Opinion
G061578 G061738
11-21-2023
BEACH SANDPIT, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent.
Aannestad Andelin &Corn, Jonathan C. Corn, Anders T. Aannestad, Lee M. Andelin and Arie L. Spangler for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Daniel A. Olivas, Assistant Attorney General, Jamee Jordan Patterson and Hayley Peterson, Deputy Attorneys General for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2016-00874255 Randall J. Sherman, Judge. Affirmed.
Aannestad Andelin &Corn, Jonathan C. Corn, Anders T. Aannestad, Lee M. Andelin and Arie L. Spangler for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Daniel A. Olivas, Assistant Attorney General, Jamee Jordan Patterson and Hayley Peterson, Deputy Attorneys General for Defendant and Respondent.
OPINION
MOORE, J.
Michael and Susan Christian (the Christians) own a mobilehome in the coastal community of Capistrano Shores Mobile Home Park (Capistrano Shores). The mobilehome's title is held by appellant Beach Sandpit, LLC, which is owned and controlled by the Christians. The Christians renovated their mobilehome without obtaining a coastal development permit, increasing its height from 12 to 21.9 feet. After renovations were complete, they applied to the Coastal Commission (the Commission) for a permit to approve the mobilehome as renovated. The Commission found the renovated mobilehome significantly obstructed views of the coastline from nearby trails in violation of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (the Coastal Act), specifically, Public Resources Code section 30251. It refused to issue a permit unless the Christians' mobilehome was 16 feet in height or less, meaning they would have to tear down the renovated mobilehome and reconstruct it. The Christians filed a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court, arguing this requirement was invalid. The trial court denied the writ and issued judgment in the Commission's favor.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Public Resources Code.
On appeal, the Christians argue the Commission's ruling was based on an erroneous application of section 30251, is unsupported by substantial evidence, and violates the Equal Protection Clause. We are unpersuaded by their arguments. First, we find no legal error in the Commission's application of section 30251. Second, there are several photographs in the record supporting the Commission's finding that the Christians' renovated mobilehome significantly obstructs coastal views from nearby trails. Finally, as to their equal protection argument, the Christians have not shown they exhausted their administrative remedies. Thus, we affirm the judgment.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Renovations at Capistrano Shores
Capistrano Shores is a mobilehome park in the City of San Clemente (the City) that was established in 1959. It consists of a single row of 90 mobilehomes on a stretch of beach between the coastline and El Camino Real, a public road. Up until about 2010, Capistrano Shores was a low-scaled mobilehome park exclusively comprised of one-story mobilehomes about 13 to 14 feet in height.
The Christians own a mobilehome in unit space 31 of Capistrano Shores. They hold title to the mobilehome through petitioner Beach Sandpit, LLC, an entity they own and control. In 2011, they received a permit from the Department of Housing and Community Development to remodel their mobilehome. That same year, they also applied to the Commission for a coastal development permit. A few days after receiving their application, the Commission notified the Christians their application was incomplete. Among other things, the Commission requested the Christians "clarify all existing development on site by providing a site plan depicting and labeling all existing development including the height of the existing mobile home." The Commission also clarified the coastal development permit requirements could not be waived because "the proposed project ha[d] potential coastal resource impacts (e.g., visual impacts)."
The Christians did not respond to the Commission. Rather, they purportedly relied on advice from their renovation professionals that a coastal development permit was unnecessary and completed the renovation without obtaining one. The renovation converted their mobilehome from a 12-foot-high, single-story building with 1,406 square feet of floor space to a two-story, 21.9-foot-high building with 2,669 square feet of floor space.
In February 2014, the Commission notified Capistrano Shores and the Christians' contractor that 13 mobilehomes in the park had been unlawfully renovated without a coastal development permit, including the Christians' mobilehome. In particular, the Commission noted the height for all 13 mobilehomes "ha[d] been increased significantly." It explained, "[t]he increased heights of the units . . . are notable, and impede coastal views from nearby public access points and trails ...." The Commission advised the Christians and the 12 other mobilehome owners to apply for coastal development permits to authorize the renovations "after-the-fact, potentially with conditions to ensure conformance with . . . the Coastal Act."
