Court Filings

Bowman v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B243015 (Cal. App. Oct. 23, 2014)

Categories
Published
of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
Bowman v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B243015 (Cal. App. Oct. 23, 2014)
Transcript
    Filed 10/23/14 (on rehearing) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX SANDRA BOWMAN, as Cotrustee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent. 2d Civil No. B243015 (Super. Ct. No. CV100611) (San Luis Obispo County) OPINION ON REHEARING In  Kleiniecke v. Montecito Water District (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 240, we held it would not be inequitable to apply the doctrine of estoppel as a defense to the statute of limitations. Here we conclude it would be inequitable to apply collateral estoppel to require a party to dedicate a coastal easement as a condition of obtaining a coastal development permit. We reverse a judgment denying a property owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandate to eliminate a public access condition from a coastal development permit. FACTS Walton Emmick owned approximately 400 acres in San Luis Obispo County ( County ). When he purchased the property, it had a single family residence and a barn. The residence was uninhabitable and the barn was   2 in disrepair. The property includes approximately one mile of shoreline along noncontiguous parcels, separated by a parcel owned by another property owner. The house and barn are one mile from the shoreline. In March 2002, Emmick applied to the County for a coastal development permit ( CDP ) to connect an existing well to the house. In June 2002, Emmick obtained over-the-counter permits authorizing dry-rot removal and roof and deck repairs. County Code section 23.03.040 exempts from CDP requirements: All repair and maintenance activities that do not result in any change to the approved land use of the site or building, or the addition to, enlargement or expansion of the object of such repair maintenance . . . . In December 2002 Emmick added two items to his CDP application: replace existing septic tank and rehabilitate the existing residence. This included rebuilding the backside of the srcinal structure and rehabilitating the interior. Emmick began work on the residence pursuant to the over-the-counter construction permits. A county inspector told Emmick he had to stop work until the County issued the CDP. Emmick complied. The County, however, did not issue a formal stop-work order. Emmick did not begin any of the work under the CDP. Emmick died in March 2003. SDS Family Trust ( SDS ) succeeded to the property. 1  In March 2004, nearly two years after Emmick initially applied for the CDP and a year after Emmick died, the County approved the CDP for which Emmick had applied ( CDP-1 ). CDP-1 was conditioned upon SDS's offer to 1 Plaintiffs and appellants, Cotrustees Sandra Bowman, Denise McLaughlan and Sharyn Schrick of the SDS Family Trust, are collectively referred to as SDS.   3 dedicate a lateral easement for public access along the shorefront portion of the  property. The County's reason for the easement condition was that the residence had not been occupied for several years and its occupation would increase the intensity of the property's use. The notice of approval informed SDS that it had 14 days to appeal. SDS did not appeal.  Nine months later, in December 2004, SDS applied to the County for another coastal development permit ( CDP-2 ). This application included, at the suggestion of the County, construction of a 4,576-square-foot barn to replace the existing barn, which had collapsed. The application also included remodel of the existing residence, connection to an existing well and installation of a new septic system, all of which had been approved under CDP-1. Significantly, the application requested the removal of the condition requiring an offer to dedicate a lateral coastal access easement imposed by CDP-1. The County approved the CDP-2 application, including the removal of the coastal access condition. The Sierra Club, the Surfrider Foundation and two coastal commissioners appealed the County's approval of CDP-2 to the Commission. The appealing parties were concerned that the County had eliminated a valid existing easement condition imposed by CDP-1. The Commission accepted  jurisdiction. After hearing, the Commission determined that the easement condition contained in CDP-1 is permanent and binding on the landowner, and removal of the easement condition would violate the policy favoring public access to coastal resources. The Commission conditioned its permit on the implementation of the easement condition contained in CDP-1.   4 DISCUSSION I. We review the Commission's decision for an abuse of discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).) An abuse of discretion is established if the Commission has not proceeded in a manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (  Ibid. ) Where it is claimed the findings are not supported by the evidence, we must uphold the findings if they are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (  Id. ,   subd. (c).) The standard for determining whether the Commission's findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record is properly stated in  La Costa Beach Homeowners' Association v. California Coastal Commission (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804, 814 (  La Costa ). There the court stated: ' The 'in light of the whole record' language means that the court reviewing the agency's decision cannot just isolate the evidence supporting the findings and call it a day, thereby disregarding other relevant evidence in the record. [Citation.] Rather, the court must consider all relevant evidence, including evidence detracting from the decision, a task which involves some weighing to fairly estimate the worth of the evidence. [Citation.] [Citations.] That limited weighing is not an independent review where the court substitutes its own findings or inferences for the agency's. [Citation.] 'It is for the agency to weigh the preponderance of conflicting evidence [citation]. Courts may reverse an agency's decision only if, based on the evidence before the agency , a reasonable person could not reach the conclusion reached by the agency.' [Citation.] [Citation.]' (  Ibid. ) The substantial evidence test as stated in  La Costa  requires us to consider all relevant evidence, including evidence detracting from the decision . . . . (  La Costa ,  supra , 101 Cal.App.4th 804 at p. 814.)  La Costa  also states our task involves some weighing of the evidence. (  Ibid. ) From this

Acadamic Writing )

Jul 23, 2017

Service Manual

Jul 23, 2017
Search
Similar documents
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks