We're tied up today and don't have time to do any analysis, so we post this without comment: Bowman v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B243015 (Oct. 23, 2014), wherein the court held:
In Kleiniecke v. Montecito Water District (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 240, we held it would not be inequitable to apply the doctrine of estoppel as a defense to the statute of limitations. Here we conclude it would be inequitable to apply collateral estoppel to require a party to dedicate a coastal easement as a condition of obtaining a coastal development permit.We reverse a judgment denying a property owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandate to eliminate a public access condition from a coastal development permit.Slip op. at 1
Bowman v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B243015 (Cal. App. Oct. 23, 2014)
