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
118564976
label
[Environment] - California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissionäó»s Annual Report, 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564976
contentType
document
title
[Environment] - California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissionäó»s Annual Report, 1973
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
118564976
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
3e1b1ab66887b28a
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] - California Coastal
Zone Conservation
Commission's Annual Report, 1973
Box: P35
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/
California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commissions
DEL NORTE
HUMBOLDT
MENDOCINO
SONOMA
MARING
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
MONTEREY
SAN LUIS OBISPO
SANTA BARBARA
VENTURA
LOS ANGELES
ORANGE
SAN DIEGO
FUNDS FOR PRINTING THIS REPORT CAME ENTIRELY FROM PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS.
Photography: JACK McDOWELL
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
1540 MARKET STREET, 2nd FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
PHONE: (415) 557-1001
TO GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN
AND MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
This is the first annual progress report of the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commissions, as required by Section 27600 of the Public
Resources Code.
As you know, 1973 was the year the Coastal Commissions came into
existence through passage of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition
20) by the voters of California at the election of November 7, 1972.
The Coastal Initiative is working and is accomplishing its objectives.
In comparison with other governmental planning and regulatory bodies, it is
doing so with a minimum of inconvenience and hardship and at little taxpayer
expense.
The State Commission and the six Regional Commissions quickly orga-
nized themselves and began the work for which they were created: 1) preparing
a plan for the future of the long and varied California coastline, and
2) controlling coastal development, through a permit system, while the plan
is being prepared.
Most of the Regional Commissions began work with a sizable backlog of
permit applications. Because the 84 part-time Commissioners and their staffs
were willing to work unusually long hours, these backlogs were reduced and
coastal developments in accordance with the Act were allowed to proceed.
Commissioners often have many hours of travel to and from each meeting.
Special commendation is due the 12 members of the South Coast Regional
Commission, with jurisdiction over the coastline of Los Angeles and Orange
Counties, who met 43 times during 1973 with most meetings going until late
in the evening.
The coastal planning program is well under way, with much of the least
visible foundation work having been completed in 1973 and with widespread
public involvement being sought in the planning scheduled for the next two
years. We have a head start because of the earlier planning work, particularly
data collection and preliminary planning, of other government agencies.
This leaves us freer to concentrate on the policies and priorities for the future
of coastal resources.
Finally, a word about a particularly serious problem facing the Commis-
sions: the shortage of funds. We are grateful to you and the legislature for
approval of adequate funds for the legal work of the Attorney General in our
behalf and for clarification of our right to retain and use funds collected
as permit fees.
As explained in more detail later in this report, Federal funds that were
anticipated by the sponsors of Proposition 20 have not yet been made available.
These funds were expected to total $2.5 to 3 million, and their absence has
severely hampered the work of the Commissions. We are, therefore, vigorously
pursuing efforts to guarantee for California its fair share of whatever Federal
funds may become available. To the extent these funds are less than the antici-
pated amount, however, we have no alternative but to request additional State
funding to do the job mandated by the voters in approving Proposition 20.
Respectfully submitted,
pulvin
Melvin B. Lane
Chairman, State Commission
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 a 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 environment, it is necessary to pre-
serve 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 pos-
sible, to restore the resources of the coastal
zone for the enjoyment of the current and
succeeding generations.
-Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972,
Section 27001
3
The Coast of California
Length
1,072 miles of mainland shoreline (excluding
San Francisco Bay) and 397 miles of offshore island
shoreline (the Channel Islands, the Farallon Islands,
and smaller islands).
Ownership
Private:
662 miles (approximately 61 per cent)
Public:
410 miles (approximately 39 per cent)
Federal:
145 miles (47 miles open to public)
State
202 miles
Counties: 34 miles
Local:
29 miles
Coastal Land
The primary coastal zone (between the mean
high tide line and one-half mile inland) contains
approximately 545,000 acres, about .5 per cent of
California's total land area. Included in this area are
approximately 52,000 acres of prime agricultural
land and about 150,000 acres of grazing land.
Population
About 84 per cent of California's 20 million resi-
dents live within 30 miles of the State's shoreline.
Habitat
California's coastal waters and lands provide
habitat for more than 108 species and subspecies of
mammals, 260 birds, 54 reptiles and amphibians,
and a wide variety of fish.
Wetlands
Coastal wetlands (marshes, mudflats, estuaries,
lagoons, etc.) necessary to maintain many species
of coastal fish and wildlife totaled about 381,000
acres in 1900 but, because of man's filling and
diking, total only about 125,000 acres today.
Coastal Commissions
One State Commission and six Regional Com-
missions with a total of 84 Commissioners. One-half
of the Commissioners are locally-elected officials—
County Supervisors, Mayors, and City Councilmen.
The other half are public representatives
appointed one-third by the Governor, one-third by
the Senate Rules Committee, and one-third by the
Speaker of the Assembly.
4
Planning
1976. Thus an unusually complex planning program
must be completed in less than 2 years from the
"The commission shall prepare, adopt, and
writing of this first annual report.
submit to the Legislature for implementation the
2. Public Support. The final decision on the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan."
coastal zone plan will rest, of course, with the
-Section 27300
Governor and the Legislature. Widespread public
support will be necessary if legislation is to be
"The coastal zone plan shall be consistent with
enacted in 1976 to carry out the plan. To achieve
all of the following objectives:
that support, the planning program is designed to
"(a) The maintenance, restoration, and enhance-
solicit the full participation of governmental
ment of the overall quality of the coastal zone
agencies, special interests and, of great importance,
environment, including, but not limited to, its
the general public. The goal is to have widespread
amenities and aesthetic values.
understanding of coastal issues and widespread
"(b) The continued existence of optimum popu-
support for coastal zone conservation and
lations of all species of living organisms.
development policies.
"(c) The orderly, balanced utilization and preser-
vation, consistent with sound conservation
3. Role of the Regional Commissions. The
principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone
Regional Commissions are better able than the
State Commission to achieve extensive involvement
resources.
"(d) Avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable
of large numbers of individuals and groups because
commitment of coastal zone resources."
1) the Regional Commissions are more directly
-Section 27302
accessible, and 2) coastal problems and solutions
are more easily understood as they affect parts of
On June 6, 1973-well ahead of the July 24 dead-
the shoreline with which a person is most familiar.
line in the law-the State Commission adopted a
Thus, the first hearings and work on plan elements
planning program based on the following factors:
will be done by the Regional Commissions.
1. Deadline. The final plan must be submitted
4. Emphasis on Decisions, Not Data. The empha-
to the Governor and the Legislature in January,
sis of the Commission's planning is on reaching
5
decisions, not on accumulating data. Volumes of
-Mineral Resources: Major petroleum and non-
information about the coastal zone already exist
petroleum mineral deposits-their economic bene-
because of the work of the many local governments
fits and the environmental concerns with their
along the coast, the preparation of the Compre-
extraction and processing.
hensive Ocean Area Plan (by the Department of
-Energy: The impact of current energy short-
Navigation and Ocean Development in the State
ages on the coastal zone, with regard to power
Resources Agency), and the work of many other
plants, petroleum extraction, tanker terminal facili-
State and Federal agencies.
ties, and refineries.
Data is the necessary foundation for planning,
-Recreation: Use of the coastal zone for a wide
but data is not of itself a plan. What is needed now
variety of recreational pursuits.
is to use all available information, along with other
-Appearance and Design: Scenic views in the
necessary research, to arrive at policies for the
coastal zone; ways to encourage attractive design
future of the coastal zone. For example, should
in coastal developments. (The work on this element
"superports" for supertankers be built in the coastal
was underwritten by a grant from Mr. and Mrs.
zone? If so, where, and subject to what conditions?
David Packard).
What priority should agriculture have in the coastal
-Transportation/Water: Port needs; uses of
zone? Should large coastal areas be used for hous-
coastal land for water-related industries.
ing, or should recreational development have a
-Transportation/Land and Air: Methods of
higher priority? Can better public access to the
transportation in the coastal zone and possible
ocean be provided in built-up urban areas?
changes; means of providing increased access to
beaches.
5. What the Plan Will Be. The goal of the Com-
-Power Plants and Other Public Utilities: Pro-
mission's planning program is to arrive at a set of
posals for coastal power plants and other utilities
policies to guide future conservation and use of
(i.e., desalting plants).
coastal resources-a constitution for the coastline.
