long beach chapter surfrider foundation submission to ca coastal comm in opposition to belmont shore...

7/30/2019 Long Beach Chapter Surfrider Foundation submission to CA Coastal Comm in opposition to Belmont Shore Pedestr

1/15


2/15

2

Interaction Between Wild Animals and Pedestr iansTheproposedpedestrianpathwouldcarrypedestrianstowithin40feetoftheshoreline,

encouragingpedestrianstointeractwithwildanimalswhobeachthemselves. Sick,defensive,

anddangerousanimalsoftenbeachthemselvesalongtheshoreline. Bestpracticeforboth

peopleandtheanimalsistoleavetheseanimalsalone. IftheCityencouragesmoreinteraction

betweentheanimalsandthepublic,wouldtheCitythenberequiredtopostanarmedofficialtoseparatethetwowhenwildanimalschoosetobeachthemselves.

Breakwater StudyTheCityofLongBeachandtheUSArmyCorpsofEngineershaverecentlyjoinedeffortsinthe

EastSanPedroBayEcosystemRestorationFeasibilityStudy. Thepurposeofthisstudyisto

determinealternativestorestoretheecosystemsofftheshoresofLongBeach. Thestudywas

initiatedbytheLongBeachChapteroftheSurfriderFoundationwiththehopesofreconfiguring

theLongBeachBreakwater(Breakwater)andbringingwavesandcleanerwaterbacktothe

shoresofLongBeach. Iftheproposedpedestrianpathisalignedclosertotheshorelinethan

theexisting,

then

it

would

be

reasonable

to

assume

that

it

would

have

agreater

chance

of

interactingwiththeoceaniftheBreakwaterwerereconfigured. Theproposedpedestrianpath

wouldhampereffortstoreconfiguretheBreakwaterandincreasechancesofcoastalfloodingif

waveswererestoredtoourbeaches.

LA RiverTheLosAngelesRiverwaschannelizedandpavedinthe1930stoquicklyandcheaplycarry

floodwaterstotheocean. Atthetime,thiswasthecheapestandeasiestmeanstoprevent

inlandflooding. Atthetime,therewasverylittleconsiderationofthebenefitsofawider,more

naturalfloodplain. SincethenthecommunitiesaroundtheLARiverhavebeenworkinghardto

restoreportions

or

the

LA

River

to

amore

natural

flow.

This

restoration

is

extremely

costly

now

sincemostofthelandsurroundingtheriverhasbeenallowedtobedeveloped. Manywould

saythatitwouldhavebeenmoreefficientinthelongruntohaveoriginallyplannedtheLA

Riverasawide,natural,floodplain/parkaspartoftheoriginaldesign. Ifweasacommunity

pavethebeachesinLongBeach,wellberemakingthesamemistakeswemadeontheLA

River. Wewillhavelearnednothingfromourlonghistoryofquicklypavingwildareasforshort

termbenefit.

Hurricane Sandy and Barrier BeachesAnotherexampleofpavingwildplacesbecamepainfullyobviousduringHurricaneSandy. In

Octoberof

2012,

the

New

Jersey

coast

was

devastated

as

aresult

of

two

factors:

1)

narrow

beachesbackedbyhardstructuresandinfrastructuredevelopmentinshallowlandsand2)a

largehurricaneimpactingthecoastline. WhilehurricanesarenotlikelyinLongBeach,winter

stormsareguaranteed. NewJerseyissuchashiningexampleofwhatnottodowithyour

beachthatthecoastalcommunityhasdevelopedthetermJersifiedindicatingapaved,

revetted,andstructuresupportedcoastalinewithlittleopenbeach. TheAmericanShoreand

BeachPreservaionAssociationrecentlypublishedanarticleonthebenefitsofawidebarrier


3/15

3

beachandhowtheapproachinNewJerseyfailedtoprotectfromHurricaneSandy3. Once

again,thereareclearandobviouslessonsthatwecanlearnfromothersimilarmistakes. We

shouldnotbepavingourbeachessincetheycanactasusefulbarriersagainststormdamage.

Coastal ActThe

proposed

pedestrian

path

is

in

violation

of

Section

30253

of

the

California

Coastal

Act.

