In a move that surprised many, City Attorney Christi Hogin told the Malibu City Council she was withdrawing her request to hire an attorney to investigate alleged violations of the city’s election code.

Last month, Hogin asked the council to approve an agreement with Roger Brown, a lawyer with extensive experience in local government and politics. Staff supported his hiring, but council members Carolyn Van Horn and Walt Keller asked Hogin to answer certain questions. When the matter came up again Monday, Hogin said she was no longer asking to hire Brown. She told the council she had reconsidered whether he was the best person for the task. She also stated the Road Worriers, the Political Action Committee named in the allegations, had filed an amended report that may clear up some of the allegations.

When she made her announcement, people in the audience asked why. Even though no action would be taken, the council decided to hear testimony from the 18 citizens who had filled out cards to speak on the issue. Many were affiliated with the Road Worriers.

“This City Council should not go along with this kind of political hatchet job,” said attorney Frank Angel, who called the investigation a “sinister crusade.”

“Give these people a public apology,” said Gene Wood. “This is a community that doesn’t need this kind of ugly discussion.”

Instead of unity, “I’m hearing more divisiveness,” said Marissa Coughlan, who spoke in defense of the investigation. Coughlan also said she heard a threat against the city attorney.

Some residents said they felt the city should not be involved with the allegations at all; rather, they should be handled by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. “We regulate campaign contributions,” said Hogin. “That is simply not done by the state.” Hogin said it was possible to violate the city ordinance without violating state law.

Hogin said she would utilize other sources, possibly the Sheriff’s Department, in her investigation. She said the city did not have a contract with the District Attorney’s office to prosecute city code violations.

In other business, the council approved a Rate Order for Falcon Cablevision. Consultants provided analysis of accounting records supplied by Falcon and told council members the study found Falcon was overcharging by $2.14 on its basic service and by $1.12 on its wire maintenance. The consultants recommended the council move forward with an adjustment of the cable provider’s rates, stating if the council took no action, the city could lose any potential refunds.

During public comment, residents voiced their concerns and complaints about Falcon. “Please take action tonight,” said Marilynn Santman. “I think it’s imperative.” Santman told the council that residents of Thousand Oaks pay $40 a month and have more than 200 channels from which to choose.

Efrom Fader said his rates went up 18 percent in 1996 when the industry average rose only 9 percent.

Nidia Birenbaum, a local producer and actress who uses the community access channel, told the council she is frequently asked if she works for the cable company. “What I hear is how high the rates are and how lousy the service is,” Birenbaum said.

Her husband, attorney Sam Birenbaum, told the council Malibu and Stanford, Conn., pay the highest rate for cable in the nation. As an example, he said Malibu residents were charged $10 more than the rest of the nation for the most recent Mike Tyson fight.

Susan Booker, regional manager for Falcon Cable, confirmed that the company received the Rate Order today (Thursday). “We haven’t had a chance to review it,” she said. “If we do appeal it, it will be up to the FCC to decide.” She indicated Falcon Cable will respond to the order within seven days.

Councilman Tom Hasse asked if anyone representing Falcon was in the audience. No one responded. “I think that actually speaks volumes about the services provided,” he said.

The Rate Order proposal passed with a vote of 5-0. Falcon will have seven days from that action in which to submit its own calculations. “We’re going to go into their books,” said Councilman Harry Barovsky. “We will have the meetings. We will hear what you have to say. This is just the first step in a series of steps.”

Also at the meeting, the council drafted an official definition for the word “deck”: “An open porch or platform projecting from a structure or freestanding of which the surface area is used to move or stand on.”

In March, the council denied a variance request by a Malibu Road resident who had plans to construct a platform that would extend 3-1/2 feet beyond the stringline. The matter went to court, which ruled a definition of deck must be established and applied to the case.

Planning staff had recommended the following definition: “Deck – A platform with a minimum depth of 5 (five) feet, used for outdoor activities such as sitting, barbecuing, parties, etc. A deck may be attached to a structure or free-standing. Where a platform does not exceed a depth of five (5) feet, the deck shall be the deepest portion of the platform.”

In his staff report, Planning Director Craig Ewing stated that, under the current rules, the platform proposed for the Malibu Road location is considered a deck. Under the proposed definition, the platform would be excluded and a more projecting corner would be used for the stringline.

