Mar Vista way cleared

Efforts to halt a controversial hillside residence in South Laguna have reached a dead end.

The California Coastal Commission decided July 12 not to appeal a preliminary court ruling that barred it from interfering in any way with the continued construction of the 17,000-square-foot project at 31401 Mar Vista.

The Commission had previously issued a cease-and-desist order which the developer ignored, after deciding to hold a hearing on an appeal of a city-issued coastal development permit for the project.

“The commission discussed the appeal in closed session with its counsel and staff, and decided not to pursue the appeal,” commission Chief of Enforcement Lisa Haage said.

Critics of the project were disheartened by the decision made in closed session at the commission meeting in San Diego.

“Personally, I don’t think there is anything else that can be done,” said Bill Rihn, a South Laguna Civic Association spokesman. “We are still agonizing, but no one has thought of anything we can do.”

The commission also pulled from its July 12 agenda an appeal by the civic association, Rihn, Village Laguna and Devora Hertz of the project for the proposed 17,000-square-foot home and a 4,500 square-foot garage on approximately 12 acres.

South Laguna resident Lisa Marks spoke on behalf of the appellants during public comment, urging the commission to pursue an appeal of the preliminary ruling, issued June 29 by an Orange County Superior Court judge.

“Last month, the commission decided that the project was appealable,” Marks said. “We were looking forward to discussing the violations that this project entails, but Orange County Superior Court Judge [Kirk] Nakamura ruled that the Coastal Commission was enjoined from hearing the appeal.”

Marks said she was at the meeting to present facts that might have influenced the judge’s ruling and which might contribute to an appeal of his decision.

She cited damage to watercourses, the watershed and a bad precedent that she said conflicted with the judge’s opinion that the commission had not shown it would suffer harm from the project.

“There is plenty of material from which to argue ‘harm’,” Marks said.

She also disputed the judge’s determination of the deadline for the appeal to be filed, within 49 days of the city notice of final approval issued by the city last year.

Project opponents claimed that substantial subsequent changes in the project should have required a new review, setting aside the notice, the administrative approval of the changes and the issuance of a building and coastal development permits. They had appealed the administrative approvals in November, and the city rescinded the building permits

Mar Vista developer Gerald Massineo took the issue to court in January and would have won if the city hadn’t settled in February, city officials said. Massineo agreed to some project changes requested by the city and the permits were reissued.

The settlement prompted the council to decline to enforce the coastal commission cease-and- desist order issued in June, after opining the project was appealable, despite city and commission staff opinions that it wasn’t.

Massineo returned to the courts and successfully made his case.

Opponents will continue to monitor the project, Rihn said.