On Friday, December 11, 2015, the California Coastal Commission is scheduled to consider
Appeal by Alexis Delehanty of City of Carmel-by-the-Sea decision granting permit with conditions to Carmel authorizing implementation of Beach Fire Management Program including installation of 26 fire rings, signage, maintenance provisions, and monitoring on Carmel Beach seaward of Scenic Road from 10th Avenue south to Martin Way, Carmel, Monterey County. (MW-SC) at Portola Plaza Hotel, 2 Portola Plaza, Monterey, CA 93940. The
I. MOTIONS AND
RESOLUTIONS
A. Substantial
Issue Determination
Staff
recommends that the Commission determine that a substantial
issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed. A finding of substantial issue would
bring the CDP application
for the proposed project under the jurisdiction of the Commission for de novo hearing
and action. To implement this recommendation, staff recommends a NO vote
on the following
motion. Failure of this motion will result in a de novo hearing on the CDP
application,
and
adoption of the following resolution and findings. Passage of this motion will
result in a finding of No Substantial Issue and the local action will become final and effective.
The motion passes
only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
Motion: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal
Number A-3-CML-15-0033 raises no substantial issue with respect to the
grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act, and I
recommend a no vote.
Resolution to
Find Substantial Issue: The
Commission hereby finds that Appeal Number A-3-CML-15-0033 presents a substantial issue with
respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603 of the
Coastal Act regarding consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or the public
access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
B. CDP
Determination
Staff
recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, approve a
coastal development permit
for the proposed development. To implement this recommendation, staff
recommends a YES vote
on the following motion. Passage of this motion will result in approval of the
CDP as conditioned
and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only
by affirmative
vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
Motion: I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development
Permit Number A-3-CML-15-0033 pursuant to the staff recommendation, and
I recommend a yes vote.
Resolution to
Approve CDP: The Commission hereby approves
Coastal Development Permit Number A-3-CML-15-0033 and adopts the findings
set forth below on grounds that the development as conditioned will be in
conformity with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program policies and Coastal Act
access and recreation policies. Approval of the permit complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or
alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects
of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse
impacts of the development on the environment.
REFERENCE:
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
Portola Plaza
Hotel
2 Portola Plaza
Monterey, CA 93940
SUMMARY OF STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
The
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea approved a coastal development permit (CDP) to allow
the City to install 26 fire rings on Carmel Beach and to implement a new Beach Fire
Management Pilot Program
(Program) along the south end of Carmel Beach, seaward of Scenic Road between Tenth
Avenue and Martin Way. The City’s CDP decision was appealed to the Commission,
with the
Appellant alleging Local Coastal Program (LCP) conformance issues with respect
to hazards, public
safety, public access and recreation, air and water quality, public views, and
community character.
After reviewing the local record, Commission staff believes that the approved
project raises
a substantial issue with respect to the project’s conformance with the City’s
certified LCP and
the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
Carmel
Beach is a significant local and regional beach access destination. Its wide
expanse of white
sand extends along a mile of the City’s shoreline, and attracts beach visitors
from far and wide
who come to walk, sit, and play on the beach and in the ocean waves offshore.
Many beachgoers
also come to sit around a beach fire in the early afternoon and evening. These
beach fires
have long been a part of both the cultural fabric and recreational utility
associated with Carmel
Beach, and are called out as an important part of the beach recreational
experience here in
the City’s LCP. Per the LCP, beach fires are only allowed on the beach south of
Tenth Avenue.1
The
City’s Program is in response to concerns raised by the City and its residents
that these beach
fires are leading to both health issues and beach degradation. The former is
associated with the
smoke from beach fires, and the latter associated with the debris left on the
beach, including because
the beach currently does not have any fire rings and fires are made directly on
the sand. The
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), in concert with
the City, has
been monitoring smoke levels (actually PM2.5 levels)2
inland of the beach since late May of this
year, for a total of 140 days monitored.3 Data
from the smoke monitor shows that there was one
exceedance of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 24-hour PM2.5
standard during
this time, which occurred on a day when wood beach fires were not allowed.
