Seawall Construction on Borrowed Time

The "emergency" revetment that is slated to be built along Martin's Beach was reprieved recently, with the California Coastal Commission and County of San Mateo granting the applicants/owners an extension on the construction deadline.

Although the permit for construction of the "emergency" revetment was issued by the County and Coastal Commission, both agencies required that:
1. the construction of the emergency revetment be completed by July 20, 2013
2. an application for a regular Coastal Development Permit for the revetment be filed by July 28, 2013
3. the emergency revetment would be removed on or before July 28, 2014 if a regular Coastal Development Permit was not issued by that time.

The property owner's attorney wrote both agencies to obtain an extension on these deadlines, arguing that the agencies' actions and conditions caused delay.  Hence, the County and Commission have changed the deadlines to:
1. the construction of the emergency revetment be completed by October 3, 2013
2. an application for a regular Coastal Development Permit for the revetment be filed by September 30, 2013
3. the removal date (July 28, 2014) remains unchanged

Thus, construction of the emergency revetment will be starting any day now.



Here's to hoping the revetment doesn't cause beach loss or serve as a foot in the door for a permanent wall to protect some future unknown development.







What can you do?

• Help us keep tabs on construction and timing.

• Join our Action Alert system so we can alert you of future opportunities to take action (such as when the Coastal Development Permits are considered by the County and Coastal Commission).

Martin's Beach to be Armored

It's official: the California Coastal Commission has granted an emergency permit to construct a 963 ft rock revetment seaward of the oceanfront road along Martin's Beach.  The County of San Mateo already issued an emergency permit for the portion of the project within their jurisdiction at the end of January 2013.

In addition to the revetment, which is to be "temporarily" erected for the protection of the road and infrastructure, the road is to be widened and the existing restrooms demolished for the creation of a fire turnaround.  There is no condition of approval requiring the removal of existing unpermitted development, such as the keycard gate or the block wall at the south end of the beach.

Surfrider sent both an after-the-fact letter to the County (upon having learned that the County had already permitted the project) and a letter to the Coastal Commission highlighting various concerns with the project, including 1) that erosion here cannot be characterized as an emergency (--it has been happening for a long time!); 2) the emergency permit allows for development beyond what is needed to respond to "emergency" erosion; 3) existing unpermitted development needs addressed before permitting additional development; 4) the terms of the permit could result in serious unmitigated impacts that haven't been studied, such as loss of sandy beach due to erosion caused by the wall, and 5) the project is not consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies.  The other concern is that the new property owner is pursuing armoring here and now in hopes of getting his foot in the door to armor for whatever development is planned in the future.

Unfortunately, emergency permitting authority is rather sweeping and tends to err heavily on the side of allowing an existing structure to be protected rather than protection of access and preservation of the beach.  So despite all these compelling issues, we have an impending revetment that is slated to be built within the next 30 days and could stand for up to 1 year before needing any additional approvals, according to the permit conditions.  Despite the permit terms, it is quite possible that the revetment could remain standing and continue to impact the beach past its permitted life.  Just look at Ocean Beach in SF or any number of other places along the California coast.  Once armoring goes in--temporary or not--it tends to remain, sometimes even after its useful life is past.

Why all the hate on seawalls and rock revetments?  Well, while they may be handy at delaying the inevitable overtake of structures by the advancing mighty ocean, shoreline armoring fixes the back of the beach and prevents it from retreating naturally, robbing the beach of sand to replenish it as it erodes, as well as exacerbating erosion of the beach seaward of the wall due to wave reflection off the hardened structure.  Seawalls are beach killers.

The elephant in the room, of course, is that the existing structures the revetment is being permitted to protect--the cabins and infrastructure serving them--are not likely to stand long after the current land leases are up.  What good will the revetment be then?  It might be good for Mr. Khosla, who will benefit from the serendipitous existence of a revetment that could protect his future development endeavors, but certainly will not be good for anyone looking to visit the beach, which in the future may ironically include current cabin owners. 

So, what's to be done now that the revetment has been permitted?

