Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-07; Planning Commission; ; CDP 09-13 / SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALLThe City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No.1 P.C. AGENDA OF: April 7, 2010 Application complete date: September 1, 2009 Project Planner: Van Lynch Project Engineer: Steve Bobbett SUBJECT: 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. I. RECOMMENDATION 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. II.INTRODUCTION 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. The 1.01 acre project site, consisting of two residential single family lots, is currently developed with two single family detached residences. The project complies with all applicable city standards and staffs recommendation of approval with conditions is supported by the analysis as follows. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On or about December 19, 2008, a 50 foot long by 32 foot high coastal bluff failure occurred at 5323 and 5327 Carlsbad Boulevard. An additional bluff failure occurred on December 30, 2008. In total, the coastal bluff retreated approximately five feet and deposited roughly 150 cubic yards of soil onto the beach which is used by the public. The likely cause of failure is due to the weakly cemented and relatively cohesionless geologic formation (terrace deposit) which is inherently unstable. Additionally, an unusually heavy rain event likely saturated the terrace deposit adding weight and decreasing the strength properties causing the bluff to fail. The new seawall is to prevent further bluff failures, protecting the beach and the beach-going public. On April 16, 2009, the Planning Director issued an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (CDP 09-07) to allow for the construction of the seawall (described below). This permit expired on May 16' 2009 due to failure to exercise and comply with the conditions of the permit. On June 10, 2009 the Planning Director issued another Emergency Coastal Development Permit (CDP 09-11) to allow the construction of the seawall. Pursuant to Section 21.201.190(E) of the o CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April?, 2010 Page 2 Carlsbad Municipal Code, the CDP was brought before the City Council on June 16, 2009 for consideration and the City Council determined they would not intervene in the matter, upholding the Planning Director's decision to issue the emergency permit. The wall was completed on or about September 18, 2009. The repair work, consisting of a sculpted, colored, and textured, reinforced shotcrete wall anchored in place with tiebacks, is to prevent the ongoing and progressive bluff failure. The base of the seawall follows the location of the base of the bluff so there is no loss of beach area. The seawall height ranges from 17 feet (25 feet above mean sea level) at the southern end to 21 feet (29 feet above mean sea level) at the northern end. The maximum wall height is 24 feet located 80 feet north of the southern end. The existing bluff top is 40 feet above mean sea level. Between the top of the seawall and the bluff top is a 1:1.5 fill slope. The slope is landscaped to prevent erosion. The site is adjacent to single family homes to the north, Carlsbad Blvd and single family homes beyond to the east and a concrete public access stairway from the bluff top to the beach and vacant State Lands to the south. The beach and Pacific Ocean are to the west of the site. The seawall and beach, landward of the mean high tide line, are owned by Mr. Goetz and Mr. Sylver. The stairway is located on Sylver's property with a public access easement for the use of the stairway by the public. Several alternative designs were analyzed for the stabilization of the coastal bluff. A rip rap revetment would reduce the lower bluff erosion; however, the rip rap would not reduce the effects of the ongoing upper bluff failures which pose a threat to occupants on the beach. The revetment would also require long term maintenance and take up a large portion of the useable beach area for the footprint of the revetment. Geobags are geotextile fabric bags filled with sand which could be placed and stacked similar to the rip rap revetment. However, this system is more temporary and would also take up a large portion of the useable beach area for the footprint of the structure. It would also have the same lack of coverage as the rip rap revetment and would not protect from future bluff failures. The shotcrete, tied-back structure that was implemented is regarded as the design that would provide the greatest amount of bluff protection and safety for the public, would not encroach onto the useable beach area, minimize visual impacts, and require the least maintenance over the life of the structure. Pursuant to Section 21.201.190 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Planning Director is authorized to issue an emergency CDP if an emergency exists that requires action more quickly than procedures for Minor or Regular CDPs to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services and the proposed emergency CDP is consistent with the provisions of the City's Local Coastal Program (Mello II). Emergency CDPs are considered temporary permits and are conditioned to require the application for a follow-up Regular CDP. The Regular CDP is required to permanently authorize the construction of the seawall. The site is located within the appeal area of the Mello II Segment of the Coastal Zone, and any final decision of the City of Carlsbad on this Regular CDP is appealable to or by the California Coastal Commission. The City previously filed a Notice of Final Action with the California Coastal Commission on April 16, 2009 and June 16, 2009 for the issuance of the emergency CDP. The project requires a Special Use Permit because the project site is located within Zones VE and AE of the Special Flood Hazard Area as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Zone AE CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April?, 2010 Page 3 includes areas subject to 100 year flood inundation with a base flood elevation of nine feet. Zone VE areas are subject to coastal flooding with a velocity hazard (wave action). The existing single family homes located on the project site were constructed in late 2002 and 2003 (CDP 01-11 and CDP 01-13). IV. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed within the following section of this staff report: A. General Plan Land Use Element -Residential Low Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use Designation; B. One-Family Residential (R-l) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.10); C. Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); D. Coastal Development Permit Regulations for the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP) Segment, the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, and the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapters 21.201, 21.203, and 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance); E. Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (Chapter 21.210 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and F. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 3). The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project's compliance with each of the above regulations and policies is discussed in detail in the sections below. A. General Plan The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density). The seawall project does not change the area of property or the density of the project site which was previously found to be consistent with the General Plan. The seawall project is also not subject to specific goals, objectives or action programs of the Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Housing, Parks and Recreation, or Arts elements of the General Plan. The project complies with all the remaining applicable elements of the General Plan as described in Table A below: CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April?, 2010 Page 4 TABLE A - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY Public Safety Require a Special Use Permit for all development within the 100 year flood plain. Require installation of protective structures or other design measures to protect proposed buildings and development sites from the effects of flooding or wave action. The project applicant is processing a Floodplain SUP. The seawall does not change the flood water elevations or negatively impact other properties. The seawall is designed to protect the subject property from tidal and wave action. The seawall will prevent future bluff failures to minimize injury, loss of life, and property damage. Yes Open Space & Conservation To preserve, protect and enhance those areas of the City that provide unique and special open space functions, including, but not limited to, cultural and visual amenities, active and passive recreational uses, landmarks, buffers between incompatible land uses, wildlife habitats, and unique and desirable vegetation. The seawall maintains public access to open space lands (public beaches) that are used for recreational uses. The seawall has been designed with sculpted, colored and textured reinforced shotcrete to emulate the appearance of a natural coastal bluff face to preserve the unique and special beach resource in the City. Yes Utilize Best Management Practices for control of storm water and to protect water quality. ^^^^^^ The project conforms to all NPDES requirements. Yes B. One-Family Residential (R-l) Zone The seawall is located in the rear yard area of the one-family residentially zoned project site. The seawall replicates the natural topography of the site and therefore does not need to adhere to structure setbacks or height requirements. C. Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) The seawall project site is located within the special flood hazard areas as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and requires the processing of a Special Use Permit. Zones VE (coastal tidal and wave action) and AE (flooding) are inundated by the 100 year flood with a base flood elevation of nine feet. The permit is to review the project for protection of public health, safety and welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flooding. CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April?, 2010 Page 5 With the construction of the seawall, remaining threats to public or private improvements from flooding on this property are minimized. Within Zone AE, a setback is required for all new development from the ocean or other water body to create a safety buffer. The existing residences are built upon land which is above the base flood elevation and are not subject to flooding. The existing residential structures were adequately setback from the coastal bluff top (45 feet), to account for bluff top retreat, for the useful life of the structures. Only the lower bluff portion of the property is subject to flood impacts. The seawall is designed to withstand wave action and will not be overtopped by a tsunami per the wave run-up study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. for the project. The purpose of the seawall is to protect persons on the beach from further bluff failures. D. Coastal Development Permit Regulations for the Mello II Local Coastal Program (LCP) Segment, the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, and the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapters 21.201, 21.203, and 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance) 1. Mello II LCP Segment The project site is located entirely within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is within the California Coastal Commission appeal jurisdiction. The site is also located within and subject to the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203), and the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The seawall does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of- way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. The seawall has been sculpted, textured, and colored to emulate the existing bluff colors and bluff topography. The seawall also has a varied wall height to further soften the visual effect of the seawall. No agricultural uses currently exist on the site or within the area. According to IGC, Incorporated, 1991, Geotechnical investigation and bluff retreat study, the subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act, nor are there any known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Liquefaction or seismically induced settlements are not considered a hazard. The report also states that there is no evidence of large ancient landslides existing on the subject site. The report does identify that several feet of coastal bluff-edge retreat could occur at one time or over a short period of time. 2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project adhered to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban run-off, pollutants, and soil erosion during project construction. The overlay zone is intended to protect sensitive resources. The construction of the seawall was in an area of steep coastal bluffs that did not support native vegetation. There was minor grading to remove material for the foundation of the seawall. All spoils were used for fill behind the seawall. There are no prime agricultural lands on or near the site. CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April 7, 2010 Page 6 3. Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone Seawalls and other such construction that may alter natural shoreline processes are conditionally permitted uses when required to protect public beaches from erosion. In this instance, the public beach is being protected from potential significant bluff failures depositing earthen material onto the beach (and thereby helping to maintain the shoreline as a unique recreational and scenic resource), promoting public safety, and avoiding the negative geologic and economic effects of significant bluff failures. Beach replenishment Chapter 21.204.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides and Section 30235 of the Coastal Act requires that the shoreline protection be designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Several adverse impacts to public resources have been 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 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. Generally speaking, this retreat is a natural process resulting from many different factors such as erosion by wave action and eventual collapse, saturation of the bluff soil from ground water causing the bluff to slough off, and natural bluff deterioration from wind and rain. When a seawall is constructed on the beach at the toe of the bluff, these natural processes may be impeded. 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 actively eroding shoreline (passive erosion); and 3) the amount of material which would have been supplied to the beach if the back beach or bluff were to erode naturally. The seawall, given its location in the back of a natural cove on private property, and further landward from adjacent natural bluff structures, will not have a significant impact on the longshore transport of sand, will not cause significant passive erosion, and it does not occupy public beach area. The seawall was built as far landward, parallel to and at the base of the existing coastal bluff, as possible to maintain the existing extent of the usable beach area and to continue to allow lateral beach access. There is no loss of beach as the wall was placed at the toe of the existing bluff. The seawall does not obstruct or interfere with the passage of people along the beach at any time, and as stated above it improves public safety. The existing beach area is and has been subject to tidal action and does not provide twenty-five feet of dry sandy beach at all times of the year. The project is not able to increase the extent of the beach to provide a permanent twenty-five feet of dry sandy beach as area does not exist within the cove for the creation of such a beach that would not be susceptible to wash and erosion from wave action. Public access to the bluff top and vertical beach access had previously been provided by the construction of the existing concrete stairway at the southern edge of the property. The previous development of the site has recorded an irrevocable offer of dedication (IOD) for lateral beach access. The eastern extent of the IOD CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April?, 2010 Page 7 begins at the base of the stairway and proceeds north, parallel to the bluff. There is area between the IOD and the base of the bluff/seawall which is not included in the IOD. Because there is no loss of beach area or access, there is no requirement for mitigation for public access or loss of recreational opportunities. 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 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. In the event the City of Carlsbad had a beach sand replenishment project, the City would request funds from the account to assist in the funding of a project, subject to approval by SANDAG and the California Coastal Commission and consistent with the Beach Sand Mitigation Fund qualifications. The project has been conditioned to make a contribution to a beach sand replenishment program that would address the sand volume impacts from the seawall and denial of sand to the littoral cell as discussed above. The applicants applied the calculations that the California Coastal Commission has used for the past decade to estimate mitigation for these impacts. 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 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 for the life of the seawall has been calculated to be approximately 823 cubic yards. At an estimated sand cost of $3.00 per cubic yard (provided by the applicant, and based on the rate of cost from the last regional sand replenishment program), this sand would have a value of $2,469.00. The project has been conditioned to require the applicants to deposit an in-lieu fee of $2,469.00 to SANDAG 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 75-year design life of the project. Provision for Maintenance Chapter 21.204.040 requires a provision for maintenance of any seawalls be included as a condition of approval. 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. Therefore, in order to find the proposed seawall consistent with the Coastal Act, the condition of CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April 7, 2010 PageS 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 City 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 City 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. Chapter 21.204.100, Site plan review criteria, in addition to 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. The seawall has been sculpted, textured and colored to create a generally attractive appearance which is compatible with the surrounding natural coastal bluff environment. The texture and sculpting of the seawall provides a roughness to blend the wall into the existing landscape as opposed to an otherwise flat retaining wall surface and appearance. The seawall incorporates natural colors to resemble the bluffs color and undulates to follow the toe of the existing bluff. The existing stairway is also colored an earthen tone. No ocean views from the nearest public street, Carlsbad Blvd, are biased as the top of the seawall is below the edge of the bluff top. There are no significant natural features to retain or incorporate into the seawall. A condition has been added that 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. The seawall 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 the applicable LCP requirements regarding geologic safety and protection from hazards as if the seawall does not exist. Future structures would be required to maintain the existing established 45-foot bluff top setback. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the seawall does not modify the public lateral access of the public beach. E. Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (Chapter 21.210 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code) The project site is located along the shore of the Pacific Ocean which is identified in the City of Carlsbad's HMP as developable. According to the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan, the project site is not located within a habitat core or linkage area. The project site is fully developed with structures and exotic landscapes with no native or sensitive habitats in the actual construction area. Overall, the project site does not support any high-quality biological resources, nor does the seawall project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or any provisions CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April 7, 2010 Page 9 of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. F. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 3). The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 3 in the northwest quadrant of the City. The seawall project does not have any impacts on public facilities. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The issuance of an emergency CDP for the construction of the seawall is exempt from CEQA review. CEQA does not apply to actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. Per CEQA, "emergency" includes such occurrences as fire, flood, earthquake, or other soil or geologic movements. The bluff failure and continued bluff failures constituted an emergency. The.city filed a Notice of Exemption for the emergency CDP project which was the construction of the seawall with the County of San Diego on June 22, 2009. The issuance of a follow-up regular Coastal Development Permit and Special Use Permit for the seawall, as required by the emergency CDP, is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA and does not require CEQA review. That is, the permit does not cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment as the construction of the seawall has already been completed under the emergency CDP and is not proposed to be changed with the issuance of the regular CDP. Comments were received from Tom Cook, Dustin Rosa, Todd Cardiff, representing Surfrider Foundation, and Coast Law Group representing the Coastal Environmental Rights Group. The California Coastal Commission was sent notification and no response was received. Comments were focused on the loss of beach sand, sand mitigation, public access, and the need for further environmental review. The loss of beach sand is not significant in the scope of the whole bluff erosion and beach nourishment process. The bluff is estimated to contribute .2% to the Oceanside Littoral Cell. The City of Carlsbad has conditioned the project to contribute to a beach sand replenishment program. Public recreational opportunities and access to the beach has not changed with the development of the seawall. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6677 (CDP) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6678 (SUP) 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Disclosure Statement 6. Exhibits "A - K" dated March 3,2010 (previously distributed). 7. Sand Mitigation Fee Calculation for Goetz Emergency Seawall, Geosils Inc, March 30, 2010 8. Axelson Corn letter RE: Sand Mitigation fee calculation dated March 30, 2010 9. Correspondence from Mr. Dean Goetz dated December 23, 2008. 10. Correspondence from Tom Cook, dated February 16-18, 2010. 11. Correspondence from Dustin Rosa, dated February 18, 2010. 12. Correspondence from Todd Cardiff, dated February 18, 2010 (w/o attachment, see below) 13. Correspondence from Todd Cardiff, dated February 27, 2010 (w/attachments) CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 - GOETZ SEAWALL April?, 2010 Page 10 14. Correspondence from Coast Law Group, dated March 2, 2010 (email attachment www.slc.ca.gov/reports/sea_level_report.pd) 15. Correspondence from Jeff Woolson, dated March 3, 2010. 16. Correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. Tindall, dated March 23, 2010 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6678 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 09-05 FOR THE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF A 97-FOOT LONG BY 17 TO 24-FOOT 5 TALL BLUFF-COLORED AND TEXTURED SEAWALL ALONG THE COASTAL BLUFF AND BELOW THE 6 RESIDENCES LOCATED AT 5323 AND 5327 CARLSBAD BLVD LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BLVD 7 AND NORTHERLY OF CEREZO DRIVE IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN 8 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3. 9 CASE NAME: GOETZ SEAWALL CASE NO.: SUP 09-05 10 WHEREAS, Dean and Barbara Goetz and Marshall Sylver, "Developers," and j2 "Owners," have filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property 13 described as 14 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 16 San Diego, April 13,1999 as file number 1999-0247276 17 ("the Property"); and 1 8 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Floodplain 19 Special Use Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "K" dated March 3, 2010, on file in the 20 Planning Department, GOETZ SEAWALL - SUP 09-05, as provided by Chapter 21.110 of the 21 Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 23 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 7, 2010, hold a duly noticed 24 public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 75 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 26 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 27 relating to the Floodplain Special Use Permit. 28 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 3 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 4 r B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES GOETZ SEAWALL - SUP 09-05, based on the following findings 6 and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 7 1. The site is reasonably safe from flooding in that there are no public or private improvements other than the seawall and stairway (SUP 96-07) which are located in 9 the coastal high hazard area and are designed to withstand high velocity waters, including coastal and tidal inundations and tsunamis. Fill material is not being used 10 as structural support of the seawall as the foundation of the seawall is anchored into bedrock (Tertiary Santiago Formation) and the top of the seawall is at an elevation of 23 feet above mean sea level (msl) and cannot be overtopped by wave action or 12 tsunamis as determined by analysis using the US Army Corps of Engineers Automated Coastal Engineering System. 13 2. The proposed project does not create a hazard for adjacent properties or structures as 14 there are no improvements, other than the public access stairway which has been designed to withstand high velocity waters in the flood hazard area, and the seawall does not increase the base flood elevation. The adjacent properties have a more 16 exposed and elevated Tertiary Santiago Formation which better protects the coastal bluffs from erosion. 17 3. That the seawall will protect human life by protecting beachgoers from future bluff failures. 19 4. The bottom of the seawall is located at an elevation of 7.69 feet above msl and is 20 landward of the reach of the mean high tide which is 5.36 feet msl. The base flood elevation is 9 feet msl. 21 5. The proposed project does not reduce the ability of the site to pass or handle a base flood of 100-year frequency in that the seawall replaces the existing bluff and will not affect 23 the base flood elevation and the proposed project taken together with all the other known, proposed, and anticipated projects will not increase the water surface elevation of 24 the base flood more than one foot at any point. 6. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer 26 contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the 27 degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 28 ... PC RESO NO. 6678 -2- Conditions; 2 If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be 3 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all <- future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the 6 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer 7 or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Special Use Permit. o 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the CDP 09-13 and is subject to all 9 conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6677 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. 10 3. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Special Use Permit document(s) necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, 13 different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 14 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with 17 all requirements of law. 18 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 2Q and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit, (b) City's 21 approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation 22 and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been 24 concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6678 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on April 7, 2010 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Douglas, Commissioners Baker, L'Heureux and Nygaard Commissioner Dominguez Commissioner Montgomery and Schumacher FARE7EfrSJ}OUGLAS, Cfcaiqtfrson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6678 -4- SITEMAP NOT TO SCALE Goetz Seawall CDP 09-13/SUP 09-05 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO:CDP09-13/SUP 09-05 CASE NAME: GOETZ SEAWALL APPLICANT: Dean Goetz and Marshall Sylver REQUEST AND LOCATION: 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 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 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. APN: 210-120-33-and 34 Acres: 1.01 (for both lots) Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: Residential Low-Medium (RLM) Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A Density Allowed: 3.2 Existing Zone: R-l-7,500 Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Zoning Site R-l-7,500 North R-l-7,500 South OS East R-l-7,500 West OS Density Proposed: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A Land Use: General Plan RLM/OS RLM/OS OS RLM OS Current Land Use Single family home Single family home Open Space (State of CA) Single family home Pacific Ocean LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Coastal Zone: [XI Yes I I No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II Within Appeal Jurisdiction: [XI Yes | | No Coastal Development Permit: [X] Yes Local Coastal Program Amendment: | | Yes [X] No Existing LCP Land Use Designation: RLM/OS Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A Existing LCP Zone: R-l Proposed LCP Zone: N/A No Revised 01/06 PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Categorical Exemption, 15269 Emergency exemption for seawall construction. Negative Declaration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other: Emergency Revised 01/06 City of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Planning Department Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Councjl or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide'the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial Interest in the application. If the applicant Includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses1 of all Individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPL'ICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation. Include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person jQ eg. vy C-yfrfe-t^- Corp/Part ; ' Title Ou.iie/f Title Address *T3a3 cA&ur/a/^ 0M- Address 2. OWNER (No.t the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership1 interest In the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants In common, non-profit, corporation, etc,). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVfDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Tit!e_£u»aed Title 6~33? Address 5"?23 C^AJ-S 6^-0 &\\JO Address OW-yAd-g L Of 1635 Faraday Avsnue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-731') » (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 ' www.ci.csrlsbad.ca',us 3.NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST jf any person identified pursuant to (1} or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non ProfitfTrust Title Non Profit/Trust Title Address Address 4.Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees 3nd/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes jXj No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE; Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signalie ofowner/date Signature of appficanffiate ' Print or type name of owner 1^^-C Print or type name of applicant onwnerM ppiicant's agent if applicable/date V Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\D[SCIOSUR6 STATEMENT 12/06 Page 2 of 2 DEANA.GOETZ K ATTORNEY AT LAW THE OCEAN BUILDING 603 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY 101 SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 481-8844 Fax (858) 481-2139 EMAIL: dgoetzl2@gmail.com December 23,2008 City of Carlsbad Building Department Attention: Planning Director, Don Neu 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Bluff Collapse at 5323 Carlsbad Blvd Dear Mr. Neu: • Y , v I am addressing this letter to you since we have discussed this matter on the telephone. I am sending a copy of the letter to all of the persons listed below. If this matter should be handled , by someone other than yourself, please advise. The purpose of this letter is to provide important public safety information and to ask for guidance and help from the City of Carlsbad. My wife, Barbara, and I are the owners of the property located at 5323 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, CA. I am also representing Marshall Sylver who owns the adjacent property located at 5327 Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad, CA., on this matter. On December 19 or 20th a portion of our bluff collapsed. I estimate that a section of earth about 4-6 feet deep and 40-50 feet wide and 35-40 feet high collapsed onto the beach. If anyone had been standing, sitting or walking below the bluff at that time, they would have probably been killed. I have photos of the fallen earth for you to view, if you are interested. Also, you could go down to the beach and see ij for yourself. I think it is indisputable that this collapse of the bluff would have killed or seriously injured anyone who may have been walking, sunbathing or just relaxing below the bluff. Fortunately, no one was below the bluff when it collapsed so no one was injured. r Mr. Don Neu Planning Director City of Carlsbad December 23,2008 Page 2 Mr. Sylver's adjacent bluff looks very much like mine looked before it collapsed. Therefore, there is reason to believe that his bluff may soon collapse in a similar manner and that our bluff may collapse even further. I have contacted David Skelly, a California bluff expert, civil engineer and oceanographer, regarding this matter. He has inspected the property and informed us that the bluffs on our property could collapse at any time. This is a public safety issue which we believe must be addressed on an emergency basis. Some steps heed to be taken to insure the safety of the people who use this beach. We have discussed public safety solutions with Mr. Skelly and we are willing, able and prepared to immediately engage in a bluff stabilization and reconstruction project to ensure that the people using the beach on our property will be safe. We are willing to do this even though it will be extremely expensive because we do not want any one to be injured or killed because our bluffs collapsed. We are willing to take the expensive steps that are necessary to allow people to be able to continue to safely use this beach area without the fear and real danger of having the bluff collapse on top of them. We are prepared to immediately begin construction of a bluff stabilizer which will prevent any further bluff collapses which endanger the lives of beach users. We will thereby provide for a safe use of the beach by the public. We are in the process of preparing the plans for a bluff stabilizer which we will submit as required by the City of Carlsbad. We are asking for the City of Carlsbad to expedite our permit application so that this bluff stabilizer can be constructed before someone gets injured or.killed. I would like to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to submit our preliminary plans to the appropriate City planners or engineers for preliminary discussion and approval. Please call me and let me know when we can have this meeting. I will make myself available to fit your schedule.- We v/odld 3ikc to subrriitxjur plans and obtain approval in the shortest possible time. Hopefully, this matter can be given an emergency priority and can be approved within a few weeks. We believe time is of the essence since lives are at stake. In the meantime we are asking for guidance, direction and support from the City regarding how this dangerous situation should be handled. We are going to obtain additional warning signs and place them at the staircase and in other areas around the bluff. However, it has been our experience that beach users tear down almost every sign we erect. •j We would like your input on what should be done and what we can do without violating any easements or good will. We don't want to close the staircase. However, does the City think it would be appropriate in light of the dangerous situation? Would it be appropriate to close access to the entire cove area and place warning barricades at the dangerous bluff area? Mr. Don Neu Planning Director City of Carlsbad December 23,2008 Page3 We are not empowered to take any of these steps but the City of Carlsbad can do so. We do not want to act without proper authority so we need your guidance, direction and approval. Please advise us in this regard as soon as possible. We will not proceed with anything other than additional sign placement until we hear from you and are empowered to act by you. I look forward to your response and the rapid approval of our construction of the bluff stabilizer which will once again make this a safe beach. Thank you for your anticipated'"review of this urgent matter of public safety. We look forward to meeting with the City officials to solve this public safety problem as soon as possible. Your assistance will be appreciated. Best regards, oetz DAG/km cc: Ronald Ball, City Attorney Bud Lewis, Mayor Ann Kulchin, City Council Matt Hall, City Council Mark Packard, City Council Keith Blackburn, City Council Bob Johnson, City Engineer \\Deans-computer\dean's files\Lawofc\DAG\BeachHouse\Sea Wall\letters\city carls 12 2208.wpd >> Original Message » From: tom.m.cook@gmail.com [mailto:tom.m.cook@gmail.com] On Behalf Of » torn cook » Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:52 AM » To: Van Lynch » Subject: Geotz Seawall Comments » » Mr Lynch: » » I would like to comment negative declaration of the Geotz Seawall. » First, since I have not commented to you or the City of Carlsbad, my » name is Tom Cook, I work as a programmer/analyst at Scripps » Institution of Oceanography, with a group that does coastal » oceanographic research called the Coastal Observing Research and » Development Center. I received a MS in Physical Oceanography from » University of Miami, which focused on coastal oceanographic » processes, and I've been working in the field of coastal oceanography » for over 10 years. I can provide my CV if you.need. » » Public funds have been going towards maintaining beach width for » years. This has been deemed a necessity by coastal municipalities and » the state of California for economic health. It is inconsistent for » the municipalities, like Carlsbad, to accept public funds for » projects to widen the coast, but then allow the wishes of a private » party to stop a major component of the beach making process by » allowing the construction of another seawall. Seawalls starve » adjacent beaches of the sediment they require to maintain the » existence of a beach, which is a major part of the Southern » California coast, and one that provides for the economic health of the region. » » In my opinion, the initial study ignores recent research which » supports the concept that erosion of coastal bluffs is a major » contributor to local beaches. Please see one example, "Coastal Bluffs » Provide More Sand To California Beaches Than Previously Believed" » (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051016085958.htm), » which describes recent research from UCSD which has quantified the » amount of beach sand that comes from coastal bluffs. As the title of » the article states, their research shows that the composition of » beach sand within the Oceanside littoral cell, is heavily consists of » sand from erosion of the bluffs. The researchers measured the erosion » of bluffs using state of the art instrumentation and techniques, » which was used to estimate the composition of beach sand from various » sources. Their results showed that bluff erosion provided 67% of the » sediment that was present on the beach in the Oceanside cell. This » estimate is greater than those found in previous studies, and is well » accepted within the scientific community. » » Another issue that was excluded from the Negative Declaration, is the » erosion caused by the seawall itself. This can be broken into two » categories, termed passive and active erosion. Active erosion refers » to an increase in erosion due to wave reflection from the seawall, » which may cause scour at the base of the seawall and to adjacent » beaches near the sides of the seawall. Active erosion is a » contentious issue, but it still warrants a mention in permitting these projects. » Passive erosion is found along actively eroding coastlines, which » applies to most of the California coast during this time of sea level » rise. As the water level increases, a beach in front of an unarmored » bluff will continue to exist due to the input of sediment from the » erosion of the cliffs. When you fix the bluff with a seawall, the the » increasing water level will cause the beach in front of the seawall » to disappear, while the adjacent shoreline will continue to move » landward. Therefore, this (and every) seawall will rob the seaward » beach of sediment. » » When you permit a seawall, you are allowing the wishes of the » property owner to supersede those of the common good. Given » increasing evidence of sea level rise and a municipality where it is » easy to obtain a seawall permit, you can easily imagine that the » coast will eventually turn into a long concrete wall, with little to » no possibility for public access and recreation. And most » importantly, no beaches can exist in this scenario. » » Please reconsider this declaration. » Sincerely, » Tom Cook » San Diego, CA Van Lynch From: Dustin Rosa [dustinrosa@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:56 PM To: Van Lynch Subject: RE: Negative Declaration for Goetz Seawall (Case No. CDP 09-13) Dear Mr. Van Lynch: As a concerned citizen and beach goer, I wanted to share the following comments regarding the Goetz Seawall in Carlsbad, California. This project is a significant nuisance to the natural environment and the countless beach goes who frequent Terramar Beach and therefore warrants the professional opinion of an Environmental Impact Report. Not only was the Goetz Seawall unnecessary, it has and will continue causing premature erosion of the cliffs and shoreline to the north and south. In fact, since the construction of the seawall, significant portions of bluff located directly to the north have either broken off or have been seriously weakened. If you visit the site, you will notice significant fractures/fault lines in the bluffs located directly to the north. This seawall is not intended to protect lives, it's true nature is to protect the two homes that sit on top and contribute to the premature erosion of adjacent beach areas. Both property owners (Geotz and Sylver) would like their fellow citizens to think that they are protecting beach goers, when in reality, they are simply trying to protect their own property from the ocean. They, themselves chose to live on a coastal bluff, therefore, they must be willing to live with the consequences of their decisions. Instead, the construction of this seawall has forever changed the natural environment and has negatively impacted nearby property owners and beach goers. For the reasons above, I urge you and the City of Carlsbad to not issue or adopt a Negative Declaration and instead, prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to thoroughly study the adverse effects of this project. Sincerely, Dustin Rosa 355 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 TODD T. CARDIFF,ESQ. ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 BROADWAY SUITE 358 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 T 619 546 5123 F 619 546 5133 cardifflaw@cox.net February 18,2010 Planning Department City of Carlsbad ATTN: Van Lynch 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov Delivered via first class mail and email CITY OF FEB 19 2010 IANK'JK'G DEPARTMENT RE: Geotz Seawall (CDP 09-13) Comments on Negative Declaration Dear Van Lynch, Thank you very much for your time and accepting these comments. I - am-a-member-of-the AdvisoryBoard-ofLthe-San-Diego-Chapter-of~the Surfrider Foundation. The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit, grassroots organization dedicated to the preservation of the world's ocean's waves and beaches. We have over 50,000 members in 90 chapters world-wide, including in Japan, Brazil, Australia and Europe. The San Diego Chapter is the largest and oldest chapter in the United States. First, we request the City of Carlsbad hold the comment period open for another twenty days. I was informed today that Dustin Rosa, one of the activists that opposed the project did not receive notice of the negative declaration/initial study. He was one of the original opponents of the emergency seawall permit and spoke at the City Council. His comments should be considered. In addition, I am informed and believe that the Coastal Commission has not had a chance to submit comments within the 20 day time frame, and has not been consulted regarding the impacts of this seawall. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.) Clearly, the Coastal Commission, which has appeal jurisdiction over the seawall, and has original jurisdiction to the south and below mean high-tide line, should have been consulted regarding the impacts the seawall would have on State's lands. Secondly, it appears that the initial study is deficient in its review of the significant impacts of seawalls. Seawalls eventually destroy beaches through a process called passive erosion. Passive erosion is defined as the loss of beach caused by fixing in place the back end of the beach on an eroding shoreline. The high tide continues to migrate landward, but the natural erosion of the bluff is stopped by the seawall. The dry sand area of the beach is squeezed and lost when the migrating high-tide intersects with the seawall. Eventually, as the beach continues to erode, there is no dry sand even at medium to low tides. This is especially disconcerting at the location of this project. The project is located just north of a public access stairway. The public will eventually lose access traveling north along the beach. While the seawall may not immediately block access, the eventual loss of the beach is a given, and will block off anything to the north of stairway. There is a significant impact on recreation. In addition to passive erosion, seawalls have "end effects" meaning that seawalls actually increase the erosion to the natural bluff at the end of the seawall. There is nothing in the initial study which describes these end effects and how it proposes to mitigate such effects. I also note that there is nothing in the initial study which describes the -mitigatiQn-for.theJoss of sand that would norrnally^te^ontributed to the beach through erosion. However, it should be noted that all the current sand mitigation programs are not effective in mitigating the loss of beach. First, the SANDAG mitigation program is not guaranteed to put sand at the project site. In addition, such massive sand replenishment project cost 17 million dollars and was only effective at widening the beach for five years. This seawall must consider the impacts over the life of the structure. Finally, as indicated in my earlier correspondence, a cumulative analysis of the impacts caused by seawalls should be conducted. The loss of sand, beach access and wildlife habitat is significant. It is very important for the City to prepare an EIR to determine whether the risks to the beachgoers is so great that they wish to approve a seawall (as opposed to one of the many alternatives) that will destroy the beach. To aid in your analysis of potential impacts, I have attached a law review article published in 2007 by Meg Caldwell and Crag Segall in Ecology Law Quarterly. Meg Caldwell was chair of the California Coastal Commission and director of the Natural Resources Law and Policy Program at Stanford Law School. Please consider her analysis of seawalls. Sincerely, Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. GeoSoils Inc. March 30, 2010 Mr. Dean Goetz Mr. Marshall Sylver 5323 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad, CA 92108 SUBJECT: Sand Mitigation Fee Calculation for Goetz Emergency Sea Wall, City of Carlsbad CDP 09-11 Dear Mr. Goetz and Mr. Sylver: At your request, GeoSoils Inc (GSI) is pleased to provide the foregoing sand mitigation fee ("SMF") calculation for seawall installed in front of 5323 and 5327 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, CA. This calculation uses the guideline formula that has been employed by the California Coastal Commission for recent seawall projects in Solana Beach and Encinitas, California. Unlike those projects, because your seawall is located. entirely on private property and significantly landward of both the mean high tide line and the high water mark, there is some question about the applicability of this formula in this case. That being said, my assignment is merely to describe the formula, place a value on its many variables, • and to undertake the math required to derive a dollar amount. We have done that here. I. The SMF Formula The California Coastal Commission employs the following formula as its guideline for determination of the SMF for seawall projects in Southern California: Sand Mitigation Fee = Sand Cost x Vt Sand Cost is the 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. Vt is the sum of Vb, Vw, and Ve as further described below. Vt = Vb +VW +Ve 5747 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad, CA 92010 wo s-eou 760-438-3155 GeoSoils Inc. Vb is the amount of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if natural erosion continued, or the long-term reduction in the supply of bluff material to the beach, over the life of the structure; based on the long-term average retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards). Vb = (S x W x L] x [(R x hs) + (l/2hu x (R + (Rcu - Rcs)))]/27. Vw is the volume of sand to rebuild the area of beach lost due to long-term erosion (Vw) of the beach and near-shore, resulting in stabilization of the bluff face and prevention of landward migration of the beach profile; based on the long-term regional bluff retreat rate, and beach and near shore profiles (cubic yards). Vw = Aw x v Ve is the volume of sand to rebuild the area of beach lost due to encroachment by the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and near shore profiles (cubic yards). Ve = Ae x v LEGEND S Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on analysis of bluff material to be provided by the applicant. W Width of the property to be armored (ft). L The length of time the back beach or bluff will be fixed or the design life of the armoring without maintenance (yr.). For repair and maintenance projects, the design life should be an estimate of the additional length of time the proposed maintenance will allow the seawall to remain without further repair or replacement. R The retreat rate which must be based on historic erosion, erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other acceptable techniques and documented by the applicant. The retreat rate should be the same as the predicted retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline armoring. hs Height of seawall from base of bluff to the top, in feet. hu Height of unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the Bluff Retention Device to the crest of the bluff, in feet. 574? Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad, CA 92010 wos-eou 760-438-3155 GeoSoils Inc. Rcu Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period that the seawall would be in place, in feet per year, assuming no seawall were installed. This value can be assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant provides site-specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. Res Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, in feet per year, during the period that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been installed. This value will be assumed to be zero unless the applicant provides site-specific geotechnical information supporting a different value. v Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the Bluff Retention Device; 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 feet of retreat). The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square foot of beach. 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 years/square foot (40 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot/27 cubic feet per cubic yard). If the vertical distance for a reversible sand movement is less than 40 feet, the value of v would be less than 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value of v will vary from one coastal region to another. A value of 0.9 cubic yards per square foot has been suggested for the Oceanside Littoral Cell (Oceanside Littoral Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report, December 1997, prepared as part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Wave Study). Aw The area of beach lost due to long-term erosion is equal to the long- term average annual erosion rate (R) times the number of years that the bluff will be fixed (L) times the width of the property that will be protected (W), in feet per year, and determined by the following formula: Aw = RxLxW Ae The encroachment area of the Bluff Retention Device which is equal to the width of the Bluff Retention Device (W) times its seaward encroachment (E) and is determined by the following formula: Ae = W xE. E Encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the bluff or back beach to the seaward limit of the protection (ft.) 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad, CA 92010 wos-6014 760-438-3155 GeoSoils Inc. II. Application of SMF Formula to the Goetz Seawall Project The values for each of the SMF formula variables are set forth below, along with an explanation. Variable Value Discussion 65/100 The bluff is composed of two distinct soil materials. The lower few feet of the wall is Santiago Formation and the upper ~30 feet is Quaternary Terrace deposits. Samples of each of these materials were taken and analyzed for the percent sand. The Santiago Formation is primarily clay with about 30% sand. The Quaternary Terrace deposits are primarily sands with about 75% sand content. Using a weighted average across the bluff, the area of the relevant area of the bluff is approximately has a percent sand of 65%. W 85 feet The width of the property (bluff) armored is 85 feet, based upon survey data. The actual length of the seawall is longer because it is not straight but aesthetically curved to follow the natural bluff line. 75 years From an engineering perspective, and based on the training and experience of the undersigned, the design life without maintenance for this seawall is estimated to be 25 years. With reasonable maintenance, however, the seawall can last up to 75 years. R 0.16ft/yr The long-term bluff retreat rate is determined by looking at the changes in the bluff at the two subject properties, retreat rates on nearby properties, and the referenced 2006 United States Geological Survey (USGS) report. Retreat rates reported in site-specific geotechnical investigations (circa 1991) on nearby properties to the north range from 0.22 ft/yr to 0.4 ft/yr. These retreat rates were used to establish the bluff top setback requirement for new development at those properties. By contrast, however, the USGS report is a recent comprehensive report that covers the coast of California and specifically this location using survey data from as early as the 1890s through the present time. The USGS report shows that this particular section of bluff has not retreated over the last 115 years. This stability relative to other seacliffs in 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad, CA 92010 wo s-eou 760-438-3155 GeoSoils Inc. hs hu RCU Res V Ae E Sand Cost 22 feet 11.5 feet 0.16ft/yr 0 0 0 0 $3/yd3 North San Diego County is likely due to the fact that this section is at the back of cove and significantly landward of both the mean high tide line and the high water mark. Figure 1 shows the USGS summary data plots and the location of the subject seawall. , That being said, the bluff did fail in December 2008 prompting the emergency repairs. Using the USGS bluff retreat rate of 0 feet over the period from 1890 to 2006 along with the approximate 6 feet of retreat from the well documented failure in 2008, the actual retreat rate is calculated to be 6 ft over 120 years. This translates to an average annual retreat rate of 0.05 feet. That being said, the Coastal Commission has used 0.27 feet per year for other recent projects. Although dissimilar to these projects, to be conservative, we have chosen the midway point between the actual rate (0.05) and the Commission's number (0.27) to come up with 0.16 as the annual retreat rate for this site. The average height is based on direct measurements. This is taken from a direct measurement. This value is always assumed to be the same as R unless the applicant can demonstrate otherwise. This value is always assumed to be zero unless the applicant can demonstrate otherwise. This variable is not applicable in this case because the seawall is entirely on private property, and will likely remain so for the duration of its 75-year design life. This variable is not applicable in this case because the seawall is entirely on private property. That is to say there is no encroachment. This variable is not applicable in this case because the seawall is entirely on private property. That is to say there is no encroachment. Sand replenishment projects occur only a large-scale (i.e., in excess of 100,000 cubic yards), regional basis where sand is obtained through offshore dredging methods and deposited 574? Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad, CA 92010 wo s-6014 760-438-3155 GeoSoils Inc. on the beach. To be effective, sand replenishment projects must be done a large scale as small deposits are more easily subject to erosion from wave action, wind, and rain. SANDAG's 2001 sand replenishment project utilized this methodology and put a massive volume of sand on the beach for approximately $2.10 per cubic yard. If performed today, this cost would likely be $3.00 per cubic yard. III. Calculation Vb = (SxWxL)x[(Rxhs) + (l/2hux(R+(Rcu-Rcs)))]/27 = 823 yds3 Ve =Aexv =WxExv = 0 yds3 Vw = Awxv =RxLxWxv = 0 yds3 W = Vb + Ve + Vw Sand Mitigation Fee = Vt x Sand Cost, or 823 x $3 = 823 yds3 = $2,469. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. David W. Skelly MS, PE RCE#47857 Reference USGS 2006 "National Assessment of Shoreline Change Part 3: Historical Shoreline Change and Associated Coastal Land Loss Along Sandy Shorelines of the California Coast", Open File Report 2006-1219 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad, CA 92010 wos-6014 760-438-3155 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF A PORTION OF PARCELS Z & 3 OF PM 18236 AND POINSETTIA BEACH, UNIT /, MAP NO. 3697 USING USES MKAS LOWER LOW WATER DATUM PROFILE-PARCa 2 = 2,75 FEET (0.839 METERS)= 2.73 FEET 10.833 MEIERS= 129 FEET [0.700 MEIERS)""0 FEET (0.276 METERS Pft DC098E VM: 1641SKJKXf C: 9OQ23O EPOCH 1963-2001 DATE: JULY I. 2009 ItVAVtW =• DIB FEFT (0057 MEIERS)= =HtLlW = 0.00 FEET (0.000 METERS) UKIW= WEAK HIGHER HIGH WATER MHW= KAN HIGH WATER MTL= MEAN IBF LEVELMSL= MEAN SEA LEVEL NGVD29= NAT CEO VERT DATUM 1929 KLW- MEAN LOW WATER NftVD8B= HRTH. WER. VERT. DATUN 198 ULLfN MEAN LOKCK LOW WATER SURVEYOR'S NOTE: THE WRflCAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY IS MUW. THE BENCH MARK USED IS PUBUSrtD WIIH H HGVD 29 ElfVATION OF GDJD. USHG THE TABU SHOWN. 129' WAS ADDED TO THE NGVD 29 EL£VATON TO CONVERT TO MUW DATUU E 6D.7ff 1- 2.29' = eiSg1 BASIS OF BSAROKS: IHE BASG OF BEARING FDR MS SURVEY IS TE LHE EOKEEN fW RECOH) «" SURWY •"• 17271 199019477900 6231466.04600 60.700 1989695.30400 6233760.66100 74.150 POWT 137 PER RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 17271. FOUND BRASS CAP STAMPED CL5B-137 LS 6215 IN CENTER OF TURN AROUND OROI, SOUTH BOUND CARLSBAD BLVD. , IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE JUNCTION NTH PALOUAR AIRPORT ROAD. a= 60.700 NGVD 29 EL= 6Z99 «U# (SEE SURVEYOR' NOTE) PREPARED FOR:GEO SOILS KC. 5741 PALHEH WAY. SUITES CAD CARLSBAD. CA. 92010 MELCHOR LAND SURVEYING NC. 5731 PALHER WAY, SUITE G CARLSBAD, CA. 92010 750-438-1726 •Ttl PALMEH WAT. SWTB Q U8. WH AXELSON CORN 1220 N. COAST HIGHWAY 101, SUITE 120 Encinitas, CA 92024 760-271-2600 (VOICE) • 760-454-1886 (FAX) March 30, 2010 Van Lynch City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Goetz Seawall, CDP 09-13, SUP 09-05 Dear Mr. Lynch: We represent Dean Goetz and Marshall Sylver with respect to the above-referenced project. Per the City's request, the engineer of record, David Skelly, MS, PE of GeoSoils, Inc., has calculated a sand mitigation fee, using the Coastal Commission's sand mitigation fee guideline formula. The sand mitigation fee formula and Mr. Skelly's calculations are described in his letter of even date. Based on this formula, the sand mitigation fee has been calculated to be $2,469. This does not include a credit for the approximately 150 cubic yards that fell to the beach in December 2008. However, the applicants respectfully reserve the right to include that in the total calculation at a later time if the circumstances deem that necessary. For the record, the applicants oppose the imposition of any sand mitigation fee on this project for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that the project is entirely on private property and the theorized impacts, if any, are merely to their own land. Unlike other cases where the beach and bluff are publicly owned, the applicants here not only own the bluff, they own the beach all the way to the mean high tide line. Accordingly, they should not be required to compensate the public for the value of property "it had no right to appropriate without payment." Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4* 854, 883. The seawall merely retains the applicants' private property, including the sand contained within the bluff. The public does not have a right to this sand merely because this sand might gradually find its way onto their privately owned beach. Secondly, this fee, as calculated using the Commission's formula, requires an upfront payment for the total cost of all sand within the privately-owned bluff even though under natural conditions the sand would meter out of the bluff on an incremental basis. For this reason, the fee should either be discounted for present value or amortized over the life of the wall or permit, whichever is less. If you choose to discount the fee for present value, I believe that can be worked out between the applicants and City staff after the Planning Commission hearing with the Planning Commission's approval. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Corn Van Lynch From: tom.m.cook@gmail.com on behalf of torn cook [tcook@mpl.ucsd.edu] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 4:41 PM To: Van Lynch Subject: Re: FW: Geotz Seawall Comments Thanks for that info. Is this .at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive 6pm? On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Van Lynch <Van.Lynch@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: > Mr. Cook, The Negative Declaration will be considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission scheduled on March 3, 2010. > > Sincerely, > > Van Lynch > > Original Message > From: tom.m.cook@gmail.com [mailto:tom.m.cook@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > torn cook > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:22 PM > To: Van Lynch > Subject: Re: FW: Geotz Seawall Comments > > Mr Lynch, > Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I appreciate the opportunity to > comment on this project. I'm still hoping you reconsider the negative > declaration, as seawalls interrupt natural processes mandatory to > maintain beaches, even if it is a small contribution relative to the > cell as a whole. > Regards, > Tom Cook > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Van Lynch <Van.Lynch@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: » Mr. Cook, The discussion seems to be the coastal process and the relationship sand has on the bluff erosion process. The project CEQA analysis comes, down to whether or not the bluff erosion contribution to the littoral cell (environment) is significant or cumulatively significant or not in terms of CEQA. The project is not armoring an extensive section of coast, but 94 feet of coastal bluff and the analysis is that if that change or impact on the environment is significant or not. The seawall does inhibit the input of sand into the system, but at a rate or quantity that would not be considered significant (from my understanding of the information provided - and I'm not a coastal process expert by any means). 150 Cubic yards was estimated as the last mass wasting event and does not compare (in terms of CEQA significance) to 86,006 cubic meters per year (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cz/2007/Coastal_Zone_07_Proceedings/PDFs/Poster_Abstracts/3150.Chena ult%20Grandy.pdf) or .2% (with cubic meter being larger than cubic yard and I did not convert). There is also not set a level of significance by which to determine significance as there is for other environmental factors. Carlsbad has put in place programs (opportunistic sand replenishment program) by which to add sand to the beach where opportunities arise from other development projects which mitigates the loss of sand through other means or natural processes. This program is to my knowledge is not meant to mitigate for other losses, but to take advantage of opportunities to secure material that qualifies for beach material when available. Sandag also has a sand replenishment program which is probably the replenishment referenced in the study above and supplies much more sand. 1» Thank you for the references', its interesting reading and hej.>>s me to understand the sand transport processes. » » Sincerely, » » Van Lynch » » ----- Original Message ----- » From: tom.m.cook@gmail.com [mailto:tom.m.cook@gmail.com] On Behalf Of » torn cook » Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:51 PM » To: Van Lynch » Subject: Re: Geotz Seawall Comments » » Mr Lynch, » I thank you for the quick reply to my comments. I do have a couple of » comments regarding the engineer's reply. » » I would like to ask the engineer to clear up my misunderstanding of » his comment on bluff erosion and its contribution to sediment within » the Oceanside cell. At first, the engineer states that bluff erosion » (I think he means the sediment contribution due to bluff erosion) has » increased in recent years, but then states there is little or no » contribution from bluffs (erosion). In my opinion, this statement is » based on conjecture and not actual studies or research. If his point » is that some years don't have an input of sediment due to bluff » erosion, then I'd like to point out that dry years have little to no » input of sediment from rivers. This is- the case regardless .of damming » of rivers, and part of what is accepted as "natural processes". » » Additionally, I'd like to point out recent work from Carla Chenault » Grandy and Gary Griggs from the University of California, Santa Cruz, » who show that due to beach nourishment, the average amount of » sediment within the Oceanside cell, is higher now than it was before » river damming occurred. Given this, I believe it is valid to make the » claim that the contribution of bluff erosion has not increased due to » the damming of rivers and coastal landscaping, as sediment input due » to beach nourishment offsets that removed from the system by dams. » » Please see: » http : //www. esc . noaa . gov/cz/2007/Coastal_Zone_07_Proceedings/PDFs/Post » er_Abstracts/3150.Chenault%20Grandy.pdf » » Regards, » Tom Cook » » On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Van Lynch <Van.Lynch@carlsbadca.gov> wrote: >» Mr. Cook, The below is in response to your email regarding the Goetz Seawall project posting of the Negative Declaration. This response is mostly from the applicants consultant engineer. »> The contribution of littoral material due to bluff erosion will vary with changing beach width and wave energy. Bluff erosion has increased over the years as a result of damming of rivers and the hard-scape/landscape of bare land. In some years little if any bluff erosion occurs and therefore there is little or no contribution from bluffs. >» The location of this seawail is at the back of the beach above the highest water elevation (USACOE jurisdiction). The wall is also entirely on private property. The bluff did substantially erode in December 2008 which led to the seawall construction. It should be noted that the primary emergency was to protect the beach going public. This immediate area is highly used by the public due to access and usable beach at most stages of the tide. >» In terms of active erosion., the seawall is a hard vertical structure just like the bluff. The wall will mechanically act like the bluff. In terms of passive erosion, it should be noted that the section of shoreline only has a thin veneer of sand which overlays cobbles and a wave cut platform. The cobbles and wave cut platform do not erode like beach sands, so the concept of passive erosion does not play as large a role as one may think. Also the location of the wall at the very back of the beach, over 50 feet back from the bluff line on the properties to the north and the State Park to the south. Please see attached photo taken after the latest large storm event. The photo does not show any signs of scour and you can see how the wall ties into the adjacent very resistant bluff base. >» Sincerely, >» >» Van Lynch >» ----- Original Message ----- >» From: tom.m.cook@gmail.com [mailto:tom.m.cook@gmail.com] On Behalf >» Of torn cook >» Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:52 AM >» To: Van Lynch >» Subject: Geotz Seawall Comments >» Mr Lynch: >» I would like to comment negative declaration of the Geotz Seawall. >» First, since I have not commented to you or the City of Carlsbad, my >» name is Tom Cook, I work as a programmer/analyst at Scripps >» Institution of Oceanography, with a group that does coastal >» oceanographic research called the Coastal Observing Research and >» Development Center. I received a MS in Physical Oceanography from >» University of Miami, which focused on coastal oceanographic >» processes, and I've been working in the field of coastal >» oceanography for over 10 years. I can provide my CV if you need. »> Public funds have been going towards maintaining beach width for >» years. This has been deemed a necessity by coastal municipalities >» and the state of California for economic health. It is inconsistent >» for the municipalities, like Carlsbad, to accept public funds for »> projects to widen the coast, but then allow the wishes of a private »> party to stop a major component of the beach making process by >» allowing the construction of another seawall. Seawalls starve >» adjacent beaches of the sediment they require to maintain the >» existence of a beach, which is a major part of the Southern >» California coast, and one that provides for the economic health of the region. >» In my opinion, the initial study ignores recent research which >» supports the concept that erosion of coastal bluffs is a major »> contributor to local beaches. Please see one example, "Coastal >» Bluffs Provide More Sand To California Beaches Than Previously >» Believed" >» (http : //www. sciencedaily . com/ releases/2005/10/051016085958 . htm) , >» which describes recent research from UCSD which has quantified the — N - ~"^v >» amount of beach sand that comes from coastal bluffs. As the title of >» the article stateSj their research shows that the composition of »> beach sand within the Oceanside littoral cell, is heavily consists >» of sand from erosion of the bluffs. The researchers measured the >» erosion of bluffs using state of the art instrumentation and >» techniques, which was used to estimate the composition of beach sand >» from various sources. Their results showed that bluff erosion »> provided 67% of the sediment that was present on the beach in the >» Oceanside cell. This estimate is greater than those found in >» previous studies, and is well accepted within the scientific community. >» Another issue that .was excluded from the Negative Declaration, is >» the erosion caused by the seawall itself. This can be broken into >» two categories, termed passive and active erosion. Active erosion >» refers to an increase in erosion due to wave reflection from the >» seawall, which may cause scour at the base of the seawall and to >» adjacent beaches near the sides of the seawall. Active erosion is a >» contentious issue, but it still warrants a mention in permitting these projects. >» Passive erosion is found along actively eroding coastlines, which >» applies to most of the California coast during this time of sea >» level rise. As the water level increases, a beach in front of an >» unarmored bluff will continue to exist due to the input of sediment »> from the erosion of the cliffs. When you fix the bluff with a >» seawall, the the increasing water level will cause the beach in >» front of the seawall to disappear, while the adjacent shoreline will >» continue to move landward. Therefore, this (and every) seawall will >» rob the seaward beach of sediment. >» When you permit a seawall, you are allowing the wishes of the >» property owner to supersede those of the common good. Given >» increasing evidence of sea level rise and a municipality where it is >» easy to obtain a seawall permit, you can easily imagine that the >» coast will eventually turn into a long concrete wall, with little to >» no possibility for public access and recreation. And most »> importantly, no beaches can exist in this scenario. >» Please reconsider this declaration. >» Sincerely, >» Tom Cook >» San Diego, CA Van Lynch From: Dustin Rosa [dustinrosa@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:56 PM To: Van Lynch Subject: RE: Negative Declaration for Goetz Seawall (Case No. CDP 09-13) Dear Mr. Van Lynch: As a concerned citizen and beach goer, I wanted to share the following comments regarding the Goetz Seawall in Carlsbad, California. This project is a significant nuisance to the natural environment and the countless beach goes who frequent Terramar Beach and therefore warrants the professional opinion of an Environmental Impact Report. Not only was the Goetz Seawall unnecessary, it has and will continue causing premature erosion of the cliffs and shoreline to the north and south. In fact, since the construction of the seawall, significant portions of bluff located directly to the north have either broken off or have been seriously weakened. If you visit the site, you will notice significant fractures/fault lines in the bluffs located directly to the north. This seawall is not intended to protect lives, it's true nature is to protect the two homes that sit on top and contribute to the premature erosion of adjacent beach areas. Both property owners (Geotz and Sylver) would like their fellow citizens to think that they are protecting beach goers, when in reality, they are simply trying to protect their own property from the ocean. They, themselves chose to live on a coastal bluff, therefore, they must be willing to live with the consequences of their decisions. Instead, the construction of .this seawall has forever changed the natural environment and has negatively - impacted nearby property owners and beach goers. For the reasons above, I urge you and the City of Carlsbad to not issue or adopt a Negative Declaration and instead, prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to thoroughly study the adverse effects of this project. Sincerely, Dustin Rosa 355 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 TODD T. CARDIFF,Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 BROADWAY SUITE 358 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 T 619 546 5123 F 619 546 5133 cardifflaw@cox.net February 18,2010 Planning Department City of Carlsbad ATTN: Van Lynch 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Van. lynch@carlsbadca. gov Delivered via first class mail and email QTY OF CARLSBAD FEB 19 2010 PLAN&MG DEPARTMENT RE: Geotz Seawall (CDP 09-13) Comments on Negative Declaration Dear Van Lynch, Thank you very much for your time and accepting these comments. I am a member of the Advisory Board of the San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit, grassroots organization dedicated to the preservation of the world's ocean's waves and beaches. We have over 50,000 members in 90 chapters world-wide, including in Japan, Brazil, Australia and Europe. The San Diego Chapter is the largest and oldest chapter in the United States. First, we request the City of Carlsbad hold the comment period open for another twenty days. I was informed today that Dustin Rosa, one of the activists that opposed the project did not receive notice of the negative declaration/initial study. He was one of the original opponents of the emergency seawall permit and spoke at the City Council. His comments should be considered. In addition, I am informed and believe that the Coastal Commission has not had a chance to submit comments within the 20 day time frame, and has not been consulted regarding the impacts of this seawall. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3.) Clearly, the Coastal Commission, which has appeal jurisdiction over the seawall, and has original jurisdiction to the south and below mean high-tide line, should have been consulted regarding the impacts the seawall would have on State's lands. Secondly, it appears that the initial study is deficient in its review of the significant impacts of seawalls. Seawalls eventually destroy beaches through a process called passive erosion. Passive erosion is defined as the loss of beach caused by fixing in place the back end of the beach on an eroding shoreline. The high tide continues to migrate landward, but the natural erosion of the bluff is stopped by the seawall. The dry sand area of the beach is squeezed and lost when the migrating high-tide intersects with the seawall. Eventually, as the beach continues to erode, there is no dry sand even at medium to low tides. This is especially disconcerting at the location of this project. The project is located just north of a public access stairway. The public will eventually lose access traveling north along the beach. While the seawall may not immediately block access, the eventual loss of the beach is a given, and will block off anything to the north of stairway. There is a significant impact on recreation. In addition to passive erosion, seawalls have "end effects" meaning that seawalls actually increase the erosion to the natural bluff at the end of the seawall. There is nothing in the initial study which describes these end effects and how it proposes to mitigate such effects. I also note that there is nothing in the initial study which describes the mitigation for the loss of sand that would normally be contributed to the beach through erosion. However, it should be noted that all the current sand mitigation programs are not effective in mitigating the loss of beach. First, the SANDAG mitigation program is not guaranteed to put sand at the project site. In addition, such massive sand replenishment project cost 17 million dollars and was only effective at widening the beach for five years. This seawall must consider the impacts over the life of the structure. Finally, as indicated in my earlier correspondence, a cumulative analysis of the impacts caused by seawalls should be conducted. The loss of sand, beach access and wildlife habitat is significant. It is very important for the City to prepare an EIR to determine whether the risks to the beachgoers is so great that they wish to approve a seawall (as opposed to one of the many alternatives) that will destroy the beach. To aid in your analysis of potential impacts, I have attached a law review article published in 2007 by Meg Caldwell and Crag Segall in Ecology Law Quarterly. Meg Caldwell was chair of the California Coastal Commission and director of the Natural Resources Law and Policy Program at Stanford Law School. Please consider her analysis of seawalls. Sincerely, Todd T. Cardiff, Esq TODD T. CARDIFF,Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 BROADWAY SUITE 358 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 T 619 546 5123 F 619 546 5133 cardifflaw@cox.net February 27, 2010 Delivered via Overnight Mail Planning Commission City of Carlsbad C/0 Van Lynch 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Opposition to Goetz Seawall COP 09-13 Honorable Planning Commission, Please accept these comments in lieu of my testimony for the March 3, 2010 hearing. I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission hearing, and would like to further comment on the project on behalf of both myself and as a member of the Advisory Committee for the San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. A. The Public Must Have a Complete Record to Review this Project My first concern is the record. Attached to the staff report and initial study are only four letters: My letter, dated February 18, 2010, Tom Cook's email dated February 16, 2010, Dustin Rosa's email dated February 18, 2010 and Dean Geotz's letter dated December 23, 2008. Numerous additional submissions are missing. For example, upon receipt of the initial study on January 27, 2010,1 immediately wrote Mr. Lynch an email commenting on the initial study, and on the project. This email correspondence is part of the record and part of the public's comments on the initial study. It should be part of the record and packet submitted to the Coastal Commission. In addition, my email on January 27, 2010 contained an attachment regarding a study on the impacts of seawalls on shorebirds and shoreline marine organisms which came to the conclusion that seawalls have significant adverse impacts to the birds and marine organisms. (Jenifer Dugan and David M. Hubbard, "Ecological Response to Seawalls" 74(1) Shore and Beach 10 [2006].] This appears to be missing from the record. In addition, my letter of February 18, 2010 included an article by Meg Caldwell and Craig Segall, which discusses the impacts of seawalls. Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27,2010 Page 2 of 11 on the shoreline and the applicable laws concerning seawalls. (Caldwell and Segall, "No Day at the Beach: Sea Level Rise, Ecosystem Loss, and Public Access Along the California Coast" 2007 Ecology Law Qtrly 533.] My letter submission also included a number of articles about the study by Scripps Scientists Young and Ashford which found that more than 50% of the shoreline sand supply came from bluff erosion. These enclosed attachments are missing from the packet being circulated to the public and planning commission. Also missing is my correspondence and the correspondence of others sent to the City regarding the proposed emergency permit and the impacts of seawalls. Incredibly, the City thought it was important to include Mr. Geotz's correspondence from December 23, 2008, but not the public's objections to the emergency permit. If there were any comments from the Coastal Commission on the emergency seawall, such comments should have been included as well. It is important that these materials are attached to the initial study and presented to both the public and the Planning Commission. As noted by the Supreme Court, The data in an EIR must not only be sufficient in quantity, it must be presented in a manner calculated to adequately inform the public and decision makers, who may not be previously familiar with the details of the project. Information scattered here and there in EIR appendices, or a report buried in an appendix, is not a substitute for a good faith reasoned analysis .... [ Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 442 [internal quotations omitted.] There is absolutely no reason that the standards for a negative declaration should be any different. The comments that I submitted, including the enclosures, should have been attached to the initial study for both the public and the decisionmakers' review. (Pub. Res. Code § 21003-.1; Pub. Res. Code § 21005.] The Planning Commission must consider the adequacy of the negative declaration based on a review of the whole record. [Pub. Res. Code § 21080.] The current record appears to be improperly narrow. Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27,2010 Page 3 of 11 B. The City Has not Properly Investigated the Impacts of Seawalls. Much to my disappointment, the City has not even performed a very basic investigation regarding the impacts of seawalls. There is no discussion in the staff report or the initial study about active erosion, impoundment loss, end effects [increased erosion to the adjacent bluff], and most importantly passive erosion. Passive erosion is described in a comprehensive book on the California Coastline by Gary Griggs, Ph.D., Director of the Institute of Marine Sciences: Wherever a hard structure is built along a shoreline undergoing long-term net erosion, the shoreline will eventually migrate landward behind the structure. The effect of this migration will be the gradual loss of beach in front of the seawall or revetment as the water deepens and the shoreline moves landward Although homes or other buildings may be temporarily saved, the public beach is lost. The process of passive erosion is a result fo fixing the position of the shoreline on an otherwise eroding stretch of coast and independent of the type of seawall constructed. As the amount of coastal armoring increases in California, passive erosion and the resulting loss of beach through placement of these protective structures are going to become increasingly significant. [Griggs, Patsch & Savoy, LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST [2007] at pp.133-134.] Meg Caldwell, the former chair of the Coastal Commission, describes passive erosion this way: Armoring fixes the back of the beach, stopping natural shoreline erosion that would otherwise cause beaches to migrate inland as the water rises. As a result, the rising Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27,2010 Page 4 of 11 water covers the existing beach and no new beach is created. Coastal managers refer to this phenomenon as "passive erosion. This lost beach is at the core of the armoring threat: seawalls act in concert with rising water to make beaches disappear. As the beaches vanish, so does habitat for wildlife, vital public s"pace, and a landscape that is central to California's quality of life. [Caldwell and Segall, "No Day at the Beach: Sea Level Rise, Ecosystem Loss, and Public Access Along the California Coast" 2007 Ecology Law Qtrly 533], In addition, the City of Solana Beach, just 10 miles to the south, certified a Master EIR on seawalls, identified "Significant Unavoidable Impacts" caused by seawalls: "Continuous sand replenishment...would be the only feasible way to reduce impacts to recreation and lateral public access to less than significant levels." [Solana Beach Master EIR, Solana Beach Shoreline and Coastal Bluff Management Strategies, (Project No. 323530000], p. 6-1; See also 7-1, (identifying irreversible changes as "potential loss of recreational habitat"] Carlsbad already has significant coastal armoring. Rheinhard Flick, Coastal Engineer with the Department of Boating and Waterways, notes in his description of the Carlsbad Shoreline, "The 4,000-foot-long Carlsbad Seawall was built in 1988 to protect the Coast Highway and underlying utilities." (Rhienhard Flick, "Dana Point to the International Border" in Griggs, Patsch & Savoy, LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST (2007] at pp. 491-493.] The City must consider both the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the seawall. The current seawall must be analyzed in the context of this 4,000 foot seawall installed by the City of Carlsbad in 1988. There are numerous scientific articles which discuss the impacts of seawalls on the beach. The City must go out and do the proper research. I have attempted to point the City in the correct direction, but it is not the public's duty to perform the environmental investigation. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendoc/no^QQB] 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 311.] "CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27, 2010 Page 5 of 11 government rather than the public" [Id.] It is not Surfrider's job to jpare the proper coastal studies demonstrating the impacts of =i walls on prepare seawalls To make faithful execution of this duty contingent upon the vigilance and diligence of particular environmental plaintiffs would encourage attempts by agencies to evade their important responsibilities. It is up to the agency, not the public, to ensure compliance with [the environmental control statute] in the first instance. [County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal. App. 3d 185 at 205 [quoting City of Davis v. Co/eman[9tin Cir. 1975] 521 F.2d 661, 678].] The City must perform its own environmental due diligence. Please prepare an EIR as required. C. 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 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§ 21.204.040[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 Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27,2010 Page 6 of 11 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^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 it 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. 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, anyone could get 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].] Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27,2010 Page 7 of 11 Coastal Act section 30235 has never been interpreted in the manner that would permit a homeowner to allegedly protect the home based on the alleged threat to the public. As discussed by Charles Lester, the Deputy Director of North and Central California districts of the California Coastal Commission, [SJhoreline 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 to many better and less impactful options for allegedly protecting public safety. D. The Findings Cannot Be Made to Permit the Seawall Because the Public Beach Will Eventually Destroy the Beach. 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].] Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27, 2010 Page 8 of 11 Considering the impacts of passive erosion and sealevel rise, it is doubtful that a seawall could be designed and mitigated to not interfere with public access at anytime. 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. Quite frankly, once analyzed, it is questionable whether such finding could be made. It will be very expensive, if not impossible to maintain a 25 foot dry sandy area. Passive erosion will destroy the beach. In addition, the Resolution claims 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. E. The Project Was Never Necessary to Protect the Public Beach. First of all, anyone who believes that Mr. Geotz built a $500,000 seawall to protect the public should have their head checked. This is a thinly veiled excuse for a seawall to protect the applicants' back yard. The project will likely never be approved by the Coastal Commission. Simply put, there are no existing structures in danger from erosion in this case. The Planning Commission needs to ask some very pointed questions to the applicants and their engineers. These include: 1. Did the bluff collapse in December of 2008 decrease the risk of a future significant bluff collapse? Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27, 2010 Page 9 of 11 2. Is it possible to reduce the probability of even a minor bluff collapse with less intrusive means [ie., grading the bluff to its angle of repose, upper bluff stabilization.] Undoubtedly, the applicant's engineers will be very vague and non-responsive. If they are honest, they will discuss the angle of repose and explain that, once a bluff collapses, it is less likely to collapse in the near future. Coastal bluffs erode in an episodic manner. The bluff will have very minor erosion for years and years, and then a bluff collapse will occur, as in December of 2008 in this case, where allegedly five feet of bluff collapsed. The collapses return the bluff to its approximate "angle of repose", which means that the top and bottom of the bluff are situated at such an angle that the soil and bluff material is not likely to continue to collapse. The fact that the bluff collapsed in 2008 makes it less likely that the natural bluff constitutes a danger to the public. It is highly unlikely that the bluff was a significant risk to the public to justify the emergency seawall in the first place. When was the last time that anyone was killed or injured by a bluff collapse below 5323 or 5327 Carlsbad Blvd? When was the last time that anyone was injured by a bluff collapse in the City of Carlsbad? How often are beach goers injured by bluff collapses in the City of Carlsbad? To my knowledge there has been no actuarial risk analysis of the chances that a beachgoer will be injured by a bluff collapse. Any risk analysis should consider the following facts: San Diego County has experienced five deaths from bluff collapses in 15 years. Three deaths have occurred at Torrey Pines State Beach, which has very high, loosely consolidated bluffs. One death occurred at South Carlsbad State Beach when a man was sleeping in a cave on the upper portion of the bluff, approximately 8 years ago. According to a Department of Boating and Waterways, 8 million people visit North County Beaches every year. Using simple math, what are the chances that any particular person is killed? More importantly, what are the chances of injury or death from this bluff (33 ft. high?) In addition, as indicated by the previous bluff collapse at the project site, most collapses occur in the winter, during storm events with periods of Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27, 2010 Page 10 of 11 high waves, in conjunction with high tides, when beach attendance is at a minimum, and access is very limited. A number of beach collapses occur at night, which also has very little beach attendance. While any death is regrettable and unfortunate, whether it is from a car accident, bike accident, skateboard or heart attack, the risk of such account must be taken into account and weighed against the consequences before taking action. There has been no risk analysis that has determined the statistical likelihood that anyone will be hurt by a bluff collapse on the beach below the Geotz and Sylver residence. Before the City condemns the beach to death, it should consider the actual (not perceived] risk of injury or death on the beach at Terramar Beach. 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. Griggs, Patsch & Savoy, LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST [2007]. (Selected Excerpts] 2. Email from Todd T. Cardiff to Van Lynch (January 27, 2010.] Carlsbad Planning Commission RE: Geotz Seawall February 27,2010 Page 11 of 11 3. Jenifer Dugan and David M. Hubbard, "Ecological Response to Seawalls" 74(1 ] Shore and Beach 10 (2006). 4. Caldwell and Segall, "No Day at the Beach: Sea Level Rise, Ecosystem Loss, and Public Access Along the California Coast" 2007 Ecology Law Qtrly 533. 5. Todd T. Cardiff, "Conflict in the California Coastal Act: Sand and Seawalls", 38 Cal. W. Law Rev. 255 [2001] 6. Selected Newspaper Articles: A. Science Daily, "Coastal Bluffs Provide More Sand to California Beaches than Previously Believed" (Oct. 22, 2005] B. Terry Rodgers, "Sifting County's Shifting Sand" SignonSanDiego.com [Union Tribune](0ctober 13, 2005] C. Christina S. Johnson, "The Making of a Natural Sandy Beach" North County Times (April 8, 2006] Exhibit 1 Figure 7.21 Almost all protective structures produce a visual impact. Photo by Gary Griggs and Kiki Patsch. should be spent in efforts to stabilize the position of an otherwise eroding coastline. The continued widespread reliance on protective structures and the controversies they generate result in part from the limited, ambiguous, and often conflicting policies set forth in the California Coastal Act of 1976. The reason for part of this uncertainty is that at the time the Coastal Act and the interpretive guidelines were written, the state was in the midst of a 3o-year period of modest storm and wave climate; coastal erosion and El Nino events were not major concerns. Over the past several decades, however, concern has increased regarding the direct impacts of seawalls or revetments on beaches. As the percentage of armored coastline has increased in recent years, the general public has become more aware of the visual and access impacts of shoreline armoring. As of 2000, some sort of armoring structure "protected" almost 30 percent of the coastline of Santa Cruz County, and 34 percent of the entire 234 miles of the combined coastlines of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties. For anyone who frequents the beach, it is not difficult to notice the increasing amount of rock and concrete along the shoreline. In the 21 years between 1971 and 1992, the extent of armoring along California's coast increased 400 percent. Visual impacts are perhaps those noticed by most people- 130 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST l^ 67.24 Many seawalls—depending upon their height, length, and configuration, j| as their location on the beach profile—will restrict either vertical access to the l or horizontal access along the shoreline at high tide. Photo by Gary Griggs and ITatsch. though these impacts are a somewhat subjective issue, there are numer- |us existing structures that many would say detract from the natural •rience they desire when walking along the shoreline (Figure 7.21). At other extreme are the newer cliff stabilization projects designed to ic the natural rock that makes up the local cliffs and, where well done, difficult to recognize. Many older large seawalls and revetments limit or restrict beach access !igure 7.22); this is an area where the California Coastal Commission has extremely vigilant. There are ways in which access can be built into ;, although this is far more difficult with large revetments. Beach RESPONDING TO COASTAL HAZARDS 131 Figure 7.23 A concrete panel wall has been used to protect the weaker terrace deposits jl at Lighthouse Point in Santa Cruz, rather than using riprap that would have extended to beach level and covered the beach (see Figure 7.24). Photo by Gary Griggs and Kiki Patsch. access will remain a concern and must be resolved in individual coastal armoring proposals. Where erosion of coastal cliffs provides a significant portion of the region's beach sand, armoring the bluff and halting or slowing erosion will reduce the sand supply. The perceived cumulative impact of seawalls on sand supply reduction led the California Coastal Commission to develop a policy in 1997 requiring a sand mitigation fee to be paid by property owners requesting permission to armor their particular bluffs. The amount of sand that would be removed or prevented from ending up in the beach or littoral system annually as a consequence of the construction of a seawall can be cal- culated if one knows the length of cliff to be armored, the height of the cliff, the average annual rate of cliff retreat, and the percentage of the material making up the cliff that is of beach sand size. Along the California coast, however, rivers and streams supply most of the sand for the state's beaches. A recent study, completed in 2002, of the Santa Barbara beach compartment (which extends from the Santa Maria River to Point Mugu) indicates that throughout the entire 144 miles of this littoral cell, erosion of the cliffs con- tributes less than i percent of the total beach sand supply. In the Oceanside littoral cell, which extends from Dana Point to La Jolla, about n percent of the total beach sand along this region is supplied by cliff erosion. Reduction 132 i-IVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST 4 The placement of riprap will cover a large area of beach. Photo by Gary andKikiPatsch. i sand supply through armor emplacement is therefore a potential , but the significance of this impact varies geographically depending important the erosion of the cliffs is in contributing sand to the lies of the particular cell. nply placing a protective structure on the beach will, depending on its . shape, cover a given amount of beach sand (known as placement ). If this structure is a vertical, relatively narrow seawall, the amount of L lost is very small. Some walls are built only on the upper portions of , where they protect the more erodible marine terrace sediments and fore don't impact the beach directly (Figure 7.23). On the other hand, if lent is built on the beach, due to the height normally required to pre- Qtwave overtopping and the slope necessary to develop a stable configu- a, the wall may extend 20 to 50 feet seaward, in some cases completely ering the usable beach (Figure 7.24). There are trade-offs in using riprap ^protect eroding cliffs. The ongoing erosion, which may threaten private aes or public infrastructure, can be temporarily reduced or controlled &ng riprap, but the public beach is going to suffer a loss; the amount of loss j/function of the size and footprint of the protective structure built. 1^ An additional seawall impact is termed passive erosion. Wherever a hard cture is built along a shoreline undergoing long-term net erosion, the Qrehne will eventually migrate landward behind the structure. The effect is migration will be the gradual loss of beach in front of the seawall or RESPONDING TO COASTAL HAZARDS 133 Figure 7.25 Passive erosion at Stillwell Hall in central Monterey Bay. A beach still exists to either side of the riprap where there is no armor, but the beach in front of the riprap has been lost. Photo by Gary Griggs and Kiki Patsch. revetment as the water deepens and the shoreline moves landward (Figure 7.2.5). This has also been called the peninsula effect because the armored area becomes a peninsula over time. Passive erosion has been a very con- tentious issue along the Atlantic Coast, where offshore barrier islands are migrating landward as sea level rises, except where the coastline has been fixed with seawalls. Passive erosion has also been recently documented in Oregon, Washington, and in the Hawaiian Islands. Although homes or other buildings may be temporarily saved, the public beach is gradually lost. The process of passive erosion is a result of fixing the position of the shore- line on an otherwise eroding stretch of coast, and is independent of the type of seawall constructed. As the amount of coastal armoring increases in California, passive erosion and the resulting loss of beach through place- ment of these protective structures are going to become increasingly signif- icant issues. The potential for a seawall or revetment to cause or accelerate beach ero- sion has also been the source of considerable controversy over the past two decades. The general perception is that building an impermeable seawall along a shoreline will lead to wave reflection and therefore beach erosion in front of the seawall. A similar concern involves reflection from the ends or sides of walls; it is believed that the construction of a solitary structure will 134 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST increase me eiuaiun ses make intuitive sense, an 8-year-long study completed in 1996 that nitoted the impacts of several different types of seawalls and revetments Sadjacent beaches in northern Monterey Bay indicated that although there j local moderate-scale winter impacts, there were no permanent effects beaches or cliffs studied. This study took place, however, along a i of coastline that has a high littoral drift rate and is not undergoing net long-term erosion but does undergo expected seasonal beach ages While riprap revetments have often been judged by permitting rides to be more permeable and therefore expected to have less impact on >ies than "impermeable" seawalls, this has not been supported by field ations and surveying. Thus, the issue of the direct effects of seawalls reflection, and therefore beach erosion, needs to be evaluated in ;. specific location. Similarly, if a structure is to be built directly against |base of an eroding bluff, the design or treatment of the end sections to be carefully considered so that wave energy will not be reflected $0 the adjacent properties, thereby increasing erosion in those areas. Coastlines are receiving more national attention as their economic and jeational importance continues to grow and as the issue of coastal ero- 1 or retreat begins to affect more public and private property and devel- aent. The terms beach erosion and coastal erosion are often used tiangeably in these discussions and in requests for government assis- '• and protection permits. There is an important distinction between s terms, however. Beach erosion refers to the permanent or long-term of beach sand or reduction in beach width. Beach erosion can be iced or reversed if the natural supply of sand is returned or replenished. iiastal erosion, on the other hand, is the retreat of the cliff or bluff edge is an irreversible, unidirectional process, at least within our lifetimes. Wishes on beach usage and tourist dollars have often been used to justify bastal protection." Seawalls and revetments are designed and built to pro- ct property and structures on dunes, bluffs, or 'cliffs and not to protect fptiblic beaches. To our knowledge, a seawall has never been built to protect *ia save a beach. i-*a- i'RETREAT OR RELOCATION OF A STRUCTURE alternative response to a threatened house or structure on an eroding Jbeach or cliff is to relocate or remove the structure. There are many sites g the coast of California where there are no other reasonable or accept- alternatives. If the threatened property is large enough to accommo- the structure being moved back far enough to significantly extend its RESPONDING TO COASTAL HAZARDS 135 Figure 7.26 Ongoing failure of loose bluffs at Pacifica is beginning to threaten a large apartment complex. Photo by Gary Griggs and Kiki Patsch, 136 lifetime, this should definitely be considered. The size, condition, and phys- ical setting of the dwelling are critical considerations that need to be assessed by a professional house mover and possibly a structural engineer. During the winter of 1983, as a result of 30 to 50 feet of rapid bluff retreat at Pacifica, a three-story building was moved away from its oceanfront site, as were 23 mobile homes (Figure 3.6). An adjacent row of bluff-top homes was also threatened by cliff erosion during the 1983 winter, but the decision was made to construct a revetment at the base of the highly erodible bluff (Figure 7.6). In the intervening years, specifically during the severe El Nino event of 1997-98, the revetment settled and collapsed, and failed to protect the bluffs from waves. Houses were undermined (Figure 3.8) and began to collapse, and before the winter was over, they were demolished (Figure 5.6). Here relocation would have been a better solution. A large apartment com- plex sits on the same eroding bluff a few thousand feet up coast and faces identical problems but without the option of relocation (Figure 7.26). The cost of moving a house may be far less than that of a major coastal protection structure or the cost of repair if nothing is done. In addition, there is no guarantee that a permit for a seawall or other type of protective structure will be approved. If your parcel is not large enough to relocate the LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST iCture on-site, another parcel will obviously have to DC purcnasea. [location may still be more economical in the long run, however, depend- on the magnitude of the erosion problem and the costs of-providing erosion protection. Typical moving costs for a moderate-sized ructure may be in the range of $24,000 to $32,000 (based on a 2,000- [juafe-fbot house and 2003 moving costs of $i2-i6/sq. ft.). Relocation likely has not been seriously considered by most threatened fdceanfront property owners simply because of their desire to preserve their ome and setting at any cost. The increasing frequency and magnitude of El flo events and coastal damage since 1978, as well as a clearer appreciation $$f global warming and continuing sea-level rise, have altered our percep- as about coastline stability and may lead more oceanfront property own- as well as permitting agencies to give relocation and retreat a higher rity in the future. The initial and recurring costs of providing protec- I. under these conditions may eventually exceed the value of a structure •"the cost of its relocation. It is important, therefore, to look at the real and at the advantages and disadvantages of all responses to coastal lon. IE FUTURE ially every coastal community experiences the same dilemma: increas- coastal populations, existing and proposed oceanfront development, ris- Sea level, and a recent history of expensive natural disasters affecting the ital zone, with more predicted in the future. Whether it's nor'easters in England, hurricanes on the south Atlantic Coast, or El Nino events on Pacific Coast, we know that losses to oceanfront development will con- me to increase as coastal development intensifies and property values rise. ough there are no easy answers, the need exists for long-term, balanced ilicies. We are going to have to look at sustainable solutions, which may different from the approaches that have guided us for so long. RESPONDING TO COASTAL HAZARDS 137 CHAPTER EIGHT AN OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY CHARLES F. LESTER INTRODUCTION The California Coastal Act is California's primary coastal hazards law. This law establishes two key policies for shoreline development. First, it requires that new development avoid coastal hazards if possible. Second, it specifi- cally allows shoreline protection structures, such as seawalls and rock revet- ments, to be built for existing development that is threatened by coastal erosion, but only if there is no other reasonable way to protect the develop- ment. These policies reflect a basic objective to minimize the construction of shoreline protection structures because of their negative impacts on the coastal environment, which include blocking public access to the beach, loss of beach area, degrading scenic views, and preventing the erosion of sedi- ments from the bluffs or cliffs that helps to maintain California's beaches. Although the Coastal Act is straightforward in concept, applying its poli- cies to development proposals has been challenging. Difficulties range from technical issues, such as methods for quantifying erosion rates and risks, to more basic human challenges, such as rational planning and regulation in a policy area characterized by emergency response. The private property along California's coast is also some of the most valuable in the world, which heightens the potential for political conflict when new shoreline developments are being considered. Coastal hazards policy involves high stakes, and nothing will provoke a clash between public and private per- spectives like a proposal to build a new seawall. 