Douda v. California Coastal Com'n

Citation72 Cal.Rptr.3d 98,159 Cal.App.4th 1181
Decision Date06 February 2008
Docket NumberNo. B188210.,B188210.
PartiesMilos DOUDA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals

Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Stanley W. Lamport and James R. Repking, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, J. Matthew Rodriquez, Assistant Attorney General, John A. Saurenman and G.R. Overton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.

ASHMANGERST, J.

This appeal raises two challenges to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (Commission) to regulate, namely: (1) Does the Commission have the power to unilaterally designate environmentally sensitive habitat areas and thereby prevent development? (2) Does the Commission have the power to prevent development on land four and a half miles from the ocean on the grounds that the development will impair scenic and visual resources of a coastal zone that extends five miles inland into the Santa Monica Mountains? Below, the Commission denied the application filed by appellants Milos Douda and Trisha Douda (collectively the Doudas) for a coastal development permit to build a home, finding that their property contains an environmentally sensitive habitat area that had not been designated in the Los Angeles County land use plan, and that the proposed development would impair scenic and visual resources. The Doudas filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate to challenge the denial of their application. The trial court upheld the Commission's action, and the Doudas now appeal. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly denied relief.

We affirm.

FACTS
The California Coastal Act of 1976

In 1976, the Legislature enacted the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act), which became Division 20 of the Public Resources Code. (Stats.1976, ch. 1330, § 30000 et seq., pp. 5950-6027; Pub. Resources Code, § 30000.)1 The Legislature declared that "the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all people," that "the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation," and that "to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction." (§ 30001.)

Under the Coastal Act, each local government must either prepare a local coastal program for the portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction, or request that the Commission prepare it. (§ 30500, subd. (a).) The content of a local coastal program "shall be determined by the local government ... in full consultation with the Commission and with full public participation." (§ 30500, subd. (b).) A local coastal program is defined as a local government's land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps and other actions which, when taken together, implement the provisions and policies of the Coastal Act. (§ 30108.6.) "`Land use plan' means the relevant portions of a local government's general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions." (§ 30108.5.) Pursuant to the Coastal Act, the land use plan of a local coastal program must be submitted to a regional coastal commission for review or, if a regional coastal commission does not exist, for approval and certification by the Commission. (§ 30512, subd. (a).) If approved by the regional coastal commission, the land use plan of a local coastal program must be forwarded to the Commission for certification. The Commission must certify the land use plan of a local coastal program if it does not raise a substantial issue as to conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. (§ 30512, subds. (a)-(c).)2 Additionally, the local government must submit the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other implementing actions to the Commission for approval. (§ 30513.)

In pertinent part, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act provides that "[e]nvironmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas." (§ 30240, subd. (a).) It goes on to provide that "[t]he scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance." (§ 30251.) Pursuant to section 30502, subdivision (a), the Commission was given until September 1, 1977, to designate sensitive coastal resource areas within the coastal zone. The Legislature gave the Commission the authority to extend that deadline for up to a year. (§ 30517.)

The Coastal Act requires a person wishing to undertake development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit. (§ 30600, subd. (a).) Prior to certification of a local coastal program, and absent a local government procedure for issuing coastal development permits, the Commission or local government shall issue coastal development permits. (§ 30600 subd. (c).) "After certification of its local coastal program or pursuant to the provisions of Section 30600.5, a coastal development permit shall be obtained from the local government as provided for in Section 30519 or section 30600.5." (§ 30600, subd. (d).) Section 30519 provides that after certification, and after all implementing actions have become effective, "the development review authority provided for in [c]hapter 7 (commencing with [s]ection 30600) shall no longer be exercised by the commission ... over any new development proposed," except for appeals to the Commission. The review authority shall be delegated "to the local government that is implementing the local coastal program, or any portion thereof." (§ 30519, subd. (a).)

Section 30604, subdivision (a) of the Coastal Act provides in relevant part: "Prior to certification of the local coastal program, a coastal development permit shall be issued if the issuing agency, or the commission on appeal, finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the [provisions of] [c]hapter 3 ... of [Division 20] and that the permitted development will not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a local coastal program that is in conformity with the [provisions of] [c]hapter 3 ..." Subdivision (b) provides: "After certification of the local coastal program, a coastal development permit shall be issued if the issuing agency or the commission on appeal finds that the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program." (§ 30604, subd. (b).)

The Los Angeles County land use plan for the Santa Monica Mountains

In 1986, Los .Angeles County adopted a land use plan for the coastal zone in the Santa Monica Mountains (land use plan). The Commission certified the land use plan. But the Commission never approved any implementing ordinances or zoning maps for the land use plan, and Los Angeles County does not have a certified local coastal program in the Santa Monica Mountains.3 The land use plan provides for the additional designation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas in unspecified areas through biotic review process or other means. (LT-WR, L.L.C. v. California Coastal Com. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 770, 790, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 (LT-WR).)

The Commission retained permitting authority.

The Doudas' application for a coastal development permit

On November 29, 2001, the Doudas filed an application for a coastal development permit with the Commission.4 They sought to construct a 5,804 square foot, 35 foot high, two-story single family residence, a 1,092 square foot garage, a septic system, and a pool and spa.

The Commission's staff recommended denial. It asserted that the proposed development would be highly visible by the public traversing Mulholland highway and planned public trails, and would be inconsistent with section 30251. Next, it concluded that the coastal sage scrub and chaparral on the Doudas' property met the definition of an environmentally sensitive habitat area under the Coastal Act. The staff also concluded that the proposed development would prejudice the ability of Los Angeles County to prepare a local coastal program for the Santa Monica Mountains and that the California Environmental Quality Act required less invasive proposals. By a vote of eight to zero, the Commission denied the Doudas' application.

The petition for writ of administrative mandate

The Doudas filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate to vacate the denial of their petition for a coastal development permit, and a related complaint for declaratory relief. In part, they alleged that the Commission did not have the authority to designate an environmentally sensitive habitat area, or to impose scenic and visual resource regulations on the property.

After trial, the trial court issued a statement of decision, which provided: Because the Doudas did not object to the Commission's authority to protect scenic and visual resources in the coastal zone when considering permit applications, the Doudas did not exhaust their administrative remedies as to that issue. Furthermore, the denial of the Doudas' application must be upheld based on the Commission's finding that the property contains an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Once the Commission certifies a land use plan, it has no authority to designate additional environmentally sensitive habitat areas, except as provided by the land use plan. The Los...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Guerrero v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 11 Marzo 2013
    ......A133202 Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California. Filed February 11, 2013 As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 11, 2013 ... Young (2004) 32 Cal.4th 900, 907, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 48, 87 P.3d 797; Douda v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1193–1194, 72 ......
  • San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 7 Septiembre 2018
    ......CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant, Sunroad Marina Partners, LP, Real Party in Interest ... exemption for boundary disputes or settlements under section 30416, subdivision (c) ]; Douda v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1186, 1191, 1199-1200, 72 ......
  • Ross v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 4 Enero 2012
    ...Act was adopted in 1976 and is codified in Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq.( Douda v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1187, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 98;McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 271, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 116.) It has myriad purposes and goa......
  • Ross v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, B225796.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 9 Septiembre 2011
    ...Act was adopted in 1976 and is codified in Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq. ( Douda v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1187, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 98; McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 271, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 116.) It has myriad purposes and g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT