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.

The Code Enforcement Task Force Monday night could not come to agreement on the issue of whether to require citizens to submit and possibly have their names revealed when filing a code enforcement complaint.

The discussion centered on recommendations on how the City of Malibu should handle minor and more serious complaints–e.g. threats to public health or safety, about code violations.

One task force member gave a disturbing analogy with which to compare the fear that some residents have of retribution if they are forced to give their names when complaining about a neighbor’s code violation.

He recounted how he entered a Malibu resident’s home on one occasion, was directed upstairs by the maid, and discovered the man in bed with two underage boys. He said he went to the local sheriff’s station to file a report, but when told he had to give his name, he declined to report it.

“I don’t want to end up in a ditch pushing up daisies,” said the member.

In a surreal response, the other task force members uncomfortably passed off the unsettling account with nervous laughter about his “pushing up daisies” comment and continued discussing the issues at hand.

Despite his unwillingness to give his name in such a situation, this member said he believes if someone is going to complain, they should be willing to put themself on the line and put it in writing.

Also agreeing citizens should be required to give their names, task force member Toni Semple said she believes a complainant’s name should be revealed to the person who is in violation immediately.

“How can we sit here and create policy to protect everyone from their neighbor?” said Semple.

Jim Schoenfield said the point is, basically, people fear physical retribution from neighbors if they file a complaint and their name is revealed.

“It’s not our problem,” said Semple.

Cutting down on the number of complaints, and what Schoenfield called “ticky tacky” (minor) complaints, as well as not have the city appear to be indiscriminately and aggressively pursuing violations, was also a concern of task force members.

The need for names shows whether the city is being pro-active or reactive, said Chair Jim Miller.

“I’m concerned that the city is pro-active,” said Miller.

“Dumpster diving” was given as an example of the city being too pro-active.

Task force member Bob Hart discussed the fact that some city inspectors have been known to “inspect” dumpsters that are filled with debris to see if any illegal unpermitted construction was going on. Inspectors would look up the address written on a dumpster and inspect the building with that address.

As far as a multitude of minor complaints that are too costly and burdensome for the city to deal with, Schoenfield said, “We want to discourage vexatious neighbors.”

“Somebody has got to be the gate keeper,” he said. “To decide where this [complaints] is going to go.”

Schoenfield recommended the city have someone who is knowledgeable about code enforcement issues, who would be able to refer non-serious complaints to a mediator.

Task force members also discussed current language used to inform code violators about possible fines if they do not comply with codes, as being too “harsh.”

A “kinder, gentler” approach is needed said attorney Todd Sloane.

In the end, most of the task force members agreed the wording of letters to violators needed “softening” without implying the city cannot impose fines, but also assuring code violators they are entitled to “due process of law” in the ability to go to trial if they believe the fines excessive or not warranted.

Of six items discussed at the meeting, only two were approved and passed by the task force: Limits on Testing, which eliminates any testing requirements which do not have the regulation of the building process (e.g., health and safety, etc.) as their legitimate goal; and all code enforcement complaints, other than thos involving threats to public health or safety, contruction and grading without a permit, and drainage and septic system violations shall be submitted in writing to the Code Enforcement Department or its designated staff members.

The debate over the fate of the Chili Cook-off parcel continues, with a feasibility report declaring the site as a prime area for a wetlands restoration project.

The report was drafted by Huffman and Carpenter, Inc., an environmental firm from Nevada, for the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy (MCLC).

However, the impact such a wetlands project would have on the surrounding area is still in question as concerns about odors, additional flooding, impact on the creek and the practicalities of cost are debated.

Edith Read, manager of biological resources for Psomas, an environmental and engineering firm hired to check the report on behalf of the Malibu Bay Company, agreed the report seems to be technically competent.

However, she said the report does not delve into the economic aspect of putting in a habitat, the cost of excavation and purchase of the property.

“The report only touches lightly on the cost issue,” she said.

But David Gottlieb, a MCLC spokesperson, disagrees with this point of view.

“The land was appraised at $14 million,” he said. “The cost for restoring is between $500,000 and $1 million, including getting the water in and out of the wetlands.”

The annual monitoring budget was estimated at $20,000, Gottlieb continued.

“These are the answers to the questions,” he said.

“Part of the feasibility is the cost,” he said, adding that MCLC hired an unbiased company that would assess the costs truthfully, no matter the results.

