Posted on 06/28/2003 9:04:06 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood
THE CALIFORNIA Coastal Commission has renewed its push to convince the Legislature to give it much more power over local zoning laws, even as a Sacramento attorney is asking the state Supreme Court to take away the commission's law-enforcement powers altogether.
At a June 10 meeting in Long Beach, the coastal commission voted 6-2 to propose legislation that would give it the authority to make unilateral changes in the general plans of cities and counties along the state's 1,000-mile coastline. The law would also penalize cities and counties for failing to update their Local Coastal Programs once every 10 years.
A similar bill died in the Legislature last year. But citing changed circumstances -- including increased population and the declaration of new endangered and threatened species -- executive director Peter Douglas urged the commissioners to act.
The Coastal Act of 1976 required local governments to bring their general plans and ordinances into compliance with the statewide environmental standards. It also said once the coastal commission and a local government agreed on development rules -- through certification of each community's LCP -- the rules could be used to give development permits up and down the coast. And under current state law, LCPs cannot be tightened without the local government's consent, leaving some coastal commissioners frustrated that they have no power to undo agreements made by their predecessors.
"More than 20 years have passed since the first LCP was certified," Douglas wrote in a report to commissioners. Only one LCP has been fully updated, he said. The rest "contain policies and standards that do not reflect current needs or new scientific information," but are still being used by local governments to justify permit decisions.
"Many of the LCPs contain policies and standards that do not reflect current needs or new scientific information," Douglas wrote.
Carmel still has no Local Coastal Program (although it is expected to be completed this year). Neither does Monterey or Pacific Grove. But Big Sur, Carmel Point, Carmel Highlands and Pebble Beach are all covered by LCPs more than a decade old. According to Douglas, even though the coastal commission approved those LCPs, they may no longer meet the requirements of the Coastal Act.
In San Luis Obispo County, an LCP certified by the commission in the 1980s allowed construction of a hotel on Hearst Ranch -- something that is regarded as unthinkable by many current coastal commissioners. Yet, without the cooperation of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, the county's LCP cannot be changed.
Because of state budget cutbacks, it is unlikely the coastal commission will be able to hire new staff or provide financial incentives for cities and counties to update their zoning laws, Douglas said. Instead, he wants the legislature to give the commission broad new powers to compel changes in local zoning codes. The commission also called for substantially increasing coastal development fees in order to raise money for periodic reviews of LCPs.
Monterey County's representative on the coastal commission, Dave Potter, does not support the proposed law, and cast one of the two votes against it.
"I don't think it's a good time to ask for legislation," Potter said. "And if we want legislation, the state ought to provide the dollars that the local governments are going to need."
Potter also argued that imposing LCP updates on cities could lead to increased confrontation between cities and the commission.
The coastal commission vote came as the California Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of the commission. An appeals court ruled last December that the commission violated the separation of powers clause of the State Constitution by acting as a law enforcement agency, even though it was controlled by the Legislature.
Ron Zumbrun, who represents the environmental group challenging the coastal commission's authority, filed his response to the commission's latest arguments June 16.
He asked the Supreme Court to uphold the appeals court's Dec. 28 ruling by ordering the commission to give up its "executive and judicial" functions. According to Zumbrun, the coastal commission could continue to set standards for environmental protection of the coast. But property owners would get their permits from local governments.
He argued that the legislative fix applied to the commission last May isn't adequate because the legislature still controls eight of 12 coastal commission appointments.
And Zumbrun said a final court ruling that the coastal commission is unconstitutional shouldn't affect "lawful" acts of the commission during the 27 years it was illegally structured. But anything the commission did that was against the law -- including many cases where the commission forced property owners to grant public easements across their land before the U.S. Supreme Court put a halt to the practice in 1987 -- should be subject to a new court challenge, even if the statute of limitations has long since expired.
His adversary in the case, Deputy Attorney General Joseph Barbieri, argued in his opening brief to the Supreme Court last month that "150 years of unwavering Constitutional history" had validated the Legislature's power to appoint members of executive branch agencies. He cited more than a dozens court decisions to support his argument -- many of them from the 19th Century.
But Zumbrun maintained that Barbieri's description of government in California was "mythological" and that his "lengthy historical discussion served only to divert attention from the fact that this case is governed by the California Constitution as it now exists."
And Zumbrun claimed that "No California or federal court, including the United States Supreme Court, has held that a legislature may appoint the majority of an executive agency or commission without violating the separation of powers clause."
He also used his reply brief to once again make the case for his client's experimental reef off the Newport Beach Pier -- a project which the coastal commission had belittled.
The Marine Forests Society's objective, Zumbrun said, is to "facilitate the the creation of underwater marine forests, whose seaweed and shellfish growth on sandy bottoms will replace lost marine habitats."
The group's project that led to the legal battle with the coastal commission is a big success, Zumbrun said, and has developed into a habitat which "supports a higher density of marine life than has been seen on any other artificial reef built in California."
The attorney general's office has 20 days to respond to Zumbrun's latest arguments. Then the supreme court will wait 30 days for "friends of the court" briefs to be submitted. Next, the court will schedule oral arguments, Zumbrun said, with a ruling likely before the end of the year.
I'm amazed the Coastal Commission has the nerve to try and expand their tyranny at the same time people are rising against them.
I would like to remind you that Governor Gray Davis was intimately involved in shaking down political contributions in exchange for Coastal Commission approval of projects. Blackmail and extortion are nothing new to the Coastal Commission.
I think the best way forward is to recall Davis. This creep is a major supporter of the Commission, not because he believes in it, but because he knows he can leech political contributions through it.
D
Sacramento area and rights, farms, environment ping.
If you want on or off either of these lists, let me know.
I do believe Ron Zumbrun is of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a pro property rights firm. He has set the CC back many ways and will continue to do so with monetary support from caring citizens.
Eureka has a LCP but that doesn't stop appeals from going to the local CC cell block and on to the "Mother Ship"...
Yes. Newspaper spin has him portrayed as an environmental lawyer. There is a reason for it. (I don't think the little Carmel Pine Cone is a leftist rag like most of the other newspapers.)
-
He has set the CC back many ways and will continue to do so with monetary support from caring citizens.
From the article:
"He argued that the legislative fix applied to the commission last May isn't adequate because the legislature still controls eight of 12 coastal commission appointments."
When the issue first arose, I knew the leftists would put their "fix" in and do nothing to really fix it. They want the CC to be a super-legislature like they have abused the courts. At one time they were even talking about extending the CC despotism across the entire state. Imagine that.
This thread here: Laird squares off against mayors (a leftist ripping off voters), is an example of what they are up to. Pay attention to how this local Water Management District circumvents legitimate land use process and local legislative representation...
This thread: Laird squares off against mayors (a leftist ripping off voters); is an illustration of how legitimate land use process is circumvented. (At one time, I remember talk of extending CC despotism across the whole state.) Pay attention to the tactics of this local Water Management District...
SFD, Nah. Vultures clean up the dead and are good despite their ghastly appearance. This bureaucracy is more of a "pretty" parasite that creates the death of freedom and representative government. Paid for by the dieing host. This is evil! Peace and love, George.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.