okay good morning everyone we'll call this Thursday session of the California
Coastal Commission to order begin with a roll call please all right good morning
Commissioner O'Malley present Commissioner Escalante here Vice
Chair Hart present Commissioner Jackson here Commissioner Kelly here
commissioner Lopez here commissioner Lowenberg commissioner Smith present
commissioner Moreno present commissioner Wilson here commissioner
Brownfield commissioner Eckerly here commissioner Williams here and chair
Harmon here we have a quorum great thank you and now for the virtual meeting
procedures please. Good morning this Coastal Commission meeting is
occurring both in person and through Zoom. This meeting is also being
webcast and can be viewed online at Cal-Span.org. If you have internet
access and wish to watch or listen to the meeting only and not speak on an
item we recommend you use the CalSpan website. Those who wish to address the
Commission today can do so in person through the Zoom platform or by phone.
The speaker request form may be found on the commission's webpage.
Paper forms and a scannable QR code for paperless submittals are available on the commission
staff table just outside the meeting room.
For those on Zoom we have posted virtual hearing procedures on the commission's agenda webpage
which is a guide on providing comments via Zoom or by phone.
Members of the public must speak during general public comments may be given up to two minutes
to speak at the discretion of the chair.
to speak during the general public comment period will not be accepted after 9 a.m. on
each day of the meeting.
In order to provide the opportunity for the broadest range of public participation, you
may speak on a specific topic one time only each day.
Those speaking on the general item that is not general public comments are typically
allowed two to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the chair.
We will accept the request to speak on a regular general item up until the chair opens the
hearing on that particular item. If you have internet access please go to
commissions web page and click on the link to fill out a speaker request. If
you do not have internet access or prefer to testify by phone please call
the Commission staff at 562-477-9089. Again that number is 562-477-9089.
staff will provide you with a telephone number, call in number, and instructions
for how to participate and provide testimony by phone. We will manage
speakers coming in and out of the meeting through a meeting organizer. When
it is your time to address the Commission, the organizer will invite you
to turn on your video and microphone or provide instructions on how to unmute
the phone. Madam Chair, that concludes our virtual hearing procedures. Great, thank
Thank you, Simone.
All right.
Agenda changes, Mr. Schwing.
Thank you and good morning to the Commission and to everybody who's joining us for the
hearing today.
We do have a number of agenda changes, including some new additions this morning, but I'll
just walk through the list in order.
Starting with item 10A, the City of Laguna Beach's LCP amendment on ADUs and JADUs that's
moved to consent.
Item 11b, this is CDP application 526.292, the OC Public Works scoop permit.
That is moved to consent.
Item 13a, the City of Carlsbad's LCP amendment on their 2026 ADU update.
That is moved to consent.
Item 13b, the City of San Diego's LCP amendment on their ADU density bonus program.
That is postponed.
This morning we're adding item 13C, the City of Chula Vista's LCP amendment on the Roar
Wool specific plan.
That is moved to consent.
Item 14A, Coastal Permit 624663, the St. Mallow HOA from Oceanside, that is postponed.
Item 14B, CDP application 625144, the oceans investments, LLC in Del Mar, that's postponed.
Item 15A, it's coastal permit amendment application 6191426, A1, the city of San Diego's mission
beach storm drain improvements, that's moved to consent.
Item 17a, the city of Arcata's LCP amendment, comprehensive LCP update, time extension only,
that's moved to consent.
Item 18a, application 126.459, the Caltrans new Navy base road roundabout in Humboldt
County, that's moved to consent.
And newly adding to the list today's Application 125-901, CDFW's Pebble Beach Drive Public
Access Improvements in Del Norte County, that's move to consent.
And last, item 19A, the City of Eureka's post-LCP certification permit and appeal jurisdiction
map, that is move to consent.
And that concludes our agenda changes this morning.
Okay thank you very much. With that we will go to our chief counsel for a
report out from yesterday's closed session. Thank you Chair Herman.
Yesterday at the conclusion of the public agenda the commission met in
closed session it received litigation information advice about a matter of
potential litigation and on the case of City of Fort Bragg versus Mendocino
railway that concludes my report okay thank you very much appreciate it now
we will open general public comment thank you from members of the public I'll
be announcing the names of the upcoming speakers and invite you to speak when
it is your turn each speaker will be allowed two minutes during general
public comments at the discretion of the chair in order to allow for live video
testimony on zoom we will be bringing you in as a panelist as we bring you in
your zoom will reload this may take a moment to speed up this process we will
bring several people in at a time but please remain muted and keep your video
off until we ask you to speak after your time is up you will be moved back to a
tinny mode for the members of the public president in the room I will call your
names in the order that they appear on our sign-up list when you hear your name
please line up behind the podium and introduce yourself when you approach to
speak. There is a raise hand function that will help us find you in
the attendee list. If you are using a phone for audio you can raise your hand
by dialing star 9. If you are participating by zoom you should see a
button on your zoom screen. If you have signed up to speak for this item and are
able to do so please raise your hand now when is your time to speak we will
invite you to unmute and turn on your camera you can unmute yourself on a
phone by dialing star six earth up we have Brian Elliott I've allowed you to
speak okay Brian Elliott I see you oh good morning sorry I think it was
reloading thank you good morning chair Harman and commissioners my name is
Brian Elliott and I serve as the policy director for San Diego City Council President Joe LaCava.
I am speaking today in partnership with the Office of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and San Diego
City staff as we continue to better manage the La Jolla Cove. As was discussed at Coastal
Commission meeting at the Coastal Commission meeting in October, the city is actively pursuing
options to enforce the Marine Mammal Protection Act and broaden the ability for our park rangers
to ensure public safety. I want to thank Dr. Hucklebridge and her team for their support in
in these efforts, and on October 22nd, we sent a joint letter from the commission, Mayor
Gloria, Congressman Scott Peters, and our office to the National Marine Fisheries Service,
requesting their assistance in either providing personnel on site at the cove, or allowing
our park rangers the ability to enforce the MMPA.
They have confirmed receipt of our letter and we really await their reply.
But in the meantime, and in response to what we have heard from you as commissioners, the
public and our community groups. We're actively exploring how to implement a partial closure at
the cove during puppying season. In conjunction with the mayor's office and city staff we are
seeing what steps are necessary to allow ocean access while also preventing human and sea lion
interactions. As you can imagine this is an ongoing effort and we will continue to consult
the commission the La Jolla community and stakeholders as we explore these options.
So thank you for your time this morning and we'll remain online for the end of public comment to
should you have any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Next
we'll go to Susan Simon, Adam Leveres, Pauline Seles. Okay,
Susan Simon's not on. Let's go ahead and try Adam Leveres.
We'll come back to Susan Simon, Adam Leveres, and then Pauline
Salinas. Adam, I see you on if you can unmute yourself. Adam, I
see you. Okay, I see. I believe you unmuted yourself. Okay, Adam,
Let's come back to you then.
Let's go ahead and go to Pauline, Pauline Seeles.
There we go.
Steels.
Oh, sorry, Seeles.
That's fine.
Thank you.
I am contacting you on behalf of 2,000 members
of Santa Cruz Climate Action Network.
We were horrified to learn in an LA Times report
about the dangerous, outrageous ultimatum
delivered by the Trump administration
about completely allowing the oil and extractive industries
total free reign completely unacceptable.
And particularly when we have the destructive effects
of rising sea levels through global warming
and the powerful El Nino.
This threat was to got the authority granted
on the coastal management zone and violates,
it's undemocratic and violates states rights.
Now, I'm going to say right now,
I wrote this on Monday and after Tuesday night,
perhaps this is not such a big concern.
I sincerely hope so.
I'm not qualified to state on that.
But it would be unthinkable to totally
open the coast to any and all industries.
I want you to know that the people of
California really appreciate what you do and will support you as needed in the future.
This was prepared by myself, Susan Cavalieri, and Roland Sayer of Santa Cruz Climate Action Network.
Thank you for the chance to speak. Okay, thank you. So next we're gonna go to Lucas Lux and then
followed by Emma Hadoxy, Jennifer Savage, and Nina Atkin.
Sorry.
Thanks for the IT help.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Lucas Lux.
I'm the president of Friends of Sunset Dunes.
We're a grass roots group that has
had the pleasure of joining you at the Coastal Commission
for a few times over the past years
in our efforts to turn part of the San Francisco Road called
the Gray Highway into what is now Sunset Dunes Park.
We've come to you with supporting permits
and supporting, well opposing, appeals.
And today I come to you with a very exciting update.
Sunset Dunes Park is here to stay.
We won the third ballot measure in four years on Tuesday
with around 64% of San Francisco voters supporting the park.
In our view, we think that the park represents the values
almost perfectly that the Coastal Act represents as well.
And so we come to you with a simple message.
The park is here to stay,
and we look forward to working with the city
to improve the park in the future,
and we look forward to working with all of you
in the same effort.
So thank you so much.
We are so happy to bring a new Coastal Urban Park
under your jurisdiction.
Thank you.
Okay, next is Emma Hadoxi, Jennifer Savage and Nina Akhines.
We're moving Emma in, Emma C.
We just need you to unmute yourself, there you go.
I'm here, we also had some slides.
Yes.
Beautiful, hey.
Good morning, my name is Emma Hadacy,
Coast and Climate Initiative Senior Manager
with the Surfrider Foundation.
I'm delighted to be with all of you here virtually
to co-present along my whole mic.
I'm so sorry, can we have six minutes total
instead of two, two, two?
Sure.
Thank you.
Sorry for the interruption.
Thank you.
I already started my intro, so I feel like we got a little bit of a head start, but I'm
excited to be here today alongside my colleagues in the room, Jennifer and Nina, to co-present
on the 2026 State of the Beach report.
So we can dive in.
Next slide, please.
So this year's report focused on investigating and evaluating all coastal states in the U.S.
for their emergency shoreline armoring policies because a major problem that we've identified
impacting beaches everywhere are the short-term fixes allowed during and often after an emergency
passes and how that can compromise not only the long-term resilience of beaches and shores nearby
but also potentially create a future emergency condition along the shore. Next slide. To further
illustrate this point, we have this graphic from the report. Essentially an emergency happens along
our shores or it is declared whether or not it's something that's forecast or predicted.
Property owners take action to protect life and property. That action can look like rocks or
sandbags or concrete depending on where in the country and what the rules are in specific states,
but those go on the beach. And there are oftentimes weak or lacking guardrails around
the structure itself that's placed and how long it stays when it's often intended to be temporary.
after the emergency passes, enforcement on the removal of that structure can lag,
meaning that a temporary structure that was only supposed to be in place for a very short period
of time remains and sometimes becomes permanent by default, or a permanent permit is sought and
obtained. Either way, there are new structures on the beach that act like new structures often do.
The beach is pinned in place, sand is blocked, erosion accelerates, and the beach is squeezed
or lost forever. So next slide. That's why we wanted to look at states policies. We see this
as a problem in so many places and so we evaluated states across these seven criteria here to see
what the strength of their shoreline armoring policies were. Please review the report for more
detail on this. Next slide. And unfortunately the findings are that no state is doing this
most states are doing this imperfectly.
About 90% of coastal states in the US had a C grade or lower.
Only Connecticut, Oregon and Texas
received the highest grades of a B.
And I think ultimately the bottom line
on the big picture of the report
is that this is a policy challenge
that is universal across almost all coastal states.
And one that does require urgent attention
because we're going to see more quote unquote emergencies
as the long-term effects of climate change
make themselves apparent along our shores.
So I'm gonna hand it off now to Jen
to talk more about California.
So next slide, and we'll hand it back to you live
in the room, thank you.
Thank you.
So the big question,
how did California's emergency armoring policies do?
Well, we received a C, which is not great.
Unfortunately, it's accurate.
Emergency permitting has become an end run
around the Coastal Act.
And in one of the reports case studies,
we cover how a series of emergency permits issued
since 2021 has resulted in more than 27,000 tons of riprap
destroying more than a quarter mile a beach.
In 1971, only 2.5% of California's coastline was armored.
Today, that figure is nearly 14% statewide,
38% along Southern California's shore.
El Nino winters have consistently resulted
in a flurry of seawall construction.
Like sea level rise, the pattern is predictable.
A storm hits, beaches erode, property owners panic,
emergency permits are issued, and rock goes on the beach.
Temporary armoring becomes permanent,
full Coastal Act review doesn't come until too late
when the beach is already gone.
This year's El Nino impacts have already resulted
in an exponential number of emergency permits,
but predictable weather and erosion are not emergencies.
there is a better path.
Good morning, commissioners.
My name is Nina Atkind,
and I manage Surfriders San Francisco chapter.
For the past two years alongside
the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department
and other local partners like Friends of Sunset Dunes,
Surfrider has been leading the volunteer work
to revegetate the dunes at Ocean Beach.
We've now trained close to 500 volunteers for this project,
volunteers of all ages coming from across the Bay Area
to be part of protecting this iconic coastline.
They've learned how to harvest
and transplant the native dune grass,
how its long roots form a net,
and keep the sand on the beach,
how miles of dunes were flattened and paved over
to make way for city infrastructure,
and how healthy dunes instead of seawalls
will soften the impacts of sea level rise,
keep our beach in place, and ultimately buy us time.
Most importantly, the community has become
the stewards of this land, and this work is happening
thanks to the coastal commission's requirements
and guidance.
This work matters because healthy vegetated dunes
do what hard infrastructure cannot.
They absorb storm energy, hold sand on the beach,
and support native habitat, all while keeping the beach
open to the public.
The stakes are high.
Scientists project that up to 75% of California's
sandy beaches could disappear by 2100.
That puts coastal neighborhoods at greater risk
of flooding and erosion.
And how we respond now will decide
whether our children inherit beaches or sea walls.
The Doonra Vegetation Project at Ocean Beach
shows what's possible when agencies and communities
invest in long-term stewardship.
Thank you.
Thank you, next is Adam Leverance,
followed by Dr. Aziz Sharif and Aspen Ellis.
Adam Leverance, you should be able to unmute yourself.
Okay, let's move on.
Let's try Dr. Aziz Sharif promoted you to panelists.
I don't love her, we'll come back to you.
Dr. Aziz Sharif.
Yes, hello, thank you very much.
I also had a video.
Yes, we have it.
Perfect, thank you so much.
Good morning commissioners and hello everyone.
I'm Dr. Aziz Sharif, Executive Director of Wildlife Jewels.
Since April, we've documented more than 120 seabird
entanglements around Point La Jolla.
Through our routine eyes monitoring,
we're finding newly entangled seabirds
on nearly every survey.
Yesterday alone, we documented four more entangled seabirds.
Many remain trapped on inaccessible cliffs
where rescue is impossible.
Meanwhile, we're witnessing alarming seabird mortality.
Over the last week, we've documented 15 deceased seabirds
along a small stretch of La Jolla's coastline.
Yesterday at Pacific Beach,
I documented widespread common mere mortality,
following reports of more than 35 deceased birds.
I also rescued another severely weakened
Western Greek stranded on the beach.
These birds are already struggling to survive,
fishing gear entanglements add another deadly threat.
Point La Jolla is a critical habitat
for nesting birds and sea lions raising their young.
yet we repeatedly observe fishing activity
within and near the La Jolla Marine Reserve.
Today we're requesting five concrete actions.
First, support a science-based expansion
of the Marine Reserve farther offshore and southward
towards children's pool.
Second, establish enforceable fishing setbacks
from reserve boundaries, sea bird colonies
and sea lion rookeries.
Third, support coordinated proactive enforcement
by CDFW wardens and CDRangers
during periods of increased fishing activity,
including lobster season openings,
holidays, early mornings, and evenings.
Fourth, enforce existing coastal access closures
and restrictions on fishing from protected bluffs.
Fifth, coordinate a natural resource management plan
with measurable goals to reduce wildlife entanglements.
We cannot rescue our way out of this crisis.
Prevention must come first.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you, Nexus Aspen Ellis, followed by Ann Marie Stenton,
followed by Camilla Rang.
Aspen Ellis, you've already been promoted to panelists.
Go ahead and unmute yourself please.
Aspen, I see you.
Okay, I see you unmuted.
Perfect.
Good morning commissioners.
My name is Aspen Ellis.
I'm a seabird biologist at UC Santa Cruz
where I work on how we assess and reduce the impacts
of offshore wind energy development to wildlife.
California desperately needs renewable energy
and it needs it fast.
Aspen, we lost it.
We can't hear you.
Collision and through habitat loss
in the places they feed and rest.
The challenge is that measuring those impacts at sea
is hard and expensive.
And that leaves us with real uncertainty
about which species are at risk
and how we should monitor them.
Uncertainty like this slows good decisions
and it can also erode public trust and delay projects
and leave wildlife unprotected.
But a lot of that uncertainty is avoidable.
California is lucky in that we already have decades
of seabird survey data,
plus tracking and community science data.
But this data is scattered across programs
and rarely analyzed together.
If we integrate those existing data sources well,
we can be clear about what we know
and focus new monitoring on where Santa Cruz
are currently submitting to the Ocean Protection Council
in California Sea Grant.
Our aim is to identify what monitoring projects
that we need to do to do effective conservation
for those species.
Getting this right means that development
can move forward responsibly,
and we can do that with monitoring that is credible
to agencies, industries, and the public.
I'm here to introduce myself and offer to be a resource
to the commission and its staff
as offshore development progresses in California.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Nexus.
Anne-Marie Stenton, followed by Camilla Ring,
followed by Ella Tillman.
Morning, commissioners.
My name is Anne Stenton.
I'm on the board of the Newport Morning Association.
We're excited to welcome the commission
to Newport Beach next month.
I'm sorry, Anne.
Can you just hold on real quick for us?
We're having a little bit of technical difficulties
if you can hear us.
State Lands Commission stated at the December 16th.
I'm sorry, excuse me, Anne.
Yeah.
And can you just hold on real quick?
We're having internet issues at the hotel.
Just give us a minute, okay?
Thank you.
Okay, apologies everyone.
We're having internet issues.
So we're going to take a five minute break.
get that sorted, please come back a little after 940. Thank you. All right. Thank you
everyone for your patience. Sorry about that. We appreciate your patience. With that we'll
return to public comment. Thanks, Simone. Anne Stenton. All right. Perfect. Go ahead
and unmute yourself. Thank you. And we'll start your time back at two minutes. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Good morning again. My name is Anne Stenton. I'm on the
the Board of the Nonprofit New Port Moring Association
in Newport Beach.
And again, we're excited to be welcoming you
to Newport next month in person and seeing you all.
Over the last few years,
I've been concerned about a pattern emerging
throughout our harbors in California,
steady pricing out of ordinary local recreational boaters.
And I wanted to share a few examples today.
Eleni Kunilakis, Chair of the State Lands Commission,
stated at their December 16th, 2025 meeting that quote,
you should not have to be a person of great means
order to be able to spend time on boats and I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, this type of
coastal access is becoming a privilege increasingly reserved for those with really great financial
means rather than an outdoor recreational opportunity available to all and we're seeing
it again throughout the state. In San Francisco's Gas House Cove, the BCDC is voting on a proposal
today that might eliminate 200 slips, a public boat lift, and a crucially important fuel dock.
In Santa Barbara, the city has been moving to replace a historically free seasonal anchorage
east of Stern's Wharf with a fee-based city-owned mooring field that would accommodate far fewer
vessels and for price. In Dana Point, boaters experienced dramatic slip rate increases of up
to 95% in 2021, causing an estimated 800 boaters to leave that harbor. And in San Diego, the San
Diego Mooring Company has announced another upcoming rate increase. And we're seeing these
issues in Newport as well. These examples all point to a common theme. We're witnessing the
extension of affordable and accessible opportunities for ordinary Californians to participate in
recreational boating. I ask that this commission please consider how its policies, recommendations,
and oversight can help prevent public harbors and coastal waterways from becoming increasingly
inaccessible due to escalating fees and the elimination of existing lower cost boating
opportunities. We look forward to seeing you in Newport Beach next month and on
behalf of California's estimated four million recreational boaters throughout
the state I thank you for the challenging work you do to protect our
coast and our access to it. Next is Elena Tillman followed by Sunny Cha and Robin
Davidoff. We know we are now promoting you to panelists for the third time. Hi,
Good morning. I just have a video to pull up for the Sierra Club Seal Society.
We have it. Yes.
What we're continuing to document at La Jolla Cove is more of the same. Persistent human
disturbance of marine mammals day and night. People continue to approach, crowd, and disturb
sea lions, including animals resting and caring for their young. These interactions raise
serious and recurring concerns under the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, which prohibits
the harassment of marine mammals.
And enforcement remains inconsistent.
At times, rangers are present and do an effective job
controlling access and addressing violations.
At other times, there's little or no ranger presence,
and people continue disregarding protections
with no meaningful intervention.
We are now just six months away from the next popping season.
Implementing this past summer's popping protocol
was a significant failure.
We cannot afford to repeat it.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act is federal law.
Protecting these animals cannot remain optional or dependent
on whether a ranger happens to be present.
The time to address these ongoing failures is now.
This is an opportunity to require corrective action
before the next popping season,
rather than documenting yet another year
of preventable failures after the fact.
And when sea lions try to rest in places nearby the cove,
they're met with crowding in almost every square inch
of space.
This is the sidewalk above the Point La Jolla sea lion rookery
just adjacent to the cove.
A volunteer SEAL society docent put the cones there
to try to mitigate this frequent behavior.
Violations at the cove occur early in the morning,
as well as late at night,
including violations of the adjacent Point La Jolla
Sea Lion Rookery, in which this person
entered the closed area at night.
The time to address these ongoing failures is now,
rather than documenting yet another year
of preventable failures after the fact.
Thank you.
Thank you, I turn it over.
Okay, great. Next is Sunny Cha, followed by Robin Davidoff, Renee Jordan, and Robert Zunberg.
Sunny Cha, go ahead and unmute yourself. Thank you.
Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Sunny Cha, speaking for the Sierra Clerk Seal Society.
I have a presentation that I sent in. Yes, we have it.
Thank you. Next slide, please. On October 22nd, city officials, this commission,
and Congressman Scott Peters asked Noah for help at La Jolla Co. They asked for more consistent
enforcement staffing and for authority for the city to enforce the marine mammal protection protection act. Next slide, please.
But City Council, Joe Lacava expects NOAA to decline because it has so few staff along the entire western coastline.
The city's next step is to ask NOAA to deputize park rangers to issue citations. Next slide, please.
And time is short.
Puping season starts in May, just six months away.
More must be done now to protect both the sea lions
and the public.
The city must put in place the protocols
it agreed to back in June.
It should also explore other solutions now,
so a solid plan is ready before puffing season.
Approval takes time, as we all know.
Next slide, please.
So we asked this commission to request
that the city first require lifeguards and rangers
to work together to carry out the management plan.
Second, station Rangers on the beach regularly,
not occasionally, using cones and tape to create a safe viewing buffer.
Third, establish overcrowding protocols to keep the public safe.
Fourth, close the western stairs when sea lions are on or below them and safe
passage is impossible. And fifth, start work now on solutions
to improve pup protection next season, six months. That's all the time we have. Let's
not waste it. Next slide please. And thank you very much.
Thank you. Next is Robin Davidoff, followed by Robert Zumberg followed by Cameron Harris
and then Adam Leverins. Robin Davidoff? Yes. Hello commissioners, this is Robin Davidoff,
club seal society chair and I support the previous presentation. I want to emphasize
that those five steps are critical to implement now. The sea lion harassment issue as you saw
in the video is a year-round problem not just during puffing season. It's easy to put these
things into place. The rangers are already staffed. Cones and tape around the pups and the sea lions
that look like rocks on the beach, provides a viewing distance that people need to stay behind.
It costs nothing to implement. We also encourage them to get the rangers and lifeguards to work
together. Finally, we know that deputization takes a long time. We looked into this years ago
and this takes an act of a California state level and then has to be trickled down to the
San Diego area. In the meantime if we implement these items then it can be effective and we look
forward to working with Joe LaCava's office for to explore the other solutions that they're looking
into but these take time. Time is to act now. Thank you. Thank you so we tried a couple of them
they weren't there, so Adam Leverans, we promoted you to panelists.
Okay, let's try this.
Okay, we hear you.
Okay, you got me this time?
We get here, you get, okay there we go, and see you now, perfect.
Oh, okay, I apologize.
I don't know if it's your technical difficulties or our technical difficulties but thank you
for the patience.
Um, at your meetings in Oceanside last month, uh, you heard that, uh, city mooring license
rates in Newport Beach went up about greater than 34% from June 30 of this year to July
1st of this year.
That was from 600 to $807 and 60 cents overnight.
And a question I heard, uh, Dr. Hart had asked something and I heard afterwards, well, did
the city take an action?
And the action, the appraisal for this rate increase was actually in August of 2023.
So yes, an action was taken, but it was a long time ago.
And I imagine most of you have heard the phrase, you can't fight city hall.
Cities are going to outlive all of us.
They have time to work plans, advance plans, delay actions, take an action, delay it till
later.
And this is very problematic for affordable coastal access.
And as far as appraisals, through public records request, the city issued a mooring appraisal
in July of 2025.
They issued a residential peer appraisal in May of 2025, and then a yacht club appraisal
in May of this year.
All of these I've done various public records requests and they're being categorized as
still in draft form, which makes them exempt from public release.
The Yacht Club appraisal, 70 pages long, was released on the 27th of October, the day before
the first stakeholder meeting for the Yacht Club moorings.
This is wrong.
