Ross v. California Coastal Commission
199 Cal. App. 4th 900
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- City of Malibu certified a local coastal program amendment to allow subdivision of a 2.08-acre Broad Beach parcel owned by Malibu Bay Company; the commission added view corridors and dune restoration conditions; no environmental impact report was prepared; plaintiffs challenged the amendment and certification under CEQA and Coastal Act provisions; trial court granted mandate in part and found issues with buffers, view corridors, and public-notice requirements; appellate court held the commission’s actions complied with related statutory, regulatory, and environmental documentation requirements.
- The subject property lies in environmentally sensitive dune habitat; city land use policies impose buffers of 100 feet for several habitat types, but the implementing plan allows a case-by-case buffer in consultation with Fish and Game when not listed; the commission adopted a 5-foot buffer following a dune restoration strategy.
- The commission certified the Local Coastal Program amendment after considering city staff analyses, dr. Engel’s buffer recommendations, and a mitigation plan; the amendment proposed to create four 50-foot wide parcels with view corridors, subject to a 5-foot buffer and dune restoration.
- Plaintiffs alleged the process violated CEQA and Coastal Act requirements, including failures to adequately analyze cumulative effects, alternatives, and public notice; they also asserted improper “spot zoning” and misalignment with city’s land use plan.
- The appellate court reversed in part, upholding the commission’s compliance with the cited CEQA and Coastal Act provisions and remanding to deny the petition; costs awarded to the commission, city, and Malibu Bay Company.
- The opinion discusses the interplay between the Coastal Act and CEQA where the secretary’s certification allows a substitute environmental document; it also addresses lead vs. responsible agency roles, public review periods under the certified program, and the requirement to consider alternatives and responses to comments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buffer for dune environmentally sensitive habitat areas | Ross argues 100-foot buffer required by LUP Policy 3.23 | Commission/City/Developer contend LIP 4.6.l.G governs buffers case-by-case | Five-foot buffer upheld |
| CEQA substitute document sufficiency under certified program | Plaintiffs claim CEQA deficiencies despite certified program | Regulatory program substitute document meets requirements | Documentation complies with 21080.5(d) and Guidelines 15252 |
| Public notice and review period adequacy | 13-day review period inadequate for broad zoning/biological issues | 7–20 day standards and 30-day CEQA period not applicable due to certified program | 13-day notice reasonable; 30-day period not required under certified program |
| Lead vs responsible agency in CEQA review | Commission as lead agency required extensive CEQA process | Under 21080.5, Coastal Commission exempt from EIR; lead vs responsible not applicable here | Commission exempt from EIR; proper CEQA documentation under 21080.5 |
| Adequacy of alternatives analysis | No adequate alternatives analysis for view corridors/lot configurations | City staff analyzed multiple configurations; staff report considered alternatives | Staff analysis of alternatives adequate; court approves consideration of alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry, 7 Cal.4th 1215 (Cal. 1994) (certification framework; substitute document requirements)
- San Mateo County Coastal Landowners’ Assn. v. California Coastal Com., 38 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. App. 1995) (lead vs responsible agency; CEQA coordination)
- Californians for Alternatives to Toxic v. Department of Pesticide Regulation, 136 Cal.App.4th 1049 (Cal. App. 2006) (certified regulatory program; CEQA exemptions)
- Santa Barbara County Flower & Nursery Growers Assn. v. County of Santa Barbara, 121 Cal.App.4th 864 (Cal. App. 2004) (certified regulatory program; public review mechanics)
- Yost v. Thomas, 36 Cal.3d 563 (Cal. 1984) (definition of land use plan; implementing actions)