McAllister v. County of Monterey (147 Cal. App. 4th 253, 2007)

Opinion

McADAMS, J.

This appeal represents the latest round in plaintiff’s long battle against the approval of a coastal development permit on neighboring property. In administrative proceedings conducted by Monterey County officials and later by the California Coastal Commission, the real parties in interest won approval to construct a large single-family dwelling on the Big Sur Coast. In judicial proceedings below, real parties in interest and defendants successfully demurred to plaintiff’s complaint, which was then dismissed. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the dismissal was improper procedurally, because the demurrer was unauthorized and untimely. He also argues that the dismissal was improper substantively because he has a valid cause of action against the county based on jurisdictional grounds and based on the county’s violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; CEQA).

As we explain, we find no merit in plaintiff’s contentions. Procedurally, the trial court acted within its discretion in entertaining a second demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint after the conclusion of Coastal Commission proceedings. Substantively, there is no merit in plaintiff’s jurisdictional claims that Monterey County’s action was a legal nullity, since those allegations both conflict with judicially noticed documents and represent bare legal conclusions. Nor can plaintiff state a valid cause of action against the county under CEQA, because its determinations were superseded by the Coastal Commission’s environmental review. Treating the trial court’s order as a judgment of dismissal, we therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Parties

Appellant is Dr. Hugh McAllister (McAllister). McAllister chairs the World Wildlife Fund’s marine leadership committee. He also owns property along the Big Sur Coast within view of the challenged project.

Respondents are the County of Monterey and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors (collectively, the County). The County passed the resolution challenged here, which approved the coastal development proposed by real parties in interest. Real parties in interest are Sheldon J. Laube and Dr. Nancy J. Engel (Laube & Engel or real parties in interest).

The Proposed Development

In 2001, Laube & Engel sought permission to develop their property, which is located on Easier Point, north of Rocky Point, at 36240 Highway 1, Big Sur. The property then consisted of two contiguous lots, each approximately two acres in size. Real parties in interests’ proposal was for a large single-family home with a subterranean garage complex, measuring just over 10,000 square feet in all.

Many years before, the prior owner of the property, Donald Sorenson, had taken steps to build a house there. In 1977, the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) granted Sorenson a development permit for a smaller home on the site, subject to certain conditions. One condition was that his two lots would be consolidated into a single parcel prior to the commencement of any grading or construction. Despite this condition, Sorenson began grading and construction without merging the two lots. After putting in a driveway, foundation, water connections, a septic system, and certain other improvements, Sorenson abandoned the project.

The County’s Coastal Ordinances

Monterey County has a local coastal plan (LCP), which is codified in chapter 20.90 of the Monterey County Code (Chapter 20.90). The LCP includes the Big Sur land use plan; it also includes a coastal implementation plan.

One pertinent provision of Chapter 20.90—a linchpin of McAllister’s opposition to the project—provides that any permit, “if issued in conflict with the provisions of this title, shall be null and void.” (Monterey County Code, § 20.90.010.) Another relevant provision of Chapter 20.90 prohibits the approval of permits “where there is an outstanding violation of this Title or the remaining portions of the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan involving the property upon which there is a pending application for such permit, . . . unless such permit ... is the, or part of the, administrative remedy for the violation.” (Monterey County Code, § 20.90.120.) That provision continues: “After recordation of a Notice of Violation by the enforcing officer, all departments, commissions, and public employees shall refuse to issue permits or licenses or entitlements involving the property except those necessary to abate the violation . . . .” (Ibid.) Chapter 20.90 authorizes the County’s director of planning and building inspection to establish violations of the title. (Monterey County Code, § 20.90.20.) It also provides an array of alternatives for correcting violations. (See id., §§ 20.90.060-20.90.090.) Among them are retroactive permits and restoration orders. (See id., §§ 20.90.130, 20.90.140.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Administrative Proceedings at the County

In early March 2001, Laube & Engel applied to the County for a development permit to construct a residence on their coastal property.

Later that same month, real parties in interests’ application was reviewed for the first time by the Big Sur Land Use Advisory Committee. The advisory committee approved the project, on condition that no outside floodlighting would be used and that the invasive ice plant on the property would be eradicated. Thereafter, based on McAllister’s objections and pursuant to his requests, real parties in interest relocated the proposed home. In March 2003, the committee reviewed the proposal as modified. Despite McAllister’s continued opposition, the committee voted unanimously to approve the modified project as proposed, with an additional requirement that stone be used as the building material for the walls in order to minimize view impacts.

In October 2003, after a number of continuances, the project proceeded to the County’s planning commission for a hearing. Over McAllister’s opposition, the planning commission voted unanimously to approve both the proposed home and the parcel merger and to certify a mitigated negative declaration under CEQA.

In November 2003, McAllister filed an administrative appeal of the planning commission’s decision, seeking review from the County’s board of supervisors. In his appeal, McAllister asserted that the proposed project violated the 1977 coastal development permit obtained by real parties in interests’ predecessor, that it conflicted with numerous policies in the local coastal program, that the planning commission’s approval was based on misleading information, and that the project violated CEQA.

In January 2004, the board of supervisors conducted a public hearing on McAllister’s appeal. Speakers at the hearing included real parties in interests’ counsel; McAllister’s counsel plus one witness; and the assigned land use planner for the County. The County’s staff recommended denial of McAllister’s appeal.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of supervisors unanimously adopted resolution No. 04-028, thereby denying McAllister’s appeal. The resolution contains a number of findings, including this: “The subject property is in compliance with all rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the property; no violations exist on the property. . . .” In addition to denying McAllister’s appeal, resolution No. 04-028 explicitly affirmed the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project and specifically upheld the planning commission’s earlier decision to approve the application by Laube & Engel for a combined coastal development permit.

