Sand City local coastal program : land use plan

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

SAND CITY
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

,.,Oo

LAND USE PLAN

CERTIFIED AS LEGALLY ADEQUATE BY

THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

HT
168 ON 1212182
.C2
S26
1984

Sand City
Local Coastal Program

LAND USE PLAN

Adopted by City Resolution #3 (1982)
on March 23, 1982

Revised by City Resolution #12 (1982)
on September 21, 1982

Certified by California Coastal Commission
on December 2, 1982

First Printing
March 1984

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
David Pendergrass, Mayor
Ronda Lewis
Mark Meadows
Michael Morris
Carl Ritter

Prepared by: The City of Sand City
1 Sylvan Park
Sand City, California

Assistance Provided By: Environmental Management Consultants
P.O. Box 414
Monterey, California 93940

Sand City Citizens Advisory Committee

This publication was prepared with financial assistance from the U.S. Office
of Coastal Zone Management, National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended; and from the California Coastal Commission under the provisions of
the Coastal Act of 1976.

Sand City LCP
Land Use Plan
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................ .
1.1 The Coastal Act & the Local Coastal Program Process ............ 1
1.2 Public Participation ........................................... 3
1.3 Sand City's Coastal Zone ........................................ 3
1.4 Past and Present Planning ...................................... 7

2.0 Public Access Component ..................................... o ....... 8
2.1 Coastal Act Policies ........................................... 8
2.2 Background .. ........................ o .......................... 11
2.3 LCP Policies ................................................... 13
2.4 Recommended Implementation Actions ............................. 18

3.0 Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities ........................... 19
3.1 Coastal Act Policies ........................................... 19
3.2 Background ...................................................... 21
3.3 LCP Policies ................. ....... ... ........ 23
3.4 Recommended Implementation Actions ................ : ... 26

4.0 Coastal Resource Management ......................................... 27
4.1 Coastal Act Policies ........................................... 27
4.2 Background .............................. o ...................... 29
4.2.1 Shoreline Sand Supply and Sand Mining ................... 29
4.2.2 Protective Shoreline Structures ......................... 31
4.2.3 Natural Hazards ......................................... 33
4.2.4 Sand Dunes and Environmentally Sensitive Habitats ....... 36
4.2.5 -Marine and Water 'Resources ................. o ............ 37
4.2.6 Archaeological Resources ................................ 41
4.3 LCP Policies ................................................... 41
4.4 Recommended Implementation Actions ............................. 51

5.0 Coastal Visual Resources ............................................. 52
5.1 Coastal Act Policies ...................................... o ..... 52
5.2 Background ... o..o .............................................. 52
5.2.1 Existing Visual Resources @ .............................. 52
5.2.2 Future Design Considerations ........ o ................... 53
5.3 LCP Policies ................................................... 54
5.4 Recommended Implementation Actions ............................. 59

6.0 Land Use and Develo2ment ............................................. 60
6.1 Coastal Act Policies . .......................................... 60
6.2 Background ..................................................... 63
6.2.1 Existing Land Uses ...................................... 63
6.2.2 Urban Services (Water, Sewer, Roads, Public Transit) .... 66
6.2.3 Circulation ............................................. 70'
6.3 Future Land Uses and Development ............................... 71
6.3.1 Land Use Analysis ....................................... 72
6.3.2 Land Use Locations ...................................... 76
6.4 LCP Policies ................................................... 77
6.5 Recommended Implementation Actions ............................. 88

7.0 References .......................................................... 89

8.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Resolution of-City Council Certification and Adopted Changes
Appendix B: Significant LCP Actions, Products, and Meetings
Appendix C: Public Comments
Appendix D: Participants in the LCP Process
Appendix E: Land Use Analysis Criteria, Summary, and Map
Appendix F: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Water Contract Resolution and LCP Water Allocation Summaries
Appendix G: Zoning Ordinance References
Appendix H: Glossary

Land Use Plan Figures
Figure
1 Regional Setting ............................................... 4
2 Sand City Coastal Zone ......................................... 5
3 Existing General Plan .......................................... 6
4 Public Access Provisions ....................................... 14
5 Regional Recreational Areas .................................... 24
6 -Local Geology ............... .................................. 34
7 Coastal Resources .............................................. 38
8 Seaside Aquifer ................................................ 40
9 Coastal Visual Resources ....................................... 55
10 Existing Coastal Land Uses ..................................... 64
11 LCP Land Use Plan Map .......................................... 78
12 Potential Land Exdhange and TDC Area ........................... 84

NOTE: This Land Use Plan contains all Coastal

Commission certified modifications for
Sand City's Coastal Zone except for the
area south of Bay Avenue and west of
Highway One. This area will be subject
to Coastal Commission certification at a

later date.

November 1983

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Coastal Act and the Local Coastal Program Process

In November 1972, the people of the State of California approved a ballot
initiative known as Proposition 20 which called attention to management
of California's vast coastal resources. As a result, the Coastal Commis-
sion and six regional commissions were established to manage the coastal
zone as a resource of statewide interest through permit control and pre-
paration of a comprehensive Coastal Plan. The intent of the plan is "to
preserve, protect, and where possible, restore the resources of the coas-
tal zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations".

The State Legislature passed the California Coastal Act of 1976 to imple-
ment recommendations found appropriate in the Coastal Plan. The basic
goals set forth in the Coastal Act are intended to:

a)- protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore the
overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and
manmade resources;

b) assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone
resources, taking into account the social and economic needs of the
people of the State;

c) maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public
recreation opportunities in the Coastal Zone consistent with sound
resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected
rights of private property owners;

d) assure priority for coastal-dependent development over other develo-
pment on the coast; and

e) encourage State and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing
procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for
mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the. Coastal
Zone.

A key element in the Coastal Act of 1976 is that the bulk of the author-
ity granted to the State and regional 'Commissions by the Act was to be
transferred to local governments through adoption and certification of
"Local Coastal Programs". The Local Coastal Program (LCP) includes a
local government's land use plans, zoning ordinance, zoning district
maps, and other implementing actions which, when taken together, meet the
requirements of and implement the provisions and policies of the Coastal
Act. Each LCP should reflect the coastal issues and concerns of the
local jurisdiction and must be consistent with the statewide policies of
the Coastal Act. Once adopted, the LCP becomes legally binding on local
governments and provides a permanent program for coastal protection. LCP
adoption also transfers permit authority, except in limited cases, to the
local government.

SCLCP2/6

The LCP is developed in three phases:

Phase I - Identification of coastal planning issues, defined as
potential conflicts between Coastal Act policies and exist-
ing conditions, plans and proposed uses. Preparation of a
work program that sets forth tasks necessary to resolve
issues and establishment of work schedules, budgets and
grant requests.

Phase 11 - Preparation of the Caastal Land Use Plan.

Phase III - Preparation of Implementing Actions, including zoning ordi-
nances, zoning district maps and other programs necessary
-to carry out the Land Use Plan and supporting policies.

This document is the Land Use Plan portion of the LCP, and is the most
important component of the LCP. It designates the kinds, location, and
intensity of land and water uses, and presents applicable resource
protection and development policies to accomplish Coastal Act objectives.

As part of the preparation of the LCP, three technical working papers
were prepared: 1) Shoreline Access and Recreation and Visitor-Serving
Facilities; 2) Marine Environment and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Areas; and 3) Development and Industrial Development. The purpose of
the working papers was to provide the technical background necessary to
prepare the Land Use Plan. It also provided the public with a focus for
discussion of significant coastal planning issues in Sand City.

The Land Use Plan has een prepared based on the findings in the three
Working Papers, meetings with citizens, public hearings and discussions
with Coastal Commission staff. In addition, Coastal Commission staff
presented written comments on the Working Papers, and the City issued a
response paper to these comments, which also aided in the preparation of
this Plan. The Plan summarizes the background data and findings of the
Working Papers and response papers. The reader is referred to these
papers for a more detailed discussion of the topics presented in this
Plan.

With regard to the Coastal Act as the standard of approval, denial and
suggested modifications for this LUP an 'd resolution of conflicts between
Coastal Act Policies, as described in Section 30007.5, the Sand City LUP
is promoting the policy, which states:
The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may
occur between one or more policies of the division. The legisla-
ture therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of
this division such conflicts can be resolved in a manner which on
balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources.
In this context, the Legislature declares that broader policies
which, for example, serve to concentrate development in close
proximity to urban and-employment centers may be more protective,
overall, than specific wildlife habitat and other similar
resource policies.

SCLCP2/6 2

In preparing this LUP, Sand City encountered conflicts between Coastal
Act policies as applied to the City. As a result, the policy set in
Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act was determinant in resolving these
conflicts.

Implementation measures are required as part of the LCP to ensure that
all local plans are in conformity with the Coastal Act. This Plan pre-
sents recommended implementation actions. However,. an implementation
plan which describes measures in detail and their administration will be
prepared as a separate document.

The services of subcontractors were utilized in the preparation of the
Working Papers and the Land Use Plan to assist in documentation and
evaluation of the identified coastal issues. Geoconsultants, Inc.,
engineering and geology consultants located in San Jose, analyzed geo-
logic hazards, coastline processes and impacts of sand mining. Dr.
Richard Robinson of Monterey prepared an ecological survey discussing
significant habitat areas. Archaeological Consulting of Castroville
performed an archaeological sensitivity zone survey. Donald F.L. Wald,
A.I.A., Architect and Associates, assisted with a design overview and
design policies.

1.2 Public Participation

The Coastal Act requires that opportunities for public participation be
made available throughout the LCP process. In Sand City, a high degree
of public participation has occurred throughout the development of the
LCP. A Citizens Advisory Committee has provided input at numerous
meetings, and has reviewed all LCP documents. In addition, public
hearings have been held throughout all stages of.LCP development.

1.3 Sand City's Coastal Zone

Sand City extends from the southern boundary of Fort Ord (U.S. Military
Reservation) on the north, to the City of Seaside on the south, as shown
on Figure 1. There are approximately 1.5 miles of ocean frontage within
Sand City. The Coastal Zone area includes all that portion of Sand City
west of State Highway One, as well as a strip of land 200 feet wide
bordering the east side of State Highway One (measured from the highway's
easternmost right-of-way). In addition, the Southern Pacific Railroad's
right-of-way and 100 feet on the western side of that right-of-way are
located in the Coastal Zone. The Sand City Coastal Zone Area is illus-
trated in Figure 2.

Sand City is characterized by disturbed dunes. Generally the dunes are
stabilized east of State Highway One; however, to the west, a large
amount of dune migration occurs. Elevations range from sea level to 60
feet at the southwestern portion of the City. Current land uses in the
Sand City Coastal Zone have been condensed to five general categories.
They are:

SCLCP2/6 3

0 4.5.

SCALE IN MILE3
0L.L
AA
"M St@,

%-Qwf'fA,%ND CITY
came

PoSSras -76 4 1 4.6-
p3dfic ft" 3
Mft

m e 0 FORT ORD
15P 13

@9
MILITARY
00 oft
3.6
2
RESERVATION
11 ali as
? 4 oc ss
/14
N% 10

elk 6
,0.-1 19.7

@441111" paw'

2 vm
ram
24 CM lip"
MP 5.3

9.5
16,5
g- So
Chuaiv

A 4.11
LOS,

91
1 f

i3
0,4L2 Cf.
OWL i
---4b 2.5 3.8
44.. 1.9

Scurco: AAA $AND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

REGIONAL SETTING

Figure I

0 1100

SCALE IN FEET

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA COSTAL COMMISSION

AREA WITHIN COSTAL ZONE
SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

SAND CITY COSTAL ZONE

Figure 2

0 E y

I p
......... ....
...........
..... ........

. . . ..............
..............

LEGEND:

COASTAL SOME LAUD USE
cr

too sloe
SCALE IN f6fil

.060.1-

SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN
NON-COA&TAL SOME LANO USES COMMERCIAL

17@
PUBLIC RECREATION EXISTING GENERAL PLAN

PUBLIC FACOUT196

INDUSTRIAL PARK Figure 3

...... . INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING

1. Residential;
2. Light Commercial;
3. Heavy Commercial;
4. Industrial/Manufacturing; and
5. Public Facility.

Sand City is unique and distinguished from other coastal areas due to the
fact that the majority of its coastal zone lands are vacant. Yet Sand
City is located within a regional area that is primarily urbanized. The
portions of the City located outside of the coastal zone are charac-
terized by industrial and heavy commercial uses which serve the Monterey
Peninsula region and in some instances the State.

1.4 Past and Present Planning

The City of Sand City has conducted planning matters for seventeen years
guided by the-.1963 Sand City General Plan. Implementation of this
General Plan has been through the Sand City Zoning Ordinance.

The 1963 General Plan has- been superceded by a General Plan revision
formally adopted on August 19, 1980. This Plan includes the 9 State-
mandated elements, which the original Plan did not include. The Plan
identified the following land use designations, as shown in Figure 3.

a. Low Density Residential
b. High Density Residential
c. Light Commercial
d. Heavy Commercial
e. Indus trial/Manuf acturing

Zoning designations in Sand City at present are genetalized into 5
districts. They are identified as follows:

a. C-1 (Light Commercial)
b. C-2 (Heavy Commercial
c. M (Industrial/Manufacturing
d. R-1 (Single Family Residential)
e. R-4 (Multi Family Residential)

Zoning generally is consistent with General Plan designations. Certain
areas do, however, show inconsistencies with zoning. The Zoning Ordi-
nance currently is undergoing revision in order to implement t@e recently
adopted General Plan. The areas that are not currently in conformance
with the General Plan will be rezoned upon completion of the Zoning
Ordinance update. Further revisions to this Zoning Ordinance update will
have to be considered upon certification of the LCP Land Use Plan.

SCLCP2/6 7

2.0 PUBLIC ACCESS COMPONENT

2.1 Coastal Act Policies

Section 30500(a)

Each local government lying, in whole or in part, within the
coastal zone shall prepare a local coastal program for that
portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction. ... Each
local coastal program prepared pursuant to this chapter shall
contain a specific public access component to assure that
maximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas
is provided.

Section 30210

In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of
the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be
conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be
provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs
and the need to protect public rights, rights of private
property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.

Section 30211

Development shall not interfere with the public's right of
access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative
authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry.
sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial
vegetation.

Section 30212

(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the
shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new
development projects except where
(1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military
security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal
resources,
(2) adequate access exists nearby, or
(3) agriculture would be adversely affected.
Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to
public use until a public agency or private association
agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and
liability of the accessway.

(b) For purposes of this section, "new development" does not
include
(1) Replac-ent of any structure pursuant to the provi-
sions of subdivision (g) of Section 30610,
(2) The demolition and reconstruction of a single-family
residence; provided, that the reconstructed residence
shall not exceed either the floor area, height or
bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent,
and that the reconstructed residence shall be sited
in the same location-on the affected property as the
former structure,
(3) Improvements to any structure which do not change the
intensity of its use, which do not increase either
the floor area, height, or bulk of the structure by
more than 10 percent, which do not block or impede
public access, and which do not result in a seaward
encroachment by the structure,
(4) Any repair or maintenance activity for which the com-
mission has determined, pursuant to Section 30610,
that a coastal development permit will be required
unless the regional COIDIDISSLOn or the commission
determines that such activity will have an adverse
impact on lateral public access along the beach.,
As used in this subdivision, "bulk" means total interior
cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the
structure.
(c) Nothing in this division shall restrict public access nor
shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsi-
bilities of public agencies which are required by Section
66478.1 to 66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and
by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.

Section 30212.5

Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including
parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an
area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and other-
wise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single
area.

Section 30214

(a) The public access policies of this article shall be imple-
mented in a manner that takes into account the need to
regulate the time, place, and manner of public access
depending on the facts and circumstances in each case
including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics,
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what
level of intensity,

(3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the
right to pass and repass depending on such factors as
the fragility of the natural resources in the area
and the proximity of the access area to adjacent
residential uses,
(4) The need to provide for the management of access
areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent
property owners and to protect the aesthetic values
of the area by providing for the collection of
litter.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access
policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable
manner that considers the equities and that balances the
rights of the individual property owner with the public's
constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of
Article X of the California Constitution. Nothing in this
section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as a
limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under
Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
(c) In carrying out the public access policies of this
article, the commission, regional commissions, and any
other responsible public agency shall consider and encour-
age the utilization of innovative access management tech-
niques, including, but not limited to, agreements with
private organizations which would minimize management
costs and encourage the use of volunteer programs.

Section 30251

The sceni *c and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be con-
sidered and protected as a resource of public importance. Per-.
mitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views
to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize
the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible
with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible,
to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded
areas. New development, in highly scenic areas such as those
designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recrea-
tion Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation
and by local government shall be subordinate to the character
of its setting.

Section 30252

The location and amount of new development should maintain and
enhance public access to the coast by
(1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit ser-
vice,
(2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining resi-
dential development or in other areas that will minimize
the use of coastal access roads,

(3) providing non-automobile circulation within the develop-
ment,
(4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substi-
tute means of serving the development with public trans-
portation,
(5) assuring the potential for public transit for high inten-
sity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by
(6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will
not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by corre-
lating the amount of development with local park acquisi-
tion and development plans with the provision of onsite
recreational facilities to serve the new development.

2.2 Background

One of the key provisions of the Coastal Act is to maximize public access
to and along the coast. This is evidenced in the Act's statement of
goals, in the resource policies, and in the requirement of preparation of
a public access component within the LCP.

Three forms of public access have been defined by the Coastal Commission:

1) vertical access to provide access from the first public roadway to
the shoreline;

2) lateral access for public access and use along the shoreline; and

3) blufftop access to allow for public viewing'of the shoreline along
bluffs rather than along the shoreline where no beach area exists.

Coastal access in Saud City currently consists of one undeveloped public
vertical accessway to the shoreline, several undeveloped trails utilized
on private property, lateral access along the shoreline, and two primary
areas used for visual access. Outside of Sand City, coastal access
exists at Marina State Beach to the north, and at numerous points within
the City of Monterey to the south.

The one public vertical accessway currently utilized lies within the Bay
Avenue right-of-way, which runs onto a beach and is accessible from a
street. It is currently undeveloped and the only improvements are two
signs indicating that walking and fishing are permitted at the beach.
Limited parking is available at the end of and along Bay Avenue.

In addition to the Bay Avenue accessway, people have been observed cross-
ing private property at the end of Tioga Avenue to reach a beach to the
north, along the blufftop at the old landfill site in the northern end of
the City, and at other locations throughout the City to reach vacant
coastal sites. The State Parks Department owns some property south of
Bay Avenue along Sand Dunes Drive, which currently is undeveloped. How-
ever, the property does not front on the beach or water area. People
have crossed this dune area to reach the shoreline from Sand Dunes Drive.

Lateral shoreline access along State-owned tidelands is physically
unrestricted for approximately one-half mile from the City's southern
boundary to the seawall at Tioga Avenue. Beyond this seawall, lateral
access continues for some distance north, where a surf zone mining
operation and another seawall are located. However, during times of high
tide conditions, lateral access beyond the seawall at Tioga Avenue may
not be available. *

Visual access exists at the end of Tioga and Bay Avenues, where people
park their cars to view the ocean.- Visual access also is utilized along
Vista Del Mar Street (which is currently closed) and along the bluffs at
the old landfill site, where people walk to and along the bluffs.

The current level of use of accessways in Sand City appears to be mini-
mal, probably due to the lack of developed facilities and the avail-
ability of other accessways within the region. However, no figures are
available regarding current levels of use or demand for future access.
Public facilities at accessways are minimal except for signs and limited
parking at Tioga and Bay Avenues.

The cities of Marina, Monterey, Pacific-Grove and Carmel are in the
process of developing a regional bicycle path, portions of which will be
located within the abandoned Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way.
(The right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Railroad and 100 feet on the
western side of that right-of-way also are located within the Coastal
Zone.) A bike path currently exists from Castroville to Marina, and
Marina is in the process of constructing an additional portion. A bike
path extends along the coast from the southern boundary of Marina to the
northern border of Sand City and Seaside, through Fort Ord property, but
does not extend through either city. The cities of Monterey and Pacific
Grove are in the process of negotiating with Southern Pacific to acquire
the abandoned right-of-way. When fully developed, an 18-mile bike. path
will exist from Castroville to Carmel.

At this time ', no formal planning or negotiations regarding the bicycle
path have been made within Sand City. Development of a bike path within
the City would provide new access opportunities, and is a crucial link in
a regional bikeway. However, it does not-appear to be feasible to locate
a bike path within or along the railroad right-of-way because Southern
Pacific continues to use the railroad in Sand City, and industrial and
heavy commercial land uses currently are situated immediately adjacent to
the right-of-way. Potential safety problems for bicyclers in an indus-
trial area also present a public safety concern.

An alternative bike path location is along Vista del Mar Street and/or
Sand Dunes Drive, which is in existence from Tioga Avenue south into the
cities of Seaside and Monterey. There is potential to extend either
Vista del Mar or Sand Dunes Drive north of Tioga in order to provide
access to future developments. A bike path could be part of this
frontage road, and could connect to the bike path from the Fort Ord
property.

There are several factors which may restrict future coastal access, in-
cluding public safety concerns, resource protection and accessway manage-
ment. Public safety concerns include natural hazards and incompatible
existing land uses. Hazards pose a problem due to geologic hazards re-
lating to coastal bluff stability and erosion. The major areas of concern
are the bluffs along Vista Del Mar Street, the parking area at the end of
Tioga Avenue, and at the old landfill site. Erosion hazards may be
present along Vista Del Mar Street, requiring structural improvements to
protect this vital access structure.

Existing land uses pose limited constraints for public shoreline access
with regard to public safety. Existing sand mining operations, one of
which has been determined to be a coastal-dependent use, present safety
issues for access resulting from surf -zone dragline operations, truck
traffic, and the presence of conveyor systems and cables. The sewage
outfall line at Bay Avenue, which extends across the beach, may present
.potential safety hazards. Undeveloped paths over private property may
pose s.afety questions to users, such as over the filled coastal bluff at
Tioga Avenue.

Resource protection involves sand dune management programs. The dune
areas in Sand City west of Highway One are in a severely disturbed state.
They have been destroyed by human uses over a long period of time. The
majority of these dunes are active, characterized by shifting sand and
containing no vegetation. Where dunes are stabilized with vegetation,
non-native species are dominant. These sand dune areas do not present
constraints to future accessway development, unless dune stabilization or
restoration programs are,implemented. (See Section 4.0, Coastal Resource
Management, for more discussion regarding Sand Dunes.)

Management of accessways includes issues of acquisition, development,
maintenance and liability, which were discussed in Working Paper #1.
Agencies which could potentially manage future accessways, in addition to
the City of Sand City, include the State Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion, which owns land adjacent to Bay Avenue on the south; CalTrans,
which maintains the State Highway One right-of-way through Sand City, and
the State Lands Commission. Funds for acquisition, development or
limited operation of accessways may be.. available through the State
Coastal Conservancy.

2.3 LCP Policies

2.3.1 Require all future shorefront developments to provide public
access in the following manner:

a) Where access is shown on Figure 4, dedication of a vertical
and/or blufftop access easement which meets the criteria
established in Policy 2.3.4;

b) Where no access is shown on Figure 4, dedication of an access
easement where it is found to be consistent with the criteria
of Policy 2.3.4; or

It
a A

NOT CERTIFIED

fit

Legend: .0 900

BLUFFTOP ACCESS SCALE IN FEET

FLOATING VERTICAL ACCESS
&..Gas
(GENERALIZED LOCATIONS)
a f o LATERAL ACCESS (SANDY BEACH) SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN
PROPOSED BICYCLE PATH
(GENERALIZED LOCATIONS) PUBLIC ACCESS PROVISIONS
VISTA POINT.6 F Igurs 4

FLOATING PLAN LINE (FRONTAGE ROAD)

C) Where no access is shown on Figure 4., and access dedication
cannot be achieved consistent with Policy 2.3.4, payment of
in-lieu fees for development and maintenance of other
accessways.

2.3.2 Require dedication of lateral access easements for dry sand access
along sandy beaches as part of all shorefront development.

2.3.3 Developed public accessways shall at the minimum provide trash
receptacles, signs and trail improvements. Vista points shall be
located and designed to take full advantage of views to and across
the Bay, with provisions for vehicle turnouts where accessible
from a public road, signs, and trash receptacles. Developed vista
points should be accessible from a public road or accessway.

2.3.4 Work with landowners and public agencies to develop and manage
vertical and lateral accessways in the general locations shown on
Figure 4. Future developments shall implemelit safe accessways and
improvements as determined by the City. Site specific locations
shall be developed as part of future development proposals, and
according to guidelines established by the City. The f ollowing
criteria shall be used to determine the exact location of access-
ways.

a) Accessways 'Should be located at intervals commensurate with
the level of public use.

b) Accessways should be sited where the least number of improve-
ments would be required to make it usable *by the public,
where support facilities exist or can be provided, where
public safety hazards are minimal, and where resource con-
-flicts can be avoided or mitigated.

c) Vertical accessways to the shoreline should be located in
areas where there is sufficient beach area, and should be
distributed throughout an area to prevent crowding, parking
congestion, and misuse of coastal resources.

d) Accessways and trails should be designed and sited to:

1). minimize alteration of natural landforms) conform to
existing contours, blend in with the visual character of
the setting, and be consistent with the City's design
standards;

2) prevent unwarranted hazards to land and public safety;

3) provide for privacy of adjoining residences and minimize
conflicts with adjacent or nearby established uses, and
be wide enough to permit placement of a trail and/or
fence and a landscape buffer;

SCLCP2/7 15

4) prevent misuse of sensitive coastal resource areas; and

5) be consistent with military security needs.

Ie) Coastal access trails should not be located in areas of high
erosion or fire hazard or in areas hazardous to public safety
(including blufftop areas where bluff stability is a con-
cern), unless the trail is designed and constructed so that
it does not increase the hazard potential, or if it is re-
quired to correct abuse by existing access use.

2.3.5 Both existing and future surf zone dragline sand mining opera-
tions will be required to provide safe lateral public access
across dragline operations without unreasonable delays. A defi-
nition of unreasonable delays must be adopted by the City and on
record at City Hall for public review. All dragline operations
must be'sign posted to acknowledge the public's right to pass, as
well as indicate a safe distance from dragline while it is in
operation. Operator of dragline should have a clear view of
beach area and dragline.

2.3.6 Future accessways shall be guided away from any dune areas that
may be proposed for stabilization or restoration. Where major
accessways may be available through dunes to the coast, board-
walks or other appropriate pathways shall be used to protect the
vegetation stabilizing the dunes. Other access routes through
the dunes shall be restricted.

2.3.7 Protect visual access at the general points shown. on Figure 4 by
requiring provision of public vista points as part of "future
developments in these areas. Site specific locations will be
developed as part of future development proposals and according
to t6 guidelines set forth in Policy 2.3.4.

2.3.8 Protect private property owners' rights and privacy by directing
the public to designated accessways.

2.3.9 New improved accessways shall not be made available for public
use until public or private agencies responsible for managing the
accessway have addressed the following management concerns:

a) identification of the types of uses to be allowed;

b) the need for any seasonal restrictions;

c) the type of improvements needed, such as signs, gates, trash
receptacles, boardwalks, restrooms;

SCLCP2/7 16

d) the proposed location, type and amount of parking facilities;

e) identification of the number of users that can be supported.

2.3.10 Require new development to dedicate and improve accessways, which
shall be opened to the public when such accessways are accepted
by a public or private agency. An offer of access dedication
shall revert to the owner after five years from development
project completion (including access improvements) if it has not
been accepted by an appropriate public or private agency.
Accessways whose title is maintained in private ownership shall
remain open to the public during daylight hours subject to a deed
restriction recorded on or prior to the time of reversion of the
offer of dedication.

2.3.11 Ensure provision of adequate parking for designated pedestrian
accessways. Require provision of public parking as part of
developments at a rate of 10% above the project's total required
parking. The means for providing public parking areas will be
the responsibility of State and local governmental entities and
private development proposals. The following will be pursued
where feasible and consistent with the Plan:
a) Utilization of State of California Parks Department Proper-
ties to provide public parking and other public services and
amenities, which provide quick and easy access to beach
areas;
b) Abandonment, when appropriate, of some City paper streets,
which then could be utilized for public parking strips, or
.traded for adjacent properties to form a more logically
shaped parking lot; and
c) The City shall require approved development plans to include
a provision for public parking on-site, or provide the
property off-site, but in a convenient location to the beach
areas, or be assessed an in-lieu pro-rata fee that the City
could utilize for public parking and maintenance purposes.
Parking areas should be located in geologically stable areas
where they would not cause or contribute to excessive erosion or
slope failure. Parking areas shall be screened from public
viewpoints through landscaping, bermiag or other appropriate
measure consistent with the Design Standards required in Section
5.3 of this Plan.

2.3-12 Signs which are required as part of accessways shall be designed
according to design standards identified in Section 5.3.

2.3-13 All unimproved accessways that are made available for public use
shall have signs posted to warn of any possible safety risks, in
order to exempt public agencies from any liabilities associated

SCLCP2/7 17

with accessways. Areas that are closed to the public due to
safety concerns and natural hazards shall be signed to prohibit
access.

2.3.14 Implement a bicycle path as part of a regional bike path. The
portion of the bike path designated where no road currently
exists shall be developed as part of future development proposals
along this road and/or development of the road.

Z.4 Recommended Implementation Actions

2.4.1 Develop program for financing development of accessways and their
improvements. Possible funding sources include the State Coastal
Conservancy, U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund, access ease-
ment in-lieu fees, and other appropriate local, state and federal
agencies.

2.4.2 Develop design guidelines for development of accessways and
improvements using Coastal Conservancy Access Standards.

2.4.3 Establish development review procedure for the development and
implementation of public accessways as part of private develop-
ments.

2.4.4 Develop a program to provide public parking at designated access-
ways. Establish standards and possible financing sources.

2.4.5 Prepare a bikeway plan to guide the design, planning, development
and construction of the proposed bike path and facilities, using
the standards and guidelines established by the Coastal Conser-
vancy, the California Bikeways Act, and the State Department of
Transportation.

2.4.6 Seek--funds from the Coastal Conservancy, the State Department of
Transportation, and other appropriate agencies for development of
a bike path.

3.0 RECREATION & VISITOR SERVING FACILITIES

3.1 Coastal Act Policies

Section 30212.5

Section 30213

Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be pro-
tected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Develop-
ments providing public recreational opportunities are pre-
ferred.

Neither the Commission nor any regional commission shall
either: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an
amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel,
motel or other similar visitor serving facility located on
either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any
method for the identification of low or moderate income persons
for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room
rentals in any such facilities.

Section 30220

Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities
that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be
protected for such uses.

Section 30221

Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protec-
ted for recreational use and development unless present and
forseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational
activities that could be accommodated on the property is
already provided for in the area.

Section 30222

The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commer-
cial recreational facilities designed to enhance public oppor-
tunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over

SCLCP2/8 19

private residential, general industrial, or general commercial
development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent.
industry.

Section 30223

Upland areas necessary to suppor 't coastal recreational uses
shall be reserved for such uses where feasible.

Section 30224

Increased residential boating uses of coastal water 's shall be
encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing dry
storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, pro-
viding additional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting
non-water-dependent land uses that congest access corridors and
.preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of
refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural
harbors, new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from
dry land.

Section 30234

Facilities serving the commercial fishing and recreational
boating industries ',shall be protected and, where feasible,
upgraded. Existing commercial fishing and recreational boating
harbor space shall not be reduced unless the demand for those
facilities no longer exists or adequate substitute space has
been provided. Proposed recreational boating facilities shall,..
where feasible, be designed and located in such a fashion as
not to interfere with the needs of the commercial fishing
industry,

Section 30250(c)

(c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located
in existing developed areas shall be located in existing
isolated developments or at selected points of attraction
for visitors.

Section .30252

The location and amount of new development should maintain and
enhance public access to the coast by
(6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will
not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlat-
ing the amount of development with local park acquisition
and development.plans with the provision of onsite recrea-
tional facilities to serve the new development.

SCLCP2/8 20

Section 30253(5)

New development shall . . .
(5) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neigh-
borhoods which, because of their unique characteristics,
are popular visitor destination points for recreational
uses.

Section 30254

New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and
limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses
permitted consistent with the provisions of this division;
provided, however, that it is the intent of the Legislature
that State Highway Route 1 in rural areas of the coastal zone
remain a scenic two-lane road. ... Where existing or planned
public works facilities can accommodate only a limited amount
of new development, services to coastal dependent land use,
essential public services and basic industries vital to the
economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recrea--
tion, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses
shall not be precluded by other development.

3.2 Background

Currently there are no developed recreational or visitor serving facili-
ties within Sand City. Beach recreation is currently the primary type of
recreation in the City. There is an existing beach that extends from the
City's southern boundaries beyond Monterey Sand Company's seawall.
However, beyond Tioga Avenue, parts of this beach area may be inundated
during high tide. North of Monterey Sand Company's mining operation and
seawall, there is another stretch of beach extending to the City's
northern limits. However, future utilization of this beach may be con-
strained by the existing steep bluffs, which limit access opportunities.

The main area of beach recreation is the area between Bay and Tioga
Avenue which is utilized to some degree-for fishing, walking and viewing
the coast and the Monterey Peninsula. Drivers commonly park their
automobiles at the ends of Bay and Tioga Avenues in order to enjoy the
visual resources of the Monterey Bay. The City of Sand City has posted
signs indicating that walking and fishing are permitted at the end of Bay
Avenue, and south from Tioga Avenue along the closed portion of Vista Del
Mar Street. Off road vehicles have been observed in the dune area south
of Bay Avenue, although the City has an ordinance prohibiting use of off
road vehicles.

The State Department of Parks and Recreation currently owns some land
within Sand City. Located south of Bay Avenue, it is an area of active
sand dunes, characterized by shifting sand due to the absence of

SCLCP2/8 21

stabilizing vegetative cover. The properties in Sand City were
originally acquired as part of the South Monterey Bay Dunes Project. The
majority of the land for this future park is located south of Sand City
within the City of Monterey.

It was originally proposed that the state parklands in Sand City would be
used for coastal access and beach recreation, with a parking lot to be
loc ated outside of the City. Because the State does not own any ocean-
front property, and their lands are separated from the shoreline by
privately owned property, access and beach uses could be limited. it
seems appropriate that these state owned properties, at least in part,
could be utilized to provide public parking (as well as open space) for
beach access. A dune management program was also originally envisioned
by the State for these lands. Generally, dune management - progr s
require restrictions on public use in order to allow time for vegetation
to re-establish itself. If public parking were to be provided on some of
the state owned property, it would have to be coordinated with a dune
management program.

At this time, the South Monterey Bay Dunes Project is not an operating
state park, and there are no foreseeable plans for development of the
acquired properties in the near future. The acquired sites in Sand City
are interspersed with private holdings, and are likely to remain in open
space, as the State has no plans to sell the land.

Currently there are no commercial or recreational fishing-boating facili-
ties in the City. There is no commercial fishing that is established off
of Sand City's coastline.. Future establishment of boating facilities off
of Sand City's coastline would still come under Coastal Commission Juris-
diction and permit authority. However, permit authority for an inland
marina (inland of the mean high tide line) would be delegated to the
City. Recreational surf zone fishing along the coastline.does exist, but
does not require any special facilities.

It does not appear that boating facilities would be feasible in Sand City
due to wind and wave conditions. However, there is not any data avail-
able to determine feasibility. Section 30224 encourages provision of new.
boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas and in
areas dredged from dry land. The option for future recreational boating
facilities in Sand City should be left open, but only contingent upon
geologic and other feasibility studies.

Although currently there are no developed recreational or visitor serving
facilities in Sand City, existing facilities on the Monterey Peninsula
were evaluated to help determine visitor demands in Sand City. It was
found that visitor days spent on the Monterey Peninsula increased from 4
million days in 1965 to 8.8 million days in 1976, more than doubling in
ten years. Projections made by the City of Monterey indicate that the
visitor days spent on the Peninsula could reach 15.3 by 1985, nearly
twice as many as in 1976. This increase can be attributed in part to
improved accessibility to the Peninsula, improved facilities such as the
Monterey Peninsula Conference Center, and additional cultural and sport-
ing events.

SCLCP2/8 22

Visitor serving and recreational uses on the Peninsula take several
forms. . A variety of overnight lodging facilities (i.e., hotels/motels,
campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks) are available on the Penin-
sula within a wide range of rates.

State and regional parks and beach areas provide opportunities for walk-
ing, sightseeing and general beach uses. There are numerous parks and
visitor-serving attractions in the Monterey Peninsula region, which are
shown in Figure 5. In the vicinity of Sand City, there are two state
parks and a regional park facility (Laguna Grande), which is being
developed immediately southwest of Sand City. In addition to parks,
commercial recreation is available on the Peninsula, including golfing,
recreational fishing, boating and scuba diving.

The main recreational uses on the Monterey Peninsula are associated with
visitor-serving facilities, especially hotels and motels. Demand for
this type of visitor serving facility is high and is expected to in-
crease, according to projections made by the Associated Monterey Bay Area
Governments (AMBAG). Demands for public recreational facilities appear
to be lower than for visitor serving facilities. Although over a million
people visit State parks annually, the majority of the Peninsula's total
day visitors are sightseers, golfers, and special event visitors rather
than State park visitors. The existing parks in close proximity to Sand
City will help meet regional recreational demands.

The availability of land in Sand City can help meet regional visitor
serving demands. Nearly half of the lands west of State Highway One are
vacant. This presents many opportunities for visitor serving commercial
and recreational uses.

3.3 LCP Policies

3.3.1 Visitor-serving and public recreational uses are given priority
west of State Highway One, as designated on the Land Use Plan Map
in Section 6.0. Development of these uses shall be consistent
with the protection of natural and visual resources.

3.3.2 Encourage development of visitor serving facilities that provide
services which meet a range of visitor needs. Provision of
visitor facilities and services open to the general public, such
as but not limited to state park facilities, dedication of sandy
beach, and development of viewing areas and sheltered areas, is
expected as part of each shorefront development project. Lower-
cost visitor serving facilities such as campgrounds are
encouraged.

3.3.3 Permitted uses in areas designated as visitor serving commercial
include hotels, motels, accessory shops (including gift shops,
travel agencies, beauty shops, et cetera), food service estab-
lishments, service stations, recreation retail shops and services
(i.e., bike rentals), campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks and

SCLCP2/8 23

Legend:

A Seaside Boo
B Roberts Lak
0 0
C Laguna Ora
@,A r1c -1c
*0'p. D Del Monte Be
SCALE IN MILES
. V E Wharfs Mori
F Cannery Rau
0 Greenwood
ROVE Andy Jacob
H Lover's Pain
VIP I Ocean View
ej
IPacific Oro
J Asilomar Sto
OF
P tvrv 0, SEASIDE K Asilomor Can
L North Mass B
SFO
SO
19 AlfiNf Owl 1r_.r Seventeen-
RA
14
N CarmelBeac,
4. 0 Carmel River
of P Monastery E
0
V."Vr 0 Point Lobos
% N PEL Moiyyj FOREtT
% pSZ
t- is,

cothese 0
%
%%

TOR 0 C
ri,.VV/s 141010,VAL PAft qEqlomj
Z A cov MAUI--- 7wrAwr
N-
SOURCE: CITY OF MONTEREY P
CA e *fj
44 14WM4@

V.4.e
0 $AND CITY LCP LAND

CAeMfL
C46VAfle
IMVeNo REGIONAL RECREA
*404
'00@

foiF eius

Figure 6

other recreational facilities operated as a business and open to
the general public for a fee. Permitted uses in areas designated
as public recreation include public parks, picnic areas, parking
areas, sandy beaches and accessways which are publicly owned or
over which access easements are to be required as a condition of
development. In addition to areas designated public recreation
on the Land Use Plan Map, public recreation also means public
uses within development projects such as picnic areas, wind
shelters, promenades or other indoor public recreational area
uses where outdoor recrea-tion may not be favorable; other support
facilities for public recreational uses; and controlled public
access and/or educational programs in areas of dune restoration
programs.

3.3.4 Permitted timeshare residential units shall be restricted to
purchase in 31-day maximum increments and to occupancy for 31-day
maximum periods.

3.3.5 Require proposed visitor serving and recreational developments to
comply with development and design standards presented in Sec-
tions 5.3 and 6.4.

3.3.6 Encourage the State Department of Parks and Recreation to main-
tain and develop State owned lands in Sand City, or to evaluate
options for land exchanges or consolidation of holdings in order
to develop viable recreational uses in another area more suitable
for public recreation.

3.3.7 Encourage the State Department of Parks and Recreation to
develop, or allow the development of, public parking facilities
on a portion of their property holdings in Sand City.

3.3.8 Require all visitor serving developments to 'provide adequate
parking for the project users, commensurate with the proposed
use. The developer will have to provide an adequate number of
parking spaces to suit that development, including any public
uses on-site. In addition, the developer will be required to
provide additional public parking at a rate of 10% above the
project's total required parking, consistent with Policy 2.3.11.

3.3.9 Ensure provision of adequate public beach recreational areas for
public use commensurate with future population growth and devel-
opment, and compatible with existing development. Require the
dedication of all sandy beach areas seaward of the toe of the
dune, bluff or shoreline protection device as a condition of
future development.

3.3.10 Provide parks and open space areas for City residents at a level
commensurate with the City's population. New residential devel-
opments shall provide parks and open space areas for the resi4
dents of the development or pay in-lieu fees for resident park
development elsewhere in the City.

SCLCP2/8 25

3.3.11 Permit future development of a recreational boating facility only
if required geologic, environmental and economic studies demon-
strate its feasibility. This may need to include the provision
for a newly protected water area, such as could be provided by a
breakwater or groin. The Coastal Commission will maintain
jurisdiction and permit authority over all area seaward of the
mean high tide line. The City would expect that other agencies
acting on '_ such a project would ensure that construction of such
structures will not adversely impact Sand City's shoreline.

3.4 Recommended Implementation Actions

3.4.1 Revise Zoning Ordinance to include visitor serving and public
recreation designations.

3.4.2 Develop parking standards for visitor serving developments.
Further standards will need to be established for public parking.
(See Implementation Action 2.4.4.)

3.4.3 Develop a Park Dedication Ordinance to require developers of
residential properties to provide on-site recreational areas for
residents or to dedicate in-lieu fees for park development in
another . area. Standards should be developed to determine the
anount of dedication commensurate with the level of development,
and this should be included in the Ordinance.

SCLCP2/8 26

4.0 COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

4.1 Coastal Act Policies

Section 30230

Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where
feasible, restored. Special- protection shall be given to
areas and species of special biological or economic signifi-
cance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in
a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of
coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of
all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commer-
cial, recreational, scientific and educational purposes.

Section 30231

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters,
streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to main-
tain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the pro-
tection of human health shall be maintained and, where feas-
ible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse
effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling
runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and sub-
stantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging
waste water reclamation, maintaining 'natural vegetation buffer
areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing altera-
tion of natural streams.

Section 30233

(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters,
wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in
accordance with other applicable provisions of this divi-
sion, where there is no feasible less environmentally
damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation meas-
ures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects, and shall be limited to the following:

(1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent
industrial facilities, including commercial fishing
facilities.

(5) Incidental public service purposes, including, but
not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspec-
tion of piers and maintenance of existing intake and
outfall lines.

SCLCP2/9 27

(6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring
beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.

(7) Restoration purposes.

(b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried
out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wild-
life habitats'and water circulation. Dredge spoils suit-
able for beach replenishment should be transported for
such purposes to appropiiate beaches or into suitable
longshore current systems.

Section 30235

Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls,
cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters
natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required
to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing struc-
tures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when
designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local
shoreline sand -supply. Existing marine structures causing
water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish-
kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.

Section 30240

(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protec-
ted-against any significant disruption of habitat values,..
and only uses dependent on such resources shall be
allowed within such areas.

(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensi-
tive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall
be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible
with the continuance of such habitat areas.

Section 30244

Where development would adversely impact archaeological or
paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic
Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be
required.

SCLCP2/9 28

Section 30253

New development shall:

(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geo-
logic, flood, and fire hazard.

(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither
create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic
instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding
area or in any way require the construction of protective
devices that would substantially alter natural landforms
along bluffs and cliffs.

4.2 Background

4.2.1 Shoreline Sand Supply and Sand Mining

Permanent long-term erosion of the coastline has generally occurred along
Monterey Bay over the past 60 years. In the past, there has been quite a
bit of data generated in an attempt to calculate a sand budget for the
southern Montery Bay region. However, because various researchers have
made different assumptions regarding the various factors influencing sand
transport, an accurate sand budget has not been agreed upon.

Average annual erosion rates for Sand City in general, as esimtated by
previous researchers, range between 1.4 and 5 feet per year. Typically,
it has been found that permanent coastal erosion takes place along the
cliffs and bluffs as a result of major storms. There may be no erosion
for many years, and then significant erosion will result.. In addition,
erosion rates will vary at different points along the coast due to dif-
ferences in wave refraction, type of topography, and location. Thus, an
average uniform erosion rate cannot be applied to Sand City's coastline.

Currently, two existing sand mining operations in Sand City utilize the
surf zone and sand dunes as sources of sand. The sand mined by Monterey
Sand Company is from the surf zone and is unique and classified as
lospecialty" due to its physical characteristics, including its range of
grain size. The surf zone of southern Monterey Bay is one of few loca-
tions which produces this type of sand. As a result, Monterey Sand
Company's mining operations have been determined to be "coastal depen-
dent" by the Coastal Commission. Lone Star Industries currently mines
sand on its property for use as construction grade sand, which is not
considered a specialty use.

The major LSsues regarding surf zone sand mining are whether it contri-
butes significantly to erosion (because it removes sand from beaches that
protect bluffs) and its overall impact on longshore sand transport. Based
on review of available documented studies to date, there is no conclusive
evidence regarding the contribution of sand mining to coastal erosion.

SCLCP2/9 29

Most researchers are of the opinion that sand mining probably contributes
to coastal erosion, but studies conducted to date have not reliably
quantified the extent of the presumed contribution to erosion and thus
provide limited basis for attempting to determine whether the presumed,
contribution is "significant." In the absence of reliable quantified
documented evidence, it cannot be concluded that sand mining contributes
significantly to coastal erosion.

The actual sand mining operations (bucket and drag line) apparently do
not permanently damage the surf zone, because the removed sand is quickly
replaced. However, in late summer *and early fall, it may take several
hours for the sand to be replaced. It appears that the impact of sand
excavation is insignificant in comparison with the disturbance caused by
common rip currents.

Determining the quantitative impacts of surf zone sand mining on coastal
erosion would require an expensive, involved study because it would deal
with monitoring the coastline and movement of sand over time. Several
years ago, it was projected that over a period of five years such a study
would cost at least $500,000. While it was generally agreed that such a
study would provide meaningful data, it was also recognized that there
was no assurance that the study, or even a study over a duration as long
as 20 or 30 years, would yield a conclusive result on the issue of sand
mining's contribution to coastal erosion. Consequently, requiring such a
study as a condition of approval of new or expanded surf zone sand mining
appears to be unjustified and infeasible.

If new surf zone mining operations or expansion of existing operations
are proposed in the City, data should be required in order to fully
assess impacts, if any, and mitigations. Expanded operations mean a sig-
nificant increase in dragline capacity through the use of multiple drag-
lines. Any.-proposed new or expanded surf zone mining. operations will
require a Mining Permit. The Mining Permit will be processed according to
the standards of the State Mining and Reclamation Act as well as the LUP
Policies. The City will in its ImplementatLon Program, through a mining
ordinance, require that existing mining participate in a shoreline ero-
sion monitoring program. The City cannot approve a permit if it finds
that the mining has a significant adverse impact on the shoreline, as set
forth in the policies. It is also noted that the Coastal Commission (and
the State Lands Commission) will retain jurisdiction over mining seaward
of the Mean High Water (MEW) line and the City will regulate through the
Mining Permit and Coastal Permit the areas above the State's boundary.
Mining either below or above the MHW` line impacts shoreline erosion and
therefore the City finds the following policies as being necessary to
implement its LCP.

Sand dune mining has also occurred within the City. The quality of sand
from dunes is not as high as that mined from the surf zone for use as
specialty sands. Lone Star Industries mines dune areas on their property
in the northern portion of the City, west of State Highway One. The sand;
dunes west of Highway One are in a disturbed condition and contain no
natural habitat communities. While sand dune mining may not affect habi-
tat areas, it removes vegetation, thereby reducing dune stability and
creating conditions for blowouts. Dune mining may also impact visual
resources by causing alteration or loss of a unique landform.

SCLCP2/9 30

Several agencies regulate mining operations in the City. Permits are
required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State
Lands Commission for surf zone mining. The State Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 requires cities and counties to prepare an
ordinance to regulate surface mining operations and the preparation of
reclamation plans. Pursuant to this Act, the City will require all
surface mining operations to obtain a mining permit from the City. In
addition, all surface mining operations must submit to the City for
approval, a reclamation plan prepared on City applications as called for
by the Act. The plan must identify uses of the land after reclamation
and how the reclamation will be accomplished. Sand City has a draf t
ordinance and reclamation plan application, which has been reviewed by
the State and has been determined to be in conformance with State law.

4.2.2 Protective Shoreline Structures

Coastal bluffs and dunes within Sand City are subject to erosion, and
efforts to protect these bluffs from erosion have been made over the past
twenty years. There are 3 areas of existing seawalls within the City.
These seawalls are actually bluff protective structures rather than an
actual wall and consist of rip-rap and liquid concrete being poured into
the voids of the structure to bind the structure together. There is no
documented evidence that existing seawalls in Sand City have had negative
effects on the local sand supply, and long-term impacts of seawalls on
sand movement cannot be determined without data from a coastal monitoring
study.

In the past, seawalls in Sand City have been maintained to a large extent
with unconsolidated materials. This method of maintenance is not effi-
cient for' long-term bluff protection, is unsafe, may interfere with
public access, and may visually degrade the shoreline area. Concerns
also have been expressed regarding impacts of liquid concrete on onshore
marine organisms. However, this appears to be a minimal impact.

The Coastal Act permits the construction of seawalls, groins, break-
waters, revetments, cliff retaining walls and other similar devices that
alter natural shoreline processes in the following situations:

1. to serve coastal-dependent uses, and

2. to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from
erosion.

The Coastal Act prohibits the construction of protective devices for new
development which would substantially alter natural landforms along
cliffs and bluffs. The portions of Sand City's coastline which are not
currently protected by seawalls are not in a natural condition. most of
the unprotected area consists of active shifting sands that have been
severely impacted over time and are not in a natural condition. The dune
area in the northern part of the City has been mined and also is not in a
natural condition. There is also a bluff area that was once used as a
landfill site. As a result, part of the bluff is manmade, and unconsoli-
dated materials from this use are eroding from the bluff.

SCLCP2/9 31

Nearly half of Sand City's coastline is undeveloped and is susceptible to
coastal erosion. In the Monterey Sand Company Case (P-78-552), Commis-
sion staff seemed to suggest that the threat of erosion to existing pub
lic facilities (Vista del Mar Street and the Sewage Treatment Plant) was
a real possibility when they stated:
Much of the erosion occurs during major ocean stor . . . .
Public beaches and dunes at Marina, Sand City, and Seaside are
affected by erosion. Public works facilities at Sand City and
Marina are located just inland from the retreating bluffs. Also
there are some private propertiqs which lie close to the receding
shoreline, most notable the Holiday Ian within the City of
Monterey's boundaries.

Protection of Sand City's shoreline from further erosion, -whether de-
veloped or vacant, is a critical factor in securing-the long term protec-
tion of the City's existing structures, public facilities, and public
health and safety. Protection of Vista del Mar Street will secure an
important public access route. The existing sewage treatment plant and
new regional pump station and pipeline are critical links in a regional
sewage treatment program. . It is apparent that the existing structures
and public facilities near the City's shoreline are vital to serve the
public benefit, and their long term protection must be secured. In
considering future coastal developments as well as existing structures
(such as Vista Del Mar Street, the sewage treatment plant, individual
privately owned businesses, and State Highway One), some type of struc-
tural protective device may be necessary. The structures should be
designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand
supply, based on findings of site specific geologic reports.

Once constructed, seawalls require periodic maintenance, including re-
placement of rocks that have become dislodged, or addition of rocks.
Appropriate materials for maintenance of seawalls inclu4s liquid con-
crete, granitic rocks and sand. Methods of maintenance of existing
seawalls will be in accordance with standards adopted by the City.

Construction 'of new seawalls is the dominant issue regarding shoreline
protective measures. However, it should be mentioned that devices such
as groins and breakwaters also could affect shoreline processes because
they serve to trap sand upcoast and may accelerate erosion downcoast. In
1972, construction of a groin to create a public beach north of Bay
Avenue to Tioga Avenue was determined feasible from an engineering stand-
point. It also was found that there would be sufficient recreational
demand to warrant its development. At the time, it was determined to be
economically feasible, although it would not have been financially
feasible for the City of Sand City. The project never was initiated.

If similar proposals were developed in the future for recreational or
coastal dependent uses, there would be additional environmental factors
to be. considered, such as the impacts on sand transport. la addition,
complete economic and engineering studies would be necessary. However,
the options for this type of project should be left open, even though the
costs of such a project today may be prohibitive. It should be noted
that Sand City does not have jurisdiction over projects seaward of the
mean high tide line.

SCLCP2/9 32

4.2.3 Natural Hazards

Several natural hazards have been identified within the Coastal Zone.
These hazards have been grouped into 3 categories, as follows:

1. Geologic hazards, including seismic hazards, fault rupture, ground-
shaking, liquefaction, ground lurching and lateral spreading,
tsunamis and seiches, landslides and erosion;

2. Flooding; and

3. Fire.

Sand City, as well as the surrounding region, is located in a seismically
active area. The major fault zones in the vicinity are the San Andreas
(located approximately 20 miles to the northeast), the Monterey Bay fault
zone (located immediately west of Sand City in the Monterey Bay), and the
Hosgri-Palo Colorado-San Gregorio. These are all considered to be seis-
mically active and capable of generating major earthquakes. In addition,
there are fault traces underlying Sand City which are essentially con-
cealed onshore traces of the Monterey Bay Fault Zone, and therefore
should be considered to be active for preliminary planning purposes.
These faults are buried and their locations are inferred, as shown in
Figure 6. In order to assess the potential hazard to any proposed
structures, these faults should be located accurately in the field, and
an investigation of their degree of activity should be made.

Recognizing the seismic.risk in the region, several potential earthquake
hazards should be considered 'for impact in the Sand City area. These
hazards include primary effects of fault surface rupture and ground
shaking, as well as secondary effects, such as liquefaction, landsliding,
ground lurching, lateral spreading, tsunamis and seiches. . It is likely
that the Sand City area will experience strong seismic shaking in the
future. Fault movement causing ground shaking is the most significant
hazard to manmade structures, which could cause widespread damage.

Investigation by Geoconsultants indicates that the liquefaction potential
of sand deposits along the Monterey Coast beaches ranges between
"moderate to high" and "low to moderate." The possibility that liquefac-
tion may occur exists in Sand City, although there is not any data to
identify specific locations. Liquefaction potential should be investi-
gated as part of geologic investigation required for individual project
proposals. Such investigations will determine site locations that will
be subject to liquefaction and will present mitigation measures.

Because Sand City lies along the Pacific Coast, it may be subject to
tsunami hazards. Tsunami, also known as seismic sea wave, is a large
ocean wave generated by an earthquake or some other force causing water
displacement in the ocean. Projections of distant source tsunamis
indicate that the 100- and 500-year events would have a runup of 1.8
meters (6 feet) and 3.5 meters (11.5 feet), respectively. It should be
noted that although local-source tsunamis also may affect the area, no

SCLCP2/9 33

LEGEN
0 U -1100
Ood-Older Duns Sand i
Enganj
Od -Dune Sand SCALE IN FEET

Obs-Beach Sand
Sal
-Generalized Location of Contact
%cl
,,,*-Generalized Location of Concealed fault
X.-

Qod
Ord Terrace Fault

,,a V1.
Sc C
dtt

jkja
C&

Seaside fault

-69

SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

LOCAL GEOLOGY

SOURCE: GEOCONSULTANTS INC.
Figure 0

precise run-up hazard has been determined for these events as yet. In
view of the potential hazard impacts resulting from tsunamis, these
hazards should be evaluated in all future development plans for the
lowest lying portions of the City.

The unconsolidated beach sands and dunes of Sand City may be considered
to be unstable in that the loose sands are easily transported by wind or
water. Landsliding, in the form of slumps, however, presents a potential
hazard only in areas of steep bluffs.

It is generally agreed that the Monterey Bay shoreline has experienced
permanent long-term coastline erosion. However, there have been
substantial differences in calculations regarding an estimated average
annual erosion rate. It is apparent that the relative anount of cliff
retreat, with particular response to the influence of human activities,
including mining and urbanization, cannot be quantified with any degree
of certainty at the present time.

Floods become catastrophic only when people occupy the floodplain of a
.major drainage area. The 13.4 square mile Canyon Del Rey Basin bordering
Sand City to the south is the largest drainage basin of the Monterey
Peninsula. The Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District has classified this basin as having inadequate drainage to
handle historical and future floods. However, Sand City is not in a
flood hazard area as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Federal Flood Insurance Maps, except for the southwestern tip
of the City and the potential for inundation by storm waves, tsunamis or
seiches. Individual project proposals should specifically analyze and
mitigate these potential hazards.

Fire hazards are assessed according to structure size and.occupancy, type
of use and distance from the fire protection agency. The hazard'can be
increased when water lines are inadequately sized and pumping capacities
are below requirements.

In Sand City fire hazard problems do exist. Large warehouses and
manufacturing areas create safety concerns. The type of use should be
evaluated and an appropriate safety program implemented for each one of
these businesses. In addition, undersized water lines should be
replaced, pumping and storage capacities increased and the street
circulation system improved and upgraded.

It is not expected that limited access to land on the oceanside of
Highway One will influence response times. The existing fire response
time is less than 5 minutes. Any new development in Sand City will be
required to provide fire hydrants, access and fire prevention infra-
structure as required by the Uniform Building Code.

SCLCP2/9 35

4.Z.4 Sand Dunes and Environmentally Sensitive Habitats

One of the most distinctive coastal landforms in the Monterey Bay region
is that of the Monterey Sand Dune complex, which extends from the Salinas
River south to Canyon del Rey. The State and previous Coastal Commission
decisions have identified the Monterey Sand Dune complex as one of the
largest dune complexes on the west coast, and therefore, as a whole, is
characterized as a unique resource.

Generally, dunes provide aesthetic menities, erosion protection from
wind and storms when stabilized by dune vegetation, and in some areas
dune habitats continue to display fine examples of native vegetation
within a fragile ecological community. On a regional level, the best
example of natural dune environment is at Salinas River State Beach.

Sand City's Coastal Zone has two distinct dune areas: the area west of
State Highway One and the area east of State Highway One. An ecological
survey performed in Sand City found that, generally, all dune areas have
been highly degraded and are in a disturbed state, especially in the area
west of State Highway One. As such, the City's dunes are probably the
most degraded within the regional Monterey dune complex.

The remaining dune areas also comprise a large portion of the City's
vacant land. As such, they are left to compete with other land uses and
resource demands such as mining, recreation, potential residential /urban
development, habitat areas, potential storm protection, and visual
resources.

The dunes west of State Highway One are in a severely disturbed state.
Due to human uses over time, the original dune landform, in this area is
generally absent. The majority of the dunes are active, characterized by
shifting sand.- Little plant life has established itself Qn these dunes,
and where there is vegetation, it is dominated by non-native invasive
vegetation. The area provides no natural habitats, although some native
species are found. The dunes have other valuable qualities, however,
including vis'ual qualities and the potential for wind and erosion pro-
tection when stabilized with vegetation.

The area east of State Highway One is more diverse compared to the area
west of State Highway One, having been impacted less; however, it is
still a disturbed area. Within this area (east of State Highway One),
there are 5 scattered locations which contain remnants of the fragile
-Coastal Strand comnunity or ecotones between it and inland communities.
These areas contain a variety of native species and some rare and en-
dangered species, including the rare wallflower, the rare Monterey
ceanothus, the rare and endangered Sandmat manzanita, and the food
species--buckwheat-for the rare and endangered Smith's Blue Butterfly.

SCLCP2/9 36

The Coastal Act defines "environmentally sensitive" habitat areas as:

any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are
either rare or especially valuable because of their special
nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily
disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.

Due to the presence of rare and endangered species east of State Highway
One, these areas are considered environmentally sensitive habitats, even
though they have been impacted over time and are in a disturbed state.
These areas are shown on Figure 7 and indicate generalized locations of
habitat areas. The Biological Survey conducted as a part of the LCP
identified only generalized locations of potential rare and endangered
species. No specific locations were identified. In many instances, only
a "few" rare species were noted within a large area.

The Coastal Act requires protection of habitat values within envirdn-
mentally sensitive areas. This means not only protection of rare and
endangered plants, but also protection and/or enhancement of the dune
coastal strand community within the environmentally sensitive habitat
area. - In Sand City, generalized locations of sensitive areas have been
identified. Future developments within these areas will be subject to
site specific review to determine exact locations of habitats and to
incorporate mitigation measures to minimize habitat impacts. The entire
area identified as an environmentally sensitive habitat must be protec-
ted, not just individual plants. Because these areas consist mostly of
disturbed remnants of the coastal strand habitat, mitigation based on
individual project proposals is the best method to minimize impacts.

Future development west of Highway One (where no environmentally sensi-
tive habitats exist) should consider dune management programs as part of
the development. Future dune management programs can take the form of
stabilization and/or restoration. Dune restoration means that the 'dunes
are restored to their native plant condition. This is a long-range
process, laborious, generally cannot be applied on a large scale, and
requires rigid control of. human access. in order to be effective. it
appears that dune stabilization is a more practical process than dune
restoration; however, it involves utilization of exotic species. While
stabilization provides an immediate solution to the problems of active
sand dunes, it often leads to long-range elimination of native plant
communities. The existing State Parks property offers an opportunity for
reconstruction or restoration of the native dune habitat (the portion of
Area 2 owned by the State, identified in the Land Use Analysis in
Appendix E).

4.2.5 Marine and Water Resources

Section 30230 of the Coastal Act refers to the protection of marine re-
sources. Currently there are two uses which may impact marine resources.
One relates to use of liquid concrete for seawall maintenance. There has
been concern in the past that water used to wash empty concrete trucks

SCLCP2/9 37

0 E R E y A

L U P

NOT CERTIFIED

4..
40,, city L."Ats
C3
0 op,hrl

M AP OF
CITY OF SAND CITY see laws
SCALS #0 01141

Legend;

SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS
( Generalized Locations )
HABITAT RESTORATION AREAS SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN
DUNE STABILIZATION I RESTORATION AREA4 COSTAL RESOURCES
Within Future Developments

ARCHAEOLOGICAL'SENSITIVITY AREAS Figure 7

was being discharged into Monterey Bay. As a result, the property owner
agreed to construct an on-site percolation pond in order to retain the
washwater. Another concern was that liquid concrete smothers organisms
found in the sand. However, this appears to be a minimal impact, which
can be mitigated through regulation of seawall maintenance methods.

The other impact relates to the sewage treatment plant in Sand City.
Currently the plant discharges primary treated sewage into the Monterey
Bay. As part of a regional sewage treatment program, a pipeline is
currently being constructed which will extend from the City of Monterey's
treatment plant to a location north of Marina. It will carry the dis-
charge from all Peninsula cities, including Sand City, and discharge into
the Bay via a deep water outfall north of Marina. Discharge into the Bay
from Sand City will be eliminated upon completion of the pipeline, which
is anticipated in 1982.

The Seaside' Aquifer provides water for Sand City and other Peninsula
areas. The general location of the aquifer, as it is presently known, is
shown on Figure 8.

There has been concern in the past regarding water supply and quality in
this aquifer. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) Water
Resources Inventory Report #82, the aquifer was overdrafted between 1966
and 1977. However, the aquifer is presently not in an overdrafted condi-
tion. There is a surplus of water which has been recommended to aid in
the prevention of saltwater intrusion.

Saltwater intrusion has occurred within the Seaside/Sand City vicinity,
in two wells monitored by the U.S.G.S. This was a localized situation,
occurring in wells close to the coast, where pumpage has lowered water
levels to below sea level. Well analyses in other Seaside wells do not
show that seawater intrusion has occurred. A well monitoring program was
recommended by the U.S.G.S. to be used as an early warning system for
potential groundwater problems.

Additional new water wells in Sand City could create an overdraft which
could lead to seawater intrusion; however, this cannot be substantiated.
It would depend on the location and pumpage of the well, and the accuracy
of available water supply data. A new well water system would not be
allowed without the approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District (MFWMD). The District has the authority to approve or deny any
new water well system proposals. The City only has authority over new
water well systems through conditioning of development proposals. Permit
authority is granted to the MPWMD for new well water systems. The
District would review the available water data, the proposed well water
system, its use and pumpage, and evaluate potential overdraft and
saltwater intrusion impacts. Review and approval through MPWMD provides
adequate management of potential overdraft and saltwater intrusion
impacts. In support of MPWMD's review and permit authority, the City
should incorporate these requirements into City development review.

SCLCP2/9 39

0 4.4

SCALE IN MILES

LKL
4.4

Z.
%'AND CITY

pm* sm 3
460

2.2
MW

9cm -,cr
WARY

2
MATOON a !as

10
.9 ct .5 a
W

61.04 3.3

4@uw" paw

.Now" 2
2A cmw 4

9.5

40. ckwu

A I

Sowc*:AAA $AND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN
Legend:
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER SEASIDE AQUIFER
STORAGE BASIN
APPROXIMATE WATERSHED Figwo 8
BOUNDARIES

In addition, requiring quality monitoring on new wells would be enforced
through the MPWMD and the County Environmental Health Department if they
were to allow any new water well systems in Sand City. The MPWMD has
indicated that they will embark on drilling a well in Sand City for the
purpose of monitoring saltwater intrusion (quality) along the coast.

4.2.6 Archaeological Resources

A preliminary archaeological survey prepared for Sand City indicated that
there is one potential area of archaeological sensitivity in the south-
western coastal portion of the City, as shown on Figure 7. This area is
of potential archaeological significance because there is a recorded
resource in the area. It is possible that buried prehistoric resources
may be found within the City, although currently there is not sufficient
available data to pi7edict any locations, nor is there reason to believe
that any extensive archaeological resources will be located. Any
resources that may be found should be small, such as temporary occupation
areas in the dunes, specific resource gathering or processing areas, and
relatively isolated burial sites. Development proposals in this area
should be required to submit archaeological surveys by a qualified
archaeologist to determine the presence and significance of archaeo-
logical resources, if any, and to recommend mitigations if necessary.

4.'3 LCP Policies

Shoreline Sand Supply and.Sand Mining

4.3.1 Support the continuation of coastal-dependent sand mining opera-
tions.

4.3.2 New surf zone sand mining or expansion of existing surf zone sand
mining shall be allowed only pursuant to approval of a Coastal
Permit, Mining Permit and a Reclamation Plan. Expansion of
existing surf zone mining operations means a significant increase
in dragline capacity through multiple draglines, larger buckets,
or change in dragline location. .

The City shall also establish in its Implementation Plan a method
of monitoring shoreline erosion along the Sand City coast for the
purpose of analyzing future mining proposals. This method shall
consist of the submission by sand mining operations, on an annual
basis, of meaningful information on shoreline retreat by way of a
benchmark program or other equally effective measurement.

The City shall not approve or renew a Coastal Permit for new or
expanded surf zone sand mining if it finds that such new or
expanded sand mining, either individually or cumulatively, will
have significant adverse impacts on shoreline erosion. Such'
determination shall be made upon consideration of the results of
the continuing shoreline erosion monitoring program, available

SCLCP2/9 41

evidence on the impact of surf zone sand mining on coastal
erosion, and other relevant social, economic, environmental and
technological factors.

Any Coastal Permit shall be issued subject to a condition that
will permit the City to require that sand mining activity be
reduced to previous levels (prior to the issuance of a Coastal
Permit) or terminated (in the case of a new sand mining opera-
tion) if the continuing analysis or other available evidence on
the impact of beach and s-urf zone sand mining on shoreline ero-
sion shows that such operations have a significant adverse impact
on shoreline erosion.

4.3.3 Enact an ordinance relating to surface mining and reclamation
standards pursuant to the California Surface Mining and Reclama-
tion Act of 1975 in order to regulate dune mining operations and
reclamation procedures. As part of reclamation plans, require
development of dune management programs within dune stabiliza-
tion-restoration areas shown on the Coastal Resources Map.

4.3.4 Limit dune mining operations to areas which meet any of the
following criteria except for areas designated as sensitive
habitat, restoration or restoration/stabilization on the Coastal
Resources Map. An otherwise authorized existing dune-mining
operation may continue to operate under this policy without an
industrial designation as a non-conforming use.
a. areas where previous dune mining activity has occurred.
b. where dunes *are in a severely disturbed condition. Severely
disturbed dunes are those without stabilizing vegetation and
those which are active.
c. Areas which have been severely disturbed by activities
.related to and in support of coastal dependent sand mining.

Protective Shoreline Structures

4.3.5 Permit construction and maintenance of all shoreline protection
devices (including seawalls) in situations where they are neces-
sary to protect existing structures, coastal-dependent uses,
pu@lic beaches and recreational areas, and public works. In the
area south of Tioga Avenue, permit repair and expansion of a
shoreline protective device only to protect Vista del Mar Street,
an existing structure and major shoreline access route. Permit
the construction and maintenance of new shoreline protective
devices between existing shoreline protective devices north of
Tioga Avenue where the geologic report has determined the tech-
nical feasibility of such construction. Permit construction of
shoreline protective structures on the old landfill site if the
geologic report demonstrates the necessity of such construction..
and if the development includes removal of all former landfill"
debris and garbage, in order to improve geologic stability and

SCLCP2/9 42

public health and safety. Such structures must not reduce or re-
strict public access, adversely affect shoreline processes, or
increase erosion on adjacent properties.

4.3.6 If shoreline protection devices are found to be necessary,
require complete geologic and engineering studies to determine
the proper design appropriate to identified site conditions. The
device should be designed to minimize visual intrusion.

4.3.7 Allow periodic maintenance of existing shoreline protection
devices (including seawalls) and replacement of reinforcement
with liquid concrete, granitic rocks, sand, or any material
deemed appropriate from an engineering and visual standpoint.
Appropriate maintenance materials shall be in accordance with
standards adopted by the City. Prohibit dumping of other un-
consolidated materials onto seawalls.

Natural Hazards,

4.3.8 All developments shall be sited and designed to minimize risk
from geologic, flood or fire hazards.

4.3.9 Require preparation of geologic and soils reports for all new
developments located in the coastal zone. The report should
address existing and potential impacts, including ground shaking
from earthquakes, direct fault offset, liquefaction, landslides,
slope stability, coastal bluff and beach erosion, and storm wave
and. tsunami inundation. The report shall identify appropriate
hazard setbacks or identify the need for shoreline protective
devices to secure long-term protection of Sand City's shoreline,
and shall recommend mitigation measures to minimize identified
impacts. The reports shall be prepared by qualified individuals
in accordance with guidelines of the California Division of Mines
and Geology, the California Coastal Commission, and the City of
Sand City. Geologic reports shall include the following:

a) Setback measurements that are determined from the most inland
extent of wave erosion, i.e., blufftop or dune or beach
scarp; if no such feature is identifiable, determine setback
from the point of maximum expected design storm wave runup.

b) Setbacks based on at least a 50-year economic life for the
project.

c) The California Division of Mines and Geology criteria for
reports, as well as the following:

1) description of site topography;

SCLCP2/9 43

2) test soil borings and evaluation of suitability of the
land for the proposed use;

3) evaluation of historic, current and foreseeable cliff and
beach erosion, utilizing available data;

4) discussion of impacts of construction activity on
stability of site and adjacent area;

5) analysis of ground and surface water conditions, inclu-
ding any hydrologic changes caused by the development;

6) indication of potential erodibility of site and recomr-
mended mitigation measures;

7) potential effects of seismic impacts resulting from a
maximum credible earthquake and recommended building
design factors and mitigation measures;

8) evaluation of off-site impacts; and

9) alternatives (including non-structural) to the project.

4.3.10 Encourage the clustering of developments away from potentially
hazardous areas and condition project permits based upon recom-
mendations pres'ented in the geologic report.

4.3.11 No development will be allowed in the tsunami runup zone,'unless
adequately mitigated. The tsunami run-up zoae--and appropriate
mitigations, if necessary, will be determined by the required
site-specific geological investigation.

4.3.12 Den@r a proposed development if it is found that natural hazards
cannot be mitigated as reco nded in the geologic report, and
approve proposed developments only if the project's density
reflects consideration of the' degree of the on-site hazard, as
determined by available geotechnical data.

4.3.13 Implement building setbacks from active or potentially active
fault traces of at least 50 feet for all structures. Greater
setbacks may be required where it is warranuted by site specific
geologic conditions and as determined by the geologic report.

4.3.14 Require all new developments to be designed to withstand expected
ground shaaking during a major earthquake.

SCLCP2/9 44

4.3.15 Require the developer of a parcel in an area of known geologic
hazards to record a deed restriction with the County Recorder
indicating the hazards on the parcel and the level of geotech-
nical investigations that have been conducted.

4.3.16 Require drainage plans for developments proposed on coastal
bluffs that would result in significant runoff which could
adversely affect unstable-coastal bluffs or slopes.

4.3.17 Require all new developments to conform to minimum road design
standards to ensure adequate fire protection access.

4.3.18 Require minimal water flow rates and fire response times for all
developments in the coastal zone.

Sand Dunes and Environmentally Sensitive Habitats

4.3.19 Designate general areas as sensitive habitats as shown on the
Coastal Resources Map (Figure 7). Where development is proposed
in these areas, require field surveys by qualified biologists or
agencies in order to determine exact locations of environmentally
sensitive habitat areas and to recommend mitigation measures to
minimize habitat impacts. Standards for biological field surveys
will be set forth by the City.

4.3.20 Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected as
follows:

a) - Habitat Areas 1 and 2 (shown on Figure 7.; south of Tioga
along the inland side of the freeway) are designated as
habitat consolidation and preservation areas. In these
small-lot areas, where a specific plan is required for future
development, habitat ares. shall be consolidated, enhanced,
and preserved thereafter, and development shall be clustered.
Any adverse impacts of such a specific development plan on
native plant habitat (destruction of individual plants,
elimination of natural dune area) may be mitigated, in addi-
tion to the required consolidation, off-site in designated
restoration areas (see Policy 4.3.22b).

b) Habitat Area 3 (shown on Figure 7; north of Tioga along the
freeway) is designated as a habitat preservation area.
Development shall be limited to research and education,
removal of iceplant, and fencing or other means of public
access control.

SCLCP2/9 45

c) Habitat Area 4 (shown on Figure 7; north of the Monterey Sand
Co. road along the freeway) is designated as a habitat
preservation and enhancement arO-a. No development shall
occur except for native habitat enhancement activities,
research and education, including removal of iceplant, plant-
ing of suitable native plant species, installation of
temporary irrigation systems, and fencing or other means of
public access control. Existing native plant communities in
this area shall not b&-disrupted by enhancement activities.

d) Habitat Area 5 (shown on Figure 7; north of Tioga along the
SPRR) is designated as a habitat relocation area. Tn this
area, no development (such as grading or removal of major
vegetation) shall occur unless and until the endangered
species Monterey ceanothus (C. rigidus) and Sandmat manzanita
(Arcostaphylos pumila) are 3oth successfully established in
a 4 or another suitable area of the coastal zone (see
Policy 4.3.22b).

e) New uses proposed adjacent to locations of known environ-
mentally sensitive habitats shall be sited and designed to
prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas,
and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat
areas.

4.3.21 Protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas by developing and
implementing standards for development (including vegetation
removal, excavation, grading, filling and the construction of
roads and structures). Standards should include, but may not be
limited to:

a) encourage retention of open space through deed restrictions
-or conservation easements;

b) restrict land disturbance and the removal of indigenous
plants to the minimum anount necessary for structural i=-
provements;

c) require incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures such
as setbacks, buffer strips, landscape plans, drainage control
plans and restoration;

d) where appropriate and feasible, allow the exchange of exist-
ing resource areas for other open space areas that would
provide a more logical location for open space and that could
be planted with those species found in the resource area; and
A) require landscaping with native coastal plants in developmen@'
proposals.

