Title
REF240001 - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(LIMEKILN CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT)
Provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2018091017) for the Limekiln Creek Bridge Replacement Project.
Project Location: Limekiln Creek Bridge between post mile markers 20.9-21.3, HWY 1 (Assessor's Parcel Number 422-021-002-000), Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan.
Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Monterey County Historic Resources Review Board (HRRB):
1. Find that providing comments on the Limekiln Creek Bridge Replacement Project qualifies for a Class 6 categorical exemption from CEQA; and
2. Provide input on the Limekiln Creek Bridge Replacement Project to staff.
No resolution or final action is required from the HRRB at this hearing. A letter summarizing comments from the HRRB and any other comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report from County departments will be transmitted to Caltrans.
DISCUSSION:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has circulated a Notice of Availability for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2018091017) for a project to replace the Limekiln Creek Bridge. The bridge is on Highway 1 in Big Sur, by Limekiln State Park. The full DEIR is not included as an attachment due to its size, however it’s available on Caltrans website. Chapter 2.2.4 and 3.2.5 contain analysis of cultural (including historic) resources, and Appendix A, beginning on Page 243 of the document contains the Department of Transportation Act “4(f)” which has additional discussion on historical resources: <https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-5/district-5-current-projects/05-1f510>
A Historic Property Survey Report (Terry Joslin Azevedo, PhD, May 2021), Historic Resources Evaluation Report (David G. Hyde, Ph.D., March 2021), and a Historic Properties Treatment Plan (Adrian R. Whitaker and Kathleen Hanrahan, August 2023) were all prepared to analyze historic resources and potential impacts to them from the project. However all of these reports are confidential as they contain discussion of archaeological resources. The project is within the Rockland Lime and Lumber Company Historic Landscape District, which contains archaeological resources. There is also a shell midden site (CA-MNT-1892) in the project area. Archaeological reports are kept confidential to protect these resources from looting on vandalism.
Projects relating to archaeological resources are typically not referred to the HRRB, per Title 20 section 20.54.040. As the HRRB’s purview is specific to historical resources, the midden site CA-MNT-1892 is not discussed in further detail below.
The project is adjacent to the Carmel San Simeon Historic District (CSSHD), a non-contiguous district named after the rural state highway constructed between 1922 and 1938, which stretches approximately 75 miles from the San Carpoforo Creek in San Luis Obispo County to the Carmel River in Monterey County. The district includes 241 contributing elements, primarily engineering features which are a part of or adjacent to the highway, including culverts, fountains, stone wall features, and seven Big Sur bridges, “The Big Sur Arches.” One contributing element to the district, a battlement-style parapet wall (Feature DM-343) is in the vicinity of the project, west of the bridge. The feature would not be impacted by the project.
The bridge itself was constructed in 1957, however based on Caltrans historical bridge inventory has been determined not to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Historic Properties Treatment Plan further states the bridge isn’t a contributor to the CSSHHD. The bridge was built 20 years after the period of significance for the CSSHHD, and does not display the same unique aesthetic qualities or engineering features of the Big Sur Arches. It was also extensively seismically retrofitted in 1997, including modifications to footings and piers 2, 5, 6, and 7; construction of strut walls at piers 4, 5, 6, and 7; column castings at piers 6 and 7; and expansion of the bridge deck, all of which diminished its integrity in terms of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The project is within the Rockland Lime and Lumber Company Historic Landscape District, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, C, and D. This is an extensive cultural landscape associated with their operation, which processed lime in the creek drainage from 1887 to 1890. “The Landscape District is best described as a historic lime production task-scape, whereby the material traces of myriad nineteenth-century industrial activities and lifeways are present in archaeological sites, historic vegetation elements, and topographical/geological features.” As an intensive extractive industry, the landscape was re-configured by leveling areas for work, living spaces, material processing, clear cutting forests, and interlinking these spaces and activities. “As such, the District is described and analyzed as a cultural landscape; a geographic area where bott the cultural and natural features work together to convey the historical significance of a particular place.” (Adrian R. Whitaker and Kathleen Hanrahan, August 2023)
The only contributing feature to the district within the project is Rockland Landing (CA-MNT-2452H), which is the remains of the company’s “doghole port, or schooner landing” and its associated features. The DEIR identifies two feasible project alternatives to replace the Limekiln Creek Bridge “4(b)” and “6”. Although no historic features are anticipated to be directly impacted by either alternative, the Historic Properties Treatment Plan sates that 4(b) would alter the integrity of the Rockland Landing site by further encroaching on the developed flat on which the doghole port is formed. Alternative 6 would not alter the integrity of the site.
In staff’s review, we identified the following potential comments:
• The County has a certified Local Coastal Program and should be identified a responsible agency in the environmental document. The bridge has areas that are within the Coastal Commission’s area of original jurisdiction (where the California Coastal Commission retains permitting authority) and areas where the County would be the agency to process the Coastal Development Permit. Caltrans may request a consolidated Coastal Development Permit, in which the Coastal Commission would assume coastal development permitting authority over the entirety of the project.
• The environmental document should address consistency with policies protecting historical resources in the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan, and their implementing regulations regulations in the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 1 (the zoning ordinance, or Title 20), and Part 3, Regulations for Development in the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan. (In our letter we would provide detailed references to these regulations and sections of the plan.)
• Should Caltrans submit a Coastal Development Permit to the County, a historical report meeting HRRB’s Guidelines for Historical Assessments and addressing the relevant policies mentioned above should be included that can be available for public circulation.
• Request clarification on the potential impacts to Rockland Landing. The DEIR identifies Alternative 4(b) as impacting this district feature by further encroaching on the developed flat on which the doghole port is formed, but no historic features are anticipated to be directly impacted. It isn’t clear why encroachment would impact the feature or the level of significant of this impact.
Prepared by: Phil Angelo, Associate Planner
cc: Project File