The following month, McAllister appealed the County’s decision to the Coastal Commission, “as a precautionary measure to protect [his] rights.”

Proceedings in the Trial Court

On February 18, 2004, simultaneously with his appeal to the Coastal Commission, McAllister filed this action. In his combined petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, McAllister asserted three causes of action. The first cause of action alleged an administrative mandamus claim against the County. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) That cause of action incorporated these assertions: that the County’s approval was null and void under its own code provisions and thus was made without jurisdiction; that the County failed to give McAllister a fair hearing; and that the County abused its discretion by not requiring an environmental impact report. McAllister’s second cause of action, also against the County, sought a judicial declaration that the County’s approval of the project was null and void. His third cause of action sought injunctive relief against the Coastal Commission, to prevent it from assuming jurisdiction over the project. In addition to the relief requested in the third cause of action of his complaint, McAllister also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Coastal Commission, which the court denied.

In March 2004, Laube & Engel demurred to the complaint. As to the first cause of action, real parties in interest asserted, McAllister failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Laube & Engel challenged the other two causes of action on the ground that the relief sought was improper. In the event that it declined to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the action, real parties in interest argued, the court should stay the litigation pending the outcome of the Coastal Commission appeal. The County joined real parties in interests’ demurrer. The Coastal Commission separately demurred to the third cause of action against it. McAllister opposed the demurrers.

The court conducted a hearing on the demurrers in May 2004, taking them under submission. It issued a written ruling several days later, which included these provisions: (1) As to the first cause of action, the court stayed proceedings on McAllister’s “claim under the California Environmental Quality Act.. . pending the Commission’s final decision.” (2) With respect to the second cause of action, the court sustained the demurrers of the County and real parties in interest, with leave to amend. (3) As to the third cause of action, the court sustained the Coastal Commission’s demurrer, without leave to amend. Thereafter, in June 2004, the court issued a formal order concerning the demurrers, which reiterated the court’s earlier rulings in all respects. In addition, it ordered dismissal of the action with prejudice as against the Coastal Commission and the entry of a separate judgment in the commission’s favor.

Coastal Commission Proceedings

In September 2004, the Coastal Commission took the first substantive step in the administrative appeal, by concluding that the project in fact raised a substantial issue on various grounds and that it would therefore assume jurisdiction. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 30625, subd. (b)(1).)

According to the Coastal Commission staff report, by then, “as a result of the appeal,” Laube & Engel had modified the project. Under their revised plans as submitted, “the residence [was] relocated slightly north .. ., the base elevation of the northern portion of the house [was] lowered so that it is not visible within the critical viewshed, and the size of the residence [was] reduced” slightly.

After a de novo hearing in December 2004, the Coastal Commission granted Laube & Engel a coastal development permit, with conditions, for the modified project.

Further Trial Court Proceedings

In January 2005, Laube & Engel filed a second demurrer to the complaint, entitled “Notice of Motion of Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss.” In it, Laube & Engel argued that McAllister’s complaint failed to state a cause of action against the County, in that the Coastal Commission was the agency taking the final administrative action. As before, the County joined real parties in interests’ demurrer. McAllister opposed the second demurrer on procedural and substantive grounds.

Following a hearing held in February 2005, the court sustained the second demurrer without leave to amend. The court issued a formal order several days later, in which (1) it found that McAllister “failed to state a cause of action,” (2) it sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action, and (3) it ordered “the case dismissed in its entirety.”

Appeal

McAllister brought this timely appeal.

CONTENTIONS

On appeal, McAllister attacks the trial court’s decision to sustain the second demurrer on three grounds. First, he asserts procedural deficiencies in the demurrer, including untimeliness. Second, McAllister argues, the demurrer lacks substantive merit, since his petition states a valid cause of action. Third, he contends, the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. Both the County and Laube & Engel refute those contentions.

DISCUSSION

To establish the proper framework for our analysis of McAllister’s contentions, we begin by describing the relevant statutes. Next, we summarize pertinent procedural principles, specifically the doctrine of exhaustion and the standards that govern appellate review of demurrers. Finally, against that backdrop, we address the specific issues presented in this appeal.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Two statutes have particular relevance here, CEQA and the California Coastal Act of 1976 (§ 30000 et seq.). Both are codified in the Public Resources Code.

I. CEQA

CEQA appears at division 13 of the Public Resources Code, beginning with section 21000. As an aid to carrying out the statute, the state Resources Agency has issued a set of regulations, called Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines).

A. Statutory Policy

CEQA embodies our state’s policy that “the long-term protection of the environment. . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.” (§ 21001, subd. (d); see Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 112 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 612].) As this court has observed, “the overriding purpose of CEQA is to ensure that agencies regulating activities that may affect the quality of the environment give primary consideration to preventing environmental damage.” (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 117 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 326].) Together, the statute and accompanying regulatory guidelines protect a variety of environmental values. The “enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, [and] scenic . . . qualities” is among them. (§ 21001, subd. (b).) So, too, is the protection of wildlife and other species. (Id., subd. (c).)

B. The CEQA Process

Consistent with California’s strong environmental policy, whenever the approval of a project is at issue, the statute and regulations “have established a three-tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations.” (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 112; see Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (k).)

