California Coastal Commission

The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is a state agency within the California Natural Resources Agency with quasi-judicial control of land and public access along the state's 1,100 miles (1,800 km) coastline. Its mission as defined in the California Coastal Act is "to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline".[3][4]

California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Commission Logo
Agency overview
Formed1972 (1972)
JurisdictionCalifornia
HeadquartersSan Francisco
Employees164 (2021)
Annual budget$33 million (2021)
Agency executive
  • Kate Huckelbridge, Executive Director[1]
Parent agencyCalifornia Natural Resources Agency
Websitecoastal.ca.gov
Footnotes
[2]

Protection of coastal resources includes shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, and regulation of agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, and industrial infrastructure. By regulating land use within a defined coastal zone extending inland from 3,000 ft (910 m) up to 5 mi (8.0 km), it has the authority to control construction of any type, including buildings, housing, roads, as well as fire and erosion abatement structures, and can issue fines for unapproved construction. It has been called the single most powerful land-use authority in the United States due to its purview over vast environmental assets and extremely valuable real estate.

Critics say that the CCC has exceeded its mission, harmed the environment by promoting car infrastructure and single-family detached homes, violated property rights of citizens, and worsened California's housing shortage by limiting housing supply in the some of the state's most affluent areas. The CCC has lobbied against legislative proposals to ease housing construction in areas under the CCC's remit. Proponents of the CCC's work, on the other hand, say that the Commission has protected open space, views, habitats, and public coastal access.

Composition

The commission is composed of 12 voting members, 6 chosen from the general public, and 6 appointed elected officials.[5] Being on the commission can carry responsibilities which are highly politicized.[6] The 12 appointed commissioners control zoning, compel property alterations, impose fines, bestow construction approvals or vetoes, and require public thoroughfares on private property.[7][3]

Separate from the appointed Commissioners are the commission's employed staff, numbering some 164 people during 2021–22.[8]

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles stated that "The commission is the single most powerful land use authority in the United States given the high values of its jurisdiction and its high environmental assets." and that, because its members are appointed by the governor and the State Senate and Assembly leaders (which have generally been Democrats), "The commission reflects a constituency that is important to Democrats."[7]

Authority

Development activities are broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters. Development usually requires a Coastal Development Permit from either the Coastal Commission or the local government if such development would occur within the Coastal Zone.[9] The Coastal Zone is specifically defined by law as an area that extends from the State's seaward boundary of jurisdiction, and inland for a distance from the Mean High Tide Line of between a couple of hundred feet in urban areas, to up to five miles in rural areas.[3]

The state authority controls construction along the state's 1,100 miles (1,800 km) of shoreline.[6] One of the provisions passed under the 1976 California Coastal Act specifically prohibits State Route 1 from being widened beyond one lane in each direction within rural areas inside the Coastal Zone.[10] The Coastal Commission also had the power to block a proposed southern extension of State Route 241 to Interstate 5 at San Onofre State Beach in San Diego County.[11]

The Coastal Commission has the ability to overrule local elected representatives and has also gained the ability to fine private citizens.[12][13] The agency has sought enforcement through the courts as it originally did not have the power to issue fines on its own to alleged violators. A bill in the California legislature to grant the commission a broad power to issue fines was defeated in September 2013.[14] However legislation attached to the state budget in the summer of 2014[15] finally granted the authority to impose fines on violators of public-access which could apply to about a third of the backlog of over 2,000 unresolved enforcement cases.[16][17] The first notable fines were issued in December 2016 against Malibu property owners Dr. Warren M. Lent and his wife, for $4.2 million, and Simon and Daniel Mani, owners of the Malibu Beach Inn, who settled amicably for $925,000. The difference in severity of the fines were attributed to the "egregious" nature of the Lent case.[18]

Local agency administration

A "local coastal program" is the official name for a zoning plan controlled by the commission but administered by a local agency. The commission can retake granular control of any project if it is appealed.[9] An appeal will take approximately 6–8 months on average to reach a final decision and may take longer to resolve more complicated appeals.[19]

The commission is the primary agency which issues Coastal Development Permits. However, once a local agency (a County, City, or Port) has a Local Coastal Program (LCP) which has been certified by the commission, that agency takes over the responsibility for issuing Coastal Development Permits. For areas with Certified LCP's, the Commission does not issue Coastal Development permits (except in certain areas where the Commission retains jurisdiction, i.e. public trust lands), and is instead responsible for reviewing amendments to a local agency's LCP, or reviewing Coastal Development Permits issued by local agencies which have been appealed to the commission.[9]

A Local Coastal Program is composed of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and an Implementation Plan (IP). A Land Use Plan details the Land Uses which are permissible in each part of the local government's area, and specifies the general policies which apply to each land use. The LUP can be a part of a local government's general plan. The Implementation Plan is responsible for implementing the policies contained in the LUP. The IP is generally a part of the city's zoning code.[20]

One example

The Local Coastal Program (LCP) for a run-down gateway to Channel Islands Harbor in Oxnard is designated for visitor-serving commercial uses and harbor-related uses that support recreational boating and fishing. The county owns and manages the harbor and wanted to amend the LCP to allow a mixed-use development with up to 400 apartments as their selected developer said the project was only feasible with the housing. In 2020, the commission refused to override the denial by the city of Oxnard of land-use changes as that is only intended to be used in rare instances when a local government is standing in the way of the development of a public works project that would meet regional public needs.[21]

Managed retreat

The Commission recommended cities implement managed retreat philosophies allowing oceans to naturally erode developments thereby nourishing beaches with reclaimed sand made of disintegrated former properties.[22][23][24]

History
Northern California Coast as seen from Muir Beach Overlook

The California Coastal Commission was established in 1972 by voter initiative via Proposition 20.[9] This was partially in response to the controversy surrounding the development of Sea Ranch, a planned coastal community in Sonoma County. Sea Ranch's developer-architect, Al Boeke, envisioned a community that would preserve the area's natural beauty.[25][26] But the plan for Sea Ranch eventually grew to encompass 10 miles (16 km) of the Sonoma County coastline that would have been reserved for private use. This and other similar coastal projects prompted opponents to form activist groups. Their efforts eventually led to putting Proposition 20 on the ballot.[25]

Proposition 20 gave the Coastal Commission permit authority for four years. The California Coastal Act of 1976 extended the Coastal Commission's authority indefinitely.[27] Jerry Brown, in his first term as governor, signed the California Coastal Act into law, but two years later, became frustrated with the commission and made headlines by calling them "bureaucratic thugs."[28] Peter M. Douglas helped write the act in addition to prop 20 and was subsequently employed as the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission for 26 years.[29] In 2011 the Commissioners chose Charles Lester as Douglas's replacement, but then fired him in 2016.[30]

Accounting for 164 percent inflation, the commission's total funding declined 26 percent from $22.1 million in 1980 ($13.5 million in then-current dollars) to $16.3 million in 2010.[31] The commission's full-time staff fell from 212 in 1980 to 125 in 2010.[32] There are 16 Commission employees working in the enforcement function to investigate violations along the 1,100 miles (1,800 km) of coastline. The commission's total budget for fiscal year 2019-2020 was $32,086,000[33] The total compensation of the commission's executive director John L. Ainsworth was $254,000 in 2019, Charles F. Lester's was $177,000 in 2015, and Peter M. Douglas's was $213,000 in 2011.[34] Including the proposed budget for fiscal year 2021–22, the cumulative expenses of the Commission since 2007 exceed $348 million.[35]

U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Granite Rock diesel locomotive and hopper car in Aromas, California, 2013

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission that a requirement by the agency was a taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Coastal Commission had required that a lateral public easement along the Nollans' beachfront lot be dedicated to facilitate pedestrian access to public beaches as a condition of approval of a permit to demolish an existing bungalow and replace it with a three-bedroom house. The Coastal Commission had asserted that the public-easement condition was imposed to promote the legitimate state interest of diminishing the "blockage of the view of the ocean" caused by construction of the larger house. The court, in a narrow decision, ruled that an "essential nexus" must exist between the legitimate state interest and the permit condition imposed by government, otherwise the building restriction "is not a valid regulation of land use but an out-and-out plan of extortion."[36]

The commission won its attempt to require a permit for activity on a pharmaceutical limestone quarry owned by Granite Rock Company of Watsonville, California, in the United States Supreme Court case California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. Granite Rock's approved Forest Service permit to excavate pharmaceutical limestone expired by the time the case was decided.[37]

Reactions

Critics of the commission's authority say it has exceeded its mission, violated the constitutional property rights of citizens, and worsened the California housing shortage by limiting housing supply.[38][39][40] Advocates such as former member Mary Shallenberger say the commission has protected open space, views, habitats, and coastal access and should be given authority to control housing to a greater extent.[41]

On the commission's ability to practically dictate how coastal land is used, Jeff Jennings, the mayor of Malibu commented: "The commission basically tells us what to do, and we're expected to do it. And in many cases that extends down to the smallest details imaginable, like what color you paint your houses, what kind of light bulbs you can use in certain places."[7]

Enforcement

The agency is tasked with protection of coastal resources, including shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works.[42][9] The commission's responsibilities are described in the California Coastal Act, especially the Chapter 3 policies.[43] The agency has sought enforcement through the courts as it originally did not have the power to issue fines on its own to alleged violators. A bill in the California legislature to grant the commission a broad power to issue fines was defeated in September 2013.[44] However legislation attached to the state budget in the summer of 2014[45] finally granted the authority to impose fines on violators of public-access which could apply to about a third of the backlog of over 2,000 unresolved enforcement cases.[16][46] The first notable fines were issued in December 2016 against Malibu property owners Dr. Warren M. Lent and his wife, for 4.2 million dollars, and Simon and Daniel Mani, owners of the Malibu Beach Inn, who settled amicably for $925,000. The difference in severity of the fines were attributed to the "egregious" nature of the Lent case.[47]

Affordable overnight coastal accommodations

According to the commission, the California Coastal Act requires that "overnight accommodations in the Coastal Zone are [be] available at a range of price points." When permitting new hotels, they usually try to require 25% of bookings at expensive hotels be offered at lower rates, or, in the case of a developer who is adding a small boutique style hotel to a beach property, they will be required (in 2021) to pay $150,000 into a fund which will help to provide for lower cost accommodations in the region.[48]

In 2019, the commission fined a hotel builder $15.5 million after it "replaced two of the only low-cost motels in Santa Monica with a luxury boutique hotel, without a permit," the commission said in a statement. "We as an agency have a mandate to encourage public access on the California coast and that means doing everything we can to ensure people can actually afford to stay there," said Dayna Bochco, who chairs the commission.[49]

Convenient beach parking

In 2022, the commission forced San Diego to require off-street parking for accessory dwelling units within the Coastal Zone in order to reduce potential demand for public parking close to beaches, so that non-residents can find convenient beach parking.[50][51]

In 2023, the commission required restaurants on the San Diego beach to replace any street parking spaces "lost" to permanent outdoor dining structures (San Diego's “Spaces as Places” outdoor dining program) that had grown extremely popular after first being implemented on a temporary basis during the COVID pandemic with other parking spaces no more than 1,200 feet away.[52]

Examples

In 2018, a high profile case was resolved without litigation: at tech billionaire Sean Parker's 2013 wedding in Big Sur, where extensive staging was installed in an ecologically sensitive area without a proper permit, Parker cooperated with the Commission and created a mobile app named YourCoast to help visitors discover 1500 access points to beaches as well as report violations. He also paid $2.5 million in penalties even though the property owner was at fault and had illegally closed the area to the public for six years.[53][54]

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Half Moon Bay was ordered to pay $1.6 million in penalties for failing to provide public access to its nearby beaches in 2019. Cars of hotel guests and golfers would be parked in public spaces by the valets or public access was simply denied to those spaces.[55]

In 2020, the commission fined 33 Newport Beach residents a total of $1.7 million because their yards encroached on the beach, and required that the beach be returned to its natural state.[56]

In 2019, during the process of replacing wooden power poles with steel poles to reduce wildfire risk, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) graded fire roads and created new roads on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas in Topanga State Park which destroyed almost 200 endangered Braunton's milkvetch plants on 9 acres (3.6 ha)(10% of those plants in the area). The city agreed that its utility will pay the commission's fine of $1.9 million and will follow the restoration order requiring LADWP to apply for a coastal development permit to complete the project and to restore 9 acres (3.6 ha) of habitat within the coastal zone and an additional 17 acres (6.9 ha) outside the zone.[57][58]

Project permits and proposals

In the 1980s, the commission denied the Remmenga family's petition to build a home 1 mi (1.6 km) from the beach in Hollister Ranch unless the public were allowed access through their property. Alternatively, the Remmengas were given the option to pay the commission $5,000 which was said to help fund public pathways to the beach. The California Courts of Appeal held that "even if an individual project does not create an immediate need for a compensating accessway, one may be required of it if its effect together with the cumulative impact of similar projects would in the future create or increase the need for a system of such compensating accessways."[39][59][60]

Jeff Peck and his business partner, Steve Barber, bought a large Half Moon Bay property for $3 million in 1999. Peck intended to build homes where his 17-year-old autistic daughter, Elizabeth, could live independently among friends after he dies.[61] He proposed building 225,000 sq ft (20,900 m2) of office space on the property to help fund homes that would also be built to house 50 disabled people. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the project in 2011.

In 2012 commissioners agreed with appeals filed against the project, saying the proposal would have too large of an impact on utilities, environment and traffic. Peck then filed a civil lawsuit against the commission and a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing claiming that the commission's action discriminated against developmentally disabled people.[62] Supporters of the development said the Coastal Commission had never approved any affordable housing for the disabled in the organization's 40-year history. That accusation was based on a cursory database search and doesn't prove anything, said Charles Lester, commission executive director in 2012.[63]

In 2008, the commission rejected a proposal for a freeway through San Onofre State Park in San Diego County. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Department of Commerce for this alternate route to congested Interstate 5, Southern California's main north–south artery.[12] In agreeing to end lawsuits brought by the state of California, the California Parks and Recreation Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission and the Save San Onofre Coalition, Orange County tollway officials withdrew their approval in 2016 and agreed in a legal settlement to preserve San Onofre State Beach.[64]

