Home Blog Page 6920

The madness to The Method

    0

    If only all his hopes were as easily fulfilled. Charles Marowitz, artistic director of Malibu Stage Co., has the play he wants, the actors he wants, and his own acoustically remarkable and wisely appointed theater in Malibu. These will be displayed in a staged reading Sunday night of Robert Brustein’s play, “Nobody Dies on Friday,” starring Ed Asner, a fund-raiser for the company.

    “Way back when,” Marowitz says, he commissioned a play about Lee Strasberg and the various actors who studied with him. More recently, in New York for a conference, Marowitz happened to hear about Brustein’s play, which sounded much like what Marowitz had been asking for.

    Brustein told Marowitz nobody in New York would touch the anti- Strasberg play because everybody on the East Coast had studied with Strasberg. In New York, Marowitz says, “He’s a god,” but in California, “Nobody has this hero worship of him.”

    As soon as Marowitz read the play, he knew it was absolutely suited to a Hollywood production. What is the play about? “Star f***ing,” he says. Strasberg and his wife, Paula, had what Marowitz terms a syncophantic relationship with Marilyn Monroe, who spent a significant amount of time in their apartment. “She was a monster,” he says of Paula. “They both were. The play is unsentimental about them.”

    The character of Monroe is never seen by the audience. The onstage characters include Strasberg, his wife and their two children, both of whom wrote “tell-all” books about their father.

    Marowitz wrote to Asner, inviting him to star in the reading: “You’re not only my first choice, you’re my only choice. If you can’t do it, I’m left high and dry.”

    He doubts this plea influenced Asner, however. “He’s the kind of guy who, if he liked the project, would do the project.”

    The two had worked together when Asner had participated in a reading of Marowitz’s play about Freud and Reich. The actor has also participated in the Shakespeare events Malibu Stage Co. has produced.

    Marowitz auditioned about 150 actors for this reading; he thinks the draws were Asner and Monroe. He cast New York theater actors: Barbara Gruen as Paula, with Jeff Goldman and Francine Vlantes as the Strasberg children, John and Susan.

    These three actors will have at least three rehearsals. Asner was recently cast in another project and will have only one rehearsal. Marowitz has already corresponded with Asner about characterization ideas and interpretations of the play.

    Marowitz is an honorary member of the Actor’s Studio in New York. When he attended sessions in L.A., he found them “a very different kettle of fish.” He also devotes a chapter in his book “The Other Way” to denouncing The Method.

    So he can say with certainty, “The similarity between Strasberg and Asner is in their ascerbic nature. I was going for that salty quality, that persnickity quality.”

    Marowitz calls Strasberg “a failed director” and says the couple used celebrity to enhance their career. “It’s very American and very pathetic.” Marowitz asked Asner not to go for sympathy but to go for antipathy.

    Marowitz says he can get the full stage rights to the play, but he instead is holding a staged reading, “to see how it goes.”

    The fund-raiser will also include a buffet, to be held under a tent at the theater. Next on the company’s schedule is a three-character play, which Marowitz hopes will star Nan Martin.

    “We are anxious to get going with a real show, to stop doing all these fund-raisers,” he says.

    Benefit performance, 7:30 p.m., Malibu Stage Co., 29243 PCH. $150 includes buffet catered by Monroe’s. Call 456.8226.

    Candidate priorities, contact information

    0

    Joan House

    • Protecting environment (Malibu Lagoon Dye Study, Marine Sanctuary) while protecting property rights (proposed long-term development agreement with Malibu Bay Co.)
    • Improved, expanded recreational facilities (first advocate of Parks and Recreation director)
    • Fiscal responsibility. Tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure (Rambla Pacifico, Calle de Barco) and for emergency preparedness, not for $250,000 pay-off of city employees like former City Attorney Christi Hogin
    • Contact Information:

    Telephone: 310.457.2659, www.behrcomm.com/joanhouse

    Jeff Jennings

    • Development planning to protect open spaces and limit large or high-density development
    • Retention of Bluffs Park playing fields and creation of teen/senior community center
    • Reform planning permit process for single-family homes and remodels
    • Disaster preparation and negotiating skills for inter-agency cooperation
    • Fairness, not favoritism
    • Consensus, not confrontation
    • Contact information: Telephone 310.589.0780, jennings2000.com

