2.0 Alternatives Considered
safety, both alternatives would result in placement of sand at the base of eroded bluffs, thereby providing
a temporary buffer between wave action and these elements, but only under Alternative 1 would sand be
placed along bluffs in Encinitas that have recently experienced failure. Under either alternative, sand
placement would be a temporary feature and this project alone would not prevent future bluff failures.
Based on the above analysis, there may be less indirect sedimentation impacts with Alternative 2 (although
likely not enough to effectively discriminate), there may be greater potential for impacts to underwater
archaeology resources under Alternative 2, and a greater potential for the (temporary) protection of fragile
bluffs in Encinitas under Alternative 1.
Another method of comparing the two action alternatives is their effectiveness at satisfying the project
purpose and need. Following the guidance provided in the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA
(Cal. Code Regs. Title 14 15126.6(D)) Table 2-9 has been developed to compare the alternatives in this
function. (The No Action Alternative fails to meet the purpose and need and is not analyzed.) As shown,
both alternatives would replenish beaches in accordance withShoreline Preservation Strategy; however,
Alternative 1 would replenish more receiver sites, create more total beach area (post-construction), and
provide a buffer between wave action and structures at a greater number of locations adjacent to bluffs,
including those along Encinitas.
CEQA requires disclosure of the environmentally superior alternative, and if the No Project alternative is
R
environmentally superior it requires identification of a superior alternative among the other alternatives
R
(15126.6(e)(2)). As described above, neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 2 would result in long-term
R
significant impacts to any issue area. For the issue areas of biological, cultural resources and public health
R
and safety there would be incrementally variable impacts and Alternative 1 would have slightly less impact
R
for two of the three topics. Also, Alternative 1 would better meet the purpose and need of the project
R
(Table 2-9). Therefore, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally superior under CEQA.
R
PERMITS REQUIRED
2.7
Various approvals and permits would be necessary for implementation of the proposed action. The project
as a whole would need federal and state permits and then individual receiver sites within the seven
jurisdictions would need appropriate local approvals. Table 2-10 lists the permits and approvals required
for each site, excluding the permits to be issued by individual jurisdictions that vary by receiver site. The
Regional Beach Sand Project EIR/EA
Page 2-65
99-69\SANDAG EIREA 3.4.wpd 7/17/00
Previous Page