In March 2015, under a full reservation of rights, the Christians completed their unfinished 2011 application for a coastal development permit and sought after-the-fact approval of their renovated mobilehome. The other 12 mobilehome owners also applied to the Commission for after-the-fact approval.
The units at issue were 13, 17, 18, 23, 31 (the Christians), 35, 40, 46, 48, 57, 69, 75, and 90.
B. The Commission's Staff Report and Hearing
The Commission scheduled a joint hearing for all 13 applications. Prior to the hearing, Commission staff prepared a combined report analyzing all the applications (the staff report). The staff report explained one application, for unit 90, involved the replacement of a 12- to 13-foot one-story mobilehome with another one-story mobilehome that was 19.8 feet tall. The 12 other applications, which included the Christians, sought to replace one-story mobilehomes between 11 to 15 feet in height with two-story mobilehomes ranging from 22 to 25 feet in height.
The staff report also explained that Capistrano Shores impacted views of the coastline from certain points along the bluffs of the nearby Marblehead public trail system. It described the trail system as having "[p]anoramic views of the Pacific Ocean from the near shore area to the horizon ...." Visible sites "include[d] major scenic resources such as views of ocean white water and blue water, ocean horizon, shoreline and coastline, sandy beach, headlands, the San Clemente Pier, coastal bluffs, and islands."
The staff report analyzed each mobilehome's impact on coastal views under section 30251 by assessing 19 different viewpoints along the Marblehead trail system. It analyzed whether each renovated mobilehome was visible from each of the 19 viewpoints and, if so, the mobilehome's impact on coastal views. Photos of the renovated mobilehomes from various viewpoints were included in the staff report. A map showing Capistrano Shores, the Marblehead trail system, the 19 viewpoints, and each applicant's unit (marked with arrows and unit numbers) is below.
(Image Omitted).
As to the Christians' mobilehome (unit 31), the staff report noted the renovation had increased its height by about 10 feet and its floor area by 1,263 square feet. It was visible from 10 of the 19 viewpoints along the Marblehead trail system (viewpoints 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, and 19). The staff report concluded the "increase in bulk and height negatively impacts coastal views from 10 of the 19 selected public vantage points along the trails, as well as other sections along the trails. The visual impacts include complete and partial blockage of views to the ocean white water, and partial blockage of blue water ....The proposed project will result in significant obstruction of highly scenic coastal views from the public trails, particularly from the vantage points in closer proximity to the project site and at lower elevations (e.g. [viewpoints] 16, 17 . . .)." Photos from some of these viewpoints are included in the discussion section below.
Further, as to all the applications except for unit 90, the staff report explained that "[a]pproval of the proposed two-story, 22-25 feet high units would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on public views and community character of the Park, and would set a negative precedent for development in this area. The relatively low-scale line of mobile homes, which allows views of the ocean, would be replaced with what would appear to be a two-story residential subdivision. There are additional units within the public view corridor, and doubling in height of all these units would cumulatively eliminate the whitewater and other significant public views of the shoreline from multiple public vantage points within this scenic view corridor of [El Camino Real]."
After further discussion of the other applications at issue, the staff report recommended "approval of the applications with conditions to modify the proposed structures (with the exception of Unit 90) to ensure compliance with Coastal Act resource protection policies." For unit 90, the staff report recommended approving the permit for the renovated mobilehome as built. As to the other 12 applications, the staff report recommended approving them subject to special condition 1. This condition states, "PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit . . . final revised project plans . . . which show that the proposed mobile home shall not exceed a maximum roof height of 16 feet as measured from the mobile home frontage road (private access road) ...." In other words, to obtain a coastal development permit, these 12 applicants would have to tear down their renovated mobilehomes and replace them with homes 16 feet tall or less.
The staff report also recommended several other special conditions, but they are immaterial to this appeal.
