Judge throws out Broad Beach homeowners suit against Coastal Commission

0
210

The decision did not determine whether the Coastal Commission’s permitting policies were legal.

By Jonathan Friedman/Staff Writer

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant dismissed a lawsuit filed against the California Coastal Commission by four Broad Beach homeowners and the Trancas Property Owners Association over its permitting policies. The homeowners accused the Coastal Commission of illegally forcing people to donate portions of their property to the state rather than having to go through what they said was a costly and timely study. The judge ruled against the homeowners because the statute of limitations had long run out for two of them, and another two had still not applied for coastal development permits, making the suit too early for them. But Chalfant did not make a definitive ruling on the Coastal Commission’s permitting policies for Broad Beach.

When beachside residents apply for coastal permits to either rebuild a home or make changes to an existing one, the Coastal Commission asks them to conduct a study to determine how the project will affect public access to the beach. They are given an option to avoid that study by donating a portion of their beach property to the state for public access. Chuck Damm, senior deputy director of the Coastal Commission’s Ventura office, said everybody chooses the donation option.

“Most of those people are just interested in building their home,” Damm said. “They’ve just chosen to do that rather than have to do a study and all the costs associated with that.”

Marshall Grossman of the Trancas Property Owners Association said the fact that people choose to donate land rather than have to deal with the study is an example of how the state is forcing people to give up their land without being compensated, which is constitutionally illegal.

“No one in their right mind would voluntarily give away 25 or 50 percent of their property if they thought they had a real alternative to doing so,” Grossman said. “What the Coastal Commission staff has told homeowners is that they must provide a study, which proves with absolute certainty that over the next several decades there will be no impact on public access … the Coastal Commission staff makes it clear that in order to avoid complying to this impossible standard, the homeowner may provide lateral access. “

Grossman added, “If this type of conduct was engaged in by businesses in Malibu, they would be brought to trial on charges of theft.”

Coastal Commission attorney Christopher Pederson said Grossman is exaggerating what is involved in the study. He said the purpose of the study is to make sure that public access to the beach is not affected by development. If a person agrees to donate a portion of the beach property, then it is assured that public access will exist. He said people could not claim they are being forced into donating the land because they are given another option.

The determination of what portion of the beach is public has been a controversial subject for years. The public beach is supposed to be all land from the mean high tide line to the ocean. But also, some residents have donated portions of their land in exchange for variances on their coastal permits. With the mean high tide changing daily and different people having donated various amounts of land to the state, the Malibu beaches are a zigzag of private and public portions with no consistent pattern.

Broad Beach residents have placed signs on their property to notify the public how many feet from the ocean the private property line begins. The numbers on the signs changes daily. The Coastal Commission staff recently told Broad Beach homeowners to remove the signs and security patrols from the area. Grossman told The Malibu Times earlier this month that the commission staff did not have the right to do that.