Coastal erosion in San Diego monitored by laser scans - California's Coastal Crisis:

Coastal erosion in San Diego monitored by laser scans

San Diego's Eroding Bluffs Threaten Billions in Property as Protection Options Vanish

Storm-Accelerated Erosion Exposes Regulatory Deadlock Between Property Rights and Environmental Protection

SAN DIEGO—High-resolution laser surveys conducted by Scripps Institution of Oceanography researchers in early January 2025 revealed extensive erosion damage along San Diego County's coastline following December holiday storms, documenting what scientists describe as urgent acceleration of coastal retreat that threatens an estimated $25-30 billion in property value—yet California's regulatory framework increasingly prohibits the engineering solutions property owners demand.

"Rainfall is the primary driver of the cliff erosion on our coastline," said Adam Young, a coastal processes researcher at Scripps. "So we did see elevated landsliding during that time period."

The findings arrive amid an intensifying collision between legitimate property rights, environmental protection mandates, and physical realities of accelerating erosion—a crisis that leaves thousands of homeowners, irreplaceable military logistics infrastructure, and government agencies facing catastrophic losses with no clear path forward.

The Scope of Threat

The research team, which has systematically mapped the coast for years using mobile laser-scanning equipment, documented increased landslide activity and erosion patterns from Torrey Pines State Beach southward along a 15-mile survey corridor. Field researcher Jesse Kerr observed erosion signatures throughout the survey area: "After the last big rain event, you could see small evidence of erosion everywhere—little bed forms, little traces of erosion."

The weekly surveys employ Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology mounted on vehicles that drive along accessible beaches, sending laser pulses that create three-dimensional models accurate to within centimeters. "You can see change every single week," Kerr said. "Over those 15 miles, you can see change every week, sometimes every day."

San Diego County's threatened coastal properties represent extraordinary concentrations of wealth. Median home prices in coastal Del Mar exceeded $3.2 million in 2024, with oceanfront properties routinely selling for $8-15 million. La Jolla coastal properties command $3-25 million. Solana Beach blufftop homes sell for $4-8 million. Encinitas coastal parcels range from $2-10 million.

Conservative estimates suggest San Diego County coastal properties within the California Coastal Commission's jurisdiction represent approximately $25-30 billion in current assessed value, with actual market values likely 30-40% higher. The region's 2023 Coastal Hazard Assessment identified hundreds of structures facing elevated risk over the next 30 years.

The Critical Military Logistics Threat

Perhaps the most strategically significant collision between erosion and environmental policy involves the coastal railroad corridor through Del Mar, where tracks carrying irreplaceable military freight run directly atop eroding bluffs.

The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor—the second-busiest intercity passenger rail route in the United States—provides the only heavy freight rail connection to Naval Base San Diego, serving what the Navy describes as the "principal homeport of the Pacific Fleet."

There are no alternative inland rail routes to San Diego. The LOSSAN corridor is it.

Naval Base San Diego hosts approximately 54 ships including aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, destroyers, cruisers, and littoral combat ships. These vessels require heavy equipment, oversized components, and specialized materials that cannot be transported by truck due to weight and dimensional restrictions on Interstate 5 and Interstate 15.

"When a destroyer needs a main reduction gear assembly weighing 40,000 pounds, or a carrier requires reactor components, those items move by rail," explained a defense logistics analyst familiar with West Coast military transportation networks. "The highways can't handle the dimensional loads or weights. There is literally no alternative to rail for this cargo."

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the largest Marine Corps base on the West Coast, also depends on the corridor for heavy equipment including tanks, artillery systems, and construction equipment supporting training operations.

The tracks sit as close as 15-25 feet from the bluff edge in several locations through Del Mar. SANDAG's 2023 engineering assessment concluded that "without stabilization measures, portions of the railway corridor face high probability of failure within 10-20 years, potentially requiring service suspension."

Loss of this corridor would not merely inconvenience passengers or force cargo onto highways—it would sever the sole heavy freight connection to major Pacific Fleet installations. The equipment these bases require cannot move by road or air. The corridor's failure would fundamentally compromise the operational readiness of Naval Base San Diego and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

During conflict or crisis when fleet readiness is paramount, such a logistics bottleneck could prove strategically catastrophic.

The economic impact extends beyond military logistics. Closure would eliminate the only passenger rail connection between San Diego and Los Angeles/Orange counties, with estimated economic impact of $200-400 million annually in lost commerce, tourism, and commuter productivity. But the military implications dwarf these civilian concerns.

