Strategic Plan, June 1997

This Plan results from an intensive inquiry into the future direction of the coastal management program in California, conducted by Coastal Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. The Strategic Plan is intended to focus the efforts of the agency to achieve the policy directions of the California Coastal Act of 1976. In an environment of limited fiscal resources and with moderate augmentation as proposed by this Plan, the Commission articulates the following Goals:

1. Improve the protection of coastal and ocean resources;
2. Improve assessment and management of impacts of development in the coastal zone;
3. Improve shoreline access opportunities for the public;
4. Enhance staff capabilities and expertise on technical and other subjects;
5. Enhance the Coastal Commission’s leadership role in coastal zone management and in the provision of information regarding coastal and ocean resources;
6. Strive to make the Commission’s regulatory and planning processes more effective, efficient, and user-friendly; and
7. Develop innovative approaches to carrying out the Commission’s programs, including inter-agency, inter-disciplinary, and volunteer approaches.

Each Goal is accompanied by Objectives which cut across agency functions and programs. Thus, the Goals and Objectives are intended to improve the agency’s performance in various work units and in a variety of ways. For instance, Objectives intended to enhance the effectiveness of the staff include the replacement of the Commission’s antiquated computer system with a modern networked system. Objectives intended to improve agency efficiency include the encouragement of team efforts, both within the agency and in coordination with other resource and planning agencies. In order to put the Strategic Goals and Objectives in perspective, the Plan also contains an Agency Description which summarizes the "on-going goals" which the Commission pursues.

In addition to the Goals and Objectives, the key elements of the Strategic Plan include the Mission and Vision Statements which together articulate a future in which both environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean are protected, conserved, restored, and enhanced, for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations. The Plan will be revised annually to reflect achievement of Objectives and completion of Performance Targets. Furthermore, a renewed Strategic Planning effort will be undertaken periodically, in order to identify Goals and Objectives for future years beyond the 3 to 4 years on which this Strategic Plan focuses.

Table of Contents

I. Mission Statement

II. Vision Statement

III. Agency Description 

IV. Principles and Values  

V. Internal/External Assessment (Summary) 

VI. Goals/Objectives/Performance Targets 

VII. Performance Data 

VIII. Resource Assumptions 

IX. Financial Information

X. Appendices

A. Maps of the California Coastal Zone

Coastal zone maps were included with the paper verion of this report for illustrative purposes only, but, because, at this time, they are not in a web-readable format, are not provided here. Should you wish paper copies, you may contact our Technical Services Division at (415) 904-5468 or write to them at our headquarters address.

B. Location of Coastal Commission District Offices

C. Internal/External Assessment

---

I. MISSION STATEMENT

The Mission of the California Coastal Management Program administered by the Coastal Commission is based on the mandates of the California Coastal Act of 1976. This Mission is to:

Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations.

---

II. VISION STATEMENT

The Coastal Management Program's vision of the future for the California coast and ocean is one in which:

A. CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

1. Ecologically viable tidepools, kelp beds, streams, wetlands, riparian corridors, and marine and terrestrial environmentally sensitive habitat areas, including the habitats of rare or endangered organisms, are protected and restored, in order to maximize biological values.
2. Water in coastal streams, lagoons, bays, and the sea supports a diversity of biological, educational, and recreation-oriented uses including fishing and water sports, as well as healthy and diverse populations of marine organisms.
3. Wherever possible, wastewater is reclaimed for beneficial use and polluted runoff is prevented or minimized.
4. The coastal zone has clean air and clean water.
5. Archaeological and paleontological resources are protected against adverse impacts of development and human activities.

B. COASTAL ECONOMY/PORTS AND INDUSTRY

6. Coastal tourism is robust and growing, while maintaining the quality of the visitor's experience and environmental protection of the coast and ocean.
7. A vigorous and environmentally sound aquaculture industry provides food for the country and for export while protecting natural habitat and recreational values.
8. Productive farmlands are preserved and the agricultural economy in the coastal zone is strong and sustainable.
9. Commercial and sport fisheries are restored to a healthy and sustainable state.
10. Existing ports and port facilities are efficient, adapted to modern needs, and competitive with those in other states.
11. Coastal-dependent activities and industries, including commercial fishing, are not precluded by other land uses on waterfront sites.
12. Oil and gas developments, refineries, and other energy facilities are consolidated and are designed to minimize the risk of spillage and adverse impacts to coastal and ocean resources.
13. Petrochemical products are transported by pipeline rather than by marine vessels.
14. Coastal and ocean natural resources are effectively protected in a way that promotes and maintains a strong coastal zone economy.

C. COASTAL ACCESS AND RECREATION

15. Accessways for the public to get to the shoreline and state waters are attractive, inexpensive, well-signed, readily accessible to visitors, and plentiful.
16. A continuous coastal trail extends from Oregon to Mexico and connects to inland public lands and recreational open space.
17. Hotels, restaurants, campgrounds, and other private commercial and public recreational facilities which serve coastal visitors are attractive, located near points of visitation if environmentally appropriate, and accessible to those of all income levels.

D. HAZARDS

18. The potential for catastrophic damage and loss of life and property resulting from natural hazards in the coastal zone is minimized.
19. Shoreline protective works such as seawalls are avoided on the open coast or on beaches, and non-structural alternatives are utilized.

E. COMMUNITY CHARACTER

20. The natural beauty of the coastal zone and the special character of historic, scenic, and unique coastal communities and places are preserved for the benefit of future generations.
21. Significant public views of the ocean and scenic coastal resources are preserved.
22. In rural areas, coastal communities are adequately buffered against incompatible nearby development.
23. New urban growth is accommodated within existing urban areas and stable urban-rural boundaries are maintained.
24. Residential, commercial and other urban developments minimize energy use and facilitate alternative modes of transportation.

F. ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS

Note: The following organizational factors apply to all aspects of the Vision Statement and should not be viewed in isolation from the others.

25. The Coastal Commission works effectively and efficiently in partnership with other local, state, and federal agencies to carry out the coastal management program.
26. All cities and counties in the coastal zone have fully certified Local Coastal Programs in place.
27. A stable source of funding exists to fully carry out the mission of the coastal management program.
28. Public support and participation remains a fundamental part of California's coastal management program.

G. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

29. People of all backgrounds consider protection of the coast and ocean to be important.
30. Schoolchildren throughout California grow up learning about the values of marine life and the resources of the coast and ocean, and persons of all ages have opportunities to learn about, participate in the conservation of, and explore and benefit from the resources of the coastal zone.
31. Additional coastal and marine science research institutions and educational facilities are appropriately located along the coast and inland to expand understanding and knowledge of coastal and ocean resources, dynamics, and systems.

    ---

III. AGENCY DESCRIPTION

The California Coastal Management Program is comprised of two segments: one for the bulk of California's coast, administered by the California Coastal Commission, and the other for San Francisco Bay, administered by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The basic goals for coastal management for the Pacific Coast segment are expressed in Chapter 1 of the California Coastal Act (see Public Resources Code Section 30001.5). These goals are to:

1. Protect, maintain, and where feasible enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal environment and its natural and manmade resources.
2. Assure orderly, balanced use, and conservation of coastal resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the State.
3. Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.
4. Assure priority for coastal-dependent development over other development on the coast.
5. Encourage State-local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.

The Coastal Act also contains specific policies pertaining to public access, recreation, marine resources, land resources, residential and industrial development, and port development (see Public Resources Code Section 30200). These policies are implemented primarily through the coastal development permit process; the development, certification, implementation, and amendment of Local Coastal Programs which the Coastal Act requires all coastal cities and counties to prepare; and the federal consistency review process.

When a Local Coastal Program (LCP) is certified by the Coastal Commission as being consistent with the goals and policies of the Coastal Act, coastal permit authority for that area is delegated to the local government. After LCP certification, however, development in state tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands continues to require a permit from the Coastal Commission. Furthermore, certain types of local government decisions on coastal permits made under certified LCPs may be appealed to the Coastal Commission. In addition to Local Coastal Programs prepared by cities and counties, Port Master Plans have been prepared by four ports in the coastal zone.

The third partner agency which implements California's Coastal Management Program is the State Coastal Conservancy. The Coastal Conservancy carries out a variety of programs in the coastal zone directed at preservation of coastal agriculture, resolution of coastal land use issues, natural resource restoration and enhancement, urban water front development, acquisition of significant coastal sites, public access to and along the shoreline, and assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations. The Coastal Conservancy is responsible with the Coastal Commission for the Joint Access Program which includes measures to identify, acquire, develop, and manage public accessways to the coast.

In addition to the coastal permit, LCP, and public access programs described above, the Commission has the following on-going responsibilities:

• Reviews the consistency of federal activities with the California Coastal Management Program;
• Maintains a Coastal Resources Information Center as a central clearinghouse for information relating to the coast;
• Reviews and certifies Long Range Development Plans for colleges and universities and Public Works Plans prepared by public agencies, utilities, special districts, and community colleges;
• Monitors local government implementation of certified LCPs and periodically reviews such implementation.

IV. PRINCIPLES AND VALUES OF CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The members and staff of the California Coastal Commission espouse the following principles and values:

We recognize and respect the humanity and individuality in each of us.

We strive to be responsible, honest, and cooperative in interactions with others.

We are always sensitive to and aware of the mission of the Coastal Commission.

Our primary obligation as coastal managers is to carry out the Coastal Act in a manner that best serves the public interest.

We treat members of the public and permit applicants courteously and with respect, mindful of the time and costs and expectations they have invested in their work.

We recognize that public service is a privilege, and not a right; we value excellence, efficiency, creativity, accountability, and integrity in all we do, and we take pride in our work.

Personal and professional growth of all participants in the coastal program is of high importance.

We base our regulatory and planning decisions on information which is as objective, complete, and accurate as possible.

Personal preferences or bias cannot be a basis for our work-related recommendations and decisions.

We recognize the diversity of perspectives applicable to coastal management issues, and we are respectful of the views of others.

We strive for equitable and meaningful access to the planning process for all interested parties; helping the general public to understand and participate in the coastal management program is of high importance.

We respect the legal and Constitutional rights of all persons including the rights of private property owners and the rights of the public to reach and use public trust lands and waters.

We are especially sensitive to and respectful of private property rights while recognizing that the public also has important rights and interests in the protection of human and natural community values, and that it is against those public rights and interests that private rights must, at times and under appropriate circumstances, be measured.

---

V. INTERNAL/EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT (SUMMARY)

In preparing this Strategic Plan, the Commission and staff conducted an assessment of factors both internal and external to the agency which together influence the success of the Coastal Commission in carrying out its mission. The factors include management policies, resource constraints, organizational structure, automation, personnel, and operational procedures. This assessment resulted in a statement of "strengths" and "weaknesses" of the coastal management program which formed the background for the development of goals and objectives. The Internal/External Assessment reflects comments made by members of the public, Commissioners, and staff at workshops on October 9, 1996, March 12, 1997, and May 13, 1997, as well as on other occasions.

