Yes -- Coastal Commission approval is required to get construction permits on coastal lands, and my understanding is that the commission uses this approval to obtain access concessions.
In what sense is it unrelated if it relates to the property in question? Besides, if you are not in compliance with rules and regulations, it's generally a bad idea to go to the authorities and ask for something.
> The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission that if the state of California through its regulatory agency, the California Coastal Commission, thinks an easement on private land is a good idea and a valuable public purpose, they should use eminent domain and pay for it, as opposed to demanding concessions from a land owner in exchange for a building permit. The court considered that "an out and out plan of extortion" of property. In the case, the owners of beachfront property were required to grant an easement for public access to facilitate pedestrian access to public beaches as a condition of permit approval to enlarge their home. The court, in a narrow decision, ruled that an "essential nexus" must exist between the asserted "legitimate state interest” and the permit condition imposed by government.
Ignoring that fact that precedent can be overturned, this ruling still leaves open the possibility of using eminent domain to get public control of the access road (which has been mentioned as a possibility in other comments). My guess is that they are going to withhold approval until the issue is resolved. So they aren't necessarily demanding easement concessions, but they aren't going to issue permits until the dispute has either been settled in the courts, eminent domain has been used, or a settlement is reached.
EDIT: Actually, if you dig a little deeper into that case, the ruling has little impact on the Martin's Beach case. In the Nollan case, the CCC was requesting an access road/path where none had previously existed. The CCC's argument was actually pretty weak, they were claiming that the development would result in "psychological impediments to public access" which gave them the right to demand concessions. In the Martin's Beach case, the CCC should have the power to demand public access concessions if the road historically served as a public access point (assuming the federal treaty issues don't negate that power).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nollan_v._California_Coastal_Co...
That is interesting, since it appears to be in direct conflict with the California Constitution Article 10, Sec 4 quoted at the top:
No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or
possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water ...
But he is playing by the rules, the courts agreed with him.
At any rate, nothing pisses me off more than some petty bureaucrat who uses his limited power to bully someone for an entirely different reason.
If you don't like that fact he is refusing beach access, then petition the gov't to change the rules. Don't start abusing your power. What's next? They'll "accidentally" disconnect his municipal water?
Except it seems that the rules, in the form of the CA Constitution, already say that no one can prevent right of way if that is needed to be able to access the water. So in that sense, the "petty bureaucrats" are, in fact, working to uphold the State Constitution.
Other courts (higher than the Coastal Commission) have already determined ownership of that particular piece of land, specifically, is exempt from that.
So does this only extend to denying people the right to access the water, or does he also not have to abide by things like electrical and earthquake building codes, since those were surely not in place when this treaty was established? In fact, why does he need building permits at all, if the State of California has no jurisdiction over this piece of land?
I don't know. You'd need to ask the Supreme Court about that. But I don't think that they ruled that the land was exempt from all California building codes and such.
