ABSTRACT: The California Coastal Commission Meeting Agenda September 2016 includes CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT 20. COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
b.
Application No. A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson,
Carmel-by-the-Sea) Application by Wellington S. Henderson to construct 8-ft-high, 63-ft-long upper bluff wall with faux bluff facing and drainage and landscaping improvements, at 26336 Scenic Rd in Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County (MW-SC). (Friday, September 9, 2016) The
STAFF REPORT: DE NOVO HEARING document copy is embedded; the
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION is reproduced. Staff Recommendation: Denial
NOTE: Wellington S. Henderson has “
withdrawn his application with the state agency for the protective barrier,” according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone.
REFERENCE:
WRIGHT HOUSE OWNER CANCELS SEAWALL PLAN
Claims he wouldn’t get fair hearing
By KELLY NIX,
The Carmel Pine Cone, September 2, 2016, 1A & 20A
Application Number:
A-3-CML-16-0057
Applicants: Wellington S.
Henderson, Jr.
Project
Location: On
the bluff at the south end of Carmel Beach fronting 26336 Scenic Road, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County (APNs 009-423-001 and
-002).
Project
Description: Construction
of a shoreline protective device designed as an eight-foot-tall and 63-foot-long upper bluff retaining wall with faux bluff facing and
related drainage and landscaping improvements.
Staff
Recommendation: Denial
REFERENCE:
Meeting Agenda September 2016
STAFF
REPORT: DE NOVO HEARING
Application Number:
A-3-CML-16-0057
Applicants: Wellington S.
Henderson, Jr.
Project
Location: On
the bluff at the south end of Carmel Beach fronting 26336 Scenic Road,
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County (APNs 009-423-001 and
-002).
Project
Description: Construction
of a shoreline protective device designed as an eight-foot-tall and
63-foot-long upper bluff retaining wall with faux bluff facing and
related drainage and landscaping improvements.
Staff
Recommendation: Denial
SUMMARY
OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Applicant proposes to construct a shoreline protective device designed as an eight-foot-tall and 63-foot-long upper bluff retaining wall with faux bluff-facing and related development (i.e., drainage and landscaping improvements) on the bluff fronting a residential site at the south end of Carmel Beach. The site is the location of a circa 1948 Frank Lloyd Wright-designed house, which is a notable historical residence in the City of Carmel.1 The residence is sited on a bedrock outcrop at the south end of Carmel Beach and is highly visible from most vantages along the beach and the Scenic Road recreation trail. The stated purpose of the project is to protect the residence’s driveway and driveway gate and associated pillar from potential bluff failure due to future erosion and storm events.
On August 10, 2016, the Commission found that the City’s action approving the project raised a substantial issue of conformance with the LCP’s shoreline protective device policies and standards, and took jurisdiction over the CDP application. Specifically, the Commission found that the City’s approval raised substantial conformance issues with respect to the LCP’s shoreline protective device policies and standards, i.e. the Commission found that the City did not adequately identify an existing structure in danger from erosion, did not analyze any alternatives, and did not identify and mitigate for the coastal resource impacts that the approved project would cause. The de novo hearing was postponed at the Applicant’s request, including to allow the Applicant an opportunity to provide additional geotechnical information on the question of whether there is a threat from erosion. The Applicant submitted supplemental reports to Commission staff on Thursday August 18, 2016 and Friday August 19, 2016 regarding erosion, project alternatives, sand supply impacts, and archaeological and historic resources.