In July 2016, the Commission held a three-hour omnibus hearing on all 13 applications (the omnibus hearing). The omnibus hearing was to be directly followed by short individual hearings and votes on each application. During the omnibus hearing, Commission staff presented testimony supporting its recommendation to impose special condition 1. Among other things, Commission staff testified that based on the visual studies, "the 12 proposed two-story manufactured homes will have a significant adverse impact on public ocean views." Commission staff explained, "a 16-foot height limit is consistent with past commission permit action for mobile home park for projects that could have significantly obstructed . . . views because of where they were located and their proximity to the view corridor."
A City representative also testified in support of the staff report during the omnibus hearing. The representative stated the City's "concern with the [proposed] project[s] . . . is the impacts the development has individually and cumulatively on public views of the ocean from designated public view corridors in the city's Marblehead Coastal Park and points along El Camino Real. [¶] The second-story additions block whitewater views from the coastal trails and coastal park that the California Coastal Commission fought . . . hard to establish on the Marblehead coastal properties." She continued, "[t]he views from the coastal park and the coastal trails to the ocean are significant public views. Approval of the project without the reduction in the height of the units will violate the city's certified coastal land use plan because the addition of the second stories will significantly intrude into the view corridor from Marblehead Coastal Park and trails to beach and ocean views."
Following the omnibus hearing, a short hearing was first held on unit 90, which involved the replacement of a 12-foot-high mobilehome with another one-story mobilehome 19.8 feet high. The Commission voted in favor of the staff report's recommendation to approve this mobilehome as built. The Commission then turned to the Christians' application. After a short presentation by the Christians' representative, the Commission voted in favor of the staff report's recommendation and approved their application subject to special condition 1.
After the Commission voted on these two applications, the 11 remaining applicants indicated they wished to withdraw and resubmit their applications. (Linovitz Capo Shores LLC v. California Coastal Com. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1106, 1113-1114.) Based on this representation, the Commission did not vote on these applications. But the 11 applicants never withdrew their applications. (Id. at p. 1114.) Thus, this Division previously found these 11 applications were automatically approved under the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65920, et seq.). (Linovitz Capo Shores LLC, at p. 1125.)
C. Petition for Writ of Mandate
The Christians filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the imposition of special condition 1, among other things. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the Christians' petition and entered judgment in favor of the Commission.
The Christians appeal. Their arguments fall into three main categories. First, the Commission misapplied section 30251. Second, the Commission's imposition of special condition 1 is unsupported by the evidence. Third, the Commission's ruling violates the equal protection clause.
II
DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law
"The Coastal Act 'was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California. The Legislature found that "the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people"; that "the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern"; that "it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone" and that "existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state ...." [Citation.]' [Citation.] The Coastal Act is to be 'liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.'" (Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 792, 793-794.)
"Although the provisions of the Coastal Act establish the objective of maximizing public access to the beach, neither the act nor its associated administrative regulations specify how this objective is to be achieved." (La Costa Beach Homeowners' Assn. v. California Coastal Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804, 815-816 (La Costa Beach).) "The Commission has the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conforms to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act." (Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1075.) In doing so, it must "resolve conflicts in the Act's policies 'in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources.'" (San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. California Coastal Com. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1130.)
The Coastal Act requires a person to obtain a coastal development permit prior to performing or undertaking any development in the coastal zone. (§ 30600, subd. (a).) Here, the Commission refused to grant the Christians a permit unless they rebuilt their mobilehome to be 16 feet in height or less. This condition was based on section 30251, which states, "[t]he 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, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas."
An aggrieved party can challenge a commission's decision by filing a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (§ 30801, subd. (a).) "'In reviewing an agency's decision under [this statute], the trial court determines whether (1) the agency proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; (2) there was a fair hearing; and (3) the agency abused its discretion.'" (Ross v. California Coastal Com. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 900, 921.) An "[a]buse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (b).)
In an appeal of an administrative mandamus action, the appellate court occupies the same role as the trial court. We review the ruling of the Commission, not the trial court. Neither the trial court's conclusions nor its disposition of the issues is binding on appeal. (La Costa Beach, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 814-815.)
B. Legal Application of Section 30251
The Christians contend the Commission's imposition of special condition 1 is based on several legal misinterpretations of section 30251. We review the Commission's interpretation of the statute de novo (Schneider v. California Coastal Com. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1343-1344), and find no error.
