CCC w16d-8-2016

STATE OF CALIFORNIANATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., G OVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
W16d
Appeal Filed:
49th Day:
Staff:
Staff Report:
Hearing Date:
5/19/2016
Waived
Mike Watson - SC
7/22/2016
8/10/2016
APPEAL STAFF REPORT: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE

DETERMINATION & DE NOVO HEARING
Appeal Number:
A-3-CML-16-0057
Applicant:
Wellington S. Henderson, Jr.
Appellants:
Commissioners Mary Shallenberger and Erik Howell
Local Decision:
Approved by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission

on April 13, 2016 (City application number DS 15-158).
Project Location:
On the bluffs at the south end of Carmel Beach fronting 26336

Scenic Road, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County (APNs 009423-001 and 002).
Project Description:
Construction of shoreline protective device designed as an eightfoot tall and 63-foot long upper bluff retaining wall with faux bluff
facing and related drainage and landscaping improvements.
Staff Recommendation:
Substantial Issue Exists; Denial
Important Hearing Procedure Note: The Commission will not take testimony on this
substantial issue recommendation unless at least three Commissioners request it. The
Commission may ask questions of the Applicant, any aggrieved person, the Attorney General or
the Executive Director prior to determining whether or not to take testimony regarding whether
the appeal raises a substantial issue. If the Commission takes testimony regarding whether the
appeal raises a substantial issue, testimony is generally (and at the discretion of the Chair)
limited to three minutes total per side. Only the Applicant, persons who opposed the application
before the local government (or their representatives), and the local government shall be
A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

qualified to testify during this phase of the hearing. (14 CCR 13117.) Others may submit
comments in writing. (Id.) If the Commission finds that the appeal raises a substantial issue, the
de novo phase of the hearing will follow, unless it has been postponed, during which the
Commission will take public testimony. (Id. 13115(b).)
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea approved a coastal development permit (CDP) 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 bluffs 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. 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 Citys CDP decision was appealed to the Commission based on questions
regarding potential inconsistencies with the LCPs policies and standards for shoreline protective
devices.
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 deny a CDP for the proposed seawall at the site.
The LCP requires a three-step process to allow for shoreline protective devices: 1) identify an
existing structure in danger from erosion; 2) identify a range of alternatives and select the least
environmentally damaging alternative to abate the identified threat; and 3) mitigate for all coastal
resource impacts caused by the selected shoreline protective device. However, the Citys
approval did not adequately identify an existing structure in danger from erosion, did not analyze
any alternatives, and did not identify and mitigate for all resultant coastal resource impacts
caused by the approved project. For all these reasons, the Citys approval raises substantial LCP
conformance issues.
On de novo review, the Applicants stated purpose of the project is to protect the residences
driveway and driveway gate from potential bluff failure due to future erosion and storm events.
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 projects own technical reports indicate that the underlying bedrock
bluffs are eroding very slowly at this location, approximately 0.1 feet annually. At this rate, it
would be roughly 65 years before the driveway and gate are undercut by erosion. Accordingly,
an existing structure in danger from erosion has not been established in such a way as to allow
for a shoreline protective device at this location, 1 and thus the proposed project is inconsistent
with LCP requirements in this regard and must be denied.
Furthermore, even if the existing driveway and gate were shown to be in danger from erosion,
1
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.

the LCP requires a thorough analysis of alternatives designed to address the identified erosion
danger, including but not limited to relocation or partial removal of the driveway and gate, both
options which appear feasible at this location. The Applicant did not provide and the City did not
analyze any other alternatives to the upper bluff retaining wall, 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,
mitigated. The City did not evaluate sand supply impacts that are likely to result from the upper
bluff retaining wall, and did not identify any mitigation for impacts associated with the project.
Thus, the proposed shoreline protective device is inconsistent with the LCP.
In short, the proposed project is inconsistent with LCP shoreline protective device policies and
standards, primarily because there is no identified erosion threat to an existing structure that
would warrant and allow for such shoreline protective device. Furthermore, even if danger were
established, there has been no evaluation of alternatives, such as driveway relocation (which
appears to be feasible at this location). And finally, even if the proposed development satisfied
those first two LCP requirements, the project lacks avoidance and mitigation measures for
attendant coastal resource impacts. 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.
The motions are found on page 5 below.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS.........................................................................................5
II. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS .....................................................................................6
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.................................................................................6
B. PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................6
C. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVAL ...........................................................................7
D. APPEAL PROCEDURES ...........................................................................................................7
E. SUMMARY OF APPEAL CONTENTIONS ...................................................................................8
F. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION ..................................................................................8
G. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DETERMINATION ...........................................................10
1. Shoreline Protective Devices ...................................................................................... 10
2. Visual and Scenic Resource Protection ...................................................................... 14
3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ......................................................... 15
APPENDICES
Appendix A Substantive File Documents
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Project Location Maps
Exhibit 2 Site Photos
Exhibit 3 Project Plans
Exhibit 4 Early Correspondence
Exhibit 5 Citys Final Local Action Notice
Exhibit 6 Appeal of City CDP Action
Exhibit 7 Computer Rendering of the Proposed Upper Bluff Retaining Wall
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-16-0057
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-16-0057 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, deny a coastal development permit
for the proposed development. To implement this recommendation, staff recommends a NO vote
on the following motion. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the CDP 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-3CML-16-0057 pursuant to the staff recommendation, and I recommend a no vote.
Resolution to Deny CDP: The Commission hereby denies Coastal Development Permit
Number A-3-CML-16-0057 and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the
development will not be in conformity with the policies of the certified Local Coastal
Program and the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
II. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS

The Commission finds and declares as follows:
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is located on the bluffs fronting a residentially developed parcel at 26336
Scenic Road, in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County (APNs 009-423-001 and 002). The site is situated on a bedrock outcrop at the south end of Carmel Beach and is highly
visible from the beach and the Scenic Road public recreation trail. The City-approved project is 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 fronting Carmel Beach along the northeast
property line. The device would be located above the mean high tide line, on the upper portion of
a coastal bluff (roughly 16 feet above the beach) that defines the downcoast edge of Carmel
Beach. Finally, 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.
The Applicants stated purpose for the device is to protect the residences driveway and
driveway gate from potential future bluff failure due to erosion and storm events. The device
would be tied to the existing bedrock outcrop beneath and would extend from roughly the
southeast corner of the residence to a point near the southeast property line. The device would
include rock fascia designed to blend with the surrounding bluff.
See Exhibit 1 for project location maps, and Exhibit 2 for site photos. See Exhibit 3 for the
approved project plans.
B. PROJECT BACKGROUND
In early 2015, the Applicant requested a preliminary review from Commission staff of a
proposed upper bluff retaining wall/shoreline protective device at the location of the project site.
On February 17, 2015, Commission staff provided a response to the Applicant and to City of
Carmel staff regarding questions about permit jurisdiction and also identified the relevant LCP
policies related to shoreline armoring and hazards avoidance. See Exhibit 4 for this early
correspondence. Staff further indicated that the geotechnical investigation provided by the
Applicant was deficient in terms of identifying the nature of the threat (if any). Specifically, the
geotechnical investigation failed to provide a rate of annual erosion needed to establish the
degree of threat, and further did not identify precisely what structure or structures were in danger
from erosion, which is the LCPs primary threshold to determine whether a structure is
potentially allowed some type of armoring for coastal hazards protection. Lastly, staff noted that
the materials did not provide an analysis of potential impacts to local sand supply or an
assessment of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed upper bluff retaining
wall, as further required by the LCP. Staff concluded that adequate technical support did not
exist for the proposed upper bluff retaining wall/shoreline protective device consistent with LCP
and Coastal Act requirements and that more rigorous analysis of shoreline processes were
needed to consider a project at this location.

Nevertheless, on April 13, 2016, the City of Carmel Planning Commission approved CDP DS
15-158 with conditions for an upper bluff retaining wall approximately 63-feet in length and
roughly eight feet in height. The City concluded in its findings that, although the exposed
volcanic bedrock surrounding the house is relatively hard, it has been weakened by naturally
occurring weathering, joints, and fractures. Therefore, construction of the upper bluff retaining
wall would stabilize the bluff and preserve the driveway and gate. The approval included a
condition to require the upper bluff retaining wall to mimic the surrounding bedrock formations
in color, texture, and undulation. The conditions further require that the appearance of the wall
be reviewed by the Citys historical consultant to ensure consistency with existing character of
the residence and setting, and also to require an archaeological reconnaissance report to
determine the presence of any archaeological resources on the site and to develop a plan of
action should archaeological resources be uncovered. See Exhibit 5 for the Citys final local
approval.
C. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVAL

On April 13, 2016, the City of Carmel approved a CDP authorizing construction of an eight-foot
tall, 63-foot long upper bluff retaining wall/shoreline protective device on the Applicants
property (see Exhibit 5). The Coastal Commission received notice of the Citys approval on
May 5, 2016. The Commissions ten-working-day appeal period for this action began on May 6,
2016 and concluded at 5 p.m. on May 19, 2016. One timely appeal was received on May 19,
2016 (Exhibit 6).
D. APPEAL PROCEDURES
Coastal Act Section 30603 provides for the appeal to the Coastal Commission of certain CDP
decisions in jurisdictions with certified LCPs. The following categories of local CDP decisions
are appealable: (a) approval of CDPs for development that is located (1) between the sea and the
first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the
mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance, (2) on
tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream,
or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff, and (3) in a sensitive
coastal resource area; or (b) for counties, approval of CDPs for development that is not
designated as the principal permitted use under the LCP (see Coastal Act Sections 30603(a)(1)(4)). In addition, any local action (approval or denial) on a CDP for a major public works project
(including a publicly financed recreational facility and/or a special district development) or an
energy facility is appealable to the Commission (Coastal Act Section 30603(a)(5)). This project
is appealable because it involves development that is located between the sea and the first public
road paralleling the sea, and it is located within 300 feet of the inland extent of the mean high
tide, within 300 feet of the inland extent of the beach, and within 300 feet of the top of the
seaward face of the coastal bluff.
The grounds for appeal under Section 30603 are limited to allegations that the development does
not conform to the certified LCP or to the public access policies of the Coastal Act. (Coastal Act
Section 30603(b).) Coastal Act Section 30625(b) requires the Commission to conduct the de
novo portion of the hearing on an appealed project unless a majority of the Commission finds

that no substantial issue is raised by such allegations. Under Section 30604(b), if the
Commission considers the CDP de novo and ultimately approves a CDP for a project, the
Commission must find that the proposed development is in conformity with the certified LCP. If
a CDP is approved for a project that is located between the nearest public road and the sea or the
shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone, Section 30604(c) also requires an
additional specific finding that the development is in conformity with the public access and
recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. This project is located between the nearest
public road and the sea, and thus this additional finding would need to be made if the
Commission were to approve a project at this location following a de novo hearing.
The only persons qualified to testify before the Commission on the substantial issue question are
the Applicants (or their representatives), persons who opposed the project and made their views
known before the local government (or their representatives), and the local government (Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 13117). Testimony from other persons
regarding substantial issue must be submitted in writing. (Id.) Any person may testify during the
de novo CDP determination stage of an appeal.
E. SUMMARY OF APPEAL CONTENTIONS

