First, let me say that there are some fine people on our City Council who were just as shocked and concerned as we were when they saw the walls of shotcrete on the bluffs in mid-April. That's when City Council put the whole thing on "pause" (April 29) and asked City Staff to look at alternatives to shotcrete with a peer review panel of engineers. We're grateful for that decision.

Also, to be clear - the shotcrete walls along Bluff Park are not finished. They're not painted and don't look natural and it may be unfair to characterize them as ugly. But this is not just about aesthetics. It's about erosion control alternatives that should have been considered, and discussed with the public, before this kind of technology was applied to our coastal bluffs in the first place.

Here's where most opinions diverge. If you happen to believe the erosion/stability problem on the Long Beach bluffs warranted treatment with walls of shotcrete hundreds of yards long, stop reading now. But if you're not a fan of shotcrete you should be more worried about the direction this project is taking following the Peer Review report.

This issue, again, is about alternatives. It's about how to do it. What did the City consider back when (2009) when they were defining this project and looking at ways to solve the erosion control problem that had plagued these bluffs for decades? Who did they consult with and what opinions were offered back then that led to where we are now?

There were several alternatives discussed in the most important engineering document related to this project - the Kleinfelder report from April 2010 (link below) on Page 29. This is the document that Peer Review just finished studying. The alternatives to improve slope stability were defined in the report like this:

• 1. buttressing the slope with a geogrid reinforced fill;
• 2. flattening the slope by cut and fill grading;
• 3. constructing retaining walls;
• 4. constructing a soil-nail facing system.

The 2010 Kleinfelder report then proceeds to eliminate each of these alternatives, one by one, for some reason or another until they get to soil-nails (and the shotcrete that goes with it.)

Flattening the slope by grading (#2) goes out the window with this: "...based on discussions with the City, we understand that extensive slope grading would not be considered for the project. Grading is not a viable option because the California Coastal Commission will not allow placement of new (sand) fill on the beach."

What about the retaining walls (#3)? "The use of concrete retaining walls has been considered in the past; however due to cost and aesthetics, the City prefers not to use retaining walls."

Then, following that process of elimination, the 2010 Kleinfelder report goes on to state: "We understand that the City has selected a soil-nail system with a shotcrete facing to improve slope stability in areas..."

What we learned this week is that the engineers involved with the Peer Review report were instructed to skip those same alternatives (#2 and #3). The mistaken assertions in the 2010 Kleinfelder review are moved along and repeated in this week's Peer Review report.

Why is that important? Those two alternatives deserve to be part of the discussion. We now know that flattening the slope with minimal encroachment on our beach with sand fill is not prohibited by law. (We don't know who or why the Coastal Commission said something like that.) And rejecting an alternative -- the retaining wall -- because of costs and aesthetics before the public could consider it short-circuited the process.

There's still a way to move forward and get this process back on track. Alternatives the public may prefer were mistakenly eliminated but they still exist and they can, and should be, brought into the discussion of alternatives moving forward.

We think the City Council should give City staff two clear instructions next Tuesday, July 1:

• 1. Finish the work in Bluff Park. Everyone agrees the construction in the park is a nuisance. The sidewalk repairs and irrigation system should be finished now.

• 2. Instruct staff to come back with a feasibility study of ALL the alternatives. Don't continue the mistake of eliminating viable alternatives before we know the costs and benefits.

The Council and the public, on both sides of the debate, deserve a well-informed decision-making process. We have just one chance to get this bluff erosion project done right. The community deserves to have all the alternatives studied and publicly reviewed. We hope City Council agrees.

The Peer Review Report and the 2010 Kleinfelder geotechnical report can be found here.