities.

In a staff report, Planning Director Craig Ewing explained that the fee schedule was analyzed from two perspectives. One compared them with the fees of other cities. The second assessed the actual staff hours and resources expended on projects. In his staff report Ewing noted, “Staff believes that the second analysis is most important, in that we want to know we are collecting enough money to fully cover our expenses.” Ewing explained that staff’s objective is to be self-funding — that is, to set fees so that no General Fund money is spent to support the development review process.

Under the new schedule, some fees have been increased and others decreased. The biggest jump was the Major Residential Plot Plan fee, which rose from $810 to $1,365. “That’s our basic application,” said Ewing. “That’s where we do all our coordinating and all our basic zoning work.”

Staff noted that fees were increased because they require more time than previously estimated. Those that were raised include: Master Sign Permits, Lot Line Adjustments, Minor Commercial Plot Plan Review, Tentative Tract Maps and Wireless Facilities Review.

Other applications were determined to require less time than previously thought, and these fees were reduced. They include: Major Commercial Plot Plan Review, Minor Sign Modifications, Zoning and General Plan Amendments, Minor Conditional Use Permits, Tentative Parcel Maps and Archaeology Phase II.

Add-on applications, such as Minor Modifications, Neighborhood Standards and Variances, were also reduced. The Site Plan Review fee, used by people who want a building more than 18 feet in height, was lowered from $975 to $655. This may help offset the Major Residential Plot Plan fee increase. “Most people will come in for both of those,” said Ewing.

As for the comparison, staff determined that while Malibu’s rates were within the range of surveyed cities, they were on the high end. Ewing said that’s because of the city’s complex zoning rules. “We coordinate, in the planning department, more interdepartmental review than any city I’m aware of,” said Ewing. Those reviews include soils and geology, archaeology, environmental resources and zoning.

Ewing said the new fee schedule has been adjusted to ensure that people aren’t being overcharged when requesting more than one review.

Also at that meeting, the council accepted a staff recommendation to “grandfather” in nonpermitted projects but called for creation of an amnesty system under which people without current permits could get them. The council directed staff to provide an amnesty plan for homeowners who voluntarily come in to get their structure legally permitted.

“If it meets all the old county zoning, they’ll be clear of planning,” said Ewing. But the zoning code is different from the building code, which deals with structural things and safety issues. Ewing pointed out that the buildings will not be automatically grandfathered under the old county building code. The buildings will still need a building permit “so that they build the safest structure under the current building rules.”

Volunteers who come forward will pay the usual fee for a permit. Violators are usually charged twice the fee. Ewing said the amnesty program could affect a large number of residents. “We have people telling us that up to half of the homes in the community could have some kind of nonpermitted work done on them,” Ewing said. “We don’t know how much of that is illegal work and how much is just poor county records.”

The staff is expected to bring the amnesty proposal back to the council next month.

After three consecutive nights of public hearings on the Civic Center Specific Plan, it seemed apparent to city councilmembers that the majority of voters who elected them don’t want much of anything built there.

In 1996, the city contracted with consultants Crawford Multari and Clarke to design a plan for $300,000. Mike Multari worked with a citizens advisory committee for 18 months to come up with a plan that would be acceptable to residents and Civic Center property owners (about nine, including: Malibu Bay Company, Adamson Cos., Pepperdine and Joan Knapp).

A markedly different plan was proposed by the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth (MCSG), which advocates greatly limiting commercial development to what is known as the Chili Cook-off site (the level parcel bounded by PCH, Webb Way and Civic Center Way. The remaining land would be set aside for private homes, small bed-and-breakfasts, a stream park, public ball fields and perhaps a small amphitheater.

After the Planning Commission reviewed, and scaled down, Multari’s plan in February, the council deadlocked on which version would be used for the EIR and ultimately decided it wanted more public input.

Planning Director Craig Ewing explained that there are now several specific plan drafts. Under the MCSG plan, “commercial development would be limited pretty much to what’s already there,” he said.