The Appellants contend that the City-approved project raises LCP consistency issues with
respect to allowances for shoreline protection devices, including a lack of: 1) evidence
establishing a bona fide erosion threat to an existing structure; 2) an analysis and selection of the
least environmentally damaging feasible alternative to address any identified threat; 3) an
assessment of project impacts on sand supply and public access and recreation; and 4) full
mitigation for all project related impacts. In short, the Appellants contend that the supporting
documentation does not establish a clear erosion threat to an existing structure, that there are
feasible alternatives to the proposed armoring, and that project impacts have not been
appropriately evaluated and fully mitigated. See Exhibit 6 for the full text of the appeal
contentions.
F. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION

1. Substantial Issue Background
The term substantial issue is not defined in the Coastal Act. The Commission's regulations
indicate that the Commission will hear an appeal unless it finds that the appeal raises no
significant question (CCR Section 13115(b)). In previous decisions on appeals, the
Commission has used the following factors in making such determinations: (1) the degree of
factual and legal support for the local governments decision that the development is
consistent or inconsistent with the certified LCP and with the public access policies of the
Coastal Act; (2) the extent and scope of the development as approved or denied by the
local government; (3) the significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision; (4) the
precedential value of the local governments decision for future interpretation of its LCP; and
(5) whether the appeal raises only local issues, or those of regional or statewide
significance. Even where the Commission chooses not to hear an appeal (by finding no
substantial issue), Appellants nevertheless may obtain judicial review of the local government's

coastal permit decision by filing a petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1094.5 (see Coastal Act Section 30801).
In this case, for the reasons discussed further below, the Commission determines that the
development as approved by the City presents a substantial issue.
2. Substantial Issue Analysis
Shoreline Protective Devices
The Appellants contend that the City-approved project raises questions regarding whether it is
consistent with LCP policies and standards for shoreline protective devices, which include bluff
retaining walls, seawalls, revetments, and other structures that serve as protection against coastal
erosion. The LCP prohibits shoreline protective devices unless they are necessary to protect
existing structures, coastal-dependent uses, or public recreational facilities and beaches in danger
of erosion (including LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) Policy P5-6 and Implementation Plan (IP)
Section 17.20.190(C)(1)). 2 The LCP further prescribes that a shoreline protective device may
only be permitted when it is determined that such device is the least environmentally damaging
feasible alternative to address the identified danger, and where it is designed to eliminate or
mitigate adverse impacts on the shoreline, sand supply, public beach access, and scenic resources
(LUP Policy P5-5 and IP Sections 17.20.19 C.2 C.6). Applications for shoreline protection are
required to include a complete evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives including the no
project alternative, relocation of threatened structures, various armoring solutions, and soft
options (LUP Policy P5-5 and IP Section 17.20.190(F)). Synthesizing these various requirements
together, the LCP requires a basic three step process to allow for shoreline protective devices: 1)
identify an existing structure in danger from erosion; 2) identify a range of alternatives and select
the least environmentally damaging alternative to abate the identified threat; and 3) mitigate for
all coastal resource impacts caused by the project.
The Appellants contend that it does not appear that the residences driveway and driveway gate
are threatened by coastal erosion or bluff retreat. The Applicants own consultants determined
the bedrock bluffs underneath the City-approved upper bluff retaining wall to be eroding at a
very slow annual rate (i.e., 0.1 feet per year). At this rate of erosion, it would take approximately
65 years for the driveway and the gate of the residence to be undercut by erosion. By contrast, in
past projects the Commission has deemed a structure to be in danger of erosion if it would
become unfit for use within the next two or three storm season cycles or generally within the
next few years. The projects technical reports do not provide an erosion rate for the upper bluff
marine terrace deposits located immediately adjacent to the driveway where the proposed device
would be installed. However, the Commissions Senior Geologist independently determined the
upper bluff marine terrace deposits to be stable at roughly 12 to 14 feet above the elevation of the
sea, including as evidenced by the vegetation at this location (see site photos in Exhibit 2). As
such, the projects technical information does not adequately establish a clear erosion/coastal
hazards threat to an existing structure, and thus raises substantial LCP conformance issues in this
regard (see also further discussion on this point in the shoreline protective device section of the
CDP determination section that follows).
See LCP policies listed below in the CDP Determination section.

Even if the existing driveway and gate were shown to be in danger from erosion, then the LCP
requires a thorough analysis of alternatives designed to address the identified danger, including
but not limited to relocation or partial removal of the endangered existing structures. The City
did not analyze any other alternatives to the upper bluff retaining wall, such as modifications to
or relocation of the driveway and gate, which appear to be feasible alternatives at this site that
would warrant consideration if an existing structure were to be deemed to be in danger. Thus, the
City-approved project raises substantial LCP conformance issues in this respect as well.
Finally, even if an erosion danger to the driveway was conclusively established, and even if the
upper bluff retaining wall was conclusively shown to be the least environmentally damaging
alternative to address the danger, the LCP still requires that all impacts be eliminated, and, if
they are not able to be eliminated, mitigated. The Citys approval did not include an evaluation
of sand supply impacts that are likely to result from the upper bluff retaining wall, including via
fixing the bluff face and preventing sand-generating materials from entering into the shoreline
sand supply system. Such an impact would require mitigation per the LCP. While the City
partially addressed visual impacts by requiring the wall to be camouflaged as a bluff, the
approval did not include any actual performance standards to ensure that scenic views and the
natural rock character of the bluffs are preserved. The lack of performance standards could result
in an unnaturally-looking back beach area whereas this viewshed is protected by the LCP as a
key policy matter. The Citys approval therefore raises substantial LCP conformance issues in
this regard as well.
In short, the City-approved project raises substantial conformance issues with respect to the
LCPs shoreline protective device policies and standards. The Citys approval did not identify an
existing structure in danger from erosion, did not identify the least environmentally damaging
feasible alternative, and did not identify and mitigate all resultant coastal resource impacts
caused by the approved upper bluff retaining wall. For all of these reasons, the Citys approval
raises a substantial issue.
3. Substantial Issue Conclusion
The City-approved project raises substantial LCP conformance issues with respect to
allowances for shoreline protection devices and hazards avoidance at this location. Therefore,
the Commission finds that a substantial issue exists with respect to the City-approved project,
and takes jurisdiction over the CDP application for the proposed project.
G. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DETERMINATION

The standard of review for this CDP determination is the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea certified
LCP and, because it is located between the first public road and the sea, the access and recreation
policies of the Coastal Act. All Substantial Issue Determination findings above are incorporated
herein by reference.
1. Shoreline Protective Devices
Applicable Policies
The policies of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea LCP ensure that development in areas of coastal
hazards minimize risks to life and property. Applicable LCP policies include:
10

LUP Policy P5-5. Protect public access, Scenic Road, and the aesthetic character of the
coast by maintaining existing seawalls and engineered revetments. When any existing
seawalls or revetments need to be replaced or substantially reconstructed, review seawall
and revetment design alternatives, as well as other beach management strategies and
determine the best balance among objectives for access, aesthetics and protection of coastal
resources (biological, geological, and recreational). Protect the natural character and
features of the Del Mar and North Dunes by prohibiting the construction of any new
shoreline protective structures unless required to protect existing structures in danger of
erosion. For the beach and shoreline area, only consider the installation of new protective
structures after careful review of alternatives and when required to protect existing
structures in danger of erosion. Mitigate the impacts of shoreline protective structures on
visual quality and beach dynamics using landscaping, sand management and prudent
engineering. (Emphasis added)
LUP Policy P5-6. Construct new shoreline armoring in areas previously unprotected only
when required to protect existing structures in danger of erosion and when designed to
eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local sand supply. Require any approved structures
to include native landscaping (screening), be visually compatible with existing seawall
designs, address drainage, incorporate visual mitigation, sand coverage for revetments, and
golden granite facing for seawalls. (Emphasis added)
IP Section 17.20.190(C). Shoreline Protective Structures. Shoreline protective structures
may be permitted only when the review authority determines that the structure is:
1. Necessary to protect existing structures, coastal-dependent uses, public beaches,
public access and beach facilities in danger of erosion;
2. The least environmentally damaging feasible alternative;
3. Designed to successfully eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline and
sand supply;
4. Designed to avoid significant intertidal and subtidal areas;
5. Designed to avoid, or mitigate if avoidance is infeasible, impacts on beach access;
and
6. Designed to respect natural landforms and minimize visual impact to the extent
possible, through means including the use of structures, colors and materials that are
visually compatible to those already established;
IP Section 17.20.190(F). Shoreline Armoring Alternatives Analysis. Applicants shall
submit a complete evaluation of a reasonable range of potential alternatives including (1)
project alternatives that will avoid the need for armoring, including but not limited to,
relocation of the threatened (infra)structure(s) away from danger, (2) various armor
solutions (e.g., vertical seawalls), (3) soft options, and (4) the no project alternative.
The evaluation shall identify the environmentally least damaging feasible alternative that
11

