CPOA urges the Board of Supervisors to direct staff to re-issue RFP, ensure it reaches the appropriate contact people at each of the major Coastal Consulting firms, and to extend the deadline by 30 days.
CPOA urges the County Board of Supervisors to direct staff to re-issue Request for Proposal (RFP) #23P3-011 Santa Cruz County Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Local Coastal Program Amendment, and ensure that the RFP reaches the appropriate contact people at each of the major Coastal Consulting firms and extend the deadline to respond to the RFP by 30 days.
CCC disagreed with Court’s decision, that the 37 foot wide walkway along the beach in front of the “Island” properties was private, but that is irrelevant. The Rio Del Mar Island HOA and property owner at 202 Beach Dr. are in violation of their initial 1980 Coastal Development Permit and subsequent Amendments, which require the homeowners restore and allow for public access to the beach along the pathway in front of the homes in accordance with the Coastal Act. Cease & Desist Order is effective 12/23/23, the Rio Del Mar Island HOA must remove the barriers at both ends of the walkway, remove the non-native ice plant, pots, other debris and obstacles within 8 feet of the revetment rocks to allow for public access. The CCC also levied fines of $4.7 M which they felt should have been closer to $28 M. Property owners plan to appeal.
CPOA’s letter to CCC outlines our position on the following topics as part of the County’s Proposed LCP Amendments, scheduled for a CCC Hearing on 10/14/22.
Major Differences between CCC’s Position vs. County Proposed LCP: CPOA’s Response to:
A. CCC’s definition of “existing structures” being those structures which were present prior to the Coastal Act (January 1, 1977).
B. No new armoring for existing structures or redevelopment in coastal hazard zones.
C. Existing Armoring (Revetment Rocks) along East Cliff Dr. between the Harbor and Soquel Point may need to be removed as the public beaches shrink due to sea level rise.
D. The requirement for all property owners with existing shoreline protection (seawalls or revetment rocks) to file a “Monitoring, Maintenance, and Repair Plan (MMRP)” and to routinely inspect, maintain, and repair the shoreline structures and prevent any seaward migration.
E. When necessary, managed retreat to move structures inland to preserve public access and beaches.
F. Shoreline Protection Exception Area (SPEA). The County had proposed a “Shoreline Protection Exception Area, extending approximately 1.4 miles from Soquel Point (APN # 028-304-72) to the Capitola City border.
The board unanimously approved ordinance amendments related to parkland dedication, or in lieu, fees, park impact fees and trail and coastal access dedication. The fees, lower than that of neighboring jurisdictions, have failed to meet the rising cost of acquiring parkland and construction for more than 20 years. The fees are used to develop new or existing parkland facilities to accommodate the county’s growth, Gaffney explained in his report. Because the fees have not been increasing with the costs, the county’s Capital Improvement Program in this fiscal year identified more than $94 million in unfunded projects that could aid mitigation of increased population and, therefore, increased park demand. In terms of trail and coastal access dedications, the word “beach” will now be changed to “coastal access” throughout and the minimum public shoreline access easement width is increased from 5 feet to 10 feet. It appears that easements for current beach access paths for Public Parks will be widened from 5 to 10 feet, to access costal beaches. This would impact beaches such as Twin Lakes, Blacks Beach, and Moran Lake.
CPOA requested an update from the California Coastal Commission’s on their review of the proposed amendments to Santa Cruz County’s Local Coastal Program relating to coastal bluffs and beaches (land use plan section 6.4) and geologic hazards (implementation plan chapter 16.10). No date has been set for CCC hearing as of yet on the proposed amendments.
According to an article in the “Santa Cruz Local” , the California Coastal Commission will consider the LCP proposed by Santa Cruz County. If the Coastal Commission accepts changes to a Local Coastal Program that was approved unanimously by Santa Cruz County supervisors in September, the county will be on the vanguard of local governments in the state that are trying to manage expected sea-level rise. The changes try to strike a balance between sea-level-rise management, beach access and oceanfront property owners’ rights to redevelop and protect their homes.
The Board of Supervisors approved the proposed LCP, which will be sent to the CCC for review and comment. It is expected that the CCC will request significant changes and send it back to the County to accept or reject the CCC requested changes. At that time, there should be another opportunity for public comment, before the Board of Supervisors finalizes the LCP. This process is expected to take 90 days to one year to complete.
The CCC has submitted a letter to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors regarding agenda item #7 (9507) requesting the County make substantial changes in the proposed LCP. Further limit any new development, redevelopment or replacement structures along the coastline. All structures substantially modified or replace since the Coast Act of 1977, should be considered “new”. Any further major redevelopment or replacement structures should not rely on existing coastal shoreline protection or armoring devices. The County must guarantee continued or increased public access to the beaches and shorelines, and force property owners to accept the obligation to modify or remove their shoreline armorment to allow for continued public access with sea level rise.
Download attachments, and plan to attend the BOS meeting on 9/15/20 in person or virtually.
j. Public Safety Element Section 6.4 changes since 3-10-20 (strikeout-underline copy)
k. Chapter 16.10 changes since 3-10-20 (strikeout-underline)