A while in the coming, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy may actually receive state funding for its operations. Last week’s vote by the State Assembly Budget Committee on Resources included $750,000 for operating expenses for the conservancy this year.

However, more than one panel must approve the figure in order for it to stick. “We’re going before the Senate Budget Committee March 22,” said the conservancy’s Deputy Director Belinda Faustinos. “We would hope that they would do the same as the assembly has done.”

“It’s a hopeful first step”, said state Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl. “The major problem for the conservancy is that the acquisition fund allocated by the state never includes operating expenses.”

“The essence of it is that historically the conservancy had received general operating funds from the state and that had been dramatically reduced,” Faustinos said, attributing the drop to the prior, more conservative administration and legislature. “We were under 20 percent of our overall budget being funded by the state.”

While the state has encouraged the conservancy to look for more local resources for its operating funds, Faustinos said reliance on local funding is not realistic. “I think there is a role for local funding. The city and county of Los Angeles have done an excellent job doing that.” Faustinos said that while the political climate allowed the state to recognize the needs, there was no move to put money behind the sentiment until recently. “Until you really get into what is needed to preserve things like viewsheds you don’t realize the costs.”

One way to get the decision makers’ attention to realize the costs is to show them the goods. In this case the goods are the Santa Monica Mountains themselves. And that’s exactly what assembly member Kuehl did prior to the committee vote last week. Kuehl took Virginia Strom-Martin, chair of the budget subcommittee, on a helicopter ride. “I think the ability of Assembly Member Strom-Martin to see for herself the near wilderness nature and the threatened areas of our Santa Monica Mountains was critical to her support of this money.”

After two incidents of fatalities on Pacific Coast Highway last year, both caused by cross-over, head-on collisions, PCH Task Force committees are beginning to grapple with safety issues along the roadway.

The committees were created last fall by state Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl to come up with ways to prevent fatal accidents, improve signage and create a safer highway.

Next Thursday, task force members of the recently combined safety and traffic committees will discuss the highway in segments following a presentation by Caltrans. “The biggest thing that people are anxious to hear is what is the protocol for traffic signal outages and malfunctions that back up traffic,” said Laurie Newman, staff person in charge of the task force.

Among the improvements Caltrans is expected to present are a new type of preventive barrier for the highway, according to Newman. “What they’re planning to put in is something we’ve never seen. They are called rumble sticks. They are barrier strips that are used instead of raised dots,” Newman said. “Strips that are ground into the cement and you really feel the jolt if your tires go over them. That’s my understanding.” Newman said work on the new barriers could begin this spring.

The issue of jurisdiction over traffic signage and signal outage is also being addressed in a multimillion dollar project in conjunction with Caltrans that has gone out for bid. “It is called the PCH Traffic Management System,” said Newman. “They are going to design, construct and operate an efficient transportation system that will tie PCH into Caltrans’ system downtown.” Rather than being isolated, PCH will be electronically monitored, providing real-time traffic management.

Currently, local, county and state law-enforcement agencies are charged with supervising the highway. Creating a memorandum of understanding among the various groups has been among the goals of the task force. Kuehl said, “I’m very excited about the progress we’ve made and the extent of the community participation looking at these problems. I don’t believe there has been such a significant gathering to deal with these problems that I can remember. I believe we will move forward as early as this summer to begin carrying out the plans that we adopt in June.” According to Kuehl, the March meeting is the first of two that will be incorporated in a public meeting June 10. The Malibu segment of the March 25 meeting will take place between 1 – 3 p.m. at 1721 22nd Street, Santa Monica.

The Planning Commission Monday offered a sneak preview of how it would review future housing projects under the proposed housing design guidelines, and comments by a majority of commissioners indicate they will not be casting a favorable eye on plans for large homes.

The proposed guidelines, which will be considered by the City Council in hearings next month, require new homes and remodels taller than 18 feet or planned for hillside slopes greater than 33 percent to be limited in their mass and bulk, and to blend into the natural terrain surrounding a building site.

The proposed regulations, as drafted by the commission, also provide commissioners with new and expansive powers to approve or deny projects.

On Monday, the commission reviewed plans for an 8,318-square-foot home off of Via Escondido as part of the property owner’s request for a variance for a retaining wall.

Commissioners Ken Kearsley and Ed Lipnick said they would support the project because an earthquake fault on the site limited where the house could be located, and they were happy with how the architect, Hagy Belzberg, had placed and designed the proposed home.

“Considering the constraints on the site, I think it’s quite a clever design,” said Lipnick, who returned to the commission Monday from a leave of absence following major surgery.

But the other three commissioners saw the home very differently. Vice Chair Andrew Stern said the size of the house would impact on the views of other homeowners in the neighborhood.

“Does someone have a God-given right to build a big house?” he asked.

Commissioner Charleen Kabrin said a smaller house would have fit on the site more “gracefully.” And, she said, neighbors of the site have told her the house would be too large. “I’ve discussed this with neighbors and all their thinking is: It’s just massive, it’s gigantic, it’s huge.”

