HomeMy WebLinkAbout22.04 COASTAL PLAN- CITY CORRESPONDENCE11111111 ICI 11111111111111111111111111 lill III lill
*NEW FILE*
22.04 COASTAL PLAN - CITY
CORRESPONDENCE
i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 91660
January 19, 1977
Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Mr. Bodovitz:
City Hull
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714W3-21&
640-2261
HUE CC441760Y
DO NOT RE1%90VE
This letter is in response to Chapter 7 of the proposed Coastal
Commission regulations dealing with coastal development permits
issued by local governments.
As a general comment, it is our.feeling that the provisions of
Chapter 7 are excessively complex and would impose unnecessary
and undesirable delay in the assumption of permit responsibility
by local governments. With respect to the local permit option,
Sections 30600 and 30620.5 of the Coastal Act clearly do not
mandate the filing of a "notice of intent" and the related
review procedures as described in the proposed regulations
beginning with Section 12720. The proposed 30-day review period
for local permit systems described in Section 12722 is particularly
cumbersome. 'Inasmuch as the Coastal Act will impose an increased
workload on the regional commissions in the preparation and review
of local coastal programs, local governments should be allowed
to exercise the permit option as expeditiously as possible.
The City of Newport Beach is willing to assume the coastal
development permit responsibility and is capable of assuring that
such permits are issued in full compliance with the Coastal Act
of 1976. '
We have prepared, for your consideration, an alternative version
of Chapter 7 of the regulations which addresses our concerns as
discussed generally above. A copy of this suggested amendment is
attached. It is hoped that our proposals will be reviewed by the
Coastal Commission prior to the adoption of regulations pertaining
to local permit issuance.
Thank you for your consideration of our suggestions.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RVH
A t-t
mb
ctor
f, 0 0
CHAPTER 7 Coastal Development — Permits Issued by
Local Governments and Other -Public Agencies
Subchapter 1 — Coastal Development Permits Issued by Local Governments
Section 12700. Applicability of Chdpter to Developments within the Coastal Zone.
This chapter shall govern the issuance by local governments of coastal
development peimits pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30600(b) and
shall be applicable to any person wishing to perfom or undertake any
development in the coastal zone except for the following:
1.' Any development on tidelands, submerged lands, or.on public trust
lands, whether filled or unfilled.
2. Any development by a public agency for which a local government
permit is not otherwise required.
3. Any development subject to the provision of Section 30608, 30610,
3o610.5, 306ll and 3o624 of the Public Resources Code.
Article 1. Local Government Coastal Development Permit Program
Section 12710. Coastal Development. (a) Following the implementation of
a coastal development permit program by a local government as premed -i*
8eeUe 12723, any person wishing to perform a development within the affected
jurisdiction except -e& spe=' _'__'_ #n Seetrie -12?68 shall obtain a coastal
development permit from the local government. If the development is one
specified in Public Resources Code 30601, a permit must also be.obtained from
the regional commission or the commission where there is no regional commission,
in addition to the permit otherwise required from the local government; 4.a-
eizeh Insta a a, -en Tegtenanl
app��n-shs3�. tat -be �mede #e#,ke s.;...:___==-
er the vomraiasa osi au4�-1 a eeae%a11 deuela�aeat pe t-has -b"n abta4ne from
the epprePriete lee&! 9ev errt.
` , •
(b) Where any proposed activity involves more than one action
constituting a development under Public Resources Code Section 30106, the
sum of such actions may be incorporated into one coastal development permit
application and into one coastal development permit,fer purgeses si'-the
TtCtYf2 Ca''b'tOTl 9#' oe__---- 4:27119'iprevided, avm-ocz, #,htt# i49-
s al do :-el_pme., aet:L-A -may to eemmeneed -er Initiate -in any- way-
:uatl tke everel develepmeRt -hae bees re;4ewed pwavant to the previsieft 9f
Article 2. Requirements for the Local Government Coastal
Development Permit System
Section 12720. local Government Coastal Development Review
Procedures. If the local government exercises its option to
issue coastal development permits, it shall establish permit
issuing procedures consistent with Sections 30600 (b) and 30620.5
of the Public Resources Code, and which incorporates interpretive
guidelines issued by the commission in accordance with Section
30620 of the Public Resources Code.
Prior to exereising•the option provided—€er 4n R..bl=a RescA.1rees Gede Seeili_.
39699(b), $ is ea gevenne"ahkle`- e- eme el a his epien-ehaa7l e
%1% #.lie eefi se es -a- seta ee of- intent -te eatablish -s -1 e gevermrse
eeastes +?o•:elepmen t permit pvegram seas etent ;4th the procedures adeptsd
by the eeam}so}ea jauveaaist to T w— i9vevIeless of Ptzblta es Gods
Seet#en 39620 -end in eeeerdenee wit k Seetien 12-729 .5 e€ these regulatien .
T49 notice -GE -intent -may -be filed at anytime fellewing -thee adeptien -of the-
gareeeduree-set feri -is Seetien 12729.5 and slot set fe -the speeifi
. • •
leea--- -aadreqialvemeat suffQWt4n -OCRle eseye........ent 18
eenteati-en mat -it w4ll €a€}-1-1 -the relents e€ eion l2i�26. 5.
pp000 ixreg lei+ the prepGaed lee&l ge�t esasta develepment Pe nt
pregr&m shall ineltide, -bat net- be ii-mited lie-th-e fe
(a%-app3:iea-tlerx 4ems--P6£--0e38t31development that
at -a -� =mom the seine #n€erMdt-ien regblired'bY- the a aszan -8 1-vht
vagi,Q"l eemedreaion $ UaAedietilcn 44s• the -area en- aeaete&l semtaiae"n
that •has 4aearpevated -the �'�_pzletIva gAdelinee- adapted 4ay- the eommi&slon
ptnreuent-te Publ-le -Resourees Cede Seetion38629' into leee-1 development
xauzaFc proesdumes -arid 2 statement -o-f, hoax the- iuterPret ve gamines
adoptad -pursuant to- Publi¢ Rssouxaes 4ode Seat4on -3962-0 have been inesrgerated
late the --lee government -permit __ __:: sy tem-in eenfermanee .fith th
pro isions -e€ Pub!! Researees Cede -Seetien 3062G 5,
-{e-)- .deelSaa*t,#en-e€ die eretienary laeO ev bow the 3eeel
-governmeM that -AU reviejf apgli-e� 4omniaslen -pe eder ts-eetabld.shed
pureu d;a Pubile Reavarees Gede See#!Len 39625(e) end- thart id! mace-tM
cgs Wired by-,�� Reoeareee GadSeet-len 30694-f-9P iaa ee a€
avow•-0Casta develegment pew;
o e ,
government and time deadlines 4-ar appeal -of, develoi=@", to
-pro oad?av -£cxproviding iati$e 44o- hhepersons
who- PeQueat neti:ee! of 'pendiaB PerBrEti appl#eatiene- and Of- ri:girts of- appeal
within -the-aoea•l geverme -arid -te- the-r�l eemiesien -or- cemitssien a--6--a-
R+ rev ts3.•en €or sty, tntares-ted- person -to- eormmmm-cate -his or --ham
eaneems -to the weal. gwemment sagenoyat-ali leuele of pest
(gj idemtificatsere-ems the peint -in -the develepmen% PevieW Pr-Q8ea8-whexe
the eeast3l develepment remit wil 4ae-revie :ea and issued -and wheve
1,120"P SClS'Pf-eue11 pew iseeenee- shall -be••made -te•+-ono-apeg-W a ml eenvAssie
ex -tare L'emnODien -and -Vo-w*Limrmo -wh& h.&s! ___ witing, eq` e&-6e ` net -I fleatien,
�O.isr�•i�aa..�n+�3�.c�}vim=_ _�_� r__ �1��
-.atates+eijt-eir the- Info2 ataron -to -be contain" an- he 1av+Y,,4&be
i881 A6E-0• •3-egaste'1l a••••-av+•vIvpemilt„�p, Peej�'Ped'-by ic-ieewiyeeo
Gede etio i9 znGn ) rift.,. .c,...., tle +.. the +: ee
-xrac 'rFcivs wuvlvrt-ov �8-C6n�'ig4iiCd-3ik" m'xc-zxe'ctcc
of -development approve! hail ;.� e-but net be l3-Rri.-sed-te, {3-) •e-eepy &f-
the-permL:b appl#�-ea!id any subsegttertt bnereto, (P} a-st>mcarq
of -the ae#,ten then •Dy-the leeal- ge espy ef-any
a-natieaa at+;,ahed to. tha'1eealgeven4ment pem6t appreverl wt4 a i4le
findings made -at the tr me of the app a -eA
iQ ___e f e language that oeastalwent
•pePmt-making the permit-ef-feet'v-e--onl-y- upon the Q%Pixstin;3 -F twenty
(Pe}-wost:sng-dale from the -time -e4- reed-pt &f net-ie by- the regiena3 ee.°::.^'=______
previ4ed-i-n- zResea'zrees-'cede ei7cctien znCnn end :613e abeenee osig xiho-
preper f-iling of an ,,ppe within throb tiffle:
�1 1 0
Section 12721. Timing of Local Government Review. Gens�steRt
w4th-the-regu#regents-a€-Seet4em-1272976, A local government
exercising the option provided for in Section 30600 (b) of the
Public Resources Code may incoroporate the coastal development
permit review into any existing local permit procedure which
provides for reviewing public comment, the taking of evidence
and the adoption of findings, or it may establish a separate
coastal development permit application review procedure.
See%ien12722 -'ys!- of Noti:CO Of tent 44-thi-n-tex-(1A
workin8 dayr o r-eee3Wing-a-netiee-e€ 3ntent, €iced pnretimit to
the _,.+_.._ a,___,.__ shell, 4n- -the seine metier prev-ieled-i-rt-Seetienr1962
prepare -and r1i stinibute-#,e- the eemmles4�ex, teethe--1ee21--9Q*e�t aed tea any
Person s) -laaewn an thougl Ito be -inter -Gated, a� -ate whether- the-Pro�
lee al s3Fsteet fer revi:eiflng eeestel '0"" t pemit aApileatlens
most, the seauIvements-a£ Section 127�0nd Rubl" Resr,�krees Genie, SeatiQna
30620 and--3962E-5: Mter prese r!6bed
:}zBeetieft }g5621 the-eee»eeien shall . ew -the e;eeeutive
report et its next r>iliarly sehedtiled- mectimg-exd she}l,
hearing en #tte -repent, adept � reea ut sear aW- resemmen"d
m li€3ee sons in the leeeb gevermewt eeastae-pew eya%einthat3t
detei*Anes -tie--be- neseeeery--be meet tke• re aeRt --eBeet-ien 12720 -eed
Paoli Reseur es-6G� vicetlen3 -39620 -and 3nr�. -az€-the'leeftl -69�
r.�s te. re ! e -e- statemeR-of reeemmendedrandifientions frem- the-
eemm}ssie- n e€ f4l4ag ite-:rotirees`r iiite�rts-eke
eerniae#en shall-ice--deemeed-to have Bete ..i__d 4hat proposed aeea1
geuernffieat-eeastal develepment t grogram is- coaeisteut 4d th #.ha sot}uixa.-
menrts- asf -the Goast l .-Act -of 497,6. I£ -the -lee 1-gevernment and- -the -oemmiee#on
are unable is agree as -to the reVirement of the Ceti#=er Geaetal•Aet of
1976--for -a local •option-penal-t system pursuant -to -Public -Resources-Cello,
,Sectiex-3G60G(-b,) -and 44 the, iseal-fene%keless _roeee s -te-issue
esastal develegmentpermits, emeoutive direetev shall; refit the
A%erlaey Geneva -e€ -the Sate of Gali€errA -to take apgregrie aeti-en -x er
-theo Gald:ferrA Gees#el4et-e€�-19*.
Section 12723. Local Government Resolution. Fellowi g-the•cesmAasion's-
-e€ ee siste-_y-with-the i-equiremerAs -e€ Seetio 3:272G.5, the
local government shall, if it wishes to exercise the option provided in
Public Resources Code, Section 30600(b), adopt the resolution required by
Public Resources Code, Section 30620.5(b) for the entire area of its
jurisdiction within the coastal zone. The program shall become effective
on the loth working day after the date of adoption of the resolution.
Section 12724. Public Notice of Local Oation Resolution. The
local government shall notify the regional commission, the commission
and all contiguous local governments within the coastal zone of
the adoption of the resolution provided for in Section 12723 and
shall publish the resolution and a summary of the permit program
in the same manner that it would publish a notice of a proposed
general plan amendment; provided, however, that such notice shall
also be published in the newspaper with the widest circulation
in the portion of the local government jurisdiction lying within
the coastal zone.
Section 12725. Coastal Development Fees. Fe;;ew4ng-eert4f4eat4en
e#-the-leea4-geverRmentis-eeasta;-deve4epffleRt-permit-system, The
local government, in exercising the permit option provided in
Section 30600 (b) of the Public Resources Code, may require fees
from development applicants 4R-aeeerdaRee-w4th-the-fee-sehedu4e
set-#girth-4R-Seet4en-49549-and sufficient to cover any costs
incurred abeve-the-fee-sehedu4e in complying with the requirements
of these regulations and of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Article 3. Local Government Issuance of a
Coastal Development Permit
Section 12730. Issuance of a Coastal Development
development permit shall be deemed issued (a) when final review has occurred,
(b) when, if applicable, all local rights of appeal have been exhausted
and (c) when findings have been made that the interpretive guidelines
have been reviewed and that the proposed development conforms with the re—
quirements of Public Resources Code,Section 30604(a) and with any
applicable precedents set by the commission pursuant to Public Resources Code,
Section 30625(c). If the development is located between the nearest public
road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the
coastal zone, the local government shall also make the specific findings
required by Public Resources Code, Section 30604(c).
Section 12731. Finality of Local Action. The permit issued by the local
government shall become final unless a valid appeal is filed with the
regional commission on or before the 20th working day following receipt by
the regional commission of the notice specified in Public Resources Code
30620.5(c) or unless the permit application is subject to the requirements
of Public Resources Code, Section 30601. Each local coastal development
•
permit shall contain a statement that the permit shall not become effective,
without an appeal to the regional commission
until 20 working days have elapsed/following the proper receipt by the
executive director of the regional commission of the notice of permit
issuance pursuant to Section 12741. Permits subject to the requirements of
Public Resources Code, Section 30601, shall also contain a statement that
the permit shall not become effective until the requirements of Public
Resources Code, Section 30601 have been fulfilled.
Article 4. Coastal Commission Review of Local Coastal
Development Permit
Section 12740. Notice by Local Government. Within five (5) working days
of the issuance of a permit in conformity with Section 12730 the 14cal
government shall provide notification of such issuance on a form prescribed
by the executive director of the commission to the regional commission and
any persons who in writing requested such notice. Unless the local
government provides such notification to the regional commission, the permit
issued by the local government shall be of no force and effect.
Section 12741. Receipt by _Executive Director. The executive director of the
regional commission shall not be deemed to have received the notice of
permit issuance from the local government unless the notice form is completed-.
and the pelt -ex i4s faee des axe- findin@s x+eq _ed 49y- Seetle;1273g
and -the ppQeet deseriptlen reQi3Ped'43y-Seoc' tle 12?29. j(h) -If -th&
exemMA-ve r des that -the-notiee-eennQt �ee-se eei eQ,ts hail
-be- r wed to the lee al ge*emme=,t-..i4h.-€ *e- (5y - woOkIng daFs✓ of 3 U sub
•mj,e&j--efl- o-r eempietien and apprepriate ..djus+.,...n : __'--dn._ day
dMeetiv peAed statement wed `Q--4eeti-m :2731. A properly completed
notice shall be received by the executive director of the regional commission
and stamped with the date of receipt.
•
Section 12742. Notice by Executive Director. (a) Within 7 working days of
receipt of the notice of permit issuance, the executive director of the
regional commission shall post a description of the development, on a form
prescribed by the executive director of the commission, at a conspicuous
location in the office of the regional commission. (b) Within 7 working
days of receipt of the notice of permit issuance, the executive director of
the regional commission shall forward to all known interested persons, to the
members of the regional commission and the commission, and to the executive director
of the commission a description of the development, on a form prescribed by the executive
director of the commission, in a manner reasonably calculated to allow time
for review of the development and filing of appeals.
Section 12743. Filing of Appeal from the Issuance of a Coastal Development
Permit. An appeal of a local government's issuance of a coastal development
permit may be filed by any person qualified under Public Resources Code,
Section 30602(a). The appeal must contain substantially the information
required by Section 10670, must be received in the regional commission
office before or on the 20th working day after receipt of the notice of permit
issuance by the regional commission and must comply with the requirements of
Section 10671.
Section 12744. Filing of Appeal from the Denial of a Coastal Development
Permit. Where a local government approves a development on the basis of
local land use regulations but denies the issuance of a coastal development
permit because it cannot make the findings required by Section 12730, the
applicant may appeal such denial of the coastal development permit in the
manner provided in Section 12743. In addition, such appeal shall be valid only if the
local government approvals fulfillthe preliminary local approval requirements
of Sections 10510 or 10511. An appeal from a local government denial on the
basis of local land use 'regulations shall not be valid.
Section 12745. Effect of Appeal to the Regional Commission. Upon receipt
in the regional commission office of a timely valid appeal by a qualified
appellant the executive director of the regional commission shall notify
the permit applicant and the affected local government that the operation and
effect of the coastal development permit has been stayed pending final
action on the appeal by the regional commission and the commission as re—
quired by Section 30623 of the Public Resources Code. Within five(5)
working days of the receipt of a notice of appeal from the regional commission,
the affected local government shall deliver to the executive director of
the regional commission all relevant documents and materials used by the
local government in its. consideration of the coastal development permit
application.
Section 12746. Regional Commission Consideration of Appeal. Unless the
regional commission finds that the appeal raises no substantial issue in
accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 30625(b), and
Section 10680 of these regulations, the regional commission shall conduct a de
nova consideration of the application in accordande with the procedures set forth
in Section 10682 of these regulations.
Section 12746.5 Appeal to Commission. Decisions of the regional commission
may be appealed to the commission in accordance. with the procedures set
forth in Sections 10660—:10683 of these regulations.
Section 12747. Notification of Regional or Commission Action to Local
Government. Following'a final action by the commission or a regional
commission on an appeal from a local government issuance of a development permit,
the appropriate commission shall notify the local government of the action taken.
Such notification shall -e be transmitted within ten(10) working days
of final aetion.by the commission or regional commission.
Section 12748. Litigation Involving Local Government Coastal Permit._
In any case where no appeal has been filed from the decision of a local government
or where an appeal has been filed but neither the regional commission nor
2 the commission has determined to hear the appeal, and where litigation
has subsequently been commenced against the local government concerning its
decision, the local government shall promptly forward a copy of the
complaint or petition to the executive director of the commission. At
the request of the local government, on the motion of the executive director
of the commission or upon an order of the commission, the executive director
shall request the Attorney General to intervene in such litigation on behalf
of the commission.
r
aa.oq
CITY OF NEWPORT REACH
640-2137
December 27, 1-976
Mr. David F. Beatty
California League of Cities
1108 "0" Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear David:
This letter is in response to your request for our thoughts on
the potential problems the City of Newport Beach could experience
in the issuance of coastal development permits.
We have reviewed the draft regulations referred to us by the
State Commission, paying particular attention to provisions for
urban exclusions, exemptions and local permit issuance. A
written response has been prepared and forwarded to the Coastal
Commission (a copy of my letter to Mr. Bodovitz is enclosed for
your information,) I hope our comments will prove useful to
you in identifying potential problem areas.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -DEPARTMENT
R. V. HOGAN, Director
RVH:rw
Enc.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 926eo
City. Hall ,
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 073-2110
December 24, 1976
Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. Bodovitz:
This letter is in response to your request for commentary on the
"Draft Regulations for New Coastal Commissions" dated November 30,
1976. While the draft regulations deal with a wide range of
commission duties and administrative procedures, our remarks
here will be confined to those parts of the regulations pertain-
ing to urban exclusions, exemptions, and the local permit option.
A number of general observations and suggested revisions in each
of these areas are offered for your consideration.
Urban Exclusions
The requirements for application by a local agency for an urban
land exclusion seem fairly straightforward. However, it is
suggested that clarification and revision of the regulations
are warranted in several instances as follows:
--Section 12415 (page 55). With respect,to notification for a
public hearing before the commission on a requested urban exclusion,
it is not clear whether all property owners in the proposed exclu-
sion area are required to be notified by mail at the applicant's
expense in accordance with Section 10530. The possible cost
associated with mailings to all individual property owners.in
large urban exclusion areas would make alternate forms of
notification desirable.
--Section 12416 (page 55). According to the provisions of this
section, the executive director's written recommendation on a
requested exclusion is not prepared until after the public hearing,
and the commission does not act until the next regu-lar meeting..
It is suggested that this section be amended such that the executive
director's recommendation is available at the time of the public
hearing and that the commission act on the request on the day of
the public hearing, unless the item is continued.
•
Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director - 2 -
--Section 12418 (page 56). The proposed regulations specify that
if a requested exclusion is denied by the commission, no new
request for exclusion of the same area may be filed for three
months. If the commission can grant an exclusion for a portion
of the area requested for exclusion -- denying an exclusion for '
those portions of the requested exclusion area judged ineligible
-- the 3-month restriction on re -application seems reasonable.
If, however, the exclusion application must be approved totally,
or denied totally, the 3-month restriction on re -application is
viewed as unreasonable.
--Section 12502 (page 59). With respect to applications for
catagorical exclusions, it is suggested that wording be added
to the effect that the executive director shall determine the
sufficiency and completeness of the application within 5 days
of receipt of the material (or some other reasonable time period)
and notify the applicant as appropriate. Also, a time limit for
setting such applications for public hearing should be specified.
Exemptions
In terms of exemptions from permit requirements, the City's
primary concerns relate to regulations for improvements to
existing single-family residences and to claims of exemption by
reason of vested right. The following comments are submitted:
--Section 12600 (page 63). With respect to single-family
residences, the proposed regulations indicate that a coastal
development permit would be required for any significant non-
attached structure such as garages, trees, fences, and docks
between the mean high tide line and the first -public street.
Section 30610 of the Public Resources Code does -not mandate this
degree of restrictiveness in developing regulations. It is
suggested -that this be revised to exclude such commonplace improve-
ments as fences, trees, and garages. Also, the executive director
may waive the permit requirement (subsection C) where.he finds no
significant impact. It is suggested that a 5-day time limit for
the executive director's determination be included in this section
to avoid unnecessary delay in local permit processing.
--Section 12022 (page 48). The proposed regulations indicate
that "as soon as practicable" after final action on a claim of
exemption, the executive director shall transmit a notice of
action taken to the local government. It is suggested that this
section be revised to include a 5-day time limit for this
notification to be sent to the local government.
Local Permit Option
We have reviewed the proposed regulations dealing with -coastal
development permits issued by local governments in terms of their
consistency with the Coastal Act of 1976, in terms of cost impact
on local government, and in terms of administrative feasibility.
Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director - 3 -
Section 30333 of the Public Resources Code states in part that
rules and regulations adopted by the Commission and Regional
Commissions shall be consistent with the division and other
applicable law. Section 30620.5 of the Public Resources Code
provides specifically that a local government may exercise the
option of approving or denying coastal development permits follow-
ing the adoption of the appropriate resolution. The local govern-
ment must comply with the requirements of the Act, including public
notification procedures, opportunity for public comment, inclusion
of applicable interpretive guidelines, making of required findings,
and proper notification of actions taken to the commission or
regional commission. In no case does the Coastal Act of 1976
provide for the incorporation of Notice of Intent procedures,
nor does'it provide for the modification of procedures adopted by
local governments which comply'with the Act. Further, the Act•
does not provide for delay of the adoption of the resolution and
initiation of the local permit process. The threat of action by
the attorney general is both unwarranted and unnecessary, and
belies the directive of the Act wherein the goals include a
provision for encouraging state and local initiative and coopera-
tion in preparing procedures, etc. The regional commission or
commission will have the opportunity to review each and every
permit approved by a local agency to determine the appropriate-
ness of that approval including the full record.
With respect to cost and feasibility, the cost of administering a
local coastal development permit system, as described in the draft,,
regulations, could be expected to be significant in terms of
additional professional and clerical staff requirements. With
respect to administrative feasibility, the permit system seems
generally compatible with the development -review procedures of
the City of Newport Beach. A principal concern of the City in
this area has to do with.the potential for costly delays in
permit processing as a result of lengthy and complicated appeal
procedures.
Specific comments on permit regulations with suggested revisions
follow:
--Section 12725 (page 68). This section indicates that the
local government may require fees from development applicants
in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Section 10540.
It is felt that the fee schedule implemented should be reflective
of actual costs incurred in processing development permits. Local
agencies should retain the option of amending the fee schedule to
reflect the current cost of coastal development permit issuance.
Wording should be added to the section to the effect that Section
10540 is advisory rather than mandatory in the establishment of
local fee schedules.
-=Section 12743 (page 70). According to this section, appeals
on the local issuance of a permit must be "received in the regional
commission office before or on the 20th working day after receipt
of the notice of permit issuance by the regional commission.".
Mr. Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director - 4 -
This wording should be amended to make clear that the 20-day
appeal period begins upon receipt of the notice of permit
issuance by the executive director or regional commission office
and not upon receipt of the notice by the,individual•members of
the regional commission in accordance with Section 12742.
--Section 12747 (page 71). Following a final action by the
commission on an appeal from a local government issuance of a
permit, the local government is to be notified of the action
taken. It is suggested that wording be added to this section
such that the commission is required to provide such notification
within 5 days of the final action.
The City 'of Newport Beach has welcomed the opportunity to
respond to the proposed regulations. It is hoped that the
commentary and suggestions provided will be incorporated into
the final version of these regulations and.guidelines, The
City would appreciate the opportunity to review any future
proposed guidelines which will affect the implementation of the
Coastal Act of 1976.
Respectfully submitted,
.DEPARMTENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
R.-V. HOGAIV, Di r.e'ctor
RVH/sh j :
M:
r
February 13, 1976
California Coastal
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, CA
Gentlemen:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Zone Conservation Commission
94102
RE: The Coastal Acquisition List
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714)673 2110
The City Council of the City of 'Newport Beach has reviewed
the proposed land acquisitions in the City of Newport
Beach; the City's position on these proposed acquisitions
was presented to the Commission at the February 3, 1976
public hearings in Inglewood.
In regards to the proposed acquisition of the lowlands area
adjacent to the Santa Ana River, the City's General Plan
calls for the development of a small craft harbor along
with public open 'space and trails. It is further the City's
position that joint use of this area, including a wildlife
reserve, is feasible and that the small, craft harbor should
not be precluded at this time.
The Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Commission,
which includes membership from the cities in Orange County
abutting the river, the County of Orange and Orange County
Flood Control District,has approved preliminary phases of
the mountain -to -ocean Greenbelt Implementation Plan which,
calls for a water -related conservation and recreation area,
including a small craft harbor, in these lowlands adjacent
to the Santa Ana River.
During the February 3, 1976 public hearing, members of the
State Coastal Commission requested additional information
on the proposed methods of funding of the small craft harbor.
In response to this request we have included herein a copy
of the "Engineering and Economic Feasibility Study of a
Marina Along the East Bank of the Santa Ana River", prepared
for the Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, by Moffatt'&
Nichol, Engineers. This report describes potential methods
of funding for acquisition, development, and annual costs for
this recreational area. In addition, for your information, we
have included two ecological surveys of the area prepared for
the City of Newport Beach. The first, "Environmental Feasibility
Study of a Marina Along the East Bank of the Santa Ana River",
• California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
Page Two
February 13, 1976
by Environmental Impact Reports, Incorporated was prepared
in conjunction with the Marina Feasibility Study. The
second is an excerpt from the "Ecological Survey of Aquatic
and Terrestrial Resources", prepared by Dr. Peter S. Dixon
and Gordon A. Marsh in conjunction with a total ecological
survey of aquatic and terrestrial resources within Newport
Beach. We hope this additional information will be valuable
to you in your deliberations.
