Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 11, 2006 04:21 PM
New Emphasis on Coastal Protection?
Coastal Commission analysts are
favorably impressed with the panel's recent emphasis on coastal protection,
especially given the panel's disastrous approval of a destructive housing
project at the Bolsa Chica (Orange County) wetlands earlier in the year and the
unprecedented environmental damage unleashed by the panel at the Dana Point
Headlands (Orange County) in 2004.
As described in the news article below, new blood and recent changes in the Commission's makeup appears to have loosened developer's stranglehold over the panel.
It is, however, much too early to declare environmental victory. The real test of the "new" Commission's allegiance to coastal protection and the law will occur in December 2005 when they will review one of the most damaging coastal development projects ever proposed in California- the plan by the Pebble Beach Co. to destroy more than 17,000 native Monterey Pine trees, wetlands and habitat in an effort to build a golf course, driving range, resort rooms and 33 more mansions in the famous Del Monte Forest at Pebble Beach in Monterey County. Under any logical, legal scenario the outrageous, naturally offensive environmental assault against the last remaining coastal Monterey Pine Trees must be rejected. However, given the billionaire assets of PBC's hollywood ownership, the outcome of the proposal remains uncertain. Stay tuned......
Editor.
State coastal commission carrying a bigger stick
By Terry Rodgers
STAFF WRITER
October 15, 2005
SANDY HUFFAKER
Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla has emerged as a pragmatic voice on the California Coastal Commission. He visited his city's Bayfront Park last month.
Despite an outward appearance of business as usual, significant changes have been occurring at the California Coastal Commission, the potent and autonomous agency that oversees development along the state's 1,100-mile coast.
In the past 18 months, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have made seven appointments to the 12-member commission. These new appointees, including Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla, have quickly emerged as pragmatic and independent voices.
They have arrived while the agency has progressively toughened enforcement against scofflaws and ratcheted up protection of coastal resources.
The end result is that coastline developers have never faced more scrutiny.
"(The agency) is not afraid of anybody," said Susan McCabe of Marina del Rey, a consultant who represents cities and property owners before the commission. "It can push the envelope as far as it wants. .. . The commission has a very good track record of winning its lawsuits."
The commission yesterday concluded a three-day meeting in San Diego, generating plenty of headlines. One controversial decision was its approval of a fee intended to compensate the public for the effects of a proposed sea wall in Solana Beach.
Rather than laying low to learn the ropes, several new commissioners have immediately leaped into leadership roles.
With just six months' experience on the panel, Meg Caldwell, a Stanford University law instructor and a Republican appointed by Schwarzenegger, was chosen by her peers in December to head the commission.
Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" don't really apply to the commission's rulings, Caldwell said.
"In truth," she said, "I believe our most protective decisions are our most conservative because we focus on conserving irreplaceable coastal assets."
Padilla, too, has quickly emerged as an articulate voice for protecting the coast. Some eye him as a possible swing vote on such high-profile projects as the proposed expansion of the Pebble Beach golf resort in Monterey.
"We're hoping he can be a leader and not just someone who follows the rest of the commissioners on every issue," said Marco Gonzalez, a lawyer active with the Surfrider Foundation. "Steve has given the environment a high priority in votes at the local level, and we're confident he'll continue this practice at the state level."
Padilla, 38, a Democrat appointed in July by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, describes himself as a policy wonk and problem solver.
"Clarity and consistency are what I want to see," he said. "We must ensure we're not incrementally eroding the intent of the Coastal Act," the 1976 law that established stringent standards for coastal development.
As the mayor of a fast-growing suburban city of 220,000 residents, Padilla has plenty of experience dealing with developers. The smart ones, he said, try to work out problems with the planning department rather than forcing a showdown before the City Council.
"Nine times out of 10, if they make an effort to comply, staff will be reasonable with them," he said.
Padilla's seat on the Coastal Commission gives Chula Vista an advantage as the city moves forward with plans to redevelop 550 acres of property along the southeastern shore of San Diego Bay.
The ambitious plan being coordinated with the San Diego Unified Port District could be ready for the commission's review within a year. It calls for replacing vacant lots and dilapidated industrial buildings with condominiums, a convention center, retail shops, museums, restaurants, a yacht club and 200 acres of parks and open space.
