2020/February
From ActCoastal
| Year | 2020 |
|---|---|
| Month | February |
| Location | Long Beach |
| Description | The Coastal Commission’s February hearing took place in Long Beach at Long Beach City Hall on Wednesday, February 13 through Friday, February 15. The meeting was the first of 2020 and several important votes took place. The Commission denied a proposed 1,250 ft. revetment at Strands Beach in Dana Point, denied a proposed fence that would block a coastal trail in Pacific Grove and approved a key consent cease and desist order and administrative fine for the Tivoli Cove HOA that will restore access to Latigo Beach in Malibu. |
Issues voted on at this Meeting
Click on an issue to read full description
| Issue | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Niguel Shores Revetment in Dana Point | On Thursday, the Commission denied a proposed 1,250 ft. rock revetment at Strands Beach in Dana Point by Orange County Parks. The revetment would have protected private homes at the Niguel Shores Community Association at the expense of public beach space and mitigation funds from taxpayer dollars.
The permit conditions would appropriately apply the real estate valuation method and require a $14,792,933 mitigation fee; however, the project applicant, OC Parks would be on the hook to pay this mitigation fee because the Community Association refused to join the application, claiming the County has sole jurisdiction as a result of a settlement agreement. The Community Association has to join as a co-applicant; otherwise, the Commission has no way to require them to pay the mitigation fee nor impose deed restrictions for no future reliance on shoreline armoring. Further, the proposed development was not adequately designed to avoid impacts. Surfrider asserts that the alternatives analysis should be subject to more public outreach, review and scrutiny. Options to locate the revetment further landward or avoid it all together should be extensively exhausted before sacrificing invaluable public resources at Strands Beach. Finally, Surfrider asserts that the proposed application of the mitigation fee was not adequately addressed. No potential project was identified and the permit would have allowed the mitigation to be spent on coastal access improvements adjacent to the beach, rather than focusing on restoring or preserving beach space elsewhere with a living shoreline or natural infrastructure project. The proposed revetment was unanimously denied. |
|
