There isn’t a home in Calabasas that, under scrutiny, would stand up to the City’s lethal building code.  Simply replacing a light switch without a permit is a violation.  Following the aggressive manner that characterized earlier actions of this kind, the City hired litigator Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP, to file a 270+ page injunction that gives Mr. Hahn 30 days to vacate his property.  No contact was made beforehand with Mr. Hahn to discuss a more socially responsible approach towards resolving violations.  According to City documents, the only way Mr. Hahn will be able to return to his property is to tear down the structures that exist, and to rebuild.  Mr. Hahn is not financially able to properly defend himself in court, let alone counter-sue the City.

To prepare and file a document of this magnitude, and to gain the personal services of Mr. Rosenblit in inspecting the property, would have cost the City in the range of $30,000 to $50,000.  What a waste.  If Mr. Hahn’s property is such a danger to the residents of Calabasas, think of the ways that money could have been put to work in a more responsible manner.

This is not good news.  This action demonstrates how little Mr. Bozajian has accomplished in his term as mayor.  And it highlights that City Manager Mr. Coroalles, along with cohorts Ms. Tamuri and Mr. Cohen, continue to engage in class warfare, treating the non-millionaire sector of Calabasas with contempt.  The City discriminates by taking strong measures only against those who can least afford to defend themselves and/or counter-sue the City.  Let’s see the City take similar measures against a homeowner in the Oaks.  Surely, it can find a DIY light switch to litigate over.

Calabasas City Manager Mr. Coroalles should be ashamed of himself.  In addition to his poor judgement in the application of City legal resources, he continues to spend twice as much as the City receives in revenues.  It’s time to replace Mr. Coroalles and his pals with a city manager that is socially responsible and can balance a budget.  With the salaries that we pay, Calabasas can afford much better talent.

First, there are now 22 applicants for the post, from which the 4 remaining members of the City Council must choose.  To select fairly among the 22 requires the establishment of criteria, which is new and dangerous territory for the City to move in.

Second, the Brown Act stipulates, with only 4 members, that no two City Council members can discuss any issues outside of a public meeting that are material to the business of the Council.  That now includes this election.  If any of the 22 applicants feels that two members of the City Council collaborated against them, they could sue the City.

Perhaps its time to review the results of the election held 9 months ago in March 2011.  Voters were asked to select two new Council members, of which 3339 voters responded.  The results below:

Of course, Mr. Gaines and Ms. Martin were elected and are now in office.  But each of the remaining candidates are among the 22 applicants.  Wouldn’t there be a lot less risk of litigation if the City simply accepted the next most popular candidate, backed by the votes of its citizens?

May the best candidate win.

Those who are concerned about breaking up the Santa Monica Mountains area, have no fear. The Redistricting Commission is here! Not only did they ignore your input, they divided the Santa Monica Mountain region into three Senate districts. But the coup d’état was the gerrymandered combination of Thousand Oaks, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, and Bell Canyon with Santa Clarita and the Frasier Park area. Even Sarah Palin on steroids would be challenged to piss off as many people at one shot.

If this is democracy at work, it’s not going to woo the leaders in China into open elections. Help the Redistricting Commission redeem themselves. Visit the California Redistricting Committee for Saving the Santa Monica Mountains where you can conveniently give them advice well worth remembering. In fact, this is the gift that one should continue to give over and again.  Invite your neighbors.  Tell your friends.  What have you got to lose?  Remember to get on this right away, as the Commission closes its doors on public input next Tuesday, June 26.

In the course of the meeting, there was substantial disagreement over the degree to which a community can regulate cell tower placement.  However, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides guidelines.  To quote Section 704 (a)(7)(A):

GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.

The Act goes on to site the limitations, which in summary says that State or local government:

• Cannot discriminate among providers
• Cannot prohibit personal wireless services and
  - will respond to applications in a reasonable time,
  - that requests to deny such services must be supported by substantial evidence,
  - and cannot regulate on the basis of environment effects as long as the facility complies with FCC regulations.
• Further, any person adversely affected has 30 days to take legal recourse.

To put it simply, the City can’t deny a cell tower willy nilly, but there is wiggle room to push back.  The FCC is interested in growing the number of cell towers, but the FCC does not tie the hands of the public from shaping their placement.

For expert assistance in this area, the City hires the services of Jonathan Kramer, an attorney whose practice it is to guide cities in wireless planning policies.  But in public comment, several citizens expressed strong discontent with Mr. Kramer over his less-than-helpful activity in Calabasas.  This discontent led one unhappy Calabasas citizen to independently hire Andrew Campanelli of New York, an aggressive and well-known attorney who has advised many communities across the country in the creation of effective cell tower ordinances.  Mr. Campanelli spoke during public comment, and was complimented by Mayor James Bozajian, who said he learned more about the City’s rights in Mr. Campanelli’s 3+ minutes than he had learned during the prior year of debate.

Needless to say, the evening didn’t fare well for Mr. Kramer.  Interestingly, it appears that he has a much better reputation for aggressively fighting cell tower placements in other communities.  Perhaps working so closely with City personnel has caused Mr. Kramer to contract a terrible infectious disease that affects his judgement.

Input to the City has not been limited to Mr. Kramer.  Both the Planning Commission and the Communications and Technology Commission (CTC) have reviewed the issue.  Among the lists of recommendations, both Commissions advised the City to place final approval of cell tower placement with the CTC, as shown in Commission documents linked online in the evening’s agenda.  But while Mr. Kramer found himself on a hot seat that evening, the cake went to Ms. Tamuri, who demurely pointed out to the Council that the Commissions “forgot” to recommend that she have final approval.  Of course, the lapse wasn’t by the Commissions.  One of Ms. Tamuri’s endearing qualities is her dedication to herself.

Two important but delicate outcomes came of the meeting:  there is strong desire on the part of the Council to strengthen the City’s cell tower ordinance, and there was support for imposing a moratorium on further approvals of cell tower installations until the cell tower ordinance is revised.

The support for the moratorium is important.  The information provided by Mr. Campanelli says that it is possible to go much further in guiding the placement of cell towers than the City has been doing.  To do so requires a strong ordinance that goes further than the current municipal building code, and a moratorium will provide time to create that ordinance.  A moratorium also has certain political value, as it will send a strong signal to both citizens and wireless communication companies that action is being taken and change is coming.  The large number of citizens who filled the Council chambers deserve this.  But there are legal limits as to how long existing cell tower applications can be delayed, and there is always the question as to how quickly a new ordinance can be created.  The discussion bounced from the replacement of Mr. Kramer and the hiring of a new City consultant (it will take time to do this), to retaining Mr. Kramer and hiring a 2nd consultant to review (deemed to be a faster process).

With so much love towards citizens on the City Council these days, Mr. Gaines could not subtlety hide his dissent, raising objections against the simplest of points related to the cell tower issue.  Notably, Mr. Gaines does not want a moratorium, as he states it will send “a bad signal to the world.”  Presumably the truly bad signal would be to Mr. Gaines’ client James Kay, who owns substantial wireless spectrum in the Los Angeles region.  When it was raised that Mr. Gaines had a conflict of interest and should recuse himself, the City Attorney stepped in to say that the nature of the discussion did not require Mr. Gaines to do so.

The primary challenger to a temporary cell tower moratorium appears to be Mr. Gaines, driven by his professional interests.  However, three Council members will be up for election soon enough, and it is not Mr. Gaines that these Council members need to please.  The right thing for the City Council to do is to impose the moratorium and take the necessary steps to create a strong wireless ordinance for the City.

Another letter writing campaign has emerged, this time over the proposed cell tower ordinance, online at CitizensReviewAssociation.org.  The cell tower ordinance will be discussed as agenda items #5 and #6 in Wednesday night’s City Council meeting.  Once again, City staff are placing protection of their turf over the direction given by citizen commissions.  Both the Calabasas Technology Commission (CTC) and the Planning Commission recommend that the CTC have final say for the approval of cell new towers.  The City’s proposal to modify the building code stops well short of this, allowing the CTC to determine that the proposed cell tower is the “least intrusive,” and that a public hearing be held jointly with the CTC and the Planning Commission, with no authority prescribed to the hearing.  The City’s proposal, in short, circumvents the input of property owners.

The City’s proposed ordinance further limits the decision making process for cell tower location to a determination of “necessary” and “least intrusive.”  “Necessary” requires a technical understanding of the alternatives, which in essence requires a repeat of whatever studies already took place by the wireless tower operator – not a trivial expense.  “Least intrusive” as a criteria will not always lead the wireless tower operator to the most acceptable solution.  If the least intrusive option for a particular area is in front of your house, you darn well aren’t going to be happy with this criteria. NOT intrusive would be a better criteria.

