City Wants Explanation of State’s Study of Fault : Investigation: Council to ask two legislators to persuade state geologist to allow aide to testify.

Expressing doubts about the state’s investigation of the Malibu Coast Fault, Malibu’s leaders are pressing reluctant officials to explain why the state has recommended against the fault’s being designated as active.

The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to enlist the help of two state legislators to persuade State Geologist James F. Davis to permit one of his underlings to appear before the council to answer questions about the investigation.

Jerry Treiman, the geologist for the state Division of Mines and Geology who conducted the investigation, had been invited to appear before the council on Tuesday, but was a no-show, having apparently been instructed by Davis not to attend.

A city building official said that Davis told him that it was inappropriate for Treiman to discuss the matter publicly because the state’s findings were not complete.

The Times reported last month that despite warnings from several experts that a fault running beneath Malibu poses a significant earthquake threat, Treiman had recommended against its being designated as active under a law meant to tightly regulate construction in areas of seismic danger.

Critics contend that recommendation shows the state cares more about property values than safety, and have accused the state of ignoring evidence while trying to appease Malibu development interests.

State officials, meanwhile, have insisted that politics played no role in the matter, and have stressed that the recommendation is preliminary. A final decision, which rests with Davis, as the state’s top geologist, is expected by the middle of next year.

Besides voting to enlist the help of state Sen. Gary Hart (D-Santa Barbara) and Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica) to try to persuade Davis to instruct Treiman to appear, the council said it would urge the state geologist not to make any decision about the fault until after the Malibu officials have a chance to express their views.

Treiman’s recommendation called for only a half-mile-long section of the fault between Malibu’s Latigo and Solstice canyons to be designated as a “special studies zone” under the state’s Alquist-Priolo law.

The law, passed after the 1971 Sylmar earthquake, requires the state to designate and then map special studies zones along active faults in California.

The state began its investigation after the California Coastal Commission urged the state to study the fault in 1990.

The evaluation, under Treiman’s direction, took place from May to November, 1991.

Treiman has said that it relied heavily on reports from private geologists, as well as aerial photographs and his own observations, but that the state did not do any boring or trenching of its own because of the expense involved.

Besides Treiman, members of the City Council have said they want to know more about what, if any, role Malibu city geologist Donald B. Kowalewsky may have played in the investigation.

Kowalewsky, who as a private geologist had advocated that the entire Malibu Coast Fault be designated as a special studies zone at the time the Coastal Commission took up the issue, has expressed a change of heart since becoming city geologist.

Records and interviews show that Treiman consulted extensively with Kowalewsky about the matter. Treiman has explained the contacts as an effort to keep city officials informed about the investigation so as to avoid any last-minute surprises.

However, all five members of the City Council have said that neither Kowalewsky nor anyone else had kept them abreast of the investigation. And, when interviewed for the articles that appeared in The Times, they said they knew little of it.

On Tuesday, Councilwoman Missy Zeitsoff called the state’s recommendation “clearly challengeable,” adding that “it’s obvious we’ve been out of the loop on a matter that is very important to this community.”

The council is pushing for a public hearing March 17 that would include testimony from both Treiman and Kowalewsky, as well as allow members of the public to express their views.