The Internal/External Assessment is contained in Appendix C.

VI. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE TARGETS

Goal 1 Improve protection of coastal and ocean resources.

Objective 1.1 Reduce polluted run-off (FY 1997-2002)

Action a) Develop jointly with the State Water Resources Control Board by October 1998 a strategy to implement the State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program throughout the coast.

Action b) Develop or update technical assistance tools for planners to use to address nonpoint source pollution issues during permit review and LCP planning activities (e.g., revised CEQA checklists, standard conditions, "model" LCP policies and ordinances, lists of Best Management Practices, summaries of water quality concerns/watershed management efforts in critical coastal areas) and incorporate into the Commission’s Polluted Runoff Procedural Guidance Manual on a regular basis over next 5 years.

Action c) Identify and assign Water Quality Coordinator in each office.

Action d) Conduct annual meetings over the next 5 years between district Water Quality Coordinators and headquarters staff to disseminate new polluted runoff information.

Action e) Conduct in each district, in coordination with headquarters staff, periodic meetings over the next 5 years with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff for the purpose of developing stronger, long-term ties with the RWQCBs.

Action f) Continue on an annual basis over the next 5 years the idenitification of potential additional grant and funding sources to support and expand the Commission’s polluted runoff control activities.

Objective 1.2 Strengthen oil spill program (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Continue to develop strategies with other agencies to improve detection, prevention, and clean-up of underground (e.g., pipeline, storage tanks) spills, similar to Guadalupe spill in Central California (ongoing).

Action b) Continue development of strategy to improve prevention of oil spills from tankers/barges transiting the North and Central Coast Districts by June 1998.

Objective 1.3 Ensure follow-up and compliance on all major permit conditions (FY1997-2000)

Action a) Compile data on permits and identify lessons learned regarding what worked and what did not. Continue to improve future permit requirements to prevent impacts to marine and coastal resources by December 1998.

Action b) Develop strategy to ensure independent, science-based monitoring for all major projects by December 1997.

Action c) Develop strategy to enhance involvement of university scientists in mitigation or restoration design and monitoring by December 1997.

Action d) Explore additional grant and funding alternatives to support enhanced monitoring efforts and determine need for improved efficiency and additional staffing (on-going).

Goal 2 Improve assessment and management of impacts of development in the coastal zone.

Objective 2.1 Reinstate mandate to complete LCPs (FY 1998-99)

Action a) Prepare draft legislation by December 1, 1997.

Objective 2.2 Target staff assistance to complete uncertified LCPs (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Each district office to develop priority list of LCPs where assistance is likely to be most productive by November 1997.

Action b) Explore and identify needs by December 1997 for additional staff to assist targeted local governments in completing LCPs.

Action c) Prepare budget proposal/justification for additional staff by December, 1998.

Action d) Develop or update guidance mechanisms to assist local governments in LCP planning by June, 1998.

Objective 2.3 Conduct at least one Regional Cumulative Assessment Program (ReCAP) review of development impacts each year (FY 1997-2000)

Action a) Select site for review during FY 1997-98 by April, 1997.

Action b) Initiate issue identification, public outreach, and resource assessment by September 1997.

Action c) Complete review and develop recommendations by May 1998.

Objective 2.4 Improve information systems to facilitate future ReCAP reviews (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Conduct training sessions with district staff concerning post-certification data collection, by August, 1997.

Action b) Monitor use of existing Permit Tracking System.

Action c) Written recommendations to improve information systems.

Action d) Implement alternative data collection/data sharing methods.

Action e) Work with Resources Agency to develop/expand Permit Tracking System.

Goal 3 Improve shoreline access opportunities for the public.

Objective 3.1 Prepare and implement a Public Access Action Plan that includes (1) mapping and field checking of all Offers-to-Dedicate (OTDs), deed restrictions, and other legal documents that secure public access; (2) prioritization of all OTDs; (3) methods to achieve opening of the accessways by the year 2000; (4) priority links in the Coastal Trail (FYs 1997-2000)

Action a) Prepare draft action plan by July 1998.

Objective 3.2 Develop improved Commission findings, for use in conjunction with seawalls, supporting public access requirements and long-term needs for mitigation of impacts (FY 1998-99)

Action a) Prepare draft model findings by September 1998.

Objective 3.3 Seek innovative ways to reduce costs for the public to get to the shoreline (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Pursue legislation by January 1998 to provide funding to open and operate accessays.

Action b) Pursue legislation by January 1998 to reduce litigation costs for non-profit organizations accepting accessways.

Action c) Investigate options for funding alternative transit/public parking to support shoreline access by June 1998.

Goal 4 Enhance staff capabilities and expertise on technical and other subjects.

Objective 4.1 Provide a training budget for Commission staff of approximately $300/person ($30,000) (FY 1998-99)*

Action a) Prepare budget proposal/justification by August 1, 1997.

Action b) Investigate alternative methods of training, including use of video tapes and other cost-effective methods, by January 1998.

Objective 4.2 Conduct an all-staff conference once each year (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Prepare tentative agenda by September 1, 1997 for first conference to be held during 1997-98 to include training on critical challenges facing the Commission, past lessons learned, etc.

Action b) Arrange for speakers, conference location, transportation, and accommodations by October 1997.

Action c) Conduct staff conference no later than July 1, 1998.

 

Objective 4.3 Expand the technical expertise available to the Commission for its regulatory and planning work (FY 1997-1999)*

Action a) Seek funding for additional biologist by August, 1997.

Action b) Hire water quality planner, geologist by September, 1997.

