Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The Coastal Act of 1976 (Public Resources Code §30000 et seq.,) (“Coastal Act”) is the legislative continuation of the coastal protection efforts commenced when the People passed Proposition 20, the 1972 initiative that created the Coastal Commission. (See Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm., (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 687, 693.) One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is the avoidance of deleterious consequences of development on coastal resources. (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Comm., (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 163.) The Supreme Court has described the Coastal Act as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. (Yost v. Thomas, (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565. The Coastal Act must be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. Public Resources Code § 30009.)
The Coastal Act’s goals are binding on both the Coastal Commission and local government and include:
The supremacy of these statewide policies over local, parochial concerns is a primary purpose of the Coastal Act, and the Coastal Commission is therefore given the ultimate authority under the Coastal Act and its interpretation. (Pratt Construction Co. v. California Coastal Comm., (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1075-76.)
Because local areas within the coastal zone may have unique issues not amenable to centralized administration, the Coastal Act “encourage[s] state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development” in the coastal zone. (§ 30001.5; Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm., supra, 182 Cal.App.3d at 694-96.) To that end, the Coastal Act requires that “each local government lying, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone” prepare a local coastal program (“LCP”). § 30500(a). The local government prepares the LCP in consultation with the Coastal Commission and with full public participation. (§§ 30500(a), (c), 30503; McAllister v. California Coastal Comm., (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 930, 953.)
The LCP provides a comprehensive plan for development within the coastal zone with a focus on preserving and enhancing the overall quality of the coastal zone environment as well as expanding and enhancing public access. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 571.)
“[A] local government’s
Public Resources Code § 30108.6.
Thus, the LCP consists of a LUP and the implementing actions of zoning ordinances, district maps, and other implementing actions (“LIP”). (Yost v. Thomas, supra, 36 Cal.3d at 571-72.) These may be prepared together or sequentially, and may be prepared separately for separate geographical areas or “segments” of a local coastal zone. Public Resources Code § 30511.
“Decisions of the Coastal Commission are governed by the substantial evidence standard.” (Ross v. California Coastal Commission, (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 900, 921.) “‘Substantial evidence’ is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or evidence of ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value.” (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 585; Mohilef v. Janovici, (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 305, n.28.)
Petitioners are obligated to lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking. The "[f]ailure to do so is fatal" to any substantial evidence challenge and "is deemed a concession that the evidence supports the findings." (Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine, (2004) 11928 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1266.) The reviewing court should "not independently review the record to make up for appellant's failure to carry his burden." (Id.) The court must resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the Commission's decision. (Paoli v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 544, 550.) It may reverse only if, based on the evidence before the Commission, no reasonable person could have reached the Commission's conclusion. (La Costa Beach Homeowners Assn. v. California Coastal Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804, 814.)
The court may not reweigh the evidence, or disregard or overturn a finding simply because a contrary finding would be more reasonable. (Boreta Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, (1970) 2 Cal.3d 85, 94.) A court may only overturn the agency’s decision if a reasonable person could not have reached the decision based on the evidence that the agency had before it. (Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court, (1999) 71 Cal.App.4h 493, 503.)
An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its official duties (Evid. Code § 664), and the petitioner therefore has the burden of proof. (Steele v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Coastal Commission, (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 129, 137.) The petitioner must demonstrate that the agency’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (Young v. Gannon, (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 225.) The trial court considers all evidence in the administrative record, including evidence that detracts from evidence supporting the agency’s decision. (California Youth Authority, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at 585.)
The agency’s decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing. (Board of Medical Quality Assurance v. Superior Court, (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 860, 862.) The agency is only required to issue findings that give enough explanation so that parties may determine whether, and upon what basis, to review the decision. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1874) 11 Cal.3d 510, 514-15.) Implicit in Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. (Id. at 515.)
Legal issues are for the court to decide. However, California law affords "great weight" to the Commission's interpretation of the Coastal Act and its regulations, given its special familiarity with these legal issues. (Ross v. California Coastal Com. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 900, 922-23.) “The court's review is ‘quite limited, and the Commission is given substantial deference.’” (Evans v. City of San Jose, (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1145-46.)