About 60 oceanview homes in Dana Point sit precariously on a landslide-prone bluff. Since 2012 Orange County has submitted two petitions to the commission to replace the boulders below the bluff along the beach into a "revetment" a combination of boulders backed by a barrier of concrete with a path on top. The commission has denied the petitions because of the anticipated loss of beach sand and because the county would shoulder the cost, not the homeowners. The county's responsibility for maintaining the bluff comes from a legal settlement dating to the early days of the development. The county's cost for the new structure was estimated to be $10 million for construction and another $15 million in mitigation fees to be paid to the state.[65]

In 2014, the commission appealed a San Diego project by the United States Navy because of environmental impacts. The Navy had awarded a 99-year lease to a developer to build a multi-use development including a 373,000 sq ft (34,700 m2) regional Navy headquarters at no cost to the public to replace buildings that dated to the 1920s. The U.S. Congress had authorized the reuse plan in 1987 and local agencies approved a master plan in the 1990s.[66] Critics of the development argued the Navy building should be built at a more secure site on a local base and that the downtown property should be developed as parkland for a more civic use, while plan supporters said the development will mean more economic development and additional reasons for visitors to go to the waterfront.[66] The commission's legal opposition to the project began under Executive Director Peter M. Douglas.[67]

In 2014, the McCarthy family sought permitting to construct a home on their property in San Luis Obispo County. The commission first denied permission telling the McCarthys to relocate a path that ran through the family's property. When the family offered a route to relocate the path and offered to pay for the work, the commission denied their petition because of impacts which included "lesser views for hikers" and significant impacts to the environment. San Luis Obispo County gave the McCarthys a permit, but the commission vetoed it in 2021.[68]

In 2016, the commission denied a controversial proposal for 895 homes, a hotel, and shops from being built on an Orange County oil field overlooking the Pacific Ocean. The Los Angeles Times said the denial was an expression of frustration with competing staff and developer proposals. The site had been disturbed by nearly 70 years of oil production but was still a crucial ecological refuge for plants and animals.[69]

In 2020, the commission delayed construction of a two-story Newport Beach office building and garage with space for two tenants because neighbors objected to the project's potential effect on traffic, noise, light, and views.[70]

In 2020, the commission required the elimination of basements for planned homes in Monterey because there was no way to be completely certain there were no artifacts on the sites in an archaeologically sensitive area, reversing the Monterey County Board of Supervisors' split approval of the projects.[71]

In 2020 and 2021, Santa Cruz city planners advocated housing projects including 175 apartments to be built downtown adjacent to Santa Cruz's main bus station. The commission opposed the downtown project because of insufficient plan conformity with height and density specifications. Commission district supervisor Ryan Maroney said the mass and scale of a building would impact the "coastal resources" of views, community character and aesthetics.[72][73][74][75]

In 2023, the commission lobbied against California state legislative proposals that would ease housing construction in areas under the CCC's remit. Under the legislative proposals, housing that complies with zoning rules and environmental protection laws, would be fast-tracked in areas of the state that have not met their state-set housing goals. By exempting these housing developments from lengthy public hearings and environmental legal challenges, the proposals would effectively cut the CCC out of the housing permitting process.[76]

Other
Peter M. Douglas in 1976

In 2005, the commission found Dennis Schneider's proposed 10,000 sq ft (930 m2) home in San Luis Obispo to be inconsistent with the California Coastal Act. The commission ruled that Schneider could still build a new home, but with 15 conditions including: his house must be reduced to 5,000 sq ft (460 m2), the house must be moved 300 ft (91 m) inland, and his barn can't be built because 41 acres (17 ha) is too small for ranching cattle. Several of the conditions were targeted at preserving the character of the view that a boater would have of the coastline from offshore. While commission Executive Director Peter M. Douglas said "the view of pastoral areas from the sea to the land without human structures intervening is very important," the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a unanimous 2006 opinion: "We believe that it is unreasonable to assume that the Legislature has ever sought to protect the occasional boater's views of the coastline at the expense of a coastal landowner."[77][78][79]

In 2008, studies showed seabirds on offshore rocks abandoned their nests after Fourth of July fireworks celebrations in Gualala. Commission executive director Peter Douglas said the fireworks organizer, the Gualala Festivals Committee, simply refused to work with the commission. The commission sent a cease and desist order banning the fireworks, and a judge in Ukiah rejected a request to delay the commission's ruling. Douglas explained "Our job under the coastal act is to protect marine resources, and that's what is affected here. We don't get involved in 95 percent of the fireworks displays along the coast because most of them don't have these impacts."[80][81][82]

Since 2008, the commission, the California state government, and Vinod Khosla have engaged in litigation over reopening a public pathway through Khosla's property to Martin's Beach. Khosla offered to sell a portion of his property to create a pathway for $30 million.[83][84][85]

In 2015, the commission approved a construction project for SeaWorld San Diego to build a bigger tank for their killer whales including the condition that they must not breed captive whales to fill them.[86][87]

In 2020, a commission investigation found the city of Long Beach guilty of pruning palm trees that contained more than one Heron bird nest. One fledgling bird, which later died, was found on the ground in the vicinity of the arborists' work. Proposed penalties include planting trees, more tree-trimming oversight, and fines.[88]

Promotion
California whale tail license plate

The commission utilized the endorsement of poet Amanda Gorman and other celebrities for the commission's advertising and tax-deductible donation campaign suggesting "donate on your California tax form."[89] The commission's logo was designed by FINE, a digital branding and advertising agency.[90] The whale tail license plate purchasing program is a state-sponsored promotional and revenue-generating tool of the commission. Executive director Peter Douglas said the commission rejected many requests from the Wyland Foundation, founded by the original artist of the whale tail painting, for a share of the profits. Denying the foundation, Douglas said the image was being used under the rubric of an "oral agreement," and that no formal licensing or any word on paper had been set down giving the state the right to use the design. Ultimately $20,000 was donated to Wyland's foundation in 2005, and the Commission paid two artists $1,000 each to paint new art for the license plate.[91]

References
  1. Tallal, Jimy (February 16, 2023). "California Coastal Commission has first female executive director". The Malibu Times. Retrieved February 17, 2023.
  2. "2021-22 Governor's Budget, 3720 California Coastal Commission". State of California Department of Finance. January 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
  3. California Coastal Act of 1976 Public Resources Code Division 20 California
  4. California Coastal Commission, website.
  5. Weikel, Dan & Barboza, Tony (February 2, 2016). "35 former members of California Coastal Commission oppose effort to oust executive director". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 10, 2016.
  6. Coastal commission looking very green. Mike Lee. San Diego Union Tribune. 18-01-2011. Retrieved 28-01-2011.
  7. Steinhauer, Jennifer (February 23, 2008). "In California, Coastal Commission Wields Vast Power". The New York Times.
  8. Holms, Todd (April 15, 2016). "Tides of Tension: A Historical Look At Staff-Commissioner Relations In the California Coastal Commission". Stanford University.
  9. Who We Are. Coastal.ca.gov. 2011. Retrieved 28-01-2011.
  10. "PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 30254". California Legislative Information. State of California. Retrieved June 16, 2019.
  11. "Panel rejects toll road through San Onofre State Beach". Los Angeles Times. February 7, 2008.
  12. Steinhauer, Jennifer (February 23, 2008). "In California, Coastal Commission Wields Vast Power". New York Times. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  13. Smith, Doug (August 24, 1997). "A blow against bureaucracy: A couple who built a small house with their own hands ended up with criminal records and a $1.5-million fine, but now they've won". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 22, 2020.
  14. Barboza, Tony (September 10, 2013). "Bill to give Coastal Commission power to levy fines is rejected". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  15. "An act to amend Section 12025 of the Fish and Game Code". California Office of Legislative Counsel. Retrieved June 4, 2019.
  16. Barboza, Tony (June 30, 2014) "Blocking Californians' beach access will soon carry a hefty fine" Los Angeles Times
  17. Moore, Duncan Joseph; Roy, Jennifer; Stromberg, Winston (August 25, 2014) "California Coastal Commission Further Solidifies Enforcement Powers" Latham and Watkins
  18. Weikel, Dan (December 9, 2016). "Two Malibu property owners fined $5.1 million for blocking access to public beach". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 11, 2017.
  19. Kahn, Matthew E.; Vaughn, Ryan; Zasloff, Jonathan (February 10, 2011). "The Housing Market Effects of Discrete Land Use Regulations: Evidence from the California Coastal Boundary Zone". Journal of Housing Economics. 19 (1): 269–279. doi:10.1016/j.jhe.2010.09.001. SSRN 1758096.
  20. The Role of Local Governments. Coastal.ca.gov. 2011. Retrieved 10-05-2011.
  21. Wilson, Kathleen (August 13, 2020). "Fisherman's Wharf project derailed with Coastal Commission defeat". Ventura County Star. Retrieved December 26, 2020.
  22. St John, Alison (August 1, 2019). "Coastal Cities Wrestling With 'Managed Retreat' Ramifications Of Rising Sea Levels". KPBS. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  23. Diehl, Phil (October 18, 2019). "California coastal regulators blast Del Mar for rejecting 'retreat' from sea-level rise". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  24. Allyn, Richard (October 7, 2019). "Del Mar takes up issue of rising sea levels threatening low-lying homes". CBS8. Retrieved January 5, 2021. San Diego Padres legend Trevor Hoffman was among dozens of Del Mar homeowners who spoke out against the California Coastal Commission's 'managed retreat' plan.
