The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is the chief protector of the state’s 1,100-mile coast. Born during the environmental movement of the ‘70s, the independent, quasi-judicial agency fights for coastal access by the public and often finds itself in conflict with rich landowners, developers and the energy industry over a range of conservation issues. Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, calls it the “single most powerful land use authority in the United States.” New buildings—including homes—and construction that change the use of land or public access must be approved by the Coastal Commission. Protection of marine and land habitats, recreation, low-cost visitor accommodation, commercial fisheries and industrial resources, offshore oil and gas development, power plants, ports, transportation, and most other uses of the coast come under its authority, with the exception of San Francisco Bay. The commission, which is part of the Natural Resources Agency, is made up of 12 appointed voting members and three non-voting members.

In California, Coastal Commission Wields Vast Power (by Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times)

The California Coastal Commission was originally given a four-year lifespan when voters created it by passing Proposition 20, the Coastal Zone Conservation Act, in 1972.  Passage was seen as a great victory for environmentalists and the measure granted broad authority over coastal development to the commission. One state and six regional commissions were formed by Proposition 20. Their purpose was to draw up plans over the next four years for coastal use and access, submit those plans to the state Legislature, and disband.  Immediately, though, the commission began exercising its permit authority, acting to protect the coastal environment over the interests of developers. A flurry of lawsuits ensued.

After four years, the commissioners presented a plan that was passed into law called the California Coastal Act of 1976. That act made the Coast Commission permanent. Its existence is written into the state code, as is the definition of the state’s “coastal zone.” All developers of coastal land are required to request a permit from the commission or face fines of between $5,000 and $50,000. 

Further changes over the decades have clarified the commission’s responsibilities, stating that the state’s coastal zone and its resources had to be protected for the present and future residents of California.

The U.S. Supreme Court put a damper on commission attempts to provide public access to beaches in its1987 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission ruling. Justice Antonin Scalia called routine demands by the commission that landowners seeking building permits allow beach access across their property “an out-and-out plan of extortion.” But the court left open the option for coastal communities to take advantage of pre-1987 offers by property owners to establish access and in 2002 it cleared the way for 1,200 pathways to the beach by refusing to interfere in execution of two such moves.

In 1998, the commission successfully fended off efforts by the Hearst Corporation to build a 650-room hotel and golf course on the coast near its San Simeon castle. By 2004, a deal was reached that netted the state development rights while Hearst retained ownership of the 82,000-acre ranch. Hearst donated 13 miles of beach for a state park in exchange for being allowed to develop 27 luxury homes, 15 homes for employees and a 100-room hotel.

The commission has spent much of its existence battling with state and federal officials over oil and gas drilling in coastal waters. Empowered by the 1972 federal Coastal Zone Management Act that gave states the right to review offshore drilling projects for consistency with state coastal management plans, the Coastal Commission has steadfastly defended that right while opposing numerous efforts by oil and gas companies to expand or extend their activities.

In June 1987, the Reagan Administration accused California of “usurping” federal authority because its coastal protections were tougher than U.S. regulations. The federal Office of Coastal Resource Management recommended that $407,000 in operating funds be withheld from the commission because it had “deviated substantially” from federal guidelines and demanded that it adopt weaker environmental standards. The state sued and the federal government capitulated, ending their efforts to contain the commission and releasing $225,000 it had denied them. 

In 2008, the commission beat back attempts to build a 16-mile toll road in Orange County that would have decimated the San Onofre State Beach. Although its decision was upheld by the U.S. Department of Commerce, attempts continue to build the road one segment at a time.

Longtime Executive Director Peter Douglas, principal author of the law that created the Coastal Commission he guided since 1985, resigned for health reason in 2011 and died the next year from cancer.

California Coastal Act in Public Resources Code  (CCC website) (pdf)

In California, Coastal Commission Wields Vast Power (by Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times)

Celebrating 40 Years of California Coastal Protection this Oceans Day (by Annie Notthoff, California Progress Report)

Justices Bolster Beach Access (by David G. Savage and Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times)

Five Years on, Hearst Ranch Conservation Plan is Meeting its Main Goal (by Kathe Tanner, San Luis Obispo Tribune)

Peter M. Douglas Dies at 69; California Coastal Commission Chief (by Elaine Woo, Los Angeles Times)

The California Coastal Commission exercises regulatory and planning authority over 1,100 miles of California coastline called the coastal zone, which also extends three miles out to sea. Their mission, as stated on the commission’s website, is to: “Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.”

The areas of planning and protection, as defined by the Coastal Act, include public access to the coast, recreation, marine environment, land resources, development and industrial development.

