The City Council Monday agreed to take another look at and possibly revise its new “Comprehensive Communications Policy” after members of the public and the media, including a prominent columnist for the Los Angeles Times, called the policy an attempt to muzzle the press by blocking the free flow of information out of City Hall.

The policy, adopted unanimously last month, names the mayor and council members as the only city officials who may answer questions for the press about election campaigns and “political issues.” It also instructs city commissioners to refer all questions about their meetings and decision making to the chair of their respective commission. But perhaps the aspects of the policy that fuel the most anger among journalists are the requirements that city department heads obtain “the express authorization” of the city manager before answering questions from the press, and that city staff, other than department heads, not speak to the media about administrative matters at all.

Members of the press and its supporters asked the council Monday to reconsider the new policy.

“Free governments don’t need a communications policy,” said Arnold York, publisher of The Malibu Times. In addition to York, Anne Soble, publisher of the Malibu Surfside News, wrote a column that was highly critical of the new policy.

Faced with the opposition from Malibu’s two newspapers, and an embarrassing column from the Los Angeles Times’ Al Martinez, who lampooned the policy in Sunday’s paper, the council agreed to bring back the policy for further discussion.

“It is unusual that both newspapers in this town agree on one thing,” said Councilman Harry Barovsky. “We should bring it back for community input.”

Councilman Tom Hasse, who sponsored the policy, said it was “insulting” to him that people would accuse him of attempting to gag the press.

“This is an attempt to help the press do its job,” he said.

While the policy states on its face that “no department directors … shall respond to news media inquiries without the express authorization of the city manager,” Hasse said he does not believe the policy requires department heads to run to the city manager for permission to talk to the media.

But in fact, when a reporter, during a break in the council meeting, approached a department head for information on a matter within his job duties, the department head then asked City Manager Harry Peacock whether he could answer the reporter’s question. Peacock approached and listened to the question, but eventually walked away without intervening in the conversation.

When asked whether the department head was joking when he sought Peacock’s permission, the director said he was simply trying to execute instructions to staff.

Ongoing

• Grade slide area and maintain retaining wall at Las Flores Canyon Road.

Pending

• Resurface from Topanga Canyon Road to Paradise Cove Road, except for Pier area, where Edison is making improvements (May — July 1999)

• Roadway rehabilitation from Paradise Cove Road to Ventura County line (September 1999 to September 2000)

• Rainline striping system (median), Topanga Canyon Road to County Line

• Signal upgrade and install traffic management system tied to downtown (September 1999 — September 2001), including:

• Traffic signal upgrade at Las Flores Canyon Road, Webb Way, Malibu Road

• Video detection at Las Flores Canyon Road, Cross Creek, Webb Way, Malibu Canyon Road

• Fiber optic cable and highway advisory radio at Big Rock Drive, Malibu Canyon Road, Heathercliff Road

• Closed-circuit TV on Topanga Canyon/ PCH, John Tyler Drive, Kanan Dume Road, Bush Drive, Morning View Drive and Trancas Canyon

Future projects

• Improvement pavement markings, adding left turn arrow on traffic signal, and moving the crosswalk at Malibu Canyon Road

• Coastal embankment correction, slope stabilization, and drainage correction from McClure Tunnel to Busch Drive

• Realign Zumirez Drive (city project with Caltrans approval)

Sources: Caltrans, Malibu City Manager Harry Peacock

The supporters of Remy O’Neill packed the courtroom Monday afternoon in a show of support on what was to be the day Malibu Municipal Court Judge Lawrence Mira ruled on a preliminary motion in the case of “People of the State of California vs. Remy O’Neill and the Road Worriers, a political action committee.”

The misdemeanor criminal case arose out of alleged violations of the Malibu campaign finance ordinance in connection with last year’s City Council elections.

But the hearing was an anticlimax because Mira removed himself from the case and transferred it to the court in Santa Monica, where the presiding judge will decide where it will be assigned for hearings on pretrial motions and ultimately for trial.

Mira explained his reasons to those in the courtroom, saying he was transferring the case because it was his responsibility under the judicial canons of ethics to determine not only if he himself could be impartial but equally important that people perceive the appearance of impartiality. He indicated this case was widely known in Malibu, that there was talk about it at community and political events and that under the circumstances it would be fairer to all if this was heard by someone other than himself and outside of Malibu. Additionally, he said he had read all the papers filed, and since there was a constitutional challenge to the statute by the defense, claiming that the statute interfered with freedom of speech and association, it was Mira’s belief that there would probably be testimony about the Malibu political process. He said he personally knew many of those people involved, including many present and past City Council members who might be witnesses in the case, and in fact had sworn many of them in and also as the presiding judge had supervision of all the Malibu judge pro tems of whom Jeff Jennings was one.