-Intensity of Development in the Coastal Zone:
Once these policies have been established, further
What uses of coastal lands should have highest
priority? Can high-density development be designed
so as not to congest traffic and block public access
to the ocean? What is the cumulative effect of the
steadily-increasing density and intensity of use of
coastal land areas? What priority should housing
for permanent residents have in relation to housing
for visitors (hotels, resorts, recreational vehicle
campgrounds, etc.)?
-Carrying Out the Plan: Powers and Funding
Needed: How should the coastal zone plan be
carried out? What new legislation should be con-
sidered? What will it cost?
planning can then apply them to specific coastal
-Carrying Out the Plan: Governmental Orga-
areas. In a period of rapid change, no planning can
nization: Are existing agencies of government
solve all problems for all time. But the Commissions'
adequate to carry out the coastal zone plan? What
planning can, and will, set a course for the future.
alternative governmental possibilities are there, and
The plan will have two parts: first, policies of
what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
statewide importance and applicability, and second,
policies compatible with the statewide policies but
sensitive to the special needs of each region and
of local communities within each region. Local
governments have had, and will continue to have,
an important role in coastal planning.
6. Plan Elements. The Commissions' planning
program consists of the following plan elements,
some of which may be combined and consolidated
as the planning proceeds. For each element, the
goal is 1) to arrive at the best possible solutions,
using available information and new research
within the time limits specified in the Act; and 2)
to recommend steps necessary to carry out each
proposed solution, such as channeling development
7. Schedule. The first plan element-the marine
to new areas, funding acquisition programs, and
environment-is being processed by the Regional
passing new legislation. The elements are as
Commissions as this report is being written, and
follows:
the others will follow at frequent intervals. When
-Marine Environment: The offshore waters as a
all of the elements have been completed in early
living environmental system.
1975, the resulting tentative policies will be com-
-Coastal Land Environment: Resources of
bined into a preliminary plan for further public
coastal lands.
hearings. Then, after necessary revisions, the final
-Geology: Geological hazards in coastal areas;
plan will be adopted for presentation to the
beach maintenance and replenishment.
Governor and the Legislature.
6
the shoreline, and other matters to bring the pro-
posed projects within the requirements of the
Coastal Act.
3. As a rule applicants do not seek permits for
developments that would have to be turned down
because they clearly do not comply with the Act.
Instead, applicants often seek to modify their
proposals, in consultation with the Regional Com-
missions and their staffs, to bring them into
compliance with the Act.
Summary. Despite the fears expressed at the time
of the Proposition 20 election, the Coastal
Act has not halted construction in the coastal zone.
Instead, it has allowed construction to proceed,
provided the building is consistent with the Act.
Claims of Exemption. In the weeks after the
Commissions began their work, many persons
sought to have their developments declared exempt
from the permit requirements of the Act. With the
help of the Attorney General's office, forms
were prepared and procedures adopted for review-
ing these claims of exemption. In essence,
claimants for exemption assert that because of
work done or expenditures made before the
effective date of the Act, they were entitled to
complete their projects without first obtaining
a Regional Commission permit.
The table on this page shows how many of
these claims have been granted and how many
Permits
denied. In many cases where an exemption
was denied, an applicant was later granted a
"On or after February 1, 1973, any person wishing
permit for the development.
to perform any development within the permit area
shall obtain a permit authorizing such development
Permit Applications and Claims of Exemption
from the regional commission and, if required by
Processed by Regional Commissions During 1973
law, from any city, county, state, regional or
local agency."
PERMITS
-Section 27400
Applications
Number
Number
Received
Granted
Denied
As the accompanying table shows, 6,236 permit
applications were received by the six Regional
North
442
439
3
Commissions during 1973. Of this total, 5,191 were
North Central
303
260
13
granted and 146 denied; the remainder were being
Central
945
827
18
South Central
878
731
processed as of January 1, 1974.
6
South
2,456
1,892
77
Because of the stringent environmental pro-
San Diego
1,212
1,042
29
visions of the Coastal Act, it may appear surprising
that such a high percentage of permits were granted,
TOTALS
6,236
5,191
146
but these are the reasons:
CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION
1. Many of the permits are for single-family
homes or for other relatively small developments
Applications
Number
Number
Received
Granted
Denied
in areas where the environmental consequences of
construction are minimal. Such permits are often
North
9
9
0
approved by the Regional Commissions on a con-
North Central
41
36
5
sent calendar, similar to that used by the Legislature.