  25. Woo, Elaine (November 20, 2011). "Al Boeke dies at 88; 'father' of Northern California's Sea Ranch". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 24, 2012.
  26. Hevesi, Dennis (November 16, 2011). "Al Boeke, Architect Who Sought Ecological Harmony, Is Dead at 88". The New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2012.
  27. "Public Resources Code: Division 20. California Coastal Act. Chapter 3. Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies". RegsToday.com. September 2012. Archived from the original on December 20, 2014. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
  28. Rosenhall, Laurel (January 31, 2016). "Activists at odds with Gov. Jerry Brown over Coastal Commission". CalMatters.
  29. "Peter M. Douglas dies at 69; California Coastal Commission chief". Los Angeles Times. April 4, 2012. Retrieved December 21, 2020.
  30. Weikel, Dan (April 14, 2016). "Here's why the Coastal Commission director's ouster didn't upset Jerry Brown". Los Angeles Times.
  31. "Proposed Budget Detail: 3720 Coastal Commission". Governor's Budget 2010-11. January 8, 2010. Archived from the original on May 28, 2010. Retrieved May 11, 2010.
  32. Ellison, Katherine (May 7, 2010). "Leading the Coastal Commission for 25 Years, a Crusader and Lightning Rod". The New York Times. Retrieved May 11, 2010.
  33. "Enacted Budget for FY 2019-20/Close-Out of FY 2018-19 Budget". California Coastal Commission Enacted Budget. August 30, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2020.
  34. "Coastal Commission". Transparent California, California's largest public pay and pension database. 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2021.
  35. State of California Department of Finance (January 8, 2021). "California Budget". Retrieved February 4, 2021.
  36. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court of the United States 1987).
  37. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, et al., Appellants, v. GRANITE ROCK COMPANY, 480 U.S. 572 (Supreme Court of the United States 1987).
  38. Los Angeles Times Editorial Board (October 8, 2015). "California Coastal Commission goes too far on SeaWorld". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 7, 2021.
  39. Breemer, David (2015). "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 and Policy. 22 (2). doi:10.5070/L5222019409.
  40. Orange County Register Editorial Board (April 5, 2017). "Coastal Commission is the real Goliath". Orange County Register. Retrieved January 7, 2021.
  41. Shallenberger, Mary (February 8, 2019). "Return the Coastal Commission's authority to help relieve the affordable housing crisis". Orange County Register. Retrieved January 7, 2021.
  42. "Susan Craig – Correspondence". Archived from the original on August 28, 2016. Retrieved August 18, 2016.
  43. "Sections 30200 - 30265.5". California Public Resources Code. Retrieved May 27, 2018.
  44. Barboza, Tony (September 10, 2013). "Bill to give Coastal Commission power to levy fines is rejected". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  45. "An act to amend Section 12025 of the Fish and Game Code, to amend Sections 8574.4, 8574.7, 8574.8, 8670.2, 8670.3, 8670.5, 8670.7, 8670.8, 8670.8.3, 8670.8.5, 8670.9, 8670.12, 8670.14, 8670.19, 8670.25, 8670.25.5, 8670.26, 8670.27, 8670.28, 8670.29, 8670.30.5, 8670.31, 8670.32, 8670.33, 8670.34, 8670.35, 8670.36, 8670.37, 8670.37.5, 8670.37.51, 8670.37.52, 8670.37.53, 8670.37.55, 8670.37.58, 8670.40, 8670.42, 8670.47.5, 8670.48, 8670.48.3, 8670.49, 8670.50, 8670.51, 8670.53, 8670.54, 8670.55, 8670.56.5, 8670.56.6, 8670.61.5, 8670.62, 8670.64, 8670.66, 8670.67, 8670.67.5, 8670.69.4, and 8670.71 of, to add Sections 8670.7.5, 8670.40.5, and 8670.95 to, and to repeal Section 8670.69.7 of, the Government Code, to amend Section 449 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, to amend and repeal Sections 116760.60, 116761.21, 116761.22, 116761.24, and 116761.80 of, and to amend, repeal, and add Sections 116760.10, 116760.20, 116760.30, 116760.39, 116760.40, 116760.42, 116760.43, 116760.44, 116760.46, 116760.50, 116760.55, 116760.70, 116760.79, 116760.80, 116760.90, 116761, 116761.20, 116761.23, 116761.40, 116761.50, 116761.60, 116761.62, 116761.65, 116761.70, 116761.85, 116762.60, and 131110 of, and to add Section 116271 to, the Health and Safety Code, to amend Sections 541.5, 2705, 3160, 3161, 4629.5, 4629.6, 4629.7, 4629.8, 5009, 5010.6, 5010.6.5, 5010.7, 14507.5, 14552, 14581, 21190, 31012, 42476, 42872.1, 42885.5, 42889, 48653, and 71116 of, to add Sections 14581.1 and 30821 to, to add Division 12.5 (commencing with Section 17000) to, and to add and repeal Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 5019.10) of Chapter 1 of Division 5 of, the Public Resources Code, to amend Sections 379.6, 1807, and 2851 of the Public Utilities Code, to amend Sections 46002, 46006, 46007, 46010, 46013, 46017, 46023, 46028, and 46101 of, to add Section 46001.5 to, to repeal Sections 46008, 46014, 46015, 46016, 46019, 46024, and 46025 of, and to repeal and add Sections 46011, 46018, and 46027 of, the Revenue and Taxation Code, to amend Section 5024 of the Vehicle Code, and to amend Sections 10783 and 13272 of, to amend, repeal, and add Sections 174, 13350, 13478, and 13485 of, and to add Section 13528.5 to, the Water Code, relating to public resources, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget". California Office of Legislative Counsel. Retrieved June 4, 2019.
