Court accuses California Coastal Commission of \u201cprejudicial abuse of discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ACalifornia court cracked down on the California Coastal Commission for its \u201cprejudicial abuse of discretion\u201d when denying homebuilding permits. The same agency infamously blocked<\/u><\/a> a U.S. Air Force request to allow Elon Musk\u2019s SpaceX to increase its California rocket launches, citing the entrepreneur\u2019s politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two property owners applied to build homes in Cambria, California, in 2019 and 2020 respectively, in a tract where the California Coastal Commision \u2013 which must approve projects on or near the coastline \u2013 had already approved construction of 10 homes in the 18 home subdivision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After the local county approved the permits, the Coastal Commision took jurisdictional control after citizens and commissioners appealed the approval, and denied the permits in 2022, citing concerns about water supply levels and the impact on the Monterey Pine Forest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court found the Coastal Commission ignored that the lots have had water service since 2001, and that its own prior decisions supported development of the lots. As part of the approval process for the developer to build out the 18-lot subdivision on the 382 acre area, the developer agreed to dedicate 342 acres of the site to open space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As part of an earlier agreement regarding the Monterey Pine Forest, the property owners were supposed to replace Monterey Pines at a four-to-one ratio for each pine removed, and two-to-one ratio for each pine impacted, which was required in the permit from the county for the property owners to be allowed to build their homes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Commission\u2019s analysis of the Monterey Pines Forest issues ignored the historical context and the extensive mitigation conditions required by the Commission and the County when the Tract 1804 subdivision was originally created,\u201d wrote<\/u><\/a> Superior Court Judge Michael C. Kelley in his ruling. \u201cThe decision at the de novo hearing denying the CDP\u2019s based on a finding of Monterey Pines Forest compliance issues was infected by the same flaws and was a prejudicial abuse of discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian public interest law firm, represented the property owners in the case, and has provided its pro bono counsel to a number of victories against the California Coastal Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2024, PLF successfully represented Malibu homeowners after the Coastal Commision declared<\/u><\/a> their small \u201cprivate property\u201d sign on their property was \u201cunpermitted development,\u201d and a landmark<\/u><\/a> Supreme Court case that government fees \u2013 whether put in place by legislators or bureaucrats \u2013 must have essential nexus and be roughly proportional to the matter to which the fee is being applied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n