provides effective protection of existing development and minimizes impacts on public
access, recreation, scenic resources, and sand supply.
Shoreline structures can have a variety of negative impacts on coastal resources including
adverse effects on beaches and sand supply, which ultimately result in the loss of the beach with
associated impacts to public recreational access, as well as impacts to visual resources, and to
water quality during construction. Accordingly, as previously described, the LCP requires at
minimum a three step evaluation to allow for shoreline protective devices: 1) identify an existing
structure in danger from erosion; 2) identify a range of alternatives and select the least
environmentally damaging alternative to abate the identified threat; and 3) mitigate for all coastal
resource impacts caused by the selected project.
Analysis
Degree of Threat
The proposed project is for the construction of a shoreline protective device designed as an eightfoot tall and 63-foot long upper bluff retaining wall with faux bluff facing fronting a residential
property 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. The
Applicant asserts that the residence is not threatened, but that the shoreline protective device is
necessary to protect the driveway access, entry gate, and entry gate pillar from erosion.
The first LCP test to allow for the device is to identify whether there is an existing structure in
danger from erosion. While the LCP does not define the term in danger, for other projects
seeking approval of shoreline protective devices, the Commission has in the past defined in
danger from erosion to mean the existing structure would become unfit for use within the next
two or three storm season cycles or generally within the next few years. Two geotechnical
reports (dated September 30, 2014 and August 12, 2015) were prepared by Haro, Kasunich, and
Associates, Inc. (HKA), evaluating erosion and hazards at the site. In the August 12, 2015 report,
HKA determined that the driveway and gate could be threatened by erosion if two-feet of
bedrock material were lost to a sudden or unforeseen erosion event. If such an event occurred,
then the upper bluff materials could be expected to recede by as much as five to nine feet,
threatening the driveway features. The HKA report pointed to the then upcoming 2015-16 El
Nino winter as having the potential to produce greater than normal rates of erosion, and thus
concluded that the bluff could erode in such a manner as to subject the driveway to erosion
danger.
These reports were evaluated by the Commissions Senior Geologist, Dr. Mark Johnsson. Dr.
Johnsson concurs with the geotechnical reports bluff erosion rate of 0.1 feet per year, a fairly
slow rate of erosion due their composition as strong underlying volcanic bedrock. He also
observes that the reports did not establish an annual erosion rate for the marine terrace deposits
on the upper part of the bluff where the proposed device would be built, but rather relied on
qualitative analysis and assumption. Of note, Dr. Johnsson disagrees with the reports
assumptions used to establish a potential erosion threat to the driveway and entry gate, which he
deemed overly conservative and unwarranted. Dr. Johnsson indicates that such assumptions (i.e.,
a sudden two-foot erosion event of the stable volcanic lower bluff base and a five- to nine-foot
erosion event of the upper bluff) were not supported by any evidence of their probability or
likelihood, and were in conflict with the reports previous findings that the bluffs were stable and
12

eroding at only 0.1 feet per year. Dr. Johnsson subsequently performed a site evaluation in April
2016. Dr. Johnssons site visit confirmed the findings of the geotechnical reports that the
underlying bedrock bluffs were comprised of competent bedrock material consistent with an
annual erosion rate of 0.1 feet per year. Dr. Johnsson also observed that the upper bluff marine
terrace deposits were stable at roughly 12-14 feet above the elevation of the sea. Of note, the
2015-2016 winter El Nino conditions did scour the sand down to the sandstone at the south end
of Carmel Beach and in the vicinity of the project site. However, there was little evidence of
greater than normal erosion of the bedrock material or upper marine terrace deposits directly
fronting the project site, and thus no evidence to substantiate the Applicants reports
assumptions of the probability of such an extreme erosion event. Based on the findings in the
HKA reports and the firsthand observations of his site visit, Dr. Johnsson concluded that there is
no threat from erosion to any structure at this location. The projects own technical reports
indicate that the underlying bedrock bluffs are eroding very slowly at this location,
approximately 0.1 feet annually. At this rate, it would take roughly 65 years before the driveway
and gate were undercut by erosion. Accordingly, an existing structure in danger from erosion has
not been established in such a way as to allow for a shoreline protective device at this location,
and thus the proposed project is inconsistent with LCP requirements in this regard and must be
denied.
Least Environmentally Damaging Feasible Alternative and Mitigation
Because the proposed upper bluff retaining wall fails the first LCP test due to no existing
structure in danger from erosion, consideration of subsequent LCP requirements, including
evaluation of a range of alternatives (e.g., relocation of the structure to avoid identified hazard
threats) as well as mitigation for resultant impacts caused by the selected shoreline protective
device, are moot. However, it should be noted that the geotechnical reports prepared for the
project only evaluated the proposed upper bluff retaining wall and did not include possible
alternatives to said wall, 3 such as relocation of portions of the driveway, which appear to be
feasible based on staff site visits. 4 Additionally, while the LCP requires full avoidance or
mitigation of all resultant coastal resource impacts, including impacts to shoreline sand supply
caused by the shoreline protective device, the Applicant has not included any evaluation of
project-related impacts, nor proposed mitigation for those impacts, and neither did the City.
Finally, shoreline protective devices may only be permitted if the structure is designed to respect
natural landforms and minimize visual impacts. The large 63-foot long and eight-feet tall upper
bluff retaining wall does not respect the natural landform in part because it will eliminate the
natural undulating bluff features and replace it with a monolithic structure with faux facing.
However, as described above, because the device cannot meet the LCPs first test and must be
denied, further consideration of project inadequacies related to project alternatives and proposed
mitigation is not necessary.
Shoreline Armoring Conclusion
In short, the proposed project is inconsistent with LCP shoreline protective device policies and
standards, primarily because there is no identified erosion threat to an existing structure that
3
Deficiencies noted by Commission staff in February 17, 2015 correspondence to the City and the Applicant (see Exhibit 4).
The Commission finds that a robust alternatives analysis, including an evaluation of the feasibility associated with driveway
relocation, will be a necessary component of any subsequent shoreline protective device application in the future, per LCP
requirements, should the driveway be determined to be in danger from erosion.
13

would warrant and allow for such shoreline protective device. Furthermore, even if danger were
established, there has been no evaluation of alternatives, such as driveway relocation, which
appears to be feasible at this location. And even if those first two LCP tests were met, the project
lacks avoidance and mitigation of attendant coastal resource impacts. For all of these reasons, the
proposed project fails to ensure LCP conformance with LUP Policies P5-5 and P5-6, as well as
IP Sections 17.20.190(C) and (F), and therefore must be denied.
2. Visual and Scenic Resource Protection
Applicable Policies
Carmels shoreline is generally regarded as a highly scenic location, with white sand, dune back
beach, and a backdrop of Monterey pine and cypress trees. The LCP contains a number of
policies designed to protect these significant scenic and visual resources:
LUP Policy O4-6. Limit development along the Carmel shoreline to facilities that
support passive and active recreational activities, beach access, bluff protection and
protection of infrastructure. Bluff protection and protection of infrastructure shall be
permitted only when existing facilities are in danger from erosion. Ensure that any new
structure or development is visually compatible with the nature beach environs, is
consistent with the established design of existing facilities, minimizes coverage, and does
not impeded access. Avoid to the maximum extent feasible the seaward encroachment of
new structures.
LUP Policy O1-6. Recognize the natural resources and scenic quality of Carmel as a
coastal community and allow uses in the community that are consistent with local needs,
the Carmel Local Coastal Plan, and the California Coastal Act.
LUP Policy G5-3. Protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and
irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel and its Sphere of Influence, including its
biological resources, water resources, and scenic routes and corridors.
LUP Policy O5-8. Protect, conserve and enhance designated open space, the urban
Monterey pine forest, beach and shoreline, the sensitive habitats and the hillside areas,
and acquire additional open space as deemed appropriate.
LUP Policy P5-48. New development shall protect areas of unique scenic quality (e.g.,
Scenic Road, Junipero Avenue, Torres & 3rd, etc.). Development in these areas shall be
sited to protect public views to and along the coast, minimize impacts via landform
alteration, and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.
Thus, the LCP has multiple provisions that require new development to be sited and designed to
ensure protection of significant visual resources, including views within public viewsheds. Such
policies specifically protect areas having regional public importance for their natural beauty by
ensuring that new development is appropriately designed and constructed to minimize adverse
impact upon identified visual resources. Views from beaches and the shoreline are protected
visual resources under the LCP.
14

Analysis
As currently proposed, the project would result in a 63-foot long and eight-foot tall faux rock
wall atop the existing rocky bedrock outcrop at the south end of Carmel Beach. The residence is
one of very few residences located on the seaward side of Scenic Road, and is prominent in the
view from Scenic Road, Carmel Beach, and the Scenic Road recreational path, which are all very
popular recreational use areas, and thus the site is located within a significant public viewshed.
See Exhibit 2 for photographs of the project site.
As proposed, the project will establish a new and prominently visible unnatural concrete wall
within the viewshed from these vistas, resulting in a significant adverse coastal resource impact
(see Exhibit 7 for a computer rendering of the proposed upper bluff wall). The project will also
result in a significant landform alteration as the natural bluff is replaced by an eight-foot tall and
63-foot long artificial structure with faux concrete facing. Although the Applicants proposal
reduces the visual impacts of the wall by using an artificial rock fascia design that would be
colored and texturized to mimic adjacent bluff color and texture, the wall would nevertheless
introduce an unnatural element into this natural setting, eliminating the natural bluff and its
landscape in favor of a concrete wall just above the beach. If the project were otherwise
approvable, it could be conditioned to include performance standards to help offset visual
impacts (e.g., faux bluff surface treatment, cascading and integral landscaping, etc.). However, in
this case it is unnecessary to consider conditioning of the permit because the project must be
denied based on the proposed projects inconsistencies with the LCPs shoreline protective
device policies and standards.
Visual and Scenic Resource Protection Conclusion
The proposed upper bluff retaining wall is inconsistent with the Carmel-by-the-Sea LCP visual
resource policies because it would: introduce an artificial structure into an important scenic area,
diminishing the scenic values of this area; result in significant landform alternation; and not be
visually compatible with the natural setting. Thus, the proposed project must be denied.
3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, acting as lead agency, adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for this project. The document analyzed the impacts of a 63foot long upper bluff retaining wall/shoreline protective device along the northern property
boundary. The IS/MND identified eight potentially significant effects on the environment. Key
significant impacts and mitigation measures were identified for aesthetic resources and cultural
resources. However, the Citys review did not include an evaluation of alternatives nor a finding
that the project represents the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.
Section 13096(a) of the California Code of Regulations requires that a specific finding be made
in conjunction with coastal development permit applications showing the application to be
consistent with any applicable requirements of CEQA. Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of CEQA
prohibits a proposed development from being approved if there are feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse
effect which the activity may have on the environment.
15

