Lynch v. Cal. Coastal Commission, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 754

Background

Owners Lynch and Frick obtained a Coastal Commission permit to demolish and replace a decayed wooden seawall with a new concrete tied-back seawall and to rebuild a lower beach stairway after storm damage; the Commission approved the seawall but conditioned the permit by prohibiting stair reconstruction and imposing a 20-year expiration and re-permitting requirement.
Plaintiffs recorded deed restrictions reflecting the permit conditions, then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging (1) the 20-year expiration/reopener conditions and (2) the prohibition on reconstructing the lower stairway under Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5.
While the mandate action was pending, plaintiffs satisfied all other pre-issuance requirements, obtained the permit, and built the seawall.
The Commission moved for judgment arguing plaintiffs waived or forfeited their challenges by accepting the permit and constructing the project; the trial court ruled for plaintiffs and ordered removal of the challenged conditions; the Court of Appeal reversed in a split decision.
The California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Court of Appeal, holding plaintiffs forfeited their objections by accepting the permit benefits and constructing the seawall before obtaining judicial relief; the Court did not reach the merits of the challenged conditions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs forfeited or waived their challenge to permit conditions after filing a writ but proceeding with construction	Lynch argued filing the mandamus petition preserved rights and they proceeded out of necessity; they did not intend to relinquish objections	Commission argued plaintiffs accepted permit benefits, recorded deed restrictions, and built the seawall, thereby forfeiting/waiving their right to challenge conditions	Held: Plaintiffs forfeited their objections by satisfying conditions, accepting the permit, and constructing the seawall before adjudication; equitable forfeiture bars their claims
Whether an "under protest" exception allows proceeding with construction while litigating non-fee permit conditions	Lynch urged a narrow exception permitting challenges to severable land-use restrictions while building to avoid imminent harm	Commission argued no such exception exists outside the Mitigation Fee Act; permitting it would undermine land-use permitting and encourage litigation	Held: No such exception; the Mitigation Fee Act exception is limited to fees/exactions and does not extend to land-use restrictions
Whether emergency or alternative procedures justified proceeding without forfeiture	Lynch contended bluff instability made delay untenable	Commission and Court noted existing remedies like emergency permits and possible agreements to avoid forfeiture	Held: Emergency permits or agreements should be used; proceeding without judicial resolution risks forfeiture
Whether recording deed restrictions constituted an independent waiver binding successors	Commission argued deed restriction constituted express acceptance	Plaintiffs disputed but the Court found forfeiture from construction dispositive and did not decide on deed-restriction waiver	Held: Court declined to decide deed-restriction argument because forfeiture by construction resolved the case

Key Cases Cited

Bickel v. City of Piedmont, 16 Cal.4th 1040 (discusses waiver as intentional relinquishment)
County of Imperial v. McDougal, 19 Cal.3d 505 (acceptance of permit benefits and conditions can preclude later challenge)
Pfeiffer v. City of La Mesa, 69 Cal.App.3d 74 (landowner who accepts permit and complies waives right to sue for costs; should have sought mandate)
Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.2d 642 (accepting conditional exceptions that confer benefits precludes later challenge)
Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto, 57 Cal.4th 1193 (Mitigation Fee Act permits simultaneous challenge to fees/exactions but does not extend to land-use restrictions)