    Ken Kearsley

    • Commercial development must be Malibu-serving, not Malibu-attracting
    • Marine sanctuary, restored wetlands
    • Fair application of laws
    • Parks, ballfields, open space, community center, cultural activities
    • Local control, not control of locals
    • Inter-agency cooperation
    • Contact information: Tel.310.457.7101. E-mail: bestdad@msn.com

    Walt Keller

    • More playgrounds and ballfields without trade-offs for higher density projects
    • Complete disaster and medical emergency planning
    • Simplify building permit process
    • Community Center
    • Marine refuge
    • Improved traffic flow and management
    • Negotiate water improvements with county
    • Community service
    • Streamline council meetings to maximize public input
    • Contact Information:Telephone 310.457.7086. Fax 310.457.9371

    Carolyn Van Horn

    • Keeping Malibu rural while being conscious of vulnerability to natural disasters
    • Keeping commercial development out of Civic Center
    • Water quality
    • Ongoing search for additional playing fields while working with State Parks Director Rusty Arias to continue using ballfields at Bluffs Park
    • Contact information: Tel. 310.457.7397, Fax. 310.457.1922

    John Wall

    • Problem solving
    • Preserve natural beauty and residential character
    • Developing or acquiring facilities that bring community together
    • Contact information: Tel: 310.457.7071;

    Fax, 310.457.9331,

    E-mail:ai323@lafn.org

    Reform response

      0

      Your article on Malibu Homeowners for Reform was generally accurate but it may have left the impression that our group was made up of code violators that the city manager referred to as “dirty as sin.” For the record, I am a founder of the group and have never been cited for a code violation, and have no violations of which I am aware on my property.

      I became interested in code reform when I went down to the Planning Counter in Malibu to ask what would be needed to add a small bedroom closet to my home and they told me I would have to get a geology report, other studies and bring my entire property up to current building codes, including adding a two car enclosed garage though that was not required by code at the time the house was built. My contractor estimated that the requirements for my closet could cost over $100,000. I formed Malibu Homeowners for Reform after recognizing that city officials were preventing me from being able to hang up my clothes unless I forfeited my children’s college fund. Although I am a strong environmentalist, I thought this was going too far.

      My commitment to code reform has been strengthened by hearing the stories of longtime Malibu homeowners who want to leave the city because of the extreme and costly building regulations which make it impossible to do basic maintenance on or remodel their homes, as well as the city’s pervasive and unpleasant enforcement tactics comprised of almost weekly letters, citations, inspections and warnings. Sadder still are homeowners I’ve spoken to who cannot sell their homes because they can’t afford to bring their properties up to current code and offer the property for sale free of potential criminal misdemeanor violations and the associated $1,000 per day fines.

      It is not right for people to live in fear of their city officials and to feel that they are criminals for having the same types of charming homes, guesthouses, corrals, sheds, etc., that people enjoy in other coastal communities without prosecution. Malibu Homeowners for Reform will continue to work to serve the community by supporting candidates who are dedicated to improving the residential permit process and zoning code and lessen the financial and regulatory burden on single-family homeowners so that Malibu once again can be an enjoyable place to live.

      Anne Hoffman

      City cries ‘privacy’ over naming names – News Analysis

      0

      The activist group “Malibu Homeowners for Reform,” which wants to reform the city’s code enforcement system, and the city bureaucracy that carries out that code enforcement seemed to be at loggerheads again.

      The reform group made a public records demand on the city March 1, pursuant to the California Public Records Act, demanding all of the closed enforcement files from Feb. 1, 1999 to March 1, 2000. They indicated they wanted the first page of the enforcement letters, which includes names and addresses, so they could investigate how the city was carrying out enforcement, explained spokeswoman Anne Hoffman.

      Initially, the group met with City Code Enforcement Officer Gail Sumpter, who indicated later in a letter she estimated there were nine boxes of closed files with about 50 files in each box. She added, “I also want to repeat that I’m concerned about the privacy of the property owners who have been subject to some type of code enforcement action. It appears that you are entitled to these records so I can only hope that those names will not become public.” She said they couldn’t have unsupervised access to city files; that would have to be done by city staff at $21.50 per staff hour and 50 cents per page copied. She estimated eight to 15 staff hours would be required.

      In a later letter, Sumpter wrote to Hoffman, “Due to the fact that closed code enforcement files contain confidential material not subject to a public records request (e.g. attorney-client communications and notes reflecting opinions and work product), we cannot allow you to have free access to these records. As you and I agreed previously, I will begin making documents available one box at a time with an outside due date of March 25.”

      City Manager Harry Peacock told The Malibu Times Interim City Attorney Richard Terzian had advised the city it could not legally disclose the names, addresses and phone numbers of the people involved in the closed files because their right to privacy was protected by the California Constitution; however, Peacock indicated other parts of the record would be discoverable.

      But when that same question was posed to attorney Jim Ewert, legal council to California Newspaper Publishers Association in Sacramento, he said, “I am unaware of any case law that allows a city to withhold this kind of information based upon a tenuous right of privacy argument. If this were the case, we’d be unable to discover who owns a particular parcel of property or to verify an identity using a birth record. It would completely undermine the California Public Records Act.”

      Because there seemed to be a split of opinion, we next contacted Terry Francke, general counsel to the California First Amendment Coalition, a writer and speaker, and an acknowledged legal authority to many journalists. He said, “There is no privacy right in this situation. It’s analogous to court records of prosecutions. Those are public records.

      Perhaps if the city wants to, they could send a letter to all people where the code complaint was not sustained and advise them they intend to disclose. In fact, under the California Public Records Act, if there is any exempt material such as attorney work product or attorney-client communications in a file, the city is actually required to segregate out the exempt material, but that can’t be used as a basis for concealing who was cited or complained about. I think there is a bedrock First Amendment issue here, which includes access to information to be able to associate effectively with other victimized people and together to petition for the redress of grievances,” Francke said.

      Who’s phoning a friend for the final answers?

        0

        With only four weeks to go to the next City Council election, the pace of the local campaigns has begun to accelerate. Here’s the latest.

        Over the weekend, a professional polling firm from Pennsylvania called Malibu to sample voters’ attitudes, particularly about the proposed agreement the city and Malibu Bay Company have been negotiating over the last 11 months. Although the pollsters would not reveal the name of their clients, it was pretty clear to several of those polled that the clients were strongly opposed to the proposed deal and were trying to gauge the extent of the community support for the swap which will mean a development deal for ballfields, a community center and some other community amenities. Several people I talked to were upset because they felt some of the questions asked them to assume facts they thought were highly exaggerated or simply untrue, things that related to subjects like extent of the traffic or the size of the proposed project. Surprisingly, one of the issues they tested was whether people thought celebrities were getting special treatment, apparently nervous about the Streisand/Brolin project.

        They not only asked about all the candidates but they also asked about Barbra Streisand, Harry Barovsky (who’s not even a candidate) and a question about The Malibu Times and the Surfside News to find out if the prospective voters were favorably disposed to those subjects.

        Now, I don’t know who paid for the survey, which my experts tell me probably ran between $5,000-$10,000 but there was something very familiar about the question they asked about The Malibu Times.

        In the 1998 election, Gil Segel, the minence grise behind the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy and buddy of Barbra Streisand, commissioned a poll from an outfit out of Oregon that also asked if people knew The Malibu Times and viewed it favorably. I’m sure they practically choked on the results because it was reported, and mind you this was his pollster, that The Malibu Times was viewed favorably by 69 percent of the people polled and unfavorably by only 15 percent. I must admit I was surprised because I had no idea that Gil had that many friends. By the way, the only reason I know about the poll is because it came out in the court evidence when the FPPC investigated Segel and his political group over their campaign practices.

        o

        The Malibu Township Council (MTC) held a political forum at Webster E.S. Saturday, and this one turned out to be more interesting than most because they allowed the candidates to rebut one another’s answers. All six candidates, of course, said they had nothing to do with the opinion poll. It will be interesting to see if the payment for the polls shows up in someone’s campaign filings after the election.