If decision makers need legal guidance as to what criteria can and cannot be used, then let that instruction be given outside of an ordinance.  Rather than attempt to define what’s legally defensible in an ordinance, it’s better to support a process that meets community standards as conveyed through a community-operated body.  That’s what the CTC is, and why the PC recommends that the CTC decide.  It’s wrong for the City to circumvent community governance.

Another reason to avoid technical criteria in an ordinance is that such issues are not simple.  More towers do not necessarily mean more radiated energy.  More towers can be operated at lower powers due to overlap, for example.  If we aren’t to build massive ugly high power towers on the highest hilltops, in sight of everyone, then several low power towers scattered about become a more attractive alternative.  Such considerations make an examination of tower placement quite complex.  Certainly not the subject of city ordinances.  But a worthy subject for citizen review on a case-by-case basis.

Importantly, health concerns, however real or unreal they may be, are next to impossible to defend as legal criteria, if only because the necessary studies require funding.  The companies that can most afford to fund these studies simply aren’t going to do so, as they are better off without them.  Unless definitive studies about health impacts are conducted, such concerns become a vicious circle that can lead to indefensible results.

While it may take a long time before this publication is happy with the City’s performance, we have a pragmatic view about wireless technology.  The technology is bound to grow.  (How many of you bought a smart phone in recent years?)  Wireless transmission to the home is cheaper to install than wired.  Wireless offers competition as towers can share technology, while wired services are controlled by the operator and block competition.  Ultimately, the growth of wireless services should be governed by citizen review, and not by a City that has demonstrated more often than not that it believes citizens are the enemy.

Enough said.  Go write a letter to your City Council members.

Redistricting at worst could divide communities that extend into the Santa Monica Mountain area.  Divided, these communities will be less effective politically as stewards of the this beautiful mountain region.  A divided population will lose its ability to place checks on growth, for example.  Calabasas is a key dividing point, due to its location just outside of Los Angeles.  Communities will be struggling to meet the population count required within new district lines, and Calabasas is already a football in that game.

You can make a difference.  Fortunately, the California Redistricting Committee for Saving the Santa Monica Mountains has made it easy for you to voice your concern.  Its web site has a well-drafted letter prepared.  The neat part is that all you have to do is enter your name and address and click send.  You’ll get a copy in your email box.  We’re told that many people have already taken advantage of this service and sent off their letter to the Redistricting Commission.

Time is running short.  Public comment must be in by this weekend.  So click on this link, enter your details and send your letter!

For this modest annual sum of $123,000, the residents of Mont Calabasas will get…not much.  Most likely, less.  They already receive the necessary services including Sheriff, water, power, trash, and sewer.  It’s not known what benefit LAFCO will receive.  But disgruntled Mont Calabasas residents point out that the LAFCO wasn’t encouraging residents to protest the annexation as it didn’t include a return envelope in its recent mailing of protest forms.

In terms of political support, residents of Mont Calabasas appear to be doing well, pointing out that County Supervisor Mr. Yaroslavsky has been responsive to and supportive of their needs.  The City of Calabasas, on the other hand, does not have a great track record with its citizens.  Although to be fair, it’s new Council has offered citizens an amnesty period of 90 days to relieve the City of its lawsuits over septic system inspections.  While it appears that the City has a new Council that is more responsive, City management itself hasn’t changed.  The City Council is really nothing more than a Board of Directors.  If you’re an investor in a company and a change in direction is needed, you might make changes to your BOD, but that’s certainly not where your focus would be.

If there is an argument for annexing Mont Calabasas, the citizens of Calabasas have yet to hear it. One would expect that it will cost the City of Calabasas significantly more than $123,000 per year to enforce its new heavy-handed Municipal Code in such virgin territory.  Even if its new Municipal Code proves to be a generator of new revenue through fines and permits, why would Mont Calabasas residents want to set themselves up for that?

If you’re a resident of Mont Calabasas, you have until June 8 to make your wishes known.  You have been mailed protest forms for this purpose.  To do nothing is a “yes” vote for annexation.  A “no” vote requires you to respond by returning the protest form.  It will take 25% of you to protest in order to get an actual vote taken in the community. That’s a high margin requirement, and means it’s going to take action to make this happen. If you vote this down, you’ll be in good company with the residents of Mountain View Estates who do not want to be annexed.

