Wilson’s Coastal Approach: OK, but Where’s the Will?

Does Gov. Pete Wilson’s latest coastal initiative signal a new, more constructive approach to management of the state’s coastal resources?

The governor indicated last week that he will insist that cities and counties--particularly Los Angeles--assume more responsibility for coastal development. The 1976 Coastal Act requires jurisdictions to adopt local coastal plans to guide development within their boundaries. Once the state Coastal Commission certifies these plans as consistent with coast protection laws, individual decisions about development near the ocean are to be made by the local governments, with appeal possible to the commission. That agency retains the final authority for the management of California’s 1,100-mile coastline.

In practice, however, many local governments have not drafted acceptable local plans, preferring to let the commission take the heat on decisions big and small regarding coastal land management. A chronic lack of funds at the city and county levels is also a part of the problem. While Ventura, Santa Barbara and Orange counties have coastal plans in place, Los Angeles County and city and Santa Monica have largely failed to complete this process.

As a result, the commission has had to devote scarce staff time and funds to the sort of micro-decisions that are properly the province of local zoning boards: the location and height of a chain link fence within the coastal zone, the size and placement of a new garage or the addition of a deck to a restaurant. The agency has the right and the obligation to review such decisions to ensure they are consistent with state coastal laws, but these endless small matters have kept the commission from focusing on the larger management tasks for which it was created--for example, ensuring coastal access up and down the state and monitoring the impact of development across governmental jurisdictions.

The commission’s diversion by small matters fueled a nasty fight last summer: the unsuccessful effort to oust the agency’s long-time director, Peter Douglas. Commissioners appointed just months before by then-Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove)--but since removed by the current speaker, Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno)--led that fight; upon joining the board, these individuals vowed to end what they saw as the agency’s unwarranted meddling in local land-use matters. The Wilson administration at first supported this move to fire Douglas.

The governor’s current strategy of encouraging cities and counties to assume their responsibilities is certainly a more constructive approach, one consistent with Wilson’s demonstrated interest in comprehensive habitat planning to protect endangered species and wetlands restoration.

The governor’s office estimates the cost of Wilson’s coastal initiative, which must be approved by the Legislature, at more than $12 million, with about $500,000 going to local governments to fund development of the required local coastal plans. Some local officials say that’s not nearly enough. However, we fear it is lack of political will and the absence of legal sanctions for noncompliance that will prove to be bigger obstacles to prudent management of one of the state’s most extraordinary resources.