This

sectionisprovidedtominimizeofadverseimpactsofnewdevelopmentandiscopiedbelow:

Newdevelopmentshall:

(1)Minimizeriskstolifeandpropertyinareasofhighgeologic,flood,andfirehazard.

(2)Assurestabilityandstructuralintegrity,andneithercreatenorcontribute

significantlytoerosion,geologicinstability,ordestructionofthesiteorsurrounding

areaorinanywayrequiretheconstructionofprotectivedevicesthatwould

substantiallyalternaturallandformsalongbluffsandcliffs."

At12th

Placealongtheexistingpedestrian/bicyclepaththedistancebetweenthepathandthe

hightideshorelineisapproximately60feet. Withtheseawardedgeoftheproposed

pedestrianpathbeingplaced20feetclosertotheshoreline,thisleaves40feetofbeachunder

currentsealevelconditions. CurrentlytheCitybuildssandbermsbetweentheJunipero

Parkinglotandtheshorelineandthebeachatthislocationisonly40feetwide. Iftheyusethe

samebeachwidth,itissafetoassumethattheCitywillhavetobuildbermseverywinterat12th

placeaswell. Ifastormshouldcomeduringahightide,orifsealevelriseoccurs,itislikely

thatsomemoresubstantialformofshoreprotectionwouldalsoberequiredtoprotectthe

proposedpedestrianpath,thusviolatingSection30235oftheCoastalAct.

TheApplicationlacksthefollowingstudiesrequiredbytheCoastalAct:

RunupandOvertoppingStudy itislikelythattheproposedpedestrianpathwouldbeovertoppedinthenearfuture. AlternativesAnalysis Weareawareoflessexpensive,lessdamaging,andsafer

alternativesthatwouldbetterbenefitthebeachesandthepublicandtheseshouldbe

analyzed.

TheCoastalCommissionshouldknowthatitwillbeverydifficultfortheCitytocomplywithany

orderrequiringtheproposedpedestrianpathtobeopen24hoursperday,7daysperweek,

and365daysperyear. Thecurrentbicycle/pedestrianpathisclosednightlyandforprivate

eventssuchastheLongBeachMarathon4asshowninFigure1(courtesyCityofLongBeach).

3http://www.asbpa.org/news/newsroom_12BN1113_lessons_from_sandy.htm

4http://runlongbeach.com/eventinformation/courseinformation/
http://www.asbpa.org/news/newsroom_12BN1113_lessons_from_sandy.htmhttp://www.asbpa.org/news/newsroom_12BN1113_lessons_from_sandy.htmhttp://www.asbpa.org/news/newsroom_12BN1113_lessons_from_sandy.htm


4/15

Figure1. LongBeachMarathon

California Environmental Quality ActTheApplicationstatesthattheprojectisexemptfromtheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct

(CEQA)basedonSection15404Class3. ThisisnotpossiblesincethiscombinationofSection

andClassdoesnotexist. Section15404hasaClass4,notClass3. Sections15303and15304of

CEQAArticle19areincludedinAttachment2. WeguesstheCity intendedtoexemptthe

projectbasedonSection15304,partofwhichiscopiedbelow.

15304.MinorAlterationstoLand

Class4consistsofminorpublicorprivatealterationsintheconditionofland,water,

and/orvegetationwhichdonotinvolveremovalofhealthy,mature,scenictreesexcept

forforestryoragriculturalpurposes.Examplesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:

(h)Thecreationofbicyclelanesonexistingrightsofway.

IftheCitywishestobeexemptfromCEQA,theyshouldstatereasons,whichsection,andwhich

subsectionwithaccompanyingmapsandinformation. Forexample,iftheCityintendstobe

exemptbasedonSection15304(h),theyshouldinclude1)howapedestrianpathisthesame

asabicyclepath,2)amapoftheproposedpedestrianpathoverlaidwithanyexistingrightof

waytheyintendtouse,and3)permitstheyhaveforthisprojectfromtheCaliforniaStateLands

Commission.

Current Beach Widths and Water LevelsTheCityshouldperformashorelinestudyandarunupandovertoppingstudyfortheproposed

pedestrianpathtodetermineifandhowoftenwillinteractwiththeoceanandwhatkindof

shoreprotectionwouldberequired.

