In Lynch v. California Coastal Commission, published July 6, 2017, the California Supreme Court affirmed a lower appellate court decision reversing an administrative mandamus writ issued by a trial court. The plaintiff homeowners sought a permit from the California Coastal Commission permitting them to build a seawall to protect their blufftop properties, replacing a damaged seawall, and to repair a beach access stairway. The Commission approved a permit subject to conditions that included a 20-year expiration date on the seawall permit and a prohibition on reconstructing the lower stairway. The plaintiffs recorded deed restrictions reflecting the conditions, and filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenging the 20-year and stairway conditions. While the litigation was pending, they satisfied all of the other permit conditions, obtained the permit, and built the seawall. The trial court issued a writ directing the Commission to remove the challenged conditions. The appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs had waived the conditions, and that the conditions were valid.
The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the conditions were valid. Instead, it ruled that the plaintiffs had forfeited their challenge to the conditions by by complying with all pre-issuance requirements, accepting the permit, and building the seawall. Because they took the benefit of the permit, they also had to accept the burden of the conditions. The plaintiffs could not preserve their rights by challenging some of the conditions and satisfying others. The Mitigation Fee Act allows permit seekers to construct projects while protesting exactions, but exactions do not include land use restrictions. Allowing challenge of land use restrictions while construction proceeds would expand the statute beyond its language and legislative intent. Property owners must therefore wait until the litigation over the permit conditions concludes before performing construction. If the property is in imminent danger without construction, they may seek an emergency permit under Public Resources Code section 30624. Property owners could also avoid forfeiture by reaching an agreement with the permit issuer allowing the construction to proceed while a challenge to the permit is resolved.
Comments