California’s coast is one of the state’s most valuable and scenic resources. Our state boasts over 420 public beaches and approximately 840 miles of coastline, extending from the border of Mexico up to the state of Oregon. Unlike most states, within the California Constitution, the guarantee to the public right of access to our state’s beaches, ocean, and navigable waterways is enshrined. Each and every person is entitled to the enjoyment of our coastline, its recreational opportunities, its beauty, and the natural resources it has to offer.

Given the pristine and diverse nature of California’s coast, it is of paramount concern that the entire coast be protected and preserved, along with the regulatory mechanisms that protect it, such as the California Coastal Act. This Act holds especially true in light of climate change, with the irreversible impacts of sea level rise, increased bluff erosion, and groundwater intrusion. Our coast is directly in harm's way, and regulatory mechanisms like the Coastal Act are necessary to protect it for both present and future generations.

Other than climate change, impacts from increased human activity and development also pose significant threats to the ecological integrity and public access to our beaches. The Coastal Act established the California Coastal Commission, which is responsible for reviewing development projects within the Coastal Zone, issuing Coastal Development Permits (CDPs) to such projects, and ensuring that such development projects comply with Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) established by municipalities. The Coastal Act, along with the Coastal Commission, is necessary to make sure no development significantly impacts sensitive coastal resources, equitable public access to our beaches and ocean, and that the safety and welfare of potential residents are not compromised in the name of pure economic gain by developers. The purpose of the Coastal Act, along with the Coastal Commission, is to best serve the interests of both the public and the environment–not to contradict them, as some may argue. Protecting the Coastal Act, therefore, is paramount to the ecological integrity and accessibility of California’s coasts.

Over the past year, the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC), along with our partners, have been fighting to protect the integrity and the significance of the Coastal Act by opposing several Coastal Act attack bills, including SB 951 (Weiner), SB 1077 (Blakesepear), SB 1092 (Blakespear) and AB 2560 (Alvarez). All four bills were amended to remove development exemptions from the Coastal Act, which marked a victory for EAC’s 2024 Coastal Act protection campaign.

We were most involved with AB 2560 including testifying as an opposition witness and leading several sign-on letters with 40+ NGOs. We opposed AB 2560 unless it was amended. AB 2560 was initially authored as a Coastal Act exemption bill. That is, AB 2560 is a density bonus law that was created with the intent to allow certain density bonus developments within the Coastal Zone to supersede the necessary Coastal Commission review and permits that otherwise would have to be obtained under the provisions of the Coastal Act.

However, with the last hearing in the Senate for Natural Resources and Water Committee that took place on Tuesday, June 25th, the author of the proposed bill accepted two proposed amendments–thus heightening the protections of coastal resources along with protections toward equitable public access in relation to the proposed Density Bonus Law. This endeavor proves not only to be a victory for the integrity of the Coastal Act but also for the integrity of California’s coasts and ocean.

Our main initial opposition to AB 2560 as initially written stemmed from the root approach as a Coastal Act exemption bill, that failed to account for the protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (or ESHAs), failed to provide a scientific basis for its projections of sea level rise, and failed to account for the constitutionally mandated right of public access to our beaches and ocean.

Before the amendments, AB 2560 would have allowed certain Coastal Zone developments to be built without the proper environmental review. Proponents of the proposed bill have argued that the legislation increases affordable housing units within the Coastal Zone. However, that is far from the case. In reality, AB 2560 only supports a small percentage of affordable housing units compared to the proposed developments at large, thus making the bill a handout to possible developers who wish to build within the Coastal Zone. To be clear, EAC supports affordable housing including within the Coastal Zone, but AB 2560 took the wrong approach.

In its original state, AB 2560 also failed to protect ESHAs from possible Coastal Zone developments. The initial amendments attempted to protect sensitive areas from degradation from human activity or development, but we could not support the bill with the first round of amendments, which left too many gaps and took aim at our bedrock environmental law, the California Coastal Act.

Other issues with the bill before the most recent amendments included its failure to provide a scientific basis for sea level rise projections. Furthermore, the bill, as initially proposed, did not account for a timeframe within which the five feet of sea level rise was expected to occur. Based on the most updated scientific report from the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), which provides statewide sea level rise guidance, five feet of sea level rise is an arbitrary number that doesn’t account for the intricacies of climate change impacts. The report projects that sea levels could rise as much as 6.6 feet by the year 2100.

Lastly, AB 2560 failed to account for the constitutionally mandated right of public access to our beaches and ocean, and how such potential Coastal Zone developments might impact such a right of access. The proposed bill failed to mention the term “public access” at all. As equitable public access to our beaches, ocean, and waterways is protected under the Coastal Act, the public trust, and California’s Constitution, the substance of AB 2560 in its original state directly usurped both state law and state constitutional provisions.

However, at the Senate for Natural Resources and Water Committee hearing on June 25th, the Committee voted 11-0 to accept our proposed amendments to AB 2560. These amendments include the requirement for developers to obtain a CDP as required by the Coastal Act, the guarantee that proposed developments do not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and public access, and that the proposed Density Bonus Law be harmonized with the Coastal Act to achieve the goal of increasing the supply of housing in the coastal zone while also protecting coastal resources and public coastal access. In these ways, the accepted amendments serve to ensure that the proposed Density Bonus Law is not a Coastal Act exemption bill. The legislative session is not over, but we have moved into a neutral position on all four of these bills in their current form. While a hard fight, this is another victory for the protection of our sacred Coastal Act. We are thankful to our partners including Surfrider and Azul, as well as our great legal intern team!

Read our Letters
Read Retired State Senator Fran Pavley’s Op-Ed on Coastal Protection (EAC Exclusive)