Wall v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n

• Decision Date: 16 December 2021
• Docket Number: 2d Civil B312912
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: JACK WALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent.

JACK WALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent.

2d Civil No. B312912

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

December 16, 2021

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara Super. Ct. No. 19CV03464 Donna D. Geck, Judge

Pacific Legal Foundation and J. David Breemer for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Daniel A. Olivas, Assistant Attorney General, Jamee Jordan Patterson and Andrew R. Contreiras, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.

TANGEMAN, J.

The California Constitution guarantees public access to the navigable waters of the state, including those along the Pacific Coast. (Cal. Const., art. X, § 4.) For nearly five decades, enforcing this guarantee at Hollister Ranch in Santa Barbara County has been fraught with controversy, and the Legislature has enacted multiple provisions to the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) that aim to ensure public access. Here, we conclude that one such provision-Public Resources Code^[1] section 30610.8-requires payment of an in-lieu public access fee for each coastal development permit (CDP) applicable to Hollister Ranch.

1

The California Coastal Commission (Commission) denied a CDP request from Jack Wall and the Wall Family Trust (collectively, the Walls) to build a pool and spa on their Hollister Ranch property. The Walls challenged the Commission's denial in a petition for writ of administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), arguing that: (1) requiring access to their property as a condition of the CDP violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, (2) the Coastal Act (§ 30000 et seq.) does not allow the Commission to condition a CDP on payment of a $5, 000 in-lieu public access fee, and (3) if the Act does allow the fee, the Commission did not proceed in the manner required by law when it failed to approve their permit subject to payment of the fee. The trial court agreed with the Walls' third argument and ordered the Commission to reconsider its denial of the Walls' CDP request.

On appeal, the Walls contend: (1) the Coastal Act does not allow the Commission to condition approval of the CDP on access to their property, (2) the Act does not allow the Commission to condition approval of the CDP on payment of the $5, 000 in-lieu public access fee, and (3) even if the Act allows these conditions, imposing them would be unconstitutional. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Coastal Act and its permitting process

In 1976, the Legislature enacted the Coastal Act "'as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.'" (Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 793 (Pacific Palisades).) The Act mandates careful planning of coastline developments, and requires "any person wishing to

2

perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone . . . [to] obtain a [CDP]" before construction commences. (Pacific Palisades, at pp. 793-794.) Local governments implement many of the Act's provisions, including the issuance of CDPs, subject to oversight and approval by the Commission. (Pacific Palisades, at p. 794.) The CDPs issued by local agencies are thus "'not solely a matter of local law, but embody state policy.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

A primary goal of the Coastal Act is to maximize public access to the coast. (Remmenga v. California Coastal Com. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 623, 629 (Remmenga).) New developments are thus generally required to provide access between the nearest public roadway and the coastline. (See §§ 30210 & 30212, subd. (a).) Where an individual landowner in a subdivision lacks authority to provide the required access, the Act requires the landowner to pay an in-lieu public access fee as a condition of CDP approval. (§ 30610.3, subd. (e).) The fee is then deposited into the Coastal Access Account (CAA) for the "purchase of lands and view easements and to pay for any development needed to carry out the public access program." (Id., subds. (b) & (c).) Upon paying the fee, the landowner may "immediately commence construction if the other conditions of the [CDP] . . . have been met." (§ 30610.8, subd. (b).)

Local governments issue CDPs in the context of local coastal programs (LCPs). Each LCP must be developed in consultation with the Commission to ensure that it complies with Coastal Act provisions. (§ 30500, subd. (c).) Once the Commission certifies an LCP, the local government assumes primary permitting authority, with certain decisions appealable to the Commission. (§§ 30512, 30513, 30519, 30603; see also § 30625, subd. (a) [who may appeal].)

3

When a decision is appealed, the Commission must first determine whether the appeal raises a "substantial issue." (§ 30625, subd. (b)(2).) If it does, the Commission holds a de novo hearing at which it "may approve, modify, or deny" the CDP. (Id., subd. (a).) The Commission will approve a CDP only if it complies with the public access and public recreation policies of the Coastal Act and certified LCP. (§ 30604, subds. (b) & (c).)

