Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564998
label
[Environment] - Preservation and Management of Californiaäó»s Coastline, September 1972 (3 of 3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564998
contentType
document
title
[Environment] - Preservation and Management of Californiaäó»s Coastline, September 1972 (3 of 3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564998
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1ff5fdb6b6d899a3
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Environment] - Preservation and
Management of California's Coastline,
September 1972 (3 of 3)
Box: P36
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
ANALYSIS OF INITIATIVE
,
ANALYSIS OF INITIATIVE PROVISIONS
The initiative has been widely publicized as a measure designed to protect
the coast. There are few who would disagree with this goal. Indeed, con-
servation groups, labor unions, local governments, and business in general
have all supported various legislative measures during recent years designed
to provide, in some measure, additional protection for the coast.
As with any complex and difficult issue, however, there are always a var-
iety of proposals and each has current and future implications. In evalua-
ting the precedent setting proposals contained in the initiative, therefore,
it is important to consider specifics, such as:
1. What is the area that will be subject to additional plan-
ning and development regulations? In other words, how
does the initiative define the coast?
2. What will be the nature of the new planning and development
regulations, and who will they affect?
3. What are the implications for current planning and devel-
opment activities within the coastal area?
4. Will the additional planning and development regulations
result in additional acquisition and development of the
coast for public purposes?
The California Coastline Initiative is far-reaching in its effect. It has
a direct impact on those who propose to construct something in the coastal
area, regardless of whether they are public agencies or individuals in the
private sector. It penetrates deeply into the present authority of existing
-199-
governmental agencies and elected officials who are now responsible for plan-
ning and regulating land-use in the coastal area. It has a direct impact on
those who live in the coastal area and on the future use of their property,
as well as on those who simply visit the coast. Finally, it has an important
effect on those residing outside of the coastal area, but who are residents of
the State.
As implied, the implications of this complex measure, and the inter-relation
of its provisions on groups and individuals, is not readily apparent without
a careful examination of the specifics. Accordingly, it is necessary to con-
sider several aspects of the initiative in detail. For example, what are the
implications of the planning area and permit area that are provided for in
the initiative. In other words, (1) what is the coast and (2) will densely
populated and developed urban areas be excluded from its provisions? Leaving
aside any practical and procedural problems that may be inherent in the ini-
tiative, (3) what effect will initiative boundaries have on comprehensive plan-
ning, and (4) what impact will its procedures have on development and redevel-
opment plans of public agencies and private parties? Assuming a new process
of planning and regulating land use in the coastal area is necessary, (5)
what effect will the process that is proposed in the initiative have on rep-
resentation of local areas?
From a practical standpoint, it is important to consider whether the initia-
tive is workable. For example, (6) are its provisions uniform, and (7) will
they create substantial administrative problems? More importantly, (8) what
will be the likely fiscal impact if the initiative is adopted, and (9) will
it result in additional acquisition and development of the coast for public
purposes?
-200-
WHAT IS THE COAST?
The California shoreline runs for approximately 1100 miles between Oregon and
Mexico. Fifteen (15) of the 58 counties in California front on the shoreline.
The nature of the shoreline and adjacent areas is vastly different as one trav-
els up and down the Pacific Coast. In urbanized counties such as San Diego,
Orange, Los Angeles, or San Francisco, as well as parts of other counties,
much of the land area adjacent to the shoreline is highly developed and heav-
ily populated. As an example of the intense use and activity that occurs in
the urbanized portion of the coastal area, the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) reports in its initial coastline study, as follows:
11
approximately 95% of the Southern California population lives
within a 1-hour drive of the coast; 30% of California shipping is
handled in the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors; 90% of Southern
California commercial aircraft landings and take-offs occur immed-
iately adjacent to the coast; much of the Southern California oil
extraction is from the coastal zone, where 2/3 of the electrical
power for the region (is also generated). Commercial fishing in
Southern California is a $39,000,000 business annually, and pleas-
ure boating is estimated to generate another $100,000,000 in busi-
11
ness per year
As indicated, the shoreline in urbanized areas is widely used for a variety of
purposes. In these areas the concern that has generally been expressed over
coastal protection has related to any future development that would reduce ex-
isting beach frontage or impede public access to the beach area.
In rural areas, on the other hand, the nature of the shoreline is vastly dif-
ferent. Large parcels of land, running for miles along the coast and inland
-201-
to the nearest road, remain relatively unpopulated and undeveloped. In these
areas, the concern over coastal protection has generally been to provide ad-
ditional visual and pedestrian access to the shoreline, and to protect large
undeveloped areas adjacent to the shoreline from future development that might
significantly reduce existing land, wildlife, and other resources, or other-
wise detract from the present natural state.
Virtually all of the studies of the California coastline that have been made
in recent years as a first step toward providing additional coastal protec-
tion have recognized and documented this basic distinction between developed
and undeveloped portions of the shoreline. For example, the recently com-
pleted Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (COAP), resulting from a three-year study
effort by the State, included a physical inventory of shoreline land use which
showed:
1. 65% of the COAP inventory area (the entire State coast-
line inland to approximately 1/2 mile from mean high
tide) is presently undeveloped. Of that which is devel-
oped, over 30% is devoted to agriculture or recreational
facilities.
2. Over 80% of the shoreline (as opposed to the broader
COAP inventory area referred to above) is devoted to
semi-urban, agricultural, or undeveloped uses. Less than
20% of the shoreline is devoted to urban uses.
Other studies aimed at improving coastline protection have recognized that the
nature of the problem is different in developed and undeveloped areas of the
coast. For example, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC),
operating in the highly urbanized nine-county bay area, was created to regulate
-202-
filling of and to provide access to the San Francisco Bay. To accomplish
these objectives, the area over which BCDC has planning and permit control
is limited to a 100 foot strip of land around the Bay. After two years of
study, the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study Commission has rec-
ommended that the Legislature revise the boundaries of its study zone "to ex-
clude certain areas already urbanized and/or subdivided
II
The Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in its Ocean Coastline Study for the nine-
county bay area, defines the inland extent of the coastal zone as being gen-
erally the ridge line of the coastal range of hills or five miles if access
is provided by a roadway or potential roadway, except in urbanized areas where
the boundary follows the major highway closest to the shoreline. The South-
ern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has adopted similar criteria
for its coastline planning program.
Unlike these other studies, the California Coastline Initiative defines both
the developed and undeveloped portions of the coast in the same manner. In
terms of "planning area," it defines the coast as that area extending inland
to the top of the nearest coastal range (except in Los Angeles, Orange, and
San Diego Counties where it would be the top of the nearest coastal range or
five miles, whichever is the shortest distance). The "permit area" in both
developed and undeveloped portions of the coast would extend inland 3,000 feet
from mean high tide.
The definition of the coastal area that will be subject to new planning and de-
velopment regulations under the initiative clearly extends beyond the shoreline
itself, and even beyond land immediately adjacent to the shoreline. By apply-
ing the same definition to developed and undeveloped areas of the coast, new
planning and development regulations under the initiative will extend to entire
-203-
1146 DOC process &
0 covega,
you
VA
and
BUS
I $
to TOO
8038
vous
#
11 monjo UNITED 197 the
MIT SQ
asu
23
HEAT
States
and THE
THE
the
für
cities and the urbanized portion of unincorporated areas immediately adja-
cent to the shoreline. In some highly urbanized areas, the coastal range
or five mile planning area, and the 3,000 feet permit area, will also apply
to cities two and three back from those located directly along the shore-
line. For example:
Long Beach, with five of its seven miles of shoreline in
publicly-owned beach, indicates that the 3,000 foot per-
mit area takes in all of its port, a major part of the
downtown area, and numerous inland residential areas.
Santa Monica, with all of its 3 1/2 miles of coastline in
public ownership, reports that the entire city would fall
within the initiative planning area, while a substantial
portion of the downtown area would be subject to the new
permit requirements.
Although 5 1/2 of the 8 1/2 miles of coastline are pres-
ently in public ownership in Huntington Beach, most of the
town lot area would be subject to the new permit require-
ments, and the entire city would fall within the planning
area.
The five mile planning area includes most of the population
of San Diego County.
The initiative planning area would cover all of the City of
Monterey, as well as the nearby City of Seaside which only
has a 600 foot stretch of beach within its boundaries.
As indicated previously, most studies have distinguished between developed
-205-
CITY
OF
CITY OF PARAMOUNT
CITY OF COMPTON
CITY
NORWALK
CITY
RI2W
RUW
OF
OF
CITY
BELLFLOWER
OF
RAD
ARTESTA
T35
Co,
River
CITY OF LAKEWOOD
CERRITOS
CARSON
Augeles
CITY
CO
OF
LAKEWOOD
LOS ANGELES
CITY
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
CITY
OF
LONG
ANGELES
BEACH
OF
AIRPORT
CITY OF
LOS ALAMITOS
CITY
CITY
OF
SIGNAL HILL
0
LOS
LTMI
-0
OF
Angeles
a
17
CALIFORNIA
STATE
COLLEGE
LONG
BEACH
CITY
0
RECREATION
T45
T45
T5S
T55
CITY
RI2W
OF
ISLAND
LOS
TERMINAL
ANGELES
to
SEAL BEACH
CITY OF
CITY OF
ORANGE
LONG BEACH
190487
CALIFORNIA
SEAL BEACH
E
CO.
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
NAPLES
ISLAND
GRAPHIC SCALE
1000 YARDS
PERMIT AREA AS
STATUTE
PERMIT AREA
1000 FEET
DEFINED BY THE
Afamites
PERMIT AREA
CITY OF LONG BEACH
Rny
Pacific
-206-
and undeveloped portions of the coast, and have recognized the different nat-
ure of highly urbanized areas by suggesting planning and permit procedures
that would be less extensive in their coverage, yet adequate to control coastal
development from the standpoint of providing additional beach access and pre-
venting any reduction in existing shoreline area. For example, the Compre-
hensive Ocean Area Plan (COAP) recommended a permit zone of 300 feet inland
from mean high tide (rather than the 3,000 feet provided by the initiative),
and the coastal planning program of the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) provides for a permit area that is generally no more than
one lot or 200 feet inland from the nearest coastal road.
It is interesting to note that even the Sieroty coastline protection bill
(AB 200, 1972 legislative session), after which the initiative is patterned,
provides for a more flexible recognition of the problems posed by urban
areas by excluding certain areas not exempt under the initiative and, impor-
tantly, providing that any portion of the permit area lying more than 500 feet
inland from mean high tide may be exempt. The specific provisions relating
to permit area included in AB 200 that are not in the initiative include:
"The areas of jurisdiction, as of January 1, 1972, of the Los
Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Districts are excluded, except
that beaches or other areas used predominantly for public rec-
reation on January 1, 1972, shall be included. The areas of
such harbor districts lying outside the harbor breakwater are
not excluded under this subdivision."
"Any portion of the permit area lying more than 500 feet inland
from the mean high tide line may be excluded by the commission
upon recommendation of a regional commission and after a public
-207-
hearing or hearings, upon a specific finding that there is no
need to exercise the powers granted pursuant to this division
in such portion in order to carry out the objectives of this
division. However, any such exclusion may be revoked by the
commission, after a public hearing, and shall terminate auto-
matically upon a change of zoning or granting of a variance."
"At the request of a city or county, the regional commission
may, after a public hearing, exclude from interim permit con-
trol:
(1) Except beaches or areas used predominantly by the
public for recreation purposes, the land area of
any harbor district, together with appurtenant fac-
ilities on and under water areas within such dis-
trict, which are zoned and built upon for commercial
#
or industrial purposes on or before January 1, 1972;
and
(2) Except beaches, the land area of any marina, together
with those facilities within the marina that are nec-
essary for its operation, provided that such marina
has been at least 50 percent completed as of January 1,
1972."
While the initiative would clearly apply in the manner described above to urb-
an areas adjacent to and near the shoreline, there is no way to determine
for all areas of the state exactly what land would be included within the
coastal planning and permit area. This confusion is principally because of
the definitions of planning area and permit area that are included in the
-208-
initiative. For example, the inland boundary of the planning area is de-
fined as the "highest elevation of the nearest coastal range." However, it
is generally agreed that there is no singular of official definition of coast-
al range and this, of course, leaves the definition "highest elevation of the
nearest coastal range" open to widespread debate and question. Even if it
were possible to indicate with precision the top of the nearest coastal
range, however, this definition, would still create problems by leaving ques-
tions such as the following unanswered:
1. Where there is no distinguishable coastal mountain range,
what happens?
2. When a coastal range ends or divides, where does the line
following the highest elevation go?
3. What happens to the boundary of the coastal zone where
large valleys meet the coastline?
A literal reading of the definitions included in the initiative could result
in a highly irregular set of coastal planning and permit boundaries. In some
cases, for example, the highest elevation of what would appear to be the
nearest coastal range goes for miles inland, while in other parts of the state
it would only go inland several hundred feet, and certainly nowhere near
principal coastal roads.
Another planning oddity created by the initiative relates to the land surround-
ing the nine-county San Francisco Bay. The initiative expressly exempts the
jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission from its pro-
visions. This means that the bay itself and a 100 foot strip of land surround-
ing the bay is exempt. However, because the San Francisco Bay appears to
-209-
DIFFICULTIES WITH DEFINITIONS OF
"PLANNING AREA" & "PERMIT AREA"
WHAT IS "THE HIGHEST ELEVATION
OF THE NEAREST COASTAL RANGE?"
IS IT THE MOUNTAINS COMING
River
Goods Lake
STRAIGHT OUT OF THE OCEAN, THE
Yreka
S
S
Y
0
U
FIRST SERIES OF SMALL HILLS,
M
O
D
C
Altures
OR THE FIRST TRULY LARGE
MOUNTAIN RANGES?
H
A
$
A
Ragle Lake
Radding
L
S
S
N
Sulanville
WHEN A SINGLE MOUNTAIN RANGE ENDS OR
River
Honey
Lake
T
M
M
A
Red Bluff
DIVIDES INTO TWO RANGES, WHERE DOES
P
THE LINE FOLLOWING THE HIGHEST
Quincy
ELEVATION GO?
Story
G
N
N
R
A
Yuba
MeyodaCity
Ukich
Coluse
Clear
Lake
Knights
Auburn
WHERE THERE IS NO DISTINGUISHABLE
SACRAMENTO &
Senta
Rose
MOUNTAIN RANGE OF ANY KIND, WHAT
HAPPENS?
Fairfield
SAN
CONTRA
Sonora
OAKLAND
COSTA
stanislous
SAM FRANCISCO
Merced
IN THE BAY AREA, WHERE IS THE HIGHEST
Chowchille
SANTA CRUZ
ELEVATION OF THE NEAREST COASTAL RANGE?
Franne
Hallister
RIV
Salings
TWIN PEAKS? MT. DIABLO?
Monterey
Salings
4AN BENITO
MONTEREY
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE COASTAL ZONE
s OBISI
WHERE LARGE VALLEYS MEET THE COASTLINE?
Luis Obispo
SANTA
-210-
clearly fall within the coastal zone as defined by the initiative, the re-
maining 2,900 feet of land surrounding the bay, as well as land adjacent to
any body of water emptying into the Bay that is not subject to tidal action,
would be subject to the new permit requirements of the initiative. Even
the Sieroty coastline protection measure exempted this additional 2,900
foot area by including the following provision in AB 200, which is not in
the initiative:
"The area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conserva-
tion and Development Commission as defined in Section 66610
of the Government Code, together with all contiguous areas
2,900 feet landward thereof, is excluded
II
By defining the inland boundary of the coastal zone as the highest elevation
of the nearest coastal range, it also appears probable that the Delta area,
going inland as far as Sacramento and Stockton, would be subject to the new
permit requirements.
The initiative also provides that "if any portion of any body of water which
is not subject to tidal action lies within the permit area, the body of water
together with a strip of land 1,000 feet wide surrounding it shall be includ-
ed." Although "body of water" is not defined, this provision, if construed
literally, would have the effect of imposing permit requirements hundreds of
miles inland from the shoreline on all development within 1,000 feet from any
lake, river, creek, or similar body of water not subject to tidal action but
emptying into the Pacific Ocean or other water area subject to the initiative
permit procedures. Many of the major rivers and waterways are affected.
