Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Commission

Full title: CHARLES A. PRATT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Jun 9, 2008

No. B190122 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2008)

Opinion

Page 626c

163 Cal.App.4th 626c __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ CHARLES A. PRATT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent. 2d Civil No. B190122 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Sixth DivisionJune 9, 2008

Super. Ct. No. CV 000697

THE COURT

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 8, 2008 (162 Cal.App.4th 1068; 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 466), be modified as follows, and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:

1. On page 10 [162 Cal.App.4th 1079, advance report, 6th full par. line 2], in the last line, the word "draft" is deleted so the sentence reads: "Pratt cites no authority that the Commission is bound by the findings in the EIR."

2. On page 14 [162 Cal.App.4th 1083, advance report, before the last par.], the following two paragraphs are added before the last paragraph, which begins "The judgment is affirmed":

Pratt complains in its petition for rehearing that we ignored its motions for reconsideration and a new trial. The motions sought to show that actions taken by the County after the trial court's ripeness ruling preclude development on all but 1,120 square feet of Pratt's parcel. The trial court denied the motions.

We do not consider the motions for the purpose of this appeal because Pratt raised no points on appeal challenging the trial court's denial of the motions; the material contained in the motions was not before the Commission at the time of its decision; and whatever actions the County may have taken subsequent to the Commission's decision are not relevant to Pratt's action against the Commission. The County is not a party to this action.

There is no change in the judgment.