Planning Commissioner Jo Ruggles Monday doggedly continued her quest to dim the lights in Malibu by proposing strict new guidelines regulating exterior home lighting, despite specific instructions from the City Council last week that staff not prepare such an ordinance at this time. The proposal died when most of the other commissioners said they would not support a major amendment to the zoning code without staff research and a public hearing.

Ruggles’ proposal came in the midst of the commission’s minor revisions and grammatical and organizational changes to the interim zoning ordinance in preparation for its conversion to the city’s official zoning code. It also came on the heels of her move at the last Planning Commission meeting to prohibit lighted tennis courts in single-family and rural residential zones.

At Monday’s meeting, the planning staff wrapped up their suggested minor changes to the code section dealing with commercial parking, and the commissioners were then asked whether they had any recommended changes.

Ruggles started off the discussion by saying she wanted revisions on side-yard setbacks and exterior home lighting.

But Planning Director Craig Ewing jumped in and told Ruggles the commission was only cleaning up the code and members should not be proposing any new policy revisions. As a compromise, he suggested the commissioners compile a list of the major items they would like to see added to the code, and he would present it to the City Council for future action.

“We should have the council review them before we spend time on the issue,” said Ewing.

Ruggles then later asserted that a provision requiring all exterior lighting to be low-wattage, shielded and down-directed would not be a major change to the code because the General Plan includes such a land-use policy.

“The General Plan and the zoning code have to be consistent,” she said.

Ewing told the commissioners they could adopt the suggestion, but it would mean that if the council upheld it, security lighting and motion detectors would be banned.

Commissioner Ed Lipnick and Vice Chair Ken Kearsley strongly protested the proposal, and Lipnick accused Ruggles of trying to legislate in the guise of cleaning up the code.

“This is last-minute, poorly thought out and it doesn’t cover all the contingencies,” said Lipnick. “It’s a major change to the zoning code that needs to be dealt with at a later time.”

When Chair Andrew Stern suggested he would like to speak with the interim city attorney before proceeding, Ruggles withdrew her second to the motion that Commissioner Charleen Kabrin had made on Ruggles’ behalf.

“All this rhetoric, discussion, dialogue … this is ridiculous,” said a clearly frustrated Ruggles.

When no other commissioner would second the motion, the proposal died. Ewing then reminded commissioners that the exterior lighting issue would probably be taken up by the City Council when it considers the revised housing design ordinance this fall.

In announcing their $150,000 flood mitigation grant to the city last week, FEMA officials emphasized one particular option for reducing the risk of flood damage from Malibu Creek: restoring at least part of the land in the Civic Center to its former presumed status as a wetlands, including vacant land and that lying underneath existing developments.

But the head of FEMA’s community mitigation program for the Western United States said this week that the mitigation route chosen by a local government depends on the financial resources available and the support in the community for the methods proposed for reducing flood damage.

The most common mitigation option local communities use under the guidance of FEMA is the removal of buildings that have repeatedly flooded in flood-prone areas. The buildings are either relocated or demolished, and the land is publicly held in perpetuity as open space, said Jack Eldridge, regional chief of FEMA’s community mitigation program. Properties that have had two or more flood loss claims in any 10-year period are considered repetitive loss properties.

On its Website, FEMA boasts of the success of these mitigation measures in flood plains across the country, including the moving of entire towns in the Midwest along the Mississippi River to higher ground. FEMA helped coordinate these projects, including assisting the communities in acquiring funds from other federal and state agencies to buy the property from private landowners.

But because of pricey California real estate, Malibu may have to focus on other options during its grant-financed study of flooding problems in the city, said Eldridge. Other options are elevating buildings, constructing protective walls and working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on public works projects to redirect flood waters.

“FEMA officials often mention the acquisition option because it is the cleanest of the bunch,” said Eldridge. He added that in Malibu, “Obviously, that option would not be as widespread as in the Midwest, but the community has to look at each and every one of these properties that have repeatedly flooded and decide what [it] wants to do about [it].”

Still, both the regional director of FEMA and the head of the mitigation program in Washington, D.C., last week emphasized their visualization of wetlands restoration as a key component of flood mitigation in Malibu.

