Ummmm ... no. I don't know whether this writer's alarmism is due to misunderstanding or dishonesty, but this document is NOT about governments taking mass stretches of private property through eminent domain.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION RESIDENTIAL ADAPTATION POLICY GUIDANCEThis Guidance is advisory. It provides the Commission’s direction on how local governments can address sea level rise issues in Local Coastal Programs consistent with the Coastal Act. The guidance is not a regulatory document or legal standard of review for the actions that the Commission or local governments may take under the Coastal Act. Such actions are subject to the applicable requirements of the Coastal Act, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, certified Local Coastal Programs, and other applicable laws and regulations as applied in the context of the evidence in the record for that action. (PDF Page 4)
...
Takings Analysis Policy
As described above, this Guidance and several of the model policies provide a framework for avoiding future instances of takings; however, there may still be circumstances where a taking of private property would be unavoidable when applying the Coastal Act. In those cases, to help carry out Section 30010 of the Coastal Act by avoiding an application of the Coastal Act or an LCP that would cause an unconstitutional takings of private property, a local government may adopt an LCP policy that allows some development in a sea level rise hazard zone even though that development would normally be prohibited pursuant to other LCP policies. (PDF Page 52)
...
B.10 Takings Analysis
Where full adherence with all LCP policies, including for setbacks and other hazard avoidance measures, would preclude a reasonable economic use of the property as a whole, the [city or county, or Commission if on appeal] may allow the minimum economic use and/or development of the property necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. There is no taking that needs to be avoided if the proposed development constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise prohibited pursuant to other background principles of property law (e.g., public trust doctrine). Continued use of an existing structure, including with any permissible repair and maintenance (which may be exempt from permitting requirements), may provide a reasonable economic use. If development is allowed pursuant to this policy, it must be consistent with all LCP policies to the maximum extent feasible. (PDF Page 72)
I'm no fan of the California Coastal Commission, and would love to see it scrapped. But accusing it falsely the way this American Thinker writer did serves no one except Enviro-Crazies who
do want to do away with private property rights.