Kirkorowicz v. California Coastal Commission
California Court of Appeal
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 124, 83 Cal. App. 4th 980 (2000)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
In 1994, the Kirkorowiczes (plaintiff) applied for a city development permit (CDP) to construct a horse stable, storage area, and a turnaround driveway on a portion of the Kirkorowiczes’ land (the project property). A city biologist evaluated the project property and determined that the project would have a direct but minor impact on a marginal wetland habitat, resulting in the loss of .44 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. A biologist hired by the Kirkorowiczes determined that a portion of the project did not meet the Army Corps of Engineers’ standards for jurisdictional wetlands but confirmed that .44 acres of low-quality, degraded wetland would be lost. After the Kirkorowiczes decreased the project area’s size, the City Planning Commission (CPC) approved the project in 1997. A local preservation group appealed the CPC’s decision, and the city council approved the project. Following another appeal, the California Coastal Commission (the commission) (defendant) determined that the project conflicted with the local comprehensive plan and denied the CDP. The Kirkorowiczes challenged the commission’s determination in the trial court and sought a writ of administrative mandamus. The trial court determined the commission’s denial of the CDP was erroneous, and the commission appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Work, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