First, the Christians argue the Commission erred by finding section 30251 grants it the power to deny a permit to a project that blocks any view of the ocean. Rather, the Christians maintain the view obstruction created by the project must be significant to warrant denial of a permit. We need not spend much time on this argument. The Commission adopted the staff report, which found the Christians' renovated mobilehome resulted "in significant obstruction of highly scenic coastal views from the public trails, particularly from the vantage points in closer proximity to the project site and at lower elevations." (Italics added.) Likewise, it found the impact of all the proposed projects would create "[s]ignificant blockage of major scenic resources from either or both the upper and lower [Marblehead] trails resulting in adverse view impacts ...." (Italics added.)
In response, the Christians contend the Commission argued in the trial court that it could reject a project that blocked any views of the ocean, and they assert the trial court accepted this interpretation. But even if this were true, we review the Commission's ruling. (La Costa Beach, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 814-815.) The trial court's interpretation of the section 30251 is immaterial to our review. (Ibid.) Further, in its respondent's brief, the Attorney General's office disclaims the argument that section 30251 empowers the Commission to deny permits to projects that block any view of the coastline.
Second, the Christians argue the Commission misapplied section 30251 by failing to evaluate their renovated mobilehome with objective criteria. In support, they cite section 30320, subdivision (a), which requires the Commission to "conduct its affairs in an open, objective, and impartial manner free of undue influence and the abuse of power and authority." But this statute does not require the Commission to apply objective criteria when construing the Coastal Act. Rather, it concerns the Commission's procedures for ensuring open and fair hearings. Section 30320 was adopted in 1992 as part of Assembly Bill No. 3459 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) (AB 3459), which was enacted to increase transparency in hearings. Per the Legislative Counsel's Digest, AB 3459 was intended to (1) require commission member to report ex parte communications with any interested person, and (2) require any permit applicant "to provide the commission with the names and addresses of all persons who, for compensation, will be communicating with the commission or commission staff on their behalf." (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 3459 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.); see stats. 1992, ch. 1114, § 3.) Thus, section 30320 is irrelevant to the Commission's application of section 30251.
The Christians have not cited any other authority requiring the Commission to apply objective criteria when evaluating whether a project complies with section 30251. And nothing in the text of the statute suggests the Legislature intended such an approach. Instead, some degree of subjectiveness is built into the statute's text. Whether a development "minimize[s] the alteration of natural land forms," is "visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas," or "restore[s] and enhance[s] visual quality[ies] in visually degraded areas" will inherently depend on some site-specific factors that require subjective interpretation by the Commission. (See § 30251.)
Our interpretation of section 30251 also harmonizes with prior case law emphasizing the Commission's discretion to interpret the Coastal Act. As case law has recognized, "[a]lthough the provisions of the Coastal Act establish the objective of maximizing public access to the beach, neither the act nor its associated administrative regulations specify how this objective is to be achieved." (La Costa Beach, supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 815-816.) The "'determination of whether an applicant qualifies for a permit is entrusted to the Commission's discretion.'" (Reddell v. California Coastal Com. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 956, 971.)
Third, the Christians suggest the Commission misused section 30251 and imposed special condition 1 to punish them for failing to get a permit prior to renovating their mobilehome. Their argument is based on one commissioner's comment that "I would like to send a message to the entire State of California. You don't get a permit, you're going to need to remove what you did." But these are only one commissioner's comments. The Christians have cited nothing showing the entire Commission endorsed or adopted this statement. Further, nothing in the statement itself indicates the commissioner at issue voted to impose special condition 1 to punish the Christians.
Fourth, the Christians assert section 30251 requires the Commission to ensure a project is "'visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.'" (Italics added.) Based on the plural use of "areas," they contend the Commission was required to consider whether their renovated mobilehome was visually compatible with developments outside the immediate area. They allege the Commission misapplied section 30251 by failing to consider coastal development in other surrounding "areas" like Dana Point, Oceanside, Malibu, and Manhattan Beach.
