Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
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 (2 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/
Assembly.
Second, the law directed the Commission to develop Interim and Final Plans of
State Development Policy by September 1, 1972 and December 1, 1973, respectiv-
ely. Third, it required the Commission to develop a series of standards and
guidelines for various units of governments in the state. The Commission is
to develop model subdivision regulations for the counties. "For all levels
of government the Commission is required to develop a system for monitoring
growth and change in the state, a means of evaluating the impact on proposed
development, a system for identifying environmental concerns and relating
them to development, and a system for documenting the state's existing land
use control policies and planning. "* Finally, the legislation requires the
Commission to develop flood plain control standards and criteria and to rec-
ommend critical conservation and recreation areas.
The Commission can make recommendations to the Governor on development policy.
The Governor has the power to restrain any land development activity which
"constitutes a danger or potential danger of irreparable injury, loss, or
damage of serious proportions to the public health, safety and welfare. "**
CONTROLS AND CRITERIA
The controls are primarily focused at the county level. The Land Use Act re-
quires all counties to create planning commissions, and it requires them to
maintain either building permits or improvement notices for their entire area
of jurisdiction. "By July 1, 1972, each county must further promulgate sub-
division regulations, which must include minimum standards and technical pro-
cedures applicable to drainage maps, sewer plans and designs for water systems.
*Ibid., p. 300.
**Ibid.
-95-
If such regulations are not SO promulgated, then the Commission is empowered
to do so for any tardy county.'
The Act sets up a fund to aid counties in planning activities. It establishes
a $200,000 fund for any county, municipality or regional planning agency which
the Commission has designated as an area of critical planning need. There is
a stipulation that the planning aid must be used for a work program agreed
to by the municipality, county or agency and the Commission.
The winter olympics of 1976 will take place in the Denver region. The legis-
lation emphasizes land use controls in those areas. The Land Use Commission
is to evaluate the community impact and the potential land consumption rate
as well as the public investment programming and planning. It will indicate
to the Governor the information necessary for it to carry out its duties,
and the Governor will require the Denver olympics organizing committee or any
state agency to furnish information to the Commission.
The Commission will cooperate and consult with local officials in communities
where olympic events are located to develop land use controls, and it will
ensure that these controls are adequate to protect the environment. If these
local municipalities or counties in which the olympic events are scheduled
fail to provide land use controls with adequate environmental safeguards, the
Commission, after a recommendation from the governor, can set up land use
regulations for these areas.
The Commission notifies the board of county commissioners in any county
where there is a land development activity threatening the public health,
welfare or safety. If the county board does not remedy the situation, the
*Ibid. p. 301.
-96-
Commission reviews the facts about the activity. The governor can then dir-
ect the Land Use Commission to issue a cease and desist order requiring the
developer to immediately discontinue operations. If the development is con-
tinued, the Commission will request a temporary restraining order, prelimin-
ary injunction or permanent injunction from the appropriate district court.
After the cease and desist order or court action, the Commission will estab-
lish the planning criteria necessary to eliminate or avoid the dangerous ef-
fects of the development.
ASSESSMENT
The Colorado Land Use Act provides for strong state leadership in establish-
ing guidelines, criteria, and identification of areas of critical environ-
mental concern.
It maintains on-going planning and permit functions at the local level but
ensures assertive state role by providing for commission monitoring and fol-
low-up in areas of critical concern when local agencies are not responsive.
DIRECT STATEWIDE CONTROL IN SELECTED AREAS
A large number of states have enacted legislation dealing with the management
of specific geographic or critical areas. These laws regulate the develop-
ment of coastal zones, wetlands, new communities and power plant siting. To
date this type of management program has proven to be the most prevalent form
of state activity.
MASSACHUSETTS
ADMINISTRATION
Massachusetts has several laws that protect its coastal wetlands. The Jones
-97-
Act, passed in 1963, requires developers who seek to alter the coastal wet-
lands to apply for a permit from the Massachusetts Department of Natural Re-
sources. The Act is designed to limit developments sufficiently to help pre-
serve the ecological conditions necessary for shell fish and marine fisheries.
The Coastal Wetlands Act of 1965 is gradually replacing the limited protec-
tion set up by the Jones Act. The Coastal Wetlands Act institutes "protec-
tive orders" which are issued by the Department of Natural Resources. These
orders prohibit any alteration of coastal wetland areas except under carefully
controlled circumstances. The Act defines coastal wetlands as any bank, marsh,
swamp, meadow, flat or other low land subject to tidal action or coastal
storm flowage and necessary contiguous land.
"Protective orders (conservation restrictions) have been recorded against 17,915
acres of coastal wetland and orders are currently pending against another 25,446
acres. In the near future, therefore, the Department will have recorded con-
servation restrictions covering 44,000 of the approximately 60,000 acres of
coastal wetlands in Massachusetts. Thus, the Jones Act will soon be obsolete,
except where landowners manage to prevent their wetland property from being
included in a coastal protective order. "* The statute does not require any par-
ticipation by local governments. The Department of Natural Resources could
complete a protective order restricting uses in coastal wetlands without even
consulting local governments.
In actual practice, however, the Department has informal consultation with
local authorities at various stages of the order process. The Department does
not ask for recommendations while the order is being prepared; but state of-
ficials meet with the local governing body before the hearing to explain the
*Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 205.
-98-
operation of the protective order.
Local governments can establish more restrictive provisions over area al-
ready under a protective order. If local authorities want to set up this
type of regulations, the state's orders do not pre-empt their regulations.
Some local governments have asked the state to include provisions limiting
the real estate tax assessment that can be imposed on private property un-
der protective orders. "Under present arrangements the valuation lies with-
in the discretion of the local board of assessors, and some town governments
ask that the state take affirmative action to guarantee tax relief to owners
of restricted property. Such a guaranty they maintain, would reduce ob-
jections of local property owners. (This apparent anomaly of local legisla-
tive bodies actively seeking what amounts to a reduction in their tax income
can be explained by the fact that most wetlands are assessed at a fairly
low level in the first place. )
After a final order has been recorded, an objecting landowner may request
judicial review. The Coastal Wetlands Act indicates that the owner can peti-
tion the superior court for a review of the order as it effects his land. The
only remedy the court can make must apply to the petitioners property.
Any petition must be filed within 90 days after the owners affected by a pro-
tective order have been notified. The protective orders are essentially free
from judicial challenge shortly after they are finalized.
If the superior court finds that an order is "an unreasonable exercise of the
police power because (it) constitutes the equivalent of a taking without com-
pensation," the act, indicates that the court should enter a finding that the
*Ibid., p. 214.
-99-
order will not apply to that land.* If the court reaches this decision then
the Department of Natural Resources can institute eminent domain proceed-
ings to take the property. "However, the Department has never had to exer-
cise its eminent domain powers in any of the 14 coastal areas where protective
orders have been issued, and a number of factors appear to have contributed
to this situation: caution on the part of the Department in drawing up the
orders, the burdensome procedures a landowner would have to follow if he
wished to challenge an order, and general acceptance by owners of the restric-
tions imposed. "**
Only about 20 owners of the several thousand affected by the coastal orders
have gone to court. All but one of these cases was settled before going to
trial. The small number of objections to the protective orders may indi-
cate owner acceptance or it may indicate that owners who might object are
deterred by the required court actions.
CONTROLS AND CRITERIA
The Coastal Wetlands Act states that the purpose of the protective orders
is to protect wildlife and marine fisheries. The powers of the Department
of Natural Resources are quite broad including both the definition of
coastal wetlands which may be protected and the type of regulation which
can be imposed.
The Department's first step in protecting the coastal wetlands is to gather
information necessary to locate wetlands, decide the precise areas to be pro-
tected and determine the land ownership in these areas. The Department con-
ducts on-site inspection of the areas under consideration. It then prepares
*130 Massachusetts General Laws Ann., Section 105.
**Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 216
-100-
a tentative map of the area to be protected and uses local assessors maps
to determine ownership. The owners are notified that a hearing will be held
on the proposed order. After a public hearing and negotiations with land
owners are complete, the orders are recorded at a local assessor's office.
The local hearing process takes a large amount of time. "It has taken the
Department more than five years to hold 25 hearings covering approximately
two-thirds of the coastal wetlands in the state and to record final protec-
tive orders covering approximately one-third. "*
A coastal protective order consists of a written order accompanied by a map
outlining the protected wetlands. The orders outline uses which are allowed
without qualification, uses which are allowed subject to certain restrictions
and uses which are allowed only by special permit. The permit allows uses
with conditions or by special permit solely to maintain strict control over
any filling and dredging activity, not to control the location of uses. The
orders provide generally that "no person shall perform any act or use said
wetland in a manner which would destroy the natural vegetation of the wet-
land--or otherwise alter or permit the alteration of the natural and benefi-
cial character of the wetland. "**
The boundaries of the orders reflect negotiations with landowners. "Where
it seems clear to the Department that no economic use will remain for a given
parcel, and the owner is threatening to protest, the Department would probab-
ly alter the boundaries of the order to allow an economic use or exempt the
entire parcel from the order. "***
*Ibid., p. 209.
**Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Order No. 768-71 for the
town of Harwick.
***Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 212.
-101-
So far, very few landowners have raised objections. Only a few property
owners in an area covered by a proposed protection order even request an
on-site visit by a state official. These requests usually constitute only
about 5 per cent of the affected landowners.
The most important requests for on-site visits are from those who strongly
oppose the restrictions. Apparently, the Department has made very few
important concessions. "If a negotiated settlement acceptable to the owner
cannot be achieved, the difficult review procedure acts as an effective de-
terrent to continued objection in many cases. Consequently, the number of
formal objections that are eventually filed is very low."*
ASSESSMENT
The Department of Natural Resources does not have an investigative force to
ensure compliance with conditions or to supervise land under protective
orders. The Department has encouraged the public to notify the agency about
unauthorized projects. "There have been no reported complaints concerning
violations of protective orders under the Coastal Wetlands Act. With no com-
prehensive surveillance system, Department officials admit that they do not
know how accurately this reflects actual activities in the protected areas;
but they believe that it indicates general compliance."**
The private sector has also assisted in obtaining compliance with protective
orders. Many large financial institutions require developers to comply with
protective orders before they will grant a loan.
*Ibid., p. 213.
**Ibid., p. 225.
-102-
The coastal protective orders have apparently been effective. More than
two-thirds of the coastal wetlands are covered by protective orders, either
recorded or pending, and the major problem has been the large amount of time
required to issue the orders. "Satisfaction has been expressed by both
conservationists and the Department personnel that actual negotiations have
been required with only about 100 owners and that only one objection will
come to trial in the courts. 11*
DELAWARE
ADMINISTRATION
The Delaware Coastal Zone Act specifically seeks to prohibit new heavy indus-
try along the entire coast of the state. Heavy industry and various off-
shore facilities are entirely prohibited, and all other types of manufactur-
ing facilities must obtain a permit.
The Delaware legislature passed the Coastal Zone Act in 1971. It assigned
the administration of the act to the State Planning Office. The State Plan-
ner considers all requests for permits for manufacturing land uses. These
requests must be in writing and must include (1) evidence of approval by
the appropriate county or municipal zoning authorities, (2) a detailed des-
cription of the proposed manufacturing facility and (3) an environmental im-
pact statement. ** The State Planner must either grant, deny or modify the
permit within 90 days of receipt.
The Act also establishes a State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board. The
State Planner will propose to the Board a comprehensive plan and guidelines
concerning types of manufacturing uses deemed acceptable in the Coastal Zone.
*Ibid., p. 225.
**Volume 58, Law of Delaware, Chapter 175, Section 7005.
-103-
These plans and guidelines will become binding regulations upon adoption by
the Board after a public hearing. The Board can alter these regulations at
any time after a public hearing. *
The State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board has ten voting members.
The governor appoints five of these. The other five are the Secretary of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the Secretary of Community Af-
fairs and Economic Development and the planning commission chairman in each
of Delaware's three counties. No compensation is given to the Board members.
Any member with a conflict of interest in a matter under consideration by
the Board must disqualify himself.
The Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board hears appeals from decisions of
the State Planner. The Board can modify any permit, grant a permit which
has been denied, deny a permit or confirm a permit. Any appellant must
file his appeal within 14 days after the State Planner's decision. The Board
then must hold a hearing within 60 days. All hearings must be public.
Anyone who has appealed to the Board and is not satisfied with the Board's
decision may appeal to the superior court. The State Planner may also appeal
any modification of his decision to the superior court. The appeals to super-
ior court must be filed within 20 days after the Board's decision. The court
may affirm, modify or reverse the Board's ruling.
If the court determines that a permit's denial or restrictions imposed by a
granted permit is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation, the
Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
*Ibid.
**Ibid., Section 7006.
***Ibid., Section 7008.
-104-
may acquire fee simple or any lesser interests in the land through negotia-
tions or condemnation proceedings. The Secretary must use this authority
within five days after the courts ruling.*
The law empowers the Attorney General to issue a cease and desist order to
anyone violating the stipulations of the law. The cease and desist orders
expire 30 days after issuance, but the courts can then issue an injunction.
Anyone violating a provision of the act will be fined not more than $50,000
for each offense. If a prohibited activity is continued during any part of
a day, it will constitute a separate offense.
CONTROLS AND CRITERIA
The purpose of the Act is to control the location, extent and type of indus-
trial development in Delaware's coastal zone. The Act defines the coastal
zone as the area between the territorial limits of Delaware in the Delaware
River, Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean and a line formed by designated high-
ways and roads. The definition of this inland line is precisely indicated
in the law with each boundary road from the Pennsylvania state line to the
Maryland state line clearly indicated. **
The Coastal Zone Act prohibits heavy industry not in operation at the time
the law was enacted. It defines heavy industry as "a use characteristically
involving more than twenty acres, and characteristically employing some but
not necessarily all of such equipment such as, but not limited to, smoke
stacks, tanks, distillation or reaction volumns, chemical processing equipment
scrubbing towers, pickling equipment, and waste treatment lagoons; which in-
dustry, although conceivably operable without polluting the environment, has
*Ibid., Section 7009.
**Ibid., Section 7002.
-105-
the potential to pollute when equipment malfunctions or human error occurs. "*
This definition would include oil refineries, steel plants, chemical plants
and paper mills. Off-shore gas, liquid or solid bulk product transfer fac-
ilities are also prohibited in the coastal zone.
The act requires all other types of manufacturing facilities to obtain per-
mits to build new operation in the coastal zone. All non-conforming uses in
existence at the time of enactment are not prohibited. The law also requires
a permit for expansions or extensions of these non-conforming manufacturing
uses.
The State Planner and the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board are to
"consider" as opposed to mandatory, inflexible language in the initiative the
following factors in passing on permit requests:
(1) "Environmental impact, including but not limited to, probable
air and water pollution likely to be generated by the proposed use under
normal operating conditions as well as during mechanical malfunction and
human error; likely destruction of wetlands and flora and fauna; impact of
site preparation on drainage of the area in question, especially as it
relates to flood control; impact of site preparation and facility operations
on land erosion; effect of site preparation and facility operations on
the quality and quantity of surface ground and sub-surface water resources,
such as the use of water for processing, cooling, effluent removal, and other
purposes; in addition but not limited to, likelihood of generation of glare,
heat, noise, vibration, radiation, electro-magnetic interference and noxious
odors.
(2) "Economic effect, including the number of jobs created and the
*Ibid.
-106-
income which will be generated by the wages and salaries of these jobs in re-
lation to the amount of land required, and the amount of tax revenues poten-
tially accruing to the state and local government.
(3) "Aesthetic effect, such as impact on scenic beauty of the sur-
rounding area.
(4) "Number and type of supporting facilities required and the impact
of such facilities in all factors listed in this subsection.
(5) "Effect on neighboring land uses including, but not limited to ef-
fect on public access to tidal waters, effect on residential areas, and
effect on adjacent residential and agricultural areas.
(6) "County and municipal comprehensive plans for the development and/or
conservation of their areas of jurisdiction.
ASSESSMENT
Since the program's inception, there have been no appeals by heavy manufactur-
ing firms. Three light manufacturing firms have applied for permits; and all
three applications are still under consideration. The State Planner has ap-
parently received good cooperation from local agencies.
OTHER STATES WITH SELECTIVE CONTROLS
This type of control is used by a large number of states for a variety of
uses. States have enacted legislation for critical areas, coastal zones and
wetlands, power plant siting and other uses.
CRITICAL AREAS
New Jersey and New York have established multi-county areas which serve cri-
tical uses. In 1968, the New Jersey legislature passed the Hackensack Mead-
owlands Reclamation and Development Act. The Hackensack Meadowlands Development
*Ibid., Section 7004.
-107-
District is an 18,000 acre area which has remained undeveloped because of
low elevation and periodic flooding.
The act creates a commission to prepare and adopt a master plan. Local
codes will not apply within the Hackensack District unless they are consis-
tent with the master plan. The Commission is also authorized to provide solid
waste disposal facilities, and it may undertake its own reclamation or redevel-
opment projects. *
The New York legislature established the Adirondack Park Agency in 1971. The
agency is to develop a comprehensive plan for the private land within the
nearby six million acre park and to establish interim safeguards against
"improvident uses" of the parklands. "The master plan for private lands must
divide the park into areas and establish regulations to control the intensity
of land use and development in each area, including the type, character and
extent of development. The recommendations for implementation must include
specific legislative, administrative and budgetary recommendations for pri-
vate land and state action. Values to be protected include scenic and histor-
ic as well as ecological and natural. **
The agency must present the plan to the legislature in January 1973. Until
the plan is submitted, any developer must submit a project description.
After a public hearing, the agency can prohibit the development if it finds
that the project would have an adverse impact on the park. The prohibitions
continue in effect until January 1973. The interim regulations do not apply
to localities having zoning and subdivision control regulations.
*Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 293.
**Ibid., P. 297.
-108-
WETLAND AND SHORELAND LAWS
Laws governing the development in coastal areas, such as Massachusetts coastal
protection law, have been passed by over a dozen states in the past few
years. Most of these programs do not have sufficient experience to judge
their efficiency.
The North Carolina General Assembly enacted a shoreland protection measure
in 1971. The legislation contains several protective measures. A Board of
Water and Air Resources is authorized to set up and adopt regulations for
protection of shorelands in any county that has not done SO by the end of
1971. Anyone undertaking any excavation or filling project in estuarine
waters must obtain a permit from the Department of Conservation. The permit
review is based on the projects effect on:
(1) the use of water by the public;
(2) the value and enjoyment of the property of any riparian owners;
(3) public health, safety and welfare;
(4) the conservation of public and private water supplies; and
(5) wildlife or fresh water, estuarine or marine fisheries. *
In addition to the permit system, the Department of Conservation is em-
powered to regulate, restrict, or prohibit dredging, filling, removing or
otherwise altering coastal wetlands. The wetlands include contiguous land
as deemed necessary.
The Rhode Island legislature passed a shoreland protection system in January
1971. The act sets up a 15 member Coastal Resources Management Council
with responsibility for planning and management of the resources of the
coastal region. "Any person proposing development or operation within, above
*Ch. 113-229, General Statutes of North Carolina, Subsection (a).
-109-
or beneath the tidal water below the mean high tide mark must demonstrate
that the proposal doesn't conflict with any management plan or program, or
make the area unsuitable for the uses provided in the program, or damage the
environment of the coastal region. Regardless of their actual location, the
Council can approve, modify, set conditions for, or reject the design, location,
construction, alteration, and operation of specified activities or land uses
when these are related to a water area under the agency's jurisdiction. "*
Connecticut passed a law in 1969 that requires a permit from the Commissioner
of Agricultural and Natural Resources before any draining, filling, or any
other type of development can take place. "Under a 1971 amendment to the
above legislation, the Commissioner may temporarily designate an un-inven-
toried and unmapped area of wetland if he finds the area is in immediate
danger of being despoiled by any activity which would require a permit if
such area were designated a wetland. "**
Many states regulate a filling and dredging on wetlands. The Coastal Marsh-
lands Protection Act, passed by the Georgia legislature in 1970, requires
that no person can remove, fill, dredge, drain or alter any marshlands with-
out first obtaining a permit from the Coastal Marshlands Protection Agency.
Maryland prohibits dredging or filling on state wetlands without a license.
In addition, the Secretary of Natural resources has authority to establish
rules governing the dredging, filling or polluting of private wetlands.
"After inventorying private wetlands, holding hearings and promulgating reg-
ulations, any activity not permitted of right thereon is subject to a permit
application. "***
*Ibid., p. 305.
**Ibid.
***Ibid., p. 306.
-110-
The Washington legislature has passed two separate coastal management bills.
One will be selected in the state general election this fall. One of the
main differences between the two bills is the level of state control. One
bill would require the state to set up criteria for local plans and controls
and the other would require a state agency to draw up plans and controls for
shoreline areas.
POWER PLANT SITING
"Significant state activity has also occurred with respect to siting power
plants and regulation of utility transmission lines. "* Maryland, Vermont
and Wisconsin have laws through which they can control or directly influence
the location of power plants of any type. Washington has control over the
location of thermal power plants and Illinois and Oregon have laws relating
to siting of nuclear power plants. "New York's Siting and Operation of
Major Utility Transmission Facilities Law requires utilities to obtain an
environmental compatability certificate from the State before construction.
Also in New York a state authority is permitted under a 1965 law to acquire
and develop sites for future nuclear plants and then sell or lease them to
power producers. "**
STATEWIDE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS IN SELECTED AREAS
Several states have developed criteria for local decisions on particular
types of uses or in particular areas. These criteria are generally only
binding on local agencies if the local agency fails to act.
WISCONSIN
*Land Resource Policies and Programs, Pennsylvania State Planning Board,
August 1971, p. 22.
**Ibid.
-111-
ADMINISTRATION
Wisconsin's Water Resources Act of 1966 set up a pollution prevention and
abatement program that reorganized and strengthened the state's regulatory,
planning and coordinating functions in the area of water resources.* The
Water Resources Act treats shorelands as a management unit to minimize pollu-
tion and preserve natural beauty and wildlife assets. The Act requires
counties to enact regulations for the protection of all shorelands in unin-
corporated areas in order to II further the maintenance of safe and
healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning
grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of struc-
ture and land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty.
The Act states that is is in the public interest "to make studies, establish
policies, make plans and authorize municipal shoreland zoning regulations,
in order to give effect to the anti-pollution and preservation purposes
enumerated earlier "*** It empowers counties to enact separate zoning regu-
lations affecting all unincorporated land in their jurisdiction within 1,000
feet of a lake, pond or flowage and 300 feet of a navigable river or stream,
or the landward side of the flood plain, whichever distance is greater.
If a county does not adopt effective shoreland protection regulations, the
act authorizes the State Department of Natural Resources is authorized to
impose these regulations.
The Division of Environmental Protection in the Department of Natural Re-
sources has the responsibility for administering the act. The direct admin-
istration of the shoreland management program is under the Flood Plain and
Shoreland Management Section of the Bureau of Water and Shoreland Management.
*The section on Wisconsin is based on a chapter in The Quiet Revolution in
Land Use Control by Fred Bosselman and David Callies.
*Wisconsin Statutes Ann., Section 144.26 (1).
***Fred Bosselman and David Callies. op. cit., p. 236.
****Wisconsin Statutes Ann., Section 59.971 (1).
-112-
According to the act, the administration of the shoreland zoning regulations
should be in accordance with the normal zoning ordinance procedure for counties.
The Department of Natural Resources is to prepare criteria for the county
ordinances giving particular attention to: "Safe and healthful conditions
for the enjoyment of aquatic recreation, the demands of water traffic, boat-
ing, and water sports; the capability of the water resource; requirements nec-
essary to assure proper operation of septic tank disposal fields near naviga-
ble waters; building set backs from the water; preservation of shore
growth and cove; conservancy uses for low lying lands; shoreland layout for
residential and commercial development; suggested regulations and suggestions
for the effective administration and enforcement of such regulation. "*
If a county does not zone the shoreland corridors, the act provides a remedy
for the state. "If any county does not adopt an ordinance or if the De-
partment of Natural Resources, after notice and hearing determines that a
county has adopted an ordinance which fails to meet reasonable minimum stand-
ards in accomplishing the shoreland protection objectives of S. 144.26(1)
the Department of Natural Resources shall adopt such ordinance. "**
CONTROLS AND CRITERIA
The Division of Environmental Protection has published criteria to guide
counties in drawing up the shoreland zoning ordinances.
These criteria:
(1) "Require the establishment of appropriate districts to protect
shoreland areas: conservancy, recreational-residential, and general pur-
pose districts.
(2) "Require the establishment of subdivision regulations which must
prohibit any subdivision that:
*Ibid.
Ibid.
-113-
(a) Is likely to result in hazard to the health, safety and wel-
fare of future residents;
(b) Fails to maintain proper relation to adjoining areas;
(c) Does not provide public access to navigable waters, as re-
quired by law;
(d) Does not provide for adequate storm drainage facilities;
and,
(e) Violates any state law or administrative code provision.
(3) "Require establishment of land use regulations which:
(a) Set minimum lot sizes to protect the public against danger
to health from excessive pollution hazard;
(b) Govern building location in relation to health and beauty
preservation;
(c) Govern the cutting of trees and shrubbery; and,
(d) Govern filling, grading, lagooning and dredging.
(4) "Require the establishment of sanitary regulations for sewage dis-
posal and water supply systems.
(5) "Require adoption of certain administration and enforcement regu-
lations providing at least for:
(a) An administrator;
(b) A permit system;
(c) An exception procedure;
(d) A board of review.
The Bureau of Water and Shoreland Management has drawn up a Model Shoreland
Protection Ordinance based on the above criteria. "The Model Ordinance is
essentially a resource-oriented zoning ordinance, complete with districts,
*"Wisconsin's Shoreland Management Program" Release of the Department of
Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 2-3.
-114-
parking and loading provisions, exception procedures and lot size controls.
It is to supersede all county shoreland zoning accomplished by standard
county zoning enabling legislation with the exception of those portions
which are more restrictive than its provisions.
The regulatory scheme set up in the model ordinance may not achieve all the
intended results even if it is administered effectively. "Generalization
about the pollution contributions of various shoreland uses have proven to
be of little value, and insufficient data is available from which to formu-
late specific regulations for specific areas. For example, in the three-
district scheme suggested by the Model Ordinance, the conservancy district
regulations attempt broad control over land use on or near wetlands, but
the regulations may not be sufficiently comprehensive to accomplish the
intended preservation. **
ASSESSMENT
Before 1966, approximately four counties in Wisconsin had zoning administra-
tors with any natural resource orientation. As a result of the statutory
standards and Model Ordinance provisions, almost all counties have these ad-
ministrators.
Even though the Department has the authority to compel the adoption of shore-
land protection ordinances, it does not have any authority to enforce them.
The counties control day-to-day administration since there is not statutory
authorization for enforcement in the act. "There is some feeling in the De-
partment that the Act could profitably be amended to require at least Depart-
ment approval of variations and amendments to the ordinance. Presently the
Department is entitled only to notice of all variation and zoning change re-
quests. "***
*Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 241.
**Ibid., p. 252.
***Ibid., p. 245.
-115-
The county zoning administrators operate one-man offices typically, and
they are responsible for all zoning in the county. They must rely on
private complaints to inform them of violations to a large degree. Many
zoning administrators have made special efforts to inform the public about
the law.
Apparently legal action against known violators has been a difficult pro-
cedure under the act. The local District Attorney or County Counsel must
bring enforcement proceedings after the county Board of Supervisors recom-
mends prosecution. The county Boards may be reluctant to proceed against a
violator, and the County Counsels assign a law priority to zoning enforce-
ment. "As a result of these political and economic considerations, even
a conscientious zoning administrator may be unable to enforce the shoreland
regulations. "*
The Wisconsin Shoreland Protection Program places major responsibility for
the protection of shoreland resources at the county level with overall auth-
ority at the state level to compel compliance with minimum statutory stand-
ards. It is an attempt to establish a workable state-local relationship in
land use control. Minimum state standards place a "floor" under local con-
trols, thereby maintaining local control but at the same time ensuring that
the local controls are established.
Almost all counties have responded positively. However, the impact of the
legislation has not been comprehensive because cities and villages are ex-
cluded. This exemption allows major sources of pollution to continue.
"Finally, the lack of any compulsory review of local administrative prac-
tices could render the whole regulatory scheme ineffective. There is pres-
ently no way the State of Wisconsin can enforce the minimum standards contained
*Ibid., p. 251.
-116-
in its legislation and only additional experience in operation can indi-
cate whether county enforcement practices are adequate to achieve the goals
of the program.
FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATION
In April 1972, the State of Florida passed the Environmental Land and Water
Management Act. The concepts in this legislation are closely related to
those in two bills supporting state land use controls now under consideration
in Congress. **
The Environmental Land and Water Management Act enables the state government
to exercise a limited degree of control over development, while maintaining
the land use control procedures already in existence at the local level.
The focus of the state's role is on those land uses which have an impact out-
side of the municipality in which they are located.
The state land planning agency is empowered to recommend specific areas of
critical state concern to the governor and his cabinet. The agency must in-
clude the boundaries of the proposed area, state the reasons why the area is
of critical concern, the dangers that would result from uncontrolled develop-
ment of the area and the advantages that would be gained from coordinated de-
velopment of the area. The governor and his cabinet, known as the administra-
tion commission, must either reject, adopt or modify the recommendation with-
in 45 days.
The act specifies that an area of critical environmental concern may be de-
signated only for:
*Ibid., p. 255.
**These two bills are discussed in the section on the Federal Role.
-117-
(1) "An area containing, or having a significant impact upon environ-
mental, historical, natural, or archeological resources of regional or state-
wide importance; or
(2) "An area significantly affected by, or having a significant effect
upon, an existing or proposed major public facility or other area of major
public investment; or
(3) "A proposed area of major development potential, which may include
a proposed site of a new community, designated in a state land development
plan.
After the administrative commission designates an area of critical state con-
cern, the local government having jurisdiction over the area must submit its
regulations for the area to the state land planning agency. If the agency
determines that the local regulations are inadequate to protect the state
interest, it can institute judicial proceedings to compel proper enforcement
of the land development regulations.
If the local government does not send a set of regulations within six months,
the state land planning agency will draw up a set of regulations for that
area and submit them to the administrative commission for its approval. "The
land development regulations adopted by the administrative commission under
this section may include any type of regulation that could have been adopted
by the local government. Any land development regulations adopted by the ad-
ministrative commission under this section shall be administered by the local
government as if the regulations constituted, or were part of the local land
development regulations. "**
The act limits the total amount of land that the administrative commission
can designate as areas of critical state concern. During the first 12 months
after enactment of the legislation, the governor and his cabinet cannot
*Chapter 72-317, Laws of Florida, Section 5.
**Ibid.
110
designate more than 500,000 acres as areas of critical concern. In addition,
the commission cannot at any time include more than 5 per cent of the total
state area under this supervision.
The second major type of development control is the designation of develop-
ments of regional impact. Development of regional impact means "any develop-
ment which, because of its character, magnitude or location, would have a
substantial effect upon the health, safety or welfare of citizens of more
than one county. "*
The state land planning agency is to recommend guidelines and the administra-
tive commission is to adopt guidelines by March 1973.
CONTROLS AND CRITERIA
In adopting guidelines to determine whether particular developments have
regional impact, the administrative commission must consider:
(1) "The extent to which the development would create or alleviate
environmental problems such as air or water pollution or noise;
(2) "The amount of pedestrian or vehicular traffic likely to be
generated;
(3) "The number of persons likely to be residents, employees, or
otherwise present;
(4) "The size of the site to be occupied;
(5) "The likelihood that additional or subsidiary development will be
generated; and
(6) "The unique qualities of particular areas of the state. "**
The regulations defining categories of development that have regional impact
will be submitted to the next session of the legislature. The regulations
*Ibid., Section 6.
**Ibid.
110_
will take effect when they are approved by the legislature.
The local governments with zoning regulations will make decisions regarding
the acceptability of a proposed project. Developers must file applications
with local governments and the applications must include a statement that the
development will have regional impact. Local governments must give notice
of public hearings and must notify the state land planning agency about the
proposed development.
In considering the developer's request, the local government must consider
whether:
(1) "The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement
of the objectives of an adopted state land development plan applicable to
the area;
(2) The development is consistent with the local land development
regulations; and
(3) The development is consistent with the report and recommendations
of the regional planning agency.
The administrative commission, made up of the governor and his cabinet, can
serve as the land and water adjudicatory commission. Whenever a local govern-
ment issues any development order in an area of critical state concern or
on a development of regional impact, it must send a copy of the order to the
state land planning agency.
The owner, developer, the appropriate regional planning agency or the state
land planning agency may appeal the order to the land and water adjudicatory
*Ibid.
-120-
commission within 30 days after the order. After the commission has held
a public hearing, it will issue a decision granting or denying permission
to undertake the development. Decisions of the commission are subject to
judicial review.
The act specifically protects individual property rights. "Nothing in this
act authorizes any governmental agency to adopt a rule or regulation or
issue any order that is unduly restrictive or constitutes a taking of pro-
perty without the payment of full compensation "* Apparently, the act is
seeking to avoid any taking of property and no funds have been appropriated
for compensation purposes.
ASSESSMENT
The legislation is SO recent that it is difficult to assess the implementa-
tion of the act on a day-to-day basis. However, the act is quite important
because it is based on the concepts used in land use legislation currently
before Congress. If Congress passes this legislation (S 632 and HR 7211),
the federal government would offer financial support to states for develop-
ment and administration of land use controls. To receive the federal support,
the states would be required to pass legislation very similar to Florida's
Environmental Land and Water Management Act. **
At this time, the Florida legislation appears to be an effective approach to
land use controls. It preserves the local powers but enables the state to
establish standards for important areas. It cannot be used as a stop-growth
tool because the areas designated for state criteria cannot exceed 5 per cent
of the total state area. Finally, it establishes limited objectives which
the state is capable of achieving.
*Ibid., Section 7.
**The proposed federal legislation requires states to develop land use pro-
grams for areas of critical environmental concern, key facility developments
of regional benefit and large-scale developments.
-121-
SUMMARY - STATE APPROACHES TO LAND USE CONTROL
CLASSIFI-
PROGRAM
CONTROLS AND
CATION
DESCRIPTION
ADMINISTRATION
CRITERIA
STATE ROLE
LOCAL ROLE
ASSESSMENT
DIRECT
STATEWIDE
CONTROL
Hawaii
Centralized
State Land Use Com-
Urban-Intensive Dev-
The Commission de-
Counties have con-
Land Use Commission
State control.
mission composed of
elopment. Districts
signates boundaries
current permit ap-
performance in pla-
State divided
7 public members
include enough land
& approves develop-
proval authority
nning & enforcement
into four Dis-
plus Directors of
for 10 years growth.
ment permits in urb-
with State in urban
has been limited
tricts of urb-
Land & Natural Re-
an districts. Com-
areas. Urban use
Rural-Low density
primarily due to
an, rural, ag-
sources and Planning
mission also has
permits guided by
staff size & budget
residential develop-
ricultural &
& Economic Develop-
ment. Minimum 1/2
primary jurisdiction
county regulations.
restrictions.
conservation.
ment.
acre lots.
over agriculture &
County can zone port
Tax policies & land
rural districts de-
Nominal Planning cap-
Agriculture-Crop,
tion of an urban
use policies often
ciding on boundary
ability. Designates
district for agri-
in conflict resul-
grazing land and ag-
changes & special
boundaries of Dis-
riculturally-orien-
cultural use.
ting in contradic-
permits.
tricts.
ted industry.
tory results.
Department of Land &
Conservation-Forest
Commission policies
Natural Resources
and Water Reserve
have prevented urb-
has sole regulation
Zones 2/3 publically
an sprawl but has
over land use in con-
owned. 1/3 private
contributed to a
servation districts.
in primarily moun-
shortage of land &
tainous areas. Divid-
forced development
ed into subzones of
where site improve-
restricted & general
ment costs are high
use. General use in-
A consequence has
cludes residences,
been housing costs
resorts, hotels, golf
double the nation-
courses & marinas.
al average.
Land use decisions
not closely tied
to the State Plan-
ning process.
-122-
CLASSIFI-
PROGRAM
CONTROLS AND
CATION
DESCRIPTION
ADMINISTRATION
CRITERIA
STATE ROLE
LOCAL ROLE
ASSESSMENT
Vermont
Statewide land
Environmental Board
Permits required for
Permit applications
Permit applicant is
Administration of
use planning &
(nine members ap-
subdivisions of 10
filed with district
required to give
land troubled by
pointed by Governor)
or more lots & for
commissions.
permit system
notice to municipal
exemptions often
designed to
& nine District Com-
commercial & indus-
State Agency of En-
ity where land lo-
inconsistent with
promote envir-
missions (3 members)
trial developments.
vironmental Conser-
cated and regional
stated objectives.
onmental objec-
administer the Act.
Permit process focus
vation reviews all
planning commission
History of little
tives as well
Board sets policy &
primarily upon sub-
permit applications
local zoning in
as social &
serves in quasi-jud-
division develop-
& files pre-hearing
Vermont. Some pro-
economic goals
icial fashion in re-
ments and are con-
position paper with
visions of law give
view of commission
cerned with water &
Commission.
incentive to local
Vermont
decisions. Commis-
air pollution, flood
Environmental Board
areas to improve
(Cont.)
sion provides de-
plains, erosion, ad-
prepares land use
this capability.
tailed administra-
equate water supply,
plans and reviews
Although planning
tion.
highway congestion,
permit decisions ap-
features are weak,
burden on municipal
pealed from commis-
the law has contri-
services & adverse
sions.
buted to an en-
scenic effects.
hanced planning
Planning Guidelines:
capability at the
state level.
Interim plans-des-
cribes present land
uses & natural re-
sources.
Capability & Devel-
opment Plans-guide
to efficient & ec-
onomic development
of state including
distribution of pop-
ulation and land
uses.
Land Use Plans-a map
indicating results
of capability & de-
velopment plan.
-123-
CLASSIFI-
PROGRAM
CONTROLS AND
CATION
DESCRIPTION
ADMINISTRATION
CRITERIA
STATE ROLE
LOCAL ROLE
ASSESSMENT
Maine
Statewide land
Environmental Im-
Commission requires
State Commission has
Minimal.
Limited permit re
use controls
provement Commission
permit for 1) com-
complete authority
view & regulation
regulating land
has full control ov-
mercial or industri-
in stated regulatory
enforcement capa-
developments of
er program.
al developments of
areas.
bility because of
more than 20
20 acres or more,
small budget &
10 members appointed
acres.
2) a development wh-
staff.
by the Governor -
ich includes drill-
Representation of
The program does
ing or excavating of
interests as follows
not have a meanin-
natural resources.
ful planning com-
2 - Manufacturing
State's major indus-
ponent.
2 - Municipalities
try-logging-is ex-
Commission's pri-
2 - Conservation
empted.
mary work load ha:
2 - Public
Act includes indus-
been that of pro-
2 - Air Pollution
trial facilities,
cessing permits fo:
Experts
shopping centers &
residential subdi
large housing devel-
visions.
opments.
TATEWIDE
RITERIA AND
TANDARDS
:olorado
Colorado Land
State Land Use Com-
Commission to devel-
Counties have pri-
Provides for stror
State guidelines &
op Interim & Final
mary authority for
state leadership i
Use Act provides
mission - nine mem-
criteria regulating
for state agency
bers.
flood plains and
Plans of State Devel
direct land use con
establishing guide
planning, devel-
critical areas for
opment Policy, land
trol function.
lines, criteria &
Commission Advisory
opment of guide-
conservation & rec-
use standards &
Each county requir-
identification of
Committee comprised
areas of critical
lines & criter-
reation.
guidelines, model
ed to create plan-
of members from com-
ia for local a-
subdivision regula-
ning commissions &
concern.
merce & industry,
Subdivision regu-
gencies, moni-
tions for the coun-
maintain building
agriculture, conser-
lation and stand-
Maintain on-going
toring of grow-
ties, a statewide
permits, improve-
vation, natural re-
ards relating to
planning & permit
th, identifica-
system for monitor-
ment notices for
function at local
sources & 4 members
adequacy of sewer
tion of envir-
ing growth & change,
jurisdiction and
level but ensures
of the General As-
& water system.
onmental con-
identification of
promulgate techni-
assertive state
sembly.
cerns and auth-
environmental con-
cal procedures ap-
role by providing
ority to res-
cerns related to de-
plicable to drain-
for commission moi
train develop-
velopment & a review
age, sewer & water
-124-
itoring & followu
ment activity.
of existing land use
systems.
in areas of criti
CLASSIFI-
PROGRAM
CONTROLS AND
CATION
DESCRIPTION
ADMINISTRATION
CRITERIA
STATE ROLE
LOCAL ROLE
ASSESSMENT
policies & programs.
cal concern when
Colorado
Injunctive authority
local agencies ar
(Cont.)
upon court approval,
not responsive.
to restrain devel-
A major motivatio
opment activity.
for program was
concern for secon.
home developments
& impact of 1976
Winter Olympics.
Program has only
recently been ini
tiated.
DIRECT STATE
VIDE CONTROL
SELECTED
AREAS
Massachu-
Coastal Wetlands
State Department of
Protective Orders
Department of Nat-
Local agencies con-
State has held 25
setts
Act limits dev-
Natural Resources.
(conservation re-
ural Resources has
sulted only.
hearings in 5 yea
elopments for
strictions) are is-
broad powers defin-
covering 2/3 of
preservation of
sued to prohibit
ing coastal wetlands
coastal wetlands.
coastal wetlan-
any alteration of
promulgating control
Protective orders
ds necessary for
coastal wetlands
regulations, holding
finally recorded
protection of
except under care-
hearings & issuing
or pending for mo:
shell fish &
fully controlled
orders.
of this area.
marine fisher-
circumstances.
Department does n
ies.
Orders stipulate
have investigative
uses allowed for
force to ensure
designated wetland
compliance with
and are filed as
protective orders
an actual restric-
Major problem has
tion on use on the
been the amount O:
title of a parti-
time required to
cular property.
issue orders.
-125-
LASSIFI-
PROGRAM
CONTROLS AND
DESCRIPTION
ADMINISTRATION
CRITERIA
STATE ROLE
LOCAL ROLE
ASSESSMENT
elaware
Coastal Zone
State Planning Office
The Act prohibits
The state planning
Minor
Program only rec-
Act seeks to
(permit authority)
heavy industry not
office administers
ently enacted.
prohibit new
Coastal Zone Indus-
in operation at the
permit program and
heavy industry
trial Control Board
time the law was
proposes a compre-
along entire
(plans & guidelines)
enacted. Heavy in-
hensive plan & guid-
coast.
Comprised of 10 mem-
dustry definition
elines to Board for
bers:
would include oil
approval.
refineries, steel
-5 appointed by Gov-
The Board adopts
plants, chemical
ernor
plans & guidelines
-5 appointed by the
plants, paper mills
which become binding
Secretaries of Nat-
& off-shore gas,
as regulations. The
liquid or solid
ural Resources &
Board hears appeals
Environmental Con-
bulk product trans-
from decisions by
fer facilities.
trol & Community Af-
the State Planner.
fairs & Economic De-
Permits are required
velopment and the
for other types of
planning commission
manufacturing fac-
chairman in each of
ilities and for ex-
the State's 3 coun-
pansion of noncon-
ties.
forming manufactur-
ing uses.
Permit requests are
evaluated accord-
ing to environmen-
tal impact, econ-
omic effect, effect
on neighboring land
use and local com-
prehensive plans
for development &
conservation.
-126-
CLASSIFI-
PROGRAM
CONTROLS AND
CATION
DESCRIPTION
ADMINISTRATION
CRITERIA
STATE ROLE
LOCAL ROLE
ASSESSMENT
TATEWIDE
TANDARDS IN
ELECTED
REAS
isconsin
Water Resources
The Division of En-
Establishes shore-
State provides guide
The counties are ret
Represents an at-
Act established
vironmental Protec-
land zoning dis-
lines & evaluates
quired to adopt
tempt to estab-
a pollution pr-
tion in the Depart-
tricts for conser-
county zoning accor-
zoning restrictions
lish a workable
evention & ab-
ment of Natural Re-
vation, recreation-
ding to model ordi-
according to a mod-
state-local re-
atement program
sources administers
residential, & gen-
nances.
el resource-orient-
lationship in lan.
for water re-
the Act with the
eral purposes.
ed zoning ordinance
use control: min-
In the event of non-
sources & trea-
shoreland manage-
imum state stand-
Establishes regula-
compliance, the De-
Cities & villages
ts shorelands
ment program under
ards within local
tions controlling
partment of Natural
are excluded from
as a management
the flood plain and
controls.
subdivisions & gen-
Resources adopts an
the Act.
unit for con-
shoreland manage-
eral land use re-
ordinance for the
Impact limited by
trol.
ment section of the
quirements.
local area.
exclusion of cit-
Bureau of Water &
ies & villages.
Shoreland Manage-
ment.
lorida
Environmental
Administrative com-
Areas of critical
Administrative Com-
Local agencies hav-
Very similar to
Land & Water
mission comprised
environmental con-
mission designates
ing jurisdiction
proposed federal
Management Act
of Governor & his
cern may be desig-
critical areas based
over areas of criti-
legislation which
controls land
cabinet in conjunc-
nated if a) are of
upon state planning
cal state concern
emphasizes state
use for areas
tion with the State
significant envir-
recommendations.
must protect state
leadership by
of critical
Land Planning Agen-
onmental, histori-
concern by land use
planning guide-
Reviews & evaluates
cy.
cal, natural or ar-
regulations.
lines & criteria
environmental
adequacy of local
concern.
cheological impor-
with specific
regulations.
Local agencies im-
tance; b) is affec-
local control.
plement permit pro-
ted by existing or
Recommends regula-
cess for regional
proposed major pub-
tions to legislature
development.
lic facility or
for control of de-
public investment;
velopment of major
c) is of major de-
regional impact.
velopment poten-
Commission serves in
tial.
adjudicatory role
State criteria can-
in hearing permit
-127-
not exceed 5% of
appeals.
total state area.
CURRENT PROGRAMS [CALIF.]
THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCTION
THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCTION
Land use in California is principally the responsibility of local agencies.
Cities and counties are responsible for planning and zoning, and for con-
trolling the design and improvement of subdivisions.
Historically, this responsibility has been exercised by cities and count-
ies on an individual basis. During the past decade, however, cities and
counties, particularly in urban areas, have increasingly joined together in
order to devise a regional approach to land use planning. Although control
over land use continues to be exercised principally by individual cities and
counties, there are a growing number of single-purpose and broader regional
agencies concerned with planning and regulating land use.
The State is also concerned with land use. Historically, its concern has been
limited to lands owned by the State, and the regulation of subdivisions from
the standpoint of protecting the public from fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.
More recently, however, the interest of the State in comprehensive physical land
use planning and control has increased, particularly in response to the problems
facing urban areas. This interest has resulted in new State activites in the
area of land use generally, as well as in areas of particular importance such
as the coastal zone. It has also resulted in additional legislation defining
and, to some extent, restricting the authority of local agencies in this regard.
In order to place the current authority and activity of local, regional, and
State agencies in perspective, as it pertains to land use in the coastal zone,
the authority and related programs of each of these agencies has been summar-
ized below.
-128-
CITIES AND COUNTIES
AUTHORITY
PLANNING
California law requires the legislative body of each city and county to
establish a planning agency by ordinance. The planning agency may be a
planning department, a planning commission, the legislative body itself,
or any combination thereof. Counties must have a planning commission.
The functions of the planning agency are as follows:
(a) It shall develop and maintain a general plan.
(b) It shall develop such specific plans as may be necessary or desirable.
(c) It shall periodically review the capital improvement program of the
city or county.
(d) It shall perform such other functions as the city or county may provide.
When a city or county planning commission is created, its organization, num-
ber of members, their terms of office and the method of the appointment and
removal, must be provided by local ordinance. However, each city and county
planning commission must have at least five, and not more than nine, members.
Each planning agency must prepare, and the legislative body of each city and
county must adopt, a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical
development of the city or county, and of any land outside its boundaries
which in the planning agency's judgement bears relation to its planning. State
law provides that the general plan must consist of a statement of development
policies, and shall include the following mandatory elements:
(a) A land use element which designates the proposed general distribution
and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing,
business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources,
-129-
recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings
and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other
categories of public and private uses of land. The land use element
shall include a statement of the standards of the population density and
building intensity recommended for the various districts and other
territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall also identify
areas covered by the plan which are subject to flooding and shall be
reviewed annually with respect to such areas.
(b) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of
existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transporation routes, ter-
minals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated
with the land use element of the plan.
(c) A housing element consisting of standards and plans for the improvement
of housing and for provision of adequate sites for housing. This element
of the plan must make adequate provision for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community.
(d) A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization
of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests,
soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals
and other natural resources. That portion of the conservation element
including waters must be developed in coordination with any county-wide
water agency and with all district and city agencies which have developed,
served, controlled or conserved water for any purpose for the county or
city for which the plan is prepared. The conservation element may also
cover:
(1) The reclamation of land and waters.
(2) Flood control.
(3) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters.
-130-
(4) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas
required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.
(5) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches
and shores.
(6) Protection of watersheds.
(7) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel
resources.
(e) An open space element.
(f) A seismic safety element consisting of an identification and appraisal
of seismic efforts such as susceptibility to surface ruptures from
faulting, to ground shaking, to ground failures, or to effects of seis-
mically induced waves such as tsunamis and seiches.
(g) A noise element in quantitative, numerical terms, showing contours of
present and projected noise levels associated with all existing and pro-
posed major transportation elements. These include but are not limited
to the following:
(1) Highways and freeways
(2) Ground rapid transit systems
(3) Ground facilities associated with all airports operating under a
permit from the State Department of Aeronautics.
(h) A scenic highway element for the development, establishment, and protec-
tion of scenic highways.
In addition to the mandatory elements listed above, statutory authority exists
for a number of permissive elements.
The planning agency may, or if directed by the legislative body shall, prepare
specific plans based on the general plan. A specific plan need not apply to the
entire area covered by the general plan. Rather, the legislative body or the
-131-
planning agency may designate areas within a city or county for which the
development of a specific plan will be helpful in terms of implementing the
general plan. According to State law, such specific plans shall include all
detailed regulations, conditions, programs and proposed legislation which
shall be necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of each
element of the general plan, including, but not limited to, regulations,
conditions, programs and proposed legislation in regard to the following:
(a) The location of housing, business, industry, open space, agriculture,
recreation facilities, educational facilities, churches and related
religious facilities, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid
waste disposal facilities, together with regulations establishing height,
bulk and set-back limits for such buildings and facilities, including
the location of areas, such as flood plains or excessively steep or un-
stable terrain, where no building will be permitted in the absence of
adequate precautionary measures being taken to reduce the level of risk
to that comparable with adjoining and surrounding areas.
(b) The location and extent of existing or proposed streets and roads and
all other transportation facilities.
(c) Standards for population density and building density.
(d) Standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural
resources, including underground and surface waters, forests, vegetation
and soils, rivers, creeks, and streams, and fish and wildlife resources.
Such standards shall include, where applicable, procedures for flood
control, for prevention and control of pollution of rivers, streams,
creeks and other waters, regulation of land use in stream channels and
other areas which may have a significant effect on fish, wildlife and
other natural resources of the area, the prevention, control and correction
-132-
of soil erosion caused by subdivision roads or any other sources, and
the protection of watershed areas.
(e) The implementation of the open space element.
ZONING
As a means of implementing the general plan, cities and counties may regulate
land use through zoning. Through zoning, the legislative body of a city or
county may:
(a) Regulate the use of buildings, structures and land as between industry,
business, residence, open space, including agriculture, recreation, en-
joyment of scenic beauty and use of natural resources, and other purposes.
(b) Regulate signs and billboards.
(c) Regulate location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings
and structures; the size and use of lots, yards, courts and other open
spaces; the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or
structure; the intensity of land use.
(d) Establish requirements for off-street parking and street loading.
(e) Establish and maintain building set-back lines.
(f) Create civic districts around civic centers, public parks, public build-
ings or public grounds and establish regulations therefore.
In addition to regulating the use of land through zoning, the legislative
body may divide a city or a county, or portions thereof, into zones of the
number, shape and area it deems best. Regulations shall be uniform within
each zone, but may vary between zones.
A city may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the city for the purpose
of determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of
subsequent annexation to the city.
City and county zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan
-133-
of the respective city or county by January 1, 1973.
In addition to a planning commission, the legislative body of a city or county
may create a board of zoning adjustment, or the office of zoning administrator
or both. It may also create a board of appeals. The board of zoning adjust-
ment or zoning administrator decide applications for conditional uses and
applications for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance. State
law provides that variances shall be granted only under the following conditions:
(a) Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only
when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, in-
cluding size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
(b) Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure
that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other pro-
perties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
(c) A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes
a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone
regulation governing the parcel of property.
The statutes contain numberous procedural requirements associated with the
various planning and zoning provisions. With respect to zoning, minimum pro-
cedures for the conduct of zoning hearings are:
(a) All local city and county zoning agencies shall develop and publish
procedural rules for conduct of their hearings SO that all interested
parties shall have advance knowledge of procedures to be followed.
-134-
(b) When a matter is contested and a request is made in writing prior to
the date of the hearing, all local city and county planning agencies
shall insure that a record of all such hearings shall be made.
(c) When a planning staff report exists, such report shall be made public
prior to or at the beginning of the hearing and shall be a matter of
public record.
(d) When any hearing is held on an application for a change of zone for
parcels of at least ten acres, a staff report with recommendations and
the basis for such recommendations shall be included in the record of
the hearing.
OPEN SPACE PLANNING
As indicated above, cities must prepare an open space element as a part of
their comprehensive land use plan. In this regard, the legislature has pro-
vided that in order to conform with this requirement, cities and counties must,
by June 30, 1973, prepare, adopt and submit to the Secretary of the Resources
Agency a local open space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preserva-
tion and conservation of open space land within its jurisdiction.
Every local open space plan shall contain an action program consisting of
specific programs which the legislative body intends to pursue in implementing
its open space plan. Any action by a city or county by which open space land
or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or
regulated must be consistent with the local open space plan. No building
permit may be issued, no subdivision map approved, and no open space zoning
ordinance adopted, unless the proposed construction, subdivision or ordinance
is consistent with the local open space plan.
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
State law assigns the responsibility for control of the design and improvement
-135-
of subdivisions to cities and counties, and provides that every city and
county must have an ordinance regulating and controlling the design and im-
provement of subdivisions.
Subdivision is defined generally to be the division of land for the purpose
of sale, lease, or financing, whether immediate or future, by any subdivider
into five or more parcels. While the definition of subdivision relates to
five lots or more, there is nothing in the statutes preventing the governing
body of any city or county from regulating the division of land which is not
a subdivision provided that such regulations are not more restrictive than the
requirements for a subdivision. State law does provide that whenever a local
ordinance requires improvements for a division of land which is not a subdivis-
ion of five or more lots, such regulation shall be limited to the dedication
of right-of-way, easements, and the construction of reasonable off-site
improvements for the parcels being created.
Historically, the authority of cities and counties has extended only to con-
trolling the "design" and "improvement" of subdivisions. This authority
includes the ability to require subdividers to improve their property in cer-
tain ways, dedicate land for certain purposes, and pay fees in lieu of certain
improvements and/or dedications as a condition for approval of tentative or
final subdivision maps. The statutes require any consideration of the design
and improvement of subdivisions to be technical in nature. Thus, cities have
traditionally been required to approve a proposed subdivision if it met appro-
priate State standards and local zoning regulations unless the proposal con-
tained certain engineering-type defects pertaining to areas such as drainage
or flood control.
-136-
State law now provides, however, that a governing body of a city or county
shall deny approval of a final or tentative subdivision map if it makes any
of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not con-
sistent with applicable general and specific plan.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely
to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will con-
flict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection,
the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate ease-
ments, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired bv the nublic.
Although it is not clear the extent to which this new language will permit a
local agency to deny a subdivision for "environmental" reasons, the increasing
interest of the State in this regard is also evident in the following provisions
which have been added to the Subdivision Map Act in the last year or two:
Upon the filing of the tentative map
the advisory agency or the
governing body may submit the tentative map to the Office of Inter-
governmental Management
and request an evaluation of the environ-
mental impact of the proposed subdivision. No city or county shall
-137-
approve either the tentative or the final map of any subdivision
fronting upon the coastline or shoreline which subdivision does not pro-
vide or have available reasonable public access by fee or easement
from public highways to land below the ordinary high water mark on any
ocean coastline or bayshore line within or at a reasonable distance
from the subdivision. The city or county in which the subdivision
lies is required to determine what constitutes reasonable public access,
and the statutes provide that they shall consider such things as (1)
access may be by highway, foot trail, bike trail, horse trail, or any
other means of travel; (2) the size of the subdivision; (3) the type of
coastline or shoreline and the various appropriate recreational, edu-
cational, and scientific uses, including, but not limited to, diving,
sunbathing, surfing, walking, swimming, fishing, beachcombing, taking
of shellfish and scientific exploration.
No city or county shall approve either the tentative or final map of
any subdivision fronting upon any lake or reservoir which is owned
in part or entirely by any public agency including the State, which
subdivision does not provide or have available reasonable access by
fee or easement from public highways to any water of the lake or res-
ervoir upon which the subdivision borders either within the subdivision
or a reasonable distance from the subdivision.
In addition, the concern of the legislature over the "environmental impact"
of subdivisions can be seen in new statutory provisions relating to "rural
subdivisions". Rural subdivisions, or "land projects", as they are defined
in State law, are also regulated by the State Real Estate Commissioner who
is principally concerned with the development of all land from the stand-
point of protecting the public from fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.
A rural subdivision is defined as a project comprising fifty or more parcels
in an area with less than 1500 registered voters and not consisting of a
community apartment project or improved with residential, commercial, or in-
stitutional buildings.
The Commissioner is prohibited from issuing a public report ( a requirement
for project authorization) on any rural subdivision, unless he makes a spe-
cific finding that:
(a) The total complex of existing or proposed improvements reflected in the
subdivision offering (including storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water
-138-
systems, roads, utilities, community facilities, recreational amenities)
will be adequate to serve the projected population of the entire land
project.
(b) The arrangements that have been made to assure completion, maintenance
and financing of the total complex of existing or proposed improvements
referred to above are reasonable. In determining the reasonableness of
such arrangements, the Commissioner shall consider whether the probable
continuing financial burden with respect to the financing of completion
and maintenance of improvements within the subdivision bears a reasonable
relationship to the value of the lots therein.
(c) The off-site and on-site measures, including the overall design of the
entire rural subdivision, are adequate to prevent damage to property by
reason of flooding, erosion and other natural occurrences which are usual
or predictable for the area.
(d) The method of financing the purchase of individual parcels or lots, in-
cluding the effect of balloon payments, is reasonable.
(e) The existing zoning, or any change in zoning that has been proposed to
the local governing body, is compatible with the proposed use of the lots
within the land project.
(f) The use, or zoning, of adjacent properties is compatible with the proposed
land project.
RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT
State law provides that a city council may create an urban renewal or redevel-
opment agency for purposes of planning for and improving "substandard and
blighted" areas. The agency can be organized separate from the city council
or the council may also elect to sit as the redevelopment agency. Special
financing for redevelopment projects through the issuance of tax allocation
-139-
or tax increment bonds is authorized in both the State Constitution and State
statutes. Legislation also permits open space areas to be included within
redevelopment areas, thus permitting the use of tax allocation bonds to finance
such open space areas.
ANNEXATION
Provisions exist in State law for the annexation of inhabited and uninhabited
land areas to the city.
An inhabited area (defined as having twelve registered voters, regardless of
the land area involved) can only be annexed on petition of residents of the
area. Once petitions have been circulated and sufficient signatures obtained,
the proposal may be defeated before an election is held if protests are made
by residents owning fifty percent of the assessed value of land in the area
proposed for annexation. If not "protested out", the measure must obtain a
majority vote at an election called for that purpose.
Proceedings for the annexation of land in uninhabited areas may be initiated by
the city council or owners of twenty-five percent of the land by area and
assessed value. There is no election in an uninhabited annexation, but the
proceedings may be defeated if the owners of fifty percent of the assessed
value of land and improvements formally object.
The procedural problems, the inability of a city to initiate in inhabited
areas, the difficulty of annexing and servicing unincorporated islands surround-
ed by municipal territory, and the unusual veto power in both inhabited and
uninhabited annexations have made the effective use of these statutes difficult.
PROGRAM
GENERAL PLANNING PROGRAMS
According to the State Council On Intergovernmental Relations, every county
-140-
and all but eleven cities have planning commissions. In most of the smaller
jurisdictions of the State, the planning commission is the primary planning
agency. In larger cities and counties, however, the planning responsibility
is shared between a planning commission and a planning department.
Virtually all cities over twenty-five thousand population, and most counties,
have a full time professional planner. Ninety-five (95) percent of those
local jurisdictions under five thousand population are withour a full time
planner, as are seventy-five percent of those between five thousand-ten
thousand population. However, many of these smaller jurisdictions have
retained the services of a planning consultant.
In addition to having a full time professional planner, many larger juris-
dictions also employ other professional and semi-professional planning per-
sonnel. The full time planning staff of cities and counties is summarized
in the following table:
Population
Professional Staff
Tech-Clerical Staff
0-4,999
9
11
5,000-9,999
15
20
10,000-24,999
109
90
25,000-49,999
149
106
50,000-99,999
214
155
100,000-249,999
198
172
250,000-over
748
534
Total
1442
1088
The State planning law permits cities and counties to supplement the efforts
of planning commissions and full-time planning staff with one or more additional
bodies who are principally concerned with zoning administration. In this regard,
-141-
fifty-two zoning boards of adjustment have been created in forty-two cities
and ten counties. The position of zoning administrator has been established
in one hundred twenty-four cities and twenty counties. Separate boards of
appeal to hear appeals from the decisions of the zoning board or administrator
have been established in twenty-five cities and six counties.
The large and growing commitment of individual cities and counties to land use
planning may be seen in the amounts budgeted for this purpose. In 1969-70,
California cities and counties reported planning expenditures totaling
$29,898,600 dollars, and proposed planning budgets for 1970-71 totaled
$36,298,100, an increase of approximately 18%. An indication of local agency
planning expenditures by city size is included in the following table:
Population
Planning Exp. 1969-70
Planning Bud. 1970-71
0-4,999
248,400
465,700
5,000-9,999
313,600
409,700
10,000-24,999
2,565,300
3,045,000
25,000-49,999
3,250,200
3,718,600
50,000-99,999
4,541,300
4,730,400
100,000-249,999
4,553,600
5.012,200
250,000-over
14,426,2002
18,916,500
Total
29,898,600
36,298,100
State statutes requires cities and counties to adopt a comprehensive long-
term general plan for the physical development of the county or city. Over
eighty percent of all cities and counties, and approximately ninety percent
of those over five thousand population, have adopted such a general plan.
Neither the general plans nor the special plans adopted by local legislative
bodies are legally binding. Rather, these plans must be implemented through
-142-
the adoption of additional local legislation aimed at regulating a partic-
ular aspect of land use. The broadest and most common method of regulation
used by local agencies is the zoning ordinance. Ninety-five (95) percent of
all cities and counties presently have a zoning ordinance. Other regulatory
ordinances commonly adopted by cities and counties as a means of implementing
their general and other special land use plans include:
Lot Split Ordinance
Hillside Subdivision Ordinance
Planned Unit Development Ordinance
Building Code
Housing Code
Plumbing Code
Electrical Code
Mechanical Code
Sign Ordinance
Underground Utility Ordinance
Architectural Review Board
Historic District Ordinance
Flood Plain Zoning
Airport Approach Zoning
Mobile Home Regulatory Ordinance
SPECIAL PLANNING PROGRAMS
In addition to the general administration of their planning program, cities
and counties along the shoreline have undertaken a number of additional pro-
grams designed to control development, provide public access and, in general
to encourage full and balanced preservation and use of coastal resources.
Some of the additional activities include:
-143-
PREPARATION OF SPECIAL BEACH, WATERFRONT, OR COASTAL PLANS
A number of cities and counties along the shoreline have specialized plans
relating particularly to coastal land use.
Monterey County has a dopted a special coastal master plan aimed at conserving
open space and preserving the scenery of the Monterey coastal area "without
imposing unjustifiable restrictions on present or future property owners".
The plan is concerned broadly with land use, density, and overall development,
and includes specific standards for development such as:
"that property owners be encouraged to keep their land in agri-
cultural or open use with the necessary zoning provided to give them
all tax benefits available."
"designate Highway One as a scenic highway, giving it the same care-
ful consideration as the landscape through which it passes, in effect,
a scenic corridor.'
"that turn-out areas be developed wherever practicable."
"that a one hundred foot building set-back line be established along
the entire length of Highway One."
"that the meander line be retained to define that area which is
visible from the highway. Special architectural, site, and land-
scaping control should be developed between this line and the ocean.
Careful consideration should be given to private roads, minimizing
scars which might be created by cut and fill operations."
"careful consideration must be given to height control on the ocean
side of Highway One, recognizing that in many places, because of ter-
rain, this may not be a problem. In others, structures may be ob-
trusive unless flexible standards are developed."
"wherever feasible, utilities in this area should be placed underground."
"that beaches be proposed for acquisition in keeping with the adopted
beach acquisition plan of the county."
ADOPTION OF SPECIAL ZONING ORDINANCES FOR THE COASTAL ZONE
A number of cities and counties have imposed low density zoning along the
coastline in order to better regulate and, in effect, discourage development
in undeveloped coastal areas. In parts of Marin County, for example, land
-144-
is zoned in a manner that permits only one dwelling unit for every sixty
acres. In Monterey County undeveloped coastal land has densities limiting
new residential use to one unit per each 2.5-10 acres. Orange County has
created special planned community development district regulations whereby
any proposed development must be accompanied by a comprehensive plan for land
use in the area. San Diego County has created a coastal development over-
lay zone in order to provide additional regulations along the coastline area
"including the beaches, bluffs, and the land area immediately landward thereof".
The regulations restrict constuction on the beach and in bluff areas to certain
minimum structures such as steps, bath-houses, parking lots, refreshment
stands without seating facilities, lifeguard towers, fire rings, trash con-
tainers, etc. No development may interfere with any public rights of beach
access or useage, and the proposed development of any building or structure
(other than one and two-family dwellings) must be accompanied by a site plan
showing:
(a) Boundaries and existing topography of the property, location of
bluffline and beach, and adjoining or nearbv streets.
(b) Location and height of all existing buildings and structures,
existing trees and the proposed disposition or use thereof.
(c) Location, height, and proposed use of all proposed structures,
including walls, fences and free standing signs, and location and
extent of individual building sites.
(d) Location and dimensions of ingress and egress points, interior
roads and driveways, parking areas, and pedestrian walkways.
(e) Location and treatment of important drainage ways, including
underground drainage systems.
(f) Proposed grading and removal or placement of natural materials,
including finished topography of the site.
(g) Proposed landscaping plan including location of game sports,
swimming pools and other landscape or activity features.
(h) Results of soil stability tests or other proof acceptable to the
Director of Planning that the development as proposed will have no
-145-
adverse effect on the stability of the bluff and will not
endanger life or property.
Cities and counties have also placed much individual land along the shoreline
in agricultural preserve zones in order to make property owners eligible for re-
duced property assessments and thereby reduce the incentive to change land use.
PREPARATION OF SPECIAL COASTAL STUDIES
As a part of their coastal planning program, cities and counties have also
conducted special studies and prepared reports on land use and resources in
their respective coastal area. San Diego and Newport Beach, for example, have
prepared individual studies that are detailed and comprehensive in their
coverage. Other cities and counties, through membership in councils of govern-
ment have prepared similar studies.
ACQUISTION AND DEVELOPMENT
Cities and counties are not only concerned with planning and regulating land
use in the coastal area, but they also have a direct impact on coastal land
use through ownership of coastal property and the provision of services thereon.
Local agencies, particularly in urban areas, have generally been involved
in long and continuing programs of shoreline acquisition and development. As
will be indicated later, much of the shoreline in urban areas is already in
public ownership and available for a wide range of physical and visual recrea-
tion activities. In addtion to the beach and other shoreline areas acquired
and developed by local agencies, cities and counties also lease and operate
beach areas owned by the State.
OUTLOOK
State law provides a general framework for land use regualtion and control
and, with the exception of a few mandatory provisions, provides local govern-
ment with substantial flexibility and primary responsibility for regulation
-146-
and control of land use. Recent actions of the public and State and Federal
government, as well as local government itself, indicate that additional
and more restrictive controls over land use are likely in the future.
PUBLIC INITIATIVES
The initiative process has been more widely used in recent years by the
public as a means of expressing itself on matters of land use. In the Alameda
County cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, for example, an initiative measure
prohibiting the issuance of additional building permits was approved at the
last general election. The Pleasanton initiative measure reads, as follows:
"BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON:
a. The people of the City of Pleasanton hereby find and declare that
it is in the best interest of the City in order to protect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City,
to control residential building permits in the said City. Res-
idential building permits include single-family residential,
multiple residential, and trailer court building permits within
the meaning of the City Code of Pleasanton and the General Plan
of Pleasanton. Additionally, it is the purpose of this initiative
measure to contribute to the solution of air pollution in the City
of Pleasanton.
b. The specific reasons for proposed Petition are that the under-
signed believe that the resulting impact from issuing residential
building permits at the current rate results in the following pro-
blems mentioned below. Therefore, no further residential building
permits are to be issued by the said city until satisfactory solu-
tions as determined below in the standards set forth exist to all
following problems:
1. Educational Facilities- No double sessions in the schools nor
overcroweded classrooms as determined by the California Ed-
ucation Code.
2. Sewage- The sewage treatment facilities and capacities meet
the standards set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
3. Water Supply- No rationing of water with respect to human con-
sumption or irrigation, and adequate water reserves for fire
protection exist.
C. This ordinance may only be amended or repealed by the voters at
a regular municipal election.
d. If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid the remaining
portions are to be considered valid."
-147-
The initiative measures in Livermore and Pleasanton are presently being
litigated to determine their validity. Regardless of the outcome, however,
it seems clear that public action will continue to impose additional
controls on development and provide a more restrictive framework for reg-
ulating land use in general.
ACTIONS BY LOCAL AND STATE AGENCIES
The actions of local government also suggest a tougher approach to land use
control. For example, concern over development in the City of San Diego led
to adoption of Council Policy 600-10. This Policy attempts to assure that
all appropriate public services and facilities will be available to the
proposed development, and conditions are imposed on the acceptance or approval
of any new developement proposal, as follows:
COUNCIL POLICY
Subject: Adequacy of public services in connection with development
proposals.
Number: 600-10
Background
In considering development or redevelopment proposals for areas within
the City, the City Council has, in order to insure the public health,
safety and welfare, evaluated reports from City departments, school
districts and other agencies regarding the adequacy of public services
required to serve the developments expected to occur within such areas.
In many cases, however, the required public services have not in fact
been installed by the time the development shows a need. The result
has been that residents in the newly developed areas have been inade-
quately served with access, parks, schools, libraries and other public
services.
PURPOSE
To establish a policy to insure that needed public services will be
available concurrently with need.
POLICY
Before giving approval to rezoning, development or redevelopment pro-
posals, the public health and safety and general welfare of the community
and all its citizens require that provisions be made by the proponent
-148-
of the rezoning, development or redevelopment in conjunction with
appropriate governmental agencies to insure:
1. That the development, redevelopment or rezoning be consistent
with the master development plan for the general area which has
been reviewed by the planning commission and adopted by the city
council.
2. That the development plan includes an implementation section which
sets forth in detail measures which will be taken to insure that
needed public services are provided concurrent with need and the
development.
3. That the proponent of the rezoning, development or redevelopment
present evidence satisfactory to the appropriate body or agency
that the required public services will in fact be provided con-
current with the need.
A tougher local policy toward land use and development is also evident in
other actions. In parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties, for example, a mor-
atorium has been placed on all new development, and on the division of land
into five lots or more. Also, the general trend toward low density zoning
of undeveloped areas, coupled with more detailed and restrictive site plan and
dedication requirements, is further indication of the controls over land use
presently being exercised by local government. Many of these restrictive
controls apply to an additional extent to land use in the coastal zone.
An indication that State law with respect to local planning procedures may
not always be as flexible as it is at present may be seen in recent legis-
lation. Prior to 1971, cities were permitted to have specific plans, and
those plans had a variety of optional elements. Now, cities and counties may
have specific plans, but the specific plans must contain certain elements.
Prior to 1971, charter cities were expressly excluded from the provisions of
State law that require cities to adopt a comprehensive general plan containing
certain mandatory elements. State statutes now read that "the requirements
of this section shall apply to charter cities."
Other recent legislative items affecting land use include:
-149-
of the rezoning, development or redevelopment in conjunction with
appropriate governmental agencies to insure:
1. That the development, redevelopment or rezoning be consistent
with the master development plan for the general area which has
been reviewed by the planning commission and adopted by the city
council.
2. That the development plan includes an implementation section which
sets forth in detail measures which will be taken to insure that
needed public services are provided concurrent with need and the
development.
3. That the proponent of the rezoning, development or redevelopment
present evidence satisfactory to the appropriate body or agency
that the required public services will in fact be provided con-
current with the need.
A tougher local policy toward land use and development is also evident in
other actions. In parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties, for example, a mor-
atorium has been placed on all new development, and on the division of land
into five lots or more. Also, the general trend toward low density zoning
of undeveloped areas, coupled with more detailed and restrictive site plan and
dedication requirements, is further indication of the controls over land use
presently being exercised by local government. Many of these restrictive
controls apply to an additional extent to land use in the coastal zone.
An indication that State law with respect to local planning procedures may
not always be as flexible as it is at present may be seen in recent legis-
lation. Prior to 1971, cities were permitted to have specific plans, and
those plans had a variety of optional elements. Now, cities and counties may
have specific plans, but the specific plans must contain certain elements.
Prior to 1971, charter cities were expressly excluded from the provisions of
State law that require cities to adopt a comprehensive general plan containing
certain mandatory elements. State statutes now read that "the requirements
of this section shall apply to charter cities."
Other recent legislative items affecting land use include:
-150-
The creation of a State Office of Planning and Research for purposes
of developing a statewide land use policy.
The creation of single purpose regional planning agencies with land
use authority such as the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development
Commission and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
The mandating of specific elements for local general plans.
The establishment of minimum procedures for the conduct of a local
zoning hearing.
Provisions requiring public access to any shoreline or other public
waterway as a condition of development.
The ability of cities and counties to deny proposed subdivisions on
the basis of findings which indicate that the subdivision is inconsis-
tenet with general and specific plans; the site is not suitable; the
subdivision would cause substantial environmental damage; the subdivis-
ion would cause serious public heälth problems; the subdivision conflicts
with public easements.
The ability of the Commissioner of the State Department of Real Estate
to deny rural subdivisions unless they are adequately planned and
properly financed.
The requirement that a zoning ordinance be consistent with the general
plan.
In addition to those measures mentioned above which have been approved
in recent years, a number of other bills by a variety of authors are intro-
duced with increasing frquency each year. Although they have not been approved,
they represent a continuing attempt to inject the State more directly into the
local planning process. For example, the following measures have been intro-
duced and discussed during recent sessions of the Legislature:
The requirement of a housing authority in every city.
The creation of an Umbrella Regional Planning Agency by the State for
a prescribed regional area.
The creation of State and Regional Environmental Quality Control Boards
with regulatory authority over air, water, land use, nuclear energy,
solid waste disposal, pesticides, and noise control.
The creation of a State Land Use Plan and State zoning of all public and
private land.
-151-
The withholding of State gas tax revenues to cities for failing to have
a master plan with all required elements.
