Treasure Island Appeal to Be Heard

The California Coastal Commission has agreed to reconsider its approval of a $150-million resort at Laguna Beach’s Treasure Island after community activists charged that the public is being shortchanged on promised parkland by the developer.

Village Laguna and the South Laguna Civic Assn. have appealed the state agency’s June approval of a 275-room hotel, 17 homes and 14 condominiums on the 30-acre site, saying that the developer, the Athens Group, intentionally misled the commission with an inaccurate map. A planned bluff-top park is more than half an acre less than originally promised, said Ann Christoph, a Village Laguna board member and former Laguna Beach mayor.

“It broke my heart to see what is a real jewel become the exclusive property of” the wealthy, said Jeanie Bernstein, a civic association board member who has lived near Treasure Island for 41 years. “The only justification I can see for turning it into a private development of its size and density is the dedication of land for public use and public access.”

Athens Group vice president John Mansour defended the approval process, for which work began last year.

“This appears to be an attempt by the opposition to stall the project by alleging that intentional misinformation was given during the Coastal Commission process,” he said. “We are confident that the project was processed in full compliance with commission administrative regulations.”

He declined to comment further.

The Treasure Island project initially was approved by the commission at a meeting in Santa Barbara after a lengthy public hearing that drew dozens of passionate Orange County residents and lasted into the night.

Environmentalists won a number of concessions from the Phoenix-based developer, including stringent water-quality requirements, access for the disabled and general public access to idyllic beaches and rocky coves that have been off-limits for decades. The plan calls for nearly 15 acres of open space.

However, community activists say the commission relied on the developer’s outdated tract map of the site, rather than a map approved by the Laguna Beach City Council that would include the 0.6 acres in question in the bluff-top park instead of for development.

A coastal development permit was issued in July. Construction began in September, and has included massive grading. The project is scheduled for completion in late 2002.

The commission will consider the appeal at a Feb. 13 hearing in San Luis Obispo. The commission staff, however, is recommending that the commission deny the revocation request.

“It’s a narrow requirement for revocation,” said Anne Kramer, an analyst in the commission’s Long Beach office. “You have to really prove this was pretty egregious.”

Revocations are rare. Kramer said that in the 1 1/2 years she’s been with the commission, she has seen two attempts, and both failed.

The staff report says the Laguna activists’ appeal fails to meet the grounds necessary for a revocation. It fails to show the developer intentionally provided false or incomplete information, because the commission had copies of both the outdated map, as well as a current map. The claim also fails to show that the commission would have acted differently--adding more permit conditions or denying the permit--without the outdated map.

The staff also recommends denying revocation because the appellants didn’t act quickly enough.

Christoph said she was disappointed by the staff’s recommendation, which seemed to be based on technicalities.

“We have long hoped the staff would support what we’re doing. They have never seemed to understand our contentions, which is a mystery to me,” she said. “We should be on the same side--the side of the public getting open space.”

She added that there are no time limits in the statute, and they waited to file the request because they were hoping the city could work the matter out with the developer. She also said their goal is not to stop the project, but rather to ensure the public gets the land it was promised.

If the commission does not revoke the permit, the only remaining option would be litigation, which Christoph declined to discuss.

However, if the commission approves the revocation, the developer would have to start the Coastal Commission planning process anew.