HomeMy WebLinkAboutCoastal Commission 1974 - 1975 - South Coast Regional Commis COPIES TO COUNCIL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA RONALD REAGAN, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION `m
666 E. OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 3107
P.O. BOX 1450
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801
(213) 4364201 (714) 846.0648 D E ^ E
21 August 1974 'IIUJu n
AUG w 31974 IUI
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
His Honor the Mayor Alvin M. Coen
City of Huntington Beach
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Reference Number: SCRC 548
Dear Mayor Coen:
Under the provisions of Proposition 209 the South Coast Regional
Commission is charged to preserve the ecological balance of the
coastal zone and to prevent its further deterioration and des-
truction and to ensure that its actions are consistent with the
objectives of maintenance, restoration and enhancement of the
overall quality of the coastal zone environment including, but
not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values. Further,
that irreversible and irretrievable commitments of -coastal zone
resources shall be avoided.
At its hearing on Monday, 19 August 1974, the South Coast
Regional Commission had, on its agenda, many four4'plex develop-
ments in the Sunset Heights area and the Town Lot `area.
You are, no doubt, aware that the Commission has been concerned
about developments in these areas as to their compliance with
the Act for some time, but has been approving developments in
these areas. This sudden influx Bf development has raised some
questions as to whether or not the City of Huntington Beach
City Council and Planning Commission are fully aware of the
intense development pressures in these areas. These applications,
plus previous applications, can effect a severe impact on these
areas as to schools, parks, city utilities and irretrievable and
irreversible commitments as well as aesthetic values.
It would be appreciated if the Commission could be provided with
your Council and Planning Commission' s reaction to the intense
I
Mayor Alvin M. Coen —2— 21 August 1974
development now taking place in the Sunset Heights and Town Lot
areas.
I am enclosing a copy of the permit applications now pending
action before the Commission.
Sincerely yours,
M. J. C pen r
Executive Director
MJ C: do
Enclosures
l
1
P-6-13-74-3465—A Construction of two - 2-story, 8-bedroom, 4-plexes, both .
with $ on-site parking spaces, ($70,000 each) , 800 yds.
from the mean high tide, at 11631 Sims and ---. --
-B 16641 Sims, Huntington Beach, by Tobin-Realty, Inc.
(17 du/ac each)
P-6-13-74-3466-A Construction of three - 2-story, $-bedroom, 4-plexes, all
with $ on-site parking spaces, all exempted from the 105
criteria, ($70,000 each), 800 yds. from the mean high
tide at 16692 Blanton St. and ----------
.-B 16702 Blanton St,, , Huntington Beach, by Tobin Realty, -Inc .
(17 du/ac)
P-6-13-74-3467-A Construction of three, 2-story, 8-bedroom, 4.--plexes on-
three lots, exempted from the 1.5 criteria, all have 4
covered .and 4, oper parking- spaces, ($70,000 each) , 850
y-ds. from the mean_ high tide, at 16821 Blanton St. ,
-B 16831 Blanton St. , and
-C 16841 Blanton St. , Huntington. Beach, by Tobin Realty, Inc.
(17 du/ac each)
P_6-2$_74-3468 Construction of a 2-story, $-bedrocrr. 4r-plex with 4
covered and 4 open parking spaces, (�70 OCO), 900 yds.
from the mean high tide, at 16661 Lynn 6t., Huntington
Beach, by Tobin Realty, Inc. (17 du/ac)
P-6-2$-74--3469 Construction: of a 2-story, 8-bedroom 4-plex with 4
covered and 4 open parking spaces, (K,000) , 850 yds.
from the mean high tide, at 16702 Sims St. , .Huntington
Beach, by Tobin Realty, Inc (17 du/ac )
P-6-2$-74 -3470 Construction of a 2-story, 8-bedroom 4-plex with 4
covered and 4 open parking spaces, ( 70,OCO) , $00 yds.
from the mean high tide, at 16722 Algonquin St., Huntinc-
ton Beach, by Tobin Realty, Inc. (19 du/ac)
P-6-2$-74-3471 Construction of a 2-story, 8-bedroom, 4-plex with. $ on-
site parking spaces, ($70,000) , 850 yds. from the mean
high tide, at 16741 Blanton. St. , Huntington Beach, by
Tobin Realty, Inc. (17 du/ac)
P-6-12-74-3472 Construction of a 2-story, $-bedroom, 4-plex with 4
covered and 4;. open. parking spaces, ($70,000) 9 850' yds.
from the mean high tide, at 16781 Blanton St. , Hunting
ton Beach, by Tobin Realty, Inc. (17 du/ac)
P--6-20--714-13 516 Construction of a 1-story, 6-bedroom, triplex with 4
primary and 2 tandem parking spaces, ($1001000) 2 700
yd.s. from the mean high tide, at 17071 Sims St. , - Hunting-
ton •Beach, by Grraziado Development Company.
P-7-12-74-3632 Construction of a 2--story 9 bedroom L nlex with 8 on-
site parking spaces, 5740 sq. ft. on 8400 sq. ft. lot,
25 ' above existing grade, ($100,000) , 650 yds. from
the mean high tide, at 16762 Sims, Huntington Beach, .by
Larue Frey Inc. and Richard Rule. (17.39 du/ac)
Condition: That the applicant . agree 'to submit revised plans prior
to issuance of pe=ait indicating 8 on-site parking
on setbacks.spaces �ithout encroaching z•
P-7-11-7 -3608 Construction of a 2-story, 5-bedroom duplex with 4 on-
site parking spaces, 2416" above existing grade, exempted
from 1. 5 criteria, ($70,000) 9 750 yds. from the mean
high tide, at 513--515 - 15th St. , Huntington Beach, by
Richmond Gipple. (12. 50 du/ac)
P--7-11-74 -3609 Construction of a 2-story, 5-bedroom duplex with 4 on-
site parking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria, 2416"
above existing grade, ($50,000) , 800 yds. from the mean
high tide, at 509-511 - 1$th St Huntington Huntington Beach, by
Melvin Hoeffliger. (12. 50 du/ac ) -
P-7-11-74-3610 Construction of a 2-story, 5-bedroom duplex with 4 on-
.site pal'iilllg spaces, exCiTiptcd fr viu .L. J criteria, 24 v
above existing grade ($50,000) , 800 yds, from the mean
high tide, at 514_51� - 19th St., Huntington Beach, by
Richmond Gipple. (12. 50 du/ac)
P-7-12-74-3627 Construction of a 2-story 5-bedroom duplex with 4 on- '
site parking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria, 2416"
above existing grade, ($70,000), $00 yds. from the mean
high tide, at 509 & 511 - 15th St. , Huntington Beach, by
Melvin Hoeffliger. (12. 50 du/ac )
P-7-12-74-3628 Construction of a 2-story, 5-bedroom- duplex Vrith 4 on-
site parking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria, 24,6"
above existing grade, ($70,000) , 800 yds. from the mean
high tide, at 509-511 - 19th St. Huntington Beach, by
Melvin Hoeffliger. (12. 50 du/ac�
P-7-12-74-3629 Construction of a 2-story, 5-bedroom duplex, 24t6" above
existing grade, with attached 4-car garage, 3581 sq. ft*
on a 5875 sq. ft. lot, ($70,000) , 800 yds. from the
mean high tide, at 510 & 512 -• 19th St. Huntington
Beach, by Michael Wilson. (12. 50 du/ac
P-7-17-74-3651 Construction of a 2-story duplex with one bedroom each,
23', above existing grade with 4 en-site parking spaces
on a lot with an existing single-family dwelling, con-
fonrLing lot is exempt from 1. 5 criteria, ($27,000) 9 700
yds. from the mean high tide, at 408 - 12th St. , Hunting-
ton Beach, by Ronald Lee Knudtson. (18.75 du/ac)
P-7-23-74-3704 Construction of a 2-story $ bedroom 4 plex, 22 ' above
; grade ,,,i th $ on-site parking spaces. Con-
fardeing lot is exe:�pt from 1. 5 triter!a, ($1007000) ,
350 yd '• from the mean high t-_de, at 210 7th St.
Hunting-ton Beach, by Leonard Lindborg. (25 du/a.c�
Condition: That the applica-t agree to subirit landscaping plans
prior to issuance of' permit.
P-6-10-74-3414 Construction .of a ; 2-story, 9-bedroom, 4-plex with $ on- . .
site parking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria,
($751000) ,300 yds. from the mean high tide, at 226 -
17th St. , Huntington Beach, by Foxx Development Corp.
(16.66 du/ac )
1,
Condition: That the applicant agrees to submit revised plans
indicating 8 on-site parking spaces that do not encroach
onto setbacks and with a 25 ft. turning radius, prior to
issuance of pe .mit.
P-6-6-74-3415 Construction of a 2-story, 9-bedroom, 4-plex with $ on-
site parking spacesx exempted from 1. 5 criteria,
($75,000) 2 150 yds. from the mean high :tide, at 305 --
18th St. , Huntington Beach, by Foxx Development Corp.
- (23.52 .au/ac )
Condition: That the applicant agrees to submit revised plans
indicating $ on-site parking spaces that do not encroach
onto setbacks and with a 25 ft. turning radius, prior to
issuance of permit.
P-6-14-74-3452 Construction of a 2-story, 9-bedroom, 4-plex with $ on-
site parking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria,
($607000) , 250 yds. from the mean high tide, at 120 -
12th St. , Huntington Beach, by Donald Redington. -
-- -(25 du/a c )
Condition: That the applicant agrees to submit revised plans
indicating- 9 on-siteparking spaces that do not encroach
onto setbacks and with a 25 ft; turning radius, prior to
issuance of permit.
P-7-$-74-3574 Construction of a 2-story, 10 bedroom 4. pl_ex, on a
vacant graded pad, 23 ' above existing grade, 4.300 sq.ft-
on 5875 sq.f-t. lot, ($100,000) , 650 yds. from the meen
high tide, at 4.02 14th St. , Huntington Beach, by L.D.
Zehnder. (23 . 52 du/ac)
Condition: That the applicant agree to submit landscaping plans
prior to issuance. of permit.
• P-7-10-74-357$ Construction of a 2-story 6 bedroom triplex, 24' above
existing grade, approx. 3500 sq. ft. on a 5750 sq. ft.
lot, ($40,000) , 950 yds. from the mean high tide, at.
611 9th St. , Huntington Beach, by Wi.11ia_m Linderoth.
_.. .- (17.64. du/ac)
Condition: That the applicant agree to provide 6 on-site parking
spaces which do not encroach on yard setbacks.
P--5-21-74-3297 Construction of a 2-story, 9-bedroom, 4 -plex with 8 on�-
site parking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria, ($105,00:
300 yds. from the mean high tide, . at 210 - 20th St. ,
Huntington Peach, by L. Tati"-n & J. Genovese. (25 au/ac)
Condition: That applicant agrees to submit revised plans indicating
8 on site parking spaces that do not encroach into the
setbacks and with a 25 ft. turning radius, prior to
issuance of the permit.
P-5-29-74-3331 Construction of a 2--story, 9-bedroom, 4 -plex with 8 on
site parking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria,
($105,000) ; 300 yds. from the mean high tide, at 321 --
20th St. , Huntington Beach, by L. Tatian & J. Genovese.
(2 5 du/a c) - ----- L--- ------- -- .. __
Condition: That the applicant agrees to submit revised plans indicat
ing .8 on.-site parking spaces that do not encroach onto
setbacks and with a 25 ft. turning radius, prior to
:issuance of the permi.u.
P-6-10--714-3411 Construction of a 2-story, 9-bedroom, 4-plex with 8 on-
site parIking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria,
(UrS,000) , 300 yds, from the mean high tide, at 226 -- '
18t11 Ste , Huntington Beach, by Foxx Development Corp.
----- - -- --- - (23. 52 du/ac )
Condition: That the applicant agrees to submit revised plans indicat•
Ing 8 on-site narking spaces that do not encroach onto
setbacks and v�ith a 25 ft. turning radius4 prior to
issuance of permit. _
P-6--6-74--3412 Construction of a 2--story, 9--bedroom, 4-plex with 8 on-
site parkin; spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria,
($75;000) , 000 yds, _run the mean high tide, at 309 -
lith Sto , Hunitington Beach, by Pauline Cooper.
(16,66 du/ac )
Condition: T'rat the applicant agrees to submit revised plans
znaicati11 S on--site parking spaces that do not encroach
onto setbacks and with a 25 ft. turning radius, prior to
- issuance of penrit.
P-6-14-7L,--3l,.13 Construction of a 2-story, 9-bedroom, 4-plex with 8 on-
site parkking spaces, exempted from 1. 5 criteria,
($757000) , 300 yds, from the mean high tide, at 202 --
I5th St. , Huntington Beach, by Foxx Development Corp.
(23. 52 du/ac )
Condition: That, the applicant af;rees . to submit revised plans -
indi.ca-Cin; 8 on-site parking spaces that do not encroach
Oai:U SE_t.l`:.;C�: �?11d �..,4 til a 2�j ft•. turnir— radius, prior to
-.. is .uaaice of permit.
P-7-23-74-3705 Construction of a 2-story 8 bedroom 4 plex,. 21 ' above
existing grade with 8 on-site parking spaces, ($100,000) ,
350 yds. from the mean high tide, at 212 7th St-. ,
Huntington Beach, by H"UI 1. (25 du/ac)
Condition: That the applicant agree to submit landscaping plans
prior to issuance of permit.
P-7-23.--74-3706 Construction of a 2-story 9 bedroom 4 plex, 21 ' above
existing grade with 8 on-site parking spaces, ($100,000),
700 yds. from the mean high tide, at 409 19th St. ,
Huntington Beach, b Norman Ivallenfang and Leonard . .
Lindborg. (25 du/ac�
Condition: That th.Q applicant agrae to submit landscaping plans
prior to issuance of permit.
P-7-24-74--37.44 Construction of a 2-story, 8-bedroom, /4-plex, 211 above
existing grade with $ or.-site parking spaces, ($100,000) ,
35Q _yds. from the mean high tide,dat }2 - nth St. ,
Huntington Beach, by HUI--1., (25
P-7-12-74-3643 Construction of a 2-story �,. plex vdth 9 bedrooms, 21f1
above finished grade with 8 on-site parking spaces.
Applicant exempted from 1. 5 criteria. ($75, 000) , 350
yds. from the mean high tide, at 218 7th St. , Hunting-
, ton Beach, by Leonard Lindborg. (25 du/ac)
Condition: That the applicant agree to submit revised Plans that
indicate 8 on-site parking spaces z•r_i_thout
e-ncroaching
on sideyard setbacks prior to issuance of uel,-,i .t.
P-7-26-74-3746 Construction of a 20-unit apartment building in 2-stories
over a parking garage, at the SAV corner of 10th and
Walnut, Huntington Beach, by Alan McGrowan, Robert
Schlossberg, and Karen Schlossberg,
L-OWN-immumm"ma Y` �_ni'in-�...
• , 21
CITY HALL 211 EIGHTH STREET
SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA • 74
t%
February 3. 1975
FEB 5
W OF MnMTM WO
TO ALL ORANGE COUNTY CITIES
-Forwarded he!'e:•ri tVI i s_ a COP.' of Raso1 n _::nt;r.r 22,1"
adopted by .the City Courc i 0 .?[t;, `i or Sea, eaci�
t`5eir -requ. iar me::tirq .CUT �cir:Uor�; .i 1075, t Opposh"sg i C
PropCSC.d` Powers, Fu; d i rtg ..and :overrifiic_-i l�rll�:f�C
u;aL;t :Coast Regional {;o. st; i,ne: Com; ,;r you
'i nforma. on and support in i s matter,
:_Very trLIlly yours,
i;Jerdys tide -r, C i ty i e r k
f r i ty C?F. S�'3 i ll e'lcsl
1 �
' Encl . �
-UTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COOPERATION FOR REGIONAL PROBLEMS
1111 WEST SIXTH STREET• SUITE 400• LOS ANGELES • CA ' ('NIA► •.910017 • 213/481-0095
_ Ili
cB 1 ; ;; — J
ell, Ql• �.�`�n -r..., . , _.
eJ:t:•
Memo to: Participants in January 28th meeting to discuss South Coast'
Regional Commission 2nd draft Powers Funding and Government
Element.
From: Frank Hotchkiss, SCAG
Date: February 5th, 1975
Subject: SCAG Executive Committee position on above "element.
The content of the January 28th meeting ( see above ) was reported
to the Executive Committee of SCAG at its meeting on January 30th.
As a result, the Executive Committee took the positions set forth in
the attached letter. I
Your participation in the discussions was very much appreciated.
FH:v
CI ; L'i fll t;i it a l;l,'J B�l1.l0i i
(�f?(tNNISTPill'N't Of
'FICE
SOU1. .N CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COOPERATION FOR REGIONAL PROBLEMS
1111 WEST.SIXTH STREET• SUITE 400• LO NGELES• CALIFORNIA • 90017 • 213/481-0095
January 31, 1975
Mr. Donald B. Bright
Chairman
South Coast Regional Commission
P.O. Box 1450
Long Beach, California 90801
Dear Mr. Bright:
As I am sure you are aware the Southern California Association of Governments
with the co-sponsorship of Los Angeles and Orange Counties Divisions of the League
of 'California Cities have sponsored two meetings of city and county representatives
for the purpose of providing a forum for clarification of local government positions
on elements of the Coastal Plan, most particularly the Powers, Funding and Govern-
ment Element. The second draft of that element was reviewed at a meeting on
January 28th.
The Executive Committee of the Association at their meeting on January 30th, considered
a summary report of the meetings with city and county representatives on the Powers,
Funding and Government Element ( second draft dated January 17, 1975 j and adopted
the following as their position at this time:
1. Express concern that there be adequate local government involvement in
any regional commission (a) which may be created.
2. Express concern over creation and definition of the Management Zone.
3. Express view that all permit authority outside of a narrow clearly defined
and agreed-upon critical coastal zone should be returned to local government.
4. Express concern about the continuation of a narrow geographic approach and
special-purpose approach to planning.
5. Defer more detailed comment until have the. opportunity to further explore
with the League and CSAC in terms of a Statewide position.
ncerely, ,
Jary Gilbert
President
JG:v
�a-
WE
D
JAN 2 71975
RESOLUTION NO. 2607
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING
THE ELEMENT OF POWERS, FUNDING, AND
GOVERNMENT OF THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL
COASTAL COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the South Coast Regional Commission is draft-
ing a proposal for a system of Powers, Funding, and Government for the South
Coast Region and for the State, to be implemented as a successor to the current
commissions and system established by the passage of Proposition 20 which would
perpetuate and extend the permit system further than presently authorized by
Proposition 20; and
WHEREAS, under the proposal, local land use programs for coastal
areas would have to be approved by this successor agency; and
WHEREAS, the proposal would create many problems for Local govern-
ments, including replacing current regional and coastal commissions with a nine-
member State agency on which no elected official of any local government would
be permitted to serve; and
WHEREAS, the administration of local land use planning should re-
main in the hands of local government, while recognizing the need for coordina-
tion and harmony with State and Federal plans;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of El Segundo hereby expresses to the South Coast Regional C o mm is-
sion its opposition to any and all portions of the proposed Powers, Funding, and
Government element which exceed the provisions of Proposition 20 as adopted
by the State electorate; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the South Coast Regional
Commission be advised that in the preparation of the proposed element that Local
governments should retain jurisdiction in .coastal. areas within their geographical
areas and be responsible for the implementation of the Coastal Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of
EL Segundo be directed to forward copies of this resolution to the South Coast
Regional Commission, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission,
the League of California Cities, Assemblyman Robert G. Beverly, Senator
k
J
Robert S. Stevens, and each city and county in the South Coast Region with
jurisdiction over land along the coast.line.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21 st day of January,
1975.
