Six weeks ago the California Coastal Commission denied The Edge project on an eight to four vote. The governor appoints four of the 12 commissioners to serve at his pleasure. Three of the four votes supporting approval were by commissioners appointed by the governor. When explaining their position prior to the vote, all three of these commissioners focused on zoning and the right to build on a legal lot. Not one of them mentioned the guidelines in the Coastal Act such as visibility, ridgeline preservation or ESHA issues.
The purpose of the Coastal Commission is to enforce the Coastal Act. The detailed staff report documented numerous features of the applications that were not in conformance with the Coastal Act. The three supportive votes were essentially saying if the lot is legal and zoned for a house then let it be built. The guidelines, historically imposed on all other applicants before the Commission, were set aside for The Edge’s project by these three votes.
It was well publicized that the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s silence was purchased for $750,000. What was not voiced was the condition that all six applications had to be approved or The Edge could request the escrow company to return his money. The vote denied his applications so the Conservancy gets nothing. The Edge, however, did get the Conservancy’s silence and it did not cost a dime. The lobbying on this project has been without limit.
When The Edge purchased his property, I told him I was thrilled having somebody who would really live there develop the property. I believed he would do an exceptional job. As his plans evolved, I realized the enormous impact it would have. Just on the grading, over 5,000 trucks of dirt were to be exported. My support disappeared as more facts surfaced. The misrepresentations on this project have been the best money can buy. He has focused just on the unique designs of the houses and avoided the real impact of everything else. I am not opposed to his building his house but he should not be able to obtain permits that would be denied to others. Of the four commissioners appointed by the governor, three were present and an alternate took the place of the fourth. I am puzzled by how the three appointees of the governor did not even discuss Coastal Act guidelines.
James P. Smith