4


5/15

DuringthelastkingtideofDecember13,2012,thehightidelinewasobservedtobequite

closetotheexistingbicycle/pedestrianpath. AsshowninFigure2,duringthehightide,the

distancebetweenthehightidelineandthepathwasapproximately60feetat12th

Place. Ifthe

proposedpedestrianpathextends20feetseawardoftheexistingpath,only40feetofbeach

wouldremain.

Figure2. 8:18AM,[email protected]=60.ObservedtidalrecordforDecember13

thisshowninFigure3. WhilethetideshowninFigure3

wasquitehigh,itwasnotthehighestonrecordandwithsealevelrise,evenhighertidesare

expected.

Figure3. ObservedWaterLevelsforDecember13,2012Figure4showsthebeachattheJuniperoAvenueParkinglotduringtheKingtide. Inthephoto,

thebeachwidthwas40feet. ThisisanexampleofCityprocedureforbeachesthisnarrow.

Theproposedpedestrianpathwouldcreateasimilarsituation,requiringatleastthissamelevel

ofprotectionanddisruptiontothebeach.

5


6/15

Figure4. 8:18AM,7.70HighTide,Beachwidth=40(walltowater)

Figure5showtheexistingbicycle/pedestrianpathandtheshorelineduringtheKingtidenear

theBelmontPool. Thebeachwidthshowninthephotoisapproximately32feetwide.

Figure5. 8:24AM,[email protected]=32.

6


7/15

Future Beach Widths and Water LevelsIn2008,theGovernorofCalifornia

5mandatedthatallstateagenciesplanningconstruction

projectsinareasvulnerabletofutureSLRshall,forthepurposesofplanning,considerarange

ofsealevelrisescenariosfortheyears2050and2100inordertoassessprojectvulnerability

and,totheextentfeasible,reduceexpectedrisksandincreaseresiliencytosealevelrise.

Themostrecentscienceonsealevelrise,aspublishedbytheNationalAcademyofSciences

andtheNationalResearchCouncil6estimatesfuturesealevelriserangingfrom0.4to2.0feet

by2050and1.4to5.5feetby2100forsouthernCalifornia.

Thesechangesinwaterlevelcaneasilytranslateintotenstohundredsoffeetoflandward

shorelinemigration7. Iftheproposedpedestrianpathisplacedclosertotheshorelinethanthe

existing,interactionbetweentheoceanandthepathismorelikelytooccurthanifitwas

placedlandwardoftheexistingbicycle/pedestrianpath.

Project Purpose and Need

Thepurpose

and

need

for

the

proposed

pedestrian

path

are

unclear.

The

Application

states

that

WhenmeetingwithCitystaff,westatedourunderstandingthattheprimarypurposeofthe

proposedpedestrianpathwastorelieveconflictsbetweenbicyclistsandpedestrians. Atthat

time,wewerecorrectedbystaffwhotoldusthattheprimarypurposewastoaddmore

pathwayforpedestrians. Thiswasreinforcedbystaffwhostatedthattheprimarylobbyforthe

increasedpathwasrunnersassociatedwiththeLongBeachMarathon. Wewerenotinformed

ofany

input

by

bicyclists.

IftheprojectpurposeisasstatedintheApplication,theApplicationshouldanalyzehowthe

proposedsolutionaddressestheprojectpurposeandaddressesconcernsoftheCoastalAct.

Forexample,iftheprojectistomakeitsaferforthepublic,somediscussionofhowandwhy

wouldbeinorder.

SafetyTheexistingconfigurationofthebicycle/pedestrianpathhaspedestrianscrossingthebicycle

patheverytimetheyaccessthepedestrianpath. Ifanewpavedlaneisrequired,we

recommendthatthepedestriantrafficbealignedlandwardofthebicycletraffic. Thischange

5ExecutiveOrderS1308. OfficeoftheGovernoroftheStateofCalifornia,GovernorArnoldSchwarzenegger.

November14,2008.

6NationalResearchCouncil,NationalAcademyofSciences. 2012. SeaLevelRisefortheCoastsofCalifornia,

Oregon,andWashington:PastPresent,andFuture.