The restriction of local control over the location of mobile home parks
within a city or county.
The qualification of necessary laws to provide that local planning is
now a matter of Statewide interest and concern.
The mandating of additional elements, such as an air pollution control
element, for local general plans.
REGIONAL AGENCIES
There are a number of statutorily created single purpose agencies who engage
in regional planning. However, most do not have direct land use control.
They are more concerned with functional planning or regulation in a regional
area. Their effect on land use is limited to their role in recommending land
areas wherein certain regional services ought to be provided (ie, Metropol-
itan Transportation Commission), acquiring and developing land for a regional
purpose (ie, East Bay Regional Park District) or determining through a permit
process whether a particular development should proceed (air pollution and
water quality control boards).
There are two, and potentially three, regional agencies that do engage in
regional land use planning and do have some direct authority over land use.
In all three cases these statutorily-created agencies are concerned with de-
velopment in and adjacent to the ocean or a significant body of water. They are:
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study Commission
-152-
BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
AUTHORITY
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission was created
in 1965 by the State Legislature, and was made a permanent agency in 1969.
BCDC consists of twenty-seven members, thirteen of whom represent cities
and counties within the San Francisco Bay Area. The balance of the members
represent State and Federal agencies, and seven represent the public at large.
When creating BCDC, the Legislature made the following findings:
(a) That further filling of San Francisco Bay should be authorized
only when public benefits from fill clearly exceed public de-
triment from the loss of the water areas and should be limited
to water oriented uses (such as ports, water related industry,
airports, bridges, wildlife refuges, water oriented recreation
and public assembly, water intake and discharge lines for desal-
inization plants and power generating plants requiring large
amounts of water for cooling purposes) or minor fill for improv-
ing shoreline appearance or public access to the Bay.
(b) That fill in the Bay, for any purpose, should be authorized only
when no alternative upland location is available for such purpose.
(c) That the water area authorized to be filled should be the minimum
necessary to achieve the purpose of the fill.
(d) That the nature, location and extent of any fill should be such
that it will minimize harmful effects to the Bay Area, such as,
the reduction or impairment of the volume surface area or cir-
culation of water, water quality, fertility of marshes or fish
or wildlife resources.
(e) That public health, safety and welfare require that fill be con-
structed in accordance with sound safety standards which will afford
reasonable protection to persons and property against the hazards
of unstable geologic or soil conditions or flood or storm waters.
(f) That fill should be authorized when the filling would, to the
maximum extent feasible, establish a permanent shoreline.
(g) That fill should be authorized when the applicant has such valid
title to the properties in question that he may fill them in the
manner and for the uses to be approved.
With respect to the above findings, enabling legislation creating BCDC
-153-
provided, as follows:
During the existence of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and De-
velopment Commission, any person or governmental agency wishing to
place fill, to extract materials, or to make any substantial change in
use of any water, land or structure, within the area of the Commission's
jurisdiction shall secure a permit from the Commission and, if required
by law or by ordinance, from any city or county within which any part
of such work is to be performed.
The area of the commission's jurisdiction includes:
(a) San Francisco Bay
(b) A shoreline band consisting of all territory located between the shore-
line of San Francisco Bay and a line one hundred feet landward of
and parallel with that line
provided that the Commission may, by re-
solution, exclude from its area of jurisdiction any area within the
shoreline band that it finds and declares is of no regional importance
to the Bay.
(c) Salt ponds
(d) Managed wetlands
(e) Certain waterways
consisting of all areas that are subject to tidal
action, including submerged lands, tidelands, and marshlands up to five
feet above mean sea level, on, or tributary to, the listed portions of
the following waterways:
(1) Plumber Creek in Alameda County, to the eastern limit of the salt
ponds.
(2) Coyote Creek (and branches) in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, to
the easternmost point of Newby Island.
(3) Redwood Creek in San Mateo County, to its confluence with Smith Slough.
(4) Tolay Creek in Sonoma County, to the northerly line of Sears Point
Road.
(5) Petaluma River in Marin and Sonoma Counties to its confluence with
Adobe Creek, and San Antonio Creek to the easterly line of the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
(6) Napa River, to the northernmost point of Bull Island.
(7) Sonoma Creek, to its confluence with Second Napa Slough.
PROGRAM
BCDC has developed a San Francisco Bay plan which has been adopted by the
-154-
State Legislature. The plan suggests when filling or dredging of the Bay is
and is not appropriate, and it also serves as a guide when the Commission
reviews proposals for development within the one hundred foot inland shoreline
strip.
BCDC processed thirty-five permits during 1971, more than during any previous
year of the Commission's existence. In addition, the Executive Director
approved sixty=one permits for projects involving only minor repairs or
improvements. Of the thirty-five permits processed by the Commission, twenty-
six were approved. Of the twenty-six, nineteen were for projects involving
construction in the Bay, and seven were for projects involving construction
within the one hundred foot shoreline band.
BCDC is guided by a broad-based advisory committee, and is also assisted by
an Engineering Criteria Review Board and a Design Review Board. The Commission
has a staff of approximately twelve, and operates on an annual budget of $275,000.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BCDC AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTLINE INITIATIVE
The California Coastline Initiative has been described as being very similar
to and modeled after legislation creating BCDC. It is important, therefore,
to consider differences in general approach and specific provisions.
As will be indicated in the analysis of the initiative, the emphasis of the
California Coastline Initiative is clearly on preservation of the coastal
area. Although no express moratorium on development is included in the
initiative, the combination of provisions contained therein will have the
practical effect of delaying new projects within the initiative permit area.
The legislation creating BCDC, on the other hand, clearly encourages balanced
development of the Bay, and limits the Commission's jurisdiction.
-155-
A comparison of initiative provisions with BCDC indicates that there are
clear and substantive differences between the two:
(1) The basic difference in philosophy between the initiative and BCDC can be
seen in their respective titles. The initiative would create the Coastal
Zone Conservation Act whereas BCDC is concerned with "Conservation and
Development" of the Bay.
(2) BCDC expressly encourages private investment in and development of the
shoreline, as follows:
"The legislature finds that in order to make San Francisco Bay
more accessible for the use and enjoyment of people, the Bay
shoreline should be improved, developed and preserved. The Leg-
islature further recognizes that private investment in shoreline
development should be vigorously encouraged and may be one of the
principal means of achieving Bay shoreline development, minimizing
the resort to taxpayers' funds; Therefore, the Legislature declares
that the Commission should encourage both public and private
development of the Bay shoreline."
No similar provision is contained in the California Coastline Initiative.
(3) With respect to the rights of property owners adjacent to the Bay, the
legislation creating BCDC-provides as follows:
"The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this title is not
intended, and shall not be construed, as authorizing the Commission to
exercise its power to grant or deny a permit in a manner which will
take or damage private property for public use, without the payment
of just compensation therefor
11
There is no reference to just compensation or related matters in the Calif-
ornia Coastline Initiative.
(4) The inland permit area of BCDC is confined to a one hundred foot band
of shoreline around the Bay itself. Inland permit authority does not
extend to land outside the Bay, even though other bodies of water are
within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Importantly, BCDC may only
refuse to issue a permit for development within the one hundred foot
-156-
inland shoreline band if the proposed project fails to provide maximum
feasible public access. The Commission has no jurisdiction over height,
density, or proposed use within the one hundred foot inland strip, except
insofar as these matters may relate to public access. The BCDC inland
permit authority is expressly limited as follows:
"Within any portion or portions of the shoreline band the Commission
may deny an application for a permit for a proposed project only on the
grounds that the project fails to provide maximum feasible public access,
consistent with the proposed project, to the bay and its shoreline."
The California Coastline Initiative, on the other hand, provides permit
control over all development within the three thousand foot inland area in
rural and urban areas alike. The authority of the regional coastline commis-
sions to issue permits is broad, and is in no way limited to assuring that
the proposed project provides "maximum feasible public access."
(5) BCDC has boundaries that are essentially the same as those of the
Association of Bay Area Governments, and the Commission is required to
coordinate its activities with ABAG and local agencies, as follows:
=
the Commission shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with
the Association of Bay Area Governments; and shall, to the fullest extent
possible, coordinate its planning with planning by local agencies, which
shall retain the responsibility for local land use planning. In order
to avoid duplication of work, the Commission shall make maximum use of
data and information available from the planning programs of the State
Office of Planning, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the cities
and counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, and other public and private
planning agencies."
The California Coastline Initiative creates regional commissions with boundar-
ies that are substantially different than those of the councils of government
operating up and down the coast, and there is no requirement that the regional
commissions cooperate or work in any way with existing councils of government,
other single purpose regional planning agencies, or individual local agencies
along the coast. In addition, the permit authority of the regional coastline
-157-
commissions over all forms of development effectively pre-empts the existing
authority of local agencies to plan for and assure balanced development written
their respective communities.
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
AUTHORITY
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is a bi-state land use planning and
regulatory agency created by interstate compact. There is, in addition, a
California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that was created prior to finalization
of the compact and which remains in existence. A similar Nevada Planning Agency
formerly existed, but was dissolved after the bi-state agency was established.
The bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is comprised of ten members,
six of whom represent cities and counties in California and Nevada. The
Commission is assisted by an Advisory Planning Committee and, together, their
principal responsibility is the preparation of a Tahoe Regional Plan which
must include the following elements:
(a) A land use plan for the integrated arrangement and general location
and extent of, and the criteria and standards for, the uses of land,
water, air, space and other natural resources within the region,
including but not limited to, an indication or allocation of maximum
population densities.
(b) A transportation plan for the integrated development of a regional
system of transportation, including but not limited to, freeways, parkways,
highways, transportation facilities, transit routes, waterways, navigation
and aviation aides and facilities and pertinent terminals and facilities
for the movement of people and goods within the region.
(c) A conservation plan for the preservation, development, utilization and
management of the scenic and other natural resources within the basin,
-158-
including, but not limited to, soils, shoreline and submerged lands,
scenic corridors along transportation routes, open spaces, recreational
and historical facilities.
(d) A recreation plan for the development, utilization, and management of
the recreational resources of the region, including but not limited
to, wilderness and forested lands, parks and parkways, riding and hiking
trails, beaches and playgrounds, arenas and other recreational facilities.
(e) A public services and facilities plan for the general location, scale and
provision of public services and facilities, which, by the nature of their
function, size, extent and other characteristics are necessary or appro-
priate for inclusion in the regional plan.
With respect to preparation of the plan, the compact provides, as follows:
"In formulating and maintaining the regional plan, the planning commission
and governing body shall take account of and shall seek to harmonize
the needs of the region as a whole, the plans of the counties and cities
within the region, the plans and planning activities of the State, Federal
and other public agencies and non-governmental agencies and organizations
which affect or are concerned with planning and development within the
region. Where necessary for the realization of the regional plan, the
agency may engage in collaborative planning with local governmental
jurisdictions located outside the region, but contiguous to its boundar-
ies. In formulating and implementing the regional plan, the agency shall
seek the cooperation and consider the recommendations of counties and
cities and other agencies of local government, of State and Federal
agencies, of educational institutions and research organizations, whether
public or private, and of civic groups and private individuals."
As a means of enforcing the plan, the bi-state agency is required to adopt a
series of ordinances establishing regional standards in the following areas:
water purity and clarity; subdivision; zoning; tree removal; solid waste dis-
posal; sewage disposal; land fills, excavations, cuts and grading; piers;
harbors, breakwaters, or channels and other shoreline developments; waste
disposal in shoreline areas; waste disposal in boats; mobile home parks; house
relocation; outdoor advertising; flood plain protection; soil and sedimenta-
tion control; air pollution; and watershed protection.
-159-
The compact provides expressly that the ordinances "shall establish a
minimum standard applicable throughout the basin, and any political subdivis-
ion may adopt and enforce an equal or higher standard applicable to the same
subject of regulation in its territory." With respect to enforeement of
the ordinance, the compact provides that "all ordinances, rules, regulations
and policies adopted by the agency- shall be enforced by the agency and by the
respective states, counties, and cities."
With the exception of public works projects of governmental agencies, over
which the California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has veto power, the Bi-
state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has effective control over all private
development in the Tahoe basin. It is empowered "to police the region to
insure compliance with the general plan and adopted ordinances, rules,
regulations, and policies", and "if it is found that the general plan, or
ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies are not being enforced by a local
jurisdiction, the agency may bring action in a court of competent jurisdiction
to insure compliance." Violation of any ordinance is a misdemeanor.
PROGRAM
The bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has approximately twelve staff
persons, and operates on annual budget of $300,000.
After completing, in cooperation with the United States Forest Service, a
number of special studies on various resources within the Tahoe basin, the bi-
state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency adopted a general plan. They have, in
addition, adopted four ordinances covering grading, land use, shoreline, and
subdivisions. The ordinances establish most of the minimum regional standards
referred to in the compact and, from a practical standpoint, the agency now
-160-
gives final review to all development projects over three acres or larger than
a triplex. The one exception is with respect to public works projects of Cal-
ifornia governmental agencies, over which the California Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency retains final jurisdiction.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY AND THE CALIFORNIA
COASTLINE INITIATIVE
There are substantive differences between the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
and the provisions included within the California Coastline Initiative.
For example:
(a) Representatives of existing local agencies (cities and counties) constitute
a majority of the members of the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
The initiative does not give representatives of local agencies a major-
ity voice on either the regional or state commissions it would create.
(b) Comprehensive planning and development control is provided throughout the
entire Tahoe basin. The California Coastline Initiative calls for
comprehensive planning, but limits the planning area to five miles in-
land or to the erratic and confusing boundaries of the "top of the high-
est elevation of the nearest coastal range."
(c) A majority vote of the members present is sufficient to take action on
any matter before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The California
Coastline Initiative provides that a majority vote of the total author-
ized membership is necessary, except in certain cases where a two-thirds
vote of the total authorized membership is required.
(d) The compact creating the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
expressly provides that the agency shall:
"take account of the plans of the counties and cities within the
region, the plans and planning activities of the State, Federal and
-161-
other public agencies and non-governmental agencies and organizations
which affect or are concerned with planning and development within
the region in formulating and implementing the regional plan, the
agency shall seek the cooperation and consider the recommendations of
counties and cities and other agencies of local government, of State
and Federal agencies, of educational institutions and research organ-
izations, whether public or private, and of civic groups and private
individuals."
No express requirements such as these are included in the California Coast-
line Initiative.
(e) Under the bi-state compact, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estab-
lishes minimum standards which are administered and enforced by existing
local agencies. Local agencies also have the right to enact more restric-
tive standards. The California Coastline Initiative creates a series of
new regional commissions to establish and enforce minimum standards by
passing local agencies.
VENTURA-LOS ANGELES MOUNTAIN AND COASTAL STUDY COMMISSION
AUTHORITY
Declaring that "the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Zone has the
last large undeveloped area contiguous to the shoreline within the greater Los
Angeles Metropolitan Region, comprised of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties,
represents a unique and irreplaceable natural resource to the people of the
State...," the Legislature created the Study Commission in 1970. The Com-
mission was "to study the entire zone as well as the relationship of the zone
to the region, to ascertain what is needed for balanced conservation and
development, to determine a set of policies and priorities based on such
studies, and to propose further legislative action to provide for implementa-
tion of these policies."
The Commission is composed of fifteen members, four representing local
agencies, three representing State agencies, and eight representing the
-162-
public. The specific responsibility of the Commission is to make "a detailed
study of all factors that may significantly affect or cause irreversible
modification of the present and future status of the zone and its relationship
with the region, and any other factors, including, but not limited to:
(a) The zone as an airshed resource for the region, considering climatology
and meteorology.
(b) Open space, including scenic easements, parks, and natural preserves,
and fire hazards and fire prevention.
(c) Watershed, floods, and flood damage prevention.
(d) Beaches, estuaries, lagoons, coastal bluffs, springs, creeks, lakes,
fish, wildlife and natural plant life of the zone and the effects of
development thereon.
(e) Recreation, including beaches, parks and other facilities for sport
fishing, surfing, pleasure boating, picnicing, camping, mountaineering,
hiking, and horseback riding.
(f) Inventory of Indian settlements and other historical and archeological
sites, fossil beds, unusual plant life, and geological formations for
possible future preservation and utilization.
(g) Water supply, water quality, and waste disposal, including sewage
plants and outfalls and thermal and radioactive pollution.
(h) Solid waste disposal, including the effect of sanitary land fill
activities.
(i) Geology, erosion, soil types, land stability, and grading practices.
(j) Proposed transportation plans, including present and projected traffic
patterns, and new methods of solving transportation problems.
(k) Projected population and related housing development within the zone
and the impact thereof on the zone and region.
(1) Power and desalinization plants.
(m) Exploration and exploitation of oil and gas and other minerals and
natural resources.
(n) Present land uses and known proposals for change, including impact of
land appraisal and tax policies.
(o) Present ownerships, including the administration of publicly owned
properties.
(p) Present regulation of land and water uses and activities of all levels
and government.
-163-
(q) Present laws affecting the zone.
Based on consideration of the study findings and its deliberations in
general, the Commission is required to submit a final report to the Legislature
at the 1972 session including recommendations for legislative and adminis-
trative action. The Commission terminates on the sixty-first day after the
final adjournment of the 1972 Regular Session of the Legislature.
PROGRAM
As required by statute, the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study
Commission submitted its Final Report to the Legislature at the beginning of
the 1972 legislative session. The report indicates that due to time and money
constraints II the Commission has been unable to carry out all studies to the
depth required to ascertain specifically what is need for balanced conservation
and development." However, the report does include specific legislative recom-
mendations, as follows:
(a) Extend the Commission's life for two additional years in order to allow
for completion of studies mandated by initial legislation and draw
final recommendations for legislative action.
(b) Acquire open space/parklands as indicated on the acquisition map.
(c) Revise the boundaries of the study zone to exclude certain areas already
urbanized and/or subdivided so that the Commission does not have to
operate at a local level.
(d) Increase the size of the Commission.
(e) Establish an Advisory Committee.
(f) Engage staff.
(g) Establish a permit system.
(h) Request funding.
OUTLOOK
A bill designed to extend the life of the Commission and to give it additional
-164-
duties, including permit control, has been introduced in the State Senate.
The bill is on third reading in the Senate, and will be considered when the
Legislature resumes its deliberations in November. Although the requested
permit authority may be excluded from the bill, it appears probably that the
life of the Commission will be extended to permit it to finish its studies.
In addition to the activities of these single purpose regional agencies, there
are at least two other types of regional governmental bodies which, in
practice, have an impact on the comprehensive planning and land use activ-
ities of cities and counties. These are local agency formation commissions
(LAFCO's) and councils of government (COGS).
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIONS
Since 1963, every county (except the City and County of San Francisco) has
been required to have a local agency formation commission (LAFCO).
LAFCO's were created in order to encourage a more orderly and comprehensive
approach to urban growth, and their principal responsibility is to review and
act on all proposals for incorporation, annexation, or creation of special
districts within their respective county. In this regard, LAFCO's are author-
ized to accept, reject, or conditionally accept such proposals. Their review
must consider factors, such as:
(a) Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita
assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins;
proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth
in the area, and adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during
the next ten years.
(b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of
governmental services and controls in the area; probably future needs for
such services and controls; probably effect of the proposed incorporation,
formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action
on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent
areas.
-165-
(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent
areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local govern-
mental structure of the county.
(d) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the non-
conformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or owner-
ship, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory,
and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.
(e) Conformity with appropriate city or county general and specific plans.
Membership on LAFCO consists of two city representatives, two county represent-
atives, and one public member. Where determined locally, LAFCO can also include
two special district representatives. Staffing is provided by the county.
LAFCO's not only have an impact on land use in terms of their decisions on
matters pertaining to incorporation, annexation, and the formation of spec-
ial districts, but their other activities also influence land use. For example,
LAFCO's may encourage cities to pre-zone unincorporated areas before ap-
proving proposals for annexation. Also, State law now requires LAFCO's to
establish "spheres of influence" as a further means of guiding future devel-
opment and growth within the county. LAFCO decisions regarding "spheres of
influence" are based, in part, on city and county general plans. They also
determine, in part, the nature of those plans. In either event, they have a
significant impact on comprehensive planning in general and land use in
particular.
COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT
With the exception of certain statutorily created regional planning agencies
that have been given certain controls over development (ie., BCDC, TRPA), the
authority for land use planning and control in California rest principally with
cities and counties. This authority is modified, to some extent, by the
actions and decisions of the county local agency formation commission which is
mainly concerned with the orderly growth and expansion of county land areas.
-166-
The authority of cities and counties is also modified, to some extent, by the
action of cities and counties themselves who have voluntarily agreed to estab-
lish councils of government in order to obtain a more coordinated approach to
comprehensive land use planning and related regional problems.
AUTHORITY
Although State statutes provide several ways in which cities and counties
may join together for purposes of regional planning, the most common tool
used to create councils of government in California has been utilization
of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. The Act provides, as follows:
"If authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies, two
or more public agencies by agreement may jointly exercise any power
common to the contracting parties
II
Based on the above stature, cities and counties have voluntarily established
councils of government in order to jointly undertake planning and related
activities. For example, the Comprhensive Planning Organization has been
established in San Diego County; the Southern California Association of Govern-
ments has been created in Imperial Counties, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino and Ventura; the Association of Bay Area Governments has been
created in the nine Bay Area Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,
San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma; and similar organiz-
ations encompassing Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz,
and other California counties have been established.
PROGRAM
The concerns and programs of councils of government are similar. Broadly
speaking, however, they are designed to include:
Compilation, dissemination, interchange and coordination of information
to assist local governments in decision-making and to promote inter-govern-
-167-
mental cooperation.
Formulation of positive recommendations to aid in development of a
comprehensive planning process within the region.
Encourage participation of members and citizens in developing regional
goals and in stimulating discussion of regional problems.
Provision of means for local goverments to speak with one voice on matters
of regional concern.
Designation as the metropolitan clearing house for the review of proposals
for areawide coordination and comprehensive planning.
The integration of various elements into a coordinated program;provision'
of a means for long-range planning to take into consideration the total
regional effects of a program.
More specifically, councils of government have prepared comprehensive regional
land use and policy plans for their region. Based on a careful examination
of population projections, as well as calculations on housing, employment,
and land use, the policies and forecasts contained therein serve as the basis
for further functional plans in areas such as transportation, open space,
housing, water, and sewer.
In addition to comprehensive regional land use plans, SCAG and ABAG have also
undertaken a special coastal planning effort. This special planning effort
has permitted the accumulation and analysis of information regarding the use
and resources of the coastal zone, and the overall goal is the preparation of
a plan for improved coastal management and recommendations for implementation.
Importantly, the plan will be related to the other comprehensive planning
efforts of cities and counties in the council of governments region as they
pertain to housing, transportation, water, sewer, open space, etc.
-168-
The Federal government requires regional areas to prepare and adopt com-
prehensive functional plans in the areas of transportation, open space, housing,
water, and sewer before individual cities and counties can become eligible
for Federal grant funds in these areas. To assure overall coordination in the
expenditure of such funds, the Federal government also requires State and
regional areas to establish "clearinghouses" for review of applications by
public agencies and others for over one hundred different
Federal grant funds. COGS, by preparing regional plans, are responsible for
cities and counties within their area being eligible for many millions of
dollars in Federal funds. Importantly, their role as a regional clearing
house for Federal grant applications permits COGS to implement, in part,
the goals, and policies of their comprehensive regional plan.
COGS also help other State and regional agencies, many of whom have boundaries
identical to the COG, to prepare and implement plans that are consistent with
overall regional goals. For example, COGS have ongoing relations with numerous
special districts within their regional area; they serve as the regional
transportation planning agency for purposes of allocating State transportation
funds; they have been designated by the Legislature to assist in the preparation
of a State-wide plan for solid waste management; they serve in an advisory
capacity to the State Office of Planning and Research in its efforts to devel-
op a comprehensive State land use policy; and they assist and supplement the ef-
forts of regional transportation districts, regional air pollution control dis-
tricts; regional park districts, regional water quality control boards;
and similar State and regional groups.
All in all, COGS involve existing cities and counties in a functional process
of regional planning and decisionmaking which has been in operation for a
decade and, as indicated in the annual report of the Southern California
-169-
Association of Governments, "provides an alternative to the abdication of
authority and responsibility by local governments and the preemption of
decision-making by Federal or State agencies."
OUTLOOK
The development of a practical and effective approach to the solution of
regional problems in California must evolve over time. The experience of COGS
is a good example of how a balanced consensus is being developed without
destroying existing institutions and creating new levels of administrative
bureaucracy in the process. By involving cities and counties in a regional
forum initially, COGS were able to assist in identifying specific regional
problems. Discussions over time have permitted, particularly in urban areas of
the State, the development of alternative solutions and the preparation of
specific plans and policies for a constructive approach to those problems which
transcend individual city and county boundaries. This evolutionary process
has reached the point where at least three COGS (ABAG, SCAG, and CPO)
representing most of the State population, have in recent years been active-
ly pursuing legislation which will improve their ability to coordinate re-
gional policy-making and to implement regional plans. Although no State
legislative consensus has been reached as yet on the exact regional govern-
mental framework, there is a clear legislative consensus that a comprehensive
approach to regional problems is necessary, that the regional framework
and authority must be statutorily prescribed, and that the area within which
regional planning and control will occur must be broad enough ( as opposed
to that suggested in the California Coastline Initiative) to permit a com-
prehensive approach.
-170-
STATE AGENCIES
There are numerous agencies, departments, divisions, and commissions, within
State government that have some direct or indirect responsibility for land
use within the coastal zone and elsewhere. The State engages in planning;
it coordinates the activities of local, regional, and Federal agencies; it
establishes criteria and standards; it issues permits; it engages in exper-
imental programs and surveillance activities; it owns and manages real prop-
erty; it provides financial assistance to others for the acquisition and de-
velopment of specific projects and facilities; and it engages in other activi-
ties that have some bearing on land use.
As the population of California has increased, and as its urban areas have
grown, the need for State involvement in comprehensive land use planning
and control has become more apparent. The interest and concern of State legis-
lative and administrative officials with respect to land use planning is also
more apparent.
The efforts of the State to achieve a comprehensive and coordinated approach
to land use is reflected particularly in the activities of the Office of
Planning and Research, the State Council on Intergovernmental Relations, and
the office of Intergovernmental Management.
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
The Office of Planning and Research was established in 1970 as a result of
legislation which declared, in part:
"The Legislature finds and declares that future growth of the State should
be guided by an effective planning process and should proceed within the
framework of officially-approved Statewide goals and policies directed to
land use, population growth and distribution, urban expansion and other
relevant physical, social and economic development factors."
-171-
With respect to the increasing interest of the State in the area of land use,
it is significant to note that Section IV of the legislation establishing
the Office of Planning and Research provides, as follows:
"The Office of Planning and Research shall give immediate and high
priority to the development of land use policy. As a first component
of such policy, the Office shall develop, in conjunction with appro-
priate State departments and Federal, regional and local agencies, a
Statewide plan and implementation program for protecting land and
water resources of the State which are of Statewide significance in
terms of the State's natural resource base and the preservation and
enhancement of environmental quality and are threatened due to urban
expansion, incompatible public or private use or development or other
circumstances."
The planning program shall consider, but not be limited to:
(1) Areas of outstanding scientific, scenic and recreation value.
(2) Areas which are required as habitat for significant fish and wildlife
resources, including rare and endangered species.
(3) Forest and agricultural lands which are judged to be of major importance
in meeting future needs for food, fiber, and timber.
(4) Areas which provide green space and open areas in and around high density
metropolitan development.
(5) Areas which are required to provide needed access to coastal beaches,
lake shores, and riverbanks.
(6) Areas which require special development regulation because of hazardous
or special conditions, such as earthquake fault zones, unstable slide
areas, flood plains, and watersheds.
(7) Areas which serve as connecting links between major public recreation
and open space sites, such as utility easements, stream banks, trails,
and scenic highway corridors.
(8) Areas of major historic or cultural interest."
The specific responsibilities of the Office of Planning and Research are,
as follows:
(a) Assist in the formulation, evaluation and updating of long-range goals
and policies for land use, population growth and distribution, urban
expansion, open space, resource preservation and utilization, and other
factors which shape Statewide development patterns and significantly
influence the quality of the State's environment.
(b) Assist in the orderly preparation by appropriate State departments and
-172-
agencies of intermediate and short-range functional plans to guide pro-
grams of transportation, water development, open space, recreation and
other functions which relate to the protection and enhancement of the
State's environment.
(c) Regularly evaluate plans and programs of departments and agencies of
State government, identify conflicts or omissions, and recommend new
State policies, programs and actions required to resolve conflicts,
advance State-wide environmental goals and to respond to emerging
environmental problems and opportunities.
(d) Assist the Department of Finance in preparing, as part of the annual
State budget, an integrated program of priority actions to implement
State functional plans and to achieve State-wide environmental goals
and objectives and take other actions to insure that the program budget,
submitted annually to the Legislature, contains information reporting
the achievement of State goals and objectives by departments and
agencies of State government.
(e) Coordinate the development of policies and criteria to assure that Fed-
eral grants in aid administered or directly expended by State govern-
ment, advance State-wide environmental goals and objectives.
(f) Coordinate the development and operation of a State-wide environmental
monitoring system to assess the implications of present growth and
development trends on the environment and to identify at an early time,
potential threats to public health, natural resources and environmental
quality.
(g) Coordinate, in conjunction with appropriate State, regional, and local
agencies, the development of objectives, criteria and procedures for the
orderly evaluation and report of the impact of public and private actions
on the environmental quality of the State and as a guide to the prepara-
tion of the environmental impact report required of State and local
agencies.
(h) Coordinate research activities of State government directed to the growth
and development of the State and the preservation of environmental qual-
ity, render advice to the Governor, to his cabinet, and any agency or
department of State government, and provide information to, and cooper-
ate with, the Legislature or any of its committees or officer.
(i) Provide assistance to the Council on Intergovernmental Relations in
coordinating provision of technical assistance by State departments and
agencies in regional and local planning to assure that such plans are
consistent with State-wide environmental goals and objectives.
(j) Accept and allocate or expend grants and gifts from any source, public
or private, for the purpose of State planning and undertake other plan-
ning and coordinating activities as will implèment the policy and intent
of the Legislature as set forth herein.
As one means of fulfilling its responsibility, the Office of Planning and
-173-
Research is required to prepare a Statewide Environmental Goals and Pol-
icy Report. As required by law, the first report was prepared by March 1, 1972
and it contained, among other things, the following proposal:
"This report therefore recommends that a Department of Environmental
Protection be formed within the Resources Agency with responsibilities
to coordinate the State's role in pollution control, implement the
standards established by the Environmental Pollution Control Board,
centralize services for monitoring pollution, and provide one multi-
disciplined approach to the inter-related problems of air pollution,
water pollution, solid waste disposal and the protection of environ-
mental resources of State-wide importance.
"This report also recommends the formation of an Environmental Pro-
tection Control Board with responsibilities to establish standards and
regulations for areas under its jurisdiction, oversee the State-wide im-
plementation of such standards, identify needs for continuing research
and adopt areas of Statewide significance and critical concern as
described in the Environmental Resources Protection Plan."
The report, which must be revised every four years, has been reviewed by a
select Assembly Committee and their comments and recommendations are presently
being considered by the Office of Planning and Research and the Governor. With
respect to land use specifically, it is important to note that although the
report identifies certain land areas, including the entire coastal area, as
being of "significant and critical concern", it does not contain a recom-
mended State land use policy. Such a recommended policy is presently being
developed and refined by the Office of Planning and Research with the assist-
ance of a "Land Use Study Team" which includes representatives of all maj-
or State Departments and, importantly, all councils of government. As an
initial step, the Office of Planning and Research has published a Compendium
of Land Use Data Sources. The actual development of a coordinated Statewide
land use policy is aimed at establishing guidelines and criteria that will
facilitate integrated planning for the entire State, rather than looking
individually and exclusively at singular areas of the State such as the desert,
coast and forest.
-174-
Other activities of the Office of Planning and Research include the prepara-
tion of guidlines for environmental impact statements that must be completed
by State and other public agencies before new development projects may commence;
conduct of research on environmental matters; and coordination of all environ-
mental reviews of new subdivision proposals for local agencies.
COUNCIL ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS/OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The Office of Planning and Research is concerned with developing land use pol-
icies and guidlines for the State. The Council on Intergovernmental Relations,
and its administrative arm, the Office of Intergovernmental Management, comple-
ment and support these efforts through programs designed to improve local
planning and, where appropriate, encourage comprehensive regional planning.
The Council on Intergovernmental Relations establishes policy which is ad-
ministered by the Office of Intergovernmental Management. Membership on CIR
includes representatives of cities, counties, school districts, special dis-
tricts and major State agencies.
With respect to planning, CIR and OIM are responsible for administering the
Federal Government Comprehensive "701" Planning Grants. In addition, they
provide technical assistance to local planning agencies (ie, they have prepared
reports on Local Planning in California, Local Agency Formation Commissions,
etc.) and, as required by statute, they are engaged in the development of
criteria and guidelines for elements of local general plans. Importantly,
they are required by law to establish comprehensive regional planning bound-
aries for the State, and these boundaries form a basis for council of
government activities as well as other State and regional planning activities.*
*
With respect to the California Coastline Initiative, it is important to note
that the regional boundaries provided for therein are totally different than
those already established by CIR.
-175-
CIR/OIM also work to encourage a coordinated and uniform approach to plan-
ning on an intergovernmental basis through their "clearinghouse" responsibility
for review of Federal Grant applications and environmental impact statements.
These ongoing programs of "review and comment", which involve Federal, State,
regional and local levels of government, have had the practical effect of
coordinating expenditures of Federal Grant funds and assuring a broad and
balanced environmental review of proposed public development projects. CIR/OIM
are similarly responsible for coordinating the review and comment by State
agencies on proposed Federal agency regulations and Federal development projects.
CIR is represented on the Land Use Study Team of the Office of Planning and
Research, and the two bodies coordinate their activities in this area of
mutual interest. Importantly, from the standpoint of coordination with local
government in the area of comprehensive planning, COGS are also included in
the activities of both agencies.
As indicated previously, cities and counties are principally responsible for
direct land use planning and control. In addition to State coordinating ef-
forts, such as those described above, there are also instances of direct State
planning and control over land use. State agencies exercising such direct land
use controls through ownership or management of State lands include:
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
The California Coastline Initiative includes all land between mean high tide
and the seaward jurisdiction of the State within its planning and permit
areas. These "tide" and "submerged" lands, unless granted to local agencies,
are presently managed by the State Lands Commission.
Responsible for over 4.5 million acres of State-owned land, the State Lands
-176-
Commission is engaged in multi-use planning and development of these lands.
Their activities are designed to assure that public lands are developed for
the public benefit, consistent with proper conservation of resources and other
environmental factors, and that potential revenues from these lands are max-
imized for the State.
More specifically, the responsibilities and objectives of the State Lands
Commission are implemented through a variety of programs that are administered
by the State Lands Division of the Resources Agency. Of principal concern
from the standpoint of coastal land use, is the program of leasing tide and
submerged lands for extractive and non-extractive development purposes. Leases
are entered into by the Commission for the recovery of oil and gas resources,
for the extraction of other mineral resources, and for geothermal operations.
In addition, the Commission issues related prospecting permits, and also con-
siders applications for a variety of other commerical and public uses of tide
and submerged lands.
Because of its concern over oil spills, the Commission has imposed a mora-
torium on further oil and gas leases until at least June 30, 1973. More im-
portantly, however, State law now provides that a specific environmental review
of all proposed uses must be undertaken before the Commission may enter into
any new lease. Specifically, Section 6371 of the Public Resources Code pro-
vides:
=
the Commission, except for recreational pier permits, shall not
lease any of the lands under its jurisdiction unless it shall have
made a finding at a public meeting that such lease will not have a
significant detrimental environmental effect and shall have made an
environmental impact report which shall be available to the Legislature
and to the public. Such report shall set forth the environmental
impact of the lease, any unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact, alternatives to
the lease, the relationship between local short-term productivity, and
any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the
leasing of the lands."
-177-
As required by statute, the Commission is also engaged in an inventory of
all State-owned tide and submerged lands "which possess unique environmental
values, including scenic, historic, natural, or aesthetic values of State-
wide interest." Once the inventory is complete, the Commission is required
to "adopt regulations necessary to assure permanent protection to these lands. =
Other Commission activities pertaining to the management of State-owned
tide and submerged lands include boundary determinations, negotiating boundary
line agreements, and the sale and exchange of property. The Commission is
represented on the Land Use Study Team of the Office of Planning and Research,
and environmental impact reports it prepares for proposed tide and submerged
land uses are reviewed by other State agencies having an interest and/or land
use responsibility in the coastal area.
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
The Department of Parks and Recreation acquires, designs, develops, operates
and maintains State-owned park and recreation facilities. The State park sys-
tem includes the following facilities:
Picnic units
6,014
Camp units
8,513
Boating facilities (ramps, lanes,
docking facilities)
623
Interpretive facilities (campfire centers,
historic structures,
museums)
219
Acres of turf
2,211
Acres of beach
4,295
Parking facilities (number of spaces)
65,592
Miles of road
1,365
-178-
Miles of trails
855
Number of private concessions, contracts
administered
161
Number of concessions, operating agree-
ments administered
39
Total park acreage
830,756
In addition to a broad, ongoing program of operating and maintaining ex-
isting State park and recreational facilities, the Department is also con-
cerned with acquiring and/or developing new facilities. This aspect of their
program is complex, involving property negotiation; condemnation; alternative
financing arrangements; preparation of construction plans; work scheduling;
bidding procedures; research for effective interpretation of natural, his-
torical, and recreational resources; museum programs; campfire and guided
tours; and similar activities designed to develop existing land resources to
their maximum balanced use.
With respect to the coastal area, the Department has completed an extensive
planning document entitled "California Coastline-Preservation and Recreation
Plan." In addition to identifying elements of the natural coastal environment
(ie., land forms, climate, biota) and historic factors about the coast, the
report sets forth a plan for action that is related to projected demand for
types of coastal recreation facilities.
