ORCA

(Organization of Regional Coastal Activists)

TRAINING MANUAL

1- Overview of the Coastal Act

Chapters
LCPs
2- Federal Jurisdiction
3- Coastal Commission Structure
4- Legal issues
5- Appeals, Cease & Desist, Revocation, Reconsideration
6- Monitoring Development
7- Working with staff
8- Preparing for a Commission hearing
Appendices:
a. Map of Commission appointments
b. Approved LCPs Maps
c. Appeals form

This document is the property of ORCA and cannot be reproduced without

the permission of ORCA
Date: July 17, 2007
 Chapter One
OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL ACT

A. Historical Review

§ California Coastal Conservation Initiative, Proposition 20, was passed by the

voters in November 1972 and established the Coastal Commission. (See
http://www.coastal.ca.gov )

§ California Coastal Act, enacted by the State Legislature in 1976 (California Public
Resources Code Section 30000 et seq: California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Section 13000 et. seq.)

§ The Coastal Act contains the standards used by the Coastal Commission when
reviewing coastal development permit decisions, Local Coastal Programs, federal
consistency reviews, public works plans, University Long Range Development
Plans and Port Master Plans.

§ The Coastal Act is umbrella legislation that is designed to encourage local

governments to create local coastal plans to govern decisions that determine the
short and long-term conservation and use of coastal resources.

§ The Coastal Act addresses development within the Coastal Zone. The Coastal
Zone consists of 1,100 miles from Oregon to Mexico including 287 miles of
shoreline surrounding nine off-shore islands, encompasses 1.5 million acres of
land, and stretches from 3 miles at sea to an inland boundary that varies from
several blocks in urban areas to as much as 5 miles in less developed areas.

B. FUNCTION OF THE CHAPTERS

§ The Coastal Act is divided into 10 chapters, but the heart of the Coastal Act is
found in chapter 3.

§ Chapter 3 called ‘Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies’ (Section

30200 et. seq.) contains seven articles that mandate protection of public beach
access, recreational opportunities, marine and land resources, and govern all
development:

Article 1: General Introduction

Defines policies as ‘standards’ for review of coastal development inside the coastal zone. Article
1 mandates that where Chapter three policies conflict, they
1
 may be resolved in a manner which on balance is most protective of significant
coastal resources.

Article 2: Public Access

Mandates that new development shall not interfere with the public's right of
access to the sea. Mandates developers shall provide new access to the sea,
however recent federal court takings decisions have substantially weakened the
application of this Coastal Act policy. However, it still permits the offset of loss
of existing access, including access achieved through prescriptive rights, caused
by the development.

Also places priority on lower cost visitor serving facilities. The application of this
is not straightforward. The commission does not set specific rates for hotels and
there is no definition of what is “lower cost”. Recently, the commission has been
allowing the development of “condo hotels” which some consider a privatization
of the coast but others contend are necessary to facilitate development of hotels in
the coastal zone, although these hotels are not lower cost.

Article 3: Recreation
Coastal areas suited for coastal recreational activities shall be protected for such
uses. Places a priority on coastal dependent recreational or visitor serving uses
over residential uses. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses
shall be reserved for such uses and for coastal aquaculture and shall be given
priority, except over other coastal dependent uses.

Article 4: Marine Environment

Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced and, where feasible, restored.

Uses shall be carried out in a manner to sustain the biological productivity of
coastal waters. The biological productivity and quality of coastal waters, streams,
wetlands, estuaries and lakes shall be maintained and restored. Sections 30230
and 30231 provide the major link to issues dealing with water quality issues.

This Article also contains major sections dealing with wetlands, (30233) and what
is allowed in a wetland, armoring (30235), and stream alterations (30236).
This Article also contains major sections dealing with wetlands, (30233) and what
is allowed in a wetland, armoring (30235), and stream alterations (30236).

Section 30233: Only 8 allowable reasons to fill a wetland

• Expanded port, energy and coastal-dependent industrial facilities
• Maintaining existing or restoring previously dredged navigational
channels
• Entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities
• Placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers
• Incidental public service
2
 • Mineral extraction
• Restoration
• Nature study, aquaculture

The Coastal Commission uses the State of California definition of wetlands, not the Army Corps.
There are three indicators that are used to determine if an area is a wetland : Hydrology (ponds
long enough to result in the formation of hydric soils- 7 days, Hydric soils and a preponderance
of Hydrophytic plants. The Army Corps requires all three indicators to be present, the State of
California, only one. In addition, the Commission does not differentiate between degraded or
fully functioning wetlands. If the area meets the criteria for a wetland, it is a wetland.

Section 30235: Allows armoring only to protect coastal-dependent uses or

existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion. Armoring must be
designed to prevent impacts on shoreline sand supply. When dealing with new
development it must be read in conjunction with Section 30253 so that “new”
development does not immediately become “existing” development once erected
and therefore entitled to armoring.

Section 30236:Alteration of rivers and streams-limited to water supply and flood

control projects or development where the primary function is improvement of
habitat.

Article 5: Land Resources

Section 30240 and 30233 from Article 4 contain the heart of the Coastal Act as it
pertains to the protection of habitat and species. The language protecting
environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) is the strongest of any
environmental law in the Nation.

ESHA under the Coastal Act means any area in which plant or animal life or their
habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or
role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human
activities and development.

ESHA is not defined according to the ESA (Endangered Species Act) and listed
species are not required to be present for an area to be considered ESHA. The
Coastal Act takes an ecosystem approach to ESHA and therefore provides
protection to habitats and serves to prevent species from becoming endangered.

It states that ESHA's shall be protected and that development adjacent to ESHA
shall be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts on the ESHA and follows
that with the limitation that only uses dependent on ESHA resources shall be
allowed (e.g., nature study). Protection of ESHA under the Coastal Act is
different from that provided through the state’s Natural Communities
Conservation Program (NCCP), the federal Habitat Conservation Program (HCP),
the Endangered Species Acts applied by the California Department of Fish and
Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service and do not trump the Coastal Act.
3
 This article also addresses agricultural land protection (30241-30243) requiring
that prime ag land be maintained and protected. Also has relatively weak
protections for archaeological resources (30244).

Article 6: Development
Development should be clustered (30250), the scenic and visual qualities of
coastal areas should be protected (30251) and the location and amount of new
development should maintain and enhance beach access (30232). This article also
contains section (30253) that new development shall not require armoring nor
substantial alteration of natural landforms. It also contains the geologic/hazard
section (30253), that states the intent of the Legislature that Highway 1 remain a
scenic 2 lane road (30254), requires that there be sufficient infrastructure to
accommodate new development (30254) and mandates that coastal dependent
development shall have priority over other development (30255).

Article 7: Industrial Development:

The Commission has permitting authority over all offshore oil and gas and energy
development within 3 miles as well as onshore facilities within the coastal zone.
This article deals with oil and gas development (30252), tanker facilities (30261),
refineries (30263), oil pipelines (30265), encourages industrial facilities to locate
or expand within existing sites but allows accommodation for coastal-dependent
facilities (30260) and provides the commission with only limited input into the
siting and design of coastal power plants.

30260 states that coastal-dependent industrial facilities may be permitted even if

they are inconsistent with other Chapter 3 policies if alternative locations are
infeasible or more environmentally damaging and to do otherwise would
adversely affect public welfare, provided the adverse environmental effects are
mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

4
 C. LOCAL COASTAL PLANS, OTHER PLANNING
DOCUMENTS & PERIODIC REVIEWS
Local Coastal Programs
Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide
development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission. LCPs contain the
ground rules for future development and protection of coastal resources in the 74 coastal cities
and counties. The LCPs specify appropriate location, type and scale of new or changed uses of
land and water. Each LCP includes a land use plan (LUP) and an IP with measures to implement
the plan (such as zoning ordinances). For an LCP to be complete it must contain both an LUP
and an IP. The IP must be consistent with the LUP. Prepared by local government, these
programs govern decisions that determine the short- and long-term conservation and use of
coastal resources. While each LCP reflects unique characteristics of individual local coastal
communities, regional and statewide interests and concerns must also be addressed in conformity
with Coastal Act goals and policies. Following adoption by a city council or county board of
supervisors, an LCP is submitted to the Coastal Commission for review and approval for
conformity with Coastal Act requirements.

Many of the 74 coastal counties and cities have elected to divide their coastal zone jurisdictions
into separate geographic segments, resulting in some 126 separate LCPs. As of 2002,
approximately 70 percent of the LCP segments have been effectively certified, representing close
to 90 percent of the geographic area of the coastal zone. Local governments are issuing coastal
permits in these areas. In some areas, the certified LCP is for only part of the coastal zone. Areas
not included are called “areas of deferred certification (“white holes”). To determine the status of
the LCP in any given geographic area, contact the appropriate district office of the Coastal
Commission. (See http://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcps.html )

After an LCP has been finally approved, the Commission’s coastal permitting authority over
most new development is transferred to the local government, which applies the requirements of
the LCP in reviewing proposed new developments. The Commission retains permanent coastal
permit jurisdiction over development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands and public trust
lands, and the Commission also acts on appeals from certain local government coastal permit
decisions (see below). The Commission reviews and approves any amendments to previously
certified Local Coastal Programs.

LCPs and LCP amendments are some of the most important matters to come to the Commission.
Since these represent the guidelines for most future development in an area their review should
be considered extremely important to all parties.

§ Of the 74 cities and counties in coastal California, 65% of local coastal governments now
have fully certified Local Coastal Plans covering 90% of the coast.

§ When an area has a certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP), the local government has
permitting authority over most new development

§ All development within an area covered by an LCP shall be consistent with that plan, but
appeals are limited.

