Attached, please find our letter to express concerns about the County’s proposed Local Coastal Program, suggest essential changes to the LCP, and additional changes which we believe are necessary to clarify sections of the LCP. We would like to support the County’s effort to develop and update a LCP, but unless these essential changes are made we can not support the County’s proposed LCP and may need to seek other remedies. We have actively participated in the review process offered by the County Planning Department and Planning Commissioners. We would really like to see the County succeed in developing an appropriate Local Coastal Program to be able to issue permits to coastal property owners for coastal armoring devices, and permits to protect the structures and infrastructure along the coast. We hope the County Supervisors will seriously consider our requested changes to the proposed LCP.
Please contact your County Supervisor prior to the Supervisor’s meeting scheduled for June 11, 2019, to share your concerns.
Talking Points for meetings with the County Board of Supervisors
Regarding Essential Changes needed in the County’s proposed LCP
“¢ There has been a lack of adequate opportunity given for public input into the County’s proposed Local Coastal Plan, and not all of the coastal property owner’s and interested parties have been notified of the proposed LCP.
“¢ The approval of the LCP by the Planning Commissioners on Mary 13, 2019 was premature and ignored input from the public, property owners and the Coastal Commission.
“¢ The concept of an “all cause and unlimited” release of liability, indemnification of the County and Coastal Commission, and “hold harmless” has been recently been ruled unlawful in San Diego. The coastal property owner’s of Santa Cruz are not willing to sign an “all cause and unlimited” release of liability, indemnification, and hold harmless document to be recorded on our property deeds. It is unreasonable to require coastal property owners to sign a release of liability, indemnification, and hold harmless document for future, undetermined and unlimited events. We have proposed alternative language.
“¢ The proposed “Sand Mitigation fees” are unreasonable, not based on proven scientific principles, and amount to excessive tax without representation.
“¢ The current term limits of existing permitted armoring shall not be altered. Coastal Hazards assessments shall only be required for new or substantially modified structures and new armoring devices.
“¢ For structures less than 25 feet of edge of coastal bluffs or cliffs (in imminent danger of further coastal erosion) shall be eligible to request an expedited permit for protective armoring per the terms of this LCP, to avoid emergency permits. 12 of the 43 homes on Opel Cliffs are 25 feet or less from the coastal bluffs which are at risk of further erosion. Many of the these homes are occupied by permanent residents.
“¢ Maintenance and Repair of existing permitted armoring shall not be subject to the required Geologic/Coastal Hazard, Acceptance of Risk, and Liability Release.
“¢ If no substantial structural improvements, redevelopment, or reconstruction are required, permits for existing armoring devices shall be renewed according to provisions in the original permit.
“¢ Recognize the negative impact of the Santa Cruz Harbor and jetties on the downstream beach sand supply and seasonal sand migration.