Special

Browse wiki

Issue:Niguel Shores Revetment in Dana Point
DecisionType Coastal Development Permit  +
IssueImage Niguel shores overlay.png  +
IssueMonth February  +
IssueOutcome Good  +
IssueOutcomeDescription Commissioner Sara Aminzadeh pointed out th
Commissioner Sara Aminzadeh pointed out that enforcement of the permit conditions would be extremely limited without the HOA as a co-applicant. Commissioner Mike Wilson suggested the local governments include a hazards district overlay to require sea level rise be addressed here. The County should not be on the hook to ensure stability of this bluff into perpetuity. Commissioner Roberto Uranga expressed concern about what the consequences may be if the slope is not stabilized.
ces may be if the slope is not stabilized.  +
IssueReason The people of California would have lost S
The people of California would have lost Strands Beach in Dana Point to the sole benefit of the nearby property owners had the proposed revetment been approved. In the interest of what fairness can be found in such a situation, the property owners must be held accountable to pay the mitigation fee since they alone would benefit. By denying this permit, the Commission sent a strong message that they will not sacrifice public beaches for private benefit.
rifice public beaches for private benefit.  +
IssueSummary On Thursday, the Commission denied a propo
On Thursday, the Commission denied a proposed 1,250 ft. rock revetment at Strands Beach in Dana Point by Orange County Parks. The revetment would have protected private homes at the Niguel Shores Community Association at the expense of public beach space and mitigation funds from taxpayer dollars. The permit conditions would appropriately apply the real estate valuation method and require a $14,792,933 mitigation fee; however, the project applicant, OC Parks would be on the hook to pay this mitigation fee because the Community Association refused to join the application, claiming the County has sole jurisdiction as a result of a settlement agreement. The Community Association has to join as a co-applicant; otherwise, the Commission has no way to require them to pay the mitigation fee nor impose deed restrictions for no future reliance on shoreline armoring. Further, the proposed development was not adequately designed to avoid impacts. Surfrider asserts that the alternatives analysis should be subject to more public outreach, review and scrutiny. Options to locate the revetment further landward or avoid it all together should be extensively exhausted before sacrificing invaluable public resources at Strands Beach. Finally, Surfrider asserts that the proposed application of the mitigation fee was not adequately addressed. No potential project was identified and the permit would have allowed the mitigation to be spent on coastal access improvements adjacent to the beach, rather than focusing on restoring or preserving beach space elsewhere with a living shoreline or natural infrastructure project. The proposed revetment was unanimously denied.
proposed revetment was unanimously denied.  +
IssueYear 2,020  +
Lobbyist Walter Crampton  +
Opposition Surfrider Foundation, Dana Hills High School Students  +
Policies Chapter 3  +
StaffRecommendation Approval with conditions  +
StaffReport https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2020/2/Th14b/th14b-2-2020-report.pdf  +
Has query
This property is a special property in this wiki.
Issue:Niguel Shores Revetment in Dana Point + , Issue:Niguel Shores Revetment in Dana Point +
Categories Issues
Modification date
This property is a special property in this wiki.
21 February 2020 19:09:31  +
hide properties that link here 
Vote:Vote 4lfudqqje + , Vote:Vote cons4jl7m + , Vote:Vote fwt7eqa1d + , Vote:Vote hstr4mfuf + , Vote:Vote htdh4rm9b + , Vote:Vote iau68gcaz + , Vote:Vote lcak8h8vy + , Vote:Vote ly4etidsa + , Vote:Vote sqh7e0wo4 + , Vote:Vote vwraod10o + , Vote:Vote yugsbuaj3 + , Vote:Vote zwqg7me6k + VoteIssue
 

 

Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.