by Mark Massara
Sierra Club Coastal Program Attorney
mark.massara@sierraclub.org

An Editorial (which means the following commentary is the opinion of the vast editorial staff here at the CoastWatcher highrise industrial park, and not necessarily the view of anyone else)

The results are in and it isn't even close. The current Coastal Commission, brought to residents of California by allegedly pro-coast, pro-environment Democrats, is in a dangerous free fall. The Commission, 18 months ago cohesive and dedicated to protecting the coast, now appears to be unraveling. Based on the Watsonville High School decision last month, and the Huntington Beach decision this month (see Item 7, below), the wheels have come off the cart when it comes to wetlands protection. Yet the frontal attack on coastal protection clearly goes beyond wetlands protection (For example, see Item 9, below). It is not clear, in fact, wheather this Commission has the fortitude to say no to anyone right now. Based on a series of disastrous decisions made against the coast, against the public and against staff recommendations this past week, this Commission is not even prepared to mitigate or meagerly condition proposed development.

The wetlands cases make as good a discussion topic as any though, given wetlands extreme state of disrepair and degradation statewide. After the Watsonville High School last month (See CW, March 2000, and Item 1, below) and the Huntington Beach decision this week, one more decision abandoning wetlands protections and this Commission will justifiably have earned itself the moniker of being among the worst wetlands destroyers in the history of the Coastal Act.

This Commission, whose Chair is well known environmentalist Sara Wan, is quickly becoming infamous for their abject failure to protect the last remaining 5% of coastal wetlands in California. Using the familiar and legally discredited refrains "degraded," "insignificant," "puny" and the rest, this Commission appears ready to destroy any wetland at any time for any reason. For example, one Commissioner last week urged wetlands destruction to ameliorate a "housing crisis," apparently ignorant of the existing "wetlands crises." Another Commissioner unbelievably urged fill of the wetlands now in order to prevent dogs from urinating in it later.

This is an especially tragic disintegration and deterioration given the wide spread public perception that this is a "good" Commission.

At center stage are a majority of Commissioners who lack the heart, soul and guts to say "no." The ability to say "no" to well-heeled development pressures and local cronyism has always been the most important character trait for any Commission member. Today however, that fortitude is all but extinct. Its absence is all the more apparent when contrasted with the current political dynamic.

When California coastal advocates and the hugely successful Vote the Coast program began in 1996, efforts were focused on reclaiming the headlocked Commission from development interests. Those interests were predominantly Republican. Most pro-coast and reform candidates were primarily Democrat. Today, after three statewide elections (including a gubernatorial race) and due to the overwhelming public popularity of coastal protection, the entire Sacramento based state political juggernaut is under Democratic control. Not surprising, the entire 1998 Vote the Coast slate of candidates were Democrats, from Gov. Davis down through state assembly races throughout the coastal zone. Every single one of those 16 candidates won election.

What those officials have given us by way of their appointments to the Commission is what may soon be known as the "Coastal Wetlands Destruction Commission." How could things have turned so ugly so fast? Certain things stand out. First, Democratic appointments appear to have a much, much more difficult time saying "no" to Democrats than to Republicans. It is always more difficult to say no to your friends. Today we see the enemy and it is us. This explains the sudden rush among developers to recruit Democratic lobbyists and legislators to support their projects.

Another problem seems to be the none too subtle effort among certain gubernatorial officials and appointees to support development at any cost and across the board. This is exacerbated by the widespread public perception that Governor Davis' administration refuses to meet with or consider environmentalists' concerns while breathlessly courting development and pollution dollars to the extreme.

A third problem is the State Assembly, where term limits have resulted in a new Speaker being elected every two years. The four Assembly Commission appointments are becoming like temporary appointments, mere placeholders who face the prospect of removal just about the time they begin to appreciate the million ways the coast is being destroyed. A more subtle result of the quick turnover is that the desperate need for constant fund raising by appointing authorities means that obtaining dollars is more important than saving the coast for future generations.