s/ E. L. BA.LMER, Mayor
Mayor of the City of EL Segundo, California
ATTEST:
s/ VALERIE A. BURROW ES
ity C er
(SEAL)
-2-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEAL BEACH OPPOSING THE PROPOSED POWERS,
FUNDING AND GOVERNMENT ELEMENT OF THE SOUTH
COAST REGIONAL COASTLINE COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the South Coast Regional Coastline Commission has drafted a proposal
for a system of Powers, Funding and Government for the South Coast Region and
for the State to be implemented by a successor agency to the current commissions
and system established by the passage of Proposition 20; and
WHEREAS, the proposal to create a successor agency with permitting power and
power to review local land use plans is not provided for in the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the permit system was instituted as an interim procedure only during
the planning process; and
WHEREAS, no justification exists -to perpetuate a separate successor agency
with permitting authority; and
WHEREAS, local land use planning should remain in the hands of local government
since local government is best able to respond to local issues and problems;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council through its Planning Commission and Environmental
Quality Control Board is actively implementing environmentally sound local land
use decisions for the protection of all residents and all properties within
the City; and
WHEREAS, local land use planning should be the vehicle whereby the coast is
preserved and enhanced;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seal Beach
does hereby express to the South Coast Regional Commission its opposition to
any and all portions of the proposed Powers, Funding and Government Element
which exceeds the provisions of Proposition 20 as adopted by the State electorate
and which would remove local land use planning decisions from local government.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the .City Council of the City of Seal Beach at
a meeting thereof held on the day of. 1975, by the
following vote:
AYES. Councilmen
NOES: Councilmen
ABSENT: Councilmen: -f '
Mayor
ATTEST:
Ci ty erk
r�
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Valerie A. Burrowes CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF
EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council
of said City do hereby certify and attest the foregoing to be a full, true
and correct copy of the original RESOLUTION NO. 2607
on file in my office, and that I have carefully compared the same with
the original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed the official seal of the City of El Segundo, California, this 24th
day of January 1975
CITY CLERK of the CITY OF
EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA
by:
Deputy
(SEAL)
:2f 0- iq�s_ ls"
RESOLUTION NO. 74-84
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C
LOMITA OPPOSING A SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COASTLINE
COMMISSION'S POWERS, FUNDING AND GOVERNMENT ELEMENT
WHEREAS, the South Coast Regional Commission has drafted a pro-
posal for a system of Powers, Funding and Government for the South
Coast Region and for the State, to be implemented as a successor to
the current commissions and system established by passage of
Proposition 20; and
WHEREAS, the proposal creates many problems for local governments,
including replacing current regional and coastal commissions with a
nine member State agency on which no elected official of any local
government would be permitted to serve; and
WHEREAS, under the proposal, local land use programs for coastal
areas would have to be approved by this successor agency, thus inject-
ing a State-appointed committee into the local land use planning process,
including the entire areas of many cities; and
WHEREAS, this proposal would perpetuate and extend the permit
system inland much farther than presently authorized by Proposition
20; and
WHEREAS, existing city and county general governments represent
the people, are accountable to the people through the election process,
and have the responsibility for government within their geographic
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, land use planning should remain in the hands of local
government, while recognizing the needs for coordination and satis-
faction of State and Federal concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a position for the guidance
of its legislative representatives which, among other things, supports
strengthening of the ability of cities to exercise authority over land
use planning and decisions of primarily local impact and interest; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities has adopted an Action
Plan which includes, among other things, the findings that cities must'
be given the tools to control the development of urban communities; and
WHEREAS, creation of a new, permanent, and separate governmental
agency such as that which is being proposed with funding and staff
appears unwise, because: ' (1) it can create further confusion in the
. 3'
minds of the electorate as to who is really responsible for what, (2)
it would take authority for local land use planning for the coastline
out of the hands of local governments while leaving them the responsi-
bility for implementation and enforcement, and (3) it would create a
"government outside of government", supported at least in part with
taxes, having power, and yet not directly accountable to the people.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Lomita hereby expresses to the South Coast Regional Commission its
opposition to any and all portions of the proposed "Powers, Funding
and Government" Element which exceed the provisions of Proposition 20
as adopted by the State electorate; and
BE IT RESOLVED that the South Coast Regional Commission be advised .
in instructing the preparation of the proposed element that with the
termination of Proposition 20 local governments should retain juris-
diction in coastal areas within their geographical areas and be
responsible for implementation of the Coastal Plan; and
BE IT RESOLVED that the actions of the City Council and the League
of California Cities in their Action Plan, which would continue land
use planning at the local government level, be used by the South Coast
Commission as guidelines in revising its draft of the "Powers, Funding
and Government" Element; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forward-
ed to the South Coast Regional Commission, the State Coastal Commission..
the League of California Cities', ' and each City and County in the South
Coast Region with jurisdiction over land along the Coastline.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 1974.
n
MAYOR
ATTEST: y
CITY CLERK
I, DAWN R. TOMITA, City Clerk of the City of Lomita, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 74-84 was adopted
by the City Council of the City of Lomita at a regular meeting thereof,
held on the 16th day of December, 1974, by unanimous vote.
,.� CITY CLERK
IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAN agricultural land. It forces coastal crops inland, resources whose longevity is essential to the the basis of use, rather than speculative value.
away from the naturally fertile soil and beneficial state's economy. Commerical and recreational
By Rochelle Braly climate of the coast. More money is required for fishing with its related jobs is estimated to bring The permit review and planning costs of the seven
fertilizers and irrigation to achieve the equivalent in $600 million annually to the state's economy. coastal commissions averaged $2.5 million annual-
Three charges are commonly leveled against the production level formerly reached on the coast.. Up-grading municipal wastewater discharge to the ly for the past two and one-half years. A tentative
Coastal Plan by opponents who say land use deci- The increased costs of production appear on the ocean and actively promoting wetland restoration list of 150 priority sites recommended for acquisi-
sions should be made on the grounds of what is consumer's food bill. j are policies designed to ensure the vitality of tion is estimated at $225 million (current assessors
sound economics — with environmental consider- + marine life. evaluation).
ations reserved for a "finishing touch". The Plan Sprawling residential development, which the
is described as a "no-growth" Ian ignoring eco- Plan attempts to curtail by channeling it to urban Forests would be protected as a renewable resource
g p g g centers or planned, clustered communities in rural A range of funding possibilities is recommended to
cen
nomic implications of its policies, of violating • • by regulating the conversion of timberland on a the Legislature to finance the successor agency's
areas, is costly to the public. A study, THE case-by-case basis and b taxing lumber as it is
private property rights, and of side-stepping a Y- Y g regulatory, planning, acquisition and restoration
COSTS OF SPRAWL, prepared for three federal harvested timber.
- definition of the "public interest" in the coastal g activities. Most of these sources are related to
zone and "ecological planning principles." agencies by the Real Estate Research Corporation activity in the coastal zone: planning funds under
found that "Planned 'high density' communities Energy development — power plants, refineries,
None of these charges is in fact true. are 44% cheaper, 44% less polluting, use 44% less off-shore oil and gas production — is contemplat the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act ($3 million
energy and 35% less water than the e ed for some sites along the coast. However, since annually); tideland oil revenues,severance taxes on
ENVIRONMENTALISM and ECONOMICS: 9Y equivalent g
amount of uses if in single family homes . . . The these developments are serious commitments of oil and gas production; oil throughput charges on
The Plan sees environmental protection of the land and resources, the Plan requires that a coas- oil products moved across state tidelands,- a tran-
most expensive community to create and to oper- q
coast's remaining land, water, and air resources as tal site be justified on the basis of a clear public sient occupancy tax on hotel and motel rooms in
ate is low density sprawl — the most common p the Coastal Zone.
basic to sound economics IN THE LONG RUN, type of development at the urban fringe." need. An application should include conservation
in contrast to immediate short-term economic measures, evaluation of alternative coastal and
returns on piecemeal development. The private sector is asked not to commit its inland sites, and use of the best available technol The primary method of funding should be a state
energy to exclusively private residential develop- ogy to mitigate environmental damage. bond issue earmarked for coastal acquisition.
For example, policies to channel new residential
ment on the coast but to invest in commercial-
development into high-intensity clusters in urban recreational development — hotels, motels, inns, COSTS OF THE PLAN: PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS:
areas where public services already exist serve two
restaurants, trailer parks, etc. — which can help The majority of r
purposes: preserving agricultural land, especially • j y property owners in the coastal
meet the enormous recreational need of Califor- Four direct costs are involved in carrying out the zone will be allowed to develop their r
on the urban fringe, and conserving the taxpayer's p property
nians and out-of-state visitors. Much of the state's Plan: 1) acquiring and restoring coastal land, 2) . under the y
dollars that would go for costly road expansion policies of the Coastal Plan. But the
thriving tourist industry relies on the attraction of �. up dating the Plan and assisting cities and coun- may not be g
and public services to far-flung communities. ; y permitted the full range of their
the natural beauty of the coast. By encouraging �. ties with preparing a coastal element for inclusion expectations prior to the passage of Proposition
Preserving prime agricultural land is recognized as commerical recreational development in appropri- within their general land-use plans, 3) reviewing 20.
being of statewide and even nationwide import- ate locations, the Plan envisions construction permits and processing appeals until local govern-
ance. It answers our domestic food demand and jobs, on-going service jobs, and the sustained ments take over such responsibilities i.e., when The past rate and intensity of development, the
constitutes a chief export to other nations. health of an industry estimated to bring in $2.5 their coastal elements have been certified for con- conversion of agricultural land, and the concen-
billion a year and generate 280,000 jobs. formance with the Coastal Plan and, 4) equalizing tration of permanent residences on the coast has
Sprawling residential development that drifts out tax revenues if coastal policies diminish the local been found to be inconsistent with a program of
piecemeal from urban centers takes its toll of Ocean fishing and forests are two other natural tax base, i.e., when agricultural land is taxed on coastal conservation.
