The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-05-25; City Council; 20245 part 2 of 2; Appeal of Goetz SeawallS £, Staff Report to the California State Lands Commission December 2009 REFLECTS CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS MADE BY THE ON 17,2009, March 3, 2010 Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Goetz Seawall CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 Dear Planning Commission, I am unable to attend the hearing tonight based a previous commitment but I would like this to be entered into the record regarding the above referencec matter. I have lived in Terramar since 1993. To truly appreciate the entire matter before the Planning Commission, one must go back to the late 1990's when Mr. Jenson purchased the land from Carltas for the unbelievably low price of $750,000. The question that came to mind was, "Why so cheap?" Even for the late 90's that was very little money for water front acreage of that size. I spoke with the director of real estate for Carltas at the time and I was told, "That lot is way too unstable for any more than one house and that house would need to be on the north end of the lot. No way can you build three houses on that lot. That's why we sold it". Carltas had engineering reports to base their decision on and Carltas is no amateur when it comes to development, as is well aware. the Planning Commission Fast forward a few years to the early 2000's when Mr. Jenson (a lawyer) with the assistance of another lawyer (one that the Planning Commission is used to seeing regarding development in Carlsbad) was in front of the Planning Commission asking to subdivide the one lot into three lots. They presented to staff ancl Commission engineering reports stating that the cliff was stable and could support three houses. Many attended that hearing and testified to the current erosion and future erosion if three homes were built on that bluff. To the professional and layman alike, it was clear that erosion was isolated on this little cove. That's WHY there IS a cove at this location.. .massive erosion! Not one person objected to the building of one house. It was the building of three houses that was unreasonable. I was one of many that warned the cliffs were unstable and I was admonished by a member of the Planning Commission for even suggesting that an engineer/geologist would sign off on a report he knew was erroneous. "Young man, engineers do not sign off on erroneous reports", he said to me. Despite the pleadings of many, the Planning Department Staff and Planning Commission accepted the engineering report at face value without any further due diligence and the subdivision was approved. Mr. Jenson built his house at 5319 Carlsbad Blvd. (on the stable part of the bluff it should be noted) and sold off the other lots at extraordinary prices that paid for the construction of his home and more. I don't begrudge the Goetz's or Mr. Marshall, for building the seawall. I would do the same thing if I was in their position. I don't even begrudge MrJ Jenson for his brilliant real estate play. I do take issue with the Planning Commission and the City Council that were so eager to please that they approved the subdivision and subsequently approved the temporary emergency sea wall permit at the expense of the public. The City of Carlsbad wholly adopted the California Coastal Zone Act of 1972 and therefore, in essence, becomes the Coastal Commission and given all rights associated with that role. Its primary responsibility is to protect the general public by enforcing the rules of the California Coastal Act. To those who much is given, much is expected. I'm sure the Planning Commission and City Council will hear plenty of testimony regarding the detrimental effect of seawalls on the rest of the coastline. There will be more testimony about the construction of seawalls being a "taking" of public property. All true, but what can we do about the current situation? That cliff existed for millions of years and within 5 years, the cliff has failed so that a "public safety issue" was created and the City felt a seawall was necessary. There were no structures on that property just 10 years and the City of Carlsbad had the opportunity to reasonably exercise their role as administrator of the Coastal [Act and they failed miserably. "Oops, sorry." is not good enough. The City should reimburse Goetz for the cost of the sea wall as well as the cost to remove it. If the homes fail, the City should be responsible for those costs as well. If the seawall stays, the City of Carlsbad needs to compensate the public for lost recreational opportunities associated with the taking of the land. Further, the California Coastal Commission needs to examine the process of handing over authority to cities that "wholly adopt the Coastal Act" and the consequences for cities that sign on the dotted line and then proceed to sell ou enforcing the Act. Sincerely, Jen Woolson 5345 Los Robles Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-438-8054 the public by not CITY OF CARLSBAD MAR26 Community & Economicpgvetopmant Departmen3/23/2010 City of Carlsbad Planning Department Re: Goetz Seawall The Planning Commission and Planning Department are to be commended for their approval of an Emergency Coastal Development Permit for the Goetz Seawall. Thank you for your common sense response to the property owner's needs. Thank you also to the property owner for financing what is now a safer public beach area below your property. Sincerely, Mike and 1 5350 Los Robles Drive Carlsfaad,CA 92008 Planning Commission Minutes April 7,2010 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Douglas asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item. 2. GPA 09-08/ZC 09-09/CT 04-13/PUD 04-11/HDP 04-06/HMP 09-10 - EL FUERTE VIEW - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; a recommendation of approval for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to designate an open space preservation lot as Open Space; and a request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit for the subdivision and development of a 3.90-acre site into six (6) single-family residential lots with six single family homes, one (1) private drive aisle lot, and one (1) open space lot, on property generally located south of El Fuerte Street and north of Cacatua Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Staff is recommending a continuance of the item to the meeting of May 5, 2010 and the applicant is agreeable to the continuance. Commissioner Baker stated she would not be in attendance at the meeting on May 5th and strongly urged the Commission to hear the item then because of the multiple continuances. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L'Heureux, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission continue the item to the meeting of May 5, 2010. VOTE: 5-0-2 AYES: Chairperson Douglas, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner L'Heureux, and Commissioner Nygaard NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Douglas asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 1- CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL- A post Emergency Coastal Development Permit approval for the construction of a 97-foot long by 17 to 24-foot tall bluff-colored and textured seawall along the coastal bluff and below the residences located at 5323 and 5327 Carlsbad Blvd located on the west side of Carlsbad Blvd and northerly of Cerezo Drive in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 3. Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Van Lynch would make the Staff presentation. Commissioner Dominguez disclosed he had ex-parte communication with Dustin Rosa as well as with his brother Donald Dominguez. Chairperson Douglas asked if the applicant wished to continue with the hearing with only 5 Commissioners present. The applicant stated yes. Chairperson Douglas opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1. Mr. Lynch gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Planning Commission Minutes April?, 2010 Page 3 Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Nygaard asked if there is a history of the sand returning to the site each year. Mr. Lynch deferred the question to the applicant's engineer. Commissioner Baker asked about the amount of sand coming from the bluff and the sand mitigation. Mr. Lynch stated there are a wide variety of studies regarding the coast and the amount of sand contribution from the bluff. Mr. Lynch stated the percentage of 65% was based on a study provided by one of the project's opponents. Commissioner Baker asked about an EIR for the project. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney, stated the city chose to rely on the catagorical exemption for the Emergency CDP. The City came to that conclusion as lead agency because the project did not change, no modifications were made to the wall, as a result of the regular permit that is currently under consideration. Because of that, CEQA is looking at the physical impact or the potential for an adverse physical impact, the City needs to look at what the actual project is. This project has remained the same. There is case law that states the issuance of permits in and of itself is not a project within the meaning of CEQA. Commissioner Dominguez asked how many emergency CDPs have been permitted within the City since the City has had permit authority. Mr. Lynch stated it is a very small amount such as an Emergency CDP issued for repair work to Carlsbad Boulevard and one for the SDG&E tower footing. Commissioner Dominguez asked if there was an emergency permit issued in the Terramar area for the illegal placement of riprap. Mr. Neu stated there have been coastal permits for single family homes in the Terramar area where there was a tear down and replacement unit constructed. Some property owners had placed riprap on the beach at the time Coastal Commission had authority and at the time, Coastal Commission felt no permit was issued and the applicants were to go back and prove they had placed the riprap with Coastal Commission's approval. It was not something the City had issued. Commissioner Dominguez stated there seemed to be quite a bit of gouging under the staircase. Mr. Lynch deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Dominguez asked about the maintenance of the staircase. Mr. Lynch stated it is the responsibility of the property owner and whoever buys that property would then be responsible for the maintenance of the staircase. Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any other questions of Staff. Seeing none, she acknowledged receipt of letters from Todd Cardiff, Marco Gonzalvez and James Jaffee. Chairperson Douglas asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. Dean Goetz, 5323 Carlsbad Blvd., gave a brief presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner L'Heureux asked if the applicant investigated any other alternatives to a seawall. Mr. Goetz stated he hired an engineer who suggested a seawall and deferred the question to his engineer. Commissioner L'Heurex asked if benching the slope was suggested as an alternative. Mr. Goetz again deferred to his engineer. Chairperson Douglas opened public testimony on Agenda Item 1. Todd Cardiff, 4559 Copeland Ave, San Diego, representing the San Diego County Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, stated his concerns are whether an EIR is required and the emergency exemption through CEQA, public access to the beach, and mitigation. Mr. Cardiff stated that, if approved, this wall would be the first of its kind to be installed predicated on safety. Mr. Cardiff also submitted several letters to the Commission. Commissioner Nygaard asked Mr. Cardiff to clarify his comments regarding loss of access to the beach. Mr. Cardiff explained the process of passive erosion. Planning Commission Minutes April 7,2010 Page 4 Cora Frolander, 1931 S. Pacific Street, Oceanside, spoke in favor of the project. Thomas Smith, 275 Estrelita, San Marcos, stated Mr. Cardiff's objections are well taken. The problems with the property should have been addressed during the construction of the applicant's home. He stated there are probably other alternatives to a seawall that should be studied and the City should also look at issues regarding liability. Donald Dominguez, 1288 Knowles Avenue, Carlsbad, asked why the project was allowed to get as far as it did. He further stated that because of the wall, the property owner gained 45 feet of beach property. Tom Cook, 3357 Bancroft Street, San Diego, explained bluff erosion and the coastal processes which impact this site. Mr. Cook stated there is more danger in walking down the stairs than from a bluff failure. Chairperson Douglas asked Mr. Cook's specialty. Mr. Cook stated he received a Masters Degree in Physical Oceanography from the University of Miami and his specialty for the last 15 years has been ocean coastal circulation studying ocean currents and how they interact on coastal waters. Commissioner Baker asked what percentage of sand comes from the bluffs. Mr. Cook stated that the estimate of 10% has been used previously. Up until the last 10 years the researchers used historical data which at this point is not as precise. Commissioner Baker stated that almost all of the properties to the north of this site have, rightly or wrongly, some sort of seawall, riprap or other protection. Commissioner Baker asked what the worry is then with this marginal section of a seawall. Mr. Cook stated there is no beach along those properties at a high tide or even medium-high tide. He maintains that the seawalls have stopped the sand from the bluffs depositing in front of the bluffs to form a beach. Commissioner Nygaard asked if the bulk of the sand in that area is from sand replenishment. Mr. Cook stated there has been a major effort among county governments to replenish the sand along the beaches. Through those projects, the amount of sediment placed in the system is equal to or more than what has historically come from the Oceanside Harbor. Commissioner Nygaard asked about the bi-annual dredging of Batiquitos Lagoon and what the impact that project has on the sand for the beaches. Mr. Cook stated that is maintenance dredging and is a smaller scale project than the beach replenishment project. Commissioner Dominguez asked if the installation of this seawall will have an impact on the properties to the south which are geologically unprotected. Mr. Cook stated that in several years you will see the effects of passive erosion. Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the item. Seeing none, she asked if the applicant wished to respond to the issues raised in public testimony. John Corn, attorney representing Mr. Goetz, stated the advantages of the seawall as well as the evidence needed to require or authorize the Commission to grant the permit. Mr. Corn also explained the CEQA analysis. Chairperson Douglas closed public testimony and asked Staff to respond to issues raised during public testimony. Mr. Lynch stated he mostly heard comments during the public testimony but if the Commission had specific questions he would be available to answer those. Chairperson Douglas asked when the staff report was made public. Mr. Lynch stated the Staff Report is made public on the internet on the Thursday prior to the meeting. Commissioner Nygaard asked if there was any opposition when the Emergency CDP was issued. Ms. Mobaldi stated there is a 35 day time limit after the Notice of Exemption is issued in which a suit can be Planning Commission Minutes April 7,2010 Page 5 filed and no objections were received and no lawsuit was filed. Mr. Neu stated there was opposition testimony when the Emergency CDP was reported out at the City Council hearing. Commissioner Dominguez stated Dustin Rosa did speak at the Council hearing. Commissioner Dominguez asked if Staff had any post-development pictures from off shore and if any measurements were taken of the slope after the wall was constructed. Mr. Lynch stated that the plans show the location of the wall at the toe of the bluff. There was fill material placed behind the wall as the wall is vertical and the bluff face was not. Mr. Neu read into the record a comment from Mr. Cardiff stating the mitigation costs are underestimated. DISCUSSION Commissioner Baker stated she has no problem approving the permit for the wall. She stated it is a very real possibility that someone can be seriously injured by a slope failure. Commissioner Dominguez stated he has an issue with the City's track record of "willy nilly" walls and the lack of a comprehensive plan to handle any future requests. There needs to be monitoring of the public access. He also stated that using the Emergency CDP route to secure a permit is wrong. Commissioner Nygaard stated she can support the project and agrees with the comments from Commissioner Baker. Commissioner L'Heureux commented there is a clash between public access to the beach and the safety of the bluff. The property owner is in an untenable position, and he feels the property owner is not gaining anything by the construction of the wall. He stated he supports approving the project. Chairperson Douglas stated she can support the project. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner L'Heureux, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6677 and 6678, approving a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 09-13) and Special Use Permit (SUP 09-06) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. VOTE: 4-1-2 AYES. Chairperson Douglas, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner L'Heureux and Commissioner Nygaard NOES: Commissioner Dominguez ABSENT: Commissioners Montgomery and Commissioner Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Chairperson Douglas closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. City of_ g.^—___ _ APR 1 9 201Q C/ Offices of the Oity Clerk;: 1 (We) appeal the decision of the To the Carlsbad City Council Date of Decision you are appealing: Planning Commission Approval of CDP Q9-13/ SUP 09-05 {Goetz Seawall) April?, 2010 Subject of Appeal: BESPEGiFiC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc,) iist them all If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, piease state that here. The Surfrider Fouri(|a|iopandJ3oastajEnvironmental Righc^Foundatign appeal the whoieacsion, mcludmg^ut notiimitai to: The approval of th« Coastal Development. Permit (CDP 09-13), Special Use Permit (SUP 09-05), and Resolutions 8677 & 6678 and the decision to not conduct any enviroiiirStal review¥n3erC£Q'C ~L"" """ "~~" —«— Reasonls) for Appeal: » Piease Note » Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds when presenting your appeal, BE.SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy? Violation of CEQA - The CDP and SUP are discretionary decisions requiring the preparation of an E1R under CEQA, The emergency seawall permit was temporary and does not provide a vested right to continue the seawall "in that "JocatSon. safeto"g'B'f'iigiret)" review to i igr ...Piiblir 1 •public I •erras never l or^nt^H Seawalls, through the procgssjgf passive erosion wi)] narrow and destroy a beach, Mocking public access. The City caBawrnate the findings that the seawall will not block access at any time, and therefore cannot make the findings required to approve the seawall. The project csSm'malnSn'S jf^'B^option ndly. sss..gf lianti,. aaflLEa.gi,itigattaa js.. piapasecLteuaHisate the ; use UiUJJ 5* i j vJii iiCiII«3il y nf'.tlip tanrl gil.tutir.tt fac !<.- recreational imrjacts. The MuiiicipalC'Ode^ violates tte Constitution by charging a_pon-\vaiycgble appeal feejha|Js 3 tiiijgg the amount that it eostg t<^file a lavvsjiii,h Todd T. Cardiff (on beha1_fof all_aggenants) NAME (please print) _Agril 16, 2010 DATE PHONE NO. __Jjj. Broadway. Ste, 358 ADDRESSTiSiirName&lJumber _San Diego. CA^ 92101 City, State, Zip Code 1200 Carlsbad Tillage Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2808 2.C' TODD T. CARD IFF, ESQ. ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 BROADWAY SUITE 358 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 T619 5465123 F 619 546 5133 cardifflaw@cox.Tiet April 6, 2010 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad ATTN: Van Lynch 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov Delivered via first class mail and email RE: Geotz Seawall (CDP 09-13) Comments in Opposition to the Project Dear Planning Commission I am greatly concerned that the public process on the proposed regular coastal development permit for the Geotz Seawall is being subverted. I request the Planning Commission take no action at the April 7,2010 hearing and investigate the matter to ensure that the public has a full and fair opportunity to comment on the project. Currently, City Staff is withholding documents that are important for the Planning Commission and the public to consider before making decision on the project. Originally, the public was assured that the Geotz seawall project would go through environmental review under CEQA, subsequent to the emergency seawall permit. Pursuant to such process, the City circulated an initial study/draft negative declaration. I prepared substantial comments on the negative declaration and submitted a number of scientific studies and articles regarding the adverse impacts of seawalls. On March 25, 2010,1 was informed that the City was no longer preparing any environmental documents pursuant to CEQA and was now intending to rely solely on the emergency exemption prepared for the emergency seawall project. In other words, the City of Carlsbad was not going to conduct any environmental review under CEQA. I immediately drafted a Public Records Act request (dated March 25, 2010) seeking documents concerning the abandonment of the negative declaration and the City's decision to not proceed with any additional environmental review. On April 1,2010, the assistant City Attorney informed me that the City was going to delay responding to the public records act request for another 14 days, well beyond the time that such documents could be useful to this process. While City Staff was willing to provide documents in the record file, they would not provide emails and other correspondence to or from Mr. Dean Geotz or his attorney. I reviewed some documents at the City Clerk's office on April 1, 2010, but such file did not even include the complete development file. On April 6,2010,1 followed up with a telephone call to the Project Planner, Van Lynch. He informed me that there were documents responsive to my Public Records Act request, but he would not release them because the Assistant City Attorney was claiming a "Joint Litigation Privilege." This is a violation of the Public Records Act. There cannot be a litigation privilege over documents absent active litigation. As emphatically stated by the Attorney General: [T]he term "pending litigation," like "pending action," is a term of art and refers to a suit or other action which has already commenced but is not yet decided; in other words, an action or suit is pending from its inception until the rendition of final judgment. The inception of an action follows the filing of the first paper that commences it. The Legislature has not defined the term "pending litigation" otherwise for purposes of the PRA. ... In fact, as mentioned in the text, the legislative history of subdivision (b) indicates that at least that subdivision was not meant to grant an agency the right to withhold information because of anticipated litigation. (Final Report, op. cit. supra, at 9.) (71 Ops. Cal. Arty. Gen. 235. (emphasis added).) Please investigate why documents are being withheld and do not make any decisions on the project until the public can review the entire record in this matter. Regardless of your view of the merits of the project, the public does have a right to consider and comment on the entire record. Absent full and complete disclosure, democracy cannot flourish. Sincerely, Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. Delivered via Email and Personal Delivery TODD T. CARDIFF,ESQ. ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 BROADWAY SUITE 358 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 T619 546 5123 F 619 546 5133 Cardiff 1 aw @ cox.net April 7,2010 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad C/0 Van Lynch 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Opposition to Goetz Seawall CDP09-13 Honorable Planning Commission, Please accept these comments in opposition to the Geotz Seawall and regular Coastal Development Permit These comments are submitted both on behalf of myself and as a member of the Advisory Committee for the San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. The Surfrider Foundation objects to the City's attempt to rely on the previous emergency exemption from CEQA, The failure of the City to comply with CEQA and prepare an EIR constitutes an abuse of discretion. First, the applicants for the Geotz Seawall do not have a vested right to a seawall. [ Whaler's Village Club v. Cat. Coastal Com, 173 Cal. App. 3d 240, 252 (1985] A permit for an emergency seawall is temporary. The applicant must obtain a regular coastal development permit. If the coastal development permit is denied, the seawall must be removed. The fact that the applicants built a seawall under an emergency procedures does not constitute a vested right to a seawall. (Barrie v. Cal. Coastal Com, 196 Cal. App. 3d 8,15 [1987].] Nor does the fact that the seawall was approved as a temporary measure to mitigate an alleged emergency prevent the project from undergoing CEQA review. A regular coastal development permit must be approved though a discretionary process, which triggers CEQA review. [Pub. Res. Code § 21080.] While an emergency exemption may have applied to the temporary emergency permit, it does not apply to the regular coastal development permit. The City must comply with CEQA and consider an EIR prior to approving the project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15002.] The City originally recognized this procedure and circulated an initial study and proposed negative declaration for public review. The Surfrider Foundation and others submitted comments and scientific articles regarding the impacts of seawalls. Most importantly, the experts agree that placing a seawall on an eroding shoreline will result Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall April 7,2010 Page 2 of2 in the loss of the beach. There is more than a fair argument based on substantial evidence that the seawall will have significant impact on the public beach. [Pub. Res. Code sect. 21080[c][2].J The City cannot certify the negative declaration and therefore must prepare an EIR. The fact that an EIR is required for this project is further supported by the procedures for subsequent and supplemental EIR's. Under 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, upon the next discretionary decision for the project, the lead agency must consider whether there are changes in project, changes in the circumstances or new information that was not and could not be submitted before the lead agency which now requires the preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Considering that the City did not prepare any environmental review previously because of the emergency exemption, now that a subsequent discretionary decision is required, the City must consider all the impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures in an EIR. Based on the review of the EIR, the City must consider whether to approve the project. The City does not get a free pass in avoiding CEQA. In conclusion, we strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny the project and order the Staff to prepare an full EIR. The City cannot rely on the prior emergency exemption. There is simply no emergency to rely upon to avoid CEQA at this time. Sincerely, Todd T. Cardiff, Esq.1 Van Lynch From: tom.m.cook@gmail.com on behalf of torn cook [tcook@mpl.ucsd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:18 PM To: Van Lynch Subject: Comment for Geotz Seawall F'roject Dear Mr Lynch, PLEASE DISREGARD MY EARLIER MESSAGE, I HIT SEND PREMATURELY! Dean Mr Lynch, Please add the following to the public record regarding the hearing for the Geotz seawall project. Public safety has been used as a reason for approving the Geotz seawall. The California Coastal Commission in 2008 has stated that seawalls do not provide safety to beachgoers within the staff recommendation on city of Solana Beach LCP land use plan. I have performed a simple probability analysis of injury or fatality causing bluff collapse along North County beaches, which is by no means an exhaustive study. There is no physical data regarding bluff failures, only a list of deaths or injuries from bluff collapse culled from newspaper reports, Given the list of injuries & deaths from bluff collapse since 1989 in North County (Torrey Pines counts as North County for this discussion) taken from http://legacv.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080821-9999-lm21torrey.html and verified with a separate newspaper search. Fatalities: 5 Duly 2002: An unidentified man died when the cave he used for shelter at South Carlsbad State Beach collapsed on him. [1] Dan. 16, 2000: Rebecca Kowalczyk, 30, was killed when a 110-yard- wide section of an Encinitas bluff she was sitting under just below Neptune Avenue broke loose and fell on her. [1] Dan. 22, 1995: Two tourists were killed when a beach bluff collapsed on them at Torrey Pines State Reserve[2] Aug 20, 2008: Man Killed in Torrey Pines Bluff-Collapse [1] Injuries: 5 April 27, 1989: Three construction workers were injured after plummeting 50 feet down a Neptune Avenue bluff in Encinitas that they were trying to stabilize. [3] In February [2008], a landscaper was trapped and injured when a retaining wall atop beach bluffs in Encinitas collapsed.[1] Dan. 22, 1995: A 52-year-old Mission Hills man was buried up to his chest and suffered a leg fracture. [1] Given Dept Boating and Waterway stats, 7.7 million people a year visit North County Beaches, or 154 million people in 20 years. So the probabilities: Injury due to bluff collapse: 5 in 154 million or 1 in 30,800,000 Fatality due to bluff collapse: 5 in 154 million or 1 in 30,800,000 Injury or Fatality due to bluff collapse: 10 in 154 million or 1 in 15,400,000 If you throw out injuries and fatalities before 2000, you have Injury due to bluff collapse: 1 in 77 million Fatality due to bluff collapse: 3 in 77 million or 1 in 25,667,000 Injury or fatality due to bluff collapse: 4 in 77 million or 1 in 19,250,000 l To put these numbers into context, the International Shark Attack File keeps data on shark attacks, this is from their "analysis" for year 2000(really similar to what I've provided). http:7/www.fImnh.uf1.edu/fish/sharks/Statistics/beachattacks.htm Drowning and other beach-related fatalites 1 in 2 million Drowning fatalites 1 in 3.5 million Shark attacks 1 in 11.5 million Shark attack fatalites 0 in 264.1 million Estimated attendance 264,156,728 Lifeguard provision of medical care 236,642 Lifeguard rescues from drowning 70,771 Drowning (lifeguard areas) 12 Drowning (non-lifeguard areas) 62 Fatalities (causes other than drowning) 58 Total fatalities 132 Unprovoked shark attack 23 Fatalities 0 Sources: USLA (from 68 ocean lifeguard agencies within jurisdiction), ISAF (same beach areas). In 2000 there were 52 unprovoked shark bites, including 1 fatality all US coastal waters. From National Safety Council: Causes of Deaths Annual Deaths Death Risk During Lifetime Heart disease 652,486 1 in 5 Cancer 553,888 1 in 7 Stroke 150,074 1 in 24 Hospital Infections 99,000 I in 38 Flu 59,664 1 in 63 Car accidents 44,757 1 in 84 Falls 17,229 1 in 218 Drowning 3,306 1 in 1,134 Sun/heat exposure 273 1 in 13,729 Lightning 47 1 in 79,746 Shark attack 1 1 in 3,748,067 Regards, Tom Cook San Diego, CA TERRAMAR BEACH PHOTOS 4/7/10 5:59 PM From: Dustin Rosa <dustinrosa@sbcglobal.net> To: edomin4378@aol.cxim Subject: TERRAMAR BEACH PHOTOS Date: Wed, Apr?, 2010 5:55 pm Attachments: DSCN7753_Dec08.jpg (962K), DSCN7757_Dec_08.jpg (878K) The attached photos were taken by me on Dec. 20, 2008, the day after the slide occurred. Dustin Rosa, Realtor® Windermere Exclusive Properties cell (760) 696-0696 e-fax (858) 432-5007 dustinrosa@sbcglobal.net www. divinecoastalprop. com ORE Lie. #01804217 I Broker Lie. #01257557 Location I Location I Dedication i 2 Attached Images Item No. 1 Photos provided by Mr. Dominguez during public testimony 4/7/10. http://webmail.aol.com/31226-lll/aol-l/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx Page 1 of 1 Ceomorphology 112 (2009) 318-323 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geomorphology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Comparison of short-term seacliff retreat measurement methods in Del Mar, California Adam P. Younga'*, R.E. Flicka, R. Gutierrez b, R.T. Guzaa •' Integrative Oceanography Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, 9500 Oilman Dr., La jolla, CA, 92093-0209, USA " Tile University of Texas at Austin, 7 University Station, Austin, TX, 7S712, USA ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 31 March 2009 Received in revised form 23 June 2009 Accepted 23 June 2009 Available online 8 July 2009 Keywords: Coastal erosion Seaclitf retreat Southern California Change detection LiDAR ABSTRACT Seacliff retreat has been variously characterized as the recession rate of the cliff top. of the cliff base, and as the bulk recession rate based on volumetric changes of the entire cliff face. Here, these measures of retreat are compared using nine semi-annual airborne LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) surveys of southern California seacliffs. Changes in the cliff base location (where the steeply sloping cliff face intersects the beach) include cliff retreat owing to basal erosion, but also reflect changes in beach sand level and basal talus deposits. Averaged over the 2.5 km alongshore study span, the cliff base actually prograded seaward about 12 cm during the 4-year study. Cliff top change was dominated by few, relatively large (several meters) localized retreats. Cliff face changes, that include failures and deposits anywhere on the cliff profile, had a relatively small mean magnitude compared to cliff top changes and were more widely distributed alongshore. However, the similar alongshore averaged, cumulative cliff top and net bulk cliff face end-point retreat (14 and 19 cm, respectively) suggest that mean cumulative cliff top retreat can potentially be a viable surrogate for mean net cumulative cliff-wide erosion (and vice versa) over relatively short time periods. Cliff face erosion occurred repeatedly at some locations, confirming the presence of seacliff erosion hot-spots during the study period. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Seacliff retreat, important to coastal management, is often estimated using the recession of the cliff top or cliff base obtained from aerial photographs, topographic maps, or in situ surveys (e.g. Jones and Williams, 1991: Wilcock et al., 1998; Benumof and Griggs, 1999; Moore et al., 1999; Budetta et al., 2000; Hapke and Richmond, 2002: Pierre and Lahousse, 2006; Dornbusch et al., 2008; Greenwood and Orford, 2008). Recently, three-dimensional high resolution maps derived from LiDAR have been used to estimate the cliff face bulk retreat, defined as the volumetric change (measured by differencing successive digital elevation models) divided by the cliff height and the alongshore width of a cliff section (Young and Ashford, 2006a,b). Cliff top, base, and face change estimates can differ significantly over short time periods. For example, wave action can cause cliff base retreat, but no cliff top change (Fig. 1A). Mid-cliff face erosion can occur without changes to the cliff top or base (Fig. 1B). Alternatively, a cliff top failure may result in significant cliff top recession and no change at the cliff base if the talus is removed by wave action prior to subsequent data collection (Fig. 1C). When talus deposits are incompletely removed between surveys, the cliff base appears to accrete (Fig. 1D, E). Additionally, the cliff base location changes when * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 858 822 3378; fax: +1 858 534 0300. E-mail address: adyoung@ucsd.edu (A.P. Young). 0169-555X/S - see front matter © 2009 Eisevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ge.ornorph.2rj09.Q6.018 the beach sand level at the cliff base changes (Fig. IF, an increase in beach sand level causes retreat of the estimated cliff base location). Although these estimates will converge over long time periods, short-term, seasonal estimates provide insight into cliff retreat processes (e.g. the relative importance of higher than usual rainfall or waves). Here, changes in the cliff top, cliff base, and cliff face, estimated using nine semi-annual airborne LiDAR surveys spanning four years are compared. 2. Study area The studied 2.5 km reach of seacliffs in Del Mar, California (Fig. 2B), on average 18 m high with approximately 45° slope, are cut into uplifted marine terraces. The lower cliff consists of the Del Mar Formation, an Eocene sedimentary deposit composed of sandy claystone interbedded with coarse-grained sandstone (Kennedy, 1975). Near the middle of the study area, the Del Mar Formation is overlain by permeable sandy Pleistocene terrace deposits (Fig. 2C).The Del Mar Formation is relatively impermeable, resulting in perched groundwater and sapping at the interface with terrace deposits. The cliff face experiences weathering, desiccation, sheet erosion, and rilling, while the cliff base is subject to wave action. Typical beach width ranges from 30 to 70 m, and fluctuates seasonally with wider beaches in summer. During winter, the eroded beach permits direct wave attack at the cliff base when elevated tides coincide with large A.P. Young et al. / Ceomorphology 112 (2009) 318-323 \ r 319 10m I Sand Level Change ^ •• Erosion ^ tfl \ <** \ ro Cliff Retreat Measurements (m) "• Talus Deposit Top = Face (-) = Face (+) = Face (Net) = Base = A 0.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.2 -1.0 B 0.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.2 0.0 C -1.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.2 0.0 D 0.0 -0.2 +0.2 0.0 +1.0 E -1.0 -0.2 +0.2 0.0 +1.0 F 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 Fig. 1. interpretations of idealized cliff changes using the three different retreat estimates. wave events. Subaerial and marine erosional processes result in long- cliff top within a few meters of the cliff edge, has been threatened by term cliff top retreat rates estimated at 5-20 cm/yr (Benumof and past cliff failures (Kuhn and Shepard, 1984). Portions of the cliff base Criggs, 1999; Moore et al., 1999; Young, 2006; Hapke and Reid, 2007). stabilized with wooden and concrete seawalls (Fig. 2D) were identified The North County Transit District railroad, currently situated on the with oblique photographs (California Coastal Records Project, 2008). 0 500 30 "iA"*\ ^M*X£ I Terrace DeoosiU) Cliff 20 J Height (m) 10 1000 1500 Location (m) 2500 D) Seawall Locations nCD , § E) Cliff Face ., w Change (m) .2 w F) Cliff Top g Change (rn)<M s G) Cliff Basease jc. Change (m) O Fig. 2. A and B) Study location maps, C) alongshore location. -5-> cliff height and composition, D) major seawall locations, and cumulative (4yr) changes of the cliff (E) face. (F) top, and (G) base versus 320 A.P. Young etal. I Ceomarphology 112 (2009) 318-323 The seacliffs are exposed to waves generated by local winds and distant storms in both hemispheres. During winter, swell from the North Pacific and Gulf of Alaska are most energetic, whereas swell from the South Pacific dominates in summer. Waves reaching southern California cliffs undergo a "complex transformation, and "shadows" of the Channel Islands create strong alongshore variations in wave height. The seasonal cycle in the Del Mar region has maximum wave energy in winter. Historical data indicates regional wave heights during the study period (May 2002-March 2006) were typical. San Diego's semi-arid Mediterranean climate is characterized by dry summers and occasionally wet winters, with 85% of rainfall occurring from November through March. Annual precipitation amounts vary from about 10-60 cm, and average 25 cm. Rainfall in the region tends to be episodic and several centimeters of rain often fall over a few days. The study period was relatively dry, except for the wet winter of 2004-2005 when winter storms delivered about 56 crn of rain, resulting in significant coastal landsliding. 3. Methods Airborne LiDAR data was collected each spring and fall from May 2002 through March 2006 with an Optech Inc. Airborne Laser Terrain Mapper 1225. The nine surveys yielded eight time intervals of cliff change. Four passes during each survey at an altitude of 300-1000 rn provide a point density of approximately 3 points/m2 on the cliff. LiDAR data were processed into 0.5 m2 resolution digital elevation models (DEM) using the second of two LiDAR returns (the most representative of the ground surface) and a "natural neighbors" interpolation. Cliff height (Fig. 2C) and the beach sand elevation near the cliff base were obtained from the OEMs. 3.1. Cliff top and cliff base changes Cliff base positions were identified manually from the DEM as the location of the slope break between the beach and cliff face. Similarly, cliff top location was defined as the slope break between the cliff face and the cliff top. For this particular cliff section, the break in slope is relatively easily identified and generally free of vegetation. However identifying cliff top and base positions may be difficult in other cliff sections lacking a clear break in slope or because of obstructions such as vegetation. For each survey, the digitized line (cliff top or base) from the previous survey was used as a baseline, and adjusted where new changes occurred. Changes were estimated on cross-shore transects spaced at 1 m intervals alongshore. Automated cliff top and cliff base extraction methods (i.e. Liu et al, 2009) were not employed because these methods can induce significant errors when measuring relatively small changes in cliff top and base positions. For example, Liu et al. (2009) found average planimetric differences ranging from 2.5 to 4.2 m between manually digitized lines and automated extracted lines from airborne LiDAR data. Although errors of this magnitude may be negligible when cliff retreat is large, the potential error associated with automated algorithms exceeds the average retreat magnitude in this short-term study and therefore were not used. 3.2. Cliff face changes Digital change grids (DCG), estimated by differencing successive OEMs, show both negative (erosion) and positive (accretion, talus deposits) changes. Sources of DCG error include the basic LiDAR observations, spatial interpolation, and vegetation. The vertical root mean square difference between two surveys (RMSz, Federal Geo- graphic Data Committee, 1998), a measure of the total error, was estimated at 19 cm using fixed sloped surfaces. The DCGs were filtered and edited to remove noise and erroneous data. First, all grid cells with vertical change less than 38 cm (twice the RMSZ error) were neglected. Next, a minimum topographic footprint was imposed, requiring at least 10 connected cells of positive or negative change, thus enforcing a minimum change area of 2.5 m2. This filtering identifies individual landslides and talus deposits with a minimum volume of about 1 m3 (if all 10 cells had 38 cm of change). In practice, the minimum volume was approximately 2 m3. Finally, the filtered DCG data were edited visually to remove spurious changes caused by vegetation. Manual editing was employed rather than automated algorithms designed to remove vegetation from LiDAR because these algorithms sometimes also remove valid cliff points where cliff geometry is complex. Cliff face changes were separated into negative (cliff and talus erosion) and positive (talus deposits) volumetric changes and then evaluated in 1-m wide (in the alongshore direction) cliff compart- ments. Dividing the volumetric compartment changes by the cliff height and compartment width (1-m) yielded bulk negative and positive cliff face changes. The overall method is automated except for the manual removal of spurious changes caused by vegetation or other artifacts. The calculated change volumes underestimate the actual erosion because only relatively large volume (>2 m3) and large footprint (>2.5 m2) slides are detected. The neglected small events may play an important role in short-term seacliff evolution (Rosser et al., 2005; Young and Ashford, 2007), and their volume contribution for the study period is unknown. However, previous studies in the area (Young and Ashford, 2007), suggest the volume contribution of these small events is less than 30% of the total eroded volume (Young et al., in press). 4. Results 4.1. Beach sand levels Sand level changes measured at the cliff base ranged from 0 to 1.5 m, and were relatively small with an average absolute magnitude of 22 cm. Only 20% of the changes were greater than 35 cm. Over the entire beach face, normal seasonal change is observed (not shown), with elevated sand levels in summer (Aubrey et al., 1980). Interest- ingly, beach elevation changes at the cliff base were not seasonal. Average sand levels at the cliff base decreased in all time intervals except during the winters of 2003-2004 and 2005-2006. Cobble berms, which are ephemeral features in the region, occasionally build up at the cliff base during winter months and probably contributed to some of the measured beach elevation changes at the cliff base. 4.2. Cliff base changes Cliff base change is strongly variable alongshore, and change of both signs was observed, both in a given time interval, and cumulatively (Fig. 2G). Alongshore-averaged cliff base changes were negative, except during the summer of 2002 and (especially) the winter of 2004-05 (Fig. 3A). The cumulative (over 4 years) cliff base change in 1-m sections ranged from —4.5 to +4.0 m, with an alongshore average of +12 cm. Cliff base changes were relatively widespread, comprising up to 37% of the study area during a single interval (Fig. 3D). The alongshore average of nonzero changes ranged from —0.5 to + 0.7 m over the 8 time intervals (Fig. 3C). The largest change in a 1-m section during any time interval was +7.5 m (accretion), caused by a relatively large and clearly identifiable talus deposit (Fig. 4A). 4.3. Cliff top and cliff face changes The cumulative cliff top retreat in 1-m sections ranged from 0.0 to — 3.8 m (Fig. 2F), with an alongshore average of —14 cm. Changes occurred along less than 8% of the cliff top during any time interval A.P. Young et al. / Cmmorphotogy 112 (2009) 318-323 321 r 30A/\ •^a JS?s\ /*>\ /MM V - 20 - 10 •£•co <D{0 g, g1 § 2'-10 ogc__, S3" -20 <D5 - -30 L -40 A^-» ,^/-o o — o Cliff face erosion (negative change) was spatially widespread, while cliff face positive and cliff top changes were relatively localized (Fig. 3D). Mean magnitudes of cliff top change (locations of zero change neglected) varied seasonally between —0.5 and —1.5 m. while the mean cliff face measurements were comparatively small (Fig. 3C). Cliff face changes occurred without cliff top or base change when the cliff material was eroded from the central portion of the cliff rather than cliff top or cliff base, and the associated talus was eroded before it could be measured. At all locations with nonzero cliff top retreat, cliff face retreat was also observed. 5. Discussion 5.1. Beach sand levels The vertical elevation of beach sand at the cliff base limits the oortion of the cliff base that can be surveved. and thus contributes to -*- Ciift Face Negative -O- Cliff Face Positive -*- Cliff Face Net -•-Cliff Top-*• CBff Base 5)f -0.5-16 - LU s s LIDAR Survey Date Fig. 3. SeaclifF changes over the 2.5 km study area during each time interval. (A) mean change, note the change magnitude scale (y-axis) is different for the cliff base, (B) cumulative mean change, (C) mean change magnitude (zero changes neglected), and (D) percent of 1-m cells with nonzero change (number of 1-m cells with change/total number of 1- m cells). (Fig. 3D). The alongshore averaged magnitude of nonzero changes ranged from —0.3 to —1.6 m over the 8 time intervals (Fig. 3C). The largest change in a 1-m section, during any time interval, was — 3.8 m (Fig.4C). The cumulative cliff face change in 1-m sections ranged from —3.4 to +0.9 m, with an alongshore average of —22 cm, +4 cm, and —19 cm for the cliff face negative, positive, and net change, respectively. Positive changes (primarily talus accretion) occurred in less than 2% of the study length except during the winter of 2004-05 when positive change occurred in over 20% of the alongshore span (Fig. 3D). Negative changes were more spatially extensive and ranged from 5 to 37% of the study length during individual time intervals (Fig. 3D). The alongshore average magnitude of nonzero cliff face changes ranged from —10 to —23 cm, and +3 to +37 cm, for negative and positive change, respectively (Fig. 3C). The largest change in a 1-m section during any time interval was —2.2 m and 0.8 m for cliff face erosion and accretion, respectively. changes in cliff base horizontal location. Measured horizontal cliff base locations are most effected by sand levels at locations with relatively low cliff base (or talus) slope angles. Although the average beach sand level change magnitude was relatively small and did not result in perceptible cliff base change at most locations, large sand level changes did cause spurious cliff base change measurements in some instances. For example, at one location (where no talus deposition occurred) the sand level was lowered by about 1.0 m, exposing more of the cliff and resulted in a +1.5 m (seaward) change of the cliff base. However, the majority of the observed large magnitude (>1.0 m) cliff base displacements coincided with locations of new talus deposition and talus erosion. The maximum horizontal change caused by sand level change is approximately 2 m, estimated as the maximum change in beach elevation (~2 m) divided by tan a, where a is equal to the slope at the cliff base (x45°). Beach sand level changes can also affect cliff face measurements. For example, if the beach sand level increases prior to talus deposition, the talus volume estimate will include the accreted volume of sand under the talus. This affect is probably relatively small, because most new talus deposits were removed by wave action between surveys (cliff face positive changes <K cliff face negative changes, Fig.4F), and if the talus was not removed only a small portion was generally located on the beach (talus is often deposited on the lower cliff face, Fig. 4A). Furthermore, the average magnitude of beach change was smaller (22 cm) than the vertical change threshold (38 cm). However, these small errors will increase with larger sand level fluctuations. The maximum volume error from fluctuations in sand levels equals approximately the area of talus on the beach multiplied by the maximum expected change in beach sand elevation. 