Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MlNlll'E rTEM • . ;--lhls CoJendor !fem No. ~v
was ORPfOYed 'OS Minute ttem No. --lJ,,!... by the stC:rf e Lands CommlsslOn by.~YfC,• of ...5.... 1~atlb.~{gl
A 29
S· l.4
CIO 02/06/91 W 24627 PRC. 7490 Fong
GENERAL PERMIT - RIGHT OF WAY
APPLitCMft' i lRobert Caletti 605 Wallea Drive Menlo Park, California 94025
AR.EA, TYPE LUO UD ·LOCATIOll: J" parcel of tideiand located adj a.cent to 650 Pacific Avenue, City of cayucos, San Luis Obispo ,county.
LAJl1> 11BB:
Construction activities associated with the construction of il seaw~ll located above the aean :high tide line.
TERHS OP PRO~OSED LZASB: Period:·
Six {6) months beginning February 7, 1991.
P·ublic liability insurance: Combined single limit coverag·e of $1,000,000.
Consideration: $100 per annua.
BASIS :roa COll8IDDATIOJls Pursuant to 2 Cal. 1code Rega. 2003.
APPLICAft SD'l'OS: Applicant is owner of upland.
-1-
'
CALENDAR·-· _: - ..... ·i· t\.-.i.--11 MINUTE PAGE-·· _ ... -1 ]_9._.
CALENPM ITF.M No.0 .l Q CCONT'P>
PR:sRBQUI:SI!lB CONDITIONS, FBZS Alfi> BXPZHSES: Fi:ling ~ee has been received.
S'l'ATU'l'OaY Alm OTJlD RBFDDCU: A. P•R.c.: Div. 6, Parts 1 and 2; Div. 13:.
B. cal. Code Regs.: Title 3, Div. 3; Title 14, Div. 6.
AB 884: 07/17/91
OTHER P:BRTilfDJT IDORKAT:tOll: 1. A Negative Declaration (SCH 90010206) was prepared and
adopted for this project by the County of San Luis Obispo. The State Lands c~mmission•s staff has rf,viewed such document.
2. This permit is for access for construction equipment. construction activities are expected to be completed within three days. No overnight storage 'Of equipment or materials w~ll be allowed on the beach.
EXHIBITS: A. Land Description B. Location Map c. Neqative Declaration o. Local :Approval Letter
I!r :IS UCOJIXDDZD '.l.'DT Tim COJOUSSIOH:
l. FIND THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARAT!ON (SCH- .90010206) WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED Fc{R,' .THIS PROJEC'.l.'-~BY THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS . OBISPO AND THAT 'THE COMMis:froN HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION' ,~ONTAINFD THEREIN.
2. DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT, AS APPROVED, WILL NOT HA VE A ~IGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
3. AtirHORIZE ISSUANCE TO ROBERT CALETTI OF1A SIX-MONTH GENERAL PERMIT - RIGHT OF WAY BFGINNING FEBRUARY 7, 1991; IN CONSIDERATION OF RENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $100; PRPVISION, OF PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT COVERAGE OF $1,000,000; FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEAWALL LOCATED LANllWARD OF THE MFAN HIGH TIDE LINE AS DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "~",-~~ACHED AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.
-2-
EXHIBIT "A" W24627
LAND DESCRIPTION'-
That portion of tide and submerged land along the Pacific cx;e~n. San ~;.~-Obispo Couniy, California. ~ panicularly described as follows:
That strip of land sitmtcd between the mean high tide and the mcaii· k-v~=iide 'm-•. ~ adjacent to Lot 4 as shown in the Record of Survey of Lot 4. Block ll:~ Paso Robles Beach #1, recorded on'February 2. 1989, in Book S9 of Recor~~ of Surveys at Pqe 5, San Luis O?ispo County, California.
·£~il OF DESCIUPl'ION
I '
CAl.ENDAR '*E----, __ 9 1 MINUTE PAGE_· _ ..... ___ _
\
\
' \,
\
' \ r-· . ...,
\
\ \
\ \
'\
EXHmJT "B" w Z:4627
\ \
\
I
\
\
\ '
I
I
I ( . \ i
I \
\ '
) \
\ \
' '
j
\ \
(
. l I
l \ I
EXHIElrr '"C" . (tb) tOR oFrlCIAl US( ONLY
COOHTY Of SN: LUlS Q81SPO NOTICE Of (i£T£AM1MAT10N ~
~EGATIVE O~CLARATICH
'EHYIP.CNfEHTAt D£T~RIUNATION NO. £089·40Z DATE FE!iUA..~ 9. 199Q
PRQJECL PESkBJPIIOft APPtlCATIOff/OOITI.EttENT: Calletti Htnor Ust Permit; D890001P PLNIUW,G ~: EsttN, Cayuecs urbu 1rea lNCD USE CATEGORY: ReSident1at Stngle fufly LUE COMBllCING OESIGMATIOtiS: local Coashl Phn, ~ologtc study area PARCEl SIZE: ·t,000 squars feet TOTAL FLOOR AREA ~ OISTIIW1~E: Approic.tutely J ,200 squire feet LOCATIOH: At 650 Pactf1c Avp,nue. norl\, ·of 7th street, \n the ca.mity of Cayucos
·PROPOSED USES/INTUIT: A request to construct a se1 wall t~ protect an ex1sttng single faatly residenclt for the sale and/or dlvelop11ent of each proposed parctl APPLICAIT: Bob Ca11ett1; C~yucos, CA
J:NJllllQTAL SETTU!G TopovrapftJ:
Y199tatton: Soil Tne: Soil Chlractir1sttcs:
&eologic Hazards:
Fire Huard: Extst1ng Use: Surrowdtng Uses:
S.tl,y slaptng 11&,r.~ne terrace and bead! wttil very steeply slop1ng bluff Grassu; forbs; orn1111ntals Cropley clay Very. poorly draa1n~;' ,.aderate erodtb111ty; high shrink-swell poteattal Low landslide potential; lov to '90der·at1 ltquef1ctton potent1al Moderate OAe sf ngle f~f ly residence . Single-family restdences; Pactftc Ocean
AOOIII~ JlfOIMTIClf Add1t1~ infofllllt1a. pe~tin1ng to thts env1J'Ulllllnta1 dete ... tn1tton 1111 be obtained by coatlCttng t~ Eavtr0Yeat1l COGnlinator's Offtce. County Gov1rment Ctnter Ra. 370, Su l~s ot,tspo, CA 93~~. (805) §49-5011.
SIAWQT Qf FUIUICS The Eftvtron111ntal Cocirdtn~ior, after CQlfletton of the intttal study, ftlds that there ts M sYhstlnttal evidence that thl<pr0Ject my ti~w a stptffcV.t effect on ,~ anvtwt, . and the prt~rat ton of· an EnvtronMntal l1Pact Report is· 10t. t*SHU1. Tllerefore, & lleg&Uve °'..elarat1o• (pursua11t to Publtc ·Resources Code SecttOl!s 21108, 211&1 l 21167) ts proposed.