6 7
What property owners can expect, therefore, is a agency to the coastal commission and local govern- going to do the implementing, and more impor-
permit to develop subject to regulations which ments will identify more precisely which parcels tant, how much it is going to cost and who is
protect the environment and preserve the public's should be bought, in whole or in part. Some coastal going to pay for it-
visual and physical access to the ocean. - policies can be implemented without buying the
entire parcel; purchasing only development rights, WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE CCZCC
Examples of such conditions are: 1) reductions in scenic easements or access paths will do in some AND THE PLAN? Irving Kristol, Wall Street
height, bulk, and density, 2) requirements for open cases. A Coastal Conservancy Trust is recommend- Journal contributor, calls them the "New Class."
space, on-site parking and landscaping, 3) controls ed with the flexibility to buy less than the entire William Rusher, publisher of National Review,
on grading, run-off and siltation,4) design features parcel. Is calls them, "the new verbalist elite." They both
for compatibility with natural surroundings or are of the opinion that there are two new political I i
community architectural scale and 5) dedications Where a parcel is not covered by some public • • classes emerging; one composed of "non produc " ` .
of scenic easements and access paths. program,development can go forward. ers," media people, the educational establish-
ment, government bureaucrats, planners, many M
California courts have increasingly held that posi- Recognizing that a temporary denial can work an professionals, career environmentalists, etc., as
tive enhancement of the public welfare is a legiti- economic hardship on a property owner, the Plan opposed to the other, "producer" class which
mate basis for regulating private uses of land. urges tax assessors to reduce assessments on proper- includes industry, business, labor, farmers, etc. It
Indeed, a condition requiring an access path along ty restricted by a regulatory agency. It also recom- is their contention that the strong anti-business
the side of a new development is simply enforcing mends that future permit processing be streamlined bias of the "verbal elitist non-producers" is more
what is already a State Constitutional guarantee of to eliminate the applicant's uncertainty about the interested in stopping growth and business alto- F
public access to publicly-owned tidelands. A public fate of his project. gether, than it is in correcting abuse.
agency must accept the access paths and be liable
for their maintenance. The dichotomy described by these two observers
of the social scene and the two groups opposing
Where property is determined to be valuable for each other, is no where more evident than in the
public recreation, habitat protection, historical or politically explosive future of the CCZCC.
archaeological preservation,or because of its scenic ° i • During the brief tenure of CCZCC, we have wit-
value, it will be paid for at fair market prices. There nessed the unique coalition of business, industry,
is no intention of "taking" anyone's property for
- labor, taxpayer groups and property owners be-
public use without just compensation. ginning to pull themselves together. There are
= now some thirty of these groups actively working
Since the commission has no acquisition power of Ms. Joseph, who is active in community and
its own, a list of priority sites �' � against land use planning such as mandated by
p y appearing in the final , r PROPOSITION 20. The future will not be tran-
government affairs, is the president of Common
Plan (and tagged at fair market price) is meant as Sense Coalition in Newport Beach and a member
quil, but it promises to be interesting.
recommendations to other state agencies who do �* - of the Board of Directors of CEEED. She has
have the power of acquisition. Some of the sites are3r„( We can only hope that during the political wars, been an avid environmentalist, working for years
already partially acquired. _ we don't lose the desire and hopefully, the reality with the sailing, yachting and marine groups and
of a better environment, which those of good will has also been an outspoken critic of the Coastal
Future detailed planning, between the successor __ _ =-=- r on both sides of the issue share. Commission.
8 5
them unprecedented power over all land use in is aware of. Nearly 50 percent of the beaches PUBLIC INTEREST and
the coastal area; that development would be slow- were owned by the government prior to Proposi- ECOLOGICAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES
ed or stopped; that by getting their people on the tion 20. They are still owned by the government.
Commissions they could pretty well call the There is little evidence that a single barbed wire Underlying the Plan is the notion that the coastal
shots. They were correct. fence or posted sign on government land has been zone is a distinct ecosystem where a delicate
removed to allow the people access to their balance between air, soil, water, and I ight creates a
By producing a voluminous process (183 separate beaches. It is one of the most discouraging aspects healthy environment for man, plants, animals,and
policies) rather than a plan, as directed, the of the whole business. fish. The parts of the ecosystem are interrelated; a
CCZCC and the proponents now hope that the change in one part affects the others. A major
Legislature will find it all totally beyond them The public is also learning that the development ecological planning principle is to maintain a prop-
and bless the continued existence of the CCZCC they see doesn't look any different (and in some • •er balance between the parts of the ecosystem so
on into eternity. This will give the proponents instances worse) than it did before November that they can not only survive, but flourish.
time, opportunity and the authority to preserve, 1972. But most important, the general public is
conserve and allow where planned for, the "pro- becoming aware of the cost to them as consumers The plan seeks to promote the long term public
per" development of the coastal area. "Proper" as and taxpayers. They are finding that CCZCC is interest in the coastal zone by protecting natural
defined by them. not an acronym for a "free lunch." resources and by encouraging orderly and balanced
The opponents of Proposition 20 were also cor- HAVE THE COMMISSIONS PRODUCED A development.
rect in their predictions. Their greatest fears be- PLAN?'No, they have not. They have, however,
fore the Act's passage are being realized. They produced 183 separate policies which in the jar- Both of these are reflected in the Plan's objectives
believed the cost of housing and all new building gon of planners, "the Commissions have created a to:
in the area would skyrocket as supply was limited PROCESS by which to ensure the future conser
in the face of growing demand; they worried that vation, preservation grid orderly development of "Protect the California coast as a great natural
thousands would lose their jobs as construction this valuable resource." The "plan" when placed resource for the benefit of the present and future
abated, that rents and taxes would both rise in before the public in its initial draft stage has been generations."
the controlled area higher and faster than normal; pretty evenly cursed and praised up and down the
that the inalienable right to own and use private coast. The Commissioners themselves seem to be • • "Use the coast to meet human needs, but in a
property would be severely eroded; that locally divided on it and the State Lands Commission, manner that protects the irreplaceable resources
elected government and local concerns would be Resource Commission, most every legislator and of coastal lands and waters."
overruled and that creativeness in design and word from the Governor's office has indicated
development would be "boxed in" by'a myraid of that all have some serious misgivings with the
new laws and policies. They too were correct in ponderous encyclopedia that has been put for-
their assessment. ward as a plan. '
But what about the public's hopes? Has it provid- The mandate of the initiative has not as yet been Rochelle Braly, Editor, THE COASTLINE LET-
ed greater access to the beaches? No. I think both fulfilled in regard to "identifying the public inter- TER, an independent report on the work of the
proponents and opponents would agree that the est in the coastal area." They also must provide coastal commissions, contributing Editor to the
CCZCC has not provided any significantly greater an element called the Powers, Funding and Gov- Sea Grant Marine Advisory Services, University of
access to the beach, at least none that the public ernment element which must announce who is Southern California.
4 9
o .
A STANDARD FOR EVALUATION THE PROMISED ROSE GARDEN tion of the Act, the two and a half years of
By Murton H. Willson its biosphere (the surface, subterranian and atmos- IS PRODUCING THE operation of the CCZCC, or the coastal plan they
Past President O.C.C.A.I.A. pheric Layers which support organic life). SAME OLD WEEDS have produced. Recognizing that caveat, I will
Even during periods of historical) great ex lor- nonetheless attempt an evaluation.
Chairman Environmental Committee 9 p Y 9 P
O.C.C.A.I.A. ation and discovery, from the Roman Empire to By Ms. Goldie Joseph I think the question we should be asking ourselves
the founding of this country, the global environ- is: Has Proposition 20 fulfilled its promise? Has it
Creation of the California Coastal Zone Conserva- mental effect of man's activity could hardly be "I was a supporter of environmental and ecologi
tion Commission and its functioning to date are noticed. Only in isolated pockets was the pollut- cal causes, and strongly supported Proposition 20. produced a plan as the law mandated, a plan that
important among efforts intended to improve the ing effect of man's activity concentrated suffi- No longer so! Because I have seen, first-hand, how is capable being implemented? And, if so,
condition of man made environment and halt ciently to threaten his own survival as with the these inept, incompetent, overpaid, underworked, Should we coo ntinue with the Commissions?
deterioration of the natural environment. Perhaps plague. • , overstaffed, empire-building bureaucrats take FIRST, HAS PROPOSITION 20 FULFILLED
an important difference between this effort and well-meaning laws and prostitute them to the ITS PROMISE? I think that without a doubt,
man others is that it resulted from public de- In the last 200 years, however, our ability to point of nothing but make-work obstructionism."
y p p g both extremes would agree that it has! Of course,
mand that something be done. This shows a grow- effect the biosphere was accelerated to a near That statement, by Mr. Donald J. Lawrence of each thought it promised differently. It's rather
ing level of popular concern in one geographical vertical curve. We are now possessed of awesome Hacienda Heights, in a letter to the Los Angeles
capabilities AND of the knowledge that continu- difficult to say exactly what the Act did promise,
area (California) toward at least a particular as- p 9 Times, is typical of the reaction of Proposition 20 since it contained almost 8,000 words. Surveys
pect of total environment. It is a hopeful sign. ing their accelerated application in present direc- opponents.
tions will use up and destroy the earth's ability to since that time indicate that fewer than two per-
The pros and cons of the Coastal Commission's support us within the next 200 years.
Meanwhile, advocates from the Sierra Club, cent of the people ever read the whole Act. So we
organization and performance to date are discuss- Friends of the Earth, the Audobon Society and can only go on what those who proposed the Act
ed in other JOURNAL 5 articles. I would like to These are not "doomsayer" opinions, as propon- the Planning and Conservation League of Cali-
examine a standard for evaluating any action ents of the prevailing economic system insist. fornia, etc. were nearly unanimous in their sup- access to the beaches, and ensure proper use,
which has environmental impact — whether in- Studies such as the Club of Rome sponsored, port of the Coastal Commission during the public preservation and conservation of the valuable
tended to regulate or to stimulate development — M.I.T. World Model as long ago as 1071, have hearings on the initial draft of the Coastal Plan. It coastal area.'
focusing upon those which state an intent to provided convincing data regarding the immin- is their opinion that the work of the Commission
ence of collapse regardless of new technological Since the subject of cost was never brought up,
improve the situation. p 9 gi • • has been above reproach; they have saved the most voters assumed that the cost, if any, would
breakthroughs. The World Model study was ex public from all manner of harm from local repre- come out of the pocket of those rich folks and
Any evaluation of an effort attempting to im-
tremely complex — using advanced cybernetics sentative government. The only shortcoming they corporations that had the coast "locked u The
prove man made environment and halt deteriora- with in-put of every conceivable interrelation of might mention is that Commissions in general p p
tion of the natural environment must consider, general public was and is, in for a surprise.
population, resources, capital investment, pollu- have been too development oriented.
first, the long range GOAL. This is stated because tion, services, etc. Its conclusion and thesis is However, in addition to the hoped-for results of
the goal — though now so obvious — is so decision
simple and obvious: "Because our environment — That kind of diametrically opposed opinion is to the general public, both proponents and oppon-
ally ignored in current and immediate decision the earth — is finite, growth of human population be expected on an issue that has become so in-
making. The GOAL is that we preserve the possi- g p p p ents had their own separate ideas about what
and industrialization cannot continue indefinite- volved with other more personal beliefs and phi- Proposition 20 and the CCZCC would do to them
al)of h SURVIVAL (hopefully enjoyable surviv I !" The startlingaspect of its findings was to losophies viz. property rights, representative ov
al) of the species Human on the planet Earth. y� p g p p y g p g and for them. Amazingly, each side anticipated
discover, "How very close we are to the physical ernment, the free enterprise system, etc., such as correctly.
