• Mh'1UTt: ff2M ICJ

·rhls. Calendar 1tem No. -was ap1~{oved as Minute Item No. by the State Lands com18l~lon by a vote_ o~~·-{ to at its • u-i~ - :-. ·'

CALENDAR ITEM meeting. 04/ 12;/'ifS ~ ~38SO ~RC 7196

19 A 28

s 17

WP fl.'lll-2 Poe

ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC AGENCY PERMIT NO. PRC 4742, AND !SSllANCE OF GENERAL PERMIT - PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE

APPLICANT: Pelican Point P~~ject committee Pajaro oures

2661 Beach Koad Watsonville, California 9S076

GRANTOR/ oepartf.1ent of Parks and Recreation LESSEE: 1~16 Ninth street, Room 11~7. 7th floor

Sacramento, California 9S8l'l-

~ ~arcel of lan~L ~ncluding tide and submerged AREA, TYPE ~AND AND LOCATION: lands, at the mou~h of the Paj~ro River~ ~ear Watsonville, Santa Cruz county.

LAND USE: Install and maintain a riprap reuetment.

TERMS OF PROPOSED PERMIT: Initial peri9d: Ten years beginnin~ April 1,

1968.

Public liabilit~ insurance: combined single lim±t coverage of $1 , ooo , _boo .

CONSIDERATION: The public he~th and safety: wi~h the state reserving the right at anY time to set a monetary rental if the commission finds such action to be in the State's best interRst.

BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION! Pursu?nt to 2 ca~. Adm. code 2003.

-1-

• --t&"ll''"'""F.·•---.--...... ---·t 86 .-~\ CJ\!.£.~::;.\·: t:11CG · _. ,

~~9:9:~:1

i.,CALENOAR ITEM NO. 19 coNT'Di· • Applicant is owner of upland. APPLICANT STATUS:

PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS. FEES AND EXPENSES: Filing fee and processing costs have been

received.

· A. P.a.c.: Div. 6, ·parts· 1 and 2: Oiv. 13· STATUTORY ANO OTHER REFERENCES: s. cal. Adm. code: Title 2. Div. 3: Title 1~.

piv.. 6 ..

06/30/88.

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION: 1. pajaro Dunes is a condominium develOpment locilted along Monterey Bay. iinmedii>:telY · toe st of t.he City of Watsonville·, California. An association was formed -Pelican ·Point Project. commit.tee - to represent the 87 condominium owners within the Pelican Point area of the Pajaro Dunes development. The association's c. c. and •. R's are on file with state Laiids commission

staff. 2. The Department of parks arid Recreation is

fee owner of portions of the beach area adjacent to the Pajaro ounes development. The remainder of the existing beach area to the south is leased from the commission to the Department of rarks and Recreation under lease PRC 4742.

3. During recent he~vy winter storms. the pajaro ounes ttomeowners Association receiv-ed anr emergency permit from Santa cru2 1~ountY to construct a 5, 300-f oot-·long protective revetment on priuatelY oli>ned upland to protect the condominiums from wave action. To the south of that existing revetmen·t tnere remains some 500+ linear feet of shoreline that is unprotected. oue to the close proximitY of the condominiuins ·to the existing prope~tY line. the proposed riprap

-2-

•

•

- -- -- - --- -

~CALENDAR IJEM NO.. 1. 9 CONT I Dl

revetment extension must be installed seawar~\. of pr.ivate1:Y owned upland on:to the beach area owned by o~partment of Parks and Recreation and adjacent beach araa presently under l~ase to Department of Parks and Recreation from State Lands.

4. An agreement has been reached between the Department of Parks and Recreation, thg staff of the State Lands commission,-and the Pelican Point Project commi~tee whereby Department of Parks and Recreation will convey, by quitclaim deed, the beach area under its jurisdicti~n required for the protec.tiue revetment to the State Lands commission, including a portion of land previously leased to Department of Parks and Recreation under P-RC 4742. State ·~ands, in turn. would accept the property pursuant to PRC 6219 and control, by issuance of a protective struc,ture permit to the Homeowners pursuant to PRC 6321, authorize the use of the State owned land .

~. In consideration of the permitted right to instali the protectiv~ revetment, the Pelican Point Project committee will convey, by grant deed to the Department of Parks and Recreation, a .parcel of priv~~e~Y owned upland oceanfront containing 0.404 acre that will become an addition to the exi~ting state-owned public beach.

