A judge bars Trancas PCH from pursuing further litigation on a legal saga that has been ongoing since 1985.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
One of Malibu’s longest-running land disputes headed to court once again last Friday. And again, the owner of the 35-acre property located on Pacific Coast Highway just west of Trancas Canyon Road came out on the losing end. But this time, the judge ordered that the developer not try to come back with a similar suit.
Trancas PCH, the developer, had requested that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Linda K. Lefkowitz overturn a 2003 Malibu City Council vote to reject the developer’s map application for the building of 52 town homes and 15 houses on the property.
Lefkowitz rejected Trancas PCH’s request, and sided with the city’s argument that Trancas PCH’s 2003 application was not complete. She also wrote in her ruling that Trancas PCH should be barred from further litigation on this issue-which has been an ongoing saga since 1985 and one in the court system since the early ’90s-under what is called collateral estoppel. A judge can apply this when the same parties have already litigated a case previously and it would be financially best for the matter not to be litigated again.
“The court finds that judicial economy, finality of litigation and public policy are served by application of collateral estoppel,” Lefkowitz wrote.
Trancas PCH could still appeal Lefkowitz’ ruling, but could not bring the case back to a trial court again. A Trancas PCH official did not return several calls for comment.
With its litigation options limited, Trancas PCH could also start from scratch and reapply for permits to build on the property. City Attorney Christi Hogin wrote in a e-mail to The Malibu Times that the community would best be served if the developer were to choose this option.
“This is the story of an on-again/off-again effort to subdivide a piece of property in Malibu,” Hogin wrote. “It is also a story that, after 20 years and five lawsuits, needs an end.”
Following a 2006 Court of Appeal decision that reaffirmed a previous ruling by the court that invalidated a deal between the city and Trancas PCH to develop the property, city officials told Trancas PCH partner Dean Isaacson that it would be best for the company to start the application over again. But Isaacson refused, because the city would not apply to the Coastal Commission for a Local Coastal Progam amendment to increase what could be built on the property from seven houses to 32 town homes, the same amount of town homes the city and the developer had previously agreed on in the deal that was eventually rejected by the court.
After this, Isaacson complained to the council at several meetings during the public comment portion. He would bring Little League players and parents with him, who would plead for the council to make a deal with Trancas PCH, because the deal that was rejected by the court also included a donation of land for playing fields. Some questioned whether the parents and children speaking on behalf of Trancas PCH understood that a court had already rejected the deal between the city and the company.
This development project has been through a long journey of lawsuits and conflicts even by Malibu standards. The county approved tract maps for the previous property owner in 1980 and 1985, allowing for the construction of 52 town homes and 15 houses. The company received coastal development permits for the project in 1981, 1989 and 1992. But a Court of Appeal decision in 2001 sided with the Trancas Property Owners Association, which represents property owners on nearby Broad Beach, and invalidated the coastal permits. The city also fought with Trancas PCH for several years over the validity of the county-approved tract maps, with the developer winning two of the battles in court during the ’90s.
Then, in 2003, the city and Trancas PCH reached a deal where the developer would be allowed to build 32 town homes and donate a portion of the property to the city for ball fields. The Trancas Property Owners Association immediately filed a lawsuit to nix the deal on various grounds. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled against the property owners in 2004. But a Court of Appeal overturned the decision in 2005, citing, among other things, that the City Council had violated the state’s open-meeting law (the Brown Act) in reaching the deal. The next year, the same court affirmed its decision.