California Coastal Commission

Procedural Posture Respondent California Coastal Commission declared appellant owner's oceanfront property an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), Pub. Resources Code, § 30240, during an administrative appeal from a city's grant of a coastal development permit (CDP). The Superior Court of San Francisco County, California, denied the owner's petition for writ of administrative mandamus and motion to remand the matter to the Commission. The owner appealed. Overview: an adoptive (tacit) admission is: The Commission claimed substantial evidence supported its finding that the property was an ESHA. The court held that the California Coastal Act of 1976, Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq., granted the Commission no power to declare property an ESHA during a CDP appeal. The ESHA designation effected an amendment of the city's local coastal program (LCP), and the Act assigned the task of drafting and amending the content of an LCP exclusively to local government, pursuant to Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30500, 30514, subd. (a). The Commission's role was limited to determining whether a city's LCP complied with the provisions of the Act. By declaring the owner's site an ESHA, the Commission exceeded its statutory authority, improperly assumed powers expressly reserved to local government, and contradicted the terms of the certified LCP. In denying the owner's permit, at least in part, based on its unlawful ESHA designation, the Commission imposed additional standards not found in the city's LCP. Accordingly, because the Commission acted without, or in excess of its jurisdiction, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b), the owner was entitled to administrative mandamus relief. Outcome The court reversed the trial court's denial of the owner's petition for administrative mandamus and ordered the trial court to issue a peremptory writ commanding the Commission to vacate its decision and rehear the matter based on the standards set forth in the city's certified LCP.