[0:00] May 25,

[0:07] meeting of OCTA's regional transportation planning committee. I was going to have Dr. Carol Lee, the pledge, but if I could ask Dr. Huber, please.

[0:38] We have no close session items at this time, so we'll move on to our special calendar item number one, which is committee meeting 2025 schedule and CEO Johnson will present this item.

[0:50] Thank you, Chair Coffin Science.

[0:53] So, presented for your consideration as the 2025 calendar.

[0:56] I would note that we're recommending that you keep your schedule.

[1:00] The same as it has been in previous years, which is the first Monday.

[1:03] Of each month, that 1030 AM.

[1:05] One note is the first Monday of September is the Labor Day holiday,

[1:08] so we would suggest that you schedule the previous Thursday, which would be August 28th.

[1:13] If we for some reason not to need that meeting, we could coordinate with you,

[1:16] Chair Coffin, and cancel that, but we would suggest that you put that on the calendar.

[1:19] any

[1:25] requests from the public or request from the committee.

[1:31] I do need a motion and a second for this.

[1:34] All those in favor?

[1:35] Aye.

[1:36] Any opposed?

[1:37] Okay, very good.

[1:38] That carries.

[1:39] We'll move on to item number two.

[1:40] Rolls and Responsibilities of the Regional Transportation Planning Committee.

[1:43] And CEO Johnson will present again.

[1:45] Thank you, Chair Kloppison.

[1:46] So as you're aware, the administrative code of OCTA does say that the chair of the board may establish committees,

[1:52] which he has done in the board ratified at your last meeting with that each year staff is

[1:57] brought forward the roles and responsibilities of each committee to ensure that we're agendaizing

[2:01] items in the proper committee structure. So the authorities are clear. I would know if

[2:05] there were any changes, we would have a red line version for you. So staff is not recommending any

[2:09] changes based upon the transition from 24 to 2025. Okay, very good. Any requests from the

[2:16] public any request from this committee. With that, I'll accept a motion in a second.

[2:21] So moved. Have a motion in a second, all those in favor?

[2:26] Any opposed? Okay, very good. At this time, we'll move on to the consent calendar items

[2:32] 3 through 6. We can approve all this in one motion unless the committee members

[2:36] are the public request to separate action.

[2:40] Second. I'll have a motion in a second, all those in favor?

[2:43] Any opposed?

[2:45] Okay, very good. That carries. We'll move on to a regular calendar item number seven, which is the coastal rail resiliency study update, and I believe we have a staff presentation.

[2:54] Sure, if I could make a quick introduction. I would say item seven and eight are very closely intertwined.

[2:59] Well, proposal is this morning is that we go over item seven, which is the larger scale coastal resiliency update on the study, the activities for the longer term leading us out close to 30 years.

[3:09] and then item eight will very much focus in on the priority projects that we've been working

[3:13] over the last year to implement. So they do feel together but we start with a larger picture first

[3:18] and then dive into the deeper projects.

[3:25] Good morning, Chair Kloppensin and committee members.

[3:27] I'm Dan Foo from the Planning Division. So as Thero mentioned, this particular study is for the

[3:34] Sean and midterm. So maybe I'll just take a moment and and provide sort of a larger context

[3:38] background on all the things that have been happening with respect to the coast of the rails.

[3:43] So it's really a multifaceted approach in terms of looking at, we have those emergencies that occur

[3:50] between 2021 through about 2024 and then there are the hotspots, so in reinforcements areas,

[3:57] that's the subject of the next agenda item and then what I'll be going over with you or the short

[4:05] and midterm concepts that we're looking at in terms of protecting the rail line in place for the next 30 years or so.

[4:13] And then finally, there's a fourth kind of prong to this, which is looking at potential relocation of the rail line, which is a subject of a separate study.

[4:25] So in terms of the purpose and need of this particular effort, again, it's really to protect the rail line for the foreseeable future.

[4:32] We're looking at measures that we protect the rail line for up to the next several decades.

[4:38] And the goal is really to minimize any surprises in this particular case service disruption that we've been faced with over the last handful of years.

[4:47] And then in terms of the need, it's really important for us to provide a safe and reliable railroad corridor.

[4:54] that is part of the Los Angeles larger state-run service.

[5:00] Between San Diego, all the way up to San Luis Obispo, which is 351 miles.

[5:06] And so this particular rail corridor provides basically service for passenger rail in the case

[5:14] of MetroLink, from Oceanside, all the way to Ventura, as well as Amtrak, which operates service

[5:21] for flow sand from San Diego, all the way up to San Luis Obispo. And then finally, the freight

[5:26] operators, DNSF. So again, in terms of goes and objectives, it's really protecting the

[5:33] rail line in place while a separate effort, as I mentioned, is going to be in place

[5:38] to look at potentially relocating the rail line somewhere inland. That, again, is a separate

[5:42] effort. And what we want to do is basically look at providing or coming up with short and midterm.

[5:49] So short, defined as in roughly about a 10-year period, meaning solutions I would last

[5:55] us for about 10 year period, and then midterm solutions that would last up to 30 years.

[6:01] And then what we have been doing over the last couple of years, so this endeavor started

[6:05] in the fall of 2023, is working with various agencies, including but not limited to the

[6:12] city of San Clemente city of Dana Point, Orange County Parks County of Orange, State

[6:17] Parks and others, as well as the regulatory agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers,

[6:21] the coastal commission state land commission and counter-ins and others.

[6:29] So from the next couple of graphics, it sort of set the stage in a context of what I'll be going over with you.

[6:35] If you look at the bottom of this particular graphic, there are typical sections.

[6:41] Effectively, what these are are similar land use characteristics as we go through the 7-mile stretch of the coastal rail corridor,

[6:49] starting from the north in the northern Dana Point limits all the way down to the county line.

[6:56] So when you're looking at the top graphics starting a mile post 200.1, that is the landmarks

[7:02] are included on there. I'm not going to read them, but an example, an example is include the

[7:06] Heany State Beach as well as Captain Shano Beach. And then when you look at the bottom graphic,

[7:12] that's the delineation between the city of Dana Point and the city of San Clemente,

[7:16] where you have various beaches in San Clemente, like Poche Beach, as was the Capujor's area.

[7:25] And then as we head further down, there are the San Clemente city beaches, as well as the

[7:31] pier area, and then you have the pedestrian overpass further south, as was T Street. And then

[7:39] on the bottom graphic, you have Caliphia State Beach. And then further south is San Clemente State Beach

[7:45] and then all the way to Cypressure, which is a subject of the first emergency that we experience,

[7:50] and then down to the St. Aegle on the county line, what I suppose to be, which is.

[7:55] So this particular graphic, I'm sorry, slide, is really a menu of options. So I want to emphasize

[8:04] these menu of options are going to be applied to the various typical sections I'll be going over.

[8:09] So as an example, we looked at sort of a three-prong approach, looking at what are things that could be done to protect the rail line in terms of improving stability of the bluff side, and then what are things that could be done on the beach side, and then finally what are things that could actually be done on the rail itself.

[8:32] So, you can see, for example, with respect to the bluff side, some of the examples are similar

[8:39] to what OCTS undertaking by way of previous emergency projects, as well as even the upcoming

[8:45] item that will be the subject of discussion, as far as the four reinforcement areas.

[8:51] They include attachment walls and tie back, as well as even improving the drainage system and

[9:01] forth. And then on the beach, by the way, in no particular order in terms of order precedents,

[9:08] there's Rupert Placement and Generic Rock Reventman vertical sea wall and even a hybrid

[9:14] solution that's a combination of items one through three. And then when you look at items five

[9:19] and six, they include beach nourishment with either shoreline protection like jetties and

[9:27] and groins and so forth,

[9:30] and then beach nourishment with sand retention and shoreline protection

[9:35] that includes combination of items went through four.

[9:39] And then as far as the rail concepts are concerned, there is the elevating the tracks,

[9:44] which is pretty significant in terms of the proposed improvements, as well as even alternative

[9:51] materials. What this particular category really looking is looking at and you'll see kind

[9:56] of the recurring theme with item two under the rail subject.

[10:00] Is basically providing more resilient type of structures, meaning signal boxes and so forth or prone to

[10:10] salinity from the sea and corrosion and so forth. So this particular option is looking at modernizing and providing

[10:17] materials that are more resistant. And then, finally, on the ground improvements that includes

[10:24] either deep soil mixing or jet or jet grouting. In other words, filling in holes that

[10:33] are beneath the rail line. So, again, these concepts have not actually been evaluated for

[10:38] a standpoint of the various typical sections that I'll be going over, but rather they apply

[10:44] at if you owe a 30,000 for the level.