The Coastal Commissions review and analysis of land use proposals has been certified by the
Secretary of Resources as being the functional equivalent of environmental review under CEQA.
This report has discussed the relevant coastal resource issues with the proposal. All above
findings are incorporated herein in their entirety by reference. As detailed in the findings above,
the proposed project would have significant adverse effects on the environment as that term is
defined in the CEQA context.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) Section 15042 a public agency may disapprove a
project if necessary in order to avoid one or more significant effects on the environment that
would occur if the project were approved as proposed. Furthermore, Section 21080(b)(5) of the
CEQA, as implemented by Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, provides that CEQA does
not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. The Commission finds that
denial, for the reasons stated in these findings, is necessary to avoid the significant effects on
coastal resources that would occur if the project was approved as proposed. Accordingly, the
Commissions denial of the project represents an action to which CEQA, and all requirements
contained therein that might otherwise apply to regulatory actions by the Commission, does not
apply (see CCR Section 13096(a)).
16
APPENDIX A: SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS

1) Bluff Stabilization Blufftop Retaining Wall, 26336 Scenic Road Oceanfront Home, Carmel,
Monterey County, California. Prepared for Wellington S. Henderson, Jr. Prepared By Haro,
Kasunich and Associates, Inc. Geotechnical & Coastal Engineers. Project No. M10666,
September 2014.
2) Evaluation of Coastal Bluff Instability; Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation of Bluff Top
Protection. Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc. Geotechnical & Coastal Engineers. Project
No. M10666, August 12, 2015.
17
SAN
JOAQUIN
/~"~/
/:-.-~-c -~~:.-.-~-c-~-~-~- -~~~//
:~!: ' STA~I~LA~S

}'.-
SANTA CLARA
'
. ,,
<
I
\ "\
'l
, I
\\..,...!(
\.,
--- ~ --~
";:-
\..- ,,
,''
< MERCED
...... ----~"")~
SAN BENITO
"\, ---,
'- .... , ......
MONTEREY ..
'
Figure 1: General Project Location
Exhibit 1 (Project Location Maps)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Upper Bluff Retaining Wall)
Page 1 of 2
Figure 2: Project Location (USGS Monterey, Calif 1983)
Exhibit 1 (Project Location Maps)

Page 2 of 2
Attachment B Site Photographs
Exhibit 2 (Site Photos)

Page 1 of 2
Figure 4:
View southeast along proposed alignment of 63 foot long bluff-top retaining wall
Figure 5:
View southwest towards proposed 63 foot long bluff-top retaining wall
Exhibit 2 (Site Photos)

Page 2 of 2
REVISIONS
A S S E S ~ 0 R' S M A P
TAX CODE A REA
BOOK~-- PAGE-42
45
THIS MAP IS ~NDEO TO BE USED FOR
PROPEiliY TAX ASSESSIIJEI;T PURi'OSES ONLY
BY
CONCEPTUAL BLUFFTOP RETAINING WALL PLANS

UPCOAST SIDE OF THE HENDERSON PROPERTY
SCENIC ROAD, CARMEL, CA
MONTEREY COUNTY APN 009-423-001
43
PROJECT DATA
A.P.N. : 009-423-001
OWNER : WELLINGTON S. HENDERSON JR.
1325 HOWARD AVENUE, #940
BURLINGAME, CA
SHEET INDEX
FEET
SITE
LOCATION
CARMEL -~Y-TNE -SEA
SHEET 1
SHEET 2
SHEET 3
-TITLE SHEET
-CONCEPTUAL BLUFFTOP RETAINING WALL PLAN
-CONCEPTUAL BLUFFTOP RETAINING WALL CROSS SECTIONS
Af)I).Na7 IJLKS:8/~BI~~B/8
f>,.\ju
ll, 10G'6
MONTEREY COUNTY A.P.N. 009-423-001
PLAN PREPARERS:
John Kasunich, G.E. 455
Mark Foxx, C. E.G. 1493
HARO, KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
116 East Lake
Watsonville, CA 95076
(831)722-4175 (831)722-3202 FAX
SURVEYOR:
MONTEREY BAY ENGINEERS, INC.
607 Charles Ave Suite B
Seaside, California 93955
(831) 899-7899 (831)899-7879 FAX
Date 9/4/2014
Scale
VICINITY MAP
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
AS SHOWN
Drawn
MF
Job
Sheet
M1066
Exhibit 3 (Project Plans)

OF3SHEETS
Page 1 of 5
//
PACIFIC OCEAN
____
------- - ----
REVISIONS
BY
,/
./
ROO<Y AREA
ALL ROCKS
NOT COMPLETELY DEFINED
MEA~
PROPOSED 63 FT
LONG BLUFFTQP
RETAINING WALL
HIGH TIDE LINE
- - -----
BEACH
/
/
-------
BEACH
I
_\.
1./
\?'-
DRIVEWAY
'--.
~.;,
"'
APN 009-423-001
AC DRIVEWAY
\cJ,~
1 \ 22+20+10+6"CII'
~/
/
' I
-~
~24+18+1 2"CII'
--
.-;;:;--
-- /
ELEVATIONS ARE
N~VD 88
\\
20 \
Date
FEET
TOPOGRAPHIC SUR\fEY BY
MONTEREY BAY ENG'INEERS, INC.
JOB NO. 13-052 JUNE,\2014
-----
LOT 12
Scale
\.
914/2014
AS SHOWN
Drawn
MF
Job
Shaet

OF3SHEETS
A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Upper Bluff Retaining
Wall)
Page 2 of 5
REVISIONS
BY
PROPOSED BLUFFTOP RETAINING WALL
:: fiM=OI~c:.:...Jc,=...c
~~:.,~~~~~1 -:. ~,~~~ f;~~;~~t-:~~1~-
" - :. . . \_~~~~~..,~
... _,__
28
~~ ~~~~
24
r'+dl=a;;........bt,.,-".-T<>No<L 21
: ~~~~~~~lL~ .-.~~::
-~~~~;;~:~::;;.:.
va:C.UIJO.SS::.itCICiC---- ---- .... ........ . ...
ELEVATION
:::::: ?'".~: is
12
N~e~T88
I~~
20
16
-(E) B UFFF...cE
-. ::::::: : : :::: ~;::~c:

.. . .. .. .
..
~ .
12
~.~.~ .. .. ...... ~
I ~- ~ ..
III
__.... ......
~
... .... ------ BEACH--.
r-~~~~------~-=====t====~==~~~===+~~====d
~- .
:;;.; ........:... -=~-=:.":::::.::::::. :=.:::: ~====-~-----
-8
DATUM ELEV
10. 00
0+00
0+20
0+40
1+00
0+80
0+60
1+20
VERTICAL: 1" "' 10'
PROPOSED BLUFFTOP RETAINING WALL

. .. .. .. . ..
28
24
FINIS H ORADE
- _;1~-~~\Y~
.. . ... . .. .. . . .
.
... . .. . . . --
28
24
:~~:=~~~~~~?.!.~~~~~~1AL:. .
ELEF~~~ON --~~L-~~:~~?: .:.: - - -~ :Cel;~--~ ~'u

12
NAVD68
...............
.. 20
16
....... 12
'
~- :.::.-.. .:... "!"'------:".;:".:. . .:. t===~~~~=:;.:;:;;;~;a=====+====-=~~~~~d