1. Threshold determination of CEQA’s applicability

“The first tier is jurisdictional, requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review in order to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed activity. (Guidelines, §§ 15060, 15061.)” (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 112.)

CEQA applies if the activity is a “project” under the statutory definition, unless the project is exempt. (See §§ 21065, 21080.) “If the agency finds the project is exempt from CEQA under any of the stated exemptions, no further environmental review is necessary.” (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th p. 113.) “Only those projects having no significant effect on the environment are categorically exempt from CEQA review.” (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107 [23 Cal.Rptr.3d 321].) “Single-family homes are categorically exempt from CEQA, except (1) when they ‘may impact on an environmental resource of . . . critical concern’; (2) ‘when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant’; or ‘where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.’ ” (Id. at p. 1106, quoting Guidelines, § 15300.2, subds. (a)-(c).)

If the project is not exempt—either because it does not fall within an exempt category or because an exception makes the exemption unavailable— then the agency must proceed to the second tier and conduct an initial study. (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 792 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 731]; see Guidelines, § 15063.)

2. Initial study

The second tier of the process, the initial study, serves several purposes. One purpose is to inform the choice between a negative declaration and an environmental impact report (EIR). (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (c)(1); Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1180 [31 Cal.Rptr.3d 901].) Another purpose of the initial study is to eliminate unnecessary EIR’s. (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (c)(7).)

“CEQA excuses the preparation of an EIR and allows the use of a negative declaration when an initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 382, 389-390 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 836], citing Guidelines, § 15070; see also § 21064; § 21080, subd. (c).) In certain situations where a straightforward negative declaration is not appropriate, the agency may permit use of a mitigated negative declaration. (See § 21064.5; Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(2); San Bernardino, at p. 390.)

3. Environmental impact report

If the project does not qualify for a negative declaration, “the third step in the process is to prepare a full environmental impact report . . . .” (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 113, citing §§ 21100, 21151 & Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(1), 15080.)

The California Supreme Court has “repeatedly recognized that the EIR is the ‘heart of CEQA.’ ” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231, 864 P.2d 502].) As the court observed more than three decades ago, “since the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, accomplishment of the high objectives of that act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 529 P.2d 66].) Other cases have since confirmed the statutory preference for resolving doubts in favor of an EIR. (See, e.g., Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689, 703 [7 Cal.Rptr.3d 868]; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 905 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 821].)

II. The California Coastal Act of 1976

The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) is codified at Public Resources Code, section 30000 et seq. It replaced the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act, which had been enacted by initiative measure in 1972. (See Historical and Statutory Notes, 56B West’s Ann. Pub. Resources Code (1996 ed.), foll. § 30000, p. 131.)

A. Statutory Policy

The Coastal Act “was enacted by the Legislature as a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.” (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 565 [205 Cal.Rptr. 801, 685 P.2d 1152]; see generally 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Real Property, § 90, pp. 312-314; id. (2003 supp.) pp. 230-234; Robie et al., Cal. Civil Practice: Environmental Litigation (2002) § 8:62, pp. 92-93; Curtin, Cal. Land Use and Planning Law (2006) ch. 9, pp. 232-236.)

In enacting the Coastal Act, the Legislature declared that “the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to: [][] (a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources, [f] (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state, [f] (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. fi[] (d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast. [J[] (e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.” (§ 30001.5.) Among other things, the “scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.” (§ 30251.)

B. Operation

The Coastal Act “assigns chief responsibility for regulating the use and development of the ‘coastal zone’ ... to [the] California Coastal Commission.” (4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Real Property, § 90, p. 313, citation omitted.) The commission’s “regulatory functions are coordinated with those of other state agencies having overlapping responsibilities.” (Ibid.) With respect to environmental responsibilities, under CEQA and its accompanying Guidelines, Coastal Commission environmental review may substitute for an EIR. (See § 21080.5, subds. (a), (e)(1); Guidelines, §§ 15002, subd. (l), 15251, subds. (c), (f).) Thus, the Coastal Commission’s “permit appeal procedure is treated as the functional equivalent of the EIR process.” (Kaczorowski v. Mendocino County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 564, 569 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 14].)

As for local governments, the Coastal Act sets “ ‘minimum standards and policies’ for localities to follow in developing land use plans” but leaves “ ‘wide discretion to . . . local government... to determine the contents’ of such plans . . . .” (DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 775 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019], quoting Yost v. Thomas, supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 572-573; see also §§ 30004, subd. (a), 30005, subds. (a), (b).) The act thus contemplates “local discretion and autonomy in planning subject to review for conformity to statewide standards.” (Yost v. Thomas, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 572.)

1. The local coastal plan

An LCP consists of a local government’s land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other implementing actions that satisfy the Coastal Act. (§ 30108.6.)

The LCP is submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification. (§ 30510, subd. (a); see generally Robie et al., Cal. Civil Practice: Environmental Litigation, supra, §§ 8:67-8:68, pp. 102-104.) In order to certify the LCP, the commission must find that it satisfies the requirements and policies set forth in chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. (§§ 30200, subd. (a), 30512, subd. (c), 30513; see Santa Barbara County Flower & Nursery Growers Assn. v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 864, 871-872 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 489]; Robie, supra, §§ 8:69-8:70, pp. 104-105.) Those “Chapter 3 policies” thus represent the standards for judging the adequacy of an LCP. (§ 30200, subd. (a); Yost v. Thomas, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 566; Robie, supra, § 8:71, pp. 105-106.) These policies are designed to protect certain identified resources, including recreation, sensitive habitat, and scenic resources. (See §§ 30223 [upland recreation], 30240 [environmentally sensitive habitat area], 30251 [visual and scenic resources].)

Once the Coastal Commission has certified the LCP “as conforming to the policies of the Coastal Act, review authority for development within that portion of the coastal zone passes to the local government.” (City of Half Moon Bay v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 795, 804 [131 Cal.Rptr.2d 213].)

2. Coastal development permits

“Any person undertaking any development in the coastal zone, with certain limited exceptions, is required to obtain a coastal development permit. This is in addition to any other permit required from any state, regional or local agency.” (Robie et al., Cal. Civil Practice: Environmental Litigation, supra, § 8:73, p. 106; see § 30600, subd. (a).) Development is broadly defined for these purposes. (Robie, supra, at pp. 106-107; see § 30106.) Thus, for example, a lot line adjustment may constitute a development requiring a coastal development permit (CDP). (La Fe, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 231, 239 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 217].)

The Coastal Act’s chapter 3 policies constitute the general standards for judging the permissibility of specific developments within the coastal zone. (§ 30200, subd. (a).) Furthermore, permits “issued for development between the nearest public road and the sea . .. must include a specific finding that the development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of the Coastal Act.” (Robie et al., Cal. Civil Practice—Environmental Litigation, supra, § 8:74, p. 107; see § 30604, subd. (c).)

3. Coastal Commission appeals

The Coastal Act provides for administrative appeals to the Coastal Commission in certain cases. (§ 30603.) “If . . . the local government approves an application for a CDP, its action may be appealed to the commission by the applicant, any aggrieved person, or any two members of the commission. [Citations.] The commission has limited jurisdiction to hear the appeal.” (City of Half Moon Bay v. Superior Court, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 804.) As relevant here, the governing statute provides: “(a) After certification of its local coastal program, an action taken by a local government on a coastal development permit application may be appealed to the commission for only the following types of developments: [f] (1) Developments approved by the local government between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tideline of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance.” (§ 30603, subd. (a)(1).) The grounds for such an appeal are “limited to an allegation that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified local coastal program or the public access policies set forth in this division.” (Id., subd. (b)(1) [referring to div. 20, the Coastal Act]; see Kaczorowski v. Mendocino County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 569; see generally Robie et al., Cal. Civil Practice: Environmental Litigation, supra, § 8:76, pp. 112-113.)

“If an action is appealable, the commission must hear the appeal unless it determines no substantial issue exists with regard to the grounds for the appeal. (§ 30625, subd. (b)(2).)” (City of Half Moon Bay v. Superior Court, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 804.) The hearing must be set within 49 days. (§ 30621.) “This short time limit is ‘designed to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic delay.’ ” (Encinitas Country Day School, Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 575, 584 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 551].) The Coastal Commission thus “is required, at a minimum, to make the determination whether a substantial issue exists, i.e., whether the appeal raises a substantial issue meriting an appellate hearing, within the 49-day limitation period.” (Id. at p. 585.) “On appeal, the commission reviews the matter de novo, and may take additional evidence not received by the local government.” (City of Half Moon Bay, at p. 804.) Thus, “in effect, the Commission hears the application as if no local governmental unit was previously involved, deciding for itself whether the proposed project satisfies legal standards and requirements.” (Kaczorowski v. Mendocino County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 569.) The resulting decision “ ‘takes the place of and completely nullifies the former determination of the matter.’ ” (Ibid.)

PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK; GENERAL PRINCIPLES

In addition to the substantive statutes described above, this appeal also involves the application of other legal principles, which arise from procedural aspects of the case. One such principle is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Others relate to the procedural posture of this appeal, which follows the sustention of a demurrer.

I. Exhaustion

Under the doctrine of administrative exhaustion, the long-standing general rule is this: “where an adequate administrative remedy is provided by statute, resort to that forum is a ‘jurisdictional’ prerequisite to judicial consideration of the claim.” (Styne v. Stevens (2001) 26 Cal.4th 42, 56 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 14, 26 P.3d 343]; cf. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 386 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 826 P.2d 730] [discussing the closely related doctrine of primary jurisdiction]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Administrative Proceedings, §§ 108-109, pp. 1153-1155; Curtin, Cal. Land Use and Planning Law, supra, ch. 21, pp. 526-532.) Put another way: “In the context of administrative proceedings, a controversy is not ripe for adjudication until the administrative process is completed and the agency makes a final decision that results in a direct and immediate impact on the parties.” (Santa Barbara County Flower & Nursery Growers Assn. v. County of Santa Barbara, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 875.) “The doctrine has been specifically applied to review of coastal commission actions.” (Walter H. Leimert Co. v. California Coastal Com. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 222, 232 [196 Cal.Rptr. 739].)

A. Underpinnings

“The exhaustion doctrine is principally grounded on concerns favoring administrative autonomy (i.e., courts should not interfere with an agency determination until the agency has reached a final decision) and judicial efficiency (i.e., overworked courts should decline to intervene in an administrative dispute unless absolutely necessary).” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 391.) “ ‘Even where the administrative remedy may not resolve all issues or provide the precise relief requested by a plaintiff, the exhaustion doctrine is still viewed with favor “because it facilitates the development of a complete record that draws on administrative expertise and promotes judicial efficiency.” ’ ” (Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 489, 501 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 981 P.2d 543].)