[10:48] So in terms of typical sections one and two on the very bottom, you'll see the landmarks that

[10:56] have similar characteristics to Hiny Capastrono Beach, as well as the North Beach area, and

[11:02] then on the lower left hand graphic, you can see generally what the land use characteristic

[11:07] is, where you have the bluff to the very left or the inland side, you have coast highway

[11:13] and then the rare road, and then some land use such as a parking lot to the seaward sign

[11:19] and finally the beach. So for typical sections one and two, I want to note that there's

[11:24] really not a lot that needs to be done other than monitoring the situation that's out there.

[11:32] Again, typical section two is somewhat similar in terms of the land use and characteristic

[11:37] where you have effectively the track is protected in some ways by coast-highway in the

[11:44] inland side or buffer if you will and then there's some development or residential

[11:49] development on the seaboard side before you get to the beach. Typical section three

[11:56] is the area that's just around the north beach area. You can see the marking on the

[12:06] On the inland side, there is basically other developments such as a parking lot in the trail,

[12:13] and then on the seaboard side is where there's really no other buffer between the railroad tracks and the beach.

[12:21] So in this particular case, some of the potential solutions are listed on there.

[12:27] Again, none of these have been evaluated at this point. This is really looking sort of the first tranche of looking at

[12:33] what the potential solutions could be,

[12:36] and then we'll get into the evaluation process

[12:38] as well as the public input process.

[12:43] And then in terms of typical section four,

[12:47] this is around the north beach area,

[12:50] as well as south of the Sancle Mini Pier,

[12:52] and then all the way down to Sancle Mini State Beach.

[12:55] You can see that on the inland side, there's the bluff,

[12:59] and then in this particular situation,

[13:01] there's a trail that's owned by OCTA, but through release and license agreement, the city of

[13:07] Sanctal many operates, and then you have to track and then you have the the rip wrap on the

[13:13] seaboard sign, the beach. So there are, there are fleets in terms of issues from the bluff side

[13:21] that we have actually seen over the years. So there are some proposed improvements on the inland

[13:27] and then even on the track, you know, potential in terms of looking at elevating the tracks

[13:34] as well as even ground improvements and what I mentioned earlier, which is a commonly

[13:37] nominator, is the alternative materials, in other words, making the railroad infrastructure

[13:45] more resilient in terms of like the signal boxes and so forth.

[13:51] So here's a continuation of typical section for where on the beach side there are a number

[13:57] proposed improvements. And by the way, the very last one is always an option that's looked

[14:03] that in terms of a no-action that is not necessarily, I mean, that's in the best interest

[14:07] of protecting the railroad, but I just want to know that that's always looked that as an option.

[14:14] And then in terms of typical section five, this particular area is around the north beach area

[14:21] between the north beach and to the south around the Sancle Manipur area. And in this particular

[14:26] case there are effectively threats on both side, whether you're looking at the bluff as you

[14:33] can see in the lower left hand graphic and as well as the potential lack of beach on the

[14:40] seaboard side. So in this particular case here are some of the proposed improvements on the

[14:46] bluff side

[14:49] and then on the beach side similarly there are protection measures that are proposed

[14:55] and then including the rail itself.

[15:01] So for typical section number six, this particular area is just around the San Clemente Pier area.

[15:09] There is very minimal actions that's needed in terms of risk and improvements on both sides.

[15:18] So you can see on the bluff side there could be, for instance, catchman walls that could be looked at in terms of blocking debris from coming down onto the railroad tracks.

[15:28] And then on the beach side, there's not really anything directly that's being considered at this point.

[15:36] And then finally, typical section number seven is the area between south of the Sancle Mini Pier and around the Sancle Mini State Beach area.

[15:46] In terms of the land use characteristic, you can see the bluff on the inland side, the trail, the OCTA rail line, and then you can see the rip wrap on the seaboard side.

[15:57] So there are, there is, there are proposals in terms of looking at improving and making the

[16:03] rail more resilient on the beach side, and they include, for instance, beach nourishment

[16:10] with shoreline protection, as well as even watershed modifications to make the, to increase

[16:17] the beach sand supply. And what, what that particular item really means is it's pretty drastic,

[16:23] So it would actually require coordination and collaboration with other entities that would be, for instance, any streambeds and so forth in terms of allowing sediments to flow through and onto the beach.

[16:39] And then finally, on the rail, sci of things, there's the alternative materials that's included.

[16:45] So, in terms of key project risk, there's always the risk of depending on the ring storm

[16:53] event, King High Ty, and so forth, there's always the risk of bluff failures that could

[16:59] lead to an emergency immediate action that would lead to rail closures for an extended period.

[17:05] And by the way, just for context, in terms of the previous closures that OCTA, under between

[17:12] 2021 and 2024, those three spot areas with the five closure led to over a year's worth of closure and total in terms of the rail line being out of service.

[17:24] So it could be pretty significant and any given time it's two to three months to there's a closure and then with the remedio action.

[17:34] And then in terms of challenges, similarly, there's going to be challenges with developing a prefer set of alternatives.

[17:41] going to be acceptable to everyone effectively. In particular, the multiple permitting agencies such as

[17:49] the Coastal Commission, the Army Corps of Engineering, others. So just as background, staff has

[17:55] continued to engage the Army Corps on this particular effort and other efforts that OCTA is leading

[18:04] at this time, just so they are kept the breath of what OCT is planning and then in terms of

[18:12] looking at identifying permitting of a sufficient sand replenishment source, that's always

[18:17] going to be a challenge in terms of whether it's going to come from the sand source, whether

[18:22] it's going to come from an offshore sand supply or an inland. So that's something that will continue

[18:28] to develop and likely take as a lesson learned from the other effort that a more immediate

[18:34] and then developing and securing a timely, san-transwine delivery method. So all of these

[18:43] are going to be recurring themes. These are, if you will, less in terms of the next wave of

[18:50] priorities would be what we're looking at. And then in terms of the next steps, what we're doing

[18:57] sharing these concepts with this committee and the board next Monday. We have share these concepts

[19:06] with the project development team, which is consists of the three cities, San Juan Capestron

[19:11] and Dana Point and San Clemente, as well as the County of Orange Public Works and OC Parks

[19:17] and State Parks and others. And then what we would like to do is convene an in-person and virtual meeting

[19:24] So two separate meetings in the late March, early April timeframe to seek public input.

[19:32] So as you may recall, last year when we initiated this effort, there was a six-month period

[19:38] where we actually solicited public input. And that led to the changes in terms of how

[19:44] always see take a look at the improvements. And then what we're looking to do is we turn to the

[19:48] board of directors later in the summertime frame with the refined set of alternatives. So

[19:54] What I've gone through is actually more of a kitchen sink approach, but what we want to be able to do is would only think.

[20:00] I'm going to move on to a more manageable number and then get into the heavy lifting and evaluating these.

[20:05] And then, um, putting together a draft and final feasibility study report in the mid-25 to, uh, middle of this year to above the middle of,

[20:13] make sure time frame. And then at such time, there's going to be a priority of what the most needed urgent, um, improvements are.

[20:22] will look to get into the next phase of the project development process, which is conducting

[20:28] preliminary engineering, environmental studies, and so forth. And of course, there's always

[20:34] the need for seeking funding. So once we identify a back of the envelope order magnitude

[20:41] cost, then we'll work with our funding group to look at seeking funding opportunities from the

[20:47] local state and federal various sources.

[20:52] So that concludes my remarks.

[20:54] Happy to answer any questions.

[20:55] Thank you very much for your report.

[20:57] Any comments, questions from the committee?

[21:02] Yeah, just one of the first comments.

[21:03] I really appreciate the thorough report on what's

[21:07] happening down there.

[21:08] You really addressed a lot of issues in a great work.

[21:13] I did have a question on two things.

[21:16] Is the status of the federal, did we get federal funding for some of this work and is there any update on the status to we have a reason to believe it might be through the chair director hopper we're going to talk a little bit about that in the next item so we can okay, sorry that's okay, we just defer that item and then second question will be one of the items is watershed modifications.

[21:37] are there any things that have been kind of discussed

[21:44] along that regard or is that sort of a conceptual at this point?

[21:49] So through this here, Director Hock,

[21:51] that is still conceptual at this point.

[21:53] And as I mentioned with the watershed modification,

[21:56] it would require a multi-agency effort

[22:00] because what has happened over the decades

[22:03] is with the damning and the concrete lining

[22:06] of channels on the inland side. That's prohibited sand from naturally flowing onto the coast.

[22:13] And so if there's going to be any watershed modification, it's also going to require

[22:18] permits from whether it's the Omicore of Engineers and even the Coastal Commission.

[22:23] So those are going to be quite an undertaking that I think at this point, we see it's going to be a multi-agency

[22:30] effort. Okay. Thank you.

[22:36] That's beautiful, I turn it off, I turn it on.

[22:40] I had the same questions I'm looking forward to the presentation about the federal federal funding.

