The investigation by the state’ Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) into the circumstances of the last Malibu City Council election took a sudden and unexpected turn with the introduction of the name of megastar Barbra Streisand into the controversy.

Gil Segel, a principal behind the group “Malibu Citizens for Less Traffic on the Pacific Coast Highway ,” which is under investigation by both the FPPC and the City Attorney’s Office for alleged campaign violations, is a friend and former business associate of Streisand. Segel obtained a $1,000 contribution from the star before the last election.

The moneys contributed by Streisand and others were used in part to purchase five full-page, anonymous ads in the Malibu Surfside News that ran in March and April, 1998, just before the Malibu City Council elections.

Recently the FPPC, the state agency charged with investigating campaign violations of state law, has attempted to subpoena the bank records of the “Malibu Citizens” group. The group is resisting the subpoenas, claiming it was an educational “issue advocacy” group and therefore not subject to the campaign laws. The matter is set for court hearing April 23 in Superior Court, Department 85, before Judge Robert O’Brien (downtown in the central district courthouse).

In advance of the court hearing, the city filed documents outlining its position as to why the bank records of the group should be subpoenaed. The documents include a declaration by Malibu architect Ron Goldman, one of many whose testimony was taken under oath in the case. In his declaration under oath, Goldman stated Barbra Streisand, who was then his client on a home she was planning to build, asked him about the election. According to the declaration, she wanted to know whom he supported. He told her he supported Jeff Jennings and explained why. She then asked him whether she had made a mistake by giving $1,000 to support Tom Hasse’s candidacy.

On a second occasion, she and Goldman made a conference call to Gil Segel. She listened while he and Segel debated the two candidates and the Civic Center buildout.

Several months later, the news of the campaign investigation broke in the local newspapers and accusations were made that the campaign laws might have been violated and the $100 contribution limits to candidates might have been exceeded by some. At that point, Streisand’s then business manager, Page Jenkins, called Goldman and said Streisand wanted him to know that “she had given her check to a political committee and not a candidate.”

According to the city’s court filings, the Segel committee maintains it was just an educational group and therefore entitled to remain anonymous and did not have to disclose its contributors. It argues that the U.S. Supreme Court has supported the use of anonymous issue advocacy political ads in the past. The city disagrees and argues that the ads that ran in the Malibu Surfside News were really political ads and that the entire so-called educational foundation was a charade, an attempt to disguise the large, illegal campaign contributions and circumvent the campaign laws, and also to keep the donors’ identities anonymous.

The city also charged that another group, the “Road Worriers,” a political action group whose stated purpose was to defeat Jeff Jennings and elect Tom Hasse, and which was led by Remy O’Neill (a former campaign manager for Carolyn Van Horn), who worked in concert with the “Malibu Citizens” group to place ads in the Malibu Surfside News in a coordinated campaign to defeat Jennings and elect Hasse. The groups also shared the same polling firm, the same lawyer and some of the same principals (O’Neill, Joanne Segel and Gil Segel )

In support of its position, the city filed another declaration, by Richard McSherry, an investigator for the FPPC. He testifies under penalty of perjury he was investigating the allegations of violations of the Political Reform Act by the Road Worriers and/or Malibu Citizens and/or individuals directing these organizations in connection with the Malibu municipal election of 1998.

His declaration reads, “In the course of my investigation, I discovered from Ann Soble, publisher of the Surfside News, that the Malibu Citizens and Road Worriers combined their resources to obtain a multiple ad discount — which they shared,” referring to the lowered cost of ads placed in the Surfside News by both groups.

Within the next few days, the FPPC is required to file its brief, accompanied by declarations under oath from witnesses outlining their position. Segel and “Malibu Citizens” will then file their response to the state’s and city’s briefs.

The judge will have the opportunity to read and study all the documents. On April 23, Judge O’Brien is scheduled to hold a hearing on the matter. If he agrees with the state and the city, he will let the subpoenas issue, and they will be entitled to see bank records of “Malibu Citizens” group, which will disclose who gave money and how much. If he agrees with “Malibu Citizens,” he will quash the subpoenas and let them keep the names of their donors secret.

In either event, this court date is probably just one of several legal skirmishes in this investigation. Whatever the judge decides, the state’s case against the “Malibu Citizens” and the city’s potential case against others for violating city campaign laws will most certainly continue on.

A routine variance request at the Planning Commission Monday sparked a debate among commissioners over fundamental questions of their power and authority, ultimately prompting a call to bring in City Attorney Christi Hogin to help resolve the matter.

