Nollan v. California Coastal Com., B-004663
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | ABBE; STONE, P.J., and GILBERT |
| Citation | 223 Cal.Rptr. 28,177 Cal.App.3d 719 |
| Parties | James Patrick NOLLAN and Marilyn Harvey Nollan, Petitioners and Respondents, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Respondent and Appellant. Civ. |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | B-004663 |
Page 28
v.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Respondent and Appellant.
Review Denied April 30, 1986.
[177 Cal.App.3d 720]
Page 29
John Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., N. Gregory Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jamee Jordan Patterson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent and appellant.[177 Cal.App.3d 721] Ronald A. Zumbrun, Robert K. Best, Timothy A. Bittle, Sacramento, for petitioners and respondents.
ABBE, Associate Justice.
Appeal by California Coastal Commission (Commission) from judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate to James and Marilyn Nollan (the Nollans). In its judgment the trial court held invalid the Commission's conditional approval of a coastal owner's development project. The condition imposed required the owners to provide lateral access to the public to pass and repass across the property between the mean high tide line to the toe of a revetment located on the property. The judgment ordered the Commission to issue the permit without the condition. We reverse the trial court and affirm the decision of the Commission.
The Nollans own a lot on the beach in the Faria Beach Tract in Ventura County. On March 1, 1982, they applied for a coastal development permit to demolish a 521 square foot, one bedroom, one story, substandard beach house located on their lot. The Nollans proposed to replace it with a two-story, three bedroom, 1674 square foot residence with attached two car garage. Their stated intention is to live in the new residence permanently in contrast to the limited occasional vacation use by them and renters of the smaller structure.
The Commission placed the Nollans' application on what is known as the administrative permit calendar and approved it on April 7, 1982, with a condition requiring lateral public access. The Nollans objected to that condition and requested a full public hearing. This request was denied.
The Nollans then filed a petition for a writ of mandate. On January 18, 1983, after a hearing, the court ordered that a "writ of mandate shall issue from this court, remanding the proceedings to respondent and commanding respondent to set aside its decision of April 7, 1982 ... and set the matter for a full evidentiary hearing."
Upon remand a full public hearing was held before the Commission. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Commission approved the Nollans' application permit again with the condition requiring lateral public access.
The Nollans filed a supplemental petition for writ of mandate. The trial court issued a peremptory writ commanding the Commission to issue the [177 Cal.App.3d 722] permit without the condition requiring public access. The Commission appealed.
Standard of Review
When the decision of an administrative agency neither involves nor substantially affects a fundamental vested right, the standard of review in both the trial and the appellate court is whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. (Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 678, 697, 183 Cal.Rptr. 395.) The Nollans did not have a preexisting right to unregulated new construction. Since they were given the right to construct, the only question that remains is the reasonableness of the
Page 30
condition attached. We therefore review the administrative record to determine whether the Commission's decision is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (City of San Diego v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 119 Cal.App.3d 228, 232, 174 Cal.Rptr. 5.)Evidence
There is substantial evidence to support the decision of the Commission. The evidence considered by the Commission consisted of the following: Reports on 12 permits for demolition and reconstruction of single family residences in the Faria Beach tract and four other permits, the state-wide interpretative guidelines on access, a Ventura beach study (which includes Faria beach), testimony from citizens, a report on an investigation of the existence of public rights acquired through implied dedication at Faria, including declarations by surfers who frequent Faria beach, excerpts from surfing publications about the area, a commission study on coastal access in San Diego, a study of cumulative impacts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, No. A094519.
...Yu I is no longer the law of the case on the jurisdictional issue in view of these new facts (Nollan v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 719, 724-725, 223 Cal.Rptr. 28, rev'd. on other grounds in Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 107 103 Cal.App.4th 319 S.......
-
Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club, No. A051828
...the law of the case [12 Cal.App.4th 1413] doctrine does not conclusively resolve an issue. (Nollan v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 719, 724-725, 223 Cal.Rptr. 28; Marsh v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 257 Cal.App.2d 574, 581, 65 Cal.Rptr. 69.) We now have before us consi......
-
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, No. 86-133
...for access easements, it Page 826 cannot compel coastal residents alone to contribute to the realization of that goal. Pp. 838-842. 177 Cal.App.3d 719, 223 Cal.Rptr. 28 (1986), reversed. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and O'CONNO......
-
The Regulatory Takings Battleground: Environmental Regulation of Land Versus Private-Property Rights
...the property. They did not notify the Commission that they were taking that action. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court. 177 Cal. App. 3d 719, 223 Cal. Rptr. 28 (1986). It disagreed with the Superior Court’s interpretation of the Coastal Act, finding that it required that a coas......
-
Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia, No. A094519.
...Yu I is no longer the law of the case on the jurisdictional issue in view of these new facts (Nollan v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 719, 724-725, 223 Cal.Rptr. 28, rev'd. on other grounds in Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 107 103 Cal.App.4th 319 S.......
-
Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club, No. A051828
...the law of the case [12 Cal.App.4th 1413] doctrine does not conclusively resolve an issue. (Nollan v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 719, 724-725, 223 Cal.Rptr. 28; Marsh v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1968) 257 Cal.App.2d 574, 581, 65 Cal.Rptr. 69.) We now have before us consi......
-
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, No. 86-133
...for access easements, it Page 826 cannot compel coastal residents alone to contribute to the realization of that goal. Pp. 838-842. 177 Cal.App.3d 719, 223 Cal.Rptr. 28 (1986), reversed. SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and O'CONNO......
-
Dallmeyer v. Lacey Tp. Bd. of Adjustment
...Church of Glendale v. Cty. of Los Angeles, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3292, 92 L.Ed.2d 708 (1986); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 177 Cal.App.3d 719, 223 Cal.Rptr. 28 (1986), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 312, 93 L.Ed.2d 286...
-
The Regulatory Takings Battleground: Environmental Regulation of Land Versus Private-Property Rights
...the property. They did not notify the Commission that they were taking that action. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court. 177 Cal. App. 3d 719, 223 Cal. Rptr. 28 (1986). It disagreed with the Superior Court’s interpretation of the Coastal Act, finding that it required that a coas......