For a million years,evolving man's activity on earth limitations which define the carrying capacity of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Com-
produced almost no affect on the quality of our globe". mission (CCZCC) has. It is therefore, extremely First, the proponents; their fondest hopes are
10
difficult for anyone to offer an unbiased evalua 3 being realized. They believed the law would give
NofE.m Etl'"'�
GEEES E�w SOUTN COAST
_ Ids
20
:d-::`: �+ The problem of physical environment and the
PLAN MAP F—G JD�FY C'�
m need for environmental concern is not only that
2 ��mmM„.. •�-� ;LOSANGELES A beautiful areas such as the California Coastline be
ems • ONANGE COUNTIES
�� x �'� �_., � �M ._ ..•. preserved and made available for man's enjoy-
3 `®--� �It2TN12AT� POfff'ULA7 ment, important and desirable as this is. We are
��. 7 ; faced with a necessity far greater than preserva-
E _ 4n � ��� 9 �� III IAtl t7EA tion of specific .areas and the improvement of
6 development methods and products. We are faced
l
5 �; g _- `�» ;\12�� with the necessity — within limited time — to
`�
•r— • = 5Ei2VICE change prevailing attitudes governing our use of
•
¢ a —�°•�-- .�._.-_ _m T FtRCAPITA all resources, including air and water and certainly
s CAPITA of land.
P=' Lr _[-_ � �bF • MM•- �n- .• °.�° �"- ..'r• The GOAL — enjoyable, continuous survival of
PLAN Y .e E • IA `• `.�.�
-"� . - m-��. ►ND ZLAIL MAN on EARTH will only be completely attain
OUTPUT Z
ed through a universally accepted sense of fitness
L�1 G4PITA f�WTION
NA. ;;r�..ro;11T"11PEAT1•IN,a• 5°•I• ,°z5G,°°° ' • (fitting together) between man and this planet
�` ' ' . 1°Ioo gq 75 21Gb
BONE OF
iN[vux wun[s.
which has, thus far, supported his evolution. AI-
though this same sense would add immeasurably
Wishing to encourage excellence in design of public open space, and providing for public access, as to man's rich enjoyment of human experience, it
and private structures, the future coastal agency well as impact on shadows, glare and wind pat- is far from universally held today. In the mean-
will will establish design awards for development terns. Alternative heating and cooling systems will me, how can reasonable and constructive steps
"that effectively relates to its coastal location be evaluated in terms of energy conservation and The "Standard" World Model run assumes no time,
identified?
through a sensitive use of form, color, material, life-cycle operating costs. major change in the physical, economic, or social
texture, and layout, and to community beautifi- relationships. Variables follow historical values Since the present direction of development of the
cation projects that restore and enhance the visual • • from 1900 to 1970. Food availability, industrial man made environment is pointed away from the
assets of the coast." Off-premise commercial signs should e removed output and population row exponentially until
after a reasonable amortization period; on- g p y possibility of survival, a standard for evaluation
the rapidly diminishing resource base forces a becomes the degree to which any environmental
premise signs should be designed as an integral slowdown in industrial growth. Pollution and effort is effective toward achieving a turn-around.
Whatever the development, there should be mini- 9 g
part of the structure and limited to identification
mum alteration of the natural landscape by cut- and information purposes only. population continue to grow for sometime. Pop- The change in direction will have to be at least
ting, filling or grading: the topography should be. ulation growth is halted by a rise in death rate 90' and efforts to overcome the accelerating
restored to as close to its natural contours as due to decreased food availability and medical momentum in the present direction must be
possible and landscaped with indigenous plants. The coastal viewshed is a great visual resource services. Runs improving assumptions in separate strongly exerted at a full 180' if the goal of
deserving protection and enhancement for the variables produced even more drastic results. Only survival is to be achieved. Many preliminary steps
Over-all design plans showing the impact of new enjoyment of this and future generations. The across the board stabilization at maintainable must be taken. Many attitudes must change. A
large-scale projects on the surrounding neighbor- Plan recommends that all new development be levels can produce the equilibrium to provide for slowing down is necessary for a change in direc-
hoods will be required. Siting considerations in- sensitive to the coast's scenic values and protec- a high quality of human existence far into the tion. My hope is that we can slow just enough —
clude maximizing views of the ocean, creating tive of its natural features. future. and make a turn with sufficient radius to avoid
2 11
immediate disaster, but tight and fast enough to INTRODUCTION: accommodate the great recreational need of
avoid ultimate ruin. THE COASTAL COMMISSION Californiansand tourists.
It is unreasonable to expect that a geographically AND COASTAL PLAN • General commercial complexes organized into
multi-use clusters served by mass transit,- strip
isolated action — the design of a sub-division, or In November, 1972,a citizen initiative,Proposition commercial development along coastal roads
even the creation of the Coastal Commission —will 20, qualified for the ballot — by gathering over prohibited.
produce a major effect in a global context. It is not 500,000 signatures — and was voted into law by . Well-landscaped industrial development located
unreasonable to consider the merits of ANY action 55% of the electorate. The initiative was aimed at in appropriately zoned urban areas.
in relationship to the goal of survival.The question protecting remaining natural and scenic resources • Downtowns and blighted coastal neighborhoods
which must now be asked is —does the effort being of California's 1,072 mile coastline. People had renewed and refurbished.
evaluated contribute to the acceleration of the recognized two apparent trends along the coast: • More power plants, if shown to bea clear public
presentwastefulandpolluteddirection —or does it • piecemeal development was consuming land, need, incorporating the best "state-of-the-art"
help to begin the turn toward survival?The cumula- water, and air resources at a wasteful pace, and an technology to mitigate environmental damage.
tive effect of many separate actions will decide the unregulated housing market was turning the coast • Prime agricultural and timber land preserved via
outcome. Time is not on our side. If we wait very into an exclusive enclave for the rich.Seven coastal a series of innovative tax programs and a prohibi-
long, disruption — heralding the beginnings of col- commissions were created to regulate development tion against lot splits resulting in uneconomic-
lapse — will eventually wrest decision making from within 1,000 yards of the mean high tide and three ally-sized parcels.
our-hands. miles out to sea via a permit system.They were also . Protected natural vegetation, wildlife habitat
The policy statement from the Coastal Initiative charged with writing a comprehensive plan for the and coastal streams within remaining water-
(Proposition 20) expresses intent toward begin- management of remaining coastal resources. sheds.
ning the turn — at least so far as the California After undergoing dozens of public hearings state- • All new development designed r l s compatible
Coastline is concerned. The PreliminaryCoastal in color and design with its natural surroundings
wide the final California coastal plan has been or with the architectural scale of the com-
Plan recognizes that " — no society can long sur- adopted. It will be forwarded to the Governor and
dissipates its resources reckless) munity.
vive if it dissi
P Y —��� State Legislature by December 1975 for enactment
Still, in neither is there a clear statement that at into law during 1976.
• • Good quality design, especially in what the Plan
some point there must bean end to "growth" and
that a balance with nature must be found and The Coastal Plan envisions a coast that will include calls the "coastal viewshedh is a major goal. The
maintained. Until this realization is a basic part of these features: "viewshed" is that part of the coast seen from the
sea, shoreline, and from major coastal highways
the logic influencing all decisions, many good • Urban and rural communities clearly demarcat- and roads.
intentions will produce destructive results. We
ill continue to condemn, if not ourselves, cer- ed from open space and agricultural land.
will
generations of our descendants very soon • New residential development channeled into General design standards are recommended, but
to be born. high-intensity clusters in urban areas where pub- working them out is left to local communities
he services already exist, and into planned, which should adopt Design Elements within their
clustered communities in rural areas. general land-use plans(and appropriate ordinances)
Mr. Murton H. Willson is a registered architect, in • Commercial-recreational development — hotels, and to local design review boards composed of
private practice, Past-President O.C.C.A.I.A. and motels, restaurants, inns, trailer parks, camp- qualified citizens and professionals who are famil-
Chairman Environmental Committee O.C.C.A.I.A. grounds — located in appropriate locations to iar with community taste.
12 .1
1976 OFFICERS TABLE OF CONTENTS SPONSORS
CONSOLIDATED REPRODUCTIONS
Knowlton Fernald Jr. . President AMERITONE COLOR KEY PAINTS 560 W. First Street
. . . . . . . Introduction — The Coastal Commission P. 0. Box 190 Tustin,Ca.92680
Joseph L. Woollett . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice President and Coastal Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Long Beach,Ca.90801 Phil Siegel —714/838-2855
Randy D. Bosch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secretary 213/636-9343 and 714/521-7490
Ronald W. Yeo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treasurer The Promised Rose Garden is
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS INSTITUTE, `
Alice Farano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Secretary Producing the Same Old Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ANAHEIM BUILDERS SUPPLY ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
Goldie Joseph 1635 S. State College Blvd. P. 0. Box 10022
DIRECTORS • . Anaheim,Ca.92806 Santa Ana,Ca.92711
In Support of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Don Rapp—714/634-4521 William J. Sharp, President—714/673-0300
Fred M. Briggs Robert I. Hench Rochelle Braly ARCHITECTURAL ART DEL PISO TILE COMPANY
Sotiros P. Grillias Cles T. Wiseman 1244 E.Trenton Avenue 1637 S.State College
Eric S. Lassen A Standard for Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Orange,Ca.92667 Anaheim,Ca.92806
Murton H. Willson A.I.A. Tony Novak —714/532-2469 Tele: 714/634-4676
JOURNAL COMMITTEE BUTLER-JOHNSON CORPORATION THE FLINTCOTE COMPANY
Paul J. Ruffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chairman Olympic Stain—Dupont Corian Architectural Sales
7333 Adams Street 5500 S. Alameda
William McCulloch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Co Chairman Paramount,Ca. Vernon,Ca.90051
Frederick W. I Ig, Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Co-Chairman Diane Ciancuilli —213/531-9280 Dave Grove—714/523-4760
Alan K. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Co-Chairman
John F. Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sponsors THE CELOTEX CORP.,ACOUSTI DEPT. FORMICA CORPORATION
1633 N. San Pablo Street 17401 Irvine, No. E
The Orange County Chapter's publication is a non- Los Angeles,Ca.90033 Tustin,Ca.92680
profit activity of the local chapter of the AIA,4000 • • Robert E. Ragland —213/221-1101 Dick Belcher—714/838-4515
Westerly Place, Newport Beach, California 92660.