Central
83
52
15
This enables non-controversial development pro-
South Central
48
34
11
posals to be reviewed and acted upon with a
South
215
124
39
minimum of delays.
San Diego
133
89
34
2. Many of the permits are approved subject to
TOTALS
529
344
104
conditions as to density of development, protection
The statistics above may be misleading; see NOTE at
of scenic views, provision of new public access to
bottom of pages 11 and 12.
7
Appeals
commitments of major coastal zone resources prior
to the preparation of the plan.
"An applicant, or any person aggrieved by
approval of a permit by the regional commission
STATE COMMISSION ACTION ON APPEALS
may appeal to the [state] commission.
"The [state] commission may affirm, reverse, or
Total appeals received in 1973:
263
modify the decision of the regional commission:
Total permits approved:
53
If the [state] commission fails to act within 60 days
After public hearing:
37
after notice of appeal has been filed, the regional
(includes 24 approved with condi-
commission's decision shall become final.
tions and modifications)
"The [state] commission may decline to hear
Regional Commission permits approved
appeals that it determines raise no substantial
when State Commission declined
issues."
to hear appeals on grounds they
-Section 27404
presented no substantial issue:
16
During 1973, 263 decisions of Regional Com-
Total permits denied:
68
missions were appealed to the State Commission.
After public hearing:
40
The table shows the actions of the State Commis-
Regional Commission denials left
sion on appeals.
standing when State Commission
The State Commission, as provided by the Act,
declined to hear appeals on grounds
declines to hear appeals unless a substantial issue
they presented no substantial issue:
28
is presented. In determining substantial issue, the
Total claims of exemption approved:
17
State Commission has generally voted not to hear
an appeal unless one or more of the following
(includes 5 partial approvals)
matters are present:
After public hearing:
13
1. The decision of the Regional Commission is
Regional Commission grants of
in question because there is little evidence to
exemption approved when State
support it but substantial, undisputed evidence to
Commission declined to hear
support a contrary decision.
appeals on grounds they presented
2. The procedures of the Regional Commission
no substantial issues:
4
in the matter being appealed are in question, and
Total claims of exemption denied:
27
the procedures appear to clearly and directly
After public hearing:
21
lead to a questionable decision as, for example,
Regional Commission denials of
approval of a project by a majority vote when there
exemption left standing when State
is substantial evidence that a 2/3 vote was required.
Commission declined to hear appeals
3. Matters of statewide importance are involved,
on grounds they presented no
as, for example, a need to insure uniformity among
substantial issues:
6
Regional Commissions on matters of major concern.
4. The Regional Commission decision could
Total appeals later withdrawn:
27
adversely affect the coastal zone plan being pre-
Total appeals determined to be invalid:
3
pared by, for example, allowing development in an
Total appeals pending before State
area being proposed in the plan as a park, or making
Commission as of January 1, 1974:
68
8
on an appeal regarding a proposed recreational
vehicle park in the Malibu area of Los Angeles
County came the following policy statement by
the State Commission:
"This appeal poses one of the most important
policy questions yet to come before the Commis-
sion: should uses of land in the coastal zone that
can benefit many people have preference over
uses that benefit a few? Or, more precisely,
when a piece of land is not proposed for public
acquisition and is thus almost certain to be
developed, should it be used for housing-of
benefit primarily to the residents of the housing-
or should encouragement be given to vacation or
similarly temporary uses, such as resorts, hotels,
rental units, and recreational vehicle parks, that
will allow many more people to enjoy the
amenities of the coastal zone?
"Although this question will be more fully
explored in the Commissions' planning, it appears
entirely consistent with that planning to make
clear, at least tentatively, a preference for land
POSTED
uses that will allow the most people to enjoy the
coastal zone. This is particularly important
because, in many areas of the coastal zone, the
costs of housing are already high and still rising.
Many Californians who will wish to use and
enjoy the coastal zone may not be able to afford
to live permanently in it. Thus, landowners and
developers should be encouraged to provide
increasing opportunities for Californians of all
levels of income to enjoy coastal areas."