5
 § All development within an area covered by an LCP shall be consistent with that plan, but
appeals are limited.

§ If a city or county with a certified LCP approves a project within a limited appeals area
(see section on appeals) that is not consistent with the certified LCP or Coastal Act public
access policies, you may appeal that decision to the Coastal Commission if you objected
to the project at the local level. It is critical that you participate at the local level either in
person or by writing a letter so you will be eligible to appeal to the Coastal Commission
if necessary. You must file the appeal within 10 days of receipt by the CCC of the local
government's final local action notification

§ If an area is not certified (15% of the coast) then the standard of review for all
development is the Coastal Act.

§ The commission retains original jurisdiction over tidelands, submerged lands and public
trust lands

§ Any proposed changes to a certified LCP must be submitted to the Coastal Commission
in the form of an amendment and must be judged consistent with the Coastal Act to be
approved.

§ To determine if your area has a certified LCP Attachment A includes a map of all
certified areas as well as a detailed list of certified LCP’s.

OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS

In addition to LCPs there are other planning documents that must go through review and
approval by the Commission. They are:

Long Range Development Plans (LRDP): Similar to LCPs these are planning
documents prepared by public Universities and Colleges. Once reviewed and approved by the
Commission development that is consistent with these plans must be noticed to the commission
but it does not come to the commission for approval. Amendments to LRDPs must be reviewed
and approved by the Commission.

Port Master Plans. These plans come to the commission for review and approval for
consistency with the Coastal Act. As with LRDPs above, the commission must only be noticed
of the impending development. Amendments to the Port Master Plans must be reviewed and
approved by the Commission but the Commission may not make modifications to these
amendments and the decision is simply whether the amendment is or is not consistent with the
Coastal Act. The decision is therefore an up or down one.

Public Works Plans: Again these are planning documents for major public works, or
parks or other public agencies and are similar in nature to LRDPs.

6
 LCP Periodic Reviews
Section 30519.5 of the Coastal Act requires that the Commission, at least every five years
"review every certified local coastal program to determine whether such program is being
effectively implemented in conformity with the policies" of the Coastal Act, and recommend
corrective actions, where necessary. The local government reviews the recommendations and
within one year either takes the recommended action or forwards to the commission a report
setting forth its reasons for not taking the recommended action. The commission then reviews
such report and, where appropriate, reports to the Legislature and recommends legislative action
necessary to assure effective implementation of the Coastal Act. Periodic reviews and updates of
aging plans are extremely important however this section lacks teeth and is one of the greatest
weaknesses in the Coastal Act.

One of the biggest problems facing the environmental community is that most certified LCPs are
old, out of date, and have been amended numerous times without a comprehensive review. This
is in part because this section of the Coastal Act lacks teeth, but also because the Commission
lacks the funds necessary to implement this. While some local governments are updating their
own LCPs, the periodic review process carried out by the Commission is essential to identify
changed circumstances (e.g., new information about habitat and species, water quality
protections, climate change, alignment of the Coastal Trail, renewable energy needs) and to
ensure a comprehensive regional evaluation of how effective the LCP has been in carrying out
Coastal Act policies. To determine if your area has a certified LCP, Attachment A includes a
map of all certified areas as well as a detailed list of certified LCP’s.

D. KEY ISSUES FACING THE CALIFORNIA COAST

§ The Key issues facing the California coast are:

· Inordinate influence of lobbyists and agents on Commission decisions

· Appointments of Commissioners
· Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA) and wetlands
· Public access
· Loss of agricultural lands
· DeSalinization Plants
· LNG Facilities
· Hotel Condo Conversions
· Water Quality
· Climate change
· Erosion/Armoring of the Coast
· Periodic Review and Update of LCPs

7
 Chapter 2
FEDERAL JURISDICTION

In addition to the authority granted to the Commission to regulate development under the Coastal
Act, the Commission also has jurisdiction over Federal Permits and licenses as well as activities
undertaken by federal agencies or that are federally funded that affect resources of the coastal
zone. Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) the Commission may review
Federal Permits or Activities for consistency with California’s Coastal Management Program
(CCMP), in this case the Coastal Act. It provides the Commission the ability to look at Federal
Activities and Permits (such as oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf in Federal waters, or
development on federal lands) to determine if they have an impact on the resources of the
Coastal Zone. Most importantly, the permits or activities involved do not have to occur within
the boundaries of the Coastal Zone, the test is whether or not they impact the resources OF the
Coastal Zone. If the Commission determines that the permit or activity is not consistent with the
CCMP then it must specify how the permit or activity may be changed to be found consistent.

There two types of reviews under the CZMA are called “Consistency Determinations” and
“Consistency Certifications”.

Consistency Determination:
This type of review applies to Federal activities. These activities must be consistent to the
"maximum extent practicable" with the Coastal Act. This means the activity must be consistent
with the Coastal Act unless Federal law prohibits that from happening. If the Commission
objects to the activity, it must specify how the Federal agency can make the activity consistent.
Federal agencies can proceed if the State objects; however conflicts are encouraged to be
resolved through mediation by the Secretary of Commerce. If the parties fail to agree, then
litigation is possible

Consistency Certification:
This type of review applies to federally permitted, licensed or otherwise federally approved
(funded) activities carried out by a non-federal entity. They must be fully consistent with the
Coastal Act. If the Commission objects the decision is appealable to the Secretary of Commerce

8
 Chapter Three
COASTAL COMMISSION

A. STRUCTURE BY APPOINTING AUTHORITY

§ The Coastal Commission is comprised of 12 voting members and 4 non-voting members.

(see http://www.coastal.ca.gov/roster.html )

§ There are 3 appointing authorities who are entitled to each appoint 4 Commissioners and
4 alternates. They are the Governor, The Senate Rules Committee (in reality the Senate
President Pro Tem) and the Assembly Speaker

§ Of the 12 voting members, 6 are drawn from the public and 6 are local elected officials
(county supervisors and city council members). The spots filled by elected officials must
be drawn from specific geographic regions for each appointing authority. The Governor:
North Coast region (Del Norte, Hunboldt, Mendocino) and South Central (Ventura, Santa
Barbara, San Luis Obispo). The Senate Rules Committee: North Central (Sonoma,
Marin, San Franacisco) and South Coast regions (L.A., Orange County). The Speaker:
Central Coast (Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo) and San Diego.

§ The terms of Commissioners have recently been changed. The Governor’s appointees
serve for two years but serve at the pleasure of the Governor and may be removed by him
at any time. The Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem's appointees serve for fixed
terms of 4 years. Commissioners may be reappointed.

§ Most commissioners have an alternate to sit as commissioner when the principal

commissioner is absent. By law, Commissioners must select their own alternates, though
that rarely occurs

The four non-voting members are appointed by their respective agencies: Trade and
Commerce, Resources, State Lands Commission and Business, Transportation and Housing.

Commissioners as of July 2007

Governor Senate Assembly

1. Steve Blank 1. Sara Wan 1. Pat Kruer (Chair)

Alternate: April Vargas Alternate: Adi Lieberman

2. Steve Kram 2. Mary Shallenberger 2. William Burke

Alternate: Dan Secord

3. Bonnie Neely -Humboldt 3. Mike Reilly-Sonoma 3. Dave Potter -Monterey

Alternate: Sharon Wright Alternate: Steve Kinsey

4. Khatchik Achadijian -SLO 4. Larry Clark-Rancho PV 4. Ben Hueso -San Diego

Alternate: Brooks Firestone Alternate: Suja Lowenthal Alternate: Lorena Gonzales 9
 MONITORING THE COASTAL COMMISSION

A. The CCC Voting Chart and the Sierra Club CoastWatcher

§ Since 1985, the Sierra Club, LCP and NRDC have published an Annual Coastal
Commission Conservation Voting Chart that tracks the voting records of each
commissioner on key issues. To view any of the charts go to:
http://sierraclub.org/ca/coasts/ and click on the year.
.
§ Despite criticism that the Commission is too 'green', the voting chart reveals that the
Commission dropped from a 76% pro-conservation vote in 1997 to 43% in 2006, with an
overall voting record during these 9 years of 50%. The Senate appointments have the
strongest pro-conservation scores while the Governor's appointments have the weakest.

§ Each month, the Sierra Club publishes a monthly CoastWatcher that details the important
votes at each Coastal Commission hearing and provides a commentary on the
proceedings. The CoastWatcher is available on line. To subscribe to the CoastWatcher,
go to http://www.lists.sierraclub.org/archives/calif-coastwatcher.html

B. Other Means of Keeping Track

§ The Coastal Commission also has a web page that contains numerous documents,
including a copy of the Coastal Act, which can be downloaded in PDF format.
Upcoming agendas are posted so that you can check if your issue is scheduled to be heard
at the next meeting. You can log on at: http://www.coastal.ca.gov

§ Vote the Coast also has information posted on its web site regarding coastal issues. You
can go to their site at www.votethecoast.org

§ The Commission’s meetings are now broadcast live on the Internet so you can watch the
Commission in action at www.coastal.ca.gov

§ ORCA (Organization of Regional Coastal Activists) maintains a web page that is both
public and private. You can access the public part of the web site by going to
www.calorca.org

§ ATTEND COASTAL COMMISSION MEETINGS AND MAKE YOUR OPINION

KNOWN

10
 Chapter Four
LEGAL ISSUES

Public Prescriptive Rights

What is a Public Prescriptive Right?

