Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MINUTE ITEM • ~ Thfs Calendar Item No. C,d-5
was l~roved as Minut~ Item No. by the State L:ands y1ss1on by~ vote o1t~ t > otlts I &Q '-ii
etlng.
A 75
s 38
· Cl~LENDAR ITEM
C15 09/23/91 w 24755 Fong
GENERAL PERMIT - PROT,J!:CTIVE s!i.RUCTURE USE
'APPLIC.MT: Earie Frey Jr., et al aka Del Mar Beachfront Homeowners 1924 through 210~ Ocean Front Del Mar, California 9201'4
ARE.~, TYPE LAND AND LOCATION:
PRC PR(: PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC PRC
Filled historic tide and submerged lands located adjacent to.and along the Pacific Oce~n, City of Del M~r, San Diego county-.
LAND USE: Removal of existing riprap and portions of ex~sting patios, decks, overhangs, sunroo~s, walls a.nd fen~~s, ;-estoration of the beach and constructi'on of an approximately 727-footlong, vertical seawall with concrete cap and protective screen wall to protect. sixteen exiting single~family residences and two public street ends.
TERMS OF PROPOSED PERMIT: Initial period:
Ten (10) years beginning S~ptember 23, 1991.
Public liability insurance: Combined single limit co~srage of $1,000,000.
CONSIDERATIOll: The public use and ~enef it; with the state reserving the right at any time to set a ~onetary rental if the Commission finds such action to be in the State's best interest.
BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION: Pursuant to 2 Cal. Code Regs. 2003.
APPLICANT STATUS: Applicant is owner of upland.
-1-
(ADDED pgs. 117-117.·68)
7571 7579 7580 7581 7582 7583 7584 7585 7586 7587 7588 7589 7590 7591 7592
·----·-·-··-·- . --.,----.~Ai~ G ~ l • r - ' ' P~· . .A..A .i
• * .,.--:._ l::..i .r, M'\..o-~·------• 3QSI' I MINUTE PAGE __ ........ _ .............. _
CALENDAR ITEM NO. c 1 5 (CONT' DJ
PaRaEQUISITE CONDITIONS, FEBS AND EXPENSES: Filing fee and processing costs have been re,ceived.
l~TATUTORY AND Q~1!ER REFERENCES: A "' "' -~c· ·n · - L!:. P t 1 d 2 r·, · · , 3· • -.r.-~·;· • : l:v•· -~, ar s an ~; "l;Y. _ •
B. Cal. Code Reg§;!: Title 3, Div. 3; Title 14, Div. 6 •
. ~ ao·.t: 03/.16/.92
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION: 1. Tfl~s activity involves lands identified as possessing
significant environmental. values pursuant to ·P.R.C~ 6J70, et seq. Based upon the staff's consur~~tion with the persons nominating such lands and through tn~.~EQA review process, it is the staff's opinion that the· project, as proposed, is consistent with its use cl~ssification.
2. A coastal Commission permit, No. 6-91-127, was adopted by the Coastal Commission on July 16, 1991.
3. The enYironmental analysis was prepared and adopted for , .. this proj~ct by the Coastal Commission under its .., certified program (14 Cal. Code Regs. 1525l(c).
4. Staff has reviewed the document and determined that the conditions, as specified in 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15253(b), have been met for the commission to use the environmental analysis document certified by the Coastal Commission as an EIR substitute in order to comply with the requirements of CEQA. ·
5. Staff has reviewed the findir.3s made by the Coastal Commission in its permit no. 6-91-127, pages 4-10, and finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or i~corporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified.
6. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared and adopted by the Cit~ of Del Mar.
7. Del Mar has historically bAen subject to beach encroachments. Over the years, a series of private seawalls, riprap, patios, fences, landscaping and
-2-
~·· ... ----· ·-....... ·-...." ·-.. -- -·- ..... ~ •'! ry J • · 1 •:r, ~, l .; • .. ~..¥'. " .. ' .. , '-~· ,,._~ ..... ,, __ ........ _ ....
JOL'b ~. ~-1~LIT£ f'!'.~ 4E_· ___ o_
•
CALENDAR ITEM NO. c 1 5 (CONT'D)
private stairs have been constructed by property owners to pr9tect structures and to provide usable patio and walkway areas. Much of this development encroaches onto public land and was done with and without the necessary permits. The addeq rip-rap and· other encroachments have diminished public access to the beach.
In April 1988, the City of Del Mar adopted ordinances, by voter initiative (the Beach Preservation InitiativeBPI) which includes policies establishing designs and alignments of new shoreline protect~ve works_ and p~ovided for the re~oval of existing encroachments -w'ithin the beach area delineated in the initiative as the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA). The SPA .and the line which identifies its boundaries establish the area where d~velopment would be allowed for only public recreational projects and, in certain instances with minimal en9roachment, for shoreline protective devices to protect existing development.
In August 1990, the State Lands commission authorized the settlement of the pending litigation at.the City of Del Mar. The authorization provides for staff's cooperation in implememting the City's plan for removal of the encroachments and for construction of a ·protective seawall structure. The City of Del Mar has negotiated with the Applicants for the removal of the private encroachments located waterward of the SPA line. Therefore, although the staff of the Commission has not made a determination as to the extent of the State's interest at this location, staff recommends the issuance of a non-prejudicial permit for the removal of the encroachments and the construction of the seawall. The public benefit derived frqm this project is the increased beach area made available for public use.
APPROVALS OBTAINED: coastal commission and City of Del Mar.
EXHIBITS: A. Land Description B. Location Map c. Coastal Commission permit no. 6-91-127 D. City of Del Mar Resolution No. 91-41 E. List of Homeowners
-3-
CALENDAR ITEM NO .C ] 5 (CONT' DJ
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION:
1.
2.
3.
4.
FIND THAT THIS 'ACTIVITY IS CONSISTEJ.'': 'WITH 'i·HE USE CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATED' FOR TH~iAND PURSUANT TO P.R.~. 6370; ET SEQ~ , .
FIND THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS DOCUMENT (COASTAL COMMISSION PERMIT NO. 6-9~~127 ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "C") WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED FOR ~mis PROJECT BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION UNDER ITS CERTIFIED PROGRAM (14 CAL. CODE OF REGULATIONS 15251~(c), THAT THE STATE L..\NDS COMMISSION IJAS REVIEWED SUCH DOCUMENT AND THAT THE CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED IN 14 ,CAL. CODE OF REGS. 15253 (''1) HAVE', BEEN MET.
ADOPT TH~ FINDINGS ~F THE CAJ:,IFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT, AS APPROVED, WILL NOT HAVE A SIG~IFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
FIND THAT THE CI'l'Y OF· 'DEL MAR HAS ADOPTED, AND WILL IMPLEMENT, A MITIGATIONiMONITORING PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT AS INCORPORATED IN RESOLUTION NO. 91-41 AND ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "D".
5. AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE TO EARLE FREY JR., ET AL, AKA DEL MAR •. BEACHFRONT HOMEOwNERS, AS LISTED ON THE ATTACHED . EXHIBIT "E", OF FIFTEEN INDIVIDUAL TEN-YEAR GE~~ERAL PERMITS - PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE USE, BEGINNINq SEPTEMBER 23, 1991; IN'CONSIDERATION OF THE PUBLIC USE AND BENEFIT, WITH THE STATE RESERVING THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME T.O SET A MONETARY RENTAL IF THE COMMISSION FINDS SUCH ACTION ~O BE IN THE 'STATE'S BEST INTEREST; PROVISION OF PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR COMBINED ;SINGLE LIMIT COVERAGE OF $1,00o,ooo; FOR REMOVAL OF EXISTING RIPR.~P AllD PORTIONS OF EXISTING PATIOS, DECKS, OVERHAffoS ,. , SUNROOMS, WALLS AND FENCES, AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 727-FOOT-LONG VERTICAL SEAWALL AND PROTECTUJE. ~~CREEN WALL ON THE LAND DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED'. AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART H~B~OF.
-4-
e
..
EXHI~IT II A II
W24755
LAND QESCRIPTION
That strip of tidclarid in the City of Del Mar, San Diego County, California, more particularly described as follows:
1. Bounded on the west by the mean low tide line of the Pacific Ocean.
2. Bounded on the north by the westerly prolongation.of the north line of Lot 13, ,Block 124, Del Mar SubdiVision No. 3, Map 1450.
3. Bounded on the east by the mean high tide line 9f thc Pacific Ocean. 4. Bounded on the south by the westerly prolong~tiori :of'th~ sputh line of Lot 15,
Block 114, Del Mar SubdivWon No. 2, Map 1277.
END OF DESCRIPTION
PREPARED ·S.€PTEMBER, 199! BY LLB
,,_ __________ _ ~.-h .. £:ND.- f- !--/. ~~
I
... ,~,h!UTE ;:.·4(!S • ..;.. --~.;;..:;. ..... , ____ _
O F
A T A L I N A
/ l,& Jollo
EXHIBIT "B" w 24755
~-__....-".,_ .. -----~ .. ,,,.,_
STATE Of CALIFORNIA THE :tCSOURCES AGENCY PETE. WUSON. Go~~"°'
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
..
. ·,,N DIEGO COAST AREA
I CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH. SUITE 200
N DIEGO. C' 92108·1725
f·i led: 49th Day: 180th Day:
June 3, 1991 July 22, 1991 Nov.ember 30, 1991 El-SO
(619) .521·8036 Staff: Staff Report: He_ari ng Date:
REGULAR CALENDAR
July l, 1991 July 16-19, 1991
STAFF REPORT ANO ·PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION
Application ~o.: 6-91-127
Ap~Jicant:
Description:
Earle Frey Jr., et al aka Del Mar Beachfront Homeowners
~gent: Group Delta Consultants, Inc. Walter F. Crampton
Remova ! of eX:),st:·:tng r;'1prap and portions of existing patios, decks, overhangs·o: ;sui1rooms, wa 11 s and fences, and construction of an approx-imatefy'727-foot-long, vertical seawall, with concrete cap and protectiv'f scree·n wa.Lf element, to protect sixteen existing single-family residences and two public street ends, to be located between 2.5 and 5 feet westward of the Shoreline Protection Line, on sandy beach.
Zoning Plan Designation Ht abv ,mean sea ·I eve I
Public Parkland/Rl-58 Beaches/Bluffs 16.33 feet'
Site: 1924 through 2102 ·ocean Front, De·i Mar, San Diego County. APNs 299-096-01; 299-136-1 through 11; 299-13?-12; 299-146-1 through 5, 10
Substantive Fi le Documents: '~ty of .Del Mar draft LCP L~nd Use Plan C~ty of bel Mar Resolutio~ #tjl-41 Shoreline Protection Permit #SPP-90-0j ~eotech~ical Report #1254-ECOl (10/22/90 -'Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
CCC Files #6-88-542; #6-90-312; #6-91-97
STAFF NOTES:
Su1TV11ary of Staff's Preliminary Recormiendation: 4
Staf-f recommends approva I of the seawa 11 project, ·~ith specia I conditions address'ing future need for toestone, establishment of .an appropri·ate user fee, seawal I design a~9 materials, future maintenance, construction and staging concerns, the applicants' assumption of risk, State Lands Commi$sion review and an assertion of p_ublic rights. ·
·-----~--~
PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
f>-91-127 Page 2
The staf,f recommends the Conunission adopt the foLlowing resolution:
I. Approval with Conditions.
The Commission hereb~ grants a permit for the proposed development, subject to the conditions below, on the grounds t~at the development wi II be in conformity-with the provisions of Chapter 3 -of the California Coastal Act of 1976, wil I not prejudice the ability of the local government h~ving jurisdiction over the area to prepar,e a Loca I Coasta I Program conformirig to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the,Coastal, Act, and wi II not have· any si~nific~nt adverse irn~acts on the environment within the meaning of the
'Ca I ifornia Envfrcnmenta I Qua.t ity ,Act.
II. Standard Conditions.
See attached page.
III. SRecial Conditions.
The _permit is subject to ~he fol lowing conditions:
1. Future Toestone. The protective toestone required for installation 1 ...
when the sand level reaches 0.0 NGVD, through the City of Del Har project 11111' approval~ is not herein ~pproved. If and when the sand level approaches 0.0 NGVD, the ap~licants, or the City of Del Mar, .may submit an application for the toestone as an amendment to this permit or as a separate coastal development permit application. Said proposal shal I be for the minimal amount and si,ze of toestone nece·ssary, and shal I .be supported by a new, detailed geQte~hnical report documenting·the need for and design of said toestone, based on future shoreline.~ondilions.
I
2. Encroachment/User Fee. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicants shall execute a recorded ~greement wherein the applicants agree to participate in the user tee program to be established by the City of Oel Mar under the Beach Pr~servation !n~tiative and its implementing guidelines, subject to approval of the Coastal Convnission through the Local Coast~! Program certification process, to compensate for private use· of those portions of sandy beach lyi~g west of the we~t property line upon · which the project authorized by this permit encroaches. The agreement shall include a provision making the imposition of the user fees retroactive to the date of completion of construction of the seawall. The applicants, the Coastal Convnission and the City of Del Marshal I be the parties to said agreement.
3. Construction Access and-Staging Areas/Project Timing. Prior to the issuance of the' coastal developmen-t p'ermii, the 'applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for revie~ and, written approval, a construction schedule and construction access an'd stilging p I ans. The Executive Ui rector sha 11 a ,review the submitted docun1ents to insure: a) that construction activities 9'
6-91-127 Page 3
1-1hich 1-:0.uld adversely affect public access to and enjoyment of the beac.h arcavoided between Memorial Day and Labor Day of any year; b) that the duration of project construction is minimized to the greatest extent practicable; and, c) that public safety measures are provided.
4. Storm Design. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the ~pplicants shal.I submil certification by a ~egistered civil engineer, acceptable to the Executive Director, that the approved shoreline protective device is designed to i-:ithstand storms comparable to the 1-:inter storms or 1982-83. Said certification shall be subject to the revie;: ahd ~:ritte11 approval of the Executive Director.
Within 60 days following the completion of the project the appl4cants sH~I! submit certification by a registered civi :- engineer,. acceptable to the Executive Director, verifying that the sea1-:all and rip rap elements or the project have been constructed in conformance ;:ith the final approved pi.;ns fc•r the project.
5. Construction Materials. Disturbance to sand and intertidal areas shall be minimize.d. Beac"'ilSand excavated shall be redeposited on the beach. Local sand· or cobbles shall not be.used for backfill or constructioh ~aler~~i.
6. Maintenance Activities/Future /\Iterations. lhe property o~·:ners sha I! be rcsponsTbTe for the mainte-nance of the pcrmfiTed protC'ctive device. 11ny change in the design of the project or futu~e additions/reinforcC'ment or the sea~all will require a coastal development permit. If aft('r inspecUon, it is apparent that repair ~r maintenance is necessary, the applicant(s) shall contact lhe Commission office to determine 1-:hetl1er permits are necessary. 1hc applicants shal I also be responsible for the removal of debris that is deposit~d on the beach or in the \.o'ater during or alter construction of the shoreline protective device or as a result of the failure of the shoreline protective device.
7. Assumption(3) of Risk: Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicants shall execute and reco~d a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Oirl'ctor, \·~iic:. sha'l I provide: (a) that the applicants understand that the site(s) m;:y tic subject to ehraordinary hazard from \,•aves from storms, flooding and erosion and (b) that the applicants hereby ~aive any future claims of liability against the Commission or its successors in interest for damage from ~ur~ hazards. lhe documeht shall run with the land, binding all successors anJ assigns, and sha 11 be recorded free of prior liens and any other e:icurn~r.Jr:ces which the Executive Director determines may affect the interest being convey0d.
8. Public Rights. By <kceptance of this permit, the applicants acknowledge, on behalf of themselves and their. successors 1n interest, that issuance of the permit shall not prejudice any subsequent assertion ol, or constitute a waiver of, public rights, e.s., prescriptive rights, public tru~t etc. which may exist Dn or in front of the property. lhe applicants shall also acknowledge that issuance of the permit and construction of the permit Led
'----·-.......
&-91-i-21 Page 4
development sha 11 11 .. 't be used or construed to, interfere with any public prescriptive or public trust rights that may exist on or in front of the property.
9. State Lands CollYllission Review. Prior to the issuance of the coastal development permit, the ilpplicants shall obtain a written determination from the State Lands Corrrnission that:
a. No State lands are inv61ved in the development; or,
b. State lands are involved in the development, and al I permits required by the State Lands CollYllission have been obtainep; or,
c. State lands may be involved in the development, but pending a final determination, ·an agraetnent has been made with the State Lands Comni ssion for the proj'ect to proceed without prejudice to that determination.