The report indicates that the greatest use of coastal recreational facil-
ities occurs in or near urban areas. It further points out that in order to
adequately meet projected demand in these areas it will be necessary to im-
prove land already held in public ownership, as well as acquire additonal
shoreline areas.
Related to its "Plan for Action", the Department has an aggressive program
-179-
of acquisition, which, in urban areas, includes the acquiring of inholdings in
order to round out parcels already owned by the State, thereby making them
feasible for development. The Department has an equally aggressive multi-
year development program in the coastal area including such projects as the
following:
State Department of Parks and Recreation
1972-75 Development Program
Unit
Project Description
Estimated Cost
Annadel Farms
Access road
$102,000
San Onofre State
Beach
Chain link fencing
$150,000
Angel Island State
Park
Sewage collection and full treat-
$275,000
ment. Working drawings.
Carpinteria State
Campground, administrative
Beach
facilities
$400,000
MacKerricher State
Park
Water system
$133,000
Pismo State Beach
Beach, sanitary facilities
$150,000
Point Mugu State
Park
Multiple facilities
$924,100
Refugio State Beach
Multiple facilities
$150,000
Russian Gulch State
Sewage collection & transport
$250,000
Park
Seacliff State Beach
Day use beach facilities
$979,200
Silver Strand State
Beach
Sewage system
$215,780
Sonoma Coast State
Beach
Bodega Bay campground
$200,000
Bolsa Chica State
Beach
Parking and beach facilities
$4,000,000
San Onofre State
Beach
Beach development, camping
$1,393,000
-180-
Angel Island State
Park
West Garrison restoration
$200,000
Carlsbad State
Beach
Parking and beach access
$350,000
Carpenteria State
Campground improvement and beach
Beach
facilities
$500,000
Doheny State Beach
Campground-234 units
$950,000
Henry Cowell
Campground-50 units
$250,000
Leo Carrillo State
Beach
Campground-60 units
$180,000
San Buena Ventura
State Beach
Campground-93 units
$166,000
San Gregorio State
Campground (70 units) and day use
Beach
facilities (working drawings)
$107,000
Silver Strand State
Beach
Campground-157 units
$195,000
Border Field
Day use facilities & major
utilities
$1,000,000
Half Moon Bay State
Campground (50 units, primitive
Beach
or parking lot conversion)
$300,000
Huntington State Beach
Day use facilities & campground
$2,500,000
Jetty Beach
Day use facilities & campground
$300,000
Malibu Lagoon State Beach
Day use facilities
$800,000
Mendocino Hedlands
Day use facilities & sewage
$300,000
Project
system participation
San Clemente State
Campground improvement and
Beach
expansion
$1,500,000
San Gregorio State Beach
Campground & day use facilities
$1,220,000
Twin Lakes State Beach
Day use facilities
$500,000
The Department also works closely with local jurisdictions and other
agencies of the State in an effort to achieve a comprehensive approach to
development, acquisition, and use of State park and recreational facilities.
-181-
PELICANS
Crescent
City
Gasquer
CALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM
BEL MORTE COAST RED#000$
REDWOODS
PRAIRIE CREE REDWOODS
DRY LACOON
OREGON
PATRICK'S POINT'S
TRINIDAD
LITTLE RIVER
Section
CA
. AZADEAS.R
FORT HOWBOLDT EUREKA
Weed
Humbridi
Co
Mount Shorts
GRIZZLY CREEK REDWOODS
Trenty
CO.CASTLE CRAGES
Moter
Ca.
DUE
NUMBOLOT REDWOODS
** JOSS NOUS
S.M.M.
MARTHUR FALLS
Allures
BENSON LAKE S R.
SHASTA'S
NEWORKS
RICHARDSON GROVE
REDDING
REYNOLDS
STANDISH HICKEY
SMITRE
REDWOODS
Stasts
Ca
RESTPORT LANDING
ADMIRAL
WILLIAMSTANDLEY
S.R.A
WILLIAM ADDRE
MARKERRICHER
Lasse
Co
Co.
Co
PACIFIC
RUSSIAN GULCH
DANNE
W00030N BRIDGE S.R.A.
-182-
DIMIT
N.C.
Clean
Ca
Plans
Ce
MANCHESTER
MEMOY
THE
UNCREEKS.RU
Quincy
MAILLIARD
DMOODS.R.R.
128
Column
Cloverdate
LAKE SP
RIVER
SEURERASE
KNUSE RH0000ENDROM
Ce
RESERVOIR
LEA
SALT POINTS
20
FORT
Toba
Co.
Smith
Co
@
ARNSTRONG
RABER
TEVENSON
*
MALANOFF
DIÇOINS
SONDAY.COAFTS
BOTHE
SAPA
Net
oto
13
MACK
ADOBE
e
Placer Co.
DONNER
MEMORIAL
TOTAL
SQUAW VALLE S.R.A
SAMUEL TAYLOR
Co.
MOUNT
S.R.A.
MARSHALL
STANSON 5.5
ANCEL
Science Ce
SUTTERS
POINT
ADLANDS
MICIA
D.L.BLISS
CAPITOL
PALACE S.H.P.
Secraments
(RALD
S.R.A.
SAN
RANCISCO
SAN
FRANCISCO
Cests
ANNAR
SAN FRANCISCO
Co
GRINDING ROCK
NAMEM
EMORIAL
TRAC
BEACH
MOUNT
GROVER HOT
SHARP
BEACH
-
MONTARA BEACH
Co
FRANCIS DUNES BEACH
3
Calaretes
Co.
Alpne
Co
SAN ACH
@
CALAVERAS
POMPONID
2
PESBLE
CASTELL
MEMORIAL
ARROYD FRUDLES
Jose
Tyclure
BUTANOS.P
PARK
AND NUE VO S.R
Co.
TE
SIG BASIN RED#00055.P
Stamisless
Co
6
YOSEMITE
NATURAL BRIDGES
COE
MARKS
GEORGE
HAT
NAT'L PARK
BODIE
BRIGHTON
1011
ET
SEACLIFF
I
MANRESA
I
S.H.O
Merced
FREMONT
MONTEREY
He
Mond
Co
CARMEL RIVER
LABOS
-
Lokes
NEVADA
@
Maders
Co
Ф
PFEIFFER
JULIA PFEIFFER BURNS
COCHES RANCHO
JOHN LITTLE
I
Cs
Beshoo
FRESNO
Freque
Fowler
101
CANYON
MATE
WHIS
E
Co:
SAN SIME ON
PN
Kings
Co
SEQUOIA
Tubere
CAYUCOS
Alascadere
PARK
Tylare
&
Co.
MORRO-BAY
DEATH
AVILA
PISMO.S.
Beach
190
POINT SAL S.B.
VALLEY
ELK:
KERN RIVER S R
ompiod MISSIONS
5
BAKERSFIELD
Ce:
E
Xeet
Co
MAT'L MCM
101
B
CAVIOTA
REFUGIOS
ELCAPITAN
FORT TERMSHIP
COLETA 18.\
PRESION
DE'SANTA
BARBARA
Mojove
CARPINTERIA
Vantura
Co.
Ojo:
PACIFIC
EMM WOOD
SAN
BUE NAVERTURA
Co.
San Berriarding
Co.
MICRATH
Ownerd
Selement
Patmont
POINT MUCU
TREES S.P.
Borstow
PLACERITA CA
LEO CARRILLO 18
Conage Park
POINT
1,05 ENCINOS S.H.M
83
LAGOON
LUMAS
HOME
KM,
PUEBLO*
6
WILL ROGERS'S
SANTA MONICA
AND ANGELES
ARBORET
0.05
ANGE
DOCKWEILERS.
5
MANHATTANS
Terrence
RESERVOIRS
REDON003.B
Lamire
MTCHELL CAVERNIS.R.
SAN BERNARDING
ROYAL PALMS
C
Long
Redlands
BOLSA
Diange
NEART BAR S.P.
E
KUNTWIGTON
Sevene
Headle
CORONA
Person
Laqune Beach
Et
DONERY
Home
OCEAN
SAN CLEMENTE
32
WILDERMESSIP
Polm Springs
Legend
Co.
THE
76
Oceansia
Y
NATE
CARLSBAD
MOUNTAIN
S.B.
STATE BEACH
LEUCADIA
R
MON
CARDIE CO COAST S.B.
S.P.
STATE PARK
MODELIGHT
Escondido
SAN
N.P.
SALTOR SEA
S.R.
STATE RESERVE
CARDIFF
TORRET PTRES
S.R.A.
STATE RECREATION AREA
OLD TOWN
SAN DIEGO
S.H.P.
STATE HISTORIC PARK
RANCHO
ANZA
BOMECO
ARIZONA
S.H.M.
STATE HISTORICAL MONUMENT
STRAND
Chula
Blythe
STATE OWNED ARK UNITS STAFFED.
SERVICED. AND OPERATED BY OTHER
AGENCIES.
D
reports
Co.
N.C.
WAYSIDE CAMPGROUNDS
MEXICO
BE
PICACHO
January 1971
With respect to local assistance, the Department provides substantial fin-
ancial assistance in the form of State and Federal grants for local facil-
ities. In addition, the Department provides planning and ongoing technical
information services to local governmental agencies.
In addition to these activities, the Department engages in additional programs
with local agencies in an effort to encourage a coordinated approach to
recreation in the coastal area. For example, the Department has met
with all local agencies in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and
San Diego Counties. These meetings have resulted in a current joint effort
to establish a uniform level of service, regardless of which agency owns the
beach. Joint financing arrangments are also being considered in order to max-
imize the resources available to State and local government.
The Department will play an active role in the administration of the State
Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974 if
approved at the Statewide election in November. The Act authorizes the
issuance of bonds in the amount of $250 million for a variety of State and
local facilities as indicated by its title.
DEPARTMENT OF NAVIGATION AND OCEAN DEVELOPMENT
The Marine Resources Conservation and Development Act of 1967 charged the
Governor with the responsibility of preparing a Comprehensive Ocean Area
Plan (COAP), and this responsibility was assigned to the Department of Navi-
gation and Ocean Development. The COAP was completed in 1972 and, as pub-
lished, contains an immense amount of detailed and well-organized information
about the coastal area. A framework for improved management of land use
in the coastal area is also suggested.
-183-
Although the initial COAP study was completed in 1972, the Department of
Navigation and Ocean Development requested funds to continue the planning pro-
gram in 1973-74. However, the funds were not approved by the Legislature,
and this activity is no longer a part of the program of the Department of
Navigation and Ocean Development. From the standpoint of the California
Coastline Initiative, this is significant because the initiative requires
the State to transfer the COAP budget and staff to the Statewide commission
that would be created by the initiative. There are no COAP funds and no COAP
staff to transfer.
The Department of Navigation and Ocean Development is also responsible for
administering several ongoing programs that have an impact on land use in
the coastal area. Most important is the boating facilities program under
which the Department:
(1) Makes grants to local governmental agencies for the constuction of
launching facilities on all suitable bodies of water.
(2) Plans, designs and constructs boating facilities throughout the State
Park System and at State Water Project reservoirs.
(3) Finances on a loan basis the local share of joint Federal-State-local
navigation projects.
(4) Loans funds to local governments for the construction of marinas.
(5) Plans, designs, and constructs, with or without Federal assistance, har-
bors of refuge if need and feasibility can be shown.
(6) Pursues a capital outlay program for the purpose of acquiring land and
water areas for use- by the boating public.
(7) Conducts a planning program to establish the present and prospective
need for boating facilities in the State.
All boating facility projects are subject to the State Environmental Qual-
-184-
ity Act of 1970, which requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report prior to final approval of the project. It is interesting to note
that the Department found in several cases that "environmental costs have
been of such a magnitude that project feasibility could not be established."
In addition, the Department also participates with Federal and local agencies
in a beach erosion control program. This program can involve the conduct
of studies, the initiation of projects, the construction of beach erosion
control facilities, and assistance with the necessary financing.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works, particularly its Division of Highways, is a
major land owner and land user in the coastal area. Among other things, the
Department is responsible for planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, con-
struction, maintenance, and operation of the State highway system.
Planning for State highways is done within a framework that, by statute
and administrative policy, involves local agencies. Importantly, from the
standpoint of comprehensive planning, the Department also coordinates its
planning activities with regional councils of government.
The specific planning process involves the conduct of general transporta-
tion need studies (transportation corridor studies in urban areas, freeway
studies in rural areas) and specific route planning and design studies. These
studies are conducted under the terms of a cooperative agreement between the
State Business and Transportation Agency and councils of government and/or
individual local agencies. Policy direction is provided by a Planning Policy
Committee comprised of elected local officials and a representative of the
State. State law and departmental policy requires the preparation of an en-
-185-
vironmental impact report in conjunction with each study. Cooperative and
comprehensive transportation need studies are presently underway in the follow-
ing coastal areas: San Diego Metropolitan area, Los Angeles regional area,
Santa Barbara urbanized area, Salinas Monterey area, and the San Francisco
Bay Area nine-county region.
The Department has additional activities aimed at evaluating the environmental
impact of highway construction. For example, a Community Environmental Factors
Unit has been established within the Division of Highways. This Unit is
responsible for initiating programs that will promote, within the Department and
otherwise, the comprehensive consideration of community and environmental
factors and highway planning.
The Department has a major program of highway and freeway landscaping which
includes the construction and maintenance of rest areas, comfort stations,
the screening of junk yards, and access to scenic vistas. In 1972-73,
the Department estimates that it will plant 1,065 acres or 33 miles of road-
side, including 3,450 trees. The Department has also adopted standard pro-
cedures when constructing highways with respect to working in flowing streams,
causing siltation of rivers and streams, and protecting fish and wildlife
resources. It also coordinates its activities with the State Water Resources
Control Board to ensure that construction will not have any adverse impact
on water quality.
The construction of streets and highways has an important effect on accessi-
bility to the coastal area. As a result, the Department has adopted a
"Coastal Zone Policy of the State in Transportation". As expressed by the
Department in its recent report for the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, "it
is the intent of the policy that the State undertake only minimal freeway
-186-
construction along what has been designated in the policy as a coastal zone."
The policy is, as follows:
THE COASTAL ZONE POLICY OF THE STATE IN TRANSPORTATION
One of the most recent and significant advances in considering transportation
as an integral part of the social and physical environment became manifest in
the articulation of the "Coastal Zone Policy" by the Department of Public Works,
in respect to transportation. The policy is as follows:
A. PHILOSOPHY
The California coastal zone is a unique and irreplaceable natural resource
with a limited capacity for use and development. The permanent protection
of the natural and scenic resources of the California coastal zone is of
paramount concern to present and future residents of the State and Nation.
B. ZONE DEFINITION
The coastal zone is defined, for transportation planning purposes, as an
area of variable width abutting the Pacific Ocean and extending inland to
the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range. Where
coastal plains lie adjacent to the ocean, the zone generally will be
considered as one-half mile in width.
C. POLICY
It is the Policy of the Department of Public Works to help provide the
coastal zone with optimal transportation service consistent with local
and regional total planning and with the objective of conserving the
coastal resource. Various models of transportation, means of access and
levels of service will be considered in balance with coastal capacities to
preserve and enhance the coastal resource.
D. PLANNING CONCEPTS
1. Significant portions of the coastal zone may not be suitable as the
location of a major north-south transportation corridor. Considera-
tion will be given to linking coastal destination points by lower
standard highway facilities, by alternative routings, or recommending
other modes of transportation, if appropriate.
Understanding that both business and recreational drivers have a
legitimate interest in access to the coastal zone, creative approaches
to serving these interests will be encouraged within the framework of
this policy.
2. Traffic which is not specifically oriented toward use of the coastal
zone will be encouraged to use other nearby traffic corridors.
3. Coastal highways will generally function as arterials, providing variable
-187-
levels of service with mixed operating conditions, and furnishing
appropriate land access.
4. Transportation facilities within the zone will be planned in coopera-
tion with local and regional agencies to:
a. Encourage and support human uses which are dependent on the
coastal zone's natural resources.
b. Enhance and conserve environmental qualities or amenities while
minimizing disruption to stable ecological systems and harmoni-
zing, as nearly as possible, with natural land forms.
C. Maintain the widest number of options possible for future
generations.
d. Assist in preserving unique scientific, educational, and recrea-
tional opportunities.
e. Emphasize safe business and recreational driver enjoyment of the
coastal resource rather than speed of vehicular movement.
5. When the State and local agencies agree that, for compelling reasons,
freeways or broad arerials are necessary in the coastal zone, spec-
ial planning and design criteria within the context of this policy
will be utilized."
The Department's policy of coordinating planning is also practiced by the
Business and Transportation Agency of which it is a part. The Agency has ex-
pressed a concern for broad transportation planning and, through the creation
of a State Transportation Board and the Office of Transportation Planning and
Research, it is preparing a Statewide transportation plan covering all modes
of transportation which will integrate and give additional meaning to the
transportation plans of local agencies, councils of government, and others.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Another unit of State government that has a direct land use interest in the
coastal area because of the ownership of real property therein is the Depart-
ment of Water Resources.
The activities of the Department have an impact on the State in general,
-188-
and the coastal area in particular, in several ways. The Department has as
its principal responsibility the preparation and implementation of a State-
wide plan for the economic and environmentally sound development and manage-
ment of State water resources. This program responsibility, although State-
wide in nature, is closely coordinated and related to the planning and de-
velopment efforts of individual cities, counties, and councils of government.
With respect to the development of a coordinated Statewide plan, the De-
partment continually projects water demands by quantity and type of use. In
this regard, studies of land use and population distribution are conducted,
and the resulting data and information is used to assess the economic and en-
vironmental impact of alternative water management plans. This planning pro-
cess also includes, among other things, a continuing assessment of salt water
intrustion into coastal ground water basins and the construction of appro-
priate sea water barriers to protect and insure water quality. The possibility
of protecting levee vegetation to meet the needs of aesthetics, wildlife, and
recreation is also considered.
From the standpoint of implementation, the Department is involved in major
construction activities related to the completion of the California Water
Project. Although the objective of the project is to produce needed water
supply throughout the Central and Southern portions of the State, it will
also result in 57,000 acres of reservoir water surface and 520 miles of
reservoir shoreline with access for fishing, boating, and other recreational
activities. The Department also provides substantial financial assistance in
the form of loans and grants to local agencies for implementation of feasi-
bility studies, reservoir site acquisitions, construction costs of local
projects, and recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement.
-189-
Additional activities of the Department of Water Resources are of particu-
lar interest to the coastal area. For example, in order to meet future water
needs, the Department is engaged in continuing studies of the feasibility and
process of desalting sea water. This activity includes plans for a coastal
prototype of a large capacity desalter in order to obtain design data and cost
information useful in the evaluation of large capacity desalting and in
transportation of desalted water. The Department is also responsible for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of a wide variety of flood control
projects throughout the State. In addition, they provide financial assistance
to local agencies to enable them to participate in Federal flood control
projects and, as administrators of the Cobey-Alquist Act of 1969, they provide
technical assistance to local agencies in the area of flood plain zoning.
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
The Department of Fish and Game is involved in a broad variety of activities
including licensing; general enforcement of rules and regulations as included
in the Fish and Game Code; preservation and management of all forms of wildlife;
propagation and preservation of various species of fish; and development of
marine resources.
One of the more significant Departmental activities is the ownership and
management of 115,000 acres of wildlife enhancement areas. Programs related
to these areas include growing water fowl food plants; controlling noxious
vegetables; constructing necessary levees, canals, and ponds; and other
activities designed to make these areas attractive to water fowl and other
wildlife.
The Department is engaged in a broad program of managing marine resources.
Coastal sport fishermen annually fish the equivalent of 6.2 million days, and
-190-
they catch approximately 29 million pounds of fish. In addition, California
commercial fisheries take 500 million pounds of fish annually. In order to
perpetuate this coastal resource, the Department engages in a broad program
of research concerning big game fish, coastal fish, bottom fish, pelagic fish,
and shell fish. Typical of the broad research for each of these elements is
that proposed for 1972-73 for coastal fish: (1) documentation of sport
fishing intensity and catch; (2) studies of the ecology of the flora and fauna
of the inshore areas; (3) monitoring and conducting special studies of marine
mammals; (4) special contract surveys which include a biological study offshore
the Diablo Canyon and the Mendocino Coast to assess, in part, any potential
impact of proposed nuclear power plants; and (5) kelp management.
A significant amount of Departmental time is devoted to providing environ-
mental services to other State and local agencies. For example, plans for
Federal land and water projects, State and local land water projects, Feder-
al Power Commission projects, and State water rights and dam permits are
required by law to be submitted to the Department for review. Plans for con-
struction of State and Federal highway projects are reviewed by the Department
through a memorandum of understanding with the State Division of Highways
and administrative procedures of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads.
Environmental impact statements submitted pursuant to State and Federal en-
vironmental quality acts are also reviewed regarding their treatment of the
fish and wildlife involved. The Department will review and make recommenda-
tions on approximately 700 water project proposals including 20-25 major
projects, about 150 highway development plans, and approximately 120 envir-
onmental statements for a variety of projects in 1972-73. In addition, the
Department cooperates with the State and regional water quality control
-191-
boards by assisting in the evaluation of the effect of waste discharge on
fish and wildlife, reporting offenders, and by providing technical assistance
in the establishment of specific waste discharge requirements.
In addition to those State Departments listed above that exercise direct land
use control over State-owned property, there are many other State Departments
that have a planning and/or regulatory interest in the coastal area. The
activities of some are described briefly below:
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
The State Water Resources Control Board establishes State policy for water
quality control. The nine regional water quality control boards, using
State policy as a framework, establish waste discharge requirements and under-
take monitoring and surveillance programs to assure compliance by public and
private agencies. Federal agencies must also receive a certificate from the
State indicating that any proposed development project will not impede water
quality. Noncompliance with waste discharge requirements can result in a
cease and desist order and penalties of up to $5,000 per day. During 1972-73,
the Board estimates it will make 9,100 surveillance inspections, and that it
will take 300 specific cease and desist enforcement actions.
With respect to the coastal area, the Board, on July 6, 1972, adopted a
restrictive set of ocean discharge requirements which are now subject to
enforcement by the regional boards. The Board is also drafting similar
requirements for waste discharges into estaurine waters.
In addition to the impact of its basic discharge requirements, the Board has
a continuing relationship with local government through the administration
of a grant program designed to assist local agencies, on an individual
-192-
or joint basis, to upgrade existing facilities and to construct new facilities
that will be able to meet present and future water quality standards. Both
State and Federal funds are involved in this program. From the standpoint of
comprehensive planning, the Board requires that any individual application
for sewage treatment project funds be consistent with appropriate regional
waste water disposal plans. In this regard, the Board maintains continuing
liaison with councils of government, and has special studies underway with the
Association of Bay Area Governments and the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
In cooperation with Atomic Energy Commission and local agencies, the State
Public Utilities Commission is principally responsible for reviewing applica-
tions for new electric generating and transmission facilities and for issuing
required certificates of public convenience and necessity. In this regard,
The Public Utilities Commission has adopted General Order 131 which provides,
as follows:
"It is hereby ordered that no electrical public utility, now subject,
or which hereafter may become subject, to the jurisdiction of this
Commission, shall begin construction within this State of an electric
generating plant having in aggregate a capacity in excess of 50mw or of
overhead line facilities which are designed for immediate or eventual
operation at any voltage in excess of 200kv (except for the replacement
of existing with equivalent facilities, or the placing of new or ad-
ditional conductors, insulators or their accessories on or replacement
of supporting structures already build) without this Commission's
having first found, after consideration of the impact of such facilities
upon the air, water, land, and other aesthetic, environmental and
ecological requirements of the public and of its energy needs, that
said facilities are necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort and
convenience of the public, and that they are required by the public
convenience and necessity."
The procedures included in G.O. 131 provide for a detailed review of
proposed construction plans with affected local agencies, and they require
-193-
substantial advance notice and the provision of detailed planning and design
information prior to the date when action on any application for a certificate
of convenience and necessity would be taken by the Commission. The Order
also requires that any application for a new generating facility shall be
given to the Secretary of the Resources Agency, representing the Departments
of Conservation, Water Resources, Parks, and Recreation, Fish and Game, and
Navigation and Ocean Development, and to the Department of Public Health, to
the Water Resources Control Board, to the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, to the Air Resources Board, to the Air Pollution Control
District, if any, in whose jurisdiction the proposed facility will be located,
to the Department of Public Works, Division of Aeronautics, and to the State
Lands Commission.
The responsibility of the Commission under G.O. 131 and otherwise for power
plant siting is supplemented by the efforts of the Resources Agency which
was designated in 1969 as the State entity responsible for coordinating
the activities of all State agencies relative to thermal power plant siting.
As required by statute, the agency has undertaken to develop a plan indica-
ting the optimum location for all electric power generating plants expected
to be constructed within the State over the next twenty years, and it has cre-
ated a special Power Plant Siting Committee. The Committee is chaired by
the Secretary of the Resources Agency, and membership, includes representation
from the following agencies:
Department of Conservation
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Navigation and Ocean Development
Department of Parks and Recreation
-194-
Department of Water Resources
State Water Resources Control Board
Department of Public Health
State Air Resources Board
State Lands Commission
The Committee reviews proposed plant sites prior to submittal of the
application by a utility to the Public Utilities Commission. In making its
recommendations, the Committee considers the following:
1. The effect of the plant and its operation on:
existing and proposed plans for developments at or near the proposed
site,
existing or proposed State or local air and water quality controls,
fish and wildlife,
State and local resources considering the plant's generation, fuel,
cooling water requirements and type of cooling,
total environment of the area;
2. Factors which may contribute to the conservation of energy;
3. The preservation of important recreational and scenic areas;
4. Development of an environmental evaluation program or water
quality requirements;
5. The impact of the proposed plant upon air quality in the vicinity
of the site;
6. An appraisal of the geologic and seismic conditions;
7. The location and construction of cooling water systems.
In addition to other activities, the Commission is responsible for coordinat-
ing a State-wide program of underground utilities and, in this regard, has
adopted an order in PUC Case 8209 requiring all privately owned electric
utilities to make annual contributions for the conversion of overhead distribution
-195-
facilities to underground. This program results in approximately $15 million
being made available annually for the conversion of such distribution fac-
ilities.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
The Department of Conservation is concerned with the protection and conser-
vation of forests, watersheds, grasslands, rangelands, mineral deposits, and
soil resources. It plans and operates a State-wide program, much of which
impacts on the coastal area. It provides fire protection to 38 million
acres of State and private land, and has responsibility under contract with
twenty-one counties for local fire protection on approximately 5 million
additional acres. The Department conducts a continuing geologic survey
aimed at permitting more intelligent land use, providing protection from
existing and potential geologic hazards, and discovering and providing for
the orderly development of mineral resources. In this regard, it plans
for the development of coastal and marine resources, and coordinates its
efforts with other agencies such as the State Water Resources Control Board
where related problems such as siltation, sedimentation, and waste disposal
from mining operations could have an effect on water quality in the coastal
area or elsewhere. The Department also administers laws concerning the con-
servation and economic development of petroleum, gas and geothermal resources,
and its activities in this area include the supervision of drilling, operation
maintenance, and abandonment of wells on on-shore and off-shore lands, the
supervision of projects aimed at stimulating oil production, and the super-
vision of operations for the abatement of subsidence of lands overlying whole
oil field operations. The department also provides assistance to local agencies
in identifying soil resource problems and developing appropriate solutions.
-196-
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
The Department of Public Health has no statutory authority over land use,
but it has a concern in this area because of the potential effect of different
types of land use on health. In general, the Department conducts research into
the effects of growth and population distribution on health and the envir-
onment. More specifically, however, departmental activities which relate to land
use include the development and enforcement of health standards concerning air
quality, beach sanitation, reclamation of waste water, domestic water, and
sanitation of water recreational areas and public swimming pools. The De-
partment also reviews and comments on the adequacy of proposed sewage treat-
ment plants, and conducts studies in the area of solid waste. In addition,
the Department samples shellfish in commerical and recreational areas to
assure they are safe for consumption, and quarantines such areas when necessary.
OTHER
In addition to the activities of its various departments, the Resources Agency
has a general concern with land use through its membership on the Bay Con-
servation and Development Commission and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency;
its sponsorship of an environmental protection program financed by the
sale of personalized license plates that includes the purchase of coastal
ecological reserves and in the conduct of special studies pertaining to such
areas as waterway management planning, basin air quality, agricultural burn-
ing, and the environmental impact of proposed airports; its efforts through
the State Reclamation Board to protect land in the Central Valley from
frequent and severe flooding; and the Agency's responsibility for the Advisory
Commission on Marine and Coastal Resources which was established to provide
on-going guidance to the comprehensive Ocean Area Planning effort.
-197-
From a planning standpoint, the Coordinating Council on Higher Education
is concerned that adequate coastal land and water areas, including instruc-
tional reserves, be available for all aspects of marine study.
The Department of Agriculture has no management responsibility with respect
to the operation of agricultural lands. However, the Department does work
with State and local agencies, as well as land owners, in administering
agricultural preserves under the Williamson Land Conservation Act of 1965.
This Act permits owners of undeveloped land to enter into an agreement with
the city or county wherein the land is located. The land owner agrees to
devote his land to open space or agricultural uses for a certain period of
time (usually 10 years) and he receives a reduction in assessed value in
return. Many acres of undeveloped shoreline property are presently under
such agricultural preserve contracts.
The Wildlife Conservation Board, located in the Resources Agency, also has an
interest in the coast because of its ongoing program designed to maximize
access to State natural resources for hunting and fishing purposes. Con-
sistent with principles of conservation, the Board annually conducts studies
and appropriates funds for the acquisition and improvement of facilities
such as boat ramp, farming areas, water supply, and sanitary facilities.
Completed facilities are generally managed by the Department of Fish and Game,
although they are also managed by local agencies in some cases.
