Remember square tomatoes? Back a couple of decades when the possibility of genetically altering plants was getting off the ground, they were touted as an economic breakthrough; more could be packed in a shipping carton.

Well, that never happened (except experimentally), but genetically re-engineering plants has become a huge industry today. At present, more than 30 percent of all crops grown in North America are genetically modified, and most experts estimate that figure will be close to 100 percent in a decade.

Last week, the University of California and Ceres, Inc., a 2-year-old plant genetics company that rents space in a wing of Malibu’s HRL Laboratories, announced that Ceres had allocated $5.75 million to support plant molecular biology at four U.C. campuses and establish a Plant Genomics Technology Center at U.C.L.A.

According to Dr. Richard Flavell, the company’s chief scientific officer, “At one time, when you talked to farmers and plant breeders, you’d get a long list of plant attributes they wanted: disease and drought resistance; crop yield, which has many components; better performance on a variety of soils; product shipability, plus better quality of what’s being eaten. That list remains today. But what has changed with the accumulation of years of knowledge, we now know something about the genetic control of these targets to improve crops.”

Companies like Ceres (named for the Roman goddess of agriculture) and Monsanto (the giant in the industry) add certain genes whose attributes they know through experimentation to the 25,000 to 50,000 genes already in a plant. “The technology to do this was established in several laboratories by 1982,” Flavell says. The process wasn’t easy then or now, nor is explaining it to a lay person. “Scientists all over the world these days have pieces of genetic information that we call a gene in pure chemical form,” Flavell adds. “What we’ve learned to do over the past 20 years is how to get that piece of information inside a plant cell, and then you do a bit of gardening to grow a whole plant from that one cell. We can test if every cell in the plant has the new gene built into it and see what the gene has done. Then you sift through a large number of experiments to find the one that is more resistant to disease or whatever you’re seeking.”

“The offspring will then multiply like the natural plant,” adds Dr. Mark Vaeck, vice president of operations at Ceres. Lest anyone worry about a possible mutation like Audrey II, the carnivorous plant in “The Little Shop of Horrors,” or something out of the 1980 film “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes,” Vaeck explains: “It’s an attractive process that adds needed attributes to something that is already successful; the end product is still a normal plant but one which, for example, might not require pesticides to protect it from insects.”

“And this technology can do wonderful things with ornamentals,” Flavell adds. “Some people in New Zealand have told me they almost have a blue rose; they haven’t got the gene combination quite right yet, but it’s on the way.”

So, how do you turn this into a business? “Either we sell the seed ourselves,” Vaeck says, “or we may provide genes that other companies will take, do the engineering and sell the product.”

“A company like Pioneer, the large corn seed company, might not have done all the experimenting to find all the genes that might be most useful today,” Flavell adds, “so they’d look to university laboratories or companies like ours. If we have something they want for a new corn strain for the farmers of Iowa, they would buy it from us.”

Protecting the research is fairly sophisticated (the genes can be patented), but figuring out what to charge isn’t too easy. “You have to make your calculations based on the economic advantage of this new variety,” Vaeck says. “You can calculate an average of what the farmer will gain from using the new variety and say, ‘OK, what will he be willing to pay for that gain?’ Maybe it will be 50 percent, but you can’t generalize.” If only the gene is sold to a seed company and they do the subsequent work, “perhaps we will get a share of their share,” Vaeck adds.

Founded by Malibu resident and CEO Walter De Logi at the suggestion of Robert B. Goldberg, a U.C.L.A. professor of cell, molecular and developmental biology, Ceres rented its 25,000-square-foot laboratory at HRL in August. Since it started, the company has raised $55 million and hired some 70 employees; given the youth of the industry, it’s not surprising that nearly half of them are women, most of them are young and many are in their first job.

“It’s a fledgling industry whose time has come,” Flavell says. “We know that the demands on the farmer these days are not just for bigger crops, although to maintain the present standard of living, we are going to have to double crop production in the next 25 years. We have to look after the environment, too; if you’re not going to spray more chemicals, if you are going to provide the healthiest food you can, there are a lot of targets more important than a square tomato that can be addressed by genetics. Politics and money have a lot to do with it; it isn’t just science. But we do know that the answer lies with bright people developing some really interesting genes that can be put to good use in the agricultural world.”

