In Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, a group of coastal property owners and a public interest organization brought a declaratory relief action to attack CEQA guidelines adopted by the California Coastal Commission regarding public access to the beach. The Supreme Court found the plaintiffs' challenge was not ripe for review because it was based on the suppositions (1) some of them would in the future desire to make improvements on their land which required a permit from the commission; (2) the commission would impose as a condition the dedication of an access easement; and (3) the commission would do so by enforcing guidelines in a manner which violated the constitution or the Coastal Act. "The ripeness requirement, a branch of the doctrine of justiciability, prevents courts from issuing purely advisory opinions. It is rooted in the fundamental concept that the proper role of the judiciary does not extend to the resolution of abstract differences of legal opinion. It is in part designed to regulate the workload of courts by preventing judicial consideration of lawsuits that seek only to obtain general guidance, rather than to resolve specific legal disputes. However, the ripeness doctrine is primarily bottomed on the recognition that judicial decision making is best conducted in the context of an actual set of facts so that the issues will be framed with sufficient definiteness to enable the court to make a decree finally disposing of the controversy." (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com., supra, 33 Cal.3d 158, 170.)