I am writing to correct an item in your coverage of the code enforcement meeting of Feb. 10 [Feb. 17 issue, “Are we a city of snitches …?”]. Your reporter stated, “Reading from the state building code, he [building Official Vic Peterson] also said certain structures, including some fences, tool and storage sheds, playhouses and greenhouses, do not require a building permit.”

Mr. Peterson was most likely reading from the Los Angeles County Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 26, Section 106.3, which exactly states that some fences, sheds, playhouses and greenhouses are exempt from L.A. County permits. But it is important to remember that the city of Malibu is not under the jurisdiction of the L.A. County Zoning Code and is free to choose which buildings will require a permit.

Mr. Peterson could not have been reading from the state building code because it states nowhere which structures require a building permit. If a city chooses to require a permit for a guesthouse or a doghouse, it is a zoning issue and the state leaves zoning issues to local jurisdiction. This is why the city has the full authority to waive the retroactive building permit requirement for older ancillary structures like guesthouses, corrals and barns. The Fair Zoning Grandfathering Amendment would put this into law and the Citizens for Fair Zoning asked the City Council to form a Task Force to consider the adoption of this measure.

The state does require that repairs, remodels and new construction be performed According to the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC is a building code and provides specific standards for nuts and bolts construction. It is not a zoning code and does not specify the structures for which the city of Malibu will require a permit. That is a zoning issue and one that the citizens of Malibu, working together with city officials, will decide.

Anne Hoffman

Editor’s note: The code section referred to by Vicky Newman was the 1998 California Building Code, Section 106.3.

Through the grapevine I have learned that several “activists” have been seeking a City Council reconsideration of the approval of our self-storage project. One wonders why these activists by and large did not participate in the public hearing process and only now want some special reconsideration. Our application went through four Planning Commission hearings before it was unanimously approved. During this entire process, there was no opposition from any Malibu resident. The only opposition was one letter from Heal the Bay presented at the fourth and last Planning Commission hearing where the project was unanimously approved. Bob Purvey of the Surfrider Foundation also spoke against the project at the third and last City Council hearing on the variance that was approved that same night.

I have respect for both of these organizations. I have been a member of both for years. As an active surfer, sailor and fisherman, I truly appreciate the principal goals that these organizations are trying to achieve. Had they and the other activists participated in the public hearing process, they may have had a better understanding as to why this project was approved. For their benefit and that of your readers I will cite some of the features we have proposed.

The self-storage project, as approved by the city, would redevelop an existing and unsightly seven-acre equipment and material storage yard on the east side of the Civic Center. Approximately three acres of the site would contain the California Mission-style buildings and driveways. The other four or so acres would be replanted with native trees, shrubs and naturalized grasses. The nearest structure will be over 100 yards from the low-flow channel of Malibu Creek. All driveways will be professionally swept twice each month. All runoff, except for major storm events, from the redeveloped portion of the site will be filtered and then travel through detention basins before it reaches Malibu Creek. Self-storage provides less traffic, noise, wastewater, light and human activity than any other commercial use. The EIR prepared by the city indicates the project provides a net benefit over the existing use. The easement and funds we are proposing to transfer to the city will help establish more wetlands in the Civic Center.

One of the activists encouraged me to convince my family to sell this parcel to the public. My family has already transferred well over half of our Malibu real estate holdings to the state and federal park services. Few, if any, other families could make this statement. In our case, it amounts to over 2,500 acres of Malibu land that we have transferred through sale and donation to the public. This does not include my family’s donation of land to Pepperdine University. We have chosen to retain the subject parcel in perpetuity. Whether or not the Coastal Commission ultimately approves the self-storage project will have no bearing on our decision to keep this parcel.

I am proud that my family has made such a large commitment to the environment and preservation of land in Malibu. The redevelopment of the subject site still fits within this commitment. It is a net benefit to the environment. The majority of the City Council has concluded that this project would actually help increase the amount of wetlands in the Civic Center. The activists may have realized this if they had attended the public hearings.

