Comment Period Extended for Broad Beach Restoration Project

Residents now have time to give more input on the project, which calls for sand to be imported from a myriad of sites up and down the California coastline in order to protect homes along Broad Beach in Malibu.

The public comment period has been extended until December for a project that aims to import sand in order to protect threatened homes and septic tanks along Broad Beach.

Any comments, concerns or questions must now be received by the California State Lands Commission by 5 p.m. Friday, Dec. 21, according to the agency's website.

More time was given because of requests for more time and the likelihood that the State Lands Commission will not hear the project until next year.

The project is expected to provide relief between 10 to 20 years for up to 114 threatened homes, spanning from Lechuza Point to Trancas Creek in Malibu.

The plans call for dredging sand off the coast of Broad Beach from the Trancas deposit, which lies outside the littoral zone, which is closest to shore, said Dan Gira of AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, the consulting firm preparing the environmental documents for the project.

“We’re relatively confident it won’t actually affect the onshore beach areas or surf conditions," Gira said at a recent public hearing. 

The fine sand from the Trancas area would be used to create sand dunes, as wildlife habitat, and would be placed over an existing, emergency rock wall that was rushed into place several years ago to protect houses.

Plans also call for possible dredging in other locations with courser sand off Manhattan Beach, where the City Council has publicly opposed the project; off Dockweiler Beach near Marina Del Rey; and a regularly dredged area near Ventura Harbor.

About 500,000 cubic yards of sand would be scooped from a 27-acre, L-shape plot about a half-mile off Manhattan Beach, according to an initial analysis, which considered six sites off Manhattan Beach.

To get the sand to Broad Beach could take up to 500 barge trips and 270-small vessel trips, he said.

Other sources include a stockpile near Calleguas Creek in Ventura County. To move that sand would require 50,000 dump trucks to travel down Pacific Coast Highway to the site, according to Gira.

In the fall, the plans call for the use of large scrapers and earth movers or possibly trucks to move sand from the sand rich part of the beach back up to the west end, Gira said.

Environmental groups have already questioned whether the project will impact surf along Zuma Beach and other parts of western Malibu.

A public hearing on the project's Analysis of Impacts to Public Trust Resources and Values document was held earlier this month at Malibu City Hall.

Comments can be emailed to Jason.Ramos@slc.ca.gov (with "Broad Beach Restoration Project Comments" in the subject line), or sent by mail to: Jason Ramos, environmental scientist, California State Lands Commission, 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South, Sacramento, CA 95825.

Brian Eamer November 20, 2012 at 04:56 AM
Here is a big IMPACT THAT is BURIED IN THE BOWELS OF THE REPORT Call it the The (SAND) LAND GRAB that needs to be understood. The report states in section 3.5 Land Use, Rec, and Pub Access Oct. 2012 Broad Beach Restoration Project Page 3.5-28 Analysis of Impacts to Public Trust Resources and Values Impact REC-4:Privacy Buffer Effects to Public Trust Lands, Public Access, and Recreational Use The privacy buffer would place a substantial percentage of dry sand beach berm overlying public trust lands off limits to the public and potentially lead to renewed access conflicts at Broad Beach (Unsubstantial with Implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Class UI). Impact Discussion The proposed privacy buffer would prohibit public access on 3.5 acres of public trust lands (Figure 3.5-3). The privacy buffer would constitute approximately 21 percent oft he overall dry beach berm on the post-construction beach.10 In the beach’s western reach, the privacy buffer would occupy almost 40 percent of the level beach berm. This portion of public trust lands that the privacy buffer occupies would increase as beach width declines over time. Potential conflicts may be reduced in areas of the beach where substantial dry sand beach berm occurs due to sufficient availability of recreational beach area; however, as the beach profile narrows and in western reaches of the Project area where the beach is more narrow, conflict for use of the beach would be substantial.
Brian Eamer November 20, 2012 at 05:15 AM
Thus, imposition of a privacy buffer would displace the public from a substantial portion of the dry sand beach berm which overlies public trust lands. ----- Note: Those that love Broad Beach for the sand, waves and water for surfing walking running bathing the whole experience etc there and at Zuma Beach better find this document online and make comments to the CA State Lands Commission before by 5 p.m. Friday, Dec. 21, according to the agency's website. Otherwise the GHAD project will get rubber stamped!! Comments can include 1)restricted beach access, 2)subsurface sand build up creating dangerous sand bottom conditions for swimming & surfing to the 3)sand moved from offshore of Trancas Point to the beach causing harm to migrating whales that dive down to that area offshore and rub barnackles off their backs on the sand that will be gone, 4) additional public beach carved out to create private beach areas for home use.. website- http://www.slc.ca.gov/Division_Pages/DEPM/DEPM_Programs_and_Reports/Broad_Beach/Broad_Beach.html Read the report and comment if you can beach goers will benefit.
Hans Laetz November 20, 2012 at 05:03 PM
It's worse than that, Brian. A very sneaky thing was done to us. A CEQA study began last year, with the publication of a "Notice of Preparation" that was filed with the state. A public hearing was held (I was the only one commenting) and written comments were accepted. That was in April 2011. In December 2011, nothing had happened, so I called the CSLC in Sacramento. After a week of trying to find someone in their office, a call was returned to tell me "the NOP was flawed, it will be redrafted, you will be informed." Instead, without notice, the CEQA process was abandoned and replaced by non-CEQA "Analysis of Public Trust." In that analysis, one sentence explains why CEQA is being ignored: "this is an emergency or mitigation of an emergency" and thus exempt from CEQA. So I called CEQA, and spoke to the project supervisor (the third one in three years). Why was the CEQA process abandoned? Why were the comments made in the CEQA process so far dumped -- they are not addressed in the "Analysis"? Why wasn't anyone notified of these major changes? The answer: the applicant had changed from the Trancas Property Owners Association to the Broad Beach GHAD. Thus, the new applicant could claim anything they want. And they claimed this is an emergency. That's all. No explanation why CSLC would accept this CEQA runaround. [more]
Hans Laetz November 20, 2012 at 05:11 PM
No explanation why this is an emergency, non-discretionary project. It is quite obvious that the emergency and mitigation of an emergency phase has passed, and the current disaster may be a rape of a beach, but it's no emergency. No explanation why the CEQA NOP comments -- which include your concerns, Brian -- were dumped in an ashcan. The project supervisor I spoke to last week in Sacramento was UNAWARE OF THE MATTERS I HAD BROUGHT UP. This is a travesty. This is an end-run around CEQA. This is a violation of the laws, Look, I support the sand project. Just build a public beach. The GHAD wants a large amount of very valuable state property (sand) to place on state property (the beach it wrecked) to create a "public" beach without new or adequate parking or access. There current plans create a beach that is barely a beach, and not public. It is a great improvement to the private beach houses, with little public benefit. This beach should be rebuilt. But it must be within CEQA, and the Broad Beach residents will have to accept full public access. This switcheroo was unconscionable. The Broad Beach GHAD lawyer was given a copy of my CEQA comments, and he has my email and phone contacts. So did the state. This happened in secret and I am not happy.
Hans Laetz November 20, 2012 at 05:13 PM
And there was no "privacy buffer" in the CEQA NOP. There was no "privacy buffer" before the city council. This is a switcheroo. We have been deceived. We were promised a public beach. This is back to the ATVs and guards and bad publicity.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »