Phone Survey on Cityhood Draws Fire : Malibu: Supporters of incorporation charge that the polling is a bid by opponents to sow doubts as vote on cityhood looms.

Officials of a group that supports Malibu cityhood reacted angrily this week to a phone survey concerning incorporation that they say is a thinly disguised “propaganda instrument” by opponents of cityhood.

“It’s an obvious attempt to use innuendo and misinformation to sow doubts about cityhood in the community,” said Walt Keller, co-chairman of the Malibu Committee for Incorporation, regarding the survey conducted by a Santa Monica research firm.

Richard Maullin of Fairbank, Bregman & Maullin, the firm that conducted the survey, declined to discuss the survey or to identify who authorized it, saying that his client “prefers confidentiality in the matter.”

Several Malibu residents who participated in the survey said telephone interviewers identified themselves as representing “F, B and M” and said they were calling from Las Vegas. Maullin said the firm used operators in Las Vegas to make the calls.

Keller and his MCI co-chair, Carolyn Van Horn, blasted the survey as the work of “anti-cityhood forces” intent on waging a campaign at the ballot box now that a Malibu cityhood election in the near future appears increasingly likely.

Van Horn said the survey contained “loaded questions” that were “intended to serve as a scare tactic” to potential voters in a Malibu incorporation election. She labeled as “bogus issues” questions included in the survey regarding increased taxes, and accused the survey of insinuating that a new city could be unduly influenced by special interests.

Among the questions asked by the survey was, “If you found out that your local property tax bill would increase by $5,000 if Malibu became a city, to pay for local services such as adequate sewer channeling, would you vote yes in favor of creating a new city, or no?”

The survey also asked participants to respond to several common assertions about cityhood, both pro and con, as well as to indicate a favorable or unfavorable response to about 20 community leaders known for their views on cityhood.

A judge last month ordered the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to stop delaying a long-sought incorporation election, clearing the way for the election to be held in June.

Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs gave the supervisors until Feb. 27 to conclude a hearing on cityhood, which the supervisors had indefinitely postponed in November. The hearing, required by law so proponents and opponents of cityhood have a public forum for their views, represents the final step that must be completed before an election date can be set.

The county is expected to appeal the decision, in which case it may be left to an appellate judge as to whether an election occurs in June or is delayed further, waiting the outcome of an appeal.

Some cityhood supporters, who suspect real estate development interests are behind the survey, view it as a sign that opponents of cityhood may now see an election in the near future as inevitable.

“It appears to be a legitimate attempt by (cityhood) opponents to see how the wind is blowing in their effort to formulate a campaign strategy,” said Art London, a lawyer who belongs to both MCI and the Malibu Township Council, which also supports cityhood.

Thus far, few opponents of cityhood have identified themselves publicly. Typical of the opposition’s low profile is a road sign along Pacific Coast Highway that reads simply, “Malibu Cityhood. Ask Questions,” with no mention of a sponsor.

An exception has been the Adamson Cos., one of Malibu’s largest real estate developers, which in December joined county officials in asking a judge to dismiss the lawsuit by cityhood supporters aimed at forcing the supervisors to stop delaying.

Lawyers for the company have said that if Malibu incorporates before the county installs a regional sewer system there, it could wreck the firm’s plans for a $60-million seaside hotel. The company’s lawyers are to appear before the state Coastal Commission in San Francisco today in an attempt to win a critical one-year extension to a permit, issued by the commission four years ago, to build the hotel.