------------- ----------SANo --
=-~--- -----~~-== =::.
=-=..-: : :.:: : .:: :-: : : .: : : .:- . .
:::::.:::-,.===- -
8
4
0
-4
. .
-8 ... ..
DATUM ELEV
-10. 00 0+00
~ ~- -~ -!
.. .
. ........
.. ~ ........ .~ ..... ~ . .
~~~~~~
.. .
~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
-8
0+20
0+40
0+80
0+60
1+20
1+00
:: j~~~~~~~ (=<O~~':"'"_N".. WA.C
. 28
...
. ....... 24
~=19:\1'~~..
20
1: :-~;c.~~SIT~- .f:;1~~==HEIGHT~FT
16
ELEVATION
FEET
12
VOLCANICBED~:..EL155 p
.. .
(E) TOEOF OLU'f
NAVD88
4 .
......... ....... 20
18
(E)-BUJFF-FACi
------ - -------------- --- - --
. . ... . .. ... ... . ..
.......... 12
.... ..... . .... .... -lEACH """
~>~.-""'C:.;
~ =;__;____~:.:4:..:. ~=-=======--====~~== ::: :::::: : : : : : : = ==f=::::::::;;;;;:;::::=:: : : : : : :i:.::=====J
............... - ..........
. ........................:.-::: ........ ::::::.:::-::-..:=.:=:.::::::.= ..:: . =-=- ~ - ------
0 .
-8 .....
DATUM ELEV
-10.00 0+00
1+40
=-=-~"""===-: :
. .. - -8
0+20
0+40
0+60
0+80
1+00
1+20
1+40
20
30
Date
FEET
9/4/2014
Scele AS SHOWN
Drawn
MF
Job
Sheet

OF3SHEETS
A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Upper Bluff Retaining
Wall)
Page 3 of 5
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
HARDSCAPE AREA
EXISTING HARDSCAPE = 4935.00 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED HARDSCAPE = 93.00 SQ. FT.
TOTAL HARDSCAPE = 5028.00 SQ. FT.
CUT
FILL
CUT = 56.0 CUBIC YARDS

FILL = 5.0 CUBIC YARDS
EXPORT TO APPROVED DUMPSITE = 51.0 CUBIC YAROS
CONSTRUCTION METHODS
I
I
I
I
I
ROCKY AREA
ALL ROCKS
NOT COMPLETElY DEFINED
I
/
TOOIB
VARIOUS HANDTOOLS {SHOVELS. PICKS, ECT.). A JACKHAMMER, A

BOBCAT COMPACT TRACK LOADER, A MINI EXCAVATOR, A PORTABLE
DRILL RK; FOR TIEBACK INSTALLATION, LADDER, SCAFFOlJ)NG AND
REQUIRED SAFlEY EQUIP~ENT. ALL WORK WILL BE DONE FROM
THE BLUff-TOP. NO WORK WILL TAKE PLACE ON TIHE BEACH. TIHE
WORK AREA IS WELL LANDWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH -nDE UNE
AND FAR ABOVE THE MEAN HIGH WATER ElEVATION.
\::::::::::,
\r-.. """"'
PROPOSED WALL
THE PROPOSED WAll WILL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM REINFORCED
SHDTCRETE THAT IS SCUlPTED, TEXTURED AND COlORED TO
RESEMBLE THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT NATURAL BEDROCK
EXPOSED ALONG TIHE COASTAL BLUFF. A PHOTO SIMULATION WILL
BE INCLUDED WITH SUBMITTED PLANS.
/
/
/ /
I
I
I
I
NOTES:
1'\..,--
1 BOUNDARY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE DETERMINED

. WITH THE BENEFIT OF A ~ElD SURVEY SUPPLEMENTED BY
RECORD DATA. All BOUNDARY DATA SHOWN ARE FROM THE
RECORDS.
;"'~
DISTANCES SHOWN ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS '!HEREOF.
3. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT.
4.
I
I
I
I
I
5 PROPERTY UNE FOR PARCEL 1 & 2 EXTENTS TO ~EAN HIGH

. WATER UNE AS MEASURED ON 5/20/2014. MEAN HIGH ~ATER IS
ELEVATION 4.77 FEET NAVD-88, DISPLAYED BY TIHE 4.77
I
I
ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON NAVD-88 DATUM.
THE BENCHMARK IS A "DISK MARKED U 703 RESET 1974 ALONG

CARMEL VALLEY ROAD. ELEV = 96.19.
CONTOUR UNE.
6.
DENOTES N~L & TAG STAMPED "lS 4247"
CROSS SECTION PROFILE MAY EXTEND lONGER DR SHORTER THAN

SHOWN ON ALIGNMENT.
8. WALL PHOTOS SHOWN ON SHEET 2.
.I
i'
I
/
LEGEND:
/"
~PERTY BOUNDARY {~.PiN HIGH WATER
/ __.- ./
././
...... . /
_ ,, .....--
~El : : .... : : : E:CE~~~~~~

FT.
. . FEET
. .. GAS METER
HOSE BIB
GM .
HB .
~~.
. ...... . .
~~~~: :
WM .
VIP
v~~~A~~A~~IIl:R
:: ~\\1~~ ~H:~~ ~~E:o~n

. . WATER METER
. WOOD POST
/
/
r.;_,.
./
/ /
./
......
>~/
I
/
/
/
- - - - FENCo LINE
AC .
. .. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
CATV. . .
. .. CABLE TV VAULT
CYP . . . . . . . . . . CYPRESS
01 . . . . . . . . . .DROP INLET
,I
/
/
/
/
/
-----------/
/'
/
/
./
/...-'
PA:::~~ BOUNDARJY:~"~ ~:;~~~=lR
---
LOT 12
VIP
//
./
,
L...
.... ~
.._
....
--- ,
---~
PARCEL I
;'
'y/~'
I
I
'
./"'
\ PARCEL 2
\
\
"
BLOCK B-18
VIP
<>
EXTENSION OF lHE
PROPERTY :OUNDARY
~,
N 8214'00" E
- -
......
~
t
'
'....
...,./"' ........
./" ...,
~
---

Page 4 of 5
WALL PHOTOS
PROPOSED BLUffiOP RETAINING WAll

28
28
24
20
20
16
16
- iio[tANif.ii"Etiiioci<
ElEVAnDN fEET
NAVO 88
12
____ -------- _.... _______________________
............. ........................... ------ 12
~QV/. my, :c .J3'
B'E:ACH -------- ------
-------~== .:::.:.:::.:SA~----------------- ----

---~---~-~~--~---_ -~~------~~-~~!.")~-~-~-~-~-
-4
............ --
- -4
------ -8
8
DATUM ELEV
-10.00 0+00
0+20
0+60
0+40
VERTICAL: 1"
0+80
PHOTO 1
PHOTO 2
PHOTO 3
PHOTO 4
PHOTO 5
PHOTO 6
PHOTO 7
PHOTO 8
PHOTO 9
1+20
1 +DO
10'
PROPOSED BLUffiOP REfAINING WAll.

2B
. ------------ .. - 24
20
- 16
12
----------- 8
4-
----------- .........;;,Jitj
0-
----== ~:::.::.;
...........................
------- .
VOLCANIC BEDROCK
= ==-~----
------------------------
-4 .
-8 -
DATUM ELEV
-10.00 0+00
0+60
0 + 40
0+20
0+80
1 +DO
1+20
1+40
10'
VERTICAL: 1 "
PROPOSED BLUmOP RETAINING WAll

- 28
- ------------- ......... ---
- ------- 24
-------------------- ---- 20
20
............ 16
------------------------ ------ 12
ELEVATION Fffi 12
NAVO 88
8 .....
------------ 8
-- --~-=-=~~---
-4 ....... ....... ------- ---8

DATUM ELEV
-10.00 0+00
--------------------
.::::::..~.~-------
----- --------voCcP.Ni..iiE5R6ck . ------ --- ---- ---..... ---- .. .. ...................... ---------------------- ........
0 ........
- 0
- ...... . -------------------- ---------------- --- --------
REVISIONS
--- 8
0+20
0+40
0+80
0+60
1+00
1+20
1+40
DATE
BY
12-18-13 SPH
10-13- 15
PROPOSED BLUfrTOP RETAINING WALL

BLUFF RE'I'ENT.ION & COASTAL EROSION CONTROL
PARCEL 1 & 2, BLOCK B-18
VOLUliE 24, RECORD OF SURVEYS, PAGE 47
APN: 009-423-001 & 002
CITY OF MONTEREY
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
PRE PARE D
VERTICAL: 1"
S'fATE OF CAUFORNIA
f 0R
WELUNGTON HENDERSON
MONTEREY BAY ENGINEERS, INC.
10'
By
607 CHARLES AVE
(B.l 1) 899-7899
SCALE
JOB No. 13-052
I"= 10'

Page 5 of 5
Watson, Michael@Coastal
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Watson, Michael@Coastal
Tuesday, February 17, 2015 11:41 AM
'Andrew Runnoe'; Chuck Henderson
Marc Wiener ([email protected]); Watson, Michael@Coastal
RE: Henderson Project
Gentlemen,
Iapologizeforthedelay.IlocatedthematerialspreparedbyHKAAssociatesfortheproposedupperbluffarmoring
project.FromtheplansitappearstheproposedwallislocatedwithintheCityofCarmelspermitjurisdictionandthe
CCCsappealjurisdiction.Asaresult,thestandardofreviewistheCarmelLocalCoastalProgramincludingtheLandUse
PlanandImplementationPlan(LUPandIP).OneofthekeypoliciesrelevanttothisprojectisLUPpolicyP56which
statesinpart:
Constructnewshorelinearmoringinareaspreviouslyunprotectedonlywhenrequiredtoprotectexistingstructuresin
dangeroferosionandwhendesignedtoeliminateofmitigateadverseimpactsonlocalshorelinesandsupply.
Section17.20.19.FoftheIPfurtherrequiresacompleteassessmentofareasonablerangeofalternativestoarmoring
andstatesinrelevantpart:
Applicantsshallsubmitacompleteevaluationofareasonablerangeofpotentialalternativesincluding1)projectalts
thatavoidtheneedforarmoringincludingbutnotlimitedtorelocationofdevelopment;2)variousarmoringalts;3)
softoptions;and4)thenoprojectalternative.
Section17.20.19.Ffurtherrequiressectionoftheenvironmentallyleastdamagingfeasiblealternative:
Theevaluationshallidentifytheenvironmentallyleastdamagingfeasiblealternativethatprovideseffectiveprotectionof
existingdevelopmentandminimizesimpactsonpublicaccess,recreation,scenicresources,andsandsupply.
Basedonaquickreviewofthematerials,theHKAgeotechnicalinvestigationdoesnotappeartoestablishthethreat
fromerosion.Althoughtheyindicateinfrequentovertoppingmayoccurwithextremeevents,thereportstatesthe
residenceisfoundedonweatheredbedrockthatisresistanttoerosionandalayerofmuchlessresistantterrace
deposits.Thereportdoesnotstatethenatureofthethreat(e.g,theterracedepositsareerodingbeneaththe
foundationofthehouseandiscausingittocollapse).Thereportfurtherdoesnotincludeaverageannualshoreline
erosionrateswhichareneededtoestablishthedegreeofthreat.Andthereportdoesnotestablishwhatpreciselyis
threatened(e.g.,house,garage,driveway,etc).Finally,wedidnotseeananalysisofthepotentialimpactstolocalsand
supplyoranassessmentofareasonablerangeofalternativestotheproposedupperbluffarmoring.
Whatthisamountstoisthatthereisntadequatetechnicalsupportatthistimefortheupperbluffarmoringconsistent
withtheLCP.Perhapswithadditionaldetailandmorerigorousanalysisoftheshorelineprocessesinthevicinityofthe
residence,thenecessarycriteriawillbemettoestablishathreat.Asimilarlydetailedanalysisofsandsupplyandfeasible
alternativewouldalsobecriticalinchoosingtheappropriateresponseandensuringallimpactsarefullymitigated.Let
meknowifyouhaveanyfurtherquestions.
Mike
From: Andrew Runnoe [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:44 AM
1
Exhibit 4 (Correspondence)
Page 1 of 2
To: Watson, Michael@Coastal; Chuck Henderson

