Local Coastal Programs

Lead

City or county planning department

Required Consultation, Review, and Approval

Consultation: N/A

Review: California Coastal Commission

Approval: California Coastal Commission

Applicable Statutes and Rules

California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.)

Federal Coast Zone Management Act

Public Trust Doctrine

Required Components

• CA Senate Bill (SB) 1 (2021) (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30001.5, 30270, 30421, 30501, 30970-30973) updated the Coastal Act to require the Coastal Commission to adopt recommendations and guidelines for the identification, assessment, minimization, and mitigation of sea level rise within each local coastal program. The bill requires the Coastal Commission to account for sea level rise in coastal resource planning and management decisions. Currently there exists no requirement that formerly approved LCPs must be updated to address sea level rise; however, an LCP update or amendment presented to the Coastal Commission should address sea level rise to be consistent with the Coastal Commission guidelines.  

• CA Assembly Bill (AB) 2616 (2016) (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30013, 30107.3, 30301, subd. (f), 30604, subd. (h)) authorizes local jurisdictions and the Commission to consider environmental justice when reviewing a coastal development permit. 

• The Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 30006 et seq.) asserts that the public has a right to fully participate in decisions impacting coastal planning, conservation, and development; that effective coastal development and conservation is contingent upon public understanding and support; and that the ongoing planning and implementation of programs for coastal resilience should include the most inclusive opportunity for public participation.  

• The Coastal Act requires that new development minimize risk to life and property in areas of high hazards, and that new structures are built to be resilient and avoid adverse impacts to the area (Pub. Resources Code, § 30253). It also prohibits development that inhibits the public’s right of access to the coast (Pub. Resources Code, § 30211). 

• SB 9 (2021) (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, 66411.7) streamlines the process for homeowners to create duplexes or subdivide an existing lot. The new housing law contains provisions applicable to development subject to the Coastal Act which state that within the coastal zone, certified LCP provisions continue to take effect in full force, while also complying to SB9 to the greatest extent possible. (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (k).) 

• Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise 

• Critical Infrastructure at Risk: Sea Level Rise Planning Guidance for California's Coastal Zone 

• Local Coastal Program Planning Assistance  

• State of California Sea level Rise Guidance  

• LCP updates should address sea level rise consistent with California Coastal Commission guidance. Updates should include a balance of general policies to implement statewide policy recommendations (e.g., using best available science, risk disclosures) and more specific policies that address unique local issues, vulnerabilities, and goals. Depending on available information, it may be appropriate to include general sea level rise policies in a first update, and to add additional, more specific adaptation strategies in a follow-up update.  

• While historically LCPs have been updated only every 20-30 years or on a case-by-case basis, as climate change impacts continue it is increasingly important for LCPs to be more responsive to changing conditions. Consider planning for more frequent, smaller updates to LCPs and incorporating a phased adaptation pathways approach (see the box below, “Adaptation Pathways in the Local Coastal Program,” for ideas and tips on this approach).

• Coastal Development Permits (CDPs) are a critical mechanism for implementing sea level rise and other climate resilience management measures and adaptation strategies through individual development decisions. The Coastal Commission provides a step wise process for addressing sea level rise in CDPs in the Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance. CDPs must be consistent with an approved LCP (or the Coastal Act where no LCP exists), so inconsistencies between the general plan and LCP/Coastal Act would result in challenges approving a project. Communities may avoid these problems by reviewing all general plan amendments affecting the coastal zone for consistency with their LCP land use plan (General Plan Guidelines). 

• An LCP Public Works Plan (Pub. Resources Code, § 30605) is a potential alternative to individual project-by-project CDP reviews, as no CDP is required for projects described within it (instead the Coastal Commission will determine if the proposed project is consistent with the Public Works Plan). When planned in collaboration with local and regional partners, it can be useful for planning large-scale, regional public works projects, and are effective and efficient tools for implementing phased sea level rise adaptation projects in an entire corridor, system, or network of critical infrastructure across multiple jurisdictional boundaries (Critical Infrastructure at Risk). 

