The Marin County Planning Commission held a multi-hour workshop on March 24 to review proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments that would revise how the county maps and regulates environmental hazards, including sea-level rise, flood risk and shoreline armoring.

Senior planner Kristen Drumm told the commission that staff had prepared a planning-commission review draft and that Coastal Commission staff had submitted a written letter with four response options: (1) remove amendments Coastal staff find objectionable; (2) reinstate language removed from the public review draft; (3) revise proposed amendments to address Coastal staff concerns; or (4) decline to modify the Planning Commission draft before certification. "There were 4 separate options," Drumm said, and staff presented those choices topic-by-topic.

Key technical matters and points of dispute included which sea-level-rise scenario to use for mapping and policy (staff used a 3.3-foot scenario derived from Ocean Protection Council/COSMOS guidance; several public commenters and Coastal staff urged an intermediate-to-high scenario, e.g., 4.9 feet by 2100), whether the LCP should reinstate a policy preference for nature-based adaptation (beaches, dunes and managed retreat) and how to require feasibility and alternatives analyses before allowing hard armoring (seawalls, revetments). Drumm summarized: the Coastal Commission prefers restoring a policy that "requires projects to analyze [nature-based solutions] prior to considering harder forms of armoring."

Staff also proposed updates to floodplain language in some areas (for example, the 100-year floodplain near Stinson Beach), additions to hazard-mapping, and expanded real-estate disclosure and recorded-restriction requirements for development in mapped hazard areas. Staff said it had removed several originally proposed mandatory elements (some provisions that the Coastal Commission now asks to restore), including explicit prohibitions on future armoring and automatic removal/relocation triggers in certain circumstances. "Based on public feedback, we revised the language in the draft currently before you, and we removed a number of the requirements," Drumm said.

Several commissioners asked how to apply feasibility analyses and who carries the evidentiary burden during discretionary Coastal Development Permit review. Staff answered that feasibility is a recognized term of art in land-use law and that the CDP process would require study submittals (geotechnical, wave-runup, engineering) and substantial evidence in the record to support determinations.

Public testimony was extensive and divided. Environmental organizations (Environmental Action Committee of West Marin and Surfrider Foundation) urged compliance with the Coastal Act and restoration of language the Coastal Commission staff recommended, including a stronger sea-level-rise scenario and clearer definitions for "redevelopment" and "existing development." Multiple Seadrift and Stinson Beach residents urged the commission to preserve existing armoring and protective rights, to avoid any interpretation that would force abandonment of Calle Del Arroyo (the main road serving Seadrift), and cited a 1994 settlement agreement that residents said protects their revetment maintenance rights. Other speakers from Marshall and Bolinas said the county should prioritize infrastructure protection (Highway 1, wastewater) and allow measured adaptation to preserve communities in coming decades.

Several public commenters and property owners warned of takings and legal risks if the county were to adopt mandatory removal or relocation triggers or overly prescriptive size limits for allowed rebuilding. Staff acknowledged legal uncertainties (for example, how courts would treat the definition of "existing development") and recommended careful calibration of thresholds and a conservative approach where takings liability could arise.

Next steps: staff said it will meet Coastal Commission staff, review comments and return with revised materials; commissioners signaled May 5 and May 29 as likely return dates for further hearings. The commission did not take final action on the LCP amendments at the March 24 workshop.

Ending: Because many provisions touch competing legal standards (Coastal Act, FEMA, local code) and raise potential takings questions, staff will coordinate with county counsel and Coastal Commission staff before bringing a revised package back to the commission for additional hearings and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.