The doctrine “is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . . binding upon all courts.” (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 293 [109 P.2d 942].) Until an available “administrative procedure has been invoked and completed, there is nothing that the . . . court may review; it cannot interfere in the intermediate stages of the proceeding.” (Id. at p. 291.) For that reason, “the failure to exhaust administrative remedies prevents appellant from seeking relief through administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), which provides judicial review of final administrative proceedings.” (Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 607, 619 [113 Cal.Rptr.2d 309].)

B. Exceptions

“There are exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine.” (Unnamed Physician v. Board of Trustees, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 620.) Exceptions are commonly recognized when the administrative remedy is unavailable, when it is inadequate, or when it would be futile to pursue it. (Ibid.) Other exceptions include “situations where the agency indulges in unreasonable delay . . . , when the subject matter lies outside the administrative agency’s jurisdiction, [or] when pursuit of an administrative remedy would result in irreparable harm . . . .” (Green v. City of Oceanside (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 212, 222 [239 Cal.Rptr. 470], citation omitted; accord, Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1816, 1827 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 323].) “To this list must be added exceptions where important questions of constitutional law or public policy governing agency authority are tendered.” (Public Employment Relations Bd., at p. 1827.)

C. Application to Questions of Law

Notwithstanding the foregoing exceptions, exhaustion is not excused merely “because the ultimate legal issues ... are better suited for determination by the courts.” (Department of Personnel Administration v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 155, 169 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 714].) For example, “constitutional challenges are frequently raised to the application of an administrative statutory scheme, yet the courts typically require such issues be presented to the administrative agency in the first instance.” (Ibid.) As the California Supreme Court explained in another context, “the mere fact that the concept of vested rights is rooted in the Constitution does not deprive the [Coastal] Commission of the power to make the initial determination whether a developer qualifies for an exemption, so long as appropriate judicial review of the Commission’s determination is provided.” (State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 250 [115 Cal.Rptr. 497, 524 P.2d 1281]; accord, South Coast Regional Com. v. Gordon (1977) 18 Cal.3d 832, 834 [135 Cal.Rptr. 781, 558 P.2d 867]; Halaco Engineering Co. v. South Central Coast Regional Com. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 52, 63 [227 Cal.Rptr. 667, 720 P.2d 15].)

D. Application to Questions of Agency Jurisdiction

Generally speaking, even where questions concerning the agency’s jurisdiction are presented, “the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires judicial abstention until there has been a final decision in the administrative forum.” (Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1828.) “One of the principal policy concerns of the exhaustion doctrine is judicial efficiency [citation], which cannot be served if the issue of statutory jurisdiction must be fully plumbed in order to determine whether it should be left to the agency in the first instance.” (Id. at pp. 1831-1832.) As our state’s high court put it long ago, “it lies within the power of the administrative agency to determine in the first instance, and before judicial relief may be obtained, whether a given controversy falls within the statutory grant of jurisdiction.” (United States v. Superior Court (1941) 19 Cal.2d 189, 195 [120 P.2d 26].) However, as the court recognized in a later case, “these rules are inapplicable where ... the agency is given no jurisdiction to make a judicial determination of the type involved.” (County of Alpine v. County of Tuolumne (1958) 49 Cal.2d 787, 798 [322 P.2d 449].)

II. Demurrers: Appellate Review

On appeal, “the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred” in sustaining the demurrer. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 879 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 151].) “In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurrer, we are guided by long-settled rules. ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58]; accord, Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081 [6 Cal.Rptr.3d 457, 79 P.3d 569]; see also, e.g., Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 810 [27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661, 110 P.3d 914]; Long Beach Equities, Inc. v. County of Ventura (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1024 [282 Cal.Rptr. 877].)

“As a general rule, if there is a reasonable possibility the defect in the complaint could be cured by amendment, it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459-460 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 329]; see also, e.g., Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 810.) “Nevertheless, where the nature of the plaintiff’s claim is clear, and under substantive law no liability exists, a court should deny leave to amend because no amendment could change the result.” (City of Atascadero, at pp. 459-460.) In such cases, “we exercise our independent judgment about whether the complaint states a cause of action as a matter of law.” (Montclair Parkowners Assn. v. City of Montclair (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 784, 790 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 598].)

ANALYSIS

Here, McAllister’s appeal follows (1) an initial demurrer, interposed principally on the ground of failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) an administrative appeal to the Coastal Commission, which resulted in the approval of a modified project; and (3) a second demurrer, interposed principally on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, which the trial court sustained without leave to amend in February 2005.

On appeal, McAllister makes a three-pronged attack on the trial court’s decision to sustain the second demurrer. First, he attacks the demurrer on procedural grounds, including untimeliness. Second, McAllister challenges the demurrer on substantive grounds, arguing that his petition states a valid cause of action on at least two theories. Third, McAllister contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting him leave to amend.

Before analyzing those specific contentions, we first discuss two threshold appellate issues: appealability and the scope of our review.

I. Threshold Issues

A. Appealability

This appeal was taken from the trial court’s February 2005 order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and ordering “the case dismissed in its entirety.” The appellate record contains no judgment of dismissal, however.