6. That portion of the beach required for the revetment is being quitclaimed to State Lands by the Department of Parks ond Recreation. staff is amending the lease to the Department of Parks and Recreation (PRC 4742) to reflect the reduction in lease area.

7. In that the State is realizing a net gain in property ownership, combined with the fact that there will be nominal net loss in u~?bl~ beach area, staff is recommending. tnaf-a ·r-erH;;~f-7~ _p.~rmit be authorized to

-3-

•

r-......-·-·· i :.:.·.~. :·: ... : .. ·.t:: I ......... ,,.._ . ..;.;, .__ -

.. 1!86': - i = .. 9.9.i·-.:

ifALEND~R ITEM NO. 1, Q.· CONT 1 Dl

the Applicant for the protective structure permit. Filing fee and processing costs have been received.

8. The proposed Protective 3tructure Permit requires the ~Qplicant to Deliver a Grant Deed covering th~, replacement beach property, in addi't:i6n to providing a policy of title insurance acceptable to the Department of Parks and Recreation, and also pay all escrow and recording costs.

9. To facilitate early construction, staff is requesting the Co~mi,sion's.apprciyal of this transaction in advance of receipt gf executed documents, with the condition that the pro~ective ,tructure permit is not effective until the close of escrow. staff is working closely with the Depar~ment of Parks and Recreation; the Pelican Point Hom~owners Committee, and the title company, to insure that required clearances and reconveyances are processed i~ a timely manner.

10. As t;o the Accept:~!1ce of the Quitclaim Deed from Department .of Parks and Recreation, pursuant to t~e Commission's delegation of auth6rity and the state ·C~QA quidelines (14- Cal. ndm. Code. l·S061), the· staff has determined that this activity is exempt from the require~ents ·of the CEQA because the activity. is· not a 11 proj ec.t" as defined by CEQA and ~he State ·CEQA Guidelines.

Ll. As to the amend~ent of lease PRC 4742, pursuant to the Commission's delegation of author~ty and the State CEQA 9~.;i.delin~s (14 Cal. Adm. Code 1S06t), the staff ~as determined that this ac~ivity is exempt from the requirements of the CEQA because the activity is not a "projec~" as defined by ·CEQA· and the State CEQA guidelines.

Authority: P.R.C. 2106S and 1~ Cal. Adm. Code 1S378.

•

• \~ •• !'"'':"

_,I,..,. • ..,."'"'• -."'~!:. \ '-"_ ... ·-·· "'~ ,.u_ f&13~·

~-..--·· -·· 99f8 ~· h•lll" ··-· •..: i··, ....,., .. . ..:- ---·-·· 11 ,. *- --

-·

•

.(CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1,_.9- CONT'D)

12. As to the ProtE·ct:i."~ Struct,1:i'~ Pe~mi·t,, an E. I. R. was prepared and -EH~ppi;ed for .this project by Santa Cruz C6ont~·~ The State Lands Commission's staff has reviewep such document and believes that ~t compli~~ with the requirements of the CEQA.

Authority: P.R.C. 2106~ and 14 Cal. ~dm~ Code 15378.

13. This activity involves lands which have NOT been identified as possessing significant en~ironm~ntal values pursuant to P.R.C. 6370, et seq. However, the Commission has declared that all tide and submerged lands are 11 !.ignificant•i by nature of their public ownership (as ORPOS~d to "environmental significant"). Since such declaration of significance is not based upon the requirements and criteria of P.~.c. 6370, et seq., usa classifications for such lands have not been designated. Th~refore, tho finding of lhe project'~ consistency with the use classificatiori as required by 2 Cal. Adm. code 29S4 is ~ot applicable.

APPROVALS OBTAINED: California Coastal Commi~sion and County of Santa Cruz.

FURTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: United States Corps of Engineers.

