Laguna Beach homeowners win reprieve in tearing down seawall protecting house
Jeffrey and Tracy Katz have won a reprieve from the Coastal Commission’s order to pay a $1 million fine and remove a seawall that protects their $25-million Laguna Beach home from high tides and big waves.
Because of the Katzes pending suit challenging the commission’s August decision, Orange County Superior Court Judge Randall J. Sherman ruled earlier this month that there would be no fine or seawall removal until the Katz’s case is heard. He set a trail date of June 17, 2019.
“It’s an appropriate outcome,” said Katzes’ attorney Steven Kaufmann.
But he reserved judgement on his clients’ odds of prevailing in the long term. “We have a ways to go.”
The prior owners had received retroactive commission approval for the previously unpermitted seawall with the condition that the wall be removed if there was new development on the beachfront lot.
An extensive remodeling request by the prior owners was abandoned after commission staff indicated it was unlikely to be approved.
The Katzes, who live next door, bought the home in 2015 as an investment and say in a legal filing that their remodeling increased the value of the home from $14 million to $25 million.
The 4,900-square-foot house, located at 11 Lagunita Drive, is perched on the popular pocket of sand known as Victoria Beach, considered the birthplace of modern skimboarding.
Seawalls vs. nature
In August, the state Coastal Commission agreed unanimously that the Katzes’ work constituted a major remodeling without required commission approval — and that work violated the permit provisions for the 8-foot high seawall.
The commission doubled the staff-recommended fine to $1 million, ordered the Katzes to remove the seawall within 60 days and suggested the couple work with the commission to come up with a plan for altering the house so it could survive high ocean waters without the seawall.
The commission tends to disfavor seawalls because they can cause beaches to be depleted of sand and disrupt natural erosion. Environmentalists have been watching the case because it’s believed to be the first time the commission has ordered removal of a seawall.
Some activists hope the decision is a prelude to the removal of other illegally constructed seawalls. But with the judge-ordered stay for the Katzes, ocean advocates are also keeping their eye on the case at hand.
“It’s very frustrating to see the continued disregard of the law by these property owners,” said Jennifer Savage, the Surfrider Foundation’s California policy manager. “The violations have been flagrant, long-standing and well-documented, so we do feel optimistic the courts will recognize that the Coastal Commission properly fulfilled their obligation to protect the public beach for all Californians.
“We just hope the illegal seawall doesn’t destroy that public beach in the meantime, especially with the coming winter storms and swells.”
Remodel dispute
The home was built in 1952 and the seawall was built in 2005, subsequently receiving an emergency commission permit that expired shortly afterward. The wall remained unpermitted for nearly 10 years until being made legal in 2005, with the condition that no major remodeling take place.
The Katzes’ say the work on the house was simply “repair and maintenance” and note that it did not increase the square footage or footprint of the house.
But Coastal Commission staff’s report and photos indicate extensive work, including new exterior walls, doors and windows in addition to reinforcing the existing wall and roof framing. The report says that a permit exemption for “repair and maintenance,” claimed by the Katzes, did not apply.
“Where virtually everything that makes up a house is replaced, and what is left is reengineered and fortified, and where the value of the house increased by $11 million just over the course of the reconstruction, that is not mere ‘repair and maintenance’ by any common definition,” according to the report.
On the other hand, the city Community Development Development Director Gregory Pfost has said the project was exempt from a commission permit and was a minor remodel because “less than 50 percent of the exterior wall framing or floors and roof systems had been demolished.”
Katz lawyer Kaufmann said the city and Coastal Commission appear to operating under different guidelines.
“I think there are unresolved issues between the city and the commission,” he said. “It’s my belief the two sides should be reconciling these differences so that property owners — like those at 11 Lagunita — know the rules.”