Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
22.00 COASTAL PLANNING (PART 2)
*NEW FILE* 22.00 COASTAL PLANNING (PART 2) RESOLUTION NO 8 37 `L - 0 A RESOLUTIUIN-OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPTdENT DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PER24IT REQUIRE- DIENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE -CONSERVA- TION ACT OF 1972 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING, DEMOLITION, BUILDING -OR OTHER CON- STRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT 'PEPI.ftT WHEREAS, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 requires that any person desiring to perform any develop- ment within the 1,000•yard coastal permit area must obtain a permit authori zing; such development from the Re,=icnal Commission, having jurisdiction; and WHEREAS`„ the City -of Newport Beach desires to cooperate with the South Coast Regional Commission by insuring that any• land developmerit or construction projects within the City of Newport Beach comply.with the requirements of the California Coastal Zorie'Conservation•Act of 1972; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED•by'the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that 'the Community Development Director• is directed to establish appropriate procedures to insure that before'any grading; demolition, building or other construction or development permit is issued by the City of Newport Beach for any project located within -the. 1, 0 0 0 yard coastal per;zit area, satisfactory evidence shall be furnished to the City that said project has either- received a permit or established a claim for .- exemption under the requirements of the Coastal *Zone Conservation Ach of 1972. ADOPTED this ATTEST: City Clerk >, •1 Vs'k ' ,, r,4F nr.+-nhar - _ It a7a _ F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY `i%O/ CP C 5n f2 O To: City Manager July 31, 1974 From: City Attorney Subject: Coastal Commission Authority to Recfuire EIR QUESTION: Does the South Coast Regional Commission have the authority to require an Environmental Impact Report, despite the fact that the City has determined that the project in question will not have a significant effect on the environment? ANSWER: indirectly, yes. DISCUSSION• Under the guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research for the implementation of the Environmental Quality - Act of 1970, it is clear that the City is the "lead agency" charged with the discretionary responsibility of determining whether or not a specific project will have a significant effect, on the environment and, accordingly, whether or not an EIR is necessary. Unless it can be shown that the City has abused its discretion (lack of substantial evidence), its decision under most circumstances will not be overruled. However, under the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20), before the Regional Commission can issue a permit it must find "that the development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect." Therefore,'it can be argued that even though the City determines that an EIR is not necessary, the Regional Commission may have the independent authority to require environmental documentation of the applicant in order to determine if the project will have a substantial environmental or ecological effect on the coastal zone. zlkklD. 0 NEI � City Attorney DDO:mh cc: Community Development Director 4.. OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY � P. O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92648 August 27, 1973 DON P. BONFA CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Dennis O'Neil City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. O'Neil: TELEPHONE (714) 536-5261 Transmitted herewith is a brief summarization of the topics discussed at the recent meeting relative to municipal con- cerns and problems encountered in the implementation of Proposition 20. We appreciate your input at the meeting and wish to thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to attend. Very truly yours, DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB:JO:lm Enclosure >" RECEIVED �X CITY ATTGRIIEY AUG28 7973® CITY OF NEWP08TBEACH, i X CALIF. 0 SUMMARIZATION OF MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1973 Representatives from the Beach and Huntington Bea August 17, 1973, at the restaurant in Huntington meeting was to provide a information and to share to the implementation•of cities of Newport Beach, Laguna ;h attended the meeting of iuntington Seacliff•Country Club Beach. The purpose of the forum for an interchange of the problems encountered relative Proposition 20. In attendance were: Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney of Newport Beach; Mr. Hogan, Director of the Department of Community Development, Newport Beach; Tully Seymour, City Attorney of Laguna Beach; Wayne Moody, Planning Director of Laguna Beach; Don Bonfa, City Attorney of Huntington Beach; Kenneth Reynolds,.Planning Director of Huntington Beach; and John O'Connor, Deputy City Attorney, Huntington Beach. All the cities in Orange County which have boundaries within 1,000 feet of the ocean were invited to attend the meeting. Unfortunately, however, there were a number of last minute cancellations. Also the attorney representing the South Coast Commission was not in attendance. The reasons which prompted setting up this meeting were briefly outlined by Mr. Bonfa, as follows. Approximately one month prior to this meeting the Huntington Beach Plan- ing Director, Kenneth Reynolds, arranged a meeting with the staff of the South Coast Commission for the purpose of estab- lishing some channel of communication with the South Coast Commission and in order to resolve the problems of proces- sing and correlating projects within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Commission. From a purely legal standpoint, the significance of that meeting was certain statements by the staff of the South Coast Commission that, relying upon the advice of their counsel, the South Coast Commission had the authority to modify local zoning regulations, if such modi- fication was deemed desirable. Further, the Commission staff also indicated the desire to have cities withhold issuance of building permits until compliance with conditions imposed by the Commission, and suggested inspection by local inspectors to insure compliance with any condition imposed by the South Coast Commission. At this there was vocal con- cern by some of the planning directors that they were advised by their respective city attorneys that the issuance of a building permit was purely ministerial and therefore they had no authority or discretion to deny issuance of a -permit. This, as well as several other knotty legal problems involved, brought forth the suggestion, from Mr. Bonfa, that a meet- ing with some of the neighboring cities to explore the extent of the problem might be worthwhile. The suggestion of a meeting was endorsed by City Administrator David Rowlands, who expressed keen interest in such a meeting and the inter- change of information and suggested a luncheon meeting hosted by the City of Huntington Beach. Summarization of Meeting of August 17, 1973 Page Two Mr. O'Neil gave a very informative and interesting history of the developments and the problems encountered in Newport Beach as they pertain to Proposition 20 within his city. He indicated that his City Council was quite concerned over the role of the South Coast Commission in its approval of projects which in effect imposed conditions tantamount to zoning regulations within Newport Beach and that his City Council had even expressed an inclination toward litigation to resolve the issue of home rule vis-a-vis the authority of the South Coast Commission. A brief summarization of the other topics discussed at the meeting involved: 1. Whether or not conditions of compliance with the require- ments of the South Coast Commission can be imposed as a con- dition precedent to issuance of a building permit since issu- ance of the permit under existing laws is a ministerial act. The suggested solution here was enactment of a local ordi- nance requiring compliance with all conditions imposed by the South Coast Commission as a condition precedent to issuance of the building permit. However, the problem would still remain unresolved where the condition imposed by the Commission was in direct conflict with existing local ordi- nances. 2. The next matter discussed was whether or not local build- ing inspectors should, as a policy matter, enforce conditions imposed by the South Coast Jommission. There was some divergence of opinion among the participants in this matter. However, it appeared to be the consensus that if enforcement is necessary, that the required enforcement be by personnel of the local entity. This procedure would, in effect, allow control, at least from the enforcement standpoint, to remain with the local entity rather than in another tier of govern- ment at the state level. 3. The authority of local building inspectors to enforce regulations of the Commission was discussed in some depth. Various solutions to this problem were proposed, including deputization of state personnel for enforcement purposes, enabling leigslation at the state level, or a joint powers agreement between the local entity and the state. 4. Also discussed was the concept of modification of local zoning ordinances by the South Coast Commission, and whether this can be justified or is desirable as a policy matter; and further, whether or not imposition of zoning regulations on a city is legally valid in view of the home rule provisions Summarization of Meeting of August 17, 1973 Page Three under the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7. This matter was discussed in some detail and there was a diversified reaction among the participants. In the cities, especially Newport Beach, which have encountered this problem and are very much involved with it, it was viewed as a serious problem which necessitated immediate attention. However, where the controversy had not yet surfaced, the concern at this point in time was not deemed of an imminent problem. It appeared to be the general consensus that the determination of the extent to which a city should be regulated by the South Coast Commission was a policy matter rather than a legal or administrative decision and should be made by the political local entity (City Council). Therefore, a meeting with city personnel would not,be the appropriate forum to evaluate or suggest policy in this matter. 5. Also, it was pointed out that the South Coast Commission is presently formulating policy for the guidance of its staff and it was suggested the cities should participate in the input of data and information to the Commission to assist it in the formulation of policies and procedures. It was unanimously agreed that would be highly desirable and of benefit, both to the cities and the Commission. While the meeting served as a useful forum for the inter- change and discussion of problems, the problems appear to be of a very complex nature which are not susceptible to a simple solution. It was suggested that perhaps a subsequent meeting should encompass the other concerned cities in Los Angeles County, such as Los Angeles and Long Beach, since they carry substantial weight in these matters. Further meet- ings were not definitely scheduled. However, it was agreed, after reflecting on this meeting and reviewing a summarization of the topics discussed, the participants would evaluate the benefits to be derived from future meetings, and schedule such meetings if deemed expedient. JO:lm r0k CITY OF NE i1' FORT BEACH CALIFORNIA nw city iIau 3300 Newport Mvd. (714) 673-2110 August 23, 1973 California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission South Coast Region International Tower, Suite 3107 666 East Ocean Boulevard P. 0. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90801 To the Honorable Chairman and Members of the Commission: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach has carefully reviewed the "South Coast Regional Commission Interim objectives and Policies" for the permit area. We wish to offer the following comments with regards to the proposed guidelines. It should be mentioned at the outset that we realize and acknowledge that the "Interim Objectives and Policies" as drafted may not be the guidelines that will be considered by the full Commission for adoption. We understand through communication with your Executive Director's office that there is a possibility that new criteria will be compiled for the purpose of preparing sub -geographical guidelines for the various specific areas within the region. We would appreciate being advised as to whether or not different guidelines are being prepared and we trust that we will be afforded the opportunity to comment on them prior to their adoption. Because of the possibility that the objectives and policies which we received will be greatly modified, we will limit our remarks to a general position statement. The actions of the Commission in effecting zoning and planning in a developed community must take into account local problems and the actions being taken in connection with those problems. The different parts of this community have required separate and individual treatment and it is likely that separate communities require separate treatment. That is, broad brush requirements for parking, open space and compatibility of structures, for example, are not likely to be uniformly appropriate. If such requirements are mandated without recognition of local problems, then new problems are created. We believe that the South Coast Commission is charged with the responsi- bility of preparing a comprehensive, coordinated plan for long-range conservation and management of the natural resources of the coastal zone. Page - We question whether modification of local zoning ordinances by the Commission in a developed area is practical_ It is the City's position that the spirit and intent of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20) was not to take away local authority to plan and zone along the developed area of the coast- line, but to assist with objectives and standards for the various sub - geographical areas within the south coastal region. We welcome this assistance and offer full cooperation. Sincerely, DONALD A. MCINNIS Mayor DAMc:DON:cs August 17, 1973 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 9260 City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714) 673-2110 TILE COPY, South Coast Regional Commission 00 NOT RL-MOVF International Towers 666 East Ocean Boulevard - Suite 3107 Long Beach, California 90801 Subject: Proposed Exclusion Areas for the City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: Division 18 of the Public Resources Code (Proposition 20 as passed by the voters on November 7, 1972) provides for the exclusion of certain areas from the permit requirements of your Commission as follows: Section 27104. "(c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial or industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for such use on or before January 1, 1972, may, after public hearing, be excluded by the regional commission at the request of a city or county within which such area is located. An urban land area is 'stabilized' if 80 oercent of the lots are or intensity of use "Tidal acid submerged lands, beaches, and lots im- mediately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded. "Orders granting such exclusion shall be subject to tions w ich shal assure that no significant c ange n aensity, neiant. or nature of uses occurs. n u South Coast Regional Commission Page 2. "An order granting exclusion may be revoked at any time by the regional commission, after public hearing." On the basis of the preceding provisions for exclusion, and a general feeling by this City that the letter and spirit of the law would be better served by exclusion of certain "developed and stabilized" areas from the permit requirements of your Com- mission, the City of Newport Beach submits to you the following information on the areas within the City that qualify for exclu- sion. Data to determine the areas of exclusion was collected by statis- tical area. Statistical area data for residentially zoned lots was taken from the "Land Use Survey Sheets" prepared by the Com- munity Development Department. Data for commercially and indus- trially zoned lots was based on hand counts of lots and uses as indicated on the Department's land use maps. For the purpose of determining exclusion areas, it was assumed that lots zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4 were fully developed if they were occupied by two or more dwelling units, or if any develop- ment other than residential occupied a lot. Commercial and industrial zoned lots were considered to be fully developed if any commercial or industrial use existed on such a lot. Lots in the "unclassified" (U) district were considered fully develop- ed if they were improved to an extent which would preclude any major intensification of use in the foreseeable future. These lots were placed in either the residentially or commercially zoned category depending on the actual use. These exclusion areas were discussed at the Planning Commission level on June 7, 1973, and by the City Council on July 9, 1973; at which time the Community Development Department was directed to initiate this request for exclusion as submitted. Appendix I and Appendix II contain data supporting this exclusion request. The City of Newport Beach hereby requests the South Coast Regional Commission to consider exclusion of those areas listed below and illustrated on the accompanying map: South Coast Regional Commission Page 3. Residential Zones -Within the Following Statistical Areas: A2; B1; Cl and 2; F1, 5, 6, 7, and 8; H1, 2, 3, and 4; J1, 2; 3, 4, and 5; Kl, 2,.and 3; L1. Commercial and Industrial Zones Within the Following Statistical Areas: A2; B4; E1 and 3; Fl and 4; G1; H1; J2 and H3; K1 and 2. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RVH/RPL/kk Statistical Area A2 m Cl & C2 F1 F-5,6,7,8 H-1,2,3 H4 APPENDIX I (Residential) Number of Lots Lots Fully Area Develo ed Description Zone Developed) Vacant) Total Number) Total Hoag Hospital & nearby R3 Condominiums Newport Shores R1 R2 R3 Total Lido Island R1 R3 Total Irvine Terrace R1 R3 Total East Corona del Mar R1B R2B R3B Total Newport Heights, Cliffhaven R1 R2 R3 U Total Bayshores R1 R3 Total 128 409 17 3 429 726 83 809 400 1 401 591 44 27 6 22 1102 129 81 4 1316 233 1 234 R= 21 0 0 21 6 1 77 4 0 4 15 0 0 15 29 3 3 0 35 0 0 0 12i 430 17 3 4 00 732 84 816 404 1 r,1, 606 44 27 677 1131 132 84 4 1351 233 1 234 128 409 5 3 417 726 36 762 M 591 1 26 618 1102 7 55 4 1168 233 I 1 234 1� 95.1 29.4 100.0 92.7 99.2 42.9 93.4 99.0 100.0 99.0 97.5 2.3 96.3 91 .3 97.4 5.3 65.5 100.0 86.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 uensity 1 \a 6.3 4.6 4.02 7.3 9.2 APPENDIX I '(Residential) Cont. Lots Fully Number of Lots Developed Statistical Area Z of Area Description Zone Developed Vacant Total Number Total Density J-1,2,3,4 blestcliff, Harbor Highlands, Dover Shores, Upper Bay Rl 241 11 252 241 95.6 R1B 1639 85 1724 1639 95.1 R3 41 0 41 41 100.0 R3B 1 0 7 1 100.0 R4 1 0 1 1 '100.0 i Total 1923 96 2019 ]923 8.3 95.2 K-1,2,3 Park Newport,'Bluffs, R1B 461 0 461 461 100.0 East Bluffs PRD 933 333 1266 933 73.7 (R3B, R4B) Park N14PRT U 1 0 1 1 100.0 Total 1395 333 1728 1355 7.5 80.7 Ll Grandville Apartments U 1 0 1 1 100.0 5.6 • APPENDIX II (Commercial & Industrial) ' Lots -Fully Statistical Area Number of Lots Developed Developed Vacant Total Number °b of Total Area Description Zone A2 Hospital Road and Superior Avenue 6 0 6 6 100.0 B4 Balboa Boulevard and 'Coast Highway • 3 0 3 3 100.0 El & E3 All Balboa Island Commer- cial Zones 96 1 97 83 85.6 F1- & F4 Corona del Mar (Coast Highway) 175 10 185 174 94.0 G1 Bayside Shopping Center & Commercial Area at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway 3 0 3 3 100.0 H1 Old Newport (North Newport Boulevard) 59 1 60 58 98.0 J2 & H3 Westcliff Drive and Dover Drive 30 0 30 30 100.0 • K1 Newporter Inn "1 0 1 1 100.0 K2 Eastbluff Plaza 4 0 4 4 100.0 0 • Cl/ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY August 13, 1973 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Pending Legislation Committee Subject: South Coast Regional Commission Interim Objectives and Policies The Pending Legislation Committee has reviewed the South Coast Regional Commission Interim Objectives and Policies and has prepared the attached position paper for the Council's con- sideration. Attachment CC: City Manager City Clerk Milan M. Dostal Robert L. Wynn Dennis D. O'Neil PENDING LEGISLATION COMMITTEE F3 W, NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL POSITION PAPER RE: South Coast Regional Commission Interim Objectives and Policies COUNCIL AGENDA F-3 STUDY SESSION N0.E_Q1 2 The Newport Beach City Council and City staff have reviewed the South Coast Regional Commission Interim Objectives and Policies for -the permit area and have concluded that separate and specific guidelines should be prepared for each of the various geographical areas within the South Coastal Regional zone. The reason for this conclusion and recommendation is obvious due to the wide range of geographical differences with- in the South Coast region. What would be appropriate objectives and policies in one area may be entirely inconsistent with good planning principles in another. We have summarized our analysis of the proposed objectives and policies as they relate to the City of Newport Beach which may prove useful as an aid in preparing your final guidelines and criteria. SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION INTERIM OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES: OBJECTIVE I: Avoid irreversible commitments of coastal zone resources during the planning period. Policy (1): Deny "without prejudice" those developments that encroach or lead to encroachment upon public beaches and those water areas adjacent to shorelines located in the permit area. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (1): We agree that private development should not be allowed to encroach onto public beaches or water -front property. Policy (2): Designate undeveloped open contiguous land areas within the permit area of two acres or more as "open space areas" and deny "without prejudice" any development thereon until such time as planning requirements for these areas have been developed. Newport Beach Comment on above policy'(2): This policy may be unconstitutional as it would stop all development of unde- veloped parcels of two or more acres. -1- Policy (3): Where a development conforms to the local government master plan zoning and density and provided that the area is 75% developed with like structures approve such development. For example, area is 75% duplexes and M/ of single-family residence's approve either development pro- vided it conforms to local government ordinances and com- mission requirements in paragraph (6). Newport Beach Comment on above policy (3): We suggest that the figure of 75% is arbitrary and should be justified. Also, the word "area" is ambiguous. What is the "area?" Policy (4): 1 All developments of four stories or higher with a density of ten units or more must be justified as to the economic necessity and need for such development. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (4): We question the reference to "economic necessity" and ask: "Economic necessity for whom?" Policy (5): The aesthetic design and architecture of each development shall be such that it does not over utilize, support utilities and that such development will not create a demand for growth on the part of existing utilities sys- tems. Example: That office buildings can open windows for natural air ventilation. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (5): We would point out that office buildings with windows that open can in many in- stances place an increased demand on existing utilities systems. Policy (6): That no development will be permitted unless it conforms to the following standards: (A) Two off-street parking spaces per unit plus one additional guest parking space for each ten units for a development exceeding ten units. (B) That duplexes, triplexes and four - unit apartment units will be permitted tandem parking. All others will provide the two for one in the form of primary parking units. (C) That all developments shall contain 50% open ground space. Such space shall consist of sidewalks, lawns, shrubbery and other landscaping areas only. Streets, alleys and balconies shall not be included as open space areas. -2- (D) That any development blocking more than 20% of the view from the nearest coast high- way to the ocean shall be considered to have a substantial blockage and therefore, subject to denial. (E) That utilities for all developments shall be underground. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (6): Sub -policies (A), (B) and (E) are consistent with existing City policy or proposed ordinances. Sub -policy (C): 50% open space on the small lots in Newport Beach just won't work and allow for a liveable, buildable area. Sub -policy (D): Again, this seems arbitrary. Perhaps a provision allowing pedestrian walkways adjacent to the shoreline in lieu of views should be considered. Policy (7): if the development is ten units or more, the following traffic problems shall be considered prior to the granting of a permit: (A) If on a major artery, the development test shall be for adequacy of traffic signals, left turn lanes, traffic lanes and number of "entry" and "exits" to the development. (B) A traffic count for the major artery shall be obtained from the local agency traffic engineers for the appropriate cycle base (nor- mally six months of heaviest period). Newport Beach Comment on above policy (7): Sub -policies (A) and (B) are normal portions of our existing review procedures. Policy (8): Air quality standards developed by the Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District and the Orange County Pollution District as well as Water Quality Standards de- veloped by the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall serve as a minimum requirement for all developments. In the case of projects discharging liquids into the ocean, the following additional criteria shall apply: (a) Must not be growth inducing (b) Must not produce a discharge with a temperature greater than 5° above/belpw ambient -3- (c) There be a minimum 90% dissolved oxygen demand reduction (d) That the maximum concentration of NH3 be 2 mg./liter (e) The minimum residual oxygen be 2 mg./ liter (f) NH and 02 sensors be installed and monitor water discharge at all times to assure conditions (d) and (e) are met. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (8): Sub -policies (a) through (f) conform to our existing policies. OBJECTIVE II: Ensure that adequate public access to the public beaches is provided and that adequate later access across public and private beaches is acquired. Policy (1): Beach accesses for the public from State highways and local governmental streets shall be of primary concern involving all developments along the beach with every attempt to be made to provide same at not more than every one mile along the beach at a minimum width of six feet. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (1): Compatible with our Planning policies. Policy (2): That in the case of private beaches, a condi- tion shall be added to those permits granted requiring the right of lateral access for the public use of the beach. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (2): Compatible with our Planing policies. Policy (3): No beach access shall be required where the access is not compatible with public safety. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (3): Compatible with our Planning policies. Policy (4): That shoreline protective devices such as breakwaters, groins, sea walls, dock gangways and fences that could interfere with public access along the beach or shoreline will normally not be approved unless adequate provisions are made for public access. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (4): Compatible with our Planning policies. Policy (5): That where new access rights are gained to the beach every effort shall be made to ensure that such ac- cess is so located as to not add significant parking problems or add to traffic congestion. Sites will be viewed as to the availability of existing parking and as to the avail- ability of open space for conversion to parking. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (5): Compatible with our Planning policies. Policy (6): Access ways to the beach shall also be con- sidered as to their desirability for entry to existing or proposed bike paths. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (6): Compatible with our Planning policies. OBJECTIVE III: Maintain or enhance the scenic environment of shorelines of the permit area. Policy (1): Developments with the exception of parks and recreation areas that will utilize shoreline sites which have historically provided scenic vistas for the public shall be categorically denied. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (1): May be an unconsti- tutional taking without just compensation. Policy (2): High-rise developments (projects of four stories or higher including garages above ground) will not be permitted on property adjacent to the mean high tide line and shall, as a normal rule, be discouraged within 100 yards of the beach line. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (2): This is consistent with our existing height limitation ordinance. Policy (3): Existing facilities such as parks, scenic vista, playlands, entertainment parks., etc. shall be con- sidered as essential to the enhancement of the scenic value of the coastline and shall not be converted to any other use until such time as the plan is consummated. -5- Newport Beach Comment on above policy (3): We agree in principle with this policy as it pertains to public lands. However, for constitutional reasons we cannot support the policy as 'it pertains to private property. We would submit that re- development of private recreational areas may in certain in- stances enhance the scenic environment of the shoreline. Policy (4); All developments falling within the foregoing requirements shall make maximum advantage of "open" needs such as patios, gardens, air circulation passages, etc., as well as presenting pleasing and enhancing aesthetic ad- ditions to the area. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (4): This policy requires further clarification and suggests perhaps imposing architectural controls. OBJECTIVE IV: To protect and enhance the habitat of ocean - oriented living organisms and rare and en- dangered species of other wild animal life along the coastline. Policy (1): No dredging or filling of marshes, wetlands, etc., will be permitted unless effective measures are taken to prevent harmful damage to those habitats of the area. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (1): We agree with this policy; however, maintenance dredging should be exempted. Policy (2): No development or growth inducing facility shall be permitted that does not conform to the provisions of Objective I, policy 8. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (2): We are in agree- ment with this policy. OBJECTIVE V: To discourage increases in population den-' sity in the permit area that will substan- tially interfere with public access to beaches, lead to growth inducement of public utilities and that will degrade in some sig- nificant way the physical environment. Policy (1): To enforce the first four objectives and their policies through the denial of permits. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (1): This policy is legally questionable. -6- Policy (2): To strongly discourage projects which singly or cumulatively will increase population density to the point where such developments will lead to a sub- stantial adverse environmental effect. Newport Beach Comment on above policy (2): This policy should perhaps be left out and considered in the environmental impact report. The Newport Beach City Council commends the Commission in attempt- ing to develop interim Objectives and Policies which will be most helpful to cities and property developers. However, we urge the Commission to consult with the various affected coastal cities in the separate areas within the South Coast Region before adopt- ing the proposed general guidelines. We believe that objectives and policies must be adopted which will be viable for specific areas in the South Coast Region. DON dm S/13/73 -7- ti. • 0 OFFICE OF aCITY ATTORNEY P. O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92648 DON P. BONFA CITY ATTORNEY .