Special

Browse wiki

Issue:Broad Beach
DecisionType Coastal Development Permit  +
IssueImage Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 12.12.53 PM.png  +
IssueMonth October  +
IssueOutcome Bad  +
IssueOutcomeDescription At the October 2015 Coastal Commission hea
At the October 2015 Coastal Commission hearing, Commissioners approved a new project designed to address continued erosion risks to the Broad Beach development. The approved project is far better than originally proposed in key respects. First, it safeguards an adjacent Marine Protected Area by decreasing the amount of sand to be placed on the beach and sensitive habitat (cutting it from 600,000 cubic yards to 300,000 cubic yards). Second, homeowners also agreed to move its septic systems to a combined waste treatment plant, which should prevent sewage from polluting the shore. Unfortunately, the approved project does not include a “back up path” that will be triggered immediately if sand erodes and eliminates public access.
sand erodes and eliminates public access.  +
IssueReason As Commissioner Shallenberger stated, “Sea
As Commissioner Shallenberger stated, “Seawalls kill beaches.” This is well articulated in Stanford Law School’s 2015 California Coastal Armoring Report: Managing Coastal Armoring and Climate Change Adaptation in the 21st Century, that coastal armoring (a seawall is one type of armoring mechanism) increases erosion by cutting off the sand supply and affects not only the beach on which the armoring is located but also increases erosion at adjacent beaches. This project centers on a large revetment (another armoring mechanism) which is having just this effect—cutting off sand supply to the beach and promoting erosion. Historically there coastal dunes on this beach, and these dunes provided a natural barrier against storm surge and wave events—the service provided by this ecosystem is even analyzed and supported in the staff report by a third party. This fact is ignored. The revetment will stay and sand from an inland quarry will be dumped on the beach. So what the public is left with is a beach that will continue to quickly erode, and little protection of public access as the beach continues to erode over time. Coastal Commission Staff had recommended that if, in the future, the beach eroded within 10 feet of the revetment (on the seaward side), a pedestrian path on the landward side of the revetment should be automatically opened for the public to ensured continued access to the beach. This recommendation reflected a reasonable compromise that would have protected both private property and public beach access. However, the Broad Beach property owners refused to enter into a proper easement and the Commission ultimately backed down and approved a project that compromises public access to the beach. A “back up path” will only be triggered if the Executive Director determines that the beach has eroded 10 feet or more seaward side of the revetment in three out of “any five-year period.” As the use of the rock revetment combined with the sand replenishment project are unknown, it is challenging to guarantee public access in light of large storms and rising sea levels. Commission Staff also doubts the efficacy of the revetment saying: “There is substantial uncertainty about how the Revetment will perform.”
nty about how the Revetment will perform.”  +
IssueSummary The Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement
The Broad Beach Geologic Hazard Abatement District applied for authorization of a 4,150 ft revetment, moving a portion of the revetment landward, an attempt at dune restoration using the revetment as the dune-base, and a beach nourishment program (bringing in 300,000 cubic yards of inland sand every 5 years and 75,000 cubic yards each year in between if needed). This is an improvement as it cuts the amount of sand that was initially proposed to be dumped on the beach from 600,000 cubic yards to 300,000 cubic yards, thus helping to protect Broad Beach’s Marine Protected Area. Additionally, the project includes requiring homeowners to move their septic systems to a combined waste treatment plant, which will hopefully prevent sewage from polluting the beach area. However, the approved project compromises public access. Coastal Commission Staff had recommended that if, in the future, the beach eroded within 10 feet of the revetment (on the seaward side), a pedestrian path on the landward side of the revetment should be automatically opened for the public to ensured continued access to the beach. This recommendation reflected a reasonable compromise that would have protected both private property and public beach access. However, the Broad Beach property owners refused to enter into a proper easement and the Commission ultimately backed down and approved a project that does not include a “back up” pathway. Public access in the future is only guaranteed if the Executive Director of the Commission determines that the beach has eroded 10 feet or more seaward side of the revetment in three out of “any five-year period.”
nt in three out of “any five-year period.”  +
IssueYear 2,015  +
Lobbyist David Neish, David Neish Jr., Mark Goss, Ken Ehrlich, Marshall Grossman  +
Opposition Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay, California Coastal Protection Network  +
Policies 30253, 30235, 30233, 30230, 30231, 30240, 30210, 30211, 30212, 30213, 30251, 30220  +
StaffRecommendation Conditional Approval  +
StaffReport http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2015/10/f8a-10-2015.pdf  +
Has query
This property is a special property in this wiki.
Issue:Broad Beach + , Issue:Broad Beach +
Categories Issues
Modification date
This property is a special property in this wiki.
28 October 2015 16:36:40  +
hide properties that link here 
Vote:Vote 10gc9hxjt + , Vote:Vote 27iat72ck + , Vote:Vote 7b5iispcn + , Vote:Vote d5lkuif63 + , Vote:Vote dicr4drut + , Vote:Vote h8wq3w764 + , Vote:Vote hmkdcgl10 + , Vote:Vote jcxdny23a + , Vote:Vote lanjb13mc + , Vote:Vote mklrkyl1e + , Vote:Vote wf0zb3tfq + , Vote:Vote yiqcead85 + VoteIssue
 

 

Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.