In Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, the plaintiff filed an application to subdivide his property to allow construction of two separate residences. (Dunn, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1285.) The County denied the application, indicating it would allow only one residence. (Id. at pp. 1299-1300.) The trial court found the plaintiff's takings claims were not ripe because the plaintiff had not applied for a permit to build a single residence on his property. We reversed, explaining that "'while a landowner must give a land-use authority an opportunity to exercise its discretion, once it becomes clear that the agency lacks the discretion to permit any development, or the permissible uses of the property are known to a reasonable degree of certainty, a takings claim is likely to have ripened.'" (Id. at p. 1300.) Because the County had made it clear that only one residence would be allowed, we concluded the plaintiff did not need to seek a building permit before filing suit. (Id. at pp. 1299-1301.) The permissible use of the property as a single building site was known to a reasonable degree of certainty. (Id. at p. 1301.)