\ August 2, 1973 , �t Mr. Dennis O'Neil City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: South Coast Commission - Proposition 20 Dear Mr. O'Neil: 11 (TEj.EPh ✓ f•:iCE�6'C:D� AUG 81973m- CInN OF REWPORr BEACH, ti !'AUF, /,� I The South Coast Commission has received some recent publicity over its approval of projects upon conditions which do not coincide with local zoning ordinances. Also, the Commission staff has expressed a desire to have local municipal authorities inspect and secure compliance with conditions imposed by the Commission. Cities within the purview of Proposition 20 are, in my opinion, presented with a number of complicated legal issues. Enumerating a few of these: (1) Issuance of a building permit is a ministerial act and where local zoning ordinances are complied with, there is,no authority of the local entity to deny a permit (denial of a permit may not be based on conditions imposed by the Commission?); (2) Authority of local building inspectors to issue stop work orders where the builder fails to comply with conditions imposed by the South Coast Commission is questionable; (is deputization of local building inspectors as deputy state inspectors feasible or legal?); (3) Whether local city attorneys have authority to litigate civilly and/or crimi- nally violations of zoning conditions imposed by the South Coast Commission (or assuming authority does exist, should this additional burden be accepted by city attorneys?), and (4) Whether modification of local zoning ordinances by the South Coast Commission can be legally sustained in view of the home rule provisions of the California Constitution (is further erosion of the home rule concept desirable?). Page 2 These are a few of the many problems which I believe that we as attorneys should attempt to resolve mutually among ourselves and with the Commission. I am writing to the several city attorneys in Orange County whose cities are directly affected by Proposition 20, and in order to provide a forum for mutual discussion of these problems and any other matters which may be of concern to the participants, the City of Huntington Beach is hosting a luncheon at 12 p.m. August 17, 1973. If you share my concern I would appreciate hearing from you. Please respond not later than Friday, August 10. Best regards, DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB:JJO:er P.S. We would also welcome your city manager, planning director or any other city personnel who may be interested in this matter. r CALL EA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION Q``�iISSION 1540 Market St., San Frc Qsco� (415) 557-100011 % C STAFF REODDEMATION Appeal No. 60th Day: PERMIT rs { �✓?ii �+ .APPLICANT, Dana Smith DECISION OF G REGIONAL C0Jh%1ISSION:Three permits denied by the South Coast Regional Commission (by a vote of 4 in favor and 5 opposed on two permits, and 5 in favor with 4 opposed on one permit, with Seven votes needed for approval) APPELLANT: Dana Smith, City. of Newport Beach DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: Each permit application calls for the demolition of a single family home and construction of a duplex. Each duplex would have two parking spaces -one per unit. PUBLIC June 20, 1973 in Torrance STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Commission deny the permit because the proposed project would have a substantial adverse environmental effect and the proposed project would be inconsistent with the findings and declarations of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: �- 1. This area of Newport Beach has a substantial number of single-family residences and the existing buildings on the proposed duplex sites are single-family residences. The lots- in the area are small, narrow, and virtually all are developed. The area is visable as a mixed neighborhood of single-family homes and some existing duplexes. 2. The streets and parking in the area are inadequate to serve the needs of residents and visitors to the beach. The existing streets cannot be widened without taking residential property. 3. The proposed development would result in an increase in population density and traffic in the area and would place greater pressure on the limited parkinZ available for servicing ocean -related uses. 4. If this development were approved, there would be no reason to deny similar developments in the area and at this early stage in the Commission's planning process, it appears that the cumulative effect of such development's would have a substantial adverse environmental impact and would effectively reduce public access to the beach. 5- The city is apparently considering ways to alleviate existing traffic and parking problems in the beachfront area by building inland parking and providing public transportation to the oceanfront. Given the existing crowded situation, it would appear that any increase in the density of an already -congested area should await the provision of facilities that would offset the increase ui density by providing for additional public access to the beach and thus at least maintaining the er_viro --nent of the coastal Zone. COMMISSIONERS *CITY OF N EWPORT IPACH vO v m y O `m`�`N1mx1�`m1 p` ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes Motion All Ayes MINUTES June 1, 1�1� INDEX Exclusion areas within the Coastal Zone Pesrmt Area were discussed by the Mln—ring Commission and the —following actions taken: COASTAL ZONE EXCLUSION AREAS X X X X X Motion was made to leave all the commercial areas as shown on the map for exclusion. ADOPTED X X X X X X X X X X Motion was made that the City not request exclusion for any area within the 1,000 yard limit. Motion failed. X Motion was .made that the City apply for the X XX X exclusions as delineated on the map. X * * * * * * * * * * g side yard encroac - ments for garages, Plannommission recomme ed that the City Council adhe following pol' ies:SIDE Following discussion reg/dwelling POLICIES RE. YARD "A parking space may encinto'a requir d side yard in the R-1.5, R-2, nd R-4 Districts subject to the followingtations: ENCROACH - MENTS FOR GARAGES 1. The encroachment proadditio al off-stree parking spaces whiched the inimum number ADOPTED required by code. 2. The additional off-srking spaces will not increase the numdwelling units whicwould otherwise be pted.3. The encroachment shat be placed in a sideyard which abuts a or alley. 4. An encroachment equired for an enclosed garage space shall no exceed one story in height and may extend to the property line on one side only. No a roachment shall be allowed in the opposite de yard. 5. An enc sed garage space shall not extend into a req red side yard closer than six feet, mea red in a perpendicular line, to a legally ha table room on the ground floor in an e isting dwelling on the adjacent property. his provision shall not be interpreted as restricting the adjacent owner in any way in the legal development of his property. Page 18. 0 0 A D D I T 1 0 N A L B' U S I N[ S' S: Commissioner Heather and Commissioner Agee were norPl d t;Qe p;Y.J;c,ii the Planning Commission on the committee establi•s•hed County Planning Department's -growth, Policy 'report and' develop an'd recommend City policy and positign with regard to said report. Resolution No. 808 was adopted setting a public hearing'for Junco 21, 1973, to consider -establishment of Specific Area Plan No. 4 for Ne,w,pr.r-t Shores and to amend Districting Map No. 1 from the C-I.-H and P„2 Districts to SP4 - Specific Plan District on properties north of -Wes,, Coast Highway between blest Coast Highway and Newport Shores Drive anc' between the Santa_ Ana River and the Semeniuk Slough. - Resolution No. 809 was adopted setting a public hearing for June 21, 1973, to consider an amendmt ento Title 20 of the Newport Beach hiunicip 1 Code by'the addition of Section 20.08.085 entitled "Social Guidance Centers." 5L'xciusion Areas within the Coastal Zone Permit Area we're discussed � and recommended as Indicated on the map presented. Planning Commission instructed that a'resolution be sent to the Cit;; Council resurrecting the policies regarding side yard encroachments for garages in the R-1.5, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts. A D J 0 U R 1.1 14 k 1,1 T: 1 1:45 P.M. _. 7 - - Planning Commission Meeting 6/7/73 Y Planning Commission Study Session CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 16, 1973 Date: May 17, 1973 Item: #5 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Areas to be Excluded from the Permit Requirements of the South Coast Regional Commission Division 18 of the Public Resources Code (Proposition 20 as passed by the voters on November 7, 1972) provides for the exclusion of certain areas from the permit requirements of the Regional Commission as follows: Section 27104. "(c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area zoned, stabilized and developed -to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre on or before January 1, 19723 or (2) a commercial or industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for such use on or before January 1, 1972, may, after public hearing, be excluded by the regional commission at the request of a city or county within which such area is located. An urban land area is "stabilized" if 80_percent of the lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted by the aoDlicable zoning regulations 1MIMF•1 "Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immediately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded. "An order granting exclusion may be revoked at any time by the regional commission, after public hearing." It is the staffs recommendation that the City apply to the South Coast Regional Commission for urban exclusion of those areas listed below and illustrated on the accompanying map. Residential Zones within the following Statistical Areas: A2; B1; Cl,and 2; D4; F1 i,51` 65 7, and 8; H�l 2, 3, and 4; J1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; K1, "and 3; L1. rcial and Industria i A2; B4; E1 and 3; F1 and 4; G1; H1, and 3; J2; and K1 and 2. For the purpose of determining exclusion areas', it was assumed that lots zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4 were fully developed if two or more dwelling units or if any development other than residential•occupied a lot. Commercial and industrial zoned lots were considered to be fully developed if any commercial or industrial use existed on such a lot. Lots in the unclassified district were considered fully r TO: Planning Commission - 2. developed if they were obviously developed to an extent which would preclude any major intensification of use in the forseeable future, These lots were placed in either the residentially or commercially zoned category based on the actual use. The survey also indicated that neither the residentially zoned, nor the commercially or industrially zoned areas meet the criteria for exclusion when aggregated and considered as single areas. For all residential zones, the overall average density is approximately 11 dwelling units per acre but the percentage of "fully developed" lots is only 78.7 percent just short of the 80 percent criteria. For all commercial and industrial zones, the percentage of "fully developed" lots is 75.7 percent, again short of the 80 percent criteria. (In both cases the liberal definition of "fully developed lot" was used, i.e., 2 or more dwelling units on an R-2, R-3'or R-4 lot and any commercial or industrial use on any commercially or industrially zoned lot.) Based on this analysis, there is apparently no basis for requesting exclusion of all relatively developed portions of the City of Newport Beach from the Proposition 20 permit area. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAL-I�ORNIA COASTAL TONE CONSERVATION COMMISSIOP SOUTH COAST REGIOtd Robert F. Rooney, Ph.D., Chairman Russell Rubley, Vice -Chairman James A. Hayes, State Representative M. J. Carpenter, Executive Director May 11, 1973 Mr. Richard V. Hogan Director, Community Development 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Reference Number: 058 Dear Mr. Hogan M International Tower 666 E. Ocean Blvd. Suite 3107 P. 0. Box 1456 Tong Beach, CA 90801 213/436-4201 714/846-0648 Sr m a n 9 h� ao� '< Ong o m o ca Rh As you know, the California State Coastal Conservation Commission is charged with creating an overall plan for the coastal area to be presented to the California Legislature in 1976. In order to commence the development of the plan, the State Com- mission in San Francisco has been charged with setting forth those areas we will deal with plus a proposed time schedule. I have enclosed a brief outline and time schedule setting forth the manner in which the State staff is proposing to proceed. In fulfilling their requirements, I'm sure you will agree that we must take into consideration any area/city plans that you have developed. Therefore, I would appreciate your comments on the attached documents. Further I request you try to respond by May 21, as I must submit comments to San Francisco by May 25. Your assistance and thoughts on this matter are appreciated. Sincerely, M. J. C;rpenr, Executive Director MJC/cgd Enclosures SUPERVISOR, FIFTH DISTRICT RONALD W. CASPERS CHAIRMAN, ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 515 NORTH SYCAMORE, P. O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE: 834.3550 (AREA CODE 714) May 8, 1973 Mr. Richard Hogan Director of Development City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan: A few weeks ago, the Regional Coastal Commission formally adopted the Permit Zone maps for the Orange County coastline. In an effort to assist your city and its adminis- tration in dealing with the coastal zone and its problems, I have obtained a set of prints for your use and they are enclosed. These maps show the area for which the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction under Proposition 20. If my office and staff can be of help, please call on us. Cordiall , Ronald W. Ca pers Chairman of the Board of Supervisors RWC/ld Enclosures cc: Melvin Carpenter Dr. Robert Rooney CurnmunH,y Oeftfwkient P MAY 01 1973Y« CITY'OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF, City Council *eting February 26, 1973 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 3(c)2 February 22, 1973 TO: City Councild FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Proposition 20 Permit Procedures In Proposition 20, under the chapter regarding interim permit control, some of the provisions are as follow: "27400. On or after February 1, 1973, any person wishing to perform any development within the permit area shall obtain a permit authorizing such development from the regional commission and if required by law, from any city, county, state, regional or local agency. "Except as provided in Sections 27401 and 27422, no permit shall be issued without the affirmative vote of a major- ity of the total authorized membership of the regional commission, or of the commission on appeal." "27420. (a') The commission shall prescribe the procedures for permit applications and their appeal and may require a reasonable filing fee and the reimbursement of expenses. "(b) The regional commission shall give written public notice of the nature of the proposed development and of the time and place'of the public hearing. Such hearing shall be set no less than 21 nor more than 90 days after the date on which the application is filed. "(c) The regional commission shall act upon an application for permit within 60 days after the conclusion of the hear- ing and such action shall become final after the tenth working day unless an appeal is filed within that time." "27421. Each unit of local government within the permit area shall send a duplicate of each application for a development within the permit area to the regional commis- sion at the time such application for a local permit is filed, and shall advise the regional commission of the granting of any such permit." In Section 27103 a development is defined as follows: "27103. 'Development' means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grad- ing, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials, change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and any other division of land, including lot splits; change in the intensity of use of water, ecology related thereto, or of access thereto; • TO: City Council - 2. "construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of 'any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility, and the re- moval or logging of major vegetation. As used im this section, 'structure' includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone lines and electrical power transmission and distribution line." In their Interim Regulations,,the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission sets forth information regarding the filing of permits which in part reads as follows: "Subchapter 2: Prerequisites to Filing Permit Applications "Article 1. When Local Application Must Be Made First 11210. WHEN REQUIRED. When any activity for which a Regional Commission permit is required also requires a permit from one or more cities or counties, a permit application may not be filed with the Regional Commission until: "(a) Application has been made to all such cities or counties and all such cities and counties have granted at a minimum their approval in concept of said activity, and "(b) The requirements of Section 222 have been met." 11211. WHAT REQUIRED. "(a) An applicant shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of Section 210(a) when he has received approval in concept of the following aspects of his proposal: "(1) The general (or master) site plan, including roads and public access to the shoreline, and the grading plan (e.g. fills and cuts); and "(2) The general uses, and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered in the :application. "(b) The intent of Section 210 is to enable local governments to consider the effect upon their communities of projects before any consideration of them by a Regional Commission." 11213. DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS. If any city or county, or any prospective applicant, is uncertain as to what permits of any particular city or county must be applied for to meet the requirements of Section 210 upon written request the Executive Director shall make a specific determination upon advice of counsel, and shall thence- forth maintain a file of such determinations available upon request to any person.", "Article 2. Local Government Permit Notification "222. NOTIFICATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. The notification which each unit of local government within the permit area must provide to the Regional Commission when it grants a permit for a development within the permit area shall be in writing and shall consist of at least: s.- TO: City Council - 3. "(a) Adequate description of the contents of the application considered by the local government; "(b) Approval (with or without conditions) of the application with its reasons therefor, and "(c) Such additional information, comments or questions as the local government may wish to forward to the Regional Commission. "'Approval in Concept' means issuance of discretionary approval of the development by any local agency which approval has become final and is no longer subject to rejection in principal by the local agency unless a substantial change in the development is proposed." In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 20 as set forth in the Interim Regulations in Article 2 (Local Government Permit Notification), it is the intent of the Department to use the following Procedure for Submission of Applications a•hd Permits: 1. When a "Variance." "Modification," " or "Piannea �ommun�t " ermit or a ,use Permit,, �s re uestea, upon receipt o app ica on a city w orwar a copy to the South Coast Regional Commission. After action is taken by the City Planning Commission, the results will be forwarded to the South Coast Regional Commission. Approval of the "Variance," "Use Permit," etc. shall be considered "approval in concept" (as used in the context of the Interim Regulations of the Coastal Commission.) The developer can at this point file an application with the Regional Commission as provided in Sections 210 and 211 of the Regulations. He may then file an application with the City for a building permit or he may wait until a decision is made on the project by the Regional Commission and then apply for a build- ing permit. 2. When no "V uested and the goes not aesire to a , ror a ion,n com ,lance Hermit ,, he would app y or a Bu Ong Permit.-' In Ora r er for the city to accept his application, it would be necessary for him to prepare and submit complete working drawings. His application for a "Building Permit" would be forwarded by the Department to the South Coast Regional Commission, and the Commission would be notified upon the issuance of the permit. Only then would the developer be able to submit his application to the Commission. 3. When no "Variance "Use Permit," etc. is requested, and t u er es res aoorova n conceg�n w�i,Toul ao;na F,r tine steps necessary ror procurement of a "Building Permit," as an optional proce W or the aeveioper, the uepartmenT will accept applications for "Zoning Compliance Permits." It will be necessary for the developer to submit only plot plans and elevations rather than full working drawings. Upon approval of this application the Department will send copies of the approved application to the South Coast Regional Commission (the Zoning Compliance Permit serving as "approval in concept"). It is felt that by issuing a "Zoning Compliance Permit" to the builder on an optional basis, in instances where it is not necessary for him to apply for a variance or use permit, he will be given the same treatment as a builder who is required to apply for a variance or use permit in that he can go to the Regional Commission before submitting the detailed plans and working drawings necessary for procurement of a "Building Permit." TO: City Council - 4. Copies of "Variance," "Use Permit," etc. applications.and approvals, and "Zoning Compliance Permits," will be forwarded to the South Coast Regional Commission on a weekly basis. In instances where it is necessary that an applicant clear a project with other depart- ments of the City, no "Zoning Compliance Permit" will be issued until such approval is received. In cases where a zone change is under active consideration by the City in order to implement General Plan Policies, no "Certificate of Zoning Compliance" will be issued. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYiDEVELOPMENT .—V.�j#0'GAN,,Xrector RVH/RPL/kk Attachments &ENDED IN ASSEMBLY APR' 141973 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 14, 1973 SENATE BILL No. 256 Introduced by Senators Mills and Collier February 20, 1973 An act to amend Seeder 2904 SECTIONS 27404 AND 27420 of the Public Resources Code, relating to the coastal zone, MAKING AN APPROPRIATION THEREFOR, AND declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 256, as amended, Mills. Coastal zone: permit require- ments. of the e_California Coastal Zone Conservation Act .of1972 for any_developMent, if such�erson prior to Novembe_r 8,1972, rather than April 17_1972,_relying on_city_or_county permit, commenced construction and performed substantial_ work on the d_eye o-T Qment and incurre3 substantialliabilities for work Species that all permit application filing fees and reim- hursements for expenses collected heretofore or hereafter shall be credited and appropriated to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission for expenditure to support the operation of the commission- and regional coastal zone conservation commissions during designated period pursuant to the provision of such act. Provides that it is not the intent of the Legislature, in enact- ing this act, to affect any right which might otherwise vest or has vested under the law. To take effect immediately, urgency statute. Vote: %. Appropriation: no yes. Fiscal committee: ne yes. 2 256 20 15 0 0 SR 256 —2— State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows• 1 SECTtoN 1. Section 27404 of the Public Resources 2 3 Code is amended to read: 27404. If, _prior_ to November 8, 1972, any city or 4 county issued a building permit, no person who has 5 -has obtained_a vested right_ thereunder shall be required to 6 a permit from the regional commission; providing _secure thato_subskatial changes may be made in any such 8 development, except in accordance with the provisions 9 _of this division. Any such shall be have 10 -person -deemed -to such vested —rights —if, prior to November 8,1972, he has in 11 good_ faith_ and_ in_reliance_upon the building_ permit_. 12 diligently_ _ commenced construction and performed 13 substantial -work- _ on the development _ and incurred 14 substantial liabilities for work -and materials_ necessary 15 therefor. Expenses incurred in obtaining the enactment 16 of an ordinance in relation to the particular development 17 or the issuance of a permit shall not be deemed liabilities 18 for work or material. 19 SEC. 2. Section 97420 of the Public Resources Code is 20 amended to read• 21 27420. (a) The commission shall prescribe the 22 procedures for permit applications and their appeal and 23 may require a reasonable filing fee and the 24 reimbursement of expenses. All such fees and 25 reimbursements collected heretofore or hereafter shall 26 be credited to, and shall be in augmentation of, the 27 appropriation made in Section 4 of Proposition 20 as 28 approved by the electorate at the general election on 29 November 7, 1972, and are hereby appropriated to the 30 commission for the same period and for the same 31 purposes as set forth therein. 32 (b) The regional commission shall give written public 33 notice of the nature of the proposed development and of 34 the time and place of the public hearing. Such hearing 35 shall be set no less than 21 nor more than 90 days after the 36 date on which the application is filed. 2 256 35 18 — 3 — SB 256 • 1 (c) The regional commission shall act upon an 2 application for permit within 60 days after the conclusion 3 of the hearing and such action shall become final after the 4 10th working day unless an appeal is filed within that 5 time. 6 SEC. .3. It is not the intent of the Legislature, in 7 enacting the provisions of this act, to affect any right' 8 which might otherwise vest or has vested under the law. 9 &rte: S SEC, 4. This act is an urgency statute 10 necessary for the immediate preservation of the public 11 peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV 12 of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. 13 The facts constituting such necessity are: 14 The_pro_v_isons of this_act_are designed_to _ better 15 achieve thbjctiv objectives of the California_ Coastal Zone e o 16 Conserv_ation_ Act of 1972,,, by clarifyinythe_ existing 17 uncertainties,.., as to the_permif._._xequirernents__ of 18 developments on which construction- had commenced, 19 prior to November 8178, and by specifying that 20 application filingfeesforpermitsshall be credited to the 21 California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. In 22 order to have such uneei4 ies fees credited to the 23 commission as soon as possible, and to have the 24 uncertainties as to the permit requirements clarified as 25 soon as possible, and thus, eliminate costly construction 26 delays, it is necessary that the provisions of this act 27 become effective immediately. W O LJ 2 256 45 20 9 0 may- �a w` v IN i • CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION SOUTH COAST REGION Robert F. Rooney, Ph.D., Chairman Temporary Address: Russell Robley, Vice•Chalrman 925 Harbor Plaza, Second Floor James A. Hayes, State Representative P. 0. Box 570 Louis F. Jobst, Jr„ Acting Secretary Long Beach, California 90801 Telephones: (213) 436.4201, (213) 435.2611 PERMIT PROCEDURES OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AFFECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES* Robert F. Rooney, Ph.D. Chairman, The South Coast Region I would like to point out that this speech does not represent formal Commission policy adopted by a resolution of the Commission. It reflects my understanding of the Commission's regulations and the several discussions I have had with members of both the State and Regional Commis- sion staffs. Thus, this speech is my personal report of current Commission practices rather than a formal statement of Commission policy. The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20) requires that any development within the permit area must obtain a permit from the Regional Commission before development can begin. The permit area consists of "that portion of the coastal zone lying between the seaward limit of the jurisdiction of the state and 1p000 yards landward from the mean high tide line of the sea" (section'27104). There are a number of legal and technical problems associated with precisely defining the permit area. The Commission is required by law to' adopt a map delineating the precise boundaries of the permit area within 10 * Presented to a meeting of officials of city and county government agencies in Orange County sponsored by Supervisor Ronald Caspers, March 29 1973- days of its first meeting, or by March 229 1973. At the present time, the Commission's staff -- upon request -- will make a determination of whether a given parcel lies within 1,000 yards of the mean high tide line on the latest 71 minute United States Geological Survey map. The Commission's staff is presently investigating the cost of having this line drawn on the maps prepared for the county assessor's office, since the wide distribution and great detail of these maps would be particularly helpful to government agencies and the public. The Act recognizes three types of permits: regular permits, emergency, permits, and administrative permits. Emergency permits are issued when the Executive Director finds that there is potential danger to life or property which requires more immediate action than is possible with the regular permit process. Emergency permits are not issued, for example, where there are purely financial problems. Administrative permits are issued "for repairs or improvements to existing structures not in excess of $259000 and other developments not in excess of $10,000." Administrative permits do not become effective until after reasonable public notice and adequate time for their review has been provided. Unless there is risk of adverse environ- mental impact, and I feel that for now at least the Commission will accept the environmental impact assessment of the local government agency in this case, a permit is not required for repairs and improvements costing less than $7,500 to single family residences. Also, in my opinion, the Commission will consider mobile homes to be single family residences. All other developments require issuance of a regular permit by -3- the Regional Commission unless the structure is located in an area which has been issued an urban exclusion or unless the project is subject to the vested rights provisions of the Act. An area is eligible for an urban exclusion if it was (1) a residential area zoned, stabilized, and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre prior to January 19 1972 or (2) a commercial or industrial area zoned, developed and stabilized for such use on January 1, 1972. The Act defines an area as "stabilized" if 80% of the lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity (however those terms are to be defined) of use permitted by the applicable zoning regulations existing on January 1, 1972. In addition, the Act requires that "orders granting such exclusions shall be subject to conditions which shall assure that no significant changes in density, height, or nature of use occurs." It is my personal opinions that the Commission will be very cautious in granting exclusions and that exclusions should receive a low priority in the Commission's business until the Commission's planning staff has thoroughly investigated the area. The vested rights provisions of the Act are presently the subject of considerable discussion. A recent opinion of the Attorney GeAtnal requires that the developer have commenced construction and incurred substantial liabilities on the development by November 71 1972 if there is to be a finding that the development is free of the permit requirement. In addition, the development must have a single interdependent concept and the developer mast not have been proceeding in a manner which seeks to evade the Act's permit requirements. Thus, the Attorney General is holding that the issuance of a building permit after November 80 1972 and before January 319 1973 does not, 0 -4- • in itself, establish a vested right since the effective date of the Act is November 8, 1972. Just what constitutes "substantial" liability has not,to my knowledge, been defined and is a matter of case -by -case determination. It is also possible that other tests may be used -- such as has construction progressed to the point that the developer is physically committed to a particular project configuration. I have been recommending that developers applying for a vested rights exemption also apply for a permit since they will save some time if the Commission rejects their vested rights claim. The Regional Commissions, under the Act, do not develop and adopt the regulations governing the processing and issuance of permit applications. These regulations are adopted by the State Commission. The South Coast Regional Commission will, however, pass on to the State Commission any recommendations for changes in the regulations which local government agencies feel would be desirable. The regulations currently in effect were adopted on an emergency basis by the State Commission at its February 7th meeting. Copies of these regulations may be obtained from the offices of the State Commission. The permit application form is also adopted by the State Commission. Tb my knowledge, hearings on permanent regulations have not been scheduled by the State Commission. Section 210 of the regulations requires that a permit application may not be filed with the Regional Commission until the applicant has obtained at a minimum "approval in concept" of the project from'all relevant city and county agencies. This regulation was adopted for a number of reasons, with in my opinion -- one of the most important reasons being that the Commissions do not wish to approve projects which local governments do not want to approve. -5- Giving local government the first approval prevents the developer from using approval from the Commission as a "lever" in getting local government to approve his project. The "approval in concept" requirement has, however, led to consid- arable confusion. The regulations define '?approval in concept" in the following terms: "'Approval in concept' means issuance of discretionary approval of the development by any local agency which approval has become final and is no longer subject to rejection in principle by the local agency unless a substantial change in the development is proposed." Since any given development may be subject to various approvals by local government at several stages in its development, this requirement is subject to several interpre- tations. Virtually all large projects, projects in areas where zoning does not closely define the kinds of developments that are permitted, or projects requiring zoning variances come before the local government's planning commis- sion for approval. Approval at this stage of the development generally takes the form of a resolution approving the project as presented to the planning commission, generally subject to one or more conditions. Thus, one form of notification of "approval in concept" could be for the local government agency to send to the Commission the relevant part of the action minutes of the planning commission together with the request that any permit issued by the, Commission include in its terms and conditions the terms and conditions inposed by the planning commission. Another approach would be to require the developer to incorporate the changes required by the planning commission into his project so that he -6- would be ready to go to the building department for his building permit. In my opinion, it was this stage -- at the point where the developer has met the requirements of the local planning commission -- that the drafters of the Commission's regulations had in mind when they required "approval in concept" before a permit application could be filed with the Commission. Thusp under this approach, the Commission would require a notification from the local government agency that the project -- as presented to the Commis- sion in the permit application -- meets the conditions imposed by the local planning commission. iðer this notification is in the form of a formal permit issued by a building department or a letter from the planning commis- sion or the building department would not be material to the Commission's procedures. The important point is that the commission would have to be notified that the development has been approved by the local government. Under either of these approaches building department officials could continue with their present practices of not issuing the final permit, on the basis of which construction can begins until all applicable state laws -- including Proposition 20 -- have been met. Although many developments first go to the planning commission for approval, not all developments require approval by the planning commission before the building department will issue a permit. For examples a single family residence in an area zoned R-1 rarely requires planning commission. consideration -- the building department can issue the necessary permits once it has made a determination that the development has met all applicable local ordinances and state laws9 such as Proposition 20. Or, the building department can issue a permit subject to a proviso requiring the developer y to meet the requirements imposed by the Act. In the case of these projeetsp notification could take at least two forms -- (1) a building permit which does not become effective until the developer has obtained a permit from the Commission or (2) a letter from the building department stating that the develop as presented in the permit application to the Commission -- complies with all applicable local ordinances. Once the permit application has been judged to be complete by the Commission's permits officer and the local government notification has been receivedp the permit application is 'filed' with the Commission. This begins the processing of the permit for a public hearing and also the clock on the requirement that the Commission act on the permit within 90 days of its being filed. The South Coast Regional Commission has adopted the policy that filed permit applications be processed in the order of the time of receipt of the duely completed permit application form, not the filing date. Most developments constructed by governmental agencies and many public utilities do not require building permits; hence, the question arises as to what constitutes notification in the case of these projects. It is presently the Commission's practice to file these applications upon the permit officer's determination that the application is complete. The first step in the Commission's processing is preparation of a summary of the development's major features by a permits officer. Once this summary is completed, the permits officer places the application on the agenda for a Commission meeting to take place not less than 21 days in the future and then mails a "Notice of Public Hearing" form to (1) all the Commissioners, 0 (2) to the applicant, and (3) all affected city and county governments. Copies of the Notice of Public Hearing and the application summaries are also made available to all interested parties in the Commission's offices. Notices of any material amendments to a permit application will also be sent to the above parties. These notices are intended to inform the local government agencies that the development is under active consideration by the Commission. The local government agencies should inform the Commis- sion of the name of the official who is to receive these notices. After the Commission has held its public hearings and voted to approve or deny a permit application, the Commission staff prepares a Resolution of Approval or a Resolution of Denial, which is then sent to the applicant and to the local government agencies. These resolutions contain the terms and conditions which the Commission requires the project to meet, and may contain conditions requested by the local government. The Resolution of Denial will state specifically the grounds for denial. At this point, the local government's building department can make its determination of whether the development meets the requirements of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act. In conclusion, I hope that this general description of the Commis- sion's present permit regulations and practices has cleared up some of your questions. The Commission has been trying'to get some experience with the permit process before it firms up its procedures, so that the final regulations will not unduely burden the public or local government. Your cooperation in these early stages has been most appreciated. Your comments on these procedures will be most helpful to the Commission in drafting its final regulations. EVELLE J. YOUNGER ATTORNEY GENERAL ' 1 CHARLES A. BARRETT CHIEF DElUTY ATTOR � CENCPAL� NNN f� I 14 "` STATE OF CALIFORNIA ^ • ���'nu; c' .n/ OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Bruartmrnt of Iota STATE BUILDING. LOS ANGELES 90012 February 21, 1973 Robert F. Rooney, Ph.D., Chairman South Coast Regional Commission California State University 6101 East Seventh Street Long Beach, California 90840 Dear Dr. Rooney: CNIGF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION SANFORD N. GRUSKIN CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS EDWARD A. HINZ. JR. CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF CRIMINAL LAW WILEY W. MANUEL CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF CIVIL LAW Enclosed is an opinion prepared for the San Diego Coast Regional Commission regarding mapping the permit area. We hope this will be of assistance to your commission as well. CB:fmc Enclosure Very truly yours, EVELLE J. YOUNGER Attorney General CARL BORONKAY Assistant Attorney Gene 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION CrHARLES'A. BARRETT CHIEF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL U OFFICE OF TIM ATTORNEY GENERAL :43-plutown# .nf 5botirr STATE BUILDING. LOS ANGELES 90012 February 15, 1973 San Diego Coast Regional Commission 1600 Pacific Coast Highway, Room 252 San Diego, California 92101 Attention: Dr. Malcolm A. Love • SANFORD N. GRUSKIN CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS EDWARD A. HINZ. JR. CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 'DIVISION OF CRIMINAL LAW WILEY W. MANUEL CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF CIVIL LAW Dear Sirs: Re: S.O. 73/6 IL 'Definition of Mean High Tide Line Under California Coastal Zone Conservation Act Your letter of January 11, 1973, requests advice as to the method of determining the location of the mean high tide line in San Diego County to enable the San Diego Coast Regional Commission ("the Commission") to adopt a map of the permit area pursuant to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972,("the Act" - Public Resources Code, sections 27000 - 27650 - hereinafter section references are to the Public Resources Code unless ohterwise noted), adopted as Proposition 20 at the General Election on November 7, 1972. A related question of equal importance is the manner of delineating the landward boundary of the 1,000 yard permit area (the 1,000 yard line) provided for by the Act. Section 27104 defines "permit area" for purposes of the Act, subject to certain exceptions which may become im- portant to the Commission in defining the 11permit area" but which are not relevant to the manner of delineating the mean high tide line or the 1,000 yard interior line. The definition of -the "permit area" in section 27104 is "that portion of the coastal zone lying between the seaward limit of the jurisdiction of the state and 1,000 yards landward from the high tide line of the sea." Section 27104, subdivision (d)-requires each regional commission to "adopt a map delineating the precise boundaries of the permit area within 60 days after its first meeting and file' a copy of such map in the office of the County Clerk of each county within its region." You advise us that your Commission must adopt and file its map by March 6, 1973. Practical, workable and administerable boundaries of the permit area must be adopted by the Commission, keeping in mind that the requirement of section 27104, subdivision (d), is that the map must delineate the precise boundaries of the permit area. Although many coast lines are in a state of equilib- rium, most are subject to changes from time to time, resulting in changes in the ordinary or mean tide lines. The ascertainment of exact mean or low tide lines in a given area at a specific time is a laborious process involving conclusions from obser- vations made over a period of years. People v. Wm. Kent Estate Co., 242 Cal.App.2d 156 (1966); Teschemacher v. Tho�mpso�n,, Cal. 11 -(1861). An independent determination n of the high tide line along the San Diego County Coast is a task impractical, and prob- ably impossible for the Commission to accomplish within the 60 days it is required by the Act to file its permit zone map. Furthermore, there is no need for an independent ascertaihment of the mean high tide line. When it becomes necessary.to determine tide lines at a particular time, it is common to refer to such lines depicted on the United States Geological Survey charts nearest in time to the relevant date. Thus, the mean high tide line shown on the latest official U.S.G:S. chart of the San Diego County Coast could be used by the Commission to depict the mean high tide line on its map of the permit area. A similar official chart, that of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, was relied upon by the court in ascer- taining the line of ordinary low water along the California Coast, as that term is used in the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C., secs. 1301, et seq), in United States v. California, 381 U.S. 139, 176 (1965). die court note , at page 17 tat in defining territorial waters the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (T.I.A.S. No. 5639), in Article 3, "uses the 'low-water line along the coast as marked in large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state' (i.e., the United States). 2. 0 Your letter raises a number of subsidiary questions: (a) Should man-made obstructions and modifica of the mean high tie ine_ a disregar ed Generally speaking, the existing mean high tide line (as depicted upon the latest U.S.G.S. charts) should be used without regard to the origin of such line. Under California law, as set forth in Civil Code, sections 1014 and 1015, as interpreted by many court decisions, property lines along the coast and other tidal waters are determined by the last natural mean high tide line; artificial and sudden and perceptible avulsive) changes in such line are disregarded in determining property ownership bounded by the high tide line. The Act in question is regulatory in nature so far as the permit zone is concerned and does not determine nor provide means for determining property rights or boundaries. The Act among other things, addresses itself to regulating "development, as defined in section 27103, within the permit zone. Such zone should include as nearly as practically possible, an actual, ex- isting belt of 1,000 yards landward from the present mean high tide line. Whether the present mean high tide line was changed by man-made structures or activities should be disregarded. 1 / (b) Should court -determined mean high tide lines be Usually such lines will be fixed by court decisions in actions involving disputes as to property boundaries along the mean high tide line in which cases the inquiry is as to the last natural mean high tide line. As we have seen, such last natural line is irrelevant to the determination of the existing mean Tigh tide line by the Commission for the purpose of adopting and filing a map of the permit area. Such court decisions usually fix the mean high tide line as a permanent property boundary, although the actual line in a great many cases will be a shifting line. 1. Usage of the present or actual mean high tideline for purposes, of delineating the permit area is not intended to have any bearing on the determination of the character of property.as tidal and submerged lands in connecn:on with the urban land a: -ea exclusion provisions of section 27104 (c). 3. Even where the court recognizes the shifting nature of the line, its judgment will determine such changing line only as of the date that the judgment was entered. Such line may have shifted. The task of the Commission is to delineate a permit zone based upon the ascertainable mean high tide line as close as possible to the time its map is adopted and filed. Thus, in general, court decisions with regard to the position of the mean high tide line in any particular area should be disregarded. (c) Should permit area boundaries relate to exist - As a general proposition they should not. In defining the permit area the Act does not follow property lines but pro- vides for a 1,000 yard strip landward from the mean high tide line. Section 27104. The interior line of the permit zone may cut across a particular parcel of land. In such case, if the parcel were to be excluded from the permit area, such per- mit area might be entirely eliminated along the width of the parcel if the parcel extended to the mean high tide line. if on the other hand a property holding intersected by the interior permit area line were to be declared to be included within the permit area in its entirety, the area might be extended inland greatly in excess of 1,000 yards. Many coastal holdings were bounded by the mean high tide lines, which under California law have become fixed at the last natural mean high tide lines where artificial changes in those lines have occurred. But the concern of the Commission is the existing mean high tide line as a base for delineating the permitzone not a last natural line. For these along the mean high yard line should be of the permit zone. (d) To reasons, the existing property lines both tide line and along the interior 1,000 disregarded in determining the boundaries deeree of ac Commission The map to be filed is required to delineate the "precise" boundaries of the permit area. Section 27104, sub- division (d). But, as we have seen, an independent determin- ation of thq- existing mean high tide line at a specific time. is a task involving long and costly observations and research and, once determined, is likely to be inaccurate soon afterward by reason of shifts in the shoreline. Thus, as a practical, workable matter, the Commission is in no position to make an independent "precise" determination of the existing mean high tide line. In defining the mean high tide line on the permit zone map,resort may properly be made to the latest official 4: U.S.G.S. chart of the San Diego County coast line. If this is : done, the Commission will be in a strong position against any claim asserting that its determination of the mean high tide line is not "precise." The Commission must also determine the permit area boundary 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line. Again, section 27104, subdivision (d) of the Act provides that this shall be a "precise" boundary. However, a practical and workable boundary, as precise as can be accomplished within the sixty day map filing period, should be sought. There is no official chart that depicts such 1,000 yard line that may be -conveniently referred to. But, unlike the complexities of independently fixing a mean high tide line at a particular time, fixing a reasonably precise line 1,000 yards inland from a known tide line is not too difficult. In what follows it will be assumed that the mean high tide line to be used on the permit area map has been ascertained and the only problem is the fixing of the landward boundary of the permit zone using such tide line as a base. We have seen that, in general, private property boundaries should be disregarded in fixing permit area map boundaries, both with respect. to the mean high tide line and the landward 1,000 yard boundary of the permit area. The problem of fixing a line 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line is similar to the task of defining the outward limit of the territorial seas of coastal nations - the'"three mile limit" or whatever the width of such marginal seas of the particular nation may be. This subject is discussed u In`Shalowitz":—Shore And Sea Boundaries (U.S. Dept: of Commerce, Coast & Geodetic Survey, Publication 0-1, 1962), Volume 1, pages 169-173. The discussion in Shalowitz primarily is with reference to the United States Supreme Court s opinion in United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947) and several other United States Supreme Court opinions interpreting the Submerged Lands Act (67 Stat. 29, 43 U.S.C., sec. 1301, et seq.). The prig pfes set forth by Shalowitz with respect to the seaward boundary of the territoria seas appear applicable to the problem of the interior 1,000 yard line under the Act in question. As applied to fixing the landward boundary of the permit zone under the Act,such principles are as follows: Basically, the permit zone should be a belt of a fixed 1,000 yard breadth along the San'Diego County coast. This does not necessarily mean that a zone of even -width runs like a ribbon along the coast. Instead, it means that all land within 5. 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line should be a part of the permit zone. Shalowitz points out that three methods of drawing the interior ouncary are possible, as follows: 1. A ReJlI Line. (Shalowitz, su ra) Vol. 1, pp. 169-170). -- T� is` a -line exact y paralle ing the mean high tide line -- lifting the mean high tide bodily from its actual position, moving it inland 1,000 yards and putting it down par- allel to its former position. This procedure has been universally rejected with respect to the marginal sea because•of the problems of interpretation met in placing the line parallel •with the tide line on an irregular or indented coast and because such place- ment will actually not result in a zone fixed distance from the 'mean high tide line. While there may merely be a question of parallel positioning along a straight coast line, where there are indentations most likely the parallel line including all the irregularities will be inaccurate. For example, if the 1,000 yard interior boundary were to be curved or bent seaward to conform to the mean high tide line along a narrow cape or projection, some land actually within 1,000 yards of other portions of the mean high tide line would be excluded from the permit zone. Usually with a 1,000 yard wide permit area this will be the case unless the base of the projecting land is more than 2,000 yards wide. Thus, an exact transposition of the mean high line 1,000 feet inland will not serve the purpose. It -result in even an approximately precise boundary on an coast such as is present in parts of San Diego County. tide will not irregular 2.. A Conventional Line (Shalowitz, �suQr�a, Vol. 1, ro p. 170). This is a series o es —arrived agreement or usage to define the interior 1,000 foot boundary. The fix- ing of such line gives a wide choice in positioning and depends upon the exercise of judgment. It replaces precision with ex- pediency. Such manner of fixing the interior line should not be considered. 3.• The Envelope Line (Shalowitz, supra, Vol. 1, pp. 170-172) -- T e pre erre method o ascertaining the interior 1,000 foot boundary of the permit zone is by the use of the envelope or curved tangents method. It is a line every point of which is 1 000 yards from the nearest oint 37 to mean high tide line. Under t is met od the interior ine forms a continuou serries of intersecting arcs, with a radius of 1,000 yards, which are the farthest landward of all possible arcs that can be drawn from the mead high tide line with a radius of 1,000 yards. - is is accomplished by placing a drawing compass on the base line (the line of.mean high tide) at various salient points and describing a series of intersecting arcs distant 1,000 yards farthestat their semi-circleswith aoot radiusof1,000he syards. Where thereare 6. indentations in the coast line certain landward arcs based upon the mean high tide line within such indentations will envelope (include within their sweep) arcs of similar radius based uporr the line of mean high tide along the headlands of such indenta- tions. The result is that minor sinuosities in the mean high tide line will not be reproduced in the interior boundary line of the permit zone; it will tend to be smoother than the actual mean high tide line but every point on such interior line will be 1,000 feet from the nearest point on the mean high tide line. Along a smooth or straight mean high tide line the interior boundary line of the zone will be smooth or straight. Where there are indentations, the interior line will form a number of inter- secting arcs or curves. Although at first glance this method of ascertaining the interior line may seem difficult to accomplish, it is really not. Shalowitz, supra, Vol. 1, pages 171 and 172, says of this metho o axing the outer limits of the marginal sea the "three mile limit") using the low tide line as a base, 'The principle of the envelope line is so definite and conclusive that under it only one line can possibly be drawn from a given coastline. And even though no actual line is charted, a nav- igator would find no difficulty in determining whether he is within or without the marginal sea. Having plotted his position on his chart,- he describes an arc to landward with a radius equal to the width of the marginal sea -- if the arc cuts land (the low-water line) or inland waters, he is in the marginal sea and if it fails to touch at all, he is outside the marginal sea. These practical advantages of the envelope line are so over- riding as to more than offset the departures of the line from strict parallelism to the sinuosities of the Coast." The "envelope line" as the method of determining the outer boundaries of the national territorial waters was adopted in Article 6 by the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (T.I.A.S. No. 5639), which was ratified by the United States on March 24, 1961 and put into force September 10, 1964. This "envelope line" is the most accurate of the three lines discussed above. It is practical and reasonably precise as a method of determining a seaward boundary for territorial seas.. It should be similarly practical and workable as a method of fixing a reasonably precise landward boundary of the permit area under the Act in question. Under the envelope line method; any 'one may first • fix the position of the land he is interested in on an accurate map that depicts the line of mean high'tide and then with a 7. compass descWbe an arc with a 1,000 yaWra radius. If the arc touches or goes beyond the mean high tide line, the land in question is within the permit zone. It is hoped that the above will be of assistance in developing the boundaries to be depicted on the permit zone map. Yours very truly, EVELLE J. YOUNGER Attorney General PAUL M. JOS PH Special Deputy Attorney General PMJ:dr \ C 8. 6' /I February 16, 11P73 South Coast Regional' Commi siaq Post office Box 670 Long Beach, California • 9i)801, Dear Sirs: As requested in ,your )fetter of .January 30; 1973•, 'the following items are enclosed; 0 ,A Coast and Geodetic Survey 71,,1 Minute Map . labeled "Map 111;' (2) a Coast and Geodetic Survey Vi 111nute iiap labeled "Map 2°; and (3) information on building permits. The City Council approved the maps showing two passible methods of alignment of the permit area boundary for submission to and consideration by the South Coast Regional Commission. Each of the maps indicates the 1000 yard line as well as a su.gge,ted . location of the permi-t boundary on an alignment which would follow easily identified geographic lines such as streets or property lines, The recommendation shown on Map 1 is generally aligned with the first public street inland of. the bluff line, There are three exceptions to this general alignment, (1) In {lest Newport where the permit boundary is along .the City limit; (2) north .of the upper bay where the permit boundary follows Bristol Street; and (3} where the permit boundary follows Baysida Drive.- This align- ment appears to meet the intent of the law and has cowsidarable merit. It is clear that the bluff line which generally parallels the water causes a unique physical separation of the immediate Coastal tone of rJewport•Beach and the balance of the,City. Therefore, only the property along the edge of the bluff top has any immediate coastr� 1 orientatipn ar association with the low lying coastal areas. This alignment of the permit boundary also includes all the l-aegd undeveloped parcels of land adjacent to South Coast Regional Commission -2- February 16, 1973 or ovorlooAl ng the lower coastal area just as a 1,000 yard Re.rmi-t a-rea boundary would, It should be further noted that most o•f the land between this recommended line and•a 1,000 yard permit area boundary meets, the criteria for exclusion from the permit requirement. Therefore, the net result of the alignment recommended is to exclude all those areas with lessar coastal orientation behind the.biuff'i'ine, all of which would be i-ticludedr in a 1,000 yard Alignment. Map 2 shows a second app'roaeh which aligns the permit area boundary as closely as, possible to the T,000 yard line using streets anal, when necessary, -property 1 nes for clarity in administration. The estimated number of building permits to be issued during the 1973 calendar year is as follows: Total estimate of permits'to be issued during 1973 2,500 Total estimate of permits to be issued ' during 1973 within the 1,000 yard. permit area 750 Total estimate of permits to be issued par week during.1973 within the 1,000 yard permit ared• 15 Should you require any further informatian, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly,yours, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WART MENT By R. Y. HOGAN, DIRECTOR ; RYH/CTB/ddb r � Encls. February 14,'1973 South Coast Regional Commission Post Office Box 570 Long Beach, California 90801 Dear Sirs: Please send us Copies of the following_ items: 1. Minutes from the'flrst two "State Coastal Zone Con- servation Commission" meetings, and, all subsequent. meetings; P. Minutes from the'first,t res "South Coast Regional Commi-ssion" mestinQs•,'and all subsequent maettngs; 3. A copy of the "Revised Parmit Aunlixatian Form";' 4. A oapy of°the "'kwvised�Interim Guidelines'' or, the revisi-ons.; 5. A copy of the form related to exemption based on "vested interest"; and 6. A copy of the application form used to apply for exclusion areas. Your prompt attention and courtesy will be a-ppreciated. Very truly yours, TY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RODNRIL. GUNN, ADVANCE PLANNIN G NG ADMINISTRATOR By rag TA giUell.L X$S'30c. Planner CTS/ddb a 0 February 120 1973 Mr. Paul D. Kiely Kiely Corporation 211.0 East Kate}la Avenue Anaheim, California 92$03 Dear Mr. Kielyt At the requpst of Mr. Richard Bradshaw, the Community Development Department has prepared this letter concerning P,C4 osition 0. Mr. Bradshaw has informed us by telephone conversat on t at he owns property on H1llcrest Lane in the eastern portion of Big Canyon. Such a property lotetian is not involved with Proposition 20 bectyse it.,is clearly out of,the permit a-rea. Very truly yours, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN, W RECTok By kODNEY L. GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/CTB/ddb I Attachment: Map -designating Permit Area Boundary, an.d Property Location ,j •�'- h� J«'1..� v !.T' _ / ri. 3 j� ;pit! m ,•1 •t!1 C J c Permit Area Boundary ;i.•� e--...•� wee CITY OF HEWPOHT BEACH 1*1 er L(oc�ati on —i— M■ M■ COUNCILMEN •f04iC 0m �y2LA 0'PA\V105 ROI-1_ f.AI I T9'P a f CA OF NEWPORT BERH FPhrn A.r�r 12 197R MINUTES INDEX 5. 9 report fromthe City Manager was presented ' with a letter -from AyaH an, District Trans - Engineer of the Department of Public Works, State portat Division of Highways, requesting the City to state its Study po '•t�regarding participation in a transportation study by fox -al resolution. Motion x The staff was directe repare a resolution for Ayes x x x x x x x Council consideration on Feb tr 26, stating that the City is interested in participatin a corridor transportation study, in accordance with the com- mendations of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. 6. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Coastal ment Department regarding proposed Coastal Zone Zone Boundary and Exclusion Areas. Bounds Exclusi Larry Moore, General Planning Administrator of the Areas Irvine Company, addressed the Council. H Motion x The staff was directed to present both Map 1 and Map — ' Ayes x x x x x x 2, showing�ro proposed Permit Area and the Ex - Noes x clusion Area, to the Regional_Coasta Commission for their approval. 