What is the California Coastal Act?

Useful Rulings on California Coastal Act

Recent Rulings on California Coastal Act

SYCAMORE PARK PRIVATE COMMUNITY GROUP VS MOUNTAIN RECREATION

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

A draft Restoration Plan was prepared as part of the Project’s CDP application, as required under the California Coastal Act, Pub. Res. Code § 30000, et seq. (“Coastal Act”), and § 35-169 of Article II of the County of Santa Barbara Coastal Zoning Ordinance (“CZO”). [PCC ¶2] On October 10 and 24, 2016, MBAR considered the CDP application for conceptual review by the MBAR.

  • Hearing

SYCAMORE PARK PRIVATE COMMUNITY GROUP VS MOUNTAIN RECREATION

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

FRIENDS OF THE CANYON VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

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.

  • Hearing

SANTA BARBARA INLAND & COASTAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

On the sixth cause of action: “For a declaration from this Court that the City’s actions as alleged constitute a violation of the California Coastal Act and that until and unless it obtains a CDP, any City efforts to prohibit or regulate STRs in the Coastal Zone are invalid, null and void as a matter of law.” On May 9, 2019, City filed this motion for summary judgment, or alternatively for summary adjudication. City asserts 11 separate bases for its alternative requested adjudications.

  • Hearing

CASA BLANCA BEACH ESTATES OWNERS' ASSOCIATION VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ET AL

[SS #33] On March 23, 2017, Commission staff sent a letter disputing those contentions and demanding that Casa Blanca submit plans to construct the walkway to County to avoid further accrual of monetary penalties under the California Coastal Act. [SS #34]. Casa Blanca submitted plans for a walkway to County on May 18, 2017.

  • Hearing

FRIENDS OF THE CANYON VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

The California Coastal Act provides for § 1094.5 review of the Commission’s decisions: “[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.” Public Resources Code § 30801. By its language, CCP § 1094.5 anticipates review of evidentiary hearings.

  • Hearing

MARTIN VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

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).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SYCAMORE PARK PRIVATE COMMUNITY GROUP VS MOUNTAIN RECREATION

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).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SIERRA CLUB VS. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [EFILE]

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.

  • Hearing

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ET AL

., (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1354, n. 5 (citing §30603). Rudisill argues that 916’s revised CDP application is the same as a new CDP application. Reply at 9, n.1. Rudisill notes that the parties agree that the Commission has no authority to make Mello Act determinations, and that the City has been delegated authority to consider CDP applications in Venice. Reply at 9.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MICHAEL F HAIR, SR ET AL VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Code, § 30603, subd. (a)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

THOMAS FELKAY V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

The California Coastal Commission certified the LCP as meeting the minimum requirements of the California Coastal Act in June 1981. [AR 5609] The part of the LCP relevant here is Policy 8.2, which reads, in relevant part: “With the exception of drainage systems identified in Policy 8.1, no development shall be permitted on the bluff face except for engineered staircases or access ways to provide public beach access and pipelines for scientific research or coastal development industry.”

  • Hearing

ROBIN RUDISILL ET AL VS CALFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

On September 6, 2016, Commission enforcement staff sent a letter to the Project Developers by regular and certified mail entitled “Notice of Violation of the California Coastal Act”. AR 317. The letter stated that its enforcement staff confirmed that development on the Project continued after transmission of the Commission’s August 11 letter. Ibid.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MISSION BEACH CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

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.

  • Hearing

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

MISSION BEACH CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

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.

  • Hearing

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS LAND TRUST VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PETER WANG VS CITY OF WEST COVINA

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

The California Coastal Act defines "ex parte communication" as an oral or written communication between a commissioner and an interested person about a matter within the Commission's jurisdiction that does not occur in a public hearing or other official proceeding or on the official record of the matter. Public Resources Code § 30322.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

The California Coastal Act defines "ex parte communication" as an oral or written communication between a commissioner and an interested person about a matter within the Commission's jurisdiction that does not occur in a public hearing or other official proceeding or on the official record of the matter. Public Resources Code § 30322.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

The California Coastal Act defines "ex parte communication" as an oral or written communication between a commissioner and an interested person about a matter within the Commission's jurisdiction that does not occur in a public hearing or other official proceeding or on the official record of the matter. Public Resources Code § 30322.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SPOTLIGHT ON COASTAL CORRUPTION VS KINSEY

The California Coastal Act defines "ex parte communication" as an oral or written communication between a commissioner and an interested person about a matter within the Commission's jurisdiction that does not occur in a public hearing or other official proceeding or on the official record of the matter. Public Resources Code § 30322.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.