The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy may be one step closer to buying a large portion of Escondido Falls property for public park land. Plans to apply for a grant administered by the Los Angeles County Public Works Department were fine tuned at the conservancy’s Nov. 16 meeting. “Basically our board members were concerned that we get enough buffer around the falls,” said Northern Division Chief Paul Edelman.

“The exact boundary is undetermined,” according to Edelman, who says that since the funding source is Proposition A money, the conservancy has to show linkage to Santa Monica Bay protection in order to qualify. The grant application seeks at least $300,000 to $350,000 to acquire 20 to 40 acres, which Edelman said, “serves Malibu and Santa Monica as well.” The conservancy already owns a large parcel of lower Escondido Canyon. The waterfall sits directly upstream.

Edelman pointed out that by bringing the waterfall and surrounding border into public ownership, development would be prevented directly along that part of Escondido Creek. “That will improve runoff quality into the [Santa Monica] Bay.”

The property sits on approximately 85 acres owned by Erin Murphy, who also attended the monthly conservancy meeting. Edelman said the deadline for grant application is Dec. 15. “I think our chances are pretty good because it’s not that expensive and should have a lot of appeal.” Edelman added, “It’s the best waterfall in the Santa Monica Mountains.”

The conservancy expects to know by spring whether the money is approved. If the answer is Yes, Malibu residents can look forward to knowing that an area already appreciated by those who stroll around the falls will be preserved for the future.

Racheting up the stakes in ongoing criminal and civil disputes, the Los Angeles County District Attorney last week filed a second environmental complaint against Paradise Cove mobilehome park owner The Kissel Co., and Kissel recently filed a lawsuit against the city of Malibu over its refusal to grant the company a rent increase. The park’s 255 homeowners were notified of the developments last Thursday, said new Paradise Cove Homeowners Association President Steve Kunes.

Just two days before the parties were to meet in court to set a trial date in the first case, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office filed a second criminal complaint against Kissel, adding 20 counts of environmental code violations to the 25 cited in January. The two complaints allege that the Kissel Co. caused or permitted discharge of sewage and the effluent of treated sewage into the waters of the state at or near the trailer park on 21 different dates from January 1997 through Oct. 14, 1998.

Deputy District Attorney Robert Miller, who filed the misdemeanor cases, said the sewage spills from the park’s septic tanks typically flow down the hilly streets of the park and expose residents to raw sewage.

A new hearing date of Dec. 4 is scheduled, Miller added. At that hearing, Kissel will be arraigned on the 20 new counts, the judge will be asked to consolidate the two criminal cases and a trial date will be set.

The maximum fine on the first complaint is $82,000, and the maximum fine on the second complaint is $20,000, said Miller.

The new suit came after agreement on a widely anticipated plea bargain could not be reached, said Kunes. Under terms of the plea bargain, Kissel had to break ground on repairs by Sept. 11 and would be given probation in lieu of paying fines, Kunes said.

When asked about the status of the plea bargain, Miller said, “We are in a trial mode.”

In a related lawsuit, nearly 80 residents of the mobilehome park have filed a suit against Kissel for failure to properly maintain the park. Kissel attorney in the criminal case, Richard Regnier, who did not respond to The Malibu Times’ call for comment on the new criminal action, was quoted two months ago as saying the civil action should resolve everything in the criminal case.

Meanwhile, Kunes said, city officials assured him that the new Kissel complaint against the city is another frivolous attempt to avoid compliance with the law.

Kissel has been trying to raise rents ever since the city adopted a rent control ordinance seven years ago. A federal court overturned that ordinance. The Malibu Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Commission decided in March to deny Kissel a rent increase, after homeowners said the services and amenities were not the same as in other upscale mobilehome parks, such as those in Laguna and Newport Beach, and also noted the criminal complaint for the sewage spills. At the hearing, Kissel attorney Garret Hanken said that if residents wanted to upgrade the septic system, they would have to pay higher rent.

Four hundred registered voters in Malibu received a phone call recently asking questions about recreational issues. The 15-minute survey is being conducted by Godbe Communications of Los Angeles. The Malibu City Council commissioned it to find out how residents feel about parks, wetlands and community services.

