<p>As many of you know, the newspaper has a limited amount of space. But, The Tribune did a good job of summarizing our chapter’s position here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/12/11/2830502/pismo-beach-seawall-project.html</p><p>Here is my complete testimony followed with what we’re calling “The Surfrider Clause” which will appear in the Commission’s St. Andrew’s Sea Wall Project findings (with unanimous support of the commissioners).</p><p>Surfrider SLO Testimony at California Coastal Commission meeting, Radisson Hotel Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco, 12/11/2013</p><p>Re: Proposed St. Andrew’s Seawall Project</p><p>Good afternoon Chair Kinsey, Commissioners</p><p>My name is Brad Snook, Chair of the San Luis Obispo chapter of Surfrider Foundation.</p><p>We are concerned the proposed seawall will act as an extension of existing armoring along the beach, armoring that may already be contributing to accelerated erosion. If the Commission favors a seawall as the best immediate method for protecting Pismo Beach’s sewage lift station but does not desire a seawall to permanently protect this lift station, Surfrider asks the commission to make sure that your conditions of concurrence reflect this objective. By doing this, Surfrider can support the Commission’s decision to enact a schedule for delaying Managed Retreat.</p><p>Like you, Surfrider is here today to support the timely re-location of the St. Andrew’s sewage lift station in Pismo Beach. In January, the Commission conditioned its concurrence to include the creation of a managed retreat plan to help assure this would happen. We are concerned that the proposed language changes in Condition 1 will not facilitate this objective. The proposed changes only aim to assess the continued utility and functionality of the seawall, and they do not explicitly require assessment of broader issues such as whether or not the seawall’s function is consistent with current/future coastal protection policies, or whether there is a more appropriate means of addressing the lift station’s proximity to a failing bluff.</p><p>From our conversations with them, your staff and the Corps seem to intend that the scope of assessment outlined in Condition 1 would extend beyond the physical assessment. However, the proposed language is just not clear about that. Although it may be their intent, if it is not reflected in the language, future staff, Corps representatives, Commissioners, and City Council members will be hard pressed to remember what the intent was 20 years from now.</p><p>We further urge the Commission to work with the City of Pismo Beach toward defining specifics for their Managed Retreat Study and with the Corps of Engineers to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed seawall over time. </p><p>We hope the City of Pismo Beach has utilized the past year to get a jump start on their managed retreat plan for the lift station. This would confirm their affirmative concern about avoiding a sewage spill and the potential requirement of an Emergency Action in the next several years. We also hope the Army Corps will continue to work with Surfrider, Pismo Beach, and the California Coastal Commission toward protecting the beaches we all value.</p><p>Thank you “The Surfrider Clause”:</p><p>The Commission is aware of Surfrider’s concern regarding the proposed condition language referring to an assessment of the “utility and functionality” of the seawall after 20 years. In requiring that the O&M Manual require the City to assess the continued utility of the seawall after 20 years, the Commission intends and expects that the assessment of the “utility” of the seawall will go beyond a mere assessment of the physical need for the wall to assess its consistency, to the maximum extent practical, with the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Management Program.</p>