The California Supreme Court reversed the Coastal Commission’s denial of a coastal development permit for single-family homes in Los Osos, holding that the Commission lacked appellate jurisdiction over the project. The ruling clarifies that courts must apply an independent judgment standard when reviewing whether a development falls within a sensitive coastal resource area under a local government’s program, and limits the Commission’s authority to appeal permits for uses designated as principal permitted uses.
Shear Development Co., LLC sought approval in 2017 to build four homes on lots previously approved for a first phase of development. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors upheld Shear’s appeal of a hearing officer denial in 2019, finding that water and wastewater services were sufficient. The Coastal Commission appealed the County’s decision in 2020, denying the permit on grounds that it lacked adequate wastewater access and violated environmental habitat policies.
The Commission asserted two bases for its appellate jurisdiction: first, that the development site was located within a sensitive coastal resource area under the County’s local coastal program; and second, that the proposed single-family dwellings were not designated as the sole principal permitted use for the site. The trial court and Court of Appeal both affirmed the Commission’s jurisdiction, primarily relying on the sensitive resource area designation.
Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion for a unanimous court, holding that a court must exercise its independent judgment when determining whether the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction depends on the interpretation of a local coastal program. Because interpreting such programs is a question of law rather than fact, the substantial evidence standard previously applied by some lower courts was inappropriate. The court explicitly disapproved prior appellate precedent that had applied substantial evidence review to such legal questions.
On the question of deference, the court held that neither the Commission nor the County is entitled to judicial deference when they offer conflicting interpretations of a local coastal program. Applying traditional agency deference factors, the court concluded that both entities share authorship and enforcement responsibilities for these programs. Because neither agency demonstrated a clear interpretive advantage or consistent long-standing position, the court conducted its own de novo review of the local program’s text.
Under that independent review, the court concluded the proposed development was not located within a sensitive coastal resource area. The local program’s text and maps indicated that the relevant habitat designation applied to rural areas outside the urban reserve line, not to the developed portion of Los Osos where Shear’s project was located. The court rejected the Commission’s reliance on a single map figure, finding it ambiguous and inconsistent with other program provisions.
The court also rejected the Commission’s second jurisdictional basis, holding that appellate jurisdiction exists only when a development is not designated as any of the principal permitted uses under the local program. The County’s program listed three principal permitted uses for the site, including single-family dwellings. Because Shear proposed one of those designated uses, the Commission had no appellate authority over the permit regardless of whether other uses were also permitted.
The court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and directed the lower courts to issue a writ of administrative mandate ordering the Commission to vacate its denial and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The decision limits the Commission’s appellate reach and establishes clear standards for judicial review of local coastal program interpretations.