7Flick,ReinhardE.andLesleyC.Ewing. 2009. SandVolumeNeedsofSouthernCaliforniaBeachesasaFunctionof

FutureSealevelRiseRates. Shore&Beach.Volume77,Number4,Fall2009.

7


8/15

8

fromtheexistingconditionwouldgreatlyimprovesafetyandreducetheopportunityfor

conflictbetweenbicyclistsandpedestrians. Currently,therearemanymorepublicandprivate

pedestrianaccesspointsthantherearebicycleaccesspointsalongthebicycle/pedestrianpath.

Ifthepedestrianlaneisplacedbetweenthepedestrianaccesspointsandthebicyclelane,this

wouldreducethenumberofintersectionsbetweenbicyclesandpedestrians,thusincreasing

safetymany

fold.

For

pedestrians

walking

from

the

land

to

the

waters

edge,

the

placement

of

thepedestrianandbikepathsdoesntmatter,sincethewaterseekerwouldhavetocrossboth

lanes,regardlessofwhichonewaslandwardandwhichonewasseaward.

AestheticsWhenaskedwhytheproposedpedestrianpathneedstobeplacedseawardofthebicyclepath,

Citystaffrespondedthatpedestrianswouldappreciatetheaestheticsofthebeachmorethan

bicyclistsandwouldgotheoceanmoreoften. Thispositionisnotstatednorsupportedinthe

Application.

Thereisnoevidencethatpedestrianswouldappreciatetheviewmorethanbicyclists. Itis

possiblethat

bicycle

groups

would

disagree

with

City

staff

opinions

on

the

topic.

As

far

as

accessingtheocean,ifthepedestrianpathwerelandwardofthebicyclepath,pedestrians

wouldonlyhavetowalkanadditional10feetacrossthebikepathtoaccesstheocean. Thisisa

negligibledistanceforbeachgoersinLongBeachwhooftenhavetocross500feetofsandto

reachtheocean.

Lifetime Project CostsCityofficialshavestatedthatplacingtheproposedpedestrianpathlandwardoftheexisting

bicycle/pedestrianpathwouldbetoocostly. Noevidenceofthishasbeengiven. Tothe

contrary,whenconsideringsealevelrise,costsofannualincreasedbeachbermconstruction,

costsof

emergency

coastal

development

permits,

and

costs

of

revetment

or

seawall

constructiontomaintaintheproposedpedestrianpath,itshouldbeobviousthattheproposed

pedestrianpathisthemostcostlyovertheprojectlifetime.

Insteadofadding11feetofnewpavementfortheproposedpedestrianpath,adding3to4feet

ofnewpavementlandwardtotheexistingbicycle/pedestrianpathshouldcostmuchlessin

bothinitialconstructionandinlongtermmaintenance.

Preferred AlternativeTheLongBeachChapteroftheSurfriderFoundationproposesthefollowingalternativetosolve

theproblemofovercrowdingonthebicycle/pedestrianpathandpossiblecollisionbetween

pedestriansand

bicyclists.

Thisalternativewouldbetoaddafewfeetofpavementlandwardoftheexisting

bicycle/pedestrianpathandmovethepedestrianpathtothelandwardsideofthetwo. The

bicyclepathcouldbenarrowedsomeminoramountasthereisnoindicationthatitiscurrently

atcapacity. Somevisualorphysicalbarrierbetweenthetwopathscouldbeinstalledto

improveseparationbetweenthetwousergroups. Thiscouldconsistofpainting,signage,short


9/15

flexibleverticalmarkerpoles,aconcretecurb,orsomeotherbarrier. Aphotographofone

suchphysicalbarrierisshowninFigure6(courtesyCityofLongBeach). Improvedenforcement

ofexistingrulesandregulationswouldhelptoreducethenumbersofuserswhoventureacross

intotheotherpath. Atsomeareas,suchastheJuniperoParkinglot,thepathcouldbewidened

seawardsincethisencroachesontheparkinglot,notonopenbeach.