Views and opinions expressed in this publication do CERAMIC TILE INSTITUTE INTERPACE CORPORATION
not necessarily constitute endorsement by the 700 No. Virgil,Suite 100 1731 So. Clementine Street
Orange County Chapter AIA or its sponsors. Los Angeles,Ca. 90029 Anaheim,Ca.92802
Rep: George N. Lavenberg, FCSI Rep: Robert Taylor—714/956-5920
Tele: 213/660-1911
The Journal is distributed free of charge to govern- KAMMEYER & LYNCH
mental agencies, legislators, architects, engineers, CLAY PUBLICOM Landscape Architects
libraries, lenders, contractors and other members of 17671 Irvine Blvd. 2070 Business Center Drive
the construction industry. Tustin,Ca.92680 Irvine,Ca.92664
Bob Clay—714/838-9360 Tele: 714/752-8161
Sponsors contribute $25/issue ($100/year) and are
listed in each issue. Phone (714) 833-0973 for
additional information. 13
LAMIN-ART— LAMINATED PLASTICS PEARTREE PRESS
6430 E.Saluson Avenue 2418 MacArthur Boulevard
Los Angeles,Ca. 90040 Newport Beach,Ca.92660
Bill Landeen —213/728-1276 Rep: Edward W. Druhe—714/644-7955
LUMBER ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REPRO II
1915 Beverly Boulevard,Suite 202 260 Newport Center Drive
Los Angeles,Ca.90057 Newport Beach,Ca.92660
Rep: Wayne Gardner—213/483-6450 Jeff Di Paolo—714/640-0791
MASONRY TRADE PROMOTION OF ORANGE COUNTY L. M. SCOFIELD COMPANY
521 Bank of America Tower,The City Centre 5511 East Slauson Avenue
Orange,Ca. 92668 Los Angeles,Ca.90040 • •
Edward C. Meeker,Manager—714/547-4451 213/723-5285
Colors and Specialties for Concrete
MASTER BUILDERS
9776 Katella,Suite J THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.
Anaheim,Ca.92804 P. 0. Box 30239—Terminal Annex
Al Pickering—714/539-7767 Los Angeles,Ca.90030
Pat Meissner,Architectural Consultant
METCALF ASSOCIATES—ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS 213/268-4131
South Coast Shipyard & Design Center
2234 Newport Boulevard SINCLAIR PAINT COMPANY
Newport Beach,Ca.92660 3960 E.Washington Boulevard
714/673-4010 Los Angeles,Ca. 90023
Gordon Rushforth,CSI —213/268-2511
ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER
ASSOCIATION, INC. THE PRODUCERS'COUNCIL
P.0. Box 11176 1052 W. Sixth Street,Suite 334 • •
Santa Ana,Ca. 92711 Los Angeles,Ca. 90017
Stephen E. Brown—714/835-1311 2131481-0060
ORCO BLOCK CO. WILSON ART DIVISION of
8042 Katella RALPH WILSON PLASTICS COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
Stanton,Ca.90680 13911 East Gannet Street THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
Jerry Moore—714/527-2239 Santa Fe Springs,Ca.90670
Bob Ashbrook —714/523-1200 or 213/921-7426
PARKWOOD LAMINATES, INC. JANUARY 1976 JOURNAL
13856 Bettencourt
Cerritos,Ca.90701
Richard B. Lowe, Manager—Western Region
714/523-1244
14
I
fN1
Ted If.' Bartlett oul IV410, 041
11tuitington Beach/City Ilall
P. 0, Box 190
Mmtington Beach, Calif, 92648
l
POWERS , FUNDING AND GOVERNMENT
r
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
NOT APPROVED
SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
C�- 2.
POWERS, FUNDING AND GOVERNMENT
FOR THE
SOUTH COAST REGION
Draft Regional Element I% of the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan
Compiled by Staff
of the
South Coast Regional Commission
666 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
P.O. Box 1450
Long Beach, CA 90801
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
NOT APPROVED
November 14, 1974
SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Donald B. Bright, Ph.D. , Chairman
Ralph A. Diedrich
Rimmon C. Fay, Ph.D.
James A. Hayes
Arthur J. Holmes
-------------------
Louis R. Nowell
Donald W. Phillips
Robert F. Rooney, Ph.D.
Judy Rosener
Russ Rubley, Vice Chairman
Carmen Warschaw
Donald E. Wilson, Ph.D.
M''�J. Carpenter, Executive Director
David N. Smith, Chief Planner
Dennis A. Antenore, Special Consultant
TABLE .OF CONTENTS
PREFACE Page
RECOMMENDATIONS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR COASTAL ZONE PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
PERMIT AUTHORITY/SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION. OF LOCAL
LAND USE PROGRAMS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LOCAL
LANDUSE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 19
PLANAMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
COASTAL RESTORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
WILLIAMSON ACT AMENDMENTS 29
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 31
PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS TO BEACH ACCESS AND
USAGE .. . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3
a .
PREFACE
The Powers, Funding and Government Element is the last of nine
elements being prepared as part of the Coastal Zone Plan of
the South Coast Region.
The California .Coastal Zone Conservation Act Hof 197:2:.
(Proposition 20) specifically.-charges the"Coastal Commission
with the responsibility to prepare ". . * a comprehensive, coor-
dinated, enforceable plan for the orderly, long-range conser-
vation .and management of the natural resources of the coastal
zone . . . ". This element is crucial since it is the sole ele-
ment dealing with the enforceability issue.
Because of the proposal to establish an additional governmental
agency and the considerable financial costs necessary to admin-
ister, enforce, and otherwise carry out the provisions of the.
Coastal Plan, and because of the considerable amount of imple-
mentation authority proposed for local governments it is essen-
tial that the Commission be provided with full input and criti-
cism from affected governmental agencies, special interest
groups and the general public. Please circulate this document
among your associates so that the Commission will be able to
benefit from a broad range of ideas and philosophies.
On Monday, December 16, 1974 at 9 :30 a.m. a public hear-
ing on the Powers, Funding and Government Element will
be held at the Long Beach Harbor Department Administration-
Building, Board Room, , 6th floor, 925 Harbor Plaza Drive,
Long Beach. The Commission invites your participation in
the hearing process either by-;appearance at the public hearing
or by the submission of written comments. It is suggested
that all verbal presentations be complemented with written ma—
terial. Written material, in order to be evaluated prior to
the hearing, should be received by Dennis Antenore not later
than December , 1974; however, written comments will be ac—
cepted throughout the hearing process.
T
.. RECOMMENDATIONS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR COASTAL ZONE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendation I
A successor agency should be established to focus responsi
bility for developing and implementing. long-range coastal
zone policy;in a forum reflecting statewide..concerns.. - At
the same time,. a continuing. role_ for local government and
for existing state agencies. should be recognized.
Recommendation II
Primary, responsibility for, implementation should be .assigned
to .a single .state coastal zone .conservation commission to
ensure that .continuing statewide .interests. in coastal zone
conservation and ,.development are. _protected.
Recommendation III
The existing regional commission structure should be main—
tained for a limited period of time (4 or 5 years) to facil -
tate and ensure the optimum transfer of responsibility for
Coastal Zone Plan ,implementation _,to local governments . .consis
tent. with continuing statewide concerns, while. maximizing ..
citizen participation in coastal zone .planning .and monitor
ing and enforcement of plan policie.s..-
Recommendation IV
The membership formula of the state commission should be
modified to reflect its permanent nature - and the eventual
dissolution of the regional commission structure. It should
1
be composed of nine members representing the public an who
should serve for, fixed four year staggered terms. No member :
should be appointed to serve more than two consecutive terms,
including any abbreviated term required by the staggered
term-system. No member of the state commission should be _
a member of any regional commission, or an elected official
of any -local government. An equal number of members should
be selected or appointed by the Governor, the Senate Rules
Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly, respectively.
Recommendation V
The membership formula of the regional commissions should 'be
modified to reflect the eventual transfer of responsibility -
for coastal plan implementation to local governments and the
state commission. Each should be composed of one supervisor
from each county in the respective region with an additional
six public members selected according to the formula set
forth above for- the state commission public members.
Recommendation VI
Each public member of the commission or regional commission
should be a person who, as a result of his or her experience
and attainments, is exceptionally well qualified to analyze _
and interpret environmental trends and information, to appraise
resource uses in light of the policies set forth in the
Coastal Plan, and to be responsive to the scientific, social,
esthetic, recreational, and cultural needs of the state.
The public membership of the commission should include
2
representation of inner-city residents outside of the imme-
diate coastal zone.
Recommendation VII
The current state commission should submit, at least three
months prior to the appointment of the new commissions, a
suggested list of nominees meeting the qualifications set
forth in Recommendation VI to the appointing agencies, from
which each may make its appointments. By regulation a formal
mechanism should be established to encourage public input and
participation into the process of suggesting and selecting
such nominees.
Recommendation VIII
All members of the commissions should be subject to the pro-
visions of the California Conflict of Interest Act, including
those provisions relating to mandatory public disclosure of
significant financial interests.
3
GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION
Recommendation IX
The geographical jurisdiction of the successor agency should
consist of two contiguous zones defined as follows:
A. Critical Coastal Resource Zone .
The Critical Coastal Resource Zone is that area of
the State of California extending from its northern
border with the State of Oregon to its southern
border with the Republic of Mexico, extending sea-
ward from the -mean high tide of the Pacific Ocean
to the limit of the State's jurisdiction, including
all islands and other offshore lands within ,or sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the State, and extend-
ing inland from the mean high tide of the Pacific
Ocean a distance not less than to the nearest vege-
tation line or 100 feet, whichever is greatest, but
in no instance greater than. 1,000 yards, except
where coastal bodies of water are subject to tidal
action or seawater intrusion (.estuaries, bays,
inlets, lagoons, sloughs). In such cases, the
zone shall be extended inland to encompass the
entire body of water. and up to 100_ additional yards
of shoreline bordering the water. Where a signifi-
cant area of open space lies partially within the
critical Coastal Resource Zone, the boundary of
such zone may be extended inland to encompass the
5
entire area of open space, notwithstanding the
fact that it extends further inland than 1,000
yards from the mean high tide of the Pacific
Ocean.
