Court Opinion

ID: 9624216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:54:18.594034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:41.305615
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
OGATA, J.
I am unable to concur with the majority. However, I would not issue the temporary injunction which is sought by plaintiffs-appellants, unless the appellees-developers refuse to furnish the bond hereinafter mentioned.
The appellees-developers have prevailed in the court below on their motion for summary judgment. They are now proceeding to complete the construction of a multi-story structure, the Admiral Thomas condominium project, within the HCS area covered by Ordinance No. 78-18 (hereinafter HCS ordinance), while the plaintiffs-appellants ■ appeal the adverse ruling on the motion for summary judgment. There is a good likelihood that appellees-developers will complete the *467project before this case is finally determined.
In the event that this court should finally hold that the structure now in the early construction stage is not in accord with the HCS ordinance, and it is illegal, the appelleesdevelopers should be responsible to remove whatever they construct and to restore the premises to the present condition. In order to assure the public that this will be done, I would require from the appellees-developers a deposit of a sufficient bond in a reasonable amount for this purpose. A hearing may be necessary if the parties shall be unable to mutually stipulate on the amount of the bond. It is my opinion that such a requirement is not unreasonable, and is required in this case, since appellees-developers are taking the risks in proceeding with this development before final conclusion of the case.