IV. Findings and Declarations.
The Comnission finds and declares as follows:
1. Project Description/Background History. The project is a proposal by the owners of seventeen contiguous oceanfro~t homes in Del Mar to ..... demolish/remove existing riprap seawal Is with associated patio, de~k and yard ...,. improvements and replace it with the constr1,1ction of a new, approxirnate·ly 727 foot-long, vertical steel sheetpi le seawal I with removable windscreen elements. As proposed, the vertical wal ! would be located a minimum of two and one-half feet and a maximum of five feet to the west of the western property lines of the applicant's homes, lgndward of the existing encroachments, but over a public area formerly comprised of sandy beach. The project site is located in Del Har between 19th and 22nd Streets, actually beginning at the fifth reside~~• north of 19th Street and ending with the first residencP north of 21st Street. The area is cnaracterized by a low-lying beach developed primgr;i ly with single family homes.
Although. the Coasta·i CollYllission has had no previous involvement with these sites, other than aµprovals many years ago for some of the homes and additions to others, the .city of Del Mar has been involved in lengthy legal actions for some ·time. The current application is in respqnse to a settlement agreement between the property owners and the City to resolve the issue of private versus public lands, beach encroachments and appropriate protection for existing residential development. Through the settlement agreement, one .pnoperty .owner i.s ::-c locating h-fs residence (Coasta I DevP lcpment Permit Application #&-91-97, heard previously on this same agenda) further landward, since it ·is actuaUy sited seaward of the western property line. Nearly all of the ·other properties ·have existing ·encroachments seaward-.of the western property lines (which coincide with the City of Del Mar'~ Shore-hine Protection Area (SPAJ line), consisting of .;--~;,rap seawalls, concrete patros, wa+:s,. fences, stairways, etc. ..,
---·-- ---·"::.:;' .----;; ... ·7·-· ·:·9 · .. - •, ~.:.-~~ -·
·· .. ,,;~'TE ,,, '"'~. - , ~Q9t)
•
f>-91-127 Page 5
Al I these e11croachments wi 11 be removed under the subject app rication, and a single vertical concrete seawal I will be constructed to protect all the properties. The seawall wi II be located two and one-half feet seaward of the SPA line, with the landward face of .the wal I on the 'line itself. In two locations, the wa 11 wi-1 I extend out to a maximum of fi v.e feet west of the SPA line, where existing principal structures are sited within five feet of the western property lines. At th.lt .close proximity, construction impacts of installing the seawall would seriously damage or potentially even destroy portions of the existing homes. At one location, a single property is involved; at the other, three propertjes are affected~ Th~re, the two outside hoines are within .five feet of the wester·n,,nr:~per~y line; a I though the centra I 'home is not that close, it is preferre.d. to minil'n.i"ze-the number of seawall offsets, since 'these offsets can exacerbate eros'iqn in front of the seawa 11.
The proposed seawa 11 wi 11 ·extend approx-imate.fy sixteen feet above mean sea lev'e I a long its entire a I ignment, but, base~'. on average beach profiles, only the top five or six feet of the wa 11 wi·l I be v-isib·le most of the year. At the two street ends, provision for public pedestrian access are bui It foto. the design, with a discontilluHy of the wa 11 and concrete steps from street to sand level. There is an.existing lifeguard tower at the 20th Street beach access, which wi 11 be afforded protection by the seawa 11 improvements. Altogether, the applicants wi I I ~e funding approximately $200,000 in public improvements, within the approximately $1 ,000,000 price tag for the entire development •
Over the past several years, the City of Del Mar has been developing a means to address shoreline development issues in a consistent manner. Foremost was the .drafti.1g of a Beach Overlay Zone Ordinance (BOZO) by ... ,h~ City of Del Mar, .and subsequent adoption, by way of voter approva I, of a similar ,ordinance, the Del Mar Beach Preservation Initiative (BPI). The intent of botf the-draft BOZO and th~·-vo.ter aoproved initiative was to regulate shoreline development and ~ssO'c1ated stl-orel"lne protective wt.Irks. More recently, the City has , prepared an LCP Land Use Plan (LUP), which incorporates the language of the BPI verbatim, and which is scheduled for Commission action on this' same agenda. The language in those doc~ments established the Shoreline Protection Area line (SPA line) which generally fol lows the western property boundaries of beachfront parcels. The ordinance(s) and LUP are discussed in more detai I in su~sequent pages of these findings.
2. Shoreline Protection Devices/Public Access Impacts. Coastal Act Section 30253 states, in part:
New development shal I:
(I) Minj~ize risks to life and propert~ in areas of high geol~gic, flood, a~d fir~ hazard.
(2) Assure stability and, structural .integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction.hf the site or surroundtng area or in any wayfequire the constrtiction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural
---.......... ~--"" ·---- .. -Al ·"'7 1 0 ~ •. ~-',;!. ..... .);..,.,,... •
i//f I ' r :'• ••-\!- ,
landforms along bluffs and cliffs ....
6-91-127 Page 6
The project site is located on the beachfront in an area that has been subject to storm waves. Shoreline protection for most of the homes does exist in the J~nn of riprap placed over sandy beach area to the west of the homes. The project applic~tion involves the demolition and removal of the existing shoreline protective devices and associated patio improvements and the c~nstruction dl.'a new vertical seawall.
Section 30235 cited above al lows for shoreline protective deyices only when required to protect existing structures in danger from erosion and when designed to mitigate impacts on shoreline sand supply. The primary issue which has been identified and addressed in the review of proposa Is for ·· shoreline protective works in this area of Del Har has been their location and ali.gnment more than the question of their nece.ssity! It has been recognized fo~ some time that al I of the low-lying loti between Seagro~e Park and the mouth of the San Dieguitc River are arid most rike ly wi 11 continue to be subject to impacts from st9rm waves. The vast majo~ity of the residences in. the area are protected by some form of d~vice and with very few vacant lots in the vicinity, new seawal I~ represent infi,I I development. Thus, if properly designed they can be fotind consistent with Section 30235 of the Act~ Again, the critical issue has been the alignment of such shoreline protective devices so as to minimize their impacts on the shoreline processes and public access opportunities, while at the same time recognizing a need to assure stability • of any new development pursuant to Section 30253 of the Act.
It has long been understood that all designs of shoreline protection, when placed in an intertidal area, do affect the coofiguration of the shoreline and the beach profile and do have an adverse impact on the shoreline. T]e precise measure of the impacts of shoreline structures on the beach is a persistent subject of controversy within the discipline of coastal engineering, and particularly between coastal engineers and marine geologists. Much of the debate focuses on whether seawal Is or other factors (such as the rise in sea level) are the primary cause of shoreline retreat. This debate tends to obscure the distinction between the long-term trends of the shoreline, and the effects of seawal Is on those long-term trends, and the shorter term effects that might not be permanent but may significantly alter the width and utility of a beach over the course of a year. The long-term and short-term effects of seawal Is in .general are discussed at length in Exhibit A, attached. The site-specific impacts of the proposed seawa.!+ wi 11 be addressed in the fo I lowing paragraphs.
The Convnission has recognized the need for a long-term, comprehensive solution in the Del Mar area which addresses the rights of property owners to protect their property and the Convnission•s mandate to minimize potential hazards and ensure maximum opportunities for public access to and along the shoreline. For years, the City has been wor.king to establish a comprehensive solution to shoreline protective works in the area. An earlier result was the drafting of a Beach Overlay Zone Ordinance (BOZO). The drafting of BOZO covered a number of years and was never forma I ly adopted in any form by the ·Cit.y. In Apri I of 190~. a similar set of ordinances as those contained in the draft BOZO was
'1.":.'7 .1 l ... ,. • .... ~,,.!J ' .. ..,_
., ., .. ,. '. -- "')£\Q~ ... • I :.. .. .. :: ... ~~J .... c-.---.
"'-~····-·-----------
6-91-127 Page 7
adopted by way of a voter initiative (the Beach Preservation lnit iat ive-BPI), which, in turn, has been included in the City's LCP Land Use Plan (LUP), currently befo~e the Coastal Commission.
As mentioned, the BOZO, in its earlier draft form, the ordinances adopted via initiative, and the new LUP include policies which establish designs and alignments of new shoreline protective works and provide for the removal of existing encroachments \-:ithin the beach area known in the initiative as the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA). The BOZO, BPI and LUP also established setbacks for ne~ development and redevelopment projects to establish a nc~ stringline of development which would accommodate necessary shoreline protection ~hile fuinimizing private encroachment onto sandy beach area.
Ag~in, a key element of the City's actions to date is the establishment of \·:hat is known as a Shoreline Protection f\rea. lhe SP area and ttie line \:hich identifies its boundaries establish the area where development wuuld be allm-:ed for,only public rec-reational projects and, in certain instances \·:HI: minimal encroachment, . .f·'or shoreline protective devices to protect exislir19 development. The inient of these policies is to both protect shoreline processes and maximi~e publfc access opportunities. The Shoreline Protettitn Area (SPA) line est~~lished for the properties in question corresponds t.o tlc western property li~~s of the parcels.
1he policies of the BPI and LUP identify the allo'.-:able uses ... :ilhin the SP .::r•'a and the limi~ations as to when such encroachments are al lowed. Some of the language was model led alter previous Commission actions on projects fronting the Del Mar beachfront. However, it should be noted that the previous dralt BOZO and subsequent voter approved BPI contain ordinances ~hich present the potential for inconsistency with Coastal ~ct policies regarding, among othrr issues, the minimization of hazards and the maximization of public access opportunities. lhes~ concerns have been addressed through suggested modifications .to the LUP, currently scheduled for Commission action.
In the subject case, a 727-foot-long, vertical seawal I is proposed in an alignment parallel to the shoreline, from b:o and one ha·lf to live IC'et lo thcwest ot the western property lines of sixteen existing homes on sevcrtecn lega I lots. Its eastern face wi 11 be on the SP/1 line for most of the alignment, and the width of, the wall ~ii I extend two and one-half feet beyond the SPA line. ln front of four properties,. it ~:i 11 extend further •.·:est~:.~r('., to the full five feet al lowed in the BPI and LUP for vertical wal I elements. On three of these propertie~. the principal structure is at or less than fi~c feet from the \·:estern property boundary. lhe fourth property is siled bet.:·ccn h:o of these, but it is considered prudent to minimize offsets in a sea'.-:all, to limit the amount of sand scour which increases wherever olfsets exist. lhis alignment has been found consistent with Coastal Act mandates to minimile impacts to public beach access, as it is the !east encroachment possible baseo on the constraints of existing development on these individual parcels.
lhe vertical wall will be co~posed of steel sheetpi 1,s extending from an elevation of roughly +15 feet down into sand some.44 feet to an elevation of -2~ feet. No toestone element is currently proposed, but the City's approvals
.'I ••• .., 1 2
.i:..J•."' •
: · , ...... · -·· ·30°q !'H·.- .. ::_r ''-' ...... - ..... ~-~-
6-91-127 Page 8
require th~ applicants to form an assessment-district to fund the ·project, including funding for future toestone support. This is to be installed only if and when the beach sand west of the seawal I is depleted to the elevation of 0.0 NGVO. Since this is not. within the scope· of review at this time, and may or may not prove necessary in the future, Special Condition #1 .provides that any toestone must be .reviewed by the Co1TV11ission separately, either as an amendment to·this permit or as a new coastal development per.nit application. Since the toestone would actually be situated on publically-owned land, either the current applicants or the City could submit such a proposal: An up-to-dat~. site-specific geotechnical report, documenting the need f.or toestone, must be part of any such future application.
Even whil~ recognizing the beneficial aspects of this development, based on the removal of existing beach en~\_oachments, the Commission sti II must fi~d that the proposed project ·may resullt in adv~rs.e impacts to public access opportunities and shoreline proces:ses in general, since the new development wi 11 sti 11 occupy public land. The Corl1!liss·iorr finds that with· the historic erosion of beach profiles in the area, and the background discussion on the effects of vertical seawal I elements in Exhibit A, there is no assurance that the proposed seawal I wi II not contribute to increased erosion in ~he futu~e. Thus, the seawal I holds the potential to usurp public beach area and impede access opportunities.
Special Condition #2 requires the applicant to pay a user fee for that area of ,.fltt. public beach upon which the approved project would encroach. The concept of ..,. the user fee or rental payment is al.so consistent with the Corrunission's earlier action and with the City's draft BOZO, BPI, and LUP although the specific mechanism for the program has not yet been es~ablished. The condition requires the applicant to record an agreement to participate in the user fee program to be established by the City of Del Mar under the Beach Preservation Initiative, subject to approva I by· the ·Commission through review of the City's Local Coastal Program. The imposition of the user fee wi I I be retroactive to the date of completion of construction of the seawall.
Special Condition #4 requires the applicant to submit certification by a registered civi I engineer that the approved shoreline protective device has been constructed in accordance with the approved, p I ans and is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. The condition requires such certification for the structural integrity of the· wall itself, rather than for the homes it wi II serve to protect.
Special Condition #5 is an advisory condition. The conditions require that during construction, disturbance to sand and intertidal areas be minimized and that any·beach sand excavated be redeposited on the beach. The condition also specifies that local sand or cobbles may not be used as backfi II or construction material for the project. Special Condition #bis attached to assure that thr seawall and revetment wi II be properly maintained and the public beach kepi free of materials both during and after project completion. The condition also advises the applicant of the need to secure a ·coastal deve!opment permit prior to future additions or modifications of the seawall. ~ It should be noted that, with the alignment of the protective device approved ~
-·· ~ .«"•"'11 ~J· ./. 3 ... -·3100 "t,1: -~ ;·: C·E _:;;,;.::::;:-::-----
o-91-121 Pa~e 9
herein, any future seaward expansion would involve encroachment into public beach area.
There remains an inherent risk to construction of any structure along the shoreline. Special Condition #7 requires the applicant to record a deed restriction recognizing this risk and waiving any liability on the Commission's part for al lowing this development. Pursuant to Section 13166(a)(1) of the Convnission•s Administrative Regulations, an application may be filed to remove Specia.I Condition·#7 from this permit if the applicants present newly discovered material information regarding the existence of any hazardous condition which was the basis for the condition, if they could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced such information before the permit was granted.
ln summary, in review of shoreline protectiye devices, the Commission seeks to maximize the amount of beach area avai lable!to the public and minimize the adverse effects on shoreline sand supply. 'The City's Beach Preservation Initiative, much of which is incorporated into the LCP Land Use Plan, is designed to achieve the same goals for the City's oceanfront. The information previously presented demonstrates ~hat the further seaward a shoreline protective dev.ice is placed, the greater the adverse effects on beach profiles. Additionally, the walls which encroach beyond the western property lines usurp sandy beach area which would be otherwise available for public use. The Commission also finds that the location of homes along the shore front with a hi story of storm wave action warrants some ·expectation of the n~ed for ~eriodic protective maintenance activities (sandbagging, window boarding, etc.) and even some measure of minor damage.
Therefore, as in the coastal development permit process, the City's BPI and LUP are set up to al low for individual review qf shoreline development on a property by property basis to determine the specific conditions which apply to the site. Through such individual review, the Convnission and City can balance the private property owners need to protect their property and preserve views against the measure of risk and the need to prctect beach area for public use. Therefore, the approved alignment in this particular case, should not be considered a precedent for a five foot encroachment by right for shoreline protective devices in front of al I properties along the City's beachfront. With the conditions attached, the Corirnission finds the project consistent with Section 30235 and 3025~ of the Coastal Act.
3. Coastal Acces~. Section 30604(c) of the Coastal Act requires that a specific access finding be provided for every project located between the first coastal road and the sea. Much of the discussion contained on the previous pages of this report included an assessment of the project's impacts on public access when balanced against the need to protect existing principal residential structures. Sections 30210 and 30212 of the Act further cal I for the maximization of public access opportunities and require that access be provided in conjunction with developments located between the first coastal road and the sea unless, among other th;ngs, adequate access exists nearby.
The project site is located on the beachfront in Del Mar. Thi relative ~----·-- ------ --- -----. -· "'""41 j .
, "".':'•,~ . .\-\ ... , --·; ~ . ./ ~ ~ .. . .. , --"- , :. •1r1!rTF f'~ ":: ~101 --- ~-- --·-------,.
6-91-127 Page l 0
popularity of this area of beach has already been discussed in earlier sections of this report. Vertical access is currently provided at the termini of 20th and 21st Streets respectively. These road ends are unpaved, ~andy easements which have been utilized for vertical public access. The area in front of the structures is a public sandy beach with unlimited access. It has historically been used by the public·for s~nbathing, fishing, and other beach-related activities. The street ends in question have historically been used as vertical accessways to the sandy beach area, and there is also a lifeguard tower within the 20th Street right-of-way. The current proposal for a seawal I includes vertical access structures to provide gccess from the street ends through the proposed shoreli~e protective device to the sandy beach to the west at both street ends. These elements include a discontinuous seawall and stairs from the street level to the sand.
Special Condition #3 requires the submittal I of a .plan ~or the construction phase of .the· project addressing storage· locations for materia ! and equipmeilt and timing for project implementation: The plan sh~:I I be designed so that
-- construction activities which would adversely affect public access to and enjoyment of the beach are avoided between Memorial Day and- Labor Day. Also, the duration of project construction shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible with public safety measures provided.