One year from today we may once again be able to walk and even fish off Malibu Pier, according to Russ Guiney, district superintendent for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, owners of the pier.

Malibu Pier, which was declared unsafe and closed to public use in 1997, is scheduled for rehabilitation and repair on or near July 1, funded by $900,000 set aside by the department for the repair.

This, the first phase of the repair, should make the pier structurally safe and open it to pedestrian traffic, Guiney said at a recent Chamber of Commerce event held at Duke’s Malibu Restaurant, giving the community an update. Barring any unforeseen problems, this phase is estimated to take about a year. Until some of the planks are removed and the understructure examined, however, it remains just that — an estimate. The department also intends to tear down what was the prep kitchen for Alice’s Restaurant.

The full repair and restoration of the pier, which would include repair and rehabbing all of the buildings, both on the ocean end and the land end, could take about 2-1/2 years. The second phase would include repair of the buildings on the ocean end of the pier, which housed an old tackle shop, a snack bar and the boat landing, all of which the state’s engineers consider to be vulnerable. The last phase would include the landward end of the pier, where Alice’s Restaurant was located.

Guiney said he thought the state allocated enough money, $900,000, to complete the first phase, but the overall job, which includes the complete restoration, would cost between $4 million to $4.7 million, and that would require the participation of the city of Malibu and the County of Los Angeles.

Last year, the city and county had negotiated for the city to take over the pier, but the city balked and that deal blew apart because the county contribution of $2.9 million came with a hook — the county wanted the city to contribute $125,000 annually toward defraying the cost of maintaining Surfrider Beach, and the city would have had to pay back the $2.9 million over a period of years.

Recently, the city hired a consultant to review the proposals. The consultant concluded essentially that the amount of rentable space made the economics of the pier rather questionable. It recommended that the city not buy the pier but instead consider an alternative where $1,000,000 or so from the 1996 Prop A Bond funds would be made available to the state to fix the pier buildings only, which the city wouldn’t have to repay. According to City Manager Harry Peacock, the city is leaning toward that option, provided the state sets up a sinking fund of approximately $95,000 per year as the city’s consultants have recommended, so that the city has some assurances that the pier will stay open in the future. Peacock indicated the state and the city were working to get a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed before the end of this fiscal year in June. They need to ink some sort of state/city deal to preserve another $150,000 that the Coastal Conservancy has put up, providing it can be done this fiscal year.

Additionally, Guiney indicated the state recently had discussions with county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s office to see if the original $2.9 million, which had been pledged by Supervisor Ed Edelman, was still available. As of now, Guiney had neither a positive yes or a positive no.

Guiney said it was his view that restoring the historical pier, with its limited amount of rental space, couldn’t be much more then a break-even proposition. Guiney seemed to indicate, because of the extensive amount of repair and restoration it will take to reopen the pier and ultimately the restaurant, which is really the only revenue producer, it would happen only if all three entities — the state, the county and the city — contributed money, as none of them had the funds to do it alone.

A Reporter’s Opinion

For weeks, the question has been, “Will he or won’t he?” Will the judge make the group, “Malibu Citizens for Less Traffic on Pacific Coast Highway” (MCLT) and its founder Gil Segel produce their bank records or not?

The answer came Friday in the courtroom of Judge Robert. H. O’Brien. The answer was, Yes, those bank records can be subpoenaed, and, according to the attorneys involved, that’s what the next step will be unless the matter is appealed and stayed.

Segel, the MCLT and their attorney, Brad Hertz, had gathered all their fire power in the papers they filed with the court. They charged that the cases filed by the California Fair Political Practices Commission and the city of Malibu were all “smoke and mirrors ” and nothing more than the result of a “vengeful losing candidate,” “an overzealous state agency” and “a biased city attorney” who were all “determined to teach Malibu’s slow-growth advocates a lesson. . . .” As if that weren’t bad enough, they charged that unholy trio of trying “to chill their constitutional rights and to make them think twice before speaking out about development and traffic in the city of Malibu.”

