Sell
Research and Tools
Parts & Service
- Auto Parts
- Service & Repair
- Quick Searches
- Auto Repair
- Oil Change
Bill would curb Coastal Commission
By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer
Agency defends initiating its own appeals of local zoning decisions | ∞
One of the sweeping powers of the California Coastal Commission's authority to regulate development along the state's 1,100-mile coastline could be swept away under a controversial measure now before the Legislature.
Sponsored by state Sen. Denise Ducheny, the legislation would strip the commission of its ability to self-initiate appeals of local-government development decisions, restricting it to hearing appeals filed by other people, groups and agencies.
"It just doesn't seem right that the people who make the appeal also decide the appeal," Ducheny, D-San Diego, said during a telephone interview this week.
Set up more than three decades ago, the state commission has authority over what is built or remodeled in the narrow band of turf along the surf in North County and elsewhere.
The 12-member body carries out that responsibility while also charged with protecting the coastal environment and preserving public access to the beach for recreation.
Over the years, it has delegated some authority -- for approving hotels, condos and parks -- to coastal cities. But it also has retained the power to overturn city-approved projects on appeal.
Most appeals are initiated by residents or environmental groups unhappy with proposed hotels or condominiums near the ocean and lagoons.
But the commission also can initiate an appeal if two commissioners agree as it has done in dozens of North County cases, and that's where Ducheny's Senate Bill 1295 comes in.
Reopening a local zoning case decided after debate at planning commission and city council meetings has riled city officials, builders and homeowners because those reviews can halt projects for many months.
Restricting the commission's ability to step in would be a mistake, according to Mark Massara, coastal programs director for the Sierra Club.
"We believe that the legislation is terribly misguided and hope to work with the senator on meaningful revisions," he said.
The option of a commission-initiated appeal is important because the public can't track everything and often misses the implications of key decisions that could harm coastal ecosystems or restrict the public's access to the shoreline, Massara said.
Encinitas Mayor Jerome Stocks disagreed, calling the bill a meaningful attempt to address a long-standing concern.
"What Senator Ducheny is trying to do is enact much-needed reform and that, on balance, is probably a good thing," Stocks said. "As a city council member it's frustrating because local government is supposed to be the local land-use authority. And when we're dealing with the Coastal Commission, we aren't, they are."
Ducheny's bill is scheduled for a hearing on March 25 before the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.
The bill faces an uphill climb because of significant opposition from environmentalists and some public officials. But observers say Ducheny is determined to reform the commission's appeal process and has signaled a willingness to compromise.
In North County, the commission has initiated 36 of the roughly 60 appeals against projects previously approved by Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas and Del Mar during the past two decades, said Elizabeth Fuchs, manager of statewide planning for the commission.
Of the local projects challenged by commissioners, 22 eventually were approved with conditions, five were declared to be "no substantial issue" and allowed to go forward and nine were withdrawn, Fuchs said.
Sarah Christie, the agency's legislative director, said that between 1982 and last year, California cities issued 22,070 coastal development permits. Of those projects, 1,096 -- 5 percent -- were appealed, Christie said. The commission initiated 308 of those appeals, she said.
Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas said the statistics do not suggest any abuse.
"I'm totally flummoxed by it," Douglas said of Ducheny's bill. "Legislation is usually written to solve a problem. This is not a problem."
Ducheny begs to differ.
"That's not what I'm hearing from cities," she said. "And that's not what I'm hearing from applicants."
Oceanside Councilman Jerry Kern suggested commission staffers are the ones initiating appeals -- a violation of the 1976 law that created the coastal agency. Douglas disputed that point, saying it is the commissioners who are filing the appeals, not staffers.
Douglas acknowledged that his staff routinely reviews local decisions to see if they are consistent with guidelines. And if the decisions do not line up, he said, the staffers ask two commissioners to consider appealing.
Commission Chairman Patrick Kruer of Rancho Santa Fe, a developer, said he does not believe the appeal practice has been abused.
