2 Views of Ocean View Spark Clash

Legal skirmishes over “view rights” along the California coastline are as common as bluff-top estates.

But San Luis Obispo County property owner Dennis Schneider wasn’t ready for the legal challenge he faced to build a seaside dream home along the rural Harmony Coast near Cayucos.

He never suspected the view of boaters, kayakers and surfers would trump his right as a property owner.

Now, his case has become the first legal test of a state policy that protects views for passersby offshore -- a policy that has been enforced before, but never challenged in court, officials said.

“It’s about whether strangers have more of a right to a pleasing view of your coastline property than you do to develop it,” said attorney Larry Salzman, who represents Schneider for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a national property-rights group.

Last year, the California Coastal Commission found Schneider’s proposed 10,000-square-foot home inconsistent with state law that protects coastal views and maintains the character of coastal settings.

It found that the San Luis Obispo engineer’s proposed mansion didn’t fit amid the rural open spaces of Central Coast ranches, and would prompt similar development nearby.

“Development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas ... [and] shall be subordinate to the character of its setting,” according to the state Coastal Act.

In June, San Luis Obisbo County Superior Court Judge Roger Picquet reluctantly agreed, saying the owner may feel he’s “being nibbled to death by ducks.” Still, the judge ruled: “It’s clear to the court that the beauty of a sunrise from a vantage point offshore is afforded the same protection as a sunset seen from land.”

So Salzman last week asked the state 2nd District Court of Appeal in Ventura to reverse the lower court ruling.

As first proposed, Schneider’s home would have been just 100 feet from a bluff that tumbled to the ocean. The estate would have included a pool and a 2,500-square-foot barn.

Coastal Commission analysts said it would have been one of the largest homes along the county’s coastline and clashed with the agricultural nature of the Harmony Coast, where unfenced cattle still graze.

“Estate type housing ... tends to convert agricultural land, as many owners of this type of housing are not farmers and do not want the nuisance of agricultural uses on their property,” said the commission staff report.

And it would have been visible not only offshore, but perhaps from newly purchased public parklands nearby, staff said.

Instead, the commission ruled that Schneider could still build a new home, but at 5,000 square feet and 300 feet farther back from the bluff. And he couldn’t have a barn, because his rolling 41 acres wasn’t large enough for use as a cattle ranch.

“The commission did authorize construction of a residence that is of substantial size, by most standards,” said Christopher Pederson, supervising attorney for the Coastal Commission. “The new location is less visible, but he will still have an ocean view.”

But Salzman, whose organization has sued the Coastal Commission dozens of times in three decades, said the commission is overreaching again.

“It’s a further erosion of the rights that California agencies afford to property owners,” he said. “It’s an unprecedented power grab.”

Peter Douglas, the commission’s executive director, said the agency is becoming more aggressive in enforcing ocean view laws because there’s more recreational use on public coastal waters; and because isolated stretches of coastline are being bought by wealthy people.

“We understand the importance of landscapes from the sea,” he said. “The view of pastoral areas from the sea to the land without human structures intervening is very important.”