Subject: Re: Henderson Project
The address is 26336 Scenic Dr. Carmel. The project is a Bluff Stabilization and Blufftop Retaining
Wall. The owners name is Wellington Henderson Jr. The packet was prepared by Haro, Kasunich and
Associates. I personally hand delivered the packet almost two months ago, with a cover letter
explaining the project. I have attempted contacting you before this with no response. Please let me
know if you have the information or not so I can schedule a meeting with you (if need be), or if you
believe it already conforms to Carmels Coastal Plan so I can commence with the permitting process
with them. I will be waiting for your response. Thank you. Andy Runnoe
Andy Runnoe
Runnoe Construction
689 Francis Ave
Seaside, CA 93955
CA License #450809
(831)917-5237, (831)394-1800
From: "Watson, Michael@Coastal" <[email protected]>
To: Andrew Runnoe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:30 AM
Subject: RE: Henderson Project
Andrew,
Can you remind me what the project involves (description) and the project address. Mike
From: Andrew Runnoe [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:12 PM
To: Watson, Michael@Coastal
Subject: Henderson Project
Mr. Watson, approx. two months ago I contacted you concerning a project we are proposing in
Carmel. At the time your earliest available appointment was in Feb. of this year but you informed me
that if I dropped a project packet off at your office, you would take a quick look at it when you had the
chance. That was over 50 days ago and I still have not heard from you. Have you had a chance to
look at the project? did your office staff even get it to you and if so, what has happened to it. Please
let me know ASAP as my client wants to move this along. Your attention would be greatly
appreciated. Andy Runnoe.
Andy Runnoe
Runnoe Construction
689 Francis Ave
Seaside, CA 93955
CA License #450809
(831)917-5237, (831)394-1800
Exhibit 4 (Correspondence)
Page 2 of 2
FIN~L L:OCAL: ACTI,ON NQTICE ON COA~T~
C1ty of Carmel-e\iM'W\~'(
Date of Notice: May 3, 2016
Notice Sent to (via first-class mail):
'ilftff,
~\I\
\,)
Submitted By: Ashley Hobson, Contract Planner
f\\WO~~ ~\\'6:..\\0~~
~ 11/ (~\.)~\~!.!" ~p.f,j),.

c<Jf:\S \I\\.- f'\Q~o'
For Coastal Commission Use Only
Applicant & Applicant's Rep (if any)

CtJ~\V\~\. v
California Coastal Commission Central Coast District Office
Reference#:
Aooeal Period:
~----------------------~
Please note the following Final City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Action on an application for a Coastal Permit, emergency
Coastal Permit, Coastal Permit amendment or Coastal Permit extension. All local appeal periods have been exhausted
for this matter:
L
ACTION NOTICE
Project Information
Application #:
DS 15-158 (Henderson)
Project Applicant:
Applicant's Rep:
Runnoe Construction, Contractor
Project Location:
26336 Scenic Road, Carmel-by-the-Sea
REFERENCE #~~~~-r---r.:
APN:
009-423-001 and 009-423-002
APPEAL PERIOD
Project Description: Consideration of a Design Study (DS 15-158) and associated Coastal Development Permit and
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction of a new bluff top retaining wall at an existing
residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District and the Beach Overlay District, and listed on
the Historic Resources Inventory
Final Action Information
Final Action Date:
Aprill3, 2016
Final Local Action:
X Approved with Conditions
Final Action Body:
D Design Review Board
D Historic Resources Board

Required Materials
Enclosed
Supporting the Final Action
D Denied
,,
X Planning Commission
D City Council
D Director/Staff /Other (explain) _ _ _ _ __

Additional Materials
SUPJ)()rting the Final Action
Previously
Sent (date)
Enclosed
Adopted Staff Report
CEQA D&cument(s)
Adopted Findings
Historic Evaluation
Adopted Conditions
Site Plans
Other
Elevations
Other
Previously
Sent (date)
Biotic Report (s)
Coastal Commission Appeal Information
This Final City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Action is:

D NOT appealable to the California Coastal Commission. The Final City Action is now effective.
X Appealable to the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission's 10-working day appeal period begins the first
working day after the Coastal Commission receives adequate notice of this Final City Action. The Final City of Carmel-bythe-Sea Action is not effective until after the Coastal Commission's appeal period has expired and no appeal has been filed.
Any such appeal must be made directly to the California Coastal Commission Central Coast District Office in Santa Cruz;
there is no fee for such an appeal. Should you have any questions regarding the Coastal Commission appeal period or process,
Exhibit
(City's
Final Local
Notice)
please contact the Central Coast District Office at 725 Front Street, Suite 300, Santa
Cruz,5 CA
95060,
(831)Action
427-4863.
"\--.
\I

Page 1 of 11
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Historic Resources Board
April13, 2016
To:
Chair Goodhue and Board Members
From:
Marc Wiener, Interim Community Planning and Building Director
Submitted by:
Ashley Hobson, Contract Planner
Subject:
Consideration of a Design Study (OS 15-158) and associated Coastal

Development Permit and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the construction of a new bluff top retaining wall at an existing
residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District
and the Beach Overlay District, and listed on the Historic Resources
Inventory
Recommendation:
Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the associated Design Study (OS 15-138)
and Coastal Development Permit.
Application:
OS 15-158 (Henderson)
APN: 009-423-001 and 009-423-002
Block:
B-18
Lots: 1 & 2
Location:
NW Corner of Scenic and Martin Way
Applicant:
Runnoe Construction
Property Owner: Wellington S. Henderson Jr.
Background:
The existing residence, known as the "Cabin on the Rocks", is a low one-story concrete and
Carmel Stone house that projects out on a granite outcropping over the Carmel Bay. The house
was designed by Architect Frank Lloyd Wright in 1948 and is listed in the Carmel Historic
Resource Inventory. The residence is also eligible as both a California State Historical Resources
and a National Historic Resource under Criteria #3 as the only house designed and constructed
by Frank Lloyd Wright in Carmel that relates directly to its seaside location and environment.
\,
Exhibit 5 (City's Final Local Action Notice)

Page 2 of 11
April13, 2016
Staff Report
Page 2
Because of the property's close proximity to the ocean, the movement of water has eroded the
bluff face under the house to the extent that it appears to be an eminent threat to the entry
gate and driveway of the residence. Recent erosion on the lower portions of the bluff has
resulted in focused ocean spray on specific areas supporting the bluff top driveway. The
applicant is proposing to construct a 63-foot long bluff-top retaining wall along the northern
boundary of the property, overlooking the southern edge of Carmel Beach.
The wall is
proposed to range between 7 feet and 8 feet in height, with the top of the wall approximately
16 feet above the existing grade of the beach. The wall is proposed to match, to the extent
feasible, the existing bluff face, and would be constructed with the appearance of natural
stone. The purpose of the wall is to prevent further erosion of the bluff caused by ocean spray
and rain.
Staff Analysis:
Zoning Compliance:
Pursuant to CMC Section 17.20.190 (Shoreline Protection); Shoreline
protective structures may be permitted only when the review authority determines that the
structure is:
1. Necessary to protect existing structures, coastal-dependent uses, public beaches, public
access and beach facilities in danger of erosion;
2. The least environmentally damaging feasible alternative;
3. Designed to successfully eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline and
sand supply;
4. Designed to avoid significant intertidal or subtidal areas;
5. Designed to avoid, or minimize if avoidance is infeasible, impacts on beach access; and
6. Designed to respect natural landforms and minimize visual impact to the extent
possible, through means including the use of structures, colors and materials that are
visually compatible to those already established.
Additionally, CMC Section 17.20.190 includes requirements to ensure proper maintenance and
inspection of any shoreline protection. Staff has included recommended conditions (#26-#30)
to address these requirements.
In staff's opinion, the proposed retaining wall is necessary to protect the subject historic
property and is designed to minimize visual and environmental impacts to the surrounding
areas. A Geological and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation was completed for the project
by Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc in September 2014 and found that although the exposed

Page 3 of 11
April 13, 2016
Staff Report
Page 3
volcanic bedrock surrounding the house is relatively hard, it has been weakened by naturally
occurring weathering, joints, and fractures.
The project engineers determined that the
construction of the retaining wall will stabilize the existing bluff face and help to preserve the
north side of the property.
Historic Evaluation Summary: A determination of consistency with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties was granted by the Historic Resources Board
on January 19, 2016. The Historic Resources Board took into consideration the appearance of
the seawall and accepted the project subject to the following conditions:
1) All drainage should remain behind the wall, with no seep holes protruding through the
wall.
2) The wall shall be built with a natural and integrated appearance to the existing rock,
without a shelf or stepped appearance.
3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, staff shall review the color and texture
specifications of the artificial rock to confirm a natural appearance and differentiation
These requirements have been included in the conditions of approval for this project.
Archaeological Analysis: The subject residence and surrounding lands are located within the
City of Carmel Archaeological Significance Overlay zone.
An Archaeological Review of the
retaining wall was completed by BASIN Research Associates on October 21, 2015, and found
that sediment with a very low density of Red Abalone shell fragments are present within the
footprint of the proposed retaining wall. This sediment may represent prehistoric midden
(culturally affected soil) associated with the archaeological site that was destroyed during the
construction of the residence in the early 1950s. The report notes that the sediment along the
bluff appears to lack cultural integrity and significant prehistoric archaeological materials. The
Archaeologist recommended the following three conditions:
1) The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation
that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources including prehistoric
Native American burials.
2) The project proponent shall retain a Professional Archaeologist to provide preconstruction briefing(s) to supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor to alert
them to the possibility of exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources
within the project area. The briefing shall discuss any archaeological objects that could
be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and the procedures to follow