[22:45] But I didn't want to say, I've sat through, I don't even know how many PowerPoint presentations.

[22:51] And that presentation is one of the best I've ever seen.

[22:55] The combination of the photographs and the graphics and the detailed information and the narrative.

[23:03] It should go in the PowerPoint all the time.

[23:05] Thank you.

[23:08] Thank

[23:11] you.

[23:11] Thank you.

[23:11] Thank you very much, Madame Chair.

[23:13] If this is the out to 30-year type study, some of those multi-agency or higher-level agency discussions,

[23:23] I think are important for us to consider how we might at least raise the flag that the state or the Army Corps of Engineers needs to step in.

[23:33] and say we need to find a way to solve these unintended consequences

[23:37] of lining San Juan Creek or damning, you know, for their inland.

[23:43] We cannot continue to be the solution for many other agencies issues.

[23:48] And so if there are multi-agency issues, let's figure out

[23:51] what the plan of action might be for that.

[23:53] Even though it might take a long time, this is a 30-year sort of study, right?

[23:58] Anyway, that's just a comment.

[23:59] I do have two sort of more specific questions.

[24:01] One, could you give us an update if you know it on the status of any nourishment, beach

[24:10] nourishment projects that are out there in the region?

[24:12] For example, we know San Clementi has already conducted one.

[24:15] Are there any others on the horizon?

[24:17] There are different beach owners down there, right?

[24:21] No, CTA really owns none of them.

[24:23] Give us an idea of where other San replenishment projects might be.

[24:27] parks, city of San Clemente, with any further ones, the privately owned beach areas, whatever else.

[24:34] Through the chair of director of Federico, there are many moving pieces so I'll try to answer

[24:40] the question as best as I can. From what I understand, the county of orange is working on

[24:46] it's not necessarily a project in and of itself, but it's the school permit or the San

[24:52] opportunistic permit. So that is placing up to a half a million cubic yard of sand along

[25:03] So that's one particular effort. Over the last couple of years, we're aware that the city of

[25:10] Sancle many have been working with O.C. parts, and O.C. public works in, if you will,

[25:17] harvesting the sand around the upper reaches of the Santa Ana River. That is around the full five,

[25:24] just north of the four or five area. So that's happened on two different cycles. And from what we understand,

[25:29] And it's a smaller quantity of about 30 to 40,000 cubic yard of sand that the city and the county had collaborated on and they placed sand in the north beach area via trucking.

[25:42] So just kind of one note pretty much anywhere within the city limits that south of the pier is really not accessible via trucks because of the lay of the land or the geography.

[25:52] It's really only accessible through rail and offshore, and then there's a whole host of challenges with respect to those two.

[26:01] The city is, of course, constantly looking at other opportunities.

[26:06] So I know state parks have had in the Huntington State Park area has had some excess sand that's built up there.

[26:15] They have approached the city and were OCT as aware of it.

[26:19] But in large, most of these are pretty small quantity,

[26:23] meaning 30, 40, 50,000 cubic yard of sand,

[26:28] just to put in context, the Omicore's project

[26:30] that the city just completed in November of last year

[26:34] was 200,000 cubic yard, and that was

[26:37] via offshore hopper dredge.

[26:40] So that kind of gives you the context of the amount of sand

[26:43] that's needed, that was placed in the North Beach area.

[26:47] Thanks, yeah, I mean, I realize it's really not in this study

[26:51] because it's beyond our control,

[26:53] but those agencies and entities and cities that own those beaches

[27:00] any amount of sand that they place there,

[27:02] certainly helps mitigate the issues and risks

[27:05] to our tracks, is that true?

[27:07] That is great.

[27:08] So it's really important that we stay abreast of that.

[27:10] We understand as those things change and develop how that's happening.

[27:14] And then lastly, on the public outreach side,

[27:16] we're well aware of the contingent of people

[27:21] that would love to see all sand and want their beaches

[27:25] to be big and wide again.

[27:27] Can you give me what else, give me the full spectrum

[27:34] of public feedback that you've heard about the project

[27:36] from the whole first round of public feedback that you did?

[27:39] So, just through the chair director Federico, just kind of working off memory, there's a whole spectrum of those who, to your point, who believes San is the only solution to others who understand that there needs to be a balance in terms of looking at engineering solutions or otherwise known as armoring.

[28:01] The incongjunction with the sand the challenge with the sand has always been

[28:06] The quantity of sand that can be put there in a timely manner again just to put in in context

[28:12] That 200,000 cubic yard of sand that the city completed. I'll be it was under two different cycles

[28:18] Choke many many months to get that amount of sand in there, and so if there is an urgent or

[28:25] emergency need for the sand

[28:28] It's going to be extremely challenging, unless everything's lined up that includes, you know, having a,

[28:35] a director, a directing company under contract and so forth, and the source and all of that, to get that amount of sand in there in a timely manner.

[28:43] And then the other wildcard is, while the sand gets there in place with any king-tie high-tie event,

[28:51] there is no telling whether that sand's going to stain place or get pulled out.

[28:55] So that's really the science and really the unknown factor.

[29:00] So that's why San in and of itself is such a difficult one to predict

[29:05] and not knowing how long it's going to stay in place to help

[29:10] buffer the railroad in this case.

[29:18] Thank you for this report and

[29:22] trying to find something here. So I'm just going to have to go by

[29:25] memory. Oh, here we go.

[29:26] So just to answer director Federico's questions, as it relates to the county of Orange

[29:36] of C. Parks, we have the board approved the coastal coalition that we're forming, and

[29:43] all the stakeholder cities should have been invited.

[29:45] We will include in that coalition the Army Corps of Engineers, OCTA, the relevant tribes

[29:52] that are in the area as well as the special district.

[30:00] That is that capo beach that can help to support this effort and has a funding source.

[30:07] So, those meetings will begin ideally in March, if I have my way.

[30:14] And that is where we will start at the very start with Makana, who has been working with all the relevant agencies.

[30:24] and the OC parks. She's now our coastal resiliency manager for the County of Orange. She just started this month.

[30:33] And so she'll be in charge of this coalition in terms of gathering all the different South County needs

[30:40] as it relates to protecting the beaches and the rail corridor.

[30:45] And so the goal for the coalition is to try to develop a maintenance program.

[30:51] And we have this for the northern beaches,

[30:55] Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach.

[30:58] We have a maintenance program.

[31:01] And so the goal will be to try to develop a maintenance program.

[31:04] And then, of course, leverage all the different agencies,

[31:07] special districts to try to identify the funding

[31:11] and develop a timeline for implementation.

[31:16] So part of the discussion will for sure include

[31:23] taking what we did in 2023. We've now had three different say and replenishment projects go forth.

[31:31] Since I joined the board in district five, one of them was in 2023, where we took the

[31:37] sand from the sand down at River Trail and deposit at Kappa Beach, then two others in 2024,

[31:43] summer of 24, one again at Kappa Beach and then also north beach with in partnership with the city of San

[31:48] many. What the studies have shown, which I believe Dana Point paid for, thank you. But what

[31:58] the UCI studies have shown is, and I've shared this before, is that there is a really nice

[32:04] sand bar that is forming and that is mitigating the wave impacts onto the beach and it's working.

[32:11] We did get a little bit of chunk of sand taken out due to a storm, but we didn't have that

[32:17] same storm for this year, so we've had more replenishment of sand, no storms, and so this

[32:22] sand is sticking, if you will. So the goal is to try to come up with a comprehensive plan,

[32:28] in partnership with all the agencies that are relevant, and really treat the beach nourishment

[32:34] just like we do, repairing pot holes and proving roads, replacing buildings that are degraded in

[32:42] county or cities and have a plan. So that's what can be expected. The water shed management

[32:49] is also going to be discussed as part of that. Most of those water shed flood channels are

[32:55] actually county flood channels and so we've been working on what does that look like? That

[33:01] is an extremely expensive adventure, if you will. And so that is going to require significant

[33:08] and funding to be able to do something like that.

[33:10] But it is, it's an important part of the discussion.

[33:13] So that's kind of where we are.

[33:16] And, you know, my office is taking the lead for the county

[33:20] on that from the county supervisors.

[33:23] As it relates to, but the city's, the relevant cities

[33:26] should have already received letters.

[33:29] If you could let me know if data point didn't get a letter

[33:32] inviting them to participate in this program.

[33:36] I have a question, and I know there's a debate about the engineered rock revetment, rip

[33:43] wrap versus sand, and I'll just ask this question.

[33:48] So when we install engineered rock revetment or rip wrap or both,

[33:59] why do we think that that

[34:00] a superior solution as opposed to increasing the size of the beach and buffering the railroad tracks,

[34:12] because it doesn't the water just flow through the rip wrap and over it and onto the tracks

[34:19] to create damage.