CALENDAR PAGE .. - _ I a~- ~ MINUTE PAGE--· _1 ........ ...,3_.,..
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
INI fIAL STUDY SUi+!A~Y - EUVIROtlMENTAL CHECKL!Sf
Project ~~,ironmental Analysis
The County's environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements for ~ompleting the Initial Study .as t·equirad l>y the California C:nvil"onmental Quality Act {CEQA) and the :£QA Guidelines. fhe Initial Study includes staff's on-site inspection of the project site and surroundings and a detailed review of the inforir.atfon in the file for 0the pl"oject. In addition, available background information is revi~wed for each project. Relevant- information regarding soil types and cnaracteristics, geologic information, significant vegetatic:i ~nd/or wildlife resources, water ·~va"ilaoility, ~a~tewater di~posal serv'ices. existing land uses and surrounding land use cat gories and other ·infor.nation relevant to the environmental review process are evaluated for each project. fhe Office of Environmenta)' \:oordinator uses the checklist to sumrnari ze the resu 1 ts of the researo 11 accomp 1 i shed during tne in i ti a 1 environmental revie\' of the project. t>ersons, agencies or organizations interested in obtaining more informatiOn r~gardin9 the environ:nental review process for a project sllou Id contact the San Luis Obispo i.:ounty Office of :'.nviron:nental t:oordinator in ~m. 371), County ~overnrr.ent Center. San Luis Jtiispo, ~A or can {d05'} 54:}-SJI I.
Initial Study Referen~e and A enc Contacts: fhe following reference rnater1a s are used ln the env1ronmenta ..-ev1ew or each project and are here=>y ir.corpcrated by referen~·~ into the Initial. Study.
• Project rile for ~he Suoject Application .,.. County General Plao (Including all maps & elements) • ~ounty Land Jse Grd ~:nance " Area of \:ri ti cal i:onc_erns 1~ap .. ii re riazard Severity. i·1ap K ~are and ~ndangered Species ~ap ,.. Areas =>f Special cHological Importance :·bp • ~ounty Seis:nic Safety Element .... Arch('~ 1ogica1 ~esources Map • IJ.S. S.~il C::>nservation Sti!rvice Soi I Sorvey for San L11is tll>ispo ~ounty • i Jood Hazard i·laps • ·otner s~ecial s~udies. reports and previousiy prepared ~I~s
JS appropriate. ,.. Airport Land Use ~Jans
In addftion to the aoove, the ,County Planning !lepartment and/or the Office of C:nvironmentaJ Coordinator cont.~cted responsible and trustee agencies for tfreir COl'll':1ents on tne proposed proj'ect. ~ith respect to the subject appl icatfon, the fo1Jc01fog agencies have l:>~'en contacted.
/ ~ounty Engi neeri'ng :Jepart.ient ---:;- County ~lanni~g ~epartment
County uept. O'f Environmental rlealtn _.,. Agricul tura 1 Conwni ss ioner' s Office ~Air Pollution Control Jistrict ~ ~egional ~ater Quality Control Board _:.__ :a1ifornia Oept. of fransportation·
State Jepdrtment of' rish and Game -Oth~r
------~~~~~--~-rev. 7/:39
v" CA ~oastal Conlnission ~ ~ Jept. of Forestry ~ C~unty Airport Mana~er =:Airport !..and Use ~ommission
I o! CALENDAR PAGE--~~..-. MINUTE PAGE----1 -~-4--.
Checklist Identification of Mitigctior1s for Potential Impacts:
The ·checklist proviqes the identification and surrmary of the l'roject's potential environmental impacts. Where potential impacts require mitigation, the following list of mitigations explains how the identified potenti,al environmental impacts can and will be avoided or substantially lessened.
A. The project has been changed to avoid or sub~tantially lessen environmental impacts. Where changes require explanation, the change(s) wi11 be discussed in the Spec,fal Environmental Considerations ·section or attached material following the cfiecklist.
B. The project is subject to standards and requirements of the Land U5e Element/land Use Ordinance and/or other County ordinances that include provisions to avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts. These provisions are requirements that must be incorporated into the project.
C. The project is subject to state and/or federa 1 regulatfons, laws and/or requirements that inclu~e provisions to avoid or substantially lessen environmental impacts. The project must incorporate the above provisions in order to be in compliance with Federal and/or State law.
0. A special mitigation. plan to avoid or lessen environmental· impacts has been agreed to by the applicant. This will be noted on the checklist and, if necessary, discussed in an attachment to the ch!!clr.l"i:st.
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
HHTML STUDY CHECKl!ST
Project Title & No. C,.,\\1:d+1 ~'""'Qr- V~e. (D&lCVO\ P)
I. BIQlOGICAl RESOURCE$ A. Wildli f£ 8. Vegetation C. Hibitat Area 0. Rare and/or Endangered Species E. Unique or Fragile Biotic Community
ft{'W),.J...,
F. Area of Critical Concern G. Stat~ Area of Special Biological Importance H. Riparian/Wetland Area I. Other=~~------~-----::-~---------
EPEfl-4CZ.
Mitigation: A ~ B ~ C ____ O See attached exhibit { } See Special Environmental Considerations { ) See Document in file ( )
- l -
-0 Cl ... ... :. u -! ... -z
... .J c: ... .. u u .. -- :Ii t i. -~ ... • c:
"' • c u ... -~ y -... ... c: c: u gt Cl • -
Cl -.ci ... u --!: c
0 t ~ i ("'') (-) (:, ( } ( ) ( ) (-1 ( j (){)(v}() ( ) { ) ( ) ("1 ( )· { ) { -1 ( } { ) ( ) ('1 { } ( ) ( } ( } <1 {) (} () (-, ( ') ( ) ( ) ( }
\.
