San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Assn. v. County of San Mateo

• Decision Date: 18 September 1995
• Docket Number: No. A059553,A059553
• Citation: 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 117,38 Cal.App.4th 523
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7369, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,558 SAN MATEO COUNTY COASTAL LANDOWNERS' ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO et al., Defendants and Respondents, Sierra Club et al., Interveners and Respondents. SAN MATEO COUNTY COASTAL LANDOWNERS' ASSOCIATION et al. Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 117

45 Cal.Rptr.2d 117

38 Cal.App.4th 523, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7369,

95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,558

SAN MATEO COUNTY COASTAL LANDOWNERS' ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO et al., Defendants and Respondents, Sierra Club et al., Interveners and Respondents.

SAN MATEO COUNTY COASTAL LANDOWNERS' ASSOCIATION et al. Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. A059553.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Sept. 18, 1995.

Review Denied Dec. 21, 1995.

[38 Cal.App.4th 531] Michal D. McCracken, Foster City, for plaintiff and appellant San Mateo Coastal Landowners.

Michael P. Murphy, Redwood City, for defendant and respondent County of San Mateo.

William Curtiss, San Francisco, for intervener and respondent Sierra Club.

Joseph Rusconi, Oakland, for defendant and respondent California Coastal Commission.

KLINE, Presiding Justice.

Introduction

In November 1986, San Mateo County voters enacted Measure A, "The Coastal Protection Initiative," amending the county's Local Coastal Program, making further amendments to the Local Coastal Program essentially conditional upon voter approval (with limited exceptions) and providing that the County Board of Supervisors, by a fifths majority, may submit proposed amendments to the voters.

Appellant coastal landowners and nonprofit organizations representing coastal landowners, farmers, and others allege Measure A is subject to numerous constitutional and statutory defects. However, at the core of their challenge are the dual contentions that Measure A(1) deals with a matter of statewide concern and therefore may not properly be the subject of a local initiative, and (2) conflicts with the Coastal Act in that it frustrates a legislatively designed regulatory scheme of public hearings, public participation, and consultation between local agencies and the California Coastal Commission. The recent California Supreme Court opinion in DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019 and Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 205 Cal.Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152 undermine both contentions. We shall reject these and the other challenges to Measure A raised by appellants and shall affirm the judgment of the trial court, denying appellants' petition for writ of mandate. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1085.)

Facts

San Mateo County voters adopted Measure A on November 4, 1986. The initiative amended the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program (LCP), which had originally been adopted in 1980 under authority of the California Coastal Act. (Pub.Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) With limited exceptions, Measure A did not alter the substance of the 1980 LCP. Rather, Measure A identified thirty-seven existing LCP land use policies and provided they could not be weakened (that is no increase in non-agricultural development, density or use would be permitted) by amendment, absent a vote of the people. Section 10 of Measure A provides that it "may be repealed or amended only by a majority of the voters of San Mateo County voting in a valid election. The Board of Supervisors may, by four-fifths vote, after consideration by the County Planning Commission, submit proposed amendments to the voters." (Measure A, § 10, subd. (a).) ¹ On December 10, 1987, the Commission approved, subject to modifications, four of the amendments submitted as part of the Measure A package and approved the remaining 49 amendments as submitted. The board of supervisors accepted two of the modifications and resubmitted the remaining two. The Commission certified these two Measure A amendments as being consistent with the Coastal Act on March 22, 1988.

Statement of the Case

On March 20, 1987 San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Association (SAMCOLA), a Californian nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, San Mateo County Farm Bureau, a California nonprofit corporation, and Citizens for Responsible Planning, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation (hereafter collectively "appellants"), filed a petition for writ of ordinary mandamus (Code Civ.Proc., § 1085) and complaint for declaratory relief against respondent County of San Mateo seeking a declaratory judgment that Measure A was invalid and a writ of mandate The County answered and Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Save Our Coast Committee, Committee for Green Foothills, League for Coastal Protection and Robert Cevasco (hereafter collectively "Intervenors") intervened to join with the County in opposing appellants' claims.

and prohibition commanding the County to cease enforcing it. (Superior Court No. 316851.)

Subsequently, appellants, joined by plaintiff John L. De Benedetti, Jr., a coastal zone landowner, filed a second action seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief against the County and the Commission. (Superior Court No. 329349.) On January 9, 1990, appellants filed an amended petition and complaint in that action.

On March 23, 1990, both actions (Nos. 316851 and 329349) were consolidated for trial. Intervenors intervened in the consolidated action. The County, the Coastal Commission, and Intervenors filed answers.

In May 1991, the County and the Coastal Commission filed motions for summary adjudication and Intervenors moved for judgment on the pleadings.

On July 26, 1991, the trial court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the County and Commission for summary adjudication of issues.

The remaining causes of action were tried to the court and its judgment was entered on July 16, 1992.

This timely appeal followed.

I. MEASURE A NEITHER CONFLICTS WITH NOR IS PREEMPTED BY THE COASTAL ACT

A. The Coastal Act.

In Yost v. Thomas, supra, 36 Cal.3d 561, 565-567, 205 Cal.Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152 (Yost ), our Supreme Court described in some detail the Coastal Act and the respective roles of local government and the Coastal Commission in the preparation and certification of the LCP:

"The Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub.Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) [ ² was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. The Legislature found that 'the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people'; that 'the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern'; that 'it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone' and that 'existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state....' (§ 30001, subds. (a) and (d)). '[T]he basic goals of the state for the coastal zone' are to: '(a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and manmade resources. [p] (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. [p] (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of property owners. [p] (d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast. [p] [and] (e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.' (§ 30001.5.)

"A combination of local land use planning procedures and enforcement to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, as well as continued state coastal planning and management through a state coastal commission are relied upon to insure conformity "Sections 30200 et seq. set forth the specific policies which constitute the standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs are to be determined (§ 30200)....

                with the provisions of the act (§ 30004, subds.  (a) and (b)).  Therefore, all local governments lying in whole or in part within the coastal zone had to prepare and submit to the Commission a local coastal program (LCP) (§ 30500, subd.  (a)).  The LCP consists of a local government's '(a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions,...' (§ 30108.6.)   The precise content of each LCP is determined by the local government in full consultation with the Commission (§ 30500, subd.  (c)) and must meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of [the act] at the local level (§ 30108.6)
                

"The LCP may be submitted to the Commission all at once or in two phases--a land use plan (LUP) and zoning ordinances, etc. (§ 30511). ³ The Commission will certify a LUP 'if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200)....' (§ 30512, subd. (c).) 'The commission shall require conformance with the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 ... only to the extent necessary to achieve the basic goals [of the act].' (§ 30512.2.) The Commission may only reject zoning ordinances on the grounds that they do not conform, or are inadequate to carry out the provisions of the certified land use plan (§ 30513). A certified LCP and all local implementing ordinances may be amended by a local government, but no such amendment shall take effect until it has been certified by the Commission (§ 30514)."

B. DeVita validates adoption of Measure A through the initiative process.

Yost, supra, 36 Cal.3d 561, 205 Cal.Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152 upheld the use of a...