Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, provides for planning and regulation of development in the coastal zone, as defined. The act specifies planning and management policies for the location of new residential, commercial, and industrial development in the coastal zone.

The act requires the permitting of revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.

This bill would also require that the permitted construction of those structures be consistent with the policies of the act, including policies regarding protection of public access, shoreline ecology, natural landforms, and other impacts on coastal resources, and would define the term existing structure for the purposes of those provisions.

The act requires any person wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, as defined, to obtain a coastal development permit, but exempts from those requirements specified emergency projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency, as prescribed.

This bill would specify that any emergency permit issued under those provisions is a temporary authorization intended to allow the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to address the identified emergency, and minimize any potential harm or adverse coastal impacts related to addressing the emergency. The bill would specify that any subsequent development that is carried out that is beyond the scope of the emergency permit shall require a coastal development permit and is not subject to emergency authorization granted under those provisions.

The act imposes specified civil penalties on a person, including a landowner, who is in violation of the public access provisions of the act for each violation of the act.

This bill would additionally impose those civil penalties on a person, including a landowner, who has placed or caused to be placed an unpermitted shoreline protection structure on his or her property located in within the coastal zone.

The California Coastal Act of 1976 establishes the California Coastal Commission and prescribes the membership and functions and duties of the commission with regard to the administration and implementation of the act.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in those provisions prescribing the membership of the commission.

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1129

Author:(Mark Stone)

As Amended Ver:April 26, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Clarifies which shoreline protection structures the California Coastal Commission (Commission) must provide a coastal development permit (CDP) for. Requires future emergency permits to be time limited authorizations to build temporary structures. Clarifies the Commission's civil penalty authority to fine a person who has unpermitted shoreline protection structures, such as a seawall, revetment, retaining wall, or other like structure. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shorelines processes to be permitted only for existing structures that were legally authorized and in existence as of January 1, 1977.
2. Limits emergency permits to temporary authorization intended to allow the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to address the identified emergency, and minimize any potential harm or adverse coastal impacts related to addressing the emergency. Requires a CDP for any structure beyond that scope.
3. Requires an emergency structure be removed at the end of the term of the emergency permit unless it receives a CDP or determination that a CDP is not needed.
4. Clarifies the Commission's authority to impose administrative civil penalties on a person, including a landowner, who has an unpermitted shoreline protection structure, such as a seawall, revetment, retaining wall, or other like structure.

EXISTING LAW, pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act):

1. Establishes the Commission in the Natural Resources Agency and requires the Commission to consist of 15 members (three non-voting and 12 voting).
2. Requires a person planning to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone to obtain a CDP from the Commission or local government enforcing a Local Coastal Program (LCP).
3. Defines "development" to mean, among other things, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure on land or in water. "Structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line.
4. Defines the "coastal zone" as the land and water area of the State of California from the Oregon border to the border of the Republic of Mexico, extending seaward to the state's outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and recreational areas, the coastal zone extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the sea or five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less. In developed urban areas, the zone generally extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The coastal zone does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, nor any area contiguous thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing into such area.
5. Requires revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shorelines processes to be permitted when the structure is serving coastal-dependent uses or protecting existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.
6. Requires, when feasible, existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills to be phased out or upgraded.
7. Authorizes the Commission to waive the requirement of obtaining a CDP when immediate action by a person or public agency performing a public service is required to protect life and public property from imminent danger, or to restore, repair, or maintain public works, utilities, or services destroyed, damaged, or interrupted by natural disaster, serious accident, or in other cases of emergency. Requires notification of the executive director of the Commission of the type and location of the work within three days of the disaster or discovery of the danger, whichever occurs first.
8. Authorizes the Commission to impose administrative civil penalties on a person, including a landowner, who is in violation of the public access provisions of the Coastal Act.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill will not increase costs and may result in cost savings.

COMMENTS: Seawalls or other shoreline protective devices (known as "coastal armoring") conflict with Coastal Act requirements to protect public access, recreation, coastal waters and marine resources, natural landforms, and visual resources. Coastal armoring now occupies more than 110 miles, or at least 10%, of the overall California coastline, including 33% of the southern California coastline. According to the Commission, shoreline protective devices impede or degrade public access and recreation along the shoreline by occupying beach area or tidelands, by reducing shoreline sand supply, and by fixing the back of the beach, ultimately leading to the loss of the beach. A Stanford Law School report entitled, "2015 California Coastal Armoring Report: Managing Coastal Armoring and Climate Change Adaption in the 21st Century," found that shoreline protective devices can also hasten coastal erosion on neighboring properties, which can lead to more shoreline protective devices. It also found that shoreline protective devices reduce beach habitat and impact shorebirds.

The Coastal Act requires the Commission to permit shoreline protective devices in certain circumstances. The Commission will generally permit shoreline protective devices if:

1. There is an existing structure, public beach, or coastal-dependent use;
2. There is danger from erosion;
3. The shoreline protection is required to address the danger (the least environmentally-damaging, feasible alternative); and,
4. The shoreline protection is designed to eliminate or mitigate impacts on sand supply.

New development is prohibited from constructing shoreline protection devices. However, "existing structures" is not defined in the Coastal Act and has been interpreted differently at different times by the Commission and local governments' LCPs. In many cases an existing structure has been viewed as a structure built prior to passage of the Coastal Act (1976). In addition, it has been unclear whether an existing structure that is redeveloped would still be considered an existing structure. This bill defines existing structure as a structure in existence as of January 1, 1977. The Commission or a local government with a certified LCP would still be able to provide a CDP for an existing structure constructed after 1977, but would not be required to.

There are hundreds of shoreline protection devices that were installed using emergency permits. While the applicants claim the shoreline protection device is needed to protect against an imminent danger, the shoreline protection device installed is often not a temporary device. When a shoreline protection device is authorized by an emergency permit there is little to no substantive review of the impacts it will have on the beach, ecosystems, or neighboring properties. Once the shoreline protection device is installed it is difficult, costly, and environmentally damaging to remove. Generally, the erosion issues that led to the emergency have been known for some time and could have undergone review prior to seeking the emergency permit. This bill limits future emergency permits to the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to address the identified emergency and requires the structure to be removed at the end of the term of the emergency permit.

Analysis Prepared by: Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. / (916) 319 2092 FN: 0000473

Date of Hearing: May 17, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1129

Author:(Mark Stone) – As Amended Ver:April 26, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill makes various revisions to the Coastal Act relating to sea walls. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shorelines processes to be permitted only for existing structures that were legally authorized and in existence as of January 1, 1977.
2. Limits emergency permits to temporary authorization intended to allow the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to address the identified emergency, and minimize any potential harm or adverse coastal impacts related to addressing the emergency. Requires a coastal development permit (CDP) for any structure beyond that scope.
3. Requires an emergency structure be removed at the end of the term of the emergency permit unless it receives a CDP or determination that a CDP is not needed.
4. Specifies the Coastal Commission’s authority to impose administrative civil penalties on a person, including a landowner, who has an unpermitted shoreline protection structure, such as a seawall, revetment, retaining wall, or other like structure.

FISCAL EFFECT:

According to the Coastal Commission, this bill will not increase costs and may result in cost savings.

The Commission currently has the authority to levy administrative penalties for Coastal Act violations that involve coastal access. Although the Commission has not been using this penalty authority against unpermitted seawalls, they contend there is a strong case that such seawalls block access to and along public beaches. By explicitly granting this authority, this bill will prevent future litigation costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, "California’s coast is constantly changing, and as bluffs retreat, beaches erode and sand supplies shift, efforts to protect shoreline structures have left large percentages of the coast armored. Seawalls and revetments have been built along the coast changing patterns of erosion, protecting some areas and magnifying erosion in others. The results are beach erosion and a depletion of coastal access. Currently, structures that are provided under emergency permits are rarely removed. These structures do not take into account the impacts on the rest of the coast. By providing clarity around what is defined as an existing structure, allowing administrative penalties for illegal structures, and ensuring emergency structures have a plan for removal, we can protect the coast from continued armoring."
2. Background. The Commission was established by voter initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20) and later made permanent by the Legislature through adoption of the Coastal Act. In partnership with coastal cities and counties, the Commission plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities are broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters. The Coastal Act generally requires a CDP from either the Commission or the local government with a certified local coastal plan (LCP) for development activities.
3. Seawalls and Existing Structures. The Coastal Act requires the Commission to permit shoreline protective devices in certain circumstances. The Commission will generally permit shoreline protective devices if:
   1. There is an existing structure, public beach, or coastal-dependent use;
   2. There is danger from erosion;
   3. The shoreline protection is required to address the danger (the least environmentally-damaging, feasible alternative); and,
   4. The shoreline protection is designed to eliminate or mitigate impacts on sand supply.

New development is prohibited from constructing shoreline protection devices. However, “existing structures” is not defined in the Coastal Act and has been interpreted differently at different times by the Commission and by local governments in their certified LCPs. In some cases an existing structure has been viewed as a structure built prior to passage of the Coastal Act (1976). However, it is unclear whether an existing structure that is redeveloped would still be considered an existing structure.

