38 Cal. App. 5th 119
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Malibu Valley Farms (MVF) sought an after-the-fact coastal development permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission to rebuild an equestrian facility in an ESHA in the Santa Monica Mountains; no certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) controlled at the time so the Commission was the permitting authority.
- MVF's CDP application listed preliminary approvals from the Los Angeles County Environmental Review Board (ERB), Department of Fish and Game (Fish and Game), and the Water Board; those representations overstated the scope or merits of those approvals.
- The Commission staff recommended denial based on Chapter 3 policies (setback, stream crossings, ESHA protection), but the Commission approved the CDP (7–5), imposing mitigation conditions and later issued revised findings after a writ challenge.
- Appellants (Hubbard and SOS) sought revocation under 14 CCR §13105(a), arguing MVF intentionally misrepresented other-agency approvals; the Commission found intentional misrepresentations but denied revocation because accurate information would not have changed its decision.
- The superior court denied appellants’ petition for administrative mandate; appellants appealed, arguing §§13052 and 13105 require complete/accurate other-agency approvals and that materiality cannot save a permit deemed "complete."
- The appellate court affirmed: §13105(a) requires intentionality plus materiality (i.e., the Commission would have imposed different conditions or denied the permit), and substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that corrected information would not have changed the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §13105(a) requires revocation when a CDP application contains intentional misstatements about other-agency approvals | Hubbard: §13052 and §13105 together mean a CDP is invalid unless the application contains complete and accurate local/state approvals; applicant may not benefit from failing to comply with approval procedures | Commission/MVF: §13105(a) requires both intentional misrepresentation and materiality — revocation only if accurate info would have led to different conditions or denial | Court: §13105(a) plainly requires materiality; misrepresentations about other-agency approvals only warrant revocation if the Commission would have acted differently had it known the truth |
| Whether §13052's filing-preliminary-approval rule renders a CDP voidable regardless of materiality | Hubbard: §13052's filing prerequisite shows legislative intent that missing/incorrect other-agency approvals should preclude or undo a CDP | Commission: §13052 governs filing eligibility; it does not displace §13105's revocation standard once a permit has been issued; Commission still evaluates consistency with Chapter 3 | Court: §13052 does not negate §13105; once permit issued, revocation requires §13105 showing (intentional + material) |
| Whether the Commission's failure to revoke produces an absurd result that a permit cannot be disturbed after deemed complete | Hubbard: Allowing permits to stand despite misrepresentations renders the completeness requirement meaningless | Commission: Balances applicants' reliance interests and public interest; revocation standard protects reliance while allowing revocation when outcome would differ | Court: Not absurd; regulatory balance is reasonable and consistent with Commission rulemaking comments and statutory scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- McAllister v. California Coastal Com., 169 Cal.App.4th 912 (appellate court) (LCP certification allocates permitting authority)
- Healing v. California Coastal Com., 22 Cal.App.4th 1158 (appellate court) (when no certified LCP, Commission is permitting authority)
- Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com., 16 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. Supreme Court) (functional equivalent documents under CEQA)
- Douda v. California Coastal Com., 159 Cal.App.4th 1181 (appellate court) (Chapter 3 policies guide Commission review)
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (Cal. Supreme Court) (CDP is in addition to, and does not replace, local permits)
- Reddell v. California Coastal Com., 180 Cal.App.4th 956 (appellate court) (standard of substantial evidence review in Coastal Commission proceedings)