Staffs with the county’s Community Development Agency and the California Coastal Commission have continued to wrangle over a proposed overhaul of the county’s Local Coastal Program. Just three months before potential commission approval—and eight years after the update process began—commission staff has yet to deem the current application, which was sent in April, complete. Last month, the commission’s district manager for the north central coast, Nancy Cave, sent the county a lengthy letter asking for more information and appearing to question proposals for a wide range of issues, including building height in flood zones and regulations for piers and caissons, along with sea-level rise estimates and conformance with the Coastal Act. The Board of Supervisors had decided that new developments in certain flood zones needed to be proven safe with three feet of sea-level rise, but Ms. Cave noted the potential  for a rise of over four feet by 2100 based on new research suggesting that levels may rise faster than previously anticipated. Coastal staff also seem concerned about the visual impacts of a county proposal to allow buildings in flood zones to exceed a 25-foot height limit, since the county expects houses may need to be raised to avoid water damage. In a response sent two weeks ago, the Community Development Agency defended the proposed amendments, arguing that they were based on the best available science and that they balanced environmental, economic and landowner concerns. But the county also pushed back by arguing that substance disputes should not affect whether the application is deemed complete. Brian Crawford, the director of the agency, wrote in a letter that “substantive questions you raise regarding the various LCP amendments, including how those provisions would protect coastal resources, are not filing questions.” The county, he went on, does not need to prove to the coastal staff that the proposal is “approvable” to secure a hearing. The county update process for the coastal plan, which was created in the early ‘80s, began in 2008. The commission voted on a county proposal just over two years ago, but lingering disagreements spurred the county to pull it and resubmit a new version in two parts, last fall and then in April.