EXHIBITS: Al. Lan~ Description - Quitciaim Deed A2. Protective Structure Permit. A3. Land Desc~iption - Amend~d Lease PRC 4742. B. Location Map. C,. -E •. I. R. summary.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMIS~+ON:

1. AS TO THE. ACCEPTANCE OF THE QUITCLAIM D~ED FR0?1 TUE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIO~. FIND THAT THE ACTIVITY IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS Of THE CEQ~ PURSUANT TQ

• -5-

l •. ----·- -- .. - ·-~, ........... ~,.,.._,, I'" •• c f - -- . ····=· .;) a I • --·-.. -· . ..- - ... .. .. . g<ln, •• 11 •• '' -·- ,,~ ---· ~ . . -

JCALENDAR ITEM NO. \ 9 coNT.lOJ..

l4 CAL. ADM· CODE 15061 BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY IS N~ • PROJECT AS DEFINED BY P.R.C. 21065 AND 14 CAL. ADM.

CODE 1S37S. 2. AS TO THE ISSUANCE Of A· TEN-YEAR GENERAL PERMIT -PROTE~IVE STRUCTURE TO THE HOM~NERS ASSOCIATION, FIMD

THAT AN EIR WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED FOR THIS PROJECT BY THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, AND tHAT THE COMMISSION HAS REUIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN.

3. FIND THE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WERE

IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR. 4, AS TO THE ISSUANCE Of A TEN-YEAR GENERAL PERMIT -

PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE, DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT, AS APPROVED, WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE

ENVIRONMENT. . 5. AS TO THE AMENDMENT Of LEASE PRC 4742, FIND THAT THE

ACTIVITY IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS Of THE CEQA PURSUANT TO 14 CAL· ADM. CODE 15601, BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED BY P.R.C· 21065 AND 14 CAL.

ADM. CODE 1S376. 6. AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING Of A QUITCLAIM DEED TO ~

THE STATE LANDS coMMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ~ND RECREATION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 6219, cov< RING LAND 0 lSCRI 8 ED IN EXHIBIT "A:..1" ' Al'TACHED' ANO BY

REFERENCE MADI:. A PORT UEREOF: ?,., AUTHORIZE THE AMENDMENT OF LEASE PRC 4711-2 TO ACCURATELY

REFLECT THE REDUCED AREA UNDER LEASE, ~S DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A-3", ATTACHED, AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART

HEREOF. "

8. AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE Of A TEN-YEAR GENERAL PERMIT -PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE USE TO PELICAN POINT PROJECT coMMiTTEE - PAlARO DUNES, BEGINNING APRIL l, 1988; IN CONSIDERATION Of THE pUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, WITH THE STATE RESERVING THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO SET A MONLTARY RENTAL If THE COMMISSION FINDS SUCH ACTION TO BE IN THE STATE'S BEST INTEREST; PROVISION Of PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT COVERAGE Of $1,000,000; FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE Of A RIPRAP REVETMENT PROT~CTIVE STRUCTURE ON THE LAND DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A-2", ATTACHED, AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART

HEREOF. • ;-----------:---191' • - • ·~ ,- l ..:~ -----·---- ., ~ . --·. -·. . . . - 1 0 0 0 .

-6-

.. ... . ";.:·· :,"' .... ~ ... ' __ ....: .. - ___ ... ----.... ---

•

•

BXlllBl'r "A-l."

LAND DESCRIPTION

w 23850 'MP 4742

A parcel of land in Santa cruz, county, califocnia 1.~!~q a poCtion of the lands conveyed 'to the state of ·californi·a· .by deed ,.,corded l.n Volume 1354 of ·officia-l Records at ,page pie, cecords of said county, described as, follows:

BEGINNING .at the most westeclY corner of Block l as shown on the map of •eajaco Dunes, a condominium subdivision, TcaCt S03. c1ustec No. 1•. recocded in volume so of maps at page 1. Santa ccuz countY Recotds: thence the following six

1. s ososs•oo• E. 164.29 feet: -~ courses:

2. s 2sosa'OO" E, 3a.aa feet: 3. s 41056'~0" E. ioo.64 feet' 4. s J.J;Ol.0'47" E. 41..92 feet: s. ~ 2sosa•oo 11 E, 2a.s1 feet: 6. s ssoss•oo 11 E, 78.40 feet ~o t~e most

southeClY cornec of Block 2 of said recocded map: thence along the westeclY boundacy·of said Blocks land 2, N 2sose•oo• w 427.02 feet to the point oi )>eginning •

END OF DESCRIPTION'

PREPARED FEBRUARY 2, 1988 BY BOUNDARY.INVESTIGATION UNIT ~3. E.G. ZIMMERMAN. SUPERVISOR.