        The big surprise of the day was Joan House, normally the most low key of campaigners, who came out swinging and took on both Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn, head on. It’s pretty clear Joan knows that both Walt and Carolyn are coming after her, and there is clearly a great deal of acrimony between them. Joan strongly defended her participation in the Ad Hoc Committee to work out an agreement with Malibu Bay Company, and several times challenged Walt and Carolyn’s version of past events. No one called anyone else a liar, but it wasn’t far from it.

        The big issues at the forum seemed to be Bluffs Park, loss of the ballfields, the leaving of City Attorney Christi Hogin and whether she jumped, as Walt and Carolyn seemed to claim, or whether she was pushed, both unnecessarily and expensively, as several of the others maintained. They charged the city is going $400,000 over budget this year, almost exactly the cost of l’affaire Christi. Another major problem seems to be that the experienced staff is clearing out about as fast as they can find new jobs, and several candidates are worried.

        o

        Although we don’t have the results of an expensive poll to tell us how all the candidates are doing to date, another benchmark of performance is how they’re doing raising money, particularly with limitations of $100 per person. In the last filing, which covers the period from Jan 1. through Feb. 26, this is the way it stood:

        Jeff Jennings

        Raised $11,605 from 131 contributors

        Jennings made no loans to the campaign

        Walt Keller

        Raised $7,300 from 83 contributors

        Keller made no loans to the campaign

        Joan House

        Raised $5,865 from 72 contributors

        House also loaned her campaign $200

        Ken Kearsley

        Raised $4,670 from 85 contributors

        Kearsley also loaned his campaign $1,000

        Carolyn Van Horn

        Raised $ 3,765 from 59 contributors

        Van Horn made no loans to the campaign

        John Wall

        Raised $250 from 3 contributors

        Wall also loaned his campaign $3,500

        The real choice

          0

          As a City Council member, I attended two very different but sincere community events [March 5]: the annual Little League parade and opening day ceremony, and a protest by wetlands activists down on PCH near Webb Way.

          At first glance, it seemed like a tale of two cities. The little leaguers, their parents and coaches were extremely positive about a new community center and three sports fields on the Malibu Bay Company’s 19-acre Point Dume property. Everyone recognizes how crowded Bluffs Park is now that Malibu’s population of children has doubled over the past decade. The kids need more ball- and soccer fields and our seniors and others need a community center to replace the old one which is now a school again.

          The wetlands activists were not happy. The 40 people there (about 15-20 from Malibu) believed that the proposed development agreement with the MBC is a “sell-out,” to use their words. They believe the entire Civic Center is a “historic” wetlands and that nothing should be developed there. Most of the activists were polite and, I believe, all were sincere in their beliefs. But I want to tell your readers what I told them.

          The proposed development agreement with the MBC is an alternative to the city’s current laws regarding the potential development of MBC’s 40 acres of vacant property in the Civic Center, 19 acres at Point Dume and 33 acres at Trancas. The proposed development agreement allows the MBC to develop 122,000 square feet of commercial development and 20 single-family houses. The city’s current laws (the IZO and General Plan) allows the MBC to develop 486,028 square feet of commercial development and 28 single-family houses.

          Under the proposed development agreement, the city gets the entire 19-acre Point Dume property (plus $5 million to construct a 15,000-square-foot community center and three sports fields); 26 acres of permanent open space that can never be commercially or residentially developed, including 10 acres at Trancas; four acres on Malibu Road next to Ralphs; four acres across from the condos along Civic Center Way and seven acres including the two-acre wetland on Civic Center Way next to the condos. The proposed development agreement also enacts a 10-year moratorium on any development of the 19-acre Chili Cook-off property and the small one-acre Island property at PCH and Webb Way.