[34:25] Through the chair director fully, in terms of the science of the

[34:30] armoring type of actions i.e. rip wrap or c-wall or anything of that nature versus just purely the sand from a nature standpoint.

[34:42] There's still some uncertainties in terms of, and I think what you're getting at is the passive erosion.

[34:49] It's been talked about potentially that when you put hard structures if you will, that it doesn't inhibit the sand from replenishing.

[35:00] That's this one school of thought. There's also been other schools of thoughts where scientists have seen that the sand has come back with the hard armoring.

[35:11] So, that is something that we have seen from looking at academia and what's been done. In terms of timing, that's what the challenge is if the utmost or the mission is to protect the rail line.

[35:26] And the integrity of the rail line, the sand, as I mentioned a moment ago, is really challenging to get that large quantity of sand into the area to shore up the rail line if you will.

[35:40] So that's why it needs to be a holistic approach in terms of looking at different engineering solutions coupled with nature-based solutions, so that's kind of where we are at this point.

[35:52] I understand that. I don't think you're answering my question though. My question is really very specific.

[35:59] If water hits the rocks that are stacked up next to the railroad tracks, I'm just using simple language here.

[36:07] Water waves crash onto the rocks, the water flows into the railroad tracks and into the revetment areas and seeps into that area.

[36:18] And then everything starts to sink a little bit, because naturally that happens when water hits sand rocks, et cetera.

[36:28] So how do the rocks actually protect the tracks?

[36:33] Well, the rock in and of itself provides the weight at the toll of the slope in the case of seeing self-sanculinity,

[36:42] where you do have a slope on the inland side,

[36:45] and it basically anchors the rail line.

[36:48] So one of the solutions we're looking at

[36:51] is I'm not suggesting that's necessarily

[36:53] going to be feasible is the grounding,

[36:56] because we recognize there are holes, if you will,

[37:00] to put in simple terms underneath the rail line.

[37:04] And so there needs to be something

[37:06] done in terms of anchoring or providing protection

[37:09] for the rail line itself.

[37:11] So there are a whole host of potential solutions that are being looked at, but in terms of the sand, if the hose were there, the sand could potentially get pull in different directions too.

[37:25] So at this point, I think we're looking at a whole host of different possibilities including the sand replenishment along with the other solutions.

[37:34] Okay, and then when is it after the board meeting, assuming the board approves us moving forward,

[37:45] then the next step would be to have these public meetings.

[37:48] Do you, I'm sorry, when did you say they're going to start in March?

[37:52] We're anticipating if the board should approve the recommendation next Monday.

[37:57] We're looking at having an in-person meeting sometime tentatively sometime during the latter part of March,

[38:04] and the early part of April to gain public feedback on,

[38:10] is there anything else that we should be looking at?

[38:13] Again, the objective in the case of this particular study

[38:17] is really looking at protecting the rail line.

[38:22] So we're looking to see if there's anything else

[38:24] that's missing in terms of a whole array of possibilities

[38:28] in terms of protecting the rail line.

[38:30] Okay, and are we also presenting this to Senator Blake's fair and her committee that is charged with this very task?

[38:41] Through the chair, Director Foley, we've been in constant conversation with her and her staff.

[38:46] I think two things one is she's very focused on the hot spot piece which we're going to talk about next.

[38:52] And I think as we work through that, then we have let her know we were working on this.

[38:56] And then second one, it's unclear at this point if her committee will be reestablished, if it does, then we will

[39:01] I'm sure how the opportunity presents a larger picture, because there's a lot of interest, I would say,

[39:06] with the Secretary of Transportation level and natural resources about beyond the emergency piece,

[39:10] so we'd very much like to have that opportunity.

[39:12] All right, thank you.

[39:15] Any other comments or questions from the committee?

[39:19] Any requests from the public?

[39:20] Yes, Madam Chair, we have one public comment.

[39:23] I'm Amanda Kintonia.

[39:24] Thank you.

[39:30] Good

[39:34] morning, committee members.

[39:36] Glad to be back.

[39:38] As a thank committee resident over 50 years

[39:40] and involved in active in our community,

[39:45] I wanted to thank Mr. Fue, OCTA staff for a thorough report.

[39:51] And I just want to remind all directors that the

[39:55] Thank you, thank you very much.

[39:57] Thank you.

[39:59] Thank you.

[40:00] Which causes, you know, beach, bluff erosion, landslides from developing inland off of Pico,

[40:10] where by St. Andrews, by the sea, and sinkholes throughout our town as evidenced by the storm of 1993.

[40:20] And this has occurred throughout the years, throughout the decades, going back to the 1920s.

[40:25] So it is our blast. It's the type of land that we have that goes from the beach seven miles in land.

[40:33] So that's what we're also dealing with. It's the type of sand that's up at the dirt, soil, sorry.

[40:39] But I also wanted to discuss that that it's important that to note that there's strong wave action that is prevalent in that it's been seen.

[40:54] In 2023, Dohini State Beach had Sand replenishment or Sand nourishment project.

[41:01] However, it was Hurricane Hillary that came by and had because very choppy, fast waves

[41:09] and eroded that beach. However, the sand that was replenished there was able to go south

[41:16] to other beaches. So that was important to note that it did flow from north to south.

[41:23] And so there was replenishment of the sand.

[41:27] I think it was at the November 21st, 2024,

[41:31] coastal advisor, committee meeting of the city of San

[41:34] Colmany, where the experts from coastal frontiers

[41:38] and Dr. Brett Sanders brought up this wave action

[41:41] that is prevalent that causes erosion on our beaches.

[41:46] And I think that's really neat that really needs to be

[41:48] addressed.

[41:50] And I think that is in the report the Mr. Fu

[41:52] or Mr. Lee had mentioned.

[41:54] So this wave of action is another cause of our beach erosion

[41:59] as well as the bluffs from the type of soil that we have.

[42:03] So I just wanted to make sure that people were aware of that.

[42:08] Also regarding, there was a question regarding public comments.

[42:11] And I think most people don't know

[42:13] that the OCTA's initial assessment technical memorandum

[42:16] included Sam replenishment and such as sea walls, growings, and breakwaters. So they were

[42:26] addressing this matter way back in December or fall of 2023. And I think that also on

[42:34] at the subcommittee on those unreal court or resiliency on April 29, 2024,

[42:40] Thank you very

[42:48] much.

[42:53] I appreciate Mr. Foo.

[42:54] Your presentation.

[42:55] This does require an action.

[42:57] So I will need a motion in a second.

[42:59] Good.

[43:00] I have a motion in a second.

[43:01] All those in favour?

[43:02] Any post.

[43:04] Very good motion carries.

[43:05] Thank you.

[43:06] Move on to item number eight, which is coastal rail stabilization priority project update.

[43:12] Mr. Biel is here at the presentation.

[43:24] Good morning, Chair.

[43:25] I'm John Biel, Executive Director, Capital Programs and I brought up here with me also not joining me as Jason Lee.

[43:32] He's the Program Manager of Rail Products here at OCTA.

[43:36] This is an update on the delivery of the immediately needed railroad protection projects.

[43:43] Slide 2 in front of you is a summary of the 3T initiative spreadsheet to protect our coastal rail segment for the future.

[43:51] The green area with the star represents the four high-risk priority reinforced

[43:56] areas that were identified in our initial assessment of coastal rail threats

[44:01] that was conducted as the first task in the coastal rail resilience he

[44:05] studied which Dan just provided to you as an update.

[44:09] Initial estimates were prepared for this work in the green

[44:13] 305 million of funding commitments were obtained and I have a slide on those

[44:16] And the environmental and permitting process and preliminary dot design have started on these.

[44:23] These immediate projects should be implemented to immediately protect the railroad and its current location.

[44:30] And just to reiterate, the Coastal Rail Resilience Society shown in blue,

[44:36] will define the short and midterm solutions for railroad resiliency while maintaining the railroad and its railroad right away has a sense today.

[44:45] The long-term study showing a gray will determine the long-term solution for the railroad and we anticipate that will be led by the state.

[44:56] This slide is a recap of the four priority reinforced areas needing protection.

[45:04] We're evaluating a range of solutions for each of the areas, utilizing evaluation criteria to select a preferred alternative to implement for each area.

[45:16] areas 1, 3, and 4 address the ocean intrusion threats that need protection with armoring and beach.

[45:26] And area 3 addresses inland blood failure to breathe protection with a catchment structure.

[45:32] The exact limits of the improvements will be refined or currently being refined with engineering analysis and stakeholder involvement.

[45:40] We're also evaluating each area's product delivery and constructability, including the potential

[45:47] for contract bundling.

[45:50] It's important to note that Sandersment will be included in armoring areas 1, 2, and

[45:54] 4 to enhance the protection and provide the public some lateral beach access.

[46:02] Site-forces are general geographical locations for each of the four areas.

