A Sacramento Superior Court judge has ruled that the California Coastal Commission is unconstitutional in the way it is set up, a decision that could significantly weaken the agency empowered nearly 30 years ago to protect the state's most precious resource.
The case grows out of the commission's efforts to stop a nonprofit group from completing construction of an artificial reef off Newport Beach. But it reflects the widely held views of real estate developers and property rights advocates that the commission enjoys virtually dictatorial powers over what can and can't be built along the coast.
Judge Charles C. Kobayashi ruled this week that the commission, a part of the executive branch, violates the state Constitution's separation of powers doctrine because two-thirds of its members are appointed by the Legislature.
The judge has yet to issue an official order, but Coastal Commission lawyers are preparing to ask that the ruling be suspended until the issues can be resolved on appeal.
Legal scholars said Thursday that the ruling presents a significant legal challenge to the commission, whose regulations have often delighted environmentalists and infuriated developers.
"It's a serious challenge to the commission that may well be upheld on appeal," said Stephen J. Barnett, a professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law.
J. Clark Kelso, a professor at McGeorge School of Law, said the case raises a "strong argument" that the commission's membership violates the Constitution. "It represents a tremendously important issue," he said.
What makes this case so unusual is that it attacks the commission for precisely what has made it so effective in resisting development pressures: the independence it derives from splitting its appointments three ways.
As it was set up after a 1972 ballot initiative, four members are appointed by the governor, four by the Assembly speaker and four by the Senate Rules Committee. That way, no one person or entity has majority control.
"This is a stunning decision that baffles me and defies comprehension," said Peter Douglas, the commission's longtime executive director. If upheld on appeal, he said, "it would create chaos. It would totally destroy California's coastal protection program."
Under the Coastal Act, local governments were supposed to draft local coastal plans and take over the job of meting out coastal building permits. The commission was to serve as an appeals board.