• A Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) can incorporate information from LCP updates, local hazard mitigation plans (LHMPs), and other plans that evaluate the consequences of sea level rise damaging critical infrastructure and coastal access areas and disrupting public services necessary for economic resilience. In addition to direct costs associated with responses, sea level rise could impact local economic drivers such as access to recreation areas along the shoreline. Incorporating this information as part of the CEDS Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threads (SWOT) analysis and action plan can help a community plan to diversify coastal economies and help businesses dependent on coastal resources adapt.  

• A vulnerability assessment is not specifically required for updating an LCP but can be critical for helping jurisdictions understand the risks of sea level rise and therefore the types of adaptation approaches that will be necessary in the future. To make the most use of a vulnerability assessment for LCP planning purposes, consider impacts to all coastal resources (access, recreation, habitat, coastal development, maritime, etc.) over various time scales. 

• An LCP sea level rise vulnerability assessment can be informed by the LHMP risk and vulnerability assessment and general plan flood risk information and other existing local and regional sources, and can also leverage information used to meet general plan vulnerability assessment requirements.  

(See Adaptation Pathways and Plan Alignment for an introductory overview of the Adaptation Pathways planning approach).

• When updating an LCP, consider phased, trigger-based adaptation solution pathways to help balance short-, mid-, and long-term community priorities, in addition to using scenario-based planning and a precautionary approach for hazard evaluation and adaptation planning. This can reduce up-front costs, build in more planning time for bigger investments with longer lead times, and help manage uncertainties surrounding the rate and total rise in sea levels long term. Phased adaptation pathways are ideally regularly revisited and updated. 

• Prioritize alignment between long term land use and infrastructure planning and more near- to mid-term actions, such as phasing out and relocating new development and infrastructure out of hazardous areas and/or identifying nature-based adaptation options that can help protect both development and habitat in the near- to mid-term. The Coastal Commission advises that an adaptation pathways or phased adaptation approach “can be incorporated into LCPs by including policies that support or specifically define near-term phases of adaptation in the coastal zone as well as policies that more generally describe future adaptation phases and the need for periodic LCP updates to implement them over time.”  

• Use LCPs to define policy direction, allowed land uses, and other legal requirements for implementing adaptation pathways over the next 20-40 years within the coastal zone and complement other jurisdiction-wide planning efforts. Because of the specific and shoreline-focused requirements of LCPs, LCP land use plans, implementation plans, or public works plans may be less appropriate as an all-encompassing adaptation framework, except for those smaller jurisdictions whose boundaries fall entirely within the coastal zone. Where detailed adaptation planning has been completed, the LCP may identify specific and detailed adaptation pathway thresholds and triggers that tie near-term actions to mid-term decision points and actions. Public works plans or other specific area plans may define specific near- or mid-term strategies and actions that are responsive to specific thresholds identified in the LCP, or detail even more specific measures, triggers, or thresholds regarding pathways in specific areas or projects in the coastal zone. 

For additional guidance on incorporating a phased approach in LCPs, reference the Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance and Critical Infrastructure at Risk guidance documents.

• When updating LHMP mitigation actions, ensure they are consistent with LCP policies (e.g., elevation requirements versus building height limits; shoreline armoring proposals versus armoring restrictions). Including sea level rise hazard avoidance strategies from an LCP certification or update, such as relocation of critical facilities, as mitigation actions in the Mitigation Strategy section of a LHMP can make them eligible for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant funding.  

  • This information can also be added as an addendum/annex to the LHMP, if the LHMP was recently updated. Formal Cal OES and FEMA approval is not required for amendments made to the LHMP after the initial adoption and approval. However, the jurisdiction does need to provide an updated copy to Cal OES and ensure any mitigation projects they are seeking HMA funding for are aligned with the LHMP.  

• When updating an LCP or general plan, jurisdictions have an opportunity to integrate and align sea level rise and hazard mitigation policies with other long term community development and land use planning goals. If a portion of a jurisdiction is in the coastal zone, that area is regulated by the Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq. ) and LCPs. Jurisdictions in the coastal zone should coordinate closely with the California Coastal Commission to assure that general plan provisions intended to apply in the coastal zone are consistent with the governing LCP and Coastal Act. 