5.2. Cliff base changes Unlike the cliff top, cliff base location changes are not dominated by retreat (negative change). Cliff base location changes (identified here as the break in slope between the cliff and beach) are a combination of spurious changes resulting from beach sand level changes, talus deposition and removal (Fig. 4A, B), and real cliff base retreat. At much longer time scales (possibly several decades, based on historical erosion rates), cliff base retreat is larger than changes from either talus or beach sand levels, and this method will yield estimates of in situ cliff base erosion. 5.3. Cliff top and cliff face changes Cliff top retreat was dominated by localized large events, and was the most episodic of the retreat estimates, with a mean magnitude of cumulative cliff top change ( — 82 cm, locations of zero change neglected) six times greater than mean cumulative change (—14 cm, including all locations). The cliff top and cliff face magnitude- 322 A.P. Young et al. I Ceomorphology 112 (2003) 31S-323 A) Topographic Change May 2002 - September 2002 B) Topographic Change September 2002 - March 2003 v.--82^S* ^'^ !*1rW?Ma^*- > * •MMIM C) Topographic Change September 2004 - April 2005 D) Transect A - A' May 2002 - September 2002 Cliff Top -2.0m Eroded Talus Area Deposit Cliff Base -1-6.5 m 10 20 30 Cross-Shore Location (m) E) Transect A - A' September 2002 - March 2003 Cliff Base -6.5m 10 20 30 Cross-Shore Location (m) F) Transect B - B' September 2004 - April 2005 Cliff Top -3,8m Beach Sandsx • 10 u 0 .20 . •10! L0 ^<tf9T-y%;||,„-,-'7%. J •.:^.' 20 £ "10 c L0 10 20 30 Cross-Shore Location (m) Fig. 4. Changes over a 120 m cliff section during 3 time intervals, where red and blue indicate erosion and accretion, respectively. A) Large upper cliff landslide and associated talus deposit. B) Next survey shows both continued cliff erosion, and erosion of the talus deposit in panel A. C) The upper cliff landslide associated with the largest cliff top retreat. —3.8 m. The talus was almost all eroded before the April 2005 survey. (D, E. F) Cliff profiles associated with panels A. B, C. frequency distributions differ; 50% of cliff top changes were larger than — 50 cm, compared with 6% for cliff face change. During most of the study period (an exception is the winter of 2004-2005), negative (erosional) cliff face changes were much more extensive than positive (depositional) changes, indicating that the available wave action was sufficient to erode talus deposits. Although cliff top and face change differs significantly, there are similarities. For example, mean cumulative cliff face (negative and net) and top changes are correlated (r>0.9), whereas the cumulative cliff base changes are uncorrelated with the top and face (Fig. 3B). The cliff face and cliff top both show seasonality, with relatively more change during winter than summer (Fig. 3A), whereas cliff base changes are not seasonal. All methods recorded relatively extensive changes during the winter of 2004-05, and limited change during summers (Fig. 3D). 5.4. Ceomorphic perspective The seasonality of cliff top and cliff face changes reflects the seasonal variation of both wave energy and rainfall, which have greater potential for cliff erosion during the winter months. Our measurements of cliff base changes encompass a variety of processes, some of which can oppose each other during a given time interval. For example during winter months a large landslide deposit causes the cliff base to move seaward, while wave erosion of the cliff base produces landward movement. This type of opposition contributed to the lack of seasonality in observed cliff base changes. The wet winter of 2004-2005 had a relatively profound affect on the Del Mar seacliffs, with the absolute maximum mean cliff face, cliff top, and cliff base changes all occurring during this winter (Fig. 3A). Rainfall triggered numerous coastal landslides and initiated erosion A.P. Young et at / Ceamorphology 112 (2009) 318-323 323 through other subaerial processes ultimately eroding a total volume of about 3500 m3. Available wave action was insufficient to remove the talus, and approximately 1/3 of the total eroded volume (1150 m3) remained as talus at the end of the winter. The remaining talus during this time interval was more than double the volume in all other time intervals combined, and probably temporarily protected in situ cliff material from wave-induced erosion. As these talus deposits are reworked by future wave action, the erosion rates will probably be elevated, because talus is much more easily eroded than in situ cliff material. Cliff top retreat reduces the overall cliff slope, while cliff base and cliff face erosion (not concentrated at the cliff top) cause overall slope steepening, thus reducing overall cliff stability. During the study period, 50% of both cliff top and cliff face failures were preceded by cliff face erosion at the same location during the previous year. This effect was cumulative over the study period and led to the development of localized erosional hot-spots. At-some locations hot- spots persisted for the duration of the study period, with cliff face erosion occurring in 7 of the 8 time intervals. However, cliff face erosion did not necessarily lead to cliff top failure, and only 18% of cliff face erosion locations were followed by a cliff top failure, probably because of the relatively short study time period and the highly episodic nature of cliff top retreat. Over longer time periods, these concepts can be used to develop a seacliff erosion hazard index, defined as the difference between cliff top and cliff face erosion. For example, as the cliff face retreat exceeds cliff top retreat, the cliff becomes more unstable, and vice versa. 6. Summary The three LiDAR-based estimates of cliff retreat, using observations of the cliff top, cliff face, and cliff base, are all limited by the accuracy and density of the observations. Cliff face change estimation is mostly automated, but requires manually deleting erroneous change caused by vegetation or other artifacts (if these areas cannot be removed through automated procedures). Manually digitizing the cliff top and base locations is labor intensive, with substantial errors when there is not a clear slope change between the beach and cliff face, and between the cliff face and cliff top. However, recent advances in automated extraction of cliff top and base positions (i.e. Liu et a!.. 2009) show promise, and may eliminate the labor intensive manual digitizing methods. Overall, cliff face change estimates were the most informative because all cliff changes, including changes at the cliff top and base, are captured. The cliff face method is also the most automated, and positive and negative changes are easily separated. The cliff top method captures real retreat, but provides only a limited view of cliff evolution. The cliff base method measures changes from basal erosion, but is complicated by a sensitivity to talus and sand levels at the cliff base. Acknowledgments LiDAR surveys were sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Southern California Beach Processes Study. APY received Post-Doctoral Scholar support from the California Department of Boating and Waterways Oceanography Program. References Aubrey, D.G., Inman, D.L, Winant, C.D., 1980. The statistical prediction of beach changes in southern California. Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 3264-3276. Benumof, 8.T., Griggs, G.B.. 1999. The dependence of seacliff erosion rates, cliff material properties, and physical processes: Sand Diego County, California. Shore and Beach 67 (4), 29-41. Budetta. P., Galietta, G., Santo. A., 2000. A methodology for the study of the relationship between cliff erosion and the mechanical strength of soils and rock masses. Engineering Geology 56, 243-256. California Coastal Records Project, 2008, Copyright © Kenneth and Gabrielle Adelman. www.californiacoastline.org. Dornbusch, U.. Robinson, D.A., Moses. C.A.. Williams, R.B.G.. 2008. Temporal and spatial variations of chalk cliff retreat in East Sussex, 1873 to 2001. Marine Geology 249, 271-282. Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1998. Geospatial positioning accuracy standards, FGDC-STD-007. 3-1998. 28 pp. Greenwood, R.O., Orford, J.D.. 2008. Temporal patterns and processes of retreat of drumlin coastal cliff — Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. Geomorphology 94,153-169. Hapke, C. Richmond, B.. 2002. The impact of climatic and seismic events on the short- term evolution of seacliffs based on 3-D mapping, northern Monterey Bay, California. Marine Geology 187, 259-278. Hapke, C.J., Reid, D., 2007. National assessment of shoreline change, part 4: historical coastal cliff retreat along the California coast. U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 2007-1133. 51 pp. Jones, D.G., Williams, A.T., 1991. Statistical analysis of factors influencing coastal erosion along a section of the west Wales coast, UK. Earth Surface Process and Landforms 23, 1123-1134. Kennedy, M.P., 1975. Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area, western area. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, 56 pp. Kuhn, G.G., Shepard. P.P.. 1984. Sea Cliffs, Beaches, and Coastal Valleys of San Diego County: Some Amazing Histories and Some Horrifying Implications. University of California Press, Berkeley. California. 193 pp. Liu. J.K., Li, R.. Deshpancle, S., Niu, X.. Shin. T.Y., 2009. Estimation of blufflines using topographic Lidar data and orthoimages. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 75, 69-79. Moore, L.J., Benumof. B.T., Griggs, G.B., 1999. Coastal erosion hazards in Santa Cruz and San Diego Counties. California. In: Crowell, M., Leatherman, S.P. (Eds.), Coastal Erosion Mapping and Management: journal of Coastal Research SI, vol. 28, pp. 121-139. Pierre, G., Lahousse, P., 2006. The role of groundwater in cliff instability: an example at Cape Blanc-Nez (Pas-de-Calais, France). Earth Surface Process and Landforms 31. 31 -45. Rosser, N.J., Petley, D.N., Lim, M., Dunning, S.A., Allison, R.J., 2005. Terrestrial laser scanning for monitoring the process of hard rock coastal cliff erosion. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 38, 363-375. Wilcock, PR., Miller, D.S., Shea, R.H., Kerkin, R.T., 1998. Frequency of effective wave activity and the recession of coastal bluffs: Calvert Cliff, Maryland. Journal of Coastal Research 14, 256-268. Young, A.P., 2006. Quantifying short-term seacliff morphology of a developed coast: San Diego County, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California San Diego. Young. A.P.. Ashford, S.A., 2006a. Application of airborne LIDAR for seacliff volumetric change and beach sediment contributions. Journal of Coastal Research 22,307-318. Young, A.P., Ashford. S.A., 2006b. Performance evaluation of seacliff erosion control methods. Shore and Beach 74,16-24. Young. A.P., Ashford. S.A.. 2007. Quantifying sub-regional seacliff erosion using mobile terrestrial LIDAR. Shore and Beach 75. 38-43. Young, A.P., Olsen, M.J., Driscoll, N.. Flick, R.E.. Gutierrez, R.. Guza, R.T.. Johnstone, F... Kuester, F., in press. Comparison of airborne and terrestrial LIDAR estimates of seacliff erosion in southern California. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ELSEVIER ScienceDirect Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 www.elsevier.com/locate/geornorph Processes of coastal bluff erosion in weakly lithified sands, Pacifica, California, USA Brian D. Collins a'*, Nicholas Sitarb U.S. Geological Suivey; Western Coastal and Marine Geology. 345 Middlefield Rd, MS-999, Menh Park. CA 94025, United States h Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 449 Dams Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-17/0, United States Received 18 July 2007; received in revised form 1 September 2007; accepted 3 September 2007 Available online 14 September 2007 Abstract Coastal bluff erosion and landsliding are currently the major geomorphio processes sculpting much of the marine terrace dominated coastline of northern California. In this study, we identify the spatial and temporal processes responsible for erosion and landsliding in an area of weakly lithified sand coastal bluffs located south of San Francisco, California. Using the results of a five year observational study consisting of site visits, terrestrial lidar scanning, and development of empirical failure indices, we identify the lithologic and process controls that determine the failure mechanism and mode for coastal bluff retreat in this region and present concise descriptions of each process. Bluffs composed of weakly cemented sands (unconfmed compressive strength — UCS between 5 and 30 kPa) fail principally due to oversteepening by wave action with maximum slope inclinations on the order of 65 at incipient failure. Periods of significant wave action were identified on the basis of an empirical wave run-up equation, predicting failure when wave run-up exceeds the seasonal average value and the bluff toe elevation. The empirical relationship was verified through recorded observations of failures. Bluffs composed of moderately cemented sands (UCS up to 400 kPa} fail due to precipitation-induced groundwater seepage, which leads to tensile strength reduction and fracture. An empirical rainfall threshold was also developed to predict failure on the basis of a 48-hour cumulative precipitation index but was found to be dependent on a time delay in groundwater seepage in some cases. Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: Coastal bluff; Sea cliff; Cemented sand; Weakly lithified sandstone; Failure mechanism; Wave climate; Landslide; Erosion 1. Introduction The interaction between land and sea manifests itself most dramatically in the evolution of cliffs located at the coastal zone. In many parts of the world, bluffs composed of weakly lithified sediment undergo continuous erosion and in some cases, episodic landslide failure. The processes * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 650 329 5466; fax: +1 650 329 5190. E-mail addresses: bcollins@usgs.gov (B.D. Collins), sitarv5jce.berkeley.edu (N. Sitar). 0169-555X/S - see front matter. Published by Elsevier B.V. doi: 10.1016/i.geomorph.2007.09.004 responsible for failure are often difficult to assess in these settings, due to the inaccessibility to document the events and the constantly changing morphology' of the coast itself. For example, failures caused by dkect wave action are typically not observable in-person and the post-failure morphology may undergo rapid change. Despite these challenges and in response to societal need, researchers worldwide have sought to underetand the processes contributing to coastal land loss. Existing case studies include those from England (Williams and Davies. 1987), France (Duperret et al, 2002), Italy (Budetta et al., 484 B.D. Collins, N. Sitar / GeomorphoLogy 97 (2008) 483-50! 2000), Israel (Arkin and Michaeli, 1985) and Japan (Sunamura, 1982). In the United States, considerable effort has been made to document and assess bluff evolution, particularly on the west coast, including studies from Washington (Gerstal et al., 1998), Oregon (Komar and Shih, 1993), northern California (Griggs and Johnson, 1979; Hampton, 2002; Hapke and Richmond, 2002; Sallenger et al., 2002), and southern California (Kuhn arid Osborne, 1987; Everts, 199 l;Benumof and Griggs, 1999; Benumof et al., 2000). In many cases, the consequences of bluff failure have included the loss of homes and infrastructure, including most recently in northern Cali- fornia in 1998. This has been true along the bluffs located just south of San Francisco, California, in the city of Pacifica and which are the focus of this paper. Investigations in the Pacifica area performed during the past 100 years include those following large storms (Bachus et al., 1981; Lajoie and Mathieson, 1998; Hampton and Dingier, 1998; Hampton. 2002; Snell et al., 2000; Sallenger et al., 2002) and earthquakes (Lawson, 1908; Bonilla, 1959; Plant and Griggs, 1990; Sitar, 1990). However, given this large body of work, a clear consensus has not been reached on the predominant failure mechan- isms responsible for bluff retreat. For example, whereas Lajoie and Mathieson (1998) concluded that wave action is primarily responsible for bluff erosion, Hampton and Dingier (1998), in a study performed along several areas of northern California coastal bluffs including Pacifica, postulated that groundwater-induced seepage failures are sometimes more prevalent. They suggested that wave action may only play a secondary role by removing failed material from the base of the bluffs. Sallenger et al. (2002) suggested that there may be a balance between these two factors but were not able to reach a consensus from their data set. This paper attempts to bring synergy to this debate and provide a framework for future coastal bluff erosion studies by identifying the failure mechanisms of a rapidly evolving but representative section of weakly lithified sand coastal bluffs. In this study, we provide descriptions of the observed failure modes and link these to the site- specific geology which varies throughout the study area. Observations of failures from five winter seasons (2001- 2006), including several failures witnessed first-hand during storms, provide the bulk of data for generating our conclusions. High-resolution surface models, developed from terrestrial lidar laser scans performed periodically over this time, provide additional data for geomorphic analysis including crest retreat and failure geometry. In our approach, we distinguish between failure mechanisms and failure modes. Coastal bluff failures are typically triggered by various forms of water-level change, wave action and toe erosion, terrestrial water (precipitation related surface or groundwater flow), weathering agents, freeze/thaw effects, and seismic shaking (see Hampton and Griggs, 2004); these are defined as failure mechanisms — the direct causes of the failures. Failure modes are defined as the method in which failures occur, whether by undercutting or oversteepening of the geometric profile of the bluff, by rotational failure, by tensile fracture caused by stress reliefer loss of soil strength, or from lateral or vertical inertial forces from seismic shaking. Examples of research performed on specific types of failure modes include that on undercutting, notching, and toe over- steepening (Emery and Kuhn, 1982; Sunamura, 1982), rotational failure related to wave action and groundwater seepage (Quigley and Gelinas, 1976; Edil and Vallejo, 1980), stress relief fracturing and cantilevering (Hamp- ton, 2002), and forces from seismic shaking (Sitar and Clough, 1983; Sitar, 1990; Ashford and Sitar, 2002). The modes are most often directly tied to the geometry of the bluff profiles, but can only be analyzed once the contributing mechanism has been identified. 2. Regional setting The Pacifica coastal bluffs are located south of San Francisco, California along the Pacific coastline (Fig. 1). Our study area consists of seven bluffs (Fig. 2a), named according to their location either north or south of the site access point along a 1.5 km length of coast. The bluffs form the Mussel Rock marine terrace sequence as delineated by Smith (1960) and are composed of weakly lithified beach and dune sands interspersed with alluvial sediments. Major bluff-forming units are estimated to be late Pleistocene and are capped with Holocene top soil, dune sand, and colluvium (Smith, 1960; Brabb and Pampeyan, 1983; Collins, 2004). Deposition occurred at or above beach level during a probable relative sea-level rise and during several periods of tectonically forced tilting (Smith, 1960). The terrace deposits overlie a complicated assemblage of lower Pleistocene paleosols and Mesozoic Franciscan Complex bedrock which form small headlands when exposed at beach level and commonly separate the coastline into distinct sections. The most prominent headland of the area is located immediately to the north of the Pacifica study area at Mussel Rock, where a splay of the San Andreas Fault crosses offshore to the northwest and which is partially responsible for the tilting of the deposits (Smith, 1960). Provenance of the bluff deposits is determined by direct inspection of the cliff exposures. Paleo-dune deposits B.D. Collins. N. Sitar / Ceomorphologj.' 97 (2008) 483-501 485 Fig. 1. Overview map of the Pacifica, California study area. display broad sweeping cross-bed features over thick- nesses of 10 m or more, whereas paleo-beach deposits are discerned by thin laminations with nonparallel planar bedding. Areas of alluvial deposition are less common and consist of pebbly channel sand and gravel where paleo- streams once drained seaward. With respect to geotechnical characterization, the majority of units consist of very weakly to moderately cemented uniform sands according to categorical divisions proposed by Shafii-Rad and Clough (1982). The major bluff-forming sediments generally consist of two materials, herein referred to as "weakly cemented" and "moderately cemented" for simplicity. We differentiate the materials from one another qualitatively by a field test of slope inclination or quantitatively by their unconfined compres- sive strength (UCS). Bluffs that exhibit overall slopes with inclinations of more than 70° tend to be moderately cemented, whereas slopes that are 50-60° in inclination are weakly cemented. Geotechnical testing by Collins (2004) showed that the moderately cemented materials exhibit UCS up to 400 kPa and weakly cemented units are between 5 and 30 kPa. Thin section analysis by Bachus et al. (1981) on similar soils in the area showed that the moderately cemented sands are composed of more angular particles and contain more clay cementation bonds compared to the weakly cemented sands which are primarily bonded by iron oxide. Further, the void space has been measured to be between 6% and 13% less in these moderately cemented sands (Bachus et al., 1981; Collins, 2004). The lower degree of interlocking, particle contact points, and cementation are therefore responsible for the difference in strength in these materials. Geologic mapping of portions of the study area has been performed by a number of researchers (Smith, 1960; Bachus et al., 1981; Brabb and Pampeyan, 1983; Howard- Donley Assoc., 1983; Lajoie and Mathieson, 1998; Sayre et al., 2001), however the mapping performed in the current study (Fig. 2b) is the first to identify the entire area in terms of geologic provenance and geotechnical characterization. Of particular note is the sharp distinction between weakly cemented sand units (Ow and 2wu) in the north-central portion of the bluffs and the moderately 486 B.D. Collins, N. Si tor / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 (a) Copyright © 2002-2007 Kenneth Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.californiacoastline.org (b) Bluff S1(N) Bluff S1(S)Bluff S2 Legend af: Artificial fii! (Historic) MM ap' Artificial protective fill (Historic) MH Qt, Qtb; Top soil and cfayey top soil {Holocene} Qs: Unconsolidated duns sand (Holocene) O£« Qc CoHuvium {Hoiocen«) •• Oa'. Alluvium (Pleistocene) & Qw, Qwy. Weakiy cemented marine terrace deposits (pleistocene) Qmt: Undifferentiated marine terrace deposits (Pleistocene) • Qps4, Qps1, Qpn1: Moderately cemented marine terrace deposits (Pieistocene) * Qpn3, Qpn4: Moderately cemented sand paieosoi deposits (Pleistocene) I fg: Franciscan Complex greenstone {Cretaceous and Jurassic) ;r. Franciscan Complex melange (Cretaceous and Jurassic) 0 20 40 60 80 100 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE IN METERS Fig. 2. (a) Profile panorama of study area. Bluff height ranges from 30 m in the north to 14 m in the south. Bluff S2 is stabilized with riprap and was not part of this investigation, (b) Geologic profile map of study area (after Collins, 2004). Individual Qw and Qp sub-units are grouped by their degree of cementation, and can be differentiated in the field as individual units. B.D. Collins. N. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 487 cemented sand units (QP^j located farther south. The intersection of the base of the Qpsl moderately cemented unit that forms the upper portions of Bluff SI (N) and the beach level marks this general division (Fig. 2a) Differential exposure to surface and ground water results in the various degrees of cementation. The spatial distribution of cementation is the primary factor respon- sible for the relative occurrence of different bluff failure mechanisms which is the focus of this paper. 3. Methods 3.1. Field observations We made site-specific observations and compiled oblique photographs of the Pacifica coastal bluffs over a 5-year period to describe typical mechanisms and modes of bluff failure. Visits were made on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis over five winter seasons (November to May) between 2001 and 2006 and focused on seven individual bluffs (Fig. 2a). With the exception of Bluff S1(N) and S1(S), the bluffs are separated from one another by clearly defined, beach-perpendicular trend- ing gullies. We divided Bluff SI into two sections due to the change in material properties that occurs from north to south at beach level in this section (Fig. 2b). We did not observe Bluff S2 for native failures because this bluff is protected by slope grading and a 4.5 m-tall riprap revetment. In total, 128 visits were made over the five year period. Visits consisted of walking the length of the beach at low tides and along the bluff crest to document changes in beach and bluff morphology. When a failure was observed, we determined the failure mechanism based on observations of the failure mode and the wave and weather conditions since the last field visit. Our observations documented the level of wave run-up on the beach and at the bluff toe based on strand lines and saturated bluff sediments, the presence or absence of seepage from the bluff face, typical failure dimensions, material type and maximum block size of failure debris, and the presence/absence of footprints or rainfall speckles on beach sand and debris following failure. These items provided evidence of failure timing, triggering mecha- nism, and associated crest retreat. In all cases, determination of the associated failure mechanism was made using the best evidence presented by field observations and subsequent photographic interpretation. Although many winter storms resulted in both high levels of wave action and precipitation, we could typically determine the associated mechanism from the observations. For example, in failures of weakly cemented bluffs, the influence of precipitation could be judged as insignificant in many cases due to a lack of seepage in or near the crest or slope. On the other hand, the influence of wave action was directly obvious with large-magnitude changes occurring to the bluff toe and associated mid-bluff translational failures. The converse was also true — in the moderately cemented bluffs, precipitation had a very obvious effect in terms of seepage, and in the failure of blocks only located near the crest. High levels of wave action at the toe could not therefore be deemed responsible for these crest failures. Whereas an attempt was made to document the occurrence of all magnitude of failures, we focused on identifying those failures that produced crest retreat. Thus, the presented data set represents only the largest magnitude events in the magnitude-frequency relation- ship for cliff failures in this area, and does not pinpoint smaller events that have also been shown to play a role in general coastal bluff evolution (e.g. Rosser et al, 2005). A majority of the photographic dataset is available for viewing at http://eriksson.gisc.berkeley.edu/bluff. 3.2. Empirical failure indices Given our observations that wave action and precip- itation contributed to failures on a regular basis, we developed proxies for their influence through represen- tative indices of each failure mechanism. The maximum daily total water level (MD-TWL) on the beach during each failure period served as an index for the influence of wave action on bluff toe erosion. This index estimates the elevation of the water surface (relative to NAVDS8) during maximum wave run-up taking into account waves, tides, storm surges and an indirect measure of beach slope (Collins, 2004; Collins et al., 2007). When the MD-TWL is greater than the bluff toe elevation, we can expect toe erosion and the instigation of wave-action driven failures. Conversely, when the MD-TWL is less than the bluff toe elevation, this is an indication that the bluff geometry should be stable. Detailed field visits performed during large storms in 2002-2003 clearly established this basis, with observations showing that waves reach the bluff toe intermittently for up to several (3+) consecutive hours during periods of high tide and wave activity. Attempts to correlate actual toe elevations with MD- TWL have only been moderately successful however, due to constantly changing beach elevations that typify the active northern California coastline. We therefore com- pare MD-TWL with the winter seasonal average (November to May) of the MD-TWL to provide a relative measurement of "high" and "low" levels of wave action. Values of MD-TWL higher than the winter season 488 B.D. Collins, N. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008> 483-501 MD-TWL are therefore assumed to be more likely to cause toe erosion and subsequent bluff failure. The MD-TWL was calculated from an empirical wave run-up equation (Ruggiero et al., 2001), developed for similar dissipative beaches along the Oregon coast. The Pacifica beach is also dissipative as measured by an Iribarren number (Battjes, 1974) ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 (Collins, 2004) and an average surf-scaling parameter (Guza and Inman, 1975) of 50 (Collins, 2004). In general, Iribarren numbers less than 1 are indicative of dissipative beaches (Aagaard and Masselink, 1999; Battjes, 1974), and surf-scaling parameters from 30 to over 100 categorize the dissipative extreme (Wright and Short, 1983). The wave run-up equation uses off-shore, deep water signif- icant wave height data (Hs) (NOAA/NDBC, 2006) summed with local tide levels (q) (NOAA/NOS, 2006) to calculate the MD-TWL: MD-TWL = max(/?2% if/) (1) where /?2% - 0.5/7. - 0.22(Ruggiero et al., 2001) (2) As a proxy for the influence of precipitation, we calculated the maximum 48-hour cumulative rainfall in the area during each failure period using available data from the National Weather Service (NWS. 2006). The 48-hour index, while empirical in nature, is justified analytically from a simple Darcy's Law evaluation of the vertical seepage velocity (V) through the bluff. Assum- ing a hydraulic conductivity (K) for uniform sand of 1 * 10~4 m/s (Craig, 1992) and an elevation driven hy- draulic gradient (i= 1), the seepage travel time (T) can be calculated for a position (D) in the lower mid-bluff area (~ 12 m below the crest): T = D/V where V = Ki such that T = 12m/(l x 10~4m/s-l) = 33 hours We assume a conservative seepage travel time of 48 h to take into account run-off and longer travel time through less permeable materials during individual storms. Although the index does not evaluate actual seepage paths, groundwater flow, pore water pressures, or the obvious importance of multiple seepage faces within the bluff soils (Rulon and Freeze, 1985), we use it to evaluate relation- ships between storm precipitation, recorded failures and seasonal averages — storms with above season average precipitation totals should lead to failures more often. 3.3. Terrestrial lidar laser scanning To obtain a geomorphic record of bluff and beach topography, we used a terrestrial lidar, laser scanning system (Fig. 3) on 17 occasions (Table 1). Our system consisted of a tripod-mounted Riegl Z210, 0.9 urn wavelength, Class 1 laser scanner with a 350-meter range and 15 mm point resolution (Riegl, 2007). The laser system uses a two-way, time of flight calculation of laser pulses measured along a precisely measured trajectory to build a "point cloud" of three-dimensional coordinates describing the geometry of the bluff, beach, and any other reflective object. The point cloud is post-processed to provide high-resolution (0.5 m maximum point to point spacing) surfaces and cross-sections for analysis includ- ing volumetric change, overall crest retreat, and failure morphology. Additional details of the data collection technique are described in Collins and Sitar (2004,2005). The laser scanner was mounted level on a tripod and data collected across a 180-degree swath centered on the bluffs. On each occasion, we collected 10 to 15 individual scans; each located about 100 m linearly apart along the beach. Scanning at periods of low tide from a distance of 50m from the bluff resulted in an average point spacing of 10 cm on the bluff face. We used local reflectors to georeference the initial data set, and best-fit surface re- gistration techniques to overlay consecutive scans from different dates. Processing of the point cloud data, inclu- ding filtering, registration, georeferencing, and surface generation was performed using I-SiTE Studio software (I-SiTE, 2007). Surfaces were constructed using a sphe- rical triangulation methodology designed to more accu- rately model steep and undercut topography such as that found in coastal bluffs. Volumetric changes and cross- sections were computed directly from the generated surfaces. 4. Results 4.1. Failure chronology The results of the observation program are summa- rized in Tables 2 and 3 for the weakly and moderately cemented bluffs of the Pacifica study area. Here, we provide the date or range of dates when a failure occurred in a particular bluff, along with the identified failure mechanism from our observations. We also show the calculated empirical failure mechanism indices for both wave action and precipitation as described B.D. Collins, A/! Sitar / Geomoiphology 97 (2008) 483-501 489 Fig. 3. Terrestrial lidar system for mapping three-dimensional coastal bluff topography. Laser is shown connected to laptop computer and battery. The general location of each scan is obtained using sub-meter DGPS, but data are registered using best-fit surface registration techniques. Blue reflector is typical of local reflectors positioned along the crest and used to georeference the data. Inset shows typical point data (-200,000 points) from reeistered scans located on the beach and the crest. previously. In general, failures occurred from either wave action-induced changes to bluff slope geometry resulting in disaggregated debris slopes at the base of the bluffs (Fig. 4a) or from precipitation-induced ground- water and surface water seepage through the bluff profiles resulting in somewhat smaller debris volumes, but typically larger average debris block size (Fig. 4b). No significant crest retreat-inducing failures occurred Table 1 Terrestrial lidar scanning chronology Scan <i 1 2 3 4 5 6 "7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Date Bluffs scanned*' 10/14/2002 01/14/2003 03/03/2003 05/08/2003 11/06/2003 01/06/2004 05/13/2004 P/09/">004 03/05/2005 9/19 + 27/05 12/12 01/05 02/08 /2005 /2006 /2006 03/08/2006 04/06 04/25 06/06 /?006 /2006 /2006 BN2, BN2, BN2, BN2. BN3, BN3, BN3, BN3, Crest BN3, BN4, BN4, BN4, BN4, BN4. BN4, BN4, BNl, BNl, BNl, BNl, BN2, BN2, BN2, BN2, BSI BSI BSI BSI BMI, BNl, BNl, BNl of BN2 c.nd BN2, BMI, BN3, BN3, BN3, BN3, BN" BN3, BN"! BN2, BN2, BN2, BN2, RN? BN2, BN2 BSI, BSI, BSI, BSI BNl BSI, BNl. BNl, BNl, BNl, BNl BNl, BNl, BS3 BS3 BS3 only BS3 BSI, BS1, BSI, BSI, RSI BS1, BSI, BS3 BS3 BS3 BS3 BS3 BS3 BS3 Notes Lidar expanded to BN3 and BS3 in 2003 Data collection limited by dense fog Lidar expanded to BN4 in 2005 06 Crest topography also collected •' BSI includes data for Bluff SUN) and Bluff SI (S). 490 B.D. Collins, N. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 Table 2 Failure chronology of weakly cemented bluffs Bluff N4C Bluff N3 BluffN2 Bluff Nl Bluff S1(N) Failure date or range 11/1/2004-11/23/2004 1/7/2005-1/11/2005 1/7/2005-1/11/2005 4/19/2006-4/25/2006 12/22/2001 - 12/29/2001 12/30/2001-1/3/2002 2/24/2004-2/25/2004 3/11/2005-3/25/2005 12/27/2005-1/3/2006 12/27/2005-1/3/2006 1/5/2006-1/8/2006 2/3/2006-2/8/2006 4/6/2006-4/14/2006 1/24/2002 2/8/2002-3/19/2002 12/13/2002- 12/17/2002 1/7/2003 1/9/2003-1/10/2003 1/12/2003-1/13/2003 1/22/2003 1/28/2003-1/29/2003 2/7/2003-2/11/2003 2/13/2003-2/19/2003 3/15/2003-3/17/2003 12/4/2003 - 12/10/2003 12/25/2003-1/6/2004 2/27/2004-3/2/2004 2/15/2005-2/25/2005 12/27/2005-1/3/2006 12/27/2005-1/3/2006 2/25/2006-3/4/2006 3/22/2006-3/28/2006 1/7/2002-1/8/2002 1/9/2002 1/10/2002 1/1 1/2002 11/8/2002-11/9/2002 12/13/2002-12/17/2002 12/19/2002 1/12/2003-1/13/2003 1/22/2003 1/28/2003-1/29/2003 4/25/2003-5/3/2003 5/8/2003-5/16/2003 11/5/2003-11/6/2003 11/24/2003-12/10/2003 12/25/2003-1/5/2004 3/16/2004-5/13/2004 1/7/2002-1/8/2002 1/9/2002 1/10/2002 12/13/2002-12/17/2002 12/19/2002-12/20/2002 12/26/2002-- 12/2 7/2002 12/30/2002-1/6/2003 1/15/2003-1/22/2003 1/31/2003-2/5/2003 Failure mechanism" Precipitation Wave action Wave action Precipitation Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Precipitation Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Precipitation Wave action Precipitation Wave action Wave action Wave action Precipitation Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Precipitation Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Wave action Approx. crest retreatb MD-TWL Max. 48-hour precip. Lidar data of (m) (m) (mm) failure 0.5 0.3 2 0.5 0.3 0.5 1 7—3 0.5 I to 2 T 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.9 2.7 0.6 0.9 <0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5-1.0 0.1 1 T 0.3 0.5 1 <0.1 2.4 1.2 4.9 0.9 2.1 1.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.2 2.4 3.0 3.35 4.28 4.28 2.78 3.90 3.54 4.43 3.41 4.62 4.62 3.38 3.59 3.80 2.09 3.60 5.80 3.70 2.70 3.40 2.70 2.80 2.30 3.20 3.80 3.93 3.64 3.25 3.02 4.62 4.62 4.15 3.51 3.61 3.85 3.15 3.52 5.00 5.80 5.10 3.40 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.80 2.09 3.93 3.64 3.31 3.61 3.85 3.15 5.80 5.10 3.00 4.50 3.00 3.10 19 29 29 1 31 27 37 44 80 80 4 9 21 0 37 118 0 24 2 5 0 0 27 42 36 64 31 46 80 80 55 45 1 0 0 0 69 118 48 2 5 0 41 1 7 36 64 15 1 0 0 118 56 5 14 5 0 Scan 16 Scan 13 Scan 16 Scan 2 Scan 3 Scan 6 Scan 12 Scan 12 Scan 14 Scan 15 Scan 2 Scan 4 Scan 5 Scan 6 Scan 7 Scan 2 B.D. Collins, N. Sitar ! Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 491 Table 2 (continued) BluffS I (N) Failure date or range 4/25/2003-5/3/2003 12/22/2003-12/24/2003 12/25/2003-1/5/2004 1/6/2004-1/17/2004 12/9/2004-1/4/2005 Failure mechanism* Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Approx. crest retreat b (m) <0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 MD-TWL (m) 2.90 4.13 3.64 3.81 3.89 Max. 48-hour precip. (mm) 41 19 64 11 130 Lidar data of failure Scan 4 Scan 6 a Identified failure mechanisms were determined by on-site observations and photo interpretation. b Crest retreat is noted only where known; absence of a value indicates an unknown quantity. 0 Observations of Bluff N4 began in 2004. from either passive stress relief, seismic shaking, or other causes during the 5 winter seasons. In the result tables, we also give an estimate of the associated crest retreat with each failure when known. Total crest retreat cannot be calculated from this date because failures did not occur in the same area of each bluff, nor over the foil length of an entire bluff. However, total crest retreat at any point along the bluff edge can be calculated from the lidar data. When lidar data was collected in temporal proximity to a failure, it is noted in these tables. 4.2. Failure correlation with empirical indices The empirical indices for the effects of wave action and precipitation on the weakly and moderately cemented bluffs provide an indication of the event magnitude that relates to expected failure. These results provide linkages between failure events and the identified failure mech- anism and also establish baseline predictions for the event magnitude required to induce failure. For wave action-induced failures of the weakly cemented bluffs, nearly all events occurred during periods of above average wave activity (Fig. 5, Table 2). While the average MD—TWL from the identified failures indicate a higher threshold (3.8 m), we feel that the best proxy for failure expectation is simply that of above average conditions as measured by the MD-TWL season average. Note that the majority of the weakly cemented bluff failures that were triggered by precipitation also occurred during above average wave action. As discussed, this is due to the combined effects of typical storms on the California coast, often bringing waves and rainfall concurrently. For precipitation-induced failures in the moderately cemented bluffs, we find the 48-hour cumulative precip- itation index to correlate well with a significant portion of the data. Most failures occurred during above-average precipitation totals (Fig. 6, Table 3). Here, we find a greater scatter of the results, but also find that the average 48-hour precipitation total for each failure (35 mm) is significantly above the season 48-hour storm average (15 mm). We note again, that whereas failures of these bluffs caused by the non-correlating mechanism (wave action in this case) occurred during high precipitation events, this is due to the concurrence of variable storm effects. 4.3. Failure morphology The terrestrial lidar data sets provide unprecedented details of the failure morphology of the Pacifica bluffs. Cross-sections generated from the processed point clouds and surfaces (Figs. 7,8) show the configurations of the bluffs over time and over the spatial range of the study area during times when many failures were documented (Tables 2 and 3). Cross-sections for a single area of the weakly cemented bluffs (Fig. 8) show additional temporal detail of the bluff geometry, specifically with regard to the full cycle of failure, relative stability, wave erosion and additional failure. Periods of relative stability can be deduced from cross-sections that overlie one another, whereas periods of instability are indicated by steep cliff profiles followed by measurable crest retreat. Note that cross-sections often identify the geometry after failure; capturing the immediate pre-failure surface is rare, since changes to the toe often occur in the hours leading up to failure. Geomorphologic analyses of the overall bluff inclination (Fig. 8 — inset table) give direct evidence to the constantly evolving geometry of the bluffs. We use this type of analysis, along with that presented in Fig. 7, to formulate a clear description of the failure mechanisms and modes for these bluffs. 5. Analysis Whereas the general processes of coastal bluff.erosion are well known, these same general descriptions do not provide the necessary information to make detailed empirical or deterministic evaluations of bluff stability. Our results provide some of the best constrained observa- tions of failures in both weakly and moderately cemented 492 B.D. Collins. N. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 Table 3 Failure chronology of moderately cemented bluffs Failure date or range Bluff S 1(S) 12/1 3/2002-12/16/2002 12/17/2002 12/19/2002-12/20/2002 12/21/2002 12/27/2002-12/29/2002 12/30/2002-1/7/2003 12/25/2003-1/6/2004 3/16/2004-5/13/2004 12/27/2005-1/3/2006 3/4/2006-3/8/2006 3/22/2006-3/28/2006 4/6/2006-4/14/2006 5/1/2006-5/24/2006 Bluff S3 1/2/2002-1/3/2002 3/4/2003-3/12/2003 3/27/2003 4/12/2003-4/16/2003 4/24/2003 — 4/25/2003-5/5/2003 12/21/2003-1/6/2004 1/6/2004-1/17/2004 3/16/2004-5/13/2004 12/9/2004-1/4/2005 1/7/2005 4/14/2006-4/19/2006 Failure mechanism" Wave action Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Wave action Wave action Precipitation - Wave action Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation Wave action Approx:. crest retreat b (m) 0.6 4.9 c 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.5-1 T 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.3 0.1 1-2 MD-TWL (m) 5.8 4.6 5.1 4.1 4.2 4.5 3.64 3.31 4.62 3.80 3.51 3.80 3.22 3.54 2.70 2.90 3.20 2.60 2.90 4.13 3.81 3.31 3.89 4.28 3.05 Max. 48-hour precip. (mm) 118 62 56 22 50 14 64 15 80 39 45 21 6 27 2 2 48 20 41 64 11 15 130 14 19 Assoc. lidar data of failure Scan 2 Scan 6 Scan 7 Scan 12 Scan 14 Scan 15 Scan 16 Scan 17 Scan 6 Scan 7 Scan 16 Identified failure mechanisms were determined by on-site observations and photo interpretation. Crest retreat is noted only where known; absence of a value indicates an unknown quantity. Crest retreat for this event is anomalous and related to massive surface water gullying at the crest. sands describing the timing and conditions required for cliff failure. Here, we utilize these results to provide detailed descriptions of the failure mechanisms and modes for each lithology as they pertain to weakly lithified sand coastal bluffs. 5.7. Coastal bluff erosion in weakly cemented bluffs from wave action-induced toe erosion Our observations show a clear and definitive link between wave action-induced toe erosion and failures in Fig. 4. Images showing areas of failure (dashed lines) in (a) weakly cemented materials from wave action, and (b) moderately cemented materials from precipitation-induced seepage. Note smoothed shear surface in (a) and rough, fractured surface in (b). Bluff height in (a) is 24 m. Bluff height in (b) is 18m. B.D. Col/ins. N. Sitar I Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 «J£ n n . » Weakly Cemented Bluff Failures from Wave Action - - - Average value of these failures ** Season Average (Nov-May: 2001-2006) t « o Weakly Cemented Bluff Failures from Precipitation 0 ** *„• o* . , «fc » o *» *• * * 00 * » ^ • « o * N _F M Season Month Fig. 5. Correlation of failures in weakly cemented bluffs with empirical index of wave action (MD-TWL) for the 2001-06 winter seasons. The average value of these failures (3.8 m) is 1.1 m above the season average. Values tor failures caused by precipitation are shown for comparison. weakly cemented coastal bluffs. Of the 62 failures recorded in these bluffs, 81% were related to wave action influences (Table 2). Specifically, we define wave action influences as those periods in which waves reached the bluff toe with sufficient energy to induce erosion of intact sediments. Coastal bluff erosion begins with early winter-season beach lowering from wave-induced offshore transport of sand. For example, we measured a drop of 1.8 m between summer and winter beach height during the 2002-2003 season which allowed near-continuous wave contact during 20 - n . • O • Moderately Cemented Bluff Precipitation - - - Average value of these failu Season Average (Nov-May o Moderately Cemented Bluff Wave Action Failures from 2001-2006} Failures from ., • *°o • • N D J F M A M J Season Month Fig. 6. Correlation of failures in moderately cemented bluffs with empirical index of precipitation (48-hour cumulative precipitation) for the 2001-06 winter seasons. The average value of these failures (35 mm) is 20 mrn above the season average. The season average only includes those days with a non-zero value. Values for failures caused by wave action are shown for comparison. 494 B.D. Collins, N. Sitar I Geomorphology 97 (20081 483-501 _-3 m 9m October January October January 5 m October January Bluff N2 Bluff N1 Bluff S1(S) 2002-200 7 Kwut'i Ac'qitian Ciller ia Coa&tai Records P;oioct AW cnnxnigooastlin- Fig. 7. Cross-sections from terrestrial lidar data from the 2002-03 winter season (October 2002, January, March, May 2003) and corresponding images of three bluffs showing the transition from a wave action driven failure mode in weakly cemented lithology (Qw — Bluffs N2 and Nl), to a precipitation-induced seepage driven failure mode in moderately cemented lithology (Qp — Bluff SI(S)). Geologic units are consistent with Fig. 2. periods of winter high tide. Higher wave energy associated with winter-season, north-Pacific storms also leads to an increase in direct wave action at the bluff' toe. Based on CO COQ o s 0> o UJ 20m- 10m offshore buoy climatology data collected by NOAA/ NDBC (2006), the defined winter (November through April) significant wave height (2.1 m) is 0.6 m above the Crest xBluff slope anglei i i i i i i i i i i i i j L 10m 20m 30m Horizontal distance 40m Fig. 8. Cross-sections from terrestrial lidar data of Bluff Nl beginning in 2002 through 2006. Diamond labels indicate order of scans (inset table and Table 1, only Scans #'s in bold are shown for simplicity). The bluff slope angle is measured from the intersection of the beach and bluff toe to the bluff crest. No scan was collected during September 2005 (Scan #9). Minor sloughing of the crest occurred between May 2004 and September 2005 that was not associated with a major failure event. Inset shows cross-section located 20 m to the south that more clearly identifies vertical toe geometry required for failure. B.D. Collins, N. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 495 summer (May through October) average. Similarly, the average winter wave period (8.2 s) is also greater than the summertime average by 1.4 s. In these winter conditions, waves break approximately 200 m offshore, reforming two or three rimes as a less coherent swash front on their way up the near-shore and beach front. When beach, tide, and wave conditions allow, we have seen wave swash make contact with the bluff toe for several hours during a single high-tide cycle. Lidar-derived elevation data of the beach and bluff (Fig. 8) indicates that the beach-toe intersection regularly reaches elevations of only 2 to 3 rn and the failure observations show that a majority of failures occur when the total water level on the beach reach or exceed these elevations (Table 2, Fig. 5). The wave swash erodes toe material by a reverse seepage mechanism, similar to rapid drawdown condi- tions along river banks (e.g. Springer et al., 1985; Dappotto et a.L, 2003). In a coastal setting, the near- vertical slope toe is saturated by incoming water and fails seaward as the returning water drains from the soil, whether composed of previously failed debris or intact material. Tension cracks forming behind the new slope may fill with sea water as the next wave reaches the toe, causing additional instability. Undercutting of the toe from wave action in the intact, weakly cemented material does not occur in the strictest sense — the bluff forming materials are sufficiently weak such that the near-vertical toe fails as an inclined wedge prior to any undercut (i.e. cantilevered section) forming. Retrogressive bluff failure occurs as steeper profiles form, but with nearly identically inclined shear planes (Fig. 9). Our observations (Fig. 10), along with the lidar data (Fig. 8), indicate that the maximum vertical height of the toe scarp reaches 2 to 3 m during each stage of failure evolution. The toe scarp height Tension crack may form vertical scarp at. crest when Q,. unit overlies Q», unit (e) Previously failed debris and slope profile after failure at angle of repose (-40°) (c) Vertical toe formation prior to failure (a) 1.5 m (typical crest failure) '• Yiii/ (Motteraie!y cemented sand, iii/ ' a..> i Mt -t. J Failures progress landward (b)Weakly cemented sand (Qw)24m Failure surfaces and slope profile prior to failure (d) Fig. 9. Geomorphic model of wave action-induced bluff failure with typical profiles from lidar data shown. Waves acting only on previously failed debris results in small, slab failures less than 2 m high (a). Shear failures increase in height (\,2,n) (b), but without crest retreat, as waves erode into either previously failed debris or into unfailed, intact material (c). Failure along the entire bluffheight occurs at n + \ with resultant crest retreat along parallel shear planes (d). The cycle will start anew as the resulting debris is eroded by wave action. At Pacifica, moderately cemented sand (Qp) overlies the weakly cemented sand at the crest and forms vertical scarps (e) that fail in response to wave action induced toe erosion occurring beneath (see also Figs. 7 and 8). 496 B.D. Collins, N. Sitar I Geomorpkology 97 (2008) 483-501 Fig. 10. Weakly cemented bluff geometry of Bluff Nl before (a) and after failure (b). Failure occurred in mid-December, 2002 ( Table 2: 12/13-1II 2002) along nearly the whole length of bluff— the unfailed central area failed several weeks later. Bluff height is 24 m. Dashed straight lines indicate location of cross-sections in Fig. 8. Inset in (a) shows absence of undercutting in 2-meter tall vertical toe through intact, horizontally bedded lithology, several weeks before failure. is limited by the geotechnical strength characteristics of the soil; geotechnical testing (Collins, 2004) has shown that the cohesive strength of the weakly cemented sand is only 6 kPa and not capable of forming taller, vertical configurations. Whereas the overall slope inclination typically varies between 45 and 60° (Fig. 8), lower and mid-slope inclinations can reach up to 65°, with upper slope areas reaching near-vertical in the moderately cemented sand layer capping these bluffs (Figs. 8, 9). The combination of a vertical toe scarp profile and a steep (~ 65°) mid-slope inclination is typically the configuration that precedes failure (Figs. 9, 10). Typical crest retreat resulting from complete bluff failure is about 1.0 in, although 4.9 in has been recorded from a single event (Table 2 - Bluff Nl). Intact blocks up to 1.5 m in greatest dimension are often found on the beach following these failures. The crest blocks, along with the bulk of the failure debris, provide a temporary defense against immediate continued failure through a combination of toe buttressing and erosion protection, but in effect are themselves the beginning of the next failure cycle (Figs. 8, 9). Winter seasons without observed failures (e.g. 2002-03 at Bluff N3 and 2004-06 at Bluff Nl, Table 2) are indicative of these periods with large deposits of previously failed material located at the toe (Fig. 8, Scans 7-17). Smaller failures at the crest that do not lead to entire bluff failure will continue to occur during this time from terrestrial processes, and may result in B.D. Collins. N. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 497 minor, yet measurable, crest retreat that should be anticipated. 5.2. Coastal bluff erosion in moderately cemented bluffs from precipitation-induced seepage Failures resulting from wave action do not occur in the moderately cemented bluffs as often due to their higher resistance against cyclical wave impact. The higher resistance has been measured in geotechnical laboratory tests (Collins, 2004) which show that unconfined compressive strength is more than 25 times higher in the moderately cemented materials (340 kPa) compared with the weakly cemented materials (13 kPa). This also explains why these bluffs form much taller near-vertical slope sections, commonly extending the entire height of the bluff (Fig. 4b). During this study, 20 failures in the moderately cemented bluffs (80%) were directly attribut- able to precipitation-induced failure mechanisms (Table 3, Fig. 6). Additional precipitation-induced failures also occurred along the geologic transition area in the southern portion of Bluff Sl(N), further validating this failure mechanism in bluffs composed predominantly of moder- ately cemented material. The results (Table 3) indicate that the average 48-hour rainfall required for bluff failure was 35 mm (Fig. 6). This magnitude is typical for winter storms of the northern California coast; the maximum 48-hour event exceeded 68 mm for each winter of this study (Collins et al., 2007). For those cases with minimal recorded precipitation (less than the season average — Fig. 6), the full data set of daily precipitation values (Collins et al.. 2007) indicates that a significant storm event preceded each of these failures by several days to a week. We interpret at least some of these anomalies to be related to particularly long seepage pathways that trigger failure only upon reaching specific, and potentially lower elevation, tensile stress compromised areas of the bluff. The failure process (Fig. 11) begins with precipitation from passing storms collecting in the subsurface behind the crest of the bluffs, moving downward into the moderately cemented materials, and ponding on distinct, less Existing near- vertical slope prior to failure (a) Failed debris, removed by wave action (a) 0.6m (typical crest failure) •—' Near-vertical failure surfaces and slope profile following failure (c)Moderately cemented - sand (Qp) - 18m Permeable sand layer with seeps (b) Fig. 11. Geomorphic model of precipitation-induced seepage bluff failure with typical profiles from lidar data shown. The bluff geometry is near-vertical with previously failed debris removed by wave action (a). Water moves downward through the soil profile, ponding on denser layers (b), and visible as seeps in the bluff face. Loss of tensile strength lead to slab failures located above the dense, ponding layers (c). Failed debris may buttress the bluff profile until removed by wave action, however a vertical geometric profile is already established in the upper portions, ready for additional failures. 498 B.D. Collins, A7. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-50! permeable layers of material. Water flows along these boundaries, exiting at the bluff face, or passes through the layer, eventually perching on the next less permeable layer beneath it. Similar observations have been made in coastal cliffs in California (Nonis and Back, 1990), Oregon (Komar, 2004) and the Great Lakes region (Sterrett and Edil, 1982). Multiple opportunities for ponding may exist with a heterogeneous distribution of pore pressures throughout the bluff profile, consistent with analyses by Rulonetal. (1985). Site-specific geotechnical testing performed in conjunc- tion with this study (Collins. 2004) has shown that the tensile strength of these materials is reduced from —32 kPa when dry to -6 kPa when wet. Hampton (2002) also showed an indirect decrease in the tensile strength upon wetting through site-specific measurements of soil cohe- sion and correlations by Sitar et al. (1980). Given typical tensile stress levels between -5 and -10 kPa (Sitar arid Clough, 1983, Collins, 2604), ponded water reduces the tensile strength of the materials beyond the tensile stress levels of the bluff geometry. This dislodges slabs of less dense material located immediately above the ponding surface, consistent with the stress-relief fracturing mode identified by Hampton (2002) in these bluffs. While positive pore water pressures could develop and lead to a similar process, the tensile stress-strength analysis shows that this point is not necessaiy for failure. Our observations indicate that failures in these bluffs occur only from a failure in tension and fracture; signs of shear failure, such as slickensides along the remaining bluff face were not observed. Typical failures are on the order of 0.1 to 1.2 m deep (measured into the bluff) with associated average crest retreat of 0.6 m (Table 3). Due to the higher cohesion of the moderately cemented material, debris from failures may reside at the base of the cliffs for lengthier periods of time before being completely removed by wave action, compared with weakly cemented failure debris. Thus, while we maintain that precipitation is the primary failure mechanism for these bluffs, we also acknowledge that wave action is the mechanism responsible for sustaining the vertical profile at the base of the bluffs, a process identified as the "passive-effect" of wave-action (e.g. Edil and Vallejo, 1980). This, in turn, allows a tensile fracture failure mode to potentially occur with the next passing storm. Of note is that seepage seems to have only a minimal effect on the stability of the weakly cemented bluffs. Our observations indicate that these soils readily allow seepage without ponding, thus minimizing the residence time of water within the sediments. Failures in the thin capping layer of moderately cemented sand that overlies the weakly cemented sands in the northern bluffs (Fig. 2) do occur occasionally, but do not contribute to failure of the entire height of the bluff. 6. Discussion Our observations and analyses show that there are two predominant failure mechanisms in the Pacifica area, and that their role is dependent on the material strength of the bluffs. Given the varying lithology over the several kilometers of bluffs in this region, it is not surprising that previous researchers have reached dif- ferent conclusions over the predominant failure mechan- isms and modes. For example, Bachus et al. (1981) observed many deep-seated type failures toward the north end of the Pacifica area. While not the major focus of this study, our geologic mapping of these areas found predominantly weak greenstone of the Franciscan Complex overlain by weakly cemented sands - typical conditions for deeper-seated sliding based on the stronger nature of the underlying but weathered bedrock. Lajoie and Mathieson's (1998) observations of the Pacifica region made during the 1982-82 El Nino winter, showed areas of active block falls and debris slides but did not report any large-scale failures from wave action, especially in the northern portion of our study area. Sitar (1983) on the other hand, did identify wave erosion as one of the failure mechanisms in this area several years earlier. Our observations have shown clear evidence for the strong effects of wave action in the same areas observed by these previous researchers. However, we do not find these observations in contra- diction, rather, we conclude and verify the premise that failures in weakly cemented bluffs do not occur re- peatedly during every storm season. Wave action must remove previously failed debris before the bluff is susceptible to the next round of failures (Figs. 8 and 9). Finally, we address Hampton and Dingier1 s (1998) and Hampton's (2002) work, who found that stress relief- induced exfoliation and ground water seepage were the primary mechanisms in large portions of the Pacifica area. Again, we find our observations and analyses in agreement with their conclusions; however we also find that these mechanisms are only predominant in the mo- derately cemented lithologic units found in the southern portion of the study area and continuing southward along the coast from this point. Of particular note is that none of these preceding studies identified wave-cut notching as a significant factor in coastal bluff retreat in this region. Despite the often-thought assumption that this is the typical failure mode, we also found no strong evidence for this and argue that this point is not minor — it is of importance B.D. Collins. N. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 499 when considering the timing, magnitude and particular- ly in the geotechnical analysis" of failures. We therefore offer the following suggestions for practitioners working in coastal bluff topography: • The horizontal and vertical extents of exposed lithology and the associated geologic units uncon- fmed compressive strengths and tensile strengths can be used to effectively determine which failure mechanism and mode may be more prevalent. • In weakly cemented bluffs, it is recommended to use the maximum slope inclination, as measured between the toe and crest or within the mid-slope area, as a proxy for relative bluff stability rather than solely on the absence or presence of toe undercutting. • Following wave action-induced failures, terrestrial processes such as groundwater and surface water flow, and stress release-induced exfoliation, will continue to evolve the upper portions of the bluff, as wave action erodes the failed debris at the toe. This crest retreat should be anticipated. • In moderately cemented bluffs, failures will be triggered by high precipitation events in the absence of wave action. However, wave action is the ultimate driving force to achieve the steep topography required for the generation of tensile stresses in the bluff face and subsequent precipitation-induced seepage failures. In summary, our research shows the importance of careful geologic mapping of both horizontal and vertical distributions of sediment and/or rock types. This study also highlights the benefits of long-term monitoring and observation, which has also been noted by other coastal researchers (Rosser et al., 2005). Each lithologic unit can be linked to a specific failure mode — it is the proper identification of the spatial and temporal variability in the processes that provides additional insight. We therefore recommend that similar method- ologies be used for coastal bluff investigations in other areas, particularly within similarly exposed, similar age, marine terrace deposits along the west coast of the United States. 7. Conclusions This study identified the spatial and temporal processes responsible for erosion and landsliding in an area of weakly lithified sand coastal bluffs located in northern California, USA. Our observations and anal- yses, made over five consecutive winter seasons and consisting of detailed site visits and high resolution terrestrial lidar scans, provide new insight into the failure mechanics of these coastal bluffs. Specifically, we identified the lithologic and process controls that determine the failure mechanism and mode for coastal bluff retreat in this region and presented concise descriptions of each process. Our descriptions highlight the key observations that must be accounted for when performing geomorphologic and geotechnical stability assessments of these and other similar coastal bluffs. Weakly cemented sand bluffs fail due to wave action- driven erosional changes in the slope profiles with maximum slope inclinations of up to 65° prior to failure. Moderately cemented sand bluffs fail due to precipita- tion-induced groundwater seepage that leads to tensile strength reduction and tensile fracture. Subsequent wave action maintains the steep bluff profiles over time, allowing additional seepage-related failures. Empirical correlations developed in this study provide an estimate for predicting the conditions in which future failures may occur. For wave action-induced failure in weakly cemented bluffs, above season-average values of the MD-TWL index (2.7 m) show a clear correlation with observed failures and their average MD-TWL average (3.8 m). In the moderately cemented bluffs, a 48-hour cumulative precipitation index was utilized as a correlation index with failures. A similar relationship was extracted, with the average 48-hour precipitation value for these failures (35 mm) significantly exceeding the seasonal storm average (15 mm). The observed mechanisms of failure, while not new to coastal bluff research, had not been fully quantified in this area of the northern California coast. These observations, coupled with the newly developed empirical relationships, should provide additional assistance to the prediction and evaluation of coastal bluff stability in the future. Acknowledgments Funding for this research was provided by grants from the U.S. Geological Survey, Western Region Coastal and Marine Geology Program, the University of California, Coastal Environmental Quality Initiative (CEQI), and the U.S. Geological Survey, Mendenhall Postdoctoral Program. The authors wish to thank Monty Hampton for valuable insights of the study area and for technical review of the manuscript and Robert Kayen for collaboration with the USGS terrestrial lidar system. Bijan Khazai, Pamela Patrick, and Ann Marie Puzio, former graduate students at University of California- Berkeley, and Diane Minasian and Gregory Gabel of the USGS assisted with the data collection and processing efforts. Scott Schiele from I-SiTE Laser Imaging was 500 B.D. Collins, N. Silar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 instrumental in assisting with the lidar processing and initial data collection. Technical reviews of this manuscript by Cheryl Hapke (USGS), Gerald Weber, and two other anonymous reviewers are gratefully appreciated. The photo in Fig. 1 is used with permission from Cotton, Shires and Associates and the photos in Figs. 2 and 7 are used with permission of the California Coastal Records Project. Their cooperation is gratefully acknowledged. References Aagaard, T., Masselink, G., 1999. In: Short, A.D. (Ed.), The Surf Zone, Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics. Wiley, Chichester, England, pp. 74-82. Arkin, Y., Michaeli, L., 1985. Short- and long-term crosional processes affecting the stability of the Mediterranean coastal cliffs of Israel. Engineering Geology 21, 153-174. Ash ford, S.A., Sitar, N., 2002. Simplified method for evaluating seismic stability of steep slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 128 (2). 119-128. Bachus, R.C., Clough, G.W., Sitar, N., Shafii-Rad, N., Crosby, J., Kaboli, P., 1981. Behavior of weakly cemented soil slopes under static and seismic loading conditions, Volume II. The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No. 52. Stanford University, Stanford, California. July 1981, 247pp. Battjes, J.A., 1974. Surf Similarity, Proceedings 14th Int. Conf. on Coastal Engineering. Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 466-480. Benumof, B.T., Griggs, G.B., 1999. The dependence of seacliff erosion rates on cliff material properties and physical processes: San Diego County, California. Shore and Beach 67 (4), 29-41. Benumof, B.T., Storlazzi, C.D., Seymour. R.J., Griggs, G.B., 2000. The relationship between incident wave energy and seacliff erosion rates: San Diego County, California. Journal of Coastal Research Vol. 16(4), 1162-1178. Bonilla, M.G., 1959. Geologic observation in the epicenter area of the San Francisco earthquake of March 22, 1957. In: Oakshot, G.B. (Ed.), California Division of Mines Special Report 57. California Division of Mines, Sacramento, CA, pp. 25-37. Brabb, E.E., Pampeyan, E.H., 1983. Geologic map of San Mateo County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map I-1257-A, Scale 1:62,500, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. Budetta, P., Galietta, G., Santo, A., 2000. A methodology for the study of the relation between coastal cliff erosion and the mechanical strength of soils and rock masses. Engineering Geology 56 (3-4), 243-256. Collins, B.D., 2004. Failure Mechanics of Weakly Lithified Sand Coastal Bluff Deposits: Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. 278pp. Collins, B.D., Sitar, N., 2004. Application of high resolution 3D laser scanning to slope stability studies. Proceedings of the 39th Symposium on Engineering Geology' and Geotechnical Engineer- ing, Butte, Montana, May 18-21, 2004, pp. 79-92. Collins, B.D., Sitar, N., 2005. Monitoring of coastal bluff stability using high resolution 3D laser scanning. In: Rathje, E.M. (Ed.), ASCE Geo-Frontiers Special Publication 138:- Site Characteriza- tion and Modeling, Remote Sensing in Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, Austin, Texas. Jan 24-26, CD-ROM. Collins, B.D., Kayen, R., Sitar, N., 2007. Process-based empirical prediction of landslides in weakly lithified coastal cliffs, San Francisco, California, USA. In: Mclnnes, R., Jakeways. J., Fairbank, H., Matnie, E. (Eds.), Landslides and Climate Change: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Landslides and Climate, Isle of Wight, UK. Taylor & Francis, pp. 175-184. Craig, R.F., 1992. Soil Mechanics, 5th Edition. Chapman and Hall, London. 423 pp. Dapporto, S., Rinaldi, M., Casagli, N., Vannocci, P., 2003. Mechan- isms of riverbank failure along the Arno River, central Italy, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 28, 1303-1323. Duperret, A., Center, A., Mortimore, R.N., Delacourt, B., De Pomerai, M.R., 2002. Coastal rock cliff erosion by collapse at Puys, France, the role of impervious marl seams within chalk of NW Europe. Journal of Coastal Research 18 (1), 52-61. Edil, T.B., Vallejo, L.E., 1980. Mechanics of coastal landslides and the influence of slope parameters. Engineering Geology 16, 83-96. Emery', K.O., Kuhn, G.G., 1982. Sea Cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification. Geological Society of America Bulletin 93, 644-654. Everts, C.H., 1991. Seacliff retreat and coarse sediment yields in southern California. Quantitative Approaches to Coastal Sediment Processes, Seattle, Washington, pp. 1586-1598. Gerstal, W.J., Brunengo, M.J., Lingley, W.S., Logan, R.L., Shipman, H., Walsh, T.J., 1998. Puget Sound Bluffs: the where, why, and when of landslides following the holiday 1996/97 storms. Washington Geology 6(1), 17-31. Griggs, G.B., Johnson, R.E., 1979. Coastline erosion, Santa Cruz County. California Geology April, 67-76. Guza, R.T., Inman, D.L., 1975. Edge waves and beach cusps. Journal of Geophysical Research 80 (21), 2997-3012. Hampton, M.A., 2002. Gravitational failure of sea cliffs in weakly lithified sediment. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 8(3), 175-192. Hampton, M.A., Dingier, J., 1998. Short term evolution of three coastal cliffs in San Mateo County. California, Shore and Beach 66 (4), 24-30. Hampton, M. A., Griggs, G.B., 2004. Formation, evolution, and stability of coastal cliffs: status and trends, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1693. 123pp. (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/pp/ppl693). Hapke, C., Richmond, B., 2002. The impact of climatic and seismic events on the short-term evolution of seacliffs based on 3-D mapping: northern Monterey Bay. California, Marine Geology 187,259-278. Howard-Donley-Associates, 1983. Geotechnical investigation — seacliff stability analysis. Shoreline Protection Assessment District, Esplanade-Palmetto Avenue, Pacifica, California, Con- sulting report. I-SiTE Inc., 2007. "3D Laser Scanning Software", 1 April 2007. http:// www.isite3d.com. Komar, P.D., Shih, S.-M., 1993. Cliff erosion along the Oregon coast: a tectonic-sea level imprint plus local controls by beach processes. Journal of Coastal Research 9 (3), 747-765. Kuhn, G.G., Osbome, R.H., 1987. Sea cliff erosion in San Diego County, California. Advances in Understanding of Coastal Sediment Processes, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 1839-1918. Lajoie, K.R., Mathieson, S.A., 1998. 1982-83 El Nino Coastal Erosion, San Mateo County. U.S. Geologic Survey Open-File Report 98-041,CA. 61pp. Lawson, A.C., 1908. California earthquake of April 18,1906: publication no 87. Report to the State Earthquake Investigation Committee, Vol. 1. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington, D.C. B.D. Collins, N. Sitar / Geomorphology 97 (2008) 483-501 501 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. National Data Buoy Center, (NOAA/NDBC) Site #46026, San Francisco, California. (online), http://seaboard.ndbc.iioaa.gov/. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. National Ocean Service, (NOAA/NOS) Observed Water Levels and Associated Ancillary Data (online), Site #9415020, Point Reyes, California. http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/da ta_res.html. National Weather Service (NWS) Forecast Office. San Francisco Bay Area/Monterey (online), Site # Pacifica 2S, Pacifica, California (PCAC1). http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Monterey/rtp02/. Norris, R.M., Back, W., 1990. Erosion of seacliffs by groundwater. In: Higgins, C.Ci., Coates, D.R. (Eds.), Groundwater Geomotphology; the role of subsurface water in Earth-surface processes and landforms. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 283-290. Plant, N., Griggs, G.B., 1990. Coastal landslides caused by the October J7, 1989 Earthquake, Santa Cruz County. California: California Geology 43 (1), 75-84. Quigley, R.M., Gelinas, P.J., 1976. Soil mechanics aspects of shoreline erosion. Geoscience Canada 3 (3), 169-173. Riegl, 2007. "Terrestrial Scanning Laser Systems", 1 April. 2007 <http://www.rieglusa.com>. Rosser, N.J., Petley, D.N., Lim, M., Dunning, S.A., Allison, R.J., 2005. Terrestrial laser scanning for monitoring the process of hard rock coastal cliff erosion. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 38, 363-375. Ruggiero, P., Komar, P.O., McDougal, W.G., Marra, J.J., Beach, R.A., 2001. Wave runup, extreme water levels and the erosion of properties backing beaches. Journal of Coastal Research 17 (2), 407-419. Rulon, J.J., Freeze, R.A., 1985. Multiple seepage faces on layered slopes and their implications for slope stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 22, 347-356. Rulon, J.J., Rodway, R., Freeze, R.A., 1985. The development of multiple seepage faces on layered slopes. Water Resources Research 21 (11), 1625-1636. Sallenger, A.H., Krabill, W., Brock, J., Swift, R., Manizade, S., Stockdon, H., 2002. Sea-cliff erosion as a function of beacli changes and extreme wave runup during the 1997-1998 El Nino. Marine Geology 187, 279-297. Sayrc, T., Shires, P.O., Skelly, D.W., 2001. Mitigation of 1998 El Nino Sea Cliff Failure, Pacifica, California. In: Ferriz, H., Anderson, R. (Eds.), Engineering Geology Practice in Northern California. CDMG/AEG, pp. 607-618." Shafii-Rad, N., Clough, G.W., 1982. The Influence of Cementation on the Static and Dynamic Behavior of Sands: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No. 59. Stanford Univer- sity, Stanford, California. December 1982, 315pp. Sitar, N., 1983. Slope stability in coarse sediments. In: Yong, R. (Ed.), Special Publication on Geological Environment and Soil Proper- ties. ASCE, pp. 82-98. Sitar, N., 1990. Seismic response of steep slopes in weakly cemented sands and gravels. Proc. of H. B. Seed Memorial Symp., Berkeley, California, May 19,1990, Vol. 2. Bitech Publishers, Vancouver, B. C, pp. 67-82. Sitar, N., Clough, G.W., 1983. Seismic response of steep slopes in cemented soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 109 (2), 210-227. Sitar, N., Clough, G.W., Bachus, R.C., 1980. Behavior of weakly cemented soil slopes under static and seismic loading conditions. Report No. 44, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. Stanford University, Stanford, California. Smith, D.D., 1960. The geomorphology of part of the San Francisco Peninsula. California, Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University, Menlo Park, California. 356pp. Snell, C.B., Lajoie, K.R., Medley, E.W., 2000. Sea-cliff erosion at Pacifica, California caused by the 1997/98 El Nino storms,: Slope Stability 2000. ASCE Geot. Spec. Pub. No. 101, Proc. of Geo- Denver, Denver, Colorado, pp. 294-308. August 5-8. 2000. Springer Jr., F.M., Ullrich, C.R., Hagerty, D.J., 1985. Streambank stability. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 111 (5), 624-640. Sterrett, R.J., Edil, T.B., 1982. Ground-water flow systems and stability of a slope. Ground Water 20 (1), 5-11. Sunamura, T., 1982. A predictive model for wave-induced cliff erosion, with application to Pacific coasts of Japan. Journal of Geology 90, 167-178. Williams, A.T., Davies, P., 1987. Rates and mechanisms of coastal cliff erosion in lower Lias rocks. Advances in Understanding of Coastal Sediment Processes, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 1855-1870. Wright, L.D., Short, A.D., 1983. Morphodynamics of beaches and surf zones in Australia. In: Komar, P.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 43-53. DATE: CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE INFORMATION OF May 25, 2010 THE CITY COUNCIL TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ATTORNEY RE: APPEAL OF GOETZ SEAWALL, AGENDA ITEM # 11 At tonight's meeting, the Council will consider the appeal of the Goetz seawall. The order of procedure for that hearing is set forth in CMC section 1.20.430 as follows: • The Mayor will announce that this is the time and the place for a public hearing to consider the appeal of the Goetz seawall. • The Mayor will call upon the City Manager to introduce the staff report on this item. • Questions from the Council during or after the staff report. • Presentation by the appellant • Presentation by the applicant • Public testimony • Rebuttal testimony, if any Presentations are limited to no more than 20 minutes. The Goetz seawall is located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission since the seawall is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. It is required that prior to the commencement of any legal action, administrative appeals must be exhausted which includes appealing the Council's decision to the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, it is recommended that Resolution No. 2010-126 be amended as follows: 1. Delete the paragraph entitled "Notice to Applicant" and instead insert the following "Notice to Applicant: This action may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission since it is a development between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea. (Public Resources Code section 30603(a)(l)). Any party who desires to challenge the City Council's action by seeking judicial review must first obtain a final decision on the merits from the California Coastal Commission. Exhaustion of this administrative remedy is a prerequisite to any legal action. The City Council shall toll the time for any action challenging its decision until after a final decision on the merits is obtained from the California Coastal Commission". In addition, paragraph two of that Resolution should be amended to read: "That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No.'s 6677 and -6678 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated by reference herein constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter except that the amount required by the developer to deposit of an in-lieu fee shall be $2,469 which about was inadvertently omitted from Planning Commission Resolution No. 6677. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. RONALD R. BALL City Attorney \rn c: City Clerk City Manager Planning Director Assistant City Attorney Mobaldi Senior Planner, Van Lynch TODD T. CARDIFF, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1901 FIRST AVENUE SUITE 219 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 T 619 546 5123 F 619 546 5133 todd@tcardifflaw.com May 24, 2010 Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad C/0 Van Lynch 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Delivered via email and priority mail RE: Opposition to Goetz Seavfall CDF3 09-13/SUP 09-05 Iqj all tECSLEQWE MAY 2 4 2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFFICE •••^ u N / Honorable City Council and Mayor: Thank you for considering these comments submitted on behalf of myself and the San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. The Surfrider Foundation is a grassroots, non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of the World's oceans, beaches and coastline through conservation, activism, research and education. The Surfrider Foundation has over 50,000 members and 60 chapters in the United States and affiliates in Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica, Europe, Australia and Japan. The San Diego Chapter is Surfrider's oldest and largest Chapter. We urge you to require the Goetz Seawall application to undergo a thorough environmental review under CEQA by preparing an EIR for the project. Further, we urge you to deny the current application as inconsistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act. In addition, we object to and have serious concerns regarding the appeals procedure under the Carlsbad Municipal Code and resolutions. We address such issues first. A. The $1,000 Cost to Appeal a Decision to the City Council is an Unconstitutional Bar to the Public to Petition the Government to Redress a Grievance. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and California Constitution, Article I, section 3, provides the people the right to petition the government to redress their grievances. While filing fees are often imposed, such fees cannot pose a barrier to due process, or chill the exercise of free speech, There must be a mechanism to waiving the fees for those unable to pay. Carlsbad City Council RE :Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 2 of 11 In this case, the Carlsbad Municipal Code [CMC] imposes a $1,000 fee on those who wish to appeal a decision from Planning Commission to the City Council. [CMC § 21.54.150; Resolution 2009-145 .] While the Carlsbad Municipal Code does not require an appeal to exhaust administrative remedies on a Coastal Development Permit, a matter under CEQA must be appealed to the City Council. [See CMC § 21.201.140.] This means that to challenge a project under the municipal code or CEQA, the public must pay $ 1,000 to exhaust its administrative remedies. This is three times the amount of the current cost for filing a lawsuit, and does not appear to be waiverable based on an appellant's lack of financial resources. The City cites to Friends ofGlendora, v. City ofGlendora, 182 Cal. App. 4th 573 [2010] for the proposition that it may impose even a $2,000 fee to appeal. However, the court in Glendora did not consider whether a fee may be imposed that is not waiverable for non-profits and indigents. Surfrider is not disputing the right to impose a fee, but the right to impose a $1,000 fee that cannot be waived. Furthermore, such non-waiverable $1,000 fee chills free speech, discouraging anyone without a financial interest in the project from appealing a decision to the City Council. This is an unconstitutional fee that violates the due process of those opposing a project. [California Teachers Assn. v. State of California, 20 Cal. 4th 327, 350 [1999].] Because exhausting administrative remedies is an absolutely necessary pre-requisite to filing an administrative mandamus action in court, the $1,000 non-waiverable fee also amounts to an unconstitutional denial of the right to file a lawsuit. The ordinance must be changed to ensure that the right to due process is not overly impacted by such fees. The ordinance must be changed to permit opponents the opportunity to demonstrate that they cannot afford such fees or should not be forced to pay such fees. B. The Ordinance's Burden of Proof Violates the Dictates of CEQA. The appeal procedures set forth in the Carlsbad Municipal Code improperly shifts the burden of review in CEQA. Under the Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.54.150, there must an affirmative vote of three City Council members to overturn a decision by the Planning Commission. However, because CEQA is a process of public Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 3 of 11 accountability, only elected officials have the final determination under CEQA. The duty to fully evaluate the evidence and determine the proper course under CEQA is solely for the City Council. In this case, the City Council is the final body that must evaluate the City's decision to forego CEQA, and affirmatively approve the project. The Municipal Code creates a situation where two members of the City Council could potentially approve a project and certify an EIR over the objections of two other members. This absolutely violates the CEQA process, which requires denial of a project absent an affirmative marjority vote to certify an environmental document [or course of action] as complying with CEQA. C. The City Council Must Order the City Staff to Prepare an EIR. As noted in my previous correspondence, there is more than a fair argument that the project has significant unmitigable impacts to biology, beach width, recreation and public access. Simply put, through the process of passive erosion and sea-level rise, the beach will disappear in front of the seawall. The City cannot approve the project when there are viable alternatives that avoid or mitigate the significant impacts. [Pub. Res. Code section 21002.] There a numerous less environmentally damaging options that adequately protect the public - - the purported purpose of the project. A simple mesh fence and signs would have substantially reduced the alleged risk to the public without destroying the beach. Grading the bluff to an acceptably stable slope [aka "angle of repose"] would have also reduced the potential for landslides without damaging the beach. Instead, the City decided not to thoroughly analyze the options and the risks, and instead decided to avoid CEQA altogether. In fact, the City first prepared a negative declaration, but, after Surfrider submitted extensive comments on the project, and provided substantial scientific studies and literature describing the impacts of seawalls, suddenly the City decided to attempt to rely on the emergency exemption to avoid CEQA. Essentially, the City staff knew it could not make the findings to support a negative declaration and instead sought to circumvent the CEQA process by relying on the emergency exemption. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 4 of 11 Avoiding CEQA is absolutely improper. As was noted by the Coastal Commission in its June 26, 2009 letter, there is no vested right to maintain a seawall built under an emergency permit. (See also, Whaler's Village Club v. Cal. Coastal Com, 173 Cal. App. 3d 240, 252 [1985).) A permit for an emergency seawall is temporary. The applicant must obtain a regular coastal development permit, In fact, the staff report, itself, notes the temporary nature of an emergency permit. If the coastal development permit is denied, the seawall must be removed. The fact that the applicants built a seawall under an emergency procedures does not constitute a vested right to a permanent seawall. [Barrie v, Cal, Coastal Com, 196 Cal. App. 3d 8, 15(1987).) Because the Special Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit are discretionary, such decisions must comply with CEQA. [Pub. Res. Code 21080.) An emergency no longer exists, if it ever did, and therefore the emergency exemption cannot be used by the City to avoid CEQA review. There is plenty of time for the City to evaluate the impacts and alternatives, and make an informed decision on whether a seawall is warranted and permitted for the project as described. Geotz will undoubtedly argue that because the project was already built, the issue of CEQA review is moot. However, when a project applicant proceeds at his own risk, the project is not deemed approved until the final decision. [ Woodward Park HOA v. Garreks, 77 Cal. App. 4th 880, 889 (2000).] Because the seawall project can still be modified, conditioned, or removed, it is still a discretionary decision that requires complete CEQA review. [Miller v. City of Hermosa Beach, 13 Cal. App. 4th 1118, 1139 [1993].) CEQA review cannot be avoided when the project has not received its final approval. (Woodward Park, supra, at 889; See also, CityofSantee v. County of San Diego, 214 Cal. App. 3d 1438, 1456 (1989) [permitting a temporary jail to remain while an EIR was completed].) The City must prepare an EIR to evaluate the impacts of the Goetz Seawall. D. The City Still Has Failed to Conduct a Safety Analysis of the Necessity of the Seawall. The City simply sites to the December 19, 2008 bluff collapse as its justification of the seawall. However, the City still has not evaluated or calculated the actual risk of injury to beachgoers. Further, Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 5 of 11 as is typical of purchased science, the evidence of the likelihood of collapse injuring a beachgoer, provided by the applicant's geologist, is both speculative and contradictory. First, it is undeniable that on or about December 19, 2008, the bluff collapsed and a substantial amount of bluff material was deposited on the public beach. The talus [the fallen portion] according to the photographs, extended 50-75% up the face of the bluff. According to the geology report prepared at the time, the triggering mechanism was three days of rain depositing approximately 1.5 inches precipitation. (Geosoils Corresp. dated Jan. 20, 2009.] This is consistent with scientific studies which have found that bluff failures are largely triggered by water. [Young et. al, "Rain, Waves, and Short-Term Evolution of Composite Seacliffs in Southern California," 267 MARINE GEOLOGY 1, at 6 [2009],] However, once a bluff has failed, the likelihood of subsequent likelihood of a major collapse is greatly reduced. First, the talus protects the bluff base from wave attack. Secondly, the upper bluff has slumped, providing a more stable angle. In addition, until the talus is removed, the ability of people to get close to the bluff is reduced. There has been no evidence supporting that the public is in danger from another bluff collapse at the project site. Furthermore, according to the applicant's own geologist, "The USGS Report shows that this section of bluff has not retreated over the last 115 years." [Geosoils Corresp. dated March 30, 2010, at p. 47 of City Council Packet.] Thus, the City is justifying its public safety claim based on one collapse in 115 years. Is one, non-fatal bluff collapse in 115 years sufficient justification for a seawall that will destroy the public beach? A safety analysis must be prepared if the justification is public safety. The safety analysis must consider the historical amount of material in a bluff collapse, the historical analysis of bluff stability, and the timing of bluff collapses. Considering that this particular bluff collapsed after 1.5 inches of rain, in the winter, after 115 years without a collapse, greatly challenges the alleged justification for a seawall in this area. Further, other avenues that are less environmentally damaging Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 6 of 11 must be considered. The rejection by staff of the "grading of the bluff" option is based on no evidence and a faulty analysis. For example, staff states that grading the bluff accelerates erosion and "may hasten the warrant for a seawall for the protection of the existing improvements" First, the new structures are not entitled to a seawall under any circumstances, which is why Mr. Goetz sought an emergency seawall. Secondly, twenty or more years of a beach, is preferable to a seawall and no beach. Further, even assuming that the rate .16 ft.1 of erosion proposed by Geosoils is accurate [which we dispute], the structures would be safe for 75 years even if the bluff edge was graded 20 feet back from base. Third, the City's refusal to seriously consider and evaluated effective and environmentally superior alternatives belies the real intent of Mr. Geotz - - to protect his back yard and patio furniture. A seawall, to my knowledge, has never been granted on the basis of protecting the public below the bluff. E. The City Has Not Properly Calculated the Impact Fee and Has Failed to Evaluate the Impacts to Recreation. The City's report utterly fails to address the issues of sand mitigation and the lack of recreational impact fee. Instead the report simply states, "The CDP for the seawall has been conditioned to contribute to a sand replenishment program to offset the impacts of the project." However, in reviewing the CDP, the "in-lieu fee amount" to be provided to SANDAG is $XX. [CDP Resolution "fl 11.] The amount must be specified in the CDP. In the previous report, the suggested sand mitigation fee was $2,469.00. This is based upon the applicant's geologist's claim that sand is $3 per cubic yard. In addition, this is based upon an estimate of .16 feet of erosion per year or approximately 2 inches per year. Both estimates are inaccurate. First, the cost of sand is different from the costs of sand replenishment. Sand replenishment requires environmental studies, dredging, piping, distribution, trucks, front end loaders and other costs. That is approximately 2 inches per year. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 7 of 11 The costs of such operation is substantially more than $3.00 per cubic foot. The most recent estimate provided to the Coastal Commission was $16.28 per foot. [Bernard Li CDP Application No. 6-07-133, available at http://docurnents.coastal.ca.gOV/reports/2010/6 /W11a-6-2010.pdf] In addition, as noted by the Li CDP Application, seawalls have significant adverse impacts to recreation. The Coastal Commission requires fees to mitigate the amount of the beach lost though passive erosion. This is determined by calculating the area of the beach that would have been created through natural erosion, and then appraising the costs of purchasing an empty beachfront parcel approximately the size of such beach. [Li CDP application at 6.] Finally, if the justification for the seawall is public safety, then clearly, the predicted erosion must be more than two inches per year [.16 ft.] No one is going to injured based on the predicted two inch per year of erosion. There must be some sort of non-contradictory evaluation of actual erosion. Such erosion estimate demonstrates that the applicant's geological estimates of the likelihood of bluff collapse should be viewed with great skepticism. If approved, the sand mitigation fee and an appropriate fee for loss of recreational habitat must be imposed based on an erosion estimate that is consistent with the alleged justification of the project. If the bluff is expected to erode only .16 feet per year, the public is clearly not in danger. F. Neither the Coastal Act, nor the Carlsbad LCP Permits Seawalls to Allegedly Protect the Public Beach. The pertinent portion of Carlsbad's LCP, states: Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate Sj%i Carlsbad City Council ^ RE: Geotz Seawall "a==-- May 24,2010 Page 8 of 11 adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. As a condition of approval, permitted shoreline structures may be required to replenish the beach with imported sand. [CMC§ 21.2D4.040[B).] Carlsbad's LCP essentially mimics the language regarding seawalls in the Coastal Act, which states: Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or 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. [Pub. Res. Code § 30235.] An LCP may be more restrictive than the Coastal Act, but it cannot be less restrictive. "The Coastal Act sets the minimum standards and policies with which local governments within the coastal zone must comply." [ Yost v. Thomas [1984], 36 Cal. 3d 561, 572.] Thus, while the City Carlsbad may interpret its LCP to be more protective of significant coastal resources, it cannot interpret the LCP in a manner in conflict with the Coastal Act. In this case, the seawall was built to protect houses that were recently built and not entitled to a seawall under the Coastal Act or LCP. Under the Coastal Act, a structure is only entitled to a seawall if it is in imminent danger from erosion and the impacts to the seawall are mitigated. Clearly, Geotz and Sylver, possessing homes that are more than 45 feet from the bluff edge, are not entitled to a seawall. Thus, they are attempting to justify protecting their backyard under the guise of a public safety issue. As discussed in Living with the Changing California Coast, "Seawalls and revetments are designed and built to protect property and structures on dunes, bluff, or cliffs and not to protect public beaches. To our knowledge, a seawall has never been built to protect or save a beach." [Living with California's Changing Coastline at p. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 9 of 11 135.] It would be truly unprecedented if Carlsbad's LCP [or the Coastal Act] was interpreted in a manner that permitted someone to build a seawall under the guise of protecting the beach. Seawalls destroy beaches. It would make no sense to permit a property owner to build a seawall to protect the beach that will eventually be lost because of the construction of a seawall. In addition, the public safety argument would permit anyone to build a seawall, no matter how far back their existing structure was located, or how recently the structure was built, despite the requirements of section 30253 that new development not in any way require the construction of a shoreline protective device. [See also CMC § 21.204.110[B][8) & [15].] Coastal Act section 30235 has never been interpreted in the manner that would permit a homeowner to allegedly protect their home based on an alleged threat to the public. As discussed by Charles Lester, the Deputy Director of North and Central California districts of the California Coastal Commission, [S]horeline protection structures such as seawalls or revetments shall be approved if an existing development is threatened by erosion, if the structure is the necessary response, and if the impacts to the local shoreline sand supply are eliminated or mitigated. For example, the law would not allow a seawall to be built for a threatened development if the development could be easily relocated out of harm's way. [Living with California's Changing Coastline at p. 139-140.] The Coastal Commission has not ever interpreted Section 30235 to permit a homeowner to build a seawall based on an alleged threat to the beach below. There are simply too many better and less impactful options for allegedly protecting public safety. G. The Findings Cannot Be Made to Permit the Seawall Because the Public Beach Will Eventually Destroy the Beach. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 10 of 11 Carlsbad LCP states: Provisions for the maintenance of any permitted seawalls shall be included as a condition of project approval. As a further condition of approval, permitted shoreline structures shall be required to provide public access. Projects which create dredge spoils shall be required to deposit such spoils on the beaches if the material is suitable for sand replenishment. Seawalls shall be constructed essentially parallel to the base of the bluff and shall not obstruct or interfere with the passage of people along the beach at any time. (CMC § 21,204.040 [emphasis added].] In addition, Carlsbad's LCP further states, "Developments shall be conditioned to provide the public with the right of access to a minimum of twenty-five feet of dry sandy beach at all times of the year." [CMC § 21.204.060 (a)[1 ].) There is no finding that the development has been conditioned to provide this kind of dry sand buffer. Nothing in the resolutions requires the project to maintain a 25 foot dry sandy beach for the life of the project. The speculative justification, that "Various sand replenishment projects are in the works" is not a substitute for actual mitigation. The finding cannot be made. Quite frankly, once analyzed, it is questionable whether such a finding could ever be made. It would be very expensive, if not impossible to maintain a 25 foot dry sandy area. The only way to maintain the beach with a seawall is to have sand replenishment in a sufficient amount that prevents the high-tide line from migrating eastward. Considering the impacts of passive erosion and sea-level rise, it is doubtful that a seawall could be designed and mitigated to not interfere with public access at any time. The seawall will destroy the beach. Finally, the Resolution finds that an easement for public access burdens the property. (Doc No. 2000-0346365.] The seawall will reduce public access impacting the easement and is therefore inconsistent with such easement. The seawall application should be denied. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 Page 11 of 11 CONCLUSION I respectfully request that the City prepare the proper analysis and environmental investigation with and EIR, and review this seawall in a manner that is open and fair to the public. The public must understand what it will be losing. The City should not attempt to hide the impacts. Prepare a proper risk analysis before making any judgment on this seawall, and consider the actual impacts caused by shoreline protective devices. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. Enclosures: 1. Coastal Commission Staff Report, CDP Application 6-07- 133. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4421 (619) 767-2370 Wlla Staff: G. Cannon-SD Staff Report: May 19, 2010 Hearing Date: June 9-11, 2010 REVISED CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS Application No.: 6-07-133 Applicant: Bernard Li Agent: Bob Trettin Description: Construction of a 35 foot high, 57 foot long seawall to replace an existing unauthorized 25 foot high seawall, including installation of 35 foot high tied-back concrete columns between existing columns and removal of approximately 6 feet of concrete footing seaward of the existing seawall. In addition, the applicant proposes to color and texture the face of the seawall to closely match the natural bluff face. Site: On the public beach below a blufftop lot containing a single family residence at 680 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. APN 256-051-21 STAFF NOTES: Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following revised findings in support of the Commission's action on January 15. 2010. In its action, the Commission approved a 35 foot- high. 57 foot-long seawall to replace an existing unauthorized 25 foot-high seawall, including installation of 35 foot-high tied-back concrete columns between existing columns and removal of approximately 6 feet of concrete footing seaward of the existing seawall. In addition, the applicant proposes to color and texture the face of the seawall to closely match the natural bluff face. In its action, the Commission revised Special Condition #2 so as to clarify that any additional sand fee mitigation required after the first 20 years of the seawall's installation would only be for the impacts of the seawall that occur beyond, but not including, the first 20 years of its installation. The Commission also revised Special Condition #3 so that a mitigation fee for the adverse impacts of the gjeawall on public access/recreational use be based on an appraisal of the current value of the subject blufftop lot only and not include any improvements. Date of Commission Action: January 15. 2010 Commissioners on Prevailing Side: Achadjian. Blank. Bloom. Parker, Kruer, Mirkarimi. Sanchez. Shallenberger. Stone. Wan, Chairperson Neelv. 6-07-133 Page 2 Summary of Staffs Preliminary Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the proposed seawall reconstruction as the applicant's geoteohnioal representative has performed a slope stability analysis of the overall site and concluded that the blufftop structure is in danger from erosion. Based on the applicant's geotcohnical reports, the seawall and backfill structures are necessary to protect the structure at the top of the bluff. The Commission's staff coastal engineer has reviewed the applicant's geoteohnioal assessment and concurs with its conclusions. The proposed development has been conditioned to mitigate its impact on coastal resources such as scenic quality^ public access and recreation opportunities, and shoreline sand supply. The applicant is proposing to pay an in lieu fee of $23,101.81 for the associated impacts of the development on regional sand supply and a separate mitigation fee of $57,000.00 to the City of Encinitas for the impacts of the development-on public access and recreational opportunities. However, based on the size of the proposed seawall and associated impacts, Commission staff recommends that a mitigation fee for the seawall's impacts to public access and recreation be derived from an appraisal value of the blufftop property applying the sq. ft. value of the blufftop property to the sq. ft. area of seawall impact over the estimated life of the seawall. The value of the blufftop property will be determined by an appraiser chosen by the applicant in concurrence with the Executive Director; For comparison purposes, staff has used both the County Tax Assessor's value and utilized Zillow.oom to determine the value of the property. Based on the County's assessed value, a mitigation fee of $186,633 would be required to address impacts on public recreation and access. The in lieu sand mitigation fee can then be revised to $11,350 since a component of the sand fee will be included in the public access/recreation fee. With the proposed and required sand mitigation and public acoess/reoreation mitigation, the adverse impacts associated with the seawall structure will be mitigated to the extent feasible. In addition, a special condition has been attached which requires the applicant to acknowledge that should additional stabilization be proposed in the future, the applicant will be required to identify and address the feasibility of all alternative measures which would reduce the risk to the blufftop structures and provide reasonable use of the property for the life of the existing home and seawall, but would avoid further alteration of the natural landform of the public beach or coastal bluffs,. The condition also requires acknowledgment that any future redevelopment on the lot will not roly on the subject seawall to establish geological stability or protection from hazards. Other conditions involve the timing-of construction, the appearance of the seawall, approval from other agencies and submission affinal as built plans. Standard of Review: The City of Encinitas has a certified LCP, however, the proposed development will occur on the public beach within the Commission's original jurisdiction. As such, the standard of review is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act with the certified LCP used as guidance. 6-07-133 Page 3 Substantive File Documents: Certified City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program (LCP); Case No. 05-219 MUP/CDP; "Geotechnical Basis of Design, 680 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas" by TerraCosta Consulting Group dated 9/30/05; "Engineering Justification for Lower Seawall" by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc., dated 9/22/09; "Beach Sand Mitigation Calculations, Revised October 7, 2009" by The Trettin Company dated 10/7/9; CDP Nos. 6-85-396/Swift, 6-89-136-G/Adams, 6-89-297- G/Englekirk, 6-92-82/Victor, 6-92-212/Wood, 6-93-36-G/Clayton, 6-93- 131/Richards, et al, 6-93-136/Favero, 6-93-18I/Steinberg, 6-95-66/Hann, 6-9S-39/ Denver/Canter, 6-98-131/Gozzo, Sawtelle and Fischer, 6-99- 9/Ash, Bourgualt, Mahoney, 6-99-35-G/MacCormick, 6-99-75-G/Funke, Kimball, 6-99-131-G/Furike, Kimball, 6-99-41/Bradley, 6-00-009/Ash, Bourgault, Mahoney, 6-00-74/Grey Diamond Marketing, Funke, Kimball; 6-00-146-G/Brem, Warke; 6-00-171-G/Brown, Sonnie, 6-01- 005-G/Okun, 6-01-11-G/Okun, Sorich; 6-01-040-G/Okun, 6-01-041- G/Sorich, 6-01-42-G/Brown and 6-01-62-G/Sorich; CDP #4-87- 161,Pierce Family Trust and Morgan; CDP #6-87-371, Van Buskirk; CDP #5-87-576, Miser and Cooper; CDP 3-02-024, Ocean Harbor House; 6-05-72, Las Brisas, 6-07-134/Caccavo, 6-03-33-A5/Surfsong, 6- 08-73/DiNoto, et.al and 6-08-122/Winkler ^—PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommendo the Commission adopt the following resolution: MOTION^ 1—move—that—the—Commission—approve—Coastal Development Permit No. 6-07-133 pursuant to the staff recommendation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL: Staff recommends a YES vote.—Passage of this motion will result in approval of tho permit as conditioned and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PERMIT: The Commission hereby approves a coastal development permit for the proposed development and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the development as conditioned will be in conformity with-the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3. Approval of 6-07-133 Page 4 the permit complies with the California-Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment. L MOTION; I move that the Commission adopt the revised findings in support of the Commission's action on January 15± 2010 concerning approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 6-07-133. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL; Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion. Passage of this motion will result in the adoption of revised findings as set forth in this staff report. The motion requires a majority vote of the members from the prevailing side present at the revised findings hearing, with at least three of the prevailing members voting. Only those Commissioners on the prevailing side of Commission's action are eligible to vote on the revised findings. The Commissioners eligible to vote are: Commissioners Achadiian. Blank. Bloom. Parker, Kruer. Mirkarimi. Sanchez. Shallenberger, Stone, Wan, Chairperson Neelv. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT REVISED FINDINGS: The Commission hereby adopts the findings set forth below for Coastal Development Permit No. 6-07-133 on the ground that the findings support the Commission's decision made on January 15. 2010 and accurately reflect the reasons for it. II. Standard Conditions. See attached page. HI. Special Conditions. The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Final As-Built Plans. PRIOR TO' THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for review and written approval of the Executive Director, final as-built plans for the seawall that are in substantial conformance with the submitted plans dated 7/1/09 by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. Said plans shall first be approved by the City of Encinitas and include the following: a. Any existing permanent irrigation system located on the bluff top site(s) shall be removed or capped. 6-07-133 PageS b. All runoff from impervious surfaces on the top of the bluff shall be collected and directed away from the bluff edge towards the street. c. Existing accessory improvements (i.e., decks, patios, walls, windscreens, etc.) located in the geologic setback area on the site(s) shall be detailed and drawn to scale on the final approved site plan and shall include measurements of the distance between the accessory improvements and the bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) taken at 3 or more locations. The locations for these measurements shall be identified through permanent markers, benchmarks, survey position, written description, or other method that enables accurate determination of the location of structures on the site. Any existing accessory structures located within 5 ft. of the bluff edge, if removed, shall not be replaced in a location closer than 5 feet landward of the natural bluff edge or approved reconstructed bluff edge. Any new Plexiglas or other glass wall shall be non-clear, tinted, frosted or incorporate other elements to inhibit bird strikes. The permittees shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 2. Mitigation for Impacts to Sand Supply. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall provide evidence, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive E>irector, that a fee of $11,350 has been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in-lieu of providing the total amount of sand to replace the sand and beach area that will be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structures. All interest earned by the account shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. The developed mitigation plan covers impacts only through the identified 20-year design life of the seawall. No later than 19 years after the issuance of this permit, the permittee or his successor in interest shall apply for and obtain an amendment to this permit that either requires the removal of the seawall within its initial design life or requires mitigation for the effects of the seawall on shoreline sand supply for the expected life of the seawall beyond (but not including) the initial 20-year design life. The length of time proposed for retention of the seawall shall correspond to and not exceed the remaining life of the residential duplex structure located on the bluff top. If, within the initial design life of the seawall, the permittee or his successor in interest obtain a coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit to enlarge or reconstruct the seawall or perform repair work that extends the expected life of the seawall, the permittee shall provide mitigation for the effects of the seawall on shoreline sand supply for the expected life of the seawall beyond (but not including) the initial 20-year design life. 6-07-133 Page 6 The purpose of the account shall be to establish a beach sand replenishment fund to aid SANDAG, or a Commission-approved alternate entity, in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. The funds shall be used solely to implement projects which provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. The funds shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The funds shall be released as provided for in a MOA between SANDAG, or a Commission-approved alternate entity, and the Commission, setting forth terms and conditions to assure that the in-lieu fee will be expended in the manner intended by the Commission. If the MOA is terminated, the Commission may appoint an alternate entity to administer the fund. 3. Mitigation for Impacts to Public Access and Recreational Use. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall provide a real estate appraisal of the current market value of an unimproved lot subject residential duplex property at 680 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, performed after January 1,2010. The appraiser shall be identified by the applicant and concurred with in writing by the Executive Director prior to the appraisal. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the full mitigation fee to address adverse impacts to public access and recreational use based on an appraisal of the subject blufftop lot (without improvements) and thereby, the per sq. ft. value of the subject blufftop property applied to the per sq. ft. area of seawall impact, has been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in- lieu of providing comparable area of beach that will be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structures and/or in-lieu of a specific public access/recreational improvement project. All interest earned by the account shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. The required mitigation fee covers impacts only through the identified 20-year design life of the seawall. No later than 19 years after the issuance of this permit, the permittee or his successor in interest shall apply for and obtain an amendment to this permit that either requires the removal of the seawall within its initial design life or requires mitigation for the effects of the seawall on public access and recreation for the expected life of the seawall beyond (but not including) the initial 20-year design life. If, within the initial design life of the seawall, the permittee or his successor in interest obtains a coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit to enlarge or reconstruct the seawall or perform repair work that extends the expected life of the seawall, the permittee shall provide mitigation for the effects of the seawall on public access/recreation for the expected life of the seawall beyond fbut not including") the initial 20-year design life. The purpose of the account shall be to establish a public access/recreation fund to aid the Coastal Conservancy, or a Commission-approved alternate entity, in the provision, restoration or enhancement of public access and recreational opportunities along the shoreline within San Diego County, including but not limited to, public access improvements, recreational amenities and/or acquisition of privately-owned beach or beach-fronting property for such uses. The funds shall be used solely to implement 6-07-133 Page? projects or land purchase which provide public access or recreational opportunities along the shoreline, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. The funds shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The funds shall be released as provided for in a MOA between the Coastal Conservancy, or a Commission-approved alternate entity, and the Commission, setting forth terms and conditions to assure that the in-lieu fee will be expended in the manner intended by the Commission. If the MOA is terminated, the Commission may appoint an alternate entity to administer the fund. 4. Monitoring Program. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a monitoring program prepared by a licensed civil engineer or geotechnical engineer to monitor the performance of the seawall which requires the following: a. An annual evaluation of the condition and performance of the seawall addressing whether any significant weathering or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the future performance of the structure. This evaluation shall include an assessment of the color and texture of the seawall comparing the appearance of the structure to the surrounding native bluffs. b. Annual measurements of any differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the seawall face, at the north and south ends of the seawall and at 20-foot intervals (maximum) along the top of the seawall face/bluff face intersection. The program shall describe the method by which such measurements shall be taken. c. Provisions for submittal of a report to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission by May 1 of each year (beginning the first year after construction of the project is completed) for a period of three years and then, each third year following the last annual report, for the life of the approved seawall. However, reports shall be submitted in the Spring immediately following either: 1. An "El Nino" storm event - comparable to or greater than a 20-year storm. 2. An earthquake of magnitude 5.5 or greater with an epicenter in San Diego County. Thus, reports may be submitted more frequently depending on the occurrence of the above events in any given year. d. Each report shall be prepared by a licensed civil, geotechnical engineer or geologist. The report shall contain the measurements and evaluation required in sections a, and b above. The report shall also summarize all measurements and analyze trends such as erosion of the bluffs or changes in sea level and the stability of the overall bluff face, including the upper bluff area, and the impact of 6-07-133 PageS the seawall on the bluffs to either side of the wall. In addition, each report shall contain recommendations, if any, for necessary maintenance, repair, changes or modifications to the project. e. An agreement that the permittee shall apply for a coastal development permit within 90 days of submission of the report required in subsection c. above for any necessary maintenance, repair, changes or modifications to the project recommended by the report that require a coastal development permit. The permittee shall undertake monitoring in accordance with the approved monitoring program. Any proposed changes to the approved monitoring program shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the monitoring program shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 5. Storm Design/Certified Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer that the proposed shoreline protective devices are designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. 6. Future Response to Erosion. If in the future the permittee seeks a coastal development permit to construct additional bluff or shoreline protective devices, the permittee shall be required to include in the permit application information concerning alternatives to the proposed bluff or shoreline protection that will eliminate impacts to scenic visual resources, public access and recreation and shoreline processes. Alternatives shall include but not be limited to: relocation of all or portions of the principal structure that are threatened, structural underpinning, and other remedial measures capable of protecting the principal residence and allowing reasonable use of the property, without constructing additional bluff or shoreline stabilization devices. The information concerning these alternatives must be sufficiently detailed to enable the Coastal Commission or the applicable certified local government to evaluate the feasibility of each alternative, and whether each alternative is capable of protecting the existing principal structure for the remainder of its economic life. No additional bluff or shoreline protective devices shall be constructed on the adjacent public bluff face above the approved seawall or on the beach in front of the proposed seawall unless the alternatives required above are demonstrated to be infeasible. No shoreline protective devices shall be constructed in order to protect ancillary improvements (patios, decks, fences, landscaping, etc.) located between the principal residential structures and the ocean. Any future redevelopment on the lot shall not rely on the subject seawall to establish geological stability or protection from hazards. 7. Future Maintenance. The permittee shall maintain the permitted seawall in its approved state. Maintenance of the seawall and return walls shall include maintaining the color, texture and integrity. Any change in the design of the project or future additions/reinforcement of the seawall beyond exempt maintenance as defined in Section 13252 of the California Code of Regulations to restore the structure to its original 6-07-133 Page 9 condition as approved herein, will require a coastal development permit. However, in all cases, if after inspection, it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, including maintenance of the color of the structures to ensure a continued match with the surrounding native bluffs, the permittee shall contact the Executive Director to determine whether a coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit is legally required, and, if required, shall subsequently apply for a coastal development permit or permit amendment for the required maintenance, 8. Other Permits. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the permittee shall provide to the Executive Director copies of all other required local, state or federal discretionary permits, other than any approval required by the State Lands Commission (see Special Condition #9), for the development authorized by CDP #6-07-133. The applicant shall inform the Executive Director of any changes to the project required by other local, state or federal agencies. Such changes shall not be incorporated into the project until the applicant obtains a Commission amendment to this permit, unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 9. State Lands Commission Approval. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a written determination from the State Lands Commission that: a) No state lands are involved in the development; or b) State lands are involved in the development, and all permits required by the State Lands Commission have been obtained; or c) State lands may be involved in the development, but pending a final determination of state lands involvement, an agreement has been made by the applicant with the State Lands Commission for the project to proceed without prejudice to the determination. 10. Public Rights. The Coastal Commission's approval of this permit shall not constitute a waiver of any public rights that exist or may exist on the property. The permittee shall not use this permit as evidence of a waiver of any public rights that exist or may exist on the property. 11. Assumption of Risk. Waiver of Liability and Indemnity Agreement. By acceptance of this permit, the applicant acknowledges and agrees (i) that the site may be subject to hazards from erosion and coastal bluff collapse; (ii) to assume the risks to the applicant and the property that is the subject of this permit of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with this permitted development; (iii) to unconditionally waive any claim of damage or liability against the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees for injury or damage from such hazards; and (iv) to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees with respect to the Commission's approval of the project against any and all liability, claims, demands, 6-07-133 Page 10 damages, costs (including costs and fees Incurred in defense of such claims), expenses, and amounts paid in settlement arising from any injury or damage due to such hazards. 12. Other Special Conditions of the City of Encinitas Permit #05-219 MUP/CDP. Except as provided by this coastal development permit, this permit has no effect on conditions imposed by the City of Encinitas pursuant to an authority other than the Coastal Act. 13. Deed Restriction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval documentation demonstrating that the applicant has executed and recorded against the parcel(s) governed by this permit a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director: (1) indicating that, pursuant to this permit, the California Coastal Commission has authorized development on the subject property, subject to terms and conditions that restrict the use and enjoyment of that property; and (2) imposing the Special Conditions of this permit as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the Property. The deed restriction shall include a legal description of the entire parcel or parcels governed by this permit. The deed restriction shall also indicate that, in the event of an extinguishment or termination of the deed restriction for any reason, the terms and conditions of this permit shall continue to restrict the use and enjoyment of the subject property so long as either this permit or the development it authorizes, or any part, modification, or amendment thereof, remains in existence on or with respect to the subject property. IV. Findings and Declarations. The Commission finds and declares as follows: 1. Detailed Project Description. The proposed development involves the replacement of an existing unauthorized approximately 14 ft.-wide seawall that involves the removal of up to 6 feet of concrete footing seaward of the existing wall, the addition of approximately 1 ft. of a new concrete facing, an approximately 10 foot high addition to the approximately 25 foot high existing seawall and installation of 35 foot high tied-back concrete columns between existing ones. The applicant also proposes to visually treat the surface of the seawall with color and texture to match the natural surrounding bluffs. The seawall will be located on public beach owned by the City of Encinitas. The project has already been completed pursuant to emergency permit 6-05-016-G/Li, and the subject permit request represents the required follow-up regular coastal development permit. The existing duplex was approved by the Commission in 1975 (ref. F2596) with special conditions that included confirmation that: the structure would be designed to assure the proposed 25 ft. setback from the bluff edge was adequate so that shoreline protection would not be necessary over the life of the structure. The special conditions were satisfied and the development completed. 6-07-133 Page 11 In 1993, the Commission denied an after-the-fact request to construct the existing 26 ft- high, 11 ft.-wide seawall, upper bluff retaining walls and private access stairway because it was determined the applicant had failed to adequately demonstrate why the particular structures were necessary to protect the existing residence (Ref. CDP 6-92- 254/Coleman). Based on a slope stability analysis performed at the time, it was clear that some form of shoreline protection was necessary, but, because the protective devices were constructed without necessary permits and an adequate alternatives analysis, the Commission could not find the structures consistent with the Coastal Act. In addition, because the structures were already in place in a very hazardous location, the ability to pursue removal as an alternative was effectively eliminated. Although the Commission denied the seawall, it did not require the protective structures to be removed and, pursuant to subsequent enforcement action by the Commission, the seawall, upper bluff retaining walls and stairway were allowed to remain. In July 2005, the Executive Director authorized an Emergency Permit (Ref. -05-16-G/Li) to construct an approximately 10 ft. high addition to the existing approximately 25 ft.-high unpermitted seawall and improvements to the existing seawall that include the removal of the concrete footing seaward of the seawall, the installation of 35 ft-high tied-back concrete columns in the gaps between the existing concrete columns, tieback and counterforts for the new upper section of the seawall, encasement of the entire seawall with architecturally- naturalizing concrete facing and installation of a geogrid soil-filled backfill structure to be hydroseeded with native coastal species and temporarily irrigated. The project also involved the removal of all above ground portions of the unpermitted bluff stairway and mid-bluff retaining wall that had recently failed. Subsequently, pursuant to the emergency permit, all construction as described above has been completed. Following approval of this emergency permit, the applicant applied for the required regular follow-up coastal development permit to the City of Encinitas for that portion of the work within the City's permit jurisdiction (i.e., everything other than the seawall) and to the Coastal Commission for the work on the seawall structure that lies on the public beach. In June of 2007, the City of Encinitas approved a coastal development permit for all portions of the project authorized by the emergency permit that lie within the City's permit jurisdiction. This included the removal of all above-ground portions of the unpermitted stairway and the mid- bluff retaining wall and the reconstruction of the mid bluff slope with imported soil, a geogrid structure and landscaping. In addition, the City coastal permit authorized a six- to fourteen- foot high tied-back concrete facing over an existing upper bluff wall (Ref. Encinitas Permit #05-219 MUP/CDP). Although located within the Commission's appellate jurisdiction, no appeals were filed and the development within the City's permit jurisdiction has been completed. The City of Encinitas has a certified LCP., however, the proposed development will occur on the public beach seaward of the mean high tide line within the Commission's original jurisdiction. As such, the standard of review is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act with the certified LCP used as guidance. 6-07-133 Page 12 2. Geologic Conditions and Hazards. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act states, in part: Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or 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. In addition, Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states, in part: New development shall do all of the following: (a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs... The proposed development is appropriately described in the applicant's geotechnical report as the construction of "a new seawall" that incorporates elements of the existing unpermitted seawall (Ref. "Geotechnical Basis of Design, 680 Neptune Avenue" by TerraCosta Consulting, 9/30/05). Based on the applicant's plans, the existing unpermitted seawall consists of a 57 ft. long, 14 ft.-wide (10 feet of concrete + 4 feet of infill between seawall and toe of bluff) arid approximately 25 ft.-high structure that is located seaward of the toe of an approximately 98 ft-high coastal bluff. The applicant is proposing to remove an approximately 6 ft.-wide concrete footing on the entire seaward portion of the seawall, install a new 1 ft.-wide concrete facing, install 35 ft.-high tied- back concrete columns in the gaps between the existing columns, construct a 10 ft.-high extension to the remaining seawall and color and texture the surface of the seawall so as to match the natural surrounding bluffs. The resulting seawall will match the height of and connect to the existing seawalls that are located on either side and will extend approximately 9 feet seaward from the toe of the bluff (5 ft. less than the existing seawall). In addition, the seawall will be less visually obtrusive and more natural in appearance than the existing wall. Coastal Act Section 30235 acknowledges that seawalls, revetments, cliff retaining walls, groins and other such structural or "hard" solutions alter natural shoreline processes. Thus, such devices are required to be approved only when necessary to protect existing structures in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on shoreline sand supply. The Coastal Act does not require the Commission to approve shoreline altering devices to protect vacant land or in connection with construction of new development. A shoreline protective device proposed in those situations is likely to be inconsistent with various other Coastal Act policies. For 6-07-133 Page 13 example, Section 30253 addresses new development and requires that it be sited and designed to avoid the need for protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In addition, the Commission has generally interpreted Section 30235 to require the Commission to approve shoreline protection only to protect existing principal structures. The Commission must always consider the specifics of each individual project but has found in many instances that accessory structures such as patios, decks and stairways are not required to be protected under Section 30235 or can be protected from erosion by relocation or other means that does not involve shoreline protection. The Commission has historically permitted at grade structures within the geologic setback area, recognizing they are expendable and capable of being removed rather than requiring a protective device that alters natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The proposed development is located at the base of a coastal bluff in the City of Encinitas that currently contains seawalls at both the north and south sides of the subject site. Continual bluff retreat and the formation and collapse ofseacaves have been documented in northern San Diego County, including the Cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas. Bluffs in this area are subject to a variety of erosive forces and conditions (e.g., wave action, reduction in beach sand, landslides). As a result of these erosive forces, the bluffs and blufftop lots in the Encinitas area are considered a hazard area. Furthermore, in 1986 the Division of Mines and Geology mapped the entire Encinitas shoreline as an area susceptible to landslides, i.e., mapped as either "Generally Susceptible" or "Most Susceptible Areas" for landslide susceptibility (ref. Open File Report "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California", dated 1986). The properties immediately north of the subject site have recently experienced significant landslides that have threatened residences at the top of the bluff and resulted in numerous Executive Director approved emergency permits for seawall and upper bluff protection devices (ref. Emergency Permit Nos. 6-00-171-G/Brown, Sonnie, 6-01-005-G/Okun, 6- 01-040-G/Okun, 6-01-041/Sorich, 6-01-42-G/Brown, Sonnie and 6-01-62-G/Sorich). In addition, documentation has been presented in past Commission actions concerning the unstable nature of the bluffs in these communities and nearby communities (ref. CDP Nos. 6-93-18 I/Steinberg, 6-92-212/Wood, 6-92-82/Victor, 6-89-297-G/Englekirk, 6-89- 136-G/Adams, and 6-85-396/Swift, 6-00-009/Ash, Bourgault, Mahoney). Pursuant to Section 30253 of the Coastal Act, in approving new development on blufftop lots, structures are required to be setback an appropriate distance (based on a site specific geotechnical report) from the edge of the bluff that will allow for the natural process of erosion without triggering the need for a seawall. This "geologic setback area" is so designated to accommodate the natural erosion of the bluff. In other words, on blufftop lots, residences are set back from the bluff edge to allow the natural process of erosion to occur on the site without causing the residence to be threatened. Thus, at some future point when evidence of some erosion of the setback area is identified (even undercutting and subsequent block failures), this does not necessarily confirm the need for bluff or shore protection to protect the residence. When the residential duplex at the top of the bluff was constructed in approximately 1975, the property owner submitted 6-07-133 Page 14 documentation certifying that the residence would not be threatened by erosion if sited 25 feet inland of the bluff edge. Subsequently, according to the applicant's geotechnical report, the duplex became threatened by erosion sometime during the 1980's, following several winter storms. In response, from approximately 1983 to 1987, the property owner at that time constructed an unpermitted seawall, stairway and upper bluff retaining walls. In September 1993, the Commission denied the applicant's request for a coastal development for these unpermitted structures because the applicant was unable to provide an alternatives analysis to the unpermitted 11 ft.-wide seawall (Ref. 6-92-254/Coleman) which had significant adverse impacts to public access along the shoreline and because the design of the retaining wall and private access stairway would have adverse visual impacts to coastal resources. Pursuant to subsequent enforcement action by the Commission, the applicant was allowed the keep the structures rather than remove them. In 2005, the retaining walls on the face of the bluff, the stairway and the lower seawall failed following heavy rains. The geotechnical report submitted as part of the emergency permit in 2005 identifies that "[o]n January 5, 2005, after heavy rains partially saturated the wall backfill, a failure of the existing mid-bluff wall occurred on the subject property." The report described the mid-bluff wall as being constructed of timber soldier piles and lagging which were experiencing dry rot along with reinforcing steel that was highly corroded which "compromises its remaining design capacity." The unpermitted upper wall near the top of the bluff was described to be in similar condition. In addition, the seawall at the base of the bluff was described as "dangerously compromised by the highly corroded steel tiebacks that are exposed in cut-outs set into the 22-inch by 30-inch concrete columns that support the lower portion of the sea cliff." The report concludes: In summary, all three walls are in critical need of repair to avert a much larger failure that could eventually undermine the bluff-top structure and compromise the adjacent bluff-top walls north and south of the subject property. Moreover, loss of the lower seawall would allow flanking and eventually undermine both the northerly and southerly seawalls adjacent to the subject property. These adverse conditions constituted an emergency, in our opinion, necessitating the request for an Emergency Permit to stabilize the slope as soon as possible. (Ref. "Geotechnical Basis of Design, 680 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas" by TerraCosta Consulting Group dated 9/30/05) Because of the failures of these unpermitted shoreline and bluff protective structures, the applicant's geotechnical report has demonstrated through the submission of a slope stability analysis that the duplex structure at the top of the bluff is threatened by erosion. The factor of safety against sliding is estimated to be between 1.13 and 1.2. (The factor of safety is an indicator of slope stability where a value of 1.5 is the industry-standard value for new development. In theory, failure should occur when the factor of safety drops to 1.0, and no slope should have a factor of safety less than 1.0.) The Commission's technical services division has reviewed the applicant's slope stability assessment and concurs with its findings. Based on the slope stability estimates, the applicant has effectively demonstrated that the duplex is threatened and requires protection. 6-07-133 Page 15 Thus, given the significant bluff and structural failures that have occurred at the subject site over the recent years, and the low factor of safety on the subject bluffs, substantial evidence has been provided to document that the existing primary blufftop structure is in danger from erosion. However, there are a variety of ways in which the threat from erosion could be addressed. Under the policies of the Coastal Act, if shoreline protective devices are necessary, the project must still eliminate or mitigate adverse effects on shoreline sand supply and minimize adverse effects on public access, recreation, and the visual quality of the shoreline. The Commission's staff geologist and coastal engineer have reviewed the applicant's geotechnical and engineering information regarding the need of the seawall and concur with its conclusions. In addition, the applicant's geotechnical reports have also been subject to third party review by a geologist employed by the City of Encinitas. The City's geologist has also concurred with the reports' findings. Alternatives The proposed development represents an alternative design for the unpermitted seawall that was constructed in the 1980's. The Commission denied the after-the-fact "11-ft. wide" seawall in 1993 primarily because it was determined that the applicant was unable to consider and implement alternatives because the structure had already been built and could not be removed without threatening the duplex at the top of the bluff. (It appears that the unpermitted seawall structure was actually 15-ft. in width, because the applicant failed to disclose the 4 ft. of sand backfill behind the seawall structure.) The subject request involves the removal of up to 6 ft. of concrete on the seaward side of the seawall structure and the addition of approximately 1 ft. onto the face of the remaining seawall structure. The resulting concrete portion of the seawall will be approximately 5 in. in width with approximately 4 ft. of sand backfill behind the seawall. The structure in its entirety (seawall + backfill) represents an approximately 9 ft.-wide structure placed on the public beach which, although a significant reduction over the previous approximately 14 ft. wide structure, is still significantly larger than more recently designed seawalls of 2 V-i ft. in width. In terms of alternatives to the proposed approximately 9 ft. wide, 57 ft.-long seawall, the applicant's engineer has examined the alternative of placing rip-rap at the base of the bluff, however, rip-rap would occupy far more substantial area of beach than would the proposed seawall and would do nothing to address the landslide potential. The engineer has also examined the alternative of groundwater controls, irrigation restriction and use of drought-tolerant plants, but has concluded that such measures alone will not reduce the threat to the duplex. In addition, the applicant's engineer has considered the installation of drilled pier underpinning for the residence, but has concluded that underpinnings alone would not address the ongoing bluff collapse, which ultimately would undermine the drilled piers and thereby the duplex. The applicant's representatives have also examined the application of a chemical grouting of the bluff or installation of geogrid structure on 6-07-133 Page 16 the face of the bluff; however, none of these alternatives would be effective unless and until the lower seawall structure is constructed. The applicant's engineer has also identified that the existing seawall structure cannot be removed without threatening the existing duplex and homes on either side of the subject site. In addition, the applicant's engineer has certified that the existing seawall structure cannot be replaced by a smaller seawall closer to the bluff toe because removal of the existing seawall would pose too great a hazard to construction workers as they install a new seawall. The Commission's coastal engineer has reviewed the applicant's engineer's assertion that the existing seawall cannot be removed and replaced without threatening construction workers and concurs with his assessment. In this case, the applicant has no alternative other than to remove up to 6 feet of the existing seaward section of the seawall and reconstruct and fortify the remaining seawall structure, resulting in a seawall structure that extends approximately 9 feet onto the public beach. Since the applicants have documented the need to protect the existing duplex, the Commission finds that a shoreline-altering device must be approved pursuant to Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. Based on the analysis presented by the applicant, the Commission finds that there are no less environmentally damaging feasible alternatives than the proposed approximately 9 ft.- wide, 57 ft.