Reddell v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B206428

By FindLaw Staff on December 30, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

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.     

Read Reddell v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B206428 [HTML]

Read Reddell v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B206428 [PDF]

Appellate Information

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

Copied to clipboard