Generally speaking, an order sustaining a demurrer “is neither appealable per se nor as a final judgment.” (Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, 920 [167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813].) But “an appellate court may deem an order sustaining a demurrer to incorporate a judgment of dismissal.” (Ibid.) Furthermore, an “order dismissing a complaint with prejudice constitutes an appealable judgment.... (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 581d, 904.1, subd. (a)(1).)” (City of Morgan Hill v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 861, 867, fn. 3 [13 Cal.Rptr.3d 420].)

In this case, the matter is fully briefed and no party has raised an objection to consideration of the appeal on its merits. To the contrary, the County points out that “all parties have treated the subject Order as the final act of the Trial Court and therefore appealable.” Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to treat the February 2005 order as an appealable judgment of dismissal. “In the interest of justice and to prevent further delay, we will deem the order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to incorporate a judgment of dismissal and thus interpret plaintiffs’ notice of appeal as applying to such dismissal.” (Bellah v. Greenson (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 614, 618, fn. 1 [146 Cal.Rptr. 535].)

B. Scope of Review

This appeal involves only the first cause of action of McAllister’s complaint, for administrative mandamus. Two of the claims asserted there are presented in this appeal: first, that the County’s action was null and void, which divested it of jurisdiction, and second, that the County violated CEQA. In addition to those two claims, the first cause of action also alleges that the County denied McAllister a fair hearing, and that the County failed to comply with various substantive provisions of its LCP. But those latter contentions are deemed abandoned for lack of appellate argument. (See, e.g., Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 227, 237-238 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 313].)

We are not concerned here with the second cause of action of McAllister’s complaint, which sought declaratory relief against the County, or with the third cause of action, which sought injunctive relief against the Coastal Commission. As McAllister offers no argument concerning either cause of action, we treat both as abandoned. (Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at pp. 237-238.) Moreover, as to the third cause of action, the trial court ordered judgment in the commission’s favor in June 2004. That action is not part of this appeal, which challenges only the court’s later order of February 2005.

II. Propriety of the Challenged Ruling

We turn now to McAllister’s first avenue of attack on the challenged portion of the trial court’s order, which rests on his claim of procedural defects. As we explain, we find no merit in that claim.

A. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Rejecting McAllister’s Procedural Challenges to the Second Demurrer

McAllister argues that the demurrer was not timely and that it was not an authorized pleading. Like the trial court, we reject those procedural challenges.

1. Timeliness

The second demurrer was filed by Laube & Engel on January 18, 2005, and joined by the County the same day. By McAllister’s reckoning, not only does that date fall some 11 months after service of the initial complaint, but it was 40 days after completion of the Coastal Commission proceedings, an event that operated to lift the May 2004 stay. Under either timeframe, he claims, the second demurrer was filed too late. McAllister states that a demurrer must be filed and served within 30 days after service of the complaint, citing several statutes, including Code of Civil Procedure section 430.40.

Despite McAllister’s insistence to the contrary, we are not persuaded that the challenged demurrer was untimely.

At the outset, we disagree with McAllister’s characterization of section 430.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure as mandatory. That statute reads in relevant part: “A person against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may, within 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint, demur to the complaint or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40, italics added.) The cited provision thus uses the permissive expression “may,” not the mandatory term “must.” (Cf. Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 435-436 [196 P.2d 884] [“time limitation for the court’s action in a matter subject to its determination is not mandatory (regardless of the mandatory nature of the language), unless a consequence or penalty is provided for failure to do the act within the time commanded”], overruled on another ground in Keane v. Smith (1971) 4 Cal.3d. 932, 939 [95 Cal.Rptr. 197, 485 P.2d 261].)

Furthermore, the quoted provision nominally applies only to a first round of demurrers. As one commentator observes: “No statute or rule specifically provides a time limit for demurring to an amended complaint.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶ 7:139, p. 7-53.) In a similar vein, we are aware of no statute or rule that specifically governs situations such as that presented here, where no amended pleading is filed after dissolution of a stay.

Moreover, it is not clear precisely when the May 2004 stay was lifted, a point that was disputed below. The record contains no order explicitly lifting the stay or otherwise setting a specific time for further pleading. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 472b [“When a demurrer to any pleading is sustained or overruled, and time to amend or answer is given, the time so given runs from the service of notice of the decision or order, unless the notice is waived in open court, and the waiver entered in the minutes”].)

The stay order itself contemplates an amendment of the complaint following completion of the Coastal Commission proceedings, followed by a response, at which point the stay would lift. Of course, that did not happen here, since McAllister never amended his original complaint.

The May 2004 stay order further provides that the judicial proceedings would remain stayed “pending the Coastal Commission’s final decision on the merits.” But the order does not incorporate a mechanism for determining the date of that event’s occurrence. And the record reflects a factual dispute on that point. According to McAllister’s argument below, the stay lifted on December 9, 2004, when the Coastal Commission took action on the appeal. But Laube & Engel took a different view in the trial court. First, they raised questions about the finality of the administrative proceedings, noting that the Coastal Commission had not adopted its revised findings. Furthermore, they argued, their demurrer was filed within 30 days of notification to the trial court of the Coastal Commission’s action. Finally, real parties in interest urged, they were entitled to further time to respond, since the administrative record was being augmented and thus was not complete. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1089.5.) To the extent that the trial court resolved these factual issues adversely to McAllister, we defer to its decision on that point. (See, e.g., Jones v. Moers (1928) 91 Cal.App. 65, 68 [266 P. 821].)

