Santa Cruz County LCP Update

From ActCoastal

Month October
Year 2022
Summary Santa Cruz County’s local coastal program update for coastal hazards came before the Commission despite never having completed a vulnerability assessment or technical review of the sea level rise threats facing the County’s 32 miles of coastline. Commission staff recommended denial of the update, in part due to the County’s plan for an overreliance on shoreline armoring. Notably, the plan would have created a “shoreline armoring exception area (SPEA)” along Opal Cliffs, protecting high priced residential development, almost all of which post-dates the Coastal Act. The SPEA would have protected private development from coastal hazards at the expense of the public’s beach, waves and ocean resources, and without any significant mitigation. The Coastal Act prohibits shoreline armoring except to protect pre-Coastal Act structures that meet certain criteria for erosion risk. The Commission upheld the foundational Coastal Act policies on shoreline armoring and protecting public resources by denying the County’s plan in a unanimous vote for denial.
Outcome Green Dot.png
Outcome Description While the Commission voted to deny the County’s LCP update, some Commissioner remarks seemed to support future compromises on basic Coastal Act provisions, which is highly concerning after decades of work to uphold the Coastal Act and protect the coast. Commissioner Mike Wilson, member of the Local Government Sea Level Rise Working Group, stated that the Group appreciates the neighborhood scale adaptation approach and that parcel by parcel permitting is burdensome. Commissioner Donne Brownsey also spoke to the importance of a regional approach. It’s hard to imagine what this might be other than neighborhood level seawalls or neighborhood level living shoreline or managed retreat - the former highly inconsistent with the Coastal Act and the latter a massive step in the right direction but not likely what local governments or homeowners have in mind when they discuss neighborhood scale adaptation.
Why You Should Care Allowing a local jurisdiction to predetermine/circumvent whether Coastal Act section 30235 and 30253 criteria for shoreline armoring have been met through implementing blanket seawall approval provisions in their LCP undermines the language and spirit of the Coastal Act.
Image The-HookBLOG.jpeg
Decision Type Local Coastal Program Update for Coastal Hazards
Staff Recommendation Denial
Staff Report
Opposition to Project California Coastal Protection Network, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Orange County Coastkeeper, Save Our Shores, Heal the Bay, Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Eco Center of San Diego, CLEAN South Bay, Brown Girl Surf, Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Coastkeeper, Defenders of Wildlife, Preserve Rural Sonoma County, Azul, Black Surf Santa Cruz, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Coachella Valley Waterkeeper
Coastal Act Policies 30235, 30253

Voting Detail for Santa Cruz County LCP Update

Individual vote detail for Issue: Santa Cruz County LCP Update
Dayna BochcoGood Vote
Mike WilsonGood Vote
Roberto UrangaAbsent for Vote
Caryl HartGood Vote
Dayna BochcoGood Vote
Linda EscalanteGood Vote
Katie RiceGood Vote
Carole GroomAbsent for Vote
Effie Turnbull-SandersGood Vote
Dayna BochcoGood Vote
Donne BrownseyGood Vote
Steve PadillaGood Vote
Sara AminzadehAbsent for Vote
Meagan HarmonGood Vote

Meeting Page

View Meeting Page for the meeting where this issue was discussed/voted on.