Shear Development Co., LLC v. California Coastal Commission

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that courts independently review an agency’s interpretation of a local coastal program when determining the California Coastal Commission’s appellate jurisdiction. Applying the Yamaha factors, the court concluded that neither the Commission nor the county was entitled to deference where their interpretations conflicted and neither had a superior claim. The court further held that the proposed development was not in a sensitive coastal resource area and was for one of several principal permitted uses, so the Commission lacked appellate jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. A court must exercise independent judgment when reviewing the Coastal Commission's appellate jurisdiction if the jurisdictional question primarily involves interpreting an enacted local coastal program rather than resolving disputed facts.
2. When two entities that administer the same legal scheme offer incompatible interpretations, the court must apply the Yamaha factors to each entity; when neither has a clearly superior interpretive advantage or indicia of correctness, the court owes deference to neither.
3. The proposed development site was not designated as a sensitive coastal resource area under either the former or current LCP, so the Commission lacked appellate jurisdiction under Public Resources Code section 30603, subdivision (a)(3).
4. The Commission lacks appellate jurisdiction under Public Resources Code section 30603, subdivision (a)(4)(A), when the proposed development is one of several principal permitted uses designated by the local government's LCP. Shear's single-family dwelling project was one of three principal permitted uses and therefore was not appealable on this basis.

Questions Presented

1. What standard of review applies when determining whether the Coastal Commission properly exercised appellate jurisdiction based on interpretation of a local coastal program?
2. When a county and the Coastal Commission offer conflicting interpretations of the same local coastal program, is either entity entitled to deference?
3. Does the local coastal program designate Shear's proposed development site as a sensitive coastal resource area?
4. Does the Coastal Commission have appellate jurisdiction under Public Resources Code section 30603, subdivision (a)(4)(A), when the proposed development is one of several principal permitted uses of the site?

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded