Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

A Study of
The California Coastal Commission
Prepared for Dr. Dan Moscovici
Regional Planning Spring 2013
By: Matthew Ward

The California Coastal Commission

1

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

The California Coastal Commission is the main coastal management agency

within the state of California. The Commission is responsible for controlling and
assessing construction that occurs on all 1100 miles of the states shoreline, about
1.5 million acres of land (Figure 1). They are responsible for protecting coastal
resources, terrestrial and marine habitats, public access to the shoreline and
recreation areas, landform alterations, commercial fisheries, water quality, offshore
oil and gas development, power plants, agricultural lands, public works, and
transportation (Fischer, 1985). The terms on which they protect and enforce these
elements can vary from very specific to rather broad. A general definition of what
the Commission considers development is: The construction of buildings, divisions
of land, or any activities that change the intensity of land use or public access to
coastal waters (Fischer, 1985). They manage all of the areas in CA except for the
San Francisco Bay, which is controlled by the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission. The area considered the coastal zone consists of three miles out into
the ocean and either the first ridgeline parallel to the sea, or five miles, whichever is
less distance. If you are going to develop on any coastal land in California, the CCC
is going to have to issue a permit for such development before you can break
ground. Without such permits you will be issued a cease-and-desist order and
possibly subjected to substantial fines from the state.
The Commission was created in 1972 by proposition 20 which created the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. The California Coastal
Commission, or CCC, was then made permanent by the California Coastal Act of
1976 (Breemer, 2003). In 1972 the US enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act
to get coastal states to enact their own laws and plans for managing development
on coastlines. The CCC was founded during this time partially in response to the
2

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

proposed Sea Ranch Community in Sonoma County. This was a planned coastal
community that would have made about ten square miles private land, ultimately
blocking public access (Breemer, 2003). The citizens of the state fought this by
saying it is the policy of the State to preserve, protect, and where possible, to
restore the resources of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and
succeeding generations (Ellison, 2010). Proposition 20 gave the CCC authority for
four years, and with the Coastal Act of 1976 their authority was extended
indefinitely (Breemer, 2003).
The Commission is an independent agency that is comprised of twelve voting
members. Four members are appointed each by the Governor, The Senate Rules
Committee, and the Speaker of Assembly (Lee, 2011). There are to be six locally
elected officials and six members from the public at large. There are also three nonvoting members that represent the Resources Agency, the Business, Transportation
and Housing Agency, and the State Lands Commission respectively. All members of
the CCC hold unpaid positions; however there can be some political advantages to
being on the Commission. They hold monthly public meetings that range from
three to five days in length in several locations throughout CA. This is to offer the
public the chance to voice their opinion in a forum setting. However, this is the only
way besides the permit and appeal processes that individuals can show their
concerns for what the Commission is doing.
The CCC requires that all fifteen counties and sixty-one cities located in the
coastal zone must prepare, submit, and gain approval for a Local Coastal Program.
These LCPs are comprised of two parts. A land use plan details what land uses are
allowed in each part of the local governments area and what policies will apply to
each use. The implementation plan is the part responsible for enacting the land use
3

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

plan and is usually referred to as the citys zoning codes. Once a local agency such
as a port, city, or county has a LCP certified and approved by the Commission the
agency then takes responsibility for issuing permits. However, the CCC is still able
to appeal these permits and also review any and all amendments to the local areas
LCP. This helps to prevent a local government doing something on the side or
taking land bribes in order to pass through certain permits quicker than others. This
oversight helps to keep the local governments that have approved plans in check.
The Commission also is in charge of the approval to allow expansions for
future growth on ports and universities. Some ports that are under their jurisdiction
are the Ports of Hueneme, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego. A few schools
they have control of are University of California Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, San
Diego State, UC San Diego, and Pepperdine University. If any of these schools along
the coast want to expand their campuses or change any existing infrastructure they
must first seek approval from the CCC. There is a public education program too that
receives an enormous amount of volunteers each year (Figure 2). They help to
educate people by providing such services as the Adopt a Beach program, coastal
cleanups and trash sweeps, and selling license plates that are specially marked.
The public can also visit their Coastal Resource Information Centers, with one
located in each area they cover. These areas are the North, Northern Central,
Central, Southern Central, Southern, and San Diego Coasts. These are the six areas
from which one elected official member and one public member are each chosen
from.
Mr. Peter Douglas has been the executive director of the Commission for
about twenty eight years. He has been one of the main players in keeping one of
the worlds most beautiful coastlines largely undeveloped (Ellison, 2010). One of
4

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

his Commission members, Steve Blank, once said Once he is gone the Commission
will implode in the blink of an eye, and all we will be talking about is the color of
concrete used to pave over what is left of the coast (Ellison, 2010). Mr. Douglas is
concerned that a new budget proposed by the Governor could limit the agencys
access to legal services supplied by the attorney general and that it could be the
biggest threat to the integrity of the Coastal Act since it was passed in 1976
(Ellison, 2010). Douglas was actually one of the people who helped draw up the Act
of 1976 when it was created. This newly proposed budget could put a cap on the
CCCs annual legal expenses. Douglas fears that this could force him to choose
between pursuing violators and further budget cuts to underwrite legal action
(Ellison, 2010). It would also require approval for new litigations from the
Governors Office of Finance which would in turn give the politicians a vetoing power
over the CCCs actions. Linda Likar, a World Bank Economist, says this is a
pernicious way to weaken the agency (Ellison, 2010). If the Governor is given a
certain amount of vetoing power, it would cause a rupture in the separation of
powers, since the CCC is supposed to be looking out for the publics best interest.
Many citizens worry that the government could then veto or accept terms based on
hidden agendas or specific wants and needs. However, the CCC is looking to
become much greener in future years now that a local developer has been replaced
on the Commission with Sara Wan, and environmental activist, as the new
chairwoman. Many people opposed to the CCC say that it is not the technical makeup of the Commission that is the problem, but the way that they undermine citizens
property rights. A better fix would be to solidify four year terms for the members, in
order to make sure that there is not a common theme among their actions year
after year.

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

There are many examples of how the CCC has attempted to abuse their
power to undermine citizens personal rights. In many cases they are taken to
court, and wind up losing the legal battle over various issues. They have been said
to Act as if environmental problems and public access justify and regulatory means,
regardless of the impact on individual land owners. (Breemer, 2003). They have
even been extremely criticized being told that they have pulled a Saddam,
investing itself with dictatorial powers over every grain of coastal property. (Kahn,
2010). This seems a bit extreme to me, to compare them to a ruthless dictator
because of their takings and uses of eminent domain. It seems their biggest power
is the ability to grant or condition the final approval of any development that is
proposed to occur within their set coastal zone. This zone recently was changed to
include any significant estuarine habitat or recreational areas. The regulations and
Commissions conduct in applying them expose their position that the permit
process is to be used as a vehicle for increasing and expanding public access at the
expense of private property owners (Breemer, 2010).
In the case of Liberty vs. CCC, the Commission tried to require a restaurant
owner to provide free public parking in his lot, daily till 5 pm, for the next thirty
years. The owner sued claiming that they were unconstitutionally taking his private
property. The CCC lost on the judges ruling that requiring the owner to provide
parking for the public to use the beach and other nearby restaurants in the area
that didnt have ample parking space provided was unfair to his business
(Carpenter, 2004). This is a valid claim because many people could park there all
day and not ever set foot into his business, just use the other one down the street
or lay on the beach all day, which would sacrifice parking for paying customers.

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

In another case, Jackson vs. CCC, a resident wanted to build a seawall in front
of their house to provide more shelter from the acts of nature. The CCC wanted to
argue that they were changing the landscape and altering the natural landforms of
the beach. However the court ruled in favor of Jackson, citing The seawall does not
change the configuration of the beach or publics access, since the rocks would be
placed below normal sand level (Carpenter, 2004). The resident was allowed to
put in place the wall as desired, since it did not have a significant impact upon the
already existing infrastructure of the beach.
The Pacific Legal Foundation has routinely fought CCC court claims, stating
that they are offending a constitutional protection of private property.
Development has nothing to do with public access an addition on a home for a
new child would increase the size of the house by up to 10%, but does not burden
public access or create a need for addition access on private land (Steinhauer,
2008). The Pacific Legal Foundation claims that the Commission is always trying to
get more public access because there is new development occurring, regardless of
the impact to the homeowner. The CCC tries to pair permits allowing new
construction, or enlarging homes with agreements that the individual will do
something to help acquire more access to the beach. They will not always issue
permits, unless something is being done for them as well.
There seems to be many flaws in the way the CCC regulates new and
continuing development along the coastline of California. They have a tight grasp
on all changes made to the land, and only allow what they see as productive or nonintrusive. They have consistently shot down many projects that promise to be
green and eco-friendly, solely because it would take up public lands. With the
population of California spreading from inland closer and closer to the sea, I think it
7