• While developing or updating an LCP to incorporate sea level rise adaptation strategies, link to flood hazard and natural infrastructure actions in the local hazard mitigation plan and general plan. 

• LCPs tend to require more specificity than general plans; when updating either plan, use the opportunity to check for, and align, inconsistent land use policies. For example, the LCP land use plan must be “...sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and where necessary, a listing of implementing actions” (Pub. Resources Code, § 30108.5). To meet the requirements of the Coastal Act, applicable zoning must not only conform with the LCP land use plan and general plan, but be adequate to carry out the LCP land use plan (Pub. Resources Code, § 30513). For additional details on how LCP and general plan requirements differ, refer to the California Coastal Act section in Chapter 9 of the General Plan Guidelines. 

• Because there is no set format for LCPs, jurisdictions have great flexibility and discretion in choosing the plan format and alignment with general plans. Example formats include:  

  • Adopt one or more separate coastal elements within their general plans.  

  • Incorporate coastal plan policies, plan proposals, and standards directly into the general plan’s land use, open-space, and conservation elements and submit those general plan elements as the LCP for certification.

  • Adopt a specific plan within the coastal zone. 

However, maintaining the LCP as a separate element of the general plan may result in a clearer understanding of the LCP requirements and fewer issues on appeals. General plan amendments necessary to preparing a certified LCP do not count toward the annual limit of four general plan amendments (Gov. Code, § 65358, subds. (b), (d)(3)).

• LCPs can guide future updates and alignment of local and regional water system plans. When updating an LCP, jurisdictions can coordinate with regional partners on adaptation of vulnerable components of water collection and/or treatment infrastructure and can develop related adaptation policies in accordance with Integrated Regional Water Plans, stormwater management plans and other plans, as well as relevant state water policies. For water infrastructure that crosses jurisdictional boundaries, coordination between local governments, utility managers, California Native American tribes, and state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over, or interests in the service network, is critical (Critical Infrastructure at Risk). 

• Coordinate land use planning documents (e.g., LCPs, Local Hazard Mitigation Plans, General Plans, Public Works Plans, Capital Improvement Plans, Tribal Resiliency Plans) and local and regional transportation and mobility plans, including Caltrans District Corridor Plans, so that they provide a cohesive approach to sea level rise adaptation and ensure consistency with the Coastal Act. General plan circulation elements are sometimes certified as part of a local government’s LCP, and are required to be consistent with the land use element, applicable regional transportation plan, and applicable regional sustainable communities strategy (Critical Infrastructure at Risk). 

• Where transportation infrastructure functions as part of emergency evacuation routes, local governments should coordinate with transportation asset managers and emergency response planners to ensure consistency between LCPs, LHMPs, emergency operations plans, transportation and mobility plans, and general plan evacuation planning requirements (Gov. Code, §§ 65302 and 65302.15). This could involve developing contingency plans and alternative routes to utilize when infrastructure is inoperable due to coastal flooding and/or erosion. 

• While LCPs are not required to include housing policies or programs, local governments are responsible for protecting and providing affordable housing stock in the coastal zone. However, potential conflicts may arise between general plan housing element policy and LCP sea level rise adaptation strategies (for example, policies for avoiding new construction, or moving existing housing, in high-risk areas). This can be avoided by aligning housing element zoning, density policy, and other measures with LCP sea level rise policies and general plan safety element information regarding flooding and climate adaptation. If conflicts do arise, the Coastal Act takes precedence within the Coastal Zone.  

• Local governments may also consider submitting LCP land use plans with provisions that protect and encourage affordable housing consistent with general plan housing element requirements and Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, as the Coastal Commission is required to encourage housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income (Pub. Resources Code, § 30604, subd. (f)).

Consider carefully whether your alignment (planning) team or advisory groups should include any of the entities from each of the entity types listed in Appendix A as applicable to your jurisdiction, and how and when to engage different entities to achieve the most equitable and accurate results.