Attorney Support Services for San Diego County and the Temecula Valley.

Eviction Services

Iron Law Eviction Services for San Diego County and Riverside County.

Lynch v. Cal. Coastal Commission

Filed 7/6/17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA BARBARA LYNCH et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) ) S221980 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/1 D064120 CALIFORNIA COASTAL ) COMMISSION, ) San Diego County Super. Ct. ) No. 37-2011-00058666- Defendant and Appellant. ) CU-WM-NC ____________________________________) After winter storms damaged the seawall protecting their blufftop properties, homeowners sought a permit from the California Coastal Commission (Commission) to build a new seawall and repair their beach access stairway. The Commission granted the permit subject to several mitigation conditions. The owners filed an administrative mandate petition objecting to two conditions but then proceeded with construction. We hold that the owners forfeited their challenge because they accepted the benefits the permit conferred. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Barbara Lynch and Thomas Frick own adjacent oceanfront properties in Encinitas. Their homes sit on a coastal bluff that cascades steeply down to the beach and Pacific Ocean. The Encinitas shoreline is especially susceptible to landslides. Since 1986, the properties have been protected by a shared seawall at the base of the bluff and a midbluff erosion control structure. The original seawall contained 20-foot wooden poles embedded in the sandy 1 beach and cabled to the bluff. In the midbluff structure, railroad ties and supporting wooden poles were tied into the bluff with steel cables. A shared stairway provided the only access from the blufftop to the beach below. In 1989, the Commission retroactively approved a coastal development permit for the seawall, midbluff structure, and stairway. Plaintiffs later added concrete footings at the base of the poles. When the wooden poles showed significant decay, plaintiffs applied to the City of Encinitas (City) for authorization to replace the wooden seawall and midbluff structure with an integrated concrete wall. They also sought to rebuild the lower portion of the stairway, which would be attached to the new wall. The City approved the project in 2009, finding it consistent with the general plan and municipal code. Final approval required a coastal development permit from the Commission. While plaintiffs‟ application for this permit was pending, unusually heavy winter storms caused the bluff below Lynch‟s home to collapse, destroying part of the seawall, most of the midbluff structure, and the lower portion of the stairway. Plaintiffs sought a new permit to demolish the old structure, construct a new tied-back seawall across both properties, and rebuild the lower stairway. Commission staff recommended approving the proposed seawall, even though the existing support under Frick‟s property was adequate, because the new wall would provide greater stability and visual appeal. The proposed seawall would be located eight feet inland from its current location, providing additional beach area for recreation. But staff recommended disapproving the stairway, finding it inconsistent with local coastal plan requirements discouraging private access stairways on the bluff. 2 Ultimately, the Commission approved a coastal development permit1 allowing seawall demolition and reconstruction, with the addition of midbluff geogrid protection below Lynch‟s home. The permit was subject to several conditions, three of which are at issue here. …
Original document
Source: California Supreme Court