Finally, as McAllister acknowledges, the parties to an action may stipulate to an extension of time to respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1054, subd. (b).) In this case, by letter addressed to real parties in interests’ counsel, McAllister’s attorneys confirmed their earlier offer “to extend the date within which the answers must be served and filed to January 10, 2005. [Deputy County Counsel] Mr. Iglesia thereafter requested an additional one-week extension, which we granted, and Mr. Iglesia has advised us that he will be filing the County’s answer to the Petition by January 18, 2005. We are willing to provide your client with the same additional extension, if you so request.” Notwithstanding McAllister’s insistence that “answer” does not mean “demurrer,” a contrary interpretation would not be unreasonable. (Cf. Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 7:34.1, p. 7-16 [“word ‘answer’ in § 471.5 presumably means ‘respond’ and thus includes the possibility for another demurrer”].) That point represents a factual dispute concerning McAllister’s “alleged promise to extend [defendant’s] time to answer” and “the trial court necessarily passed upon this question adversely to [McAllister]. Under such circumstances the decision is controlling.” (Jones v. Moers, supra, 91 Cal.App. at p. 68.)

For all these reasons, we conclude, the trial court was warranted in treating the second demurrer as timely.

Even assuming for argument’s sake that the demurrer was filed late, the trial court nevertheless had discretion to entertain it. “There is no absolute right to have a pleading stricken for lack of timeliness in filing where no question of jurisdiction is involved, and where, as here, the late filing was a mere irregularity [citation]; the granting or denial of the motion is a matter which lies within the discretion of the court.” (Tuck v. Thuesen (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 193, 196 [88 Cal.Rptr. 759], disapproved on another ground in Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand (1971) 6 Cal.3d 176, 190, fn. 29 [98 Cal.Rptr. 837, 491 P.2d 421]; cf. Johnson v. Sun Realty Co. (1934) 138 Cal.App. 296, 299 [32 P.2d 393] [court had discretion to hear a demurrer, notwithstanding violation of procedural rules].)

As provided by statute: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, . . . enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court may exercise this discretion so long as its action does “not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” (Harlan v. Department of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 868, 873 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d 912] [affirming trial court’s decision to permit plaintiff to file late amendment following demurrer]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)

Here, we conclude, the trial court’s decision to entertain the second demurrer did not affect McAllister’s substantial rights. “Prior to the filing of respondent’s demurrer to the amended complaint, appellant had not taken any steps to have judgment by default entered under Code of Civil Procedure section 432, nor did he endeavor to show that he was in any way prejudiced by the delay.” (Tuck v. Thuesen, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 196.) The same is true in this case. The trial court thus acted within its broad discretion in allowing respondents to file the second demurrer, notwithstanding McAllister’s protestations that it was untimely.

2. Propriety

Apart from its timeliness, McAllister also challenges the validity of using a demurrer in these circumstances. As he puts it: “No legal authority allows Real Parties or the County to file the Second Demurrer in the absence of an amended pleading having first been filed by Dr. McAllister.” Characterizing the demurrer as “procedurally improper” for that reason, McAllister argues that he was “clearly prejudiced by such error, which resulted in the dismissal of his Complaint in its entirety, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to seek judicial review of the County’s violations of CEQA, including the failure to prepare an EIR for the Project, and judicial enforcement of Chapter 20.90 as to the County.”

We reject McAllister’s claim of error. While it is true that no statute specifically authorizes the procedure undertaken here, neither does any statute forbid it. “Courts, of course, also have ‘ “inherent supervisory and administrative powers which enable them to carry out their duties, and which exist apart from any statutory authority.” The inherent powers may be exercised only if the procedure or practice of the court is not in conflict with a specified statutory procedure.” (Motion Picture & Television Fund Hospital v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 488, 492 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 872], citations omitted.)

Significantly, the pleading at issue here is a general demurrer, which attacks the fundamental validity of the cause of action—a challenge that may be raised at any time. “The objection that a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action may be raised at any stage of the proceedings and, even for the first time upon appeal.” (Horacek v. Smith (1948) 33 Cal.2d 186, 191 [199 P.2d 929]; see Code Civ. Proc., § 430.40, subd. (b).) For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the procedure used in this case was improper.

Even assuming that the trial court erred in allowing the second demurrer in these circumstances, it nevertheless is bound to ignore any “defect ... in the pleadings or proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 475.) In our view, the trial court’s decision to consider the second demurrer did not prejudice McAllister by affecting his substantial rights. McAllister’s contention that the perceived irregularity caused the dismissal of his complaint and the attendant loss of his right to judicial review of his claims against the County misses the point. Those claims were not lost because of the procedures employed; rather, they were rejected because they lack substantive merit, a point we now address.

B. McAllister Did Not State a Cause of Action Based on Voidness

In McAllister’s view, the trial court erred in dismissing his petition since it states a valid cause of action on two theories, the first being that the County’s action was void ab initio. As we explain, we reject McAllister’s voidness theory. Our analysis of this question proceeds in two separate steps: (1) a discussion of the exhaustion requirement in the context of this claim, and (2) an assessment of whether McAllister has stated a cause of action.