Special Condition #8 serves to recognize that th~~ublic and/or the applicant may have certain rights to the area west of ihP·:~~rce I lines, none of which are affected by the granting of this permit. Special Condition #9 requires the submittal of documentation from the State Lands Commission that either no state -iands are involved with the project or that the development on the state lands that are involved has either been authorized or may proceed without prejudice to a final agreement to use such lands. As conditioned, t~e project is consistent with Sections 30210, 30212 and al I other Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.
5. Local Coastal Plannin~. Section 30604 (a) requires that a coastal development permit shal I be issued only if the Commission finds that the permitted development wi II not prejudice the ability of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. In this case, such a finding can be made.
The City of Del Mar has just recently prepared an LCP Land Use Plan (LUP), which is scheduled for public h~ar:.ing and Commission action at this time. Furthermore, the Del Mar Commlinity.-Plan and existing zoning, inc iuding the BPI policies guide development within the coastal zone. The City has incorporated the provisions of the BPI into the LCP Land Use Plan for the Commission's review. The project, as specifically conditioned to minimize beach encroachment is consistent with the Corrinission staff's earlier convnents on the draft BOZO and BPI and with many Commission permit detisions for the surrounding area. It is also consistent with the modifications suggested in review of the Land Use Plan. As conditioned, the project should not prejudice the ability of the City of Del· Mar to prepare and implement a .fully certifiable Local Coastal Program. ,,..-----------·--:r"'_n .... -_ •r'"'
; • I • ,1• ' " •· • .,.. 1 ·• 17. .1 5 ~ ... • •• ·J. •n -~',.-:=:. • t> -- • -"" -- a. 10,h~-. . ~ •n-u •T:. '""' r;r: ·- .... . '· - -·-· __ .......,.....,. __
~---. - --· ... ----·.-~..._. .. _.
e
•
•
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
6-91-127 Page 11
1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and development shal I not corrvnence unti I a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the ,permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office.
2. Expiration. If development has not corrvnenced, the permit wi I I expire two years from the date on which the Corrvnission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a di ligEnt manner and completed in a rea:ill1lab le period of time. App Ii cation for extension of the permit must be made prior tc the expiration d'a'te. ·
3. Com~lirn. Al I deve.lopment must occur, -in strict compliance ~ith the proposal as set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be rev-1 ewed -and approved by the s:ta ff and may. require Commission- approva I .
4. Interpretatiori. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Corrvnission.
5. Insn:ctions. The Corrvnission staff shal I be al lowed to inspect the site and :e development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice .
6. Assi .. nment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee fi !es with the Co1TJJ1ission an affidavit accepting al I terms and conditions of the permit.
7. Terms and Conditions Run with 'the Land. These terms and condit'ions sha 11 be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the-permittee to bind al I future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions.
{1127R}
.·----·_, __________ _
f!i ... ~· ; ~ () .. ~ 0
:.:'
. ; ...
s 0 ..
\
•
--·r<r·- .. .. . . ·- . " -• :_ . -- "" ... -i 1 7
• • ' .. -- .J;;.,J-. J,_. ..
. :.i. ,• !· --- 3104 :: : -. . --- . --- -- .. _::-·-::---.
l ~ - CJ
J (I. .1-
I' c_,_ I I . . ~- .... ~ -·· _ .. __.., ....• ,~ .
• •' i '
\ . \: i
I '
: '
______ _.._ -.. _.~ ..... _ ..... _ -- 1 . ~ •' i"1!-1; ~, ~ 1! .• ·~ • 8 .
·...:...';.·· ......... ~4-- ---·-
' ' •TE r ' . 31Q!";. ' .... --........... ,..,,. ___ _ -·- -------·- ... '""'_.....,,... ~-
·•
: .
Shor1•linc: Pr:>tL1 ctir.11 C.:-viu<.: ."!r:j Th~i1· lmp.1rts on Co~c;t.il ~2.
The Coastal Act poli:ies relJted to ·construction oi shoreline protective devices are J:: f o llods.°::. _ ·- ..
. .
.. _ ....
..
I
s~ction 30235.
Revetments. breakwaters, groins, harbor channels. seawalls, cliff retaining walls. and other such connruction thct a1ters n.:itur~l shorerine processes shall be permitted ~hen .required to serve' coast::1-dependent uses er to protect· · existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion~ and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. ·£iisti~g marine~tructures causing water stagnation c6ntributing to pollution pr~blems and fish kills should be phlsed ou! or .upgraded where f 'bl ~j ' I ea!;'l e. . . · ·
~ction 30253.
New development shall:
(1) .Minimize .ri~ks to- 1 ife and property, in areas of high ··ger 1 ogic·, flood,. and"fire: hazsrd.: · : .. .._
(2) Assure stability and str,~ctural integrity, and neither create nor contribute sign1ficantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruct1on .of the sitt: or
• surrounding area or in any \1ay require the construction of protective devices· that ~ould substantially alter natural· landforms along bluffs and cliffs.· : . . . ... ~
• Refer to previou~ project descript\on and s~ecific findings on W3V~ Hazards, and Shore1ine protective d~vice~. · . .
A. 'There ,;'i an onqoino debate OV('r the effects of $eai1a1ls on shoreline • stability. Th~ proposed project involves a shoreline structure wnicn will
affect tl·e configuration of the! shoreline and the beach profile and hav.e an adverse mpact on thu shorc11nc. Thu precise impact of shorcljnc ~tructures on th~ b ich is ~ persistt!nt subject of controversy with1n the d\sciplinc·of coastal ·1:.1~inecrin9. and particularly between coanal cn9ini:i:rs arill marine
• geologists. Huch of the debatt focuses on ~hether seawalls or other factors (such as the rise of sea lf:vcl) are the primary cause ·of shore.lin~.',r.e\r.t:U-.:--~·- - ·lhis debne tends to oti~cure the distinction between th~ lonCJ tcr;_t~.;~r~nd~.;~t~_;l::..__7_..... ... U tile shon:linc, and the cficct~ of si:al-1311~ on those 1onCJ-term trl!nds, ~nd-t-he3 1.•
shorter ·~cnn ef fecu that rni9ht not be pcnn;rncnt but may si9nifi'i:antly alter. 100._._ .... the ~idth and utility of a bc.lch over the counc of a year. "fh~ 'lonct·t.rrrn·and'----C•"''··· short tf:fm cff i:ct!: of scJ\/Jl l~ \Jil I 111? <li~cu~~ciJ ~cp.:irJtely bclolJ ..
.•.
.. ·.,
StiC~l Ll 11£ PR~HC T 1011/ ACC £SS f 1 NO lt:GS
The CoastJl Act recogni~es thJt prot~ctive devices mJy be n~eded to protect existing ~tructurc~. thJt such structure~ may alter shorclin~ proccs~c$, ~na that these: altl!rations:·sho11ld be minimized Jlld mitig.:itcd •. The ongoing deDJte
· in the literature does. acknowledge that seaHalls have $ome effect, :it le.Ht on the sopply of sund. : A s~~cinct Stltcrnent of the adv~rse effects of seawJlls, and the viewpoint of coastal geolo"'§"ists that vir:w beach ·procc:~ses from tne perspecti~e of geologi~ time, is contained in Saving tne Am~ric~n Deach! A
. Po$i'tion Paper by Concerned Coa$t;i) Geologists (>larch 19lll, SldcJj\.Jay Institute of Occanograpny) wnich~was si~ned by 94 l!xpcrts in the field of co~stjl · ' geology (page 4): ·
I I •
These structures ire fixed.in s~~c~ and represent considerable effort and expense to construct anc. 1n3intain·. They are designed for :is long a life ~s possible and herice are not easily moved or replaced. They become perm.ini:nt iixtures·,in our·coastal. sc'enery but. their performance is poor in protecting corr;nunity and municiva l iti~s from beach retreat and destruction. Even morc.damJging is the fact that these $horc1ine defense structures frequently enhance erosion by
"reducing beach width, st~cpenin9 offshore· grad1ents, and . ·increasin,!J W.::'.'e h11i9hts. As a result, they striously dc:grJde
• the envir~nment ~nd eventually help to destroy tne areas tney Wl!re desi~ned to prote~t.~
It is widely recognized that large structures such as groins and·oreak~aters wi11 have significant and obvious impacts on sand supply and beacn profiles, but even a relatively small structure such as the one proposed can have an
• impact on the site and the adjoining area. As stated in a publication by the State Department of Boating and Uaterways .(formerly called navigation anil Ocean Development), .. snore Pro_tection in California (l9n) (pagi: 30):
. ·. · .....
Hhile seawalls may protect the upland, they do not hold or protect the beach ~hich is t'he greatest asset of shoref ront property~ In some cases. the ~eawall may be detrimental lo the beach in that the downward forces of water, c~eated by the \1avc:s striking the· wa 11 rapidly remove sand from the beach. ~ ·
This impact ii reiterated in the,papnr, •Economic Profiling of Beach FillsJ by Herman Christiansen which is con~ained in the proc~cdin9s of CoJ~t~l SPdim~nt~ :.:JJ (llovcmlH:r 1917). lt n<itcs (page 10'\7):
Observations at some of the invc~tig.ltcd beaches have ~l1own that an optimal profile lll!comes in!:tablc:, if nructurcs, !:u'ch as rocks, '.)rains, rcvctnu:rits, pilc~. na1rs etc.,· arc pllccd . \.l\thin the \.J.lvc action zone of i1 Lc:1ch. Stc:;1d~ cro~ion'.: .• c.lu~cll tiy·comp\cx ht']h turllulcnt :urf current~. lc.lll to ·111::ivy...:.:- -·;._ •• i,··-,., •jnlf \O"C" • · . ~-~ :4 •• Q. .. . . . . ~.·. --_310 7 --· .............
.. ..
•
·.
• •
$11Uf!Lt:.1Ul P~ul (CT 101111\._· .. cs~ F 11/0lti .. .)
In contrJst to the ~enpectivr! of coas:Jl ·!Jcolo!)ists, a numbl!r of coJstal engineas .:irgue tn.n· ~c.:aw:ll)s ::rl! sy1;:pi0111s cf co~sl;Jl erosion r.:thl!r tnJn causes. At le.ist in- p.Ht, tne perspective of coasta·l engfol!ers re:f lccts thi?ir perspective of .! time scJ;l~· that invoh•es th~ life of a nructure., This viewpoint is perhJp~ best e~prt'SSed by the reno~ned expert )n be~~h processes R. G. Oi?.:iQ. ·.\:J09. ntf-l-0.~tes cllan9es_jn bt'Jch.~pr;q;_Liles to e:ro!I ion rather than structurl!s,_ in this discussion frcm 11 Coastal:Sediment Processes: To\1.1i'ii~ Engineering Soluti9ns" in Coa!:tJ:l Scdime~,ts '.'.'Ol (page 2~): ·
Placed a1ong a shoreline with an erosional trend, ~rmoring can perform the intended function. of upland stabiliiation whi1e the adjacent shoreline segments continue to erode~· The resulting offset between ~ta~ilized and unsta6ilized segments may be jnterpreted) in~Qrrcctly that the armoring, has cau~ed the adjacent erosion. , . . . ~
:· .Dean 1 s art it le goes on· to acl;nowled~i.e ·potential adverse effects· and. the responsibi;lity for rr.itigation of tllo's'~ '.dfei:ts (pag~ 23):
. . .... Armoring can cause localiied addltiona' storm scour, both in front of and: at the· ends pf the armoring ••• Under normal wave and tide conditions, armoring can coratribuu--io the d;nmdrift dcfic'it of sedimi:nt through decre:ising tt1.e supply on an eroding coast ~nd ·interruption of: supply if the armoring projects into the active littoral 2one.
If armoring is deemed warranted to protect a threatened structure and if ration4l assessment concludes that "installation of the armoring h'ould adverse1y affect thi: shore1ine, raitigation in, the form -0f periodic addition~ of ~~acn quality sediment should be considered.
~~Research on the effects of seawalls_~ontinues, and m:iny of the results are not yet available. Huch of the research is anecdotal. with dimi~ished bc3ch width evi~ent, but the maj~r causes not clearly identified. The potential ·role of seawalls remain~.di~turbing. as ·noted in the conclusion ta ucoastil Erosion on the Barrier Islands 1of .. Pin~llus County, ~:eh-central Florida', by \/ill1am o. Sayr!?, a·lso in Coa~ta1 Sediml'nt~ '87.(pagc 104~):
lo two years of surveying, beach erosion and rccuv~ry on th~ barrier islands of Pineilas County has been measured. An undeveloped.island's beach recovered quickly after
···winter-time and hu1·ric<in1?-caused erosion. A hi9h1y · developed tea~h without a se~~all and near a jetty fared •. almon as '4i:ll, rccovc:rin9 111orc slowly, but showin9 no 11i::t erosion over the two year period. The two otncr sites, on
·hi9hly developed bJrricrs ~nd backed by ~~awall~. have suffered gr~atly. One raarro\.J beach uas. completely .. 1k~ troytd by a hurric.-inl:' .-ina only pJrt ia ll y rccover~d. The other \la~ rcduci:<J by ~t lca~t a C)'.JJrtcr and w.H · JrtificLlly 11ouri~hctl · -
..
•· ,
Slllll!CL\:1E l'l:OHCTlOli/;,cC(SS fl/IOl~IGS
The Corr.11is::i·on notL?S tho? con~inui119 di::bHe over the cfiects of 'S&?.1\J.'.:ll::, tile lack of convcr9encc')n th~ litL?rJturc, ar.d the strong identificJt\cn of viewpoints with the discipTinL?s of coastal engineering and mJrin~ gcolo~y. The CollYllission does no~ bi?lievi? tl1lt it is cntirC!ly accidi?ntal tllot this debate has .arisen bctwc-eo. clisci~linl!s with ~.u{:_!l .f.~nd.1mcnta1ly diff!:rcnt (perspectives· on the time sc::le involved· in analyzing phy::ic.:i1 processc::. The 'commiss,ion believes that mar~ information can be shed on tnis subject through . : explicit consideration of long' term and short tenn processes active on a bc~ch.
. . B. The effects of a protective device on an erodina shoreline. The location of ~proposed sporeline structure on the seasonal profiles ~fa beach {that·· is, the proximity of the structure to the w3ves), and the overall erosion pattern of a beach, a.re t\.Jo. ke~< f.:ictors that determine the imp.ict of seawalls. Although debate persists as to \1l~ether p shoreline structure is the cause or mere1y a s·ymptom, it is <Jenera1ly agreed that wheri: a b~ach is eroding, a seaHall \.lill come ta d,;fine the. uoundary bet\./een the sea and the upland. H.V. HcOonald and o.c. Patterson-state, in •ocach Response to Co3~ia1 Worts Gold Coast, Au~tralia• in Co3stal fpQine~rinq 1904 (page 1531): .
On the persistently eroding beaches at Horth"Kirra and P~1m Beach, the receding beachline has effectively p1aced the sca\.la11 progressively further and further seawar.d on the beach profile Qntil no beach exists at all in front of the wall. Cleariy, the est~blishment of fixed sea\./all alignm~nts on pcrsi$ten~ly eroding sections of beach wi~l lcJd eventually to loss of th~ b~ach as a useful recreational amenity. ·
Whether or not the seawall or erosion leads to the loss of the beach continues to be debated in the Uterature, but the disiinction do!!~ not alter the
~. result: \.lhen the beach in f ron~ of the structure disappears over time the · ... natural· shorc~111rd migration of the beach is b1ocl;ed oy tht! structure:. Jne net
effect is documented in a recent llationa1 Academy of Sciences Study 11 Respondina to Chanqes in Sea Lt?.vel, £ngineering Implications• (1901), which provides (page 14):
.· . . .
. A common result of ~ea wall and bulkhead placement alon~ the open coastline is the loss of the beach frontin9 the structure. This ·Phc:nomcnon, ho1o1i:vcr, is not \./ell undcr~tood. lt appears thlt during a storm the vo1umc of sand eroded at the base of ~ sea wall is nearly equivalc:nt to the volume of upland erosion prevented by the ~1!3 w:ill. Thus, tllc offshore profile ha~ .a cert:iin •1Je111and~ for sand ., . . and this is ·~ati~f \~a· b~ erosion or the upl~nd on a natur:il be.lch or as close a$ po~~ible to the nnur<al area of cro!;ion on an annorcd s11orclinc .••
... - , ... ~· - -· ___ _.._,.,. ~ .. "'" -"
I•
$110:.~~1:1~ ;:;;or~CTiO~l/,\C~ESS FHHl!!i~S
Hhile ::;a expe:-:s cor.:1r.u~ t::i ciscuss trie ex~ct r.:.:n;:u in .... :.i;:h se.;~ • .:lls affect sn-.reline proct"!sses, th: Ccr..-::~ssion i.1uSt m.:k:~ decisions .:~:ut $;lt:Cifi:.: projects. Tne Cc::-:nissicn r:ot~s tnat the deb.:.:e foCt.:$.?S c:; tht: C.!JSt! of erosicn r::.tller :n.:.n-t:~e 1::ss cf i:-1:? b.:::::.ch, and begs -r.he critic::.l i.!ct:.:_l', que~ticn cf ~hether·cr· no: tna teJch cis.:.~~~~rs. . .
