CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
Case No. 5-11-125-REV
Wednesday, January 8, 2014, Item 11a
Presentation on behalf of Permittees
Darrach McCarthy and Lucia Singer
in opposition to Request for Revocation
1
Background
• March 2010, Applicants McCarthy and Singer buy house.
• April 4, 2011: Original plans submitted to the City for plan check. Fully approved.
• August 2011: Coastal hearing scheduled in Watsonville.
• Applicant agreed to move the meeting to Oceanside in November 2011 so all parties could be present.
• September 2011: Story poles erected by an independent licenced story pole contractor.
• November 2011: First coastal hearing.
• Full presentation from both sides.
• Applicant agrees to continue hearing to make changes reducing height, mass and bulk of house.
• February 2012: Second coastal hearing
• Applicants hired new architect and made changes to height, mass, bulk and appearance of the home.
• Commissioners unanimously approve permit finding that the design complied with the Coastal Act.
• CDP issued.
2
3
January 2014 Revocation Request Hearing
• Now,
•
•
•
•
Two years later,
With the house fully framed and almost completed,
The opponents claim that the September 2011 Story Poles,
Erected by an independent and licensed third party story pole contractor,
• Were intentionally inaccurate, and had they been accurate, a different
conclusion would have been reached by the Commission.
4
The allegations are not credible for Many Reasons
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The story poles were erected by a licenced independent story pole contractor in accordance
with plans emailed to him on August 16, 2011. The Permittees sole role was to ask the architect
to send the plans, to sign a contract, and to pay the bill.
Mr Suisman – a published, internationally acclaimed architect and urban planner – asked for,
and received, full access to the property after the poles were erected to “inspect and
photograph” them. Suisman did so, using his analysis in correspondence with the applicants
and in his presentations to the commission, but not any photographs of the story poles.
Suisman also had full access to the actual plans for the project – plans that would give him “an
accurate 3-D picture”. Suisman’s staff worked for several days on the creation of a three
dimension depiction of the Applicant’s design.
The results of this expertise were clearly evident in the opponents presentation at the
commission hearing on November 2011. A three dimensional depiction of the entire
neighborhood with the applicants’ proposed design illustrated was shown. No story pole
photographs were shown.
During the February 2012 hearing, at which the CDP was granted, neither the applicant, nor the
opponents, nor any commissioner mentioned story poles. The sole issue for the Commission
was if the new design was consistent with the “community character”.
Commissioners unanimously agreed that the new design was consistent and approved the CDP.
5
All Information Was Accurate & Available
• The following two slides show an e-mail October 23, 2011 from Mr
Suisman to the applicant requesting and receiving, complete project plans
from which he and his staff “working Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday at
least” will create an “accurate 3-D picture” of the project.
• The second slide shows actual screen shots of the opponents presentation
to commission in November 2011 and February 2012 clearly showing that
they had all the skills and all the necessary information to depict the
project in full 3-D rendering and in “visual comparison with the surrounding
baseline conditions”. And not “in a vacuum” as they now claim the story
poles described the project.
• This slide also clearly refutes the false and misleading claim that “the
building silhouette and height had been substantially understated
compared to what is being built now”.
6
7
Opponents Clearly had the Information and Ability to Represent the
Project Fully and In Context With Surrounding Baseline Conditions
Opponents’ November 2011 presentation
Opponents’ February 2012 presentation
8
Furthermore…
• Mr Suisman’s own analysis, emailed to the applicant September 2011,
based solely on the story poles states:
• “I’ve had a chance to photograph the story poles and look more closely at the
impact of the current design”.
• “and the effect is clear: the complete loss of the view, including canyon,
greenery, whitewater and beach (visible from certain angles), ocean and
coastline”.
• “such a loss of view would represent a minimum loss of $100,000 on our
property, with the potential loss ranging from $200,000-$400,000”.
9
10
This is the Opponents Own Photo September 2011 Depicting the Effect
of the Story Poles That He Now Claims Underrepresented the Project
SUISMAN PHOTOGRAPHS SENT TO MCCARTHY ON SPETEMBER 6, 2011
11
Yet Today, The Opponents Own Photos Clearly Depict a Reality Far Better
Than What He Previously Claimed the Story Poles Now Underrepresented!
12
Comparing Opponents Original September 2011 Story Pole Photo, With The
2014 Revocation Request Photo That He Now Claims Underrepresented The
Project!
13
As can be seen from the following photos, it is quite clear that the story
poles were fair and accurate.
14
Despite the Fact That
• A licensed contractor erected the story poles in accordance with the plans on file
with the Commission (for a design the Commission did not approve).
• No photographs of the story poles except from Ocean Drive were ever presented
as evidence to the Commission.
• The applicant never once mentioned the story poles at the February 2012 hearing
when the CDP was granted.
• The Staff Report accurately states that “the photographs of the story poles and
flag lines submitted with the revocation request were not shown to the
commission”. Each of the opponents September 2011 photographs is incorrectly
labeled by the opponents as “shown to the commission (2011)”.
• The applicant clearly stated and discussed the 33’ height of the house.
• Suisman’s own presentation to the Commission showing that he clearly
understood the scale of the project and was easily and expertly able to put it in
visual context of the surrounding environment.
15
The Alleged “Accurate” Information would not
have affected the Commission decision.
• The offered comparison of the 2011 and 2013 photographs in support
of revocation only go to the issue of private view blockage.
• Each of the opponents’ photographs is taken from a private property
deck or window.
• The Commission has never considered the protection of private views
to come under the Coastal Act policies.
• Therefore, even if allegedly “accurate” information were provided, it
would not have impacted the Commission decision which was based
upon the appearance of the structure, not the impact of the structure
on private views.
16
One Final Point
• When granting the CDP Commissioner Mitchell specifically requested
that the applicant need not go back to the city and be punished for
making the very changes that the opponents requested.
• In reference to the 5% resubmittal rule, she asked:
• “My questions was simply, is their anything that we can do, that we can put
in this motion so that the applicant doesn't have to go back to the city for
another permit to make this a new application altogether?”
17
Yet…
• Even with this specific request from the dais.
• And the commission itself DELETING the BHO requirement from the CDP.
• The opponents, and their attorney, tirelessly lobbied Los Angeles Councilman
Mike Bonin to try use the very changes they themselves requested, against the
applicant, and force a resubmittal of plans.
• Another example of the opponents abusing every administrative procedure
available to delay and add expense to this project.
• On December 6, 2013, Ken Gill, Assistant Chief of the City of LA engineering
bureau replied to Councilman Bonin assuring him that the project is, and always
has been, conforming and vested.
18
City of LA Again Determines That the Project is Conforming & Vested
19
20
In Summation
• All the information and project plans was freely and willingly made available by the
applicant.
• The opponents, led by Mr Suisman, with all his expertise and over a quarter century of
experience as an architect and urban planner, utilized that information fully.
• A comprehensive and complete 3-D presentation to the commission by the opponents –
depicting the project in full rendering and context to the surrounding environment.
• In fact, apart from the final exhibit, all exhibits presented here today are the opponents
OWN photographs and analysis.
• The CDP was issued with unanimous approval.
• The City of LA also reaffirmed the projects legitimacy under local codes.
• Despite this, the opponents have abused every resource at the Commission, Staff and
the City of LA to try and add hardship and expense to the applicant and bully them into
submission.
21