-211-
INITIATIVE ADDS 2900 FT. TO
BCDC PERMIT AREA & MAKES THIS
AREA SUBJECT TO PLANNING &
PERMIT REGULATIONS OF INITIATIVE
REGIONAL COMMISSION.
FIRST 100 FT. PRESENTLY
SUBJECT TO BCDC REGULATIONS
COMPARISON OF BCDC PERMIT AREA
WITH INITIATIVE PERMIT AREA
FOR SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
-212-
D
R
E
G
0
N
River
ORTE
KINTH
Yreke
Goode Lake
$
S
K
Y
0
U
M
D
C
Altures
3
N
A
3
A
Eal
Redding
Engle Lake
L
A
3
$
&
N
Susanville
Honey
Lake Alman
MAJOR RIVERS
T
E
M
A
M
A
Red Bluff
&
Ri
P
U
Quincy
story
WATERWAYS
MENDOCINO
G
E N N
U
Willows
Dewns R A
A
Yuba
Ukish
Coluse
Yupe City
C
Clear
Lake
Knights
Auburn
a
Plecerville
Marklesville
7
SACRAMENTO B
ALPINE
Sente Rose
o
Bridfeport,
Fairfield
Calaveras
San Andrees
E
CONTRA
STOCKTOM
Mono
Sonore
OAKLAND
Lake
COSTA
SAN FRANCISCO
stanislous
M
0
N
Merced
MATEOL
SANTACLARA
River
Chowchille
SANTA CRUZ
+
River
River
dependence
Salinas
France
DENITO
Y - N
Monterey
R
Manderd
U
LakeMend
MONTEREY
KINGS
Boulder Dain
SAN UIS OBISPO
K
E
R
N
askersfield
Coupo
S
B
N
A
R
D
I
N
Nojave
V
SANTA BARBARA
Yney
II
Sents
VENTURA
care
LOS
ANGELES
3an
Bernar
LOS ANGEL
Riverside
2
Z
ANGE
R
1
V
E
R
D
E
580
R
031
M
E
R
I
A
AN
O
V
El Cantro
SAN DIEGO
C
M
-213,214-
The definition of mean high tide, which is the seaward boundary of the ini-
tiative permit area, is also open to debate and question. The uncertainty
arises because of the fact that, according to the State Lands Commission, the
boundaries of mean high tide are not currently charted on a statewide basis
and, in addition, the mean high tide changes daily due to natural causes,
making substantial research necessary in order to locate the exact histori-
cal line of mean high tide. The problem of establishing a precise line of
mean high tide is outlined by the State Lands Commission, as follows:
"Since the major portion of the State sovereign lands have
been affected by avulsion or artificial alteration, estab-
lishment of the "last natural water line" is often impossible
and the location is necessarily a matter of arbitration and,
finally, agreement between the State and the upland owner.
Land exchanges usually are a part of these boundary line
agreements.
Boundary line agreements are consummated only in the areas
where the last naturally fluctuating water boundary line can-
not be located. They are extremely cumbersome and very expen-
sive simply because of the large amounts of professional talent
necessary to first determine whether the water line is fluctu-
ating normally, and then to research and prepare maps which
will indicate not only the compromise agreement line, but also
will take into consideration legal precedents, title problems,
constitutional prohibitions, and sometimes large amounts of con-
flicting survey data. Next, every affected shoreline neighbor
-215-
must be a party to the agreement. This includes those on
the opposite side of a river or channel, since that is the
only way the State can protect itself from extravagant claims
which could leave no navigable remainder. Some of these agree-
ments, such as one in South San Francisco Bay, required 14
years to consummate. Two years or more are common."
Officials of the State Lands Commission estimate that it could take up to 50
years and $100,000,000 to exactly fix the boundaries of mean high tide.
EXCLUSION OF URBAN AREAS
As indicated, the initiative establishes one common planning area and one per-
mit area for the entire coastline. Specifically, the planning area extends
inland to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal range (or five miles,
whichever is shorter, in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties), and
the permit area extends inland 3,000 feet from mean high tide.
Although the initiative does not establish one standard for undeveloped areas
and another for developed areas, it does include the following provision de-
signed to minimize the impact of proposed permit requirements in urban areas:
"Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area zoned, stab-
ilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units
per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial or
industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for such use
on or before January 1, 1972, may, after public hearing, be ex-
cluded by the regional commission at the request of a city or
county within which such area is located. An urban land area is
"stabilized" if 80 percent of the lots are built upon to the maxi-
mum density or intensity of use permitted by the applicable zoning
-216-
regulations existing on January 1, 1972. =
When read quickly, the language permitting exclusion of urban areas would ap-
pear to offer the possibility of exempting large portions of the coast that
are heavily developed. However, a closer examination of the initiative and
the impact of its provisions limits this possibility considerably. For exam-
ple, the general language permitting exclusion is modified by the following:
"Any urban land area may be excluded by the regional com-
mission =
"Orders granting
exclusion shall be subject to conditions
which shall assure that no significant change in density,
height, or nature of uses occurs."
"An order granting exclusion may be revoked at any time by
the regional commission, after public hearing."
"Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immediately ad-
jacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high
tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded."
In addition to the above conditions, the language of the initiative regarding
the circumstances when areas may be excluded is itself unclear. More speci-
fically, a residential, commercial, or industrial area must have 80 percent of
its lots "built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted
=
,
yet the initiative fails to provide any guidelines for measuring 80% of what.
Who defines the boundaries of a particular "urban land area?" Do they run, as
does the permit area, from mean high tide? Do they include one block, an
entire subdivision, or the overall permit area? The answers to questions such
-217-
as these will have much to do with what development within the 3,000 foot
area will be subject to and what will be excluded from the additional permit
requirements.
Even with the most liberal interpretation regarding urban areas eligible for
exclusion, there are some practical situations that are common in cities and
other urban areas along the coastline that will prevent exclusion. For exam-
ple, many urban areas have large land areas that were developed as single-fam-
ily residential some years ago. Today, however, these are transitional areas
and they are zoned for something other than single-family residential in order
to encourage redevelopment. To come under the 80 percent requirement of the
initiative, it would be necessary to change the zoning in these areas which
would be counter-productive, at best. Similarly, many cities have redevelop-
ment projects planned or underway, and these could easily result in large
downtown and other areas being unable to qualify for the 80% developed cri-
teria. Many residential areas are developed to maximum intensity, yet they
are not equivalent to four or more lots per acre. Thus, they would also be
ineligible for an urban exclusion.
It is also important to note that there is no provision for excluding any por-
tion of any urban area from the coastal planning zone. The planning zone is
the area that will be the basis for regional and state coastline protection
plans that are to be submitted to the Legislature in 1976. The initiative
provides that such plans shall include "recommendations for specific uses or
within which specific uses should be prohibited," and it is reasonable to as-
sume that the methods of implementation that are recommended will be similar
to the additional permit process proposed initially for development that oc-
curs within 3,000 feet of mean high tide. As indicated previously, the plan-
ning area is essentially five miles inland in Los Angeles, Orange, and San
-218-
Diego Counties, and extends inland to the "highest elevation of the nearest
coastal range" in the other coastline counties.
Although the initiative permits regional commissions to exclude highly devel-
oped urban areas, it seems clear from an overall reading of initiative pro-
visions that it is intended that essentially all development in the short and
long run within urban areas adjacent to or near the shoreline be subject to
the additional permit requirements. In this regard, the following findings
of a recent study entitled "The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control", prepared
for the Federal Council on Environmental Quality, regarding the appropriate-
ness and effectiveness of permit regulations are particularly interesting:
"Changes in a state's pattern of land use involve thousands of
individual decisions--to drill a well, to widen a street, to
build a power plant, to build a garage--the new patterns that
result are the sum of all these decisions, some major, others
very minor. The state's goals can be achieved if only the
major decisions can be regulated. One of the very important
issues in each state land regulatory system is to separate the
major decisions from the minor so that state officials are not
bogged down with gas station applications when they should be
considering power plant sites, and so that irate homeowners do
not have to go to the state capital to get permission to build
a garage."
EFFECT ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
Although it is impossible to define with precision exactly what areas of the
State will be subject to the planning and development regulations proposed by
the initiative, it is clear that the areas will not be confined to the shoreline
-219-
and that, particularly in urbanized areas, the boundaries will extend inland
for some considerable distance. In addition to interim permit controls on
essentially all development, what does the initiative propose for this unde-
fined but extensive area?
The basic goal of the initiative is the preparation of a California Coastal
Zone Conservation Plan. The coastal planning zone extends inland to the high-
est elevation of the nearest coastal range, except in Los Angeles, Orange,
and San Diego Counties where it generally extends inland for five miles. The
plan that must be prepared under the initiative for this area "shall be based
upon detailed studies of all the factors that significantly affect the coastal
zone," and shall contain at least the following elements:
(a) A precise, comprehensive definition of the public interest
in the coastal zone.
(b) Ecological planning principles and assumptions to be
used in determining the suitability and extent of allowable
development.
(c) A component which includes the following elements:
(1) A land-use element.
(2) A transportation element.
(3) A conservation element for the preservation and manage-
ment of the scenic and other natural resources of the
coastal zone.
(4) A public access element for maximum visual and physical
use and enjoyment of the coastal zone by the public.
(5) A recreation element.
-220-
(6) A public services and facilities element for the
general location, scale, and provision in the least
environmentally destructive manner of public ser-
vices and facilities in the coastal zone. This ele-
ment shall include a power plant siting study.
(7) An ocean mineral and living resources element.
(8) A population element for the establishment of maximum
desirable population densities.
(9) An educational or scientific use element.
(d) Reservations of land or water in the coastal zone for cer-
tain uses, or the prohibition of certain uses in specific
areas.
(e) Recommendations for the governmental policies and power re-
quired to implement the coastal zone plan including the
organization and authority of the governmental agency or
agencies which should assume permanent responsibility for
its implementation.
In addition, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan must be consistent
with the following objectives:
(a) The maintenance, restoration and enhancement of the overall
quality of the coastal zone environment, including, but not
limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values.
(b) The continued existence of optimum populations of all species
of living organisms.
(c) The orderly, balanced utilization and preservation, consistent
-221-
with sound conservation principles, of all living and non-
living coastal zone resources.
(d) Avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable commit-
ments of coastal zone resources.
The initiative declares that it is necessary "to study the coastal zone to
determine the ecological planning principles and assumptions needed to ensure
conservation of coastal zone resources," but it makes no reference to what
has already been done or to what is presently in progress in terms of stud-
ies and planning efforts aimed at improved protection of the coastal area.
The initiative does make an indirect reference to the Comprehensive Ocean
Area Plan (COAP) and to federally recognized regional planning agencies (coun-
cils of governments), but only in terms of attempting to require these agen-
cies to provide staff assistance to the regional and state commissions created
by the initiative. As will be pointed out later, specific practical problems
will prevent this type of assistance. Importantly, however, there is no re-
quirement in the initiative that the comprehensive coastal planning efforts
already completed by these agencies even be considered, let alone adopted as
local elements of the proposed California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan.
A simple reading of the initiative could lead one to believe that nothing has
been done in terms of identifying coastal resources and proposing effective
programs for their preservations. However, many comprehensive and effective
study efforts have been undertaken. Probably the most thorough, because it
covers the entire coastline of the state, is the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan
(COAP). This three year study, recently completed under the direction of the
State Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, involved all state agen-
cies having some interest in the coastal area. In addition, it reviewed
-222-
present plans and programs of local agencies within the coastal zone, and
it includes a detailed mapping of coastal land use patterns and ownership,
as well as an extensive physical inventory of coastal zone resources. The
Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (COAP) was prepared in order to provide the
Legislature and others with all the facts and specifics that are needed in
order to implement an effective program of statewide coastal protection.
In addition to containing comprehensive guidelines for such a program, de-
tailed information for the entire coastline is available in ten appendices
covering the following subjects related to the coastal zone:
Permanent Coastal Zone Data and Information System
Land Use Allocation System
Fish and Wildlife in the Marine and Coastal Zone
Agriculture in the Coastal Zone
Non-Living Resources (two volumes)
Air Resources
Shoreline Use and Protection
Public Health
Education and Research
In addition to the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (COAP), the State Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation has completed a comprehensive "California Coastal
Conservation and Recreation Plan." Federally recognized regional planning
agencies (councils of governments) are also in the process of preparing de-
tailed coastal elements for their comprehensive regional plans. For example,
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and a tri-county effort in the Santa Cruz,
Monterey, and San Luis Obispo County areas have all completed the first year
of their respective coastal planning programs, and each is well on the way
-223-
to issuing a final report. As with the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (COAP),
each of these regional planning efforts have included a detailed inventory of
coastal land use and resources. Even individual cities have completed their
own comprehensive studies of the coastal area. San Diego, for example, has
issued two reports entitled "The Ocean Edge of San Diego" and "San Diego's
Offshore Area."
It is clear that an abundance of current factual information for the entire
coastal zone is now available. What is missing is a statewide plan and pro-
gram aimed at providing additional protection of the shoreline and its re-
sources. With respect to this statewide plan, the proponents of the initia-
tive and all study efforts conducted to date agree that comprehensive plan-
ning is essential to protection of the coastline. Perhaps the best indica-
tion of this can be seen in a penetrating analysis of the experience of the
San Franciso Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in regulating
filling and development around the bay. Included in a report ("The Quiet
Revolution in Land Use Control") that was prepared for the Federal Council on
Environmental Quality, the analysis states:
"To say that this development (around the Bay) was 'stopped', however,
merely raises a new question. Did the closing of the Bay to develop-
ers merely increase the pressure on, for example, the natural resources
of the Carmel Valley? Do limitations on new office buildings in San
Francisco encourage further sprawl in San Jose?"
"Of course the Commission (BCDC) has no answer to these questions be-
cause it was never asked to consider them. The Commission's planning,
though skillful and articulate, considered only the relatively direct
impact of development on or near the Bay and did not examine all of
the regional implications
II
-224-
"The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
has been extremely successful in achieving the purposes for
which it was created. In the long run, however, a more compre-
hensive approach is needed. The crucial question is whether the
Commission's success can lead to systems of state or regional
planning and regulation that have broader goals, or whether it
will become merely a regulatory version of a single-function spec-
ial district."
The impact of the initiative on comprehensive planning, therefore, is criti-
cal. In evaluating the provisions of the initiative from this standpoint,
it is important to remember that the inland boundaries of the planning zone
are the highest elevation of the nearest coastal range, or generally five
miles in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. It is clear that the
coastal planning boundaries established by the initiative are in no way equiv-
alent to comprehensive regional boundaries which, by their very nature, are
broader than a 3,000 foot permit area or a five mile planning area. As
pointed out earlier, what appears to be the coastal range in some areas of
the state is only several hundred feet from the shoreline, while the boundary
runs inland for miles in other areas of the state. Thus, what the initiative
provides for is an irregular but arbitrary line delineating the portion of
a county within which a comprehensive planning procedure would be established.
The regional and state commissions created by the initiative would have no
planning responsibility for other areas of the county, even though land use de-
cisions in these areas may have a major impact on access to the shoreline or
a significant influence on preservation of coastal resources.
Although the initiative would not establish adequate or effective boundaries
for comprehensive planning purposes, it is important to note that comprehensive
-225-
regional planning is presently being done throughout the state on a much
broader basis than that proposed by the initiative. For example, cities
and counties in the Bay Area have formed the Association of Bay Area Govern-
ments (ABAG) for regional planning purposes. Local governments in six south-
ern counties (Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Imper-
ial) have formed the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
These and other councils of governments have been operating for as long as
ten years, all are staffed, and their primary role is to identify and obtain
cooperative solutions to problems that transcend city and county boundaries.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have both developed comprehensive regional
plans, and they have also prepared detailed elements for their regional plan
in areas such as sewer, water, open space, and transportation. As indicated,
both the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Assoc-
iation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have comprehensive regional coastal
planning programs underway. To the extent that the regional commissions
created by the initiative. do comprehensive planning, it will duplicate that
already done by the councils of government.
