728, 733, 13 Cal.Rptr. 104, 107, 361 P.2d 712, 715 (1961). MHC's argument misrepresents California law on this matter. A mandamus action may, and in this case does, preclude further litigation. 13 . The Counts at issue here are: substantive due process (fair hearing, biased hearing officer, and arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable burden); equal protection; as-applied takings claim for general application of the Ordinance; and facial takings claim. Claims related to the second homeowner exemption and the Individual Defendants are not affected by this analysis. Those are separate from the MHC's general claims against the Ordinance. 14 . This claim is now foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., - U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2087, 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005) (<HOLDING>). 15 . Del Monte Dunes dealt with land use
holding the substantially advances formula is not a valid takings test and indeed  it has no proper place inour takings jurisprudence holding that no takings claim can arise unless a permit is denied holding the takings clause inapplicable to the states of its own force holding that taxes are not takings unless the government tries to achieve through special taxes what the takings clause of the fifth amendment forbids if done directly recognizing that takings cases are based on the proper exercise of statutory and regulatory authority