-198-
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 989fe911a7fd077f
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 118564996
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "118564996",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564996",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "[Environment] - Preservation and Management of Californiaäó»s Coastline, September 1972 (2 of 3)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564996",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"Reports"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-004-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-004-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-004-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "118564996",
"label": "[Environment] - Preservation and Management of Californiaäó»s Coastline, September 1972 (2 of 3)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564996"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "118564996",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564996",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "[Environment] - Preservation and Management of Californiaäó»s Coastline, September 1972 (2 of 3)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564996",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"Reports"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-004-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-004-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-004-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564996",
"naId": 118564996,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
"year": 1975
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
"year": 1967
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P36-004-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "989fe911a7fd077f",
"ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: [Environment] - Preservation and\nManagement of California's Coastline,\nSeptember 1972 (2 of 3)\nBox: P36\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nAssembly.\nSecond, the law directed the Commission to develop Interim and Final Plans of\nState Development Policy by September 1, 1972 and December 1, 1973, respectiv-\nely. Third, it required the Commission to develop a series of standards and\nguidelines for various units of governments in the state. The Commission is\nto develop model subdivision regulations for the counties. \"For all levels\nof government the Commission is required to develop a system for monitoring\ngrowth and change in the state, a means of evaluating the impact on proposed\ndevelopment, a system for identifying environmental concerns and relating\nthem to development, and a system for documenting the state's existing land\nuse control policies and planning. \"* Finally, the legislation requires the\nCommission to develop flood plain control standards and criteria and to rec-\nommend critical conservation and recreation areas.\nThe Commission can make recommendations to the Governor on development policy.\nThe Governor has the power to restrain any land development activity which\n\"constitutes a danger or potential danger of irreparable injury, loss, or\ndamage of serious proportions to the public health, safety and welfare. \"**\nCONTROLS AND CRITERIA\nThe controls are primarily focused at the county level. The Land Use Act re-\nquires all counties to create planning commissions, and it requires them to\nmaintain either building permits or improvement notices for their entire area\nof jurisdiction. \"By July 1, 1972, each county must further promulgate sub-\ndivision regulations, which must include minimum standards and technical pro-\ncedures applicable to drainage maps, sewer plans and designs for water systems.\n*Ibid., p. 300.\n**Ibid.\n-95-\nIf such regulations are not SO promulgated, then the Commission is empowered\nto do so for any tardy county.'\nThe Act sets up a fund to aid counties in planning activities. It establishes\na $200,000 fund for any county, municipality or regional planning agency which\nthe Commission has designated as an area of critical planning need. There is\na stipulation that the planning aid must be used for a work program agreed\nto by the municipality, county or agency and the Commission.\nThe winter olympics of 1976 will take place in the Denver region. The legis-\nlation emphasizes land use controls in those areas. The Land Use Commission\nis to evaluate the community impact and the potential land consumption rate\nas well as the public investment programming and planning. It will indicate\nto the Governor the information necessary for it to carry out its duties,\nand the Governor will require the Denver olympics organizing committee or any\nstate agency to furnish information to the Commission.\nThe Commission will cooperate and consult with local officials in communities\nwhere olympic events are located to develop land use controls, and it will\nensure that these controls are adequate to protect the environment. If these\nlocal municipalities or counties in which the olympic events are scheduled\nfail to provide land use controls with adequate environmental safeguards, the\nCommission, after a recommendation from the governor, can set up land use\nregulations for these areas.\nThe Commission notifies the board of county commissioners in any county\nwhere there is a land development activity threatening the public health,\nwelfare or safety. If the county board does not remedy the situation, the\n*Ibid. p. 301.\n-96-\nCommission reviews the facts about the activity. The governor can then dir-\nect the Land Use Commission to issue a cease and desist order requiring the\ndeveloper to immediately discontinue operations. If the development is con-\ntinued, the Commission will request a temporary restraining order, prelimin-\nary injunction or permanent injunction from the appropriate district court.\nAfter the cease and desist order or court action, the Commission will estab-\nlish the planning criteria necessary to eliminate or avoid the dangerous ef-\nfects of the development.\nASSESSMENT\nThe Colorado Land Use Act provides for strong state leadership in establish-\ning guidelines, criteria, and identification of areas of critical environ-\nmental concern.\nIt maintains on-going planning and permit functions at the local level but\nensures assertive state role by providing for commission monitoring and fol-\nlow-up in areas of critical concern when local agencies are not responsive.\nDIRECT STATEWIDE CONTROL IN SELECTED AREAS\nA large number of states have enacted legislation dealing with the management\nof specific geographic or critical areas. These laws regulate the develop-\nment of coastal zones, wetlands, new communities and power plant siting. To\ndate this type of management program has proven to be the most prevalent form\nof state activity.\nMASSACHUSETTS\nADMINISTRATION\nMassachusetts has several laws that protect its coastal wetlands. The Jones\n-97-\nAct, passed in 1963, requires developers who seek to alter the coastal wet-\nlands to apply for a permit from the Massachusetts Department of Natural Re-\nsources. The Act is designed to limit developments sufficiently to help pre-\nserve the ecological conditions necessary for shell fish and marine fisheries.\nThe Coastal Wetlands Act of 1965 is gradually replacing the limited protec-\ntion set up by the Jones Act. The Coastal Wetlands Act institutes \"protec-\ntive orders\" which are issued by the Department of Natural Resources. These\norders prohibit any alteration of coastal wetland areas except under carefully\ncontrolled circumstances. The Act defines coastal wetlands as any bank, marsh,\nswamp, meadow, flat or other low land subject to tidal action or coastal\nstorm flowage and necessary contiguous land.\n\"Protective orders (conservation restrictions) have been recorded against 17,915\nacres of coastal wetland and orders are currently pending against another 25,446\nacres. In the near future, therefore, the Department will have recorded con-\nservation restrictions covering 44,000 of the approximately 60,000 acres of\ncoastal wetlands in Massachusetts. Thus, the Jones Act will soon be obsolete,\nexcept where landowners manage to prevent their wetland property from being\nincluded in a coastal protective order. \"* The statute does not require any par-\nticipation by local governments. The Department of Natural Resources could\ncomplete a protective order restricting uses in coastal wetlands without even\nconsulting local governments.\nIn actual practice, however, the Department has informal consultation with\nlocal authorities at various stages of the order process. The Department does\nnot ask for recommendations while the order is being prepared; but state of-\nficials meet with the local governing body before the hearing to explain the\n*Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 205.\n-98-\noperation of the protective order.\nLocal governments can establish more restrictive provisions over area al-\nready under a protective order. If local authorities want to set up this\ntype of regulations, the state's orders do not pre-empt their regulations.\nSome local governments have asked the state to include provisions limiting\nthe real estate tax assessment that can be imposed on private property un-\nder protective orders. \"Under present arrangements the valuation lies with-\nin the discretion of the local board of assessors, and some town governments\nask that the state take affirmative action to guarantee tax relief to owners\nof restricted property. Such a guaranty they maintain, would reduce ob-\njections of local property owners. (This apparent anomaly of local legisla-\ntive bodies actively seeking what amounts to a reduction in their tax income\ncan be explained by the fact that most wetlands are assessed at a fairly\nlow level in the first place. )\nAfter a final order has been recorded, an objecting landowner may request\njudicial review. The Coastal Wetlands Act indicates that the owner can peti-\ntion the superior court for a review of the order as it effects his land. The\nonly remedy the court can make must apply to the petitioners property.\nAny petition must be filed within 90 days after the owners affected by a pro-\ntective order have been notified. The protective orders are essentially free\nfrom judicial challenge shortly after they are finalized.\nIf the superior court finds that an order is \"an unreasonable exercise of the\npolice power because (it) constitutes the equivalent of a taking without com-\npensation,\" the act, indicates that the court should enter a finding that the\n*Ibid., p. 214.\n-99-\norder will not apply to that land.* If the court reaches this decision then\nthe Department of Natural Resources can institute eminent domain proceed-\nings to take the property. \"However, the Department has never had to exer-\ncise its eminent domain powers in any of the 14 coastal areas where protective\norders have been issued, and a number of factors appear to have contributed\nto this situation: caution on the part of the Department in drawing up the\norders, the burdensome procedures a landowner would have to follow if he\nwished to challenge an order, and general acceptance by owners of the restric-\ntions imposed. \"**\nOnly about 20 owners of the several thousand affected by the coastal orders\nhave gone to court. All but one of these cases was settled before going to\ntrial. The small number of objections to the protective orders may indi-\ncate owner acceptance or it may indicate that owners who might object are\ndeterred by the required court actions.\nCONTROLS AND CRITERIA\nThe Coastal Wetlands Act states that the purpose of the protective orders\nis to protect wildlife and marine fisheries. The powers of the Department\nof Natural Resources are quite broad including both the definition of\ncoastal wetlands which may be protected and the type of regulation which\ncan be imposed.\nThe Department's first step in protecting the coastal wetlands is to gather\ninformation necessary to locate wetlands, decide the precise areas to be pro-\ntected and determine the land ownership in these areas. The Department con-\nducts on-site inspection of the areas under consideration. It then prepares\n*130 Massachusetts General Laws Ann., Section 105.\n**Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 216\n-100-\na tentative map of the area to be protected and uses local assessors maps\nto determine ownership. The owners are notified that a hearing will be held\non the proposed order. After a public hearing and negotiations with land\nowners are complete, the orders are recorded at a local assessor's office.\nThe local hearing process takes a large amount of time. \"It has taken the\nDepartment more than five years to hold 25 hearings covering approximately\ntwo-thirds of the coastal wetlands in the state and to record final protec-\ntive orders covering approximately one-third. \"*\nA coastal protective order consists of a written order accompanied by a map\noutlining the protected wetlands. The orders outline uses which are allowed\nwithout qualification, uses which are allowed subject to certain restrictions\nand uses which are allowed only by special permit. The permit allows uses\nwith conditions or by special permit solely to maintain strict control over\nany filling and dredging activity, not to control the location of uses. The\norders provide generally that \"no person shall perform any act or use said\nwetland in a manner which would destroy the natural vegetation of the wet-\nland--or otherwise alter or permit the alteration of the natural and benefi-\ncial character of the wetland. \"**\nThe boundaries of the orders reflect negotiations with landowners. \"Where\nit seems clear to the Department that no economic use will remain for a given\nparcel, and the owner is threatening to protest, the Department would probab-\nly alter the boundaries of the order to allow an economic use or exempt the\nentire parcel from the order. \"***\n*Ibid., p. 209.\n**Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Order No. 768-71 for the\ntown of Harwick.\n***Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 212.\n-101-\nSo far, very few landowners have raised objections. Only a few property\nowners in an area covered by a proposed protection order even request an\non-site visit by a state official. These requests usually constitute only\nabout 5 per cent of the affected landowners.\nThe most important requests for on-site visits are from those who strongly\noppose the restrictions. Apparently, the Department has made very few\nimportant concessions. \"If a negotiated settlement acceptable to the owner\ncannot be achieved, the difficult review procedure acts as an effective de-\nterrent to continued objection in many cases. Consequently, the number of\nformal objections that are eventually filed is very low.\"*\nASSESSMENT\nThe Department of Natural Resources does not have an investigative force to\nensure compliance with conditions or to supervise land under protective\norders. The Department has encouraged the public to notify the agency about\nunauthorized projects. \"There have been no reported complaints concerning\nviolations of protective orders under the Coastal Wetlands Act. With no com-\nprehensive surveillance system, Department officials admit that they do not\nknow how accurately this reflects actual activities in the protected areas;\nbut they believe that it indicates general compliance.\"**\nThe private sector has also assisted in obtaining compliance with protective\norders. Many large financial institutions require developers to comply with\nprotective orders before they will grant a loan.\n*Ibid., p. 213.\n**Ibid., p. 225.\n-102-\nThe coastal protective orders have apparently been effective. More than\ntwo-thirds of the coastal wetlands are covered by protective orders, either\nrecorded or pending, and the major problem has been the large amount of time\nrequired to issue the orders. \"Satisfaction has been expressed by both\nconservationists and the Department personnel that actual negotiations have\nbeen required with only about 100 owners and that only one objection will\ncome to trial in the courts. 11*\nDELAWARE\nADMINISTRATION\nThe Delaware Coastal Zone Act specifically seeks to prohibit new heavy indus-\ntry along the entire coast of the state. Heavy industry and various off-\nshore facilities are entirely prohibited, and all other types of manufactur-\ning facilities must obtain a permit.\nThe Delaware legislature passed the Coastal Zone Act in 1971. It assigned\nthe administration of the act to the State Planning Office. The State Plan-\nner considers all requests for permits for manufacturing land uses. These\nrequests must be in writing and must include (1) evidence of approval by\nthe appropriate county or municipal zoning authorities, (2) a detailed des-\ncription of the proposed manufacturing facility and (3) an environmental im-\npact statement. ** The State Planner must either grant, deny or modify the\npermit within 90 days of receipt.\nThe Act also establishes a State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board. The\nState Planner will propose to the Board a comprehensive plan and guidelines\nconcerning types of manufacturing uses deemed acceptable in the Coastal Zone.\n*Ibid., p. 225.\n**Volume 58, Law of Delaware, Chapter 175, Section 7005.\n-103-\nThese plans and guidelines will become binding regulations upon adoption by\nthe Board after a public hearing. The Board can alter these regulations at\nany time after a public hearing. *\nThe State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board has ten voting members.\nThe governor appoints five of these. The other five are the Secretary of\nNatural Resources and Environmental Control, the Secretary of Community Af-\nfairs and Economic Development and the planning commission chairman in each\nof Delaware's three counties. No compensation is given to the Board members.\nAny member with a conflict of interest in a matter under consideration by\nthe Board must disqualify himself.\nThe Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board hears appeals from decisions of\nthe State Planner. The Board can modify any permit, grant a permit which\nhas been denied, deny a permit or confirm a permit. Any appellant must\nfile his appeal within 14 days after the State Planner's decision. The Board\nthen must hold a hearing within 60 days. All hearings must be public.\nAnyone who has appealed to the Board and is not satisfied with the Board's\ndecision may appeal to the superior court. The State Planner may also appeal\nany modification of his decision to the superior court. The appeals to super-\nior court must be filed within 20 days after the Board's decision. The court\nmay affirm, modify or reverse the Board's ruling.\nIf the court determines that a permit's denial or restrictions imposed by a\ngranted permit is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation, the\nSecretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control\n*Ibid.\n**Ibid., Section 7006.\n***Ibid., Section 7008.\n-104-\nmay acquire fee simple or any lesser interests in the land through negotia-\ntions or condemnation proceedings. The Secretary must use this authority\nwithin five days after the courts ruling.*\nThe law empowers the Attorney General to issue a cease and desist order to\nanyone violating the stipulations of the law. The cease and desist orders\nexpire 30 days after issuance, but the courts can then issue an injunction.\nAnyone violating a provision of the act will be fined not more than $50,000\nfor each offense. If a prohibited activity is continued during any part of\na day, it will constitute a separate offense.\nCONTROLS AND CRITERIA\nThe purpose of the Act is to control the location, extent and type of indus-\ntrial development in Delaware's coastal zone. The Act defines the coastal\nzone as the area between the territorial limits of Delaware in the Delaware\nRiver, Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean and a line formed by designated high-\nways and roads. The definition of this inland line is precisely indicated\nin the law with each boundary road from the Pennsylvania state line to the\nMaryland state line clearly indicated. **\nThe Coastal Zone Act prohibits heavy industry not in operation at the time\nthe law was enacted. It defines heavy industry as \"a use characteristically\ninvolving more than twenty acres, and characteristically employing some but\nnot necessarily all of such equipment such as, but not limited to, smoke\nstacks, tanks, distillation or reaction volumns, chemical processing equipment\nscrubbing towers, pickling equipment, and waste treatment lagoons; which in-\ndustry, although conceivably operable without polluting the environment, has\n*Ibid., Section 7009.\n**Ibid., Section 7002.\n-105-\nthe potential to pollute when equipment malfunctions or human error occurs. \"*\nThis definition would include oil refineries, steel plants, chemical plants\nand paper mills. Off-shore gas, liquid or solid bulk product transfer fac-\nilities are also prohibited in the coastal zone.\nThe act requires all other types of manufacturing facilities to obtain per-\nmits to build new operation in the coastal zone. All non-conforming uses in\nexistence at the time of enactment are not prohibited. The law also requires\na permit for expansions or extensions of these non-conforming manufacturing\nuses.\nThe State Planner and the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board are to\n\"consider\" as opposed to mandatory, inflexible language in the initiative the\nfollowing factors in passing on permit requests:\n(1) \"Environmental impact, including but not limited to, probable\nair and water pollution likely to be generated by the proposed use under\nnormal operating conditions as well as during mechanical malfunction and\nhuman error; likely destruction of wetlands and flora and fauna; impact of\nsite preparation on drainage of the area in question, especially as it\nrelates to flood control; impact of site preparation and facility operations\non land erosion; effect of site preparation and facility operations on\nthe quality and quantity of surface ground and sub-surface water resources,\nsuch as the use of water for processing, cooling, effluent removal, and other\npurposes; in addition but not limited to, likelihood of generation of glare,\nheat, noise, vibration, radiation, electro-magnetic interference and noxious\nodors.\n(2) \"Economic effect, including the number of jobs created and the\n*Ibid.\n-106-\nincome which will be generated by the wages and salaries of these jobs in re-\nlation to the amount of land required, and the amount of tax revenues poten-\ntially accruing to the state and local government.\n(3) \"Aesthetic effect, such as impact on scenic beauty of the sur-\nrounding area.\n(4) \"Number and type of supporting facilities required and the impact\nof such facilities in all factors listed in this subsection.\n(5) \"Effect on neighboring land uses including, but not limited to ef-\nfect on public access to tidal waters, effect on residential areas, and\neffect on adjacent residential and agricultural areas.\n(6) \"County and municipal comprehensive plans for the development and/or\nconservation of their areas of jurisdiction.\nASSESSMENT\nSince the program's inception, there have been no appeals by heavy manufactur-\ning firms. Three light manufacturing firms have applied for permits; and all\nthree applications are still under consideration. The State Planner has ap-\nparently received good cooperation from local agencies.\nOTHER STATES WITH SELECTIVE CONTROLS\nThis type of control is used by a large number of states for a variety of\nuses. States have enacted legislation for critical areas, coastal zones and\nwetlands, power plant siting and other uses.\nCRITICAL AREAS\nNew Jersey and New York have established multi-county areas which serve cri-\ntical uses. In 1968, the New Jersey legislature passed the Hackensack Mead-\nowlands Reclamation and Development Act. The Hackensack Meadowlands Development\n*Ibid., Section 7004.\n-107-\nDistrict is an 18,000 acre area which has remained undeveloped because of\nlow elevation and periodic flooding.\nThe act creates a commission to prepare and adopt a master plan. Local\ncodes will not apply within the Hackensack District unless they are consis-\ntent with the master plan. The Commission is also authorized to provide solid\nwaste disposal facilities, and it may undertake its own reclamation or redevel-\nopment projects. *\nThe New York legislature established the Adirondack Park Agency in 1971. The\nagency is to develop a comprehensive plan for the private land within the\nnearby six million acre park and to establish interim safeguards against\n\"improvident uses\" of the parklands. \"The master plan for private lands must\ndivide the park into areas and establish regulations to control the intensity\nof land use and development in each area, including the type, character and\nextent of development. The recommendations for implementation must include\nspecific legislative, administrative and budgetary recommendations for pri-\nvate land and state action. Values to be protected include scenic and histor-\nic as well as ecological and natural. **\nThe agency must present the plan to the legislature in January 1973. Until\nthe plan is submitted, any developer must submit a project description.\nAfter a public hearing, the agency can prohibit the development if it finds\nthat the project would have an adverse impact on the park. The prohibitions\ncontinue in effect until January 1973. The interim regulations do not apply\nto localities having zoning and subdivision control regulations.\n*Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 293.\n**Ibid., P. 297.\n-108-\nWETLAND AND SHORELAND LAWS\nLaws governing the development in coastal areas, such as Massachusetts coastal\nprotection law, have been passed by over a dozen states in the past few\nyears. Most of these programs do not have sufficient experience to judge\ntheir efficiency.\nThe North Carolina General Assembly enacted a shoreland protection measure\nin 1971. The legislation contains several protective measures. A Board of\nWater and Air Resources is authorized to set up and adopt regulations for\nprotection of shorelands in any county that has not done SO by the end of\n1971. Anyone undertaking any excavation or filling project in estuarine\nwaters must obtain a permit from the Department of Conservation. The permit\nreview is based on the projects effect on:\n(1) the use of water by the public;\n(2) the value and enjoyment of the property of any riparian owners;\n(3) public health, safety and welfare;\n(4) the conservation of public and private water supplies; and\n(5) wildlife or fresh water, estuarine or marine fisheries. *\nIn addition to the permit system, the Department of Conservation is em-\npowered to regulate, restrict, or prohibit dredging, filling, removing or\notherwise altering coastal wetlands. The wetlands include contiguous land\nas deemed necessary.\nThe Rhode Island legislature passed a shoreland protection system in January\n1971. The act sets up a 15 member Coastal Resources Management Council\nwith responsibility for planning and management of the resources of the\ncoastal region. \"Any person proposing development or operation within, above\n*Ch. 113-229, General Statutes of North Carolina, Subsection (a).\n-109-\nor beneath the tidal water below the mean high tide mark must demonstrate\nthat the proposal doesn't conflict with any management plan or program, or\nmake the area unsuitable for the uses provided in the program, or damage the\nenvironment of the coastal region. Regardless of their actual location, the\nCouncil can approve, modify, set conditions for, or reject the design, location,\nconstruction, alteration, and operation of specified activities or land uses\nwhen these are related to a water area under the agency's jurisdiction. \"*\nConnecticut passed a law in 1969 that requires a permit from the Commissioner\nof Agricultural and Natural Resources before any draining, filling, or any\nother type of development can take place. \"Under a 1971 amendment to the\nabove legislation, the Commissioner may temporarily designate an un-inven-\ntoried and unmapped area of wetland if he finds the area is in immediate\ndanger of being despoiled by any activity which would require a permit if\nsuch area were designated a wetland. \"**\nMany states regulate a filling and dredging on wetlands. The Coastal Marsh-\nlands Protection Act, passed by the Georgia legislature in 1970, requires\nthat no person can remove, fill, dredge, drain or alter any marshlands with-\nout first obtaining a permit from the Coastal Marshlands Protection Agency.\nMaryland prohibits dredging or filling on state wetlands without a license.\nIn addition, the Secretary of Natural resources has authority to establish\nrules governing the dredging, filling or polluting of private wetlands.\n\"After inventorying private wetlands, holding hearings and promulgating reg-\nulations, any activity not permitted of right thereon is subject to a permit\napplication. \"***\n*Ibid., p. 305.\n**Ibid.\n***Ibid., p. 306.\n-110-\nThe Washington legislature has passed two separate coastal management bills.\nOne will be selected in the state general election this fall. One of the\nmain differences between the two bills is the level of state control. One\nbill would require the state to set up criteria for local plans and controls\nand the other would require a state agency to draw up plans and controls for\nshoreline areas.\nPOWER PLANT SITING\n\"Significant state activity has also occurred with respect to siting power\nplants and regulation of utility transmission lines. \"* Maryland, Vermont\nand Wisconsin have laws through which they can control or directly influence\nthe location of power plants of any type. Washington has control over the\nlocation of thermal power plants and Illinois and Oregon have laws relating\nto siting of nuclear power plants. \"New York's Siting and Operation of\nMajor Utility Transmission Facilities Law requires utilities to obtain an\nenvironmental compatability certificate from the State before construction.\nAlso in New York a state authority is permitted under a 1965 law to acquire\nand develop sites for future nuclear plants and then sell or lease them to\npower producers. \"**\nSTATEWIDE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS IN SELECTED AREAS\nSeveral states have developed criteria for local decisions on particular\ntypes of uses or in particular areas. These criteria are generally only\nbinding on local agencies if the local agency fails to act.\nWISCONSIN\n*Land Resource Policies and Programs, Pennsylvania State Planning Board,\nAugust 1971, p. 22.\n**Ibid.\n-111-\nADMINISTRATION\nWisconsin's Water Resources Act of 1966 set up a pollution prevention and\nabatement program that reorganized and strengthened the state's regulatory,\nplanning and coordinating functions in the area of water resources.* The\nWater Resources Act treats shorelands as a management unit to minimize pollu-\ntion and preserve natural beauty and wildlife assets. The Act requires\ncounties to enact regulations for the protection of all shorelands in unin-\ncorporated areas in order to II further the maintenance of safe and\nhealthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning\ngrounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of struc-\nture and land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty.\nThe Act states that is is in the public interest \"to make studies, establish\npolicies, make plans and authorize municipal shoreland zoning regulations,\nin order to give effect to the anti-pollution and preservation purposes\nenumerated earlier \"*** It empowers counties to enact separate zoning regu-\nlations affecting all unincorporated land in their jurisdiction within 1,000\nfeet of a lake, pond or flowage and 300 feet of a navigable river or stream,\nor the landward side of the flood plain, whichever distance is greater.\nIf a county does not adopt effective shoreland protection regulations, the\nact authorizes the State Department of Natural Resources is authorized to\nimpose these regulations.\nThe Division of Environmental Protection in the Department of Natural Re-\nsources has the responsibility for administering the act. The direct admin-\nistration of the shoreland management program is under the Flood Plain and\nShoreland Management Section of the Bureau of Water and Shoreland Management.\n*The section on Wisconsin is based on a chapter in The Quiet Revolution in\nLand Use Control by Fred Bosselman and David Callies.\n*Wisconsin Statutes Ann., Section 144.26 (1).\n***Fred Bosselman and David Callies. op. cit., p. 236.\n****Wisconsin Statutes Ann., Section 59.971 (1).\n-112-\nAccording to the act, the administration of the shoreland zoning regulations\nshould be in accordance with the normal zoning ordinance procedure for counties.\nThe Department of Natural Resources is to prepare criteria for the county\nordinances giving particular attention to: \"Safe and healthful conditions\nfor the enjoyment of aquatic recreation, the demands of water traffic, boat-\ning, and water sports; the capability of the water resource; requirements nec-\nessary to assure proper operation of septic tank disposal fields near naviga-\nble waters; building set backs from the water; preservation of shore\ngrowth and cove; conservancy uses for low lying lands; shoreland layout for\nresidential and commercial development; suggested regulations and suggestions\nfor the effective administration and enforcement of such regulation. \"*\nIf a county does not zone the shoreland corridors, the act provides a remedy\nfor the state. \"If any county does not adopt an ordinance or if the De-\npartment of Natural Resources, after notice and hearing determines that a\ncounty has adopted an ordinance which fails to meet reasonable minimum stand-\nards in accomplishing the shoreland protection objectives of S. 144.26(1)\nthe Department of Natural Resources shall adopt such ordinance. \"**\nCONTROLS AND CRITERIA\nThe Division of Environmental Protection has published criteria to guide\ncounties in drawing up the shoreland zoning ordinances.\nThese criteria:\n(1) \"Require the establishment of appropriate districts to protect\nshoreland areas: conservancy, recreational-residential, and general pur-\npose districts.\n(2) \"Require the establishment of subdivision regulations which must\nprohibit any subdivision that:\n*Ibid.\nIbid.\n-113-\n(a) Is likely to result in hazard to the health, safety and wel-\nfare of future residents;\n(b) Fails to maintain proper relation to adjoining areas;\n(c) Does not provide public access to navigable waters, as re-\nquired by law;\n(d) Does not provide for adequate storm drainage facilities;\nand,\n(e) Violates any state law or administrative code provision.\n(3) \"Require establishment of land use regulations which:\n(a) Set minimum lot sizes to protect the public against danger\nto health from excessive pollution hazard;\n(b) Govern building location in relation to health and beauty\npreservation;\n(c) Govern the cutting of trees and shrubbery; and,\n(d) Govern filling, grading, lagooning and dredging.\n(4) \"Require the establishment of sanitary regulations for sewage dis-\nposal and water supply systems.\n(5) \"Require adoption of certain administration and enforcement regu-\nlations providing at least for:\n(a) An administrator;\n(b) A permit system;\n(c) An exception procedure;\n(d) A board of review.\nThe Bureau of Water and Shoreland Management has drawn up a Model Shoreland\nProtection Ordinance based on the above criteria. \"The Model Ordinance is\nessentially a resource-oriented zoning ordinance, complete with districts,\n*\"Wisconsin's Shoreland Management Program\" Release of the Department of\nNatural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 2-3.\n-114-\nparking and loading provisions, exception procedures and lot size controls.\nIt is to supersede all county shoreland zoning accomplished by standard\ncounty zoning enabling legislation with the exception of those portions\nwhich are more restrictive than its provisions.\nThe regulatory scheme set up in the model ordinance may not achieve all the\nintended results even if it is administered effectively. \"Generalization\nabout the pollution contributions of various shoreland uses have proven to\nbe of little value, and insufficient data is available from which to formu-\nlate specific regulations for specific areas. For example, in the three-\ndistrict scheme suggested by the Model Ordinance, the conservancy district\nregulations attempt broad control over land use on or near wetlands, but\nthe regulations may not be sufficiently comprehensive to accomplish the\nintended preservation. **\nASSESSMENT\nBefore 1966, approximately four counties in Wisconsin had zoning administra-\ntors with any natural resource orientation. As a result of the statutory\nstandards and Model Ordinance provisions, almost all counties have these ad-\nministrators.\nEven though the Department has the authority to compel the adoption of shore-\nland protection ordinances, it does not have any authority to enforce them.\nThe counties control day-to-day administration since there is not statutory\nauthorization for enforcement in the act. \"There is some feeling in the De-\npartment that the Act could profitably be amended to require at least Depart-\nment approval of variations and amendments to the ordinance. Presently the\nDepartment is entitled only to notice of all variation and zoning change re-\nquests. \"***\n*Fred Bosselman and David Callies, op. cit., p. 241.\n**Ibid., p. 252.\n***Ibid., p. 245.\n-115-\nThe county zoning administrators operate one-man offices typically, and\nthey are responsible for all zoning in the county. They must rely on\nprivate complaints to inform them of violations to a large degree. Many\nzoning administrators have made special efforts to inform the public about\nthe law.\nApparently legal action against known violators has been a difficult pro-\ncedure under the act. The local District Attorney or County Counsel must\nbring enforcement proceedings after the county Board of Supervisors recom-\nmends prosecution. The county Boards may be reluctant to proceed against a\nviolator, and the County Counsels assign a law priority to zoning enforce-\nment. \"As a result of these political and economic considerations, even\na conscientious zoning administrator may be unable to enforce the shoreland\nregulations. \"*\nThe Wisconsin Shoreland Protection Program places major responsibility for\nthe protection of shoreland resources at the county level with overall auth-\nority at the state level to compel compliance with minimum statutory stand-\nards. It is an attempt to establish a workable state-local relationship in\nland use control. Minimum state standards place a \"floor\" under local con-\ntrols, thereby maintaining local control but at the same time ensuring that\nthe local controls are established.\nAlmost all counties have responded positively. However, the impact of the\nlegislation has not been comprehensive because cities and villages are ex-\ncluded. This exemption allows major sources of pollution to continue.\n\"Finally, the lack of any compulsory review of local administrative prac-\ntices could render the whole regulatory scheme ineffective. There is pres-\nently no way the State of Wisconsin can enforce the minimum standards contained\n*Ibid., p. 251.\n-116-\nin its legislation and only additional experience in operation can indi-\ncate whether county enforcement practices are adequate to achieve the goals\nof the program.\nFLORIDA\nADMINISTRATION\nIn April 1972, the State of Florida passed the Environmental Land and Water\nManagement Act. The concepts in this legislation are closely related to\nthose in two bills supporting state land use controls now under consideration\nin Congress. **\nThe Environmental Land and Water Management Act enables the state government\nto exercise a limited degree of control over development, while maintaining\nthe land use control procedures already in existence at the local level.\nThe focus of the state's role is on those land uses which have an impact out-\nside of the municipality in which they are located.\nThe state land planning agency is empowered to recommend specific areas of\ncritical state concern to the governor and his cabinet. The agency must in-\nclude the boundaries of the proposed area, state the reasons why the area is\nof critical concern, the dangers that would result from uncontrolled develop-\nment of the area and the advantages that would be gained from coordinated de-\nvelopment of the area. The governor and his cabinet, known as the administra-\ntion commission, must either reject, adopt or modify the recommendation with-\nin 45 days.\nThe act specifies that an area of critical environmental concern may be de-\nsignated only for:\n*Ibid., p. 255.\n**These two bills are discussed in the section on the Federal Role.\n-117-\n(1) \"An area containing, or having a significant impact upon environ-\nmental, historical, natural, or archeological resources of regional or state-\nwide importance; or\n(2) \"An area significantly affected by, or having a significant effect\nupon, an existing or proposed major public facility or other area of major\npublic investment; or\n(3) \"A proposed area of major development potential, which may include\na proposed site of a new community, designated in a state land development\nplan.\nAfter the administrative commission designates an area of critical state con-\ncern, the local government having jurisdiction over the area must submit its\nregulations for the area to the state land planning agency. If the agency\ndetermines that the local regulations are inadequate to protect the state\ninterest, it can institute judicial proceedings to compel proper enforcement\nof the land development regulations.\nIf the local government does not send a set of regulations within six months,\nthe state land planning agency will draw up a set of regulations for that\narea and submit them to the administrative commission for its approval. \"The\nland development regulations adopted by the administrative commission under\nthis section may include any type of regulation that could have been adopted\nby the local government. Any land development regulations adopted by the ad-\nministrative commission under this section shall be administered by the local\ngovernment as if the regulations constituted, or were part of the local land\ndevelopment regulations. \"**\nThe act limits the total amount of land that the administrative commission\ncan designate as areas of critical state concern. During the first 12 months\nafter enactment of the legislation, the governor and his cabinet cannot\n*Chapter 72-317, Laws of Florida, Section 5.\n**Ibid.\n110\ndesignate more than 500,000 acres as areas of critical concern. In addition,\nthe commission cannot at any time include more than 5 per cent of the total\nstate area under this supervision.\nThe second major type of development control is the designation of develop-\nments of regional impact. Development of regional impact means \"any develop-\nment which, because of its character, magnitude or location, would have a\nsubstantial effect upon the health, safety or welfare of citizens of more\nthan one county. \"*\nThe state land planning agency is to recommend guidelines and the administra-\ntive commission is to adopt guidelines by March 1973.\nCONTROLS AND CRITERIA\nIn adopting guidelines to determine whether particular developments have\nregional impact, the administrative commission must consider:\n(1) \"The extent to which the development would create or alleviate\nenvironmental problems such as air or water pollution or noise;\n(2) \"The amount of pedestrian or vehicular traffic likely to be\ngenerated;\n(3) \"The number of persons likely to be residents, employees, or\notherwise present;\n(4) \"The size of the site to be occupied;\n(5) \"The likelihood that additional or subsidiary development will be\ngenerated; and\n(6) \"The unique qualities of particular areas of the state. \"**\nThe regulations defining categories of development that have regional impact\nwill be submitted to the next session of the legislature. The regulations\n*Ibid., Section 6.\n**Ibid.\n110_\nwill take effect when they are approved by the legislature.\nThe local governments with zoning regulations will make decisions regarding\nthe acceptability of a proposed project. Developers must file applications\nwith local governments and the applications must include a statement that the\ndevelopment will have regional impact. Local governments must give notice\nof public hearings and must notify the state land planning agency about the\nproposed development.\nIn considering the developer's request, the local government must consider\nwhether:\n(1) \"The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement\nof the objectives of an adopted state land development plan applicable to\nthe area;\n(2) The development is consistent with the local land development\nregulations; and\n(3) The development is consistent with the report and recommendations\nof the regional planning agency.\nThe administrative commission, made up of the governor and his cabinet, can\nserve as the land and water adjudicatory commission. Whenever a local govern-\nment issues any development order in an area of critical state concern or\non a development of regional impact, it must send a copy of the order to the\nstate land planning agency.\nThe owner, developer, the appropriate regional planning agency or the state\nland planning agency may appeal the order to the land and water adjudicatory\n*Ibid.\n-120-\ncommission within 30 days after the order. After the commission has held\na public hearing, it will issue a decision granting or denying permission\nto undertake the development. Decisions of the commission are subject to\njudicial review.\nThe act specifically protects individual property rights. \"Nothing in this\nact authorizes any governmental agency to adopt a rule or regulation or\nissue any order that is unduly restrictive or constitutes a taking of pro-\nperty without the payment of full compensation \"* Apparently, the act is\nseeking to avoid any taking of property and no funds have been appropriated\nfor compensation purposes.\nASSESSMENT\nThe legislation is SO recent that it is difficult to assess the implementa-\ntion of the act on a day-to-day basis. However, the act is quite important\nbecause it is based on the concepts used in land use legislation currently\nbefore Congress. If Congress passes this legislation (S 632 and HR 7211),\nthe federal government would offer financial support to states for develop-\nment and administration of land use controls. To receive the federal support,\nthe states would be required to pass legislation very similar to Florida's\nEnvironmental Land and Water Management Act. **\nAt this time, the Florida legislation appears to be an effective approach to\nland use controls. It preserves the local powers but enables the state to\nestablish standards for important areas. It cannot be used as a stop-growth\ntool because the areas designated for state criteria cannot exceed 5 per cent\nof the total state area. Finally, it establishes limited objectives which\nthe state is capable of achieving.\n*Ibid., Section 7.\n**The proposed federal legislation requires states to develop land use pro-\ngrams for areas of critical environmental concern, key facility developments\nof regional benefit and large-scale developments.\n-121-\nSUMMARY - STATE APPROACHES TO LAND USE CONTROL\nCLASSIFI-\nPROGRAM\nCONTROLS AND\nCATION\nDESCRIPTION\nADMINISTRATION\nCRITERIA\nSTATE ROLE\nLOCAL ROLE\nASSESSMENT\nDIRECT\nSTATEWIDE\nCONTROL\nHawaii\nCentralized\nState Land Use Com-\nUrban-Intensive Dev-\nThe Commission de-\nCounties have con-\nLand Use Commission\nState control.\nmission composed of\nelopment. Districts\nsignates boundaries\ncurrent permit ap-\nperformance in pla-\nState divided\n7 public members\ninclude enough land\n& approves develop-\nproval authority\nnning & enforcement\ninto four Dis-\nplus Directors of\nfor 10 years growth.\nment permits in urb-\nwith State in urban\nhas been limited\ntricts of urb-\nLand & Natural Re-\nan districts. Com-\nareas. Urban use\nRural-Low density\nprimarily due to\nan, rural, ag-\nsources and Planning\nmission also has\npermits guided by\nstaff size & budget\nresidential develop-\nricultural &\n& Economic Develop-\nment. Minimum 1/2\nprimary jurisdiction\ncounty regulations.\nrestrictions.\nconservation.\nment.\nacre lots.