CAlEtJD1iR P:.G£ - . • . ~-1· ::-~ M:~!UTE f-AGE _#_. ____ _,.2.,..,.11l,...._
II. DRAINAGE. EROSION ANQ SEDIMENTATION A. Yncreased Storm W~ter Runoff
*a. Erodible So~,ls/Erosion. C. Poorly Drained S~~Js o. Sedimentation E. Contributes to Existing Drainage Problem
*"'F. Alters Existing Drainage Course or Waterway G. Other: ____________ , __
tHtigation: A _ B ...L_ C _ o~
~ • - ~ u -· • ... ,
t JC -- J c -• - u u - 1· -... :a -c ~ .! ~ ... • 1: .A
"' .. • c u ~ - • • u ... -- ,t ... - g. c u tit Cl .. -- t "' ... 0 c 0 Ao - - :'II:
{ } { ) (...-} ( ) ( ) ( ) .( -1 ( ) ( ) ( ) '(..-) ( } { ) { ) {-1 ( ) (}{,)(v}{) { ) { ) {.-1 { } { } ( ) ( ) { )
.-see attached exhibit(s) ~ee Special Environmental Considerations
See De>cument in file--------:--
(-1 (-1
III. GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS/SITE ALTERATION ·A. Landslide Hazard
( }
B. Seismic Hazard C. Topographic Alteration; Grading for Buildings ___
1 Driveways ~' Roads , Other O. Soil Expan~ion ~ ~
( ) { ) (/) ( ) ( ) ( ). ( "') ( )
E. Steep Slopes * F. Other: ~Woe-c.\,""L Alty.<?\ ~'O...,
Mitigation: A ____ B ~ C ___ 0 ~ +See attached exhibit(s} · *5ee Special Environmental Considerations
See Document in file_,_. _____ _
IV. WATER RESOURC~
A. Groundwater Quantity B. Groundwater Quality C. Surface Water Quantity 0. Surface Water Quality E. Stream flow Change F. Change to Estuarine Environ11ent G. Other: ·
Mitigation: A _____ B .__ C ___ O ~ See attached exhibit(s) See Special Environmental Considerations See Doc~ment in file ---------
- 2 -
{ ) ( ) (,,.,..} ( ) ( } ( ) (..,, ( ) ( ) ( ) {v1 ( } ( } ( ) ("" .( )
( '1 ( -') ( }
(){)(.-'')() ( } ( ) (/) { ) ( } ( } (.--} ( ) ()(}(...}() ( ) ( } ( ) {-1 ( ) ( ) ( ) f-1 ( ) { } ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( }
I .. ~--11t,..,,- .... r .... U ... ~l:t- t I ~' '·· rh\.~ ~~· w ~ ·::?.[ __ ._-__ 1_· S--=:·V
e
-,y. 'PolLU!ION
A. Hazardous Hateri~is B. Grov.~iiwater PolJution C. Sti:-·face ~ater P'ollution D. Ir1crease in Exihing Noise levels E. E:<posur~ of People to Severe'- Noise levels F. 'Su~stant i a 1 Air Emissions 'G. Oet~rioration of Ambient Air Quality H. Creation of Objectionable Odors I. Other: · ·
... u .. t -... c • ... --c Ot
""
~
" .. ... Ot -... i .J --::a ~ c •
.... u
i -... c 5 -~· - . -• c.I .... -
:: ... i:' t c u OI c: ., . ·-0 t 1: c ca. ......
( } ( ) (./) ( ) ( ) ( ) (.--} { ) ( } ( } (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) ,( ) ( ~ '( ) ( ) ( ) ( .. 1 ( ) ( } {v) { } { ) ( ) (...-} { ) ( ) { ) ( } .( ) ()(}(}()
'Mitigation: A ..:;_._... B ~ C ~ O _____ See ~ttached exhibit(s) ( } See Sp2chl Environmental Considerations ( .}
VI. !RAFF}£
See Doccment in file ( )
A. Increase in Vehicle Trips 8. R!duced levels of Service on Existing Public Roadways C. Limited or Unsafe Access 0. Creates Unsafe Conditions on Public no~dways E. Areawide Tra;~T1c Circulation F. Internal Traffic Circulation G. Other:
----~--------~------~---
( ) ( ) {.-1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (v} ( } ( ) ( } (""} ( ) ( ) ( ) (.;) ( ) ( ) { ) (,;) ( } { ) ( ) (.-1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( } ( )
Mitigation: A____ B ____ C ____ 0 ~ See attached exhibit{s) ( } See Special Environmental Considerations ( ) See Document in file ( )
Vil. PUBLIC SERVtC,~ A. Fire Protection Services B. Police Services c. Schools 0. COttlWUnity Wastew~ter E. Connunity Water Supply F. Solid Waste Disposal G. Onsite Wastewater H. Onsi.te Water 1 ~· ~'tier~-'"'"-:"-------~--'"itigation: A_ ·a _ c _ o _
See· attached exhibit(s) ( ) See Special Environmental Considerations ( ) See, Document in f fl e ( )
- 3 -
'( ) ( ) (~ ( ) ( j ( } ·'{/) ( ) ( ). ( } {....j { ) ( ) ( ) ( } ( .-} ( ) (' } ( ) ( ~ ()(}(-1{) ( } ( } ( ) (-1 ( } ( ) ( ) (-1" ()()()()
•
1~_,_~.~--.:.-._u ..... ,4 ..... 9_7-.I
VIII.AESTHEJJC/~ULTURAL RESOURCES A. Visual lmp•ct from Public Roadway B. Increased Light or Glare C. Alters Impcrtant Scenic Vista 0. A~chaeological Res6urces E. Historic Resources F. Other: _______ _.... ____ _
.,, " ... • ... Cit
u -i .. -E .. J
c: ... • - u u - .. - ; ,j--- -c: ~ " Gt ... :; - • ;: ~ • • c ~ ~ - cl .. ... -- - J ... .. .. c u
" i -... ... ... 0 .! :i ... -( } C ) C-1 C }
( ) ( ) (.-1 ( } { ) { ) {°'1 ( ) ( } ( ) ( -') ( ) (' ') ( ) {v) ( ) { ) ( ) { } { )
Mitigation: A ~ B ~ C ___ O ~ See attached exhibit(s) ( l See Special Environmental Considerations ( ) See Ooc.ument in file ( )
IX. l;IOUSJNG AN.D ..EHERGY
A. Creates Substantial Demand for Housing B. Uses Subst~ntial Amount of Fuel or Energy f-. Encourages Growth Beyond Resource Capacities G. Other:
~~-~---------
Mitigation: A ~ B ___ C ~ O See attached exhibit(s) See Special Enviranmental ~onsider~tions See Document in file--------
X. AGRICULTURAL/HINERAt RESOURCES A. Eliminates Valuable Mineral Resources B. Prime Agricultural Soils ~- ConfJict~ with Existing Agricultural Area D. Change from Agriculture to Oth~r Uses E. Othe~;-------------
{ ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) {./) ( ) ( ) ( ) (--1 ( ) { ) ( } (--1 ( ) ()()(){)
(){)(..}() ( ) ( ) ( ) (....) { ) { } ( ) (-1 ( ) { } ( ) (....) (}()()()
Miti,giti~n: A 8 .. C 0 " Seeat'fached exhibit{s)-- ( )
See Special Environmental Considerations ( ) See Document in file ( }
- 4 -
u CALEND~R PAGE ·--·----· Mi NU iE PAGE _ •• __ _.1 ... 9 ..... 8..__
XX. GROWTH INDUCING/CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A. ·Growth ·inducing. Effects 8. Precedent for Change iri Area land Use C'. Cumulative Effects: --------
0. Other: ___________ _
Mitigation: A ~ B ~ C ~ 0
,.,. '1.1
• ! ... c • I.I ---c °' -.,, -
Ci ... • "' -.. JC
.8 --; ,, c
"" c •
.. I.I .. i -... c • I.I
Cl
::= • I.I -..., -. -- - Q, -~ ~ g. ~ Cl • -
! ! ! i ( ) ( ) (-1 ( ) ( ) { ) (/; ( J ( ) ( ) ("1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) {)(){){} (}{}(}(} (}()()(} ()(j(}() ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
{)(.)(}{}
See attached exhibit(s) ( ) See Special Environmental Considerations ( ) See Document in file ( }
(3504u) r.m
- 5 ~
CALfl~Df·ff 11AGE ~u 6 O -·· ,.1 •• -- uAr.. , · C[_ i . .-· 1" 1 t r ut · lll(..-. ' .
