Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-09; Beach Preservation Committee; MinutesMinutes of: Beach Erosion Committee Date of Meeting: May 9,1994 Time of Meeting: 9:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Hall called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Members Vigil, Hall, Jackson, Meyer Absent: Member Reasons, Member Williams and Chair Copley APPROVAL OF MINUTES: By proper motion, the minutes of the meeting held on May 9, 1994 were approved. 1. COASTAL COMMISSION SAND MITIGATION FEE: Staff member Jantz and Steve Sachs of SANDAG explained the status of the Coastal Commission's Proposed Sand Mitigation Fee. This subject will be on the June 2, 1994 Shoreline Erosion Committee Agenda for discussion. Member Jackson made a motion that was dully seconded, to send Council Member Kulchin, Shoreline Erosion Committee Chair, a memo with their specific concerns regarding the fee: 1. Public Hearing. 2. Legality. 3. Cost to Administer. 4. SANDAG should administer funds. 2. OPPORTUNISTIC SAND: Staff member Jantz provided a status on the City's Opportunistic Sand. The Draft RFP for the consultant to attain permits was reviewed for comments and will be revised to move forward on the selection process. All permits were issued for the contractor of the Santa Margarita River dredging program to start depositing sand on Oceanside beaches. 3. ARMY CORPS RECON STUDY: Staff member Jantz provided a status of the Oceanside Reconnaissance Study and the findings contained in the final document. Staffs of both Oceanside and Carlsbad will be working together to develop an equitable cost sharing arrangement. Staff will be bringing this issue forward to the Council with the Committee's recommendation in the near future. 4. OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: Tamarack Parking Fees: Vice Chair Hall made a motion that was dully seconded requesting staff to investigate the proposal to ask the Council to allocate the money spent on Tamarack Beach parking fees to support future Beach Nourishment programs. Carlsbad Boulevard Sand: The Committee requested information regarding what happens to the sand that is scraped from Carlsbad Boulevard. 11 Beach Erosion Committee Date of Meeting: May 9,1994 Time of Meeting: 9:00 a.m. Page 2 Old Business: SDG&E Final Report: The Committee requested information regarding the Final Report of the SDG&E Dredging operation and the start up of next years program. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT - Mario Monroy requested that Public Hearings be held on the Coastal Commission Sand Mitigation Fee. ADJOURNMENT By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m. to the regular meeting on Monday, May 9, 1994 at the Housing and Redevelopment Office at 9:00 A.M. Respectfully submitted, BELINDA GUZMAN State of California MEMORANDUM California Coastal Commission San Diego District TO:Commissioners DATE: March 15, 1994 FROM:Staff FILE NO: 6-93-85 SUBJECT: Mitigation for Impacts of Seawalls on Sand Supply - Recommended Condition and Finding STAFF NOTES: At the November 18, 1993 Commission hearing, the Commission approved three permit applications for seawalls with a condition requiring the applicants to mitigate for the impacts of the shoreline protective devices on sand supply and public beach access by paying a fee, in-lieu of providing sand to the beach. The fees are to be deposited into an account with the purpose of establishing a beach sand replenishment fund to aid in the restoration of beaches within San Diego County. Since the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is currently developing a plan to implement the Shoreline Preservation Strategy adopted in July 1993, it has been identified as the logical entity to help administer the fund. This would be done by coordinating with representatives from the local jurisdictions where the fees are derived, and identifying to the Executive Director, sand replenishment projects which would benefit either those jurisdictions directly, or benefit the littoral cell in which they are located. The Commission's approval of the seawall projects with this condition followed much testimony regarding the appropriateness of staff's proposed methodology used to derive the fee, and also suggestions that the local governments should be the entities to establish such a fund, through tax assessment or other means, to reach the community as a whole and not just the bluff top property owners. The Executive Director indicated at the time that the beach sand replenishment fund could be replaced in the future, should a broader-based program be established by the City, that also addresses the impacts of shoreline protective devices on local shoreline sand supply and beach access. Since the Commission action in November, a meeting was held by the SANDAG Shoreline Erosion Committee which had previously agreed to administer the fund through a Memorandum of Agreement with the Coastal Commission, and to provide assistance, through its review and comments, on the methodology being prepared. Comments on the proposed methodology