The owners of Trancas Market and its landlord, the Malibu Bay Company (MBC), have come to a parting of the ways, and, on May 7, the market will close. Thereafter, the building will be closed for renovations, and shortly thereafter a yet unidentified, high-quality market will replace Trancas Market.

“We will have an announcement soon concerning the new supermarket operator,” MBC indicated in its press release. MBC wished to “apologize for any inconvenience,” but said, “We are excited that the residents of Malibu will have a new, high-quality supermarket by early summer.”

The Trancas Market term on the old lease had almost run out, and MBC indicated to Jerry Preston, owner of Gibson & Cooke, which owns the market, they had other plans for the market and didn’t intend to renew the lease. Trancas Market, which is about 17,000 square feet, is a smallr market by today’s market standards and is in need of some major renovations. It was described by Preston as a “tired market,” which he estimated would be considerably more costly to renovate than the Point Dume market on Heathercliff.

Jim Cascone, the Trancas Market manager, said a liquidation sale will begin April 24, and the business plans to be totally out of the store by May 5. Food and supplies will be sold, but fixtures will remain behind.

Preston bought the market in 1992 from Jerry Alexander, a longtime community figure and a fixture on the Malibu grocery scene. Preston’s company also owns the market at the Point Dume Shopping Center, on Heathercliff, which it is retaining and which is currently undergoing major renovations, expected to be 90 percent completed by June 15. Preston indicated they have a long-term lease at the Heathercliff store, which is about 23,000-24,000 square feet, and they’re there to stay. When the renovation is completed, there will be a kitchen and full bakery on the premises, a sushi takeout bar, home delivery and catering, an expanded wine section and brand-new display cases.

1990

Ten years ago, Malibu became a city when the citizens went to the polls and voted for cityhood, overwhelmingly deciding they were tired of being an unincorporated part of the county and wanting to become their own city.

The principal issue in that campaign was development and the county’s attempt to impose a large sewer on Malibu. The roughly 4,500 voters who went to the polls that year decided 84.25 percent for cityhood and 15.72 percent against cityhood.

The first council elected were those who had been active in the movement to make Malibu a city. They were, in order of finish, Walt Keller, Larry Wan, Mike Caggiano, Carolyn Van Horn and Missy Zeitsoff, who won the fifth spot by only 21 votes over retired Malibu Municipal Court Judge John Merrick. Keller was elected Malibu’s first mayor.

Almost immediately, the council split into two factions, Keller and Van Horn on one side, Wan, Caggiano and Zeitsoff on the other.

1992

In the 1992 election, Caggiano and Zeitsoff, who only had two-year terms, were beaten, and a new slate known as the Grassroots Movement swept into office.

That new slate consisted of Van Horn, now elected to a full, four-year term, Jeff Kramer and Joan House. In those days Keller, Van Horn and House were still allied in the Grassroots Movement.

After the election, then-Mayor Wan, though still having two years to go on his term, found himself outnumbered 4-1 and resigned. The council then appointed longtime community activist John Harlow to fill out the remainder of Wan’s term. Harlow was also a close friend of Keller’s, but that relationship rapidly became strained. In choosing Harlow, the council had decided to pass over the No. 4 voter getter in the race, Jeff Jennings. The principal issue continued to be land use and development.

The unanimous, Keller-led council splintered again.

1994

In 1994, in a reversal of the previous election, Harlow easily swept in for a full, four-year term, combining support from many of the old-timers who remembered his years as an activist and many of the more moderate, centrist, newer voters who could see Malibu already changing. By this time, Harlow and Keller had become political opponents, which might have been a factor in Keller’s defeat. Jennings edged out Keller by 51 votes. Tom Hasse finished fourth. The council then consisted of Kramer, Van Horn, House, Harlow and Jennings, represented the entire political spectrum of Malibu and was thought by some observers to be Malibu’s most productive council.

1996

After two absences from the council, Keller made his political comeback, along with House, who was the top vote getter. The House/Keller/Van Horn slate soundly trounced a slate of Barbara Cameron and Mary Kay Kamath. Cameron was a former planning commissioner and Kamath had been a longtime member of the school board. The political campaign was hotly contested, often mean spirited and filled with all sorts of accusations of improper activities. When the dust settled, the control was still firmly in the hands of the “slow-growth” movement, which was still unified. Keller, Van Horn, House and Kramer were allied, and Hasse was still their political guru, although stress cracks were beginning to show.

1998

This election saw a new council member, Harry Barovsky, elected easily by capturing votes from both the slow-growth group, of which he was a part, and the more moderate, centrist group. The slow-growth movement still showed its political clout when Hasse edged out former mayor Jennings by 29 votes to take the fifth council seat, but it was becoming apparent it wasn’t enough just to be anti-growth. The demographics were changing, the needs were growing and the council appeared to be constantly gridlocked. The tension of this gridlock, and the fact that Keller and Van Horn had been around for almost 10 years, caused old alliances to break up. The result was a very different council. Almost immediately, Barovsky and House split from Keller and Van Horn, often leaving Hasse as the deciding vote. As had happened before, the Keller/Van Horn axis seemed to quickly alienate its former allies. More and more frequently, Hasse began to vote with Barovsky/House, changing the balance on the council.

Malibu was also changing rapidly. New families were moving in, with children. In 1990, there had been roughly 1,000 children in the Malibu public schools. By 1998, there were more than 2,200 children in the public school system, and the number was growing. What had essentially been a one-issue town — development — had now become a multi-issue town. Also, while the population of children was growing, so was the population of seniors. Malibu began to have serious facility needs, like school seats, a teen center, a community center, a senior center and ballfields, all of which cost money and many of which require either bond issues or compromises with developers. As a result, the council launched its Ad Hoc Committee.

2000

By Tuesday afternoon, voters were deciding whether they would back a new change and a new attitude, meaning Jennings, House and Kearsley, or whether they would stay with the old team of Keller, Van Horn and John Wall. The old, slow-growth coalition has cleaved in two. One part is the no-growth side, which is pushing the wetlands plan for the Civic Center and is championed by Van Horn, Keller and Wall. The other faction is the slow-growth side, including House, Kearsley, Hasse and Jennings, which is moving to a more balanced, moderate approach. The old coalition that has effectively ruled Malibu for the last 10 year may be waning, and new groups, like PARCS, the PTAs, the younger families, and some of the seniors may be ready to ask, really demand, their needs also be met. Depending on who gets to the polls, this election will tell us how much those changes in demographics have driven change in our politics.

The first phase of the rehabilitation of Malibu Pier, which the state had originally hoped to have completed by the end of this month, has only just reached the halfway mark, Hayden Sohm, the Malibu district superintendent for the California State Department of Parks and Recreation, told the Business Roundtable Friday.

The state of California, owner of Malibu Pier, began work on Phase I rehabilitation of the project Oct. 27 and has run into several things that have slowed down the rehabilitation. Sohm likened it to repairing an old house — sometimes, you don’t know what the problems are until you start tearing it up and get an opportunity to see the portions that were covered.

What the state saw apparently increased the scope of the required rehabilitation. Originally, it had thought to replace 72 pilings, but that has now increased by an additional 17 pilings to be replaced. The area under Alice’s Restaurant and prep kitchen were found to be termite infested, necessitating extra structural work. The inevitable winter rain came, shutting the project down for a number of days, and then the unforeseen accident when a crane toppled trapping the operator also slowed the project. All told, the cumulative problems have set the project back about 50 working days. The new hoped-for completion date for Phase I is June 1, 2000. The goal of Phase I is to make the pier structurally sound by repairing the pilings, the deck and its support structures, and removing and replacing the old railings. That was further complicated by the fact that all the old paints used were lead based and had to be treated as hazardous materials. Water, fire, sewer, electric and lighting systems are all being rehabbed in this phase.

At the completion of Phase I, the state intends to go directly into Phase II, at which time the four buildings on the pier — two on the landside that formerly housed Alice’s Restaurant and its prep kitchen and two on the ocean side that housed the tackle shop and an old restaurant and some offices — will have to be jacked up and moved so that the understructure of the pier directly beneath the buildings can be repaired. Part of the Phase I repair was to strengthen the pier enough so large cranes and heavy equipment could be moved to the seaward end of the pier. Additionally, they plan several other infrastructure repairs like fixing the “King Kong” gates in front on PCH and the concrete staircases underneath. When completed, the external look of the pier will be the same, the amount of rental space will be substantially the same and the historic features of the pier will all be preserved.

They anticipate the Phase II construction will take six months, and the hoped-for completion date is now February 2001. They expect to finance the Phase II repair with some of the monies from the recently passed Proposition 12 Bond Act. The total rehabilitation will take $3 million.

