Pillsbury

Pillsbury v. South Coast Regional Com.

Good Law
139 Cal. Rptr. 760·1977 Cal. App. LEXIS 1653·71 Cal. App. 2d 740·71 Cal. App. 3d 740
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 14, 1977Civ. 49933California4,730 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jefferson, J.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, petitioners Roger Pillsbury, Sterling Robbins and Laura Barton sought a writ of mandate to set aside the issuance to William Presser, real party in interest, of a construction permit in the coastal zone. The respondents were the South Coast Regional Commission and the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.

Designated parts of the administrative proceedings were received in evidence in the trial court; additional evidence was also considered. After the presentation of both written and oral argument, the court issued a writ remanding the proceedings and directing that the administrative decisions in favor of issuance of the permit to Presser be set aside because of insufficient “written public notice” of the administrative deliberations. The trial court also directed that, in the event of a new hearing on the Presser permit application, certain delineated procedures for giving adequate “written public notice” of the new hearing were to be followed. One respondent—the South Coast Regional Commission —has appealed from the judgment, which we modify, and affirm as so modified.

In reviewing the primary issue…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.