Featured Case

Coastal Commission Imposes Illegal Agricultural Easement

Sterling v. California Coastal Commission

Contact: J. David Breemer

Status: Victory. Writ of mandate and Court's statement of decision issued on June 18, 2010.

Summary:
This case involves the California Coastal Commission’s attempt to require a family to dedicate an agricultural easement to the State requiring 143 acres of their land to be farmed forever (with no other use allowed) in return for a permit allowing a home on a 10,000 square-foot building pad.

Dan and Denise Sterling purchased 143 acres of agriculturally zoned land inland of Half Moon Bay about 10 years ago, with the intent of building a home for themselves and their four children. The land has historically been used for grazing cattle. The Sterlings have been living in a mobile home since buying the land, all the while attempting to secure a building permit for an approximately 6,000 square-foot home. They have continued to graze cattle. The homesite would not displace any land being farmed or used for grazing. In 2006, they finally acquired a permit from the County, but it was appealed to the Commission by the Commission.

After substantial delay, the Commission finally held a hearing on the Sterlings’ proposal on February 5, 2009. At the hearing, the Commission staff recommended a permit condition requiring imposition of an “affirmative” agricultural easement on all of the Sterlings’ land outside their 10,000 square foot building area. The Commission approved it. The condition requiSaveres the Sterlings to dedicate an easement to a public or publicly approved trust group which requires the land to be farmed forever. The condition allows the holder of the easement to come in on the Sterlings’ land to make sure that agricultural operations are ongoing.

The Sterlings object to the condition because it prevents them from ever subdividing their land, transfers their development rights to the public, and imposes an affirmative servitude on their land.

On April 9, 2010, the San Mateo Superior Court granted Petitioners' petition for writ of mandate, stating that the Commission's imposition of the agricultural easement constituted an unconstitutional taking, as it is disporportionate to the public impact of the house proposed.