Featured Case

The Coastal Commission again plays word games to expand its power

Electric Pointe, LLC v. City of Los Angeles

Contact: Paul J. Beard II

Status:  Amicus letter brief in support of review filed Jan. 2010, in the California Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court denied the review on Feb. 2010.

Summary:
Owners of a commercial property in Venice, California, want to transform part of their land from a public parking lot to a private parking lot. Although the City has an easement for public parking, it hasn’t maintained the lot for several years, and the Council agreed to vacate the easement.

But before this change could take effect, California Coastal Commission intervened. Even though changing the parking lot from public to private would decrease its use, the Commission insisted that this change would amount to property “development” requiring a coastal development permit (CDP). The City complied with the Commission’s directive, required the property owners to seek a permit, and denied their application.

After unsuccessful appeals to the City and the Commission, the property owners sued, alleging that ending the easement does not constitute “development” requiring a CDP. The Commission argued that a CDP was required, not just because vacation was “development,” but also because vacation would impact public access and visual resources. The trial court upheld the City’s permit denial, and the case now is before the California Court of Appeal.

PLF argues that a mere transfer of a parking lot from public to private hands does not constitute a “development” under the Coastal Act. Complaining as it does about lack of resources, the Commission ought to be focusing on genuine threats to coastal integrity, not manufactured concerns that twist the word “development” beyond recognition.

Court of appeal adversely ruled in Commission's favor in an unpublished decision in November of 2009; PLF submitted a friend-of-the-court letter brief in support of petition for review in the California Supreme Court on January, 2010. On February, the Supreme Court denied the review.