Chair Jo Ruggles performed her own count of the homes in Sycamore Park and she said the majority are under 8,000 square feet.

But Lipnick said Ruggles was comparing the proposed home to those built 30 or 40 years ago, and newer and larger homes sit in the immediate vicinity of the site. He also pointed out that the commission was reviewing the size of the home only because the property owner had requested a variance.

“We’re taking this as an . . . excuse to complain about a home that is quote, unquote, too big,” he said.

Under the proposed guidelines, the commission would review far more projects than it currently does. Planning Director Craig Ewing has said previously that he anticipates the planning staff will review only the most straightforward of project designs, and those with any potential controversy will be passed on to the commission. The house the commission considered Monday would probably fall into the latter category because of its size and because it features a highly contemporary design.

Kearsley said if the commission were going to deny projects because they are too large, the city should amend the zoning ordinance to reduce the maximum size permitted.

Kabrin agreed, saying property owners often believe that because large homes are permitted, they should have the biggest allowed.

“Everybody’s always pushing it to the max,” she said.

To avoid sure defeat before the commission, the property owner’s representative, Steve Potter, agreed to investigate whether the house could be relocated on the site to reduce its visual impacts, and the vote on the project was postponed.

The commission more warmly received the other project it reviewed as part of a variance request. The proposed home, at 5,631 square feet, featured a traditional Malibu design.

“How nice to see a one-story ranch house,” said Ruggles.

The commission approved the project on Cavalleri Road on a 4-1 vote, with Kabrin voting no because she said the house was too large for the site.

Director Roger Corman toasted the Malibu Film Festival with words of praise: “I’ve never seen a first-year festival get off to such an amazingly successful start,” he told the gathering at Taverna Tony Wednesday night. Champagne flowed, stars schmoozed and winners were congratulated. But outside, a few tuxedoed and cocktail dress-clad guests who had paid $50 a ticket for the gala, fumed at being turned away from the festival’s awards presentation. Ticket holders who failed to RSVP arrived to find their names off the list, and event organizers scrambled to remedy the situation.

“We tried to accommodate everyone on a case-by-case basis,” explained festival founder David Katz. “The people who waited got in.”

Even if the Malibu Film Festival is experiencing a few growing pains, its backers see the party-planning glitch as one unfortunate episode in an otherwise expectation-exceeding debut. Like Corman, Managing Director Michael McCormick gave the festival two thumbs up. “No one had ever done a film festival in Malibu before,” he said. “I am very pleased. We wanted quality, and we wanted to do it right.”

The festival drew superstars such as directors James Cameron and John Frankenheimer, as well as actors Seymour Cassel, Gary Sinise and Talia Shire. In all, 30 films were screened from countries such as Italy, Germany, France and Canada. The works of four local filmmakers were also presented.

Even though the festival had its share of well-known names, its real purpose was to showcase the talent of independent filmmakers such as director Ann Lu. Lu received an award for a small-budget movie called “Dreamers,” which tells the story of two young kids who arrive in Hollywood with hopes of making it in the movie business.

For Lu, the exposure a film festival can provide is instrumental. “Festivals like this are extremely important,” she explained. “David Katz gave me a chance to showcase my work, and I really applaud him for that.”

Even before the festival tents were dismantled on the grounds of Malibu Lagoon State Beach, preparations were underway for next year’s festival. Organizers say they hope to build on attendance, increase sponsorship and improve on logistics such as parking. “Any errors that we made were new to us,” noted McCormick. “We are still learning.”

There are sure to be more lessons ahead. But for now, the founders of the Malibu Film Festival have cleared their first major hurdle, proving that like Lu, they are dreamers no longer.

After weeks of schlepping bottles and cans inside Ralphs market and waiting in check-out lines for refunds, Malibu’s recyclers now have new machines to streamline the process.

Supplied by Orange County-based Tomra, the four sleek, new can banks (two for aluminum cans, one each for glass and plastic bottles) refund 3 cents per can or bottle 24 oz. or smaller, and 5 cents for larger containers, an increase over the 5 cents for two dispensed by the stingier old models.

The old machines were notorious for rejecting perfectly legitimate CA Redemption containers, displaying “unable to read bar code.” That frustration is now history as the Tomra machines actually accept non-CRV containers, shredding and squishing them along with the others, while deducting the refund from the receipt. Smart.

The machine also separates the green plastic from the clear, depositing the shredded remains in two separate bins. Really smart!

Operated by a computer chip — what else? — they alert the Tomra office if there is a malfunction, and experts can work it out on-line.

“Most problems are minor,” said Tomra service technician Magin Sanches. “They can jam if someone puts in something they’re not programmed to take. Usually, it kicks it out.”

Market managers complained about litter from containers rejected by the old machines. They also were pestered by people whose CRV bottles were mistakenly rejected, necessitating a written receipt and more waiting in line. “These machines accept them and note on the receipt how many are nonpaying,” Sanches said.

Managers also appreciate the digital display showing how full the bins are and the percentage of remaining capacity. By all counts, a huge improvement and well worth the wait.