Land Swap in Malibu Is Rejected

A Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that billionaire businessman Eli Broad, Nancy Daly Riordan and a third wealthy Malibu property owner cannot circumvent restrictions on the size of their homes by buying other oceanfront property and dedicating it to public use.

In an opinion made final Thursday, Judge David Yaffe ruled that “such practice, called ‘offsite mitigation,’ violates the basic purposes of the Coastal Act.”

The judge indicated that he will send the matter back to the California Coastal Commission so the panel can rethink the proposal for the property or come up with sufficient evidence to justify its approval.

Commission Chairwoman Sara Wan said she believes the judge’s concerns can be overcome. “I’m sure our attorneys are going to tell us to take it back and get it right a second time,” Wan said. “There’s a net benefit to the state.”

The issue surfaced last year when Broad, Riordan, who is the wife of Mayor Richard Riordan, and television magnate Haim Saban bought six parcels along Carbon Beach with plans to demolish six homes on them and build three much larger houses.

The commission granted the building permits on the condition that each of the three new residential lots keep 20% of its 100 feet of ocean frontage visually open to provide the public with sea views from Pacific Coast Highway.

State law calls for the protection and enhancement of such “view corridors” so the Pacific is not walled off by shoulder-to-shoulder houses.

The three property owners, displeased with the restrictions on the size of the houses, made the Coastal Commission a counteroffer: to buy and preserve an 80-foot stretch of adjacent La Costa Beach.

The owners offered to donate the land to the Coastal Commission, so the property would be protected from development and could be used as a point of access to a beach now lined with private homes.

The 12-member commission unanimously approved the new plan, over the objections of the La Costa Beach Homeowners Assn., whose 54 members said opening that stretch of beach would create a safety hazard on the busy highway.

So the association sued the commission and persuaded Judge Yaffe, as he wrote in his opinion, that it wasn’t right for the three partners to “saddle their neighbors along La Costa Beach with whatever public intrusion will be caused by compliance with the Coastal Act.”

In his ruling, Yaffe wrote that the public already has an ocean view along the 80-foot undeveloped stretch of beach, which is now lined with a chain-link fence.

He said that to provide public access, the strip would need some kind of stairway or ramp and then would have to be maintained. But there is no evidence, he wrote, that anyone has agreed to make or maintain such improvements.

Unless the commission can provide evidence to the contrary, the judge concluded: “The swap made by [Broad, Daly and Saban] reduces, rather than maximizes, public access to views along Pacific Coast Highway.”

Patricia Glaser, representing La Costa homeowners, called the ruling a major victory.

“The judge considered the issue backwards, forwards and sideways and thought the Coastal Commission has acted in an unsupported and arbitrary fashion,” she said. “The commission is now being forced to come up with reasons why they can justify this.”

Andrew Cushnir, an attorney for Broad, Daly and Saban, downplayed the significance of the ruling on his clients’ plans. They have already begun construction of their homes.

“The judge raised some questions about the commission’s ruling and the commission will be given an opportunity to answer them,” Cushnir said. “We presumably will appear before the commission to help them answer the questions.”