Yet another aggravating factor is that environmentalists have been satisfied to work Commission meetings while developers have unleashed a broadside attack in Sacramento and against individual Commissioners between meetings. An unprecedented legislative effort to weaken the Act is underway by Democrat Denise Ducheny (See CW March 2000). While, each and every month development interests are placing numerous calls and scheduling meetings with appointing authorities in order to gripe and carp that the Commission is "too restrictive" against development. Thus, despite all the failures of this Commission, many within the Sacramento political bubble believe this Commission is too tough on developers!! Meanwhile developers are flying around the state gushing resources to meet with individual Commissioners in order to push their projects. While there is nothing illegal about such meetings, it places environmentalists at an extreme disadvantage since the public doesn't even know the details of such projects until staff reports are released a few days prior to the actual meetings. Usually, under the circumstances, the developer has had the opportunity to plead their case long before the public even learns the project is on the agenda.

All this is not to say the Commission is lost-- yet. Commission Chair Sara Wan, Pedro Nava, Chris Desser and new Commissioner John Woolley, among others, continue to struggle along and demonstrate keen insight regarding the need to save what is left of the coast. Other Commissioners, such as Mike Reilly and Cecilia Estolano, are also often compelling.

What does it all mean? It means the job of the public, coastal advocates and voters has gotten much more difficult. The fact that ALL appointing authorities are now Democrats means the public must now exercise great scrutiny with respect the individual votes of each Commission, and not just rely on their party affiliation. Some Democrats are clearly against the coast. The importance of this cannot be underestimated. It is VERY IMPORTANT that coastal advocates begin to carefully scrutinize each Commissioners' individual voting record. Based upon the Watsonville High School and Huntington Beach votes alone, AT LEAST HALF OF THE COMMISSION HAS SERIOUSLY STRAYED FROM ANY MEANINGUL COASTAL PROTECTION ETHIC.

It also means that the public must reach out and begin to contact BOTH Commissioners AND their appointing authorities. If all Gov. Gray Davis, Senate Leader John Burton and Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg hear is that the Commission is too tough on developers, they will understandably be deceived. It is crucially important that members of the public begin to call these Sacramento leaders and urge they monitor their appointments coastal protection efforts more carefully. Coastal advocates should specifically mention important upcoming votes including, among others, the Irvine Company's destruction of habitat and water quality at Crystal Cove, conversion of Crystal Cove State Park to a luxury resort, The Koll Company's efforts to destroy wetlands for housing at Bolsa Chica, The City of Oceanside's efforts to turn over the public beach to developers of the Manchester Resort, and Arco's efforts to destroy habitat for golf at Naples in Santa Barbara. Literally dozens of other projects like these are proposed throughout the state.

Similarly, the public must learn which Commissioners are appointed by which authorities, in order to effectively critize their inadequate efforts to protect the coast. For example, Gov. Davis has appointed Chris Desser, John Woolley, Cynthia McClain-Hill and Greg Hart. Senate leader John Burton has appointed Sara Wan, Pedro Nava, Mike Reilly, and Shirley Dettloff. New Assembly Speaker has inherited Dave Potter, Cecilia Estolano, Paula Daniels and Christine Kehoe. Use a pencil and paper as you read through CW in order to keep score regarding the pro-coast positions of these Commissioners and their appointing authorities.

Lastly, start calling the individual Commissioners between meetings regarding each and every project you care about. Don't be intimated by the frequency of the need for these calls or a sense of not wanting to interrupt or disturb Commissioners- developers certainly aren't. Contact information for all 12 Commissioners, and their alternates, is available on the Commission's website. Gov. Davis' phone number is #916-445-2841; Senata Leader John Burton is at #916-445-1412; and new Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg's phone number is #916-319-2040.

Good luck in your efforts. The coast hangs in the balance.