The California Supreme Court’s most recent land use decision confirms some limits on the authority of the California Coastal Commission. Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission (Case No. S116081, May 19, 2005). The court held that the Commission lacks jurisdiction under the California Coastal Act to "leverage" its coastal zone permitting authority to a portion of a development project outside the coastal zone. The court also held that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not expand the Commission’s jurisdiction beyond the limits of the Coastal Act.
This case arises out of a proposed 114-unit housing development in the City of Los Angeles near the Ballona Wetlands. The houses are to be constructed on top of a bluff, in an area outside the "coastal zone" as defined in the Coastal Act. One part of the project, however, is located in the coastal zone, and that part is an access road that will connect the bluff-top homes to State Highway 1.
The Sierra Club contended that the Commission must consider impacts within the coastal zone that are caused by the portion of the project outside the coastal zone. The Coastal Commission rejected this position, stating during the administrative proceedings that the Sierra Club was asking the Commission "to do indirectly" what the Legislature has explicitly stated it cannot do directly – regulate outside the coastal zone. When the Commission approved the project, the Sierra Club filed suit, asserting that the Commission had violated the Coastal Act.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s position, and held that the Commission cannot leverage its permit jurisdiction to indirectly regulate the portion of the project outside the coastal zone. The Commission lacks the power to "force changes in portions of the [project] over which the Commission has no permit jurisdiction."
The Sierra Club also argued that the Commission violated CEQA, asserting that CEQA requires the Commission to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the "whole project," including both those aspects of the project outside the coastal zone and those inside the zone. In response, the court held that CEQA cannot be used to expand the Commission’s authority beyond the limits set forth in the Coastal Act. The court relied on Public Resources Code section 21004, which states that CEQA does not grant any additional powers to public agencies. Instead, CEQA directs agencies to use their existing powers to disclose and mitigate environmental impacts, subject to any limitations on those powers. The court also held that agencies such as the Commission, which act as "responsible agencies" in the CEQA process and make decisions after the lead agency has already acted, have a more limited role than lead agencies. Although these CEQA principles have previously been expressed in several Court of Appeal decisions, this is the first time that they have been confirmed by the state’s highest court.
The Sierra Club decision confirms that Coastal Commission permitting jurisdiction does not extend outside the coastal zone. The decision also reaffirms that CEQA does not provide public agencies with regulatory powers not already conferred by other laws.
Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved
