Coastal erosion: installation of shoreline protective devices: application process.
SB 1090 creates a facilitated pathway for property owners in coastal hazard mitigation zones to implement shoreline protective devices without excessive delays. Local governments are mandated to inform the Coastal Commission if they deny such applications along with supporting evidence, thereby enhancing accountability and fostering communication. By enabling local entities to charge processing fees for applications, the bill intends to balance local autonomy in managing coastal properties with state-level environmental mandates. Furthermore, the bill exempts certain actions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), reducing regulatory burdens for implementation.
Senate Bill 1090, introduced by Senator Bates, addresses the issues of coastal erosion in California, specifically targeting the Counties of Orange and San Diego. The bill amends the California Coastal Act of 1976 to streamline the application process for the installation of shoreline protective devices intended to mitigate or protect existing residential properties and public beaches against coastal erosion. The legislation requires that the California Coastal Commission or approved local governments must approve construction applications for retaining walls, seawalls, and similar devices that meet specified criteria aimed at mitigating ecological impact.
The sentiment surrounding SB 1090 reflects a pragmatic approach focused on addressing urgent coastal erosion issues while balancing environmental concerns. Proponents view the bill as crucial for protecting vulnerable coastal properties from erosion, which is exacerbated by climate change and rising sea levels. Conversely, critics may express apprehensions regarding potential ecological impacts and the implications of exempting certain projects from CEQA, raising concerns about oversight in environmental protection.
While SB 1090 aims to expedite the installation of shoreline protective devices, the contentions likely center around the implications for local governance versus state oversight in environmental protection. Supporters advocate for the timely protection of coastal properties, while opponents may argue that expedited processes could compromise considerations for local ecosystems and community preferences. The bill's lack of reimbursement provisions could also lead to tensions as local agencies navigate the financial implications of additional responsibilities imposed by state mandates.