"never saved... always being saved" ETER DOUGLAS talks with Coast & Ocean about today's coast and its future in light of the coastal management program's first 23 years, and of his own experience as the third and longest-serving executive director of the California Coastal Commission. C&O: I'd like to invite you to survey the coast from a lighthouse tower that allows a view across time, back as far as 1972 and forward as far as the fog allows. What's the state of the coast, as you see it? Did the "Save the Coast" voter initiative and the California Coastal Act actually save the coast? PETER DOUGLAS: The coast is never saved. Like any coveted geography, it's always being saved. Coastal management is a dynamic process working with competing forces that gather on the coast and trying to balance them and achieve a reasonable accommodation among them.

COPYRIGHT KAYA MEANS

Photo: Peter Douglas

There's a misconception that Proposition 20 and the Coastal Act were designed to bring development to a halt. That was not the intent. The goal was to make sure that development--be it private or public--did not preempt the best interests of current and future generations; that certain public values and interests were protected, including public access and recreation, important land- and seascapes, and significant landforms and habitats. [This pioneering legislation] was a forerunner of the concept of promoting environmentally sustainable development, a concept in vogue today. It came about largely as a reaction to the rapidity of change, which was disorderly and threatening in the 1960s and '70s. We have succeeded in substantially slowing the pace of change on the coast, and in reshaping its character. Our most important achievements are things you do not see: For example, wetlands not filled, opportunities for public access not lost, spectacular seascapes not spoiled, speculative subdivisions not permitted, offshore oil drilling and leasing not approved, two-lane coastal Highway 1 not widened. These intangible, invisible, and nonquantifiable consequences constitute the most significant accomplishments of California's coastal management program. Other intangible but major achievements include the positive change in attitude among public and private property managers and decision makers. The notion that we share a stewardship responsibility toward the coast is now widely accepted. Partnerships among state and local governments have worked very well. Many individuals are willing to do their share, and there is strong public support for coastal management at the state level. C&O: Let's continue looking at the major successes, then move on to failures, and finally focus on trends and issues that trouble you most right now. PD: The pace of coastal development has not only slowed down, its quality has substantially improved, when you consider densities, height, bulk, interference with public views, and opportunities for public access. After the Commission started making decisions, developers went back to drawing boards and came back with better projects, taking Coastal Act policies into account. We haven't permitted one new speculative subdivision since 1972--not one of those planned in the '50s and '60s by buying up old ranches. We've allowed new subdivisions, but only when properly planned and in places with an existing infrastructure. Many pre-Coastal Act speculative subdivisions were subsequently purchased for park use. Point Reyes National Seashore is a good example of non-appropriate subdivisions purchased and now parkland. To enable as many people as possible to enjoy the coast, visitor service and recreational proposals, such as hotels, motels, and campgrounds, were given priority over development for exclusively private use. C&O: I've heard it argued that developers have benefited from Coastal Act requirements. PD: Tremendous benefits were realized by property owners and project proponents who got the message that they needed to become more creative and more sensitive to the coastal environment. People at the Irvine Company and other major developers have told us that their projects turned out to be much more appealing because of our requirements. The acquisition of thousands of acres of coastal lands for parks also added value to coastal developments that were nearby. To be able to live next to a preserved stretch of coastline is pretty special. For those who make a living off the coast, especially in tourism, the benefits have been incredible. We are often asked: How in the world has California been able to preserve its coastline? The answer, in large part, is the Coastal Act. California's is one of the most accessible coastlines in the world. You can get to most of it by car or on foot. Because it's so accessible, and much of it is so wild, many people come from all over the world to spend lots of money to see it. The California coast is world-famous for its wildness--notwithstanding population growth and development pressures. People wouldn't come to Big Sur or the North Coast if a lot of hotels and private homes were there, spoiling the views and sense of wilderness. Plans that would have made Highway 1 a four-lane road for most of its length have not been carried out. That was specifically prohibited in the Coastal Act, and it's been very important in keeping the coast as attractive as it is. It's been hard to hold the line, though. There was a big fight over the freeway on the Monterey Peninsula, the stretch through Marina and Sand City. The Commission originally denied it, but political pressure was so great it was ultimately approved. Overall, [coastal management] in California is working well. That is evidenced by the fact over 85 percent of the coast is now covered by certified, fully approved local coastal programs [LCPs] where local governments are issuing coastal permits. The Commission only sees appeals in about three percent of the cases that could be appealed. That says to me that local governments are accepting the challenge and responsibility as full partners in managing California's coastal resources for the benefit of all people. As for accomplishments that are more readily apparent, there are, above all, the new public access and recreational facilities and opportunities, both on public and private lands--not just access to beaches, but also to trails, picnic facilities, campgrounds, showers, boat launching ramps. Significant public access improvements on the Del Monte Forest shoreline, for example--access to Stillwater Cove, picnic areas, bathrooms, and parking areas--largely were required by the Commission in its approval of the Spanish Bay resort and other projects there.

COPYRIGHT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Photo: What was to be done about Devil's Slide, this slide-prone stretch of Highway 1 north of Half Moon Bay? For more than a decade Caltrans tried to build a much wider road over Montara Mountain. The proposal met with fierce opposition from citizens who argued that the existing road could be improved. The battle moved through the courts, without resolution. Then, at last, a new way out of the thicket was brought to the fore by a fresh group of citizens who joined the fight. They proposed that a two-lane tunnel be cut through the mountain. In November 1996, an astonishing three-fourths of the county's voters endorsed that solution.