SCLCP2/9 46

4.3.22 Plans for protection of environmentally sensitive habitat shall
be subject to the following standards:

a) Prior to any development or specific plan approval which
affects habitat areas identified on Figure 7, a qualified
professional botanist shall prepare a plant survey and plan
for the affected area which includes:

1) description of type and location of existing native and
other species;

2) protection goals consistent with Policy 4.3.20;

3) in habitat preservation areas: methods for controlling
public access and eliminating invasive non-native species
(iceplant);

4) in habitat enhancement and consolidation areas: irriga-
tion, fertilization and long-term maintenance require-
ments, and methods of establishing new native plants
(e.g., seeding, transplanting) and eliminating iceplant;

5) mitigation measures for adverse impacts, such as loss of
transplants to shock;

6) schedule setting forth time requirements for plant
establishment, dune stabilization, access controls, etc.;

b) Prior to approval of any development, specific plan, public
.works project or tentative subdivision map for these areas
which may require habitat relocation or off-'site restoration
activities, a qualified professional botanist shall prepare a
plan which, to the satisfaction of the California Department
-of Fish and Game, demonstrates:

1) the long-term suitability of the restored habitat for
these species, including but not limited to wind protec-
tion, soil condition, and acre-for-acre replacement of
habitat;

2) the management methods needed for installation, nurtur-
ing, and permanent protection of the restored habitat,
including but not limited to the method of establishment
(seed, hydromulch, transplant), and access restrictions;

3) the requirements for successful establishment of each
species in another location, after which removal of the
original plants may be possible.

Prior to the commencement of any development which affects
Areas 1, 2, or 5, the rare and endangered species located in
these areas shall be successfully established in the appro-
priate locations (see Policies 4.3.20.a and 4.3.20.d).

SCLCP2/9 47

c) All habitat protection plans shall include the maximum
feasible planting or protection of dune buckwheat (Eriogonum
parvifolium) and E. latifolium) as a food source tor the
endangereT Smith'T blue butterfly (Shijimiaeoides enoptes
smithi).

d) All habitat protection plans shall contain an implementation
and management component which provides for:

1) fencing, signing, or other appropriate access control
measures to be installed as a condition of development
(or as a condition of permits for restoration activities
if no other development is proposed).

2) responsibility by the developer for habitat installation,
maintenance and preservation for at least five years.
Permanent maintenance shall also be provided for, with
reliance on public and/or private funding sources and
ownership. Options for such management may be further
pursue*d as part of the Implementation Plan, and shall
include at least:

(a) contribution of funds by developments requiring hab-
itat preservation/enhancement/relocation measures.

(b) dedication of restored habitats to a public agency
or. private conservation organization with habitat
management capabilities.

4.3.23 Require implementation of dune stabilization and/or restoration
pro.grams as a part of new developments west of"Highway One, in
areas shown on Figure 7. Requirements for these programs shall
include:

a) A professional survey and habitat protection plan including
relevant items set forth in Policy 4.3.22a.

b) Identification of any grading proposed for recontouring
and/or dunje stabilization.:

c) Maximum use of native plant materials, including rare and
endangered species.

d) A maintenance program which includes:

1) initiation of restoration activities prior to occupancy
of new developments.

2) completion of * restoration activities within a five-year
period, during which the owner, developer, homeowners
association, an assessment district or other appropriate
management agency accepts responsibility for the restora-
tion activity,

SCLCP2/9 48

3) permanent preservation and maintenance of the restored
habitat by integration with a development's general
landscape program, dedication to a public agency, or
other method.

4) effective restrictions for prohibiting vehicular access
and managing pedestrian access to and through such areas.

4.3.24 Designate areas especially suitable for dune habitat restoration
on the Coastal Resources Map (Figure 7). These include:

a) a triangular area of dune face, north of Tioga and inland of
the freeway, which is vegetated with iceplant.

b) the area currently used as the Seaside Sanitation District
Treatment Plant, which -will be retained in open space after
the plant is demolished.

c) the area between the Treatment Plant and Sand Dunes Drive,
which is vegetated with iceplant.

d) portions of Sensitive Habitat Area #4, which contain iceplant
and other non-native species.

e) three areas west of the freeway north of Bay Avenue des-
ignated for s tabilization/restorat ion as part of future
development. -

Require these areas to be maintained in open space, and prohibit
grading except in conjunction with an approved habitat restora-
tion activity, or in area (b) in conjunction with treatment plant
construction, operation, or demolition, or in area (c) in con-
junction with a* development approved pursuant to Policy 6.4.10
(Option 2). Permit these areas to be used for restoration or
enhancement of native dune plant habitats, establishment of new
habitat for rare or endangered species, and in conjunction with
approved development for off-s.ite habitat mitigation.

4.3.25 Enhance coastal plant communities by requiring new developments
to utilize appropriate native coastal plants in landscaping plans
that are compatible with existing native species. Prohibit the
use of invasive plants in landscaping schemes.

4.3.26 All off-road vehicles shall be prohibited on the dunes, except
those necessary for emergency and to support coastal dependent;
uses and shall be limited to existing paths and stockpiles in
order to protect dune vegetation.

SCLCP2/9 49

4.3.27 Where major access routes are available or desirable through sand
dunes to the coast, boardwalks or other appropriate pathways
constructed of permeable materials should be provided to protect
the vegetation stabilizing the dunes.

Marine and Water Resources

4.3.28 Protect marine resources @or long term commercial, recreational,
scientific and educational purposes.

4.3.29 Protect the water quality of the ocean. Sources of pollution to
coastal waters shall be controlled and minimized.

4.3.30 Regulate seawall maintenance methods in order to prevent poten-
tial impacts to marine resources.

4.3.31 Require future deve lopments which utilize private wells for water
supply to complete adequate water analyses in order to prevent
impacts on Cal-Am wells in the Seaside Aquifer. These analyses
will be subject to the review and approval of the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District. In support of MPWMD's
review and permit authority, the City should incorporate these
requirem nts irito City development review.

4.3.32 Encourage well monitoring programs which will provide an early
warning system for potential groundwater quality problems'result-
ing from seawater intrusion.

Archaeological Resources

4.3.33 Designate general locations as areas of archaeological sensiti-
vity as shown on Figure 7. . Where development is proposed in
these areas, require a survey by a qualified archaeologist to
determine the existence and significance of any on-site archaeo-
logical resources and recommend mitigation measures. If such
resources are found reasonable, site-specific mitigation measures
shall be required as a condition of the development permit.

4.4.34 Require protection, evaluation, and/or r- val under supervision
by a qualified archaeologist and consultation with a qualified.
Native American representative, archaeological resources that may';
be found during the construction process.

SCLCP2/9 50

4.4 Recommended Implementation Actions

4.4.1 Adopt Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance.

4.4.2 Develop standards and guidelines for required geologic report.

4.4.3 Develop standards to determine acceptable risk levels associated
with geologic, flood or fire hazards.

4.4.4 Develop standards and guidelines for required biological surveys.

4.4.5 Develop standards for development within and adjacent to environ-
mentally sensitive habitats as identified by biological surveys.

4.4.6 Develop landscaping guidelines for utilization of native plants.

4.4.7 Develop design and maintenance guidelines for dune stabilization
programs.

SCLCP2/9 51

5.0 COASTAL VISUAL RESOURCES

5.1 Coastal Act Policies

Section 30251

The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be
considered and protected as a resource of public importance.
Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect
views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to
minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually
compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where
feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually
degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as
those designated in the California Coastal Preservation and
Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion and by local government shall be- subordinate to the
character of its setting.

5.2 Background

5.2.1 Existing Visual Resources

Sand City's coastal zone is separated by Highway One, which forms a
distinguishing boundary between the City's visual resources. The area
west of Highway One is characterized by shifting sands, non-native ice-
plant, beaches, coastal bluffs and views of Monterey Bay. The area east
of Highway One is characterized as primarily industrial due to the
existing land uses outside of the coastal zone.

Sand City's.vi ewshed consists of coastal views and viewsiof the Monterey
Peninsula from Highway One, Sand Dunes Drive, Tioga and Bay Avenues, and
existing developed portions of Sand City and Seaside (the area east of
Highway One). In addition, views of Monterey Bay and portions of Sand
City can be-seen from areas on the Monterey Peninsula. Generally, Sand
City's coastal zone is highly visible from Highway One.

Views of Monterey Bay and Monterey Peninsula can been seen while
travelling along Highway One. These views are broken and obstructed by
dunes and, to a less er extent, by existing uses. However, at several
points in Sand City along Highway One, view corridors do exist.

These corridors were evaluated according to significance of views and
relationship to existing dunes. As a result, view corridors and vista
points requiring protection have been designated in general locations as
shown on Figure 9. In some cases, where the elevation of Highway One is
much greater than properties to the west of it, view corridors are
established over development, so the line of sight from Highway One is
not obstructed. Other corridors are generally established to be free of;
structures except for parking, public facilities or public recreation.

The evaluation of view corridors concluded that visual corridors could be
established in various locations throughout the City, based on open views
to the ocean and the Peninsula. However, many areas could not be

established as view corridors due to location of existing industrial
development and potential future developments. The visual analysis also
concluded that stationary views, such as at vista points, are a valuable
alternative to view corridors for the protection of visual resources.

Inland from Highway One, developed portions of Sand City and Seaside can
be viewed. This area is not, for the most part, within the coastal zone.
Longer range views from northern portions of the Monterey Peninsula
provide open views to Sand City. ,

Areas east of Highway One are not considered to be visually significant.
Most people driving along Highway One are drawn to the visual resources
to the west, such as the ocean. The environmentally sensitive areas east
of Highway One are landforms, yet they do not contain significant
aesthetic features to the passerby on Highway One.

Currently there are no officially designated scenic roads or highways in
Sand City. There are two areas of significant stationary views at the
end of Bay and Tioga Avenues. In addition, the blufftop at the old
landfill site is used for viewing the coast. These viewpoints represent
stationary vistas, as opposed to short term views experienced by those
travelling on Highway One.

The issue of visually degraded areas is one that is difficult to evaluate
because it is subjective. Generally, visually degraded areas are those
resulting from developments which are improperly sited, designed or
landscaped. At other times, human uses can impact natural processes and
result in impacts such as erosion.

In Sand City, there are two types of visually degraded areas. One is the
scattered location. of industrial uses -- sand mining qperations and a
storage yard west of Highway One. While these uses izay be visually
distracting to some motorists on Highway One, others would argue that the
views of the Ocean and the Monterey Peninsula lessen the visual impact of
the industrial uses. Visual restoration of these areas would be
difficult due to the heavy industrial character of these existing uses.

Other visually degraded areas include a . seawall located at the end of
Tioga Avenue and an area of sand dunemining. In the past, the seawall
was considered to be visually degrading to the surrounding area due to
the use of improper materials. Existing sand mining operations are
cutting away at high standing sand dunes located in the northern part of
the City west of Highway One.

5.2.2 Future DiesignConsiderations

View enhancement is an important aspect of Sand City's LCP. Currently,.
Sand City does not have any policies pertaining to design and location of,-
development. The City's Zoning Ordinance does provide for the estab-
lishment of a "Design Control" overlay district. This district would
require all developments to obtain a design permit, and all permit
applications are reviewed by a Design Committee. To date, this zone has
not been applied within the City, and no design standards have been
developed.

Development of "Design Criteria" that would outline standards for build-
ing and site design and landscaping for future development would serve to
enhance and maintain the visual resources in Sand City. The fact that
many lands within the coastal zone are undeveloped presents a rare
opportunity to establish a design image fo 'r future development. Design
criteria are especially needed in areas of Sand City that were previously
subdivided into numerous small lots. Future development of these areas
could result in piecemeal development, ultimately affecting the City's
visual resources.

As part of the LCP, preliminary design criteria have been developed to
address design issues related to site development, building design, and
landscaping. These design standards are presented in the following
Policy Section. The development of these standards has been guided by
the following concerns:

1. the protection and enhancement of visual access, views and
scenic areas;

2. the assurance of visual and functional compatibility of new
development with site characteristics and the existing City;

3. the assurance of visual and functional compatibility among new
developments within the shoreline area;

4. the protection and/or utilization of significant landforms; and

5. improvement and upgrading of the image of the City as a whole.

5.3 LCP Policies

5.3.1 Views of Sand City's coastal zone shall be enhanced and protected
through regulation of siting, design, and landscaping of all new
development in the coastal zone, adjacent to Highway One (on both
the east and west) in order to minimize the loss of visual re-

sources.

5.3.2 Views of Sand City's coastal, zone, Monterey Bay and Monterey
Peninsula shall be protected through provision of view corridors,
vista points, development height limits, and dune restoration
areas, as shown on Figure 9. Major designated view corridors
are:

a) Southbound view across the northern city boundary consistent
with the public recreation designation;

b) View over development at the former dump site;

c) Three southbound views over development on properties between
Tioga Avenue and the former dump site; and

d) Southbound and perpendicular views across the Sewage Treat-
ment Plant property and adjacent properties to the ocean and
Monterey Peninsula.

SAND CITY SHORELINE

R E r
a A

LUP 1.00 00 0
ks 0 0
NOT CERTIFIED '000"
0 0
0 00
01 so

All"
0

a, G1 to 'i"Is

-1-MMMM!
M
Legend: SCALK IN F991

VISTA POINTS

OPEN VIEW CORRIDORS

VIEW CORRIDORS OVER DEVELOPMENT SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

DUNE PRESERVATION, STABILIZATION
A RESTORATION AREAS VISUAL RESOURCES
460 KEY COSTAL OVERVIEWS
Figum 9
Generalized Views from Hwy. 1 and Vista$

5.3.3 View corridors are defined as follows:

a) 'Views across' shall be protected by retaining the view
corridor free of new structures. These corridors will
continue to provide broad unobstructed views of the sand
dunes, shoreline, Monterey Bay, and the Monterey Peninsula
(southbound) or Santa Cruz Mountains (northbound).

b) 'Views over development' shall be provided by limiting the
maximum height of deirelopment to protect views of the sweep
of beach and dunes, Monterey Bay, and the Monterey Peninsula.
Each development proposed in these corridors shall include an
analysis prepared by a qualified professional that demon-
strates compliance with this policy, and approved develop-
ments will be required to comply with the terms of such
analysis. In measuring southbound views, viewpoints shall be
assumed to be from the center point of the corridor at an
elevation four feet above freeway grade in th "e southbound
traffic lane, to a point at the Coast Guard Station in
Monterey. Approved development shall not intrude upon, or
block, an unobstructed view of more than one-third of the
lineal distance across the Bay, measured as a straight line
between the freeway viewpoint and the landward edge of the
Coast Guard Breakwater.

5.3.4 Develop design standards for future development proposals, based
on LCP policies and the following general design guidelines.
These standards shall be used by the City's Design Committee to
insure that new development will be sited, designed and land-
scaped in a manner that provides view corridors and considers
protection and/or enhancement of visual resources in a manner
consistent with all LUP policies, including but. not limited to,
those governing required view corridors, dune preservation/
restoration areas, and height regulations.

Development Desi;n

a. Encourage project design that is compatible to its surround-
ings and that enhances the overall City image. All buildings
should be designed and scaled to the community character as
established by new development.

b. Encourage mass and height variations within coastal zoning
limits in order to provide view corridors and to generate
"lighter," "airier" buildings. Encourage building designs
that avoid overly bulky buildings that could significantly
block view corridors. (See Section 6.4.5.)

c. Require colors compatible with the natural setting. pis-,
courage garish colors. Encourage the use of earth tones.

Landscaping

d. Encourage simple planting arrangements in keeping with the
dunes/waterfront area. Encourage more concentrated plantings
closest to buildings, phasing to lower, more dispersed plant-
ings at the periphery of developments.

e. Utilize native plants in landscape plans. Discourage dense,
massive and tall plantmaterials.

f. Encourage the use of existing natural and manmade dunes as
earth berms for visual and noise barriers, as well as buffers
between land uses. Landforms are more efficient for visual
and noise reduction than planting screens.

g. Encourage dune building or berming around parking and roadway
areas. Discourage dune building at beach areas.

h. As a short term solution, encourage landscaping of the exist-
ing sewage treatment facility and new pump station (for the
Regional Facility) to screen it from view. If the Regional
Sewer Facility is constructed, encourage the demolition of
the existing Seaside Sewage Plant and screening of the re-
maining Regional Pump Station.

Road and Path Character

i. Encourage layout of roads and paths to conform to natural and
manmade contours. Encourage undulation; discourage rigid,
.formal layout. Re-evaluate the existing pap@r street layout
and, where feasible, abandon the rigid foimat of '-street
patterns for an undulated pattern. Encourage the use of
textured surfaces.

j. Encourage boardwalk pathways for pedestrian circulation
throughout sites.

k. Discourage multiple drives. Encourage the use of single
drives for ingress and egress. Encourage shared use of
single drive by several parking areas within a site. Where
possible, encourage shared use of entry drives by adjacent
property owners.

1. Encourage distinct separations between auto and pedestrian
pathways.

m. Prohibit use of vehicles on other than designated roadways or.
pathways, except for off-road vehicles necessary for emer-"'
genc7 uses and to support coastal dependent uses,

Parking

n. Encourage maximum use of covered parking, and require covered
parking to be grouped together.

o. Encourage use of underground and/or under-building parking.

p. Encourage uncovered parking to be broken up into smaller
groups and clustered around the site.

q. Encourage the use of compact-car parking stalls.

r. Encourage the layout of building and parking so that the
structure serves as a screen between parking and water. if
parking is exposed directly to water, encourage the use of
natural or manmade buffers.

Signs and Utilities

s. Highway direction and other public signs should be designed
to complement the visual character of the area. Outdoor
advertising signs along Highway One should not be permitted.

t. Encourage the use of wood signs and wood supports with
painted and/or carved graphics.

u. Encourage signs to be free-standing and low.

v. Commercial and industrial signs shall not be internally illu-
.minated.

w. Utility lines shall be placed underground wherever possible.

5.3.5 Require all future developments to obtain a design permit, in
order to assure conformance with the City's design standards, and
design compatibility with surrounding development. All design
permit applications shall be reviewed by the City's Design Com-
mittee.

5.3.6 Encourage restoration or enhancement, where feasible, of visually
degraded areas. Require landscaping to screen industrial uses as
a part of major planned improvements. Regulate seawall main-
tenance in order to eliminate unsightly features.

Views, Vista Points and Siting of Development

5.3.7 Require new developments to provide vista points along the
shoreline and blufftops in conjunction with provision of public
vertical and lateral accessways. Encourage provision of minor
vista points, such as pedestrian plazas in new projects.

5.3.8 In addition to view corridors designated on Figure 9, encourage
new developments to incorporate view corridors from Highway One
to the ocean, within project design, consistent with City
standards for view corridors. Such standards for view corridors
should include varied roof or building profile lines, and visual
corridors through, between and/or over buildings to the bay.

5.3.9 New development should to the extent feasible, soften the visual
appearance of major buildings and parking areas from view of
Highway One.

5.3.10 Utilize existing or manmade dunes within project design to
enhance visual resources.

5.3.11 In new developments, require dune stabilization measures where
feasible and where they would stabilize an unconsolidated dune,
and/or reduce views of the development from Highway One.

5.3.12 Encourage consolidation of small lots wherever possible in order
to enhance the opportunity for planned development, aid in pro-
tecting visual resources, and to better accommodate innovative
design features.

5.4, Reco-,-nded Implementation Actions

5.4.1 Apply the "Design Control" (DC) overlay zone district to all
properties in the coastal zone, east and west of Highway One.

5.4.2 Develop design standards regarding development, siting, building
design ' and landscaping to be used by the City's Design Com-
mittee.

5.4.3 Develop procedures and applications for design permits and
develop a design review process to be incorporated into the
Zoning Ordinance.

6.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT

6.1 Coastal Act Policies

Section 30007.5

The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may
occur between one or more policies of the division. The Legis-
lature therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions
of this division such conflicts be resolved in a manner which
on balance is the most protective of significant coastal
resources. In this context, the Legislature declares that
broader policies which, for example, serve to concentrate
development in close proximity to urban and employment centers
may be more protective, overall, than specific wildlife habitat
and other similar resource policies.

Section 30500.1

No local coastal program shall be required to including housing
policies and programs.

Section 30200

Consistent with the*basic goals set forth in Section 30001.5,
and except as may be otherwise specifically provided in ' this
division, the policies of this chapter shall constitute the
standards-by which the adequacy of local coastal programs, as
provided'in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500),-and, the.
permissibility of proposed developments subject to the provi-
sions of this division are determined. All public agencies
carrying-out or supporting activities outside the coastal zone
that could have a direct impact on resources within the coastal
zone shall consider the effect of such actions on coastal zone
resources in order to assure that these policies are achieved.

Section 30213

Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protec-
ted, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments
providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.

Neither the Commission nor any regional commission shall
either:, (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an
amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel,
motel or other similar visitor-serving facility located on
either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any
method for the identification of low or moderate income persons
for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room
rentals in any such facilities.

SCLCP2/13 60

Section 30222

The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commer-
cial recreational facilities designed to enhance public oppor-
tunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over
private residential, general industrial, or general c rcial
development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent
industry.

Section 30240(b)

Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive
habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and
designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade
such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of
such habitat areas.

Section 30250

(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development,
except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be
located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to,
existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where
such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas
with adequate public services and where it will not have
significant adverse effects, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land
divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses,
outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only
where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have.
been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller
than the average size of surrounding parcels.

(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall
be located away from existing developed areas.

(c) Visitor-serving facilities that c annot feasibly be located
in existing developed areas sh-all be located in existing
isolated developments or at selected points of attraction
for visitors.

Section 30252

The location and amount of new development should maintain and
enhance public access to the coast by:
(1) facilitating the'provision or extension of transit ser-
vice;

SCLCP2/13 61

(2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining
residential development or in other areas that will
minimize the use of coastal access roads;

(3) providing non-automobile circulation within the develop-
ment;

(4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substi-
tute means of serving the development with public trans-
portation;

(5) assuring the potential for public transit for high in-
tensity uses such as high rise office buildings; and by

(6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will
not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correla-
ting the amount of development with local park acquisition
and development plans with the provision of onsite recrea-
tional facilities to serve the new development.

Section 30253

New development shall:

(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geo-
logic, flood, and fire hazard.

(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither
create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic
instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding
area or in any way require the construction of protective.
devices that would substantially alter natural landforms
along bluffs and cliffs.

(3) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollu-
tion control district or the State Air Resources Control
Board as to each particular development.

(4) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled.

(5) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neigh-
borhoods which, because of their unique characteristics,
are popular visitor destination points for recreational
uses.

Section 30254

New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and
limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses
permitted consistent with the provisions of this division.

SCLCP2/13 62

Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where
assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce
new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing
or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a lim-
ited amount of new development, services to coastal-dependent
land use, essential public services and basic industries vital
to the economic health of the region, State or nation, public
recreation, commercial recreation and visitor-serving land uses
shall not be precluded by other development.

Section 30255

Coastal-dependent developments shall have priority 'over other
developments on or near the shoreline. Except as provided
elsewhere in this division, coastal-dependent developments
shall not be sited in a wetland. When appropriate, coastal-
related developments should be accommodated within reasonable
proximity to the coastal-dependent uses they support. (Amended
by Cal. Stats. 1979, Ch. 1090.)

Section 30260

Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to
locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted
reasonable long-term growth where consistent with this divi-
sion. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent facili-
ties cannot feasibly be accomm dated, they may nonetheless be
permitted in accordance with this Section and Sections 30261
and 30262 if:

(1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environment-
ally damaging;

(2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare;
and

(3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum
extent feasible.

6.2 Backaround

6.2.1 Existing Land Uses

Sand City's coastal environment consists primarily of vacant lands dis-
persed among commercial and industrial uses, especially east of Highway
One. The coastal area west of Highway One consists of vacant lands,
industrial uses (including coastal-dependent sand mining), and the Sea-
side Sewage Treatment Plant, a public facility. The City has a total of
94 housing units, three of which are located in the coastal zone east of
Highway One. Existing coastal land uses are illustrated in Figure 10.
Approximately one-half of the City is located in the Coastal Zone.

SCLCP2/13 63

r E
a A

\,C.Y. c-/

.. ........
...........
... ........ . . . .

0
0 u 1100
Legend: I @
SCALE IN FEET

HEAVY COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING

RESIDENTIAL

PUBLIC FACILITY SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

VACANT
COSTAL ZONE BOUNDARY LAND USE EXISTING COSTAL ZONE
AREA OUTSIDE COASTAL ZONE Figuro 10 dE

The only acknowledged coastal-dependent use found in Sand City is the
specialty sand mining operations of Monterey Sand Company. A clear
listing of coastal-dependent uses has not been established. However,
experience in other coastal jurisdictions indicates that the uses that
are considered to be coastal-dependent include aquaculture industries and
commercial fishing. The Coastal Act defines "Coastal-dependent
development or use" as any development or use which requires a site on,
or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all (Section 30101). A
"Coastal-related development" means any use that is dependent upon a
coastal-dependent development or use (Section 30101.3).

Section 30222 of the Coastal Act presents some priorities for land uses
in the coastal zone when it states that visitor-serving comm rcial recre-
ation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial,
or general commercial development, but not over coastal-dependent
industry. Section 30255 states that coastal dependent developments shall
have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. In
addition, Section 30254 suggests some priorities when it states that if.
existing or planned public works can only accommodate a limited amount of
new development, the following uses shall not be precluded by other
development.

1. coastal-dependent uses;
2. essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic
health of the region, State or nation;
3. public recreation;
4. commercial recreation; and
5. visitor-serving facilities.

Within Sand City's coastal zone, the only Coastal Act priority uses which
currently exist are coastal-dependent sand mining and the public sewage
treatment facility. Very little residential land use ctirrently exists
within the entire City. This has been one of the City's main concerns.
Sand City'3 current population is primarily housed in single family
dwellings. -Most of these units were developed in the 1920s and 1930s,
long before Sand City was incorporated in 1960. None of these units are
located in areas zoned for residential use. However, residential uses
may be conditionally permitted in zones 'other than residential in Sand
City. Sand City's coastal zone contains three of the city's 94 dwelling
units. Much of the City's housing stock has deficiencies and is in need
of minor to major repairs.

Recently enacted state legislation affects housing in the coastal zone.
Passage of SB 626 no longer requires the inclusion of housing policies in
a local coastal program. Comprehensive housing policies and programs are
required as part of the City's' Housing Element to the General Plan. SB
626 transfers the responsibility of addressing specified housing concerns
in the coastal zone from the LCP to the Housing Element. State law
requires localities to update their Housing Elements, which Sand City is
in the process of doing. Upon completion, this Element will address the
City's housing concerns, including the coastal zone. However, a brief
discussion of housing is relevant to the LCP because residential uses are
planned in the coastal zone.

SCLCP2/13 65

Based on anticipated employment growth within Sand City, it is projected
that 510 additional housing units will be needed by the Year 2000. It is
estimated that approximately 181 additional lower income households will
be living within the City by the Year 2000, and will need affordable
housing.

New housing is needed to coordinate with additional jobs in the com7.-
munity, and vice versa, so that persons can reside reasonably near their
places of employment. This would, reduce additional stress on the loca-
lized regional housing market (Seaside, Marina, Monterey and Del Rey
Oaks), which will not be able to absorb that much additional housing
without significant annexations.

Most of the areas identified as suitable for residential development are
located in the City's coastal zone. These areas have fewer conflicts
with existing land uses than other vacant areas located outside of the
coastal zone. It has been estimated that Sand City's coastal zone has.
the physical potential to accommodate approximately 2,230 dwelling units
upon full buildout. However, this forecast assumes that public service
constraints would be resolved, existing industrial development would
cease, and zoning changes would be implemented. Yet there is still a
strong potential that many of Sand City's future residential developments
can be located in the coastal zone.

6.2.2 Urban Services

Water Service. The majority of Sand City's coastal zone is served by the
Calif ornia-American Water Company Service Area (Cal-Am), except for a
dmall portion -in the northern part of the City. Cal-Am services the
majority of,the Monterey Peninsula. Some of the existin?, industrial uses
in Sand City utilize water from private wells.

Sand City is-a member of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
(MPWMD), which is composed of all the Monterey Peninsula cities and por-
tions of the County of Monterey surrounding the Monterey Peninsula. The
An
MPWMD has authority to manage water resources for the area it serves.
allocation system was adopted by the MPWMD because it is estimated that
water demand within the California American Water Service Area will
exceed supply in 1993, if projected growth *continues to occur and a new
supply is not developed. The allocation system will prohibit new water
connections when a jurisdiction's allocation is used up.

Sand City's original water allocation was 312 acre-feet per year. How-
ever, the City was allocated 44 acre-feet for that portion of the City
presently outside the Cal-Am Service Area. This brought the City total
to 356 acre-feet per year. - The current Sand City water allocation is
334.6 acre-feet per year..

Presumed buildout in Sand City has the potential to consume over 700
acre-feet per year, given no other constraints. The water allocation
system set up by the MPWMD for the Monterey Peninsula is a constraint
that is placed on all jurisdictions involved. The City realizes they

SCLCP2/13 66

have an allocation of 356 acre-feet per year at the present time. That
allocation can only be increased if the overall water quantity provided
by Cal-Am is increased or if well water users in Sand City have problems
with their wells and are forced to go to Cal-Am service. Sand City,
recognizing this constraint, must plan future development with it in
mind.

The City of Sand City has no water infrastructure in its coastal zone,
with the exception of portions of the developed area adjacent to Highway
One and the S.P.R.R. Many of the existing water lines are inadequate and
are in need of repair.

Sewer Service. Sewage treatment is provided to Sand City by the Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), which owns and operates
the existing Seaside Sewage Treatment Plant that is located within Sand
City city limits. The treatment plant was constructed in 1952. Through-
out the years, improvements have been made to processing, but not to
capacity. The infrastructure is sized to handle no more than 2 million
gallons per day. Many problems exist in the form of deterioration of
infrastructure. At times, flows at the sewage treatment plant are
teaching capacity. At Sand City's full buildout, it is estimated that
280,000 gallons of sewage treatment capacity will be needed by Sand City.
To accommodate the additional sewage flows, capacity at the Seaside
Treatment Plant will have to be increased or other alternatives found.

In 1975, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA)
began preparation of a facilities plan for regional wastewater management
of northern Monterey County. The plan was initiated in response to
projected facility capacity, structural and operational problem, as well
as the State's prohibition of effluent disposal into portions of the
Monterey Bay'.

The Plan consists of three phases. Phase I does not directly impact the
City of Sand City. It involves the elimination of the Pacific Grove
Treatment Plant and the construction of a pump station to transfer
Pacific Grove's effluent to the Monterey Plant for treatment.

Phase II consists of construction of a Regional Pipeline, a series of
pump stations and a deep-water ocean outfall north of Marina. Pump sta-
tions will be constructed at the Monterey, Seaside, Fort Ord, Castroville
and Salinas Treatment Plants. Some of these have been completed. These
pump stations will transfer the treated effluent from the existing treat-
ment plants to the ocean outfall until such a time that Phase III of this
Facilities Plan can be constructed. Total completion of this Phase is
planned for September 1983.

Phase III calls for construction.of a Regional Treatment Plant at a site
located north of Marina. Raw sewage from Pacific Grove, Monterey,
Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, Fort Ord, Castroville and Salinas would
then be treated at this site, reducing all of the other treatement plant
sites strictly to pump stations. The treated effluent would then be

SCLCP2/13 67

transferred to the deep ocean outfall constructed during Phase Il. The
proposed capacity for the Regional Treatment Plant is 20.9 million gal-
lons per day. Funding for the Phase III regional sewage treatment plant
is currently planned for fiscal year 1984. The Peninsula cities currently
are petitioning to have this funding scheduled for fiscal year 1983.

In summary, Sand City's current sewage treatment problems are:
1. Lack of capacity at the Seaside Sewage Treatment Plant;
2. Structural deficiencies with the existing plant and the outfall line;
and
3. Discharge of treated effluent into an "Area of Biological Signifi-
cance," which is prohibited by the State Regional Water Quality
Control Board.

Phase II of the Regional Plan will resolve the third problem, trans-
ferring treated effluent to a deep ocean outfall north of Marina outside
the "Area of Biological Significance." Phase III would resolve the other
two problems through the construction of a new sewage treatment facility.

Funding of Phase 111, the Regional Plant, is scheduled for fiscal year
1984. Therefore, MPRWPCA has proposed several interim alternatives in
their draft Preliminary Engineering Study, "Wastewater Treatment at Agen-
cy's Local Plants," dated March 1982. The purpose of this study was to
evaluate each of the Agency's five wastewater treatment plants, including
the Seaside Treatment Plant. This evaluation was conducted for three-,
five- and ten-year planning periods and recommendations for modifications
and additions were made so that each treatment plant will meet discharge
requirements and serve projected growth. The conclusions of this study
will be implemented, if needed, pending funds for the Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant.

Projections showing population growth in Seaside, Sand City and Del Rey
Oaks were developed indicating a present population of 25,000. The 1984
population projection is 26,200, a 1986 population of 27,250 and a 1991
population of 29,600 was made. The Seaside Treatment Facility has a
capacity of 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD). Anticipated effluent
flows are as follows:

Year Sewage Flow NGD)
1981 1.9
1984 2.2
1986 2.4
1991 2.5

The above figures indicate that .3 MGD will be needed by 1984, .5 MGD by
1986, and .6 MGD by 1991.

Alternative Expansion Plans for the Seaside Treatment Plant (as well ad
the other plants operated by the MRWPCA) were studied. Conclusions were
based on subjective feasibility, environmental impact, performance and
cost. Recommendations for the three-, five- and teu-year planning
periods are as follow:

SCLCP2/13 68

a) For the three year planning period, the most cost effective alterna-
tive having the least number of adverse impacts is to chemically
assist primary treatment facilities at the Seaside Treatment Plant.
By chemically treating effluent, the Plant will be able to accom--
modate an additional 1,200 persons through 1984.

b) For the five year planning period, the most cost effective alterna-
tive having the least number of impacts is also to chemically assist
the primary treatment facilities. By expanding the chemical treat-
ment, an additional population of 2,250 can be accommodated by the
Seaside Plant.

c) For the ten year planning period, two alternatives are considered.
One was to provide secondary treatment facilities at the Seaside
Plant and the other was to have primary treatment at Seaside with
construction of a new sewer line to carry flows to Monterey. Both of
these alternatives require major construction in the Coastal Zone.
This alternative would accommodate a 4,600 population increase in the
Seaside, Del Rey Oaks and Sand City area. However, it should be
noted that Seaside and Del Rey Oaks are largely built out, with
little room for additional development.

Sand City has considered another alternative and has approached the
MRWPCA with the concept. The alternative is to provide a sewage package
treatment plant at the existing Seaside Treatment Plant site in Sand
City. The plant would connect to the regional pump station for discharge
at Marina, and would be required to provide secondary treatment and the
plant could be funded by formation of an assessment district or other
private funds. Member jurisdictions may participate if desired. A
package treatment facility could provide additional capacity as an in-
terim measure to the proposed regional plant or as a long-term facility.

The sewage treatment problem in Sand City will be alleviated somewhat
with the construction of a regional pipeline (Phase II) of the regional
project, due' to be completed within two years. This pipeline will take
the treated effluent from the Seaside Plant to a location north of
Marina. The primary treated effluent from the Seaside Plant will be
diluted with the secondary treated effluent from Monterey and Fort Ord.
This will improve somewhat the quality of effluent disposed in the
Monterey Bay by the Seaside Plant.

Sewer lines for future development within the coastal zone will have to
be extended from adequately sized lines east of Del Monte Boulevard or
from the City of Monterey to the south.

Fire and Police Protection. Fire protection in the City of Sand City is
provided through a contract with the City of Seaside Fire Department.
The Seaside Fire Department identifies the following community fire
concerns that relate to Sand City.

1) Fire caused by carelessness in residences;
2) Potential fire protection problems in the warehouses in Sand
city;

SCLCP2/13 69

3) Low water pressure supplied by existing water mains result in
substandard fire flows; and
4). Many streets in Sand City are inadequate to handle fire appa-
ratus.

Development in Sand City's coastal zone will not have a significant
impact upon the Seaside Fire Department if adequate roadway widths and
fire flows are provided. However, it will have a cumulative effect on
the region by increasing fire potential in the City, as would development
in any portLon of the region.

Police service in Sand City is provided by the Sand City Police Depart-
ment. A central communications system provides radio tie-up with
communities on the Monterey Peninsula, the Monterey County Sheriff's
Department and the California Highway-Patrol. Full buildout of Sand
City's coastal zone area may significantly impact the City's police
department, with the degree of impact dependent upon the type of
development that occurs.

6.2.3 Circulation

Sand City's existing traffic concerns stem from the heavy commercial and
industrial activities which compose the City's economic base and serve
the entire Monterey Peninsula. A labor force of more than 1,000 people
works in Sand City. As a result, a strong dependence upon the automobile
have increased problems :related to air pollution, noise, traffic conges-
tion during work hours, parking, and large trucks traveling streets that
are inadequate for their use. Heavy commercial and industrial traffic
filters through spot residential areas in order to transport commodities
in and out of Sand City.

The coastal zone area west of Highway One and south of Tioga Avenue has
four paved roads: Vista Del Mar Street, Tioga Avenue, Bay Avenue and
Sand Dunes Drive. Vista Del Mar currently is closed and in need of
repair as a result of bluff erosion breaking up the pavement. Bay Avenue
will have to be widen@d and the sand removed in areas 'in order to accom--
modate future development in this portion' of Sand City. Traffic counts
on existing streets are unavailable.

The coastal zone area west of Highway One and north of Tioga Avenue has
no existing circulation routes, with the exception of individual access-
ways under' Highway One to Lone Star Industries, Granite Construction
Company and Monterey Sand Mining Company facilities.

The coastal zone area east of Highway One (200 feet east of the Highway
One right-of-way) has roads only in the existing developed areas. The
Southern Pacific Railroad and an area 100 feet west of the Railroad's
right-of-way also are included in the coastal zone boundary. The
railroad operates through the city approximately two times a week. Many
of the City's existing industrial uses utilize rail transportation, and
there are several existing and planned spur lines which connect indus-
trial areas to the railroad.

SCLCP2/13 70

The coastal area west of Highway One and south of Tioga Avenue contains
several old subdivisions that have never been developed. These subdi-
visions also include some street rights-of-way. It is unknown at this
time which, if any, of the existing paper streets in the coastal zone
will be developed. Many of these existing rights-of-way are substandard.
It is anticipated that individual developers and/or a group of developers
will provide for new street construction in Sand City. Those streets to
be implemented will be determined by specific development proposals and
the City of Sand City.

Demand for parking in the Sand City coastal zone presently consists of
the weekday work force in the coastal zone area east of Highway One. On
weekends, there is little demand for parking because the city basically
is an employment center. On the west side of Highway One, where the
largest coastal zone area exists, there is little overall demand for
parking due to the undeveloped nature of the area. Public parking within
the coastal zone area is limited to a small area that could handle about
20 spaces. As visitor-serving facilities are developed, more public
parking will be required.

Monterey Peninsula Transit presently serves the entire Monterey Penin-
sula, except Sand City, which does not receive transit service because
they have failed to join the Monterey Peninsula Transit District.
However, service is provided hourly in both directions along Del Monte
Avenue, an arterial street which bounds Sand City on its southeast side.

Although Sand City is not presently a member of the Monterey Peninsula
Transit District (a Joint Powers Agency), the City could be benefiting
from bus service provided to the Seaside area. Considering the increa-
sing number of people who are employed in Sand City and the residential
and visitor-serving growth potential, the transit system could provide a
viable alternative to the present peak hour traffic congestion problems
in the developed portions of the City. in addition, it might alleviate
potential traffic congestion as increasing development occurs in cur-
rently vacant areas.

There is a planned regional bicycle path which, upon completion, will
connect the Monterey Peninsula to Fort Ord, Marina and Castroville.
Portions of the bike path are completed.within the cities of Monterey and
Marina and through Fort Ord. With Sand City's approval, a bike path
could be extended through the City to connect the Peninsula to northern
points. To date, there has been no planning for a bicycle path through
Sand City. (See section on Access for more information.)

6.3 Future Land Uses and Development

The areas identified for development in Sand City's Coastal Zone rep-
resent a great potential to provide not only the opportunity for com--
munity growth but also can act as a regional asset for the Monterey
Peninsula. As one approaches the Monterey Peninsula from the north on
Highway One, the change from rural rolling landscape to the urban setting

SCLCP2/13 71

of greater Monterey occurs at Sand City. The importance of this turning
point is that it raises a heretofore unfulfilled potential for Sand City
to be an attractive addition to the Monterey Peninsula.

One of the many objectives the Land Use Plan seeks to achieve is a major
entry statement for the Monterey area. Through careful design, thought-
ful landscaping and purposeful implementation programs, the land uses
proposed here can establish a sense of character and theme which can
benefit the regional community.

6.3.1 Land Use_Analysis

As part of the LCP, a land use analysis was prepared for Sand City's
coastal zone. The analysis divided the coastal zone into nineteen
identifiable areas, each of which was evaluated in terms of resource and
service constraints and Coastal Act policies. As a result of these
evaluations, land use options and densities were analyzed in order to
designate. the land uses presented in this plan. Generally, the following
factors were considered in these land use evaluations:

1., Resource Constraints (environmentally sensitive areas, natural
hazards, visual resources, water supply/quality, archaeological
resources).

2. Service Constraints (water/sewer availability, access, fire protec-
tion).

3. Existing Land Use Considerations (existing and surrounding land uses,
General Plan and Zoning designations).

4. Land Use Suitability for public access, and Coastal Act priority uses
of recreation, coastal-dependent and visitor-serving.uses.

5. Special Considerations such as areas where existing old subdivisions
have created many recorded parcels.

Appendix E presents the full land use evaluation criteria and a summary
chart of the land use analysis. The chart summarizes the major findings
of the analysis by area, as shown on the Map in the Appendix. As seen on
the summary chart, every area was 'reviewed according to Coastal Act
resource concerns, relationship to services and access, existing area
conditions, and design capabilities. Based on this review, land use
options were evaluated for each area, incorporating coa-stal act priority
uses and evaluation of all resource and service data. The land use
options that were evaluated for each area resulted in the final recowt-
mended land uses found in this Plan.

.A primary land use constraint in Sand City*is the limited availability of
water. As of 1983, Sand City had a water allocation of 334.6 acre-fee,@.
per year, and the City is currently using about 76.1 acre-feet per year:
Because coastal priority uses must be assured of public services where
the availability of services may be limited, water consumption projec-
tions have been developed as part of the LCP. Once land use designations
were determined, water consumption factors were figured to determine
coastal zone water consumption. As a result of these calculations, land

SCLCP2/13 72

use densities were reduced. Water consumption outside of the coastal
zone was also projected to insure that total City-wide water consumption
would remain within its allocation.

Water consumption projections are summarized on the following page.
Appendix F presents the water allocations that were developed for each
area in the coastal zone as part of the total land use analysis. These
assume full City buildout and consider the proposed coastal zone land use
designations, density standards 'and water conservation. Approximately
15.24 acre-feet of water will remain as City-wide reserve.

Acre-Feet/Year
Projected Coastal Zone Water Use .299.55

Projected Water Use Outside Coastal Zone
(assumes no residential development) + 38.42

SUBTOTAL 337.45

LESS 25% Water Conservation (assumes implementa-
tion of proposed water conservation policies) - 84.49

SUBTOTAL 252.96

Current City-wide Water Use + 76.10

TOTAL 329.06

RESERVE 5.54

Projected water consumption by coastal zone land uses is summarized on
the following page.

Another service constraint which was considered in the land use analysis
is the current limited capacity of the Seaside Sewage Treatment plant.
As indicated in the background section, measures currently are being
discussed regarding alternate methods for providing additional sewer
capacity prior to the completion of the proposed regional plant in 1987.
Two major alternatives considered to date for increasing capacity at the
Seaside Plant include:

1. construction of a secondary package treatment plant at the Seaside
treatment facility to handle projected capacities until 1987, or

2. construction of a new sewer trunk line to the Monterey treatment
plant to handle the same capacities described in 1, above. I

All resource and service constraints were evaluated in order to establish
densities. As a result, it was found that water is A primary constraint
to future development. Because the limitation of water supply to the

SCLCP2/13 73

PROJECTED WATER CONSUMPTION BY COASTAL ZONE LAND USES

Projected
Area In Water Consumption % of Total
Land Use Acres Total Density Water Consumption Factor (in Acre-Feet) Consumption

DUAL DESIGNATIONS
Industrial Manufacturing 12.91

Visitor Serving-Hotels 17.39 1020 rooms 50 gpd/room (80% occupancy) 57.08 19
Visitor Serving-Motels 9.97 370 rooms 50 gpd/room (80% occupancy) 20.73 7
Visitor Serving-
No Hotels/No. Motels*** 23.13 1,007,543 sq. ft. 50 gpd/1000 net bldg.sq.ft. 45.oo 15
Public Recreation 11.89 0
Residential 20.33 510 units 137 gpd/unit MF 78.03 26
Visitor Serving Residential 31.64 383 units 230 gpd/unit SF;137gpd/unit MF 58.69 20
Light Commercial 270,072 sq. ft. 50 gpd/1000 net bldg. sq. ft. 15.13 5
Heavy Commercial 7.55 181 employees 25 gpd/employee 5.07 2
(15-20 employees/gross acre)
Coastal Dependent Industrial 2.00 25 gpd/employee 1.50 1
(15-25 employees/acre) 12.99 4
Industrial-Manufacturing 15.50 35.5 employees 25 gpd/employee
(15-20 employees/gross acre)
Industrial Park 12.70 190.5 employees 25 gpd/employee 5.33 2 5.33
(15-20 employees/gross acre)

TOTALS 159.85 299.55 100%

Water consumption factors were primarily derived from the Cannery Row LPC and the Economic and Demographcs Projection Report
prepared for the Monterey Peninsula by the MPWMD.
"These Industrial uses were allocated water through their secondary land use designations.
***For all comercial uses (other than hotel/motel), refer to Individual area evaluations for maximum square footage allowed, based on
the City's,present water allocation. Individual area evaluations are not Included in the Plan, but are a file with the City of
Sand City.
****Net building square footage, figured at 40% of total acreage; the figure is doubled to allow for maximum square footage per the
City's existing allocation. If the City Is alloted more water In the future, commercial. square footages could be increased.

City has been defined via the City's water allocation, it represents a
quantifiable constraint that must be accounted for throughout the City.
Therefore, it was a primary factor used to establish land use
densities because it is the only constraint that can be translated
numerically into densities. As a result of the water allocation
performed as part of the land use analysis, maximum densities were
established to indicate the maximum development that could occur with the
City's present water allocation.

The densities presented in the'Plan are allowed for gross acreages.
However, implementation of other policies within the Plan could serve to
prevent future development from building to the maximum density allowed.
Specifically, these policies relate to investigation of natural hazards
and environmentally sensitive habitats, provision of view corridors,
landscaping, buffers and parking, and height restrictions. The extent of
these constraints will vary, depending on the site and type of
development proposal. But, they must be considered in every proposal,
and as a result maximum densities may not be attained.

With regard to the Coastal Act as the standard of approval, denial and
suggested modifications for this LUP and resolution of conflicts between
Coastal Act Policies, as described in Section 30007.5, the Sand City LUP
is promoting the policy, which states:
The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may
occur between one or more policies of the division. The legisla-
ture therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of
this division such conflicts can be resolved in a manner which on
balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources.
In this context, the Legislature declares that broader policies
which, for example, serve to concentrate development in close
proximity to urban and employment centers may be more protective,
overall'. than specific wildlife habitat and other- similar re-
source policies.

As a part of the LUP land use evaluations, lot consolidation was also
considered as an option to development of existing lots in those portions
of-Sand City's coastal zone plotted with small lot subdivisions. The
many opportunities which the City's coastal zone holds for enhancement of
public benefit and economic growth are inhibited by the historic division
of parts of this area into small lot subdivisions. It is a major goal of
the City to reassemble, where feasible, the land within-these undeveloped
subdivisions to create areas of sufficient acreage to take advantage of
modern planning and design techniques. To do so will allow a format in
which development can be clustered, open space preserved and view
corridors from Highway One provided. I

SCLCP2/13 75

advantageous have consolidated the majority of these lots. With the
initiation of an assessment district to provide services and approval of
the Coastal LUP for this area, private lot consolidation would be
facilitated.

While mandatory lot consolidation is legally questionable, the con-
solidation of small lot subdivisions in encouraged. This Plan has
designated densities in these areas designed to encourage lot consoli-
dation, with the potential for planned clustered development and open
space. Specific planning through planned development and strict arch-
itectural standards will aid in protecting coastal natural resources.

The City's vehicle for lot consolidation in both the private and public
sectors include:

� the City of Sand City and
� the private property owners, as follows:
Accept the existing method of lot consolidation that has occurred to
date, realizing that not all the parcels will necessarily be included
in any one development proposal. However, planned development could
still occur on individual or partnership terms with consolidated lots.
This would probably include rearranging street patterns where feas-
ible. The vehicle for lot consolidation, where feasible, would be the
City and owners' desire for a planned development, the formation of an
assessment district and approval of the LUP. The City could function
as the investigative, coordinating and encouraging agency.

6.3.2 Land Use Locations

As a result of-the land use and water consumption analysis, coastal zone
land uses have been designated as shown on Figure 10. Priority coastal
uses--coastal dependent, visitor serving commercial and public recrea-
tion@--are located west of Highway One. These uses comprise approximately
60% of the total coastal zone land area. The area west of Highway One
also contains locations for permanent housing and some neighborhood
commercial uses. The existing small lot subdivisions west of Highway One
have always been given priority for residential uses over other areas in
the City. According to this land use analysis, this continued use was
found to be consistent with coastal policies. The coastal zone area east
of Highway One is predominantly commercial and industrial.

Two locations have been designated industrial (as a result of the exist-
ing industrial uses at the sites), with a second designation of visitor
serving commercial. Dual designations were allowed in part because the
life span of coastal-dependent industrial and industrial uses is
typically uncertain. A third location at the north end of Sand City is
leased by Lone Star Industries, Inc., for surf zone and dune mining, and
was previously zoned for industrial use.

To maintain the existing industrial uses, the Calabrese and Granite
Construction properties have been designated Industrial-Manufacturing.

SCLCP2113 76

In order to provide an orderly transition to new Coastal Act priority
uses in the industrial-manufacturing designated areas, visitor-serving
commercial designations have been shown for future use. Thus the two
interests of the City--protection of existing industrial uses and
promotion of future visitor-serving opportunities--are enhanced through
the secondary designation.

The existing site that is coastal-dependent, the Monterey Sand Company
surf zone mining operation, has been given a new designation of part
visitor-serving and part coastal dependent. Continuation of the coastal
dependent use is assured by the portion of the site where the mining
takes place being designated coastal dependent (about two acres of land).
The remainder of the site, about 10 acres, is only partly used for sand
stockpiles and is not essential to the continued functioning of the sand
mining use. If the sand mining were to cease for economic or physical
reasons (not enough high quality sand), this portion of the site would
still be usable for other coastal dependent uses such as aquaculture.
The remainder of the site is designated visitor-serving consistent with
the Coastal Act and the City's desire to encouragae greater public use of
the.shorefront.

It is anticipated that development within the coastal zone will be phased
over a long range time period. Nearly half of the coastal zone area West
of Highway One is currently in industrial uses. These existing uses are
expected to continue for at least 5 to 20 years.

The definitions and densities for proposed land use designations are
presented in the following Policy section. Due to the constraint of
water availability, the number of hotel rooms that can be constructed in
an area designated visitor serving is limited. These limitations are
aldo explained in the following section.

The Land Use Plan Map also identifies three major transportation access-
ways. A frontage road extension of Vista del Mar Street or Sand Dunes
Drive is planned, although the exact location has not been determined,
due to topography. Upon completion, this road will increase access to
and through Sand City's coastal zone, and.provide for a bicycle path. An
additional extension of Vista Del Mar Street along an existing right-
of-way is planned for the southern portion of the City. Finally, the
existing railroad and its right-of-way is planned as a transportation
corridor. If existing rail service should be discontinued, this area
would be evaluated for other transportation uses.

6.4 LCP Policies

6.4.1 Land Uses. Establish the following land use designations in the
coastal zone, as defined below and shown on the Land Use Plan Map
in Figure 11.

a. Coastal-Dependent Industrial: Allow coastal dependent uses,
including but not limited to specialty surf zone sand mining;

SCLCP2/13 77

At
r E R y
A y

LUP
NOT CERTIF490
"=* ..... . .. .
. ....... . .. ....=.....
..................
Vona
..... ..... . .
@a
. ......... .... ..........
"act-, . ....... ....
....................

.,WIG

LAND USES too goo 1304
SCALE in FEET

Coastal D*P.-dots lod.64,666
sad.66.181 m ... taclo.i.9 .111.4169 8 ... 6.8 cosa..16601

vigil*, to. Do-sev
lam visit*# B-6.8 &.01.1.41166 mods.. a-elly COMBINING DISTRICTS
0-440.6164. modi.0 ass.ily 0 0 0 0.6101 To--$-..t A,.. --
dko.1d..ilskillsk m.aaf-eas SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

mo.., CIRCULATION
I.d..11181 T-444p.'1.61.4 C."Ad., LAND USE PLAN MAP
amo..w.s Ps.6 ... as-11v .6-d-d. float&.* No. to..
F.6.81. N.6-410- Bit'.

Figure I I

the coastal dependent site shall have a minimum of 250 feet
of ocean frontage and a minimum of 2 acres of land above the
Mean High Tide line. Access to the coastal dependent land
use from a public street will be assured as a condition of
development (including land divisions). The Land Use Map
(Figure 11) depicts the general location of the site at the
north end of the Monterey Sand Company parcel, and is inten-
ded to be representative only.

b. Visitor-Serving Commercial: Allow hotels, motels, accessory
shops (including gift shops, travel agencies, beauty shops,
health spas), food service establishments, service stations,
recreation retail shops and services, campgrounds, recrea-
tional vehicle parks, and other recreational facilities oper-
ated as a business and open to the general public for a fee.
The hotel/motel uses shall be consistent with hotel/motel
density limits presented in Policy 6.4.4.(e). All other
visitor serving commercial uses shall be limited according to
the water allocation presented in Appendix F.

c. Visitor-Serving Residential, Low Density: Allow clustered
multifamily residential structures at low density. All of
the units permitted in this designation shall be established
on time increments and shall be available at all times for
rental or purchase on a short term (one month or less) basis.

d. Visitor-Serving Residential, Medium Density: Allow clustered
multifamily residential structures at medium density. All of
the units permitted in this designation shall be established
on time increments and shall be available at all times for
.rental or purchase on a short term (one month-or less).basis,
with the following exception:

_o Units may be constructed as fee-simple specifically to
accommodate the Transfer of Density Credit Program estab-
lished in this Plan, as deemed necessary and feasible by
the City of Sand City.

e. Residential, Medium Dens Allow all permitted uses in the
2ia
low density designation, but encourage clustered multi-family
attached structures at medium density.

f. Residential, High Density: Allow clustered multi-family
attached structures, usually in the form of a planned unit
development at high density. The intent of this district is
to promote small lot consolidation, a mixture of affordable
housing and open space, while promoting residential living
units.

g. Light Commercial: Allow stores, shops and offices supplying
commodities or performing services for residents of the City
as a whole or the surrounding communities, and research and
experimental laboratories.

SCLCP2/13 79

h. Heavy Commercial: Allow wholesale businesses, storage, ware-
housing, repair garages for automobiles, trucks, trailers and
other equipment, and other uIes as permitted in the City's
OIC-211 Zone District. (See Appendix G.)

i. Industrial-Manufacturing: Allow manufacture, processing,
removal, storage and packaging of foods, concretes, sands,
gravels, heavy equipment, and other uses as permitted in the
City's "M" Zone District. (See Appendix G.) Under special
circumstances, such as close proximity to the ocean and where
an industrial use provides an economic benefit to the City or
the region, allow a secondary land use designation as de-
scribed above for such a time as the existing industrial use
may cease. The secondary use will be allowed after it is
demonstrated to the City that the industrial use is no longer
important or feasible in the regional context, and that the
secondary use is consistent with the Coastal Act and the LUP.

j. Industrial Park: Allow manufacturing, assembly, processing,
packaging and similar industrial operations; offices associ-
ated with these uses; workshops and other uses as permitted
in the City's "IP" Zone District. (See Appendix G.)

k. Public Recreation: Allow public parks, picnic areas, parking
areas, public vista points, sandy beaches and accessways
which are publicly owned or over which access easements are
to be requir*ed as a condition of development. In addition to
areas designated public recreation on Figure 11, public
recreation also means public uses within development projects
such as picnic areas, wind shelters, promenades or other
indoor public recreational areas; other support facilities
for public recreational uses; and controlled public Access
and/or educational programs in areas of dune restoration
programs.

1. Public Facilities: Public buildings and equipment such as
libraries, city corporation yards, police and fire infra-
structure, public utilities "such as the sewage treatment
plant, pump stations and public utility pipelines.

6.4.2 Combining Districts

Establish the following zoning combining districts in the coastal
zone as defined below and shown on the Land Use Plan Map in
Figure 11. The purpose of the combining district is to consider
special design, environmental, or natural features during the
planning process within a specific designated zone. The co=-
bining district will become a part of the designated zoning
district and thus will be binding until a rezoning is approved.

SCLCP2/13 so

a. Special Treatment Area: Areas where planned developments are
appropriate because of:

1) special design/siting considerations;

2) need to make land uses compatible with existing surround-
ing land uses or buffered from those uses; or

3) existing small lot.subdivisions.

All proposed developments shall be consistent with an area-
wide specific plan for development. Such plans may be
prepared by a developer for city approval, or by the City.

b. Resource Management: Potential environmentally sensitive
habitat areas that require special consideration to protect
any identified resources against disruption of habitat values
consistent with the environmentally sensitive habitat poli-
cies in Section 4.3.

6.4.3 Circulation Designations

Establish the following circulation designations as illustrated
on Figure 10, the Land Use Plan Map.

a. Transportation Corridor: Allow for and encourage continua-
tion of rail service. If rail service should ever be dis-
continued* allow another form of transportation access.
b. Sand Dunes Drive Plan Line: Establish a floating plan line
for an eventual continuation of Sand Dunes Drive or Vista Del
Mar Street (frontage road). This plan line will establish a
right-of-way to provide access for a future roadway from
.Tioga Avenue to the northern City on-ramp. The plan line
will have a flexible location across the properties shown in
Figure 11. The location will be determined by eventual
engineering analysis and feasibility.

6.4.4 Densities

Allow the following densities per land use type.

a. Residential, Low Density: up to 13 dwelling units per acre.

b. Visitor-Serving Residential and Residential, Medium Density:
14-25 dwelling units per acre.

c. Residential, High Density: 25-35 dwelling units per acre,
except in areas designated as Special Treatment, where the'
following standards shall apply:

0 allow 1 dwelling unit per existing recorded lot (recorded
as of 1981) between 1875 and 2250 square feet;

SCLCP2/13 81

0 allow 2 dwelling units per every 2,250 square feet, but
only for existing recorded lots (recorded as of 1981)
greater than 2,250 square feet or for lots that are
consolidated to create new lots greater than 2,250 square
feet.

d. Visitor-Serving_Hotels: 0-75 rooms per acre. The number of
hotel units shall be limited as.follows:

Area Designated On
Land Use Map Maximum Rooms Allowed

B 375 rooms
C 0 rooms
D 375 rooms

e. Visitor-Serving Motels: 0 - 37 rooms/acre. The number of
motel units shall be limited as follows:

Area Designated On
Land Use Map Maximum Rooms Allowed

a 229 rooms
b 141 rooms

f. Neighborhood or Light Commercial: Allow 40% lot coverage;
except in Special Treatment Area allow 45% lot coverage for
.existing lots over 12,000 square feet, or where lot consoli-
dation occurs to create lots over 12,000 square feet and
where cluster development is provided.

6.4.5 Height Restrictions
In the Sand CitF -Coastal Zone, permit a height limit of 36 feet
I
as measured from existing grade with the following exceptions:

a) Coastal dependent industrial uses will have a height limit of
45 feet, measured from ground level, with@exceptions up to 75
feet to permit accessory structures which are essential to
the operation of the use, such as towers, stacks and
antennae;

b) Industrial uses east of Highway One will be permitted a
maximum height of 75 feet. Within 100 feet of the freeway
right-of-way, all industrial development will be permitted a
maximum height of 25 feet, except as may be necessary to
accommodate repair, maintenance and replacement of existing;
structures (not exceeding a 10% increase in height or floor
space).

SCLCP2/13 82

c) Hotel uses shall not exceed 45 feet.

d) Low density residential uses wi'll be permitted a height of 25
feet.

e) All development within 100 feet of the freeway right-of-way
(considered as the main thoroughfare right-of-way, excluding
on/off ramps) shall be designed so as to minimize significant
adverse visual impacts, limited to 25 feet in height except
as permitted by (b) above, and landscaped. Unattractive
elements shall be screened.

f) Views over development (see Figure 9) shall be preserved by
limiting heights as necessary to assure compliance with
Policy 5.3.3.

General Development Policies

6.4.6 Coastal dependent sand mining shall have priority over other
uses, unless the other use was determined to be coastal-
dependent. Other uses which are not coastal-dependent and which
are developed adjacent to such coastal dependent use shall be
operated in a manner that is compatible with the existing coastal
dependent use.

6.4.7 Ensure compatibility between existing coastal dependent and
industrial uses with visitor serving and residential uses.
Require buffers between uses and regulate landscaping access,
parking, and on-site circulation in order to mitigate traffic
impacts and other potential problems.

6.4.8 Time limitations will not be established for non-conforming uses
created by this Plan. Expansion of non-conforming uses estab-
lished by this Plan will not be allowed.

6.4.9 Pursue exchange of California State Department of Parks and
Recreation holdings south of Bay Avenue for private sites in
order to facilitate park consolidation, planned developments, and
provision of maximum recreation and view corridors. Exchange of
State Park lands shall be pursued for the following areas (see
Figure 12).

a) west of Vista del Mar Street between Tioga and Bay Avenue;

b) east of the Seaside Sewage Treatment Plant, bounded by Bay
Avenue, Sand Dunes Drive, and the high density residential
designation identified in this Plan.

Any private holdings of sufficient size and configuration to
accommodate development pursuant to all city regulations, remain-
ing in the two areas identified above and not subject to the
public trust, will be allowed "transfer of density credit" (TDC)

SCLCP2/13 83

MONTEREY BAY

0 400 Boo 1200
- -------------- - ---------- SCALE IN FEET
13EACIJ Indeterminals
IvnershAp

S A EL -&"7 C T R
SEWAGE
TREAT14ENT
PLANT

REGIONAL
PUMP STATION

LUP
NOT CERTIFIED

Legend:

POTENTIAL TRANSFER$ SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN
OF DEVELOPMENT CREDIT.
AL
DONER SITES POTENTI
LAND EXCHANGE and TDC AREA
RECIPIENT SITES Figuirs 12

to a "receiver area" identified as that area bounded by Tioga
Avenue, Vista del Mar, and Sand Dunes Drive designated for high
density residential. The mechanism for credit shall consist of
one unit per eligible lot, to be transferred without regard for
location, size, or value of the lot. A unit will be defined as
one residential unit. Credit for transfer granted to any lot
will become final upon certification of the Land Use Plan and
determination by the State that the lot(s) generating the trans-
fer is not subject to the public trust. The receiver area will
be allowed additional density consistent with the number of lots
in the two State holdings, based on one unit per lot. A maximum
of eighty (80) units credit can be applied to the identified
receiver area from the exchange areas described above.

If legislation enabling this exchange is not enacted during the
1982 legislative session or if this exchange is less than fully
implemented on or before July 1, 1983, the LCP shall. provide for
the following two alternatives:

Option 1 consists of the following:

a) The area west of Vista del Mar Street between Bay and Tioga
Avenues shall be designated public recreation with a TDC of
one unit per lot (41 units maximum) allowed to the identified
receiver area;

b) The area east of the Sewage Treatment Plant shall be public
recreation with a TDC of one unit per lot (39 units maximum)
allowed to the identified receiver area.

If Agencies of the State of California determine -not to exchange
or consolidate their holdings south of Bay Avenue in Sand City,
Option 2 will be implemented on or after July 1, 1984.

Option 2 consists of the following:

a) the area west of Vista del Mar Street between Bay and Tioga
Avenues shall be visitor-serving commercial (no motel/hotel)
with development clustered at the southeast corner of the
area, retaining the Special Treatment overlay;

b) the area east of the Sewage Treatment Plant shall be visitor
serving commercial with a motel allowed at a maximum density
of 68 rooms.

There may be additional requirements regarding view corridors and
dune stabilization programs as a condition of future development
if the land exchange with the State of California is not
implemented.

6.4.10 Lot consolidation for residential, visitor-serving residential
and commercial uses will be encouraged in areas where small lots

SCLCP2/13 85

may prohibit planned uses through the requirement of a specific
plan for development. Furthermore, planned clustered development
will be encouraged in the coastal zone. Future small lot subdi-
visions for residential and commercial uses will be prohibited.

In the area designated residential, high density, bounded by the
Tioga Avenue, Sand Dunes Drive, the Sewage Treatment Plant
property and Vista Del Mar Street, the City will encourage one
building envelope. All lois within this area will be allowed TDC
based on LUP densities and permitted to transfer those credits
into the development envelope. Those lots not participating in
the building envelope or planned unit development must be
addressed in the specific plan for development as required for
this area.

Provision of Services

6.4.11 New development shall be approved only where water and sewer
services are available and adequate; and where adequate circu-
lation and parking has been provided for.

6.4.12 Prior to the approval of any new development within the coastal
zone of the City of Sand City, adequate sewage treatment facility
capacity shall be demonstrated consistent with the provisions and
requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Alternatives for demonstrating additional treatment
capacity may include but not be limited to:

a) Construction of a package treatment plant at the Seaside
Treatment Facility to handle all projected sewage capacities
for the City's LUP land use designations, or

b) Construction of a new sewer line to the Monterey Treatment
Facility to 'handle the scime sewage capacities described in
Alternative A, based on evaluation of system capacity and
feasibility of institutional arrangements.

If an increase in sewage capacity cannot serve all the designa-
tions contained in the Land Use Plan, priority shall be given to
Coastal Act priority uses of coastal dependent and visitor
serving. Any package treatment plant approved shall reserve at
least 30% of.the increased capacity for priority uses.

6.4.13 Within the-Coastal Zone, permit only new development whose demand
for water use is consistent with available water supply and the
water allocation presented in Appendix F.

6.4.14 Require all new developments to utilize water conservation fix-
tures (such as flow restrictions, low-flow toilets, et cetera).

SCLCP2/13 86

6.4.15 Require water reclamation or recycling within large industrial
uses and encourage water reuse for landscaping wherever possible
and economically feasible.

6.4.16 Require that landscaping in new developments and public open'
space areas maximize use of law water requirement/ drought resis-
tant species.

6.4-17 If dune management programs are implemented on State owned
properties or other areas within the City, investigate the
feasibility of using reclaimed water for irrigation.

6.4.18 To insure that the demands of new development do not exceed the
City's allocation, develop a water monitoring program to gauge
the water use of new development.

6.4.19 If an additional water supply becomes available, consider density
changes commensurate with the amount of additional water found,
if consistent with LUP policies.

6.4.20 Support efforts to increase sewage capacity by the Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. Encourage property
owners and developers to work with the MRWPCA to increase the
sewage capacity available to the City of Sand City.

6.4.21 Adopt requirements for the provision of adequately sized sewer
and water lines,for development within the Coastal Zone.

6.4.22 Require that all new development provide for adequate acce ss
roads for access to all structures and on-site fire hydrants
capable of supplying required fire flow.

6.4.23 Development within the Coastal Zone shall insure public safety by
providing for:

a) adequate ingress and egress for emergency vehicles,

b) adequate street lighting, and

c) specific requirements of the Sand City Police Department.

Circulation

6.4.24 Require future -development in the Coastal Zone area to provide
safe adequate streets, parking and loading.

6.4.25 Encourage abandonment of existing undeveloped right-of-ways where
cluster development is planned.

6.4.26 Encourage the restoration of existing developed areas within the
Coastal Zone with respect to provision of adequate parking and
roadway widths.

SCLCP2/13 87

6.4.27 As development occurs in Sand City's Coastal Zone areta, consider
joining the Monterey Peninsula Transit District to improve the
existing bus service ridership.

6.4.28 Support continuation of Southern Pacific's railroad service
through Sand City. If rail service should ever be discontinued,
allow another form of transportation access within the transpor-
tation corridor, as shown in Figure 10.

6.4.29 Establish a conceptual floating plan line for an eventual con-
tinuation of Vista del Mar Street or Sand Dunes Drive (frontage
road) and Vista Del Mar Street (in the southern portion of the
City) to increase coastal zone access.

6.4.30 Allow extension of Vista Del Mar Street as a primary access road..

6.4.31 Access to Fort Ord Military Base must be sufficienty restricted
in any site-specific land use plan for Area 10 (D as shown on the
Land Use Plan Map). Area 10 of this Plan borders Fort Ord on the
ocean side of Highway One and must not interfere with military
security to be consistent with the Coastal Act.

6.4.32 Vehicular access will be assured to all parcels approved for
development from a public street as a condition of development,
consistent with all other applicable policies in the Land Use
Plan.

6.5 Recommended Implementation Actions

6.5.1 Amend General Plan and revise Zoning Ordinance to'"reflect coastal
zone land use designations, uses and densities.

6.5.2 Adopt and implement Water Conservation Ordinance.

6.5.3 Collect information on existing private wells in the Coastal Zone
in order to determine their usage and potential need for water
out of the City's allocation.

6.5.4 Develop method of implementing frontage road.

6.5.5 Develop methods by which new development will provide circula-
tion, service infrastructure and planned development.

SCLCP2/13 88

7..0 REFERENCES

7.1 Bibliography

Archaeological Consulting, Preliminary Archaeological Sensitivitz Map for
Sand City, April 1981.

Arnal, Robert E., Eric Dittmer and Evelyn Schumaker, Sand Transport
Studies in Monterey BaZ, Caliiornia, Moss Landing Marine Labora-
tories, Technical Publication 73-5, 1973.

California Coastal Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy Joint
Staff Report, "Coastal Access: Standards and Recommendations," 1980.

California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, Sand City
Feasibility Study for Groin and Public Beach, for the State Legisla-
ture, Resources Agency, July 1972.

City of Monterey, Cannery Row Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, 1980.

Cooper, William S., Coastal Dunes of California, The Geological Society
of America, Memior 104, 1967.

Cowan, Bruce, "Protecting and Restoring Native Dune Plants," Fremontia,
1975.

Duncan and Jones, Land Use Plan for the Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake Local
Coastal Program Cities of Monterey and Seaside, May 1981.

Engineering-Science, Draft Report Preliminary En ineering Study Stage 3A
Interim Wastewater Treatment at Age cy's Local Plants-, prepared tor
the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA),
Monterey, Califonria, January 1982.

Geoconsultants, Inc., Geology for Environmental Impact Report--Local
Coastal Program (LCP), Sand CitX, California, prepared for Environ-,
mental Management Consultants.

Ironside and Associates, Draft City of Marina Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan, City of Marina, December 198U.

Kilbourne, Richard T., and Lalliana Mualchin, Geology for Planniajc.
Marina and Salinas 7-1/2 Quadrangles, Monterey County, California,
Open File Report 80-1 SF, California Division of Mines and Geology.

Monterey County Planning Department, Moss Landing Community Plan, Local
Coastal Program, April 1981.

Monterey County Planning Departmentt, North County Land Use Plan--Local
Coastal Program, April 1981.

SCLCP2/16 89

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Final Report to the
California Coastal Commission Re: Available Water Study and Demand.
March 1979.

Recht, Hausrath & Associates, Economic and Demographic Projections (for
the Monterey Peninsula Area5-, XkPWKD, October 1980.

Recht, Hausrath & Associates, The Visitor Sector, AM.BAG, August 1979.

Robinson, Richard, Ecological Survey of Sand City, May 1981.

Santa Cruz County, Local Coastal Program, Draft Land Use Plan, January
1981.

Thompson, Warren C., "Effect of Sand Extraction from the Surf Zone on
Coast Erosion in Southern Monterey Bay," prepared for Monterey Sannd
Company, July 1978.

Thompson, Warren 0., "Notes on Coast Erosion Between Monterey Harborr and
Moss Landing," January 1977.

U.S. Geological Survey, "Water Resources Inventory Reort #82," February
1981.

Wald, Donald F. L. and Associates, Sand City Shoreline Appearance and
Design Study, Novmber 1981.

Welday, Edward E., "The Southern Monterey Bay Littoral and Coastal
Environment and the Impact of Sand Mininng," unpublished report,
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1972.

William Spangle & Associates, County-Wide Seismic Safety Element for the
General Plans of the County of Monterey and Participating Munici-
palities, July 1975.

7.2 Persons Consulted

Allayaud, Bill, California Coastal Commission Staff.
California State Coastal Conservancy.
California State Parks Department.
Citizens Advisory Committee for the LCP, City of Sand City.
Cope, Butch, City of Monterey Planning Staff.
Miller, Michael, California Coastal Commission Staff.
Norton, Haywood, City of Monterey Planning Staff.
Stohlton, John, City of Sand City Attorney.
Torre, Marshall, City of Marina Planning Director.

SCLCP2/16 90

i . I

Appendix A

Resolution of City Council Certification
and Adopted Changes

I -

I
I

City Council of the City of Sand City

Resolution No.

RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE LAND USE PLAN
OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30500, the City of
Sand City is required to prepare a Local Coastal Program for that portion of
the Coastal Zone lying within its jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, during all proceedings involved in the preparation and process-
ing of such program the City has provided maximum opportunity for the public
as well as all affected persons and entities to participate; and

WHEREAS, four public hearings were held by the Council of the CITY OF
SAND CITY on January 28, February 2, March 16 and March 23, 1982, at Sand City
City Hall, and public comment was received and considered; and

WHEREAS, in making such determinations and formulating such policies the
Council has been fully apprised of the requirements, policies and goals-of the
California Coastal Act of 1976 and has made such determinations and formulated
such policies in- full conformity with the requirements, policies and goals of
that Act taking into account the particular needs and characteristics of the
City of Sand City; and

WHEREAS, it is found and determined that the Land use Plan of the Local
Coastal Program complies with the provisions of the California Coastal Act of
1976;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Land Use Plan will require additional
formal Sand City City Council approval after adoption by the California.-
Coastal Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAND CITY
that it hereby certifies that the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program,

including the amendments and addendums thereto, is intended to be carried out

in a manner in full conformity to the California Coastal Act of 1976 and said

plan is hereby adopted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Planner is directed so submit said

plan to the California Coastal Commission with such additional information as

is necessary for their review and approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAND CITY this 23rd day

of March, 1982, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMBMBERS: RITTER,LEWIS, MORRIS, MEADOWS and
MAYOR PENDERGRASS.
NOES: NONE

ABSENT: NONE

APPROVED:

Mayor of Sand City

ATTEST:

Mary Ann Weems, City Clerk

Recommended Changes to the Draft LUP and Draft Responses to
Preliminary Coastal Commission Staff Comments,
dated January 20, 1982

Public Access

General
No response is necessary to comments made by Coastal Staff on page 1.

Page 13, Policy 2.3.1
At the end of the first sentence, add:
. . . accepted by appropriate "public agency or private entity."

After first sentence, add new sentences:
Figure 4 presents a system of shoreline access and designates the
appropriate locations for primary access. Exact locations of vertical
public accessways will be determined at the time of individual
development proposals.

Page 13, Policy 2.3.1
After "adequate access exists nearby," add new sentences:
Adequate access is defined as access needed to accommodate demand,
without overcrowding or becoming a detriment to private property. As
a condition of new development a vertical accessway shall be required
if there is no dedicated access within 700 feet, adequate to accom-
modate the intended use, and if adverse environmental impacts and use
conflicts can be mitigated.

Page 13, Policy 2.3.2
Change the last word of the policy from "properties" to "development".

Page 14-16,' Policies 2.3.4 through 2.3.8
No response is necessary.

Page 16, Policy 2.3.9
In first sentence, change the word "at" to "for." After the first
sentence, add new sentences:
The means for providing public parking areas will be the responsi-
bility of State and local governmental entities and private develop-
ment proposals. The following will be. pursued where feasible and
consistent with the Plan:

1 - Utilization of State of California Parks Department Properties to
provide public parking and other public services and amenities,
which provide quick and easy access to beach areas;
2. Abandonment, when appropriate, of some City paper streets, which
then could be utilized for public parking strips, or traded for
adjacent properties to form a more logically shaped parking lot;
and
3. The City shall require approved development plans to include a
provision for public parking on-site, or provide the property off-
site, but in a convenient location to the beach areas, or be
assessed an in-lieu pro-rata fee that the City could utilize for
public parking and maintenance purposes.