071.4b

• . . -· .. - -· -·---~·?\?'"~' \ ... , .~ . . _,,. ' ;, ' ... .. ..... .; ~--.....---~ _._tooi. l ~ • • • "It • .: ~

--~--.......... - -....

EXHIBIT "A-2'' LAND DESCRIPTION

(PROTECTIVE STRUCTURI! PERMIT)

'!'

.. ·.: :·:.;~.:-::·.· ·::.·: .-·:~·.:·::.=: ~-,·;:·-.::· ~·:··«~ ..

... ~ .. _..._..-,,,, ...... ,.,.--..-....-:---- ... ~- ....---

s UI > ~ s

/a- -PllOP05£D itE.VlTl1£NT

~ ~ ... ~ .... .:..:.:..:.:._. . .. . . . . . ..... . ~ ,-~;-"!'"; ••• .,.-;. -- . :;;;If~~~~~"'

T-· .. ~ ur.1 .. , . '\'

~ POSED · I p£ 0 r <ilm"<;""'r .. " • .,

0 • C' ., ~ a. I R Vf.T/'fEf.J •'f" I

\_ . . 1

·-· ••• ~f'A:; ... ,.o Pwnes 1 •. SQ""'" rc:..,st.:""\Cn't. ' ' .

!1 l r~.: of' ~oe :: :~ :; ·1 • . .. •. . : .•

.. .d .;. "!" ·: ..... ~

:'l PACIFIC .....

; q ' ;I'.' 1 l 1 • ' ~'i' o··. , r o!Jt .

· t-..:>t . ' . J ~ ~ .... ..:... •

• • • ,..ti a?P'"""'~''./ I ;~" 1 •• ,. ol I ''""'' '·"< SU~SET

I

:.,,J,l•1r..-.ii•/ 1Yr,#• '/

STATE QE·ACtl

·9

f/()P()~GP lliV&T'#IENI

·OCBAN

•• '""""'

.;

••

•

•

,~ r - EXHlBl:T "A-3."

LAND DESCRIPTION w 2385'\l· WP,.4142

A par~el of salt marsh and tideland in s~ctions.25 and 36. 'l'l2S, RlE, MDM·. Monterey and Santa Cruz Counttes. State of Call:fornia. as shq~n on the plat of said ·To.wnshi-i> SUrYay· ~\'.>proved June 16, 1866., together with those portions of State tide and subm,erqe~ land in the Paja~o River situate tn said: Sections 25 and 3·6, more pai:ticular·lY described as follow~:

COMMENC.ING at ~ t>rass d~s9 set in· cont:,re~e· a~d desiqna'ted ~s t} .. S-.C.&G .. s .• t;.'riapgulat1on station ''Par~ro Mouth 13''• said station having qo~rainates x ~ l,616,603.30, y a 131,499.74 (NAD 27); tl1ence s 29035 1 48 11 E, 1990.92 f11et to a monument staµtped ·,Mon U=l as shown on ~he 1IlaP filed ~or .record March 6. 19,70, in Vol. 9 of survey,s. paqe e. in the Office of th~ County Recorder ot Monterey county. said point beinq at the southwest corner of the land described in> the dc~d to State cf California' cecotded January 16 • 1962 on Ree~ 10. Of~~icial Records of said Monterey county at paqe 392, said- point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence from said point of beglnni,:iq S 43006'13 11 w. 577.~B feet. more ·or .less., to the \?rdina.cy h'iqh wa·ter m~rk: thence northerly aloriq t;i!id ordinaiy high water mark to th~ westerly prolonqati~n of the north lime of Section 36. Tl2S. RlE.- MDM: thence along said westerl~ Rrolongation s 39g1s•s2 11 E. 21e~a2 feit. mo~e or less, to the we~terly boundary of the land described in the deed r~corded in Book 1235, Of£icial Records of Santa Cruz County at page 49; thence alonq said westerly bouq~ary s 2sos-0 1 09 11 E, ,212.19 feet to the , southwest corner of tbe last above ment~oned land: thence continuing-on the botindary of said l;ind N 64001'50" E, 777. 82 feet, moi:e or less, to .the centerline of Watsonvi:l-~·e Slough: thenca along said c~nterline s 44036'56"E~ 104.S~ feet. more 01: less. to the centerline of the Pa"jai::o RiVf/r-; then~~ along the centerline of Pajaro River N 86052 '40" E. 7. 73 feet to w,esterly boundary of Ranch~·, Bols~ del Pajaro: thence alonq said bounda . .r;.y tile toll~'.illinq two .,ourses:

