Kirkorowicz

Kirkorowicz v. California Coastal Commission

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 124·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 739·2000 Daily Journal DAR 10423·83 Cal. App. 4th 980·31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20168
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 22, 2000D034287California6,976 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

The California Coastal Commission (Commission) appeals a judgment issuing a peremptory writ of administrative mandamus directing it to set aside its decision denying brothers Christopher and Gregory Kirkorowicz a coastal development permit (CDP) to expand horse stables and boarding facilities on their Encinitas property and to rehear the matter to determine whether the property includes protected wetlands. Challenging the trial court’s determination that the record lacks substantial evidence to support a finding the property does contain a jurisdictional wetland, the Commission contends the record substantially documents the existence of wetlands entitled to protection by the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) (Coastal Act) and the City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program (LCP). We conclude substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that jurisdictional wetlands exist on the Kirkorowiczes’ property at the proposed development site. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Kirkorowiczes’ 21.47-acre property consists of three separate legal parcels. It is irregularly shaped, zoned…

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.