§ Prescriptive Rights refers to public rights that are acquired over private lands through use.
The general public has historically used numerous coastal areas and trails and may have
acquired the right to continue to use these areas.. Prescriptive rights may be acquired
over any land, but for lands more than 1000 yards from the sea, the prescriptive period
must be before 1972. Both inland trails and.trails to the beach, informal parking areas,
beaches and bluff tops have provided recreational opportunity. The public may have the
right to use the property by permission of the owner or the public may acquire the right
thought use of the property without permission.

§ Where the public has acquired the right through use, the public has essentially obtained
an easement over real property that comes into being without the explicit consent of the
owner. In fact, if the owner provides permission, then the public does not gain a
prescriptive right or easement. The acquisition of such an easement is referred to as an
"implied dedication", the right acquired is also referred to as a "public prescriptive
easement". This term recognizes that the use must continue for the length of the
"prescriptive period" before a public easement comes into being. In California the
prescriptive period is five years.

§ Since 1972, a landowner may prevent the creation of prescriptive rights by posting signs
containing the language set forth in Civil Code Section 1008 "right to pass by permission,
and subject to control of owner: Section 1008, Civil Code" and renewing the same if they
are removed, at least once a year or by publishing such language in a newspaper.

Another method to prevent creation of public rights that the landowner may use is to
record in the office of the recorder of the county in which the land is situated a notice of
consent to public use.

§ The loss of historical access and recreational sites funnels a growing population into
fewer and fewer areas and can reduce the range of uses as well. Prescriptive trials or sites
may provide access to bluff tops, wide sandy beaches, remote coastal areas, rocky fishing
sites, scuba entry points, intimate pocket beaches and more, providing for a wide variety
of coastal experiences.

The Coastal Commission and Prescriptive Rights.

Under the Coastal Act, the Commission is required to maximize public access. On sites with
coastal development permit proposals, where investigation shows that public use is substantial
enough to create potential prescriptive rights, the Coastal Commission is required to protect
those areas of use prior to approving a development project that would interfere with those
rights.
11
If you believe that such rights exist and can provide sufficient evidence to the staff of this on a
particular project, you may request that the staff either condition the permit to provide for an
easement covering the area involved or an equivalent easement, i.e. it provides similar access to
the same area. If the applicant is unwilling to provide equivalent access you may request staff to
require a prescriptive rights study of the applicant.

Investigating Potential Prescriptive Rights

§ The Commission, in conjunction with the State Attorney General's Office, can investigate
areas of potential prescriptive rights. The goal of prescriptive rights investigation is to
gather enough information about the subject property to accurately detail the property's
history and use status.

§ The initiation of a prescriptive rights investigation is not a determination that a

prescriptive right exists. The outcome of the investigation will determine whether there
is a sound factual basis for making a claim of prescriptive rights
.
§ Only a court of law may make the final determination that a prescriptive right exists.

Criteria for Determining Prescriptive Rights to Use a Property

A prescriptive rights investigation includes documentary searches, on-site inspections and

questionnaires and interviews. The most important source of evidence is from persons familiar
with the past and current uses of the property. If you believe that these rights exist, you should
obtain as much information and evidence as possible. Get statements from those who claim to
have used the area. Find out when, and under what conditions they used it and keep in mind the
following basic criteria that you must establish:

§ The land has been used for at least five years as if it were public use
§ The use must be substantial rather than minimal and it must be continual, though it need
not be continuous
§ The use must be by members of the public, not just a few neighbors
§ The use must have been without asking or receiving permission from the owner
§ The use must have been with the actual or presumed knowledge of the owner
§ The use must have been without significant objection or bona fide attempts by the fee
owner to prevent or halt such use.

The Public's Role in Preserving Prescriptive Rights

A prescriptive rights investigation includes documentary searches, on-site inspections and

questionnaires and Interviews. The most important source of evidence is from persons familiar
with the past and current uses of the property. Participating in prescriptive rights investigations
will help identify where these rights exist and protect them in perpetuity.

12
(direct connection) between the impact of a new development and public access before a
condition, such as an access easement, can be included as a condition of development. There
must also be a legitimate governmental interest furthered by the condition required.

The second case was Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), which requires the governing entity to
establish not only a direct nexus between the impact and the required mitigation condition, but
also a showing that there is a rough proportionality between the impact and the condition,
particularly with respect to how conditions of permit approvals may be required to mitigate the
negative impacts of individual developments. Both Nollan and Dolan involved possesory
interests in private property (i.e., an easement for public use) and may be distinguished from
other conditions that protect resources, such as agricultural lands protection, open space, or
conservation easements. However, even conditions seeking to protect habitat that do not involve
a public use interest in property are beginning to be curtailed by the courts.

These cases, and other cases, have affected the manner in which both the public access
requirements and other provisions of the Coastal Act are implemented.

As a result of these cases it is more difficult to obtain new offers to dedicate access easements
(OTDs). It is not impossible, so long as those seeking to protect the public's rights of access
obtain sufficient evidence that such rights exist on a property and the development would
interfere with those rights. In making your presentations at the Commission and to staff, it is
important to demonstrate how the proposed development will negatively impact public access.

Takings

Since the late 1980s a series of Supreme Court cases regarding various "takings" issues have
influenced how state and local government implement their land use regulatory programs.
These cases are based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states,
in part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation". If the
Commission, or any other regulatory body, makes a decision with regards to land use that could
be considered to be a “taking” of property for public use, (i.e. by denying the owner all
economically viable use or by placing conditions on that use so as to effectively deny it's use)
then the regulatory agency could be directed to pay monetary compensation for the restrictions
on use of the property. Since no public agency has the fiscal resources to pay damages or
compensation for “takings” they routinely avoid making decisions that could be challenged as a
“takings.” This has had a chilling effect on many regulatory decisions,out of fear of litigation
expenses.

Section 30010 of the Coastal Act provides that the Coastal Act shall not be construed as
authorizing the Commission to exercise its power to grant or deny a permit in a manner which
will “take” private property for public use. The subject of what government action results in a
"taking" was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council.
In Lucas, the Court identified several factors that should be considered in determining whether a
proposed government action would result in a taking. For instance, the Court held that where a
permit applicant has demonstrated that he or she has a sufficient real property interest in the
property to allow the proposed project and that project denial would deprive the owner of all
economically viable use, then denial of the project by a regulatory agency might result in a
taking of property for public use unless the proposed project would constitute a nuisance under

13
State law. Another factor that should be considered is the extent to which a project denial would
interfere with reasonable investment-backed expectations. The Commission interprets Section
30010, together with the Lucas decision, to mean that if Commission denial of the project would
deprive an applicant of all economically viable use, the Commission may be required to allow
some development even where a Coastal Act policy would otherwise prohibit it, unless the
proposed project would constitute a nuisance under state law. This is the so-called “takings
override” provision of the Coastal Act (i.e., where a proposed project cannot be approved
consistent with the resource protection policies of the Coastal Act but must be approved to avoid
a “takings”). Its application does not mean the Commission must approve the project applied
for, so long as what is approved is the minimal amount necessary to render it “economically
viable.” If there is already development on a property, then there is no basis for a takings since
the applicant already has a use of his property. If the applicant is seeking a subdivision, there is
no requirement for an approval of the subdivision which is a discretionary decision and denial
does not constitute a takings.

The fear of potential takings lawsuits which could cost a jurisdiction funds has had a chilling
affect on both state and local governments' willingness to pursue public access-related and other
coastal resources protections, even in the face of known adverse impacts.

There is also no basis for a takings claim at the planning stage. Therefore, down zoning at the
LCP stage does not constitute a takings, contrary to what many private property rights
advocates would have you believe.

14
 Chapter 5
Appeals, Cease & Desist,
Revocation, Reconsideration

APPEALS

§ After certification of its Local Coastal Program, an action taken by a local government on
a Coastal Development Permit application may be appealed to the Commission for only
development:

1) Approved by the local government between the sea and the first public road
paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean
high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance
2) Approved by the local government not included within paragraph (1) that are
located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any
wetland, estuary, stream or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any
coastal bluff.
3) Developments approved by the local government not included within paragraph (1)
or (2) that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area. (See below for explanation
of why this is usually not a basis for appeal)
4) Any development approved by a coastal county that is not designated as the
principal permitted use under the zoning ordinance or approved zoning map.
5) Any development which constitutes a major public works project or a major
energy facility

§ Provided the development is in the appeal jurisdiction of the Commission or meets the
conditions above, then it may be appealed. The grounds for an appeal are limited to an
allegation that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified
Local Coastal Program or the public access policies of the Coastal Act
.
§ Hearings by the Commission to determine if an appealed project should be reviewed by
the Commission are called Substantial Issue hearings.

§ Section 30625 of the Coastal Act states that the Commission shall hear an appeal unless it
finds that the appeal does not raise a substantial issue with respect to the grounds on
which the appeal has been filed.

§ There is no definition of the term "substantial issue".

§ The Commission, based on previous decisions and court decisions, has been guided by
the following factors:
o The degree of factual and legal support for the local government's decision that the
development is consistent or inconsistent with the certified LCP and with the public
access policies of the Coastal Act
o The extent and scope of the development as approved or denied by the local
government

15
 o The significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision
o The precedential value of the local government's decision for future
interpretations of its LCP
o Whether the appeal raises purely local neighborhood or private issues (e.g.,
blockage of private views), or issues of broader public importance (i.e.of regional
or statewide significance)

§ It is important to understand that most projects are not appealable once an LCP has been
certified, even if they impact sensitive habitat or other coastal resources. Developments
approved by local governments that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area should
be appealable to the Commission. However, when the Coastal Act was passed it had a
requirement that the Commission determine what constituted a "sensitive resource area"
by a date certain (1978). When the Commission failed to make that determination it lost
the ability to appeal projects that might impact such Commission identified resources in
areas outside its statutory appeal zone. However, some local governments designated
certain geographic areas in their LCPs as “sensitive coastal resource areas” which the
Commission maintains makes projects approved in such areas appealable.