“These costs are in line with other Southern California restoration projects,” said Gottlieb.

“Wouldn’t this money be better used elsewhere to restore a larger area that has better potential for success?” asked Read, who believes the project would be costly.

Read said, in the past, she had written a feasibility analysis for putting a wetlands in the Chili Cook-off area at the request of the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

“By the time construction and pipes and culverts under the PCH are done, you are talking in the order of $35 to $36 million dollars,” she said. “You would also have to relocate utilities.”

But Gottleib said MCLC would not fight for this wetlands if that was the actual cost. He said MCLC has already saved $1.1 million dollars for the project and they hope to receive more funds from federal and state sources, as well as the city, if ballot Measure O passes in the upcoming elections.

Gottlieb cited the Madronna Marsh Wetland in Torrance as an example of feasibility. Over the past 10 years it cost $1.25 million for recovery and maintenance of an 18-acre wetland, and that includes pumping for the wetland, which needs to be kept wet year round, he said. That price does not include the purchase of the land.

“Our wetland is a seasonal wetland,” said Gottlieb.

“You remove only as much fill as you have to remove,” he said. “The practice is to create channels and pools and islands and lagoons within the area.”

The expense part of this report reflects a range of cost because it depends how much fill you decide to remove, said Gottlieb.

State funds cannot be accessed unless there is a willing seller, he said.

“But, through the years, ecological endeavors like this have been able to negotiate with unwilling sellers and move them into a position of willing sellers,” he said.

Another problem Read said she finds with the report is how the wetlands would connect to the Malibu Creek and Lagoon system.

Theoretically, the wetlands would take water from the lagoon, naturally filter it, and return it to the lagoon or creek. But since the area surrounding the Chili Cook-off site is mostly developed, there could be a problem with water flow, according to Read.

However representatives from MCLC do not think this is a problem.

“There shouldn’t be any negative effect on the developed areas,” said Gottlieb.

Since the water is coming out of the lagoon and returned to the lagoon through the use of a sophisticated gravity system, the work required getting the restoration done and the impact on developed areas would be minimized, he said.

“There are numerous places where the water would exit after it’s polished,” said Gottlieb. “There are existing storm drains that could be used to return it just north of PCH.”

One method could include the use of a passage under PCH, in the existing wetlands area of the Malibu Lagoon, to the south of PCH. And if that is not an option, many alternatives exist aside from going under PCH, he said.

“There is no discussion in the report about how this system would work as an integrated biological system,” said Read.

“It seems to be a relatively small part of the total peak flow in Malibu Creek,” said Read, who indicated the wetlands, although feasible, would not have enough impact on the cleanliness of the creek’s water during peak flow.

But Gottlieb stated the water budget includes enough area to cover the lagoon, if not more.

“There is enough water to run the system when the creek is running,” he said. “That’s when you get the pollution into the bay and at Surfrider Beach.”

On the contrary, when the creek is low, said Gottleib, “You can augment the flow with treated wastewater and run-off from the Civic Center area. This would solve the current problem. Right now it’s problematic getting rid of all the discharge.”

The system, as suggested, would take the water from the creek and retain it. While the water is retained, it would not be stagnant since it would run through channels led by gravity from one pool to the next, keeping the water running until it goes back to the creek or lagoon, explained Gottlieb.

Read concurred the feasibility report is basically a hydrological study, but that’s pretty much where the analysis stops, she said.

Read said she wanted to make it very clear with the Malibu Bay Company that the report makes very strong statements about the Chili Cook-off parcel proposal being a restoration project, but the area has never been documented as a wetland.

“None are proven to have actually existed historically,” she said.

Gottlieb disagrees. Traditionally wetlands are on pretty saturated lands, and one aspect of natural wetlands is that they are periodically inundated, he said.

Most of the land in there was on a flood plain that was a historic wetland, he added. But Read maintains, while it is true the area has been flooded in the past, it is not the same thing as a wetlands.

“This is not substantiated,” she said.

Viewpoint

Finally, after much wrangling, a formal debate between three candidates — George W. Bush, Al Gore, and Ralph Nader — is going to take place.