I mean 70 pages of material and a day to go through it and the date evaluation for that
appraisal is May 13th but they used the rate from July 1st. If you throw in a
rate 34% higher than the supposed evaluation date it throws off the math
for the whole thing. Again we're asking for help. Thank you. Thank you. We have a
couple of speakers that we couldn't find so we're gonna say their names. Robert
Summer Cameron Harris Susan Simon Shirley Fray Ricks Camila Rain Renee Jordan if anybody
is there please use your raise hand function okay let's try iPhone CH we're going to allow
you to talk I see you're unmuted iPhone CH if you can say your name for the record please
Hi, this is Cameron Herros.
Perfect. Thank you. Go ahead and speak. You have two minutes.
Great. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Cameron Herros and I'm a resident of Santa Monica Canyon
and a very close neighbor of Santa Monica Canyon Elementary School. I'm here today to express my
community's grave concerns about the building of a very large and completely out of place brand new
LAUSD Canyon Elementary School building. It's dramatically out of sync with Santa Monica Canyon
neighborhood it's in and is much taller than had been presented to our neighborhood and has been
built without sufficiently notifying the community in ways required by the Coastal Commission.
It was also misrepresented as a remodel when in fact it is brand new monolithic structure that
reaches almost four stories high that looms high over all of our houses and blocks canyon views
which is the magic of living here to begin with. Bottom line it is totally incongruent with the
charm of the canyon and an eyesore to be honest. That said, since this building is almost at
completion, our community's bigger concerns at this point is LAUSD's plans now to top down
historic, majestic, and mature trees to make way for a school parking lot at the corner of Intrada
in East Channel, a parking lot which by the way already exists and can be redesigned to allow for
nature to remain. These trees have been in this area long before any of us. They are thriving,
provide shade, beauty, charm, calm, history, and help maintain the health of our environment.
LAUST has already destroyed a great deal of our canyon charm by erecting this monstrosity new build
that soars into the sky and towers over our homes. Please do not let them chop down our
iconic legacy trees also. It is an absolute travesty that this has even been considered
and our community is strongly against it.
We call upon the Coastal Commission
and anyone else involved to please stop this from happening.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for considering the situation
and we appreciate anything you can do
to help us stop the trees from being chopped out.
Thank you.
We're gonna continue to say some names again.
Robert Zunberg, Susan Simon, Shirley Frerichs,
Camilla Rang and Renee Jordan.
If you guys can use the raise hand function,
if you're on Zoom, if on phone, you can do dial star nine.
Okay, no more speakers.
Great, thank you very much.
And thank you to the public for your testimony.
I will return to the commission
to see if there are any questions.
Commissioner Wilson.
It's not a question, but it's just an affirmation
of a comment we heard in relation to Sunset Park.
When we approved that permit in December of 24,
I think it was, the question was posed basically,
if there was a park there then,
would we propose to build a road over the top of it?
And I think on Tuesday, the city of San Francisco
answered that question pretty resoundingly.
So I just want to say I think that this comes up often
when we talk about roads in general
and when people talk about taking roads down
or making them smaller or whatever it is.
I always put in my mind what the question is,
like if the road was as we proposed it or not to be there,
would we propose to build a road now?
And almost always it's just no.
So the answer is no.
And so I just want to emphasize that according to the data
from the city, they've had over 1.7 million visits
in the first year at that new park.
It's one of the largest pedestrian parks built
in the city of California for a very long time.
I think it's 50 acres over two miles.
And I know that there has been some traffic changes.
I will acknowledge that.
But the actual commute times through that space
have only increased between zero
and less than a minute and a half.
So I just, I think, just really shows.
And the city of San Francisco experienced this before
with the old, was it the Nimitz?
Is that what it was?
No, nothing.
Was it the one that went through the waterfront and down?
Embarcadero, excuse me, in the Embarcadero,
but also the Nimitz as well.
but the Embarcadero, and there was a big controversy
about whether it should be rebuilt after the earthquake
and all those things, and what did they do?
They didn't rebuild that highway.
They built an amazing waterfront space,
and it just improved the city immensely.
And so I just wanna thank the citizens of this city,
which I lived in for a few years myself,
for taking the step to really improve
the California coast for everybody.
because there's gonna be, it's not just for San Francisco,
it's for the state of California,
and so my thanks to them and all their efforts.
Thank you.
I just want to align myself with the comments
of Commissioner Wilson and just share that
as a former resident of San Francisco for many years
and the way that we're designing urban planning
for the state and really thinking about
where are the best places to identify additional dents,
infill housing that those types those housing types are need to be offset by
public open space that is meaningful so that residents who are living in dense
urban environments can also have the benefits that us you know rural
residents get to enjoy with with nearby access to public open space and
recreation and not just pocket parks and not just you know small places but these
these big expansive open parks.
And so, to see the voters in San Francisco
underscore yet again the desire to maintain this
as public open space in a public park for forever
is so uplifting and wonderful.
And as we talk about other shoreline infrastructure,
roads and highways and other parts of the state,
I think, you know, many of the communities
are looking to San Francisco.
San Francisco has been a leader on so many issues.
worldwide and this being another one that when we talk about how do we want
to recreate and access public open space and the outdoors and access to the coast
this can be one of the elements of that conversation and so thank you for the
brave leadership of the folks in San Francisco in the region. We are looking
forward to visiting and experiencing these dunes for generations.
Okay great thank you very much and with that we will continue on. It gets to you
Mister shrink thank you so that does take us to item 5 which is the
administrative calendar for today which includes one South Coast District item
for a dock replacement in Newport Beach staffs not aware of any opposition to
the administrative permit being reported today and we're asking whether
four or more commissioners object to the issuance of this item thank you any
expertise any public comments no thank you do four or more commissioners object
to this item. Seeing no objections the Commission concurs. On to the consent
calendar please. Thank you. So item six is consent calendar for all districts on
the agenda today. There's one item for South Coast District. There's no
opposition on that item and the applicant's certain agreement with the
staff recommendation. So we're asking the Commission to vote and approve the
consent calendar. Thank you. Any ex partes? Any public comments? Only one
available for questions great thank you I'll entertain a motion thank you that's
a motion by Commissioner lowenberg a second by Commissioner Jackson any
objections to unanimous consent seeing none the motion carries and now to those
items that are removed from the regular calendar to consent please thank you and
And there are several items to report, starting with item 10A, the City of Laguna Beach's
LCP amendment on ADUs and JADUs.
Item 11B, which is the OC Public Works scoop, we had that on consent calendar.
That item has actually now been postponed with the applicant's concurrence.
Item 13a, the City of Carlsbad's LCP amendment on their 2026 ADU update.
That's moved to consent.
All these are moved to consent, of course.
City of Chula Vista's LCP amendment, the Roerwold specific plan.
Item 15a, the City of San Diego Mission Beach storm drain improvements project.
Item 17a, the city of Arcada's comprehensive LCP update time extension only.
Item 18a, the Caltrans new Navy base road roundabout in Humboldt County.
Item 18b, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Pebble Beach Drive public access
improvements in Deltarok County.
In item 19A, the City of Eureka post certification permit and appeal jurisdiction map.
On item 13C, the Roarwall specific plan, which was a new addition to our consent list this
morning, there were some issues surrounding policies addressing water quality and lower
cost overnight accommodations.
However, staff continued to work with the city on the suggested modifications,
and we've addressed the issues in a mutually agreeable way.
So the changes are reflected in the staff report addendum.
And we certainly appreciate the city and landowner for their help
in working through those issues.
Item 18A, the Caltrans Roundabout proposed in Humboldt County.
I'd note that there's an addendum that modifies the special conditions
to provide additional clarifications on the timing and implementation of the visual treatments.
On item 18B we received correspondence.
This is the CDFW public access improvement project.
There was one letter in support of the project and one letter from an adjacent neighbor raising
a number of issues as detailed in the addendum.
This project has been designed to allow and protect existing public access, and visual
resources.
In addition, there are no potential erosion issues from either the replacement of the
sidewalk or the concrete barrier, particularly as this barrier is not embedded into the ground.
CDFW is in agreement with the staff recommendation and we're recommending that matter be approved
as part of the consent calendar.
I regard to the other items to be moved to consent those applicants are all in agreement with staff recommendations. We're not aware of any opposition
And staff is recommending the commission vote and approve this item. Thanks very much. Thank you very much any ex partes
Commissioner I know
I'd like to disclose as part of the ex parte that I had a chance to learn more about 13c on the roar
Wool in the city of Chula Vista through connecting with Miss Alice. Well, thank you
Great
Commissioner Wilson just just a clarification. Did something move from consent to postponed? Which one was that again? Can you remind me?
Yes, that was the OC scoop
Yeah
We're intending to bring that back next month. Okay, great, and I just want to comment that I want to thank
Caltrans for being a little more flexible on the new Navy base road
Roundabout since I drive by it often so that'd be great and I'm happy to make a motion
Are there any public comments none?
All you all right, I'll make the motion to approve items move to consent
second
Thank you. That's a motion by Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Kelly any objections to unanimous consent
Seeing none, the motion carries.
Okay.
Now on to item 8, please.
So item 8 is the deputy director's report for the energy ocean resources and federal
consistency division.
We have 14 negative determinations to report this month along with two de minimis waivers.
I'd like to note that we received correspondence on one of the negative determinations and
one of the de minimis waivers.
These were posted in the correspondence packet.
A comment from Ann Cantrell was submitted related to the proposed de minimis waiver
for an onshore sea urchin aquaculture facility at Noyo Harbor in Mendocino County, and this
was proposed by Wild Blue Aquaculture.
The comment expressed concern that this project could contribute to the spread of disease
from captive sea urchins, that marine life could be drawn in through the screens of the
Intecos and that waste from the facility would end up in landfills
The commenter also requests that the applicant be required to replant kelp in urchin barons
Staff appreciates the comment and we have looked into these concerns
But our conclusion is that the project is properly designed to address them
We do not believe that mitigation is warranted as this small-scale onshore project would not have adverse
impacts on kelp
Additionally, we'd just like to note that the wild blue project
offers what we think is a promising way to bolster the ongoing efforts
on the North Coast to restore kelp habitat.
Most existing efforts have focused on kelp replanting and urchin removal,
usually by destroying and discarding the urchins.
Wild blue would instead obtain urchins from commercial divers,
grow them in a tank to market size.
And in so doing, you know, develop an urchin fishery
that could potentially help expand and sustain urchin removal and support kelp recovery.
We think this is especially important given the sharp rise in ocean temperatures that
we're seeing with the current El Niño event, which poses a major threat to cold water native
kelp species.
At the very least, we see a lot of value in exploring options like this project.
There are two speakers signed up for the DDR, and a representative for wild blue aquaculture
is available for questions.
That staff is not aware of any other speakers or opposition to these items and following the public comments
We would ask whether three or more commissioners object to the de minimis waiver for wild blue aquaculture
And the other de minimis waiver that is on the agenda
That concludes the DDR. Thank you any expertise
Any public comment? Yes, we have and control and Nancy Okada and control if you can unmute yourself
Good morning, Ann Cantrell.
I urge three or more commissioners to deny this waiver.
There needs to be more discussion before
another aquaculture project brings possible disease to
the area and upsets the balance of nature even more.
Because the purple sea urchins main predators,
sea otters, and sea stars have been
exterminated from the Mendocino area.
the urchins have destroyed large areas of kelp.
The surviving urchins are starving and not edible.
The solution is to catch over 5,000 urchins every couple of months,
feed them algae pellets to make them marketable.
Will the ultraviolet sterilizing be adequate to eliminate diseases?
Will the small screens prevent sea life from being drawn in or discharged into the sea water?
All spent filters, excess food, urchin feces, and drop spines would be disposed of as solid waste which adds to landfills.
Will there be any oversight of these operations?
there does not appear to be any plan to replace the kelp destroyed by the urchins.
One expert has stated,
''They'll need to remove about 90 percent and
possibly more of the urchins to see kelp recovery.''
In Japan, urchin harvesters are planting new kelp beds.
This should be done here.
please deny the waiver and demand discussion
on this final issue.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Nancy Okada.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
Good morning commissioners.
Thank you for taking my comments, Nancy Okada.
I am interested in this item because I,
once again, this was kind of hidden
inside the federal consistency report.
I really feel that it should have its own staff report
and that the commissioners need to be fully educated
on all the aspects of this huge operation
that is planned up there in Fort Bragg.
I know that all the local people are encouraging it
and they think it's a great idea,
but I do think that the commissioners
need to know much more about it.
And I would really like it to be pulled out
and a full staff report done so we can fully understand it.
And it would actually help us understand more
about the aquaculture industry
that is being developed up in that area.
So please, three commissioners,
please pull it off and have it brought back
so we can all understand and encourage
whatever they're planning on doing exactly.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jake Gord is just available for questions.
That completes our public comments.
Great. Thank you very much.
Do you have, would you like to make a response?
Sure. Just really briefly on the issue of disease, as was noted,
the project design includes microfiltration
and UV sterilization of all discharge.
And these are proven technologies
for sterilizing the wastewater from the facility.
And the intake system is fitted with mesh that meets nymphs in CDFW standards for juveniles, salmon and other fish species.
And the total volume of water used by this facility is orders of magnitude less than the large scale intakes that the commission has looked at for, you know, power plants and de-salve facilities of that sort.
And then, actually, the project proposes to not send its waste to the landfill other than, you know, a very small amount.
Organic waste from the urchins is proposed to go to organics collection, and they actually propose to reuse the inorganic waste like spines and shells for other uses like dyes and architectural materials.
That's all we've got.
Great. Thank you very much. Two, three. Yes, please. Sorry. Vice your heart.
I personally think this is a great project. Um, I'm curious,
is there going to be any monitoring of kelp recovery in the areas where the
sea urchins have been removed?
My understanding is that there is monitoring going on, at least in certain
areas. Um, there's other organizations,
the nature conservancy being the one I'm most familiar with,
that is actively trying to restore kelp
at various sites on the north coast,
and so they're certainly monitoring their plots.
But in terms of a large-scale effort,
I'd have to get back to you on that.
Yeah, I think it would be great
if it's Nature Conservancy that's doing the monitoring.
I think that it would be great in the future
if this project is successful
to include some kind of a monitoring
so that if they're returning to the areas
where they're removing the kelp,
oh, excuse me, removing the urchins,
because obviously this is a huge, huge issue
for the North Coast.
So trying to determine what works and what helps,
I think it would be great for the commission.
Thank you.
Chair, if I might, thank you for that comment, Vice Chair.
I just wanna say that we are investing in monitoring
both on the North Coast and elsewhere.
And the Ocean Protection Council,
we're actually gonna recommend
Investment portfolio at our December 8th meeting. That's really going to build on
The priorities identified in prop 4 and the climate bond to support these activities. They will include
investments in continuing to
Restore these or monitor and restore these areas that we've already gotten a start on
And then future investments to continue to build this work our understanding
Especially given the ongoing threats that we're seeing from climate change in El Nino. So
Commissioner Wilson. I just want to say I strongly support the
project and the waiver
I'm very familiar with UV disinfection and these filtration systems and I have no
Issue around that and I just want to emphasize that the scale this is not big
This is this is this is basically beta testing
something that we should have been investigating a long time ago and
I'm just very excited about the the data that will come from this and the entrepreneurialism that comes from this
It's it's something that we should be encouraging and doing more of and so I'm strongly in favor of this waiver. Thank you
Okay, great. Thank you do three or more commissioners object to the deputy directors report
Seeing no objections the Commission concurs
Thank you, mr. Schwinn
Thank you. So that takes us to item 9, which is the deputy directors report for South Coast District, Orange County
We have five waivers
for residential projects in San Clemente
One immaterial amendment for an ADU project in Sunset Beach
staff is also reporting on seven emergency actions. All of these actions
are in response to flooding and erosion occurring as a result of very high tides
impacting the Orange County shoreline. I won't detail each one of these but they
include sand berms, sandbags, and riprap to address the hazards. The most notable
of these is by Orange County Parks for reconstruction of the Nagel Shores
revetment north of the Dana Point Headlands. This revetment had been
reconstructed pursuant to commissioned CDP approved in October 2022. Recent
conditions led to the significant damage to that revetment, potentially exposing a
buttress fill to erosion that is
Essential to retaining a large landslide that the residential community is partly built upon
The work requested was to rebuild the revetment consistent with the previously approved plans except with larger rock
Follow-up actions will be required on each of these items
This is just a report out and there's no action that the Commission needs to take on the emergency approvals
So we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to the waiver
waivers or the CDP amendment in the report
Great any expertise?
Any public comments? None. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy director's report
Seeing no objections. The Commission concurs
Okay, let's continue on please
Great. So that takes us on to item 11a. This is the application from
OCTA and Metrolink
Vince Lee and Danny Ziff with our Long Beach office are going to do the initial staff presentation. So Vince
Please begin
All right. Thank you Carl. If you can queue up the presentation, please
Morning commissioners item 11a is a coastal development permit application by the Orange County Transportation Authority or OCTA and the southern
California regional rail authority, also known as SCRRA or Metrolink for the protection of
a vulnerable stretch of the low sand railroad corridor within the city of San Clemente.
This railway serves transit, freight movement, and national defense. Two aerial photos from
2024 are shown as an example of the site conditions in portions of the project area.
Next slide, please. OCTA, the owner of the railroad right away, and Metrolink,
the rail operator are proposing to retain riprap placed seaward of the railroad during emergency
situations since 2021 add new shoreline protection along vulnerable rail segments and place thousands
of cubic yards of sand on San Clemente beaches. As shown here the project site is split into two
general areas one north of the pier and one south of the pier along the shoreline in the city of San
Saint Clemente, the southernmost tip of Orange County.
Next slide please.
More specifically, the applicants are proposing retention
and placement of approximately 46,000 tons of riprap,
construction of an engineered seawall
along a portion of the southern site,
retention of tieback system inland of the tracks
at the southern end of the site,
placement of 690,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach
at both the northern and southern reaches,
including offshore dredging and transport of sand to the beach,
and implementation of a rail maintenance program for work
that addresses immediate threats to the railroad.
Next slide, please.
In the next two slides, we will give an overview of the work
that would be authorized by this permit.
Areas in blue are work that has occurred,
and areas in orange are proposed work yet to be done.
In the northern segment of the project site shown here,
Most of the work has already been completed.
Advanced slide, please.
Advanced slide, yes.
This includes adding about 3,000 tons of riprap,
seaward of the tracks in 2021.
Advanced slide.
Restacking an approximately 3,000 foot long
stretch of rock slope protection in 2025,
which also added about 5,000 tons of riprap.
Removal of a damaged culvert extension
of another covert advance slide and placement of approximately 25,000 cubic yards of sand.
The only new work proposed in this area is placement of 240,000 cubic yards of sand as
shown in orange in this slide. As a note, these shapes on this map are approximations.
Next slide, please. The southern segment of the project site is near the southern border
of Orange County and Straddle Beach area fronting
and within San Clemente State Beach
and the Cypress Shore community.
Advanced slide.
As shown in blue here, the applicants are proposing
to retain approximately 38,400 tons of rock,
dumped seaward of the tracks,
and a 700 foot long tieback system
on the inland side of the tracks
built in emergency situations to stabilize a landslide
along Cypress Shore community
and protect the tracks from erosion.
The tieback system and rock work in response to the beach erosion induced landslide occurred between 2021 and 2023
advance slide
and
additional
Rock placement has occurred up through this past month
advance slide
New proposed work in this area referred to as area four and shown in orange
includes stacking approximately 2,100 tons of additional rock in vulnerable areas
Improving two coverts and constructing an approximately 1,200 foot long seawall and advanced slide
Placing 450,000 cubic yards of sand
Again as a note these shapes on this map are approximations
next slide, please
The 690,000 cubic yards of sand proposed would primarily be sourced from an offshore
Borrow site surfside sunset located near Seale Beach where it would be dredged
transported by Barge, then via a temporary pipeline corridor
and pumped as a slurry onshore.
Additional backup sand sources include the Santa Ana River,
off the coast of San Onofre State Beach,
and for areas one and two only,
the inland Prado Dam stockpile.
Sand trucked in can only be delivered to the northern side
due to geographical constraints.
Next slide, please.
While the proposed shoreline protection
has a design life of about 30 years there is a large amount of uncertainty
about how long the proposed volume of sand will maintain a beach and provide
a protection for the rail thus Commission staff are recommending
approval of the armoring and sand for a period of 10 years with conditions
requiring the applicants to mitigate the adverse impacts associated with the
proposed armoring and to engage in long-term planning for the vulnerable rail
corridor as described in more detail later in this presentation. The standard
A review for the proposed development is Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, with the certified
San Clemente LUP serving as guidance. Both the Coastal Act and the LUP limit the construction
of shoreline protective devices because they can have adverse effects on shoreline sand supply,
public access, scenic views, and natural landforms. The LUP only allows their construction to protect
coastal-dependent uses, existing structures, or beaches in danger of erosion. In this case,
the railroad is an existing structure. Next slide please. The railroad was built in 1888
and substantially realigned in 1939, well before the enactment of the clicked select. Metrolink
began operations in 1992 and OCTA purchased the rail right away along the stretch in 1993.
The low sand corridor is a designated strategic rail corridor for national defense, mainly used
for freight movement and interregional travel between San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura,
Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. As such, it is also a critical transportation
infrastructure. The segment of the Los Angeles corridor within San Clemente is among the most
vulnerable in the state and has been armored via dumping large rock on the sewer side of the rail
embankment since at least 1930s. Next slide. The project side is within the Capistrano
Bight, which historically had modest beaches back by Bluffs.
Beach building sand came primarily from San Juan Creek,
in what's now Dana Point as well as Bluff erosion,
smaller creeks, and bypassing around Dana Point headland.
San Clemente and Dana Point have been recipients of sand
for beach nourishment from as early as 1928,
with multiple large placement events in the 1960s and 2000s
which contributed to wide beaches
that in many stretches have gradually been eroding.
In the past 10 years or so, erosion has worsened
and in some cases accelerated.
Generally, scientists understand the reasons
for this recent erosion and beach loss
to include some combination of reduced sediment supply
from San Juan Creek, changes in wave climate
causing sand to move along the shoreline
and or into the near shore,
effects from the construction of the Dana Point Harbor
and coastal armoring.
Where waves frequently reflect off
of coastal armoring structures,
erosion at adjacent and fronting beaches can worsen
as has been reported along the armored portions
of the subject railroad segments.
Next slide, please.
The applicants observed beach erosion
which came to a head in 2021
when the rail experienced beach side erosion at North Beach
and a landslide at Cypress Shore
that resulted in temporary rail closures
and necessitated rapid action to maintain service.
Since 2021, the commission has approved
15 track stabilization projects
to protect the existing railroad along the subject corridor,
including 10 emergency CDPs, four regular CDPs,
one CDP waiver, and two CDP amendments.
During this time, the tracks have either closed
or had limited service on multiple occasions.
This application addresses eight emergency CDPs
as well as other retained and new development.
Next slide.
Despite the coastal resource impacts
associated with shoreline protective devices,
per Coast Select section 302.35,
they must be approved in relevant part
to protect existing structures in danger from erosion
when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts
on the local shoreline.
This railroad is existing and as recent months have shown,
is in ongoing danger from erosion.
When it comes to rock slope protection,
the applicants are proposing retention
of approximately 48,500 tons of riprap
and 2,100 tons of new riprap
to address coastal hazards at the site.
Some of the rock was dumped, including at Cypress Shore,
where lateral access along the shoreline
is severely limited, and some was re-stacked
in a more engineered manner like at areas one and two.
Riprap repetition have relatively large footprints,
and when placed in a high energy environment
without engineering, they tend to slump and need maintenance.
When rock protection is removed from the slope
and with respect or 50% or more
of the existing rock volume is added,
those portions of the revetment
are considered redevelopment or new development.
In this case, most of the proposed rock protection
is redeveloped, making the impacts
on natural shoreline processes,
including sand supply, very large.
The encroachment footprint alone,
which is the amount of beach space the armoring takes up,
is about three and a half acres,
with additional impacts from the rock and tieback system
preventing approximately one and a half acres of sand
over the 10-year permit term from getting to the beach.
Using the real estate method to estimate the cost
of these impacts that affect public access,
recreation, beach habitat and visual resources,
as is typical for recent armoring projects
before the commission,
an in lieu fee of approximately $107.45 million,
or about two million cubic yards of sand
could be required for 10 years of impacts.
However, as is typical
when assessing appropriate mitigation for armoring
associated with critical public infrastructure,
alternative mitigation is considered in this case.
In this case, staff believes that the proposed
690,000 cubic yards of sand with the permit condition
requiring implementation of a 10-point mitigation program,
which will be described in a few slides later,
is adequate to address impacts to sand supply,
public access, and recreation in the near term
as longer term planning is conducted.
Next slide, please.
In addition to the new and retained rock already described,
the applicants are also proposing a maintenance program
that would be triggered only when there are immediate
threats to the railroad.
In such circumstances, OCTA and MetroLink are requesting
to be able to do the minimum amount of work necessary
to restack and potentially add new rock
to resolve the threat.
Their maintenance proposal extends from the north end
of the project site to the southern end of the site,
almost four miles, and includes up to 117,000 tons
of new rock over the 10 years.
As conditioned, however, such maintenance
would only be authorized in two project areas
where the rock slope is expressly permitted,
cannot extend the seaward of the approved limit line,
and is limited to 500 tons per 100 linear feet per occurrence.
Next slide.
In area 4, the applicants are proposing construction of a seawall, approximately 25 feet seaward
of the centerline of the tracks, as approximated in this rendering.
This vertical seawall is an alternative to rock slope and has a significantly smaller
footprint and a crunchment area.
It would likely be installed using press and pile driving that could penetrate existing
buried rock.
The applicants would be required to remove or unwrap seawall of the wall upon its completion.