By the completion of the Phase II, they expect to open the pier to foot traffic and fishing. If there is going to be any significant delay between Phases I and II, they are also thinking about opening the pier during that period of delay.

At the completion of Phase II, there will still be the buildings, like Alice’s Restaurant, to be internally rehabilitated and built out with tenant improvements. Sohm indicated the state will ultimately be looking for a master lessee to take over the entire pier and build out the necessary tenant improvement and then operate the pier, which might include subtenants like a restaurant operator. Since the master lessee will have to be financially very sound, as it will require some substantial, long-term capital investment, he indicated the master lease itself would probably be for a 20- or 30-year period. The details are yet to be worked out, and ultimately it will go to some public meetings for community input, and then to an RFP, so people have an opportunity to bid to become the master tenant. There is no estimated completion date for the ultimate opening of the restaurant.

In a virtual replay of tactics used in past city elections, incumbents painted challengers as supporters of massive development who would turn Malibu into Miami Beach.

The effective strategy of 1996 and 1998 apparently backfired this time, with incumbent Joan House, Jeff Jennings and first-time candidate Ken Kearsley winning all 14 precincts by a wide margin to defeat council veterans Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn.

“The only thing that Keller and Van Horn had going for them is the Civic Center issue,” said former Councilman John Harlow. “They have done very little else to help homeowners. With 700 conservation and implementation measures in the General Plan, no wonder the city is in trouble.”

Sharon Barovsky urged conciliation. “If this city doesn’t come together, it is doomed. Someone has to be talking. If you shut out an opponent, he will stand on the other side of the door with a battering ram. If anyone wants to honor my husband’s memory, let’s bring this community together.”

Successful candidate Kearsley said the two most important factors in his campaign were, “the development deal and parks. Malibu mommies and daddies were a real factor in this campaign.” He urged action. “We can’t sit and wait for things to happen. We must make them happen. We have not moved from dead center in four years.”

House explained her success differently: “We worked with a broad base and set our priorities. We stayed on course. We knew negativity would be forthcoming, and that’s why we did a pre-emptive strike.”

Both Keller and Van Horn refused to make an election-night comment to The Malibu Times, although Van Horn did state: “Whatever is printed in The Malibu Times is trash. Your paper sucks.”

The rift among the three incumbents developed not long after the last election and culminated after House and Councilman Tom Hasse (formerly supported by Keller and Van Horn) brokered a deal with Civic Center land owners allowing limited development rights in return for land donated for open space and ball fields, and other amenities. Van Horn is pushing for the city to buy the Civic Center properties and convert them into wetlands.

Keller and Van Horn, whose supporters produced the video distributed last weekend, too late for the maligned candidates to respond, painted the three opponents as pawns of developers and urged voters to re-elect the “environmentally friendly” council members.

A mailer stating “The House-Hasse development deal is No Deal for Malibu” was quickly refuted in a hand-delivered “Voter Alert” written by Lloyd Ahern, citing the video as an example of the “underhanded tactics that made Malibu city government dysfunctional and a laughing stock among all other agencies in the state and county.”

The Sierra Club, listed as a supporter of Keller, Van Horn and John Wall, solicited votes by telephone Monday. One resident said she had four calls, two from Sierra Club members and two from people who said Keller and Van Horn were chosen by the group as the appropriate candidates. “I find it tough to imagine that they’ve turned on Joan House since they support Sheila Kuehl and Fran Pavely, who both support House,” she said. “I called the Sierra Club but couldn’t get any response.”

Another resident said he thought the video, narrated by Ed Harris, was well produced though factually incorrect. “If you didn’t know better, it could easily sway you.” The video shows the Chili Cook-off site full of fire engines when it was used as a staging area during the 1993 wildfire. The narrator infers that Malibu Bay Co. development in the Civic Center would eliminate its use as an emergency staging area and would increase traffic. Hasse maintains the Malibu Bay Co. plan allows the staging area to remain while the Wetlands proposal would eliminate it.

Reports of irregularities filtered in during the day with one accusation of a precinct worker viewing a marked ballot, and harassment of voters approaching the polling place at Point Dume school. Formal complaints were reportedly filed but were not confirmed by the city clerk Tuesday.

Traditionally close races, the last council election, which removed Jennings from the council and elected Hasse, was decided by only 29 votes.

As of Friday, 1,178 absentee ballots had been requested. Typically, absentee ballots are 30 percent of the total.