The Critical Coastal Resource Zone should be
designated with specificity in the Coastal Zone
Plan within the geographical limitations set
forth hereinabove and shall include as a minimum
all coastal waters (including the lands therein
and thereunder), and the adjacent shorelands (in-
cluding the waters therein and thereunder), strongly
influenced by each other and in proximity to the
shoreline, including transitional and intertidal
areas, salt marshes, and beaches. The zone shall
extend inland from the shoreline only to the extent
necessary to control shorelands, the uses of which
have a direct and significant impact on coastal
waters.
B. Coastal Management Zone
The Coastal Management Zone may extend inland from
the landward boundary of the Critical Coastal Re-
source -Zone up ;to and including the inland boundary
of the Planning Area as defined in the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 19721' but in no
case shall .extend beyond said boundary, except
6
where- the Critical Coastal Resource Zone so ex—
tends.. Within the geographical limits set forth
hereinabove the zone shall include all areas
designated by the Coastal: Zone Plan as . including
significant. coastally related- resources .and such
areas.,.,designated by said plan, the development or
further. development of which would have a signif—
icant environmental impact .on said coastally re-
lated- resources.
Recommendation X
The precise delineation of the Geographic Boundaries of the
two zones to be managed as the "California Coastal Zone'
should be defined and mapped in the Coastal- Zone Plan, after
provision for adequate public notice and hearing, for sub—
mission to the Legislature for its approval and adoption.
After appropriate public hearing, the successor agency
should have authority to recommend changes in such boundaries
to the Legislature for its approval,- and adoption. . .
Recommendation XI
Notwithstanding the geographical limitations set forth. above
the successor agency should have limited jurisdiction over
certain major projects inland of the management zone, - if the
, - agency finds, after notice and public hearing that such pro—
ject may have a direct and adverse environmental impact upon
Coastal Resources as defined in the Coastal Zone Plan. These
7
projects should include, but- not be limited to: " A) any
project on a river or stream which empties into the Pacific
Ocean that would affect 'the diversion of water, the supply
of sand to coastal beaches, or the spawning- areas of fish
that spend part of the year in coastal waters, B) Construc—
tion or expansion- of sewage treatment plants where discharges
of wastes would enter coastal streams or coastal-waters;
C) Construction or expansion of water supply facilities
where part of the service area is within the coastal zone;
D) Dams, flood control projects, water diversion projects,
sand and gravel mining operations, major grading projects,
and logging of major vegetation or any other project which
would significantly affect rivers or streams flowing into
the Pacific Ocean; and E) the construction, widening, or
other upgrading of highways, roads, or other major transpor—
tation facilities that terminate in or pass through the
coastal zone.
With respect to all such projects, the appropriate govern—
mental body will file copies of environmental impact reports
with the successor agency.
If the successor agency finds, after full public hearing,
that such project will have a significant adverse environ—
mental impact on coastal resources, the agency should have
authority to place reasonable terms and conditions on the
construction of such project to mitigate such adverse effects.
i
PERMIT AUTHORITY/SCOPE
Recommendation XII
The basic permit system established by the California Coastal
Zone Conservation Act of 1972 should continue in both the
Critical Resource Zone and the Coastal Management Zone until
final approval of appropriate Local Land Use Programs as
provided in Recommendations IXX-XXIII.
All activities requiring . permits under the Coastal Zone
Conservation Act of 1972 should- continue to require permits.
The following additional activities should also require per-
mits:
A. Activities directly undertaken by any public agency.
B. Activities undertaken by a person which are sup-
ported in whole or in part through contracts,
grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assis-
tance from one or more public agencies.
C. Activities involving the issuance to a person of
a lease, permit, license, certificate, or entitle-
ment for use by one or more public agencies.
D. Mergers of residential units into a smaller number
of units.
E. Acquisition or sale -of land or interests in land
by public agencies that is likely to result in a
9
change in use or intensity of use of such land
or which is likely to result in the creation of
a public facility, such as a park, marina, beach,
sewage treatment plant, road, or other facility to `
serve a public purpose.
F. Changes .in the boundaries of any local agency or
formations or dissolutions of local agencies and
formations of improvement districts and other tax—
ing jurisdictions which would affect the provision
of any service to a coastal area or a change in the
use or intensity of use of any coastal area.
G. Any zone changes, variances, or conditional use
permits.
Recommendation XIII
The appeal procedure should be modified to provide that any
aggrieved person or any Commissioner of the State Commission
have standing to appeal the decision of any regional commis—
sion regarding any _permit application. The State Commission,
in addition to the power to affirm, reverse, or modify a
Regional Commission decision upon appeal, should have the
ability to remand to the Regional Commission for further -
review.
Recommendation XIV
To ensure consistent interpretation of the Coastal Plan, the
State Commission should be authorized to adopt regulations
interpreting and applying the Plan.
10
Recommendation XV
Because of the significant cumulative impact that individual
projects can have and because the cumulative impact is
often uncertain when an individual' project is reviewed in
isolation from other critical development factors, the
commissions should be authorized to delay, for a reasonable
period, consideration of permit applications for individual
projects where it finds that several individual projects
subject to separate applications are related and should
be considered in terms of their cumulative impact. . The.
commissions should also be authorized to require the con-
solidation of-hearings and the consideration of such appli-
cations at one time. In addition the commissions should be
authorized to designate specific communities, areas, or
cities within which revisions in local plans or regulations
are required before the commissions can provide adequate
consideration of individual applications and to delay con-.
sideration of permit requests until the completion and sub-
mission of revised plans and regulations.
Recommendation XVI
The successor agency should be authorized to deny the granting
of .a permit for a development proposed for a particular site,
where it finds that such site has. a particularly high poten-
tial for public recreation. Such denial should be authorized
for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed three years.
11
Recommendation XVII
To minimize hardship upon an applicant arising from poten-
tial conflicts between Coastal Commission permit standards
and local building permit standards, legislation should be
adopted requiring that local building permits not be issued
within the coastal zone until the applicant has presented
evidence that he has received an exemption or a permit from
the commissions and that the building permit would be con-
sistent with any valid conditions imposed. Building permits
issued without such -evidence should be void. The applicant
should be encouraged to obtain, and local governments encour-
aged to consider, granting an approval-in-concept prior to
applying for a coastal permit.
Recommendation XVIII
The successor agency should carry on a thorough program
for monitoring permit compliance and should vigorously en-
force permit conditions. Staffing should be adequate to
maintain such programs at a level so that potential violators
are deterred and no coastal resources are irretrievably lost.
The agency should be empowered to .issue administrative cease
and desist orders to halt existing violations and to prevent
threatened "violations. The Attorney General should continue
to represent the successor agency, at its request, in any
judicial proceeding_ arising out of the Coastal Act.
12
APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL LAND USE PROGRAMS
Recommendation IXX
Legislation should be enacted mandating each local govern-
ment with jurisdiction in the Coastal Management Zone to
• submit to the successor agency, within three years after
its creation, a local land use program designed to permit
the transfer of responsibility for coastal plan implementa-
tion to such local government The successor agency should
also be authorized to review and approve, at its sole option,
any local land use program proposed by a local government
and formally submitted by the legislative body of the local
government for approval for any area designated by the agency
within the Critical Coastal Resource Zone. Within a period
of lk days after such submission, or such longer period as
may be agreed upon in writing by the agency and the local
government, the agency should review the local land use pro-
gram and approve or disapprove it, or approve it subject to
conditions. The agency should be required to approve the
local land use program if the agency, after notice and full
public hearing, determines that such program meets the re-
quirements set forth in Recommendation XX. If the agency
fails to take final action on the local land use program
within such 180 day or longer period agreed upon, the local
land use program shall be deemed approved by the agency and
the agency shall, upon request of legislative body of the
local government, issue a certificate to such effect. All
�3
amendment's to an approved local land use program shall be
subject to approval as provided herein for approval of the
initial local land use program.
Recommendation XX .
The successor agency should be required to approve a local
land use program if the agency determines that such program
meets the following criteria:
A. It is in furtherance and supportive .of the Coastal
Plan and;
B. It is compatible with the character, purposes, .
policies, and objectives of the Coastal Plan, and
in regard to .such maps as may be adopted under the
Coastal Plan compatible with such plan maps and;
C. The General Plan' of' the local government is in
conformity to and compatible with the Coastal
Plan; and
D. It contains a specific or special area plan which
includes all detailed regulations, conditions, pro-
grams and proposed legislation which is necessary
for the systematic implementation of each element
of the general plan, including, but "not limited to,
regulations, conditions, programs and proposed _
legislation in regard to the following:
14
1. The location of housing, business, industry,
open space, agriculture, recreation facilities,
educational facilities, churches and related
religious facilities, public buildings and
grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facili-
ties, together with regulations establishing
height, bulk, and setback limits for such build-
ings and facilities, including to the loca-
tion bf areas, such as flood plains or exces-
sively steep or unstable terrain, where no
building will be permitted in the absence of
adequate precautionary measures being taken
to reduce the level of risk to that comparable
with adjoining and surrounding areas.
2. The location and extent of existing or pro-
posed streets and roads,- their names and num-
bers, the tentative proposed widths with refer-
ence to prospective standards for their con-
struction and maintenance, and the location
and standards of construction, maintainance .
and use of all other transportation facilities,
whether public or private.
3. Standards for population density and building
density, including lot size, permissible types
of construction, and provisions for water supply,
15
sewage disposal, storm water drainage and
the disposal of solid waste.
� . Standards for the conservation, development,
and utilization of natural resources, includ-
ing underground and surface waters, forests,
vegetation and soils, rivers, creeks, and
streams, and fish and wildlife resources.
Such standards shall include, where appli-
cable, procedures for flood control, for pre-
vention and control of pollution of rivers,
streams, creeks, and other waters, regula-
tion of land use in stream channels and
other areas which may have a significant
effect on fish, wildlife and other natural
resources of the area, the prevention, control
and correction of soil erosion caused by sub-
division roads or any other sources, and the
protection of watershed areas.
5. The implementation of the Appearance and
Design Element of the Coastal Plan.
E. It contains adequate authority and provision for its administration and enforcement by the local
government, including, authority to regulate any
pre-existing land use or development, or any filed
tentative subdivision map. The source of such
i
16
authority shall be the charter of such local govern-
ment, where applicable, or any applicable State
enabling law; and
F. It contains authority, in connection with permits
the local government issues, to require restric-
tion of land against further development, whether
by deed restriction, restrictive covenent or other
similar appropriate means, to ensure that the density
and intensity provisions of the local land use .pro-
gram shall be respected, and;
G. It contains authority, to the extent otherwise
authorized by law, to impose reasonable require-
ments .and conditions to ensure that the approved
project will be adequately supported by services
and improvements made necessary by such project
and to ensure that such project shall be completed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
approval.
