Loveless v. City of Pismo Beach CA2/6

Filed 6/18/25 Loveless v. City of Pismo Beach CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

JACK LOVELESS, et al., 2d Civil No. B336526 (Super. Ct. No. 22CV-0315) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

CITY OF PISMO BEACH, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

The City of Pismo Beach and the Pismo Beach City Council (collectively respondent) approved the application of Jack and Maria Loveless (appellants) for an Administrative Coastal Development Permit (ACDP or permit) to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above their garage. Conditions attached to the permit required appellants’ countersignature within ten days for the permit to become effective. Appellants did not sign the permit because they objected to some of its other conditions. After a public hearing, respondent withdrew the permit, concluding it had never become effective because appellants had not signed it. Appellants filed a petition for peremptory writ of

mandate to reinstate the permit and to strike the conditions to which they objected. The trial court sustained respondent’s demurrer without leave to amend on statute of limitations grounds after concluding the petition was filed more than 90 days after respondent imposed the conditions at issue. Appellants contend their petition was timely and, alternatively, that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History Appellants applied for an ACDP to build an ADU above their garage. On October 19, 2021, respondent approved the application and granted the ACDP on several conditions. The ACDP provided that it would not take effect until signed by appellants within ten days after its approval. Appellants did not sign the permit because they objected to three of the conditions. Appellants notified respondent of their objections and requested that the conditions be modified. They objected to three conditions. First, respondent required appellants to sign an indemnification agreement holding respondent harmless from all claims relating to the permit including damages, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses. Second, respondent required appellants’ agreement that the conditions “shall constitute a covenant running with the land owned by [appellants]. This covenant and agreement shall be enforceable by and shall inure to the benefit of [respondent] . . . . In addition and without limiting the foregoing, any violation is declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a misdemeanor and a public nuisance.” Third, respondent required appellants to dedicate a portion of the property to respondent. Ten days after respondent first issued the permit, a local interest group, Protect Shell Beach (PSB), filed a writ