Action c) Explore contract with Division of Mines and Geology and prepare a report by December 1, 1997.

Action d) Convert limited-term staff positions to permanent status during FY 1997-98.

Objective 4.4 Ensure each district office has access to GIS information, aerial photography, and land parcel information at usable scales (FY 1997-98)*

Action a) Purchase needed computers and software for district offices by January 1, 1998.

Action b) Acquire and install datasets on computers in each office, or install network in order to share such information, by February 1, 1998.

Action c) Train district staff during first quarter of 1998.

Action d) Cartographic staff to perform data manipulation/integration tasks on on-going basis during FY 1997-98.

Objective 4.5 Expand resources of the Administration Division (FY 1998-99)*

Action a) Determine specific staff needs and prepare budget proposal/justification for up to 3.5 additional PYs for Personnel, Accounting, and Business Services by August 1997.

Objective 4.6 Enhance the enforcement program in each office (FY 1997-98)*

Action a) Prepare budget proposal/justification by August 1997 to fund three new enforcement staff positions.

Objective 4.7 Enhance legal services (FY 1999-2000)*

Action a) Prepare budget proposal/justification by July 1, 1998 to fund two additional staff counsel positions so that the Commission has a staff counsel in each district/area office.

Goal 5 Enhance the Coastal Commission’s leadership role in coastal zone management and in the provision of information regarding coastal and ocean resources.

Objective 5.1 Improve public information provision (FY 1998-99)*

Action a) Prepare budget proposal/justification by July 1, 1997 to fund an information officer position.

Objective 5.2 Educate young people about coastal management and marine sciences through creation of a National Sea Camp

(FY 1997-98)

Action a) Conduct workshop regarding Sea Camp in fall, 1997.

Action b) Prepare work program for implementation of Sea Camp Program by January 1, 1998.

 

Objective 5.3 Develop education program that addresses water quality programs (FY 1997-1999)*

Action a) Develop a work program and budget by December 1997.

Action b) Explore sources of funding to carry out the program.

Action c) Implement the work program during 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

 

Objective 5.4 Complete and update series of Coastal and Marine Educational Resource Directories (FY 1997-2000)*

Action a) Seek funding for Southern California directory by January 1998.

Action b) Prepare directory for Southern California by July 1999.

Action c) Seek funding for a North Coast directory by January 1999.

Action d) Prepare directory for North Coast by July 2000.

Action e) Update San Francisco and Monterey Bay directory and South Central Coast directory by July 2000.

 

Objective 5.5 Maximize benefit to Commission programs from "Whale-Tail" license plate program (FY 1997-2000)

Action a) Prepare plan by July 1, 1997 to utilize funds generated by license plate sales for appropriate Commission, State Coastal Conservancy, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary programs.

Action b) Sell 25,000 license plates by 2000.

 

Objective 5.6 Develop agency newsletter for local governments (like "Local Assistance Notes") and/or others interested in the Commission’s programs (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Prepare new newsletter by June 1, 1998.

 

Objective 5.7 Prepare "25-year report" on the Commission’s work and what has been accomplished (FY 1997-2000)

Action a) Seek funding for publication of report by January 1, 1998.

Action b) Prepare draft report by July 1, 1998.

Action c) Distribute report to the public by June, 2000.

 

Objective 5.8 Establish agency speaker’s bureau (FY 1997-1999)

Action a) Recruit staff from each office and/or unit by October 1997.

Action b) Develop handouts, speaker’s topics, and slide show by July 1998.

Action c) Compile bureau listing and coordinate assignments through Public Education Network by July 1998.

 

Objective 5.9 Provide information to staff of the Commission and of local governments on property rights law (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Conduct training workshops for Commission staff by December, 1997.

Action b) Conduct workshops for local government staff by April 1998.

Objective 5.10 Create Coastal Atlas of mapped information for the use of the public and of staff (FY 1998-2000)*

Action a) Develop detailed project design/work plan for Coastal Atlas for entire California coast by December 31, 1997 (the project to be done in regional components as funding becomes available).

Action b) Complete preliminary prototype by July 1, 1998.

Action c) Prepare budget proposal/justification for additional cartographic staff by August 1998.

Action d) Add pilot sections of Coastal Atlas to Commission’s Website as they are completed.

Objective 5.11 Expand information about the Commission’s programs and coastal management available on the Commission’s Website on the Internet (CRIC) (FY 1997-2000)

Action a) Develop work plan for ways to maximize use of the Website including identification of materials to be published on Website; schedule; and staff training, by December 1997.

Action b) Add the federal consistency database and "Federal Consistency in a Nutshell" to the Commission’s Website by July 1, 1998.

Action c) Expand mapped and other geographic information available on Website on a continuing basis as funding and staffing allow.

Action d) Add pilot sections of Coastal Atlas to Website as they are completed.

Action e) Explore expanded use of Commission’s Website for news items, announcements, and newsletter for public and local government by December 1997.

Performance Targets:	5.1 Sea Camp in operation
	5.2 Water quality education program
	5.3 Coastal/Marine Educational Resource directories
	5.4 Agency newsletter
	5.5 25-year report
	5.6 Speaker’s bureau
	5.7 Coastal Atlas
	5.8 Expanded and continually updated Website

Goal 6 Strive to make the Commission’s regulatory and planning processes more effective, efficient, and user-friendly.

Objective 6.1 Streamline the Commission’s coastal permit and Local Coastal Program procedures (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Staff Streamlining Task Force prepare recommendations regarding LCPs and permits, including improvements in the provision of information to the Commission, by December 1997.