Unlike the survey nearly a year ago, which dealt with a bond issue for roads and public improvements, this one focuses entirely on parks and recreational issues. The questions deal with evaluating need and funding potential solutions.

“Assessing the need, I think, is a part of it, but it’s not the major part.,” said City Manager Harry Peacock. “I wouldn’t say everyone thinks there is a need, but certainly we haven’t had a lot of people come up and tell the City Council that we don’t need a lot of open space or we don’t need community facilities. For those people who think there is a need, it’s more of a pocketbook issue. Just how much money would people be willing to spend in this community to solve this problem?”

“We hope to get a snapshot of what the community feels about acquiring more lands for recreational facilities, for a teen center, for seniors,” said Councilman Harry Barovsky. “And how they want to go about it.”

Barovsky said if the survey shows support, the council will likely move forward with a bond issue. “If we don’t see support, we will just have to think about how we go about acquiring the necessary facilities for the community,” he added.

One group interested in the outcome is People Achieving Recreation and Community Services. “Our group, PARCS, is interested in facts, and this is definitely fact finding,” said PARCS president Kristin Reynolds. “The results will be very interesting.”

PARCS was formed when the City Council voted to disband the informal study group that had been investigating parks and recreational needs in Malibu and form a five-member commission appointed by the City Council.

“I think we were a little taken by surprise,” said Reynolds. “Some of us are really not interested in a political appointment. We began to wonder who would be chosen and who would be left behind.”

Reynolds said there were rumblings of forming the organization before the Council disbanded the group. “There were already the beginnings of it and, when it was voted upon to form the commission, we agreed it was the way it had to go. We recognized there was still a pressing need for recreational groups to voice their opinion,” said Reynolds. “With the study group, we wanted to bring together senior citizens, little league, AYSO, all the groups so they could have their own voice. We don’t know if the commission will achieve that.”

Reynolds said her group was pleased to see the appointment of a PARCS member. Dermot Stoker was appointed by Tom Hasse to sit on the commission which will begin meeting in January. Other members of the commission are Sam Kaplan, appointed by Carolyn Van Horn, and Ted Vail, by Walt Keller. “Our goal is to find permanent recreational space for community centers, for ball fields, for active and passive recreation in the city of Malibu for all ages,” said Reynolds. “We hope to work with the commission to work toward some permanent facilities.”

While Reynolds agrees with the council that the survey is a good first step, she said it may have some flaws. “I think it must be very confusing to the Malibu citizen that isn’t paying attention to recreation and politics in Malibu. My husband was called on Saturday night and it’s very confusing. It’s very confusing to be asked questions that start at point A and lead to point B. It’s different when you read a survey and when you hear it over the phone. It’s a whole different animal.”

Resident Doug O’Brien said he was surveyed twice. “They got me twice and they got the same answers both times. It seems odd to be, but I don’t think they cross-checked. “

Even so, Reynolds said the survey is crucial. “I think this is exploratory at this point and the results will show us where the next path is. I think it’s an absolutely necessary thing to go through.”

Peacock said the results of the survey should be available early next month.

Apparently satisfied that it now knows how hillside housing should look in Malibu, the Planning Commission Monday began discussing what properties should be subject to its proposed regulations. But the discussion quickly broke down in unusually heated debate, signaling that commission members are sharply divided over what new and remodeled properties to regulate.

At an earlier meeting, the commission determined, among a host of new guidelines, that the architecture and mass of hillside homes, along with their color, should blend in with the natural terrain and not attract attention.

Most of the disagreement Monday centered on what the threshold should be for regulation under the proposed hillside housing ordinance, but opinions were also divided on whether ocean-front bluff homes should be excluded from the hillside regulations.

Commission Vice Chair Jo Ruggles started off the discussion by saying she would like to apply the regulations to homes on hillsides with an average slope of 15 percent, as recommended by Planning Director Craig Ewing.

Commissioner Ken Kearsley said regulating homes on slopes that low would mean most properties in Malibu would be subject to the regulations.

“Why not take off the word hillside and call it the housing ordinance?” Kearsley quipped.

