Managed RetreatPolicy
The practice of managed retreat should not be applied to areas that cannot accommodate relocation of developments and those that prohibit property owners from defending their homes, businesses and related infrastructure. Background
Managed Retreat can be a commonsense land use practice where practical, especially in rural areas where existing structures can be relocated further inland when they are demolished and rebuilt, so that they will never need a shoreline protection device. This should be implemented where practical, however in more urban areas, especially where there is not a deep enough parcel to relocate the development, managed retreat is not practical, and the property owners must be allowed to defend their property from wave attack. Regulatory TakingsPolicy
Property owners who are prohibited from defending their property, and those whose property is subject to a regulatory taking, have the right to compensation at fair market value and related costs at the time of taking. Funding mechanisms must be in place before the adoption of any regulation resulting in this taking. Background
Some local jurisdictions and the Coastal Commission are contemplating regulations that would prohibit a property owner from armoring their home or business to provide protection from rising seas and storm waves. This raises serious concerns pertaining to a regulatory taking without just compensation, and any such regulation must comport with the following Constitutional principles and the Coastal Act itself.
Rolling EasementsPolicy
Public agency mandates for rolling easements must include just compensation and all related costs for regulatory takings. Such regulation must follow Constitutional principles and the California Coastal Act of 1976. Background
Some local jurisdictions have included a discussion of rolling easements in their coastal planning documents. Although rolling conservation easements could be implemented by a local land trust or other organization able to purchase such property rights, public agency mandates for rolling easements which do not include just compensation raise serious concerns pertaining to a regulatory taking without just compensation. |
Tiered ResponsePolicy
Tiered Response is a planning principle that institutes certain defined policies if, and only if, there are specific thresholds of sea level rise that are observed, measured and documented, as opposed to relying only upon projections. There are multiple options that can be incorporated into a tiered response policy including, but not limited to, beach nourishment, kelp forests, offshore reefs, groins, submerged breakwaters and community seawalls. These options should be adopted as preferred alternatives to managed retreat in areas that cannot accommodate relocation of developments and those that prohibit property owners from defending their homes, businesses and related infrastructure. Background
Increasingly the concept of a “Tiered Response” (TR) to Sea Level Rise (SLR) is being scrutinized by cities and counties for adoption into their LCP’s. TR is essentially a planning principle that proposes to institute certain defined policies if, and only if, there are specific thresholds of SLR that are documented in reality, as opposed to the current projections. The logic behind this is that it is prudent to wait and see if the projected SLR should manifest within the time frames postulated (if at all). For example, if there is a section of the coastline that is predicted to have 3.5 ft. of SLR by 2050, moving forward on draconian regulatory policies requiring managed retreat could result in significant impacts to communities costing tens of billions of dollars. It makes sense to monitor closely to see how much SLR actually occurs before moving forward so aggressively. Not only are several coastal communities beginning to embrace this approach of a TR, but recent conversations with senior California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff and commissioners reveals that this principle is gaining traction with the agency as well. This provides the opportunity to constructively engage on this issue, and the timing seems to be good at both the local level and with the CCC itself. However, a critical aspect of TR is what gets implemented should certain thresholds manifest. Currently, it is envisioned by the CCC that should the projected levels of SLR prove to be true, that Managed Retreat will be the default policy with the appurtenant regulations. Should the TR be codified into the LCPA’s, if the SLR projections prove to be true, we will end up again with broad based managed retreat, which will be devastating to many of our coastal communities. Coastal communities would be left with only the hope that the projected SLR will not manifest, and while it would be a partial victory to deflect and delay draconian regulations based upon dire mapped projections, it will be a pyric victory for many communities should those predictions prove true. As previously discussed, Managed Retreat is a policy that makes sense in large sections of the coastline, but in other more developed areas it is essential to find alternatives to protect the integrity of those communities. The second part of the equation is to work on incorporating regulations triggered in a TR that incorporates alternatives to managed retreat to protect certain existing communities in their current configuration, including, but not limited to, beach nourishment, kelp forests, offshore reefs, and community seawalls. Existing DevelopmentPolicy
Smart Coast California advises against the adoption of regulations referring to January 1, 1977 for existing development in the proposed statewide interpretations or local programs/plans for sea level rise. This date is not constituted by law or regulation and would restrict property owners from defending their properties. Background
Under Coastal Act section 30235 existing structures are entitled to develop a shoreline protection device when threatened by wave action. Defining structures existing on or before January 1, 1977 is unjustified based upon legislative analysis. Importantly there have been two efforts to amend the Coastal Act by the legislature to change the definition of “existing development” to mean before 1977, Assembly Bill 2943 in 2002 and Assembly Bill 1129 in 2017. Both bills failed. The Coastal Commission cannot write law or regulations and referring to this date in the proposed statewide interpretations for sea level rise does not constitute law. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to utilize amendments LCP’s as a vehicle to impose a new interpretation with consequences locally and statewide. |