The Agencies allege the Sycamore Park defendants installed a security kiosk, hired a security guard and erected signs without obtaining proper permits, in violation of the California Coastal Act. MRCC is a property owner in Sycamore Park. The Sycamore Park cross-defendants demur to the sixth through eighth causes of action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief and fines, all brought under the Coastal Act (the court notes several causes of action were previously voluntarily dismissed).
SYCAMORE PARK PRIVATE COMMUNITY GROUP VS MOUNTAIN RECREATION
SC126502
Aug 02, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Demurrer The second, third and fourth causes of action are, in fact, remedies for violations of the California Coastal Act, the primary right alleged in this action. As such, they are not stand-alone causes of action. Leave to amend to assert these remedies in a cause of action is granted. The first cause of action for declaratory relief alleges past violations of the California Coastal Act (CCA) in that defendants undertook development, as defined, without a permit.
COASTAL PROTECTION RANGERS VS. CARLOS SIDERMAN ET AL
56-2015-00462926-CU-OR-VTA
Jun 23, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act requires a development permit for any development that causes “change in the density or intensity of use of land[.]” Cal. Pub. Res. Code §30106. The statutory term “development” must be “broadly construed to encompass all impediments to access, whether direct or indirect, physical or nonphysical. Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238, 258.
SYCAMORE PARK PRIVATE COMMUNITY GROUP VS MOUNTAIN RECREATION
SC126502
Feb 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Overrule Defendants' demurrer to the First Amended Complaint, which adequately alleges a past and continuing violation of the California Coastal Act and seeks statutorily authorized remedies. Reset trial for a date sufficiently distant to allow a motion for summary judgment. Defendants shall file an answer by June 16, 2016.
COASTAL PROTECTION RANGERS VS. CARLOS SIDERMAN ET AL
56-2015-00462926-CU-OR-VTA
May 17, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
LBC’s third cause of action challenges the City’s Local Coastal Plan amendment on the grounds it conflicts with the California Coastal Act. As the City points out, some of the area covered by the SEASP lies within the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and some does not. To the extent Petitioner challenges the City’s determination as to land outside the LCP, Petitioner’s action is ripe.
LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS LAND TRUST VS CITY OF LONG BEACH
BS171220
May 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Notice and conduct a new public hearing in accordance with applicable regulations and the California Coastal Act during the May 2017 California Coastal Commission meeting scheduled to be held in San Diego and, following the hearing, take action on the Port Master Plan Amendment No.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT VS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
37-2015-00034288-CU-WM-CTL
Aug 24, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Its jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the development conforms to the standards set forth in the certified LCP or the public access policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 ("Coastal Act"). Pub. Res. Code § 30603(b). As such, the CCC's interpretations "command[] a commensurably lesser degree of judicial deference." Schneider, 140 Cal.App.4th at 1349 (quoting Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 11).
MARTIN VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
37-2018-00044048-CU-WM-NC
Aug 08, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Here, this case is an action under the California Coastal Act, the City of San Diego is a defendant and real party in interest, and the matter is being heard in the county in which the City of San Diego is located. Therefore, under a strict reading of section 30806(a), a change of venue would be required. However, although the language of section 30806(a) is not ambiguous, a strict application of that section under the current circumstances would lead to an absurd result.
MISSION BEACH CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2017-00047335-CU-TT-CTL
Jun 01, 2018
San Diego County, CA
The existence of the Coastal Commission’s appeals jurisdiction over CDPs granted by a local government arises solely from the Coastal Act.
MICHAEL F HAIR, SR ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
16CV03775
Mar 22, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Relevant California Coastal Act Background : The California Coastal Act (§ 30000 et seq .) provides “a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.” [4] ( Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565.) One of the goals of the Coastal Act is to “[p]rotect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources.” (§ 30001.5, subd. (a).)
THE SAMUEL LAWRENCE FOUNDATION VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
19STCP05431
Jun 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
(the California Coastal Act of 1976 or Coastal Act); and, (5) failure to comply with the negative declaration for the Water Supply Project as required by CEQA. As alleged in the FAP, starting in 1979, State Parks developed a plan (the rehabilitation project) to rehabilitate Gaviota State Park (the park) which was delayed due to various issues until 1990.