Monterey County Supervisor David Potter, who has served on the commission since 1997, believes fixed terms that were instituted recently will give the new crop of appointees and their successors more freedom from politicians in Sacramento. As a result, he said, the commissioners likely will be "less political and less extreme."
For decades, commissioners could be removed at any time for any reason. But a law enacted in 2003 gives the eight commissioners appointed by the Legislature four-year terms and the governor's four appointees two-year terms.
Although commissioners come and go – there have been more than 100 appointees since 1981 – the staff endures.
Led for the past 20 years by Peter Douglas, the agency's maverick executive director, the staff exerts a strong influence that keeps the commission on track, said Mike Reilly, a Sonoma County supervisor and third-most senior member of the commission.
That's an understatement, said Norbert Dall, a witty and opinionated Sacramento consultant working on a book chronicling the history of the commission.
"The trends haven't changed," he contends. "Staff controls the coastal program. The commissioners play a marginal role."
The staff's guidance is strong but not overpowering, said Ben Haddad, a newly appointed alternate commissioner from San Diego.
"The staff has the lion's share of time to present its side of the story, so there is a little bit of tilt toward that position," Haddad said. "But the commissioners don't always agree with them."
Haddad, a political veteran who was a cabinet secretary for former Gov. Pete Wilson, said he's been impressed by the fairness of the commission's deliberations.
"Nothing is going on in a back room," he said. "The decision making is going on right in front of the public. That's healthy."
Ultimately, the keel holding the commissioners and staff on a steady course has been the Coastal Act, Reilly said.
"The continuity of the commission is reflected in the law itself," he added.
In the policy realm, some trends were arising before the commission's major roster change.
Since mid-2002, the agency has been pursuing violations of coastal permits more vigorously.
Total enforcement actions – violation notices, cease-and-desist orders and restoration orders – have jumped to an average of 24 per year in the past three years compared with 2.6 per year from 1992 to 2001, according to statistics provided by the commission.
"It may not sound like huge numbers, but given our limited staff, it's been a dramatic increase," said Lisa Haage, the agency's chief of enforcement.
The 11-member enforcement staff tries to target violations that have the biggest impact on coastal resources as opposed to "paperwork" mistakes, Haage said.
"We're interested in things that affect the beauty of the coast and coastal resources such as water quality, sea walls and public access," she said.
The strategy, she explained, is to "send the largest message to the development community, so that no one can gamble that they won't get caught."
Don Schmitz, a Los Angeles-area development consultant and former Coastal Commission employee, said the agency's vigorous enforcement has caught many people's attention.
"It's been more than a bump. . ... The difference now is the ommission moves more quickly" against Coastal Act violations, Schmitz said. "Fifteen to 20 years ago, enforcement was just handled by interns."
Another significant shift has been the agency's more stringent protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, where development is all but prohibited.
The tougher stance emerged after a 1999 court ruling that required the commission to apply "uniform treatment and protection" whether the habitat is "pristine and growing or fouled and threatened." The decision barred the commission from accepting a developer's offer to swap degraded habitat at the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Orange County for more virgin land.
The agency has flexibility in designating land it deems worthy of protection because "sensitive habitat" is broadly defined under the Coastal Act.
In recent years, the commission has moved toward "a broad-brush interpretation" that has severely restricted the development potential of vacant land in some cases, Schmitz said.
In May, for example, commissioners ruled that a pasture used for grazing livestock met the criteria for environmentally sensitive land. Other places designated as sensitive habitat include vacant lots in Malibu and a eucalyptus grove in Bolsa Chica.
"In other words, just about any piece of property that has native vegetation on it" can be deemed sensitive habitat, Schmitz said. "It's the single biggest change in policy application in the 15 years I've been doing (consulting)."
While Schmitz and other observers of the commission hesitate to predict how its newcomers might rewrite the agency's road map, Mark Massara of the Sierra Club in San Francisco already likes what he sees.
In the past, "the developers and their agents have had a solid lock on the majority of the commission. . . . I think we have a real sea change in the works," Massara said.
It's key to remember that while the agency has compiled a three-decade record of precedence, "everything is done case by case," said McCabe, the consultant from Marina del Rey. "It's one of the more complex, political institutions out there. There's a healthy difference of opinions on the commission."
