The California Coastal Commission rejected Coronado’s request to build a restroom on South Beach. The vote was 5-4. The coastal commission staff recommended that the project be denied mainly because it posed an environmental hazard and managed to convince a slight plurality of commissioners of its position. Meeting can be viewed here.
In its report the staff said that the proposed site is known to be vulnerable to coastal flooding and erosion under current conditions due to the narrow beach width, and subject to regular wave action and sand erosion. Hazards are expected to increase with sea level rise. To mitigate these hazards, the city had proposed building a seawall, something the staff said was inconsistent with [Coronado’s] Local Coastal Plan [LCP].
The 235 square foot facility would have had three stalls, storage space and showers. The project also called for replacing the beach access stairway and replacing it with an ADA-accessible ramp. To protect the restrooms from flooding, the city proposed supporting the structure with a mat foundation and a 30-foot deep, steel sheet-pile bulkhead seawall. The Coronado City Council unanimously approved the project in November 2016.
After the November 2016 vote, Coronado Shores Homeowners Association at La Sierra Tower and Thomas D. Whittington filed a de novo appeal with the coastal commission. Two commissioners, Dayna Bochco and Mary Shallenberger, were also appellants.
“We realized the importance for a bathroom, just not in that location,” said Josh Chatten-Brown, an environmental attorney who represented the La Sierra Tower Homeowners Association. “It didn’t make sense to go forward financially or environmentally with the project,” especially when there were better alternatives.
In its report, the coastal commission staff recommended alternatives: continue to use the temporary restroom facility at Avenida del Sol, or replace it with a smaller, permanent facility. The city could also incorporate a public restroom into the Hotel del expansion project.
The city contends these alternatives are not realistic.
“The location favored by the commission staff and several commissioners was for the city to work with the Shores to build the restroom on private property owned by the Shores,” Councilwoman Carrie Downey said.
Commission staff believe the Shores will have to come forward with a request for a project to remove or replace the rock revetment protecting their facilities [from sea-level rise] and at that time the city should work with them to incorporate a restroom.
Downey added, “[now] we consider options going forward, which could include appealing the coastal commission decision in court, seeking a rehearing, beginning a new process to identify a location that doesn’t belong to the city, but would require exercising eminent domain or designing new larger temporary facilities taking over more street parking…”
The city spent years looking for the best place to put the restrooms and working to educate the public about the need. In the end it only succeeded in persuading people of the latter. There is a critical need for a restroom. The location is still yet to be determined. The practical implications for the city are clear.
“This means that for the foreseeable future, the only alternative will be the temporary restroom in the Coronado Shores parking lot,” said Mayor Richard Bailey.
UPDATE FROM AUGUST 11, 2017 CITY MANAGER REPORT:
South Beach Restroom: In January, the California Coastal Commission voted to review the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for a 235-square-foot permanent restroom proposed on public property at the end of Avenida del Sol. On a close 4 to 5 vote on Wednesday, August 9, the Commission voted to deny a Coastal Development Permit. Commissioners who voted for denial expressed concerns that the approval of the sheet pile to protect the facility from water undercutting the restroom would set a precedent; other locations were better suited, including locating the restroom on private property either at the Shores or the Hotel del Coronado; and the portable restroom trailer serving the site could be continued permanently. Commissioners voting in favor of the project felt that the restrooms were needed to serve the public; the facility was designed adequately for local conditions; and it was not appropriate to site a public restroom on private property. The seasonal portable restroom trailer has been used extensively. Due to its heavy use and the marine environment, ongoing replacement and maintenance costs are high. The portable restroom trailer was never envisioned to be a permanent solution for the need for a restroom in the area. At the end of summer, the condition of the trailer will be evaluated and a decision will be made to either rebuild, replace or not replace the trailer for next year.
