News
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Sign up for Email Updates
CGF In the News
Press Inquiries
Past Articles
Calendar

Read these related articles, also from the Summer 2005 Green Footnotes:

The Coastal Act and the California Coastal Commission

CGF Environmental Forum: Coastal Clash

Ethics at the Coastal Commission
by Jeff Segall and Lennie Roberts

The Coastal Act is a strong, well-structured environmental law designed to protect the California Coast. However, like any other law, its value depends entirely on how effectively it is enforced. In the case of the Coastal Act, that enforcement responsibility rests with the 12 voting members of the Coastal Commission.

The California Coastal Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency charged with upholding the Coastal Act, thereby managing California's coastal resources for all Californians. There is much at stake - including money - and the Commission is heavily lobbied by the many interests affected by its policies and decisions.

Are development interests swaying Commissioners?
Because these positions are both very public and very powerful, and because passions run deep on both sides, Coastal Commissioners must be very aware of their conduct, their votes, and the public's perception of the manner in which they conduct themselves. Unfortunately, we have observed Commissioners who appear to be unduly influenced by development interests.

Highly-paid corporate lobbyists entertain some Commissioners at every Commission meeting. While we cannot be certain that the letter of the law has been broken, the public appearance is not good. For some Commissioners, power, influence and money - rather than upholding the Coastal Act - all too often appear to be the basis of their decisions.

Recent decisions contradicted Coastal Act
For example, a major issue affecting the future of agriculture along the Coast was heard at the Commission's May meeting. The project as proposed by the applicants, Keith and Cindy Waddell, called for a 7650-square foot home near Highway 1 and Tunitas Creek Road, with a 3000-foot driveway through environmentally-sensitive habitat.

The Commission's staff recommended siting the driveway in a less environmentally-sensitive area. The staff also recommended limiting the house size, because mega-mansions in coastal areas designated for agriculture have led to rapidly escalating land prices, thereby making farming less viable. The Coastal Act mandates the protection of agriculture and sensitive habitats in coastal areas, thus giving the staff's recommendation a solid legal basis.

Two Commissioners, David Potter and Toni Iseman, led the way to reject the staff's recommendation and do everything permissible (as well as a few questionable things) to give the applicants exactly what they wanted, seemingly oblivious to the words and spirit of the Coastal Act. These same two Commissioners were out to dinner the night before with the Waddells, along with their lobbyist, David Neish. The majority went along, over the objections of Commissioners Wan, Shallenberger, and Caldwell.

Approval of this project sets a troubling precedent for mega-mansions in agricultural areas along Coast. During the public hearing, testimony was offered that similar proposals for very large trophy homes in lands zoned for agriculture were accelerating up and down the Coast. Indeed, in San Mateo County, individuals have built mega-mansions as large as 21,000 square feet.

New appointments offer potential for improvement
The 12 voting members of the Commission are appointed: four by the Governor (serving at his pleasure), four appointed by the Senate Rules Committee for four-year terms, and four appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly for four-year terms.

Recently, four Commissioners' terms have expired, and we expect them to be appointed or re-appointed very shortly (perhaps by the time you read this newsletter). Some of these Commissioners - including our own Central Coast representative, Dave Potter, are very weak on coastal protections. CGF and others have been urging Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez to instead call for a list of prospective candidates, and to appoint a Commissioner who will vigorously uphold the Coastal Act.

Because the Legislature recently enacted fixed four-year terms for Commissioners, it is more important than ever to ensure that Commissioners will implement the Coastal Act and preserve coastal resources.

We hope that new Commissioners will be mindful of the inappropriateness of socializing with lobbyists who spend money entertaining them, and that the Speaker and President Pro Tem of the Senate will take steps to ensure that Commissioners are ethical.

Legislation might help regulate ethics
Also in the works are two pieces of legislation that would enhance the rules governing the ethical standards at the Coastal Commission.

SB 929 (Kehoe) would close a loophole by requiring lobbyists to comply with the registration and reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act of 1974 when communicating with Coastal Commissioners or Commission staff on certain matters. This would require these lobbyists to disclose, among other things, the specific actions they are attempting to influence, as well as any payments or gifts made or received or expenses incurred in connection with their activities.

AB 771 (Saldaña) addresses the responsibilities of Coastal Commissioners meeting privately with parties with an interest in matters coming before the Commission (such meetings are known as ex parte communications). As currently written, AB771 would increase the penalties for violating existing rules. Amendments to AB771 being drafted by Assemblymember Saldaña's office would, among other provisions, make records of Commissioners' ex parte communications available on the internet.

Committee for Green Foothills is following both of these bills as they evolve in the legislative process, as well as other ways to ensure a strong Coastal Commission that is dedicated to upholding the Coastal Act and committed to conducting itself according to the highest ethical standards. Of course, good Commissioners are the best "fix" for current problems. In the end, constraints on lobbying and requirements for transparency cannot substitute for principled Commission members who take their obligation to uphold the Coastal Act seriously.