This argument raises issues of fact not law. The Christians' underlying contention is that the Commission has approved multistory beachfront homes in other coastal cities, therefore, it should have approved their two-story home. Tellingly, they only cite examples of coastal developments where the Commission has approved multistory homes. But it is for the Commission to determine whether any of the "surrounding areas" suggested by the Christians are relevant to assessing the visual compatibility of their renovated mobilehome. We cannot say the Commission erred as a matter of law by failing to consider developments in places like Malibu or Manhattan Beach when assessing a proposed renovation in San Clemente. The relevance of these comparisons is a factual question. There could be numerous reasons why the Commission approved a multistory home in one coastal city and denied it in another.
For example, the Commission discussed certain developments in Malibu and Dana Point and noted many of the cited multistory homes predated the Coastal Act.
C. Fair Hearing
The Christians devote a single paragraph to their unfair hearing argument. They appear to contend the Commission did not engage in sufficient discussion of their individual application following the omnibus hearing. But nothing in the record shows the Christians objected to this procedure. Thus, it appears any argument about the procedure has been waived. (See Flippin v. Los Angeles City Bd. of Civil Service Commissioners (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 272, 281.) And even if no waiver occurred, the Christians have not shown the hearing procedure precluded them from presenting any evidence or arguments.
D. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Next, the Christians argue the 16-foot height limit in special condition 1 is unsupported by substantial evidence. Among other things, they argue (1) their renovated mobilehome is the same level of various trees in the area, (2) the difference between a mobilehome 16 feet in height and 21.9 feet in height is insignificant, and (3) their renovated home does not significantly obstruct ocean views from several of the 19 viewpoints considered by the Commission. We are unpersuaded and find the Commission's decision is supported by the record.
The reviewing court "presumes that the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating the contrary." (McAllister v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 921.) The "'court examines the whole record and considers all relevant evidence, including evidence that detracts from the [agency's] decision.'" (Schafer v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1260.) "'Although this task involves some weighing to fairly estimate the worth of the evidence, that limited weighing does not constitute independent review where the court substitutes its own findings and inferences for that of the Commission. Rather, it is for the [agency] to weigh the preponderance of conflicting evidence, as [the court] may reverse its decision only if, based on the evidence before it, a reasonable person could not have reached the conclusion reached by it.'" (McAllister, at p. 921.)
Significantly, "'[i]n determining whether substantial evidence supports a finding, the court may not reconsider or reevaluate the evidence presented to the administrative agency. [Citation.] All conflicts in the evidence and any reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of the agency's findings and decision.'" (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 596.)
We find instructive LT-WR, L.L.C. v. California Coastal Com. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 770 (LT-WR). In LT-WR, the petitioner leased a portion of land on Castro Peak in the Santa Monica Mountains to operate an antenna farm. (Id. at pp. 775-776.) The property contained a mobilehome for a caretaker who provided 24-hour services for the antenna facilities. The petitioner filed an application with the Commission seeking, among other things, (1) after-the-fact approval of unpermitted development, including a mobilehome and storage trailer, (2) approval to relocate the unpermitted mobilehome and storage trailer to a different location, and (3) approval for new development, including a septic system, water well, and construction of a new road. (Id. at pp. 776-777.) The Commission denied the application because the proposed project would adversely impact visual resources in violation of section 30251. (Id. at pp. 778, 797.) It explained, the Castro Peak ridgeline was "'visible from a very large area, including parklands and trails." (Id. at p. 797.) The proposed project would require significant grading as well as the removal and thinning of a substantial amount of vegetation, which would be visible from a great distance. (Id. at pp. 797-798.)
On appeal, the petitioner argued the Commission's decision was unsupported by the record. It argued the property was "already dominated by communication towers that are 150 to 300 feet high." (LT-WR, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at pp. 798-799.) It also "attack[ed] the Commission's reliance on aerial photographs to show the property [was] highly visible from trails in the Santa Monica Mountains because aerial photographs only show[ed] that the property [was] visible from the air, not from surrounding trails or properties." (Ibid.) The appellate court rejected these arguments. It declined to reweigh the evidence and explained, "[t]he aerial photographs cited by the Commission reasonably support the inference the subject property is visible from hiking trails in the Santa Monica Mountains and that the development would have significant adverse impacts on visual resources from public viewing areas." (Id. at p. 799.)