The boundaries of councils of government encompass entire counties. They have
been approved by the Federal government, and have been established pursuant
to statute by the State Council on Intergovernmental Relations (CIR). The
boundaries are also consistent with the boundaries of other regional planning
agencies that have been created by the state. For example, the boundaries of
the Association of Bay Area Governments are similar to those of the following
agencies:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
-226-
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development District
The Bay Area Sewage Services Agency
The Bay Area Comprehensive Health Planning Council
Thus, the initiative would not only create regional commissions that are
unable to undertake comprehensive planning, but it would also create
regional commissions that would serve to frustrate the ongoing planning ef-
forts of existing regional and state agencies. For example, there is no re-
quirement that the planning activities of regional commissions created by the
initiative relate in any way to the plans of existing councils of government
or other regional planning or regulatory agencies created by the state such
as the Water Resources Control Board, Air Resources Board, or the Public Util-
ities Commission. The initiative requires the regional and state commissions
to prepare a California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan that is as broad as any
city, county, or regional plan, yet the plans of state and regional agencies
and the various councils of government could be entirely different. In fact,
by establishing regional commission boundaries that are different than those
of existing councils of government or other regional planning agencies created
by the state, there is every reason to believe that conflicts will occur.
With specific reference to the coastline, as an example, the Southern Californ-
ia Association of Governments' (SCAG) coastal planning program includes all
of Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties, but the initiative places Orange
and Los Angeles Counties under the jurisdiction of one regional commission,
and places Ventura County in with Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties
in a second regional commission. The same is true with the coastal planning
program of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and with the tri-
county study in the Monterey area.
-227-
SAN
LUIS 0815.PO
SANTA
SAN BERNARDINO
BARBARA
LOS
ANGELES
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
REGIONAL COMMISSION
ORANGE
RIVERSIDE
SOUTH COAST
REGIONAL COMMISSION
IMPERIAL
-
NOTE:
SCAG BOUNDARIES ARE SPLIT BY
INCLUDING VENTURA CO. WITH THE
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL
COMMISSION
COMPARISON OF SCAG BOUNDARIES WITH
INITIATIVE REGIONAL COMMISSION BOUNDARIES
-228-
SONOMA
NAPA
NOTE:
THESE ABAG COUNTIES ARE NOT REPRESENTED
ON ANY REGIONAL COMMISSION EVEN THOUGH
THEY ARE INCLUDED WITHIN INITIATIVE
JURISDICTION.
SOLANO
MARIN
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
REGIONAL COMMISSION
CONTRA
COSTA
SAN FRANCISCO
ALAMEDA
SAN
MATEO
CENTRAL COAST
REGIONAL COMMISSION
SANTA CLARA
NOTE:
ABAG BOUNDARIES ARE SPLIT BY INCLUDING
SAN MATEO COUNTY WITH THE CENTRAL COAST
REGIONAL COMMISSION.
COMPARISON OF ABAG BOUNDARIES WITH
INITIATIVE REGIONAL COMMISSION BOUNDARIES
-229-
The fact that regional commissions created by the initiative will be able
to control development within a 3,000 foot strip also increases the possi-
bility of conflict inasmuch as this type of authority over land use will be
able to be exercised without any regard for the growth and development pro-
visions of existing local, regional, or state plans.
It is also important to look at the timing of the initiative in terms of its
impact on comprehensive regional planning. The initiative provides that the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan must be submitted to the Legisla-
ture for consideration at the 1976 session. Based on the experience of both
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Ventura-
Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study Commission (BCDC obtained a two year
extension from the Legislature, the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal
Study Commission is currently seeking an extension), additional time will be
necessary to complete the plan. Once the plan has been completed, it will
undoubtedly be subject to substantial legislative debate, just as various
coastline protection bills have undergone substantial debate and amendment
during the past several years. The important consideration, from the stand
point of adopting a plan that will provide additional protection to the
coastal area, is that all of the pertinent facts and statistics about coastal
land use and resources are now available as a result of the Comprehensive
Ocean Area Plan (COAP) and other studies. However, while legislative action
is possible now, the initiative will really remove any incentive for legis-
lative action prior to 1976 (and later if additional study time is requested).
In fact, the initiative really prohibits legislative action now by providing
that the initiative provisions shall remain in effect "until the 91st day
after the final adjournment of the 1976 Regular Session of the Legislature."
-230-
EFFECT ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
During the time the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan is being pre-
pared, the regional commission will be exercising permit control over devel-
opment occurring within the 3,000 foot permit area. Although it is not pos-
sible to indicate specifically what urban areas may be eligible for exclus-
ion from these new development controls, it is fair to say that much of the
development occurring within the permit area up and down the coast will be
subject to the new requirements.
Those subject to the permit requirements include "any individual, organiza-
tion, partnership, and corporation, including any utility and any agency of
federal, state, and local government." According to the initiative, any de-
velopment occurring within the permit area would require a permit from the
regional commission, as well as from appropriate local agencies. Development
is defined broadly, as follows:
"Development means, on land, in or under water, the place-
ment or erection of any solid material or structure, dis-
charge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous,
liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging,
mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density
or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to,
subdivision of land pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and
any other division of land, including lot splits; change in
the intensity of use of water, ecology related thereto, or of
access thereto, construction, reconstruction, demolition, or
alteration of the size of any structure, including any facili-
ty of any private, public, or municipal utility, and the re-
moval or logging of major vegetation. As used in this section,
-231-
"structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building,
road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line,
and electrical power transmission and distribution line."
In addition to those areas deemed eligible for the 80 percent urban area ex-
clusion considered previously, the following initiative provisions relate
to exceptions from permit requirements:
"If, prior to the effective date of this division, any city
or county has issued a building permit, no person who has
obtained a vested right thereunder shall be required to sec-
ure a permit from the regional commission; providing that no
substantial changes may be made in any such development, ex-
cept in accordance with the provisions of this division. Any
such person shall be deemed to have such vested rights if,
prior to April 1, 1972, he has in good faith and in reliance up-
on the building permit diligently commenced construction and
performed substantial work on the development and incurred
substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary there-
for. Expenses incurred in obtaining the enactment of an ordi-
nance in relation to the particular development or the issuance
of a permit shall not be deemed liabilities for work or mater-
ial. 11*
"Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter to the contrary,
no permit shall be required for the following types of develop-
ment:
*(NOTE: It is doubtful whether an initiative can effectively apply its pro-
visions on a retroactive basis. Nonetheless, the attempt in the initiative
to apply permit requirements to development projects legally approved between
April 1, 1972 and the effective date of the initiative is bound to cause sub-
stantial practical and legal problems. Even the Sieroty coastline bill rec-
ognizes this by providing that "if, prior to the date on which the act adding
this division is assigned a chapter number by the Secretary of State, any city
or county has issued a building permit
no person
shall be required to sec-
ure a permit from the regional commission
") -232-
(a) Repairs and improvements not in excess of seven thousand
five hundred dollars ($7,500) to existing single-family
residences; provided, that the commission shall specify
by regulation those classes of development which involve
a risk of adverse environmental effect and may require that
a permit be obtained.
(b) Maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels or
moving dredged material from such channels to a disposal
area outside the permit area, pursuant to a permit from the
United States Army Corps of Engineers."
"The commission shall provide, by regulation, for the issuance
of permits by the executive director without compliance with the
procedure specified in this chapter in cases of emergency or for
repairs or improvements to existing structures not in excess of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) and other developments
not in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Nonemergency
permits shall not be effective until after reasonable public not-
ice and adequate time for the review of such issuance has been pro-
vided. If any two members of the regional commission SO request
at the first meeting following the issuance of such permit, such
issuance shall not be effective and instead the application shall
be set for a public hearing
=
Considerable question has been raised as to whether the initiative would
impose a moratorium on all new construction during the time that the Calif-
ornia Coastal Zone Conservation Plan was being prepared. The initiative does
not contain any express moratorium on new development. However, from a
-233-
practical standpoint, the combination of provisions contained in the initia-
tive could easily have the effect of halting new projects, both public and
private, during the three year planning period.
As pointed out in a study for the Federal Council on Environmental Quality,
entitled "The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control", a dual permit system
may well be advocated for purposes of stopping development:
"A common failing of most of the new state land regulatory sys-
tems is that they do not relate in a logical manner to the con-
tinuing need for local participation. Most of them tend to by-
pass the existing system of local regulation and set up com-
pletely independent and unrelated systems. This requires the
developer (public or private) who is subject to both systems to
go through two separate and distinct administrative processes,
often doubling the time required and substantially increasing
the costs required to obtain approval of the development pro-
posal. =
"Most states have chosen to create duplicating procedures in order
to eliminate the need to make any change in existing zoning and
other regulatory systems. By leaving zoning alone the state re-
duces the number of potential enemies of new legislation. More-
over, in many states the motives behind the state land regulatory
system were solely to prohibit development that would otherwise
occur. To persons having this motive the duplication does not
seem to be a problem because duplication can only operate to pre-
vent and not to encourage development."
The following initiative provisions, when considered in combination, could
-234-
clearly have the effect of delaying any proposed development for almost an
indeterminate amount of time:
1. No permit shall be issued unless the regional commission
has first found "that the development will not have any
substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect."
This provision could well be interpreted to mean that
every development would be required to have a separately
prepared environmental impact statement before it could
be considered, regardless of whether it was a major or
minor project or whether it was located adjacent to the
shoreline or 3,000 feet inland in the heart of a city.
2. No permit shall be issued unless the regional commission
has first found that the development is consistent with
the objectives of the initiative. One of the objectives
refers to the "avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of coastal zone resources." The potential im-
pact of this provision is illustrated by the COAP report
on a "Land Use Allocation System" which declares that:
"Therefore, shifts to uses that place structures on the
land become virtually irreversible even when the supply and
demand conditions that created the original shift have
altered."
3. An application for a development permit must be reviewed by
the appropriate city or county agency; it then must be re-
viewed by the regional commission to determine if it is in
an excludable area; if it is not excludable, it must be reviewed
-235-
by the regional commission; if denied, it may be ap-
pealed to the state commission and ultimately the courts;
if approved, any citizen may appeal it to the state com-
mission and ultimately the courts. By providing that II
any person aggrieved by approval of a permit by the region-
al commission may appeal to the (state) commission," the
initiative opens the door to those individuals who openly
advocate "creative obstructionism" in order to achieve
what they believe is progress.
4. No permit shall be issued without the affirmative vote
of a majority of the total authorized membership of the
regional commission, and no permit shall be issued for
any of the following "without the affirmative vote of two-
thirds of the total authorized membership of the regional
commission
II
"(a) Dredging, filling, or otherwise altering any bay,
estuary, salt marsh, river mouth, slough, or
lagoon.
(b) Any development which would reduce the size of any
beach or other area usable for public recreation.
(c) Any development which would reduce or impose res-
trictions upon public access to tidal and submerged
lands, beaches and the mean high tideline where there
is no beach.
(d) Any development which would substantially interfere
-236-
with or detract from the line of sight toward
the sea from the state highway nearest the
coast.
(e) Any development which would adversely affect
water quality, existing areas of open water free
of visible structures, existing and potential
commercial and sport fisheries, or agricultural
uses of land which are existing on the effective
date of this division."
By relating the vote requirement on permits to a majority
or two-thirds of the total authorized membership, a pro-
ject could be delayed simply on account of a vacancy on
the commission, or the vacation or sickness of members.
Two-thirds, depending on the attitude of certain commis-
sion members, could be impossible to obtain. In addition,
the commissions are composed of an even-number of members
(unlike most boards and commissions). This has the effect
of requiring a two vote edge for a majority. For example,
a 7-5 vote would be required for a 12 member commission.
5. Permits for emergency or certain repairs and improvements
may be issued by the executive director of the regional
commission. However, even the minor non-emergency per-
mits "shall not be effective until after reasonable pub-
lic notice and adequate time for the review of such is-
suance has been provided. If any two members of the reg-
ional commission so request at the first meeting following
the issuance of such permit, such issuance shall not be
effective and instead the application shall be set for pub-
lic hearing II Even if there is no objection raised by
-237-
the commission, however, an individual citizen practicing
"creative obstructionism" can bring the appeal proced-
ures into motion. There is no exemption, nor is the exe-
cutive director permitted to issue permits for routine main-
tenance or replacement of existing facilities, whether they
be a street, sewage plant, or water or electric utility line.
6. Certain urban areas may be excluded from the permit pro-
cess, but any particular development within that area is
subject to the permit requirements if it will result in a
"significant change in density, height, or nature of use."
7. Because the initiative planning area extends inland to the
highest elevation of the nearest coastal range, or generally
five miles in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties,
it will be necessary for the commission to re-plan entire
cities. Because of the enormity of this task, a regional
commission could well adopt a policy restricting any fut-
ure development until its plans were complete.
8. In controversial projects, the courts will become the final
arbiter, and this process can result in a considerable de-
lay before a case even is permitted to go to trial.
The permit requirements have serious implications for public agencies. As
indicated previously, redevelopment projects could fall within the permit re-
quirements. Developed urban areas in transitional use would also be affected.
Any unusual delay in projects of this type could jeopardize intricate finan-
cing arrangements, and totally thwart local planning efforts. This result
would not only have an economic effect on the community, but it would also
have a significant social effect inasmuch as many troublesome urban problems
originate in the blighted areas these type of projects are designed to improve.
-238-
A few examples of the type of public project that could easily be stopped
as a result of the initiative provisions are:
Monterey - A large urban renewal project is located in
the downtown area. The project has taken nine years for
the city to put together, and it contemplates a confer-
ence center, hotel, and other public improvements. The
project is critical to the stabilization of the downtown
area, and the possibility of delay seriously jeopardizes
considerable effort and expense on the part of the city
and private developers.
The city also has a special master plan for the renova-
tion of Cannery Row. The initiative permit requirements
will result in the owners of old canneries leaving their
buildings standing because they won't get permission to
build another, yet they won't improve the old buildings
because it isn't economically feasible. The city is left
with blighted and unsafe conditions.
Santa Monica - The planning area of the initiative will
result in the entire city being re-planned, while the major
portion of the central business district will be included
in the permit area. A large multi-residential redevelop-
ment project inland but near the shoreline would be sub-
ject to the permit requirements, as would owners of old
buildings in the downtown area who simply want to tear their
building down and replace it with another.
-239-
Huntington Beach - The community plan calls for a "Top
of the Pier" redevelopment project which includes a major
part of the downtown area adjacent to the beach. Diffi-
culty in implementing this project will not only cause econ-
omic hardship for those doing business in the downtown area
but, more importantly, it will prevent the city from deal-
ing effectively with social problems on the beach which
have their origin in the blighted downtown area and spill
over into adjacent areas.
Newport Beach - The city is in the process of creating a man-
made bay which will provide additional water frontage to
the public. This additional water frontage would not be
available except for the private development, and the ini-
tiative will place it in jeopardy because the project also
includes the extension of an existing residential area.
Long Beach - The master plan for the city calls for approxi-
mately one mile of its seven mile shoreline to be developed
for commercial uses. Five miles of the shoreline are pres-
ently in public ownership and available for a multitude of
recreational purposes. The planned commercial development
(Pacific Terrace) will result in hotels, motels, restaurants,
and additional public recreation facilities. Importantly,
however, the project is central to revitalization of the
downtown and many projects scheduled for that area will not
move ahead without implementation of the shoreline master plan.
San Diego - Shelter Island and Harbor Island were made with
-240-
materials from dredging, yet they provide access to the
water where none existed previously. A similar 4,500
acre development, Mission Bay, calls for development of
25 percent of the land area in order to provide suffi-
cient continuing revenue to maintain the 75 percent that
will be available to the public. The Mission Bay area
will fall within the permit area, and costly delays in
projects would be likely.
San Diego also contemplates redeveloping a 15 block area
of the downtown as part of their Plaza Redevelopment pro-
ject. This area is blighted and presently has a variety
of uses. The project would completely change the nature
of the area in terms of height of buildings, street con-
figuration, etc. The permit process will put its financing
in danger.
