No “Right to a View” of the Coastline from the Ocean

Schneider v. California Coastal Commission, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 986 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2006).

Terra Bowling, J.D.
Stephanie Showalter

The California Court of Appeals recently overturned a decision of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) which restricted development based on a boater’s “right to a view” of the coastline. This was the first legal test of the CCC’s offshore view policy and an apparent win for property rights advocates.

Background
Dennis Schneider owns a forty-acre ocean-front parcel in San Luis Obispo County abutting an ocean bluff. The property is located in an Ocean Shoreline Sensitive Resource Area and zoned agricultural. In 2000, Schneider received a permit from the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission (County) to construct a 10,000 square foot residence, a barn, and a 1.25 mile access road.

Two members of the CCC appealed the County’s issuance of the permit, arguing that the proposed development was inconsistent with the County’s Local Coastal Plan. After a hearing, the CCC found that Schneider’s house and barn would be visible from the ocean. The CCC conditionally approved the project but imposed fifteen special conditions which required, among others, that the project be re-sited at a higher elevation and confined to 5,000 square feet or less. Additionally, all structures would have to be single story, the access road relocated, and the barn could not be constructed.

Schneider, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, appealed alleging that the CCC had no authority to impose development conditions protecting views of the coastline from offshore, ocean-based vantage points. The trial court sided with the Coastal Commission stating that “the beauty of a sunrise from a vantage point offshore is afforded the same protection as a sunset seen from land.”1 Schneider appealed to the California Court of Appeals.

“Right to a View”
This case revolved around the CCC's interpretation of § 30251 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 which provides that: “The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas . . .”

The CCC construed this section to protect views of the shoreline from both land and sea. The Court of Appeals found this interpretation was too expansive as it in essence adds the words “and from” between the words “along” and “the.” The court found no evidence that the California Legislature sought to protect the occasional boater’s view of the coastline at the expense of a coastal landowner when it enacted § 30251. “Historically, the protection of public views ‘to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas’ has been construed to mean land-based scenic views from public parks, trails, roads, and vista points.”2

Conclusion
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered it to vacate the CCC’s decision. The CCC must now rehear the matter consistent with the appellate court’s ruling. Schneider has won the latest battle, but it is too early to tell whether he has won the war. The Court of Appeals affirmed the authority of the CCC to impose special conditions to preserve the scenic landscape of the Harmony Coast and ensure that the development “be designed to be subordinate to and blend with the natural character of the area.”3 Schneider’s 10,000 square foot residence may remain a pipe dream.

Endnotes
1. Schneider v. California Coastal Commission, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 986 at *3 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2006).
2. Id. at *6.
3. Id. at *10.