1. s 39042 1 36 11 E. 153.39 feet: 2. N 58035'41" ~. SS.St feet~

to the westetly prolonqation of the north. line of saiia Section 3~ thence along said westerly prolonqation s 89015'52" E. 596.76 feet to a standard Beaches an~ Parks brass cap in 3/4 inch iron pipe stamped "L.S. i1s1. 1969 11 miirJdng a point on the northecly boun4ary of t~e parcel described in Reel lo. Official Records· of Mon~erey cou1\tv at page 392, an'd as shown on the above aentioned ma'[J; - thence ai:~nq the westerly line of the al>ove l~stl' mentioned, parcel the followinq four courses: - : - . ·~:.- -- ·· - ·1 9 4·

· ··· ~: .. · · :-··~foio~ (; I • ·- • .. .. . . . . .

,. , . . . ...

,, ... .;;._ --,.,

.. , . . (

.; /.

' " ' . . . .

3. 4. s. 6.

\" s 39050•36" w. soe.o~ fe~t:

w 238510 .. 474J.

s 2soos 1 36" w. 210.72 fe~t: s i6036'36" w. is1.e1 fe~t: s ioooo•36" w. 617.84 fee~ to the point of beqinninq.

EXCEPTING TREREPROM that poction described in the de~d ~ecorded · , 19BB, in Book · · , of Official neco_i::d~. Page • Santa ci::uz County Recntds, described as follows:

BEGINNING at the most westerly coi::ner of Block l as shown on the map of npa-jaro Dunes, a condominium subdivision, Tiact 503, Cluster No. l~. recorded in Volu&~ 50 oi.:Maps at page l, sanea ccuz couney Re~ocas: thence t~e f"'--ll~wi~g six

courses:

-1.. 2. 3,. 4. s. 6.

GOUthetlY along the 2so~e·oo 11

s ososa•oo~ E, 164.29 f~et: s 2sose•oo" E~ 38.88 feet: s 4l056'lOM E~ 100.64 feet; S 11010 1 4~" E, 41.92 fiat; s 2sose•ooM E, 2e.s1 feet S ssose•OO" E. 78.40 feet to tbe·aost cotnez: of Bloct., 2 of said cecc.--rd~.d aap; thence westeclY boundary of said Blocks l and 2, N w. 427.02 foet to the point of beqinninq.

PREP~ARED .MARCH 18, 1988 BY BOUNDARY INVESTIGATIOH UNIT t3. E.G.·. ZIM!reRMAN. SUi?ERV1SOR.

0753b

, '

, I ••

/'-._ ---- ' ....

- ....

-

-+ .1

~ =1

) i

I (

-~ I _,,

f_ .... ../

' ti'

I i /~--

~) / \

\

""

EXHIBIT "C"

ElR · 'SUMMA UY

PltOJF.C!T n~cntrnON In order to protect S< cxl•lin& condominium unilS !rom hir,h surf and wove runup dam•~·· the Pclicon Po\nt Homeowners Association Project ,committee has prop()sed th• construction o! an undulating rock revetment to replace on exL•ting emergency rip ro~ structure emplnee<t in J 983. This project would require the emplnccmen\ of an engineered rcvetinent approximately 540 feet In length. The proposed revetll'enl would extencl an average of 31 feet seaward of the Pajoro Dunes sooth seawall under cons1.ructi9n dirOctly to the north. - Al its maximum seaward point, the revetment would extend 56 feet seaward or the adjacent revetment. The top o! the proposed r~vetment is at an elevation of 21 feet above tnenn sea level (MSL).

•

Pelican Point pccupies the southernmost portion of the se.nt!i Cruz County coastline. The Pelican Point conc!ominiuin development is situeied on Monterey Bay«at the soutbern end o! the Pajaro Dunes south residential development. The proposed project is located on the ,western and "outllern edges of the development. directly north of the Ptija<O Rh1cr mouth between Monterey Bay and Watsonville Stough.

