The City Council approved a settlement with the Rubens Family Trust earlier this year that allows it to upgrade the zoning of its property, but does not allow it to build any more homes.
By Jonathan Friedman/Staff Writer
The city of Malibu is headed back to the courtroom to argue about the 125-acre Latigo Canyon property owned by the Rubens Family Trust. But this time the city and the property owner are on the same side.
The Latigo Canyon Preservation Association, a homeowners association in the area, recently filed a lawsuit against the city to challenge a settlement it reached with Rubens after the property owner sued the city in 2000.
The City Council approved the settlement with Rubens in February of this year. The trust will donate 57 acres of its property to the National Park Service as open space, with a portion of the land becoming part of a sophisticated trail system the NPS is creating. In exchange, the zoning on the rest of Rubens’ property will be upgraded from one home per 20 acres to one home per five acres. Despite the land designation change, Rubens will only be able to build six homes on the property. That is the same amount it would have been able to build without seeking the upgrade. This is because the city’s law regarding building on slopes only allows one home per 9.75 acres. However, Jefferson Wagner, president of the homeowners association, said how much Rubens can build is not his concern.
“When the next developer in the next canyon over gets ready to build, he will file to say he’s allowed to upgrade the zoning of his property because Rubens was allowed to do it,” Wagner said.
Wagner said the homeowners association might contact other canyon homeowners associations about joining the lawsuit because he said the precedent the settlement makes would affect them. Mayor Sharon Barovsky said she does not share Wagner’s concern.
“If we can set a precedent of property owners donating half their land as open space and to donate a trails system, it’s not a bad precedent,” Barovsky said.
Wagner said he does not think much of the property donation, because he said environmental conditions prevent Rubens from building on the land anyway. Barovsky said Wagner is not qualified to make that determination.
“Mr. Wagner is not a geologist or an engineer, so I don’t know how he comes to that conclusion,” Barovsky said. “But we’ve all seen land we didn’t think could be developed, such as building tennis courts that hang out over cliffs. But engineering does marvelous things.”
The Rubens dispute has been going on for several years. The property owner approached the City Council in 1999 about receiving a zoning upgrade. The council rejected the request, and Rubens sued. The settlement was reached in 2002, but the Planning Commission recommended it not be accepted. The City Council went against the recommendation.
The homeowners association said an environmental impact report should have been conducted prior to the approval of the settlement. In its suit, the association stated that not having done one meant the city “improperly ignore[d] or dismiss[ed] substantial evidence in the record that the project will or may have significant geotechnical and grading impacts.” The suit goes on to name several other negative environmental impacts it says the settlement would cause.
City Attorney Christi Hogin said city staff examined the settlement to determine if an EIR was necessary, and the conclusion was that there was no need for one.
“An EIR is required when there is substantial evidence that there will be an adverse environmental impact caused by the project,” Hogin said. “There is no evidence that putting five homes on 60 acres is going to cause a traffic nightmare, noise pollution or any other environmental problems.”
Barovsky added that by not accepting the settlement, a worse fate could be met for the city than what Wagner says will occur with the settlement’s approval.
“I don’t want to take a chance with the courts so that a judge says this property could be subdivided,” Barovsky said. “Then we could be looking at 30 houses instead of six.”