The proposed development in Latigo would necessitate removal of 200,000 cubic yards of dirt, says geologist.
By Cristina Forde/Special to The Malibu
Saying “Thanks but no thanks” to the donation of 57 acres of land in a quid pro quo offer, the City of Malibu Planning Commission Monday voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council reject an amendment to the Malibu General Land Use Map to rezone 68 acres in lower Latigo Canyon from 20-acre rural residential lots to 5-acre rural residential lots (RR-20 to RR-5).
The zoning change, drafted and presented by the City of Malibu staff on behalf of the landowner as part of a deal to settle a lawsuit, would open the door to applications for the development of up to eight homes on the ocean-view ridge as well as setting a city “up-zoning” precedent.
Access along steep mountainsides and the massive grading involved in construction were major issues. Under the current RR-20 zoning, the owner can build four homes on the 68 acres.
“It’s not our business to maximize the profit potential of the owner,” said Commission Chair Richard Carrigan. “I cannot support this application.”
Veteran commissioner Ed Lipnick was blunt.
“Mr. Rubens [the owner] didn’t make a very good investment,” Lipnick said, citing the steepness of the terrain. “It is not the function of the City of Malibu to facilitate or guarantee that the Rubens family make a profit on their land investment. I see no reason to change the land-use designation on the parcel at this time.”
Robert Adler, in his first meeting as a newly appointed commissioner, said, “This was about poor planning, poor vision.”
Commissioner David Fox, noting the amendment was a zone (paper) change and not a building permit, found that up-zoning would not further the goals of the General Plan and that it “intensifies development.”
New commissioner Deirdre Roney, who was sworn in at the meeting, was drawn to the possibility of gaining 57 acres of parkland but after weighing her fellow commissioners’ analyses, said that “experience counts.” She agreed that leaving the zoning at RR-20 “will better achieve the goals of the General Plan.”
In rejecting the amendment, Adler cautioned against straying from the vision that brought the City of Malibu into being.
“The General Plan is not something be taken lightly,” he said, citing the massive public effort to draft it. “I don’t believe its provisions should be discarded whenever a property owner says, ‘This is what I want to do with my land, so change your rules.’ “
Adler said, “He [the landowner] said he bought it as a place to build his home. No one said he can’t build his home, so his original dream is still intact.”
The land is owned in trust by the family of 86-year-old George Rubens of San Diego, a retired Navy commander. The land was zoned A-1-1 (one house per acre) when he bought 125 acres in Latigo Canyon in 1956. It was rezoned by Los Angeles County in 1981 under the Malibu/Santa Monica Mountains Area Plan to one house per 20 acres (RR-20), a configuration that was adopted in the City of Malibu General Plan in 1995. Until submitting to the Malibu City Council in 1999 a request for rezoning the entire Ruben Trust parcel of 125 acres from RR-20 to RR-5, the owner had not moved to challenge any zoning changes.
After the City Council turned down the 1999 petition in a 5-0 vote, the Rubens family sweetened the pot by offering to dedicate the 57 acres to Malibu to be used as open space/parkland. The 57 acres abuts Solstice Park.
The offer was not compelling enough to convince the commissioners. The property is too steep to be buildable.
“I am absolutely persuaded that the 57 acres will never be developed,” Carrigan said. “The city is getting nothing.”
The commissioners questioned Rubens as to why he had not asserted his private property rights by objecting to earlier zoning changes.
Although City Attorney Christi Hogin told the commissioners they were “only being asked to look at the rezoning” and that “the City Council is looking to you for real advice” on whether or not the amendment was consistent with the General Plan, the panel could not avoid looking down the road at subsequent issues.
The topography of the area figured persuasively in the commissioners’ decision.
“If you approve this amendment,” engineering geologist Don Kowelesky told them during the public comment portion of the meeting, “it is tantamount to saying ‘go on to the next stage.’ Then you would say they can’t meet the grading and health and safety requirements. It is best for you at this point to stop this nonsense. Let these people prove what they can do on the property.”
Kowelesky said that development as envisioned in the amendment would necessitate the removal of “at least 200,000 cubic yards of dirt to lower the ridge 40 feet and to cut the [access] road into the mountainside.”
Or, he said, “they can put in a 1-mile long bridge along the mountain and they don’t have to grade.”
Geologist Gail Hunt, speaking on behalf of the owner, said he found no geologic factors that would preclude development of the property but he appeared disconcerted by an element of the topographic map displayed at the meeting.
“It’s the first time I have seen the road,” he said in response to a question from Adler. “It would be a challenge to build because of the steepness.”
Jefferson Wagner, president of the Latigo Canyon Preservation Association, said, “We would not object to one or two homes going in but this is speculative and is suing for subdivision.”