PROJECT to CATION

ISSUF.S D~EMED ·poTEN11ALL Y SlGNIFICANT

Tho Initial Stud~ determiocd that an EIR was required for tho proposed' project. ~ix issues were identi!ied as the !ocus o! the EIR: 11 Geology and Coastal Processes; 21 ,Biotic R~sources; (3) NoiSo; (4) Visual irilpacts; (5) Tra!!ic; and (6) Con~isteney With Applicable County Policies. One additional issue was identitied by public ageiicies reS?-'lndini; to the Notice or Intent: (7) Etrects o{ the project on neig\lboring Stale. ,Beaches (identi!ied by the California Department of Parks and Recreation). Summaries or the impacts and recommJ>nded mitigation measures tor these ~ues follow. Note that issue ll Geology, and coastal Processes, has been separated into two issues in the

ElR.

PRO~ECT IMP KCTS

1. Effects on Coe.s~· Proce~es

Impacts The ertects or ~he propoSed project on storm wave runup, shoreline ero:;ion,, littoral dri!t and Pajaro River/Watsonville Slough hydrologic prO~essCS ,.ere determinOd to be minimal; any effects would tie litnited to on)y )llghly. localized,

insignificant changes in environmental condi~ions. ·,,

Mitigation Measures SinCe the design o{ the proposed ~roject renects state-or-tbe-arl engineedng t<i achieve maximum protection ,with minimum adverse envlt91'mental errects, and since the level of impact has been determined to ,be, Ve«Y smRll. no mitl:;,otion

measures are recomm~nclcd. -

-·1-·

.,. ... ___ ......--.--~ 11·--7· --·i . ~ . •-: ' 9 ··-- ---~ _ .. 1. 1·0··0 .. .. ' 6 ..:.. __ ... ..~

.. .,__.......____......_..;;;...... - .. _,,... -

•

•

•

2 • Effects of Coastal Processes on the Proposed' Project

Impacts

As designed, ~he '[lroposed project provides the ex!sting C?Ondominiu.m-, units with adequate protection, f'rom storm wave impacts. Some settling of the seaw~R- is expected, and siloul'd liquefaction occur, substantial settling could occur. River scour could also adversely effect the toe ot the riverwalL

Mitigation Measures

Since the effects of settling and liqueracUon cannot b~ eliminated, the most eff'ectiv~ mitiga~ion measure' is to plan for project maintenance and periodic augmentation or reconstruction ,following storm damage or as otherwise. necessary. Provision oC a buttress would minimize risks Crom river scour along that porti<?n of the project bordering on the Pajaro River.

3. Visual Resources

Impacts

During project construction, adverse eff ects"!?O· the quality or some vie\vs from Sunset State Beacl} would be substantial. Following emplaceme_nt, the project would simply appear ~ an extension of the· major revetment project directly to the north and abutting the prop_osed project. The 56 Coot orrset constitutes a mooest visu'al intrusion into views parallel to the beach, but the level or impact would be minor •

Coastal views from the ground floor or the condominium' units would be- wholly preempted by the proposed project.

~litigation Meusur.cs

The level of impact can .be minimized through the use or rock -w·hich is similar in color and in value to the Pajaro Dunes Scuth revetment lo<!at~d directly to the nor-th. ~ow vegetation plantings on the inland race of the prop!)sed project would s,erve to improve ground level views of the project ,Crom Within the Palicnn Point development.

4. Traffic and Circulation

!!!!pacts

'During the 45-dny constructioll period, increases in the ·1evel or traffic· and effects on vehicular and pedestrian circulation were determined to be vgry small. Although hazards to pede~trians and bicyclists is increased thrpugh the use ot; 25-ton trucks for rock hauling, the lever or hazard is relatively low. given the" modest number or persons involved.

Mitigntion Measures

Tr{lffic and circulation hnznrds wili be reduced. thrnugh limiting <?onstruction activities (including rock !muling) to daylight hours on we~kdnys. Colnptcting copstruction prior to the pcnk tourist scnson will also reduce trafflc Jl~d circulation huznrds.

-2-

Th• level and chnrocU:r or ooJtslruetion phnsc noise would ho nominal compared with ambient noise levels ol the adjoeenl surf zone. Since relatively small numbers ol local residents ••d ,;isito" arc· likely to be :present dilrioC the scheduled project construc\lon. noise would constitute a very modO•t short-term

tmpn<' t!- • impocl.

Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures identified above under Traf!iC and· CirCU1at1on ·alsO apply

to 'this issue.

6. . Biotic Resources

!!!'pacts TH• e!lccts or the proposed project on the Oota and !ailna of the site were determined to be largely limited to those occurring during the 45-d•Y construction period. llo important species would be adversely affected, and the level of

impact on common species is very low.

Construction ~hould avoid the pCl'iod between the end· of Fel>ruary onC the end of :-toy to ensure that the mating ·cycles of migratory birds are not Interrupted. A revegetotion program is incorporated within the contract !or \he construction ••,

or the proposed project. ...

'l. Consistency with Local Plans and Policies

8. ... ,

Impacts No inconsistencies with Iocal plans and policies were lde(.tlfled. The revOtment o!!set would adversely affect lateral pµblic access durlh!l some tidal and wave conditions occurring in •the winter months. During summer months', lateral pub!IC

access ·would not be ·affected.

MiOgation Measures Revetment stairs and prov1S1on of emergency public lateral access behind the revetment will mitigate any modest adverse e!lects on latetllf·,i>.iiblic access.

Effects on State Beach Recreatit'n

!ffipacts The adverse cumulative impacts ldeiltllied in the preceding ;ssues on recreation resources of Sunset State Beach were determine<! to bO ·modest due ·to the relatively small number of effected users and th• slJO<'\ dllra.tlon of lhe construction period. The proposed· land Jease/latld ei<change would eliminate the preemption of public beach ·area necesS>lrY !or project eonstructlon.

-3-

••

•

Mitigation ,Measures,,' Th• mitigation mO. ,uras identified 11!\der the pt~viaus is!illeS will ""1'•e to

miJtimiie impacts· on· -State Bea~h recreation use.

GB.OWTR INDUCEMENT Tl\0 proposed project does not constitute. a gl'owth-lnducl!llf action. Jiio additional residential development 111111 restilt Crom the project. Since -the project is ltsel!· the !Ina! component o! a ptotective revetment alor.;i; the t!fttire rrontaee oC the l\',eater Pajaro Dunes development, it does ·not create the need ror an additions\ revetment

contigu9us to the project..

ALTERNA'11VES Consistent with the State Guidelines, a •no project" elternatlv_e was ass~ed. The environmental assessment also considered "'non-1,1,~dulatlng ' -,"°'t !QEIR project) and: three !Ypes of vertical wall J>lternatives in addiUOit to the'-, __ ;'.!~t" ·alternative• steel H Pi!<s with Timber Lagging; a Steel Sheet Pile seawall; and -Concrete Seawalls. 'Modification to th_e proposed strucwre and <ion-structural ·a1ternatl~e• are also discussed, alihOugh not In detail. Brief descriptiolls ·ct these alternatives rouow. None o[ the feasible alternatives would provide greater protection rrom coastal hazard or produce discernably lower- levels of environmental impact.

L No Project Th• no· project alternative would consist of. removing the cr•rrent enietgOiiey rip-rap,

,thus leavi~~ the condomjnium. units unprpter-ted. 2. A itoCk Revetment parallel to the Pajaro Dunes Revetment directly to the nooth.

This alternative was the .project assessed in the ·~1arch, 1987 OElR.

3. Stee~ H Piles with Timber Lagging. V.ertical Seawall

This timber wall alternative would involve construction or a vertical timber-wall utiliiing

steel H columns ror vertical stability. ·

4. sieel Sheet Pile Verti~al Se~waµ This alto!<l<!ltlve would consist or vertical steel p!IJlels driven Into the bcaCh lh an

interlocking· ,fashion.

5. Co~ct'et~ Vertic~l Sea)'Ja!l This alternative -would lnvolite construction ct a vertical concrete wsll• Thie-. types of concrete. .wa~ are id_ent!fl•d• gravity walls; contilev .. walls1· oriel tle-b•clt willls.

6. Construct Protective Beach This nlternative woul& involve importation of sand to for.:!m a. protl?ctJve' beach.

7. Modification to P't'Oposcd· Structure

This alternative would in\id\ve changing the slope of the proposed structure.

-4-

CEQA REQUIRED CONSIDF.RNTIONS

Thi!:- section sp'!cificolly addresses thl' substnntivc requlr~ments of CEQA. Since • environmcntnl impact assessment and mitigntion measures i)rc discus.c;cd in detail in Section V, and alternn.tives to the proposed project are the subject of Section VJ, discussions of these CEQA considcra~ions are not repente~ In this section. Tti~ page where these discussions appeared in this ·ElR ere ref erenccd as an aid to the r\l~der.