In addition, we feel it is important to point out that the
lowlands area along the east bank of the Santa Ana River
is now an active oil field with oil production expected to
continue beyond the year 2000. It should be noted that this
area is not really undeveloped; the investment in underground
oil production facilities is considerable and compares in
dollar values with an above -ground industrial development.
Any public purchase and improvement of the area will involve
considerable costs beyond the land value, including costs
related to the value of the existing oil production facilities
and the remaining oil reserves. While it appears reasonable,
as a result of the "Engineering and Economic Feasibility
Study" prepared by Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, to reclaim
the area as a combination wildlife reserve and small craft
harbor at some time in the future (with the harbor paying a
substantial portion of the bill), the improvement of the
entire area as a wildlife reserve will be a terribly expensive
undertaking, with costs greatly exceeding the expense of
the land acquisition. These major costs would be borne by
the public without the funding support which could result from the
inclusion of a small -craft harbor in conjunction with a wildlifeIv
reserve.
Thank -you for consideration of our comments. C ^D
✓� ,�
Respectfully submitted,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R: V. Hogan, Director
x^,', 4 10
`
Enclosures
1 all"
IU_ SEMINIUK SLOUGH
1. Description. Seminiuk Slough contains an area of waiver re•stricl
to relatively narrow, finger -like channels, which'are, to total,
several miles in length. The general outline is complex. The prin-
cipal channel commences at the point where the Coast Highway crosses
the Banning Channel and the Santa Ana River. It is of an essentially
sinuate shape, initially lying parallel to tle Coast Highway and then
1 curving away in a wide sweep before eventually returning with the
innermost and lying with 100 yards of the Coast Highway. This prin-
t
' c•ipal channel is bounded on the southern side by the residential
property which, strictly speaking, does not fall within the limits
of the City of Newport Beach. There are various channels within the
Banning Property, none of which are particularly well defined as
a
this area is flat swampy marshland. The eastern end of the principal
channel is backed by Bluffs which are about 100 feet in height with
a narrow shelf, some 100 feet in width, at their base. The principal
channel of communicates with the Banning Channel through a large pipe,
! so that the fret area lying within'Newport Shores is subject to tidal
action, although there is no open passage for the various small boats
which are maintained in the area. The innermost end of the principal
channel is being filled at the present time.
a
Seminiuk Slough is yet another relic of the historical vagaries of
the Santa Ana River in that it consists of the various channels
occupied by the river between 1825 and the canalization of the 1920's.
- 128 -
0
2. Water Flows. The water flows are derived from the Banning
Channel through a large (2 ft diameter) pipe, a drain from the
oilfield area and the general terrestrial and urban run—off. The
water level within'the Newport Shores area undergoes tidal fluc-
tuation but the general circulation is obviously limited. The main
drain from the oilfield area was running with a flow of the order
t of 50,000 gallons per day at the time of investigation but it is not
known where this domes from. If it is merely terrestrial run-off
its quality might not be too bad although if it contains any saline
wastes from oil extraction in the Banning Property its quality would
be particularly bad unless proper treatment occurred.
3. Water Quality. Nothing is known about water quality in the area
but there are obvious indications that circulation is minimal with
all the resulting problems of deoxygenation and deterioration. For
an area receiving oilfield drainage as well as urban run-off this is.
critical.
4. Biota. Nothing is known of the biota of the area.
5. Problems of Seminiuk Slough_. The principal problem in Seminiuk
Slough relates to water quality, in particular to those materials
entering from oilfield drainage and the urban/terrestrial run-off.
These materials include silt, nutrients, oil, toxic compounds and
floating trash. In respect to these, some improvement in water
circulation is imperative.
6. Recommendations.
1. The water circulation within Seminiuk Slough will have to
- 129 -
j
a
be increased if the adverse effects of deoxygenation are not
to be made worse.
2. A full study of water q-uali-ty in a,ll aspects, chemical and
bacteriological, is essential,
3. In view of the proposal that a marina be developed adjacent
to the Santa Ana River, certain critical studies should be under-
taken:
a. A computer -based model with full predictive potential
linked to the studies of water flow and water quality will
be indispensabl-e if the hydrological and circulation pro-
blems of the area are to be overcome.
b. A full and complete investigation of the sand erosion
problem in West Newport in relation to the impact of -this
new development is imperative.
It would appear that this proposal is one which should be encour-
aged only after a very full inves,tigation of these points and an
indication that the problems listed above can be overcome satis-
factorily.
- 130 -
.7
Site No. 2 (Beeco, Ltd. (Banning)• Property)
Location. Oil well property occupying unincorporated county land
surrounded by the City of Newport Beach. (Map Reference: Thomas,
Page 31, AB 2, 3, and 4).
Existing Conditions. This site includes a vast mesa area, coastal
bluffs, and extensive lowlands which are part of the Santa Ana River
flood plain. Mo.st of the mesa and lowlands are dotted with oil wells,
interconnecting service roads, shops and storage tanks.
The uplands are covered by a naturalized grassland which also con-
tains adventive weeds (mainly mustards), some native, early spring -
blooming wildflowers and very few native shrubs which tend to asso-
ciate with the slopes or the sides of shallow ravines. Much of the
grassland is partitioned into a series of rectangular plots by the
oil company service roads so that continuous grass -covered fields
are coincident with swales, gullies or 'ravines.
Vegetation associated with the bluffs differs along a north to south
gradient. The gentle sloping hills to the north are grass covered
and similar to the mesa vegetation. As the bluffs become steeper
to the south, the slopes are covered with a variety of native peren-
nial flowering shrubs and herbs which characterize the Coastal Sage
Scrub Community. California buckwheat, California encelia, and
lemonade berry are the main woody species present, encelia being tho
dominant member along the central bluffs which are heavily dissected
16 -
N by a series of stabilized ravines and erosion gullies. The southern
bluffs consist of sheer- cliffs composc,d of "uncansolidafed soils which
y
r
are subject to severe erosion. Extensive areas of the -bluffs have
been 'coated with a layer of asphaltum in order to stabilize the slopes.
Although unsightly and toxic to many life forms, the methods were
effective in prolonging the integrity of the bluffs. In time,
however, plants have been able to penetrate -and colonize the protec-
tive layer while it aged. At present, gully erosion has commenced
along the asphaltum -covered bluffs, the result being an unsightly
conglomeration of vegetation, bare, dissected bluff, and patches of
crumbling pavement.
The lowlands are similar to the mesa surface in that they contain a
j, large number of active and inactive oil wells connected by a matrix
of dirt roads. However, the soil, unlike the mesa, consists of a
sandy alluvial loam which is quite alkaline. As a consequence, most
of the vegetation includes large numbers of a few salt tolerant .needs.
i
Common ice plant (Mesembryanthemurn c•rystallinum), pigweeds
(Amaranthus sp.), five hook (Bas'sia hyssopifolia), three species of
chenopods (Chenopodium), ragweed (Ambrosia osilostachya), cockle ;,ur
(Xanthium strumarium) , milk thistle (S;lybuoi marianum), and castor
bean (Ricinus communis) are all common weedy plants found throughout
the lowlands. Each of the above species and a number of other undesi,g-
nated grasses and ruderals found on the property are indicators of
alkaline soils, or frequently disturbed sites. Part of the lowlands
contain a narrow estuary whicn separates a housing 'development along
- i7 -
the Pacific Coast Highway from the southern limits of the Banning
Vegetation associa't•ed:tvith this_rnipor estuarine
property oil fields.
frankenis, cord grass, bassia,
incursion includes pickle weed, sueda, .
and other salt -tolerant vegetation common to coastal salt marshes
of southern California.
The remaining habitat which includes the Greenville -Banning Flood
Control Channel and the bed of the Santa Ana River. The biota of
both of these channels was examined during the summer months of 1970
and a report was prepared for the Orange County Flood Control District
by Marsh and Abbott (1972) which covers this area as well as much of
the flood plain but not the bluffs or mesa.
f animals in both variety and number.
Birds are the dominant group o
derate populations of meadowlark, house.
The mesa grasslands maintain mo
1 er's blackbird. Horned larks were
finch, mourning doves, and Brew
also common but tended to stay in partially barren localities or
where the grass was shorter. Crows were moderately common as were
�j song spa
rrows but burrowing owls, although present, were uncommon
1 and found near the bluff edge where there were a number of ground
squirrel burrows. Local hawks'and owls use the upland and lowland
fields as hunting grounds for birds and a variety of small rodents
which reside there. Other mammals frequent the'oil fields in low
numbers.
Generally spe
aking, the wildlife potential of this locality.is rela-
tively low when compared to similar bluff and flood plain habitats
J '
t _ 16 -
' round to the north .in the City of costa mesa. This is due in part
i
to the presence of the'`o`il dompary:'tr•hos,e. opfi;ations tend to discourage
some forms of wildlife which are sensitive to disturbance such as
noise, vehicular traffic, and weed control programs. more 'important,
however, is the lack of suitable forage, roosti.ng and nesting sites
for perching birds and cover for larger mammals. Willolrt, mule fat,
giant cane and castor bean thickets which are characteristic flood
plain features north of the oil fields do not occur on this property.
The estuary, normally a highly sensitive environment, is limited in
extent with much of the channel bordering the back yards of a number
lof homes. As a consequence, the estuary is used as a recreational
I facility for the local residents and their pets. Some shore, marsh,
and wading birds do frequent the area in•limited numbers but the
main flocks of shore birds are found along the adjacent Banning -
Greenville and Santa Ana River channels.
ouch of this area is suitable for urban use but several problems Will
have to be solved before planning of any type is instituted. The
main problem is the disposition of the existing oil wells, particu-
larly if the lowlands are converted into a marina :which is one
possibility of urban use. In fact, if the marina is developed, e1Fects
of saline intrusion on inland areas will require investigation. Bluff"
stabilization will have to be solved whether the land is developed or
not. The central valleys which breach the continuity of the blufr"s
are suitable for retention as part of a park but the cliffs to the
- 19 -
E
south may require grading tc eliminate the old asphalt and planting
to preserve the newly contoired blufFs.
- 20 -
. �y�.•yin�RT .
c4G�rot�N��
January 29, 1976
California Coastal
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, CA
Gentlemen:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA omo
afy Flail
3300 NettpoA Blvd.
(714)573-2I10
Zone Conservation Commission
94102
RE: The Coastal Acquisition List
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed
the proposed land acquisitions in the City of Newport
Beach and directed staff to forward the following comments:
Regarding the proposed acquisition of the lowlands area
adjacent to the Santa Ana River, the City's General Plan
calls for the development of a small craft harbor along
with public open space and trails. It is the City's position
that joint use of this area,including a wildlife reserve,
is feasible and that the small craft harbor should not
be precluded at this time.
Regarding the proposed acquisitions surrounding the Upper
Bay, the City has no objection to State purchase of
these lands provided that local funding is not involved.
However, it appears possible to permit some private development
of one or more of these areas adjacent to the Upper Bay
while still preserving the public view and access values.
Regarding the proposed purchase of the lands at Inspiration
Point in Corona del Mar, the City Council supports thi ,)lu
acquisition. 0
Thank you for consideration of our comments.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Director
Ti m�-Cowel -
Advance Planning Administrator
qV
,50
1`
TC:jmb
CITY OF N]EWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 62660
City IIull
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673 2110
January 27, 1976
FILE COPY,
DO NOT REMOVE
Mr. Richard G. Munsell
Assistant Director
Environmental Management Agency
811 North Broadway
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Mr. Munsell:
Enclosed are copies of letters sent and presentations
made to the Regional and State Coastal Commissions
which illustrate the positions of the City of
Newport Beach. I hope this information will be of
assistance.
If you have any questions, please call me at 640-2261.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Dirb5.;or
M
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
Enc.
• • oq
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
August 28, 1975
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Gentlemen:
RE: Powers, Funding and Government Element.
92660
city Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714)673-2110
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach reviewed the proposed
Powers, Funding and Government Element of the Coastal Plan at its
August 25, 1975 meeting and directed that the attached staff memo
be sent to the Commission to illustrate the City Council's concerns.
In particular, the Council expressed concern with: 1) the nearly
total authority to be vested in the Coastal Agency, in spite of
the stated "delegation of authority" concept, 2) the inferred
distrust of local government and proposed continual "policing" of
local government's actions, and 3) the lack of a method for
distinguishing between re ional issues (which may be a valid
concern of a State agency and and purely local issues.
In addition, the Council is concerned with the difficulty of
preparing a Coastal Element which would be "acceptable" to.the
Coastal Commission in view of the many inherent conflicts within
the plan itself and the legal constraints on local government.
We would hope for a substantial revision to the Powers, Funding
and Government Element which would clearly set forth the differences
between local and regional issues, would limit control by the
Coastal Commission over permits to regional issues only and would
provide for cooperation between the different levels of government
in seeking solutions to coastal problems rather than putting the
Commission in the role of an overseer or judge over the actions
of the local governments.
Respectfully submitted,
ono d A. mcinnis, Mayor
City of Newport Beach, California
DM:jmb
Att. 1) Staff Memo
0
• aa. oy
6>
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
City Hall
3300Newport BlsB, - ..
(714)573 2110
June 24, 1975
The Honorable Dennis E.-Carpenter
".' State Senate-34th District -
State Capitol Building
Sacramento,'California 95814'
Re: Request 'of the Attorney General's Opinion
regarding -the adoption of the Coastal
Plan by the Coastal Commission
Dear Senator Carpenter:
We are requesting that you request a formal opinion from the
Attorney.General'regarding the question of the necessity of the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report on the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Plan.
We are greatly concerned that the Coastal Commission is consider
ing and apparently intends to adopt the Coastal Plan without
adequately addressing all of the environmental considerations in,
the form of an Environmental Impact Report. We are strongly of
the opinion that an Environmental Impact Report is required,'by
law, to be prepared, considered and certified to, prior to the
adoption of the Coastal Plan by the Coastal Commission.
I am attaching a Memorandum addressed to me from my Assistant
which outlines our position that an -Environmental Impact Report
is needed on the Coastal Plan.