We know of no justification for annexing Mont Calabasas into the City of Calabasas, and looking at it from the other end of the deal, there’s no benefit, and more likely a negative benefit, of being annexed.  This just looks like another effort of empire building.  Given that the City has a budget problem, let’s hope we don’t have to add more to deficit spending.  As with any company, before looking to expand, management needs to first demonstrate that it can efficiently operate what it has.  The City of Calabasas needs to focus on fixing its financial issues.  And what better way to do that than to cut expansion plans and start cleaning up City management?

Several issues were discussed in this last meeting that deserve review. First, this publication spoke out against the expectation that Mr. Gaines was in favor of moving Calabasas to the San Fernando legislative district. While in the meeting it appeared that there was agreement to keep Calabasas in a contiguous district with communities tied to the Santa Monica mountains, the proposal was to move away from Santa Monica. This will pose redistricting problems in terms of population count, and could still move Calabasas away from the Santa Monica mountain community. We’ll continue to report on this.

When it came to appointing new commissioners for the City’s commissions, there was a hiccup with the Planning Commission.  Each Council member has one pick, and Ms. Martin nominated Dale Reicheneider, a well-known attorney in political circles.  Mr. Reicheneder did not run for Council in this past election, but did so in prior elections.  Four Council members voiced issues with his nomination, but agreed to postpone a vote until the next meeting to give a chance to individually meet with him.  To many onlookers, the opposition to his appointment was politically motivated.  Mr. Bozajian was the most open in discussing his concerns with Mr. Reicheneider during the meeting, which did not come off as political. Mr. Gaines suggested that the vote be postponed. Notably, no other candidate presented by Ms. Martin (or any other Council Member) was opposed.

The septic Ordinance, the smelly bane of Calabasas, was also discussed in this meeting. Important points came out of this discussion, as outlined below:

• Calabasas inspections performed by independent professionals are no different than those performed in other communities. Where things differ is that City personnel invite themselves to Calabasas septic inspections (which opens the door for code violation witch hunts). City personnel also interpret the findings, and homeowners are not given access to the original inspection report, even though they paid for it.
• Once a negative inspection is on record with the City, the City must take action in regards to the site under the California Plumbing Code. The significance is that those sites where inspections uncovered problems must, in accordance with State law, take corrective action. Likewise, a site where no inspection occurs cannot have a recorded violation. Notably, the State does not mandate specific actions against property owners with violations, nor a specific timeline for repairs.
• The Council is willing to review the current septic Ordinance and revise or replace accordingly. This is an encouraging step forward.  Much attention was given to focusing inspections and repairs at the point-of-sale.

The Mayor proposed to take immediate action to heal the community, recommending a plan that would legally absolve the 8 homeowners that have not undergone inspections, and postponing any action on the part of the homeowners until a revised Ordinance exists.  This was the right thing to do.  However, none of the other Council members agreed, wanting the 8 homeowners to test their systems.  A 90 day amnesty period was agreed.

Changes to the septic Ordinance are needed.  It should reflect a slimmer, homeowner-friendly policy.  But can the City conduct a workshop to enable public input towards a new policy?  The City has conducted two workshops to date to get public feedback on ordinances, one in 2008 for the septic Ordinance, and one last year for the Building Code Ordinance.  Each workshop had a completely different format.  Neither workshop was designed to foster a friendly, collaborative effort with homeowners as a group, and neither were popular. Both were conducted by Community Development Director Ms. Tamuri, who is immune to public opinion, and reports her two workshops as very successful.

City Manager Mr. Coroalles has more than Ms. Tamuri to reckon with.  The irreputable Sparky Cohen, titled Building Official, is known for his antagonistic behavior with homeowners.  Those who have watched him in action take note of his aggressive joy in finding horrific faults in people’s homes, such as a faucet installed without a permit.

The new City Council is off to a fair start.  The redistricting issue remains. There’s a lot of work ahead, including fixes to the Building Code Ordinance and the budget. But to fully restore confidence in the City, Council members will also have to focus on the performance of City management.  Calabasas pays top dollar for its management, and gets anything but top results.  If Mr. Coroalles performed half as well as he is paid, he’d wise up and clean house, without having to be told to do so.

According to State Senator Fran Pavley’s report, voters approved Proposition 11, the Voters First Act, in November 2008, shifting the responsibility of drawing legislative and Board of Equalization district lines from the Legislature to a “Citizen’s Redistricting Commission.”  The Commission has until August 15 to finalize its maps, and will hold a public meeting at the City of San Fernando Council Chambers this Saturday, April 30, from 2pm to 5 pm.