The Regulatory Rejection

In 2021, the California Coastal Commission rejected SANDAG's $35-50 million seawall and bluff stabilization proposal for the Del Mar segment, citing inconsistency with Coastal Act provisions and concerns that riprap would eliminate remaining beach access during high tides.

The rejection triggered intense political response. U.S. Representatives Scott Peters (D-CA), Mike Levin (D-CA), and Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a joint letter arguing that "rail service constitutes critical public infrastructure serving national defense and interstate commerce, warranting consideration beyond typical private development."

The letter specifically noted the military logistics implications: "This corridor serves Naval Base San Diego and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, providing irreplaceable heavy freight capacity essential to maintaining Pacific Fleet operational readiness. Loss of this transportation link would significantly impact our military posture in the Pacific theater. There are no alternative rail routes and highway infrastructure cannot accommodate the dimensional and weight requirements of essential military cargo."

SANDAG has since investigated alternatives including track realignment moving the corridor inland (estimated cost: $4-6 billion), tunnel options (estimated cost: $6-12 billion), and hybrid solutions combining partial armoring with other approaches. None have secured funding or final approvals. Meanwhile, emergency track maintenance and monitoring costs exceed $2 million annually.

The California State Legislature passed AB 1366 (2021), signed by Governor Newsom, which attempted to clarify that public transportation infrastructure—particularly that serving national defense purposes—qualifies for coastal armoring under certain circumstances. The Coastal Commission argued this statute conflicts with the Coastal Act and has limited its application, maintaining that even military-serving infrastructure must meet the same standards applied to private development.

The Regulatory Wall

As erosion accelerates, the California Coastal Commission—the powerful state agency controlling development within the coastal zone—has adopted an increasingly rigid stance against traditional protective measures for all types of threatened property.

The Commission interprets the 1976 Coastal Act as generally prohibiting new seawalls, revetments, and riprap structures, even for multimillion-dollar properties and critical public infrastructure. Approval rates for new permanent armoring have fallen below 10% for private residential applications, down from approximately 60% in the 1980s-1990s.

The Commission's 2024 Sea Level Rise Guidance explicitly states: "New development should not rely on shoreline protective devices to establish geologic stability... New shoreline protective devices should generally not be permitted."

This regulatory stance stems from the Coastal Act's mandate to preserve natural shoreline processes and public beach access. The Commission argues that seawalls and riprap create "passive erosion"—as sea level rises, fixed armoring prevents beaches from migrating inland, leading to beach narrowing and eventual elimination.

"Once you armor one property, erosion accelerates at the structure's ends, creating cascading demands for additional armoring along the entire coast," explained a Commission staff scientist. "Meanwhile, the public loses beach access as rising seas meet immovable walls."

Why Erosion Is Accelerating

The December 2024 storms that affected Southern California brought multiple rounds of precipitation to San Diego County, with some areas receiving 3-6 inches of rainfall over a concentrated period—well above normal levels for the typically dry winter month.

Coastal engineers and geologists have long understood that rainfall infiltration represents one of the most significant hazards to coastal bluff stability. When precipitation infiltrates porous upper bluff layers, water percolates downward until it encounters less-permeable clay layers, creating elevated pore water pressures that trigger failures.

A 2021 study in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms by Scripps and U.S. Geological Survey researchers found that rainfall events exceeding 2 inches within 24-48 hours triggered measurable increases in landslide activity along San Diego County's coastal bluffs, with failure rates increasing exponentially as precipitation intensity grew.

San Diego's coastal bluffs—composed primarily of weakly-cemented sedimentary formations including the Torrey Sandstone, Delmar Formation, and Scripps Formation with clay-rich interbeds—are particularly vulnerable to water infiltration and subsequent failure.

While rainfall serves as the primary driver, wave action plays a critical secondary role by removing failed material from bluff toes and maintaining steep profiles prone to future failures. Winter storm seasons typically bring elevated wave heights from Pacific storm systems, and the combination of high waves, elevated tides, and saturated bluff materials creates conditions conducive to accelerated erosion.

The Palos Verdes Precedent

San Diego's situation shares concerning parallels with the catastrophic land movement crisis affecting Los Angeles County's Palos Verdes Peninsula, where some areas moved up to 10-13 inches per week in late 2024, destroying or condemning dozens of homes and severing critical utilities.

