Courts Erred in Giving Deference to Coastal Commission

Friday, April 24, 2026

Page 3

California Supreme Court:

Courts Erred in Giving Deference to Coastal Commission

Opinion Says Agency Exceeded Powers in Appealing to Itself, Overturning County Decision Granting Building Permit, Group’s Intervention Subject to Independent Review if Authority is Rooted in Law

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

The California Supreme Court yesterday reigned in the California Coastal Commission, saying that the group exceeded its powers in appealing to itself and overturning a decision by San Luis Obispo County to issue building permits to a developer, and that the lower courts erred in giving deference to the group’s assertion of “appellate jurisdiction.”

Yesterday’s unanimous opinion, authored by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, also rejected the agency’s claim that its interpretation of the governing “local coastal program” (“LCP”) enactment should be given weight, reasoning that the fact that the regulatory scheme is jointly administered with the county, which disputes the group’s reading of the document, undermines the claim.

Created after the Legislature passed the California Coastal Act of 1976, the commission is tasked with partnering with localities in overseeing the future development of designated portions of the Golden State’s coastline—a delineated region extending inland anywhere from 3,000 feet to five miles—with the goal of preservation.

Public Resources Code §30500 provides that “each local government lying, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone shall prepare a local coastal program for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction” and submit the proposal for certification to the commission. Once the LCP is certified, the city or county generally has the responsibility for reviewing development permits to ensure compliance.

Appellate Jurisdiction

Sec. 30603(a) gives appellate jurisdiction to the commission over the locality’s decisions for “[d]evelopments…that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area” or for a project “that is not designated as the principal permitted use under the zoning ordinance.”

The dispute erupted over a request by Shear Development Co. LLC for a permit to build eight single-family homes on a property it owned in an area of Los Osos already utilized for that purpose. The locality’s LCP designates certain county regions as sensitive resource areas (“SRA”).

In 2004, San Luis Obispo County approved Shear’s permit to build in two phases after an exemption was granted for the project by the local water board, which had issued a discharge moratorium that effectively halted all construction due to problems with septic tank discharges contaminating the water supply.

The two-part plan called upon Shear to wait until sewer infrastructure construction was completed for the area before it started work on the final four homes. The commission stepped in and overrode the approval as to the second phase, citing uncertainties as to the wastewater project.

Permission Granted

Following the completion of the sewer build, Shear was granted permission to build three more homes in July 2019. In July 2020, the commission again overrode the county’s decision, finding that the proposed residences were in an SRA and that the proposal was not for “the principal permitted use” because residential development was only one of several allowable utilizations of properties in the sensitive region.

Shear filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate. After San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Rita Federman denied the request in November 2021, Shear appealed, arguing that the commission lacked appellate jurisdiction.

In an unpublished opinion filed on Feb. 21, 2024, Div. Six of this district affirmed, opining that the Commission properly exercised appellate jurisdiction based on the project’s location in a sensitive region. After high court granted Shear’ petition for review in June 2024, a new LCP for the county became effective, and the commission conceded that the proposed development is not within a designated sensitive area under the amended rule.

New LCP

As an initial matter, Guerrero remarked that “the parties dispute the impact of the new LCP on the issues in this case but reasoned that “[w]e need not resolve this dispute because….regardless of whether the LCP in place now or in 2019 governs, the Commission did not and cannot properly exercise jurisdiction.”

Addressing the applicable standard of review, she noted that, for claims involving allegations that an agency acted in excess of its powers, the issue turns on “whether the issue is legal, factual, or both.” Saying that “[i]nterpretation of an LCP is a legal issue…because it involves interpretation of enacted law,” she wrote:

“A court exercises its independent judgment reviewing an agency’s interpretation of the law.”

She acknowledged that the 2008 decision by this district’s Div. Six in Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Commission applied a deferential standard of review to an agency determination and declared that the case is disapproved “to the extent its analysis is inconsistent with our opinion.”

Independent Review

In independently reviewing the LCP, she recognized that the court must “apply[] any appropriate deference to the agency’s legal interpretation” but said that “deference is not automatic.” Citing the factors set forth in the court’s 1998 Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization case, she commented that “the factors do not clearly favor” the commission’s interpretation over the differing reading asserted by the county and noted:

“When multiple agencies that administer a statute have provided conflicting interpretations, a court should apply the Yamaha factors to each agency to determine not only whether either would be entitled to deference, but also whether either has a stronger claim to deference than the other. If one agency is better situated than the other to provide a definitive statutory interpretation to which a court should defer, then the court may assign greater weight to that agency’s interpretation. If not, and the agencies offer incompatible interpretations, then the court should perform its interpretive task without deference to either agency.”

Finding that no deference is due to the commission’s determination that the property at stake is within a designated sensitive area, the court concluded that the land is not within such a zone where the text of the governing scheme refers to the covered region as dune sands “outside of Los Osos” urban area.

Singular Versus Plural

Addressing the assertion that Shear’s proposal is not “the” principal permitted use under 30603(a) because the county has designated three allowable utilizations of the site—passive recreation, coastal accessways, and single-family dwelling—she pointed out that “we must bear in mind that another provision provides, “[t]he singular number includes the plural.’ ” The chief justice opined:

“[T]he plain text suggests that….if a local government designates several uses, the Commission has appellate jurisdiction under section 30603…only when the development is not for any of them.”

Rejecting the commission’s argument that, in her words, asserts that the agency “must have appellate jurisdiction over developments…unless they designate a single principal permitted use because a wider range of uses increases the likelihood that any given development will cause environmental harm,” she remarked:

“It may express those concerns in its review of the county’s LCP and make recommendations to the local government or the Legislature.”

She declared:

“The Court of Appeal is directed to reverse the order of the trial court denying the petition for writ of administrative mandate and remand with directions to issue the writ of administrative mandate. The writ shall direct the Commission to vacate its decision and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

Justice Natalie P. Stone of this district’s Div. Seven, sitting by assignment, joined in the opinion.

The case is Shear Development Co. LLC v. California Coastal Commission, 2026 S.O.S. 1086.

California’s painstaking permitting process has made national news in recent months, after President Donald Trump intervened last year to call for faster rebuilding-clearances for victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires.

Some Pacific Palisades homesites fall within the jurisdiction of the commission. The agency has said that rebuilds will fall within an exemption to their oversight so long as they amount to like-for-like rebuilds.

Residents wishing to redesign their properties anew may face agency scrutiny.