This bill defines existing structure as a structure in existence as of January 1, 1977. The Commission or a local government with a certified LCP would still be able to provide a CDP for an existing structure constructed after 1977, but would not be required to do so. This bill also limits future emergency permits to the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to address the identified emergency and requires the structure to be removed at the end of the term of the emergency permit.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 17, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Cristina Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1129 (

Author:Mark Stone) – As Amended Ver:March 9, 2017

SUBJECT: Coastal resources: structures: beach access and protection

SUMMARY: Clarifies which shoreline protection structures the California Coastal Commission (Commission) must provide a coastal development permit (CDP) for. Requires future emergency permits to be time limited authorizations to build temporary structures. Clarifies the Commission’s civil penalty authority to fine a person who has unpermitted shoreline protection structures, such as a seawall, revetment, retaining wall, or other like structure.

EXISTING LAW, pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act):

1. Establishes the Commission in the Natural Resources Agency and requires the Commission to consist of 15 members (3 non-voting and 12 voting).
2. Requires the membership of the Commission include six members of the public at large and six from local governments’ representatives from six coastal regions.
   
3. Provides that the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee each appoint four of the members.
4. Requires a person planning to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone to obtain a CDP from the Commission or local government enforcing a Local Coastal Program (LCP).
   
5. Defines "development" to mean, among other things, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure on land or in water. "Structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line.
   
6. Defines the “coastal zone” as the land and water area of the State of California from the Oregon border to the border of the Republic of Mexico, extending seaward to the state's outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and recreational areas, the coastal zone extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the sea or five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less. In developed urban areas, the zone generally extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The coastal zone does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, nor any area contiguous thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing into such area.
   
7. Requires revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shorelines processes to be permitted when the structure is serving coastal-dependent uses or protecting existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply.
   
8. Requires, when feasible, existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills to be phased out or upgraded.
   
9. Authorizes the Commission to waive the requirement of obtaining a CDP when immediate action by a person or public agency performing a public service is required to protect life and public property from imminent danger, or to restore, repair, or maintain public works, utilities, or services destroyed, damaged, or interrupted by natural disaster, serious accident, or in other cases of emergency. Requires notification of the executive director of the Commission of the type and location of the work within three days of the disaster or discovery of the danger, whichever occurs first.
10. Authorizes the Commission to impose administrative civil penalties on a person, including a landowner, who is in violation of the public access provisions of the Coastal Act.
    

THIS BILL:

1. Requires revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shorelines processes to be permitted only for existing structures that were legally authorized and in existence as of January 1, 1977.
2. Limits emergency permits to temporary authorization intended to allow the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to address the identified emergency, and minimize any potential harm or adverse coastal impacts related to addressing the emergency. Requires a CDP for any structure beyond that scope.
3. Requires an emergency structure be removed at the end of the term of the emergency permit unless it receives a CDP or determination that a CDP is not needed.
4. Clarifies the Commission’s authority to impose administrative civil penalties on a person, including a landowner, who has an unpermitted shoreline protection structure, such as a seawall, revetment, retaining wall, or other like structure.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement:

California’s coast is constantly changing, and as bluffs retreat, beaches erode and sand supplies shift, efforts to protect shoreline structures have left large percentages of the coast armored. Seawalls and revetments have been built along the coast changing patterns of erosion, protecting some areas and magnifying erosion in others. The results are beach erosion and a depletion of coastal access. Currently, structures that are provided under emergency permits are rarely removed. These structures do not take into account the impacts on the rest of the coast. By providing clarity around what is defined as an existing structure, allowing administrative penalties for illegal structures, and ensuring emergency structures have a plan for removal, we can protect the coast from continued armoring.

1. Coastal Commission. The Commission was established by voter initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20) and later made permanent by the Legislature through adoption of the Coastal Act. In partnership with coastal cities and counties, the Commission plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a CDP from either the Commission or the local government with a certified LCP.

The Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency, and is composed of 12 voting members, appointed equally (4 each) by the Governor, the Senate Rules Committee, and the Speaker of the Assembly. Six of the voting commissioners are locally elected officials and six are appointed from the public at large. Three ex officio (non-voting) members represent the Natural Resources Agency, the Transportation Agency, and the State Lands Commission.

According to the Commission’s mission statement:

The Commission is committed to protecting and enhancing California’s coast and ocean for present and future generations. It does so through careful planning and regulation of environmentally-sustainable development, rigorous use of science, strong public participation, education, and effective intergovernmental coordination.

1. Seawalls. Seawalls or other shoreline protective devices (known as “coastal armoring”) conflict with Coastal Act requirements to protect public access, recreation, coastal waters and marine resources, natural landforms, and visual resources. Coastal armoring now occupies more than 110 miles, or at least 10%, of the overall California coastline, including 33% of the southern California coastline. According to the Commission, shoreline protective devices impede or degrade public access and recreation along the shoreline by occupying beach area or tidelands, by reducing shoreline sand supply, and by fixing the back of the beach, ultimately leading to the loss of the beach. A Stanford Law School report entitled, “2015 California Coastal Armoring Report: Managing Coastal Armoring and Climate Change Adaption in the 21^st Century,” found that shoreline protective devices can also hasten coastal erosion on neighboring properties, which can lead to more shoreline protective devices. It also found that shoreline protective devices reduce beach habitat and impact shorebirds.

