The battle between Malibu residents and the California Coastal Commission over city land regulation moved to a new front recently when a group of Malibu residents and lawyers tried to block the federal government from routinely recertifying California’s Coastal Management Plan.
The certification is part of the federal government program that also gives dollars to the state to maintain the coast.
The California Coastal Commission had sent an application to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) listing legislative changes that had taken place in California over the last few years and called its application “routine.”
When Malibu citizens got wind of the application, they sent letters stating their opinion that the Coastal Commission’s application was anything but routine. In fact, they say it was an amendment of the Coastal Management Plan and that it required a new environmental impact report.
Local citizens also charged far from routine was the passage of Assembly Bill 988 (AB 988), which removed the power to write the Land Use Plan from the City of Malibu and gave it to the California Coastal Commission.
With the help of local lawyers, including Todd M. Sloan, a group of Malibu residents met in order to draft a letter to NOAA, which funds and oversees the California Coastal Management Plan.
“The letter was sent because the Coastal Commission tried to convince NOAA that AB 988 was routine under their coastal management program change,” said Sloan. “There was a meeting a week before the letter went out, with about 15 residents and 10 lawyers.”
After the letter was sent to NOAA, the Coastal Commission amended its application and removed the portion that included AB988.
“In the face of my letter and other letters, the Coastal Commission removed AB 988 from NOAA’s consideration,” said Sloan. “The ball may now be in the Coastal Commission’s court to respond back to NOAA.”
On an entirely different front, the Coastal Commission is also under attack in the Court of Appeals where a case is being heard that challenges its constitutionality.
The case, brought by Rodolphe Streichenberger, president and founder of the Marine Forests Society in Newport Beach, seeks to have the Coastal Commission declared unconstitutional.
In a phone interview, Streichenberger charged the Coastal Commission has not effectively proved why it should continue to receive millions of dollars in federal funding.
He believes the commission has operated without the best intentions of California residents since its inception more than 25 years ago.
“The recommendations of [the] CCC (Coastal Commission) are always in line with the CCC’s policy,” Streichenberger said. “This policy is totally a policy of control. The CCC pretends to control the right of millions of Californians to place ‘on land, in or under water … any solid material or structure.’ “
He added, “No tyrant in any country has ever imposed such a law. Also, the CCC is trying to end the self-governance of cities, counties and communities by imposing state-mandated local programs.”
Explaining the nature of the relationship between NOAA and the Coastal Commission, Bill Millhouser, Pacific Regional Manager in the Coastal Programs Division for NOAA, said, “The Coastal Commission is the lead agency of the coastal program. It has a number of specific things that are evaluated.”
Millhouser also revealed that all organizations like the CCC that operate and receive funding from NOAA are subject to rigorous evaluation to determine whether funding should continue.
“Every three years we perform an evaluation under the Costal Zone Act that we are still in the process of completion,” Millhouser said. “We make the findings and are currently still completing the evaluation. That secures the eligibility of the state for receiving the funds.
“They (the CCC) receive a little over $2 million a year after the application and evaluation process.”
However, Streichenberger discloses the strained relationship between the Coastal Commission and his organization, which specializes in the development of new marine habitats.
“I wrote the (evaluation) to answer NOAA, which requested that the California public send appreciations of the CCC work,” Streichenberger said. “NOAA did not answer. They decided to continue their federal funding to CCC with a new 2001-02 grant of $3,070,000.”
Despite the revelations, Streichenberger believes he understands why funding for the commission continues.
“The CCC funding is political,” he said. “The general public is actually changing its opinion on the CCC from mixed to bad. The position of Peter Douglas at the NOAA Advisory Science Committee, although Douglas is not a scientist, can be an explanation for the funding.”
The California Coastal Commission was initially established through Proposition 20, which was passed in 1972, and deemed it officially permanent through the Coastal Act four years later.
Its main objectives were to regulate land and water use through the policies of the Coastal Act.
See Publisher Arnold York’s column on page A4.