If the coast of California is a state asset value trillions of {dollars} — and it’s — why is the state company that has efficiently protected that asset for 50 years underneath assault? The reply — “pointless allowing delays” — is unfounded. But California’s distinctive historical past of coastal safety is in better jeopardy at the moment within the halls of our state Capitol than it has been for generations.
Like water flowing downhill, California’s incomparable coast has all the time been a magnet for growth. In 1972, with this in thoughts, the voters of California overwhelmingly accepted Proposition 20, a poll initiative that set in movement the 1976 California Coastal Act. In contrast to South Florida, the Jersey Shore or different coastal areas devoured by privatization, the California coast was by legislation given particular safety: The coastal zone can be developed not as an enclave for the rich however for everybody’s use, with provisions for shielding its pure sources and its breathtaking magnificence.
The California Coastal Fee was created to implement the act with a selected cost to steadiness the wants of the ecosystem with the necessity for public entry and financial growth, together with reasonably priced housing. It really works like this: Native jurisdictions provide you with coastal plans that the fee should approve. As soon as a plan is in place, growth permits are dealt with by town, city or county, though these selections might be appealed to and by the fee.
Over time, the Coastal Fee has efficiently defended public entry to the seashore in Malibu, Half Moon Bay, Carlsbad and different cities. It has helped protect state parks, open area alongside the coast and the seashore itself — denying permits for oil drilling, multiple luxurious resort, an LNG port (in Oxnard) and a toll highway (at San Onofre Seashore). In 2019, it fined a developer almost $15.6 million for changing, with no allow, two low-cost motels alongside Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica with a boutique resort.
Predictably, this course of has usually been within the bull’s-eye of Coastal Act critics, and whereas the rationale might fluctuate with the second, their objective stays the identical: To weaken oversight by the fee and return land-use management fully to native governments.
At present, low reasonably priced housing provide alongside the coast is the premise for assault. In laws launched in January, with a goal of “resolving pointless allowing delays within the disproportionately low-housing Coastal Zone,” state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has proposed an unprecedented carve out of 23.5% of the coastal zone in San Francisco. Particularly, Senate Invoice 951 would delete from fee oversight residential areas on town’s western edge, in addition to a bit of Golden Gate Park. As the primary important coastal zone discount in additional than 40 years, this assault on the fee might set a harmful precedent that will invite comparable carve outs from San Diego to Santa Monica to Crescent Metropolis.
Final month, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted overwhelmingly to oppose SB 951, and, someday later, the Coastal Fee, by unanimous vote, did the identical.
The existential risk that this laws poses to the Coastal Act and your entire California coast is simple. Amongst quite a few fee obligations affected, SB 951 ignores the company’s important function in planning for sea-level rise adaptation alongside San Francisco’s more and more weak coast. And it appears no mere coincidence that the excluded space consists of land proposed for a controversial 50-story condominium and business mission within the flats of the Outer Sundown neighborhood north of the San Francisco Zoo.
The declare that the Coastal Fee is liable for housing inequity within the coastal zone, although lengthy on rhetoric, is belied by the historic document. Certainly, when the Coastal Act turned legislation in 1976, it required that “housing for individuals of low and reasonable revenue shall be protected, inspired, and, the place possible, supplied.” The fee actively complied, approving or defending from demolition greater than 7,100 reasonably priced models between 1977 and 1981 and accumulating an estimated $2 million in “in lieu” charges to help reasonably priced housing.
However in 1981, the state Legislature amended the Coastal Act to take away the fee’s reasonably priced housing authority. Opposite to the declare of “pointless allowing delays” on which SB 951 is predicated — solely two coastal growth permits in San Francisco have been appealed to the fee in 38 years — it’s this modification, and the truth that builders favor to construct high-end tasks, that has produced at the moment’s reasonably priced housing deficit within the coastal zone. As then-Coastal Fee Chair Leonard Grote warned in 1981, “The passage of this invoice would make it possible for the power to stay close to the coast is reserved for the rich.” And so it has.
If growing the availability of reasonably priced housing close to California’s coast is definitely the objective of SB 951, then restoring, not decreasing, the fee’s authority is required. It was a mistake in 1981 to take away the fee’s energy to require that tasks it accepted included reasonably priced housing, and it’s a mistake in 2024 to anticipate that diminishing the coastal zone will proper that incorrect.
The California Coastal Fee has a rare document of success in defending California’s most dear environmental and financial useful resource, and its regulatory function is as important at the moment because it has ever been. SB 951 would weaken, not promote, equal entry to that useful resource, and it threatens to erode, maybe irrevocably, probably the most profitable coastal administration program within the nation.
Joel Reynolds is western director and senior legal professional for the Pure Sources Protection Council in Santa Monica. Tom Soto is a former alternate member of the California Coastal Fee and a Pure Sources Protection Council board member.
