Custom Search
 
  
 
City of Solana Beach
Shoreline and Coastal Bluff Management Strategies Draft MEIR
Summary
Table S-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
I. Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts Associated with
Alternatives Without Changes to Fully Mitigate Them
(Lead Agency must issue "Statement of Overriding Considerations" under
Section 15093 and 15126[b] of the State CEQA Guidelines if the Agency
determines these effects are significant and wishes to select this Alternative)
Category/
Alternative
Environmental Impacts
Mitigation
1
Alternatives 1 & 2:
The armoring of the entire coastal bluffs
Design features such as earth-like
Aesthetics
with seawalls or gunite covering could
appearance, use of natural colors, and
result in long-term, cumulative visual
conformity to the natural form of the bluff
impacts.
would not reduce the cumulative impacts of
armoring a natural coastal bluff to below a
level of significance.
Alternative 2:
Alternative 2 does not promote the
Mitigation measures to reduce the direct
Aesthetics
implementation of seacave plugging and
visual impacts of seawalls, bluff retaining
filling over the construction of seawalls,
walls, gunite covering, and similar permanent
bluff retaining walls, gunite covering, and
armoring for shoreline protection could be
similar permanent armoring for shoreline
implemented. Because the California Coastal
protection, which results in significant
Commission policy changes are out of the
direct visual impacts.
control of the City of Solana Beach, this would
not be a feasible mitigation measure as far as
the City is concerned, though the Coastal
Commission itself could implement it.
Alternative 3:
Cumulative impacts associated with sand
Design features such as pre-filling the updrift
Recreation and Public
retention structures such as groins and
beach and short groin fields that allow sand to
Access
breakwaters include erosion on a
bypass and flow downdrift would lessen this
downdrift beach unless beach
impact; however, these mitigation measures
nourishment is continual.
would not reduce cumulative impacts below a
level of significance.
1
In the unique situation facing the City, standard CEQA terms "environmental impacts" and "mitigation" do not accurately
convey the true nature of the consequences of Alternatives 1 and 2. Under Alternative 1, the City would take no action whatever,
but would simply choose to leave the existing Ordinance unchanged. The City therefore would not be approving any "project" with
"significant environmental effects." Thus, the City would not be subject to the CEQA statutory mandate requiring that the approval of
a project with significant effects necessitates the approval of any "feasible" mitigation measures addressing such impacts. (See
Pub. Resources Code, 21002.) The City would therefore have unfettered discretion to decide whether to undertake, either on its
own or in tandem with other agencies, any "mitigation measures" recommended in this MEIR. Under Alternative 2, the City would
be repealing the Ordinance while leaving the Coastal Commission still subject to Coastal Act requirements mandating the issuance
of permits for coastal protective structures in some instances. Under such a scenario, the City's action would not be the sole, or
even the dominant, cause of any continuing negative consequences associated with the continuing approvals of shoreline protection
structures, as the Coastal Commission would continue to approve such structures. Thus, as with Alternative 1, the City would have
broad discretion as to whether to undertake any role in carrying out policies that might mitigate the effects of continuing Coastal
Commission approvals.
Project No. 323530000
Page S-5






Western Governors University
 


Privacy Statement - Copyright Information. - Contact Us

Integrated Publishing, Inc. - A (SDVOSB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business