A scientific study of ways to control pollution and restore lower Malibu Creek and Lagoon offers possible solutions to the long-running controversy among environmentalists, surfers and creekside residents.

Along with targeting potential restoration sites, the Lower Malibu Creek and Lagoon Restoration study suggests using “eco-rafts” and chemicals to reduce excess nutrients and constructing a weir, an outfall pipe or a new route for the creek to control the water level in the lagoon, according to professor Richard Ambrose, director of the environmental science and engineering program at UCLA.

“There are no easy solutions [to controlling the water level in the lagoon],” Ambrose stressed. Instead of remaining low and salty, the water is high and more like fresh water, which is harmful to plants and animals in the lagoon and backs up nearby septic systems, he explained.

Lagoon water levels become unnaturally high in summer because of increased development in the upper Malibu Creek watershed, which includes Calabasas, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village and a small portion of Thousand Oaks, according to an already completed report from the California State Coastal Conservancy, which helped to fund the study.

When the water level rises, the sandbar at the mouth of the lagoon is breached, and polluted water from the upper watershed and from septic system failures flows out into the Santa Monica Bay, according to the conservancy report.

One option the study considers is to build a weir, a “little dam” that can be adjusted to a certain height, Ambrose said. While some of the water would be kept within the lagoon, the weir would be set at such a level that excess water would spill over its wall and into the ocean.

Another possibility is a pipeline that might pump water out of the lagoon during summer, Ambrose added. It’s an effective solution but expensive to run and to maintain, he cautioned. Also, pumping water directly into the bay would be controversial, especially among surfers, he said.

Bypassing the lagoon by rerouting the creek is an alternative, whereby water from the creek would be “shunted around,” but “that’s not likely to happen” because the engineering is too complicated and expensive, Ambrose said.

“Nutrients [that stimulate algal blooms] are going to be tough,” Ambrose admitted. The study will recommend both “source reduction,” from creekside septic systems and the Tapia Reclamation Facility, and treating the water with chemicals and biology such as “eco-rafts,” floating bales that suck nutrients out of the water.

“Decisions about what to do depend on a lot of things outside our control,” Ambrose said. For instance, “How much do Malibu residents want to pay?”

The cost for restoration depends in part on what properties the city is willing to purchase. The study, “ignoring ownership issues,” concludes that the lagoon has been “hugely reduced in size,” and suggests some vacant property might be turned back into a salt marsh. The Chili Cook-Off site at Webb Way and Civic Center Way “is not a good area for a salt marsh but it’s good for other types of wetlands,” Ambrose said.

The area between the Civic Center and the creek “is possible for treating waste water or storm water runoff,” according to Ambrose. Another option is creating a bird nesting island on public land by the Adamson House on the east side of the lagoon.

The final draft of the $280,000 study — $40,000 contributed by Malibu — is expected to be released before Oct. 20, when the multi-agency Malibu Task Force is scheduled to meet.

The Planning Commission unanimously approved basic goals for a future hillside management ordinance Monday while remaining sharply divided about the need for an architectural review board (ARB).

The strongest reaction against an ARB came from those few people, mostly architects, who attended the meeting. “I absolutely and unequivocally will fight you to the death” over creation of an “aesthetic guru,” threatened architect and local resident Ed Niles.

Developer Norm Haynie scoffed, a group of architects judging the designs of their colleagues would amount to a group of artists telling Vincent Van Gogh or Pablo Picasso, “Sir, heads are not square. Two eyes are not on the same side of the head. I think maybe you should consider being a brickmaker.”

An ARB would be a bad idea, according to Commissioners Ed Lipnick and Ken Kearsley. “It would only produce dissension. I think it would be a real can of worms,” said Lipnick.

A review board “might be of benefit” in cases where a project does not comply with hillside management guidelines, explained Commission Chair Charleen Kabrin. “It’s like an appeal board in a sense. I’d like to explore it further.”