Recommendation XXI
The successor agency should, in its review of local land use
programs, consult with appropriate public agencies, and
should provide opportunity for appropriate county and re-
gional planning agencies as well as the general public to
review and comment on such programs.
17
Recommendation XXII
The successor agency should encourage and assist local
governments in the preparation of local land use programs,
including the provision of data, technical assistance and `
model provisions. Such model provisions should be made
available by the ,agency as soon as possible after the effec-
tive date of the adoption of the Coastal Zone Plan.
Recommendation XXIII
Adequate funding should be made available to the successor
agency to enable it to provide planning grants to affected
local governments to assist them in the preparation of
local land use programs.
i
1$
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LOCAL LAND USE PROGRAMS
Recommendation XXIV
Local land use programs that have been approved by the agency
and validly enacted or adopted by the local government should
be administered and enforced by the local government as pro-
vided for in such approved programs.
Recommendation XXV
Upon receipt of any application for a project requiring more
than ministerial action under the approved local land use pro-
gram, or any application requiring a public hearing, the local
government body or officer having jurisdiction thereof should
give written notice thereof to the agency, together with such
pertinent information as the agency may deem necessary. The
agency should have standing to participate as a party in the
local review of such project, including any public hearing
thereon, and to have issuance of a permit or other authoriza-
tion reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction and to
bring proceedings to have any undertaken pursuant to such per-
mit or authorization restrained, enjoined, corrected, or abated.
Recommendation XXVI
Upon receipt of an application for a variance from any pro-
vision of an approved local land use program, the local gov-
ernment body or officer having jurisdiction thereof shall give
written notice thereof to agency together with such pertinent
information as the agency may deem necessary. If such variance
19
is granted, it shall not take effect for 60 days. If, within
such 60-day period the agency determines that such variance
was not based upon sufficient evidence of practical diffi-
culties or unnecessary hardships, the agency may reverse the
local determination to permit the variance.
Recommendation XXVII
The agency should be empowered to revoke its approval of a
local land use program, when after full public hearing the
agency determines that the local government body or officer
having jurisdiction has repeatedly or frequently failed or
refused, after due notice and requests from the agency, and
with such body or officer having had full opportunity to be
heard on all issues involved, to administer or enforce the
approved local land use program or of the Coastal Plan. Not
earlier than one year after revocation, or such earlier time
as may be mutually agreed to, the legislative. body may re-
submit its local land use program, or any amended version
thereof, to the agency for approval as provided hereinabove.
20
PLAN AMENDMENT
Recommendation XXVIII
The State Commission should have the authority to amend the
coastal plan policies or maps upon the affirmative vote of
2/3 of its members after full public hearing. In cases in-
volving changes in the overall geographical jurisdiction of
the agency, the agency should submit such changes to the
legislature for its approval. There should be full public
notice of a proposed change 90 days prior to adoption.
21
COASTAL RESTORATION
Recommendation XXIX
The State Commission shall annually submit to the Governor
and the Legislature the. "Coastline Acquisition and Restora-
tion Report." The report shall contain a concise statement
of those areas which should be acquired for public recrea-
tion as well as for restoration to natural status under the
acquisition authority of existing state agencies. The report
shall be developed in cooperation with all interested groups
and individuals and with affected State and local agencies,
and after due consideration of recommendations from regional
commissions. In addition the report should contain a rea-
sonable estimate of the costs of acquisition as well as res-
toration activities which may be required. The acquisition
program shall be arranged with priorities. clearly listed and
shall contain full supporting information. justifying the area
to be acquired or restored, together with the reasons for the
priority assigned to each recommendation.
Recommendation XXX
The first annual report shall include a tentative three and
and restoration.
five-year program of coastal acquisitioE/ Each year there-
after the three and five-year programs shall be updated and
data should be included on the progress of the programs. _
Recommendation XXXI
The State Commission shall submit together with its annual
report its recommendations to the Legislature for legislation,
23
including modifications to existing law, needed to'_fully im-
plement the Coastal Plan. The recommendations shall include
a review of those powers and functions of existing state agen-
cies needing modification or augmentation to implement the
Coastal Plan. To enable the Commission to perform this func-
tion each state agency with jurisdiction in the Coastal Zone
should be mandated to submit annual reports to the commission
detailing its plans and programs for Coastal Plan implementa-
tion, together with suggested enabling legislation including
a suggested budget.
Recommendation XXXII
The Commission shall submit its annual legislative recommen-
dation to the Secretary of the Resources Agency at least 60
days prior to transmittal to the Governor and Legislature.
The Secretary shall solicit the comments in writing of the
affected. entities within the Resources Agency. " These com-
ments shall be attached to the annual report together with
whatever comment the 'Commission may wish to make upon the
Resources Agency material. The Governor should include in
the budget request for each Department of the Resources Agency
sufficient monies to- enable them to comply with their obliga-
tions as stated in this recommendation.
Recommendation XXXIII
The Legislature should mandate the existing state agencies
affected to carry out those aspects of the acquisition and
restoration program that it approves and adopts.
24
Recommendation XXXIV
The enabling legislation should provide that only the Annual
Report shall constitute the formal recommendation for acquisi-
tion of any property, and that the three and five-year plans
are general planning documents and should not be construed
. as final statements of intention to condemn property.
Recommendation XXXV
In order to provide sufficient funds to finance the coastal
acquisition and restoration program a special Coastal Res-
toration Fund should be established .to receive revenues as-
signed to coastal conservation activities, private gifts,
and in-lieu fees required by the Coastal Commission. This
fund should be the source of monies for the recommendations
contained in the annual report as well as to provide matching
funds for local government programs for the purpose of pre-
serving open space, new. coastal parks and recreat nal facil-
ities, acquisition of public access and view corridors, and
restoration of damaged coastal environments.
25
FUNDING
Recommendation XXXVI
The successor agency should. coordinate California's Coastal
Plan with Federal. Coastal Zone Management objectives.. The
State Commission should be designated as the single agency
to receive and administer grants for implementing the man-
agement program provided for in the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972.
Recommendation XXXVII
To insure adequate financing for implementation of the Coastal
Plan, the State Legislature should appropriate at least
$ annually in the immediate future for the con-
tinued planning and regulatory function of the successor
agency, less whatever is obtained from grants under the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and whatever is collected
in permit fees.
Recommendation XXXVIII
To more equitably distribute the burden of costs of coastal
regulation and to raise needed revenues, the State Commission
should be authorized to establish, by regulation, a schedule
of permit fees sufficient to cover the costs of processing
permit applications. The development of low and moderate in-
come housing as well as housing for the elderly should be ex-
empt from such fees.
Recommendation XXXIX
To carry out Coastal Plan objectives of maximizing access to
27
the coast for all citizens, where new developments are` pro
posed along the immediate shoreline and public access cannot
usefully or appropriately be provided .in the same development,
developers should be required to contribute fees in lieu of
dedications of land or easements for the acquisition of public
access in. other areas .. Such fees should be placed in the
Coastal. Restoration Fund ' and held exclusively for the acqui-
sition of additional public access.
Recommendation XL
To implement the acquisition and restoration objectives of
the Coastal Plan, at least $ should be allocated
to the Coastal Restoration Fund. Sources for the fund should
include both statewide bond issues and a portion of the rev-
enues of the user fees for state facilities in the coastal
zone. In addition a small increase in such user fees should
be instituted specifically to finance coastal restoration and
acquisition activities.
28
WILLIAMSON ACT AMENDMENTS
Recommendation XLI
To minimize taxing pressures on landowners whose potential
for developing land is severely restricted by the implemen-
tation of Coastal Plan regulations, and because of intense
development pressures placed upon coastal agricultural and
open space land resources, new legislation should be enacted
to modify the Williamson Act so the State (and within the
Coastal Zone, the successor agency) can establish agricul-
tural and open space .preserves for . tax treatment similar
to land under Williamson Act contracts.
29
i
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Recommendation XLII
The successor agency should have staff specifically charged
with providing maximum public participation in the actions ..
of the agency. The agency should establish a system of -pub-
lid notice using all appropriate communications media (in-
cluding prominent posting on the affected property) to inform
the public of the agency's procedures and activities; assist
in obtaining and disseminating information to aid all citizens
interested in preserving coastal resources (including an- up-
dated library for public use); assist applicants and all in-
terested parties in gathering information appropriate for
presentations before the agency; draft regulations that pro-
vide, among other things, maximum citizen participation
during hearings; set the location and time of hearings to be •
accessible to most interested persons; and provide opportunity
for general public comments and review of agency decisions
and procedures at meetings.
Recommendation XLIII
Access to the courts for review of the successor agency's
decisions should be provided as under the current act. Ad-
ditionally, the broad standing provisions of the current
act should be maintained to permit any agrieved person to
bring an action to enjoin violations free of the normally
required bond. Recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees should
31
be permitted in those cases in which the citizen has pre-
vailed in litigation undertaken to prevent or halt a
violation of the coastal plan as adopted by the legislature.
Recommendation XLIV
To help in. regulatory and planning decisions, and to encourage
maximum public participations, the successor agency should"
be authorized to establish and fund advisory boards to advise
it regarding specific permit applications., as well as on-
going planning, and -to refer permit applications to the boards
for their review prior to- action. Such a board is called for
.in the Appearance and .Design Plan Element.
32
PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS "TO BEACH ACCESS AND USAGE
Recommendation XLV
The successor -agency should be specifically authorized by stat—
ute to bring legal actions to enforce the public 's prescriptive
rights to beach access and usage. Sufficient staff should be
made available to investigate the entire California coast to
determine where and to what extent such rights exist and where
and. to what extent such rights have been violated. With re—
s)ect to new projects that come before the agency for approval,
-the agency should be specifically prohibited from trading or
bargaining away such public access rights as may have been
obtained. In addition, no local land use program should be
approved that does not specifically recognize the inviolability
of public prescriptive rights to beach access and usage within
the local governments' jurisdiction.
a .
33
�(Je�come to
ti l}THEE CITY� OF !-I:L:INTI`NLGT �' N BEACH,:
- �, r_a a aka- �'` ,,itra.+ .".�^{j •, -- ,�.�°?h"c