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

would be wise for them to start allowing certain construction on land that has little
to no other use. As animals of nature, we follow the trend of sprawl and continue to
expand our communities outward. I agree that there is a need to protect our
shorelines from overdevelopment, and from becoming urbanized, because these
processes will have a domino effect on nearby ecosystems. With more urbanized
land there is more runoff, which is already a problem in California. After heavy
rainfall water quality drops astonishingly and bathers, surfers, and swimmers are
instructed to not enter the ocean for fear of becoming ill.
This semester I learned of a construction site near us called Stafford Business
Park. While this is a commercial space, they do entail some very good ideas of how
to keep an area green and use the resources around them. Most striking to me was
the ability to capture runoff and use it to irrigate the land. This procedure could be
utilized in a more urbanized part of the coastal area, and then the water used in
agricultural lands nearby. This would greatly reduce runoff and costs of irrigating
crops. If a developer wants to put a large restaurant or business near the ocean,
they could be asked to utilize this kind of system, and pipe or transfer the water to a
nearby farm. This provides a positive feedback to the local community by
stimulating local food growth, and increasing the level of which a business is
considered green. Partnerships between private land owners, the CCC, and public
lands could be the future of their coastal development.
The way the CCC plan is set up is similar to the plan we studied in class from
Oregon, where all counties and cities are required to have a plan that is certified.
This is good if all the local governments have the same goals, so I believe the CCC
should set forth a rulebook, like Oregon did, of what these places should try to be
accomplishing. Some goals Oregon set that could also be used in California are: To
8

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

protect scenic areas, maintain and improve water quality, protect form natural
disasters, and maintaining recreational needs and facilities. They should not focus
solely on providing more public access, as it seems they have been in the past.
In order to check the CCC another committee can be assembled, similar to
the advisory planning commission of TRPA in the Lake Tahoe region. It would not
necessarily need the power to veto a decision made by the CCC, but instead both
could come to agreement terms on certain sensitive permits and appeals. This way
the CCC is not acting only on their interests of public access and stopping
development. In some cases development is not the enemy, but the ally. If a
coastal area can be constructed into a bustling town and is utilizing smart growth
tactics, it can cover a small area but have a large impact on local economy and
community morale. Being near the beach would be a selling point for any
developer, since we all love being close to the water and nature. However, they
should only consider such construction with smart growth tactics such as: multi use
buildings, sustainable resource use, sustainable building codes, and conservation of
open space.
The CCC does a good job of preserving the coastline but their policies do
remain rather strict. With being a little more lenient towards private property
development, they may be able to have more citizens accept the terms of their
permitting process and agree to keep some of their land public. If they continue to
scrutinize and pick apart every minute piece of development along the shoreline,
they will continue to receive a bad wrap from citizens nearby who want their
personal freedoms protected, not taken away. Shifting towards greener
development practices and smart growth can help them to allow development in
some places, without taking away from the pristine beauty of the natural
9

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

surroundings nearby. Everyone likes to frequent the beach and no one wants to see
urban development right up to the edge of the sand. However, with the human
population only increasing some tactics must be changed in order to ensure the
quality of our lands and accessibility to new areas for future generations. I dont
think that we should develop all over California, but some spots can be selectively
chosen as new growth areas, and through careful management, can continue to
prosper into the future while preserving natural areas and public access to
surrounding lands.

Bibliography

10

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

Breemer, D. (2003). What property rights: The California coastal commission's

history of abusing land

rights and some thoughts on the underlying

causes. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law

& Policy 22(247).

Carpenter, D. (2004). Separation of powers challenge to the California coastal

commission. New York

University Law Review, 79(281).

Ellison, K. (2010, May 9). Leading the coastal commission for 25 years. The New
York Times, A25A.
Fischer, M. (1985). Californias coastal program: Larger than local interests built
into local plans. Journal

of the American Planning Association, 51(3).

DOI: 10.1080/01944368508976417
Hess, P. (2005, Jan). A line in the sand. Los Angeles Lawyer, 27(24).
Kahn, M., Vaughn R., & Zasloff J. (2010). The housing market effects of discrete land
use regulations:

Evidence from the California coastal boundary

zone. Journal of Housing Economics,

19(4), 269-279.

Lee, M. (2011, Jan 18). Coastal commission looking very green. San Diego Union
Tribune.
Morosoff, N. (1989). Take my beach please: Nollan vs. California coastal commission.
Boston University

Law Review 69.

Steinhauer, J. (2008, Feb 23). In California, coastal commission wields vast power.
The New York Times.

Late edition, 10.

Zedler, J. (1996). Coastal mitigation in southern California: The need for a regional
restoration strategy.

Ecological Applications, 6(1), 84-93.

Business news: California coastal commission opposes proposition 26. (2010, Nov
6). Investment Weekly

News.

Editorial update: California coastal commission. (2003, Feb 23). Orange County
11

Matthew Ward

Prepared for Dr. Dan

Regional Planning

Register.
Figures
Figure 1

Figure 2

12