Developer to Redesign Malibu Project : But Dispute Remains Over Plan, Schabarum

The developer of a controversial $150-million project in Malibu agreed Wednesday to redesign plans for the development after it was discovered that its construction would disturb an ecological preserve.

Doug Ring, an attorney for VMS/Anden, the developer of Rancho Malibu, told the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission that the group would revise the project and bring it back to the panel May 17.

However, opponents of the proposed development of 62 single-family homes, a golf course, club house, tennis courts and a restaurant along Encinal Canyon Road, said they would continue to fight the plan unless the developer reduced the amount of grading needed for the project.

Schabarum Investment

The development calls for the grading of 4.5-million cubic yards of land on a 270-acre parcel.

The project, which is opposed by homeowner groups in the area, became mired in controversy last week when it was discovered that Supervisor Pete Schabarum invested in a limited partnership that is managed by VMS Realty. The Chicago-based company and the Anden Group in Sherman Oaks are partners in the Rancho Malibu venture.

It remains unclear whether Schabarum, who voted to deny exclusion of VMS/Anden from Malibu’s proposed city limits while he served on the Local Agency Formation Commission, had a conflict of interest.

Although Schabarum’s investment in VMS Mortgage Investors Limited Partnership III has no direct financial link to the Malibu project, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission guidelines on conflict of interest consider parent companies and their subsidiaries as one firm.

Jeanette Turvill, a spokeswoman for the FPPC, said public officials may not participate in decisions “in which they know that they have a financial interest in or would have a material financial affect on their financial interest.” But she added that if a public official was unaware of the connection between a parent company and its subsidiaries, “then it would probably be OK.”

Denies Knowing Link

Schabarum said Tuesday that he was unaware of the FPPC guidelines but has asked the county counsel’s office for an opinion on the matter. Ruth Benell, LAFCO’s executive director, said she would also seek a ruling from the independent counsel chosen to handle the pending Malibu incorporation matter.

“I can assure you today that it was not known to me then or up to today,” Schabarum said. “None of the stock I have acquired involved Malibu.”

Schabarum said it won’t make any difference if the matter comes up before LAFCO again, because he said he no longer wants to serve on the state panel that decides incorporation matters. Benell said the matter is moot, since a Superior Court judge earlier rescinded LAFCO’s approval of Malibu’s cityhood petition and the incorporation process must start over.

However, if the Rancho Malibu project is approved by the county Planning Commission, it would then go to the Board of Supervisors for a final vote. Schabarum said that if county counsel rules that he might have a conflict of interest, then he would disqualify himself from voting on the project.

Dispute Over Character

The Rancho Malibu property is located in a rural area off Encinal Canyon Road about two miles inland from Pacific Coast Highway. Residents object to the project, saying it does not fit in with the character of the surrounding rural area.

County planners recently discovered the proposed development would disturb the nearby Steep Hill Canyon area that has been deemed environmentally sensitive.

Encinal Canyon Road resident Walt Keller, who is co-chairman of the Malibu Committee for Incorporation, said the project poses a threat to the ecology and would increase traffic in the area. He said residents are not opposed to the housing development but that the golf course and other aspects of the plan are too large for the area.