Mistaking gopher holes for geological erosion, asking homeowners to remove sand-fill from playgrounds because their home is in a coastal zone and requiring permits for plastic ball sheds because they are considered developments are examples of what some local property owners already contend with as they deal with the California Coastal Commission’s pre-LCP rules.
As Howard and Terry Rubinroit can attest, appeasing the CCC when it has turned its attention on you is not always easy.
The couple lives in the Monte Nido area, an incorporated portion of Los Angeles, which is considered to be a coastal zone by the commission. Several years ago, the Rubinroits built a pool, a sports court and some steps to access the court on their property after they had obtained all the necessary permits from the county. The sports court was built on an already existing pad.
But even though these additions were already completed, the commission filed a cease and desist order because it had decided the sports court was built without a coastal permit, said Terry Rubinroit. The CCC wanted to review a multitude of reports to show that these items do not affect nearby natural habitat.
Soil reports, survey reports, ecological reports, drainage reports, you name it, they requested it. The CCC also required the Rubinroits to revise items that were already approved by other agencies, such as relocating the pool fence and eliminating chlorine from their pool-and more.
“A never-ending list of things they suddenly decide we should do after we have satisfied earlier requests,” said the Rubinroits with frustration.
The bureaucratic process culminated at a hearing on June 10 when the Rubinroits appeared in front of the commission to make their case. “Our first Coastal hearing … what an experience,” they said in a letter following the meeting. “Coastal comes in and says there may be a violation, then they require a number of reports, and these updated reports cost money,” she said. “But they don’t read those reports, even though the reports say there were no problems,” she added. “Clearly, the questions they asked at the hearing last week reflected they did not read the reports,” summarized Rubinroit.
But Daryl Koutnik, senior biologist for L.A. County, did not agree with the CCC’s conclusion that the original improvements have a negative impact on the nearby Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA.)
In a letter to Don Schmitz and Associates, the company that represented the Rubinroits at the hearing, Koutnik indicated that the CCC’s staff report regarding the Rubinroits’ application is not consistent with the L.A. County Sensitive Environmental Resource Area map.
“There are probably two reasons for the conflicts,” said Koutnick during a later interview. The county interprets sensitive environmental resources slightly differently than the Coastal Commission, and the CCC is of the opinion that there is a deed restriction on development in the area where the sports court is located, he explained. “But this was not a requirement of the county.”
But Terry Rubinroit noted that they did not obtain permits from the CCC because the county did not put a check mark on the list that shows which agencies require a permit.
The Rubinroits continue to fight for what they believe to be their property rights. At the June 10 hearing, the commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the previous recommendations of the staff, which required that the sports courts, the steps and the sand play area be removed. They also added special conditions for the pool and to ad a runoff filtration system for the house.
“The commission’s decision amounts to a further, final and full taking of our property,” said the Rubinroits, who plan to sue the commission if the decision is not changed.