Who’s Protecting the Coast? - Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell


By John Davis

The California Coastal Commission and the City of Los Angeles have a policy the public does not know about. The City illegally issues Coastal Development Permits without telling the State Commission. When the Coastal Commission is informed by the public it asks no questions and fails to enforce the law. This is not just State law but Federal law, the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.


The ultimate effect is to give developers the green light to thwart law that protects sensitive resources and access to Coastal Zone, the area where the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction. In Venice, this results in an artificially ballooned real estate market, driven by large illegal developments. A cascade of pain and misery then ensues as both the young and old alike are evicted from their long-term rentals to make room for trophy houses, condos. Development like this could forever damage the character of Venice.
Having lived in Venice for 18 years, I have watched this happen with my own eyes, thinking the whole time something is wrong.

The process approved by the leaders of the United States to protect the coast is sound but rarely employed or understood.

At the local level, the people behind this are the Los Angeles City Council members and the City Attorney. At the State level, it is those appointed to serve on the California Coastal Commission and the Attorney General.

They make the argument that public revenues must be generated by as much development as possible.

Well, that sounds good, feed the hungry and house the homeless. However, it is a deception. Since federal law stands in the way of over-developing the coastal zone, the excuse is invalid. In fact, it is a crime and those who reap the harvest are developers and their political lackeys. People’s homes and shelter are taken and more go hungry while the public system has to pick up the pieces.

Here it how they have pulled it off since 1972. While public hearings are convincing, the real dirty work is done behind closed doors by Coastal Commission staff, the Council and Mayor fail to supervise. Both create illegal procedures that closely mirror the real law. But slight deviations are made, creating escape hatches for illegal development.

Here is a brief history of what has happened in Venice, ending with a current example.

The Coastal Commission was approached as soon as the California Coastal Act was passed in 1976 by the city of Los Angeles, seeking local power to issue Coastal Development Permits appealable to the Coastal Commission. This is legal. The first hearing was in San Francisco, so far from Los Angeles the public could not meaningfully participate, as the law requires. But Beachhead reporters made it anyway and witnessed what happened. The Coastal Commission directed its staff to continue the hearing to the next meeting in Los Angeles.

At this point the commission lost control of its staff because just weeks later the final hearing was scheduled in San Francisco again, not LA as the Commission has directed.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the Coastal Commission approved the city’s request but did so in direct contradiction to the California Brown Act, by giving the City Engineer the power to issue public Coastal Development Permits. Only a legislative body or a standing committee of a legislative body can approve or disapprove a permit at an open hearing and the City Engineer is neither. Yet, recently the City Engineer issued a permit for a controversial project intended for the Venice Circle last year. The Coastal Commission then conducted a cover-up and hid from the public the fact the permit was then, and is today, totally illegal because the City actually issued the permit prior to appeal to the Coastal Commission.

It is the commission’s executive director who allows planners and enforcement personnel to act more like corporate mobsters than paid servants of the people. The commission is directly responsible for maintaining control of its staff but knowingly fails, again and again, just like Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who is now under indictment.

Another brief example of development gone wild is the huge green condo towers on Lincoln at the far south end of Venice. The land was a toxic mess and the developer was supposed to treat and filter contaminated ground water but did not.

The most recent development, another 16-story tower, was not required to pay any money to mitigate traffic on Lincoln. But it just gets worse. When the city issues a permit, the Coastal Commission must be informed and have a copy of the conditions.

In this case, the planner for the Coastal Commission accepted a conditions list from the wrong public hearing. Now, neither the city, nor the Coastal Commission, nor the public can understand what conditions are imposed on the project, if any at all. Councilman Rosendahl’s staff looked for the valid staff report referred to on the permit, but could not locate it either. At least they looked.

At 602-670 Main, in Venice, the city illegally issued a Coastal Development Permit without first informing the Coastal Commission, so that an appeal period could begin. The person who illegally affixed her name to the Coastal Permit was Emily Gable-Luddy.

She stated the permit was valid and in effect and no appeals had been filed. That is because the city did not inform the Coastal Commission so an appeal period could begin. The dates on the illegal permit then expired.

When it was brought to the attention of the city and the Coastal Commission, both began a well-rehearsed cover-up as they normally do. First, the developer signed documents too late. Then, the Coastal Commission opened an appeal period. Of course this process is illegal, since it is impossible to open an appeal on a project that is half-built on an illegally issued permit that is expired.

I have personally requested an enforcement action by the chair of the Coastal Commission who is appointed by the Governor. Also, I filed an appeal with the Commission just so a public process could begin and reveal the truth.

The chief enforcement officer of the Coastal Commission informed me that there is not enough money in the budget to enforce the Coastal Act, so a few staff member meet and determine what violations to enforce and which ones will get away. This is a decision that should be made publicly by the Coastal Commission at a hearing. The same officer said that since the Commission was sued for attempting to enforce the law against someone who had been caught and then applied after the fact for a permit, they would no longer enforce a violation if an offender immediately applies for a permit. The Commission lost in Superior Court but failed to appeal the decision to a higher court. Of course developers could only love this outcome.

It encourages developers to ignore the law because if they are caught nothing will happen. The Superior Court was wrong as they often are such as in the Playa Vista Phase One Lawsuit. This policy adopted by a secret committee of Coastal Commission Staff destroys the balance that exists at the time a violation is reported so the Commission could eventually rule and attempts to moot the law.

The enforcement officer also said that when violations are valid, cases are opened to determine what enforcement actions are necessary to protect the environment. The secret enforcement committee then makes judgments according to a resources policy to determine what the officer called “damage to the resource.” The Coastal Commission has never approved of this committee or their methods. This is a case of enforcement gone wild.

Access to the coastal zone is the most important resource, not just fuzzy creatures and plants, which many of us enjoy. Yet, the enforcement committee does not consider access a resource that can be impeded by traffic-spewing development. The chief enforcement officer hears the voice of a developer.

When I asked what the oldest violation case still opened and marked priority by the members of the secret committee, I was informed it was dated 1983.

This, of course, begs the question! What developers does the secret committee like or dislike and based on what criteria?

In the case on Main Street, the city was supposed to provide all relevant documents to the Coastal Commission within five days of an appeal, or as soon as possible. It has been well over 45 days and the City has not responded.

This is probably because the conditions of the illegally issued coastal development have been inducted into the final tract map conditions and perhaps even recorded into official land records.

The city has another practice of illegally issuing coastal permits with conditions, then recording tract maps and land records with different conditions more favorable to developers later.

Perhaps this is why the city is slow on the Main Street appeal. Truth is hard for criminals to say. Stand by and see if the Governor’s appointee to the Coastal Commission enforces the law or allows the building to go up while the status quo is destroyed?

Will the new hero of Council District 11 continue to walk tall and stand for upholding the California Coastal Act? In this case, a cease and desist order should be issued either by the city or the state. It is difficult to believe our tax dollars pay for this.

A Coastal Commissioner named Mark Nathanson was tossed in jail a few years ago. He was known as the Coastal Commissioner to the Stars since part of his area included Malibu. He was convicted of taking bribes. Sometime money trumps justice but not always.

Posted: Thu - June 1, 2006 at 10:45 PM          

©