Countywide : County Issue How Should the Coast Be Protected?
Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed legislation that would have empowered the Coastal Commission to impose fines and cease-and-desist orders against developers who build
illegally on the coastline. How should the Coastal Commission protect the more than 1,100 miles of shoreline while not infringing on property owners’ rights to develop land?
Rema Armbrust Member, Ormond Beach Observers, and president, League of Women Voters Had I had my druthers at the very inception of government back in the mid-1800s, the public would have owned all of the coastline from the very beginning. Since . . . that is not the way things are, I think that providing for adequate recreational facilities and allowing for maximum preservation of the natural coastline for recreation is paramount. Private ownership must meld with the public right to use the beaches. And limiting population through land-use policies to sustain a healthful environment is absolutely necessary. Those municipalities that have coastline boundaries are going to have to take a very hard look at their land-use policies for what little bit of coastline is left. . . . I think it is possible for cities and counties to provide incentive for coastal owners to be able to have property in other parts of their county. All kinds of trades are available. All of it, the whole ecosystem, and the ocean, too, not just the beach, is in danger if our policies don’t change.
Allen F. Camp Land-use attorney
I’m not aware of the fact that any regulatory planning agency such as the Coastal Commission is empowered to act as a judge and a jury, which, it strikes me, the power to levy fines and/or sanctions would cause. It seems to me that the Coastal Commission’s present function is much broader than the voters envisioned when the Coastal Commission was established a number of years ago. I think the proper role of the Coastal Commission should be that of a planning agency that would protect the environment, establish and enhance public access, and stand behind beautification and embellishment of the intrinsic values the coastline affords all residents in the state. Inversely, however, the Coastal Commission is thought of, in many camps, as an enemy of those seeking to enjoy very appropriate and reasonable use of privately held property. It seems that the Coastal Commission has taken a position that requires individuals to bear virtually the sole burden of providing access to coastal areas.
Madelyn Glickfeld At-large member,Coastal Commission I strongly supported the bill that Gov. Deukmejian vetoed. Those bills (SB 1787, SB 1788) had more in them than simply the cease-and-desist orders and administrative fines. They also contained proposals for increasing the fines for those who violate the law. Apparently, our fines are so low that many violators simply see them as the cost of doing business. I think they were the main answer to enforcement problems along the coastline. Beyond those bills, we definitely need to increase the budget of the Coastal Commission--to have better staffing, to make sure there is a legal presence in the coastal zone--and we need to have a greater understanding on the part of the public and the courts that building without permits in sensitive coastal areas can cause loss of life, loss of valuable resources and pose a hazard to private property, and that it is a serious environmental crime. We have a law to protect the coast, but if we choose not to enforce that law, then we’re fooling the people. The commission is mandated to protect the coastline, but we haven’t been given the tools or the budget to do it.
Roy M. Carlson Past president, Ventura County Board of Realtors Actually, I feel the Coastal Commission is probably a good thing to be in place, but I’m not sure that all the power they have is warranted. I would be against illegal development, but I think there should be some planned development leaving the general public access to the beaches as opposed to places like parts of Malibu where the public can’t get to the beach at all. I also believe that residents of small communities lining the coastline who need emergency repairs or measures to protect their homes against being washed away, for example, should be able to do so without incurring the wrath of the Coastal Commission. I think the bureaucratic process seems a little rigid. I don’t mind the standards, but I do have a problem with not having latitude, especially in an emergency situation. As far as development goes, the country is going to be developed whether we like it or not. People are coming to California. I see controlled development as a natural, logical progression. I think protecting the rights of property owners and the environment can go hand in hand.
Gary K. Hart State senator, D-Santa Barbara The problem is that the developers know that the Coastal Commission is a paper tiger. The unscrupulous developer can take advantage of this situation, and the Coastal Commission has difficulty responding, both because they don’t have any legal clout and also because of the budget cuts they’ve suffered by the Deukmejian administration. They don’t have the staff to even properly monitor or call on the carpet people who may be in violation. So it is a very difficult situation. I’m presuming they can still take action in the courts, but if they do, it is both costly and time-consuming. By the time a ruling is made, a development can be completed and lived in, and the developer has, in essence, a fait accompli. I really think, given what we are faced with, that the only way to properly respond is to wait for a new governor. So I don’t think much will probably happen until January, but hopefully legislation can be passed quickly after that to remedy the situation.