By 2 p.m., generally believed an indicator of half the actual voter turnout, precincts reported slightly less than the average 40 percent of registered voters.

In the final tally, about 8,600 registered voters cast 3,763 ballots.

The tally in 1998 was 5,855 votes cast on election day with about 100 provisional or late-arriving absentee ballots still uncounted. At that point Jennings and Hasse were separated by only nine votes.

This time, absentee ballots, counted first, showed more than 2-to-1 support for the moderates.

Ballot Measure A, which would limit council members to two terms, passed 2,300 to 1,278.

Measure B, which would impose a tax, for general city purposes, based on 10 percent of parking fees, passed 2,442 to 1,083.

Measure C, which indicates funding priorities from parking taxes, passed 2,863 to 578.

The pre-election city council unanimously decided Monday night to appoint a fifth member to fill the vacancy created by last month’s death of Councilman Harry Barovsky. The appointee will serve until Nov. 7, when a special election will be held to fill the vacancy.

No current member of the council may be appointed to fill the vacancy, wrote City Attorney Steven Amerikaner in a memo to the council.

Under state law, the ordinance on procedures for dealing with vacancies was “introduced” at Monday’s meeting, Amerikaner said. It should be officially “adopted” at least five days later (April 15).

Because of the scheduled Planning Commission meeting April 17 and scheduling conflicts of current council members, the council will meet April 22, a Saturday, 9 a.m. at City Hall, to appoint Barovsky’s successor and adopt the ordinance calling for the special election.

Three of the four members must approve the appointee, Amerikaner said. Responding to questions from Councilwoman Joan House about what would happen if the council could not agree on the appointee, Amerikaner said a subsequent council could make the appointment.

La Costa/Carbon Beach view corridor

In other action Monday, the council unanimously voted to oppose applications by Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan’s wife, Nancy Daly, and political heavyweight Eli Broad to the California Coastal Commission to modify permits on required public view corridors on their Carbon and La Costa beach properties.

Their proposal attempts to shift the view corridor away from their lots and move it to the location between La Costa and Carbon beaches.

City Manager Harry Peacock’s letter outlining the city’s opposition to the proposed permit modifications were to have been delivered to the Coastal Commission meeting in Long Beach yesterday (Wednesday) by Richard Terzian, Malibu’s former interim city attorney. Terzian will also be addressing the commission on use of Ramirez Canyon by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

Attorney Todd Sloan said the commission’s anticipated approval of the permit modifications was a “blatant issue of special interest meddling” with Coastal Commission procedure. The process was “unusual in its speed, lack of notice and quietness,” Sloan said.

La Costa/Carbon beach residents Peg Yorkin and Freddie Fields told the council the Coastal Commission had not considered safety issues. The site proposed for a new public access point, 21704 Pacific Coast Highway, is the third most dangerous curve on Pacific Coast Highway, with more than 30 accidents occurring in the last six months, they said.

Purchasing Civic Center land

Acting on Councilwoman Joan House’s mantra to “keep all options open,” and in a move to lessen the bitter debate between the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy (“no growth” ) and Malibu Bay Company development deal (“slow growth”) factions, the council approved, 4-0, Councilwoman Carolyn Van Horn’s resolution supporting funding to acquire Civic Center land. The council eliminated language it feared might cause the city legal difficulties.

The resolution, introduced last Thursday but sent back to City Attorney Amerikaner for rewording, also directs staff to prepare a timetable and budget for the Open Space Feasibility Study recommended in the Economic Plan the council approved Thursday.

Councilman Tom Hasse, the only incumbent who did not have to run for re-election, and who, along with House negotiated the proposed Malibu Bay Company development deal, at first said he was against the resolution because it left the city legally vulnerable but later, after the amendment to the resolution, voted for it.

Reading from a memo prepared by former City Attorney Christi Hogin, Hasse last Thursday said the resolution as originally worded played into the “tension” of the city as regulator and purchaser of property.

The argument could be made that zoning decisions could be used as a subterfuge to reduce the purchase price in subsequent condemnation actions, and the city could be liable for costs, Hasse said.

There is no reference in Monday’s resolution to the original resolution’s wording, “undeveloped land in the flood plain of the Civic Center area for the purpose of preserving open space and constructing a functional wetland that will help treat the polluted flows of Malibu Creek.”

