Suit Challenges Coastal Panel’s Malibu Boundary

A lawsuit challenging the boundaries of the five-mile-wide protected Malibu coastal zone could open the door for a wave of housing developments along the inland slopes of the Santa Monica Mountains.

The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court this week on behalf of two Santa Monica Mountains landowners, accuses the California Coastal Commission of exceeding its jurisdiction and of repeatedly altering or denying residential development permits in the hills and canyons south of Mulholland Highway.

Los Angeles County had been considering joining the lawsuit for several months at the behest of Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who represents San Fernando Valley areas within the five-mile-wide coastal zone and supports removing about 6,000 parcels from the protected area.

However, San Mateo attorney Joseph Gughemetti, who filed the suit on behalf of the landowners, said that he could not wait any longer for the county to decide and named the county a defendant in the suit because it approved the Malibu land-use plan, which uses the disputed coastal zone boundary. Antonovich could not be reached for comment on the action.

Coastal Commission members and environmentalists believe a court ruling reducing the protected boundaries could close off open areas earmarked for a proposed Santa Monica Mountains national park and remove land-use restrictions that prevent widespread residential development there.

“If a court rules that they can close off the Santa Monica Mountains from the public, we’ll have a revolution,” said Joseph T. Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, one of the defendants named in the suit.

The lawsuit accuses the conservancy of illegally laying claim to part of the property owned by Quaker Corp., one of the landowners, to create a small scenic overlook for the public.

Edmiston dismissed the accusation as frivolous.

“This fight has been going on since the inception of the Coastal Act, so I’m not surprised by the suit,” said Robert Franco, vice chairman of the commission. “Developers always dispute the boundary because they want to build homes in the coastal zone without certain restrictions. But our job is to protect it.”

Although the lawsuit focuses on 432 acres near the intersection of Mulholland Highway and Las Virgenes Road owned by Michael T. Ghosn and Quaker Corp., Gughemetti alleges that the entire protected zone stretches well beyond the boundaries approved under the 1976 Coastal Act.

Gughemetti claims that the boundary was supposed to be drawn at the first major ridge near the coast, or five miles from the coast, whichever was closer to the ocean. But he said that the boundary maps completed by the Coastal Commission staff greatly exceed the limit and have forced developers beyond the boundary to meet the commission’s stringent land-use requirements.

The suit seeks to strip away about one-third of the Malibu coastal zone boundary.

Quaker Corp. for nine years has sought permits to develop about 272 acres along the disputed boundary, but, according to the lawsuit, the company’s land has been targeted by the state Parks and Recreation Department for public acquisition.

When negotiations between the two parties collapsed, the suit alleges, the Coastal Commission “used its planning and development process to interfere with, defer, or preclude the resident development” of the property.

However, the lawsuit goes well beyond the issue of coastal zone boundaries, alleging that an unnamed member of the California Coastal Commission extorted political contributions in exchange for approval of Quaker’s proposed residential development.

Coastal Commission members vehemently denied the accusations, saying that it is a wild attempt to smear the agency and cloak the real issue of protected coastal boundaries.

“That is absolutely ridiculous,” responded commission member Madelyn Glickfeld. “In no way are any of our decisions based on contributions. The people have to look at the antics of Mr. Gughemetti to see what is really happening here.”

Glickfeld said that changing the coastal boundary would harm the fragile watershed lands that drain into the sea, adding that, if anything, “the coastal zone is too limited, not too large.”

Tom Crandall, deputy commission director, said the lawsuit is aimed at the wrong agency because the Legislature set the boundary and has upheld it over the years. The landowners’ suit seeks to block the Coastal Commission from ruling in land-use cases beyond the disputed boundary.

“It seems to me that seeking the court’s intervention is not as effective a way to pursue a change in the coastal zone boundary as going through the legislative process,” Crandall said. “Obviously, there is a group of individuals who would like to be outside the coastal zone, and they think this is the best way to go about it.”

The suit claims Ghosn and Quaker Corp. were denied their constitutional right to develop the land and “suffered irreparable harm” and “loss of development opportunities” because of their dealings with the coastal agency.

They are seeking unspecified amounts in general and punitive damages from the state, although Gughemetti said the actual damages would be about $35 million for both parties.

The suit asks the court to stop the commission from requiring open space and hiking trails as a condition for development and asks a change of venue “to bring it out of the county that’s involved in the hassle,” according to Gughemetti.

Ralph Faust, chief counsel for the commission, said the lawsuit could have a sweeping effect on the entire Malibu coastal zone.

“There are some people who believe that the coastal zone should just be the beach, but that’s not what the Legislature determined,” he said. “We’re talking about the main line of the coastal zone, not just a small section, and we’re going to fight it all the way.”