and fund were given by interested parties at that meeting. Additionally, the proposed methodology has been reviewed by Dr. Craig Everts, Coastal Engineer with the firm of Moffatt and Nichol, as well as other technical experts and interested parties. Mitigation for March 15, 1994 Page 2 Impacts to Sand Supply In response to the above-mentioned comments, the recommended condition language and the proposed methodology have been modified by staff. Also, to address the importance of approving the proposed seawall with a condition which mitigates the impacts of armoring the shoreline on local sand supply, but also to acknowledge the fact that the City of Encinitas is currently in the process of developing a Geologic Hazared Abatement District which should address mitigation for those impacts, staff is also recommending condition language which requires the applicant to pay the fee after a six month period, if an alternative to compliance with the condition is not developed and approved by the Commission through an amendment to this coastal development permit within that time frame. Staff recommends the following condition and finding be adopted for Coastal Development Permit #6-93-85 Auerbach et al: Mitigation for Impacts to Sand Supply.2. coastal development permit, each applicant shall and content acceptable to the Executive Director, Prior to issuance of the provide evidence, in a form that a fee of no less than $1,643.00 and no more than $17,393.00 (402 Neptune Avenue); $1,635.00 and no more than $17,270.00 (396 Neptune Avenue); $1,643.00 and no more than $17,393.00 (378 Neptune Avenue); $1,643.00 and no more than $17,393.00 (370 Neptune Avenue); $1,665.00 and no more than $17,870.00 (354 Neptune Avenue); and, $1,620.00 and no more than $16,920.00 (312 Neptune Avenue) has been deposited in an interest bearing account designated by the Executive Director, in-lieu of providing sand to replace the sand and beach area that would be lost due to the impacts of the proposed protective structure. The methodology used to determine the appropriate mitigation fee for the subject site(s) shall be that described in the memo titled "Mitigation for Impacts of Seawalls on Sand Supply" dated March 15, 1994, prepared for coastal development permit #6-93-85. The California Coastal Commission shall be named as trustee of this account, with all interest earned payable to the account for the purposes stated below. 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 solely be used 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 memorandum of agreement (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. In the event SANDAG does not enter into a MOA with the Commission within 1 year from deposition of The initial fee, the Commission can appoint an alternative entity to administer the fund. Mitigation for Impacts to Sand Supply March 15, 1994 Page 3 Recommended finding and proposed methodology: In approving the proposed seawall, the Commission must find that a need for the project has been documented consistent with Chapter 3 policies, and that the proposed alternative is the least damaging to the environment. Additionally, Section 30235 of the Coastal Act requires that construction of seawalls which "alter natural shoreline processes" shall be permitted to protect existing structures when "designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply". The natural shoreline processes referenced in Section 30235, such as the formation and retention of sandy beaches, may be altered by the construction of a seawall, since bluff retreat is one of the many ways that beach quality material is added to the shoreline. This retreat is a natural process resulting from many different factors such as undercutting by wave action of the toe of the bluff causing bluff collapse, saturation of the bluff soil from ground water causing the bluff face to slough off and natural biuff deterioration. When a seawall is constructed on the beach at the toe of the bluff,,the seawall directly impedes these natural processes. While the seawall may be necessary to protect development located on the bluff top, the seawall has adverse impacts on shoreline processes and on public access to, and use of, the beach. 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 qualHy. recreational capacity, and property protection benefits of the region's shcreiine. As identified in the Strategy, while shoreline protective devices result in immediate protection for the endangered property, they also result 'r long-term adverse impacts on the beach seaward of the wall or revetrnunt. The construction of a seawall along a shoreline backed by coastal bluffs, such as in Encinitas, can have several quantifiable impacts on shoreline processes and beach access, as well as numerous, less quantifiable effects which have been discussed elsewhere in current literature on seawalls. Three of the quantifiable impacts from such structures are: 1. The seawall will halt natural b'-uff retreat, preventing a portion of the bluff material from becoming pci"t of J:r,e sard supply; 2. The seawall will halt