  46. Moore, Duncan Joseph; Roy, Jennifer; Stromberg, Winston (August 25, 2014) "California Coastal Commission Further Solidifies Enforcement Powers" Latham and Watkins
  47. Weikel, Dan (December 9, 2016). "Two Malibu property owners fined $5.1 million for blocking access to public beach". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 11, 2017.
  48. Hixon, Michael (February 16, 2021). "Hermosa Beach boutique inn project featuring historic bungalow approved by Coastal Commission". Daily Breeze. The California Coastal Act, according to the CCC staff report, The Coastal Commission, according to a staff report, has in the past required new, typically high-end hotels to ensure that 25% of bookings are offered at lower-cost rates so "overnight accommodations in the Coastal Zone are available at a range of price points." "The proposed development is a small, boutique hotel and due to economic constraints," the staff report says, "the applicant is not feasibly able to provide on-site lower-cost rooms." Instead, the developers will pay a $150,000 fee that, according to the staff report, will go into an interest-bearing account that the California State Coastal Conservancy will use to provide lower-cost overnight accommodations, from hotel rooms to campgrounds, in Hermosa Beach or elsewhere along the Los Angeles County coast.
  49. Barragan, Bianca (May 9, 2019). "Santa Monica developer hit with record $15M fine for building fancy hotel on Ocean Avenue". Curbed Los Angeles. Retrieved December 26, 2020.
  50. "California Coastal Commission Nixes Parking Reforms Intended to Spur ADUs in San Diego". www.planetizen.com. Retrieved August 25, 2023. A reasonable argument could be made, however, that exclusionary zoning regulations, such as onerous parking requirements, do more to restrict access to the California coast than any lack of parking. There is also, of course, the proven fact that parking induces Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and increases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because transportation is the leading source of GHG emissions in the United States, parking requirements like those enforced in San Diego by the California Coastal Commission also present an existential risk to the coast of California, through sea-level rise, species extinction, and other negative externalities created by climate change.
  51. Garrick, David (June 20, 2022). "San Diego retreats from ADU parking exemption, but only in coastal areas - Prompted by the state Coastal Commission, city tightens some ADU rules in neighborhoods near beach". San Diego Union Tribune.
  52. Weisberg, Lori (May 22, 2023). "Restaurants near San Diego coast must restore parking displaced by streetside dining - The new regulation, which will apply to a narrow stretch of the coastline closest to the water, was approved by the City Council, but only after being required to do so by the California Coastal Commission". San Diego Union Tribune.
  53. Yost, Chip (December 13, 2018). "Tech Billionaire Teams up With California Coastal Commission to Build App for Finding Hidden Beaches". Los Angeles Times. Parker, a former president of Facebook, also paid $2.5 million in penalties, which helped fund hiking trails, field trips and other efforts to increase public access to the popular tourist area. It was a rare high-profile coastal violation case resolved with cooperation rather than a legal fight.
  54. Xia, Rosanna; Dean, Sam (December 13, 2018). "Sean Parker built Napster and helped lead Facebook. Now he'll guide you to the beach". Los Angeles Times. The app marks an unusual convergence between two distinct California cultures: strict environmental regulators and rulebreaking tech types. It is also a rare high-profile coastal violation case resolved with cooperation rather than a legal fight.
  55. "Ritz-Carlton Hotel fined for blocking access to public beaches at Half Moon Bay". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. June 14, 2019. Retrieved June 16, 2019.
  56. Wisckol, Martin (June 11, 2020). "Coastal Commission approves $1.7 million in fines for illegal beach yards in Newport Beach". Orange County Register. The beachfront homeowners on Peninsula Point, on the east end of the Balboa Peninsula, had earlier agreed to pay the penalties pending commission approval. Individual fines range from $6,300 to $134,000 per home while the city has agreed to spend an estimated $545,000 to restore the stretch of beach to its natural state.
  57. "STAFF REPORT: Recommendations and Findings for Consent Cease and Desist Order No. CCC-20-CD-03 and Consent Restoration Order No. CCC-20-RO-02" (PDF). California Coastal Commission. October 16, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2020.
  58. Solis, Nathan (November 4, 2020). "LA to Pay $1.9 Million for Utility Crew Damage to Endangered Plants". Courthouse News Service. Archived from the original on November 26, 2020. Retrieved January 23, 2021. That damage spread across a wide area and affected 200 of the roughly 2,000 milkvetch plants in the entire area, according to Coastal Commission enforcement analyst Logan Tillema.
