Since the Commission continues to have strong public support today, one may ask why is there still controversy? The answer is relatively simple - the Coastal Act put teeth into state planning for the coastal zone.
While the Coastal Act recognized the primary role of local government to establish planning goals for their political jurisdiction, it also required preparation of long range plans called Local Coastal Programs, or LCPs for short. The law mandated that local government LCPs take into account a comprehensive set of Coastal Act policies aimed at promoting public access and visitor-serving uses, while also preserving and enhancing critical habitat areas such as wetlands, and protecting scenic amenities. Until LCPs were approved by the local government and the Commission - including ordinances to carry out those LCPs - all proposed development was required to obtain a permit from the Coastal Commission.
Not surprisingly, there was tension between local government and the Commission as to the means and level of detail necessary for LCPs to be approved. To this day, that tension exists. While some local government officials and staff members may feel the Commission has been too rigid in its interpretation of the Coastal Act, and some environmental groups may feel that the Commission has not adequately implemented the policies of the Coastal Act, nevertheless, many would argue that the Commission has been very successful in accomplishing its goals and objectives for the San Diego coastal zone.
What does this mean to the citizens of San Diego? Local Coastal Programs contain policies and implementing ordinances which: protect the lagoons and wetlands the County is blessed with; preserve the natural and scenic landforms associated with San Diego s coastal canyons; encourage and provide for priority land uses such as visitor-serving commercial developments (hotels, restaurants and retail uses) in nearshore areas; and, protect and enhance public access to the beaches and ocean.
The above may seem like obvious, good planning requirements. However, it was not easy to achieve LCPs which guaranteed protection of these resources and public access opportunities for current and future generations. As examples, it wasn t long ago that various types of development were proposed for each of the lagoons, from nuclear power plants to marinas to water-oriented theme parks. Their value as critical biological resources and open space was not given priority. That has changed! The lagoons are now generally valued by citizens for their biologic importance. Likewise, the naturally vegetated hillsides in the coastal zone are afforded special protection in the LCPs. Mass grading and terracing of hillsides for view lot subdivisions used to be a common practice. Again, that has stopped.
What may be even a more important success is the psychological changes that occurred in thinking about how developments should be accommodated. In the mid 1970 s, proposals to block off entire stretches of beach through locked gate residential communities were common. The Commission changed that thought pattern by making it clear that beaches were a resource for all citizens to enjoy. That is now a requirement in all LCPs. The need to cluster development to protect upland habitat has also become an accepted way of thinking for the development community. In the coastal zone, what you don t see may be the biggest success.
With regard to agriculture, in the mid to late 1970 s, there was still a very significant agricultural resource in San Diego County s coastal zone. The Coastal Act mandates preservation of agricultural lands. However, the pattern of development in San Diego County already had interspersed urban development within the major agricultural areas. Nevertheless, there was an opportunity to preserve a very significant amount of the agricultural land and to form stable urban/agriculture boundaries. Studies were done by the County and the Coastal Commission indicating the long-term benefits of agriculture to San Diego s economy. However, unlike the preservation of the lagoons, there was no significant public support to protect the agricultural lands. In addition, the affected property owners did not desire their land to be designated for agriculture. The speculative cycle in land prices had already begun. The end result is that most agricultural land in San Diego County s coastal zone is now designated for residential, commercial or industrial use.
As to shoreline erosion, this is not a new issue to San Diego County. In the 1970 s and early to mid 80 s, a basic issue for the Commission was devising plans that prevented development with inappropriate setbacks from hazardous areas. This was true for the oceanfront and along the rivers. The Commission s energies were focused on preventing inappropriate new development. Greater efforts needed to be made in developing proactive measures to deal with shoreline erosion on a comprehensive basis. However, there was neither the financial resources or the public will to do so. Unfortunately, while this work is underway now by SANDAG, the City of Encinitas, and others, it has reached a crisis stage along some parts of the coastline. Balancing private and public rights in an effort to protect existing development while minimizing and mitigating adverse impacts on public access is and will be very difficult. More attention to the shoreline erosion issue 15 years ago could have been of great benefit. Undoubtedly, there are other missed opportunities, but the above two standout.