138 CALIFORNIA CUAblAL HA£AKUt> I POLICY FRAMEWORK "THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT •V ' The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires statewide planning and regula- tion for development in hazardous areas, including strict regulation of pro- posed shoreline protection structures, such as seawalls and revetments. Although the California Coastal Commission is the primary regulatory actor in this policy arena, local governments play an important role through the development of local coastal land use plans and ordinances. l Hazard Avoidance for New Development lie Coastal Act requires that new development minimize risks from coastal ids. Section 30253 states in part: tJew development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor con- ^ttibute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site • surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective Ijjlgyices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and ! policy specifically requires that new development not be premised on Iliwnstruction of a shoreline protective device such as a seawall. Thus, sec- 8^0253 makes property owners assume the risks of developing along the jt-by requiring that new development be located and designed to be safe ut artificial means of protection from the forces of the ocean. This Ijuirement is an explicit effort to stop the proliferation of seawalls, revet- rajrts, and other shoreline structures that cumulatively degrade the coastline. |fcrotectlng Existing Development |fc1$-Coastal Act also sets standards for when and how to protect existing [lent from coastal hazards. Section 30235 states in part: s, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, I'gttid other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be per- |sJ»itted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing H§S'Uctures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to "|lv "late or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. ardingly, shoreline protection structures such as seawalls or revet- II? shall be approved if an existing development is threatened by erosion, CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY 139 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. Impact Mitigation In addition to regulating proposed shoreline structures, the Coastal Act requires that any resource impacts of a new shoreline structure be fully mit- igated. Section 30235 specifically addresses mitigation for sand supply impacts, but other Coastal Act policies protect public beach access, scenic viewsheds, natural shoreline processes, coastal and marine habitats, and shoreline recreational activities, such as surfing. For example, a proposed sloping revetment that covers up the public beach (Figure 7.24) may have to be redesigned as a vertical seawall to minimize beach encroachment. Visual impacts may have to be addressed through changes in the texture and color of materials used in constructing a seawall (Figure 7.19). Local Coastal Programs The Coastal Act requires that local governments adopt local coastal pro- grams (LCPs). The act recognizes that local governments remain on the frontline of coastal resource protection, and that they are the central actors in local land use planning and regulation. LCPs must include policies and ordinances that reflect the Coastal Act requirements, and the Coastal Commission is responsible for reviewing and certifying LCPs as consistent with the Coastal Act. Once an LCP is certified, much of the Coastal Commission's responsibility to regulate new coastal development in that city or county through a permitting process is delegated back to the local government. An LCP will typically identify minimum cliff- or bluff-top setbacks an< procedures to ensure that new development is not located in a hazardous area. For example, the Santa Cruz County LCP has detailed criteria for development on coastal bluffs and beaches, including requirements that all development demonstrate the stability of the site, in its "pre-developmen condition," for a minimum of 100 years as determined by either a geologi' cal hazards assessment or a full geological report. Development must be set back from the bluff edge a minimum of 25 feet. LCPs should also includ standards for approving new shoreline structures, and the Santa Cru County LCP has detailed rules that limit construction of shoreline pro) tion structures to situations where there is a "significant threat" to an ex ing structure or where adjacent parcels are already similarly protect* Consistent with Coastal Act section 30235, the LCP also requires that 140 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST Applications for shoreline protection mcmae a cornprenensivc analysis ui ^alternatives to a shoreline protection structure, including an evaluation of "relocation or partial removal of the threatened structure. Finally, LCPs should include requirements for impact avoidance and mitigation. For example, the Santa Cruz County LCP specifically requires ' that shoreline protection structures not "reduce or restrict public beach Sj adversely affect shoreline processes and sand supply, adversely impact recreational resources, increase erosion on adjacent property, create a significant visual intrusion, or cause harmful impacts to wildlife or fish s-Jiabitat, archaeological or paleontologic resources." The LCP further Squires that shoreline protection structures use building materials that id with the color of natural materials in the area and meet approved leering standards, that construction impacts be minimized, and that plications include a permanent monitoring and maintenance program • jhe structure. are a critical component of the California policy framework for line development. They provide valuable local guidance for applying f-general requirements of the Coastal Act, particularly for locating and ignew development. In practice, though, most shoreline protection ire proposals are reviewed by the Coastal Commission because they located in the commission's retained original permit jurisdiction, i includes tidelands between the mean high and low tides. In addition, stal Commission has appellate authority over locally issued coastal Ojpment permits along the shoreline. FEDERAL AND STATE POLICY f Other federal and state governmental agencies may also be involved in Management of development in hazardous coastal areas and in the reg- of proposed shoreline protection structures. Because of the com- ply of the regulatory environment, close coordination and cooperation Ong public agencies and private project proponents is important to ve implementation of coastal erosion policy. s- >ERAL AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS of the more significant federal programs influencing California's hazards policy is the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), lented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This provides federally backed flood insurance for property in haz- areas, if the community in which the property is located has adopted Tehensive flood management program designed to minimize flood CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY 141 risks through land use planning and regulation. Federal law sets specific standards that must be met in these community programs, such as ensuring that the lowest floor of all new structures is elevated to or above the base flood elevation as estimated for a loo-year storm event. In practice, these standards are often reflected in LCPs as requirements for locating and designing new development in hazardous areas. Because the NFIP provides significant financial incentives to private development interests through federally subsidized insurance, the program directly influences develop- ment trends. Without the availability of hazard insurance, the value of coastal property would no doubt be reduced, which might in turn reverse the trend toward increased property investment in hazardous areas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is another important federal agency in coastal management. The Corps is potentially involved as an applicant in the actual construction of shoreline structure projects, and also has regula- tory responsibilities for projects that affect U.S. navigable waters. In addi- tion to the Army Corps, the federal Marine Sanctuary Program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is involved in the regulation of shoreline structures, such as along the Central Coast of California, where the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary has author- ity over projects that may alter the seabed of the sanctuary. The MBNMS works closely with the California Coastal Commission to integrate its con- cerns into the permitting process of the commission. Finally, depending on the impacts of specific projects, other federal agencies that may be involved in coastal erosion regulation include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, both of which protect endangered and threatened species found in the shoreline environment. STATE AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS In addition to the California Coastal Commission, several other state agen- cies play an important oversight role for development along the shoreline. The California State Lands Commission (SLC) may be involved if a pro- posed structure would be placed on state lands, which are generally consid- ered to be those tide and submerged lands between the ordinary high water mark, or mean high tide, and 3 nautical miles out to sea. When a project is proposed or approved on state lands, the proponent must get SLC approval and may be required to enter into a lease for the ongoing use of state lands. Usually, however, the SLC does not require a lease, and it may not require a permit, given the uncertainty in establishing the boundary between private and state lands. Other state agencies that may be involved in shoreline structure propos- als, depending on the potential impacts of a project, include the Regional 142 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST ater Quality Control Boards and the Department of Fish and Game. The fornia Department of Boating and Waterways may also play an impor- lt role in the review, planning, design, funding, and construction of oreline protective works funded by the state. MPLEMENTATION ISSUES e Coastal Commission and local governments have permitted thousands new developments along the California shoreline since 1976, the vast jority of which have been single-family homes. They also have approved Inany new shoreline structures to protect existing development. For exam- a 1995 commission study found that over 2 linear miles of new coastal lOring had been approved in Santa Cruz County between 1978 and 1993. bng the Malibu shoreline, nearly 3 miles of new armoring was approved reen 1978 and 1996. Many more repair and maintenance projects have ieen approved for existing seawalls and revetments. The Coastal irnrnission infrequently denies a proposed development, and the major- of its effort is focused on crafting conditions for approval that either [odify project designs or require other mitigations to address the impacts proposal. In Malibu, for example, 85 percent of the proposed shore- ie armoring projects were approved between 1978 and 1996. "The high approval rate for shoreline structures is not surprising, given it the Coastal Act says that shoreline protection structures "shall be per- '" when necessary to protect existing development in danger from ion. Still, few are enamored of the proliferation of seawalls and revet- icnts and their significant impacts on the public beach resources and nat- landforms of California's coast. The approval of new development in loreline locations, or the consideration of a new shoreline protective l?vice, is not taken lightly by the commission or the public. At the same ie, California's coastal real estate is some of the most desirable property in the world, and substantial investments have been made in residential and Commercial developments. Most of the coastal erosion policy challenges peed by the commission and local governments are rooted in this basic ten- sion between the desire of the public to maintain and protect the natural Wees of the coast, and the desire of private property interests to protect <|neir homes and investments. EOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTY: EVALUATING OASTAL EROSION RISKS sk assessment lies at the heart of Coastal Act policies to locate new devel- opment out of harm's way, and to limit the construction of new shoreline CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY 143 protection structures. LCPs typically require that new development be set back far enough from the bluff edge to ensure its safety for some identified "economic life," usually from 50 to 100 years. To do this, geological reports are needed to identify the erosion rates and risks at specific coastal loca- tions. Similarly, the decision to approve a shoreline structure turns first and foremost on a finding that existing development is "in danger" from ero- sion. Unfortunately, geological risk assessments are subject to significant uncertainty and interpretation, making it difficult to guarantee that new development will indeed be safe without the need for shoreline protection over its life. The case of the Cliffs Hotel in the City of Pismo Beach is a good exam- ple of this problem (see CCC Appeal A-3-PSB-98-O49). In 1983 the Coastal Commission approved a permit to build the Cliffs Hotel on a 75-foot-high cliff. Based on the applicant's geological analysis, which established the ero- sion rate at the site at 3 inches per year, the hotel was required to be set back 100 feet from the cliff edge, which the commission found to be more than adequate to provide the hotel with 100 years of stability. The Commission further required that the cliff-top area and beach below be dedicated for public access, and prohibited any future development in this setback area except for public access improvements. As with much of the shoreline development that the commission had approved, the agency also required that the Cliffs Hotel property owners acknowledge and assume the high risks of developing on the cliff-top location. The hotel was subsequently built and opened for business (Figure 8.1). As early as 1996, however, the Cliffs Hotel owners sought approval of a revetment from the City of Pismo Beach under the certified LCP. The stated purpose of the revetment was to protect a sewage-holding tank that had been built in the protected easement area, contrary to the original approval for the hotel. After the City approved the proposed revetment, the project was appealed to and denied by the Coastal Commission as inconsistent with both the LCP and the prior restrictions placed on the hotel development. Soon after this project denial, however, the City of Pismo Beach approved an emer- gency permit for the Cliffs Hotel to construct a revetment in anticipation of the 1997-98 El Nino, and rock was placed on the beach below the hotel with- out commission review. The required follow-up permit for this emergency revetment approval was eventually appealed to and heard by the Coastal Commission, which again denied a permit to construct the revetment. Ultimately, the commission prevailed in litigation and was able to compel the removal of the revetment and restoration of the beach below the hotel. Although there were a number of difficult issues with the proposed Cliffs Hotel revetment project, including the fact that the rock had been placed in 144 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST Ijligure 8.1 The Cliffs Hotel in the city of Pismo Beach. Photo © 2002-2004 Kenneth jfjjtid Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.Californiacoastline.org. ^previously deed-restricted setback areas, one of the main issues that the lission addressed was whether the Cliffs Hotel was actually at risk i cliff erosion. The applicants asserted that the hotel was indeed at risk, I on an evaluation of new geological data and an estimated erosion rate f;4 feet per year, as opposed to the 3 inches per year estimated at the time pj£the original approval of the hotel. The commission evaluated the geolog- ij data somewhat differently, noting that the applicant's latest erosion ||9tes were based on an episodic loss of 6 feet of bluff averaged over an 18- |nj6nth period. Naturally, this led to an exaggerated erosion rate. In addition pp'this variability in estimates, the commission noted that even with accept- IJahce of the revised erosion rate, the hotel would not be directly threatened ' another 19 years, leading the commission to conclude that there was no |inJminent "danger" to the hotel. The commission's review of the Cliffs Hotel and proposed revetment i|j?j'oject illustrated the variability that is often encountered in geological cal- pulations or estimates of bluff retreat rates. Table 8.1, adapted from the com- : Cliffs Hotel findings, summarizes the various estimates that had Ipeen made through the Cliffs Hotel project history. This type of variability 3t uncommon in the world of geological consulting, and much of it is to technical difficulties in estimating erosion rates. Problem areas : the scale, resolution, and time span of the stereo aerial photographs CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY 145 TABLE 8.1 CLIFFS HOTEL RETREAT RATE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Cliffs Hotel original geotechnical report supporting 100-foot setback 1998 consultant report and 1979 draft EIR report for the area Cliffs Hotel geotechnical report for A-3-PSB-96-100 seawall project (denied 12/96) Long-term documented erosion since 1955 at the Cliffs Hotel site Cliffs Hotel emergency permit geotechnical report adjusted for seasonal accuracy Cliffs Hotel emergency permit geotechnical report in support of city revetment approval ESTIMATED RETREAT RATE 12 inches per year 13 inches per year 14 inches per year 2.1 feet per year 4 feet per year SOONEST THE HOTEL WOULD BE UNDERCUT 3 inches per year 312 years 78 years 72 years 67 years 37 years 19 years used; the skill and experience of the interpreter; the methods used to mea- sure the position of the cliff or bluff edge; and the complexities of local geo- logical conditions and erosional processes. For example, the likelihood of large episodic cliff collapse events, which can happen instantly in the case of a rockfall or extend over the course of a single severe storm season, compli- cates the calculation of long-term average cliff retreat. Apart from technical challenges, the uncertainties inherent in calculating cliff or bluff erosion rates has meant that geological analyses are vulnerable to interpretation by the consultants and geotechnical experts who are typi- cally involved with shoreline projects. This vulnerability works against the policy objective of ensuring that development is restricted to safe locations in order to avoid the need for shoreline protection. In another commission permit appeal, a new cliff-top home was approved by the City of Pismo Beach in 1997, with a setback based on the consultant's erosion rate estimate of 3 inches per year. Virtually before the paint was dry on the new house, however, the homeowner was pursuing a seawall to protect the house based on new geotechnical evaluations arguing that the erosion rate at the site was closer to 2 feet per year (based on an 146 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST analysis Ot episodic erosion events aiiu a ic-avciagiug ui ctciucu <_iut jetictit over time). A seawall was eventually approved by the commission to protect |il :the now "existing" house, a mere six years after the house had been p|--approved (CCC Appeal A-3-PSB-oi-oi6). In recognition of the problem of geological uncertainty in the determi- |f;.nation of erosion rates, and the potential abuses of the geological or geo- jl- technical evaluation process, the commission has begun to impose a more ; }'•':'•• 't;i; rigorous version of the "assumption of risk" condition than it has histori- £• calty imposed on coastal developments. This condition requires that :: landowners agree to a permit condition and associated property deed . restriction that prohibits future shoreline protection structures for the " development being approved. Although it remains to be seen how this restriction will fare in future legal challenges to its application, the approach effectively requires the landowner to assume the risks of coastal develop- 'jnent by agreeing to abide by the initial geological determination that a pro- \posed building site will be "safe" Jor a stated period of time, without the !need for a seawall or revetment. J/VHAT IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE? 'Since 1976 the Coastal Commission has had to decide what constitutes an •ifexisting structure" for purposes of Coastal Act section 30235. Early in its 5J|istory the commission drew a clear distinction between primary struc- , such as residences or commercial buildings, and secondary or acces- :ory structures, such as a bluff-top gazebo or a storage building. This was j4pne to make clear that seawalls and revetments would not be approved to protect just any structure, but only those that represented a significant and primary use of land, such as a private home. ig- A different challenge has arisen in the consideration of existing develop- Ments that are not clearly "structures." Some private property owners feel |$iat shoreline protection should be available for the backyards that sit gpetween their homes and the cliff edge. Questions also have been raised |, about whether a golf course is a structure for the purposes of section 30235, ^ and whether trails and other "nonstructural" public access features, such as ^bluff-top public open space, should be considered structures worthy of shoreline protection. , The biggest question concerning existing structures, though, is whether '„ development that was built after 1976 should be considered to be "existing," and thus eligible for shoreline protection under section 30235. A strong case J, can be made that Coastal Act sections 30253 and 30235 should be read together as establishing a firm date—January i, 1977—after which new Development is not eligible for shoreline protection. Development that was CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY 14-j in existence as of the date that the Coastal Act became law, it is argued, should be considered "existing development;" whereas development approved and constructed after this date would necessarily have had to have been found consistent with section 30253, and thus should not have been premised on the need for a future shoreline protective device. The commis- sion generally has not implemented the Coastal Act in this way, however, and in some cases has approved shoreline protection for development that was approved after 1976, under the theory that it was "existing" development at that time and thus is protected under section 30235. This weaker inter- pretation of the Coastal Act has worked against the policy objective of lim- iting the approval of new shoreline structures. THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF STRUCTURES AND "PLANNED RETREAT" Most LCPs rely on minimum cliff- or bluff-top setbacks to ensure that new development is located in a "safe" place. The typical approach is to estimate the erosion or "retreat" rate at the development site and then cal- culate the distance that would guarantee the safety of the structure for a given period of time. This time is usually set somewhere between 50 and 100 years, which represents the likely economic life of the project. In the- ory, this ensures that no new shoreline structures will be built at the loca- tion of the new development for the life of the project. And once the project reaches the end of its economic life (and is presumably removed), a new project would also have to be set back safely and not be allowed to have a shoreline structure. Overall, this approach should support a system of "rolling" setbacks or "planned retreat" from California's eroding coast- lines, at least in those locations that were undeveloped when the Coastal Act was adopted. In practice, planned retreat has proven very difficult to implement. In addition to the already discussed difficulty of accurately projecting cliff or bluff retreat rates, which may lead to inadequate initial setbacks, a more fundamental problem with this approach is the assumption that structures have an economic life in the first place. The Coastal Commission has only been in existence since the 19705, so it does not have any experience with whether structures approved under the "set back for economic life" approach will actually be required to be removed at the end of the originally assumed economic life. The commission does have experience, however, with redevelopment trends in the coastal zone, which suggest that aging structures do not really die so much as metamorphose into "new and improved" structures in the same place. Thus, an increasing challenge along the coastline is how to regulate the redevelopment of buildings that, under l;|faditionai planning ana " because they are not set back sufficiently from the bluff edge, or Ifjecause they have shoreline structures that predate enactment of the•^Coastal Act or an LCP. This problem is particularly vexing for those interested in pursuing R^planned retreat" as a strategy in eroding urbanized areas. Although many ?CCPs have ordinances that require nonconforming structures to meet cur- girent regulatory standards when they are being redeveloped, the requirement I is usually triggered only beyond some threshold level of redevelopment. For § example, reconstruction of a building close to a bluff edge in the same loca- |Stion may be allowed as long as no more than 50 percent of the exterior or fSinterior walls are altered or reconstructed in the process. Similarly, some tiiwnimal expansion in building size might be allowed without the owner fjvaving to bring the entire building into conformance. Thus, it is not luhcommon to see nonconforming structures essentially be redeveloped, progressive changes that incrementally comply with the zoning ies. Over time, an old structure is rebuilt, and nonconforming bluff set- or old seawalls remain unchanged. Ultimately, preexisting urban velopment patterns ensure that existing shoreline armoring will remain, l^jiereas new shoreline structures will be needed for development that effec- Kively never retreats to a safe setback distance. It is particularly difficult to ^implement required setbacks and "no seawall" provisions in urban areas at are substantially built out and already protected by armoring. It also is unreasonable to some to deny the last few unprotected properties in !%& urban area the same protection enjoyed by the rest of the neighborhood. IjjChe commission has recognized this situation in the past through imple- Ifnentation of a "string-line" setback method—essentially allowing infill Upevelopment to be located at a distance from the bluff consistent with adja- lifcent existing development setbacks, regardless of the hazards. ; Notwithstanding the difficulties of implementing coastal erosion policies in urban areas, there is renewed interest in planned retreat in California. In 2003 the California Resources Agency released a draft policy for coastal ero- sion that emphasized the need to avoid new or modified development in hazardous areas, as well as the need to relocate or even eliminate threatened existing coastal development (where feasible). Unfortunately, due to the state budget crisis of 2003-4, this draft policy was never finalized or implemented. Local communities such as Solana Beach are debating new rules to imple- ment planned retreat. They are struggling with the question of whether a planned retreat policy would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property. Some argue that prohibiting substantial redevelopment in haz- ardous locations is a taking of private property because it would interfere 148 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY with a reasonable investment-backed expectation to redevelop the property. Others argue that property owners with an existing use of land are not enti- tled to more development, particularly if it means the degradation of public resources—the beach, for example—by the often associated seawall or revet- ment. This legal issue is a challenging one. PLANNING THROUGH EMERGENCY RESPONSE A significant amount of permit activity for shoreline structures occurs under emergency or extreme winter conditions. Studies of coastal develop- ment trends in the Monterey Bay region illustrate how most of the new and expanded riprap on beaches was placed during significant storm years, par- ticularly the El Ninos of 1978-79 and 1982-83. Commission data clearly shows spikes in permit activity associated with these periods as well as the 1997-98 El Nino. Emergency situations typically do not allow for adequate project review to confirm consistency with the Coastal Act or LCPs, and most emergency shoreline projects involve the placement of riprap on the beach with varying degrees of attention to design and impact mitigation. In some cases, emergency shoreline structures have even been placed on top of previously required public access dedications. Unfortunately, once riprap is placed on the beach, it becomes very difficult to either remove it or require alternative shoreline protection design. The Coastal Commission's regulations define an "emergency" as "a sud- den unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services." Applying this definition is difficult, particularly when an emergency permit request is being made during a major storm event. Emotions are running high, and given the lack of time to address important planning questions, such as the real risks to the structure, or the proper emergency response, pressures bear on the commission and local governments to take a cautious approach and allow the emergency shoreline structure. After the storm has passed, it may become apparent that the risks were not as great as originally perceived, or that the response went well beyond that needed to address the emergency event. The commission is also subject to pressure to give emer- gency approvals for revetments in cases where, it is argued, there is insuffi- cient time to analyze alternatives or to design and build a more appropriate shoreline protective device before the next big winter storms, or where funding would be lost if approvals are not given. These so-called emergen- cies are really planning failures on the part of the project proponent. Implementing rational coastal hazard or protection policy is particularly difficult in areas where local governments themselves have significant stretches of public land along the coastline. For example, the cities of 150 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST Figure 8.2 Riprap placed under emergency conditions along the West Cliff Drive area of Santa Cruz during the 1997-98 El Nino. Photo © 2002-2004 Kenneth and Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, vAvw.Californiacoastline.org.t ttCarmel-by-the-Sea and Santa Cruz have significant public access to the |?shoreline and also cliffs that are subject to erosion. Although great efforts ijjhave been made by both communities to protect these resources, responses iJiaye sometimes occurred in an ad hoc fashion, through emergency response. gAlong West Cliff Drive in Santa Cruz, significant amounts of riprap have |been placed on pocket beaches through emergency permitting (Figure 8.2). |Pfliese revetments protect cliff-top recreation' areas, but they have also Resulted in the cumulative loss of beach area and impacts to the scenic char- Bjacter of West Cliff. In recognition of this dilemma, the City has an LCP pol- that requires a comprehensive shoreline management plan to better f$rjticipate and reconcile the competing coastal resource issues along West |'/Gliff. For example, such a plan might identify those areas where relocation or fefedesign of bluff-top amenities might be feasible and preferable over the long to the placement of rock on the beach below. Similarly, the plan could |pdentify those areas likely to need shoreline protection in the near future; and lanning, design, and funding of vertical structures that would minimize encroachment and aesthetic impacts might be pursued well in ice of the inevitable winter storm events and associated erosion. |g Comprehensive coastal protection plans require considerable financial 'olitical resources, however, and it is not easy for local governments to |Upport such efforts. The lack of comprehensive planning and funding for CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY more expensive, tailor-made erosion responses leads to a situation where the easiest and least expensive response for local governments is to place rock or riprap in those locations where bluff-top amenities are about to suc- cumb to coastal erosion. More generally, the problem of emergency shore- line response highlights a deeper tension in the Coastal Act between the need to avoid shoreline protection structures by limiting them to identified "dangerous" situations, and the need to plan ahead for appropriate coastal erosion response. Although emergency response is not a good way to max- imize protection of resources, there may be some truth in the observation that waiting to approve shoreline structures until there is an imminent threat to a structure makes it more likely that agencies will be responding to coastal erosion in an emergency situation. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION FOR SHORELINE STRUCTURES The Coastal Act requires that the impacts of shoreline structures be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. Some of these impacts are fairly easy to address, either through design changes or mitigation measures. For example, to reduce the beach encroachment of a structure, the commission frequently requires that a vertical seawall, not a sloping revetment, be used where fea- sible. Another common mitigation measure to address the visual impacts of a seawall or bluff stabilization is to require that they be colored and textured to look like a natural bluff. Recent projects in Pebble Beach (Figure 7.20) and Santa Cruz (Figure 7.19) illustrate how far the technologies for replicat- ing natural bluff features in shoreline stabilization projects have come. Other shoreline structure impacts, however, have proven more challeng- ing to address. The effects of shoreline structures on sand supply and beaches are perhaps the most difficult. Coastal Act Section 30235 specifically requires that impacts to local shoreline sand supply be eliminated or miti- gated. The commission has identified three types of such impacts that need to be addressed by projects. First, many coastal protection structures, and riprap revetments in particular, encroach onto sandy beaches, resulting in the physical loss of beach area. Second, by design, shoreline structures stop coastal bluff erosion, thus cutting off a potential source of sand that would otherwise feed local beaches in the littoral ceil. Third, studies have shown that fixing the position of the back edge of the beach on a retreating coast- line with a seawall causes passive erosion and ultimately the loss of the sandy beach in front of the structure, as the shoreline continues to move landward on either side of the structure. Taken together, these three impacts may cumulatively result in the degradation or even loss of entire stretches of beaches in urban areas. In Monterey Bay, approximately 25 acres of beach 152 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST have been covered by shoreline structures. The specter ot global climate change and associated sea-level rise makes the problem of shrinking beach areas that much worse. The commission has used a methodology to address sand supply impacts that relies on the quantification of the beach sand covered, retained,, and subject to passive erosion. For example, a proposed revetment might cover several thousand square feet of sand, retain hundreds of cubic yards of sand behind it that would have otherwise supplied the beach, and cause the long- term loss of sandy beach in front of the structure through passive erosion. Other than the encroachment, these impacts generally cannot be avoided or minimized through design changes and thus must be mitigated for the commission to be able to approve the project under the Coastal Act. The most effective application of this mitigation methodology has occurred in San Diego, where the commission and the San Diego Association of Governments have established an in-lieu fee program. Property owners that "build new seawalls pay a fee in an amount that reflects the estimated cost of ; putting the identified lost sand back into the natural system. These fees are ! then to be used to finance a comprehensive beach sand replenishment pro- gram for the region. The reliance on a mitigation fee, in lieu of an actual ^individual sand replenishment requirement, also recognizes that sand lenishment mitigation projects on the scale of the individual home site 2 difficult to design, and of questionable value in terms of actually accom- >}ismng beach replenishment. f.'.pther areas of California do not have established regional sand supply Ijplenishment programs; to do so requires significant funding, technical [dy, and political support for regional or subregional beach erosion liiponse. Beach replenishment programs raise significant questions about .er effective shoreline response is even possible in any particular cir- :ance. Because of this, the commission has not been able to effectively ||j|<? the sand supply impact methodology and in-lieu fee approach in other ,p!gions of the coast. In a few circumstances mitigation fees have been col- filleted, but the implementation of an actual sand supply project has not yet I§6cvirred. Again, this is in part because of recognition that an individual, j$ie~time sand supply effort to mitigate the effects of a single seawall would y prove ineffective in addressing the actual long-term sand supply acts of a project unless they were based on more comprehensive coastal studies and analysis of sand supply dynamics in the specific area. It life* *? infeasible for such studies and projects to be completed by individual todpwners. J&Because of the difficulties in addressing sand supply impacts of individ- projects, these impacts have sometimes gone unaddressed in regulatory CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY 153 154 actions because no feasible mitigation was available. Some argue that this should not be a concern because the impacts of shoreline structures on sand supply are minimal relative to the impacts of sediment sources such as rivers and streams. Although more study is needed, recent research has shown how the importance of bluff sand may vary. In the Santa Barbara lit- toral cell, for example, cliff erosion contributes less than i percent of the total sand supplied to the beaches of the cell, because of the presence of four large sand-producing rivers. In contrast, bluff erosion contributes approxi- mately 12. percent of the beach sand in the Oceanside cell. Without further study, though, it is difficult to dismiss the potential cumulative impact of shoreline structures on the beach environment in some littoral cells. The lack of comprehensive analysis and establishment of regional or subregional sand supply mitigation programs to address impacts to beaches is a major challenge to successful implementation of the Coastal Act's shoreline struc- ture policy. THE BIG PICTURE: SOCIAL COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND PRESERVATION OF THE NATURAL SHORELINE The issues discussed thus far are ultimately rooted in the fundamental con- flict created by our decisions to put homes, buildings, and roads along coastlines that are eroding. From a social history standpoint, California's urban coastal development is relatively young. Many of the eroding bluff areas that are now at the center of conflicts concerning new seawall devel- opment were relatively undeveloped as little as 50 years ago (Figure 8.3). But many coastal urban areas are close to being built out, and few vacant lots remain. Redevelopment of aging structures in hazardous areas is now a common concern for the commission and local development. Maintaining Highway i and other scenic coastal roads in the face of coastal erosion is a continuing and growing challenge. Increasingly we seem to be at a crossroads along the coast in terms of "big picture" decisions on how to respond to coastal hazards. From a social investment standpoint, significant sums of money have been and continue to be directed to development in hazardous coastal areas. Federally subsi- dized insurance is available for communities that have development in haz- ardous areas. Federal monies also are available for shoreline protection projects with denned goals of stopping coastal erosion. Current California law says that the commission shall permit shoreline protective measures for structures in danger from erosion if there is no other feasible, less environ- mentally damaging alternative. LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST ; 8.3 (A) East Cliff Drive area of Santa Cruz in 1928, showing a lack of cliff-top pment. (B) East Cliff Drive area of Santa Cruz in 1975, with all oceanfront prop- developed with homes. Courtesy of County of Santa Cruz. But there is a social cost to the economic investment in shoreline devel- opment, and this is the cumulative degradation of our coastline through the proliferation of protection structures and all of the impacts that follow. Recent studies have established the immense economic value of California's coastline and beaches in terms of direct tourism dollars coming to local communities, indirect positive impacts on California's economy, and asso- ciated contributions to federal tax revenues. Although it is difficult to quan- tify, there is an impact on the social value of California's coastline, and specifically its beaches, from shoreline structure development. Few would disagree, for example, that the intrinsic value of an unaltered natural shore- line, with a full sandy beach, is greater than that of the urban beach covered with an eclectic array of riprap, seawalls, concrete debris, and other relics of our ongoing battle with coastal erosion (Figure 7.1). Protecting our natural coastlines by avoiding shoreline armoring is thus an important part of the social economics of beaches. More fundamentally, how we choose to respond to coastal erosion relates directly to our quality of life along the shoreline. Are urban areas destined to be fully armored, with little or no natural bluff, beach, or other shoreline features? Or are there ways to main- tain natural coastlines where most of us live and work, through erosion responses that do not involve artificial shoreline structures? The Coastal Commission has taken a strong proactive stance on the restoration of natural shoreline features and processes in situations where it seems feasible. For example, when the U.S. Army proposed the demolition of Stillwell Hall, an aging building located on a eroding bluff on Monterey Bay, the commission asked that as part of the demolition project, the Army also clean up the beach below, where tons of riprap have been dumped over the years in a failed attempt to save Stillwell Hall from the sea (Figure 7.25). In cases involving the placement of emergency revetments to protect Highway i (Figure 8.4), the commission has required that the California Department of Transportation pursue long-term highway realignment projects or bridge alternatives, to move the highway out of the active ero- sion zone and thus enable restoration of the natural shoreline. These cases represent policy decisions to require social investment in shoreline restora- tion and planned retreat, so that the coastline can continue to evolve and function naturally, without interference from human-made structures. Urban areas present a significant challenge to policymakers with respect to "big picture" choices and social economics. For some, it is easiest to focus on the need to protect existing private and public investments on the shore- line, and simply accept the eventual armoring of most of our urban areas. Under this view, little "natural" coastline will remain in these areas over the long run, and large-scale beach replenishment or the construction of groins 156 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST ; 8.4 Riprap being placed to protect California State Highway i south of dero Creek in San Mateo County. Photo © 2002-2004 Kenneth and Gabrielle rian, California Coastal Records Project, www.Californiacoastline.org. y be the only options available to maintain sandy beaches in front of Sireline protective devices. Another vision, though, would focus on the ^abilities of investing in planned retreat and shoreline restoration at the aunity, state, and federal levels. In this long view, economic incentives I commitments, as well as legal requirements, would need to be changed tiificantly to establish an economic and social context more conducive to Epolicy of shoreline retreat. jpAThe typical shoreline erosion project analysis focuses on the erosion risks |||p existing public or private development, and the feasibility of alternatives ||tp.a shoreline protective device. The analysis presumes a social objective of |fprotecting the existing development and then limits the potential ways to ||jachieve this objective by eliminating "infeasible" alternatives. Although fea- |HsibiIity analysis often includes a technical component (i.e., whether an alter- jjpnative technically can be accomplished), it also often boils down to a ||t£onclusion that certain alternatives are not economically feasible because putney cost too much for the project proponent to implement. For example, Blithe alternative of removing part of a residence at risk, although technically |f|;ieasible, is usually deemed too costly and otherwise unreasonable to ask of J. private homeowners. More fundamentally, presuming that the protection of existing develop- Ijvjjient is the social policy objective and eliminates the alternative of planned CALIFORNIA'S C 0 A ST A L H A Z A R D S POLICY Figure 8.5 Area proposed for bluff stabilization along the Pleasure Point area of East Cliff Drive in Santa Cruz. Photo © 2002-2004 Kenneth and Gabrielle Adelmari, California Coastal Records Project, www.Californiacoastline.org. retreat from the start, then a comparison of the social costs and benefits of planned retreat versus shoreline armoring is never really developed in full. Although the regulatory process of the commission and local governments presumably mitigates the individual project impacts or "social costs" of a seawall, piecemeal implementation of shoreline protection projects does not really allow for more comprehensive analysis of the cumulative social costs and benefits of long-term coastal erosion response alternatives. For example, in 2003 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Redevelopment Agency of Santa Cruz County proposed a shoreline protec- tion project for a portion of East Cliff Drive along northern Monterey Bay. The project proposed the armoring of approximately 1,100 linear feet of bluff to limit long-term erosion risks to the existing East Cliff Drive and public utilities (Figure 8.5). Although the proposed bluff stabilization proj- ect would entail significant environmental impacts, it would also protect the public space between the bluff edge and the first row of private homes, in addition to the roadway and the sewer and water lines. If the structure were not built, it was argued, the eventual result would be not only the loss of these public amenities, but also the construction of seawalls, ultimately, to protect the inland private development when it should become endan- gered—the same end result of an armored shoreline without the public benefits. 158 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST Is* The Army Corps completed a requisite cosr-oenent anajysw uj project alternatives in order to meet the project objective. The analysis assumed that protection of East Cliff Drive was the project objective, and planned retreat was not included as an alternative for more detailed analysis. The cost-benefit analysis was limited to comparing the costs of project con- struction and maintenance on one hand, and certain quantifiable benefits on the other (the avoidance of costs to relocate public utilities in the roadbed, and the costs of delay and additional travel distances for motorists from necessary detours once East Cliff Drive was closed). Within the limited universe of alternatives considered to meet the proj- ect objective, the Army Corps was able to identify a full armoring alterna- tive that maximized the net economic benefits. This is not the same exercise, however, as analyzing and comparing the social costs and benefits of planned retreat, or a beach replenishment project, with the armoring alter- Sliatives and the no-project alternative. Such an analysis would need to iden- ^-!f.;'~'jjify not only the relatively quantifiable costs and benefits of each alternative, cfeut also the costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify, such as the social icfit of maintaining an unarmored shoreline or of maintaining bluff-top HJCcess amenities. In the case of a planned retreat, the costs of eventually [uiring and demolishing existing private development inland of East Cliff >rive to allow for long-term erosion, and the relocation of the public bluff- |jft>p space would need to be considered. is not clear that more comprehensive cost-benefit analyses in cases, -ifuch as the East Cliff Drive project, if they could be completed at all, would Sj&V."-.'; |||4dto different outcomes in responding to identified coastal erosion prob- s. But the lack of broader policy analysis certainly means that planned ||retreat or other potential erosion responses that do not involve armoring not be fully considered, and thus not taken seriously enough in com- fettiunity deliberations about how to respond to coastal erosion. The first step pijutt pursuing a planned retreat policy is to identify more completely the range IfBs'Of feasible long-range alternatives, and to analyze more fully their social "Incests and benefits, even if this analysis relies on broad assumptions. Such ^analysis may in fact help communities better identify project objectives that p;tfniaximize environmental benefits to the community while minimizing the of private development to coastal hazards. I|;CONCLUSION: DIRECTIONS FOR POLICY REFORM major challenges faced by the Coastal Commission and local govern- hents in implementing the California Coastal Act suggest potential reforms |sthat might improve the policy response to coastal erosion in California. The CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY 15 goal of these suggested policy changes would De to increase and restoration of natural shorelines while reducing the exposure of devel- opment to coastal hazards. • Strengthen the "line in the sand" against new shoreline structures. Clarification of existing law is needed to ensure that new shoreline protective devices are limited to developments that exist currently. This could be accomplished through amendments to LCPs declaring that new development approved after the date of enactment of the amendments shall not be eligible for per- manent shoreline protection. LCPs also should require that new develop- ment abide by a "no future seawall" condition for as long as it is in existence. • Clarify geotechnical analysis requirements. LCPs should require that geo- technical reports submitted in support of applications for new shoreline development and shoreline structures address the risks associated with development proposals, and specify whether and to what degree structures are in danger. Training seminars for the professional geotechnical consult- ing and local planning community concerning the needs of regulatory decisionmakers and the requirements of the Coastal Act and LCPs would be useful in this regard. • Strengthen restrictions on the redevelopment of structures. Financial incentives to maintain private development in hazardous areas must be minimized. Further restricting redevelopment options for noncon- forming structures and other development along the shoreline through planning and zoning will facilitate planned retreat by limiting the increase in value of coastal properties located in hazardous areas. Minimal redevelopment of shoreline structures should be allowed absent full conformance with setback and strict engineering require- ments. Design alternatives for new development that would facilitate planned retreat, such as relocatable or movable structures, should be evaluated. Developments approved with an assumed economic life should be required to be retired, through explicit legal agreement, at the end of the identified time period. • Conduct comprehensive subregional planning. The California Department of Boating and Waterways has identified regional planning as a critical step in developing meaningful beach replenishment projects tailored to the unique conditions of California's various shoreline areas. The California Resources Agency has also recently recommended that a California Coastal Sediment Master Plan be developed, which would include regional identification and assessment of erosion risks and mech- anisms to protect shorelines and beaches. This master plan approach is 160 LIVING WITH THE CHANGING CALIFORNIA COAST «i*jl*»*—— • •fillorps of Engineers, with the participation of the Coastal Commission ana Ifither agencies. Regional knowledge concerning sand supply, littoral drift sPfates> and long-term changes in beach width, beach dynamics, and cumu- fftjative impacts is necessary to establish effective mitigation programs and ftftieasures for individual shoreline protection projects. This should include pJidentification of public access and recreation improvement projects that .„,,,..w. be supported through in-lieu fee programs. Better knowledge of Sl'Sregional and site-specific erosion trends would support more specific HBplanning for necessary shoreline response to minimize the need for emer- 'pSgency actions. Subregional planning would also provide a context for bet- IJlJfer evaluating "big picture" options for urban areas with eroding Iffcbastlines, as well as a context for improved governmental coordination tjtfid decisionmaking. LCPs provide a useful framework for such planning. ||Efjbicrease public investment in restoration of natural coastlines and processes, tSiiftd planned retreat. Financial assistance is needed to support identified lljjpreline restoration and planned retreat opportunities, such as relocating |i'.-1>'':- 'jFlighway i in areas where it is under attack from erosion and where it is Ifeasible to do so. Money is needed to support local government shoreline Ijlanning, design, and construction of state-of-the-art projects that mini- fjlfize impacts to other coastal resources. Restoration funding should be ||>;ursued to support relocation or elimination of existing development in irdous areas. financial incentives for hazardous development and armoring. A %£prollary to increased restoration funding is to eliminate financial incen- p/jtiyes that promote continued location of, or investment in, development ffffeiitl hazard zones. Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program and ^Opportunities for increased pre-hazard mitigation (planned retreat) ; should be pursued. Federal and state beach restoration programs should Jfsfibe required to fully evaluate and, where appropriate, provide funding for gsvnonstructural beach erosion response alternatives. [§&• rfw Investigate beach replenishment strategies to avoid shoreline armoring. Sediment management for the purpose of beach replenishment is poten- tially a critical component of a comprehensive response plan to coastal erosion, and more research and planning is needed to determine whether it is a feasible alternative to armoring of the shoreline. Large volumes of sand may be necessary, there may be significant impacts associated with exploiting the sand sources themselves (such as removal of upstream dams), and the feasibility, life span, and thus long-term effectiveness of beach replenishment are uncertain. Nonetheless, further investigation is CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL HAZARDS POLICY CHAPTER TWENTY DANA POINT TO THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER REINHARD FLICK INTRODUCTION The coast and beaches are the San Diego region's most important natural assets. When we think of the region's positive image, we most often think of the climate and the shoreline. Beaches are by far San Diego's largest attrac- tion, and we depend on the sand beaches to buffer homes, businesses, and public improvements from impact and inundation by ocean waves. Most of the San Diego shoreline consists of narrow beaches backed by steep seacliffs. The beaches and cliffs have for thousands of years been sub- ject to erosion from waves abetted by a rising sea level. During the stormy period of 1884 to 1893, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey noted, "New ero- sion during each winter storm is the characteristic feature of this coast." Beach and cliff erosion have become a vexing problem in the San Diego region, particularly in places that have been densely developed since the end of World War II. In light of better understanding, much coastal development now appears to have been less than prudent, especially in the long term. This is true of both public and private improvements that were built too low, too close to the beach, or with insufficient setback from the cliff edge. Awareness of local erosion problems increased after severe storms and flooding occurred during the winters of 1978, 1980, 1982-83, 1988, and 1997-98. The El Nino winter of 1982-83 was notable for the consecutive or "cluster" storms that produced heavy rainfall, elevated sea levels, and high, long-period waves. These events produced hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in California, with a proportional share in San Diego. The most important factor that characterizes the San Diego coast is the regional geology, especially the tectonic history. The next most important fac- tors are the relevant coastal processes, those physical mechanisms that alter 474 ana;5<--Pt. San-Dana PtTX^.CIemente Harbor xV=^-^ San OnofreN\ \\Qf-NuclearGenerating San Mateo Pt..^s! ~=. Station •.Oceanside ^•CarlsbadOCEANSIDE LITTORAL CELL ^Leucadia•Encinitas Solana Beach ,—*• • Del Mar • La Jolla s- Misslfin BayMISSION BAY LITTORAL CELL Zunig Pt- JettyLoma SILVER STRAND LITTORAL CELL • Imperial Beach 0 10ml =k CliffedArea Tijuana River Mexico Figure 20.1 San Diego littoral cells: Oceanside, Mission Bay, and Silver Strand. the shoreline and add or remove sand. The most important of these are waves. Tides, sea-level changes, weather, and climate also play a role, making waves more or less severe and modulating the amount of sand reaching the beaches. The San Diego region can be divided into three littoral cells, or beach com- partments. The littoral cell concept brings together the important elements of geography, nearshore processes, sand supply, and wave forces. From north to DANA POINT TO THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER 20.04 CAMP PENDLETON MARINE CORPS BASE A. A sandy beach reaches across the mouth of Las Flores Creek, which occupies Las Pulgas Canyon. The creek is incised into the flat, gently southwest- sloping marine terrace. The beach is subject to erosion during high wave and flood conditions. This area is undeveloped and there are no shoreline protection structures. It is reserved for Camp Pendleton military purposes, and except for a freeway off-ramp leading to a viewpoint, it is not accessible to the public. B. A relatively wide and sandy beach with active dunes lies on the spit across the wetland that forms the mouth of the Santa Margarita River. A delta forms at the river mouth during peak river discharge and may persist for years. The area is subject to beach retreat during high wave conditions and to flooding after heavy rainfall. This beach is stable and has accreted because of the influence of the breakwater at Oceanside Harbor just to the south. Hazard Level Stable: low risk Caution: moderate risk HI Hazard: high risk Erosion Rates O Inches per year ...•''• Camp Pendeton Marine Corps Base Shoreline Environment x:.;!.:.;.;- Sandy beach •£?*' Beach backed by marsh Beach backed by dunes Cliff or bluff fronted by beach Rocky coast with no beach cises and was ount witn two smaii jcm,.;, M ,,^j, .^^ r_ the time, little attention was devoted to understanding the environmental consequences, including rapid infilling with sand and interruption of the sand supply to down-coast beaches. The larger north breakwater was started in 1942 to prevent rapid channel clogging. : Construction of the civilian small craft harbor south of the boat basin was begun in 1958 with completion of several extensions of the north breakwater. By 1963, when the harbor was completed, about 6.8 million cubic yards of dredged sand had been placed on the adjacent beaches. The sand considerably widened the beaches immediately adjacent to the harbor, but had little or no beneficial effect for any appreciable distance to the south. The breakwaters stabilized the harbor beaches, as well as the stretch up to 5 miles to the north, and the harbor has been a major economic benefit to Oceanside. However, the breakwaters also caused a severe redistribution of sand that has contributed to beach erosion toward the south, and large volumes of sand have also been diverted offshore. Oceanside Beach is a moderately wide, sandy beach near the harbor in the north that gradually narrows toward the south, disappearing about a mile from the south harbor jetty. It is backed by park facilities, an access road called The Strand, businesses, motels, and numerous beach bungalows. The erosion and flooding risk varies, depending on the development in danger, and on the amount and quality of shore protection. Maintenance dredging of Oceanside Harbor provides an average of several hundred thousand cubic yards of sand to various parts of the beach on an annual or two-year cycle. Large volumes of cobbles underlie the beach sand veneer and become exposed when the sand is stripped away. Large cobbles were picked up by the great storm waves of the early 19805 and thrown against the low-lying ocean- front structures. This battering produced considerable erosion and damage in areas where construction has occurred directly on the former beach. South Oceanside has a narrow, fine-grained sand and cobble beach that is generally at moderate to high risk of erosion and flooding during storms. Flooding, wave overtopping, and projectile damage from cobbles occurred during the storms of 1941,1978,1980, and 1983, prompting construction of a long, high riprap revetment of heavy stone. CARLSBAD TO DEL MAR The northern part of Carlsbad is fronted by a narrow, fine-grained sand beach backed by 30- to 6o-foot-high cliffs that are susceptible to wear from runoff, groundwater, and animal burrowing, in addition to wave erosion. The cliff tops are intensively developed, and a wide variety of shoreline protection exists. The 4,ooo-foot-long Carlsbad Seawall was built in 1988 to protect the DANA POINT TO THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER 491 CONTRIBUTORS REINHARD FLICK Reinhard Flick is staff oceanographer with the California Department of Boating and Waterways and a research associate at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD. He received his BS in physics from Cooper Union in 1970, and a Ph.D. in oceanography from Scripps Institution of Oceanography in 1978. Dr. Flick conducts research; manages the California Department of Boating and Waterways Oceanography program at Scripps; lectures; and provides expert consulting in the areas of tides, sea level fluc- tuations, waves, beach processes and erosion, and coastal storm damage. He was the 2002 recipient of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association Morrough P. O'Brien Award. KIM FULTON-BENNETT Kim Fulton-Bennett is a science writer presently working at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in Moss Landing, California. His academic background includes an undergraduate degree in Earth Sciences and Environmental Studies, as well as a master's degree in Earth Science from the University of California at Santa Cruz. He has worked in a wide variety of fields, including geological consulting, land use planning, teaching, and technical writing, and has carried out research in marine geol- ogy, marine biology, and aquaculture. GARY GRIGGS Dr. Griggs has been a professor of Earth Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, since 1968 and has served as chairman of the 528 Department ot bartn sciences. He is presently the director of the Institut '^ of Marine Sciences and also the chair of the University of California Marine:iT Council. He was a senior Fulbright scholar in Greece and has also con-^ ducted collaborative marine research in Italy and New Zealand. His research' ^ over the past 35 years has focused on coastal hazards and land use planning along the California coast, and includes work on coastal erosion, littoral '••'' cells and sediment budgets, coastal protection structures and their effec- tiveness and impacts, and the effects of large coastal engineering structures : on the shoreline. He was the 2003 recipient of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association Joe Johnson Award. Dr. Griggs has written or co-written over 135 articles published in professional journals as well as five books: Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Environmental Planning; Living with the California Coast; Coastal Protection Structures and Their Effectiveness; California's Coastal Hazards: A Critical Assessment of Existing Land-Use Policies and Practices; and Formation, Evolution, and Stability of Coastal Cliffs: Status and Trends. KAREN GROVE Karen Grove received her Ph.D. in geology from Stanford University in 1989 and has been a professor of Geology and Oceanography at San Francisco State University since then. She studies sediments along the coast of California and teaches a variety of geoscience classes. CHERYL HAPKE Cheryl Hapke received her undergraduate degree in Geology from the University of Pittsburgh, a master's degree from the University of Maryland in 1992, and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 2002. From 1997 to 2005, Dr. Hapke's research focused on issues of coastal erosion and coastal hazards along the California coast and in Hawaii while she was employed by the U.S. Geological Survey at their Pacific Science Center in Santa Cruz. She is now working as a coastal geologist with the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, stationed at their Coastal Field Station at the University of Rhode Island. CHARLES F. LESTER Charles F. Lester is the deputy director for the North Central Coast and Central Coast districts of the California Coastal Commission, a state agency that plans for and regulates development along California's coast. Charles received his bachelor's degree in Geochemistry from Columbia College in CONTRIBUTORS New York City. He attended the University of California at Berkeley, receiv- ing a J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law in 1989 and a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and Social Policy in 1992. Charles's doctoral dissertation evaluated the implementation of the federal offshore oil and gas program. Before coining to the Coastal Commission, Charles was a professor of Environmental Policy and Law at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 1993 to 1997. His areas of expertise include coastal and environmen- tal policy, law and politics, governance and public law, coastal zone man- agement; and environmental sustainability. DOROTHY MERRITTS Dorothy Merritts, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Franklin Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is a geologist with expertise in coastal geomorphology, streams, rivers, and other landforms, and in the impact of geological hazards and human land use on landscapes. Her research in tectonics and topography focuses on active faulting, defor- mation, and base-level change, and particularly on the landforms of marine terraces (coral and wave-cut), longitudinal stream profiles, fluvial terraces, fault scarps, and alluvial fans. Dr. Merritts has served as a scientific advisor to the South Korean government (Korean Institute of Geology, Mining, and Materials) on coastal tectonics, marine terraces, and earthquake hazards from 1999 to the present. She is the lead author of an introductory textbook titled Environmental Geology: An Earth Systems Approach. ROBERT M. MORRIS Robert M. Norris is a professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he taught for 40 years. His undergraduate training was at UCLA and was followed by 2.5 years in the Navy, where he was involved in the Iwo Jima and Okinawa actions. After the war, he earned a master's degree at UCLA and, taking advantage of his sea-going experiences and the newly developed field of marine geology, went to Scripps Institution of Oceanography and earned a Ph.D. under Francis P. Shepard in 1951. His research interests are varied and include numerous studies of coastal ero- sion, shelf sedimentation, and Quaternary environments. He is co-author of The Geology of California. ANTONY R. ORME Antony R. Orme (Ph.D. 1961, University of Birmingham, England) is professor of Geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, and editor-in-chief CONTRIBUTORS Exhibit 2 Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. From: Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. [todd@tcardifflaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:29 PM To: Van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov' Subject: Geotz Seawall Comments Attachments: Ecological Response to Seawalls.pdf Van, I just received the initial study. Did this just come out? What is the best way to submit comments? Can I assume that the City will accept email comments and attachments? When did the Notice of Preparation go out? Also, I have only received the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and the initial study checklist. Is there a more thorough discussion available? Please let me know as soon as possible. A couple of quick questions and comments - First, did the City of Carlsbad ("City") consider the cumulative impacts of the all the past and future seawalls in the Oceanside littoral cell? The cumulative impacts are enormous. I have a powerpoint from Young and Ashford presentation to the ABSPA which indicates that 50% of the current beach sand in San Diego is from bluff erosion. (The ppt file is too big to attach.) Will you please review Young and Ashford's research paper on bluff erosion and include it in your study. The cumulative loss of bluff sand due to seawalls in San Diego is enormous. Also, did the City consider the impacts of sea level rise in conjunction with seawall? Did you consider the effects of passive erosion on the beach? Any time a seawall is placed on the back end of an eroding beach, it stops the natural erosion process. The back end of the beach is fixed in place by the seawall, but the high-tide line continues to move shoreward. The dry sand area of the beach is squeezed between the ambulatory mean high-tide line moving landward and the nonmoving seawall. Eventually the public has no dry sand area for public access. Public access along the beach is eventually cut-off, impacting recreation. This impact has been dubbed "passive erosion" by coastal geologists. In a natural system, the bluff retreats over time providing more dry sand area at the back end of the beach. A dry sand area of the beach is maintained. The only way to mitigate the impact from passive erosion is to prevent the high-tide line from moving eastward. Do you have any evidence that beach replenishment will be sufficient to prevent the hightide line from migrating eastward? Do you know if this is even possible? Has the City or anyone else calculated the amount of sand necessary to prevent the landward migration of the high tide line? If so, please include it as support for your initial study. In addition, has the City considered the significant impacts of sand replenishment? Considering that the Goetz Seawall is adjacent to important surfing resources, including a very popular reef break, the impacts of sand replenishment on surfing resources is critical. Sand replenishment may change the contour of the reef, changing the wave from one that consistently peels, to a wave that closes out (breaks all at once). Sand replenishment may not be advisable at this location, especially if the amount of sand to maintain the beach width is significant. The initial study claims that the seawall is necessary to protect the beach. When was the last time that anyone was killed or injured by a bluff collapse below 5323 and 5327 Carlsbad Blvd? When was the last time that anyone was injured by a bluff collapse in the City of Carlsbad? How often are beach goers injured by bluff collapses in the City of Carlsbad? When was the public access stairway installed? Has the City prepared an actuarial risk analysis to estimate the chances that someone is going to be injured by a bluff failure at the project site? If, according to the Department of Boating and Waterways, there are 8 million people who visit San Diego North County beaches a year, what is the- - likelihood that any single beachgoer is going to be injured or killed by a collapsing bluff in Northern San Diego County? It appears that San Diego has had 5 deaths in North County in 15 years. Three deaths have occurred at Torrey Pines State Beach, which has very high, loosely-consolidated bluffs. In addition, bluff collapses generally occur in the winter during high-tide events combined with high surf, normally during significant storm events. This is a time when beach attendance is very scarce, if not absent. In addition, a number of collapses have occurred during night, when, again, beach attendance is extremely limited. If the seawall is being pitched as a public safety measure, please provide the statistical analysis to show that statistical likelihood of someone being killed or injured at this location is significant. Of course, any accidental death is regrettable, but without an actuarial risk analysis, there is no support for the claim that the seawall is necessary to protect the public beach. Clearly, no one was injured during the last bluff collapse at this location. Has the City considered or analyzed the impact of the seawall on marine and wildlife? As stated in the article attached Jenifer Dugan and David M. Hubbard, "Ecological Response to Seawalls" 74(1) Shore and Beach 10 (2006), seawalls substantially reduce both the diversity and abundance of both intertidal organisms and shorebirds. Certain fish also lay eggs in the intertidal zone (ie. grunion). The City should consider the cumulative impact of this seawall in conjunction with other seawalls in the area with regard to intertidal species, fish and shorebirds. I have attached such article for your convenience. The initial study did not include a section which identified who the City sent the Notice of Preparation or initial study. If you have not done so, please consult with Fish and Wildlife Service, State Parks, California Coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission and other responsible and trustee agencies. (Pub. Res. Code section 21080.3.) I do not believe that the initial study is legally adequate. Please review the numerous resources which discuss the impacts of seawalls. Seawalls have already be found to have significant unmitigable impacts in Solana Beach. Why would this seawall be any different. I would highly suggest reviewing Griggs, Patsch & Savoy "Living with the Changing California Coast" which discusses the impacts of seawalls. The City's environmental review must be able to distinguish between the impacts of passive erosion, active erosion, placement loss, and impoundment, just to name a few. Please ensure that I receive all notices for this project. I also specifically request to be served to Notice of Determination, if and when this project is approved. Thanks for allowing me to comment. I look forward to helping the City of Carlsbad identify the impacts, and consider the alternatives to this seawall. Remember that Mr. Geotz does not have a vested right to a seawall. He has a temporary permit, which does not create any right to maintain the seawall. (See Barrie v. Col. Coastal Comm'n, 196 Cal. App. 3d 8, 8 (1987).) Clearly, the structures are not at risk and not entitled to shoreline armoring. The seawall permit should be denied and the seawall should be removed. These are just initial comments and questions. I intend to more thoroughly comment on the initial study later. Again, please let me know ASAP, if there are additional environmental documents prepared by the City other than the Initial Study Checklist. Thank you. Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD T. CARDIFF 121 Broadway, Ste. 358 . - San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619)546-5123 Fax:(619)546-5133 The information contained in this email message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email, and delete the original message. Exhibit 3 Ecological Responses to Coastal Armoring on Exposed Sandy Beaches By Jenifer E. Dugan David M. Hubbard Marine Science Institute University of California Santa Barbara. CA 93106 jjdugan @lifesci.ucsb.edu ABSTRACT We develop a conceptual model for assessing potential ecological responses to coastal armor- ing that incorporates the presence, extent and functioning of multiple intertidal zones, as well as changes in beach width in general. We propose that ecological responses to the narrowing of beaches associated with coastal armoring are related to changes in the widths and the dynamics of the different intertidal zones of the beach and that, as habitat narrows in response to armoring, intertidal zones are lost disproportionately from the upper beach. The reduction and loss of intertidal zones, along with expected changes in the deposition and retention of macrophyte wrack, are predicted to depress the diversity and abundance of macroin- vertebrates on armored beaches. The combination of reductions in 1) habitat, 2) accessibility at high tides, and 3) macroinvertebrate prey availability is predicted to reduce biocomplexity and affect the use of armored beaches by shorebirds. We invest! gated several predictions of our model using comparisons of armored and unannored segments of narrow bluff-backed sandy beaches in southern California. Our results supported those predictions and revealed some unexpected responses to ar- moring. Intertidal zones were fewer and narrower where armoring was present compared to adjacent unannored segments. This was evident in the absence of the upper intertidal zones on armored segments of coastline and narrower mid-intertidal zones on armored segments. The standing crop of macrophyte wrack was significantly greater (one to nearly three orders of magnitude) on unarmored segments than on armored segments. Shorebirds responded to coastal armoring as predicted by our model with significantly lower species richness (2.3 times) and abundance (>3 times) on armored segments of beach. All 13 species of shorebirds observed were more abundant on unannored seg- ments than on armored segments. Although not predicted by our model, the three species of gulls observed also responded to coastal armoring with significantly lower abundance (4.7 times) on ar- mored segments. We predict that the amount of interaction between a coastal armoring structure and the coastal processes of waves and tides will affect the ecological responses to the struc- ture. Our model provides a framework that could be used in investigating ecological responses to coastal armoring of other types and tidal heights and in other coastal regions. The accelerated loss of beaches associated with rising sea levels and the implications of our results indicate further investigation of ecological responses to coastal armoring is needed. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: biodiversity, California, intertidal zones, seawall, shorebirds, macrophyte wrack INTRODUCTION Coastal armoring, involving the placement of hard structures and walls constructed of a variety of materials, has been applied to reduce threats to coastal structures for centuries (Charlier et al 2005). The extent of coastal armoring varies regiona!)y, with higher prevalence generally found on populous developed coastlines (Nordstrom 2004). California, where approximately 10 per- cent of the coastline has been armored with rock, concrete, and wood during the past century (Griggs 1998), illustrates this trend. The application of coastal armoring has not declined over time, as exemplified by California where the extent of coastal armoring increased by over 400 percent in the 2\ years between 1971 and. 1992 (Griggs 1998). Coastal armoring, including seawalls and rock revetments, has been shown to reduce intertidal beach widths through the processes of placement loss, passive erosion, and increased erosion directly seaward of structures (Griggs 1998, 2005, Hall and Pilkey 1991, fait and Griggs 1990). These effects on the intertidal beach appear to be related to the hardened faces of armoring structures, which act to reflect rather than dissipate wave energy as well as the initial placement loss and the con- straints imposed on natural migration of the shoreline by the structures. Despite the use of armoring on coast- lines for centuries and numerous studies of the physical effects of this form of shore protection, the ecological responses of beach communities to armoring are poorly documented and understood. As a consequence of this lack of information, ecological effects are often not considered in decision-making or coastal policy. Intertidal zonation on exposed sandy beaches is extremely dynamic due to the highly mobile nature of the sandy sub- strate, the intertidal animals and the re- sources on which these animals depend (McLachlan and Jaramillo 1995, Brown and McLachlan 1990). In general, two to three different intertidal zones inhabited Figure 1. Profile of an exposed sandy beach showing the intertidal and supralittoral zones investigated in this study. The relative locations of major invertebrate types, accumulations of macrophyte wrack and ephemeral coastal strand vegetation are indicated. Air-breathing invertebrates can include talitrid amphipods, oniscoidean isopods, insects, and arachnids. Invertebrates with gills can include hippid crabs, isopods, amphipods, bivalves, gastropods, and polychaetes. 10 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 10-16 by distinct groups of mobile animals are present on most exposed sandy beaches (McLachlan and Jaramillo 1995). These zones generally correspond to the rela- tively dry sand/substrate of the upper in- tertidal zone at and above the drift line, the damp sand of the middle intertidal zone and the wet or saturated sand of the lower intertidal zone (Figure J). In addition, a supralittoral or coastal strand zone exists at the extreme high water level on many beaches (Figure I). Unlike rocky shores, the location of these zones and of the diversity of organisms that inhabit them changes with the tides, wave conditions, and the seasons. We propose that ecological responses to the narrowing of beaches associated with coastal armoring can be estimated from the widths and dynamics of the differ- ent intertidal zones of the beach. Loss of habitat area alone can have clear ecologi- cal consequences in many coastal ecosys- tems (e.g., wetlands, riparian corridors and reefs). For beaches, we hypothesize that as habitat narrows in response to armoring, intertidal zones are lost disproportionately, resulting in a sequence of ecological im- pacts. We predict that the loss of intertidal beach habitat caused by coastal armoring proceeds from the upper beach to the lower beach. The supralittoral zone and sand-stabi- lizing coastal strand vegetation may be strongly and immediately affected by the placement loss, accelerated erosion and the narrowing of the beach associated with armoring, processes that can result in the rapid elimination of this zone. Be- low this, the rich zone of drying and damp sand around the drift-line inhabited by air-breathing crustaceans and insects could also be greatly reduced or elimi- nated. The retention of wrack and other drift material would likely decline as this zone narrows, and depositional dynamics shift, reducing the primary food source for wrack consumers and the wrack-based beach food web. The narrowing and loss of the mid-intertidal zone and associated animals such as isopods, amphipods, and polychaetes is also predicted to occur on armored beaches. The saturated sand of the low intertidal zone would be expected to persist the longest; but impacts on the intertidal species of this zone, such as sand crabs and clams, could also occur. The survival of these mobile animals is likely to be negatively affected by restric- tions on their upward migration with tides and wave events (Jaramillo et al 2000) imposed by the narrowing beach in front of the armoring structure. macroinvertebrates (Dugan et al. 2003) than ungroomed beaches. The rich invertebrate communities of southern California beaches are important as prey for a remarkably diverse and abun- dant shorebird assemblage, particularly during spring and fall migrations and over the winter months with over 26 differ- ent species observed in numbers that can exceed 1000 individuals knv'(McCrary and Pierson 2000, Hubbard and Dugan 2003, Dugan et al. 2003). The diversity and abundance of shorebirds on southern California beaches has been positively correlated with the diversity and abun- dance of macroinvertebrate prey and with macrophyte wrack in this region (Dugan 1999, Dugan et al. 2003) and others (Tarr andTarr 1987). Using existing information on eco- logical communities of exposed sandy beaches, we hypothesized that changes in the width and extent of intertidal zones could affect the diversity, abundance, and structure of the intertidal community with most distinct effects on the upper zones of the beach. These effects could in turn reduce the prey resources available to shorebirds and their use of beach habi- tats. Based on this conceptual model, we investigated several ecological responses predicted from the loss of intertidal and supralittoral beach habitat associated with coastal armoring, including the reduction or loss of intertidal zones and associated organisms, reduced accumulation of mac- rophyte wrack and reduced shorebird use. We tested these predictions using paired observations of intertidal zones, wrack and shorebird use of armored and unarmored coastal segments of beaches in southern California. METHODS Study area This study was conducted on wave- exposed intertidal beaches at four sites located between Gaviota and Goleta in southern Santa Barbara County, Califor- nia. The coastline of this region consists primarily of narrow, bluff-backed beaches perched on wave-cut platforms that are interspersed with stream mouths, rocky points and a variety of coastal armor- ing structures (e.g., Habel and Armstrong 1978). The study region experiences a mixed semi-diurnal microtidal regime. Seasonal and episodic variation in wave climate and strong longshore transport drive changes in sand levels altering mix- tures of sand, cobbles, boulders, and rocky substrates in the intertidal zone (e.g.. Hub- bard and Dugan 2003). These beaches are in the Santa Barbara Littoral Cell where estimated average net longshore transport rates of sand range from 400 to 900 yards3 per day from west to