Under the circumstances, he said, he believed this case should be transferred and did so. A hearing is set for June 11 at 8:30 a.m. in Santa Monica Superior Court, Department A, unless rescheduled.

In an earlier, somewhat related action, the Court of Appeal issued a stay in the case known as “FPPC vs. Gil Segel and a group known as the ‘Malibu Citizen’s for less Traffic on PCH'” to allow the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to file a brief on behalf of Segel and the committee. The case, a civil enforcement matter, arose out of the same City Council election, and the appeal relates to a subpoena for bank records and other discovery information ordered by the Superior Court. It’s yet unclear whether the temporary stay was merely an accommodation by the court to the ACLU, or whether it represents a belief that this is a matter that should be set for brief and argument.

Late season rains June 1 forced the release of treated recycled water from the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility into Malibu Creek, according to water district officials.

The closure of the Malibu Lagoon sand berm May 8 marked the start of a six-month, dry season prohibition on discharge into the creek under the Regional Water Quality Control Board permit for Tapia. The permit restriction, which remains in effect until Oct. 31, allows exceptions for “uncontrollable events,” including rain storms and plant upsets, according to Arlene Post, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District spokeswoman.

The district was fined by the water board for off-season discharges last year. The fine was lowered on appeal.

Officials from the RWQCB had not responded to inquiries for this story as of press time.

“Extraordinary measures” were put in place by the water district to avoid the need to discharge, despite ongoing cool and overcast weather this spring and throughout the Memorial Day weekend — when demand for recycled water for irrigation drops.

“Our crews worked tirelessly throughout the Memorial Day weekend to dispose of the surplus recycled water through surface waste spray,” said Jim Colbaugh, LVMWD general manager, in a prepared statement. “Tuesday morning, we were delighted with our success, but overnight rains quickly turned that around.”

On the morning of June 2, with rain falling and all land-disposal options eliminated, release to the creek was the only option left.

“The decision was not made lightly — but was unavoidable due to natural events, as is allowed under the conditions of the permit,” Colbaugh said.

According to records kept by county lifeguards at Surfrider Beach, the berm closed naturally on May 7 at 8 a.m. and at 4 p.m. reopened on its own. On May 12 at 8 a.m. it closed and then reopened May 19 before 8 a.m. or overnight, flowing until May 30. Since June 3 at 1 p.m., the creek has continued to flow. “But the sand is building up to close itself off again, probably within a week,” said John Larson, ocean lifeguard specialist.

The berm generally opens when water levels in the creek and lagoon are elevated and sometimes opens and closes during high tides.

Surfers, who suffer eye, ear, skin and respiratory infections from polluted water that flows onto Surfrider Beach, have fought to prevent all discharges into the creek. They have been active in trying to design a water-level management plan for the lagoon. Surfers have been known to form a “shovel brigade” when a berm breach is imminent, opening the berm several hundred yards to the west to protect the surf break. Water quality at Surfrider Beach routinely is rated “F” by environmental protection organization Heal the Bay.

Malibu environmentalists and city officials have long blamed Tapia for high levels of nitrogen and bacterial and viral counts in Malibu Creek and Lagoon, but a recent study by UCLA researchers failed to pinpoint exact sources of the pollution.

“Vineyards in Malibu? Nonsense!” said one longtime resident.

Wrong. In fact, according to restaurateur Michael McCarty, proprietor of The Malibu Vineyard, “There’s getting to be a regular forest of them here.”

If the dozen or so vineyards presently covering some 200 acres of Malibu hillsides don’t exactly constitute a “forest,” nevertheless it’s a fast-growing, local industry. In fact, if efforts to upgrade the product continue successfully, boosters claim Malibu could become as synonymous with wine production as with beaches and celebrities. Maybe even as famous as France’s Burgundy region with “lots of little vineyards,” says one of the fledgling industry’s biggest promoters, architectural developer Michael “Mal” Layman, whose two-acre Malibu Valley Vineyards is presently being expanded to 30 acres.

