Board adopts SB 9 ordinance with California Coastal Commission changes after debate over shoreline exclusions

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on June 24 adopted an ordinance to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) across the unincorporated county and accepted modifications required by the California Coastal Commission for properties inside the coastal zone. The board vote was 4–1, with Supervisor Manu Cummings opposing the action.

The county’s SB 9 ordinance governs ministerial approval for two unit residential developments and urban lot splits in qualifying areas. Staff described the ordinance as the county’s effort to harmonize local regulations with state law while protecting coastal resources.

"A project must be wholly within the census urban area," planner Jacob Lutz said as he reviewed qualifying criteria, noting the ordinance permits two‑unit developments in single‑family zoning and allows urban lot splits where eligibility criteria are met. The Coastal Commission proposed several clarifications that county staff accepted, including explicitly excluding parcels seaward of coastal bluffs from ministerial SB 9 eligibility and clarifying that environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA) within the coastal zone could still allow a development only when the building sites are sited outside ESHA and required buffers.

The changes drew opposition from beachfront property owners who said the revisions unfairly single out a small coastal zone residential district. "There is no material difference in the physical setting ... between the beach‑fronting R‑1 parcels and the RB parcels," said Kevin Huber, an owner near Aptos who asked the board not to exclude RB‑zoned lots. He and another speaker urged the board to allow infill on their lots where structures and seawalls already exist.

County staff and the Coastal Commission said the modifications aim to protect coastal resources under the Coastal Act. County attorney and planning staff told the board that state housing law (SB 9) does not override the Coastal Act’s requirements, and that ministerial SB 9 approvals inside the coastal zone must be consistent with local coastal program policies.

Why it matters: SB 9 is designed to create by‑right housing density options across California; how counties apply the law in coastal zones can affect the number and location of infill units and raise questions about shoreline protection and public access. The board’s acceptance of the Coastal Commission’s changes means certain coastal lots—chiefly those seaward of bluffs or within specific beach‑front RB zoning—are excluded from the ministerial SB 9 pathway in the coastal zone, though property owners can still seek discretionary approvals through other processes.

Action and vote: The board approved the ordinance as modified by the Coastal Commission. Motion: adopt the ordinance accepting the Coastal Commission amendments and direct the clerk to schedule second reading on Aug. 5. Vote: Martinez, Koenig, DeSerpa and Chair Hernandez — yes; Cummings — no.

Officials said the county will maintain the coastal exclusion language as part of the local coastal program certification and continue to rely on broader LCP updates and coastal vulnerability studies to address longer‑term shoreline planning and hazards.