Cal App: No "Substantial Issue" Meriting Appeal To Coastal Commission

In Hines v. California Coastal Commission, No. A125254 (decided June 17, 2010, ordered published July 13, 2010), the California Court of Appeal (First District) held that the California Coastal Commission properly refused to hear the appeal of a neighbor who opposed the grant of a use permit because the appeal did not present a "substantial issue" under the Coastal Act.

There is a lot of detail in the lengthy opinion, and we won't cover it all here, but here's the short version. The county board of supervisors granted a coastal development permit to build a home and garage, which reduced the 100-foot riparian setback to 50 feet. A neighbor objected, asserting that the county's coastal policy "absolutely forbids construction of permanent structures within 100 feet from the lowest line of riparian vegetation," and sought appellate review by the California Coastal Commission. The Commission declined to exercise jurisdiction. The neighbor sought a writ of mandate from the trial court, but it agreed with the Commission and declined to issue the writ.

The court of appeal affirmed, concluding the Commission was not grossly out of bounds when it determined there was no significant question in the case whether the reduction in the setback was in conformity with the county's coastal program:

As observed in Albertson, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th 859, “the question here is not whether appellants’ appeal raises any issue but whether it raises a substantial one. A substantial issue is defined as one that presents a 'significant question' as to conformity with the certified local coastal program. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13115.) We review the Commission’s determination of whether a substantial issue has been raised for abuse of discretion; we grant broad deference to the Commission’s interpretation of the [local coastal program] since it is well established that great weight must be given to the administrative construction of those charged with the enforcement and interpretation of a statute. [Citations.] We will not depart from the Commission’s interpretation unless it is clearly erroneous. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 863-864, fn. omitted.) Mindful of these principles, we agree with the Coastal Commission that appellants have not raised a substantial issue that required the Coastal Commission to engage in de novo review of the Stars’ application.

Slip op. at 18-19 (emphasis original). The record reviewed by the county board and the Commission contained "a high degree of factual and legal support" showing that the reduction of the buffer was a site-specific and therefore local issue, and not a regional or a statewide one that would be precedential. Thus, it was not "significant." Slip op. at 20-21. The record also demonstrated that the reduced setback would not adversely affect the riparian habitat.

The court also rejected a challenge under CEQA, holding that CEQA did not apply to the Commission's determination of no substantial issue. See slip op. at 22-29.