§ If the staff recommends Substantial Issue (that is, they recommend that the Commission
review the project de novo on appeal), then the Commission is deemed to have found a
Substantial Issue (SI) is raised by the appeal, unless 3 or more commissioners wish to
hear testimony on the question of SI. This means that unless 3 Commissioners want to
have a discussion on the question of SI, the public hearing will be continued open and
testimony will be taken during the de novo portion of the review process – which could
occur during the same meeting or be continued until a later Commission meeting.

§ If the staff recommends no substantial issue (NSI) (recommends that the Commission not
review the project on appeal) then there is a hearing with testimony on the question of SI

§ If there is a hearing on SI, either because staff recommends NSI or the Commission has
decided to hear the question, the hearing is very brief, limited to 3 minutes per side. Only
those who testified or participated at the local level are eligible to testify at the
Substantial Issue hearing

§ If the Commission finds SI either with or without testimony then the next step is a de
novo hearing on the project. That is, the Commission holds a full hearing with testimony
on the merits of the project de novo (as new).

§ Sometimes appeals are listed on the agenda but are not heard. The Commission must
hear an appeal within 45 days after the appeal has been filed. If the staff has not received
the record or had sufficient time to analyze the project, there will be no staff report and
the Commission will only open the hearing on SI and then continue it to a subsequent
meeting.

What if a project is listed as non-appealable by the local jurisdiction and you believe it
should be appealable?
When a project is approved, the local jurisdiction makes a determination if that project may be
appealed to the Commission. The local jurisdiction must send the Commission a Final Local
Action notice (FLAN) for all Coastal Development Permits (appealable & non-appealable). In
16
the notice they must indicate whether the project is appealable or not appealable. If it is
appealable the notice has to include instructions for filing an appeal. The Commission monitors
these notices but if a citizen believes the local jurisdiction has made a mistake in the notice
he/she can call the commission. However, as a precaution, they should file an appeal anyway to
preserve their right of appeal. If they believe that the project is appealable and the staff decides
it is not, there is no action you can take at the Commission.

CEASE and DESIST ORDERS

Where there has been a violation of the Coastal Act, i.e. a property owner failed to obtain the
necessary permits to perform development or violated a term or condition of their Coastal
Development Permit, the Commission has the ability to take enforcement action by, among other
actions, issuing an Executive Director Cease and Desist Order (CD) and, if necessary, a
Commission issued CD. CDs are usually preceded by an Executive Director’s stop- work order.
If the alleged violator fails to stop work and does not rectify the violation, the Executive Director
may issue a CD and subsequently brings the violation to the Commission. During a Cease and
Desist hearing before the Commission it is acting in the manner of a court. As such,
Commissioners may not have ex-parte communications with the violator or any member of the
public about the alleged violation. This does not mean that members of the public may not
communicate with staff. In fact, the Commission relies on members of the public to bring
violations to their attention. If you believe someone is proceeding with development without a
permit or is in violation of their permit, you should call your local Commission office and report
it. Have as much evidence available for the staff as possible to enable them to get the proof
needed to proceed.

RECONSIDERATION
An applicant may ask the commission to reconsider (rehear) its decision if he (she) can prove
to the commission:
• There is relevant new evidence which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not
have been presented at the hearing on the matter
or
• That an error of fact or law has occurred which has the potential of altering the initial
decision
• Reconsideration applies only to CDPs and does not apply to LCPs
• Only an applicant may ask for reconsideration.
• The basis for reconsideration is limited for good reason. It is NOT a chance for a second
bite at the apple by the applicant any more than Revocation is for opponents.

17
 REVOCATION
Anyone may ask that a permit be revoked if they can prove that there was:
• Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in connection
with a coastal development permit application, where the Commission finds that accurate
and complete information would have caused the Commission to require additional or
different conditions on a permit or deny an application;

• Failure to comply with the notice provisions of Section 13054, where the views of the
person(s) not notified were not otherwise made known to the Commission and could have
caused the Commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny
an application (14 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 13105

The basis for revocation is extremely limited and you must meet the legal standards.
Revocation is NOT a chance to get the commission to change its decision.

19
 CHAPTER SIX
MONITORING DEVELOPMENT

MONITORING DEVELOPMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

It is important to remember that the only one eligible to file an appeal is someone who
participated in the process at the local level. This means that you will need to be involved in
order to file an appeal, either by having testified at a local hearing or by having submitted
comments in writing. If you are following development in your area, you will need to review
projects that are being heard for compliance with the provisions of the Coastal Act and, if
there is a certified LCP, the policies of that LCP. You should bring these to the attention of
the County Coordinators at the bi-monthly/monthly information sharing meetings so that
they are aware of what may become an ORCA project.

§ Appeals must be filed within 10 working days of the FLAN. That means once a
decision has been made at the local level you must act quickly.

§ If a decision is made by the Planning Commission or the Planning Officer you must
first appeal it to the City Council or Board of Supervisors, unless there is a fee
imposed by the local jurisdiction for filing an appeal. It there is a fee, you may by-
pass the City or County appeal process and appeal directly to the Coastal
Commission.

§ During the process at the local level it is important to determine the "appealability" of
the project. That is, is it in the appeals area of the Commission, the retained permit
jurisdictional area of the Commission or does it meet one of the other limited criteria
for appeal?

§ A copy of the Commission's appeal form is in the Appendix.

§ Below is a check list of things to look for when reviewing a project and filing an
appeal

MONITORING CHECK LIST

1. Description of the project ________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

2. Is the project in the Coastal Zone___

3. Is there a certified LCP for the area?_____

20
4. If there is no certified LCP, review the project for conformance with the policies of the
Coastal Act. You should use the appeals guide below as the basis for your concerns, but you do
not have to relate those concerns back to the LCP, only to Coastal Act policies.

5. If there is a certified LCP the standard of review is the LCP, regardless of how old the LCP is.
First determine if the project is appealable, i.e
.
a) Is it in the appeals area
b) If it is, does the project raise any of the following issues relative to the LCP

§ Public Access
§ Habitat/ESHA
§ Wetlands
§ Water Quality
§ Geology
§ Armoring of the bluff or beach
§ Set-back issues
§ Landform Alteration
§ Stream-bed alteration
§ Public view issues
§ Native American Resources
§ Development without adequate infrastructure
§ Agricultural land conversion
§ Zoning, i.e. is it coastal dependent or visitor serving

There are other issues, but these are the main ones to look for. If the project raises concerns
about any of these issues the next questions to ask are about the specific facts relating to the
project and whether or not the project complies with the policies of the certified LCP or, if the
issue involves public access, Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act:

ACCESS:
a. Is there currently public recreational access on the property?
b. Will the project block or in any way prevent or diminish existing access?
c. Will the project provide adequate parking or interfere in any way with the public's
ability to park and use the beach?
d. Will the project create traffic that will interfere with the public's ability to get to and
use the shoreline?
e. Does the project block a known public trail to areas other than the beach?

HABITAT:
a. Is the area a mapped or identified environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA)?
b. If the area is an ESHA, is the project within any portion of the ESHA?
c. Is the project set back a sufficient distance from the ESHA to prevent impacts to the
function of the ESHA? Is the buffer area large enough to protect the habitat?
d. If the area is not identified or mapped ESHA, should it be?
e. Are there sensitive species or species that are rare locally that use the property?
Does the project site provide important habitat for these species and would the project adversely
impact these species? Species do not have to be formally listed to be considered sensitive or of
concern under the Coastal Act.
f. Is the habitat on the property isolated or contiguous with other habitat areas on adjacent
properties?
g. Review the certified LCP to see what ESHA policies apply and if the project is
consistent with those ESHA policies.
h. If it does not appear that there currently is ESHA, did the applicant remove the ESHA?
If so, was it done with or without a permit?
i. Are there invasive species on the property that should be removed?
j. Do the conditions of approval prohibit the use of invasive species in planting?
k. What type of mitigation plan is proposed for the unavoidable impacts? What
mitigation is being proposed? Is the project using only local native species from local stock or
simply being required to use natives? Are the species being used appropriate for the habitat
type?

Remember, you may only appeal a project based on ESHA if the project is in the appeals area,
unless it is specified as a sensitive coastal resource in the applicable LCP. If the project is
appealable based on other inconsistencies with the LCP or the public access policies of the
Coastal Act, then you should include ESHA issues as a basis for appeal in your filing so that the
ESHA issues will be reviewed during the de novo hearing.

WETLANDS:
a. Has the applicant had a wetlands delineation done and if so, which standards were
used, State or Federal?
b. Is the project within 100 feet of a wetland not necessarily as delineated but as you
believe the wetland to be. It is helpful if you have evidence here, such as photos, biologist's
statements, etc.
c. If the project is within 100 feet of the wetland, then there is a basis for appeal, even if it
is not in the appeals area.
d. Again, if you believe the wetland to be larger than what the applicant is claiming and
you believe, and have evidence, that the applicant has filed the wetland without a permit you
should include that in your basis for appeal.
e. Is there sufficient buffer between the development and the wetland? Most LCPs require
100 foot buffer and may or may not reduce that distance given certain conditions.
f. If the project will require fill of wetlands or is within the LCP required wetlands buffer,
does the project meet one of the 8 tests for fill under Section 30233?
g. If the project meets one of the 8 tests for fill under Section 30233, is it the least
environmentally damaging alternative?
PLEASE NOTE: Although a wetland may be degraded, under the Coastal Act, such wetlands
still receive the same protections as fully functioning wetlands.

WATER QUALITY:
a. Will the project create any run-off and will that run-off be treated or allowed to
infiltrate?
b. Will the project increase the amount of run-off that existed prior to the development.
c. Will the project's run-off cause sedimentation problems in adjacent water bodies?
d. Will the project's run-off cause any erosion on or off the project site?
e. Will the treatment for the run-off be sufficient to eliminate adverse water quality
impacts of the project?

21
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS (includes hazards, bluff setbacks, armoring):

Hazards:
a. Will the project create or cause any hazards to the development proposed or to adjacent
development?
b. Has an adequate, up-to-date, geology report been prepared?
c. Does the project conform to the recommendations of the geologist?
Bluff Set-back:
a. Is the project set back sufficiently far from the edge of a coastal bluff or the water's
edge to be able to guarantee that the project will never require protection?
b. Did the applicant provide an up-to-date report that specifies the erosion rate?
c. Was that report adequate? Did it contain specific measurements over a sufficient time
period?
d. Does the report account for episodic events, sea level rise, possible changes in the area
such as removal of groins and jetties that could impact the sane supply or need for a protective
device?

Armoring:
a. Is there existing development on the site and is that development in danger from
erosion?
b. If there is existing development and the applicant wishes to put in a revetment or
seawall, is there sufficient proof of danger and is that danger to the main structure or to ancillary
structures (pools, patios, etc)? How imminent is that danger?
c. If the main structure is in danger, can the structure be moved or re-located out of harms
way?
d. If the main structure is not in danger but the ancillary structures are, remember, 30235
does NOT apply to ancillary structures. They can be removed rather than allowing armoring.
e. If there is no existing development, do the project conditions require that the applicant
waive his right to a seawall in the future, given his assertion that the project, if built, will not
require one?
f. Check records on the development to see if at the time of original approval the
applicant waived their right to have armoring under 30235.

LANDFORM ALTERATION
a. Does the project require a significant amount of grading?
b. Will the project require the fill of all or part of a coastal canyon?
c. Will the project require retaining walls to support the cuts created for the project? If so,
what will their size be?
d. Is the cut and fill balanced on site or will it require export?
e. Will the project conform to the natural terrain or will it require significant alteration to
create a level pad?
f. Does the project minimize grading? Are there alternative locations or configurations
that would reduce the grading?

STREAM-BED ALTERATION
a. Will the project require that any stream be altered to enable the project to proceed?
b. Is the project a flood control project or a necessary water supply project, as its main
purpose, not a secondary benefit of the project?
c. Is the primary function of the project the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat?

22
PUBLIC VIEWS
a. Will the project adversely impact public views to the beach and ocean or of
undeveloped hills and other coastal lands?
b. Could the project be sited or reduced in size to prevent or minimize view impacts?
c. Is the size and siting consistent with surrounding development?

NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCES

a. Is there a likelihood of Native American resources being present on the site?
b. Has the project been conditioned to require a pre-project survey?
c. Will that survey be conducted with input from appropriate local Native Americans?
d. Does the survey consider archeological, paleontological as well as cultural resources?
e. Will local Native Americans be contacted to determine if there is a sacred site located
on the property or within reasonable distance of the property that would be impacted by the
development?
f. If there are resources present, does the project attempt to eliminate impacts to those
resources? If the project cannot be sited to avoid impacts, is it sited to minimize the impacts.
g. If there will be un-avoidable impacts, is the mitigation plan adequate?
h. If resources, archeological, paleontological and/or cultural resources are found after
development begins, is there a condition that requires that the project cease until a mitigation
plan is developed?
i. Does the project require that appropriate local Native Americans will be present as
monitors during construction and will the Most Likely Descendent be notified?
j. Will the selection of the archeologist and/or monitors be reviewed by the Native
American Heritage Commission?

AGRICULTURAL LANDS
a. Is there agricultural land on the property?
b. Is that ag land considered to be prime soil?
c. Is there a working farm or ranch on the land? If not, when was the land farmed or
ranched? Could it be farmed or ranched in the future and be financially viable?
d. Does the development convert prime ag land to non- agricultural use?
e. If there is a subdivision will that reduce the size of the property so that it agriculture
will not longer be economically viable.
f. Will the development effectively interfere with agricultural operations, either by
reducing the necessary acreage, reducing the distance from ag operations to residential
development so that future residents can claim it is a nuisance, etc.?

INFRASTRUCTURE
a. Is the development being proposed in or in close proximity to existing developed areas
able to accommodate it, i.e. are there existing adequate public services?
b. Is the development within the urban limit line or outside of it?
c. Will the development be "leap frog", i.e move out into an un-developed rural area?
d. Is there sufficient water available for the project? Does the LCP require a will-serve
letter from the local water supplier?
e. Is there sufficient sewage capacity available for the project or will the project require
use of on-site treatment?

23
 f. If on-site sewage treatment, i.e. septic tanks, will there be impacts created?
e.g. geologic from water into the hill; biological, i.e. will the septic be too close to
habitat and impact that habitat; water quality
g. What will the traffic impacts of the project be? Are they being adequately mitigated?
h. Will the project require the expansion of roads to facilitate the development and what
will the impact of those roads be on wetlands, ESHA and other resources?
i. In rural areas, will the project force the widening of Highway One where it is required
that Highway One remain two lanes?

ZONING
Subdivisions.
a. Will the subdivision result in new parcels that will make it difficult to comply with
provisions of Chapter 3? For example, given the requirement that each parcel must be allowed
some development are there two development envelopes that could be found that are outside of
ESHA or wetlands and that do not require substantial landform alteration?
b. If the property is zoned for agriculture, will the subdivision impact the viability of
agriculture? Agriculture usually requires sufficient land for the operation to sustain itself. Once
the property is subdivided will the smaller parcels still be viable?
c. If the community involved is one where community character is important and has
been an issue, such as Carmel, Davenport, Los Osos, etc. then look to see whether the
subdivision will create a density that is in keeping with the current development.
d. Determine what impacts, if any, the subdivision will have on the urban/rural boundary
and the expansion of infrastructure past that boundary.

Permitted uses:
a) What will the uses be? Are those uses the principal permitted use in that zone? Will
those uses be consistent with good coastal planning and/or consistent with protection of
resources? Does it promote land uses that are preferred under the coastal act, i.e. public
recreation, visitor serving uses or is it residential?
b) Will the additional uses allowed under the zoning be protective of resources?

24
 LCPs AND LCP AMENDMENT REVIEW
Probably the most important role that activists can play is in reviewing, commenting on and in
general advocating at the LCP or LCP amendment preparation stage. After certification of the
LCP it becomes the standard of review for almost all projects in that jurisdiction. Remember,
your appeals ability is very limited and is usually based on consistency of a project with the
certified LCP.

If a local jurisdiction does not have an LCP and is in the process of preparing one, or if they are
in the process of preparing an amendment, it is important that you attend local hearings. Make
certain that you carefully review all policies of the LCP as well as all of the ordinances that are
intended to carry out these policies for consistency with the Coastal Act. You should be looking
at the specific polices to suggest specific changes that will make the LCP consistent with the
Coastal Act.

Once the LCP or LCP amendment has been approved by the local jurisdiction, you will need to
contact the Commission's staff and let them know your concerns, as early in the process as
possible. That means in some cases you should contact Commission staff even before the local
government acts and ask them to weigh in with the local government. Again, be specific relative
to your suggestions for changes, including the actual revised language that you want to see
included.

When reviewing LCPs and LCP Amendments use the Monitoring check list to make certain that
all of the issues you are concerned about have policies that cover the issues in ways that are
consistent with the Coastal Act. THESE POLICIES SET THE STANDARDS AGAINST
WHICH ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND APPEALS IN THE COASTAL ZONE
WILL BE MEASURED.

As an example, at a minimum, LCPs should contain policies that deal with the following issues:
Bluff and beach development:
Bluff top:
1-usually either a stringline rule or a minimum setback of say 50 feet- you should look to see
what the LCP specifies and the pattern of development in the community
2-specific geological reports and requirements for setbacks that may be greater than the
stringline or minimum setback if needed to avoid geological hazards.
3- If the bluff is a coastal bluff it should require that the development not require the use of a
protective device (seawall, revetment, etc.) now or in the future
4- Appropriate definition of a “bluff” so that coastal bluffs are not defined away (check to see
how the Commission defines a “coastal bluff”)

Beach development:
1- Requirement that any new development not require the use of a protective device now or in
the future
2- Studies to determine the extent of possible erosion
3- A determination as to the impact on public access due to limiting natural retreat that should
include wave uprush, long term erosion rates and sea level rise
Water Quality:
1-There need to be policies dealing with water quality and run-off. How that should be handled
and what is considered sufficient
2- Requirement for Best Management Practices and filtration, limit on an increase in run-off due
to the development, etc. 25
Wetland and Sensitive Habitats:
1-The filling of wetlands should be prohibited except for the 8 allowed uses in the Coastal Act
and the LCP should contain provisions that mirror 30233.
2- Wetlands should be defined according to State standards, i.e. using one criteria.
3- There should be a condition requiring the provision of buffers that provide protection for the
wetlands from surrounding development and that provide upland habitat for the wetland. The
minimum frequently is 100 feet and it should be written as a minimum, not an absolute. If there
are areas with wetlands of special significance, greater buffers should be supported. Sometimes
the minimum can be reduced but the reduction should only be allowed with specific approval of
Fish & Game and a determination that the reduction will not impact the functioning of the
wetland. If there is a reduction allowed, there should also be a minimum below which no
reduction is allowed, say 50’. However, allowing a reduction is something that you should try to
avoid if possible.
4- The definition of ESHA and ESHA protections should mirror that of 30240 in the Coastal Act.
5- There should be a site specific requirement for ESHA determination in areas where ESHA
might be present regardless of whether or not they are determined to be ESHA at the time of
LCP certification.
6- If the City has maps that delineate where ESHA is, those maps cannot be allowed to be
definitive. They should specifically be viewed as "indicating where ESHA may be present" and
a policy that states that what is present at the time of development is what determines if ESHA is
present.
7- For both ESHA and wetlands, the prior removal of or destruction of ESHA and wetlands that
occurred without the benefit of a permit should not be a basis for a determination that no ESHA
or wetlands exist, i.e. if they removed or filled in the wetland without permit then the property
should be treated as if the ESHA or wetland still exists.
8- Again, there needs to be a minimum buffer, usually 100 feet, to protect the ESHA from
reduction of its function or degradation due to the development but that buffer should be able to
be increased if it is determined that is necessary for the functioning of the ESHA or wetland.
9- There should be a policy to prohibit the use of invasive species in all landscaping, unless the
area is highly urbanized, i.e. located in a city area. The use of native plants, of local stock,
should be encouraged.

Public Access:
1-There need to be policies dealing with the protection of public access
2- No locked gate communities between PCH and the beach
3- A requirement for adequate vertical accessways to the sea, say every 1000 feet, at a minimum
4- A requirement for lateral easements if new development will interfere with public access or
will create erosion that will reduce the depth of the sandy beach available to the public over time
5- A requirement that signs not be placed that limit public access or have a "chilling effect" on
public access, i.e. give the public the impression something is off limits even if it isn't
6- Make certain there are policies that adequately protect public parking for beaches
7- Prohibit the placement of gates and fences that effectively block the public from access to the
sea or to publicly used trails

In addition to the above categories there should be policies about streambed alteration (it should
not be allowed except for limited circumstances), landform alteration (there must be policies to
minimize landform alteration) and visual impacts. You should also look at the zoning issues; do
they allow upzoning (increase in density) that places stress on the biological resources and
infrastructure or cause water quality impacts? Will it cause traffic problems that will impact
public access. Look at the zoning relative to visitor serving uses.

26
 CHAPTER SEVEN
WORKING WITH STAFF

If you have been following development or the LCP/LCP amendment through the local level it is
helpful if you alert staff to issues that concern you. Remember to describe your concerns in
terms of Coastal Act policies and issues. If you believe an appeal is going to be necessary, let
them know why before you actually file the appeal so that staff will have time to consider an
appeal as well.

Once a development or an LCP/LCP amendment has been approved at the local level you will
need to contact the staff at the appropriate Commission office. You should try to meet with staff
as soon as, or shortly after, the item has been submitted to the Commission for review. You will
probably get only one or at most two chances to meet with staff. Hopefully you will meet with
them shortly after they begun their review and than again before the staff report is finished. In
between, if you have technical information that would be helpful to them, send it to them. When
you meet with them be prepared to explain your issues based strictly on the Coastal Act. Review
all of the items listed under Appeals- Monitoring Development and tell the staff where you think
the approved development fails to conform to the Coastal Act. Sometimes staff will ask you to
wait until after the staff report has been prepared. THAT IS TOO LATE! You need to explain
to staff that you wish to have input into their recommendation and want a meeting prior to the
final staff report.

In some situations, it may be advisable to contact Commission staff while the LCP/LCP
amendment is still pending before the local government and ask the staff to weigh in by writing a
letter or actually appearing at a local hearing to raise concerns about particularly important
issues. In the past, this early intervention by Commission staff has resulted in positive changes
and thus avoided later conflict before the Commission.

Please remember that although staff is overworked, you do, as a member of the public, have a
right to ask to meet with them prior to the time that they have prepared their staff report. Do not
wait until after the staff recommendation has been prepared. If you do you will not have any
input into what the recommendation will be. Staff will be meeting with the applicant or local
jurisdiction and they should hear from both sides on an issue.

It is very important that you do not bother staff with issues that are not of concern under the
coastal act and that you understand that staff may not always agree with you. They are
professionals who have a great deal of experience in these matters, have knowledge of how the
commission has treated these things in the past, and court decisions. Remember, staff will base
their decision on the Coastal Act and how it protects coastal resources, not on how you THINK
they should be protected.

27
 CHAPTER EIGHT
PREPARING FOR A COMMISSION HEARING

Reading Staff Reports

The staff prepares a report and recommendation on each item on the Commission’s agenda each
month. The staff report will present a complete description of the project. It will discuss each of
the various aspects of the project as it relates to provisions of the Coastal Act. Review the staff
report on each issue to see if the staff has analyzed the issue completely and correctly.
Determine if you agree with the staff, if any issues have been overlooked by the staff or if there
are any issues on which you do not agree with the staff. Reading and analyzing the staff report
is essential to any arguments you may wish to make with Commissioners or at a Commission
hearing. Again, as always, do your analysis based on Coastal Act policies.

Reading an Agenda

Below are the standard categories of agenda items.

ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

Report on administrative permits approved by the Executive Director of the Commission. If a

member of the public wishes to object to the issuance of an administrative permit or ask the
Commission to change the conditions of the permit, that person must ask the Commission to
remove the application from the administrative calendar, and schedule it for hearing and
voting at a later meeting. A period of three minutes will be allowed for each side to address the
Commission. If four or more Commissioners vote to remove an item from this calendar, the
Executive Director's approval is revoked, and the application will be scheduled for hearing and
voting at a later meeting.

COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

Public hearing on applications for coastal development permits. The Commission may vote on
an application at the conclusion of the public hearing, or it may, if additional information is
needed, vote at a subsequent meeting. The time limits for this part of the agenda are set at the
discretion of the Chair but are usually 15 minutes combined total time per side for projects
recommended for voting at a meeting, and 10 minutes combined total time per side for
projects recommended for hearing only. The Chair may allow organized presentations for
additional time per side. Speakers not part of an organized presentation are allowed 3 minutes
but may utilize the time of another person who has signed up to speak and who is present. . If
the project is to be voted on at the meeting, the applicant may reserve some time for rebuttal
after the opponents speak.

28
 CONSENT CALENDAR.

There are two sorts of CONSENT CALENDARS: One is for items that are moved to the
Consent Calendar by the staff at the meeting, and the other is for items that were previously
placed on the Consent calendar before the agenda was finalized. If you want to address an item
that has been moved to the Consent Calendar at the meeting you must step forward and ask to
be heard when that Consent Calendar item is before the Commission. At that point you would
be asking the Commission to remove the matter from the Consent Calendar and to hear it as a
Regular Calendar item later in the day. If three commissioners wants to remove it, then the
matter will be heard under the regular calendar in the order it appears on the agenda.

Consent Calendar items that appear on the agenda for public hearing and voting on
applications scheduled for approval with conditions are heard as a single item. At the hearing,
a period of three minutes will be allowed for each side to address the Commission on whether
or not to remove an application from this Consent calendar. Permits on this calendar will either
be approved at this time with the recommended conditions or removed from the calendar (and
scheduled for further hearing & voting at a later meeting) by a vote of three or more
Commissioners.

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY.

Public hearing and action on requests for concurrence with Federal Consistency Certifications
or Determinations. See time limits under COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS above.

FINDINGS.

A public hearing and voting on revised findings to support a previous Commission action. is
necessary when the Commission takes an action different than that recommended by staff or
where additional information or rational is incorporated into the action at the previous hearing.
The SOLE question before the Commission on findings is whether the findings, as written by
staff, adequately reflect what the Commission did and what the legal basis for that action was.
The merits of the particular project that is the subject of the findings are NOT before the
Commission and therefore not appropriate for discussion. Adoption of the findings will not
change the previous action.

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS (LCPs).

LCPs are prepared by local governments in two parts (a land use plan and implementation
plan) and will provide the basis for issuing coastal permits after approval by the local
government and the Commission. Copies of LCP staff reports, like all other staff reports,are
available on line at www.coastal.ca.gov and can be requested in hard copy from the Commission
office. Persons wishing to testify on these matters may appear at the hearing or may present
their concerns by letter to the Commission on or before the hearing date. Copies of all
correspondence will be provided to the Commission. Written comments may be of any length;
oral testimony may be limited to 3 minutes or less for each speaker, at the discretion of the
Chair and depending on the number wishing to be heard.)

29
 NEW APPEALS.

Unless a majority of the Commissioners present find "no substantial issue" is raised by an
appeal, there will be a "de novo" hearing, on the original project, under the same rules as for
COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS above. When the Commission finds SI (i.e., by failing
to find NSI) the de novo hearing will either be held at that time or at a subsequent meeting.

SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE.

On the recommendation of staff or 3 members of the Commission, a public hearing will be

held to determine whether the decision being appealed raises any substantial coastal issues.
The time limits for this public hearing are: 3 minutes PER SIDE to address the question of
substantial issue. Speakers must be eligible to speak on the issue, i.e. participated at the local
level.

PERMIT AMENDMENTS or EXTENSIONS.

Public hearing and voting on requests to amend or extend permits previously issued by the
Commission.

RECONSIDERATIONS.

Public hearing and voting to reconsider previous actions. Only applicants can request
reconsideration and the grounds for reconsideration are very narrow. Anyone can speak to the
matter of reconsideration and time limits are set at the discretion of the Chair.

VOTING on APPLICATIONS.

Continued public hearing on applications for coastal development permits. The time limits for
this part of the agenda are again set at the discretion of the Chair. Usually organized
presentations are given 15 minutes and individuals 3 minutes. The applicant may reserve some
time for rebuttal after others have spoken.