7. A letter was presented from Tom O'Keefe, attorney BBC for the Balboa Bay Club, regarding refinancing of the Balboa Bay Club. A report was presented from the City Attorney. Councilman Ryckoff became ill and was excused. illiam Ray, representing the Balboa Bay Club, a essed the Council. ' Resolutio o. 7927, approving of the Fidelity R-7927 Motion x Mortgage Inv tors as a secured lender on Balboa Ayes x x x x x x Bay Club leaseho property, was adopted. Absent x 8. A letter was presented m the Surf Life Saving Marine Association of Australia re esting the City to send Safety one of its Lifeguard power boa erators to Australia for an educational and instructiona xchange. A report was presented from the Marine ety Di- rector to the City Manager. Motion x The City was authorized to send a Lifeguard power Ayes : x x x x x boat operator to Australia for an educational and Absent x instructional exchange. Volume 27 - Page 36 ion ry .on February 8, 1973 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Meeting February 12, 1973 Council Agenda Number ........'G- 6 ' " STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO. ..' ' . ' ' ' " 4('c)'3 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Community Development Department PROPOSITION 20 - PERMIT BOUNDARY AREA AND EXCLUSION AREA FILE copy; bb tv'DT REMOV& After voter ratification of Proposition 20 (Coastal Zone Conservation Act) in November of 1972, the City Council requested the Community Development Department to determine how Newport Beach is affected by the adoption of this initiative. In response to this request, a report was prepared and presented at several study sessions and public hearings. The portion of Newport Beach that is subject to permit requirements is defined in Section 27104 of Proposition 20 as follows: "'Permit area' means that portion of the coastal zone lying between the seaward limit of the jurisdiction of the state and 1,000 yards land- ward from the mean high tide line of the sea subject to the following provisions: "Each Regional Commission shall adopt a map delineating the precise boundaries of the permit area within 60 days after its first meeting and file a copy of such map in the office of the County Clerk of each County within its region." Two maps have been prepared for consideration by the Council each of which follows a separate and distinct approach in achieving the objec- tives of Proposition 20. It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the permit area boundary be generally aligned with the first public street inland of the bluff line. There are three exceptions to this general alignment: (1) in West Newport where the permit boundary is along the City Limit; (2) north of the upper bay where the permit boundary follows Bristol Street; and (3) where the permit boundary follows Bayside Drive as shown on map 1. This alignment appears to meet the intent of the law and has con- siderable merit. It is clear that the bluff line which generally parallels the water causes a unique physical separation of the immediate Coastal Zone of Newport Beach and the balance of the City. Therefore, only the property along the bluff face has any immediate coastal orientation or association with the low lying coastal areas. It can also be seen that the alignment of the permit boundary as recommended by the Planning Commission includes all those large undeveloped parcels of land adjacent to or overlooking the lower coastal area just as the 1,000 yard permit area boundary would. • TO: City Council 2. It can be further noted that most of the land between the Planning Commission's recommended line and the 1,000 yard permit area boundary meets the criteria for exclusion from the permit require- ment with the exception of Old Corona del Mar. Therefore, the net result of the alignment recommended by the Planning Commission is to exclude Old Corona del Mar, land east of Jamboree Road adjacent to Newport Center and all those areas with lesser coastal orientation behind the bluff line, all of which would be included in a 1,000 yard alignment. In addition, the Commission's recommendation would include such important natural areas as Buck Gully, and more land along the bluff top in the east bluff area. However, it must be cautioned that the permit boundary as recommended by the Planning Commission no matter how logical does not meet a strict interpretation of the Act that would require the permit area boundary be 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. Therefore, a second approach to initiative was taken, aligning the permit boundary as closely as possible to the 1,000 yard permit area line using primary streets and, when necessary, property lines as shown on map 2. Such an alignment would meet both the letter and the intent of the law. Of the additional provisions defining the permit area, only one is of immediate concern to the City. This provision provides for the exclusion of land residentially, commercially or industrially zoned and developed in excess of specific standards. The provision states: "(c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial or industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for'such use on or. before January 1, 1972, may, after public hearing, be excluded by the regional commission at the request of a city or county within which such area is located. An urban land area is 'stabilized' if 80 percent of the lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted by the applicable zoning regulations existing on January 1, 1972." For the purpose of determining exclusion areas, it was assumed that lots zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4 were fully developed if two or more dwelling units or if any development other than residential occupied a lot. Commercial and industrial zoned lots were considered to be fully developed if any commercial or industrial use existed on such a lot. Lots in the unclassified district were considered fully developed if they were obviously developed to an extent which would preclude any major intensification of use in the forseeable future. These lots were placed in either the residentially or commercially zoned category based on the actual use. A restriction was placed on the exclusion of waterfront lots from the permit area even though they are properly zoned and developed in excess of the standards: "Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immediately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded." • TO: City Council 3. Proposition 20 gives the Regional Commission the power to make orders granting exclusions "subject to conditions which shall assure that no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses occurs". Also, the Regional Commission may revoke, at any time after a public hearing, any order granting exclusion of land from the permit area. In accordance with the provisions of Proposition 20 and the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission, two maps were prepared iden- tifying potential exclusion areas. Data to determine the areas of exclusion was collected by statistical area. Statistical area data for residentially zoned lots was taken from the "Land Use Survey Sheets" prepared by the Community Development Department. Data for commercially and industrially zoned lots was based on, hand counts of lots and uses as indicated on the land use maps. The results of this analysis are shown on the attached maps and statistical summary sheets. As indicated, residential zones within the following statistical areas meet the criteria for exclusion: A2, B1; Cl and 2; D4; F1, 5, 6, 7, and 8; H1, 2, 3, and 4; J1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; K1, 2, and 3; L1. Commercial and industrial zones within the following statistical areas meet the criteria for exclusion: A2; B4; E1 and 3; Fl and 4; 61; H1, 3 and 4; J2; and K1 and 2. However, the commercial area located in Statistical Area H4 along the Coast Highway has been eliminated from map 1 by staff and all commercial areas on map 2 were eliminated from exclusion by motion of the Planning Commission. Also indicated is that neither the residentailly zoned, nor the commercially or industrially zoned areas meet the criteria for exclusion when aggregated and considered as single areas. For all residential zones, the overall average density is approximately 11 dwelling units per acre but the percentage of "fully -developed" lots is only 78.7 percent just short of the 80 percent criteria. For all commercial and industrial zones, the percentage of "fully developed" lots is 75.7 percent, again short of the 80 percent criteria. (In both cases the liberal definition of "fully developed lot" was used, i.e.j 2 or more dwelling units on an R-2, R3 or R4 lot and any commercial or industrial use on any commercially or in- dustrially zoned lot.) Based on this analysis, -there is apparently no basis for requesting exclusion of all relatively developed por- tions of the City of Newport Beach from the Proposition 20 permit area. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR 94 RODNEY L. GUNN ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR RLG/CTB/ddb Attchmts: Analysis of Commercial and Industrial Zones Analysis of Residential Zones Map 1 Map 2 ANALYSIS OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES Stat. Area that Percent of Commercial or Total Lots Industrial Zones That Are Lie Within Area Description Fully Developed A2 Hospital Road and Superior Avenue 100.0 B1 West Coast Highway Strip 38.6 B4 Balboa Boulevard and Coast Highway 100.0 B5 Central Newport 61.3 D1 and 2 Balboa Peninsula (scattered commercial) 67.0 D3 Central Balboa 67.0 E1 and 3 All Balboa Island Commercial Zones 85.4 F1 and,-,4 q' Corona del Mar (Coast Highway) 94.0 G1 Bayside Shopping Center and Commercial Area at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway 100.0 H1 Old Newport (North Newport Boulevard) 98.0 H4 Coast Highway 96.0 J2 and H3 Westcliff Drive and Dover Drive 100.0 Kl Newporter Inn 100.0 K2 Eastbluff Plaza 100.0 Community Development Dept. RLGunn/TEC/ddb February 8, 1973 I . ' Stat. Area that Residential Zones Lie Within A2 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 and 2 D1 ) D2 ) D3 ; D4 ) El, 2 and 3 F1 F2, 3 and 4 F5, 6, 7 and 8 G1 H1, 2 and 3 H4 j J1 , 2, 3; 4 & 5 K1, Z and 3 L1 ANALYSIS •0F 'RESTDENTT'AL ZONES Area'Description Condominiums near Hoag Hospital West Newport Lido Island Balboa Peninsula Balboa Island Irvine Terrace Old Corona del Mar East Corona del Mar Beacon Bay Newport Heights, Cliffhaven Bayshores Westcliff, Harbor Highlands, Dover Shores, Upper Bay Park Newport, Bluffs, East Bluffs Grandville Apartments Net Density (Dwelling Units/Acre) 17.8 6.3 27.1 26.5 19.5 27.5 13.1 23.8 20.5 30.3 13.1 25.29 4.6 16.3 4.02 9.9 7.3 9.2 8.3 7.46 5.6 Percent of Total Lots that Are Fully Developed 100.0 92.7 57.9 65.7 55.4 59.8 93.4 78.9 70.0 66.4 96.2 54.6 99.0 66.3 91.3 8.1 86.5 100.0 95.2 80.73 100.0 TOTALS.......................................10.74................. 78.66 Community Development Dept. RLGunn/TEC/ddb February 8, 1973 I MAP 1� POTENTIAL14 1,.; + ' � PERMIT AREA BOUNDARY �-� �����?�'� �a,.j:4,>;� t� , � �\ � f' AND 1'�J,e f� . t r POTENTIAL . EXCLUSION AREAS""` �, �= PERMIT AREA BOUNDARY) # I ,i 1, r�. `"S+4 q�L/�• •• [ S( Residential Zones with 4 or more • j j ; f-l�l,%3 �'""'� ? �: �— 1,000 YARD Dwelling Units per Acre with More (' 1 �> _ :'.;-: \ �� r' PERMIT AREA BOUNDARY Than 80% of Lots Fully Developed 14�� �1L+ -ilk .�3 1 -1-1 A ,,� ��•�`. � ���'� � \� 1C�3� I � I••'--• _71-. ., ;• IJ, hf ..,� •'Sr. � ate. i•�' J,.. I -„•` ��G=�t`s�`�\�'�,-,G6�\�•'�4 �!`'���t� � :'r.t( ��_�ft;')y� � :�:_�i:s �� •:` `•rC;-fy��•.. (, 4� z - L•?% �'!IF" ..y.. ` ��� 415 ! r � e !( +S 1 /•yv��+dtl\��\ \� \�Sltl7��7.h��/� yC:l���,•'7'xj`����." .� J' r y< � . 1, ' :�i, -ei : r5 ,`�;�t_ -- - I • � c ". -x` � ./f)y�'�c91�� � •J"•.LI,� ��%i jig Sj.Z:_� 1 \`\ L'f ' ! • H i..._ d'nu ( t�� ! ,;' :F� .. �t i �if�[�:%?�f��),'sC5$JjIG_N�,t-!-r-..'�r�'�i`__.l'..�"Kb ;E�rT •r.,:r 1 ,��.1�` _iY ,.,M�v.-•. _ .. zz ?a ?% f' .j.� ,r%��s-�v•'i"�7\� _ -JC '� ilt 1r� { , y•• _-Ll i hl �tl' '•� 1 !' �\ ...�. ' .a:C t•e� -... ` • �,.. \�+ �(:�' \/ • y _�1 ; ���_ —.. �: ��J ,r�,. it ,= '��,... ;�.:. ,��,;� Ml,.. • ,-'; %bra,`? ,\� �VG.•, pri��. 'I" . � ;�� 1, �,. "_'""'��ef`},iz�i� ' •i yi r� �•.�•,�' f lY j pp� s � r..,� t,,�`: 1`l. ,`t.�i.�,M7h;�•• r,.•_<;`( a . •+:1._1_.,Yr'j;J_i%'r-<;J � -_�'• - `C ii• ...e A/' 1�ISr ��"� 7'/74 i�f`,t �l(fdL y�{{F��((ar�1t�`\�J' 1 isr...� i �� S,y.• �It.` !•i� ��.'i:..-. t. S•: n.. _... tl .. _ ,7yC.',fi�• •�- C '. t' �\�•• �Yj �'nl �1^ �', �«•' M. -..k"�ILa t7i.P.Xii .,�} �3) . li 1 • J[[yyy�,[1�a?s"., `�r(.1C4y ,� 1 :II I1 J(~`• "; Wit'` �•.�`'�.• �',,,.� `•a,.1P ryj5i`�'.P• .jOt ,�}_ �. `.:..sJ^t"{4• 'Q T� �' _t: • • I :-� `. "' iT ]'�rlti �JK: `• �,• �'"Y -. �y 1� J Y2e� 'i_a = p �.,., i .. ice..,` V `•,...._. IlI1 lrt ai{ta:t; >\ �:y 'i, .Ta}. � �T�" iiTjn;r •'_i. "a �, ii"�: �y\ i � ��"' // � .[. ••.•.(i-'/rI \ '�,�JF'rrt- "'v. '�- nr^ t } :. -•�:.. .` iucxo ..�,. �! J, lY,l `�' �( � ,,` fry '• = ,�.. A. _''�-� "•- *{ D CITY OF nEWPORT BEACH „• _ Population and Housing Dqta Statistical Areas A- ..� sm,i,nml onalo„ ' feb,wty 1972 Satisiicat Arens MAP 2 ----�:;�%<,S. `;� r l POTENTIAL &a • '" �� •• 1 ' � " PERMIT AREA BOUNDARY s •& � t' AND EXCLUSION AREAS I `"= tom. T' �' r ' it y;�rrr POTENTIAL \ I� PERMIT AREA BOUNDARY Residential Zones with 4 or More L/ Dwelling Units per Acre with More! v ? �-�': 1,000 YARD Than 80% of Lots Fully Developed- ` • PERMIT AREA BOUNDARY Commercial and Industrial Zones with ' •1;, it _ More Than 80% of Lots Fully Developed F _ �:" 'rY,� %`' \ J•' tf�� q'IN\ s��- .\:• �j rv}/y�^ ; = rj r +._4 .1 LL l jL, ! •'Y a' �a \�\W ,', a�kl�`c` ,rvq• r �'at.. ••' 17 IJ-..�j''.: {�� :+ MJ ` -U T'�`�i���� .4, On ?__< f .�1 ., _ ®-•.� • - _ �,•y.'� r ,L-•% }ry=y ' r _ `fly.... i:.::ir- F IIi `LA _ 't� +' ��> �;,i*r► -=°---. - a_:i _. _, -..:;': .-. ,�.-� _ ---_ �-=a-.. ...-. �;� �F, _-.-..` -.,... _,:-�sr,r._-,� •dam'. _ ill!'! 3'f::17f �:f � w`.'L'- s'�{s'?�p!\' .•,°. ICaiu .:i: � P��i:"I4sy..'{� / ' �, !''�': ,:," • �- ' 'OD CITY or NEWP OIrr BUICH ---- Population and Housing Data Aalidkol Areas ♦ flafi c*I Drvi i nv+--- rst,, .,Y 1972 ., _ SmtWkW a.•os r11 i City Council Meeting February 12, 1973 Council Agenda Number '' ''G-6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 6, 1973 TO: City Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 20 - PERMIT BOUNDARY AREA AND EXCLUSION AREA After voter ratification of Proposition 20 (Coastal Zone Conservation Act) in November of 1972, the City Council requested the Community Development Department to determine how Newport Beach is affected by the adoption of this initiative. In response to this request, a study was done and a report was prepared and presented at several study sessions and public hearings resulting in two possible methods of achieving the goals of Proposition 20. That portion of Newport Beach subject to the permit requirements of the initiative lies within a "permit area" which is defined in Section 27104 of Proposition 20 as follows: "'Permit area' means that portion of the coastal zone lying between the seaward limit of the jurisdiction of the state and 1,000 yards land- ward from the mean high tide line of the sea subject to the following provisions:" It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the permit area boundary be generally aligned with the first public street inland of the bluff line. There are three exceptions to this general alignment: (1) in West Newport where the permit boundary is along the City Limit; (2) north of the upper bay where the permit boundary follows Bristol Street; and (3) where the permit boundary follows Bayside Drive as shown on map 1. This alignment appears to meet the intent of the law and has much merit. It is clear that the bluff line which generally parallels the water causes a unique physical separation of the immediate Coastal Zone of Newport Beaches and the balance of the City. Therefore, only the property along the bluff face has any immediate coastal orientation or association with the low lying coastal areas and should, therefore, be included in the permit area. The Planning Commission taking this into account recommends that the permit area boundary include only the low lying Coastal land and the land along the bluff face excluding that land which is not adjacent to the bluff line and has progressively less coastal orientation. The surrounding bluff is also a unique natural resource worthy of preservation thereby limiting public access to existing roads further diminishing the coastal nature of the land behind the bluff line. It can also be seen that the alignment of the permit boundary as recom- mended by the Planning Commission includes all those large undeveloped parcels of land adjacent to or overlooking the lower coastal area just as the 1,000 yard permit area boundary would. Some modification of the 1,000 yard requirement may therefore be justified because of the unique effect caused by the•surroundtng bluff line. Two of the three exceptions to the general bluff alignment mentioned before coincide the alignment recommended as the closest alignment to the required 1,000 yards. The third exception along Bayside Drive finds its logic in the fact that the bluff line is fully developed. TO: City Council 2. It can be further noted that most•of the land between the Planning Commission's recommended line and the 1,000 yard permit area boundary meets the criteria for exclusion from the permit area with the exception of Old Corona del Mar. Therefore, the net result of the alignment recommended by the Planning Commission is to exclude Old Corona del Mar, land east of Jamboree Road adjacent to Newport Center and all those areas with lesser coastal orientation behind the bluff line; all of which would be included in a 1,000 yard alignment. In addition, the Commission's recommendation would in- clude such important natural areas as Buck Gully, and more land along the bluff top in the east bluff area, along King Road in the Cliff Haven area, along Cliff Drive in Newport Heights, and the bluff area near Hoag Hospital which would otherwise meet criteria for exclusion if the alignment was made as close to the 1,000 yard requirement as possible. However, it must be cautioned that the permit boundary as recommended by the Planning Commission no matter how logical does not meet the provision of the Act requiring that the permit area boundary be 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. Therefore, a second approach to initiative was taken, aligning the permit boundary as closely as possible to the 1,000 yard permit area line using primary streets and, when neces- sary, property lines as shown on map 2. Such an alignment would meet both the letter and the intent of the law with the possible exception of the exclusion of the natural areas previously mentioned. Of the additional provisions defining the permit area, only one is of immediate concern to the City. This provision provides for the exclusion of land residentially, commercially or industrially zoned and developed in excess of specific standards. The provision states: "(c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential, area zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial or industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for such use on or before January 1, 1972, may, after public hearing, be excluded by the regional commission at the request of a city or county within which such area is located. An urban land area i•s 'stabilized' if 80 percent of the lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted by the applicable zoning regulations existing on January 1, 1972." For the purpose of determining exclusion areas, it was assumed that lots zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4 were fully developed if two or more dwelling units or if any development other than residential occu- pied a lot. Commercial and industrial zoned lots were considered to be fully developed if any commercial or industrial use existed on such a lot. Lots in the unclassified district were considered fully developed if they were obviously developed to an extent which would preclude any major intensification of use in the forseeable future. These lots were placed in either the residentially or com- mercially zoned category based on the actual use. A restriction was placed on the exclusion of waterfront lots from the permit area even though they are properly zoned and developed in excess of the standards: "Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immediately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded." Proposition 20 gives the Regional Commission the power to make orders granting exclusions "subject to conditions which shall assure r TO: City Council 3. that no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses occurs". Also, the Regional Commission may revoke, at any time after a public hearing, any order granting exclusion of land from the permit area. In accordance with the provisions of Proposition 20 and the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission, the two maps identify poten- tial areas of exclusion. Data to determine the areas of exclusion was collected by statistical area. Statistical area data for residentially zoned lots was taken from the "Land Use Survey Sheets" prepared by the Community Development Department. Data for commer- cially and industrially zoned lots was based on hand counts of lots and uses as indicated on the land use maps. The results of this analysis are shown on the attached maps and statistical summary sheets. As indicated, residential zones with- in the following statistical areas meet the criteria for exclusion: A2; B1; Cl and 2; D4; H1, 2, 3, and 4; J1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; K1, 2, and 3; Ll. Commerci-al and industrial zones within the following statistical areas meet the criteria for exclusion: A2; B4; E1 and 3; F1 and 4; G1; H1, 3 and 4; J2; and K1 and 2. However, at the request of the Planning Commission, the commercial area located in Statistical Area H4 along the Coast Highway has been eliminated from map 1 and all commercial areas on map 2 were eliminated from exclusion by motion of the Planning Commission. Also indicated is that neither the residentially zoned, nor the commercially or industrially zoned areas meet the criteria for ex- clusion when aggregated and considered as single areas. For all residential zones, the overall average density is approximately 11 dwelling units per acre but the percentage of "fully developed" lots is only 78.7 percent just short of the 80 percent criteria. For all commercial and industrial zones, the percentage of "fully developed" lots is 75.7 percent, again short of the 80 percent criteria. (In both cases the liberal definition of "fully developed lot" was used, i.e., 2 or more dwelling units on an R2, R3 or R4 lot and any commercial or industrial use on any commercially or in- dustrially zoned lot.) Based on this analysis, there is apparently no basis for requesting exclusion of all relatively developed portions of the City of Newport Beach from the Proposition 20 permit area. However, it may be possible to combine some areas, and divide others, in order to maximize the total area within the City which meets the criteria for consideration as a possible exclusion area by the Regional Com- mission. If this was done, the question of whether this would appear as an attempt to subvert the intent of Proposition 20 should be considered. Also to be considered,is the provision thatautho- rizes the Regional Commission to place conditions on any order granting exclusion which "shall assure that no significant change in density, height or nature of uses occurs." Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RODNEY L. GUNN, ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR By Craig T. Bluell, Associate Planner CTB/ddb Q t4IQ 9- Qd9rs _ ieg February 8, 1973 The Honorable Donald A. McInnes Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Beach Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Mayor McInnes: It is my understanding the City Council study session, scheduled for February 12, will deal with the adoption of a map showing the exclusionary boundaries as specified by Proposition 20, approved by the voters of California last November. An article entitled "N.B. Seeking Exemption From Coast Control Law", appeared in the Newport Harbor Ensign, December 28, 1972, and included a map of Newport Beach showing the 1,000 yard landward limit from the mean high tide line, as well as, specifying those areas "stablized" (at least 80% developed) as prescribed by Pro- position 20. The Bluffs, a development by Holstein Industries, falls within the 1000 yard boundary of the mean high tide tide line and calculated by the Newport Beach Advanced Planning Department to be 80.7% "stablized", therefore, likely to be recommended for exclusion to the Regional Coastal Commission. Last Thursday evening, February 1, the Planning Commission adopted a different map to be proposed to the City Council interpreting the intent of Proposition 20 and the Regional'Coastal Commission. The intention of the new map was to set the boundary involving only water -oriented coastal properties. A new line was drawn splitting The Bluffs into water -oriented and non water -oriented property by using Vista del Oro as the delineating marker. The staff was then instructed by the Planning Commission to re- commend areas for exclusion consistent with the Planning Commission's interpretation of Proposition 20. According to the Advanced Planning Department, The Bluffs now does not qualify for exclusion because the development was not at least 80% "stablized" prior to January 1, 1973. Holstein Industries asks your indulence in attempting to come up with a map more realistic to the established Proposition 20 boundaries. It seems quite unfair that The Bluffs, a planned development, can through the in- terpretation by the Planning Commission, be split, considered not 80% 170 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 •(AREA 714) 642.9660 OR 548--5548 0 0 The Honorable Donald A. McInnes February 8, 1992 Page Two "stablized", and therefore, not qualify for recommendation to be excluded. When in fact, this should qualify The Bluffs for exclusion within the letter of the law of Proposition No. 20. Our staff will be present at the study session and will be more than happy to show the City Council the inequities as related to The Bluffs. 4je are looking forward to meeting with you. Your�ry truly, Robert F. Martin Assistant' to the President cc: Councilman Howard Rogers• Councilman Richard Croul Councilman Milan Do'stal Councilman Carl Kymla, Councilman Paul Ryckoff, Councilman John Store Mr, Dick Hogan, Newport Beach Community Development Director Mr. Jim Hewicker, Assistant Community Development Director Mr. Rod Gunn, Advance Planning Department Mr. Craig Bluell, Advance Planning Department COMMISSIONERS OITY OF NEWPORT 9�m� vmyPO a ami inFebruary 1. 1973 BACH MINUTES INDEX Recommendations to the City Council setting Item #13 boundaries for the Coastal Conservation Zone were discussed by the Planning Commission. - Advance Planning Administrator Gunn appeared before the Planning Commission and reviewed the boundaries proposed as indicated on a wall map which basically followsthe first public street behind the bluff line on top of the plateau. Planning Commission discussed the various exclusion areas within the proposed boundaries. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made to recommend Ayes X X Y X X to the City Council that the boundaries as discusse Noes X be approved as the boundaries for the Coastal Absent X Conservation Zone. Motion Y In connection with recommended exclusion areas, Item #14 motion was made that the areas consisting of Newport Shores, Lido Isle, Peninsula Point, Bay - shores and Park Newport be included as the residen- tial areas subject to exclusion. Motion X Following discussion relative to residential Ayes X X X exclusion areas, a substitute motion was made Noes X X X that within the proposed boundaries as previously Absent X recommended, there be no exclusions. Motion failed S, / due to a lack of majority votes. Motion X Another substitute motion was made that the staff Ayes X X X X be directed to prepare a recommendation to the Noes X X City Council providing residential -exclusion areas Absent X which were consistent with �Propiti _oson 20. Since the motion carried, there was no neee to vote on the original motion as made by Commissioner Glass. Motion X Planning Commission discussed commercial exclusion All Ayes areas within the proposed boundaries after which motion was made that no commercial areas be excluded. Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 792 Item #15 All Ayes setting a public hearing for March 15, 1973, to consider adoption of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Page 8. w . y CITY OF LONG BEACH LOUIS F. JOBST, JR. Director of Morine-ond Industrial Davalopment Dick Hogan Newport Beach Planning Director 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Hogan, Post Office Box 570 Long Beach. California eosol January 30, 1973 Confirming our telephone conversation of today, we request the following for use of South Coast Regional Commission (Proposition 20): (1) .Your best estimate of the number of permit applications per day/per month/per year that the South Coast Regional Commission can expect to receive from the area of your jurisdiction. We would also like an estimate or statement of the present backlog of permits in your juris- diction. This information is vital to the organization and funding of commission operations, and is needed as expeditiously as possible. (2) A detailed description, placed on the latest copy of the Coast and Geodetic Survey 7-1/2 Minute Map, of what the City of Newport Beach considers within its jurisdiction the specific and detailed boundaries of the permit area of Proposition 20. Additionally, we would appreciate your best judgment, on a separate map if possible, of what Newport Beach would consider the general and specific boundaries of the optimum planning zone in your jurisdiction. We need this information as quickly as possible and most cordially urge you to place a high priority on fulfilling these requests. Should the use of Coast and Geodetic maps create a significant delay in getting this information to the Commission, we suggest you use an alternate map of good detail of your choice. We would appreciate it if you -would send the data and maps to this office by either messenger or special delivery. Sinp-.1 ly, ,J- - - •r �v Louis F. Jobst Acting Secre a � I�f :� �`�j? cPti�i• �jj • ADRIAN KUYPER COUNTY COUNSEL CLAYTON H. PARKER CIIIET ASSISTAIIT ROBERT F. NUTTMAN WILLIAM J. MCCOURT ASSISTANTS . JOHN M. PATTERSON ARTHUR C. WAHLSTEDT, JR. JOHN W. ANDERSON LAURENCE M. WATSON VICTOR T. BELLERUE JOHN R. GRISET JOHN F. POWELL CHARLES B. SEVIER WALTER O. WEBSTER IRYNE C. BLACK RALPH W. BENSON MARVIN G. WEEKS SPENCER E. COVERT, JR. TERENCE R. RICE ROBERT H. SAN CHEZ KENNARD R. SMART, JR. JANE A. SIEGRIST DEPUTIES J OFFICES OF THITIEE. CONY (CGUNSE , V♦ ''wG i•1 iVdL kI ��II j is;- !G.=• Mr. F. G. McLellan, J.r., Director Building and Safety 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 range O. BOX 1379 • SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92702 • 834.3300 26, 1973 Re: Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20) Dear Mr. McLellan: FILE NO,-. P-225 R ,000 o 4 DBNepaP 6 � This letter is intended to supplement our memorandum of this date to the Board -of Supervisors, Planning Commission and concerned departments regarding Proposition 20. Although the County is not primarily responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act insofar as they pertain to private development, we believe the County should make it clear that local permits are issued in addi- tion to, and not in lieu of, permits under the Act. We suggest that a notice, substantially in the form set forth below, be given with each permit you issue for work in the permit area: "NOTICE The work authorized by this permit is 'development' within the ''permit area' as those terms are defined in the California Coastal Zone Conservation. Act. A permit from the South Coast Regional Commission may be required before you can legally proceed with the work authorized by Mr. F. G. McLellan, Jr. - 2 - January 26, 1973 this permit. THIS PEP14IT DOES NOT EXCUSE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE. CONSERVATION ACT. Questions regarding the applicability of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act to the work authorized by this permit should be referred to the South Coast Regional Commission or an attorney." The notice could be stamped on each permit. As mentioned in our memorandum, such a notice should be given to those who are issued certificates of use and occupancy for land or buildings in the permit area. The language may have to be adapted to fit particular permits. We also think it advisable to inform persons holding permits for work in the permit area•that their County permit does not authorize proceeding in violation of Proposition 20, particularly those who have been issued permits since November 7th. For your convenience, we have attached a draft letter which might be used for this purpose. The wording, of course, can be changed as you see fit, but in view of the many unresolved questions concerning Proposition 20 we do not believe the letter should attempt to interpret the Act. We would be pleased. to work with your staff on any questions presented by Proposition 20. The draft ordinances referred to on pages 3 and 5 of our memorandum are being prepared and will be sent to you by separate letter. Very truly yours, ADRIAN 1(UYPER, COUNTY COUNSEL By_� R, phv47. Be , Deputy RWB:cm Enclosure ccs: Board of Supervisors Planning Commission Robert E. Thomas, Administrative Officer Forest Dickason, Planning William Fitchen, Agricultural Commissioner Kenneth Sampson, Harbor District L. McConville, Road Department Stanley E. Krause, Real Property Services Dr. J. R. Philp, Attn: R. Stone, Health Dept. H. G. Osborne, Flood Control District J. J. Smisek, Building Services 1 DRAFT LETTER TO HOLDERS OF PERMITS WITHIN 1,000 YARDS OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE Re: California Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20) It appears from our records that you currently have a permit issued by the County of Orange for work within 1,000 yards of the mean high tide line. Please be advised that your permit does not authorize you to proceed in violation of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act (generally referred to as Proposition 20). Relevant excerpts from the Act are attached. We_ regret that the County is unable to give you any more definitive information on the applicability of the Act to your development at this time. The South Coast Regional Commission, which is responsible for'issuing such permits, is required by the Act to adopt procedures for processing applications. The Commission is now in the process of organizing, and we suggest that any questions you have be referred to the Commission upon its formation or to an attorney. 