We must stress that time is of the essence in this request since
the Coastal Commission is presently holding "workshop sessions"
in final preparation of the Coastal Plan, prior to its adoption
and presentation to.the State Legislature on or before December 1,
1975. There currently is adequate time -to prepare, consider and
certify to the completion of an Environmental Impact Report on the
Coastal Plan, but as each day passes, the ability of the Coastal
V..
� :u
u
Senator Carpenter
June 24, 1975
Page Two
Commission to prepare, consider and certify to the completion of
an Environmental Impact Report on a Coastal Plan will become
lessened. :.
lie thank you for your courtesy and coopera£ion in regards to,this
matter_
Very �Iumy
DENNIS D. O'NEIL-
City Attorney "
DDO:yz
Enc.
v
(`9C/FORS��A.
May 16, 1975
0 CITY OF NEV POR'L' BEACH
CALIFORNIA
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
0
szsso
City U211
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714)673 2110
Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I am Milan M. Dostal,
Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Newport Beach. As part of our
presentation to the Commission, the City of Newport Beach has
prepared and is submitting at this time, written comments dealing
with specific sections and provisions of the preliminary Coastal
Plan dated March, 1975.
These written comments, however, only tend to underscore what
Newport Beach considers to be the most significant defect in the
planning process behind the adoption of the Coastal Plan, that
defect being the lack of an appropriate Environmental Impact Report.
On May 3, 1975, the City of. Newport Beach was first made aware of
the fact that the Commission does not intend to and will not prepare
an Environmental Impact Report.on the Coastal Plan. This was
brought to our attention as a result of discussions with the Coastal
Commission staff.
May 16, 1975 .
Page Two
is
The City of Newport Beach strongly objects to the position that
the Commission need not comply with the California Environmental,
Quality Act.
We are deeply concerned that the ultimate and far reaching environ-
mental effects of the Coastal Plan, which will affect the entire
California Coastline, will not be specifically studied in an EIR.
.. As the Commission knows, an EIR must be prepared where a public agency
intends to approve a project which may significantly effect the
environment.
The Coastal
Commission is a
"public agency"
as that
term is used in
CEQA. The
Coastal Plan is a
"project" under
CF.QA.
The Plan proposes
to set policies, guidelines and procedures which must be followed
by local government the entire length of the State. The implementa-
tion of the Plan will require substantial local government action;
for instance, general plan, zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance
changes are mandated under the Plan. Each responsible local agency
would necessarily be required to prepare EIR's on their,local
actions implementing the Plan. The Commission is aware that in
hundreds of cases, EIR's have been prepared by.various local govern-
ments and by the Commission itself on projects each of which are
of substantially less environmental consequence than the Coastal Plan.
Obviously, the Coastal Plan will have a "significant effect on the
kl
May 16, 1975
Page Three
environment". As the California Supreme Court has indicated recently,
any proposed project which creates substantial public interest,
concern or controversy, is in and of itself a "significant effect"
on the environment and an EIR must be prepared. The Commission is
well aware that substantial public controversy has been generated by
the preliminary plan which -is sufficient to cause the EIR process,to
be instituted. Of course, beyond public controversy, there are
substantial effects on the environment created by the implementation
of the Plan which must be addressed in an EIR.
The Commission knows that the purpose of an EIR is to provide full
disclosure of all of the Environmental impacts. This includes
qualitative factors, as well as economic and technical factors, the
long range benefits and costs in addition to the short term benefits
and costs, and a consideration of alternatives to the proposed
action. The full disclosure is for the benefit of the decision makers,
the public generally and the courts. To not prepare an EIR will
prevent the public, the Commission and the courts from knowing the
ultimate environmental effects of the Plan.
We have carefully reviewed the current state of the law and can find
no exclusion of the Coastal Commission from the scope of CEQA.
The legislative mandate to the Coastal Commission, found in Section
0
May 16, 1975
Page Four
27001 of the Public Resources Code, is to prepare the Plan in full
consultation with all affected governmental agencies, private
interests, and the general public. None of the foregoing agencies,
who have substantial rights of input to the Plari, will be able to
intelligently comment on and suggest revisions'to the Plan unless
the environmental impacts of the Plan are made known through an EIR.
California courts have again and again told public agencies that it
is -their duty to_.prepare•EIR's as early in the planning process as
is possible. The EIR must be made by the Agency having the largest
jurisdictional scope over the project,. the "lead agency", and an EIR
must be prepared on the total.project rather than on segregated and
dismembered portions of the project.
In the case of the Coastal Plan, the Coastal Commission must assume
its legal responsibility as the "lead agency" and prepare, hold
hearings on, and certify to the completion of an EIR on the Coastal
Plan.
The purpose of CEQA was to compel government, at.all levels, to
make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. One cannot
assume because the Coastal Commission was created with the intent
to protect the environment and ecology of the California Coast that,
ipso facto, the Plan presented by the Commission would not include
substantial adverse -environmental impacts on the coastline. While
May
16, 1975
.
•
Page
Five
the Coastal Commission may very well be attempting to protect,
enhance and preserve the Coastal environment, until an EIR is
prepared which addresses all of the.. -environmental issues, one
cannot assume that there will be no significant environmental
effects caused through implementation of the Plan'..
When -the Coastal initiative was drafted, CEQA•clearly applied to
public agencies undertaking public projects. The Friends of
Mammoth case -increased the scope of CEQA to include private projects
and helped define what constitutes "substantial effect on the
environment". -The public was aware, at -the time they -voted on
Proposition'20;-that CEQA was alive and well and was an effective
vehicle to cause government to consider the environment when
considering approving or disapproving projects.. After the Coastal
initiative was approved, CEQA was substantially amended but no
mention was made therein to exclude the Coastal Commission from the
scope of CEQA.
It appears to the City of Newport Beach that the Commission has
acted and continues to act as if CEQA did not exist as applied to
actions of the Commission itself.
We ask the Commission and its counsel, to publicly state its position
on whether or not it intends to assume its duty as the "lead agency"
May 16, 1975 • •
Page Six
a
and prepare, hold hearings on, and certify to the completion of -an
EIR in compliance with CEQA, or whether it chooses to ignore the
provisions of CEQA and stand on its apparent position that an EIR
is not needed and will not be prepared. Ile ask the Commission to
state its position now, at this place, in public and for.the record.
If the Commission determines that an EIR will not be prepared, we
feel it is crucially important for the Commission to publicly state._
why it will'not comply with the provisions of CEQA and will not
prepare'an EIR in conjunction with its proposed Plan.
We call on the Commission to terminate its current hearings on the
Plan, to take no more action regarding the Plan until it has
complied with the•law and prepared an EIR which will adequately
address the significant environmental impacts of the Coastal Plan.
I thank you for considering our concerns and suggestions in conjunction
with the California Coastal Plan.
Yours very truly,
Milan M. Dostal, Mayor Pro Tem
City of Newport Beach, California
MMD:yz
Attachmen
of
•
ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY COASTAL PLAN
PREPARED BY:
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
While the Preliminary Coastal Plan is certainly an impressive
document and is obviously the result of considerable effort,
we in the Ci.ty of Newport Beach have many concerns regarding
the effects that this plan would have on governmental economy
and efficiency and the future of Newport Beach:
The City of Newport Beach has been represented at nearly
all of the public hearings on the individual Coastal Plan
Elements developed by the South Coast Regional Commission.
Many of our initial objections and concerns have since been
ameliorated. However, several major -concerns remain:
1) The apparent outright prohibition of the development
of a small -craft harbor in blest Newport, as.exemplified
by Policy No. 92 on Page 135. The Newport Beach General
Plan calls for a small -craft harbor in the lowlands
adjacent to the Santa Ana River, subject to more -
detailed economic and environmental studies: We would
hope that a decision against the small -craft harbor
would not be, made at this time. This issue certainly
is too large to,be decided without a more in-depth
study of the property in question and the recreational
needs of * citizens.
I would submiq1that the small -
,
craft harbor, (including public access, adjacent public
open space, riding and hiking trails, as envisioned .
by the Newport Beach General Plan) may prove to be the
be.st use of this area in terms of both recreational needs
and governmental economics.-......
We would suggest that the first sentence of Policy No. 92 be
revised to read as follows:
2)
"To minimize the environmental damage caused by the
alteration.of. the marine environment for boating
facili.tie.s; the. dredging or filling of coastal
wetlands..to, accommodate new boating facilities
shall be prohibited, except where it can be
demonstrated that a net public recreational'or
environmental benefit will result from such
dredging or filling, and where the development
of boating facilities proves to be the most feasible
means of preserving public recreational use and
environmental values on privately -owned land:"
Policy No. 49 on Page 87 calls for design review for
"all public and private development within the coastal
viewshed." This policy presupposes continuation of a
Coastal.Commission permit system and continuing Coastal
Commission 'regulation of all development in the permit
area. Surely this total and detailed level of control
is not mandated by Proposition 20 and is not necessary
for accomplishment of its objectives. Design of
Page 3
•
E
structures and signs, setback requirements and the like
are local concerns, not regional or statewide.
3) The regional amplification, for the South Coast Region,
of Policy No. 65 on Page 112, states that -all publicly
61ned land "shall be maintained in public'ownership.."
Some publicly -owned land may not be suitable or desirable
for public' use; therefore, this policy should not
categorically prohibit the sale of. publicly -owned land.
4) Policy No. 75 on Page 119 would prohibit development of
shoreline.property until the "potential of each shoreline
property -for possible recreational use" is evaluated.
Major "left -unanswered" questions with the -implementation
of this policy include: Who will do the 'evaluation? When?
How wil.l•the property owner be compensated? Does this
policy apply to all shoreline property, including small
vacant waterfront lots?
In terms of "carrying out the Coastal"Plan"; the City of
Newport Beach has gone on record as strongly opposed to the
continuation of the current coastal commission structure and.
the resulting inefficiency, confusion, and "double -permitting."
We believe that it is necessary and important to find a method
of implementing the plan which will assure that major purposes'
of the Act are carried out as well as assuring that the
functions of government in providing services to the people are
not unnecessarily impaired, that the rights,of individual
property owners are adequately protected, and that the economy
of the region and the state is enhanced.
Pa • •
We in the•City of Newport Beach feel -.very strongly that the
"successor agency" must be general-purpose local government
and that the necessary assurance of local government
compliance with the adopted Coastal Plan can be•accomplished
within the current State agency organization. 'E'or example,
the legislature can adopt legislation mandating consistency
of local general plans with the adopted Coastal Plan; and
existing State agency; such as the Council on Intergovernmental
Relations, can.be charged with reviewing and approving local
general plans and•regulations 'to assure consistency.
Currently, State law requires local governments to adopt
several mandatory general 'plan elements; these elements are
reviewed by the Council on Intergovernmental Relations for
Consistency with'State law. In addition, local zoning must be
consistent with the adopted General Plan Elements. A similar
process could be•utilized to provide an efficient means of
implementing the Coastal Plan. Enforcement would be under'the
State Attorney General, as it now is.
Thus, implementation of the Coastal Plan does not demand the
continuation bf the State and regional coastal•cornmissions
and does not require a continuing irrational and wasteful
"double permit"•process. Local government,.under State law
and existing State agencies, can be legally mandated to serve
as the "successor agency."
•In this way, local government may remain responsible for local
decision making, within certain regional constraints
established by the Coastal Plan, and there will be no need
ag e
to perpetuate a form of government that is alien to our
democratic system: an agency with total land use decision -
making authority but with no responsibility' for the provision of
services and the general welfare, and with only partial (and
indirect) accountability to the people.
Thank you for considering our concerns and suggestions. tte
hope that they will be helpful in the development of a
Coastal Plan which will carry out the objectives of Proposition 20
9
CITY. OF O.XN.A RD
1
CALI"FORNIA
t
�Lrriial� May 21, 1975 W
grrlcx OF Tilt
CITY MANAGER
905 W!!T TIIIHO STH!!T LJ
P. O. Box 1192 - y
PHOM! 486.2601. EXT. 201 G t�` S.�1. 9
Gentlemen: ;
The. Oxnard City Council is seriously
concerned regarding potential unknown impacts of
the.Preliminary Coastal Plan if it is adopted.
The enclosed reports, Which provide some analysis
of the Preliminary -Plan may be of interest to you.
If we may be of further assistance regarding this
matter, please let us know..
:. Sincerely,
Step n'A Cook
-Ass is t City Manager
SAC -ph
Attachments
11
0
CITY OF OXNARD
CAI. IFOR NIA
May 13, 1975
MAYOR
aos w..r Tome arPtitp
P. o. box 11fa
Ptmnc .46e.se9t, [ar. aot
Mr. Casey Buchter
Executive Director
South Central Coast Regional
Commission
333 E'. Canon Perdido
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Dear Mr: Buchter:',
As you know, the California Coastal•Commission has
published its preliminary Coastal Plan. The Oxnard City
Council has reviewed this plan and wishes to express its
serious concerns regarding various aspects of the proposed
program. These,concerns are discussed in the attached report
which was approved by the City Council.
Some of.the concerns addressed in the attached
report can -,be, to some extent, ameliorated by amendment of .
the Coastal Plan. The City Council -encourages you to make
such amendments as necessary to accomplish the.following:
•1. The Agricultural Preservation Policy and Energy
Conservation Polic should ba deleted from the
Coasta Plan an a resse on a state-wideasis.
These issuas deserve close attention by the
People of California. They should not be con-
sidered on a piece -meal basis for a small area
of the State of California. Policies in these
areas should be developed on a state-wide basis
to achieve optimal impact. _
2. Sf an Agricultural Pre
=.taximl.LILy or implementation, The Agricultural
Preser•vat on Po��c ems as presently written are
arbitrary and inflexible and will not allow
reasonable of rational implementation. These
policies should be amended to allow meaningful
planning and analysis to occur prior to the
specific determinations of land to be preserved.
Mr. Casey Buchter
May 13, 1975
Page Two
3. The State
the costs asso
achievia state-wide benefits. Certain state -
.its may necessitate local costs. it
is not fair to expect local taxpayers to subsi-
dize these'costs to achieve benefits of state-
wide importance. The Coastal Plan should obligate
the State to under -write such costs.
