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

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

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

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

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

There is a 60 percent prediction of rain tonight. For most of us, rain is good news. It means not having to water the plants, putting a log in the fireplace to get cozy, or making special accommodations so the dog, who doesn’t like getting wet, doesn’t soil the carpet.

For others, however, including our own Malibu residents without shelter, it means soaked belongings and damp clothing all day long. It means borrowing trash bags from the Labor Exchange to use as a raincoat.

For those of us involved in the Malibu Emergency Shelter Project it has meant close to two weeks in a row of nighttime shelter activation in our retrofitted school bus and providing a hot meal to our dampened friends. We’re glad we’re here for them. But the bad news is we have already run out of funds for this year and must think of next winter. This is strictly a local project that does not receive any government funds.

Our annual cost to provide this modest service for local homeless is about $6,000 per year to provide approximately 300 dry person nights. The major expense is to insure the shelter bus. Other money is needed to purchase food when it is not donated and to pay the nighttime monitors and the shelter manager.

The bottom line is we need a little rainy day assistance. If you would consider helping, please write a check to “MCLE/Shelter,” P.O. Box 2273, Malibu, CA 90265. Or if you would like to volunteer to bring food on a rainy night or donate washable blankets or sleeping bags, or have questions regarding the project, you may call Pamela Shatsky, shelter manager, at 457.2151 and leave a message. Thank you.

Dan Wallace

Malibu Emergency Shelter chairperson

Malibu Community Labor Exchange

… As a resident of Point Dume I, like many in the community, have been following the exchange between the Brolins and the Jacobsons with concern. And when Barbra offered to open her plans up to the inspection of her neighbors, I took her up on her offer.

What I found is that through the haze of misinformation that has been surrounding this issue they are plans for a home that comply with every single one of the municipal building codes. In fact, I learned that the Brolins have not asked for one variance from the city. The plans call for a home that is 5,900 square feet. Which is significantly smaller than other homes in the immediate area. And while I was concerned by the rumors about the basement having an adverse effect on the bluff, I reviewed the geological study which shows that the basement construction will actually have a positive effect on the bluff. The Brolins also showed me the numerous concessions they are making for their neighbor to accommodate their neighbors concerns. I have a neighbor building a 6,600-square-foot house that will stand 26 feet high behind my property. I only wish that my neighbors extended me the courtesy and concessions that the Brolins have extended to their neighbor. And while I am not thrilled about the fact that my neighbor is building a house, and while I don’t care for the design of that property, I do respect their right to build a home that conforms to the building codes of this community. What concerns me is that it seems that the Brolins have been singled out. Why if their proposed home conforms to city code, is smaller than homes in the neighborhood, is designed in a manner that is charming and completely consistent with the character of Malibu, and has farther set backs from the bluff than other homes in the area, why is it still being harassed? Why did no one from the City Council express the same degree of concern over my neighbor’s building plans? Their construction will put a 26-foot-high building right between my home and my view over the Santa Monica Mountains. Why wasn’t there the same level of public outcry? I guess I should have taken those singing lessons anyway. It does beg the question however, that the Brolins are being singled out and that is really why I am putting my thoughts to your readers. The Brolins in spite of their celebrity, their political views, and how you may or may not feel about them, do have a right to build a home as long as it conforms to the code of the land and is in character with the community. They have more than satisfied these requirements. In fact they have been held to a much higher standard than the law requires. They’ve also given numerous concessions to their neighbors the Jacobsons by reducing the footprint of their house and the height in addition to having studies of sun and view impacts. The rich and famous should not get preferential treatment before the council, but neither should they be discriminated against.

Lucas Donat

I would like to commend the workers who labored around the clock March 2 and 3, 2000, in order to repair the leak in the water spur or main at Westward Beach Road and Pacific Coach Highway.

Not only did they work swiftly and competently, but they were extremely patient with questions which I (an affected homeowner without water during the crisis) asked frequently about the progress of the repair.

The citizens of the area often praise the sheriff deputies and the firefighters for their efforts in Malibu’s better known catastrophes. Having lived through two periods without water in Malibu during the last six months, I would like public recognition for the superb work of men in Water District 29, whose names I was unable to learn.

Ronald E. E. Stackler