2020/June
From ActCoastal
| Year | 2020 |
|---|---|
| Month | June |
| Location | Virtual |
| Description | The June meeting took place virtually from Wednesday, June 10 to Friday, June 12. The agenda contained more substantial items than the previous month as the virtual platform becomes more finely tuned and capacity increases. ActCoastal partners commented on several items including a proposed condominium development on Beach Boulevard in Pacifica, reauthorization of the Russian River Management Plan and an enforcement action regarding longstanding beach encroachments by 33 Newport Beach homeowners. The meeting resulted in one vote chart, on the Beach Boulevard development which was an appeal of a city issued permit that was ultimately denied. Commissioners expressed concerns regarding coastal hazards and safety on the site. |
Issues voted on at this Meeting
Click on an issue to read full description
| Issue | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Sharp Park Beach Condominiums in Pacifica | This was an appeal of a City-approved project that would allow for the construction of two buildings containing a total of seven condominium units on a half-acre lot on Beach Boulevard in Pacifica. The property would have fronted an abandoned portion of Beach Boulevard to the seaward side. Coastal Commission staff, as well as the applicant’s own coastal hazard experts, concluded that the entire development would be subject to coastal hazards within its lifetime and would rely on the existing riprap seawall. Staff recommended utilizing a policy within the City’s LCP that allows for minimum viable economic development in cases where an entire lot is subject to coastal hazards. Thus, the staff recommendation included increasing the setback from the City’s permit that would allow space for 3-4 condominium units. The Surfrider Foundation and several local residents argued that approval as such would create a loophole in the Coastal Act, setting a precedent by which the prohibition against armoring new development could become meaningless. New development must not be allowed to rely on existing shoreline armoring regardless of who owns, manages or maintains the seawall. The entire proposal was denied in a split 6-5 vote. | 
|
