Casa Blanca Beach Est. Owners' Ass'n v. Cty. of Santa Barbara

322 Cal.Rptr.3d 316

CASA BLANCA BEACH ESTATES OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

2d Civ. No. B314102

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6.

Filed May 30, 2024

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, Pauline Maxwell, Donna Geek, Judges (Super. Ct. No. 18CV04772) (Santa Barbara County)

Gaines & Stacey, Sherman L. Stacy, Lisa A. Weinberg, Rebecca A. Thompson, Encino, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Santa Barbara County Counsel’s Office, Brian Pettit, Senior Deputy, for Defendant and Respondent, County of Santa Barbara.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Daniel A. Olivas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christina Bull Arndt, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Elizabeth S. St. John, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent, California Coastal Commission.

CODY, J.

In the midst of administrative proceedings, Casa Blanca Beach Estates Owners’ Association (Casa Blanca) sought declaratory relief against the County of Santa Barbara (County) and the California Coastal Commission (Commission) regarding the timing of its obligation to construct a beach access walkway pursuant to an offer to dedicate recorded in 1990. The trial court correctly found Casa Blanca failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and entered judgment in favor of respondents. We will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More than 30 years ago, the County of Santa Barbara Planning Commission approved the development of a 12-lot oceanfront subdivision in Carpinteria. Casa Blanca is the non-profit homeowner’s association formed to manage the development. It has owned the common area within the development since the 1990s.

The development’s approval was subject to multiple conditions. Condition 20 required Casa Blanca’s predecessor-in-interest to "provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate a lateral access easement five feet in width …" for public beach access and to construct a concrete walkway along the entire easement length within 180 days after acceptance of the offer to dedicate. Casa Blana’s predecessor recorded an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Easement (offer to dedicate) including terms requiring the applicant to construct a concrete walkway within "[180] days after the last to occur of the following: [¶] (i) recordation of said Notice of Acceptance, or [¶] (ii) issuance of any required land use permit or other governmental approval needed to permit construction of the accessway, including approval by the State Lands Commission, if required."

The County accepted the offer to dedicate in 2011. In 2017, the County and Commission sent Casa Blanca a notice of violation alleging the deadline to construct the walkway had passed.¹ In response, Casa Blanca submitted walkway construction plans to the County, but was told it must obtain a coastal development permit from the Commission. It applied to the Commission for the permit, but the Commission deemed the application incomplete. Over the next few years, Casa Blanca and the Commission unsuccessfully worked together to complete the permit application.

In September 2018, Casa Blanca filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the County and Commission and petitioned for writ of mandate against the County, alleging it had exhausted all administrative remedies and had no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.

In May 2019, as litigation proceeded, Casa Blanca appealed the Commission staffs determination that its application was incomplete but then withdrew the appeal at the Commission’s request, stating it would examine the feasibility of two alternative construction options. It subsequently determined further study of the alternatives was not worthwhile and declined to submit the requested analysis to the Commission.

In November 2019, the court heard cross motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication from the County and Casa Blanca. The Commission opposed Casa Blanca’s motion but did not move for summary judgment. The trial court granted the County’s motion on all causes of action and denied Casa Blanca’s. As to the first and third causes of action, the court found the offer to dedicate had been timely accepted by the County.² As to the second cause of action seeking a determination regarding "the deadline for Casa Blanca to meet any obligation … to construct a walkway within the land described in … the Offer to Dedicate" it found it had no jurisdiction because Casa Blanca had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

One month later, the Commission, acting alone, issued a "Notice of Intent to Record Notices of Violation of the Coastal Act and Notice of Intent to Commence Cease and Desist Order and Administrative Civil Penalty Action Proceedings" (notice of intent). Ten months after that, Casa Blanca filed a Statement of Defense and Objections to Recordation of Notices of Violation. After the State Lands Commission issued a preliminary determination showing portions of the promised walkway encroached on tidal lands, the Commission rescinded the portion of its notice of intent regarding its intent to record the notice of violation. In December 2019, the court stayed litigation to provide Casa Blanca an opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies. The stay was lifted in November 2020.

[1] In February 2021, Casa Blanca filed a second amended complaint adding allegations against the Commission. The Commission demurred on grounds Casa Blanca failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of the County and Commission.³

DISCUSSION

Casa Blanca contends its claim is ripe because it has exhausted all available administrative remedies or is excused from doing so. It seeks remand directing the trial court to determine whether it is currently obligated to construct the walkway.⁴

Standard of Review

[2–5] An order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo. "Summary judgment is appropriate only ‘where no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ [Citation.]" (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 618, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 413 P.3d 656.) We review an order sustaining a demurrer de novo.⁵ (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal. Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58 (Blank).)

Administrative Proceedings Have Not Been Exhausted

[6–9] The exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine applies when there is an administrative remedy to questionable government action. It assures certain prerequisites are met before legal action is taken. (Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1487, 1492-93, 279 Cal.Rptr. 558.) Where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must first be sought from the administrative body. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 292, 109 P.2d 942.) This is a fundamental rule of procedure "followed under the doctrine of stare decisis, and binding upon all courts." (Id. at p. 293, 109 P.2d 942.) A court’s intervention before an administrative agency has resolved the claim constitutes jurisdictional interference. (Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 372, 383, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 619, 441 P.3d 870.) Courts "have no discretion to relax the exhaustion doctrine." (Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax (1994) 29 Cal. App.4th 1442, 1449, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 334.) Casa Blanca has the burden of proof to show it has exhausted its administrative remedies. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Disk Bd. of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 624, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 240.)

[10, 11] A concept distinct from but similar to the exhaustion requirement is that there be a "ripe controversy." Ripeness looks at whether a controversy is " ‘definite and concrete.’ " The ripeness doctrine prevents courts " ‘from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies,’" and protects administrative agencies from "judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties." (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 171, 188 Cal.Rptr. 104, 655 P.2d 306.)

Here, the questions of whether Casa Blanca has presented a ripe controversy and whether it has exhausted its administrative remedies overlap.

[12, 13] An administrative decision is final, i.e., ripe, "when the agency has exhausted its jurisdiction and possesses ‘no further power to reconsider or rehear the claim.’ " (Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. v. State of California (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 155, 169, 275 Cal.Rptr. 449.) "Until a public agency makes a final decision, the matter is not ripe for judicial review." (California Water Impact Network v. Newhall County Water Disk (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1485, 75 CaLRptr.3d 393, italics added. See also, Santa Barbara County Flower & Nursery Growers Assn. v. County of San- ta Barbara (2004) 121 CalApp.4th 864, 875, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 ["In the context of administrative proceedings, a controversy is not ripe for adjudication until the administrative process is completed and the agency makes a final decision that results in a direct and immediate impact on the parties."].) Casa Blanca’s action is not ripe because it has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.

[14] Casa Blanca contends the controversy is ripe because Commission staff threatens "millions of dollars in fines and penalties for an alleged delay in construction of a walkway." But threats are not formalized or final decisions. Neither the Commission nor the County has made a final decision whether to impose any fines or penalties or even whether they agree with Casa Blanca that the obligation to construct the walkway is subject to conditions precedent.

Citing Sackett v. EPA (2012) 566 U.S. 120, 132 S.Ct. 1367, 182 L.Ed.2d 367, Casa Blanca argues the Commission’s notice...