California Supreme Court Watch

#24-99 Shear Development Co., LLC v. California Coastal Commission, S284378. (B319895; nonpublished opinion; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; 20CV-0431.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issue: What standard of review applies to a decision by the California Coastal Commission asserting appellate jurisdiction under Public Resources Code section 30603, where such jurisdiction depends on the Coastal Commission’s disagreement with a local government’s interpretation of its local coastal program?

Petition for review granted: 6/12/2024

Case fully briefed: 2/03/2025

Cause argued and submitted: 12/03/2025

Submission vacated: 12/10/2025

The court vacated submission in this matter and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the following issues: (1) Under the local coastal program in effect at the time that the Commission exercised appellate jurisdiction, did the Commission properly exercise appellate jurisdiction over Shear Development Co.’s coastal development permit on the ground that the development was not designated as the principal permitted use (Pub. Resources Code, § 30603, subd. (a)(4))? (2) Under the local coastal program currently in effect, did the Commission properly exercise appellate jurisdiction over Shear Development Co.’s coastal development permit on the ground that the development was not designated as the principal permitted use (Pub. Resources Code, § 30603, subd. (a)(4))?

Supplemental briefing completed; cause re-submitted: 2/04/2026

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 4/23/2026

Request for modification of opinion filed: 5/06/2026

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Shear Development Co., LLC v. California Coastal Commission (2026) __ Cal.5th __.)

“We conclude that: (1) a court must exercise its independent judgment to decide whether the Commission properly exercised jurisdiction on the ground that the development is in an SCRA; (2) no deference to the Commission’s or the County’s interpretation of the LCP is warranted on this record; (3) the proposed development is not in an SCRA; and (4) the Commission does not have appellate jurisdiction on the ground that the site is designated with several principal permitted uses. Consistent with these conclusions, we hold that the Commission had no appellate jurisdiction over Shear’s permit application. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand with directions. The Court of Appeal is directed to reverse the order of the trial court denying the petition for writ of administrative mandate and remand with directions to issue the writ of administrative mandate. The writ shall direct the Commission to vacate its decision and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Evans, and Stone* concurred.