Location was one problem that needed to be resolved. Bush wanted it to be held in Reykjavik, Iceland, thinking that would lend a certain historical solemnity to the event. He was finally convinced by aides that Iceland is not part of the United States and would be an inappropriate and confusing choice for American voters. He was further convinced when Karen Hughes, his communications director, told him Iceland was “colder than a witch’s tit.” Apparently, colorful language is always a way to his heart.

Several other remote locations were discussed, but since Ralph Nader can’t afford a private jet and is morally opposed to such perks, they needed to find someplace accessible by commercial flights. As it turned out, the decision was made for them. While campaigning in West Palm Beach, Florida, George W. contracted a mild case of the flu, possibly from shaking hands with so many senior citizens who hadn’t been able to pay for flu shots and couldn’t afford prescription drugs, so he was forced to recuperate there. The other candidates generously agreed to come to him.

The other problem was finding a moderator. Larry King, hearing about so many athletes dropping out of the Olympics in Australia, was on his way to Sydney as a last minute replacement in the 50-meter track event. Many of the other logical choices are there as well. It got down to the wire, but Judge Judy kindly agreed to moderate.

Another slight inconvenience: Outside the Holiday Inn, where the ballroom had been reserved for the event, demonstrators from PETA caused a traffic jam. Upset at George W.’s callous use of the word RAT, they felt compelled to draw attention to the plight of the maligned rodent.

Finally, things were underway. Judge Judy, sans robes and gavel, promptly told all three candidates to behave themselves and watch their language (this directed mostly at George W.).

Judge Judy: “Okay, Al – you start. Tell us why you think you should move into the big house.”

George W.: “Why does he get to start?”

Judge Judy: “Because I said so. Quiet down.”

Al Gore: “I would just like to say that I am the most qualified person to run this country. I believe strongly in our spirit. I believe we are spiritual beings who are just human for a while. You know, when I took on the complex challenge of mapping the human gnome, I did it with that in mind. On a round planet, there’s no up side. We’re all the same, just crawling around this big circle here. Senator Joseph Lieberman and I have talked about the importance of teaching our children this, instead of letting them be polluted by the mindless violence in movies and on the Internet – violence which was not my intention when I created the Internet.”

George W. (unaware that his microphone is on): “What the hell is this asshole talking about?”

Judge Judy: “Hey! Watch your language or I’ll throw your lilly white ass out of here.”

Ralph Nader: “The voters should be aware that faulty seat belts put more children at risk than what’s in the movies, or on the Internet.”

George W.: “You see, Ralph, this is why you’re not going to the White House. All you know is seat belts. What about the big issues? Like drugs. People need drugs.”

An awkward moment of silence in which speakers and audience alike pause to wonder which drugs are actually being promoted here. Governor Bush’s communications director, the ever resourceful Karen Hughes, quickly holds up a sign which reads PRESCRIPTION.

George W.: “Of course, I mean prescription drugs. For our senior citizens. Important voters to snag–I mean, reach. Like women. They’re the swinging voters that we need. I mean, swing voters. Swing.”

Judge Judy: “Let’s move on to international affairs.”

Al Gore: “We need to think globally. Like one of my favorite songs says, ‘He’s my brother.’ “

George W. (with a derisive laugh): “Fine, Al, you just go ahead with that brotherhood crap. I intend to stand on Castro until he flees the country.”

Judge Judy: “How’s he going to flee the country if you’re standing on him?”

Again, Karen Hughes comes to the rescue, holding up a sign which reads FREE.

George W.: “Free the country. That’s what I meant.”

Ralph Nader: “I understand that Castro is putting up billboards urging people to use their seat belts.”

Al Gore: “I have often been inspired by the words of Zen master Suzuki-roshi who said, “If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything.” I believe Americans are ready for change. As William Butler Yeats wrote, The center cannot hold.”

George W.: “Well, if you don’t like the center, Al, why are you moving in that direction? I don’t know who this Yeats fellow is, but he’s probably some mongrel third party guy…sorry, Ralph. And this Suzuki fellow, why he probably doesn’t even have his Green Card, can’t even vote. You know, these people come here, drain the economy…”

Judge Judy: “Good segue, Georgie. Let’s discuss the economy.”

Ralph Nader: “We ought to ban newspapers. This would save money, save trees. People could get to work quicker.”

Al Gore: “I have a very good economic plan. A sound tax plan.”

George W.: “Yeah? Well, who’s going to pay for the extra dishes, Al? Answer that?”