Action b) Implement recommendations during 1997-98.

Objective 6.2 Pursue information system strategy that: puts computer on every staff person’s desk; results in an effective, networked system; implements a statewide coastal permit tracking system; provides staff training, e-mail, usable databases; puts in place necessary technical computer service staff; includes GIS spatial information components (FY 1997-98)*

Action a) Implement strategy in FY 1997-98.

Objective 6.3 Undertake an audit of the Commission’s performance (FY 1997-98)*

Action a) Prepare draft work program for audit by July 1, 1997.

Action b) Commission review and adopt criteria by July 1, 1997.

Action c) Select auditor by August 1, 1997.

Objective 6.4 Enhance staff communications with the public and with other Commission offices (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Prepare report on options such as new phone systems to allow voice mail in all offices, video conferencing, improved speaker phones, relationship to potential new computers to be acquired; report to be prepared by July 1, 1998.

 

Objective 6.5 Revise and improve the Commission’s administrative regulations (FY 1997-98)

Action a) Initiate rulemaking procedures by July 1, 1997.

Action b) Complete rulemaking procedures by July 1, 1998.

 

Objective 6.6 Evaluate public, applicant, and "customer" comments regarding the Commission’s services (FY 1998-99)

Action a) Develop a customer service survey to be distributed to applicants and others by July 1, 1998.

Action b) Implement appropriate improvements based on the customer service survey by December 31, 1998.

Objective 6.7 Improve efficiency in management of the Commission’s files (FY 1997-99)*

Action a) Establish Task Force on files management by January 1, 1998.

Action b) Undertake pilot project to analyze the costs and benefits of converting paper records to microfiche or electronic form by April 1, 1998.

Action c) Task Force to propose criteria for what to keep, what to throw, what to archive, etc. by June 1, 1998.

Action d) Prepare budget proposal/justification to fund improved management of files by July 1, 1998.

 

Objective 6.8 Open North Coast Commission Office (FY 1998-99)*

Action a) Prepare budget proposal/justification by July 1, 1997 to fund the re-opening of a North Coast office during FY 1998-99.

Objective 6.9 Convert certified LCPs into digital format (FY 1998-99)

Action a) District managers to make priority list of LCPs for conversion by July 1, 1998.

Action b) Assemble LCPs and send to Resources Agency (CERES) for conversion by August 1, 1998.

Goal 7 Develop innovative approaches to carrying out the Commission’s programs, including inter-agency, inter-disciplinary, and volunteer approaches.

Objective 7.1 Create multi-agency Enforcement Task Forces in additional regions of the coastal zone, modelled on the Santa Monica Mountains Task Force (FY 1997-2000) (see Objective 3.6)*

Action a) Create Task Force in Monterey Bay Area during FY 1997-98.

Action b) Create Task Force in North Coast during FY 1998-99.

Action c) Create Task Force in San Diego County during FY 1999-2000.

 

Objective 7.2 Enhance staff teamwork on various issues, modelled on the BEAR task force (FY 1997-99)

Action a) Draft strategy regarding teamwork by January 1, 1998.

Action b) Re-activate Wetlands Task Force by June 1998.

Action c) Create Non-Point Source Task Force by ???

Action d) Implement strategy during 1998-99.

Objective 7.3 Target local government assistance efforts where they will do the most good (FY 1997-98) 

Action a) Review past requests from local governments concerning what assistance would be most useful to them, during 1997-98.

Action b) Consider survey of local governments to ask what they need most, during FY 1997-98.

Objective 7.4 Develop intern program with focus on cultural diversity (FY 1998-99)*

Action a) Prepare budget proposal/justification for necessary funding by August 1997.

Objective 7.5 Actively participate on special task forces such as Seismic Survey, Energy Facility Abandonment, Pipeline Transportation, and Wetlands Mitigation Banking task forces (FY 1997-2000)*

Action a) Prepare budget proposal/justification by July 1, 1998 to expand staff resources.

Action b) Make staff available to participate in important long-range interagency planning efforts.

VII. PERFORMANCE DATA

VIII. RESOURCE ASSUMPTIONS

 

Background: Budget History FY 1981/82 through FY 1996/97.

In FY 1981/82, prior to George Deukmejian becoming governor, the Commission had a state budget of $6.668 million (equivalent to $11.134 million in 1996/97 dollars) and a staff level of 186.9 budgeted positions. During his two terms as governor, George Deukmejian reduced the Commission’s state budget by 27 percent and reduced the staff level by 42 percent, to 108.1 budgeted positions. He also forced closure of the Commission’s North Coast District Office in Eureka (1985). These actions were not related to the Commission’s workload and permanent responsibilities, but were based on the governor’s desire to eliminate the Coastal Commission.

In his first state budget in FY 1991/92, Governor Pete Wilson proposed a 12 percent increase in state funding for the Commission to: (1) reestablish a North Coast area office and increase the North Coast staff by two positions; (2) increase the enforcement staff by three positions; and (3) add a position for the Adopt-A-Beach/Conservation Education program. Unfortunately, his proposed FY 1991/92 budget increase was wiped out by an across-the-board cut which was necessary to balance the state budget during the recession which fell upon the state and nation.

Three enforcement positions for the Commission were included in Governor Wilson’s FY 1993/94 state budget and these positions were authorized by the Budget Act of 1993; however, an unallocated General Fund reduction triggered after the budget passed forced the agency to eliminate 4.5 positions, including the three new enforcement positions.

No other significant budget changes were proposed specifically for the Commission in the other budget years prior to FY 1997-98. By FY 1996/97, the state budget for the Commission’s core program was 38 percent lower than in FY 1981/82 and staff had been cut by 43 percent, to 106.5 budgeted positions.

