A judge Wednesday took under submission a petition by members of a beach club with facilities located on and near the beach along Pacific Coast Highway who want the Coastal Commission to allow them to perform repairs to their facility, damaged in heavy 2023 winter rains, without having to obtain a coastal development permit.
The Bel-Air Bay Club Ltd.’s Los Angeles Superior Court legal action contends that a disaster caused the destruction and that therefore the proposed repairs are exempt under the state Public Resources Code from a requiring such an authorization. The original court papers include one sketch and one color photograph of the damaged lanai.
But according to the Attorney General’s Office’s court papers, the commission in the past 30 years approved a disaster exemption related to storm-related wave action only twice.
“Likewise, the commission concluded here that (the club’s) application did not meet the criteria for a disaster exemption and substantial evidence supports that decision…” according to the Attorney General’s Office’s pleadings.
Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch heard arguments from both sides Wednesday and took the issues under submission.
In its petition, the club states that the case “challenges the commission’s unlawful denial of BABC’s application for an exemption from coastal development permit requirements to replace facilities that have existed unharmed on BABC’s property for over 70 years and were destroyed in an unprecedented and disastrous winter storm.”
The club’s beachfront facilities include a concrete lanai structure built 1950 that serves food and drinks to visitors and provides substantial revenue to the club during the summer, the petition states.
However, a significant part of the lanai was destroyed during the January 2023 rains, according to the petition.
“The storm’s combination of heavy rainfall, high wind gusts of up to 50 miles per hour and dangerous surf created massive wave action that eroded the compacted sand underneath the lanai structure …” the petition states.
The club does not seek to expand, intensify the use of or otherwise change the lanai, but only to restore the portion of the structure destroyed by storm events to its prior condition, according to the petition.
“Yet, the commission’s unlawful position is that damage from a storm entirely outside of BABC’s control requires BABC to give up its rights to the lanai that has existed and that BABC has operated continuously in the same location for over 70 years,” the petition alleges.
A section of the California Coastal Act of 1976 provides exemptions in some cases from coastal development permit requirements, including allowing the rebuilding of structures destroyed by a disaster, the petition states.
“BABC’s proposed lanai replacement fits squarely within the disaster exemption’s four corners, the petition states.
After the club filed its exemption application on May 22, the commission staff “summarily issued a letter denying BABC’s application to replace a portion of the lanai…” the petition states.
“Ignoring plain facts along with declared federal, state and local states of emergency related to the severe storms that struck Southern California this past winter, the denial letter concluded without evidence or support that the historic storm that destroyed the lanai did not fall under the Coastal Act’s extremely broad definition of a disaster.”
The commission concluded that the lanai’s damage was caused by historic erosion and scouring, the petition states.
“Moreover, the denial letter did not stop at simply denying BABC’s request for a CDP exemption … (but) also took the far-reaching position that even if BABC applied to the commission for a CDP for the work, (the permit) could not be approved due to conflicts with Coastal Act policies,” the petition states.
The commission letter states that the club’s only option is to submit a permit application to remove the entire lanai, or at minimum the damaged portion of the structure, the petition states.
But according to the Attorney General’s Office’s court papers, the disaster exemption is limited to times when a structure is destroyed and requires replacement. But because only 40% of the lanai requires replacement, it is not a “destroyed structure,” the Attorney General’s Office’s court papers say.
In addition, normal wave activities over time, not a disaster, caused the damage to the lanai, according to the Attorney General’s Office’s pleadings.