Attend City Council Hearing Oct. 8th @ 5PM to Oppose the CHHA Package

Memorandum

TO: St. Petersburg City Council

COPY: Mayor Kriseman

FROM: Will Michaels

SUBJECT: Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) Policy

DATE: September 17, 2020


Firstly, l wish to express my appreciation to all council members for giving and continuing to give  diligent study of the pending Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) proposals. The following comments are  based on review of the first public hearing and in anticipation of the second hearing scheduled for  October 8th.


The recent significant increase in the area covered by the CHHA presents significant economic  and growth management challenges as well as the challenges of stronger storms and sea level rise threatening public safety and property damage. Formulating policies that balance both concerns is no  easy matter. It is recognized that everyone is seeking to chart a course of action that is in the best  interest of the entire city.


The proposals have two major components. One is the proposal for improving building  standards to better address climate change in the CHHA based on the Norfolk, Virginia, model. The  other is to allow for increased density in a portion of the CHHA when a development meets certain  criteria. The proposal to improve building standards for multi-family and hotel construction, particularly  the two additional feet of elevation, is commendable. Hopefully this will be a first step towards  improving building standards for all types of construction in the CHHA. Also City efforts to address  climate change through the “Integrated Sustainability Action Plan” and related clean energy measures  are commendable.


The second proposal allowing for a significant measure of flexibility in permitting increased  density in the CHHA remains problematic. It is acknowledged that since this proposal was first brought  before the Community Planning and Preservation Commission significant changes have been made to  improve the measure, including additional criteria and the designation of certain criteria as mandatory.  These changes have helped strengthen the proposal although concerns remain.


Lack of a Vulnerability Assessment & Comprehensive Plan for Infrastructure Investments to Address Stronger Storms & Sea Level Rise

A major concern is that there is no concurrent vulnerability assessment and comprehensive plan  for making critical improvements to deal with stronger storms and sea level rise in our infrastructure.  Such a plan would address possible need for higher seawalls, raised streets, flood gates, park/green  buffers to absorb storm surge and sea level rise, and other related measures.


It would seem logical to have such an assessment and plan in place prior to construction of new  residential projects, especially large track projects. Attempting to accomplish such measures on a  project by project basis runs the risk of negatively affecting nearby homes and neighborhoods by simply  shifting flood waters there rather than protecting the city as a whole. A worst case scenario would be  that once a comprehensive infrastructure plan is completed for the city as a whole, the plan may call for  a significant infrastructure improvement on the same general site as the development. It is noted that  some planning is now underway which will be helpful such as the Integrated Water Resources

Management Plan, but much more needs to be done. There are several models for such a plan to  examine such as San Francisco’s Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Consequences Assessment” and “Sea  Level Rise Action Plan.”


Also, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Study (2019) of the CHHA contracted by the City included  among its recommendations developing a more-fine grain approach to land use in the CHHA by (p. 34):  ∙ “Consider limited future density in areas that may be subject to daily tidal flooding due  to sea level rise in the next couple of decades. Comprehensive infrastructure improvements should continue to be targeted in areas to prevent sunny day flooding” [emphasis added].


∙ “Target specific areas for buyout, in the event of future disaster within repetitive loss  geographies. These areas can serve as coastal defense.”

∙ “In other areas that are only subject to coastal flooding by severe but infrequent storms,  create a density boost that could assist in getting better resilient building stock and  amenities.”

∙ “Elsewhere, the city should consider tools to help encourage building owners to retrofit  the existing building stock, at least by elevating MEP, installing water pumps, or footings  for the deployment of flood panels in advance of a storm.”

∙ “Consider a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) / land swap solution from areas in the  most vulnerable areas of the original CHHA to less vulnerable areas of the CHHA. This  could boost preservation areas and result in a zero net gain of overall entitled density in  the CHHA.”

∙ “Clearly connect the zoning code to a comprehensive strategy and goals for city-wide  resiliency” [emphasis added].

These recommendations speak to the need for a comprehensive vulnerability assessment and  infrastructure improvement plan prior to considering significant new development in the CHHA.


Criterion B in the CHHA proposal states that a new development in the CHHA “will result in the  utilization of existing infrastructure, as opposed to requiring the expenditure of public funds for the  construction of new, unplanned infrastructure with the potential to be damaged by coastal storms [emphasis added].” Should the policy and criterion be adopted as stated, new developments are likely  to be approved prior to the planning of infrastructure improvements which otherwise may have  affected a given development, or even caused that development to be disapproved.


Should it be determined after the new development is permitted and constructed that improvements in infrastructure are required in the area of a development, does the new development  have any obligation to compensate the City for that?

