Mar Vista project ordered to stop

The developer of a large residential project at 31491 Mar Vista has been ordered to “cease and desist” from continuing construction on the project by the California Coastal Commission.

The order was issued June 16, three days after the commission agreed to hear an appeal of the city-issued coastal permit for the project, as requested by project opponents.

When the appeal hearing was granted, a “stay” of the permit went into effect, but commission staff said the developer has continued to work at the site, despite the abeyance of the permit.

The commission has asked city officials to enforce the stay, but city officials declined, citing previous legal rulings upholding the project.

Project critics are outraged that the order to halt construction has not been enforced.

In an e-mail to the press and others, Sierra Club activist Penny Elia questioned whether the city should be issuing coastal development permits if officials are not willing to enforce the Coastal Act.

“We expect our local government to do their duty,” Elia wrote. “Stop this rape, and uphold the Commission’s cease-and-desist order on Mar Vista. We elected you to protect our environment, not just facilitate development until nothing is left of our natural resources we hold so very dear.”

As of Wednesday, neither the commission nor the city has acted to enforce the cease-and-desist order.

“I don’t care who enforces it, as long as it is enforced,” former Mayor Ann Christoph said.

“It is rare for an order not to be complied with,” Lisa Haage, commission chief of enforcement, said.

Developer Gerald Massineo lost a bid for a temporary restraining order on Monday in Orange County Superior Court seeking to prohibit the commission from hearing the appeal. Superior Court Judge Kirk Makamura did not grant the request, but set June 29 for another hearing on the issue.

Massineo and his attorney, Peter Wilson, declined to comment on the commission’s order or the judge’s ruling.

Neighbors reported Tuesday that boring had begun on the site. On Tuesday morning, six or seven people were observed at the site, moving equipment.

“We have been sent photographs of work being done,” Haage said. “We were not surprised to get reports that work was continuing, because we were twice told by Mar Vista Development Corp. attorney Allen Haynie that they respectfully declined to stop work.”

Haynie did not return commission telephone calls on Tuesday, Haage said.

The project has been repeatedly challenged by neighbors, environmentalists and champions of limits on the size of a home regardless of the size of the site on which it is to be built.

A 17,000-square-foot residence and a 4,500-square-foot garage is planned for the 12-acre blufftop site in South Laguna, which some neighbors claim will harm natural resources, including a watercourse, which may violate the city’s Local Coastal Plan Program.

Questions raised in April by South Laguna resident Devora Hertz prompted the commission to order a staff review of the project’s water-quality-management plan.

Commission staff reported that no development was authorized within 100 feet of any significant watercourse on the site, and city Development Department Director John Montgomery stated that no development had taken place in the proscribed area.

Montgomery said the Coastal Commission never certified maps submitted by the city of drainage courses in South Laguna and Laguna Canyon, so they are not part of the city’s coastal plan and cannot, by law, be included in the criteria for coastal development permits.

Nonetheless, the commission voted 6-2 at the June 13 meeting to hear an appeal of the project, overruling its staff recommendation.

Although no date for an appeal hearing has been set, Massineo was advised in a letter dated June 14 that the appeal renders ineffective the local coastal development permit issued by the city, and, therefore, all development should stop.

Commission Enforcement Analyst Andrew Wilson sent a written request on the same date asking the city to shut down the project until the commission acts on the appeal, but city officials refused to intercede.

“This is between the commission and the developer,” City Manager Ken Frank said. “We have advised the commission staff, based on the city attorney’s advice, that they should feel free to undertake the enforcement.”

The city had re-issued construction and local coastal development permits to settle a lawsuit filed in January by Massineo after the city rescinded permits when the project was appealed to the council.

“We had no choice but to reissue the permits, or the court would have,” Frank said. “It is the city attorney’s position that we have no choice now.”

The commission is considering further steps, Haage said.

A commission cease-and-desist order may be subject to any terms and conditions that are necessary to ensure compliance with the Coastal Act or a local coastal program, Wilson advised Massineo.

The Act authorizes the commission to initiate litigation. Development in violation of any provision of the act may result in fines not to exceed $30,000 nor less than $500. Additionally, anyone who knowingly and intentionally performs and undertakes development in violation of the act can be penalized no less than $1,000 nor more than $15,000 for every day the violation continues.

“We are looking at our options and coordinating with the Attorney General’s office,” Haage said.

? Cindy Frazier

contributed to this story