Conway

Conway v. City of Imperial Beach

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 40·52 Cal. App. 4th 78·60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402·97 Daily Journal DAR 818·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 549
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 1997D021204California4,505 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nares, J.

Plaintiff William Conway filed suit for declaratory relief, injunction, damages and writ of mandate against defendant City of Imperial Beach (City). Conway appeals from the judgment entered after City’s motion for summary adjudication was granted. After considering the evidence, a statement of undisputed facts, moving papers and argument, the court granted the motion on the ground that City was not obligated to obtain Coastal Commission approval of an interim ordinance, No. 92-864 (Proposition P), in order for it to be effective.

On appeal, Conway contends the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication in favor of City because Proposition P, according to the terms of the Coastal Act, was an amendment to City’s local coastal program, and therefore City was required to obtain Coastal Commission certification prior to enforcing the terms of Proposition P. We disagree, and affirm.

Factual Background

Conway is the owner of three properties located within the city limits of City. One property is located at 181 Ebony Street (the Ebony property), one at 272 Elm Street (the Elm property) and one at 580 Florida Street (the Florida property). The three properties are also…

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.