Special

Browse wiki

Issue:2 Mirada Half Moon Bay
DecisionType Coastal Development Permit  +
IssueImage Screen Shot 2019-07-18 at 11.52.02 AM.png  +
IssueMonth July  +
IssueOutcome Good  +
IssueOutcomeDescription Commissioner Donne Brownsey commented, “Ho
Commissioner Donne Brownsey commented, “How can we deny seawalls to homeowners yet allow them for the Coastal Trail?” Several Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Erik Howell, however, expressed concern about not protecting the adjacent infrastructure such as a post-Coastal Act sewage line and condominium buildings. Ultimately, Commissioners agreed with Surfrider and voted 8-2 to only allow the portion of the seawall that protects 2 Mirada. The rest that fronts the Coastal Trail has to be removed.
ronts the Coastal Trail has to be removed.  +
IssueReason Seawalls exacerbate erosion and if our onl
Seawalls exacerbate erosion and if our only response to erosion and sea level rise is hard armoring, we will lose our beaches and the recreational opportunities they provide. The vision set forth by the California legislature is that the Coastal Trail run the entire coast of California. If that’s the case, the entire coast would be subject to hard armoring. A good win for this beach and all of California!
win for this beach and all of California!  +
IssueSummary The Coastal Commission reviewed an applica
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.
ng at 2 Mirada, not for the Coastal Trail.  +
IssueYear 2,019  +
Opposition Surfrider Foundation  +
Policies Chapter 3, 30251, 30253  +
StaffRecommendation Approval with Conditions  +
StaffReport https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2019/7/Th8a/th8a-7-2019-report.pdf  +
Has query
This property is a special property in this wiki.
Issue:2 Mirada Half Moon Bay + , Issue:2 Mirada Half Moon Bay +
Categories Issues
Modification date
This property is a special property in this wiki.
25 July 2019 17:51:14  +
hide properties that link here 
Vote:Vote 36aelpwbv + , Vote:Vote 7kaat9glr + , Vote:Vote 8adu5331x + , Vote:Vote az5rlohgn + , Vote:Vote jug59n7mv + , Vote:Vote kso39yyb2 + , Vote:Vote rlhm44a26 + , Vote:Vote u8i6oa7m2 + , Vote:Vote zf3czzcwn + VoteIssue
 

 

Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.