The history of Hollister Ranch

Hollister Ranch is a 14, 500-acre subdivision encompassing 8.5 miles of the Santa Barbara County coastline. It is divided into 136 parcels. In the 1970s, the Commission approved several CDPs for new Hollister Ranch residences, conditioned on the dedication of easements for pedestrian trails and recreation areas. After obtaining the CDPs, however, landowners sued to invalidate the conditions.

In 1979-before any court could rule on the landowners' claims-the Legislature added section 30610.3 to the Coastal Act to provide for the in-lieu public access fee scheme described above. The Commission determined that the section applied to Hollister Ranch, and attempted to undertake a survey of area lands so it could calculate the appropriate fee amount. Several landowners then blocked the Commission from completing its survey. The Legislature was thus required to step in again, and in 1982 added section 30610.8 to the Act. This provision, specific to Hollister Ranch, declared that public access to the ranch's coastline "should be provided in a timely manner." (§ 30610.8, subd. (a).) It set the amount of the in-lieu fee for the ranch at $5, 000 per permit. (Id., former subd. (b).)

Later that year, Santa Barbara County adopted an LCP that was then approved by the Commission. The LCP

4

includes provisions that implement portions of the Coastal Act. Among those provisions is Policy 2-15, which bars the County from issuing CDPs at Hollister Ranch "unless the . . . Commission certifies that the requirements of . . . [s]ection 30610.3 have been met by each applicant or . . . finds that access is otherwise provided in a manner consistent with the access policies of the Coastal Act."

The Commission subsequently approved the Gaviota Coast Plan (GCP) as part of the County's LCP. GCP Development Standard REC-3 requires the payment of "a fee consistent with [s]ection 30610.8 . . . as a condition of each [CDP] issued for development in Hollister Ranch."

Following approval of the GCP, the governor directed the Commission and several other state agencies to update the Hollister Ranch coastal access program. Simultaneously, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1680 (Assem. Bill 1680), which, effective January 1, 2020, increased the in-lieu public access fee set forth in section 30610.8 from $5, 000 to $33, 000 for each permit, to be adjusted annually for inflation.^[2] (See Stats. 2019, ch. 692, § 2.)

Denial of the Walls' CDP request

The Walls own a 102-acre parcel in Hollister Ranch. It lies about three-quarters of a mile from the Pacific Ocean. The parcel has been developed with a single-family home, guesthouse, barn, and storage structure. There is no evidence that the Walls

5

paid an in-lieu public access fee in conjunction with any of these improvements.

In 2018, the Walls applied for a CDP to construct a pool and spa on their Hollister Ranch property. The County's director of planning and development approved the CDP without imposing an in-lieu public access fee. Two members of the Commission appealed that approval to the full Commission, citing noncompliance with the Coastal Act, LCP, and GCP.

The Walls objected to the appeal and urged the Commission to find that it raised no substantial issue. The Walls acknowledged that they had not paid in-lieu public access fees for their prior CDPs, but claimed, without evidence, that a previous owner had paid such a fee when he built a well, septic system, and cistern. The Walls said that they would be willing to pay the fee in exchange for the Commission's approval of their CDP request.

The Commission determined that the appeal raised a substantial issue and held a public hearing. During the hearing, one Commission member said that conditioning the permit on payment of the in-lieu public access fee was "not realistic" because Hollister Ranch landowners had not paid such fees historically and because the fees had not ensured timely public access to the coastline. Another member noted that LCP Policy 2-15 prohibits the issuance of CDPs unless they are consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Act. A third declared that "public access to this amazing resource and area has primacy over in lieu fees." A fourth said that the Commission "can't be continuing to approve [CDPs] without access."

At the conclusion of the hearing, the 10-member Commission unanimously rejected the Walls' CDP request. The

6

proposed CDP was not conditioned on payment of the in-lieu public access fee as required by the Coastal Act, LCP Policy 2-15, and GCP Development Standard REC-3. And even if the fee had been paid, the CDP could not issue unless the Commission found either "that the requirements of . . . [s]ection 30610.3 ha[d] been met"...