28 Cal. App. 5th 244
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- The City of Solana Beach adopted an amended Local Coastal Program (ALUP) incorporating modifications suggested and later approved by the California Coastal Commission; Beach & Bluff Conservancy (BBC) sued the City (without initially suing the Commission) challenging seven ALUP policies as facially inconsistent with the Coastal Act and/or facially unconstitutional.
- BBC sought declaratory relief and a writ of traditional mandate (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085); trial court granted relief as to two policies (2.60 and 4.22) and denied relief on five others, issuing a peremptory writ directed at the Commission to set aside certification of those two policies.
- The Commission and City cross-appealed; principal legal questions on appeal were (1) whether BBC’s statutory remedy to challenge Commission-certified LUP policies is exclusive (administrative mandamus under § 1094.5 via Pub. Resources Code § 30801), and (2) whether BBC’s facial constitutional challenges (principally under the unconstitutional-conditions/takings doctrines) to certain policies had merit.
- The Court of Appeal held that challenges to Commission certification decisions alleging inconsistency with the Coastal Act must be brought by petition for writ of administrative mandate under § 1094.5 within 60 days as provided by § 30801; BBC failed to do so, so those statutory-consistency challenges were barred.
- The court also addressed BBC’s facial unconstitutional-conditions challenges to two policies (2.60.5 and 4.19) and rejected them on the merits, concluding they were improper as facial takings/exaction claims and not ripe for adjudication; the court reversed the trial court’s grant of relief and directed denial of BBC’s writ/ declaratory relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper remedy for challenging Commission-certified LUP policies as inconsistent with the Coastal Act | BBC: may pursue declaratory relief/traditional mandamus (§1085) against the City to invalidate ALUP policies | City/Commission: §30801 makes administrative mandamus (§1094.5) the exclusive remedy to challenge Commission certification decisions | Held: §30801 requires challenges to Commission certification decisions be brought by writ of administrative mandate (§1094.5); BBC’s statutory-consistency claims were barred for failure to timely file such a petition |
| Whether Yost (legislative character of LUP adoption) allows traditional mandamus/declaratory route | BBC: Yost shows city acted legislatively in adopting ALUP so declaratory/traditional mandamus is proper | City: Yost does not override §30801; Commission acts quasi‑judicially when certifying LUPs, so administrative mandamus applies | Held: Yost’s recognition of legislative action by a city does not negate that challenges to the Commission’s certification decision must proceed under §30801 via §1094.5 |
| Whether policy 2.60.5 (convert private stairways to public on replacement) is an unconstitutional condition/taking on its face | BBC: requires uncompensated conversion/exaction when owners repair/replace stairs; facial takings/unconstitutional condition | City: the policy conditions conversion on feasibility, public access, and use of public/eased land, so it’s not an inevitable exaction; merits require case-by-case review | Held: Facial challenge fails—policy does not inevitably effect a taking; whether an exaction occurs is fact-specific and must be tested via as‑applied proceedings |
| Whether policy 4.19 (waiver deed restriction precluding future shoreline protective devices) is an unconstitutional condition/taking on its face | BBC: conditioning permits on waiver of future rights under Pub. Res. Code §30235 is an uncompensated exaction and fails Nollan/Dolan nexus/proportionality | City: the waiver is a restriction, not a conveyance of property or monetary exaction; impact and any taking are fact‑specific and ripe only as‑applied | Held: Facial challenge fails—policy is not an exaction requiring Nollan/Dolan scrutiny on its face; unconstitutional‑conditions doctrine does not apply where no identifiable conveyance or money is demanded and claim is not ripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (Cal. 2012) (overview of LCP/LUP certification and Commission delegation)
- Yost v. Thomas, 36 Cal.3d 561 (Cal. 1984) (city acts legislatively when adopting LUP measures; referendum permitted)
- San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Assn. v. County of San Mateo, 38 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (Commission acts quasi‑judicially in LUP certification; administrative mandamus is the proper challenge)
- Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (distinguishes facial vs. as‑applied takings claims; ripeness and administrative remedies for as‑applied challenges)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (regulatory takings categories: physical invasion or total deprivation of economically viable use)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1987) (essential nexus test for exactions)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (rough proportionality requirement for exactions)
- San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 27 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2002) (Nollan/Dolan applies to individualized exactions, not generally applicable legislative fees)
- California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 2015) (unconstitutional‑conditions doctrine limited to exactions that demand conveyance or money)