Incomparison

to

the

proposed

pedestrian

path,

this

alternative

would

have

the

following

benefits. Itwould:

Widenthepedestrianpathto11feetasdesiredbytheCity; notincreasecoastalfloodingordamagefromcoastalflooding; notincreasetheneedforshoreprotection; notincreasetheneedforemergencycoastaldevelopmentpermits; notmakefuturesealevelriseandbeachlossworsethanexistingconditions;

not

increase

interaction

between

the

public

and

ocean

wildlife;

improvepublicsafetybyreducingprobabilityofcollisionsbetweenbicyclistsandpedestrians;

likelyhavelessinitialconstructioncosts;and havelessinlongtermmaintenancecosts.

Figure6. PhysicallySeparatedPathsinSantaMonica

9


10/15


11/15

Attachment1

Attachment 1March27,2012

EricLopez

City

of

Long

Beach

DearMr.Lopez

Thankyouformeetingmetheotherdaytohearourconcernsandsuggestionsaboutthe

proposedbeachpedestrianpath. IthoughtIdtakethisopportunitytoexpressourpointsmore

formallyforyourrecord. WearetheLongBeachChapteroftheSurfriderFoundationwithover

1000oceanandbeachlovingmembers.

Asweunderstandit,theprincipalissueisovercrowdingandsafetyconcernswiththe

interactionbetween

bicyclists

and

pedestrians

on

the

existing

paved,

dual

purpose

bicycle/pedestrianpathonthebeachofLongBeach. TheCitysmainsolutionforcorrectingthis

istheproposedconstructionofanewpedestrianpathrunningparalleltotheexistingdual

purposepath.

Firstofall,andmostimportantly,theSurfriderFoundationandtheLongBeachChapterofthe

SurfriderFoundationarededicatedtominimizingandreducinghumanencroachmentonwild

coastlinesandpreservingbeachesforallpeople. Thismakessensesincethelesswedevelop

thesedynamicandvariableplaces,thelesswehavetofix,maintainandrepairour

development.

In

this

light,

we

encourage

the

City

to

consider

all

means

of

separating

the

two

typesoftrafficwithoutnewdevelopmentonthebeach. Somemeansforthiswouldinclude:

moresignage;installationofthin,vertical,flexiblepilonsonthelinebetweenthetwopaths;

andsometypeofminimalenforcement(eitherpoliceorvolunteers). Wefeeltheseefforts

shouldbefullyexhaustedbeforeexpensiveconstructionoccurs.

Ifthoseeasyandlowcostsolutionsdonotseparatethetrafficandifnewtrafficlanesare

determinedtoberequired,thenwerecommendputtinganynewpavedlanesonthelandward

sideoftheexistingpath.Therearethreepracticalreasonsforthis:

1) thiswouldavoidexpansionintothebeachbetweenthepathandocean,therebynotincreasingtheprobabilityofstormdamageofteninflictedoncoastalinfrastructure,and

reducethelifetimemaintenancecostofthestructure;

2) thiswouldlikelyeasethepermittingprocessthrougheitherthelocalcoastalplanorthroughtheCaliforniaCoastalCommission. TheCoastalCommissiontypically

encouragesalternativesthatdonotincreasetheneedforneworfutureshore

protectionorforemergencyshoreprotectionstructures;and


12/15

Attachment2

3) ourgrouphasbeenworkingfor15yearstoremovetheLongBeachBreakwaterandbringwavesbacktoLongBeach. Furtherhardeningoftheshorelinewouldmakethis

processmoredifficultasmanywouldthenarguethatthecoastlineistoodeveloped

andfixedtoallowreturningofmorenaturalanddynamicprocesses. Inaddition,if

waveswerebroughtbacktoLongBeach,thecoastlinewouldbecomeevenmore

dynamic(the

shoreline

position

would

vary

more

greatly)

and

the

threat

of

storm

damagecouldincrease.

Ifanewpavedlaneisrequired,werecommendthatthepedestriantrafficbealignedlandward

ofthebicycletraffic. Thischangefromtheexistingconditionwouldgreatlyimprovesafetyand

reducetheopportunityforconflictbetweenbicyclistsandpedestrians. Currently,thereare

manymorepublicandprivatepedestrianaccesspointsthantherearebicycleaccesspoints

alongthedualpurposepath. Ifthepedestrianlaneisplacedbetweenthepedestrianaccess

pointsandthebicyclelane,thiswouldreducethenumberofintersectionsbetweenbicycles

andpedestrians,thusincreasingsafetymanyfold. Forpedestrianswalkingfromthelandtothe

watersedge,

the

placement

of

the

pedestrian

and

bike

paths

doesnt

matter,

since

the

water

seekerwouldhavetocrossbothlanes,regardlessofwhichonewaslandwardandwhichone

wasseaward.

