Most of the areas mentioned in the story are in southern CA. Many of the officials quoted in this story seem to conflate the recent storms with sea level rise, perhaps in order to better access funds intended for preparation for the latter in coming decades.

As recent projections suggest slower sea level rise off the central and northern CA coast than elsewhere in coming decades, and the big effects from places like Antarctica and Greenland won't show up for many hundreds to thousands of years, Newsom's proposed cuts seem reasonable.

The big area that is getting hit is the Santa Cruz area. The papers are providing explanation as to how a piece of land is situated against the incoming tides. Santa Cruz is situated in a very vulnerable position relative to how the tides come in and how the wind runs down the side of moutains.

Half moon Bay is noted for the big waves. The Maverick competition is there due to the location of land versus shoreline.

The western part of Mauai is getting beat up and the tides are ripping out the sand. It is all location, location, location.

Sea level around the world is rising at about three millimeters, or an eighth of an inch, a year. That's one foot per century. If there's increased erosion along our coasts it may be because there are unusually strong storms. Sea level rise is less likely to be a major cause.

Government spending to hold back the sea should be limited to protecting important infrastructure. People who buy homes on the coastline should be aware that part of the reason they have beautiful views is that the ocean has taken away the things that would have obstructed those views, and that their stay there is temporary.