Page 16, Additional Policy
Add a new policy, as follows:
Both existing and future surf zone dragline sand mining operations
will be required to provide safe lateral public access across dragline
operations without unreasonable delays. A definition of' unreasonable
delays must be adopted' by the City and on record at City Hall for
public review. All dragline operations must be sign posted to
acknowledge the public's right to pass, as well as indicate a saf e
distance from dragline while it is in operation. Operator of dragline
should have a clear view of beach area and dragline.

Page 17, implementation Action 2.4.2
Delete the word "Guidelines" at the end of the sentence and add "access
Standards."

Page 17, Additional Implementation Action
Add a new Implementation Action after 2.4-3, as follows, and change the
sequence of the numbers following:
Develop -a program to provide public parking at designated accessways.
Establish standards and possible-financing souices.

Recreation and Visitor S:erving Facilities

Page 21, Background
After the 2nd sentence in the 3rd paragraph, add new sentence:
Future establishment of boating facilities off of Sand City's
coastline would still come under Coastal Commission jurisdiction and
f
ermit authority. However, permit authority for an inland marina
inland of the mean high tide line) would be delegated to the City.

Page 21, Background
in response to whether the shoreline is suitable for an inland marina,
Sand City's coastline does not consist entirely of dunes and bluffs, as
was stated in the Coastal Staff Comments. There is also no supporting
evidence that this type of marina would not work in Sand City.

?age 21, last paragraph
The Monterey Peninsula area does offer camping and RV facilities with a
variety of rates. There does not seem to be an excess of this type of
use; however, according to Monterey's Visitor Sector report, there are 636
camping sites on the Monterey Peninsula, with an estimated 60% occupancy.
Some examples are:
1. Veterans Memorial and Whispering Pines Park, City of Monterey (Public
City Parks);
2. Laguna Seca Regional Park, County of Monterey (Public County Park);
3. Monterey Fairgrounds, City of Monterey (Public Use) -- Temporary,
during activities;
4. 17-Mile Drive Village, Pacific Grove (Privately operated RV park); and
5. Marina Dunes R.V. Park, Marina (Privately owned R.V. park).

Page 22, Policy 3.3.3
Delete the phrase" ,health spas," and add "et cetera."

Page 24, Policy 3.3.8
At the end of the policy, delete "as well as the general public. (see
also Policy 2.3-9)." Also, add:
The developer will have to provide an adequate number of parking
sioaces to suit that development, including any public uses on-site.
However, in addition, the developer may be required to provide addi-
tional Dublic Darking not connected with that particular development,
consistent with ?olicy 2.3.9.

Page 24, Policy 3.3.9.
At end of policy, add "for public use."

Page 24, Policy 3.3-11
At the end of the policy, add the following:
The Coastal Commission will maintain jurisdiction and permit authority
over all area seaward of the mean high tide line. The City would
expect th at other agencies acting on such a project would ensure that
construction of such structures will not adversely impact Sand City's
shoreline.

Page 24, Im-plementation Action 3.4.2
Delete "to include provision of public parking" and add:
Further standards will need to be established for public parking.
(See Implementation Action 2.4-4.)

Coastal Resources Management

Page 27, Background
Previous researchers have estimated erosion rates for Sand City's coast-
line ranging between 1.4 and 5 feet per year. These estimates have been
stated in terms of ranges and averages when actually they are episodic.
Some assumptions have even been made regarding increases in an estimated
erosion rate. However, seasonal erosion and accretion varies from place

to mlace and time to time alon- the coastline. Typically, it has been seen
0
in Sand City that permanent coastal erosion takes place along the cliffs
and bluffs as a result of major storms. There may be no erosion for many
years, and then significant erosion may result at a particular location
from one major storm. An average uniform erosion and/or accretion rate
cannot be applied to Sand City's coastline, although there may be annual
erosion and accretion. Therefore, due to the differeat erosion estimates
and assumptions made by researchers, the cyclical storm patter-as affecting
erosion and accretion, and the uncertainty of whether aerial photos were
taken before or after storms, it has not been demonstrated that a signifi-
cant rate of erosion is occurring.

Paze 27, Section 4.2.1, third paragraph
Add sentence to end of paragraph:
Lone Star Industries currently mines sand on its property for use as
construction grade sand, which is not considered a specialty use.

Page 27, last paragraDh
The consulting geologist reviewed all prior research regarding the issue
of sand mining, during the preparation of the working papers. The con-
clusion of this review was that some assumptions have been made regarding
whether or not sand mining contributes significantly to coastal erosion.
However, to date there is no evidence to substantiate these assumptions.

Honterey Sand's oc eanographic consultant and other researchers who
reviewed aerial photos f9und no conclusive evidence of significant coastal
erosion at sand mining sites or adjacent beaches.

In the absence of any quantified, documented evidence, it therefore cannot
be conclusively determined that sand mining does or does. not contribute
significantly to coastal erosion in Sand City.

Page 28, paragraph 2
It is not the "long term" study discussed in this paragraph that is being
recommended prior to commencement of new or expanded surf zone mining
operations. A long term study such as that being recommended by Coastal
staff would be too expensive and time 1consuming, and could discourage a
viable coastal dependent use in Sand City.

Change last sentence of paragraph to read:
if new surf zone mining operations or expansion of existing operations
are proposed in the City, data should be required in order to fully
assess impacts, if any, and mitigations. Expanded operations mean a
significant increase in dragline capacity through the use of multiple
draglines. Any proposed new or expanded surf zone mining operations
would need to comply with the State Mining and Reclamation Act and;.
would require a permit from the City. The City at the time of permit
approval should require a determination of the feasibility of the
operation supported by finding that the activity would not signifi-
cantly contribute to coastal.erosion.

Page 28, paragraph 3
Reference is made to the significance of the Monterey Sand Dune Complex on
page 33, Section 4.2-4. The entire dune complex, which extends from the
Salinas River to Canyon del Rey, has been determined significant on the
west coast; however, no reference has been identified indicating its
significance in the United States. Of the entire dune complex, Sand City
contains the most severely disturbed dunes. The Sand City dunes are
especially low and unstable when compared with the high standing and
stabilized dunes in and around the, City of Marina. In addition, previous
coastal Commission maps have identified the dunes in this area as shifting
sands (coastal zone Map #79, "Seaside," March 1, 1977, and March 25, 1981,
adopted pursuant to section 30103(b) of the California Coastal Act of
1976. At times and in certain places, these active shifting sands have
created a public safety nuisance when sand has blown across Sand Dunes
Drive and State Highway One).

Page 28, last paragraph of Section 4.2.1.
Add the following to end of paragraph.
Pursuant to this Act, the City will require all surface mining
operations to obtain a mining permit from the City. In addition, all
surface mining operations must submit to the City for approval, a
reclamation plan prepared on City applications as called for by the
Act. The plan must identify uses of the land after reclamation and
how the reclamation will be accomplished. Sand City has a draf t
ordinance and reclamation plan application, which has been reviewed by
the State and has been determined to be in conformance with State law.

Page 28, last paragraph
At the end of the paragraph, add:
These seawalls are actually bluff protective structure@ rather than an
actual wall and consist of rip-rap and liquid concrete being poured
into the voids of the structure to bind the structure together.

Page 29, middle paragraph
It is inaccurate to state that the bluffs and beaches of Sand City are in
a "natural condition." For the most part, vehicular and pedestrian
traffic, seawall construction, the sewage treatment plant outfall line,
the commission-approved sewer line construction, construction of State
Highway 1, and the old dump site have left the bluffs and beaches in an
altered state.

Page 29, second to last paragraph, first sentence
Change the word "underdeveloped'. to flundeveloped"

The City of Sand City believes that shoreline protective devices may be
essential for the long term protection of existing structures, public
facilities and vacant lots adjacent to and in the vicinity of existing
structures and public facilities. For example: protective devices for
Vista del Mar Street, Tioga Avenue, the MPRWPCA sewage pipeline and pump
station, State Highway One and coastal dependent uses are consistent with

the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission has interpreted the Act in such a
manner that construction of shoreline protective devices between two such
existing devices is consistent with the Act.

Page 29, last paragraph
Add:
Methods of maintenance of existing seawalls will be in accordance with
standards adopted by the City.
(This change should also be made on,page 39, Policy 4.3-8.)

Page 30, Section 4.2.2., last paragraph
Add:
It should be noted that Sand City does act have jurisdiction over
projects seaward of the mean high tide line.

Page 32, paragraph 2
Projections have been made for distant source tsunami runups for southern
Monterey Bay. As stated in the Plan, these projections indicate that the
100- and 500-year events would have a run-up of 1.3 meters (6 feet) and
3.5 meters (11.5 feet), respectively. The hazard from local source tsu-
namis have not been determined. All future proposed projects will require
determination of tsunami hazard runup zones through site specific geologic
-investigations.

Page 33-34
The comment that "more emphasis needs to be put on these dunes as a visual
amenity" is somewhat out of context, because the section it is referring
to deals with the resource value of sand dunes and environmentally seasi-
tive habitats. The comment that Sand City's dunes represent the last
remaining open spaces between Fort Ord and Monterey is somewhat misleadi g
because the coastal area west of Highway One is primarily open space from
Fort Ord to Moss Landing.

The City of Sand City feels that the best..way to create a dune character
is through design and landscape conditions placed on individual develop-
ment proposals. Through conditioning and implementation of development
proposals, the City can create an attractive image. The existing State
Parks property offers an opportunity for reconstruction or restoration of
the native dune habitat (the portion of Area 2 owned by the State, iden-
tified in the Land Use Evaluation).

Add the above sentence to page 34 at the end of the last paragraph before
Section 4.2.5 and to the end of Policy 4.2-23.

Page 36, middle paragraph
The source of information, as stated in the Plan, is the United States
Geological Survey in their recent study of the Seaside aquifer "Water
Resources Inventory Report," #82, by the U.S.G.S.).

No inconsistency was intended in later paragraphs, as suggested in Coastal
Staff comments. The Coastal staff comments state that "new wells in Sand
City 'would' contribute to overdraft. " The Plan stated that they 'could'
contribute to overdraft.

Page 36, second to last paragraph, first sentence
Delete the words "contribute to" and add "create an" and delete "or" and
add "which could lead to."

Page 38, Section 4.2.6
Mitigation measures for archaeological resources are presented in Policies
4.3-32 and 4.3-33. Add sentence to end of section to read:
Development proposals in this area should be required to submit
archaeological surveys by a qualified archaeologist to determine the
presence and significance of archaeological resources, if any, and to
recommend mitigations if necessary.

Policy.4.3-1
Delete phrase "as long as they remain economically feasible."

Policy 4.3.2
Change policy to read:
Prohibit development of new surf zone mining or expansion of existing
surf mining operati.ons unless the applicant can demonstrate that such
activities will not significantly contribute to coastal erosion.
Expansion of existing surf zone mining operations means a significant
increase in dragline capacity through the use of multiple draglines.

Policy 4.3.3
No comment is necessary.

Recommended Changes to the Draft LUP Responses to
Preliminary Coastal Commission Staff Comments,
dated January 25, 1982

Page 38, Policy 4.3.4
With regard to Monterey Sand Company, the Coastal Commission has no
planning or permit authority outside of the coastal zone. Therefore,
Monterey Sand Company's operation- outside of the coastal zone cannot be
regulated insofar as this Plan is concerned. The portion of their
property within the coastal zone that has been identified as a potential
area of environmentally sensitive habitats will be subject to LCP policies
4.3.20 through 4.3.26, which present protection measures for identified
environmentally sensitive habitats. It should be noted that this area
contains some rare plant species, but the consulting biologist identified
only generalized potential environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Dune
mining activities will be subject to the City's Surface Mining and Rec-
lamation Ordinance, which will require approval of a reclamation plan and
issuance of a permit. (See also following comments for Policies 4.3.20
and 4.3-21.)

Change Policy 4.3.4 to read:
Limit dune mining operations to areas which meet any of the following:
a. areas where previous dune mining activity has occurred.
b. where dunes are in a severely disturbed condition. Severely dis-
turbed dunes are those without stabilizing vegetation and those
which are active.
c. Areas which have been severely disturbed by activities related to
and in support of coastal dependent sand mining.

Page 38, Policy 4.3.5
In first sentence, delete "along the shoreline or blufftop" and add:
in the coastal zone (unless previous site-specific geological studies
on or adjacent to that property are determined to be adequate).
In same sentence, change ". . . in order. to prevent to read "so as
not to contribute significantly to permanent
In last sentence, delete California Coastal Commission."

Page 38, Policy 4.-3.6
In response to Coastal staff comments regarding provision of shoreline
protection devices on vacant lots only when erosion of that lot is an
immediate threat to the developed adjacent lot, add the following. to page
29, second to last paragraph, delete second part of first sentence, which
reads "although the significance . . . determined," and add the following:

In the Monterey Sand Company Case (P-78-552), Commission-staff seemed
to suggest that the threat of erosion to existing public facilities
(Vista del Mar Street and the Sewage Treatment Plant) was a real
possibility when they stated:
Much of the erosion occurs during major ocean storms . . . .
Public beaches and dunes at Marina, Sand City, and Seaside are
affected by erosion. Public works facilities at Sand City and
Marina are located just inland from the retreating bluffs.
Also there are some private properties which lie close to the
receding shoreline, most notable the Holiday Inn within the
City of Monterey's boundaries..

Protection of Sand City's shoreline from further erosion, whether
developed or vacant, is a critical factor in securing the long term
protection of the City's existing structures, public facilities, and
public health and safety. Protection of Vista del Mar Street will
secure an important public access route. The existing sewage
treatment plant and new regional pump station and pipeline are
critical links in a regional sewage treatment program. It is apparent
-that the existing structures and public facilities near the City's
shoreline are vital to serve the public benefit, and their long term
protection must be secured.

Page 38, Policy 4.3.6
Change first word from "Regulate" to "Permit."

Delete the end of sentence, after "protection threaten and add the
following:
erosion protection threaten the long term viability of developed
properties, existing structures, public works facilities and vacant
parcels."'

Delete the second sentence and add:
Permit the construction of new shoreline protection devices between
two existing shoreline protective devices.

Replace the first word, "Consider," of third sentence with "Permit."

Page 39, Policy 4.3.8
After first sentence, add:
Appropriate maintenance materials shall be in accordance with
standards adopted by the City.

Page 39, Policy 4.3.9
As part of the implementation phase, risk levels will be defined as
recommended in Implementation Action 4.4-3. The following will be added.
to the end of the policy, in accordance with State guidelines and adopted
Sand City and County of Monterey guidelines:
Acceptable risk means the level of risk that the majority of citizens
will accept without specific action by local government to provide
protection.

Page 39, Policy 4.3-10
See material added to Background Section under Policy 4.3.6. In the third
sentence, delete the words Is protect structures during their economic life"
and add "to secure the long term protection of Sand City's shoreline."

age 39, Policy 4.3.12
See resopnses under Page 32, Paragraph -2, regarding tsunami hazards.
Delete last part of sentence ("and will be determined . . . investiga-
tion") and add:
The tsunami run-up zone and appropriate mitigations, if necessary,
will be determined by the required site-specific geological investi-
gation.
(See also response to comments for page 32, paragraph 2)

Page 40, Policies 4.3-13-16
See response for Policy 4.3.9 for definition of "acceptable risk levels."

Page 40, Policy 4.3-17
Delete the phrase "direct runoff and drainage away from or toward slopes,"
and add the following:
that would result in significant runoff which could adversely affect
unstable coastal bluffs or slopes.

Page 40, Policy 4.3.20.
Areas shown on Figure 7 do not correspond with the potential environ-
mentally sensitive habitats mapped by the biological consultant. They
differ slightly due to a drafting error, and will be corrected. The only
exception is Area 3 (shown on the biologist's report), next to the High-
way, which upon re-examination by the biologist, was found that only a
portion of this area contains potential environmentally sensitive habi-
tats. Therefore, a portion of this area was deleted from the biologist's
original report.

Delete last part of sentence of Policy, which states in accordance
with Coastal Commission guidelines." .

Add the following to the Background Section, page 34, at the end of
paragraph 2:
The Biological Survey conducted as a part of the LCP identified only
generalized locations of potential rare and endangered species. No
specific locations were identified. In many instances, only a "few"
rare species were noted within a large area.

Page 40, Policy 4.3.21
Change policy to read:
Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any
significant disruption of habitat values. Only uses dependent on
these resources shall be allowed within these areas. However, if all

of the following conditions are met, any use or development shall be
allowed within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
a) The area is located inclose proximity to, or within or contiguous
with, an existing developed area.
b) The development is sited or designed to prevent any impact which
would degrade significantly the habitat values of the environ-
mentally sensitive habitat area or of any adjacent environmentally
sensitive habitat area.
c) The development will enhance or restore the habitat values of the
environmentally sensitive habitat area in which it is located, or
another environmentally sensitive habitat area within the city, or
it will arrest a current process of degradation of the habitat
values of the environmentally sensitive habitat area.

New uses proposed adjacent to locations of known environmentally
sensitive habitats shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts
which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible
with the continuance of such habitat areas.

Page 40, Policy 4.3.22
The standards presented in this policy relate to specific locations of
environmentally sensitive habitats. When their exact locations and
significance are determined through site specific proposals and
biological surveys, mitigations to protect these habitats will be
implemented.

In first sentence, add ihe word "environmentally" after "Protect."

delete subsection "a" of this policy.

Page 41, Policy 4.3-24
Change the word "Discourage" to "Prohibit."

Page 41, Additional Policy
As discussed in previous responses, an d on pages 33-34 of the LUP, the
dunes west of Highway One have been highly degraded and are not in a
natural condition. The majority of the dunes are active and little plant
life has established itself, except for mainly non-native species. There-
fore, these dunes are not a natural landform, nor are they environmentally
sensitive habitats.. While the dunes are part of a larger dune system,
they are the most degraded and disturbed, and in and of themselves are not
a "significant regional landform." As indicated in a previous response,
Coastal Commission maps have also identified this area as consisting of
shifting sands.

Page 42, Policy 4.3-30
Delete the fifth sentence of the sixth paragraph on Page 36 and add:
The City only has authority over new water well systems through
conditioning of development proposals. Permit authority is granted to
the MPWMD for new well water systems.

At the end of both this paragraph and the Policy, add:
In support of MPWMD's review and permit authority, the City should
incorporate these requirements into City development review.

Page 42, Policy 4.3-32
Change end of policy (after "and to recommend protective measures, if
necessary") to read:
If such resources are found, feasible site-specific mitigation
measures shall be required as a condition of the development permit.

Page 42, Policy 4.3-33
After the word "supervision" add:
by a qualified- archaeologist and consultation with a qualified Native
American representative.

Visual Resources

Page 45, Policy 5.3.2
Visual resources in Sand City's coastal zone were mapped in the LCP
Working Paper 3. Policy 5.3.6 (see following comments) requires new
development-to provide view corridors. Because the location and type of
future development proposals are not known, exact locations of view
corridors cannot be mapped. All developments will require provision of
view corridors, to be determined at the time of the land use proposal.

For clarity, the majority of the design policies will be regrouped as
design guidelines, as indicated below.

Page 45, Policy 5.3.2
Change policy to read:
Develop design stancTards for future development proposals, based on
LCP policies and the following general design guidelines. These
standards shall be used by the City's Design Committee to insure that
new development will be sited, designed and landscaped in a manner
that provides view corridors and considers protection and/or enhance-
ment of visual resources.

Add policies 5.3-12 through 5.3-39 to this Policy, as guidelines "a"
through "w", with the changes indicated below.

Page 45, Policy 5.3.4
Change first sentence to read:
Encourage restoration or enhancement, where feasible, of visually
degraded areas.

Page 45, Policy 5.3.6
Delete the words "to the mwrimum extent feasible" and add:
consistent with City standards for view corridors. Such standards for
view corridors should include Xaried roof or building profile lines,
and visual corridors through, between and/or over buildings to the
bay.

Page 45, Policy 5.3.7
This policy is not in conflict with the preceding policy; one discusses
providing view corridors from Highway One in new development, and the
other relates to screening of the new development (i.e., screening of the
buildings and parking areas). Change policy to read:
New development should to the extent feasible, soften the visual
appearance of major buildings and parking areas from view of Highway
One.

Page 46, Policy 5.3.9
..Delete this policy and other references to high standing dunes.

Page 46, Policy 5.3-10
Rewrite this policy as follows:
In new developments, require dune stabilization measures where feas-
ible and..where they would stabilize an unconsolidate.d dune, and/or
reduce views of the development from Highway One.

Page 46, Policy 5,;3.11
See response for Policy 6.4.9 on following pages.

Pages 46-47, Policies 5.3.12-39
Change from policies to design guidelines and add as guidelines "a"
through "w" to Policy 5.3.2, with the changes noted below:

Policy 5.3-12 (a)
Change to read:
Encourage project design that is compatible to its surroundings and
that enhances the overall City image. All buildings should be
designed and scaled to the community character as established by new
development.

Policy 5.3.13 (b)
Change to read:
Encourage mass and height variations within coastal zoning limits in
order to provide view corridors and to generate "lighter," "airier"
buildings. Encourage building designs that avoid overly bulky build-
ings that could significantly block view corridors. (See Section
6.4-5.)

Add a new section of policies after Section 6.4-4, Densities, on page 66, as
follows, and renumber remaining policies.

6.4.5 Height Restrictions
In the Sand City Coastal Zone, permit a height limit of 35 feet as
measured from ground level floor elevation, except for the following:
a. Coastal dependent industrial uses will have a height limit of 75
feet, measured from ground level;
b. Industrial /Manufacturing and Industrial Park designations will
be permitted a height limit of 45 "feet for new development.
Existing development will be permitted a height of 75 feet from
ground level, including replacement, expansion and/or improvement
of existing development.
a. Neighborhood Commercial designations will be permitted a height
limit of 30 feet; and
d. Hotel and visitor serving residential uses will be permitted
variation in height to 45 feet on the ocean (Bay) side, with one-
story increase inland.

6.4.6 As a part of normal City coastal permit procedures, an increase in
height can be requested up to 45 feet, if any of the following condi-
tions are met:
a. Significant public amenities are provided on-site as defined by
50% more than the minimum requirements for accessways and viewing
areas'; and/or
b. At least 75% of the structure is reserved for priority uses such
as visitor-serving commercial, coastal recreational uses, and/or
coastal dependent land uses.

Policy 5.3-14
Delete, as it was addressed under 5.3-12.

Policy 5.3-15
Delete.

Policy 5.3.16 (c)
Reword as follows:
Require colors compatible with the natural setting. Discourage
garish colors. Encourage the use of earthtones.

Policy 5.3-19
Delete.

Policy 5.3.20 (f)
No response is necessary.

Policy 5.3.21
This is changed to a design guideline, so the language will. remain the
same. Delete last sentence.

Policy 5.3.22
Delete, as provisions for dune stabilization are made in Policies
4.3-4, 4.3.23-24, and 5.3-10.

Policy 5.3.23 (h)
Rewrite this policy, as follows:-
As a short term solution, encour-age landscaping of the existing sewage
treatment facility and new pump station (for the Regional Facility) to
screen it from view. If the Regional Sewer Facility is constructed,
encourage the demolition of the existing Seaside Sewage Plant and
screening of the remaining Regional Pump Station.

Policy 5.3.24 W
Add a sentence at the end, as follows:
Re-evaluate the existing paper street layout and, where feasible,
abandon the rigid format of street patterns for an undulated pattern.
Encourage the use of textured surfaces.

Policy 5.3.25
Delete, as it was included above.

-Policy 5.3-29 (m)
Replace "Discourage" with "Prohibit."

Add the following to the Lwnd of the policy:
except for off-road vehicles necessary for emergency uses and to
support coastal dependent uses.

Policy 5.3-34 - (r)
This policy is simply intended to discourage parking areas on the
ocean side of buildings in order to protect the ocean/beach setting.
Parking would be more adequately sited underground or on the Highway
One side of buildings, with appropriate berming and landscaping.

Land Use and Development

Background
Land use evaluations were prepared for all areas within Sand City's
Coastal Zone, based on the criteria listed on page 59. These evaluations
are available for review, as indicated in City responses to Coastal
Commission staff comments to Sand City's LCP Working Papers. However, in
response to current Coastal Commission comments, additional information
will be provided in the LUP as indicated below, to further elaborate on
these analyses. A summ-ary of the analyses and water allocations developed
as part of the LUP will be added as appendices to the plan and are
included with these comments.

Page 59, Section 6.3.1
Change first paragraph to read:
As part of the LCP, a land use analysis was prepared for Sand City's
coastal zone. The analysis divided the coastal zone into nineteen
identifiable areas, each of which was evaluated in terms of resource
and service constraints and Coastal Act policies. As a result of
these evaluations, land use options and densities were analyzed in
order to designate the land uses presented in this plan. Generally,
the following factors were considered in these land use evaluations:

Under -number 4, after the words "public access" add "and Coastal Act
priority uses of."

Add the following paragraph before the second paragraph:
Appendix E presents the full land use evaluation criteria and a
summary chart of the land use analysis. The chart summarizes the
major findings of the analysis by area, as shown on the Map in the
Appendix. As seen on the summary chart, every area was reviewed
according to Coastal Act resource concerns, relationship to services
and access, existing area conditions, and design capabilities. Based
on this review, land use options were evaluated for each area,
incorporating coastal act priority uses and evaluation of all resource
and service data. The land use options that were evaluated for each
area resulted in the final recommended land uses found in this Plan.

Change first sentence of second to last paragraph to read:
A primary land use constraint in Sand City is the limited availability
of water.

Add the following sentence after first sentence of last paragraph:
Appendix F presents the water allocations that were developed for each
area in the coastal zone as part of the total land use analysis.

Page 60
In response to comments regarding the development of densities, add
the following paragraphs before Section 6.3.2 ':
Another service constraint which was considered in the land use
analysis is the current limited capacity of the Seaside Sewage Treat-
ment plant. As indicated in the background section, measures
currently are being discussed regarding alternate methods for
providing additional sewer capacity prior to the completion of the
proposed regional plant in 1987._ Two major alternatives considered to
date for increasing capacity at the seaside plant include:
1) Construction of a secondary package treatment plant at the seaside
treatment facility to handle projected capacities until 1987, or
2) The construction of a new sewer trunk line to the Monterey
treatment plant to handle the same capacities described in 1,
above.

All resource and service constraints were evaluated in order to estab-
lish densities. As a result, it was found that water is A primary
constraint to future development. Because the limitation of water
supply to the City has been defined via the City's water allocation,

it represents a quantifiable constraint that must be accounted for
throughout the City. Therefore, it was a primary factor used to
establish land use densities because it is the only constraint that
can be translated numerically into densities. As a result of the
water allocation performed as part of the land use analysis, max'
densities were established to indicate the maximum development that
could occur with the City's present water allocation.

The densities presented in the Plan are allowed for gross acreages.
However, implementation of other policies within the Plan could serve to
prevent future development from building to the maximum density allowed.
Specifically, these policies relate to investigation of natural hazards
and environmentally sensitive habitats, provision of view corridors,
landscaping,- buffers and parking, and height restrictions. The extent of
these constraints will vary, depending on the site and type of development
proposal. But, they must be considered in every proposal, and as a result
maximum densities may not be attained.

With regard to the Coastal Act as the standard of approval, denial and
suggested modifications for this LUP and resolution of conflicts between
Coastal Act Policies, as described in Section 30007.5, the Sand City LUP
is promoting the policy, which states:
"The Legislature further finds and recognizes, that conflicts may occur
between one or more policies of the division. The legislature there-
fore declares that in carrying out the provisions of this division
such conflicts can be resolved in a manner which on balance is the
most protective of significant coastal resources. In this context,
the Legislature declares that broader policies which, for example,
serve to concentrate development in close proximity to urban and
employment centers may be more protective, overall, than specific
wildlife habitat and other similar resource policies."

In preparing this LUP, Sand City encountered conflicts betviben. Coastal Act
policies as applied to the City. As a result, the policy set in Section
30007.5 of the Coastal Act was determinant in resolving these conflicts.

The above two paragraphs regarding section 30007.5 should also be added to
the Introduction, page 2, after the fourth paragraph.

With regard to this comment, add the following to Page 59, at the
beginning of Section 6.3., Future Land Use and Development:

The areas identified for development in Sand City's Coastal Zone rep-
resent a great potential to provide not only the opportunity for com-
munity growth but also can act as a regional asset for the Monterey
Peninsula. As one approaches the Monterey Peninsula from the north on
Highway One, the change from rural rolling landscape to the urban set-
ting of greater Monterey occurs at Sand City. The importance of this
turning point is that it raises a heretofore unfulfilled potential for
Sand City to be an attractive addition to the Monterey Peninsula.

One of the many objectives the Land Use Plan seeks to achieve is a
major entry statement for the Monterey area. Through careful design,

thoughtful landscaping and purposeful implementation programs, the
land uses proposed here can establish a sense of character and theme
which can benefit the regional community.

"Water Allocation Summary"
As previously indicated, this Water Allocation Summary will be included in
the Plan as an Appendix, and is referenced in Section 6.3-1. Policy
6.4.11 ties the water allocations to the designated land uses. Policy
6.4.4 (e) shows density limitations on hotels and motels based upon water
allocations. This will also be clarified in Policy 6.4.1 (b) as indicated
below. Errors in the "Water Allocation Summary" have been corrected.

Page 62, Policy 6.4.1.(b)
Add sentence at the end of policy to read:
The hotel/motel uses shall be consistent with hotel/motel density
limits presented in Policy 6.4.4.(e). All other, visitor serving
commercial uses shall be limited according to the water allocation
presented in Appendix F.

In response to Coastal staff comments regarding dual land designations,
see response under Policy 6.4.1.

Designation of Public Recreation
The spirit of Sand City's LUP meets the most basic of Coastal Act Poli-
cies; that is, to allow as many people as possible, without overcrowding,
to enjoy the oceanfront/beach experience. This Plan provides for rigorous
public access to public recreational beach areas and provides numerous
visitor-serving commercial opportunities. It must be kept in context that
Sand City is the beginning of the urban Peninsula. Therefore, rural
public recreational opportunities do not make sense from a 'land use evalu-
ation standpoint.

The Land Use - Map could be amended to designate pocket areas and thin
strips of beach in front of areas 6, 7, 8, and 9. This would provide a
continuous strip of public beach at low tide. Assuming public access will
be provided through these areas, public recreational beaches, where
feasible, should then be provided.

Page 62, Policy 6.4.1(a)
The City, in its land use evaluations for the LUP, considered designation
of areas 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 as coastal dependent. It was found that in
the absence of any existing coastal dependent uses (other than surf zone
sand mining), and with the limited potential for other coastal dependent
uses, these areas were not suitable for coastal dependent designation.
The potential for coastal dependent designation was assessed via the
resource and topographic constraints of the parcels. Monterey Sand
Company, area 7, was the only area with a coastal dependent use that was
found suitable for this designation.

Page 62, Policy 6.4.1.(a)
Change policy to read:
Allow coastal dependent uses, including but not limited to specialty
surf zone sand mining; allow a secondary land use designation as
defined below after the coastal dependent use is shown to the City to
be infeasible and the secondary use is consistent with the Coastal Act
and the LUP. At that time the secondary use, visitor serving commer-
cial, will become the use.

Policy 64, Policy 6.4.1 (f), (h) (i) and (j)
Add Zoning Ordinance references to "C-2," "C-3,19 "N" and "I-P" uses in
Appendix C and cross reference these policies to the Appendix.

Page Policy 64, Policy 6.4.1 (i)
The existing industrial activities in areas 6 and 8 were found to show
significant benefit to the community and the Peninsula region as a whole.
Thus, they were dual designated industrial-visitor serving. It was also
found with regard to these parcels, that in the long-term perspective,
Sand City's coastline might better serve the public sector through
visitor-serving type use.

in the case of the dual back-up designations on coastal industrial par-
cels, the secondary designation was found to be the preferred use. How-
ever, the existing industrial uses were found to provide a crucial
economic benefit to the region. This makes the industrial designation a
..critical portion of the plan. It allows these industrial uses to continue
as conforming uses, to serve the Peninsula until such a time that a higher
priority use becomes more..important to the region.

Delete the last sentence of the policy and add the following:
The secondary use will be allowed after it is demonstrated to the City
that the industrial use is no longer important or feasible in the
regional 'context, and that the secondary use is consistent with the
Coastal Act and the LUP.

Page 65, Policy-6-4.2 (a)
After the first sentence, add the following:
These units are to be interval units, in which the purchaser acquires
one or more intervals. Intervals are usually in one or two week
periods.
Page 65, Policy 6.4.3 (b))
Change second to last sentence to read:
The plan line will have a flexible location across the properties
shown on Figure 10.

Page 67, Policy 6.4.7
Rewrite policy as follows:
Time limitations will not be established for non-conforming uses
created by this Plan. Expen ion of non-conforming uses established by
this Plan will not be allowed.

j 12

Page 67, Policy 6.4.9
This policy should go. unchanged with a further explanation of the City' s
position on this issue in the text of this Plan. Add the following text
to the end of Section 6.3-1, Land Use Analysis, on page 60:
As a part of the LUP land use evaluations, lot consolidation was also
considered as an option to development of existing lots in those
portions of Sand City's coastal zone plotted with small lot subdivi-
sions. The many opportunities which the City's coastal zone holds for
enhancement of public benefit and economic'growth are inhibited by the
historic division of parts of this area into small lot subdivisions.
It is a major goal of the City to reassemble, where feasible, the land
within these undeveloped subdivisions to create areas of sufficient
acreage to take advantage of modern planning and design techniques.
To do so will allow a format in which development can be clustered,
open space preserved and view corridors from Highway One provided.

To a large degree, small lot consolidation in Sand City's coastal zone
has been occurring with moderate success over the past two years. For
example, three property owners in Area #5 (as shown on the Land Use
Analysis Map in Appendix E) who realize that planned development is
advantag eous have consolidated the ma jority of these lots. With the
initiation of an assessment district to provide services and approval
of the Coastal LUP for this area, private lot consolidation would be
facilitated.

The City's vehicle for lot consolidation in both the private and pub-
lic sectors include:

0 the City of Sand City and

0 the private property owners, as follows:

Accept the existing method of lot consolidation that has occurred
to date, realizing that not all the parcels will necessarily be
included in any one development proposal. However, planned
development could still occur on individual or partnership terms
with consolidated lots. This would probably include rearranging
street patterns where feasible. The vehicle for lot consolida-
tion, where feasible, would be the City and owners' desire for a
planned develpoment, the formation of an assessment district and
approval of the LUP. The City could function as the investiga-
tive, coordinating and encouraging agency.

Page 67, Policy 6.4-10
Add additional information in Background section, as identified below;

Page 56, Sewer Service, Second paragra2h
Change first part of second sentence to read:
A MPRWPCA study is currently in the draft stage to determine

Delete the third paragraph of this section and the following:
The MPRWPCA has just completed this draft study which evaluated each
of the Agency's five wastewater treatment plants, including the
Seaside Treatment Facility. The evaluation was conducted for three,
five and ten year planning periods and makes additions to each plant,
so that each plant will meet discharge requirements and serve
projected growth.

Projections showing population growth in Seaside, Sand City and Del
Rey Oaks were developed indicating a present population of 25,000.
The 1984 population projection is 26,200, a 1986 population of 27,250
and a 1991 population of 29,600 was made. The Seaside Treatment
Facility has a capacity of 2.0 million gallons per day (MGD). Anti-
cipated effluent flows are as follows:
Year Se wage Flow (MGD)
1981 1.9
1984 2.2
1986 2.4
1991 2.5

The above figures indicate that .3 MGD will be needed by 1984, .5 MGD
by 1986, and .6 MGD by 1991.

Alternative expansion plans for the Seaside Facility were evaluated in
this study. Conclusions were based on feasibility, environmental
impact, performance and cost. Recommendations for the 3 and 5 year
planning periods to meet the anticipated effluent flow consist of
chemicallyo-assisted primary treatment facilities at the Seaside Plant.
Improvements to the chemically-assisted primary treatment facilities
would be proposed for the 5 'year planning period. This was the most
cost effective alternative and showed the least number of adverse
impacts. The 10 year options consist of secondary treatment at both
Seaside and Monterey or primary treatment at Seaside with construction
of a new sewer line to carry flows to Monterey. Both alternatives
would require major construction. Until sewer plant capacity has been
increased development priority should be given to Coastal Act priority
uses of coastal dependent and visitor-serving.

Page 67
Add. new policy after Policy 6.4-10, as follows, and renumber remaining
policies:
Prior to the approval of any new development within the coastal zone
of the City of Sand City, adequate sewage treatment facility capacity
shall be demonstrated consistent with the provisions and requirements
of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Alternatives
for demonstrating additional treatment capacity may include but not be
limited to:

a) Construction of a package treatment plant at the Seaside Treatment
Facility to handle all projected sewage capacities for the City's
LU? land use designations, or
b) Construction of a new sewer line to the Monterey Treatment Facility
to handle the same sewage capacities described in Alternative A.

Until sewer plant capacity has been increased, development priority
should be given to,Coastal Act priority uses of coastal dependent and
visitor serving.

Pa 9 68_, Policy 6.4.17
Add following to end of policy:
if consistent with LUP policies.

Page 68, Policies 6.4.22-24
Delete all housing policies, since there is no longer Coastal Act juris-
diction over housing issues, and the City's Housing Element will
address specific issues related to affordable housing.

Page 68_, Policy 6.4.24
No response is necessary.

Page 69, Policy 6.4-30 and 31
The extension of Vista d;l Mar Street to the south is a critical coastal
access link in Sand City and an extension of major access right-of-way in
the southern portion of the coastal zone. Implementation of this right-
of-way will probably allow the City to abandon some other minor rights-of-
way in this area in order to provide public parking. The City has every
intention of upgrading, extending and protecting Vista del Mar Street as
our coastal oceanfront/beach access route. This program to' improve-Vista
del Mar Street provides a public benefit consistent with the access
portion of the Coastal Act.

Page 69, Policy 6.4-32
Delete policy from this section and transfer to Access section.

Specific Site Designations

Area E (10 on Water Chart) -- Lone Star Site
Correct typos and misprints in the entire Water Allocation Summary. Fur-
ther note that in Area 10 the land use designation portion of the Water
Summary, the words "beach area" should be deleted immediately after
"Public Recreation."

The intent of the Public Recreation designation at this site is to provide
7 acres of both beach and upland recreational area with the actual

location of this designation to be identified with future site-specific
land use planning. The parcel's beach area shall be a part of this public
.recreation-acreage.

Add a policy to the Plan, as follows:
Access to Fort Ord Military Base mil t be sufficienty restricted in any
site-specific land use plan for Area 10. Area 10 of this Plan borders
Fort Ord on the ocean side of Highway One and must not interfere with
military security to be consistent with the Coastal Act.