Page 4 of 11
April13, 2016
Staff Report
Page4
regarding discovery protection and notification of the project proponent and

archaeological team. An "Alert Sheet" shall be posted in conspicuous locations at the
project location to alert personnel to the procedures and protocols to follow for the
discovery of potentially significant prehistoric archaeological resources.
3} The project proponent shall retain a Professional Archaeological on an "on-call" basis
during ground disturbing construction for the project to review, identify, and evaluate
cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction.
The
archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historic
resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Environmental Review:
An environmental Initial Study (IS) was prepared to evaluate the
potential for the project to result in environmental impacts. The IS concluded that there was a
potential for environmental effects, but that these could all be reduced to "less-thansignificant" levels through the implementation of specific mitigation measures. Based on this
conclusion, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for the project.
Adoption of the MND by the Planning Commission and approval of the Design Study will
complete the environmental review process. The draft IS and proposed MND will be circulated
from March 10, 2016 to April 9, 2016 {30 days) and as of April 4, 2016, no comments were
received. The final MND proposed for adoption is included as Attachment E, and the complete
IS/MND is available for review (including all technical reports) upon request or at the
Community Planning and Building Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Conditions of Approval
Attachment B- Site Photographs
Attachment C- Mitigated Negative Declaration {Initial Study will be provided

electronically to Commission)
Attachment D- California Coastal Conservancy Letter
Attachment E- Project Plans

Page 5 of 11
Attachment A- Conditions of Approval

April13, 2016
Conditions of Approval
Page 1
Revised on 4/13/2016 by the Planning Commission

No.
Standard Conditions
1.
Authorization:
This approval of Design Study (DS 14-158) authorizes the

installation of a 63-foot long bluff-top retaining wall along the northern
boundary of the property, overlooking the southern edge of Carmel Beach. The
wall is proposed to range between 7 feet and 8 feet in height, with the top of
the wall approximately 16 feet above the existing grade of the beach.
t/
2.
The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the

local R-1 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shall be
adhered to in preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances
require design elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at
the time such plans are submitted, such changes may require additional
environmental review and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission.
t/
3.
This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action
unless an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the
proposed construction.
t/
4.
All new landscaping, if proposed, shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall
be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the
City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will
be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the
Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall
be 75% drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a
drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City's
recommended tree density standards, unless otherwise approved by the City
based on site conditions. The landscaping plan shall show where new trees will
be planted when new trees are required to be planted by the Forest and Beach
Commission or the Planning Commission.
t/
5.
Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester or
Forest and Beach Commission as appropriate; and all remaining trees shall be
protected during construction by methods approved by the City Forester.
t/
6.
All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If

any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during construction,
the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester
may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If
roots larger than two inches (2") in diameter are cut without prior City Forester
t/

Page 6 of 11
April13, 2016
Page2
approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity,

the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation
by the City Forester has been completed. Twelve inches (12") of mulch shall be
evenly spread inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
7.
8.
9.
lOa.
The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building
staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating
changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining
City approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) submit the change in
writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission
or staff has approved the change; or b) eliminate the change and submit the
proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its
compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection.
The applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any
liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or
in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit,
or other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project
approval. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding,
and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the
applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any
legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of
Monterey, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of
all such actions by the parties hereto.
t/
The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working
drawings that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall
include applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site
through the use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage
pits, etc. Excess drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed
into the City's storm drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce
sediment from entering the storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to
adjacent private property.
An archaeological reconnaissance report shall be prepared by a qualified
archaeologist or other person(s) meeting the standards of the State Office of
Historic Preservation prior to approval of a final building permit. The applicant
shall adhere to any recommendations set forth in the archaeological report. All
new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if materials of
archaeological significance are discovered on the site and shall not be permitted
to recommence until a mitigation and monitoring plan is approved by the
t/
t/
t/

Page 7 of 11
April13, 2016
Page 3
Planning Commission.
lOb.
11.
12.
All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural

resources are discovered on the site, and the applicant shall notified the
Community Planning and Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not
be permitted to recommence until such resources are properly evaluated for
significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be
significant, prior to resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall
be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the
Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are
unearthed during excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and distribution pursuant
to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall provide for City
(Community Planning and Building Director in consultation with the Public
Services and Public Safety Departments) review and approval, a truck-haul route
and any necessary temporary traffic control measures for the grading activities.
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul
route and implementation of any required traffic control measures.
All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a fullsize sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building
Safety Division.
t/
t/
t/
Special Conditions per the Historic Resources Board approval on March 21, 2016
13.
Prior to the beginning of construction, the applicant shall convene a pre-
t/
construction meeting to include the contractor and the City's Project Planner to
ensure compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
14.
All drainage should remain behind the wall, with no seep holes protruding
t/
through the wall.

15.
The wall shall be built with a natural and integrated appearance to the existing
t/
rock, without a shelf or stepped appearance.

16.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, staff shall review the color and texture
t/
specifications of the artificial rock to confirm a natural appearance and

differentiation from the existing.
Special Conditions per the Mitigation Monitoring Program
17.
The installation of the bluff-top retaining wall should be constructed in a manner
t/
to replicate the volcanic bedrock texture with undulations both vertically and

Page 8 of 11
April13, 2016
Page4
horizontally.
The surface color should be blended to conform with the
underlying bedrock formation to avoid a differentiating line at the seam

between the wall and bedrock.
Samples of the proposed finish should be
reviewed by City staff prior to installation.
18.
The installation of the bluff-top retaining wall should be constructed with a

natural and integrated appearance to the existing rock, without a shelf or
stepped appearance. The color and texture should have a natural appearance,
which blends with the natural appearance of the rock. ho....ever it shol::IIEI af)f)ear
E:iiffereRt from the existiRg Ratl::lral roeiE. Color aRE:i te~Etl::lre SfJeeifieatioRs shol::IIE:i
be revie.... eE:i by .City staff fJFior to iRstallatioR. The appearance details of the bluff
top wall shall be reviewed by the City's historical consultant prior to
construction to ensure that the new addition integrates the old and new in a
manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Historic
Resources Board Recommendations from the March 21, 2016 meeting.
19.
The project proponent shall retain a Professional Archaeologist to provide preconstruction briefings to supervisory personnel of any excavation contract to
alert them to the possibility of exposing significant prehistoric archaeological
resources within the project area. The briefing shall discuss any archaeological
objects that could be exposed, the need to stop excavation at the discovery, and
the procedures to follow regarding discovery protection and notification of the
project proponent and archaeological team. An 11Aiert Sheet" shall be posted in
conspicuous locations at the project location to alert personnel to the
procedures and protocols to follow for the discovery of potentially significant
prehistoric archaeological resources.
20.
The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing
excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources
including prehistoric Native American burials.
21.
The project proponent shall retain a Professional Archaeologist on an 110n-call"

basis during ground disturbing construction for the project to review, identify
and evaluate cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during
construction. The archaeological shall review and evaluate any discoveries to
determine if they are historic resources(s) and/or unique archaeological
resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
22.
The project Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist should observe the

bedrock along the keyway of the proposed bluff top retaining wall after it has

Page 9 of 11
April13, 2016
Page 5
been initially excavated and make any necessary recommendation to deepen it

if necessary to mitigate premature undermining of the wall due to localized
wreathing or fracturing of the bedrock.
23.
The Wing Walls at the end of the bluff top retaining wall should be embedded at
II'
least 6 feet laterally into the terrace deposits to stall outflanking of the wall. The
ends of the upper wall shall be configured to conform to the adjacent natural
bluff face.
24.
A landscape and drainage plan shall be submitted to the City for review prior to
II'
the beginning of construction. The landscaping shall prevent the migration of

water behind the seawall. Following grading, all exposed slopes should be
planted or landscaped as soon as possible to avoid erosion.
25.
Surface drainage should include provisions for positive gradients so that surface
II'
runoff is not permitted to pond adjacent to the top of the reconstructed coastal
bluffs and seep into the seawall systems. Surface drainage should be directed
away from the reconstructed bluff top edge towards appropriate storm drain
facilities where possible.
Special Conditions per Municipal Code Section 17.20.190
26.
Proposed bluff top development shall be designed and constructed to
II'
incorporate appropriate erosion control measures, in compliance with the City's

grading standards.
27.
The permittee shall ensure that the condition and performance of existing
II'
seawalls and revetments are regularly monitored by a licensed civil engineer

with experience in coastal structures and processes. Such monitoring evaluation
shall at a minimum address whether any significant weathering or damage has
occurred that would adversely impact its future performance, and identify any
structural damage requiring repair to maintain the as-built revetment profile.
28.
Annual monitoring reports shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer with

experience
in
coastal
structures
and
processes
and
shall
II'
contain
recommendations, if any, for necessary maintenance, repair, changes or

modifications to the existing revetment or the bedrock benches adjacent to and
below it. All monitoring reports shall include photos of the structures and
surrounding areas taken during low sand elevations in the winter months.
29.
It is the permittee's responsibility to maintain any shoreline armoring structures
II'
and all irrigation, drainage, and vegetation in a structurally sound manner and
its approved state until such a time that the seawalls and/or revetments are

Page 10 of 11
April 13, 2016
Page 6
removed or replaced.
30.
Applicants shall submit a construction plan that identifies the specific location of
t/
all construction areas, all staging areas, and all construction access corridors in
site plan view. Construction and staging zones shall be limited to the minimum
area required to implement the approved project, and to minimize construction
encroachment on the beach and intertidal areas, among other ways by using
bluff top areas for staging and storing construction equipment and materials.
The construction plan shall also identify the type and location of erosion
control/water quality best management practices that will be implemented
during construction to protect coastal water quality.
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.
Property Owner Signature
Printed Name
Date
Once signed1 please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.

