ELECTIONS CULVER CITY : Council Race Boils Down to Mall Debate : Development: The pro-growth majority has consistently voted in favor of the Marina Place project. But the election could change that.

The heart of the matter in Culver City’s election on Tuesday is simple: It’s about a Nordstrom, a Bullock’s, 150 smaller stores and a six-screen movie theater.

And, oh yes, it’s also about the overall direction of the city.

The ballot lists three candidates for two City Council seats, and two competing propositions, but both the council race and the contest between the measures have developed into high-stakes battles between slow-growth forces and advocates of expanded development.

In its closing days, the campaign has heated up with complaints about outside influence in the council race and with cries of foul in the battle of the ballot measures after it was disclosed that the names of 3,600 signers of the slow-growth initiative petition had been illegally released to the pro-development side.

With Councilman Richard Alexander retiring, incumbent Jozelle Smith and newcomers Mike Balkman and Tom Hammons are competing for two seats on the City Council. The council has been split 3-2, with the pro-growth majority of Smith, Alexander and Paul Jacobs opposed by slow-growth members Jim Boulgarides and Steven Gourley.

The majority has consistently voted in support of the Marina Place mall, a 1-million-square-foot regional shopping center proposed for Culver City’s westernmost tip. Last month the council majority approved an agreement with the mall’s developers designed to guarantee their right to build the $159-million project, despite criticism that the development would clog traffic, pollute the air and restrict access to the coast.

The election of Hammons could tip the balance of the council and could mean trouble for the project. His lawn signs bill him as the “grass-roots candidate” and feature a stick figure mowing the lawn.

Although Hammons says he prefers not to be categorized as an anti-growth candidate, he says he favors cutting the size of Marina Place and promises to work to “knock the (developers’) guarantee out.”

Balkman and Smith support the project as is, with Balkman having said that “any project is going to have some negative.”

The same divisions mark the contest between Measure I, a residents’ initiative that would set limits on building height and would force Marina Place developers to scale back their project, and Measure II, a less stringent proposal for development controls that would exempt projects already approved--including Marina Place.

Measure I would impose a cap of 56 feet, or about four stories, on buildings in the city’s busiest commercial zones. Slow-growth advocates collected more than 3,600 signatures in 1988 to qualify it for the ballot.

In response, the council’s pro-growth majority voted to place the rival measure on the ballot. Without specifying a height limit, Measure II would impose lot-coverage limits on commercial buildings over 43 feet and prohibit them from blocking views, disrupting air flow or causing “significant detriment” by their shade, shadow or glare. All developments would have to mitigate traffic they create.

Smith and Balkman criticize the residents’ measure for lacking flexibility, and both said they have given money to the Measure II campaign. Measure I supporters argue that Measure II leaves too much to the discretion of the City Council and describe the competing measure as a cynical attempt by the three pro-growth council members to sow confusion in hopes of defeating Measure I.

The campaign got a jolt two weeks ago when a Carpenters Union local in Los Angeles sent out a letter endorsing Smith and Balkman because of their support of Marina Place. The project would create an overwhelming number of jobs and “definitely deserves our assistance,” the letter said.

Both Balkman and Smith distanced themselves from the letter, criticizing it as an unwanted outside intrusion into the election.

Then, Measure II campaigners used names from the residents’ initiative petitions--unlawfully released by the city clerk’s office--to target a campaign mailer. The mailer, in which about two dozen petition signers retract their support for Measure I, was sent to all of the petition signers, according to Dorothy Harris, a planning commissioner and a chairwoman of the campaign for Measure II and against Measure I.

Culver City Clerk Pauline Dolce, who is running unopposed for another four-year term, said she released copies of the petition to Councilman Alexander. State law, however, stipulates that the names and addresses on initiative petitions are confidential; the intent of the law is to shield the signers from fund-raising solicitations, targeted mailings and political retribution, state officials say.

Under the state Election Code, it is a misdemeanor to release the signatures on a petition. “I guess I did something I wasn’t supposed to do,” Dolce said last week. Alexander and Harris said they believed the petitions were public records.

Richard Pachtman, a sponsor of Measure I, called the release an “unfair, deceptive tactic” and accused the three pro-growth council members of being involved.

Smith said she was not, other than to solicit one of the petition signers to affix his name to the Measure II mailer. She said, however, that the news of the release could indirectly hurt her candidacy. “I’m sure it can’t help but rub off if there’s any suspicion that it was done illegally or covertly, “ she said. “That affects everyone.”

She and Balkman said they believe the release was unintentional. “Everybody can make a mistake,” Balkman said. “We can make a mountain out of a molehill . . . and I think (Measure 1 and Hammons supporters) will try to.”

Other issues in the campaign have been consolidation of elections and limiting the terms of the council. Hammons favors consolidating the city election with the November federal and state contests, saying the change would increase voter turnout. Balkman and Smith say that such a shift would mean the municipal races would be overshadowed and that local candidates would be forced to spend more money to get the voters’ attention.

Hammons’ position on the consolidated elections was attacked in a campaign mailer sent out Wednesday to 4,000 registered voters. The mailer endorsed Smith and Balkman and was signed by outgoing Councilman Alexander and City Clerk Dolce, among others.

Hammons has also proposed that council members be limited to two terms. Smith and Balkman oppose any limit.

Smith and Balkman have each raised and spent about four times as much as Hammons. As of late March, Smith had raised $19,132 and Balkman $18,846. Hammons raised $4,373. Among Smith’s donations were $300 from representatives of the Marina Place developers.

As of the late March filing deadline, Smith had spent $14,870, Balkman $13,426 and Hammons $3,305.

All three candidates said they would be walking in the precincts during the weekend.