2. Permit Processing. In some Regions, the permit
workload has been little short of overwhelming,
while in others it has been easier to manage. By far
Permits and
the greatest number of permit applications has been
in the South Coast Region (Los Angeles and Orange
Appeals:
SOME COMMENTS
Counties). The 12 members of that Commission
met 43 times in 1973, largely to try to process appli-
1. Planning and Permits. The Coastal Act gives
cations as rapidly as possible so as to prevent any
the Commissions two principal responsibilities:
unnecessary delays. In some cases, Regional Com-
a. To prepare a plan for the future of the
mission meetings have gone from 9 a.m. until after
California Coastal Zone; and
midnight. And in every region, Commission
b. To control all development, through a
members-fully aware of the hardships caused
by delay-have worked long hours to try to arrive
permit process, to insure that construction con-
sistent with the Act is allowed to proceed, and to
at prompt decisions on often-complex and contro-
prevent harmful developments from thwarting the
versial projects.
plan before it can be completed.
3. Appeals. The Act appears to make it relatively
These are two separate responsibilities under the
easy for Regional Commission decisions to be
law, but in practice they reinforce each other. As
challenged by appeals, and there was initial concern
the planning proceeds, decisions on permit applica-
that a large number of frivolous appeals could
tions can help carry out the plan. And, of equal
easily be brought, thus diverting the time and
importance, decisions on plan recommendations
grow out of the permit experience. The same Com-
missioners who vote on plan recommendations also
vote on permit applications. This insures that the
plan is not prepared in ivory tower isolation but
instead is prepared on the solid foundation that
comes from understanding the very real conflicts
over conservation and development in the
coastal zone.
To put this another way, the many, many hours
spent by the Commissions on permit hearings are
not time taken away from planning but often pro-
vide the essential understanding of issues necessary
for sound planning. For example, out of a hearing
9
energy of the State Commission from its essential
energy consistent with environmental protection.
planning responsibilities. This has not happened,
Immediately following the denial, discussions were
however, because assembling the evidence neces-
begun between the Commission and the permit
sary to pursue an appeal requires sufficient work
applicants (Southern California Edison Co. and San
to discourage anything but serious filings. And, as
Diego Gas & Electric Co.) regarding a revised plan.
noted above, the State Commission may decline
The project was approved a couple of months later
to hear any appeal that does not raise a substantial
but with stringent controls to minimize the
issue.
environmental damage.
4. Permit Denials. Much attention has been
C. Small Developments. In general, small com-
focused by the news media on the relatively few
mercial buildings, small apartment projects, and
controversial decisions on coastal zone permits;
single-family homes in coastal areas have been
little notice has been given to the many permits
quickly approved, often on the consent calendar.
that have been approved over slight objection. In
But occasionally a few have been denied, and the
particular, three types of denial have drawn the
reasons for denial have not always received the
greatest public attention:
same public attention as the denials themselves.
In every case, however, the denials are recognized
as clearly temporary-until the problems raised by
the particular building can be resolved. The follow-
ing are examples of such problems:
1) In some cases, proposals have been made
to build in scenic coastal areas proposed for public
park acquisition. Denials in such cases have gener-
ally been for a limited time to allow the appropriate
public agency time to buy the property.
2) In many cases, the problem is one of cumu-
lative effect: one house in a particularly scenic area
might have no effect on public enjoyment of the
coast, but if the first structure is built, there would
appear to be no reason to deny a second on an
adjacent lot. With more to follow, the cumulative
a. Exemptions. As noted above, these involve
essentially legal determinations as to whether a
particular development may proceed without a
coastal zone commission permit on the basis of
work done or money spent prior to the effective
date of the Act. Applications for exemption have
been carefully reviewed by the Attorney General's
office, as legal advisor to the Commissions, and the
Attorney General's representatives have advised
the Commissions on legal aspects of exemption
decisions. The whole question of exemptions, or of
vested rights to complete projects, is a complex area
of the law, about which there is considerable dis-
agreement (as evidenced by the fact that in the first
of the coastal zone exemption cases to reach the
State Supreme Court, the justices divided 4-3 in
their decision). What is insufficiently understood
about the exemption decisions is that they are not
based on the merits of the project but solely on
effect could be a wall of buildings screening off the
whether the project has acquired sufficient vested
ocean from a nearby scenic highway. The goal here
rights to be exempt from obtaining a permit. Thus,
is not to prevent construction (unless public pur-
even when an exemption is denied, a permit could
chase of the area is feasible) but to arrive, through
be granted for the project.
study and planning, at a means of allowing con-
b. San Onofre. By far the most controversial
struction to proceed consistent with protecting pub-
appeal before the State Commission was with
lic views and other public values of the coastal area.
regard to the proposed expansion of the nuclear
3) Similarly, in many cases the denials have
power plant at San Onofre on Camp Pendleton in
been to allow time for preparation of a "blanket
San Diego County. After lengthy hearing and
permit"-conditions under which construction of
debate, the Commission voted not to grant a permit
all homes in a subdivision would be allowed to
for the project in the form it was presented to the
proceed in a manner fair to all. It would be mani-
Commission on grounds the application did not
festly unfair to allow some construction to proceed
conform to the standards of the Coastal Act. In
while similar proposals received different treat-
doing so, the Commission made clear that it believed
ment. Thus the Regional Commissions have tried
a modified application would comply with the
to develop means of allowing construction to pro-
standards of the Act and that with modifications,
ceed subject to well-publicized conditions affecting
the San Onofre expansion could provide needed
all construction in the area in the same way.
10
Regional Commissions Action on Appeals
DEL NORTE
NORTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino Counties have the longest
coastline of any region-287 miles. Much of this sparsely populated
HUMBOLDT
region consists of forest and pasture land, and several coastline permit
applications have dealt with logging. The region possesses some of
the State's most spectacularly beautiful coastline, and in recent years
emphasis on tourism and park acquisition has increased.
Total permit applications in 1973:
442
Granted:
439
Denied:
3
Total claims of exemption in 1973:
9
MENDOCINO
Granted:
9
Denied:
0
NORTH CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Sonoma, Marin and San Francisco Counties bracket the Golden Gate
and include scenic areas in which large second-home and other
residential developments have been proposed. The region also
includes the extensive Point Reyes National Seashore, the new Golden
SONOMA
Gate National Recreation Area, and the largely developed western-
most areas of San Francisco.
Total permit applications in 1973:
303
MARIN
Granted:
260
Denied:
13
SAN FRANCISCO
Total claims of exemption in 1973:
41
Granted:
36
Denied:
5
(Other applications were being processed at the time of the writing of this report.)
CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
SAN MATEO
San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties include coastal lands
of great value for agriculture, in many of which residential develop-
ment has been proposed. The region also includes the beaches and
parks of Monterey Bay and the rugged grandeur of the Big Sur coast.
SANTA CRUZ
Total permit applications in 1973:
945
Granted:
827
Denied:
18
Total claims of exemption in 1973:
83
MONTEREY
Granted:
52
Denied:
15
(Other applications were being processed at the time of the writing of this report.)
NOTE: These statistics alone may be misleading, for they
do not reflect the size or nature of the projects involved.
Furthermore, they do not reflect the conditions which the
Commissions, in cooperation with applicants, frequently
11
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties have the
second longest coastline of any region, 244 miles, and include the
scenic areas around the Hearst Castle, Morro Bay, the off-shore oil
SAN LUIS OBISPO
drilling in the Santa Barbara-Ventura area, and a combination of
urban development and agriculture in many coastal areas of Ventura
County. The region has perhaps a wider range of urban and rural,
conservation and development, issues than any other.
Total permit applications in 1973:
878
Granted:
731
SANTA BARBARA
Denied:
6
Total claims of exemption in 1973:
48
VENTURA
Granted:
34
Denied:
11
(Other applications were being processed at the time of the writing of this report.)
SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Los Angeles and Orange Counties contain coastal areas that are
almost entirely developed. Within them, however, there is great pres-
sure for new development, often at a higher density than the existing
development. Problems of public access to the major public beaches
and developed shorelines in this area are an important planning issue.
Total permit applications in 1973:
2,456
LOS ANGELES
Granted:
1,892
Denied:
77
ORANGE
Total claims of exemption in 1973:
215
Granted:
124
Denied:
39
(Other applications were being processed at the time of the writing of this report.)