[46:07] Yellow highlighted area within areas 1, 2, and 4 identify potential Sanders for location

[46:12] in front of the ocean-side armoring, the volume and limits of the armoring and sand are under

[46:19] current so under evaluation. Area 3 is the end-line-side blood collapse protective project,

[46:26] and the limits generally run the length of the existing coastal rail pedestrian bridge

[46:31] and overlap area 2 at Miracles Point.

[46:38] So the delivery of these projects can take place,

[46:40] generate through a standard delivery process or an emergency process.

[46:45] The previous projects at Cyprushure, Casseramanaca, and Mariposa

[46:49] point all we're delivering, utilizing emergency permitting

[46:52] and contracting processes due to the rail service being shut down.

[46:57] The current intermediate need reinforcement area projects are intended

[47:02] to proactively prevent railroad shutdown emergencies and operational impacts.

[47:07] Those ETA initially pursued the emergency process to expedite the construction of these reinforcement areas.

[47:14] However, the regulatory agencies have determined that their emergency process do not apply to these situations,

[47:22] because an incident or shut down of the rail has not occurred, and therefore will have to deliver through a standard project delivery process.

[47:30] So, the standard project delivery process takes more time and study, we got to obtain approvals and permitting and then go through a traditional contract process to get to construction.

[47:44] So, the standard delivery process, like I say, is a more traditional deliberative delivery process, where we need to develop alternatives and assess those and select a preferred alternative.

[47:57] We need to then develop technical studies.

[48:02] They have to be prepared and completed for the permitting

[48:04] and environmental clearance process to start and finalize.

[48:10] Traditional non-emergency public works contracting

[48:12] and construction processes are then used.

[48:17] The timeframe for traditional delivery can be substantial,

[48:19] depending on the scope impacts the stakeholder position

[48:23] and permitting agency processes.

[48:25] So

[48:28] I'd seven up here reflects the steps and conservative timeframes to bring all of the projects

[48:34] to construction.

[48:37] The area three catch on walls being delivered independently from areas one two and four because

[48:41] the environmental and permitting process is a little bit less extensive and we can accelerate

[48:46] project delivery.

[48:48] Area three requires fewer regulatory permits because it's non-gearestictional to the U.S.

[48:53] core of engineers and the State Lands Commission. We also plan to utilize the design build delivery

[48:59] approach for area 3 to further expedite design and construction and reduce risk. Preparations for

[49:07] geotechnical drilling to support the area 3 wall design is currently underway. Initial consultation

[49:14] with regulatory agencies and stakeholders underway to facilitate the permitting design and construction

[49:19] approvals. We generally, every other week, have online meetings with coastal commission staff

[49:25] and occasional meetings with the Corps of Engineers to keep them tied in to what's

[49:29] transparent.

[49:36] The PDT, the PDT project development team went to an evaluation process for the area

[49:40] three concepts and the soldier-powered wall concept emerged as the top alternative.

[49:47] Wall Heights will be designed to withstand potential landslides to protect railroad operations from debris.

[49:53] This is a tried and true method used at the nearby Casaramanaica and Mariposa Sliderias and also

[50:00] Prec, railroads, elsewhere, in a lot of mountainous regions and hilly regions have slight problems throughout the West Coast and in fact the nation.

[50:08] The solution works well within a constrained work area. As you can see here with the bluff, there's also utilities in the railroad corridor, the pedestrian path itself and of course the railroad.

[50:21] To get to this point in the process, the project team looked at quite a few options, including, but not limited to essentially no project, just let it shut down and clean up, it's a very expensive endeavor itself.

[50:35] We looked at energy dissipation structures,

[50:41] can't leave your soldier proud walls,

[50:42] cast in place walls,

[50:44] precast, pre-fabricated walls,

[50:47] graded catchment areas at the toe of the slow,

[50:50] large-scale bluff and slow production,

[50:53] tie-back, soil nail walls,

[50:55] and slow buttresses.

[51:00] This slide shows the cross section of the preferred concept

[51:03] for the area three protection,

[51:06] which is still

[51:07] The wall is approximately 43 feet off foot offset from the railroad and the top of the wall is designed to

[51:15] accept what we call the angle of repose of the soil. She's a slide take place.

[51:21] So if you do have debris or a slide on the left there, that would be the natural slope of the soil.

[51:29] It also includes partnering with the Sea of San Juan Capital.

[51:31] There's same company to remove the existing out-of-service pedestrian bridge on the ocean side of the wall and provide the new protected pedestrian path between the wall and the railroad.

[51:44] This plan avoids conflicts with the existing city main line sewer trunk line that runs along there and city reclaim water lines and fiber optic communication lines that are all underground.

[51:59] And essentially where that path is proposed on the pedestrian trail.

[52:05] The trail setback and fancying will be similar to what other trail segments in the city

[52:10] look like within the railroad corridor.

[52:14] Ultimately, the concept should reduce city and railroad maintenance needs through this area.

[52:19] Looking at areas one, two and four, slide four, this slide shows the top four, the four

[52:29] top scoring concepts developed for areas one, two, and four, and we'll be evaluating

[52:36] evaluated further through the Alternatives Analysis Report.

[52:40] The concepts include generally positive feedback from the city and compliments the city's

[52:45] ongoing San Nursman efforts.

[52:47] We're evaluating potential offshore sand sources and have researched several inland sand

[52:53] sources that were recommended by partners and stakeholders.

[52:57] There may be coordination on the top alternatives that are recommended for different

[53:01] locations based on the varying site conditions.

[53:06] The project team also looked at many considerations in these alternatives including but not limited

[53:13] to, again, do nothing, repair the rip wrap with sand nourishment, engineering revertment with

[53:20] sand nourishment, sea wall and sand nourishment, geobags with sand nourishment, cobblbeach

[53:27] that there's some couple of studies going on by the city and the county on cobblbeach.

[53:33] Sand nourishment with retention structures, rock grinds, artificial headlands, offshore breakwater,

[53:39] offshore reefs. There's a lot of things being looked at.

[53:44] Sand sourcing and delivery are particularly complex issues that can affect the cost and the schedule of the replenishment effort greatly.

[53:53] Some of the major considerations are shown here, including the quantity, the quality, the distance, the trips, transportation cost, material cost, beach accessibility, available staging areas, construction work windows.

[54:09] generally north of the pier, there may be sufficient access to beaches by truck as evidenced

[54:15] by the past city and county efforts.

[54:18] A south of the pier is Dan mentioned truck access is pretty nuts and non-existence.

[54:23] It not exist and do the railroad and other access constraints.

[54:29] We've taken a hard look at multiple sand sources I mentioned.

[54:33] The table on this side reflects potential upland.

[54:35] Sand sources that have been evaluated.

[54:37] Our initial estimates are that air is 1 to 4 will require approximately 540,000 cubic yards of sand, which is an unprecedented quantity.

[54:49] Round trip travel distance is also shown in this table, and sources include commercial pits, as well as public and agency maintained sources throughout the region.

[55:00] The total estimated volume of SAM will likely require multiple inland sources of SAM based on the availability that we see out there.

[55:10] The majority of potential SAM sources are not located near rail infrastructure either.

[55:18] So we can talk about a little bit about delivery of SAMD. On the left side of this slide, SAMD sorts delivery by rail must consider the source and delivery infrastructure that's available,

[55:30] loading and unloading methods, the number of trains to get 540,000 cubic yards of sand

[55:37] and the rail operational impacts. Those are very complex right now, there's nobody's identified

[55:43] an easy way to deliver the sand from rail cars to the beach. On the right side of the slide,

[55:50] we also evaluated delivery by type of truck and truck route. Truck delivery was used by the city

[55:56] North Beach, back in October 2024, where they placed 37,000 cubic yards by truck, like Dan

[56:04] mentioned, from San Anna River to south of the four of five, that equates to about 3,000 truck

[56:09] loads.

[56:10] They brought down through San Clementi and dropped off in the North Beach.

[56:16] The significant number of truck trips will be required to deliver the volume of sand proposed

[56:20] in our projects.

[56:21] The right side of the slide reflects a proximate truck trips needed by various truck configurations

[56:27] and you can see a transfer truck super tens and the belly dumps, cities previously used super tens to deliver sand.

[56:38] This would be an extremely lengthy process to transport the volume down to South County from various sources.

[56:48] We're also pursuing offshore sand sources for the replenishment and the so far the

[56:54] Surfside Sunset Sandborrow area is currently the only suitable site nearby and we will

[56:59] collaborate with the city, the St. Lance Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

[57:04] for its use. On a parallel path, the city is also conducting a grant funded study to find

[57:11] new offshore sand sources which may result in closer locations for consideration of use.

[57:17] The study's forecast take another year to complete and get approvals on, so that will be working in parallel paths with our process of identifying the source.