Los Angeles - The Initiative has a potentially severe im-
pact on the plans and programs of the Los Angeles Port Auth-
ority. The Board of Harbor Commissioners in conjunction with
the Corps of Engineers is giving consideration to deepening
the harbor channel to accommodate the deep-draft vessels
which are now being used or constructed by the steamship in-
dustry. The time-consuming permit procedures and appeals pro-
cess could very likely jeopardize any new developments to
meet these new advances.
The Initiative creates similar problems for water-related rec-
reation in that it will inhibit the development of small boat
-241-
moorings and related improvements in the Port of Los Angel-
es. These facilities are greatly needed throughout South-
ern California.
Unreasonable delays in development are also of concern to the State. For
example, the Public Utilities Commission indicated in April, 1972 that "based
upon the Commission's present knowledge in the field of power needs through
the year 1976 a moratorium will seriously impair the ability of utilities sub-
ject to the Commission's jurisdiction to meet their power demands." This
statement was more specifically confirmed by the July 25, 1972 PUC study of
power needs and sources. Using estimates of future power needs that were
more conservative than those of the utilities, the PUC concluded that 11
insufficient service will result in the mid-1970's."
Under the present law, the statewide California Public Utilities Commission
is assigned responsibility for the regulation and location of needed addition-
al electric generating and transmission facilities. Although power is gener-
ated in one community, this responsibility is assigned to a statewide commis-
sion because, among other reasons, power is taken from its generating source
and delivered through distribution facilities to many other communities. By
establishing regional commissions with permit authority, the initiative not
only duplicates the responsibility of the PUC in terms of regulating the loca-
tion of additional power generating facilities in the coastal zone, but its
stringent provisions regarding new development raise legitimate questions con-
cerning the future ability of public and private utilities to provide needed
power.
As a further example of State interest, the Department of Navigation and Ocean
Development could be forced to cut back its $4 million annual program of providing
-242-
financial assistance for boating facilities inasmuch as construction of new
harbors and marinas will undoubtedly be delayed, even though such projects
must presently have an environmental impact report and go through 11 budge-
tary reviews. Also, all development projects of the State Department of Parks
and Recreation in the coastal area would be subject to the time consuming
permit procedures contained in the initiative, even though each project is
now preceded by the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Concern over the potential impact of the initiative on development is height-
ened by the fact that no amendment may be made to the initiative provisions
without a two-thirds vote of both the State Assembly and the State Senate.
Because many of the proponents of the initiative will undoubtedly resist any
legislative change in the provisions of the initiative until the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Plan is completed, it could be extremely difficult
to get a majority vote in both houses, let alone two-thirds.
REPRESENTATION OF LOCAL AREAS
Considering the extent of the planning and permit areas proposed by the ini-
tiative, the control of land use and the ability to implement local plans is
as much at issue under the initiative, as is the question of improved coast-
line protection. Because local communities in California have a long tradi-
tion of concern and control over development in their respective areas, their
representation on regional and state commissions created under the initiative
is of vital concern.
The Sieroty coastline protection bill (AB 200), as amended July 20, 1972,
gave existing local governments a majority of the members on regional commis-
sions in an effort to be sure that the activities of those commissions related
to what local communities have already done and what thev want in the future
insofar as development of their areas is concerned. The initiative, on the
other hand, does not give existing local government officials majority membership
-243-
on either the regional or state commissions.
The fact that existing local governments will not have a majority voice on
the regional commissions is of greater concern when considering the fact
that the balance of the commission will be appointed and will, in no way,
be accountable to the public for the decisions it makes.
In addition, the regional commissions cover large geographical areas and
there is every assurance that they will be passing judgement on proposed pro-
jects for a particular community without having any feeling or concern for
the local problems and needs of the community. The regional commission for
Los Angeles and Orange Counties, for example, includes only one supervisor
from each county and one city councilman from each county, in addition to a
city councilman from the City of Los Angeles and one representative of the
Southern California Association of Governments. This is unlike representa-
tion on councils of government where all cities and counties have at least
one vote. This smattering of local government representation could be di-
luted even further if one of the city or county officials on the commission
resigned his local government office, because the initiative would permit
that person to continue serving on the commission until "their term of of-
fice ceases."
The initiative also affects some areas, but provides no representation. For
example, it is clear that the land area surrounding San Francisco Bay (ex-
cept for a 100 foot strip which is exempt) would fall within the initiative
planning and permit area, and would possibly extend, as indicated previously,
all the way inland to Sacramento and Stockton. However, there is no repre-
sentation provided on any regional commission for many of the county areas
that would be affected, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Napa,
Solano, San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties.
In addition, the South Central Coast regional commission would include Ventura
-244-
County which is included within the jurisdiction of the Southern California
Association of Governments. However, unlike the South Coast regional commis-
sion which is also created by the initiative, no representation is provided
on the South Central Coast regional commission to either the Southern Calif-
ornia Association of Governments or to the Ventura County Association of
Governments, a sub-unit of SCAG.
LACK OF UNIFORMITY
From the standpoint of workability and public policy, it is important to know
whether the initiative will result in a uniform program of improved coastline
protection. The initiative provisions, as they appear on paper, spell out a
uniform set of procedures for all areas of the shoreline. However, a review
of their application in practice indicates that there would be widespread var-
iations in the nature and extent of their effectiveness and applicability.
Uppermost, in this respect, is the situation that would develop in and around
the San Francisco Bay Area. The area under the jurisdiction of the San Fran-
cisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission would be exempt and, thus,
would not be subject in any way to the requirements and controls of the ini-
tiative. It is important to note, however, that the ability of the San Fran-
cisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission to control development is
substantially weaker than the controls contained in the initiative. The San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, in its regulation of
land use within a 100 foot strip around the Bay, is limited in its concern
largely to public access to the Bay. It has virtually no ability to indicate
a preference for one use over another, or to control height or density, except
insofar as these matters may have some bearing on access to the Bay shoreline.
Thus, what will develop in the San Francisco Bay Area is a situation where the
-245-
height, density, and use of land in the adjacent 2,900 foot strip of land will
be subject to the stringent controls of the regional commission created by
the initiative, while land immediately adjacent of the waters of the Bay will
be subject to the jurisdiction of an entirely different planning body with
much less authority over land use. This is significant because in many areas
of the state the initiative is being advocated on the basis that is is the
same as the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. With
BCDC being principally concerned with public access and not development within
a limited strip of land, nothing could be more inaccurate.
As suggested previously, there will also be little uniformity with respect
to the planning and permit areas. While the initiative applies a common stand-
ard throughout the coastal area (the highest elevation of the nearest coastal
range), it is this very standard that results in highly irregular planning
boundaries. The planning area in some portions of the coast will be only sev-
eral hundred feet inland, while it will extend for miles in other areas. In
some cases, there will be no, planning area simply because the mountains rise
directly out of the sea. This irregularity is particularly crucial in rural
areas where large undeveloped land holdings are still available for preserva-
tion, yet they will not be included within either the permit or planning areas
provided for the the initiative. In urban areas, on the other hand, the lack
of uniformity is apparent by provision for an arbitrary five mile line in cer-
tain circumstances which passes through the middle of major metropolitan areas,
rather than relating to jurisdictional boundaries.
The initiative will also help to fragment the jurisdiction of existing plan-
ning agencies and, to this extent, decrease the ability of regional areas to
obtain a uniform approach to planning. Those areas of the coast falling with-
in the initiative planning area will not only be subject to the plans of their
-246-
respective city or county, but the regional and state commissions created
by the initiative will be duplicating the ongoing planning efforts of the
regional council of governments in the area. In the Ventura-Los Angeles
area, both the regional commission created by the initiative and the Ventura-
Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study Commission would have statutory plan-
ning responsibility for a single area. As indicated previously, there is
no requirement that the plans or permit decisions of the commissions created
by the initiative relate in any way to existing local, regional, or state
plans and this, of course, will result in conflict and an irregular approach
to planning for land use and resources generally. In addition to fragmenting
the jurisdiction and comprehensive planning efforts of existing planning agen-
cies in the coastal area, the initiative will also duplicate studies concerned
with special coastal land use problems. For example, the initiative calls
for a separate study of statewide power plant siting, even though an identical
study is presently required by statute and is being done by the State Resources
Agency.
The application of the various initiative provisions will also result in a
non-uniform situation. For example, although the initiative provides that
Federal agencies would be subject to the new development regulations, it is
questionable, as pointed out earlier in the report, whether such regulations
may, in fact, be imposed on the Federal government. The Federal government,
according to the coastal study of the State Department of Parks and Recreation,
owns 145 miles of the shoreline alone, and this would be excluded in its
entirety from the initiative provisions. More basically, however, the ini-
tiative fails to suggest any standards or guidelines for applying its pro-
visions. Therefore, it is highly likely that variations of interpretation
will be made by regional commissions with respect to the issuance of permits,
methods of determining eligibility for the urban exclusion, how the grandfather
-247-
clause will be applied, procedure for selecting precise planning and permit
area boundaries, methods of implementing the objectives of the initiative,
and similar matters.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS
The effectiveness of the initiative in terms of providing additional protec-
tion to the coastal area will be determined, in large part, by the workabil-
ity of its provisions. The analysis of the initiative to this point indicates
that the job of the regional and state commissions will be compelling, and an
examination of the required procedures and resources available indicates that
significant administrative problems will be created.
A part of the problem will result from the fact that the initiative requires
a massive land use planning effort and new development control procedure in-
land in urban areas, as opposed to the precedent of the San Francisco Bay Con-
servation and Development Commission which concentrates on the shoreline of
the Bay. The number of additional permits involved in a 3,000 foot area, as
opposed to the 100 foot area of BCDC, can be enormous. BCDC presently spends
$270,000 per year for operating purposes, and its last Annual Report indicates
11
The Commission's permit workload (for 100 feet) remains high and appears
to be increasing II The initiative allocates $5,000,000 to the state and reg-
ional commissions for operating purposes over a three year period. If divided
equally between the state commission and six regional commissions, this would
provide each with approximately $240,000 per year. This is less than the cur-
rent BCDC budget, yet the geographical area of the regional commissions and
the extent of both the planning and permit areas are many times greater.
The time and expense involved in a permit process should not be dismissed
lightly. Although it can easily be viewed as a technical process, it can
-248-
also be all-consuming from a time standpoint which has serious implica-
tions for the kind of planning envisioned by the initiative. To adminis-
ter a permit process in a way that will make it meaningful and effective,
it is necessary to:
accept the permit application
determine if the proposed project is in an excludable
area
review the construction plans
make an on-site inspection
prepare a written report
negotiate differences
present and discuss the matter orally
In addition, the executive director will be called upon to issue numerous per-
mits for emergency matters or minor development projects.
As implied above, the burden of this process should not be taken lightly.
Newport Beach, as a modest example, processed 250 building permits a month
in 1971-72, 50 of which came monthly from the waterfront area. This is more
than the number of permits processed by BCDC in a year. Newport Beach also
made 66,000 field inspections in 1971-72.
The implications of this kind of workload, for a new commission with no
staff and small budget, is tremendous. Commission members are required to
meet monthly. They receive no compensation and, in some cases, will have
to travel long distances simply to attend meetings. There is obviously a
certain amount of time that will be necessary in order to educate public mem-
bers of the commissions in the planning process, and the overall problems of
establishing working procedures, deciding on goals and priorities, selecting
-249-
a staff, and establishing precise planning and permit boundaries will also
require some time.
These factors aside, however, it is plain that even the most liberal policy
on exemptions from formal permit requirements will leave a substantial work-
load that will require meeting more often than once a month and, in the final
result, leave very little time for any substantive planning.
The initiative attempts to bolster the staff of the state and regional com-
missions by providing that the staff and budget assigned to the Comprehensive
Ocean Area Plan (COAP) shall be transferred to them. It also provides that
federally-recognized regional planning agencies (councils of government) "shall
provide staff assistance insofar as its resources permit." With respect to
COAP, their three year study is now complete and, thus, no funds are presently
included in the State budget for this purpose. It is by no means clear wheth-
er the provisions of an initiative can require a council of governments to
provide staff assistance to a state or regional commission, but the qualify-
ing language in the initiative (
insofar as its resources permit.") is suf-
ficient reason to conclude that present resources simply would not "permit"
such assistance. This is not because councils of government would be unwil-
ling to cooperate, but it reflects the practical fact that most projects under-
taken by councils of government are funded with Federal dollars and all ex-
penditures must relate to those specific projects. Even if such staff assis-
tance were available, however, it would have to be split between several reg-
ional commissions inasmuch as the initiative boundaries and those of councils
of government are not consistent.
With respect to workability and effective administration, the following state-
ment in the report entitled "The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control, prepared
-250-
for the Federal Council on Environmental Quality, bears repeating:
II
One of the important issues in each state land regulatory
system is to separate the major decisions from the minor so
that state officials are not bogged down with gas station appli-
cations when they should be considering power plant sites, and
so that irate homeowners do not have to go to the state capital
to get permission to build a garage."
FISCAL IMPACT
It is clear that the goals and effect of the California Coastline Initiative
cannot be evaluated strictly in terms of dollars, but there are fiscal con-
siderations that can be helpful in determing whether or not the provisions
of the initiative will be beneficial from the standpoint of the public.
The fiscal impact of the initiative on public agencies will be multi-faceted.
There is a great tendency on the part of some to attempt to measure the im-
pact strictly in terms of property tax revenue that would be gained or lost,
and this is an important consideration because cities, counties, school districts,
and special districts all derive property tax revenue from development along
the shoreline. In many areas of the coast, property is presently in public
ownership or its is devoted to agricultural uses. Much of the property along
the coast has been placed under Williamson Land Conservation Act contracts
for purposes of assessment, and in these areas, where the assessed value is
not particularly high at present, there is likely to be little direct fiscal
impact. In urban areas, however, the initiative will undoubtedly act to low-
er property tax revenues, particularly within the permit area.
Generally speaking, it is not likely that assessors will take the lead in
changing values unless there is a protest, or until a pattern of comparable
-251-
sales indicates an effect on value. However, it is clear that a reduction
in assessed value is the most likely result of the initiative because of
the controls placed on development. If, for example, it appears likely
that a piece of property will not be developed or that development will be
delayed because of the additional time involved in obtaining a permit or go-
ing through the appeal process, or because of the policy of the regional com-
mission on development, then the assessor would be justified in discounting
the present value of the property. This occurred with respect to the assessed
value of tidelands when BCDC was created, and it is presently happening in
some urban counties where moratoriums on subdivisions and the division of
land has taken place. A discount over a three year period on a substantial
number of properties within the permit area could be significant, and it
would reflect a long established rule of value that someone purchasing the
property would expect an immediate return on his investment. Without that
return, or with additional risk, the value is simply less.
Although the magnitude cannot be determined, one thing is clear - namely,
whatever the loss, it will be shifted to other property taxpayers in the
county. This is because the initiative does not contain a provision for
replacement revenue that has been included in other coastline protection meas-
ures introduced in the Legislature. The shift will also be reflected in
terms of increased assessed value that would have occurred had certain new
developments been allowed to proceed.
The fiscal impact of the initiative will be broader, and perhaps more signi-
ficant, than its impact on property tax revenue, however. For example, to
the extent that the initiative delays or halts redevelopment and other pub-
lic projects, it could have a disastrous effect on the intricate financing
arrangements for those projects. Not only could such financing packages be
-252-
lost forever, but those that did proceed would undoubtedly be subject to
higher costs for interest and materials. The economic and social cost of
not improving blighted areas must also be considered.
The initiative could also cause a loss in Federal funds going to public
agencies. At the present time, councils of governments review and comment
(as a part of the Federal government A-95 process) on most applications for
Federal funds. They are principally concerned in the review process that
any proposed development conform to the regional plan and any of the ele-
ments it may effect. Should the regional commissions created by the initia-
tive only permit development to occur in certain areas, and if these areas
did not conform to the regional plan prepared by the council of governments,
then it is possible that local agencies would be caught in the middle of
these dual planning bodies and the result could be no Federal funds for the
project in question. In many cases, these funds are the only means by which
local agencies are able to construct needed major capital improvements with-
in their area.