They also dramatically charged that the state “protests too much . . . [i]n trying to defend its heavy-handed investigation (complete with nighttime raids of witnesses’ homes and other stalker-like tactics reminiscent of Big Brother. . . .” By this, I assume they meant they were quite unhappy that the state was very determined to see that no one ducked its subpoenas

Segel and MCLT also told the judge they took great offense at what they charge was “the level of distortion by Jennings of his own voting record.”

Their papers also indicated a new addition to their enemies list — the name of present Malibu Planning Director Craig Ewing, who was referred to in their papers as “a close Jennings ally.” I’m sure this came as a great surprise to Jennings and Ewing. Has Ewing joined that august company of previous Planning Directors Joyce Parker, accused of being a pro-growth, pro-Jennings planning director, and her predecessor, Bob Benard, also charged with harboring pro-development sympathies by the Keller-Van Horn axis? Without deciding whether this was some sort of congenital anomaly in planning directors that suddenly turned them pro-development in middle age, the judge confined himself to the narrow issue of the subpoena and said, and I paraphrase, “Give ’em the bank records.”

He did that despite a series of arguments and a parade of declarations under oath from the MCLT and its compatriots.

The arguments ran this way:

Judge, you shouldn’t consider the state’s court documents.

Judge, the city’s brief and related documents shouldn’t be considered either.

Judge, we didn’t do it.

Judge, the ads weren’t false and misleading, but even if they were, it doesn’t matter legally.

Judge, the fact that the ads said “political advertising” doesn’t mean anything.

Judge, the fact that some of the donors may have mistakenly associated MCLT with the Tom Hasse campaign doesn’t mean anything.

Judge, just because MCLT and the Road Worriers used some of the same words in their ads or shared some of the same members is of no legal significance.

Judge, Gil Segel swore that the state made false and misleading assertions but is offended at the state’s claims that the MCLT ads contain false or misleading information. He also wanted MCLT to remain anonymous and that desire for anonymity had nothing to do with avoiding any reporting obligations under Malibu’s campaign regulations or the Political Reform Act.

Judge, Joanne Segel, Gil’s wife, said in her sworn declaration she didn’t know why her name was on a receipt for an advertisement attacking Jennings placed in the Surfside News, other than she was standing at the counter the same time as this fellow and the Surfside News employee just mistakenly assumed that she was the contact person for that fellow. Nor was she involved in another ad attacking Jennings placed by a neighbor of hers. She merely carried the ad and the check down to the Surfside News and she was just acting as a messenger.

And when one of the Surfside News employees said in a sworn statement that she appeared nervous when placing the ads and said something like, “You didn’t see me do this,” or, “That never happened,” what she really meant — and I quote directly from her sworn declaration — “I do not recall being nervous or making such comments, but to the extent I did seem nervous or make such comments, it would have been because I did not want anyone else to see me placing the ads, and I did not want to lose my anonymity with regard to the ads. To the extent the FPPC intends to imply that I was nervous or anonymous because I was doing something wrong, I resent the implication.”

And it goes on and on.

Come on folks. Just admit you made a mistake, and you’re sorry and you won’t do it again.

Last week, in response to the school shootings in Littleton, Colo., the U.S. and California flags flew at half-staff in the quad at Malibu High School. But the hand-lettered sign hanging from a nearby, second-floor walkway told far more poignantly how deeply the tragedy in Colorado touched the hearts of the school’s 1100 students. It read simply and eloquently: “We’ll never forget you, kids of Columbine High.”

Although MHS has an exemplary safety record, the tragedy also galvanized Michael Matthews, Malibu High’s principal since 1993, into immediate action. The day after the shooting, the 37-year-old principal spoke to the entire student body about the issues involved.

On Friday, he sent a letter to every school parent outlining the school’s response.

Later that day, Matthews spoke with The Malibu Times.

DW: What was your first reaction to the news?

MM: The realization that it could very easily have been us; we’re the same kind of school and have, basically, the same kind of population.