          Under the city’s current laws (the IZO and General Plan), if the city wished to secure any of the public amenities listed above, the MBC’s development potential on those same properties could go as high as 660,913 square feet The only exception is the two-acre wetland, which, as confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers, now falls under federal jurisdiction.

          That means that the proposed development agreement cuts the MBC’s potential commercial development by 75 percent and secures the public amenities requested by Malibu residents for years. In most development agreements, a city must give the property owner more development potential to secure public amenities. That’s what makes this proposed agreement so unique.

          The 10-year moratorium on the Chili Cook-off property gives those Malibu residents who’ve wanted to purchase the property a chance to raise the $14 million in appraised value over the next decade and to make a credible offer to the property owner. The alternative is to move forward with the MBC’s 1998 application to develop the property with 140,000 square feet of commercial space, which is now scheduled to be heard by the city Planning Commission this summer.

          Some of the wetlands activists did not want to hear the legal choice facing the community and the City Council. It is not a choice between no development and 122,000 square feet of commercial development and 20 single-family houses. No development on any of the MBC’s 93 acres of vacant property is not a legal option. That would be, in the opinion of many attorneys, a regulatory taking, which, if MBC litigated, could place the city in a financial disaster given the values of the properties involved. (The city’s annual budget is $13 million.) And legally it does not matter how wealthy the MBC owners are or whether they are popular or not.

          The clock is ticking and time is running out. The city has already exhausted numerous options including a building moratorium (1991-93); the preparation of the General Plan (1991-95); the preparation of a Civic Center Specific Plan (1996-98) and polling the voters on a bond issue (1998) funded by a property tax increase to purchase some of the vacant property. We have hired a scientist recommended by the local Surfrider Foundation chapter and the Wetlands Action Network whose determination of a small two-acre wetlands near the condos has been confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

          The wetlands activists I spoke with [March 4] may be right — the proposed development agreement may not be Malibu’s greatest answer. But given the lack of legal lifelines available now, it may turn out to be, to quote Regis Philben, our final answer.

          Tom Hasse

          city councilman

          15 minutes of shame?

            0

            My wife and I attended the recent hearing regarding the appeal of plans of the home for Barbra and Jim Brolin. Prior to that we visited their residence, looked at the site and reviewed their architectural plans. We are familiar with Barbra’s efforts to appease her neighbors, the Jacobsons.

            After listening to Mr. Jacobson’s presentation at the hearing and knowing the background, it is clear that Mr. Jacobson is searching for his 15 minutes of fame. His objections are a moving target. First, it was blocking the sky; actually, it was more like the sky was falling. When that was proven inaccurate, the issue moved to the height of the building and the imagined setbacks therein. When compromises were offered by the Brolins, even though the home conforms to city codes, he then changed his complaint to the “bulk” of the home. All along he objected to the size of the home while misrepresenting the average size of the homes in the neighborhood. As the transparency of his objections became clear, he became a geologist and questioned the stability of the soil.

            It is totally inappropriate for any person to presume to exercise this type of power over a neighbor’s proposed development. More importantly, there is no law to support it. It can only occur if the City Council listens and chooses to give these baseless complaints power. Frankly, it shouldn’t be within their power to pass it on to others.

            The plans conform to the city code and were approved by the staff. The city should approve those plans. The Jacobsons’ 15 minutes are up.

            Mr. Jacobson spoke of acrimony in the neighborhood — they, in fact, are the source of that acrimony. If they went into their home, closed the door and stopped peeking over their neighbor’s fence, the neighborhood would be at peace.

            It is time for the council to respect the existing ordinances, which are already too invasive regarding Malibu owner’s property rights, and permit the Brolins and other residents to build their homes to suit their needs as long as they conform to the ordinances.

            The city has much more demanding and important issues than to listen to one neighbor’s self-serving and hollow complaints.

            John O. Lewis

            When poll comes to shove

              0

              Warning! Beware of strangers.

              When we tell our children not to talk to strangers, we do so because we are concerned for the safety and well-being of our loved ones. We feel they may be too young or impressionable to recognize danger.

