Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh vs California Coastal Commission

pursuant to that statute, "[t]he grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the Court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the Court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the Court may otherwise permit." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 438, subd. (d).)

Notwithstanding the absence of an appropriate written notice stating the papers upon which the motion is based, COSB has submitted in support of the motion a declaration of Michael Daly who is the Chief Deputy Assessor in the Clerk-Recorder-Assessor's Office, and a declaration of Emily Ferguson, who is employed by COSB as a Front Operations Supervisor in the Clerk-Recorder-Assessor's Office. Those declarations contain information regarding, among other matters, the COSB's official assessment and tax roll records for the Property and a tax exemption claim submitted by the LLC.

" 'A motion for judgment on the pleadings serves the function of a demurrer, challenging only defects on the face of the complaint.'' [Citation.] As with a demurrer, '[t]he grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the complaint or from a matter of which the Court may take judicial notice.' [Citations.]" (Eckler v. Neutrogena Corp. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 433, 439.)

Wholly absent from the motion is any reasoned argument showing why any of the information or evidence contained in the declarations of Daly and Ferguson appears on the face of the complaint or is a proper subject of judicial notice. Further, COSB has filed with their reply, a notice of withdrawal of the Daly and Ferguson declarations submitted in support of the motion. As the points and arguments advanced in the motion cite and ostensibly rely on the matters appearing in those declarations, and for all further reasons discussed above, the supporting papers fail to "make clear the grounds for the relief sought." (Luri, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1125.)

Moreover, as Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to counter or respond to the withdrawal of the declarations including the effect, if any, of that withdrawal upon the points advanced by COSB, there exist due process concerns. (American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453 [general discussion].)

Also relevant here, COSB must "file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration stating either of the following: "(A) The means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the motion for judgment on the pleadings. "(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 439, subd. (a)(3)(A)-(B).)

COSB has failed to file and serve with the motion the declaration required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439 and described above. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the Court will order the motion off-calendar, without prejudice to the filing and service by COSB of a procedurally appropriate motion for judgment on the pleadings in the future.

Tentative Ruling: Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh vs California Coastal Commission Tentative Ruling: Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh vs California Coastal Commission Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Hearing re Administrative Record Tentative Ruling

Marc Chytilo, Doug Carstens, for Petitioner Andrew Contreras, Patrick Tuck, Claire Wilkens, for Coastal Commission Beth Collins, Daniel Brunton, Cameron, for Real Party in Interest RULING This is a petition for writ of mandate involving a coastal development permit approval by the Coastal Commission for a residential development under unusual circumstances. There are both procedural and substantive issues. The approval process was by the Commission alone (not the County of Santa Barbara) through a consolidated process that is itself a subject of this challenge.

The Commission's approval was based on the Takings Exception, which involves an overlay of constitutional law, and is also a subject of the challenge. There is a CEQA challenge in addition to claims made under the Coastal Act. There is a 4,300+ page administrative record. The Court needs more time and continues the matter to July 29, 2026, at 10 am in order to give sufficient time to address these numerous and nuanced issues. No appearances required on July 8, 2026.

Tentative Ruling: Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh v. Cal. Coastal Commission Tentative Ruling: Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh v. Cal. Coastal Commission Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/29/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate Tentative Ruling For Petitioner Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh: Douglas P. Carstens, Michelle N. Black, Sunjana Supekar, Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP; Marc S. Chytilo For Respondent California Coastal Commission: Rob Bonta, Hayley Peterson, Andrew R. Contreiras, Office of the Attorney General For Real Party in Interest Sanddew LLC: Beth A. Collins, Daniel P. Brunton, Cameron J. Gable, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP RULING For the reasons set forth herein, the petition of petitioner Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh for issuance of a writ of mandate is DENIED.

Background

This proceeding arises from the coastal development permit (CDP) application (Application) of real party in interest Sanddew LLC (Sanddew) for a project (Project) at 501 Sand Point Road (the Property), a lot located at the end of a sand spit in the Carpinteria area of unincorporated Santa Barbara County. (Administrative Record [AR], at p. 0020.) (Note: Subsequent citations to the AR will be in the form "AR" followed by the page number or numbers with leading zeros omitted.)

The Project is located on property that is zoned Single Family Residence (R-1). (AR 20.) The Project site contains approximately 1 acre of coastal foredune habitat based on the sandy substrate as well as the evidence of dune morphology (dune hummocks, hollows, and ridges) and native dune vegetation. (AR 21.) The Property consists of 8.95 acres, but the dry land area of the Property now consists of approximately 1.34 acres. (AR 20.)

A residence existed on the Property during the 1930s, but was no longer present by approximately 1950. (AR 20.) Since then, the Property has remained vacant except for roadway access, while neighboring parcels continued to be developed or redeveloped with single-family residences. (AR 20-21.) The Application proposes the construction of a new approximately 4,843 sq. ft. single-family residence. (AR 21)