A seawall in Bolinas involving some interesting property lines could get a substantial upgrade: representatives for the property owner of 100 Brighton Avenue nabbed permission from the Bolinas Community Public Utility District last month to apply for permits to replace and improve the wall that fronts the home.
The owner—an entity named AMJT Capital, according to assessor’s records—needed district approval because a small portion of the wall is actually on district property. Lawyers for the district are now reviewing a request by the owner for a 99-year easement on the public property, which they say they need in order to conduct future maintenance and repairs.
The BCPUD board is likely to approve that easement soon, but these are only the first steps in applying for and actually acquiring coastal permits, not a simple task when it comes to the California Coastal Commission.
The replacement wall, which Novato-based Noble Consultants is designing, would be located within the footprint of the current wall, with high-tension rods installed 30-feet deep into bedrock under the house, according to minutes from an August meeting of the utility district.
The primary purpose of the wall, which is over 40 years old, is to protect the private home at the end of Brighton, which last sold for over $3 million in 2009. But it would also benefit the community, said Jack Siedman, a longtime BCPUD board director.
“I think it makes public access…much safer and easier,” Mr. Siedman said.
During high tide, the only way to travel between Brighton Ave. and the west end of Brighton Beach is by walking along the top of the wall. But that isn’t easy for everyone; if someone is at the west end of the beach when the shore is overtaken by a high tide, he or she must scramble up rocks to reach the top of the wall and walk along it back to Brighton.
It’s a struggle for some people, particularly parents with young children or the elderly, Mr. Siedman said.
The wall also presents problems for emergency responders. Anita Tyrrell-Brown, the Bolinas fire chief, said the situation “is a little precarious, especially [when] carrying people or equipment.”
Rescue missions are not especially frequent in that area, perhaps numbering half a dozen a year—except on the Fourth of July. This past Independence Day, the fire department was called to the area eight times. “That part of the beach is a hangout spot,” she said.
The new wall would include stairs on the west end to facilitate easier access to the top of the wall, as well as new guardrails. David Nelson, a lawyer working on the project for AMJT Capital, said at a December BCPUD meeting that the district’s approval of the application would help start what was likely to be an “arduous permit process.” (Neither he nor another representative for the owner responded to a request for comment for more details about the project.)
Though not discussed at the December meeting, seawall projects are met with a critical eye at the California Coastal Commission, which will ultimately approve or deny the project. Seawalls have come under fire for ill effects on the environment, particularly for limiting sand supply on beaches. Especially as sea levels rise, the walls are often critiqued for leaving beaches with no room to migrate inward, thereby putting beach access in danger.
In recent years, the coastal commission has imposed 20-year expiration dates on permits for the walls. That doesn’t mean they would necessarily have to be taken down when the permit expires, but rather that property owners must again prove their case. The state Supreme Court is set to review one case in which a property owner in Encinitas sued the coastal commission over the expiration date imposed on a permit for a replacement seawall.
The BCPUD board also made it clear that allowing the property owner to apply for permits on its behalf did not give the owner carte blanche to do anything. The district could revoke that permission at any time, for instance if plans change in a way the district deems problematic.
Another property issue also came up at the December BCPUD meeting involving surprising results from a recent land survey: the district owns a small portion of property behind the fence at 100 Brighton that was long assumed to be private, while AMJT Capital actually owns a small portion of Brighton Avenue assumed to be public. But the discussion over a potential land swap was tabled for the time being to focus on the seawall project.
“What’s most pressing is getting permits to replace it with something far better for the public and protective of the property, which are the two goals of the seawall,” Mr. Nelson said at the December meeting.