- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coa...
Collection
Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission
Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission ↗
A168645Cal. Ct. App.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
12/30/2024
Decision
Judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate reversed as to its interpretation of “existing structures” and affirmed as to the trial court’s determination that
there is no substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s finding that armoring was unnecessary to protect the Coastal Trail.
The California Court of Appeal agreed with the California Coastal Commission that condominiums and a sewer line built in Half Moon Bay in 1984 were not entitled to shoreline armoring under the California Coastal Act. The appellate held that the phrase “existing structures” in the provision that specifies circumstances in which seawalls or other armoring infrastructure are permitted referred to structures that existed prior to the Coastal Act’s effective date of January 1, 1977. The court said “[t]his interpretation effectuates the Coastal Act’s goal to “[a]nticipate, assess, plan for, and, to the extent feasible, avoid, minimize, and mitigate the
adverse environmental and economic effects of sea level rise within the coastal zone.” The court therefore reversed the portion of a trial court’s decision that vacated the Commission’s denial of a request to build a seawall to protect the condominium and sewer line. The appellate court affirmed, however, the portion of the trial court’s decision that found that no substantial evidence supported the Commission’s conclusion that shoreline armoring was not necessary to protect a segment of the California Coastal Trail.
Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission ↗
19-CIV-O4677Cal. Super. Ct.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
12/13/2019
Petition
Petition and complaint filed.
A homeowners association and its members challenged the California Coastal Commission's "effective denial" of an application for a permit to build a seawall along a coastal bluff in Half Moon Bay. The petitioners contended that the Commission's "nonsensical indict" approved only a portion of the seawall that would protect three apartments that existed prior to the 1977 effective date of the California Coastal Act. The petitioners claims included that the Commission's decision exceeded its authority under and violated the Coastal Act, violated the petitioners' equal protection and due process rights under the U.S. and California Constitutions, and constituted a taking without just compensation. The petitioners alleged that the Commission had never adopted a policy of "managed retreat." To the extent the Commission relied on 2015 Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance that interpreted the term "existing structures" in the Coastal Act to mean structures in existence on January 1, 1977, the petitioners brought an as-applied challenge to the guidance as exceeding the Commission's authority.