The Short Answer:
At least once every 5 years, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) is required to review how well a local jurisdiction (in this case, LA County) is implementing its certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), and how well that LCP conforms to the policies of the California Coastal Act.  The review is intended to be an impartial assessment of local government compliance, with recommendations for remedial action on any shortcomings.

The Long Answer:
LCP is the acronym for Local Coastal Program. The California Coastal Act serves to protect and enhance coastal resources for public access and enjoyment. Under the California Coastal Act, the California Coastal Commission must review all development projects within 1,000 yards of the coast for compliance.  The LCP is a mechanism to shift authority for writing Coastal Development Permits from the Coastal Commission to the local government jurisdiction.  

The Coastal Commission retains compliance oversight. This statewide body of 12 appointed commissioners meets monthly at various locations up and down the coast. In addition to reviewing all projects (from backyard decks to power plants) not within an LCP jurisdiction, they hear appeals of projects within LCP jurisdictions; any project not in compliance with its jurisdiction's LCP; and any project involving construction in the water (from docks to offshore oil platforms). Hearings usually span 3-4 days during the second week of each month.

Marina del Rey's LCP consists of a Land Use Plan (general plan) and a Specific Plan (implementation ordinances, zoning maps, appendices and amendments). The Marina's current LCP was certified by the Coastal Commission in 1996, with one amendment in 2001 to increase a building height limit on one project (since then, that limit of 57’ has replaced the 45’ maximum on most waterfront project proposals).  In 2004, the Coalition to save the Marina successfully sued the Coastal Commission to compel them to conduct the required 5-year review (see “short answer”). Coastal staff began the review in January 2005 with a public workshop in Marina del Rey.  In June 2005, they released an initial draft LCP Review (“Staff Report”), and a one-year public comment period ensued.  In July 2006 they issued a "final" Staff Report for consideration by the twelve Commissioners, scheduled for their August 2006 hearing. The Department of Beaches & Harbors requested—and received—a continuance because they "needed more time to craft their response," even though they are not entitled to any response period until after the report is adopted by the Commissioners.  The pattern of delays and secret negotiations between County and Coastal Commission staffs culminated in a secret transmission of County documents by Beaches & Harbors in the spring of 2007 that the Coastal Commission rejected.  Nevertheless, it appears that the substance of that secret transmission made its way into next draft of the Staff Report.  

The June 2007 “final” Staff Report showed such a softening of language and dilution of recommendations that the County was pleased to announce at the July 2007 CCC hearing in San Luis Obispo that it was basically “in agreement” with it.

There is tremendous pressure from developers and local governments to exploit coastal resources solely for their financial potential. In addition, the Coastal Commission faces chronic budget woes, and lacks the staff to verify all findings or claims.  The result is an assault on our coastal resources that the Commission cannot withstand without strong public demand and support. Recreational use in the Marina, which was once slated to recapture private parcels following retirement of the revenue bond that funded Marina construction costs, is at least preserved in our 1996 LCP, despite current generous build-out allowances. The County now seeks to take even more public land for private development--including at least 7 of our 12 public parking lots (so far) specifically reserved for only parks or parking!

The County has not held one single public meeting on the LCP Review to gather public input, and it has not made available any aspect of its negotiations with CCC staff (akin to a student “negotiating” higher marks on an unfavorable reportcard before it is sent home) for public review.