The pending proposal would be better served were a comprehensive vulnerability assessment  and infrastructure improvement plan in place before a development was approved.


Development on High Ground

A related concern is what is the City’s policy regarding development on high ground where the  risk of flooding is reduced? Incentivizing developers to build on high ground rather than flood-prone  areas is a major element of the Norfolk model (see attachment) and a highly regarded best practice  generally. To a degree the proposal to increase building standards in the CHHA does provide some  incentive to developers to build on high ground as construction cost will be less, but further measures should be considered as part of a formal plan. The ULI Study noted that a “constraint” of the pending  proposal articulated in stakeholder meetings was that the City was missing an opportunity “to instead

focus/encourage development in less vulnerable areas and utilize coastal land for  preservation/mitigation” (p. 8).


 Regardless of whether building on high ground or CHHA it is fundamental that this be done in a  manner which respects neighborhood character, including concerns in some neighborhoods regarding  gentrification. The option of development on high ground should receive as much consideration and  analysis as is being given development in the CHHA. Development throughout the city should include  affordable housing, not just workforce housing, as a priority.


Vision 2050 Final Draft Report Scheduled for Release October 22nd

Again, the public could benefit from consideration of the proposed CHHA policy change in light  of the pending Vision 2050 Report, and long-term planning. Climate change, sea level rise, storm  intensification, flooding, and CHHA expansion were a significant part of the workshop discussions and  surveys contributing to the Vision 2050 process generally under the themes of Sustainability, Climate  Change, Growth and Character. It is anticipated a range of draft recommendations will be made related  to this in the staff Final Report. Again as reflected in the ULI Study (p. 8) “There is a lack of  understanding of how this draft code [pending CHHA proposals] relates to other city initiatives  (Complete Streets, ISAP, Vision 2050).”


It is understood the Final Draft Vision 2050 Report will be presented to the Council on October  22nd. Deferring the pending CHHA proposal until the Council and public have the opportunity to review  the report will potentially help either validate or improve upon the pending proposal. Given that the  Vision 2050 Report is scheduled to be presented to the council just a few days after the scheduled  October 8th hearing, this additional step would not significantly affect timely final action on the pending  CHHA proposal.


Other Issues Related to the CHHA Density Proposal

Relative Vulnerability of Development Sites. The proposal may be improved further by adding an  additional criterion mandating consideration of the relative vulnerability to greater flooding of a specific  parcel within the CHHA. Not all areas are equally vulnerable. For example flooding from seal level rise  will be limited to a portion of the CHHA.


Objective CM10A. Why is the word “services” struck from the policy “No public funds shall be used for  infrastructure and services which subsidize population concentrations in the coastal high hazard area beyond the planned densities identified on the Future Land Use Map… [emphasis added]”? The need  for and consequences of this change are unclear.


Effect on Flood Insurance Rates. There was address at the first hearing of the potential effect of the  proposals on the city’s National Flood Insurance Community Rating. However, comments were limited  to the possible effect of the proposed improved building standards. The effect of the change in policy  regarding permitting increased density in the CHHA was not addressed. It would be helpful for the  public to have a qualified expert’s opinion on this.


Level of Service Standards. Should Level of Service Standards (LOS) be higher in the CHHA than in other  areas of the city, for example storm water drainage?


Thank you for your consideration.


ATTACHMENT

Excerpts from “Norfolk’s Revised Zoning Ordinance

Aims to Improve Flood Resilience”

(The PEW Charitable Trust, Nov 2019)

“In 2013, officials decided that Norfolk’s zoning ordinance did not support the city’s goals and needed to  be overhauled to mitigate flooding and promote safer development. The revised ordinance, approved  in January 2018, includes new zoning requirements to encourage investment in less risky areas.”

“In January 2018, officials adopted a zoning ordinance to direct new and more intense development to  higher ground.”

Owners of property in areas which have less flood risk can forego certain building standards if they  agree to conservation easements in property more vulnerable to flooding allowing the city there to  “make improvements for water retention or flood protection.”

“by requiring more resilient construction and encouraging development on higher ground, Norfolk is  better positioned to protect its residents…from the impacts of stronger storms and sea level rise.  Officials say it can serve as a model for other coastal cities.”

20 views

Recent Posts

See All

PGSP Neighbors United, Inc. is a neighborhood group formed to hold our respresentatives accountable for cohesive urban development, and promote responsible and dutiful growth in our neighborhoods. Our efforts work to protect single family neighborhoods from higher density spot zoning.

© 2020 PGSP Neighbors United Inc. | 6800 Gulfport Blvd | Suite 201-356 | 33707