Area D (Area 11)
Public recreation was not an intended use in this area, and the error on
the Water Chart will be corrected.

Area B (Area 8)
Coastal dependent industry was not an intended use in this area, and the
error on the water chart will be corrected.

Areas 14 and 16 (on Water Chart)
The dunes along the Freeway referred to in this comment are located within
an area of potential environmentally sensitive habitats. The areas are
only general locations of these-habitats. Rare and endangered species are
scattered within this area, and localized environmentally sensitive
habitats have not been determined. Once specific locations are known,
mitigation measures will be developed to protect identified resources.

Area 5
The density is a necessity in order to encourage lot consolidation and
potential planned develdpment. In order to encourage lot owners to
consolidate their holdings, to cluster planned development, to preserve
open space and provide view corridors, the density is a critical factor in
the success of this endeavor.

The Plan has accounted for water supply and eventual sewer capacity.
Siting and design of development will protect the visual resources of this
area. The existing unconsolidated dunes have been determined insignifi-
cant by the Plan.

The City has encouraged lot consolidation and planned development in Area
5. Please refer to inserted response to comments, Section 6.3-1, Land Use
Analysis.

Area I and 2, Hicks Property
There is nothing in the Coastal Act that implies that a low intensity use
at these two sites is the only way to comply with the Act. Sand City has
proposed a high priority coastal use (visitor serving commercial) at a
location that is suitable for the use. The use will attract people to the
oceanfront, and with the public access that is proposed for the site, will
encourage maximum use of this oceanfront area by both the public and those
using the visitor serving accommodations.

Potential hazards from erosion and tsunamis will have to be addressed
further in site specific geological investigations. Potential erosion and
tsunami hazard will have to be evaluated and mitigated at the time of
project proposals.

Coastal Act Section 30251 does not imply the shoreline must be clear of
structures in order to protect scenic and visual qualities. What it does
say is "Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views
to and along the ocean

Trade of these properties with the State appears to be very unlikely and
would almost surely result in an unequitable trade for the property owners
of Areas 1 and 2. The City feels the same goals can be accomplished with
what is proposed in this Plan, especially if State Parks is willing to
cooperate in providing public recrQation, parking opportunities and open
space on their properties.

The City has reviewed the Commission's findings on the regional sewer line
permit with regard to shoreline protection. The City generally disagrees
with this finding for two reasons:
1) It is contrary to Section 30010 of the Coastal Act; and
2) It is an unduly conservative evaluation of shoreline processes.

Our position is that this area of the shoreline should be protected to
ensure the long term protection of Vista del Mar Street, the sewage
treatment facility and regional pump station and the regional pipeline.

Final Comment

Sand City has only one suitable area for growth of the visitor serving commer-
cial, recreational and residential type, and that is on the west side of
Highway One. The east side*of Highway One in Sand City has been established
over the years as an industrial employment center and does not lend itself to
these types of uses in any extensive fashion. Retention of the existing
industrial character of this portion of the city is vital to the economic and
social well-being of the region as a whole. The overall intens7ity of the Plan
must be put into perspective. The densities shown are maximums, and these
maximums will be further constrained by the policies of this Plan.

, I @ F.
I

.A- endix B
vp

Significant LCP Actions, Products,
and Meetings

Appendix B

Significant LCP Actions, Products and Meetings

*Public Meeting Dates

1. Funding for preparation of Sand City Work
Program granted by Coastal Commission. December 2, 1980

2. Work Program and Issue Identification--Public
Hearing and City Approval December 22, 1980*

3. Work Program approved by Coastal Commission February 9, 1981

4. Completion of Draft Working papers
#1 Shoreline Access and Recreation and
Visitor-Serving Facilities June 1981
#2 Marine Environment and Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas June 1981
#3 Development and Industrial Development June 1981

5. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings to June 23, 1981
discuss Draft Working Paper June 29, 1981

6. Completion of 3 Working Papers July 1981

7. Public Workshop Meetings to receive comments July 16, 1981*
on Working Papers July 23, 1981*

8. CAC meeting to discuss comments received on
Working Papers September 10, 1981

9. Responses to Working Papers comments
Completed by City September 21, 1981

10. Notice to all Property Owners in Coastal Zone
to inform them of LCP Process October 29, 1981

11. CAC meetings to discuss Land Use Plan (LUP) November 16, 1981
issues and Draft LUP November 24, 1981
December 14, 1981

12. Draft Land Use Plan Completed by the City December 18, 1981

13. Preliminary Coastal Commission's Staff's January 20, 1982
Comments on Draft received January 25, 1982

14. City Council Public Hearings on Draft January 28, 1982*
February 2, 1982*
March 16, 1982*

15. CAC meetings to discuss comments received January 27, 1982
Qn Draft LUP February 16, 1982
March 2, 1982
March 8, 1982
March 16, 1982

16. Responses to Coastal Commission comments
and Recommended Changes to Draft completed
by CAC March 16, 1982

17. City Council Public Hearing on Draft and
Recommended Changes and approval of Land
Use Plan March 23, 1982

18. Land.Use Plan submitted by Sand City to
California Coastal Commission for review
and Certification

19. Coastal Commission Public Hearings on June 4, 1982*
LUP August 12, 1982*
September 7, 1982*
December 2, 1982*
February 10, 1982

20. CAC meetings to discuss comments from June 17, 1982
Coastal Commission Staff and Hearings June 25, 1982
June 29, 1982
July 1, 1982
July 15, 1982
August 5, 1982
September 2, 1982
--September 16, 1982

21. City Public Workshop to receive comments
on Draft Revisions to LUP July 8, 1982*

22. City Council Public Hearings on City's
Resubmittal of the LUP September 21, 1982*

23. CAC meetings to discuss Draft December 9, 1982
Implementation Plan January 4, 1983'
January 6. 1983
January 12, 1983
February 8, 1983
February 15, 1983
March 1, 1983

Sand City
LCP PUBLIC HEARINGS
ON DRAFT LUP

Attendance

January 28, 1982 February 2, 1982

David Pendergrass, Mayor David Pendergrass, Mayor
Michael Morris Council Michael Morris Council
Carl Ritter Carl Ritter
Mark Meadows Mark Meadows

Mary Ann Weems, City Clerk Mary Ann Weems, City Clerk
Michael Groves, Planner, EMC Michael Groves Planners EMC
Dave Wilson Stephanie Strelow
Ron Dennis Bill Allayaud, Coastal Commission
Don Young Don Southard
Michael Albov Steve Woolpert
Steve Woolpert Mr. & Mrs. Dudley DeZonia
Don Southard Michael Albov
Joe & Jane Anastasi George Robinette
Juanita Brollier Roy Hubbard
Lee Gross Jerry Dalton
Harry Hicks Roy Meadows
Dudley DeZonia Martin Brown
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Sturgeon

March 16, 1982

David Pendergrass
Michael Morris
Carl Ritter Council
Mark Meadows
Ronda Lewis

John Stohlton, City Attorney
Mary Ann Weems, City Clerk
Michael Groves Planners, EMC
John Benoit
Gil Neill, City Engineer
James & Marjorie Sturgeon Lee Morrow
George Robinette Norbert Dall
Steve Woolpert Gerald Dalton
Michael Albov Dave Wilson
Rod Holmgren Jack Angel
Mr. & Mrs. Gunter Bob McGuire
Mr. & Mrs. DeZonia Fred King
Michelle Strictland Lee Milton
Joe Leonard Roy Meadows
Robert Standfield Ron Dennis
Mr. & Mrs. Harry Hicks Kay Leonard
Carl Larson

March 23, 1982

David Pendergrass
Michael Morris
Carl Ritter Council
Mark Meadows
Ronda Lewis

Michael Groves Planners, EKC
Stephanie Strelow
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Anastasia
Michael Albov
George Robinette
Mr. and Mrs. Harry Hicks
Carl Larson
Rod Holmgren
Roy Meadows
Gerald Dalton
Leonard Levy
David Axastrong
Ron Dennis
Dave Wilson
Michelle Lewis
Ralph Mitchell
Francis Mitchell
Don Southard
Norbert Dall

PUBLIC HEARING

The meeting was called to order by MAYOR PENDERGRASS at 7:00 P.M..

Present were Councilmembers: RITTER, MORRIS, MEADOWS, and MAYOR PENDERGRASS.
Councilmember RONDA LEWIS was excused.

Staff Member, MICHAEL GROVES, was present.

Purpose of this meeting was the first of two (2) PUBLIC HEARINGS to
receive comments on the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN prepared for Sand City's
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM; and was held at the time and place specified in
the published Public Notice in compliance with the statue governing same.

Planner, MICHAEL GROVES, of Environmental Management Consultants, gave a
short presentation on the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN, and announced that written
comments had been received from the Department of Fish A Came, and the
California Coastal Commission. A Land Use Plan map was on display, and
copies of the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN, WATER ALLICATION SUMMARY, and all
comments received to date, were available.

MAYOR PENDERGRASS opened the floor to public comment. MRS. JUANITA BROILLIAR,
1875 Ocean View, Sand City, California, addressed the Council, expressing her
concern for the future of the sand dunes. MRS. CORALEE GROSS, 1875 Ocean View,
Sand City, California, addressed the Council, regarding the sand dunes.
(Complete dialog of these oral comments are on tape, for the records).

There being no further speakers, MAYOR PENDERGRASS closed the floor to
public comment and asked for Council discussion. Councilmember RITTER
moved, Councilmember MORRIS seconded, a motion to adjourn the meeting until
7:00 P.M., February 2, 1982, at which time the second PUBLIC HEARING on the
DRAFT LAND USE PLAN will be held, as previously announced. The motion
carried unanimously.

Meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P.M..

Mary Ann Weems
City Clerk

Approved February 16, 1982

MINUTES OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, CITY OF SAND CITY
CITY HALL, NO. I SYLVAN PARK, SAND CITY, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 2, 1982

PUBILC HEARING

The meeting was called to order by MAYOR PENDERGRASS at 7:00 P.M..

Present were Councilmembers: RITTER, MORRIS, MEADOWS and MAYOR PENDERGRASS.
Councilmember RONDA LEWIS was excused.
Z

Staff Member, MICHAEL GROVES ano Assistant
STEPANIE STRELOW were present.

Minutes bf the Special Council Meetifig Pubhc Huar-inti held January 28,
1982, were appcuved.

Purpose of this meeting was the second of two (2) PUBLIC HEARINGS to
receive comments on the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN prepared For Sand City'!;
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: and was held at the time and place specified.in
the published Public Notice in compliance with the statue governing same.

Planner MICHAEL GROVES, of Environmental Management Consultants, gave a
short presentation on the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN, and announced that results
of these two (2) Public Hearings, plus all written comments received to
date',' will be taken back to a Citizen,'s Advisory Committee for review;
will be summarized and an addendum presented to the Council for consideration.
A Land Use Plan map was an display and copies of the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN,
WATER ALLICATION SUMMARY, and all comments received to date, were available.

Mr. Bill Allayaud, ofthe California Coastal Commission staff, said the time
restraint for submittinq the plan to that commission, will be moved frul"
February 1982, to April 1982.

MAYOR PENDERGRASS opened the floor to public comment. There were none.

There being no public comments, the floor was then closed to the public
and opened for Council discussion. There being no further discussion,
Councilmember RITTER moved, Councilmember MORRIS seconded a motion to
re-adjourn to another meeting at a future date, when necessary. The motion
carried unanimously.

Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M.

Mary Anti Weems
City Clerk/Treasurer

Approved February 16,1982

MINUTES OF COUNCIL.MEETING, CITY OF SAND CITY
CITY HALL, NO. 1 SYLVAN PARK9 SAND CITY, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 16, 1982

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by MAYOR PENDERGRASS.

Invocation was led by Reverend LEE MILDON. fNVOCATION

Pledge of Allegiance was led by MAYOR PENDERGRASS. PLEDGE

The City Clerk took roll. Present were: Councilmembers ROLL CALL
RITTER, LEWIS, MORRIS, MEADOWS and MAYOR PENDERGRASS.

Councilmember MORRIS moved, Councilmember MEADOWS seconded a motion APPROVAL OF-
that the minutes of the Council meeting held February 16, 1982, MINUTES
be approved. The motion carried unanimously.

Register of Demands #263 totaling $14,627.38 was presented to REGISTER OF
the Council for approval. Councilmember RITTER moved, Councilmember DEMANDS NO. 263
LEWIS seconded a motion that the claims be approved, allowed and
ordered paid. The motion was-unanimous.

OLD BUISNESS

MAYOR PENDERGRASS opened the floor to a continued PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
for: receiving comments on the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN prepared for CONTINUED
Sand City's LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, and was held at time and place PUBLIC HEARING
specified in the published Public Notice in compliance with the
statute governing same. Planner MICHAEL GROVES, of Environmental
Management Consultants, gave a.short presentation an the DRAFT LAND
USE PLAN, and announced that results of the Public Hearings, plus
h1i written comments received Lo date, will be taken back to a
Citizen's Advisory Committee for review; will be summarized and an
addendum presented to' the Council for consideration. A Land Use 'map
was on display and copies of the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN, WATER ALLICATION
SUMMARY, and all comments received to date, were available.

MAYOR PENDERGRASS then opened the floor to public comment. Mr. CARL
Larson, 123 Seafoam Street, Monterey, California, a representative of
the Sierra Club, addressed the Council, expressing his concern that
the DRAFT SAND CITY LCP lacks the intent of the Legislature; letter
of the law an6 the spirit of Proposition 20. Mr. ROD HOLMGREN, 3398
Taylor Road, Carmel, California, of the Ventana Chapter, Sierra Club,
addressed the Council, stating that there is no provision for a beach
in the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN and that City Beach should be left open for
.public use. He also expressed concern for dune restoration and other
aspects. (Complete dialog of these and other oral comments of the
two speakers are on tape, for the records.)

There being no further speakers, the floor was closed to public comment
and opened for Council discussion. The Council continued the Public Hearing
to March 23, 1982 at 7:30 P.M..at Sand City Hall.

Unapproved City Council Minutes

to be approved April 20,1982

NEW 8USINf.S")

USE PERMIT #193 (LEONARD'S TRUCK & DIESEL REPAIR) JOSEPH LEONARD, was USE.PERMIT #193-
presented to the Council For approval. Councilmember RITTER moved, LEONARD"S TRUCK &
Councilmember LEWIS seconded a motion that the Use Permit #193 be DIESEL REPAIR
approved. The vote was unanimous.

USE PERMIT #194 & SITE PLAN of LEE MORROW, for installation of a USE PERMIT #194
MOBILE HOME at 445 Orange Avenue, was presented to the Council. & SITE PLAN
Councilmember MEADOWS moved, Councilmember RITTER seconded a motion LEE MORROW
to approve the Use Permit #194 and Site Plan. The vote was unanimous.

USE PERMIT #195 of THOMAS GUNTER (ALFA ETC., INC.) at 546 Elder Street USE PERMIT #195
was presented to the Council For approval. Councilmember LEWIS moved, ALFA ETC., INC.
Councilmemeber MEADOWS seconded a motion to approve the Use Permit #195.
The vote was unanimous.

Request For Re-location.of a Storm Drainage Easement at - LOCKWOOD RE LOCATION OF
TECHNICAL INC.9 709 California Street, was presented to the Council STURM DRAINAGE
for.approval. After discussion with City Engineer CIL NEILL and EASEMENT LTI
City Attorney JOHN STOHLTON, Councilmember RITTER moved, Council-
member MEADOWS seconded a motion to approve the request.
The vote was unanimous.

MAYOR PENDERGRASS opened the floor to PUBLIC HEARING for: RESOLUTION PUBLIC HEARING
No. 2- (1982)..TEMPORARY USE OF LAND PERMIT. After a short presen- TEMPORARY USE OF
tation by JOHN BENOIT, of Environmental Management Consultants, LAND PERMIT -
MAYOR PENDERGRASS opened the floor to Public Comment. There being RESOLUTION NO.
none, he closed the floor to Public Comment and opened the floor 2-(1982)
for Council discussion. Councilmember MORRIS moved, Councilmember
LEWIS seconded a,motion that the RESOLUTION be adopted:

AYES: RITTER, LEWIS9 MORRIS, MEADOWS
and MAYOR PENDERGRASS.

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

The Council accepted POLICE CHIEF STAPLES-Is written report. MAYOR POLICE CHIEF
PENDERGRASS complimented CHIEF STAPLEs For a good report. REPORI

City Attorney, JOHN STOHLTON, reconnended that Condition #15, on USE CITY ATTORNEY
PERMIT #192 (-DAVID WILSON-MOBILE HOME)regarding oliability for per- REPORT
sonal injury, be omitted. Councilmember RITTER moved, Councilmember
MEADOWS seconded a motion that this recomendation be approved.
The vote was unanimous.

C_;_ty Engineer, GIL NEILL, reported that there had been no Further CITY ENGINEER
action from thq Coastal Commission regarding the caves at the end REPORT
of Tiaga Street.

Southern Pacific Company rejected the city's request for a RAILROAD
CROSSING at LA PLAYA AVENUE. They have asked for a public hearing.

Sewer work being done by MRWPCA has been inspected and city require-
ments regarding restoration have not been met. That agency has been
contacted and it is understood that they will comply with requirements.

The City-owned lot on John Street will not be put up for sale. The MISCELLANEOUS
Council decided to keep it for the time being.

A requesL from FRLD KING to build a road inLo his undeveloped property
off Merle Street (paper street) was continued to the April Council
meeting. He will have to present a site plan. The Council instructed
City Engineer GIL NEILL to prepare a policy, stating standard require-
ments for paper streets, by the April Council meeting.

Ordinance regarding governing MONTEREY DIPOSAL SERVICE waseswried over
to the*April Council meeting.

MAYOR PENDERGRASS announced that's Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting
would immediately follow Council meeting.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:35-P.M..

Mary Ann Weems
City Clerk/Treasurer

MINUIL@ Ur tirtULAL LUUNLIL MLL11NU, L11Y U@ @)ANU L11Y
CITY HALL, NO. 1 SYLVAN PARK, SAND CITY, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 23, 1982

PUBLIC HEARING

The meeting was called to order by MAYOR PENDERGRASS at 7:30 P.M...

Present were Councilmembers: RITTER, LEWIS, MORRIS, MEADOWS,
and MAYOR PENDERGRASS.

Staff Member, MICHAEL GROVES and assistant
STEPHANIE STRELOW were present.

Purpose of this meetiny was the fourth of four (4) PUBLIC HEARINGS La
receive comments an the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN prepared for Sand City's
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: and was held at the time and place specified in
the published Public Notice in compliance with the statue governing same.

Planner MICHAEL GROVES, of Environmental Management Consultants, gave a
short presentation an the LCP process, the DRAFT LAND USE PLAN,.the can-
t'ents of the plan, and the timing of the plan. He also explained all-the
plan addendum materials the Council members received in their packet for
the hearing. A Land Use Plan map was an display and copies of the DRAFT
LAND USE PLAN and all addendum materials were available.

MAYOR PENDERGRASS opened the floor to public comment. He read a letter
addressed to the City Council from LORRI and GLYNN LOCKWOOD of LTI Cor-
poration, Monterey, California, dated March 23, 1982, which expressed
concern of providing public beach area and limiting visitor and residential
densities. Mr. ROD HOLMGREN, 3398 Taylor Road, Carmel, California, of the
Ventana Chapter, Sierra Club, addressed the Council from a prepared state-
ment. He expressed concerns regarding public recreation needs, reduced.
visitor serving,and residential densities, reduced height restrictions, and
dune stabilization policies. MR. CARL LARSON, 123 Seafoam Street., Monterey,
California, a representative for the Sierra Club Coastal Task Force, re-
quested the Council to consider concerns regarding proposed building heights,
viewshed protection, sand mining and preservation of coastal resources. MR.
RON DENNIS, Vice-President of Imperial Group,*-San Francisco, California,
expressed appreciation to City and Staff for developing a plan which meets
conditions of the Coastal Act, and recommended that the City approve the
proposed plan.

There being no further upeukers, the floor was closed to public comment atid
opened for Council discussion. Planner, MICHAEL GROVES, noted that all
changes were made available to the public pr ior to the meeting, including
the Sierra Club. Sierra Club representative, RON HOLMGREN, agreed and
stated that he retracted the statement made in his letter. MAYOR PENDERGRA511
%tated that public' recreation arid access provisions are being met, and that
the plan was developed according to the direction of the Citizens Advisory
Committee.

Unapproved City Council Minutes

to be Approved April 20,,1982

Councilmember RITTER expressed his support for development in the city to
help improve conditions. MAYOR PENDERGRASS read the Resolution to APPROVE
THE'LAND USE PLAN OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, and stated that the CITY
ATTORNEY, JOHN STOHLTON, had approved it.

RESOLUTION NO. 3 (1982) APPROVING THE LAND USE PLAN OF COAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, having been read in full, be adopted:

AYES: Councilmembers RITTER, LEWIS, MORRIS, MEADOWS and
MAYOR PENDERGRASS.

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

Meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M..

Stephanie Strelow
Staff

MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP
CITY HALL, I SYLVAN PARK, SAND CITY, CALIFORNIA
JULY 8, 1982

ATTENDANCE

David Pendergrass, Mayor
Carl Ritter, City Council Member
Mark Meadows, City Council Member
Michael Groves, City Planner

Michael Albov
George Robinette
Norbert Dall
Harry Hicks
James Sturgeon
Don McMurtie
Jean Blythe
Selby Mohr

The workshop was called to order by MAYOR PENDERGRASS at 7:40 p.m.

MICHAEL GROVES, City Planner, gave a short presentation on the proposed LUP
revisions. MAYOR PENDERGRASS then opened the public workshop.

MS. JEAN BLYTHE, representing the League of Women Voters, presented a letter
from the League and asked that it be put into the record.

MR. DON MCMURTIE, representing the northwestern Most property in the City (now
being used by Lone Star Industries) , commented in support of dune stabili-
zation on this property. He disagreed with a letter submitted by Lone Star
Industries, dated July 2, 1982, which was Opposed to stabilization based on an
assumed vested right to mine. Mr. McMurtie indicated that Lone Star Indus-
tries is a short term tenant, and dunes on this site will be an asset to
future development.

There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

@r . . I.,
I
I

Appendix C

Public Comments

State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor

California Coastal Commission
Central Coast Regional Commission
701 Ocean Street, Room 310
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(408) 426-7390 January 20, 1982

Mr. Michael Groves
EMC
Box 414
Monterey, California 93940

Re: Sand City Draft Land Use Plan

Dear Michael:

The following are our district staff comments on a portion of the Draft Land
Use Plan for Sand City's Local Coastal Program. These comments cover through
part of Section Four - Resource Management. The remainer of our comments on
Sections Four,.Five and Six will follow under separate cover. We received the
LUP on December 22, 1981, and have attempted to give it sufficient review so that
our comments can give adequate direction to the Citizen's Advisory Committee and
City Council, the latter of which will hold its first hearing on the Plan on
January 28, 1982.

We view the purpose of these comments as providing you and the City an opportunity
to begin making necessary revisions to the LUP in order to present a Plan that
will met Coastal Act requirements. Some of the comments are editorial, some
are relatively minor points and some involve major problems. This early review
of the Plan will provide you with a chance to rake revisions in advance of the
first hearing before the Coastal Commission or to fortify your arguments in supports
of positions the City feels strongly about, but we disagree with. In either case,
we welcome this opportunity to begin to work out any problems or guide you in preparing
the best possible plan. A fact you should be aware of, however, is that due to the
limited time we have had the document, these comments represent- our preliminary
informal assessment of - the LUP and we may alter our position or add further comments.
Of course, we will -produce a full staff report jointly with our San Francisco office
for the Commission after you submit a City-adopted plan.
General Comments
The amount of work done by you and the CAC is evident in this document. We feel
that the City has come a long way towards meeting the goal of a complete LCP.
We are particularly pleased with the format of the plan, as it is easy to read
and the organization makes sense in terms of the Coastal Act.
Public Access'
The Public Access Component of the LUP appears to be very good. The plan proposed
by Figure 4 is comprehensive and ambitious and appears to meet the spirit of the
Coastal Act public access requirements.

mr. Michael Groves, p. 4

Policy 2.3.1

The vertical accessways shown on Figure 4 should be referenced in this policy
so that it is clear that these are accessways that will be required when
development is approved on each property. The phrase "adequate access exists
nearby" needs to be defined in a policy or in the background so that a person
reading the policies will have guidance as to what will. be required by the City.
The use of in-lieu fees to help establish and maintain maximum public access
is a noteworthy part of the access policies.

Policy 2.3.2

The last word,"Properties", should be "development" in order to be consistent
with Coastal Act Section 30212.

Policies 2.3.4 - 2.3.8

These policies are good, as they establish criteria for accessways and
dedications

Policy 2.3.9

It is not clear as to who is to provide these parking area the public or
private developers.

Additional Policy

There should be a policy that addresses surf zone mining and its impact on
lateral beach access.. Both Monterey Sand Company and Lone Star Industries
operate drag lines that restrict public access. A policy is needed to require
that these operations allow the public to cross safely without unreasonable
delays. Any future mining that could occur should also be conditioned to allow
public access laterally.

Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities Background

On Page 21 the discussion of boating facilities needs to be amended to
recognize that the City has no jurisdiction over activities seaward of the
mean High Tide line. The Coastal Commission will retain permit authority
over that area.. There do not seem to be any areas of Sand ri ty's shoreline
that are suitable for an inland marina as the entire areas consists of dunes
and high bluffs.

The accuracy-of the statement on the bottom of Page 21 is questionable. The
Monterey Peninsula does not offer camping and RV facilities and most
accommodations are in the higher end of the range of rates.

Policy 3.3.3

This Policy should not allow health spas as a permitted use as these are
not visitor-serving unless specifically approved as public facilities. This
would not preclude the approval of spas that are an internal part of a hotel
or motel.

mr.'@,Michael Groves, P. 3

Policy 3.3.8

The phrase "as well as for the general public" is not clea Does this mean
that the developer must provide additional spaces for public users who are not
using the development but are seeking recreation?

Policy 3.3.11
As stated in the camment on the Background section, the Coastal Cc@mission
will retain jurisdiction over water areas. The City may encourage other
agencies to pursue boating facilities subject to proper assessz@ent. The
last sentence of the policy is significant and brings up the fact that
shoreline structures such as a groin or breakwater may have severe adverse
impacts on nearby shorelines (e.g. accelerated erosion). The City should
consider.a policy which asks other agencies to ensure that the construction
of such structures will not adversely impact Sand City's shoreline.

Trmlementation Action 3.4.2

Again, definition is needed. See comment for 3.3.8 above.

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGE,=
Backc=und
In the discussion on shoreline erosion on Page 27, it should be noted that
researchers generally agree that the rate of erosion for Sand Ci@y has .
increased in the period from which shoreline Dhotos and charts have been
studied (1919 to 1970).

An addition is needed to the fourth paragraph under 4.2.1 regarding Monterey
Sand Company. The coastal-der-endent determination made for thdt business
was based not just on the quality of sand that they mine, but the uses that
the sand is sold for. The NJP should discuss Lone Star Industries' operation
which also mines sand fran the surf zone. Although the Coastal Cmmssion has
never made a determination on the operation's coastal-dependency, it may
qualify if the sand is used for specialty uses.similar to Monterey Sand
Company.

The last paragraph on Page 27 must be corrected. Virtually all researchers
involved, including Monterey sand CaTpany's oceangraphic consultant during
the Coastal Carmission permit hearings, agree that surf zone mining contributes
to erosion. The area of uncertainty involves how =ch they contribute, that
is whether it is a "significant" contribution and therefore inconsis-temt with
Coastal Art Section 30253(2).

For the purposes of the LTJP, enough evidence exists to state that surf zone
mining contributes to shoreline erosion but the exact contribution has not
been -ex-nined.

Mr. Michael Groves, p. 4

On Page 28, paragraph 2, the last sentence does not make it clear if the
"additional data" that would be required is the long-term study discussed
in that paragraph. We suggest that a long-term study is essential before
any new or expanded surf zone mining takes place.

On Page 28, paragraph 3, the fact that the dunes are a significant natural
landform is mentioned only in terms of visual resources. They also are
part of one of the most significant dune belts in the United States in terms
of geologic formations.

Page 28, the last paragraph of Section 4.2.1 mentions the Surface mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMRA). It would be helpful to state the relationship
of this law to Sand City's operations and what the City can and must do under
the law.

Page 29 discusses seawalls. The background material should defame seawalls
by listing what types there are.

In the middle paragraph on Page 29, it is stated that the unprotected portions
of the City's shoreline are not in a "natural condition". This is; inaccurate.
While the inland portions of most of the oceanfront parcels have been
disturbed, the bluffs and beaches are for the most part still in a natural
condition except for where seawalls have been built.

Page 29, second to last paragraph, it appears that the word underdeveloped,
should actually be undeveloped. in addition, the conclusion that in future
developments shoreline protection devices may be necessary is not consistent
with the Coastal Act (Section 30235 and 30253).

Last paragraph, Page 29; Addition of liquid concrete is generaLly not an
acceptable method. of maintenance for seawalls except for perhaps those seawalls
that already excist and consist of concrete. Even so mAintenance of seawalls
needs to be closely regulated no matter what material is being used- A
qualified professional should determine appropriate methods of maintenance.

The last statements in Section 4.2.2 needs to be amended to indicate that
Sand City has no jurisdiction over projects. seaward of. the MET line, but
could take a position on such a project because it could impact the City's
shoreline.

Page 32, paragraph 2 discusses tsunami potential. Unlike shaking- from
seismic events which affect virtually all of Sand City, areas that are
subject to tsunamis are mapable. These should be should be shown on a Tsunami
Hazard map.

Re. Michael Groves, p. 5

The discussion of the dunes west of Highway One on Page 33-34 contains marry
important points but leaves the impression that no dunes are really worth
saving frcm a habitat standpoint. More emphasis needs to be put on these dunes
as a visual amenity. In fact, from the viewpoint of travellers along
Hi@ hwa y One, Sand City's dunes represent the last remaining open spaces
between Fort Ord and Monterey. The text suggests that dune stabilization
be carried out as required in individual development proposals but there is
no discussion of any scheme to preserve the overall character of the City's
oceanside dunes. Perhaps a mapping of existing high dunes may be a way
of preserving this character with new development required to locatd outside
of these areas. This could avoid a piecemeal approach to preservation of the
dunes where small sections of dune could be lost with each single-family
dwelling approved. The long-term, result would be elimination of the landform.

On page 36, middle paragraph, the statement that the Seaside Aquifer has a
surplus of water should be assigned a source. An inconsistency with that
statement occurs tuc paragraphs later when it is stated that new wells in Sand
City %auld contribute to overdraft.

On Page 38,1 Section 4.2.6, there should be a d-iscussion of the inplications of the
possible presence of archeological resources. In other words, will mitigation
measures be necessary for new development and if so, what types of measures.

Policy 4.3.1

The first sentence- would be more consistent with the Coastal Act if it read, 11support.
the continuation of existing coastal-dependent (surf zone) sand mining operations."
The last phrase regarding economic feasibility is too subjective and difficult
to understand or interpret.

Policy 4.3.2

This irportant policy is too weak to meet Coastal Act requirements. The policy
should prohibit new or expanded surf zone mining. until it can be demonstrated
by the applicant that ill not significantly contribute to
shoreline erosion. The last part of the sentence should not be included as it is
confusing. The LUP must define expansion of, operations.

Policy 4.3.3

This is a good policy that will require careful formulation as an ordinance in
the implementation phase.

U,iis ccupletes our comments on Sections Two, rn=ee, and a portion of Four. C=nents
on the reminder of - S'ection Four and Sections Five and Six will follow. We hope
these comments will be helpful in the City Council's deliberation on the plan.,'
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,

= MI=
CHIEF P@."
B 1 Allaya-i3a
Y_VWcM LCP Planner

S@arWof Cakfornia, Edmund C. Brown Jr.. Co,.ernor

Cakfornia 1--oasal 'Commission
Central Coast Discrict
-io 1, Ocean Streec, Room 3 10
Santa @ruz, Cafirorria 95060
(408) 426-7390

January 25, 1982

Mr. Michael Groves, UC
P.O. Box 414
Monterey, CA 93940

Re: Sand City Draft Land Use Plan

Deq Michael:

This letter constitutes the remainder of our district staff comments on the
Draft Land.Use Plan for Sand City. The first portion of our amrwents was
sent to you as a letter dated January 20, 1982. As with those previously
transmitted ccnuents, because of the limited amount of time we have had for
review, it should be emohasized that these comments are our preliminary
evaluation of the LUP a@d do not represent the staff's formal position on
the policies on land use designations. They are for the purpose of allowing
the City Council to receive sane initial guidance on the consistency of t1-te
Plan with the Coastal Act. We may add further ccmments or revise our
position between now and the or:mulaticn of a full staff report to be done
jointly with our state office for the Plan's first hearing before our
Commission.

Policy 4.3.4. Coastal Act Sections 30240 (sensitive habitats), 30251 (visual
resources), and 30253 (geologic stability) relate to dune mining. Thexe is
one operation in the coastal zone, Lone Star Industries. There is another
operation just outside the coastal zone near Metz Road, Monterey Sand Company.
The policy is not-clear and not strong enough to regulate these operations
to a degree which will be consistent with the Coastal Act requirements.
First, the Monterey Sand Company operation could eventually expand into the
coastal zone. The feasibility of retaining the coastal zone portion of the
large dune that they mine should be discussed. This dune is listed as an
enviromLentally sensitive habitat and therefore a degree of protection is
required. Another prcbleu with the policy is that dunes that are in a
"severely disturbed condition" are not defined or mapped in the LUP. This
must be done or the policy cannot be inplemented. Due to the nature of their
impacts, it also is appropriate to have a policy to prohibit new dune mining
operations.

Policy 4.3.5. This policy is complete except it is not clear when a geologic
report is required because the terms "along the shoreline" and "blufftop" are
not defined. For exanple, the policy could require the report if a parcel is

. . . . . . . Net

Mr. Michael Groves
1/25/82, page two

Within 100 feet of a coastal bluff or sandy beach.

Policy 4.3.6. The first word should be "permit" rather than "regulate". Shore-
line protection devices should not be al1owed on vacant lots unless erosion of
that lot is an immediate threat to a developed adjacent lot. Therefore the
policy must limit such structures to only those portions of the vacant lot
that are immediately adjacent to the developed lot. In the second sentence,
the phrase "including seawalls" is confusing and the total sentence is vague
enough to give arise to questions regarding its interpretation. It is recan-
mended that it be e1iminated since the first sentence allows structures on
vacant lots if it is necessary. The third sentence is also vague as to its
purpose; the word "consider" is not a good word to use in formulating a policy
that will be interpreted by the pubLic as well as agencies in the future. The
remainder of the policy is good.

Policy 4.3.8. This policy is sound except that it should be clarified that
the criteria for what is "appropriate" must be the LUP policies and based on
a qualified engineer's report. It is not clear if an engineer's report is
required..

Policy 4.3.9. The phrase "to a level generally acceptable to the community"
Is not understood by most readers.

Policy 4.3.10. This policy is very good except for one portion The part,
"identify the need for shoreline protective devices to protect the structure
during their economic life" is in conflict with the Coastal Act and the previous
permit decisions the Coastal. Commission has been making for years. New develop-
ment must be planned so to not require such devices during their economic life.

Policy 4.3.12. There appears to be language missing from this policy as it
does not make sense. How can hazard from tsunamis be adequately mitigated?
Also as mentioned earlier, the tsunami hazard areas need to be mapped.

Policy 4.3.13-16. We commend all of these policies with the only change needed
to clarify what "acceptable risk levels" are in Policy 4.3.13.

Policy 4.3.17. There appears to be a typographical eror in this policy -
the word "towards" does not make sense.

Policy 4.3.20. The areas shown on Figure 7 do not exactly correspond to the
environmentally sensitive habitats (ESH's) mapped by the biological. consultant
as shown on his map in "Ecological Survey of Sand City", May 1981. On his
map the sensitive area appear to abut the freeway right-of-way, while in
Figure 7 in the LUP the areas are shown as set back further from the freeway.
This is most evident in the area just north of Tioga Avenue (Monterey Sand Co.
property) .
Policy 4.3.21. This policy does not conform to Coastal Act requirements In
Section 39240. uses allowed within such areas.must be dependent on the resource
and must not significantly disrupt the habitat. The problem with most of the
sensitive habitat area is that they have many small lots plotted on them. An

Mr. Michael Groves
1/25/82, page three

advantage to the City, however, is that very few Of the lots along the free-
way are developed and public roads have not been developed yet. This allows
the possibility of resubdivision with development allowed away frcm the areas
only. The policy is set up to allow development after a biologist reccmrends
mitigation measures. The City should reconsider allowing development at all
in these areas.

Policy 4.3.22. The concepts in this policy are good. The terms must be kept
consistent hcxvever; the word "environmntally" should be before sensitive
habitat areas. Part "a" involves the land use designations in Section Six
of the LUP. The uses proposed for the five ESH's shown on Figure 7 are heavy
ccmrercial, light camercial, and industrial park. These uses are normally
not considered to be low intensity uses. Implementation of 7.3.22(a) will
not be possible unless low intensity uses are built into the LUP designations.

Policy 4.3.24. Change,"discourage" to "prohibit".

Policy Needed Other than Policies 4.3.23-26 there is no definite @=iteria
for development on the dune areas west of Highway one. Although these
dunes are disturbed, they are a significant regional landform. Develor-ment,
impacts need to be minimized. The Visual policies of Section Five partially
do this, but the Resource policies must have same criteria too. For example
a policy could establish a maximum lot disturbance allowed. Another possible
policy would be to map the highest dune areas and set these aside as significant
natural resources. Are there scine areas of the dunes that are suitable or
feasible for restoration or at least stabilization?

Policy 4.3.3,0. On page 36 of the Background report it is stated that the city
cannot regulate private wells. This makes this policy ineffectual or it needs
to be clarified to make it effective because the concept is good.

Policy 4.3.32. The-policy as written is good but needs to go one step further
to meet Sert,"i-on 30244. It must be a requirement that the developer must carry
out the mitigation measures recanranded by the archeologist. The Santa Cruz
County LUP is a good exwple of a suitable policy:

7.8.6. Require any permit issued for a project where a Native kre-rican
Cultural Site has been discovered to include all appropriate'preservation
or mitigation measures as conditions of the permit. Such measures may
include, but shall not be limited to:

a. preservation of the site through project design and/or use restriction;

b. excavation of the site by a professional archaeologist in order to
preserve a sample of the remains, artifacts, or other evidence.
Such excavation may take place cnly as authorized by an archaeological
permit (see policy 7.8.5).