The practice of staffers notifying commissioners when they spot inconsistencies in approved projects is helpful because many commissioners have full-time jobs and do not have time to pore over hundreds of decisions, he said.
"I don't know how else to do it," Kruer said. "If someone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it."
Ducheny said a better idea would be for the commission staff to weigh in when a project is under debate at the local government level instead of after a decision has been made.
-- Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Floyd wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:05 AM:Instead of tinkering with the Coastal Commission, let's eliminate it entirely to help balance the budget and minimize costly bureaucratic delays.
Public Interest Lawyer wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:26 AM:What a great bill!!!! In fact, the only problem with this proposal is that it does not go quite far enough. Consistent with the Constitutional principle of separation of powers, Commissioners should be appointed SOLELY by the executive branch of government (i.e. the Governor), subject to the advice and consent of the State Senate. Existing law -- which allows legislative leaders to make appointments -- dilutes public accountability, since voters outside the legislator's district have no way to punish the legislative leader for making a bad appointment.
Paul wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:22 AM:Sounds like an attempt to do an end run around the CC's decision to reject the tollway thru San Onofre State Park.
Treadway wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:02 AM:This bill was introduced because Mr. Douglas and his arrogant staff flatly ignored Sen. Dunchey’s legislation regarding inclusionary housing in the coastal zone. They truly feel that they are above the law. Does it surprise you that Mr. Kruer and Douglas feel that we should leave it the way it is so they can be a law unto themselves?
To Paul wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:21 AM:Paul, I think you hit the nail on the head with that comment.
Dilution is the Solution wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:23 AM:Hey PIL-
If you think concentrating all authority over billions of dollars of coastal development in the hands of a single person- the governor - is any way protect the public you probably also liked giving billions to Halliburton to supposedly rebuild Iraq as well......
....the current appeal system works fine. Ducheny is a mess in search of a mop.
So What Denise wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:32 AM:Who cares what the cities think? This is a matter of protecting our coast for the citizens, not the developers.
PIL responds to "Dilution" wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:21 AM:Yes, that's right. Ultimately, one person (i.e. the Governor) should be responsible and accountable for all state government administration. And if the Governor then makes a bad Commission appointment, one you disagree with, you would then have a remedy. You could organize and vote against him or her. Maybe even challenge him or her yourself as a political candidate. However, under existing law, if the Assembly Speaker (currently, a Los Angeles-area legislator) or the President Pro Tem of the State Senate (soon to be a Sacramento-area legislator) were to appoint, say, your worst nightmare to the Coastal Commission, what recourse would you have? NONE. The bizarre, alien structure of the Coastal Commission is simply imcompatible with the sound, tested Constitutional principles on which this country was established.
Ducheny and Kern misguided wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:17 AM:The right of coastal access is a right now guaranteed by our state laws. This initiative was made by the people of this state. This right belongs to everyone in the state. It is not possible to get information out statewide regarding potential impacts to that right, to ensure someone will appear at the hearing, who is able to articulate the problem with the project, will then be able to follow through with an appeal within 10 days. City councils do it all the time -- they give the right of final review to their planning commissions but also reserve the right to review a decision of the planning commission upon the request of one or more council members. In fact, Feller and Kern file requests for review all the time on matters that have been thoroughly debated by the planning commission. This is apparently sour grapes for Ducheny who didn't get her way, who by the way is not innocent of weilding her power without thinking about what her district really wants (the helmet issue). We need to maintain the right of review by the Coastal Commission. We all lose if something happens to that!
Janet wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:54 AM:The right of access to the beach belongs to the public. The Coastal Commission protects that right. I can't say that they are always correct, but I will say that if it weren't for them, citizens would have lost access to a large part of our coast. Rich people and developers always want to lock out everyone else. Look at Florida as an example of what happens without controls. Thousands of highrises on the beach, many allowing public access. The question really is whether the beach belongs to the public or to developers.
