47 Cal.App.5th 214
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Los Angeles County sought to replace its 1986 Malibu Land Use Plan (LUP) and to certify a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the Santa Monica Mountains; the Commission ultimately certified the amended LUP and LCP with modifications that, inter alia, prohibit any new vineyards in the coastal zone.
- Plaintiffs (three LLC landowners) filed a writ petition challenging the Commission’s certification on procedural grounds (alleged failure to trigger a §30512 “substantial issue” hearing and inadequate notice of an April 9 staff addendum) and on the merits (insufficient evidence to single out vineyards and alleged improper blanket findings that the area is unsuitable for agriculture under §§30241/30242).
- County staff and Commission staff exchanged reports; staff recommended banning new crop-based agriculture but later issued an April 9 addendum allowing limited new agriculture (except vineyards) subject to slope and organic/biodynamic practices.
- The Commission approved the LUP and later the Local Implementation Plan; the trial court denied the writ, finding the Commission properly proceeded under §30514, the agricultural protections were properly interpreted and applied, the addendum complied with rules and did not deprive plaintiffs of a fair hearing, and substantial evidence supported the vineyard ban.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed: it upheld the Commission’s use of the §30514 amendment process, found no procedural or due process defect in the addendum timing, and held substantial evidence supports the categorical ban on new vineyards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Applicable procedure: §30512 "substantial issue" process vs §30514 amendment process | Commission was required to apply §30512 and hold additional hearings if the LUP raised substantial issues of conformity with Chapter 3 | Submission was an amendment to an existing certified LUP; §30514 governs and expressly displaces §30512’s substantial-issue determination for amendments | Court: §30514 applies to the county’s submission (an amendment replacing the 1986 LUP); Commission properly used §30514 and no §30512 substantial-issue hearing was required |
| 2. Agricultural protections (§30241/§30242): whether Commission improperly made a blanket area-wide finding that land is unsuitable for agriculture | Sections require parcel- or case-by-case feasibility determinations; blanket finding unlawfully converts land suitable for agriculture | LUP-level area-wide planning is proper; §30241 did not apply (prime soils limited and not in production); §30242 protects lands feasible for continued/renewed agriculture and the Commission preserved existing agricultural areas | Court: Commission’s area-wide findings were rational and supported; §30241 inapplicable; §30242 protects lands actually feasible for continued/renewed agriculture and those are preserved; no unlawful blanket conversion |
| 3. Fair hearing / notice: April 9 staff addendum issued one day before the hearing deprived plaintiffs of due process | One-day notice prevented meaningful public participation and denied due process regarding the vineyard prohibition | Regulations permit staff to respond to public comments by addendum; the March 27 report met the 7-day rule and the addendum complied with §13533 (responses may be provided at the hearing) | Court: No denial of fair trial or due process; addendum was a permissible staff response, adequately available at hearing, and plaintiffs were not prejudiced |
| 4. Substantial evidence: whether record supports categorical ban on new vineyards | No substantial evidence that vineyards uniquely harm coastal resources; suitability evidence shows vineyards feasible and not worse than other crops | Record includes UCLA study and staff ecologist testimony showing vineyards cause erosion, habitat loss/fragmentation, pesticide/runoff impacts, water use and monoculture effects | Court: Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s determination that vineyards pose distinctive, unmitigable harms in the Santa Monica Mountains and the ban is supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Yost v. Thomas, 36 Cal.3d 561 (Cal. 1984) (explains LCP/LUP certification and Commission conformity role under the Coastal Act)
- Ross v. California Coastal Com., 199 Cal.App.4th 900 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review and deference to Commission; addendum/notice issues)
- Hines v. California Coastal Com., 186 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (administrative deference to Commission’s statutory interpretation)
- Headlands Reserve, LLC v. Ctr. for Natural Lands Mgmt., 523 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (example of Commission certifying an LCP amendment that replaced a prior 1986 plan)
- Pomona College v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1716 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (fair administrative hearing / procedural due process principles)