[57:28] The environmental studies permitting and consultation is required for both the borough site where you get it, offshore, and the placement site.

[57:37] Environmental and permitting process for Sanderson projects will take approximately two years to complete.

[57:45] Progress and actions underway to date include environmental surveys, sand migration studies,

[57:51] alternative screening, engineering and modeling analysis, various engineering and

[57:56] model analysis. Alternatives report, as I mentioned being prepared, the preparation for

[58:01] geotechnical boring data collection is ongoing and continue regular collaboration and early

[58:07] consultation with the research agencies to facilitate their permitting process.

[58:13] Here's the slide on the funding, it reflects the multiple state and federal funding sources

[58:18] secured to date, which make up are 316,665,000 funding pot.

[58:27] A keynote on this, there are federal sources up here, and we are still working to identify

[58:33] the federal environmental lead agency to be the lead agency for the NEPA process.

[58:40] The federal agency, again, will further dictate their requirements and timelines for project activities that we have to do and the approvals.

[58:50] So, look ahead at the risk and challenges we're facing.

[58:53] Just as Dan said,

[58:56] we have plenty of risk and challenges.

[58:58] Additional buffet failures or coastal erosion from storms and current may require emergency actions and rescoping plans of permits.

[59:06] We have numerous stakeholders to get a buy-in and an environmental

[59:11] permitting on the alternatives, may present challenges that are taxing to the

[59:16] schedule, taxing to the cost, and taxing to OCTA as far as long-term obligations.

[59:23] And so finding a timely sand delivery method that is available, workable, and not

[59:30] cost prohibitive, is a big risk right now, also planning the construction to be

[59:35] at least disruptive to the community and the passenger and freight rail operations is quite

[59:42] a challenge.

[59:46] For the next steps, we're seeking your direction to keep moving forward to completion of

[59:49] the preliminary design of our ML approval of the projects.

[59:53] We will continue to explore expedited permitting with regulatory agencies and we'll continue

[59:59] Thanks for watching!

[1:00:00] All of it will opportunities to source, secure, and deliver, Sam nourishment, completes my presentation.

[1:00:06] Have the answer any questions?

[1:00:08] Thank you very much for that very thorough presentation. Any comments or questions from the committee?

[1:00:16] Please.

[1:00:17] Thank you very much, Jim. Two questions. Maybe it's one.

[1:00:24] We're going to dump, we'll do this project a lot of sand, but it's not the critical

[1:00:30] massive sand that maybe some people envision or that we know it's not going to be a 200

[1:00:36] foot wide stretch of beach. Is that the true statement, right? I believe our calculation

[1:00:40] are based on a 50 foot wide beach. So it's almost like the seed for the other agencies that

[1:00:50] those individual beaches. In this case, the City of San Clementi State Parks and then Cyprushore

[1:00:55] H.O.A. to go ahead and, you know, there's a, there's a maintenance effort that goes in,

[1:01:03] maybe there's an additional sand nourishment that builds that critical mass.

[1:01:09] Are we coordinating well with those agencies? I guess the question is, are we coordinating with them?

[1:01:15] They understand what this will look like and together, probably through the counties

[1:01:20] new group and those individual agencies they're coming up with a plan to take those next steps and

[1:01:25] and maintain that sand out there. Director Federica, you're correct. We do sit in regularly and

[1:01:32] meetings with the county collaborative group, Makana, leading that. There was one last week,

[1:01:40] late last week, we attended. So everybody is aware of all the initiatives. Some of the initiatives

[1:01:45] are going to take a lot longer. You have to realize the Sandor Planishment that the City and the

[1:01:51] Corvention Air System between T Street and London Lane. That was a 20-year process to get that going.

[1:01:58] Hopefully they're geared up to keep the process going now every three or two or three or

[1:02:02] three to five years to have more nourishment come in. But yeah, everybody's adding to the milkshake

[1:02:11] in different areas along the beaches.

[1:02:13] And I appreciate this agency somewhat taken a lead on kick-starting this.

[1:02:17] We just need to make sure we don't lose that momentum.

[1:02:20] And those other initiatives will be outside of this agency's scope.

[1:02:27] And so I'd put it, but I want to make sure that we're making sure that our efforts are not lost.

[1:02:31] It's going forward.

[1:02:32] It's challenging because every beach nourishment project that goes has its own monitoring

[1:02:38] requirements for whichever agency implements. We will be required to have at least a five-year

[1:02:44] monitoring program when we put sand on the beach, putting sand on the beach, move actually moves

[1:02:51] the mean-high tide line out back towards the ocean, which you're covering up state sovereign lands

[1:02:57] under the mean-tine high tide line. And so we have to enter into leases for that beach area that we

[1:03:04] to create from the State Lands Commission.

[1:03:09] Got it, thank you.

[1:03:12] I need to, yes.

[1:03:13] Thank you, thank you for those questions, Dr. Federico.

[1:03:17] So yes, ideally the new entity that we are forming,

[1:03:23] which starts, I believe in March, will be,

[1:03:26] and it'll, it's not the same group

[1:03:29] that Mr. Biel is referring to the staff group,

[1:03:32] But it's an umbrella to bring all these different stakeholder groups together under one umbrella because right now and over the years you've got Dana point doing a study.

[1:03:44] You've got San Clementi working on Army Corps engineers issues.

[1:03:49] You've got a San Camini and this county working on it.

[1:03:53] You've got the county.

[1:03:54] Everybody is in a silo somewhat.

[1:03:57] So this will ideally bring everyone together to the same table,

[1:04:02] and then be able to provide all these different presentations

[1:04:05] and adopt these plans for the future,

[1:04:08] so that we know OCTA is working on their piece over here.

[1:04:13] The city is working on their piece.

[1:04:16] The county and all of it comes together like a puzzle,

[1:04:18] so that we can build out the beaches. What I'm concerned about in the presentation, frankly,

[1:04:24] it just, I kept hearing all the negativity, I kept hearing all the obstacles, all the challenges,

[1:04:30] all the, now we got to lease something from the state to be able, because they were going to build a beach.

[1:04:36] I mean, I just worry that our frame of mind on this project is one of defeatism and not of, of, of, of, of,

[1:04:45] find the solution. Let's, let's maybe, and plus the timeline is just so extreme that I will

[1:04:55] guarantee you, I'm not a weather forecaster, but I've lived here a long time.

[1:05:00] We're going to have an extreme weather event. It might happen this week because we're hearing about this atmospheric river that's coming. Whether it comes or not, we don't know.

[1:05:11] But I just worry that our timeline is so long before anything happens that we are going to be in a reactionary phase before we even get to be in a planning phase.

[1:05:26] So, I'm not sure what we can do about that, you know, we've had these conversations both internally and in public at Nazium,

[1:05:34] but I do think that there needs to be a sense of urgency, so I'm going to ask a very specific question.

[1:05:41] If you could do it tomorrow, if you could implement the plan that we have for the hot spot areas tomorrow,

[1:05:49] what agency is the most significant agency that's holding up the project?

[1:05:55] Through the chair, I don't think there's any doubt this the Coastal Commission in California.

[1:06:00] Okay. All right. Well, that's good to know. Because we keep hearing about the Army Corps and the Coastal Coach

[1:06:04] I can't tell which one it really is. And when I'm speaking with Congressman Levin about the Army Corps,

[1:06:12] they seem to think that the Army Corps is supportive. And so now, I know it's the Coastal Commission.

[1:06:17] And the main obstacle in the Coastal Commission, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong,

[1:06:25] is that while they will allow emergency revertment be placed, if there is an emergency.

[1:06:32] So let us put a bunch of rocks out there, which contribute as many scientists have proven to the Coastal

[1:06:40] erosion, but they won't allow us to place sand in an emergency capacity because, quote,

[1:06:49] we don't have an emergency yet, even though we know it's predictable that we have risks

[1:06:54] along the coast in the next year. Is that right?

[1:06:58] It is right, but I would like to just caveat if I could just admit I think there's no one

[1:07:03] entity that approves everything, but the most important one that is challenging and cumbersome

[1:07:08] and disagrees with the emergency component is the Coastal Commission.

[1:07:11] We are trying to change their mind on that.

[1:07:13] We are not trying to be negative by this.

[1:07:15] I get your point, I think it's probably some frustration on the staff side as well.

[1:07:19] But if we're told that we're no longer having an emergency,

[1:07:21] we're compelled to tell the truth and be transparent about how long this process is going to take.

[1:07:25] We're extremely frustrated by that.

[1:07:27] I personally have not given up on trying to change the mind that we do have an emergency.

[1:07:32] Maybe it's a pending emergency or it's about to happen in an emergency.

[1:07:35] But that is the one area, but they'll have to work together there in that case.

[1:07:39] But we're also trying to put a set of reality around it.

[1:07:42] And I think we should be in the board to be raising the issue that this is an emergency.