Martha Whetstone, regional FEMA director, said last week that one of the objectives of the study financed by the $150,000 grant is to assure “that existing wetlands and open space in the flood plain are retained for natural storage for flood waters.” She also said FEMA is “very interested in helping local governments identify land that should never have been developed and should never be developed in the future.” And she added that communities often find the “wisest” flood mitigation measure “is to allow properties to revert to their open, natural state as wetlands.”

The head of the national flood mitigation program, Michael Armstrong, said such measures “not only create a disaster-resistant community, but an environmentally compatible community.” Armstrong added, “Wetlands are not only good for the environment, they also protect against floods.”

The Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy, the local organization that attracted FEMA’s attention to flooding and played a pivotal role in convincing the agency to award the grant, has been working to recover land near Malibu Creek for wetlands restoration.

Marcia Hanscom, a member of the conservancy board, said the group has not taken up the issue of whether to advocate for the removal of existing development in the Civic Center. Instead, she said, the group is focusing on keeping undeveloped parcels as open space.

Gil Segel, president of the conservancy, also said in a telephone interview that his group is focusing on preserving undeveloped land in the Civic Center, but he added, “If we had our druthers, we would make it all open space.” Segel quickly called back to clarify that he did not think moving existing development was “doable.”

“We’re focusing on the undeveloped piece of property,” he said.

The $150,000 grant will be used mainly to pay for the study and proposed mitigation plan. City Manager Harry Peacock said the city is waiting for the actual grant money before taking additional steps to prepare for the study.

New restrictions on private celebratory activities approved by the City Council last week are not likely to crimp the style of Malibu’s party animals, as restrictions proposed by the Planning Commission had threatened to do in May.

That proposal, which caused many a local socialite’s heart to flutter, would have restricted residents to two parties per year when 50 or more guests are invited, and limited nonresidential facilities to four events per year when 100 or more guests are invited.

The council in May rejected that proposal as too strict and asked the staff to draw up a new set of recommendations. The city was responding to complaints from residents of Ramirez Canyon who are suffering from the numerous events and catered functions held at the Streisand Center for Conservancy Studies. A few other residents in town regularly rent out their homes for private parties.

The restrictions approved last week require residents to obtain a permit if they plan to charge an admission fee, rent out their home, charge for valet parking or shuttle services, or advertise the event. In those cases, residents are entitled to host four events per year in their home and nonresidential facilities are permitted six such events per year.

If guests are not assessed a fee, or if an event is not advertised, a permit is not required. Organizations such as the Malibu West Beach Club and La Costa Beach Club are exempt from the permitting requirements as well.

Council members sought to assure the public that the new restrictions do not apply to weddings and parties residents host in their home.

“This is not for your Brownie parties, your Cub Scouts, and we’re not talking about having your friends over,” said Councilwoman Joan House.

Councilman Harry Barovsky said the restrictions are only for the few groups that are abusing the system.

“We would not vote for an ordinance that would require you to come in for a permit to have a party,” said Barovsky.

Mayor Walt Keller suggested limiting fee events in homes to two per year, but the rest of the council, perhaps mindful of upcoming City Council and general election fund-raising parties, rejected his proposal.

Making it easier to get a planning permit and getting the Local Coastal Plan to the California Coastal Commission top the City Council’s priorities for the coming fiscal year. Even clarifying rural residential zones to include roosters, so rooster owners would not be cited under noise ordinances, as Mayor Pro Tem Carolyn Van Horn requested, will have to wait until these constituent and Coastal Commission demands are met, the council voted.

Meeting last week for its fiscal 1999 fourth quarter review, the council made the following, mostly unanimous, motions as it discussed reports from the Building & Safety, Planning, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, and Finance departments, and from the interim City Attorney, the City Clerk and the City Manager.

• Not to offer help with any legislation similar to Assembly Bill 885, which mandated statewide septic system standards, and which was recently scuttled by the state Legislature, unless the city lobbyist recommends city involvement. (Joan House motion, 5-0 vote)

• To direct the Local Coastal Plan Commission to complete its report by Sept. 30 or relinquish control of developing the plan to the City Council. (House motion, 5-0). Noting LCP commissioner Jo Ruggle’s lament that it took the commission consultant three months to produce a work product, the council also voted 5-0 on the Van Horn motion to direct the consultant, in writing, to meet more frequently with the commission. The council also discussed the possibility of sending a draft plan to the Coastal Commission.

• To prioritize the permit streamlining process, before enacting any more laws. (Motion of Tom Hasse, 4 in favor, Van Horn against.) This motion overrode rooster owner Van Horn’s request to include roosters and other animals in the rural residential zones, so animal owners will not be cited for noise code violations. This motion also overrode the request of planning commissioners Ruggles and Charleen Kabrin to finalize the tree preservation and exterior lighting ordinances.

• To get written confirmation of the designation of Pacific Coast Highway as a Scenic Highway (Mayor Walt Keller motion, 5-0).

• To get a report on the expense and time involved in city participation in the Annual Golf Classic set for April 3. (House motion, 5-0, after City Manager Harry Peacock expressed concern about setting a precedent of helping nonprofits raise money that might not be returned to the city.)

• Apply the $26,947.99 narcotics forfeiture turned over to the city by the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station both towards more beach patrols during the summer (Peacock’s request) and additional traffic enforcement on Point Dume (Keller’s request). The motion by Barovsky passed 5-0.

• To write to the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station asking them to limit access to the Point Dume beach because of lack of lifeguards. (Van Horn motion, 5-0).

• To have the Parks & Recreation Department develop a millennium celebration project. (House motion, 5-0).

Other developments

Keller asked for written documentation of city negotiation with the school district for potential park sites. Hasse, who along with Councilman Harry Barovsky serves on the Parks & Recreation Subcommittee, reported that Malibu High School Principal Mike Matthews has plans for expanded athletic facilities at the school.

Parks & Recreation Director Catherine Walter announced:

• The first public workshop on a Parks Master Plan would take place Aug. 5, and there would be a second one in September. Her report to the council says the 20-year plan is to be completed by October 1999.

• There will be a Student Government Day in the spring.

• A house in Las Flores Canyon was due to be inspected Sept. 13. City Manager Harry Peacock said he would get back to the council with a repair estimate. Recreation Supervisor Marilyn Stern has mentioned Las Flores Canyon as a possible site for a Teen Center.

• The Papa Jack Skateboard Park will be open by the end of September.

Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station Lt. Thom Bradstock announced that the California Highway Patrol had received $136,569 grant from the state to create a traffic safety corridor along Pacific Coast Highway. About half of that is earmarked for Malibu, Bradstock said.

Hasse asked Interim City Attorney Richard Terzian to research the status of campaign finance ordinances. Hasse also asked City Clerk Virginia Bloom to check current voter registration rules. Peacock announced that focus groups indicate “virtually no community interest” in a community access television studio. He recommended re-evaluating the high school as a facility in six months, since the unexpected application by Charter Communications to buy out Falcon Cablevision will delay renewal of Falcon’s cable franchise anyway. Although the city has about $5 million in cash on hand and about $2 million due from the Federal Emergency Management Association, Finance Director William Thomas was guardedly optimistic about the future. He noted the city will lose about $750,000 revenue in motor vehicle and gas taxes, and that FEMA is auditing $1.3 million from the 1993 fire.

Malibu Road neighbors Sam Birenbaum and Steve Karsh returned to Santa Monica Superior Court Friday for hearings on the contempt proceedings each has brought. But Judge Paul Flynn, who issued the injunction on which the alleged contempts were based, was occupied with a jury trial, so the matter was reassigned to another judge and then postponed.

Flynn had issued the mutual injunctions Nov. 24, which, among other things, precluded the parties from trespassing on each other’s properties and prohibited surveillance except for gathering of evidence.

On Monday, the parties appeared before a new judge, Julius Title. After several minutes in open court, counsel met with the judge in chambers and agreed to continue the hearings on the alleged contempts. The court ordered that the injunction remain in effect until Sept. 16, the new hearing date.

When asked what was accomplished by a continuance, Brad Tubin, attorney for Karsh, said, “You could say that my clients believe this was their best chance of getting peace on Malibu Road.” Birenbaum, acting as his own attorney, said that the continuation would permit the OSC re contempt to be heard by Flynn, the judge who had issued the injunction originally.

Asked for comment on the ongoing conflict, Karsh said, ” It’s more than a neighbor issue. It’s an issue that involves all of us — the use of the beach, not to have to smell or walk in another person’s sewage.”

Nidia Birenbaum said, “The reason I will not make any statement to The Malibu Times is because Arnold York always finds a way to politicize issues.”