It should also be a requirement that the survoky done for the site be approved
by the State Historic Preservation Office.

Mr. Michael Groves
1/25/82, page four

Policy 7.3.33. To insure that any archeological resources found are properly
disposed of add the phrase "qualified scientific and Native American" after
the word "under".

VISUAL RESOURCES

Policy 5.3.2. The view corridors must be mapped and incorporated as part
the LUP. Tim term "scenic landform" also needs definition.

Policy 5.3.4. The visually degraded areas should be listed or mapped. We
suggest adding to the list both industrial areas, Granite Construction Company
and Calabrese Supply Company.

Policies 5.3.6. The phase "to the maximum extent feasible" is vague and
should be replaced with standards for view cqrridors.

Policy 5.3.7. This policy appears to be somewhat in conflict with the preceding
policy. one seeks to screen views from Highway One while the other seeks
maximum views.

Policy 5.3.9. This policy needs further definition and strengthing. The
word "regulating" should "prohibit" in order to protect the dune visual
resources. Also, the "dune crest" could be defined by mapping areas of high
dunes.

Policy 5.3.10. This policy is hard to understand as written. Will stabilization
.measures be required only if it would reduce public views of the development?
The Word "future" is unnecessary.

Policy 5.3.11.This policy is commendable but has no "teeth" unless thexe are
policies and programs for lot consolidation in the LUP.

Policy 5.3.12. Again, this policy is hard to understand. The idea of themes
was not developed in the background material. The policy does not relate to
the Coastal Act and implementing a policy this vague will be difficult. Policy
5.3.14 relates to the idea of compatibility also, so may be this policy can be
ated if not clarified.

policy 5.3.13. The first sentence of this policy is vague and does not establish
criteria. The second sentence, although worded poorly, has a worthy intent,
but is very general.
Policy 5.3.14. This policy is very unclear because the existing setting is
for the most part dunes or industrial facilities. Usually the term existing
settIng" refers to preservation or attractive neighborhoods Or Commercial
areas or areas or unique resources.
Policy 5.3.15. This policy is too vague to be useAble. what is "representative
of coastline construction" is hard to define and may not be what Sand City
needs.

Michael Groves
1/25/82, page five

Poli2y 5.3.16. The intent of this policy is understood but the wording could
be improved by changing "encourage" to "require" and involving the idea of
dunescapes into the policy (earthtones compatible with existing dunes).

Policies 5.3.17.-19. The three policies could be ccrnbined to solidify the
concepts and reduce camplexity.

Policy 5.3.20. This is a good policy.

Policy 5.3.21. The first sentence should be strengthened to "require" instead of
"encourage". The last sentence is not a clear policy statement.

Poli S@ 5.3.22. Where are these disturbed areas? It was stated in the Background
material that virtually all of the dunes are disturbed, which would make t1us
policy difficult to implement.
Policy 5.3.23. Are there any plans for the sewage ponds that will beccm@ obsolete
wfgn- the regional sewer system is complete? -Perhar-s they can be eliminated and
the area returned to a natural state.

Policy 5.3.24. The City should consider a general policy that requires a ccoplete
re-evaluation of the "paper" si:reets. Per haps a new street plan can be L-tegrated
into the LUP at a future date.

Policy 5.3.25. This policy could -be canbLined with 5.2..24.

Polizz 5.3.29. This policy should totally prohibit off-road vehicles which also
would make it conform with Policy 4.3.25.

Policy 5.3.34. This policy is clear but the intent is not. How will the policV
"Tro-tect views to and along the ocean" (section 30251)

LAND USE AND EEVELOPMENT

Bac@grou@d: There is a basic concern for the background to the land use
designations. On page 59, part 6.3.1, and again in Section 6.3.2.on page 60,
it is stated that a land use analysis was prepared. However, the working paper
entitled I'Developrent and industrial Develcarent" does not include a land use
analysis nor does the LUP. In order to assess the appropriateness of the land
use designations, there should be a justification for each site in terms of
the Coastal Act. The only area land use designations that were related to the
Coastal Act was area #5 on the water allocation analysis, that is the small lot
subdivision adjacent to Tioga Avenue and seaward of Highway One. However, all
the background material states is:

The existing small lot subdivisions west of Highway One have always
been given priority for residential.uses; over other areas in the City.
According to t1us land use analysis, this continued use was found to
be consistent with coastal policies (Page 60, LUP).

Mr. Michael Groves
1/25/82, page six

We note that none of this area is currently "in residential use", no street
utilities or structures exist. A reference to the land use analysis is
made but such analysis cannot be found in the working papers or in the LTJP-
Essentially only one Coastal Act section is rel i ed upon to justify the land
uses andintensities, Section 30254 regarding public services; the limited
water supply available to Sand City is used to establish maximn densities.
Sections 30255 and 30260 are involved in the designation of area #7 as
coac@t;4L-dependent, but this designaticn merely reflects existing land use.

To explain further, it is not possible to-understand how designations for
each site were M - -IlAted and how the intensity was established. For example,
was shoreline erosion considered in determining the number of usable acres
for each shoreline parcel (Sections 30235 and 30253)? Are thexe to be
buffer areas, for the purpose of preserving landforms and visual resources,
between Highway One and the deve]x@Lpment (Section 30251)? Are there. areas of
some parcels which should be open space in order to preserve dunes (Section
30240)? For the parcels on the oceanside of Highway Ore it appears that
land use was termined with only one constraint, water. One point that
must be du-uxjed is whether the densities allcwed by the plan are for net acreage
after the various constraints such as hazards are accounted for.

There is no discussion of alternatives to the pro sed use or how the use
is consistent or constrained by the Coastal Act. For example, for area #1
on the water chart (shown as A on Figure 10) any development will be constrai-ned
by the possibility of shoreline erosicn. The Coastal Act requires that
development not be approved which would require in any way the construction
of shoreline protection devices that would substantially alter natural bluff
and cl -1 ff areas. This section of the shoreline is in essentially a natural
state with no protective devices on the south until the Viontere-I Holiday Inn
seawall, and on the north, until the deteriorating concrete poured over a
portion of the Vista Del Mar beach frontage. Can 307 hotel rocms and 158
residential units be built in this area without 'substantial protective works?
This same question can be applied to area #3 (land use designation is medium
density residential) since it is presently -axErotected for the most part and
is obviously subject to erosion.

In conclusion, as you read the remainder of these comments and when ure consider
the LTJP that the City eventually adopts,it amst be kept in mind that the Coastal
Act dIll be the standard for approval, denial, or suggested modifications. A
land use designation m:ust make sense in term of all the Coastal Act policies
which apply With conflicts between the policies resolved as described in Section
30007.5 (cited on page 49 of the LTJP)-
For the most part we have no problems with a mix of land uses as proposed in
the LTJP. The Plan provides for priority uses on the shoreline as required by
sections 30221 and 30222. Recognizing that all vacant property cannot be
reserved for VISitor-serving uses. some residential areas are proEx sed. Never-
theless, coastal-dependent uses and tecteation, to which the Coastal
Act gives priority over all other uses, are dealt with ly. This is
developed 5=-ther below.

Mr. Michael Groves
1/25/82, page seven

The "Water Allocation Summary" is the critical document needed to interpret
the LUP designations as it contains the intensities and densities of use
in addition to Policy 6.4.4. This document is not referenced however in the
LUP policies. A policy is needed to tie the designations on Figure 10 to the
v%`ater Allocation Summary. 'Care must be taken to ensure consistency between
the water summary and the LUP, Figure 10. For example for area "B" Figure 10,
LTJP Pol icy 6. 4. 1 would allow a motel while the water chart does not indicate
a motel. Policy 6.4.4(e) gives further guidance by not listing "B" as a motel
site. The assumption can be made that Policy 6.4.4(e) allows motels only
on areas "a" and "b", and not on "B" by virtue of its amission, but this is
not entirely clear. Tying the water chart to Figure 10, if it is the intention
of the City to have the chart prevail, would clarify the designations further.
Another example is that area "a" is allowed a motel under the water allocation
but is a RV park also allowed per.Policy 6.4.1(b)?

The concept of dual or back-up designations for certain sites is an acceptable
concept, however the continued existence and the relationship of the existing
uses to Coastal Act policies must be clarified. if the existing industrial
uses are allowed to expand, then the City is making a finding that those
industrial uses are the preferred use under the Coastal Act over the back-up
use. On the other hand, expansion of the existing uses would be the equivalent
of adding to the life of a r-n-conforming use if it is dete=rLined that the
most suitable use under the Coastal Act is actually the back-up use. This must
be clarified for the Cammssion to analyze Coastal Act consistency. if it is
found that the most suitable u*se is the existing use, then an amendment to
the LUP would be necessary when a different use is proposed, see ccmment below
under Policy 6.4.1.
The designation of Public Recreation is limited to a few areas,'the area'where
the State acquisitions are (area TIM, the beach along Vista Del Mar, and 7 acres
of area #10, the Lone Star mining site. We feel that Public Recreation is in
appropriate designation for the whole beach area, including in front of areas
6. 7, 8, and 9. In addition, there appears to be the need for more land to be
designated Public Recreation. Under Coastal Act Sections 30220 and 30221 it must
be shown that available and suitable oceanfront lands are used to enhance
public recreation. on the contrary, the spirit of the Sand City LUP an
ppears
to be to develop all available oceanfront lands for higher intensity uses such
as residential (also a non-priority use), hotels and other visitor-serving uses.
Although the access component of the plan is commendable in terms of vertical
and lateral access, little effort has been made to enhance public recreational
opportunities along the shoreline. With virtually vacant land betu@ T-109a
Avenue and the City of Seaside to the south, the City has a unique opportLmity
to locate development inland of the water area while providing for recreational
use of the areas most immediate to the water's edge.

Policy 6.4.1. Tn making these land use definitions, whenever the current City
zoning ordinance is utilized, such as "C-3" or "IP", it must be referenced to
appendix in the LUP. The LUP must be a doctzent that can stand by itself to
interpret allowable uses and development criteria in the coastal zone.

Mr Michael Groves
1/2/82, page eight

Policy 6.4.1.(a). There is only one coastal-dependent(c-d) designation in
the LUP, that being the Monterey Sand Company parcel. First, there could
be additional c-d uses possible such as industries that mist use seawater,
an example being aquaculture. Was a c-d designation considered for any other
parcels such as areas a and b which are already existing industrial sites?
A second point is that although the policy allows uses other than specialty
sand mining, the second sentence states that only a termination of sand mining
use will "activate" the secondary land use. What if a different type of c-d
use is active on the site? Also, sand mining should be narrowed dcwn to be
defined as only specialty surf zone sand mining as dune mining cannot normally
be considered to be a c-d use. An overall problem with the policy is that
described in, the comment above. The change to a non c-d use must be made
based on findings consistent with the Coastal Act. C-d uses have the highest
priority under the Act while visitor-serving cammercial is of lesser priority
than c-d or recreational uses. The criteria established in the policy, however
is based on the owner's desire to effect a land use change and on criteria
not based on the Coastal Act ("economic, environmental, and social well-being
of the City)- If the owner of the Monterey Sand company parcel decides that
a c-d use is no longer in his interest Sand City would have no c-d industry
in its coastal zone. Certainly it is appropriate for Sand City, with its
basic industrial character to accommodate c-d uses.

Policy 6.4.4.(i) : Some of the above comments on 6. 4. 4. (a) apply to this policy
in respect to the issue of expansion. of the industrial use and the appropriate
designation based on Coastal Act findings. The way the policy is stated, it
appears that the City has found that the existing industrial uses are the most
suitable use based on the Coastal Act. Change to a higher priority use is
triggered by the owner's wishes and non-specific criteria established and

evaluated by the City. In addition, the second sentence, in particular the
part that states "arid where an industrial use provides an economic benefit
to the City or the region," is not clear. Why does that make the parcel
deserving of a secondary designation?
Policy 6.4.2.(a): it should be stated in the policy that these residential
units must be for short-term occupancy it is allowable to define the exact
limits of occupancy in implementing ordinance.

Policy 6.4.3.(b): The references to the three private company names shall be
changed to areas "a","b","c" per Figure 10 because ownership can change.
POlicy 6.4.7. Again, what about expansions of the non-conforming uses? The
most interesting case is the Lone star dune mining operation which is not
designated industrial. can any further mining take place, or are there Limits
that mist be established?

Policy 6.4.9. We are disappointed In the plan's policies and designations
relating to the small lot problem. The policies merely "encourage" con-
solidation. we feel these are areas that have excellent potential and they
need to be resubdivided and replatted. (See the discussion below on area 5
as the prime case.) otherwise existing lot patterns may lead to Coastal Act

Mr. Michael Groves
1/25/82, pace nine

inconsistencies due to too high densities, inability to cluster develp.pment
out of the Highway One viewshed, inability to preserve open space, and inability
to maintain adequate setbacks for hazards. A loolicy that merely encourages
reconsolidations leaves the process as a haphazard one where the City can only
hope that lot owners decide to work together. Strong incentives are needed
(not just a 5% lot coverage bonus offered in 6.4.4(f)) or must be required.
We intend to work with the City to help solve the small lot problem by
developing a workable program. We refer you to the City of Half Moon Bav
LUP in which several areas are designated for lot resubdivision.

Policy 6.4.10. Although we are still analyzing it, the proposed water a.1location
system appears sound and will meet the requirement of Coastal Act Section 30254.
However we have concern over the availability of sewer service for the uses
planned under the LUP. As we understand it, the new sewer Luie under con-
struction will take the primary effluent fram the Seaside plant, mixing it
with the secondary effluent fran Monterey and Fort Ord, and eventually discharge
it offshore near marina. Until. the regional treatment plant is ampleted, the
Seaside effluent will be discharged without further treatment, in other words
in primary-treated form. The problem is, however, that the Seaside plant is
already at or near capacity. The additional development proposed by the LUP
would obviously generate more sewage than the plant can handle unless it is
upgraded. will the Regional Water Quality Control Board allow greater flows
into the plant either now or after the new line is completed? If not, how
will new develognent be phased (accounting for priority uses) to utilize
reataining capacity, if any?

Policy 6.4.17. The wording should be added to this policy, "if such increased
dE ities are found consistent with all other LUP policies."

Policy 6.4.23. A figure or limit sbould be given to the density bonuses
allowed, for example 25%.

Policy 6.4.24. See previous ccmnent for Policy 5.3.24.

Policy 6.4.30. & 31. We question the extension of Vista Del Mar Street to the
south (from Bay Avenue to Ortiz Avenue) . As developed below in the discussion
of Areas 1 and 2 (on the water allocation chart), we suggest that-the City
seriously consider lmutzng intensive develognent, to the inland side of the
Vista Del Mar right-of-way. Access to the seaward side of the right-of--way could
be fran Bay Avenue or Ortiz Avenue (presently undeveloped) -

PoliSZ 6.4.32. This policy should be transferred to or repeated in the access
policies (Section 2).

Site Specific Designations

Although we have not had sufficient tirm to review each individual parcel and
designation in the plan, we have the following ccarmnts which point out sctre
of the general problems we have, as well as some of the site specific designations
of concern.

Mr Michael Groves
1/25/82, page ten

Area E (Area #10 on water chart) - in the Water Chart there is a typographical
error-"Public Residential" should be "Public Recreation". The plan call for
7 acres of this property to be public recreation and it notes "beach area".
This is not clear because the beach in front of the property is not 7 acres
and Figure 10 shows public recreation in what appears to be a combination of
beach and upland area. Is this site to support upland recreational opportunities?
It may be a good site for such a use if-access to Fort Ord is restricted suf-
ficiently. The water chart also indicates coastal -dependent industry on the
site while the Figure 10 does not. This mist be reconciled.

Area D (area #11) - The water chart has Public Recreation on this site in
addition to visitor-serving commercial. However, Figure 10 indicates only
visitor-serving commercial. Please clarify this.

Area b (Area #8) - As with Area E, the water chart lists coastal-dependent
.industry, while Figure 10 does not.

Areas #14 and #16 - (Water Chart) These are high dune area along the free-
way and contain environmentally sensitive habitats. They are portions of the
larger parcels owned by Calabrese Construction Co. and Monterey Sand Co. and
have been split when the freeway was constructed. Since no subdivision has
occurred to establish these small remnant parcesl as separate parcels, a special
situation exists that the City should recognize. These areas should be de-
signated with an open space type designation such as Urban Open Space or
Urban Preserve. The owner would still have substantial use an the oceanside
of the property, while providing for a designation on the inland side that is
more consistent with the Coastal Act than the present ones (,which are
industrial park and light commercial). Coastal Act Sections of concern are 30251
(visual resources, alteration of Natural landforms) and 30240 sensitive habitats)

Area #5 (Water Chart) - This is the �13 acres next to Tioga Avenue that is
presently undulating dunes and is proposed as High Density Residential.
Our first concern is with the density. In fact, all of the LUP residential
densities are extremely high. Here is how Sand City's proposed residential
densities compares with some other urban areas in the region (figures are
units per acre)-.

Low Density Medium Density High Density

Caitola 5-10 10-15 15-20
Half Moon Bay .3-2 2.1-8 8.1-20
Santa Cruz County 2-8.7 8.7-14.5 14.5-21.8
Sand City 0-13 14-25 25-35

As can be seen, Sand City's proposed densities are very high in comparison.
This fact by itself is not too meaningful, but when it is considered that
these densities are being proposed for only- partially developed oceanfront
land, in an area short an water and sewer services, in the viewshed of High-
way One, on what are currently dunes, such densities do not make sense. Lower
densities allow for less visual impact, less strain on services, and less
disturbance of land. One suggestion is to lower the densities in the LUP for

all the residential categories. Another idea is to balance cut densities
between area #5 and area #9 which is designated low density residential.

Mr. Michael Groves
1/25/82, page eleven

Area #5 offers an exceptional opportunity for a resubdivision or lot
consolidation project. Single-family dwellingson 2000 square foot lots
will have impacts far greater than if a reasonable lot pattern can be
established. The California Coastal Conservancy is a agency set up to
help local governments with such projects, f =. both a financial and
technical standpoint. The City of Half Moon Bay has a large area (490
acres) in its LUP designated for a conservancy restoration project.
The mill, individual lots in this area will not be allowed to develop
as constituted. They also have other areas of small lot paper subdivisions
that lack services that are being designated "Planned Development District".
These areas will require a Specific Plan prior to development and have
restrict-ions on total number of units allowed and the provision of roads
and services. The Half Moon Bay approach seeks cooperation between scirall
lot owners by putting stringent requirements on the area. The designations
and policies which will control development of Area #5 are not adequate
to insure buildout in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act.

Areas #1 and #2 (Includes Areas A and B on Figure #10 - This large area
Tf presently undeveloped dunes and beach represents another opportunity
for some innovative techniques in order to assure that the LUP will comply
with the Coastal Act. Without a lengthy background discussion or justification
at this point, we have the 0011owing suggestions, zks we suggested above, low
intensity uses are most appropriate seaward of the Vista Del mar right-of-way.
This area is oceanfront land suitable for recreation (Section 30220-21) and
is subject to hazards frcin coastal erosion and perhaps tusnamis (Section 30325).
It would also leave the shoreline area clPa of structures (Section 30251).
Development rights to Area A (proposed hotel) could be traded with the State-
owned area inland of the Vista Del Mar right-of-way. The State m3.ght be
persuaded to complete acquisition of the small lots around their property if
such a trade was proposed. Another factor that needs to be addressed is
that in the granting of a permit for the regional sewer line, the Coastal
Comnission required that a dune restoration area be implemented by the Regional
Sewer Authority. This area is in the Vista Del Mar right-of-way and extends
seaward onto the Hicks property. in granting that permit the camassion
found that if the line was installed along the right-of-way it would be located
inland enough to not require shoreline protection devices in its lifetime.
Fran the available technical data, it is evident that any development along the
shoreline will require protective works in order to halt shoreline recession.
we will consider Areas #1 and#2 further as the LUP process proceeds to help
the City dete=ine what alternatives may exist for t1us large land area.

our final =nent on the Tanel Use and Development portion of the LTJP is that the
overall intensity and density of uses is too high. The figures on the water
allocation summary add up to a *substantial number of units on Sand City's
oceanfront lands: 1207 hotel units, 370 motel units, 361 visitor-serving
residential units, and 395 regular residential units. Whether the City's
coastal. zone can support these high numbers from a market/econcmic standpoint
is for the property owners and City to decide. In tems with the Coastal Act
however, we foresee conflicts with several sections. These conflicts could
be greatly reduced with a reduction in densities, consolidation of lots,

Mr. Michael Groves
1/25/82, page twelve

and locating development in more suitable areas.

This complete our "first look" at the Sand City LUP. We hope these
comments prove helpful in the City's effort to submit a Plan that is in
conference with the Coastal Act. We will be working closely WIth your
staff to assist in that goal.

Sincerely,

Mike Miller
Chief Planner

Bill Allayaud
Lead LCP Planner

BA/deb

STATE OF CALITORNIA-MESOURCIS AGENO EDMUND 0. BROWN Jll@ Gavorme,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Post Office Box 47
Yountville, CA 94599
@(707) 9"-4460

January 19, 1982

City Cleric
City Hall
1 Sylvan Park
Sand City, CA 93955

Subject: Sand City Draft Land Use Plan, December 1981

Dear City Staff:

Department of Fish and Game personnel have received and reviewed the subject
Land Use Plan. We commend the City for its thorough description of conditions
in the city's coastal zonel development potential and constraintso We have
the following comments to offer*

Sand Dunes and Environmentally Sensitive Habitats

The major resource of concern to this Department is the dune landform, and
associated vegetatione The LUP discusses the significance of the Monterey
.dune complex and the importance of native dune vegetation in terms of
stabilization, habitat value and aesthetic benefits. Although much of Sand
City's dunes have been degraded by past human activityt pockets of viable
coastal strand habitat persistq although in a disturted condition. The
relative scarcity of this habitat typeg which formerly characterized the
City's coastal,zone, is argument for its preservation under Sections 30107-5
.and 30240 of the Coastal Act*
Policies 4*3.20 and 4-3.21 should be amended to disiinguish between uses
permitted within and adjacent to sensitive habitat areas pursuant to Section
302409 No grading or structural development should be permitted within sites
supporting rare or endangered native dune species. A buffer area around the
habitat should be retained in its natural state in order to allow rehabilita-
tion of the vegetation and underlying dune.

We support the policy of requiring biological surveys where development is
proposed in the vicinity of sensitive habitat areas. Standards for development
to be permittedg once habitat areasp buffers and other mitigation measures
have been identifiedg should be set forth in the LUP (Policy 4-3.22).
Supporting documents such as Coastal Commission guidelines and the Surface
Mining and Reclamation Ordinance should be appended to the plan*

City Clerk\,' -2- January 19, 1982

The Department recommends exclusive use of native species in landscaping and
stabilization/restoration programs wherever possible (Policies 40-23; 43-24;
5.3-10; 5.3-18; 5-3-22)o Policy Sections 4*3.22 a-f, 4-3.27p and 4-3-29 are
somewhat vague; we support them in concept and encourage additional specificity.
We commend plan Policies 4-3.25 and 4-3.26.

Potential impacts of sand dune mining are,--noted an page 28 of the LUP.
Mechanisms to prevent further destabilization of dunesq particularly where
vegetation is or may become establish6d, should be discussed. Areas available
for development under Policy 4-3-4 should be mapped.

Land Use and Develonment

Figure 10 identifies environmentally sensitive habitat areas *located in areas
toned for Industrial Park, Heavy, and Li ht Commercial uses. It should be
clear that Chapter 4 Policies (PP9*38-421 apply throughout the Coastal Zone
regardless of the specific land use designation* The Combining District
(6,4.2se) accomplishes this to some extent- however, habitat protection measures
should be required (rather than.consideredl and provision made to update
resource maps and designations as new information becomes available or condi-
tions change*

We appreciate this on ortunity for inpu t9 and hope that these comments are
In
helpful to youe If you have any questionst please contact Martha Lennihan,
Wildlife Biologist, at (707) 944-4473; or Ted Woosterl Environmental Services
Supervisor, at (707) 944-4489-

Sincerely,

Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3

cc: Environmental -Management- California Coastal Commission
Consultants 701 Oceaxi Street, Room 300
P. 0- Box 414 Santa Cruzt CA 95060
Monterey, CA 93940

WILLIAM G. FUNKE

10717 PRINCE LANE

LA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92041

February 17, 1982

Mr. Michael J. Groves
City of Sand City
One Sylvan Park
Sand City, California 93955

Re: Assessor's Parcel 011-148-19; Lots 19, 20 and a portion of Lots 21 & 22
in Block #33, etc.

Dear Mr. Groves:

Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1982 and enclosures, which ha-q:t
been awaiting my return to La Mesa. Although today's letter post dates
the February 16, 1982 City Council Study session, I am writing it in the
event the Sand City Draft Use Plan has not been finalized.

In May 1972, Mr. Roscoe H. Smith; 3 Osio Way; Del Rey Oaks; Monterey, CA
93940, and I entered into an agreement to purchase the referenced property
from the Department of Public Works in San Luis Obispo R/W 05-MON-001-80.1,
Directors Deed #221-DB. Our bid of $12,300 was accepted on May 25, 1972
for this excess land parcel, and the property was recorded in the name of
Mr. and Mrs. Roscoe H. Smith. On October 30, 1972, by grant deed, the
property was registered to Mr. Smith and to me, each with an undivided
one-half interest. On November 20, 1974, 1 purchased Mr. Smith's one-half
interest in this lot for 50% of our original purchase price, and the property
was quick claimed to me on that date. At the time of purchase, this property
was zoned by Sand City as commercial.

Our intention at the time of purchase was development of a restaurant or
convenience store on this site. This use was ideal because of the prominent
-" from the Southbound freeway, close freeway access, availability of
access road and proximity to the Holiday Inn, a source of potential business.

Because of Proposition 20 and subsequent restrictions of the Coastal Commission,
development has not been possible, and, a@cording to local real estate
appraisers, the value of this property hag depreciated at one point to as
low as $1,000. Last week, Mr. Russ Padgen (?) local realtor, estimated the
property was worth approximately $15,000 under the proposed new residential
zoning. In consideration of paying taxes on property designated commercial
for approximately ten years, plus having $12,300 cash tied up for this periqd
of time, a $15,000 value under a high density residential, is certainly an
inadequate return for monies paid to the State to purchase, at-the time of
purchase, acceptable commercial property.

Mr. Michael J. Groves February 17, 1982 Page Two

This letter, further, questions the LUP assertion as identified by the
Coastal Commission's January 25, 1982 letter, page 6, paragraph "Land Use
and Development" and LUP Page 59, and 60, Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, that
my lots are currently "in residential use TMs statement is without
substance, and further disregards the current commercial zoning of this
property.

It is my plea to the Sand City Council and Citizens Advisory Group that
consideration be given to retaining the commercial status of my property.
It is pointed out that this particular corner fronts on Tioga and Sand
Dunes, and is directly opposite an industrial sand mining operation, and
appears to be more suitable for commercial than residential use.

As stated above, I would appreciate you presenting this letter to the City
Council on my behalf.

Very truly yours

William G. Funke

WGF/m.e.
Zee

Glynn H. Lockwood
President

23 March 1982

Mayor
Council
City of Sand City

Re: Land Use Plan

Gentlemen:

Glynn and I sincerely urge you to:

1. Keep Sand City's beaches open for
public use.

2. Keep our waterfront treasure for all
people to use ... not just for those who
can pay $80 a room at a fancy hotel.

3. Limit visitor and residential density
to a reasonable land supporting level.

As owners of one acre of city land, since 1965, we
offer as support for our request the following infor-
mation:

A. We employ over 100 people. The City water
is not fit to drink. Each water fountain
is equipped with a filter and each office
has bottled water. Our soft drink machine
is widely used.

B. During the rainy weather such as last week,
the city sewers fail to carry away the
sewage. I invite you to come visit the
bathrooms - men and women's - in our manu-
facturing plant. Built to code and inspected
but the water sits within view smelling up
the area horribly.

To ruin a beautiful dune a rea with high density hotels
or condos when the area cannot already support what it
has is criminal.
Sincerel nn
Yur, Corporation Monterey, California 93940 - 408/394-6775

SIERRA CLUB VENTANA CHAPTER
P. 0. BOX 5667, CARMEL, CALIFORNIA 93921
March 23, 1982

City Council, Sand City
City Hall.,
1 Sylvan Park
Sand City,, Ca.

Mr, Mayor and Members of the Council,

We have reviewed the original draft of the Sand City Local Coastal

Program and changes made in that Plan after the Coastal Commission Staff
submitted preliminary comments January 20 and 25,We have not seen the
changes made by the City Council after the public hearing March 16.

'Ile will confine our remarks tonight to a few issues: 1. 'Recreation;
2) Visitor-Serving Facilities, including hotels., motels, beaches and
a possible marina 3) Residential Buildout; 4) Height Restrictions;
and 5) Landscaping and stabilization/restoration policies.

1, Recreation. We find no listing for Recreation in the LCP Table
of Contents, and find public recreation indicated only on the map in
a highly limited number of places - the State
Parkland property in Area #2, the thin strip of beach along Vista 'Del
and some seven acres of Area #10, the Lone Star mining site. Plan Policy
6,4,lk (page 64) is really too vague to be considered a policy.

The Vista Del Mar Beach area is slated in Plan Policies to be
immediately adjacent to high intensity industrial, hotel and residential
development., which surely will inhibit the ordinary beach-goer who has
been walking up and down that beach for many years. There should
certainly be specific policies in which the City accepts its
responsibility (under Coastal Act Sections 30220 and 30221) to provide
suitable oceanfront lands to enhance public recreation. Plan Policy
3.3.9 (p, 24) does not do that. We agree with the Commission Staff
comment that "the spirit of the Sand City LUP appears to be to develop
all available oceanfront lands for higher intensity uses such as
residential (also a non-priority use)., hotels and other visitor-serving
uses."

The response of the City to the Commission Staff statement (p. 11 of
response to 'an 25 Preliminary Comments) was not to provide a policy
or set of policies, but to argue, "Sand City is the beginning of the
urban Peninsula." Therefore, it said,rural public recreational
opportunities do not make sense from a land use evaluation standpoint"
We agree 'whole-heart and therefore strongly recommend that the
City Council review some of the other LCPs in this county and the rest
of the State. They all make ample provision for public recreation
in urban beach areas.

We further recommend, respectfully that instead of making minor
token map changes in front of Areas 6 through 9 and at low tide at
that it provide a series of public recreation policies and revise its
man to show a continuous strip of public beach along the entire

To explore, enjoy, and protect the nation's scenic resources ...

Sierra Club - Ventana Chapter - p.2.
oceanfront of the city, available to the general public at both
low and high tides. Moreover, we agree with Commission Staff that
Sand City is not an appropriate location for a marina,

2. Visitor-Serving Hotels and Motels. The Plan calls for a maximum of
1207 Hotel rooms and 370 motel rooms, all either right at the edge of
the beach or at the waterline. That's too many, as the Commission
Staff comments, and conflicts with several sections of the Coastal Act.

We are attaching a copy of a four-year-old study of hotel/motel
facilities on the Peninsula prepared by Arthur D. Little. A similar
study, prepared the same year by Recht, Hausrath and Associates, set the
total number of visitor-serving rooms at 6000 - in 1978. Since then, a
number of new hotels have either been applied for or approved in almost
all of the cities on the Peninsula as well as in county areas of the
Peninsula. The AMBAG 1978 report, The Visitor-Sector, forecast an
increase of 2,400 to 4,000 new hotel-motel rooms on the Monterey
Peninsula by 1995 -- not including some 450 that are projected for the
Carmel Segment LCP area and between 500 and 750 in the Big Sur LCP area
So even without the enormous density projected in this Sand City LCP-
in this tiny area - we can expect the motel/hotel capacity to almost
double on this. Peninsula in the next 20 years.

You may not be aware that Seaside wanted a 350-room hotel at the
Laguna Grande site$ outside the coastal zone, but the original chain hat
withdrawn its development plan, Seaside still hopes to get the
Commission to amend its LCP so that it can advertise for a developer
to build a hotel of over 100 rooms but less than 200 rooms.We
are informed that Seaside does not intend to ask for such a hotel
on or next to the beach. They say they want to keep it off the
ocean., but to make it possible for visitors to see the ocean. So it
would probably be built along Sand Dunes Drive.

As matters now stand, there are no provisions for motels or hotels
in the Seaside LCP. We understand, by the way, that there's not much
of a market for expensive hotels in that location,

We strongly urge the Sand City City Council to modify its land use
plan to: 1) sharply reduce the maximum density of hotel and motel
units, and 2) to move all such facilities well away from the beach, We
also recommend that you make sure that your policy recommendations on
motel and hotel build out are closely related to water and sewer
services as well as viewshed, and that there is adequate provision
for restoration and/or enhancement of dunes and environmentally
sensitive habitat in the areas of construction . Finally you must
be sure to arrange access for visitors from the freeway to their hotel
destinations.

Your total of 1577 hotel-motel rooms would give you 50 per cent
more then the City of Carmel had in 1978 -- and Carmel has been a
visitor-serving center for more than a half century while Sand City
has never provided such facilities.

3. 'Residential Buildout. We support all the comments made by
Commission Staff on the proposed residential density in Area #5 (p. 10

Sierra Club - p. 3

of Jan* 0.5 comments). The comparison of Sand City's proposed
Half Moon Bay and Santa Cruz county --
densities with those of Capitola,-
all with physical similarities to Sand City -- is instructive. We find
the City's responses to the Commission Staff comments of Jan. 25 are in
the form of editorial prefacas to Policy 6,3 (Plan Page 59) and Policy
6.3.2 (Plan page 60). The responses are inadequate, and, indeed,
unresponsive. We strongly recommend that the policies themselves be
modified to highlight the relationship between residential density and
water and sewer services ,the highway One viewshed, storm and tsunami
potential., and landform, disturbance. The densities should be sharply
reduced,

4, Height Restrictions. We are deeply disturbed by the amendments,
which would go on Plan p, and come under new Policies 6,4,5 and
6.4.6, They would allow industrial facilities to go as high as 75
feet and commercial visitor-serving facilities to go to 45 feet on
the seaward side plus one story., which presumably means 55 feet, on
the inland side, which normally would have a higher ground level
to begin with.

As we see it, this plan would effectively ruin the viewshed from
the freeway for the visitor entering the Peninsula, who would be
greeted, not by an ocean vista, but by a hodge-podge of buildings
much like those one sees while driving down Highway 101 from San
.Francisco to San Jose. The prospect becomes particularly grim when you
note that the density projections in the Plan map would fill in almost
every square inch of space on the seaward side of the highway.
We also believe the Council should consider changing Policy 5.3.13(b)
(Plan p, 46) to begin with the word "require," rather than the word
"encourage" which means almost nothing in planning and zoning language.
The second sentence also begins with the word "encourage.,". and apparently
means that if you allow developers to build their structures in
stair-step design, that's going to mitigate the bulkiness
and blockiness of view corridors, Here again we urge the substitution
of "require"- for "encourage."
5. Landscaping and Stabilization/Restoration Policies. The Commissio
Staff preliminary comments made a number of references to the need for
modifying existing policies or adding new policies to provide for
landscaping and stabilization and/or restoration of dunes.

The response says, in effect.. that there is no need for an
additional policy, since the dunes are not a natural landform and contair
no environmentally significant habitat. This appears to contradict a goo
deal of the editorial material on pages 33 and 34 of the Draft LCP,
which discusses the degradation of the dunes., but which also says:
"The majority of the dunes are active, characterized by shifting
sand...The area provides no natural habitats, although some native
species are found, The dunes have other valuable qualities, however,
including visual qualities and the potential for. wind and erosion
protection when stabilized with vegetation, The last paragraph of
Policy 4.2.4 says, "Future development west of Highway One ... should
consider dune management programs as part of the development,
especially for areas of high standing dunes that provide visual
amenities. Future dune restoration programs can take the form ofstab-
ilization and/or restoration It appears that dune stabilization

Sierra Club - 4.

is a more practical process than dune restoration

We believe that since Sand City's dunes are, as the response
says on p. 4. "part of a larger dune system" they are indeed an
important part of "a significant regional landform." If those dunes
were, in effect, eliminated by intensive development on., in and around
them., they would no longer exist, and would thersfore no longer be
a part of a significant regional landform."

We remind you of the first goal of the Coastal Act, set forth
in Section 30001.5(a) and repeated in Policy 1.1 (a) on nags 1 of
the Sand City LCP, namely: to protect., maintain., and,where
feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal Zone
environment and its natural and manmade resources, We recommend that
in addition to restoration of some of the least degraded dunes, plans
be recorded in LCP policies for restoration of the higher dunes.

Finally, we were pleased to-receive a supplementary LCP document,
titled "Zoning Ordinance References." On p. 2, a number of uses are
listed as "Prohibited in the M District," In keeping with the spirit
of Sand City's LCP, we recommend that you add to that list: constructio
of nuclear power plants,, railroad locomotive repair yards and
roundhouses, and operation of automobile assembly plants.

Thank you.

Rod Holmgren,
Ventana Chanter Coastal Task Force

(Attact=ent - Visitor-Serving Facilities on the 111onterey "eninsula 1978)

The largest single concentration of rooms is in Carmel, with 958 rooms.
-Other major areas are: downtown Monterey: 575 rooms; Seaside: 500 rooms;
Asilomar- 648 rooms; Fremont Street: 488 rooms; and the Hilton/Hyatt: 478
rooms.

TABLE 1

LOCATION OF HOTEL/MOTEL ROOMS

ON THE MONTEREY PENINSULA

Number of
Rooms-

Seaside 500

Fremont Street 488

Hilton/Hyatt 478

Munras Avenue 711

Downtown 575

Pacific Grove (downtown) 89

Lover's Point 112

Asi.lomar 648

Pebble Beach 133

Carmel 958

Carmel Valley (mouth) 206

Mid-Carmel Valley 96

Carrel Highlands 132

Carmel Valley Village 175

Total Rooms 5,301

The Monterey Peninsula has a balanced selection of both small and large
hotels. While hotels with more than 80 rooms provide approximately 60
percent of the total rooms in the Monterey Peninsula, they represent only
16 percent of total establishments. There are 57 establishments having
less than 40 rooms. However, they provide only about 30 percent of the
total rooms in the Monterey Peninsula (Arthur 0. Little, 1978).

