Summary
The Commission unanimously approved a new Beaches and Bluffs Hazards Adaptation Chapter of the City of Santa Cruz's Land Use Plan (LUP), the first update as part of the City's comprehensive LCP update. The City's existing LCP lacked any meaningful language around coastal hazards or adaptation. Thanks to a concerted effort from both City and Commission staff, Santa Cruz produced what North Coast Deputy Director Carl called the "Cadillac-level of coastal hazards sections in an LCP… this is that cutting edge."
The chapter establishes a Shoreline Hazard Evaluation Area with a strict standard: all new development must be designed and sited to remain safe from erosion, bluff failure, wave run-up, and flooding for its anticipated lifetime, without relying on any shoreline protection — seawalls, revetments, caisson foundations, groins, or offshore reefs. That standard doesn't just conform to the Coastal Act, it exceeds it. The chapter's private development section (Policy BB-8) also echoes the Commission's latest guidance, including deed restrictions requiring property owners to waive future rights to shoreline armoring and acknowledge that development may need to be removed as the public trust migrates inland.
The chapter sets equally strict criteria for when shoreline armoring is allowed — again, more restrictive than the Coastal Act. Armoring will only be permissible when nature-based alternatives have been ruled out, and proportional mitigation will be required for all unavoidable impacts, surfing included.
Surfrider identified two gaps in the armoring section (Policy BB-12). First, the chapter failed to define "emergency," which risked giving the Planning Director too much discretion to bypass its strong armoring restrictions. Second, it allowed the Planning Director too much latitude to indefinitely delay required followup CDPs. Commission staff agreed on both points and worked with the City to add a Coastal Act-corresponding definition of emergency and guardrails to prevent CDPs from being postponed indefinitely.
Sierra Club, with Surfrider's support, also flagged a problem in the beach replenishment section (Policy BB-13). The original language suggested placing dredged sand from the Harbor at pocket beaches along West Cliff Drive, without accounting for impacts to beaches downcoast of the Harbor. Those beaches have already lost significant sand due to the Harbor's construction and have historically received the Harbor's dredging spoils. The language was revised to require that all nourishment materials be site-appropriate and not cause adverse impacts to other areas.
Why You Should Care
Santa Cruz has been battered by coastal storm surge in recent years, with areas like West Cliff Drive facing increasingly dire conditions. As the City undertakes a comprehensive LCP update, this hazards chapter lays the foundation for how it will respond to climate change while protecting its beaches, surf breaks, and coastal accessways. The chapter's overall objective is worth quoting directly:
"Protect and enhance bluff, shoreline, offshore, and sandy beach recreational areas for public use and enjoyment while ensuring all development (including private structures and public infrastructure) is safe from coastal hazards to the maximum extent feasible, both now and in the future."
Santa Cruz is far from alone in facing these threats. By leading with such a strong LCP update, the City has set a high bar for other coastal municipalities still working through their own updates. When others fall short, ActCoastal and the Commission will have Santa Cruz to point to as proof that it can be done.
ActCoastal encourages Santa Cruz residents and beachgoers to stay engaged. The chapter establishes a process for the City to complete Shoreline Adaptation Management Plans (SAMPs) for West Cliff, Main-Cowell Beaches, and East Cliff within the next five years. Each SAMP will be submitted to the Commission as an additional LUP amendment, fleshing out specific adaptation pathways for each stretch of coastline.
Outcome
Pro-Coast Vote
Anti-Coast Vote
Organizations in Support
Save the Waves Coalition, Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club
Organizations Opposed
Decision Type
LCP Update
Staff Recommendation
Approve as submitted; then, approve with modifications after comment letters from Surfrider and Sierra Club