\nover agriculture &\nCounty can zone port\nTax policies & land\nrural districts de-\nNominal Planning cap-\nAgriculture-Crop,\ntion of an urban\nuse policies often\nciding on boundary\nability. Designates\ndistrict for agri-\nin conflict resul-\ngrazing land and ag-\nchanges & special\nboundaries of Dis-\nriculturally-orien-\ncultural use.\nting in contradic-\npermits.\ntricts.\nted industry.\ntory results.\nDepartment of Land &\nConservation-Forest\nCommission policies\nNatural Resources\nand Water Reserve\nhave prevented urb-\nhas sole regulation\nZones 2/3 publically\nan sprawl but has\nover land use in con-\nowned. 1/3 private\ncontributed to a\nservation districts.\nin primarily moun-\nshortage of land &\ntainous areas. Divid-\nforced development\ned into subzones of\nwhere site improve-\nrestricted & general\nment costs are high\nuse. General use in-\nA consequence has\ncludes residences,\nbeen housing costs\nresorts, hotels, golf\ndouble the nation-\ncourses & marinas.\nal average.\nLand use decisions\nnot closely tied\nto the State Plan-\nning process.\n-122-\nCLASSIFI-\nPROGRAM\nCONTROLS AND\nCATION\nDESCRIPTION\nADMINISTRATION\nCRITERIA\nSTATE ROLE\nLOCAL ROLE\nASSESSMENT\nVermont\nStatewide land\nEnvironmental Board\nPermits required for\nPermit applications\nPermit applicant is\nAdministration of\nuse planning &\n(nine members ap-\nsubdivisions of 10\nfiled with district\nrequired to give\nland troubled by\npointed by Governor)\nor more lots & for\ncommissions.\npermit system\nnotice to municipal\nexemptions often\ndesigned to\n& nine District Com-\ncommercial & indus-\nState Agency of En-\nity where land lo-\ninconsistent with\npromote envir-\nmissions (3 members)\ntrial developments.\nvironmental Conser-\ncated and regional\nstated objectives.\nonmental objec-\nadminister the Act.\nPermit process focus\nvation reviews all\nplanning commission\nHistory of little\ntives as well\nBoard sets policy &\nprimarily upon sub-\npermit applications\nlocal zoning in\nas social &\nserves in quasi-jud-\ndivision develop-\n& files pre-hearing\nVermont. Some pro-\neconomic goals\nicial fashion in re-\nments and are con-\nposition paper with\nvisions of law give\nview of commission\ncerned with water &\nCommission.\nincentive to local\nVermont\ndecisions. Commis-\nair pollution, flood\nEnvironmental Board\nareas to improve\n(Cont.)\nsion provides de-\nplains, erosion, ad-\nprepares land use\nthis capability.\ntailed administra-\nequate water supply,\nplans and reviews\nAlthough planning\ntion.\nhighway congestion,\npermit decisions ap-\nfeatures are weak,\nburden on municipal\npealed from commis-\nthe law has contri-\nservices & adverse\nsions.\nbuted to an en-\nscenic effects.\nhanced planning\nPlanning Guidelines:\ncapability at the\nstate level.\nInterim plans-des-\ncribes present land\nuses & natural re-\nsources.\nCapability & Devel-\nopment Plans-guide\nto efficient & ec-\nonomic development\nof state including\ndistribution of pop-\nulation and land\nuses.\nLand Use Plans-a map\nindicating results\nof capability & de-\nvelopment plan.\n-123-\nCLASSIFI-\nPROGRAM\nCONTROLS AND\nCATION\nDESCRIPTION\nADMINISTRATION\nCRITERIA\nSTATE ROLE\nLOCAL ROLE\nASSESSMENT\nMaine\nStatewide land\nEnvironmental Im-\nCommission requires\nState Commission has\nMinimal.\nLimited permit re\nuse controls\nprovement Commission\npermit for 1) com-\ncomplete authority\nview & regulation\nregulating land\nhas full control ov-\nmercial or industri-\nin stated regulatory\nenforcement capa-\ndevelopments of\ner program.\nal developments of\nareas.\nbility because of\nmore than 20\n20 acres or more,\nsmall budget &\n10 members appointed\nacres.\n2) a development wh-\nstaff.\nby the Governor -\nich includes drill-\nRepresentation of\nThe program does\ning or excavating of\ninterests as follows\nnot have a meanin-\nnatural resources.\nful planning com-\n2 - Manufacturing\nState's major indus-\nponent.\n2 - Municipalities\ntry-logging-is ex-\nCommission's pri-\n2 - Conservation\nempted.\nmary work load ha:\n2 - Public\nAct includes indus-\nbeen that of pro-\n2 - Air Pollution\ntrial facilities,\ncessing permits fo:\nExperts\nshopping centers &\nresidential subdi\nlarge housing devel-\nvisions.\nopments.\nTATEWIDE\nRITERIA AND\nTANDARDS\n:olorado\nColorado Land\nState Land Use Com-\nCommission to devel-\nCounties have pri-\nProvides for stror\nState guidelines &\nop Interim & Final\nmary authority for\nstate leadership i\nUse Act provides\nmission - nine mem-\ncriteria regulating\nfor state agency\nbers.\nflood plains and\nPlans of State Devel\ndirect land use con\nestablishing guide\nplanning, devel-\ncritical areas for\nopment Policy, land\ntrol function.\nlines, criteria &\nCommission Advisory\nopment of guide-\nconservation & rec-\nuse standards &\nEach county requir-\nidentification of\nCommittee comprised\nareas of critical\nlines & criter-\nreation.\nguidelines, model\ned to create plan-\nof members from com-\nia for local a-\nsubdivision regula-\nning commissions &\nconcern.\nmerce & industry,\nSubdivision regu-\ngencies, moni-\ntions for the coun-\nmaintain building\nagriculture, conser-\nlation and stand-\nMaintain on-going\ntoring of grow-\nties, a statewide\npermits, improve-\nvation, natural re-\nards relating to\nplanning & permit\nth, identifica-\nsystem for monitor-\nment notices for\nfunction at local\nsources & 4 members\nadequacy of sewer\ntion of envir-\ning growth & change,\njurisdiction and\nlevel but ensures\nof the General As-\n& water system.\nonmental con-\nidentification of\npromulgate techni-\nassertive state\nsembly.\ncerns and auth-\nenvironmental con-\ncal procedures ap-\nrole by providing\nority to res-\ncerns related to de-\nplicable to drain-\nfor commission moi\ntrain develop-\nvelopment & a review\nage, sewer & water\n-124-\nitoring & followu\nment activity.\nof existing land use\nsystems.\nin areas of criti\nCLASSIFI-\nPROGRAM\nCONTROLS AND\nCATION\nDESCRIPTION\nADMINISTRATION\nCRITERIA\nSTATE ROLE\nLOCAL ROLE\nASSESSMENT\npolicies & programs.\ncal concern when\nColorado\nInjunctive authority\nlocal agencies ar\n(Cont.)\nupon court approval,\nnot responsive.\nto restrain devel-\nA major motivatio\nopment activity.\nfor program was\nconcern for secon.\nhome developments\n& impact of 1976\nWinter Olympics.\nProgram has only\nrecently been ini\ntiated.\nDIRECT STATE\nVIDE CONTROL\nSELECTED\nAREAS\nMassachu-\nCoastal Wetlands\nState Department of\nProtective Orders\nDepartment of Nat-\nLocal agencies con-\nState has held 25\nsetts\nAct limits dev-\nNatural Resources.\n(conservation re-\nural Resources has\nsulted only.\nhearings in 5 yea\nelopments for\nstrictions) are is-\nbroad powers defin-\ncovering 2/3 of\npreservation of\nsued to prohibit\ning coastal wetlands\ncoastal wetlands.\ncoastal wetlan-\nany alteration of\npromulgating control\nProtective orders\nds necessary for\ncoastal wetlands\nregulations, holding\nfinally recorded\nprotection of\nexcept under care-\nhearings & issuing\nor pending for mo:\nshell fish &\nfully controlled\norders.\nof this area.\nmarine fisher-\ncircumstances.\nDepartment does n\nies.\nOrders stipulate\nhave investigative\nuses allowed for\nforce to ensure\ndesignated wetland\ncompliance with\nand are filed as\nprotective orders\nan actual restric-\nMajor problem has\ntion on use on the\nbeen the amount O:\ntitle of a parti-\ntime required to\ncular property.\nissue orders.\n-125-\nLASSIFI-\nPROGRAM\nCONTROLS AND\nDESCRIPTION\nADMINISTRATION\nCRITERIA\nSTATE ROLE\nLOCAL ROLE\nASSESSMENT\nelaware\nCoastal Zone\nState Planning Office\nThe Act prohibits\nThe state planning\nMinor\nProgram only rec-\nAct seeks to\n(permit authority)\nheavy industry not\noffice administers\nently enacted.\nprohibit new\nCoastal Zone Indus-\nin operation at the\npermit program and\nheavy industry\ntrial Control Board\ntime the law was\nproposes a compre-\nalong entire\n(plans & guidelines)\nenacted. Heavy in-\nhensive plan & guid-\ncoast.\nComprised of 10 mem-\ndustry definition\nelines to Board for\nbers:\nwould include oil\napproval.\nrefineries, steel\n-5 appointed by Gov-\nThe Board adopts\nplants, chemical\nernor\nplans & guidelines\n-5 appointed by the\nplants, paper mills\nwhich become binding\nSecretaries of Nat-\n& off-shore gas,\nas regulations. The\nliquid or solid\nural Resources &\nBoard hears appeals\nEnvironmental Con-\nbulk product trans-\nfrom decisions by\nfer facilities.\ntrol & Community Af-\nthe State Planner.\nfairs & Economic De-\nPermits are required\nvelopment and the\nfor other types of\nplanning commission\nmanufacturing fac-\nchairman in each of\nilities and for ex-\nthe State's 3 coun-\npansion of noncon-\nties.\nforming manufactur-\ning uses.\nPermit requests are\nevaluated accord-\ning to environmen-\ntal impact, econ-\nomic effect, effect\non neighboring land\nuse and local com-\nprehensive plans\nfor development &\nconservation.\n-126-\nCLASSIFI-\nPROGRAM\nCONTROLS AND\nCATION\nDESCRIPTION\nADMINISTRATION\nCRITERIA\nSTATE ROLE\nLOCAL ROLE\nASSESSMENT\nTATEWIDE\nTANDARDS IN\nELECTED\nREAS\nisconsin\nWater Resources\nThe Division of En-\nEstablishes shore-\nState provides guide\nThe counties are ret\nRepresents an at-\nAct established\nvironmental Protec-\nland zoning dis-\nlines & evaluates\nquired to adopt\ntempt to estab-\na pollution pr-\ntion in the Depart-\ntricts for conser-\ncounty zoning accor-\nzoning restrictions\nlish a workable\nevention & ab-\nment of Natural Re-\nvation, recreation-\nding to model ordi-\naccording to a mod-\nstate-local re-\natement program\nsources administers\nresidential, & gen-\nnances.\nel resource-orient-\nlationship in lan.\nfor water re-\nthe Act with the\neral purposes.\ned zoning ordinance\nuse control: min-\nIn the event of non-\nsources & trea-\nshoreland manage-\nimum state stand-\nEstablishes regula-\ncompliance, the De-\nCities & villages\nts shorelands\nment program under\nards within local\ntions controlling\npartment of Natural\nare excluded from\nas a management\nthe flood plain and\ncontrols.\nsubdivisions & gen-\nResources adopts an\nthe Act.\nunit for con-\nshoreland manage-\neral land use re-\nordinance for the\nImpact limited by\ntrol.\nment section of the\nquirements.\nlocal area.\nexclusion of cit-\nBureau of Water &\nies & villages.\nShoreland Manage-\nment.\nlorida\nEnvironmental\nAdministrative com-\nAreas of critical\nAdministrative Com-\nLocal agencies hav-\nVery similar to\nLand & Water\nmission comprised\nenvironmental con-\nmission designates\ning jurisdiction\nproposed federal\nManagement Act\nof Governor & his\ncern may be desig-\ncritical areas based\nover areas of criti-\nlegislation which\ncontrols land\ncabinet in conjunc-\nnated if a) are of\nupon state planning\ncal state concern\nemphasizes state\nuse for areas\ntion with the State\nsignificant envir-\nrecommendations.\nmust protect state\nleadership by\nof critical\nLand Planning Agen-\nonmental, histori-\nconcern by land use\nplanning guide-\nReviews & evaluates\ncy.\ncal, natural or ar-\nregulations.\nlines & criteria\nenvironmental\nadequacy of local\nconcern.\ncheological impor-\nwith specific\nregulations.\nLocal agencies im-\ntance; b) is affec-\nlocal control.\nplement permit pro-\nted by existing or\nRecommends regula-\ncess for regional\nproposed major pub-\ntions to legislature\ndevelopment.\nlic facility or\nfor control of de-\npublic investment;\nvelopment of major\nc) is of major de-\nregional impact.\nvelopment poten-\nCommission serves in\ntial.\nadjudicatory role\nState criteria can-\nin hearing permit\n-127-\nnot exceed 5% of\nappeals.\ntotal state area.\nCURRENT PROGRAMS [CALIF.]\nTHE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE\nINTRODUCTION\nTHE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE\nINTRODUCTION\nLand use in California is principally the responsibility of local agencies.\nCities and counties are responsible for planning and zoning, and for con-\ntrolling the design and improvement of subdivisions.\nHistorically, this responsibility has been exercised by cities and count-\nies on an individual basis. During the past decade, however, cities and\ncounties, particularly in urban areas, have increasingly joined together in\norder to devise a regional approach to land use planning. Although control\nover land use continues to be exercised principally by individual cities and\ncounties, there are a growing number of single-purpose and broader regional\nagencies concerned with planning and regulating land use.\nThe State is also concerned with land use. Historically, its concern has been\nlimited to lands owned by the State, and the regulation of subdivisions from\nthe standpoint of protecting the public from fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.\nMore recently, however, the interest of the State in comprehensive physical land\nuse planning and control has increased, particularly in response to the problems\nfacing urban areas. This interest has resulted in new State activites in the\narea of land use generally, as well as in areas of particular importance such\nas the coastal zone. It has also resulted in additional legislation defining\nand, to some extent, restricting the authority of local agencies in this regard.\nIn order to place the current authority and activity of local, regional, and\nState agencies in perspective, as it pertains to land use in the coastal zone,\nthe authority and related programs of each of these agencies has been summar-\nized below.\n-128-\nCITIES AND COUNTIES\nAUTHORITY\nPLANNING\nCalifornia law requires the legislative body of each city and county to\nestablish a planning agency by ordinance. The planning agency may be a\nplanning department, a planning commission, the legislative body itself,\nor any combination thereof. Counties must have a planning commission.\nThe functions of the planning agency are as follows:\n(a) It shall develop and maintain a general plan.\n(b) It shall develop such specific plans as may be necessary or desirable.\n(c) It shall periodically review the capital improvement program of the\ncity or county.\n(d) It shall perform such other functions as the city or county may provide.\nWhen a city or county planning commission is created, its organization, num-\nber of members, their terms of office and the method of the appointment and\nremoval, must be provided by local ordinance. However, each city and county\nplanning commission must have at least five, and not more than nine, members.\nEach planning agency must prepare, and the legislative body of each city and\ncounty must adopt, a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical\ndevelopment of the city or county, and of any land outside its boundaries\nwhich in the planning agency's judgement bears relation to its planning. State\nlaw provides that the general plan must consist of a statement of development\npolicies, and shall include the following mandatory elements:\n(a) A land use element which designates the proposed general distribution\nand general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing,\nbusiness, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources,\n-129-\nrecreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings\nand grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other\ncategories of public and private uses of land. The land use element\nshall include a statement of the standards of the population density and\nbuilding intensity recommended for the various districts and other\nterritory covered by the plan. The land use element shall also identify\nareas covered by the plan which are subject to flooding and shall be\nreviewed annually with respect to such areas.\n(b) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of\nexisting and proposed major thoroughfares, transporation routes, ter-\nminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated\nwith the land use element of the plan.\n(c) A housing element consisting of standards and plans for the improvement\nof housing and for provision of adequate sites for housing. This element\nof the plan must make adequate provision for the housing needs of all\neconomic segments of the community.\n(d) A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization\nof natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests,\nsoils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals\nand other natural resources. That portion of the conservation element\nincluding waters must be developed in coordination with any county-wide\nwater agency and with all district and city agencies which have developed,\nserved, controlled or conserved water for any purpose for the county or\ncity for which the plan is prepared. The conservation element may also\ncover:\n(1) The reclamation of land and waters.\n(2) Flood control.\n(3) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters.\n-130-\n(4) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas\nrequired for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.\n(5) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches\nand shores.\n(6) Protection of watersheds.\n(7) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel\nresources.\n(e) An open space element.\n(f) A seismic safety element consisting of an identification and appraisal\nof seismic efforts such as susceptibility to surface ruptures from\nfaulting, to ground shaking, to ground failures, or to effects of seis-\nmically induced waves such as tsunamis and seiches.\n(g) A noise element in quantitative, numerical terms, showing contours of\npresent and projected noise levels associated with all existing and pro-\nposed major transportation elements. These include but are not limited\nto the following:\n(1) Highways and freeways\n(2) Ground rapid transit systems\n(3) Ground facilities associated with all airports operating under a\npermit from the State Department of Aeronautics.\n(h) A scenic highway element for the development, establishment, and protec-\ntion of scenic highways.\nIn addition to the mandatory elements listed above, statutory authority exists\nfor a number of permissive elements.\nThe planning agency may, or if directed by the legislative body shall, prepare\nspecific plans based on the general plan. A specific plan need not apply to the\nentire area covered by the general plan. Rather, the legislative body or the\n-131-\nplanning agency may designate areas within a city or county for which the\ndevelopment of a specific plan will be helpful in terms of implementing the\ngeneral plan. According to State law, such specific plans shall include all\ndetailed regulations, conditions, programs and proposed legislation which\nshall be necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of each\nelement of the general plan, including, but not limited to, regulations,\nconditions, programs and proposed legislation in regard to the following:\n(a) The location of housing, business, industry, open space, agriculture,\nrecreation facilities, educational facilities, churches and related\nreligious facilities, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid\nwaste disposal facilities, together with regulations establishing height,\nbulk and set-back limits for such buildings and facilities, including\nthe location of areas, such as flood plains or excessively steep or un-\nstable terrain, where no building will be permitted in the absence of\nadequate precautionary measures being taken to reduce the level of risk\nto that comparable with adjoining and surrounding areas.\n(b) The location and extent of existing or proposed streets and roads and\nall other transportation facilities.\n(c) Standards for population density and building density.\n(d) Standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural\nresources, including underground and surface waters, forests, vegetation\nand soils, rivers, creeks, and streams, and fish and wildlife resources.\nSuch standards shall include, where applicable, procedures for flood\ncontrol, for prevention and control of pollution of rivers, streams,\ncreeks and other waters, regulation of land use in stream channels and\nother areas which may have a significant effect on fish, wildlife and\nother natural resources of the area, the prevention, control and correction\n-132-\nof soil erosion caused by subdivision roads or any other sources, and\nthe protection of watershed areas.\n(e) The implementation of the open space element.\nZONING\nAs a means of implementing the general plan, cities and counties may regulate\nland use through zoning. Through zoning, the legislative body of a city or\ncounty may:\n(a) Regulate the use of buildings, structures and land as between industry,\nbusiness, residence, open space, including agriculture, recreation, en-\njoyment of scenic beauty and use of natural resources, and other purposes.\n(b) Regulate signs and billboards.\n(c) Regulate location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings\nand structures; the size and use of lots, yards, courts and other open\nspaces; the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by a building or\nstructure; the intensity of land use.\n(d) Establish requirements for off-street parking and street loading.\n(e) Establish and maintain building set-back lines.\n(f) Create civic districts around civic centers, public parks, public build-\nings or public grounds and establish regulations therefore.\nIn addition to regulating the use of land through zoning, the legislative\nbody may divide a city or a county, or portions thereof, into zones of the\nnumber, shape and area it deems best. Regulations shall be uniform within\neach zone, but may vary between zones.\nA city may prezone unincorporated territory adjoining the city for the purpose\nof determining the zoning that will apply to such property in the event of\nsubsequent annexation to the city.\nCity and county zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan\n-133-\nof the respective city or county by January 1, 1973.\nIn addition to a planning commission, the legislative body of a city or county\nmay create a board of zoning adjustment, or the office of zoning administrator\nor both. It may also create a board of appeals. The board of zoning adjust-\nment or zoning administrator decide applications for conditional uses and\napplications for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance. State\nlaw provides that variances shall be granted only under the following conditions:\n(a) Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only\nwhen, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, in-\ncluding size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict\napplication of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges\nenjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning\nclassification.\n(b) Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure\nthat the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant\nof special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other pro-\nperties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.\n(c) A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes\na use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone\nregulation governing the parcel of property.\nThe statutes contain numberous procedural requirements associated with the\nvarious planning and zoning provisions. With respect to zoning, minimum pro-\ncedures for the conduct of zoning hearings are:\n(a) All local city and county zoning agencies shall develop and publish\nprocedural rules for conduct of their hearings SO that all interested\nparties shall have advance knowledge of procedures to be followed.\n-134-\n(b) When a matter is contested and a request is made in writing prior to\nthe date of the hearing, all local city and county planning agencies\nshall insure that a record of all such hearings shall be made.\n(c) When a planning staff report exists, such report shall be made public\nprior to or at the beginning of the hearing and shall be a matter of\npublic record.\n(d) When any hearing is held on an application for a change of zone for\nparcels of at least ten acres, a staff report with recommendations and\nthe basis for such recommendations shall be included in the record of\nthe hearing.\nOPEN SPACE PLANNING\nAs indicated above, cities must prepare an open space element as a part of\ntheir comprehensive land use plan. In this regard, the legislature has pro-\nvided that in order to conform with this requirement, cities and counties must,\nby June 30, 1973, prepare, adopt and submit to the Secretary of the Resources\nAgency a local open space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preserva-\ntion and conservation of open space land within its jurisdiction.\nEvery local open space plan shall contain an action program consisting of\nspecific programs which the legislative body intends to pursue in implementing\nits open space plan. Any action by a city or county by which open space land\nor any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or\nregulated must be consistent with the local open space plan. No building\npermit may be issued, no subdivision map approved, and no open space zoning\nordinance adopted, unless the proposed construction, subdivision or ordinance\nis consistent with the local open space plan.\nSUBDIVISION OF LAND\nState law assigns the responsibility for control of the design and improvement\n-135-\nof subdivisions to cities and counties, and provides that every city and\ncounty must have an ordinance regulating and controlling the design and im-\nprovement of subdivisions.\nSubdivision is defined generally to be the division of land for the purpose\nof sale, lease, or financing, whether immediate or future, by any subdivider\ninto five or more parcels. While the definition of subdivision relates to\nfive lots or more, there is nothing in the statutes preventing the governing\nbody of any city or county from regulating the division of land which is not\na subdivision provided that such regulations are not more restrictive than the\nrequirements for a subdivision. State law does provide that whenever a local\nordinance requires improvements for a division of land which is not a subdivis-\nion of five or more lots, such regulation shall be limited to the dedication\nof right-of-way, easements, and the construction of reasonable off-site\nimprovements for the parcels being created.\nHistorically, the authority of cities and counties has extended only to con-\ntrolling the \"design\" and \"improvement\" of subdivisions. This authority\nincludes the ability to require subdividers to improve their property in cer-\ntain ways, dedicate land for certain purposes, and pay fees in lieu of certain\nimprovements and/or dedications as a condition for approval of tentative or\nfinal subdivision maps. The statutes require any consideration of the design\nand improvement of subdivisions to be technical in nature. Thus, cities have\ntraditionally been required to approve a proposed subdivision if it met appro-\npriate State standards and local zoning regulations unless the proposal con-\ntained certain engineering-type defects pertaining to areas such as drainage\nor flood control.\n-136-\nState law now provides, however, that a governing body of a city or county\nshall deny approval of a final or tentative subdivision map if it makes any\nof the following findings:\n(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and\nspecific plans.\n(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not con-\nsistent with applicable general and specific plan.\n(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.\n(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of\ndevelopment.\n(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are\nlikely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and\navoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.\n(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely\nto cause serious public health problems.\n(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will con-\nflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through\nor use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection,\nthe governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate ease-\nments, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be\nsubstantially equivalent to ones previously acquired bv the nublic.\nAlthough it is not clear the extent to which this new language will permit a\nlocal agency to deny a subdivision for \"environmental\" reasons, the increasing\ninterest of the State in this regard is also evident in the following provisions\nwhich have been added to the Subdivision Map Act in the last year or two:\nUpon the filing of the tentative map\nthe advisory agency or the\ngoverning body may submit the tentative map to the Office of Inter-\ngovernmental Management\nand request an evaluation of the environ-\nmental impact of the proposed subdivision. No city or county shall\n-137-\napprove either the tentative or the final map of any subdivision\nfronting upon the coastline or shoreline which subdivision does not pro-\nvide or have available reasonable public access by fee or easement\nfrom public highways to land below the ordinary high water mark on any\nocean coastline or bayshore line within or at a reasonable distance\nfrom the subdivision. The city or county in which the subdivision\nlies is required to determine what constitutes reasonable public access,\nand the statutes provide that they shall consider such things as (1)\naccess may be by highway, foot trail, bike trail, horse trail, or any\nother means of travel; (2) the size of the subdivision; (3) the type of\ncoastline or shoreline and the various appropriate recreational, edu-\ncational, and scientific uses, including, but not limited to, diving,\nsunbathing, surfing, walking, swimming, fishing, beachcombing, taking\nof shellfish and scientific exploration.\nNo city or county shall approve either the tentative or final map of\nany subdivision fronting upon any lake or reservoir which is owned\nin part or entirely by any public agency including the State, which\nsubdivision does not provide or have available reasonable access by\nfee or easement from public highways to any water of the lake or res-\nervoir upon which the subdivision borders either within the subdivision\nor a reasonable distance from the subdivision.\nIn addition, the concern of the legislature over the \"environmental impact\"\nof subdivisions can be seen in new statutory provisions relating to \"rural\nsubdivisions\". Rural subdivisions, or \"land projects\", as they are defined\nin State law, are also regulated by the State Real Estate Commissioner who\nis principally concerned with the development of all land from the stand-\npoint of protecting the public from fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.\nA rural subdivision is defined as a project comprising fifty or more parcels\nin an area with less than 1500 registered voters and not consisting of a\ncommunity apartment project or improved with residential, commercial, or in-\nstitutional buildings.\nThe Commissioner is prohibited from issuing a public report ( a requirement\nfor project authorization) on any rural subdivision, unless he makes a spe-\ncific finding that:\n(a) The total complex of existing or proposed improvements reflected in the\nsubdivision offering (including storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water\n-138-\nsystems, roads, utilities, community facilities, recreational amenities)\nwill be adequate to serve the projected population of the entire land\nproject.\n(b) The arrangements that have been made to assure completion, maintenance\nand financing of the total complex of existing or proposed improvements\nreferred to above are reasonable. In determining the reasonableness of\nsuch arrangements, the Commissioner shall consider whether the probable\ncontinuing financial burden with respect to the financing of completion\nand maintenance of improvements within the subdivision bears a reasonable\nrelationship to the value of the lots therein.\n(c) The off-site and on-site measures, including the overall design of the\nentire rural subdivision, are adequate to prevent damage to property by\nreason of flooding, erosion and other natural occurrences which are usual\nor predictable for the area.\n(d) The method of financing the purchase of individual parcels or lots, in-\ncluding the effect of balloon payments, is reasonable.\n(e) The existing zoning, or any change in zoning that has been proposed to\nthe local governing body, is compatible with the proposed use of the lots\nwithin the land project.\n(f) The use, or zoning, of adjacent properties is compatible with the proposed\nland project.\nRENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT\nState law provides that a city council may create an urban renewal or redevel-\nopment agency for purposes of planning for and improving \"substandard and\nblighted\" areas. The agency can be organized separate from the city council\nor the council may also elect to sit as the redevelopment agency. Special\nfinancing for redevelopment projects through the issuance of tax allocation\n-139-\nor tax increment bonds is authorized in both the State Constitution and State\nstatutes. Legislation also permits open space areas to be included within\nredevelopment areas, thus permitting the use of tax allocation bonds to finance\nsuch open space areas.\nANNEXATION\nProvisions exist in State law for the annexation of inhabited and uninhabited\nland areas to the city.\nAn inhabited area (defined as having twelve registered voters, regardless of\nthe land area involved) can only be annexed on petition of residents of the\narea. Once petitions have been circulated and sufficient signatures obtained,\nthe proposal may be defeated before an election is held if protests are made\nby residents owning fifty percent of the assessed value of land in the area\nproposed for annexation. If not \"protested out\", the measure must obtain a\nmajority vote at an election called for that purpose.\nProceedings for the annexation of land in uninhabited areas may be initiated by\nthe city council or owners of twenty-five percent of the land by area and\nassessed value. There is no election in an uninhabited annexation, but the\nproceedings may be defeated if the owners of fifty percent of the assessed\nvalue of land and improvements formally object.\nThe procedural problems, the inability of a city to initiate in inhabited\nareas, the difficulty of annexing and servicing unincorporated islands surround-\ned by municipal territory, and the unusual veto power in both inhabited and\nuninhabited annexations have made the effective use of these statutes difficult.\nPROGRAM\nGENERAL PLANNING PROGRAMS\nAccording to the State Council On Intergovernmental Relations, every county\n-140-\nand all but eleven cities have planning commissions. In most of the smaller\njurisdictions of the State, the planning commission is the primary planning\nagency. In larger cities and counties, however, the planning responsibility\nis shared between a planning commission and a planning department.\nVirtually all cities over twenty-five thousand population, and most counties,\nhave a full time professional planner. Ninety-five (95) percent of those\nlocal jurisdictions under five thousand population are withour a full time\nplanner, as are seventy-five percent of those between five thousand-ten\nthousand population. However, many of these smaller jurisdictions have\nretained the services of a planning consultant.\nIn addition to having a full time professional planner, many larger juris-\ndictions also employ other professional and semi-professional planning per-\nsonnel. The full time planning staff of cities and counties is summarized\nin the following table:\nPopulation\nProfessional Staff\nTech-Clerical Staff\n0-4,999\n9\n11\n5,000-9,999\n15\n20\n10,000-24,999\n109\n90\n25,000-49,999\n149\n106\n50,000-99,999\n214\n155\n100,000-249,999\n198\n172\n250,000-over\n748\n534\nTotal\n1442\n1088\nThe State planning law permits cities and counties to supplement the efforts\nof planning commissions and full-time planning staff with one or more additional\nbodies who are principally concerned with zoning administration. In this regard,\n-141-\nfifty-two zoning boards of adjustment have been created in forty-two cities\nand ten counties. The position of zoning administrator has been established\nin one hundred twenty-four cities and twenty counties. Separate boards of\nappeal to hear appeals from the decisions of the zoning board or administrator\nhave been established in twenty-five cities and six counties.\nThe large and growing commitment of individual cities and counties to land use\nplanning may be seen in the amounts budgeted for this purpose. In 1969-70,\nCalifornia cities and counties reported planning expenditures totaling\n$29,898,600 dollars, and proposed planning budgets for 1970-71 totaled\n$36,298,100, an increase of approximately 18%. An indication of local agency\nplanning expenditures by city size is included in the following table:\nPopulation\nPlanning Exp. 1969-70\nPlanning Bud. 1970-71\n0-4,999\n248,400\n465,700\n5,000-9,999\n313,600\n409,700\n10,000-24,999\n2,565,300\n3,045,000\n25,000-49,999\n3,250,200\n3,718,600\n50,000-99,999\n4,541,300\n4,730,400\n100,000-249,999\n4,553,600\n5.012,200\n250,000-over\n14,426,2002\n18,916,500\nTotal\n29,898,600\n36,298,100\nState statutes requires cities and counties to adopt a comprehensive long-\nterm general plan for the physical development of the county or city. Over\neighty percent of all cities and counties, and approximately ninety percent\nof those over five thousand population, have adopted such a general plan.\nNeither the general plans nor the special plans adopted by local legislative\nbodies are legally binding. Rather, these plans must be implemented through\n-142-\nthe adoption of additional local legislation aimed at regulating a partic-\nular aspect of land use. The broadest and most common method of regulation\nused by local agencies is the zoning ordinance. Ninety-five (95) percent of\nall cities and counties presently have a zoning ordinance. Other regulatory\nordinances commonly adopted by cities and counties as a means of implementing\ntheir general and other special land use plans include:\nLot Split Ordinance\nHillside Subdivision Ordinance\nPlanned Unit Development Ordinance\nBuilding Code\nHousing Code\nPlumbing Code\nElectrical Code\nMechanical Code\nSign Ordinance\nUnderground Utility Ordinance\nArchitectural Review Board\nHistoric District Ordinance\nFlood Plain Zoning\nAirport Approach Zoning\nMobile Home Regulatory Ordinance\nSPECIAL PLANNING PROGRAMS\nIn addition to the general administration of their planning program, cities\nand counties along the shoreline have undertaken a number of additional pro-\ngrams designed to control development, provide public access and, in general\nto encourage full and balanced preservation and use of coastal resources.\nSome of the additional activities include:\n-143-\nPREPARATION OF SPECIAL BEACH, WATERFRONT, OR COASTAL PLANS\nA number of cities and counties along the shoreline have specialized plans\nrelating particularly to coastal land use.\nMonterey County has a dopted a special coastal master plan aimed at conserving\nopen space and preserving the scenery of the Monterey coastal area \"without\nimposing unjustifiable restrictions on present or future property owners\".\nThe plan is concerned broadly with land use, density, and overall development,\nand includes specific standards for development such as:\n\"that property owners be encouraged to keep their land in agri-\ncultural or open use with the necessary zoning provided to give them\nall tax benefits available.\"\n\"designate Highway One as a scenic highway, giving it the same care-\nful consideration as the landscape through which it passes, in effect,\na scenic corridor.'\n\"that turn-out areas be developed wherever practicable.\"\n\"that a one hundred foot building set-back line be established along\nthe entire length of Highway One.\"\n\"that the meander line be retained to define that area which is\nvisible from the highway. Special architectural, site, and land-\nscaping control should be developed between this line and the ocean.\nCareful consideration should be given to private roads, minimizing\nscars which might be created by cut and fill operations.\"\n\"careful consideration must be given to height control on the ocean\nside of Highway One, recognizing that in many places, because of ter-\nrain, this may not be a problem. In others, structures may be ob-\ntrusive unless flexible standards are developed.\"\n\"wherever feasible, utilities in this area should be placed underground.\"\n\"that beaches be proposed for acquisition in keeping with the adopted\nbeach acquisition plan of the county.\"\nADOPTION OF SPECIAL ZONING ORDINANCES FOR THE COASTAL ZONE\nA number of cities and counties have imposed low density zoning along the\ncoastline in order to better regulate and, in effect, discourage development\nin undeveloped coastal areas. In parts of Marin County, for example, land\n-144-\nis zoned in a manner that permits only one dwelling unit for every sixty\nacres. In Monterey County undeveloped coastal land has densities limiting\nnew residential use to one unit per each 2.5-10 acres. Orange County has\ncreated special planned community development district regulations whereby\nany proposed development must be accompanied by a comprehensive plan for land\nuse in the area. San Diego County has created a coastal development over-\nlay zone in order to provide additional regulations along the coastline area\n\"including the beaches, bluffs, and the land area immediately landward thereof\".\nThe regulations restrict constuction on the beach and in bluff areas to certain\nminimum structures such as steps, bath-houses, parking lots, refreshment\nstands without seating facilities, lifeguard towers, fire rings, trash con-\ntainers, etc. No development may interfere with any public rights of beach\naccess or useage, and the proposed development of any building or structure\n(other than one and two-family dwellings) must be accompanied by a site plan\nshowing:\n(a) Boundaries and existing topography of the property, location of\nbluffline and beach, and adjoining or nearbv streets.\n(b) Location and height of all existing buildings and structures,\nexisting trees and the proposed disposition or use thereof.\n(c) Location, height, and proposed use of all proposed structures,\nincluding walls, fences and free standing signs, and location and\nextent of individual building sites.\n(d) Location and dimensions of ingress and egress points, interior\nroads and driveways, parking areas, and pedestrian walkways.\n(e) Location and treatment of important drainage ways, including\nunderground drainage systems.\n(f) Proposed grading and removal or placement of natural materials,\nincluding finished topography of the site.\n(g) Proposed landscaping plan including location of game sports,\nswimming pools and other landscape or activity features.\n(h) Results of soil stability tests or other proof acceptable to the\nDirector of Planning that the development as proposed will have no\n-145-\nadverse effect on the stability of the bluff and will not\nendanger life or property.\nCities and counties have also placed much individual land along the shoreline\nin agricultural preserve zones in order to make property owners eligible for re-\nduced property assessments and thereby reduce the incentive to change land use.\nPREPARATION OF SPECIAL COASTAL STUDIES\nAs a part of their coastal planning program, cities and counties have also\nconducted special studies and prepared reports on land use and resources in\ntheir respective coastal area. San Diego and Newport Beach, for example, have\nprepared individual studies that are detailed and comprehensive in their\ncoverage. Other cities and counties, through membership in councils of govern-\nment have prepared similar studies.\nACQUISTION AND DEVELOPMENT\nCities and counties are not only concerned with planning and regulating land\nuse in the coastal area, but they also have a direct impact on coastal land\nuse through ownership of coastal property and the provision of services thereon.\nLocal agencies, particularly in urban areas, have generally been involved\nin long and continuing programs of shoreline acquisition and development. As\nwill be indicated later, much of the shoreline in urban areas is already in\npublic ownership and available for a wide range of physical and visual recrea-\ntion activities. In addtion to the beach and other shoreline areas acquired\nand developed by local agencies, cities and counties also lease and operate\nbeach areas owned by the State.\nOUTLOOK\nState law provides a general framework for land use regualtion and control\nand, with the exception of a few mandatory provisions, provides local govern-\nment with substantial flexibility and primary responsibility for regulation\n-146-\nand control of land use. Recent actions of the public and State and Federal\ngovernment, as well as local government itself, indicate that additional\nand more restrictive controls over land use are likely in the future.\nPUBLIC INITIATIVES\nThe initiative process has been more widely used in recent years by the\npublic as a means of expressing itself on matters of land use. In the Alameda\nCounty cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, for example, an initiative measure\nprohibiting the issuance of additional building permits was approved at the\nlast general election. The Pleasanton initiative measure reads, as follows:\n\"BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON:\na. The people of the City of Pleasanton hereby find and declare that\nit is in the best interest of the City in order to protect the\nhealth, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City,\nto control residential building permits in the said City. Res-\nidential building permits include single-family residential,\nmultiple residential, and trailer court building permits within\nthe meaning of the City Code of Pleasanton and the General Plan\nof Pleasanton. Additionally, it is the purpose of this initiative\nmeasure to contribute to the solution of air pollution in the City\nof Pleasanton.\nb. The specific reasons for proposed Petition are that the under-\nsigned believe that the resulting impact from issuing residential\nbuilding permits at the current rate results in the following pro-\nblems mentioned below. Therefore, no further residential building\npermits are to be issued by the said city until satisfactory solu-\ntions as determined below in the standards set forth exist to all\nfollowing problems:\n1. Educational Facilities- No double sessions in the schools nor\novercroweded classrooms as determined by the California Ed-\nucation Code.\n2. Sewage- The sewage treatment facilities and capacities meet\nthe standards set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.\n3. Water Supply- No rationing of water with respect to human con-\nsumption or irrigation, and adequate water reserves for fire\nprotection exist.\nC. This ordinance may only be amended or repealed by the voters at\na regular municipal election.\nd. If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid the remaining\nportions are to be considered valid.\"\n-147-\nThe initiative measures in Livermore and Pleasanton are presently being\nlitigated to determine their validity. Regardless of the outcome, however,\nit seems clear that public action will continue to impose additional\ncontrols on development and provide a more restrictive framework for reg-\nulating land use in general.\nACTIONS BY LOCAL AND STATE AGENCIES\nThe actions of local government also suggest a tougher approach to land use\ncontrol. For example, concern over development in the City of San Diego led\nto adoption of Council Policy 600-10. This Policy attempts to assure that\nall appropriate public services and facilities will be available to the\nproposed development, and conditions are imposed on the acceptance or approval\nof any new developement proposal, as follows:\nCOUNCIL POLICY\nSubject: Adequacy of public services in connection with development\nproposals.\nNumber: 600-10\nBackground\nIn considering development or redevelopment proposals for areas within\nthe City, the City Council has, in order to insure the public health,\nsafety and welfare, evaluated reports from City departments, school\ndistricts and other agencies regarding the adequacy of public services\nrequired to serve the developments expected to occur within such areas.\nIn many cases, however, the required public services have not in fact\nbeen installed by the time the development shows a need. The result\nhas been that residents in the newly developed areas have been inade-\nquately served with access, parks, schools, libraries and other public\nservices.\nPURPOSE\nTo establish a policy to insure that needed public services will be\navailable concurrently with need.