Court Opinion

ID: 9942728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 20:04:12.225244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:29.624973
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/21/24 Shear Development Co. v. Cal. Coastal Commission CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

 SHEAR DEVELOPMENT                                           2d Civil No. B319895
 CO., LLC,                                                (Super. Ct. No. 20CV-0431)
                                                           (San Luis Obispo County)
   Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

 CALIFORNIA COASTAL
 COMMISSION,

   Defendant and Respondent.

      The California Coastal Commission (the Commission) has
limited jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a decision by San
Luis Obispo County (the County) to grant a coastal development
permit. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30603, subd. (a).) 1 Here, the
County granted a development permit allowing appellant Shear
Development Co. to build three single family homes in Los Osos.

       All statutory references are to the Public Resources Code
         1

unless otherwise stated.
The Commission appealed that decision to itself and denied the
permit. Shear Development filed a petition for writ of mandate
to reverse the Commission’s denial. The Superior Court denied
the writ. On appeal, Shear Development contends the
Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and abused its
discretion in denying the permit. We affirm.
                                Facts
       In 2003, appellant Shear Development acquired eight lots
in Los Osos. The lots are located near properties developed with
single family homes, although there are also undeveloped vacant
lots nearby. Appellant’s lots are zoned for single family homes.
Appellant performed grading work and installed improvements
including landscaping, retaining walls, roads, sidewalks, storm
drainage and underground utilities. The utilities include water
and sewer mains and sewer laterals.
       In 2004, the County approved a coastal development permit
to eventually allow the development of eight single family houses
on the lots. The project was to proceed in two phases. Phase I
authorized the construction of four single family houses on four of
the lots. Phase II contemplated construction of single family
houses on the remaining lots. The coastal development permit
obtained for Phase I specified that the houses included in Phase
II “are required to be served by the new community sewer
system. The County placed a scenic easement on [the Phase II
lots] to assure that these residences could not be developed until
after sewer completion . . . .” The Commission further required
appellant to submit final plans for Phase I that included a
notation indicating “future development of [the Phase II lots] is
subject to a separate coastal development permit.”

                                2
       In 2010, following County approval, the Commission
granted a coastal development permit authorizing construction of
the Los Osos Wastewater Project (LOWWP). As a condition of
issuing the permit, the County agreed to Special Condition No. 6
which provides, “Wastewater service to undeveloped properties
within the service area shall be prohibited unless and until the
Estero Area Plan is amended to identify appropriate and
sustainable buildout limits, and any appropriate mechanisms to
stay within such limits, based on conclusive evidence indicating
that adequate water is available to support development of such
properties without adverse impacts to ground and surface waters,
including wetlands and all related habitats.”
       Appellant built the four houses authorized in Phase I.
When the LOWWP was completed in 2016, those houses were
connected to the community sewer.
       Appellant then applied to the County for a coastal
development permit to construct Phase II, the remaining four
houses. It later modified the proposed development by reducing
the number of houses to three. The County granted a coastal
development permit for Phase II in 2019.
       The Commission appealed that decision to itself and
eventually denied the coastal development permit. It found the
permit application was appealable because the project is located
in a sensitive coastal resource area and because the proposed
project is not “the principal permitted use” for the applicable
zoning category. The Commission denied the permit because it
found the project was inconsistent with development standards
for environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and because
the project site does not have adequate access to water and
wastewater services.

                               3
       Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate to overturn
the Commission’s decision and reinstate the development permit.
The Superior Court denied the writ after concluding the project
was located in a sensitive coastal resource area (SCRA) and
lacked access to water and wastewater services. It rejected the
Commission’s contentions that the project was located in an
ESHA and did not fall within the principally permitted use for
the applicable land use category. Similarly, the Superior Court
concluded the Commission lacked substantial evidence to support
its finding that the project was inconsistent with ESHA policies
included in the County’s local coastal program (LCP).
                Statutory and Regulatory Framework
       The Coastal Act contemplates that each local government
“lying, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone shall prepare a
local coastal program for that portion of the coastal zone within
its jurisdiction.” (§ 30500, subd. (a).) After the Commission
certifies a LCP as consistent with the Coastal Act (§ 30512), its
authority to review and authorize development proposals in the
coastal zone is delegated to the local government. (§ 30519, subd.
(a).) The Commission then has limited statutory authority to
consider appeals from development decisions made by the local
government. (§ 30603.)
       Section 30603 provides that, after the Commission certifies
an LCP, “an action taken by a local government on a coastal
development permit application may be appealed to the
commission for only the following types of developments: . . . (3)
Developments approved by the local government . . . that are
located in a sensitive coastal resource area. (4) Any development
approved by a coastal county that is not designated as the

                                 4
principal permitted use under the zoning ordinance or zoning
district map . . . .” (Id., subd. (a).)
       San Luis Obispo County has a certified LCP comprised of
the county’s Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (CZLUO), several
local area plans governing different geographic regions in the
county, official maps and other policy and planning documents.
Development policies, programs and standards governing Los
Osos, including the site of appellants’ proposed development, are
included in the Estero Area Plan (EAP).
       The San Luis Obispo County Code (County Code) provides
that a county decision on an application for a coastal
development permit is appealable to the Commission if, among
other things, the proposed development is “located in a Sensitive
Coastal Resource Area, which includes: (i) Special marine and
land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries mapped and
designated as Environmentally Sensitive Habitats (ESHA) in the
Local Coastal Plan. Does not include resource areas determined
by the County to be Unmapped ESHA.” (County Code, §
23.01.043 (c)(3)(i).) The Commission’s appellate jurisdiction also
extends to “Any approved development not listed in Coastal Table
O, Part I of the Land Use Element as a Principal Permitted (P)
Use.” (Id., subd. (c)(4).)
                               Contentions
       The first question here is whether the County’s decision to
issue a coastal development permit for appellant’s project is
appealable to the Commission because the proposed development
is situated in an SCRA or because the type of development is not
the “principal permitted use” for the project site. Appellant
contends the project site is not located in an SCRA because no
county map shows the site as being located in a “mapped” ESHA.

                                5
Appellant further contends the permit is not appealable because
the project involves the construction of three single family homes
and single family residential is one of the principally permitted
uses for the zoning district in which it is located.
       The Commission contends it has appellate jurisdiction
because Figure 6-3 in the Estero Area Plan designates the project
site as an SCRA containing ESHA. In its cross-appeal, the
Commission contends the permit is also appealable under County
Code section 23.01.043(c)(4) because the County has designated
multiple principally permitted uses for every zoning category.
Because there is no single principally permitted use, no use
qualifies as the principally permitted use within the meaning of
the Coastal Act (§ 30603, subd. (a)(4)), or the County Code.
       Assuming the permit was appealable to the Commission,
appellant contends the Commission abused its discretion in
denying it because the project has access to water and
wastewater services and is consistent with the LCP’s policy
regarding ESHAs. The Commission disagrees. It contends the
project site lacks permitted access to water and wastewater
services and that the project does not meet standards for
development in an ESHA.
                         Standard of Review
       In this appeal from the trial court’s order denying a writ of
mandate, we are required to determine whether the Commission
acted in excess of its jurisdiction or prejudicially abused its
discretion by not proceeding in the manner required by law.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b); Schneider v. California
Coastal Com. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1343.) Where the
agency’s jurisdiction “involves the interpretation of a statute,
regulation, or ordinance, the issue of whether the agency

                                 6
proceeded in excess of its jurisdiction is a question of law.”
(Schneider v. California Coastal Com., supra, at p. 1344.) We
independently review the question whether the Commission’s
exercise of jurisdiction here is consistent with the Coastal Act.
(Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19
Cal.4th 1, 11 fn. 4; Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. California
Coastal Com. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 402, 414.)
      The Commission abuses its discretion if it “has not
proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is
not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported
by the evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) In
determining whether findings are supported by substantial
evidence, we review the findings “in the light of the whole
record.” (Id., subd. (c).) This standard requires us to consider all
relevant evidence in the record, both evidence that supports the
Commission’s findings and evidence that detracts from those
findings. (La Costa Beach Homeowners’ Assn. v. California
Coastal Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804, 814.) We may reverse
the Commission’s decision only if, “‘based on the evidence before
the agency, a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion
reached by the agency.’” (Ibid.)
                              Discussion
      Jurisdiction: Sensitive Coastal Resource Area. Both the
Coastal Act and the County’s Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance
(CZLUO) provide that a coastal development permit approved for
a development located in a Sensitive Coastal Resource Area is
appealable to the Commission. (§ 30603, subd. (a)(3); County
Code, § 23.01.043, subd. (c)(3).) Both the statute and the
ordinance define a Sensitive Coastal Resource Area as
“identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas

                                 7
within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity.”
(§ 30116; County Code, § 23.11.030 [pp. 379, 405 of 414].) The
CZLUO further provides that appealable developments are those
“[a]s set forth in Public Resources Code Section 30603,
[subdivision] (a), and this title . . . .” (County Code, § 23.01.043,
subd. (c).) Appealable permits include those for projects “that are
located in a Sensitive Coastal Resource Area, which includes: (i)
Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and
estuaries mapped and designated as Environmentally Sensitive
Habitats (ESHA) in the Local Coastal Plan.” (Id., subd. (c)(3)(i).)
       The Estero Area Plan (EAP) contains “policies, programs
and standards” applicable to the community of Los Osos and the
site of appellant’s proposed development. Chapter 6 of the EAP
“identifies special features of the environment, discusses relevant
issues, sets policies, and recommends programs to implement the
relevant goals and policies of this plan.” “Combining
designations” included in this chapter identify sensitive, scenic
and other special features of the environment. Areas that fall
within these combining designations require “more detailed
project review” to “avoid adverse environmental impacts.” One of
the combining designations is for Sensitive Resource Area,
defined as “ecologically important areas, such as wetlands,
marshes, sand dunes, natural plant communities, habitat for rare
and endangered plans and animals, and sensitive watershed.”
       Chapter 6 of the EAP identifies the Los Osos Dune Sands
Habitat as an SRA. Portions of the same area are also identified
as an environmentally sensitive habitat. The EAP explains that
the Los Osos Dune Sands Habitat “is comprised of sandy soils –
primarily ‘Baywood fine sands,’ as identified by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service in the Soil Survey of San Luis

                                 8
Obispo County, Coastal Part (See Figure 6-3). These sands also
underlie some areas outside of Los Osos, and occur in the city of
Morro Bay. The areas underlain by these sands outside of Los
Osos are included in the Sensitive Resource Area combining
designation and are also an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
(Terrestrial Habitat).”
       Figure 6-3 is a map of the Los Osos Dune Sands. The
project site is located within the dune sands area depicted on that
map. This constitutes substantial evidence supporting the
Commission’s findings that the project is located in an SRA and
that the development permit is therefore appealable to the
Commission. (See, e.g., Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v.
California Coastal Commission (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068,
1077 [map identifying area as a “‘sensitive resource area[] that
[is] also environmentally sensitive habitat[]’” was substantial
evidence for Commission’s ESHA finding].)
       Appellant contends Figure 6-3 is not sufficient to designate
the project site as being within an SCRA because section
23.01.043, subdivision (c)(3)(i) of the County’s CZLUO limits
SCRAs to habitat areas that are “mapped and designated as
Environmentally Sensitive Habitats (ESHA) in the Local Coastal
Plan.” Because there is no map in the Local Coastal Plan that
designates the project site as an SRA, appellant contends the
permit was not appealable. We disagree.
       First, the county’s CZLUO is intended to, and must be
interpreted consistently with the Coastal Act. (McAllister v.
California Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 930-932
[LCP presumed to be consistent with the Coastal Act and
interpreted to incorporate its ESHA protections]; County Code,
§ 23.01.043, subd. (c) [projects are appealable “As set forth in the

                                 9
Public Resources Code Section 30603(a), and this title . . . .”].)
Section 30603 does not limit the Commission’s appellate
jurisdiction to projects located in mapped ESHA, but extends it to
all projects located in an SCRA.
       Second, Figure 6-3 in the Estero Area Plan is a map that
identifies the Los Osos Dune Sands habitat as an SCRA and
appellant’s proposed project is located within that area. The fact
that maps included in other portions of the County’s LCP do not
also identify the dune sands habitat as an SCRA is not relevant.
The EAP states that, “All other county plans, policies and
programs that involve the Estero Planning Area and are subject
to the [County’s Local Coastal Program] are to be consistent with
and implement this plan.”
       Appellant next contends the project is not appealable to the
Commission because the SCRA designation applies only to dune
sands located outside the Los Osos urban reserve line. Because
the project is located inside the urban reserve line, appellant
contends the Commission had no jurisdiction to review it.
       We are not persuaded. The EAP describes the entire Los
Osos Dune Sands habitat as having “soil characteristics that
support globally rare habitat in a unique composition” of
biological communities. These communities “support a diversity
of native plant species and a number of rare, endangered or
threatened species of plants and animals” some of which “are
found nowhere else in the world.” Nothing in the EAP indicates
that these “globally rare” and “unique” features are limited to one
side or another of the Los Osos urban reserve line. Instead, the
description of the dune sands meets the definition of an SCRA
under both the County CZLUO and the Coastal Act without

