2022/October
From ActCoastal
| Year | 2022 |
|---|---|
| Month | October |
| Location | San Diego |
| Description | The Coastal Commission’s October meeting took place in San Diego on October 12-14. The meeting featured a very busy agenda including the permitting of South Coast Water District’s Doheny desalination plant, a permit extension for nuclear waste storage at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, short term rentals in Half Moon Bay, denial of the Santa Cruz County LCP update for coastal hazards and approval of the Newport Beach Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility (CAD). The Santa Cruz LCP update and the Newport Beach CAD both resulted in vote charts. The Doheny desalination facility and the SONGS spent fuel storage permit extension are described below. |
Issues voted on at this Meeting
Click on an issue to read full description
| Issue | Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Newport Beach Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility | The City of Newport Beach applied to construct a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site in Newport Harbor and perform beach replenishment in Newport Beach. Lower Newport Bay requires periodic maintenance dredging to remove sediment that accumulates over time and impedes navigation and full use of the harbor. A portion of the sediment to be dredged was determined unsuitable for open ocean disposal due to contamination and is proposed for placement into the CAD facility. Advocates, including Orange County Coastkeeper, Friends of Newport Harbor and Surfrider Foundation argued that the CAD should be denied based on four main issues: 1. The City wrongfully characterizes the unsuitable sediment as harmless; 2. The 1.0’ thick interim cap layer does not adequately account for bioturbation; 3. The City has not earnestly analyzed alternatives and, in particular, failed to consider (i) additional costs and/or (ii) a two-step process involving treatment; and 4. The City has not developed an adequate sediment monitoring plan. Despite these concerns, the Commission did not wish to push for innovative solutions to contaminated sediment and approved the CAD in an 8 to 1 vote. | 
|
| Santa Cruz County LCP Update | Santa Cruz County’s local coastal program update for coastal hazards came before the Commission despite never having completed a vulnerability assessment or technical review of the sea level rise threats facing the County’s 32 miles of coastline. Commission staff recommended denial of the update, in part due to the County’s plan for an overreliance on shoreline armoring. Notably, the plan would have created a “shoreline armoring exception area (SPEA)” along Opal Cliffs, protecting high priced residential development, almost all of which post-dates the Coastal Act. The SPEA would have protected private development from coastal hazards at the expense of the public’s beach, waves and ocean resources, and without any significant mitigation. The Coastal Act prohibits shoreline armoring except to protect pre-Coastal Act structures that meet certain criteria for erosion risk. The Commission upheld the foundational Coastal Act policies on shoreline armoring and protecting public resources by denying the County’s plan in a unanimous vote for denial. | 
|
