Summary
In January 2013, the CCC approved a permit for construction of a seawall at St. Andrews sewage pumping station in Pismo Beach. That permit required the Corps or City to return to the Commission in five years with a managed retreat plan and to return again in 20 years to review the permit conditions. At the December hearing, the Corps unsuccessfully tried to limit any future review of the seawall to simply its “physical need” to protect the pump station. Instead, the Commission required that any future review consider “all” of the Coastal Act policies, including impacts on public access, recreation, sand supply, etc.
Why You Should Care
Sea walls are common response to coastal erosion but cause a range of adverse impacts, including blocking public access, interrupting beach sand supply, increasing nearby erosion, and contributing to eventual loss of the public beach. Rising sea levels will only increase the demand for seawalls. By making this decision, the Commission rejected setting a bad precedent (requested by the Corps), that might limit its ability to consider these types of impacts in the future. Instead, the Commission helped to ensure that local communities and planners will begin to look at the bigger picture when analyzing the potential impacts of seawalls.
Outcome
Pro-Coast Vote
Anti-Coast Vote
Commissioners were concerned that the Corps proposal for more narrow language would undermine the Commission’s “original intent.” Commissioners reinforced their decision that any future review of the seawall will consider all of the Coastal Management Program policies, and not just its physical need to protect the pump station. That means any future review must also consider how the seawall affects public access, recreational use, impact on sand supply, and other biological impacts. The Commissioners voted unanimously to add specific language to the findings saying, “the Commission intends and expects that the assessment of the ‘utility’ of the seawall will go beyond a mere assessment of the physical need for the wall to assess its consistency, to the maximum extent practical, with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program.”
Organizations Opposed
Opponents wanted to build a precedent for ensuring that the full impact of seawalls will be considered in future permit reviews. They also wanted to ensure that the Corps of Engineers complied with federal law requiring its projects to be consistent “to the maximum extent practicable” with the policies of California’s coastal management program.
Decision Type
Proposed Modifications to Commission-Adopted Condition Language, Consistency Determination CD-057-12
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommended Commission approval of modified language for the consistency determination.