An informed eye will note other positive changes. In the Santa Barbara Channel, facilities for processing and transporting offshore oil and gas have been consolidated. Without the coastal program, they would have continued to proliferate. In southern California, industrial ports put plans to fill thousands of acres of ocean waters on hold while we pressed for more efficient use of existing uplands. We were able to reduce the amount of new fill substantially, without stopping the ports from proceeding with necessary modernization projects. C&O: What about the other side of the coin? What of failures or shortcomings? What are the thorniest issues? PD: A major weakness in the program is our inability to insure that needed updates are made in previously approved LCPs. For example, many do not include provisions to address polluted runoff to the ocean. Another failing is our inability to provide the funding and mechanisms necessary to implement the public access components of the LCPs. We have many outstanding offers to dedicate public access easements that haven't been accepted due to a lack of funding support for nonprofits or local governments that are willing to open and maintain these accessways. (See Coast & Ocean, Summer 1995). C&O: Do you see any hope on the horizon for this? PD: Oh, yes. The Commission sponsored legislation to earmark coastal permit fees for the Coastal Conservancy to use as grants for opening and maintaining new accessways. Also, now that we have succeeded in getting our coastal whale's tail license plate authorized, proceeds from that will help. There is no question these accessways will become a priority as the population continues to grow. As for thorny issues, high among them is dealing with the problem of cumulative impacts of development decisions. A lot of [permit] decisions continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, although cumulatively they can eliminate public resources and public values. Take shoreline protective works, for example: each one, by itself, does not show significant impacts to the public shore. But when you look at them together, you see that a significant amount of beach area has been lost to hard structures. Addressing cumulative impacts was an integral part of the Coastal Plan, but it's been difficult to implement. The tyranny of small decisions is still with us. When a homeowner asks to build a seawall to protect his house from being washed away, his individual, personal need will often be more persuasive than the argument in behalf of the larger public. Or consider public access. The situation has improved markedly since 1972, but has not kept pace with the needs of a growing population. As a result, there are more problems with traffic and parking, and tremendous clashes of interests between local residents and visitors. These realities translate into political pressures at the local level that then come to the Commission for resolution. Pressures are mounting to make infrastructure improvements and to restrict access to them through preferential parking programs, beach closures, parking lot closures, and beach curfews. The Commission has very carefully struggled with these conflicting demands, and we know these issues will only intensify in the future. C&O: Does the outcome depend on the makeup of the Commission? PD: It always does. The Coastal Commission is made up of 12 individuals who represent a broad diversity of philosophies, views, opinions, and judgments, and where they're coming from--also where the appointing authority is coming from--will determine the types of decisions that are made. C&O: The Commission recently approved a blufftop complex of officers' housing at Camp Pendleton, right above a beautiful beach and the world-famous Trestles surfbreak. Commission staff recommended that the Marines try to find a more suitable site on the large base, but the Commission went against staff. It's hard to see how this fits with the Coastal Act. PD: We have a division of responsibilities in the coastal program. We, the staff, make the best professional call we can, and use a strict reading of the Coastal Act as a guide. It's up to the Commissioners, who are the policy makers, to make the judgments in a particular matter. If there are tradeoffs to be made, that's for the Commission to decide. The Marines did make some adjustments, they scaled the project down, and set the buildings back from the bluff edge. The Commission concluded that the modified project was consistent with the Coastal Act "to the maximum extent feasible"--the standard in our law.

COPYRIGHT RICHARD RETECKI

The fjord-like Estero Americano is part of the Gulf of the Farrallones National Marine Sanctuary and lies within the United Nations Central Coast International Biosphere Preserve. To help protect it, the Sonoma Land Trust and the Coastal Conservancy bought 86 acres of wetlands near Bodega Bay in December 1996.

C&O: What other issues are troubling? PD: Beaches are being used more and more by local government to generate revenues. Volleyball tournaments, art festivals, farmers' markets, and other kinds of temporary events are becoming substantial moneymakers, not only for their sponsors but also for local government. People are finding that their favorite beaches are being preempted by these so-called temporary events; the events are lasting longer, and the intervals between them are getting shorter. We're getting major complaints from people who say, hey, we're losing our beach half the year.

THE BOLSA CHICA QUANDRY Touch the image to read more

C&O: What are a few other conflicts and dilemmas you see ahead? PD: The clash of interests between public and private rights and coastal residents and visitors; growing pressure to expand urban development beyond previously established urban-rural limits as the search for funding at the local level becomes more desperate. There is also the challenge of preserving "community character" and cultural resources in areas being recycled (going through gentrification).

COPYRIGHT DEWEY SCHWARTZENBURG

Photo: Don't try to e-mail your message to the Coastal Commission. Its ancient computer system does not allow staff to talk with each other or with the outside world. Noreen Clouse, the system's manager, works with three different platforms, including the Wang VS 65 system, with "dumb" terminals and centrally located software and files.

C&O: And the Commission, with existing powers, can address these issues? PD: To some extent, yes. Land use change proposals will require approval from the Commission as amendments to local coastal programs. If zoning to protect agriculture is challenged, for example, by breaking up large ranches, that will result in very significant confrontations. We can expect it in the not too distant future. C&O: Do you have what you need to confront these issues effectively? PD: The most important element is public attitude. Will there be apathy and indifference, or awareness and active support? What's necessary is public involvement, public understanding, and public support for continued, effective coastal management; and beyond that, obviously, the resources necessary to do the job--fiscal resources and technical expertise. We are confronted right now with a serious dilemma. The courts have substantially restricted the ability of land use management agencies to carry out their mandate and are demanding more technical precision in terms of the basis for regulatory decisions. Yet competition for limited fiscal resources is so fierce that funding for planning and management agencies is being reduced at all levels of government. So the tools aren't there to do what the courts say we have to do in the way of technically based decision-making. Unless we get those tools it will be virtually impossible for us to do our job of protecting human and natural community values along the coast. Rasa Gustaitis, editor of California Coast & Ocean, interviewed Peter Douglas.