SerraCanyon Property Owners Assn. v. Cal. Coastal Commission
The California Coastal Commission and its executive officer Peter Douglas (collectively, the Commission) appeal from a judgment entered in favor of Serra Canyon Property Owners Association (SCPOA) on a petition for writ of mandate.[1] In the peremptory writ of mandate, the trial court ordered the City of Malibu and its environment and community development director Victor Peterson (collectively, the City) to terminate the suspension of building permits the City had issued after it concluded SCPOAs proposed development project was exempt from the coastal development permitting requirements of the Coastal Act,[2]and the Malibu Local Coastal Program (Malibu LCP) the Commission had certified. The trial court also ordered the Commission to cease and desist from any interference with the permits approved by the [City] and to pay SCPOAs costs. This case arises out of a battle between the Commission and the City concerning which agency has permitting authority over some gates SCPOA erected at an already permitted gate house on Serra Road in Malibu, near state parkland which the public is permitted to access.
On appeal the Commission contends (1) it retained jurisdiction over SCPOAs gate project, (2) the project was not exempt from the coastal development permitting requirements of the Coastal Act and the Malibu LCP, (3) the mandate claim was not ripe for adjudication, and (4) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment against the Commission because the Commission was not a party to the fourth cause of action in SCPOAs complaint, which was styled as a petition for writ of mandate. Although judgment also was entered against the City, the City has not appealed from the judgment and has submitted a respondents brief in this court advocating reinstatement of the Coastal Act exemption and building permits it issued for SCPOAs gate project but later rescinded in response to the Commissions request asserting it had jurisdiction over the project. Court agree with the Commissions last contention. SCPOA did not assert any allegations or seek any relief against the Commission in its petition for writ of mandate (the fourth cause of action in the complaint). It sought only the relief the trial court awarded against the City -- reinstatement of the exemption and the building permits. The Commission pointed this out in its opposition to SCPOAs motion for order granting peremptory writ of mandate, at oral argument, and in its objections to the proposed judgment. SCPOA never sought to amend its petition for writ of mandate to seek relief against the Commission or demonstrated in its motion that the Commission had a ministerial duty to cease and desist from interference with the City permits. Moreover, the trial court never adjudicated the declaratory relief causes of action which were directed at the Commission, and SCPOA dismissed these causes of action before judgment was entered.
For the foregoing reasons, Court modify the judgment to delete any reference to the Commission, including the cease and desist order and the order requiring it to pay SCPOAs costs. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The Commission will not be heard to complain about its alleged jurisdiction over SCPOAs gate project.
Comments on SerraCanyon Property Owners Assn. v. Cal. Coastal Commission