The Coastal Act requires the Commission to permit shoreline protective devices in certain circumstances. The Commission will generally permit shoreline protective devices if:

• 1. There is an existing structure, public beach, or coastal-dependent use;
  2. There is danger from erosion;
  3. The shoreline protection is required to address the danger (the least environmentally-damaging, feasible alternative); and,
  4. The shoreline protection is designed to eliminate or mitigate impacts on sand supply.

New development is prohibited from constructing shoreline protection devices. However, “existing structures” is not defined in the Coastal Act and has been interpreted differently at different times by the Commission and local governments’ LCPs. In many cases an existing structure has been viewed as a structure built prior to passage of the Coastal Act (1976). In addition, it has been unclear whether an existing structure that is redeveloped would still be considered an existing structure. This bill defines existing structure as a structure in existence as of January 1, 1977. The Commission or a local government with a certified LCP would still be able to provide a CDP for an existing structure constructed after 1977, but would not be required to.

There are hundreds of shoreline protection devices that were installed using emergency permits. While the applicants claim the shoreline protection device is needed to protect against an imminent danger, the shoreline protection device installed is often not a temporary device. When a shoreline protection device is authorized by an emergency permit there is little to no substantive review of the impacts it will have on the beach, ecosystems, or neighboring properties. Once the shoreline protection device is installed it is difficult, costly, and environmentally damaging to remove. Generally, the erosion issues that led to the emergency have been known for some time and could have undergone review prior to seeking the emergency permit. This bill limits future emergency permits to the minimum amount of temporary development necessary to address the identified emergency and requires the structure to be removed at the end of the term of the emergency permit.

1. Sea level rise. According to Ocean Protection Council, climate change has already caused 8 inches of sea level rise at the San Francisco tidal gauge and scientists project an additional 3 to 5.5 feet or more of rising sea levels by 2100, within the lifetime of children born today. On August 12, 2015, the Commission unanimously adopted the Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance document that provides an overview of best available science on sea level rise for California and recommends steps for addressing sea level rise in Commission planning and regulatory actions. This will help coastal local governments to make planning decisions that will take into account sea level rise and identify infrastructure and property that is at risk.

In the Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance document, the Commission states:

LCPs and CDPs should require recorded assumptions of risk, “no future seawall” conditions, and/or other appropriate mitigation measures to internalize risk decisions with the private land owner.

If existing development (both private and public) is threatened by sea level rise hazards, it should employ the least environmentally damaging feasible alternatives and minimize hard shoreline protection. Priority should be given to options that enhance and maximize coastal resources and access, including innovative nature based approaches such as living shoreline techniques or managed/planned retreat. If traditional hard shoreline protection is necessary and allowable under the Coastal Act, use the least-environmentally damaging feasible alternative, incorporate projections of sea level rise into the design of protection, and limit the time-period of approval, for example, to the life of the structure the device is protecting. Major renovations, redevelopment, or other new development should not rely upon existing shore protective devices for site stability or hazard protection. Where feasible, existing shoreline protection that is no longer being relied upon in this way, or no longer needed otherwise, should be phased out.

However, as sea level rises there will be more pressure to build shoreline protection devices to avoid a possible planned retreat. Land is extremely valuable on the coast and as the sea level rises additional land will be at risk and more difficult decisions will be required. Coastal armoring will continue to be a controversial issue as California adapts to a changing climate.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

The Nature Conservancy (Sponsor)
Adventure 16
Audubon California
Azul
Bureo
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Coastal Protection Network
California League of Conservation Voters
City of Oxnard
Climate Resolve
Humboldt Baykeeper
Inland Empire Waterkeeper
Klamath Riverkeeper
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
Monterey Coastkeeper
Natural Resources Defense Council
Orange County Coastkeeper
Russian Riverkeeper
Sagebrush
San Diego Coastkeeper
San Luis Obispo Channelkeeper
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
Sierra Club California
Surfrider Foundation
The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
The Inertia
The Otter Project
The Trust For Public Land
Ventura Coastkeeper
Wishtoyo Foundation

Opposition

Breakers Way Homeowners Association
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Capistrano Shores
Coastal Property Owners of Santa Cruz County
National Federation of Independent Business
North Coast Village Homeowners Association
Pacific Legal Foundation

Seadrift Association
Western Manufactured Housing Communities
80 Individuals

Analysis Prepared by: Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. /