COASTAL RANCHES CONSERVANCY VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE PARKS AND RECREATION ET AL
22CV02818
Jun 21, 2023
Santa Barbara County, CA
The City failed to analyze the consistency of the Project with the City’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) and the California Coastal Act (“Coastal Act”): (1) the new pool facility will be subject to wave action and shoreline erosion, which the Coastal Act counsels against if feasible alternatives exist; (2) the Project structure’s substantial foundation would extend below the expected scour level of the beach and be built up to a high elevation creating a seawall that implicates Coastal Act provisions; (3)
CITIZENS ABOUT RESPONSIBLE PLANNING VS CITY OF LONG BEACH
BS169842
May 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
On August 8 and September 6, 2016, Commission staff sent a letter to the Project Developers’ representatives and Planning stating that the Project lacked a valid local CDP, the development undertaken violated the California Coastal Act (“Coastal Act” or the “Act”), all work on the Project must cease thenceforth, and that the City should rescind all building permits for the Property. Despite these warnings, the Project Developers continued with the development.
ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
BS168074
Apr 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
However, the City processed the application as non-exempt, which subjected the ADU to additional set-back requirements under the California Coastal Act and Malibus Local Coastal Program (LCP). The City subsequently denied their CDP on June 7, 2021. Petitioners filed a request for a disability accommodation, which was also denied. Petitioners appealed to the City Council.
JASON RIDDICK, ET AL. VS CITY OF MALIBU, ET AL.
21SMCP00655
Jun 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
LUP Policy I.E.1 states that Venice's unique social and architectural diversity should be protected as a Special Coastal Community pursuant to Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. AR 458. LUP Policy I.E.2 provides in relevant part: "All new development and renovations should respect the scale, massing, and landscape of existing residential neighborhoods." AR 459.
ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL
BS170522
May 28, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Petitioners argue that the CCC acted in excess of their jurisdiction and abused its discretion by requiring petitioners to waive their right to a seawall where the LCP and Coastal Act do not require such a waiver.
LINDSTROM VS. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
37-2016-00026574-CU-WM-NC
Dec 21, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
The Intersection of the Coastal Act, the HAA and the DBL: It appears to the court Kalnel Gardens is the law. Nothing suggests Kalnel Garden’s statement: “the Legislature appears to have struck a balance between the Coastal Act and the Density Bonus Act by requiring local agencies to grant density bonuses unless doing so would violate the Coastal Act.”
LEGADO DEL MAR, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY
18STCP02819
Sep 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
EST OF DONNIE WALKER Case Number: 30603 This matter is on calendar for hearing on the First and Final Report on Waiver of Account and Petition for Compensation and Final Distribution. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. The heirs have waived the accounting requirement. No objections have been raised.
30603
Oct 18, 2021
Shasta County, CA
EST OF DONNIE WALKER Case Number: 30603 This matter is on calendar for hearing on the First and Final Report on Waiver of Account and Petition for Compensation and Final Distribution. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. The heirs have waived the accounting requirement. No objections have been raised.
30603
Oct 22, 2021
Shasta County, CA
EST OF DONNIE WALKER Case Number: 30603 This matter is on calendar for hearing on the First and Final Report on Waiver of Account and Petition for Compensation and Final Distribution. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. The heirs have waived the accounting requirement. No objections have been raised.
30603
Oct 19, 2021
Shasta County, CA
EST OF DONNIE WALKER Case Number: 30603 This matter is on calendar for hearing on the First and Final Report on Waiver of Account and Petition for Compensation and Final Distribution. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. The heirs have waived the accounting requirement. No objections have been raised.
30603
Oct 17, 2021
Shasta County, CA
EST OF DONNIE WALKER Case Number: 30603 This matter is on calendar for hearing on the First and Final Report on Waiver of Account and Petition for Compensation and Final Distribution. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. The heirs have waived the accounting requirement. No objections have been raised.
30603
Oct 20, 2021
Shasta County, CA
EST OF DONNIE WALKER Case Number: 30603 This matter is on calendar for hearing on the First and Final Report on Waiver of Account and Petition for Compensation and Final Distribution. The matter has been properly noticed with proof of service on file. The heirs have waived the accounting requirement. No objections have been raised.
