Malibu Developer, Coastal Commission to Square Off Again

A developer, whose permit to build four luxury homes was revoked by the California Coastal Commission after he was accused of grading 14 times the amount of earth his permit allowed, has revealed a new plan for his Malibu property.

Developer Sheldon Gordon now wants to build three mansions in the exclusive Sweetwater Mesa area, including a 20,000-square-foot home with two guest houses, three swimming pools, two tennis courts, a two-story horse stable and a barn.

A spokesman for the Coastal Commission hinted last week that the commission’s staff is very likely to recommend against the latest proposal to develop the 184-acre property.

The state panel, which meets this week in Monterey, is scheduled to consider the matter on Wednesday. “I doubt that the recommendation will differ radically from what it has been in the past,” planner Diane Landry said of the commission’s tough stand against Gordon.

Gordon, who owns the Ma Maison Sofitel Hotel in West Hollywood was accused of grading 560,000 cubic yards of earth, despite a permit that was to have limited the grading to 40,000 cubic yards.

In revoking his permit in June, several commissioners angrily accused Gordon of misleading them about the amount of grading involved and said they never would have approved the work had they known.

The case has become a cause celebre for environmentalists, who hailed the revocation as a stern message to developers that the panel was ready to clamp down on accused violators of the state’s 1976 Coastal Act.

Wednesday’s hearing is widely viewed as a test of the commission’s will to deal with developers accused of illegal grading within the five-mile coastal zone.

In a lawsuit against Gordon filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the coastal panel is seeking $1 million in civil penalties from Gordon., The suit also asks that he be barred from developing the property and that he repair the damage caused by the grading.

Meanwhile, Gordon has filed a lawsuit against the commission asking that the permit be reinstated. He contends that the commissioners acted unlawfully in revoking the permit without proof that he intentionally misled them.

Although the revocation halted future development of the rugged hill property, the action has, until now, left unresolved what is to be done to restore the damage.

Many residents whose homes are near the property and who opposed the revocation have said that the $1 million Gordon says he has spent to restore some of the damage is not enough. They say that unless he is allowed to finish the project, heavy rains are likely to cause landslides in the exposed hills.

Observers say that in deciding how to treat Gordon’s latest proposal, the coastal panel’s biggest challenge may be in balancing the punishment a majority believe he deserves with the unpleasant possibility that, if landslides occur, the commission itself may be the target of lawsuits by nearby homeowners.

Gordon’s lawyers and representatives of the Coastal Commission have been trying to negotiate a compromise for several weeks.

According to sources familiar with the negotiations, each side wants the other to drop its lawsuit as a condition to Gordon’s being allowed to move ahead with his project. But the two sides are said to be far apart on the sanctions and the project’s size.

Gordon’s application to reinstate the permit was to have been heard by the commission last month. But its consideration was postponed at the last minute after the two sides agreed to try to settle the lawsuits.

In an interview last month, Joseph Petrillo, an attorney for Gordon, complained that the coastal panel was “trying to squeeze all the profit” out of his client’s proposal as punishment for the grading.

Petrillo said that, by recommending that Gordon be allowed to build homes on only a small portion of the property, the commission staff “seems bent on assuring that there is no way he can come out financially on the project.” He said that his client has invested more than $10 million in the property, including the purchase price.