2016/July
From ActCoastal
| Year | 2016 |
|---|---|
| Month | July |
| Location | San Diego |
| Description | The July hearing of the Coastal Commission, held in San Diego, had two predominate themes: interpretation of Local Coastal Plans (LCPs) in light of the increasing body of knowledge around coastal hazards and the relationship between parking and public access to the coast.
A project representing each is evaluated in this month's vote chart: the Lindstrom development in Encinitas and the Dunes development in Venice. |
Issues voted on at this Meeting
Click on an issue to read full description
| Issue | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Dunes Development (Venice) | This item is an appeal of a Coastal Development Permit approved by the City of Los Angeles to change a commercial retail space to a 2,831-sq.-foot restaurant. A key issue with this CDP is the lack of sufficient existing or proposed parking.
Staff recommended that the Commission determine substantial issue based on the project not being consistent with the parking requirements of the certified Land Use Plan (LUP). The lack of parking would adversely affect the public’s ability to access the coast. Additionally, approval of a development that worsens Venice’s current parking shortage in Venice will impair the City’s ability to prepare a certified LCP due to the project’s inconsistency with the LUP because it will generate increased parking demand and adversely impacts public access. |
|
| Encinitas Lindstrom Development | This project was appealed by Commissioners Mary Schallenberger and Esther Sanchez due to not conforming to the City of Encinitas’ certified Local Coastal Plan. The proposed project is a bluff top residential development. The permit for the development, approved by the City, would allow for a two-story home plus basement with only a 40-foot setback from the bluff edge and include the installation of piers along the bluff edge to support planter boxes and an above-ground spa.
Upon review by the Commission’s geologist, it was determined that the factor of safety was not accurately calculated. Most significantly, the erosion factor for the site is anticipated to be .49 feet per year rather than .4 feet per year, which means a setback of 60 to 62 feet is what’s actually required to protect the home. |
|
