From my understanding coastal access laws are just about access. They don’t guarantee that there’s free and abundant parking etc. I do think there’s a fine line that has to be walked to manage crowds. I understand they can be an inconvenience, create noise disturbances and litter, etc. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a municipality to take measures to moderate the convenience of access. Every path to access the beach doesn’t need a parking lot that can hold 50 plus cars. There are things cities can do such as issue permitted parking only leaving room for a handful of a non-permitted cars to park at coastal access paths at any given time. Which I’m sure is already happening in many beach side neighborhoods.
But reading the article about Malibu it’s hard to believe that the city just acted unilaterally to take down these signs. It’s pretty obvious that some Karen’s brought the signs to the attention of members of the city council. The whole “safety” argument of the breakaway poles seems a bit contrived, like they found a loophole to get rid of signs that they didn’t want. Do you think if a restaurant or business erected a sign on the side of the road the city would make them take it down for safety concerns that it wasn't breakaway if a car hit it?
Pretty sure this sign isn't breaking away if someone hits it...
View attachment 158281