On January 20, 1983, Developer requested issuance of the necessary permits. By August 1982, the second EIR, for which Developer had also paid, was not complete and Developer complained in writing about the passage of time. In May 1982, Developer made specific requests for the subdivision permit and the conditional use permit. An EIR was prepared but rejected by City in March 1982. In September 1981, Developer complained that no EIR consultant had been selected by City. Developer paid for the proposed EIR Developer also hired consultants who reported to City on such matters as oak trees on the property for which City had expressed concern. Environmental discussions continued between City and Developer. On April 14, 1981, City decided that an "Environmental Impact Report" (EIR) was required.
Discussions continued between City and Developer. There was no formal response by City to the application, except City's planning director marked it "accepted" as of February 1981. An earlier filing had been rejected because of a missing form the Decemfiling included a site plan. Prior to the Decemfiling, Developer had discussed the project with City officials for nearly a year. With the exception of drainage problems, increased noise and glare, no particular environmental or historical concerns were noted. The conditional use permit was necessary for the grocery store and the junior department store the current general plan proposed zoning included the remainder of the proposed commercial and residential usages. The remainder was to be used for a shopping center which would house a grocery store and a junior department store along with a restaurant, banking facilities and service stores.
The project contemplated the use of 21 acres for the construction of 73 housing units. It was filled with shrub grass and weeds. The acreage subject to proposed development had formerly been a farm, but had not been used for agricultural purposes for years. Developer sought a subdivision permit and a conditional use permit, as well as a building permit. On December 18, 1980, Developer filed an "Environmental Assessment Application" with defendants concerning a plan to develop 31 acres of land appropriately zoned on the Maricopa Highway in Ojai, near the local high school. With respect to the complaint for damages, a joint appendix in lieu of the clerk's transcript has been prepared, pursuant to rule 5.1 of the California Rules of Court. The two matters have been consolidated for review in this court. Judgment was entered for defendants a timely appeal was taken. By stipulation, the parties agreed to the filing of a third amended complaint, with defendants' demurrer sustained without leave to amend. Defendants again demurred and the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint alleging four causes of action for failure to discharge mandatory duties and negligence per se. The complaint was subsequently amended to add a cause of action for negligence per se.ĭefendants' demurrer to the amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend save for two causes of action, the fourth and the sixth.
3d architectural rendering ventura county code#
Six causes of action were stated: (1) violation of federal civil rights, pursuant to 42 United States Code section 1983 (2) violation of California constitutional rights (3) inverse condemnation (4) failure to discharge mandatory duties (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and (6) entitlement to declaratory relief. Plaintiffs also filed a complaint for damages against the City of Ojai, the city council, the planning and building department and the planning and architectural commission, as well as Does, seeking $6,375,000 in damages (as well as attorney fees, expenses and interest) for City's assertedly wrongful refusal to take action on the development project, i.e., the shopping center, alleging various theories of recovery. The petition was denied judgment was entered for respondents and a timely appeal from the judgment was taken. Named as respondents were the City Council, the Planning and Building Department, and the Planning Commission of the City of Ojai, and their individual members. Petitioners Howard Palmer, doing business as Palmer Development Company and Ojai Investments, a California limited partnership, sought a writ of mandate to compel certain actions by respondents, including the issuance of a building permit for a neighborhood commercial shopping center in Ojai. Consolidated appeals taken from judgments rendered in superior courts in Ventura County.
0 kommentar(er)
