1. City of Solana Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment CCC Item Th7d January 9, 2014

2. City of Solana Beach Location 2 Solana Beach, Northern San Diego County 2

3. Solana Beach LUP History 3  2000-2012 : City coordinates with Stakeholder groups and prepares/submits draft Land Use Plans (LUP).  March 2012: CCC approves LUP with 156 additional Suggested Modifications.  February 2013: City Council adopts LUP incorporating all CCC Suggested Modifications:  Concurrently directs City Staff to prepare amendments to clarify policies relating to private beach stairways, bluff top development and shoreline protection.  May 2013: City Council approves sending LUP Amendment to CCC for processing. 3

4. Solana Beach LUPA History 4  October 2013 : City receives draft suggested modifications on the Solana Beach LUPA.  October 9, 2013: Technical meeting convened of CCC staff and City Staff on CCC Suggested Modifications.  November 2013: CCC hearing on LUPA hearing held and continued until January 2014. 4

5. LUP Amendment Background 5  Intended to strengthen and clarify LUP policies by providing additional details regarding intent.  Furthers important City goals to move development away from the coastal bluff edge where possible.  Proposed amendments developed in conjunction with CCC and interested stakeholders.  LUPA public review:March 28 - May 10, 2013 5

6. Purpose of LUP Amendments 6  Clarifies future opportunities for public access on private beach stairways when feasible & reasonable when located on a public easement /property.  (Policy 2.60.5)  Clarifies allowable/intended uses for Sand & Public Recreation Impact Mitigation Fees  (Policy 4.49)  Requires feasibility analysis for alternatives to all bluff retention device projects.  (Policy 4.52)

7. Issue: Use of Erodible Concrete 7  Solana Beach Certified LUP includes 5 shoreline protection devices approved by Commission after many years of Staff review and discussion  City’s proposed LUPA did not contain any changes to recently Certified LUP shoreline protection devices/solutions  November CCC Staff Report recommended two new erodible concrete seacave/notch infill designs:  One without facing that cannot be aesthetically treated  One with facing that can be made to match the bluff 7

8. 8 Seacave/notch infills are used to prevent bluff failures onto the public beach below

9. Issue: Use of Erodible Concrete 9  City Staff supported November 2013 CCC Staff Suggested Modifications regarding new infill types  January 2014 CCC Staff Report does not include an erodible concrete infill option that includes facing or ability to provide aesthetic treatment  City Staff supports all CCC Staff modifications except #2, #3 and #4 regarding the use of erodible concrete for seacave and bluff notch infills.  City Staff would support erodible concrete infill provided it has aesthetic treatment/facing  As shown in Exhibit 6 in the CCC Staff Report (Pg. 113) 9

10. Exhibit 6 – CCC Staff Report Pg. 113 10 10

11. Rationale for City Position 11  Erodible concrete is not ideal because it cannot be properly notched into bluff  Therefore, these concrete fills migrate onto beach  Erodible concrete has a long cure time and is too soft to be effectively contoured or hand sculpted to match the native bluff  Has not been used in City for more than a decade because of poor track record 11

12. Example: Seacave infill without aesthetic treatment or contouring 12  Creates significant adverse aesthetic and visual impacts to the public beach  Inconsistent with Certified LUP which requires aesthetic treatment and maximum protection of visual resources

13. Infill without aesthetic treatment

15. Infill with aesthetic treatment 15

16. Infill with aesthetic treatment 16

17. Reasons for City Staff Opposition 17  CCC Staff Recommendation is inconsistent with Certified LUP which requires aesthetic treatment for all shoreline protection devices in the City  CCC Staff recommendation is contrary to the agreement reached with CCC and City technical Staff on October 9, 2013 regarding facing  Poor past record of performance in City  City Staff would prefer no changes to the Certified LUP preferred bluff solutions – but could support the design shown in Exhibit 6 (Staff Report Pg. 113) 17

18. Conclusion and Request 18  City Staff requests rejection or modification of CCC Staff Suggested Modifications 2, 3 and 4.  City Staff agrees to support erodible concrete for infills if aesthetic treatment is incorporated  e.g. Exhibit 6 in the CCC Staff Report  City Staff supports the other proposed suggested modifications. Thank you.