For practical purposes, the coastal zone is divided into six geographic regions: north, north central, central, south central, south, and San Diego. The San Francisco Bay is administered by a different agency, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Agency.

To conduct its business, the commission holds monthly public hearings of up to five days in length throughout the state. The upcoming meeting and its agenda can be found at the commission’s website. Among the topics discussed are permits and appeals from all regions, as well as reports from conservation agencies and other reports related to coastal management.

The commission is made up of 15 appointees:

·     Six from the public, two each appointed by the governor, the Senate Committee on Rules, and the speaker of the Assembly.

·     Six representatives selected from the six coastal regions. The governor appoints one from the north and one from the south, the Senate Committee on Rules appoints one from the north central coast, and one from the south, and the speaker of the Assembly appoints one from the central coast and one from San Diego.

·     The secretary of the Resources Agency (non-voting member)

·     The secretary of the Business and Transportation Agency (non-voting member)

·     The chairperson of the State Lands Commission (non-voting member)

Landowners and developers who want to apply for permits or exemptions can find application forms at the commission website, as well as answers to many questions and an explanation of the application process.

The commission acts in partnership with local governments to prepare local coastal programs (LCPs) with cities and counties in coastal areas. LCPs contain ground rules for local development and resource use both long and short term, and must be approved by the commission. After approval, authority over local development is turned over to local governance, although the commission retains permit jurisdiction over certain areas of development, such as tidelands, public trust lands and submerged lands. The commission can appeal decisions made by LCPs if it feels those decisions endanger habitats, scenic resources, beach access or water quality.

Other programs maintained by the Coastal Commission include the Oil Spill Program for prevention of oil spills, several water quality programs and the Boating Clean and Green program. The commission also maintains an informational page on Global Warming and resources for educators about wetlands and the coast.

The commission is also the administrator of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act in the state, with regulatory authority over federal permits, leases and development projects.

California Coastal Act in Public Resources Code (CCC website) (pdf)

California Coastal Commission Website

Almost all of the Coastal Commission’s $18.6 million budget is spent on salary, benefits and operating expenses.

The commission gets $10.8 million from the state’s General Fund, $2.56 million from a Federal Trust Fund, $2.33 million through reimbursements and $647,000 from the Coastal Act Services Fund. A specialized license plate program brings in $1.5 million to the commission; $370,000 of that goes to the State Coastal Conservancy. $1.42 million in funds comes from licensing and permits, with $500,000 going to the State Coastal Conservancy.

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Rating the Commission

Although the Coastal Commission has been a leading voice in the environmental community for more than 30 years, it is not a community that speaks with one voice. The Sierra Club and five other groups issue an annual scorecard rating the commissioners based on their perception of the issues and the panel’s votes.

The annual scores are meant to rate how often the commission members cast “pro-coast” votes and have ranged from a high of 76% in 1997 to a low of 38% in 2008. The overall average for its 23 years of existence is 51%.

The 2010 score was 61%, down from 66% in 2009. It was based on 21 projects out of more than 1,000 dealt with by the commission that were considered most likely to set statewide precedent, have the highest environmental impact and involve key provisions of the Coastal Act. Appointees of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger registered a 43% score, considerably higher than the 24% score they racked up in 2007.

Environmentalists Assess California Coastal Commission Votes (by Ashlie Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times)

2010 California Coastal Commission Conservation Voting Chart (pdf)

Commission Gets The Edge

U2 guitarist David Evans, known professionally as The Edge, called his plan to build five mansions on a rugged ridgeline above Malibu “Leaves of Wind.”

Executive Director Peter Douglas called it “one of the three worst projects that I've seen in terms of environmental devastation” and in June 2011 the Coastal Commission rejected the proposal, 8-4.

Evans began seeking permits for his own 12,785-square-foot house and four others in 2006, hiring lobbyists and promoting the development as consistent with the environmental activism he and his rock group were known for. The five houses would be built with recycled and renewable materials and use rainwater catch systems, solar energy and native landscaping.

“They undertook this effort with a deep personal commitment and sense of responsibility to protect environmental resources and develop environmentally superior homes,” Evans spokeswoman Fionna Hutton said in a prepared statement.  

Evans won the support of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in April 2011 after donating cash and other considerations worth $1 million to extend the nearby Coastal Slope Trail.  

“It's a contradiction in terms—you can't be serious about being an environmentalist and pick this location,” Douglas responded, noting the habitat, land formation, scenic views and water quality that would be heavily impacted.

Evans and his associates filed suit in Superior Court in August seeking to overturn the decision, arguing that the decision illegally deprived them of use of their property.

The Edge, Associates File Lawsuits Against Coastal Commission (by Knowles Adkisson, Malibu Times)

Coastal Commission Rejects U2 Guitarist's Malibu Development Plan (by Martha Groves and Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times)

U2's The Edge Says He's an Environmentalist, but he Still Wants to Pave Over Paradise (by Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times)

U2's The Edge Finds Conservancy's Price (by Steve Lopez, Los Angeles Times)

Coastal Commission Case Documents (pdf)

Offshore Drilling

The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill was the largest spill in U.S. waters at the time, and now ranks third all-time behind the 2010 Deepwater Horizon gulf debacle and the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker crackup. Three years later, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act gave states the right to review offshore drilling projects for consistency with state coastal management plans and the Coastal Commission has steadfastly defended that right while opposing numerous efforts by oil and gas companies to expand or extend their activities. The commission cites far-reaching effects on marine and coastal wildlife, wetlands, ocean and beach users and tourism.

Congress passed a moratorium against offshore drilling in 1982, prohibiting new leases in federal waters up to 200 miles away. But the battle over oil drilling never ends at the state and federal levels.

In June 1987, the Reagan Administration accused California of “usurping” federal authority because its coastal protections were tougher than U.S. regulations. The federal Office of Coastal Resource Management recommended that $407,000 in operating funds be withheld from the commission because it had “deviated substantially” from federal guidelines and demanded that it adopt weaker environmental standards. The state sued and the federal government capitulated, ending their efforts to contain the commission and releasing $225,000 it had denied them.  

The commission bumped heads with the Bush Administration in 2005 when in voted unanimously to reject a plan by the U.S. Minerals Management Service to extend 36 oil and gas leases off the coast of three California counties. But in 2008, the Bush Administration lifted the 1982 moratorium and Congress followed suit by allowing a federal ban on drilling to expire.

In January 2012, the commission formally opposed legislation (HR 3410) approved in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives that would require new drilling leases be offered off the Southern California coast and that authorities, such as the commission, be prohibited from reviewing them.

“We Are Very Satisfied,”  Says Coastal Commission Chief : Offshore Drilling Suit Settled (by Ronald B. Taylor, Los Angeles Times)

Coastal Commission Takes on White House (by Glen Martin, San Francisco Chronicle)

Beach Curfews

The City of Los Angeles implemented a curfew in 1988 aimed at curtailing problems with crime at its beaches and a number of other beachfront cities up and down the coast followed suit. Five years later, the Coastal Commission took notice and sent out letters warning cities that beach closings were illegally denying residents access to the coast.

The cities girded for a fight, members of the state Legislature indicated a willingness to pass a law restricting the commission’s curfew powers and court action was threatened. But compromises were reached with individual jurisdictions and the issue seemingly went away.

But it returned in 2010 when the commission clashed with Los Angeles over the city’s attempt to establish coastal residential parking restrictions and in the process revisited the curfew issue. Some city officials deemed the panel’s action payback for the city taking it to court over the parking restrictions. 

In November, the commission reiterated its objection to curfews passed by cities without its permission. “There are a lot of people who want to use the beach, which they have a constitutional right to do, in the middle of the night,” said commission Executive Director Peter Douglas. “You don't preclude the public from that use without a good justification—a good reason—and we have to be able to look at that.”

Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district encompasses the popular Venice Beach, said the city had that justification. “Los Angeles is the homeless capital of the West Coast. In Venice, there are gangs, and issues sometimes spill onto the beach. The police have been very clear over the last few decades that this curfew gives them a breather.”

Laguna Beach immediately worked out a compromise with the commission but Los Angeles, which has a midnight-5 a.m. curfew, vowed to fight. Legal experts don’t like their chances. Noting that the 1976 Coastal Act gives the commission broad powers over access to the beach, Chapman University law professor and land use expert Kenneth Stahl said, “That would seem to pretty fairly include a curfew. Legally, I don't think the city has a leg to stand on, based on the existing precedent.”

Cities Are at Odds With California Over Beach Curfews (by Ian Lovett, New York Times)

California Coastal Panel Challenges Beach Curfews (by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times)

Preserving Night-Time Beach Access (by CCC Chairwoman Bonnie Neely, Los Angeles Times op-ed)

Coastal Access

The Coastal Commission’s responsibility to maximize public access to the coast is written into the California Coastal Act. However, many property owners have spent millions on their homes and private beaches, and wish to protect themselves from all-night parties and possible criminal activities on the beach, or possibly, they just want to keep the rabble out.

