Reddell v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B206428
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.
Filed December 29, 2009
Opinion by Judge Perren
For Appellant: William S. Walter
For Appellee: 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