In a recent decision by the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, in the case of Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission (2024) 107 Cal. App. 5th 370, the Court upheld the California Coastal Commission's interpretation of Public Resources Code Section 30235, which defines “existing structures” as those built prior to the January 1, 1977, adoption of the California Coastal Act.

In 2018, Casa Mira Homeowners Association applied for a coastal development permit to construct a 257-foot seawall that would protect several structures and a walking trail along a coastal bluff in Half Moon Bay in danger of erosion. The structures consisted of a four-building condominium complex and sewer line built in 1984 and a four-unit apartment building built in 1972.

A few years prior, approximately 20 feet of the bluff eroded and collapsed during heavy rains. The Coastal Commission issued two emergency permits for temporary placement of riprap, which is a layered collection of rocks along the coastline that prevents erosion. However, only a seawall would serve to armor and protect the bluff long term.

Unfortunately, seawalls also cause their own set of issues along with the protection they provide. For example, seawalls displace erosion into those areas adjacent to the wall, prevent the natural replenishment of sand on the beach, and harm coastal marine ecosystems. As such, the Coastal Commission conducts a thorough review of each application before deciding whether to issue a permit.

After its review, the Coastal Commission only approved a 50-foot section of the proposed seawall to protect the apartments. The Coastal Commission's reasoning was that Public Resources Code Section 30235, a provision of the Coastal Act which permits the construction of protective shoreline works when necessary to serve coastal development uses or to protect existing structures in danger of erosion, only applies to structures existing prior to the effective date of the Coastal Act on January 1, 1977.

Casa Mira Homeowners Association petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the Coastal Commission's decision. The trial court rejected the Commission's interpretation of Section 30235, concluding that the statute mandates a permit for a seawall or revetment if a structure presently exists and is in danger from erosion, and issued a writ of mandate ordering the Coastal Commission to set aside its decision on Casa Mira Homeowners Association's coastal development permit application – effectively approving the construction of the 257-foot seawall.

The Coastal Commission appealed the trial court's decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeal analyzed the wording of various provisions of the Coastal Act, primarily Section 30235 and 30253. Section 30253 explicitly provides that new developments must not in any way require the construction of protective devices what would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that Sections 30235 and 30253 create a shoreline protection management framework, and that the statutes clearly distinguish between structures that are entitled to the privilege of shoreline armoring when in danger of erosion (structures built prior to January 1, 1977) and those that must adhere to Section 30253's siting requirements for structural integrity and stability and cannot require shoreline armoring (structures built after to January 1, 1977).

The Court of Appeal also considered the legislative history and intent of the act, stating that if the legislature intended to guarantee any structure shoreline protection, regardless of when it was constructed, it could have kept previously drafted language providing this protection to all structures, rather than changing the language to existing structures.

Thus, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's decision, ruling that the phrase “existing structures” used in Section 30235 refers to structures that existed prior to January 1, 1977, the effective date of the Coastal Act. As such, the Court of Appeal held that the condominium buildings and sewer line constructed in 1984 are not existing structures and are not entitled to shoreline armoring, and only the apartment building built in 1972 and the walking trail were entitled to armoring.

Casa Mira Homeowners Association petitioned the Court of Appeal for a rehearing which was denied. Casa Mira has petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the case, and the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case.

If the Court of Appeal's decision is upheld, this case will have a highly significant impact on coastal homeowners associations whose properties are threatened by erosion as they will only be able to rely on Section 30235 for shoreline protection if their buildings were constructed prior to January 1, 1977, the effective date of the Coastal Act.

If you have any questions or concerns about the impact of this case on your association, please reach out to your association counsel.