Mayor Tom Hasse, Mayor Pro-Tem Joan House and Councilmembers Sharon Barovsky, Jeff Jennings and Ken Kearsley publicly stated their opposition to ballot Measure P, also known as the Right to Vote Initiative, in front of City Hall at a press conference Tuesday afternoon.
Meanwhile, a petition circulator in front of Ralph’s Market, across the street, asked people to sign petitions in support of the same measure.
The circulator, Tom Rickman, was hired by Malibu Right to Vote Initiative proponents to gather signatures supporting the measure. Rickman, however, is not a Malibu resident. He came from Escondido to do his work.
The No on P Election Committee (NoPEC) announced that all five councilmembers agreed the measure is “flawed.”
According to NoPEC, this measure would change Malibu’s land-use regulations to require expensive elections on relatively small commercial and residential projects.
Measure P claims to provide Malibu residents with the right to vote on commercial development projects. Under the measure, voters would be able to give final approval on at least 15 current development projects, some of them with parcels as small as 2.5 acres.
According to Measure P proponents, voters would get to decide if Malibu’s unique rural environment would be enhanced by a proposed development.
They state that Measure P will absolutely guarantee that the needs of the local community will be the first consideration of any developer wanting to build in Malibu.
Hasse said developers will have a field day.
“Measure P will do the exact opposite of what it alleges it will do,” said Hasse in a prepared statement. “Malibu will wind up with more development under Measure P, not less.”
“I am now convinced Measure P will result in costly litigation and in the end prove indefensible,” said Barovsky.
Mayor Pro-Tem Joan House opposes “P” as well. If “P” passes, “the city will lose its current power to modify projects to fit our community’s needs,” she said.
Measure P proponents say the measure’s intent is to preserve the unique natural resources and low-density residential character of the City of Malibu. It would allow commercial and industrial development that is consistent with and preserves the natural environment and provides open space.
According to the flyers distributed by the circulator, Measure P would also prevent increased traffic and sewer problems and more.
It would amend the city’s zoning ordinance as follows: voter approval would be required for construction or expansion of commercial, industrial, or combined commercial and residential buildings that have a total development square footage more than 25,000 square feet.
The City Council would be required to hold three public hearings, following public notice, prior to approving any project that is subject to the voter approval requirement.
Kearsley opposes “P” because he said, “It will cost thousands of dollars to defend a law that many attorneys, including our city attorney, say is unconstitutional and indefensible.
“Although I have supported community participation in the governmental process, Measure P undermines representative democracy and attempts to highjack leadership from elected officers who were duly elected by the community,” said Kearsley.
“Bad laws don’t produce good results,” said Hasse.
In contrast, NoPEC supports Measure N, which is simpler and authorized by law. This measure would allow voters in Malibu to ratify all major development agreements of more than 30 acres, including the Malibu Bay Company Development Agreement, if approved by the City Council.
The five councilmembers also concurred that Measure O will provide solutions to old problems.
Measure O is an advisory bond measure that could result in $15 million for the city to purchase land for open space and parks. The land purchased would otherwise be developed commercially, thus “O” would help limits on commercial development as it would help acquire the land for open space and parks instead, said Hasse, who supports the measure.
Kearsley’s position on measures “O” and “N” concurred with Mayor Hasse’s. He endorses “O” because it solves problems instead of causing them and will enable the city to receive matching state funds for parks and recreation.
“Measure O will cost very little,” said Kearsley, who states that the amount each household will have to pay is equivalent to dinner out once a year.
Barovsky stated, “I voted to put propositions “P”, “N” and “O” on the ballot because I trusted the voters to judge their merits and vote accordingly.”
She supports Measure N because it “gives the voters the legal right to decide whether or not any development agreement between the Malibu Bay Company and the city meets with their approval.”
House endorses “N” because the Malibu community clearly expressed its desire to vote on the development agreement and the measure accomplishes this, she said. She supports advisory bond Measure O as well.