Judge Judy: “Dishes?”

Karen Hughes’ hastily written sign: DISHES?

George W.: “Joseph Lieberman? Good choice. Good man. Admire his faith. That whole honoring the Sabbath thing? I’m for that. And if he needs to use different dishes on the Sabbath, I’m for that. But who’s going to pay for them? What about the dishes, Al?”

Before Al Gore can respond to this weighty question, a member of the audience yells, “Rats!”

George W.: “Now, I’ve apologized for that ad!”

Another audience member, an elderly woman struggling toward the aisle shrieks, “No! Rats! Rats! The real thing!”

Members of PETA, never missing an opportunity to make a point, have released several boxes of rats. The frightened rodents scurry every which way, desperately looking for an exit, or a pant leg. Judge Judy pulls a gavel from beneath her jacket, pounds it on the table, yelling, “Order! Order!” But rats don’t know that word, and no one else cares. The only person maintaining a sense of calm in the midst of chaos is Ralph Nader, who opens the emergency exit for the hysterical rats so they can return to the alleys where they belong.

When history books are written, it will probably be recorded that Ralph Nader became the next president because he demonstrated his ability to remain calm during the famous Rat Incident.

Homeowners with unpermitted alarm systems may find themselves in school soon to reeducate themselves on how to be responsible for their protection systems.

The City Council passed an ordinance 18 months ago that requires a $40 permit for every alarm system with a $25 renewal fee each year. The city started to enforce this ordinance this summer.

A letter from Gail Sumpter, the city’s community services specialist in charge of enforcing the alarm system permit ordinance, requesting compliance with the ordinance was mailed out over the summer. The letter explained that a major reason for passing Malibu’s Ordinance No. 186, which governs alarm permits, was to “reduce the number of false alarms by requiring corrective action and penalizing only those persons whose alarms malfunction on a repeated basis.”

And, said Sumpter, addresses with false alarms were the very targets of the letters that she disseminated, although she said she is not sure how many letters actually got mailed.

Although the new system will allow the city to recoup money spent for false alarm responses–1,000 permits generate $40,000–Sumpter said her motivation is “not to collect fines.”

Instead, she said, what she really wants to do is to teach people.

“I want to educate people … on how they can be responsible with their alarm systems,” she said.

“We all feel better with our alarm systems, but some people have been careless and there needs to be some kind of consequence … a motivator.”

The motivator Sumpter said she is considering is “a recurrent class for people who have been irresponsible with their alarm systems.

“Students would learn what common false alarms are, how to create a password for employees or household residents so that an alarm can get canceled if it goes off by mistake, and how to shut off the system if there is an equipment problem.”

Sumpter says while she has information on who has permits, she does not have information on those with alarm systems without permits.

Additionally, she said the city doesn’t have the manpower to check door to door on who has an alarm system and who doesn’t. The only way that an unpermitted system can be found out is if a false alarm is initiated and sheriff’s deputies visit the property.

Sumpter said as many as 1,500 addresses in total “could have” been notified.

(Through August, the Sheriff’s Dept. responded to 952 false alarms, she said, explaining additional names could have gotten mixed into her distribution list.)

The ordinance applies to alarms that evoke a police or fire response and makes sounds heard outside the premises.

However, Sumpter is confident that she has a way of targeting repeat violators. She can sort false alarms by name or address.

“They are right here in my little database,” she said.

When the County Sheriff’s Dept. sends her the monthly list of false alarms, she compares it with the addresses to which she already has mailed compliance letters.

While the first two false alarms per year are without penalty, the ordinance sets a $175 fee for the third offense and a $59 fee for additional false alarms; after that, the cost of one sheriff’s car to respond to the call.

Will everyone get a permit?

“I doubt it,” said Sumpter.

So far, since the mailing process began, she has processed a total of 143 business and residential permits based on the applications she has received. But, she adds, “Remember, this is just the beginning phase of the implementation.”

While Sumpter said she does not have any information on the number of businesses or residences in Malibu, the Malibu Chamber of Commerce said there are about 700 city-based businesses, and the U.S. Census Bureau lists 4,707 households.

Meanwhile, according to Ordinance 186, the unlikely consequence of having an alarm system without a permit is $100 for the first violation, increasing to $250 for the third offense within 12 months.