2019/March
From ActCoastal
| Year | 2019 |
|---|---|
| Month | March |
| Location | Los Angeles |
| Description | The Coastal Commission’s March hearing took place at the California African American Museum in Los Angeles on Wednesday, March 6 through Friday, March 8. The meeting included important coastal issues: two seawall permits in northern San Diego County, construction of Wheeler North Reef offshore from San Clemente as mitigation for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and certification of the Commission’s landmark Environmental Justice Policy. |
Issues voted on at this Meeting
Click on an issue to read full description
| Issue | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Encinitas New Blufftop Home (Hurst) | Coastal Commission staff recommended denial of a coastal development permit application to construct a new home in Encinitas. The application consisted of demolition of an existing home and construction of a significantly larger home including a basement on a blufftop lot. The proposed project is a new development in a location currently threatened by an actively eroding cliff that will be subject to increased wave attack with future sea level rise, which directly contradicts 30253(a) of the Coastal Act. Additionally, its safety would partially rely on an aging sea wall with only 4 years remaining in its design life - which directly contradicts 30253(b). The Surfrider Foundation supported staff’s recommendation of denial and the Commission unanimously agreed. | 
|
| Solana Beach Joint Seawalls (Pacific Ave) | Coastal Commission staff recommended approval of shoreline armoring in a joint application for three homes in Solana Beach. The homes at 235 and 241 Pacific Avenue were constructed prior to enactment of the Coastal Act. Thus, the residences are considered “existing” for purposes of requiring protection under Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. However, the northernmost home (245 Pacific Avenue) was approved by the Commission in 1996 and is not an existing structure for purposes of Section 30235 of the Coastal Act because it was originally permitted and built after 1976, thereby postdating the enactment of the Coastal Act. The owners of the newer constructed home knowingly accepted the risk of building their home on the bluff top, closer to the edge than recommended, with the understanding that they would not be legally entitled to protective structures on the bluff front. The Commission amended the staff recommendation, holding that only the two pre-coastal act homes were legally entitled to a seawall. One continuous seawall for all three properties was not approved. |
|