The strongest advocate for an ARB was Commissioner Jo Ruggles. She envisioned a board composed of local architects who would review preliminary design ideas of architects from out of town “to get them pointed in the right direction,” adding, “it’s my intent that it be flexible.”

Commissioner Andrew Stern remained on the fence about a review board. “I’m not there yet. I don’t know absolutely yea or nay.”

Despite the different opinions regarding an ARB, the commission agreed that something needs to be done to control hillside development.

“There’s a need to have a change in the way we’re thinking in order to protect why we moved here to Malibu,” said Stern.

“One consistent comment I’ve heard, ‘There’s excess,'” commented Kabrin. “If people are left to do as they want, what we’re left with is excessive, intrusive, imposing and abusive. Mostly size is what people were objecting to.”

If there is no review board, then the commission would have to write hillside development specifications as tightly as possible, said Kearsley. For now, though, the commission approved only general goals to work with in the future, notably minimizing visibility of structures, protecting views of the hill and retaining landscape features.

“It’s a structure with which they can better debate the issues,” explained Planning Director Craig Ewing. “There’s still a lot of refinement to do.”

One way to refine the issues, according to local architect Lester Tobias, would be to create different zones on the hillside. Since the main concern is visual impact, those structures closest to “view corridors,” primarily PCH, would be more restricted in terms of design. Haynie agreed, noting, “The only time people are concerned about [development] is when they can see the size.”

Approval of basic goals may not seem like much on paper, but the commission’s decision represents a major shift in Malibu’s history, according to Ewing. “This city is going from a rural environment to a semi-rural environment. It’s a huge change in terms of visual character, perceived density and community identity.”

In another attempt to bring an end to the weddings, parties and garden tours at the Streisand Center for Conservancy Studies, residents of Ramirez Canyon last week filed suit against the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy over what they say is the Streisand center’s excessive use of private Ramirez Canyon Road.

The Streisand center, created when Barbra Streisand gave the conservancy her former Ramirez Canyon estate, regularly rents out its facilities for catered functions, often for large weddings. The state agency uses the funds from the rental fees to pay for environment-related studies at the center and to maintain the extensive grounds and buildings on the 22-acre estate.

Residents say the caterers and party rental companies making regular deliveries, and the shuttle vans making numerous trips to drop off guests at the functions, amount to an overburdening of the easement on Ramirez Canyon Road that all the property owners in the canyon share. They say the catered functions have brought unbearable noise and traffic to their once-quiet canyon, and they have pursued a variety of strategies for bringing the center’s apparently lucrative rental business to an end.

For their lawsuit, the residents have retained Washington D.C.-based Defenders of Property Rights, a legal foundation that advocates for the rights of private property owners against government encroachment. Nancy Marzulla, an attorney with the foundation, said the Ramirez Canyon Road easement permits only those uses that are consistent with a residential neighborhood. Any commercial uses of the road, she said, must be limited to those associated with owning a home, like by repairmen or gardeners.

“The easement does not entitle any particular owner to use the road beyond normal residential uses,” Marzulla said.

The foundation is seeking an injunction to halt the center’s use of the road for catering trucks and shuttle vans carrying visitors who have parked outside the canyon. Without the catering trucks, and without the visitors, residents hope the weddings and parties will come to an end.

In addition to their lawsuit, residents have also called on the Coastal Commission to demand the conservancy’s compliance with laws regulating commercial activities in the coastal zone. The city of Malibu has also responded to the residents’ complaints by threatening legal action over the catered functions. City Attorney Christi Hogin says they violate local zoning laws.

“The heat is getting hotter for the conservancy, I hope,” said resident Mindy Sheps.

According to public records obtained by Sheps, the center this month is renting out its facilities for a party for 200 people on Oct. 14, and for a wedding for between 150 and 200 guests on Oct. 18. This weekend, a wedding will be held there, and the bride and the groom are expecting 200 guests.

“People are going to freak,” said Sheps.

An attorney for the conservancy could not be reached for comment.