McCarty, Malibu’s highest-profile (but far from largest) wine producer, first planted vines in 1985, on 2-1/2, steeply sloping, terraced acres surrounding his Rambla Pacifico home. They were mostly red wine grapes, including pinot noir and a “pure” cabernet (clones such as the cabernet franc and merlot, used extensively in blends, were added in 1988). 1992 saw the arrival of a low-production, fruity, golden chardonnay praised by wine authority Robert Balzer as “Malibu’s Montrachet” (Burgundy’s famous white wine). All bear labels designed by McCarty’s award-winning artist wife, Kim, and most are sold in his restaurants in New York and Santa Monica, in West L.A.’s 20/20 wine store and in Malibu’s ‘Bu Heaven.

Then disaster struck: The 1993 fire took his vineyard along with the couple’s home. “We picked our last harvest two months before the fire,” McCarty says. “I’m told that the temperature at the vine level was 2500 to 3000 degrees.” The vineyard, miraculously, came back, but for three years there were leaves but no grapes. “Grapevines are like people,” he adds. “They react badly to stress.” In 1997 McCarty again harvested grapes, cleared and terraced new land, and added more varieties, including the Italian San Giovese grape. After crushing, fermentation, aging for two years in the barrel, and a year in the bottle, the year 2000 will see the first of McCarty’s post-fire vintages, numbering about 200 cases (half of it blends). As with many local winegrowers, this processing is done elsewhere; in McCarty’s case, by Bruno d’Alfonso, wine maker of Santa Ynez’ Sanford Vineyards.

Louis Hill, reputedly Malibu’s first winegrower, who planted his one-acre vineyard in 1978, was also “wiped out” in 1993. Today, at 83, the man many refer to as Malibu’s “little, old wine maker” and his wife, Lyllis, have replaced the vineyard with a garden. Unlike McCarty, though, Hill never sold his wine, giving it (especially a luscious cream sherry) to friends and keeping several cases for himself. Incidentally, 200 gallons is the federal guideline for winegrowers; below that, it’s considered to be for personal use; more, and the label has to be approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and federal excise tax paid.

Much of the credit for the recent growth in local winegrowing is due to the arrival four years ago of Todd Schaefer and Tammy Sentell (a former Miss Arkansas), whose PCH (Pacific Coast Hills) Vineyards both builds and maintains vineyards. They also grow some 7000 vines of their own near Saddle Rock Ranch, another 6000 (largely devoted to Burgundy-style grapes like pinot noir and pommard, plus chardonnay) above the Malibu Riding & Tennis Club, and 40 acres in Paso Robles.

Says Schaefer, a professional beach volleyball player before he studied viticulture at U.C. Davis, “Wine growing has been a hobby for a long time in Malibu, but if everyone stays at hobby level, you’ll never know how good it can be. Now it’s being taken very seriously. We’re experimenting with a number of varieties to see which are best for Malibu and its microclimates, which can range from the coastal fogs to extreme cold and heat.” Before recommending a potential vineyard, Schaefer and Sentell first survey the hillside in question. “If it looks feasible, we’ll do a soil and water analysis to decide the best variety,” he says. Malibu’s soil is generally fine for vineyards, Schaefer says, fertile and with the good drainage and nitrogen grapes love. There has been no trace, so far, of the vine killer known as Pierce’s Disease.

But why, one wonders, the sudden popularity of vineyards locally? “I think it’s for a couple reasons,” says Layman. “For one thing, the consciousness of wine consumers about the qualities of wine, including its health benefits, has grown a great deal lately. And with Todd leading the way, you can also see what can be done with hillside properties.” Grapevines also add an amenity to a home he says, and, unlike avocado and citrus orchards in the past, they also provide the required fire break around structures, as well as control erosion. “The fire department loves vines because they’re irrigated,” he says.

To keep those vines healthy, Schaefer-designed vineyards have automated drip watering systems, and are not sprayed with chemical pesticides. The couple also suggest piping in music to keep the vines happy. “They love classical music, especially Bach,” Tammy says, admitting about 85 percent of the ambiance achieved is for the workers. And, although building a vineyard isn’t cheap, it’s not as expensive as, say, running an NFL team. “We charge an average $20 per vine,” says Todd. “That’s for everything except clearing the land.” The couple’s company also maintains the vineyards for many owners. “Our phone rings all the time,” Todd says. “We’re in the Malibu vineyards seven days a week from dawn till dusk.”

But, like many owners, it’s also the romance of winegrowing that captures them. Looking at Layman’s hillside, once covered with dry underbrush but today filled with budding grapes, Tammy says, “It’s a dream, isn’t it? But it’s a dream you can drink.”