California Court Upholds Coastal Commission Setback Requirements for Blufftop Home
Published September 19, 2019
The California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment in September, affirming the California Coastal Commission’s authority to regulate development on coastal bluffs, even when local jurisdictions disagree. The case centered on a new residence planned for an oceanside bluff in Encinitas, California.
The Commission mandated a setback of 60 to 62 feet from the bluff edge, exceeding the 40-foot setback approved by the City of Encinitas. This decision was based on the Commission’s use of a more conservative erosion rate, factoring in projected sea level rise, then the homeowner’s initial geotechnical report.
The court specifically upheld the Commission’s right to prevent the construction of shoreline protective devices (like bluffs or seawalls) to safeguard the property, finding this condition did not constitute an unconstitutional taking. Furthermore, the ruling supports the Commission’s requirement for homeowners to adhere to geotechnical recommendations, potentially including structural removal, should the bluff erode within 10 feet of the residence.
However, the appellate court did find one condition imposed by the Commission to be overly broad. The original ruling required homeowners to remove the residence if any government agency ordered it uninhabitable. The court deemed this unreasonable,as it allowed for potential eviction based on unsubstantiated claims regarding sea level rise and erosion.
“The owners had expressed concerns that any government entity could order the house ‘not to be occupied’ without any justification, or with unsupported claims about the impact of projected sea-level rise and future erosion of the bluff.”
The case has been remanded to the trial court with directions to issue a new writ of administrative mandate reflecting the appellate court’s decision.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the California Coastal Commission’s role in protecting the state’s coastline and adapting to the challenges of climate change. It signals a willingness by the courts to support stricter building regulations in vulnerable coastal areas, even when those regulations conflict with local approvals.
I hope you found this article insightful! We’re committed to bringing you the most important news with clarity and depth. If you enjoyed this piece, please share it with your network, leave a comment below with your thoughts, or subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates. Your engagement helps us continue to deliver quality journalism.
