Bowman v. California Coastal Commission

Filed 10/23/14 (on rehearing)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

SANDRA BOWMAN, as Cotrustee, etc., 2d Civil No. B243015 et al., (Super. Ct. No. CV100611) (San Luis Obispo County) Plaintiffs and Appellants, OPINION ON REHEARING v.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION,

Defendant and Respondent.

In Kleiniecke v. Montecito Water District (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 240, we held it would not be inequitable to apply the doctrine of estoppel as a defense to the statute of limitations. Here we conclude it would be inequitable to apply collateral estoppel to require a party to dedicate a coastal easement as a condition of obtaining a coastal development permit. We reverse a judgment denying a property owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandate to eliminate a public access condition from a coastal development permit. FACTS Walton Emmick owned approximately 400 acres in San Luis Obispo County ("County"). When he purchased the property, it had a single family residence and a barn. The residence was uninhabitable and the barn was

in disrepair. The property includes approximately one mile of shoreline along noncontiguous parcels, separated by a parcel owned by another property owner. The house and barn are one mile from the shoreline. In March 2002, Emmick applied to the County for a coastal development permit ("CDP") to connect an existing well to the house. In June 2002, Emmick obtained over-the-counter permits authorizing dry-rot removal and roof and deck repairs. County Code section 23.03.040 exempts from CDP requirements: "All repair and maintenance activities that do not result in any change to the approved land use of the site or building, or the addition to, enlargement or expansion of the object of such repair maintenance . . . ." In December 2002 Emmick added two items to his CDP application: replace existing septic tank and "rehabilitate the existing residence." This included rebuilding the backside of the original structure and rehabilitating the interior. Emmick began work on the residence pursuant to the over-the- counter construction permits. A county inspector told Emmick he had to stop work until the County issued the CDP. Emmick complied. The County, however, did not issue a formal stop-work order. Emmick did not begin any of the work under the CDP. Emmick died in March 2003. SDS Family Trust ("SDS") succeeded to the property.1 In March 2004, nearly two years after Emmick initially applied for the CDP and a year after Emmick died, the County approved the CDP for which Emmick had applied ("CDP-1"). CDP-1 was conditioned upon SDS's offer to