The California Coastal Commission is facing new efforts in the state legislature to roll back some of its regulatory powers over housing and transportation projects.
The commission, formed in 1972 to protect the state's coastline from unchecked development, holds sweeping power to review, delay and outright block just about anything that happens in the coastal zone; from home renovations to big infrastructure projects. Supporters say the agency succeeded in protecting many of the coast's natural resources, and the ability of all Californians to access them.
But a growing chorus of critics argues the commission is undermining the state's housing and climate goals. Even in the coastal zone's most urbanized areas, new apartment buildings and improvements to bike and public transit infrastructure can face lengthy and expensive review timelines with no guarantee of approval.
"There's really a perception right now that the Coastal Commission is stopping us from being able to handle and address urgent problems," said state Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas). "I think there’s been a mission creep from the Coastal Commission over many decades."
Blakespear recently introduced SB 689, which would streamline the commission's approval of converting vehicular lanes to bike lanes. The bill was partially inspired by KPBS' reporting on a bike safety project in Point Loma that fell apart due to the commission's review process.
The Coastal Commission, which declined KPBS' interview request, supports the bill.
"Projects that make communities more sustainable, such as bicycle lanes, are a key strategy for mitigating the impacts of climate change on California’s coast," the commission wrote in a letter of support last month. "This strategy is strongly aligned with the policies of the Coastal Act and with the Coastal Commission’s vision for the coastal zone."
But SB 689 does not cover projects that replace vehicular lanes with bus-only lanes, pedestrian promenades or parkways that enable tree planting. It also does not streamline any project that reduces street parking.
Blakespear said she intentionally limited the bill's scope to win over the commission's support.
"A lot of bills die because the Coastal Commission is opposed and we don’t make any progress," Blakespear said.
The Coastal Commission's sway over the legislature will be put to the test by several other bills introduced this year that don't have the agency's support. SB 951 from Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) would carve out urbanized San Francisco from the coastal zone. The commission opposes the bill.
Blakespear has also authored SB 1077, which would streamline most accessory dwelling units in the coastal zone, and SB 1092, which would put new limits on the commission's appeals process. And AB 2560 from Assemblymember David Alvarez (D-San Diego) seeks to increase mixed-income housing in coastal communities.
"When it comes to housing, the metrics are very, very clear," Alvarez said. "The coastal areas of California are among the most expensive in the entire country. And that means that it is excluding individuals in California from different economic background levels from having access."
Alvarez's bill would fast track approval of apartment buildings that use the state's density bonus program, which lets developers build more homes if they set aside a portion for low- and middle-income households at affordable price points.
The Coastal Commission has no official position on SB 1092 or AB 2560, which are going through committee hearings and faces a deadline of Aug. 31 to pass the full legislature. But the commission has opposed similar efforts to densify coastal communities in the past, arguing that it could overwhelm them with traffic and prevent people from accessing the coast.
Alvarez said the commission means well, but that it tends to value upholding bureaucracy over producing good outcomes. He said the commission's housing approval process is filled with uncertainty and can be easily weaponized by wealthy coastal communities that don't want to increase neighborhood density.
"This in no way, shape or form creates walls or suffocates people to the point that there isn’t any access," Alvarez said. "Quite the opposite. This allows people of all income levels to have access to the water."
