Internet Explorer 11 is not supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

The Controversial Firing of California's Coastal Commission Chief

For the first time in its 44-year history, the California Coastal Commission on Wednesday fired its executive director _ a decision made despite an overwhelming show of public support for the land use agency's top official.

By Tony Barboza and Dan Weikel

For the first time in its 44-year history, the California Coastal Commission on Wednesday fired its executive director _ a decision made despite an overwhelming show of public support for the land use agency's top official.

The panel disclosed that it voted 7-5 in a private session to dismiss Charles Lester. Commissioners offered no public explanation.

After announcing the vote, the panel gave Lester a few moments to speak and adjourned.

"I'm disappointed in the vote," Lester said. "It's been a privilege to serve the commission for the past 4{ years. If there is a silver lining, I've been energized by all the people who came together on this."

Commissioners took the action in closed session because they said they were bound by law to honor Lester's right to privacy.

But their reasoning did not align with advice from the agency's chief counsel, who told the panel that they were free to discuss any current issues involving Lester's performance because he had chosen a public hearing to defend himself.

Before moving into closed session, commissioners did openly discuss some general criticisms of Lester. And several were critical of media reports, fueled by coastal activists and environmental groups, that attributed the move to fire Lester to a desire for more development of the coast.

Commissioners said the reports were baseless and damaged the reputation of the agency.

"This created an atmosphere of public distrust," said Commissioner Mark Vargas. "We need to set the record straight. There was no coup by developer interests.

"But this is like trying to convince people that the fluoride in their water was not a communist plot," Vargas said.

Vice chair Dayna Bochco said commissioners have had problems getting information from the commission's staff, not being included in agency processes and being left in the dark about how staff has come to conclusions related to projects.

"I would like to discuss with the press the reasons we are here," Bochco said. "It is not about developers and their consultants. We have been terribly mischaracterized as developer hacks."

Commissioners Carole Groom and Mary Shallenberger defended Lester and praised him for a long list of achievements, including the development of a strategic plan for the agency, efforts to address sea level rise, increasing the budget by $3 million and good cooperation with local governments.

"He leads by accomplishment," Groom said. "Month after month after month we have some 60 issues to deal with. To do this work there is leadership at the top and the bottom ... The proposal to replace our executive director is absolutely wrong."

The comments came after hundreds of people spoke in defense of Lester and blamed the move to oust him on a desire to tilt the commission more toward development.

"This hearing is not about Charles' performance, it's about yours," said Stefanie Sekich-Quinn, a representative of the Surfrider Foundation.

Many speakers warned that replacing Lester would send a powerful signal to staff to be more accommodating to development.

Speakers included officials from local governments up and down the coast, representatives of state legislators, commission staff members, environmental organizations and Fred Collins, an administrator for the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, who implored the commission to protect "grandmother ocean."

"You're getting killed here today," said former commission chief counsel Ralph Faust, referring to the overwhelming show of support. He urged the commission to make its decision in public, adding that "whatever it is, own it and defend it."

Some commissioners had said they wanted to fire Lester because he was lacking in management and leadership skills and they had trust and communication problems with him and the staff.

They said the planning and approval process was far too long and burdensome for developers.

Lester was notified in writing Jan. 14 that the commission would consider his dismissal. The panel gave him the option of resigning or having a public hearing to determine his future. He chose the latter and he defended his record in remarks that opened the hearing.

Lester, who replaced longtime Executive Director Peter Douglas five years ago, said he remained the best person to lead the powerful agency in its mission to shape land use and protect the environment along the coast.

He backed his work and that of staff to preserve coastal resources and public access in the face of rising seas, a growing population and increasing development pressure.

"Our beaches are a critically important public commons to be enjoyed by all Californians," Lester said. "Many of our beloved beaches could be lost _ squeezed out between the rising seas and shoreline development."

He highlighted his experience and commitment as a public servant protecting the state's 1,100-mile shoreline under the 1976 Coastal Act.

In a highly charged environment, Lester said, the independent, 160-member staff provided "impartial, objective and well-reasoned recommendations" that are crucial for political appointees on the panel to make proper decisions.

Lester appeared at ease as he delivered more than 30 minutes of prepared remarks that were peppered with statistics, lists of agency accomplishments during his four-year tenure and humorous asides to his staff and the audience.

"We have been relentless in our protection of public access," Lester said, citing dozens of recently resolved enforcement violations. He concluded by urging commissioners to step back and consider "the precious coast of California and its future for all people and all generations."

Among those voicing support after his remarks were representatives of the agency's staff, elected officials and government officials from around the state, including the California Coastal Coalition, which represents 35 cities, five counties and several regional planning agencies.

At least one big developer, the Pebble Beach Co., showed up to support Lester, praising him and the commission for their approval four years ago of a major development at the luxurious Monterey Peninsula resort after years of clashing over the proposal.

The letter from Chief Executive Bill Perocchi called Lester a "fair, pragmatic, creative, open and reasonable" director who balanced the needs of the company and the rights of the public.

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo cited Lester's "proven track record" and sensible approach.

He urged commissioners to "greatly consider your responsibility to future generations" and to place their coastal protection duties over politics or development pressure.

A former chairman of the commission, Mel Nutter, said the way the hearing was structured _ with hours of public testimony before any commissioners uttered any criticisms of Lester _ was "totally backwards."

"The public was asked in effect to present a defense against a set of charges that were never presented," said Nutter, a Long Beach attorney. "It was totally backwards and that put the public at a huge disadvantage."

Surfrider's Sekich-Quinn reminded the panel that 153 out of more than 160 commission staff members, 35 former coastal commissioners, 18 state legislators and 10 members of Congress from California opposed the effort to dismiss Lester.

(c)2016 Los Angeles Times

Caroline Cournoyer is GOVERNING's senior web editor.
Special Projects