Key Players Emerge as Malibu Advances in Drive for Cityhood

The key issues and some potential city council candidates emerged in the Malibu cityhood campaign last week, after a stunning victory by incorporation backers who appear likely to win their battle to place the issue on the November ballot.

The astonishing speed with which the Local Agency Formation Commission approved the cityhood petition last week helped define the murky battle lines and flush out the major players in the battle over Malibu’s incorporation.

Surprisingly, the person who launched the cityhood drive last October said that he will not play any official role if the incorporation campaign is successful. Leon Cooper, president of the Malibu Township Council, announced unequivocally that he will not run for a council seat.

“A number of people have asked me, but I’m definitely not going to run,” said Cooper. “We need some fresh blood, and frankly, lots of people are getting tired of hearing me. Besides, I’m busy enough and I owe something to my family and my business.”

Cooper is one of several Malibu leaders who pointed out that the issues raised at the LAFCO hearing by cityhood opponents were similar to those presented in previous campaigns.

As was the case in 1976, when incorporation backers lost by only 108 votes, major developers and landowners lined up at the LAFCO hearing to express concern over the possibility of facing a no-growth council and the ability of a community of 20,000 residents to support itself in light of a projected $2.1-million budget deficit in the city’s first year.

And cityhood backers, who launched the campaign to stop Los Angeles County from building a costly sewer system that they believe would have induced growth, said they want to install strong planning guidelines that would put an end to the haphazard development that they say has blighted one of the country’s most famous beach communities.

Still undecided, however, is whether the business interests that so far have opposed incorporation will launch a well-financed campaign to overturn what one major developer called the “inevitability” of cityhood for Malibu.

“Sometimes you just have to be practical about things,” said Roy Crummer, one of the biggest developers in Malibu, and, so far, a key incorporation opponent.

“I feel cityhood would be good for Malibu, but I don’t think that now is the right time,” he said. “But I don’t want to see this community divided by politics in a real ugly campaign. That wouldn’t help anything.”

Giant Step

Although it is not certain that the issue will be placed before Malibu voters in November, LAFCO’s approval of the cityhood petition is a giant step in that direction.

Unless the agency receives a request from cityhood opponents to reconsider their vote, the proposal will go to county supervisors for a public hearing.

Supervisors can reject the cityhood petition only if 50% of Malibu’s 8,300 voters protest the LAFCO vote in writing--an unlikely event because nearly 3,300 of them signed the petitions to place the issue before the agency.

Supervisors then are required to authorize a vote by Malibu residents at the next regular election. City council members would be chosen during the same election, with the top five vote-getters winning seats.

Walt Keller, head of the Malibu Committee for Incorporation, said that the LAFCO vote was just the first of several hurdles the group must clear to transform Malibu into Los Angeles County’s newest city.

Counterattack Prepared

However, he has already begun to prepare a campaign to offset the attacks he believes are sure to come from Malibu’s largest property owners, 17 of whom sought to be exempted from the proposed city boundaries.

“I hope to try and meet with the people who sought the exemptions to let them know that they don’t have anything to fear,” Keller said. “I’m sure that a group representing the varied interests in Malibu would be elected to the (city) council.”

Keller could be one of them. He said that although “it’s too early to think about it,” he would consider running for the council if there weren’t “five good candidates.”

However, Keller said it was highly unlikely that the incorporation group would run a slate of candidates, noting that it would defeat the purpose of “getting a cross-section of the community,” on the council.

Crummer and others have indicated that if a “balanced” council could be elected, it would go a long way towards ending the rocky relationship that exists between developers, large property owners and Malibu’s pro-incorporation forces.

Crummer, who said it’s doubtful that he would seek a council seat himself, did not completely rule out the possibility.

‘Very, Very Difficult’

“The only circumstance under which I would run would be if I seriously thought I could help a city make a good start,” he said. “And that’s going to be very, very difficult.”

Several other candidates have emerged during the early stage of the cityhood campaign.

State Coastal Commissioner Madelyn Glickfeld said she was “seriously considering” running for the council. A long-time Malibu resident and community leader, Glickfeld is seen as one of the few candidates who might be embraced by both incorporation friends and foes.

Glickfeld said she was torn by the fact she would have to relinquish her seat on the Coastal Commission if elected. As a result, she would no longer influence statewide planning decisions and environmental concerns such as off-shore oil drilling.

“The challenge ahead of this community is becoming a financially viable city and keeping it that way,” she said. “But given the history of conflict in this community it will take some very, very brave leadership to attain that.”

Other Candidates

Others mentioned often include Mike Caggiano, a former RAND government policy analyst and a member of the incorporation committee, and Carolyn Van Horne, co-chair of the incorporation committee.

Malibu community leaders are quick to note that any number of the 40 or so candidates who sought election during the last Malibu incorporation campaign might seek office again this year.

It remains unclear whether large property owners and incorporation opponents, such as Pepperdine University and the Adamson Properties, would consider finding candidates to represent their views if the incorporation measure makes the November ballot.

Representatives from Pepperdine and Adamson said it was too early to decide what steps they will take during the next few months and whether they would contribute to an organized campaign opposing cityhood.

“We believe cityhood is a wonderful way to go, but somewhere down the road, not now,” said George Sheridan, managing director of the Adamson Properties. “We want to be a good neighbor--the company has been involved in Malibu for almost 100 years--but we believe the LAFCO study on cityhood was very shallow and that many concerns still need to be addressed. This still has a long way to go.”

Crummer said he was trying to treat the latest developments pragmatically.

“Knowing how divisive Malibu politics are, I feel sorry for anyone who would serve on the city council for the first couple of years,” he said. “Instead, maybe I’ll just have my architects start designing the new city hall.”