Group to hear appeals

Editor’s note: This corrects the spelling of John Delarroz’ name.

The California Coastal Commission will hold a hearing Sept. 15 in Eureka to determine whether the city’s approval of a coastal development permit to sub-divide Laguna Terrace Park is valid.

The Laguna Terrace property owner has petitioned the Orange County Superior Court to block the commission from assuming control of the project.

“I haven’t decided yet whether to ask the court to prohibit the September hearing, but I don’t think it would make any difference because if the court rules in our favor, it would nullify any action taken by the commission,” said James Lawson, general manager of the upscale mobile home park in South Laguna.

A status conference has been scheduled by the court for Sept. 13, at which each side is to present a brief summary of the arguments.

City officials approved in June the permit that would allow the residents to buy the land on which their mobile homes stand. However, the commission ruled the city’s action was appealable, which gives it the jurisdiction to negate the city’s authority.

“Commissioners will talk at the hearing about whether there is a substantial issue, which is a conflict between the actions taken by the city and the policies of its Local Coastal Program,” said John Delarroz, the commission’s coastal program analyst.

People who have already testified on the project have standing to submit written requests to testify at the hearing.

Appeals to the city’s actions were filed by South Laguna resident Penny Elia, Newport Beach resident Paul Esslinger, father of Steven Esslinger, who was given control of the property after lengthy court proceedings, and Coastal Commissioners Sara Wan and Patrick Kruer.

Elia alleged five bases for her appeal: inconsistency with the California Coastal Act and the city’s Local Coastal Program; questionable legality of the general plan amendment; questionable legality of a zoning change; un-permitted development; and illegal grading and alteration of a streambed.

Lawson said the facts don’t support Elia’s allegations.

“Just show me where and when,” Lawson said.

Lawson said the proposal to convert Laguna Terrace into a resident-owned park would be withdrawn if the court rules in favor of the commission, which he thinks is what the appellants would prefer.

“Two commissioners are against the subdivision because it would make the community permanent,” Lawson said. “Going to the commission is a non-starter for us.”

If successful in blocking the commission from taking over jurisdiction and overturning the subdivision permit, Laguna Terrace Park would be divided into 157 individual parcels that could be purchased by the residents or remain as rentals, and one common area. The park would be confined to 19 ½ acres of a 46 ½-acre parcel that was split off from a larger parcel in 1995.

A tentative tract map for the 19 ½ acre subdivision was approved by the city on July 21, but approval of a final tract map hangs on the court determination of the appealability of the coastal development permit issued by the city.

“The commission decided the permit was appealable on June 9, even before the city approved it.” Lawson said.

That hearing prompted the legal action by the park owner.

The commission took the position that the project was appealable due to the lack of a coastal development permit for the reconfiguration of the property and therefore the coastal development permit application should pertain to the whole 270-acre parcel, on which there is a stream.

Lawson said the lot split was not contested at the time, in fact not until 2007, and coastal development permits were issued in the interim without appeals.

The city’s position is that the project is not subject to coastal commission jurisdiction because the landowner’s proposal is solely for the purpose of giving the residents ownership of land and does not change the historical use.

Only the 19 ½ acres were included in the request to sub-divide, and the park owner did not apply for a coastal development permit — that was the city’s idea.

Lawson contends, and city staff agrees, that the project does not constitute development.

“The opponents act like we are a new development, which is so far from the truth,” resident Peggy Ford said. “They are ignoring the fact that we won’t be doing anything that hasn’t already been done. The park has been there for 60 years.

“I just don’t understand them.”

Should the court rule in favor the commission’s position, the residents could pursue the subdivision on their own, Lawson said.