In a decision that could lead to more development along the coastline, the state Supreme Court on Thursday limited the California Coastal Commission’s authority to restrict or halt coastal construction.
Jessica Christian/The Chronicle
In a decision that could lead to more development along the coastline, the state Supreme Court on Thursday limited the California Coastal Commission’s authority to restrict or halt coastal construction that has been approved by a city or county.
The commission, whose members are appointed by the governor and state legislators, “and local governments share responsibility for planning coastal development,” Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero observed in the court’s 7-0 ruling.
But once a local government has won the commission’s approval for its overall development plan on coastal lands, Guerrero said, the commission cannot “edit” that plan by vetoing specific projects or ordering new restrictions.
Article continues below this ad
Under the California Coastal Act of 1976, “both local and state goals are important, and neither the County nor the Commission, as local and state entities respectively, should have greater deference,” the chief justice wrote.
Six of the court’s seven justices, including Guerrero, were appointed by Democratic governors. Four of the Coastal Commission’s 12 members are appointed by the governor and four each by leaders of the state Senate and Assembly, which both have Democratic supermajorities.
San Francisco Chronicle Logo
Make us a Preferred Source to get more of our news when you search.
Add Preferred Source
Citing concerns about water contamination and a lack of wastewater disposal, the commission had sought to prevent Shear Development Co. from building three more homes on its coastal property near Los Osos in San Luis Obispo County, development the county had approved.
In defense of its decision, the Coastal Commission noted that most local governments along the coast have accepted the state’s interpretation of the law and have not sought to approve new developments that weren’t in the initial plan accepted by the state agency.
Article continues below this ad
But Guerrero said the argument was unconvincing. Because local governments already need the commission’s approval to change their overall coastal development plans, she wrote, “they may have acquiesced to the Commission’s interpretation simply out of expediency.”
A property-rights group that argued the case for Shear Development said the ruling has potentially broad statewide impact.
“This is a huge win for both landowners and local governments,” attorney Jeremy Talcott of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who argued the case for the developer, told the Chronicle. “It provides certainty to landowners in the area that they can go to the county and get a permit without risk” of being overruled by the Coastal Commission.
But Joshua Smith, a spokesperson for the Coastal Commission, said the ruling “doesn’t seem to have significant implications for the commission’s program or authority.” The court’s deference to local government approval of construction projects applies only to land outside city limits in a few coastal counties, he told the Chronicle, and the commission no longer objects to the Shear Development project in San Luis Obispo County because the its concerns about water contamination and wastewater disposal have been resolved.
Article continues below this ad
While the ruling is a binding interpretation of current state law, the Coastal Commission and environmental advocates could ask the Legislature to expand the commission’s authority by changing the law.
The case is Shear Development Co. v. California Coastal Commission, S284378.