First, the revetment has been conditionally permitted.  If the conditions of the permit issued by the Coastal Commission are not complied with, such as completing construction within 30 days or avoiding grading of intertidal areas, the permit holder is in violation of the Coastal Act.  Any violations should be reported to the California Coastal Commission.  Similarly, the County has imposed conditions in their permit and any violations of those should be reported to the County.

Secondly, the property owner must file for a regular Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the County and the Coastal Commission by July 28, 2013 for whatever long-term armoring is intended to be in place.  If the permit isn't filed, the revetment must be removed by July 28, 2014.  Surfrider will be keeping an eye on this. 

Thirdly, in their consideration of the CDP application, the County and the Commission will also consider the full range of impacts.  It will be really important to photograph the emergency revetment's impacts on the beach while it's in place so these decision makers can inform their deliberations.   Help contribute to this effort by taking photos of the beach profile when you go to visit. 

Seawall Update - Coastal Jurisdiction Challenged

(see first post in this series at http://martinsbeach.blogspot.com/2013/03/seawall-threatens-martins-beach.html)

South end seawall.  Photo Credit David Strohm

The latest communication from the Coastal Commission staff conveyed that an application for a Coastal Development Permit is expected, but that nothing has come in yet.  What has come in, however, is a letter from the law firm Briscoe Ivester & Bazel LLP, on behalf of the applicant, challenging the Coastal Commission's boundary determination.  The boundary determination is the basis for the Commission's assertion of jurisdiction in this matter, so basically the applicant is fighting the Commission's oversight of the project. 

The Coastal Commission will likely respond, but it's hard to say how the Commission will respond.  If the Commission concedes that the determination was incorrect, and if a new determination shows that the project is not on tidelands or other lands of the state, then the Commission will no longer have jurisdiction over the project and the permit already issued by the County will suffice.  This would mean that the applicant would have the ability to move forward with building the rock revetment, at the unfortunate detriment to the beach.  

Seawall Threatens Martin's Beach

Seawalls are beach killers.  Placing a hardened structure on the beach in an area of wave runup causes the wave energy to reflect off the structure and back at the beach, resulting in further erosion of the beach seaward of the wall.  So imagine our surprise and distress when we learned that San Mateo County had approved a 963 foot long seawall--stretching the beachfront road at Martin's--in an attempt to protect the road from the encroaching ocean. 

The property owner applied for an emergency permit through the County to protect the road from erosion.  What's most interesting about this is that the intent of an emergency permit is to fast track a project through the permitting process when the project purpose is to respond to an emergency event, such as episodic loss of beach in a winter storm.  Anyone who's been to Martin's probably has seen clues that the beach has been experiencing erosion for a long time, such as the narrowing of the sandy beach over time, or the block wall at the south end of the beach.  So, it's hard to see how this qualifies as an emergency event.  

Another interesting and arguably non-emergency component of the project is the proposed demolishment of the old restrooms to construct a fire turnaround.  The need for a fire turnaround seems negligible at best, especially given that there has never been one in the history of the property.  The conspiracy theorist's take on this is that the turnaround would facilitate the destruction of another visitor-serving facet of the property and further obfuscate the property's historic use by the public.  

In any case, the County saw fit to issue an emergency permit and did so on January 28.  However, because it was an emergency permit, there was no public process around it, nor was there in-depth consideration of project alternatives.  There wasn't even public notification of the permit issuance until after the fact!  Surfrider didn't learn about the permit until February 11.  

After unsuccessfully working to convince the Planning Commission that the project was unlawful and should be halted, and attempting to appeal the project to the Coastal Commission (which apparently isn't possible with emergency permits), all we could hope for was that the Coastal Commission would step in and assert jurisdiction, since most of the project area lies within lands of the state.  With lines drawn and stakes in the ground, the Coastal Commission swooped in just in time with their boundary determination on March 8, asserting their jurisdiction and requiring the applicant to obtain a permit from them.  

So now, we wait to see if an application is filed.  Stay tuned!