[1:07:46] Maybe it doesn't fit the perfect definition of an emergency because the train is still running.

[1:07:51] But we have an emergency, we have a plan and we have money to implement it.

[1:07:55] But there's essentially one entity that is probably the biggest roadblock.

[1:08:00] And I wrote down before you said it, since a version see I think there's two entities in the state right now.

[1:08:04] That have a sense of urgency on this. It's OCTA and it's a California state transportation agency, which is for the secretary of transportation

[1:08:10] It's I think the rest of the entities don't have a sense of urgency

[1:08:13] They have a sense of process that they want to follow, but they don't have a sense of urgency. Okay, and in plain language

[1:08:20] What is the coastal commission's most significant concern that we cannot

[1:08:26] Address in a short period of time. I

[1:08:30] Think they are

[1:08:31] I mean, me some health from Mr. Food on this, but I think their major issue is they see

[1:08:36] process is very important, and they define coastal development permit or an emergency.

[1:08:42] And there is nothing about a pending emergency or a coastal permit light or a public infrastructure

[1:08:47] coastal permit, they only have one way or the other way.

[1:08:52] I think going through that coastal development permit process, that schedule the Mr.

[1:08:56] be a lot lined is accurate, it's probably frankly a little bit rosy, which is disappointing

[1:09:02] obviously.

[1:09:03] But that we think is a good schedule based upon the support we have from the board, the

[1:09:07] money we have, and the action we have.

[1:09:09] And then I think this idea that if the trains aren't running, then they look at it in a different

[1:09:15] way.

[1:09:15] But I think the backup or the negative side of that is then we deal with mitigation in

[1:09:21] the after the fact.

[1:09:22] Condition and I think that is not exactly where we always want to be strategically.

[1:09:28] And the mitigation, we don't have agreement yet that we can use our sand mitigation in the

[1:09:36] area where we need sand, right? That's correct. Okay. So as it relates to the coastal development

[1:09:42] permit versus emergency, is that a state law that can be changed by the state legislature or is that

[1:09:50] a unique to the coastal.

[1:09:53] Some of these questions I know the answer to,

[1:09:55] but I won't make a record here.

[1:09:56] So Chair, we believe that the state legislature

[1:09:59] could change that.

[1:10:00] In terms of what defines an emergency and how that's considered. And I think Senator Blake's period you mentioned earlier, she is considering things that may be able to be helpful in that space, but we believe it is a legislative change at this point.

[1:10:14] Okay, and so have we or our lobbyists met with the Senator to add this to the list of asks for this legislative cycle?

[1:10:24] Okay, and then can you get me whatever we have provided to her so that I can add this to our lobbyist for the county's list of legislative asks because I don't think this specific request is on the list.

[1:10:42] Through the chair director.

[1:10:43] I think two things one is in earlier the board did author us to author give us the authority to sponsor a bill on this.

[1:10:50] We've done that we've provided some I would say half does an idea to the senator we're waiting on the language is she's proposing so when we get that which we were supposed to get on Friday, which we did not get will make sure that you have that.

[1:11:01] Okay my other question is more practical.

[1:11:07] The hillside, we had a little walk and a tour out there with City Manager Andy Hall was

[1:11:15] there from Santa Committee and we toured the area where the bridge is and what we know

[1:11:23] is that hillside is extremely saturated and it's saturated and it appears not from lanes

[1:11:31] necessarily, but from runoff. So what are we doing to address this? Because the saturation,

[1:11:39] I mean, the runoff may not even be coming from San Clementi. It could be coming from north

[1:11:45] of San Clementi. So that's a question. I don't know the answer to it at this time, maybe you do.

[1:11:49] But what are we doing to quote unquote, dry up the hillside so that we can actually build onto

[1:11:56] the hillside to put the catchment wall there and replace the bridge?

[1:12:00] to the chair. I'll ask Mr. Beale to answer that and I do want to come back and answer

[1:12:03] director Harper's question. I promised him earlier about the federal funds. I haven't forgotten that.

[1:12:07] I have that question too. So, yeah.

[1:12:11] Yes, and since I'm the groundwater, you see, you go out there and look at the

[1:12:15] capital strana formation. You'll see lenses of water coming out of the, it's groundwater,

[1:12:21] perchwater from irrigation, and maybe all the way up to the top of the hills towards San

[1:12:27] kept us trying to migrating this way. We're trying to, we looked at potential of de-watering

[1:12:35] that will help in the long run. However, we don't believe OCTA is the agency that should be doing

[1:12:43] any de-watering that requires hydrogers and drilling laterally, very deep under private property,

[1:12:52] all through the slope and de-watering that and when we do that we take on a liability for a lot of

[1:13:00] liability for every one of those private properties on the bluff and so we can we feel we can

[1:13:06] decently protect the railroad with the catchment wall we allow for the drainage coming out at the

[1:13:13] bottom of the slope so that we have drainage systems currently that by under catchment walls that

[1:13:18] direct that to the channel culverts that go under the rail. Yeah, and there's puddles forming down

[1:13:24] at the bottom too. There always has, in fact, that's one of the reasons the original pedestrian bridge

[1:13:29] was built to try to get people out of the puddles. Yeah. Okay, and then so what's the water agency that's

[1:13:38] That's responsible for that area.

[1:13:43] Let's see.

[1:13:44] San Diego, regional water quality control.

[1:13:53] Okay, and then I guess just to follow up on Director Harper, I also wanted to understand

[1:13:57] because it's my understanding that this item, the 100 million, is one of the items that is frozen,

[1:14:05] or could be frozen as part of the federal freeze and the clawback of federal funding

[1:14:12] because we applied under a climate resiliency under the Infrastructure Act under the prior administration.

[1:14:22] So what are we doing to address that?

[1:14:25] So I think a couple of things if I could through the chair.

[1:14:28] I think broadly there's clearly a lot of unknowns of what the federal process is.

[1:14:32] You know, there was the order, there was the decision, and then the direction to each agency to review all of its grants under a certain set of guidelines there.

[1:14:42] So with that said, we also believe the fact that there was about 2.4 billion dollars into this program allocated or awarded is a better term awarded.

[1:14:51] In the fall, there are other people in the same boat that we are.

[1:14:54] Some areas that have larger grants and maybe less about coastal rail and maybe.

[1:15:00] Other things that are more important. So I think that strength of the numbers is important in that.

[1:15:06] So we're monitoring that. We're very closely with our federal advocate on this space. We've had conversations with the Federal Railroad Administration.

[1:15:13] A big part of this grant was a promise from the state under the SB1 dollars here in the transit and intersea rail capital program.

[1:15:23] So the office of the Secretary in California is in touch with the Federal Railroad Administration.

[1:15:29] So I think everybody is focused on making sure those are there.

[1:15:32] I think the one area we had risk even before January 20th was this program,

[1:15:37] Chrissy, is generally set up for projects that already have their federal and environmental plans.

[1:15:42] And I think the Federal Railroad Administration was another entity that had a sense of urgency.

[1:15:47] So in one sense, they probably awarded us slightly prematurely.

[1:15:50] So, they saw this as an emergency and wanted to get dollars into it.

[1:15:55] So, even without the risk over the last two weeks,

[1:15:59] this does need federal environmental clearance,

[1:16:01] different than state environmental clearance to access.

[1:16:03] And if we can't get the emergency process approved, that links into that too.

[1:16:07] So, I think it is at potential risk,

[1:16:11] but probably no more risk than any other program that we're working on here in Orange County.

[1:16:16] So, I think the highest level of the transportation department in the state

[1:16:20] aware of this, we're doing everything we can to accelerate as you heard. One area that we're a

[1:16:26] little bit concerned about, Mr. Bill mentioned it briefly, is the funds came from the Federal

[1:16:31] Railroad Administration, but MetroLink falls under both FRA, Federal Railroad Administration,

[1:16:37] and FTA Federal Transit Administration. So it's a little bit of sort of, who's on first about

[1:16:42] who's going to be the, the, the knee-belie, and we're working through that in terms of strategy and

[1:16:46] efficiency, but it's something very top of mind for more than just us. I think it's important on that.

[1:16:52] Thank you.

[1:16:55] I just want to clarify one more time and maybe again for the record. We want to put

[1:17:00] 540,000 cubic yards of sand and sandclamity to protect railroad tracks at the Federal Railway

[1:17:05] Administration. Believe our imminently at risk. I'll use that instead of the word emergency.

[1:17:11] And the Coastal Commission can't find a way to expedite that and allow us to use those

[1:17:17] 540,000 cubic yards as mitigation for what we have to do to protect those tracks.

[1:17:22] That true, Mr. Johnson, maybe?

[1:17:25] Yeah, I'd say that's true, but there's a lot of qualifiers.

