The California Coastal Commission Local Government Working Group is promoting a new concept known as “neighborhood-scale adaptation” as a key approach to planning for rising seas. This concept is meant to promote larger-scale adaptation projects and reconcile local governments’ desire for shoreline protection with the Coastal Commission’s mandate to preserve coastal resources. However, it could have significant consequences for California’s beaches and coastal ecosystems. A sea level rise workshop for public input at the Coastal Commission’s September 11 hearing will be crucial in shaping the future of this approach. For more information on how to participate in the September 11 workshop, click here.
In 2023, “neighborhood-scale adaptation” was introduced as a compromise in the Coastal Commission’s Public Trust Guiding Principles and Action Plan under Principle #9 and will be discussed further at this month’s Commission hearing. While the document encourages nature-based solutions, recent examples indicate that some local governments interperate this new policy as constructing neighborhood-scale seawalls.
Seawalls are at the center of the debate over coastal adaptation and we fear that this new approach will accelerate the adoption of large-scale seawalls. If we rely heavily on seawalls as our primary adaptation strategy, and fail to allow the coast to migrate inland naturally, we risk losing a substantial portion of our coast, including most of Southern California’s beaches, in the coming decades. Local governments face immense pressure from property owners to implement seawalls, often at the expense of public beaches and natural coastal dynamics.
Pacifica: A Case in Point
Pacifica’s controversial “Special Shoreline Resiliency Areas” (SSRAs) policy highlights the potential pitfalls of neighborhood-scale adaptation. This policy proposes seawalls spanning entire neighborhoods at Rockaway and West Sharp Park. This is problematic because of its inconsistency with state law. The California Coastal Act only permits shoreline armoring for coastal-dependent uses and structures built before the Act’s adoption; whereas SSRAs would allow new development to rely on armoring and perpetuate building in hazardous locations.
Despite the legal constraints, the Coastal Commission has hinted it might approve Pacifica’s policy, if sufficient mitigation measures are included. However, this could set a dangerous precedent and lead to the walling off of California’s public beaches, benefiting private property owners while restricting public access. Residents from other neighborhoods in Pacifica have voiced strong opposition, arguing that the policy unfairly benefits some areas over others and leaves many even more vulnerable to coastal hazards.
Nearby Pacifica neighborhoods not covered by the proposed SSRAs are strongly opposing the policy. Dozens of residents from West Fairway Park have testified at local meetings in outrage, citing injustice. One resident had this to say:
“SSRAs: either everybody is in or nobody is in. What you are doing is blowing off Esplanade, West Manor, the RV Resort, Shoreview and Pedro Point [neighborhoods]. I suspect they know you are abandoning them in favor of two smaller neighborhoods because it is a manufactured solution. Not a good idea. You are going to strip people you know of shoreline protection.”
Another stated:
“Nothing here that's been presented tonight for my property on shoreview. I am the property owner who had a 300 pound boulder thrown up from the ocean through my garage during a storm last year [...] I woke up to piles of sand in my home. I have the solar panels on my roof ripped off [...] While Rockaway Beach and the [Sharp Park] golf course may be protected, I have no protection for my home.”
Many call for expanding SSRAs to include more or all neighborhoods in the City. It’s becoming clear that what was meant to be a compromise to find a middle ground is only making matters more divisive.
Legal Challenges
The Coastal Act strongly discourages coastal armoring due to its impacts on public access, recreation, marine resources, and the natural landscape. The only legal exception, under section 30235, applies to pre-Coastal Act developments and coastal-dependent uses. For neighborhood-scale seawalls to be legal, every property protected would need to meet stringent criteria, including being built before 1977 and not redeveloped beyond a certain extent.
Indeed, Surfider is currently fighting alongside the Coastal Commission to preserve the defintion of existing development from attempts to expand coastal armoring statewide.
The Commission’s plan to use the Coastal Act’s conflict resolution policy to circumvent these restrictions is flawed. It risks undermining established protections and may lead to more contentious debates and legal challenges. Legally, the conflict resolution provisions within the California Coastal Act, sections 30007.5 and 30200(b), were designed to address situations where the application of different policies leads to agenuine, unavoidable conflict between resource protection objectives, such as between public access and senstive habitat protections.
Here, there is no legitimate conflict between policies; instead, the construction of seawalls directly contradicts several core principles of the Coastal Act, such as the preservation of natural landforms, public access, and marine resources. The attempt to apply conflict resolution in this context is not about resolving a clash between policies but rather about circumventing the protections that the Act is intended to enforce.
A Lesson from Santa Cruz
A similar proposal in Santa Cruz County, which sought to armor private properties along Pleasure Point with a neighborhood-scale seawall, was rejected by the Coastal Commission in October 2022. The plan was deemed inconsistent with the Coastal Act’s policies on shoreline armoring, reinforcing the need to uphold these foundational principles.
A Call for Reconsideration
We urge the Coastal Commission and its Local Government Working Group to revisit the neighborhood-scale adaptation approach. The policy should align with the principles of the Coastal Act, which has a successful track record of protecting California’s coast and public resources for nearly five decades.
Champion Nature-Based Solutions
Neighborhood-scale nature-based projects, such as dune restoration and living shorelines, offer sustainable defense alternatives to seawalls and should be prioritized and incentivized. These projects work with nature to protect coastlines while preserving ecosystems and public access. The Coastal Commission can look for options to streamline permitting for nature-based alternatives, prioritize local assistance grants to local governments who prioritize nature-based adaptation, and champion these types of solutions for funding in Sacramento.
The neighborhood-scale adaptation approach holds promise but needs careful scrutiny to avoid the pitfalls of excessive coastal armoring. By aligning policies with the Coastal Act’s principles and prioritizing nature-based solutions, we can ensure that California’s beaches remain accessible and resilient for future generations.