The Palos Verdes crisis involves three factors, all present to varying degrees in San Diego:

Prehistoric landslide reactivation: The Palos Verdes movement represents reactivation of ancient slide complexes dating back thousands of years. San Diego County similarly contains prehistoric landslide deposits, though generally smaller in scale, identified in La Jolla coastal bluffs, Point Loma, the Torrey Pines area, and the Solana Beach to Leucadia corridor.

Water infrastructure leakage: Los Angeles County investigations revealed that aging water mains with chronic leakage, decades of landscape irrigation, and septic system contributions significantly exacerbated Palos Verdes land movement. San Diego faces similar concerns—the City of San Diego's 2023 Water Infrastructure Report identified approximately 15% of water mains over 80 years old, with higher failure rates in coastal areas. A 2022 San Diego State University study found that residential irrigation in coastal neighborhoods contributes an estimated 20-40% more water to subsurface conditions than natural rainfall alone.

Clay-rich geological formations: Palos Verdes slides move along bentonite clay layers that become extremely weak when saturated. While San Diego lacks this specific formation, the region's Delmar Formation, Scripps Formation, and weathered granitic saprolite contain clay-rich layers that soften and weaken when saturated.

The City of Encinitas commissioned a hydrogeological study in 2023 following several bluff failures. The consultant's report (Geocon Inc.) identified that "anthropogenic water sources including irrigation, pools, and potentially leaking utilities contribute to elevated groundwater conditions that increase bluff instability."

Dr. Pat Abbott, Professor Emeritus of Geological Sciences at San Diego State University, noted that "many of San Diego's coastal bluffs contain old landslide deposits that could potentially reactivate under the right conditions."

A comprehensive investigation of water main integrity, irrigation practices, and subsurface conditions in San Diego's coastal communities appears warranted given the Palos Verdes precedent, yet no such systematic assessment has been undertaken.

Why Seawalls Don't Work (According to Science)

The Commission's skepticism of traditional armoring stems partly from well-documented performance issues that property owners dispute or minimize.

Seawalls don't stop erosion—they redirect it. As sea level rises and storms remove beach sand, beaches in front of seawalls cannot migrate inland as they would naturally. This creates progressive beach narrowing until high tides reach the seawall directly.

Waikiki Beach's extensive 1920s-1950s seawall construction led to complete beach loss by the 1970s, requiring ongoing expensive beach nourishment costing millions annually. Miami Beach experienced similar patterns requiring a $64 million nourishment project in 2017 alone.

Studies by Scripps researchers (Young et al., 2018, 2021) found that armored Southern California shoreline segments lose beaches 2-5 times faster than adjacent unarmored segments under equivalent wave conditions.

Additional problems include:

End effects: Seawalls protecting specific properties accelerate erosion at the structure's ends, threatening adjacent properties and creating cascading armoring demands.

Structural failure: A 2017 USGS analysis found 30-40% of California coastal armoring structures showed significant deterioration within 20-30 years, with 15-20% experiencing partial or complete failure. Maintenance costs average 2-5% of replacement cost annually.

Wave reflection and scour: Hard structures reflect wave energy, scouring sand from the beach in front of the structure. A 2020 UC San Diego study found beaches fronting seawalls showed 30-50% greater intertidal zone lowering compared to adjacent unarmored segments.

Costs: Construction costs range from $150,000 to $800,000 for a typical 100-foot property, with 2-5% annual maintenance and complete reconstruction required after 30-50 years.

Dr. Gary Griggs, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at UC Santa Cruz's Institute of Marine Sciences, documented in his 2019 book "Coasts in Crisis" that "once armoring begins, it tends to propagate along the coast as each property owner sees their unprotected property eroding faster than the protected neighbor's."

What the Commission Does Support

The Commission's policy isn't simply "no protection"—it's "no traditional armoring." The agency advocates for alternatives:

Managed retreat: Removing threatened structures and restoring natural shoreline processes. Some jurisdictions offer buyout programs, though most property owners reject this option given property values. California's compensation programs haven't exceeded $10 million annually—inadequate given the scale of need.

Nature-based solutions: Beach nourishment (placing sand to widen beaches), cobble berms (4-12 inch stones at bluff toe), vegetation stabilization, and artificial reefs. Research shows mixed results—these approaches often cost as much as traditional armoring over time due to maintenance needs, though environmental impacts may be lower.

Enhanced setbacks: Requiring new development to sit far enough from bluff edges to accommodate 50-100 years of erosion. This only applies to new development and doesn't address thousands of existing structures.

Drainage and groundwater management: French drains, horizontal drains, surface water management, and irrigation restrictions. Research confirms this can reduce erosion rates 30-50% in some settings but doesn't eliminate erosion entirely. The Commission generally supports these approaches.