[1:17:29] Yeah, I'm dumbing it down, but for me, it comes under the environmental studies.

[1:17:36] The environmental studies are what take time and particularly if we're looking at offshore

[1:17:40] and use of SAM sources, you know, that for SAM suicide sunset, we're going to start the environmental

[1:17:49] studies to clear the area where we again, where we update the environmental of where you get

[1:17:55] it from and then you got to do the near shore studies of what you're going to cover up.

[1:18:02] So have any more questions or comments from the committee? Okay, we'll move on to our question

[1:18:07] public. We have to have a motion. We don't do public comment from Amanda again. Oh, I'm sorry

[1:18:12] I thought you were moving on. No, I heard move on. Sorry.

[1:18:18] Thank you.

[1:18:24] Well, I just, I'm glad you

[1:18:26] touched upon the groundwater that seeps through our bluffs because that's something that's

[1:18:31] been ongoing for decades. And that is a big concern. I consulted an attorney regarding the

[1:18:37] groundwater there about what they could do to, you know, drain that water and the

[1:18:44] concern was liability, the liability of expediting this groundwater from the

[1:18:50] bloods and then maybe causing some potential landslide as a result of that, you

[1:18:55] know, rather than doing it natural process. But I'm glad that Mr. Beal did

[1:19:01] mention the lenses because not too many people in San Clementi are aware of that.

[1:19:06] I think, you know, quite frankly, I come to these OCTA meetings because I see both sides.

[1:19:14] I see a group, and I see I understand the need for transparency and to clarify misinformation

[1:19:24] that's out there from certain groups, and I think that gets kind of clouded, and that's

[1:19:30] why I come here to set the record straight.

[1:19:32] I think it's a very apparent that, you know, that when the OCTA wanted to do a San

[1:19:39] only project, the problem was the Coast Commission demanding a full environmental report.

[1:19:47] And one group saying, no, we don't need an environmental report or the city saying, no, we

[1:19:51] don't.

[1:19:52] And then the other environmental group saying, yes, we do.

[1:19:55] So I think that the OCTA has been very transparent.

[1:20:00] And following state and federal mandates, and I think that's important to do. And I applaud their efforts for doing that.

[1:20:07] And I think that moving forward with, I think, alternative 3 in, I think that's really important to do, to stabilize that wall, having a wall on the west side of the bluffs, to stabilize and then having that pathway.

[1:20:25] It was a just a pedestrian pathway, just a dirt path, years ago, and that's before there was a bridge or anything, and I think that was supportive of that before before the bridge came up.

[1:20:39] And I just feel that, you know, this groundwater at the top of soil and the lenses and the groundwater is just really adds to everything and then the storm action.

[1:20:55] But I think that OCTA has been diligent, unable to decipher all this information and come up with the fair analysis for both sides.

[1:21:05] And I think at the end of the day, everybody wants the Sam replenishment and, you know, with a rebuttment or a facade, that was conveyed at the Senate subcommittee on low sand rail resiliency study, Mr. Kell mentioned it in his remarks, his remarks, and I think that that's something that everybody is on board at the Sam replenishment and facade. Thank you so much.

[1:21:30] Thank you.

[1:21:34] All right.

[1:21:34] This does require a motioner's second.

[1:21:37] I'll move the item.

[1:21:39] Second.

[1:21:39] I have a motioner's second.

[1:21:40] All those in favor.

[1:21:41] Am I opposed?

[1:21:43] All right.

[1:21:44] Motion carries.

[1:21:44] Thank you so much.

[1:21:45] Thank you, Mr. Lee.

[1:21:46] And Mr. Bealford.

[1:21:47] Sure.

[1:21:48] Clopper saying that.

[1:21:48] The next item.

[1:21:49] I know we're a little bit longer.

[1:21:50] Mr. Barrett to make a five minute presentation.

[1:21:52] Or we can bring it back next month.

[1:21:54] There's no action.

[1:21:54] But we do have construction activities that will commence later this year on the

[1:21:57] I-5.

[1:21:58] We can keep it brief to a five minute.

[1:22:00] That's fine with me.

[1:22:01] Thank you.

[1:22:02] This is Item Number 9 update on Measure M2 Project, the Interstate 5 Improvement Project between Interstate 4 or 5 and State Route 55.

[1:22:13] Good morning, Chair Coffinsine.

[1:22:14] Committee members, my name is Nile Barrett Program Manager and the Capital Programs Group.

[1:22:19] I'm joined today by Nikki Wright and she's the Principal Community Relations Specialist.

[1:22:24] We are here to give you a presentation on the I-5 Improvement Project between the I-405 and the State Route 55.

[1:22:31] So briefly the project background, this project is a part of the M2 program and it is part of the next 10 delivery plan, which was most recently approved by the OCTA board in November of 2024.

[1:22:51] The project is split into two separate segments.

[1:22:53] We've got segment one from the 405 TL Avenue and segment two between Yale and the 55.

[1:22:59] and PDT, the project development team, works closely with

[1:23:04] the cow trance and the cities alongside the corridor to deliver the project.

[1:23:09] Project improvements include a new regular or general purpose lane in each direction

[1:23:15] between the 405 and the 55 that is a distance of 9 miles and we will also be adding

[1:23:23] and re-establishing auxiliary lanes at the right there today and then the project also

[1:23:29] includes safety enhancement payment rehab and new fiber optic lines and a couple of traffic

[1:23:36] senses stations.

[1:23:39] This slide shows you the existing which is on top and then the proposed underneath cross

[1:23:44] section of either side of the eye five.

[1:23:49] So you can see that the continuous access which is out there today will be reimposed and also

[1:23:55] will be provided where there isn't any today. I'm also showing here the forecast, schedule,

[1:24:04] and costs. I won't get into the schedule, but you can see that overall the costs for the two

[1:24:09] segments are total of $716 million dollars. And with that, I'll hand it over to Nikki to provide

[1:24:16] our outreach and engagement strategies for the project. Thank you, Nile. Good morning to our

[1:24:23] And members of the committee, again, I'm Nikki Wright, and I'm the Outreach Project Manager.

[1:24:29] The Outreach team has begun working on a comprehensive public engagement plan tailored to the needs of the audiences and this project, corridor.

[1:24:37] The plan includes meeting with key stakeholders such as the automobile dealerships and tests in the Great Park and Irvine,

[1:24:43] and making presentations to chambers of commerce, school districts, community-based organizations, and homeowner associations among others.

[1:24:50] We'll host virtual and in-person community meetings with the first ones anticipated in the weeks before construction starts later this year.

[1:24:57] We plan to participate in several community events.

[1:25:00] During the first half of next year, to connect with community, talk about project benefits, provide project updates, and answer questions about construction.

[1:25:08] We'll use social media and email alerts to engage stakeholders with visually interesting and informational content.

[1:25:14] And we'll highlight the project's milestones and interactive map of closure and detour information.

[1:25:19] And on this last slide, you can see the various ways the public can reach us with questions to learn more about the project.

[1:25:27] And this concludes our presentation and we're happy to answer questions.

[1:25:31] Thank you very much for your presentation.

[1:25:32] Committee members, any questions or comments?

[1:25:36] You know, do we have any comments from the public?

[1:25:38] No, no.

[1:25:39] All right, very good.

[1:25:39] This is just not an action item, so does not require a motion in a second.

[1:25:44] So thank you so much.

[1:25:45] Appreciate it.

[1:25:46] I will move on to item 10 public comments.

[1:25:48] Madam Clerk, anything?

[1:25:50] There are no further comments.

[1:25:51] Okay, very good.

[1:25:52] Item 11.

[1:25:53] We have our CEO report.

[1:25:55] Thank you, Chair.

[1:25:55] So I just noted that in four minutes, so that was very impressive.

[1:26:00] So just one quick note, Senate Bill 743 passed California legislature in time of the governor in 2013 and it re-established how transportation impacts were analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act or Sequel.

[1:26:11] In that there's been a lot of debate about things like express lanes, express toll lanes, HLV lanes.

[1:26:16] I've been serving for the last few years on the statewide working group on how to implement 743 and later this week I'll be able to present one year of 405 express lanes.

[1:26:25] operations, which we will be bringing to this committee next month in the board talking about

[1:26:31] how the express lanes are working, trip time reductions, and how local streets are performing,

[1:26:35] which is very positive as well as the general purpose lanes. So, I think this idea that you can

[1:26:39] make investments in a smart way and still comply with CEQA and have a sustainable operation is very

[1:26:44] important. So, excited about that, and have the opportunity to present one year of four or five

[1:26:48] operations with that, I'll conclude my remarks. Thank you very much, committee members and your

[1:26:52] comments. All right, see none. We will go ahead and adjourn and so on my day March 3. Thank you.

[1:26:58] The meeting will be starting shortly.

Regional Transportation Planning Committee

Agenda

Transcript