These reductions in budget and staff have forced the Commission to operate for over fourteen years at levels well below that necessary to carry out all of its statutory responsibilities. During this period, the Commission’s work has been driven primarily by statutory requirements and deadlines set by the state Coastal Act, federal Coastal Zone Management Act, and state Permit Streamlining Act. Many critical activities that should have had priority were terminated or deferred. For example, the periodic evaluation of certified LCPs has been deferred (periodic reviews for 50 jurisdictions are currently overdue, some by as many as 11 years); local assistance grants to coastal jurisdictions for LCP development and completion were terminated (37 LCPs are currently not effectively certified); the agency has been unable to provide coastal jurisdictions with the technical and legal assistance needed to develop, certify, and implement their LCPs; the Commission has a backlog of enforcement cases and has problems preparing the administrative records necessary to bring legal challenges to trial in a timely manner; few new accessways have been opened for public use (1,014 offers to dedicate access easements have not been accepted); the agency has deferred long range coastal planning and only recently became involved in nonpoint source pollution control as a result of a federal mandate.

In addition, the impacts on staff have also been substantial. Staff training is almost nonexistent; staff members have had to pay for their own travel and registration fees at conferences; layoffs and hiring freezes have been imposed that have increased the workload for the remaining staff; staff has been equipped with antiquated computers (Wang) and when new PCs have been provided, training and technical support have been insufficient. Most of the staff hired over the past five years have necessarily been hired as limited-term appointments (i.e., the terms of their employment are limited to the duration of the federal grants that support their positions). Agency managers have had to place strict controls on operating expenditures to keep within the agency’s budget. For example, staff travel to proposed development sites, to meetings with local officials, government agencies and permit applicants, and to Commission meetings has been reduced significantly.

FY 1997/98 Budget.

In his FY 1997/98 budget, Governor Wilson proposed a coastal initiative which included components previously identified by the Coastal Commission as essential to the successful achievement of its mission. The Governor’s Budget proposed: (1) $500,000 to the Resources Agency to purchase data processing/computer equipment and to provide technical services to the Commission in order to install modern computers and a permit tracking system; (2) $100,000 to the Commission to develop, in cooperation with the Coastal Conservancy, a comprehensive coastal access implementation plan; and (3) $500,000 to the Commission to provide grants to local governments for completing and implementing their local coastal programs.

Although the Governor’s Budget proposed additional funding for the coastal program, the budget was still insufficient to carry out the Commission’s most urgent, ongoing needs. Therefore, the Commission requested the Resources Agency, governor, and legislature to amend and augment the governor’s coastal initiative by: (1) adding $86,000 for a water quality planner to work on the completion and implementation of the federally-mandated Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program; (2) amending the local coastal program (LCP) completion and implementation budget to include $160,000 for two coastal program analysts to manage the local assistance grant program and to help local governments complete and implement their LCPs; (3) adding $192,000 for three coastal program analysts to reduce the backlog of enforcement cases and to work with other state, federal, and local agencies to create enforcement task forces in the central and north coast districts; and (4) adding $67,000 for a geologist to provide technical assistance to the Commission’s regulatory, planning, and energy programs.

On May 6, 1997, Assembly Budget Subcommittee #3 on Resources approved the appropriation of $500,000 to the Resources Agency to develop the Commission’s computer system, and also approved the following appropriations to the Coastal Commission: $100,000 for one limited-term position to develop an access implementation plan, $340,000 for local assistance grants and $160,000 for two limited-term positions to work on LCP completion, $186,000 for two limited-term positions to work on water quality planning, $87,000 for a limited-term geologist, and $192,000 for three limited-term enforcement positions.

On May 8, 1997, the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee #2 on Resources Environmental Protection, Judiciary and Transportation approved the appropriation of $500,000 to the Resources Agency to develop the Commission’s computer system and also approved the following appropriations to the Coastal Commission: $100,000 for one limited-term position to develop an access implementation plan, $86,000 for a permanent water quality planner, $87,000 for a permanent geologist, and $192,000 for three permanent enforcement positions. The Subcommittee did not approve any funding or positions for LCP completion.

Because the Assembly and Senate actions on the Commission’s budget are not identical, the Commission’s budget has gone to the Conference Committee for final resolution. Differences include the designation of positions as limited-term or permanent, the number of water quality planner positions approved, and the approval or denial of funding for LCP completion.

Even if the FY 1997/98 budget for the Commission is approved with the maximum funding and the permanent positions proposed, there will still be a continuing deficiency in state funding for the Commission’s operations. The budget does not include any cost of living adjustments to pay for increased office rents, staff merit salary increases, etc. The Commission will still be dependent upon federal funds to support a significant portion of its core program. Federal funds will continue to make up about 80 percent of the core program’s Operating Expenses and Equipment (OE&E) budget in FY 1997/98. Although the Coastal Commission will receive $1.9 million in federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) section 306 funds for its core program in FY 1997/98, the agency will receive considerably less in other federal grants (CZMA section 308, 309 and 6217 grants; Clean Water Act grants; etc.). In the past the Commission has been able to use portions of these other grants to support baseline program costs as well as the costs for completing grant-specific tasks that require additional staff, additional travel, etc. Some of the federal money in the FY 1997/98 budget will come from FY 1996/97 grants that are carried over to the end of the federal fiscal year, September 30, 1997.

Resource Assumptions.

