Article written by John Erskine, Esq, with Nossaman LLP, provides a detailed and practical guideline and summary of the origins of the California Coastal Act, Sea Level Rise, and adaptation strategies for both public and private projects in Coastal Hazards Zones. (To view and read this document, open as a separate tab.)
Since the Live Oak Parking Program was abandoned in 2019, the Coastal Commission has required the County of Santa Cruz to develop a Coastal Encroachment Program, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors, to identify and address any existing or proposed encroachments to public right- of-way, roads and easements which provide access to the public beaches. As a first step, a survey conducted by the County Parks Department, has identified access encroachments along 24th, 25th and 26th avenues off of East Cliff Drive, where property owners have built fences, patios, and installed landscaping which is encroaching on public roads, limiting parking and access to the public beaches. Letters were recently sent to the property owners along these streets, to request they remove the improvements, or pay the County Parks Department and “Encroachment Fee” of $5,000 – 20,000 or more each year. A special meeting between the property owners and Supervisor Manu Koenig will be held in January, 2022 to review the survey’s findings and possible solutions for property owners.
The CCC has placed a consent item on the CCC October agenda to extend the time frame to review and comment on the County’s proposed amendments to the LCP for Coastal Bluffs and Beaches until February 2022. According to Kevin Kahn, the CCC plans to provide written feedback to the County by the end of the year (December 2021), and will also consider additional input from major stakeholders such as the County, CPOA and the Surf Riders Association.
Santa Barbara County withdraws it amended LCP to address Sea Level Rise due to significant disagreements with the CCC regarding requested modifications: 1) definition of ‘existing structures,’ the Commission has interpreted this term, in the context of Section 30235, to mean structures that were in existence when the Coastal Act was enacted” (i.e., January 1, 1977), 2) new structures or redevelopment within coastal hazard will not be entitled to new shoreline protection under Public Resources Code Section 30235 or any analogous provision of this LCP, 3) new or modified developments (structures) that are reliant on existing shoreline protection should be moved/relocated to provide more setback and shoreline protection removed, 4) require that Coastal Development Permits for shoreline protective devices expire after 20 years, after that the CDPs may be extended but must include mitigation measures to minimize impacts to shoreline sand supply, public access, biological resources, or other coastal resources be reassessed in 20-year increments.
The CCC will review and approve Santa Cruz County’s proposed changes to Public Park Beach fees and access. According to Section 15.05.05, the word “beach” will now be changed to “coastal access” throughout and the minimum public shoreline access easement width is increased from 5 feet to 10 feet. It appears that easements for current beach access paths for Public Parks will be widened from 5 to 10 feet, to access costal beaches. This would impact beaches such as Twin Lakes, Blacks Beach, and Moran Lake. The easement to adjacent property owners may be increased by up to five feet on either side of existing beach trails in State & local parks, without any compensation to the property owners.
On April 13, 2021 the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted to dissolve the Live Oak Parking Program, effective May 1, 2021 due to strong opposition from the Coastal Commission and residents regarding the proposed changes. Without a parking program and restrictions, we may see RVs and long term parking along East Cliff Dr from the Harbor to 41st Ave. The County plans to continue to work on a parking program that will be acceptable to the CCC and residents.
This year, the California Legislature is doubling-down, having introduced more than a dozen bills intended to address sea level rise in some form or fashion. From a “takings” perspective, it appears the proposed legislation has been crafted broadly and in such a way as to avoid inverse condemnation or regulatory takings liability, but the real question will be how local jurisdictions implement the various programs (assuming the legislation is adopted).
According to a recent Blog by attorney Nossaman, the California Coastal Commission has changed their terminology and strategy from “Managed Retreat” to Coastal Resiliency”, and will not approve any new coastal armoring devices and wants the coastal cliffs and bluffs to erode naturally. For any new development, major redevelopment/replacement structures along the coastline in CA, property owners must agree as a condition of approval to waive the right to protect the new development from future sea level rise. For example, no sea wall to protect against bluff erosion. Another condition that is becoming more common, is the obligation to vacate the property when some amount of bluff erosion has occurred, or high-tide is within a certain distance from a structure.