top of page

No Seawalls For Projects Built After 1976

Updated: Jan 14

In a case that could have significant consequences up and down the state, an appellate court has ruled that buildings built after the passage of the 1976 Coastal Act are not entitled to seawalls or other “hard armature” protection from erosion. In reversing a trial court judge’s ruling, the First Distrct Court of Appeal concluded that while the Coastal Commission could issue a permit for a seawall to protect an apartment building built on a bluff in Half Moon Bay in 1972, it could not do so for a neighboring condo complex and coastal trail built in 1984. The ruling puts many projects built after 1976 at risk. The Coastal Act permits seawalls and othe har armature “to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures . . . in danger from erosion.” (Public Resources Code § 30235.) The court concluded the word “existing” means existing on the date the Coastal Act went into effect, which was January 1, 1977. Rejecting the reasoning of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner, the appellate court concluded that allowing the seawall would open the door to a bait-and-switch approach for new projects, through which developers would obtain Coastal Commission approval for a new project and then the Coastal Commission would subsequently be required to allow a seawall. The court said this was not the Legislature’s intent in 1976, adding: “Such an interpretation gives no independent meaning to the term ‘existing,’ rendering it surplusage.” The case involved several developments along a coastal bluff in Half Moon Bay. A four-unit apartment complex was built immediately on the bluff in 1972. Twelve years later, the four-building Casa Mira condominium complex was built slightly further back from the bluff, along with a sewer line and a trail owned and operated by the state Department of Parks & Recreation.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to cp-dr.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Recent Posts

See All
Welcome to the new CP&DR website!

We are happy to announce CP&DR’s website has been successfully moved to a new host! If you are a current subscriber we have set up your profile on this new website, and have credited you with full

 
 
A Cheeky Plan To Win CEQA Attorney's Fees Fails

A Berkeley citizen group lost its challenge to People's Park in the legislature and the California Supreme Court. But that didn't stop the group from claiming enough of a victory to seek $1 million in

 
 
bottom of page