Special

Browse wiki

Issue:Opal Cliffs Private Access Substantial Issue
DecisionType Substantial Issue  +
IssueImage privates.png  +
IssueMonth March  +
IssueOutcome Good  +
IssueOutcomeDescription Commissioner Erik Howell made a motion to
Commissioner Erik Howell made a motion to find substantial issue and Commissioner Mary Luevano seconded the motion. Commissioner Mark Vargas emphasized the need for the Commission to be consistent, noting the Commission has insisted on removal of gates “for less.” Commissioners unanimously found substantial issue.
oners unanimously found substantial issue.  +
IssueReason The County-approved project appears to con
The County-approved project appears to conflict with fundamental Coastal Act and LCP public access and recreation requirements, including those that require that public recreational access opportunities be maximized. This fee-based beach access prohibition will fall disproportionately on the lower income and more disadvantaged among the beach-going public and on those who do not live near the Opal Cliffs area, and disproportionately benefits those who live in the immediate area and are more likely to be able to make more frequent use of the Park and beach.
e more frequent use of the Park and beach.  +
IssueSummary The County-approved project that is the su
The County-approved project that is the subject of this appeal is the result of a long and protracted case first initiated by Commission enforcement staff in 2006. While the permitting history between the Coastal Commission and the Opal Cliffs Recreation District is undeniably complicated, the fundamental question of whether or not a collective of property owners have the right to charge for access to a public beach is worth examining. The current operation run by OCRD requires those wishing to visit the beach to purchase a $100 gate key for yearly access or pay a $5 fee for a daily pass. The only access to the beach in question is blocked by a 9-foot fence, gate and “gate ambassador” responsible for enforcing the program’s terms. This construct raises significant and fundamental consistency issues with the Coastal Act and California’s coastal management program; in particular, the directive to maximize access for the broadest of the State’s economically and culturally diverse population to our public beach commons. The Commission heard only the substantial issue portion of the appeal and the de novo hearing was postponed to a future date at the request of the applicant. Commissioners opted to hear the substantial issue presentation and unanimously found substantial issue.
n and unanimously found substantial issue.  +
IssueYear 2,018  +
Lobbyist Mark Massara  +
Opposition Surfrider Foundation  +
Policies Chapter 3  +
StaffRecommendation Substantial Issue  +
StaffReport https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2018/3/th14a/th14a-3-2018-report.pdf  +
Has query
This property is a special property in this wiki.
Issue:Opal Cliffs Private Access Substantial Issue + , Issue:Opal Cliffs Private Access Substantial Issue +
Categories Issues
Modification date
This property is a special property in this wiki.
15 March 2018 17:43:53  +
hide properties that link here 
Vote:Vote 04l970joc + , Vote:Vote 1a1slkh6b + , Vote:Vote 2bhsbiemq + , Vote:Vote c13r8w95i + , Vote:Vote jvsx2jpv3 + , Vote:Vote kzjwwudwl + , Vote:Vote lsi1blfdf + , Vote:Vote p4yh7pkbx + , Vote:Vote sgm4q0dj6 + , Vote:Vote tz2cyneou + , Vote:Vote xuifwl44i + , Vote:Vote z9jgla365 + VoteIssue
 

 

Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.