32 Cal. App. 5th 193
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Dimitry obtained a local coastal development permit (CDP) from the City of Laguna Beach to demolish his 1930 house; Fudge opposed and contended CEQA/historic/view issues.
- Fudge appealed the CDP to the California Coastal Commission and also filed a writ petition in superior court challenging the City's CDP under CEQA.
- The Coastal Commission accepted Fudge's appeal, triggering a statutory de novo hearing under the Coastal Act (§30621).
- The trial court dismissed Fudge's civil action as moot, following Kaczorowski and McAllister, reasoning the Commission’s de novo review supplanted the local decision and was the exclusive initial forum.
- The Commission later approved the demolition; the house was demolished. Fudge appealed the dismissal, arguing a de novo hearing must be conducted "in the same manner" as the original (Collier), so CEQA defects could still be litigated in court.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the statutory scheme (including Public Resources Code §21080.5 and the Coastal Act) permits Commission de novo review that supersedes the local CEQA-based decision; attorney fees to Fudge were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fudge) | Defendant's Argument (City/Dimitry/Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commission acceptance of an appeal and its de novo hearing nullifies the local agency's CDP and renders a parallel civil CEQA challenge moot | Collier requires a de novo hearing to be "in the same manner" as the original; because the Commission applies Coastal Act procedures (not local CEQA procedures), the local decision remains independently reviewable in court | Legislature authorized de novo Commission review; §21080.5 permits Commission regulatory program to be treated "in lieu of" CEQA EIRs and the Coastal Act/§30621 gives the Commission de novo authority, so Commission review supersedes the local decision | Affirmed: Commission de novo review nullifies local CDP for purposes of initial judicial review; trial court dismissal was proper (Kaczorowski and McAllister upheld) |
| Whether Fudge is entitled to attorney fees based on the trial court's dismissal | Argues dismissal amounted to a favorable result because Commission acceptance nullified the City's CDP | Respondents: dismissal was adverse to Fudge; he remains aggrieved and is litigating on appeal | Denied: trial court correctly refused fees; appeal indicates no prevailing-party result below |
Key Cases Cited
- Collier & Wallis, Ltd. v. Astor, 9 Cal.2d 202 (1937) (classic description of "de novo" hearings, including phrase "in the same manner")
- Buchwald v. Katz, 8 Cal.3d 493 (1972) (Supreme Court quotation of Collier omits the "same manner" formulation; differing statutory language governs interpretation)
- Kaczorowski v. Mendocino County Bd. of Supervisors, 88 Cal.App.4th 564 (2001) (acceptance of Coastal Commission appeal places initial determination with Commission)
- McAllister v. County of Monterey, 147 Cal.App.4th 253 (2007) (same; exhaustion/administrative remedy requirement and Commission's primacy on CDP appeals)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (1962) (procedural rule followed by trial court regarding mooting and dismissal)
- San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Assn. v. County of San Mateo, 38 Cal.App.4th 523 (1995) (Secretary certified Coastal Commission program under §21080.5 as functionally equivalent to CEQA review)