Can a party withdraw their application and in effect dismiss the action?

We reach the conclusion that the real parties were free to withdraw their application and thus, in effect, dismiss the action because zoning proceedings are at least quasi-judicial in their nature. Thus, discretion is conferred upon the board, subject to review by the municipal or other governing agency; too, although the hearing may be informal, technical rules of evidence being dispensed with, no element essential to a fair trial can be disregarded; also, one whose property rights are being affected, must usually by given the opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and inspect documents. (56 Cal.Jur.2d 203.) That being so, [214 Cal.App.2d 632] the action here taken by the real parties is akin to that provided by section 581(1), Code of Civil Procedure, which authorizes a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff at any time before the commencement of the trial provided that no affirmative relief is sought by the defendant. Subject to a few exceptions, the right to voluntary dismissal is an absolute one--in fact the court has no discretion in the matter. (Simpson v. Superior Court, 68 Cal.App.2d 821, 158 P.2d 46.) As a result of the real parties' action, therefore, there was nothing for the commission or council to decide. For that reason alone, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.