Court Rules Coastal Commission Has the Power to Unilaterally Designate Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and to Regulate Inland to the Boundary of the Costal Zone

The Commission, sitting as the coastal development permit (“CDP”) issuing authority because the County of Los Angeles did not have a certified LCP for this area, denied Petitioners' application for a CDP for a 5,804 square foot, 35 foot high two-story single family residence, and accessory structures on property located in the Santa Monica Mountains, approximately four and a half miles from the shoreline, but still within the Coastal Zone. The Commission denied the CDP on several grounds: that "the proposed development would be highly visible to the public traversing Mulholland highway and planned public trails"; that the coastal sage scrub and chaparral on the Doudas' property met the definition of ESHA under the Coastal Act; and that the proposed development would "prejudice" LA County's ability to prepare an LCP for the Santa Monica Mountains and that "CEQA required less invasive proposals."

The Court also ruled that Public Resources Code Section 30251 (California Coastal Act of 1976), "construed broadly [ ]is coextensive with the applicable coastal zone," not limited to "coastal areas," supporting the Court's interpretation "that the Commission's power to regulate scenic and visual resources extends inland as far as the boundary of the coastal zone" and would allow the Commission to deny the Doudas' CDP based on visual resource impacts even four and a half miles inland.