Filed 11/23/05 Mt. Holyoke Homes v. California Coastal Commission CA2/27

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

MT. HOLYOKE HOMES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant, BARBARA SCHELBERT, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

B178633 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS084800)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, David P. Yaffe, Judge. Reversed.

Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, John M. Bowman, Andrew R. Hunter and Ryan S. Mauck, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Mt. Holyoke Homes, Darla Jones and Stanley Jones.

No appearance for Defendant California Coastal Commission.

John B. Murdock for Real Party in Interest and Respondent Barbara Schelbert.

__________________________

Mt. Holyoke Homes, LP, Darla Jones and Stanley Jones appeal from the trial court's judgment dismissing their petition for writ of mandate challenging the California Coastal Commission's (Commission) denial of their proposed three-lot subdivision after granting their motion to approve a tentative settlement with the Commission and to remand the matter to the Commission for a further public hearing. We reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Proposed Project and Administrative Proceedings

Darla and Stanley Jones own an undeveloped parcel of land on Mount Holyoke Avenue in the Pacific Palisades area of the City of Los Angeles (City). They formed Mt. Holyoke Homes, LP (MHH) for the purpose of developing the property. Barbara Schelbert owns a home across the street from the property.

MHH filed an application with the City for approval of a preliminary parcel map and a coastal development permit for a proposed four-lot subdivision on the property in September 1990. After review of grading reports and a public hearing, the City's deputy advisory agency conditionally approved the parcel map and coastal development permit. A group of neighboring property owners appealed that approval to the Los Angeles Board of Zoning Appeals, which disapproved the parcel map and coastal development permit. MHH's appeal to the Los Angeles City Council was denied. MHH and the Joneses filed a superior court action challenging the City's disapproval. On December 22, 1993 the court issued a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the government respondents to set aside their decision and to reconsider the matter.

The city council referred the matter to its planning and land use management committee in January 1994. After Schelbert and others raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposed plan on views, MHH agreed to reduce the number of lots from four to three and to accept conditions of approval providing greater setbacks and view corridors between future homes. MHH submitted a revised three-lot subdivision plan to the City, but the City's building department staff raised new concerns regarding soils and geology reports that previously had been approved. For the next four years additional reports were prepared, reviewed and finally approved by the building department on July 17, 1998. On March 16, 1999 the planning and land use management committee recommended approval of the parcel map and coastal development permit for the three-lot subdivision. The City approved the revised proposal on April 7, 1999.

In June 1999 Schelbert appealed the City's approval to the Commission, which has jurisdiction because the property is located within the coastal zone. In May 2000 the Commission determined the appeal raised substantial issues regarding visual impacts and geological stability and would be reviewed de novo. Three years later, in May 2003, the Commission staff issued its report recommending conditional approval of the coastal development permit for the three-lot subdivision. Following a hearing on June 11, 2003, however, the Commission granted Schelbert's appeal and disapproved the permit.

3. The Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint

MHH and the Joneses filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief and inverse condemnation against the Commission, naming Schelbert as real party in interest, on July 31, 2003. The petition and complaint requested a writ of mandate on the grounds the Commission had violated the Public Resources Code by failing to hear the appeal in a timely manner and had abused its discretion in denying the coastal development permit; sought a declaration the Commission lacked jurisdiction in the matter because it had failed to act in a timely manner and because the appointment structure of the Commission violated the separation of powers clause of the California Constitution; and demanded damages for the inverse condemnation of the property.

In May 2004 MHH, the Joneses and the Commission entered into a tentative settlement, which provided the decision disapproving the coastal development permit would be vacated and the Commission would hold a new hearing on an alternative three-lot site plan with a larger view corridor. If the Commission approved the alternative site plan, MHH and the Jones agreed to dismiss their action with prejudice. The settlement agreement was presented to the trial court as a stipulation and proposed order vacating the Commission's June 11, 2003 decision and remanding to the Commission for a new public hearing. The stipulation provided, â€