When granting permits to build, the Coast Commission often traded an offer-to-dedicate (OTD), which is a landowners’ commitment to provide future public access to a beach, for permits. When the Supreme Court found in 1987 that some OTDs violated the Fifth Amendment, many homeowners wanted to rid themselves of the responsibility of granting beach access.

In 2011, a case that had dragged on for 26 years was finally settled in the commission’s favor. The commission had issued two permits for residential development in the Carbon Beach area of Malibu in 1983. In return, Ralph Trueblood—the property owner—recorded two public access easements. Trueblood sold the property to Norman and Lisette Ackerberg the next year. The Ackerbergs wanted to rebuild, and the commission granted conditional approval. A survey in 2005 found that Lisette Ackerberg had added unpermitted development, blocking the public access stairs with landscaping, concrete, poles and a generator. The commission’s complaints and Ackerberg’s defense went all the way to the state Supreme Court, where Ackerberg lost.

Carbon Beach is a pricey area filled with mansions, and public access to the beach has been fought by several homeowners. Only a few years earlier, another case about public access to the beach was settled. This one involved music mogul David Geffen, who had promised beach access in the form of an OTD in the 1980s. He promised more access ways when he expanded his mansion in 1991 and 2000. With the City of Malibu, Geffen filed a lawsuit in 2002 against the Coastal Commission. He dropped it in 2005, settled with the commission and paid legal fees.

“The real issue here is money,” said Steve Hoye, leader of the nonprofit Access for All, which partnered with the commission in both the Ackerberg and Geffen lawsuits. “These people who live on the beach here think that the public cannot be trusted to walk or swim in front of these million-dollar houses.”

Ackerberg v. California Coastal Commission, Tentative Decision (pdf)

Owners of Malibu Mansions Cry "This Sand is My Sand" (by Timothy Egan, New York Times)

Scenes: Access Malibu (by Benjamin Nugent, LegalAffairs)

Who Controls the View?

Some groups claim the Coastal Commission is intrusive and always seeking to expand its power.  Those groups watched with interest, then triumph, as the case of Schneider v. California Coastal Commission played out.

Dennis Schneider owned 40 acres in San Luis Obispo and wished to build a home there. He drew up plans in 1997, and local authorities approved them, with 27 conditions involving drainage, environmental protection, and the like. Schneider agreed to comply with the conditions.

The Coastal Commission intervened, saying the rights of boaters and kayakers to a pristine view of the coast would be harmed by the Schneider’s proposed home. They insisted Schneider build a smaller home in another spot: on a slope of questionable stability. Dennis Schneider took the case to court, and lost—at first. 

But in 2006, an appellate court unanimously upheld Schneider’s rights and struck down the previous decision. “If and when the California Legislature expressly codifies a boaters ‘right to a view’ of the coastline, the courts can and will lawfully give it credence. But the Coastal Commission is not empowered to legislate a boater’s ‘right to a view’ of the coastline.”

Coastal Commission Fails Attempt to Control Views from The Ocean (by Ronald A. Zumbrun, Freedom Advocates)

San Onofre Toll Road

It started out as a routine transportation proposal decades before, but by the time government officials got around to voting on the San Onofre tollroad in 2008, the issue had mushroomed into an explosive battle over the importance of protecting parks.

The plan, which ultimately relied on approval of the U.S. Commerce Department, was for a six-lane extension of California 241 to connect Interstate 5 in San Diego County with Rancho Santa Margarita. Supporters of the corridor, which would slice lengthwise through the San Onofre State Beach, said it would relieve traffic congestion. Opponents said it would put endangered species at risk, ruin land sacred to Native American tribes and destroy the state park. Surfers rallied against the road because of fears it would harm the world-famous Trestle surf break waves. The beach is one of the five most visited state parks in California.

The Coastal Commission refused to grant a permit in February on an 8-2 vote and the Commerce Department rejected an appeal in December by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), a joint-powers authority formed by the Legislature in 1986 to oversee Orange County’s toll roads.  In denying the project, the Commerce Department said it failed to meet two critical criteria; there was at least one reasonable alternative available and the project was not necessary to national security interests.

The plan was revived in 2011 with a media blitz and mailer outreach by the TCA followed by its approval in October of a four-mile segment along the rejected 16-mile corridor. The cost of the segment is estimated at $205.7 million, out of a total projected cost of $1.3 billion. TCA maintained the segment does not violate the Commerce Department’s ruling in 2008, although it is not an attempt to construct the so-called La Pata alternative cited by the department when it said there were non-coastal routes that could be pursued.

