California Coastal Act

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

The existence of the Coastal Commission’s appeals jurisdiction over CDPs granted by a local government arises solely from the Coastal Act.

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 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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

(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.

Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ writ claims for violations of CEQA and the Coastal Act, asserted in their second and third causes of action, are therefore dismissed.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.")

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).)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.