The Christians make similar arguments. But the evidence here is stronger than in LT-WR. First, there was testimony from a City representative that "[t]he second-story additions block whitewater views from the" Marblehead trails. Second, there are photographs from the Marblehead trails in the record. These photographs, which we include below, support the Commission's finding that the Christians' renovated mobilehome significantly obstructs coastal views from the Marblehead trails.
We begin with a photograph from 2009, before any of the 13 renovations at issue in the omnibus hearing occurred.
(Image Omitted)
In this photograph, all pictured mobilehomes are low-profile and of a similar height. The Christians' home, which is marked with an arrow and the number 31, is indistinguishable from the others. However, photos taken after the renovations at issue show increased obstructions of coastal views. Below are pictures of the Christians' renovated mobilehome from some of the 19 viewpoints along the Marblehead trail considered by the Commission. From what we can tell from the record, the other taller mobilehomes in these pictures were part of the 13 applications considered during the omnibus hearing. The Christians' home is marked with an arrow and the number 31.
Viewpoint 7:
(Image Omitted)
Viewpoint 10:
(Image Omitted)
Viewpoint 11:
(Image Omitted)
Viewpoint 16:
(Image Omitted)
Viewpoint 17:
(Image Omitted)
The increased height of the Christians' mobilehome, as well as the other renovated mobilehomes, is conspicuous when compared to the 2009 picture. As found by the Commission, the Christians' renovated mobilehome noticeably obstructs significant portions of the ocean view. It blocks all or nearly all of the whitewater views from viewpoints 7, 10, and 11. From other views, such as viewpoints 16 and 17, it blocks nearly the entire ocean, leaving only a thin sliver of blue water visible between the roof and the horizon. It was also reasonable for the Commission to infer that approving the Christians' renovated mobilehome would create bad precedent in Capistrano Shores. This could allow other mobilehomes to be built at heights similar to the Christians' home, which would further eliminate views of whitewater and portions of the blue ocean from certain vantage points.
As set forth above, the 11 other applications for multistory mobilehomes were approved by operation of law under the Permit Streamlining Act. (Linovitz Capo Shores LLC v. California Coastal Com., supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 1111.) However, the Commission would have denied those applications if the applicants had not represented that they intended to withdraw and resubmit them. Put differently, these 11 renovated mobilehomes will only continue to stand due to an administrative error. Thus, we do not consider the approval of these 11 mobilehomes as creating precedent in Capistrano Shores or when determining whether the Christians' mobilehome is visually compatible with the surrounding areas. Indeed, during the trial court hearing, the Christians' counsel conceded the court should not consider these 11 homes when evaluating the Christians' mobilehome.
There is also evidence in the record supporting the Commission's imposition of a 16-foot height limit. The staff report explains, "[a]t 22 feet . . . the proposed structures would not adequately protect the visual resources, particularly those sited closer to the trails and are highly visible within the public viewshed. Based on staff's analysis, a standard height of 19 feet for all of the structures in [Capistrano Shores] would also increase the loss of view to the ocean and scenic resources without the benefit of accommodating an additional story to the existing single story mobile homes." "Based on staff's visual analysis 16 ft. would minimize the visual impact on coastal views from the intersection and trails along Marblehead. Furthermore, 16 ft. height limit is consistent with past permit action for [Capistrano Shores] for projects that would have significant view impacts because of where they are located within the view corridor." "[L]imiting the height of the proposed development to 16 feet would allow for an increased height to [Capistrano Shores'] prevailing approximately 13-14 foot unit height and upgraded one-story unit, but would not have a significant adverse impact on the ocean viewshed from public areas, thereby minimizing negative impacts to visual resources."