Ifanewpedestrianlaneweretobebuilt,werecommendmakingitoutofsimilartypesof

materialasisalreadyinuse. Therehasbeendiscussionofusingsomesortofsoft,flexible,or

roughsurface. ThesearenotrecommendedbySurfriderforthefollowingreasons:

1) Currentpedestrianusageclearlypreferthehard,clean,andsafeenvironmentfoundonthecurrentpedestrianpathandbyagreatmajoritydonotutilizethevaryingdegrees

ofsoft

to

hard

sand

found

between

the

path

and

the

waters

edge.

This

is

aclear

indicatorofwhatthetargetaudiencepreferandnobetterindicatorispossible.

2) Therearemanystrollersusingthepedestrianpathwhowouldhaveadifficulttimeonaroughsurfacednewpedestrianpath. Insteadofjustsloggingthroughonthenew

difficultterrain,itiseasytoimaginethemjustreturningtothebicyclepath,wherethe

travelingiseasy,andreturningustothesamesituationwherewearetoday.

3) Nonsmoothandnonrigidmaterialswillbemorecostlytomaintaininthesandy,windydynamicenvironmentthatexistsonthebeach.

Lastly,we

understand

that

part

of

the

proposed

construction

would

involve

the

addition

of

connectingpavementsectionsbetweentheexistingstairwaysandthenewpedestrianpath.

Wegenerallydiscourageconstructionofthesenewsectionssincetheywouldnotaddressthe

statedproblem(trafficconflictsbetweenbicyclistsandpedestrians)andwouldresultinmore

hardeningofthenaturalbeach. Wecanonlyassumethatthesenewsectionswouldaddress

someotherunstatedproblem,whichweguessmightbelackofaccess. Theexistingstairways

aremainlyusedbyhighlymobilepeople,whocanwalkdownhundredsofstepstogettothe


13/15

Attachment3

beach. Bywalkingupanddownthesestairs,thesepeoplehaveshownthattheydonotneed

assistanceincrossingthesandybeach theyarehighlymobile. Inaddition,bypavingeven

moreofthebeach,theCitywouldbemodifyingtheuniqueandnaturalcharacterofthebeach

intoamoreparkinglotlikeareaofwhichthereisnoshortageinLongBeach. Itisdoubtfulthat

peoplegotothebeachtoexperienceflatsmoothpavedsurfaces,sincetheyrewell

representedeverywhere

else

in

Long

Beach.

Lets

not

adopt

these

paved

path

sections

as

a

solutionforaproblemthatdoesnotexist.

TheLongBeachChapteroftheSurfriderFoundationdeeplyappreciatesthisopportunityto

providefeedbacktoCitystaffonthisimportantissue. Ifthereareanyitemsthatareunclearor

ifyouhaveanyquestionsonthisletter,pleasedonthesitatetoemailorcallmetodiscuss.

Regards,

Seamus

Ian

Innes,

P.E.

Secretary

SurfriderFoundation,LongBeachChapter


14/15

Attachment4

Attachment 2

Title14.CaliforniaCodeofRegulations

Chapter3.GuidelinesforImplementationoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct

Article19.CategoricalExemptions

15303. New Const ruct ion or Conversion of Small Structures

Class3consistsofconstructionandlocationoflimitednumbersofnew,smallfacilities

orstructures;installationofsmallnewequipmentandfacilitiesinsmallstructures;and

theconversionofexistingsmallstructuresfromoneusetoanotherwhereonlyminor

modificationsaremadeintheexteriorofthestructure.Thenumbersofstructures

describedinthissectionarethemaximumallowableonanylegalparcel.Examplesof

thisexemptioninclude,butarenotlimitedto:

(a)

One

single

family

residence,

or

a

second

dwelling

unit

in

a

residential

zone.

