CPOA-SC
I. Short Term Rentals (STRs)
A. Issues Raised
“¢ Need to defer to local governments for policy and ordinances on vacation or STRs
“¢ Provide credit for affordable hotels, RV, and campgrounds near or on the beach
“¢ CCC position is that STRs provide affordable temporary housing and access to public beaches, and therefore is within the scope of the CCC
“¢ CCC should not require a STR ordinance be a part of the LCPs, and leave this up to the local governments
“¢ Coastal Act only addresses access to public beaches not affordability or STRs
“¢ Need to balance access, affordable housing and economics of local markets
“¢ In some cases STRs may restrict the affordable housing available, and in other markets it may provide temporary, short term affordable vacation rentals
“¢ Need to regulate commercialization of STRs through AirBNB, VRBO, and others
“¢ Does access = affordability?? Not always
“¢ STRs may not always be cheaper than a hotel, depends on market conditions
“¢ CCC should not regulate pricing
“¢ What constitutes affordable STRs
“¢ Does the CCC really have authority to regulate STRs under the Coastal Act
“¢ CCC’s position is that local governments MUST offer some form of lower cost options for the public
B. Goals for next steps
1. Local ordinances should be developed for STRs
2. Options for low cost STRs for visitors should consider
a. If there is a local government ordinance in place for STRs, this ordinance should be acceptable to be included in the LCP
b. What other provisions are available for vacation rentals, campground and RV parks,
c. What do you do when there is a conflict between affordable housing and access
d. There should be a process for reconsideration and allow the LCP to be approved without an STR ordinance
3. Need a broader framework for affordable temporary housing
4. What other low-cost visitor accommodations are available ““ local government to provide evidence
5. Outline considerations under the Coastal Act for local jurisdictions
II. Sea Level Rise
A. Issues Raised
“¢ The speed and amount of sea level rise has not accurately been predicted
“¢ This is a complex issue. Coastal erosion varies by location and depends in part on the existence of shoreline protection, soil and rock conditions of local coastline
“¢ Need to move focus of control from the CCC to local governments, and establish thresholds for required adaptation, managed retreat, relocation of housing and infrastructure
“¢ The concept “Managed Retreat” is the most extreme case scenario. But CCC requires that Managed Retreat must be one of the strategies included in the LCP
“¢ Many local government officials disagreed stating Managed Retreat and taking of private property will create panic and conflict with the constitutional rights of property owners
“¢ Therefore, until tested in the courts, Managed Retreat should not be required to be included in the LCP
“¢ What is the latest exact science on Sea Level Rise, and how will it vary by coastal jurisdiction. What areas are more prone to coastal erosion, flooding and slides?
“¢ Need to complete environmental and geo-hazards studies for planned relocation
“¢ Rename “Managed Retreat” something else
“¢ Must consider diversity of coastal geography
“¢ Coastal Act does not specifically address Sea Level Rise
“¢ CCC claims Sea Level Rise will affect continued access to public beaches, some of which will disappear
“¢ The Coastal Act may need to be modified to provide CCC authority to require Managed Retreat
“¢ The horizon for Sea Level Rise, 50 ““ 100 years, may outlast current local governments
“¢ What are the legal ramifications of “Takings” of hazardous private property and converting it for public use
“¢ What about the impact on real estate and property values
“¢ CCC should allow for timely protection of coastal shoreline, allowing for appropriate armorment, while preserving or in some cases increasing public access to beaches
“¢ CCC’s position, “don’t kick the can down the road” embrace and plan for Managed Retreat now
“¢ Sea Level Rise is accelerating
“¢ CCC needs to provide the local governments with studies and examples of how “Managed Retreat” would work
“¢ The urban coastline and cities have infrastructure (roads, highways, utilities, sewage treatment facilities, harbors, recreational areas) which are currently buffered by private property. The cost of moving the infrastructures will be far greater that the cost of moving private homes.
“¢ How can “Managed Retreat” be implemented without violating the Constitutional Rights of property owners. Is that “eminent domain” and the right to maintain public access?
“¢ How will shoreline protection extend the useful life of shoreline property and infrastructures? For how long.
“¢ What are the thresholds for sea level rise which will require managed retreat, and when will that likely occur.
“¢ Urbanized Managed Retreat, will need detailed planning and relocation plans
“¢ What are the economic consequences
“¢ How to remove infrastructure without damaging the environment
“¢ What about restoration of the remaining coastline
“¢ Need examples of where and how this will be done
“¢ CCC needs to establish a vision and plan, with guidelines for local government
“¢ Need to get public buy-in, with reasonable science and solutions
“¢ Need to avoid “Dome and Gloom” scenario which can create confusion and mass hysteria
“¢ LCPs can use “Guidelines” rather than “Mandates” for Sea Level Rise
“¢ Permits for new structures or redevelopment must incorporate the 25 ““ 100 year set back without the benefit of shoreline protection. Why?