27400. On or after f••ebruary 1. 1979, any person wishing to perh,rut anv dvvelopniwn within the permit area shall obtain a permit authortzmg -Such development from the regional •-ommission and, it required by law• from any city, county, - state, regional or local agency. Except =provided in Sections 27401 and 27422, no permit shall be issued without the afOrn:alive vole of a•majority of the total authorized member- ship of the regional commission,or of the commis- sion on appeal- 27404.• If, prior to the effective date of this division, any city or county has issued a building permit, no person who has obtained a vested right thereunder shall be required to secure a permit from the regional commission: providmg that no ,substantial changes may be made in any such *development, except in accordance v.ath the pro- visions of this division. Any such person shall be deemed to have such vested rights if,pnor to April 1, 1972, he' has in good faith and in reliance upon the building permit diligently commenced construc- tion and performed substantial work on the develop- ment and incurred substantial liabdd:es for work and' materials necessary therefor. Expenses in- curred in obtaining the enactment of an•ordmance b •relation to •the particular development or the issuance of a permit shall not be deemed liabili- ties for work or material. 27500,. Any, person who vinlatps any provision of this division shall be subject Gi a civil fine nct to exceed ten thousand,dollars t$10,009). MO. In addition to any other penalties, any Orson who performs any development in violation of this division shall be subject to a civil fine not to exceed five hundred dollars (MO) per day for Bich day in which such violation persists. 91 // CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY. DEVELOPMENT January 30, 1 TO: Rod Gunn FROM: Building Division Supervisor SUBJECT: Building Construction for Calendar Year 1973 During the calendar year 1972, 3196 building permits were issued with a valuation of $105,571,439. This established a record of approximately 20 million dollars more than the previous year in which 2319 permits were issued with a valuation of $84,271,322. We have estimated a valuation of 80 million dollars for the fiscal year 1973-74. Based upon this estimate, it is our feeling that we will issue approximately 80 to 85 million dollars of valuation 'on permits for the calendar year 1973. Accordingly, the number of building permits which we are estimating should be in the neighborhood of 2500. AkBIF 4WLE pv I r 0 r DEL WEBB�S IIOT JAMBOREE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH,CAIIFORNIA 62080 (714) 544-1700 NIGRO. JR. MANAGER City Council of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: January 29, 1973 We recently learned that the City of Newport Beach Community 'Development Department has submitted a proposal to the City Council requesting an exemption of certain areas of the City from the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20). It is our understanding that one of the areas included within the proposed exemption is the land on which the Newporter Inn complex is located. Prior to the passage of the Coastal Zone initiative, we began to formulate plans to expand our facilities. We are currently finalizing these plans for the addition to the Monte Carlo Room which has already received the approval of the Planning Commission. We are looking forward to commencing construction on the project in the near future. However, as a result of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, there is now a question as to whether we can commence construction of the additional facility as planned;. Passage by the City Council of the proposed exemption and, hopefully, approval of the exemption by the South Coast Regional Commission would assure us the right to construct our new addition. These facilities would contribute to the economic health of our entire area. As a result of these facts, we hope that the City Council will approve the proposed request for exemption as submitted by the City Council of Newport Beach 2. January 29, 1973 Community Development Department and will then submit it to the South Coast Regional Commission. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation regarding this matter. Sincerely, EDWARD M. GRO UP. General Manager EMN:abl R. V. Hogan R. L. [Lunn. Regi-onal Coastal Commission (Proposition 20) 1. Out of the twelve members on the Commissions politicking before the meeting indicated eleven candidates for chair- man. There,appea-red to bea general feeling of mistrust. After the role,of the chairman was limited to, conducting the meeting, i..e,,, no power to appoint committees, etc.', Professor Rooney of Long Beach State was elected on the first vote. j 2. Held election for state representative. 'Apparently this is a key position on Regional Commission. All contro- versial permits to be appealed to State Board, and also State Board wilt"set policy and'gufidelines for operation of Regional Commission. Hayes was elected State representa- tive on sixth ballot (Ur. Bright was his opposition) -, Los Angeles County Supervisor and former Long Beach Council- man. 3. Agreed on -temporary mailing address and headquarters. Long Beach Harbor De-partment offered free meeting room and office space,- which was accepted. Meetings and staff will be operating at 952 Harbor Plaza, P.Q. Box 5'70, Long Beach, California 90801. 4. Set up subcommittee$ for personnel (dudy'kos•ener is a member); budget guidelines to be submitted to State Board (Caspers and $right are members); and procedures (Rosener i; a membe-r), 5, Orange County is not represented on state board, Long Beach has two representatives. G. There will be another meeting on Friday at 200 where sub -committees are to report back. 1. Meeting of State Board U Sacramento on Wednesday. Apparently State Board will sect up cI dellne.s,.for handling permits, exclusion areas and determining the permit zone, State tommisstonrwili bs main policywraaking;board. Hayes will report;to the Rsgjonail•_Commission.on Friday, the results of Wednesday State Board meeting, TO: R. V. Hogan w 24 8. We have to submit to the Commission within thirty days our recommendations for.the permit zone boundary. To meet the thirty day requirement, we should go to- Council on February 12 (can discuss it at the;y.oint meeting on January 29)*, 91' The Attorney General's representative said that until'the State Board setup guidelines for a permit procedure, the Commission could not accept permits. They have received several thousand already. Attorney .General's office will send out form letters saying they must reapply. The Regional Commission will have to start accepting permits on F'ebru'ary 1, by state law, On Wednesday the state Board will have to at least set up interim guidelines for accepting permits. 10. Also mentioned receiving requests from cities'for exclusion, areas. The Regional Commission will not do ,anything until they have state guidelines. Hopefully there ,will be guide- lines after the Wednesday meeting. Apparently the Governor is providing a temporary staff. January 23 1973 R. L M n/L6. 1 February 1, 1973 Mr. Thomas T.erich Oregon State University Department of Geography Corvallis, Oregon M 31 Dear Tom: In response to your requast for informati-on on pry+ asttfon 2Q� we are sendinq a copy of the proposition, as pas,"act,'vrith Chis letter. A3 indidatctd in Proposition 20, the California Con -still Zone Commission is responsible for development of•the California', Coastal zone Conservation Plan. For further in -formation, you tan contact; Mr. Joseph EodovitZj Executive Director California Coastal Zone Commission C/o D.-C; D. C. 30 Van Ness San Francispoo California 94102 I hope this is helRful. Very truly yours, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RODNEY L. 6UNN1,ADVANCE PI,ANMING ADMINISTRATOR 6y owe , auras senior"Ma"nnier '- TEC/ddb Attchmt.; Copy of Proposition 20 0SU CORVALLIS, OREGON 97331 January 14, 1973 Mr. James Hewicker Assistant Planning Director City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Jims OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY As I understand, the recent passage in California of proposition 20 has given to the State of California greater power over coastal planning. The Geography Department and the School of Oceanography at O.S.U. would like to contact the state agency responsible for coastal planning in California. We wish to institute an information exchange and open the door for future grant proposals. Rather than tackle the Sacramento maise, my first thought' was to contact you on the grounds that your offices have already had dealings with the state. Can you give me the name and address of the state office involved and names of some of its top people? As I said in the beginning I am unclear as to the state's involvment. Is a State agency actively doing coastal planning, or has their been established a review board to oversee coastal community plans? Well,perhaps you can clarify my ignorance on the subject. Thanks very much for your Bill and Kay. Sincerely, —/ — rr»-N Thomas Terich help. Give my regards to Rod, A f January 4, 1973 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM 4-C 1 'FILE copy Do NOT REMOVg 4 Proposition 20 - Potential Exclusion Areas After voter ratification of Proposition 20 (Coastal Zone Conserva- tion Act) in November of 1972, the Community Development Department was requested to determine which areas within the City may qualify for exclusion from the permit requirement create.d�,Uypthe,naddptiidn. of thtti.lfhKtiative. The portion of Newport Beach subject to the permit requirements of the initiative lies within a "permit area" which is defined in Section 27104 of Proposition 20 as follows: "'Permit area' means that portion of the coastal zone lying between the seaward limit of the jurisdiction of the state and 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line of the sea subject to the following provisions:"1 Of the additional provisions defining the ,permit area, only one is of immediate concern to the City. This provision provides for the ex- clusion of land residentially, commercially or industrially zoned and developed in excess of specific standards. The provision states: "(c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial or industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized fo.r such use on or before January 1, 1972, may, after public hearing, be excluded by the regional commission at the request of a city or county within which such area is located. An Urban land area is 'stabilized' if 80.percent of the lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted by the applicable zoning regulations existing on January 1, 1972." For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that lots zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4 were fully developed if two or more dwelling units or if any development other than residential occupied a lot. Commercially and industrially zoned lots were considered to be fully developed if 1The precise alignment of the permit area boundary is subject to revision (and hopefully rationalization) per Section 27104(d): "(d) Each regional commission shall adopt a map delineating the precise boundaries of the permit area within 60 days after its first meeting and file a copy of such map in the office of the county clerk of each county within its region." .« r TO: r� u City Council - 2. any commercial or industrial use existed on such a lot. Lots in the unclassified district were considered fully developed if they were obviously developed to an extent which would preclude any major intensification of use in the foreseeable future. These lots were placed in either the residentially or commercially zoned cate- gory based on the actual use. A restriction was placed on the exclusion of waterfront lots from the permit area even though they are properly zoned and developed in ex- cess of the standards: "Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immedi- ately adjacent to the inland.extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded." Proposition 20 gives the regional commission the power to make orders granting exclusions subject to conditions which shall assure that no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses occurs." Also, the regional commission may revoke, at any time after a public hearing, any order granting exclusion of land from the permit area. In accordance with the provisions of -Proposition 20,.a map was pre- pared identifying the scope of the permit area in Newport -Beach, and data was collected by statistical area to determine which portions of the City would qualify for exclusion. Statistical area data for, residentially zoned lots was taken from the"Land Use Survey Sheets" prepared by the Community Development Department. Data for commercial- ly and industrially zoned lots was based on hand counts of lots and uses as indicated on the land use maps. The initial results of this analysis are shown on the attached map and statistical summary sheets. As indicated, residential zones within the following statistical areas meet the criteria for exclusion: A2; B1; Cl and 2; D4; H1, 2, 3,. and 4: J1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; K1, 2, and 3; Ll. Commercial and industrial zones within the following statis- tical areas meet the criteria forlexclusion: A2; B4; E1 and 3; F1 and 4; G1; H1, 3 and 4: J2; and K1 and 2. Neither the residentially zoned, nor the commercially or industrially zoned areas meet the criteria for exclusion when aggregated and coh- sidered as a whole. For all residential.zones, the over-all average density is approximately 11 dwelling units per acre but the percentage of "fully developed" lots is only 78.7 percent, just short of the 80 percent criteria. For all commercial and industrial zones, the per- centage of "fully developed" lots is 75.7 percent, again short of the 80 percent criteria. (In both cases the liberal definition of "fully developed lot" was used, i.e., 2 or more dwelling units on an R2, R3 or:R4 lot and any commercial or industrial use on any commercially or industrially zoned lot.) Based on this analysis, a combination of all developed areas would not qualify for exclusion. It may be possible to increase the potential exclusion area on Balboa Peninsula to i-nclude all of the residential zones,, If all residential zones on the Peninsula (statistical areas D1, 2, 3, and 4) were com- bined and he as a single area, the overall average density would be 20.5 dwelling units per acre and the percentage of lots "fully developed" would be 80.5; thus barely meeting the criteria for consid- eration by the regional commission as a possible exclusion area. How- ever, the fact that there is considerable potential for residential growth under current zoning in statistical areas D1, 2, and 3, and the very liberal definition of "fully developed" residential lot that was assumed (and that must be used if these areas are to meet the 80 percent criteria), makes the request for exclusion of the entire Peninsula questionable. Also, it should be kept in mind.that the regional com- mission is authorized to place conditions on any exclusion order which "shall assure that no significant change in density, height, or nature of use occurs." N 0 TO: City Council - 3. If the Council desires, staff will include all of the residential zones on the Peninsula in the exclusion area request which will be submitted to the regional commission. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RVH/TEC/kk Attachments: Analysis of Residential Zones Analysis of Commercial and Industrial Zones Potential Exclusion Areas Map • NE I low r POTENTIAL EXCLUSION AREAS Residential Zones with 4 or More r_. Dwelling Units per Acre with More Than 80% of Lots Fully Developed Commercial and Industrial Zones with More Than 80% of Lots Fully Developed �• '. 1 . f • �. Y''r •' , "� � hdillxf,��N ,r a \ PERMIT AREA BOUNDARY \ JI L2 R\1/ t. M5 Ll elt' ;.y ___ _,:-. a -• � - - - - Ifi"- ` * � °,� M P Pry-`f •� . I r• 1 \\� ,. � ` _� �lil 1'C Ill 3s�N+y. /�,'•r#1��t�, �y� 1 �F+ q. p,n " CITY OF HE WPORT REACH •\' omaoe <awn, uwowit Pcpalation and Housing Data Statistical Areas A' .� flminrot Oir,ionYl- 11 r/ February 7, 1973 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Meeting' February 12, 1973 Council Agenda Number " " ' G-6 ' CITY OF NEVPORT BEACH FILE cop` im NOT re"oiI; City •Council Community Development Department PROPOSITION 20 - PERMIT BOUNDARY AREA AND EXCLUSION AREA After voter, ratification of Proposition 20 (Coastal Zone Conservation• Act) in November of 1972, the City Council requested the Community Development Department to determine how Newport Beach is affected by the adoption of this initiative. In response to this request, a report was prepared and presented at several study sessions and public hearings. The portion of Newport Beach that is subject to permit requirements is defined in Section 27104 of Proposition 20 as follows: 'Permit area' means that portion of the coastal zone lying between the seaward limit of the juris- diction of the state and 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line of the sea subject to the following provisions: "Each Regional Commission shall adopt a map delineating the precise boundaries of the permit area within 60 days after its first meeting and file a copy of such map in the office of the County Clerk of each County within its region." It became apparent there are two distinct approaches as to how the objectives of Proposition 20 can best be achieved. It is'the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission that the permit area boundary be generally aligned with the first public street inland of the bluff line. There are three exceptions to this general alignment: (1) in West Newport where the permit boundary is along the City Limit; (2) north of the upper bay where the permit boundary follows Bristol Street; and (3) where the permit boundary follows Bayside Drive as shown on map. 1. This alignment appears to meet the intent of the law and has con- siderable merit. It is clear that the bluff line which generally parallels the water causes a unique physical separation of the immediate Coastal Zone of Newport Beach and the balance of the City. Therefore, only the property along the bluff face has any immediate coastal orientation or association with the low lying coastal areas. It can also be seen that the alignment of the permit boundary as recommended by the Planning Commission includes all those large un- developed parcels of land adjacent to or overlooking the lower coastal area just as the 1,000 yard permit area boundary would. It can be further noted that most of the land between the Planning Commission's recommended line and the 1,000 yard permit area boundary meets the criteria for exclusion from the permit require- ment with the exception of Old Corona del Mar. Therefore, the net • TO: City Council 2. result of the alignment recommended by the Planning Commission is to exclude Old Corona del Pear, land east of Jamboree Road adjacent to Newport Center and all. those areas with lesser coastal orientation behind the bluff line, all of which would be included in a 1,000 Yard alignment. In addition, the Commission's recommendation would include such important natural areas as Buck Gully, and more land along the bluff top in the east bluff area. However, it must be cautioned that the permit boundary as recommended by the Planning Commission no matter how logical does not meet a strict interpre- tation of the Act that would require the permit area boundary be 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. Therefore, a second approach to initiative was taken, aligning the permit boundary as closely as possible to the 1,000 yard permit area line using primary streets and, when necessary, property lines as shown on map 2. Such an alignment would meet both the letter and the intent of the law. Of the additional provisions defining the permit area, only one is of immediate concern to the City. This provision provides for the exclusion of land residentially, commercially or industrially zoned a.nd developed in excess of specific standards•. The provision states: (c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial or industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for such use on or before January 1, 1972, may, after public hearing, be excluded by the regional commission at the request of a city or county within which such area is Iodated. An urban land area is 'stabilized' if 80 percent of the lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted by the applicable zoning'regulations existing on January 1, 1972." For the purpose of determining exclusion areas, it was assumed that lots zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4 were fully developed if two or more dwelling units or if any development other than residential occu- pied a lot. Commercial and industrial zoned lots were considered to be fully developed if any commercial -or industrial use existed on such a lot. Lots in the unclassified district were considered fully developed if they were obviously developed to an extent which would preclude any major intensification of use in the forseeable future. These lots were placed in either the residentially or com- mercially zoned category based on the actual use. A restriction was placed on the exclusion of waterfront lots from the permit area even though they are properly zoned and developed in excess of the standards: "Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immediately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded." Proposition 20 gives the Regional Commission the power to make orders granting exclusions "subject to conditions which shall assure that no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses occurs". Also, the Regional Commission may revoke, at any time after a public hearing, any order granting exclusion of land from the permit area. In accordance with the provisions of Proposition 20 and the recom- mendations of the Planning Commission, two maps were prepared iden- tifying potential exclusion areas. Data to determine the areas of exclusion was collected by statistical area. Statistical area data for residentially zoned lots was taken from the"Land Use Survey Sheets" prepared by the Community Development Department. Data for 0 • ✓' TO: City Council 3. commercially and industrially zoned lots was based on hand counts of lots and uses as Indicated on the'land use maps. The results of this analysis are shown on the attached maps and statistical summary sheets. As indicated, residential zones with- in the following statistical areas meet the criteria for exclusion: A2; B1; Cl and 2; D4; H1, 2, 3; and 4;-J1, 2, 3; 4 and 5; K1, 2, and 3; L1. Commercial and industrial zones within the following statistical areas meet the criteria for exclusion: A2; B4; E1 and 3; F1 and 4; G1; Hl, 3 and 4; J2; and K 1 and 2. However, the commercial area located in Statistical Area H4 along the Coast - Highway has been eliminated from map 1 by staff and all commercial areas on map 2 were eliminated from exclusion by motion of the Planning Commission. Also indicated is that neither the residentially zoned, nor the commercially or industrially zoned areas meet the criteria for ex- clusion when aggregated and considered as single areas. For all residential zones, the overall average density is approximately 11 dwelling units per acre but the percentage of "fully developed" lots is only 78.7 percent just short of the 80 percent criteria. For all commercial and industrial zones, the percentage of "fully developed" lots is 75.7 percent, again short of the 80 percent criteria. (In both cases the liberal definition of "fully developed lot" was used, i.e., 2 or more dwelling units on a R2, R3 or R4 lot and any commercial or industrial use on any commercially or in- dustrially zoned lot.) Based on this analysis, there is apparently no basis for requesting exclusion of all relatively developed por- tions of the City of Newport Beach from the Proposition 20 permit area. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RODNEY L. GUNN, ADVANCE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR By Craig T. Bluell, Associate Planner CTB/ddb e i Stat. Area that Commercial or Industrial Zones Lie Within ANALYSIS OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONFS FILE Copy , DO Wrlirgdoyp f Total Lots That Are Area Description Fully Developed A2 8-1 B4 Hospital Road and Superior Avenue + r �+ u s� h-we-'--S t-r4 p Balboa Boulevard and Coast Highway 100.0 100.0 •D-1 96 a n d � Ba-1�•o•rRena-n s-ua-a—(-s-c-a� t-e•red—c o•mm e-re i-a 1 ) C�-7R-4 g.3 '' e•n �t=a-1—B•a 1-b•o•a --- �:-•-0� El and 3 All Balboa Island Commercial Zones 85.4 Fl and 4 Corona del Mar (Coast Highway) 94.0 G1 Bayside Shopping Center and Commercial Area at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway 100.0 H1 Old Newport (North Newport Boulevard) ^east 98.0 J2 {i4 and H3 Westcliff Drive and Dover Drive 100.0 K1 Newporter Inn 100.0 K2 Eastbluff Plaza 100.0 t 0 ANALYSIS OF RESIDENTIAL ZONES Stat. Area that Net Density Residential Zones (Dwelling Lie Within Area Description Units/Acre) A2 Condominiums Hoag Hospital NeFf11,(3y 17.8 B 1 6.3 Percent of Total Lots that Are Fullv Deve 100.0 92.7 j�YYCJ 4 6-4 Cl and 2 Lido Island 13.1 93.4 fla—� 23.8 7 8 .-9 =Ba-1-boa—P-ena-n-s•u la D•3�--- 3fl--3 6.6 :-4 54_ 64 F1 Irvine Terrace 4.6 99.0 1.6--3 G6 w3 F5, 6, 7 and 8 East Corona del Mar 4.02 91.3 G;---B H1, 2 and 3, Newport Heights, Cliffhaven 7.3 86.5 H4 �Bayshores 9.2 100.0 J1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 Westcliff, Harbor Highlands, Dover Shores, Upper Bay 8.3 95.2 K1, 2 and 3 Park Newport, Bluffs, East Bluffs 7.46 80.73 Ll Grandville Apartments 5.6 100.0 T8;FftF ...................................1.0. ................ -8-fr6• C'�mmu.nit.y_D ev e-1•o p m ent—Ehe P•�- RiG�nn�EC Hd'dt�rp^ br.ry ._8 , 1 7 !-3- Stat. Area or Div. That Exclusion Lies Within H1,2 & 3 H4 All of H J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 All of J K1 2 II'M 2 & K3 -r&w _ RESIDENTIAL ZONES _ Number of Lots Lots Full Dev. Net -of _No. of D.U.'s Land Net Gross - Total (Res. Zone Area Den- _Gross Area Den - Bev. Vac. Total No. Lots Only) (a.) sity (a.) sity 1316 35 1361 1168 86.5% 1509 207.9 7.3 311.24 4.85 234 0 234 234 100.0% 285 30.9 9.2 45.54 6.23 1550 35 1585 1402 88.45% 1794 238.8 7.5 356.78 5.03 334 50 384 334 87.0% 333 93.2 3.6 155 0 155 155 100.0% 526 40.5 13.0 446 15 461 446 96.7 446 82.6 5.4 3.197 139.5 619 13 632 619 97.9 620 114.6 5.4 142.49 4.35 369 18 387 369 95.3 385 92.9 4.1 1923 96 2019 1923 95.2% 2310 423.8 5.45 597.5 3.9 1 0 1 1 100.0% 860 49.7 17.3 933 333 1266 933 73.69% 1137 173.5 6.6 206.63 5.5 461 0 461 461 100.0 461 106.1 4.3 157.15 2.93 1394 333 1727 1394 80.71% 1598 279.6 5.7 363.8 4.39 /. &ka.i'. ¢ iincl ded ;rt 4ZZx6 • y JL 'Z. ��fIK �I'T Ib7 i rtGP.adctGd I�il S6e+`� <w �z • i City Council Meeting C1 r p i Council Agenda Number'' DO' NOT RCMOV41 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 27, 1972 TO: City Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 20 - POTENTIAL EXCLUSION AREAS - After voter ratification of Proposition 20 (Coastal Zone Conservation Act) in November of 1972, the Community Development Department was re- quested to determine which areas within the City may qualify for ex- clusion from the' permit requirement -by the adoption of this initiative. The portion of Newport Beach subject to the permit requirements of the initiative lies within a "permit area" which is defined in Section 27104 of Proposition 20 as follows: "'Permit area' means that portion of the coastal zone lying between the seaward limit of the jurisdiction of the state and 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line of the -sea subject to the following provisions:"' Of the additional provisions defining the permit area, only one is of immediate concern to the City. This provision provides for the exclu- sion of land residentially, commercially or industrially zoned and developed in excess of specific standards. The provision states: "(c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial or industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for such use on o.r before January 1, 1972, may, 1 • The precise alignment of the permit area boundary is subject to revision (and hopefully rationalization) per Section 27104(d): "(d) Each regional commission shall adopt a map delineating the precise boundaries of the permit area within 60 days after its first meeting and file a copy of such map in the office of the county clerk of each county within its region." TO: City Council 2. after public hearing, be excluded by the regional com- mission at the request of a city or county within which such area is located. An urban land area is 'stabilized' if 80 percent of the lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted by the applicable zoning regulations existing on January 1, 1972." For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that lots zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4 were fully developed if two or more dwelling units or if any development other than residential occupied a lot. Commercial and'industrial zoned lots were considered to be fully developed if any commercial or industrial use existed on'such a lot. Lots in the unclassified district were considered fully de- veloped if they were obviously developed to an extent which would preclude any major intensification of use in the forseeable future. These lots were placed in either the residentially or commercially zoned category based on the actual use. A restriction was placed on the exclusion of waterfront lots from the permit area even though they are properly zoned and developed in excess of the standards: "Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immedi- ately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded." Proposition 20 gives the regional commission the power to make orders granting exclusions "subject to conditions which shall assure that no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses occurs." Also, the regional commission may revoke, at any time after a public hearing, any order granting exclusion of land from the permit area. 1r,1A City Council 3. In accordance with the provisions of Proposition 20, a map was prepared identifying the scope of the permit area in Newport Beach, and data was collected by statistical area to determine which por- tions of the City would qualify for exclusion. Statistical area data for residentially zoned lots was taken from the "Land Use Survey Sheets" prepared by the Community Development Department. Data for commercially,and industrially zoned lots was based on hand counts of lots and uses as indicated on the land use maps. The initial results of this analysis are shown on the attached map and statistical summary sheets. As indicated, residential zones within the following statistical areas meet the criteria for ex- clusion: A2; B1; Cl and 2; D4; H1, 2, 3, and 4; J1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; K1, 2, and 3; L1. Commercial and industrial zones within the following statistical areas meet the criteria for exclusion: A2; B4; E1 and 3; F1 and 4; G1; H1, 3 and 4; J2; and K1 and 2. Also indicated is that neither the residentially zoned, nor the commercially or industrially zoned areas meet the criteria for ex- clusion when aggregated and considered as single areas. For all residential zones, the overall average density is approximately 11 dwelling units per acre but the percentage of "fully developed" lots is,only 78.7 percent just short of the 80 percent criteria. For all commercial and industrial zones, the percentage of "fully developed" lots is 75.7 percent, again short of the 80 percent criteria. (In both cases the liberal definition of "fully developed lot" was used, i.e., 2 or more dwelling units on an R2, R3 or R4 lot and any commercial or industrial use on any commercially or industri- ally zoned lot.) Based on this analysis, there is apparently no basis for requesting exclusion of all relatively developed portions of the City of TO: City Council 4. Newport Beach from the Proposition 20 permit area. However, it may be possible to combine some areas, and divide others, in order to maximize the total area within the City which meets the criteria for consideration as a possible exclusion area by the regional commission. If this were done, the question of whether this would appear as an attempt to subvert the intent of Proposition 20 should be considered. Also to be considered is the provision that autho- rizes the regional commission to place conditions on any order granting exclusion which "shall assure that no significant change in density, height or nature of uses occurs." Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R.'V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By T. E. COWELL, Senior Planner TEC/ddb Attachm ents: Analysis of Commercial and Industrial Zones Analysis of Residential Zones r 1 e s • Stat. Area that Commercial or Industrial Zones Lie Within A2 B1 84 65 D1 and 2 D3 E1 E3 E1 and 3 F2, 3 and 4 G1 H1 H4 J 2 and R3 K1 K2 ANALY'SI;S OF COMMERCIAL 'AND INDUS'TRIA'L 'ZONES Area Description Hospital Road and Superior Avenue West Coast Highway Strip Balboa Blvd. and Coast Highway Central Newport Balboa Peninsula (scattered commercial) Central Balboa Balboa Island (Agate Avenue) Balboa Island (Marine Avenue) 11 Balboa Island Corona del Mar (Coast Highway) Bayside Shopping Center and Commercial Area at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway Old Newport (North Newport Boulevard) Coast Highway Westcliff Drive and Dover Drive Newporter Inn Eastbluff Plaza Community Development Dept. TECowell/ddb December 27, 1972 Percent of Total Lots that Are Fullv Developed 100.0 38.6 100.0 61.3 67.0 67.0 63.8 99.0 85.4 94.0 100.0 98.0 96.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 I J IStat. Area that Residential Zones Lie Within A2 Cl and 2 D1 ) D2 ) D3 M El, 2 and 3 F1 F2, 3 and 4 F5, 6, 7 and 8 G1 H1, 2 and 3 H4 J1 > 2, 3, 4 & 5 K1, 2 and 3 L1 A'NAL'YSIS 'OF 'RES TYEN'TZAL ZONES Area'Description Condominiums near Hoag Hospital West Newport Lido Island Balboa Peninsula Balboa Island Irvine Terrace Old Corona del Mar East Corona del Mar Beacon Bay Newport Heights, Cliffhaven Bayshores' Westcliff, Harbor Highlands, Dover Shores, Upper Bay Park Newpor-t,-Bluffs, East Bluffs Grandville Apartments Net Density (Dwelling U'nit's/Acre ) 17.8 6.3 27.1 26.5 19.5 27.5 13.1 23.8 20.5 30.3 13.1 25.29 4.6 16.3 4.02 9.9 7.3 9.2 8.3 7.46 5.6 Percent of Total Lots that Are Ful i'y Developed 100.0 92.7' 57.9 65.7 55.4 59.8 93.4 78.9 70.0 66.4 96.2 54.6 99.0 66.3 91.3 8.1 86.5 100.0 95.2 80.73 100.0 TOTALS.......................................10.74................. 78.66 Community Development Dept. TECowell/ddb December 27, 1972 e a FILE Copy 00 Nor li#1DY� i PROPOSITION 20 EXCLUSION REPORT I v { • After voter ratification of Proposition 20 (Coastal Zone Conservation Act) in November of 1972, the City Council requested the Community Development Department to determine how Newport Beach is affected by the adoption of this initiative. In response to this request, a study was done and the following report has been prepared on the basis of that study. The portion of Newport Beach subject to the provisions of the initia- tive is called the "permit area" and is defined as follows: "Permit area" means that portion of the coastal zone lying between the seaward limit of the jurisdiction of the state and 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line of the sea subject to the following provisions:" Of the four additional provisions defining the permit area, only one is of immediate concern to the City, This provision provides for the exclusion of land residentially, commercially or industrially zoned and developed in excess of specific standards. The provision states: "(c) Any urban land area which is (1) a residential area zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre on or before January 1, 1972; or (2) a commercial or -industrial area zoned, developed, and stabilized for such use on or before January 1, 1972, may after public hear- ing, be excluded by the regional commission at the - 2 - request of a city or county within which such area is located. An urban land area is 'stabilized' if 80 percent of the lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted by the appli- cable zoning regulations existing on January 1, 1972." For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that "a residential area zoned" was intended to mean only properties zoned residentially and not other zones even though residential uses may be in those zones. (Based on this assumption, the unclassified zones which are developed for residential use are not included in any exclusion area.) It was further assumed that lots zoned R-2, R-3 and R-4 were fully developed if two or more dwelling units occupied a lot. Commercial and in- dustrial zoned lots were considered to be fully developed if a com- mercial or industrial use existed on %iutKsucah lot. It was under these assumptions that the data was collected and analyzed to deterA mine which areas met the requirements for exclusion from the permit area. A restriction was placed on the exclusion of waterfront lots from the permit area even though they are properly zoned and developed in excess of the standards. This restriction reads as follows: "Tidal and submerged lands, beaches, and lots immediately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line where there is no beach shall not be excluded." - 3 - Two controls over those portions of this city, excluded from the permit area, are granted to the regional commission. One of these controls gives the regional commission the power to make orders granting exclusions "subject to conditions which shall assure that no significant changes in density, height or nature of uses occurs." The second control allows the regional commission to revoke, at any time after a public hearing, any order granting exclusion of land from the permit area. In accordance with the provisions of this proposition and the assump- tions discussed, a map was prepared identifying the scope of the permit area in Newport Beach, and data was collected by statistical area to determine which portions of the City would qualify for exclusion. Statistical area data for residentially zoned lots was taken from the "Land Use Survey Sheets" prepared by the Community Development Department. Data for commercial and industrial zoned lots was based on hand counts of lots and uses as indicated on the land use maps. After the data was arrayed, analysis showed that different results could be obtained by varied groupings of statis- tical areas and the addition of residentially developed U Districts. The initial results presented in this report are based on a straight- forward presentation of the data by statistical area or groupings of statistical areas. Residential zones within the following statistical areas or groupings meet the residential exclusion requirements: A2, B1, Division C, D4, Division N, J2, J4, K2 and K3. 0 n • - 4 - The specific results of the residential data computations can be found on Pages 1 and 2a of the appendix. Commercial and industrial zones within the following statistical areas or groupings meet the requirements for exclusion: A2, B4, E3, F2, 3 and 4, HI, H4, J2 and K2. The specific results of the commercial and industrial data computations can be found on Page 3 of the appendix. Neither the residential nor the commercial and industrially zoned areas meet the exclusion requirements when totaled and consi.dered as single units under this initial analysis. The following alternatives could be considered: For the residential zoned areas: 1. Study statistical area D1 more closely to determine if it does meet the 80 percent fully developed lots' requirement. 2. Group all D statistical areas into one area which would then meet the exclusion requirements. Then recheck area to determine if the percent of fully developed lots is accurate. This should be done because the percent of fully developed lots is close to the 80% development standard. 3. Group all J statistical areas into one area and check the density data to determine if it can be revised upwards by .1 units per acre. This area would then meet the exclusion requirements. • - 5 - 4. Include Oakwood (U District) in the data for statistical area J2 and group all of the J statistical areas into one unit which would then meet the residential exclusion requirements. 5. Include Park Newport (U District) in K exclusion area. This would also increase the percent of fully developed lots slightly in the K exclusion area. The results of alternatives 4 and 5 are shown on pages 1 and 2a of the appendix. For the commercial and industrially zoned areas, the alternatives are: 1. Commercial zones in statistical areas E1 and E2 could be grouped together to exclude both zones, not just E3. 2. All commercial and industrial zones in the permit area, except for those in the Cannery Village Area of statistical area B5, can be grouped together and meet the exclusion requirements. From the data analyzed in this study, there is no apparent alternative that will enable the legitimate exclusion of all residentially, com- mercially and industrially zoned properties within the permit area. 12/18/72 CTB/kk E A P P E N D I X R€SIDENTIAL ZONES Stat. Area Number of Lots Lots Fully Dev. Net or Div. That % of No. of D.U.'s Land Net.: Gross Gross Exclusion Total (Res. Zone Area Rtnr Area Den - Lies Within Dev. Vac. Total No. Lots Only) (:a,) ,sity, (a.) sity A2 128 0 128 128 100.0 238 13.4 17.8 20.57 11.57 BT 429 21 450 417 92.7' 448 70.9 6.3 (74.90) (6.0 B2 320 103 423 245 57.9 563 20.8 27.1 B3 587 23 610 401 65.7 998 37.6 26.5 B4 595 10 605 335 55:4 871 44.6 19.5 • B5 87 0 87 52 59.8 154 5.6 27.5 B. 2038 157 21175 1450 M 67 3634 11919 i 6:9 248:35 12.22 Cl & 2 809 7 816 762 93.4- 868 66.2 13.1 D1 279 5 284 224 78.9 651 27.4 23.8 D2 296 9 305 214 70.0 422 20.6 20.5 D3 421 26 447 297 66.4., 917 30.3 30.3 D4 622 10 632 608 96.2;. 692 52.8 13.1 D 1618 50 1'668 1343 80.52f' 2682 131.1 20.46 202.08 13.270 E1,2 & 3 1278 11 1289 704 54.6;. 2008 79.4 25.29 113.07 17.77 F1 401 4 405 401 99.01' 434 93.6 4.6 0 36.98,E (3.17 F2,3 & 4 1983 34 2017 1337 66.3: 2984 183.5 16.3 (280.84) (10.63' F5,6,7 & 8 662 15 677 618 91.3` 720 179.2 4.02 (244.26' f2.95 All of F 3046 53 3099 2356 76.0 4138 456.3 9.1 662.08 6.25 G1 74 0 74 6 8.1 74 7.5 9.9 12.49 5.9 Page 1 RESIDENTIAL ZONES Stat. Area Number of Lots Lots Fully Dev. Net or Div. That % of No. of D.U.'s Land Net Gross Gross Exclusion Total (Res. Zone Area Den- Area Den - Lies Within Dev. Vac. Total No. Lots Only) (a.) sity (a.) sity H1, 2 & 3 1316 35 1351 1168 86.5 1509 207.9 7.3 311.24 4.85 . H4 234 0 234 234 100.0 285 30.9 9.2 45.54 6.23 All of H 1550 35 1585 1402 88.45 1794 238.8 7.5 356.78 5.03 J1 334 50 384 334 87..0 333 93.2 3.6 • J2 155 0 155 155 100.0 526 40.5 13.0 J21 1 0 1 1 100.0 1450 29.09 49.85 J3 446 15 461 446 96.7 446 82.6 5.4 3.197 139.5 J4 619 13 632 619 97.9 620 114.6 5.4 142.49 4.35 J5 369 18 387 369 95.3 385 92.9 4.1 All of J 1923 96 2019 1923 95.2 2310 423.8 5.45 597.5 3.9 K12 1 0 1 1 100.0 860 49.7 17.3 K2 933 333 1266 933 73.69 1137 173.5 6.6 206.63 5.5 K3 461 0 461 461 100.0 461 106.1 4.3 157.15 2.90 K2 & K3 1394 333 1727 1394 80.71 1598 279.6 5.7 363.8 4.39 Permit Area 13,838 742 14,580 11,468 78.65 18,744 1875.6 9.99 7.01 2673.94 1 Oakwood not included in data. 2 Park Newport not included in data. Page 2 Stat. Area Number of Lots Lots Fully Dev. Net or Div. That ro o No. of D.U.'s Land Net Gross Gross Exclusion Total (Res. Zone Area Den- Area Den - Lies Within Dev. Vac. Total No. Lots Only) (a.) sity (a.) sity H1, 2 & 3 1316 35 1351 1168 86.5 1509 207.9 7.3 311.24 4.85 H4 234 0 - 234 234 100.0 285 30.9 9.2 45.54 6.23 All of H 1550 35 1585 1402 88.45 1794 238.8 7.5 356.78 5.03 All of J1 1924 96 2020 1924 95.2 3760 452.9 8.3 631.45 5.96 K1, 2 & 32 1395 333 1728 1395 80.73 2458 329.3 7.46 416.49 5.90 Permit Area 13,840 742 14,582 11,470 78.66 21,054 1954.4 10.77 2760.58 7.63 1 Oakwood added in. 2 Park Newport added in. Page 2A •I COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES Stat. Area Number of Lots Lots Fully Dev. of Div. That % of Exclusion Total Lies Within Dev. Vac. Total No. Lots Area Description A2 6 0 6 6 100.0 Hospital Road and Superior Avenue B1 67 16 83 32 38.6 West Coast Highway Strip B4 2 0 2 2 100.0 Balboa Blvd. and Coast Highway (Excluding water front) B5 302 39 341 209 61.3 Central Newport • D1 & 2 12 0 12 8 67.0 Balboa Peninsula (scattered commercial) D3 63 7 70 47 67.0 Central Balboa E1 36 0 36 23 63.8 Balboa Island (Agate Avenue) E3 60 1 61 60 99.0 Balboa Island (Marine Avenue) E1 & 3 96 1 97 83 85.4 All Balboa Island F2, 3 & 4 175 10 185 174 94.0 Corona del Mar (Coast Highway) H1 59 1 60 58 98.0 Old Newport (North Newport Boulevard) H4 96 2 98 94 96.0 Coast Highway J2 26 0 26 26 100.0 Westcliff Drive and Daver Drive K2 4 0 4 4 100.0 Eastbluff Plaza Permit Area 908 76 984 743 75.50 Page 3 �C ✓c. '` n `iR.`6 1 �, .,. •" , vas v� f • Iu.' .o �i^.•.;.-�;r. \, k- j. fie? la j )7�itN .Si11{t'117T��f f_l,.L `v' �F ice\- A � r`+7'•bYlSY m nc •1 y- 'y�'jj i'- <4ry?jj,G' ._+�`k2�ir•�• >"f�;,:t x.S�;,r "• _ `4':Q��^h'}..'•,i14'flCnil t'i°;t�4� �._. -•�`'-`-��-ry.. e T,e��.�!�,G�}Jiifi'•" YlvvI'1, I1lirJiglS i "ii>-I-s �r? `"• !. �''1 �7Qe:pE1�Q1Lr(7„'7:�..�..��'��..-t ,t,z.; "°� • eg+_�._I;.,x V - � 'i�rl }'� e " .r";.;:.Sli , irc•e �Yt. li � I:v� �`i-/ O' �.`t��j 13`W�y u,.._. .�S •. ,--'r1'r .•.... vJ"`� In.:i°�bp Y 'w .... may= LL - �" CITY OF NEWFOHT BEFLH THE COASTAL ZONE INITIATIVE (PROPOSITION No. 20) FACT SHEET The Zega2 questions raised in this anaZysis have been submitted to Hassard, Bonnington, Rogers and Huber, Attorneys at Lau, and in their opinion the ZegaZ points raised are subject to court chaZ- Zenge, review -and determination. c: Assistant City Manager City Attorney Community Development Director Rod Gunn CITIZENS AGAINST THE COASTAL INITIATIVE 870 Market Street 1127 Wilshire Blvd. 233 A St., Suite 1107 San Francisco, CA 94102 Los Angeles, CA 90017 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 415/781-3751 Phone: 213/481-2555 Phone: 714/233-7146 WHERE IS THE COAST? And who is trying to do what to California? Most people think of the California coast as the shorelands immedi- ately adjoining the Pacific Ocean. Because of its great scenic beauty and ecological importance, this area has for some time been the subject of concerted study by state, federal and local agencies to develop appropriate land use policies., Five years ago, the California State Legislature directed that a comprehensive study be made of land use and ownership of the coastal area. Recently completed, this in-depth survey, funded by the State with financial assistance from the federal government, includes a detailed inventory of existing land uses of the entire California coastal area lying 1/2 mile (880 yards) inland from the mean high tide line. It is known as the California Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, or CORP. Based on the COAP studies, measures have been introduced in the State Legislature providing for State controls over coastal area land use, providing for compensation for lands withdrawn from private ownership and for the diminished value of lands restricted by zoning from various uses, and for reimbursements to local taxing agencies for revenues Lost because of lowered assessments resulting from such withdrawals and diminished values. These measures have not been adopted because of the adamant oppo- sition of "preservationists" dedicated to a policy of establishing a moratorium on the use of all public and private land in the coastal area, with no provisions for compensation to property owners for diminished values, or to counties, cities and local districts for -loss -of tax revenues. _. When their own bills incorporating these policies failed of passage, the preservationists, spurning any compromise, qualified Proposition No. 20 through initiative petition, for the November 7 ballot. WHAT PROPOSITION NO. 20 DOES Q. Briefly, what does Proposition No. 20 do? A. It establishes a California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six regional commissions, directed to: (a) develop a master plan for the Coastal Zone for sub- mission to the Legislature at the beginning of the 1976 session; (b) review all permits for land use granted by local governments, with full powers to rescind them, for all land within a 1,000 yard Permit Area. -2- No house or other structure in the area could be built, and no remodelling or repairs of single-family homes in excess of $7,500 could be undertaken, without securing approval from the appropriate regional commission --a new layer of bureaucracy, superimposed on all existing agencies that now control the granting of permits. Permit restrictions are so severe that as outlined herein it is a certainty that virtually no permits would be granted for a five year period. PRESENT CONTROLS Q. Does the State of California presently exercise any controls over Local Land use --not ,just in the coastaZ area, but statewide? A. Yes. While local control of planning, zoning and subdivision regulation is maintained, laws passed by the 1971 Legislature require cities and counties to deny approval to tentative or final subdivision maps unless specific criteria are met. Findings which compel denial include inconsistency with applicable general and specific plans, physical unsuitability of the site for the type of density of development, design or improvements likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, design or im- provements which are likely to cause serious public health problems, and design or improvements which conflict with public access easements. Q. What is the area of the CoastaZ Zone estabZished by Proposition No. 20? A. Nobody knows for sure. The Initiative is so ambiguously drafted that the area required to be included in the Coastal Zone master plan would undoubtedly have to be determined by the courts. COASTAL ZONE DEFINED Q. How is the ,CoastaZ Zone defined in Proposition No. 20? A. As "that land and water area of the State of California from the border of the State of Oregon to the border of the Republic of Mexico, extending seaward to the outer limit of the state jurisdiction, including all islands within the jurisdiction of the state, and ex- tending inland to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range, except that in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, the inland boundary of the coastal zone shall be the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range or five miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is the shorter distance." Q. Why isn't there a five miZe Limit in the case of counties other than Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego? A. Who knows? --but that's the way the Initiative is drafted. h 3 - Q. Are there coastal plain areas that extend further than five miles to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range in counties other than Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego? A. Yes. Monterey County is one example. Q. From any given coastal location, in what direction is the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range? --due east? --at a right angZe from the particular Zocation?--or where? A. Who knows? The courts would have to decide. Although the Coastal Zone boundary has been referred to as a "ridgeline", that definition does not appear in the Initiative. Q. What is the "highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range'f?--a nearby hill, or a far away peak? A. The courts would have to decide. A Coastal bill, introduced in the 1972 session of the Legislature, limited the nearest applicable elevation -to 750 feet above sea level. However, that bill was opposed by the sponsors of Proposition No. 20, and ho such definitive language appears in the Initiative.. COUNTIES AFFECTED .• Only 15 counties --Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Morin, Son Francisco, San Mateo, Santa -Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego --are represented in the Coastal Zone regional commissions. What about other counties fronting on San Francisco Bay? A. The area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission is excluded from the Permit Area, although not from the Coastal Zone. However, the BCDC's area of jurisdiction is the Bay and only that land 100 feet inland from the Bay. Therefore, it would appear that the Zand area in Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Sotan'Q and Napa Counties tying between 100 feet and 1,000 yards (3,000 feet) from the bay shore would be included in Proposition 20's Permit Area. Also, all land in those counties lying from the bay shore to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range (wherever that is) would be included in the Coastal Zone master plan. Yet none of these counties would have any representation on the commissions hearing permit applications or developing master planning. Also, the land area lying between 100 feet and 1,000 yards from the bay shore in those counties represented in the commissions --San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma, would be included in the Permit Area. Q. Would land in any additional counties be included in the Coastal Zone and Permit Areas? 0 - 4 - A. Very possibly. The Initiative defines "sea" as "the Pacific Ocean and all the harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs and other areas subject to tidal action through a connection with the Pacific Ocean, excluding nonestuarine rivers and creeks." Under this definition, the coastline of the sea runs, among other places, around San Francisco Bay, up and down the shoreline of the Sacramento and San Joaquin ship channels, and up and down the stretches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers that are subject to tidal action. Thus, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Yolo, and possibly other counties seem to be included. Again, these counties would have no representation on the commissions hearing permit applications or developing master planning. Q. How would the extent of the CoastaZ Zone area subject to State master pZanning be determined in CentraZ VaZZey counties? A. Presumably, all the land running from the shores or "coasts" of The two ship channels or the two tidal -action rivers extending to the nearest coastal mountain range would be included. As the banks of the channels and rivers would seem to be the "coast" of this unusually defined "sea", the land area included would extend from those banks of the channels or rivers that have tidal action --to the Sierra Nevada on one side and the Coast Range on the other. Q. Is there any county in California that wouZdn't be affected? A. Possibly not. Proposition 20 contains still another "joker": "if any portion of any body of water which is not subject to tidaZ action ties within the permit area, the body of water together with a strip of Zand 1,000 feet wide sur- rounding it shaZ2 be included." Inasmuch as the waters of rivers adjoining the line of tidal action are included for a distance of 1,000 yards, it would appear that a reasonable interpretation of the above. -section would mean that the entire length of the rivers and their tributaries also would be included, together with all land within 11000 feet of their banks. Most counties in California contain streams that eventually flow into the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, under the terms of Proposition No. 201 vast, undetermined areas in almost every county of California could be included in the so-called Coastal Zone or the Permit Area, or both. In the final analysis, the exact boundaries would have to be determined by the courts. AIM OF SPONSORS? Q. How is it possibte for Proposition No. 20 to be so ineptZy drawn? • - 5 - A. it may, or may not, be ineptly drawn. if the aim of its sponsors is to secure State control over zoning of the largest possible area in California, and to establish a moratorium on building in the largest possible area, the Initiative is a very clever piece of draftmanship. For example, the Sieroty Bill (AB 200) and the Grunsky Bill (SB 100)-- introduced in the 1972 session of the Legislature, and supported by the sponsors of Proposition No. 20--excluded the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, "together with all contiguous areas 2,900 feet landward thereof". That language would have excluded from the Permit Area, the bayfront portions of San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin and Sonoma Counties, as well as Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Solana and Napa Counties. The proponents of Proposition No. 20 claim to have qualified it for the ballot because AB 200 and SB 100 failed of legislative adoption. However, in their Initiative, they did not include in the section dealing with BCDC, the language, together with all contiguous areas 2,900 feet landward thereof". One can only wonder whether this omission was deliberately planned to greatly expand the area of the so-called Coastal Zone. STRUCTURE OF PROP. NO. 20 BUREAUCRACY Q. How is the new bureaucracy created by Proposition No. 20 structured? A. The Initiative creates a California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six regional commissions in the 15 coastal counties only. Four of the regional commissions contain 12 members, one contains 14 members and one contains 16 members. The State Commission contains 12 members. Q. Are the commission members eZected? A. No. All are appointed. In the case of the regional commissions, half of the memberships are drawn from local officials; the other half, so-called public members, are appointed by the Governor, the Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly. Each regional commission appoints one of its members to serve on the State Commission, accounting for 6 members. The other 6 are appointed as above. Q. What qualifications must so-caZZed public members have to be appointed? A. They must have "expertise in conservation, recreation, ecological and physical sciences, planning and education." Q. Is any.expertise in economics, taxation, or employment problems required? A. No. Q. is there any provision for representation for Zabor, business; agriculture or home owners? A. No. PERMIT PROCEDURE Q. For how Zong a period must aZZ permits have the approval of the commissions? A. Until 91 days after final adjournment of the 1976 Legislature: However, for many purposes the permit procedure is made retroactive to April 1, 1972, so that the effective period would be almost 5 years._ Q. If a person had secured a permit from a city or county to buiZd, repair or remodel a house after April 1, 1972 but before the November eZection, would he have to stop construction if Proposition No. 20 were adopted? A. Yes, unless a court decided he had acquired a "vested right" under The permit, whatever that may mean. Also, if he had secured a permit before April 1, 1972 but had not commenced construction -and performed substantial work on the development, it could be found that he had no "vested right" and therefore he would not be permitted to proceed. EFFECTIVE MORATORIUM Q. WouZd Proposition No. 20 estabZish a moratorium on buiZding within The Permit Area? A. The proponents deny this, but the Initiative has been booby -trapped with interlocking provisions that result in a virtually complete mora- torium. Q. Does this effective moratorium apply onZy to housing? A. No. It applies to all development, which includes the placement Fr erection of any solid material or structure, the discharge of gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, dredging and mining; change in land -use density, including subdivision and lot splits; and alteration of the size of any structure. For example, any city in the Permit Area would have to go hat in hand to the regional commission to seek approval to repaira sewer line. Harbor improvements and redevelopment projects would be subjected to long delays. - 7 - All public recreational development would be subject to the moratorium. Public agencies planning to build breakwaters, launching ramps, campgrounds, public toilets, roads, parking facilities, etc. to increase recreational opportunities on the public beaches would be precluded from proceeding without seeking a permit from the regional commissions. Q. How is the moratorium speZZed out? A. By the provisions of the initiative restricting the granting of permits, by its built-in time delays, and by its encouragement of lengthy law suits. Q. What are these restrictions? A. The Initiative provides that no permit will be issued unless the development is consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Zone plan to be adopted by the Commission, one of which is "avoidance of irre- versible and irretrievable commitments of coastal zone resources." Any structure, any grading, any street, any water or sewer line can be considered an irreversible commitment. Even if the Commission chose to disregard this virtual directive against the granting of �a��nyy� permits, the language would be used as the basis for end:'ess lawsuits by anyone wishing to stop any construction for any purpose. Q. What are the buiZt-in time delays? A. Under existing laws, anyone planning to build a house, or any structure or development, must secure a permit from local governments. Depending on the size of the project, two months to a year is consumed in the process. Having secured the permit, the builder, under Proposition No. 20, would then have to seek approval from the new regional commission, which is allowed 90 days to set a public hearing to consider the matter. The regional comini.ssion then has 60 days to make a decision. Assuming the decision is favorable, the permit may be appealed by "hny person aggrieved by approval" to the State Commission, which is allowed another 60 days in which to act. Thus, up to 7 months of additional time would be required in pro- ceedings before the new agencies. Still more time is allowed for appeals, however. Again assuming the decision of the State Commission is favorable, any "aggrieved" person may, within 60 days of the decision, file a petition for a writ of mandate and seek a judicial review of the permit. This sequence of events adds 9 months to the time it has already taken to 'secure permit approval from local governments. In most instances, this would mean that from one to. two years would elapse before a disputed permit approval would finally be taken to the courts. How long it would take the courts to render a final decision (presumably any disputed permit could go through the entire appeals system, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court) is anybody's guess. As a practical matter, it would seem that no one could expect to receive final affirmative action on any contested permit during the life of the Commission. Q. What is meant by an "aggrieved" person who may chaZZenge any permit in the courts? A. Apparently anyone --a disgruntled neighbor, or any person, with no property ownership or immediate interest in the area involved. There is no provision that such "aggrieved" person even be a resident of California. Any single individual could tie upany-proposed development in the courts for years without even posting a bond. EFFECT ON COURT CASE LOADS Q. Sow wouZd Proposition No. 20 affect court case Zoads? A. Proposition No. 20's provisions encouraging legal challenges to each and every permit approval are a striking example of the "unprecedented explosion of litigation" recently cited by U.S. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. Justice Burger suggested that Congress accompany each bill likely to provoke reaction in the federal courts with an estimate of how many legal challenges might result, and provide court personnel to handle the additional caseload. The same problem applies at the state level. Proposition No. 20 would inevitably clutter up the courts with legal challenges for years, but makes no provision to increase court personnel to handle the enormous new burdens it would add to the court load. Q. Are any proposed deveZopments within the Permit Area excZuded from The ,jurisdiction of the new State bureaucracy? A. Any proposed structure, road, pipeline, etc. --public or private -- falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Repairs and im- provements not in excess of $7,500 to existing single-family residences are excluded, but even in this instance, the Commission may require that a permit be obtained if the repairs "involve a risk of adverse environ- mental effect". .. .. - 9 - • STATUS OF LARGE CITIES Q. Aren't the areas of Large cities .excluded 'from the new State controZsl A. No. The Initiative provides that residential areas of cities which are zoned, stabilized and developed to a density of four or more dwelling units per acre may be excluded, at the regional commission's option, when so requested by the city or county involved. The same applies to'com- mercial or industrial areas which are zoned, developed and stabilized. "Stabilized", however, is defined as urban Land wherein 80 percent of the Lots are built upon to the maximum density or intensity of use permitted by appticable zoning regulations in effect on January 1, 1972. It is very doubtful whether any city is "stabilized". under that definition. Thus, land use decision -making for a substantial portion of their areas would be forfeited to the State by such major coastal cities as San Diego, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, and Eureka, and, depending on court interpretations of the Coastal Zone area, by San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, Stockton and other inland cities. DEMOCRACY IN "INACTION" Q. Would permits be granted by majority vote of the members of each regional commission? A. For many kinds of developments a 2/3 vote is required. For all Uthers, a majority vote is needed. But because the commissions have an even number of members (unlike most boards and commissions) it would take a two -vote edge for a majority --for example, a 7 to 5 vote for the 12-member commissions. Furthermore,granting a permit requires not just a majority or two thirds of a quorum at any meeting, but a majority or two-thirds of all commission members, whether in attendance or not. Q. Does the CoastaL Zone Commission structure increase or Lessen effective citizen participation in community affairs? A. Citizen participation would become virtually meaningless. The majority views of any community could be thwarted by action of less than a majority of the commission members, or by the action of even one "aggrieved" person who need not be a resident of the community. Q. What would happen if aLL residential development aLong the coast were haZted? A. Houses are built to meet the needs of people. If people are denied housing in one area, pressures will be created in other areas: foothills, desert areas and prime agricultural land in the valleys. - 10 - COST TO TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, GENERAL PUBLIC Q. How much would the taxpayers have to pay to support this new bureaucracy? A. The Initiative appropriates $5,0001000 in State funds to finance the operations of the commissions, but this is a ridiculously unrealistic figure. UntiZ the courts determine the boundaries of the Coastd2 Zone no one knows how Zarge-an area is invoZved, but based on the very narrowest interpretation, at Zeast 1,500,000 acres would be incZuded. At an estimated master pZanning cost of $10 per acre, this would invoZve.a minimum cost of $15,000,000 for zoning alone. To this must be added the cost of hearing permit applications. If the commission members actually heard them all, they certainly would have to work five full days a week, at $50 per day --the amount of compen- sation provided for in the Initiative. On such a full time basis, the 78 regional commissioners would receive more than a million dollars a year for four years. Q. is it realistic to expect that the commissions would meet on a full time basis? A. No. The bulk of the work necessarily would be done by paid staff. The Initiative anticipates this by providing that hearing procedures need not be followed for developments not in excess of $10,000 and in cases of "emergency". In such cases, permits could be issued by the executive directors. Emergencies are not defined; presumably they would be all permit applications the commission members wouldn't have time to consider. in effect, this means that the bulk of decisions would be made by six regional planning "czars" --another step of removal from any local control. Q. Are there any provisions in Proposition No. 20 for compensation to property owners for Zoss of the use of their Zand? A. No. The proponents of Proposition No. 20 claim they circulated their Initiative because the Legislature did not pass the Sieroty and Grunsky bills (AB 200 and SB 100). Each of these bills, prior to the time the Initiative petitions were circulated, contained this unequivocal language: "It is not the intent of the LegisZature by the enactment of this act to take private property for public use without ,just compensation in violation of the United States or CaZifornia Constitution." This language, however, was not inserted'in the Initiative and is not contained in Proposition No. 20. Q. What would happen to assessed valuations in the Permit Area? A. if land cannot be used, it cannot readily'be sold, and values drop sharply. Thus, local tax revenues from bare land would be greatly reduced. Q. Are there any prov-isions in Proposition No. 20 for the State to reimburse ZocaZ governments for Lost revenues? A. No. They would have to be made up by higher taxes on others, such as homeowners and owners of other developed property. Q. Coutd the State of California be forced to compensate property owners for lost property values? A. Undoubtedly there would be a deluge of lawsuits against the State seeking redress for inverse condemnation. The State's taxpayers face the possibility of incurring obligations running into the hundreds of millions of dollars, should Proposition No. 20 pass. COASTAL OPEN SPACE Q. is open space along the coast in desperately short supply, as proponents of Proposition No. 20 cZaim? A. The COAP inventory of land use for the half -mile area along the Pacific ocean shows that more than 75% of the land is in open space and more than 41% is already in public ownership. The balance between open space and developed areas is shown in the table on the following page. -12- Open Space (Recreational, Agricultural and Undeveloped)_ Number of Acres Percentage Recreational - public camp grounds and developed parks 31179 .58% Recreational - public parks in wilderness state 60,332 11.07 Recreational - golf courses and resorts 41688 .86 Agricultural and grazing* 201,336 36.94 Other undeveloped land* 144,479 26.51 T14,014 75.96% Developed Areas Government facilities --access roads, trails and parking 11633 .30 Government facilities --harbors, marinas, educational facilities, etc. 26,742 4.91 Transportation 11,454 2.10 Commercial 14,574 2.67 Communication, mining and industrial 18,724 3.43 Residential --primary homes, including cities 53,090 9.74 Residential --vacation homes 4,185 .77 Farmsteads 657 - 131,059 12 2T.04% Total 545,073 100.00% *Of these categories, more than 130,000 acres are publicly owned (Forest Service, etc.) but not designated as public park lands. Moreover, it should be remembered that all of the seashore up to the mean high -tide is -owned -by -the State, or if pr ately owned, puff'. is subject to a p ..c trust. Q. Is the publicly owned coastal land located almost exclusively in the sparsely settled areas in the northern part of the state? A. No. In San Diego County, 59.66% of the coastal land is publicly owned; in Orange County, 28.41% is publicly owned; and in Los Angeles County, 66.69% is publicly owned. PARK LAND Q. Is there a shortage of accessible park land for public use? A. The COAP Inventory reveals that there is --only 3,179 acres have been developed for public enjoyment. But an additional 60,332 acres exists in public parks not developed for the use of the general public, and twice that amount of coastal land is publicly owned open space not designated as park land. Q. Is it necessary to institute a five-year building moratorium in order to provide public access to the beaches? - 13 - A. No. More than 41 per cent of the beach lands are publicly owned, and the State can acquire access easements across private lands through eminent domain. Also, local governments can and do require public access roads to the beach when considering development permits. If the $5,000,000 appropriated by Proposition No. 20 to provide starting money to finance a cumbersome new layer of bureaucracy were used instead to provide access to the beaches, public recreational opportunities would be greatly increased. At an average estimated cost of $3,500 per 500 feet of 22-foot-wide easements from highways to the sea, 1,428 access roads could be built for $5,000,000, or one for every .8 mile of shoreline in California. If easements were 50 feet wide, one could be built for every 2.1 miles of shoreline. GAINERS, LOSERS Q. Who would gain front Proposition No. 20? A. only a favored few would benefit from the coastal "deep-freeze": tZiose with the physical and monetary resources to enjoy the beaches by back -packing and horseback riding and who would "lock up" the beaches from the general public; and those owners of established beach homes in exclusive areas whose property values would increase when people of moderate means are prohibited from sharing the same amenities. Q. Who wouZd Lose by Proposition No. 20? A. The great majority of home owners and other property owners in at feast 15 coastal counties, and all of those counties, cities and school districts within them. Depending on court determination of the actual extent of -the Coastal Zone, property owners and local governments in large additional areas of the state also would lose. EventuaZZy, every home owner couLd Lose, for the Initiative would establish a precedent in every area of the state for appropriating private property without paying for it. All of the state's taxpayers stand to lose, for they would incur a contingent liability for redress of inverse condemnation. Labor would lose --for the economic aspects of the deep-freeze in those areas directly affected would have a chilling effect on employment. Q. How is taking away Land vaZues without paying for them any different from steaZing? A. Every voter will have to answer that question for himself. • - 14 - • If you believe that it is the responsibility of the Legislature to develop reasonable, well thought-out State guidelines and controls to protect and enhance the coast's scenic and recreational resources --reconciling the legitimate points of view of all CaZifornians--you will vote NO on Proposition No. 20. If you are concerned over high taxes, and if you wish to protect the value of your own home --you will vote NO on Proposition No. 20. If you believe in fair play, and in meaningful local participation in decision making --you will vote NO on Proposition No. 20. If you believe in conservation--but-are opposed to confiscation --you will vote NO on Proposition No. 20. I - NEWS RELEASE CONTACT: J-ERRY COLLINS ( 64�4-3387 ) A SETTER ENVIRONMENT FOR YOU .VANE CO. ANNOUNCES OPPOSITION TO PROP. 20 NEWPORT BEACH -- The Yxvine Company today announced publicly its opposition to Proposition 20, the Coastal Initiative. Raymond L. Watson, executive vice president of the land planning and management firm, said. the measure "goes too far." He said the company supports the concept of state guidelines governing coastal land use and conservation. "That. -this environmental requirement will soon be met by the legislature is ae much a certainty as it is a necessity. But it must be responsibly met with responsible legislation." Prop. 20, he said, fails to meet this need. "Ile applaud the initiativels.broad objectives: the protection, restoration and enhancement of the coastal environment," he said. "It is its proposed mechanism for attaining these objectives that forces us to oppose the initiative." He called it "unrealistic, unnecessary, perhaps unconstitutional and certainly unfair." If passed, Matson said, Prop. 20 "would have a very severe Impact'on hundreds of thousands of property owners, private and public, who are undeserving of the cumbersome, restrictive controls it would inflict." He said a multi -layered and remote system of state and regional -- more -- Tho Irvine Company • 550 Newport Center Drive • Nowport beach, Ca0lnrn1a 92000 • (714) 544-;4)1 I MVINE Prof' 20 add 0 commissions proposed by'the initiative could result in an "effective" moratorium -- without property tax relief -- against any private or public improvement project "honever essential to the community." He pointed out that under Prop. 20 experts in the fields of conservation and ecology are assured representation on the commissions "as they should be." But no representation is assured in the "certainly equally appropriate" fields of employment, economics, property use, taxation and government finance. Approvals from the commissions, he noted, would be required for any home home addition, remodeling, repair or replacement project costing more than $7,500; any duplex., apartment or business expansion project; any library, regional park, beach park, road improvement, school, hospital, sewerage, civic or cultural project within' a 3,000-foot-wide "Permit Area" running the length of the California coastline. The "Permit Area,' he noted, encompasses not only the undeveloped lands between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, but also large populated areas of both cities. "There is no arguing that California needs a strong coastal land management program," he said. "The Coastal Initiative cannot, in our opinion, produce this program. Its major product would be litigation, to clarify its intent and to compensate property -owners and taxpayers injured by its excesses." Watson said he doesn't believe the Irvine Company is among Prop. 20°s targets; "but we would be among its victims." -- more -- IUVINL PROP. 20 add 2-2-2-2,2-2 As a consequence, he said laic company has no choice but to oppose the initiative. This will include financial support of the campaign against Prop, 20. "With passage of the measure -- and here we wish to make our self-interest abundantly clear -- our nearly completed master plan for joint public and private use of Irvine's undeveloped coastal 0 lands would be subject to redundant government scrutiny and unwarrented, punitive delays, at great cost to the company and to the people of Califon aia, 1' he said. This would occur, he added, even thdugh the Irvine Coast Plan has been prepared in consultation with all interested government agencies and.has been reviewed and. "private complimented" by some of the present supporters of the Coastal Initiative. Watson also struck at the initiative's encouragement of appeals by any individual, whether or not a California resident, against regional commission approval of any project. These appeals may be made to the state commission and then, if denied, to the courts. No bond is required of anyone filing a lawsuit. He said while there has been some "irresponsible, short-sighted development" along the California coastline in years past, there is no disputing the fact that major steps have been and are being taken by local, county, state and federal agencies to protect Caliibrnia's coastal assets for future generations. He cited the recent expansion of public beach park areas in the cities of Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, South Laguna, Capistrano Beach and San Clemente. "And the Irvine Company is actively encouraging the creation of public beaches, regional parks and walkways in the area between Corona: del Mar and Laguna." -- more -- • 0 MV1141: PROP. 20 add 3--3-3-3-3-3-3 These efforts, he said, could be curtailed by the Coastal 1'nitiativeo "There is no need for Proposition 20, which betrays its stated intent of orderly management of the coastal zone by denying the timely development of anything to managb," he said. "The Irvine Company9" Watson concluded, "can survive the inequities that would be imposed by Proposition 20; a more important question" is whether the thousands of other homeowners, businessmen and land -owners trapped in the 'Permit Area' can survive. And, if so., to What degree?" _..,.30— IRVINEAOMPANX STATEMENT ON PROP.00 By Raymond L. Watson Executive Vice President . The Irvine Company d One of the most controversial measures on the November ballot will be the Coastal Initiative, Prop. 20. Many Californians will be against it; many will be for it. We will be among those against it. The Irvine Company takes this position reluctantly. We applaud the initiative's broad objectives: the protection, restoration and enhancement of the coastal environment. It is its proposed mechanism for attaining these objectives that forces us to"oppose the initiative. That mechanism, in our opinion, is unrealistic, unnecessary, perhaps unconstitutional and certainly unfair. We share such concerns with many others, including Gov. Ronald Reagan's chief adviser on environmental issues, Secretary for Resources Norman B. Livermore, Jr.; the coastal cities of Newport Beach and Lpng'Beach; and the entire Orange Coast legislative delegation. With them, -we support the concept of state guidelines governing coastal land use and conservation. That this environmental 0 requirement will soon be met by the Legislature is as much a certainty as it is a necessity. But it must be responsibly met with responsible legislation. The Irvine Company has worked for the passage of such legislation in the past; we.will continue to do so in the future_ It is regrettable that the issue of coastal legislation, after much governmental debate, remains unresolved. Nevertheless, it is closer to resolution by our lawmakers now than ever before. Page 2 There is greater understanding of the need for -- and the wide implications of -- coastal legislation now than ever before. For these and other reasons there is no reasonable justi- fication for passage of Prop. 20. It goes too far. If passed, it would have a very severe impact on hundreds of thousands of property -owners, private and public, who are undeserving of the cumbersome, restrictive controls it would inflict. The best arguments against the measure are found in,the reading of it, which, is our opinion, too few have done. Analysis of the measure compels us to conclude that it will not, despite the,claims of some of its advocates, open up California's coastal lands to greater public access- It will instead, through the creation of a preservationist -.oriented commission system and extraordinarily rigid requirements for development of any kind, effectively shut dorm the coastline for at least three years. Under the initiative, virtually all public and private improvement programs -- from bike trails to home construction -- within a 3,000 foot -wide coastline "Permit Area" will require approval from a 12-member regional commission, only two members of which would be elected representatives from Orange County. The initiative would thus remove the planning process further from the people, including those very individuals and organizations who deserve credit for the intensifying, and effective, environmental controls now being imposed by government at the local level. Page 3 Developed and undeveloped areas would be subject to the bureaucratic maze set forth in Prop. 20. Its "Permit Area," for example, encompasses not only the essentially unused coastal resources between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, but also large populated areas of both cities. Requiring I regional commission approval in these areas would be any home addition, remodeling, repair or replacement project costing more than $7,500; any duplex, apartment or business expansion project of any cost; and any library, regional park, beach park, road improvement,, school, hospital, sewerage, water, civic or cultural project, however essential to the community. If such projects manage to clear the regional commission hurdle, they would then be subject to appeals "by any person aggrieved by approval" to another, more distant layer of ,govern- ment; -a 12-member state commission, on which there may be no Orange County representation. If an appeal is denied at the state level, the appellant may then, under terms of the initiative act, file a lawsuit. -- without the conventional requirement of posting a bond_ And, according to the act, this appeal process may be initiated by any person from anywhere. There is no provision in Prop. 20 that he even be a resident of California. It is the Irvine Company's opinion that Prop. 20's frustratingly obstructive machinery for the processing of permits constitutes, practically speaking, a moratorium on the exercise of property rights along the coastline through 1976. And the initiative provides no property tax relief whatsoever during this period. Page 4 We surmise that this effective moratorium is the product of over -zealousness, and not calculation, by the well-meaning men and women who authored the initiative. In any case, the 'gross unfairness of such inverse condemnation, directly affecting.all "Permit Area" property -owners and taxpayers, is exacerbated by Prop. 20's failure to provide for balanced membership on its proposed state and regional commissions. Under the act, experts in the fields of conservation and ecology are assured representation on the commissions, as they should be. But nothing is mentioned of any representation in the certainly equally appropriate fields of economics, employment, property use, taxation and government finance. There is no arguing that California needs a strong coastal land management program. The Coastal Initiative cannot, in our opinion, produce this program. I-ts major product would be litigation, to clarify its intent and to compensate the property — owners and taxpayers injured by its excesses. Our state legislators -and local representatives, who are directly answerable'to the people, unlike Prop. 20's regional commissioners, are the appropriate makers of rules governing local property use. They are the appropriate source of a balanced system of land management because their public service careers rest on.their sensitivity to the needs of all the people, not just to the concerns of any one group. They must consider all of the issues, in marked contrast to the oversights of Prop. 20. The narrowly focused environmental concerns of Prop. 20 leave virtually unaddressed such substantive issues as legal rights, the economy of the state, the jobs of private citizens, and the existing very pressing housing and recreational needs of the people of California. 0 Page 5 The real world must be considered. It is not considered enough in the Coastal Initiative. As a corporation that must cope with and respond to the real world, including the basic need to profit from our investment in balanced land use planning and management, the Irvine Company has no choice but to oppose Prop. 20. We are aware that our public opposition to the ballot measure, which is to be accompanied by a financial contribution to the Citizens Against Proposition 20, may engender abuse from some environmentalists. But we do not apologize. We feel a responsibility to act on our convictions, just as do those who may disagree with our position. We do not believe we are among Prop. 20's targets; but we would be among its victims. Mith passage of the measure -- and here we wish to make our self-interest abundantly'clear -- we foresee our nearly completed master plan for joint public .and private use of Irvine's undeveloped coastal lands becoming subject to redundant governmental scrutiny and unwarranted punitive delays at unfair cost to the company and to the people of California. This would occur even though our plan from the outset has been prepared in consultation with all interested government agencies and has been reviewed and privately complimented by some of the present supporters of the Coastal Initiative. The Irvine Company is currently burdened with enormous holding costs and property taxes on all of its undeveloped lands within the Coastal Initiative's "Permit Area." Property taxes alone on these lands amount to more than $3,000 a day. That is 0 Page 6 more than $1 million a year. with profitable use of our property banned, as we fear it would be, under Prop. 20, this tax burden would surely be unanimously regarded as unjust. Realistically, we do not expect the Irvine Company's interests to be weighed heavily by voters in considering the merits of Prop. 20. There are enough other facts to be considered. That there has been some irresponsible, short-sighted development along the California coastline in years past is one of these facts. That there is -a need for more effective manage- ment of coastal resources in accordance with sound state-wide planning criteria is another. But it is also an indisputable fact that major steps already have been and are being taken by local, county, state and federal agencies -to protect California's coastal assets for future generations. In Orange County, for example, 56 percent of the shoreline is already publicly owned. In'Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, South Laguna,.Capistrano•Beach.and.San•Clemente the public shoreline has-been recently expanded by public agencies at all levels_ And the Irvine Company is actively encouraging creation of public beaches, regional parks and coastal walkways in the area between Corona del Mar and Laguna. This latter effort has been endorsed by the State Park and Recreation Commission. Only ecological extremists could express dissatisfaction with this kind of response by the public and private sectors to regional recreation requirements. There is no need to grind down current efforts to meet these requirements. There is no need for Prop. 20, which betrays its stated intent of orderly management of the coastal zone by Page 7 denying the timely development of anything to manage. The Irvine Company can survive the inequities that would be imposed by Prop. 20; a more important question is whether the thousands of other homeowners, businessmen and land -owners trapped in the "Permit Area" can survive. And, if so, to what degree. Proposed ' AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION' PROPOSITIONS AND PROPOSED LAWS Together With Arguments•- ; (Arguments In support or opposition of fhe-proposed laws are,opintans.of the cuthors) a GENERAL ELECTION ' Tuesday, November 7, 1972 Compiled by GEORGE H. MURPHY, Leghlative Counsel-, , Distributed by EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., secretary of state s ri c: Assistant City Manager r City Attorney Community Development Director Rod Gunn, 0 • i of as did not evidence any deterioration of mml or social functioning which could be tributed solely to marijuana use." Marijuana users in America include•mid- !.aged legislators, housewives, businessmen d policemen. These people are not criminals d the law should recognize that reality. Help yourself, help police, and reduce -drug use. VOTE YES. Y � r 1 '.1 JOEL FORT, M.D. Public Health Specialist and Criminolo- gist; former Consultant on Drug Abuse for the World Health Organization MARY JANE FERNANDEZ Educator GORDON S. BROWNELL, J.D. Former Member•oe White Home Stag t • OASTAL ZONE CONSMVATION ACT. initiative.. Creates State t Coastal 7,ona Conservation Commission un$ six•regionai commie- c sions. Sets criteria for and requires, submission of plan to Legis- lature for preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement YES ,t of environment and ecology of coastalzone; as defined. Establishes - permit area within coastal zone,as-the area..between thi-seaward, limits of state jurisdiction and'3000-yardr landward from, thq�, ©mean high tida•line, subjectGto, specified, exceptioas;.Pioldbita any-• .. development within permit area- without -:permit by state- or -re.- gional commission: Prescribes-standards-for.,isommee: or- deaUd of permits. Act terminates after-1976. This.an"mre-approptiates five- ifO. million dollars {$5,000,000) Sorthe•perlod,1973'to 1976. Financial fr•• impact: Cost tolstate of $1;250,0Wperjear^pItiz undeterminable• local government adm£aistrativeM1coetai•1: - • , eneral Analysis, by th4-LW1idA T*CQK=d A "Yes" vote on this initiative-stamWia W ite to create the California Coastal, Zone mservation Commission and sts regional. immi"lons; to regulate, through permits sued by the regional eommissions,•develop- ent within a portiowof the coastal -zone (as fled) ; and to provide for the submission a California Coastal Zone Conservation Ian to the Legislature for its adoption and Iplementation. The statute would termi- Ite on the 91st day after final adjourn - ant of the 1976 Regular Session of the Leg. store. ' A "No" vote is a vote against adopting the- easure. For further details, see below. Detailed Analysis by the Legislative Counsel This Initiative statute would enact the ]alifornia Coastal Zone Conservation Act 19, 2" The principal provisions of the Act ould: 1. Create the California Coastal Zone Con- rvation Commission and six regional com- iadona. The regional commissions would be �mposedofmember, of the boards of super - son, city councilmen, and members of re. Dual agencies, plus an equal number of Iowledgeable members of the public. The ate commission would consist of a repre- nkative from each -of the regional commis- ms, plus an equal number of knowledge - de members of the -public. ?. Require the -state commission to submit the Legislature, by December 1, 1975, a ilifornia Coastal -Zone Conservation Plan ,sea on studies of -all factors that signifi- (Contitiued on,pago 32, columis 1) rer19K-P8ge 37e Part uj..' ? CbstAndysisbythevLegislativs Azdyat • This•initiative•declatcs that they California -- coastline is a distinct and, valuable .resource' and it isstate policy to preserve; protect and, ; where., possible, ,restore 'the, natural and scenic resources of th"oastal zonwfor pres- ent andsucceeding.generakions...The•edastaL zone generally generally includes the Iand and water area :extending seaward about three miles and Wood, to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal range: In Los Angeles, Orange' and San Diego• -Counties the inland boundary can tie• no more •then..five-miles. The initiative would cre,te,one at nte and six regional'am mi"am to: ' 1, Study. the coastal, zone and- its re- sources,' -. Z Pre pare• 'i state plan, for "its 'orderly, long-range conservation and manage- ment,and , 3. Regulate-developiamb by a permit sys.' ten, while the plan is being -prepared. The commissions. begin February, 1973, They must adopt the plan by December 1975 and terminate after adjournment of the4976 Legislature which presumably would estab� lish a permanent•commisnon based on the plan. Commission membership would be bsl� - anced between local government officials and state appointed members. - . The initiative requires the commission to study a broad range of subjects'pertaining' - to the coastal zone. The final plan ,must in-, elude recommendations on: . 1. Ecological planning principles and as- sumptions for determining suitability . and extent of development. 2. Land use. , (Continued on pane 52, column 2) —51- 7 Detailed Analysis by the Legislative Counsel (Continued from page 51, column 1) cantly affect the "coastal zone," generally - defined as land and water area extending seaward to the outer limit of the state juris- diction and inland to the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range. 3. Require each regional commission, in cooperation with appropriate local agencies, to make recommendations to the state com, mission relevant to thecosetal zone plan by Anril 1. 1975. 1, proposed development (with speeitled-ex- emptions) within- the "permit area," defined, geaerally w that pa tion-of the coutal zone - lying between the seaward limit of the juria- diction of the state and.1,000 yards landward from the mean high; -tide line, sabjeat to various exception. Provision is made for ap- peals • to the state- commm0e, and to the courts. 5. Define "development" to include the _ following•activities when conducted on land or in or under water: (a) Placement or erection of anysolid ma- terial or structure. ' (b) Discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid; or thermal waste. - (a) Grading, removing, dredging; mining, or extraction of any materials. (d) Change in. the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land and lot splits. (e) Change in the intensity of use of wa- ter, -•ecology -related thereto, or access thereto. - '• (£) Construction, reconstruction, demoli- tion, or alteration of the size of nay strue- tuie, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility, (g) Removal or logging of major vegeta- tion. 6. Provide criminal penalties for viola- tion of provisions relating to conflict bf in ' terest and specify civil•fine$ -for violation of otherprovisiom of -the act. _ In addition, the initiative statute would i add provisions to: 1. Require each county and city to trans-' - mit to the state commission a copy of each tentative map of any subdivision located in the portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction. . 2, appropriate $5,000,000 to the state com. mission to support it and the regional com- missions for the fiscal years 1973 to'1976, inclusive. 3. Terminate the initiative statute on the 91st day after final adjournment of the 1976 Regular Session of the Legislature. 4. Authorize the Legislature, by two-thirds vote, to amend the initiative statute 'in or- der to better achieve the objectives" of the statute. Cost Analysis by the LeglslativeAatslyst (Continued from page 51, Calamn S) 3. Transportation. 4. Public access. S. Recreation. 6. Public services and facilities ineludin ' apowerplant siting study. 7. Ocean mineral and living resources. .8. Maximum desirable population: dens ties. 9. Reservations, of land or waterforeel tain uses orprehibited uses. - 10. Reeommendatioea, for guverntaeatr • policies, powers and agesanw t implement the, plow, with lo, actions and are tate or local agency tr the coastal zone woaldbe The peimit area includes and 1,000 yards inland 1 under the Sail Frsaeiseo land areas may also be excluded. No de opmeht permit shall be isaned unless the gional commission; or the -state commisi on appeal,-bas found that the -develops will not have any substantial adverse en onmental or ecologieal effect and will be c sistent with objectives of the initiative *1 specify orderly; balanced preservation utilization of coastal zone resoarces, m; tenaace• of quality -'of the coastal zone vironment, avoidance of irreversible eoau ments and other stated considerations. The Legislature may amend the initial by a two-thirds Tot& to achieve the ob tines of the measure: The dircet state-emt is $5 milliea•api printed to support- the, commission thro, 1976 from a fund created iw 1971 with million of.the one-time reveaae from, w holding state personal income -taxes. Although eta$ and funds -for the Coml hensive, Goren Area Plan (COAP) are to truesferred• to the commission, no fund was provided for COAP in 1972-73. The state plan must propose reservat of land or water in the coastal zone for c twin uses or prohibition of certain uses. `. acquisition of such land would probably necessary but would require additional lei lation. Howe2er, stringent application -of permit processes could result in unkne damages from inverse condemnation suits lands not acquired. Oil and gas extract would probably be restricted, reducing i canes to the state from extraction :tad 1 sibly resulting in damages for loss of oil I auction. —52— (Continued on Pape 5,i, column,3) 0 Argument in Favor of Proposition 20 Save California's beaches and coastline for the people of California, vote YES on this nrnoositicn. - Our const has been plundered by haphazard development and land speculators. Beaches formerly coca for camping, swimming, fish ing and picnicking are closed to the public. Campgrounds along the coast are so over- crowded that thousands of Californians Are turned away. Fish are poisoned by sewoge and indastrial waste dumped into the ocean. Daek and other wildlife habitats are -buried ander streets and vacation homes for the wealthy. Ocean vistas are•walled off behind unsightly high rise apartments, office -build - in and billboards. Land speculators• bank, theirgs, profits, post their "no trespasaing"' signs and leave the small property owner with the burden of increased taxes to pay for - streets, sewers, police And fire proteetiom The coast continues to shrink.. _ -_-__ assive construction projects are oaten ap-- •ed solely to benefit corporate -landowners.