4. Administration of the Coastal P
consistent with rinci See of re resentative
t�o�vernment. s note in a atta a report,
etieorganixational plan proposed by the State
Powers and Funding Element would create permanent
agencies with broad -and comprehensive powers which
would not be politically accountable. Such an
approach is unacceptable. A preferred approach
yhich would provide political accountability and
a mechanism for balancing of interests is that
suggested in the League of California Cities'
Action Plan.' This organizational approach, or
a similar one which embodies the principles of
political accountability and balancing of interests,
-should be incorporated into the Coastal Plan.
5. Local Disa roval of adverse ro'ects should be
Mal "i a purpoze of a asta Zone initiative
a-n me Coastal Plan is to preserve the positive
qualities of tha California coast. 'For this
reason local decisions disapproving projects which
would have an adverse impact on the environ..rsnt
should not be subject to appeal or modification
by a State agency.
6. An Environmental Impact Report reerardinq the
planning procsss, Coastal Commission staff has
consistently been unable to answer questions
regarding the probable impacts of Coastal Plan
policies. This fact reflects the insufficient
analysis which has been given to estimating these
probable impacts. As a•result* it is impossible
for the public or the legislature to rationally
evaluate the marita of Coastal Plan proposals.
For this -reason, it is essential that an anviron-
mental impact report be prapared as required by
the California Environmental Quality Act.
�•Mr. Casey Huchter
May 13, 1975
Page Three
6. (Continued)
Only through the preparation of such a'report will
the public and the legislature have a sufficient
basis for evaluation of the proposed Coastal Plan.
Very truly yours,
Tsuj o Kato, D.D.S.
Mayor` ro Tem
Mph
Attachment
0.
A REVIEW OF CONCERNS
REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY
COASTAL PLAN
APPROVED BY THE
OMARD CITY COUNCIL
MAX 13, 1975
In November, 1972, the people of California approved an
initiative measure which declared the distinct value of the coastal
zone and called for its protection. To achieve this worthy goal,
the initiative established a temporary Coastal Commission and appro-
priated $5,000,000 to fund its four years of planning and. regulatory.'
activity. As its primary task, the Coastal Commission is required
to prepare a Coastal Zone•Conservation Plan and submit it to the •••
legislature by December, 1975.
The Coastal Commission has now published a preliminary plan
of some 385 pages and 24 maps. In his transmittal letter, Commission
Chairman M. B. Lane requests public input on the plan itself and on
the most effective governmental means for carrying out the Coastal
Plan. The City of Oxnard has provided detailed analysis and recommen-
dations in both of these areas previously. Therefore, the purpose of
this paper will be to provide a more general review of the Plan which'
may be helpful to Coastal Commissioners, other agencies, private
citizens and the legislature.
It should be stated at the outset that this report favors
the "orderly, balanced utilization and preservation"1 of coastal zone
resources as required by the Coastal Zone initiative. It agrees with
the concept that the Coastal Zone is a distinct and valuable natural
resource which should be protected for future generations. However,
this paper will express grave concerns that the Coastal Zone planning
process has not been consistent with the law or the intent of the
people of California and that the product of the process, the Coastal
Plan, is neither orderly nor balanced in its approach.
Previous reports have treated in detail specific, policy
proposals of the Coastal Commission. This report will not repeat this
detail. Copies of the previous reports regarding transportation
policies, appearance and design, intensity of development, and powers
and funding are available upon -request.
ICoastal Zone Conservation Act, Section 27302.
Preliminary Coastal Plan
May 13, 1975
Page Two
THE COASTAL PLAN: A DESIGN WITHOUT A FOUNDATION
The Preliminary Coastal Plan is an attempt to treat in an
exhaustive fashion the total spectrum of environmental issues which
impact the coastal zone. The Plan embodies 419 "findings" and 183
major policies, some of which have numerous sub -parts. The scope of
the issues covered is almost totally comprehensive. For example, there
are specific policies addressing the siting of nuclear power plantsr
on the one hand, and on the other, a policy which specifies the size
and/or number .of light bulbs which you may use in your living room;
another policy encourages the use 'of•solar-assisted heating while yet
another would prohibit the use of electric heaters if natural gas is
available. In the absence of unlimited resources, it is impossible to
do an in-depth review of a document of such magnitude. The discussion
in this paper will therefore focus on some of the issues which has been
of greater concern.to the City of Oxnard. .
Policies of Unknown Impact
Our review -of the massive, and complex compilation of policies
contained in the Coastal Plan has led us to question whether there is
an adequate basis of research to support or justify many of the findings
and policies. in addition, it appears that no analysis has been given
to the probable impacts of the proposed policies.
An.Exa le: Agricultural Polic . The Coastal Plan establishes
the policy position that all prime agricultural land with a few minor
exceptions, shall be mains is ned in agricultural use. Most people
would agree that.such land is a vitally important economic and esthetic
resource which should, be protected, But, will'the benefits and costs
to the people of California be optimized by' retaining 100% of the land
in agriculture and allowing none of it to be used for further develop -
meet - or by retaining 95% or 90% or some other.percent in agriculture
and allowing some additional development of our industrial base and
housing stock? if no additional housing is allowed on prime agricul-
tural land, to what extent can additional single .family homes be built
in coastal areas? 'To what extent must density increase in coastal
cities? To what extent will the population be redistributed to inland
areas? When agricultural land is reassessed to reflect its lower value
based upon restricted use, how much tax revenue will be lost? How much
will taxes have to be raised both within and outside of the Coastal zone
to replace the lost tax revenue?.
None of the foregoing questions have received any consideration
or analysis whatsoever. And yet, without consideration of these ques-
tions, it is impossible to'know what level of agricultural preservation
will optimize costs and benefits to the people of California. We are
not suggesting that the answer to each of the questions posed must be
known in minute detail; such analysis.is beyond our present capabili-
ties. But a rational approach which is concerned with costs as well
as benefits must consider questions such as these and attempt to eval-
uate the various trade-offs. The Coastal Plan has made no such attempt;
rather, a policy has been adopted which is arbitrary and inflexible and
no one has any idea as to its impact regarding questions such as those
outlined above.'
A
n
u
Preliminary
May 13, 1975
Page Three
Coastal Plan
The Local Im act, In Ventura County, and especially in
Oxnard, the approachto a taken regarding preservation of agricul-
tural land is extremely important. Virtually all of the land on
the Oxnard Plain is prime agricultural soil. The Coastal Plan agri-
cultural policy would prohibit any further development in Oxnard
except through redevelopment of existing built-up areas. This means
not only that no new houses can be built, but also no new schools,
parks, or other needed facilities. The following neighborhoods will
be precluded from having elementary schools if the Coastal Plan is...
approved:
C-1 SW-4 S-13
C-4 SW-5 S-18
NW-7 SW-7
NW-8 SW-8
The following neighborhoods will be precluded from having neighborhood'
parks:
C-1
111W-7
SW-7
S-18
C-3
NW-8
SW-8
S-19
C-4
SVI-4
SW-9
S-23
C--5
SW-5
S-13
S-28
S-32
While Oxnard has serious concern regarding both the known
and unknown impacts of the Coastal Plan's agricultural policy,_ it is
not the position of the City that agriculture should not be preserved
or that development should run rampant and eliminate all remaining
open space. Rather, it is believed that the policy and approach to.
preservation of agriculture should be flexible and aimed at optimizing
benefits and costs to the people'of California. Such optimization
cannot be achieved unless consideration and analysis is given to the
various probable impacts of the agricultural policy. Based upon such
analysis, a balanced approach. can be formulated and implemented.
Policies of OveYreaching Impact
As was indicated earlier, the scope of the Preliminary
Coastal Plan is almost totally comprehensive, in our view, the scope
is altogether too comprehensive. It is agreed that the issues addressed
are important, but wa seriously question whether it is appropriate for
a governmental agency to step as deeply into the area of'private deem
Sion -making as is proposed by the Coastal Commission. If such inter-
vention is appropriate, we believe that it should be implemented by an*
agency of broader geographical jurisdiction so that the burden will
not rest exclusively on citizens within the Coastal Zone.
Preliminary
May 13, 1975
Page Four
Coastal A
The goal of reducing energy consumption is a worthy one: To' -
achieve this goal, leadership from government agencies will be necessary
and appropriate. However, if and when•,restrictive measures are insti-
tuted., there should be some analysis and understanding of the amount
of energy to be conserved so that the merit of the restriction may be
evaluated. In addition, such restriction's should be applied equitably
and not, as in the case of the Coastal Plan, impose a burden•only upon
coastal residents.
Mho Should Pao the Cost of the Coastal Plan?
As noted in the preceding sections, implementation of the
Coastal•Plan will involve many social and economic costs which have
not been analyted or•considered by the Coastal Commission. Some of
these costs, such as the effect of increased population density in a
community, may not•be subject to precise measurement. Other costs,'
such as the probable loss in tax base and tax revenue which will
result from the Coastal Plan agricultural policy should be amenable
to fairly precise definition. Whether the costs can be defined pre-
cisely or only generally, no rational decisions can be made regarding
the best approach to preservation of the coast until the costs, as
well as the benefits,•have been evaluated..
When such an evaluation has been made, it may be determined
in some cases that a state-wide benefit is more important than a local
cost. If such be the case, who should pay this cost? In the case of
tax base and tax revenue, should Ventura.County taxpayers be expected
to subsidize, through higher taxes, a benefit (agricultural preserva-
tion) deemed to be of state-wide importance? Should Oxnard taxpayers
who are precluded from having neighborhood parks or schools by an
arbitrary and inflexible agricultural policy be required to pay more
taxes for this benefit? ,
It must be recognized that there will be difficult conflicts,
in some instances, between state benefits and local interests. In
such cases, it is hoped that the local interest will be given appro-
priate recognition; however,•in those instances where state-wide
benefits must override local concerns, the state as a whole should"
d t for the benefit Local taxpayers should not be expected
an anus pay
to subsidize a state-wide program.
Preliminary
,May 13, 1975
'Page Five
Coastal Plan
COASTAL ZONE ADMINISTRATION: A RETURN
TO THE DEVINE RIGHT OF KINGS •
"We will still believe and maintain that
our Kings derive not their title from the
people but from God; that to him only
they are accountable; that it belongs not
to subjects, either to create or censure,
but to.honour and obey their sovereign,
who comes to be so by a fundamental
heziditary right of succession, which no
religion, no law, no fault or forfeiture
can alter or diminish."
From an address of the
University of.Cambridge �o
King Charles Il'in 1681.
As we have reviewed the Coastal Commission's recommended
approach 'to future administration of the Coastal -Plan, we have been
forcefully reminded of the ancient doctrine (above) of the divine
right of Kings. However, it is recognized that our concern regard-
ing the substance of the plan may inaLke us less than objective regard-
ing its 'future implementation. Therefore, this section of the report,
will review the Coastal Commission's proposal to provide a basis- for..
independent evaluation by concerned citizens.'
Proposed organization
As a major portion of its recommendation to the legislature,
the Coastal Commission must submit its recommendation for future admin-
istration of the Coastal Plan. The State Commission's draft of the
Powers and Funding Element suggests an approach which is built around
the following essential features:
1. The State and Regional Commissions would be made
permanent agencies.
2. Commission members would'continue to be appointed
to their office.
3. Amendments to the Coastal Plan would be made by
the Coastal Commission without further recourse
to the legislature.or any other elected body.
4. The powers and authorities of locally elected
officials such as City Councils, Boards of Super-
visors, and Special District Boards of Directors,
would be subordinate to the appointed Coastal
Commission, insofar as they impact the environ-
ment -within the Coastal Zone.
2Quoted by John Neville;Figgis in The Divine Right of Kings,
p. b. Harper and Row.
Preliminary Coastal Plan'
May 13, 1975
•Page Six
The following issues constitute the basis for our concern
regarding the suggested approach.
A2pointed Officials are not Politicall Accountable.• In a
system where governmental powers and au orzties are derived from the
people, the principle of accountability is a vital and indispensable
ingredient. No matter how well meaning••or highly motivated officials
may be, continuing sensitivity to the will of the people can be assured
only through periodic elections. Only through this mechanism can
accountability be'provided. '
Some would attempt to avoid this crucial issue by pointing to
the mistakes or failures of.locally elected governments. Such mistakes
or failures have occurred and will continue'to occur due to human frail-
ties and the limitations'of our intellectual capabilities. However, the
crucial question is whether such mistakes justify yielding massive con-
trol over our environment -and our lives to non -elected officials who will .
be accountable ,to no one•. Dare we assume that such officials will make
.fewer mistakes or will be more sensitive to the public whom they are not
elected to serve?
The Subordination of Elected Officials. The Coastal Zone
Initiative approved by the people puts the final authority regarding the
Coastal Plan in the.hands of the legislature. The Coastal Commission's
suggested organization, on the other hand, would strip the elected legis-
lature of any further authority regarding the Plan. Future'amendments to
the Plan would be made by the appointed Commission without further re-
course to the -legislature. Implementation of the Plan by local 'elected
governments would be allowed only if the local governrmnt adopts a spe-
cific program previously approved by the appointed Commission. Even
under these circumstances, every action of the locally elected officials
(insofar as it may impact the coastal zone environment) would be appeal-
able to'the appointed Commission. Every such action could be modified or
overturned by the Commission. In addition, permits from the Commission
itself would still be required over an extensive area of activities
occurring both within and outside of the Coastal.Zone..
is such obeisance of•state and local elected officials to an
appointed Commission, accountable to no one, consistent with our tradi-
tional precepts of government? Is our mistrust and lack of confidence
in elected officials so great that we will voluntarily give•up our right
to elect those who will make such important and comprehensive decisions?
Can we allow our -elected legislature to delegate such massive"ultimate-
responsibility to non -elected officials?
Sin le Pup se A engci Cannot Balance Interests. Although
the scope o activity o e Coastal Commission is broad and comprehen-
sive, its purpose is single-minded: preservation of coastal resources.