  59. "Remmenga v. California Coastal Com". Justia. January 14, 1985. Retrieved January 28, 2021.
  60. Synn, Patricia (1989). "Nollon v. California Coastal Commission: The Conditions Triggering Use of the Essential-Nexus Test in Regulatory-Takings Cases". Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 22 (3). Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  61. Noack, Mark (March 24, 2006). "Project may bring Big Wave of help". Half Moon Bay Review.
  62. Noack, Mark (October 4, 2012). "Seeking permits, Big Wave backers sue Coastal Commission". Half Moon Bay Review.
  63. Noack, Mark (October 18, 2012). "Big Wave backers make bias case". Half Moon Bay Review.
  64. Weikel, Dan (November 10, 2016). "Settlement ends the threat of a toll road through San Onofre State Beach". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 4, 2021.
  65. Wisckol, Martin (January 17, 2021). "Dana Point landslide drama likely to be replayed elsewhere along California coast". East Bay Times. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  66. Showly, Roger (July 29, 2014). "Coastal Commission appeals Navy project". The San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved April 1, 2021.
  67. "Manchester Pacific Gateway LLC v. Ca. Coastal Comm". Casetext. April 25, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2021.
  68. Bubnash, Kasey (February 18, 2021). "Coastal Commission denies relocation of Ontario Ridge Trail". New Times of San Luis Obispo. Retrieved February 23, 2021.
  69. Boxall, Bettina (September 7, 2016). "A massive 895-home development on Southern California's coast is shot down". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 18, 2021.
  70. Davis, Hillary (August 14, 2020). "Coastal Commission to hear appeal of Newport office project". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 26, 2020.
  71. Johnson, Jim (July 16, 2020). "Coastal Commission: Trio of Carmel Point homes must eliminate basements". Monterey Herald. Retrieved December 26, 2020.
  72. Meyberg Guzman, Kara (November 17, 2020). "Legal threat delays wharf plan in Santa Cruz". Santa Cruz Local. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  73. Meyberg Guzman, Kara (December 6, 2020). "Coastal Commission, Santa Cruz staff clash on housing proposal". Santa Cruz Local. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  74. "City of Santa Cruz Front St/Riverfront Project Page". City of Santa Cruz. Archived from the original on January 8, 2021. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  75. "Will Coastal Commission Block Affordable Housing in Santa Cruz?". Good Times. Retrieved February 26, 2021.
  76. Christopher, Ben (July 6, 2023). "My house or my beach? How California's housing crisis could weaken its coastal commission". CalMatters. Retrieved July 7, 2023.
  77. "Schneider v. California Coastal Com". Casetext. June 28, 2006. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  78. Kelley, Deryl (September 28, 2005). "2 Views of Ocean View Spark Clash". Los Angeles Times.
  79. Chawkins, Steve (June 30, 2006). "Coastal Landowner Wins Building Case". Los Angeles Times.
  80. Glionna, John (July 3, 2008). "Fireworks over fireworks". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  81. Fimrite, Peter (July 20, 2008). "Gualala residents explode over fireworks ban". SFGate. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  82. Anderson, Glenda (June 10, 2010). "Coastal Commission has authority to balance Gualala's fireworks, sea birds' safety". The Press Democrat. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  83. Kanales, Katie (January 27, 2020). "Tech billionaire Vinod Khosla has sued California and a county sheriff in what is the latest battle in the investor's fight to keep a beach near his $37 million estate to himself". Business Insider. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  84. Bowles, Nellie (August 30, 2018). "Every Generation Gets the Beach Villan it Deserves". The New York Times. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  85. Xia, Rosanna (January 6, 2020). "California sues Silicon Valley billionaire over Martins Beach public access". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  86. "Coastal Commission Bans SeaWorld From Breeding Killer Whales". KPBS. October 9, 2015. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  87. Martin, Hugo (December 29, 2015). "SeaWorld Sues Coastal Commission over "no breeding" claus added to orca project". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  88. Saltzgaver, Harry (May 14, 2020). "Coastal Commission charges Long Beach with pattern of illegal tree trimming". Grunion Gazette. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
  89. "California Coastal Commission". Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  90. "Brand Identity for the California Coastal Commission". FINE Design Group, Inc. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  91. Frazier, Cindy (September 5, 2015). "From Canyon To Cove: A whale of a tale". Daily Pilot.

Further reading
Wikimedia Commons has media related to California Coastal Commission.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.