Barovsky said a platform of less that four feet does not constitute a deck at the beach.

Mayor Joan House suggested going beyond the staff’s minimum depth recommendation and setting it at 6-1/2 feet. “People always say ‘Come over and sit on my deck.’ They don’t say ‘Come over and stand on my deck,'” House said.

“I have a problem with defining the size, picking out a number,” said Van Horn. “I think that’s arbitrary and I think it’s going to lead to further extension of the stringline.” Keller also said he would not support it.

Hasse offered an amendment to the proposal that eliminated staff’s definition and included his, without a depth requirement.

Keller, Van Horn and Hasse voted in favor of the amended resolution, House and Barovsky opposed it. The definition will be sent to the court this week for review.

The council also voted to table a proposed ordinance that would amend the city’s motorized water craft regulations to prohibit launching of small motorized vessels from the private beaches near Surfrider Beach. The proposed ordinance was introduced because of safety concerns and slated to be adopted on its second reading Monday night. Instead, it was tabled when the new lifeguard said he did not support it. The matter will not be put on another agenda unless requested by a council member.

On the heels of losing $1 million in public funds and a parcel of land through foreclosure last month, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy was hit in a separate action with a $6 million judgment against the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), the purchasing arm of the conservancy, for failing to pay off a promissory note. Both actions come at a time when the state Legislature is considering expanding the authority of the conservancy to include the entire Los Angeles and San Gabriel River basins, despite claims of critics of the conservancy that the state agency is misusing public funds.

The $6 million court judgment involved the sale of a promissory note to the MRCA, a joint powers agency in which the conservancy has a controlling interest. The note was secured by two trust deeds on property in the Brentwood section of the Santa Monica Mountains, upon which the conservancy anticipated foreclosing.

The MRCA paid for the note by issuing its own unsecured note. The principal on that note, approximately $6 million, became due in January. Rather than pay the principal, the MRCA filed suit against the company that had sold the secured note, Tucker Land Co., claiming breach of contract.

But Beverly Hills Superior Court Judge Irving Shimer ruled in February that the state agency had breached the contract by not paying off the note.

In a separate motion, the conservancy argued it had no contractual obligations altogether, but, in June, Shimer ruled that it could not escape its obligations, and he awarded Tucker the amount owed on the note, plus attorneys’ fees.

Laurie Collins, staff attorney for the conservancy, said the agency has filed an appeal in the case.

If the conservancy does not prevail on its appeal, it has indicated Tucker will not be able to execute on the $6 million judgment. According to a brief filed in the lawsuit, attorneys for the MRCA argued that Tucker will not be able to collect the judgment because the MRCA “has only limited funds for its operations, certainly insufficient to pay against any judgment.”

“That’s a terrible way for a government entity to talk,” said Alvin Kaufer, attorney for Tucker. “Hopefully, a federal court won’t allow that to be the law.”

Collins would not comment on the conservancy’s assertion in the brief that the judgment is not collectable.

Peter Wolf, chairman of Tucker, said he supports the aims of the conservancy, but he faults their business practices.

It is, he said, “quite distressing for us that we signed a contract in good faith, and we thought we could take back an unsecured note from the government.”

Wolf said he could not understand why the MRCA would argue that the judgment is not collectible. “Why are they allowed to enter into a contract?” he asked. “Are they above the law?”

The judgment follows the conservancy’s loss of a parcel near Malibu Canyon Road in June through foreclosure, also the result of the conservancy’s failure to pay off the balance due on a promissory note. Through the foreclosure, the conservancy lost the $1 million down payment it paid to the owners of the parcel, funds which were made available by Proposition A, approved by voters in 1992 and 1996.

Bill Pending in Legislature

The state Senate, in April, approved a bill, sponsored by Sen. Tom Hayden, that would add the watersheds of the L.A. and San Gabriel rivers, and their tributaries, to the zone within which the conservancy may acquire parkland to protect it from development.

The conservancy’s original mission was limited to the Santa Monica Mountains, but gradually, over the years, the zone has expanded to include the other hills and mountains that border the San Fernando Valley.

Hayden’s bill would extend the boundaries of the conservancy to the nonmountainous and highly urbanized areas near the two rivers.

The bill glided easily through the Senate and passed there on a vote of 21 to 12, but before the Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee it met with opposition from critics of the conservancy and 39 cities and local agencies within the conservancy’s zone, including Malibu.