In

urbanizedareas,upto

threesinglefamilyresidencesmaybeconstructedorconvertedunderthisexemption.

(b)Aduplexorsimilarmultifamilyresidentialstructure,totalingnomorethanfour

dwellingunits.Inurbanizedareas,thisexemptionappliestoapartments,duplexesand

similarstructuresdesignedfornotmorethansixdwellingunits.

(c)Astore,motel,office,restaurantorsimilarstructurenotinvolvingtheuseof

significantamountsofhazardoussubstances,andnotexceeding2500squarefeetin

floorarea.Inurbanizedareas,theexemptionalsoappliestouptofoursuchcommercial

buildingsnotexceeding10,000squarefeetinfloorareaonsiteszonedforsuchuseif

notinvolvingtheuseofsignificantamountsofhazardoussubstanceswhereall

necessarypublicservicesandfacilitiesareavailableandthesurroundingareaisnot

environmentallysensitive.

(d)Watermain,sewage,electrical,gas,andotherutilityextensions,includingstreet

improvements,ofreasonablelengthtoservesuchconstruction.

(e)Accessory(appurtenant)structuresincludinggarages,carports,patios,swimming

pools,andfences.

(f)Anaccessorysteamsterilizationunitforthetreatmentofmedicalwasteatafacility

occupiedbyamedicalwastegenerator,providedthattheunitisinstalledandoperated

inaccordance

with

the

Medical

Waste

Management

Act

(Section

117600,

et

seq.,

of

the

HealthandSafetyCode)andacceptsnooffsitewaste.

Note:Authoritycited:Section21083,PublicResourcesCode;Reference:Sections21084and21084.2,PublicResourcesCode.


15/15

Attachment5

15304. Minor Alterations to Land

Class4consistsofminorpublicorprivatealterationsintheconditionofland,water,

and/orvegetationwhichdonotinvolveremovalofhealthy,mature,scenictreesexcept

forforestryoragriculturalpurposes.Examplesinclude,butarenotlimitedto:

(a)Gradingonlandwithaslopeoflessthan10percent,exceptthatgradingshallnotbe

exemptinawaterway,inanywetland,inanofficiallydesignated(byfederal,state,orlocalgovernmentaction)scenicarea,orinofficiallymappedareasofseveregeologic

hazardsuchasanAlquistPrioloEarthquakeFaultZoneorwithinanofficialSeismic

HazardZone,asdelineatedbytheStateGeologist.

(b)Newgardeningorlandscaping,includingthereplacementofexistingconventional

landscapingwithwaterefficientorfireresistantlandscaping.

(c)Fillingofearthintopreviouslyexcavatedlandwithmaterialcompatiblewiththe

naturalfeaturesofthesite;

(d)Minoralterationsinland,water,andvegetationonexistingofficiallydesignated

wildlifemanagement

areas

or

fish

production

facilities

which

result

in

improvement

of

habitatforfishandwildliferesourcesorgreaterfishproduction;

(e)Minortemporaryuseoflandhavingnegligibleornopermanenteffectsonthe

environment,includingcarnivals,salesofChristmastrees,etc;

(f)Minortrenchingandbackfillingwherethesurfaceisrestored;

(g)Maintenancedredgingwherethespoilisdepositedinaspoilareaauthorizedbyall

applicablestate

andfederalregulatoryagencies;

(h)The

creation

of

bicycle

lanes

on

existing

rights

of

way.

(i)Fuelmanagementactivitieswithin30feetofstructurestoreducethevolumeof

flammablevegetation,providedthattheactivitieswillnotresultinthetakingof

endangered,rare,orthreatenedplantoranimalspeciesorsignificanterosionand

sedimentationofsurfacewaters.Thisexemptionshallapplytofuelmanagement

activitieswithin100feetofastructureifthepublicagencyhavingfireprotection

responsibilityfortheareahasdeterminedthat100feetoffuelclearanceisrequireddue

toextrahazardousfireconditions.

Note:Authoritycited:Section21083,PublicResourcesCode;Reference:Section21084,PublicResourcesCode.

long beach chapter surfrider foundation submission to ca coastal comm in opposition to belmont shore...

Documents