Coastal Commission’s Failure to Track Public Resources Language Did Not Trigger 1021.5 Fees.
Norberg v. California Coastal Comm’n, Case No. G047522 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 15, 2013) (published) involved a situation where residential homeowner obtained mandate directing the California Coastal Commission to set aside certain conditions restricting use of future shoreline protective devices on a residential permit request. The lower court then awarded prevailing petitioner $35,870 in fees under California’s private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5.
The fee award was reversed on appeal, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Moore.
The reviewing court agreed that Public Resource Code legal strictures did vindicate an important public right. However, petitioner was not entitled to an award because (1) no significant benefit was vetted except for homeowner’s benefit on his own parcel (with a narrow decision invalidating a decision because it failed to track the statutory language), and (2) the financial burden was not out of proportion to personal interests (given that the homeowner was seeking to enhance his property with $250,000 in improvements by seeking the permit).