An alignment closer to the tracks is physically possible, however it would require a temporary
closure of the rail during construction to install shoring that would be needed to construct
the wall without threatening the rail embankment.
The applicants are not proposing to shut down the rail operations during seawall construction.
A special condition is imposed to require final seawall construction and maintenance
plans for review and approval that aligns the wall as far landward as feasible to treat
the wall to reduce visual resource impacts and ensure the materials used to avoid impacts
to water quality.
Next slide.
OCTA and Metrolink are proposing the one-time placement of 240,000 cubic yards of sand on
city beach in the northern side and 450,000 cubic yards of sand on the state beach at
the southern side for a total of 690,000 cubic yards of sand.
This volume provides a significant amount of mitigation and is the largest placement
of sand proposed in the area in recent decades.
However, it alone is not sufficient mitigation for the large amount of coastline that would
be armored by this project.
The mitigation program will be discussed in the next slide.
There is a lot of uncertainty about how long the sand will provide beach access and rail
protection.
Without information about how large volumes of sand would behave in this area, including
how much sand would be needed and how often to protect and maintain level access to the
railroad, commission staff do not recommend requiring the applicant to continually maintain
a certain beach width at this time.
A second sand placement of 85,000 cubic yards is required to mitigate for past emergency
work.
For context, to provide follow-up authorization and mitigation for such work, commission staff
asked the applicants to incorporate the past emergency work into this application, which
the applicants agreed to do.
To mitigate for impacts resulting from the emergency work and help establish a usable
For public beach, an additional placement of 85,000 cubic yards of sand is required
in the project vicinity.
The amount generally reflects the appropriate mitigation for instances of after-the-fact
revetment expansions that have occurred and which will be resolved through this permit.
As conditioned, the applicants are also incentivized to place additional sand as they would receive
credit those credit that would go toward extending the permit term up to five
years for a total of possible 15-year permit term. Now I'll hand it off to
Dennis if for the rest of the presentation. All right halfway there
thanks Ben. So as Vince stated previously next slide please not only does the
proposed armoring at the site take up significant beach area fix the back beach
and retain sediment that would otherwise naturally replenish the beach. It causes
additional scour and has contributed to pinch points where lateral access along
the beach is impossible at most times. A one-time sand placement may provide at
least temporary restoration of access and recreational opportunities in front
of these rail segments, but it alone does not fully address these impacts. Thus
Commission staff analyzed what might restore beach recreation here in the
the near term, what information is needed to weigh potential longer term beach management
strategies for this corridor, what minimizes hazards and armoring impacts, and what provides
public access benefits in the near term.
This analysis led to the recommended 10-point mitigation program.
Next slide, please.
The first two components of the public access mitigation program, which would be submitted
for review and approval of the executive director, are placement of the proposed sand within
one year and monitoring of the sand with reporting including reports to the
Commission that will provide information about the behavior of sand in the area
and how much sand would be needed to maintain a beach here. This placement
event is expected to provide recreational improvements at least
temporarily. A final report would be provided at the end of the permit term
and be used to inform what coastal management strategies may be most
appropriate for this area in the coming decades. The applicant's current
It currently anticipate dredging activities and sand placement would start early next
year.
A final sand sourcing, transport, and placement plan is required to allow for staff to review
the final siting, timing, and sand details.
As described before, an additional sand placement is required to mitigate for past emergency
work which should provide similar benefits.
Next slide, please.
The mitigation program components that serve to minimize armoring impacts and hazards at
the site include a feasibility study of safely reducing the footprint of the rock dumped
at Cypress shore, removal of rip rap seaward of the seawall, and an analysis of potential
alternative trail alignments that would restore lateral access in the area.
Next slide, please.
To address more general public access impacts, including from temporary construction related
pass rail closures and limited beach space seaward of the proposed armoring, the following
are also recommended.
A lower cost transit investigation that explores expanding existing free and lower cost transit
programs and partnership and coordination on local sand replenishment and coastal resiliency
projects.
The mitigation program also includes public information improvements to one, facilitate
information sharing around construction detours monitoring results and studies by creating
a new public portal for this project to regularly reporting to the Commission on the status
of the project long term planning and mitigation efforts and three to install educational signs
at the project site. Next slide please. The final component of the recommended mitigation
program is the long term railroad adaptation study that looks at the future of this vulnerable
rail segment in San Clemente and assesses what can be done to move the railroad out
of harm's way.
Strategies required to be analyzed include relocation of the rail and adaptation in place.
Part one of the study, the scoping phase, is required to be completed within the next
four years and presented to the commission at a notice of public hearing.
At the end of the 10 to 15 year permit term, OCTA and Metrolink would be required to submit
a report on the mitigation program that outlines the impacts of shoreline protective devices,
summarizes consistency with the terms of this permit, and contains recommendations for mitigation
strategies that the permatees could implement should they propose to continue retaining
the armoring.
At the same time, a CDP application with a new proposed mitigation program would be submitted
to retain the shoreline protection or conduct other development at the site.
understand there is some funding for future projects here but no funding for future mitigation
identified at this time. Next slide, please. To summarize, here are the main components
and a timeline of the mitigation program over the next 10-year permit term. By year one,
the applicants should have submitted and received approval of final plans, conducted the sand
placement and had the first public hearing on the status of the project and longer-term
study. By year 5 there would be another informational meeting. Biological resource monitoring following
sand placement would have concluded with a final report submitted. The public access
related feasibility studies including but not limited to the revetment footprint minimization
analysis lower transit fare investigation and coastal rail, coastal trail alternatives
analysis and implementation plan would have been provided. And the long term railroad
adaptation study would have been drafted, shared with the commission, and a year later
the final study would be completed and presented.
At the end of the permit term, the remaining requirements of the mitigation program would
be two more agendized updates before the commission, the placement of 85,000 cubic yards of sand,
which could happen sooner, a summary report of how the mitigation program worked, and
a CDP application with a new proposed mitigation program.
Next slide. Another big unknown is the extent of impacts from the large sand
placement event to nearshore biological resources such as surfgrass, which is
also a tribal cultural resource, and rocky reefs, and the biological communities
of invertebrates and fish that use these areas for refugia, reproduction,
and foraging. It is expected that sand replenishment will temporarily impact
these resources through burial and scour, but these communities are expected
to recover as sand moves out and along the coast.
As conditioned, a monitoring plan
would be submitted for review and approval
that ensures the sand replenishment would
be monitored for a period of two years, with one year
to prepare a monitoring report and identify
any long-term impacts to nearshore marine resources.
During that time, other sand placements
that could affect the sand equilibrium footprint
would not be allowed.
Additional conditions to ensure replenished sand and sand
placement activities do not impact Wheeler North Reef, a 373-acre artificial reef off
the coast of San Clemente that is mitigation for the Santa Nofre nuclear generating station.
There is also some uncertainty about potential temporary and permanent impacts from landslide
and offshore construction activities.
Thus, there are conditions for monitoring and mitigating those impacts as well as implementing
impact avoidance measures such as nesting bird avoidance, anchoring limitations, grunting
monitoring, and staging outside habitat areas.
Next slide.
Other resource protection measures are addressed through construction, best management practices,
archaeological and tribal cultural resource monitoring, and ensuring proper approvals
from other resource agencies are required.
In addition, since some of the temporary work would take place outside the railroad right
way the applicants would be required to obtain any necessary authorizations from
other property owners. Next slide please. During the comment period for this item
the Commission received 10 comments from the public which are addressed in a
published staff report addendum and included in the correspondence tab for
this item. After the close of the comment period some additional letters were
submitted which are included in the correspondence to tab and not addressed
in the addendum due to time constraints. The correspondence includes comments
from the applicants, California Department of State Parks,
environmental and community organizations,
and individual members of the public.
Commenters request generally that beech wits
are maintained, a smaller armoring footprint,
stronger mitigation, and accountability
for past emergency work and long-term adaptation.
To briefly summarize the staff report addendum,
staff recommends approval of the required 690,000 cubic yards
of initial sand placement, and the separate 85,000 cubic yards
of sand to address past work.
Given the uncertainty of future coastal management
along this important rail corridor,
the proposed sand placement is required
to be supplemented with several other mitigation measures,
including the study of how the sand placement behaves,
what would be needed to maintain a passable beach in this area,
and what mid- and long-term alternatives
exist for this vulnerable part of the low sand rail corridor.
Staff recommends monitoring and studies to determine
what is needed to maintain a passable beach
before establishing a minimum width.
The conditions also require the proposed seawall
and area four to be as far landward as feasible
and feasible reductions to the revetment footprint.
OCTA's comment requested longer authorization
and changes to maintenance and mitigation requirements.
Staff proposes to retain the 10 year authorization term
in part due to the data needs on sand movement
in this area, while revising maintenance requirements,
coastal access provisions, and implementation schedules
to address practical concerns.
In conclusion, while this important railroad facilitates
access to the coast and has for a long time,
the impacts of new shoreline armoring necessary
to protect the vulnerable railroad are large,
and the proposed sand placement alone
is not adequate mitigation in volume
nor in assured public access benefit over a long period.
The staff is recommending approval of the subject CDP application with 18 special conditions.
The motion and resolution can be found on page six of the staff report.
And this concludes the staff presentation, but we, including the commission's coastal
engineer Jeremy Smith and ecologist Corey Clatterbuck, are here and available for questions.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
by asking for ex partes and I have one to report
to kick us off.
On Tuesday at 1.15 I spoke with, oh sorry,
Anne Blemker, the CEO of OCTA, Mr. Johnson,
and the woman who works as their government affairs liaison.
I apologize, I see you and I'm forgetting.
Kristin, thank you so much.
Kristin Jacinto.
I apologize very much.
Thank you.
We spoke for 15 minutes briefly on some background,
and they identified a couple areas of concern for them,
primarily around the time period of the permit,
indicating their strong desire for a longer permit time.
20 years was the number that was spoken about.
the formula for the amount of sand.
And then we spent along most of the conversation talking about their belief that the permit
conditions would substantially increase the cost of the work altogether.
I did have a brief follow-up conversation yesterday afternoon in person with Susan McCabe
also representing OCTA where she reiterated the same concerns and primarily the time issue.
Are there any ex partes?
Yes.
Yeah, I'll just tie on to say the exact same group of folks, Ms. Jacinto, my Chief of Staff
was also on that call, Priscilla Ramos, along with Anne Blemker and Darryl Johnson, and
the concerns were the same as expressed.
That was a 10-minute call on November 2nd, and that form has been submitted.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That's it on the expertise so over to you. Thank you. Yes, we have three applicants available here to speak
Dale Johnson Katrina Foley Jamie Federico and we do have your presentation. I
Believe they've requested 12 minutes
All right. Well the presentation
Gets pulled up. My name is Darryl Johnson and I apologize in advance. I'm recovering from a cold
But good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners. We're very happy to be here and as mentioned earlier
My name is Darrell Johnson. I'm the CEO of the Orange County Transportation Authority
I'm going to thank you for considering our application today just a quick note about
OCTA we are one of the state's largest transit operators and one of only three transportation
Agencies in the entire state that are multimodal in scope meaning we do transit rail freeways toll roads
Local rail heavy rail as well as community shuttles as well
I would also, before we begin the presentation,
like to identify, just thank Carl, you and your team,
for working with us through this.
It's a lot of hard work.
Thank you for the time and attention to detail,
and we really appreciate the collaborative approach
that's been shown to get to this point.
So if we go to the next slide.
I won't spend a lot of time here,
but I wanted to note that we do have a very strong record
of protecting natural resources
while delivering transportation projects
and improvements in our county.
Through our half-cent local sales tax, Measure M,
which has generated nearly $20 billion in transportation
over the last 25 years, excuse me, 35 years,
has funded approximately 1,300 acres of open space protection,
350 acres of habitat restoration projects
to mitigate the impacts of transportation programs.
So the idea of transportation mitigation
to transportation improvements is not new to us.
We developed this approach with environmental organizations
and agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration
and Caltrans, which has modeled it statewide.
Our water quality program has also funded
250 projects, keeping 92 million gallons of roadway trash
from going into our waterways and into the ocean.
It's a very valuable part of our overall program.
And we bring that same mitigation commitment
to the application today.
If we could go to the next slide.
While we are addressing the immediate threats
to the railroad while we are preparing for the future,
we think about this in four buckets.
On the left bucket is we've had the emergency past work
behind us dealing with what you heard from your staff.
The last four years of significant changes
and challenges along the coast.
Those emergency repairs have restored service
after repeated disruptions,
and where we're at today is the second bucket,
where we've identified and secured approximately
$305 million for our high-risk areas.
$200 million has been provided
by the California State Transportation Agency,
and $100 million has been provided
by the Federal Railroad Administration.
The third bucket is our Coastal Rail Resiliency Study,
which looks at options to protect and advance
the challenges we have with this corridor
over the next 30 years.
And while we look at the last one,
which is also referenced,
the last bucket, which is referenced by your staff,
the Adaptation Study,
which the California State Transportation Agency
has agreed to take the lead on that.
And we look forward to that study
and we look forward to collaborating with them.
With that said, I'd like to,
at this point, turn it over to Supervisor Katrina Foley.
She's also a member of the Orange County Board of Directors,
Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Chair
and commissioners.
Happy to be here.
It's a great day to be an American.
Also, thank you to our amazing staff.
Sorry, I had to say it.
So we all know sand on the beaches is the solution.
I'm Katrina Foley.
I represent the fabulous fifth district,
which includes 31 miles of coast
and this critical area of infrastructure
for our rail corridor.
I'm also the chair of the South Orange County
Beach Coalition, which I initiated to solve
our coastal erosion issues.
The county has not done a good job.
Look, I'll be the first to admit it.
For 50 years, we haven't done our part
to replenish the sand.
And so I've been working with urgency,
with our Orange County Transportation Authority,
with the Beach Coalition and with others,
stakeholders to get a priority of more sand on our beaches.
When I first joined the board for OCTA armoring,
as you heard from your staff,
was the method the agency was using to stabilize the rail.
Well, we now know that that doesn't work.
It is exacerbating the erosion,
and we have made a lot of progress
in changing our perspective.
The evidence is clear.
Wide sandy beaches serve as a necessary buffer
to protect the rail line,
and as you heard, it's the second busiest commuter rail
in the United States,
and it serves as a critical line for freight
and our strategic national defense.
Investing in wide sandy beaches provides protection
for this necessary transit artery.
It also restores our beaches
and it gets our coastline closer to where it was
before human intervention caused all this erosion.
The benefit to our beaches for the replenishment
is an economic benefit as well.
A 2024 study by James Houston on the economics of beaches
says that nourishment has,
for every dollar we expend on nourishment on the beach,
we get $3,000 back return on that investment.
And from my perspective,
that return is what helps us to do more to protect our coast.
OCT has committed approximately 100 million
to sand and public access,
nearly a third of the $305 million effort.
This investment supports the rail line,
our coastal community treasures,
and also coastal access for Californians
from beach trails and sandy beaches.
The nearly 700,000 cubic yard placement
will be the single largest sand nourishment
in the region in decades.
So it is significant.
This is the first step to resolving a half a century
of inaction by our community.
And I wanna be accountable for that.
We must do better.
Sustaining these beaches requires cooperation,
interagency coordination.
We have our beach coalition, which is all the coastal cities
and the Oceanside Littoral Cell is what we focus on.
We include our county, our state agencies,
our federal partners, and it would benefit OCTA
because what we did was we already started
an inventory of our beaches.
We have a baseline of what the historical width
of our beaches was, and we can use that to help to monitor,
to comply with that condition that the staff is requiring.
We're committed to also working with our state partners
and our federal partners to get a dredger.
We need a West Coast dredger
for all of our beaches along our West Coast.
So I'm working on that as well.
And that might help with the more sand later.
But we cannot lose this rail corridor
for important national security and economic reasons.
It's a billion dollars of freight that travels here,
but it's also for carbon emissions.
If we took that freight that is currently being used,
that the rail is currently transporting
and we moved it to trucks,
we would increase our GHG emissions by metrics of tons.
The UN Emissions Gap Report for 2026
already has the United States causing the world
to not meet our emission goals.
And we don't want to continue to exacerbate that situation.
So we must do better, as I keep saying.
The solution to save the rail corridor,
support California's vision for net zero emissions
by 2045 and expand access to our clothesline.
It's simple, we need wide sandy beaches
and we hope that you will approve this permit.
We've worked really collaboratively.
I'm really proud of the work that your staff
and our teams have done to get us here
and we appreciate your consideration.
With that, I'm gonna turn it back over to,
well actually, I think Mr. Johnson,
thank you so much for your consideration.
We hope you will approve this permit.
Thank you, Supervisor Foley.
If we could go to the next slide.
Your staff gave a little bit of history
on the railroad corridor, and so I won't go over that.
I thought it was very good, but I did wanna note
that in 1976, the state of California
began financially supporting the Los Angeles Corridor
through the National Railroad Passenger Act,
which is Amtrak, and since that time,
Caltrans and the California State Transportation Agency continue to fund that service and
This service currently carries more than five million passengers each year between San Diego Orange County in Los Angeles
So it's clearly a critical rail corridor
The one thing I did want to draw your attention to is that there's only been a few instances in
History where we've had these significant challenges there was El Nino in 92 93 and then in the last four years since 2021
We've had significant closures and in fact over the five-year period the rail line has been closed more than 12 months
for emergency work in cumulative timeframe
as you heard
From Supervisor Foley. There's other economic impacts that are absolutely critical on the rail quarter
If we could go to the next slide
And before I jump into the numbers and the estimated cost I would like to just reemphasize and revisit
What supervisor Foley's earlier comments regarding the proposed placement of six hundred and ninety thousand cubic yards of sand
This does represent a historic beach nourishment in an unprecedented investment by OCTA and coastal resiliency and
Much like our innovative environmental programs. I highlighted earlier
We think this is the single largest beach placement since the mid 1960s in this area and the fact that the transportation
Authority is undertaking that we also think is historic
As I mentioned earlier we have secured three hundred and five million dollars for the rail protection efforts through our partners at the California State
Transportation Agency and the Federal Railroad Administration and that includes
approximately 100 million dollars for sand in public access and I would note that
Those traditional funding sources don't normally fund sand and they don't normally fund public access
So that was I think a sea change if you will pardon the pun to bring dollars into a different space
With that the mitigation cost that we see assigned to the permit today
represent about an additional
227 million dollars in additional cost to comply with the permits
These estimates are over and above the 305 million dollars of the project funding that is already secured and
of that
227 million dollars. This is a simplified breakdown
But about 94 million dollars is for additional sand and related requirements
Approximately $100 million for wall and rock removal.
I would note that obviously the wall removal would only happen
if the permit is removed and the wall is actually removed
at some point in time.
But there is a cost associated with that.
And then $28 million in studies, monitoring, and reporting.
Some of these costs depend on future events.
They're not all going to be assigned in one day or in one year.
But those events, as they happen, your own staff indicated
that the knowledge of how sand will move
in that area is unknown at this point.
But also note that there's no funding identified
for these obligations.
They could compete with limited funding
for other rail operations at the state level,
perhaps the funding federal level
or other non-transportation programs could be sought as well.
In closing, we do support the mitigation
that addresses the project impacts
and appreciate the commission staff's hard work
towards the conditions that protect our coastal resources.
but we do believe that there are a few changes
that we could make.
We could go to the next slide.
So working with your dedicated staff
over the past few weeks, we have reached agreement
on many of the items you heard explained today.
We'd like to thank them again for their hard work,
flexibility, and understanding of what we can do
in the short term and what we cannot do.
Our remaining request, our only request,
concerns the permit term.
We respectfully request up to 30 total years
consistent with the improvements in tended design life
in the significant state and federal investment.
I'm wrapping up right now.
We would propose an initial 20-year term
with two five-year extensions.
We would also propose a formal check-in,
and I want to emphasize a formal check-in after 10 years,
which provides an opportunity for continued dialogue
and review with the Commission.
Supervisor Foley also mentioned
the South Orange County Beach Coalition.
We intend to join that.
We would recommend our board join that,
which also has its own monitoring.
We believe this approach does support the public investment
while maintaining accountability to the commission.
And if we could just have one last slide,
I'd like our chairman of our board of directors,
Jamie Federico, also from the city of Dana Point,
just to make a final comment.
Very briefly, thanks.
Very briefly, Madam Chair, I appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
This agenda item, good morning,
Madam Chair, commission and staff.
This is a culmination of 30 months of collaboration
between the OCTA staff and the Coastal Commission staff
and thank you very much for getting us here.
I just wanna put something quickly in perspective.
OCTA's annual funding stream for 42 miles of rail
that it owns is $30 million.
This is a $305 million project for four miles.
It can only be done because of state one time
state and federal grant money.
And that grant, those grants expect,
there's an expectation that this project gets us
to a long term solution.
The challenge for OCTA is those long term solutions
are beyond our control.
So we would respectfully ask an amendment
to special condition one where the permit term is longer
so that those long term solutions can be worked out
and we're not back here asking you for emergency permits
and riprap in the future because the rail is at risk.
Thank you so much for your collaboration.
We look forward to your support
and we really look forward to starting to place
690,000 cubic yards of sand on the beaches in San Clemente.
Thank you.
Okay, next we have tribal chairman Nathan Banda.
I see you on Zoom.
We're gonna go ahead and promote you to panelists.
Once your Zoom restarts,
you can unmute in your video as well.
And we'll give him three minutes.
Hi, Nathan.
I see, just go ahead and unmute yourself.
Thank you. Great, thank you.
My name's Nathan K. Banda, tribal chairman
of the one on the abandoned mission Indians.
I'd like to address the commission in regards to
our tribal nation respectfully supports
three essential requirements.
First, OCTA should be required to maintain
a meaningful sandy beach of all shorelines
armoring throughout the entire permit authorization period.
We support the proposed 50 foot dry sandy beach standard
as a minimum objective.
A single sand placement is not a long-term solution
if the sand disappears.
The responsibility must be to maintain the beach,
not simply to place sand once
and consider an obligation fulfilled.
Second, all shoreline armory must remain within OCTA's
established right away of approved limit lines.
There should be no continued expansion of rock structures
into the public beach and coastal environment.
Our beaches should not continue to become smaller
to accommodate infrastructure
that has not been adequately planned for.
Third, the long-term railroad adoption study
must produce an actual preferred alternative
with the clear implementation pathway.
We cannot continue approving temporary solutions
without knowing where this railroad corridor
is ultimately headed.
I also want to emphasize the importance
of meaningful tribal consultation,
and this comment is to OCTA.
We have had no tribal consultation in regards to this.
We have been hired as a vendor,
but there hasn't been a formal OCTA government
to government relationship or tribal consultation
in regards to this work.
Our nation has an ongoing responsibility
to protect our ancestral lands, cultural landscapes,
our agriculture resources, and natural environment.
Coastal projects can affect cultural resources
that may not be visible to the public eye,
but is to our nation.
We are not here to stand in the way
of infrastructure and public safety.
we are here to advocate for responsible planning,
accountability, and a balanced approach
that recognizes the importance
from both human infrastructure and our tribal environment.
The question before the commission
is not whether the railroads should be protected,
it is whether that protection can be accomplished
without continuing to sacrifice the very coastline
that makes this region so important.
Our children and grandchildren should not inherit
a coastline where the beaches have disappeared
because temporary decisions became permanent solutions.
The Hoshman nation have been stewards of this coastline
since time and memorial.
We intend to continue that responsibility going forward.
For these reasons,
we asked the commission to strengthen
the proposed conditions to require a maintained 50 foot
sandy beach, keep all armoring within established boundaries
and a feasible and required preferred
long-term railroad adoption alternative
before any further permit renewal.
If these projections cannot be incorporated
into an enforceable permit,
we asked the commission to give serious consideration
to denying this application.
And we would prefer that this be heard down
in our tribal territory.
So our tribal elders, our tribal council
and other tribal members can comment on this
so you can hear and learn from our people.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Brian Bauer and Andy Hall,
followed by Eliza Atwood.
Brian Bauer, go ahead and come up.
And we know you guys both have presentations.
We'll bring them both up.
Thank you. Please, please press the button on the microphone, sir.
Thank you. I do have a presentation, some slides.
If you hit the first slide, it should advance.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners. My name is Brian Brower,
Assistant City Manager at the City of San Clemente.
I want to start out by saying that I'm speaking in favor of the
six hundred and ninety thousand cubic yards of sand.
Can you hit the next slide, please?
Yeah, it should auto advance.
proposed to be placed on the shoreline
to protect this rail infrastructure.
I'd like to take everybody on a tour,
starting at the southern end of San Clemente
and working up the coast of Dana Point.
For years, I've thought if we don't intervene
and take sand replenishment action on a large scale,
then someday the entire bite will look like
some of these slides that you're seeing now,
with waves crashing into a rock revetment and Zero Beach.
We're now at this critical juncture,
and if we don't act soon, conditions will continue to worsen.
Capistrano bite is roughly seven and a half miles long but currently there's
around two and a half miles of beach far less of that which might be described
as healthy beach those remaining healthy locations primarily in the areas have
received sand in the last two to three years placed by the County of Orange in
the city of San Clemente so so why is a sandy beach healthy are important for
rail protection sandy beaches are important in two different ways one is
as a recreational amenity, but the other is that wide sandy beaches are extraordinarily
effective at keeping the ocean away from infrastructure.
We've seen a lot of exciting videos over the past few months showing rocks without a sandy
beach and train tracks getting wet and rocks getting undermined and then tracks become
unstable and then we have ongoing repair, but coastal infrastructure that is buffered
by a wide sandy beach remains dry and if it's dry it is protected.
