Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission

About this case

Filing year
2019
Status
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.
Docket number
A168645
Court/admin entity
United StatesState CourtsCalifornia Court of Appeals (Cal. Ct. App.)
Case category
Adaptation (US)Actions seeking adaptation measures (US)Constitutional Claims (US)Fifth Amendment (US)Constitutional Claims (US)Fourteenth Amendment (US)
Principal law
United StatesFifth Amendment—TakingsUnited StatesFourteenth Amendment—Due ProcessUnited StatesFourteenth Amendment—Equal Protection
At issue
Challenge to the California Coastal Commission's approval of only a portion of a seawall intended to protect the California Coastal Trail, a sewer line, 10 townhomes, and three apartments.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
12/30/2024
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.
Decision

Summary

Challenge to the California Coastal Commission's approval of only a portion of a seawall intended to protect the California Coastal Trail, a sewer line, 10 townhomes, and three apartments.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Just transition
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience