Benson

Benson v. California Coastal Commission

Good Law
139 Cal. App. 4th 348·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 687·2006 Daily Journal DAR 5614·42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580·36 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20087
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 9, 2006B186125California2,581 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Predictions and suggestions from staff may be helpful or misleading to a party with a matter before the Coastal Commission. Therefore a party should take such advice with caution. Due process is rarely implicated when the prediction or suggestion is wrong.

A developer’s application for a coastal development permit was approved by the local government. Opponents of the project appealed to the California Coastal Commission (Commission). Neither the developer nor project opponents appeared at a hearing at which the Commission determined the appeal raised substantial issues. The developer claims he was denied due process in that the written notice of the hearing was inadequate. The developer also claims that a report prepared by the Commission’s staff and telephone conversations with staff led him to believe he need not appear.

We agree with the trial court that the developer was not denied due process. The written notice was adequate and the developer could not reasonably rely on staff recommendations and comments. We affirm.

PROCEDURE

The California Coastal Act requires units of local government within the coastal zone to prepare a local coastal program (LCP). (Pub.…

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.