The Strategic Plan includes both objectives which can be achieved within a budget comparable to that of FY 1997-98 and other objectives which will require a budget augmentation in FY 1998-99. Those objectives requiring a budget augmentation are footnoted in the text and are discussed separately.

FY 1996-97 Funds include state general funds, environmental license plate funds, federal funds, and reimbursements.

FY1997-98 Funds are anticipated to include state general funds, federal funds, and reimbursements. To accomplish Objective 6.2 (upgrading the Commission’s information systems) would require an augmentation during FY 1997-98; this augmentation ($500,000 to the Resources Agency to design and implement the information systems upgrade) is already in the Governor’s proposed budget now under consideration in the Legislature. Funding to achieve Objective 4.6 (enhance the Enforcement Program) is contained in the pending budget. Objective 6.3 (performance audit) is intended to be accomplished with funding from outside the agency’s budget (e.g., from Resource Agency funds).

FY 1998-99 Funds are anticipated to include state general funds, environmental license plate funds (funds from the Whale-Tail license plate), federal funds, and reimbursements. To accomplish Objectives 6.7, 6.8, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 7.4 would require future budget augmentations. Funds for these objectives will be sought from the general fund (e.g., Objectives 5.3, 5.4, and 7.4).

FY 1999-2000 Funds are anticipated to include state general funds, environmental license plate funds, federal funds, and reimbursements. To accomplish Objectives 5.4, 4.7, and 7.1 would require future budget augmentations. Funds for certain of these objectives may be sought from non-general fund sources.

IX. FINANCIAL AND FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITION (FTE) INFORMATION

APPENDIX C: INTERNAL/EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT

This assessment includes a discussion of management policies, resource constraints, organizational structure, automation, personnel, and operational procedures, which together influence the success of the Coastal Commission in carrying out its mission. This section may also be thought of as addressing "strengths" and "weaknesses" of the coastal management program. The assessment reflects comments made at public workshops on October 9, 1996 and March 12, 1997, as well as on other occasions. The views expressed here are those of stakeholders both within and outside the agency.

A. Legislative and Legal Framework

1. The Coastal Commission’s geographic jurisdiction is a specifically mapped land and water area of the state, known as the coastal zone. The Commission also has review authority over federal activities or federally licensed or funded activities outside the coastal zone that may affect resources in the coastal zone. Because the coastal zone boundary is not based on geophysical features, it does not include the entirety of coastal watersheds. This is a deficiency in the Coastal Act.
2. The California Coastal Act provides a comprehensive planning approach that integrates regulatory activities, long-range planning (Local Coastal Programs, or LCPs), and educational efforts in order to preserve, protect and enhance coastal zone resources and public access to beaches and the ocean. California’s coastal management program provides a unique, multi-disciplinary statewide program, based on strong public participation, partnerships with local governments, strong coastal and ocean resource protection policies, and the goal of balancing sound conservation of coastal and ocean resources with their use for the benefit of current and future generations.
3. No other agency has the broad authority to accomplish this mission, and this fact instills pride within the agency’s staff.
4. The Commission was created by voter initiative and made permanent by state law, the California Coastal Act. The Commission also participates in the federal coastal management program (Coastal Zone Management Act). The Commission has regulatory review authority over federal projects or projects needing federal permits that may affect coastal resources. This "federal consistency review" authority is a strength for the coastal management program; it provides the only state regulatory review of offshore oil and gas activities in federal waters, military projects affecting the coastal zone, and other activities receiving federal licenses or permits.
5. There is uncertainty about the direction and consequences of judicial rulings regarding land use planning and regulatory decisions. Some court decisions have substantially eroded the ability of environmental agencies, including local governments implementing local coastal programs, to protect human and natural community values of significance to the public, such as opportunities for public access and protection of environmentally sensitive habitat, and have had a substantial chilling effect on the willingness of public land use management agencies to fully exercise their responsibilities to carry out Coastal Act policies. This situation is viewed by many as a weakness or impediment to the realization of many long-term goals of the coastal management program.

B. Composition of the Commission

6. The Commission includes an equal number of locally elected officials and public members who represent a diversity of views and backgrounds and are appointed by a governmental cross-section of key public policy decision-makers. This composition and appointment process is a strength for the program.
7. Frequent turnover of members on the Commission can impede long-range planning, continuity, and consistency in decision-making.

C. Staffing and Organization

8. The Commission staff is highly skilled, motivated, creative, professional, competent, and dedicated. Team work, critical thinking, and innovative problem-solving approaches are highly valued.
9. While the Commission makes decisions for the entire Coastal Zone, the staff is located in five district offices and a headquarters office. The district office structure is a program strength, because the offices are staffed by knowledgeable individuals who live in and are part of the local communities and are better able to be sensitive to and take into account the special needs of each particular coastal region in carrying out statewide Coastal Act policies.
10. The absence of a Commission office in the northern part of the state’s coastal zone has hampered service to the public and local governments in that area; this is a weakness for the program.
11. The Commission has been unable, for budgetary reasons, to provide adequate professional training for staff. As a result, staff members have been forced either to undertake their own personal efforts to stay current with the latest developments in the field or else to fall behind in maintaining the skills and expertise that are essential to the Commission’s work. This is a weakness for the program.
12. The Commission lacks sufficient permanent staff with expertise in specific areas such as geology, water quality, transportation, and marine and wetlands biology. The increasing technical complexity of many environmental management issues, as well as new legal requirements that certain regulatory decisions be science-based, makes such expertise increasingly important; this fact and the resulting reliance by the Commission on applicants’ consultants or other outside experts is a weakness.