\nPOLICY\nBefore giving approval to rezoning, development or redevelopment pro-\nposals, the public health and safety and general welfare of the community\nand all its citizens require that provisions be made by the proponent\n-148-\nof the rezoning, development or redevelopment in conjunction with\nappropriate governmental agencies to insure:\n1. That the development, redevelopment or rezoning be consistent\nwith the master development plan for the general area which has\nbeen reviewed by the planning commission and adopted by the city\ncouncil.\n2. That the development plan includes an implementation section which\nsets forth in detail measures which will be taken to insure that\nneeded public services are provided concurrent with need and the\ndevelopment.\n3. That the proponent of the rezoning, development or redevelopment\npresent evidence satisfactory to the appropriate body or agency\nthat the required public services will in fact be provided con-\ncurrent with the need.\nA tougher local policy toward land use and development is also evident in\nother actions. In parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties, for example, a mor-\natorium has been placed on all new development, and on the division of land\ninto five lots or more. Also, the general trend toward low density zoning\nof undeveloped areas, coupled with more detailed and restrictive site plan and\ndedication requirements, is further indication of the controls over land use\npresently being exercised by local government. Many of these restrictive\ncontrols apply to an additional extent to land use in the coastal zone.\nAn indication that State law with respect to local planning procedures may\nnot always be as flexible as it is at present may be seen in recent legis-\nlation. Prior to 1971, cities were permitted to have specific plans, and\nthose plans had a variety of optional elements. Now, cities and counties may\nhave specific plans, but the specific plans must contain certain elements.\nPrior to 1971, charter cities were expressly excluded from the provisions of\nState law that require cities to adopt a comprehensive general plan containing\ncertain mandatory elements. State statutes now read that \"the requirements\nof this section shall apply to charter cities.\"\nOther recent legislative items affecting land use include:\n-149-\nof the rezoning, development or redevelopment in conjunction with\nappropriate governmental agencies to insure:\n1. That the development, redevelopment or rezoning be consistent\nwith the master development plan for the general area which has\nbeen reviewed by the planning commission and adopted by the city\ncouncil.\n2. That the development plan includes an implementation section which\nsets forth in detail measures which will be taken to insure that\nneeded public services are provided concurrent with need and the\ndevelopment.\n3. That the proponent of the rezoning, development or redevelopment\npresent evidence satisfactory to the appropriate body or agency\nthat the required public services will in fact be provided con-\ncurrent with the need.\nA tougher local policy toward land use and development is also evident in\nother actions. In parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties, for example, a mor-\natorium has been placed on all new development, and on the division of land\ninto five lots or more. Also, the general trend toward low density zoning\nof undeveloped areas, coupled with more detailed and restrictive site plan and\ndedication requirements, is further indication of the controls over land use\npresently being exercised by local government. Many of these restrictive\ncontrols apply to an additional extent to land use in the coastal zone.\nAn indication that State law with respect to local planning procedures may\nnot always be as flexible as it is at present may be seen in recent legis-\nlation. Prior to 1971, cities were permitted to have specific plans, and\nthose plans had a variety of optional elements. Now, cities and counties may\nhave specific plans, but the specific plans must contain certain elements.\nPrior to 1971, charter cities were expressly excluded from the provisions of\nState law that require cities to adopt a comprehensive general plan containing\ncertain mandatory elements. State statutes now read that \"the requirements\nof this section shall apply to charter cities.\"\nOther recent legislative items affecting land use include:\n-150-\nThe creation of a State Office of Planning and Research for purposes\nof developing a statewide land use policy.\nThe creation of single purpose regional planning agencies with land\nuse authority such as the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development\nCommission and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.\nThe mandating of specific elements for local general plans.\nThe establishment of minimum procedures for the conduct of a local\nzoning hearing.\nProvisions requiring public access to any shoreline or other public\nwaterway as a condition of development.\nThe ability of cities and counties to deny proposed subdivisions on\nthe basis of findings which indicate that the subdivision is inconsis-\ntenet with general and specific plans; the site is not suitable; the\nsubdivision would cause substantial environmental damage; the subdivis-\nion would cause serious public heälth problems; the subdivision conflicts\nwith public easements.\nThe ability of the Commissioner of the State Department of Real Estate\nto deny rural subdivisions unless they are adequately planned and\nproperly financed.\nThe requirement that a zoning ordinance be consistent with the general\nplan.\nIn addition to those measures mentioned above which have been approved\nin recent years, a number of other bills by a variety of authors are intro-\nduced with increasing frquency each year. Although they have not been approved,\nthey represent a continuing attempt to inject the State more directly into the\nlocal planning process. For example, the following measures have been intro-\nduced and discussed during recent sessions of the Legislature:\nThe requirement of a housing authority in every city.\nThe creation of an Umbrella Regional Planning Agency by the State for\na prescribed regional area.\nThe creation of State and Regional Environmental Quality Control Boards\nwith regulatory authority over air, water, land use, nuclear energy,\nsolid waste disposal, pesticides, and noise control.\nThe creation of a State Land Use Plan and State zoning of all public and\nprivate land.\n-151-\nThe withholding of State gas tax revenues to cities for failing to have\na master plan with all required elements.\nThe restriction of local control over the location of mobile home parks\nwithin a city or county.\nThe qualification of necessary laws to provide that local planning is\nnow a matter of Statewide interest and concern.\nThe mandating of additional elements, such as an air pollution control\nelement, for local general plans.\nREGIONAL AGENCIES\nThere are a number of statutorily created single purpose agencies who engage\nin regional planning. However, most do not have direct land use control.\nThey are more concerned with functional planning or regulation in a regional\narea. Their effect on land use is limited to their role in recommending land\nareas wherein certain regional services ought to be provided (ie, Metropol-\nitan Transportation Commission), acquiring and developing land for a regional\npurpose (ie, East Bay Regional Park District) or determining through a permit\nprocess whether a particular development should proceed (air pollution and\nwater quality control boards).\nThere are two, and potentially three, regional agencies that do engage in\nregional land use planning and do have some direct authority over land use.\nIn all three cases these statutorily-created agencies are concerned with de-\nvelopment in and adjacent to the ocean or a significant body of water. They are:\nSan Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission\nTahoe Regional Planning Agency\nVentura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study Commission\n-152-\nBAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION\nAUTHORITY\nThe San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission was created\nin 1965 by the State Legislature, and was made a permanent agency in 1969.\nBCDC consists of twenty-seven members, thirteen of whom represent cities\nand counties within the San Francisco Bay Area. The balance of the members\nrepresent State and Federal agencies, and seven represent the public at large.\nWhen creating BCDC, the Legislature made the following findings:\n(a) That further filling of San Francisco Bay should be authorized\nonly when public benefits from fill clearly exceed public de-\ntriment from the loss of the water areas and should be limited\nto water oriented uses (such as ports, water related industry,\nairports, bridges, wildlife refuges, water oriented recreation\nand public assembly, water intake and discharge lines for desal-\ninization plants and power generating plants requiring large\namounts of water for cooling purposes) or minor fill for improv-\ning shoreline appearance or public access to the Bay.\n(b) That fill in the Bay, for any purpose, should be authorized only\nwhen no alternative upland location is available for such purpose.\n(c) That the water area authorized to be filled should be the minimum\nnecessary to achieve the purpose of the fill.\n(d) That the nature, location and extent of any fill should be such\nthat it will minimize harmful effects to the Bay Area, such as,\nthe reduction or impairment of the volume surface area or cir-\nculation of water, water quality, fertility of marshes or fish\nor wildlife resources.\n(e) That public health, safety and welfare require that fill be con-\nstructed in accordance with sound safety standards which will afford\nreasonable protection to persons and property against the hazards\nof unstable geologic or soil conditions or flood or storm waters.\n(f) That fill should be authorized when the filling would, to the\nmaximum extent feasible, establish a permanent shoreline.\n(g) That fill should be authorized when the applicant has such valid\ntitle to the properties in question that he may fill them in the\nmanner and for the uses to be approved.\nWith respect to the above findings, enabling legislation creating BCDC\n-153-\nprovided, as follows:\nDuring the existence of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and De-\nvelopment Commission, any person or governmental agency wishing to\nplace fill, to extract materials, or to make any substantial change in\nuse of any water, land or structure, within the area of the Commission's\njurisdiction shall secure a permit from the Commission and, if required\nby law or by ordinance, from any city or county within which any part\nof such work is to be performed.\nThe area of the commission's jurisdiction includes:\n(a) San Francisco Bay\n(b) A shoreline band consisting of all territory located between the shore-\nline of San Francisco Bay and a line one hundred feet landward of\nand parallel with that line\nprovided that the Commission may, by re-\nsolution, exclude from its area of jurisdiction any area within the\nshoreline band that it finds and declares is of no regional importance\nto the Bay.\n(c) Salt ponds\n(d) Managed wetlands\n(e) Certain waterways\nconsisting of all areas that are subject to tidal\naction, including submerged lands, tidelands, and marshlands up to five\nfeet above mean sea level, on, or tributary to, the listed portions of\nthe following waterways:\n(1) Plumber Creek in Alameda County, to the eastern limit of the salt\nponds.\n(2) Coyote Creek (and branches) in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, to\nthe easternmost point of Newby Island.\n(3) Redwood Creek in San Mateo County, to its confluence with Smith Slough.\n(4) Tolay Creek in Sonoma County, to the northerly line of Sears Point\nRoad.\n(5) Petaluma River in Marin and Sonoma Counties to its confluence with\nAdobe Creek, and San Antonio Creek to the easterly line of the\nNorthwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.\n(6) Napa River, to the northernmost point of Bull Island.\n(7) Sonoma Creek, to its confluence with Second Napa Slough.\nPROGRAM\nBCDC has developed a San Francisco Bay plan which has been adopted by the\n-154-\nState Legislature. The plan suggests when filling or dredging of the Bay is\nand is not appropriate, and it also serves as a guide when the Commission\nreviews proposals for development within the one hundred foot inland shoreline\nstrip.\nBCDC processed thirty-five permits during 1971, more than during any previous\nyear of the Commission's existence. In addition, the Executive Director\napproved sixty=one permits for projects involving only minor repairs or\nimprovements. Of the thirty-five permits processed by the Commission, twenty-\nsix were approved. Of the twenty-six, nineteen were for projects involving\nconstruction in the Bay, and seven were for projects involving construction\nwithin the one hundred foot shoreline band.\nBCDC is guided by a broad-based advisory committee, and is also assisted by\nan Engineering Criteria Review Board and a Design Review Board. The Commission\nhas a staff of approximately twelve, and operates on an annual budget of $275,000.\nDIFFERENCES BETWEEN BCDC AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTLINE INITIATIVE\nThe California Coastline Initiative has been described as being very similar\nto and modeled after legislation creating BCDC. It is important, therefore,\nto consider differences in general approach and specific provisions.\nAs will be indicated in the analysis of the initiative, the emphasis of the\nCalifornia Coastline Initiative is clearly on preservation of the coastal\narea. Although no express moratorium on development is included in the\ninitiative, the combination of provisions contained therein will have the\npractical effect of delaying new projects within the initiative permit area.\nThe legislation creating BCDC, on the other hand, clearly encourages balanced\ndevelopment of the Bay, and limits the Commission's jurisdiction.\n-155-\nA comparison of initiative provisions with BCDC indicates that there are\nclear and substantive differences between the two:\n(1) The basic difference in philosophy between the initiative and BCDC can be\nseen in their respective titles. The initiative would create the Coastal\nZone Conservation Act whereas BCDC is concerned with \"Conservation and\nDevelopment\" of the Bay.\n(2) BCDC expressly encourages private investment in and development of the\nshoreline, as follows:\n\"The legislature finds that in order to make San Francisco Bay\nmore accessible for the use and enjoyment of people, the Bay\nshoreline should be improved, developed and preserved. The Leg-\nislature further recognizes that private investment in shoreline\ndevelopment should be vigorously encouraged and may be one of the\nprincipal means of achieving Bay shoreline development, minimizing\nthe resort to taxpayers' funds; Therefore, the Legislature declares\nthat the Commission should encourage both public and private\ndevelopment of the Bay shoreline.\"\nNo similar provision is contained in the California Coastline Initiative.\n(3) With respect to the rights of property owners adjacent to the Bay, the\nlegislation creating BCDC-provides as follows:\n\"The Legislature hereby finds and declares that this title is not\nintended, and shall not be construed, as authorizing the Commission to\nexercise its power to grant or deny a permit in a manner which will\ntake or damage private property for public use, without the payment\nof just compensation therefor\n11\nThere is no reference to just compensation or related matters in the Calif-\nornia Coastline Initiative.\n(4) The inland permit area of BCDC is confined to a one hundred foot band\nof shoreline around the Bay itself. Inland permit authority does not\nextend to land outside the Bay, even though other bodies of water are\nwithin the jurisdiction of the Commission. Importantly, BCDC may only\nrefuse to issue a permit for development within the one hundred foot\n-156-\ninland shoreline band if the proposed project fails to provide maximum\nfeasible public access. The Commission has no jurisdiction over height,\ndensity, or proposed use within the one hundred foot inland strip, except\ninsofar as these matters may relate to public access. The BCDC inland\npermit authority is expressly limited as follows:\n\"Within any portion or portions of the shoreline band the Commission\nmay deny an application for a permit for a proposed project only on the\ngrounds that the project fails to provide maximum feasible public access,\nconsistent with the proposed project, to the bay and its shoreline.\"\nThe California Coastline Initiative, on the other hand, provides permit\ncontrol over all development within the three thousand foot inland area in\nrural and urban areas alike. The authority of the regional coastline commis-\nsions to issue permits is broad, and is in no way limited to assuring that\nthe proposed project provides \"maximum feasible public access.\"\n(5) BCDC has boundaries that are essentially the same as those of the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments, and the Commission is required to\ncoordinate its activities with ABAG and local agencies, as follows:\n=\nthe Commission shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with\nthe Association of Bay Area Governments; and shall, to the fullest extent\npossible, coordinate its planning with planning by local agencies, which\nshall retain the responsibility for local land use planning. In order\nto avoid duplication of work, the Commission shall make maximum use of\ndata and information available from the planning programs of the State\nOffice of Planning, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the cities\nand counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, and other public and private\nplanning agencies.\"\nThe California Coastline Initiative creates regional commissions with boundar-\nies that are substantially different than those of the councils of government\noperating up and down the coast, and there is no requirement that the regional\ncommissions cooperate or work in any way with existing councils of government,\nother single purpose regional planning agencies, or individual local agencies\nalong the coast. In addition, the permit authority of the regional coastline\n-157-\ncommissions over all forms of development effectively pre-empts the existing\nauthority of local agencies to plan for and assure balanced development written\ntheir respective communities.\nTAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY\nAUTHORITY\nThe Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is a bi-state land use planning and\nregulatory agency created by interstate compact. There is, in addition, a\nCalifornia Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that was created prior to finalization\nof the compact and which remains in existence. A similar Nevada Planning Agency\nformerly existed, but was dissolved after the bi-state agency was established.\nThe bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is comprised of ten members,\nsix of whom represent cities and counties in California and Nevada. The\nCommission is assisted by an Advisory Planning Committee and, together, their\nprincipal responsibility is the preparation of a Tahoe Regional Plan which\nmust include the following elements:\n(a) A land use plan for the integrated arrangement and general location\nand extent of, and the criteria and standards for, the uses of land,\nwater, air, space and other natural resources within the region,\nincluding but not limited to, an indication or allocation of maximum\npopulation densities.\n(b) A transportation plan for the integrated development of a regional\nsystem of transportation, including but not limited to, freeways, parkways,\nhighways, transportation facilities, transit routes, waterways, navigation\nand aviation aides and facilities and pertinent terminals and facilities\nfor the movement of people and goods within the region.\n(c) A conservation plan for the preservation, development, utilization and\nmanagement of the scenic and other natural resources within the basin,\n-158-\nincluding, but not limited to, soils, shoreline and submerged lands,\nscenic corridors along transportation routes, open spaces, recreational\nand historical facilities.\n(d) A recreation plan for the development, utilization, and management of\nthe recreational resources of the region, including but not limited\nto, wilderness and forested lands, parks and parkways, riding and hiking\ntrails, beaches and playgrounds, arenas and other recreational facilities.\n(e) A public services and facilities plan for the general location, scale and\nprovision of public services and facilities, which, by the nature of their\nfunction, size, extent and other characteristics are necessary or appro-\npriate for inclusion in the regional plan.\nWith respect to preparation of the plan, the compact provides, as follows:\n\"In formulating and maintaining the regional plan, the planning commission\nand governing body shall take account of and shall seek to harmonize\nthe needs of the region as a whole, the plans of the counties and cities\nwithin the region, the plans and planning activities of the State, Federal\nand other public agencies and non-governmental agencies and organizations\nwhich affect or are concerned with planning and development within the\nregion. Where necessary for the realization of the regional plan, the\nagency may engage in collaborative planning with local governmental\njurisdictions located outside the region, but contiguous to its boundar-\nies. In formulating and implementing the regional plan, the agency shall\nseek the cooperation and consider the recommendations of counties and\ncities and other agencies of local government, of State and Federal\nagencies, of educational institutions and research organizations, whether\npublic or private, and of civic groups and private individuals.\"\nAs a means of enforcing the plan, the bi-state agency is required to adopt a\nseries of ordinances establishing regional standards in the following areas:\nwater purity and clarity; subdivision; zoning; tree removal; solid waste dis-\nposal; sewage disposal; land fills, excavations, cuts and grading; piers;\nharbors, breakwaters, or channels and other shoreline developments; waste\ndisposal in shoreline areas; waste disposal in boats; mobile home parks; house\nrelocation; outdoor advertising; flood plain protection; soil and sedimenta-\ntion control; air pollution; and watershed protection.\n-159-\nThe compact provides expressly that the ordinances \"shall establish a\nminimum standard applicable throughout the basin, and any political subdivis-\nion may adopt and enforce an equal or higher standard applicable to the same\nsubject of regulation in its territory.\" With respect to enforeement of\nthe ordinance, the compact provides that \"all ordinances, rules, regulations\nand policies adopted by the agency- shall be enforced by the agency and by the\nrespective states, counties, and cities.\"\nWith the exception of public works projects of governmental agencies, over\nwhich the California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has veto power, the Bi-\nstate Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has effective control over all private\ndevelopment in the Tahoe basin. It is empowered \"to police the region to\ninsure compliance with the general plan and adopted ordinances, rules,\nregulations, and policies\", and \"if it is found that the general plan, or\nordinances, rules, regulations, and policies are not being enforced by a local\njurisdiction, the agency may bring action in a court of competent jurisdiction\nto insure compliance.\" Violation of any ordinance is a misdemeanor.\nPROGRAM\nThe bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has approximately twelve staff\npersons, and operates on annual budget of $300,000.\nAfter completing, in cooperation with the United States Forest Service, a\nnumber of special studies on various resources within the Tahoe basin, the bi-\nstate Tahoe Regional Planning Agency adopted a general plan. They have, in\naddition, adopted four ordinances covering grading, land use, shoreline, and\nsubdivisions. The ordinances establish most of the minimum regional standards\nreferred to in the compact and, from a practical standpoint, the agency now\n-160-\ngives final review to all development projects over three acres or larger than\na triplex. The one exception is with respect to public works projects of Cal-\nifornia governmental agencies, over which the California Tahoe Regional Planning\nAgency retains final jurisdiction.\nDIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY AND THE CALIFORNIA\nCOASTLINE INITIATIVE\nThere are substantive differences between the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency\nand the provisions included within the California Coastline Initiative.\nFor example:\n(a) Representatives of existing local agencies (cities and counties) constitute\na majority of the members of the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.\nThe initiative does not give representatives of local agencies a major-\nity voice on either the regional or state commissions it would create.\n(b) Comprehensive planning and development control is provided throughout the\nentire Tahoe basin. The California Coastline Initiative calls for\ncomprehensive planning, but limits the planning area to five miles in-\nland or to the erratic and confusing boundaries of the \"top of the high-\nest elevation of the nearest coastal range.\"\n(c) A majority vote of the members present is sufficient to take action on\nany matter before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The California\nCoastline Initiative provides that a majority vote of the total author-\nized membership is necessary, except in certain cases where a two-thirds\nvote of the total authorized membership is required.\n(d) The compact creating the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency\nexpressly provides that the agency shall:\n\"take account of the plans of the counties and cities within the\nregion, the plans and planning activities of the State, Federal and\n-161-\nother public agencies and non-governmental agencies and organizations\nwhich affect or are concerned with planning and development within\nthe region in formulating and implementing the regional plan, the\nagency shall seek the cooperation and consider the recommendations of\ncounties and cities and other agencies of local government, of State\nand Federal agencies, of educational institutions and research organ-\nizations, whether public or private, and of civic groups and private\nindividuals.\"\nNo express requirements such as these are included in the California Coast-\nline Initiative.\n(e) Under the bi-state compact, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estab-\nlishes minimum standards which are administered and enforced by existing\nlocal agencies. Local agencies also have the right to enact more restric-\ntive standards. The California Coastline Initiative creates a series of\nnew regional commissions to establish and enforce minimum standards by\npassing local agencies.\nVENTURA-LOS ANGELES MOUNTAIN AND COASTAL STUDY COMMISSION\nAUTHORITY\nDeclaring that \"the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Zone has the\nlast large undeveloped area contiguous to the shoreline within the greater Los\nAngeles Metropolitan Region, comprised of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties,\nrepresents a unique and irreplaceable natural resource to the people of the\nState...,\" the Legislature created the Study Commission in 1970. The Com-\nmission was \"to study the entire zone as well as the relationship of the zone\nto the region, to ascertain what is needed for balanced conservation and\ndevelopment, to determine a set of policies and priorities based on such\nstudies, and to propose further legislative action to provide for implementa-\ntion of these policies.\"\nThe Commission is composed of fifteen members, four representing local\nagencies, three representing State agencies, and eight representing the\n-162-\npublic. The specific responsibility of the Commission is to make \"a detailed\nstudy of all factors that may significantly affect or cause irreversible\nmodification of the present and future status of the zone and its relationship\nwith the region, and any other factors, including, but not limited to:\n(a) The zone as an airshed resource for the region, considering climatology\nand meteorology.\n(b) Open space, including scenic easements, parks, and natural preserves,\nand fire hazards and fire prevention.\n(c) Watershed, floods, and flood damage prevention.\n(d) Beaches, estuaries, lagoons, coastal bluffs, springs, creeks, lakes,\nfish, wildlife and natural plant life of the zone and the effects of\ndevelopment thereon.\n(e) Recreation, including beaches, parks and other facilities for sport\nfishing, surfing, pleasure boating, picnicing, camping, mountaineering,\nhiking, and horseback riding.\n(f) Inventory of Indian settlements and other historical and archeological\nsites, fossil beds, unusual plant life, and geological formations for\npossible future preservation and utilization.\n(g) Water supply, water quality, and waste disposal, including sewage\nplants and outfalls and thermal and radioactive pollution.\n(h) Solid waste disposal, including the effect of sanitary land fill\nactivities.\n(i) Geology, erosion, soil types, land stability, and grading practices.\n(j) Proposed transportation plans, including present and projected traffic\npatterns, and new methods of solving transportation problems.\n(k) Projected population and related housing development within the zone\nand the impact thereof on the zone and region.\n(1) Power and desalinization plants.\n(m) Exploration and exploitation of oil and gas and other minerals and\nnatural resources.\n(n) Present land uses and known proposals for change, including impact of\nland appraisal and tax policies.\n(o) Present ownerships, including the administration of publicly owned\nproperties.\n(p) Present regulation of land and water uses and activities of all levels\nand government.\n-163-\n(q) Present laws affecting the zone.\nBased on consideration of the study findings and its deliberations in\ngeneral, the Commission is required to submit a final report to the Legislature\nat the 1972 session including recommendations for legislative and adminis-\ntrative action. The Commission terminates on the sixty-first day after the\nfinal adjournment of the 1972 Regular Session of the Legislature.\nPROGRAM\nAs required by statute, the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study\nCommission submitted its Final Report to the Legislature at the beginning of\nthe 1972 legislative session. The report indicates that due to time and money\nconstraints II the Commission has been unable to carry out all studies to the\ndepth required to ascertain specifically what is need for balanced conservation\nand development.\" However, the report does include specific legislative recom-\nmendations, as follows:\n(a) Extend the Commission's life for two additional years in order to allow\nfor completion of studies mandated by initial legislation and draw\nfinal recommendations for legislative action.\n(b) Acquire open space/parklands as indicated on the acquisition map.\n(c) Revise the boundaries of the study zone to exclude certain areas already\nurbanized and/or subdivided so that the Commission does not have to\noperate at a local level.\n(d) Increase the size of the Commission.\n(e) Establish an Advisory Committee.\n(f) Engage staff.\n(g) Establish a permit system.\n(h) Request funding.\nOUTLOOK\nA bill designed to extend the life of the Commission and to give it additional\n-164-\nduties, including permit control, has been introduced in the State Senate.\nThe bill is on third reading in the Senate, and will be considered when the\nLegislature resumes its deliberations in November. Although the requested\npermit authority may be excluded from the bill, it appears probably that the\nlife of the Commission will be extended to permit it to finish its studies.\nIn addition to the activities of these single purpose regional agencies, there\nare at least two other types of regional governmental bodies which, in\npractice, have an impact on the comprehensive planning and land use activ-\nities of cities and counties. These are local agency formation commissions\n(LAFCO's) and councils of government (COGS).\nLOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIONS\nSince 1963, every county (except the City and County of San Francisco) has\nbeen required to have a local agency formation commission (LAFCO).\nLAFCO's were created in order to encourage a more orderly and comprehensive\napproach to urban growth, and their principal responsibility is to review and\nact on all proposals for incorporation, annexation, or creation of special\ndistricts within their respective county. In this regard, LAFCO's are author-\nized to accept, reject, or conditionally accept such proposals. Their review\nmust consider factors, such as:\n(a) Population, population density; land area and land use; per capita\nassessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins;\nproximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth\nin the area, and adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during\nthe next ten years.\n(b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of\ngovernmental services and controls in the area; probably future needs for\nsuch services and controls; probably effect of the proposed incorporation,\nformation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action\non the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent\nareas.\n-165-\n(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent\nareas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local govern-\nmental structure of the county.\n(d) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the non-\nconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or owner-\nship, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory,\nand other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.\n(e) Conformity with appropriate city or county general and specific plans.\nMembership on LAFCO consists of two city representatives, two county represent-\natives, and one public member. Where determined locally, LAFCO can also include\ntwo special district representatives. Staffing is provided by the county.\nLAFCO's not only have an impact on land use in terms of their decisions on\nmatters pertaining to incorporation, annexation, and the formation of spec-\nial districts, but their other activities also influence land use. For example,\nLAFCO's may encourage cities to pre-zone unincorporated areas before ap-\nproving proposals for annexation. Also, State law now requires LAFCO's to\nestablish \"spheres of influence\" as a further means of guiding future devel-\nopment and growth within the county. LAFCO decisions regarding \"spheres of\ninfluence\" are based, in part, on city and county general plans. They also\ndetermine, in part, the nature of those plans. In either event, they have a\nsignificant impact on comprehensive planning in general and land use in\nparticular.\nCOUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT\nWith the exception of certain statutorily created regional planning agencies\nthat have been given certain controls over development (ie., BCDC, TRPA), the\nauthority for land use planning and control in California rest principally with\ncities and counties. This authority is modified, to some extent, by the\nactions and decisions of the county local agency formation commission which is\nmainly concerned with the orderly growth and expansion of county land areas.\n-166-\nThe authority of cities and counties is also modified, to some extent, by the\naction of cities and counties themselves who have voluntarily agreed to estab-\nlish councils of government in order to obtain a more coordinated approach to\ncomprehensive land use planning and related regional problems.\nAUTHORITY\nAlthough State statutes provide several ways in which cities and counties\nmay join together for purposes of regional planning, the most common tool\nused to create councils of government in California has been utilization\nof the Joint Exercise of Powers Act. The Act provides, as follows:\n\"If authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies, two\nor more public agencies by agreement may jointly exercise any power\ncommon to the contracting parties\nII\nBased on the above stature, cities and counties have voluntarily established\ncouncils of government in order to jointly undertake planning and related\nactivities. For example, the Comprhensive Planning Organization has been\nestablished in San Diego County; the Southern California Association of Govern-\nments has been created in Imperial Counties, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,\nSan Bernardino and Ventura; the Association of Bay Area Governments has been\ncreated in the nine Bay Area Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,\nSan Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma; and similar organiz-\nations encompassing Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz,\nand other California counties have been established.\nPROGRAM\nThe concerns and programs of councils of government are similar. Broadly\nspeaking, however, they are designed to include:\nCompilation, dissemination, interchange and coordination of information\nto assist local governments in decision-making and to promote inter-govern-\n-167-\nmental cooperation.\nFormulation of positive recommendations to aid in development of a\ncomprehensive planning process within the region.\nEncourage participation of members and citizens in developing regional\ngoals and in stimulating discussion of regional problems.\nProvision of means for local goverments to speak with one voice on matters\nof regional concern.\nDesignation as the metropolitan clearing house for the review of proposals\nfor areawide coordination and comprehensive planning.\nThe integration of various elements into a coordinated program;provision'\nof a means for long-range planning to take into consideration the total\nregional effects of a program.\nMore specifically, councils of government have prepared comprehensive regional\nland use and policy plans for their region. Based on a careful examination\nof population projections, as well as calculations on housing, employment,\nand land use, the policies and forecasts contained therein serve as the basis\nfor further functional plans in areas such as transportation, open space,\nhousing, water, and sewer.\nIn addition to comprehensive regional land use plans, SCAG and ABAG have also\nundertaken a special coastal planning effort. This special planning effort\nhas permitted the accumulation and analysis of information regarding the use\nand resources of the coastal zone, and the overall goal is the preparation of\na plan for improved coastal management and recommendations for implementation.\nImportantly, the plan will be related to the other comprehensive planning\nefforts of cities and counties in the council of governments region as they\npertain to housing, transportation, water, sewer, open space, etc.\n-168-\nThe Federal government requires regional areas to prepare and adopt com-\nprehensive functional plans in the areas of transportation, open space, housing,\nwater, and sewer before individual cities and counties can become eligible\nfor Federal grant funds in these areas. To assure overall coordination in the\nexpenditure of such funds, the Federal government also requires State and\nregional areas to establish \"clearinghouses\" for review of applications by\npublic agencies and others for over one hundred different\nFederal grant funds. COGS, by preparing regional plans, are responsible for\ncities and counties within their area being eligible for many millions of\ndollars in Federal funds. Importantly, their role as a regional clearing\nhouse for Federal grant applications permits COGS to implement, in part,\nthe goals, and policies of their comprehensive regional plan.\nCOGS also help other State and regional agencies, many of whom have boundaries\nidentical to the COG, to prepare and implement plans that are consistent with\noverall regional goals. For example, COGS have ongoing relations with numerous\nspecial districts within their regional area; they serve as the regional\ntransportation planning agency for purposes of allocating State transportation\nfunds; they have been designated by the Legislature to assist in the preparation\nof a State-wide plan for solid waste management; they serve in an advisory\ncapacity to the State Office of Planning and Research in its efforts to devel-\nop a comprehensive State land use policy; and they assist and supplement the ef-\nforts of regional transportation districts, regional air pollution control dis-\ntricts; regional park districts, regional water quality control boards;\nand similar State and regional groups.\nAll in all, COGS involve existing cities and counties in a functional process\nof regional planning and decisionmaking which has been in operation for a\ndecade and, as indicated in the annual report of the Southern California\n-169-\nAssociation of Governments, \"provides an alternative to the abdication of\nauthority and responsibility by local governments and the preemption of\ndecision-making by Federal or State agencies.\"\nOUTLOOK\nThe development of a practical and effective approach to the solution of\nregional problems in California must evolve over time. The experience of COGS\nis a good example of how a balanced consensus is being developed without\ndestroying existing institutions and creating new levels of administrative\nbureaucracy in the process. By involving cities and counties in a regional\nforum initially, COGS were able to assist in identifying specific regional\nproblems. Discussions over time have permitted, particularly in urban areas of\nthe State, the development of alternative solutions and the preparation of\nspecific plans and policies for a constructive approach to those problems which\ntranscend individual city and county boundaries. This evolutionary process\nhas reached the point where at least three COGS (ABAG, SCAG, and CPO)\nrepresenting most of the State population, have in recent years been active-\nly pursuing legislation which will improve their ability to coordinate re-\ngional policy-making and to implement regional plans. Although no State\nlegislative consensus has been reached as yet on the exact regional govern-\nmental framework, there is a clear legislative consensus that a comprehensive\napproach to regional problems is necessary, that the regional framework\nand authority must be statutorily prescribed, and that the area within which\nregional planning and control will occur must be broad enough ( as opposed\nto that suggested in the California Coastline Initiative) to permit a com-\nprehensive approach.\n-170-\nSTATE AGENCIES\nThere are numerous agencies, departments, divisions, and commissions, within\nState government that have some direct or indirect responsibility for land\nuse within the coastal zone and elsewhere. The State engages in planning;\nit coordinates the activities of local, regional, and Federal agencies; it\nestablishes criteria and standards; it issues permits; it engages in exper-\nimental programs and surveillance activities; it owns and manages real prop-\nerty; it provides financial assistance to others for the acquisition and de-\nvelopment of specific projects and facilities; and it engages in other activi-\nties that have some bearing on land use.\nAs the population of California has increased, and as its urban areas have\ngrown, the need for State involvement in comprehensive land use planning\nand control has become more apparent. The interest and concern of State legis-\nlative and administrative officials with respect to land use planning is also\nmore apparent.\nThe efforts of the State to achieve a comprehensive and coordinated approach\nto land use is reflected particularly in the activities of the Office of\nPlanning and Research, the State Council on Intergovernmental Relations, and\nthe office of Intergovernmental Management.\nOFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH\nThe Office of Planning and Research was established in 1970 as a result of\nlegislation which declared, in part:\n\"The Legislature finds and declares that future growth of the State should\nbe guided by an effective planning process and should proceed within the\nframework of officially-approved Statewide goals and policies directed to\nland use, population growth and distribution, urban expansion and other\nrelevant physical, social and economic development factors.\"\n-171-\nWith respect to the increasing interest of the State in the area of land use,\nit is significant to note that Section IV of the legislation establishing\nthe Office of Planning and Research provides, as follows:\n\"The Office of Planning and Research shall give immediate and high\npriority to the development of land use policy. As a first component\nof such policy, the Office shall develop, in conjunction with appro-\npriate State departments and Federal, regional and local agencies, a\nStatewide plan and implementation program for protecting land and\nwater resources of the State which are of Statewide significance in\nterms of the State's natural resource base and the preservation and\nenhancement of environmental quality and are threatened due to urban\nexpansion, incompatible public or private use or development or other\ncircumstances.\"\nThe planning program shall consider, but not be limited to:\n(1) Areas of outstanding scientific, scenic and recreation value.\n(2) Areas which are required as habitat for significant fish and wildlife\nresources, including rare and endangered species.\n(3) Forest and agricultural lands which are judged to be of major importance\nin meeting future needs for food, fiber, and timber.\n(4) Areas which provide green space and open areas in and around high density\nmetropolitan development.\n(5) Areas which are required to provide needed access to coastal beaches,\nlake shores, and riverbanks.\n(6) Areas which require special development regulation because of hazardous\nor special conditions, such as earthquake fault zones, unstable slide\nareas, flood plains, and watersheds.\n(7) Areas which serve as connecting links between major public recreation\nand open space sites, such as utility easements, stream banks, trails,\nand scenic highway corridors.\n(8) Areas of major historic or cultural interest.\"\nThe specific responsibilities of the Office of Planning and Research are,\nas follows:\n(a) Assist in the formulation, evaluation and updating of long-range goals\nand policies for land use, population growth and distribution, urban\nexpansion, open space, resource preservation and utilization, and other\nfactors which shape Statewide development patterns and significantly\ninfluence the quality of the State's environment.\n(b) Assist in the orderly preparation by appropriate State departments and\n-172-\nagencies of intermediate and short-range functional plans to guide pro-\ngrams of transportation, water development, open space, recreation and\nother functions which relate to the protection and enhancement of the\nState's environment.\n(c) Regularly evaluate plans and programs of departments and agencies of\nState government, identify conflicts or omissions, and recommend new\nState policies, programs and actions required to resolve conflicts,\nadvance State-wide environmental goals and to respond to emerging\nenvironmental problems and opportunities.\n(d) Assist the Department of Finance in preparing, as part of the annual\nState budget, an integrated program of priority actions to implement\nState functional plans and to achieve State-wide environmental goals\nand objectives and take other actions to insure that the program budget,\nsubmitted annually to the Legislature, contains information reporting\nthe achievement of State goals and objectives by departments and\nagencies of State government.\n(e) Coordinate the development of policies and criteria to assure that Fed-\neral grants in aid administered or directly expended by State govern-\nment, advance State-wide environmental goals and objectives.