SP£C\AL ENVI?.ONM~NTP.!.. CONS!DERA'l'!ONS FOR ~ALLETT! MINOR USE PEP.M:T
ED89-402 (D290001P)
The app!icant is requesting to constru~t a rip-rap se3wall and c·cncrete retaining wall that tiil l result in the distur~ance on an approximat~ l ~oo square foct area on a 9. 00·.) square foot lot. T~e subj t:ct pro~ert.y is within the: Residential Singl~ Famil7 lan~ use category and is locat,d dt 650 Pacific Av~nue. :nth-? co???munit~:' ·:if Cayucos.
The ?rC?osed seawall would b~ =onstructed to ·protect an e~is~ing sin~le rcUr.1ly residence lo~ated on an eroding -::oas~al bluff. '!'he proposed s::?·awall is appro:dma t21 y 19 fe-et. in .:eig~:: (.':h<:! lower 5 fee~ wil: be !:>-:low sar.d level), 10 15 teet. in wi~th, anc is i:1 twc segments of 3pproximately JO and 23 feet ln length respec:ively. The northern segment will be tied into an ~x:stir.g seawall on the ~=cperty to the ~c~:h and ex~ends sout~ward to a protrucing rocky out~rbp. "l'he southern segment extends betwe~~ two ~ocky c~tcrops. Th~ w:lls ar: lccatec app:-o.:dmately 30 40 feet landward o: tht- :.nean l!igh tide line (!-'.MTLl. The existing residence ~s loc~ted 35 :e~t east of -:he blcff ~dge.
Geologic Conditions
A geclogy rep~rt and addenduin {~~ipping; 7-2!-SS. ~-OS-£~} a~dressed the geologic cond!t1ons acd spec~=!= st:!~ concer:ls -=·= t~~' pr-opcsec ~.eawal.l. The =o:l~wing i~ bas~d on that in~ormation, as well as pers~n~l cc~tacts w:tt the geclo;ist.
T~e gec!cgy report c?nclu~ed that ~~r~1cns o~ t.he bluff on the st.lbj'.:!>ct site ar~ of h.ighly e'i·ocit-1~ ::late!"iaJ.s a:~d is subjec!: ::c high retreat: rates durinc l,a::-:::::: s:orm cond:u:i:ms. '!'he subject property lost appi·c:·:imatE-1;- 4 - :-feet ~= bluff as a result of the !~S:-:3 stc=ms, ar.d has retreated a to~al of appro~ima~elr 12 f~e~ sir.ce those £torm o-::curr~nces. This is pri~aril7 a ~~sul-: of the ~l~ff ::'';?-:~t:.b::.:..s!:!::g i".:s':lf !::- a m.:r~ r.:..t·.~r:: ::~:g!t: foll..,w::.n; uneercu:t:ng du::'1ng the :982-SJ sto~ms. The ~eolo;ist ~s::i%ates th~ -==osion ::'a~e c~ th~ ~luff tc b~ 3 ~a~:~~c :f """"' ~.,:..:t- -·•- r -- ---- -·'C-The !"ip-!-~P wal.ls w~ll r::-duce !:?:~ ~r-;s ::.·-::-:! :::-:te c:: :.H:: bluf:, acd ~i!l pr~vent ~lank~~~ er~s::n ~~ ~he se!w~11 ~~ the :-~o!·~!:. T!:!)ugh pl=cement cf :h~ :-i?-!':!f.' .:>~a~.,:ll w:.l: _ .. ::-'2-!S~ w9~e reflectior. :~ some exten:, :h~ ;~:!0~::.st =~~-:~~~~ th~: the wa:: as pr??~Se~ will not c~~!~~ a ~ir~~t::~:: ~~~:aL1cn ~ .... --:":. •':.,,,..:. ..:•.•i::.., .. ·~~ · ='!':-• T"":.F1 w.rf-.: """. -.:.,.. !""c.."·-. ----· -··- -·· ---··-= w_, __ -------·--1 ~-----···
l!..~..!E . :, 7 _ ....... ~---:. -~-0 0
41DThe applican~ is also prcpcsing a 2 foot hiah rat.ain1ng wall al::-::ive the proposed s~awall loca,!:,ion" - '!'he ge·::;logist esti:nat.es that. even with the con.c;cruct. ·.:on of the p:.·cposed seawall, :m additional 10 f~et •Df bluff may e:rode as the b!.uff establisr.es l:t£elf to a ?tore- aat.u:-al ar.c;lt:. Th-e retaini~g wall would stop this erosion and p:-eserve :he yard ar.C?a of the subject p!"operty.
The geologist re~ogn1zes that th~ potent~al f6r so~e beach e~osio~ may exis~ whe~ wave! striking :he seawa:! a~~ reflected back out !:c s~a ta:;1nc; sc3pended sa:1d m5 ter1als with !t, or defl~c:i~n of wave energ7 downwa~d may result ic scouring at. che base of the wa!!. The erid result o~ this ac-:icn would !:le a steepening 6£ t!le beach p=of ile and cre;ti~n cf of fshor; sane ba:-s du~ir.g the win~er storm :nonths.
The gee log:.st ccncluC.ed howeve:: that 1w s igni f ican t e: fee ts w0uld result from these actions cue to the :act that the w:ll ha~ been ~! :::ed well above the ~-::'l., resul ti:1g i;;. wa\·-: action ~qainst the seawall only ~u~inq ucusually high tides or during s=~r~ ac~1ons. Here :mpcrta~tly. the g~~logis: also c:>n::luded that the effects :): th~ S'23wali :-:! .::"a;ld supply and beach erosion ca~ be consider~d insigniflca?:t 3S th~ Cayu=~s beacr. system i~ a clos~d litt~~a! :~l! jue to e the impas.::abil:ty "= the Morre ?.od: and Jett~/ compl-::<.