30603
Oct 16, 2021
Shasta County, CA
(b) That the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the City of Los Angeles to prepare a Local Coastal Program that is in conformity with Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976.
VENICE SUITES LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
19STCP02422
Dec 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
On August 8 and September 6, 2016, Commission staff sent a letter to the Project Developers’ representatives and Planning stating that the Project lacked a valid local CDP, the development undertaken violated the California Coastal Act (“Coastal Act” or the “Act”), all work on the Project must cease thenceforth, and that the City should rescind all building permits for the Property. Despite these warnings, the Project Developers continued with the development.
ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
BS168074
Oct 02, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
MRCA also argues the Coastal Act claims were to be litigated during phase 2, so the dismissal without prejudice was still proper. VRMA and the Tennis Court Association were not parties to the phase 1 trial. MRCAs request to dismiss the Coastal Act claims without prejudice was filed after the court granted summary adjudication in favor of the individual homeowners; the dismissal was aimed only at VERMA and SPTCA.
SYCAMORE PARK PRIVATE COMMUNITY GROUP VS MOUNTAIN RECREATION
SC126502
Oct 06, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The order was essentially for the Commission to take the actions necessary to bring the LCP into accordance with the California Coastal Act. Supp. Pet., ¶¶ 2, 42, Ex. A. On December 7, 2018, Preservation Fund objected to the proposed modifications to the LCP. Supp. Pet., ¶44.
RAMIREZ CANYON PRESERVATION FUND VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMI
BS149044
Oct 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
(collectively, “Airbnb”) are violating the California Coastal Act. Judicial Notice and Evidentiary Objections Plaintiff disputes the relevancy of Airbnb’s Exhibits A-L, but ultimately does not object to these exhibits and Airbnb’s Exhibits M-O are about the recent incorporation of Plaintiff. Airbnb seems to imply that there is something illegitimate about Plaintiff’s recent incorporation and the entity’s stated purpose.
COASTAL PROTECTION ALLIANCE, INC. VS AIRBNB, INC., ET AL.
20STCV44675
Jun 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.
WESELOH V COUNTY
18CV03315
Dec 16, 2022
Santa Cruz County, CA
Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.
WESELOH V COUNTY
18CV03315
Dec 19, 2022
Santa Cruz County, CA
Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.
WESELOH V COUNTY
18CV03315
Dec 22, 2022
Santa Cruz County, CA
Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.
WESELOH V COUNTY
18CV03315
Dec 20, 2022
Santa Cruz County, CA
Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.
WESELOH V COUNTY
18CV03315
Dec 18, 2022
Santa Cruz County, CA
Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.
WESELOH V COUNTY
18CV03315
Dec 21, 2022
Santa Cruz County, CA
Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.
WESELOH V COUNTY
18CV03315
Dec 17, 2022
Santa Cruz County, CA
ANALYSIS Coastal Act Framework The California Coastal Act of 1976, Public Resources Code [3] section 3000, et seq. (Coastal Act) is a comprehensive legislative scheme that governs land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. (See § 30001, subd. (a); Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 793.) The Coastal Act shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. (§ 30009.)
PEOPLE PROTECTING SAN PEDRO BLUFFS, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC AGENCY
22STCP00530
Jun 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
the PMPA must be consistent with the Coastal Act and CEQA before certification may be granted; 2) A judgment determining or declaring that Defendants failed to comply with the Coastal Act and CEQA as they relate to the PMPA and that its consistency certification was illegal in at least some respect, rendering the certification null and void; and 3) Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants (and any and all persons acting at the request of, in concert with, or for the benefit one or more them) from taking any
SAN DIEGO NAVY BROADWAY COMPLEX COALITION VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [E-FILE]
37-2013-00077213-CU-TT-CTL
Dec 14, 2016
San Diego County, CA
SC126502 Hearing Date October 6, 2020 Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Certifying Class Defendant MRCA’s Motion to Compel Further Answers to Deposition Questions and Produce Videotape Re Elizabeth Stevens Plaintiffs Sycamore Park homeowners dispute whether easements in their community can be used for access to a public trail system and whether plaintiffs violated the California Coastal Act by blocking public access to the trails.