As an indication of the problems the city might face in finding the “willing sellers” required to receive funding to purchase land, Don Schmitz, who recently submitted plans to the city for a Civic Center project known as “Malibu La Paz Ranch,” said there have been no wetlands “since the Ice Age,” and he was not interested in selling to the conservancy. His application is consistent with the General Plan and he will work to include a wetlands system in the Civic Center, Schmitz said.

Just as Malibu’s newly formed Code Enforcement Task Force Committee was holding its first meeting last week, 75 protesters were gathering at the Malibu Homeowners for Reform code enforcement rally at the Community Center.

And while those protesters voiced everything from concern to rage over actions by Gail Sumpter, community services specialist for code enforcement, Sumpter was addressing the newly formed task force, along with Malibu Building Official Vic Peterson and City Attorney Steve Amerikaner.

The City Council formed this task force after being hit by an avalanche of citizen complaints calling for investigation of Sumpter and other code enforcement issues. The task force comprises 15 members, including Realtors, attorneys and community members. Each City Council member appointed three committee members.

Five days before the City Council passed a resolution to form the task force, Peterson sent letters to task force committee members notifying them of the initial organizational meeting March 29. Otherwise, not much public notification was offered, and only three members of the public attended the meeting. Neither The Malibu Times nor the citizens protest group was given notice.

Protesters said they would have been there had they known about it, while one task force committee member stated, “We wanted to be there at [the rally] to see what people’s concerns were.”

At the meeting, reported one committee member, Sumpter and Amerikaner spent almost equal time “educating us” on various issues, and it appeared Sumpter and Amerikaner would regularly attend future meetings.

Another committee member described the meeting agenda: “The council came up with an 11-item agenda [charter]. We received copies of the IZOs, the interim zoning ordinances that the city is operating on for its planning, so we can better understand zoning for the city. We discussed what’s necessary. The new city attorney … explained the process as to how other cities have committees, and how the Building Department and Code Enforcement will not be giving input. They will be giving us the information we request, but they will not try to influence the group’s decisions. Some citizens [the three who attended] expressed concerns that we not be puppets of the [Building] Department.”

The Charter for the Code Enforcement Task Force limits its inquiries to:

(1) grandfathering,

(2) permitted uses,

(3) ancillary structures,

(4) the meaning of “entitled” in the grandfathering provision,

(5) costs, fines and retesting for permits,

(6) guest homes versus second units,

(7) a policy requiring all complaints be in writing and signed,

(8) a written code enforcement policy,

(9) expanding the function of the Building Board of Appeals,

(10) the concerns about the lack of records from Los Angeles County, and

(11) consideration of an amnesty program.

Several people said they attended the meeting “ready to work” and left uncertain as to what they were going to do. Some decisions were made, however, that will serve to guide the group. According to one member, the committee established a uniform goal: “Whatever we decide will be made public before it’s censored by the council. We want to be sure our voice is heard before it’s tainted by the council. We want problems to be resolved and avenues to be available. Our most important goal is to determine what code enforcement parameters are, what she’s [Sumpter] supposed to be doing, and what boundaries should be set for anyone in this position.”

Said another member, “Sumpter was educating us on various zoning issues and code enforcement, and the procedures for moving a case to the city prosecutor. She explained how they usually send a letter to the homeowner requesting compliance, or they send it to a prosecutor.

“Then someone asked her, ‘What happens when it goes to the prosecutor?’ She responded that this was only for major problems, not minor issues. However, she didn’t really answer the question. I think everyone noticed it too.”

“Huge places are getting put through, yet people who want to add a bedroom are getting slammed,” said another member. Said another, “There’s a dichotomy on how you’re treated based on how much you’re willing to spend. There’s a lot of elitism involved. People with big projects are generally not having problems. It’s money and how much influence you have with the city and Coastal Commission. They’re not getting away cheaply, but they’re getting what they want.”

Meanwhile, at the homeowners rally, one woman told the crowd she and her family have been ordered to vacate their premises and all personal property within seven calendar days, and to demolish her home within 60 days. “By the way,” she said, “they told me to be sure to get a demolition permit first.”

Members of the Task Force include: Robert Hart, James Schoenfeld, Toni Semple, Todd Sloan, Marc Jackson, Terry Lucoff, Don McLay, John Miller (chairman), Dusty Peak, Jeannette Maginnis, Bill Sampson, Bruce Terranova, Roger Trivette, Ted Vaill and Marissa Coughlan.

Next of the weekly meetings is tonight (Thursday), 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. Members of the planning department are expected to attend.