In Zuma Canyon : Residents Fight Plan to Rezone

Fearful of landslides and angry about commercial encroachment, Zuma Canyon homeowners are asking Los Angeles County to turn down a request from a Malibu real estate developer to rezone 6 1/2 acres of slope property in their rustic community.

In an appeal filed with the County Board of Supervisors earlier this month, Dr. Russell Drago said that construction of 13 townhouses and a commercial building just east of Bonsall Drive at 29243 Pacific Coast Highway, as proposed by Dorn L. Schmidt, could contribute to serious geological problems and would alter the character of the quiet community. Drago filed the tentative tract appeal--which included a geologist’s report--on behalf of the Zuma Canyon Property Owners Assn.

‘Emotional Issue’

“This has become a very emotional issue,” said Drago, whose house is one of seven that ring the foot of the knoll on which the project would stand.

“I view it as though one member of our community has bought a piece of land and wants to go against the wishes of everyone in the community besides himself,” he said.

Tom Meade, a spokesman for the homeowners association, said: “In the whole community, there is no commercial building and no dense housing like this.”

He said that at a recent meeting attended by about 35 members of the group, “almost everybody spoke, and most people felt that this development is the linchpin for massive development along the eastern rim of Zuma Canyon. It would change our very unique, tranquil life style,” he said, “to something entirely more hectic and urban.”

Schmidt has already completed two of four steps necessary before he can construct his proposed project on the knoll in question, which is now zoned for no more than two residential units per acre. He has received approval of the county’s Regional Planning Commission for a conditional use permit and a tract map.

Only a vote by the Board of Supervisors can complete the third step--a zone change. The fourth--an amendment to the Malibu Coastal Plan--requires approval from the state Coastal Commission.

The Planning Commission has recommended approval of rezoning, and the supervisors are scheduled to hear Drago’s appeal of the tract map Thursday. Supervising Regional Planner Don Culbertson of the zone-change section of the county Department of Regional Planning, said the usual procedure is to grant continuances for such hearings, so that all the zoning decisions on a given case, including tract maps, can be considered at one time.

Conflicting Reports

When the hearing takes place, conflicting geological reports will be cited. A consultant for Drago, Tim Slosson of Slosson & Associates in Van Nuys, said in a telephone interview that he has “no position for or against any development--just what technical issues should be considered.”

Slosson said the county had not addressed the potential danger of the water table rising in an earthquake fault-line area that uses septic systems because there are no sewers.

“Any time you develop land there’s going to be more water going into the ground,” he said. “All we brought up (in the geologic report) was that the issues had not been adequately addressed when the water table rises, and the water table most likely will rise because of the septic system.”

Slosson said that he had not conducted a study of the Malibu Coast Fault Line, but that a study conducted for General Motors by Converse Consultants of Pasadena “has been cited by many people since it was released.” General Motors canceled plans to build an 85,000-square-foot design center in Malibu because of the geological report.

“I think (the fault line) is quite relevant,” Slosson said, “especially with that much fluid getting into that hill and the potential for an earthquake.”

Seepage into the water table of effluents from cesspools, he said, is a common factor in slope instability in Malibu. “Big Rock is the best example,” he said. Big Rock Mesa, a few miles to the east of the proposed development, experienced a landslide in 1983 that affected 300 homes. Slosson cited other unstable areas nearby: Rambla Orienta, Rambla Pacifico, Malibu Beach Road and Latigo Shores. In all those areas, he said, “there is a common relationship between an abundance of septic fluids and landslides.”

Slosson said he was particularly concerned because of “the youthful nature of the fault.”

“The rule of thumb,” he said, “is the more youthful the fault and the more recent any motion, the more apt to be an earthquake in the future.”

Schmidt, contacted by telephone, said that Drago’s claims concerning the geological report were “simply not so. We’ve supplied all appropriate geology reports to the county, and the county has reviewed them.”

According to supervising planner Culbertson, a report prepared for the developer by Robertson Geotechnical of Westlake Village recognized the presence of the fault but concluded that it was feasible to build on the site.

“It’s a minor branch of an inactive fault, and the 13 residential units would not be constructed on the branch,” said Schmidt’s project director, Nina Gordev. “We’re not at all concerned, nor is the engineering firm that supervised the geologist concerned, about seepage from septic tanks. The Regional Planning Commission expressed that the county and planning department were very pleased with the geology. They said we had done more than our share of additional exploration, at great expense.”

Culbertson said: “County geologists in the department of public works have reviewed the reports. It is their opinion that it is feasible to go ahead based on information at this point.

Culbertson said the staff recommended approval of the residential portion of the project. “We indicated some reservations and some concerns, shall I say, about the commercial aspect--primarily, “ he said, “because if the map is changed to show that (area) as commercial, that invites future intensification of commercial use.”

Concerns Raised

A number of homeowners expressed concern that political contributions by Schmidt to supervisorial election campaigns and lobbying by Schmidt of Supervisor Deane Dana, whose 4th District includes Malibu, have created a conflict of interest. Dana is part of the conservative majority--along with Pete Schabarum of the 2nd District and Mike D. Antonovich of the 6th District--on the five-member board. On local matters, the supervisors often cast their votes with the supervisor in whose district a project lies.

A letter sent to two county deputy district attorneys, signed “We the People,” asks that “the conflict of interest issue be addressed” and that the zoning appeal be decided by an arbitration board rather than by the Board of Supervisors.

A local Malibu newspaper reported that Schmidt was included in a long list of honorary co-chairmen and vice chairmen for a fund-raising dinner for Dana earlier this year. Gov. George Deukmejian and Republican Sen. Pete Wilson served as honorary chairmen of the event. Schabarum and Antonovich were co-chairmen.

Reached by telephone, Schmidt said: “I think we bought one table for that dinner. I don’t recall the amount.” He said he was not aware that he had been designated an honorary co-chairman.

He said: “I believe that the members of the local homeowners group which is in opposition to the project have also bought seats or tables, as have the counsel hired by the homeowners group to oppose the project.”

Although federal law sets limits on the amount that an individual can give to candidates for federal office, and the City of Los Angeles places a ceiling on contributions in citywide campaigns, there are no caps on gifts to candidates in Los Angeles County or California elections.

A Times survey of contributions to county supervisors’ election funds from 1981 to 1987 showed that Schmidt gave Dana $10,500 over that period, placing in the supervisor’s top 50 contributors. (Schabarum, at $74,800 was Dana’s largest contributor, giving more than twice the amount of any other donor.) Schmidt gave Dana $5,000 in 1985 and $5,500 in 1987.

Schmidt made four contributions to Antonovich from 1985 to 1987, totaling $11,500. He donated $10,750 to Schabarum during the same period.

Contributions by the homeowners association’s attorney, H. Randall Stoke, were less: $200 to Dana in 1981, and $249 each to Dana and Supervisor Kenneth Hahn in 1984. Latham and Watkins, the large Los Angeles law firm in which Stoke is a senior partner, contributed a total of $2,424 to Dana over the six-year period.

Homeowner Meade said he and his wife attended one fund-raising dinner for Dana in 1985 as guests of Latham and Watkins. Both Meade and Drago said they have made no contributions to any supervisorial election campaigns.

Reached by telephone for comment, Dana said: “First of all, a lot of people give me money. (Schmidt) probably gives me money because he believes in my philosophy of government.”

The supervisor said he had not yet studied the case because it had not come up before him.

Times staff writer Daryl Kelley contributed to this article.