              I’m concerned for the safety and well-being of Malibu, so to all residents I say, beware of the strangers you talk to. Know who they really are and don’t assume they speak the truth, for you could become the unwilling victim of a Push Poll.

              Yes, I spoke to a stranger, against my husband’s advice, and I was push polled. It happened last Sunday afternoon in the privacy of my kitchen, while I was making Indian food for guests that evening. The curry was simmering and the telephone rang. A man stated he was conducting a survey on issues important to Malibu, it would only take six minutes and my opinion and views were very valuable and important. I said, “OK, six minutes. But first, who are you again and who hired you to do this survey?” He responded with his name and stated he was from Opinion Data Inc. He did not know who paid for the survey but after I completed the survey he could have his supervisor speak with me. I agreed and the questions began.

              It occurred to me after the 10th or 12th question, something was not right, yet I foolishly continued. About the 20th question, I was positive, something was wrong. This man did not want my opinion at all. He wanted to give me his opinion along with erroneous facts and hypotheticals. He was cleverly making inaccurate statements and erroneous assumptions and would then ask “knowing this, how would that impact your vote in the upcoming Malibu election?”

              I finally put a stop to the deceptive survey and insisted on speaking to a supervisor. For the next 10 minutes, I spoke to three different people who gave inconsistent information, about the organization involved, the sponsor, locations, names and phone numbers. They even hung up on me. When I called back, I was assured a supervisor would call me with the information requested, within one hour. No one ever called back. I was tricked and lied to. It happens — when you talk to strangers.

              I subsequently contacted the California Public Utilities Commission, Consumer Affairs Division who advised me anyone who can obtain your telephone number can call you and say anything, it doesn’t have to be truthful, so long as it is not obscene or threatening.

              I was a lucky one. I recognized the lies and deception before I voted. I only hope other Malibu voters recognize the dangers of believing not only strangers, but unsolicited video tapes, CDs and other media designed to mislead, scare and push votes. Know the issues, learn the facts. Your vote counts, make a difference. Don’t get pushed around.

              Mary S. Jones

              An appeal to reason

                0

                Several thoughts to consider: Malibu has a code that encompasses all building within the city; and all thinking people realize that rules that are not enforced are worse than having no rules at all, because lack of enforcement results in ever growing contempt for the rules; furthermore, everyone that I have talked to, and that includes Streisand, agrees that the code should be followed or it should be changed: individual discretion cannot be allowed. Why then the consternation and furor about the projected Streisand project and about code enforcement?

                Obviously the difficulty we are now encountering is the result of inadequate code enforcement in the past. The people we have put into positions of authority in our government have not been doing their jobs, but, instead, have made preferential decisions that were often not best for our community. They have evidently permitted individual variances to the code upon request (or upon demand?) to the extent that code requirements are looked upon as kind-of-desirables rather than as limits. Why else would Streisand say that she has never asked for or been given any variances? Her architect and various members of the city staff and commissions have gone on record as saying otherwise; I only know what I read in the reports.

                The charges and countercharges have descended to a level about equivalent to a Clintonesque “That depends upon what is is.” The efforts toward solution of the problems that stem from codes and code enforcement must be directed at a higher level than that. First, the code must be established as the “limit allowed,” rather than as the “every city has one so we have one too and who really cares if anyone really follows it.” And second, the code must be enforced.

                We cannot permit the situation to occur where the Planning Commission, for whatever reason, allows a property owner to exceed the code, and then have the chairman of the same board himself be permitted to exceed the code “because it was allowed for the property next door to his property.”

                This constitutes regulation of the ridiculous by the absurd. And it is also glaringly stupid. People put into positions of authority have automatically been saddled with the responsibility of leadership; this is true whether the status is accepted willingly or not, and it is true whether the responsibilities are desired or not, and it is true whether the attendant power and influence is merited or not. It goes with the job, and if they cannot handle it, they should not have it. They are the models, the archetypes. If they can do it, everyone can do it. They must live by the code. And if the code is wrong, it is up to them to see to corrective action by the community.