Page 11 of 11
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300

SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060-4508
VOICE (831) 427-4863
FAX (831) 427-4877
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Please Review Attached Appeal Information Sheet Prior To Completing This Form.
SECTION I.
Name:
Commissioner's Shallenberger and Howell
Mailing Address:
City:
Appellant(s)
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco
SECTION II.
1.
Zip Code:
94105
Phone:
415 904-5202
Decision Being Appealed
Name of local/port government:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
2.
Brief description of development being appealed:
Construction of an eight-foot high and 63-foot long upper bluff wall with faux bluff facing and related development
(i.e., drainage and landscaping improvements).
3.
Development's location (street address, assessor's parcel no., cross street, etc.):
26336 Scenic Road, Carmel-by-the-Sea; APNs 009-423-001 and 009-423-002
4.
Description of decision being appealed (check one.):
Approval; no special conditions
1Z1
D
Approval with special conditions:
MAY 1 9 2016
Denial
Note:
For jurisdictions with a total LCP, denial decisions by a local government cannot be
appealed unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial
decisions by port governments are not appealable.
Exhibit 6 (Appeal of City CDP Action)

Page 1 of 7
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 2)

5.
D
D
k8l
D
Decision being appealed was made by (check one):

Planning Director/Zoning Administrator
City Council/Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
Other
6.
Date of local goyernment's decision:
Aprill3, 2016
7~
Local government's file number (if any):
DS 15-158
SECTION III. Identification of Other Interested Persons

Give the names and addresses of the following parties. (Use additional paper as necessary.)
a.
Name and mailing address of permit applicant:

1325 Howard A venue #940
Burlillgame, CA 94010-4212
b. Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally or in writing) at
the city/county/port hearing(s). Inchide other parties which you know to be interested and
should receive notice of this appeal.
( 1) Gail Hatter-Crawford
Sr. Land Use Specialist
Anthony Lombardo & Associates
144 W. Gabilan Street
Salinas, CA 93901
(2) Andrew Runnoe

Runnoe Construction
689 Francis Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
(3)
(4)
..
Page 2 of 7
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 3)

SECTION IV. Reasons Supporting This Appeal
PLEASE NOTE:
Appeals of local government coastal permit decisions are limited by a variety of factors and requirements ofthe Coastal
Act. Please review the appeal information sheet for assistance in completing this section.
State briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan,
or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the
decision warrants a new hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary.)
This need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your reasons of appeal; however, there must be sufficient
discussion for staff to determine that the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal, may
submit additional information to the staff and/or Commission to support the appeal request.
See Attached Reasons For Appeal

Page 3 of 7
Reasons for Appeal of City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Coastal Development Permit DS 15-158

(Henderson Bluff Armoring)
Carmel-by-the-Sea (Carmel) coastal development permit (CDP) DS 15-158 authorizes the

construction of an eight-foot high and 63-foot long upper bluff wall with faux bluff facing and
related development (i.e., drainage and landscaping improvements) at 26336 Scenic Road in the
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in Monterey County. The site is the location of a circa 1948 Frank
Lloyd Wright house, which is a notable historical residence in the City of Carmel. According to
the City's approval, the purpose of the project is to protect the driveway and driveway gate from
potential bluff failure due to future erosion and storm events. The City-approved project involves
development within the LCP's Beach Overlay District at the south end of Carmel Beach. The
City-approved project raises questions regarding its consistency with the City's LCP for the
following reasons:
The LCP prohibits shoreline protective structures unless they are necessary to protect existing
structures, coastal-dependent uses, or public recreational facilities and beaches in danger of
erosion (including LUP Policy P5-6 and IP Section 17.20.19 C.l). The LCP further prescribes
that shoreline armoring may only be permitted when it is determined that the armoring is the
least environmentally damaging feasible alternative to address the identified danger, and where it
is designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on the shoreline, sand supply, public beach
access, and scenic resources (including LUP Policy P5-5 and IP Sections 17.20.19 C.2- C.6).
Applicants for shoreline armoring are required to submit a complete evaluation of a reasonable
range of alternatives including the "no project" alternative, relocation of threatened structures,
various armoring solutions, and "soft" options (LUP Policy P5-5 and IP Section 17.20.19 F).
The City-approved armoring would extend along the bluff fronting the existing driveway and
driveway entrance gate, including a concrete pillar and decorative cut-off wall that are located
within about six-and-a-half feet of the blufftop edge. Project technical reports indicate that the
underlying bedrock bluffs are eroding very slowly at this location, approximately 0.1 feet
annually. However, the technical reports do not provide an erosion rate for the upper bluff
marine terrace deposits where the proposed armoring would be installed. In other words, the only
technical information on the degree of threat is the fairly slow rate ascribed to the lower bluff
bedrock (0.1 feet per year). And the upper bluff area appears fairly vegetated, suggesting a
relative lack of erosion. As such, it is not clear that there is a structure endangered in such a way
as to necessitate armoring at this location, and thus it is unclear if the approved wall can
appropriately be considered in this situation.
In addition, even if the existing driveway and gate were shown to be in danger from erosion, then
the LCP requires a thorough analysis of alternatives designed to address the identified danger,
including but not limited to relocation or partial removal of the endangered existing structures.
The City did not analyze any other alternatives to the armoring, such as modifications to or
relocation of any endangered portions of the driveway and gate. Thus, not only is it unclear if a
retaining wall can even be considered (because of the lack of evidence of erosion danger), it is
likewise unclear that even if there was conclusive danger, whether a seawall is the least
environmentally damaging feasible alternative to address the identified danger, as is also
required by the LCP. Bracketing the question regarding the degree of threat, it appears that there

Page 4 of 7
is space to move and relocate portions of the driveway and gate if that were needed to address
erosion danger.
Furthermore, if danger were to be conclusively established, and if a retaining wall were to be
conclusively shown to be the least damaging alternative to address the danger, the LCP still
requires that all impacts be eliminated and, if not able to be eliminated, to be mitigated (e.g., the
retaining wall would block sand generating materials from entering into the shoreline sand
supply system, and this impact - and others - require mitigation per the LCP). The City
addresses visual impacts via requiring the wall to be camouflaged as a bluff, but the ways in
which this will be ensured are unclear (e.g., the approval lacks performance standards for same).
This could result in a decidedly unnatural back beach area when this viewshed is protected by the
LCP as a matter of great importance. With respect to other potential impacts, the City's approval
omits discussion of any such impacts, and thus lacks required armoring mitigation (were
armoring shown to be appropriate here), including with respect to shoreline sand supply.
In short, the City-approved project raises LCP questions regarding whether armoring is
appropriate at this location and under what conditions, and the manner in which the City is
evaluating armoring projects under its LCP. Danger has not been clearly established, and it
appears as though the bluff is not actively retreating. There has been no evaluation of
alternatives, and it is not clear that armoring would be appropriate even were danger to be
established. And even if those LCP tests are met, the project lacks mitigation for impacts. For all
of these reasons, this project should be further evaluated by the Coastal Commission to ensure
LCP conformance.
I
I

Page 5 of 7
APPEAL FROM COASTAL l)l~RMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 4)

SECTION V~
Certification
The information and facts stated above are correct
Date:
Note: lf signed by agent, appellant(s).must.als6 sign below.
Section VI.
Agent Authorization
T!We hereby
authorize .
-::---~,___"""'_77_ _-:--~-~.,-to act as my/our ~epresentative artd to bind me/us in allmatte:s concerllin~ this appeaL
Signature of Appellant(s)
Date:
...,...............................................,... ,........., ...................,............
__
-..,-----.
............................ ,.....................

Page 6 of 7
--.--
05/19/2015
15:25
4159045400
COASTAL COMMISSION
PAGE
01/01
lJIPEAL FROM COASTAL PEPJ\1ITDEC1S10N OfLOC.A..L GOVERNiv.lENT

Page 3
State brie;fly :vour reasons for this aooeal. 1nclude a summary description of Local
Coastal Program, Land lisf; ~lan: or Port 1Yiaste;r Plan policies aD.d requirements :in which
you believe the project is mconsiste'Ilt and the reasons the decision warrants a new
hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary.)
'.
'Note: '!he above description need not be a complete or exhaustive sta:temerrt .of your
reasons of appeal; however, "there must be sufficient discussion for staff determine thaf
the .appeal is allowed by law. Jbe appellant., subsequent to filmg tb.e appeal. may submit
additio:o-al inforr.a~tion to the staff and/~r Commission to support fbe appeal reguest. '
to
SBCTIONV, Certification
. The.infor;nation and facts .stated ab,ove are cnrrect to the best of ~y/our1mowledge.
,
Agent Authorization: I designate.tbe above identified person(s) te act as my age~t in all
ma:tters pert~g to tbis appeal.
,
Signed:.
-------------------------
Date:.
I
(Dcoumcn(l)
....

Page 7 of 7
,,...
,,
Bluff Area Rendering of proposed wall with stone to match natural rock formations
Exhibit 7 (Computer Rendering of the Proposed Upper Bluff Retaining Wall)

Page 1 of 1

CCC w16d-8-2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCC w16d-8-2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCC w16d-8-2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF CALIFORNIANATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., G OVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

APPEAL STAFF REPORT: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE

Wellington S. Henderson, Jr.

Commissioners Mary Shallenberger and Erik Howell

Approved by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission

On the bluffs at the south end of Carmel Beach fronting 26336

Substantial Issue Exists; Denial

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

I. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

II. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS

A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

C. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVAL

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

E. SUMMARY OF APPEAL CONTENTIONS

F. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

See LCP policies listed below in the CDP Determination section.

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

G. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DETERMINATION

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson Retaining Wall)

APPENDIX A: SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS

/:-.-~-c -~~:.-.-~-c-~-~-~- -~~~//

:~!: ' STA~I~LA~S

'- .... , ......

Figure 1: General Project Location

Exhibit 1 (Project Location Maps)

Figure 2: Project Location (USGS Monterey, Calif 1983)

Exhibit 1 (Project Location Maps)

Attachment B Site Photographs

Exhibit 2 (Site Photos)

View southwest towards proposed 63 foot long bluff-top retaining wall

Exhibit 2 (Site Photos)

TAX CODE A REA

THIS MAP IS ~NDEO TO BE USED FOR

PROPEiliY TAX ASSESSIIJEI;T PURi'OSES ONLY

CONCEPTUAL BLUFFTOP RETAINING WALL PLANS

CARMEL -~Y-TNE -SEA

MONTEREY COUNTY A.P.N. 009-423-001

Exhibit 3 (Project Plans)

HIGH TIDE LINE

Exhibit 3 (Project Plans)

PROPOSED BLUFFTOP RETAINING WALL

-. ::::::: : : :::: ~;::~c:

... .... ------ BEACH--.

VERTICAL: 1" "' 10'

PROPOSED BLUFFTOP RETAINING WALL

ELEF~ON --L-:?: .:.: - - -~ :Cel;~--~ ~'u

:: j~~~~~ (=<O':"'"_N".. WA.C

:: ~\\1~~ ~H: E:o~n