There is also the legitimate question of at what point do the added restric-
tions and delays that the initiative could impose constitute a taking of
property requiring the payment of just compensation and/or damages. Even
though the initiative makes no mention of compensating owners for any loss
the new development controls might cause, this is a question that applies
potentially to all privately-owned property located within the permit area
and should not be dismissed lightly. One major example where this could
occur involves the oil industry which is already subject to a moratorium on
new oil leases by the State Lands Commission. Because the initiative defines
development to include "extraction of any materials," oil companies would
be subject to the new permit controls and could not proceed with new "extractive"
-253-
activities without the approval of the regional commission. These additional
controls, on top of the existing moratorium, could be enough to permit the
oil industry to prevail in a damage suit on the basis that its vested rights
have been harmed. Such a suit could easily be in the magnitude of $1 billion
and, if successful, would be an obligation of government in California. In
other cases where private property has, in fact, been "taken," the alterna-
tive available to public agencies is to acquire the property and this, also,
can have an impact on the fiscal position of public agencies.
To the extent that development along the coast is delayed or curtailed, the
initiative can also have a fiscal impact on the private sector. As with pub-
lic agencies, the impact can be multi-faceted. However, it is clear that
job opportunities will be reduced, and that certain businesses will be forced
to sustain additional costs by virtue of the fact that their projects will be
delayed or they will be required to locate or relocate facilities inland.
Most importantly, the impact on those in the public or private sector will
eventually be shifted to individuals. Not only will the added costs result-
ing from delays in development be shifted to individuals, but individuals
will also be required to pay higher prices for certain land and accommodations
along the coast reflecting the windfall a limited few will receive as a re-
sult of the artificial demand created by the new development controls.
EFFECT ON ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE SHORELINE
The California Coastline Initiative seeks' to preserve shoreline areas for pub-
lic use. The need for preservation is related, in part, to future estimates
of population in the coastal area and the resulting projected increase in
use of shoreline facilities. For example, the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan
(COAP) indicates:
-254-
"Regardless of the definition of recreation used, the coastal
zone is unquestionably one of the major suppliers of recrea-
tional opportunities in California
as an example of this
tremendous recreational pressure on the coastal zone, more
than 127,000,000 recreation days were spent at the State's
shoreline in 1970 By 1980, the annual total days of recrea-
tional use of the State's shoreline will have increased to an
estimated 177,000,000 days
II
One method of meeting the additional demand for use of coastal facilities
that is projected to occur in the relatively near future is through the
additional acquisition of shoreline areas. The State Department of Parks
and Recreation underscored this need in its report on the "California Coast-
line" by stating:
"The biggest and most important job is land acquisition."
In evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of the initiative, therefore,
it is important to consider whether the initiative provisions will result
in an improved ability to acquire and/or develop additional coastal areas
for public use.
According to the "California Coastline" report of the State Department of
Parks and Recreation, 40 percent of the California shoreline is in public
ownership. Of the shoreline area inland from mean high tide, 25 percent
is in public ownership. However, if one looks at the shoreline in urban
areas, it is apparent that a much greater percent of the shoreline is al-
ready in public ownership. For example, the State Department of Parks and
Recreation indicates that "swimming, wading, and sunbathing on or near the
shoreline are the leading recreational activities in the State of California
=
-255-
These activities most often occur on what the Department of Parks and Rec-
reation classifies in its inventory of shoreline types as "Sandy Beach -
Swimming. The Department, in its report on "California Coastline," in-
dicates that all but ten miles of the state's "Sandy Beach - Swimming" is
located in Southern California. A closer look at southern urbanized count-
ies shows that much of this prime shoreline resource is presently in public
ownership. For example, in Los Angeles County, 30 out of 50 miles is in
public ownership; in Orange County, 20 out of 34 miles is in public owner-
ship; and in San Diego County, 40 out of 64 miles is in public ownership.
In northern Santa Cruz County, 10 out of 15 miles is presently in public
ownership.
The fact that a substantial portion of useable shoreline in urban areas is
already in public ownership is significant because it is in these areas
where the great majority of coastal recreation and use occurs. This is in-
dicated in the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan by the statement that
"In
most cases, the primary demand for ocean-oriented recreation is concentrated
in areas within and adjacent to the major urban centers of the State
11
According to the State Department of Parks and Recreation, 90,000,000 of the
122,000,000 recreation use days in California in 1969 occurred in Los Angel-
es, Orange, and San Diego Counties. In 1980, the Department estimates that
120,000,000 of the projected 176,000,000 recreation use days will occur in
these three southern counties.
What the statistics on ownership and use of shoreline areas show is that in
addition to a need for acquisition of shoreline areas, there is an equal
need in urban areas to develop and improve the existing coastal land areas
already owned by public agencies. For example, the Comprehensive Ocean Area
-256-
Plan indicates that II
the present supply of effective public swimming
beach is adequate to meet demand for swimming, wading, surfing, or just
relaxing on the beach through 1980 if sufficient parking is developed."
In a study of alternative ways to meet projected shoreline needs, the City
of San Diego concluded, as follows:
"It may also be noted that the expenditure packages does not
provide for the acquisition of privately owned and University
of California beaches. This is not only because of the sub-
stantial difficulties encountered in estimating the acquisi-
tion costs of those private beach properties which logically
command payment for severance damages, but also because avail-
able estimates indicate that the cost of these properties would
be SO high as to make their acquisition by far the most expensive
approach to adding beach capacity
Finally, the advantage of
acquiring these beaches are not at all clear, since in most
cases they receive considerable usage at the present time. =
Thus, there is a need for the acquisition of additional shoreline areas and,
particularly in urban areas, there is also an important need to improve and
upgrade access to shoreline areas already in public ownership. With respect
to acquisition and development, one thing is clear -- namely, both needs will
represent a substantial additional expenditure on the part of public agencies
if they are to be met.
Coastal communities are already spending substantial amounts in order to ser-
vice and maintain those beach areas presently available for public use. The
City of Santa Monica, for example, spends over $800,000 annually for beach
and parking lot maintenance, beach lifeguards, and accommodations for beach
-257-
users. The City of Monterey spends over $12,000 annually just for beach
cleanup. Most coastal communities, as well as the State, budget amounts
for beach maintenance and service that are large in relation to their res-
pective operating budgets. In addition to necessary capital equipment,
services commonly provided by coastal communities and the State include:
Daily cleaning
Shifting and replacing beach sand
Lifeguard services and patrol boats
Restroom facilities and showers
Parking facilities
General policing of beach area
Play araas
Picnic facilities
Fishing piers
Boat launching areas
Boat storage facilities
Permanent landscaping and grass areas
In addition to amounts presently budgeted for beach maintenance and service,
substantial amounts will be required in the future in order to provide nec-
essary services and facilities to meet the projected demand for shoreline
use. For example, to meet the projected demand through 1990, the City of
San Diego has estimated that it will need to make additional beach and shore-
line expenditures exceeding $20,000,000, as follows:
-258-
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BEACH AND SHORELINE EXPENDITURES TO 1990
City of San Diego
Type of Improvement
Cost
Percent
Parking
$19,137,000
86.0
Beach Construction
1,784,900
8.1
Comfort Stations
552,200
2.5
Property Acquisition
275,000
1.2
Stairways
157,000
.7
Landscaping
93,400
.4
Lifeguard Towers
92,900
.4
Miscellaneous
158,800
.7
$22,251,200
100.0
The California Coastline Initiative emphasizes development controls as the
means of preserving coastal areas for public use. However, while such con-
trols are an important element of preserving and providing additional access
to the coastline, from a practical standpoint it is equally, and perhaps
more, important to provide a means of acquiring and developing shoreline
facilities. In this regard, a careful analysis of the initiative indicates
that while it would result in new planning procedures and development con-
trols over land areas along the shoreline and inland for considerable dis-
tances, there is nothing in any of the initiative provisions that would im-
prove the present ability of state or local government to acquire and/or im-
prove shoreline areas for the public benefit. Similarly, there is nothing in
the initiative that would enable the state or regional commissions that would
be created to engage in positive programs of acquiring and/or improving needed
coastal facilities.
With respect to the emphasis of the initiative, proper.control over develop-
ment can be an important tool in terms of assuring future public access and
-259-
visual access to areas of the coast that are presently undeveloped. This
is presently recognized in California law by Section 11610.5 of the Business
and Professions Code which provides, in part, that:
"No city or county shall approve either the tentative or the
final map of any subdivision fronting upon the coastline or
shoreline which subdivision does not provide or have available
reasonable public access by fee or easement from public high-
ways to land below the ordinary high-water mark or any ocean
coastline or bay shoreline within or at a reasonable distance
from the subdivision
11
The existing policies of coastal communities also emphasize the importance of
providing public and visual access to the shoreline in conjunction with new
development. For example:
Marin County has agreed to place much of the undeveloped
land along the coast 'under agricultural preserve contracts.
That coastal land not under contract is frequently zoned
A-60, which prohibits any density greater than one unit per
60 acres.
Monterey County, in the coastal area, requires a density of
2.5 to 10 acres. Public access to the coast is required any
time development takes place, and the "Monterey County Coast
Master Plan" gives further emphasis to the importance of
access through provisions such as:
"Careful consideration must be given to height control on
the ocean side of Highway One
11
-260-
"Wherever feasible, utilities should be placed under-
ground II
"Emphasis should be placed on conservation for the entire
(coastal) area. The scenic easement concept should be
utilized to preserve open space, to encourage retention of
watersheds, and to encourage landowners to give careful con-
sideration to the development of their land in achieving
this objective."
Orange County has made over 35 miles of coastal land subject
to planned community district zoning regulations. These regu-
lations require a comprehensive plan for land use, including
public access, before proposed developments can be consid-
ered.
San Diego, in its city general plan, emphasizes the importance
of access to and preservation of the coastline through pro-
visions, such as:
"Accessibility to recreational areas without destruction of
the unique character and quality of such areas."
"Availability of all beaches for public use."
"Retention of the natural beauty of the ocean adjacent to the
entire City of San Diego coastline."
"Continue the longstanding city policy of requiring public
dedication of shoreline frontage in subdivision proceedings."
-261-
"Acquire beach properties in sufficient depth to permit
access and suitable development for parking, change fac-
ilities, and other amenities."
Additional visual and physical public access to the shoreline can be one of
the beneficial results of permitting selected and carefully controlled de-
velopment in coastal areas. To the extent that the controls proposed in
the initiative halt or severely delay development, however, the initiative
will have the unfortunate result of impeding present local efforts in this
regard.
In Orange and Monterey Counties, for example, the carefully planned develop-
ment of privately-owned land in large holdings has resulted in the dedica-
tion of additional shoreline for public use. Similar developments would be
subject to initiative permit procedures and, as indicated previously, it is
by no means clear when or if such developments would be permitted in the fut-
ure. Any unusual or lengthy delays of such developments-would have the re-
sulting effect of impeding the acquisition of additional open space and shore-
line areas through negotiation. In Orange County, two years of negotiation
made it possible for the county to acquire major public beach areas and re-
lated facilities at Laguna Niguel. Current negotiations, which the initia-
tive could place in jeopardy, are about to bring an additional 3 1/2 miles
of shoreline at Irvine into public beach and trail areas. Monterey County
is presently considering a proposed shoreline development covering 250 acres.
Through negotiation, the county has been able to persuade the developer to
dedicate 200 of the 250 acres to the State, thereby providing over two miles
of additional access to the coast at an initial cost to the developer of
$4,000 per acre. The 50 acres to be developed will be limited to 122 residential
-262-
units, and much of the land area in this portion will be placed in perma-
nent scenic easements. The overall proposal, however, could be placed in
jeopardy by the California Coastline Initiative.
Local efforts to achieve quality in the area of aesthetics could also be
jeopardized by the regulations proposed in the initiative. As indicated
in "The Quiet Revolution In Land Use Control," prepared for the Federal
Council on Environmental Quality:
"Regulation has inherent disadvantages. Any complex sys-
tem of regulation has a natural tendency to reduce innova-
tion. Minima become maxima. When regulators approve one
design it creates a powerful incentive for other builders to
use the same approach
II
CONCLUSION
As indicated in the initiative, its objective is a = balanced utilization
and preservation, consistent with sound conservation principles, of all liv-
ing and nonliving coastal zone resources."
A "balanced" approach implies the necessity of taking all viewpoints into
consideration. With respect to preservation of the coastline, it suggests
a concensus solution. However, the very nature of the initiative precludes
this.
Unlike the legislative process where amendments are possible, the initiative
is an all or nothing approach. The voters must accept or reject the initia-
tive as proposed.
Even the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, completed by the State only several
-263-
months ago after years of study and fact gathering, recognizes the need for
debate and compromise. This can be seen, in part, from the following para-
graphs of the Plan:
"The Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (COAP) is NOT and was never
intended to be a land-use plan for California's coastal zone.
Rather, it is an attempt to provide a better rationale for
State participation in the conservation and management of por-
tion's of the coastal zone in a way that will protect the State's
interests. What precisely is the 'State's interest' in the coast-
al zone is a difficult question and can only be identified
through public debate and the legislative process. It is anti-
cipated that the COAP will serve as a basis for such debate, cul-
minating in legislation and administrative action."
"These (coastal) elements are environmental resources which can
be damaged and even destroyed by thoughtless and abusive exploi-
tation, or which can be both used and conserved by reasonable de-
velopment. Conservation of these finite resources, to be accepta-
ble and effective, will require rational action, including intelli-
gent compromise. Regulations are required that can apply safe-
guards without stifling necessary and desirable development
11
Unfortunately, the provisions of the initiative do not permit this type of
flexible approach. Rather, if the California Coastline Initiative is adopted,
its provisions will make the "all of nothing" approach even more absolute.
For example, it will be virtually impossible to subsequently amend the ini-
tiative for its provisions require a 2/3 vote of the Assembly and Senate in
order to change any provision. Similarly, it is impossible for the Legislature
-264-
to repeal the initiative piror to the end of the 1976 legislative session,
regardless of what might occur with respect to achieving a rational, com-
promist solution.
Restrictive provisions such as those contained in the initiative are not
examples of, nor are they consistent with, a "balanced" approach.
With respect to potential land use and development along the shoreline and
inland for a considerable distance, the initiative gives every indication
that it will result in delay, confusion, and court cases. This, in part,
is a reflection of the broad and imprecise nature of the initiative provisions.
For example, not even the proponents can indicate what the boundaries of the
planning and permit areas are, or what public and private development pro-
jects will be excludable. The delay and confusion will have a significant
multi-faceted impact on public agencies and those in the private sector, and
the overall initiative procedures will also jeopardize current attempts at
comprehensive regional planning. The "unkowns" about the initiative are con-
siderable, yet there is no indication that its adoption will in any way re-
sult in an improved ability to acquire and/or improve additional shoreline
areas for public and visual access.
The initiative does nothing to change the decision making process with res-
pect to coastal land use. Its net effect is to change the decision makers
and, by giving them permit authority, to create a new level of single-pur-
pose government in the process. The new decision makers will be responsible
for hiring staff, conducting planning studies, and making decisions regarding
land use within boundaries that are extensive yet entirely different than
those of existing local and regional agencies. These actions and decisions
will continue to be made by existing cities and counties, as well as by the
-265-
new decision makers. Aside from the duplication of cost and effort, the
principal difference will be that the new decision makers will be appointed
and in no way accountable to the public for their actions.
Because the initiative encroaches upon and duplicates, to a considerable
extent, the present responsibility of local agencies, its provisions have
the decisive effect of weakening local government. By establishing regional
commissions with different boundaries and giving them permit authority over
essentially all new development, the initiative will frustrate local and reg-
ional physical and social planning efforts. This can reasonably be expected
to be a lasting effect inasmuch as the California Coastal Zone Conservation
Plan will have to propose similar development controls if it is to be imple-
mented. In addition, the initiative will establish a precedent for the sim-
ilar erosion of local government in other areas of the State. If these new
planning procedures and development controls make sense for the coast, they
must also make sense for agricultural areas, desert areas, vineyards, and
other scenic areas throughout the State.
