California Court of Appeal

In an action arising following denial of plaintiff's application for a coastal development permit for the construction of residential and commercial buildings on six lots on the bluffs above a city, dismissal of plaintiff's petition for a writ of administrative and ordinary mandate and a complaint for damages and equitable relief against the California Coastal Commission is affirmed where: 1) the Commission's interpretation of the city's local coastal plan and Coastal Act Provisions is reasonable, and substantial evidence supports its decision, visitor-serving priorities; 2) the Commission had no duty to approve a revised project; 3) trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint in concluding that the Commission conducted a fair hearing, did not proceed in excess of its jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in disposing of plaintiff's claims for violation of due process and equal protection; and 4) plaintiff's claim for damages for a regulatory taking of property is not ripe.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/29/2009
• Published 12/29/2009

Judges

• PERREN, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William S. Walter, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, John A. Saurenman, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christina B. Arndt, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Terry T. Fujimoto, Rosana Miramontes, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.