There's no undermining and there's no instability.
This photo here shows the city's lifeguard headquarters
building eight years ago, undermined,
battling the ocean just as it has for several decades.
Every swell event, this building had issues for,
I don't know, maybe over 50 years.
Could you do the next slide, please?
This is what that building looks like two days ago.
And this area where the building resides
where the city of San Clemente has placed 200,000 yards of sand 2-3 years ago.
And this is just evidence that sand placement works.
Recently, infrastructure up and down the coastline has been compromised in many places.
However, infrastructure in this area of San Clemente that receives sand replenishment
has remained dry and protected.
Beach nourishment is a massive undertaking.
be successful there must be support and vigilance at every level. City, County,
State, Federal, OCTA, Coastal Commission. All of our respective agencies must be
aligned on this effort. Thank you. Commissioners, I think I have a
presentation as well but I'll get started real quick. I had requested a
little bit of extra time and I'll move quickly. Commissioners and staff, my name
is Andy Hall and I serve as the City Manager for the City of San Clemente.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide a few observations and thoughts
about the proposed OCTA project and I hope they'll be helpful as you consider
this critical issue. Month after month, the Coastal Commission reviews complex
coastal items and applied provisions of the Coastal Act and best coastal
management practices. But rarely, perhaps never, has the Commission had the
opportunity to act on an application that will determine the future of a
coastline that supports the second busiest rail line in the country,
provides access and transportation for a key military installation, a corridor
that will transport nuclear waste out of California
and is the lifeblood of an authentic beach community
with an incredible beach trail and critical infrastructure
including a primary sewer trunk line.
The city of San Clemente, OCTA,
and yes, the Coastal Commission
have the chance to set aside outdated regulations,
historical practices that are clearly not working,
and a bureaucratic alphabet soup
and do something remarkable and groundbreaking.
I hope you will choose to do something notable
that can be used as a model everywhere
along the California coast.
I am convinced that everyone wants to do the right thing.
We're very grateful for the inclusion
of almost 700,000 cubic yards of sand in this project,
but regulations, strings attached to funding sources
and other barriers have gotten in the way.
20 years from now, no one will remember the regulations,
conditions attached to the votes cast.
They will form their opinions
of today's decisions on results.
Slide, please.
Specifically in San Clemente, there is convincing evidence
that coastal armoring has a negative impact on beaches,
it is obvious that where the revetment has been expanded,
the sand has literally vanished, both north and south.
Where the revetment ends,
the sand and dune vegetation thrives.
Ironically, this is also where the tracks
are best protected and under least threat.
The scenario is repeated
throughout the San Clemente coastline.
Slide, please.
This is the area under consideration today.
Again, where the revetment is expanded,
the sand has disappeared.
Slide.
A once healthy beach is now gone,
and water routinely inundates the tracks.
Next slide.
The revetment is a necessary structure
that provides a solid base and leveling for rail activity.
The slide shows an area where the revetment
was improved less than a year ago.
It is already failing because the riprap
is on wet sand, slide.
And I got my toenails done just for this presentation.
We all know that when we stand in shallow water
on the beach, our feet sink into the sand
while the beach around us remains unchanged.
And you can see the scouring of any time
that we stand on the beach,
and go do it this afternoon.
Rocks on the revetment are no different.
Dry sand is the best way to protect the railroad tracks,
secure an essential transportation corridor,
and protect critical infrastructure.
Next slide.
So the city of San Clemente,
and you can see here where the sand
is protecting the revetment.
That's the best I could come up with as an example.
Next slide, please.
So the city of San Clemente would last,
the Coastal Commission to consider the following.
Be willing to act beyond the box of the outdated policies
that you've been placed in and do the right thing,
not just make regulatory, safe, and bureaucratic decisions.
Review the conditions to ensure they are fair, equitable,
and can actually be accomplished by OCTA
and are directly related to the project.
Use all the resources for shoreline protection.
While relocation of the tracks is an important discussion,
it is far beyond the ability of OCTA to accomplish
and may either distract from the effort
or jeopardize the funding
due to constraints of the funding source.
Some of the temporary approvals
are inconsistent with funding source requirements
of a 30-year project life.
The extension of the beach trail placed on
or near the revetment may not be prudent or possible.
Instead, let's press for a healthy wide beach
that residents can use.
Remove barriers and make it as easy to place sand on the beach
as placing rock on a revetment.
Work toward a pre-approved project
that is ready to execute,
much like the scoop project, scoop process.
Consider conditions that are applicable to the project.
Require beach monitoring to be conducted in real time
with advances in camera technology.
This allows for much quicker recognition of sign loss
and debris on the tracks while providing accurate
and ongoing beach transect measurement.
The geobags are a great concept
and in specific areas can protect the shoreline
for a short period of time.
A ready supply should be required for the project.
perhaps most importantly, and I'm finishing,
reconsider the definition of an emergency.
The emergency shouldn't be when the water inundates
the tracks and closes rail service,
but when the sand becomes too narrow to protect the tracks,
allow protective sand placement as an emergency permit.
In closing, the key issue is transforming thought
from how quickly can the revetment be expanded and secured
to how quickly can sand be placed on the beach
to protect the tracks.
The sandy beaches once enhanced the entire coastline
of San Clemente have been reduced to some small areas
at North Beach and from the state beach to Linda Lane
and they are disappearing fast.
Without immediate action by the Coastal Commission,
OCK and the city working together,
there will be no beach left in San Clemente.
This is not hyperbole.
Make history, make this about sand, not rocks.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Eliza Atwood followed by Michaela Coates,
Jennifer Savage, Stanley Prom and Mitch Silverstein.
We have a couple people on Zoom
Those are going to start moving guys to panelists.
So please go ahead and start accepting.
We have about 43 speakers.
Eliza Atwood.
You can unmute yourself.
Good morning.
Can you hear me?
This is Riley Pratt with state groups.
Representing Eliza.
Right here.
All right.
Well, good morning chairs and commissioners.
My name is Riley Pratt, the supervising senior environmental scientists with California State
parks at the Orange Coast District which includes Doheny, San Clemente and San
Anofre State Beaches. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
low sand rail corridor project particularly area four which is adjacent
to San Clemente State Beach. First, state parks recognizes the importance of the
rail corridor and the need to protect critical transportation infrastructure.
However, we are concerned about the long-term impacts shoreline armoring
we could have on our public beaches, coastal resources,
and recreational access.
Consistent with the framework and guiding principles
in our department sea level rise strategy,
the district's preferred approach
is sand nourishment without hard armoring.
However, if the commission determines
that temporary hard armoring is necessary,
we offer two specific recommendations
to improve the project,
which are captured in our full response letter
to commission staff.
First is to move the seawall along San Clemente State Beach
as far landward as feasible.
The proposed alignment, which is approximately 30 feet
from the center line of the tracks,
appears to be influenced, at least in part,
by maintaining rail service.
We encourage the commission to evaluate
whether a temporary rail shutdown during construction
could allow a more landward alignment.
The applicants should demonstrate
the actual engineering, safety, and regulatory constraints
before ruling out that option.
And second, we asked the commission
to consider a special condition requiring the applicants
to support development of a regional sand nourishment program
with at least a 20 year implementation horizon.
This could include investments
in strategically located sand transfer infrastructure
within OCTA's property and right of ways
make sand by rail feasible, more efficient, and cost-effective. Importantly, this regional
investment should supplement and not replace or reduce the initial nourishment proposed
in front of the affected shoreline segments. That initial placement is necessary to address
the immediate beach impacts of the armory. We believe these two recommendations would
help establish a more comprehensive mitigation approach that addresses both the immediate
and anticipated long-term impacts of the project.
We encourage the commission to consider the seawall alignment,
the initial nourishment,
and regional nourishment infrastructure
as complimentary measures to minimize beach loss,
maintain public access, and support coastal resilience.
Protecting the rail corridor is important,
but it should not come at the expense of the public beaches
and coastal resources that serve us all.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you, next is, excuse me, Michaela Coats,
Jennifer Savage, Staley Prom, Mitch Silverstein,
and then Joe Wilson, Susie Whitelaw.
Michaela Coats.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Harmon and commissioners.
My name is Michaela Coats,
and I am the Southern California Regional Manager
with Surf Rider Foundation.
Today, we are asking for three things,
a maintained beach in front of OCTA's armoring,
rock kept within OCTA's right of way,
and a meaningful long-term plan for this railroad
that does not encroach on or destroy our public beach.
Next slide, please.
This emergency did not come out of nowhere.
Bluff failures and floods have disrupted this rail line
since the 1930s.
San Clemente secured funding for a relocation study in 1972.
That was never completed.
And in 2003, the applicants before you today
agreed to a limit line for ROC, a maintenance plan, and SAND.
But your staff found no evidence
that those promises were kept.
Since 2021, you've processed 15 track stabilization projects
here, 10 of them being emergency permits,
each one adding more rock to our beaches.
And emergency permitted projects
are supposed to be temporary only.
And this summer alone, about 8,000 tons went onto the beach
without emergency authorization.
The picture here on the slide is Cypress Shores.
Your emergency permits limited the rock
to OCTA's right of way, but it spilled 20 feet past it.
And by OCTA's own numbers,
beach at the south end has dropped 15 feet in elevation and walking the beach south to world
famous trestles is now impossible. Next slide please. Just south at Conn's Point survey data
shows zero beach width at high tide and a scour trough forming offshore. People have surfed at
cottons for generations and the rock is ruining the wave and creating potentially life-threatening
danger for surfers who now face a wall of jagged boulders instead of a sandy exit.
Staff calls this one of the largest beach encroachments the commission has ever considered
and despite all of that rock to protect the rail line, OCTA can't keep it open.
It's been fully closed for nine to twelve months since 2021
and the cost to San Clemente's beaches and public access has been devastating.
This was foreseeable, it was preventable, and yet it's still happening. Thank you.
Hello again commissioners. Regarding this permit, I ask you to prioritize the question that is most
Relevant to your role will approving this permit make things right in accordance with the Coastal Act next slide, please
Your staff valued the beach loss to this armoring at 107 million dollars
I could argue that the beach is priceless, but we'll stick with the dollars for now
after crediting
OCTA sand that still leaves a 73 million dollar gap that the rest of the mitigation package falls far short of billing and
And truly, no amount of money can replace
what the public has lost.
You are considering a single sand placement
that, according to OCTA, may produce 49 feet of beach
at area four and 34 feet north of the pier.
But your own staff could not validate those models,
and they acknowledge that the long-term effectiveness
of one placement is uncertain.
We have no assurance that those risks will last
the 10-year permit term, let alone beyond.
And when that sand likely washes away after winter or two,
this permit requires nothing more than a small addition
related to past violations, if sand can even be obtained.
Yet it allows nearly unlimited additional rock
in a quarter mile seawall.
We know that armoring worsens erosion,
causing waves to break closer to the rail line
and hit harder.
Staff found OCTA's dumped rock has made the railroad
more vulnerable to beach loss,
and it's unclear the railroad can survive in place
even with the proposed armoring.
That seawall effect is playing out as Cypress Shores,
where service has repeatedly been suspended.
You may have seen the videos making the social media
around that show waves crashing into
and sometimes even inside moving trains.
The real result of staff's recommendation
will be that the armoring cycle resumes,
truth solutions continue to be postponed,
and the beach, which unlike a rail line,
cannot be moved, is destroyed.
Next slide please.
Good morning, I'm Staley Prom,
Surf Rider Foundation senior staff attorney.
While staff recognizes the need for a long-term solution,
allowing emergency permitted armoring to remain
and continuing to permit more rocks and armoring
and conditions that allow for permitting extensions,
only disincentivize OCTA from genuinely working
toward the solutions we've been calling for for decades.
While Surf Rider appreciates the thought
that staff has put towards mitigation, it's not adequate,
particularly with respect to protecting
the public trust beach and public trust coastal recreation.
Sir Frider does support the requirement
to survey the public trust boundary.
This is absolutely necessary here
where the armoring is likely to encroach
in our public lands and or exacerbate erosion
leading to encroachment.
However, the public trust analysis summarily concludes
that because of the mitigation conditions,
including to do to quote a significant amount
of sand nourishment, the project can be found consistent
with the coastal like public access and recreation provisions,
and it implies consistency with the public trust doctrine.
But in doing so, it glosses over some important facts,
including first, it's virtually guaranteed
that any fill will eventually wash away.
The staff report notes that the railroad is expected
to continue to be threatened by high tides and storm events
until sand is placed there and quote potentially after
should sand leave the area.
But that isn't a speculative possibility.
Coaster dynamic and the sand will eventually
washed away it's just a question of how quickly. Second the addendum recognizes that future
potential mitigation needs are currently unfunded so the staff report does not connect the dots.
Rocks have been and will be dumped on the public trust beach and armoring will exacerbate erosion
leading to the loss of public trust beach and there's no secured funding for future
mitigation nor guarantee it will last. Without a condition that some minimum sandy beach be
maintained. The loss of public trust beach and recreation is not consistent
with the public trust doctrine. Thank you. Morning commissioners, Mitch Silverstein
with Surf Rider Foundation. Next slide please. Thank you for hearing us out and
thank you to staff for their five years of work on this. Surf Rider has opposed
seawalls up and down this coast for over 40 years. Today we're just asking you to
make this armoring accountable with four changes. First, a beach. All parties agree
That a maintained beach protects both public access and the railroad and the addendum requires a study of what it takes to keep it
Passable Beach once that studies done require
OCTA maintain a 50 feet beach for the rest of the term the Commission's done this before it required San Francisco to maintain a beach
With in front of a project 50 feet is what OCTA is modeling predicts at area for please hold them to it
Second keep the rock within previously established limit lines no further out than OCTA is right away
that was required in 2003 and in 2021 emergency permits,
but the rock went past it, not out of necessity,
but because they dumped rock haphazardly
and it spread across the beach.
Now that violation is being rewarded
by establishing their limit line
to where the rock currently sits.
That line needs to be one of the commission set in 2021.
We want more than just a study on this,
but we do agree that when OCTA moves rock landward,
then that becomes the new limit line.
Third, staffs removed the initial 15,000 ton cap
on maintenance rock.
OCTA can now add rock for the entire 10 years
at a maximum of around 30,000 tons per maintenance,
no advanced authorization needed,
zero guarantee that it's a minimum necessary.
Any rock beyond 15,000 tons should come back to you
with added mitigation.
Fourth, require the long-term study
to name a preferred plan
and require any permit renewal to follow it.
These changes will protect the railroad
and the beach together
and come closer to fully mitigating the project.
As far as cost to OCTA for mitigating conditions,
Surfrider believes the long-term cost of the public
and community from losing its beach
is far more significant
and warrants the most protective conditions.
We trust the commission to uphold the Coastal Act
and get this right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is Joe Wilson followed by Susie Whitelaw
and then Lisa Gant.
If you're on Zoom, please accept when we move you
to panelists so we can keep it rolling.
Thank you.
Joe Wilson.
Please press the button on the mic, sir.
Sorry.
Thank you very much.
Got you.
Good morning, everyone.
Come up here from San Clemente today
to look you in the eye individually
and ask you to consider a couple of individual competing
scenarios tonight.
In scenario one, you're at home or maybe for some of you
in a hotel tonight.
And you look yourself in the eye in the mirror
and say, I feel good for voting for San Clemente Rail Protection
CDP today without any amendments, even though I
that the one-time sand replenishment will gradually erode away and create a
permanent seawall to ocean collision that is a significant violation of the
mission of our Coastal Commission. Now in scenario two you're also looking in
the mirror and you say hey I feel good about voting for an amendment to the
San Clemente CDP today that requires the railway entities to maintain a 50-foot
wide beach at that location as long as the seawall and revetment hard armoring
are in place pretty straightforward pretty simple it's what most everyone is
asking for maintain the beach so which scenario do you think will help you
sleep better tonight knowing you did the right thing for the environment the
railway and the people of the state of California please think about it and do
the right thing thank you next is Susie Whitelaw followed by Lisa Gantt and then
and Kenna Salter.
Good morning, I have a presentation.
Dr. Susie Whitelaw, my specialty is marine sedimentology
and with Save Our Beaches San Clemente.
The first slide is basically just a textbook example.
You all know that coastal armoring and seawalls
increase erosion in front of them and they don't work.
Next slide, please.
The erosion you may not be as familiar with
is called flank erosion.
That the seawalls also cause erosion on their sides.
And in this case, the erosion goes out several hundred feet
every time you put down a piece of armoring.
Next slide.
So how did we get here?
Starting at the background here, it was actually 2003
when OCTA began adding rock down to cottons.
That caused flank erosion to the north.
In 2019, they dumped more rock.
And to cover up that area then of erosion,
That caused more erosion to the north
and reactivated a landslide
and they dumped tens of thousands of rock.
That caused more erosion to the north.
And then in 2022, they had to place more rock to the top.
That caused more erosion to the north
and in 2023, they placed more rock at the top.
That leads us to hotspot number four,
which you are now looking at now.
This process is inexorable as long as the waves
are hitting against the rock or the sea wall.
The only way to stop it is by keeping the waves
away from this armoring, and the only way
you'd keep the waves away from the armoring
is a wide, sandy beach.
So they came to San Clement,
OCTA came to San Clemente a couple of months ago,
and they gave us their long-term coast,
not their short to medium-term study,
which was going to pave over, create sea walls
for rocky promontories, over nearly 100%
of San Clemente State beaches.
So we're gonna be back here talking to you again
and again and again for the next 10 years,
and you're gonna be seeing more and more rock and seawall
added to our beaches unless you do one simple thing,
which is require them to maintain a wide sandy beach
in front of any armoring that they put in.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Lisa Gantt, then Kenna Salter, then Sarah Spenuzzi.
Just a reminder until you guys are named and spoken,
make sure you keep your mic muted and your camera off until it's your turn.
Thank you. Lisa Gantt.
Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, I'm Lisa Gantt.
I'm a citizen of San Clemente and I'm speaking today to ask the commission to
take actions to protect our San Clemente community beaches.
OCTA has already destroyed Cypress Shore Beach
and created impassable boulder piles
where Christine Beach once stood.
OCTA needs to provide meaningful mitigation
for that destruction
and there needs to be restoration of public access.
Over the last few years,
there is nothing honorable about OCTA's tactics,
which has been to hold disingenuous meetings,
tell the community in famed sincerity
they are studying the problems
and then wait the next emergency.
Repeated emergency permits instead of proactive
science-based engineered plans have resulted
in less than optimal protection of the rail
and destruction of our community beach.
Please minimize the armoring footprint
that OCTA is allowed to place on our beaches.
Require OCTA to maintain a minimum sandy beach
front of their armoring. This needs to be placed before they build seawalls or dump rock.
Do not let OCTA walk away. Require that they replenish that sand in a standardized schedule
of monitoring and maintenance. It is a buffer of sand that will protect their tracks and save our
beach. The destruction of Cypress Shore Beach is a travesty. The loss of public access to trestles
on our beaches is also a travesty. It is littered with sharp ugly boulders that were
strolling like trash from railroad cars. When the first dumps did not do the trick,
they dumped more. They called this an engineered solution. The graveyard of sharp, dangerous rocks
piled high and wide have not done the trick. The power of that ocean has battered and tossed those
huge boulders around like beach balls. It is no longer a pristine beach of debris and danger.
I can no longer bring my grandchildren. What kind of legacy does that leave behind us? Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, Kinsalter says Panusi Jeff Berg. Kinsalter, go ahead and unmute yourself.
Hi, thank you. I'm Kinsalter. Good morning, commissioners.
Okta should not be permitted to define beach preservation in terms of cubic yards of sand
delivered or replenishment frequency or annual expenditures. These are inputs, they are not
outcomes. The community should insist that Okta commits to maintaining a minimum usable beach
width of 50 feet with an operating target of 80 feet throughout the affected coastline.
The commitment must be supported by an independently verifiable monitoring and
and measurement program using permanent survey transects,
standardized title and elevation datums,
and publicly available results.
Most importantly, Optima establish a closed loop
beach maintenance system.
When measured beach width approaches that 50-foot minimum,
replenishment must automatically be initiated
to restore the beach towards the 80-foot target.
It's an active thing.
not a one-time dump and hope for the best. Optum must demonstrate in advance that it has secured
suitable sand sources, necessary permits, contractors, equipment, transportation,
and beach access to deliver sand within a defined response period. A commitment to replenish the
beach is meaningless without a demonstrated ability to do so before the beach is lost.
The objective is not to periodically replace sand that has disappeared.
The objective is to maintain the beach of a specified measurable width. Thank you.
Thank you Nexus. Sarah Spinozzi followed by Jeff Berg then Chris Morrow. Sarah Spinozzi.
Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay my name is Sarah Spinozzi. I'm the legal director at Orange County
Coastkeeper. This is not a rail corridor. It's a community that has shaped California surf culture
home to the most prominent surfboard shapers around the world
and the site of the 2028 Olympic surf venue.
Commissioned staff, who we thank for their tireless efforts
as we experience unfortunate but long foreseen king tides
and a historic El Nino are under immense pressure from Calista
and the applicants to authorize continued shoreline armoring
to protect a drowning railroad.
Today, you get to decide who you are going to be.
Are you going to be the independent agency
carrying out the mission to protect the coast and public access?
Or are you going to collapse under the pressure
to quickly pass development permits
in fear of political backlash.
As you make your decision,
I urge you to consider one of my father's favorite sayings,
lack of planning on your part
does not necessitate an emergency on mine.
For decades, rail authorities have buried their heads
in the sand for so long, there is no sand left.
In order to approve shoreline armoring,
you must find that the armoring is both necessary
to protect the structure and two,
that the required development is designed to mitigate
or eliminate impacts on shoreline sand supply.
The record is clear that these elements are not met
and this is therefore inconsistent with the coastal act.
The first staff report is unequivocal
that sand nourishment is the best way to protect
both the tracks and ensure continued public access
to this important coastal resource.
Second, the staff is also clear
that there's a $73 million mitigation gap
that the permit attempts to fill with feasibility studies,
some of which are laughable,
such as the study on providing more affordable transit
to the beach when Metrolink is announcing
40% cuts to weekend service.
Coastkeeper asks that you at a minimum,
send it back to staff to require a minimum beach width
be maintained.
Postpone the vote until next month
when the meeting will be held in Newport Beach,
voting on what your staff describes
as the largest encroachment of a single CDP
in San Francisco, 450 miles from the impacted community
is frankly anti-democratic.
Finally, if you're concerned about the executive exemptions
from the governor's office between now and next meeting,
let the governor sign the debt certificate
for Santa Monica beaches.
Don't let it be your signature.
you. Thank you. Jeff Berg, Chris Morrow, followed by Zane Berg. Good morning Jeff Berg with Bring
Back Our Beaches. Bring Back Our Beaches recognizes the importance of the railroad and wants to see
some version of this project happen because the status quo as we've seen over the past five years
is unacceptable. Our main concern with staff's report is why are we making firm commitments
to rock and steel but not to maintaining the sand that helps protect them. The staff report
says even a 10 to 20 foot beach berm would considerably reduce wave overtopping and that
larger or more frequent nourishment could provide significant protection. Yet instead
of establishing how much sand it takes to keep that protection in place, this permit
authorizes more hard-armoring and studies the sand later. That sequencing needs to be rebalanced
and the Coastal Commission and the state need to be a partner in this. It cannot
fall on just one stakeholder. The report also says that as the beach disappears, waves break
closer to the rock, increasing scour, overtopping, and the undermining of the tracks. It even
acknowledges that the railroad's historical rock dumping has made things a lot worse. In other
words, losing the beach doesn't just hurt the public. It makes the railroad harder to protect.
Do as Andy Hall suggested and redefine the definition of an emergency.
Three things we'd like to see with regards to this project. Remove as much existing rock as
can safely come out instead of accepting today's expanded footprint. Build the seawall as close to
the tracks as safely possible even if that takes a planned construction closure and set a minimum
beach width back by recurring sand so the beach stays part of the railroad and the state's
protection and sequence the removal of riprap in the next year and not through a study. Sand can't
eliminate every coastal hazard. Neither can rock, but only one of them gives us the beach.
Let's build a project that protects both. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Chris Morrow followed by Zane Berg and Camilla Ring.
Please accept when we move you the panelists so we can keep moving. Also do not put your camera
on until it's your turn. We want that person to have that spotlight and that time to shine.
Thank you. Thank you. My name is Chris Morrow. I'm with Bring Back Our Beaches and former editor
Surfer Magazine. I've been covering coastal resiliency issues for two decades around the
globe and one of the things that's very clear about this San Clemente area is it's a very
fixable and foreseeable problem that we've known about for a long time. When you look at best
practices around the world where people, cities, counties, states are doing beach resilience
properly, one of the things you will notice about San Clemente is that we are in a major
sand deficit and that embayment in the capo bite needs to be refilled. In the late 60s this capo
bite got three to four million cubic yards of sand as mitigation for the Dana Point Harbor and
San Onofre nuclear power plant. That sand kept that area nourished for 35 plus years before there
were any issues. We didn't have in up until 2000 up until 2020 there was only about 15,000 cubic
yards of sand that was injected in that time. All the while, the whole San Juan Capistrano
watershed, the San Juan Creek, was being hydrologically re-engineered by new housing,
and our whole watershed has been shut down by hard armoring, and all we're getting is
silt out of that creek now. So we are on the hook to take care of this Capistrano bite,
and we need to refill it. And one of the things best practice was we've learned is that small
injections of sand and one-time injections of sands don't work. We need to start with large ones
and then keep topping it off regularly. I'd encourage everybody, all the stakeholders,
to have a foot in this game. OCTA is just one of them. The feds, the county, the state, they're all
involved. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Zane Berg, Camilla Rain, and then Gregory Ray. Zane Berg,
can you please accept? Good morning. Hold on. Not yet. Not yet. Not yet. Not yet. Not yet. Hold on.