~CP Ha~ar~s ?oiicies -· and c ;r~v!~e that - ... new de'l~lc~~e&t shall b-e des!gnej sc th~: shoreli~e prc:~ct1~e =~':i:~~ ... w?.11 :'l-c: be n~~d~~ ·'"'-~ :ll~ !!.~~ -~ ':!1.;. c .. ,, .. ,,.,,..-,. -w" ---..•-•---- I
stru~tt:.=e.s ... st.all =-2 l!.:n:teC pz.·:--~-:='ts ?:.;.:-;::sa:.-· .. f?= ... ~r~tecti~n ~f ~xisti~g ~ev9l~p~e~t ... - T~ the~e i;::.lic1~s a::-e s-:rict.::.:::· :sd.h-:r-::d tc, and :!ut: t;) the- fa-:::: th:t ·::y-.ic~.s i~ thought t~ :Je a cl.,s-:d l!.tt;)!":l c~11, ::ny !.:npacts res~l ti:!g f ron1 the =c!1s truct1 ~:~ ·. - the l i:n:. ::~d :~un:~~?..- ~f sea~al:s that shoul= be allowed, w:l! =e ~re~tly re1u~~d. ! t: '"'"t:l.~ .app-=:r t!:a t.: th~ p;· .:-~:.:---=~~ s~~w~l l !~-~- ~c- 111 ~~~pliance with the cFPr~pria~~ LCP Pcl~~~es. Howev~~- tt~ pr7p~s~~ r~tainin; w:ll would r.=t appear t= ~~~t th~se Polic1es. Further r9v~ew of the P=~j~ct. an~ :ts :c~p!iacce wit~ L=P ?oli:ie~ s~a!l ~e :ompl~ted ~¥ the :e?a=tmect ~f !!' "1 = .... ':":. • - ....., =.,... ~ =··· . l ~ ; ':"" -- --·-··-··':I' -·-- --'-----·--:::.
-- ::. -=
-:··~·-- ..... ~ ... · - "" - ·- ...
December 6, 1989
DEVELOPER'S STATE~fnf~Jmt4Lt1'11'JtEHINOR USE PERMIT • ED89-~02 (D890001Pf
mJ JAN 30 PH I: r 6 The applicant agrees to incorporate the following •easures into the projec~. These •easures ·~ecoae a part of the pr~ject descriptio~ and therefore become a part o~ the record of action u~n which the environmental deterairiation is based. The applicant understands that any other-changes ~ade to the project aay require a new e.nviro~ental determination for tne project.
Geology
The applicant has read the geologic report prepared by Dr. David Chipping and agrees to incorporate into the project all 9f ~h~ C~cu .. enda~ions aade by the geoloqist for rip-ra~ walls.
C /: . .d. /\ I "'::: I -
(
GEOLOG~aL_cmm1.:UQNS REL6I.ING ~o CO~Tt:-LI.c_~SI~J!LPR05L.E~ fil!Ll.:1C IF re AYEtJOE CAYUCOS~EQfil!IA
LQT 4 I 1.U.&gL_j_L._f~Q ROBL~~t\CH IR6~
CHiPPING GEOLOGICAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 6686
Los Osos, CA 93412 (805} 528-0362
k~~n7' Cal.Reg.Geol.3632
JULY 21, 1968
1~-.. ·-=-..... ~--~--3-
.r
gj;Q.kQ~IC!lL CQ!HllI.lQNSJ1EL.Allt:!LIO~ASTAL ~SION PROB!&fil!
§50_ .PACiFIC AVENUJL~AYUCQ_S..__w.._IE.QRNI..6
LQL5.....-llLQQIL.lL-f~.R.Q~~~gL.IfihQL.1
fil.IE..._Y!S!T
The site was first visited on August 30, 1984. Heether conditions were good, the site was dry, with the last significant rains 6 months previous to the visit. During that time a thorough study was m3de of the bluff on both the site end the surrounding properties, and a report was submitted to the owner. A second visit was made on July 20, 1988, under similar conditions. The changes on the site during the four years between visits was noted during the second visit.
The site is set at the seaward margin of th~ F·leistocene marinete1·race at Cayucos. The surface of the lot is flat, with a slight. senward slope. There ere no well defined drainage channels or swnles crossing the lot. The lot is about 35 feet wide. with a house set approximately 35 feet from the top of t!1e bhiff. The A house occupies most of the width of the lot. '""
The top of the bluff is a·lmost vertical, except Z\t th'"" r;•.:>uth end of the lot, where there is a more gentle slope toward a rocky spur ~f bedrock. The spur extends outward about forty feet from the general line of the bluff. The seaward end of the spur is w!der and higher than the landward end. In most locattons the bluff is toe• steep to safely climb to the beach. There· is a small coYe, er reentrant, on the north side of the spur. with a smaller headland on it£ north side, end a deeper cove or1 the north side of the smeller headland.
The average gradient b~+-~·1een the top of the bluff end. the base is about 55-60 degrees along the north hal~ of the lot, and shows a sligh~ increase ~rom that ~easured in 1984.
The geology consists of abo•Jt 12 feet ·of Franciscan greenstone and sandstone melange .materials, overlain by 1 foot of shell-bearing marine terrace deposits, 3-4 feet of grey and brown reworked dune and beach sands, and 5-6 feet of colluvium ..
The Fr&nciscan Formation greenstone occurs en the western end of the small spur· or headland on the south property line. and on both sides tt of the small reentrant on the north property Jine. The greenstone
-1- 91 ICALENDM PAGE 1MJNU1EPAG£ __ ..... 2 0 4 ---------------~~------..J-
r •
masses are separated by sheared sa.~dstone, which forms ~he bluff bedrock in the central part of the property, ~nci ~he inner portion of the small headland. The two rock masses a~e parts of the melange. and ere highly sheared. $pear p'-lanes extend in numerous directions, but there is a dominant set that ·dips steeply northward and has a ·strike normal to that of the bluff. This set appenrs to control the local erosion rates.
The overlying deposits are to rotational failure. spalling, -~specially when wave-wash erosion.
all very soft, but coherent and not prone The materials are prone ,to vertical sat~rated, and are also susceptible to
The surf ace runoff from to the beach across th~ erosion of the bluff. not be found et the time
the terrace does not appear to be conducted lot, and is not a significant fa9tor in the Some subsurface drains may exist, but could
of site visits.
There is no evidence of significant groundwater discharge at the site, probably because it lies en the side of an· wic~ent swale on the bedrock surf ace. The swale conducts the groundwater acrOS$ lots to the north of this property.
EaST ERO~ION HI§.IQ.EY
COMMENTS MADE IN 1984' ,REPORT
Study pf air photos end discussion with the occupant 9f the residence, indi~ate that the bulk of the bluff erosion has taken place since the great storms of 1982-3, and that erosion prior to that time was not exceptionally fast C2-3 inches/year>. It appears that cignificant amounts of bedrock were removed from the base of the bluff, especially the greenstone at the north end. At the same time1 extremely high waves removed larf£e amounts of terrace material, especially on the north side of the small spur, end along the northern property line. These two areas were subjected to wave focuss;'ing and to wave reflection, both of which c\:mtributed to a very &'igh erosion rate during the large storms. Erosion has continued, as the terrace materials: are still stabilising toward a new bedroqk bluffline. Much of the present bluff retreat is due to esrlier undercutting of the top of the bluff, which remained in place under the influence of a binding ground cover of veget5tion. In several places. about three more feet of bluff top recession muy be expected from existing undercutting. It is estimated that at least 12 feet of bluff top retreat has taken place on the northern property line since the 1982-3 storms. The entire bluff has retreated about 4-5 feet, at the very least, since the 1982-3 season.
r
CHANGES BETWEEN 1984-1988
Tape lines were run along the same lines in both surveys, and !>how that there hss been very little recession of the top of the bluff. The ave~age 55 degree slope that existed at the north end 9f the site has been slightly steepened, and the amount of vertical or overhanging bluff top has increased. Tbis indicates that the bluff has been eroded slightly from tbe base, and has become steeper at the north end of the lot. The upper pert oi the bluff has therefore become more unstable, and a 3-4 ft. t·ecession of the top of the bluff can be expected within a decade along the north half of the lo~. The bluff has become slightly more unstable, although the large recessions predicted in 1984 have not yet taken place. It is also noted that some of the riprap along the southern edge of the ...,aJ.l on the adjacent property to ·the north that was present in 1984 had disappeared in 1988. ·
R.ECQW=raNDATIONS FQR CQA$TbL ERQIECTION
If the extreme waves of 1982-3 were guaranteed not to return, ther~ would .. be l.ittle immediate need for coastal protection. However, the bedrock cf the bluff" appears to be weak. and is eroded by very large waves. Thus the existing 25-30 feet between the house and the bluff could be removed in just a couple cf very severe storm seasons, and in this light I would recommend that some coastal defense be constructed.