D. Budgetary Factors

13. The Commission relies on a mix of state and federal funds to carry out its program.
14. Because some coastal cities and counties have not completed their Local Coastal Programs, as required by the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission devotes significant time and resources to the review of coastal development permit applications which ought to be reviewed by local governments, thus increasing the Commission’s costs.
15. There is inadequate and unstable funding to support the coastal program at the level necessary to carry out Coastal Act requirements. This key factor has been compounded by past budget cuts. In the last 15 years, the Commission staff has been reduced by approximately 40% and the individual workload for remaining staff has increased substantially. This is a serious program weakness.
16. The Commission has been very successful in identifying innovative funding approaches to address important coastal resource and use issues with support from state, federal, and private grants (such as grants addressing wetlands, cumulative impacts, non-point source water pollution, geographic information systems, shoreline erosion, public shoreline access, and public education). This resourcefulness is a program strength but comes at the cost of diverting staff from core program responsibilities.
17. Competition for scarce fiscal resources among public agencies and public programs at all levels is intense.
18. Uncertainties in coastal program budgeting have often made it difficult to attract and retain highly skilled and qualified staff. At the same time, Commission staff is adept at doing "more with less and doing it better" through staff task forces, special projects, and volunteers. Examples include the Coastal Access Program, Adopt-A-Beach program, Santa Monica Mountains Enforcement Task Force, and Beach Erosion and Response Task Force.
19. Governor Wilson has proposed a Coastal Initiative for 1997-98, and there currently is strong support in the Legislature for the coastal program.
20. The economy of California is strong, a fact which is a strength for the coastal management program in the long-run.

E. Public Participation

21. There is strong public support, involvement, and activism in California’s coastal management program, and the Commission has a long history of encouraging broad public participation. These factors are strengths in the coastal management program, although opportunities may exist for increasing public participation even more.
22. The Commission’s workforce and its most active constitutency do not adequately represent the cultural diversity of California; in the long-run, this fact is a weakness.
23. Society seems less willing to find common ground in solving complex problems. There is considerable cynicism about the role of government in resource management.
24. Partisan politics can introduce negative, counter-productive and divisive elements into environmental resource planning and management programs.

F. Public Education

25. The Commission has successfully promoted public stewardship of the coast through the Adopt-A-Beach program, the Save Our Seas school curriculum, Coastal Clean-up Days, California Coastal Resource Guide and California Coastal Access Guide, worldwide-web site on the internet, and other public education and outreach programs.
26. The new "whale-tail" license plate program will enhance the Commission’s resources for coastal and ocean public education and conservation efforts.

G. Regulatory Program

27. The Commission successfully brokers solutions to complex development problems which frequently involve numerous federal, state, and local reviews and/or permits, and which often include a wide range of public opinions.
28. The Coastal Act includes strong law enforcement provisions, including penalties and the ability of the Commission to issue cease and desist and restoration orders; this is a program strength. Due to staff limitations, review and monitoring capabilities have been inadequate to ensure that Commission-approved coastal development permits are carried out as intended. This is a program weakness.
29. Instances where the Commission has worked cooperatively with local governments to enforce the requirements of the Coastal Act, such as in regional task forces, are a program strength. The Commission’s lack of resources to initiate additional regional enforcement task forces is a weakness.

H. Local Coastal Programs

30. The process of preparation of Local Coastal Programs by cities and counties has suffered without adequate funding and technical assistance by Commission staff.
31. There are no strong incentives or sanctions to encourage LCP completion, resulting in the Commission’s continuing involvement in routine matters and "neighborhood" permit decisions in certain local jurisdictions. The mandate to prepare and implement LCPs has been suspended; this is a program weakness.
32. Review and monitoring capabilities have been inadequate to ensure that certified Local Coastal Programs have been implemented as intended, or modified to address changed circumstances. There is no Coastal Act mandate to require local governments to review their LCPs or to make changes, when new information and changing circumstances warrant it. This a program weakness.

I. Coastal Access Program

33. With limited resources, the Coastal Commission (in cooperation with other agencies), has been relatively successful in securing and protecting opportunities for creation of new public accessways to the coast. Many such opportunities have been created in the form of "offers-to-dedicate" easements for public accessways.
34. There has been a slow rate of acceptance of offers-to-dedicate for accessways and of opening such accessways to the public. This is a program weakness.
35. The California Coastal Access Guide and California Coastal Resources Guide have sold over 100,000 copies and are key tools in increasing the public’s enjoyment and knowledge of the coast.

J. Long-Range Issues

36. Long-range planning efforts are typically deferred, due to time pressures and demands to meet short-term needs. This is a program weakness.

37. Continued population growth in California will increase the need for long-range planning. Furthermore, the natural resource base of the coastal zone continues to be depleted, agricultural lands continue to be converted to non-agricultural use, and commercial fisheries continue in decline.

38. California is recognized among coastal states as a leader in coastal management and education. This is a strength of the program.

39. The Commission’s information technology equipment is outdated and clearly deficient. The lack of staff training also contributes to inefficient service to Commissioners, local governments, applicants, and the general public, as well as creating unnecessary and/or unproductive work for staff. Approximately 70% of the Commission’s work is performed on antiquated Wang computer systems, due to a lack of modern networked personal computers. This is a significant program weakness.

40. With very limited resources, the Commission has developed a Web page that provides information quickly and efficiently about the Commission’s work to the public. The Commission has also taken initial steps in developing a basic geographic information system which is compatible with those of other state agencies and which provides critical information for the work of the Commission and for the public.

Return to the list of California Coastal Commission publications.

Return to the California Coastal Commission home page.