## Facts

- Two landowners sought to expand horse-boarding facilities on a 21.47-acre Encinitas property within the coastal zone and a floodplain area.
- The property comprised three legal parcels zoned to allow single-family residences and private stables by right; the site was periodically flooded.
- The landowners applied to the City of Encinitas for a coastal development permit to board up to 42 horses and build an enclosed stable, storage area, driveway, and trailer turnaround.
- The proposal included creating a building pad using substantial fill, which would affect low-lying areas.
- A biologist retained by the City reported that portions of the proposed development area met wetlands criteria and that the project would eliminate about 0.44 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (described as degraded/marginal).
- The landowners’ consultant disputed whether some areas met the federal Army Corps definition but acknowledged that the project would remove about 0.44 acres of low-quality wetland.
- The City approved a reduced project, but a local group appealed to the California Coastal Commission.
- The Commission, applying the California Coastal Act and the City’s certified local coastal program (LCP), found jurisdictional wetlands on the site and denied the permit as inconsistent with wetlands-protection policies.

## Issues

1. Whether the administrative record contained substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s finding that jurisdictional wetlands existed at the proposed development site under the Coastal Act and the Encinitas LCP.
2. Whether the trial court erred in setting aside the denial and ordering a rehearing based on an asserted lack of substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment granting administrative mandamus relief.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the Commission’s determination that jurisdictional wetlands existed on the property at the proposed development location.
- The court concluded the trial court improperly reweighed technical evidence and substituted its judgment for the Commission’s.
- The reversal left the Commission’s denial of the coastal development permit in effect.

## Legal Principles

- On administrative mandamus review of a Coastal Commission decision, courts ask whether the agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record; courts do not reweigh conflicts in evidence.
- Technical environmental determinations committed to the Coastal Commission receive deference when supported by credible evidence of solid value.
- Wetlands jurisdiction for Coastal Act/LCP purposes is determined under state and local definitions; the Commission is not required to apply the federal Army Corps wetlands standard.
- Coastal Act and LCP wetlands policies generally bar fill and development in wetlands absent narrow, specified exceptions; projects causing wetland loss may be denied as inconsistent with those policies.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reinstated the Coastal Commission’s denial of a coastal development permit, holding that the record contained substantial evidence—under Coastal Act/LCP wetlands criteria—to support the Commission’s wetlands finding and that the trial court erred by reweighing the evidence.


Kirkorowicz v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 83 Cal. App. 4th 980, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 124 (Ct. App. 2000)