-long seawall. Sand Supply/In Lieu Mitigation Fee Although construction of a seawall is required to protect the existing principal structure (duplex) on the site, Section 30235 of the Coastal Act requires that the shoreline protection be designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. There are a number of adverse impacts to public resources associated with the construction of shoreline protection. The natural shoreline processes referenced in Section 30235, such as the formation and retention of sandy beaches, can be significantly altered by construction of a seawall, since bluff retreat is one of several ways that beach area and beach quality sand is added to the shoreline. This retreat is a natural process resulting from many different factors such as erosion by wave action causing cave formation, enlargement and eventual collapse, saturation of the bluff soil from ground water causing the bluff to slough off and natural bluff deterioration. When a seawall is constructed on the beach at the toe of the bluff, it directly impedes these natural processes. Some of the effects of a shoreline protective structure on the beach such as scour, end effects and modification to the beach profile are temporary or difficult to distinguish from all the other actions which modify the shoreline. Seawalls also have non-quantifiable effects to the character of the shoreline and visual quality. However, some of the effects that a structure may have on natural shoreline processes can be quantified. Three of the effects from a shoreline protective device which can be quantified are: 1) loss of the beach area on which the structure is located; 2) the long-term loss of beach which will result when the back beach location is fixed on an eroding shoreline; and 3) the amount 6-07-133 Page 17 of material which would have been supplied to the beach if the back beach or bluff were to erode naturally. Based upon the provided as-built plans, the proposed seawall will be 57 feet long and will encroach 8 ft., 8 in.) onto the beach. The total beach encroachment that will occur from the proposed seawall will be 493.62 (8.66 in. x 57 ft.) square feet of beach area that will no longer be available for public use. In addition, if the natural shoreline were to be allowed to erode, the beach would retreat inland. However, when the back shoreline location is fixed, the inland migration of the beach is halted. This will result in a long- term loss of recreational opportunity as the development of new inland beach land fails to keep pace with the loss of or inundation of the seaward portion of the beach. Over a 20 year period, with a long-term average annual retreat rate of 0.27 ft/yr, 307.8 square feet of beach will be inundated and will not be replaced by new inland beach area (.27ft./yr [erosion rate] x 57 ft. [length of seawall]). These two impacts from the seawall, the encroachment and the fixing of the back beach, will result in the immediate loss of 493.62 square feet of beach and the on-going loss of beach area (307.8 sq. ft.), after 20 years will total 801.42 square feet. The proposed seawall will also halt or slow the retreat of the entire bluff face. The bluff consists of a significant amount of sand, in the form of terrace deposits, the clean sand lens and the lower sandstone bedrock layer. As the bluff retreated historically, this sand was contributed to the littoral sand supply to nourish beaches throughout the region. The proposed seawall will halt this contribution to the littoral cell. Based on bluff geometry and the composition of the terrace materials, the applicant has estimated that the seawall will prevent 826.73 cubic yards of sand from reaching the littoral cell (based on a bluff erosion rate of 0.27 ft/yr and the wall remaining in place for 20 years). However, the applicant estimates that 129.5 cubic yards of sand has already fallen from the bluff face to the beach as a result of the seawall and upper bluff wall collapse. Therefore, the applicant asserts that over the next 20 years, 697.23 cubic yards (826.73 - 129.5) will be prevented from reaching the beach as a result of the installation of the seawall. The Commission's coastal engineer has reviewed these calculations and concurs with the applicant's conclusions. The project impacts, the loss of 697.23 cubic yards of beach material and the eventual loss of 801.42 square feet of beach area, are two separate concerns. A beach is the result of both sandy material and a physical area between the water and the back beach. Thus, beach area is not simply a factor of the quantity of sandy beach material. The loss of beach material that will be a direct result of this project can be balanced or mitigated by obtaining similar quality and quantity of sediment from outside the littoral cell and adding this sediment to the littoral cell. There are sources of beach quality sediment that can be drawn upon to obtain new sediment for the littoral cell. The following is the methodology used by Commission staff to develop the in-lieu fee amount. The methodology uses site-specific information provided by the applicant as well as estimates, derived from region-specific criteria, of both the loss of beach material and beach area which could occur over the life the structure, and of the cost to purchase 6-07-133 Page 18 an equivalent amount of beach quality material and to deliver this material to beaches in the project vicinity. The following is a description of the methodology. Fee = (Volume of sand for mitigation) x (unit cost to buy and deliver sand) M= Vt x C where M = Mitigation Fee Vf = Total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations provided below. C = Cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. where Vfo = Volume of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued, based on the long-term regional bluff retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards). This is equivalent to the long-term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach resulting from the structure. Vw = Volume of sand necessary to replace the beach area that would have been created by the natural landward migration of the beach profile without the seawall, based on the long-term regional bluff retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) 6-07-133 Page 19 Ve = Volume of sand necessary to replace the area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Vb = (S x W x L/27) x [(R hs) + (hu/2 x (R + (Rcu - Rcs)))] where R= Long-term regional bluff retreat rate (ft./yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Solana Beach area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.27 it/year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the initial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) h = Total height of armored bluff (ft.) S = Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material to be provided by the applicant hs = Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) Rcu = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft/yr). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site-specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. 6-07-133 Page 20 Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft/yr). This value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site-specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. NOTE: For conditions where the upper bluff retreat will closely follow the lower bluff, this volume will approach a volume of material equal to the height of the total bluff, the. width of the property and a thickness equal to the total bluff retreat that would have occurred if the seawall had not been constructed. For conditions where the upper bluff has retreated significantly and would not be expected to retreat further during the time that the seawall is in place, this volume would approach the volume of material immediately behind the seawall, with a thickness equal to the total bluff retreat that would have occurred if the seawall had not been constructed. Vw=RxLxvxW where R = Long-term regional bluff retreat rate (ft./yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.27 ft./year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the seawall beyond the initial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. v = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment movement (cubic yards/ft of width and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report, Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of 6-07-133 Page 21 the Coast of California Storm and Tide Wave Study, Document #87-4), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yards/square foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards/square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x I foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches yield a range of values for v from 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical information is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. W= Width of property to be armored (ft.) Ve = ExWxv where E = Encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) W= Width of property to be armored (ft.) v = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall, as described above; The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has adopted the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego region and is currently working on techniques toward its implementation. The Strategy considers a full range of shoreline management tactics, but emphasizes beach replenishment to preserve and enhance the environmental quality, recreational capacity, and property protection benefits of the region's shoreline. Funding from a variety of sources will be required to implement the beach replenishment and maintenance programs identified in the SANDAG Strategy. In San Diego County, SANDAG has agreed to administer a program which would identify projects which may be appropriate for support from the beach sand replenishment fund, through input from the Shoreline Erosion Committee which is made up of representatives from all the coastal jurisdictions in San Diego County. The Shoreline Erosion Committee is currently monitoring several large scale projects, both in and out of the coastal zone, they term "opportunistic sand projects", that will generate large quantities of beach quality material suitable for replenishing the region's beaches. The purpose of the account is to aid in the 6-07-133 Page 22 restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. One means to do this would be to provide funds necessary to get such "opportunistic" sources of sand to the shoreline. It has been argued that regional approaches to shoreline erosion are environmentally preferable to building separate seawalls to protect individual structures, and the City of Encinitas has been urged by the Commission to develop a comprehensive shoreline management strategy as part of its certified LCP. Coastal Act Section 30235, however, requires the Commission to approve shoreline protection for existing structures in danger from erosion when the shoreline protection is designed to eliminate or mitigate effects on local shoreline sand supply. In this particular case, the Commission finds the applicant's residential structure is faced with an immediate threat from erosion and requires protection prior to implementation of a comprehensive regional shoreline erosion strategy. The applicant is being required to pay a fee in-lieu of directly depositing the sand on the beach, because the benefit/cost ratio of such an approach would be too low. Many of the adverse effects of the seawall on sand supply will occur gradually. In addition, the adverse effects impact the entire littoral cell but to different degrees in different locations throughout the cell (based upon wave action, submarine canyons, etc.) Therefore, mitigation of the adverse effects on sand supply is most effective if it is part of a larger project that can take advantage of the economies of scale and result in quantities of sand at appropriate locations in the affected littoral cell in which it is located. The funds will be used only to implement projects which benefit the area where the fee was derived, and provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. Such a fund will aid in the long-term goal of increasing the sand supply and thereby reduce the need for additional armoring of the shoreline in the future. The fund also will insure available sandy beach for recreational uses. The methodology, as proposed, ensures that the fee is roughly proportional to the impacts to sand supply attributable to the proposed seawall. The methodology provides a means to quantify the sand and beach area that would be available for public use, were it not for the presence of the seawall. For the past decade, the Commission has relied upon the Beach Sand In-Lieu Mitigation Program to address impacts to local sand supply and some of the impacts from the loss of beach area1. The Beach Sand In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Program was established 1 The above-described impacts on the beach and sand supply have previously been found to result from seawalls in other areas of North County. In March of 1993, the Commission approved CDP #6-93-85/Auerbach, et al for the construction of a seawall fronting six non-continuous properties located in the City of Encinitas. In its finding for approval, the Commission found the proposed shoreline protection would have specific adverse impacts on the beach and sand supply and required mitigation for such impacts as a condition of approval. The Commission made a similar finding for several other seawall developments within San Diego County including an August 1999 approval (ref. CDP No. 6-99-100/Presnell, et. al) for the approximately 352-foot-long seawall project located approximately '/i mile south of the subject development and a March 2003 6-07-133 Page 23 to mitigate for persistent losses of recreational beach and has been administered by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for many years. However, the Commission has long recognized that while beach nourishment can address some of the losses that are directly attributable to seawall projects, the one-time provision of beach through nourishment does not adequately address the long-term and persistent impacts from encroachment and fixing the back of the beach. The main coastal resource concerns for these impacts arise from the losses in recreational use and recreational value that result from the loss of available shoreline area. As discussed in the section on Public Access/Recreation below, these impacts to public access and recreational value must also be mitigated. The applicant has proposed to make a contribution to the mitigation program that would address the sand volume impacts from wall and infill encroachments, denial of sand to the littoral cell and passive erosion, as discussed above. The applicant applied the calculations that the Commission has used for the past decade to estimate mitigation for these three impacts. However, since the impacts from encroachment and fixing the back beach are being covered through estimates for recreational beach losses, the In-Lieu Beach Sand Mitigation calculations applied in this analysis only address the value of the sand that will not be contributed by the bluffs to the littoral cell due to the construction of the proposed seawall. The amount of beach material that would have been added to the beach if natural erosion had been allowed to continue at the site has been calculated to be approximately 697.23 cubic yards. At an estimated sand cost of $16.28 per cubic yard (provided by the applicant, and based on judgment and three estimates from local contractors), this sand would have a value of $11,350. Special Condition #2 requires the applicant to deposit an in-lieu fee of $11,350 to fund beach sand replenishment as mitigation for the identified direct impacts of the proposed shoreline protective device on beach sand supply and shoreline processes over the 20-year design life of the project. Special Condition #2 also requires the applicant to amend the subject permit before the end of the 20-year design life to either remove the seawall or extend the mitigation fee based on the proposed life of the seawall which should correspond to and not exceed the remaining life of the duplex structure. Any extended mitigation fee would be for the impacts associated with the continued placement of the seawall beyond, but not including, the First 20-year design life, as the applicant is required to provide the mitigation for the first 20 years of the wall's design life as a condition of this permit. If the proposed wall were damaged in the future (e.g. as a result of wave action, storms, etc.) it could threaten the stability of the site, which could lead to the need for more bluff alteration. In addition, damage to the seawall could adversely affect the beach by resulting in debris on the beach and/or creating a hazard to the public using the beach. approval (ref. CDP No. 6-02-84/Scism) located 2 lots south of the subject site. (Also ref. CDP Nos. 6-93-36-G/Clayton, 6-93-131/Richards, et al, 6-93-136/Favero, 6-95-66/Hann, 6-98-39/Denver/Canter and 6-99-4I/Bradley; 6-00-138/Kinzel, Greenberg; 6-02- 02/Gregg, Santina and 6-03-33/Surfsong). 6-07-133 Page 24 Therefore, in order to find the proposed seawall consistent with the Coastal Act, the Commission finds that the condition of the seawall in its approved state must be maintained for the estimated life of the seawall. Further, in order to ensure that the permittee and the Commission know when repairs or maintenance are required, the permittee must monitor the condition of the seawall annually. The monitoring will ensure that the permittee and the Commission are aware of any damage to or weathering of the seawall and can determine whether repairs or other actions are necessary to maintain the seawall in its approved state. Accordingly. Special Condition #7 requires the permittee to maintain the seawall in its approved state. In addition, Special Condition #7 advises the applicant that ongoing maintenance and repair activities which may be necessary in the future could require permits. Section 30610(d) exempts repair and maintenance activities from coastal development permit requirements unless such activities enlarge or expand a structure or the method of repair and maintenance presents a risk of substantial adverse environmental impact. The Commission's regulations identify those methods of repair and maintenance of seawalls that are not exempt (see California Code of Regulations Section 13252). Special Condition #3 requires that the applicant monitor the wall on an annual basis to determine if repairs/maintenance are necessary, Special Condition #7 requires the applicant to consult with the Commission to determine whether any proposed repair and maintenance requires a permit. There may also be other local, state or federal agencies having jurisdiction over this project. Conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures may be required from these agencies. As such, Special Condition #8 has been imposed. This condition requires the applicant to submit copies of any discretionary permits obtained from other local, state or federal entities before the coastal development permit is issued. Should any project modifications be required as a result of any of these permits, the applicants are further advised that an amendment to this permit may be necessary to incorporate such mitigation measures into the project. The Commission typically requires that any proposed shore/bluff protection be constructed to withstand serious episodic storms. Special Condition #5 has been attached which requires the applicants to submit certification by a registered civil engineer verifying the seawall, as proposed herein, has been designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. Special Condition #6 requires that feasible alternative measures which would avoid additional alteration of the natural landform of the public beach or coastal bluffs must be considered by the property owner in the future, should additional destabilization occur. The condition will ensure that future property owners acknowledge the hazardous condition on the subject site and are aware that any proposals for additional protection, such as an augmented seawall or bluff stabilization measures, will require an alternative analysis, including measures designed to reduce the risk to the principal residence without additional shoreline or bluff protective devices. Potential alternatives include but are not limited to: relocation of all or portions of the principal structure that are threatened, structural underpinning, and other remedial measures capable of protecting the principal residence for the remainder of its economic life. To avoid additional 6-07-133 Page 25 impacts on visual quality, sand supply and public access and recreation, the Commission can require the property owner to implement those alternatives. The condition also states that no shore or bluff protection shall be permitted for ancillary improvements located within the blufftop setback area (such as decks, patios, etc.). Through this condition, the property owner is required to acknowledge the risks inherent in the subject property and that there are limits to the structural protective measures that may be permitted on the adjacent public property in order to protect the existing development in its current location. Special Condition #6 also requires the applicant and future property owners to acknowledge that future redevelopment of the site cannot rely on the subject seawall for its protection. In other words, the proposed seawall is in a hazardous location and not a permanent structure. It has been approved for the protection of the existing residence to meet the requirements of Section 30235 of the Coastal Act and is not approved in order to accommodate future redevelopment of the site in the same location. If a new home or residential addition is proposed in the future, it must be located in an area where the development is consistent with Coastal Act and/or applicable LCP requirements regarding geologic safety and protection from hazards as if the seawall does not exist. The applicant is proposing to construct the development in an area subject to wave and storm hazards. Although the applicant's geotechnical report asserts that the proposed development can withstand such hazards and protect existing development from such hazards, the risk of damage to the structure and the existing development cannot be eliminated entirely. The Commission finds that in order for the proposed development to be consistent with the Coastal Act, the applicant must assume the risks of damage from flooding and wave action. As such, Special Condition #11 requires the applicant to waive any liability on the part of the Commission for approving the proposed development. In addition, this condition require the applicant to indemnify the Commission in the event that third parties bring an action against the Commission as a result of failure of the proposed development to withstand and protect against the hazards. Special Condition #13 requires the applicant to record a deed restriction imposing the conditions of this permit as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the property. Only as conditioned can the proposed project be found consistent with Sections 30235 and 30253 of the Coastal Act. In summary, the applicant has documented that the existing duplex on the blufftop is in danger from erosion and bluff failure. Thus, the Commission is required to approve protection for the residential structure pursuant to Section 30235 of the Act. The applicant has presented information which documents that there are no other less damaging feasible alternatives available to reduce the risk from bluff erosion and provide the necessary protection. Since the proposed seawall will have adverse impacts on beach sand supply, Special Conditions require the applicant to pay an in-lieu mitigation fee corresponding to the amount of bluff material not being contributed to sand supply to offset this impact. Therefore, as conditioned, the Commission finds that the proposed seawall is consistent with Sections 30235 and 30253 of the Coastal Act. 6-07-133 Page 26 3. Public Access/Recreation. In addition to the adverse impacts on local sand supply, shoreline protective devices also have significant adverse impacts to public access and recreation. Coastal Act Section 30604(c) requires that every coastal development permit issued for any development between the nearest public road and the sea "shall include a specific finding that the development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of [Coastal Act] Chapter 3." The proposed project is located seaward of the first through public road, on the beach. Coastal Act Sections 30210 through 30213, as well as Sections 30220 and 30221 specifically protect public access and recreation, and state: Section 30210: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30211: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30212(a): Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects... Section 30213: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. ... Section 30220: Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. Section 30221: Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. Coastal Act Section 30240(b) also protects parks and recreation areas such as the adjacent public beach park. Section 30240(b) states: Section 30240(b). Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. The project site is located on a public beach owned and administered by the City of Encinitas is utilized by local residents and visitors for a variety of recreational activities such as swimming, surfing, jogging, walking, surf fishing, beachcombing and sunbathing. The site is located approximately V* mile south of "Beacon's" public access 6-07-133 Page 27 path and approximately Vi mile north of "Stone Steps", one of the City's public access stairways to the beach. The proposed seawall, which will be 57 ft.-long and 8.8 ft. wide will be constructed on sandy beach area owned by the public that would otherwise be available to the public and, therefore, will have both immediate and long-term adverse impacts on public access and recreational opportunities. The proposed seawall has been designed to occupy less beach area than the previously installed unpermitted seawall. However, even after the elimination of up to 5 ft. from the seaward side of the existing seawall, it will still project approximately 9 ft. seaward of the toe of the bluff. In addition, the beach along this area of the coast is narrow, and at high tides and winter beach profiles, the public may be forced to walk virtually at the toe of the bluffer the area could be impassable. As such, an encroachment of any amount, especially 9 ft. for a length of 57 feet, onto the sandy beach reduces the small beach area available for public use and is therefore a significant adverse impact. This is particularly true given the existing beach profiles and relatively narrow beach where access is sometimes only available at low tides. In addition, however, were it not for the seawall and infill structure, the seaward face of the bluff would naturally recede making additional beach area available for public use. During the 20 year life of the seawall, as the beach area available to the public is reduced, dry sandy beach will become less available seaward of the seawall such that beachgoers will not want to sit or lay a towel in this area. In addition, over time as the surrounding unprotected bluffs recede, the seawall structure along with others constructed to the north and south will likely impede or completely eliminate public access to the beach at the subject site. Development along the shoreline which may burden public access in several respects has been approved by the Commission. However, when impacts can't be avoided and have been reduced to the maximum extent feasible, mitigation for any remaining adverse impacts of the development on access and public resources is always required. The Commission's permit history reflects the experience that development can physically impede public access directly, through construction adjacent to the mean high tide line in areas of narrow beaches, or through the placement or construction of protective devices, seawalls, rip-rap, and revetments. Since physical impediments adversely impact public access and create a private benefit for the property owners, the Commission has found in such cases (in permit findings of CDP 4-87-161,Pierce Family Trust and Morgan; CDP 6-87-371, Van Buskirk; CDP 5-87-576, Miser and Cooper; CDP 3-02-024, Ocean Harbor House; 6-05-72, Las Brisas, 6-07-134/Caccavo, 6-03-33-A5/Surfsong, 6-08-73/DiNoto, et.al and 6-08-122/Winkler) that a public benefit must arise through mitigation conditions in order for the development to be consistent with the access policies of the Coastal Act, as stated in Sections 30210, 30211, and 30212. Appropriate mitigation for the subject development would be creation of additional public beach area in close proximity to the impacted beach area. However, all of the beach areas in Encinitas are already in public ownership such that there is not private beach area available for purchase. In addition to the more qualitative social benefits of beaches (recreational, aesthetic, habitat values, etc.), beaches provide significant direct and indirect revenues to local economies, the state, and the nation. There is little doubt 6-07-133 Page 28 that the loss of 801 sq. ft. of sandy beach in an urban area such as Encinitas represents a significant impact to public access and recreation, including a loss of the social and economic value of this recreational opportunity. The question becomes how to adequately mitigate for these qualitative impacts on public recreational beach use and in particular, how to determine a reasonable value of this impact to serve as a basis for mitigation. In the past ten to fifteen years, the Commission has approved the construction of shoreline devices in San Diego County when they are necessary to protect an existing primary structure and when mitigation is provided according to a formula that the Commission developed to address some of the more easily quantifiable effects on local sand supply, as required by Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. In each of those decisions, the Commission recognized that the mitigation in the form of an in-lieu fee paid for the purchase of sand to offset the sand lost by the shoreline structure, provided some, but not all mitigation, associated with the adverse impacts of shoreline devices. In recent years, the Commission has sought additional ways to quantify the adverse impacts to public access and recreation that result from shoreline protective devices and, thereby, develop more appropriate mitigation for those impacts. However, except in a few cases, the Commission has been unable to adequately quantify those impacts and thus has been unable to accurately evaluate the economic loss to public access/recreation associated with necessary shoreline protection projects. In 2005, the Commission contracted with Dr. Phillip King, Chair of the Economics Department at San Francisco State University, to perform an economic analysis of the loss of recreational values associated with a proposed seawall to be located adjacent to Fletcher Cove Beach Park approximately 4 miles south of the subject site (Ref. CDP #6- 05-92/Las Brisas). Since that time, Commission staff have attempted to use Dr. King's study as a basis for evaluating the seawall project impacts in Solana Beach and Encinitas, but because the character of the beach at Fletcher Cove is different in terms of accessibility, number of users and width of beach, and several other variables, staff has concluded that Dr. King's study cannot be used as a basis for determining impacts to the subject site. For instance, Dr. King estimated the number of beach users at Fletcher Cove on what he described as a "flawed" parking study specific to the Fletcher Cove parking lot. He also identified that most of the beachgoers place their towels no further than 150 ft. from the Fletcher Cove access ramp. Since these numbers are specific to beach attendance in Solana Beach and are based on a "flawed" parking study, his report was deemed insufficient for use on the subject seawall that is located 4 miles to the north in Encinitas. Recently, as a filing requirement for seawall applications, applicants have been asked to address the adverse impacts of shoreline devices on public access and recreation opportunities and to consider ways those impacts could be mitigated. Mitigation might be in the form of a particular public access or recreational improvement to be located in close proximity to the project or might involve an in-lieu fee to be used sometime in the future for a public access/recreation improvement. The applicant has identified that he 6-07-133 Page 29 has attempted to work with the City of Encinitas to fund a public access/recreation project but has been unsuccessful in finding such a project. In this case, because an established mitigation program is not in place, the applicant is proposing that the Commission make use of the methodology recently utilized for the an in-lieu fee program adopted by the City of Solana Beach that addresses impacts of shoreline devices on public access/recreation and on sand supply. The applicant is suggesting that the Commission accept a fee of $1,000 per lineal foot to address the adverse impacts associated with the seawall over the next 20 years. In this case, the proposed mitigation fee would equate to $57,000. As explained below, this proposal is inappropriate at this site. In June of 2007, the City of Solana Beach adopted an interim in-lieu fee program to mitigate the adverse impacts associated with shoreline devices. The program has been designed as "interim" and is in place only until the City completes an economic study that more precisely determines the economic costs of the loss of recreational beach area. As such, the City's program requires that a $1,000 per lineal foot fee be assessed in the interim and requires an applicant to agree to modifications to the fee once the economic study is complete and a more site specific fee is assessed. According to the City's program, the monies collected through the mitigation program will be directed for City use for public access and recreational projects. In the case of several recent seawall projects in the City of Solana Beach, the Commission has accepted the applicant's proposals for interim mitigation pursuant to the City of Solana Beach's program. As such, the recent seawall projects (Ref. CDP Nos. 6- 07-134/Caccavo, 6-03-33-A5/Surfsong, 6-08-73/DiNoto, et. al and 6-08-122/Winkler) approved by the Commission in Solana Beach have been conditioned to require the payment of $1,000 per sq. ft. to the City of Solana Beach as an interim temporary fee until the City completes its economic study which is intended to more accurately assess the financial impacts of shoreline devices on public access and recreation opportunities. Each of these recent coastal development permits for seawalls were also conditioned to require the applicants to apply for an amendment to their coastal development permit within 6 months of completion of the City's economic study in order to reassess the in- lieu mitigation fee. It is hoped that the City's economic study will provide sufficient information to enable the Commission to make a more accurate determination as the appropriate mitigation needed to address the adverse impacts of the seawalls on public access and recreation; however, at this point the findings of the economic study have not been identified. The Commission will ultimately determine whether a reassessed fee is necessary based on the requirements of the Coastal Act. However, in the case of Encinitas, no economic study to evaluate the economic impact of seawalls is under way and none is anticipated. In addition, the proposed seawall extends significantly futher onto the public beach (9 feet) than those in Solana Beach (2 feet). Therefore, unlike Solana Beach, the Commission will not have a way to more accurately assess the economic impacts of the subject wall on public access and recreation in the future, and the impacts of the subject seawall will be greater than those in Solana Beach. In this case, the applicant's proposal to make use of the Solana Beach's interim in-lieu 6-07-133 Page 30 fee program is not practical and will not sufficiently mitigate the adverse public access and recreation impacts associated with the seawall. As mentioned previously, the most appropriate mitigation for the subject development would be the creation of additional public beach area in close proximity to the impacted beach area. However, there is no private beach area available for purchase, so that direct form of mitigation is unavailable. However, if a private beach area of comparable size were available for purchase, the Commission might have a better way of approximating the appropriate mitigation fee based on the purchase value of the beach area. Instead of the applicant's proposal to pay a fee of $1,000.00 per lineal ft., the Commission eeakl-will rely on a real estate value estimate for the beach area that will be occupied over the next 20 years. As there are no private beach areas for sale in this area, however, as discussed above, the Commission must estimate the value of this particulary beach by looking to the value of the blufftop property being protected by this seawall.According to public records, the applicant's blufftop property is assessed at a tax value of $2,030.173. According to Zillow.com, a real estate vaiue estimation website, the subject blufftop property on October 5, 2009, was given an estimate value of $2,024,00 which is comparable to the Count)' of San Diego's tax value. The County of San Diego Tax Assessor identifies the blufftop lot as being 8,712 sq. ft. in size. Based on the tax value, this equates to $233.03 (rounded to 233) per sq. ft. While the value of the public beach is likely to be higher than the value of a blufftop parcel because of the public benefit derived from its use, the Commission believes that until a more accurate method of determining the economic value of the loss to public access and recreational opportunities is identified, a per sq. ft. real estate value of the blufftop parcel not including the value of improvements can be applied to the beach area. As an example, if the County property tax value were used to determine'the value of the blufftop lot ($233.00 per sq. ft.),-then the loss of 801 sq.-ft. of the public beaoh resulting from the placement of the seawall over 20 years would equate to a fee of $186,633.00 ($233:00 x 801 sq. ft.) However, although the County Tax Assessor and Zillow.com provide a general estimate of the property value, a current appraised value of the subject b-lufftop lot would be more accurate, but is not available at this time. In this case, to determine a more accurate per sq. ft. value of the blufftop property a real estate appraisal is necessary. Special Condition #3 requires that the applicant provide a current appraisal of the market value of the unimproved blufftop property in order to determine the appropriate per sq. ft. mitigation impacts of the proposed seawall. Comparison to other Public Access/Recreation Mitigations. In 2005, the Commission approved the construction of a 120 ft.-long, 2 Vi ft. wide seawall below the Las Brisas condominium complex in Solana Beach. The seawall was located below the dripline of the bluff and involved the fill of a 410 sq. ft. void. Therefore, the land area impacted over the 22 year design life of the seawall was estimated to be 1,364.8 sq. ft. After hiring an economist, Dr. Phillip King, to perform an economic analysis of the lost recreational value associated with the construction of the seawall (Ref. 6-05-72/Surfsong), the Commission determined that the applicant should 6-07-133 Page 31 pay a mitigation fee of $248,680.72. The fee was designed to be used for purchase of beach land and/or recreational beach park amenities. For the purposes of comparison, if this site specific loss of recreational value ($248,680.72) were equated to its per sq. ft. of impact, the fee would break down to $182.21 per sq. ft. (based on $248, 680.72 mitigation fee divided by 1,364.8 sq. ft of impact area). So in the case of Las Brisas, the mitigation fee was comparatively $182.21 per sq. ft. over 22 years. In October 2004, the Commission approved the construction of a 585 ft. long seawall fronting a 172 unit condominium complex in Monterey which was estimated to impact 43,500 sq. ft. of beach area over a 50 year period. To mitigate the adverse impacts of the seawall on public access and recreational opportunities, and in lieu of purchasing a comparable area of beach, the Commission required a mitigation fee of $5,300,000.00. This fee was derived from the cumulative 50 year recreational beach impact based on an estimated annual value of the beach area lost of $4,148. Again however, for the purposes of comparison for this review (understanding the methodologies of deriving the fee are different for each), if this site specific loss of recreational value ($5,300,000.00) were equated to its per sq. ft. of impact, the fee would break down to $121.83 per sq. ft. over 50 years. While neither of the methodologies used in the above-cited examples of in-lieu mitigation for the adverse impacts of a seawall can be applied directly to the subject development, it does identify a range of mitigation values that has been applied in other cases. In each case, the Commission found that the mitigation did not fully mitigate for the loss of the public beach and, thereby, the loss of public access and recreational opportunities. In the case of the subject seawall, the loss of 801 sq. ft. of public beach cannot be fully offset by the required mitigation fee since the beach itself cannot be replaced. However, until a more direct form of mitigation is found, the Commission can accept the required in-lieu fee mitigation. The mitigation monies provide the opportunity to potentially purchase or contribute to the purchase of privately-owned beach or bluff top properties along the Encinitas shoreline from which threatened structures could be removed along with the need for shoreline protective devices. In addition, the monies can be used to purchase privately-owned beach or beach-fronting property if it should become available for purchase that could be used for recreational and beach park amenities which will serve to offset the adverse impacts that result from the installation of the subject seawall. In addition, the monies can be used to purchase or assist with the purchase of public access or recreation uses within the City of Encinitas. For example, the City has recently identified that a new lifeguard facility is being proposed for Moonlight Beach which is located approximately % miles south of the subject site. Mitigation fees resulting from the subject development could help support the financing of this facility. Therefore, in order to adequately mitigate the loss of public access and recreational opportunities that will occur over the next 20 years due the subject seawall, Special Condition #3 has been attached which requires the applicant to pay a mitigation fee based on a current per sq. ft. real estate appraisal of the blufftop lot (without improvements) multiplied by 801 sq. ft. of seawall impacts to a special fund at the Coastal Conservancy 6-07-133 Page 32 or Commission-approved alternate entity that will be used for restoration and/or enhancement of public access and recreational opportunities along the Encinitas shoreline, or acquisition of property. Only with this required mitigation can the proposed development be found to be consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. This stretch of beach has historically been used by the public for access and recreation purposes. Special Condition #10 acknowledges that the issuance of this permit does not waive the public rights that may exist on the property. The seawall and infill structures may be located on State Lands property, and as such, Special Condition #9 requires the applicant to obtain any necessary permits or permission from the State Lands Commission to perform the work. With Special Conditions that require mitigation for the adverse impacts to public access and recreation and authorization from the State Lands Commission, impacts to the public will be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Thus, as conditioned, the Commission finds the project consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. 4. Visual Resources. Section 30240 (b) of the Coastal Act is applicable and states: (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. In addition, Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states, in part: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance, Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas ... As stated above, the proposed development will occur on the public beach. Following construction, the natural appearance of the bluffs at this site will be substantially altered. To mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed seawall, the applicant proposes to color and texture the seawall. The visual treatment proposed is similar to the visual treatment approved by the Commission in recent years for shoreline devices along the Solana Beach shoreline, (ref. CDP #6-02-84/Scism; 6-02-02/Gregg, Santina; 6-03-33/Surfsong; 6-04-83/Johnson, Cumming; 6-07-134/Brehmer, Caccavo; 6-08-122/Winkler). The technology in design of seawalls has improved dramatically over the last two decades. Today, seawalls typically involve sculpted and colored concrete that upon completion closely mimic the natural surface of the lower bluff face. 6-07-133 Page 33 In addition, to address other potential adverse visual impacts, Special Conditions Nos. 4 and 7 have been attached which require the applicant to monitor and maintain the proposed seawall in its approved state. In this way, the Commission can be assured that the proposed structure will be maintained so as to effectively mitigate its visual prominence. Therefore, as conditioned, the Commission finds that potential visual impacts associated with the proposed development have been reduced to the maximum extent feasible and the proposed development will include measures to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the adjacent park and recreation area (beach area). Thus, with the proposed conditions, the project is consistent with Sections 30240(b) and 30251 of the Coastal Act. 5. Local Coastal Planning. Section 30604 (a) also requires that a coastal development permit shall be issued only if the Commission finds that the permitted development will 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 subject site is located on the beach within the City of Encinitas. In November of 1994, the Commission approved, with suggested modifications, the City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program (LCP). Subsequently, on May 15,1995, coastal development permit authority was transferred to the City. Although the site is within the City of Encinitas, it is within the Commission's area of original jurisdiction. As such, the standard of review is Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, with the City's LCP used as guidance. As shoreline erosion along the coast rarely affects just one individual property, it is imperative that a region-wide solution to the shoreline erosion problem be addressed and solutions developed to protect the beaches. Combined with the decrease of sandy supply from coastal rivers and creeks and armoring of the coast, beaches will continue to erode without being replenished. This will, in turn, decrease the public's ability to access and recreate on the shoreline. Based on specific policy and ordinance language requirements placed in the LCP by the Commission, the City of Encinitas is in the process of developing a comprehensive program addressing the shoreline erosion problem in the City. The intent of the plan is to look at the shoreline issues facing the City and to establish goals, policies, standards and strategies to comprehensively address the identified issues. To date, the City has conducted several public workshops and meetings on the comprehensive plan to identify issues and present draft plans for comment. However, at this time it is uncertain when the plan will come before the Commission as an LCP amendment or when it will be scheduled for local review by the Encinitas City Council. In the case of the proposed project, site specific geotechnical evidence has been submitted indicating that the existing structure on the project site is in danger. This project emphasizes the critical need for a comprehensive planning effort such that 6-07-133 Page 34 seawalls are not constructed in an emergency situation, with a design that may not be the least environmentally damaging alternative in the future. Based on the above findings, the proposed seawall development has been found to be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, in that the need for the seawall and its repair/maintenance has been documented, its adverse impacts on public access, beach sand supply and visual resources will each be mitigated. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the proposed seawall, as conditioned, will not prejudice the ability of the City of Encinitas to prepare a comprehensive plan addressing the City's coastline as required in the certified LCP and consistent with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. 6. Consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA). Section 13096 of the Commission's Code of Regulations requires Commission approval of Coastal Development Permits to be supported by a finding showing the permit, as conditioned, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment. The proposed project has been conditioned in order to be found consistent with the geologic stability, visual quality, and public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Mitigation measures, including conditions addressing payment of an in-lieu fee for impacts to sand supply, public access and recreation opportunities, and monitoring and maintenance of the structures over the lifetime of the project have been included as conditions of approval. As conditioned, there are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed project is the least environmentally-damaging feasible alternative and is consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA. STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment. The permit is not valid and development shall not commence until 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 commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 6-07-133 Page 35 4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. (G:\San Dtego\Reports\2007\6-07-133 Li RF Staff Rpt.doc) ^Xtt'. vsuofV! BII^YU^ •?. s- .•• *\y ^» .-;;iS'=i«s\\-, S, \5i Jj ._nbL^.jPEiaii4\WQ—-^'-Hiavl•.iir,'«<»M\ .l,«c.^--\ . ••^»«>\\\ ?v>^- i • \—., • Vt'. '• -^ v™TC \l^^|l \ ^ \...... • U,? M *i5. >^".\ " ^ '.l>\lg- .«- •f«Taa'"'' ^ * &&/ \ ^3:S EXHIBIT NO. 1 APPLICATION NO 6-07-133 Location Map aa APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF UPPeK-&UIFF FAILURE AS OF JANUARY 2OO5 TRANSIENT SAND BEACH ^ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STAIRCASE (PRE-FAfLUR® EXISTING CONG. FOOTING DEMOLISH REMAINING PORTION OF POST AND OOARO TieO-BACK WALL AND TOP OFNSWSCA WALL JAWS. SEAWALL '%;;•/«* LAGGING ^ _ EXISTING TIEBACK LENGTH UNKNOWN ISII i§ o o o mX ro TOXREf SANDSTONE rftcrnB^ ^ ^RECONSTRUCTION SECTION SCALE: l"«!0'. IHORIZ.-.VERT-I 'G GROSS SECTION REPRODUCED, IN PART, FROM PLATE 2 OF NSHAW& ASSOCIATES. \L SOURC& SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOILS AND TESTING,INC. I TOPOGRAPHY -D O3 3-o wo f»M f ft(P ft?D.| ,3 § (D w RECONSTRUCT PORTION OF UPPER-BLUFF WfTffGEOGR/O REWFOKCet) FILL AND APPLY TeMPOKAf&tANDSCAPING APPROXIMATE UMfHSOF SLOPE APPROXIMATE UMITS OF UPPEK-OLUFFFAIWKEAS OF JANUARY2OOS EXTEND LOWER SEA WALL UP TO THE UPPER SECTION OF \ REPAIR \ BASAL SECTION OF I ^£F/1/9? § 1 WALLS. PROVIDE EXTERIOR AOHiTECTUKAL TREATMENT IN CONFORMANT WfTH TH£ &TYOF 0 0 w O 1 O3 H CO (12 FT. W> REMOVAL VEP&SOSAPPGARANCe EL. 28.6 TRANStEMT SAUD BEACH "•"' ' 15i-'i • - Ct, o.O _ I FVU SIZE (24X36) ACCORDINGLY (THISSHEET) PROOKAM FOR iREOUC£D PLANS EXISTING CROSS S&TtON REPRODUCED FROM PLATE 2 OF A. D. MNSHAW& ASSOCfATES ORIGINAL SOURCE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOILS AND TESTING, INC.SCA IANS fWPHOD UNOffl THE SUPBMSON OF BATS — Jlns. REVISIONS Beach Sand Mitigation Calculations Revised - October 7,2009 680 Neptune Avenue 57' Seawall ,-V-T Au'^ i I/ w = E = V= R= L= S= Hu= Hs= Rcu=> Rcs= 57' 8'8" (8.67) .9 0.27' 20 yr.