California. To many, the word immediately evokes visions of sun, sand, and surf. Beach days are a quintessential part of California culture, and the state is known around the world for its beaches – in part, through the early pop-culture likes of Gidget, and the “beach party” films and surf music of the 1960s, which prominently featured California beaches.
But with climate change, sea level rise, and coastal development, the sandy beaches for which California is known are under existential threat. Over 85% of California’s coast faces erosion, and fourteen percent, about 149 miles, has been armored by structures like seawalls and revetments. In southern California, that figure is nearly forty percent. While such armoring can (temporarily) protect private structures, it comes at a cost – exacerbated erosion and beach loss.
A significant case is now on appeal at the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, which will impact the ability of coastal regulators to protect California’s coast from armoring, and the fate of California’s beaches. Today, the Surfrider Foundation filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission, in support of the California Coastal Commission’s regulatory authority, and legal mandate, to protect beaches from new coastal armoring.
At issue in the case is the definition of “existing” development for which the California Coastal Act may permit armoring. Coastal Act section 30235 provides that armoring “shall be permitted when required . . . to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion.” (emphasis added)
The case arose after the owners at the Casa Mira townhouse complex in Half Moon Bay, California sought a permit in 2019 to construct an approximately 250-foot long, two and a half foot wide coastal seawall to protect their private property. While the Commission allowed a portion of the wall to be constructed to protect a neighboring home (constructed in 1972, before the Coastal Act became effective in 1977), the Commission denied the portion in front of the 10-unit Casa Mira, which was constructed in 1984.
The Casa Mira Homeowners Association sued, arguing it was entitled to a permit under Coastal Act Section 30235. However, consistent with its longstanding position, the Commission maintained that ‘existing structures’ as the phrase is used in Section 30235 refers only to structures that were legally in existence as of January 1, 1977, the effective date of the Coastal Act. The lower court found in favor of the homeowners association, concluding bewilderingly that “existing structures” means anything in existence when an armoring permit is sought.
Surfrider’s amicus brief submitted to the Court today explains why the lower court got in wrong, and why the Commission’s interpretation is the only, common sense interpretation that is consistent with the California Coastal Act, California Constitution, and public trust doctrine. The brief illustrates how the history and general purpose of the Coastal Act show lawmakers’ intent to prioritize the coastal environment and public access over private property interests.
It is critical that the Court of Appeal rule correctly in this case. Should it uphold the lower court’s flawed decision, it would open the door to more destructive armoring and harm to California beaches.
As Surfrider’s brief explains to the Court of Appeal, armoring causes beach loss in several ways. First, armoring itself can take up beach space. For example, as shown below, rock revetments can cover and eliminate any sandy beach to enjoy or walk along. Second, armoring places a barrier between the sea and the cliffs, bluffs, or dunes above the beach, preventing natural erosion and trapping sand that would have otherwise replenished the beach. While shorelines on either side of armoring may migrate inland, the armoring stays in the same place, preventing new beach from forming. Armored beaches also experience “active erosion”: when waves are blocked by a seawall or revetment, it reflects the wave energy back onto the beach, which scours away the sand in front of the seawall.
"This case will have significant implications for the future of California’s coastline and beaches, especially as the impacts of climate change grow and sea levels rise," says Surfrider's outside attorney Amanda Zerbe of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School. "It is crucial that the court adopt an interpretation of section 30235 that is congruent with the Coastal Act’s emphasis on environmental conservation and public access.”
The parties in the case have requested oral arguments to present their sides in Court. That has yet to be scheduled. Please stay tuned to Surfrider’s Coastal Blog for more updates on this significant case.
Surfrider extends our gratitude to the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, which generously represented Surfrider on this amicus brief.