The erosion of land use control is equivalent to the erosion of local gov-
ernment for it is such controls that permit communities to determine the nat-
ure and physical appearance of land within their boundaries. The assignment
of regional land use authority to a regional commission that is not accounta-
ble to the electroate, as opposed to a council of governments which is com-
posed of locally-elected officials, only serves to further this basic erosion
of local government. This is true to an additional extent in the case of
the California Coastline Initiative because membership on regional commis-
sions virtually assures that they will have no particular concern for indi-
vidual local areas, and because there is no mandatory provision for local in-
put into the planning process of the state and regional commissions other
-266-
than the weak and non-enforceable phrase that commissions shall prepare
their plans II in cooperation with local agencies
11
In summary, if the goal of the initiative is to preserve and provide addi-
tional access to the shoreline, its provisions go much beyond what is re-
quired to achieve this purpose. On the other hand, if the goal is to achieve
comprehensive regional planning, the geographical areas included and within
the planning areas are inadequate. There is no evidence that permit areas
of 3,000 feet are necessary to assure access, and the experience of BCDC
indicates that 100 feet is adequate. Similarly, there is no evidence that
the top of the nearest coastal range is a logical region for comprehensive
planning, and there is every indication that the ongoing planning efforts
of broad-based councils of government are more effective. The provisions
are too imperfect and imprecise to be acceptable, yet they in effect tie
the hands of the Legislature and, through them, the people until the end of
the 1976 legislative session.
-267-
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
The California Coastline Initiative attempts to achieve additional preser-
vation of the coastline by providing for a single, uniform planning and per-
mit area up and down the coast. However, an examination of the nature of
the California coastline indicates that it may be undesirable to attempt to
plan and manage this area on the basis of a single standard. This is re-
flected in reports prepared in conjunction with the Comprehensive Ocean Area
Plan, as follows:
=
Local conditions and local use situations are so
varied that no general master plan approach is likely
to be feasible."
In heavily developed urban areas, the principal concern is with preserving
and providing visual and physical access to the shoreline. In rural, un-
developed areas, on the other hand, the interest is not only in providing
additional visual and physical access, but also in preserving large adja-
cent open areas and controlling development thereon. In all areas of the
state, there is concern that no developments contribute to air pollution,
water pollution, or cause any other adverse environmental impact along the
shoreline.
The California Coastline Initiative does not distinguish between urban and
rural areas, nor do the boundaries of the regional commissions it would
create recognize in any way the ongoing comprehensive planning and regula-
tory. activities of agencies such as councils of government, air pollution
control districts, or water quality control boards. It seeks only to con-
trol development and redevelopment and, in this regard, merely adds an ad-
ditional layer of decision-making without changing the decision-making pro-
cess in any way.
-268-
The concern of the State Legislature and others with respect to providing
additional access to and preservation for the coastline has resulted in
many regional and state coastal studies including the Comprehensive Ocean
Area Plan which, as indicated previously in this report, is a current and
thorough compilation of facts pertaining to ownership and resources in the
coastal area.
By requiring that new regional and state plans be prepared for the coastal
area, thereby duplicating to a great extent what has already been done, the
California Coastline Initiative assures that there will be no action by the
State Legislature in this area until the 1976 session. Based on the exper-
ience of BCDC and the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study Commis-
sion, the 1976 deadline in the initiative could easily be extended to 1978.
On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that State Legislation
is possible now, and that a reasonable and effective concensus could be
achieved with respect to tough State policies and standards regulating new
development in the coastal area. Local government, state government, and
the private sector have all indicated support for additional controls over
development of and access to the coast through the adoption and enforcement
of state guidelines.
For example, in the general area of land use planning, legislation was ap-
proved at the 1972 Legislative session which requires the State Council on
Intergovernmental Relations to develop and adopt guidelines for the prepara-
tion and content of the mandatory elements of county and city general plans.
Guidelines will have to be adopted not later than six months after the ef-
fective date of the statute, and cities and counties will be required to
-269-
prepare the elements based on such guidelines within a year after their
adoption by the Council on Intergovernmental Relations. Local governments
supported this legislation. With specific reference to coastal legisla-
tion, local governments have also supported proposals designed to require
the preparation of state standards and guidelines for development in the
coastal area, and support for this conceptual approach is also reflected
in the position of the Governor's Cabinet on coastal protection as follows:
Legislation to plan and manage our coastal resources should adhere to the
following principles:
1. The state's role should be to mandate management criteria to
be applied to governmental resource decisions.
2. It should also be the state's role to interpret basic cri-
teria through the issuance of guidelines.
3. The application and enforcement of the criteria should be
the responsibility of local government and state agencies
should comply with the criteria in their planning and manage-
ment activities.
4. The application of the criteria should be mandated only in
the immediate coastal environment, from the seaward limit of
the state's jurisdiction to a fixed onshore feature such as a
street, highway or survey line within 300 feet of the mean high
tide line.
5. The interpretation of basic criteria should be provided by
a relatively small, say seven man, state board representing
state and local government and knowledgeable non-governmental in-
terests. This board should also be able to enforce mandated cri-
teria by requesting that the Attorney General take action to
-270-
achieve compliance.
6. State planning for the coastal zone should be a continuation
of the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan effort and be tailored
to meet the needs of the state board in interpreting basic cri-
teria and identifying those coastal resources which must be
protected or developed in the total public interest.
7. Local coastal planning should be mandated and be tailored
to meet local needs for the application and enforcement of state
mandated criteria.
8. Local governments should be permitted to continue or initiate
joint planning and management efforts.
A broad variety of groups in the private sector have also indicated support
for an approach that would assure adequate control over development in the
coastal area through the adoption and enforcement of guidelines and stand-
ards by the State.
It is important to note that there is ample precedent in current law for
a program of additional coastline protection through the imposition of min-
imum state standards and guidelines. For example, the State presently regu-
lates many aspects of building safety and construction through the adoption
of minimum standards that must be adhered to, but may be exceeded, by local
agencies. Local air pollution control districts must meet minimum stand-
ards of the Air Resources Board, but they are not precluded from adopting
more restrictive standards. Recent legislation requires the State Council
on Intergovernmental Relations and the Department of Public Health to es-
tablish minimum standards for beach sanitation, but permits more restrictive
local legislation.
-271-
A framework of standards, guidelines, and criteria for regulation and
preservation of the coastline has been prepared as part of the recommenda-
tions of the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan (see COAP, Chapter IV, pgs. 2-7).
The nature of such criteria will be precisely defined by the body ultimately
designated by the legislature as being responsible for providing additional
shoreline protection. However, such criteria could include the following:
1. Provision for detailed technical review and comment of all
environmental aspects of proposed land uses in the coastal
area, and the imposition of regulations that will guarantee
adequate protection of environmentally-unique resources and
sites including protection of wildlife, vegetation, nesting
areas, vistas, and beaches.
2. Some assurance that land use regulations will favor those
dependent on coastal resources.
3. A system of balanced planning controls which permit a
range of uses reflecting the varied service needs and recrea-
tional desires of those living by or visiting the coast.
4. Development standards and regulations that distinguish be-
tween urban and rural areas so as to assure that adequate authority
is available to control development in rural areas, while not
imposing undue administrative and permit burdens in urban areas.
5. A positive program aimed at acquiring additional shoreline
vistas and sites.
6. An increased ability for governmental agencies to improve
shoreline areas already in public ownership.
-272-
7. Some assurance that efforts to provide additional coast-
line protection will be integrated with ongoing planning,
regulatory, and development programs of state, regional, and
local agencies
rather than creating a new layer of govern-
ment in the coast.
8. Requirements aimed at achieving improved coordination of
the level and types of service provided in the coastal area
by public and private agencies.
9. Provisions guaranteeing that the actions of local agencies
will conform with minimum state standards through the estab-
lishment of state monitoring programs and appropriate local
sanctions, but leaving responsibility for detailed planning
of local communities with local government.
10. An appeals procedure that would be available to all, but
would be subject to some constraints to assure that it is
used in a reasonable way for the overall public benefit.
11. A specific, clarifying provision indicating the intent
of public agencies to compensate private landowners for any
loss they may experience as a result of new development or
other controls.
12. Suggested revisions in the tax structure to assure that
the benefits of permitted coastal development are shared
through tax equalization programs; that speculation in coastal
land is discouraged; that replacement revenue to offset fiscal
losses due to new development controls is provided to local
-273-
agencies; and that adequate financing is available for programs of
shoreline acquisition and improvement.
Rather than spell out specific state policy guidelines and criteria such
as those listed above, the California Coastline Initiative simply imposes
a new level of decision-making without providing any additional ability
to acquire and/or improve shoreline areas. Its implications include:
- it duplicates local experience and resources in land use
management by requiring almost all local decisions within
the Initiative's permit area to receive ultimate approval
from the regional commission. To this extent, the result
is virtual preemption of local zoning prerogatives within
the permit area.
- it establishes irregular planning and permit areas that,
in many cases, are excessive.
- it applies a common standard to urban and rural areas with-
out considering the different needs of these areas.
- it fragments present local, regional, and state efforts at
comprehensive planning.
- it destroys the recent gains in California's efforts to rat-
ionalize local decision-making structures through regional
planning agencies (COGS) and Local Agency Formation Com-
missions (LAFCO's). Counties are split off from previously
designated planning regions and placed in newly created plan-
ning jurisdictions.
- it imposes a practical moratorium on most public and private
development within the permit area.
- it forces regional commissions to be concerned with local
-274-
- zoning details, and leaves them with little time and
no overall state guidance for evaluating major land use
decisions.
- it fails to provide representation to many counties
which will be directly affected by the land use decisions
of regional commissions.
-275-
APPENDIX
-
An act to add and repeal Division 18 (commencing
with Section 27000) of the Public Resources Code,
and to add and repeal Section 11528.2 of the
Business and Professions Code, relating to the
California coastal zone, and making appropriation
therefor.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Division 18 (commencing with Section
27000) is added to the Public Resources Code, to read:
DIVISION 18. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FINDINGS
AND DECLARATIONS OF POLICY
27000. This division may be cited as the California Coastal
Zone Conservation Act of 1972.
27001. The people of the State of California hereby find and
declare that the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable
natural resource belonging to all the people and existing as a
delicately balanced ecosystem; that the permanent protection of
the remaining natural and scenic resources of the coastal zone is
of paramount concern to present and future residents of the state
and nation; that in order to promote the public safety, health,
and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife,
marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural en-
vironment, it is necessary to preserve the ecological balance of the
coastal zone and prevent its further deterioration and destruction;
that it is the policy of the state to preserve, protect, and, where
possible, to restore the resources of the coastal zone for the
enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations; and that to
protect the coastal zone it is necessary:
(a) To study the coastal zone to determine the ecological
planning principles and assumptions needed to ensure conservation
-1-
of coastal zone resources.
(b) To prepare, based upon such study and in full consultation
with all affected governmental agencies, private interests, and
the general public, a comprehensive, coordinated, enforceable plan
for the orderly, long-range conservation and management of the
natural resources of the coastal zone, to be known as the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Plan.
(c) To ensure that any development which occurs in the permit
area during the study and planning period will be consistent with
the objectives of this division.
(d) To create the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission,
and six regional coastal zone conservation commissions, to imple-
ment the provisions of this division.
CHAPTER 2. DEFINITIONS
27100. "Coastal zone" means that land and water area of the
State of California from the border of the State of Oregon to the
border of the Republic of Mexico, extending seaward to the outer
limit of state jurisdiction, including all islands within the
jurisdiction of the state, and extending inland to the highest
elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range, except that in
Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, the inland boundary
of the coastal zone shall be the highest elevation of the nearest
coastal mountain range or five miles from the mean high tide line,
whichever is the shorter distance.
27101. "Coastal zone plan" means the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Plan.
27102. (a) "Commission" means the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission.
-2-
(b) "Regional commission" means any regional coastal zone
conservation commission.
27103. "Development" means, on land, in or under water, the
placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge
or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid,
or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction
of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of
land, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act and any other division of land, including
lot splits; change in the intensity of use of water, ecology
related thereto, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction,
demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including
any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility, and the
removal or logging of major vegetation. As used in this section,
"structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road,
pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and
electrical power transmission and distribution line.
27104. "Permit area" means that portion of the coastal zone
lying between the seaward limit of the jurisdiction of the state
and 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line of the sea
subject to the following provisions:
(a) The area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conser-
vation and Development Commission is excluded.
(b) If any portion of any body of water which is not subject
to tidal action lies within the permit area, the body of water
together with a strip of land 1,000-feet wide surrounding it shall
be included.
(c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area
-3-
zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling
units per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial
or industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for such use
on or before January 1, 1972, may, after public hearing, be excluded
by the regional commission at the request of a city or county within
which such area is located. An urban land area is "stabilized"
if 80 percent of the lots are built upon to the maximum density
or intensity of use permitted by the applicable zoning regulations
existing on January 1, 1972.
Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immediately
adjacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide
line where there is no beach shall not be excluded.
Orders granting such exclusion shall be subject to conditions
which shall assure that no significant change in density, height,
or nature of uses occurs.
An order granting exclusion may be revoked at any time by the
regional commission, after public hearing.
(d) Each regional commission shall adopt a map delineating the
precise boundaries of the permit area within 60 days after its
first meeting and file a copy of such map in the office of the
county clerk of each county within its region.
27105. "Person" includes any individual, organization, partner-
ship, and corporation, including any utility and any agency of
federal, state, and local government.
27106. "Sea" means the Pacific Ocean and all the harbors, bays,
channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, and other areas subject
to tidal action through a connection with the Pacific Ocean,
-4-
excluding nonestuarine rivers and creeks.
CHAPTER 3. CREATION, MEMBERSHIP, AND POWERS OF COMMISSION
AND REGIONAL COMMISSIONS
Article 1. Creation and Membership of Commissions
and Regional Commissions
27200. The California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission is
hereby created and shall consist of the following members:
(a) Six representatives from the regional commissions, selected
by each regional commission from among its members.
(b) Six representatives of the public who shall not be members
of a regional commission.
27201. The following six regional commissions are hereby created:
(a) The North Coast Regional Commission for Del Norte, Humboldt,
and Mendocino Counties shall consist of the following members:
(1) One supervisor and one city councilman from each county.
(2) Six representatives of the public.
(b) The North Central Coast Regional Commission for Sonoma,
Marin, and San Francisco Counties shall consist of the following
members:
(1) One supervisor and one city councilman from Sonoma County
and Marin County.
(2) Two supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco.
(3) One delegate to the Association of Bay Area Governments.
(4) Seven representatives of the public.
(c) The Central Coast Regional Commission for San Mateo,
Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties shall consist of the following
members:
(1) One supervisor and one city councilman from each county.
-5-
(2) One delegate to the Association of Bay Area Governments.
(3) One delegate to the Association of Monterey Bay Area Govern-
ments.
(4) Eight representatives of the public.
(d) The South Central Coast Regional Commission for
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties shall consist
of the following members:
(1) One supervisor and one city councilman from each county.
(2) Six representatives of the public.
(e) The South Coast Regional Commission for Los Angeles and
Orange Counties shall consist of the following members:
(1) One supervisor from each county.
(2) One city councilman from the City of Los Angeles selected
by the president of such city council.
(3) One city councilman from Los Angeles County from a city other
than Los Angeles.
(4) One city councilman from Orange County.
(5) One delegate to the Southern California Association of
Governments.
(6) Six representatives of the public.
(f) The San Diego Coast Regional Commission for San Diego County,
shall consist of the following members:
(1) Two supervisors from San Diego County and two city council-
men from San Diego County, at least one of whom shall be from a
city which lies within the permit area.
(2) One city councilman from the City of San Diego, selected
by the city council of such city.
-6-
(3) One member of the San Diego Comprehensive Planning
Organization.
(4) Six representatives of the public.
27202. All members of the regional commissions and public members
of the commission shall be selected or appointed as follows:
(a) All supervisors, by the board of supervisors on which
they sit;
(b) All city councilmen except under subsections (e) (2) and
(f) (2), by the city selection committee of their respective
counties;
(c) All delegates of regional agencies, by their respective
agency;
(d) All public representatives, equally by the Governor, the
Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly, provided
that the extra member under (b) (4) and the extra members under
(c) (4) shall be appointed by the Governor, the Senate Rules
Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly respectively.