** ,74 60' 38' .27' 0 .. _ N' CtfOO CO^'jf O.'STElC i " Per 3994 agreements with coastal staff, this number is utilized to represent an estimate of the seawall's Itfe without maintenance for the purpose of calculating ttie sand mitigation fee. The engineer of record has certified to the City of Endnltas that with maintenance, the seawall will remain effective for the Ufa of the residential structure (7s years). Aw=RxlxW Aw = .27x20x57 Aw = 307.8 Vw = Awxv Vw=307.8x.9 Vw = 277.02 Ae=WxE Ae = 57x8.67 Ae = 494.2 Ve = Aexv Ve = 494.2x,9 Ve = 444.8 Vb = (S x W x L) x ((R x hs) + (l/2hu x (R = (Rcu-Rcs)})}/27 Vb = (.74 x 57 X 20) x {(.27 x 38) +• [30 x (.27 + (,27)))}/27 Vb » (843.6) x {(10.26) + (30 x (-54)))}/27 Vb = (843.6) x (10.26-t-16.2))/27 Vb= (843.6 x(26.46))/27 "' ;, Vb a 826.728 • Existing Lost Beach Quality Bluff Sands Due to Failure: 175 cubic yards X .74 = 129.5 Vb = 826.73 -129.5 = 697.23 C = Cost of Sand O $16.28 (Average of three (3) qualified bids) Vb = 697.23 x $16.28 = $11,350.90 Vw= 277.02 x $16.28 =$4,509.89 ; Ve = 444.8 x $16.28 =$ 7,241.02 ~"Vt = Vb + Vw + Ve • {for purposes of calculating sand mitigation in combination with beach recreation mitigation, the cost of the individual components of Vt have been calculated .separately above). Total Cost Vt • $23,101.81 EXHIBIT NO. 4 APPLICATION NO. 6-07-133 Sand Fee Calculations by Applicant tit California Coastal Commission Attachment 1 ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION Planning Costs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Investigation of Offshore Sand Sources Assumed Borrow Site RBSP 1 RBSPI Final QT. in CY UNIT COST Preliminary Design Environmental Review and Permitting Final Plans, Specs, & Engineering Pre and Post Project Monitoring (Biological and Shoreline) Cost-Benefit Analysis Contingency TOTAL PLANNING COSTS: Construction Costs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mobilization & Demobilization Oceanside Beach N. Carlsbad SO7 SOS 420,000 225,000 $2,500,000 $7.01 $9.01 S.Carlsbad SO7 ' 160,000 ' $5.54 Batiquitos Leucadia Beach Moonlight Beach Cardiff Beach 9 | Fletcher Cove 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Del Mar Torrey Pines Mission Beach Imperial Beach Total amount of sand: S07 S07 S07 SO6 SOS SO5 118,000 130,000 103,000 104,000 TOTAL $300,000 $200,000 $850,000 $1,000,000 $850,000 $40,000 $486,000 $ 3,726,000 $2,500,000 $2,943,365 $2,026,713 $886,943 $5.04 $595,107 $5.33 ' $692,777 $5.58 $4.72 140,000 $5.96 180,000 SO5 : 240,000 MB1 MB1 Construction Contingency Construction Management Construction Survey or Inspection TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: TOTAL PROJECT COST: 150,000 120,000 2,090,000 $5.29 $5.79 $5.26 $9.36 Subtotal: 10% 7% 3% $574,649 $491,206 $833,968 $952,218 $1,389,651 $788,642 $1,123,026 $13,298,265 $1,579,826 $1,105,878 $473,948 $ 18,957,918 $ 22,683,918 Assumed Borrow Site RBSP II RBSP II Proposed QT in CY SO6 SO6 SO5 SOS SOS SOS SO5 SOS SO5 SO5 MB1 MB1 420,000 225,000 158,000 118,000 117,000 105,000 101,000 146,000 183,000 245,000 151,000 120,000 2,089,000 UNIT COST $2,500,000 $11.35 $10.33 $11.41 $10.23 $9.80 $9.00 $7.77 $7.66 $6.80 $7.44 $6.76 $12.03 Subtotal: TOTAL Completed Completed $1,328,420 $516,450 Monitoring Plan preparation in progress Completed Needed for Mitigation $ 3,186,000 $2,500,000 $4,767,000 $2,323,421 $1,802,741 $1,207,247 $1,146,862 $944,841 $784,372 $1,118,198 $0 $1,822,800 $0 $1,443,890 $17,361,372 $1,579,826 $1,105,878 $473,948 $ 23,021,024 $ 26,207,024 15 Revenues 1 2 3 4 5 6 Coastal Cities - Preliminary Planning and Cost Benefit Department of Boating and Waterways - authorized Department of Boating and Waterways - anticipated Coastal City Matching Funds - first three tasks Coastal City Matching Funds - second three tasks Coastal City Matching Funds - final three tasks TOTAL REVENUES: $840,000 $13,000,000 $6,500,000 $166,568 $256,466 FUNDING SHORT FALL: $1,879,591 $ 22,642,625 $ 16 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 25, 2010, to consider upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP 09-13, Special Use Permit SUP 09-05 and the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The project is a post Emergency Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a 97-foot long by 17 to 24-foot tall bluff-colored and textured seawall along the coastal bluff and below the residences located at 5323 and 5327 Carlsbad Blvd located on the west side of Carlsbad Blvd and northerly of Cerezo Drive in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 3 and more particularly described as: Lots 2 and 3 of Parcel Map MS 98-01, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 18236, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego, April 13, 1999 as file number 1999-0247276 Whereas, on April 7, 2010 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 4-1-2 to approve a post Emergency Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a 97-foot long by 17 to 24- foot tall bluff-colored and textured seawall along the coastal bluff and below the residences located at 5323 and 5327 Carlsbad Blvd located on the west side of Carlsbad Blvd and northerly of Cerezo Drive in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 3. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on and after May 21, 2010. If you have any questions, please contact Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov. If you challenge the Coastal Development Permit and/or Special Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 CASE NAME: GOETZ SEAWALL PUBLISH: May 15, 2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE Goetz Seawall CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 PROOF OF PUBLICATIO (2010 & 2011 C.C.Pr) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times- Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: May 15th, 2010 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Escondido, California On this 17th, day of May, 2010 is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carls- bad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tues- day, May 25, 2010, to consider up- holding the Planning Commission's approval of Coastal Development Permit CDP 09-13, Special Use Per- mit SUP 09-05 and the determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The project is a post Emergency Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a 97-foot long by 17 to 24-foot tall bluff-colored and tex- tured seawall along the coastal bluff and below the residences located at 5323 and 5327 Carlsbad Blvd locat- ed on the west side of Carlsbad Blvd and northerly of Cerezo Drive in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coast- al Program and in Local Facilities Management Zone 3 and more par- ticularly described as: Lots 2 and 3 of Parcel Map MS 98- 01, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, ac- cording to map thereof no. 18236, filed in the Office of the County Re- corder of San Diego, April 13, 1999 as file number 1999-0247276 \ \ Of Whereas, on April 7, 2010 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission vot- ed 4-1-2 to approve a post Emergen- cy Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a 97-foot long by 17 to 24-foot tall bluff-colored and textured seawall along-the coastal bluff and below the residences locat- ed at 5323 and 5327 Carlsbad Blvd located on the west side of Carlsbad Blvd and northerly of Cerezo Drive in the Mello II Segment of the Local CoastaJ Program and in Local Facili- ties Management Zone 3. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the. agenda bill will be available on and after May 21, 2010. If you have any questions, please contact Van Lynch in the Planning Department at, 760-602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsb- adca.gov. If you challenge the Coastal Devel- opment Permit and/or Special Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or pri- or to the public hearing. CASE FILE:CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 CASE NAMEiGOETZ SEAWALL PUBLISH: May 15, 2010 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NCT 2368446 T City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 1011001-1 04/20/2010 34 Tue, Apr 20, 2010 07:36 AM Receipt Ref Nbr: R1011001-1/0002 MISC - MISC FINANCIAL Iran Ref Nbr: 101100101 0002 0002 Name: CITY COUNCIL CDP Amount: 1 § $1,000. Item Subtotal: $1,000, Item Total: $1,000, 1 ITEM(S) TOTAL: $1,000.00 Check (Chk# 3495) $1,000.00 Total Received: $1,000.00 Have a nice day! ***m#*******cUSTQMER COPY************* CITY OF CARLSBAD 1 635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Cashier: (760) 602-2401 Water Utility Billing: (760) 602-2420 REC'D FROM "7 DATE ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION AMOUNT no i - '$310 ~i 'S / //- r\ \ Printed on recycled paper. NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY CASH REGISTER TOTAL Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature ^ SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DISTRICT STE 250 255 PICO AVE SAN MARCOS CA 92069 IAVERY®5160® ENCINITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DISTRICT 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT 1966OLIVENHAINRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AV ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CITYOFOCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF VISTA 600 EUCALYPTUS AVE VISTA CA 92084 VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AV SAN DIEGO CA 92123 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 10124 OLD GROVE RD SAN DIEGO CA 92131 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 ATTN TEDANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5934 PRIESTLEY DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER STEVE MACIEJ - BIASD STE 110 9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407 Etiquettes faciles a peler I Itilico-* U nakoi-i-t AWCDV® C1CH®HP rharnoment Consultez la feuille www.avery.com •» onn iz Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® A Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature j^1AVERY®5160® CARLA R GRAHAM 5365 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 ANDERSON 5345 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 CRAIG ARTERBURN 5335 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 DENISE WARSOFF 5325 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 CHRISTIAN JULLIAY 5400 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4422 ROGER WIST 5440 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4422 PAUL WASHICKO 5445 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4419 NANCY C LEE 5435 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4419 AKIN *B* 5410 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4422 JACKIE CAREW 5425 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4419 STEVEN & CATHERINE MILLER 5299 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4317 RAYMOND & LAURA GREEN 5301 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 MILLER 5319 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 DOROTHY PATERSON 1375 BASSWOOD AVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1904 MARY J HANSEN 5283 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4349 PATRICIA DUNBAR 5257 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4349 JEFFERY PRYOR 5243 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4349 WEST COAST PROPERTIES IR 5229 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4349 LITTLE SCHMIDT FAMILY *M*BWARIE FAMILY 5201 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4349 5263 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4349 5273 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4349 NEIL S BEZAIRE ALFRED & EUGENIA SAHAGUN LINDA J WEITZ 5226 SHORE DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4348 5220 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4306 5262 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4306 GRANSTEDT 5380 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4308 SCURLOCK 5370 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4308 HOMER L & NINA EATON 5025 TIERRA DEL ORO CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4351 SIDES FAMILY 5320 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4308 JENSEN 5319 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4309 DEAN A & BARBARA GOETZ 5323 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4309 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le aabarit AVFRY®fit* rhArn*amont Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature^IAVERY®5160® ! GRACIA M WOESSNER 2019 JOY VIEW LN HENDERSON, NV 89012-4556 WILLIAM. ..... T & SUSAN 5500 E LAS.. VEGAS, NV 89122 LACOSTA VILLAG BRAY R J B M 1493 W 18TH ST UPLAND, CA 91784 EARL ""F- fc-. CHERYL ^ ' 5365 :LGS' "ROBLES DR"~ --•-..., CARL'SBAD, CA 92008-1506 crjlO^J h. SBAD, CA 92008^S631 GARY M LANG MARILYN J HEISTERMANN TIMOTHY A & ROSEANE SULL *M* 5461 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4423 5301 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4331 5299 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4329 JOHN S MACDONALD JAMES BYRNES DEVIN & K 5267 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4329 5249 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4329 5233 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4329 DONALD E FINE LYNDA D WOODIN F & DONNA BELL 5264 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4328 5280 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4328 5296 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4328 GONZALEZ 5325 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4331 YAROS Y 533 5 J^QS" ROBLES~"DR-, CARLSBAD, CA 92008-433"! WOOLSON 5345 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4331 GERALD W MONTIER KAREN N GALBRAITH MARY S WYNNE *M* 5375 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4331 5385 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4331 5395 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4331 WOOLSON STEPHEN D & DEBORAH ROHRBAUGI TINDALL 5345 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4331 5340 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4330 5350 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4330 RAYMOND R STAINBACK VILELA HANNON FAMILY 5360 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4330 5370 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4330 5380 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4330 JEFFERY S GILBERT DANIEL J WALSH ROMEO G & TOYOKO MCCURRY 5395 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 5385 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 5375 EL ARBOL DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4319 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le aabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de charqement Consultez la feuille d'instruction www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®J^Feed Paper See Instruction Sheet j for Easy Peel Feature^I AVERY® 5160® ! MARSHALL SYLVER DAVID K & BEVERLY WOODWARD GEARY 5327 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4309 3413 CORVALLIS ST CARLSBAD, CA 92010-2187 4642 SOUTH LN DEL MAR, CA 92014-4141 ENGHOLM PAUL A RUSSELL TERRY R VOISEN PO BOX 1610 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-1610 PO BOX 2228 CARLSBAD, CA 92018-2228 3743 SAGE CANYON DR ENCINITAS, CA 92024-7920 MACKENZIE MARK E WINDRUM VINZANT 1479 SPANISH BAY CT ENCINITAS, CA 92024-2375 4443 SPRINGTIME DR OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 2058 TREVINO AVE OCEANSIDE, CA 92056-3115 BARBARA BARTER ELEANORE DIXON RONALD E & ROSEMARIE EVANS 1653 ELEVADO RD VISTA, CA 92084-2802 701 KETTNER BLVD 127 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-5972 2480 CYMBIDIUM CT HIGHLAND, CA 92346-2339 DAVID J & BARBARA CLINE GEORGE & PAMELA PAGLIARO THOMAS & PATRICIA RAUSCH 11 TRAFALGAR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-6831 1 CALLE ALUMBRADO SAN CLEMENTS, CA 92673-6709 1671 N KLAMATH PL ORANGE, CA 92867-3252 RICHSRD- J & DARCY BOX""SADRI M & MARIE-ROSE AKIN *** 77 Printed *** 81 HIGHLAND RD \ SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065 157 W PEACE RIVER DR FRESNO, CA 93711-6953 COAST LAW GROUP 1140 S COAST HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS CA 92027 TODD T. CARDIFF, ESQ. STE 358 121 BROADWAY SAN DIEGO CA 921010 DUSTIN ROSA 355 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le qabarit AVERY® 5160®Sens de chargement Consultez la feuille d'instruction www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY AH3AV-O9-008-1 uoipmjsui.p iuaiua6jeip ap sua$ ®09LS ®AM3AV lueqeB OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5345 LOS ROBLES DR 5375 LOS ROBLES DR 5385 LOS ROBLES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5395 LOS ROBLES DR 5380 CARLSBAD BLVD 5370 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5360 CARLSBAD BLVD 5340 CARLSBAD BLVD 5320 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 5319 CARLSBAD BLVD 5323 CARLSBAD BLVD 5327 CARLSBAD BLVD CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008 Ti Yajrneaj pej Aseg JDJ -- jaded psadj ^/M ®091S 3iV1dl/\l31 ®^J3AV asn i laauc uoiumisui aac City of APR 1 9 2010 Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FORM I (We) appeal the decision of the To the Carlsbad City Council. Planning Commission Approval of CDP 09-13/ SUP 09-05 (Goetz Seawall) Date of Decision you are appealing:April?, 2010 Subject of Appeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. The Surfrider Foundation and Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation appeal the whole action, including, but not limited to: The approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 09-13), Special Use Permit (SUP 09-05), and Resolutions 6677 & 6678 and the decision to not conduct any environmental review under CEQA. Reason(s) for Appeal: • Please Note • Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy? Violation of CEQA - The CDP and SUP are discretionary decisions requiring the preparation of an EIR under CEQA. The emergency seawall permit was temporary and does not provide a vested right to continue the seawall in that location. """"""ouusiaiiLial evidence - PeTnnSneTS"pTOvl8fed substantial evidence lhai the seawall may have a significant ^TreCTCH ihe environment. The City faikd to Minima any softly ttvkw to d&tefmine. whetiitf tht seawall i to pi-ettat the. public beaah. Time, has never hppn a l orantpH iinHpr Piihlir Rp<!rmrrp«: PnHp sprtinn 3f)?3fi nr an T C.P tn rntprt pnlc- nn a nhlir hparh Seawalls, through the process of passive erosion will narrow and destroy a beach, blocking public access. The City cannot make the findings that the seawall will not block access at any time, and therefore cannot make the findings required to approve the seawall. The project cannot maintain 25 feet of dry beach access in front of the seawall. The seawall is not the most environmentally sensitive option recreational impacts. The Municipal Code violates the Constitution by charging a non-waiverable appeal fee that is 3 times the amount that it costs t ipnving people a viable method of redressing their grievances and file suit. ( 619 ^ 546-5123 SIGN Todd T- Cardiff (on behalf of all appellants) NAME (please print) April 16,2010 DATE PHONE NO. 121 Broadway, Ste. 358 ADDRESS: Street Name & Number San Diego, CA 92101 City,State,Zip Code 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2808 ILYELSON CORK ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 24,2010 All Receive -Agenda Item # For Informatton of "'k ' From CMA Asst CM- Van Lynch Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Goetz Seawall, CDP 09-13, SUP 09-05 Dear Mr. Lynch: We represent the applicants, Dean Goetz and Marshall Sylver, with respect to the project known as the Goetz Seawall. The Carlsbad Planning Commission made the correct decision when it approved this project, and we oppose the last-minute, frivolous appeal submitted by the Surfrider Foundation and the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF). The following paragraphs respond to each of the grounds for submitted in support of this appeal. A. CEQA Not Applicable. The City correctly concluded that the Califonlia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not applicable to this permit process because CEQA refers only to "projects," not required governmental approvals. Under CEQA, a project is something that will have an adverse effect on the environment. Public Resources Code 521068. "Under CEQA, 'project' 'refers to the underlying activity which may be subject to approval by one or more governmental agencies; it does not refer to each of the several approvals sequentially issued by different agencies.' [Citations.] 'This definition ensures that the action reviewed under CEQA is not the approval itself but the development or other activities that will result from the approval.' [Citation.]" California Unions for Reliable Energv v. Moiave Desert Air Ouality Management District (2009) 178 CA4 1225, 1238-9. The "project" here was the construction of the seawall itself, performed under a CEQA-exempt, emergency permit, not the follow-up regular permit that was a mere condition of the exempt emergency permit. Since the actual project is physically complete, and this regular permit process does not change or impact the environment in any way, there is no basis for CEQA review. This project is and remains CEQA exempt. B. No Substantial Evidence of Significant Effect Provided. As a CEQA-exempt project, the substantial evidence basis for this appeal is moot. Nevertheless, the material provided by the appellants and others is not "substantial evidence" within the meaning of CEQA. Argument, speculation, inaccurate information, unsubstantiated opinion, or social or economic. impacts Van Ly~~cli May 24,2010 Page 2 of 5 unrclatcd to physical changes to the environment, do not constitute "substantial evidence." Public Resources Code 55 21080(e) and 21082.2(c). The 111atcrial submitted to the City in opposition to this permit consists of the very things that do not constitute substantial evidence: legal arguments, statcrncnts from lawyers, general complaints from citizens who do not like seawalls, and scvcral general scientific articles. The legal arguments and complaints do not, by definition, constitute "substantial evidence." The scientific articles also fail to meet this standard because they are too gcneral in nature. They do not discuss the Goetz seawall, or even the Carlsbad coastline. The appellants have not cited and the administrative record does not contain ally site-specific studies or cvaluations of the supposed environmental impacts of the Goetz seawall, a seawall which is entirely on private property. C. Five 5 Deaths From North County Bluff Collapses. The appellants complain that the City failed to undertake a safety revicw to determine whether the seawall was necessary to protect the public beach. However, thc City is r~ot required to do so. More to the point, unstable bluffs are clearly dangerous, and the risk of danger at the location of Goetz seawall is especially high. The collapse that spurred Mr. Goetz and Mr. Marshall to act resulted in the sudden and unexpected deposit of 150 cubic yards of rock and sand onto the beach. The weight of this material was approximately 486,000 pounds, or 243 tons; certainly heavy enough to kill anyone who happened to be on the beach at this location. Given how often people use this beach, it is clearly fortunate that no one was hurt or killed in this collapse. To this point, since 1995, five people have died in North County bluff collapse events. In January 2000, a young woman was unfortunately killed in Encinitas in January 2000, while sitting on the beach about 30 to 40 feet seaward from the toe of the bluff while watching her husband surf. Several months earlier, in October 1999, a surfer got out of the water just south of Fletcher Cove in Solana Beach, took off his wetsuit and set it down on the beach about 40 feet from the bluff. Luckily, he walked back down to the beach. Moments later, in the total absence of any wave action against the bluff, sevcral hundred cubic yards of this bluff collapsed, burying his wctsuit. Prior to that, in 1995, a bluff collapse south of Del Mar killed two people and injured a third. In 2002, a man was killed in a small seacave at Carlsbad State Bcach. Most recently, in 2008, a Nevada man was killed by falling rocks in front of his family while he played frisbee at Torrey Pines Statc Bcach. The danger of the fragile bluffs is wcll documented and well understood by the scientific community. Since the 1997-1998 El Nino phenomenon, there have been hundreds of upper and lower bluff collapses, all sudden in nature, and some sufficient to cause injury or death to beachgoers, in San Diego County. However, the danger of our fragile bluffs is largely exacerbated due to the public's lack of understanding of their fragility. Unfortunatcly, the vast majority of the beach-going public has literally no understanding that unprotected coastal bluffs may collapse at any moment. On any givcn day, beachgoers of all ages rccreate in these highly dangerous areas. Unfortunately, bluff collapse does not share the same level of familiarity with beachgoers as do waves, rip currents, skin cancer, and shark attacks. The danger at the location of the Goetz wall is particularly pronounced given its proximity to free parking, a vertical acccss point, and popular surf breaks. Also, the fact that Goetz cove is the only Van Lynch May 24,2010 Pagc 3 of 5 dry area for some distance on citlicr side of the public-access staircase, essentially forces people to congrcgate in the bluff collapsc danger zone. This danger zonc is coi~tinually occupied by people of all ages, including children. Very oftcn, it is even used for wedding ceremonics and receptions. D. Public Safety - Valid Basis For Approval. The appellants suggest that the City's approval of thc Goetz seawall was not justified on the grounds that "thcrc has ncvcr been a seawall granted under Public Resource Code section 30235 or an LCP to protect people on a public beach." First, we do not know whether or not this is true. California is a large state with thousands of miles of lands that front the ocean, rivers and lakes. Without undertaking a review of all seawalls and seawall-like structures, which number in the many of thousands, it is not reasonable to make this statement. Second, whether or not a seawall has ever been approved to protect public safety is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether the City is authorized to approve the wall in the circumstances presented here. For the reasons stated above, the City is authorized, as the wall is needed to protect coastal dependent resources and the public beach from erosion. Public Resources Code section 30235 merely provides when approval of a seawall is rilandatory. It does not state that scawalls are disallowcd in the abscnce of the conditions which make approval mandatory. Even where seawall approval is not mandatory, a coastal development permit may bc issued consistent with the Coastal Act or a certified LCP. Third, approval of the Goetz scawall is mandatory in this case. Section 30235 states that seawalls are mandatory when needed to protect beaches in danger from erosion and where needed to serve coastal dependent uses. The Goetz seawall protects a beach and beachgoers in danger from bluff erosion and collapse. In addition, bcach recreation is clearly a coastal dependent use of the beach. The Goetz seawall, especially given its proximity to a popular vertical access point and surf breaks, coupled with the fact that it is setback in a much-used cove, was clearly needed to serve thc necds the people who use this portion of the coast. For the reasons described in Section C, above, this beach area is a focal point for beach users. For people who want or need free parking, good surf, and dry sand, there is literally no where else to go. For this reason, it is particularly important to protect this area and to keep it safe for its many thousands of users. E. "Passive Erosion" Theory Moot in Light of Private Property Location. Whether or not passive erosion will occur at this beach is irrelevant because the Goetz seawall is entirely on private property, and will be for many years to come. Moreover, the seawall is located not just on private property, but some 60 feet landward of thc mean high tide, the boundary line between the applicants' property and the public beach. Passive erosion, if it occurs, would not be an issue for this property until such time as the mean high line advances landward to the location of the seawall. This will take many years, if it happens at all. SANDAG is planning a large-scale, regional sand replenishment event for April 2012. With this and other sand replenishment projects in the offing, the Goetz seawall is likely to remain on private property for the life of the wall. Van Lynch May 24,201 0 Page 4 of 5 F. Dry Beach Access in Front of Seawall. To the extent this is tmc, thcre is no requirement that the project maintain 25 feet of dry beach acccss in front of thc scawall. This is not a basis for denial of the pcrnlit, and certainly not a basis for granting the appeal. G. Most Environmentally Sensitive Option Not Required. The appellants suggest that the seawall should not have been approved because it was not the most environn~entally sensitivc option available to protect the public beach and beachgoers. First off, the evidence is that the seawall was the only viable option available to the applicants. There is no evidence to the contrary. Second, there is no requirement in the Coastal Act or the Carlsbad Municipal Code that the seawall, in order to be approved, must be the most environn~entally sensitive option required. Instead, the City is required to balance property rights and environn~ental concerns, at the same time it considers the social and economic nceds of the state. The Coastal Act states: The Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for thc coastal zone are to: (a) Protect, maintain, and, wl7er-e feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking ilito account the social and econo177ic needs of the people ofthe state. (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunitics in the coastal zone consistelit with sound resources conservation principles and co17stitutionally protected I-igl7ts of pr-ii~ateproperfy obvners. Public Resources Code 5 30001.5 (emphasis added) As this language well illustrates, the City's obligation is not to give exclusive priority to the supposed environmental concerns associated with the Goetz seawall, but to instead undertake a balancing that gives appropriate weight to the impacts on the social and economic needs, and the property rights, of all Californians, including Dean Goetz and Marshall Sylver. H. Sand Fee Appropriate; Recreation Fee Illogical Given Safety Benefits of Seawall. The appellants also complain that the sand fee was too low and that therc was no fee charged for so- called recreational impacts. As to the sand fee, there is ample evidence supporting the sand fee imposed by the Planning Commission decision. This fee is based on conservative numbers that are well justified and documented. That being said, this fee is not logical in this case because Mr. Goetz and Mr. Marshall are being charged a fee for retaining their own property. The general logic behind a sand fee is that the seawall retains sand that would otherwise fall to the public beach. In Solana Beach, Van Lynch May 24,2010 Page 5 of 5 for example, where the idea of a sand mitigation fee originated, the City typically owns the bluff and beach above the mean high tide line. Here, however, Mr. Goetz and Mr. Marshall own the bluff and the beach above the mean high tide line, so the sand fee essentially charges them for retaining the sand from their bluff that might othcnvise find its way on to their beach. In addition, this fee is being assessed all at once, without a present value discount, even though the sand would slowly meter out over many years. As to the idea of a recreation fee, there is no basis for such a fee. First, the seawall eliminates the bluff collapse danger zone and therefore there is a net increase in usable beach. Second, even without this consideration, there is no basis to charge the private property owners a fee for theoretically preventing members of the public from using their land. For all these reasons, we respectfully request that the City reject the SurfriderICERF appeal, and ratify the Planning Commission decision to approve this decision. Please incorporate this letter into the administrative record. Sincerely yours, , . .._~j Jonathan Corn May 24,201 0 Delivered via email and priority mail Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad C/OVan Lynch 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Opposition to Goetz Seawall COP 09-1 3/SUP 09-05 Honorable City Council and Mayor: Thank you for considering these comments submitted on behalf of myself and the San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. The Surfrider Foundation is a grassroots, non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of the World's oceans, beaches and coastline through conservation, activism, research and education. The Surfrider Foundation has over 50,000 members and 60 chapters in the United States and affiliates in Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica, Europe, Australia and Japan. The San Diego Chapter is Surfrider's oldest and largest Chapter. We urge you to require the Goetz Seawall application to undergo a thorough environmental review under CEQA by preparing an EIR for the project. Further, we urge you to deny the current application as inconsistent with the LCP and the Coastal Act. In addition, we object to and have serious concerns regarding the appeals procedure under the Carlsbad Municipal Code and resolutions. We address such issues first. A. The $1,000 Cost to Appeal a Decision to the City Council is an Unconstitutional Bar to the Public to Petition the Government to Redress a Grievance. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and California Constitution, Article I, section 3, provides the people the right to petition the government to redress their grievances. While filing fees are often imposed, such fees cannot pose a barrier to due process, or chill the exercise of free speech. There must be a mechanism to waiving the fees for those unable to pay. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 In this case, the Carlsbad Municipal Code [CMC] imposes a $1,000 fee on those who wish to appeal a decision from Planning Commission to the City Council. [CMC 5 21 54.1 50; Resolution 2009-1 45 .] While the Carlsbad Municipal Code does not require an appeal to exhaust administrative remedies on a Coastal Development Permit, a matter under CEQA must be appealed to the City Council. [See CMC 5 21.201 .I 40.1 This means that to challenge a project under the municipal code or CEQA, the public must pay $1,000 to exhaust its administrative remedies. This is three times the amount of the current cost for filing a lawsuit, and does not appear to be wa~verable based on an appellant's lack of financial resources. The City cites to Friends of Glendora, K Ciq of Glendora, I 82 Cal. App. 4th 573 (201 01 for the proposition that it may impose even a $2,000 fee to appeal. However, the court in Glendara did not consider whether a fee may be imposed that is not waiverable for non-profits and indigeiits. Surfrider is not disputing the right to impose a fee, but the right to impose a $1,000 fee that cannot be waived. Furthermore, such non-waiverable $1,000 fee chills free speech, discouraging anyone without a financial interest in the project from appealing a decision to the City Council. This is an unconstitutional fee that violates the due process of those opposing a project. [Gblifarnia Teachers Assn. K State of California, 20 Cal. 4th 327,350 [I 9991.1 Because exhausting administrative remedies is an absolutely necessary pre-requisite to filing an administrative mandamus action in court, the 51,000 non-waiverable fee also amounts to an unconstitutional denial of the right to file a lawsuit. The ordinance must be changed to ensure that the right to due process is not overly impacted by such fees. The ordinance must be changed to permit opponents the opportunrty to demonstrate that they cannot afford such fees or should not be forced to pay such fees. B. The Ordinance's Burden of Proof Violates the Dictates of CEQA. The appeal procedures set forth in the Carlsbad Municipal Code improperly shifts the burden of review in CEQA. Under the Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.54.1 50, there must an affirmative vote of three City Council members to overturn a decision by the Planning Commission. However, because EQA is a process of public Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall Mav 24.2010 accountabilty, only elected officials have the final determination under CEQA. The duty to fully evaluate the evidence and determine the proper course under CEQA is solely for the City Council. In this case, the City Council is the final body that must evaluate the City's decision to forego CEQA, and affirmatively approve the project. The Municipal Code creates a situation where two members of the City Council could potentially approve a project and certjfy an EIR over the objections of two other members. This absolutely violates the CEQA process, which requires denial of a project absent an affirmative marjority vote to certify an environmental document [or course of action] as complying with CEQA. C. The City Council Must Order the City Staff to Prepare an ElR. As noted in my previous correspondence, there is more than a fair argument that the project has significant unmitigable impacts to biology, beach width, recreation and public access. Simply put, through the process of passive erosion and sea-level rise, the beach will disappear in front of the seawall. The City cannot approve the project when there are viable alternatives that avoid or mitigate the significant impacts. [Pub. Res. Code section 21 002.1 There a numerous less environmentally damaging options that adequately protect the public - - the purported purpose of the project. A simple mesh fence and signs would have substantially reduced the alleged risk to the public without destroying the beach. Grading the bluff to an acceptably stable slope [aka "angle of repose"] would have also reduced the potential for landslides without damaging the beach. Instead, the City decided not to thoroughly analyze the options and the risks, and instead decided to avoid CEQA altogether. In fact, the City first prepared a negative declaration, but, after Surfrider submitted extensive comments on the project, and provided substantial scientific studies and literature describing the impacts of seawalls, suddenly the City decided to attempt to rely on the emergency exemption to avoid CEQA. Essentially, the City staff knew it could not make the findings to support a negative declaration and instead sought to circumvent the CEQA process by relying on the emergency exemption. Carlsbad City Council RE: Gwtz Seawall Mav 24.2010 Avoiding CEQA is absolutely improper. As was noted by the Coastal Commission in its June 26,2009 letter, there is no vested right to maintain a seawall built under an emergency permit. [See also, Whaler's Ullage Club K CaL CoastalCom, 173 Cal. App. 3d 240,252 [I 9851.1 A permit for an emergency seawall is temporary. The applicant must obtain a regular coastal development permit. In fact, the staff report, itself, notes the temporary nature of an emergency permit. If the coastal development permit is denied, the seawall must be removed. The fact that the applicants built a seawall under an emergency procedures does not constitute a vested right to a permanent seawall. [Barrie K Cal. CoastalCom, 196 Cal. App. 3d 8, 15 [I 9871.1 Because the Special Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit are discretionary, such decisions must comply with CEQA. [Pub. Res. Code 21 080.1 An emergency no longer exists, if it ever did, and therefore the emergency exemption cannot be used by the City to avoid CEQA review. There is plenty of time for the City to evaluate the impacts and alternatives, and make an informed decision on whether a seawall is warranted and permitted for the project as described. Geotz will undoubtedly argue that because the project was already built, the issue of CEQA review is moot. However, when a project applicant proceeds at his own risk, the project is not deemed approved until the final decision. [ Woodwardpark HOA K Garreks, 77 Cal. App. 4th 880.889 [2000].] Because the seawall project can still be modified, conditioned, or removed, it is still a discretionary decision that requires complete CEQA review. [Miller v: CityofHermosa Beach, 13 Cal. App. 4th 1 1 18. 1 139 [I 9931.1 CEQA review cannot be avoided when the project has not received its final approval. [Woodward Park, supra, at 889; See also, City of Santee K County of San Diego, 2 14 Cal. App. 3d 1438, 1456 [I 9891 [permitting a temporary jail to remain while an EIR was completed].] The City must prepare an EIR to evaluate the impacts of the Goetz Seawall. 0. The Cii Still Has Failed to Conduct a Safety Analysis of the Necessity of the Seawall. The City simply sites to the December 19,2008 bluff collapse as its justification of the seawall. However, the City still has not evaluated or calculated the actual risk of injury to beachgoers. Further, Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 24,2010 as is typical of purchased science, the evidence of the likelihood of collapse injuring a beachgoer, provided by the applicant's geologist, is both speculative and contradictory. First, it is undeniable that on or about December 19,2008, the bluff collapsed and a substantial amount of bluff material was deposited on the public beach. The talus [the fallen portion] according to the photographs, extended 50-75% up the face of the bluff. According to the geology report prepared at the time, the triggering mechanism was three days of rain depositing approximately 1.5 inches precipitation. [Geosoils Corresp. dated Jan. 20,2009.1 This is consistent with scientific studies which have found that bluff failures are largely triggered by water. [Young et. al., "Rain, Waves, and Short-Term Evolution of Composite Seacliffs in Southern California," 267 MARINE GEOLCGY 1, at 6 [2009].] However, once a bluff has failed, the likelihood of subsequent likelihood of a major collapse is greatly reduced. First, the talus protects the bluff base from wave attack Secondly, the upper bluff has slumped, providing a more stable angle. In addition, until the talus is removed, the ability of people to get close to the bluff is reduced. There has been no evidence supporting that the public is in danger from another bluff collapse at the project site. Furthermore, according to the applicant's own geologist, "The USGS Report shows that this section of bluff has not retreated over the last 11 5 years." [Geosoils Corresp. dated March 30, 201 0, at p. 47 of City Council Packet.] Thus, the City is justifying its public safety claim based on one collapse in 1 15 years. Is one, non-fatal bluff collapse in 1 15 years sufficient justification for a seawall that will destroy the public beach? A safety analysis must be prepared if the justification is public safety. The safety analysis must consider the historical amount of material in a bluff collapse, the historical analysis of bluff stabilhy, and the timing of bluff collapses. Considering that this particular bluff collapsed after 1.5 inches of rain, in the winter, after 1 15 years without a collapse. greatly challenges the alleged justification for a seawall in this area. Further, other avenues that are less environmentally damaging Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall Mav 23.2010 must be considered. The rejection by staff of the "grading of the bluff" option is based on no evidence and a faulty analysis. For example, staff states that grading the bluff accelerates erosion and "may hasten the warrant for a seawall for the protection of the existing improvements" First, the new structures are not entitled to a seawall under any circumstances, which is why Mr. Goetz sought an emergency seawall. Secondly, twenty or more years of a beach, is preferable to a seawall and no beach. Further, even assuming that the rate .I 6 ft.' of erosion proposed by Geosoils is accurate [which we dispute], the structures would be safe for 75 years even if the bluff edge was graded 20 feet back from base. Third, the City's refusal to seriously consider and evaluated effective and environmentally superior alternatives belies the real intent of Mr. Geotz - - to protect his back yard and patio furniture. A seawall, to my knowledge, has never been granted on the basis of protecting the public below the bluff. E. The City Has Not Properly Calculated the Impact Fee and Has Failed to Evaluate the Impacts to Recreation. The City's report utterly fails to address the issues of sand mitigation and the lack of recreational impact fee. Instead the report simply states, "The CDP for the seawall has been conditioned to contribute to a sand replenishment program to offset the impacts of the project." However, in reviewing the CDP, the "in-lieu fee amount" to be provided to SANDAG is $XX. [CDP Resolution 7 11 .] The amount must be specified in the CDP. In the previous report, the suggested sand mitigation fee was $2,469.00. This is based upon the applicant's geologist's claim that sand is $3 per cubic yard. In addition, this is based upon an estimate of .I 6 feet of erosion per year or approximately 2 inches per year. Both estimates are inaccurate. First, the cost of sand is different from the costs of sand replenishment. Sand replenishment requires environmental studies, dredging, piping, distribution, trucks, front end loaders and other costs. ' That is approximately 2 inches per year. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall May 21,2010 The costs of such operation is substantially more than $3.00 per cubic foot. The most recent estimate provided to the Coastal Commission was $1 6.28 per foot. [Bernard Li CDP Application No. 6-07-1 33, available at http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2010/6 /W1 1 a-6-201 O.pdf] In addition, as noted by the Li CDP Application, seawalls have significant adverse impacts to recreation. The Coastal Commission requires fees to mitigate the amount of the beach lost though passive erosion. This is determined by calculating the area of the beach that would have been created through natural erosion, and then appraising the costs of purchasing an empty beachfront parcel approximately the size of such beach. [Li COP application at 6.1 Finally, if the justification for the seawall is public safety, then clearly, the predicted erosion must be more than two inches per year [.I 6 ft.] No one is going to injured based on the predicted two inch per year of erosion. There must be some sort of noncontradictory evaluation of actual erosion. Such erosion estimate demonstrates that the applicant's geological estimates of the likelihood of bluff collapse should be viewed with great skepticism. If approved, the sand mitigation fee and an appropriate fee for loss of recreational habitat must be imposed based on an erosion estimate that is consistent with the alleged justification of the project If the bluff is expected to erode only .I 6 feet per year, the public is clearly not in danger. F. Neither the Coastal Act, nor the Carlsbad LCP Permits Seawalls to Allegedly Protect the Public Beach. The pertinent portion of Carlsbad's LCP, states: Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate Carlsbad City Council RE: Ceotz Seawall May 24,2010 adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. As a condition of approval, permitted shoreline structures may be required to replenish the beach with imported sand. [CMC 5 21.204.040[6].] Carlsbad's LCP essentially mimics the language regarding seawalls in the Coastal Act, which states: Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structlJres or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. [Pub. Res. Code 5 30235.1 An LCP may be more restrictive than the Coastal Act, but it cannot be less restrictive. "The Coastal Act sets the minimum standards and policies with which local governments within the coastal zone must comply." [Yost K Thomas11 984],36 Cal. 3d 561,572.) Thus, while the City Carlsbad may interpret its LCP to be more protective of significant coastal resources, it cannot interpret the LCP in a manner in conflict with the Coastal Act. In this case, the seawall was built to protect houses that were recently built and not entitled to a seawall under the Coastal Act or LCP. Under the Coastal Act, a structure is only entitled to a seawall if it is in imminent danger from erosion and the impacts to the seawall are mitigated. Clearly, Geotz and Sylver, possessing homes that are more than 45 feet from the bluff edge, are not entitled to a seawall. Thus, they are attempting to justify protecting their backyard under the guise of a public safety issue. As discussed in Living with the Changing California Coast, "Seawalls and revetments are designed and built to protect property and structures on dunes, bluff, or cliffs and not to protect public beaches. To our knowledge, a seawall has never been built to protect or save a beach." [Living with California's Changing Coastline at p. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall Mav 23.2010 135.1 It would be truly unprecedented if Carlsbad's LCP [or the Coastal Act] was interpreted in a manner that permitted someone to build a seawall under the guise of protecting the beach. Seawalls destroy beaches. It would make no sense to permit a property owner to build a seawall to protect the beach that will eventually be lost because of the construction of a seawall. In addition, the public safety argument would permit anyone to build a seawall, no matter how far back their existing structure was located, or how recently the structure was built, despite the requirements of section 30253 that new development not in any way require the construction of a shoreline protective device. [See also CMC § 21.204.1 1 O[B)[8] 6 [I 51.1 Coastal Act section 30235 has never been interpreted in the manner that would permit a homeowner to allegedly protect their home based on an alleged threat to the public. As discussed by Charles Lester, the Deputy Director of North and Central California districts of the California Coastal Commission, [Slhoreline protection structures such as seawalls or revetments shall be approved if an existing development is threatened by erosion, if the structure is the necessary response, and if the impacts to the local shoreline sand supply are eliminated or mitigated. For example, the law would not allow a seawall to be built for a threatened development if the development could be easily relocated out of harm's way. [Living with California's Changing Coastline at p. 139-1 40.1 The Coastal Commission has not ever interpreted Section 30235 to permit a homeowner to build a seawall based on an alleged threat to the beach below. There are simply too many better and less impactful options for allegedly protecting public safety. G. The Findings Cannot Be Made to Permit the Seawall Because the Public Beach Will Eventually Destroy the Beach. Carlsbad City Council RE: Geotz Seawall Mav 24.2010 . . Page 10of 11 Carlsbad LCP states: Provisions for the maintenance of any permitted seawalls shall be included as a condition of project approval. As a further condition of approval, permitted shoreline structures shall be required to provide public access. Projects which create dredge spoils shall be required to deposit such spo~ls on the beaches if the material is suitable for sand replenishment. Seawalls shall be constructed essentially parallel to the base of the bluff and shall not obstruct or interfere with the passaqe of people alonq the beach at any time. [CMC § 21,204.040 [emphasis added].] In addition, Carlsbad's LCP further states, "Developments shall be conditioned to provide the public with the right of access to a minimum of twenty-five feet of dry sandy beach at all times of the year." [CMC § 21.204.060 [a][l].] There is no finding that the development has been conditioned to provide this kind of dry sand buffer. Nothing in the resolutions requires the project to maintain a 25 foot dry sandy beach for the life of the project. The speculative justification, that "Various sand replenishment projects are in the works" is not a substitute for actual mitigation. The finding cannot be made. Quite frankly, once analyzed, it is questionable whether such a finding could ever be made. It would be very expensive, if not impossible to maintain a 25 foot dry sandy area. The only way to maintain the beach with a seawall is to have sand replenishment in a sufficient amount that prevents the high-tide line from migrating eastward. Considering the impacts of passive erosion and sea-level rise, it is doubtful that a seawall could be designed and mitigated to not interfere with public access at any time. The seawall will destroy the beach. Finally, the Resolution finds that an easement for public access burdens the property. [Doc No. 2000-0346365.1 The seawall will reduce public access impacting the easement and is therefore inconsistent with such easement. The seawall application should be denied. Carlsbad City Council RE: Ceotz Seawall May 21,2010 Pagell of11 CONCLUSION I respectfully request that the City prepare the proper analysis and environmental investigation with and EIR, and review this seawall in a manner that is open and fair to the public. The public must understand what it will be losing. The City should not attempt to hide the impacts. Prepare a proper risk analysis before making any judgment on this seawall, and consider the actual impacts caused by shoreline protective devices. Thank you for your time. Sincerelv. &vw+ Todd T. Car ~ff, Esq. Enclosures: 1. Coastal Commission Staff Report, CDP Application 6-07- 133. SlliiE OF WFORNIII--THE NATURIII REWURCLS IIGPNC? CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 5AN DIEM AREA 7575 METR0K)UTAN DRIVE, SURE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 921084+21 (619) 767-2370 Wlla Staff: G. Cannon-SD Staff Report: May 19,2010 Hearing Date: June 9-1 I, 2010 REVISED CONDITIONS AND FMDMGS Application No.: 6-07-1 33 .Applicant: Bernard Li Agent: Bob Trettin Description: Construction of a 35 foot high, 57 foot long seawall to replace an existing unauthorized 25 foot high seawall, including installation of 35 foot high tied-back concrete columns between existing columns and removal of- approximately 6 feet of concrete footing seaward of the existing seawall. In addition, the applicant proposes to color and texture the face ofthe seawall to closely match the natural bluff face. Site: On the public beach below a blufftop lot containing a single family residence at 680 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County. APN 256-051-21 STAFF NOTES: Staffreco_mmjnds the Commission adoot rhr follou ine revised findinasupport of the Commission's action on Januan 15, 201 0. In ihadon, the Commission approved32 foot- high. 57 foot-long seawall to replace an existine unauthorized 25 foot-hieh seawall, - - includine installation of 35 foot-high tied-back concrete columns between existing columns and removal of aporoximatelv 6 feet of concrete footing seaward ofthe existing seawall. In addition. the applicant proposes to color and texture the face of the seawall to closelv match the natural bluff face. In its action. the Commission revised Special Condition t12 so as to clariti that any additional -fee mitieation required aflcr the first - -s af the sea\\alI's installation ~ould onlv bc for the impacts ofthe seawall that occur be\.ond. but not including. the first 20 \ears of its installation. The Commission also re\ ised Special Condition ~3 SO that a mitieation fee for thadberse impacts of the seawall on public access/recreational use be based on an appraisal ofthe current value of - the subiect blufftop lot onlv and not include anv improvements. Date of Commission Action: January 15,201 0 Commissioners on Prevailing Side: Achadiian. Blank. Bloom. Parker. K~er. Mirkarimi. Sanchez. Shallenber~er. Stone. Wan. Chairperson Neelv. Standard of Review: The City of Encinitas has a certified LCP, however, the proposed development will occur on the public beach within the Commission's original jurisdiction. As such, the standard of review is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act with the certified LCP used as guidance. 6-07- 133 Page 3 Substantive File Documents: Certified City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program (LCP); Case No. 05-219 MUP!CDP; "Geotechnical Basis of Desi.m. 680 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas" by Terracosta Consulting ~roup dated 9130105; "Engineering Justification for Lower Seawall" by Soil Engineering Construction, lnc., dated 9/22/09; "Beach Sand Mitigation Calculations, Revised October 7,2009" by The Trenin Company dated 101719; CDP Nos. 6-85-396/Swif?, 6-89- 136-G!Adams, 6-89-297- GIEnglekirk, 6-92-82Nictor, 6-92-212!Wood, 6-93-36-G!CIayton, 6-93- 13 IIRicl~ards, et al, 6-93-136/Favero,6-93-181!Steinberg. 6-95-66lHann, 6-98-391 Denver!Canter, 6-98-1 31!Gozzo, Sawtelle and Fischer, 6-99- 9lAsh, Bourgualt, Mahoney, 6-99-35-G/MacCormick, 6-99-75-GiFunke, Kimball, 6-99-1 31-GFunke, Kimball, 6-99-41/Bradley, 6-00-009!Ash. Bourgault, Mahoney, 6-00-74!Grey Diamond Marketing, Funke, Kimball; 6-00-1 46-GlBrem, Warke; 6-00-1 7 1 -GBrown, Sonnie, 6-0 1 - 005-GIOkun, 6-0 I - l l -G/Okun, Sorich; 6-01-040-GIOkun, 6-01 -04 1 - GISorich, 6-01-42-GlBrown and 6-01-62-GJSorich; CDP #4-87- I61,Pierce Family Trust and Morgan; CDP #6-87-371. Van Buskirk; CDP #5-87-576, Miser and Cooper; CDP 3-02-024, Ocean Harbor House; 6-05-72, Las Brisas, 6-07-134/Caccavo,6-03-33-A5!Surfsong, 6- 08-73/DiNoto, eta1 and 6-08-122!Winkler 6-07-1 33 Page 4 I. hIOTION: I move that the Cot?ntission adopt the revised findings - in swpori of the Conunivsion's action on Januan, 15, 2010 concernine aunroval of Coastal Dc~~elopmenf Pertnit No. 6-07-133. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL: Staff recommends a YES vote on the motion. Passaee of this motion will result in the ado~tion of revised findings as set forth in this staff report. The motion resuites a maioritv vote of the members fron~ the urevailine side oresent at the revised findings hearing. with at least three of the prevailing members voting. Onlv those ~ommis~ioners on the ~revailine side of Commission's action are eligible to vote on the revised findinps. The Commissioners eligible to vats - Commissioners Achadi~an, Blank. Bloom. ParkerAucr. hlirkarimi. Sanchzz. Shallenheretr, Srone, Wan. Chairperson- RESOLUTION TO ADOPT REVISED FINDINGS: The Commission herebv adopts the findings set forth below for Coastal Developn~enf Perntil A'o. 6-07-133 on the pround that the findings suvvon the Con~mission's -- Jrcic~on made on Januan, 15, 2010 and accuratelv rrflecr the reasons for it. 11. Standard Conditions. See artached page. Ill. Svecial Conditions. The permit is subject to the following conditions: I. Final As-Built Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit for review and written approval of the Executive Director. final as-built plans for the seawall that are in substantial conformance with the submitted plans dated 7/1/09 by Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. Said plans shall first be approved by the City of Encinitas and include the following: a. Any existing permanent irrigation system located on the blufftop site(s) shall be removed or capped. 6-07-133 Page 5 b. All runoff from impervious surfaces on the top of the bluff shall be collected and directed away from the bluff edge towards the street. c. Existing accessoly improvements (i.e., decks, patios, ~alls, windscreens, etc.) located in the geologic setback area on the site(s) shall be detailed and drawn to scale on the final approved site plan and shall include measurements ofthe distance between the accessory improcements and the bluff edge (as defined by Section 13577 of the California Code of Regulations) taken at 3 or more locations. The locations for these measurements shall be identified through permanent markers. benchmarks, suney position, written description, or other method that enables accurate determination of the location of structures on the site. Any existing accessor) structures located within 5 ft. of the bluff edge. if removed, shall not be replaced in a location closer than 5 feet landward of the natural bluff edge or approved reconstructed bluff edge. Any new Plexiglas or other glass wall shall be non-clear, tinted. frosted or incorporate other elements to inhibit bird strikes. The permittees shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 2. Mitigation for Impacts to Sand Sup~ly. PRlOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall provide evidence, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director, that a fee of $1 1.350 has been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in-lieu of providing the total amount of sand to replace the sand and beach area that will be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structures. All interest earned by the account shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. The developed mitigation plan covers impacts only through the identified 20-year design life of the seawall. No later than 19 years after the issuance of this permit, the permittee or his successor in interest shall apply for and obtain an amendment to this permit that either requires the removal ofthe seawall within its initial design life or requires mitigation for the effects of the seawall on shoreline sand supply for the expected life of the seawall beyond (but not includindthe initial 20-year design life. The length of time proposed for reteniion ofthe seawall shall correspond to and not exceed the remaining life ofthe residential duplex structure located on the bluff top. If. within the initial design life ofthe seawall, the permittee or his successor in interest obtain a coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit to enlarge or reconstruct the seawall or perform repair work that extends the ex~ected life of the seawall. the ~ermittee shall provide mitigation for the effects of the seawall on shoreline sand supply for the expected life ofthe seawall beyond (but not including) the initial 20-year design life. 6-07-1 33 Page 6 The purpose of the account shall be to establish a beach sand replenishment fund to aid SANDAG. or a Commission-approved alternate entity, in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. The funds shall be used solely to implement projects which provide sand to the region's beaches, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. The funds shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The funds shall be released as provided for in a MOA between SANDAG. or a Commission-approved alternate entity, and the Commission. setting forth terms and conditions to assure that the in-lieu fee will be expended in the manner intended by the Commission. lfthe MOA is terminated, the Commission may appoint an alternate entity to administer the fund. 3. Mitigation for Impacts to Public Access and Recreational Use. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. the applicant shall provide a real estate appraisal of the Eent market value of an unimproved lot sttejeet -at 680 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, performed after January 1,2010. The appraiser shall be identified by the applicant and concurred with in writing by the Executive Director prior to the appraisal. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the full mitigation fee to address adverse impacts to public access and recreational use based on an appraisal of the subject blufftop lot (without im~rovements) and thereby, the per sq. ft. value ofthe subject blufftop property applied to the per sq. A. area of seawall impact, has been de~osited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in- lieu of providing comparable area oibeach that will be lod due to the impacts ofthe proposed protective structures andlor in-lieu of a specific public access/recreational . . improvement project. All interest earned by the account shall be payable to the account for the purposes stated below. The required mitigation fee covers impacts only through the identified 20-year design life of the seawall. No later than 19 years after the issuance of this permit, the permittee or his successor in interest shall apply for and obtain an amendment to this permit that either requires the removal ofthe seawall within its initial design life or requires mitigation for the effects of the seawall on public access and recreation for the expected life of the seawall beyond (but not including) the initial 20-year design life. If, within the initial design life of the seawall. the permittee or his successor in interest obtains a coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit to enlarge or reconstruct the seawall or perform repair work that extends the expected life of the sea\vall, the permittee shall provide mitigation for the effects of the seawall on public accesslrecreation for the expected life ofthe seawall beyond (but not including) the initial 20-year design life. The purpose of the account shall be to establish a public access/recreation fund to aid the Coastal Conservancy, or a Commission-approved alternate entity, in the provision, restoration or enhancement of public access and recreational opportunities along the shoreline within San Diego County, including but not limited to, public access improvements, recreational amenities andlor acquisition of privately-owned beach or beach-fronting property for such uses. The funds shall be used solely to implement 6-07-1 33 Page 7 prqjects or land purchase which provide public access or recreational opportunities along the shoreline, not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. The funds shall be released only upon approval of an appropriate project by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The funds shall be released as provided for in a MOA beh\een the Coastal Conservancy, or a Commission-approved alternate entity, and the Commission, setting Forth terms and conditions to assure that the in-lieu fee \%ill be expended in the manner intended by the Commission. If the MOA is terminated, the Commission may appoint an alternate entity to administer the fund. 4. Monitoring Proeram. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, a monitoring program prepared by a licensed civil engineer or geotechnical engineer to monitor the performance ofthe seawall which requires the following: a. An annual evaluation of the condition and performance of the seawall addressing whether any significant weathering or damage has occurred that would adversely impact the future performance of the structure. This evaluation shall include an assessment of the color and texture of the seawall comparing the appearance of the structure to the surrounding native bluffs. b. Annual measurements ofany differential retreat between the natural bluff face and the seawall face, at the north and south ends of the seawall and at 20-foot intervals (maximum) along the top of the seawall facebluff face intersection. The program shall describe the method by which such measurements shall be taken. c. Provisions for submittal of a report to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission by May 1 of each year (beginning the first year after construction of the project is completed) for a period of three years and then, each third year following the last annual report, for the life of the approved seawall. However: reports shall be submitted in the Spring immediately following either: 1. An "El Nifio" storm event - comparable to or greater than a 20-year storm. 2. An earthquake of magnitude 5.5 or greater with an epicenter in San Diego County. Thus, reports may be submitted more frequently depending on the occurrence of the above events in any given year. d. Each report shall be prepared by a licensed civil, geotechnical engineer or geologist. The report shall contain the measurements and evaluation required in sections a, and b above. The report shall also summarize all measurements and analyze trends such as erosion of the bluffs or changes in sea level and the stability of the overall bluff face; including the upper bluff area, and the impact of 6-07-133 Page 8 ,. the seawall on the bluffs to either side of the wall. In addition, each report shall contain recommendations, if any, for necessary maintenance. repair, changes or modifications to the project. e. An agreement that the permittee shall apply for a coastal development pernit within 90 days of submission of the report required in subsection c. above for any necessary maintenance, repair, changes or modifications to the project recommended by the report that require a coastal development permit. The permittee shall undertake monitoring in accordance with the approved monitoring program. Any proposed changes to the approved monitoring program shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the monitoring program shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development pernlit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 5. Storm DesignICertified Plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. the applicant shall submit certification by a registered civil engineer that the proposed shoreline protective devices are designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. 6. Future Res~onse to Erosion. If in the futurc the permittee seeks a coastal de\elopment permit to construct additional bluffor shoreline protective de\ ices, the shall be required to include in the permit application information concerning alternatives to the proposed bluff or shoreline protection that will eliminate impacts to scenic visual resources, public access and recreation and shoreline processes. Alternatives shall include but not be limited to: relocation of all or portions of the principal structure that are threatened, structural underpinning, and other remedial measures capable of protecting the principal residence and allowing reasonable use of the property, without constructing additional bluff or shoreline stabilization devices. The information concerning these alternatives must be sufficiently detailed to enable the Coastal Commission or the applicable certitied local government to evaluate the feasibility of each alternative. and whether each alternative is capable of protecting the existing principal structure for the remainder of its economic life. No additional biuff or shoreline protective devices shall be constructed on the adjacent public bluff face above the approved seawall or on the beach in front of the proposed seawall unless the alternatives required above are demonstrated to be infeasible. No shoreline protective devices shall be constructed in order to protect ancillary improvements (patios, decks, fences, landscaping, etc.) located between the principal residential structures and the ocean. Any future redevelopment on the lot shall not rely on the subject seawall to establish geological stability or protection from hazards. 7. Future Maintenance. The permittee shall maintain the permitted seawall in its approved state. Maintenance of the seawall and return walls shall include maintaining the color, texture and integrity. Any change in the design of the project or future additionsireinforcement of the seawall beyond exempt maintenance as defined in Section 13252 of the California Code of Regulations to restore the structure to its original 6-07-133 Page 9 condition as approved herein, will require a coastal development permit. However, in all cases. if after inspection, it is apparent that repair and maintenance is necessary, including maintenance of the color ofthe structures to ensure a continued match with the surrounding native bluffs, the permittee shall contact the Executive Director to detem~ine nhether a coastal development permit or an amendment to this permit is legally required, and, if required, shall subsequently apply for a coastal development permit or permit amendment for the required maintenance. 8. Other Permits. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the permittee shall provide to the Executive Director copies of all other required local, state or federal discretionary permits, other than any approval required by the State Lands Commission (see Special Condition #9); for the development authorized by CDP #6-07-133. The applicant shall inform the Executive Director of any changes to the project required by other local, state or federal agencies. Such changes shall not be incorporated into the project until the applicant obtains a Commission amendment to this permit, unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. 9. State Lands Commission Avoroval. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: the applicants shall submit to the Executive Director for review and witten approval, a written determination from the State Lands Commission that: a) No state lands are involved in the development: or b) State lands are involved in the development, and all permits required by the State Lands Commission have been obtained; or c) State lands may be involved in the development, but pending a final determination of state lands involvement, an agreement has been made by the applicant with the State Lands Commission for the project to proceed without prejudice to the determination. 10. Public Rights. The Coastal Commission's approval ofthis permit shall not constitute a waiver of any public rights that exist or may exist on the property. The permittee shall not use this permit as evidence of a waiver of any public rights that exist or may exist on the property. I I. Assum~tion of Risk. Waiver of Liabilitv and Indemnitv Agreement. By acceptance of this permit, the applicant acknowled~es and agrees (i) that the site mav be subject to hazards from erosioiand coastal bluff collapse; (i) to assume the risks to7the applicant and the property that is the subject of this permit of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with this permitted development; (iii) to unconditionally waive any claim of damage or liability against the Commission, its ofticers, agents, and employees for injury or damage from such hazards; and (iv) to indemnify and hold harmless the Commission, its officers, agents, and employees with respect to the Commission's approval of the project against any and all liability, claims, demands, 6-07-1 33 Page 10 damages. costs (including costs and fees incurred in defense of such claims), expenses, and amounts paid in settlement arising from any injury or damage due to such hazards. I!. Wcr Special Conditions of the of Encinitas Permit ~05-2 1911IJP CDP. Except as provided by this coastal deielopmcnt pernlit, this pcrmit has no effect on conditions imposed by the City of Encinitas pursuant to an authority other than the Coastal Act. 13. Deed Restriction. PRIOR TO lSSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMlT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and approval documentation demonstrating that the applicant has executed and recorded against the parcel(s) governed by this permit a deed restriction, in a form and content acceptable to the Executive Director: (1) indicating that, pursuant to this permit, the California Coastal Commission has authorized development on the subject property, subject to terms and conditions that restrict the use and enjoyment of that property; and (2) imposing the Special Conditions of this permit as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment ofthe Property. The deed restriction shall include a legal description ofthe entire parcel or parcels governed by this permit. The deed restriction shall also indicate that, in the event of an extinguishment or termination ofthe deed restriction for any reason, the terms and conditions of this permit shall continue to restrict the use and enjoyment of the subject property so long as either this permit or the development it authorizes, or any part, modification, or amendment thereof, remains in existence on or with respect to the subject property. IV. Findines and Declarations. The Commission finds and declares as follows: I. Detailed Proiect Descrivtion. The proposed development involves the replacement of an existing unauthorized approximately 13 &-wide seawall that involves the removal of up to 6 feet of concrete footing seaward ofthe existing wall, the addition of approximately I ft. of a new concrete facing, an approximately 10 foot high addition to the approximately 25 foot high existing seawall and installation of 35 foot high tied-back concrete columns between existing ones. The applicant also proposes to visually treat the surface of the seawall with color and texture to match the natural surrounding bluffs. The seawall will be located on public beach owned by the City of Encinitas. The project has already been completed pursuant to emergency permit 6-05-01 6-GLi, and the subject permit request represents the required follow-up regular coastal development permit. The existing duplex was approved by the Commission in 1975 (ref. F2596) with special conditions that included confirmation that the structure would be designed to assure the proposed 25 ft. setback from the bluff edge was adequate so that shoreline protection would not be necessary over the life ofthe structure. The special conditions were satisfied and the development completed. 6-07-1 33 Page 1 1 In 1993, the Commission denied an after-the-fact request to construct the existing 26 ft.- high, I 1 ft.-wide seawall: upper bluff retaining walls and private access stairway because it was determined the applicant had failed to adequately demonstrate why the particular structures were necessary to protect the existing residence (Ref. CDP 6-92- 251lColeman). Based on a slope stability analysis performed ar the time, it was clear that some form of shoreline protection was necessary, but, because the protective devices were constructed without necessary permits and an adequate alternatives analysis. the Commission could not find the structures consistent with the Coastal Act. In addition, because the structures were already in place in a very hazardous location, the ability to pursue removal as an alternative was effectively eliminated. Although the Commission denied the seawall, it did not require the protective structures to be removed and, pursuant to subsequent enforcement action by the Commission, the seawall, upper bluff retaining walls and stairway were allowed to remain. In July 2005, the Executive Director authorized an Emergency Permit (Ref. -05-16-G!Li) to construct an approximately 10 ft. high addition to the existing approximately 25 ft.-high unpermitted seawall and improvements to the existing seawall that include the removal of the concrete footing seaward of the seawall, the installation of 35 ft.-high tied-back concrete columns in the gaps between the existing concrete columns. tieback and counterforts for the new upper section ofthe seawall, encasement of the entire seawall with architecturally- naturalizing concrete facing and installation of a geogrid soil-filled backfill structure to be hydroseeded with native coastal species and temporarily irrigated. The project also involved the removal of all above ground portions of the unpermitted bluff stainvay and mid-bluff retaining wall that had recently failed. Subsequently. pursuant to the emergency pennit, all construction as described above has been completed. Following approval of this emergency permit, the applicant applied for the required regular follow-up coastal development perniit to the City of Encinitas for that portion of the work within the City's permit jurisdiction (i.e., everything other than the seawall) and to the Coastal Commission for the work on the seawall structure that lies on the public beach. In June of 2007, the City of Encinitas approved a coastal development permit for all portions of the project authorized by the emergency permit that lie within the City's permit jurisdiction. This included the removal of all above-ground portions of the unpermitted stairway and the mid- bluff retaining wall and the reconstruction of the mid bluff slope with imported soil, a geogrid structure and landscaping. In addition, the City coastal permit authorized a six- to fourteen- foot high tied-back concrete facing over an existing upper bluffwall (Ref. Encinitas Permit #05-219 MUPICDP) . Although located within the Commission's appellate jurisdiction, no appeals were filed and the development within the City's permit jurisdiction has been completed. The City of Encinitas has a certified LCP, however, the proposed development will occur on the public beach seaward of the mean high tide line within the Commission's original jurisdiction. As such, the standard of revieu is the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act with the certified LCP used as guidance. 6-07-33 Page 12 2. Geologic Conditions and Hazards. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act states, in part: Revetments, breakwaters. groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls. and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or 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. In addition, Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states, in part: New development shall do all of the following: (a) hlininlize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic. flood, and fire hazard. jb) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion. geologic instability, or destruction ofthe site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs ... The proposed development is appropriately described in the applicant's geotechnical report as the construction of "a new seawall'' that incorporates elements of the existing unpermitted seawall (Ref. "Geotechnical Basis of Design, 680 Neptune Avenue" by Terracosta Consulting, 9130105). Based on the applicant's plans, the existing unpermitted seawall consists of a 57 fi. long, 14 ft.-wide (10 feet of concrete + 4 feet of infill between seawall and toe of bluff) and approximately 25 ft.-high structure that is located seaward of the toe of an approximately 98 ft-high coastal bluff. The applicant is proposing to remove an approximately 6 ft.-wide concrete footing on the entire seaward portion ofthe seawall, install a new 1 ft.-wide concrete facing, install 35 A.-high tied- back concrete columns in the gaps between the existing columns, construct a 10 A,-high extension to the remaining seawall and color and texture the surface of the seawall so as to match the natural surrounding bluffs. The resulting seawall will match the height of and connect to the existing seawalls that are located on either side and will extend approximately 9 feet seaward from the toe of the bluff (5 ft. less than the existing seaw~all). In addition, the seawall will be less visually obtrusive and more natural in appearance than the existing wall. Coastal Act Section 30235 acknowledges that seawalls, revetments, cliff retaining walls. groins and other such structural or "hard" solutions alter natural shoreline processes. Thus. such devices are required to be approved only when necessary to protect existing structures in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on shoreline sand supply. The Coastal Act does not require the Commission to approve shoreline altering devices to protect vacant land or in connection with construction of new development. A shoreline protective device proposed in those situations is likely to be inconsistent with various other Coastal Act policies. For 6-07-1 33 Page 13 example, Section 30253 addresses new development and requires that it be sited and designed to avoid the need for protective devices that \vould substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In addition, the Comlnission has generally interpreted Section 30235 to require the Commission to approve shoreline protection only to protect existing principal structures. The Commission must always consider the specifics of each individual pro-iect but has found in many instances that accessory structures such as patios, decks and stairways are not required to be protected under Section 30235 or can be protected from erosion by relocation or other means that does not involve shoreline protection. The Co~nmission has historically permitted at grade structures within the geologic setback area, recognizing they are expendable and capable of being removed rather than requiring a protective device that alters natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The proposed development is located at the base of a coastal bluff in the City of Encinitas that currently contains seawalls at both the north and south sides of the subject site. Continual bluff retreat and the formation and collapse of seacaves have been documented in northern San Diego County, including the Cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas. Bluffs in this area are subject to a variety of erosive forces and conditions (e.g., wave action, reduction in beach sand, landslides). As a result of these erosive forces, the bluffs and blufftop lots in the Encinitas area are considered a hazard area. Furthermore, in 1986 the Division of Mines and Geology mapped the entire Encinitas shoreline as an area susceptible to landslides. i.e., mapped as either "Generally Susceptible" or "Most Susceptible Areas" for landslide susceptibility (ref. O~en File Report, "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County. California", dated 1986). The properties immediately north of the subject site have recently experienced significant landslides that have threatened residences at the top ofthe bluff and resulted in numerous Executive Director approved emergency permits for seawall and upper bluff protection devices (ref. Emergency Permit Nos. 6-00-1 7 1 -G/Brown. Sonnie, 6-0 1 -005-GIOkun. 6- 0 1 -040-GIOkun, 6-01 -01 IlSorich, 6-01 -42-G/Brown. Sonnie and 6-01 -62-GISorich). In addition, documentation has been presented in past Commission actions concerning the unstable nature ofthe bluffs in these communities and nearby communities (ref. CDP Nos. 6-93-1 SIlSteinberg, 6-92-2 12lWood. 6-92-82Nictor, 6-89-297-G~Englekirk. 6-89- 136-GlAdams, and 6-85-396/Swift, 6-00-009lAsh, Bourgault, Mahoney). Pursuant to Section 30253 of the Coastal Act, in approving new development on blufftop lots, structures are required to be setback an appropriate distance (based on a site specific geotechnical report) from the edge of the bluff that will allow for the natural process of erosion without triggering the need for a seawall. This "geologic setback area" is so designated to accommodate the natural erosion ofthe bluff. In other words, on blufftop lots. residences are set back from the bluff edge to allo\v the natural process of erosion to occur on the site without causing the residence to be threatened. Thus, at some future point when evidence of some erosion of the setback area is identified (even undercutting and subsequent block failures), this does not necessarily confirm the need for bluff or shore protection to protect the residence. When the residential duplex at the top of the bluff was constructed in approximately 1975. the propertp owner submitted 6-07-133 Page 14 documentation certifying that the residence would not be threatened by erosion if sited 25 feet inland ofthe bluffedge. Subsequently: according to the applicant's geotechnical report, the duplex became threatened by erosion sometime during the 1980's, following several winter storms. In response, from approximately 1983 to 1987. the property owner at that time constructed an unpermitted seawall, stainvay and upper bluff retaining walls. In September 1993, the Commission denied the applicant's request for a coastal development for these unpermitted structures because the applicant \vas unable to provide an alternatives analysis to the unpetmitted I I ft.-wide seawall (Ref. 6-92-254lColeman) which had significant adverse impacts to public access along the shoreline and because the design of the retaining wall and private access stainvay would have adverse visual impacts to coastal resources. Pursuant to subsequent enforcement action by the Commission, the applicant was allo\ved the keep the structures rather than remove them. In 2005. the retaining walls on the face of the bluff, the stainvay and the lower seaHall failed following heavy rains. The geotechnical report submitted as part ofthe emergency permit in 2005 identifies that "[oln January 5,2005, after heavy rains partially saturated the wall backfill. a failure of the existing mid-bluff wall occurred on the subject property." The report described the mid-bluffwall as being constructed oftimber soldier piles and lagging \%hich were experiencing dry rot along with reinforcing steel that was highly corroded which "compromises its remaining design capacity." The unpermitted upper wall near the top of the bluff was described to be in similar condition. In addition, the seawall at the base ofthe bluff was described as "dangerously compromised by the highly corroded steel tiebacks that are exposed in cut-outs set into the 22-inch by 30-inch concrete columns that support the loher portion of the sea cliff." The report concludes: In summary, all three walls are in critical need of repair to avert a much larger failure that could eventually undermine the bluff-top structure and compromise the adjacent bluff-top walls north and south of the subject property. Moreover, loss of the lower seawall would allow flanking and eventually undermine both the northerly and southerly seawalls adjacent to the subject property. These adverse conditions constituted an emergency, in our opinion, necessitating the request for an Emergency Permit to stabilize the slope as soon as possible. (Ref. "Geotechnical Basis of Design, 680 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas" by Terracosta Consulting Group dated 9130105) Because of the failures of these unnermitted shoreline and bluff nrotective structures. the applicant's geotechnical report has demonstrated through the submission of a slope stabilitv analvsis that the dudex structure at the top of the bluff is threatened by erosion. The factor of safety against iliding is estimated to be between 1 .I3 and 1.2. (The factor of safety is an indicator of slope stability where a value of I .5 is the industry-standard value for new development. In theory, failure should occur when the factor of safety drops to 1.0: and no slope should have a factor of safety less than 1.0.) The commission.^ tcchnical services division has reviewed the applicant's slope stability assessment and concurs with its findings. Based on the slope stability estimates, the applicant has effectively demonstrated that the duplex is threatened and requires protection. 6-07-133 Page 15 Thus, given the significant bluff and structural failures that have occurred at the subject site over the recent years, and the low factor of safety on the subject bluffs, substantial evidence has been provided to document that the existing primary blufflop structure is in danger from erosion. However, there are a variety of ways in which the threat from erosion could be addressed. Under the policies of the Coastal Act, if shoreline protective devices are necessary, the project must still eliminate or mitigate adverse effects on shoreline sand supply and minimize adverse effects on public access, recreation, and the visual quality of the shoreline. The Commission's staff geologist and coastal engineer have revietved the applicant's geotechnical and engineering information regarding the need of the seawall and concur with its conclusions. In addition, the applicant's geotechnical reports have also been subject to third party review by a geologist employed by the City of Encinitas. The City's geologist has also concurred with the reports' findings. Alternatives The proposed development represents an alternative design for the unpermitted seawall that was constructed in the 1980's. The Commission denied the after-the-fact "I l-ft. wide" sea\vall in 3993 primarily because it was determined that the applicant was unable to consider and implement alternatives because the structure had already been built and could not be removed without threatening the duplex at the top of the bluff. (It appears that the unpermitted seawall structure was actually 15-ft. in width, because the applicant failed to disclose the 4 ft. of sand backfill behind the seawall structure.) The subject request involves the removal of up to 6 ft. of concrete on the seaward side of the seawall structure and the addition of approximately 1 ft. onto the face of the remaining seawall structure. The resulting concrete portion of the seawall will be approximately 5 in. in width with approximately 4 A. of sand backfill behind the seawall. The structure in its entirety (sea\+rall+ backfill) represents an approximately 9 ft.-wide structure placed on the public beach which, although a significant reduction over the previous approximately 14 A. wide structure, is still significantly larger than more recently designed seawalls of 2 % ft. in width. In terms of alternatives to the proposed approximately 9 fi. wide, 57 ft.-long seawall, the applicant's engineer has examined the altemative of placing riprap at the base of the bluff, however, rip-rap would occupy far more substantial area of beach than would the proposed seawall and would do nothing to address the landslide potential. The engineer has also examined the alternative of groundwater controls, irrigation restriction and use of drought-tolerant plants, but has concluded that such measures alone will not reduce the threat to the duplex. In addition, the applicant's engineer has considered the installation of drilled ~ier undeminning for the residence. but has concluded that undeminnin~s alone would noiaddress the ongoing bluff collapse; which ultimately would undkrmine;he drilled piers and thereby the duplex. The applicant's representatives have also examined . . the application of a chemical grouting ofthe bluffor installation of geogrid structure on 6-07- 133 Page 16 the face of the blufc houever. none of these alternatives uould be effective unless and until the louer seawall structure is constructed. The applicant's engineer has also identified that the existing seawall structure cannot be removed without threatening the existing duplex and homes on either side of the subject site. In addition, the applicant's engineer has certified that the existing seawall structure cannot be replaced by a smaller seawall closer to the bluff toe because removal of the existing seawall would pose too great a hazard to construction workers as they install a new seawall. The Commission's coastal engineer has reviewed the applicant's engineer's assertion that the existing seawall cannot be removed and replaced without threatening construction workers and concurs with his assessment. In this case, the applicant has no alternative other than to remove up to 6 feet of the existing seaward section ofthe seawall and reconstruct and fortify the remaining seawall structure, resulting in a seawall structure that extends approximately 9 feet onto the public beach. Since the applicants have documented the need to protect the existing duplex, the Commission finds that a shoreline-altering device must be approved pursuant to Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. Based on the analysis presented by the applicant, the Commission finds that there are no less environmentally damaging feasible alternatives than the proposed approximately 9 it.- wide, 57 fi.-long seawall. Sand Suo~lviln Lieu Mitigation Fee Although construction of a sea\vall is required to protect the esisting principal structure (duplex) on the site: Section 30235 ofthe Coastal Act requires that the shoreline protection be designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. There are a number of adverse impacts to public resources associated with the construction of shoreline protection. The natural shoreline processes referenced in Section 30235, such as the formation and retention of sandy beaches, can be significantly altered by construction of a seawall, since bluff retreat is one of several ways that beach area and beach quality sand is added to the shoreline. This retreat is a natural process resulting from many different factors such as erosion by wave action causing cave formation, enlargement and eventual collapse, saturation of the bluff soil from ground water causing the bluff to slough off and natural bluff deterioration. When a seawall is constructed on the beach at the toe of the bluff, it directly impedes these natural processes. Some of the effects of a shoreline protective structure on the beach such as scour. end effects and modification to the beach profile are temporary or difficult to distinguish from all the other actions which modify the shoreline. Seawalls also have nonquantifiable effects to the character ofthe shoreline and visual quality. However, some ofthe effects that a structure may have on natural shoreline processes can be quantified. Three of the effects from a shoreline protective device which can be quantified are: 1) loss of the beach area on which the structure is located; 2) the long-term loss of beach which will result when the back beach location is fixed on an eroding shoreline; and 3) the amount 6-07-133 Page 17 of liiaterial which would have been supplied to the beach if the back beach or bluff were to erode naturally. Based upon the provided as-built plans, the proposed seawall will be 57 feet long and \\ill encroach 8 ft., 8 in.) onto the beach. The total beach encroachment that will occur from the proposed seawall will be 493.62 (8.66 in. x 57 ft.) square feet of beach area that will no longer be available for public use. In addition; ifthe natural shoreline were to be allowed to erode, the beach would retreat inland. However, when the back shoreline location is fixed, the inland migration of the beach is halted. This will result in along- term loss of recreational opportunity as the development of new inland beach land fails to keep pace with the loss of or inundation of the seaward portion of the beach. Over a 20 year period, with a long-term average annual retreat rate of 0.27 ftlyr, 307.8 square feet ofbeach will be inundated and will not be replaced by new inland beach area (.27ft./yr [erosion rate] x 57 ft. [length of seawall]). These two impacts from the seawall. the encroachment and the fixing of the back beach, mill result in the immediate loss of 493.62 square feet of beach and the on-going loss of beach area (307.8 sq. ft.), after 20 years will total 801.42 square feet. The proposed seawall will also halt or slow the retreat ofthe entire bluff face. The bluff consists of a significant amount of sand, in the form of terrace deposits, the clean sand lens and the lower sandstone bedrock layer. As the bluff retreated historically, this sand was contributed to the littoral sand supply to nourish beaches throughout the region. The proposed seawall will halt this contribution to the littoral cell. Based on bluff geometry and the composition of the terrace materials, the applicant has estimated that the seawall will prevent 826.73 cubic yards of sand from reaching the littoral cell (based on a bluff erosion rate of 0.27 ftlyr and the wall remaining in place for 20 years). However. the applicant estimates that 129.5 cubic yards of sand has already fallen from the bluff face to the beach as a result ofthe seawall and upper bluff wall collapse. Therefore, the applicant asserts that over the nest 20 years, 697.23 cubic yards (826.73 - 129.5) will be prevented from reaching the beach as a result of the installation of the seawall. The Commission's coastal engineer has reviewed these calculations and concurs with the applicant's conclusions. The project impacts, the loss of 697.23 cubic yards of beach material and the eventual loss of 801.42 square feet of beach area, are two separate concerns. A beach is the result of both sandy material and a physical area between the water and the back beach. Thus, beach area is not simply a factor of the quantity of sandy beach material. The loss of beach material that will be a direct result ofthis project can be balanced or mitigated by obtaining similar quality and quantity of sediment from outside the linoml cell and adding this sediment to the littoral cell. There are sources of beach quality sediment that can be drawn upon to obtain new sediment for the littoral cell. The follouing is the methodology used by Commission staff to develop the in-lieu fee amount. The methodology uses site-specific information provided by the applicant as well as estimates, derived from region-specific criteria, of both the loss of beach material and beach area which could occur over the life the structure, and of the cost to purchase 6-07-1 33 Page 18 an equivalent amount of beach quality material and to deliver this material to beaches in the project vicinity. The following is a description of the methodology. Fee = (\'olume of sand for mitigation) x (unit cost to buy and deliver sand) where M = Mitigation Fee Vt = Total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure, through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations provided below. C = Cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality material to the project vicinity ($per cubic yard). Derived from the average of three witten estimates from sand supply companies within the project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near shore area. vt=Vbf Vw+Ve where Vb = Volume of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued, based on the long-term regional bluff retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards). This is equivalent to the long-term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach resulting from the structure. V, = Volume of sand necessary to replace the beach area that would have been created by the natural landward migration of the beach profile without the seawall, based on the long-term regional bluff retreat rate, and beach and nearshore protiles (cubic yards) 6-07-1 33 Page 19 Ve = Volume of sand necessary to replace the area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore profiles (cubic yards) Vt, = (S x W x L/27) x [(R h3 + (hu/2 x (R + (Rcu - R,.,)))] where R = Long-term regional bluff retreat rate (ft./yr.), based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs? land surveys. or other accepted techniques. For the Solana Beach area; this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.27 ft./year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of the sea~vall beyond the initial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) h = Total height of armored bluff (ft.) S = Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material to be provided by the applicant hs = Height of the seawall from the base to the top (ft) hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) & = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft/)~). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site-specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. 6-07-133 Page 20 bS = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed (ft/yr). This value \*ill be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site-specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. NOTE: For conditions where the upper bluffretreat will closely follow the lower bluff, this volume will approach a volume of material equal to the height of the total bluff, the, width of the property and a thickness equal to the total bluff retreat that would have occurred if the sea\vall had not been constructed. For conditions where the upper bluff has retreated significantly and would not be expected to retreat further during the time that the seawall is in place, this volume would approach the volume of material immediately behind the seawall, with a thickness equal to the total bluff retreat that would have occurred ifthe seawall had not been constructed. where R = Long-term regional bluff retreat rate (tt./yr.), based on historic erosion. erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.27 ft./year. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. L = Design life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life ofthe seawall beyond the initial estimated design life, a revised fee shall be determined through the coastal development permit process. v = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of reversible sediment movement (cubic yardslft of width and ft. of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. In the report Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of 6-07-133 Page 2 I V,=ExWxv where the Coast of California Storm and Tide Wave Study. Docurllent #87--l), a value for v of 0.9 cubic yardsisquare foot was suggested. If a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yardsisquare foot (40 feet x 1 foot x I foot i 27 cubic feet per cubic yard). These different approaches ) ield a range of values for v from 0.9 to I .5 cubic yards per square foot. The value for v would be valid for a region, and would not vary from one property to the adjoining one. Until further technical infonnation is available for a more exact value of v, any value within the range of 0.9 to 1.5 cubic yards per square foot could be used by the applicant without additional documentation. Values below or above this range would require additional technical support. W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) E = Encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach (ft.) W = Width of property to be armored (ft.) V = Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall, as described above: The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has adopted the Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego region and is currently working on techniques toward its implementation. The Strategy considers a full range of shoreline management tactics, but emphasizes beach replenishment to preserve and enhance the environmental quality, recreational capacity, and property protection benefits of the region's shoreline. Funding from a varietj of sources will be required to implement the beach replenishment and maintenance programs identified in the SANDAG Strategy. In San Diego County, SANDAG has agreed to administer a program which would identify projects which may be appropriate for support from the beach sand replenishment fund, through input from the Shoreline Erosion Committee which is made up of representatives from all the coastal jurisdictions in San Diego County. The Shoreline Erosion Committee is currently monitoring several large scale projects, both in and out of the coastal zone, they term "opportunistic sand projects". that will generate large quantities of beach quality material suitable for replenishing the region's beaches. The purpose of the account is to aid in the restoration of the beaches within San Diego County. One means to do this would be to provide funds necessary to get such "opportunistic" sources of sand to the shoreline. It has been argued that regional approaches to shoreline erosion are environmentally preferable to building separate seawalls to protect individual structures, and the City of Encinitas has been urged by the Commission to develop a comprehensive shoreline management strategy as part of its certified LCP. Coastal Act Section 30235, however, requires the Commission to approve shoreline protection for existing structures in danger from erosion when the shoreline protection is designed to eliminate or mitigate effects on local shoreline sand supply. In this particular case, the Commission finds the applicant's residential structure is faced with an immediate threat from erosion and requires protection prior to implementation of a comprehensive regional shoreline erosion strategy. The applicant is being required to pay a fee in-lieu of directly depositing the sand on the beach, because the benefib'cost ratio of such an approach would be too low. Many of the adverse effects ofthe seawall on sand supply will occur gradually. In addition, the adverse effects impact the entire littoral cell but to different degrees in different locations throughout the cell (based upon wave action, submarine canyons, etc.) Therefore, mitigation ofthe adverse effects on sand supply is most effective if it is part of a larger project that can take advantage of the economies of scale and result in quantities of sand at appropriate locations in the affected littoral cell in which it is located. The funds will be used only to implement projects which benefit the area where the fee was derived, and provide sand to the region's beaches. not to fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. Such a fund will aid in the long-term goal of increasing the sand supply and thereby reduce the need for additional armoring of the shoreline in the future. The fund also will insure avaitable sandy beach for recreational uses. The methodology, as proposed, ensures that the fee is roughly proportional to the impacts to sand supply attributable to the proposed seawall. The methodology provides a means to quantify the sand and beach area that would be available for public use, were it not for the presence of the seawall. For the past decade, the Commission has relied upon the Beach Sand In-Lieu Mitigation Program to address impacts to local sand supply and some of the impacts from the loss of beach area'. The Beach Sand In-Lieu Fee Mitigation Program was established I The above-described impacts on the beach and sand supply have previously been found to result from seawalls in other areas ofNorth County. In March of 1993, the Commission approved CDP #6-93-85lAuerbach, et al for the construction of a seawall fronting six non-continuous properties located in the City of Encinitas. In its finding for approval, the Commission found the proposed shoreline protection would have specific adverse impacts on the beach and sand supply and required mitigation for such impacts as a condition of approval. The Commission made a similar finding for several other seawall developments within San Diego County including an August 1999 approval (ref. CDP No. 6-99-100!Presnell. et. al) for the approximately 352-foot-long seawall project located approximately % mile south of the subject development and a March 2003 6-07-133 Page 23 to mitigate for persistent losses of recreational beach and has been ad~iiinistered by the San Diego Association of Govern~nents (SANDAG) for many years. However, the Commission has long recognized that while beach nourishment can address some ofthe losses that are directly attributable to seawall projects, the one-time provision of beach through nourishment does not adequately address the long-term and persistent impacts from encroachment and fixing the back of the beach. The main coastal resource concerns for these impacts arise from the losses in recreational use and recreational value that result from the loss of available shoreline area. As discussed in the section on Public AccessRecreation below, these impacts to public access and recreational value must also be mitigated. The applicant has proposed to make a contribution to the mitigation program that \\auld address the sand volume impacts from mall and infill encroachn~ents, denial of sand to the littoral cell and passive erosion, as discussed above. The applicant applied the calculations that the Commission has used for the past decade to estimate mitigation for these three impacts. However. since the impacts from encroachment and fixing the back beach are being covered through estimates for recreational beach losses. die In-Lieu Beach Sand Mitigation calculations applied in this analysis only address the value of the sand that will not be contributed by the bluffs to the littoral cell due to the construction of the proposed seawall. The amount of beach material that would have been added to the beach if natural erosion had been allowed to continue at the site has been calculated to be approximately 697.23 cubic yards. At an estimated sand cost of $16.28 per cubic yard (provided by the applicanf and based on judgment and three estimates from local contractors), this sand would have a value of $1 1,350. Special Condition #2 requires the applicant to deposit an in-lieu fee of $1 1.350 to fund beach sand replenishment as mitigation for the identified direct impacts of the proposed shoreline protective device on beach sand supply and shoreline processes over the 20-year design life of the project. Special Condition #2 also requires the applicant to amend the subject pennit before the end of the 20-year design life to either remove the seawall or extend the mitigation fee based on the Drowsed life ofthe seawall which should corres~ond to and not exceed the remaining lifi oithe duplex structure. Anv extended mitinatibn fee would be for the impacts associated M ith th&nued placement oftheseanall bevond. but not including. the kt 20-\ear desicn life, as the a~olicant is required to provide the mitieation for the first 20 vears of the wall's design life as a condition of this ~ermit. If the proposed wall were damaged in the future (e.g. as a result of wave action: storms, etc.) it could threaten the stability of the site. which could lead to the need for more bluff alteration. In addition. damage to the seawall could adversely affect the beach by resulting in debris on the beach andior creating a hazard to the public using the beach. approval (ref. CDP No. 6-02-84iScism) located 2 lots south ofthe subject site. (Also ref. CDP Nos. 6-93-36-GIClayton, 6-93-131/Richards, et al, 6-93-136/Favero,6-95-66!Hann, 6-98-39lDenverlCanter and 6-99-41lBradley; 6-00-138Kinzel, Greenberg: 6-02- 02lGregg, Santina and 6-03-33lSurfsong). 6-07-1 33 Page 24 'Therefore. in order to find the proposed seawall consistent *ith the Coastal Act, the , Commission finds that the condition ofthe seawall in its approved state must be maintained for the estimated life of the sea\iall. Further. in order to ensure that the permittee and the Commission know when repairs or maintenance are required. the permittee must monitor the condition ofthe seawall annually. The monitoring will ensure that the permittee and the Commission are aware of any damage to or weathering ofthe seawall and can determine whether repairs or other actions are necessary to maintain the sea\i,all in its approved state. Accordingly, Special Condition #7 requires the permittee to maintain the seawall in its approved state. In addition, Special Condition #7 advises the applicant that ongoing maintenance and repair activities which may be necessary in the future could require permits. Section 30610(d) exempts repair and maintenance activities from coastal development permit requirements unless such activities enlarge or expand a structure or the method of repair and maintenance presents a risk of substantial adverse environmental impact. The Commission's regulations identify those methods of repair and maintenance of seawalls that are not exempt (see California Code of Regulations Section 13252). Special Condition #3 requires that the applicant monitor the wall on an annual basis to determine if repairslmaintenance are necessary, Special Condition #7 requires the applicant to consult with the Commission to determine whether any proposed repair and maintenance requires a permit. There may also be other local, state or federal agencies having jurisdiction over this project. Conditions of approval andior mitigation measures may be required from these agencies. As such, Special Condition #8 has been imposed. This condition requires the applicant to submit copies of any discretionary permits obtained from other local, state or federal entities before the coastal development permit is issued. Should any project modifications be required as a result of any ofthese permits, the applicants are further advised that an amendment to this permit may be necessary to incorporate such mitigation measures into the project. The Commission typically requires that any proposed shoreibluff protection be constructed to withstand serious episodic storms. Special Condition #5 has been attached which requires the applicants to submit certification by a registered civil engineer verifying the seawall, as proposed herein, has been designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83. Special Condition #6 requires that feasible alternative measures which would avoid additional alteration of the natural landform of the public beach or coastal bluffs must be considered by the property owner in the future, should additional destabilization occur. The condition will ensure that future property owners acknowledge the hazardous condition on the subject site and are aware that any proposals for additional protection, such as an augmented seawall or bluff stabilization measures. will require an alternative - analysis, including measures designed to reduce the risk to the principal residence without additional shoreline or bluff protective devices. Potential alternatives include but are not limited to: relocation of all ~r.~ortions of the principal structure that are threatened, structural underpinning, and other remedial measures capable of protecting the principal residence for the remainder of its economic life. To avoid additional 6-07-133 Page 25 impacts on visual quality: sand supply and public access and recreation, the Commission can require the property owner to implement those alternatives. The condition also states that no shore or bluff protection shall be permitted for ancillary ilnprovellients located within the blufftop setback area (such as decks, patios, etc.). Through this condition, the property o\imer is required to acknowledge the risks inherent in the subject property and that there are limits to the structural protective measures that may be permitted on the adjacent public property in order to protect the existing development in its current location. Special Condition #6 also requires the applicant and future property owners to acknowledge that future redevelopment of the site cannot rely on the subiect seawall for its protection. In other words. the proposed seawall is in a . . hazardous location and not a permanent structure. It has been approved for the protection of the existine residence to meet the reauirements of Section 30235 of the Coastal Act - and is not approved in order to accommodate future redevelopment of the site in the same location. If a new home or residential addition is proposed in the future. it must be located in an area where the development is consistent with Coastal Act andlor applicable LCP requirements regarding geologic safety and protection from hazards as if the seawall does not exist. The applicant is proposing to construct the development in an area subject to wave and storm hazards. Although the applicant's geotechnical report asserts that the proposed development can withstand such hazards and protect existing development from such hazards, the risk of damage to the structure and the existing development cannot be elinlinated entirely. The Commission finds that in order for the proposed development to be consistent with the Coastal Act, the applicant must assume the risks of damage from flooding and wave action. As such, Special Condition #11 requires the applicant to waive any liability on the part ofthe Commission for approving the proposed development. In addition, this condition require the applicant to indemni& the Commission in the event that third parties bring an action against the Commission as a result of failure of the proposed development to withstand and protect against the hazards. Special Condition #13 requires the applicant to record a deed restriction imposing the conditions of this permit as covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of the property. Only as conditioned can the proposed project be found consistent with Sections 30235 and 30253 ofthe Coastal Act. In summary, the applicant has documented that the existing duplex on the blufftop is in danger from erosion and bluff failure. Thus. the Commission is required to approve protection for the residential structure pursuant to Section 30235 of the Act. The applicant has presented information which documents that there are no other less damaging feasible alternatives available to reduce the risk from bluff erosion and provide the necessary protection. Since the proposed seawall \\.ill have adverse impacts on beach sand supply, Special Conditions require the applicant to pay an in-lieu mitigation fee corresponding to the amount of bluff material not being contributed to sand supply to offset this impact. Therefore. as conditioned, the Commission finds that the proposed seawall is consistent with Sections 30235 and 30253 ofthe Coastal Act. 6-07-1 33 Page 26 3. Public AccesdRecreation. In addition to the adverse impacts on local sand supply, shoreline protective devices also have significant adverse impacts to public access and recreation. Coastal Act Section 30604(c) requires that every coastal development permit issued for any development between the nearest public road and the sea "shall include a specific finding that the development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of [Coastal Act] Chapter 3." The proposed project is located seaward of the first through public road, on the beach. Coastal Act Sections 30210 through 30213, as well as Sections 30220 and 30221 specifically protect public access and recreation, and state: Section 30210: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X ofthe California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30211: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 30212(a): Public access from the nearest public road\vay to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects. .. Section 30213: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. ... Section 30220: Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. Section 30221: Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. Coastal Act Section 30240(b) also protects parks and recreation areas such as the adjacent public beach park. Section 30240(b) states: Section 30240(b). Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. The project site is located on a public beach owned and administered by the City of Encinitas is utilized by local residents and visitors for a variety of recreational activities such as swimming, surfing, jogging, walking, surf fishing, beachcombing and sunbathing. The site is located approximately '/4 mile south of "Beacon's" public access 6-07-13; Page 27 path and approximately !4 mile north of "Stone Steps", one ofthe City's public access stairways to the beach. The proposed seawall, which will be 57 ft.-long and 8.8 ft. wide will be constructed on sandy beach area owned by the public that would otherwise be available to the public and, therefore, will have both immediate and long-ten adverse impacts on public access and recreational opportunities. The proposed seawall has been designed to occupy less beach area than the previously installed unpennitted seawall. However: even after the elimination of up to 5 ft. from the seaward side of the existing seawall, it will still project approximately 9 fi. seaward of the toe of the bluff. In addition, the beach along this area of the coast is narrow, and at high tides and winter beach profiles, the public may be forced to walk virtually at the toe of the bluffor the area could be impassable. As such, an encroachment of any amount, especially 9 ft. for a length of 57 fee< onto the sandy beach reduces the small beach area available for public use and is therefore a significant adverse impact. This is particularly true given the existing beach profiles and relatively narrow beach where access is sometimes only available at low tides. In addition, however, were it not for the seawall and infill structure, the seaward face of the bluff would naturally recede making additional beach area available for public use. During the 20 year life of the seawall, as the beach area available to the public is reduced. dry sandy beach will become less available seaward of the seawall such that beachgoers will not want to sit or lay a towel in this area. In addition, over time as the surrounding unprotected bluffs recede, the seawall saucture along with others constructed to the north and south will likely impede or completely eliminate public access to the beach at the subject site. Development along the shoreline which may burden public access in several respects has been approved by the Commission. However, when impacts can't be avoided and have been reduced to the maximum extent feasible. mitigation for any remaining adverse impacts of the development on access and public resources is always required. The Commission's permit history reflects the experience that development can physically impede public access directly, through construction adjacent to the mean high tide line in areas of narrow beaches. or through the placement or construction of protective devices. seawalls. rip-rap, and revetments. Since physical impediments adversely impact public access and create a private benefit for the property owners. the Commission has found in such cases (in permit findings of CDP 4-87-161,Pierce Family Trust and Morgan; CDP 6-87-371, Van Buskirk: CDP 5-87-576, Miser and Cooper; CDP 3-02-023, Ocean Harbor House; 6-05-72, Las Brisas, 6-07-134/Caccavo,6-03-33-A5lSurfsong. 6-08-73lDiNot0, et.al and 6-08-122/Winkler) that a public benefit must arise through mitigation conditions in order for the development to be consistent with the access policies of the Coastal Act. as stated in Sections 30210,3021 1, and 30212. Appropriate mitigation for the subject development would be creation of additional public beach area in close proximity to the impacted beach area. However, all of the beach areas in Encinitas are already in public ownership such that there is not private beach area available for purchase. In addition to the more qualitative social benefits of beaches (recreational, aesthetic, habitat values, etc.), beaches provide significant direct and indirect revenues to local economies, the state, and the nation. There is little doubt 6-07-133 Page 28 that the loss of 801 sq. ft. of sandy beach in an urban area such as Encinitas represents a significant impact to public access and recreation, including a loss of the social and economic value ofthis recreational opportunity. The question becomes how to adequately mitigate for these qualitative impacts on public recreational beach use and in particular, how to determine a reasonable value of this impact to serve as a basis for mitigation. In the past ten to fifteen years. the Cornmission has approved the construction of shoreline devices in San Diego County when they are necessary to protect an existing primary structure and when mitigation is provided according to a formula that the Commission developed to address some of the more easily quantifiable effects on local sand supply. as required by Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. In each of those decisions, the Commission recognized that the mitigation in the form of an in-lieu fee paid for the purchase of sand to offset the sand lost by the shoreline structure, provided some. but not all mitigation, associated with the adverse impacts of shoreline devices. In recent years. the Commission has sought additional ways to quantify the adverse impacts to public access and recreation that result from shoreline protective devices and, thereby, develop more appropriate mitigation for those impacts. However. except in a few cases. the Commission has been unable to adequately quantify those impacts and thus has been unable to accurately evaluate the economic loss to public accesslrecreation associated with necessary shoreline protection projects. In 2005, the Commission contracted with Dr. Phillip King, Chair of the Economics Department at San Francisco State University, to perform an economic analysis ofthe loss of recreational values associated mith a proposed seawall to be located adjacent to Fletcher Cove Beach Park approximately I miles south of the subject site (Ref. CDP #6- 05-92lLas Brisas). Since that time, Commission staff have attempted to use Dr. King's study as a basis for evaluating the seawall project impacts in Solana Beach and Encinitas, but because the character of the beach at Fletcher Cove is different in terms of accessibility, number of users and H idth of beach, and several other variables. staff has concluded that Dr. King's study cannot be used as a basis for determining impacts to the subject site. For instance, Dr. King estimated the number of beach users at Fletcher Cove on what he described as a '-flawed" parking study specitic to the Fletcher Cove parking lot. He also identified that most of the beachgoers place their towels no further than 150 ft. from the Fletcher Cove access ramp. Since these numbers are specific to beach attendance in Solana Beach and are based on a "flawed" parking study, his report was deemed insufficient for use on the subject seawall that is located 4 miles to the north in Encinitas. Recently, as a filing requirement for seawall applications, applicants have been asked to address the adverse impacts of shoreline devices on public access and recreation opportunities and to consider ways those impacts could be mitigated. Mitigation might be in the form of a particular public access or recreational improvement to be located in close proximity to the project or might involve an in-lieu fee to be used sometime in the future for a public accesslrecreation improvement. The applicant has identified that he 6-07-133 Page 29 has attempted to work with the City of Encinitas to fund a public accesslrecreation project but has been unsuccessful in finding such a project. In this case, because an established mitigation program is not in place, the applicant is proposing that the Commission make use ofthe methodology recently utilized for the an in-lieu fee program adopted by the City of Solana Beach that addresses impacts of shoreline devices on public accesslrecreation and on sand supply. The applicant is suggesting that the Commission accept a fee of $1.000 per lineal foot to address the adverse impacts associated with the seawall over the next 20 years. In this case, the proposed mitigation fee would equate to $57:000. As explained below, this proposal is inappropriate at this site. In June of2007, the City of Solana Beach adopted an interim in-lieu fee program to mitigate the adverse impacts associated with shoreline devices. The program has been designed as "interim" and is in place only until the City completes an economic study that more precisely determines the economic costs of the loss of recreational beach area. As such, the City's progranl requires that a $1,000 per lineal foot fee be assessed in the interim and requires an applicant to agree to modifications to the fee once the economic study is complete and a more site specific fee is assessed. According to the City's program, the monies collected through the mitigation program will be directed for City use for public access and recreational projects. In the case of several recent seawall projects in the City of Solana Beach, the Commission has accepted the applicant's proposals for interim mitigation pursuant to the City of Solana Beach's program. As such, the recent seawall projects (Ref. CDP Nos. 6- 07-1 34lCaccavo. 6-03-33-ASISurfsong, 6-08-73/DiNoto, et. a1 and 6-08-122iWinkler) approved by the Commission in Solana Beach have been conditioned to require the payment of $1,000 per sq. fi. to the Citj of Solana Beach as an interim temporary fee until the City completes its economic study which is intended to more accurately assess the financial impacts of shoreline devices on public access and recreation opportunities. Each of these recent coastal development permits for seawalls were also conditioned to require the applicants to appl} for an amendment to their coastal development permit within 6 months of completion of the City's economic study in order to reassess the in- lieu mitigation fee. It is hoped that the City's economic study will provide sufficient information to enable the Commission to make a more accurate determination as the appropriate mitigation needed to address the adverse impacts of the seawalls on public access and recreation: however, at this point the findings ofthe economic study have not been identified. The Commission will ultimately determine whether a reassessed fee is necessary based on the requirernents ofthe Coastal Act. However. in the case of Encinitas, no economic study to evaluate the economic impact of seawalls is under way and none is anticipated. In addition, the proposed seawall extends significantly futher onto the public beach (9 feet) than those in Solana Beach (2 feet). Therefore. unlike Solana Beach, the Commission will not have a way to more accurately assess the econonlic impacts ofthe subject wall on public access and recreation in the future. and the impacts ofthe subject seawall will be greater than those in Solana Beach. In this case. the applicant's proposal to make use ofthe Solana Beach's interim in-lieu 6-07-333 Page 30 fee program is not practical and \\,ill not sufficiently mitigate the adverse public access and recreation impacts associated with the seawall. .4s mentioned previously, the most appropriate mitigation for the subject development would be the creation of additional public beach area in close proximity to the impacted beach area. However, there is no private beach area available for purchase, so that direct form of mitigation is unavailable. However, if a private beach area of comparable size \rere available for purchase, the Commission might have a better way of approximating the appropriate mitigation fee based on the purchase value ofthe beach area. Instead of the applicant's proposal to pay a fee of $1,000.00 per lineal ft., the Commission edd-arely on a real estate value estimate for the beach area that will be occupied over the next 20 years. As there are no private beach areas for sale in this area, however, as discussed above, the Commission must estimate the value of this particulary beach by looking to the value of the blufftop property being protected by this . . seawall .] . . ~ - .nlllu While the value of the public beach is likely to be higher than the value of a blufftop parcel because of the public benefit derived from its use, the Commission believes that until a more accurate method of determining the economic value of the loss to public access and recreational opportunities is identified, a per sq. ft. real estate value of the bluffiop parcelnot including the value of improvements can be applied to the beach area. . . I,tIn this case, to determine a more accurate per sq. A. value of the blufftop property a real estate appraisal is necessary. Special Condition #3 requires that the applicant provide a current appraisal of the market value of the unimproved blufftop property in order to determine the appropriate per sq. ft. - mitigation impacts of the proposed seawall. Comparison to other Public Access/Recreation Mitigations. In 2005, the Commission approved the construction of a 120 fi.-long, 2 '/2 ft. wide seawall below the Las Brisas condominium complex in Solana Beach. The seawall was located below the dripline of the bluff and involved the fill of a 410 sq. ft. void. Therefore, the land area impacted over the 22 year design life of the seawall was estimated to be 1,364.8 sq. A. After hiring an economist, Dr. Phillip King, to perfonn an economic analysis ofthe lost recreational value associated with the construction of the seawall (Ref. 6-05-72/Surfsong), the Commission determined that the applicant should 6-07-133 Page 3 1 pay a mitigation fee of $248,680.72. The fee was designed to be used for purchase of beach land andior recreational beach park amenities. For the purposes of comparison, if this site specific loss of recreational value ($248:680.72) were equated to its per sq. ft. of impact, the fee would break down to $182.21 per sq. ft. (based on $248,680.72 mitigation fee divided by 1 ;364.8 sq. ft of impact area). So in the case of Las Rrisas, the mitigation fee was comparatively $182.21 per sq. ft. over 22 years. In October 2004, the Commission approved the construction of a 585 ft. long seawall fronting a 172 unit condominium complex in Monterey which aas estimated to impact 43.500 sq. ft. of beach area over a 50 year period. To mitigate the adverse impacts of the seawall on public access and recreational opportunities, and in lieu of purchasing a comparable area of beach. the Commission required a mitigation fee of $5,300,000.00. This fee was derived from the cumulative 50 year recreational beach impact based on an estimated annual value ofthe beach area lost of $4,148. Again however, for the purposes of comparison for this review (understanding the methodologies of deriving the fee are different for each), ifthis site specific loss of recreational value ($5,300,000.00) were equated to its per sq. ft. of impact. the fee would break down to $121.83 per sq. ft. over 50 years. M'hile neither of the methodologies used in the above-cited examples of in-lieu mitigation for the adverse impacts of a seawall can be applied directly to the subject development, it does identify a range of mitigation values that has been applied in other cases. In each case, the Commission found that the mitigation did not fully mitigate for the loss of the public beach and, thereby, the loss of public access and recreational opportunities. In the case ofthe subject seawall, the loss of 801 sq. ft. of public beach cannot be fully offset by the required mitigation fee since the beach itself cannot be replaced. However, until a more direct form of mitigation is found, the Commission can accept the required in-lieu fee m~tigation. The mitigation monies provide the opportunity to potentially purchase or contribute to the purchase of privately-owned beach or bluff top properties along the Encinitas shoreline from which threatened structures could be removed along with the need for shoreline protective devices. In addition, the monies can be used to purchase privately-owned beach or beach-fronting property if it should become available for purchase that could be used for recreational and beach park amenities which bill serve to offset the adberse impacts that result from the installation ofthe subject seawall. In addition, the monies can be used to purchase or assist with the purchase of public access or recreation uses within the City of Encinitas. For example. the Citj has recently identified that a new lifeguard facility is being proposed for Moonlight Beach which is located approximately %miles south ofthe subject site. Mitigation fees resulting from the subject development could help support the financing of this facility. Therefore, in order to adequately mitigate the loss of public access and recreational opportunities that n ill occur over the next 20 years due the subject seawall, Special Condition #3 has been attached which requires the applicant to pay a mitigation fee based on a current per sq. ft, real estate appraisal of the blufftop lot {without improvements) multiplied by 801 sq. ft. of seawall impacts to a special fund at the Coastal Conservanc): 6-07-1 33 Page 32 or Commission-approved alternate entit) that \kill be used for restoration andlor enhancement of public access and recreational opportunities along the Encinitas shoreline, or acquisition of property. Only with this required mitigation can the proposed development be found to be consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. This stretch of beach has historically been used by the public for access and recreation purposes. Special Condition # I0 acknowledges that the issuance of this permit does not waive the public rights that may exist on the property. The seawall and infill structures may be located on State Lands property, and as such, Special Condition #9 requires the applicant to obtain any necessary permits or permission from the State Lands Commission to perform the work. \Vith Special Conditions that require mitigation for the adverse impacts to public access and recreation and authorization from the State Lands Commission, impacts to the public will be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Thus, as conditioned, the Commission finds the project consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. 4. Visual Resources. Section 30240 (b) ofthe Coastal Act is applicable and states: (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas. and shall be compatible with the continuance ofthose habitat and recreation areas. In addition. Section 30251 ofthe Coastal Act states, in part: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas . . . As stated above, the proposed development will occur on the public beach. Following construction, the natural appearance of the bluffs at this site will be substantially altered. To mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed seawall, the applicant proposes to color and texture the seawall. The visual treatment proposed is similar to the visual treatment approved by the Commission in recent years for shoreline devices along the Solana Beach shoreline. (ref. CDP #6-02-84lScism; 6-02-02/Gregg, Santina; 6-03-33lSurfsong; 6-04-83/Johnson, Cumming; 6-07-1 34!Brehmer, Caccavo; 6-08-122lWinkler). The technolog in design of seawalls has improved dramatically over the last two decades. Today, seawalls typically involve sculpted and colored concrete that upon completion closely mimic the natural surface ofthe lower bluff face. 6-07-133 Page 33 In addition; to address other potential adverse visual impacts, Special Conditions Nos. 1 and 7 have been attached xihich require the applicant to monitor and maintain the proposed sea\'all in its approved state. In this way, the Commission can he assured that the proposed structure \\.ill be maintained so as to effectively mitigate its visual prominence. Therefore. as conditioned. the Commission finds that potential visual impacts associated with the proposed development have been reduced to the maximum extent feasible and the proposed development will include measures to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the adjacent park and recreation area (beach area). Thus, with the proposed conditions. the project is consistent with Sections 30240(h) and 30251 of the Coastal Act. 5. I.ocal Coastal Planning. Section 30604 (a) also requires that a coastal development permit shall be issued only ifthe Commission finds that the permitted development will not prejudice the ability ofthe 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 subject site is located on the beach within the City of Encinitas. In November of 1994, the Commission approved, with suggested modifications. the City of Encinitas Local Coastal Program (LCP). Subsequently, on May 15, 1995; coastal development permit authority was transferred to the City. Although the site is within the City of Encinitas, it is within the Commission's area of original jurisdiction. As such, the standard of review is Chapter 3 policies ofthe Coastal Act, with the City's LCP used as guidance. As shoreline erosion along the coast rarely affects just one individual property, it is imperative that a region-wide solution to the shoreline erosion problem be addressed and solutions developed to protect the beaches. Combined with the decrease of sandy supply from coastal rivers and creeks and armoring of the coast, beaches will continue to erode without being replenished. This will, in turn, decrease the public's ability to access and recreate on the shoreline. Based on specific policy and ordinance language requirements placed in the LCP by the Commission: the City of Encinitas is in the process of developing a comprehensive Droeram addressing the shoreline erosion oroblem in the Citv. The intent of the ~lan is to . - - look at the shoreline issues facing the City and to establish goals, policies, standards and strategies to comorehensivelv address the identified issues. To date. the CiW has - conducted several public workshops and meetings on the comprehensive plan to identify issues and present draA plans for comment. However, at this time it is uncertain when the plan will come before the Commission as an LCP amendment or when it will be scheduled for local review by the Encinitas City Council. In the case of the proposed projec< site specific geotechnical evidence has been submitted indicating that the existing structure on the project site is in danger. This project emphasizes the critical need for a comprehensive planning effort such that 6-07-1 33 Page 34 sea\valls are not constructed in an emergency situation: with a design that may not be the least environmentally damaging alternative in the future. Based on the above findings. the proposed seawall development has been found to be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, in that the need for the seawall and its repairlmaintenance has been documented, its adverse impacts on public access, beach sand supply and visual resources will each be mitigated. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the proposed seawall, as conditioned, will not prejudice the ability of the City of Encinitas to prepare a comprehensive plan addressing the City's coastline as required in the certified LCP and consistent with Chapter 3 policies ofthe Coastal Act. 6. Consis!enc\ \\.ith the California En\ ironmenral Oualitv Act (CE0.4). Section 13096 of the Commission's Code of Reeulations rewires Commission aDnro\ al '. . , of Coastal Development Permits to be supported by a finding showing the permit, as conditioned, to be consistent with any applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the activity may have on the environment. The proposed project has been conditioned in order to be found consistent with the geologic stability. visual quality, and public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Mitigation measures, including conditions addressing payment of an in-lieu fee for impacts to sand supply, public access and recreation opportunities, and monitoring and maintenance ofthe structures over the lifetime of the project have been included as conditions of approval. As conditioned. there are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed project is tlie least environmentally-damaging feasible alternative and is consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act to conform to CEQA. STANDARD CONDITIOhrS: 1. Notice of Recei~t and Acknowlednment. 'l3e permit is not valid and development shall not commence until a copy ofthe 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 commenced, the permit will expire two years From the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall he pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 5. Inter~retation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 6-07-1 33 Page 35 4. Assignment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Comlnission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the pennit. 5. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These tenns and conditions shall be perpetual, and it is the intention ofthe Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the temls and conditions. " ~moiy# R6WfNfWt3 R7RTTON OFPOST ..ma 8mRD rUzcMGK WALL AND S~AIRWAAYABOVE TOP OFAIWSC4 WALL I I i ! I . SrARW&.(PRE-FAIun9@ -, i ! ,i i UNKN0,WN . . I ,- -..d--.-~.- . . , . ~. I -94: 4 'I PRE-CONSTRUCTIONSECTION .. , . ., . . , . . SCALE: I"z10'. IHORIZ;:VERT.I . . . . m ..-.-b-.- 1. . ~. . . . RECONSfRUCT PORTiON OF UPPEK-~UFF w/rH GMGR/D RElNFORCED FlLL AND APPLY \ T~~WPORARYUNDSL%P/IVG -7 7.5 57' Seawall Beach bnd Mitigation Calculations Revised - October 7,2009 680 Neptune Avenue " ?e- 19Sb ayemRln with wml sDff, 1hlr ovrnbcr iruriiiito rcpnwrnm Mmne dthe sawalrr We without mainternsforthe purpDad-'wWng~~~~~nfsr~empinadrmmrd bsarnmRtdtoheCm(ofLndnlhrh.rr wHhthwen;m~th.~~ad u'll remain cRem.= brthe itfr DTme nndmial arurmrepsyea~). Vb = (S x W x L) x ((Rx hs) + (l/Zhu x (R = (Rcu-Rcs))))/27 Vb = (.74 x 57 X 20) x {(.27 x 38) + (30 x 1.27 + (.27;)))/27 Vb = (843.6) x t(10.26) + (30 x (.54)))N27 Vb = (843.6) x (10.26 + 16.2))/27 Vh = 1843.6 x (26.46))/27 Vb = 826.728 Existing Lost Beach Quality Bluff Sands Due to Failure: 175 cubic yards X .74 = 129.5 C = cost of Sand C= $16.28 !Average of three (3) qualified bids) t~or Purmses ot ;dadu~,g saw m#h#anon in wrnbmwn ath ocarn rccmatfon mmgatun :he coa c' me inalulddal rompor.cmr ot:'t b.avc oecnca c;atorr rcpararc v amwi Total Cost Vt = $23.101.81 6-07-1 33 Sand Fee Calculations by Goetz Seawall CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 M A N Z A N O D R C E R E Z O D R AT & SF RREL ARBOL DRS H O R E D R CARL SBAD BL L OS ROBLES DRCDP 09-13 / SUP 09-05 Goetz Seawall SITE MAP EL CA MINO REA L LA COSTA AVCOLLEGE BLCARLSBAD B L AVIARA PY MELROS E DR Pa c i f i c O c e a n Location Map CA R L SB A D B L AT & SF RR E L A R B O L D R L O S RO B L E S DR S H O R E D R I-5 AVENIDA ENC INAS CEREZ O D R MANZA N O D R 0 400 800200 Feet CDP 09-13 / SUP 09-05 Goetz Seawall September 19, 2008 Project History •Bluff failure on or about December 20, 2008 •Application for Emergency CDP filed March 2, 2009 •Emergency CDP issued April 16, 2009 •Emergency CDP expired May 19, 2009 Project History •Reapplication for Emergency CDP May 27, 2009 •Emergency CDP reissued June 10, 2009 •City Council affirmed action on June 16, 2009 •Construction of the seawall completed on or about September 18, 2009 December 2008 July 2009 December 2009 July 2009 Agencies involved •California Coastal Commission –Jurisdiction •California State Lands Commission –Jurisdiction •California State Department of Parks and Recreation –Right of Entry permit for access •US Army Corps of Engineers –Jurisdiction and permits •US Fish and Wildlife Service December 2009 May 25, 2010 December 2009 Local Coastal Program Policies •Coastal Erosion –shoreline development –Bluff stability for 75 years –planned bluff retreat –Remove ground water from bluffs –Drought resistant landscaping –Control urban runoff flow rate and velocity, erosion and sedimentation –City’s Grading Ordinance, •Development project requirements: –Protect slopes –Maximize infiltration of runoff •Beach Sand Erosion –Causes and cures for shoreline erosion –Regional Beach Preservation committee •Shoreline structures –Structures (seawalls) that alter the natural shoreline process; •To serve coastal dependant uses, •Protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and •Eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on sand supply. •Sand replenishment •Provision for maintenance Shoreline and Coastal Bluff Management Strategies •Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program •USACE 50-Year Beach Replenishment Program –Cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas •Regional Beach Sand Project #2 (2012) –2 million+ cu. yds. in 2001 –Sandag and participating cities •Public Beach Restoration Fund •Agua Hedionda Lagoon dredging –Every two years –385,000 cu. yds. Coastal Development Permit •Seawall to prevent further bluff failures •Beach access is unchanged 10 foot improved vertical access Existing irrevocable offer of dedication •Sand replenishment condition •Maintenance responsibility of owner •Preclude further development of existing structures Special Use Permit •Site improvements are safe from flooding •No flood impacts to adjacent properties •Does not change base flood elevation Environmental review •Emergency Permit exemption •Regular CDP will not cause environmental impact Recommendation •That the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolutions 6677 and 6678 approving CDP 09-13 and SUP 09-06. July, 2009