REVOCATIONS

You may seek revocation of a permit if you believe that the Applicant knowingly gave false or
misleading information that might have caused the Commission to change its decision had it
known the facts. This standard is very difficult to meet and the Commission rarely will revoke
a permit. The burden of proof is on those seeking revocation. Remember this is not a chance
to get a second bite at the apple. You must PROVE your contentions. Again, time limits are
set by the Chair.

PLEASE NOTE: The Agenda is organized by geographical region. The hearings on the
above categories will be held on the same day for each region of the coast.

30
 CONTACT WITH INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS
EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS

The Commission is subject to important rules relating to ex- parte communications (i.e.,
communications with commissioners outside the public hearing process). (Public Resources
Code, sections 30319-30324.) These stringent requirements could have serious consequences
and you need to pay attention to what is required. Anyone wishing to communicate with a
Commissioner about any matter pending before the Commission should read and abide by the
guidelines below.

Written materials or emails sent to individual Coastal Commissioners should also

be sent to Commission staff. If copies are not sent to staff you must notify
Commissioners of that fact because such communications become ex-parte and
must be forwarded to staff by the Commissioners. .

All materials transmitted to Commissioners should clearly indicate (e.g., on the

cover page or envelope) that they have also been forwarded to the staff. Materials
that do not show that copies have been provided to staff might not be accepted,
opened or read by Commissioners. In these cases, no ex-parte communication has
occurred.

§ Ex-parte communication is not prohibited by law, but you must follow the rules. . Under
the ex-parte rules, each Commissioner must disclose any ex-parte communications he or
she has with an applicant, a member of the public or any interested party. This includes
oral comments and discussions and all written materials, including emails.

§ While most Commissioners will be willing to talk with you or meet with you, some will
not. You will need to honor their decision in this regard. If you do attempt to contact a
commissioner, remember that they are busy and may not have TIME to talk with you,
although most will.

§ Some Commissioners file detailed written ex-parte documents that closely describe what
was discussed during the meeting, while others provide only the name(s) of the person(s)
they met with and a brief description of what was discussed.

§ Ex-parte files are public information and can sometimes provide useful information. Ex-
parte disclosures are now included with the staff report and can be accessed on the
Commission’s web site

§ Lobbying at the Commission does not require registration as a lobbyist and no reporting
of expenses by lobbyists at the Commission are reportable to the FPPC

Conversations with Commissioners are NOT prohibited. If you plan on speaking with a
commissioner by phone you may simply call them. If you plan on meeting with a Commissioner,
either at their office or at a Commission meeting, be certain to call to set up an appointment well
in advance of the hearing. While the actual meeting is best after the staff report has come out, do
not wait until then to make your appointment.

31
 § Commissioners have very busy schedules and their calendars may be full if you wait until
the last minute. NOTE; You should confirm whether the commissioner is planning to
attend the meeting when the item comes up or whether you will need to speak with that
commissioner’s alternate.

It is important that you try to talk with or meet with Commissioners, so ask if they would be
willing to do so. If you wish to meet with a Commissioner or Commissioners, you should make
an appointment with them well in advance of the meeting, although the actual meeting should be
set for no sooner than 10 days prior to the hearing to insure that the staff report is available. You
will need to know the staff recommendation in order to be able to discuss it with the
Commissioner(s). Remember that Commissioners are very busy so if you don't set up the
meeting early enough they may not have time. You may meet with them at their offices or
frequently meetings are arranged for breakfast and/or lunch during the week of Commission
hearings.

When you meet with or talk to Commissioner(s) remember to discuss your concerns about the
project in terms of the Coastal Act. You will need to understand the project and all of the issues,
including what the proponents are saying. You will need to let the Commissioner(s) know if you
agree with the staff and if so, why and if not, you will need to explain why. Do not take anything
for granted. Be specific and complete. If you have additional technical information to back up
your position talk to the Commissioner about it. This will be your real opportunity to get your
issues heard in far greater detail than you can at a hearing. Remember you will probably have
only 3 minutes to talk at the hearing.

MEETING RULES AND PROCEDURES

SPEAKER SIGN-UP & TIME LIMITS. If you wish to speak on an item, you will need to fill out a
"Request to Speak" form and give it to a staff person before the public hearing. The forms are available
near the door outide the meeting room. Time limits are indicated on the speaker sign-up forms, and
later in this summary, and in case of questions or disputes, the Chairman will determine the time limits
for each speaker at the beginning of the public hearing. Speakers on non-permit items may be limited
to three minutes or less depending on the number wishing to be heard. Time limits for permit items are
combined total time for all speakers in favor of or in opposition to the project. Time limits for major,
controversial items, whether permits, LCP or other planning matters (e.g., University Long Range
Development Plans, Public Works Plans) or federal consistency reviews are set by the Chair.
Organized presentations are encouraged and the Chair is usually willing to provide the group making
such presentations a block of time (usually 15 minutes). Individuals are given 3 minutes to speak.
Also on major items, the Commission has cut off accepting new speakers’ slips after a certain point in
time. In addition, when there are large numbers of speakers and depending on the length of the
meeting, the Commission has on occasion ended all public testimony at a certain time in the
proceedings. Written comments may be of any length; and can be submitted anytime before or during
the public hearing. You are encouraged to submit detailed information in writing to staff for
distribution to Commissioners as early as possible. Please provide twenty copies if possible.

SUGGESTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS. It is requested that, if possible,

written materials be submitted to Commission staff no later than three working days before

32
the hearing. In the upper right hand corner of the first page of your submittal please identify the agenda
item number, your name and your position in favor or opposition to the project. Please attempt to
summarize your position in no more than two or three pages. You may attach as many exhibits as you
feel are necessary.
Please Note: For a variety of reasons, not the least being severe staffing constraints and high workload,
staff reports and addenda are not made available to the public until shortly before the Commission
meeting. In such cases, it is not possible for you to submit your written comments well before the
hearing. You may submit material to the Commission on the day of the hearing, however, doing so is
usually not very productive because Commissioners will not have adequate time to read and think
about what you have submitted prior to the hearing.

If you are able to get your materials prepared and submitted to the staff prior to the hearing, we
suggest that in addition you send, if necessary by express mail, your written comments to each
Commissioner. Make certain that the material will arrive no later than Monday of the hearing week if
it is a 3 day meeting or the previous Friday if it is a 4 or 5 day meeting. If you are unable to do this, get
your written materials to the Commissioners at their hotel rooms the evening prior to the hearing.

VISUAL MATERIALS. Using visual materials at a hearing is very effective and can help your
presentation. A power point presentation helps to get your points across and keep your presentation
moving and within required time allocations. Audio-visual staff assistance is available at the meeting
but you should discuss your needs with staff and set up any equipment you will use well before the
Commission gets to your item on the agenda. All materials exhibited to the Commission during the
hearing (slides, maps, etc) are part of the public record and must be kept by the Commission for 60
days after final Commission action on the matter. Your materials will be returned upon written request.

LOCATION of MEETINGS. While Commission staff attempts to schedule important items for
meetings in a location that is near the project, that is often not possible and is another reason to
organize your thoughts and submit them in writing is that the location of the meeting may not be
nearby. The Commission is a statewide agency, which meets once a month in different locations in
Northern, Central, and Southern California. The hearing on a coastal permit or other item may take
place in a different area than the proposed project, due to legal deadlines for Commission action.

NO FAXs will be accepted at the meeting site by the Commission. You may be able to make prior
arrangements with staff or a Commissioner to send a fax, but you will be responsible for paying the
hotel or meeting site for its receipt. You may send faxes to individual Commissioners but again, you
will need to be careful not to run up charges to the commissioners for your faxes. In addition, when
information is faxed, it cannot be guaranteed the information will get to the Commission and is another
reason to make prior arrangements with staff for the timely distribution of your written materials.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. Government Code Section 84308 requires Commissioners to

disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution of more
than $340 from an interested party. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate on your
speaker slip and/or in your testimony, if you have made campaign contributions of more than $340 to
any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioners you contributed.

GIFTS: Spending more than a total of $340 on gifts for a Commissioner within the last year also
requires that Commissioner to disqualify themselves. A gift is anything of value, including meals,
drinks, travel, etc.

PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT ITEMS NOT ON THIS AGENDA. Before the lunch recess each
day of the meeting there will be time for public statements about the work of the Commission other
than issues that are pending before the Commission at that meeting. Persons wishing to speak during

33
this period should be sure to fill out a sign-up slip, and should limit the length of the presentation to 3
minutes or less. If this public comment period is inconvenient, you may submit written comments to
the Commission office, and copies will be distributed to all Commissioners. NOTE: The Commission
has a history of encouraging public participation. Accordingly, you can sign up to address the
Commission on any matter that is on the agenda even though not necessarily an action item. Examples
include technical workshops, staff briefings or staff recommendations regarding pending issues
affecting the coastal program. Even if a matter comes up in the context of a discussion among
Commissioners, if you feel strongly that you want to speak to the matter, you can ask the Chair for a
“point of order” which would be a request to allow public input on an issue of broad importance to the
Coastal program. Whether the chair allows you to speak is a matter of discretion for the Chair.

WHEN WILL MY AGENDA ITEM BE HEARD? Unfortunately, no one can predict how quickly
the Commission will complete agenda items or how many will be postponed to a later date. The
Commission begins each session at the time listed on the Meeting Notice and considers each item in
order, except in extraordinary circumstances. The Commission may consider an item even though the
interested persons are not present. . Don’t assume because your item appears well down the agenda
you don’t have to be there when the meeting starts. Often major items that would otherwise be time
consuming are postponed at the last minute and the agenda moves much more quickly than one would
have expected. Be there at the beginning and be prepared to wait. Better to wait than miss the
opportunity to participate

WAIVERS OF PERMIT & EMERGENCY PERMITS. The District Directors of the Commission's
various offices will announce the Executive Director's decisions to waive coastal permit requirements
and issuance of emergency permits during the "Deputy Director's Report" item at the beginning of each
section of the agenda.

PUBLIC & ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS. Many public records on agenda items will be
available for inspection at the meeting, and are available at all other times in the appropriate
Commission offices. Please call the Commission's office to make an appointment to see any file you
are interested in. If you need a verbatim transcript of these proceedings, there will be a court reporter
present at the hearing but you will need to pay for a transcript. If you decide to challenge a final
decision of the Commission in Court, please request preparation of an administrative record by letter to
the Administrative Records Section at the Commission office in San Francisco, and indicate in your
letter a description of the agenda item and the date(s) of Commission action. Such a record will include
a transcript of the proceedings at the hearing and may involve a charge for expenses.

CLOSED SESSION. At any time during the meeting the Commission may meet to consider possible
and pending litigation in a session closed to the public pursuant to attorney-client privilege and
statutory exemption to the Open Meeting Act (Government Code Section 11126e).

ACCESS TO HEARINGS. The hearings are wheelchair accessible. If accommodation for other
disabilities is required, please call (415) 904-5200.

MORE INFORMATION. For more information contact one of the following staff members:

(Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino) Bob Merrill (707) 445-7833,

(Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco & San Mateo Counties) Michael Endicott (415) 904-5260,
(Santa Cruz, Monterey & San Luis Obispo Counties) Steve Monowitz (831) 427-4863,
(Santa Barbara & Ventura Counties, Malibu & Santa Monica Mountains) Gary Timm (805) 585-1800,
(Los Angeles & Orange Counties) Teresa Henry (562) 590-5071,

34
 (San Diego County) Deborah Lee (619) 767-2370,
(Energy, Ocean Resources & Water Quality) Alison Detmer (415) 904-5240,
(Statewide) Vanessa Miller or Jeff Staben (415) 904-5200.

A Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) is available at (415) 904-5200.

The Coastal Commission is not yet equipped to receive comments on any official business by
electronic mail. Any information relating to official business should be sent to the appropriate
Commission office using U.S. Mail, courier service or fax.

TIME LIMITS for Permit Items

The guidelines for time limits for testimony on agenda items per side are shown below. However,
the actual amount of time is up to the discretion of the Chair. You should try to coordinate your
statement with those of other speakers to make best use of limited time and to stay within the time
limits alloted. For major items, see the description below regarding prepared presentations. All
statements should be brief, non-repetitive, and related to Coastal Act and LCP issues. Written
comments of any length may be submitted to staff.

3 minutes Administrative & Consent items

15 minutes "Public Hearing and Voting"
5 minutes Continued Hearing and Voting
10 minutes Public Hearings
3 minutes Substantial Issue Determination

Public Hearing Procedures for Regular Permit And Local Coastal

Program Matters

· If you wish to speak on a matter, fill out a color-coded speaker’s slip depending on:
1) whether you support or oppose the project proposed by a permit applicant or; 2)
whether you support or oppose the staff recommendation on an LCP or LCP
amendment or; 3) whether you are neutral. Applicants must also fill out a speaker
slip.
· The order of the hearing will be: staff presentation, applicant, elected officials,
public agency representatives, supporters, opponents, and neutral parties.
· Speaker slips must be given to staff prior to any time cutoff point announced by the
Chair, generally the start of testimony by opponents.. Additional speaker slips will
not be accepted after that time.
· There may only be two organized presentations for each matter - one in favor
organized by the applicant or other proponents, the other opposed. Generally, time
allowed for organized presentations is a maximum of 15 minutes per side. However,
the precise time for organized presentations will be determined by the Chair on a
case-by-case basis. If there is more than 1 organized presentation, it is up to the
organized groups to confer and divide the time between them.

35
 · Members of the general public will be given 3 minutes each.
· Individuals who wish to speak may donate their time to another speaker. However,
you must indicate your request to donate time on your speaker slip and you must be
in the hearing room at the time of the presentation. Speaker slips must be submitted
together and must indicate to whom you are donating your time.

Suggestion: When the item you are speaking on is a major one and you anticipate that the
applicant will take a full 15 minutes or more for their presentation, after which there will be
members of the general public speaking on behalf of the applicant, each allowed 3 minutes
to speak, it is suggested that you get together with whatever other organizations are
planning on attending and develop a prepared presentation. Speak with the Chair prior to
the meeting and ask that those presenting a prepared presentation be given the same amount
of time that the applicants will be given. Additional members of the public who will not be
speaking as part of your prepared presentation can expect to be given 3 minutes each to
speak. Member of the public, on either side, who are not part of the applicant's presentation
or the prepared presentation, may also combine their speaker slips to get additional time but
those donating their time must be present in the hearing room. Since the meeting
procedures and times are at the discretion of the Chair it is important to speak with the
Chair prior to the hearing, regarding the allotment of time for testimony.

YOUR PRESENTATION AT THE COMMISSION HEARING

Whether you have 15 minutes or 3 minutes to speak you will need to make your presentation
as effective as possible. This means:

§ The standards of review and action by the Commission are the policies in the Coastal
Act or the Local Coastal Program if it is an appeal. Any action by the Commission
must be based on substantial evidence applying the law to the facts in the record.
You should focus on facts and law.

§ Select the most important points and concentrate on these. If you include too many
issues you will not be effective. Do not try to say everything, only the most important
points. Commissioners have probably been sitting and hearing testimony for hours
and you will lose them if you are not concise and to the point.

§ Do not ramble on and give too much information. Your important points will get
lost.

§ Stick only to issues that are relevant to the Coastal Act and the Local Coastal
Program if the matter is an appeal. Do not get into purely private or neighborhood
issues that are not covered under Coastal Act policies – you will be wasting your
time.

§ Do not attack anyone personally. Your personal feelings about others are not
pertinent to the issues the Commission must decide. Personal attacks will affect your
credibility.

§ If you can support the staff recommendation say so, and then say why.
36
 § If you have differences with the staff, concentrate on those differences and specify
why but do not forget to specify the areas where you are in agreement with staff and
why.

§ Listen to the applicant's testimony and respond to those issues you think are most
critical to address. You will not have any rebuttal time.

§ If you have a number of different speakers, make certain that you each cover different
aspects of the issues. Do not repeat yourselves.

§ If you have technical experts who can analyze issues such as the biology of the site it
is always helpful to have them testify

Remember: BREVITY AND ACCURACY ARE THE KEYS TO SUCCESS!

CONCLUSION:
ORCA was created to help those who want to uphold the Coastal Act and protect coastal resources.
This manual is designed to help in that process. We hope it is useful and will enable activists to fulfill
the dream and vision of those who worked to pass Proposition 20.

37
 APPENDIX C:
Maps of Areas of LCP Certification
 Appendix A
COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS BY APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND LOCATION
 Appendix C:
Appeals Information and Forms
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

SECTION I. Appellant(s)

Name, mailing address and telephone number of appellant(s), include zip code

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

SECTION II. Decision Being Appealed

1, Name of local/port government:

________________________________________________________________________

2. Brief description of development being appealed:

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

3. Development’s location (street address, assessor’s parcel no., cross street, etc.):

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

4. Description of decision being appealed:

a. Approval; no special conditions

__________________________________________________________________

b. Approval with special conditions

__________________________________________________________________

c. Denial
__________________________________________________________________
(Note: for jurisdictions with a certified LCP, denial decision by a local government cannot be appealed
unless the development is a major energy or public works project. Denial decisions by port
governments are not appealable)

Page 1
5. Decision being appeal was made by (check one):
a. __Planning Director/Zoning Administrator
b. __City Council/Board of Supervisors
c. __Planning Commission
d. __Other________________

6. Date of local government’s decision: ____________________________________

7. Local government’s file number (if any):_________________________________

SECTION III. Identification of Other Interested Persons

Give the names and addresses of the following parties. (Use additional paper if
necessary)

a. Name and mailing address of permit applicant:

_____________________________________________________________________
b. Names and mailing addresses as available of those who testified (either verbally
or in writing) at the city/county/port

c. (1)_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
(2)_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
(3)_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
(4)_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

SECTION IV. Reasons Supporting this Appeal

Note: Appeals of local government coastal permit decisions are limited by a variety of
factors and requirements of the Coastal Act. Please review the appeal information sheet
for assistance in completing this section.

State briefly your reasons for this appeal. Include a summary description of Local
Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, or Port Master Plan policies and requirements in which
you believe the project is inconsistent and the reasons the decision warrants a new
hearing. (Use additional paper as necessary)

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Page 2
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Note: The above description need not be a complete or exhaustive statement of your
reasons of appeal, however, there must be sufficient discussion for staff to determine that
the appeal is allowed by law. The appellant, subsequent to filing the appeal, may submit
additional information to the staff and/or commission to support the appeal request.

SECTION V. Certification
The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge.

_____________________________________
Signature of Appellant(s) or Authorized Agent

Date:_________________________________
(Note: If signed by agent, appellant(s) must also
Sign below
SECTION VI. Agent Authorization

I/We hereby authorize _____________________________to as my/or representative and

to bind me/us in all matters concerning this appeal

__________________________________________
Signature of Appellant(s)
Date______________________________________
TO BE COMPLETED BY COMMISSION:
APPEAL NO:_______________________
DATE FILER:_______________________
DISTRICT: _________________________

Page 3