THE SIGNF!C~NT .ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROP~OSED PROJECT

Issue -1: Efteets on _Coastal Processes

. No significant epvironmentsl impacts on coastal processes were lden~tried and no' m~tigation measures are propo~ed. Discussion of the environmental effects or the project is contained on pages 32-36.

Issue 2: F.!f ects of Coastal Processes on the Pl"Oposed t.Projeet

No significant environmental impacts resulting from coastal processes acting on ~he proposed project are likely to occur. Discussion of the environmental erre_cts or this issue is conteine.d on pages 38-45. The "no project" alternative would, however, constitute a significnnt effect, since it expos~s people and structures· .to major 'hazards.

Mittgation measores designed to increase public safety arc discussed under ,the Public Access portion of Issue i: Consistency with Local Plans and P~licics.

·Issue 3; Visual Resources -------Construction gf the· proposed project would not result in a significant environmental impa~t. Discussion of the environmental effects of the project and mitigatiott measures recommended to reduce· the level of impact Le; eontained on pages S~-53.

Issue 4: Traffic and Circulation

No significant environmental impacts concerned with traffic cand cireulation were identified. Discu~sion of environmental effects and mitigation measures recommended to reduce the level oi impact is contained on page 58.

Issue 5: Noise

The noise impac~ during the construction phase or ~he proposed,project do not constitute a significant effect. Discussion of the environm~n~~l eif ects and m~!lgation measures recommended to reduced the level of impact is contained= -on pace 62.

Issue 6: Biotic Resources

No adyerse significant impacts on th~ site fiora and r~una were identified.· . Disc\assion or environmental effects and mitigation -measures recctnmended to ?educe the level or -Impact is contained o."1 ·pages 66, 68, and 69. · · · ·

Issue '?: Consistency with Local Plans and Policies

The proposed project is-consistent with all at>plicable locai plans and·pollcies as dis!:t1ssed within tlie Individual issues, except for effects on public access which is ·dJ.scussed on ~ pages '12-78. Mitigation measures .to Increase the degree of- public safe_ty as refiec'tecS ..._, {n the ~sue of pubHc access arc recommend~d &\'\d discussed on ~e 78".

•

••

Issue 8: Effects on State Beach Recreation-

The proposed land: lease/land exchange results in no net loss er pub~~<! tt!.acb. and ~he project wouM not be constructed on land under the jurisdiction or the Department or Park:i and Recreation.

The cumulativ~ effect or the proposed project on the ~ontiguous Sta_le Se~q.h does not constitute a significant effect, although the construction phase would produce .a st!ort terrp nuisance to beach visQ~o~•s. Imp~r13ts and mi~igation ·measures releva!'it to this iss~e are discussed, undi:?r the' previous seven issues identified above.

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS wmcH CANNOT BB AVOIDBD IP THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED.

'There are no significant environmental effects resulting from implementation ol the proposed project, hence this consideration is met.

r.qTIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED TO MINIMIZJ? StGNIPICAN1" EPPEcTs

:'Ytitigation meas~res have been recommended to reduc~ the level or impact whe~ev.er possible as noted· e~rlier in this section. Since there are no significant effects, this considerati<?n is ~111et.

ALTERNATIVES TO' THE PRQPOSED ACTION

Section VII contains descriptions imd'·a~sessments of alternatives to the propos~ seawall. Six alternatives in addition to the CEQA requir.ed ''no project" alternative are diS~ussed.

THE GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSEQ AC110N

The proposed project does not constitute a growth-inducing :.iction. No- qc!ditional residenti31 de~-elopmcrit wo~ld ;csult from llf- project. Since· the project is itselC the Cinal component of a protective seawall along tne entire frontage of ·the greater Pajsro Dunes development, it does not ,create the need 'for .ad~itional revetments cohtiguous to the project.

WATER QUALIT.~ ASPECTS

~o adverse effects on water quality would :occur as rest1lt or !he construction or the proposed project •

202 . . '~

f " . . • '' . ' . :, . . ~ . ----- . { . . ' ' -.. .:.. . ... . .

. .