Grant Adamson

New to Malibu? There are two things you should know as we approach the April election for City Council: One political faction has always insisted that “development” is the only issue at hand and historically their actions in attacking, demonizing and anonymously slandering opposing candidates have been exceptionally nasty and merciless.

Before cityhood, development was the issue. We feared that developers aided by county officials would destroy our small town and its fragile natural surroundings, creating another Miami Beach. With cityhood came the adoption and enforcement of regulations that prevent this from happening. And yet every two years, the notion that the destruction of Malibu is certain if the wrong candidates are elected gets dusted off and heralded as “the only issue.”

To buy into the “issue,” you must first accept that (1) about half the people in town and the candidates they support must be self-serving dupes who would gladly pillage Malibu in order to make a quick buck and (2) there is only one group that can stand up against The Horde to prevent the destruction of our city and the natural environment. This story of impending doom has been effective in past elections. The myth paints images of heroes and villains and defines its creators as the only choice, giving simple answers to those voters who can’t or won’t take the time to look at the issues. Worst of all, the myth gives to its adherents permission to behave badly, to slander and assail the opposition as if they were mortal enemies. This is war, or so they feel, and any weapon used to protect Malibu against certain destruction by the enemy is fair and necessary. Right?

It is humorous to think that one group would try to claim sole ownership of the environmental values that an entire community shares. However there is nothing funny about the unconscionable damage done by demonizing and assailing the character of anyone who stands to offer a different opinion. No one seems to rate fair treatment. In a recent election, a kind and honorable resident with decades of selfless dedication to the community was characterized as a developer’s dupe only interested in financial gain. This tactic has discouraged good people from participating in city government while convincing others that the process and everyone involved are dishonorable.

In reality, these proclaimed “enemies” are our neighbors who in fact feel pretty much the same about protecting and preserving this special place we live. This year, key election issues involve the community — facilities for the young and old, fairness for citizens burdened by changing regulations and whether or not our elected officials can focus on the needs of the community as a whole. But you can count on the usual suspects to tell us that we are all wrong — it’s about development and the enemies in our midst.

It is time to end this, to stand against the nasties who will do and say anything to trivialize the issues and drag our political process into the gutter. It is time to say, “Stop!” to the ethically challenged and the council candidates they serve. We do not put up with this kind of behavior from our children. We certainly should not tolerate it from adults.

Don Wilkins

After attending the candidates forum at the Point school the other night, I couldn’t help but feel somewhat frustrated by their collective unwillingness to demonstrate real leadership. When asked to respond to several tough questions about how to generate more revenue to meet our city’s increasing needs and responsibilities (particularly since over 80 percent of our citizenry surveyed want no part, understandably, of a tax increase) they often gave vague or no answers at all. At least three issues (The Malibu Bay Co., local schools and hotel/occupancy taxes) were not debated by the candidates in a way that gave me any sense of confidence. It was hard not to be disturbed by this “retro” group who were, for the most part, holding their noses at most of the changes we need for Malibu. Clearly, we’re having to drag several of our elected officials into a future they don’t want and they’re coming along “kicking and screaming.”

Not only did the candidates act “clueless” (and so did this week’s reporting in The Malibu Times) about the revenue-generating impact of an appropriately scaled-down development deal that we may now make with the Malibu Bay Co. (they pretend to only understand how to value a one-time, very generous gift of land and money for recreation facilities at Point Dume), but also they took the opportunity to lecture and insult the intelligence of some of us on the virtues of “living within our means.” They tried to extol this virtue when questioned on the matter of just how are we going to afford to help the schools, provide the necessary police protection for us and our 10 million annual visitors, maintain our expensive infra structure, etc., etc. In fact several of the candidates thought it sounded cute and appropriate to now consider transferring our priorities from “potholes to pupils” — meaning, that if we are short funds then let’s make sure that what we have goes to the children. OK, fair enough, but is this ascetic/aesthetic mindset really representative of the progressive thinking that the people of Malibu deserve and want from their elected city officials? I doubt it.

