In a recent government meeting, officials discussed the implications of a pending appeal from Coastal regarding the classification of a beachfront property. The debate centered on whether a house situated on the beach should be considered \"on the beach\" if its front wall remains untouched. This determination is crucial as it influences how beach houses are regulated under coastal guidelines.

Luis, the architect involved, faces a potential delay of up to 18 months if the appeal process continues. The discussion highlighted the need for clarity on the definitions of \"beach\" and \"coastal bluff,\" with officials noting that if the house were absent, there would be no question that the area is indeed beach. The Coastal Commission's stance, as articulated in their correspondence, emphasizes that the primary structure is on the beach, which complicates the exemption for improvements typically allowed for structures on the beach.

Commissioners expressed the need for a clear interpretation of coastal regulations, particularly regarding the definition of a coastal bluff, which is characterized by a vertical extent of 10 feet or more. The meeting revealed a consensus that the property in question likely falls within this definition, raising questions about the regulatory framework that governs such classifications.

Despite the complexities, city staff indicated a willingness to proceed with the current interpretation of the regulations, suggesting that they would continue to engage with Coastal to resolve outstanding issues. The meeting concluded without a definitive resolution, but with a commitment to further discussions aimed at clarifying the regulatory landscape for coastal properties.