There we go. Had a technical difficulty there. Excuse me. Good morning. I'm Zane Berg with Bring
back our beaches as well. We want a deal to happen. St. Clemente needs sand, and doing nothing has
only brought more rock. But there's a fundamental imbalance in the recommendation that's before us
at the moment, which is the railroad gets a commitment to maintaining its rock while the
public gets some sand, but no commitment to maintaining its beach. Yesterday's amendment
made the situation a little worse, in my view. It removes the 15,000-ton cap and July 27 expiration
on maintenance rock allowing more rock throughout the permit term with no overall cap and meanwhile
there's no requirement to maintain even a minimum beach width. And staff's own numbers show a 73
million dollar mitigation gap and yesterday staff acknowledged it hasn't demonstrated that the other
mitigation measures make up that difference. So here's what needs to change. First we need
real reductions in the rock footprint. In 03 the railroad committed to limits you've heard about
on how far the rock could extend and now the addendum establishes new limits based on today's
expanded footprint and that's moving the goal posts. The commission, not the railroad, should
select the engineers who determine what rock can be removed with OCTA picking up the bill. The
railroad shouldn't get to grade itself in that respect. Second, they need to put the seawall
against the tracks not out on the beach. The railroad wants room to keep trains running
during construction, we get that, but the addendum says operational and financial considerations can
influence where the wall goes, and it wants you to think about the trade-off. You know, we're
prepared to sacrifice public beach for the 30-year design life of a seawall, partly to avoid a
temporary planned interruption and train service, and I think that's backwards. The railroad has
already been shut down for a very long time over the last couple years. Planned construction closure
as a small price to preserve the beach for decades. Lastly, we need more sand, a minimum
beach width and an enforceable commitment to maintain it. You know, monitoring the beach is
just not enough. Protecting the railroad and preserving our beaches should not be competing
goals. This deal has been a long time coming. Let's just make sure we get it right. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Camilla Rang followed by Gregory Ray and then Kelly Lynn Hannigan.
Good morning commissioners. This is Camilla Rang representing the coalition for safer trains in
Delmar. We've sent in a lengthy letter supporting the comments made by Save Our Beaches, San Clemente,
Surfrider Foundation, Orange County, Coastkeeper and the California Coastal Protection Network.
In short, we urge a commission to withhold approval at this time in order to secure further
mitigations. Examples for such mitigations are require sandy beach maintenance, a measurable
sandwich of all existing and proposed coastal armoring for the entire duration of the armoring
staying in place. Require all structural armoring to remain strictly landward of
Okta's right-of-way to prevent further encroachment onto public land. Establish a timeline for removal
or the removal of the armament.
Require dedicated mitigation funding
to be included in the project's formal budget
so that later cannot claim that they ran out of money,
as Sandag is doing in Del Mar.
Establish transparent accountability
with severe consequences for non-compliance.
Require as condition to the permit
that the long-term solution is to relocate the railroad away
from the beach and that the Okta chooses
a path for that relocation.
There's a least environmentally damaging alternative.
And at that point, all armoring should be removed.
I'm asking you to please see our letter for further details and
and withhold approval of this item at this time.
Thank you. Thank you.
Next is Gregory Ray, followed by Kelly Lynn Hannigan.
And then Daniel, Danielle, excuse me, Lynch.
We have about 30 speakers left.
Thank you. My name is Gregory Ray and I'm a resident of San Clemente.
I'm responding to OCTA's request to continue to heart armor the rail line.
I'm not an opponent of the railroad.
I consider the railroad to be an asset to our community,
just as I consider our sandy beaches to be an asset to our community.
For many years, we have enjoyed and benefited from both,
and this can continue.
What should not happen is for us to sacrifice our beach
for the benefit of the railroad.
The OCTA began to dump riprap onto the San Clemente beach in 2021,
pursuant to an emergency CDP.
In that permit, OCTA agreed that public access to the beach fronting the property
shall be restored quickly.
But that did not occur.
Instead, the riprap created a zone of scouring where the waves broke onto the
rocks and pulled away remaining sand.
This damage was done along the San Clemente coastal trail.
Before the rock dump,
this trail was enjoyed by thousands of visitors every month.
Since the OCTA's rock dump, it is impassable.
We have been waiting five years to have this corrected.
I ask you to please require the OCTA
to restore the beach and the walking trail
so that we again have lateral public access
along our coastline.
Accepting a finite, one-time sand deposit is a bad idea.
The OCTA has created a long-term structure
that disrupts our beach, and they should be required to implement a long-term solution.
You have the power to demand that OCTA maintain the beach for 80 feet in front of their revetment,
and that is what I am asking you to support.
Anything less means that we are sacrificing the beach in favor of the railroad.
Please don't abandon our beach.
Please insist that the railroad maintain a sand buffer between the waves and their track.
This would serve the citizens of California by preserving our beach resource and with
simultaneously help OCTA preserve their riverline.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kelly Hannigan, Danielle Lynch, Wendy Morris.
Kelly Hannigan.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Kelly Lynn Hannigan and I'm speaking in support of Save Our Beaches and the letter
they submitted to you commissioners.
I'm originally from Florida's Gulf Coast and I've lived in San Clemente for a year
and a half now.
And I remember my first trip to the beach after moving here.
I had this picture in my head of the beautiful California coastline I had always dreamed of.
Instead, I found myself sitting on a pile of rocks where I expected to find sand.
I was instantly disenchanted. Coming from a place where sandy beaches are such an important part
of coastal life, it was shocking to realize that residents here have to fight just to preserve
theirs. And I've now learned that this is a bigger fight about public access to coastline,
to a coastline that belongs to all of us. I want to acknowledge the commission staff for
the revisions made in response to community concerns, and we appreciate that progress,
but there's still a very critical piece missing from this permit. The staff report acknowledges
itself that the one-time sand replenishment may not even be enough to maintain public beach
access over time, yet the proposed permit doesn't establish a minimum sandy beach width that OCTA
must maintain. Like Greg and a lot of other people on this call today, I'm asking the Commission
require at least 80 feet of sandy beach in front of OCTA's armoring throughout the permit term,
with continued protection required for any future authorization. Not just immediately after the sand
place and not for the first few years, but for as long as the armoring remains.
We also ask that the new armoring have the smallest feasible footprint and that the continuous
public beach assets be restored. We understand the importance of protecting the railroad,
but protecting infrastructure and preserving public beaches should not be mutually exclusive.
Commissioners, monitoring the loss of our beaches is not the same as preventing it. Please request
an amendment establishing an enforceable beach with standard. Our beaches are a public resource
and the preservation must be in a condition of protecting the railroad. Thank you.
Thank you. Danielle Lynch, followed by Wendy Moores, Bill Moores, and Callie Moores. I'm not
sure if all three of you guys are together, but we'll make it happen. Danielle Lynch.
Good morning, commissioners. My name is Danielle Lynch, and I'm speaking on behalf of California
State Parks Foundation. Our organization is dedicated to protecting California state parks
and ensuring they remain accessible for all Californians. I'm here today to express our
opposition to the proposed project and its potential to cause lasting damage to public
parkland and restrict coastal access. State parks are protected for a reason. They preserve our
natural and cultural resources, provide opportunities for recreation, and ensure
that Californians have access to some of our state's most treasured landscapes and coastlines.
They also play a critical role in climate resilience, protecting natural ecosystems that
help buffer coastal communities from the impacts of sea level rise, erosion, and increasingly severe
storms. While we recognize the importance of protecting railroad infrastructure, that is not
a mission-driven use of state parkland, and it should not come at the expense of public beaches,
we are particularly concerned that the proposed one-time sand placement will not adequately address
the long-term loss of public beach associated with shoreline armoring. Any approval should
ensure that meaningful protections for beach width and public coastal access are sustained over time
rather than relying on upfront mitigation. The Coastal Commission was established to protect
California's coast and safeguard the public's right to access and enjoy it. Approving a project that
would result in the long-term loss of public beach and further threatened coastal access
runs counter to that fundamental responsibility. We urge you to reject the project that is currently
proposed and prioritize the long-term protection of the beach, its natural resources, and public
coastal access. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Wendy Morris, who we don't see, so we'll go with
Bill Morris, then Callie Morris. Bill Morris, if you can unmute yourself. We see you unmuted.
Yes, yes. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we hear you. We're waiting on you. Let's go.
Okay. My name is Bill Morris and I've lived in St. Clemente for the past 30 years and
enjoyed living here at the beach. Over the years, I've seen the city beaches become smaller
in size and in fact, I've seen significant portions of the beach disappear at the north
and south end of the city. And of course, that is due to the repeated armoring of the
railroad tracks. We know that the beach sand is not going to return in the areas where the ocean
waves hit the armored areas, and in fact will also adversely affect the adjacent beaches.
The real solution, of course, as everyone has said, of the so-called emergency events,
which will continue to happen, is to create and continually maintain a minimum 50-foot-wide
the city. This continued
thank the commission for hopefully requiring periodic and long-term sand
replenishment in the amount of 50-foot width by the railroad to re-establish
areas that have gone away and to protect all beaches in San Clemente. Thank you.
Thank you. Bill Morris, is Wendy Morris with you? No, she is not. She had to take
her mother to the doctor. Okay, thank you. We'll go next with Callie Morrison and then
Jaji Sohi and then Charlie Fox. Thank you, Bill Morris. Callie Morris, if you can unmute
yourself. We do have your video. My name is Kaylee Morris. I have a video. This video,
please start. Yes, is a current aerial view of the coast heading north, starting from
the south end of San Clemente at Cypress Shores Beach near the Orange and San Diego County
line. The dry sand area here used to be, is it still there? The dry sand area here used
to be 200 feet wide. But you are now looking at about 27,000 tons of rock, which has already
been dumped there by OCTA only in the last five years, and all through using so-called
emergency permits. As you can see the beach has never been able to recover from it because these
rocks have caused new wave action which has so significantly and quickly scoured the sand away
from the beach. If rocks come first and beaches disappear even more quickly, how will you make
a new beach in front of that rock and protect the tracks? The red line coming up shows the beginning
of Saint Clemente State Beach where the proposed seawall would start right before you reach the
the northern border of Cypress Shores neighborhood
on the bluff, which is coming up still.
The proposed seawall is vertical, unscalable,
and will go on and on for a quarter of a mile,
stretching past the southernmost two
of the state park campgrounds natural canyons,
and stopping just short of the two state beach,
pedestrian canyon access walkways.
So unless you require the permit applicant
to maintain a 50 to 80 foot beach
before dumping rock, dry beach.
This permit will not only further erode the beach sand
needed to protect the tracks from eroding
at a rate exponentially faster than necessary.
It also starts causing flank erosion,
a flank erosion effect on the sand
and north and south of it too.
Where the rock would be dumped
and where the wall would be constructed.
And the problem will continue on expanding
not decreasing as a result. But if you ensure that there are specific permit condition parameters
such as this 50 to 80 foot beach sand buffer maintenance requirement to maintain that much
dry sand before dumping rock, you're also protecting the tank as well as the beach.
If not, then how will we bring any of that back? Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Jaji Sohi, followed by Charlie Fox and Tyler Bowden. Jaji Sohi.
Good afternoon, Commissioner. This is Jagjit Sohi. My wife and I are permanent residents of
San Clemente and we take great pride in our city and our beaches. We also appreciate the railroad
surface that we have. We have a sentiment, it has a long relationship with the trains.
However, in the past, we have been losing beaches. And as all of the speakers have said,
there's hardly anything left bit south of the Calafia Beach going towards Cotton Point.
I read your recommendations of your staff, a well-written report. However, it's missing the key
element, which is that in addition to monitoring the beaches, they should also ask the applicant
to maintain a minimum width of a beach in front of the rocks. Additionally, one other thing that
can be done is that once all the borrow sites for the sands are identified, the applicant
should be allowed to take sand from the borrow site to add sand on an ongoing basis to the
beach without having to go through this long arduous permitting process. So please consider
that will speed things up. And all they need to do is then notify the executive director
and go on about adding sand to the beach so that our beaches are maintained properly.
In addition to that, the borrow site from the Prado Dam, I would not consider that taking
Uh trucks to even if you are adding sand just to the north side
That will clog up our narrow stream
Thank you very much
Thank you. Next is charlie fox followed by tyler bowden followed by ross garrett
Um, just a reminder. We're moving everybody to panelists. So please go ahead and accept but make sure you keep your
Camera and mic off until it's your turn
charlie fox
Hi, my name is Charlie Fox. I specialize in predicting near shore dynamic. So my comments
are going to come from that perspective. Next slide, please. A healthy beach should be
primary if we're going to protect the railroad. History validates this, and so does the science.
Fortunately, as you can see here, we're in this embayment in San Clemente, Dana Point to the north,
Cotton's Point to the south. You can see the wave patterns here. So this forms a really effective,
very effective natural sand retention system, but the key is the sand won't
secrete or waves hit rock. Let's go to the next slide.
At cottons, the seafloor, interestingly enough,
forces waves all swell directions northwest to south to break in this
fashion from left to right. That creates an
longshore drift, which really prevents sand from moving
south out of the system. It also functions like a huge natural
underwater groin. So there's to the myth that if we put this sand down, it's just going to go
south out of our system. That doesn't work in San Clemente. We have a unique system. It's great.
Next slide, please. So with this increased riprap, here's a little more detail. So we've
talked a lot about, panelists have said, how it destroyed the beach. You can see it right there.
What it then created was a really steep approach profile. And so that changed how our dominant
waves break along area four our dominant swell our biggest surf believe it or not comes in the
summer and it's from the southern hemisphere and so most of those waves previously when we had more
sand and the slope was a little more graduated along cypress shores those waves would break
more parallel so you had less drift but as you can see here in the image the water is deeper
so these waves will preserve that angle and so you set up this like really powerful
a longshore drift moving north that scours the shore and aggressively moves both sand north
and offshore out of use. Next slide. Build a seawall close to the railroad as possible,
cover it with sand and native vegetation, clean up, restore the rip rap to pre-2020
that we're here to keep the
thank you very much.
Tyler Bowden, Ross Garrett,
then John Dow. Tyler Bowden?
Yes, thank you. Good afternoon,
commissioners. My name is Tyler
Bowden and I'm a resident of
San Clemente and the current
current chairman of the board
for the San Clemente Chamber of
Commerce. I spoke at your last
rate the positive impact that preserving and expanding coastal access for residents and
visitors by replenishing sand has had on our local economy.
I also mentioned that efforts to protect our rail line and preserve our beaches did not
have to be mutually exclusive, but rather the best solution for both, which is sand
replenishment, is mutually beneficial for both efforts.
Now, since last month's meeting, record-breaking high tides have put long-term coastal access
at San Onofre State Beach at Severe Risk,
which is just to the south of Trestles Beach,
where we'll be hosting the LA-28 surfing event.
So this makes beach access from the north even more important.
Now, I'm not an expert in coastal preservation,
but I am an avid surfer.
And I can't express strongly enough how important Trestles
and San Onofre beaches are to surfing heritage and culture.
Preserving access to these beaches via a wide,
at Sandy Beach from Cypress Shore
is not just good for locals,
but also to preserve public access
to some of the most iconic surf breaks in the world.
Please listen to the experts
and make the necessary amendments
to ensure that we can maintain a wide Sandy Beach
at Cypress Shore and protect coastal access.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
Ross Garrett, John Dow, Steve Lang, then Scott Thomas.
Ross Garrett?
Yep, good afternoon, commission.
appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the surfing community. My name is Ross Garrett.
I'm the CEO of a company called Surfline. We are the largest surfing community online with over
3 million monthly active unique users. In that position, we have our finger on the pulse of the
surfing community and surf spots worldwide. What I'm here to express to you is what has happened
to the surf quality at Cotton's Beach, which is just to the south of the riprap that's been
in discussion today. There's been significant degradation to that spot in the quality of the
surf. Additionally, there's been inhibited lateral access, which has caused a significant
safety hazard when the swells come in, and Charlie's presentation, a great illustration of that.
When the swells come in, there is no safe place to re-enter the shoreline if you move to the north
at all, and there's been several close calls within the surfing community as a result of this. It's
like being dashed into a jetty along the coastline. And then thirdly, I just want to point out the
the economic value of a surf spot.
Significant studies have been done on this matter.
There's various ways to measure that,
but it's significant in this case for cottons
and also the spots to the north of that state beach
and beyond.
Continued degradation of those spots
is gonna cause economic impact
to the city of San Clemente and beyond.
This happens to be a significant
surf and cultural resource,
it's where a lot of the surf industry was born,
home to many world champions, et cetera,
and people have spoken about the Olympic event
will happen in 2028. So my strong suggestion here and much has been spoken about the solution
requirement for sand. I'm an advocate for all of that in my position here at Surpline.
And my strong suggestion is that the hard escape you minimize so that the beaches can form and the
integrity of these incredible surf spots can be reestablished while the safety issues can be
mitigated. I appreciate your time and I'm happy to be available for question or help at any time.
Thank you. Thank you. Next is John Dow, Steve Lang, Scott Thomas. John Dow.
Good morning commissioners. This is a story of failure. Your decision determines what
happens next to San Clemente's beaches. I'm John Dow with Sabre Beaches. For over four years we've
warned this commission that OCTA's approach was destroying public beaches without delivering
dependable rail protection. Yet repeated emergencies can continue. Your staff documents
the consequences three and a half acres of direct beach encroachment potentially the largest
considered in a single coastal development permit and approximately four and a half acres
of total impacts over 10 years. Beaches lost taxpayer dollars spent and the railroad still
vulnerable. We recognize improvements in yesterday's addendum. Staff acknowledges that a
sandy beach benefits public access and rail protection but requires monitoring and calls
for a study. Some progress but not a balanced solution. The fundamental problem remains,
OCTA receives a decade of armoring authorization and the public receives one-time sand placement
in the study of whether a usable beach could be maintained. Studies are not restoration,
monitoring a beach is not maintaining one, and temporary sand is not lasting mitigation.
We recognize staff's concerns about defining minimum beach width, but uncertainty is no
excuse for inaction. Require enforceable standards for maintaining a usable beach with replenishment
triggers. Also, establish a binding path to provide continuous public access from San Clemente State
Beach to San Onofre, not another study. We support protecting the railroad. The issue has never been
weathered, but how? Commissioners, adopt our coalition's enforceable amendments. Don't rely
on CDP requirements which OCTA has not earned the public's trust they will comply with and do not
guarantee protection for railroad infrastructure while leaving protection of public beaches
uncertain. This commission maintains its independence integrity and relevance by fulfilling
its coastal act obligations not by yielding political or institutional pressure. Don't
reward failure don't fail the public demand accountability and uphold the code. Thank you.
Thank you, Steve Lang, Scott Thomas, and Sarah Schneider. Steve Lang.
Thank you. I'm a long-time resident and surfer grandfather of 11 San Clemente residents and
future taxpayers. As a young man, I never dreamed that we would have a rock wall of rip-rap instead
of a beautiful sandy beach at the south end of town. We all know that 97% of natural beach
each standard punishments has been eliminated for a long time by the railroad tracks installed
in 1888, damming of our waterways and general development. Mankind has created the problem
and only mankind can resolve the problem. I echo Nathan Banda, Andy Hall, Brian Bauer,
Charlie Fox, Jeff Zane Berg, Chris Morrow, Susie Whitelaw, John Dow, Surfighter reps
and everyone else that's been speaking. If we don't resolve this soon, we should consider
changing the freeway signs from Beach City's next exit to riprap wall next exit. Please do the right
thing to your citizenry by replenishing and maintaining our beaches and we will be eternally
grateful and shower you with accolades. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Scott Thomas,
Sarah Schneider and then Rachel Stewart. Scott Thomas, we see you, we just can't hear you.
Good afternoon, thank you commissioners and staff. My name is Scott Thomas, I'm with CNC's Audubon Society.
We're here today to talk about habitat and we've talked a whole lot and we've heard a whole lot about the beach
as an iconic surf place and an iconic views and everything else, which we fully agree with and we hope you're hearing what people are saying.
But we want to talk about the fact that sand, despite the fact that doesn't look like it, really is habitat from the dry sand to the wet sand.
that supports birds in the dry sand and plant communities.
And then the wet sands, importantly,
supports benthic communities, crabs, mollusks, worms,
that support birds and support the fish,
the inshore fish populations,
which have been damaged that nobody's really talking about
too much while this, these problems.
Supporting a project that is gonna perhaps
likely be temporary, take the sand in that we put in, take it back out again, it's counterintuitive
to trying to restore those habitats and this really should be a sand replenishment habitat
restoration plan and it's going to require more thought to get there and the sand has to be fixed
before we can as much as we understand the problems of the railway, if that project keeps
And promotes and continues to love Sandra to move away.
And those communities, the bend, the communities, the bird communities, the fish communities to repeatedly get damaged. It'll never come back. So we urge you to consider habitat restoration as part of the process as well in a long term plan.
That addresses all the needs and as everybody said.
50, 80 foot worth of sand is at a minimum of what's needed in a permanent way, not a temporary way. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Sarah Schneider, Rachel Stewart, and then Joe Hart.
Sarah Schneider.
Good morning, Commissioner.
Good morning, Commissioners.
I'm Sarah Schneider,
15-year resident of San Clemente with Save Our Beaches.
I'm a community organizer and a mother of five children who grew up
surfing and swimming on San Clemente's public beaches.
I want to start with something that should be painfully obvious.
A coastline is not a beach.
A wall of boulders is not a beach,
and a railroad protected behind mountains of rock while the public beach disappears is not a success
story. It's a tragedy, and an entirely preventable one. We appreciate that Okta has added sand
replenishment to its proposal that's progress, but the science is clear. Rip rap, boulders,
accelerate beach loss, as shorelines retreat. Simply adding sand without guaranteeing that
that a sandy beach remains is not a long-term solution.
We've spent years offering Okta science, engineering,
and practical alternatives to protect both the railroad
and our beaches, and yet somehow we're still debating
whether the public gets to keep its beach.
How is that even a question?
Imagine protecting Yosemite by destroying Half Dome
or protecting Lake Tahoe by dumping tar and oil
along its shoreline.
That would be a national outrage.
Commissioners, we appreciate your staff's improvements,
one critical protection remains missing, please amend this permit application to require Okta
to maintain 50 to 80 feet of sandy beach with continuous lateral public access in front of
every seawall and rock revetment for the entire lifetime of that armoring. Not simply a promise
to add sand but an enforceable requirement to maintain a beach for as long as those rocks
remain. San Clemente's beaches are world-class treasures deserving every ounce of protection
from our state and federal agencies, including yours, please save the rail line with sand,
not rocks. You have the opportunity to be remembered as the people who saved our beaches
rather than those who allowed them to disappear. Thank you.
Thank you. Rachel Stewart, followed by Joe Hart, then Daniel Abt. Rachel Stewart.
Good morning, commissioners. My name is Rachel Stewart, and I'm here on behalf of Coastal
Environmental Rights Foundation. We support the staff's recommendations and appreciate the
report's honest assessment of what happened along the stretch of this coastline. The report shows
that the response for many years has been a series of emergency projects and shoreline armoring
while longer-term solutions have continued to be delayed. It also notes that community
commitments made more than 20 years ago pursue these longer-term solutions were never really
fully completed. That's why it's so important that this permit not simply authorize more of the same.
While protecting the rail line is important, we also need a clear path towards a lasting solution
that protects public beaches and coastal resources. We urge the Commission to maintain
strong deadlines and accountability measures so that long-term adoption planning actually moves
forward and does not get pushed further into the future. Thank you. Thank you, Joe Hart. I try to
move it to panelists if you can accept the promotion to panelists so you can speak. Joe Hart?
Okay, well, Joe. Okay. Were you able to get my video? Yes, we
have your video. Excellent. Did you want us to just play the
video? Okay. Yeah, I just play it. In South San Clemente, the
Pacific now reaches the rails. Coastal Commission staff report
this beach has shrunk from 200 feet to under 80 in less than
10 years. On Thursday, the Commission considers keeping
more than 48,000 tons of riprap, adding more and building a 1,200-foot seawall with 220
tiebacks. Rock and vertical walls reflect wave energy back onto the beach and scour
the sand at their base. Every storm brings more rock and less beach. The trains have
to run. The beach has to stay. There's a better way to do both. The SECS Dune and Bluff
system sets precast modules in a single row at the toe of the rail embankment, section
by section, without stopping rail service.
Each curved, apertured face is designed to attenuate wave energy and reduce run-up, overtopping,
reflection and scour.
Then it's buried under the new sand and planted with native dune vegetation, a hybrid dune
that works with nourishment, not against it.
SECS. Restorative hybrid infrastructure systems were tested at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Engineering Research and Development Center in San Clemente wave conditions, including
the 100-year storm. And, in hybrid dune testing, the beach profile rose in every test case.
No scour. No module movement. Now look at the footprint. At the same 12-foot
protection height, riprap spreads 39 to 45 feet of rock across the beach. The
SECS core is 23 feet wide and it's buried under the dune. That's zero feet
of rock on the beach. Removable at any time and built to keep San Clemente's
beach and its rail line for generations. SECS is ready to deliver it.
Restorative hybrid infrastructure.
OK, thank you, Joe.
We have about a total of 13 speakers left,
but only six are showing available as of right now.
So next we'll go to Daniel Apt, then Andrew Payne,
then Andy Purnell.
Thank you, my name's Daniel Apt, and I've been a resident
of San Clemente for over 19 years.
I'm also founder and president of Elanio,
a small environmental consulting firm based in San Clemente
and focused on stormwater management
and coastal zone management.
I also have a master's degree in marine affairs and policy from the University of Miami.
Cotton has been my home surf rate for more than 20 years,
so I've witnessed the loss of what used to be
a significantly wide beach over that time period.
I also frequently visit St. Clemente State Beach.
We are slowly losing the wave at cotton's and our access to it.
I've witnessed the placement of more and more rock to protect the train tracks,
and the loss of our beach and how that has impacted the wave at
cottons, as well as how dangerous it's become to serve
here, to the rock and beach loss. Rock and seawalls cause
waves to scour away the sand in front of them. The significant
amount of rock that has been placed to date is not working.
Otherwise, we would not be here. More rock and seawall without
ongoing sand replenishment will not solve the issue and only
cause more scour and more erosion. So only get worse as
no has predicted more frequent coastal flooding in the future.
50 years ago this year the California Coastal Act was created to ensure that California's coast
remains a healthy, accessible, and sustainable natural resource for all Californians both now
and in the future. It is the legal framework for protecting, conserving, and managing California's
coastline. The staff recommendation will not adequately protect or conserve the coastal
resources in South San Clemente. Please direct staff to revise the recommendations to require
OCTA to maintain a dry beach of at least 50 feet wide in front of the armoring for the duration
of the permit term, keep rock off the public beach, ensure that all previous rock that has been placed
and any future rock is kept on OCTA property and not placed or kept on the people of California's
beach, and require a long-term study and plan for the railroad that will be protective of
California's coastal resources. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Andrew Payne followed by
to Andy Purnell, then Amanda Quintanilla.
Andy Purnell is on phone, so when it is your turn,
we'll go ahead and make sure you unmute
by dialing a star six.
Andrew Payne.
Hey, good afternoon, commission.
Thanks for letting me speak.
I'm a 15-year resident of San Clemente.
I've enjoyed listening to all the presentations
and comments, and it just seems crazy that,
you know, just plain talk that we're even discussing this.
It's clearly obvious that the riprap doesn't work
and we're here because OCTA hasn't done
what they've said they are gonna do since 2003
and just keep prolonging this emergency.
It's like, Sand is the obvious answer.
Why are we not doing it?
And a lot of this can sound, at least to me,
like rich people and they're out of touch
rich people problems,
but I ran a two bedroom apartment in San Clemente
and I can remember, you know, less than 10 years ago,
sitting on the beach with my young daughters
and we'd be waving at the trains as they go by.
Now that same beach has zero sand
since the 2021 riprap placement.
So to me, it just, it seems like an obvious solution.
You know, I'm sure that's painful for people
that are doing budgets,
but there's only, it seems to be one thing that works.
So let's do that.
Thanks for, let me speak.
Thank you, next is Andy Purnell, Amanda Quintanilla,
and then A.J. Zuzino.
I've allowed you to speak, Andy Purnell.
Okay, I'll try star six,
because, okay, Andy will come back to you.
Let's try Amanda.
I promoted you to panelist, Amanda Quintanilla.
Excuse me.
Don't panic, it didn't work for me.
Let's try.
Amanda, if you can accept.
Okay, I see you declined it.
Let's try A.J. Zunino.
Zunino, excuse me.
A.J. Zunino, we promote you to panelists.
Hi folks.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi folks, my name is A.J. Zunino.
I'm 30 years old and I live in San Clemente, California.
I wanna firstly thank you all for your work you do
for our cities, state, and country.
I moved to San Clemente four years ago
to build a life with my partner, Juliet.
We both work nine to five, Monday through Friday,
to support a lifestyle outside in the ocean and at the beach.
With that said, unfortunately,
the beaches are disappearing, eroding,
and not being cared for.
The sad reality is the infrastructure
we are here discussing today is ruining our natural world.
The infrastructure was built at a time
when the knowledge of the negative side effects
wasn't commonly known and shared.
That is not the case today.
We all know how erosion works.
We understand the side effects of seawalls,
riprap and armoring.
I plead and ask the representatives in front of me today,
do the right thing and use the knowledge we all share now.
We're asking for three things.
Maintain a beach.
Keep rock off the public beach.
make the long-term plan count.
The required long-term study should name a preferred plan
with a schedule by 2030, with a draft in 2029.
Require OCTA to keep a dry, sandy beach
at least 50 to 80 feet wide.
And lastly, OCTA's emergency permits
told it to keep the Cypress Shores Rock
on its own property, it didn't.
make OCTA pull its rock back onto its own land
and keep it there.
That is my time.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
We're gonna go back to Andy Parnell real quick.
Andy, do you think you could try to unmute yourself?
And then after that, we'll go to Julia Chunher
and then Wendy Morris and then Slater Strang.
And then we'll try Amanda Quintanilla again.
Okay, so Andy, it looks like we're still having issues.
we're gonna go to Julia Chen here.
Great, I have some slides, perfect.
Yes, we have one.
So good afternoon, I'm Julia Chen here
with the California Coastal Protection Network,
a unique advocacy organization dedicated
protecting California's greatest natural asset,
our magnificent coastline for all generations.
I've been working on these issues such as sea level rise
and coastal erosion for a very long time
as I shared last month.
Unfortunately, as a staff report details,
OCTA has helped create this disaster
by not fulfilling their previous permit requirements
and they should be held accountable
to the beach going public.
As submitted in our letter,
the conditions need to be amended
to require a minimum beach width of 50 feet
in front of the armoring for the length of the permit
or as long as armoring is in place.
As OCTA's own report demonstrates,
sand in front of the riprap will help it perform better.
Next slide.
I learned this the hard way
during my site visit to the location,
which is not during a huge tide or a swell event
with much to my surprise,
I ended up soaking wet in the middle of the tracks.
We play that first video.
And yeah, and next, there we go, perfect.
We can stop there for a second.
This permit needs to be strengthened
with firm limits and triggers,
such as a 15,000 ton cap on maintenance
and enforceable requirements for long-term planning
to prevent more of the same kicking the can down the road.
Your purpose here today is to enforce the Coastal Act.
According to California Public Resources Code
Section 3007.5, when two principles of the Coastal Act
are in conflict, you're supposed to take the action
most protective of coastal resources.
This is not an either-or, this is a both-and situation.
OCTA needs to be forced to think long-term,
much like SANDAG is doing in San Diego.
Next slide.
One more slide.
Lastly, you can see the beach profiles from Cypress Shores
here showing the vertical beach loss.
So it's not just beach width that's been lost,
but the sand is now at least 10 feet lower
than it used to be.
This is over, like the blue-green is from 2020
and the red-black is from now.
And those seven years has been most inspiring to Donna.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you, Julia.
Wendy Morris, oh, Slater Strang, then Wendy Morris.
Then we'll try Amanda Quintanilla.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can hear you.
Hi, my name is Slater Strang
I'm 12 years old. My grandpa John Dow has been telling me about what's happening to
the beaches in San Clemente and honestly I don't get it. He told me that the
OCTA spent millions of dollars something huge rocks on our beaches to
protect the train tracks. But now a lot of the beaches gone and the train tracks
still aren't safe. Wayne told me that I said wait how does that make any sense?
Then he explained that having a wide, sandy beach actually helps protect the train tracks
because the sand absorbs energy from the waves.
So I asked him, then why don't they just do that?
He told me that the OCTTA hasn't done a very good job planning ahead or working with other
people to find a better solution.
I mean, I'm only 12, but it seems pretty obvious that spending millions of dollars destroying
a beach and still not fixing the problem isn't a very good plan, and it's our taxpayers might
have their spending.
I love going to the beach, and I want the beaches to still be there in the motor and for the other kids too.
I know the train tracks need to be protected, but shouldn't we be able to protect the train tracks without destroying the beach?
So please make the OCTA put the sand back, keep the beaches sandy, and stop dumping more rocks.
Because if this doesn't make any sense to me, just a young kid, maybe it's time to try something different. Thank you.
Thank you. Good job.
All right, Wendy Morris and then Amanda Quintanilla
Wendy Morris, are you gonna mute yourself?
Wendy I see you in our panelists. We just need you to unmute
You try to unmute yourself. Okay
Yeah, we see you flick the camera on and off, but we need you to hit the mic icon
We can hear you
Okay, so let's move on. Let's see if Amanda
Would like to speak Amanda Quintana
okay, it doesn't look like she wants to speak either.
Wendy Morris, I see you on camera, okay, I see you on muted now. There we go.
Thank you so much.
My name is Wendy Morris. I live in San Clemente.
I'm really a lucky person because I live in California,
and therefore I had the California Coastal Commission to protect our beaches and our ocean.
I'm really happy about that.
I'm grateful to you guys,
but that's why I'm calling in today.
I'm requesting that you deny that the current request
by OCTA to obtain the permit ongoing mitigation
to restore a 50 to 80 foot sandy beach
in front of any type of revetment,
like a funnel or a rip-rap.
And I think that we can have both a railroad track
and a sandy beach.
It's just that it's not been required in the past.
So I'm counting on the Coastal Commission
to require OCTA to, when they protect their railroad tracks,
that they also provide a sandy beach to our residents.
It's one of our beautiful natural resources
and we need to have it available for everyone,
the access and availability of the Sandy Beach.
So please change this application
and make them do an ongoing maintenance
of 50 to 80 foot Sandy Beach in front of the railroad tracks
on the seabird side of the railroad tracks
to have the public have access to our beautiful beaches.
Thank you for giving me this time to give my input.
So thank you very much.
Bye.
Thank you, bye.
Louis D'Angelo, Catherine Avila, Jeff Benton,
Bella Sagarholm, Elizabeth Taylor, Tony Nelson,
and Marina Maldonado.
If you guys are there raise your hand function.
Okay, let's try Amanda Quintanina on the phone.
Yes, good afternoon.
My name's Amanda Quintanina.
I'm a San Clemente resident of over 55 years
and I support this project
of the Orange County Transportation Authority
and Southern California Rail Authority.
I strongly support the sand placement
of up to approximately 690,000 cubic yards of sand
and of beach nourishment.
As an engaged residents of Southern Orange County issues
for the last four decades,
I support the OCTA efforts in securing this rail line
and protecting the low sand rail corridor
while mitigating the project.
Mr. Johnson stated the critical storms
of the great El Nino storms of 1983 and 1993.
But I have to mention the effects
of the Hurricane Hillary of 2023
and the recent hurricane, Marie.
At the January 26th, January, 2026,
Southern Orange County Beach Coalition,
Dr. Brett Sanders stated the short and fast waves
chopped up the shoreline at Doheny State Beach
after the sand replacement of 64,000 cubic yards of sand.
The negative effects of hurricanes
have devastated our beaches as well.
Years have been wasted by misinformation
coming from certain groups that have vilified the OCTA.
I've spent years of clarifying misinformation
coming from these groups.
I support the efforts of the South Orange County Beach
Coalition, in which I have attended their meetings
as a concerned resident.
I want to say that our beaches are very
important to our residents, as myself.
And I strongly support working collaboratively
with the OCPA, and since they have been great partners
to our city for the past, for over decades.
Thank you very much for your time,
and I'm so sorry for this delay in me speaking.
Thank you for your time.
No worries, thank you, things happen.
Tracy Edwards, if you can unmute yourself, please.
Hey, go ahead. Hello?
Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
My name is Tracy Edwards,
and I'm a longtime Cinkelman resident
and former competitive longboard surfer.
I raised my family here
and now manage the Shorecliff's Beach Club
for our beach community.
The railroad sits directly behind our property
and beach line.
I'm deeply concerned about the OCTA's continued placement
of rock revetments and riprap along our coastline
without adequate sand replenishment.
I have personally witnessed the loss
of approximately 40 yards of beach
over the past four decades, 40 yards, it's incredible.
We cannot keep dumping rocks on our beaches
without enough sand replenishment.
The massive rock structures consume valuable beach space.
They contribute to scouring
and they do nothing to address the fundamental problem.
We're running out of sand, we are running out.
Every additional rock revetment further hardens
our coastline, potentially accelerating the loss
of our usable sandy beach.
And that is what the Coastal Commission is about,
offering usable sandy beach to the public
and we're losing it.
I understand the importance
of protecting our railroad corridor,
but why aren't we prioritizing alternatives,
such as a properly engineered seawall
directly against the tracks,
combined with substantial sand replenishment.
A seawall located closer to the tracks
could preserve more beach space
than these sprawling rock preventments.
Combined with meaningful ongoing sand replenishment program,
this deserves serious engineering
and environmental consideration.
We need to stop treating the symptoms
and start addressing the actual problem, the lack of sand.
OCTA must evaluate the impact of these rock installations
on our entire coastline, including scouring,
wave reflection and the loss of public beach.
We shouldn't have to choose between protecting all railroad
and preserving our beaches.
Protect the tracks with smarter engine range
like the SDS Highway Jam system.
Yes, we need to protect the railroad in a way
that also protects our coastline
and everyone who lives here.
Thank you.
Thank you, no more speakers.
Okay, great, thank you very much.
Now, I would like to allow OCTA,
they'd requested five minutes for a rebuttal
If you'd like to come up now, sir.
Thank you.
That's five minutes on the clock, please.
Just press the button on the microphone.
Thank you, Chair Harmon.
Members, I'll take two minutes
and then ask Supervisor Foley to take the final three.
If I can have slide seven back up
and I can begin talking while that is going on.
I wanted to reiterate the hard work
that your staff has put into this.
If this was an easy solution,
we would have been done with this two years ago.
and the balance of public infrastructure
and public access to the coast is critical.
And the amount of work that everyone has put into this
is critical, and we appreciate the comments
from the city of San Clemente as well.
I would want to just reiterate two things
in my one minute that is left,
which is that we have worked very hard
with our partners at the California State Transportation
Agency to fund the work that we're proposing
under this permit today.
They recognize the emergency work.
They recognize the importance of this public infrastructure
and rail corridor, and the same with the federal government
to match that on a one to two basis.
We do firmly believe using the Commission sand
calculator process that the proposed 690,000 cubic yards
of sand does match the 30 year life
that we're proposing on the seawall.
We also believe that we are going to build that seawall
as close to the railroad track as possible.
We've heard that numerous times.
So, our request is to, again, accept all of the conditions
as provided by your staff with one modification,
a longer term on the seawall,
and a formalized check-in process
to make sure that we are achieving
all of our common goals.
And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Supervisor Foley.
Thank you, and thanks for the opportunity to close out here.
Stand on the beach is the solution.
We all agree on that.
And so, this opportunity here for you
to approve this permit with the amendments
and the conditions is our chance
to get sand on the beaches faster
because we have information that the dredge
that we have access to is actually in Oregon
and can be contracted with and moved
to San Clemente in January.
But if we delay this hearing in any way,
we will not be able to make that expedited
dredging opportunity available to us.
And then we'll be back on this crazy cycle
where we have to wait like three years
for the dredger that the Army Corps contracts with.
So we're committed to the long-term beach restoration plan,
whether it's working with the state of California
to invest in our own California dredger,
working with our beach coalition,
with OCTA, with all of the stakeholders here
who care deeply and with the Coastal Commission.
And so with that, we ask that you approve this item
with the request for the 30-year term
and that we get to work getting sand on our beaches.
So thank you all for your opportunity to speak here
and your excellent staff and all of the listening
to all the public comments today.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
With that, we will close the public hearing
and we do need to take a break,
so we are going to break for lunch.
If you could all be back at 1.45
and to my fellow commissioners,
could I please admonish you not to speak about this item
to one another or to any members of the public
during our lunch break.
See you back here at 1.45, thank you.
Okay everyone, we will return to session.
Thank you so much for your patience.
I could ask you all in the back
just to quiet down a little bit, thank you.
So, we just closed the public hearing
and I will turn to our staff
to see if they have a response.
Not sure who wants to start, but.
All right.
Well first, we just wanted to thank Chair Banda,
the city of San Clemente, State Parks, Surf Riders,
Save Our Beaches, Orange County Coast Keeper,
Bring Back Our Beaches, California State Parks Foundation,
CNCage Audubon Society, Coastal Environmental Rights Fund,
California Protection Network and anyone else who came out
and spoke today, I wanted to first start off
just to clarify the applicant's proposal
with regard to ROC, am I not loud enough, thank you.
The conditions, let's see, so the vast majority
of ROC proposed has already been placed.
The conditions that we're recommending
require some removal of ROC and study
of additional ROC removal as well as implementation
of such revetment minimization if it's safe
to do so. Additional rock allowances are limited to two approximately 500 and 300
foot linear segments in area 4 and the minimum amount of rock necessary to address potential
future emergency situations with a maximum of 500 tons per 100 linear feet per occurrence
during the permit term. The emergency maintenance program requires the permittees to report
on such occurrences and mitigate for replacement through a CDP or CDP amendment.
We continue to support having a maintenance component to the proposed project so that
urgent repairs can be carried out with an approved program.
The 15,000 ton cap that was noted during comments was just for this El Nino season.
Going forward we concluded that the 500 tons per linear 100 foot limit along with the limitation
to remain within the authorized footprint and only within the areas subject to this
permit would more effectively address the issues raised by maintenance activities.
Should the applicant succeed these limits, including changes that result in redevelopment
of any rock slope area, they would need to return for an amendment to address these new
impacts.
There were multiple requests to require a more landward alignment of the proposed seawall
in area 4.
As proposed, the seawall would be aligned a little farther landward than the midpoint
of existing rip-rap in the southern part of that area.
The recommended conditions already require the seawall to be located as far landward
as feasible and if it's feasible for the rail to be closed during construction requires
that the seawall be moved inland.
The feasibility piece would be determined by the executive director upon receipt and
review and the final seawall plans.
In addition, state parks requested that the applicants be required to invest in infrastructure
that would support regional sand projects.
The long-term railroad adaptation study requires that OCTA look into this and other long-term
strategies.
In addition, as conditioned, the applicants are required to partner with and support local,
regional and other relevant sand replenishment and coastal resiliency projects.
A few comments mentioned the potential in lieu fees calculated by commission staff.
To clarify, the $107 million number is the potential in-loofy using the Commission's
typical approach to armoring mitigation for both the beach lost underneath and behind
the armoring and the estimate for the impacts from preventing sand from entering the literal
cell.
It is important to note these potential in-loofies only cover the impacts that we can easily
quantify.
The impacts to erosion in front of the armoring from end effects and scour and impacts from
preventing the public from walking along the beach because of the walk protruding so far
onto the beach are not included in those in-loofees and would be considered more qualitatively
by commission.
Long-term studies.
So there was a suggestion of requiring the long-term adaptation study even sooner than
four years and requiring that the study result in a preferred alternative.
But given the complexity and coordination required here, we think that four years is
appropriate and that it is also a date moved up from an earlier 2034 date that had been
required in a previous CDP.
We also note the condition requires a timetable for implementation of a plan and an identification
of potential funding mechanisms.
OCTA and CALSTA have indicated that there is currently $9 million available for adaptation
planning for the tracks. For context, $300 million was allocated by the legislature in
2022 for the planning and design phases of the Del Mar Rail relocation. A high level
relocation study was completed by Caltrans in 2007 for adaptation alternatives for threatened
rail segments in San Diego, Orange County and L.A. County. We aren't aware of any planning
efforts during the past 20 years. In essence, this massive undertaking has not yet started.
For additional context, the Del Mar Rail Relocation planning effort has been an active environmental
and design for nearly ten years and has still not resulted in a preferred alternative.
With regard to the use of sand as a protection measure considered in emergency CDPs by the
Commission, when the Commission issued an ECTP in 2025 for a part of this project,
Two hundred and forty thousand cubic yards of sand was authorized along with the areas
one and two revetment restacking.
In addition, the most recent ECDP for emergency maintenance that is effective until the commission
acts on the CDP includes sand as one of the protection measures that OCTA MetroLink are
allowed to take to address immediate threats to the rail.
As for expediting sand replacement projects, sand compatibility and opportunistic use programs
or scoops provide that sort of mechanism. It is anticipated that both city of San Clemente
and Orange County scoops will be potential avenues for more rapid sand placement here
in the near term. As to requiring the applicants maintain a specific beach width, commission
staff thought long and hard about this question. Ultimately, we don't know what it would take
in terms of sand placement to restore something like a 50-foot beach width. This is in large
part because we don't have enough data.
As conditioned there will likely be better information and understanding of how the system
works after a 10-year term given the potential for additional El Nino events.
Staff are requiring two sand placement events and incentivizing additional sand by crediting
a year of authorization for 70,000 cubic yards of sand for up to five additional years.
This is one of the main reasons why this is a limited term authorization, however, we
are open to any feedback the commission has on this point.
Further, the commission's ecologist thinks there is high uncertainty regarding the potential
cumulative impact of ongoing sand placement events on nearshore biological resources such
as surfgrass and rocky reefs that support a variety of fish and invertebrates including
a recreational lobster fishery.
Place sand is expected to contribute to habitat, scour, burial, and turbidity over a short
term.
However, the length and intensity of those impacts is uncertain.
Placement has potential to disrupt potential local population dynamics, successional processes,
and convert habitat from rocky reef to potentially intermittently covered to a more consistently
covered system.
The potential area that placed sand will travel and accumulate is also quite uncertain and
depends on factors like the amount of sand, sand placement area, sand grain size, oceanographic
conditions like swell and current patterns and strength, as well as sand placement frequency,
depth, span, and spatial intervals.
The limited term for placement allows for monitoring that will allow us to better understand
biological impacts to this nearshore system.
In addition, regarding the 10-15 year term limit, given the significance of the rail
line regarding passenger service, freight movement, and national security, and the demonstrated
vulnerability of the rail in its current location, as has been demonstrated by the rail line
closures and the photos and videos shown today and during previous commission meetings, the
10-15 year permit term will provide OCTA and MetroLink with time to investigate the feasibility
of relocation of the rail out of the hazardous area and the feasibility of additional sand
placement.
It also provides time to monitor the impacts of the proposed 690,000 cubic yard sand placement
and potential additional placement if that occurs.
Such monitoring is necessary to account for the impacts of the mitigation.
A 20 to 30 year approval term will make it more difficult to shift gears if there are
unforeseen circumstances and impacts that are more significant than anticipated.
The permit conditions also allow for an extension of the permit term for an additional five
years from 10 if OCTA and Metrolink place additional sand during the approval period.
During this time, commission staff and OCTA and Metrolink staff will continue to work
together to identify feasible solutions for potential sand placement and other alternatives
to maintain public access. Prior to the end of the permit term, we expect to bring this
back to the commission with an amendment to potentially or likely extend the term of the
permit with appropriate mitigation that will be informed by the monitoring requirements
which will be carried out over the next 10 to 15 years. As we've heard during the public
comment for this item, public comment period for this item, the impacts caused by protecting
the rail line are significant. The 10-15 year term provides a hard backstop to check in
and make adjustments to ensure public access and coastal resources are adequately protected.
And I'll pass it back to Kate. Thank you, Danny. I wanted to take a moment
and talk a little bit about cost. During OCTA's presentation, there was a table that came
up about the additional costs associated with this with the conditions. And just to be clear,
We haven't really seen that table before.
It's the first time.
So we haven't had a chance to dig in or really think too much about it.
So with that caveat, I did want to point out that two of the main items on that list are
not actually required under this permit, and that's the voluntary sand placement for regional.
That was meant to be an incentive.
If there is money to be had for regional sand placement, we were going to give additional
years of authorization as an incentive to do so, but it's not required.
And then the other is the removal of the rail line, which is also not required as part of
this permit. So to take a step back, you know, this is one, as we have said, in our
staff presentation, one of the largest armoring projects this commission has
ever considered. It's significant. And the costs to our beaches, the local
recreational economy, and also the community, as you heard from many today,
are also large and real, and it's borne by the public, that cost. So mitigation
to be clear does cost money, it is not free.
The expectation is that to mitigate
for these significant impacts that we've identified
will cost, you know, will cost,
OCTA is the applicant but you know,
and the funding source,
it just costs money to do these things.
But we also understand that that,
with OCTA being a public agency,
that is, it's an important consideration.
They do provide a public benefit with transportation.
It's important to this community as well
that there's transportation here.
And so in light of that,
as we were developing the mitigation package,
that was a key consideration for staff,
which is why we really focused on sand placement,
which was already proposed as part of this project,
in part to protect the tracks,
but also we'll have public access and sand benefit.
So that's why we made that the cornerstone
of our mitigation package here.
It's doable, it's funded, and that made sense to us.
So, but it's important to acknowledge
that this is, you know, a one-time sand placement
is a temporary mitigation measure.
And as you heard Danny say earlier,
we don't yet have enough information to understand
how the sand will move once it gets on the beach,
how long it will stick around or be useful to the,
you know, for our public access benefits
and for protection of the rail benefits.
We really need some time to study that,
which is why we had a shorter timeframe for authorization.
So we give ourselves some time to study it
with the intent of having more information
for the next authorization term.
Should there be one with the intent of maybe going
in the direction of looking at Beechwith as a requirement.
So, I want to thank everyone for their participation today.
We agree that the situation here is dire.
It kind of highlights all the challenges
we as a commission are facing.
And in this moment with El Nino,
I think that's just more stark than ever.
We have to figure out how we are going to
adapt our coastlines in a way that still provides
the services and benefits that we all have
grown accustomed to, but we don't lose our beaches
as a result, and we are really in danger of that happening.
And so here today, we are trying to find a solution
as a bridge to, again, to a long-term, ideally,
relocation of this line once mother nature
gives us no choice, hopefully before that.
But these are the challenges that we're gonna face
as a body, and it's gonna get harder and harder
and more intense, and we have to get really serious
about where we can move back when we can,
because as you heard today from these community members,
the beaches are critical.