My first question to myself was, ‘How do I make students feel safe here?’ I knew they’d feel unsettled and would need to be consoled and reassured that this was an OK place to be. My second question to myself was, ‘How do we make it a safer place to be? What can we do as a school to be more protective of our students?’ So, on Wednesday when they came into school, I got on the intercom for 10 minutes, talked about the flag being at half-mast, about what scares me and what I feel good about here at Malibu High School.

DW: What did you say to them?

MM: I reminded them that we have worked a lot on the issues of race and respect. They are part of the curriculum and our advisory program. Then, I addressed two issues. First I explained that violence comes from hatred and urged the kids to remember those lessons, and also to remember that the little insults they give each other add up. I love teen-agers, but it’s the meanest age of all; high schools can be pretty scary places to be. Second, I discussed our continuing efforts to keep Malibu High School a safe campus, a record of which I am very proud. I reminded the students of our weapons policy and that we all, teachers and staff, are here to help, but that we also need the students’ help if they are worried about something. In my letter to the parents, I asked that they also reinforce this at home.

DW: Is there any way to spot the difference between a teen whose antagonism may be a normal part of growing up and one who is seriously troubled and possibly suicidal?

MM: That’s the big question parents and schools have right now. How do you identify potentially dangerous kids? Should we have a dress code that keeps all the kids looking the same? Should we shake them down before they come into school?

What we look for closely is any change in behavior of any kind– academic, social, you name it. This raises red flags, and we’ll deal with it. We do have some dress codes. For example, no hats are allowed, a respect issue that’s also a big help safety-wise. We often have people from off-campus come on wearing hats, and they wonder how we know in a second that they are not students here. We can identify them far away and know something is amiss. Our dress code also prohibits negative messages and showing too much skin. But we don’t have rules against earrings or hair color, and I don’t plan to change that.

DW: When you spot behavioral changes, how do you handle them?

MM: We have counselors and a psychologist on campus who can address those changes and work with the parents. We’re not too worried about violence per se, but whether they are going to get in serious trouble because they are so angry or so alienated — yes, even here in Malibu. We will, and have, intervened when we become concerned about the stability of a student. We also have a close relationship with the Juvenile Intervention Team of the sheriff’s office who also work with the families and the kids. [See sidebar.] You know, there are all kinds of conflicts in schools that can bring out the anger — conflict between teachers and students, conflicts between student and student. If you’re watching closely enough, you’ll probably see it. But, I guarantee, no matter how good you are, you won’t see it all.

DW: So what do you do?

MM: Our teachers are paying very close attention, all the time. We also have two security guards (unarmed) who are paying very close attention, too. But we also do much more than that. Every student has to have at least one adult here they feel comfortable talking to and they trust; I don’t care whether it’s me, a teacher or one of the custodians; it’s a policy basic to our philosophy here at Malibu High. We also have an advisory program where every faculty member and some classified employees meet with students every Friday to go over academic stuff but also to just talk. And the same advisor stays with the student throughout his or her high school career.

DW: Have any students ever brought weapons on campus?

MM: There have been no incidents involving loaded firearms, but large knives, by that I mean knives with blades 4 or 5 inches long, have been carried on campus.

DW: I understand you have a zero-tolerance response to drugs. What about weapons?

MM: If you’re caught with even a pocket knife, you’re suspended. If it’s a larger knife, just like with guns, you’ll be recommended for expulsion. Drugs? The policy is an immediate transfer out of the school, and if there is a recurrence in another school in the Santa Monica-Malibu district, then the student is recommended for expulsion. We’ve had 20 or 30 transferred out over the last six years, and about five of them were eventually recommended for expulsion.

DW: Unlike many principals, I understand you also stay closely involved with the students by getting out of the ivory tower and teaching [Advanced Placement history].

MM: Yes. It gives me an hour a day every day to be out there listening and getting the feel of what’s going on on campus. It helps tremendously to be physically available, and have a close personal relationship with the students. It earns me the trust of a lot more students who will come my way and talk to me if they sense problems out there.