A settlement challenged by the Latigo Homeowners Association would have given the city nearly 60 acres of land and rezoned property for the Rubens Family Trust.
By Jonathan Friedman/Assistant Editor
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs rejected a settlement between the city of Malibu and the Rubens Family Trust regarding a 125-acre Latigo Canyon property, which would have given the city 57 acres of land and allowed rezoning of the remaining property.
The Latigo Canyon Homeowners Association had filed a lawsuit challenging the settlement, which would have rezoned 68 acres of the land from one home per 20 acres to one home per 5 acres, with the remaining portion of the property being donated to the city. A trail would also have been constructed on the property.
Janavs ruled the environmental study for the settlement had technical errors. The homeowners association had challenged the settlement on several other counts, all of which were rejected.
Although the city’s settlement would have rezoned the Rubens property, the landowner would only have been 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. But Jefferson Wagner, president of the homeowners association, said the reason for the lawsuit was to prevent the land designation change from creating a precedent for nearby landowners to reference when requesting rezoning.
Responding to Janavs’ decision, Wagner said, “This judge really read through the facts and determined that the city had erred in its review and it probably stepped forward too quickly [with the settlement.]”
Mayor Sharon Barovsky had a different take on the decision. “It’s a shame that on a technicality we could lose 60 acres dedicated to open space and a public trail,” she said. “Should Mr. Rubens heirs decide to sell to a developer, all that will be lost.”
But Wagner said the property and trail offered to the city was not as great a deal as it appeared. He said the 57-acre donation was of land that was unusable and the trail construction could have been prevented with another lawsuit. At the city council meeting in February 2004 when the settlement was approved, planning consultant Don Schmitz said he was concerned about the trail encroaching on one of his client’s properties. Barovsky commented at the meeting that it appeared a lawsuit would be filed against the city regardless of the decision, whether it is Rubens, the homeowners association or Schmitz.
The Rubens dispute goes back to 1999 when the property owner approached the city 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, which was followed several months later with the homeowners’ association lawsuit.
In a press release issued by the Law Offices of Frank P. Angel, which represented the homeowners association, the firm said, “Malibu must now begin the environmental review process anew, including preparing a new environmental study and providing the public further opportunity to comment on the rezoning.”
City Attorney Christi Hogin said that probably would not occur, because, she said, the city should not pursue the issue further.
“I doubt that it [City Council] will [try to work out a new settlement],” Hogin said. “Why create more opportunities for Frank [Angel] and his group to sue the city and undo the deal.”
The council will discuss what to do at the closed session portion of Monday’s meeting.
As for the homeowners association, Wagner said it still owes Angel’s firm more money. He said the group funded the lawsuit through donations among its members ranging from five dollars to thousands of dollars. Wagner said there was no specific person who funded the entire cost of the litigation. But Barovsky questioned who was behind the lawsuit.
“I would like to know who finances these lawsuits by groups called TLC [Taxpayers for Livable Communities], Latigo Canyon Preservation Association and others,” she said. “We never really know who pays for the lawsuits.”