They're critical to our identity as Californians,
to these communities, to their economies,
and it's something we have to really put
first and foremost in our minds.
So I think with that, I will, again,
thank everybody for coming out today.
I wanna thank OCTA and those involved
for your work on this with us.
It's been a long haul.
I suspect we will be working together
in the future much closer.
And I also wanna give a huge shout out to my staff
because this has been a very heavy lift,
a lot of really hard work.
And these guys plus many more of the ones sitting
in the audience today have put in a lot of time and effort
and really thought hard about how to thread the needle here.
and you guys did great work.
So I just wanna say thank you to you as well.
And I will turn it back to you, Chair,
and we are available for questions
and whatever you all have for us.
Thank you very much.
So I'm gonna open the discussion.
I'm building a list.
So to my colleagues, if you'd like to get on that list,
please catch my eye and we're gonna begin
with Commissioner Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to everybody for being here.
Thank you to staff since our last meeting
in Oceanside, where I got to chat with Mr. Smith.
I've been geeking out on sand replenishment.
And as a newly minted Google expert,
I'm prepared to ask some hard questions today, so.
But thank you to OCTA, thank you to Supervisor Foley.
Yes, another great day for America.
San Clemente leadership, staff, amazing, amazing work.
And thank you to everybody else for being here.
Thank you for the collaboration
and the commitment, more importantly,
to address this critical issue.
I also want to acknowledge the concerns
that so many have expressed
about the loss of our beaches
and the impact on coastal access,
recreation, public safety,
and the character of your communities
as a elected and local coastal community,
I certainly understand that.
We lose our beach, we lose our city.
I understand how deeply these issues affect your residents,
your businesses, and everyone who treasures our coastline.
Our beaches are not just a natural resource,
they're part of who we are,
and we all know once they're gone,
we're not getting them back.
And I also want to acknowledge that the ball was dropped,
plain and simple.
I do appreciate Supervisor Foley and others
addressing the history of how we got here and the issue of accountability head-on.
Because acknowledging where we fell short is important, but what matters most now is
learning from those mistakes, taking responsibility, ensuring we don't repeat them.
So again, as a newly minted expert on revetments and seawalls, I just have to ask, because
we saw a video earlier, as OCTA evaluated some of these modern technologies like the
The one we saw as well as approaches used in Japan
and other countries as potentially more effective,
resilient than the traditional rock revetments
and seawalls.
Please turn on the mic, thank you.
Thank you, through Chair Harmon,
yes, Commissioner Jackson.
We've met with some of those folks,
we're happy to look at alternative methods as appropriate.
Our proposal is a pressed in pile
because it can be close to the rail line
without closing the rail line.
but we're not continually, or we're not entirely focused
on one idea, we do believe that there are some options.
The one that was presented earlier with the flow through
we have met with that vendor, we don't believe
it has the structural sustainability for it,
but we're happy to have conversations,
understanding that time is of the essence as well.
No, I appreciate the fact that you're looking
outside of the norms of the typical revetments and rocks,
because I think that's important.
That's all the questions I've had, thank you, sir.
You know, I'm hardened moving forward,
because this is hard as we know.
I'm hardened by the cooperation, the collaboration,
and as I mentioned before,
the commitment of all parties to move this forward.
The commissioner, or excuse me,
our county supervisor mentioned the West Coast dredger.
I think that's a must,
because if we as a state are gonna be serious
about long-term coastal resilience
and beach replenishment,
that we've got to have one on our coast.
It's that significant.
I'd also encourage us, once you start down this rabbit hole,
you get your algorithm starts changing.
And I've been studying North Carolina
and their large-scale beach restoration efforts.
And so you look at, OCTA is proposing
690,000 square feet of cubic sand.
North Carolina's Oak Island recently
placed nearly 2 million cubic yards.
NAGS head approximately four million cubic yards. And so understanding our
coastal conditions are different, more sand doesn't necessarily mean better
results, I think the scale coordination and long-term planning are certainly
worth examining. Are we thinking big enough? Are we planning for the next
decades or simply responding to the next emergency? I know the staff is already
addressing these challenges, I want to encourage staff and permitting agencies
to continue considering today's realities when evaluating applications, because we know
rising seas, accelerating coastal erosion, and threats to critical infrastructure demand
that our permitting process recognize the urgency of the challenges that we're facing.
We have to balance environmental protections with practical, timely solutions that protect
the ocean, our coast, and critical infrastructure.
And part of the problem, I think, is we've been playing checkers.
For decades we've been playing checkers, reacting to one crisis after another, applying temporary
fixes and addressing problems only when they become emergencies.
So I think everyone recognizes time to start playing chess.
And I think strategically planning for the long term, anticipating future challenges,
establishing dedicated check-ins I think locally and with commissions, I think that's critical
because the local community has to understand
the significance of what's happening,
and they have to understand what it is you're doing
and why sometimes passing these tax measures is important.
Because we have to rely on additional revenue to...
At the end of the day, it's about the money,
if we're ever going to achieve any lasting solutions.
So, I think this plan reflects a shift in the mindset
that we have to get ahead of the problem
instead of constantly playing catch up.
So I applaud everybody for helping us get to this point.
We all recognize that we're now at the point
where we need to move forward strategically
rather than simply just reacting to the next crisis.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Through the chair, Director Huckelbridge,
can we get that slide back up
and just see what the magnitude is without the two items
that you alluded to.
And in the meantime-
Sure, could you guys bring up OCTA's presentation?
It was one of the last slides, I'm not sure.
And in the meantime, I'll sort of say where I'm at.
I found a couple of the slides very, very compelling
about what has happened on the coast
with all the rock that's been put down each time.
That was really moving to me.
And I think, you know, what's the old saying,
insanity, you're insane if you keep doing the same thing
over and over again.
I am going to ask politely
that the railroad consider this notion
of a 50-foot beach be maintained.
It appears that that is what
the environment needs and wants,
because it looks like when that one slide came through,
year after year, all the rock that went down,
more went away, rock went down, more went away,
rock went, and I just, to put more rock down
without maintaining the beach,
I just, I can't really support that.
So, I would encourage my other commissioners
to join me in that.
I know it's money, I know it's not what you all wanted,
but I think we're at a crossroads now.
We don't wanna bring you back in a year.
We don't wanna bring you back in 24 months.
That seems like a waste of everybody's time.
I think we're at a moment now
where we can put something forward
that could be a win-win.
I know it'll be money.
Can we just look at, and that's sort of that piece for me.
Can we look at this slide, Director?
Yes, so that first, the first line there,
And again, we're seeing this for the first time.
So please, like we haven't checked,
but the first bullet there is permit extensions.
So that was the, that's $75 million.
That is the additional incentive
that we provided in the permit.
Or if they do additional sand placement
up to 350,000 cubic yards,
they can get additional years of authorization.
But it's not required by the permit.
Past emergency work, that is required by the permit.
that includes both permitted and unpermitted work.
And that's 16.5.
16.5, construction best management practices,
that's included.
Okay.
Potential seawall removal, 75 million, not required.
Okay.
The cypressure eventment footprint minimization is required.
And that's 15, it's small print, that's 15?
15 and then 15.
And those two items, just to remind you,
are essentially to look at minimizing the amount of rock
is now on the beach in different ways.
So the first one is they put,
there was a rock dump done at Cypress Shore,
and the idea is can you restack and pull it back
and engineer it better so that the footprint is reduced.
Then area four riprap removal,
that's where they will be putting a seawall.
Once they put a seawall in there,
they don't need the riprap in front of it,
they can remove that rock and that's that requirement.
But how much sand is going in front of that?
Because what we saw is that when it hits that wall,
it just shreds everything.
So that that is one of the areas in which I so it's that's like 450,000 cubic yards.
It's a very large sand placement will go in front of that wall.
It is true, you know, it's going to provide protection for some period of time.
And I think part of our challenge is we is that we are still learning about
exactly how sand moves through the system and how long we might expect.
And there's a lot of uncertainty with weather and things like that.
So and then studies and monitoring all of those things on the list are required.
So you're at 39 plus 25.
What's the last line?
25, 28.
28.
28.
Is what it says.
So 39 and 28.
And 150 comes out.
OK.
Well, the two big numbers came out.
That's the good news.
But again, my take on this is we have a moment in time
when we can hopefully stave off further beach erosion.
And to get my support, we're going
And I have to have a guarantee that there be a 50 foot maintenance of the beach and
the sand.
I just think it's part of what we all took an oath to do, to preserve the coastline.
And if we approve things that further deteriorate the coastline, I don't know what we're doing.
So that's my take on it.
Thank you.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Thank you, chair. Also, thanks to the E.D.
And for your comments about the cost of the public.
Thank you, people showing up today.
I'm also happy to see this moving forward.
And I'm really looking forward to seeing beach sand on the beach.
But I'm also concerned about that sand remaining on the beach.
And so I'm going to align myself with Commissioner Lomar's comments
on beach maintenance.
I think I'm largely sympathetic to the comments from NGO groups,
including Surfrider and Orange County Coastkeeper.
And I think the three asks by Surfrider, of course,
the maintenance of the beach, I would say, you know,
in order for me to support, like you, commissioner,
I would be looking for at least 50 feet.
In my mind, this is not technically infeasible,
and therefore it's required for us to do that.
I think the third ask they had as well,
which is very important, I think,
is the naming of a preferred plan.
I would hate to see this in 10 or 12 years coming out,
and it's just an option A through D,
And we don't really know where we're going at that point.
And so I, you know, to me that is also important,
but first and foremost,
I think that beach maintenance is a must.
And so I'll just leave it at that.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yeah, I appreciate the conversation.
I think for me to start walking that path
is the director said the cost
is gonna fall on the public one way or another,
regardless of which decision we make today,
whether it's the cost of the sand
or the economic impact of not having a beach
or grants likely to come from the state
and other public agencies.
At the end of the day, it's the public's investment.
Do we have any estimate for a 50-foot beach,
what it would cost to maintain that per year over time?
Has any of that analysis been done?
No, not to this point.
I think we are anticipating the data being required
through the monitoring plan,
when they do the sand placement,
we'll provide some of that information
so that we could more adequately assess what it would take,
how much it might cost, all of the things,
I mean, there's a lot that would need to go
into a plan for beach width.
And so I think we need at least some years of monitoring
before we would feel comfortable understanding
what the cost is and even what it would look like
in terms of how often do we place sand at what volumes.
So the technical side as well as the feasibility and cost side?
I think that's the tough point for me.
I wouldn't mind it if I knew what that cost was going to be
and what I'm expecting of the agency
because we are putting that on a public agency
and an expectation that they find a way to find those dollars.
And whether or not that's realistic is a question I have.
And with that, to the question of the time frame,
I know that they're requesting a longer time frame.
And with a condition of 50 feet, if we're going to do that,
I would be more comfortable with the longer time frame
because that's a massive investment.
And if you're going to get the public to sign off,
they're not going to say a huge number for 10 years.
They may say a huge number for 20 or 30.
So just in terms of how this conversation goes,
I think that's the key piece for me,
understanding the long-term impact to community,
because at the end of the day, they're
going to carry this in one way or another.
And so wanting to see, even if that 50 feet is half the length,
restoring what's been lost to an extent to start right but to me there's a
trade-off on timeline there so I just wanted to signal that to the rest of my
colleagues if we're gonna expect an investment we should also allow for a
longer return period for that thank you very much Vice Chair Hart I'm sorry I
just want to start by saying one of my concerns is that there's a lot of
recommendations regarding study but then once the studies are done I'm not
seeing that there's a requirement to align actions with the studies so I was
I wanted to ask staff so your intention is to study as Kate and it's of course
in the report and Christina you just said the same this study what the what
how and what it would cost to maintain the what everyone is saying is sort of a
a minimum 50 feet of Sandy Beach.
So in my mind, I would like to see something
in our action today that actually would then
turn the study into action.
What would it take to do that?
I have a couple of thoughts.
We thought about the very same thing.
And I think the challenge we have is it's difficult
to require something that we don't know
what it's gonna come back with yet.
It's one of the reasons we kept the timeframe,
authorization time shorter than what was requested
because we had so much uncertainty.
So that's just how we handled that question.
But to your point, Commissioner Hart,
I suppose we could have more specific,
either a check-in time on mitigation adequacy
and some of these other studies at an earlier time
than the 10-year authorization period is an option.
So, yeah, I definitely see the challenge, as you described,
but I don't think that I feel confident moving forward
without some kind of a requirement to maintain beach with.
I'm concerned that the beach could disappear so quickly.
And you know, we've seen that this has been going on
for years and I don't blame anyone.
I mean, this is just a natural disaster,
but for years, OCTA has been promising
to provide public access.
That goes back to way earlier
Commission hearings where yes, we will be providing public access. Yes. This is an emergency. We will be removing it. Yes
Yes, yes, and meanwhile we see the beaches
Disappearing in these local communities suffering from that
So I have to align myself with commissioners Lowenberg and O'Malley on the requirement of maintaining
The 50 feet beach width as much as possible
Also, I want to talk about you know, it's very unusual that state parks comes forward
this way and so I have to give a lot of credence and respect to the comments
that State Parks has made. So they're requesting two things. First of all,
they're requiring that the real be shut down. I believe these are the two things
and I don't know if they're still online if they could confirm and I also saw you
in them, but there's a lot of documents.
So I think thing one, and maybe you could say that thing one seemed to be that an authorization
that temporary rail shut down, and as much as possible landward alignment of which we've
already discussed, and I think everyone's agreeing to.
Two is sort of an ongoing regional sand nourishment program, and they go into that and that's
discussed, particularly I saw in the addendum, including by rail, and they did bring something
up that I was confused about, if they can bring in the rock by rail, why is it that
they can't do the sand, re-nourishment, bring in sand by rail?
Does anyone know the answer to that?
Um, so in terms of bringing sand by rail, I think it probably depends on what the source
of sand is.
Um, if you're getting it from offshore, it may not make sense to bring it onshore.
Sure.
Right?
It just, but I, whether there's an option, for example, I know one of, I believe one
of the sand, um, sources was inland from behind the dam.
there's an option to take that by rail for some portion.
I'm not sure.
So state parks, in the materials it says
that San Clemente State Beach and Campground
is one of the most popular beach parks and campgrounds
in the entire state park system.
And there is an absolute obligation to maintain that beach.
It's critically important.
I think working very closely with state parks on this,
And I thought that their ideas of this sort of full-on,
multi-pronged beach nourishment, using the reel,
using whatever, really doing whatever is necessary
to maintain that beach, I felt very strongly
that they were on the right path with that.
So that's where I stand on this.
And I'm so appreciative of all the work of staff,
OCTA supervisor, thank you so much.
It's just a very, very difficult issue for everyone.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Vice Chair Hart asked one of my questions,
but I want to extend it to the adaptation study.
And what role will commission staff
have in that over the next four years working
with OCTA and other partners in looking at long-term solutions?
Thanks for the question.
So my understanding and lots of discussions
around what that long-term study will look like,
the actual study will be done by CALSTA.
And in partnership, I think, with OCTA,
we've already had meetings with them
to discuss what that coordination might look like.
We've offered our expertise, technical and policy-wise,
to help in that study.
We want to be very involved in the development of that study
with CALSTA staff.
So we are working towards making that happen
and have had some really productive conversations
with CALSTA.
OK.
The challenge to me in this,
it's rooted in what one of my fellow commissioners said
is the funding aspect.
And while there is a responsibility
for the infrastructure side of the house,
it's not just the infrastructure side
that is causing the beach to go away.
We've created a situation in the world
that has caused climate change
and the ocean is acting differently.
But, so I worry about the funding for,
for the mitigation is totally understandable,
but at what point does the funding
for an ongoing mitigation actually,
how does that happen in a transportation world?
Where would that come from?
And it's taxpayer dollars no matter what,
but I do think it is sort of a moment of reckoning,
and we saw this yesterday with Santa Cruz too,
but we've seen it with Carlsbad.
It's a moment of reckoning of what are we doing
to address this larger construct?
You can't just put it on transportation infrastructure
when it's individual homes that we're trying to protect.
So I'm inclined to support the staff recommendation,
I'm not sure if I'm inclined to go beyond that,
but I do worry about the responsibility
because I worry about the responsibility
that puts on a transportation agency for a problem
that is of some of their making from 100 years ago,
but not necessarily their full responsibility right now.
Thank you.
Commissioner Wilson.
I have just a couple of clarifying questions on this 50 foot.
This is, is this the assumption that that 50 feet
would be at low tide or at high tide?
I think that's part of the question,
is that that hasn't been assessed yet.
And if you're interested, I could walk through a sort of,
or we as staff, I would actually turn to one of my staff
to walk through the kinds of things
that we would wanna see in a beach.
For example, if the goal is to maintain
a particular beach width, we would need a plan that,
and a whole construct about what that would look like.
So it would be at what tide, what are the triggers,
when does it happen?
Like there's a whole bunch of these
really important components that we have not yet worked on with OCTA. We haven't talked about that.
We don't have enough data to really inform it yet. Once they do the sand placement,
the goal is to get the data to inform that type of a conversation. But there's a whole host of
those kinds of questions and things we would need to walk through.
And my reading is like the footprint existing, there are places already in the initial footprint
that would be less than 50 feet. Is that right? Places that there are less than 50 feet currently?
No, that in the mitigation sand placement.
That are less than 50 feet.
Is that right?
Yes, so the modeling that was done
by the applicants technical consultants
did show that in some areas where they placed the sand,
after it equilibrates is what we call it.
So right after you place the sand,
the sand kind of has to come offshore.
So once that happens, which is about a few months
after placement, there would be some areas that
it would be less than 50 feet.
Okay, so that, so as an absolute, it would be,
you would be starting this project already,
not meeting this request for that particular requirement.
And if it was, I suppose, at low tide, or high tide,
excuse me, at high tide.
So, I mean, for me, there's a complication in that.
And what is, it is the point to make it passable
all the time, so would 25 feet work in terms of at high tide versus at low tide?
And so you would still get more than 50 feet at low tide in most places.
I guess I'm having a little bit of trouble from the design element of that
and that requirement and what the triggers would be and how long it would be,
and what would then happen, and what would be the enforcement?
How would we enforce on that, have some concern?
So maybe you could address that a little bit.
I think I share your concerns
and that we don't have that yet now today.
So if you will remember Ocean Beach,
we did require a particular passable beach width
and I don't remember the details,
but it was similar to what I think we're talking about here.
We based that on many years of data that we had
or at least several years of data,
But we had gone through a process of going
through these questions to understand what,
how do you define the length?
How often are you measuring it?
What are the reporting mechanisms?
All these things, how would we enforce it?
And I think that we could do that here,
but we cannot do that today.
We just don't have enough information to be able
to say with any confidence that any sand, you know,
that gets placed here is gonna lead to whatever beach width.
We could get there, we just can't do it today.
Okay, there and talk about that 50-foot thing anymore.
So there was a question or a comment about,
I think it's like sort of identifying the sand itself
as infrastructure.
And so that, or so that it could be,
you could replace the sand as part of an emergency permit
versus how we were treating rock,
or treating sand a little,
where we have been maybe treating sand a little differently.
I know there's some language in here
that sort of advances that idea,
that we're talking about natural infrastructure,
but nonetheless, it's infrastructure,
and that we could have the language in there that does it.
I think we're doing that as part of this.
Do I have that right?
Whether we're including language in the permit
about those specific words, I'm not confident,
and if anybody knows, but I think the concept,
one, we have approved SAND under emergency permits
for this rail line in the past,
that we have a precedent of doing that.
If sand becomes available,
sometimes you have to move quickly.
But also, there is room in this permit
for additional sand placement.
Again, there was the incentivized component
where there's, I think, what was it,
up to 250,000 cubic yards of sand.
That's allowed for, there's some other things
in there as well.
So I think if there is an opportunity to place more sand,
I'm confident that we could move quickly on that,
either through this permit or some other action.
Okay, but then would it be based on,
would moving that sand be based on a,
to bring it back to the design,
the mitigation design line, which is I think 50 feet,
or would it be something less than that
or something more than that?
I guess it would be negotiable at that point,
or is it really just to bring it back
to what it would be in this permit?
The way it's set up currently is the authorization
is for a one-time sand placement for mitigation.
There's opportunities for other sand placement.
And again, the opportunistic one is a regional requirement.
So it's not a requirement, it's a regional opportunity.
Where if there is, for example, funding available,
then OCT could provide that funding to another entity.
even to put sand on the beach in the region
of San Clemente and Dana Point.
So it's more of a regional under an existing permit.
And we were gonna potentially act on the OC scoop today
and that'll come next month.
So that would be an example of how the vehicle
through which there could be more sand on the beach.
And then the 85,000 cubic yards for past emergency work.
Do we have a footprint for that?
No, no, that's a little more up in the air.
And I want to express my understanding, you know, having been for 10 years
as a Harbor District Commissioner before doing this gig, the timing of your dredging
is in dredgers and the scheduling is really that is something that's very hard to manage for.
And if you know they're coming, you do everything you can to, like, get your ducks in a row
to make it happen, because you can really blow it.
And oftentimes the dredger breaks down.
There's just so many things, so many variables that happen that if you have an opportunity
to get a dredger to do the job, you really have to get them to do the job.
So I want to express that.
I just have a couple of comments and maybe I'll have some questions there, but I just,
you know, I really do appreciate all the work that everyone's put into this.
OTCA, Metrolink, the county, Surf Rider and all the aligned organizations, I think that's
its own.
I do want to, I think also we haven't, it's in the report, but I haven't really, I want
want to put it on the table, that the people of California
also have a real interest in our mass transit systems
for freight and for moving people.
I think it's really, really important to understand
the role it plays in how we approach our climate
adaptation and our climate mitigation as we move forward.
I mean, transportation is half of what we put out
in our CO2,
and so anything we can do to reduce that
is just extremely important.
And so it's sort of ironic
that we're talking about sea level rise
that's impacting this particular infrastructure,
and I know that there's been delays on moving it,
and I did look at one of the 2009 study
and the fact that also the 1972 study that was never done,
So there was like delays on those sorts of things.
But nonetheless, it's not impossible, but also very expensive to move things around.
But it's it's real.
And these are and so what I'm getting at is like as
the this the the citizens of California, who we also represent here,
although our lens is very coastal act oriented.
It is exclusively coastal act oriented.
But still nonetheless, we're talking this is different than housing or not housing, but I mean like houses or individual property owners.
This is really this this is the
this is public infrastructure and an infrastructure that is a general benefit to the citizens of California in so many ways.
And so I I think my balance is always leaning, you know, in terms of like how we look at these things.
I value that a lot more than I do the individual second
and third homeowner, you know, on the beach.
It's a very different thing.
And I think that that balance is real,
and we have to take it very seriously.
So those are my concerns, or my...
And yes, someone's gonna have to pay for it,
one way or another, the public will pay,
whether it's through these agencies
or through the state and I do actually have a little bit of a, or I do actually have some
empathy on the timeframe of this in terms of how, you know, allowing for the funding.
So I do see where, you know, where Commissioner Lopez was coming from there.
I think there's something, there's some, I think there's some room we need, we might
have to think about in that.
That's, if that, if we're really asking for something that's going to cost a lot more,
should be be somewhat understanding of how that's gonna what the revenue is
that's gonna or what the capital is is gonna make that happen. Okay well I'll
make a couple of comments and ask a question then I'll return to my
colleagues. So I really appreciate this discussion because I think it's so
illustrative of the complexity that both the applicant and our staff has been
pointing to throughout this conversation. There are so many different pieces of
this puzzle, so many different levers that will have impacts that we don't know, can't
know, have not yet anticipated, rightly or wrongly, and so I think it is important and
I appreciate that my colleagues are grappling with all of that so clearly.
So what I'm hearing in part from the Commission is this real concern which I share deeply
actually that with moving forward with this permit we are essentially committing to the
disappearance of the beach or it feels that way in a sense and I realize that it's maybe
a hyperbolic way to put it but the pictures were quite jarring.
I'm also hearing though not only have we not done the work of preparing for what a 50-foot
buffer might look like we simply don't have all of the questions answered that
are necessary to apply that to the permit so I guess I would turn back to
staff and hearing the discussion as you have the concerns that I think we all
share and our obligation to enact the Coastal Act our understanding of the
funding constraints and a willingness perhaps to try to find some middle
ground with the timing if we are able to move more effectively to protect the beach.
Is there some suggestion you might have for us that would allow us to get closer to where
I think it is that at least a number of the commissioners who have spoken would like to
be?
Yes, I think I have.
I could make some suggestions, depending on where the commission would like to go.
As we have presented the staff recommendation, there's a tenure authorization period with
an option to extend for five.
We found the mitigation package that was described adequate for 10 years with some uncertainty.
If the commission and I think at that point, the way the staff recommendation reads is
that is at that point we could look at a different mitigation arrangement
whether it be a beach minimum beach width as an as one is one possible
example we will know we'll have different facts then we could look at it
10 years if the Commission had a different view of the adequacy of that
timeline that could shift I mean again we don't have the information today I
I think there's, you know, do we need a full ten years if we're not confident that the
mitigation would be sufficient for that period of time?
We could potentially reduce the timeframe just for the mitigation discussion.
So that would be one option for you all to consider.
So if I'm understanding that suggestion correctly is that given that we don't have sufficient
information to do the minimum requirement
instead of 10 years, shorten it to some other number?
Yes, okay.
As a means to ensure that this conversation
happens more quickly is sort of the upshot.
That's one suggestion.
Okay, yeah, Commissioner Lomberg.
Well what if we went the other direction?
What if we required it but gave 20 years
with a five-year option?
