Grant v. Superior Court

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

Petition for writ of mandate to require respondent court to vacate its order denying a petition to require the Coastal Commission to

[608]

issue an exemption from the California Coastal Act of 1976, and enter a new and different order granting said petition. We granted an alternative writ.

Facts

This petition involves an apparent conflict between Public Resources Code sections 30801 and 30625, and the question whether petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Coastal Act of 1976.

Petitioners applied to the South Coast Regional Commission for an exemption from the coastal development permit requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976. They are the developers of a three-story apartment building consisting of 49 units with on-site parking and recreational facilities. In their claim of exemption form they mention that they propose to convert the project to condominiums, that is, to subdivide. After a hearing, the regional commission found that petitioners had a vested right

1

in the development as an apartment, but had acquired no such right as to the proposal to convert the project to condominiums.

Petitioners did not appeal the decision of the regional commission to the state commission, as provided in Public Resources Code section 30625. Petitioners then sought to overturn the decision of the regional commission by way of administrative mandamus

2

arguing that Public Resources Code section 30801 provides a separate and independent avenue of review. The superior court denied the petition upon the ground that petitioners had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Petitioners then filed this petition in the Court of Appeal. While the order of the superior court is appealable,

3

petitioners have alleged economic hardship and we are willing to entertain this petition for that reason.