JAK wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:58 AM:This is a great bill! The whole reason we have local control is so that we as commuities get to decide what is important in our own communities.
Bill 1 wrote on Mar 13, 2008 11:09 AM:Sounds like a good plan to me. After that lets look at some of the other agencies!!
Matt wrote on Mar 13, 2008 1:55 PM:There must be something to this. If Kern and Ducheny, two people at the opposite polls of the political spectrum, agree that the Coastal Commission is out of control it may be true.
Joyce wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:15 PM:Great idea - then we can have asphalt all the way to the high-water mark!! Who needs a 'coast' anyway?
Bob wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:40 PM:Local-government development decisions are often bro-deals for developers by the sweetheart local govt officials that they sponsor, and have a negative impact on the coastal environment. The Coastal Comm protects the coastal environment so all of our kids (even the kids of a public interest lawyer) have the right of public access to coastal resources that aren't destroyed for private gain. Let the Coastal Comm do what they need to to help protect us from destructive development, they are doing a fine job.
Marcus wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:51 PM:Last part of article states: "Ducheny said a better idea would be for the commission staff to weigh in when a project is under debate at the local government level instead of after a decision has been made."
So... the CCC would have to attend and monitor every hair-brained local govt meeting when anything relating to the coastal environment is under debate? That's a "better idea" that clearly shows that Ducheny simply wants to thwart the CCC, not address some real problem via legislation.
Duchney should forfit her salary to help with the budget crisis - we the people clearly aren't getting the benefit of her best work or thinking.
Activist wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:30 PM:Yeah..shame on the activists.Without them you wouldn't know the world was round and there wouldn't be any America. I say more power to people who care about their community..really care and don't see it out for campaign donations like Kern and Ducheney so obviously have.
Julianne wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:04 PM:This sounds like a sneaky way to get around the Coastal Commissions decision to save San Onofre State Park from the toll road! Over 3500 people showed up against development of this Yosemite of beaches and wild life preserve. Toll road Developers are just to lazy go around this park so they just want to get rid of the Coastal Commission so they can build the road and ruin the State Park anyhow! Let's just let the developers dessicrate the whole coastline! No one cares right? That's why 3500 people showed up at the Del Mar race track against this toll road. The Coastal Commission listened so now they have to be abolished!
Julianne wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:37 PM:This sounds like a sneaky way to get around the Coastal Commissions decision to save San Onofre State Park from the toll road! Over 3500 people showed up against development of this Yosemite of beaches and wild life preserve. Toll road Developers are just to lazy go around this park so they just want to get rid of the Coastal Commission so they can build the road and ruin the State Park anyhow! Let's just let the developers dessicrate the whole coastline! No one cares right? That's why 3500 people showed up at the Del Mar race track against this toll road. The Coastal Commission listened so now they have to be abolished!
Julie wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:38 PM:This sounds like a sneaky way to get around the Coastal Commissions decision to save San Onofre State Park from the toll road! Over 3500 people showed up against development of this Yosemite of beaches and wild life preserve. Toll road Developers are just to lazy go around this park so they just want to get rid of the Coastal Commission so they can build the road and ruin the State Park anyhow! Let's just let the developers dessicrate the whole coastline! No one cares right? That's why 3500 people showed up at the Del Mar race track against this toll road. The Coastal Commission listened so now they have to be abolished!
Pete wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:28 PM:This would only take away staffs ability to appeal projects. The activist could still file appeals, so could individuals who feel that a project would harm the coast in some way. Don't be too quick to assign your rights to government, because at the end of the day the government will take all your rights.
Dude wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:42 PM:The coastal commission and the people that buy into their act are nothing but a bunch of liberal socialists who want to restrict private enterprise. Go Ducheney. You are my hero!!
No Doucheamy wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:17 PM:Doucheamy isn't acting in the best interest of the public, I believe.
green girl wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:40 AM:why the paper would quote comments from a person in the sierra club on this issue is beyond me. the sierra club and the CC are in CAHOOTS... and always have been.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement