28 Cal.App.5th 244
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Solana Beach adopted an Amended Local Coastal Program (ALUP) incorporating Coastal Commission suggested modifications; Beach and Bluff Conservancy (BBC) sued the City challenging seven ALUP policies as facially inconsistent with the Coastal Act and/or unconstitutional.
- BBC sued under Code Civ. Proc. §1085 (traditional mandamus) and for declaratory relief; Commission and Surfrider intervened for the City.
- Trial court granted BBC judgment on two policies (2.60 and 4.22) as inconsistent with the Coastal Act, denied relief on others, and issued a writ ordering the Commission to set aside certification of those policies.
- On appeal the court considered (1) whether BBC’s exclusive remedy for challenging Commission-certified LUP policies is administrative mandamus under §1094.5 (§30801), and (2) merits of BBC’s facial unconstitutional-conditions (takings) challenges to two policies (2.60.5 and 4.19).
- The Court of Appeal reversed the portions of the judgment invalidating policies 2.60 and 4.22, held BBC’s Coastal Act inconsistency claims were required to be brought by administrative mandamus under §1094.5 per §30801, and rejected BBC’s facial unconstitutional-conditions challenges on the merits (and as unripe for facial relief).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper remedy to challenge Commission-certified LUP policies for inconsistency with the Coastal Act | BBC: could pursue declaratory relief and traditional mandamus against the City | City/Commission: section 30801 requires administrative mandamus (§1094.5) against the Commission (quasi-judicial act) | Held: §30801/§1094.5 is the exclusive remedy for such challenges; BBC's declaratory/§1085 attack was barred for failure to file §1094.5 petition |
| Policy 2.60 (ban/new private beach stairways; limits on repair) — consistency with Coastal Act | BBC: policy conflicts with Coastal Act §30610 (repairs/improvements exempt from CDP) | City: policy is within LUP authority; challenge must be via administrative mandamus | Held: challenge barred for failure to use §1094.5; trial court’s invalidation reversed |
| Policy 2.60.5 (condition converting replaced private stairways to public where feasible) — unconstitutional condition / taking | BBC: conversion requirement is an uncompensated exaction invading private property | City: conversion applies only in limited circumstances (feasibility, partial use of public land/easements); requires case-by-case adjudication | Held: facial unconstitutional-conditions challenge fails — policy is not an inevitable exaction and is subject to as-applied review; not facially invalid |
| Policy 4.19 (permit condition requiring deed restriction waiving future right to seawalls under §30235 for new development) — unconstitutional condition / taking | BBC: waiver is an uncompensated exaction lacking nexus/proportionality | City: condition limits future use but does not demand a conveyance of money or property interest now; any takings inquiry requires an as-applied, case-specific analysis | Held: facial challenge fails — policy does not on its face effect a categorical taking or require an exaction; unconstitutional-conditions doctrine inapplicable to this facial claim; challenge unripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (Cal. 2012) (describes LCP/LUP certification and permit delegation under Coastal Act)
- San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Assn. v. County of San Mateo, 38 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (LUP certification challenges must proceed by administrative mandamus under §1094.5)
- Yost v. Thomas, 36 Cal.3d 561 (Cal. 1984) (local adoption of LUP is legislative for referendum purposes; distinguishes review routes)
- DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995) (general discussion of initiative/amendment and remedies; context for legislative vs administrative challenges)
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (ripeness and need for as-applied administrative review in takings challenges)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (categorical takings rules: physical invasions or total deprivation of economically viable use)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm., 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1987) (essential nexus requirement for land-use exactions)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (rough proportionality requirement for exactions)
- San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 27 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2002) (Nollan/Dolan scrutinies apply to individualized exactions, not generally applicable fees)
- California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 2015) (limits on unconstitutional-conditions doctrine; exactions requirement)