\n(f) Coordinate the development and operation of a State-wide environmental\nmonitoring system to assess the implications of present growth and\ndevelopment trends on the environment and to identify at an early time,\npotential threats to public health, natural resources and environmental\nquality.\n(g) Coordinate, in conjunction with appropriate State, regional, and local\nagencies, the development of objectives, criteria and procedures for the\norderly evaluation and report of the impact of public and private actions\non the environmental quality of the State and as a guide to the prepara-\ntion of the environmental impact report required of State and local\nagencies.\n(h) Coordinate research activities of State government directed to the growth\nand development of the State and the preservation of environmental qual-\nity, render advice to the Governor, to his cabinet, and any agency or\ndepartment of State government, and provide information to, and cooper-\nate with, the Legislature or any of its committees or officer.\n(i) Provide assistance to the Council on Intergovernmental Relations in\ncoordinating provision of technical assistance by State departments and\nagencies in regional and local planning to assure that such plans are\nconsistent with State-wide environmental goals and objectives.\n(j) Accept and allocate or expend grants and gifts from any source, public\nor private, for the purpose of State planning and undertake other plan-\nning and coordinating activities as will implèment the policy and intent\nof the Legislature as set forth herein.\nAs one means of fulfilling its responsibility, the Office of Planning and\n-173-\nResearch is required to prepare a Statewide Environmental Goals and Pol-\nicy Report. As required by law, the first report was prepared by March 1, 1972\nand it contained, among other things, the following proposal:\n\"This report therefore recommends that a Department of Environmental\nProtection be formed within the Resources Agency with responsibilities\nto coordinate the State's role in pollution control, implement the\nstandards established by the Environmental Pollution Control Board,\ncentralize services for monitoring pollution, and provide one multi-\ndisciplined approach to the inter-related problems of air pollution,\nwater pollution, solid waste disposal and the protection of environ-\nmental resources of State-wide importance.\n\"This report also recommends the formation of an Environmental Pro-\ntection Control Board with responsibilities to establish standards and\nregulations for areas under its jurisdiction, oversee the State-wide im-\nplementation of such standards, identify needs for continuing research\nand adopt areas of Statewide significance and critical concern as\ndescribed in the Environmental Resources Protection Plan.\"\nThe report, which must be revised every four years, has been reviewed by a\nselect Assembly Committee and their comments and recommendations are presently\nbeing considered by the Office of Planning and Research and the Governor. With\nrespect to land use specifically, it is important to note that although the\nreport identifies certain land areas, including the entire coastal area, as\nbeing of \"significant and critical concern\", it does not contain a recom-\nmended State land use policy. Such a recommended policy is presently being\ndeveloped and refined by the Office of Planning and Research with the assist-\nance of a \"Land Use Study Team\" which includes representatives of all maj-\nor State Departments and, importantly, all councils of government. As an\ninitial step, the Office of Planning and Research has published a Compendium\nof Land Use Data Sources. The actual development of a coordinated Statewide\nland use policy is aimed at establishing guidelines and criteria that will\nfacilitate integrated planning for the entire State, rather than looking\nindividually and exclusively at singular areas of the State such as the desert,\ncoast and forest.\n-174-\nOther activities of the Office of Planning and Research include the prepara-\ntion of guidlines for environmental impact statements that must be completed\nby State and other public agencies before new development projects may commence;\nconduct of research on environmental matters; and coordination of all environ-\nmental reviews of new subdivision proposals for local agencies.\nCOUNCIL ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS/OFFICE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT\nThe Office of Planning and Research is concerned with developing land use pol-\nicies and guidlines for the State. The Council on Intergovernmental Relations,\nand its administrative arm, the Office of Intergovernmental Management, comple-\nment and support these efforts through programs designed to improve local\nplanning and, where appropriate, encourage comprehensive regional planning.\nThe Council on Intergovernmental Relations establishes policy which is ad-\nministered by the Office of Intergovernmental Management. Membership on CIR\nincludes representatives of cities, counties, school districts, special dis-\ntricts and major State agencies.\nWith respect to planning, CIR and OIM are responsible for administering the\nFederal Government Comprehensive \"701\" Planning Grants. In addition, they\nprovide technical assistance to local planning agencies (ie, they have prepared\nreports on Local Planning in California, Local Agency Formation Commissions,\netc.) and, as required by statute, they are engaged in the development of\ncriteria and guidelines for elements of local general plans. Importantly,\nthey are required by law to establish comprehensive regional planning bound-\naries for the State, and these boundaries form a basis for council of\ngovernment activities as well as other State and regional planning activities.*\n*\nWith respect to the California Coastline Initiative, it is important to note\nthat the regional boundaries provided for therein are totally different than\nthose already established by CIR.\n-175-\nCIR/OIM also work to encourage a coordinated and uniform approach to plan-\nning on an intergovernmental basis through their \"clearinghouse\" responsibility\nfor review of Federal Grant applications and environmental impact statements.\nThese ongoing programs of \"review and comment\", which involve Federal, State,\nregional and local levels of government, have had the practical effect of\ncoordinating expenditures of Federal Grant funds and assuring a broad and\nbalanced environmental review of proposed public development projects. CIR/OIM\nare similarly responsible for coordinating the review and comment by State\nagencies on proposed Federal agency regulations and Federal development projects.\nCIR is represented on the Land Use Study Team of the Office of Planning and\nResearch, and the two bodies coordinate their activities in this area of\nmutual interest. Importantly, from the standpoint of coordination with local\ngovernment in the area of comprehensive planning, COGS are also included in\nthe activities of both agencies.\nAs indicated previously, cities and counties are principally responsible for\ndirect land use planning and control. In addition to State coordinating ef-\nforts, such as those described above, there are also instances of direct State\nplanning and control over land use. State agencies exercising such direct land\nuse controls through ownership or management of State lands include:\nSTATE LANDS COMMISSION\nThe California Coastline Initiative includes all land between mean high tide\nand the seaward jurisdiction of the State within its planning and permit\nareas. These \"tide\" and \"submerged\" lands, unless granted to local agencies,\nare presently managed by the State Lands Commission.\nResponsible for over 4.5 million acres of State-owned land, the State Lands\n-176-\nCommission is engaged in multi-use planning and development of these lands.\nTheir activities are designed to assure that public lands are developed for\nthe public benefit, consistent with proper conservation of resources and other\nenvironmental factors, and that potential revenues from these lands are max-\nimized for the State.\nMore specifically, the responsibilities and objectives of the State Lands\nCommission are implemented through a variety of programs that are administered\nby the State Lands Division of the Resources Agency. Of principal concern\nfrom the standpoint of coastal land use, is the program of leasing tide and\nsubmerged lands for extractive and non-extractive development purposes. Leases\nare entered into by the Commission for the recovery of oil and gas resources,\nfor the extraction of other mineral resources, and for geothermal operations.\nIn addition, the Commission issues related prospecting permits, and also con-\nsiders applications for a variety of other commerical and public uses of tide\nand submerged lands.\nBecause of its concern over oil spills, the Commission has imposed a mora-\ntorium on further oil and gas leases until at least June 30, 1973. More im-\nportantly, however, State law now provides that a specific environmental review\nof all proposed uses must be undertaken before the Commission may enter into\nany new lease. Specifically, Section 6371 of the Public Resources Code pro-\nvides:\n=\nthe Commission, except for recreational pier permits, shall not\nlease any of the lands under its jurisdiction unless it shall have\nmade a finding at a public meeting that such lease will not have a\nsignificant detrimental environmental effect and shall have made an\nenvironmental impact report which shall be available to the Legislature\nand to the public. Such report shall set forth the environmental\nimpact of the lease, any unavoidable adverse environmental effects,\nmitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact, alternatives to\nthe lease, the relationship between local short-term productivity, and\nany irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the\nleasing of the lands.\"\n-177-\nAs required by statute, the Commission is also engaged in an inventory of\nall State-owned tide and submerged lands \"which possess unique environmental\nvalues, including scenic, historic, natural, or aesthetic values of State-\nwide interest.\" Once the inventory is complete, the Commission is required\nto \"adopt regulations necessary to assure permanent protection to these lands. =\nOther Commission activities pertaining to the management of State-owned\ntide and submerged lands include boundary determinations, negotiating boundary\nline agreements, and the sale and exchange of property. The Commission is\nrepresented on the Land Use Study Team of the Office of Planning and Research,\nand environmental impact reports it prepares for proposed tide and submerged\nland uses are reviewed by other State agencies having an interest and/or land\nuse responsibility in the coastal area.\nDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION\nThe Department of Parks and Recreation acquires, designs, develops, operates\nand maintains State-owned park and recreation facilities. The State park sys-\ntem includes the following facilities:\nPicnic units\n6,014\nCamp units\n8,513\nBoating facilities (ramps, lanes,\ndocking facilities)\n623\nInterpretive facilities (campfire centers,\nhistoric structures,\nmuseums)\n219\nAcres of turf\n2,211\nAcres of beach\n4,295\nParking facilities (number of spaces)\n65,592\nMiles of road\n1,365\n-178-\nMiles of trails\n855\nNumber of private concessions, contracts\nadministered\n161\nNumber of concessions, operating agree-\nments administered\n39\nTotal park acreage\n830,756\nIn addition to a broad, ongoing program of operating and maintaining ex-\nisting State park and recreational facilities, the Department is also con-\ncerned with acquiring and/or developing new facilities. This aspect of their\nprogram is complex, involving property negotiation; condemnation; alternative\nfinancing arrangements; preparation of construction plans; work scheduling;\nbidding procedures; research for effective interpretation of natural, his-\ntorical, and recreational resources; museum programs; campfire and guided\ntours; and similar activities designed to develop existing land resources to\ntheir maximum balanced use.\nWith respect to the coastal area, the Department has completed an extensive\nplanning document entitled \"California Coastline-Preservation and Recreation\nPlan.\" In addition to identifying elements of the natural coastal environment\n(ie., land forms, climate, biota) and historic factors about the coast, the\nreport sets forth a plan for action that is related to projected demand for\ntypes of coastal recreation facilities.\nThe report indicates that the greatest use of coastal recreational facil-\nities occurs in or near urban areas. It further points out that in order to\nadequately meet projected demand in these areas it will be necessary to im-\nprove land already held in public ownership, as well as acquire additonal\nshoreline areas.\nRelated to its \"Plan for Action\", the Department has an aggressive program\n-179-\nof acquisition, which, in urban areas, includes the acquiring of inholdings in\norder to round out parcels already owned by the State, thereby making them\nfeasible for development. The Department has an equally aggressive multi-\nyear development program in the coastal area including such projects as the\nfollowing:\nState Department of Parks and Recreation\n1972-75 Development Program\nUnit\nProject Description\nEstimated Cost\nAnnadel Farms\nAccess road\n$102,000\nSan Onofre State\nBeach\nChain link fencing\n$150,000\nAngel Island State\nPark\nSewage collection and full treat-\n$275,000\nment. Working drawings.\nCarpinteria State\nCampground, administrative\nBeach\nfacilities\n$400,000\nMacKerricher State\nPark\nWater system\n$133,000\nPismo State Beach\nBeach, sanitary facilities\n$150,000\nPoint Mugu State\nPark\nMultiple facilities\n$924,100\nRefugio State Beach\nMultiple facilities\n$150,000\nRussian Gulch State\nSewage collection & transport\n$250,000\nPark\nSeacliff State Beach\nDay use beach facilities\n$979,200\nSilver Strand State\nBeach\nSewage system\n$215,780\nSonoma Coast State\nBeach\nBodega Bay campground\n$200,000\nBolsa Chica State\nBeach\nParking and beach facilities\n$4,000,000\nSan Onofre State\nBeach\nBeach development, camping\n$1,393,000\n-180-\nAngel Island State\nPark\nWest Garrison restoration\n$200,000\nCarlsbad State\nBeach\nParking and beach access\n$350,000\nCarpenteria State\nCampground improvement and beach\nBeach\nfacilities\n$500,000\nDoheny State Beach\nCampground-234 units\n$950,000\nHenry Cowell\nCampground-50 units\n$250,000\nLeo Carrillo State\nBeach\nCampground-60 units\n$180,000\nSan Buena Ventura\nState Beach\nCampground-93 units\n$166,000\nSan Gregorio State\nCampground (70 units) and day use\nBeach\nfacilities (working drawings)\n$107,000\nSilver Strand State\nBeach\nCampground-157 units\n$195,000\nBorder Field\nDay use facilities & major\nutilities\n$1,000,000\nHalf Moon Bay State\nCampground (50 units, primitive\nBeach\nor parking lot conversion)\n$300,000\nHuntington State Beach\nDay use facilities & campground\n$2,500,000\nJetty Beach\nDay use facilities & campground\n$300,000\nMalibu Lagoon State Beach\nDay use facilities\n$800,000\nMendocino Hedlands\nDay use facilities & sewage\n$300,000\nProject\nsystem participation\nSan Clemente State\nCampground improvement and\nBeach\nexpansion\n$1,500,000\nSan Gregorio State Beach\nCampground & day use facilities\n$1,220,000\nTwin Lakes State Beach\nDay use facilities\n$500,000\nThe Department also works closely with local jurisdictions and other\nagencies of the State in an effort to achieve a comprehensive approach to\ndevelopment, acquisition, and use of State park and recreational facilities.\n-181-\nPELICANS\nCrescent\nCity\nGasquer\nCALIFORNIA STATE PARK SYSTEM\nBEL MORTE COAST RED#000$\nREDWOODS\nPRAIRIE CREE REDWOODS\nDRY LACOON\nOREGON\nPATRICK'S POINT'S\nTRINIDAD\nLITTLE RIVER\nSection\nCA\n. AZADEAS.R\nFORT HOWBOLDT EUREKA\nWeed\nHumbridi\nCo\nMount Shorts\nGRIZZLY CREEK REDWOODS\nTrenty\nCO.CASTLE CRAGES\nMoter\nCa.\nDUE\nNUMBOLOT REDWOODS\n** JOSS NOUS\nS.M.M.\nMARTHUR FALLS\nAllures\nBENSON LAKE S R.\nSHASTA'S\nNEWORKS\nRICHARDSON GROVE\nREDDING\nREYNOLDS\nSTANDISH HICKEY\nSMITRE\nREDWOODS\nStasts\nCa\nRESTPORT LANDING\nADMIRAL\nWILLIAMSTANDLEY\nS.R.A\nWILLIAM ADDRE\nMARKERRICHER\nLasse\nCo\nCo.\nCo\nPACIFIC\nRUSSIAN GULCH\nDANNE\nW00030N BRIDGE S.R.A.\n-182-\nDIMIT\nN.C.\nClean\nCa\nPlans\nCe\nMANCHESTER\nMEMOY\nTHE\nUNCREEKS.RU\nQuincy\nMAILLIARD\nDMOODS.R.R.\n128\nColumn\nCloverdate\nLAKE SP\nRIVER\nSEURERASE\nKNUSE RH0000ENDROM\nCe\nRESERVOIR\nLEA\nSALT POINTS\n20\nFORT\nToba\nCo.\nSmith\nCo\n@\nARNSTRONG\nRABER\nTEVENSON\n*\nMALANOFF\nDIÇOINS\nSONDAY.COAFTS\nBOTHE\nSAPA\nNet\noto\n13\nMACK\nADOBE\ne\nPlacer Co.\nDONNER\nMEMORIAL\nTOTAL\nSQUAW VALLE S.R.A\nSAMUEL TAYLOR\nCo.\nMOUNT\nS.R.A.\nMARSHALL\nSTANSON 5.5\nANCEL\nScience Ce\nSUTTERS\nPOINT\nADLANDS\nMICIA\nD.L.BLISS\nCAPITOL\nPALACE S.H.P.\nSecraments\n(RALD\nS.R.A.\nSAN\nRANCISCO\nSAN\nFRANCISCO\nCests\nANNAR\nSAN FRANCISCO\nCo\nGRINDING ROCK\nNAMEM\nEMORIAL\nTRAC\nBEACH\nMOUNT\nGROVER HOT\nSHARP\nBEACH\n-\nMONTARA BEACH\nCo\nFRANCIS DUNES BEACH\n3\nCalaretes\nCo.\nAlpne\nCo\nSAN ACH\n@\nCALAVERAS\nPOMPONID\n2\nPESBLE\nCASTELL\nMEMORIAL\nARROYD FRUDLES\nJose\nTyclure\nBUTANOS.P\nPARK\nAND NUE VO S.R\nCo.\nTE\nSIG BASIN RED#00055.P\nStamisless\nCo\n6\nYOSEMITE\nNATURAL BRIDGES\nCOE\nMARKS\nGEORGE\nHAT\nNAT'L PARK\nBODIE\nBRIGHTON\n1011\nET\nSEACLIFF\nI\nMANRESA\nI\nS.H.O\nMerced\nFREMONT\nMONTEREY\nHe\nMond\nCo\nCARMEL RIVER\nLABOS\n-\nLokes\nNEVADA\n@\nMaders\nCo\nФ\nPFEIFFER\nJULIA PFEIFFER BURNS\nCOCHES RANCHO\nJOHN LITTLE\nI\nCs\nBeshoo\nFRESNO\nFreque\nFowler\n101\nCANYON\nMATE\nWHIS\nE\nCo:\nSAN SIME ON\nPN\nKings\nCo\nSEQUOIA\nTubere\nCAYUCOS\nAlascadere\nPARK\nTylare\n&\nCo.\nMORRO-BAY\nDEATH\nAVILA\nPISMO.S.\nBeach\n190\nPOINT SAL S.B.\nVALLEY\nELK:\nKERN RIVER S R\nompiod MISSIONS\n5\nBAKERSFIELD\nCe:\nE\nXeet\nCo\nMAT'L MCM\n101\nB\nCAVIOTA\nREFUGIOS\nELCAPITAN\nFORT TERMSHIP\nCOLETA 18.\\\nPRESION\nDE'SANTA\nBARBARA\nMojove\nCARPINTERIA\nVantura\nCo.\nOjo:\nPACIFIC\nEMM WOOD\nSAN\nBUE NAVERTURA\nCo.\nSan Berriarding\nCo.\nMICRATH\nOwnerd\nSelement\nPatmont\nPOINT MUCU\nTREES S.P.\nBorstow\nPLACERITA CA\nLEO CARRILLO 18\nConage Park\nPOINT\n1,05 ENCINOS S.H.M\n83\nLAGOON\nLUMAS\nHOME\nKM,\nPUEBLO*\n6\nWILL ROGERS'S\nSANTA MONICA\nAND ANGELES\nARBORET\n0.05\nANGE\nDOCKWEILERS.\n5\nMANHATTANS\nTerrence\nRESERVOIRS\nREDON003.B\nLamire\nMTCHELL CAVERNIS.R.\nSAN BERNARDING\nROYAL PALMS\nC\nLong\nRedlands\nBOLSA\nDiange\nNEART BAR S.P.\nE\nKUNTWIGTON\nSevene\nHeadle\nCORONA\nPerson\nLaqune Beach\nEt\nDONERY\nHome\nOCEAN\nSAN CLEMENTE\n32\nWILDERMESSIP\nPolm Springs\nLegend\nCo.\nTHE\n76\nOceansia\nY\nNATE\nCARLSBAD\nMOUNTAIN\nS.B.\nSTATE BEACH\nLEUCADIA\nR\nMON\nCARDIE CO COAST S.B.\nS.P.\nSTATE PARK\nMODELIGHT\nEscondido\nSAN\nN.P.\nSALTOR SEA\nS.R.\nSTATE RESERVE\nCARDIFF\nTORRET PTRES\nS.R.A.\nSTATE RECREATION AREA\nOLD TOWN\nSAN DIEGO\nS.H.P.\nSTATE HISTORIC PARK\nRANCHO\nANZA\nBOMECO\nARIZONA\nS.H.M.\nSTATE HISTORICAL MONUMENT\nSTRAND\nChula\nBlythe\nSTATE OWNED ARK UNITS STAFFED.\nSERVICED. AND OPERATED BY OTHER\nAGENCIES.\nD\nreports\nCo.\nN.C.\nWAYSIDE CAMPGROUNDS\nMEXICO\nBE\nPICACHO\nJanuary 1971\nWith respect to local assistance, the Department provides substantial fin-\nancial assistance in the form of State and Federal grants for local facil-\nities. In addition, the Department provides planning and ongoing technical\ninformation services to local governmental agencies.\nIn addition to these activities, the Department engages in additional programs\nwith local agencies in an effort to encourage a coordinated approach to\nrecreation in the coastal area. For example, the Department has met\nwith all local agencies in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and\nSan Diego Counties. These meetings have resulted in a current joint effort\nto establish a uniform level of service, regardless of which agency owns the\nbeach. Joint financing arrangments are also being considered in order to max-\nimize the resources available to State and local government.\nThe Department will play an active role in the administration of the State\nBeach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974 if\napproved at the Statewide election in November. The Act authorizes the\nissuance of bonds in the amount of $250 million for a variety of State and\nlocal facilities as indicated by its title.\nDEPARTMENT OF NAVIGATION AND OCEAN DEVELOPMENT\nThe Marine Resources Conservation and Development Act of 1967 charged the\nGovernor with the responsibility of preparing a Comprehensive Ocean Area\nPlan (COAP), and this responsibility was assigned to the Department of Navi-\ngation and Ocean Development. The COAP was completed in 1972 and, as pub-\nlished, contains an immense amount of detailed and well-organized information\nabout the coastal area. A framework for improved management of land use\nin the coastal area is also suggested.\n-183-\nAlthough the initial COAP study was completed in 1972, the Department of\nNavigation and Ocean Development requested funds to continue the planning pro-\ngram in 1973-74. However, the funds were not approved by the Legislature,\nand this activity is no longer a part of the program of the Department of\nNavigation and Ocean Development. From the standpoint of the California\nCoastline Initiative, this is significant because the initiative requires\nthe State to transfer the COAP budget and staff to the Statewide commission\nthat would be created by the initiative. There are no COAP funds and no COAP\nstaff to transfer.\nThe Department of Navigation and Ocean Development is also responsible for\nadministering several ongoing programs that have an impact on land use in\nthe coastal area. Most important is the boating facilities program under\nwhich the Department:\n(1) Makes grants to local governmental agencies for the constuction of\nlaunching facilities on all suitable bodies of water.\n(2) Plans, designs and constructs boating facilities throughout the State\nPark System and at State Water Project reservoirs.\n(3) Finances on a loan basis the local share of joint Federal-State-local\nnavigation projects.\n(4) Loans funds to local governments for the construction of marinas.\n(5) Plans, designs, and constructs, with or without Federal assistance, har-\nbors of refuge if need and feasibility can be shown.\n(6) Pursues a capital outlay program for the purpose of acquiring land and\nwater areas for use- by the boating public.\n(7) Conducts a planning program to establish the present and prospective\nneed for boating facilities in the State.\nAll boating facility projects are subject to the State Environmental Qual-\n-184-\nity Act of 1970, which requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact\nReport prior to final approval of the project. It is interesting to note\nthat the Department found in several cases that \"environmental costs have\nbeen of such a magnitude that project feasibility could not be established.\"\nIn addition, the Department also participates with Federal and local agencies\nin a beach erosion control program. This program can involve the conduct\nof studies, the initiation of projects, the construction of beach erosion\ncontrol facilities, and assistance with the necessary financing.\nDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS\nThe Department of Public Works, particularly its Division of Highways, is a\nmajor land owner and land user in the coastal area. Among other things, the\nDepartment is responsible for planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, con-\nstruction, maintenance, and operation of the State highway system.\nPlanning for State highways is done within a framework that, by statute\nand administrative policy, involves local agencies. Importantly, from the\nstandpoint of comprehensive planning, the Department also coordinates its\nplanning activities with regional councils of government.\nThe specific planning process involves the conduct of general transporta-\ntion need studies (transportation corridor studies in urban areas, freeway\nstudies in rural areas) and specific route planning and design studies. These\nstudies are conducted under the terms of a cooperative agreement between the\nState Business and Transportation Agency and councils of government and/or\nindividual local agencies. Policy direction is provided by a Planning Policy\nCommittee comprised of elected local officials and a representative of the\nState. State law and departmental policy requires the preparation of an en-\n-185-\nvironmental impact report in conjunction with each study. Cooperative and\ncomprehensive transportation need studies are presently underway in the follow-\ning coastal areas: San Diego Metropolitan area, Los Angeles regional area,\nSanta Barbara urbanized area, Salinas Monterey area, and the San Francisco\nBay Area nine-county region.\nThe Department has additional activities aimed at evaluating the environmental\nimpact of highway construction. For example, a Community Environmental Factors\nUnit has been established within the Division of Highways. This Unit is\nresponsible for initiating programs that will promote, within the Department and\notherwise, the comprehensive consideration of community and environmental\nfactors and highway planning.\nThe Department has a major program of highway and freeway landscaping which\nincludes the construction and maintenance of rest areas, comfort stations,\nthe screening of junk yards, and access to scenic vistas. In 1972-73,\nthe Department estimates that it will plant 1,065 acres or 33 miles of road-\nside, including 3,450 trees. The Department has also adopted standard pro-\ncedures when constructing highways with respect to working in flowing streams,\ncausing siltation of rivers and streams, and protecting fish and wildlife\nresources. It also coordinates its activities with the State Water Resources\nControl Board to ensure that construction will not have any adverse impact\non water quality.\nThe construction of streets and highways has an important effect on accessi-\nbility to the coastal area. As a result, the Department has adopted a\n\"Coastal Zone Policy of the State in Transportation\". As expressed by the\nDepartment in its recent report for the Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, \"it\nis the intent of the policy that the State undertake only minimal freeway\n-186-\nconstruction along what has been designated in the policy as a coastal zone.\"\nThe policy is, as follows:\nTHE COASTAL ZONE POLICY OF THE STATE IN TRANSPORTATION\nOne of the most recent and significant advances in considering transportation\nas an integral part of the social and physical environment became manifest in\nthe articulation of the \"Coastal Zone Policy\" by the Department of Public Works,\nin respect to transportation. The policy is as follows:\nA. PHILOSOPHY\nThe California coastal zone is a unique and irreplaceable natural resource\nwith a limited capacity for use and development. The permanent protection\nof the natural and scenic resources of the California coastal zone is of\nparamount concern to present and future residents of the State and Nation.\nB. ZONE DEFINITION\nThe coastal zone is defined, for transportation planning purposes, as an\narea of variable width abutting the Pacific Ocean and extending inland to\nthe highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range. Where\ncoastal plains lie adjacent to the ocean, the zone generally will be\nconsidered as one-half mile in width.\nC. POLICY\nIt is the Policy of the Department of Public Works to help provide the\ncoastal zone with optimal transportation service consistent with local\nand regional total planning and with the objective of conserving the\ncoastal resource. Various models of transportation, means of access and\nlevels of service will be considered in balance with coastal capacities to\npreserve and enhance the coastal resource.\nD. PLANNING CONCEPTS\n1. Significant portions of the coastal zone may not be suitable as the\nlocation of a major north-south transportation corridor. Considera-\ntion will be given to linking coastal destination points by lower\nstandard highway facilities, by alternative routings, or recommending\nother modes of transportation, if appropriate.\nUnderstanding that both business and recreational drivers have a\nlegitimate interest in access to the coastal zone, creative approaches\nto serving these interests will be encouraged within the framework of\nthis policy.\n2. Traffic which is not specifically oriented toward use of the coastal\nzone will be encouraged to use other nearby traffic corridors.\n3. Coastal highways will generally function as arterials, providing variable\n-187-\nlevels of service with mixed operating conditions, and furnishing\nappropriate land access.\n4. Transportation facilities within the zone will be planned in coopera-\ntion with local and regional agencies to:\na. Encourage and support human uses which are dependent on the\ncoastal zone's natural resources.\nb. Enhance and conserve environmental qualities or amenities while\nminimizing disruption to stable ecological systems and harmoni-\nzing, as nearly as possible, with natural land forms.\nC. Maintain the widest number of options possible for future\ngenerations.\nd. Assist in preserving unique scientific, educational, and recrea-\ntional opportunities.\ne. Emphasize safe business and recreational driver enjoyment of the\ncoastal resource rather than speed of vehicular movement.\n5. When the State and local agencies agree that, for compelling reasons,\nfreeways or broad arerials are necessary in the coastal zone, spec-\nial planning and design criteria within the context of this policy\nwill be utilized.\"\nThe Department's policy of coordinating planning is also practiced by the\nBusiness and Transportation Agency of which it is a part. The Agency has ex-\npressed a concern for broad transportation planning and, through the creation\nof a State Transportation Board and the Office of Transportation Planning and\nResearch, it is preparing a Statewide transportation plan covering all modes\nof transportation which will integrate and give additional meaning to the\ntransportation plans of local agencies, councils of government, and others.\nDEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES\nAnother unit of State government that has a direct land use interest in the\ncoastal area because of the ownership of real property therein is the Depart-\nment of Water Resources.\nThe activities of the Department have an impact on the State in general,\n-188-\nand the coastal area in particular, in several ways. The Department has as\nits principal responsibility the preparation and implementation of a State-\nwide plan for the economic and environmentally sound development and manage-\nment of State water resources. This program responsibility, although State-\nwide in nature, is closely coordinated and related to the planning and de-\nvelopment efforts of individual cities, counties, and councils of government.\nWith respect to the development of a coordinated Statewide plan, the De-\npartment continually projects water demands by quantity and type of use. In\nthis regard, studies of land use and population distribution are conducted,\nand the resulting data and information is used to assess the economic and en-\nvironmental impact of alternative water management plans. This planning pro-\ncess also includes, among other things, a continuing assessment of salt water\nintrustion into coastal ground water basins and the construction of appro-\npriate sea water barriers to protect and insure water quality. The possibility\nof protecting levee vegetation to meet the needs of aesthetics, wildlife, and\nrecreation is also considered.\nFrom the standpoint of implementation, the Department is involved in major\nconstruction activities related to the completion of the California Water\nProject. Although the objective of the project is to produce needed water\nsupply throughout the Central and Southern portions of the State, it will\nalso result in 57,000 acres of reservoir water surface and 520 miles of\nreservoir shoreline with access for fishing, boating, and other recreational\nactivities. The Department also provides substantial financial assistance in\nthe form of loans and grants to local agencies for implementation of feasi-\nbility studies, reservoir site acquisitions, construction costs of local\nprojects, and recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement.\n-189-\nAdditional activities of the Department of Water Resources are of particu-\nlar interest to the coastal area. For example, in order to meet future water\nneeds, the Department is engaged in continuing studies of the feasibility and\nprocess of desalting sea water. This activity includes plans for a coastal\nprototype of a large capacity desalter in order to obtain design data and cost\ninformation useful in the evaluation of large capacity desalting and in\ntransportation of desalted water. The Department is also responsible for the\nconstruction, operation, and maintenance of a wide variety of flood control\nprojects throughout the State. In addition, they provide financial assistance\nto local agencies to enable them to participate in Federal flood control\nprojects and, as administrators of the Cobey-Alquist Act of 1969, they provide\ntechnical assistance to local agencies in the area of flood plain zoning.\nDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME\nThe Department of Fish and Game is involved in a broad variety of activities\nincluding licensing; general enforcement of rules and regulations as included\nin the Fish and Game Code; preservation and management of all forms of wildlife;\npropagation and preservation of various species of fish; and development of\nmarine resources.\nOne of the more significant Departmental activities is the ownership and\nmanagement of 115,000 acres of wildlife enhancement areas. Programs related\nto these areas include growing water fowl food plants; controlling noxious\nvegetables; constructing necessary levees, canals, and ponds; and other\nactivities designed to make these areas attractive to water fowl and other\nwildlife.\nThe Department is engaged in a broad program of managing marine resources.\nCoastal sport fishermen annually fish the equivalent of 6.2 million days, and\n-190-\nthey catch approximately 29 million pounds of fish. In addition, California\ncommercial fisheries take 500 million pounds of fish annually. In order to\nperpetuate this coastal resource, the Department engages in a broad program\nof research concerning big game fish, coastal fish, bottom fish, pelagic fish,\nand shell fish. Typical of the broad research for each of these elements is\nthat proposed for 1972-73 for coastal fish: (1) documentation of sport\nfishing intensity and catch; (2) studies of the ecology of the flora and fauna\nof the inshore areas; (3) monitoring and conducting special studies of marine\nmammals; (4) special contract surveys which include a biological study offshore\nthe Diablo Canyon and the Mendocino Coast to assess, in part, any potential\nimpact of proposed nuclear power plants; and (5) kelp management.\nA significant amount of Departmental time is devoted to providing environ-\nmental services to other State and local agencies. For example, plans for\nFederal land and water projects, State and local land water projects, Feder-\nal Power Commission projects, and State water rights and dam permits are\nrequired by law to be submitted to the Department for review. Plans for con-\nstruction of State and Federal highway projects are reviewed by the Department\nthrough a memorandum of understanding with the State Division of Highways\nand administrative procedures of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads.\nEnvironmental impact statements submitted pursuant to State and Federal en-\nvironmental quality acts are also reviewed regarding their treatment of the\nfish and wildlife involved. The Department will review and make recommenda-\ntions on approximately 700 water project proposals including 20-25 major\nprojects, about 150 highway development plans, and approximately 120 envir-\nonmental statements for a variety of projects in 1972-73. In addition, the\nDepartment cooperates with the State and regional water quality control\n-191-\nboards by assisting in the evaluation of the effect of waste discharge on\nfish and wildlife, reporting offenders, and by providing technical assistance\nin the establishment of specific waste discharge requirements.\nIn addition to those State Departments listed above that exercise direct land\nuse control over State-owned property, there are many other State Departments\nthat have a planning and/or regulatory interest in the coastal area. The\nactivities of some are described briefly below:\nWATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD\nThe State Water Resources Control Board establishes State policy for water\nquality control. The nine regional water quality control boards, using\nState policy as a framework, establish waste discharge requirements and under-\ntake monitoring and surveillance programs to assure compliance by public and\nprivate agencies. Federal agencies must also receive a certificate from the\nState indicating that any proposed development project will not impede water\nquality. Noncompliance with waste discharge requirements can result in a\ncease and desist order and penalties of up to $5,000 per day. During 1972-73,\nthe Board estimates it will make 9,100 surveillance inspections, and that it\nwill take 300 specific cease and desist enforcement actions.\nWith respect to the coastal area, the Board, on July 6, 1972, adopted a\nrestrictive set of ocean discharge requirements which are now subject to\nenforcement by the regional boards. The Board is also drafting similar\nrequirements for waste discharges into estaurine waters.\nIn addition to the impact of its basic discharge requirements, the Board has\na continuing relationship with local government through the administration\nof a grant program designed to assist local agencies, on an individual\n-192-\nor joint basis, to upgrade existing facilities and to construct new facilities\nthat will be able to meet present and future water quality standards. Both\nState and Federal funds are involved in this program. From the standpoint of\ncomprehensive planning, the Board requires that any individual application\nfor sewage treatment project funds be consistent with appropriate regional\nwaste water disposal plans. In this regard, the Board maintains continuing\nliaison with councils of government, and has special studies underway with the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments and the Association of Monterey Bay Area\nGovernments.\nPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION\nIn cooperation with Atomic Energy Commission and local agencies, the State\nPublic Utilities Commission is principally responsible for reviewing applica-\ntions for new electric generating and transmission facilities and for issuing\nrequired certificates of public convenience and necessity. In this regard,\nThe Public Utilities Commission has adopted General Order 131 which provides,\nas follows:\n\"It is hereby ordered that no electrical public utility, now subject,\nor which hereafter may become subject, to the jurisdiction of this\nCommission, shall begin construction within this State of an electric\ngenerating plant having in aggregate a capacity in excess of 50mw or of\noverhead line facilities which are designed for immediate or eventual\noperation at any voltage in excess of 200kv (except for the replacement\nof existing with equivalent facilities, or the placing of new or ad-\nditional conductors, insulators or their accessories on or replacement\nof supporting structures already build) without this Commission's\nhaving first found, after consideration of the impact of such facilities\nupon the air, water, land, and other aesthetic, environmental and\necological requirements of the public and of its energy needs, that\nsaid facilities are necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort and\nconvenience of the public, and that they are required by the public\nconvenience and necessity.\"\nThe procedures included in G.O. 131 provide for a detailed review of\nproposed construction plans with affected local agencies, and they require\n-193-\nsubstantial advance notice and the provision of detailed planning and design\ninformation prior to the date when action on any application for a certificate\nof convenience and necessity would be taken by the Commission. The Order\nalso requires that any application for a new generating facility shall be\ngiven to the Secretary of the Resources Agency, representing the Departments\nof Conservation, Water Resources, Parks, and Recreation, Fish and Game, and\nNavigation and Ocean Development, and to the Department of Public Health, to\nthe Water Resources Control Board, to the California Regional Water Quality\nControl Board, to the Air Resources Board, to the Air Pollution Control\nDistrict, if any, in whose jurisdiction the proposed facility will be located,\nto the Department of Public Works, Division of Aeronautics, and to the State\nLands Commission.\nThe responsibility of the Commission under G.O. 131 and otherwise for power\nplant siting is supplemented by the efforts of the Resources Agency which\nwas designated in 1969 as the State entity responsible for coordinating\nthe activities of all State agencies relative to thermal power plant siting.\nAs required by statute, the agency has undertaken to develop a plan indica-\nting the optimum location for all electric power generating plants expected\nto be constructed within the State over the next twenty years, and it has cre-\nated a special Power Plant Siting Committee. The Committee is chaired by\nthe Secretary of the Resources Agency, and membership, includes representation\nfrom the following agencies:\nDepartment of Conservation\nDepartment of Fish and Game\nDepartment of Navigation and Ocean Development\nDepartment of Parks and Recreation\n-194-\nDepartment of Water Resources\nState Water Resources Control Board\nDepartment of Public Health\nState Air Resources Board\nState Lands Commission\nThe Committee reviews proposed plant sites prior to submittal of the\napplication by a utility to the Public Utilities Commission. In making its\nrecommendations, the Committee considers the following:\n1. The effect of the plant and its operation on:\nexisting and proposed plans for developments at or near the proposed\nsite,\nexisting or proposed State or local air and water quality controls,\nfish and wildlife,\nState and local resources considering the plant's generation, fuel,\ncooling water requirements and type of cooling,\ntotal environment of the area;\n2. Factors which may contribute to the conservation of energy;\n3. The preservation of important recreational and scenic areas;\n4. Development of an environmental evaluation program or water\nquality requirements;\n5. The impact of the proposed plant upon air quality in the vicinity\nof the site;\n6. An appraisal of the geologic and seismic conditions;\n7. The location and construction of cooling water systems.\nIn addition to other activities, the Commission is responsible for coordinat-\ning a State-wide program of underground utilities and, in this regard, has\nadopted an order in PUC Case 8209 requiring all privately owned electric\nutilities to make annual contributions for the conversion of overhead distribution\n-195-\nfacilities to underground. This program results in approximately $15 million\nbeing made available annually for the conversion of such distribution fac-\nilities.\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION\nThe Department of Conservation is concerned with the protection and conser-\nvation of forests, watersheds, grasslands, rangelands, mineral deposits, and\nsoil resources. It plans and operates a State-wide program, much of which\nimpacts on the coastal area. It provides fire protection to 38 million\nacres of State and private land, and has responsibility under contract with\ntwenty-one counties for local fire protection on approximately 5 million\nadditional acres. The Department conducts a continuing geologic survey\naimed at permitting more intelligent land use, providing protection from\nexisting and potential geologic hazards, and discovering and providing for\nthe orderly development of mineral resources. In this regard, it plans\nfor the development of coastal and marine resources, and coordinates its\nefforts with other agencies such as the State Water Resources Control Board\nwhere related problems such as siltation, sedimentation, and waste disposal\nfrom mining operations could have an effect on water quality in the coastal\narea or elsewhere. The Department also administers laws concerning the con-\nservation and economic development of petroleum, gas and geothermal resources,\nand its activities in this area include the supervision of drilling, operation\nmaintenance, and abandonment of wells on on-shore and off-shore lands, the\nsupervision of projects aimed at stimulating oil production, and the super-\nvision of operations for the abatement of subsidence of lands overlying whole\noil field operations. The department also provides assistance to local agencies\nin identifying soil resource problems and developing appropriate solutions.\n-196-\nDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH\nThe Department of Public Health has no statutory authority over land use,\nbut it has a concern in this area because of the potential effect of different\ntypes of land use on health. In general, the Department conducts research into\nthe effects of growth and population distribution on health and the envir-\nonment. More specifically, however, departmental activities which relate to land\nuse include the development and enforcement of health standards concerning air\nquality, beach sanitation, reclamation of waste water, domestic water, and\nsanitation of water recreational areas and public swimming pools. The De-\npartment also reviews and comments on the adequacy of proposed sewage treat-\nment plants, and conducts studies in the area of solid waste. In addition,\nthe Department samples shellfish in commerical and recreational areas to\nassure they are safe for consumption, and quarantines such areas when necessary.\nOTHER\nIn addition to the activities of its various departments, the Resources Agency\nhas a general concern with land use through its membership on the Bay Con-\nservation and Development Commission and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency;\nits sponsorship of an environmental protection program financed by the\nsale of personalized license plates that includes the purchase of coastal\necological reserves and in the conduct of special studies pertaining to such\nareas as waterway management planning, basin air quality, agricultural burn-\ning, and the environmental impact of proposed airports; its efforts through\nthe State Reclamation Board to protect land in the Central Valley from\nfrequent and severe flooding; and the Agency's responsibility for the Advisory\nCommission on Marine and Coastal Resources which was established to provide\non-going guidance to the comprehensive Ocean Area Planning effort.\n-197-\nFrom a planning standpoint, the Coordinating Council on Higher Education\nis concerned that adequate coastal land and water areas, including instruc-\ntional reserves, be available for all aspects of marine study.\nThe Department of Agriculture has no management responsibility with respect\nto the operation of agricultural lands. However, the Department does work\nwith State and local agencies, as well as land owners, in administering\nagricultural preserves under the Williamson Land Conservation Act of 1965.\nThis Act permits owners of undeveloped land to enter into an agreement with\nthe city or county wherein the land is located. The land owner agrees to\ndevote his land to open space or agricultural uses for a certain period of\ntime (usually 10 years) and he receives a reduction in assessed value in\nreturn. Many acres of undeveloped shoreline property are presently under\nsuch agricultural preserve contracts.\nThe Wildlife Conservation Board, located in the Resources Agency, also has an\ninterest in the coast because of its ongoing program designed to maximize\naccess to State natural resources for hunting and fishing purposes. Con-\nsistent with principles of conservation, the Board annually conducts studies\nand appropriates funds for the acquisition and improvement of facilities\nsuch as boat ramp, farming areas, water supply, and sanitary facilities.\nCompleted facilities are generally managed by the Department of Fish and Game,\nalthough they are also managed by local agencies in some cases.\n-198-"
}