Let me put it somewhat differently — I realize the council is awaiting a report from their economic consultant on the proposed deal with Malibu Bay Company, but please don’t tell us that we negotiated this agreement without any idea of its potential value to the city (that’s patently ridiculous). It would have been proper for the candidates to talk about some of the ongoing tax benefits to Malibu at this forum. You better believe MBC understands the economics of the deal. For example, which commercial uses specifically give the city the best opportunities for taxation, and what are the exact tradeoffs (such as low-impact usage) that a majority of us who vote — want for all the people of Malibu. And there’s more, much more.

Moving ahead, our candidates thought it would be a grand idea — on the issue of shortfalls in funding for our schools — to “march” on Sacramento and see if we can’t just persuade them to subsidize and better fund our local schools. Isn’t it a little farfetched to imagine, given the ever-escalating needs of every single community in California, that we would get both a positive reception and, more important, meaningful, added dollars for Malibu (given our blessed circumstances — natural and otherwise)?

Hey, everyone knows that $5,500 per year per kid in an expensive place like California isn’t anywhere close to adequate when it comes to educating our children, and, that said, we better figure out how to face up to our responsibilities and start taking care of our own — right now. And that’s the kind of lecture and leadership I, for one, would welcome from our politicians.

When someone plaintively asked — would approving and taxing one small luxury hotel next to Pepperdine help with our mounting fiscal crisis — all the candidates save one, Jeff Jennings, turned up their noses at the projected million dollars per year in room tax revenue, and more or less said, “We don’t need that kind of money” (as if the proposal was to build a casino or brothel or both at the present site of the Chili Cook-off).

Being told to live within our means is not an answer for a young city just beginning to experience life’s realities. It’s an annoying, evasive and irresponsible recommendation. And the way things are going — we’re all going to be a lot older and so will our children, by the time many of the necessary improvements are approved and then made for Malibu. I’d suggest, before we vote in April, that we get a better handle on all this and secure certain concrete promises from the candidates. I trust most people understand the importance of this election.

Walter J. Rosenthal

This letter was sent to the clerk of the Municipal Court.

Enclosed is my check for $77 in payment of the above citation, together with a tuition check for $29 to apply to traffic school.

While I might challenge the citation and the calibration of the radar that clocked me, that would not be appropriate since I was clearly exceeding the posted speed limit.

What should be brought to the attention of the proper authorities, however, is that the officer’s abrupt, instant and immediate U-turn that he made directly in front of the school to flag me down was, by far, more dangerous to the students and teachers than the few miles over the limit that I was traveling.

I’ve drive the same route daily for over 15 years and have always made an effort to be cautious in and around the school. It seems to me that if it is a good idea to set up a radar net near the school, and it probably is, that the area should be properly posted and that officer should not be making sudden and dramatic U-turns right in front of the school.

John D. Hentschel

This is in response to a statement in Vicky Newman’s article on code enforcement [Feb. 17, “Are we a city of snitches …?” ], where she said that I was instrumental in crafting the General Plan for Malibu. I certainly do not want to take credit for the General Plan. For the record, I did not serve on the Genera Plan Task Force.

I did, however, attend the majority of the planning sessions. I was critical of the 477 policies and implementation measures that the task force produced. All through the process of the General Plan and ensuing workshops, public hearings, etc. I was concerned about and vocal about the fact that the body of the General Plan was not a “general” plan. Instead our General Plan is a very restrictive and controlling instrument.

I advocated a grandfather clause “creating an exemption based on circumstances previously existing” for existing structures build before the city of Malibu incorporated in 1991. This grandfather clause was not included in the General Plan. Our General Plan makes much of what existed at that time nonconforming. The code enforcement issue is pointing this out.

The code enforcement is a sample of some of the problems in our very restrictive and discretionary General Plan and how that plans does have an effect on single-family homes.

Judy Decker

I must confess. I just talked to my son Tony, who’s in Michigan covering the McCain/Bush race for Salon.com, the online magazine, while I’m here in Malibu covering Keller and Van Horn. Just where did I go wrong?

It’s Tuesday, 2 p.m. our time, 5 p.m. on the East Coast. Based on early exit polls, it’s tight. It looks like McCain is ahead by 4 points.

