Strother

Strother v. California Coastal Commission

Good Law
173 Cal. App. 4th 873·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 669·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831·39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20099
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2009G040745California2,911 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

This case requires us to construe apparently inconsistent sections of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., 21050; all further statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise indicated) and the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act; § 30000 et seq.) governing the finality of a decision by the California Coastal Commission (Commission) involving a potentially significant effect on the environment.

Plaintiffs Lee Strother, Casey and Christy Armstrong, Jim and Kathleen Sigafoos, Tricia Madding, and Ronald and Gay Redcay appeal from a judgment dismissing their petition for writ of mandate to vacate decisions by Commission approving coastal development permits for two unimproved residential lots. The court entered judgment after sustaining, without leave to amend, demurrers by Commission and real parties in interest Paulette and Ernest Alvarez, Jr., and Mark Cragun on the ground plaintiffs failed to timely file their petition. Applying the paramount principle of statutory construction that, where possible, courts harmonize potentially conflicting statutes, we conclude plaintiffs are entitled to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.