Coastal Commission administrative authority
Overview of the Coastal Commission
Created: The California Coastal Commission was established by the California Coastal Act of 1976 to regulate land use along California’s 1,100 miles of coastline.
Purpose: To protect coastal resources, public access, and environmentally sensitive areas.
Authority: The Commission has broad administrative authority to issue, deny, and enforce Coastal Development Permits (CDPs), which are required for most development activities within the coastal zone.
Scope: Includes regulation of development, public access, habitat protection, and shoreline preservation.
Legal Basis of Administrative Authority
California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code §§ 30000 et seq.)
The Act grants the Commission quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers to regulate development through permit issuance and enforcement.
Permit Jurisdiction:
No development in the coastal zone can legally proceed without a Coastal Development Permit from the Commission or a delegated local government agency.
Enforcement Powers:
The Commission can issue cease and desist orders, impose fines, and pursue civil or criminal penalties for violations.
Delegated Authority:
Some local governments are certified by the Commission to issue permits consistent with the Coastal Act.
Key Case Law Illustrating CCC’s Administrative Authority
1. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247
Context: Though predating the Coastal Act, this case laid the groundwork for environmental regulation in California.
Holding: The California Supreme Court recognized the state’s authority to impose stringent environmental review requirements on development projects, supporting later coastal regulation.
Significance: Provided constitutional foundation for administrative agencies like the CCC to exercise broad regulatory control over land use to protect environmental resources.
2. California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co. (1987) 480 U.S. 572
Facts: Granite Rock sought a permit to develop property near the coast. The Commission denied the permit, and Granite Rock challenged the Commission’s authority.
Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s authority to deny permits based on environmental and public access concerns.
Key Point: Affirmed the Commission’s discretion in applying coastal protection policies and its quasi-judicial permit denial power.
Impact: Reinforced that the CCC’s administrative decisions receive deference so long as consistent with the Coastal Act.
3. California Coastal Comm’n v. Superior Court (Gilbert) (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1249
Issue: Whether the Commission’s permit denial complied with procedural and substantive requirements.
Holding: The court upheld the Commission’s denial, emphasizing the broad administrative discretion vested in the CCC to protect coastal resources.
Significance: Confirmed the administrative process requirements and the Commission’s power to deny development inconsistent with Coastal Act goals.
4. People v. California Coastal Commission (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1159
Facts: The Commission issued a cease and desist order against unpermitted development.
Holding: The appellate court upheld the Commission’s authority to issue administrative enforcement orders without first obtaining a court injunction.
Importance: Affirmed the Commission’s administrative enforcement power to promptly address Coastal Act violations.
5. California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
Issue: Revisited the Commission’s authority to impose conditions on permits for mining operations.
Holding: The court upheld the Commission’s authority to condition permits to ensure compliance with coastal protection objectives, even for industrial operations.
Key Point: Demonstrated the Commission’s broad scope in regulating diverse coastal development activities.
6. Environmental Planning & Information Council v. California Coastal Commission (1977) 62 Cal.App.3d 360
Issue: Challenge to the Commission’s administrative rules for public participation in permit decisions.
Holding: The court upheld the Commission’s procedural rules, recognizing its broad administrative authority to govern its permit processes.
Significance: Supported the Commission’s autonomy in establishing administrative procedures consistent with fairness and public input.
Summary of Administrative Authority Dimensions
| Authority Type | Description | Supported by Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| Permit Issuance/Denial | Authority to approve or deny coastal development permits | Granite Rock Co. (1987), Gilbert (2005) |
| Enforcement | Power to issue cease and desist, fines, administrative penalties | People v. CCC (2016) |
| Quasi-Legislative Rulemaking | Authority to adopt procedural and substantive regulations | Environmental Planning (1977) |
| Delegation to Local Governments | Ability to certify local governments to issue permits consistent with the Act | California Coastal Act provisions |
Conclusion
The California Coastal Commission exercises broad administrative authority to protect coastal resources through permitting, enforcement, and regulatory oversight. Courts have consistently upheld this authority, emphasizing the Commission’s discretion and responsibility to balance development with environmental protection.
RELATED Blog
0 comments