California Coastal Commission. 1. Pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976 and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA), the CCC has jurisdiction and is responsible for:
a. administering the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP);
b. receiving grants from the Federal government in support of the coastal management program;
c. implementing, through the CCMP’s broad planning and regulatory framework, a comprehensive set of specific policies for the protection of coastal resources and the management of orderly development throughout the State’s coastal zone;
d. reviewing, for consistency with the CCMP, all activities within or outside of the coastal zone that affect land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone and that are conducted, permitted, or funded by the Federal government; and
e. implementing, pursuant to Section 6217 of CZARA and in conjunction with the State Water Board, a coastal NPS Pollution Control Program, approved by the U.S. EPA and NOAA in 2000.
2. The Coastal Act grants the CCC authority to issue Coastal Development Permits (CDPs) for any development in the coastal zone until local governments adopt CCC-approved Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). The CCC works with local governments to design LCPs that reflect local coastal issues while meeting the statewide goals and policies of the Coastal Act. Upon certifying a LCP’s compliance with Coastal Act requirements, the CCC delegates most permitting and related monitoring and enforcement responsibilities to the local jurisdiction. Several well- defined regulatory responsibilities delineated by the Coastal Act and the CZMA, however, permanently reside with the CCC. Included among these is the aforementioned “Federal consistency” review authority. Distinct sets of State and Federal standards and procedures for determining consistency with the CCMP apply to Federal agency activities, Federally-funded activities, and non-Federal activities that require Federal licenses or permits, including oil and gas exploration, development, and production on the Outer Continental Shelf.
California Coastal Commission. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (will be done by others) State Water Resources Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (will be done by others) California Department of Health Services (DHS) California Department of Industrial Relations Division Occupational Health and Safety (CAL-OSHA) California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) LOCAL City of Santee Public Works City of Santee Planning San Diego Air Pollution Control District City of San Diego Engineering Department City of San Diego Development Services Department (will be done by others) City of San Diego Fire Department County of San Diego Department of Health Services Utility Companies County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Padre Dam Municipal Water District San Diego Gas & Electric County of San Diego Public Works County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use DELIVERABLES Permit Work Plan and Schedule (5 copies).
California Coastal Commission. 7 E. Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 7 III. SCOPE. 8 IV. POLICY FOR INTERAGENCY COORDINATION. 9
A. NOAA Role 9 B. EPA Role . • 10
California Coastal Commission which established the following analysis for determining the reasonableness of a permit condition:
California Coastal Commission. In Xxxxxx, the Nollans sought a development permit to replace their small beachfront home with a three-bedroom house.166 The California Coastal Commission granted the permit, subject to the condition that the Nollans dedicate a public access easement across a portion of their property along the beach.167 The Commission justified the easement as necessary to alleviate the burdens caused by the proposed development, namely the public’s obstructed view of the beach and their subsequent difficulty in realizing that those portions of the beach were available for use.168 The Nollans challenged the condition, claiming that it effected a taking of their private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.169 The Court agreed and held the condition unconstitutional because it lacked an “essential nexus” to the burdens the new development would create.170 The permit condition, therefore, was “not a valid regulation of land use but ‘an out-and-out plan of extortion’.”171 While the Xxxxxx decision established the requirement of a nexus between the exaction imposed and the harm the development will cause, the Supreme Court in Xxxxx set forth the necessary “degree of connection between the exactions and the projected impact of the proposed development.”172
California Coastal Commission. The development proposed by OPTIONEE for Parcel C will be independently reviewed for consistency and compliance with the approved CDP prepared for