“¢ Quality of beach sand, sand fill and sediments from rivers and streams along the coast
“¢ Inland dams and levies are preventing the natural migration of sand and sediments from the rivers to the ocean
“¢ LCPs need to consider a wide range of adaptation strategies before engaging in “Managed Retreat”
“¢ Need to establish thresholds for action, with a staged approach in the LCP
“¢ Need flexibility, with a thoughtful, balanced approach
“¢ LCPs should be dynamic and updated as needed every 10 ““ 20 years
“¢ Sea Level Rise may take the beaches anyways, leaving only sheer cliffs in some areas
“¢ LCPs should allow for enhancement of existing shoreline protection or armorment
“¢ Armoring may actually have a positive impact on sand accumulation and access to public beaches
“¢ Surfriders position is “No armorment” as it creates sand loss, restricted access, and hazards for surfers
“¢ Need more scientific feasibility studies, and lobby for State funding
“¢ Need to take a look at other strategies and options used around the world to address sea level rise
“¢ The issue of “Takings” will require State, Federal involvement, with compensation to property owners
B. Goals for Next Steps
1. Develop oceanic, geographic studies of coastline erosion to determine what is needed for managed retreat in each jurisdiction. Secure State and Federal funding for these studies
2. Managed Retreat needs to be embraced, educate the public
3. Establish thresholds for planned intervention
4. Seek Adaptation strategies which are a “win:win”, consider soft shoreline protection before hard armorment
5. Each jurisdiction to identify vulnerable areas, priorities and targets
6. Establish a working group between CCC and local government officials
7. Lobby for financial incentives for Managed Retreat
8. Examine legal issues and challenges
9. Develop an appeals process for local governments
III. LCP Development Process
A. Issues Raised
“¢ What are the “Best Practices”
“¢ What are the priorities for the CCC in approving the LCPs
“¢ Guidelines vs Policies?
“¢ Suggested alternatives
“¢ Need to reduce duplication and cost to local government for developing the LCP
“¢ What are some of the common issues and language included in the LCPs
“¢ Is there a database of approved LCPs
“¢ Need to file all certified LCPs from all jurisdictions on the Internet
“¢ Develop a boilerplate for LCPs to be customized by the local governments
“¢ Scope creep. After approved, CCC requires additional changes to the LCP which are outside the scope of the current LCP
“¢ CCC staff inconsistencies, conflicting statements. After LCP is approved CCC staff sent letters to residents and business owners which conflicts with the approved LCP
“¢ Next generation of LCPs to address Sea Level Rise, local governments ask CCC to be flexible
“¢ Jack Answorth, Chair of the Coastal Commission, appointed by Governor Newsome, stated on the record “CCC’s Guidelines to address Sea Level Rise” are meant to be suggestive and not prescriptive as requirements for the LCPs
“¢ Only the Chair and 4 CCC Commissioners were appointed by the Governor, and are accountable to the State of CA. None of the other 8 Commissions have any accountability to the public, State or local government.
“¢ What are the essential components and strategies which must be included in all LCPs to get approved by the CCC
B. Goals for Next Steps
1. CCC will develop on-line tools for local governments to develop their LCPs
2. Provide an on-line resources list and database for approved LCPs
3. Allow for preliminary early review and feedback by CCC on LCPs
4. Identify common language, components and best practices for LCPs
5. Suggest local governments provide CCC with a preliminary draft to the LCP, before it is submitted for final vote and submission to CCC
6. Establish a two-step process
7. Need to negotiate changes in LCP rather than CCC demand changes. Local governments to provide CCC with rationale for their provisions in the LCP to the CCC upon request.
8. It is up to the local governments to accept CCC requested changes or not
IV. Next Government Workshop
1. To be held yearly, or more often as needed
2. Establish working sub-groups and chairs
3. Focus on Sea Level Rise
4. Involve other State Agencies such as Parks, Public Lands, Fish and Game
5. Develop clearing house for LCPs
Public Testimony Provided by Steve Forer
“Steve Forer, representing the CPOA-SC. Please allow the Coastal Property Owners to protect their properties from further coastal erosion due to storm surges and sea level rise with appropriate armorment (shoreline protection), while preserving access to public beaches. This will extend the useful life of the properties, protect public safety, and the critical city and county infrastructures. If and when managed retreat becomes necessary, the property owners will be prepared to embrace the concept.”