Both campaigns are already spinning the results. The McCain mantra is: Maybe Bush can take a few Southern states where the religious right is strong, but when it gets to the industrial Midwest and swing states like Michigan, McCain can do it, and Bush can’t, therefore McCain is the most electible.

I haven’t yet heard the Bush mantra, but rest assured, they’re working on it.

Anyway, look for the excitement express to be headed to California for the March 7 Republican primary, which could be a biggie. Fourteen other states hold a primary that day, including other biggies like New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, Ohio, etc.

Things are beginning to happen in Malibu also, but they may be hard to hear over the din of a real presidential primary headed our way. So far, the City Council races are still very low key, but the first forum last week showed some early signs of life and laid out some of the issues (see forum story A1). All the candidates tipped their hand a little to their strategy.

Here’s my handicapping, in alphabetical order:

Joan House, incumbent councilwoman:

This long-term incumbent long since parted ways with her old allies Keller and Van Horn. Although typically a cautious council member not given to striking out on her own, she showed some gumption in agreeing to join the Ad Hoc Committee in negotiations with the Malibu Bay Company. The deal she and Hasse negotiated seems to have been well-received, and even some of the most diehard “No Growthers” have had difficulty attacking it because it limits growth, delays development in the Civic Center for 10 years and meets our community needs for ballfields and a community center. Generally moderate, nonconfrontational and the top vote-getter last time out.

Ken Kearsley, planning commissioner:

A longtime activist in the “Slow Growth” movement, he split with the Keller/Van Horn group and, although running independently, is closely allied with Joan House. He is very unhappy with the Planning Commission and what he perceives as major overreaching, rampant cronyism and the undue influence of the politically connected, issues that are major planks in his campaign. Also strongly for changing the zoning ordinance and lighting code enforcement policies.

Jeff Jennings, former councilman:

Defeated two years ago by 29 votes, his principal position is that he is the candidate for change. Unlike much of the “No Growth/Slow Growth” movement, no one else from the group that supported him in the past is running. So, unlike the others, his vote will probably not be split up. He strongly leans to reforming the Zoning Ordinance and quickly fixing the grandfathering problems, turning it from a threatening code enforcement philosophy to a more consensual policy. A strong supporter of education and city assistance to education.

Walt Keller, incumbent councilman:

He is the leader of the Slow Growth/No Growth movement and a strong advocate for keeping Malibu as it was. He has pushed for a weaker city manager and stronger council system of government. He is very much a hands-on council member, which often puts him in conflict with the staff and brings accusations he is unduly trying to protect his friends. The political question is whether or not the shift in demographics — younger families with children, the need for ballfields and the exodus of some of his supporters — has shifted the balance. Few are indifferent about Keller. He causes significant loyalties and significant opposition.

Carolyn Van Horn, incumbent mayor:

She is the longest continuously serving member of the City Council, elected to the first council, in 1990, and serving ever since. She is a strong ally of Walt Keller, although their relationship has not always been smooth. A strong “No Growther” who, like Keller, believes in keeping Malibu as it was and turning the Civic Center into a wetland, she is closely allied with the Wetlands Activists. Some of her previous supporters, like Kearsley and Wall, are now running against her for council. At issue is how much of her old base she can retain and whether she can bridge the gap to new families.

John Wall, community activist:

A longtime supporter and stalwart member of the Walt Keller/Carolyn Van Horn group, and a member of their inner circle, he has split off to run independently, with the support of some others from that group, like Frank Basso and Efrom Fader. He also articulates the need for change, and for amenities like playing fields, a community center and additional office space, and chides the past councils for not moving fast enough or hard enough to adapt to the new demographics and the community needs.

They opposed commercial development on the land between Heathercliff and Portshead.

Now they want to build something far larger!

Where is the Environmental Impact Study?

Where is the study to determine the traffic congestion, the noise, lighting and the impact to the residents who live on Portshead, Selfridge and Boniface?

Where is the city in looking after our interest?

R. Robinson