Malibu Bay Company representatives say it’s “highly unlikely” the company will renegotiate.
By Jonathan Friedman/Staff Writer
A letter could be headed to the Malibu Bay Company (MBC) from the city as soon as the end of this week requesting the company come back to the table to negotiate for a new development agreement.
All the members of the Planning Commission and a representative from Malibu Community Action Network (CAN), the major opposition group to the previous agreement that went before the voters as Measure M, have signed the letter. Pat Healy, a Measure M opponent representing the Coalition for Slow Growth, has also signed the letter. Presented to the city council members individually by City Manager Katie Lichtig on Tuesday, all four members who could be contacted said they would add their names to the letter. However, MBC attorney Dick Volpert, in a Tuesday telephone interview, said there is no reason anybody should think the company is changing its public stance that it is not interested in further negotiation.
“I will take a look at the letter when I get it,” Volpert said. “But I find it highly unlikely that anything will change.”
At its Nov. 10 meeting, the City Council asked Lichtig to draft a letter that asked for the MBC to consider further negotiation; this came despite the MBC saying prior to the Measure M election it would not. The week after the election, the company released a memo that made the same statement. Lichtig wrote a proposed letter and sent it to CAN member John Mazza later in the week. He and other Measure M opponents held a meeting on Sunday. They revised Lichtig’s draft, which is the version the commission members and others signed.
The letter reads:
“The undersigned extend you an invitation to participate in a dialogue on how to best meet each others’ needs. With input from all community stakeholders, we believe this effort can yield a mutually beneficial and agreeable vision for MBC’s holdings, within the context of the General Plan. We are hopeful that this process could ultimately receive widespread community support. We look forward to your consideration of this invitation.”
Councilmember Jeff Jennings could not be reached for comment, but the other councilmembers said they would sign the letter. Councilmember Andy Stern said he would sign any letter that could influence the MBC to renegotiate. He added that if the Measure M opponents thought this would be the best one to persuade the MBC, then that is fine. But he is not convinced the company would change its message.
“It’s incumbent that everybody get behind something to try to persuade the Bay Company to renegotiate,” he said. “However, I’ve seen no indication that they will renegotiate at all. But I hope they do.”
Stern said the only thing that might persuade the MBC and its president, billionaire Jerry Perenchio, to renegotiate is if the letter includes the signatures of CAN President Steve Uhring and CAN’s biggest contributor, Ozzie Silna. But their signatures do not appear on the letter so far, rather only Mazza’s on behalf of the entire group.
When asked if he would sign the letter, Uhring said he would. But he said it was not necessary. Silna could not be reached for comment.
As for Volpert’s statement about any possible letter, Uhring said he does not think that means renegotiation chances are dead. He said it is just part of the process.
“It’s just like peacocks running around showing their feathers,” he said. “At this point everybody just wants to prove how tough they are.”
Mayor Pro Tem Sharon Barovsky said she hoped Uhring was correct. The fact that CAN members had authored the revised letter, she added, could be an indication to the MBC that coming up with a deal that could receive voter approval is possible. But she said it would also be a statement if the MBC rejected the idea of renegotiation.
“If the Bay Company chooses not to come back, they must feel that they gave all they could give, which indicates our negotiators did a good job,” Barovsky said.
Most of the Measure M opponents said if the MBC addressed its properties on a parcel-by-parcel basis rather than attempting another agreement, as it has indicated it plans to do, the city would be better off than it would be under the Measure M agreement. They said environmental constraints would prevent the company from being able to build as much as the zoning code allowed, while Measure M proponents said for the MBC to build under the zoning code would mean far more development than Measure M would have meant.