Otherwise, the
data shows PM2.5 levels to be fairly constant during the week, and generally
increase on weekends, with ‘spikes’ in smoke levels
roughly corresponding to spikes in the numbers of beach
fires.4 Based on EPA guidelines for the 1-hour
PM2.5 concentrations,5 the monitored smoke
levels have predominantly fallen into the “good” air quality category 98% of
the total number
of hours in the monitoring timeframe, but there are instances when the ‘spikes’
have fallen
into the “moderate” air quality category (1.3%), and even times where the data
indicates “unhealthy”6
air (0.7%) (see Exhibit 7).7 Thus,
and although there is a need for more robust data collection
and development,8 it is clear that
the monitor has identified some PM2.5 levels that extend
into unhealthy ranges, and it is clear that there is an air quality problem in
the surrounding Carmel
Beach area to which beach fires appear to contribute that needs to be
understood and addressed.
Originally,
the City’s approved Program was based on limiting and managing beach fires to address
these concerns, including no longer allowing unlimited fires directly on the
sand, and instead
limiting such fires to 26 fire rings. However, in the time since the City’s
approval (and subsequent
appeal of that approval to the Commission), the City instituted an “emergency” prohibition
on beach fires on weekends and holidays, issuing an emergency CDP (that has
since expired)
and an urgency ordinance (which cannot authorize development under the Coastal
Act and
the LCP).9 In addition, the
City has taken steps towards declaring a public nuisance and banning
beach fires altogether.10 Instead of
managing beach fires as the City originally proposed, the
City’s modified approach would be to prohibit wood beach fires, but to allow
propane fires on
Carmel Beach. The City’s new proposal would provide for six City-provided
propane-fueled fire
rings in the area between Tenth Avenue and Martin Way along the beach,11
and unlimited propane
fires south of Tenth Avenue on the beach if provided privately by the user.
Fires would only
be allowed in the City-provided fire rings from one hour before sunset to 10
p.m., and the user
provided fires from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Staff does not support the City’s
proposal.
Staff
concurs with the City that there are numerous problems associated with the
current beach fire
situation at Carmel Beach, including on air quality, water quality, and scenic
resources, and that
management measures are necessary to address and abate those problems. However,
staff does
not believe that the City’s proposed course of action to abate those problems
is LCP and Coastal Act compliant, and therefore raises
a series of coastal resource protection issues. In other words,
there appear to be many ways to address the identified problem, but to
institute a complete
ban on wood beach fires at this time is not an appropriate solution,
particularly considering
the fact that a complete ban is inconsistent with the City’s own LCP, which expressly
allows for and encourages beach fires. Furthermore, the City’s proposed
propane-only program
cannot be approved because the LCP explicitly prohibits flammable liquids (like propane)
on the beach. In addition, the City’s post-prohibition monitoring data does not
even show
that such a proposal would make a significant difference in PM2.5 levels and
spikes, thus undermining
the justification for imposing a complete ban.12 To
staff, a more appropriate response
at the current juncture would be something more in line with the fire
management Program
previously approved by the City (i.e., the approval that is the subject of this
appeal). Although
this Program as approved by the City lacks needed detail (including in terms of
the type,
size, and design of the fire rings; the timing on seasonal removal/restoration
of the rings; maintenance
provisions; public education; and monitoring requirements), it can form the
basis for
an approved program that can be used to address the identified problems while
continuing to provide
for the rich experience and recreational utility associated with fires as has
historically been
the case at Carmel Beach.
Thus,
staff recommends approval of a CDP that provides for the 26 fire rings
originally approved by
the City, and that provides associated parameters for the placement, signage,
use, monitoring, and
maintenance associated with those rings, including in terms of monitoring air
quality. Staff believes
this to be an appropriately measured response, and one that can allow for
monitoring and
adaptation over time to adjust Program parameters as warranted.13
Such a Program would appropriately
limit beach fires (i.e., 26 allowed as opposed to the unlimited number of fires
that are
currently allowed), and can strike an appropriate balance to the issues
presented. It will also address
all of the other issues associated with unlimited fires built directly on the
beach sand by confining them to 26 fire rings that can be
appropriately maintained to avoid beach degradation.
