Has The Coastal Act Worked? PHYLLIS M. FABER ince the California Coastal Initiative went into effect in January 1973, the California Coastal Commission has processed more than 100,000 permits and approved 95 percent. Does this mean that all the work to protect the coast has been an exercise in futility? Mel Lane, the Commission's first chairman, commented after the 1976 Coastal Act was enacted: "We have been handed an impossible law, but we are going to make it work." Now, after more than two decades, it is time for a critical look at California's coastal zone management.

COPYRIGHT LIZA RIDDLE

Photo: A wild expanse of dunes and beaches has been protected in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.

The law is not perfect-we can all agree to that. But has it made a difference? It incorporates the goals of the Coastal Initiative, but has it served those goals? What has been gained by the passionate effort to save the coast, and the years of effort by Coastal Commissioners and their devoted staff to manage our 1,100-mile shoreline in keeping with the Coastal Act? What problems cry out for attention? What should the next steps be? Proposition 20, the 1992 voter initiative, was unprecedented in its breadth. No other state or nation had undertaken such far-reaching coastal planning. Even today this legislation, formally known as the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, sets a standard. Not only were natural resources and the marine environment protected, but other elements, such as energy facility siting, public access, visitor facilities, agriculture, transportation, visual resources, and priorities for balanced development were addressed. Proposition 20 established the Coastal Commission to regulate development and to formulate a California Coastal Plan within four years. Public hearings and heated debate over permits created a pressing sense of reality within the ongoing planning process. One of the great strengths of California's coastal planning program is the extensive public involvement that accompanied its formation. Following the passage of the 1976 Coastal Act, which incorporated principles from Proposition 20, each coastal community was required to develop a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for its section of coastline. These plans, which must conform to state law, contain a vision for maintaining coastal resources on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Once an LCP is certified by the Coastal Commission, local authorities assume the permitting function. The issuance or non-issuance of permits, as well as permit conditions, can be appealed to the Commission. Twenty years later, it's time to appraise what in all this pioneering effort to protect the coast has worked and what has not. What Are the Major Accomplishments? Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Coastal Acts (1972 and 1976) and of those who have worked to achieve their intent has been the development of a consistent approach to coastal land use planning and the putting into place of a mechanism for resolving conflicts that arise. An unmeasurable accomplishment has been the amount of development that has not been proposed. Developers now can look at a certified LCP and get a good sense of what will and will not fly. No one today would try to build another Sea Ranch or Bodega Harbour, which locked up miles of scenic coast. Caltrans now has guidelines for maintaining the character of coastal Highway 1. It will never be a six-lane highway; according to the law, along the coast it is to remain a two-lane road. There is a plan and a vision for each stretch of the coast, set into coastal plans.

COPYRIGHT CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Photo: More than 30 years ago, Oceanic Properties, Inc., set out to transform a 10-mile stretch of Sonoma County's open coast into a 5,200-unit complex of homes and condominiums. If built as planned, Sea Ranch would have become the largest community between San Francisco and Eureka. Despite award-winning design features, Sea Ranch became a catalyst for the 1972 "Save Our Coast" voter initiative. Major issues were the scale of the development, loss of public access to several beaches, obstruction of views, and effects on traffic along two-lane Highway 1. The Coastal Commission was able to scale down the project by 50 percent. After years of battle, limited beach access has been provided.

Overall development has been reduced in numerous places by resubdivision and lot consolidation. More than 1,000 lots were consolidated or removed at Lake Earl in Del Norte County, for example, to protect the lake and its dunes, and just recently, lots were eliminated or consolidated at Oxnard Shores in Ventura County to protect dunes and public access. Much prime habitat along the coast has been acquired thanks to unprecedented cooperation among local, state, and federal agencies. Several nonprofit land trusts have sprung up to protect local resources, including the Big Sur, Marin Agricultural, and Mendocino Land Trusts. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has protected vast amounts of coastal land. The coast of California is among the most accessible in the world. Many new accessways have been built, and others have been improved. As of 1996, the Coastal Commission had obtained more than 1,272 offers to dedicate access easements (OTDs) across private property as conditions for development permits. To be opened to public use, these rights-of-way must be accepted by a public agency or suitable nonprofit organization, and some agency or group must agree to open and manage the accessways. (See Coast & Ocean, Summer 1995.) Only about 20 percent of the OTDs have been accepted so far, and it is not known how many are actually open. Unless funding becomes available and agencies or organizations agree to open and manage these rights-of-way, opportunities may be lost.