ths landward migration of the beach and nearshore profiles, preventing the formation of beach that would otherwise be available for public use over time, if the seawall were not constructed; 3. The seawall will physical'y occupy area, by its encroachment seaward of the toe of the bluff, tnat would otherwise be available for recreational use. The above is graphically depicted Dn attached Figures 1 - 6. Figures Mitigation for Impacts to Sana Supply March 15, 1994 Page 4 depict the current and future bluff conditions as discussed above. Figure 6 depicts the losses to beach that will occur as a result of the armoring. Shoreline protective devices, sucr, as that proposed, fix the inland extent of the beach. Therefore, when additional erosion occurs seaward of the wall, it is at the expense of beaches or recreational areas owned or utilized by the general public. "Seawalls inhibit erosion that naturally occurs and sustains the beach. The two most important aspects of beach behavior are changes in beach width and changes in the position of the beach. On narrow, natural beaches, the retreat of the back, of the beach, and hence the beach itself, is the most important element in sustaining the width of the beach over a long time period. Narrow beaches, typical of most of the California coast, do not provide enough sacrificial sand during storms to provide protection against scour caused by breaking waves at the oacKbeach line. This is the reason the back boundary of our beaches retreats during some storms. Armoring in the form of a seawall fixes the backbeach line and interrupts this natural process. A beach with a fixeo landward boundary is not maintained on a recessional coast because the beach can no longer retreat." (ref. Memo by Dr. Everts dated 3/14/94 re: Review of CCC Methodology for Quantifying Impacts to Sand Supply from Bluff Armoring). Seawalls also trap bluff material which would otherwise become part of the local sand supply, thus reducing tha iand supply for the affected beach and surrounding areas. Accordingly, in its -eview of such projects under Section 30235 and the access policies of the Coastal Act, the Commission must assess both the need to protect property ana the need to mitigate adverse effects on beach access and shoreline sand supoly. Funding from a variety of sources will be required to implement the beach replenishment and maintenance prog-ams 'dentified in the SANDAG Strategy. In this particular case, 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 aii trie coastal jurisdictions in San Diego County. The Shoreline Erosion Comir/i itee 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 b&aches. 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 vunds necessary to get such "opportunistic" sources of sand to the shoreline. The applicants are being required to pay a fee, in-lieu of depositing the sand on the beach, because the benefit/cost ratio of such an approach would be too low. The larger projects can taK3 advantage of the economies of scale and result in quantities of sand at a;joropriate locations to benefit both the local jurisdiction where the fees were derived, and the entire littoral cell in which it is located. The funos win be used only to implement projects which benefit the area where the c?e was derived, and provide sand to the region's beaches, not ro fund operations, maintenance or planning studies. Mitigation for March 15, 1994 Page 5 Impacts to Sand Suppiy Such a fund will aid in the long-te>-m goal of increasing the sand supply and thereby reduce the need for add t^ oral armoring of the shoreline in the future. The fund also will insure avail able sandy beach for recreational uses. received Lt the Shoreline Erosion Committee meeting, methodology to determine an appropriate mitigation would b9 re-quiring the bluff top property owners to that dams, breakwaters and other upcoast structures sand on the beach, and, thus, greater erosion the methodology, as proposed, is not attempting to to shorel^e processes other than those directly proposed seawau on the subject properties. The •neans :o quantify the sand and beach area that would be but for the seawall. Several of the comments addressing the proposed fee, suggested the fee compensate for the fact have resulted in less potential. However, address any impacts attributable to the methodology provides a available for public use Special Condition #2 requires the ayolleant to deposit an in-lieu fee to fund beach sand replenishment projects as mitigation for impacts of the proposed shoreline protective device on oeach sand supply and shoreline processes. The following is the methodology to be used by the applicant to develop the in-lieu fee which will orovide mit:viatic- for the quantifiable effects of the proposed project on this segment of the Enciniias shoreline. The methodology estimates the total quantity of san-,1 necessary to replace : a) the reduction in beach quality material contributed Irorn the seacliff over the life of the reduction in beach viotn which will occur when the landward beach profile is stopped, over the life of the structure; and in beach area w'nur wi-i occur from the seaward encroachment The methodology uses site specific information provided by well as estinat9s. derived from region-specific criteria, of of beach material ano beach area which could occur over the life the structure, and of rne COST to Oi rchase an equivalent amount of beach quality material and tc deliver this material to beaches in the project vicinity. armoring; b) the migration of the c) the reduction of the seawall. the applicant as both of the loss The following is a description oi; tne methodology. The calculations which utilize values that are applicaoie -c:, tho subject sites, and were used as the basis for calculating che estimated ra.ue of the mitigation fee, are attached as Exhibit 4 to this report. Fee - (Volume of sand for mitigation) x (unit cost to buy and deliver sand) M= Vt x C where M = Mitigation Fe3 Totil vo due to material the roin area and loss of yard;Uer'ved f sand required to replace losses structure, through reduction in the bluff, reduction in nearshore f available beach area (cubic from calculations provided below. Mitigation for March 15, 1994 Page 6 Impacts to Sand Supp'y vb + where Cost, per cibic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting; beach quality material to the project vicinity ($ per cubic yard). Derived froir 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. Voi.ue of oeach material that would have been .supplied to tne beach if natural erosion continued, based on the long-term regional bluff retrear 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 cluff material to the beach resulting from the structure. of sand necessary to replace the beach i;t v\ould have been created by the natural ci Tiigration of the beach profile without 'a'vaii, based on the long-term regional retreat rate, and beach and nearshore s (cubic vards) t.ie oluf necessary to replace to area of to encroachment by the seawall; seawall design and beach and ;iearsnore profiles (cubic yards) of sand beach lost dueua:,?.1 on the ( S x W x L/27) x [<R hs) f (h,,/2 (Rrll - Rrc)))] where Long-terrri regional bluff retreat rate (ft./yr.), ja»ed on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial ohotograohs. land surveys, or other accepted •;9cr,n' rues. For the Encinitas area, this regional retreat has been estimated to be 0.2 't./yi'ar. "h's value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be documented by the applicant and should sdme *.'„ Die predicted retreat rate estimate the need for shoreline armoring. be used the to L =jesiyn life of armoring witnout maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life j»f the seawall beyond the intial estimated design Mr, a revised f(?9 shall be determined through vhe i!'j\vcal ^Jwve^pment permit process. Mitigation for Impacts to San:' Supp March 15, 1994 Page 7 H = Width ;>f property to be armored (ft.) h = ioiai height of armored bluff (ft.) S = Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff nater'al, based on analysis of bluff material to be provided by the applicant hs = Height of tie seawall from the base to the top (ft) hu = Ue;?h1- of the unprotected upper bluff, from the i'op of the seawall to the crest of the bluff (ft) Rcu = Prfcir. cteci rate of retreat of the crest of the biu.'f, djri.'-g the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were installed (ft/yv). This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site specif:;: geotachnical information supporting a different value. Rcs = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the 'Tin", during the period that the seawall would n^ -. ,i pi?.-;, e, assuming the seawall has been '.nb-ca^tjc (ft/yr). THis value will be assumed to oe zero unless the applicant provides site b pec •,";(.: geotechnical information supporting a different value. NOTE: For conditions where the upper bljff 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 wouH SMVT occurred if the seawall had not been constructed. For conditions tuna re ?'><?. 'jooer biuff his retreated significantly and would not be expected to retreav further during the time that the seawall is in place, this volume would epproacn the volume of material immediately behind the seawall, with a in' ;knnss equal to me total bluff retreat that would have occurred if the se^w;:!! nad noi- oeen constructed. Vw - RxLxvxH where R = Long-term rsoiondl bluff retreat rate (ft./yr.), b;?.i,tci on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial i/iotographs. land surveys, or other accepted techniques. For the Encinitas area, this •eciioiun re-.reat has been estimated to be 0.2 '!":.iyd ir. This value may be used without further documentation. Alternative retreat rates must be dorumfinted by the applicant and should be the sane a: t!ie predicted retreat rate used to te the need for shDreline armoring. Mitigation for March 15, 1994 Page 8 Impacts to Sand Sup- y L = H = Ve - E x H x v where E N v L>e:,iyr. life of armoring without maintenance (yr.) If maintenance is proposed and extends the life of tiirf seawall beyond the intial estimated design ";ife, a