February 23, 2008

News Analysis
In California, Coastal Commission Wields Vast Power
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
SAN CLEMENTE, Calif. — The battle here over a proposed toll road near a state park
has entangled powerful interests from across California: Labor is pitted against
surfers, American Indians against developers, commuters against campers and
coastal people against inland dwellers.

But by voting down the proposal this month, the California Coastal Commission — a
12-member panel that gets little attention outside California — once again flexed
its muscle as the most formidable player of all.

Created by a ballot initiative three decades ago as the protector of the state’s
1,100-mile coast, the commission has long been a thorn in the side of developers,
municipal governments and wealthy beachfront property owners, its dominion lacking
in comparisons in other states.

“The commission is the single most powerful land use authority in the United
States,” said Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at the University of California,
Los Angeles, who has researched the panel, “given the high values of its
jurisdiction and its high environmental assets.”

The commission has never been shy about its reach, and makes no apologies for the
role its members — who are appointed by the governor and State Legislature —
believe voters gave them during the heart of the environmental movement in the
1970s, when the California Coastal Act was passed.

The commission has taken on the development notions of companies big and small,
and entire cities. In 1998, when the Hearst Corporation tried to build a resort
complex with hotels and a golf course near the famous castle in San Luis Obispo
County, the commission shot it down.

The commission has also taken on the wealthy residents of beach areas who believe
that their homeownership entitles them to private beaches, most recently the
Hollywood mogul David Geffen. Movie stars do not scare commissioners either. Last
year, Clint Eastwood backed a plan to develop a stretch of the Monterey Peninsula
into a golf course, a proposal that was flattened by the panel.

In 1987, the commission was dealt a rare blow by the United States Supreme Court,
which ruled against its attempt to permit a homeowner to replace a small bungalow
on a beachfront lot with a larger house with the condition that they allow the
public access to the beachfront.

But earlier this decade, members were back tangling with the city of Malibu over
its plan for managing coastal building, essentially dictating to the city what it
would do. After several trips to court, the two sides came to a tense accord in
2005.

“The commission basically tells us what to do, and we’re expected to do it,” said
Jeff Jennings, the mayor of Malibu. “And in many cases that extends down to the
smallest details imaginable, like what color you paint your houses, what kind of
light bulbs you can use in certain places.”

To Mr. Jennings, the battle in Malibu was not over development visions, but
municipal rights. And as has often been the case, the city came up short when
pitted against the commission.
“When we became a city we wanted to make our own decisions,” he said, “and we see
this body of nonelecteds and we feel kind of disenfranchised.”

The issue before the commission this month was among the tensest in its history. A
local transportation authority was seeking permission to extend a toll road 16
miles near San Onofre State Beach in San Diego County to provide an alternate
route to congested Interstate 5, Southern California’s main north-south artery.

Environmental groups, conservationists and a majority of residents here derided

the toll road, saying it would spoil area parks, destroy the waves at a famous
surfer beach, hurt Indian burial grounds and imperil the endangered Pacific pocket
mouse. Supporters said it was essential to alleviate traffic, and to provide
easier access to coastal areas for people living inland.

The road was soundly rejected by the commission, which has a history of siding
with environmentalists in development fights. Its role to some degree is to
protect natural resources from the whims of cash-hungry local governments that may
be inclined to give in to developer incentives in exchange for building over
natural resources.

The commission’s members are appointed in groups of four by the governor and the
leaders of the State Senate and Assembly, bodies that have been dominated by
Democrats with political and philosophical interests generally aligned with
conservation advocates.

“The commission reflects a constituency that is important to Democrats,” Professor

Zasloff said.

With tensions between the commuters of this ever-expanding state, and those who
long to protect its natural resources, fights like the one over the toll road are
likely to continue. The Transportation Corridor Agencies, which oversee the
planned toll road, have filed an appeal with the federal Department of Commerce.

While opposed to the toll road, the commission has thoughts on how to deal with
transportation problems, said Sarah Christie, the panel’s legislative director.

“In reality, Southern California is going to have to come to grips with its
traffic problem,” Ms. Christie said. “The Coastal Act does call for infrastructure
that would be more supportive of mass transit. We can’t just build our way out
with toll roads.”

John Gerard, sitting in his pickup near the beach here recently with a sign on his
lap that read “Save the Park,” said he was thrilled with the way the commission
responded to the outcry against the road.

“I’d rather live with a little bit of traffic than ruin this place,” he said.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company