Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Kim finds that the trial court properly ordered a city to exempt, from coastal development permit requirements, the property owners’ proposal to build an accessory dwelling unit. The city was not entitled to deference in its interpretation of statute, which broadly exempts improvements that consist of new construction that is directly attached to an existing residence. The property owners argued they were entitled to a permit 60 days after completing the application. Affirmed.
To read this case, start your 14-day free trial.
Request a free trial account to get access to more case data, documents, and features.
To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.