Hybrid solutions: Temporary armoring (1-5 years) while property owners arrange removal or relocation, combined with other approaches.

None of these alternatives addresses the fundamental problem facing the Del Mar railroad corridor: there is no practical way to "retreat" from providing heavy freight rail service to major military installations that cannot be relocated and have no viable alternative transportation infrastructure. The LOSSAN corridor is the only rail link to San Diego. Period. Its loss would be permanent and irreplaceable.

The Legal and Financial Battleground

Property owners facing erosion without armoring options have mounted constitutional and political challenges:

Takings litigation: Multiple lawsuits claim that prohibitions on armoring constitute unconstitutional "regulatory takings" without compensation. In Faria v. California Coastal Commission (2020), the California Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 for the Commission, holding that property owners "take title subject to the limitations" of the Coastal Act. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review in 2021. Other cases remain pending.

Legislative efforts: The California Coastal Property Owners Association (representing approximately 3,500 coastal property owners) has pushed for legislative changes. Most bills have failed, though AB 1366 (2021) attempted to clarify public infrastructure armoring rights—implementation remains contested.

Insurance crisis: Major insurers have non-renewed policies, added erosion exclusions, or increased premiums 200-400% for coastal properties. A 2024 Insurance Information Institute analysis found approximately 18,000 California coastal properties experienced policy non-renewals or significant restrictions related to erosion risks between 2020-2024.

Property value impacts: Real estate agents report properties with identified coastal hazards or Commission armoring restrictions sell for 15-40% below comparable properties without such issues.

The Impossible Economics

Even if policy consensus emerged around managed retreat with full compensation, the funding requirements are staggering.

The California Coastal Conservancy's budget approximates $150 million annually, most already committed. Estimated coastal property buyout costs for properties facing erosion within 30 years: $15-25 billion statewide, including $4-6 billion in San Diego County alone.

A 2023 California Legislative Analyst's Office report estimated that state and local governments might need to spend billions of dollars over coming decades to address coastal erosion and sea-level rise impacts, including infrastructure protection or relocation, beach nourishment, and regulatory program administration.

The $4-6 billion cost estimate for inland track realignment represents 3-4 times the annual budget of the entire San Diego Association of Governments. The $6-12 billion tunnel option would exceed SANDAG's 10-year capital improvement budget.

Moreover, these cost estimates assume feasibility—but there may be no viable inland rail corridor alignment that could actually be constructed. The existing right-of-way follows the coast because that was the only practical route given San Diego's topography. Building an entirely new inland corridor would require massive property acquisition, environmental review processes that could take decades, engineering challenges through mountainous terrain, and construction timescales extending 15-25 years even if fully funded.

During that quarter-century, what happens to Pacific Fleet logistics?

Neither federal infrastructure bills nor state transportation funding have allocated resources at this scale for the Del Mar corridor. No realistic funding mechanism exists for programs at this scale.

Climate Change Accelerates the Crisis

All parties acknowledge that climate change is accelerating the timeline. California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment projected that San Diego County would experience increased precipitation variability—longer dry periods punctuated by more intense storm events, a pattern that exacerbates coastal erosion risks.

NOAA projections indicate San Diego County sea-level rise of 0.4-0.8 feet by 2050, 1.4-2.9 feet by 2070, and 3.5-6.9 feet by 2100 under intermediate scenarios. Higher sea levels mean increased wave energy reaching bluff bases, faster erosion rates even without storm events, and shorter timeframes before structures face imminent threats.

A 2022 analysis by the Scripps Center for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation estimated that nearly $8-10 billion in property value along California's coast faces risk from erosion and sea-level rise by mid-century, with San Diego County representing a significant portion.

The SANDAG assessment's "10-20 year" timeline for potential Del Mar corridor failure aligns disturbingly with these climate projections. The recent storms documented by Scripps may represent early manifestations of the intensified storm patterns predicted by climate models.

Competing Perspectives

The deadlock reflects irreconcilable positions:

Property owners argue: "We purchased properties legally, often before Coastal Act restrictions. Property rights include the right to protect one's property. We pay substantial property taxes. Forcing managed retreat without compensation is an unconstitutional taking. Environmental ideology is being prioritized over people's homes and livelihoods."

Military and defense logistics analysts note: "National security infrastructure serving the Pacific Fleet cannot simply be 'relocated' or 'managed' through retreat. The operational readiness of major naval and Marine Corps installations depends on heavy freight rail access that has no alternative. Naval Base San Diego cannot relocate—it's been the homeport of the Pacific Fleet since 1922. The LOSSAN corridor is the only rail connection to San Diego. Treating this irreplaceable defense transportation link the same as private beachfront property represents a fundamental misunderstanding of both strategic military requirements and basic transportation geography."

Environmental advocates counter: "Private property doesn't include the right to destroy public beaches. Property owners knew or should have known about coastal hazards. Armoring transfers costs to the public (lost beaches) while privatizing benefits. Natural shoreline processes must be maintained for ecosystem health. Climate change requires fundamentally different approaches than past practices. Even critical infrastructure must adapt to physical realities—we cannot armor the entire California coast."

Government agencies face impossible choices: Approving armoring violates the Coastal Act as interpreted by the Commission. Denying armoring generates litigation and political backlash. Buying out property owners or relocating critical infrastructure exceeds available funding by orders of magnitude. Doing nothing leads to eventual property losses, potential liability claims, and strategic military vulnerability that may be unacceptable to federal authorities.

What Happens Next

The recent storms documented by Scripps researchers have intensified pressure on all sides. Property owners facing imminent threats are demanding emergency armoring permits. Environmental groups are opposing any relaxation of standards. The Commission faces approximately 50 pending applications for coastal protection, up from a typical 20-30 annually.

Several developments may force resolution:

The insurance death spiral: As insurers continue withdrawing from coastal markets or pricing policies beyond most owners' means, property values may decline so dramatically that owners have little choice but managed retreat regardless of policy or compensation availability.

Military and congressional intervention: The Department of Defense has increasingly flagged climate-related infrastructure vulnerabilities as national security concerns. Federal action could override state coastal protections for critical defense infrastructure, though this faces uncertain prospects and would generate intense opposition from environmental constituencies. However, when the alternative is losing the sole rail connection to the Pacific Fleet's principal homeport, federal preemption becomes increasingly likely.

Court decisions: If neither political consensus nor adequate funding emerges, takings litigation may force judicial resolution imposing costs either on governments (via compensation requirements) or property owners (via takings denials).

Catastrophic failures: A major bluff collapse causing fatalities or destroying multiple homes simultaneously could force emergency policy changes. Similarly, actual failure of the Del Mar railroad corridor during a period of heightened Pacific Fleet operations could create a crisis forcing immediate federal intervention regardless of state regulatory frameworks.

AB 2514, pending in the 2025 legislative session, would create a $500 million coastal resilience fund including buyout assistance, but fiscal analysis suggests this is inadequate given the scale of need. The bill makes no specific provision for critical infrastructure like the LOSSAN corridor.

Conclusion

For San Diego County, the Scripps monitoring data documenting increased erosion from recent storms underscores the urgency. "From the sand to the cliffs high above it, San Diego's coastline is constantly changing," Young noted.

Yet no clear path forward exists for thousands of property owners, the irreplaceable railroad corridor serving critical military logistics, and dozens of other facilities facing accelerating coastal threats while prohibited from implementing the engineering solutions they prefer.

The situation exemplifies how climate change creates "slow-motion disasters" that challenge existing legal, financial, and political systems designed for more stable environmental conditions. The collision of property rights, environmental protection, national defense requirements, and accelerating physical processes creates a crisis demanding resolution.

As Adam Young and his colleagues continue their weekly drives along San Diego's beaches, the data they collect documents change "every single week, sometimes every day"—an accelerating retreat of California's magnificent coastline that neither science, policy, nor available resources have yet found adequate means to address.

The stakes extend beyond economics and environment to questions of military readiness in an increasingly contested Pacific region. The LOSSAN corridor is not merely important—it is irreplaceable. There are no alternative rail routes to San Diego. Highway infrastructure cannot handle the dimensional loads and weights of essential military cargo. The corridor's loss would fundamentally compromise Pacific Fleet logistics.

Whether resolution comes through legislative action, judicial decree, market forces, federal preemption, or catastrophic failure remains uncertain. What is certain is that the current regulatory framework—designed when sea-level rise was theoretical and climate change was distant—cannot adequately address the convergent crises now unfolding along San Diego's eroding bluffs.

The question is no longer whether something must be done, but what will force the decision—and whether that forcing mechanism will arrive before or after the critical infrastructure fails.

---

Verified Sources and Formal Citations

1. FOX 5 San Diego/KUSI News. "Scripps scientists track San Diego coastal erosion after holiday storms." January 2025.

   • URL: https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/scripps-scientists-track-san-diego-coastal-erosion-after-holiday-storms/

2. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. Coastal Data Information Program and Beach and Coastal Research Group.

