A Sierra Club attorney says the Forges will not win and may have created new legal problems for themselves.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
The owners of Beau Rivage restaurant filed a lawsuit on Friday against the California Coastal Commission, the only ruling body that has rejected their proposal to build a 16,240-square-foot, 27-unit bed and breakfast next to the restaurant at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Corral Canyon Road. Frank Angel, the Sierra Club attorney who has been leading the fight against the proposed Forge Lodge for several years, said the lawsuit is baseless and could leave the owners open to further legal problems.
The Coastal Commission voted 12-0 in August to reject Daniel and Luciana Forges’ request for a coastal development permit. The decision came despite a recommendation from Coastal Commission staff to approve the project. In his petition to the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Forges’ attorney, Alan Block, wrote that the Coastal Commission’s rejection in August of his clients’ request was “not supported by findings” and was based on “an unsupported accusation by application opponents.”
The major reason for the Coastal Commission’s rejection was that it said the project was proposed to be located within 100 feet of an environmentally sensitive habitat area, or ESHA, which is a violation of the Malibu Local Coastal Program. Block wrote that there was no evidence to support that, and that the coastal staff correctly identified the project as being outside the 100-foot threshold. Angel said the Sierra Club had the evidence and the coastal staff did not review it.
Block further wrote that the Forges did not, as the Coastal Commissioners and project opponents who attended the meeting claimed, cause the environmental degradation of their property and violate a previously approved coastal permit by not removing two trailers. In 1990, the Forges received a permit for the construction of a shopping center in the same area, which was never built. Although part of the project, according to the permit, includes the removal of two trailers, it is not specified as a Coastal Commission-demanded condition for the permit. Block said the trailers mentioned in the permit were removed and are not the same ones that are there now. He added that even if they were the same trailers, not removing them would not mean a violation of the permit since it was listed as being part of the project rather than a condition, so not doing it would be equivalent to only building 20 homes when a permit is received for 24.
Sierra Club attorney Angel said the Forges did promise to remove the trailers and other debris from the site. And he said the fact that they haven’t been removed is a violation of the Coastal Act. Several Coastal Commissioners said in August that the area had been disturbed by unpermitted trailers, campers, other vehicles and debris. Also, goats that were recently placed in the area for brush clearance (they have since been removed) ate the bark off a tree. The commissioners said this had led to a degradation of the ESHA. The Malibu LCP does not allow a site to lose its ESHA designation because of the effects of illegal development.
Angel said the issue about the trailers being raised in Block’s application has opened the door to judicial review of the Forges’ alleged violations. He said the Attorney General’s Office should file charges regarding the matter, but if it does not, he might recommend the Sierra Club file a suit on behalf of the public. Block said he disagreed with Angel’s assessment.
Angel said he also planned to recommend the Sierra Club intervene in the Forges’ lawsuit on the side of the Coastal Commission.