This is a worthy goal which 'should be pursued by the people of Calif-
ornia. However, from time to time, this goal will be in conflict
with other goals which are also worthy. In such cases, there must
be a balancing of the interests to the end that benefits and costs
will be optimized. A single purpose agency, whether its purpose
be preservation of resources or production of energy, cannot accom-
plish such balancing. Such balancing can be accomplished only by
agencies or institutions whose responsibilities emcompass the broad
Preliminary Coasta lan
'may 13, 1975
Page Seven
range of divergent goals. Such a'balancing
suggested by the League of California Cities
This approach has already been discussed in
previous report dated April 25, 1975.
0.
mechanism has been
in its Action Plan.
some detail in our
Massive Du lication and Excessive Cost. Because the
organizations approach suggested by the Coasta Commission would
involve extensive Commission review of various activities by private
citizens and every governmental agency within the Coastal Zone; it
would require a massive bureaucracy to implement the program; For
example, every acquisition of property by a public agency would require
a permit from the Commission. Every change in City boundaries would.
require a permit. Every expansion of water or sewer facilities would
require a permit. Numerous other activities both within and outside
of the Coastal Zone would require permits.
When the Coastal Plan is adopted, it will be necessary and
appropriate that governmental,activities•be carried out in accordance'
with the plan. However, this requirement does not necessitate the
duplication of existing agencies, through expansion of Coastal Commis-
sion authority or bureaucracy.• Existing agencies have carried out
state law since their inception and will continue to do so. if there.
are exceptions to this statement, "they should be documented so that
they can be corrected.
The Precedent
Our concerns regarding the proposed organization have been
expressed in strong terms. 'This is partly because we believe that
this issue is' -crucial to the future of representative local govern.-.
ment in California. It also results from the precedent we have
experienced with -the temporary Coastal Commissions created by the
Coastal Zone initiative. Some of our major concerns regarding this
precedent will be expressed in•the following paragraphs.
Non-Compl
iiance with.Law. A. Detailed Studies: The Coastal
Zone Conservat� o`n Act _re_q_Ua're`F_tffat "The Coastal Zone plan shall be
based upon detailed studies of all the factors that significantly
affect the coastal zone."3 However, the actual approach which the
Coastal Commission has utilized is more aptly described by the follow-
ing statement taken from the Commission's Annual Report for'1974;
"The emphasis in the Commission's planning program is on decisions,
not research."4
As has been indicated in previous sections, the Coastal Plan
lacks an adequate research base for many of its decisions; analysis of
probable impacts of Commission policies is missing altogether. The
absence of such analysis makes it impossible for the Co,-mnission, the
Coastal Zone Conservation Act Section 27301
4California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission's Annual Report
1974, p. 5.
Preliminary Coastal A
1�iay 13, 1975
Page Eight
legislature or the public to evaluate the merit of Commission proposals.
And the absence of such analysis is contrary to the requirements of the
Coastal Zone Conservation Act itself.
B. Population Element. Section 27304 of the Coastal Zone
Conservation Act requires that a plan 'shall contain, among other.
,things, a. population element for the establishment of maximum desir-
able population densities". This requirement of law notwithstanding,
there is no meaningful analysis or discussion of population issues
whatsoever in the Plan. In our view, the Plan's probable impact on
population distribution or densities is one of the most important
criteria by which the Plan should be evaluated.: The absence of such
analysis deprives the people of California of any meaningful oppor-
tunity to evaluate the sociological impacts which. -Coastal Plan policies
will, have -on our communities.
Coastal
study.
policy
ment of
In it's six sentence'discussion of the'population issue, the
Plan suggests that the matter should be the subject of future
Unfortunately, such future study would occur after the basic
decisions have been.made'and would not comply with the require -
the Coastal Zone Conservation Act.
C. Environmental Impact Report. The California Environmental
Quality Act contains the following statement:• "All state agencies;
boards,' and commissions shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by con-
tract, and certify, the completion of, an environmental impact report on.
any project they propose to carxy outs or•approve which may have a sig-
nificant effect on the environment." it is beyond comprehension that
any program of state or, local government could have a more compzehen-
sive or'significant impact upon the environment'of the coastal zone
than will"the Coastal Plan. Nevertheless, the Coastal. Commission has
made itabundantly clear that it has no'intention of voluntarily pro-
viding the legally required environmental impact report." The Executive_
Director of the State Commission has publicly stated that the prepara-
tion of an environmental impact report. would be "a waste of the taxpayer's
money". No doubt every public official in charge 'of a project which
requires an environmental impact report has felt this sentiment to some
extent. However, the law requires that the probable impacts of projects
be analyzed and made public before the project is initiated. If such
analysis had been a part of the preparation of the Coastal Plan, perhaps
an environmental impact report would be superfluous and a waste.of
money. Howeverr because such analysis of probable impacts has been -
non -existent, preparation of an environmental• impact report, as legally. .
required, is essential -and indispensable.
Non-_Reesspons�ive.-Although a few regional commissioners acting
independently have ve attempted to be helpful,'the Commission when acting
collectively has been extremely non -responsive. As an example, a
Public Resources Code, Section 21100.
Preliminary Coastal Plan
..May 13, 1975
Page Nine
property owner at Oxnard Shores was totally rebuffed when he sought a
permit which would allow him to rebuild his home on the beach. This
home had been undermined and destroyed by the ocean because it was not
constructed on pilings. When the owner sought to rebuild his hose on
pilings, which had been certified as safe by an engineer, he was
refused a permit because he and other property owners had not agreed
to give public access easements through their property to the beach.
The City of Oxnard -attempted to intervene on. the property
owner's behalf. The City sent a letter to the Regional Commission
_.offering cooperation and requesting specific information regarding
the Commission's desire regarding public access.. The City's letter
was never -answered or. even -acknowledged. A subsequent letter was sent
with - the same result.
Other'exauples of the non -responsive manner of the Commission
could be given. •However; this one example is sufficient to illustrate
the problem.
Conclusion ,
The precedent of the Coastal Commission approach during the
last two years provides -credibility to•our concerns regarding the pro-
posed organization. No agency'which was politically accountable could
be so arrogant in its disregard of law. No- elected officials would be
no unresponsive to the plight of an individual citizen. .Despite its
faults, representative government is still to be preferred over govern-
mant by "divine right".-
CITY. OF OXNARD
MEMORANDUM
April 25, 1975
To:. Paul E. Wolven, City'Manager
From: Assistant City. Manager
SUIRCT: The Powers and Funding Element ofthe Coastal Plan
in reviewing this proposed element of the Coastal Plan, it
is important to remember that this facet of the plan is concerned
with the administrative organization, procedures and financing
necessary to implement the policies contained in the rest of the
plan. When considering -alternative organizational arrangements, it
must be assumed, that the substance of the Coastal Plan, as ultimately
approved by the legislature, will be in the best interests of the '
majority of Californians. At that point, the responsibility of
governmental organizati.ons'will be to implement -the Plan efficiently
and wisely.
The preliminary Coastal Plan outlines several criteria for
evaluating alternative•govarnmental organizations. While these criteria
are generally helpful, some of -them require comment:
;1.- Visibility, Accessibility, Accountability..
The preliminary Coastal.Plan suggests "that -
the agency designated
to carry out the Coastal Plan should be visible, accessible and
accountable. The Plan concludes that "citizens should have a -
clear way to seek to change both the decisions and the decision -
makers'..." Obviously, in our system of government, requirement
for accountability is vitally important. We are all aware of
appointed regulatory agencies which have lost touch with public
sentiment because their members are not required to stand for
election periodically. In fact, some have directed this criticism,
toward the present Coastal Commissions.' However, the Coastal Zone
Conservation Act provides for accountability in that the Coastal
Plan must ultimately be acted upon by the legislature. Ultimate
approval by the State's highest elected bodies is appropriate,
given the comprehensive nature and far-reaching impact of the
proposed plan... _
The Powers
April 25,
Page Two
and Funding Element of the Coastal Plan•
1975
The governmental mechanisms proposed in the Powers and Funding
Element do not provide for such continuing accountability. The
ultimate authority £or updating, implementing and monitoring the
Coastal Plan would be vested in appointed State and Regional
Commissions. Contrary to the criteria set forth in the prelimin-
ary Coastal Plan, the recommended governmental organization would
not provide "a clear way to seek to change both the decisions and
the decision -makers!'. In fact, the citizens would not have any
method at all to change the appointed decision -makers. Although
the recommended organizations are described in such a way as to
suggest that a great deal of authority would be delegated to
elected local.governmentsf the proposed delegations are restricted
inminutedetail and subject at every decision point to appellate
review by the appointed Commissions. Under such circumstances,
it is apparent at no real substance is left to the authority.
delegated tq the locally elected officials.
At the State level, the proposed organization strips the legislature•.
of any further authority over the Plan once the first -Plan has been
adopted. Amendments to the Plan would be made by the appointed
Coastal Commission without further recourse to any elective body.
Under such circumstances, it is apparent that the proposed organ-
ization is not responsive to the accountability criteria.
2. Protect -Both State-wide and Local Interests.
In discussing'this criteria, the preliminary Coastal Plan.
indicates that "a balancing of interests will clearly be needed .."
While this is true and important, such balancing should not be
limited to the State-wide versus local interests. If Coastal
resource decisions are to be made in a fashion which optimizes
benefits while minimizing costs, there must also be a careful
balancing of environment versus energy versus economic concerns.
A single purpose agency, such as proposed in the Powers and Funding
Element, -is not well equipped to perform such balancing. This fact
is recognized in the preliminary Coastal Plan itself in its dis-
cussion of the possibility of creating a multi -purpose agency to
administer the Coastal Plan and other related responsibilities.
The agency recommended in the Powers and Funding Element would
have broad and.comprehensive planning and regulatory authority;
however, carefully avoided is any responsibility for the provision
of roads and transportation, for the production of power, water
and other utilities, for the removal of sewage, or for the financ-
ing of any of these'. Under. this kind of a fractionalized situation,
it is not likely that the necessary balancing of interests will
occur. Therefore, the ultimate authority for implementation must
rest with a body whose cYiarge is comprehensive, whose responsibi-
lity embraces planning, regulation -and the provision of basic
services.
,le Powers and Funding
.pril 25, 1975 Oement of the Coastal Plarr.
Page Three
3, Operate Efficiently and Economical) ,
The preliminary Coastal Plan states that "duplication of activities
among governmental agencies should be eliminated .. Administrative
costs should be kept as low as possible". Notwithstanding these
statements, the proposed Powers and Funding Element suggests
massive duplication which wou
costs, ld require enormous administrative
The proposed.organization is obviously predicated on a
basic distrust ti local government and on an assumption that local
Coastal Plannt's actions are not likely to be consistent with the
Coastal Plan even after it has been approved by the legislature.
T£ these assumptions were not at the root of the proposed organza
turn, the detailed restrictioni.
s and emphasis on appeal at every
turn would not be necessary,.
The following list illustrates Commission by the State Powers the role suggested for the Coastal
and Funding proposal:
a. The.Powers and Funding Element suggests that "to place maximum
responsibility with local governments", the Coastal Commission
should enter into contracts with local governments to implement
the Plan. Under sucli agreements:
1. Local governments would be required to adopt a specific
Plan for implementation of the Coastal Plan.
2. Such specific plan would be effective only after approval
by the Coastal Commission.
3. .Even after the Coast
plan, the Cal Commission approval of the local
Coastal Commission would.retain authority over-_
the "immediate coastal'.area .
4. A- decision relative to the Coastal Plan or its implementa-
tlon'rf the local government will be
Coastal Commission. appealable to the.
5: The delegation of authority to the local:
government, everi as
restricted above, shall be for a specific period not to
exceed four years.
6. The delegation at any time. of authority may be revoked by the Commission
b. Notwithstanding the delegation of authority described above
Powers and Funding Element indicates that the Coastal Corcr<iss on
z
should retain all of its present regulatory authorit
permit area, in addition, additioy in the
al authority should be provided
to the, Commission ton
, require permits for the following activities:
1. Mergers of residential units.
2.. Acquisition of land by a public agency for "any
facility to serve a public purpose".
3.
Changes in the boundaries of any local agency.
The Powers and
April 25, 1975
Page Four
Fundin#Element of the Coastal Plan
4. Formations or dissolutions of local agencies.
5. Formation of improvement districts.
.c. In addition to the foregoing, the Powers and Funding Element
suggests that the Coastal Commission should be empowered to
require permits for the following activities even if they
occur outside the permit area:
-1. Construction or expansion of sewage treatment plants where
part of the service area is within the permit area.
2. •Condruction or expansion of water supply facilities where
part of the service area is within the -permit area.
3. Dams, flood control projects, or other projects which
significantly affect rivers or streams that flow into
the Pacific Ocean.
4. Construction, widening•or upgrading•of roads that pass
through the permit area.
d. In the event that Coastal Commission decisions conflict with•
building codes, the Powers and Funding Element suggests, that
the Commission decision should prevail.
e. with respect to monitoring and enforcement of the foregoing
provisions, the Powers and Funding Element indicates that
the Coastal'Commission "should carry on a thorough program
.for monitoring permit compliance and should vigorously enforce•
violations of the law and/or permit regulations. Staffing
should be'adequate to maintain such programs at a level so
that potential violators are deterred ..."
From the foregoing list, it should be apparent that the.
proposed organization again fails to respond to criteria set forth in
the preliminary Coastal Plan. Almost every action contemplated for
the Coastal Commission would duplicate responsibilities and activities
of one or more agencies. Once the Coastal Plan is approved and made
law, existing local agencies will have a legal mandate to conform to
its provisions. toe do not foresee the likelihood of a massive
rebellion against State law by local elected officials. If there are
isolated instances where State law is ignored, there are existing pro-
visions to remedy these- situations. However, to assume the need for
a massive bureaucracy governed by appointed Commissions to force local
governments to conform to law is exceedingly wasteful and without
justification. If local governments are, indeed, so callous, in their
disregard of law as to require this sort of watch -dogging, then an•
even more basic change in our institutions is required than that
The Powers and Fundin• lement of the Coastal Plan
April 25, 1975
Page Five .
proposed in the Coastal Plan. However, we do not believe that such a
disregard for law exists; if it does exist, it should be documented
so that it can be remedied. In the absence of such pervasive ille-
gality, it is apparent that the massive duplication of activities and
the attendant enormous cost to the taxpayers is excessive and
'unwarranted.
