A LOOK AHEAD * On eve of a civic election, fights over building code violations have made . . . Homes a Battlefield in Malibu Political Wars

On those quiet evenings when a soft breeze carries the scent of ocean air and the faint clanging of a distant sea buoy through her open window, it’s hard to imagine Debbie Purucker’s house as being at the center of a cyclone.

But the 640-square-foot Malibu cottage where she and her family have lived for the last 10 years has become Ground Zero for an increasingly noisy and nasty fight that could change both the physical and political face of the beachfront community.

For nearly a year, Malibu city officials have tried to remove Purucker, her husband and their four children from the tiny house the city claims was illegally constructed and is unsafe to live in.

Instead of packing up, moving out and tearing the place down, the Puruckers have dug in their heels.

And that tenacity has helped prompt a revolt over building code enforcement that has turned into the latest skirmish in a continuing war between developers and conservationists in the 26-mile-long city.

The dispute has fueled claims that city employees are sneaking around spying on innocent homeowners in hopes of finding illegal fences, guest houses and room additions.

Pro-development factions, meantime, have turned the controversy into a campaign issue they hope will lead to the ouster of a pair of environmentally friendly City Council members in Tuesday’s municipal election.

For their part, city workers deny they are cruising Malibu’s hillside roadways and beachfront lanes looking for building violations and for property owners to cite and fine.

But a nervous City Council has responded to the uproar by loosening its enforcement policy and by creating a citizens’ “code enforcement task force.”

That panel two weeks ago began examining Malibu’s procedure for investigating complaints about building code violations and residents’ use of guest houses and other “ancillary structures.” The task force has also been instructed to look into a possible amnesty program for those with illegal structures on their property.

Leaders of a group that calls itself Malibu Homeowners for Reform say the city’s reaction has come too late. They say that for years the city has ripped off homeowners by assessing fines and expensive fees for such things as unneeded soils reports and archeological studies for simple home improvement projects.

“They don’t want shopping centers built out here. So they raise revenue by taxing and fining homeowners to death,” said reform group organizer Anne Hoffman. “That’s why they charge you $5,000 to get a permit to build a garden trellis.”

Hoffman, a real estate agent, said her introduction to the city’s building code came when she set out to add a 10-foot closet to her 48-year-old house. She said she dropped that idea after the city informed her that to get a permit for the closet she would have to bring her entire property up to code--including building a new two-car garage. The upgrading would have cost $100,000, she said.

When Hoffman grumbled to friends about that encounter, she said, she found out she wasn’t the only one in town who was upset. One person had to do a $15,000 archeological report to get a permit to put in a bay window, Hoffman said. Others complained that city inspectors had entered their property and nosed around without permission.

Then there was the Purucker case.

John Purucker grew up on Wandermere Road on Point Dume. As a boy he built a fort near a ravine on the back of his parents’ 1 1/4-acre lot. As a teenager he enlarged the structure into a music room. As a young man he married the girl across the street and then modified the music room into a cottage the newlyweds could live in.

The Purucker family grew to include four children by last year, when an anonymous caller reported the tiny house to the city. When the Puruckers declined to let a city inspector on their property, officials got a warrant.

“They came with the sheriff, the city prosecutor, the county dog pound, plus the code enforcement officer and a senior building inspector. They crawled around and took pictures of everything,” Debbie Purucker said.

“We didn’t hear anything for months. Then last June we got a faxed letter from the city prosecutor saying we had six days to move out and 30 days to tear down our house. But before we tore it down we were told we had to go down to the city and get a demolition permit.”

The family refused. The next month the city attorney’s office sent a compliance letter setting new “abatement” deadlines. It included a requirement that the Puruckers consent to “random unannounced exterior and interior monthly inspections with photography” of their house by the city. They refused to sign that, too.

“Right now everyone’s waiting to see how the election turns out. If our candidates win, they’ll pass amnesty and grandfathering” to make structures that existed before Malibu became a city legal even if they weren’t built with a permit, she said.

For those in the reform group, the favored candidates for the three City Council seats up for grabs are incumbent Joan House, an office manager, lawyer Jeff Jennings and retired teacher Ken Kearsley.

The group has specifically targeted two incumbents--Carolyn Van Horn, a retired teacher, and Walter Keller, a retired engineer--for defeat. The sixth candidate, retired corporate executive John Wall, has avoided becoming part of the fray--although like Van Horn and Keller he is supported by environmentalists.

Van Horn currently serves as Malibu’s mayor and has been a council member since the city was formed in 1991. She said she is perplexed by the direct attacks on her, since she has supported legalizing structures built without permits before cityhood.

Keller, who has served two council terms, acknowledged he is an advocate of slow growth. But he noted he was one of the authors of the city’s grandfathering law after residents sought to rebuild old structures destroyed in a 1993 brush fire. He said he also stepped in to stave off the Puruckers’ eviction.

Malibu Code Enforcement Officer Gail Sumpter denied that she had ever trespassed or driven around town looking for violations.

“I’m an attorney by background. I don’t illegally enter property or harass people. I never have,” she said. Referring to the Purucker case, she said she views her job as one of protecting Malibu residents.

“Would I rather see a newspaper headline that says ‘City Evicts Family of Six’ or ‘Electrical Fire Kills Family of Six’?” she said. “I’d have to go with the former.”