The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting 6.28.21_CCC Comments Update•F SEA tot �It 10 ; City 'tkQ /FORN�=Local Coastal Pro 9 ram Project Status Update City Council Meeting June 28th.2021 F SEQ('`�. �JF' q :G ��S -- - - �� - Local Coastal Program(Recap)I L '�QLIFORN- ■ What is a Local Coastal Program? •Consists of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) • Guides development in Coastal Zone once LCP is certified • City awarded grant funding by Coastal Commission to complete the LCP ■ Benefits of LCP • Permit issuance authority within the coastal zone is delegated to City • City controls local decision making in accordance with the Coastal Act • Permit processing is streamlined through the City instead of the Coastal Commission I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L F SEQ('`�. �JF' q :G ��S - - LCP Project Update '�� • L} - '��Pc : '1QLIFORN - ✓City Submitted the LUP to Coastal Commission in December 2019 ✓City Received comments in March and June of 2020 ✓Michael Baker has incorporated comments from CCC into the LUP, with the exception of comments on the following slides ✓Seeking City Council feedback on comments received I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L Comment# I .I -Sea Level Rise CCC Comments Received Policy 5.1.1-4: Development shall be sited and designed to avoid hazards associated with projected sea level rise over the anticipated duration of the proposed development, considering the best available science. If complete avoidance is infeasible, the project shall be sited and designed to minimize hazards to the extent feasible. Project applications shall be assessed for vulnerability including but not limited to, tidal action, waves, and storm surge, and erosion, considering sea level rise. If a project is determined to be vulnerable to coastal hazards, require an adaptation strategy that ensures the safety and stability of the structure and does not rely on hard armoring shoreline protective devices, such as increasing the elevation of the structure and floodproofing. When establishincgsafety, new development and redevelopment shall not rely on existing shoreline protective devices that substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs or otherwise harm coastal resources in a manner inconsistent with LCP policies or Coastal Act public access policies. and not contribute si nificantly to erosion, geolqgLlc instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding CCC NOTE. Some edits were needed to clarify that new development should be sited to avoid coastal hazards, including hazards impacted by sea level rise over the anticipated life of the development. If hazards cannot be completely avoided, hazard should be minimized to the extent feasible. TOPICAL SUMMARY: • Formalizes future shoreline protective devices to protect new development or redevelopment through waiver Existing policy text is in bold CCC requested text is in double underline CCC notes are in italic J INTERNATIONAL Comment # 1.2 -Sea Level Rise CCC Comments Received Policy 5.2.3-7: Prohibit the use of shoreline protective devices to protect newly authorized development and redevelopment. As a condition of approval of such development, applicants shall also waive any rights to construct such devices that may exist under applicable law. TOPICAL SUMMARY: • Prevents future shoreline protective devices to protect new development or redevelopment • Existing policy text is in bold • CCC requested text is in double underline I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L CCC Comments Received Comment #2 — Land Divisions Sea Level Rise TOPICAL SUMMARY: Section 2.2.1 should include policies that prohibit land divisions where shoreline armoring . Prohibits lot line adjustments for would be required and where coastal resource impacts occur. Two policies are listed below as examples: properties where a potential for a. Land divisions, including subdivisions, lot splits, lot line adjustments, and certificates of compliance which create new beachfront lots, shall not be permitted unless the subdivision can be shown to create lots which can be developed without requiring a current or future shoreline protection structure. No new lots shall be created that could require shoreline protection or bluff stabilization structures at any time during the full anticipated lifespan of the development. b. Land divisions, including subdivisions, lot splits, lot line adjustments, and certificates of compliance, shall only be approved through a Coastal Development Permit where they designed to avoid impacts to coastal resources to the maximum extent feasible, including public access and recreation, environmentally sensitive habitat areas ("ESHA"), and visual resources, or minimize such impacts where coastal resource impacts cannot be avoided. Land Divisions shall be prohibited where any proposed parcel will not be safe from flooding, fire, erosion, and geologic hazards, or where a property requires development within or adjacent to ESHA, unless consistent with the coastal resource protection policies of the LCP. impacts related to sea level rise have been identified • Existing policy text is in bold • CCC requested text is in double underline INTERNATIONAL CCC Comments Received Comment #3 —Surfside Colony, Public Access Part 1 We would like to discuss how public access is provided to Surfside overall and via the Surfside Colony gated community, and whether the example policy below should be included in some form in the LUP: Plan for expansions, where feasible, in public access to the shoreline and the public sandy beach area seaward of the Surfside Colony gated community. Part 2 The third paragraph of Section 3.1.3 of the draft LUP states that "the Surfside Colony is a long- established neighborhood, and new development is generally the type and scale that does not have a direct adverse impact on existing public access or coastal resources. New development generally consists of additions, or redevelopment of residential structures in a similar nature to existing development." We note that new development and redevelopment proposals in the Surfside Colony would require a CDP and thus findings of consistency with the LCP and Coastal Act, including determining that existing public access is not impacted, which may be problematic given the existing public access restrictions in this neighborhood. We suggest rephrasing this section and discussing how public access may be maximized moving forward. TOPICAL SUMMARY: • Access requests on private property in Surfside • CCC challenges redevelopment inconsistency with Coastal Act policies • Existing policy text is in bold • CCC requested text is in double underline • CCC notes are in italic INTERNATIONAL F SEQ('`�. �JF' q :G ��S -- - - - �� - - CCC Comments Received Comment #4 —Visitor Accommodations Given the low number of lower-cost accommodations within the City's Coastal Zone, we strongly encourage the City to include a policy under LUP section 2.3.3 regulating short-term rentals and home -sharing as a form of overnight, visitor -serving accommodations. We would like to discuss this issue with the City, including the City's overall approach at regulating short-term rentals and home - shares. In addition, the City should develop a policy to encourage maintenance of the existing moderate cost accommodations and prevent their conversion into high-cost accommodations to the maximum extent feasible. Please share the details of the method used to determine these rates as "moderate" rates. TOPICAL SUMMARY: • CCC encourages incorporating short-term rentals in the LCP • Details of method to determine low/moderate/high-cost accommodations to be included in Local Implementation Plan • CCC notes are in italic I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L SEA('�'�, -oF Fq •� -� - CCC Comments Received Comment #5 —Parking TOPICAL SUMMARY: Similar to the above comment, the LUP states that "the City's preferential parking zones . CCC parking concerns relate to were initiated in the 1970s and was determined not to adversely impact coastal ensuring public access to the beach access and recreation due to the adequacy of available parking in public lots. In the Surfside community, vehicular access is restricted to residents and their guests; therefore, no preferential parking district is necessary within this portion of the City." We would like to discuss preferential parking districts with the City, including any prior CDP(s) issued for these existing preferential parking districts and whether/how they should be incorporated into the LCP. • Records indicate preferential parking zones in city were established in the 1970's, prior to Coastal Act. Metered parking in Old Town established in 2004 under an approved CDP. • Existing policy text is in bold • CCC notes are in italic INTERNATIONAL