Staff recommends
that the Commission find that the appeal raises a substantial issue and that the
Commission take jurisdiction over the CDP application. Staff further recommends that the
Commission approve a CDP for a modified pilot program at Carmel Beach. The motion is found on page 6 below.
1 Fires are not
allowed on the rest of the beach, meaning beach fires are already currently
limited under the LCP to roughly 35% of the beach frontage.
2 The City and
MBUAPCD are monitoring PM2.5, which is a type of particulate matter. Particulate
matter is a generic term for particles suspended in the air, typically as a
mixture of both solid particles and liquid droplets. PM2.5 is particulate
matter with a diameter that is 2.5 micrometers and smaller. For purposes of
comparison, a human hair is about 60 micrometers in diameter.
3 The monitor is
located in the backyard of the house located at the corner of Scenic Drive and 13th
Avenue, inland of the beach area where beach fires are allowed.
4 The City
documented the number of beach fires occurring on weekends over a roughly
5-week period in late June 2015 through July 2015.
5 Based on the Revised
Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution and Updates to the Air Quality
Index (US EPA December 14, 2012). There are no State or Federal standards
for 1-hour PM2.5 concentrations, only these guidelines.
6 In terms of
the 1-hour average, the monitor found PM2.5 concentrations to be at 153 one
time, and thus in the EPA’s “Unhealthy” category, and the monitor also found 5
instances where the PM2.5 concentrations fell into the “Unhealthy for Sensitive
Groups” category.
7 Standards for
24-hour PM 2.5 are not explicitly set by the California Air Resources Board.
Instead, the California Air Resources Board references the National Air Quality
Standards.
8 As indicated
above, the single monitor is located in a residential backyard inland of Scenic
Drive, and it does not collect the type of meteorological data to be able to
conclusively demonstrate where the smoke is coming from (e.g., in relation to
wind etc.). In addition, the City lacks baseline data against which to compare
the current data.
9 The City’s
action is being tracked by the Commission as a violation inasmuch as it is not authorized
by a CDP.
10 The City
Council adopted a first reading of a public nuisance declaration on November 3,
2015, but has not yet scheduled a time to finalize their public nuisance
declaration.
11 Although the
City’s new program is not completely fleshed out, as staff understands it currently,
the City proposes to install six propane fire rings, as well as propane lines
and propane tanks in or under the sand. It is not clear whether the City would
provide propane for which users would pay a fee, or would provide propane for
free, or some other mechanism.
12 Importantly,
the monitoring data does not show much of a difference for the time period from
before the City started prohibiting beach fires to after. Indeed, there
continue to be roughly the same background values and the same types of ‘spikes’
even after beach fires were prohibited. And the one time that federal Clean Air
Act standards were exceeded occurred on a Sunday after the prohibition was put
in effect. This exceedance may instead be correlated with the Tassajara
Wildfire in Carmel Valley that occurred around that time. See Exhibit 7.
13
Including allowing for propane options to be considered should the LCP be
modified to allow for same.
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
Appeal
Filed: 5/27/2015
49th
Day: Waived
Staff:
Mike Watson - SC
Staff
Report: 11/25/2015
Hearing Date: 12/11/2015
APPEAL STAFF
REPORT: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
DETERMINATION
& DE NOVO HEARING
Appeal Number:
A-3-CML-15-0033
Applicant: City
of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Appellant:
Alexis Delehanty
Local Decision: Approved by the
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council on May 5, 2015
(City CDP
application number MP 15-100).
Project
Location: The
portion of Carmel Beach between Tenth Avenue and Martin Way in the City
of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County.
Project
Description: Implement
the City’s Beach Fire Management Pilot Program, including
installing 26 fire rings and Program signage, implementing new
fire management and beach maintenance
provisions, and
monitoring Program effectiveness.
Staff
Recommendation: Substantial
Issue Exists; Approval with Conditions