I recommend that the defense be placed at the rear of the small cove, or reentrant, along the northern property line, ~? et the ~ear of the small cove just north of the small hesdlend These are the areas that suffered the worst erosion in the past, partly due tv wave reflection and focussing.
The defense should either be riprap, placed at the rear of each cov~ and placod dirsctly on bedrock, or should be a concrete block seawall. The latter should be constructed on firm bedrock, and should stand out several feet from the present irregular bluff face, and close to tpe rear of each small bay. No defense is needed on the sides or fro~t of the headland, or the region bet~een the two small coves. If a seawall is constructed, it should be constructed with cross drains, and should be backfilled with concrete. If a seawall is designed to stand at the very back cf the cove, tight against the bluff, then it should be designed with wave reflection structures to divert washup from the overlying, essily eroded, terrace materials.
If riprap is placed at the base of the bluff, there will be a ??F~inued recession of the top of the bluff over a space of decades, the' rate determined by the amount of r·e.in, spray, foot traffic etc. It ·will probably revert to a slope close to 1:1, which will in no 4IJt way jeopardize -the safety of the house, but could produce an ultimate recession of the bluff top by about 10 ft. This recession
-3- <:ALENDAR PAGE---~~-• MINUTE PAGE'·~' -·· -~-----i
( c
could be mitigated by the constructior. of b\luff-edge retention structur:es.
-4-~j~'4 1
.;AlENOAR f'nGE-· - .... ""':~ z_ .. I MINUTE p~ . . . ..£-_y .
A.QIU T IQNAL,_IN FOP.MAllQN
Ml~OR USLf.E;fil1.IIJ;D89 -40~ .... LQS 9QQQ.lf:J.
L:QT_i...__!H~OgL__l.L__fASO ROBLES B~CH .El
~YQCQS, CALifORNia
~HIPPING GEOLOGICAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 6686
Los Osos, CA 93412 <805) 528-0362
fik,~,~·11 //, ~A ~ ~PD;vid H ~~~ )
Cal.Reg.Geol.3632
SEPTEMBER 8, 1889
1CAUNDAR PAGE ~ 5 IMJNUlEPAGE_·---~2 0 8
-.
e 6DJllI1Ql:MLilif.OfiliA T rQN
MIN01Lll.§Lf.ERMI~D89-4 02 ·t'..128 9QQQlfl
LQI 4, .BLOQILJ.1..a.._fASO ·RO~ES_fiEAgj_!l
~Y!!Q2§_,__ CA{,!FORNI6_
This report is in response to questions raised in a letter from John McKenzie to Gteve Sylvester {8.l6.89i and a letter to Ted Bench from James Johnson ( 8. 14. 89). Each question wi 11 be answered und'er separate~ h~ading.
l} Specific discussion of bow the redirected water energy/flo~z from 1:he proposed,, seawall will have a mi~imal er-osion impact on the adjacent property to the north <McKenzie).
Two sections of seawall are proposed for this pr-eject. One ... ·ill border the adjacent seawall t•:i the north, and wi 11 trei;d in a generally southerly direction, terminating in a rocky spur just north of the parcel's long axis center line. The second segment will have a similar orientation, filling the rear of the embayment between the aforementioned spur and the rocky headland st the southern property line.
Waves can approach these walls only frc the south~9~t ·~~~dr&nt. Only in the cente!" of the quadrant, with waves com~·qg f:-orr• the: south ~est, would wave energy be a $ignificant impact on the noftherrr-~all segment. Waves coming from both southwest and west could impact on the southern wall segment. Allowing that ~ave reflection would be dominantly controlled by Snell's Law, dominant wave reflections would be to the west and south west, and normal to the wall. Thus direct wave reflection would not be toward tha property ori the north. However a more southerly storm would produce lesser direct wave impact, but some reflection toward the wall on the property to the north. However this reflection exists in the natural state, and the wall would not aggravate the effect.
Rip rap tends to produce a less coherent wave reflection tban a s::.10·'.:)tb rock -face. and wi 11 t.h-'!ro:for-e prod•.Jco: a greater reflect iv& en:rgy diss~p~tion than the natural :-ock face.
Hawev-:r ther-~ i~; >:7Vidence of som~ o:ros'ion at the soutber-n and :.f the wall on the ad.joinin~ p.raperty The end of the wall has been exposed by erosion flanking the wal 1 and cutting bet;..,een the wall and a fairly erasion resistant serpentine bl-0ck. The proposed Ca1l letti wal 1 is extended across the end of the block wal 1 on the adjoining property, in order to protect that portion of the wall
411», from further erosion
-1-
2) What is the historic bluff retreat:. rate (yearly averag~ over th€: e last 50-75 years}? CMcKen=ie)
Unfortunet:ely for er-osion measurement, the original tr-act maps give lot d;::p~~-1 ·r..o mean high r.ide, which is a somewhat ephemeral marker. The original ~~act maps, as filed with the County, ~how the lot depth to be 130 feet on th~ north side. and 140 feet on Che south side. The lot is shown to be gene=ally :-ectanguhar, with ~he seaward prope:-ty i;ne d::-awn straight and semi'- ,paralleJ.' to Pacific. There is no indict.£tion of the natural coastal cor:figu'fation, and no front-to-bluff mea~urements were recorded.
Past eros:lon rates ·between 9-9-56 and 8-5-70 were examined by flicker comparison of magnilied aerial photographs AXH-8R-58 C1956) and 05-SL0-41 C1970}. The erosion for this section of bluff during ,thi~ time per1od ~ds !ound to be negligible, elthough descrimination love ls are very poor d1~e to the great height of the f lyov~rs < 10, 000 f~~~ or so). Tne rock spur and cover on the north sid~ appear to ha-; ·'? a very similar configuration to that of today, in both:, cases.
