| Tweet |
Custom Search
|
|
|
||
 City of Solana Beach
Section 3
Shoreline and Coastal Bluff Management Strategies Draft MEIR
Environmental Impact Analyses
Commission will issue a permit; and by the time a home is threatened, a seawall is usually the
only device that can protect the bluff from failure.
The long-term effects of this alternative would be somewhat similar to Alternative 1, above with
one exception. Alternative 2 would not promote the implementation of seacave plugging and
filling over the construction of seawalls, bluff retaining walls, gunite covering, and similar
permanent armoring for shoreline protection. Alternative 2, therefore, would increase the long-
term geologic and soils impacts associated with armoring the entire coastal bluff, as discussed
above. Future approvals for shoreline protection would not be reviewed by the City under its
current ordinance, which prefers seacave plugging and filling; therefore, approval of shoreline
protection would proceed directly to the California Coastal Commission and would likely result in
armoring the entire natural coastal bluff with armoring. The City of Solana Beach could
encourage the California Coastal Commission to revise its current policy and take a more
proactive approach to coastal bluff protection similar to that found in the City's Ordinance, which
helps to reduce the impacts of seawalls. However, since California Coastal Commission policy
changes are out of the control of the City of Solana Beach, this would not be a feasible
mitigation measure as far as the City is concerned, though the Commission would be free to
implement a more proactive approach than it has used in the past.
Mitigation
The long-term effects of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 1; thus, the
mitigation would also be similar to Alternative 1. It is important to remember, however, the
nature of the action that would be taken pursuant to Alternative 2. The City would be repealing
its existing 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.
Alternative 3 Sand Replenishment and Retention Program
Sand replenishment alone would not adversely affect unique geologic features; would aid in
slope stability and reduce erosion effects of waves; would restore the beach to former (pre-
1978) sand levels; and would not cause significant disruption, displacement, compaction, or
overcovering of the soil. As such, if properly implemented, this alternative would have less than
significant negative impacts. Beach replenishment using dredged sediments is generally
considered a beneficial use in areas where beach erosion is a problem as the fill can be utilized
to create a sand berm to provide additional recreational uses and shoreline protection.
However, placement of the sand can also create a temporary change in the shoreline. Over a
period of time, from 6 months to 2 years, the sand would be moved and redistributed from the
placement location along shore and cross-shore through natural littoral transport. At that time,
Project No. 323530000
Page 3-25
|
 
|
|
|
||
