At the California Coastal Commission Hearing on July 8, 2021 , the CCC will review the Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District Plan comprising a 10- year vegetation treatment program to enhance ecosystems and improve wildfire
resilience
Apparently the Coastal Commission had some additional questions regarding the County’s proposed LCP Land Use and Implementation Plan for Coastal Bluffs and Beaches. According to Kevin Kahn they are now reviewing the County’s proposed LCP, and hope to schedule it for a CCC hearing in late summer or early fall. That would mean a 9 month delay in the CCC’s review, when they are required to review the LCP within 90 days.
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.
CPOA requested an update from the California Coastal Commission’s on their review of the proposed amendments to Santa Cruz County’s Local Coastal Program relating to coastal bluffs and beaches (land use plan section 6.4) and geologic hazards (implementation plan chapter 16.10). No date has been set for CCC hearing as of yet on the proposed amendments.
The Coastal Commission is scheduled to vote on Santa Cruz County’s proposed LCP Amendments for Temporary Use/structure permit, and revised Vacation Rental policy on 1/13/21. The rest of the LCP Amendments dealing with Shoreline Protection, and Sea Level Rise are expected to be reviewed by March 8, 2021, unless the deadline is extended by the CCC (up to one year).
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.
The Commission has released the Proposed Final Draft of the 2021-2025 California Coastal Commission Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan provides a framework of goals, objectives, and actions to set priorities and guide the agency’s performance for the next five years.
The Proposed Final 2021-2025 Strategic Plan identifies 199 priority action items intended to be undertaken by the Commission over the next five years, organized under nine separate goals related to: Internal Agency Capacity and Effectiveness; Public Access; Coastal Resources; Climate Change and Sea Level Rise; Environmental Justice, Diversity, and Tribal Relations; Coastal Planning and Permitting; Enforcement; Public Presence and Partnerships; and Information Management and E-Government.
The CCC has submitted a letter to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors regarding agenda item #7 (9507) requesting the County make substantial changes in the proposed LCP. Further limit any new development, redevelopment or replacement structures along the coastline. All structures substantially modified or replace since the Coast Act of 1977, should be considered “new”. Any further major redevelopment or replacement structures should not rely on existing coastal shoreline protection or armoring devices. The County must guarantee continued or increased public access to the beaches and shorelines, and force property owners to accept the obligation to modify or remove their shoreline armorment to allow for continued public access with sea level rise.
Petitioners are five property owners with a private driveway easement on Geoffrey Drive,
Santa Cruz, located on a bluff above Twin Lakes State Beach. Petitioners challenge the Coastal
Commission’s jurisdiction to (1) reverse the County’s exemption determination on their
application for a Development Permit to install a gate and fence on their easement; (2) require
Petitioners to either remove the gate and fence or apply for a Coastal Development Permit
(CDP); and (3) impose civil penalties if Plaintiffs refuse to remove the gate and fence to allow
public access to Twin Lakes State Beach. The CA Superior Court ruled that the CA Coastal Commission does not have the authority to impose unreasonable fines and fees to an approved application for Coastal Development Permit, after it has been approved by Santa Cruz County in accordance to it’s approved Local Coastal Plan.
CA bill will amend the application process for shoreline protection devices for Orange and San Diego Counties, to limit Sand Mitigation Fees to $25,000 per parcel or 1% of assessed value, and outlines an appeal process for denied applications. If passed, it is unclear if this bill will affect other Counties.