COPYRIGHT CAROL ARNOLD

Stream and river restorations have been skillfully negotiated and funded by the Coastal Conservancy. In Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin Counties, for instance, watershed projects have repaired overgrazed stream banks and restored habitat for fish. Lagoons in San Diego have benefited from Commission protection and Conservancy enhancement projects. Wetland losses have been limited, and in this there is much of which to be proud. The restored Arcata Marsh, which uses treated effluent to create habitat, has attracted national attention. From north to south, many formerly threatened marsh ecosystems are healthy today. Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay, Pescadero, Elkhorn Slough, Morro Bay, Newport Bay, the San Diego lagoons, and the Tijuana Estuary are all beneficiaries of coastal protection and enhancement. Protecting agriculture in the coastal zone has been one of the toughest assignments. The protective policies of the 1976 Act have worked in many places, such as Marin, Sonoma, and San Luis Obispo Counties, but they have been less successful to the south where development pressures are more intense. San Diego County has given up trying to protect agriculture, with the result that few of the great flower fields at Carlsbad remain. Overall, the record of accomplishments is impressive. And it is paying off economically as well. Tourism and outdoor recreation are major California industries. People from all around the world come to enjoy the gorgeous California coastline. What Problems Need Fixing? As Peter Douglas, the current executive director of the Coastal Commission, points out (p. 10), "The coast is never saved." Serious problems arise because the Commission's jurisdiction extends only along a narrow strip of the coast defined by an arbitrary line on a map drawn in Sacramento. Other problems are of a cumulative nature or are political. Each of these shortcomings urgently needs to be addressed. The coastal zone boundary is not a geophysical one; it was politically drawn and is based on inadequate planning. Notably, major parts of coastal watersheds are excluded. Yet many coastal problems originate outside the coastal zone. Road building and other housing construction severely affect downstream wetlands, streams, and rivers. Forestry practices in the upper watersheds destroy fish-spawning streams and estuarine wetlands. The inability to manage whole watersheds remains one of the most severe problems for the coast. A "next step" for California should be to address this issue. Seaward as well, jurisdictional boundaries fail to match ecosystem needs. The nation's waters extend for 200 miles, but the state's control extends only three miles. The health of ocean waters and fisheries suffers from the gaps created by differing laws and mixed jurisdictions. Comprehensive ocean planning should be a high priority for Californians and the nation. The Coastal Act provides no mechanism to address the cumulative impacts of all the separate coastal development projects. Such problems are assuming ever-greater importance as California's population continues to grow and varied development pressures increase in intensity. In Mendocino, for example, lots are being split and more and more houses are being built on the fragile coastal terraces. In Malibu, houses are being built--or rebuilt to larger size--on hazardous sites. Some communities contain growth, at least for a while, by setting urban limit lines. But when is there enough development? Can we agree on what is enough, and can we bind future generations? If not, can we preserve a coast noted for its beauty and public accessibility? Beaches are disappearing and great stretches of the coast are washing away. California has an eroding, retreating coast: that is its natural character. But with development right to the edges of bluff tops, there is no room for retreat without property damage. As homeowners build seawalls, place riprap on the shore, and fortify crumbling cliffs, adjacent stretches of shore become more vulnerable and more shoreline armament is demanded. Cumulatively, shoreline fortifications seriously detract from the public's beach experience. This ongoing problem is difficult to address on a permit-by-permit basis. How can the demand for energy and coastal protection be balanced? Do we need more nuclear power facilities, and if so, can we tolerate their potential dangers? Today, public utilities are being deregulated. As utility companies become more competitive and less profitable, can or will they pay for mitigations from undesirable impacts on coastal resources? Can we be assured of the safety of oil drilling along the coast? Offshore oil development has a priority under the Coastal Act, yet oil spills are regular events. How can the underground leaks and oil spills that occur in decaying facilities created in the 1930s to 1950s, such as those near Avila on the central coast, be remediated, and who will pay? Can requirements for pipeline transfer and consolidation solve the problem? These are very complex problems, made more difficult by the privatization of public resources and the shift toward a global economy. While the 1976 Coastal Act called for each jurisdiction to create a Local Coastal Plan that would be certified by the Commission, 16 percent of local governments have failed to carry out the mandate, largely because of the political heat involved in complying with the Act's protective provisions. Until LCPs are completed and certified, the Coastal Commission and its staff must continue to process all permits in these jurisdictions. This is a heavy burden for the Commission, which has had its budget slashed by a hostile governor and legislature, depriving it of resources needed to carry out the coastal mandate.

COPYRIGHT PEETER VILMS

Photo: Unmatched views were protected when the Coastal Conservancy acquired the 273-acre Black Ranch property in Sonoma County. A one-mile wheelchair-accessible loop trail and viewing platform have been built.

The 1976 Coastal Act does not provide for a review process to address new or unforeseen problems, such as polluted runoff, and there is no meaningful mechanism to review or update LCPs. Driven by statutory deadlines of the permitting process, lacking essential resources, and operating with a minimal staff, the Commission can give little emphasis to long-range planning. Because of tight budget restrictions, in-house staff in general lacks expertise in subjects such as marine biology, hydrology, geology, and water quality control. Thus important linkages between science and public policy are lost. Since 1976, one of the most distracting and difficult problems in our Coastal Zone Management Program has been the politicization of the Coastal Commission. Increasingly, members are selected for their political views or their campaign contributions to appointing authorities, not for their commitment to carrying out the coastal law, or their interest in coastal issues. Too often, this situation has led to decisions based on political considerations rather than the merits of an application. The rapid turnover of Commissioners--which is likely to be exacerbated by term limits in the legislature--undermines the quality of the Commission's work and increases the influence of partisan politics. As a result, the Commission presently suffers from a lack of continuity and an inability to develop a long-range view. It's Time for the Next Step During the 1960s it became increasingly clear that California's wild, open, and beautiful coast was not surviving the great population influx. Proposition 20 was passed by citizens frustrated by the repeated failure of the legislature to adopt protective legislation. Voters wanted their coast safeguarded. They wanted access to beaches. They wanted some form of coastal management. For all the problems and limitations, the 1976 Coastal Act has preserved much of the health and beauty of the coast's natural communities. This has been achieved with the blood, sweat, and tears of a loyal Coastal Commission staff, many Coastal Commissioners, devoted public supporters, and the communities that have created and implemented workable LCPs The time has come for the state's leadership and the public to look at "next steps" to address cumulative issues and consider the future. The coast of California deserves no less. How Far Have We Come? For a tally of successes, failures, and unresolved issues from 23 years of coastal zone management, send for your free copy of the Winter 1996-97 issue. Phyllis M. Faber is a founding member of the League of Coastal Protection and a former chairman of the North Central Coastal Commission.