Summary
This application was for a redesignation and rezoning of portions of a 13-acre parcel to allow for relocation of 14 cabins away from the parcel’s bluff. The modifications to the amendment include the point that there will be no resulting increase in development potential, and that the relocation shall not result in a later need for construction of shoreline protection devices having substantial impacts on the natural landform.
Why You Should Care
This case is a great example of an applicant and Coastal Commission Staff working as a team in a forward looking project. As Chair Kinsey put it, “This is a good example of a community thinking ahead.” Having an applicant acknowledge and embrace the area’s changing coastline and proactively prepare for it through planned retreat is commendable – particularly as “planned retreat” is often found on the battlefield of perceived “take”.
Outcome
Pro-Coast Vote
Anti-Coast Vote
Commissioners followed staff recommendations of denying the application as submitted but approved with modifications as mentioned above. The sentiment of approval and appreciation for the collaborative and forward thinking nature of the project was expressed.
Organizations Opposed
Decision Type
Local Coastal Program Amendment
Staff Recommendation
Denial as submitted, but approved with modifications