Calabasas Builder Sues Homeowners for Project Delays : Development: A question of whether 648 acres of open land is to be donated remains in dispute.

The Baldwin Co. has filed a lawsuit against a Calabasas homeowner group that is challenging portions of the company’s plan to build a combined residential-commercial project in the new city.

Baldwin contends that the Calabasas Park Homeowners Assn. should be financially liable for delays caused by a suit the organization filed against the county last month. Baldwin wants to build 550 residences, a church and shopping center on 1,250 acres of rugged land southeast of the intersection of the Ventura Freeway and Las Virgenes Road.

The homeowners’ suit asks county supervisors to rescind their approval of a plan that would force future taxpayers in the development to pay for 648 acres of open land that Baldwin had offered to donate in exchange for community support of the project.

Robert Burns, president of Baldwin’s Los Angeles/Ventura division, said the legal challenge has prevented work from beginning. By delaying work, he said, the homeowners have breached a contract they made in January, 1990, in which they promised not to obstruct Baldwin’s construction plans.

“They promised not to oppose our development,” Burns said. “They have absolutely broken their word to us. If there was no lawsuit we could start today.”

Burns declined to estimate the damages, saying they would be based on the length of the delay.

Representatives of the homeowner association denied Tuesday that they violated any promises. They said Baldwin’s lawsuit is just an attempt to discourage them from exercising their legal rights.

“They are trying to threaten and intimidate our members,” said attorney David Guthman, vice president of the association. “They are trying to scare people.”

Guthman said that the homeowner group never signed a contract with Baldwin. The organization conveyed its intentions to company officials orally in negotiations, he said.

When group members agreed not to oppose the project, they did so believing the 648 acres would be donated to the community, Guthman said. He said the members had no idea that Baldwin would seek payment for the land from a special tax assessment district.

In January, 1990, after years of negotiations and after wresting major concessions from the development company, the homeowner association board passed a resolution in which they said they would not contest a project if it was limited to its current planned size.

Company officials did not propose taxing future residents to pay for the land until January, 1991, Guthman said.

“How can we be in breach of a contract when the issue we are challenging was not raised until one year after the contract?” he asked.

The homeowners’ suit against the county contends that supervisors violated state environmental law because the costs and benefits of using tax funds to pay for the parkland were not considered in the environmental impact report for the development project.

California law requires that all financing mechanisms for a development be evaluated in a project’s environmental report.