Coastal Commission, State Parks face 3 lawsuits over Oceano Dunes OHV ban. Here’s the latest
The California Coastal Commission and California State Parks are now facing a third lawsuit regarding its decision to ban off-road riding at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area in southern San Luis Obispo County.
The Coastal Commission and State Parks are state agencies, meaning any costs associated with battling these lawsuits will cost taxpayer dollars.
The third lawsuit comes from Friends of Oceano Dunes, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the continued use of off-highway vehicles, or OHVs, at the Oceano Dunes. It’s the second lawsuit the nonprofit has filed against the Coastal Commission regarding the agency’s decision.
On March 18, the Coastal Commission unanimously voted to ban OHVs at the Oceano Dunes due to environmental and health concerns.
The vote mandates State Parks to prohibit OHVs in the park by 2024, and only allow car and recreational vehicle camping and street-legal vehicles to access a one-mile stretch of beach between Pier and Grand avenues.
The new Friends of Oceano Dunes lawsuit alleges that the Coastal Commission’s vote “exceeded its authority” under the California Coastal Act and the statutes and policies that govern State Parks, such as the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the Coastal Commission “has no legal authority to unilaterally amend an existing, vested and valid permit when the permittee State Parks did not request the amendment,” that the decision violates the coastal development permit for the Oceano Dunes and that the elimination of the majority of the state park to vehicle access impedes coastal access for disabled people.
This lawsuit differs from Friends of Oceano Dunes’ first lawsuit, which was filed on April 12 and alleged the Coastal Commission and State Parks violated the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.
Another lawsuit was filed by the nonprofit corporation EcoLogic Partners on April 19. It also alleged CEQA violations as well as Coastal Act violations.
Did California Coastal Commission exceed its authority with ban?
The California Coastal Commission enforces the Coastal Act, a state law that broadly ensures the protection and conservation of coastal resources.
The agency is also beholden to other state laws, such as the OHV Act, which ensures State Parks has the statutory authority and legislative direction to manage the state’s OHV parks.
In its lawsuit, Friends of Oceano Dunes allege that the Coastal Commission exceeded its authority by undermining these two state laws through banning OHV use in the Oceano Dunes.
“There is nothing in this statutory authority that suggests State Parks, or any other agency, has the authority to eliminate OHV use at the park expressly created and designated for OHV use,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit says that the authority rests with State Parks to decide whether areas “should be closed, conserved or restored,” and not with the Coastal Commission. This is because State Parks manages, maintains and operates the land and activities within the Oceano Dunes, according to the lawsuit.
By voting to ban OHVs in the park, which was seen as conserving the Oceano Dunes, the Coastal Commission allegedly “duplicate(d) regulatory controls established by any existing state agency,” according to the lawsuit.
A report by Stanford Law School’s Mills Legal Clinic sent to the Coastal Commission before the March 18 vote analyzed the legal bounds the commission must act within, and whether banning OHVs at the Oceano Dunes would overstep such bounds.
“Eliminating motorized recreation does not ‘duplicate regulatory controls established’ by State Parks,” the Stanford report said. “Indeed, the Coastal Act provides for ‘coordination and cooperation between the Coastal Commission and other state agencies.’ “
Further, the report says that “the Coastal Act makes clear that the commission has sole authority to carry out the statute’s duties and responsibilities and that ‘all state agencies shall carry out their duties and responsibilities in conformity with [the Coastal Act].’ “
Does State Parks have ‘vested right’ to allow OHVs at Oceano Dunes?
The Friends of Oceano Dunes lawsuit also alleges that “State Parks has a vested right to operate Oceano Dunes SVRA in accordance with the terms of that permit, as amended.”
Because the Coastal Commission has allowed OHVs on the dunes for the past 40 years, the lawsuit continues, the agency had no right to completely eliminate the use.
But the Coastal Commission has the authority to amend coastal development permits when the current uses on the land are found to degrade sensitive coastal resources, which off-roading has found to do at the Oceano Dunes.
Additionally, in the 1980 court case Liberty v. California Coastal Commission, the court said the Coastal Commission is “not confined to the narrow circumspection of precedents, resting on past conditions which do not cover and control present day conditions obviously calling for revised regulations to promote the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public.”
Protecting the environment and health of those downwind of the Oceano Dunes SVRA were at the forefront of the commissioner’s decision on March 18.
“Adoption of staff’s well-supported recommendations for (coastal development permit) amendments that will finally begin to correct decades of non-compliance is squarely within the Commission’s authority and, therefore, should easily survive judicial challenge as a legitimate exercise of the Commission’s statutory obligations,” the Stanford report sent to commissioners says.
Does the Coastal Commission’s vote impede public access rights to the Oceano Dunes?
In its final argument in the lawsuit, Friends of Oceano Dunes allege that the Coastal Commission “violates the Coastal Act’s recreation resource and public access policies, as well as access policies for disabled persons.”
“The Legislature ‘finds and declares’ that a basic state goal in the coastal zone is to ‘maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conservation principals and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners,’ “ the lawsuit says.
In a 2017 amendment to the OHV Act, the legislature revised the law to place a higher priority on environmental protection, according to a letter sent to the Coastal Commission before the March 18 vote by state Sen. Ben Allen, the author of the revisions to the OHV Act.
Allen wrote in the letter that Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area “was one of the most cited parks in terms of environmental degredation, land use conflicts and public health impacts” during the 2017 legislative session.
The Stanford report further found that the OHV Act allows for off-roading activities on the beach, “but only if those activities do not unduly damage natural resources.”
The Friends of Oceano Dunes lawsuit alleges the Coastal Commission has imposed a “total elimination” of OHV use at the Oceano Dunes, thus restricting public access.
However, non-vehicular recreational activities — such as hiking, biking, horseback riding and surfing — will still be allowed in Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area after 2024. The Coastal Commission’s vote restricts where cars can drive on the beach to a one-mile stretch between Grand and Pier avenues.