1. McAllister’s claim that the County’s action was null and void does not excuse the exhaustion requirement.

We begin with an analysis of the administrative exhaustion doctrine as it relates to McAllister’s voidness claim. We do so in light of the allegation in McAllister’s complaint that he was “relieved of and exempt from any exhaustion of administrative remedies by virtue of the lack of jurisdiction of the County to approve the Project based on . . . Chapter 20.90 . . . and the existing violation of the Project Site of Condition 3 of the 1977 Permit.” As noted above, exhaustion was primarily at issue in the first demurrer, which was interposed before the matter proceeded to the Coastal Commission. Nevertheless, the parties continued to dispute the exhaustion requirement in connection with the second demurrer. Real parties in interest thus argued: “The only final administrative decision on the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit ... is the one which the Coastal Commission made on December 9, 2004. . . . [f] Accordingly, Petitioner failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. ...” In response, McAllister reiterated that his “central argument is that the County’s action in proceeding on the Project application was illegal under Chapter 20.90 and therefore not one that legally could be appealed to the Coastal Commission.” Arguing against the “strict finality requirement” urged by real parties in interest, McAllister contended “that the County remains an appropriate party” under “the exception to the exhaustion doctrine” that is applicable “where the action challenges the very jurisdiction of an administrative agency to consider the matter.”

McAllister continues to press his exhaustion arguments on appeal. He contends: “Chapter 20.90 and its declaration that permits issued in conflict with the provisions of Title 20 of the LCP ‘shall be null and void’ changes the analysis ordinarily applicable in the context of a claim of failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” He adds: “Central to Dr. McAllister’s Complaint is the allegation that the County’s action was a legal nullity and therefore there was no valid final County action from which an appeal to the Coastal Commission could be properly taken.”

The County and real parties in interest refute McAllister’s contentions, though each takes a different analytic path. As we now explain, our own assessment in this first step in the analysis leads us to the same conclusion: McAllister is mistaken, and exhaustion was required.

a. Exhaustion of all available remedies is generally required.

As discussed above, exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required before resort to judicial remedies. (Styne v. Stevens, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 56.) “The petitioner . . . must obtain a final decision on the merits at the highest available administrative level before seeking judicial review. If an appeal can be taken to a higher administrative body . . . that appeal must be pursued and the issues must be presented to the final decisionmaker before they can be presented in court.” (Curtin, Cal. Land Use and Planning Law, supra, ch. 21, p. 528.) Where an administrative appeal is available but “no appeal is taken, there is a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and mandamus will not lie.” (Grant v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 606, 609 [145 Cal.Rptr. 699].)

b. Exhaustion is required even though voidness is asserted.

Even where an ordinance is challenged on the ground that it is void as applied to a particular property, the challenger generally must first exhaust all available administrative remedies before asserting his claim in court. Our high court endorsed that principle more than 60 years ago in the Metcalf case. (Metcalf v. County of Los Angeles (1944) 24 Cal.2d 267, 270-273 [148 P.2d 645].) In Metcalf, the court squarely rejected an argument by the plaintiffs “that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not require them to follow the procedure prescribed by an ordinance which they allege is void as to their property.” (Id. at p. 270; accord, Pan Pacific Properties, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 244, 249 [146 Cal.Rptr. 428]; see also United States v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.2d at pp. 194—195.)

Applying Metcalf to the circumstances presented here, McAllister was required to apply for all available administrative relief—including appeal to the Coastal Commission—notwithstanding his claim that the County’s action was a nullity.

We find no basis for a contrary result in the Supreme Court’s later decision in County of Alpine v. County of Tuolumne, supra, 49 Cal.2d 787. In that case, the dispute concerned Alpine County’s geographic boundaries, which were described in ambiguous statutory language. (Id. at p. 791.) The high court concluded that the courts—not the agency—had primary jurisdiction to interpret the legislative language. (Id. at pp. 792, 798.) As the court observed: “An administrative agency can act only as to those matters which are within the scope of the powers delegated to it.” (Id. at p. 797.) Furthermore, the court stated, the rules requiring exhaustion “are inapplicable where, as here, the agency is given no jurisdiction to make a judicial determination of the type involved.” (Id. at p. 798.)

The situation described in Alpine does not apply to our case. In this case, unlike that one, the agency had fundamental and primary jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute. That conclusion proceeds manifestly from the relevant statutes, which recognize the Coastal Commission’s authority to make determinations of the type involved here.

By statute, the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction extends to “any permit action, . . . appeal, ... or any other quasi-judicial matter requiring commission action, for which an application has been submitted to the commission.” (§ 30321; see Buckley v. California Coastal Com. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 178, 190 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 562].) With respect to appeals, under the Coastal Act, “an action taken by a local government on a coastal development permit application may be appealed to the commission for . . . [][]... [developments ... approved by the local government between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea . . . .” (§ 30603, subd. (a)(1).) The Coastal Act thus incorporates a “chain of responsibility” for considering coastal developments such as that challenged here. (REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 596, 605 [125 Cal.Rptr. 201] [construing the former administrative scheme, which gave regional commissions, rather than local governments, the authority “to adjudicate the propriety of granting or denying a permit” in the first instance, followed by an appeal to the state commission which “takes a new, unlimited look at the same request for a permit by a de novo public hearing”]; see also, e.g., Kaczorowski v. Mendocino County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 569-570.) For such projects, the County makes the initial decision on the CDP, and the Coastal Commission hears any appeal.

The Coastal Commission’s appellate jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the development conforms “to the standards set forth in the certified local coastal program or the public access policies set forth in this division.” (§ 30603, subd. (b)(1); see Kaczorowski v. Mendocino County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 569.) The County’s local coastal program standards—previously certified by the Coastal Commission—include those set forth in Chapter 20.90. By logical inference, it is within the Coastal Commission’s appellate jurisdiction to review the County’s action vis-a-vis those standards—including an assessment of the underlying validity of the local government action. That very question was before the Coastal Commiss