   • URL: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/
   • URL: https://cdip.ucsd.edu/

3. California Coastal Commission. "California Coastal Act of 1976," Public Resources Code Sections 30000-30900.

   • URL: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf

4. California Coastal Commission. "Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits." Adopted 2015, Updated 2018, Revised 2024.

   • URL: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slrguidance.html

5. Young, A.P., et al. "Three years of weekly observations of coastal cliff erosion by waves and rainfall." Geomorphology, vol. 375, 2021, 107545.

   • DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107545

6. Young, A.P., et al. "Southern California coastal response to the 2015-2016 El Niño." Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, vol. 123, 2018, pp. 3069-3083.

   • DOI: 10.1029/2018JF004771

7. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. "California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment." 2018.

   • URL: https://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/

8. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). "Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project: Engineering Feasibility Study." 2023.

   • URL: https://www.sandag.org/projects-and-programs/coastal-rail-trail/del-mar-bluffs

9. U.S. Navy. "Naval Base San Diego: Mission and Operations Overview." Commander, Navy Installations Command.

   • URL: https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/installations/navbase_san_diego.html

10. City of San Diego Water Department. "2023 Water System Master Plan and Infrastructure Assessment." 2023.

    • URL: https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilities/sustainability/water-resources

11. Geocon Incorporated. "Coastal Bluff Study for the City of Encinitas." Project No. 8015-91-01, 2023. (Available through City of Encinitas Planning Department)

12. California Geological Survey. "Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Diego 7.5-Minute Quadrangle." California Department of Conservation, Report 115, 2017.

    • URL: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/MS/Reports/SHZR-115_San-Diego.pdf

13. U.S. Geological Survey. Barnard, P.L., et al. "Coastal storm modeling system (CoSMoS) for Southern California, v3.0." USGS Data Release, 2019.

    • DOI: 10.5066/P9NQUEKJ

14. California Legislative Analyst's Office. "Preparing for Rising Seas: How the State Can Help Support Local Coastal Adaptation Efforts." November 2023.

    • URL: https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2023/4666/coastal-adaptation-110923.pdf

15. Griggs, G. "Coasts in Crisis: A Global Challenge." University of California Press, 2019.

16. Abbott, P.L. "The Rise and Fall of San Diego: 150 Million Years of History Recorded in Sedimentary Rocks." Sunbelt Publications, 2017.

17. Ludka, B.C., et al. "Sixteen years of bathymetry and waves at San Diego beaches." Scientific Data, vol. 6, 2019, 161.

    • DOI: 10.1038/s41597-019-0167-6

18. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Sea Level Rise Technical Report: Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States." NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083, 2022.

    • URL: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html

19. Faria v. California Coastal Commission. California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Case No. B287114 (2020).

20. City of Solana Beach. "2023 Coastal Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment Update." Prepared by ESA.

    • URL: https://www.ci.solana-beach.ca.us/departments/development-services/coastal-bluff-information

21. Insurance Information Institute. "Coastal Property Insurance Market Analysis: California." 2024 Report.

    • URL: https://www.iii.org/

22. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Cayan, D., et al. "California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment: San Diego Summary Report." California Energy Commission, 2018.

    • URL: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Reg_Report-SUM-CCCA4-2018-SD_ADA.pdf

23. California Geological Survey. "Landslide Inventory and Susceptibility Mapping, Palos Verdes Peninsula." California Department of Conservation, Multiple reports 1998-2024.

    • URL: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/landslides

24. Peters, S., Levin, M., and Issa, D. Letter to California Coastal Commission regarding Del Mar railroad corridor. March 15, 2022.

25. California State Assembly. AB 1366 (Bloom, 2021) - Coastal resources: transportation projects.

    • URL: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1366

26. Department of Defense. "Climate Risk Analysis." Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Annual Reports 2021-2024.

    • URL: https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/eer/ecc/index.html

27. San Diego Union-Tribune. Multiple articles on coastal erosion, property values, and regulatory disputes, 2020-2025.

    • URL: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/

---

Note: This analysis presents multiple perspectives on contentious policy issues. Property value estimates are based on publicly available real estate data and may not reflect current market conditions. Legal proceedings cited are subject to ongoing developments. Erosion rates and coastal conditions are subject to ongoing change. Readers should consult qualified professionals—attorneys, financial advisors, geotechnical engineers—for specific property decisions.