Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bowman v. California Coastal Commission

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

March 18, 2014

SANDRA BOWMAN, as Cotrustee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent.

[REHEARING GRANTED ON April 15, 2014]

Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, No. CV100611Dodie A. Harman, Judge.

Page 1054

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1055

COUNSEL

Pacific Legal Foundation, Paul J. Beard II and Damien M. Schiff for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Richard M. Ross for California Cattlemen's Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Briscoe Ivester & Bazel, John Briscoe and Peter Prows for Building Industry Association of the Bay Area as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, John A. Saurenman, Assistant Attorney General, and Christina Bull Arndt, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

GILBERT, P. J.

The California Coastal Commission (Commission) grants a party a development permit. After the time for appeal has passed, the party may not collaterally attack the permit. A collateral attack is not a substitute for an appeal. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30600.)

Page 1056

The County of San Luis Obispo (the County) issued a coastal development permit on condition the landowner dedicate a lateral public access easement across the oceanfront portion of the property. The landowner did not appeal the condition, but later, after the permit became final, requested removal of the easement condition in a second coastal development permit application to the County. The County allowed the condition to be removed. Other parties appealed the removal of the condition to the Commission. The Commission refused to remove the easement condition imposed in the first permit. The landowner petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate. The trial court gave judgment to the Commission. We affirm.

Collateral estoppel bars the landowner from attacking in a second permit application the validity of a condition that became final in the first permit application.

FACTS

Walton Emmick owned approximately 400 acres in San Luis Obispo County. At the time he purchased the property, it contained a single family residence and a barn. The residence was uninhabitable and the barn was in disrepair. The property includes approximately one mile of shoreline along noncontiguous parcels. The parcels are separated by a parcel owned by another property owner.

In May 2002, Emmick applied to the County for a coastal development permit (CDP) to rehabilitate the residence. The permit application included interior and exterior improvements, installation of a new septic system, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.