- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- California
- /
- Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission
Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission
Geography
Year
2019
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
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.
Geography
Docket number
A168645
Court/admin entity
United States → State Courts → California 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 States → Fifth Amendment—TakingsUnited States → Fourteenth Amendment—Due ProcessUnited States → Fourteenth 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
California Appellate Court Said Condominium Was Not Entitled to Shoreline Armoring Under Coastal Act
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