With the dark clouds of the Local Coastal Plan looming over the Malibu landscape, City Council candidates vow to fight the LCP storm if they are elected, except for one who appears to trust the Coastal Commission’s efforts as it drafts a plan for Malibu.
Disturbing the orderly format of the Lily’s Caf Steering Committee City Council candidate forum that took place last Thursday, two candidates berated each other about character, experience and past actions as the remaining three stuck to the issues.
Paul Spiegel mediated the panel on behalf of the organizers. Each of the candidates had to respond to a chief criticism leveled by their opponents or voters who were against their candidacy.
Candidate Beverly Taki, a Realtor, accused incumbent Sharon Barovsky of dominating the City Council through alliances, while Barovsky said Taki lacked experience and knowledge.
“Voters are concerned with your apparent change of policies relating to where and which neighborhoods in Malibu are involved,” charged Taki. “You supported the Crummer deal with ball fields, however, you seemed to be in favor of Trancas being developed into a park without playing fields.”
Barovsky responded by saying the current council is the one that acquired parks, and she supported whatever the neighborhood wants.
Barovsky said Taki has never served on a commission, committee or taskforce, and when she questioned her on specifics such as about the slope density formula and how would she change it, Taki said she did not have the facts and would not comment any further.
However, overall, the candidates-which also include Andy Stern, Planning Commission Chair; Robert Roy van de Hoek, biologist; and John Wall, alternate on Building Board of Appeals, appeared to stand on the same side of most issues, aside from Van de Hoek who immediately set himself apart on the Local Coastal Plan (LCP).
The California Coastal Commission has been appointed by the state to create a coastal plan for Malibu, and many critics say the coastal commissioners are turning a deaf ear to Malibu’s opinion on the plan.
Barovsky said the LCP is her number one concern.
“We’ve got to solve the LCP problem before we can solve anything,” she said, “because it will affect everything.”
Stern agreed.
“The LCP is morally offensive and I will not vote for the enabling ordinances for the act if elected,” he said.
Taki also opposes the LCP. She was concerned the Coastal Commission’s version of the Malibu LCP would hinder the city’s ability to solve its lack of public land problem through development agreements.
Wall agreed with the other candidates on the issue.
As it is currently drafted, “the LCP must go down,” he said.
Van de Hoek, on the other hand, said the Coastal Commission is fair and will listen to Malibu. The audience grumbled at this comment, but he continued.
“Picking a fight with the CCC and blaming our government is a bad way,” he said. “We have to work with the CCC.”
Another concern that is somewhat connected to the LCP issues are the Bluffs Park ball fields. The city leases the fields from the California State Parks and Recreation Department, which wants them back.
“I don’t even understand why State Parks wants to displace 900 or so kids for a few acres,” said Stern, who does not want to see the fields taken from the city.
Taki recommended that residents petition government officials about the issue.
“The way I see us keeping the park is by persuasion,” she said,
Barovsky concurred. However, if the problem can’t be solved politically, “I am willing to go to court to keep the Bluffs Park [fields],” she said.
Wall suggested the city should consider buying the field space.
Van de Hoek blamed the council over the lack of ball fields.
“They [councilmembers] should have looked for a solution,” he said, believing the state has the right to take the property back.
However, Van de Hoek approved the idea of the Crummer Trust deal, a development agreement that would provide alternate ball fields for the city.
“If it’s for our children, then I think it’s great,” he said.
In the criticism part of the debate, Van de Hoek was targeted as an extremist because of his environmental views.
“If extremism is caring about the quality of our lives and worrying about traffic on Pacific Coast Highway, and if I care too much about keeping the streams and beaches clean, then call me an extremist,” he responded.
Van de Hoek indicated he would support propositions and measures to acquire land with public funds and is against development agreements on the whole.
“I believe in parks, not parking lots,” he said. When Spiegel addressed Barovsky, he said some people felt she had changed her mind in mid-course as she dealt with City Council matters in the past. She rejected the comment as untrue, indicating that the people who say these things take her comments out of context.
Wall was said to be out of touch with the younger community.
“I’m about the average age of a U.S. senator,” he responded, noting he has a squeaky-clean cardiovascular system and half of Malibu is more than 50 years old.
Wall was also said to be involved with a Malibu Township Council (MTC) lawsuit against the city. Last year, the MTC had sought to get the city’s 2001 LCP draft thrown out and to have the court impose a gag order on Malibu.
Wall claimed the accusation as inaccurate. He is a member of MTC, but was not directly involved in the lawsuit, he said.
The Barovsky machine was under attack when Stern’s turn came.
“Voters are concerned that your alliance with councilmembers Barovsky and Ken Kearsley will create an alliance with complete control of the Malibu City Council,” said Spiegel. “They are concerned that you are not your own person but a puppet in the alliance.”
Stern flatly denied this implication. “No one controls me, I’m my own person,” Stern stated.
As the candidates tackled the failed open land bond measure, K, voted on in November, only one candidate said she voted against the measure. Taki opposed it because it was not specific enough, she said. Some residents view Taki as not having enough concern over the issue.
“I resolved not to trust my child’s hometown to someone so out of touch with the urgent needs of our community,” wrote Malibu resident Deirdre Roney in a letter to the editor (see page A4).
Another forum, organized by the Malibu Youth Commission, took place on Sunday.
This second forum was unique because both the very young and the older population of Malibu were represented, and, while the LCP dominated the discussions again, the need for a youth and senior community center was also brought up during this debate.
Georgiana Mc Burney attended both forums.
“The audience was an older group from Paradise Cove and Point Dume and they were concerned that the LCP may change their property rights,” she said of the Youth Commission’s meeting.