Real Malibu

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu registered voters who are considering whether to toss their hats into the ring and run in the April 2010 city council election started to pick up nominating papers as soon as the Dec. 21 start date allowed.
Two seats are up for grabs in the April race. There are no incumbents, since Mayor Sharon Barovsky and Councilmember Andy Stern will be termed out under municipal law.
Nominating papers are the first step in the process leading up to the start of the campaign. Each candidate must obtain 15 to 20 signatures of qualified Malibu voters before the papers are filed with the city clerk to start the election process.
Potential candidates include Malibu’s very first mayor, two planning commission members, two view preservation study group members, a Malibu High School activist and two individuals with no prior public track record.
Elected a member of the first city council and selected by the council to serve as the first mayor, Walt Keller, who is one of the original pro-incorporation activists and founders of the city, pulled papers. Because he served his two terms before the limits law went into effect, he is eligible to seek office again. He was narrowly defeated in his third race for a council seat in 2004 by 69 votes.
Planning commission members Ed Gillespie and Reagan Schaar have pulled papers. The planning commission has been a springboard for municipal elected office, as well as a vehicle for termed-out council members to continue their political activities.
Education activist and public works commissioner Laura Rosenthal has pulled nominating papers. She had announced her candidacy several months ago.
Two individuals from the now retired View Preservation Task Force have also pulled nominating papers. Harold Greene and Lou La Monte, who sat on opposite sides of the dais during the task force meetings, could face off next at the ballot box.
Both men have served or serve on other city commissions. Greene has previously run for a council seat. La Monte announced that former city council member and current planning commissioner Joan House would manage his campaign.
Two candidates who have not held city posts have also pulled papers. Jan Swift, who tried to make a run several years ago but was disqualified for not having enough qualified signatures on his nominating papers, and Kofi, who goes by only one name, and has already been seen campaigning at the shopping centers.
No one had returned completed paperwork by Tuesday afternoon, according to the city clerk, who said the deadline is Jan. 15.

BY BILL KOENEKER

Malibu Planning Commission approval of the proposed Trancas Country Market expansion plans has been appealed by the Malibu West Homeowners Association.
The city council is scheduled to hear the appeal on Jan. 25.
The planning panel had approved a 25,728- square-foot addition to the existing commercial shopping center located at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Trancas Canyon Road.
The permit request was granted variances for grading and required yard setbacks. The proposed expansion also includes a joint use agreement for parking between parcels and a minor modification to reduce the required front yard setback.
From the get-go, the Malibu West HOA has argued the expansion plans require an Environmental Impact Report.
City planners had assessed the potential impacts based on what is called a Mitigated Negative Declaration. “The [MND] failed to analyze the evidence presented and the public has provided substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project may have an adverse impact on the environment. This appeal and information in the record clearly demonstrates that an EIR is required under the California Environmental Quality Act,” the appellants’ letter states.
The HOA letter indicates the project represents “just under 100 percent increase in commercial space and an almost 200 percent increase in site coverage. The scale of the project no longer fits the character of ‘a local neighborhood market.’ This expansion would not be possible, but for the disregard of public policy in the form of setback restrictions along Pacific Coast Highway. The project is clearly growth inducing, which was never examined in the MND or the technical traffic report. This is a major oversight. Clearly a growth-inducing analysis and a revised traffic report are required.”
The HOA also contends the project was improperly analyzed within what is allowable under the city’s Local Coastal Program.
The 11-pages of citations chart out the deficiencies of the analysis including air quality, hazards, land use, noise, water, biology, public services and transportation.
The appellants also insist the planning commission never actually voted to approve or deny the coastal permit. “To correct this deficiency the project must go back to the planning commission for the [coastal permit] to be voted upon,” the appeal letter states.

BY BILL KOENEKER

A showdown has been scheduled on Feb. 4 between the owners and consultants of La Paz, a proposed Civic Center retail and office complex, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board about the status of a La Paz discharge permit for its proposed wastewater treatment plant.
The regional board is being asked by its staff to approve an order specifying waste discharge requirements that prohibit discharge from the proposed development by Malibu La Paz Ranch LLC.
Tamar Stein, an attorney for La Paz, said they will argue that since the septic prohibition in the Civic Center has not yet been approved by the state board, the regional board has no authority to cite the prohibition. “We have not had the final word on that,” she said. “The proposed order is just wrong.”
At the same time, La Paz has pending before the state board another issue arguing they are already permitted.
La Paz attorneys insist due to the state’s permit streamlining act, which applies to time limits for processing permits, the La Paz permit should be deemed approved as a matter of law because the RWQCB did not hear the matter within the time required by law.
Stein was asked if such arguments would be put into play at the regional board hearing.
“We are currently working on our strategy. It may be a two-pronged approach or three pronged,” she said.
The tentative order sought by the RWQCB staff insists the application is incomplete. The staff contends the applicant changed plans and submitted designs for a zero discharge wastewater system. But the staff contends the plans did not appear to show “such a system.”
“The applicant continually failed to provide the information needed for the application,” or what is called a Report of Waste Discharge or ROWD, according to the RWQB staff.
The staff contends it repeatedly informed La Paz officials the ROWD was incomplete and the staff needed more information.
Nearly at the same time, the regional board was moving forward with a septic ban in the Civic Center where La Paz would be located.
Then just weeks before the hearing, the zero discharge wastewater system was eliminated by the staff as an exemption to the septic prohibition.
La Paz officials have called foul and insist the RWQCB’s tactics and delays are calculated to force La Paz into the septic prohibition ban.

BY BILL KOENEKER

If people think that they are receiving jury duty notices more frequently than in the past, they’re right. If anyone thinks that it’s more difficult to get out of jury duty, they’re right. If they think they can totally ignore jury duty notices, they’re wrong.
As part of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s coordinated program to encourage voluntary participation in jury service, Judge Gerald Rosenberg will convene juror sanction hearings for West District citizens who did not respond to jury service notices mailed on three separate occasions to their last known address, according to county officials.
The sanction hearings begin in January on three separate dates. The jurors, who were mailed notices in the West District, are among thousands who face stiff fines, plus new jury service assignment, county officials noted.
“Sanctions are a last resort, but even at that late date, monetary sanctions may not be imposed if a person agrees to serve. The court’s priority is having the people cooperate with us to ensure that jury service is shared by all eligible citizens in the Los Angeles County, as mandated by the Legislature,” said Presiding Judge Charles W. McCoy Jr. “The court has no interest whatsoever in using these sanctions as a source of money.”
County officials noted because a 1999 court rule established one trial jury service, jurors now summoned for jury duty need only be present at a courthouse for a single day of jury selection. Although members of a jury panel may be asked to return the following day, all others in the jury assembly room will be excused at the end of the day with their jury duty obligation completed for a least 12 months.
If chosen for a jury however, according to county officials, a juror must serve until the case is completed.