Damon Nagami, an attorney for the Natural Resouces Defense Council, disagreed with the TCA assessment. “Under longstanding state and federal legal precedent, building the first four-mile section of the toll road constitutes an illegal segmentation of the project,” he said. California State Parks Foundation President Elizabeth Goldstein immediately condemned the plan as a “road to nowhere” and a certain-to-fail attempt to pressure state and local officials to revive the project.

San Onofre Tollway Fight Will Resume (by Susan Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times)

San Onofre Toll Road Plans Get New Life (by Mike Lee, San Diego Union-Tribune)

Support Sought for Revived Toll Road (by Ray Huard, North County Times)

Transit Agency Approves Steps Toward 241 Extension (by Chris Boucly, Orange County Register)

Surfrider Fires up Old Campaign as TCA Proposes Orange County Tollroad (by Kailee Bradstreet, Transworld Business)

In January 2011, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office revived a 3-year-old proposal to “stabilize funding for and to reduce costs associated with enforcement actions” of the Coastal Commission by giving it the authority to levy administrative penalties.

Current law requires that the commission file a case in Superior Court in order to issue a fine or penalty. The analyst’s office called this process “cumbersome” and said it results in few penalties and fines being assessed. Its study of other state and local regulatory agencies found that this kind of authority results in greater compliance and more than pays for itself.

Legislation to give the commission this authority was introduced in 2009, but was not enacted.

Are Coastal Cops Coming Soon? (by Anthony Pignataro, Cal Watchdog)

Recommend Legislation to Stabilize Funding for, and Reduce Costs of, Commission's Enforcement Process (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Stable Funding Source Available for Commission’s Permitting Functions (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Do landowners control the coastal property they buy, or does a state commission have the right to restrict the use of that land? And can that commission order owners of beachfront property to allow access to the public in general, as they have on numerous occasions? The commission’s decisions have resulted in bitter accusations from both sides.

Yes. Our Coastlines Belong to All Californians and Need Protection

“For over forty years Coastal Commission director Peter Douglas has been standing guard over this coast, holding the line to protect nature, steering development carefully and making sure that everyone (not just those who own beachfront property) has a chance to get to the beach and dip their toes in the frothy water,” Annie Notthoff wrote upon hearing of Douglas’ retirement in 2011, but her tribute applies to the agency itself.

Notthoff is the advocacy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. She points out that California’s population has doubled since passage of Proposition 20 in 1972. “More people, more action, same amount of coast.”

Competing interests mean that “Our coastal zone becomes a pressure zone when everyone vies for a piece of it.”

Yet the Coastal Commission and other agencies “have opened up hundreds of miles of coastline for people from all over the world to enjoy. More coast for everyone and economic productivity too.”

California Coastal Dreaming, Take 2 (by Annie Notthoff, NRDC Switchboard blog)

No, the Coastal Commission is a Tyrant that Destroys Property Rights

Paul J. Beard, principal attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation that fights government infringement on property rights, minced no words in his 2009 article in the Objective Standard: “The Coastal Act violates and authorizes the daily violation of the property rights of coastal landowners. The [Coastal]Act assumes that landowners have, at most, mere “interests” in their land, not rights. These interests, according to the Act, are subservient to the needs and desires of “society” for open space, beach access, ocean views, plant and animal protection, and other “values” that the Commission can pursue only by the use of force against property owners.”

In stating that, “The Act effectively collectivizes “ownership” of all the property in the coastal zone,” Beard reiterates that the controversy between the supporters of the Coastal Commission and those outraged by its actions pretty much boils down to a liberal v. conservative viewpoint.

Notthoff, quoted above, may feel the coast and its frothy water belongs to everyone. Beard is incensed that such an attitude allows the commission to act as a “real tyrant,” “a state bureaucracy with near limitless authority over people’s property and, thus, their lives.”

Beard is uncompromising in his conclusion: “So long as he is required to have a permit in order to use or develop his land, the property owner’s rights are under constant assault.

“And so long as the California Coastal Commission exists, no Californian’s rights are secure, nor are the rights of other Americans in other jurisdictions.”

The California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Governmental Assault on Property Rights” (by Paul J. Beard II, The Objective Standard)

Peter Douglas, 1985-2011.

Michael Fischer, 1978-1985. Fischer resigned amid controversy and a public feud with Governor George Deukmejian, who cut the agency’s funding.

Joseph Bodovitz, 1973-1978