We are unpersuaded by the Christians' arguments that the obstructions pictured above are insignificant, that their mobilehome cannot be seen or is barely visible from 9 of the viewpoints considered by the Commission, and that the difference between a 16-foot mobilehome and a 21.9-foot mobilehome is minimal. Determining the significance of a view obstruction is a matter of policy that courts are ill suited to solve. It is not for us to determine how much of an ocean view a home must block or from how many viewpoints such an obstruction must be visible before the obstruction crosses from acceptable to significant. The Legislature has delegated this determination to the Commission. (§ 30330; Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075.) Courts can only determine whether the Commission's decision is reasonable under the evidence presented. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subds. (b) &(c); McAllister v. California Coastal Com., supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 921.) Based on the evidence above, the Commission's imposition of a 16-foot height limit was reasonable.
The Christians also suggest the Commission's decision was either an abuse of discretion or unsupported by the evidence because it had previously approved mobilehomes of similar heights in Capistrano Shores. For instance, it approved the renovated mobilehome in unit 90, which was 19.8 feet tall. It had also previously approved mobilehomes in units 80 and 81 that were 18.5 and 19.5 feet tall, respectively. However, the staff report explains units 80, 81, and 90 were all at the northern end of Capistrano Shores and far removed from the Marblehead trail system. Thus, these taller mobilehomes did not significantly obstruct coastal views. This is evident from the Marblehead Parks and Trails Viewpoint Map located on page 5 of this opinion. This map shows units 80, 81, and 90 are on the periphery of the trail system's viewshed. In contrast, the Christians' home on unit 31 is centrally located in its viewshed.
Finally, the Christians appear to suggest the view obstructions created by their renovated mobilehome are insignificant when weighed against the $2 million it will purportedly cost to rebuild their home. However, the Commission and courts should review an after-the-fact "application as though the unpermitted development had not occurred" "to avoid condoning unpermitted development." (See LT-WR, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 797.)
E. Equal Protection
The Christians contend the Commission's imposition of special condition 1 violates the equal protection clause because the Commission has approved multistory homes in other coastal cities in Southern California. The trial court rejected this argument. It found the Christians had not raised this issue during administrative proceedings, and, consequently, they had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The Christians have not shown the trial court erred.
"Generally, 'a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.] Under this rule, an administrative remedy is exhausted only upon "termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures."'" (Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 372, 382.) This requirement "is jurisdictional. [Citation.] Intervention by the court before the administrative agency that has resolved the claim would constitute an interference with the jurisdiction of another tribunal." (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1151.)
"The rationale for the [administrative remedy] rule is that an agency is entitled to learn the contentions of interested parties before litigation arises, so it will have an opportunity to address the contentions and perhaps render litigation unnecessary. [Citation.] To advance this purpose an interested party must present the exact issue to the administrative agency that is later asserted during litigation or on appeal. [Citation.] General objections, generalized references or unelaborated comments will not suffice." (Hagopian v. State of California (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 349, 371, italics added.) "'"[T]he objections must be sufficiently specific so that the agency has the opportunity to evaluate and respond to them."'" (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 536.)
We presume the trial court's ruling on the exhaustion issue is correct, and the Christians have the burden to rebut this presumption. (Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 764, 777.) They have not met their burden. First, they have not cited any authority outlining the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine, let alone any authority showing they complied with its requirements or that it is inapplicable here. We will not find this authority for them. (Singman v. IMDB.com, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1151-1152.) Second, they tersely insist they raised the issue before the Commission and offer a string citation to portions of the record. But the cited portions only show the Christians argued the Commission should approve their renovated mobilehome because it had previously approved multistory homes in other coastal cities in Southern California. The Christians do not explain how this contention sufficiently raised an equal protection argument so the Commission could evaluate and respond to it. (See Sierra Club v. City of Orange, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 536.)
The Christians also claim they lacked enough time to raise their equal protection argument during the few minutes they were given to present their case after the omnibus hearing. But, as set forth above, they have not shown the Commission prevented them from making any arguments. Nor have they explained why they were unable to make this argument in their letter brief to the Commission submitted prior to the hearing.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The Commission is entitled to its costs on appeal.
Appellant Beach Sandpit, LLC's request for judicial notice is denied as immaterial to our analysis. (Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 748, fn. 6.)
WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. MOTOIKE, J.