That would allow the project sponsor
to then have a longer runway to, you know,
amortize, write off, find funding, all those things.
So I think the challenge we have there,
they have the funding for the project already
for a 30-year timeframe.
That was the funding arrangement.
But also, we don't have the information
that we need today to make that, to have that requirement.
I think just from that, just having the information
we need to understand what we might require
is a beach with maintenance type of arrangement.
We would need at least five years, maybe more of data
to base that off of, to have some confidence.
That's sort of the minimum amount of time
I think we would need.
So one idea would be to come back
either some between five and 10 years
to reassess mitigation.
Not necessarily authorization, but mitigation.
And what do we do if the beach is going by then?
So it then it would be that's the conundrum that I feel.
Yeah, well, I mean, the beach is gone already in many of those locations.
So they will do a one time beach placement at this point.
And we would have a better sense of how long it lasted.
If that's the case, we may come back in any of those years
and the sand may still be there or it may not.
We don't know yet how how what's going to happen.
That's part of the challenge.
So we don't know if we would be for a beach minimum beach width.
we don't know if we're talking about
this type of massive sand placement every five years,
every 10 years, every two years.
We don't know what that looks like and that includes cost.
So that has to be a part of this conversation.
It's just, that's the reality.
So I feel like if we need some time
to develop that assessment before,
that would be my assessment,
is we need a little bit of time to assess
what exactly that requirement could look like.
Commissioner Jackson.
I certainly appreciate the conversation.
I'm glad Mr. Smith mentioned, what was it,
collaboration, because that's exactly
what I was thinking about.
So I want to understand,
we're talking about 50 feet of sand
and being educated a little bit in ocean side
about dredging operations and bolder placement
is a lot different than sand placement.
Boulders, you can take off the train with the crane
and just drop the, you know, playing Legos.
Sand, you just can't plop it off the tracks.
So I was wondering if you can sort of explain
what it would be required to put any sand,
let alone 50 feet of sand, using trains,
and then why, you know, the supervisor talked about
hopefully getting a West Coast dredger
and what that could mean for not only this area,
but the region, as Dr. Kate spoke about,
and why something like that would be so important.
Yeah, so just to clarify the questions,
the question was what it would look like
to place the amount of sand you would need
to maintain a 50-foot beach width.
Yeah, and explain equilibration, what, first.
Yeah, yeah, so that term there was equilibration,
so like equilibrate, basically, even out.
Okay.
That's maybe the more common way of saying it.
So when you design beach nourishment,
you place the sand high up on the beach,
but then waves start moving that sand
and pulling it offshore to kind of recreate
the equilibrium profile is what we call it.
And so when you place sand,
immediately it's gonna look like maybe 100 feet of beach,
but then after those waves start moving it,
after a few months it produces back after it equilibrates.
So that's equilibration.
And so we are talking about potentially in areas
where the waves really wanna move that sand away
and where there's not naturally sand coming in
from the other direction,
we're talking about potentially quite a lot of sand
to maintain a beach width like 50 feet.
And that's part of what we're concerned about
not having the information to be able to understand that.
Whereas where we did that in San Francisco,
we had years of modeling.
The USGS happened to have done decades of specific modeling
monitoring at that site in particular, so we had some good confidence over what it might take and
how much sand would need to be placed when to achieve the trigger in that San Francisco example,
whereas we don't have that information here. And could you place sand from the tracks or does it
require the offshore dredging? And the dredging I think that the I think there's only one big
offshore dredger in the country that goes from the west coast to the east coast through the
to the Panama Canal that's up in Oregon, I think, right now.
And I understand the state is trying
to have that director make a pit stop in California
on the way back to the East Coast.
And if you can just sort of educate us to what that is,
what it could do, juxtapose with the potential train
carrying in sand and how you would place that sand.
Yeah.
So to give folks a sense of scale,
A dump truck is about 11-ish cubic yards.
So you can think when we're talking about something
like 700,000 cubic yards, divide that number by 10,
and that's the amount of dump trucks of sand.
So we're talking about very large volumes of material.
When we're talking about bringing that in through train,
it is potentially feasible,
but in order to maintain operation,
you would likely need something
what's called a siding line or basically a different track that the trains
carrying the sand could pull off and then you need specialized equipment to
be able to offload that sand and then you need potentially equipment on both
ends loading the trains and then offloading the trains and as anyone who's
worked in construction knows the more times you handle material that's but you
know if you handle it twice you're doubling the cost. So there's been some
work. The University of California Irvine has a whole bunch of students that are trying to figure
this out and where the potential options are for getting sand from the inland site, but it's it's
there's some engineering constraints. The questions around dredgers. So coastal engineers, you know,
we do deal with dredgers a lot. I'm not going to pretend that I'm a complete expert in dredging and
and all the different kinds of dredging ships
that are out there.
I kinda in that stage where I know enough
to know that I don't know everything.
And so I can give you a little bit of my perspective there.
So there are different kinds of dredgers.
There are dredged ships that are basically able
to suck up sand and then immediately pump it on shore.
The issue here is that there's not a local source
of sand offshore.
So you can't use that kind of dredge in San Clemente.
The kind of dredge that you would need
is what's called a hopper dredge.
So a hopper dredge is where they suck up the sand somewhere,
they keep it in the hull of their ship,
and then they move their ship closer
to where they're gonna place it,
and then they re-hydralize the sand and pump it on shore.
So that's what's called a hopper dredge,
and that's what we don't have in California that often.
My understanding is because we don't do the kind
of beach nourishment and dredging volumes
that they do out on the East Coast and the Gulf Coast.
So, to get those dredge companies out here,
you basically need to either pay the money
to make it worth it for them,
or you need to have a lot of dredging,
so it's just in their interest as a company
to come out here.
So, that's where there's been discussions about,
well, can the state come in
and help solve that economic problem?
So, hopefully that's helpful
and hopefully I answered the question.
Very helpful, thank you, and real quickly.
So, is that Hopper dredger,
Is that what's in Oregon right now?
Yeah, so again, take this with a little bit of grain of salt.
But my understanding is it's called the West Coast Hopper
Dredge Contract.
And it's because the Army Corps of Engineers, the Portland
District, they need to dredge the mouth of the Columbia River
at a certain interval.
And so they need to pay that Hopper Dredge Contractor
to come out here because it's just the equipment that
is needed to do that job.
And so folks will hop onto that contract
as they're already on mobilize on the west coast.
I appreciate it.
And my apologies for taking us on a bit of a tangent,
but I just think it's important,
at least from my understanding to understand,
because it's easy to say dredging 50 feet of sand
and what's required,
but it's the operation of how to do it.
And of course the costs that's,
I think we need to have a better understanding of.
So thank you for allowing me to go down a tangent,
Madam Chair.
I learned a lot.
Thank you, too.
Vice Chair Hart.
Thanks.
I want to focus in on this topic of maintaining the 50 feet,
because maybe I'm confused.
But I'm looking at Exhibit 1, page 2,
which kind of shows the overview.
It's not as if there's going to be sand replenishment
on this entire area.
There's identified areas where there's
going to be sand replenishment, where there's already some sand,
or am I getting that wrong?
Yes, so short answer is yes.
And my understanding, and maybe Jeremy can elaborate,
but I believe you need the sand to be there
in order to place additional.
So it's not like, so when you talk about,
well, there's already not 50 feet.
I mean, obviously you're not putting sand on top of,
I mean, in this case, I mean, there have been instances
where you put sand on top of boulders,
but we're not talking about doing that here.
So where there's already no beach,
there's no sand replenishment.
I'm not seeing on the plan that happening.
That's over for those beaches, pretty much.
Until there's no more drain, I guess.
Well, maybe just to expand on what Danny was saying there.
So again, from an engineering perspective with beach
nourishment, you need to start from somewhere where there
is a little bit of beach because you need the dozers, basically,
and the space to set up the end of the pipeline.
But you can move in a direction and basically
create the beach that your dozers are able to push the sand and kind of
create it along and that that is the intent with because because right now
with the very strong south swell and elevated water levels you know there
isn't really much of a beach in the area for most of the area for sand placement
area there's also not much of a beach for most of the northern area the areas
one and two so the idea would be that they would start from where there is a
beach and then put that 240,000 in the north one and the 450 in the southern one.
Okay, so I think there's a couple things. First of all, I feel, as I mentioned earlier,
I feel like it's most important to maintain a sandy beach in the state park. That is the
public land. That is the public trust. Well, all of this is, you could argue, but that
That to me is the most important place where people are expecting to be able to go.
I think it's so important for the economy and the identity, as Supervisor Jackson said
earlier of San Clemente.
So I personally feel that maintaining that 50 feet within the state park boundaries is
a realistic requirement of this hearing.
Already as sandy unless I'm not seeing things which is probably true small exhibits
And I'm not familiar with the beach, but and then with regard to the other areas. I think a five-year term
to return with the study to determine
Whether
It's 50 feet is realistic or not realistic or what's going on or what the appropriate as you've described Dr. Hucklebridge
what needs to be studied but
Is the San Clemente State Park and Beach now have a sandy beach and if so, do you know how wide it is and
Then how much of the sand placement is going to be there? I?
Don't know the exact current beach width of the state park beach, but the the area for the 450,000 cubic yards
Would span basically from just north of the California parking lot
South past cyber shores just a little bit so it would cover
Quite a bit of the state beach
There's the two areas. So you've got the north area, which is just north of the state park
It looks like and I imagine potentially into the state park and then you have that southern cypress shores area
So that would be my proposal is to maintain during this five-year period
Sandy Beach of a width of 50 feet within the state park boundary
And you could be partnering with state parks on that. I'm sure that they would be all in on
Assisting with
Monitoring etc. So and then five years
to study and determine
What's practical and realistic and what the cost is for these other areas?
Commissioner Lopez
Yeah, I hate to keep whipping the same topic here
But I want to come back to this question of the width in a different way
And it is to that point of what is our concern our concern is that we don't know how much sand it will take and
What the cost of that sand will be from my line of questioning. Were there any other concerns for staff?
besides the not knowing factor of what we're expecting of
Okta, I
mean, I think there's in I
I would expand that a little bit.
It's not just a cost question.
We have some technical questions about what it would entail
to maintain 50 feet in whether it's in the state park
or in other locations along here.
We don't know whether it's possible that the sand placement
that's already planned would accomplish that
for some period of time.
We just, we don't yet know.
But then what we would be looking to do is develop triggers
and make some, there's gonna be some decisions
that have to be made too about where we're focused on.
And I hear Commissioner Hart's comments about
the state park is one really important place to focus.
But there may be others where it's so expensive
to maintain 50 feet, we decide that,
given all the considerations,
that's not something we think is appropriate.
These are the kinds of discussions
that we need to have over the next period of time
we would like to have over the next period of time
so we have a better sense of what it would require.
The other, I have to make one point too.
There are impacts associated with putting sand on the beach
and we have to also think about it from that standpoint.
There are ecological, potential ecological impacts
and others that I just, you know,
we haven't had a chance to fully get our hands wrapped around
at this, in an ongoing way.
So that's just one other thing I want to put out there.
It would be, I think, helpful to understand
what this one-time sand placement,
what those effects might be,
so that we can think about that for the next go around.
And what mitigation might be required.
So I hear you.
I just often hear in the role that I sit in
on my day-to-day this frustration with studies, right?
And we're sitting here in this moment
knowing that not doing something
is gonna lead to further erosion.
And doing something that's not quite at scale
is also perhaps gonna put us in a position
where we will lose opportunity.
Nothing's getting cheaper, right?
I filled my pickup truck yesterday, $300 to fill it up.
That's the price of diesel today,
and it's not an oversized tank
that's just almost $10 a gallon.
So the emissions that come from that
are a key concern for me, and right,
the emissions that are gonna happen on a beach
with this much work is a concern for me.
But I guess my last question in this line of questioning
to Okta in terms of this question of the 50-foot question that we've had repeatedly.
Committing to that right now for 20 plus 5 as was pitched by my colleague here on my
right for the cost knowing that it's not going to be cheaper 10, 15, 20 years from
now.
Is that something you're comfortable going with today if this commission is willing to
to say you have to maintain that at,
I mean we can choose median tide, high tide.
But average tide, given that frame,
knowing that it's gonna give you a foothold for us,
knowing that we're getting this sand and community,
understanding there's still ecological impacts
that we may not understand, that is a trade-off for us.
Are you comfortable committing to that with a trigger
that if in five years it's out of cost range
10 years you're back here in front of us having a different conversation. What is
your feeling given what you've heard you've not had a chance to opine on
behalf of your agency? Thank You Commissioner Lopez and if I may through
the chair understand the question and I'll first say we agree with the
comments extensively made by your executive director. We don't know what we
don't know in having that knowledge and understanding I think is important. I
would note that our equilibrium placement we believe at area four is
about 49 feet so or maybe a foot off there and it's closer to 35 feet in the
other two areas we have not had any specific discussion of why 50 is
important maybe it should be less maybe it should be more maybe it's just
something that's been talked about today with that said your specific question
sir I think we could not commit to that today it is we are at the breaking edge
of what is here today and the only reason we can offer up the the project
as defined is the state and federal partnership
I keep talking about.
We are willing to deal with those other mitigations
that were on the slide today,
recognizing what Ms. Hucklebridge said
relative to those impacts,
but we cannot commit to that today.
I appreciate that, thank you.
No more questions.
Okay.
Through the chair, maybe I can make a suggestion.
So one, I think one way we may be able,
we've sort of talked about this,
the need to have a beach here
and what that might look like and not having enough information.
And you heard what Mr. Johnson said.
I may be one way to manage this is to have this kind of mitigation assessment
or maybe a requirement from you for a study, not a study, but like a plan
what it would require to do to maintain beach passable beach with
and and have that come at five years or six years.
You know what we can discuss the right timeline so that we can have that conversation. And by that time we should have some more information.
It's a shorter time frame than I think we were thinking originally, but and it wouldn't require anything at this point just to be very clear other than we're going to really seriously look at that exact question.
Bring it back to you all sooner than 10 years and and use that as an opportunity to assess whether the mitigation that that we are,
whether the mitigation has been adequate
and whether additional mitigation needs come forward.
I mean, it's possible in five years
there will be a 50 foot beach there.
And we may decide as a body
that additional mitigation is not needed
or the sand may be gone,
but we have a sense of what it would cost
and maybe these, you know, we'll have a better sense of,
I think how to address keeping a beach in these areas.
Right, and just to be clear,
I wouldn't suggest that we change the authorization period
for the development that's being proposed.
I think that that's appropriately at 10 years
with a potential extension for five years,
but this would be more a mitigation check-in,
so to speak, in five years.
That's one idea to present to you all for discussion.
As a way to address, I think, some of the concerns
that we're hearing from commissioners
and the real concern about losing beach here
and it happening quickly.
Thank you, Director Hucklebridge.
That's a very helpful solution to this discussion.
Just a couple of thoughts here.
I think for my part, and I think I've heard
from multiple of my colleagues, is this real desire
to maintain some width.
But understanding that we just simply don't have
the information, it becomes nearly impossible
to include such a condition.
So I do appreciate that you're trying to find
balance for us and I think that that's a helpful path forward. One last question
for me and then I'll open the floor again to my colleagues for I guess a
motion it's time to get there if there are no further discussion but um were
this permit whether we add that mitigation conversation in five years or
were the permit to fail today if it doesn't move forward. Can you sketch out
the consequences for us because I I believe that consequences are quite
extreme not dredging not doing this sand renourishment I mean we're not we
don't live in a vacuum and I do think that it's weighing on me as well so could
you sketch out the consequences sure I'll start and then of course invite
the rest of the staff to to weigh in here I think one thing we mentioned
earlier at some point important to point out is much of the rock has already been
placed we're authorizing work that was done as an emergency and so it wouldn't
as if a lot of that rock would come off.
What we would not have is the sand.
The sand replenishment project with 690,000 cubic yards of sand would not be authorized
and thus probably would not happen.
And the monitoring, the looking at public access requirements, we would not have those
as well.
So I'm not sure, I think if it were to fail today we would be in a difficult position
with still a great deal of rock on the beach that would be unauthorized and a need to figure
out what to do about that would become a violation.
Thank you very much to my colleagues, Commissioner Jackson.
Again thank you for the discussion.
I think doing nothing is never a good option particularly in this case.
We have to move the ball forward whether we,
it's, there's no perfect solution.
There's not even a good solution.
But I'm comfortable with the commitment
from OCTA and the region.
And obviously the coordination,
cooperation with the staff that obviously
we're gonna be back having a discussion soon.
And I think there should be a check-in at some point
whether five years or even earlier
because I think we will know more at that point.
Will we have the dredger?
And that's a sea change, that's a difference maker.
I think that we'll obviously know more about that
in the next year or so.
So I don't wanna let perfection be the enemy of good.
There is no easy answer.
I think doing nothing while we hope things get better
is never an answer.
And I'm prepared to move staff recommendation forward,
understanding the discussions we've had here today
and all the folks involved understand, I think,
where we are and where the direction is.
And we have a check-in at whatever point that is
that makes the most sense when there is more information.
And certainly sooner versus later, two years, three years,
whatever that equilibrium is, so to speak,
that makes the most sense for us to make a more informed
decision at that point.
But I think it's important that we have to do something now.
It's not perfect and you know our sins are our sins but you know it's time that we move
forward and this is a plan to move forward to save what we have and then hopefully build
upon it when we have more information for the beach replenishment.
So unprepared Madam Chair, whatever point to move staff recommendation.
Thank you.
First, Commissioner Lomber, a question, could we bring it back in three years and if the
The beach is complete, is eroded, and it needs more sand.
Can we actually ask for it then
and amend the permit at that moment?
So I think there's different ways
that we could approach that question.
We could include a shorter timeframe.
I mean, part of this is your understanding
of how long the mitigation is useful for, right?
We determine, you know, right now it's at a 10-year period.
If you think it should be less than that,
then we could require a check-in, so to speak,
on the mitigation piece.
at some earlier time, three years, five years,
what have you.
So yes, I think we could add that into the requirements
and I would want to probably flesh out again this idea
of a beach with plan that talks about triggers
and what's needed and how we're going to enforce
and all those kinds of questions
that we talked about earlier.
That could come at the same time.
But could we add at that moment,
At the beaches now we're seeing that it's just, you know, a mess and we have a moment
in time where if we added more sand at that moment we could, you know, stop more erosion.
Is that possible?
Well I think the reality is these projects are, it is challenging to get sand and make
the project happen.
So I think we're better off in having this discussion about what's going to be needed
so that we can develop the long term maintenance and strategy.
If in three years there's no sand, even if you were to require OCD to put sand on the
beach the next day, that's just not feasible if they hadn't been planning for it.
So I just want to put that out there.
There's not funding for that right now.
We need to spend a lot of time both with OCD, but with CalSTA and others, about what this
is going to look like into the future.
And I appreciate that that's not...
We may end up in a situation where we lose beach in the time that it takes us to figure
out what that looks like.
That is a possibility.
It's possible the sand will stay.
We don't really have a good sense yet.
But I guess I would again recommend at least five years giving us time to talk through
what this looks like, to talk about funding, to talk about where, how is this going to
happen, what does it look like to maintain Passable Beach with here?
If I could, it sounds to me like what at least some of the commissioners are saying is that
adequately mitigate for the proposed project there needs to be some beach
available to the public. And so what Dr. Huckelbridge is saying is at this point
we don't know how much sand that's going to take and at what timeframes. So for
the Commission to require adequate mitigation for the proposed project I
think it does require an earlier moment to check in and at that moment the
the commission could determine whether the mitigation that's required for Cozlan consistency
is still there. Commissioner Wilson. I know that Commissioner Jackson said that he's willing
to make the motion. If he wants to read it, that's fine. I'm happy to second it. But I
will say that I will. My expectation is there will be an amending motion for discussion.
So just to get the party started when we do it. All right. I moved that the commission
approve a close development permit number five dash two one dash zero eight
six six pursuant to the staff recommendation I recommend a yes vote
and I do expect an amending motion. Second. Thank you that's a motion by
Commissioner Wilson a second by Commissioner Jackson is there an
amending motion? Do we vote first or do we make the amending motion? No you have to make the amending motion.
Alright like to make an amending motion that no later than five years there
will be an assessment as has been described by Commission staff as well as
whatever consultants etc are involved in this in determining the correct and
sustainable beach width so there would be an assessment study and
recommendation no later than five years for mitigation and inclusion of a beach
width requirement so that's my amending motion.
I would recommend that is part of your consideration of the amending motion you include an additional
requirement for a study to inform those discussions about the beach with right I from is that
what you're because I think you stay in to clear I think that was clear in the original
report but I'm certainly I will include that thank you thank you I'll second the motion
okay that is a motion by Vice Chair Hart a second by Commissioner Wilson to our council
We vote on the amended amending motion first, right?
That's correct.
OK.
May we have Commissioner Wilson?
Sorry, I just don't want people to have expectations
of a new dredger being built anytime soon.
It's something we've talked about on the West Coast
for 25 years.
It has not happened.
We have the Aquinnah, the Bayport, and the Essayons,
all of which are hard to maintain and move
through the system.
We have that, I think it's called the Hatch Act,
which has been, makes it hard to build new ships
in the United States and,
or at least have them built elsewhere for less money.
So it's just, it's a very complicated situation
amongst these dredgers there.
I hope for a day.
Thank you.
Okay, may we have a roll call vote please?
they're asking for a yes vote.
Yes.
Commissioner O'Malley.
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Commissioner Escalante.
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Vice Chair Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Loewenberg.
Loewenberg, yes.
Commissioner Smith.
Yes.
Smith, yes.
Commissioner Moreno.
I want to know yes.
Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson?
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is 11, yes, 0, no.
Thank you very much.
And now to the main motion, which, if I remember correctly,
was Commissioner Jackson seconded by Commissioner Wilson?
Wilson then Jackson.
OK, it was made by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner
Jackson.
Thank you.
And this will incorporate the amending motion.
May we have a roll call though, please?
Commissioner Escalante.
Come back to me.
Coming back.
Vice Chair Hart.
Yes.
Hart, yes.
Commissioner Jackson.
Aye.
Jackson, yes.
Commissioner Kelly.
Yes.
Kelly, yes.
Commissioner Lopez.
Yes.
Lopez, yes.
Commissioner Lowenberg.
Lowenberg, yes.
Commissioner Smith.
Yes.
Smith, yes.
Commissioner Moreno.
Moreno, yes.
Moreno, yes.
Commissioner Wilson.
Yes.
Wilson, yes.
Commissioner O'Malley?
Yes.
O'Malley, yes.
Back to Commissioner Escalante?
Yes.
Escalante, yes.
Chair Harmon?
Yes.
Harmon, yes.
The vote is 11, yes, zero, no.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you for all the hard work that was done on this.
Thank you, OCTA, and thank you very much to our staff.
More to come.
Okay, let's please continue on, if you don't mind.
Item 12, the deputy director's report, Mr. Schwing.
Yes, that does take us to item 12, the deputy director's report
for the San Diego Coast District.
I'll start by reporting two emergency actions,
one involving a revetment in Carlsbad
and the second involving a lagoon mouth breaching.
Follow-up actions will be required as needed.
And again, this is just a report out, no action
on the emergency approvals.
Next, we're reporting two waivers for projects in Solana Beach and San Diego, two material
amendments for projects in San Diego, and three CDP amendments including two for the
installation of solar panels.
I do want to note that one of these we received an objection from a neighbor raising concerns
about private view impacts which are not regulated under the Coastal Act.
Otherwise, there's no known opposition and we're asking whether three or more commissioners object to the waivers the extensions or the amendments in the report
Thank you any ex partes
Any public comments? No speakers. Do three or more commissioners object to any item in the deputy directors report
Seeing no objection. The commission concurs
Can we keep it down in the room, please thank you I couldn't hear what you were saying
Item 16, please. Thank you, Miss gray
Good afternoon
Item 16 is the deputy director's report for the North Coast District which includes one waiver and one CDP time extension
It also includes three reporting items two emergency permits and one LCP amendment certification review
First up the ED approved an emergency permit authorizing state parks to implement a road rehabilitation project
including bank stabilization roadway renovations and drainage improvements along a
175 foot stretch of Mill Creek Drive
Which is an internal road within McCarrack or State Park in Minasino County?
This section of the road had already experienced significant erosion
from previous wave action that has resulted in damage to an existing water line as well as the road itself the
Proposed actions are necessary to ensure that the road does not become impassable during this winters
Storm season as this could eliminate
Possibly for an extended period of time public access to an important day use area in the park
The emergency authorization will require a follow-up CDP and does not require any action by the Commission today
The second emergency permit authorized
Authorizes wildlands conservancy to replace a leaking tidegate within the Eel River estuary preserve in Ferndale Humboldt County
This authorization is a temporary fix for a larger issue
And the Commission has already approved a permit to construct an entirely new tidegate system in this location
But that is not planned until 2027
So they are going to move forward with this quick fix on one small portion of the tidegate
No additional action is required by the Commission today for that and with regard to the certification review Humboldt County
Acknowledged and accepted the Commission suggested modification for its density bonus LCP amendment
approved in June of this year. The executive director has reviewed this
acceptance and determined that the county's actions meet the requirements
for certification. Staff is not aware of any opposition to the two concurrence
items in the director's report and we are asking whether through a more
commissioner's object. Okay thank you very much. Any ex partes? Any public
comments? No speakers. Thank you. Do three or more commissioners object to any item
in the Deputy Director's report.
Seeing no objections, the commission concurs.
Okay, that brings us to the end of our calendar
for our agenda for today.
Thank you everyone for the great work.
We'll see you all tomorrow morning.