' On an eroding shore1ine fronted by a be.?ch, a beac·h \.'i11 be. i:iresent as lons,,~~· some sanj is supp1ied to the shoreline. As erosicn ~rQ:eeds, frc~ sea le~~r rise or from other cau$eS, ~~~ en:ire profile of the teach alsc re!rc.:t~. However, this process stops ~nen the retre::.ting shor~l~ne cc~es to::. $e~~al1. ~hile the sh:reline en either side of the se?~all continues tJ r~tr~:t, shoreline retreat in front cf the seaw.:11 stops. Evectu.:lly, t~e snorelin= prctectej by the seawall protrudes into the water, with the ~inter ~~T fi~2~ at the base of the' structure. The ·c~r..~issicn is 1ed ·inexorably -::o th::
'conciusicn that if the sea~all works effectively en a retre.:tir.9 shcr~lin~. i~ results in the loss of the beach, at least season.:lly. If the ~h:relioe continues to retreat, however slowly, the-seawall will be whsrQ :h~ b2ach ~.~s and where the beach would be absent the presence of t,ile ·~e.:w::.11 Tr.1 s ' represents tne loss of ~beach 'as a direct result .of' the sea·..;al' .• The
• Cormiissicn has observed this phenoffien:i cp an:i dc\.in ~:?lifcrr.ia 1 $ cc:.~!, \.;her~~ seawall has successfully halted the retreat of the s~~relinc, but cnly at :~2
'.cast cf usurping the beacn. Although this may occ•.:f on~y ~'1:::~.·ly, tn:: Coro.mission concludes th.n it is the inevitable e·ffect c1, cvn'.:tri;.:-:ir .. : a seawall on an eroding shoreline. For such areas, even ~s crcsicr. prcceed~. ~ beach would be present in the absence cf a seaw.:11.
The Cor.:::issicn's previous ob$er·1ations about the effects of se:::i:.:.11s c:i ac:::;~~ have been upheld in previo:.is decisicns. In the case of ~:h.1lr:r::: 1 1:ill::cc: ·Ch:-: v. Cal. Coast:Jl Cormii<:sion (1985) 113 Cal:App.3d. 2·10, 259-21'.:1 (220 Cf! 2), Cer~. ,Oer.ied 105 S.Ct. 1%2 (19!3o}, the Coun cf Appeal analyze:c in -..:h..: • follo· .. l'l'r.g ter.:is the leg;;l sufficiency of tne advene i:;:;i;;cts c!is.:us~c~ in these findings to justify a lateral~access dedication:
Respcndent ch:illenges the nexus bet'Ween· the Co;;.":iissicn's finding that the revetment imposes a burden on the putlic Mhich justifies im~osition of the access co~dition and t~! e'lider.ce in the record. {Citation omitted.] In point, respcr.dent argues that the Corr.Tiission founc a p~blic •turden• becau~~ seawalls in oenerJl tend to cause additional sand sco~r on any historically er~ding beach ·but did not find t~~t this p~rti~ular revet~~nt cause such damage. [E~ph~sis in original.) I
...
lhere is substa~tial evidenc~ in the administra~ive recor~ to 'support the staff 1 s conclusion that sca1,.1alls and ri:vetmcr.ts tend to cau~c sJnd las~ f rcm bcJch area~ in Front of Jnd adjacent to thc1n e~cn if they protect ittrncdi3te ~tructurt:~.
•
I I
• SliJit!:Lli:E 1'1!01CCT1011/,'.CCCSS f l11DlllG$
Studies citi:d ir. ~tJii rcport!: ... confirm the St:iff's lindin1J thJt Mby artificiJlly b~il~ing u~ ~n~ $lope oi tht! shore· are.l, sc.lH.l l is and rt!vctn:cnts of thi $ type tend to cJus.: a l.:nd11ard retreat of th~ mi:.:.n higll tide l ini?, •..• •
. ---:. .. ·-I
Staff reports ••• referred to surveys cf the Army Corps cf Engineers anj other experts concerning shoreline ero$ion along the California coast and; in particular, beach erosion in Ventura County. The Corrmission (thus) had suffici~nt information before it to conclude that, due? t"o conH' uction· of this revetment end others up and down the coa~t.· ~he · erosive nature of tn~ bcach~s in Ventura Cc~nty coupled with the tendency of sea~alls and revetn)~nts to increase the ~and loss on beaches with a tendency to ·recede constitutes a . ·~umu1ative adverse impact and.places a burden qn public' ~tcess to and along State tide and.submerged lands for which corresponding compensation by means of public access is reasonable. [Emphasis .in ~ri9inii1:· citations omitted.)
C. The effects· of shoreline structure'i on an •eguilibriumu shoreline. The termcquilibrium cannot accurately be c.pplieel to a f\:ature that varies as muca· as a shoreline. Almost all California beaches vary dramatically in profile between winter and suw.mer; the variation in the width of beach that can •
·accompany that seasonal change can.be over 200 feet. The persi~tent analytical problem in ~~alJn9 with share processes in California is to try to discern long-term trends in ~horeline change from the normal, ~eason3l variation. The term ·•dynamic equilibriumM has come into use and ha~ been applied to beaches that·vary seasonally in wi~th, but are approximJteJy the same \1hen surMu:r (or wintt:r) profi lc:s are comparei:l over a ·numl>e:r of ye:;ir:=. Essentially, a beach in dynamic equilibrium is one where the supply and loss
·..,.of sand are in approximate balance _(See Griggs and Jones, 190·1). This term must be used with some caution, as tnere will be some variation in width even scasona11y, ·shown graphically by J. ~I. Johnson in •seasonal Oottom Changes,
·Oolinas Bay, California•, Proceeding~ of the T~~lfth Coastal Engineering Conference, September 13-10, 1910. That variability c~n mast long t~nn Change:; (either erosion or accretion) unless sufficient data i~ jvailJbl~ t~ detect a clear direction. This discussion will be equally applicable to shore 1 ines that are in truly in "dynamic equilibrium•, thdt is, not crodin9 on the long term, and to shorelines that are eroding at a relativtly !:lo\/ rate so t.hat ~easonal ch.inge:: are approx1rnncly ·thi: same ~hen vie\.lcd in the time f ramc: of a fc'rl"-ycars.
I
The question of the eff1:cts of seawa11s on shoreline~ that are in 'dynamic cqui\illrium• is more complicated, and re!carch 011 tt1c effect~ i! even rnorc .lnecdotal. At the same time, llccau::c th1~ :;tiort-tcrm effects m.:iy !Jc of great i~portancc:, much more riqorou~ ~ata collection is required in order to c::t.lbli~h ilny clear t:ffcct~. The Corps of (ncJinc:crs h.is Lugun fu11di1t1J
·--~ -- '>-t -1 -; __ ... ~~L ... __ ., __ __.... __ _
... · ..
..
I • I
... ......
rescar~h efforts into :n~ effects oi Sl!Jw~lls through their Coast~l (ngincHinq l:l!:;i!:irch -Cc:nll!!" (C[;~i:). Onc·-of tnc ri!scarch cffor:s fended tiy CERC is t~at cf Professor G~ry G1i~9s of UC Santa Cruz. Professor Griggs i~ monitoring the profile~ of beJChcs in Hontl!rey BJy over the course of sever~l years, ~nd co~paring thl! profil~s of beaches with seawall$ to CJntrol beach~!: without seaw;d 1.L f!CJ.(~s~Jr Gri!JQ1. h.i~ cog1P.lctl!_d h'or~ during the: rel.Hively storm-free winter of 19US-8o, and presented his results on October 30, 1907 befor~ the 1S87 Conference of the California Shor~ and. Beach Preservatfon Association. Professor Griggs is the author of various popular and technic:! l works on beach processes and recently cha ire~ a technical discussion of the effects of seawalls on beaches at •co~stal S~aiments 1 01~. a specialty engineering conference in CllJst:il sediment proce~ses. Griggs• work llpp~ars to establish two distinct effects of Sejwalls. first, beach profiles in frcnt of seawalls differ from profiles alonq the.control beaches selected during the process of beach· erosion. Although the beach profiles are similJr at their mos~ ~ccreted (su11VT1er profile) stage and lat their most eroded (winter profile)
· sta"<Je. the beaches monitored were riarrower and steeper in front of sea\Jalls dur\:lg tne period when the beach w;Js erodjng from tr.e s1mvner profil<: to th~· winter profi1e •. This diff eri:nce represents a ·temporal loss in D.:ach \tldth in the short tenn, even where the time series .is of too short a duration to detect erosion patterns on the beach. Second, beuch profiles at the end of a s<:awal 1 are further landward than natural profiles. This ef feet appears to extend for a distance of about 6/10 the length of the sea~all. This effect represents· both a spacial ~nd temporal loss of beach width directly attributable to se'awall'.cons:tructfon. llr •. G.rig9s 1 own conclusion obout the effects of seawalls, in a manus~ript 'ubmitted to the Journal of CoJstal Restoration titled."The lmoacts of Seawal1s on Oeaches" is:
..
. Based on 12 mon:hs of surveying at 4 loc~tions iri northern_ Monterey Bay (including a winter of ~nly mild or.moderat~ wave conditions} \.Jhere sea\.Jalls or revetments abut unprotected beaches, som~ consistent ·s~asonal beach cnan~es have been docomented. These changes or dif ferenccs in oeach profiles are a r(:sult of greater H:lve reflection from 1ne protective structures than from The adjact:nt control; beaches. All of these changes observed in this study, .. appear to be temporary or seasona 1 in natur~ and ar~ best developed in the fa~l ond winter months during tnc transition from surnm1:r S\.Jel1 to winter storln conditions.
lhe seasonal effects docum~nted include:
l) Loss of the sunlllcr berm sooner in front of all :cawalls relative to adjacent unprotcct~d iontrol beaches. 1 2) erosion of the berm in front of a vertical .impcrmi:able ~cawa 11 (due to grc.ltcr \.JJVc rl!f11~r-tion} before berm loss on an adjJccnt b~ach bJckcd by a penncJb}c slopin9 revetment. J} A lJck of si•JniiicJnt cJif fcrcncc in \.llntcr bcJch -prof i lt..~ sc:.:i1.Jar<J oJ ~c-l~a 11 ~ or revetments and JdjJccnt ...... -----.... - .. ·-· control beJChc~. ~ i:.-·~ 1.~"' .. '7 .2 5
1.. • "'---~ 3;(~ ~---~ .•• /:~ ':-•! :--:: ----.!so-~
.. _ ---..-.-.. - .. ---.--
..
•'
. · . .....
e.
SI!~!
..
si:unCLlllE PROHCl lOll/,\CCCSS f lllOlllGS
the beJtn, .:inj cJ.;<;c .:!::c~\u~tcd L!rusion of the do\..'ncc..:ist ar-.:.:i. One 1111!chJn\$m that .lcco.:nts for roe~ .... .ills' ii:ipJCt en bcJcti..:s is st.ltL'~ in "Thi? l!oli.? of 11.lvc Ref lctticn in CoJStJl FroCc!SSeS" in fO.lStJ\ s~dim~nt~ 1 11 by RlchJrd Silvester (pagl°? £>'~3}:
......_:. - ·- ... Rubble-mJund struct~res cJn refl~ct l~n9 period w.lve components with· little dissipation and ~ence short-crested phenomena [~aves] in front of and downcoast from them · • should be consid~rcd in di.?$ign and maint~nan~e.
Moreover, the literatur~ o~ ~oastal cn9ineerin9 repeatedly warns th~t unprotected· properties·adjacent to the seawall may experi~nce increased erosion. A rock wall very of ten protrudes ~eaward from development and exacerbates this situation. Field observati~ns ~ave verified this concern, see for example t~e paper by Gerald G. Kuhn of· the Scripps Institution of Oceanography entitled "c°oanal Erosion al~rng OceJnside Littoral Call, San Diego County, Cal~fornia~ (1981). In thjs paper, it is uritten and pictorially ill~strated that erosion .on properties adjacent to rock seawall is intensified.Yh~n wave.run-up·is high. This subject ~s presently being• researched.by scienti~ts at Oregon State University~ Tne preliminary results of that work was reported in.MLaboratory and Field Investigations of t~a Impact of Shoreline Stabilization Structures on Adjacent PropertiesM by H.G. • HcOou9al, H.A. Sturtennt, and P.O. r.omar in Coast:i\ Sediments 1 07. These researchers are investigating the length of shoreljne afftcted oy height~ned erosion adjacent to seah'alls. Their conclusion. is. (Rage 912):
Results to date indicate that erosion-at the ends of seawalls increa~es as the ~tructure length increases. It was observed in both the e:perimental results and the field data of Walton and Sensab~ush (1910) that the depth of excess erosion is approximnely 10~ of the· sea"'wall length. The hb.oratory data also revealed that the along-coast length of excess erosion at each end of the structure is approxrniately 10~ of tile structure l en9th. •
2. ~Concerns involvin9 both types of seawalls
A d1scussion of the physical processes of wave run-up on a natural shore ~ill ~elp establisl1 the ef fccts of seawalls on short:linc proce~sc~. Slndy beaches arc dynamic ~yst1:ms, the indi.vido.il CJrarn~ of sand adjun quicl:ly to rcflt:ct tiot~1 th<: over a\ l supply of ~~diincnt and thi: onl)oing force~ .of wave':;". A ty cal non-~t.onn profile of the bcach 1001:$ lH.c this: (from ushorc Pr :cction in C.:lifornia, 01100, B1&)
. ·----. ·- - 9 -· • - ""'! ·"' • .., 2 7
..:-~:/;, ':'-.-~--. . 311-*
~ .... ..........,....._.. •• a.. JI',._.,-.
..... ·-... .. • _ .. , .... _ .. _. __ ,_ 'h ~.
•
...
.e.
I I
SllO!:(Llll( Pi:uii:C11DN/,\CC£SS Fl~OlliCS
At this prof11e. the shore has adjusted to a lou-ener9y \.lave environment, rt!f1 ecting the short period, 101-1 energy \./.lves· that. strike the b.:?ach. The next diagram shows how a beach adjusts to longer period, higher ener9y yave!::
This cross section illustrates several important things about the bejches' adjunmc:"rit to the higher 1:nl!rgy of striking \.laves. first, the \1.:ivc energy has eroded material from the foreshore and depo~ited the material of f-shori: in a bar. Second, the shoreline profile flatt1:n~i to absorb the gre.:iti!r amount of \.Jave ener9y, even with \./ilvcs breaking on th.c bar.. These adjunrncnts arc fundamentill to the ~hare's adju~tment to high 1.Ji1Ve i:ncrgy. ·The migration of the matr:rial to an of f-shorc bar c.:iu~e~ \.l.l'r'cs to brc.:ik 1n dccpcr 1.1Jtcr, a11d begins the proci:ss of cncr']y dtssip.nion f :.a.r from tile inlilnd exti:rrt of tilt: be.sch. ihc dynamic procc~~ of crodinlJ material from the foreshore enable: the ~horclinc to Jb~orb \.JJVC cntr']'j. lhiS prOCl!SC: !JOl!S on Continuously, ff-a fr°iVfl\J .2 8 short! prof\ le: i~ not suff idrnt to 11b::or1J \.JJVC encrw \.Jitlwut further c-r-o~i'Af!-: r-1t11t'ir~,.,,,, •n•t 0.,•bl 11 ml'IVl'tl frnrn tho• •hor1• to Tht' hJr' to inrr1~1)':C lhl!.- '·'-J~1~-
-·-~·- .......... _ ... __ , __ ~-~---
.·
s1101:CL\ll( P1rnrcc110:\/1'.CC(S$ f11101/IG$
beJch that rests cit~er tt!cpcrlrily or pi!r~Jncntly Jt a st~cper angle than unoer nJ~ur.:i1 CJndition~ will hjv~ less l:v:·i11.1ntJl ctiHJllt:c bctwl!cn the linl!!: of meJn low wJtl!r ancJ mean t.i~n 1-t::tcr. Tnis rc:i.Jucc~ the Jctu.:il <irca ira w1ich the p~blic can pJss on property over whicn it has r.i9hts of access, and ·u1erefore advl!rscly afft!C'LS puolic .:ic;:~~s. The recent' work t;y C.lry Griggs demonstrates that a-n~.<;h in froht_pf a ~e~w.a_ll is narrowu th.Jn a b~ach not affected by a seawall along tne same stretch of ~oastline. The effect of that
. ' . . narrowness is.to r~duce the area located sea~ard of ih~ ordin~ry high Wjter mar~ (or mean high water mar~) that would othel"rlise b~ avail4ble for public use. This effect can occur even where the maximum summer \.Jidth of the beach is essentially unchanged, and represents a temporal loss of acces~ due to sea~all construction. Th~ second effect on acce$S i~ through a progres!:ive 1oss c;f sand as :shore materi.J l is not available to n·ouri!:h the bar. The lack of an effective bar can allow such high.wave energy on the shoreline that materials may be 1ost ~ar offshore where it is no long1r available to nourish the beach.; The effects of this on the putllic are agAin a loss of useable tidelands area where the public has use ·rights. Third, ,seawalls cumul<ltively affect public access by causin9 greater e:osinn on adjacent public beaches.· This effect may not become ·clear until .seawalls are constructed individually along .a shoreline until they reach a public beach. The reci:ot wor~ at Oregon State University demonstrates the magnitude of this impact, which is of 9reater concern as more of California is armored". Fourth, seawa1ls, by their occupation· of beach area which may be seasonally either subject to ~ave action or actually below the most landward locations of the mean high tide line, 1nterf ere directly with areas of the beach in which the public has owner~hip interest or public trust related rights. Finally, materials uttached to ~he seawall falJ off and roll onto the sandy beach \./here they may also prese~i physica1 hazards and obstacles to access. This is an inevitable result rif flexibl~~tructures such ai rev~tments under Yavc attack, and eyen with ihe most conscientious maintenance efforts, such m<iterial rolls down onto the public portions of the shore where it interferes at least temporarily with
,•
··· .. , pub1ic access. Finally, the CorM1ission finds that because it \.Jill formalize the publicvs right to use for recreational purposes an area of the beach where pennission for use could othel"rlise ·oe withdrawn, a dedication of an casement in favor of the people of the State of California over (the area as described in· the conditions of· approval involving recording of Jn offer to <ledicate) will operate directly·to compen~~tc the public for, and thus alleviate, the burdens dl!scribed above. ·
•
The Convniision finds that the probable negative impacts of this seawall must be weighed against the property owner• s nteo to protect the ~tructure behind it. The Conmission rccogniles that the seawan will probably change th~. beach prof11e by-steepening it and increasing beach erosion around it: this i~t9rn will interfere with and d~crease the amo~nt of sandy bc!ach availa~lc for public access. A stated elstwherc in these findings, Scc~ion 30235 allows fdr the u~e of such a device Ml1crc it is required to protect an existing structure and wile re: it~ has been des i')nl!d to mi ti9ate Jdvtrsc impacts upon loc<t l shoreline sand supply. AlLhouqh th~ sc.iwall has been required to De locat~d and dc!;i9ncd to minimi?c i:ncro.ichrncnt onto the be:ich and imp.let on adj.1ccnt
. - -·~- ___ , ._, - ;<I •• ry ·- 9
..... -..l-.8.-~- -
~ =-·~.1l,.Q_,_ ... -..... ... - ••• -~-......--~------- w.- ••
..
