blob: 34ce6b7c92c6911f78c427214a9599c1ce9902aa (plain
Appellant leasehold owners sought review of a decision of the trial court (California), which ordered dismissal of appellant's complaint for damages and injunctive relief against respondents, county and state, and ruled in favor of respondent commission in appellant's petition for writ of mandate, arising from the denial of a coastal building permit.
Overview: [[https://california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com/rules-of-court-crc-california/california-rules-of-court-crc-rule-3-35-definition-of-limited-scope-representation-application-of-rules/|limited scope definition]]
Appellant leasehold owners were initially granted a permit from respondent commission to build a hotel on coastal property owned in fee by respondent county, but then denied a permit after respondent county intervened in opposition. The court affirmed the decision of the trial court and found that the initial grant of the permit did not become final until 60 days had elapsed, pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 27423(b) because appellant agreed to time extensions. The court found that respondent county was an "aggrieved" party within the meaning of Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 27423(a), and could oppose the permit. The court found that respondent county did not breach its lease by failing to apply for an exclusion for appellants because the leasehold was not in a stabilized urban area and compliance with applicable law was in keeping with the terms of the lease. The court found that appellants had no action against respondent county for inverse condemnation because appellants subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of respondent commission. Finally the court found that appellants did not have a vested right to build because a building permit had not been obtained.
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court dismissing appellant leasehold owners' complaint against respondents, county and state, and ruling in favor of respondent commission in appellant's petition for writ of mandate because appellants' building permit was properly and timely opposed and appellants had no action for inverse condemnation.