Last week an L.A. County Superior Court judge held that the donation of land along La Costa Beach by home builders Nancy Daly, Eli Broad and Chaim Saban to the California Coastal Commission in compensation for unfulfilled view corridor requirements on their own properties “violated the basic purposes of the Coastal Act.”
The commission had granted Daly, Broad and Saban permission to build three luxury homes along Carbon Beach in Malibu without the requisite 20 percent public view corridors if they purchased and transferred ownership of an equivalent 80-foot wide undeveloped parcel to the State Coastal Conservancy.
However, presiding Judge David Yaffe reasoned that the swap did not add to public visibility since the existing undeveloped lot already provided a view. In fact, he said the exchange might even reduce the sea view along the coast in the event that the land is developed and then presumably only subject to the 20 percent view requirement.
La Costa residents also argued that the commission had acted irresponsibly by granting the permits without first sufficiently evaluating the situation.
“The Coastal Commission didn’t consider the trash, the crowds, traffic, safety or beach management issues,” said Jody Siegler, president of La Costa’s Homeowners Association. “There aren’t any small restaurants in the area and no communal facilities to accommodate the public.”
Mark Beyeler, who works for the Coastal Conservancy, the agency that acquires and manages coastal public property, said they plan to close the beach at night, orchestrate crews to clean the area and arrange parking along the coastal side of Pacific Coast Highway in front of the beach.
A related but separate suit against the Coastal Conservancy by the homeowners association is still pending in spite of attempts by attorneys representing the commission and conservancy to join the cases.
“It’s really a catch-22,” said Patricia Glaser, attorney for the homeowners association. “The commission doesn’t do anything with the property so when we complain that they can’t do this or that because there are a whole bunch of safety issues, they say, ‘Not us, the conservancy controls the property.’ The conservancy doesn’t take blame. They say, ‘We’re not responsible, we just take care of the property that is given to us.’ “
While the commission has the right to appeal Thursday’s court decision, the ruling may affect the practice of off-site mitigation altogether. By transferring the burden of view corridors to another property some distance away, said Yaffe, the parties have saddled their neighbors with whatever public intrusion will be caused by compliance with the Coastal Act.
“It’s as if I was required to install fire sprinklers in my home but instead, I installed them in a home two miles away,” said Siegler. “That doesn’t satisfy the obligation on my property. We should all be burdened with our own responsibilities.”