Kearsley then brought up the subject of ocean-front bluff homes, but Commission Chair Charleen Kabrin attempted to cut him off, saying that those homes would not be included in the regulations. But the commission has not formally voted on whether or not to regulate ocean-front bluff homes, and excluding those types of homes from the ordinance appears to be a concern for Commissioners Kearsley, Ed Lipnick and Andrew Stern.

Kearsley, using an assessment by local architect Ed Niles that most properties on Point Dume are on a 12 percent slope, said it was not fair to exclude ocean-front bluff homes.

“Everybody on Point Dume is going to be included, but the people on the beach are not going to be affected,” he said.

Kabrin shot back: “That’s patently untrue. I know Point Dume, and many parcels would be unaffected.”

She demanded to know what evidence he had to support his assertion, and he referred to Niles’ analysis.

A question was then directed to Planning Director Craig Ewing, and he used the opportunity to try to tone down the debate. Ewing suggested that commissioners visit parcels on Point Dume with different degrees of slope in order to get a feel for the variation. Ewing also said he did not agree with Niles that most Point Dume homes are on a 12 percent slope.

“There are a lot of just flat lots in Point Dume that probably have a slope of 2- to 3 percent,” he said. “But there are probably a lot of 10, 12 and 15 percent lots that you might not be comfortable subjecting to [a] hillside [ordinance.]”

Kearsley, apparently ignoring Ewing’s comments, said, in an aside, that he was going to tell people on Point Dume everybody there would be affected by the regulations.

Kabrin bristled at his remark. “If you do something like that, then I would be very offended, because I would consider that inflammatory because it’s patently not true.”

Kearsley said he reserved the right to go talk to Point Dume residents.

Kabrin responded, “You can do what you want, but we have a job to do, and it’s helpful to stay on the point and be accurate and not inflammatory.”

Kearsley shot back: “Don’t patronize me, Madame Chair.”

With that, Kabrin slammed her gavel and in a pitched voice said, “We can adjourn this meeting until another night if we can’t control ourselves and be civil.”

Stern and Ruggles then tried to adjourn the meeting, but the motion failed. Ruggles pleaded with Kabrin to change the subject and review minutes from earlier meetings, to which Kabrin agreed.

Ewing tried to put a positive spin on the flashes of anger.

“That’s always the case. We struggle at the margins,” he said. “Where do we draw the line so that we don’t bring in someone we shouldn’t bring in, but don’t miss someone we want to get? That’s where we’re having the debate.”

The mudslinging over the planned Civic Center development took on a literal form Saturday when a local environmentalist threw a bucket of mud and water onto the architectural model for the project while it was on display at Malibu Colony Plaza.

Architect Ed Niles brought the model to the shopping center, and he, along with officials from the Malibu Bay Company, were on hand to answer questions and explain the development, which is planned for the Chili Cook-Off site.

Witnesses say Valerie Sklarevsky approached the display, near Diedrich Coffee, and dumped the muck on the model.

Niles said half the model was completely destroyed and some of its buildings were broken. He and Bay Company representative David Reznick said the crowd of people around the display yelled and cursed at Sklarevsky.

Niles, who may sue Sklarevsky in small claims court to recover the cost of repairs, said he was angry and frustrated, not only because of the damage to the model but also because, he said, Sklarevsky’s conduct interfered with his and Bay Company officials’ freedom of expression.

“She’s no different than the religious right,” he said.

Both Bay Company officials and Niles declined to press charges against Sklarevsky, so sheriff’s deputies who were called to the shopping center did not arrest her for a possible misdemeanor offense.

Sklarevsky said she threw the mud and water, which she had taken from the egret marsh, to educate the community about what she says would be the development’s devastating environmental consequences.

“I call it civil disobedience, divine obedience,” she said. “I prayed about it. It was a spiritual act.”

Sklarevsky asked an acquaintance to videotape the event for $20, but Lyn Konheim of the Bay Company apparently outbid her, and he got the copy of the video.

Other than some help from the friend with the video camera, Sklarevsky said she acted alone, but she did ask two people from the Earth Trust Foundation to witness the event. Marcia Hanscom of the Wetlands Action Network was also there, but she denied any involvement.

“I just happened to be there at the same time,” she said.

Hanscom recently sought to supervise the wetlands delineation study of the Civic Center, but the City Council denied her a role in the study.