The previous geologic reporc (Chipping Geological Servi~es, July 21, 1988> noted that erosion prior to the 1982/3 stotm season was probably. z,,,.a inches/ yr. This was supported by obsei;vation of th.: state of we~~hering in the bluff face, and is pres~ptl~ ~upported by existing conditions (August-September. 1989). H6~eyer the great waves of H182/3 resulted in high splash-up and erosion of the A, terrace deposits, and very high impact enefg.Jes on the bedrock. and W resulted in a bluff retreat of 4-5 feet ove~ a sp~ce of several seasons. ~t is esti~~ted that at least 12 feet of retreat has taken place in the ter~ace deposits along th~ northern property line since the 1982/3 ~eason, mainly due to restablishmont of a normal bluff slope following bluff undercutting during those storms
The long term erosion rate, g~4en an assumption of a single storm of 1982/3 intensity during the period, would be a maximum of 20 feet over a period of 50 to 75 yeal~z,
Projection of this erosion rate into the future must be made ~1i th extreme caution, due to possible sea level rise and ~torm track changes that will pr-obably be induced by global climatic warming. It is likely to produce more seasons 11ke ~hat of 1962/1983.
The about 25-30 feet between the bluff and the house could easily be removed by -erosion during the next 50 years. gi·.•er, the estim~ted erosion rates <see above).
4·1 Wll.at is the angle of repose of t.he bluff? \J1..,hm:ord
The bltlff is clos.:: to vertical near the top. in the are3 of rapidly erodi!">g .t~~rrace deposits. Nearl:ly t~rra.:::~ depos1t.s have been redu.~ed e to a ·1:-Z. and 2: l slope, alth.:>ugh t.bi~. m11y hav.: beet~ due to foc•t:
-2-
tra.f'fic or groundwater saturation r' .lther than to wave erosion. the terrace deposi t.s at this location w~re ·to establish at a s~ope, bhe house would not be endangered at this time. although bluff top would retreat over 20 fee~. However the house would survive 50 years of cc~sf~l erosion.
5) How mutb of the bluff top will erode away at 2-3 locations?
If 2 . 1
• 6
the not
A ful 1 25-30 feet of erosion may be expeicted- above the p1·oposed northern wall. Very little ~rosion might be ~xpected immediately inshore of the roc~y pP.ninsular at the south property line, but a short distance to the north, above the p,roposed southern wali segment, a somewh8t sweller 15 feet of erosio~ could be possible. These retreats are based on a 75 year project life, without sea walis.
6) LCP policy~ (Johnson>
These are questions dependent upo.n final wail design. Howeve:r s rip rap wall is unlikely to cause any hazard, and will remove a possible bazarg induced by failure of the bluff. The project wi 11 not affect access to t~~ shoreline. or blodk or alter travel along the she re.
.... -,J-
NORTH COAST ENGINEERING, INC. Civil Engineering • Land Surveying • Projt;ct Development
August 10, 1989
San .Lui~ -Obispo County Planning Department County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Attn: Mr. Ted: -Bench
:Subject: Callet'i;f\'Sea Wall-0890001P
Dear Te:d:
Pursua~t to our conversation o~-August 8, 1989, I have the following additional information r:egarding the effect Of the proposed bluff protection structutes on the sand production of the }:)luff area.
In my opinion, ,the bluff top ero,sion is producing a substantial degr~~ of sedimentation, that is detrimental to the beach. The majority of erosion is occurring in the upper layer of the soils, ~ which are comprised mostly of clays and silts and are not signif- '1911' icant contributors to the beach sands. The construction of the proposed retaining wal)::;;1- a11d ri~ rap ~r--niamtlit will have no significant effect on sana production- -for this ar~~-
Please call if there are additional questions r;egarding this information. We understand that with this information, the application will be accepted as complete and forwarded to the Environmental Coordinator's office for further processing.
Thank you for -your cooperation in th i's matter.
Respectfully,.
SJS/jl
cc: Mr. Bob Calletti
881JSS3.ltr
:J9 :. CALENDAR PAGt; e Ml~LiTt f.:!.Gt ..;.;.;£-...... ·; _ . ..,.. L-_j_2_=-tl
_.. Jr • ; L,.,,,,.;:~,
. . . . . . . . . ' .
· .
. ,, -··- ··- .. ,.
----
AG .GS -L.CP
~ - ·• 'Lor ,::_. --)
f CALENDAR PAGE ~r~INtrTt PAGE ___ __.~~-.
I
E1ilff.~IT "D" .{)
P.IA~DlG CCHUSSION COUNTY· OP SA.'l WIS OBIS!\ , STATE OP CALIF:ORNIA
&tpteaber 27, 1990
Coamiazioaera DOn Xeefer, Toa Kuwell, DsYid Oakley, F~~an Roaano, Cbt.t~raan Beury Vaehtunn
Ccuissiooer Jeeu Schwartz
l.!SOLUTIClf HO. 9~0 ~OLUl'ICK ll!LATM TO Tim GlWttlNG
OP A Mfiiil.t USE PP.JtMiT/COASTAL Dn!LOPKENT Pl!iHIT
wm.:REAS, 'l'he County Planning Cofaiasio~ of the County of San :Wia
Obiapc, State of Callforuia, did, on the 27th day of September, 199'.>, •
gr.ant a Minor Use Perait/Coaatal. llevelopgent ?erait (hereafter -~~tQ)
tt1 »OlJ CALLE!TI/SYL'aSTPJl to allov eonctructioo of a uev se&L ·~11 in he
Reeidenti&l Si~e Paaily Land Use C.tegor,~ The Prc:>P\!rty· ia locat~ in
the coastal zone of the cotmty at 650 Piucific Avenu~, Cayucoa, iu the
Eatero Plazmtng Area .. : County File Huaber: D890001P.
W!lbS, 1he P:..matog eo...!•ai<>ll, after coaa1der1n.g the f&.cta
·~el.&ting t<• aa1-! application, approves th.idf Perait MJb~~t t:o the
1hndiqa liat<td 1.i Exhibit A.
lnmrEAS, Tile Plaimua Cotai•aionp after considering the t-,cu
relat,iag to add appliC«tion, appn-Yea thia .Perait ·subject to t~
Conditioaa U.i::ed 1u BxhibU: 1. \
CALENDAR PAGE ____ -1
' MINUTE PAGE-·--~-.._.;:;...:...;,-._~
Countt of &ln Luis Obi•po1r State of California., in a regular 1aeet1ng
nseembled 011 t~ 27th d.ay of· Septeaber, 1990, d0ea hereby grant the
aforesaid Pem.tt Ho. D89000l'P.
If the use CJ.~horized by tl.lia Pemt apj,roval has not been established or it' sub~tantUtl work on the property towards the eatablishllent of tbe use is not in progress e.fter a period of tuenty-four (24) .,nths frow the date of this .epprcval or euch other tille period aa .. Y be designated through c°'~aitions of .approval of thia lerait, this approval ahilll expire and bectao\!! -mid tmlema ut e.zteuiou of tiae bae been granted pursuant to the provis:tona of Section 23.02.0.50 of the Cowity Use Ordinance.
