|Location||San Luis Obispo|
|Description||The Coastal Commission’s July hearing took place in San Luis Obispo at the Embassy Suites Hotel on Wednesday, July 10 through Friday, July 12. A number of controversial items dominated the agenda over the three days of hearings with Oceano Dunes being at the top of that long list. The agenda also featured important coastal issues including public access, beach preservation and environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The hearing resulted in two vote charts.|
Click on an issue to read full description
|2 Mirada Half Moon Bay|| The Coastal Commission reviewed an application by 2 Mirada Ownership Group and Casa Mira Homeowner’s Association to construct an approximately 250-ft. long tied-back concrete seawall, fronting both residential development and a portion of the California Coastal Trail in Half Moon Bay.
A rock revetment was originally built in this location under an emergency permit a few years ago in response to erosion. This new application would have removed the rock and constructed a more low-profile vertical seawall protecting an apartment building constructed before the Coastal Act was enacted in 1977 – and is therefore entitled to a seawall – as well as a portion of the California Coastal Trail.
The staff report justifies armoring the Coastal Trail by calling it a coastal-dependent use. Surfrider argued that the Coastal Trail is not a coastal-dependent use, but can be relocated and is therefore not entitled to shoreline armoring, and that using the Coastal Trail as justification would set a terrible precedent for the rest of the state. Commissioners agreed and approved the seawall only for protection of the apartment building at 2 Mirada, not for the Coastal Trail.
|Newport Beach Encroachments||The Commission acted on the City of Newport Beach’s request to amend both the Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan portion of the certified LCP to expand the allowable residential beach encroachments zone on the Balboa Peninsula from 1400 E. Oceanfront to Channel Road, a maximum of 15 feet oceanward of ocean-facing property lines. The city owns the right-of-way that extends 15 feet in front of the parcels where homeowners desire to continue encroaching, but this space is meant for public use. The city claims that it can offset its leasing of land to private homeowners by using fees for public benefit on the beach elsewhere. However, in addition to sending a message that private property should be allowed to expand into public space, it is nowhere near guaranteed that this loss of public beach space will be replaced equally elsewhere. Staff recommended denial of the proposed amendment and Commissioners unanimously agreed.|