                                10
regard to the urban reserve line.2 Because the project is located
in an SCRA, the Commission had jurisdiction over the appeal
from the development permit.
       Having concluded that the Commission properly exercised
appellate jurisdiction based on the project’s location in an SCRA,
it is not necessary for us to consider whether, as the Commission
contends in its cross-appeal, it also has appellate jurisdiction
because the project does not fall within the principal permitted
use for its zoning category. (§ 30603, subd. (a)(4).)
       Abuse of Discretion
       Appellant contends the Commission abused its discretion
when it denied the development permit because the project is
consistent with the LCP’s water and wastewater requirements
and is consistent with the policies for development in an ESHA.
The Commission found the project was inconsistent with the LCP
and lacked sufficient water and wastewater service. We conclude
the Commission did not abuse its discretion because its factual
findings relating to water and wastewater access are supported
by substantial evidence.
       The County’s CZLUO provides, “A land use permit for new
development that requires water or disposal of sewage shall not
be approved unless the applicable approval body determines that
there is adequate water and sewage disposal capacity available to
serve the proposed development . . . .” (County Code, §
23.04.430.) That section of the CZLUO implements groundwater

      2The EAP states that, “areas underlain by these sands
outside of Los Osos are included” in the SRA. We do not read this
statement to limit the SRA to dune sands located outside of Los
Osos. Instead, we read it to define the SRA as the entire area
underlain by dune sands, including areas outside of Los Osos.

                               11
policies included in the LCP that require protection of the long-
term integrity of the groundwater basin.
       Appellant’s proposed project is located in an area served by
the Los Osos Wastewater Project (LOWWP). The coastal
development permit that allowed for construction of the LOWWP
includes Special Condition 6 which prohibits the extension of
wastewater service “to undeveloped properties within the service
area . . . unless and until the Estero Area Plan is amended to
identify appropriate and sustainable buildout limits, and any
appropriate mechanisms to stay within such limits, based on
conclusive evidence indicating that adequate water is available to
support development of such properties without adverse impacts
to ground and surface waters, including wetlands and all related
habitats.” In addition to this prohibition against new sewer
hookups, the Regional Water Quality Control Board prohibits
new septic installations.
       The Commission denied appellant’s coastal development
permit, in part, because it concluded the project site did not have
access to adequate water and wastewater service. It contends the
project cannot be connected to water and wastewater service
without violating County Code section 23.04.430 and Special
Condition 6. Appellant contends the project site has access to
water and wastewater because the project site is already
developed with water meters, sewer mains and laterals. These
improvements were constructed in connection with Phase I of the
project. Since 2007, appellants have used water supplied through
the water meters for landscaping purposes.
       Like the Commission, we are persuaded that the project
site remains “undeveloped” for purposes of Special Condition No.
6 and the CZLUO, despite the installation of water meters and

                                12
other infrastructure. The coastal development permit for Phase I
expressly required appellant to obtain a separate coastal
development permit for the houses at issue here. The County
approved permit for Phase I only after placing a scenic easement
on the lots at issue here, to insure they would not be developed
until after the community sewer was completed. The
Commission’s coastal development permit for Phase I also
mandated that “future development of [the lots at issue here] is
subject to a separate coastal development permit.” Even
assuming appellant was authorized to install water meters,
sewer mains and laterals for these lots, appellant never had
authorization to connect newly constructed houses to water
meters or to the community sewer.
      The County is prohibited from extending wastewater
service to these lots until it satisfies the terms of Special
Condition No. 6. Because that has not occurred, these lots lack
access to water and wastewater services. Consequently, their
development would violate section 23.04.430 of the County
CZLUO and the LCP’s groundwater policies. This constitutes
substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s decision to
deny a coastal development permit for the project.
                              Conclusion
      The order denying the petition for writ of mandate is
affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    YEGAN, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.         CODY, J.

                               13
                     Rita Federman, Judge

           Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

                ______________________________

      FisherBroyles and Paul J. Beard II, for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
      Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant
County Counsel, for amicus curiae on behalf of Plaintiff.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Daniel A. Olivas, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Christina Bull Arndt, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, Mitchell E. Rishe, Deputy Attorney
General, for Defendant and Respondent.