In the case of Lynch v. California Coastal Commission (D064120; Cal.App.4th 658; San Diego Superior Court; 37-2011-00058666-CU-WM-NC), the California Supreme Court has granted a petition for review of the decision by the Fourth Appellate District (Division One) upholding a prior decision in which the California Coastal Commission denied bluff-top homeowners’ petition for a coastal development permit to reconstruct a seawall and access stairs that would provide the homeowners with private beach access.  On review, the California Supreme Court will address the following issues:

(1) Did the plaintiffs, who objected in writing and orally to certain conditions contained within a coastal development permit approved by the Commission and who filed a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) challenging those conditions, waive their right to challenge the conditions by subsequently executing and recording deed restrictions recognizing the existence of the conditions and constructing the project as approved?

(2) Did the permit condition allowing plaintiffs to construct a seawall on their property, but requiring them to apply for a new permit in 20 years or to remove the seawall, violate Public Resources Code section 30235 or the federal Constitution?

(3) Were plaintiffs required to obtain a permit to reconstruct the bottom portion of a bluff-to-beach staircase that had been destroyed by a series of winter storms, or was that portion of the project exempt from permitting requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30610, subdivision (g)(1)?

To read an earlier posting on this case, please click here.