Meeting Overview
The April 13 hearing of the Coastal Commission was electric with anticipation. A crowd of approximately 500 people gathered that first day of the three-day hearing to show their support for commission staff in recommending a “No” vote for the Dept of Parks and Recreation’s proposal to charge fees at historically free beaches in Sonoma County. After seven-plus hours of presentation and public comment, Commissioners voted to continue the item.
Other items heard later in the week included an after-the-fact permit for an Encinitas seawall and other bluff modifications. This item had the beginnings of setting a good precedent; staff called for the application of mitigation fees for the loss of public access and recreation area due to the seawall’s installation. This seawall not only performs as other seawalls do – inhibiting sand replenishment to maintain beach area – but is also a case where high tide already reaches all the way up to the bluff. Factored into the public access and mitigation fee was the fact that the applicant had repeatedly disregarded permitting requirements and ignored staff’s attempts to bring him into compliance for years. Unfortunately, Commissioners thought the fee unwarranted and called for it to be removed and the permit to be granted.
On a more positive note was the approval of a settlement agreement and cease and desist order. This agreement was years in the making, with initial issue stemming from 2009 when the City of Dana Point adopted ordinances (later followed by gates) that heavily restricted beach access to Strands Beach. This was a significant item – it’s successful close reaffirmed the Commission’s authority and the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder involvement and cooperation.
Issues voted on at this meeting:
This case began in 2009 when the City of Dana Point adopted ordinances that restricted coastal access to the Strand Beach access areas. The hours that the City decided upon to allow public access were enforced by the installation of gates...
California’s Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) continued to push its plan to implement new fees at gravel parking lots in very rural stretches of the Sonoma coast. This was the second hearing before the Coastal Commission on DPR’s proposal...
This project brought into discussion the interesting issue of a post-Coastal Act development requiring an after-the-fact permit for a seawall necessary to protect both the applicant’s home and a neighboring pre-Coastal Act development...
Other Discussions
April 2016 Coastal Commission Hearing: a summary
Last month we reported that events of the March hearing did nothing to repair the damaged relationship the Commission and Commissioners have with the public. The April hearing also offered no help.