If the use aut:bo:tized. by thia Pera!t appro"Sl, Ol'lCii!! established, 1a or has 'b!en unused, aband.0!2ed11 discontinued, or baa ceased for a period of six aontha (6) or coiMlit1·~ baw not been cOllJ>lied With, auch Pendt appro"nll 61:&11 become wid.
to-wit:
AlES:
Kuvell aecoDded by
·Oakley a and on the following roll eall vote.
Comr.lanooerc Y~ll, Oakley, i:auer, lloaano, Cba1naD Vach'~·
HOES: Moce
\ AITEST:
4714L
I•/ Hen~ Wochtmann Qi.airman of the Plannf.q-Coma--1-a_a_i_ou-
l u .:' CALENDAR PAGE--==-~, .... ,
11 .... 6--1
MINUTE PAGE-· _ _..,_.....__,
r
EXRIBIT A
A. The propo~ project or uae 1• consistent with the San Lu!e Obi•no Coun~y General Plu be,C4uae the ltbor.eline stnU!tures are dll~d within the ~sidcntial. Single Pnaily category.
B. As conditioned. the pro~o8ed projecc or uae eatisfiec all applici.tble pronsioDa of Title 23 of l:be County Code.
c. The ea~ahlis~nt and ~ub.tequent operat~oQ or conduct ef the u~ Ui.11 not, becauM of tt~ c!rcuaataacea and ccuditioca applied in the r•rt1cular caae, 1).! dett!Dental to tbe ~th. eaf ety or veifare of th: ge.ooral public or peraoua reniding or working in i;hf! ne4;hborbood c! '~ha uue. o~ be detd:~utal or injurious ta p~rty or ispre·~~~t• lu t:~ vic!1i.i t:y of the use b...""C&U!"! the •.ea wall will be C' 4atri.J..!t.ed in caapl1&12;;:e with 1:ouuty approved englaeered drntraga • ~nd &11 work dPne on the public beach will be done pursuant to the neceaa8t'Y etate and .l.tJ.c&1 •P?t"Cl~~l~y
' n.. T:% proposed p1: .. .1ject ~o:.: o.u. . .,.,-.LJ..?. not geaerate a wlu.e of traffic ht.7000 the Jt,'l.fe cap.aelt7 cf all ro&ds proVic.J.ing acceea to t:be pro.~.i<·t:.. e:lt:Uer erlstin& or to be 1wproftd with the project becauae thf:. ~ .ljeet will mt increase the rea~dential use or denaity of t:~~ :.t.~t~,·
i'. Toe propoaed project ~r uae wili not be inconslatent vi.th :the cbaracter of t:be 1-ediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly develcp.ent becauee tM aea wall shall be 'ri.aually c~tible .i:~th t~· rroclcy ocean bl•Jffa and vi.th the nearby ahoreline atructures.
SJ!!cial l1!dig8 t Sea w11
G. The cea wall deaign and dewelop11ent wt~ incorporate adequate 1Jie&SUrea to i.Asure its atnictural stability because tbe rec011meodations in the ·project's geol0&'Y report by Oiippiug Geological Service• (report dated .July n. 1988 by David Chipping, Calif. Reg. Geologiat Ho. 3632) are required to be incorporated in t.be project•• grading am drduge plau.
(J r
H. The au wall would have little or no adveree 111p12ct• on the l0cal sboreliue sand supply as iDd!cat~~ in the August 10, 1989 letter by Steven Sylvester (P.E. and R.C.E. No. 29743).
I. The se.a vall would not preclude wrt1cal public access to arid along the coast bec~uae there exiats a publ.ic acceseway that is conaiatent ld.th the provisioila of Section 23.04.420 (Coaatal Acceaa Required).
J. The ae& vall wuld be viaual.ly COllpatible vlth u.turaJ. feature• becauee it will u11e aranite t.ouldera and •terial aillilar in color .t!Dd appearance t~ the coastal bl.Uff.
K. The, •ea valJ. woul.d ainiaize erosion illpact• ~D adjacent propertiea ~t l!Ji&ht be caused by tbe structure becauae the rock rip-rap will abut aad interface Oil to the adjacent aea •11 to the north.
L. 'Ebe ttea wall would DOt adftrllely 1apact fiah and wildlife because it would not extead' onto the Ilea.eh or into •DJ boVll v.lldlife unctuartu.
H. Non-structural •tbod• of protectioa (artificial uDd nouriabment or replaceaent) an.-e iapractical or infeaaible for thia project beeauae the p:ropoaed •ea wll •.i• a -u, efftci'!nt [email protected] dmce.
l.CALENDMPAE---i2u158 MJNUJE MaE .. . .. _
:
.e
e
CONDITIOIS OF AP!l.OVAL
#P~Jf-
1. 'Ibis appronl authorl:cs installatioa. of tvo rock rip rap aea wall• and a wooden bluff top retd.nill& wall., plus drainage d~vicea.
2. Prio~ to iaouance of a j~adin.g perait auhd.t to •Dd "receive approval frca tbe Plamrl.ng Depart.ent fnr gradina plans for the •ea wall.. The plan.a shall ~neorporate tbe reco.-eadationa in the July ?.1·,. 1988 geology report for 650 Pacific Avenue, Cayucoa, prepared by Olippiag Ge~logically Service• (Dr. David Cbipp1?J8, C'.alif. leg. Geologiet No. 3632) and ah.ell c:oaply with the appro-ved eite plan (by North Coast Eugineeriug .Job No. 88-138 - Without beach atairvay).
3. Prior to the i••ua?)Ce of grading peraita, subm.it to and obtain approval fro• the Planning Depart11ent of a drainage plac. The plan .3ball iacorporate the drainage device• •bovn in the .~pproved site plan prepared by liorth Coaat Engineering {Job No. 88-l!- '~. The plan •hall a1Ao keep all yard drain.age .snd roof runoff away froa the bluff edge by ua!ng drainage: l!aee and eave gutters. Jto runoff shall be allowed to fl<N over the top of the sea bluff.
JuX lcUg P.1.w
4. Prior to -the i~m:e of ,£~D'f grading or buildin.~ pend.ta, •ubait to and o'btd.ll Planning Depart1Knt approval of build!ua pl.au for tbe two rock rip rap &Ea wlla and tbe wodea. bluff fttaitd.ng wall. The ·bulld.iag pl.ans •hall incorporate· the recol.endatiou and plan• deacr!bed in Con41t1oa No. 2o
OJ?!?tha Cmid!tiou
5. 'J.'t.?tre ahllli be 'DO atorage of wh!cle~. equipeeot or aateri6.l8 of aar k1m on. the public beach or il'I the public r11ht:-of-vay either duriq couatl:Uctiou or after proj~t cowpletion.
r ' 6. Prior to tbe iaeuance of grading or bu11Uing peaj'=• auWt eYideace
of approval froa t:k, California Depart:111e11t of, ·Park am Recreation diatrict' aaiuteo.ance chief for the use of the )'Ublic beach parlc.tng lo~~ at Old Cre:elt as a atqing area for co1aatructlon equipment and ac~ivitiea, 1f the Old Creek parking lot will be U3ed aa the at<!lgin& area.