rev. sed fee shall be determined through the coastai development permit process. Volune of material required, per unit width of joach, tc replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the "articai distance from the top of the beach berm to L'ne seacard limit of reversible sediment Movem?!!4: (cubic yards/ft of width and and ft. of r^treaf, . :via value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yaro oer square foot of beach. In the report, Gceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report" (December 1987, part of me Coast of California Storm and Tide Nave vcuuy, Document #87-4), a value for v of 0.9 cuuic yares/square foot was suggested. If a v-i\--.:'-< vet! distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment movement, v would rave a val'.iQ cf 1.5 cubic yards/square foot (40 "tfwt x i foot x 1 foot / 27 cubic feet per cubic different approaches yield a range .9 to 1.5 cubic yards per for v would be valid for vary from one property to Until further technical e for a more exact value the range of 0.9 to 1.5 per square foot could be used by the /ntnout additional documentation, ow or above this range would require technical support. of .-, ;i :- :v oF values for v from 0 nr-' foot. Th? value •?.r'or , and would not1 adjoi 'ii ng one. '•'orniP.-:ior, i r> avail abl v, any value wi bhin cubic cel ai;di t'ona'i NiuLh of" property to be armored (ft.) Encroachment 'by saawall, measurea from the toe of JOB o.uvf or oack beach (ft.) Hidth O!1 proper"}/ to be armored (ft.) of material required, per unit width of to v; piece or reestablish one foot of l;3r.ch sse.VKf.rd of the seawall, as described above; oetl' Mitigation for Impacts to Sane March 15, 1994 Page 9 The applicant shall be responsible for documenting the appropriate values which shall be used to deternine the c."nomt of the mitigation fee to be deposited, prior to issuance o" the permit. With implementation of this condition, mitigation for -impacts on shoreline process and sand supply resulting from the proposed development is provided, consistent with Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. (9300A) CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Specific Subject: Administration Legislative Program Page 1 of 2 Policy No. 39 Date Issued 4/19/94 Effective Date 4/20/94 Cancellation Date Supersedes No.39 dated 2/19/91 Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE;To establish the guidelines of the City's legislative program. BACKGROUND;Historically, the City handled legislation in an ad hoc procedure. As the number of bills the City addressed increased, so did the need to establish a program that more efficiently and effectively handled legislative matters. Staff researched the programs of several cities in San Diego Country to develop an appropriate and flexible program for Carlsbad. POLICY;1. Participate in the County Legislative Coalition, which will serve to promote the unified position of municipalities in San Diego County to the State and Federal legislature. 2. Adopt a legislative platform expressing the City's general legislative concerns. 3. The Mayor or his/her designee will review specific bills for consistency with the platform. Bills of interest to the City not covered by the platform shall be forwarded to the entire City Council for consideration. 4. Only the City Council may authorize a letter be sent on behalf of the City to oppose or support legislation. If a Board, Committee, Commission or advisory group believes the City should send such a letter, staff members for that group will forward the request to the City Manager's Office. The request will be processed according to this policy. Page 2 of 2CITY OF CARLSBAD , Policy No. 39 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 4/19/94 Effective Date 4/2Q/94 General Subject: Administration Cancellation Date Supersedes No.39 dated 2/19/91 Specific Subject: Legislative Program Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PROCEDURE: A. Adopt the County Legislative Coalition's platform as a base and add to it as needed. B. Staff will monitor the League of California Cities' Legislative Bulletin, the San Diego County Legislative Coalition, SANDAG and department heads to learn about bills which would have a direct and significant impact on the City of Carlsbad. C. Staff will present pertinent bills to the Mayor or his/her designee for review. If a bill is consistent with the adopted platform, the Mayor or his/her designee will authorize appropriate action. If a bill is not covered by the adopted platform, it will be placed on the Council Agenda for consideration. D. Staff will present requests from a Board, Committee, Commission or advisory group to support or oppose legislation to the Mayor or his/her designee for review. If a bill is consistent with the adopted platform, the Mayor or his/her designee will authorize appropriate action. If a bill is not covered by the adopted platform, it will be placed on the Council Agenda for consideration. E. Staff will provide the full Council with a monthly update on the progress of key bills.