As sleek, modern homes slowly but surely replace the more modest beachfront bungalows from an earlier Malibu era, city officials are finding themselves at odds over an obscure detail in the zoning laws.

In the years before the city’s incorporation, the Coastal Commission had little difficulty determining how far a proposed beachfront home’s deck could extend towards the ocean. The commission drew an imaginary line from the decks of adjacent properties to set how far the proposed balcony could project seaward. This so-called deck stringline rule, which was incorporated into the city’s zoning code, permits a proposed balcony to extend out only as far as the imaginary line, thereby preventing a property owner from encroaching on the ocean views of neighbors.

To fix the precise point of the imaginary line, the city’s planning staff, like the Coastal Commission before it, uses the nearest adjacent corners of neighboring properties to draw the stringline.

But while the commission drew stringlines from the neat right angles of conventional rectangular decks, the planning staff is drawing stringlines from more contemporary-designed balconies, most of which come in a variety of geometric shapes.

And those irregularly shaped decks, some city officials say, may mean that some adjacent property owners are not getting the balcony size to which they should be historically entitled.

During a hearing on a deck stringline case last month, Planning Commissioner Ed Lipnick said the intent of the Coastal Commission’s stringline rule, which the city adopted, “was to give each property owner the same rights as the adjacent property owner, no more, no less. Your building can go out as far as your neighbors’, and your deck can go as far out as your neighbors’.”

The case before the Planning Commission involved a stringline that Planning Director Craig Ewing drew between an existing, modern home on Malibu Road, with a somewhat triangular deck, and a planned rebuild on an adjacent lot. The lot on the other side of the planned rebuild is currently vacant.

Ewing followed the zoning code requirement to draw a stringline from the nearest adjacent corner of the existing home’s deck. But because that corner is not the most seaward corner of the deck, Ewing’s decision meant the deck on the adjacent lot would be set back somewhat from the deck on the existing home. Following the lead of the City Council, which strictly interpreted the stringline rule in a separate case last year, Ewing also determined that such a setback did not result in a hardship for the adjacent property owner, Robert Rechnitz.

Rechnitz appealed Ewing’s decision to the commission, which, after voicing considerable disagreement with the council’s decision last year, sided with Rechnitz.

The City Council’s case last year arose from a dispute over a stringline drawn from Dan Hillman’s Malibu Road house and a home proposed by a neighboring property owner, Paul Schaeffer.

The council drew a stringline from the nearest adjacent corner of Hillman’s deck,. but because his deck wraps around the side of his house, the nearest adjacent corner of Hillman’s deck is not on the seaward side of his home. As in the Rechnitz case, Schaeffer’s deck would be set back from Hillman’s deck.

While the zoning code permits a hardship exemption under the stringline rule, the council refused to find that Schaeffer would experience a hardship solely because his deck would be set back about 10 feet from Hillman’s deck.

In the Rechnitz case, the Planning Commission refused to follow the council’s narrow reading of the hardship exemption. Members of the commission, citing the historical intention behind the deck stringline rule, decided a hardship exists when a property owner is not permitted to extend a deck out as far as adjacent property owners.

The owners of the house next to Rechnitz’ lot, Joel and Ann Walker, have filed an appeal of the commission’s decision, but the commissioners clearly hope the council will revise its thinking on the hardship exemption.

Commissioner Ken Kearsley said the Schaeffer case was “bad law,” and he suggested the council’s decision was a personal favor for Hillman. “Schaeffer was written for one person, and the Walkers only want what that one person, Dan Hillman, got. It’s only fair,” he said. “But the problem is, the chickens are coming home to roost.”

Commission Chair Jo Ruggles said she would like to see the zoning code amended to specify that the stringline be drawn from the most seaward corner of the deck. She also said she could envision property owners intentionally including false decks on their homes to limit the extent to which their neighbors’ decks could project towards the beach.

“This could happen again, where we have points sticking out but not decks at all,” she said.

Ewing said he has noticed deck designs with so little projection that the stringline would be pulled back away from the ocean. He said he is currently reviewing two other, very similar, stringline cases.

“There’s no question that we’re not done with these,” he said.

The state Department of Parks and Recreation fired off a letter last week to the city of Malibu advising the state no longer intends to cooperate on additional renovation of Bluffs Park.

District Superintendent Russ Guiney wrote in the letter to Mayor Walt Keller that after the council meeting Jan. 8, “It is apparent that the city is changing direction on Bluffs Park.” Guiney said it had been his understanding the city was pursuing permanent relocation of the ball fields, but that it now appears the city, through its newly hired lobbyist, would instead pursue acquisition and/or expansion of the ball fields at Bluffs Park.

