California Coastal Commission Turf And Surf Battle.

A development includes 125 luxury homes on an oceanfront slope situated between a newly created public park at the top of the slope and a newly dedicated public beach at the bottom, with public access trails running through the residential portion. As the project neared completion, the city adopted an ordinance limiting hours of operation for the trails along with the installation of pedestrian gates on the trails. Several appeals to the Coastal Commission resulted and the Commission concluded the limited hours of operation for the trails and the gates require a coastal development permit. The city filed an action to set aside the Coastal Commission’s decision and restrain the Commission from future attempts to exercise jurisdiction over it.  The trial court invalidated the Coastal Commission’s decision, and the appellate court agreed in part, stating “that before a municipality may obtain a writ of mandate restraining the Commission from exercising jurisdiction over development that the municipality has authorized pursuant to [Public Resources Code] section 30005, subdivision (b), the municipality must demonstrate that it has exercised its nuisance abatement powers in good faith, in that the municipality has not utilized these powers as a pretext for avoiding its obligations under its own local coastal program.” The matter was remanded for those determinations. City of Dana Point v. California Coastal Commission (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; June 17, 2013) (As Mod. July 10, 2013)  217 Cal.App.4th 170.