223 Cal. App. 4th 349
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- The Hagopians purchased parcels in the Santa Monica Mountains (unincorporated Los Angeles County) that were subject to the Coastal Act and an earlier 1987 coastal development permit recorded against one parcel.
- They began substantial grading and construction (multiple structures, road, vineyards, pool, tennis court, solar array) without obtaining Coastal Act permits; Commission staff twice warned them and denied an exemption request.
- The Coastal Commission issued notices of violation, then held a public enforcement hearing after the Hagopians declined to submit a statement of defense and largely failed to present evidence at the hearing.
- The Commission found violations and issued cease-and-desist and restoration orders; the Hagopians petitioned for writ of mandate asserting lack of Commission jurisdiction, due process violations, and that Los Angeles County is the proper permitting authority.
- The trial court denied relief, finding the Commission retained permitting jurisdiction (county had not completed an LCP or satisfied interim procedure requirements), upheld the hearing as fair, and found substantial evidence supported the Commission. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hagopian's Argument | State/County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Which entity has permitting authority for the Santa Monica Mountains coastal zone? | County is the permitting authority (Coastal Act authority passed to county). | Commission retained jurisdiction because county never had a fully certified LCP nor adopted/served required interim procedures. | Commission retains permitting authority; county never satisfied 30500 or 30600.5 prerequisites. |
| 2) Did Ordinance No. 89-0147 transfer interim permitting authority to the county? | Ordinance enacted county procedures and thus effectuated transfer. | Ordinance applies only where a certified LCP exists and does not satisfy §30600.5 notice/adoption prerequisites. | Ordinance did not transfer authority; it cannot function absent a certified LCP and county never complied with §30600.5 requirements. |
| 3) Was the Commission hearing biased or a denial of due process? | Commission acted as prosecutor and adjudicator, used fines for funding, and displayed predetermination/bias. | Administrative enforcement with staff presentation is standard; no evidence of institutional bias or improper funding influence. | Due process not violated; hearing procedures and staff role upheld; alleged bias was speculative/insufficient. |
| 4) Were the Commission's findings unsupported by substantial evidence? | Development was exempt (agricultural exception) and outbuildings were lawful; Commission lacked evidentiary support. | Substantial evidence of grading, vegetation removal, and development in the record; Hagopians failed to raise/support these defenses at the administrative hearing. | Findings supported by substantial evidence in light of whole record; Hagopians waived evidentiary challenges by not presenting them administratively. |
| 5) Can court compel the County to adopt interim procedures or complete LCP via mandamus? | County must be ordered to adopt procedures and finish LCP (mandamus against county and directive to Commission). | County's choice to pursue interim delegation under §30600.5 is discretionary; county is engaged in negotiations on LCP implementation. | Mandamus not available to force county to seek interim authority; no showing of ministerial duty to adopt §30600.5 procedures or time limit to complete LCP. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., 33 Cal.3d 158 (discusses origins/purpose of Coastal Act and Commission authority)
- Healing v. California Coastal Com., 22 Cal.App.4th 1158 (confirming permit jurisdiction remains with Commission where LCP not fully certified)
- McAllister v. California Coastal Com., 169 Cal.App.4th 912 (statutory interpretation principles and agency deference)
- Guzman v. County of Monterey, 46 Cal.4th 887 (when "shall" may be directory vs. mandatory)
- Perlman v. Shasta Joint Jr. College Dist. Bd. of Trustees, 9 Cal.App.3d 873 (bias in administrative proceedings invalidates decisions)
- Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.4th 1 (administrative staff participation does not automatically violate due process)
- Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 (requirement to exhaust administrative remedies)
- Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal.3d 432 (public entity cannot be compelled to exercise discretion in a particular manner)