The city currently operates the park and, under a temporary Coastal Development Permit, is allowed to use it for soccer, baseball and other sports. However, Guiney said both State Parks and the Coastal Commission understood the city was trying to find its own property on which to relocate the ball fields.

The state has allowed renovation of the turf, and was in the process of securing a Coastal Development Permit for additional renovations, but now says it can no longer support more improvements and will withdraw the permit that is in process.

“It’s not personal. I know the state is upset,” Councilman Harry Barovsky said Tuesday. Noting that the city has been unable to find any flat acreage for ball fields, he added, “We have an obligation to at least look at and possibly pursue all of the avenues including the possibility of expanding or even taking over the Bluffs Park”

The City Council, meeting in special session Tuesday, authorized a letter to State Parks stating it has not abandoned the search for alternate locations. The city has funded creation of a Master Plan of Recreational Facilities and is seeking both private and public funds. The letter reminds the state that the city has put a lot of money into improving Bluffs Park, and that it operates the park as a regional facility.

The council also sought options that would allow Little League to open its season as scheduled in April. With renovation work behind schedule and no alternative site available, the council authorized an additional $50,000 for overtime and incentives to the contractor. The option of installing night lights was turned down by state parks.

Worn turf is currently being replaced with new sod, and repairs to the septic facilities, authorized last year by the City Council, are planned. In fact, a proposal to upgrade the septics to a state-of-the-art, computer monitored system that could recycle treated effluent for subirrigation of the fields, was to be included in the permit along with plans for a toddler park and renovations to the Michael Landon Center.

Bluffs Park was bought with a funds from a park bond act in the 1970s to preserve scenic access in the area. Russ Guiney said at a city Parks and Recreation planning meeting last spring, “We always pointed out the ball fields were there on a temporary permit basis only. It is one of only two places along the coastline where you get views in both directions.

“Somewhere along the line we need to build facilities that will be consistent with why we bought the property. Present use of the park is not consistent with our mission and goals. The fields will eventually have to find a new home.”

Recently Guiney said the state is in the process of renovating existing trails to improve view access and would eventually like to build a visitors center at the park.

Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to remain silent under pain of imprisonment.

Weighty words on Capitol Hill, and as the impeachment trial of President Clinton grinds on, expect to hear those words again and again in the days and possibly weeks to come. Among the most avid trial watchers is Pepperdine legal scholar Doug Kmiec. Kmiec said the term “trial” is misleading. It is not a legal proceeding but “political removal process,” and like it or not, the process is going forward the way it was designed. “That is about the first thing he’s said that I agree with,” said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. Chemerinsky was honored Friday by the American Civil Liberties Union, and, like Kmiec, he is often asked to comment on the case. Unlike Kmiec, he feels the course it has taken is “enormously disturbing.”

After the president’s lawyers finish presenting their defense, a move will be made to call witnesses such as Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Vernon E. Jordan Jr. and Kenneth Starr. “If they call witnesses, there is absolutely nothing to be gained,” said Chemerinsky. Kmiec, on the other hand, said there are a few important things the country needs to hear. “The witness needed most is the president himself,” argues Kmiec, “to recognize that he is under the law.” Some say witness testimony is a foregone conclusion unless six GOP senators join the Democrats in a vote to dismiss.

Kmiec said that both dismissal and censure would be a mistake and that constitutionally speaking, the show must go on. Dismissal, he said, would be the equivalent of a hung jury. “You either get a two-thirds vote for conviction or a two-thirds vote for acquittal.”

What the two legal scholars do agree on is the role of the independent counsel. Kmiec notes that the current statute gives a special prosecutor such as Kenneth Starr “unlimited power” and sets a dangerous precedent. If the statute is not revised or repealed, impeachments could be commonplace and the country will move closer to a parliamentary system. As Kmiec sees it, “The independent counsel is the statute that loads this gun, and that gun will remain pointed in any direction.”

The community group known as PARCS plans to starting passing out its needs assessment to recreational interests in Malibu by the end of this week. According to Kristin Reynolds, president of PARCS (People Achieving Recreation and Community Service), the first step is approval by a 10-member board expected Wednesday night and then the handout begins. “We’re out lobbying for these special interest groups, and in order to do that we need to speak from their voice and point of view, not our own.” Reynolds said distribution of the PARCS needs assessment will include Malibu Little League, senior citizens, Malibu Community Center and the American Youth Soccer Organization, among others.

Reynolds is aware that the city is preparing a master plan in the next few month that will also focus on parks and recreation needs; however, she sees no duplication of effort between the two intentions. In fact, Reynolds’ group will take the results of its assessment to the city once the results are returned, which she says will be before March. “Between now and then, we need facts on what the current conditions and needs of this community are,” Reynolds said. “In order to know the character of each organization, we need to know how they’re functioning, where they are, what their composition is and what their future needs will be.”