SYCAMORE PARK PRIVATE COMMUNITY GROUP VS MOUNTAIN RECREATION
SC126502
Oct 06, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
The Supreme Court described the Coastal Act as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. Yost v. Thomas, (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565. The Coastal Act must be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. §30009.
ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL
BS170185
May 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
The Petition asserts that the Commission violated the California Coastal Act ("Costal Act") and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") regarding parking facilities/public transportation and the size of the park within the Projects. The Petition is opposed by the Commission, the City of San Diego ("City"), and the applicants for the Projects, MB9 Owner, LLC, and Santa Barbara Place MB9 Owner, LLC ("Applicants"). II.
MISSION BEACH CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2017-00047335-CU-TT-CTL
Aug 31, 2018
San Diego County, CA
The Coastal Act 1. The LCP The Coastal Act of 1976 (Public Resources Code[2] §30000 et seq.,) (“Coastal Act”) is the legislative continuation of the coastal protection efforts commenced when the People passed Proposition 20, the 1972 initiative that created the Commission. See Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm., (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 687, 693. One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is the avoidance of deleterious consequences of development on coastal resources. Pacific Legal Foundation v.
DARBY T. KEEN VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, ET AL.
19STCP02984
Jun 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(collectively, “Airbnb”) are violating the California Coastal Act (the “Act”) by “allowing” the short-term rental (“STR”) of residential units by their owners through Airbnb’s website. At the prior hearing, this Court asked counsel whether the Coastal Commission should decide this matter and, among other things, whether the Commission had determined whether STRs are a developments under the Act.
COASTAL PROTECTION ALLIANCE, INC. VS AIRBNB, INC., ET AL.
20STCV44675
Jul 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
Jul 02, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
Jul 06, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
Jul 01, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
Jul 04, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
Jul 03, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 23, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 26, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 21, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 24, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 22, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 20, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 19, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 15, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 14, 2023
Marin County, CA
The courts’ discussions in both San Mateo and Beach & Bluff addressed the petitioner’s challenge to a LCP or LUP on the ground that it was inconsistent with the Coastal Act.
CV2103128
May 13, 2023
Marin County, CA
California Coastal Com. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 495, 504 (affirming judgment on the pleadings in action brought under the California Coastal Act where the developer not named). The County approved the Project on July 25, 2018. UMF 1. Sierra filed its original petition on August 23, 2018 and an amended petition on December 7, 2018 naming Sunroad Nevada as the real party in interest for the Project. UMF 18. Sunroad Nevada did not exist until June 11, 2018. UMF 25.
SIERRA CLUB VS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2018-00043084-CU-TT-CTL
Jun 06, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Petitioners also make a broader argument that “neither the Coastal Act nor the Commission’s regulations authorize delegation of the Commission’s primary quasi-judicial role to review development permits for Coastal Act consistency.” (OB 13-15.) Petitioners contend that “[t]hough the Coastal Act envisions some level of delegation to the Executive Director, such instances must be specifically enumerated.” (Ibid.)
PUVUNGA WETLANDS PROTECTORS, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC AGENCY, ET AL.
19STCP00435
Mar 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
The FAP states a single mandamus cause of action alleging that the Coastal Commission abused its discretion determining there was no substantial issue of the CDP’s compliance with the Coastal Act and Venice Land Use Plan (“LUP”), and alleges in pertinent part as follows.
ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL
BS170522
Jul 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
On August 8 and September 6, 2016, Commission staff sent a letter to the Project Developers’ representatives and Planning stating that the Project lacked a valid local CDP, the development undertaken violated the California Coastal Act (“Coastal Act” or the “Act”), all work on the Project must cease thenceforth, and that the City should rescind all building permits for the Property. Despite these warnings, the Project Developers continued with the development.
ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
BS168074
Jul 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Courts have reasoned that because the Coastal Act offers unique rights, and any challenges to how the Coastal Act is implemented must proceed through the statutory relief it permits. “The Coastal Act created new rights and obligations regarding the development and management of coastal property not previously existing in common law.
RICHARD STANGER, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, ET AL.
18STCP02483
Feb 25, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Petitioners’ principal contentions on appeal were that the Projects are inconsistent with the Coastal Act because they are inconsistent with the character, mass and scale of the neighborhood, adversely impact both the neighborhood and Venice as a special coastal community, and will prejudice the City's ability to prepare a Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) for the Venice Coastal Zone that conforms to the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
RICHARD STANGER, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, ET AL.