- .. f
•
St10f.£Llt1C f'l:OHCT!Crl/:,cccss flNDlllGS
distance between the bar and tne inl~nd extent of the wave uprush. The vJluc of thl! bar c.unnot I.le ovi?r-i!mph.lsizi!d, it is on the qar thJt ~tinti?r wJv•~S -brea~.· and the <lynJmic processes cf the actual sllore)ine ure affcc,ted lly Have
.uprush, not ~ctuJ) breil~ini waves. . . ' ·the next diagram waS'iii1:0e t>y superim~osfog-a--revctment on 1he shoreline profiles th~t ~e sa~ in the last diagram:
: • Cu_tl • ' i. .... ;lo, : ' ..
• C111I • .. I ~ . . .. , .
I ''""'~;., I . . . :._~l~:·;/0?~ ·"· ... . . . i i
: .. =:.:.:.--:_ .... ,. F/:/~;- . . . : : ...- .• ;;;,~. ,:/-/"'•% • 4' • \ : . . ···~" ,,. . . . .. I• ' • -;l'. :Z-/:y/,'). • j • ', • • " ~.; . . • . - ~;.x:~ . . • • . • • . • • ~... "::r.J~~..._- ---- , ·• '• I.•,• • •• _:.~.::_~,~ • ~, •• ' • : !uHw • ·: •:- • • • • ... ; .. z·-~.:.:.-==.;:.;""""--- ~·----..:•---:-.·---...•· 1
• • ••• -er:-...... -_.__., .. ~==---_ - '-- · ~ " j ' I ~:--:: .;.• ·.f~~:!:;~R~:~~~ .. 'r...;J~-· ~···~ •1• • • • "• • ,- .. -- .. ;..:.:.,-"'lt-:i~~-:;I ,..,.ti',",,•• ,.:. :;~ ·.·:.~ '•.;:-.~·r ;-~ .-1 !~= • ·:.·: -~-;.-_;~L!i~.;=7::.;;~~:· ... :f-·:•·····:·::;· .. ···':'-;.f:::.::.::··.,,!.:.,~~·:·:;.:~· u.~"' ··: ··" • • ..... .,-..~,..c.- -----.-.-i,11o.; •. .. i.. • ......... ~.. • •
~~:-~·· .:· ... •: . .. . , . .. :··· : . : -. .. : 6,- -~~·... I· • • · • •• :-• •• .. • • •• . .. • A.CC"£ flCU . ' • '·-....·. ·• •:.·~:~ .-:· · ?••"" C·-sc~w:irr Ptolilo: !' • • \. • .: :";"' .... ••. .. ........ -· -··. 1. . • . • • • • • • ···- .l'.'l•.•1 ·.!~-·.--:.--..:J
This diagram i.llustrat.er'drarnatically the effect of a seawall on the shoreline. The material sho1.1n iii cross-hatching is the materia) formerly available to nourish the bar. This material is now unavai)ab)c because it is e~ther behind the sea~all, or has been replac~d by the seawall. As a result, the bar receives 1ess nourishment. This makes the bar )ess effective in causing waves to break offshore,. and results in' 9reater wave l!Oergy reaching the shoreline. That enr.fgy'is t!1en dissipated by uprush and reflection ag;iinst -;_he .face of the r~vetm~p.'t. However, since mo.r1? ener9y comes on-shore, more enirgy is reflected and sand is scoured frcm the base of the revetment. The CollVllissi'oit 'concludes from the opinion of experts and from an analysis of
•• ., the procesi of shoreline dynamics that placement of a seawa11 ~ithin the areas 'of a shore affected by t~ose proces~es adversely affects ·shoreline processes in front of ·the sea\.-/all;,as well as property on either side of the s::auall •. Obvious1y the impact of\a ~ef.tl.ci~1,l is greater the more often it is exposed to wave attac~, and seawall's ·iocated far up the beach have less impact than seaualls lo\.-/er on the beach. For Site Specific Analysis refer 10 Specific findin9 in attached staff report.
J. Pub)ic Access. Given the adverse effects of sea~alls on shoreline proc1:ss1:~. the Corrmission must no1J turn its attention to the ovcral1 impact that th~~c chan9ed shorclin~ processes ~ill have on public access. As noted in the CommiBion's find\n9s on th~ 'public trust, the public has ownership and
.• use r\9hts in the lands of the Sutc seaward· of the ordinary hi9h-~ner tnJrk. Seawalls affl?ct thi: pu~lic's ownership and use ri9hts by tcndin9 to eventually fix the line. of rne:in hi9h tide: at or nl?ilr the sea\.-/a}l. This 1nttrfercncc ~itn a dynJmic sys~cm then hJ~ J numller of effects on the publ1c's ownership inlcrc~t~. firn, c11.:in111:s in the ~horclinc profile, part1cuLlrly ch.lll'JCS in the slope Of the profih·, Jltcr the usb1lilc :ircJ un<Jer pu!Jllc ow11~r~hip. A
·------:!""~-"----.. ::·. ~.. . . :.~._2-;.7 .3 0
·" "£,: .. ~.:;..=.,_3117 --- _ .. -- .... ~- ... -----~,.,.,.,_ ... -
... .. . ...
• •
SllOP.(LHIC: Prw:ccT!Oll/1\CCESS FINDINGS PJ91! l l
properti~s. the Corrmission f incs tn~s~ ~eJsures in~ufficient to fully mitigate the effects of the sea~Jll on snorl!line sand supply. Thus, only as conditioned to require the dedicJtivn of a public ~ccess easl!ment cJn the ColJYllission find the proje~t·consistent with Sections 30235, 30210 and 30212 of the-Coastal t.ct. · . . --.. :•.:.
- ·-· .t ••
· This fin~i~g only covers the shore-Processes for aspects of the impacts on ·public acc~ss. for analyses of any historic public use, refer to attJched
•
.....
staff staff report's access findings.
.
..
OOOSP
. . .. ! . :
i : I
' .
: ' f:. .;-. (:~ •• "- _ ... __ ... ______ ,
CALIFORNIA COAS1 AL COMMISSION SHORELINE .PROTECTION APPLICATION
INCLUDING COPIES OF APPLICATION AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF DEL MAR
. ~ • I
FOR THE SHORELINE PROTECTION PERMIT AND THE CITY'S RESOLUTION APPROVING :IT
--------'---------- GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Walter F. Crampton Barry R. Bevier Phillip c. slrkhahn Braven R. Smillie
;-1s. Ellen Lirley CALIFORNIA COA-STAL COMMISSION 3111 Camino Dal ·,Rio North San Diego, California 92108
SHORELINE PROTECTION APPLICATION FOR CONS'l'RUCTION OF A VERTICAL SEAWALL BETWEEN 1924 - 2102 OCEAN FRONT DEL MAR, CALIFORN]A
Dear Ms. Lirley,:
Engir.Eieis and· G9ulogists 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123 -Tel (619) 573-1777 Fax (619) 573·0069
I
'l.'HE'
' .j
: I
Project No. 1254-EC02 May 22, 199!.
Please fing enclosed the Application for Coastar Development Permit, al,1Jng with all of the required items listed in Section 5 {Addition~i Attachments) for a 727±-foot-long seawall t~ be constructed as a single continuous structure fronting sixteen (16) private residences and two city street-ends between 1924 and 2102 Ocean Front within the City of Del Mar, California.
As we have previously discussed, considerable information has previously been provided to the City of Del Mar memorializing our basic approach to design. Those documents form the basis for the project now submitted to the Californiq Coastal Commissic.i,n. In this regard, we have also included, in 1.two bound volumes, all of the correspondence and rRports prepare&~or the subject seawall. Please note that two formal reports have been submitted, along with considerable correspondence and, ultimately, a lot-by-lot analysis describing the relationship of the V~Lious private improvements to t:he proposed seawall, along ~ith an overview of the geotechnical conditions as they relate to construction-period damage potential, and additional text descLibing the protective screen wall element.
l>Je believe that you will find all of the enclosed reports and. correspond~nce to be .of use in your evaluation of this application, and we believ~ thi·.5 information represents a very ·thorough and comprehensiv~ assessment of the coastal, geotechnical, .and design conditions as·sociated with this application. We wish to p.oint out,
\ I ,
"-·--
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION . Project No. 1254-£C02
May 22, 1991 Page 2
however, that the lot-by-lot onalysis, Appendix A of the April 9, 19911 supplement Report packet to the City Council Members, was conp\'.l:ed at a City Council Member's l;"equest within a very short ti:.e 'frame. Unfortunately, due to the time limitation, it was not possible to provide a truly comprehensive lot-by-lot analysis of the needs for, and impacts associated with, the construction of the proposed seawall. We have submitted it as it was submitted to the City,, Council fo_~ your review. However, we wish to point out that the lot-by-lot afi'a!ysis was not prepareP,, with the same care and attention to detail a~ the remainder of the documentation submitted for this project.
,J ; I
Lastly, pleas~ find eridlose& the application fee in the amount of $500.00 for the standard permit application.
!f you ~ave any questions or require additional information, please give us a call.
e Very truly 7s,
Walt~~on, Principal Engineer for GROUP DEL'l'A CONSULTANTS, INC.
WFC/jc Enclosures
cc: Mr. Earle W. Frey Mr. Bob Wilson Mr. & Mr~-. Joseph Sul"li van Mr. John Mackel, Sullivan, Workman & Dee
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. L-------·__.-~~
State of California, George Deukmejian, Governor California Coastal Commission 1333 Camino Del Rio, South, Suite 125 San Diego, Ca 92108 (619} 297-9740
APPLICATION EOR COASTAL .DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Tvpe of application:
X Standard Pennit Administrotive Perr.iit: (May be applicable if - development is ore of the fo 11 owing:
SEC!ION I. APPLICANT
(a) improve~ent to any existing structure; (b) any new development costing less. than
5100,000; (c) single family dwelling; (d) four dwelling units Qr less, within any incorporated ar~a. that does not require demolition or subdivision-of land; or (e) development authorized 3S ~ principal permitted use and. proposed in an arP.a for which the Land Use Pl~n has ~~e~ ~ertified.
1. Name, mailing address and telephone number of all applicants.
SEE ATIACllMENT A
(Area code/dayt1~e phcne numoerJ
2. HJme, nailing address and telephone number of applicJnt's representative, if any.
r.nouP .. nELTh C:ONC\Ut.ThNTS, TN<:. - \.ihLTF.R F. C:RhMJ>TON, Pl<TNC:TPhJ. ENGTNEER
4455 MURPllY CANYON ROAD, SUI.TE 100, SAN DIEGO, CAJ.H'OIWIA 92123
((>19) 573-1777 ,area code/daytime phone ~umber)
For office use onl..Y.
Application tlur.iber ~--~-----------
(1) Project ·:ost
Received Filed Juri sdi c.t ion code --~-- --~~~~--
LCP segment -Geo Ref Code Tentative hearing date ----------x {6) y
( 3)
(4)
(5)
( 7) '\
~ ......... - ........... -... .... _c.. _____ "'-"-..C.
3. ,who shoulct receive written material relevant to the application? 0Applicant [!]Representative Onoth and Mr. John N~_ckcl@ S•Jlli.vnn, Workman,.
& Dec, 800'S. Figueroa, 61200, Los
4. Conflict of Interest. All applicants for the development must complete Angeles, Appendix A, the declaration of campaign contributions. CA 90017
SECTIOR II. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Pl~ase answer ALL qµestions. Where questions do not apply to your project (for instance, proj,ect height for a land division), indicate "Not ApplicJble 11
or 11 N.A:"
·. ·.1. Project Location. Include street address, city, and/or county. If .;:1\1::~e i~ no street address, include other description such as nearest cro~~ street3.
Scawail constructed westerly of existing residcnlinl structures locnted at number.(8) ~treet l9)
1924 through 210°:2 Ocean Front, Del Mar, California
·city (10) county {11) .!
SEE ATTACHMENT A
2. Describe the proposed development. Include secondary improvements such as septic tanks, water wells, roads, etc.
Construction of a vertical wall within S feel westward of the shoreline
protect i.on li~ne, as a protective strm.:,~ure designed Lo protect ex isling
residential structures and property from ocean flooding ond wove damage.
a) If res~i den tia 1 , state:
1 ) Mumber of uni ts N/A . ( 28)
2) Number of bedrooms per unit N/A ( 28)
3) Type of ownership propos~d: 0renta1 N/A (if other than owner-occupied)O condominium
Dstock cooperative
Otime share
Doth er
b) Number of boat slips, if applicable Mlll ( 29)
c) If land division, nur.ber of lots to be created and size N/A
2 "'-----·---~ ... ··~"""" ._.......,_,.......,~-.. ~~ '
3. Present use of property.
a) Are there existing structures on the property? lKhes D No If yes, describe (including number of residential units and occu~any stutus). t)
Sixteen single-family residences on snvcntccn lots, with westerly
patios, decks, fences, and riprap.
b) \.Jiil any existing structures be demolished? !!I Yes D No
Will any existing structures be removed? [X]Yes 0No
Jf yes to either question, describe the. type of development to be demolished or removed, includingt,the relocation site, if applicuble.
Riprap uill be removed and portions o[ patios, decks, roof cave overhangs, sun rooms, walls and Icnces \~111 be removed or dcmoll.shcil,
-___ · -~--------..,...,.......,:_· __________ (31) as necessary. .
4. Estimated cost of development (not including cost of lancl) $ 1,000,000 (32)
5. Has any application for a development on this site been submitted previously to the California Coastal Zone Conservation C01runission or the Coastal Commission? 0 Yes [XJ No
If yes, state previous application number~_N_/A ____________ ~---
6. Project height: Maximum height of structure 16.33 (t, MSL Datum ft
Maximum height of structure as measured from centerline of frontage rfJad. ____ N.....:/_A;__ __ .....:·;.......-ft
7. Total n~~~?.r of floors in structure, including subterranean floors, 1ofts, and mezzanines N/A
--~--------------------------
-f., Gross flour area including covered parking and acc;:essory buildings _ _,_N;.:_/~/, ___________ _ sq ft
sq ft Gross floor area excluding .parking N/A
sq 9. Lot area (within property lines) ___ ~N~/.:..:A _______ _ ft or acres
Lot coverages :
Building coverage
Paved area
New proposed
----sq ft
.·-.---sq ft
Tota 1
sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft
___ sq ft
_____ sq ft
No change, other than t:o remove portions of patios, landscnping, and riprnp (I in order to develop more useahlc public bench. --· -;;;--;~·...,--'-
"" •• ~;I\:'! , 3 7
Landscaped area
Unimproved area
3 .. " " - . ...... 31~~";_ • . ., '.. • .~.. - "'-il-Z ! .... _ .. .._ .. w-__,;.....;o..,.;;..--,,. __________ _..__....:
10. Parking: number of spaces existing
number of new spaces propos~d
Tota),
· no. of covered spaces
no. of standard spaces
no. of compact spaces ---
N/A
no. of uncovered spaces
size· ---size ----
Is tandem parking existing and/or proposed? 0Yes DNo If ,yes, hm'I many, tandem sets?
