This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
In 2005, the Coastal Commission first approved an emergency Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for a seawall located at 11 Lagunita Drive in Laguna Beach. The homeowner, Katze, built the seawall larger than permitted and failed to obtain a follow up CDP as required. The unpermitted seawall remained for over 10 years before the Commission issued a cease-and-desist order requiring the removal of the seawall and further imposed a $1 million administrative penalty for the violation. The homeowners challenged those orders in court by filing a petition for writ of mandate. The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate as to the cease-and-desist order, but granted the petition as to the penalty. The homeowners filed an appeal as to the cease-and-desist order. The Commission filed a cross-appeal as to the penalty.
On appeal, the Katzes contended that the Coastal Commission did not file an appeal or file a writ of mandate within 90 days to challenge the City’s decision that their remodel was not a “major remodel.” As such, the Katzes claimed the Commission was estopped from issuing the cease-and-desist order. The record reflected that the City determined that the remodel of the residence at 11 Lagunita Drive did not constitute a “major remodel” and therefore was exempt from requiring a CDP. The court found, however, that the issue later decided by the Coastal Commission was not identical – as the relevant issue before the Commission was whether the residence had been “redeveloped in a manner that constitutes new development,” and thus, whether there was a violation of the 2015 CDP the Commission had previously issued. As the issues in the two proceedings were not identical, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply.
The court next noted that courts review Coastal Commission rulings for an abuse of discretion. Here, the record reflected testimony during the hearing, as well as photographs of the remodel, which constituted substantial evidence the Katzes violated the special conditions of the 2015 CDP. The court therefore found the Coastal Commission acted within the scope of its jurisdiction, and substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that the Katzes violated the 2015 CDP by redeveloping the 11 Lagunita residence in a manner that constituted new development.
The Coastal Commission next claimed that the trial court erred when it granted the Katzes’ petition for a writ of mandate as to the administrative penalty. In reaching its decision, the Coastal Commission staff made findings as to each of the five relevant factors to determine the amount of civil liability, and ultimately recommended “the imposition of a substantial civil liability.” Furthermore, at the public hearing, the commissioners addressed the administrative penalty in conjunction with the cease-and-desist order. At the conclusion of the staff’s presentation, the commissioners were given the opportunity to ask questions of the staff members and others present at the hearing. Accordingly, there was no indication the Commission acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Moreover, the court noted that the $1 million penalty was smaller than the potential penalty that could have been imposed. Based on the aforementioned, the court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the $1 million penalty under section 30821.
11 Lagunita, LLC v California Coastal Commission, 2020 WL 7426182 (CA App. 12/4/2020)
Leave a Reply