Article 2. Organization
27220. Each public member of the commission or of a regional
commission shall be a person who, as a result of his training,
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
this division, to be responsive to the scientific, social, esthetic,
recreational, and cultural needs of the state. Expertise in
conservation, recreation, ecological and physical sciences, planning,
and education shall be represented on the commission and regional
commissions.
-7-
27221. Each member of the commission and each regional commission
shall be appointed or selected not later than December 31, 1972.
Each appointee of the Governor shall be subject to confirmation
by the Senate.
27222. In the case of persons qualified for membership because
they hold a specified office, such membership ceases when their
term of office ceases. Vacancies which occur shall be filled in
the same manner in which the original member was selected or
appointed.
27223. Members shall serve without compensation, but shall be
reimbursed for the actual and necessary expenses incurred in the
performance of their duties to the extent that reimbursement is
not otherwise provided by another public agency. Members who are
not employees of other public agencies shall receive fifty dollars
($50) for each full day of attending meetings of the commission
or of any regional commission.
27224. The commission and regional commissions shall meet no
less than once a month at a place convenient to the public. Unless
otherwise provided in this division, no decision on permit applications
or on the adoption of the coastal zone plan or any part thereof
shall be made without a prior public hearing. All meetings of the
commission and each regional commission shall be open to the public.
A majority affirmative vote of the total authorized membership
shall be necessary to approve any action required or permitted by
this division, unless otherwise provided.
27225. The first meeting of the commission shall be no later
than February 15, 1973. The first meeting of the regional commissions
shall be no later than February 1, 1973.
-8-
27226. The headquarters of the commission shall be within the
coastal zone.
Article 2.5. Conflicts of Interest
27230. Except as hereinafter provided none of the following
persons shall appear or act, in any capacity whatsoever except as
a representative of the state, or political subdivision thereof,
in connection with any proceeding, hearing, application, request
for ruling or other official determination, judicial or otherwise,
in which the coastal zone plan, or the commission or any regional
commission is involved in an official capacity:
(a) Any member or employee of the commission or regional commission;
(b) Any former member or employee of the commission or regional
commission during the year following termination of such membership
or employment;
(c) Any partner, employer, an employee of a member or employee
of the commission or any regional commission, when the matter in
issue is one which is under the official responsibility of such
member or employee, or in connection with which such member or
employee has acted or is scheduled to act, in any official
capacity whatsoever.
27231. No member or employee of the commission or any regional
commission shall participate, in any official capacity whatsoever,
in any proceeding, hearing, application, request for ruling or
other official determination, judicial or otherwise, in which any
of the following has a financial interest: the member or employee
himself; his spouse; his child; his partner; any organization in
which he is then serving or has, within two years prior to his
-9-
selection or appointment to or employment by such commission or
regional commission, served, in the capacity of officer, director,
trustee, partner, employer or employee; any organization within
which he is negotiating for or has any arrangement or understanding
concerning prospective partnership or employment.
27232. In any case within the coverage of Section 27230, the
prohibitions therein contained shall not apply if the person
concerned advises the commission in advance of the nature and
circumstances thereof, including full public disclosure of the facts
which may potentially give rise to a violation of this article, and
obtains from the commission a written determination that the con-
templated action will not adversely affect the integrity of the
commission or any regional commission. Any such determination
shall require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members
of the commission.
27233. Nothing in this article shall preclude any member of the
commission or any regional commission, who is also a county
supervisor or city councilman, from voting or otherwise acting
upon a matter he has previously acted upon in such designated
capacity.
27234. Any person who violates any provision of this article
shall, upon conviction, and for each such offense, be subject to
a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or imprison-
ment in the state prison for not more than two years, or both.
-10-
Article 3. POWERS AND DUTIES
27240. The commission and each regional commission, may:
(a) Accept grants, contributions, and appropriations;
(b) Contract for any professional services if such work or
services cannot satisfactorily be performed by its employees;
(c) Be sued and sue to obtain any remedy to restrain
violations of this division. Upon request of the commission or
any regional commission, the State Attorney General shall provide
necessary legal representation.
(d) Adopt any regulations or take any action it deems reasonable
and necessary to carry out the provisions of this division, but
no regulations shall be adopted without a prior public hearing.
27241. The commission and regional commissions may request
and utilize the advice and services of all federal, state, and
local agencies. Upon request of a regional commission any
federally recognized regional planning agency within its region
shall provide staff assistance insofar as its resources permit.
27242. All elements of the California Comprehensive Ocean
Area Plan, together with all staff and funds appropriated or allocated
to it, shall be delivered by the Governor and shall be attached and
allocated to the commission at its first meeting.
27243. The commission and each regional commission shall each
elect a chairman and appoint an executive director, who shall
be exempt from civil service.
-11-
CHAPTER 4. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE
CONSERVATION PLAN
Article 1. Generally
27300. The commission shall prepare, adopt, and submit to the
Legislature for implementation the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Plan.
27301. The coastal zone plan shall be based upon detailed
studies of all the factors that significantly affect the coastal
zone.
27302. The coastal zone plan shall be consistent with all of the
following objectives:
(a) The maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the
overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including, but
not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values.
(b) The continued existence of optimum populations of all
species of living organisms.
(c) The orderly, balanced utilization and preservation, con-
sistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and
nonliving coastal zone resources.
(d) Avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of coastal zone resources.
27303. The coastal zone plan shall consist of such maps,
text and statements of policies and objectives as the commission
determines are necessary.
27304. The plan shall contain at least the following
specific components:
(a) A precise, comprehensive definition of the public
interest in the coastal zone.
-12-
(b) Ecological planning principles and assumptions to be used
in determining the suitability and extent of allowable development.
(c) A component which includes the following elements:
(1) A land-use element.
(2) A transportation element.
(3) A conservation element for the preservation and management
of the scenic and other natural resources of the coastal zone.
(4) A public access element for maximum visual and physical
use and enjoyment of the coastal zone by the public.
(5) A recreation element.
(6) A public services and facilities element for the general
location, scale, and provision in the least environmentally
destructive manner of public services and facilities in the
coastal zone. This element shall include a power plant siting study.
(7) An ocean mineral and living resources element.
(8) A population element for the establishment of maximum
desirable population densities.
(9) An educational or scientific use element.
(d) Reservations of land or water in the coastal zone for
certain uses, or the prohibition of certain uses in specific
areas.
(e) Recommendations for the governmental policies and powers
required to implement the coastal zone plan including the
organization and authority of the governmental agency or agencies
which should assume permanent responsibility for its implementation.
-13-
Article 2. Planning Procedure
27320. (a) The commission shall, within six months after
its first meeting, publish objectives, guidelines, and criteria
for the collection of data, the conduct of studies, and the pre-
paration of local and regional recommendations for the coastal
zone plan.
(b) Each regional commission shall, in cooperation with
appropriate local agencies, prepare its definitive conclusions
and recommendations, including recommendations for areas that
should be reserved for specific uses or within which specific
uses should be prohibited, which it shall, after public hearing
in each county within its region, adopt and submit to the
commission no later than April 1, 1975.
(c) On or before December 1, 1975, the commission shall adopt
the coastal zone plan and submit it to the Legislature for its
adoption and implementation.
CHAPTER 5. INTERIM PERMIT CONTROL
Article 1. General Provisions
27400. On or after February 1, 1973, any person wishing to
perform any development within the permit area shall obtain a
permit authorizing such development from the regional commission
and, if required by law, from any city, county, state, regional
or local agency.
Except as provided in Sections 27401 and 27422, no permit
shall be issued without the affirmative vote of a majority of
the total authorized membership of the regional commission, or
of the commission on appeal.
27401. No permit shall be issued for any of the following
without the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total authorized
-14-
membership of the regional commission, or of the commission
on appeal:
(a) Dredging, filling, or otherwise altering any bay, estuary,
salt marsh, river mouth, slough, or lagoon.
(b) Any development which would reduce the size of any beach
or other area usable for public recreation.
(c) Any development which would reduce or impose restrictions
upon public access to tidal and submerged lands, beaches and the
mean high tideline where there is no beach.
(d) Any development which would substantially interfere with
or detract from the line of sight toward the sea from the state
highway nearest the coast.
(e) Any development which would adversely affect water quality,
existing areas of open water free of visible structures, existing
and potential commercial and sport fisheries, or agricultural
uses of land which are existing on the effective date of this
division.
27402. No permit shall be issued unless the regional commission
has first found, both of the following:
(a) That the development will not have any substantial adverse
environmental or ecological effect.
(b) That the development is consistent with, the findings and
declarations set forth in Sections 27001 and with the objectives
set forth in Section 27302.
The applicant shall have the burden of proof on all issues.
27403. All permits shall be subject to reasonable terms and
conditions in order to ensure:
(a) Access to publicly owned or used beaches, recreation areas,
and natural reserves is increased to the maximum extent possible
by appropriate dedication.
-15-
(b) Adequate and properly located public recreation areas and
wildlife preserves are reserved.
(c) Provisions are made for solid and liquid waste treatment,
disposition, and management which will minimize adverse effects
upon coastal zone resources.
(d) Alterations to existing land forms and vegetation, and
construction of structures shall cause minimum adverse effect to
scenic resources and minimum danger of floods, landslides, erosion,
siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake.
27404. If, prior to the effective date of this division, any
city or county has issued a building permit, no person who has
obtained a vested right thereunder shall be required to secure
a permit from the regional commission; providing that no sub-
stantial changes may be made in any such development, except in
accordance with the provisions of this division. Any such person
shall be deemed to have such vested rights if, prior to April 1, 1972,
he has in good faith and in reliance upon the building permit
diligently commenced construction and performed substantial work
on the development and incurred substantial liabilities for work
and materials necessary therefor. Expenses incurred in obtaining
the enactment of an ordinance in relation to the particular de-
velopment or the issuance of a permit shall not be deemed liabilities
for work or material.
27405. Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter to the
contrary, no permit shall be required for the following types
of development:
(a) Repairs and improvements not in excess of seven thousand
five hundred dollars ($7,500) to existing single-family residences;
-16-
provided, that the commission shall specify by regulation those
classes of development which involve a risk of adverse environ-
mental effect and may require that a permit be obtained.
(b) Maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels or
moving dredged material from such channels to a disposal area
outside the permit area, pursuant to a permit from the United
States Army Corps of Engineers.
Article 2. Permit Procedure
27420. (a) The commission shall prescribe the procedures
for permit applications and their appeal and may require a reason-
able filing fee and the reimbursement of expenses.
(b) The regional commission shall give written public notice
of the nature of the proposed development and of the time and
place of the public hearing. Such hearing shall be set no
less than 21 nor more than 90 days after the date on which the
application is filed.
(c) The regional commission shall act upon an application
for permit within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing
and such action shall become final after the tenth working day
unless an appeal is filed within that time.
27421. Each unit of local government within the permit area
shall send a duplicate of each application for a development within
the permit area to the regional commission at the time such
application for a local permit is filed, and shall advise the
regional commission of the granting of any such permit.
27422. The commission shall provide, by regulation, for the
issuance of permits by the executive directors without compliance
with the procedure specified in this chapter in cases of
emergency or for repairs or improvements to existing structures
not in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) and other
-17-
developments not in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
Nonemergency permits shall not be effective until after reasonable
public notice and adequate time for the review of such issuance
has been provided. If any two members of the regional commission
so request at the first meeting following the issuance of such
permit, such issuance shall not be effective and instead the
application shall be set for a public hearing pursuant to the
provisions of Section 27420.
27423. (a) An applicant, or any person aggrieved by approval
of a permit by the regional commission may appeal to the commission.
(b) The commission may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision
of the regional commission. If the commission fails to act
within 60 days after notice of appeal has been filed, the regional
commission's decision shall become final.
(c) The commission may decline to hear appeals that it deter-
mines raise no substantial issues. Appeals it hears shall be
scheduled for a de novo public hearing and shall be decided in
the same manner and by the same vote as provided for decisions
by the regional commissions.
27424. Any person, including an applicant for a permit,
aggrieved by the decision or action of the commission or regional
commission shall have a right to judicial review of such decision
or action by filing a petition for a writ of mandate, pursuant
to Section 1084 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within 60 days
after such decision or action has become final.
27425. Any person may maintain an action for declaratory
and equitable relief to restrain violation of this division. No
-18-
bond shall be required for an action under this section.
27426. Any person may maintain an action for the recovery
of civil penalties provided in Sections 27500 and 27501.
27427. The provisions of this article shall be in addition
to any other remedies available at law.
27428. Any person who prevails in a civil action brought to
enjoin a violation of this division or to recover civil penalties
shall be awarded his costs, including reasonable attorneys fees.
CHAPTER 6. PENALTIES
27500. Any person who violates any provision of this division
shall be subject to a civil fine not to exceed ten thousand
dollars ($10,000).
27501. In addition to any other penalties, any person who
performs any development in violation of this division shall be
subject to a civil fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500)
per day for each day in which such violation persists.
CHAPTER 7. REPORTS
27600. (a) The commission shall file annual progress reports
with the Governor and the Legislature not later than the fifth
calendar day of the 1974 and 1975 Regular Session of the
Legislature, and shall file its final report containing the
coastal zone plan with the Governor and the Legislature not
later than the fifth calendar day of the 1976 Regular Session
of the Legislature.
CHAPTER 8. TERMINATION
27650. This division shall remain in effect until the
91st day after the final adjournment of the 1976 Regular Session
of the Legislature, and as of that date is repealed.
-19-
Sec. 2. Section 11528.2 is added to the Business and
Professions Code, to read:
11528.2. The clerk of the governing body or the advisory agency
of each city or county or city and county having jurisdiction over
any part of the coastal zone as defined in Section 27100 of the
Public Resources Code, shall transmit to the office of the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission within three days
after the receipt thereof, one copy of each tentative map of any
subdivision located, wholly or partly, within the coastal zone
and such Commission may, within 15 days thereafter, make recom-
mendations to the appropriate local agency regarding the effect
of the proposed subdivision upon the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Plan. This section does not exempt any such sub-
division from the permit requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing
with Section 27400) of Division 18 of the Public Resources Code.
This section shall remain in effect only until the 91st day
after the final adjournment of the 1976 Regular Session of the
Legislature, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 3. If any provision of this act or the application thereof
to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which
can be given effect without the invalid provision or application,
and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
SEC. 4. There is hereby appropriated from the Bagley Conserva-
tion Fund to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) to the extent that
any moneys are available in such fund and if all or any portions
thereof are not available then from the General Fund for expenditure
to support the operations of the commission and regional coastal
zone conservation commissions during the fiscal years of 1973
-20-
to 1976, inclusive, pursuant to the provisions of Division 18
(commencing with Section 27000) of the Public Resources Code.
SEC. 5. The Legislature may, by two-thirds of the membership
concurring, amend this act in order to better achieve the
objectives set forth in Sections 27001 & 27302 of the Public
Resources Code.
-21-
TABLE I
COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN AREA PLAN GENERAL INVENTORY
CATEGORIES BY COUNTIES
LAND USE SITE CHARACTERISTICS INVENTORY (ACRES)
DEL NORTE
COUNTY
HUMBOLDT
COUNTY
MENDOCINO
COUNTY
SONOMA
COUNTY
MARIN
COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
MONTEREY
COUNTY
SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY
VENTURA
COUNTY
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
COASTAL ZONE
TOTAL
AGRICULTURE
5,507
21,501
793
112
408
8
3,663
3,529
6,672
755
3,397
1,479
705
675
2,789
51,993
COMMUNICATION
26
46
38
-
48
27
25
28
1
53
292
COMMERCIAL
214
961
141
18
24
292
99
255
646
351
257
441
3,844
1,883
4,548
14,574
EXTRACTIVE
43
54
-
60
-
40
74
342
366
271
345
2,121
950
1,161
5,827
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
570
537
18
46
988
411
403
154
789
342
832
911
14,265
2,070
6,039
28,375
LAND USE
(DEVELOPED AREAS)
INDUSTRIAL
265
1,126
376
60
-
-
11
72
226
192
394
594
4,836
592
3,861
12,605
RECREATION FACILITIES *
33
140
361
2,601
1,473
1,053
494
385
945
483
436
673
721
730
1,524
12,052
PUBLIC PARK LANDS **
5,696
5,461
1,329
2,939
16,406
1,536
1,579
700
2,981
4,033
3,388
1,670
2,561
827
2,506
53,657
-22-
RESIDENTIAL
2,145
2,958
4,408
160
1,117
1,456
2,498
3,694
3,760
2,465
2,311
988
8,322
7,227
9,581
53,090
TRANSPORTATION
166
932
13
98
239
254
239
391
1,170
915
1,347
580
5,110
11,454
TOTAL DEVELOPED
8,943
28,235
6,156
3,057
4,048
3,318
7,447
8,417
13,619
5,393
9,695
6,371
36,189
14,708
34,666
190,262
WATER AREAS
3,534
9,032
377
835
7,294
324
101
153
769
659
287
744
1,908
1,312
10,873
38,202
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
(UNDEVELOPED AREAS)
LAND FORMS
4,402
23,415
4,992
2,532
9,541
351
2,288
1,113
3,633
7,200
7,657
2,501
2,873
2,144
4,526
79,168
VEGETATION
15,018
28,371
26,189
15,310
35,012
208
7,830
4,108
25,818
24,166
19,240
7,271
7,122
5,944
15,834
237,441
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED
22,954
60,818
31,558
18,677
51,847
883
10,219
5,374
30,220
32,025
27,184
10,516
11,903
9,400
31,233
354,811
COUNTY TOTALS
31,897
89,053
37,714
21,734
55,895
4,201
17,666
13,791
43,839
37,418
36,879
16,887
48,092
24,108
65,899
545,073
*RECREATION FACILITIES includes second home sites, and buildings and developed parts of public parks.
PUBLIC PARK LANDS is total acreage, developed and undeveloped, in Federal, State, county, and local parks.
August 1971
The undeveloped acreages within Public Park Lands are already in Table 1, in the Site Characteristic categories;
the developed acreages are already in Recreation Facilities
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY
Acreage based on interpretation of 1970 airphotos.
DEPARTMENT OF NAVIGATION AND OCEAN DEVELOPMENT
TABLE II
STATEWIDE SUMMARY
SITE CHARACTERISTIC INVENTORY (UNDEVELOPED AREAS)
Acres in
NOTE: "X" AFTER ANY SYMBOL INDICATES
Inventory
OIL EXTRACTION IS A SECONDARY USE.
Area
L details LANDFORMS
14.5%
b - Beaches
19,859
C - Cliffs; steep slopes; some landslides
12,332
a - Dunes
21,897
i - Island, sea stack
214
m - Mudflat
20,268
r - Sea stack, rookery
Undet.
S - Spit, bar
4,598
79,168
N - NATURAL VEGETATION
43.5%
b - Barren
7,863
C - Coastal forest
18,595
f - Redwood forest
8,830
g - Grassland (includes Ngx=26 acres)
111,062
h - Hardwood
1,566
j - Woodland - grass
12,908
k - Kelp
Undet.
m - Marsh - salt water (includes Nmx=921 acres)
7,949
n - Marsh - fresh water (includes Nnx=5 acres)
3,405
I - Riparian
3,310
S - Coastal sagebrush
49,382
W - Woodland
11,712
Z - Other vegetation types
859
237,441
W - WATER AREAS
7.1%
e - Open water - estuary
27,635
1 - Open water - lagoon
4,667
P - Lakes and ponds
4,009
r - Reservoirs
345
S - Rivers and streams
1,546
38,202
TOTAL 65.1%
354,811
(Undeveloped part of inventory area)
-23-
STATEWIDE SUMMARY
LAND-USE INVENTORY (DEVELOPED AREAS)
Acres in
Inventory
Area
A - AGRICULTURE
9.5%
C - Poultry farms
5
d - Dairy farms
334
f - Farmsteads
657
g - Grain
2,231
h - Horticulture
1,938
P - Pasture
29,728
r - Row crops
15,995
S - Stock farms
177
t - Tree crops
799
2 - Other agricultural uses
129
51,993
B - COMMUNICATION
0.1%
n - Navigation facilities
114
I - Radio, TV, microwave
176
t - Telephone
2
292
C - COMMERCIAL
2.7%
a - Apartments, Barracks
6,008
(includes Cax: 58 acres)
h - Hotels
148
m - Motels
1,369
r - Miscellaneous offices, business, etc.
6,446
t - Municipal auditoriums, theaters
603
14,574
E - EXTRACTIVE
1.1%
di - Desalting plants
38
m - Seawater mineral recovery
1,465
O - Oil and gas fields (primary use)
3,905
q - Stone quarries
21
S - Sand and gravel deposits
221
z - Other mineral operations
177
5,827
G - GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
5.2%
a - Governmental functions
614
b - Groins, breakwaters
468
C - Cemeteries
268
d - Solid waste disposal (dumps)
183
e - Harbors (commercial vessels)
14,438
f - Protection: police, fire
5
h - Hospital and health
112
k - Marinas (recreational vessels)
2,491
P - Prison, correctional
30
S - Liquid waste disposal (sewage)
907
t - Access road, trails; parking
1,633
u - Universities, colleges, schools
2,952
W - Water supply, conduits
55
Z - Other public facilities
4,219
28,375
-24-
Table II
*This acreage represents areas of developed park facilities and
is included in the 53,657 acres of Public Park lands in
the coastal area.
Acres in
NOTE: "X" AFTER ANY SYMBOL INDICATES
Inventory
OIL EXTRACTION IS A SECONDARY USE.
Area
I - INDUSTRIAL
2.3%
b - Fossil fuel power plant
737
d - Storage and distribution
3,406
(includes Idx=10 acres)
f - Commercial fishing
361
h - Heavy manufacturing
660
m - Saw mills
1,409
n - Nuclear power plant
100
O - Oil refineries
370
(includes Iox=17 acres)
P - Port facilities
2,374
S - Shipbuilding, repair
923
t - Power substations, lines
182
Z - Other industrial uses
2,083
(includes Izx=10 acres)
12,605
P - RECREATION FACILITIES
2.2%
*C - Campground
895
g - Golf course
2,958
(includes Pgx=90 acres)
*D - Park (day use: picnicking etc.)
2,284
r - Residential (summer homes)
4,185
t - Tourism, resort
135
z - Other recreational uses
1,595
*12,052
R - RESIDENTIAL
9.7%
S - Structure
a. 0 to 3 units/acre
9,931
and less than 50% developed
(includes Rsax=17 acres)
b. 4 or more units/acre
4,848
and less than 50% developed
(includes Rsbx=39 acres)
C. 0 to 3 units/acre
7,231
and more than 50% developed
(includes Rscx=138 acres)
d. 4 or more units/acre
29,666
and more than 50% developed
(includes Rsdx=189 acres)
t - Trailer or Mobile Home parks
1,414
53,090
T - TRANSPORTATION
2.1%
a - Airports
2,368
b - Heliports
230
h - Highways, yards
7,401
r - Railroads, yards
1,248
S - Seaplane ports
113
Z - Other transportation uses
94
11,454
TOTAL
34.9%
190,262
(Developed part of inventory area)
GRAND TOTAL
100%
545,073
(Acreage in inventory area)
-25
CITY OF LONG BEACH
PERMITS AND VALUATIONS
The total area of the City is 49.48 sq. miles. The area outlined
on the attached map is 17.92 sq. miles which equals 36% of the
total area of the City.
The number of permits and valuations in this area are listed from
the 1971 calendar year statistical report.
TYPE
PERMITS
UNITS
VALUATION
Residential Buildings
103
5,735
7,752,866
Non-Residential Buildings
36
7,231,079
Commercial Buildings
19
3,241,787
Industrial Buildings
8
971,492
Structures
820
4,218,862
Alterations and Additions
2,337
4,332,368
Electrical Permits
1,652
2,995,157
Plumbing Permits
1,648
1,949,180
36% of Total Year
6,623
5,735
32,692,791
The percentage of area is the only way to prepare this report, as
all permits are incorporated in a street address file as soon as
they are issued.
-26-
AVERAGE TIME AND COST OF PROCESSING
SPECIAL PERMITS IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH
Average time to process a special permit
4 - 6 Weeks
Average staff man-power input for processing
a special permit
22 Hours
Average cost to the City for processing a
special permit
$188.00
-27-
ESTIMATE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ASSESSED VALUES
LONG BEACH
WITHIN THE PRIMARY ZONE OF THE PROPOSED COASTAL ZONE INITIATIVE
Assessed Value
Per Square Foot
Assessed
Assessed
Total
Land Use
Square Footage
Land
Improvements
Land Value
Improvement Value
Assessed Value
Residential
Low Density
130,072,454
$0.71
$0.50
$ 100,831,360
$ 71,008,000
$ 171,839,360
High Density
45,022,099
0.78
1.64
36,903,360
77,591,680
114,495,040
Total
175,094,553
$ 137,734,720
$ 148,599,680
$ 286,334,400
Commercial
23,172,000
1.14
1.18
26,416,080
27,342,960
53,759,040
Industrial
72,898,713
0.48
1.02
47,959,680
101,917,320
149,877,000
Trailer
876,000
0.71
0.10
621,960
87,600
709,560
Utilities
Low Residential Zone
6,502,649
0.71
1.18
5,040,810
7,673,125
12,713,935
-28-
Commercial Zone
774,516
1.14
1.18
900,600
1,062,708
1,963,308
Total
7,277,165
$ 5,941,410
$ 8,735,833
$ 14,677,243
Rights-of-Way
Low Residential Zone
7,313,724
0.71
5,192,744
5,192,744
Commercial Zone
7,567,472
1.14
8,626,918
8,626,918
Industrial Zone
1,175,592
1.48
564,284
564,284
Total
15,056,688
$ 14,383,946
$ 14,383,946
Freeways
Low Residential Zone
5,493,944
0.71
3,900,700
5,437,500
9,338,200
Commercial Zone
5,684,556
1.14
6,480,394
5,625,000
12,105,394
Industrial Zone
883,084
0.48
423,880
875,000
1,298,880
Total
12,061,584
$ 10,804,974
$ 11,937,500
$ 22,742,474
Institutional
C.S.U.L.B.
9,792,000
0.80
1.14
7,833,600
11,250,000
19,083,600
Schools & Churches
15,924,000
0.87
1.18
13,852,274
18,790,320
32,642,594
Total
25,716,000
$ 21,685,874
$ 30,040,320
$ 51,726,194
PRIMARY ZONE, cont'd.
Assessed Value
Per Square Foot
Assessed
Assessed
Total
Land Use
Square Footage
Land
Improvements
Land Value
Improvement Value
Assessed Value
Public
Shoreline
8,608,060
$1.14
$
$ 9,192,960
$ 2,750,000
$ 11,942,960
Service Building
1,311,940
1.14
1.18
1,495,611
1,548,089
3,043,700
Beach
5,136,000
1.25
6,420,000
6,420,000
Parks
49,408,000
0.49
24,086,400
24,086,400
Queen Mary
10,501,697
10,501,697
Total
64,464,000
$ 41,194,971
$ 14,799,786
$ 55,994,757
Vacant
Marina Pacifica
6,912,000
0.78
5,391,360
5,391,360
Industrial Zone
8,608,060
0.48
4,131,868
4,131,868
Other
6,927,363
0.78
5,403,343
5,403,343
Total
22,447,423
$ 14,926,571
$ 14,926,571
Total of All Land
-29-
Uses in the Primary
Zone
419,064,126
$ 321,670,186
$ 343,460,999
$ 665,131,185
ESTIMATE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ASSESSED VALUES
LONG BEACH
WITHIN THE SECONDARY ZONE OF THE PROPOSED COASTAL ZONE INITIATIVE
Assessed Value
Per Square Foot
Assessed
Assessed
Total
Land Use
Square Footage
Land
Improvements
Land Value
Improvement Value
Assessed Value
Residential
Low Density
79,031,179
$0.71
$0.50
$ 61,264,480
$ 43,294,000
$ 104,558,480
High Density
7,365,384
0.78
1.64
6,037,200
12,693,600
18,730,800
Total
86,396,563
$ 67,301,680
$ 55,987,600
$ 123,289,280
Commercial
7,784,000
1.14
1.18
8,873,760
9,185,120
18,058,880
Industrial
9,176,544
0.48
1.02
4,404,741
9,360,074
13,764,815
Trailer
596,000
0.71
0.10
423,160
59,600
482,760
-30-
Utilities
Residential Zone
800,000
0.71
1.18
568,000
944,000
1,512,000
Institutional
Virginia Country Club
8,784,000
0.80
7,027,200
7,027,200
Schools & Churches
7,152,000
0.87
1.18
6,222,240
8,439,360
14,661,600
Total
15,936,000
$ 13,249,440
$ 8,439,360
$ 21,688,800
Public
Service Bldg.
352,000
0.71
1.18
249,920
352,000
601,920
Parks
15,256,000
0.49
7,437,300
7,437,300
Total
15,608,000
$ 7,687,220
$
352,000
$ 8,039,220
Vacant
1,132,000
0.71
803,720
803,720
Total of all Land Uses
in the Secondary Zone
137,429,107
$ 103,311,721
$ 84,327,754
$ 187,639,475
LONG BEACH HARBOR DISTRICT
The following is a recapitulation of the impact and long-range effect
the proposed Coastal Zone Conservation Act Initiative would have on
the operations within the Long Beach Harbor District:
Long Beach Harbor District
The Harbor District of the City of Long Beach encompasses 4.48 square
miles of land, of which 2.26 square miles are owned and controlled by
the Harbor Department and the remainder by private concerns. The entire
area of the Harbor District would fall within the jurisdiction of the
proposed coastal legislation.
Long Beach is a principal gateway to the largest and most prosperous
market area of the western United States. This market area contains
almost 30 million residents covering the southern portion of California,
southern Nevada, and the states of Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New
Mexico. Through this harbor district each year flows cargoes with an
approximate value of 2.5 billion dollars.
Long Beach Harbor Department
The Harbor Department is a semiautonomous body of the City of Long Beach.
It is responsible for the operation, control and development of the
municipally-owned port facilities, and is governed by a five-member
Board of Harbor Commissioners who are appointed by the City Manager with
the approval of the City Council. The Harbor Department has an invest-
ment in land and port facilities amounting to approximately $200,000,000.
The estimated total investment within the Harbor District by commercial
waterfront operators is $50,000,000.
Production in the Port of Long Beach for the 1970-71 fiscal year was
as follows:
1. Total import-export tonnage, 26,000,000.
2.
The approximate dollar value of all cargo moved through
the Port during the 1970-71 period was 2.1 billion dollars.
Harbor Department capital outlay projects for the fiscal year 1972-73
will be 22.8 million dollars. Harbor Department capital projects for
future construction (five-year plan) amount to 98.6 million dollars.
-31-
PORT OF LONG BEACH
During the 1970-71 fiscal year, the Port Authority jobs were as follows:
1.
Within the Port of Long Beach
5,320
2.
Harbor Department
329
3.
Additional jobs in the Port area,
including the U.S. Naval Shipyard
personnel.
9,240
Total jobs
14,889
Financial benefits calculated from operations in the Port of Long Beach
during the 1970-71 fiscal year period are as follows:
1.
Cargo movements
$ 229,930,953
2.
Ship crew expenditures
7,606,368
3.
Ship's bunkers, repairs,
supplies, chandlery, etc.
42,858,149
Total
$ 280,395,470
According to a survey of the U. S. Department of Commerce, each billion
dollars of export cargo provides jobs for 91,000 workers. Long Beach,
with exports totaling $2,019,138,913, thus generated empployment for
about 183,000 Americans.
The estimated capital improvements in the commercial waterfront area
during the past five years are in excess of 33.6 million dollars,
excluding the Harbor Department's investments.
Estimated expenditures by the "private sector" in the Harbor District
during the next five years will be approximately 150 million dollars.
The "private sector" includes such large firms as Kaiser Gypsum Co.,
Southern California Edison Company, United States Navy, Atlantic
Richfield Company, Champlin Oil Company, Humble Oil & Refining Company,
Shell Oil Company and Mobile Oil Company.
-32-