Nevertheless, the long-term trend is evident from her perspective.
"Over time, they have become more and more protective of coastal resources," McCabe said.
///////
As described in the news article below, new blood and recent changes in the Commission's makeup appears to have loosened developer's stranglehold over the panel.
It is, however, much too early to declare environmental victory. The real test of the "new" Commission's allegiance to coastal protection and the law will occur in December 2005 when they will review one of the most damaging coastal development projects ever proposed in California- the plan by the Pebble Beach Co. to destroy more than 17,000 native Monterey Pine trees, wetlands and habitat in an effort to build a golf course, driving range, resort rooms and 33 more mansions in the famous Del Monte Forest at Pebble Beach in Monterey County. Under any logical, legal scenario the outrageous, naturally offensive environmental assault against the last remaining coastal Monterey Pine Trees must be rejected. However, given the billionaire assets of PBC's hollywood ownership, the outcome of the proposal remains uncertain. Stay tuned......
Editor.
State coastal commission carrying a bigger stick
By Terry Rodgers
STAFF WRITER
October 15, 2005
SANDY HUFFAKER
Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla has emerged as a pragmatic voice on the California Coastal Commission. He visited his city's Bayfront Park last month.
Despite an outward appearance of business as usual, significant changes have been occurring at the California Coastal Commission, the potent and autonomous agency that oversees development along the state's 1,100-mile coast.
In the past 18 months, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have made seven appointments to the 12-member commission. These new appointees, including Chula Vista Mayor Steve Padilla, have quickly emerged as pragmatic and independent voices.
They have arrived while the agency has progressively toughened enforcement against scofflaws and ratcheted up protection of coastal resources.
The end result is that coastline developers have never faced more scrutiny.
"(The agency) is not afraid of anybody," said Susan McCabe of Marina del Rey, a consultant who represents cities and property owners before the commission. "It can push the envelope as far as it wants. .. . The commission has a very good track record of winning its lawsuits."
The commission yesterday concluded a three-day meeting in San Diego, generating plenty of headlines. One controversial decision was its approval of a fee intended to compensate the public for the effects of a proposed sea wall in Solana Beach.
Rather than laying low to learn the ropes, several new commissioners have immediately leaped into leadership roles.
With just six months' experience on the panel, Meg Caldwell, a Stanford University law instructor and a Republican appointed by Schwarzenegger, was chosen by her peers in December to head the commission.
Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" don't really apply to the commission's rulings, Caldwell said.
"In truth," she said, "I believe our most protective decisions are our most conservative because we focus on conserving irreplaceable coastal assets."
Padilla, too, has quickly emerged as an articulate voice for protecting the coast. Some eye him as a possible swing vote on such high-profile projects as the proposed expansion of the Pebble Beach golf resort in Monterey.
"We're hoping he can be a leader and not just someone who follows the rest of the commissioners on every issue," said Marco Gonzalez, a lawyer active with the Surfrider Foundation. "Steve has given the environment a high priority in votes at the local level, and we're confident he'll continue this practice at the state level."
Padilla, 38, a Democrat appointed in July by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, describes himself as a policy wonk and problem solver.
"Clarity and consistency are what I want to see," he said. "We must ensure we're not incrementally eroding the intent of the Coastal Act," the 1976 law that established stringent standards for coastal development.
As the mayor of a fast-growing suburban city of 220,000 residents, Padilla has plenty of experience dealing with developers. The smart ones, he said, try to work out problems with the planning department rather than forcing a showdown before the City Council.
"Nine times out of 10, if they make an effort to comply, staff will be reasonable with them," he said.
Padilla's seat on the Coastal Commission gives Chula Vista an advantage as the city moves forward with plans to redevelop 550 acres of property along the southeastern shore of San Diego Bay.
The ambitious plan being coordinated with the San Diego Unified Port District could be ready for the commission's review within a year. It calls for replacing vacant lots and dilapidated industrial buildings with condominiums, a convention center, retail shops, museums, restaurants, a yacht club and 200 acres of parks and open space.
Monterey County Supervisor David Potter, who has served on the commission since 1997, believes fixed terms that were instituted recently will give the new crop of appointees and their successors more freedom from politicians in Sacramento. As a result, he said, the commissioners likely will be "less political and less extreme."
For decades, commissioners could be removed at any time for any reason. But a law enacted in 2003 gives the eight commissioners appointed by the Legislature four-year terms and the governor's four appointees two-year terms.
Although commissioners come and go – there have been more than 100 appointees since 1981 – the staff endures.
Led for the past 20 years by Peter Douglas, the agency's maverick executive director, the staff exerts a strong influence that keeps the commission on track, said Mike Reilly, a Sonoma County supervisor and third-most senior member of the commission.
That's an understatement, said Norbert Dall, a witty and opinionated Sacramento consultant working on a book chronicling the history of the commission.
"The trends haven't changed," he contends. "Staff controls the coastal program. The commissioners play a marginal role."
The staff's guidance is strong but not overpowering, said Ben Haddad, a newly appointed alternate commissioner from San Diego.
"The staff has the lion's share of time to present its side of the story, so there is a little bit of tilt toward that position," Haddad said. "But the commissioners don't always agree with them."
Haddad, a political veteran who was a cabinet secretary for former Gov. Pete Wilson, said he's been impressed by the fairness of the commission's deliberations.
"Nothing is going on in a back room," he said. "The decision making is going on right in front of the public. That's healthy."
Ultimately, the keel holding the commissioners and staff on a steady course has been the Coastal Act, Reilly said.
"The continuity of the commission is reflected in the law itself," he added.
In the policy realm, some trends were arising before the commission's major roster change.
Since mid-2002, the agency has been pursuing violations of coastal permits more vigorously.
Total enforcement actions – violation notices, cease-and-desist orders and restoration orders – have jumped to an average of 24 per year in the past three years compared with 2.6 per year from 1992 to 2001, according to statistics provided by the commission.
"It may not sound like huge numbers, but given our limited staff, it's been a dramatic increase," said Lisa Haage, the agency's chief of enforcement.
The 11-member enforcement staff tries to target violations that have the biggest impact on coastal resources as opposed to "paperwork" mistakes, Haage said.
"We're interested in things that affect the beauty of the coast and coastal resources such as water quality, sea walls and public access," she said.
The strategy, she explained, is to "send the largest message to the development community, so that no one can gamble that they won't get caught."
Don Schmitz, a Los Angeles-area development consultant and former Coastal Commission employee, said the agency's vigorous enforcement has caught many people's attention.
"It's been more than a bump. . ... The difference now is the ommission moves more quickly" against Coastal Act violations, Schmitz said. "Fifteen to 20 years ago, enforcement was just handled by interns."
Another significant shift has been the agency's more stringent protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, where development is all but prohibited.
The tougher stance emerged after a 1999 court ruling that required the commission to apply "uniform treatment and protection" whether the habitat is "pristine and growing or fouled and threatened." The decision barred the commission from accepting a developer's offer to swap degraded habitat at the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Orange County for more virgin land.
The agency has flexibility in designating land it deems worthy of protection because "sensitive habitat" is broadly defined under the Coastal Act.
In recent years, the commission has moved toward "a broad-brush interpretation" that has severely restricted the development potential of vacant land in some cases, Schmitz said.
In May, for example, commissioners ruled that a pasture used for grazing livestock met the criteria for environmentally sensitive land. Other places designated as sensitive habitat include vacant lots in Malibu and a eucalyptus grove in Bolsa Chica.
"In other words, just about any piece of property that has native vegetation on it" can be deemed sensitive habitat, Schmitz said. "It's the single biggest change in policy application in the 15 years I've been doing (consulting)."
While Schmitz and other observers of the commission hesitate to predict how its newcomers might rewrite the agency's road map, Mark Massara of the Sierra Club in San Francisco already likes what he sees.
In the past, "the developers and their agents have had a solid lock on the majority of the commission. . . . I think we have a real sea change in the works," Massara said.
It's key to remember that while the agency has compiled a three-decade record of precedence, "everything is done case by case," said McCabe, the consultant from Marina del Rey. "It's one of the more complex, political institutions out there. There's a healthy difference of opinions on the commission."
Nevertheless, the long-term trend is evident from her perspective.
"Over time, they have become more and more protective of coastal resources," McCabe said.
///////
Posted: Tue - October 18, 2005 at 10:28 AM