SAN DIEGO COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
San Diego County includes the open expanse of Camp Pendleton on
the North, many highly productive agricultural areas, and many
urban areas where substantial developments are proposed. Among
the principal planning issues are the remaining coastal lagoons, some
of which are in areas where developments are proposed.
SAN DIEGO
Total permit applications in 1973:
1,212
Granted:
1,042
Denied:
29
Total claims of exemption in 1973:
133
Granted:
89
Denied:
34
(Other applications were being processed at the time of the writing of this report.)
attached to an approval permit. Those applications
which the Commissions felt would cause major environ-
mental damage or would seriously interfere with planning
were denied.
12
Finances
since then and that appears likely to continue.
Increases have occurred in the cost of virtually
"There is hereby appropriated from the Bagley
every phase of the Commissions' work-office rent,
Conservation Fund to the California Coastal Zone
travel, printing, postage, etc.
Conservation Commission the sum of five million
2. Federal Funds. The funding estimates pre-
dollars ($5,000,000) to the extent that any moneys
pared by the sponsors of Proposition 20 included
are available in such fund and if all or any portions
the probability of Federal funds. On October 27,
thereof are not available then from the General
1972, Congress passed (and President Nixon later
Fund for expenditure to support the operations of
signed) the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
the [state] commission and the regional coastal zone
(Public Law 92-583). This Act authorized grants to
conservation commissions during the fiscal years
the States for coastal zone planning, and under the
of 1973 to 1976, inclusive,
"
provisions of the Act, it was reasonable to assume
-Chapter 8, Sec. 4
that California's share would be $2.5-3 million dur-
ing the planning period. But funds of this magnitude
As the adjacent table shows, the work of the
have not yet been appropriated. The estimates made
State and Regional Commissions is not yet fully
by the sponsors of Proposition 20 appear to have
funded. Why? Principally for two reasons:
been accurate-the Commissions' additional needs
(based on present costs and assuming an 8% rate
1. Inflation. The funding provisions written into
of inflation) will be about $2.2 million. Thus, as of
Proposition 20 in early 1972 could not, and did not,
the writing of this report, the Commissions'
anticipate the rapid inflation that has taken place
finances were uncertain.
13
Projected Expenditures
1972-73
1976-77
(5 mo.)
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
(6 mo.)
TOTAL
Personal Services
199,581
1,431,958
1,611,304
1,438,442
578,979
5,260,264
Operating Expenses
and Equipment¹
176,835
1,039,643
1,100,944
984,585
356,448
3,658,455
Total
376,416
2,471,601
2,712,248
2,423,027
935,427
8,918,719
These figures anticipate some inflation, but they may nonetheless be too low, particu-
larly with regard to expenditures in the final years of the Commissions' work.
1. Includes estimates of expenses incurred by the State Attorney General on behalf of
the Commission. These expenses are not normally included in the budgets of other State
General Fund agencies.
Projected Funding
1972-73
1976-77
(5 mo.)
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
(6 mo.)
TOTAL
Bagley
Conservation Fund¹
299,533
1,608,886
1,700,083
1,391,498
5,000,000
Permit
Processing Fees2
76,883
368,484
368,484
360,000
180,000
1,353,851
Special
Appropriations³
0
294,231
243,681
268,049
120,000
925,961
Total
376,416
2,271,601
2,312,248
2,019,547-
300,000
7,279,812
1. Appropriated by Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20).
2. Estimated income on the basis of initial Commission. experience, which may not be
sufficiently reliable for future projection because of uncertainty as to future building
costs, economic conditions, and other factors that could affect the rate of building and
thus of permit applications.
3. Includes funds for the State Attorney General for work on behalf of the Commission;
these costs are not normally included in the budgets of other State General Fund
Agencies.
Projected Need for Supplemental Funds
1972-73
1976-77
(5 mo.)
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
(6 mo.)
TOTAL
Anticipated
Expenditures
376,416
2,471,601
2,712,248
2,423,027
935,427
8,918,719
Anticipated
Income
376,416
2,271,601
2,312,248
2,019,547
300,000
7,279,812
Deficit
0
200,000
400,000
403,480
635,427
1,638,907
These figures are necessarily drawn from the initial months of the work of the State
and Regional Commissions. Because of uncertainties as to future rates of inflation, permit
fee income, and other factors, they cannot be considered as more than careful projections
on the basis of limited information.