From the foregoing analysis, it may be concluded that the,
proposed organization set forth in the Powers and Funding Element
fails to satisfy the criteria of (1) accountability, (2) balancing
of interests and (3)-cost effectiveness. In addition, minor amend-'
ments or modifications to the ,proposal will not remedy these serious
deficiencies.
League of California Cities Action Plan
The League of -California Cities has set forth in its "Action
Plan" an organizational proposal which responds very favorably to the
important criteria discussed above. How this organizational arrange-
ment would relate to on -going administration of the Coastal Plan, after
its approval, is set forth in some detail in the attached report of the
Los Angeles County Division of the League.
The League proposal responds to the concerns discussed above
as follows:
1.' Accountability
Accountability is provided by maintaining ultimate authority over
the Coastal Plan and amendments thereto�in the State legislature.
This arrangement would maintain the authority over this very
important activity where it was placed by the people of California.
when they approved Proposition 20.. Authority and responsibility
for implementing the Coastal Plan would rest largely with locally
elected officials,,thus maintaining accountability with respect to
regulation activities. Therefore, both with respect to the esta-
blishment of basic policy and with respect•to on -going implementa-
tion activities, responsibility is placed in politically accountable•
legislative bodies. In addition to such legal recourse which would
be available'through court procedures, aggrieved 'citizens would .
also have the recourse of "changing the decision -makers" should
that be necessary.
2. Balancing of Interests
The establishment of a State Coordinating Council,
composed of State and local officials would provide an effective
mechanism for resolving conflicts regarding state-wide versus
local interests. In addition, since -the Coordinating Council
would include officials responsible for transportation, agricul-
ture, energy, air quality, water quality and coastal preservation,
it would also provide 'a means of balancing the needs of these
The Powers and Funding Element of the Coastal Plan
April 25, 1975
Page Six
various functional areas. In addition to this provision for
balancing, since ultimate authority would continue to reside in
the legislature, accountability would be maintained.
3. Cost Effectiveness
The League proposal eliminates duplication almost completely by
placing responsibility for implementation of the Coastal Plan
in existing State and local agencies. This elimination of the
wasteful and excessive bureaucracy proposed by the Powers and
Funding Element will save California 'taxpayers millions of dollars
annually.
Conclusion
-The fAregoing discussion illustrates that the organization
proposed by the Powers and Funding Element fails to respond positively tq
the criteria of (1) accountability, (2) balancing of interests,, and
(3) cost effectiveness. On the other hand,. the proposal of 'the•League
of California Cities responds very positively to each of these tests.
Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council:
1. Oppose the organizational arrangement proposed in
the Powers and Funding Element;
2.. Support the proposal of the League of California
Cities as outlined in•the report of the Los
Angeles County Division;
3. Direct the staff to transmit a copy of this report
to the Coastal Commission as the Counci.l•s position
on the 'Powers and Funding Element.
Step A. Cook
SAC:ph
Attachment
AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES SET FORTH
IN THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COASTAL COMMISSION'S POWERS,
FUNDING AND GOVERNMENT ELEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Los ANGELES COUNTY DIVISION
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
FEBRUARY, 1975
PREFACE
0
The Environmental Quality and Land Use Management Technical. and Policy Committees
of the Los Angeles County Divison of the League of California Cities have
diligently reviewed and respectfully considered the recomwendations contained
in the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission's Powers, XqLdin& and Government
Element. This report emanates from the concerns expressed by committee
•members over the continual perpetuation of special-purpose agencies to address
the multitude of significant environmental problems facing our cities, counties,
regions and state. This report is developed in response to that concern and
the recognition of I. the need to establish a.more coordinated and cooperative
approach to meeting the total needs of our citizens.
r
•0.
z.
I
I, THE NEED FOR A COOPERATIVE APPROACH
The South Coast Regional Coastal Commission's Powers, Funding and Govern-
ment Element (Preliminary draft dated January 17, 1975) fails to address
and evaluate alternative institutional structures available for implementing
the Coastal Zone Plan. Thus, the assumption has apparently been made that
only through the -establishment and continuation of a special-purpose govern
mental agency with extensive powers and controls over local governmental units
can implementation of the Coastal Zone Plan be assured. Such an assumption
need not and should not be accepted.
While it is recognized that the Coastal Zone is a distinct and valuable natural
resource of regional and statewide significance and that there are increasing
and competing demands for the use of, the lands and waters it encompasses, it
must be noted that ii is not a unique entity in and of itself, but rather an
important resource that is intimately linked to the social, economic and
physical characteristics which make up the total urban or rural. environments
within our state.':Like many other concerns, such as air quality, water quality,
adequate transportation, economic conditions, etc., it has become increasingly
apparent that these supposedly unique problems cannot -be solved in isolation,
but rather must be addressed in the context of their relationship to the other.
componentswhich comprise the total environment. To successfully manage our
environment in a manner which is responsive to the total needs of our citizens,
an integrated and comprehensive planning process must be established which
involves government'at the local, area and state levels. The South Coast
Regional Commission recognized the need for such involvement in regards. to
protecting resources within the coastal zone whep it stated in its Powers,
Funding and Government Element that:
3.
The key to more effective protection and use of tiie land
and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage
local governments, special districts and other local and
regional agencies with jurisdiction in the coastal zone
and the state government to develop and implement an
effective coastal management program, including unified
policies, criteria, standards, methods and processes for
dealing with coastal resource use decisions in the areas
of their respective concerns.
There is a growing demand for all levels of government in the state to act in
concert by jointly addressing many areas of environmentalp social and economic
concern., The proliferation of special governmental entities that pursue single-
. .. . .
purpose objectives with little concern for coordination with other special and
general-purpose governmental entities is.a very expensive, burdensome, and in
many instances ineffective approach to solving many of the complex problems
facing California citizens today.
Presently, it is almost impossible for citizens to be informed about and par-
ticipate in•the number and variety of decisions made by the plethora of govern-
mental bodies which influence their lives. A process must be established which
is designed to 1) reverse the trend toward establishing special-purpose govern-
mental units to address supposedly unique problems, 2) provide means for
different interests to be heard, and 3) allow state, area and local bodies to
plan together and consider the impact of all decisions on our citizens. This
process must, as the Coastal Commission states, recognize the autonomy of
local governmental bodies in issues of primarily local interest, recognize
further the need for regional concern and authority in those issues that involve
developments of greater -than local impact, and recognize there is a role for- -
the State where actions affect issues or areas of statewide significance. This
4.
process must reflect the fact that the vast majority of governmental decisions
involving land use do not have a significant effect on people outside the.
boundary of a single local government. State government or area organizations
should only be involved when important state or areawide problems exist. If
time—consuming procedures are created which require action by regional and
state agencies on matters of only local significance, then the cost of all
development, including a host of both public and private facilities, • will
increase substantially.
General purpose local governments are charged with insuring that a multitude of -
community needs are met and are held directly accountable by the people•they "'
serve for their actions. The governmental entities responsible for implementing
the coastal plan must likewise have a perspective that is specific enough to
consider the needs of individual communities as well as be responsible to broader
regional and statewide concerns. Decisions in areas such as energy development,
employment opportunities, transportation requirements, housing opportunities,
etc., must be given appropriate consideration in weighing the* implications of
coastal conservatioon policies and practices. Coastal planning should clearly
be a key element in a comprehensive interjurisdicational planning effort which .
produces plans which not only encompass coastal conservation concerns but
incorporate other public concerns of local, regional and statewide importance.
Therefore, it is proposed that the State Commission and State Legislature
consider the framework *suggested in the League *of California Cities' recently
drafted land use legislation as an alternative to what now is being proposed
by the South Coast Regional Commission.
C
I1. AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE. SOUTH COAST REGIONAL. COASTAI. COM`,13SSi0N'S
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The planning framework set forth in the League of California Cities' land use
legislation provides that the State, with substantial local contributions,
would establish broad planning criteria and environmental standards for areas
of statewide concern which would serve as guidelines for cities and counties
to incorporate into their local planning processes. Cities and counties
would be responsible for creating their own plans which reflect a concern for
tine standards and guidelines developed at the state level. These local plans
would be sent to Area Coordinating Councils which -would be responsible for
coordinating the individual efforts and resolving inconsistencies among city,
county, district and state plans.
An area plan, based on the local plans, would be created and would accommodate
areawlde needs and concerns. Area Coordinating Councils would transmit their
plans to a State.Coordinating Council which would coordinate and resolve
inconsistencies among various areas. The State Coordinating Council would
Lheu develop a'State Resources and Conservation and Development Plan which
would reflect a sensitivity toward all the areas of important environmental
concern properly meshed with equally important social and economic considerations
for submission to the Legislature for adoption. The State plan, which is
based on local plans incorporating the criteria and standards generated by
statewide concerns, would be continually reviewed and updated by the State'
Coordinating Council. Its must important ingredient would be a reflection upon ._
the inextricable linkages between the protection of the environment, broad
determinations of land use, and social and economic concerns. It would be
the primary tool for establishing statewide policies in all areas of environ-
mental control and land use planning and management.
.{
11.
. LEAGUIF.1 ENVINO LM & . � .
.AND U5 AGUN'AM
STAIrZ
COORDINAM
COUNCIL
2.
.P� .49A, , 3.
Coordinate local planning n
efforts'.
Identify concerns of areawide
significance.
Aggregate local plans into
area plan..
Resolve inconsistencies among
city, county, district, and
state plans.
4.
A0
Establish broad planning
criteria for areas of
concern having statewide
significance.
Set pollution standards
reflecting the uniqueness
of individual geographic
areas.
Coordinate State regulatory
activities with the
development of the State
Resources and Conservation .
Development Plan.
Identify areas of critical
environmental concern,
delineate urban and
non —urban areas and identify
prime agricultural lands.
CU it 11
1. Create own plans which incorporate the planning criteria.,
and pollution standards established by the State
Coordinating Council.
2. Work with Area Coordinating Councils to resolve
inconsistencies among local plans and to address
problems of regional significance. '
7.
Y
THE STATIi COORDINATING COUNCTL
In California, statewide policies affecting the environment and land use are
established by, in addition to the Legislature and Governor, the Water Quality
Control Board, the Air Resources Board, the Solid Waste Management Board, the
Transportation Board, the Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission,acd the Coastal Commission.' There is little policy coordination
among the State's environmentally oriented regulatory programs. One body
should exist which could coordinate and establish a basic policy framework.
To accomplish.thls, it is proposed that the Legislature establish a State
Coordinating Council, chaired by the Governor, which would have a broad -based
membership including 'the Secretary of the Resources Agency, the Secretary of
'the Business and Transportation Agency, and the Secretary of Agriculture and
Services Agency. In addition, one member of the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission, and one member of the Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission as designated by their respective commissions, and
one member of the Air Resources Board, and•oue member of the State Water Resources
Control_Buard, as designated by their respective boards, shall be, included'.
One representative from each of the•Area Coordinating Councils would be a
member of the State Coordinating Council. These members would be* chosen by
their respective Area Coordinating Councils.
The State Coordinating Council would be charged with the responsibility of
establishing a planning • framework within which the planning process conducted
'by general-purpose local governments and Area Coordinating Councils would
take place by:
1. Reviewing pollution standards, regulations and plans developed
by the Air Resources Board, the State and Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, the Coastal Commission, the Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission, the Transportation
V
� 5
1. (continued) Bod9and the Solid Waste managemersoard to determine
their consistency with the State Resources Conservation and Develop-
ment Plan.
2. Establishing policies which would guide cities, counties and Area
Coordinating Councils in•preparing plans which delineate and are
responsive to areas of critical environmental concern.
The State Coordinating Council would develop and periodically revise and update
the State Resources Conservation and Development Plan which would include a
Coastal Zone Element and be submitted to the Legislature for approval and amend-
ment. The State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission'would serve as an advisory
body to the State. Coordinating Council to aid in the development of the.Coastal
Zone Element. The plan currently being prepared by the Coastal Commission, upon
adoption by the State Legislature, would become the 1hitial Coastal Zone Element
i
to the State Resources Conservation and Development Plan. Ttie State Coordinating'
Council would be responsible for coordinating plans, programs and other activities
of the various boards, agencies and departments within the State government and
to resolve inconsistencies between these efforts and the Coastal *Zone Element._
Likewise, the State Coordinating Council would be responsible to review plans
and programs emanating from the'Area Councils to insure consistency with the
State Plan. In its role as coordinative body, the State Coordinating Councii
would provide data and technical assistance to Area Councils and general-purpose
local governments to aid in developing their individual'plans which would insure
increased continuity in the various planning efforts.
The Coastal Zone Conservation�Commission would be retained as a technical
advisory body to the State Coordinating Council. Its initial planning efforts
should provide the basis for a continual monitoring and review of local and
areawide activities which affect the coastal environment. It would be responsible
for evaluating the impact of such activities and making recommendations to the
0
r
9.
State -Coordinating Council. In addition, the Commission would deliaeatg
coastal areas of significant environmental, historical, natural or archeological
value of statewide importance and recommend to the Council specific actions
needed to protect these areas. The Council, after due consideration given to
all the cogent factors, may designate these areas as being of "critical environ-
mental state concern." The Council would be responsible for the adoption of
land use and development, regulations which reflect a concern for the uniqueness
of a given critical area. • Local governments would be required to comply with
the principles for guiding the use of'land in these areas and must adopt policies,
plans and prautices which are -consistent with the State Coordinating Council's
M
regulations.
In order to eicpedite the return of permit and regulatory control of land'use
and development to general-purpose local government and still meet the intent
of 'Proposition 20 and the need for a more•cooperative, coordinated statewide
effort sensitive to broader concerns, it is proposed that the State Coordinating
Council, upon adoption of a Coastal Element to the State Resources Conservation
and Development Plan, which sets forth guidelines and standards-for'coastal
planning, supersede the Coastal Commission as the regulatory agent. Planning
and regulatory control for coastal zone management would be retained by the
State Coordinating Council until the appropriate Area Coordinating Councils
have adopted coastal plans consistent with the guidelines and standards set
forth by the State Coordinating.Council. The Regional Coastal Commissions
would retain permit authority until the area plans are approved and then, at
the option of .the State 'Coastal Zone Conservation Commission or Area Coordinating
Councils, serve as advisory bodies to one or both.
