Holding the Cal. Coastal Commission Accountable
Last week, PLF filed a petition with California’s Office of Administrative Law, asking the agency to review and determine whether a long-running California Coastal Commission policy against seawalls is illegal. We represent the Coastal Rights Coalition, a non-profit organization representing the interests of thousands of coastal homeowners throughout California.
California’s Coastal Act was designed to preserve coastal resources and public beach access while also protecting private property rights. The Coastal Commission is notorious for ignoring the latter. Since 2010, it has required property owners applying for permits to build new homes (or to substantially redevelop old ones) to forever waive their right to protect the home against storms or erosion with a seawall or other shoreline protective device. This is despite the fact that the Coastal Act specifically recognizes the right of property owners to protect homes and other structures from erosion with shoreline protective devices. Among other wrongs, the policy leaves homeowners in the awful position of having to tear down or move their homes in the event of catastrophic storms or a collapsing bluff.
Remarkably, the policy is as illegal as it is harmful to coastal property owners. Under California’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the Commission cannot implement any new policy such as this one without going through a formal process, including public notice, comment, and hearings. The Commission did not do any of that: the new policy was implemented with no input from property owners or anyone other than a cloistered circle of people around the Commission and its staff.
The Office of Administrative Law is an agency that reviews the policies of other state agencies to determine their compliance with the APA. We hope they accept the petition and take the Commission to task–likely within the next 90 days. It is the first step in bringing the Commission to heel, or else further legal action in the courts may be required.
What to read next
PLF filed an application asking the Michigan Supreme Court to grant review and bring justice to Uri Rafaeli—who lost an entire home to Oakland County over an $8 debt, and to Andrew Ohanessian—who lost 2.7 acres over a $6,000 debt.
A trial court in Marin County, California, handed down a tentative ruling in Cherk v. County of Marin, rejecting the Cherk family’s argument that it was unconstitutional for the County to force them to pay $40,000 into an “affordable housing” fund.
Before making a decision, most organizations take into account the costs and benefits of a proposed action, and will change course if the costs outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, the federal government takes a different approach…
When the Cherk family applied for a permit to split their large residential parcel into two lots, the County of Marin demanded they pay $40,000 into the County’s “affordable housing” fund as a condition of the permit. The Cherks objected, but got nowhere with County officials and ultimately paid the fee under protest.