. -, ... ~ Are utility extensions for the following needed to serve the project?
8
a) water 0Yes lXJ No· d) se1.,,er 0Yes (!]No b) gas 0Yes lXJ No e) telephone 0Yes lXJ No c} electric 0Yes [XJ No
If yes to any of the above, would extensions.:be above ground? 0Yes 0No ; I
SECTION I I I. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The relationship of the development to the applicable items below must ~e explained fully. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
l. lf the development is between the first public road and the sea, is .public access to the shoreline and along the coast currently avai'lable near the site? l]Y~s 0No If yes, indicate the location of the nearby access, including the distance from the project site.
·within the site, public access is currently available and will continue to
be provided at the 20th and 21st Street street-ends.
2. ls any grading proposed? 0Yes OCJNo If yes, comp1ete the following.
a) amount of cut cu yds ---. b) amount of fil 1 ----------·_cu yds
c} maximum height of fill slope -------~--~-ft d) maximum height of cut slope rt ---------------e) amount of import or export -...,.-------,---------· -cu yds f) location of borrow or disposal sh:~ ------.---. -~
Grading and drainage plans must be included with this application. In certain areas, and engineering geology report must also be included~ See Section V, paragraph 11 for the specifics of these requirements.
" . --.... -.,... -----..
4
............... ,.. . .__ . .._ ~--,.. .. ~~.
3. Does t.he development involve diking, filling, dredging or placing structures in open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, or lakes?
a) diking Dves [!)No c) dredging 0Yes lKJ No e b) fil 1 i ng Dves []No d) p 1 a-cement of struc.tures 0Yes [!)No
Amount of material to be dredged or filled cu yds.
location of dredged material disposal site
Has a U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers pennit been applie'd for? D Yes m No
4. Wi~l the development extend onto or adjoin any beach, tidelands, submerged lands or public trus~ l<!11ds? lKJYes Dr·lo
For projects on State-owned lands, additional infonnation may ':le r..?quired as set forth in Section V, para~raph 10.
: 5. Will the di>velopment protect existing · . 1t will provide protection to public
1 - · · t d t · 1 f · 1 · t · ? r:1 y 0 N fncilities as::ocintr:d wilh ower-cost v1s1 or an recrea lona ac1 l les. w.es Othelifcgunrdtower ·(showers, landscaping, benches .•. drinking fountains) locnlcd at Lhe end of 20th Slreet.
Will the development provide public or private recreational opportunities? (!]Yes 0No 'If yes, exp 1 a in.
It will provide public beach accesswnys at the 20th Jnd 21sl Slrer!L strrel·c:>nd'.;, .ind 111i.ll provide funds necessary to remodel the 20th Street lifeguard facility so Lhat it conforms to the boundaries of the shorrline proleclion·~rea.
·6. Will the proposed development convert land currently or previously used for agriculture to another use? 0Yes [!]No
r f ye!'.i, how many acres wi 11 be converted? ___________ . acres.
7. Is the proposed development in or neai•:
a) sensitive habitat areas 0Yes (]No (biological survey may be required)
b) 100-year floodplain Ov· ,.es []No (hydr6log1c mapp1ng may be required)
c) park or recreation area [X]Yes Q,No
8. Is the prbposed development visible from:
a) US Highway 1 or other scenic route 0 Y~s []No
b) park, beach, or recreation area []Yes 0No
c) harbor area 0Yes (]No
9. Does the site contain any:
a) historic resources D Yes [)No
b) : ~haeological resources 0Yes []No
0Yes [)No e
-- '<\"~·7· -3 0 c) paleontolo9ical resources
If yes to any of the above, please
5
explain on an attached sliee t. .. .J:-.:. . .. --~ ... 3~1 ·'Y~ ... _. __
.~ ~ - A:;o . ,.,. ..... , .......... ~~". ~
D
10. Hherr? a stream or spri.19 is to be diverted. provide the following information:
Estimated streamflow or .spring yield __ N_/_A __________ gpm
If well is being used, exi~·,ting yield._..:..:N.:...;/A~ __________ gpm
If water squrce is on adjacent 1property, attac~ Division of Wat~r Rights approval and property owner's ~pproval.
SECTION IV. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL 'REQUIREMENTS
The Local Agency Review Form, Appendix 13. must be completed and signed by the local government in whose jurisdiction the project site is located. The completed and signed form must be submitted with this application for the application to be considered complete. · ·
SECTION V. ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS
The follo•:ing items must be submitted with this form as part of the application.
l. Proof of the applicant's legal interest~, the property.· (A copy of any of the following will be acceptable: current tax bill, recorded deed. signed Offer to Purchase al0ng with a receipt of deposit. signed final escrow document, or current policy of ti.tle insurance. Preliminary title ·reports will net be accepted.)
O 2. Assessor's parcel map(s) showing the appiicant's property and all other properties within 100 feet (excluding roads) of the property lines of the project siti::. (Available from the County Assessor)
D
D
0
3. Copies of re~uired local approvals for the proposed project. including zoning variances. use permits, etc., as noted on '")Cal Agency Review Form, Appendix B.
4. Stamped r:nvelopes addressed to each property ownc' and occupant of p'r:pperty s i tua t~'J within 100 feet of the property 1i nes o{ 'the project site ( exc~l udi no roads), along with a list containing the names, addresses and assessor's parce·1 .• 1umbers of same. The envelopes must be plain (i.e., no return address), and reg.ular business size (912" x 4 1/8"). Include first class postage on ~ach one. Metered envelopes will not be accepted. Use Appendix-~. attached, for the listing of names and addresses. (Alternate :notice provtt;;1ons may be employed at the discretion of the District Director 1under e~t~aordinary circumstances.) (Envelopes a.re not required for .l\dminis::.rative items. but the list :"vst be sutmitted for all items.)
S. Stamped. addressed envelopes and a list of names and 1'\ddresses of all other pdrties known to the applicant to have an interest in the proposed dcvelo~nent (such as persons expressing interest at a local government hear.ing, etc.).
6. A vit1niXy or location map (copy of Thomas Bros. or other road map or USGS quad map'). ,with the project site clearly marked. - . -~ -:;;;· .. ·r-o-
•. --~---"~~-?~....c~-=-~
6 i·~' I • - • ,_;:v_,__ 3J,~t:._,._ i. ..... ,-~• • - .. -·· __ ... ·~~.._ .... ..._9MI.' •
D 7. Copy(s) of project plans, dra\'m to scale, including site plans, floor plans, elevations. crrading anq drainage plans, landscape plans, and septic system plans. Trees to be removed must be marked on the site plan. In addition, a reduced site plan, fl!:." x 11" in size, must be submitted. Reduced copit:s of complete project plans \'/ill be required for large projects.
0 8. Application fee. The fee for a 11 admi ni s tra five ca 1 enda r i terns is $25.
D
D
The fee for all consent calendar items is $50. The fee for regular calendar i~ems varies depending upon the project size. Contact District Office for exact fee. Only checks or money orders accepted; cash is not accepted. Fee is payable at time of application submittal.
9 •. Where septic systems are ~roposed, evidence of County approval or Regional .. Water Quality co·ntrol ~oard approval. Where water wells are proposed,
evidence of County revie~1 and appr.:iva 1.
10. A copy of any Final Negative Declaratip!), Fi.nal Envir•onmental Jmpact n~port (FEIR) or Final Environmental Impact Sta~~ment (FEIS) prepared for the project. Comments of a 11 revie\'jing agencies and responses to co11u11ents must be included. I ..
11. Verification of all other permits, pennissions or approvals applied for or granted by public agencies (e.g •• Dept. of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission, U.S. 'Anny Corps of Engfoeers, U.S. Coast Guard).
12. Fqr development on a blp-:f face, bluff top, or in any area of high geologic risk,, a comprehensive, site-specific geology and soils report (including map:;,j prepared in a~cordance with the Coastal Corr.mission's Interpretive Guio.e,Unes. Copies of the guidelines are available from the District Office.
SECTION Vl. NOTICE TO APPLICANTS
Under certain circumstances,,. addition~11 materiai' may be required prior to issuance of a coastal development perii1it. For example, where offers of access or open spac~ dedication are required, preliminary title reports, land surveys, legal descriptions, subordination agreements, and other outside agreemem~s will be required prior to issuance of the per1111t.
In addition, the Conznisslon may adopt or ~mend regulations affecting th~ issuance of coastal devefbpment permits. lf you would lik~ notice bf such proposals during the pen~ency of this application of such pr~pcsals that are reasonably related to this application indicate that desire.
·m Yes D No
SECTION VI I. AUTHORIZATION OF AGENT
' - -· ___ ... __ _
SECTION VI I I. CERTIFICATION
1. I hereby certify that I, or my authorized representative, wil,l complete and post the Notice of Pending Pennit card in a conspicuous place on the property within 3 days of receipt of the cord and notification of filing of this application.
2. I hereby, certify that I understand the Conmission may impose reasonable conditions that must be satisfied by persons. that are not a party .to this application .9nd that prior to issuance of the permit, I must submit evidence that the conditions will be satisfied by the appropriate parties.
3. I hereby certify that I. have read this ·completed application an,~''that, to the best of my knowledge, the 'infonnation in this application .dnd. all attached appendices and exhibits is complete and correct. I, /understand that any misstatement or omission of the requested information. or of any information subsequently requeste1~ shall be groun.ds for denying the permit, for suspend fog or revoking a perml't issued on the basis of these or subsequent representq tions, or for seeking o~ such• further re 1 i ef as may seem proper to the Conmission. :
4. I hereby authorize representatives of tile California Coos·ta·i Corrrnission to 1.ondu.:c site. inspections on my property. Unless arraf!ged otherwise, these site inspections shall take place between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.
SECTION XIV •. COMMUNICATION WITH COMMISSIONERS
Decisions of the Coastal Conmission must be made on the basis of infonnation avanable ,to all cornnissioners and the public. Therefore, permit applicants and interested parties and their representatives are advised not -to discuss with co111nissioners any matters relating to a permit outsi.de the public hearing. Such contacts may jeopardize the fairness of t.')e hearing and result in invalidation of the Co1mlission 1 s decision by court. r.._ny written material sent to a commissioner should also be sent to the conmission office for inclusion in the public record and distribution to other convnissioners. ,,..
-.: · ~;-7·:z-r ·l ·---~~ .............. _ ......
. ' _ .. 3129 : ··--:" ·~-----:----;
a
....,.., -·--~~'-r',."'-!'~W~
APPLICATION FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPENDIX A
DECLARATION OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUT !OtlS
Government Code Section 84308 .prohibits any Commissioner voting on a project if ·.h.e or she has received campaign contributions of $250 or more within the past year from project proponent~ or opponents, their agents, e~p1oyees or family, or any person with a financial interest in the project.
In the event of such contributions, -a Commissioner must disqualify nim 1Jr herself from voting on the project; failure to do so may le3d to re~6cation of the permit. ,
I . . . Each applicant must declare below whether any such contributions have been made to any of the Conuniss:ioners or Alternates. A list of Conunissioners and Alternates is available from the District 9ff~ce.
CHECK ONE
x The applicants, their agents, employees, fa;;:i!/Y :ind ~r:i;; person with a financial interest in the project HAVE HG~~QN~~lSUTED $250 or more to a"1y Com:nissioner( s) or Alternates wi~hl.n tne pa$t ;ear.
The applicants, their agents, employees, and/or f3~il~~ 3nd/or any person having a financial inter~st in the project HAVE CONTRIBUTED $250 or niore to the Commissioner( s) or Alternates listed oelow within the past year.
Commissioner
~ ~ . ~~--~~~--~~~-~-IA_Y_2_2_,--J9~9-l----~
Signa~ Authorized Agent Date
WALTER F. CRAMPTON e - -............ ~ .. -.... -~ .. - - ,'\; .«> ''"1 4 3 ' # .. _ ..... ..J;,.~ ... -·--- '
3130 . .. _ .. - .. -·---·
J\rPLI CATI ON FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
A1;:mm1x a
LOCAL AGENl Y REV I EH FORM
lSECTION A (TO be completed by applicant)!
Appl'icant 'w11LTFI? F. CRllMP'l'ON, crrnup DF.LTA CONSULTANTS, INC • .. . Project description Construction of d vertirdl wall w1ttun u-1~ shoreline prot~ction ~reJ, or within
5 I eet westwar::d of the shoreli11e proE~ction line, as a protective stxvclure CJ~s1gneCJ to proli:cl ,, existing residential struclures and prgperty from ocean flooding and wave damage.
location 'le-iwall con'itructc.>d wPsterly of existing residentidl structures locat11d at 1924 through
2102 Ocf!nn Front, Del M:sr, CA _Assessor's Parcel Number SEE ATTACllME.N1' A -=-=-..:==.:....:..:.:.:.:..:.:.J~;.:....:..:=.Jr-:;~---""' '
ISCCTlON O (To be completed by local planning or buHding ins'pection department)! •
Zoning designation Public Parkland/ Rt-Sb 'I . '
General or Cournunity Plan desig.nationaeaches/ Bluffs
Local Discretionary Approvals
du/ac
du/ac
0 Proposed deve 1 opment meets a 11 zoning requirements and needs no loca 1 permits other than building pennits.
[]Proposed devr.lopnll!nt needs local discretionary approvals noted be10l'J.
Nr.r.dPd Rrrriy~d
D 0 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 D
D 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 D ~
Desi911/Architectural review Variance for ------Rezone from -----Tentative Subdivision/Parcel Map No. ------· Grading/Land Development Permit No. -------· Planned Resi den ti a 1/Conunercia1 Development
Site Plan Review
Condominium Conversion Permit
Condition' , , Special, or Major Use Pennit No. ---...,..--0th er Sharline Protection Permit (SPP)
CEQA Status
0 Cate9orical ly Exempt - Class ____ ,_.-Ite1!l ____ _
[]l Negative Declaration Gr.Jnted __ A_.p_r_i_l _1_5 __ ,_1_9_9_L._-__ _
0 (nvironmcntJl fmp<ict Report Required, Final ~eport certified ---.... -=-.-----• ,fl •7 4 I
Prcpu~.d for the City/County of flpl Mar ,-__:.:__by
)Cr..L:.:,·;0 ..... :. 9"?~·-· -~· 4, f .,., ···-r vC-..~ i
Chris ~f11·~~rc :~ .. ~-- -::·.-.~~ T.\ t-ln "' ,, ............ ..
Appl. tlo ·--------
APPLICATION FOR CO/\ST1\L DEVELOPMCUT PERMIT
APPENDIX C - List of Property 0Nners and Occupants within 100 feet
Please use one box per name and address. Additional copies will be mailed upon request.
~atricia c. Duckett 345 s. Figueroa Street No. 302 Loe Angeles, CA 90071
Joann Phillips 1470 Neptune Ave. Leucadia, CA 92024
Gordon M. Walton 4811 Sun Valley Road Del Mar, CA 92014
Paul Oman P.O. Box 49757 Los Angeles, CA 90049
Harold B. Star~ey 849 Sunset Cliffe Blvd. San Diego, CA 92107
_________ .....:.·---------!-...;._----------------+---·------- ---------. •' Jeffry E. & Anna H. Persons 1442 Irvine -Blvd., No. 225 Tustin, CA 92680
Leslie H. Crouch 2484 Hotel Circle Pl. San Diego, CA 92108
Thomae Werner 2121 Avenue of the Stars Los AngelecJ CA 90067
Ben L. Bear 2040 Ocean Front Del Mar, CA 92014
David v. Keirsey P.O. Box 2082 Del Mar, CA 92014
Hilton K. Cerf 4737 Paradise Dr. Tiburon, CA 94920
Bonds Properties Co. 900 Ke~ney Street El Cerrito, CA 94530
Richard R. & Debo Logiurato 2o59 8uenoa Airea Covina~ CA· 91722
Mercy Cruz Rosenblum 2014·coast Boulevard•. Del Mar, CA 92014-2120
John s. Pingel P.o. Box 45088 Dallas,. TX 75235
Jock E. ·;-, Jocoy 2118 ocean Front
' _, 'I
Del Har, CA 92014-2132
Charlyne Lyono 2125 Ocean Front Del Mar, CA 92014-2131
John D. Case 22 Lake Helix Or. La Mesa, CA 92041
.Nicholas D. Holland 2102 coast Boulevard Del Mar, CA '92014-2122
Edward Nahem 130 21st Street Del Mar, CA 92014-2106
o. w. Hyder 2111 Ocean Front nql Mar, CA 92014
Nancy L. & H. Randall Stoke 1920 Coast Boulevard Del Har, CA 92014-2118
Vast Development 1547 Tarrytown San Mateo, CA 9440~
Hark P. Near}' 1904 Coast Boulevard Del Ma~, CA 92014-2118
Ric'1ard Mallery 2201 E. Georgia Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85016
Lorens H. Good P.O. Box 217 Del Har, CA 92014
James A. Charnholm P.O. Box 459 Del Mar, CA 92014
r. " cir -· ' -- ....... r~.-v·
MAP REFERENCE:
THOMAS BROTHERS , PAGE: ,34 COORDINATES: A2
J L ...JLL----:w«> S'f1'1i:i
\
N. 21ST STREq _,.....:.....--,
2011-t STREET
19lH STREET I I ,
VICINITY MAP
0
~ ::::> 0 m
r
" ' ~. ' ~
~ .. .. • ... 4 •• -
EXHIBIT "D"
RESOLUTION N0 . ...21.:.41
A RESOLUTION OF 'J'.!-!E CITY COUNCIL OF THE'·c!,TY OF DEL MAR APPROVING A SHORELINE PROTECTION PERMIT (SPP-90-03) FOR AN APPROXIMA'I'.E 692 FOOT LONG VERTICAL SHEET-PILE SEAWALL WITH RETURN WALLS TO BE LOCATED SO THAT THE EAST FACE OF .THE SEAWALL COINCIDES· WITH THP. ~PA LINE ANO. TH~ WEST FACE OF THE SEAWALL IS 2 1/2 FEET WEST OF THE SPA LINE, ADJACEN•r TO 1924 THROUGH 2102 OCEAN FRONTr. ·WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2008, 2028, 203'4 / and 2040 OCEAN FRONT WHICH SH~.L BE LOCATED SO THAT THE WESTERLY FACE OF THE SEAWALL IS LOCATED 5 FEET WEST OF SPA LINE.
