| Tweet |
Custom Search
|
|
|
||
 City of Solana Beach
Section 3
Shoreline and Coastal Bluff Management Strategies Draft MEIR
Environmental Impact Analyses
Fixation of beach boundary. This can be mitigated using artificial beach replenishment
provided the program is properly designed to maintain a protective beach width in front of
the structures.
This can be mitigated with ongoing beach
Reduction in sediment contribution.
replenishment.
Beach encroachment/placement loss. This can be mitigated by locating the protective
structure as close as possible to the base of the seacliff.
Section 3.1.
Erosion of tidal terrace. This impact can be mitigated with sand replenishment.
As explained earlier, should the City decide to leave its existing Ordinance in place, it would not
be "approving" a "project" with "significant environmental effects," and thus would be under no
legal obligation to adopt the above-referenced "mitigation measures," even if they are "feasible"
within the meaning of CEQA. The City is therefore free to decide whether, and to what extent,
to participate in any of these mitigation strategies.
Alternative 2 Repeal of the Shoreline and Coastal Bluff Protection Ordinance
Under this alternative, shoreline structures would be permitted under the jurisdiction of the
California Coastal Commission, in compliance with the California Coastal Act. Impacts to
recreation and public access would be greater with this alternative as compared with the No
Project Alternative because Alternative 2 is not as proactive as the City's Shoreline and Bluff
Protection Ordinance, which encourages seacave and notch fills over seawall construction. 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 the City's
Ordinance, which help 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 modify its past policies, consistent with the framework created by the Coastal Act.
Therefore, impacts to recreation and lateral public access would be significant. Impacts to
public access structures would be insignificant.
Mitigation
All mitigation measures required under the No Project Alternative for recreation and public
access could be applied to this alternative. 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
Project No. 323530000
Page 3-55
|
 
|
|
|
||