Pro-conservation groups have pointed out that any action that breaks up the Santa Monica Mountains into multiple legislative districts will eventually compromise the ability of citizens to manage development in this region.  Naturally, dividing up the Santa Monicas as a legislative district is the agenda of developers as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy.  How interesting that City Manager Mr. Coralles should place on the City Council agenda an opportunity for the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) to speak up in favor of including Calabasas with the San Fernando Valley, breaking Calabasas away from the Santa Monica district.  VICA probably thinks they’ve been asked to speak for pro-business reasons.  But doesn’t it seem odd that Fred Gaines, prominent attorney for developers and City Council member, is also on the Board of Directors for VICA, and a past Chairman of it’s Board?  Could this be first class manipulation for a pro-development agenda?

Currently, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, and West Hills are joined with Malibu and Santa Monica as a single legislative district, presenting a unified voice for the Santa Monica Mountain region.  You can work to keep it this way.  Attend the City Council meeting tonight, fill out a form to speak during agenda item 11, and let the City Council hear what you think.  The City wants the Council to present an official opinion on redistricting to the Commission.  The best action the City can take is to express no opinion, or to express an opinion in favor of keeping Calabasas within a contiguous district that encompasses the Santa Monica Mountains.

You can also submit a comment directly to the Commission.  Call them toll free at 1-866-356-5217,  send them an e-mail at votersfirstact@crc.ca.gov, or send your comment using the Commission’s online form.

Before commenting, it’s wise to learn the basics of redistricting.  Here are some useful links that can quickly give you a sense of the deciding factors:

• ABC’s of Redistricting from Loyola School of Law.
• RedistrictingCA Pocket Guide from California Common Cause.

An argument that should resonate in favor of maintaining a single legislative district for the Santa Monica Mountain region is that it “represents a contiguous population having a shared economic and social interest regarding development of the Santa Monica Mountain area.”

Let’s face it.  We moved here to get away from Los Angeles.  Let’s not let the politicians turn the Santa Monica Mountains into the Hollywood Hills.

Special note was made in the meeting that the EIR was foisted on the community by one vote, leading to talk of raising the bar for such actions.  Mr. Gaines suggested that the City’s charter be amended to remove mention of sewers in Old Topanga, an action for which there appears to be support.  Going into this meeting, there was no doubt that Ms. Martin would back Old Topanga community members.  But it was a pleasant surprise to learn that Mr. Gaines and the older members of the Council were also in support of doing things differently.

While last night’s vote was an important first step, we must not lose sight of the fact that much more healing is needed.  The septic ordinance is unnecessarily onerous to owners of homes with such facilities.  Many residents have been adversely affected, some fighting related lawsuits against the City.  The newly adopted building code ordinance, written by prosecutors, is less friendly than the septic ordinance and expands its reach to all residents of Calabasas.  People have been subjected to witch hunts in search of violations, and some pushed out of their homes by the City, which cut off water and power to their properties.  All of this must stop.  Bad ordinances must be repealed and replaced with better ones.  And did we mention the budget?  There is more work to be done.

Other issues that deserve mention were raised by concerned citizens in last night’s meeting.  Thanks to dogmatic voting in Sacramento, education in California is about to go through serious cutbacks.  With a significant reduction in teachers, Kindergarten class sizes will increase by 50%.  Certain courses in middle and high school will resort to lecture room-style classes of 100 students.  Many of us moved to Calabasas for the quality of schools that the Las Virgenes school district is known for.  There is no time to wait for taking action.  Please visit the Las Virgenes Unified School District web site to learn what you can do.

Last, but not least, Mr. Groveman’s legacy still haunts some members of this community.  Jim Moorhead reported to the Council that he and others were visited by the county Sheriff in an inquiry of letters sent to some residents that were designed to damage Mr. Groveman’s reputation.  Let’s be clear, no one could possibly do more harm to Mr. Groveman’s reputation than that which Mr. Groveman has already wrought on himself.  But the City’s involvement in this inquiry raises eyebrows.  And the timing of these letters appear to coincide with his decision to not run for re-election.  As with anything else that the City gets involved in, there is the feeling that there is more to this iceberg than just the tip.  If you were the recipient of such a letter, please drop us a line using the email link at the bottom of the right-hand column of this web site.  With your permission, we will put you in touch with other recipients.  Our policy is that your identity and the contents of your emails and attachments will be shared with no one unless you explicitly state otherwise.  [Special note:  we will NOT publish the contents of the letters in question online.  Please do not approach us with that request.]