Appli~ant1 Wal t·er Crampton, GrO\}P Delta Consul tan ts, Inc.
Ownera1 See. exhibit A
WHEREAS, on Marc~ 18, 1991, April 1, 1991 and April 15, \l991, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly ~dvertised public hearing to consider the mer~ta of approving Shoreline Protection Permit application SPP-90-03 and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Initial Environrnent~l Assessment per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality }.ct, it has been determined that based on the adoption of mitigation measures, thi~ proposal ·w i.11 not have the potential foi· any significant unmitigated negative envirorunental effects; public notice of the determination of Negative Declaration has been provided as requfred by the State and Local CEQA Guidelines, and no challenges to this finding have been filed; and,
WHEREAS, the Council ~as reviewed, consid~red, and fcund adequate Program EIR, E-09-1, certified by City Council Resolution No. 09-56, and finds said EIR adequate to support the previously issued Negative Declarntion for this project and, therefore, recertifies the adequacy of said Negative Declaration in reliance on said EIR as well as on the previously approved Initial Study; and,
,, ... .. .- .... , ... , - - ,<t,,4' •11 & 7 .
·~~ """'* &} 1;..,' • ~ .....,_ , •"'\ ol' t·
~ •. ·-- •c 31.y.:+ I . -~ • "'" - __ ,.._.....,, ........ ~_._•<--..&o<w'
UM :io..'l!Ll$(J&f4 .. rt .. t .. ~h ZQ!§!l"'?l;r"5t ssqa: a: : 4#4AZI: w.w "'' WI
,., .. Reso'lution No. 91-41 Page 2
• • • • • J
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City, Council considered the staff report, gen·eral background studies and related documents and public testimi?ny and written conunents; and,
WHEREAS, the Council has1 reviewed and considered the site specific, lot by lot analyst¥3 provided 'by the applicants which is part of the offi,cial recprd, showing the applicants' justif !cations for encroachment in::.o the SPA area; and
WHEREAS, the Council has coiisidered.various staff reports and analyses on the location issue;~, including the input of the City's Coastal Engineer; and
WHEREAS, · the Council cons'idered the information and input of Dr: Inman of Scripps Inst:lt.ute; and
WHEREAS·, the Council cons:ldered the public benefits to "be p~ovided to the City as a res~l~ of this project; and 1
WHEREAS, the' Council conslidered precedents established by the City in its approval of pri6r seawall appl~cations; and
WHEREAS, the Council conte!nplated tJ:ie "fea'sibility"·,. as that term is used in the Beach. Protection Initiative, or requiring a location of the wall c]Loser to the private property line than is authorized by the appi~oval; and:
W'HEREAS, the Council consj:dered the t~el:imony and input of those who appeared at the public; hearings; and
WHEREAS, 011 April 15, 199:~ a motion was duly made and seconded to appro1ie SPP-90-03, a~1 conditioned, based on the following findingsz
A. 1
The pr9posed use is iiequired to protect existing structures and, as cb!"g£.t_.i,.oned, is ·~esigned to mitigate adverse impacts to the shoreline sand supply, the private property owners, and the public.
B. The proposed use will not, as conditioned, adversely affect the Community Plan in that the 4se is consistent wi~h the Community Plan, is permitted by Chapter 30.50 of the Municipal Code, and is consistent with the California Coastal Act and the City's Land Use Plan portion of its Local Coastal Program now pending before the Coastal Commission, and
C. The proposed use, as conditioned, will minifuize risks to life and property in that the pr.,~osed structure will protect existing easterly structures. ·
~~7..:J. .. $·
-- ·313~-·-·
• Resolution ~o. 91-41 Page 3
o. The propos,ed use, as conditioned·, will ensure structural: integrity and stability and will not s.\gnificantly create nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction ·of the site or surrounding areas since as proposed the construction is to be located on a stringline with minimal bre~ks or offsets in the ~~11,
E~ The proposed use is consistent with the goals and regulations of the Calif;:,rni~ Coastal Act since', the project involves the construction of a vertical seawall. The engineering design and location includ~ the use of measures designed to minimize shoreline erosion. The alignment of the wall has been design to minimize on latera+ acc~ss along sandy beach recognizing the Coastal Act requirements to afford protection.to existing developments. Vertical access is provided at 20th and 21st Street.
F. The proposed project is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act because it will maximize lateral access and will accommodate needed vertical access at t'}le 20t!l and 21st street ends: ·
G. The propose<l materials and design are· consistent w'!~h· good engineering practices.
H. The proposed use and its deve~.opmen~ will be ·(I con~istent with the.goals and regulations of the~City's ~unic~pal Code, Community Plan and Beach P~essrvation Initiative, since the project and its development are pe~TI1itted in this location.
I. The proposed project as approved is the lea·at damaging, feasible environmental project. As conditioned the project will minimize sand erosion, wave overtopping and flood/wave damage because the .wall is 19cated· as far inland
. (landward) as feasible, has ,a re-curved face and is well designed. The proposed locatfbn and design represent the best en~ironmental solution taking ~nto account all relevant factors, including private property rights, public beach rights, the need to maximize uaeable public beach, and the feasibility and cost of the alternatives.
J. The proposed encroachment of 2-1/2 feet to accommodatf! the width of the proposed wall ( 2 feet,) and the wave reflector {6 in~h~s) is engineeringly necessary, is feasible, and ia the environmentally least damaging alternative for all the following reasons1
----,,·-~·-
Res6lution No. 9q_41 Page 4
K. The proposed project will have ·an eventual uniform alignment of the wall which is recommended by the EIR, is visually more pleasing to the public and the private owners, causes less erosion, is less costly, and minimizes the concentration of wave energy which re~ults from angles and offsets.
L. Assessment District financing is contemplated for this project, and consequently, it is necessary to align the wall so that it abuts the SPA line located on public property. The 2. 5 foot encroachment is the minimum possible to accommodate assessment district financing which is an important part of the project.
M. The only alternative would be to vary the wall in and out on a ldt by lot basis. This would result in multiple offsets and angles and conseq~ent adversu impacts. The Co~ncil finds that the public interest in secur1ng a uniform wall outweighs any encroachment which might be avoided by a strict lot by lot analysis (with the exception of the Special Situation Lots addressed below), particularly in light of the relatively minor amount of encroachment proposed at 2.5 feet.
N. _ As to the few special lots ( 2008, 2028., 2034 and 2040 Ocean Front) where an additional encroachment is allowed, the· Council finds that site specific conditions on these lots support the a·aditional encroachment and: support the proposed specific findings as to these lots.
1. Bear, Su 11 i van, Werner. As to the Bear, Sullivan and Werner lots, the facts show, and the Council finds, that the risk of damage to improvements due to the proximity of the private improvements to the SPA line supports the additional encroachment. Permitting these properties -to encroach to the five foot line will giv~ these properties the additional protection against construction related damage that the other applicants in the group will have.
O. The Co~J~<:'.i-1 fort her finds that while the facts are not identica~ RS ·t6 the Bear, Werner, and Sullivan properties, and arguably different encroachments could be approved as to each lot, the Pl:lblic and private intereet2 involved are best served by a uniform alignment across these three properties. The uniform wall will minimize offsets and the adverse effects thereof as discussed in detail durin~ these proceedings. This interest outweighs any interest in support cf granting dif feren~ encroachments to these three lots.
_t/ mu ::: c uaz li.£.P.tlwa :;: pw !ii4W+• •ww. cz;c;;:;s;;;;:::sm1 • Ii
-· C" • • A: .• ~ ,.., • ;i (l i - . . . ..t.o1: .. "·w:.:w ...... '
- 3137 i ..... ,~~-""'~; __ ......... ~ ........ ~ .... -
Resolution No. 91-41 Page 5
1. Campbel.1-. r:1.ter.:!5Ue 1, Approval of 5 ~eet. As to the Campbell property, the Council· finds that a structural ··9 column is 4.1 ~eet from the SPA line and the rest.of the bearing wall fronting the beach is 5. 1 feet from the SPA line. The evidence indicates that the foundation for the column and th~ home.are old and probably brittle. In contrast to the Royce home, the Campbell home is' 2 stories and of different con~truction; all of which make it more vulnerable to co.nstruc::tion related problems. Accordingly,···the council finds that an additional encroachment up to a 'flve foot line is n§!cessary and j~stif ied to provide a reasonable amount of protection to the structure f.rom construction related impacts.
The council re~ognizes that some foundation reinforcing 9r underpinning rnay be prudent in any event, but finds that th"l facts as to ~his lot are substantially diff~rent from the facts of the?Royco lot, for the reasons stated herein and noted in the applicants' s~bmittal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ci~y Council of the City of Del Mar that Shoreline Protection Perm.ft: Applica.t·ion SPP-90-03 is hereby approve9 based on the plans, on file in t~e Planning Department off ice and subject to the following conditions_:
1. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved plans on file in the Planning Department and the conditions contained herein.
2 The easterly face of the seawall shall coincide with the SPA line and the westerly face of the seawall cap shall exend 2 1/2 feet westward of the SI'A line ~or thee properties located adjacent to 1924 through 2102 Ocean Front with the ex6aption of the properties located at 2008, 2028, 2034 and 2040 Ocean Front which shall be loca·tecl· -so that the westerly face of the seawall is.locate~ 5 feet west of the SPA line. ·
3. Should any owner elect not to construct the proposed seawall on ( .i.n front of") hie or her property, construction of the remairider of the proposed seawall by the other owners may proceed provided1 l} all other relevant conditions herein are 5atisfied; 2) revised plans incorporating appropriate return walls or other lateral protective deviqes at ea-ch t~rminus created by the resulting modification to the project aka submitted to the City o~ Del Mar, and approved by the City Manager, prior to the completion of the affected segment of the seawall; and 3) The City Manager f i:nda that there will be no unmitigated adverse impact to the public, the· public beach or the adjoining owners as a result of the change.
'1":'"£'':"' .... -... ~iWdBZ&•rf'DrltBM&J&J'*• a 1v_1:.n.omc:m:
Resolution No. 91-41 Page 6
This permit is only valid as to those properties whose owners have signed the Shoreline Protection Permit application and who sign accepti~g the terms of this permit as approved.
5. As a condition of this approval the applicants agree to install a "phase 2" rip-rap toe as an addition to the seawall project along its entire length, at the time that the average sand elevation, as determined by the City's Coastal Engineer, west of the seawall declines to the 0.0 foot level, NGVD, or lower, as a result of natural forces. The applicants unde~stand that the installation of this "Phase 2" rip-rap toe is a mitigation measure to mitigate adverse sand erosion impacts to the public beach and forms a material part of the approval of this appliC;a tion and the authorized seawall encroachment onto public property.
The delayed installation of phase 2 is authorized to minimize the expense to the applicants which would otherwise result from substantial sand excav~tion and to minimize construction impacts to the beach which would result from immediate installation of the rip-rap toe.
Acceptance of this perm_it shall constitute an agreement by the applicants and a covenant running with the land binding upon each appli'cant 's property fo.r trhe benefit of the adjoin.i:ng public beach property. Acceptance of the permit will also waive opposition and any protest right that such property may have to a future Assessment District, or to an amendment to an existing Assessment District if one is fomefi to finance the seawall project; to finance the rip-rap· toe installation project.
In addition to the fo:i::·egoing general requirements, the following specific requirements shall apply as part of this Conditionr
A. Design. The rip-rap toe shall be properly engineered and designed to comply with the Beach Preservation Initiative. The d~sign shall be certified by a Coastal Engineer and shall be approved by thu City Manager.
- - ... ·--·----m _, \1l f_ .. SAi~ PM dM6&JU4 i¥i4 s w•,,_. e es: ;;;c aJCZQll ac1a;a,;4::u . . ....
Resolution No. 91-41 Page 7
B. Time of Installation, The proceedings to establish an Assessment District to finance the rip-rap project, and the engineering and design of the toe, shall be processed· within one y~ar of the date of approval of thia application so that installation can proceed promptly when the indicated sand level is reached. Upon notice from the City that the indicated sand level has been reached and that it is safe to begin construction, the project shall commence and be diligently pursued to completion.
C. Carry Forward of Other Conditions. All other conditions of this approval' including construction-rela~ed conditions, shall remain in full force and effect as to the rip-rap project.
D. E~ncing. The City agrees to initiate a_~~essme1':~ district proceedings for the p',)ase 2 project without the need: for a 11indowner petition upon the deposit by the applicants of funds to pay for the costs of initial proceedings. If the district is formed, these advance costs may be reimbursed from the district to the extent permi~ted by law. If the di~trict is not formed for any reason, any unused balance shall be refunded to those who made the deposit.
Only the applicants' properties will be- included in the district to be assessed for the phase ~ project unless the inclusion of other properties is required by law or unless the City and the affected owners agree.
While it is contemplated that the phase 2 project will be financed through assessment district proceedings, approval and establislunent of such a district is not a condition precedent or subsequent to the obligations of this condition. This condition shall remain binding: in 'any event.
Resolution No. 91-4i Page 8
6. Considering the input on the issue of a0 windsc~een device, the ·City Council hereby finds that a winqscreen element serves a primarily aesthetic function, with limited protective capability. The council further finds that protection could be provided equally or better by elevating the wall or througl1 the use of remo\~able partition.~. Th~ Council finds that maintaining a windsct-:..:en year round would h~ve a negative visual impact in regards to maintain'ing coastal views. However, the City Council hereby finds that a protective screen, if removafriS--and ·only raised between November 15 and remove~ no later than April 15 of ,each year, could afford property owners protection equivalent to, or better than, the proposed windscreen without the n~gative year round visual irn~acts. Therefor~, a removable screening device which can accommodate either sheet metal,· plywood or lexan is a feasible, cost effective, and less environmentally damaging alternative than a fixed screen device, and the project is approved with the option for a removable screen device, subject to review ana approval of the design by the City· Manager.
7. The color of the concrete cap shall match with the color of the beach sand.
8. The applicants/owners agree to indemnify, defend and save the City of Del Mar, its authorized agents, -officers, representatives and employees harmless from and against any and all penal ties, claims, liabilities or annoyances or loss resulting from claims or court action and arising out of any accident, loss or damage to persons or property happening or occurring as a proximat~ result of any work undertaken under ,the permit granted pursuant to the application.
9·• The applicant agrees that if any tank,. pipe, conauit, duct, tunnel or other insta1:llation of any nature or kind placed in the structur~: for which the permit is issued which shall at any time in the future irlterfere with the user repair, improvement, widening, or change of grade of the affected public prope~ty, ~he applicants, or their successors or assigns, within ten ( 10) working days after the receipt of a written nq~ice from the City ,Manager to do so, will at th~ir own expense either remove such tank, pipe, conduit, duct, tunnel or other installation, or subject to the approva: of the City Manger, relocate them to a site which may be designated by th~ City Manager.
~-~_ .. ________ _ -.. -·· 1,i;._'7 .5 4
3141
Resolution No. 91-41 Page 9
10. The ~ontractor/o~ners hereby agree to notify the Supe: .. :intenden~ of 'Publi~ Works and the Lifeguard A Department in1 writing at least twenty-four ( 24) 9 hours in advance of the time when work will be started, Contractor/owners will, upon completion of th~ work, immediately noti'fy the Planning Director in writing of such completion.
11. Contract9r/owners shall notify the appropriate utility owner forty-eight (48) hours p~ior to perf ormihg any work on or adjacent to any public utility. All such work shiill be done only with authorization and with inspeC"tion by the appropriate utility owner.
12. The contractor shall provide ,a mini~nu~ of one· (1) flag person to be on ~ite at all times during the operation of heavy equipment. In addition, the contractor shall be subject to all safety measures required by the Lifeguard Departme~t during construction.
13. If the contractor/owners propose to stock pile equipment or materials, a staging plan shall be submitted to the City of Da1 Mar, in a~vance, for the approval of the City ~anag~r.
14. Any damage to existing public fac~lities caused by construction, stral'l be rep~ired ·to --the satisfaction of the City Manager.
15. No material or equipment ahail be stored on public streets or rights-of-way~ without prior written authority form the City Manager. ·
16. Vertical and lateral pedestrian and lifeguard beach acceso shall be maintained during construction at 19th, 20th and 21st streets and lateral access shall be maintained above the Mean High Tide line or as required by the Lifeguard Department of the City of Del Nar.
17. All sand removed from the beach shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Manger.
18. Prlor to the commencement of construction, the owners shall have issued in favor of the City of Del Mar a letter of credit, cash ·deposit or other appropriate security, the form an~ content of which is ac.ceptable to the City, .1.n the amount of $ 90,000.00 dollars.
w .,....,._.f'/lff~l&!!@llllJ!k~ .. CPll"!ll.PAilfll!Z;!G!',l!l!I. ~.C?l11'llll(.Pl~1111•11114IG!llP.~!"'.•·Pl'!'.'"°'"""''"""www_,."'_"'""·-----·· ·-··-·
Resolution No. 91-41 Page 101
19. Construction work shall only take place between 7: 00 a. m and 7: 00 p. m. ·Monday through Friday, and 9: 00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturdays, in order to minimize nd"ise and vibration levels and cona.:truction impacts. No construction work shall be performed on Sundays or City holidaya and shall be consisteftt with the City Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.20 of the Del Mar Municipal Code.
20. Prior to the commencement of work, all contractors and subcontractors shall first obtain a valid City of Del Mar Business License.
21. To protect the public interest, the contractor/owners· shall be required· to file a certificate C?f insurance evidepcing cover.age of bodily injury or property damage liability subject to the approval of the City Manager.
22; The project is approved subject to all the mitigation m~asures set forth herein.
23. The .. applicants/owners are required to obtain a wr i tteri c1earance from the S,t.ate Landa Commission with respect t6 the 'location of the wall as a condition precedent tp the effectiveness of this· permit.
24. Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B to' staff r':'!port dated April 15, ·1991) is hereby certified for the project, and the Council certifies that it has reYiewed, considered and found adequate for this project the information in Program EIR 89-1 and in the referenced Mitigated Negative Declaratiqn. This permit shall not be effective until said Mitigated Negative Declaration becomes final.
25. The applicants/owners un~erstand that a Coastal Permit issued by the Coastal Commission is required for this project.
26. The owners file a statement of acceptance of conditions stating that the owners have read and understand and accept the conditions listed above and shall prior to the commencement of construction, return a signed statement accepting said conditions.
~-~~::~-~ _:. · -~.i'·~·.s s· .. , .... ..: • .. s.J .:. .- • ~- ../;,,,~ ... J ~ .... !
314 ... "t ··r~.. · ..... ~.-(.,.. .... _ ·---·. ---·· ~~
Ki .. -
Resolution No. 91-41
27. This pe.r;mit and its terms and conditi~ns shall be .. recorded against the subject properties. 'IF
28. The attached Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is hereby approved as a condition of the permit. Mitigation and· monitoring shall be overseen by the PlanniQg Department.
THIS APPROVAL IS VALID for one year to expire April 25, 1992. Prior to that date appropriate conditions must be satisfied, permits issued, and substantial construction must have begun to vest the permit.
PASSED A;ND ADOP'rED by the City Counq~'l of the City of Del Mar at a r.egular meeting held this 15th day of April, 1991 by the following vote, to-wit:
ATTEST:
JACQUELINE WINTERER, Mayor City of Del Mar
(J~·~;. PATTI BARNES, cxiy~rk Ct STA'I'E OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) ss CITY OF DEL MAR )
I, PATT~ BARNES, City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 91-41 adopted by the City Counqil of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 15th day of April, 1991, by the following vote: ,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENTr
ABSTAIN1
(SEAL)
Councilmembers Helton, Franklin, Hugo-Martinez; Mayor Jacqueline Winterer
None
Councilmember McMillan
None
PATTI BARNES,
I , , I ~.,. I I I
,( .,
:-,
I
\ i
I
--- . I I I I
t;
er < :E .J
·~ LL 0 > ... 0
· • I 21 I ii ! I I
-CITY QF DEL MAR RESOLUTiON MEMORIALIZING USER ,FEE AGREf;MENT WITH
THE CITY OF DEL MAR
TO:
FROMJ
c,lty of del mar sta,ff ri·eport • Honorablc.i Hayor,;tmcl M11nU:>a.-o ot 'th•
J. b. Sandov•l 1 Plai1ninq Direct Via Gloria Curry I c~ ty Mrgn;,;_sr• , .. _,,.,,.._'W'\ ·-- \}.A '1 Pr•pAred by Moniot. Tuohachar, A1111oci~ta PlAnnur . • \
bATE;
RE?
Junta 17, igp1
MHndmwnt of 'thes conditions c! ClpprOVl..L ror ShQ~•lino ~ro~•ction Permit BPP-g0-03 tor oonstruct:ton ot a tiQ2•!oot .. lonq eea\JAll to uitabl:;.ah- an Appropriate U••r l•• for authorised •ncro~ohment into the Bhor•line Prot•otion Are~. ·
Whethar to amon~ thg conditiono ot SPP-90-03 ~$ ratleoted in R~Golution 91~~1 to e•t•bli•h And cl.,,rity- the uaer tne reiquiruient• for Bhoruline Protection Par~it SPP-go-03.
RECOHHitliDATIQNi
Th• City Council •dop~ thQ att~~h•d drctt re~olution (AttAchm•nt ~) ·~•ndin9 Counoil Ra~olution 91M4l (Attachrn~nt a) to add a n~w condition f29 for Shoral1ng Protgction P•r~it BPP-90-03. Tl\Q new condition clarif~en th• ua~r !~d requiro~$nt as it pQrtnins to Shoroline Proteotion Psrruit SPP-Q0-03.
-------------·------.. ·---Council Action:
8
C~.ty 'Counoil Bt:it ! Ro port MCindinQ R~uolution' 91 .. 41 Jun• 17, 1991 2
BhCKGB.01.TliP;
on Mar9h l.'B, April l, ~nd. April 1~ / 1gsi1, th• City Council rov1ew~d ~ propo•al ror ~n Approxim~t¥~Y 6~2~toot-lon~ aecwall with return well~ to be loo~t•~ on And adj~oent to proportic~ 4t 1512.+-2102 Oct!on Front ( BPP-90-03). Thm approv.i11.:.l ••awall. inc~udca thg provi~ion ot ahorgline prot•~tion tor the (W•~t•rly) otreet Qndo of 19th bnd 20th Btr•~tri (SPP-90•03) and the reoon~truction ct'. All damc9e whioh illa.y occur t.c the 20'th Street litaiUard towor.
A!~ar th• close of tha public haarinoo and con~idor~tion,of •ll tectimony otfor•d·, the Counoil,votgd to condi~ionally ~pprove the project. Th• lindin90 ~n~ condition• of approval ar• re!l~ctgd in City Council R~~olution No. 91-41.
During th• cour~e of co~ncil d•liber~tion, there w~~ dioouoaion in r69ardt to the appropriQt• u••r toe to ho entabli~h•d tor the projaot pur2uant to Section 30.30.060(C)(3) c! th• B4~Ch Pr•~erv~tlon Initiativ•. The Council, noted ~hct tho project Applicantu propo~cd to pay c U5*r f•• · in th• forM or approxim4taly ~ 200 1 000 in public henefit i~provcmcnta (in th& !orm o! ehorelino p~9tQC~i6h for public •treet ~n~e and repair# to the 20th str•et litQqU4rd tower) ~u~horized tha~ the publ~c benefit derived from ·thA projoet WDo a reA•onablu u~cr ~ee.
While thi1» i~oue wao dioO\l•~•d 4urin9 council doli1::H•rci~ion, it ·was ovgrlockQd w~en 'tho Council Gonditionally approved th~ SPP applio~tion. It iD ~tutf 1o undernto.nding thAt the Counoil hnd int•nded to eBtabliBh the r•quircd uaer toe tor thg ?rojoct on the bcusit1 of thfll t.pproxima.tcly I} 200, 000 in p®l~c bcnc!it irnprovementG deriv•d from the projlilot. 'l'h• cttaobad, dr~!'t resolution ret~;eotB t:hia un~ei'rn:cnding. It Q111tabliahae a nraw ConditionQ ~~2 ~nd Gpccitiad that th9 remaining condition~ o~ approve remain in Qf f&ct and have not bean modified.
It iG wt~rr•~ undcrstcnding that th• moditioation ot the conditions is a~capt~ble to the projtict ~ppljoants/ownoro. Uoticg of th~ propoaoa chan~a and potential Council action were m~iled to intereot&d ~arti~s and published in th~ local newsptiper.
CONCLUSIQU:
In oonclu2icn, ~ttt!! reoommenda npproving th• attached Ro~olution amending RaGolution No. 91-41.
Attachment A .. Att.aohmont B -
Or~f t Reoolution Rc~olution gl-41
_______ ,....,.. ... -~ .. ·-,.iq , .... J -
•· r.r.::i,. · ..i;.~-. • 6 2 -·"--•~w,-..r' r-r11o...., - - ........ •• ~
JUN.1:1..:199-l~.sEJIEM._l.7_ ~14S ------·
RESOLUTION ,NO. 91~68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION (91-41) TO ADD A CONDITION ESTABLISHING AND CLARIFYING A USER F,EE FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION PERMIT SPP-. '90-03 .AREA AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNC·!L RESOLUTION.
Applicant:
Pwners:
W~lter Crampton, Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
see Exhibit A
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1991, Aprill, 1991 and April. 15, 1991, the City Council of the City of Del Mar h~ld a duly advertised public hearing to consider the merits of approving Shoreline Protection Permit application spp;..90-03 and associ'ated environmental documents ·required pursuant to the Cali!ornia Environmental Quality Act and,
WHEREAS, at sai~ public h~~=inqs the City Council consid~red, the staff reports, gene?:al background studies and related documents, public testimony and written comments; and,
WHEREAS, after consideration of all such input::, the Council voted to conditionally approve the project with the 9 findings and conditions set forth in City Council Resolution 91-41, and
WHEREAS, the Council at that meeting discussed the establishment of a user fee consistent with the provisions of the Beach Preservation Initiative with recognition that the applic;:a!lt included within the pro'ject proposal approximately $200 ,ooo worth of public improvements,iincluding the design, processing~ and construction of public access and emergency vehicle·access at the westerly terminus of 19th and 20th Streets, and the reconstruction of any· damage .which my occur t6 the 20th street lifeguard tower at the owner/applicant's expense; and
WHEREAS·, the Council considered precedents establisheci. by the City in its approval of prior seawall applications · · which involved the constr~letion of publio improvements at pri'(ate .property owner's expanse· and the appropriate user fees for such projects.
WHEREAS, despite the Counci~ discussion of such public improvements and user fees in the course of ·hearings on March 18, April 1 and April 15, 1991, the tinal rasolu'-ion of approval (City Council Resolutton #91-41) did not incorporate the. establishment of a us~r fee for the applic~nt' s encroachment into and use of specified Shoreline· Protection Area~
-· 31._,. , .. 1· ... _ o• r;;:- ·-.. .~ l I I: ' • • - --.: -~ ... LIJ..1 ---·----- .. ~--~- .,,,.
, . ...
• Resolution. No. 91-~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that the conditions of Shoreline Protection Pe:r.m~t Application SPP-90-03 as described· in City Council Resolution 91-41 are hereby amended to add a new condition, condition 129 to read a~ follows:
29. As a condition of this approval, the applicants agree to pay a user fee in the form of approximately $ 200,000 in public benefit improvements that are to• be constructed as party of the project a~ the app!icants expense, Taking into. account the public improvements to be provided, and the limited n~ture of the encroachments authorized, the user fee is reasonabl J.
'AllD BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the findings contained within Resolution 91-41 are in~orporated herein by reference and that. conditions #1-28 of Res.oluti_on 91-41 rema-in- in- ful'l' force and affect and are not modified by the establishment of a new condition #29.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar at a regular meeting held this 17th day of July, 1991 by the following vote I to-wit: /kv aof1· •. J,- I ft 1J. I fr
ATTESTS
Bvta;~ PATTI BAIU~ES, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTy OF SAN DtEGO) CITY OF DEL MAR )
I l rsa
t} C~ u_,_ '1 . L- I IV{ (},4.-l-(
JACQUELINE WINTERER, Mayor City of Del Mar
I, PATTI BARNES, City Clerk. of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 91-Gs adopted by the City Councll of the City of Del Mar, Cal'ifornia, at a Regular Meeting held the ~ day of June, i9g1, by the following votes .
AYESt Ccuncilmembcrs Hugo-~artinez, Fr.anklin, Mayor Winterer
NOESs None
ABSENT: Councilmember McMillan
ABSTAIN s. >None
(SEAL) _/g_;t;t:C~ PA'.t"l·~ BARNES; City Clerk
2
.... ______ ...... ~-,¥'It/Ir, 'If''-"~ ...
,
' ...... ,,
MITIGATEU NEGATIVE DEC!J\RATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been tiled on the below referenced project, on the basis that said project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Oescriptiun of Project
A request for a Shoreline Protection Permit (SnP-9Q-03~, to con~truct an approximate 692 toc~~lonq vertic~l sheet-pile seawall with return walls to be loc1ited ,adjacent to 1924 Ocean Front 2102 ocean Front (inclusive" of 20th and 21st street end), Del Mar., in the Public Par~and, Rl-SB and Beach Overlay Zones. The project is regulated. by the Beach Preservation Initiative Ordinance. ·
M~tigation Measurs1
l'. The construction of the seawall i• part of a continuous line ot walls (to the south) and will not encourage add~tional offsets in wall alignment.
2. Construction hours shall be consistent with the City Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.20 ot!. the Municipal c~e. · ·
3. The sandy beach area within the construction zone shall ba restored at the end ot each work week. Notwithstanding statenents to the contrary elsewhhre, as to this specific measure [itea 4A(2) J this provision ~;all control over any mitigation meaaure proposed by the EIR.'--
4. 'Conatru~iun shall not.occur west of the permitted shorelin• protection lin• botwaen Memorial Day and Labor Day (e~cept tor eaorqenciea).
!Se The City ·shall cmsure ·ainiaization of usurpation of public parking araas during the construction period.
G.· That tht> City shall monitor thj above mentioned aetivitia• and llitiqation measure• to insure coapli~ca and ~ accordance with ;..aea.bly Bill AB-3180. ·
1. Tho. project. shall cgaply with all conditionrs ol! approval.
•
.35
,find:lng1-ot No significant Ef(§.ct <with Mitigati9n Me~sur§sl 1. Basecl upon the Initial Study, there is no
substantial evidence that the project, with mitigation and monitoring measures, will have a significant effect on the environment; and
2. The project will conform to all design, building safety, and py..blic standards applicable for 6Uch pro~ects.
2 ~~ -- ... --- ----...... --... ----
- ----..-.w~.-..-----
r\PH 1 1991 !T!=''ii •. _s: ,.,. - :>
EXHIBIT "E"
List of Beachfront Owners applying for permi~
Earle w. and Elizabeth F. Frey, Jr. PO Box 271220 Escondido CA 92027
Burnet F• Wohlford PO Box :382 Escondido CA 92033
Robert s. and Helen J. Strauss 4100 First city Center 1700 Pacific Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-4618
Ben L. and E. Joan Bear, Jr. 2040 ocea.n Front Del Mar CA 92014
Thomas and Jill Werner 2034 Ocean Front Del Mar CA 92014
Joseph and Alice Sul~ivan 2028 Ocean Front Del Mar CA 92014
Adelaide Cocherane c/o Dr. Charles Cocherane Department of ~mmunology Research Institute of Scripps College 10666 ~· Torrey Pines Road La Jolla Ca 92037
John D. and Lucille A. Lindsey PO Box 1789 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067
Gary Burke 2016 Ocean Front Del Mar CA 92014
Margaret J. Wells Leon G. Campbell, Jr. Patricia c. Duckett c/o Leon G. Campbell 585 Albion Way Woodside, CA 94062
Sheldon I. Brockett 4522 Trias Street San Diego CA 92103
•
--· - .... _._,.,. .... "'_._..~ ... __ ,,,,,,_
Edward H. and Nancy B. Lyon .41i.411 Canyon Road .,scondido CA 92025
Robert ·s. and Marlon L. Wilson 2600 Mandeville canyon Road Los.Angeles Ca 90049
Lorens H. and Genevra M. Good PO Box 217 Del Mar CA 92014
Starkey Estate Company PO Box 1469 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067