east for this portion of this cell (Bascom 1980). Many beaches on this coast experience large inputs and high standing crops of macrophyte wrack from nearshore kelp forests reefs, and surfgrass beds (Dugan et al. 2003). All of the study sites were narrow, bluff-backed open coast beaches as de- scribed above and would be considered intermediate in morphodynamic state (e.g., Short 1996) vvith seasonally variable wave heights (significant breaker heights = 0.3 to 2.5 m) and moderately fine sand (mean grain sizes = 0.216 to 0.256 mm)(Dugan 'and Hubbard 2004). None of the study sites are subject to beach grooming. Each of the four study sites consisted of two segments: 1) a segment of shoreline immediately seaward of an intertidal con- crete seawall (hereafter the armored seg- ment) and 2) an unarmored bluff-backed segment of shoreline adjacent to the ar- mored segment of the same length and with similar orientation (the unarmored segment). The unarmored segments were either upcoast or downcoast of the ar- mored segments, depending on coastal ori- entation and presence of other structures. During the study period, the four seawalls chosen for study interacted with the ma- jority of high tides but were out of range of the wave wash on most low tides. The lengths and mean heights of the four sea- walls used in the study are given in Table 1. The concrete seawalls chosen for study were all massive, nearly vertical structures, with some gentle landward slope near the bases, that have been in place for at least 60 years. The study sites were surveyed and all data collected during August and September 2005, a time of year when sand levels are generally at their annual maxima in this region and shorebird visitation is high (Hubbard and Dugan 2003). We collected data on three ecological aspects on each armored and unarmored segment of beach: 1) width and extent of intertidal zones, 2) standing crop (wet bio- mass) of accumulated macrophyte wrack, and 3) diversity and abundance of shore- birds, gulls and other birds. To avoid pos- sible end effects associated with armoring structures, we only measured habitat zones and wrack in the middle 50 percent of each segment. For each segment, we measured the distance (to the nearest 0.1 m) from the landward limit of intertidal habitat (sea- wall or bluff) to the high tide strand or - Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 10-16 11 ..Ateie.hsigM.iau 170 760 Table 1. Lengths and mean heights (± standard deviation) of seawalls and adjacent unarmored shoreline segments used in the study (mean heights are based on measurements from five to seven locations in the middles 50 percent of each armored segment in September 2005). Seawalls are listed from east to west as in the figures. Beach names indicate locations of nearby landmarks, not the names of seawalls or their owners. with armoring was tested with repeated measures ANOVA. The distribution of shorebird species relative to coastal armoring was exam- ined with the Sign test(Zar 1984), RESULTS Intertidal Zonation The intertidal driftline and to the water table outcrop on five to seven transects during low tide in September 2005 (Figure I). The hypoth- esis that intertidal zone widths differed between armored and unarmored segments was examined with two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). To estimate the standing crop of wrack, we measured the mass of macroalgae and seagrass deposited on three randomly lo- cated shore-normal transects located within the central 50 percent of each segment on a single sampling date in September 2005. We collected all exposed and buried wrack in a l-m wide strip across the intertidal zone and sorted it by type including: fresh and dried Macrocystis pyrifera, Egregia menziesii, Phyllospadix spp., Zostera spp., red algae, green algae and other brown algae. All wrack was weighed in the field with a spring scale. The hypothesis that the standing crop of wrack differed between armored and unarmored segments was examined with two-way ANOVA. We also noted the presence or absence of driftwood on each segment. We counted and identified all birds pres- ent, including shorebirds, gulls, and other birds, on intertidal sand or rocks, or on seawalls on the armored and unarmored segments at each site during low tides on eight dates between Aug. 19 and Sept. 30, 2005. Counts of paired segments of coast were always made on the same tide and date. Data were summarized as abundance and species richness for all birds observed. Means and standard errors of species rich- ness and abundance of shorebirds, gulls and other birds were calculated for each segment and shoreline type. Raw abun- dance data were adjusted to densities per km of shoreline for comparisons. The hypothesis that the species richness and abundance of shorebirds and gulls varied zones of all beach segments we mea- sured were relatively narrow with overall widths from the up- per beach limit to the water table outcrop ranging from 4.1 m to 15.4 m on armored segments and 6.5 m to 28.7 m on unarmored segments of Jbeach. No coastal strand zone was pres- ent on the study beaches in 2005. We also observed fewer intertidal boulders (large naturally occurring rocks of greater than 256 mm diameter) seaward of the armored segments compared to unarmored bluff- backed segments. v Intertidal zones were fewer and narrow- er where armoring was present compared to adjacent unarmored segments (Figure 2). This was manifested in the absence of the upper intertidal zones on armored seg- ments of coastline (Figure 2, 3a). In every comparison, the driftline occurred at the base of or on the seawall itself on armored segments, indicating the elimination of the upper and supralittoral intertidal zones on armored segments (Figure 2, 3a). On un- armored sections, at least a narrow upper intertidal zone was present at every site (Figure 3a). The distance from the upper beach lim- it to the water table outcrop was narrow- er (47 percent to 60 percent)for armored compared to adjacent unarmored segments (Figure 2, 3b). This distance differed sig- nificantly among ar- mored and unarmored segments and among the four sites (two- way ANOVA, n = 40: Type: F= 98.41, p< 0.001, Site: F= 14.51, p<O.OOI,Type.xSite: F= 1.19,p = 0.330). Wrack The distribution of drift material, wrack, and driftwood, present during our surveys varied between armored and unarmored segments. The macrophyte wrack in our sur- veys consisted primarily of brown macroai- gae and surfgrass and amounts varied con- siderably among the four sites and among transects. Driftwood deposits were present on the four unarmored segments studied, but no driftwood was observed along any of the armored segments during the study period. The standing crops of macrophyte wrack (wet biomass per meter of shoreline) were very low on all the armored segments dur- ing the study period. The standing crop of wrack was one to nearly three orders of magnitude greater on unarmored segments (881 g nr1 to 9351 g nv') than on armored segments (6 g m'1 to 37 g m'1) (Figure 4). The standing crop of wrack was signifi- cantly greater on unarmored bluff-backed segments than on armored segments but did not differ significantly among the four beach sites (2 way ANOVA, n = 24, Type: F = 5.60, p = 0.031, Site: F = 0.88, n = 24, p - .474, Type x Site: F = 0.88, p = 0.47). Birds Overall, we observed a total of 3,961 birds of 27 species, including shorebirds, gulls and other birds, in eight counts at each of four sites (4.7 km of shoreline to- tal per count) (Table 2). Birds were more abundant and more diverse on unarmored segments than on armored segments with seawalls. Mean abundance was 4.3 times higher on the unarmored segments (164 ± 234 individuals km'1) than on the armored segments (38 + 83 individuals km"'). The mean species richness of birds (per count) was 2.1 times higher for unarmored seg- ments than for armored segments. Figure 2. This view looking east along an old concrete seawall on the Gaviota coast at low tide illustrates the attenuation of intertidal zones on a beach seaward of coastal armoring. 12 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 10-16 Figure 3. Mean widths (+ one standard error, n = 5) of intertidal zones in meters at low tide for unarmored (grey bars) and armored (white bars) segments of coastline at four beaches: (a) mean widths of the zone between the driftline and the upper beach limit,( * indicates the absence of this zone) (b) mean widths of the beach between the upper beach limit and the water table outcrop (wet/dry line). The names of the beaches given on the x axis indicate nearby landmarks. I. Figure 4. Mean wet biomass of macrophyte wrack (+ one standard error, n =3) in grams at low tide for unarmored (grey bars) and armored (white bars) segments of coastline at 4 beaches. Shorebirds Shorebirds responded to coastal "armor- ing as predicted by our mode!. We ob- served a total of 514 Shorebirds of 13 species in the 8 surveys (Table 2). Most of the shorebirds observed were foraging actively. A total of 13 species of shorebirds were recorded on unarmored segments, while only eight species were seen on ar- mored segments (Table 2). The mean spe- cies richness (per count) of shorebirds was 2.3 times higher for unarmored segments than for segments with seawalls (Figure 5). Overall, the abundance of shorebirds was more than three times greater on un- armored segments (24.3 ± 12.6 individuals krrr1) than on armored segments (7.5 + 7.5 individuals km"1) (Figure 6). The species richness and abundance of shorebirds was significantly greater on unarmored seg- ments than on armored segments of beach (Repeated Measures ANOVA, n = 8, Rich- ness: F= 15.97l,p = 0.007;Abundance: F - 13.194, p = 0.011). All 13 species of shorebirds observed were more abundant on unarmored seg- ments than on armored segments (Sign Test, p < 0.001) (Table 2). The four most abundant species of shorebirds accounted for 90 percent of the total shorebird abun- dance: Spotted Sandpiper, Actitis macu- lata, 51 percent; Willet, Catatrophorus inornatus, 15 percent; Wandering Tattler, 13 percent; and Killdeer, Charadrius vo- ciferus 11 percent. Of these species, large proportions of all individuals observed were found on unarmored segments (70 percent, 91 percent, 85 percent, and 95 percent respectively). Gulls Although not predicted by our model, gulls also responded to coastal armoring. We observed a total of 3,378 gulls of three species in the eight surveys (Table 2). All three species of gulls were recorded on armored and unarmored segments of beach (Table 2); most of them were loafing. Mean TabfcZ.. jaut (.TWfctf hii.!x ui j ant) SL^ 30. 28W stand tsocuRonf* (number rtli.;w«? pra««Vnif jsh(>«!?!!-dik j««{ ajKuir-stJ Mid istzifttiotfsi H>'»ti?i«-i <if (sr.a.'ft H:< y-rvr km ikiui*irt-) (\v.g, v, M ! IX— V>r^ ^-srr'?*f S-x-l frtst Table 2. Abundance (as counts) and occurrence (number of times present) of shorebirds, gulls, and other birds in paired surveys of armored and unarmored segments of beach between Aug, 19 and Sept, 2005. (Not adjusted to per km densities.) Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 10-16 13 Figure 5. Mean species richness of shorebirds (+ one standard error, n = 8) during fall migration for unarmored (grey bars) and armored (white bars) segments of coastline at four beaches. species richness did not vary significantly between armored and unarmored segments. Overall, the mean abundance of gulls was 4.7 times higher for unarmored segments (136.7 + 234.8 individuals km'1) than for armored segments (29.3 + 83.8 individuals km'1) (Table 2). The species richness of gulls did not vary significantly with coastal armoring (Repeated measures ANOVA, n = 8, F = 2.7, p = 0.151). The abundance of gulls was significantly greater on unar- mored segments than on armored segments of beach (Repeated Measures ANOVA, n = 8,F= 18.880, p = 0.005). Other birds A response to armoring was also ap- parent for a variety of other species of birds observed including seabirds (cormo- rants, California Brown Pelican), herons (Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, Green Heron) and terrestrial birds (e.g., Black Phoebe, Song Sparrow, American Crow, Rock Dove). Low numbers of other bird species were observed with a total of 69 individuals of 11 species recorded in our surveys (Table 2). Overall, twice as many species of other birds were observed on unarmored segments (10 species) as on armored segments (five species) of beach (Table 2) however, this difference was not statistically significant (Repeated measures ANOVA. n = 8, F = 4.531, p = 0.077). The abundance of other bird species was gen- erally quite low, but varied with coastal armoring. The overall mean abundance of other birds was 2.3 times higher on unarmored segments (3.2 + 3.0 individuals km"') than on armored segments (1.4 + 2.0 individuals km"1) but did not differ signifi- cantly with armoring (Repeated measures ANOVA, n = 8, F = 3.465, p = 0.112). DISCUSSION Narrowing of beaches in front of coastal armoring was evident in both the upper Figure 6. Mean abundance of shorebirds (+ one standard error, n = 8) during fall migration for unarmored (grey bars) and armored (white bars) segments of coastline at four beaches. and the middle intertidal zones of the beach. Upper intertidal zones appeared to be most affected by armoring with the zone of the beach located above the drift- line eliminated from the armored segments of beach, even in late summer. The effects on intertidal zones would be expected to be stronger during the winter and spring months when intertidal sand levels de- cline (e.g., Hubbard and Dugan 2003). A well-designed BAC1 (Before After Control Impact — e.g., Schroeter et al. 1993) study of the short-term responses (20 months) to a newly constructed seawall did not find a significant effect of the seawall on the distance between the driftline and the low tide level of the beach (Jaramillo et a!. 2002). This contrasting result for effects on the intertidal zone may be due in pan to the young age of the seawall studied by Jaramillo et al. (2002) compared to the old structures studied here. Importantly, their study did not compare the zone widths above the driftline where the most extreme differences were observed in our study. The coastal strand zone and associated vegetation did not exist on most of the narrow beaches we studied and was never observed on the armored segments. The effects of coastal erosion and sea level rise oiTthis restricted zone (e.g., Feagin et al. 2005) combined with armoring impacts bode poorly for the survival of the coastal strand zone on coastlines that are both retreating and developed. The lack of intertidal boulders seaward of the armored segments compared to un- armored bluff-backed segments suggests a reduced supply and/or higher longshore transport of boulders occurs in front of seawalls. This result could be examined in more detail and has important implications for both coastal sediment supply (e.g., Runyan and Griggs 2003) and the biocom- plexity of the intertidal zone. Our results support the prediction that upper intertidal beach zones are lost and mid-intertidal zone are reduced in front of coastal armoring structures. The upper intertidal zone, specifically the driftline, shifts from the beach to the armoring structure with clear consequences for the ecology of the beach, including reduced biodiversity, abundance and prey for shorebirds. Rich, three-dimensional infau- nal beds of the driftline are eliminated and are replaced by the steep tvvo-dimensional habitat of the seawall, which may support a low diversity of some rocky shore spe- cies (e.g.. Chapman 2003, Chapman and Bulleri 2003) .but has little or no resource value for shorebirds. The damp sand zone of the beach was also significantly narrow- er on armored segments of coast compared with adjacent unarmored segments. This result implies reduced habitat for inverte- brates and more restricted foraging areas for shorebirds on armored coastlines. In addition to macroinvertebrates, the high intertidal zone around the driftline is nesting habitat for several species of fish, including the California grunion (Leures- thes tenuis) on open coastlines and Surf Smelt (Hypoinesus pretiosus) and Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) on protected shores, who lay their eggs in this zone during peak spring high tides to in- cubate in the sand through the neap tides. Negative effects of armoring on embryo survival have been reported for the surf smelt in Puget Sound (Rice 2003) and might be expected for California grunion. The reduction or loss of this high intertidal zone associated with coastal armoring re- ported here has clear consequences for reproduction of beach-dependent fish spe- cies. The importance of Pacific sand lance and surf smelt as forage fish for salmon and seabirds have stimulated efforts to identify and protect spawning beaches from coastal armoring and other human impacts in the Puget Sound area (Reeves et al. 2003). Wrack is a key resource for beach in- vertebrates (Brown and McLachlan 1990). Availability of macrophyte wrack can af- fect diversity and abundance of intertidal animals including shorebirds (Dugan et al 2003). An average of 37 percent (range = 14 percent to 55 percent) of the inver- tebrate species on beaches of the study region were wrack-associated forms and overall species richness of the community was positively correlated with the stand- ing crop of wrack (Dugan et al. 2003). We predict that the loss of this habitat zone ob- served on armored segments in this study has likely resulted in a significant reduc- 14 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 10-16 tion of intertidal diversity and an alteration of community structure and function. The abundance of talitrid amphipods was posi- tively associated with wrack cover (Dugan et al. 2003) and this important crustacean can reach densities exceeding 90,000 in- dividuals m"1 on unarmored bluff-backed beaches (Dugan etal. unpublished). The significant reduction in the standing crop of this key resource found on ar- mored beaches is expected to have strong negative effects on biodiversity and abun- dance of wrack-associated invertebrates, including talitrid amphipods, isopods, and beetles, as well as the entire intertidal community and food web of the beach. Our results also suggest that the accumula- tion of wrack may be affected by coastal armoring on other shore types including boulder, cobble, rock shelf, and estuarine shorelines thus affecting a variety of inter- tidal food webs. Our results fit our prediction that the distribution of shorebirds on beaches dur- ing fall migration responds negatively to the presence of coastal armoring. The significant responses of species richness and abundance of shorebirds to armoring was evident even during low tide surveys when the greatest amount of habitat was available. We expect the differences in shorebird distributions would be greater during high tides and when sand levels are reduced during winter and spring. The response of shorebirds to coastal armor- ing exceeded that predicted by the loss of habitat area alone, suggesting that other factors — including prey abundance and diversity, availability of high tide refuges, and other landscape factors — also con- tribute to the observed response. Loss of habitat for migration staging, foraging, and wintering has been implicated in the declines of populations of many species of shorebirds in North America and is a major concern for shorebird conservation planning (Brown et al. 2001). Our results were also consistent with the prediction that visually searching shore- birds, such as plovers (e.g., killdeer and black-bellied plovers), were strongly af- fected by beach changes associated with armoring. This may be related to the dis- proportionate reduction of the zones above and around the driftline where the prey for these species concentrate in stranded wrack. Although not predicted by our concep- tual model, gulls, seabirds, waders, and other birds also responded negatively to coastal armoring in this study. Factors associated with armoring that may be af- fecting this wider variety of birds require further investigation. The seawalls observed in this study were old, primarily vertical structures that interacted with tides and waves daily, even in the late summer when sand levels are expected to be greatest on this coastline (e.g., Hubbard and Dugan 2003). These walls were associated with significant de- pression in several ecological elements of the beach community. Ecological re- sponses to other forms of coastal armor- ing may differ. Seawalls or other coastal armoring structures that experience more or less interaction with waves and tides could produce different results. We predict that the ecological effects of any armoring structure will increase with the amount of interaction between the structure and the intertidal processes of waves and tides, whether this is due to initial placement or subsequent erosion of the beach. CONCLUSIONS Our study results suggest that the altera- tion of sandy beaches by coastal armor- ing causes significant ecological responses of intertidal beach communities including overall loss of habitat, the loss and reduc- tion of intertida) zones, altered wrack de- position and retention, and reduced diver- sity and abundance of macro!nvertebrates, shorebirds, gulls, and other birds. The combination of rising sea levels predicted by climate change models (e.g., Kend- all et al 2004) and the increasing extent of coastal armoring (already >10 percent of the coast in California (Griggs 1998) will accelerate beach loss and increase ecological consequences for sandy beach communities and shorebirds in many re- gions. The ecological responses to coastal armoring we found indicate that further and more detailed research is needed on this question. We predict that the amount of interaction between a coastal armor- ing structure and the coastal processes of waves and tides will affect the ecological responses to the structure. Our conceptual model provides a framework that could be used in investigating ecological responses to coastal armoring of other types and tidal heights and in other coastal regions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge S. Bull, M. James, G. Osherenko, and D. Revell for their encouragement and valuable discus- sions about this study. The deliberations of the Goleta Beach Working Group orga- nized by Santa Barbara County provided the inspiration for this study. We also thank L. Ewing and four anonymous re- viewers whose suggestions improved our manuscript. This research was supported by a grant from the A.S. Students Shore- line Preservation Fund of the University of California at Santa Barbara and by the Santa Barbara Coastal Long Term Ecolog- ical Research project (NSF Cooperative Agreement #OCE-9982105). Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 10-16 15 REFERENCES Bascom, W. 1980. Waves and Beat-lies. Anchor Press/Doubleday, New York. 366 pp. Brown, A. and A. McLachlan, 1990. T/ie Ecology of Sandy Shores. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. 340 pp. Brown, S.C., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, R. Gill (eds.), 2001. The U.S. Shorehird Conservation Plan (2°d edition). Manomet: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Chapman, M.G., 2003. "Paucity of mobile species on constructed seawalls: effects of urbanization on biodiversity." Marine Ecology Progress Series, 264, 21 -29. Chapman, M.G. and F. Bulleri, 2003. "Intertidal seawalls: new features of landscape in intertidal environments." Landscape and Urban Planning, 62, 159-172 Charlier, R.H., M.C.P. Chaineux, and S. Morcos, 2005. "Panorama of the history of coastal protection." Journal of Coaxial Research, 21(0,79-111. Dugan, J. .. 1999. "Utilization of sandy beaches by shorebirds: relationships to population characteristics of macrofauna prey species and beach morphodynamics." Draft Final Report. Minerals Management Service, UC Coastal Marine Institute. Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, J.M. Engle, D.L. Martin, D.M. Richards, G.E. Davis, K.D. Lafferty, R.F. Ambrose, 2000. "Macrofauna communities of exposed sandy beaches on the Southern California mainland and Channel Islands." Fifth -.California Islands Symposium, MMS 99-0038, 339-346. Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, M. McCrary, and M. Pierson, 2003. "The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed beaches of southern California." Estiiarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 58S, 133-148. Dugan. j'.E. and D.M. Hubbard, 2004. "Factors affecting sandy beach use by shorebirds in the Santa Maria Basin and vicinity." Draft Final Study Report to MMS, OCS Study if MMS 2004-012. 127pp. Feagin, R.A., D.J. Sherman and W.E. Grant, 2005. "Coastal erosion, global sea-level rise, and the loss of sand dune plant habitats." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(3), 359-364. Griggs, G.B., 1998. "The armoring of California's coast." Pp. 515-526 in California and the World Ocean '97. Conference Proceedings, O.T. Magoon, H. Converse. B. Baird and M. Miller-Henson (eds.) American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia. Griggs, G.B., 2005. "California's retreating coastline: where do we go from here?" Pp. 121-125 In: California and the World Ocean, Conference Proceedings, October 2002, Santa Barbara, CA, O.T. Magoon, H. Converse, B. Baird and M. Miller-Henson (eds.) American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia. Hubfaard, D.M., and J.E. Dugan, 2003. "Shorebird use of an exposed sandy beach in southern California." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 585, 169-182. Habel, J.S. and G.A. Armstrong, 1978. Assessment and atlas of shoreline erosion along the California coast. State of California, Dept. of Navigation and Ocean Development. Sacramento, CA 277 pp. Hall, M.J. and O.H. Pilkey, 1991. "Effects of hard stabilization on dry beach widths for New Jersey." Journal of Coastal Research, 7(3), 771-785. Jaramillo, E., J. Dugan, and H. Contreras. 2000. "Abundance, tidal movement, population structure and burrowing rate of Emerita analaga (Stimpson 1857) (Anomura, Hippidae) at a dissipative and a reflective beach in south central Chile." Marine Ecology Napnli. 21 (2), 113-127. Jaramillo, E., H. Contreras, and A. Bellinger, 2002. "Beach and faunal response to the construction of a seawall in a sandy beach of south central Chile." Journal of Coastal Research, 18(3), 523-529. Kendall, M.A.. M.T. Burrows, A.J. Southward, and S.J. Hawkins, 2004. "Predicting the effects of marine climate change on the invertebrate prey of the birds of rocky shores." this, 146 (SI), 40-47 McCrary, M and M. Pierson, 2000. "Influence of human activity on shorebird beach use in Ventura County, California." Proceedings of Fifth California Islands Symposium. OCS Study MMS 99-0038,424 - 427. McCrary-, M. and M. Pierson, 2002. "Shorebird abundance and distribution on beaches in Ventura County, California." Final Report. OCS Study MMS 2000-010. 72 pp. McLachlan, A. and E. Jaramillo, 1995. "Zonation on sandy shores." Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 33,305-335. Nordstrom, K.F. 2004. Beaches and dunes of developed coasts, Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. Rice, C. 2003. "Effects of shoreline modification on spawning habitat of surf smelt (Hypomrsus pretiosus) in Puget Sound, Washington." Abstract from the 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference. Reeves, B, B. Bookhein, and H. Berry, 2003. "Using ShoreZone inventory data to identify potential forage fish spawning habitat." Abstract from the 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference. Runyan, K.B. and G.B. Griggs, 2003. 'The effects of armoring seacliffs on the natural sand supply to the beaches of California." Journal of Coastal Research, 19(2), 336-347. Schroeter, S.C., J.D. Dixon, J. Kastendiek, and R.O. Smith, 1993. "Detecting the ecological effects of environmental impacts: a case study of kelp forest invertebrates." Ecological Applications, 3(2), 331-350. Short, A.D., 1996. "The role of wave height, period, slope, tide range and embaymentisation in beach classifications: a review." Revista Chilean de Historia Natural, 69,589-604. Tait, J.F. and G.B. Griggs, 1990. "Beach response to the presence of a seawall: a comparison of field observations." Shore and Beach, 58(2), 11-28. Tarr, J.G. and P.W. Tarr, 1987. "Seasonal abundance and the distribution of coastal birds on the northern Skeleton Coast, South West Africa/Namibia." Madoqna 15, 63-72. Zar, J. H., 1984. Biostatittical Analyses. 2"' Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 718 pp. 16 Shore & Beach Vol.74, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp.10-16