As noted above, the purpose of the project is to protect the residence’s driveway and driveway gate and associated pillar. The proposed upper bluff retaining wall would extend along the upper bluff face fronting the existing driveway and driveway entrance gate, which are both located roughly six-and-a-half feet from the bluff edge. The project’s technical reports indicate that the underlying bedrock bluffs are eroding very slowly at this location. The reports cite an erosion rate of the bedrock comprising the lower bluff of between 0.05 feet and 0.1 feet annually, although the Commission’s staff geologist can find little supporting evidence for these figures. Similarly, the upper bluff terrace materials are reported to be eroding at an annual rate of 0.1 to 0.15 feet per year, again with no quantitative support for these figures.2 Nevertheless, with no evidence for rapid episodic erosion of the bluff edge, at these erosion rates, it would be decades before the driveway and gate are undercut by erosion. Thus, there is no documented erosion threat to an existing structure that would allow for a shoreline protective device. Additionally, the 2016 supplemental bluff erosion study identifies an area of exposed marine terrace deposits and suggests that this is evidence that a damaged storm drain system adjacent to the driveway may be causing localized erosion. However, the initial geotechnical reports identified ocean spray as the likely culprit regarding any localized erosion. A failing storm drain facility was not considered a factor in either the mitigated negative declaration for the project or the City’s decision on its coastal permit. In any case, there is no evidence that the failing storm drain is causing an imminent threat to the driveway and gate. Even if there were a documented erosion threat to an existing structure from the damaged storm drain, the appropriate manner to abate such a threat would be to repair the damaged storm drain, and not to construct a massive upper bluff retaining wall with all of its resultant coastal resource impacts. Thus, a threat to an existing structure has not been established in such a way as to allow for a shoreline protective device at this location,3 and the proposed project is inconsistent with LCP requirements in this regard and must be denied.
Furthermore, if the existing driveway and gate were shown to be in danger from erosion, the LCP requires a thorough analysis of a range of alternatives designed to address the identified erosion danger, including but not limited to relocation or partial removal of the driveway and gate/pillar or repair of the damaged storm drain, both options which appear feasible at this location. The supplemental materials provided by the Applicant continued to recommend the proposed seawall as the proposed method for addressing an unsubstantiated erosion threat, instead of “soft” alternatives such as relocation or removal of the driveway and the gate/pillar or repair of the storm drain, inconsistent with the LCP. Finally, even if danger were conclusively established, and even if the upper bluff retaining wall were conclusively shown to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative to address and abate the danger, the LCP requires that all attendant coastal resource impacts, including impacts to shoreline sand supply, be eliminated and, if the impacts are not able to be eliminated, that they be mitigated. The supplemental materials provided by the Applicant included an analysis of the proposed project’s sand supply impacts, which determined a very small loss to the annual sand supply budget of 3.75 cubic yards, which is on par with expectations given the very small average annual erosion rate at the site. The sand supply calculation could be used to determine appropriate mitigation. However, as shown above, there is no empirical evidence of a structure in danger from erosion and thus the discussion on sand supply impacts and required mitigation is moot. Accordingly, the proposed shoreline protective device is wholly inconsistent with the LCP.
In short, the proposed project is inconsistent with LCP shoreline protective device policies and standards, primarily because there is no documented erosion threat to an existing structure that would warrant and allow for such a shoreline protective device. Furthermore, even if danger were established, there has been no bona fide consideration of less-environmentally damaging alternatives, such as repairs to the storm drain or driveway and gate relocation (which appear to be feasible at this location). And finally, although it appears that the supplemental geotechnical reports reasonably estimate project impacts to sand supply, there is no empirical evidence of a structure in danger from erosion and thus the discussion on sand supply impacts and required mitigation is moot. For all of these reasons, the proposed project fails to ensure LCP conformance with LUP Policies P5-5 and P5-6, as well as with IP Sections 17.20.190(C) and (F), and therefore must be denied.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the Commission deny a CDP for the proposed project.
1 The “Walker House” as it is known, was added to the City of Carmel’s historic resources inventory in 2001. More recently on July 29, 2016, the residence was approved by the California Historic Resources Commission, for inclusion into the National Register of Historic places and that approval is under review by the National Park Service.
2 The geotechnical report estimates the future long-term average erosion rate could be as high as 0.2 to 0.3 feet per year (2.4 to 3.6 inches) due to the influence of sea level rise.
3 For comparison, in past projects the Commission has deemed a structure to be “in danger” from erosion if it would become unfit for use within the next two or three storm season cycles or generally within the next few years, not decades.
No comments:
Post a Comment