LONE STAR INDUSTRIES., INC.
& C*"&V*tkff

Pacific Region
2800 Campus Drive
San Mateo, Ca. 9"03
415 574-7100

'July 2,, 1982

Mr. Michael Groves
Environmental Management Consultants
P. 0. Box 414
Monterey, CA 93940

Subject: Sand City - Land Use Plan

Dear Mr. Groves:

The June 25, 1982 revisions to the subject plan show the large
dune on the south side of the Lone Star site as a "Dune Stabi-
lization" area where dune mining is prohibited. I believe that
this designation is inappropriate because in one phase of our
operation we have been mining the referenced dune for many years.
The vested rights of.-existing mining operations is recognized in
Section .014 of the draft Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinance
as part of the City's draft Implementation Plan.

Theref-ore, this letter is to request that the March, 1982 version
of Policy 4.3.4 of the L.U.P. be retained, rather than using the
June 25, 1982 revision, and that the June 25, 1982 version of
Figure 7 be modified to delete the "Dune Stabilization" designa-
tion on the-Lone Star site.

If you-have any qdds-ff7ons7. please call me.

Sincerely

David H. Armstrong
Regional Environmentalist

cc: Du d I ey De Z o n i a
3901 Laguna Blanca Drive
Santa Barbara, CA 93110

'4
A LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA

Statement to City Council
Sand City Land Use Plan
July 8, 1982

The Sand City coastal zone is an important part of the scenic Mont-
erey Peninsula coast and includes some of the few remaini ng dunes
on the Peninsula. The Monterey Peninsula League of Women Voters is
concerned with: protection of the scenic shoreline, provision of pub-
lic access to the beach for recreational use, protection of environ-
mentally sensitive habitat, adequacy of public services, and devel-
opment consistent with these aims.

The League believes that the draft Sand City Land Use Plan falls
short of compliance with the Coastal Act in that development at the
intensity proposed on the seawrd side of the highway would be detri-
mental to the scenic quality of the shoreline and intrude on the
viewshed. It would also cut off recreational use of the beach at
high tide. Contrary to the statement in the draft that Sand City,
as an urban areat need not provide additional lateral beach access,
there is a need for beach access in an urban industrial comnunity,
especially where increased housing is planned.

Th e League advocates the following changes in the drafts

- Designate more open space to provide uninterrupted ocean views.

- Increase the amount of beach available for public recreation.

- Aequire additional setbacks for buildings seaward of the highway
to insure lateral access at all timesl reduce the'height-limit
-for unobstructed bay views.
- Preserve and Wh@re possible restore or stabilize dunes; give
maximum protection to environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

- Reduce density of development to a level approuriate for a
coastal area; keep development within the limits of water and
sewer services.

- Prohibit new structural shoreline protection and plan new devel-
opment so that the need for such devices is avoided.

The League asks that the alcove comments be entered in the record
of this hearing.

11
A
I

Appendix D

Participants in the LCP Process

Participants in LCP Process

Citizens Advisory Committee Members

Mr. Michael Albov

Mr. Harry Hicks
Mr..Roy Hubbard

Mr. Roy Meadows

Mr. Michael Morris

Mr. David Pendergrass

Mr. Carl Ritter

Mrs. Carl Ritter

Mr. George Robinette

Mr. Dave Wilson

Mr. Steve Woolpert

Environmental Management Consultants, acting as City Planners

Michael Groves, Principal
Stephanie Strelow, Project Planner
John Benoit, Associate Planner
Alix Oliver, Graphics

I
I

I kppendix E

Land Use knalysis Criteria,
Summary, and Map

Sand City LCP
Land Use Evaluation Criteria

I. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Existing Land Use
B. General Plan Designation and Density
C. Zoning Designation and Density
D. Surrounding Land Uses -- South, North, West, East

II. RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS
A. Dune Habitat -- Location of dunes, degree of disturbance, signifi-
cance to future land use
B. Natural Hazards -- potential for any seismic, geologic or flooding
hazards (including location of fault zones, groundshaking,
liquefaction, tsunami inundation, cliff/bluff/beach erosion)
C. Archaeological Resources
D. Visual -- vista points, view corridors, scenic land forms,
visually degraded areas
E. Water Quality

III. SERVICE CONSTRAINTS
A. Water Supply
B. Sewer
C. Circulation
D. Fire and Police Protection

IV. LAND USE SUITABILITY
A. Access/Kecreation potential
B. Special Considerations/Coastal Act Considerations
C. Land Use Options -- the range includes:
*1. Coastal Dependent (industrial and commercial)
2. Public Facilities
*3. Recreation (public parks, commercial recreation)
*4. Visitor-Serving Commercial
5. Residential (low, medium, high density)
6. -Non-Coastal Dependent Uses (industrial/manufacturing, light
commercial, heavy commercial)
7. Mixed Use (i.e., visitor-serving and residential)
8. Special Treatment Areas (area's where planned developments are
appropriate due to special design/siting considerations and
need to be made compatible with existing surrounding land
uses)
D. Densities -- Land Use Recommendations must be assigned in
accordance with:
1. Water Allocation Constraints
2. Resource Constraints
3. Type of Land Use
E. Policy Check -- all relevant Coastal Act policies addressed.

V. FINAL EVALUATION OF
TYPES OF POTENTIAL USES AND DENSITIES/RECOMMENDATIONS

*Coastal Act priority land uses

E R E 8 A Y

Land Use Arice-

Area Locafl

sassol so ossallsolls a ems sees essallsoplit a a 0 9 19 1 9 0 a s I I a 9 9a &-so "ll solf.919111
Itt"".6 I
awe @sttp
ft.-IW I-
h- 6 @k
ww. I- &V
bt@ M-A -.1 6.6.4.1 1. a-&.
'O.H.9 .2" -.1
tBIONA

:3 .1% to,
1 43 Al

I w nw.

0.1 1.-, Witt ft. C.
as W$ft I- :-1. -9-6.
S.W., or&.. ... ..% . . . . . .I...
x" V.P.-F.

"'V. gas @@ 46". 9@'# .6.6 -.6, ft. C.
b.- 0.66" .4j.. -lk I..
-0.00 40 'd.3" 6`1=0 111.
- - I.& bi .... a
9-6

--A.. ftal, V.- .0 p"A.
M.A. I- ft, - &.-". - a." Mai... . .1 "1 -.L.
O-U Ub."
kil 1.. 9-4.
W.0 tm-

3
W. C.I.

6- 6. %is ft-.$.I ... bus." 4..
rl- I Ms- 4, 1 1- "!.:*p
X =1 It-
it at ... . ..
a, Is Wft d'
M.-W . .....

SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

LAND USE ANALYSIS SUMMARY

a a a 6 1 a a a 1060111 sea a I 1 0 0 a a a 9 0 0 a I a a a 0 9 a a a a I I I a 9 0 a 6 1 0 a I a I a 644 GOIS-DO&AST
c...3 ;at
1..4.J la.
ftbit"t A bll,lllI C-'.
Illll,l_6. 8--fi. Am O-W Z it, .61 @L@S' I -H,
%-6 1- a"
It OV,
-Saba-
-6.0 . ...... 49 44. Is: pus.

all
S-d
a
..... . .641, WIS. as a is- ft.'-
. ...... I pass, St.-
.us. X.
a ...I. as ... .. A
0 SIG.W b.8w. .8 a..
4.6

-as .4
9-6
as sib um

15.6, B-4 - 1. Illtll I'l,lt @f k. at -US
-6 .."'i IS---
I a :&.$
16.4 I.A A- &I
I r 1-4 0. rbl .6046
It OW.

Slid

a. 6. l6la . . ......
IS
4-144, In--- 3"

1&,ll, all, L Ollll-I. ft J-, 4- to
a .6.8, .6
%mwq a .=,
a-
Its' I"

ON'lll-4. F. 1-. -9 a""
0 ... pass" ft, I.---
el_ lis a-

SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

LAND USE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
_.SS

? W."

@gas -top# got 0 4 a 1 0 0 a f9doodde so$ to 9 a 9 0 a 6 0 01 a I a Sao$ gas soltsSI&III
Ime" J.L@
n. s"" m- mmw 1 7. W" 0-

Era
KA.;_

a- A- I_
U.S.."t

*..-%I a-- a. 6. a.- 1
.4.kol.a. 4-; a 1. 44.

a- ow. 9--.. all
6.6
bw
ga.

ul.ti" :-W CC,-,
Iwo ft.., -arm.-
bss.. ...... 4.61 -A60
kA A... I. a "rik,
t"613.

6 W-* M.4
as. a. XI U 6
Wooto.&
n.
41 1*--- rr --" a.-

6."'-uh
16-1

"ams.

SAND CITY LCP LAND USE PLAN

LAND USE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
a-=-

L-Alff

gggs

Appendix F

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Water Contract Resolution and
LCP Water Allocation Summaries

RESOLUTION 82-4

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DTRrCTORS OF THE
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AMENDING MUNICIPAL UNIT ALLOTMENTS FOR THE
CAL AM WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

WHEREAS, the Legislature, -in enacting the Monterey Peninsula Water

Management District Law, found that the water problems of the Monterey Pen-

insula require integrated management and the augmentation and conservation

of supply; and

WHEREAS, it is found and determined that future water demand within

the District may exceed the ability of known resources to satisfy that de-

mand; and

WHEREAS, it is found and determined that eacli municipal unit within

ttie District requires a reasonable guarantee of water supply availability

so as to plan for future growth; and

WHEREAS, the population of each municipal unit and the District de-

sires such orderly growth; and

WHEREAS, the District, pursuant to Section 363 of the Monterey Pen-

insula Nlater Management District Law, has the power to review all expansi-ns

.:r extensions to water distribution systems; and

WHEREAS, it is found and determined that the establishment of the

allotments in conjunction with the powers in Section 363 will provide an

effective mechanism for limiting the future water demand in any one juris-

diction; and

WHEREAS, the California American Water Company is the only water.

distribution system serving customers in more than one municipal unit; an'd

WHEREAS, it is found and determined that the allotment of Cal Am

:-,!sources based on projected water use in the year 2000 by jurisdiction is

@'-'.takc and objective foundation for the allotmunt; and

WHEREAS, the annual allotment can most equitably be calculated in

terms of total annual revenue uses (actual metered sales) and compared

against actually observed annual rk:venue use; and

WHEREAS, the average annual non-revenue use can be estimated at

seven percent of total usage; and

WHEREAS, this annual allotment is required pursuant to the District

Rules and Regulations, Rule 30; and that pursuant to Rule 30 each year

hereafter, new allotments may annually be determined based upon informa-

tion regarding water supply, demand, changes in jurisdiction, physical boun-

daries, and.other factors;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District as follows:

1. The maximum annual revenue water usa-e allowable in the Californi-.

American Water Company shall be 18,600 acre feet; which holds 1400 acre feet

(seven percent of 20,000 acre feet) unallocated to account for non-revenue

uses.

2. flu nicipal unit allotments shall be established'for the-California.

American U'ater Company based on a prorationing of projected year 2000 use

bv ru1.c1;)lYin- the maximum annual revenue water usage available by tile follok;.-

ing rel.acive shares:

MUNICIPAL UNIT ANNUAL ALLOTMENT

City of Carmel 5.542

City of Del Rey Oaks 1.318

City of Monterey 30.890

County of Monterey 34.952

City of Pacific Grove 12.641

City of Sand 1.799

City of Seaside 12.858

3. Pursuant to Rule 41 of the District's Rules and Regulations,

"Review of Municipal Unit Compliance with Allotment", should any municipal

unit's annual revenue water deliveries exceed the municipal unit's allotment

as determined on the preceding page, the Board of Directors shall suspend the

issuance of new extension or expansion permits in that jurisdiction.

4. Upon annexation of area currently unincorporated to a city, the

above municipal unit allotments shall be reviewed by the General Manager in

conjunction with city and county staff to recommend modifications to the Dis-

trict Board.

5. The General Manager shall submit a certified copy of this reso-

lution to each municipal unit and water distribution system within the Dis-

trict.

6. All additional extensions, expansions, and connections, pi:rsuant

to any allotment, will require a further permit from this District pursuant

to itsRules and Regulations, and therefore, this allocation shall not be

deemed a project as defined in Title 14, California Administrative Code,

Section 15037.'-

7. The allotments established pursuant to this resolution, effectuate

tlno i-mmediate-management of water as authorized by the Monterey Peninsula

..@,Frer Management District Law, and this allotment scheme is implemented for

the protection of water as a natural resource, and for the protection of the

environment of the Monterey Peninsula. The allotment scheme is categorically

exempt from CEQA under Class 7 and Class 8, Title 14, California Admini@s-tra---

tive Code, Sections 15107 and 15108. A notice of exemption to this effect

has been duly filed.

On motion of Director Gerald F= and second by Director

'.Edwin Lee the foregoing resolution is duly adopted this 12th

day of July 1982 by the following votes:

AYES: Directors Henson, Lee, McClintock, Fry, Peters and Woodworth

NAYF.S: None

ABSENT: Director Alfred Gawthrop

I, Gladys McKillop, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, hereby certify that the fore-

going is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly. adopted on the

12th day of July -, 1982.

Witness my hand and seal of the Board of Directors this 13th day

of JUIV 1982.

Gladys McKillop, Secretdry to tti@ -Board

RESOLUTION 81 - 7

A RESOLUTION OF THEr'BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MONTEREY PENINSULA WA.TER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AMENDING MUNICIPAL UNIT ALLOTMENTS FOR THE
CAL AM WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

VHEREAS, The Legislature, in enacting the Monterey Penlinsula Water

Mana.eement District Law, found that the water problems of the Monterey Penin-

sula require integrated management and the augmentation and conservation of

supply; and

WHEREAS, Tt is foun4 and determined that future water demand within

the District may exceed the ability of known resources to satisfy that demand;

and

WHEREAS, It is found and determined that each municipal unit within

the District requires a reasonable guarantee of water supply availability so

as to plan for future growth; and

WHEREAS, The population of each municipal unit and the District de-

sires such orderly growth; and

!MEREAS, The District, pursuant to Section 363.of the Monterey

Peninsula Water Management District Law, has the power to review all expansions

or extensions to water distribution systems; and

WHEREAS, It is 'Found and determined that the establishment o@_ ;ne

allotments in conjunction with the powers in Section 363 will provide an

effective mechanism for limiting the future water demand in any one jurisdic-

tion; and

WHEREAS, The California American Water Company is the only wa:er

distribution system serving customers in more than one municipal unit; and

WHEIRLkS1, It is found ane determined that the allotrent c-r- @7a!_ V-1.

resources based on projected water use in the year 1.000 by jurisdiction is an

equitable and objective foundation for the allotment; and

WHEREAS, This annual allotment is required pursuant to the District

Rules and Regulations, Rule 300; and that pursuant to Rule 300, each Year

hereafter, new allotments may annually be determined based upon infomation

regarding water supply, demand, changes in jurisdiction, physical boundaries,

and other factors;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Directors of the Monterey

Peninsula Water Management District as follows:

1. The maximum present annual water usage allowable in the California

American Water Company shall be 20,000 acre feet;.

2. Municipal unit allotments shall be established for the California

American Water Company ba3ed on a prorationing of projected year 2000 use by

multiplying the maximum water usage available by the following relative shares:

MUNICIPAL UNIT ANNUAL ALLOTMENT

City of Carmel 5.545

City of Del Rey Oaks 1.320

City of Monterey 30.889

County of Monterey 34.948

City of Pacific Grove 12.639

City of Sand 1.780

City of Seaside

3. Upon annexation of area currently unincorporated to a city, the

above municipal unit allotments shall be reviewed by the General Manager in

conjunction with city and county staff to recommend modifications to the Dis-

trict.Board.

4. The General Manager shall submit a certified copy of this resolu-

tion to each municipal unit and water distribution system within the District.

5. All additional. extensions, expansions, and connections, pursuant

to any allotment, will require a further permit from this District pursuant.

to its Rules and Regulations, and therefore, this allocation shall not be

deemed a project as defined in Title 14, California Administrati-ve Code,

6. The allotments established pursuant to this resolution, effectuate

the immediate management of water as-authorized by the Monterey Peninsula

'.@ater Management District Law, and this allotment scheme is implemented for

16he proteccion of water as a natural resource, and for the protection o@- che

environment of the Monterey Peninsula. The allotment scheme is c,-teg,orically

c;:@.%mpc from CEQA under Class 7 and Class 8, Title 14, California Administra-

cive Code, Sections 15107 and 15108. A notice of exemption to this effect

has been duly filed.

On motion of Director.Nancy McClintock _, and second by Director

John Williams -1. the'foregoing resolution is duly adopted this 13th

day of April, 1981 by the following votes:

AYES: Directors Gawthrop, Fry, McClintock, and Williams.

NAYES: Directors Woodworth, Lee and Peters

ABSENT: None

I Gladys McKillop, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Monterey

Peninsula Water Management District, hereby certify that the foregoing is a

Lull, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted on the 13th day of

April, 1981.

Wicness my hand and seal of the Board of Directors this 15th day of

April, 1981.

Gladys McKillop, Secretary

WATER ALLOCATION SUMMARY

Acre-Feet/Year
(As of September 1983)

Total Sand City Water Allocation 334.6

LESS Current City Water Use 76.1

TOTAL Available Water 258.5

Projected Coastal Zone Water Use 299.55

Projected Water Use Outside Coastal Zone + 38.42
(assumes no residential development outside coastal zone)

Acre-feet/year Projected 337.45

TOTAL, LESS 25% Water Conservation 84.49
(Consumption assumed with proposed water conservation policies)

Projected Consumption 252.96

TOTAL GENERAL RESERVE* 5.54

The projected total City-wide water consumption upon full buildout is 329.06
acre-feet per year, based on the proposed coastal zone land tise designations
and density standards, projected development outside the coastal zone, and
current City-wide water use. Approximately 5.54 acre-feet of water/year will
remain as City-wide reserve.

Water consumption by coastal zone land uses are summarized in the table on the
following page.

The attached Summary Sheets summarize land use designations/densities and pro-
jected water consumption in the Coastal Zone by area. (An Area Reference Map
is also attached.) The following water consumption factors that were used were
primarily taken from the Cannery Row LCP and the Economic and Demographics
Projection Report prepared for the Monterey Peninsula by the IIPWMD.

*Water has been allocated to all areas within the City's coastal zone that are
currently served by existing wells. In the event that these wells must be
shut down, additional water shall be made available from the MPWMD, per
agreement between the MPWMD and the City of Sand City, and the City will
petition the MPWMD to obtain this water. Therefore, the City's actual water
reserve may be higher than the figure stated here.

LCPWP2/16 Page I

Annual Water
Consumption % of Total
Land Use Acres Units .(in acre-feet) Consumption

DUAL DESIGNATIONS
industrial/Manufacturing 12-91 0 - own well
NOTE: Each dual designation has water allocated to it via its secondary
land use, as shown below.

Visitor-Serving - Hotels 17-39 1,020 Rooms 57.08 19%
Visitor-Serving - Motels 9.97 370 20.73 7%
Visitor-Serviag - No Hotels/ 23-13 - 45.00 15%
No Motels*

Public Recreation 11.89 - -

Residential 51.97 893 136.72 46'"y
(V.isitor-Serving Residential) (31.64) (383) .(58-69) -
Light Commercial* 7.75 15-13 5%
Heavy Commercial* 7.55 5.07 2%
Coastal-Dependent 2.00 1.50 <1%
Industrial-Manufacturing 15.5 12-99 4%
Industrial Parark 12.7 5.33 2%

TOTAL 159-85 299-55 100%

*For commercial uses, see individual area breakdowns for maximum square
footage allowed, based on the City's present water allocation.

Visitor-Serving - Hotels/Motels 50 gpd/room (assumes 80% occupancy)
Visitor Serving - No Hotels/No Motels 50 gpd/1,000 net bldg sq ft
Neighborhood'and Light Commercial 50 gpd/1,000 net bldg sq ft
Residential - Single Family 230 gpd/unit
Residential - Multi Family 137 gpd/unit
Heavy Commercial & Industrial 25 gpd/employee (15-25 employees/
gross acre; except for area 12,
where a higher employee/gross acre
is known to occur)

gpd = gallons per day

net bldg sq ft - net building square footage, figured at 40% of total acreage;
the figure is doubled to allow for maximum square footage per
the City's existing allocation. If the City is allotted more
water in the future, commercial square footages could be.
increased.

one acre-foot - 325,840 gallons

LCPWP2/16 Page 2

SUMMARY SHEETS

Area 1, 2, 3, 4: Consolidated and Unconsolidated Ownership Properties

Area in Acres: I - 12.00
2 - 7.39 (Unconsolidated Ownership)
3 - 2.62
4 - 1.83 (Unconsolidated Ownership)

Land Use Designation

LUP Option 1 Projection with TDC Program
Area 1, 2: Visitor Serving Commercial--Hotel-270 Rooms
Visitor Serving Residential, Medium Density--
100 Units
Area 3, 4: Public Recreation

LUP Option 2 Projection without TDC Program
Area 1, 2: Unknown
Area 3: Visitor Serving Commercial (Cluster), 2.62
acres @ 40% coverage - 1.05 acres net
maximum sq. ft. - 91,476 multi-story
Area 4: Visitor Serving Commercial--Motel--68 Rooms

Water Allocation:

Option 1--Hotel 15.08
vs. Residential 15.30

30.38 acre-feet/year

Option 2--Visitor Serving 5.10
Motel 3.80
Remainder 21.48

30.38 acre-feet/year

Area 5: Numerous Parcels (unconsolidated ownership)

Area in Acres: 13.33

Land Use Designation: Residential, High Density
(Special Treatment Density Standards May
Apply)
370 Units maximum due to dune restoration,
requirements

Water Allocation:

Residential Existing 56.6 acre-feet/year

LCPWP2/16 Page 3

Area 6: Calabrese Property

Area in Acres: 7.90
Frontage Road Extension -.42

7.48 acres net

Land Use Designation: Industrial-Manufacturing
(Dual) Visitor Serving Commercial
Motel 6.17 acres @ 37;rooms/acre - 229 rooms
No Motel -- 1.31 acres @ 40% lot coverage - .52 acres net
maximum sq ft - 45,302

(NOTE: Not to be limited if more water is
allocated to the City in the future.)

Water Allocation:

Motel 12.83
No Motel - 2.54

15-37 acre-feet/year

(NOTE: This allocation also applies to the existing industrial des-
ignation of this site.)

Area 7: Monterey Sand Company Property,

Area in Acres: 15.60
Frontage RoaZ Extension -.59

15-01 acres net

Land Use Designation: Coastal-Dependent Industrial
Visitor Serving Commercial
Hotel - 5.00 acres @ 75 rooms/acr e - 375 rooms
No Hotel - 8.01 acres @ 40% lot coverage - 4.00 acres net.

maximum sq ft 278,784

Coastal Dependent Industrial-2.0 acres @ 25 employees/acre

(NOTE: Not to be limited if more water is
allocated to the City in the future.)

Water Allocation:

Hotel - 21.00
No Hotel 15.60
CD1 - 1.5

38.10 acre-feet/year

LCPWP2/16 Page 4

Area 8: Granite Construction Co. Property

Area iA Acres: 5.01
Frontage Roa@@ Extension -.40

4.61 acres net

Land Use Designation: Industrial-Manufacturing
(Dual) Visitor Serving Commercial

Motel - 3.80 acres @ 37 rooms/acre - 141 rooms

No Motel -- .81 acres @ 40% lot coverage - .32 acres net

maximum sq ft - 27,878

(NOTE: Not to be limited if more water is
allocated to the City in the future.)

Water Allocation:

Motel -- 7.90

No Motel - 1.56

9.46 acre--feet/year

Area 9: Monterey Bay Club (Ritter Property)

Area in-Acres: 15.64

Land Use Designation: Visitor Serving Residential, Low Density
(Cluster)

Residential, Low 15.64 acres @ 13 units/acre = 203 units
(65% lot coverage allowed, multi-story)

Water Allocation:

Visitor Serving Residential -- 31.15 acte-feet/year

LCPWP2/16 Page 5

Area 10:

Area in Acres: 35.44

Land Use Designation: Visitor Serving Commercial
Visitor Serving Residential, Medium Density
Residential, Medium Density
Public Recreation

Elotel--5.00 acres @ 75 rooms/acre = 375 rooms
No Hotel/Motel-12-00 acres @ 40% lot coverage 4.80 acres net
maximum sq ft - 418,176
Visitor Serving Residential -4.00 acres
@ 20 units/acre - 80 unit s
Residential - 7.00 acres @ 20 units/acre 140 units

Public Recreation -- 7.44 acres

Water Allocation:

Hotel 21-00
No Hotel/Motel 23.35
Residential (Visitor-Serving) 12-24
Residential 21.43
Public Recreation 0.00

78-02 acre--feet/year

(NOTE: This allocation is also in , effect for an existing industrial or
potential coastal dependent industrial use at this site.)

*A private well currently is being used in this area., of the Coastal
Zone; the MPWMD conditioned Sand City's water allocation such that
they would receive an increased allocation per each well in the City,
based on the following: that the well was no longer able or allowed
to produce water; and that the amount of additional water to be
allocated to the City would be based on average well production. The
City will petition the MPWMD to obtain this additional water.

Area 11: -Calabrese Property

Area in Acres: 1.0

Land Use Designation Visitor Serving Commercial -- No Hotels
No Hotel I acre @ 40% lot coverage - .40 acres net
maximum sq ft - 34,848

(NOTE: Not to- be limited if more water is
allocated to the City in the future.)

Water Allocation

No Hotel - 1.95

LCPWP2/16 Page 6

Area 12: Granite Construction Company Property

Area in Acres: 6.8

Land Use Designation: Industrial/Manufacturing

Water Allocation:

Industrial/Manufacturing: 8.00 acre-feet/year*

(NOTE: It was determined that this area had a higher employee/gross acre
than other industrial/manufacturing areas in the City, and this is
reflected in the allocation.)

*A private well currently is being used in this area of the Coastal
Zone; the MPWMD conditioned Sand City's water allocation such that
they would receive an increased allocation per each well in the City,
based on the following: that the well was no longer able or allowed
to produce water; and that the amount of additional water to be
allocated to the City would be based on average well production. The
City will petition the MPWMD to obtain this additional water.

Area 13: Calabrese Property

Area in Acres: .70

Land Use Designation: Industrial/Manufacturing

Industrial/Manufacturing: .70 acres @ 15 employees/gross acre
10.5 employees

Water Allocation

Industrial/Manufacturing: .29 acre-feet/year

Area 14 15: McDonald Property (Monterey Sand Company)

Area in Acres; (14) 7.8
(15) 4.9

12.7

Land Use Designation: Industrial Park

IP - 12.7 acres @ 15 employees/gross acre 190.50

Water Allocation:

IP -- 5.33 acre-feet/year

LCPWP2/16 Page 7

Area 16: Calabrese Property

Area in Acres: 1.10

Land use Designation: Light Commercial

Commercial -- 1.10 acres @ 40% lot coverage .44 acres net

maximum sq ft = 38,333

Water Allocation:
Commercial -- 2.15 acre-feet/year

Area 17: Numerous Parcels (Unconsolidated Owners)

Area in Acres: 6.20

Land Use Designations: Light Commercial
Heavy Commercial

Commercial W 4.65 acres @ 40% lot coverage 1.86 acres net
maximum sq ft - 162,043

Commercial (H) 1.55 acres @ 20 employees/gross acre 31
employees

Water Allocation:

Commercial W 9.08
Commercial (H) .87

9.95 acre-feet/year

Area 18: Numero.us Parcels

Area in Acres: 8.00

Land Use Designation: Light Commercial
Heavy Commercial

Commercial W: 2.00 acres @ 40% lot coverage .80 acres net

maximum sq ft - 69,696

Commercial M: 6.00 acres @ 25 employees/gross acre 150
employees

Water Allocation:

Commercial W: 3.90
Commercial M: 4.20
8.10 acre-feet/year

LCPWP2/16 -Page 8

Area 19: Various Properties

Area in Acres: 8.00

Land Use Designations: Industrial/Manufacturing

Industrial/Manufacturing 7 acres of existing development
I acre undeveloped property @ 25
employees/ gross acre - 25
employees

Water Allocation:

Industrial/Manufacturing:
Existing development
(potential expansion) 4.00
Undeveloped property 0.70

4.70 acre-feet/year

Outside Coastal Zone

Area in Acres: 28.2 (McDonald Property)
10.7 (Rest of City)

38'.9 acres

Land Use Designations: Industrial/Manufacturing
Heavy.Commercial
Residential, High Density

McDonald: 28.2 acres @ 15 employees/acre - 423 employees
Remainder: 6.4 acres @ 20 employees/acre = 128 employees
4.3 acres-High Density Residential 150 maximum
units

Water Allocation:

McDonald: 11.85
Remainder: 3.57 Nonresidential

38.42 acre-feet/year

LCPWP2/16 Page 9

j@ T '

. Appendix G

Zoning Ordinance References

"C-2" -- General Commercial

Principal permitted uses.
(a) Wholesale business, storage or warehousing;
(b) Automobile, truck, trailer, boat and farm implement establishments,
including major repair;
(c) Building material sales yard, not.including concrete mixing;
(d) Public utility buildings, service yards, telephone booths and sub-
stations;
(e) contractor's equipment storage yard, or storage and rental of equipment
commonly used by contractors;
(f) Carpenter, electrical, plumbing, heating or machine shop; printing,
publishing or lithographic shop; furniture upholstering shop, greenhouse
or horticultural nursery;
(g) New and used automobile sales and automobile service stations;
(h) Animal hospitals, veterinary clinics and kennels;
(i) Bakeries, creameries, soft drink bottling plants; laundries, cleaning and
dyeing plants;
Truck depots;
(k) Any other commercial use or service establishment determined by the
Council to be of the same general character as the above-permitted uses.

Accessory uses.
(a) Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use.

Conditional uses.
(a) Public or quasi-public uses appropriate to the C-G District;
(b) Salvage and wrecking operations;
(c) Concrete mixing and asphalt mixing yards;
(d) Commercial recreation facilities, including bowling alleys; and
(e) Other retail commercial uses, listed as principal permitted uses in the
C-1 District approrpriate in or necessary to serve a heavy commercial
area.

"C-3" -- Local Shopping District

Principal permitted uses.
(a) Any local retail business or service establishment, such as a grocery
store, bake shop, drug store, barber and beauty shop, clothes cleaning
and laundry pickup station, child care center, business or professional
office or bank, supply commodities or performing services for residents
of the neighborhood;
(b) Restaurant, cafe and soda fountain, not including entertainment or
dancing or sale of liquor, beer or other alcoholic beverages by the glass
or for consumption on the premises;
(c) Commercial parking lots for passenger vehicles;
(d) Telephone booths;
(e) Any other retail business which is determined by the Council to be of the
same general character as the above permitted retail business or service
area.

Accessory uses.
(a) Accessor-
y uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use,
such as incidental storage facilities.

Conditional uses.
(a) Public and quasi-public uses appropriate to the C-N District;
(b) Automobile service stations;
(c) Social halls, lodges, fraternal organizations;
(d) Public utility substations and communications equipment buildings.

"M" -- Industrial/Manufacturing

Principal permitted uses.
(a) Manufacture, processing, storage and packaging of food, concrete,
asphaltic concrete, sand, gravel and storage of petroleum based products;
(b) Wholesaling, storage, warehousing and heavy equipment storage;
(c) Printing, publishing and bookbinding plants;
(d) Railroad terminal facilitiest truck depots;
(e) Public utility buildings and substations;
(f) Uses appurtenant to a permitted use such as offices, storage, repair and
maintenance.

Conditional uses.
(a) Fish and meat packing;
(b) Production of aniline dyes, ammonia, carbide, caustic soda, cellulose,
chlorine, carbon black and bone black, hydrogen and oxygen, industrial
alcohol, nitrates of an explosive nature, potash, plastic material and
synthetic resins, pyroxylin, rayon yarn and hydrochloric, nitric,
phosphoric, picric and sulphuric acids;
(c) Production of rubber and soaps, including fat rendering and the storage
and curing of hides accessory thereto;
(d) Production of liquid fertilizer in an enclosed structure-,*
(e) Public and quasi-public uses appropriate in the K District;
(f) Retail commercial uses such as restaurants and service stations necessary
for service.-to uses within the district;
(g) Salvage and wrecking operations;
(h) Residential uses as deemed appropriate by the City Council;
(i) Any other use deemed appropriate for this District by the City Council;
(j) Other manufacturing, assembly, processing, and packaging or other
industrial operations when, in the determination of the Council, all
resulting dust, dirt, cinders, fumes, fases, smoke and odor shall be
confined effectively to the premises or so disposed of as to avoid air
pollution, and where any noise, vibration or flashing and is not normally
unreasonable.

Uses Prohibited in the X Distret
(a) Production of coal, coke and tar;
(b) Production of dry fertilizers, gelatine, animal glue and sizing;
(a) Production of turpentinej matches and paint;
(d) The following processes: Nitrating of cotton or other materials;
magnesium foundry; reduction, refining, smelting and alloying of metal or
metal ores; refining petroleum products such as kerosene, gasoline,

naphtha and lubricating oil; distillation of wood or bones; or tanning of
raw, green or salted hides of skins;
(e) Stockyards, slaughterhouses;
(f) storage of fireworks or explosives.

"IP" -- Industrial Park

Principal permitted uses.
(a) Manufacturing, assembly, process-ing, packaging and similar industrial
.operations;
(b) Administrative and executive offices, when associated with a permitted
use;
(c) Research or experimental laboratories;
(d) Offices and commercial establishments which provide services or consulta-
tions to other permitted uses;
(e) Retail sales of drafting and engineering supplies, technical books,
precision tools and blueprinting services;
(f) Wholesaling and warehousing;
(g) Workshops, including carpenter, electrical, plumbing, heating, printing
and machine shops. Display of retail products shall be limited to
products produced or installed by the workshop;
(h) Public utility buildings and substations;
(i) Accessory uses to a permitted use such as a cafeteria, restaurant,
employees' auditorium and medical center when located on the same lot as
the permitted use;
(j) Other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use.

Conditional uses.
Minimum lot size, width and depth requirements may be reduced by
the terms of the conditional use permit to the extent necessary to
achieve the purposes of this section.

4r4 t,
I

Appendix H

Glossary

G L 0 S S A R Y

Archaeological Resources. Material remains of past h uman life and activities.
Examples of material remains are fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments.

Biological Survey. A field survey conducted by a qualified biologist or
agency hired by the applicant for any development proposed within general
areas of potential environmentally sensitive habitats in order to determine
exact locations of environmentally sensitive habitats and to recommend
mitigation measures to protect habitats.

Buffer. An area of land separating two distinct land uses, such as residen-
tial and industrial or residential and commercial, which acts to soften or
reduce the effect of one land use on another. For instance, landscaping is
sometimes used to "buffer" or reduce the effects of a commercial area on
nearby residential units.

Building Height. The vertical distance from the average contact ground level
of the front wall of the building to the highest point of the building,
excluding chimneys and other building accessories. .

Clustering Development. A method of development in which many dwelling units
are placed close together or attached, usually for the purpose of retaining
another area in open space. Many condominium and townhouse developments
utilize this method when they are adjacent to a natural area to be retained,
or when they wish to create a focal point (such as a swimming pool, community
complex).

Coastal-dependent Development or Use. Any development or use which requires a
site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all.

Coastal-development Permit. A permit for any development within the coastal
zone.

Coastal-related Development. Any use that is dependent on a coastal-dependent
development or use.

Coastal Zone. An area within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Act.
The zone includes all of Sand City west of highway One, a strip of land 200
feet wide east of Highway One, Southern Pacific Railroad's right-of-way and
100 feet west of the right-of-way.

Development. On land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any
solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or
of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging,
mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of
use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdi-
vision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any
other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division
is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public
agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water,
or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration

of any structure in excess of fifty percent of the existing structure 's fair
market value, including any facility of any private, public or municipal
utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for
agticultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations which are in
accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions
of the Zberg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with Section
4510).

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. Any area in which plant or animal
life or their habitats are either rare.or especially valuable because of their
special nature or role in an ecosystem-and which could be easily disturbed or
degraded by human activities and developments.

Feasible. Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reas-
onable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors.

Implementing Actions. The ordinances, regulations or programs which implement
the provisions of the certified local coastal program.

Local Coastal Program. A local government's (a) land use plans, (b) zoning
ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) other implementing actions,
which, 'when taken together, meet the requirements of, andd implement the
provisions and policies of, the Coastal Act at the local level. Abbreviation:
LCP.

New Development. Any development activitiy (see Development) excluding recon-
struction, demolition, alteration or improvement of any structure which is not
in excess of fifty percent df the existing structure's fair market value.

Package Sewer Plant. A sanitation system for the collection and treatment of
sanitary wastes from a limited area of development with local disposal of the
treated effluent If the system is operated to serve more than one property
owner, a government entity is required to guarantee operation and maintenance.

Public Recreation. Recreational facilities owned by the public or available
for use by the general public.

Public Works.
(a) All production, storage, transmission, and recovery facilities for water,
sewerage, telephone and other similar 'utilities owned or operated by any
public agency or by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public
Utilities Commission, except for energy facilities.
(b) All public transportation facilities," including streets, roads, highways,
public parking lots and structures, ports, harbors, airports, railorads,
and mass tranist facilities and stations, bridges, trolley wires, and
other related facilities.
(c) All publicly financed recreation facilities, all projects of the state
Coastal Conservancy, and any development by a special district.
(d) All community college facilities.

Rare and Endangered Species. Species identified as rare, endangered and
threatened by the State Department of Fish and Game, United States Department
of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Native Plant Society.

Shall. This term identifies a mandatory provision which must be followed.

Shoreline Access. The provision of public pedestrian ac.cess from a public
thoroughfare to and along the shoreline.

Should. This term identifies a provision which must be followed unless there
are conflicting policies or specific overriding social, economic, or environ-
mental considerations.

Structure. Building or other facility including but not limited to any road,
retaining wall, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line,
electrical power transmission or distribution line.

Vertical Access. A path or trail which connects the nearest public roadway
with a shoreline destination via a reasonably direct route.

Water Allocation. The total annual amount of water allocated to Sand City by
the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District as part of the Peninsula
Water Allocation system. As a result of this City water allocation and as
part of the LCP, water consumption for land uses within and outside the
coastal zone were projected to insure that the City will not exceed its
current annual water allocation.

Zoning Combining Districts. Zones which are superimposed over other zones and
.vhich either add further requirements or replace certain requirements of the
underlying zone.

@j -- -- - - - - L
I
I 11111111 @ 1111
1 3 6668 14100 9391