The city says it will attempt to begin a dialogue despite the MBC’s statement, and says it will work with Measure M opponents.
By Jonathan Friedman, Staff Writer
In its first statement since the defeat of Measure M, the Malibu Bay Company released a memo on Monday that it is not interested in any further development agreement negotiation with the city. Despite this dilemma, an optimistic City Council Monday night asked City Manager Katie Lichtig to draft
a letter to the MBC requesting further dialogue, which the councilmembers would sign. The council also asked all five Planning Commissioners to sign it, as well as at least two members of the Measure M opposition group, Malibu Community Action Network (CAN). The city also said all parties would be able to read and have input on the final draft.
The MBC wrote, “As we stated before the election, the company will no longer pursue, nor will it participate in, further negotiations aimed at creating a comprehensive development agreement with the city. In relation to the future development of the 12 properties included in Measure M, the company will announce its plans when they are formulated, on a property-by-property basis.”
During the Measure M campaign, many of the opponents said despite what the MBC stated, the company would most likely return to the negotiation table. At the council meeting Monday, Mayor Pro Tem Sharon Barovsky said, “I am going to pray that the opponents are right. Because if they’re wrong, we’re in deep trouble.”
Barovsky added it is important that Measure M opponents sign the letter, because she said that might be the only thing that could persuade MBC President Jerry Perenchio things would be different.
With the item not being discussed until after 11 p.m., CAN member John Mazza was one of the few Measure M opponents remaining who could speak on the issue. He said he would be interested in signing a letter, and stressed CAN has always been interested in finding a good agreement, but that Measure
M, in its members’ opinions, was not it.
Speaking in a telephone interview on Tuesday, CAN President Steve Uhring said he would only sign the letter if a plan were developed on how the city would approach a new negotiation. He added that CAN members signing the letter would not send as bold a message as the councilmembers suggested.
“We [CAN] are already on record that we have no problem negotiating [for an agreement],” he said. “Our problem was this [Measure M] was a bad agreement. We think the city can do better.”
Planning Commissioner Richard Carrigan, who campaigned against Measure M, said he looked forward to signing the letter. But he said he hoped with a new negotiation, the city would hire some help.
“If I were the mayor, I would find out the names of the three best land use negotiating attorneys in the state of California and interview them,” Carrigan said. “And I would retain one of those individuals to represent the city as we go forward, and try to do something good for the community and good for the Bay Company.”
Carrigan and Uhring said they were not concerned by MBC’s memo stating there was no chance for renegotiation. Uhring called it another step in the negotiation, and that the MBC was posturing. Mayor Ken Kearsley said on Sunday, before the release of the memo, he hoped the company would be willing to renegotiate, although he is not sure if it will happen.
“I take his [Perenchio’s] word [that he will not renegotiate], but the CAN people say that he’s going to. So let’s find out. There’s no harm in asking.”
Also at the meeting, Measure M proponent David Kagon said representatives from all parties involved in the election should schedule a time to meet with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to discuss wastewater issues. The councilmembers agreed.
In addition, the council spent nearly four hours discussing proposed amendments to the city’s zoning code that are supposed to simplify the planning review process. The Planning Commission had approved the amendments during the summer, but the council discussed several of the technical issues involved, which include what type of planning needs what type of scrutiny.
Lastly, City Attorney Christi Hogin announced that the council voted during closed session to appeal a judge’s ruling that the city pay for Taxpayers for Livable Communities’ attorney fees of $10,000. The group is suing the city over its participation in the battle between the city and the California Coastal Commission over the Local Coastal Plan.