                The same conditions apply to celebrities as apply to the members of government. They, too, are automatically saddled with the fanfare, the adulation, and, unfortunately, the attendant responsibilities of leadership whether such power and influence is merited or not. They, too, like the members of government must live by the code, for if they can exceed it, so can everyone.

                The resolution of the Streisand projected building will serve as a standard for all future building in Malibu. If she is caused to build to codes in all respects, then no difficulty will be encountered in getting all other builders to also conform to code in all respects.

                E.C. Spevak

                Candidates, on dais, start taking stands

                0

                Joan House took the gloves off at the Malibu Township Council forum of City Council candidates Saturday, attacking fellow incumbents Walt Keller and Carolyn Van Horn on a litany of issues.

                In her opening statement, House passionately defended her 11-month negotiation of a proposed long-term development agreement with the Malibu Bay Company, the city’s largest landowner. When asked about issues she cares about most, House attacked Keller and Van Horn for compromising the council’s credibility with the state by not aggressively looking for alternatives to the Bluffs Park playing fields.

                Van Horn agreed with challenger Ken Kearsley’s suggestion of buying the 90-acre Civic Center with bond issue, Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy and government funds. Kearsley, displaying the Malibu Village and Malibu Country Park Environmental Impact Report for development of the Chili Cook-off and Ioki parcels, said if the council did not approve the MBC agreement, there could be development without amenities within a year.

                Jeff Jennings said a project’s impact rather than its floor-area ratio (FAR) should be considered. A drive-in might have a 0.005 FAR but could hold a swap meet during the day and a rock concert at night, while a high-tech company (such as a fiber-optic switching company) might have a huge FAR but no significant impact.

                Responding to a question about alternatives to the MBC agreement, John Wall said if it was not accepted, parcels would be considered individually, and they might be approved with smaller square footage. Because of liquefaction at the Civic Center, too much fill at the Portshead site, and too small a commercial site at Trancas, it might be impractical for the MBC to develop the land anyway, Wall said.

                As for Bluffs Park, Keller and Van Horn thought there was a good chance the state would not go through on last summer’s warning that the leased ballfields would be reclaimed in 2002. Keller said the city, having spent more than $300,000 to refurbish the fields, had a “right” to them, and that the city has been operating the park as a regional visitor center. State Parks Director Rusty Areias has not said yes or no to taking them back, Keller said.

                When asked whether she would go to court over Bluffs Park, Van Horn said Areias told her there was no time limit for taking back the ballfields as long as the city was looking for other sites. Kearsley said, “We are out of Bluffs Park in two years.”

                Jennings said a shared use solution was the answer. “No one agency should use 100 percent of the land 100 percent of the time,” Jennings said.

                Wall did not have a specific comment on Bluffs Park. He said the mix of personalities on the council is not working, and that the council should focus on “big issues” and delegate authority to commissions. “The council hasn’t picked people they really trust,” Wall said.

                Referring to fiscal responsibility, House said she was the only incumbent who voted against the $250,000 buyout of former City Attorney Christi Hogin’s contract. The council could have let Hogin go after three months, and, with the additional $150,000 the council was paying for a contract attorney, the move amounted to fiscal irresponsibility, House said.

                Kearsley called the $250,000 buyout of Hogin an “important situation,” and Jennings, the only attorney among the candidates, said Hogin’s expertise saved the city a great deal of money.

                House said she was the only incumbent who favored the smaller, 106-room version of the Adamson Hotel, and that Keller and Van Horn did not support the Malibu Lagoon Dye Study, which proved that pollution emanates from upstream.

                The proposed agreement, which includes a 10-year moratorium on Civic Center development and reduction of development according to the city’s Interim Zoning Ordinance, “was the only realistic chance to get the amenities of a community center and ballfields we need and want,” House said.

                Responding on the proposed agreement, Keller said he did not want to see condominiums and large shopping malls in the city. In a reference to a 1998 campaign video, he said he wanted to preserve the city’s natural beauty “so we don’t turn into Laguna Beach.” He also said he would like to see the proposed agreement on the November ballot so there could be a city referendum on the issue.

                For a list of candidate positions and contact information, see accompanying chart.

                ×