If California's coast is a state asset worth trillions of dollars, and in fact, why is the state agency that has been protecting that asset for 50 years under attack? There is no basis for the answer “Yes.” But California's extraordinary history of coastal protection is at greater risk today in the halls of the state Capitol than it has been for generations.
Like water flowing downhill, California's unparalleled coast has always attracted development. With this in mind, in 1972, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 20, a ballot initiative that invoked the California Coastal Act of 1976. Unlike South Florida, the Jersey Shore, or other coastal areas eaten up by privatization, the California coast was afforded special protection by law. Coastal zones would be developed for the use of all, with provisions to protect natural resources, rather than as enclaves for the wealthy. And its breathtaking beauty.
The California Coastal Commission was established to enforce this law by imposing certain costs to balance ecological needs with public access and economic development needs, including affordable housing. Ta. It works like this: Local governments must create a coastal plan, which must be approved by a commission. Once a plan is developed, development permits are processed by the city, town, or county, but these decisions can also be appealed to the commission.
Over the years, the Coastal Commission has successfully protected public access to beaches in Malibu, Half Moon Bay, Carlsbad, and other towns. It helps protect state parks, coastal open space, and the beaches themselves, and denies permits for oil drilling. luxury resort, LNG Port (Oxnard), Toll Road (San Onofre Beach). In 2019, it fined a developer nearly $15.6 million for replacing two low-cost hotels along Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica with boutique hotels without permits.
As might be expected, this process is often the target of critics of Coastal Law, and while their rationales may vary from time to time, their goals are the same. It would weaken commission oversight and return land use control entirely to local governments.
Today, the low supply of affordable housing along the coast is the basis of the attack. The law introduced in JanuaryState Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) announced an unprecedented carve-out of 23.5% of San Francisco's coastal zone to “resolve unnecessary permitting delays in coastal zones where housing is disproportionately low.” proposed. Specifically, Senate Bill 951 would remove residential areas on the city's west end and portions of Golden Gate Park from the commission's oversight. As the first major coastal strip reduction in more than 40 years, this attack on the commission could set a dangerous precedent that could lead to similar cuts from San Diego to Santa Monica to Crescent City.
Last month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors overwhelmingly voted against SB 951, and the next day the Coastal Commission unanimously voted to do the same.
The existential threat this law poses to Coastal Law and the entire California coast is undeniable. Among the commission's many responsibilities affected, SB 951 ignores the agency's critical role in planning for adaptation to sea level rise along the increasingly vulnerable San Francisco coast. And the exclusion zone includes land proposed for a controversial 50-story condominium and commercial project in the Outer Sunset apartment complex north of the San Francisco Zoo. It doesn't seem to be just a coincidence.
The claim that the Coastal Commission is responsible for housing inequality on the coast is long-winded rhetoric, but it is belied by the historical record. In fact, when the Coast Act was enacted in 1976; Required “Housing for low- and moderate-income persons shall be protected, encouraged, and provided where possible.'' It protected more than 7,100 affordable housing units from approval or demolition and collected an estimated $2 million in “in-lieu” fees to support affordable housing.
But in 1981, the state Legislature amended the Coastal Act to remove the commission's affordable housing authority. Contrary to the “unnecessary permitting delays” argument underlying SB 951 (only two San Francisco coastal development permits have been appealed to the commission in 38 years), it is this amendment that It is a fact that developers prefer to build high-rise buildings. End the projects that create today's affordable housing shortage in coastal communities. As then-Coast Commission Chairman Leonard Grote warned in 1981, “If this bill passes, the ability to live near the coast will become exclusive to the wealthy.” And so it happened.
If increasing the supply of affordable housing near California's coast is indeed the goal of SB 951, restoring rather than reducing the commission's powers is necessary. It was a mistake in 1981 to remove the authority to require the commission to include affordable housing in approved projects, and it is a mistake to expect shrinking coastal areas to right that mistake in 2024. It is.
The California Coastal Commission has a track record of tremendous success in protecting California's most valuable environmental and economic resources, and its regulatory role is more important today than ever. SB 951 would weaken rather than promote equal access to that resource, and threatens to erode, perhaps irreversibly, the nation's most successful coastal management program.
Joel Reynolds is western director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica. Tom Soto is a former alternate member of the California Coastal Commission. Natural Resources Defense Council board member.