18STCP02483
Aug 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Section "B" within the Statement of Decision addresses the applicability of Coastal Act policies. This analysis acknowledges that the proposed Hilton hotel tower and associated improvements must be consistent with both the Chapter 8 and Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. However, Chapter 8 is the only applicable standard of review for the convention center expansion project.
SAN DIEGO NAVY BROADWAY COMPLEX COALITION VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION [E-FILE]
37-2013-00077213-CU-TT-CTL
Jun 30, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Coastal Act Claims A civil claim for penalties under the California Coastal Development Act is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Cal. Pub. Res. Code §30805.5. Mardirossians evidence shows construction was completed by 2008; he argues Howarths Coastal Act claims are untimely by 13 years. SSMF 15-20. Mardirossian argues delayed discovery does not apply, as construction was open and obvious, and it was unreasonable for Howarth to fail to discover until 2020.
GARO MARDIROSSIAN VS FRED HOWARTH
20SMCV01557
Mar 15, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Supreme Court has described the Coastal Act as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. Yost v. Thomas, (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565. The Coastal Act must be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. §30009.
IN THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
BS175253
Jul 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The Supreme Court has described the Coastal Act as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. Yost v. Thomas, (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565. The Coastal Act must be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. §30009.
IN THE MATTER OF CARMEN IRENE DE JESUS
BS172256
Jul 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The Coastal Act Nothing in the HAA relieves the local agency from complying with, inter alia , the Coastal Act. §65589.5(e). Unlike the HAA, NCD bears the burden of proving that the Project complies with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act requires each local government within the coastal zone to prepare and submit an LCP to the Coastal Commission. Pub. Res. Code §30500(a).
NEW COMMUNE DTLA LLC VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, ET AL.
23STCP00426
Feb 08, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The Coastal Act Nothing in the HAA relieves the local agency from complying with, inter alia , the Coastal Act. §65589.5(e). Unlike the HAA, NCD bears the burden of proving that the Project complies with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act requires each local government within the coastal zone to prepare and submit an LCP to the Coastal Commission. Pub. Res. Code §30500(a).
NEW COMMUNE DTLA LLC VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, ET AL.
23STCP00426
Feb 01, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Supreme Court described the Coastal Act as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. Yost v. Thomas , (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565. The Coastal Act must be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. §30009.
CORINNA COTSEN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE CORINNA COTSEN 1991 TRUST, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
20STCP04214
Jan 04, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
[AR-004941] In its decision, under "Findings for Consistency with Chapter 3/Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act" the Commission identifies certain "Coastal Act policies" including Public Resources Code § 30213 [AR-004950]. Under § 30213: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT VS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
37-2015-00034288-CU-WM-CTL
Jan 26, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
The Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Coastal Act”), Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq., «6. was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.
CV2103128
Jan 08, 2024
Marin County, CA
The Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Coastal Act”), Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq., «6. was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.
CV2103128
Jan 11, 2024
Marin County, CA
The Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Coastal Act”), Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq., «6. was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.
CV2103128
Jan 10, 2024
Marin County, CA
The Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Coastal Act”), Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq., «6. was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.
CV2103128
Jan 09, 2024
Marin County, CA
The Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Coastal Act”), Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq., «6. was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.
CV2103128
Jan 07, 2024
Marin County, CA
The Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Coastal Act”), Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq., «6. was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.
CV2103128
Jan 06, 2024
Marin County, CA
The Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the “Coastal Act”), Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq., «6. was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.
CV2103128
Jan 05, 2024
Marin County, CA
Chapter 3 Policies The Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Res. Code [1] §30000 et seq .,) (Coastal Act or the Act) is the legislative continuation of the coastal protection efforts commenced when the People passed Proposition 20, the 1972 initiative that created the Coastal Commission. See Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm ., ( Ibarra ) (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 687, 693. One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is the avoidance of deleterious consequences of development on coastal resources.
RAMIREZ CANYON PRESERVATION FUND VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMI
BS149044
Jul 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Br. at 2-3, and quoting from STB decision ("whether NCTD agreed to comply with the Coastal Act as a condition of grant funding for the fencing project is an issue relevant to any preemption analysis, but an issue that is clearly within the purview of the state court. Once the state court resolves that question, either the court or the [STB] can address any remaining preemption issues.")
FRIENDS OF DEL MAR BLUFFS VS NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
37-2022-00011260-CU-TT-CTL
Jan 05, 2024
San Diego County, CA
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) provides that that, following certification of a local government’s land use plan by the Commission, the Commission delegates authority over coastal development permits to the local government. (Lindstrom v. California Coastal Com. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 73, 91–92 (Lindstrom).)
JACK WALL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
19CV03464
Jun 04, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
The California Supreme Court described the Coastal Act as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. Yost v. Thomas , (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565. The Coastal Act must be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. §30009.
CITIZENS PRESERVING VENICE, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC AGENCY
22STCP03661
Apr 09, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The Supreme Court described the Coastal Act as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. Yost v. Thomas, (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565. The Coastal Act must be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives. §30009.
DUNES DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
BS175325
Mar 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Coastal Act The Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Res. Code[2] §30000 et seq.) (“Coastal Act” or “Act”) is the legislative continuation of the coastal protection efforts commenced when the People passed Proposition 20, the 1972 initiative that created the Coastal Commission. See Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm., (“Ibarra”) (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 687, 693. One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is the avoidance of deleterious consequences of development on coastal resources. Pacific Legal Foundation v.
WARREN M LENT ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
BS167531
May 24, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
On the merits, Petitioner does not persuasively show that Respondents had a ministerial duty under the Coastal Act to refrain from removing the illegally constructed fence, or that Respondents presently have a ministerial duty to apply for a City of Malibu permit to erect a new fence pending an application for a CDP. In support of its Coastal Act claim, Petitioner relies on Public Resources Code sections 30106, 30605, and 30803.
CITIZENS FOR THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF CARBON AND LA COSTA BEACHES, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION VS SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, ET AL.
21STCP02371
Nov 30, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Coastal Act is codified in Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq. Section 30810 of the Coastal Act specifically authorizes Commission to enforce permit conditions imposed by local governments and rectify violations in the coastal zone when “[t]he local government . . . requests the commission to assist with, or assume primary responsibility for, issuing a cease and desist order.” Pub. Resources Code §30810, subd. (a)(1).
CASA BLANCA BEACH ESTATES OWNERS' ASSOCIATION VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL
18CV04772
Apr 16, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff seeks relief to prohibit Defendants from undertaking any further construction-related activities unless and until a CDP is issued; a CDP has issued, and the Commission determined outside this action that Defendants violated the Coastal Act. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks a judgment determining that Defendants failed to comply with the Coastal Act.
PROTECT THE SANTA MONICA COAST VS SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES, LP
SC124724
Sep 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
APC’s Findings that the Project Site Contains Wetland, and the Project Does not Comply with the Coastal Act Petitioner challenges the APC’s findings that the Project Site contains wetlands and the Project does not comply with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. (See OB 13-17.) Chapter 3 contains the standards for the permissibility of proposed developments in the coastal zone. It also includes various sections related to wetlands, which are given significant protection under the Coastal Act.
TRASK PROPERTIES III, LLC VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
19STCP00644
Sep 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Petitioners appealed the Coastal Act-related issues to the Coastal Commission, which on August 9, 2018 determined that no substantial issue existed for conformity of the City’s decision with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission erred in its determination because the City’s finding was not supported by applicable decisions.
MARY JACK ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BS175256
Dec 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
The Commission staff reports on the Wilson and Frey Projects recommended that the Commission find the appeals raised no substantial issues with respect to the Projects’ conformity with the Coastal Act. The Commission staff report for the Clement Project also recommended that the Project raised no substantial issues of conformity with the Coastal Act.
RICHARD STANGER, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, ET AL.
18STCP02483
Apr 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Coastal Act 1. In General The Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Res. Code[2] §30000 et seq.) (the “Coastal Act” or the “Act”) is the legislative continuation of the coastal protection efforts commenced when the People passed Proposition 20, the 1972 initiative that created the Coastal Commission. See Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm., (“Ibarra”) (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 687, 693. One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is the avoidance of deleterious consequences of development on coastal resources.
MARK I. GREENE VS CALIFORNIA COSTAL COMMISSION
BS165764
Jul 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
However, the City processed the application as non-exempt, which subjected the ADU to additional set-back requirements under the California Coastal Act and Malibus Local Coastal Program (LCP). The City subsequently denied their CDP on June 7, 2021. Petitioners filed a request for a disability accommodation (RRA), which was also denied. Petitioners appealed to the City Council.
JASON RIDDICK, ET AL. VS CITY OF MALIBU, ET AL.
21SMCP00655
Jul 25, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The California Coastal Act limits review of the Commission’s decisions to a petition filed under CCP § 1094.5 and imposes a 60-day statute of limitation: “[a]ny aggrieved person shall have a right to judicial review of any decision or action of the commission by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in accordance with Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within 60 days after the decision or action has become final.” (Emphasis added) Public Resources Code § 30801.
FRIENDS OF THE CANYON VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
30-2019-01061995
Jan 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
Coastal Act 1. Purpose The Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Res. Code[2] §30000 et seq.,) (the “Coastal Act” or the “Act”) is the legislative continuation of the coastal protection efforts commenced when the People passed Proposition 20, the 1972 initiative that created the Coastal Commission. See Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm., (“Ibarra”) (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 687, 693. One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is the avoidance of deleterious consequences of development on coastal resources.
REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT LLC VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
BS168564
Mar 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Coastal Act 1. Purpose The Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Res. Code[2] §30000 et seq.,) (the “Coastal Act” or the “Act”) is the legislative continuation of the coastal protection efforts commenced when the People passed Proposition 20, the 1972 initiative that created the Coastal Commission. See Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm., (“Ibarra”) (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 687, 693. One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is the avoidance of deleterious consequences of development on coastal resources.
REDONDO BEACH WATERFRONT LLC VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
BS168564
Dec 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The Verified First Amended Complaint in case number 2013-00077213 and the Verified Complaint in case number 2014-00006987 were both filed by Petitioner, and both challenged the Coastal Commission's October 10, 2013 certification of the PMPA as being consistent with the Coastal Act and with CEQA. See Verified First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 8 and 23 and Verified Complaint at ¶¶ 8 and 24.
SAN DIEGO NAVY BROADWAY COMPLEX COALITION VS. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
37-2015-00019980-CU-WM-CTL
Aug 09, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Administrative
Writ
Once a developer has fully complied with all of the requirements of the [California Coastal Act] and has obtained a permit, he should not be required to postpone construction for prolonged periods of time while awaiting the commencement of litigation which seeks to challenge the legality of his proposed development.” 95 Cal.App.3d at 503. The Sierra Club court was referring to issuance of a coastal development permit (“CDP”) under the Coastal Act to trigger the short 60-day limitations period.
PETER WANG VS CITY OF WEST COVINA
BS170894
Feb 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Administrative
Writ
The Coastal Act 1. The Purpose and Goals The Coastal Act of 1976 (Public Resources Code[2] §30000 et seq.,) (“Coastal Act”) is the legislative continuation of the coastal protection efforts commenced when the People passed Proposition 20, the 1972 initiative that created the Coastal Commission. See Ibarra v. California Coastal Comm., (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 687, 693. One of the primary purposes of the Coastal Act is the avoidance of deleterious consequences of development on coastal resources.
STEPHANIE SMITH, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LOVELY FAMILY TRUST VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, A STATE AGENCY, ET AL.
20STCP00783
Nov 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Read in the context of the Coastal Act (§§ 30604, subd. (b); 30519, subd. (a)), standard 4 merely requires that the State Parks General Development Plan be revised before a permit issues for new development.
MESA COMMUNITY ALLIANCE V CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF PARKS & REC.
14CV-0096
Aug 01, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Under the Coastal Act, no change in the intensity or density of use of a structure in a coastal zone can be made without a city-issued coastal development permit. (LAMC §§ 12.20.2.B; 12.20.2.B. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been operating the Ellison Apartments as a hotel, advertising units on the internet and offering nightly rates of $149 to over $300 depending on the season.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS LANCE JAY ROBBINS PALOMA PARTNERSHIP, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.
20STCV11588
Aug 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.