• need a coastal plan, but responsibility is• mented among 45 cities, 15 counties and as of government agencies without thaa. irees to evaluate' and prevent develop - is whose destructive effects may overlap Fit SOLUTIONT " r YES vote YES VOTE WILL: Give the people direct participation in g. No important decisions will be ntil commissions hold public hearings e citizen is heard Coastal commissions mposed in equal number of locally officials and citizens representing the urnish immediate protection of Cali beaches from exploitation by the car- " 3) Prevent tai increases resulting from irresponsible developments; (4) Stimulate growth of the $42 billion, A tourist industry and make new jobsr (5) Stop our beachees from becoming the xelnsive playground of the rich; (6) Bring a runaway construction indus- try back to the cities where jobs,and new homes are needed; (7) Use the coast to enrich the life of every �(R) Prevent conflicts of interest. Tough provisions modeled after of law will keep- :onstal commissioners from planning for per- sonal profit. (9) Develop it fair Statewide Plan for bal- anned development of our coast. (10) Increase public access to the coast. (Copt inued in column 2) C6st Analysis by the Legislative Analyst (Continued front page 52, coGcmn 2) The commission may, in its discretion, r lire a reasonable filing fee to permit a pp: tions and the reimbursement of expense terefore. the revenues received depend ( the regional commissions. De- elopme.nts• along the shoreline rfer local Uraperty revenues. , (Contiriueed front cohnnn 1) { 'THE SAFEGUARDS •(1) This net will not irhposem taoratorittz or prohibit any particular hind of building but ensures that authorized construction wilt have no, substantial adverse. environmental effects' • .(2) Homeowners cati make minor repair And improvements (up toy 1,500) without any more permits than needed now; (3) The Legislature may amend the act if 'necessary'. - YOLR YES VOTE ENACTS A BILL:, (1) Supported by more thnn 50 Republi- can and Democratic state legislators; (2) Almost identical to legislation killed year after -year by lobbyists in Sacramento; (3) Modeled After the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission established by the Legislature in 1965, which has operated successfully to plan and manage the San Francisco Bay and its shoreline; (4) Sponsored by the California Coastal Alliance, a coalition of over 100 civic, labor, professional and conservntion organizations. . VOTE YES TO SAVE THE COAST JOHN V'. TUN_v'EY . Speaker -California State Assembly Rebuttal to Argument iti Favor of Proposition 20 The proponents' Argument for Proposition 20 is a textbook example of circumvention of the facts. It is filled with such misleading statements as protection of California's beaches from exploitation by the corporate land grab"; —53— r `J "stop our beaches from becoming the eaclu• sive playground of the rich"; "this act will not impose a moratorium"; "give the people direct participation in planning," The truth is that the only "land grab" is that planned by the proponents of Propo- sition 20, who have devolved a scheme for appropriating private property without pay- in,- for it. r • .The truth is that Proposition 20 would make beach lands a haven for the rich who have already developed . "exclusive- play- grounds." The foremost motivation of theIni- tiative's elitist proponents is to preclude the' enjoyment of coastal areas by- retired -and - working peoples The truth is that Proposition •20 would, as, a piachai matter, establish; a two to four year moratorium on virtually all building is the coastal area, including deidopmear for result would lit a and -local tax collectiom.whieh-weiM create a severe•economie depressioeria.. or,-maeof the 15 coastal counties. - The truth is that people -would have- no direct participation in planning; which would be the sole,pieogativa of super-Statcand re« gional agencies composed of appointed com- missioners:. - Proposition 20 is discriminatory legislation and should be wuadly defeated so that the. people's elected representatives can get. on. with the job of completing sensible environ- mental and zoning controls over California's eastliar, ' DAMES S. LEE, Presidents State l3nildingand Constroction .. Trades Council of California GEORGEAHRISTOPHER , • - Former Mayor -of San Franyrieee-. .IOHNJ.ROYAL ' Executive Secretary Tremurer Fishermen's & Allied Workers Union, LL.W.U. Argument Against Prooasitisa.M Proposition 20 on the Novemberballot represents bad government for all Califor mans. Proposition 20 is bad because it takes, government frromthe hands of thcwters In'the name of. coastal 'proteetion; proposi- tion 20 would impose• mi appointed, not elected, super -government to control the desti- nies of almost 31 million people who live near, and over 1 million who work close to oui ocean shore. • California's 1,037 mile coastline is not en. da. ngered. . The State's ofltcinl Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan, which has inventoried the total coastal area, shows .that 74r/o of the land is in open space, 65.17o is undeveloped is anq way, and 54% is already in public ownership. It would substitute. for that process judgment of a vast new bareaum,cy and pointive•commissioners Iargely representat of a single purpose point of view. It is on the ballot because -its spoewrn h, ignored all reasonable etfortsby tbeState, local government, by labor; by business• e civic organisations to develop aa•oedertr ie are workhw- . • A recent Statewleptsdpliss- rr al:.7U: a year the -Pun we. ap- cnrtia fasitiont Yet thrapoo'en•ot•]?ro'poaitioe.•2O vn lo* aw,Califorsiw's-caaedinefor, at 1 threeyfetr, and pio"riforera«. The resalts.oEPrapsitiee•2O if'it•shc .Pan iedade- - -Lose. of $2;730,008✓in'tax revenues nualtTas•valas.-hrthe^eaaetsi zone are ducei and assessments dropped, thus fore higher. taxes on cosvtal coentieq cities' i school districts; - =Lose of millionrof dollars and thanes of jobs in needed development projects, j especially important to racial and eammi minorities in the construction industry. Telay- of needed- oceanfront and be recreational projects: because• of the me ure's disastrous fiscal implications, to State as a•whole. —Lose-of loed-control,•ond-local voiee local a0i$vi. Thrmt of increased-powershortaga a possible-browaouts beause•of delays in ce strnctioa of new power generating plants, —Loos of property^rights'through inve condemnation. without compensation as p vate laoil use is denied bat:pmperthw are a burehased.by government. - Evemwmore-importsnt'•if• Propeeiliew •pasty, whatto nertt- Nowhere in the planab ir, principles forth is Proposition 20 are the words "e, omy" or "economics" used once, If the people of California want states land planning such planning must al equally to all areas of the'State, not just coast, The federal government, the Califor Legislature, state and local government I regulatory agencies are ready to complete job. —54— .0 Proposition 20 would halt that effort o- Don't lock up California's coastside. 'Vote NO on Proposition 20. to JAMES S. LEE, President State Building & Construction .e Trades Council of California .a OEOROE CHRISTOPHER y Former Mayor of San Francisco d - JOHN J. ROYAL d Executive Secretary Treasures a Fishermen's &Allied Workers Union, I.L.W.U. z' Rebuttal to Argument Against - Proposition 20 The real opponents of the Coastline Initia- tive —the oil industry, real estate speculators • and developers, and the utilities,--are-primar- ily concerned with profits, not the public im- Iterest. Their arguments are simply not tree. • Every government study, ever}' saieatida•. 1 report, every trip to the beach proves that our• beaches ARE-endaugeiel.' ' The public has been donted•aceesstohum- dreds of.miles of beaches andpublicly owned - tidelands by freeways, private clubs, residen-• tied and industrial developments. " Two-thirds of California's estuaries and many of our beaches have been destroyed. ' Of California's 1072 miles of coast, 659 art) privately owned; of the 413 miles pnb- WMENT OF STUDENTS TO SCHOO tion to Education Code providing: "No because of his rice, creed, or color, be a �j that racial and ethnic imbaim schools shall be prevented and (1) establishes factors for con mating racial or ethnic imbahm school districts to report numb ethnic groups in each school; m Plans to remedy imbalanees F licly owned, only 252 are available for public recreation. ' Proposition 20 represents an open beach and public access policy for Californians now'locked out from swimming, beach recre- afton, surf-fisbing and skin diving. • The initiative process, the essence of de• mocracy, gives the -people this opportunity to enact themselves what unresponsive govern- ment has for years refused to do. ' Proposition 20 contains NO prohibition - on the construction'of power plants, Rather, - it offers a sensible,plan to determine where-- • not if —new planta may be built ' One•half the membership of the six coast- , al eommisstons will be locally elected officials '' The opponents claim revenue and job, Iosse& These seaie- tactics- have• no basis in. fact', ' •b£anylabornitons; including the IliijVU, Northern and Southern District Couneils,.are^ on -record in support of the,Comtiine Initia+. tive:- I _ Pote YES'on8ropositiow20. - JOBN V. TUNNEY Uatted States Senator,- DONALD L. ORUNSBY- - State Senator - a • (R.Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo and San Benito Counties) BOB MORETTI Assemblyman . Speaker —California State Assembly Adds see. ' - ident shall, required to YES img policy, in public tion which r or elimi- 1) requires• racial and - NO to develop - (For Fall Textof Meaentepsee page 33, Part D:) - General Analysis by the Legislative Counsel Cost Analysis -by the Legislative Anslyft A "Yes" vote on this initiative statute is:a Existing law requires school districts to vote to prohibit any public school student (1) submit statistics -to. the State Depart �- from being assigned to a particulaiz school meat of Edueadofrregarding the racial and, because of his race, creed, or color; and to ethnic makeup of school populations in, each a school, (2) study and.eousider plans for al- repeal the existing statutes and void the ternate pupil distributions if the State De - existing regulations of the State Board of partment of Education dads that the per - Education which declare the state policy -of centage of pupils of one or more racial or preventing and eliminating racial and ethnic ethnic groups differs significantly from the imbalance in pupil enrollment and which distrietwide percentage, and (3), submit a - report of alternate plans and a schedule of make provision for carrying out such policy. implementation to the State Department of ' A "No" vote is a vote against enactment Education for acceptance or rejection. The ` of the initiative act. State Board of Education is directed to For further details, see below. adopt rules and regulations to implement 'the above requirements. (Detailed analysis on page 56, column 1) (Continued on page 56, column 2) —55 IIIIiihV�I;hliiill�� t Detailed Analysk.by the Lagislative Counsel. This measure would add a provision to the Education Code that no public school stu. dent shall be assigned to a particular school because of his race, creed, or color. The ef- feet' which would be given this 'provision would depend upon its interpretation by the, courts in the light of their decisions that the "Equal Protection Clause. of the United States Constitution requires school boards to take reasonable steps to preventand eliminate racial and etbnie imbalance in•pupil -enroll-, went_ - • The meaun would, also. repeaL certain" casting statutes aad..void• certaim'evating•- ...` Cost Analyaiaby tha'Leolativa Analyst' (Cootiwued frompagrSS, colutnw 2) This initiative, measure, would repeal the above requirements and declare that no pub- " lie school student shall, became of his race, , creed or color, be assigned, to or be required , to attend a• particular- school. We believethere would be naincrease in � ^ state costs because of this measure- There might be a slight reduction -in, state costs , because of the elimination of cerWM state . administrative• responsibilities. witln•regwt.' to school, district plans conceraingxac al -end ethnia makeup of school populations,.' ., ' 'regulations:ofthe,StiteBoard,ofEdmatiow.^:.=.':.(Cop"Eieredfroercoiamw-,2X3•a`.e: ° . '• Mon- Deletelai•• a preset declo anon '. (1) Delete the present deduatioa, of .'-' - , . (3k�Delete'•the•pzeaentiregniiemiritthap a policythatreeponeibleagenoiss.praveat-and, elimiaata• rue po and, -ethnia-imrevent nd,,,pupils"whim,the ell radak- sehool:distrie.consider-.consider Departmerit•of Bdueation, e finds,that:fbetpercpntage, oL. upili,of one-, inata. -' (2). Delete, the present ngairement• that taULor ethaia,grodpii„ipi'y school dfScis9. ei$oaatly;•fnns•. the?;.dutriotwide i . the prevention and eliminetiow of such ins -'- balance, be given high priority is..decisionm .relating,tasehool sites,attendanee"Area,and. (6), Delete the present regdirement thak t - school-di�ti•Tebraaalystt`he-totaGednestionai,-' ' attendance -practices. tofsedptributioaplansAn,pupils.aad. (g), Delete tha present; requirement that- It-tha-atudyaadtheproposed• '•ically localnporta•of school', board&submit statistics, period- to the, Department, of Education re-• �R_wi partment of Education: for approval..: " garding racial and, ethnfe`makeop-of school population in each-school-under requirement that, ('depart onto Education- he the Department of Education- diction.. schedules na ' adequacy of aught plane and schedules cad.: ' • 4 Delete, resent definition. of .a O P report•its-ffidiaga to the 9tato-Board of Edu- racial or -ethnic imbalance. - cation,withah-annnalsummarytotheLegis., Noatiauedincolumw,?) latnn: ;,'..- 41; .., - . Argameatin Favor of Preposition2l •" The Initiative -repeals the law which states 3 The Student School Assignment-Iaitiativs, it is the declared, policy of •the, Zegislature ccmmonlyreferredto," the ,wakefield.Aiti- •thatracial and ethnicimbalances in pupil so-'� Busing" measure, repeals a law pissed -is.. -iollment shill -be prevented 'end eliminate&, 1971�vhiehmandatenforeedintegration,which , The Initiative,npeale therlasr which•etatea'• could only be aeeemplishea throusir- fai4ida thaipreientioti and, elimination of- such imp# busing, ..- " Your "yes" vote forthis measure -will pre- "babuue-plull be••given high priority. - ._. The initiative repeals the law which re-, •. serve your right as &parent to bave'your ehil- 'quires,tbatdistriat studyand plansof action; dren attend schools in the neighborhoodwhae; ,withx schedules. for, implementation ihall be you chose talive:'enbasitted The Initiative adds s aeatioa'to=the-Edue& - to- the'Departmeat of Education, -fo"r atteplaace-or, rejection. . ' Lion' Code•.providingt "No publielachool-stu+- dent shall,,because;of,hisrseeperee,d,;ok•coloe, - • - -.. :' 0-��_4of'theStudentSchgol-Asatga.„ '�t'%gitiative declare be asbigaed-to or"be-required:tmaifard•cpu-, h 7 ,r would , -!!Ault in& ,'void that.section, of the Education: Admin ttenlar se oo . • .- Failure -of thin . measure.will aaeuie them- �"tin'Coderelatiagfotbe•attendanco-ueari forcemeht• of State Board of Education,rales. and praatiea,' as. set forth is Educations and Educatio and regulations required' by the, Bagley.,Act •Code;-4bA haa=crrsted legal, chao".or•sehooL (AB 724) or the forced integration measure districts. - J, to compel school districts• to, assign students '- The courts -have already ordered several to schools on the basis of "racial balance" districts -in California to implement the new without regard to, neighborhood whools- or forced integration law. parental consent. For the first time is., any We oppose mandatory busingEfor the soler state, racial balance has beeoma a legal man• ' purpose of achieving forced integration, A date. _ • I policy based on this objective destroys theo- PROPOSITION 20 PERMIT PROCEDURES In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 20 as set forth in the Interim Regulations in Article 2 (Local Government Permit Notification), it is the intent of the Department to use the following Procedure for Submission of Applications and Permits: 1. When a "Use Permit,""Variance," "Modification," " "Resubdivision," or "Planned Community" amendment is re- quested, upon receipt of application the City will forward a copy to the South Coast Regional Commission. If the applicant is within the 1000 yard permit area, he shall at the same time apply for a "Zoning Compliance Permit" (for which there will be no charge in this instance). A copy of the approved "Zoning Compliance Permit" will be sent to the South Coast Regional Commission. Issu- ance of the "Zoning Compliance Permit" shall be consid- ered "approval in concept" (as used in the context of the Interim Regulations of the Coastal Commission). The developer can at this poi-nt file an application with the Regional Commission as provided in Sections 210 and 211 of the Regulations. He may then file an application with the City for a building permit or he may wait until a decision is made on the project by the Regional Commis- sion and then apply for a building permit. 2. When no "Variance," "Use re uirea ana the aeveio er Goes not aes,re to a iv a Zoning Compliance Permit, a would apply for a "Building Permit." In order for the City to accept his application, it would be necessary for him to prepare and submit complete working drawings. His application for a "Building Permit" would be forwarded by the Department to the South Coast Regional Commis- sion, and the Commission would be notified upon the issuance of the permit. Only then would the developer be able to submit his application to the Commission. 3. When no "Variance," "Use Permit," etc. is requested rovai in conc aoino through all the steps necessary for procurement of a "Building Permit," as an optional procedure for t e eve oper, the Department will accept applications for "Zoning Compliance Permits" (for a fee of $15.00). It will be necessary for the developer to submit only plot plans and elevations rather than full working drawings. Upon approval of this application, the Department will send copies of the approved applica- tion to the South Coast Regional Commission (the Zon- ing Compliance Permit serving as "approval in concept"). Copies of "Building Permit" applications and approvals, and "Zoning Compliance Permits," will be forwarded to the South Coast Regional Commission on a biweekly basis. In instances where it is necessary that an applicant clear a project with other departments of the City, no "Zoning Compliance Permit" will be issued until such approval is received. In cases where a zone change or Code amendment is under active con- sideration by the City in order to implement General Plan Policies, no "Certificate of Zoning Compliance" will be issued. For those who have received building permits and.must apply for Regional Permits, the sixty day waiting period will be extended by the length of time between the application for and issuance of the Regional Permit. Applicant is required to show evidence of date application was sub- mitted and date permit was received. THREE OPTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION TO SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST REGIONAL ' COMMISSION ISSUANCE ISSUANCE - OF OF ,BUILDING BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT - -- ---- ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT _ APPLICATION APPLICATION' FOR FOR BUILDING BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT - - - - APPLICATION -FOR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE_ OF ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT ISSUANCE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT ISSUANCE -- - - - OF VARIANCE, USE PERMIT, ETC. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE, USE PERMIT, ETC. Ll N O T I C E This Building Permit in no way excludes the applicant from the provisions of the California Coastal Zone.Conservation Act (Proposition 20). If it is determined that your property lies within the Permit Boundary Area, you are required by California law to file application with the South Coast Regional Commission Post Office Box 570 Long Beach, California 90801 and receive their approval prior to commencement of construction. Violations are provided for as stated in the following Sections: 27500. Any person who violates any provision of this division shall be subject to a civil fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). 27501. In addition to any other penalties, any person who performs any development in violation of this division shall be subject to a civil fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) per day for each day in which such violation persists. Any questions regarding permit procedure should be directed to: South Coast Regional Commission (Area 213) 436-4201 (Office Hours: 10-12, 2-4:30) Monday through Friday e N O T I C E Coast Regional Commission kiT your yard permit area). FIWA ubd es witnin tine The following sections of Division 18 of the Public Resources Code (Proposition 20, as passed by the voters on December 7, 1972) are quoted for your information: 27103. "Development" means, on land, in or under Water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredge material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grad- ing, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; chanqe in the density or intensity of use of pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and any otner aivi- sion of land, including lot splits; change in the inten- sity of use of water, ecology related thereto,'or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility, and the removal or logging of major vegetation. As used in this section, "structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmis- sion and distribution line. 27400. On or after February 1, 1973, any person wishing to perform any development within the permit area shall obtain a permit authorizing such development from the Regional Commission and, if required by law, from any city, county, state, regional or local agency. It is necessary to receive the approval of the South Coast Regional Commission based upon a Final Tract Map (subdivision) or Resubdivision (lot split). This is in addition to any permit that may be required from the South Coast Regional Commission for building. If you have any further questions, contact the South Coast Regional Commission.. . Phones: Mailing Address: (Area 213) 436-4201 - P.O. Box 1450 436-4202 Long Beach, California 90801 (Area 714) 846-0648 846-0649 International Towers 666 East Ocean Office Hours: Suite 3107 Long Beach, California 90801 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M. Monday through Friday CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION SOUTH COAST REGION P.O. Box 1450, Long Beach, California 90801 Telephone: 213/436-4201, .714/846-3662 APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION UNDER VESTED RIGHTS (27404): In order to establish claim of exemption from commission permit requirements under the vested rights section, Division 18, of public resources code the following form must be completed. 27404, If, prior to the effective date of this division, any city or county has issued a building permit, no person who has obtained a vested right there- under shall be required to secure a permit from the regional commission, provid- ing that no substantial changes may be made in any such development, except in accordance with the provisions of this division. Any such person shall be deemed to have such vested rights if, prior to April 1, 1972 he has in good faith and in reliance upon the building permit diligently commenced construction and performed substantial work on the development and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. Expenses incurred in obtaining the enactment of an ordinance in relation to the particular development or the issuance of a permit shall not be deemed liabilities for work or material. 1. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant: Zip Code Area Code 2. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant's representative, if any: Zip Code Area Code 3. Describe exactly the development claimed to be exempt. Include all incidental improvements such as utilities, roads, etc. Attach a site plan or other drawing depicting the development and the location in relationship to the general area. 4. Describe those portions of the development that are completed, and give the dates of completion. TO BE FILLED IN BY THE COMMISSION: Application Number Date Filed Public Hearing Date South Coast - 27404 S. Describe those portions of the development that were under construc- tion as of April 11 1972 November 8, 197 and February 1, 1973 and describe the stage of construction on each of those dates. 6. Describe those portions of the development remaining to be constructed. 7. On what date did actual work on the development commence? If grading, foundation work, structures or similar items are involved, list separately the dates on which work on each of these items commenced. Estimate percentage of total work completed as of permit application date. 8. List all required approvals, permits, and reports from any public agencies, including federal agencies, and list which of those approvals have been obtained and when. Supply legible copies. List those approvals, permits, and reports which remain to be obtained. Include copies of all permits, reports, and approvals obtained. Specify zoning. 9. State the expected total cost of the development, excluding expenses incurred in securing any necessary governmental approvals and permits. 10. State the amount of money which had been expended on the development (excluding all expenses incurred in securing any necessary govern- mental approvals) on April 1, 1972; November 8, 1972; and February 11 1973. 11. List the amount and nature of all liabilities incurred and when they were incurred. List any remaining liabilities to be incurred and when these are anticipated to be incurred. 12. Does the development contain a concept of phases or segments? Explain. 13. When is it anticipated that the total development will be completed? CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the information in this application and all attached exhibits are full, complete, and corrects I understand that any misstatement or omission of the requested information or of any information subsequently requested, shall be grounds for denying the permit, for suspending or revoking a permit issued on the basis of these or subsequent representations, or for the seeking of such other and further relief as may seem proper to the Commission. Name Title - 2 - Statist Area A2 1.3 Cl & F1 F-5,6,7 H-1,2, ILL APPENDIX I (Residential) tea. U i,l ` Area Number of Lots Lots Fully Developed % of p, Fs Description Zone Developed Vacant Total Number Total bensity - - Ep Hoag Hospital & nearby R3 128 0 128 128 100.0 17.8 IN Condominiums Newport Shores 'R1 409 21 430 409 95.1 R2 17 0 17 5 29.4 R3 3 0 3 3 100.0 --- Total 429 21 450 417 6.3 92.7 Q Lido Island R1 726 6 732 726 99.2 R3 83 1 84 36 42.9 Total 809 7 816 762 13.1 93.4 Irvine Terrace R1 400 4 404 400 99.0 R3 1 0 1 1 100.0 Total 401 4 405 401 4.6 99.0 ,8 East Corona del Mar RIB 591 15 606 591 97.5 R2B 44 0 444 1 2.3 R3B 27 0 27 26 96.3 Total 662 15 677 618 4.02 91.3 3 Newport Heights, Cliffhaven R1 1102 29 1131 1102 97.4 R2 129 3 132 7 5.3 R3 81 3 84 55 65.5 U 4 0 4 4 100.0 Total 1316 35 1351 1168 7.3 86.5 Bayshores R1 233 0 233 233 100.0 R3 1 0 1 1 100.0 Total 234 0 234 234 9.2 100.0 APPENDIX I (Residential) Cont. Lots Fully Number of Lots Developed Statistical Area % of Area Description Zone Vacant Total Number Total Density —Developed J-1,2,3,4 Westcliff, Harbor Highlands, Dover Shores, Upper Bay R1 241 11 252 241 95.6 RIB 1639 85 1724 1639 95.1 R3 41 0 41 41 100.0 R3B 1 0 1 1 100.0 R4 1 0 1 1 100.0 Total 1923 36- 2019 1923 8.3 95.2 K-1,2,3 Park Newport, Bluffs, RIB 461 0 461 461 100.0 East Bluffs PRD 933 333 1266 933 73.7 (R3B, R4B) Park NWPRT U 1 0 1 1 106000 Total 1395 333 1728 1355 7.5 80.7 LI Grandville Apartments U 1 0 1 1 100.0 5.6 Statistical Area A2 1.2 Cl & C2 F1 F-5,6,7,8 -1,2,3 H4 APPENDIX I (Residential) Area Description Zone Number of Lots Lots FullyDevelo ed Density Developed Vacant Total Number % of Total Hoag Hospital & nearby Condominiums R3 .128 0 128 128 100.0 17.8 Newport Shores R1 R2 R3 Total 409 17 3 629 21 0 0 21 430 17 3 450, -409 5 3 417 95.1 29.4 100.0 6.3 92.7 Lido Island R1 R3 Total 726 83 809 6 1 7 732 84 816 726 36 762 99.2 42.9 13.1 93.4 Irvine Terrace R1 R3 Total 400 1 431 4 0 4 404 1 435 400 1 4 11 99.0 100.0 4.6 99.0. East Corona del Mar RIB R2B R3B Total 591 44 27 6 22 15 0 0 15 606 :44 27 6 77 591 1 26 6 88 97.5 2.3 96.3 4.02 91.3 Newport Heights, Cliffhaven R1 R2 R3 U Total 1102 129 81 4 1316 29 3 3 0 35 1131 132 84 4 1351 1102 7 55 4 1 668 97.4 5.3 65.5 100.0 86.5 7.3 Bayshores RI R3 Total 233 1 234 0 0 0 233 1 634 233 1 234 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.2 Statistical Area A2 a Cl & C2 F1 F-5,6,7,8 -1,2,3 H4 APPENDIX I (Residential) Area Description Zone Number of Lots Lots Fully Developed Density Developed Vacant Total Number % of Total Hoag Hospital & nearby Condominiums R3 128 0 128 128 100,0 17.8 Newport Shores R1 R2 R3 Total 409 17 3 439 21 0 0 21 430 - 17 3 450 •409 5 3 417 - 95.1 29.4 100.0 6.3 92.7 Lido Island R1 R3 Total 726 83 809 6 1 7 732 84 816 726 36 762 99.2 42.9 13.1 93.4 Irvine Terrace Rl R3 Total 400 1 401 4 0 4 404 1 405 .400 1 401 99.0 100.0 4.6 99.0 East Corona del Mar RlB R2B R3B Total 591 44 27 632 15 0 0 15 606 44 27 677 591 1 26 6 88 97.5 2.3 96.3 91.3 4.02 Newport Heights, Cliffhaven R1 R2 R3 U Total 1102 129 81 4 1316 29 3 3 0 35 1131 132 84 4 1351 1102 7 55 4 1168 97.4 5.3 65.5 100.0 86.5 7.3 Bayshores R1 R3 Total 233 1 234 0 0 0 233 1 234 233 1 234 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.2 APPENDIX I (Residential Cont. Lots Fully Number of Lots Developed Statistical Area % of Area Description Zone Developed Vacant Total Number Total_ Density_ J-1,2,3,4 Westcliff, Harbor Highlands, Dover Shores, Upper Bay R1 241 11 252 241 95.6 RIB 1639 85 1724 1639 95.1 R3 41 0 41 41 100.0 R3B I 0 1 1 100.0 R4 1 0 1 1 100.0 Total 1923 96. 2019 1223 8.3 95.2 K-1,2,3 Park Newport, Bluffs, RIB 461 0 461 461 100.0 East Bluffs PRD 933 333 1266 933 73.7 (R3B, R4B) Park NWPRT U 1 0 1 1 100.0 Total 1395 333 1728 1395 80.7 7.5 Ll ' Grandville Apartments U 1 0 1 1 100.0 5.6 I APPENDIX I (Residential) Cont. Lots Fully Number of Lots Developed Statistical Area % of Area Description Zone Developed Vacant Total Number Total Density' J-1,2,3,4 Westcliff, Harbor Highlands, Dover Shores, Upper Bay R1 241 11 252 241 95.6 RIB 1639 85 1724 1639 95.1 R3 41 0 41 41 100.0 R3B 1 0 1 1 100.0 R4 1 0 1 1 100.0 Total 1923 96 20 99 1223 8.3 95.2 K-1,2,3 Park Newport, Bluffs, RIB 461 0 461 461 100.0 East Bluffs PRD 933 333 1266 933 73.7 (R3B, R4B) Park NWPRT U 1 0 1 1 100.0 Total 1395 333 1728 1355 7.5 80.7 Ll Grandville Apartments U 1 0 1 1 100.0 5.6 APPENDIX II (Commercial & Industrial) Statistical Area Area1 Description Zone Number of Lots Lots -Fully Developed Developed Vacant Total Number of Total A2 Hospital Road and Superior Avenue 6 0 6 6 100.0 B4 Balboa Boulevard and Coast Highway 3 0 3 3 100.0 E1 & E3 All Balboa Island Commer- cial Zones 96 1 97 83 85.6 F1 & F4 Corona del Mar (Coast Highway) 175 10 185 174 94.0 G1 Bayside Shopping Center & Commercial Area at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway 3 0 3 3 100.0 H1 Old Newport (North Newport Boulevard) 59 1 60 58 98.0 J2 & H3' Westcliff Drive and Dover Drive 30 0 30 30 100.0 K1 Newporter Inn 1 0 1 1 100.0 K2 Eastbluff Plaza 4 0 4 4 100.0 L APPENDIX II (Commercial & Industrial) Statistical Area Area Description Zone Number of Lots Lots -•Fully Developed Developed Vacant Total Number % of Total A2 Hospital Road and Superior Avenue 6 0 6 6 100.0 B4 Balboa Boulevard and Coast Highway 3 0 3 3 100.0 E1 & E3 All Balboa Island Commer- cial Zones 96 1 97 83 85.6 F1 & F4 Corona del Mar (Coast Highway) 175 10 185 174 94.0 G1 Bayside Shopping Center & Commercial Area at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway 3 0 3 - 3 100.0 H1 Old Newport (North Newport Boulevard) 59 1 60 58 98.0 J2 & H3 Westcliff Drive and Dover Drive 30 0 30 30 100.0 K1 Newporter Inn 1 0 1 1 100.0 K2 Eastbluff Plaza 4 0 4 4 100.0 _ J � O O i1� e `_ PAIT'A14��71° a.�' °4 '�uvon� �`�.,•��11.! ��1� _ _,.. 1 k' i NOISSIWW00 lVNOI93'd 1SV00 Hinos d0 V3UV IIWd3d OUVA OOOL 3H1 9NIMMI130 HOV39 AOMN 30 AJIO