In State of California v. Superior Court (Veta) (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, a public entity (the South Coast Regional Commission) granted a permit to develop property, which was overturned on appeal by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (State Commission). The developer then filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside the State Commission's decision pursuant to section 1094.5 and seeking damages under section 1095. ( Veta, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 244.) The first cause of action alleged, among other things, that: (1) after the permit was initially granted, various persons and groups appealed the decision; (2) the purported appeals were invalid because they were not timely filed, and the appealing parties had no standing and had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; (3) for those reasons the State Commission had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals; and (4) the State Commission failed to afford the plaintiff a fair hearing. ( Id. at pp. 244-245.) The State Commission demurred to the plaintiff's claim for damages on the ground that it had immunity under Government Code sections 818.4 and 821.2, but the trial court overruled the demurrer. In reversing this decision, our Supreme Court first stated that the relevant statute (the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act) authorized the State Commission to determine whether a permit should be issued. ( Veta, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 245.) The court then concluded that damages were not available, even if the State Commission erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the appeal and treated the plaintiff unfairly during the hearing, because of the immunity granted a public entity from damages resulting from the grant or denial of a permit. (Gov. Code, 818.4, 821.2; Veta, supra, at pp. 245-246.)