A large map of the area was displayed with areas marked in different colors, designating buildings and parking already there: the county building, which houses the Public Library, Municipal Court, City Hall; the retail complexes on Cross Creek Road; a professional building; and the buildings on Stuart Ranch Road leased by Miramar Communications and the Chamber of Commerce.

Added to this were build-out projections (with their required parking spaces) allowed by both plans, shown in different colors. The proposed buildings were, however, not placed in any particular location on the map, which seemed to add to some of the residents’ confusion. There were no open-space calculations with any of the build-out plans. To better picture the density of different build-out scenarios, the existing B-1 district is calculated at .13 FAR (floor area ratio), Ewing explained.

The idea was to locate each meeting in different parts of the city, and though each meeting drew 40 to 50 people, several attended two or even all three sessions.

A sampling of citizens’ concerns: Bill Carson, president of Serra Canyon Homeowners Assoc., said, “We are most concerned about the sewage disposal issue. We are not happy with the proposal to dispose of it on Joan Knapp’s property [east of the library]. We are downwind from it. Who wants to live in a place where you say, ‘to find my house, follow your nose?'”

David Resnick, who represents the Malibu Bay Co., read from a prepared statement. “I am concerned that the democratic process has been circumvented . . . . The advisory group considered the full range of public opinions . . . . Their hard work was not given any respect.” Further, he read, the slow-growth plan “was developed behind closed doors. This private group shut out competing voices. . . . The advisory group was maybe only a calculated sham.”

Marshall Thompson, a newcomer to Malibu and a resident of Malibu Park, questioned the amount of black space on the map indicating parking. “Is there a way to acquire the Civic Center, bring it back into public domain, where we have a balance of legitimate property rights and a way to preserve the beauty and charm of Malibu? Is there a way to have an exchange where they get development rights in exchange for us getting open space?”

Ewing replied, “Either through bonuses or through development rights, we can do it. It’s complex, but we can do it.”

Councilman Harry Barovsky noted that there is a 60 percent provision for open space under the advisory committee plan, which doesn’t include parking lots.

Attorney David Kagon said, “The key word here is horse trading. . . . Everyone would like to see as little development as we can legally restrict. The key word here is ‘legally.’ We could end up back with the General Plan, and that permits more development than any of the Specific Plans.”

Some residents said they were not opposed to all development and said the Civic Center was the perfect place for a seniors residential complex that would include a community center and medical facilities, as had been proposed by both Pepperdine and Joan Knapp during the first specific plan process. Other planners had noted that senior housing would not add to traffic, as shuttles would take senior residents to and from the nearby theater, shops and restaurants.

Several residents expressed concern that both plans would be moot if the land was found not to be able to sustain that development, and that perhaps the EIR should be done first.

Ewing said staff needed to know which proposal to submit for the EIR, and that he would need to know basic uses — retail, residential, commercial and maximum FAR — but not as much detail as whether it’s visitor-serving vs. residential-serving.

Councilman Tom Hasse asked if two alternatives could be studied. Ewing responded, “Yes, but it will be more expensive.” The EIR is budgeted for $140,000. Ewing also said that there would be public hearings on the EIR after it is completed.

Barovsky asked, if landowners submitted development plans before a Specific Plan was adopted, would their proposals be evaluated under the current rules?

City Attorney Christi Hogin replied they would be grand-fathered in at the time of application. “We can’t indefinitely delay a proposal because a Specific Plan is under development,” she said.

By the end of the third session, the council had heard so many requests for more open space and limited development, that they were talking about possibilities of a land trust, a bond issue, assessments and other methods of purchasing the land to preserve it.

Hogin warned the council against considering property for purchase while still regulating its development, which would put the council in a conflicted role. “To flirt with buying for a long time stigmatizes it [the property]. You should identify the land and buy it.” Hogin added, “There will be a comprehensive memo on this in your boxes in a few days.”

The council is tentatively scheduled to consider the matter June 30.

Katie Cooper and Eron Ben-Yehuda contributed to this story.