The variance request is part of a proposal to build an approximately 9,000-square-foot home on Porterdale Drive near Winding Way. The property owner, Malibu Porterdale Development, is seeking the variance to build on some of the steepest slopes on the 3.5 acre hillside property.

The commission originally reviewed the proposed home in February. A majority of commissioners indicated they would not approve the home because of its visual impact on the neighborhood, so Porterdale Development agreed to make minor design revisions. But the property owner did not adjust the size of the home, and its representative, Mark Cirlin, argued on Monday that because it is lawfully entitled to a home of that size, the commission could not refuse to approve the project simply because it deemed it too large.

“If you feel houses in general are too big in Malibu . . . you can fight for a regulation to make it illegal for homes this size to be built,” Cirlin said. “But in the absence of that, I think homes within the legal [size] limits of the city of Malibu should be allowed.”

Commissioner Charleen Kabrin and Vice Chair Andrew Stern disputed Cirlin’s assertion. They argued that just because the zoning code permitted a 9,000-square-foot home on the site, the commission is not required to facilitate building that large of a home by granting a variance.

“If they want something that requires a variance, they’re taking a bit of a risk,” said Stern. “It is not incumbent on us to say you get it . . . variances should not automatically be granted.”

Kabrin said because a smaller home could be built on the site without encroaching on the steepest slopes, a variance was not absolutely essential for the property owner to build a home.

But Commissioner Ed Lipnick said the commission should not be determining whether a hypothetical house could be built without a variance, but rather whether the house actually proposed could be built without one. In the case before it, Lipnick said, he agreed with the Planning Department that a variance was warranted because the proposed home could not be built without encroaching onto the steep slopes.

“I have a philosophical objection to using the variance process to redesign homes,” he said. “There is no legal basis for denying the application.”

Comments by the two remaining commissioners indicated how they would probably vote on the variance request. Chair Jo Ruggles said she did not like seeing any building on such steep slopes. Commissioner Ken Kearsley said he felt the lot was entirely unbuildable without a variance.

“If you put in an outhouse and a teepee, you would still need the same variance,” he said.

Stern did not indicate how he would vote on the variance request and said he needed some legal advice from Hogin to make his decision.

“I don’t understand what my responsibilities are legally,” he said.

He made a motion to hold off the vote until legal counsel was obtained, and the commission unanimously agreed to the request.

The Planning Commission Monday proposed amendments to the city’s temporary permit requirements that some party animals might find a little too strict.

The commission is recommending that the City Council limit residents to two special events per year, when such events include 50 or more guests.

“The impacts are extensive enough that two a year are enough,” said Commissioner Charleen Kabrin.

The commission is also recommending that residents hosting two special events not be permitted to play any music outdoors nor to play amplified music indoors.

Nonresidential facilities, such as churches or synagogues, are permitted four special events per year. That limit would not apply to events that can be accommodated within the facility’s customary assembly area.

The proposed changes to the temporary permit requirements were prompted mainly by the catered events regularly held at the Streisand Center for Conservancy Studies. Ramirez Canyon residents have sought relief from the city to bring the almost weekly events to an end.

“We are looking to you to save our neighborhood because our neighborhood has been totally devastated,” said Ruth White, president of the Ramirez Canyon Homeowners Association.

The commissioners were clearly attempting to tailor the proposed changes to the kinds of events held at the Streisand Center, but the changes may go too far for residents outside of Ramirez Canyon.

But, in the end, the proposed amendments may not help Ramirez Canyon residents. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, sister agency of the Streisand Center, claims that as an arm of the state, it is not subject to local zoning laws. The canyon residents are currently in litigation with the conservancy over that issue.

The driver of a vehicle that crossed the center divider on PCH near Geoffrey’s Restaurant last year, killing 16-year-old Sabrina Csato, was sentenced to jail last week. Malibu Municipal Court Judge Lawrence Mira sentenced Kenneth Small, 42, to the maximum permitted for the misdemeanor conviction, 1-1/2 years in jail and a $7,000 fine.

Csato, a Palisades High School student, was killed instantly when the minivan driven by Small drifted over the center line and struck her vehicle head on.

The victim’s father was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as calling PCH a treacherous deathtrap. “If there had been a median divider on PCH my daughter would be alive today,” he said.

Csato’s family has created an Internet site on which people who have survived accidents on PCH can exchange information.

There have reportedly been an estimated 100 deaths in the last 10 years on PCH between Santa Monica and the Ventura County line. Malibu Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl has launched a PCH Traffic Task Force, which has been meeting since Csato’s death, joining all agencies that impact on PCH — Caltrans, LAPD, LASD, CHP, the county and the cities of Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Malibu, and others. The force is attempting to resolve problems and eliminate safety hazards on PCH.