14
State and Regional Commissions
(as constituted February 28, 1974)
NORTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino
John Mayfield, Jr. (G), Chairman
Mildred R. Benioff (A)
Gerry Grader (S)
William McHugh (A)
Clmn. Richard L. Brown
Dr. Donald W. Hedrick (G)
Sup. Guy E. Rusher
Clmn. Ward F. Falor
*Dwight May (S)
Clmn. Bernard Vaughn
Sup. Ted Galletti
Sup. Bernard McClendon
Executive Director: John Lahr
NORTH CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Counties of Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco
Margaret Azevedo (A), Chairman
Clmn. Frank J. Egger
Clmn. Gregory Jones, Jr.
Sup. Robert Theiller
Phyllis Faber (S)
Dr. Bradford W. Lundborg (A)
Sup. Michael Wornum
Sup. Dianne Feinstein
*Sup. Robert Mendelsohn
Wanda Zankich (S)
Clmn. Leonard Grote
Melville Owen (G)
Executive Director: Michael Fischer
Ellen J. Johnck (G)
Dr. Kenneth Stocking (G)
CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Counties of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey
Charles B. Kramer (G), Chairman
Ruth R. Andresen (S)
Victoria Gibson (A)
Herbert Rhodes (A)
Julian Camacho (A)
Samuel H. Halsted (S)
Norman A. Walters (S)
Sup. Warren Church
*Sup. Philip W. Harry
Clmn. Ilene Weinreb
Sup. Gerald F. Day
Clmn. James Hughes
Clmn. Lorette Wood
Clmn. Joseph Dolan
Frank J. Lodato (G)
Executive Director: Edward Y. Brown
Clmn. Grace McCarthy
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura
Tim Terry (S), Chairman
Emmons Blake (G)
Robert Kallman (G)
Sup. Curtis Tunnell
Sup. Ralph R. Bennett
Sup. Elston L. Kidwell
Clmn Dorrill B. Wright
Allan S. Ghitterman (A)
*Ira E. Laufer (S)
Clmn. Ernest Wullbrandt
Gary Hart (A)
Clmn. Robert H. Newdoll
Executive Director: Francis Buchter
SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
Counties of Los Angeles, Orange
Dr. Donald B. Bright (G), Chairman
Sup. Ronald W. Caspers
Clmn. Louis R. Nowell
Clmn. Russ Rubley
Dr. Rimmon C. Fay (S)
Donald W. Phillips (G)
Carmen Warschaw (A)
*Sup. James A. Hayes
Dr. Robert F. Rooney (S)
Clmn. Dr. Donald E. Wilson
Clmn. Arthur J. Holmes
Judy Rosener (A)
Executive Director: Capt. Melvin Carpenter
SAN DIEGO COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION
County of San Diego
Dr. Malcolm A. Love (G), Chairman
Sup. Lou Conde
Clmn. F. Gilbert Johnson
Leslie Parker (A)
Cornelius Dutcher (S)
Evan V. Jones (G)
Clmn. Tom B. Pearson
*Jeffrey D. Frautschy (S)
Dr. Elmer Keen (A)
Sup. Lee R. Taylor
Clmn. Robert Frazee
Clmn. Rolland M. McNeely
Executive Director: Thomas Crandall
CALIFORNIA STATE COMMISSION
Melvin B. Lane (G), Chairman
Fred Farr (S)
Sup. James A. Hayes
Bernard J. Ridder, Jr. (S)
Jeffrey D. Frautschy (S)
Ira E. Laufer (S)
Richard A. Wilson (A)
Ellen Stern Harris (A),
Dwight May (S)
Vice Chairman
Sup. Robert Mendelsohn
Executive Director: Joseph E. Bodovitz
Sup. Philip W. Harry
Roger T. Osenbaugh (G)
Chief Planner: E. Jack Schoop
LEGEND:
County Supervisors (Sup.) and City Councilmen (Clmn.) are appointed by the Counties and Cities and the regional
association of local governments. (G) Appointed by the Governor of California; (S) Appointed by the Senate Rules
Committee; (A) Appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. * State Commission representative.