Opponents say they do not object to the restoration of the rivers, but rather to any enhanced authority for the conservancy and its longtime executive director, Joseph Edmiston. Opponents also say they have long-standing concerns about the lack of oversight of the conservancy and what they say is mismanagement of public funds.

Malibu City Manager Harry Peacock wrote, in a letter to Assemblywoman Debra Bowen, chair of the Natural Resources Committee, that Malibu residents have related to him “and members of the City Council a string of broken promises relating to the activities of the conservancy, especially in terms of its acquisition, operation and use of the Streisand Center.” Peacock added, “Residents feel that there has been a gross abuse of authority by the Director [Edmiston], that there is little or no oversight responsibility being exercised nor is there any body of elected officials to turn to for a redress of the problems which have been visited upon them by the Conservancy and its Director.”

Conservancy critic Patricia Bell Hearst of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations said she, too, is concerned about the fiscal management of the conservancy and the power of Edmiston, who, she said, “is accountable to no one.”

The bill failed in a vote in committee, but it is scheduled for reconsideration.

Similar bills are pending if Hayden’s bill goes down to defeat.

“If those politicians are smart, they’re going to drop those bills like a hot potato too,” said Hearst.

After nearly three years of studies, surveys and workshops, the City Council voted to set aside the Civic Center Specific Plan and look into other options. At a special meeting June 30, the council directed the Land Use Subcommittee, comprised of council members Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn, to come up with a vision statement that identifies what needs to be done and a time line in which to do it.

“It bypasses the whole democratic process,” said architect Ed Niles, who worked on the Civic Center Specific Plan Committee for 18 months. “One of the cornerstones of Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn has been to involve the community. This obviously circumvents that.” Niles added, “This subcommittee has no professional background and has no right telling us as a community what we have to do here. I don’t think it represents democratic government at any level.”

The Specific Plan project was launched in September 1995 when the original contract with consultants was signed. Since then, workshops, study groups and meetings have produced a draft plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the council. The council also received an alternative proposal submitted by the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth. In March, planning staff asked the council which plan it wanted to pursue. No decision was reached. “I think there are a number of constraints in there that were not adequately addressed,” said Van Horn. She listed geology, flood plain and wetlands issues as needing more study.

The Specific Plan “has become the traditional political football,” said Niles. “We have politicians who are problem makers not problem solvers. You can’t stall this thing. It’s going to end up in the courts and some judge is going to tell us what to do. Ultimately this community’s going to lose in a big way.”

Keller and Van Horn say the public is being included in the process. “Our first purpose is to identify developable property that the public might want to be used for public purposes,” said Keller, who listed possible purposes as wetlands, parks, playing fields, nature preserves or open spaces.

“We’re considering property anywhere in or adjacent to the city,” said Keller. “These are obviously sizable properties.” To acquire the property, the city must purchase it at fair market value or it must be willingly donated.

“Most of it, I think, we’ll have to purchase,” said Keller. “Eventually you have to come up with a legal fair price, but right now we’re just trying to get a rough idea of what we’re talking about.” Once an estimate is obtained, Keller said, the city will need to research other funding sources and trusts. “We have to get as much government money as we can and then go after foundations.”

Keller said the council may also consider introducing a bond referendum, which would require a two-thirds vote, and may conduct a survey, similar to one conducted last winter in which voters rejected the idea of a bond to fund public works projects. “Maybe we didn’t ask the right questions,” said Keller, who noted that in the future survey the city would be “asking questions specific enough to determine if we can get a two-third vote.” Keller said voters are not likely to see such a proposal on the November ballot. “We’re not going to rush into it.”

An Environmental Impact Report cannot be made without an actual plan. But the council did direct Ewing to oversee an Environmental Constraints Analysis. Consultants will study wetlands issues, flooding and drainage, hazardous materials, earthquakes, and cultural and biological resources. “I think we have to see what are the constraints and what are the parameters of it,” said Van Horn. “It provides a baseline of data for future projects,” said Ewing.

As for the Specific Plan, “At this point [council has] given us no further direction,” said Planning Director Craig Ewing. But no one is willing to officially sound the death knell. “I can’t say that at this point,” said Van Horn. “They may find a use for it as they work on their vision statement and their plan. They may pick it up and use it, but I’m not seeing three votes to do that right now.”