.. 10.
AREA COORDINATING COUNCILS
City Councils, no.matter how dedicated, do not have the ability on their own
to give their citizens clean air, clean water, open space,. decent public
transportation, adequate recreational facilities, A place to dispuse of solid
waste or an unobstructed coastline.. These problems transcend local government
boundaries: To date the solution to areawide problems has been the creation
of regional special-purpose bodies. We have special-purpose regional districts
providing water, transportation, air pollution control, water quality control,
'parks, control of bay fill, health planning, coastal planning, etc. We have
regional planning and regulation,.but little coordination of effort. The Area Coordinating Councils would assume these areawide responsibilities to
insure that a coordinated approach is- instituted. Its authority and jurisdiction
would be limited to only those problems -of regional significance. The Area
Coordinating Councils, as outlined in the League's land use legislation, are:
..,needed because certain problems, such as pollution control, and
needs, such as transportation, are so large that local governments
acting individually cannot solve them.
...needed to coordinate the activities of existing single -purpose "
agencies, such as air pollution control districts.
...needed to provide a forum where local officials can represent their
constituents during the resolution of areawide problems, such as
the placement of a transportation corridor.
...needed because social and economic conditions are also'areawide.
An institution is needed where the relationships between trans-
portation and unemployment, between land use and housing, and
between land use., transportation and clean air can be discussed and
acted upon.
Local officials are elected and accountable to the people. They have an
awareness and understanding of, the nature and extent of many of the problems
a
the Area Coordinating Council will be'considering, and ,they, better than anyone
else, are aware of which problems they cannot solve as local officials. to
addition, any possible resolution of areawide problems will depend upon the
cooperation of local governments and local officials to build the support
needed to achieve the required' intergovernmental cooperation.- In addition, local
officials by participating in areawide deliberations will become more responsive
to areawide problems. The governing body of the Area Coordinating Council
should consist primarily of. city and county elected officials. It should repre—
sent at least 50% of the cities representing at least 50% of the municipal popu
lation in the area and 50% in the counties. Additional members could be selected
from the generAl public based upon .their• -expertise in areas thought to be of
critical concern to the citizens within the specific regions..
The Area Coordinating Council would establish and maintain area plans and '
policies which would be based upon city and county plans. The Area Councils
would coordinate the development of these plans to insure consistency and
would be responsible for the resolution of differences'which may arise. Only
those'concerns of regional significance would be considered and acted upon.
State pollution standards and planning criteria would have been incorporated
into the local plans and -the Area Council would relate the areawide plan to
State environmental standards. If the plans were found to be inconsistent
with the standards, then the Area Coordinating Council would have the authority
to resolve them. The Area Council would also have the responsibility of .'
reviewing pollution and environmental quality standards and to assess their
appropriateness to any geographic area. The Area Council would coordinate and,
resolve inconsistencies or 'specific problems arising from applying generally
accepted pollution standards to these areas.
The Area Council in developing an area plan would have the responsibility of
e
12.
insuring' that areawide needs are met. For the first time one body could
look at the plans for each agency with jurisdiction in the area and
determine which programs or aspects of a plan are inconsistent with, or
supportive of, each other and reconcile the apparent conflicts or take
advantage of their commonality. Coastal zone concerns of areawide significance
would be considered and evaluated along with a multitude of important areawide
needs which go unmet.from year to year because local government has lacked
the capacity to respond meaningfully to problems of areawide and statewide
scope. The framework offered by -the League is an attempt to increase that
.capacity,•buL not at the expense of the near -total pre-emption of local land.
use regulatory authority as being proposed by the"Coastal Commission and
..other special-purpose planning and regulatory authorities.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
Various proposals,, including the proposal contained in the South Coast Regional
Commission's Powers, Fundink and Government Element have suggested that the
solution Lo past and present harmful land use practices is to shift.regulatory
responsibility to a different level of'government, either regional or state.
Shifting responsibility, to a different level of government.or creating a
new unit of government only changes the institution which must attempt to
find solutions to the underlying problems which cuntinue'to.exist. If the
identity and uniqueness of communities are to be maintained, and if citizens
of communities are to continue to be able to determine that identity, local
governmenL must be given the authority to control the development of their
communities. They cannot be expected to cope with' urban sprawl and the
13.
lack of open space and to provide needed services unless they have the authority
and tools to do so. More local control, not less, is needed if urban com-
munities are to solve problems which are locally based.
The intent behind the establishment of an environmental control and land use
planning and management framework, as defined earlier in this document, is
to integrate state and regional concerns into local and area plans in a manner
which protects the integrity of local planning and at the same time increases
the capacity of local government to be more responsive to such areawide'and
statewide concerns as coastal management, air quality, water management, etc.
In this process, local units of government would have the prime responsibility
of insuring that•the environmental quality and related land use concerns
are adequately addressed. Under this process each appropriate unit of'local '
government would be responsible for including a coastal zone element in its ,
general plan. This plan would incorporate the standards and criteria established
by the State. Coordinating Council and cumulatively be coordinated at the
regional level by the Area Coordinating Councils. Provisions are made for
the equitable involvement of -local elected off iciils*at each level of the
process and therefore provide the linkages needed to integrate the plans
and programs into'comorehensive and coordinated I*iplementation straLegies
which are sensitive to the problems, reflect an awareness and understanding
of the broad array of conditions and concerns which need to,be considered,
reduce the need for the perpetuation of special-purpose regulatory bodies,
and, most importantly, in the long run be more effective in seeing that the
problems are solved and the needs are met.
I .
N
INTO TWA' EIMM
COASTAL PL.ANoI'1j`,IRNJ-GP
LAND USE MANG 'S M��� JO
1., Regulatory and planning responsibilities;
transferred to State Coordinating
Council upon adoption of State,
U
Coastal Zone Plan by Legislature.'
\�
2
2. Commission retained as an advisory .
body to' the State Coordinating
Council to identify areas of
critical environmental
AREA
concern and'monitor and
review regional Planning COCRO3M NG
efforts. ,O
MG76 SAL
c,,%AL .
Regional Commissions retain permit
authority until Area Councils are
established and coastal elements
adopted.
Regional Commission may be retained as
as advisory bodies to Area Coordinating
Councils after permit authority is
dissolved.
1.
Permit authority reverts to local
control after adoption of Coastal
Element by Area Coordinating Council.
'AW ART
0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 92660
cv��Fou��P City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714)673 2110
May 16, 1975
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I am Milan M. Dostal,
Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Newport Beach. As part of our
presentation to the Commission, the City of Newport Beach has
prepared and is submitting at this time, written comments dealing f
i
with specific sections and provisions of the preliminary Coastal
Plan dated March, 1975.
These written comments, however, only tend to underscore what
Newport Beach considers to be the most significant defect in the
planning process behind the adoption of the Coastal Plan, that
defect being the lack of an appropriate Environmental Impact Report.
On May 8, 1975, the City of Newport Beach was first made aware of
the fact that the Commission does not intend to and will not prepare
an Environmental Impact Report on the Coastal Plan. This was
brought to our attention as a result of discussions with the Coastal
Commission staff.
u
C�
0
May 16, 1975
Page Two
The City of Newport Beach strongly objects to the position that
the Commission need not comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
We are deeply concerned that the ultimate and far reaching environ-
mental effects of the Coastal Plan, which will affect the entire
California Coastline, will not be specifically studied in an EIR.
As the Commission knows, an EIR must be prepared where a public agency
intends to approve a project which may significantly effect the
environment.
The Coastal Commission is a "public agency" as that term is used in
CEQA. The Coastal Plan is a "project" under CEQA. The Plan proposes
to set policies, guidelines and procedures which must be followed
by local government the entire length of the State. The implementa-
tion of the Plan will require substantial local government action;
for instance, general plan, zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance
changes are mandated under the Plan. Each responsible local agency
would necessarily be required to prepare EIR's on their local
actions implementing the Plan. The Commission is aware that in
hundreds of cases, EIR's have been prepared by various local govern-
ments and by the Commission itself on projects each of which are
of substantially less environmental consequence than the Coastal Plan.
Obviously, the Coastal Plan will have a "significant effect on the
May 16, 1975
Page Three
environment". As the California Supreme Court has indicated recently,
any proposed project which creates substantial public interest,
concern or controversy, is in and of itself a "significant effect"
on the environment and an EIR must be prepared. The Commission is
well aware that substantial public controversy has been generated by
the preliminary plan which is sufficient to cause the EIR process to
be instituted. Of course, beyond public controversy, there are
substantial effects on the environment created by the implementation
of the Plan which must be addressed in an EIR.
The Commission knows that the purpose of an EIR is to provide .full
disclosure of all of the Environmental impacts. This includes
qualitative factors, as well as economic and technical factors, the
long range benefits and costs in addition to the short term benefits
and costs, and a consideration of alternatives to the proposed
action. The full disclosure is for the benefit of the decision makers,
the public generally and the courts. To not prepare an EIR will
prevent the public, the Commission and the courts from knowing the
ultimate environmental effects of the Plan.
We have carefully reviewed the current state of the law and can find
no exclusion of the Coastal Commission from the scope of CEQA.
The legislative mandate to the Coastal Commission, found in Section
May 16, 1975
Page Four
27001 of the Public Resources Code, is to prepare the Plan in full
consultation with all affected governmental agencies, private
interests, and the general public. None of the foregoing agencies,
who have substantial rights of input to the Plan, will be able to
intelligently comment on and suggest revisions to the Plan unless
the environmental impacts of the Plan are made known through an EIR.
California courts have again and again told public agencies that it
is their duty to prepare EIR's as early in the planning process as
is possible. The EIR must be made by the Agency having the largest
jurisdictional scope over the project, the "lead agency", and an EIR
must be prepared on the total project rather than on segregated and
dismembered portions of the project.
In the case of the Coastal Plan, the Coastal Commission must assume
its legal responsibility as the "lead agency" and prepare, hold
hearings on, and certify to the completion of an EIR on the Coastal
Plan.
The purpose of CEQA was to compel government, at all levels, to
make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. One cannot
assume because the Coastal Commission was created with the intent
to protect the environment and ecology of the California Coast that,
ipso facto, the Plan.presented by the Commission would not include
substantial adverse environmental impacts on the coastline. While
May 16, 1975
Page Five
the Coastal Commission may very well be attempting to protect,
enhance and preserve the Coastal environment, until an EIR is
prepared which addresses all of the environmental issues one
cannot assume that there will be no significant environmental
effects caused through implementation of the Plan.
When the Coastal initiative was drafted, CEQA clearly applied to
public agencies undertaking public projects. The Friends of
Mammoth case increased the scope of CEQA to include private projects
and helped define what constitutes "substantial effect on the
environment". ,The public was aware, at the time they voted on
Proposition 20, that CEQA was alive and well and was an effective
vehicle to cause government to consider the environment when
considering approving or disapproving projects. After the Coastal
initiative was approved, CEQA was substantially amended but no
mention was made therein to exclude the Coastal Commission from the
scope of CEQA.
It appears to the City of Newport Beach that the Commission has
acted and continues to act as if CEQA did not exist as applied to
actions of the Commission itself.
We ask the Commission and its counsel, to publicly state its position
on whether or not it intends to assume its duty as the "lead agency"
May 16, 1975
Page Six
and prepare, hold hearings on, and certify to the completion of an
EIR in compliance with CEQA, or whether it chooses to ignore the
provisions of CEQA and stand on its apparent position that an EIR
is not needed and will not be prepared. We ask the Commission to
state its position now, at this place, in public and for the record.
If the Commission determines that an EIR will not be prepared, we
feel it is crucially important for the Commission to publicly state
why it will not comply with the provisions of CEQA and will not
prepare an EIR in conjunction with its proposed Plan.
We call on the Commission to terminate its current hearings on the
Plan, to take no more action regarding the Plan until it has
complied with the law and prepared an EIR which will adequately
address the significant environmental impacts of the Coastal Plan.
I thank you for considering our concerns and suggestions in conjunction
with the California Coastal Plan.
Yours very truly,
Milan M. Dostal, Mayor Pro Tem
City of Newport Beach, California
MMD:yz
Attachment to Cal• rnia Coastal Zone •
Conservation Commission Letter of
May 16, 1975.
ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY COASTAL PLAN
PREPARED BY:
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
While the Preliminary Coastal Plan is certainly an impressive
document and is obviously the result of considerable effort,
we in the City of Newport Beach have many concerns regarding
the effects that this plan would have on governmental economy
and efficiency and the future of Newport Beach.
The City of Newport Beach has been represented at nearly
all of the public hearings on the individual Coastal Plan
Elements developed by the South Coast Regional Commission.
Many of our initial objections and concerns have since been
ameliorated. However, several major concerns remain:
1) The apparent outright prohibition of the development
of a small -craft harbor in West Newport, as ,exemplified
by Policy No. 92 on Page 135. The Newport Beach General
Plan calls for a small -craft harbor in the lowlands
adjacent to the Santa Ana River, subject to more -
detailed economic and environmental studies. We would
hope that a decision against the small -craft harbor
would not be made at this time. This issue certainly
is too large to be decided without a more in-depth
study of the property in question and the recreational
Page 2
•
needs of the citizens. I would submit that the small -
craft harbor, (including public access, adjacent public
open space, riding and hiking trails, as envisioned
by the Newport Beach General Plan) may prove to be the
best use of this area in terms of both recreational needs
and qovernmental economics.
We would suggest that the first sentence of Policy No. 92 be
revised to read as follows:
"To minimize the environmental damage caused by the
alteration of the marine environment for boating
facilities, the dredging or filling of coastal
wetlands to accommodate new boating facilities
shall be prohibited except where it can be
demonstrated that a net public recreational or
environmental benefit will result from such
dredging or filling, and where the development
of boating facilities proves to be the most feasible
means of preserving public recreational use and
environmental values on privately -owned land."
2) Policy No. 49 on Page 87 calls for design review for
"all public and private development within the coastal
viewshed.." This policy presupposes continuation of a
Coastal Commissio'n permit system and continuing Coastal
Commission regulation of all development in the permit
area. Surely this total and detailed level of control
is not mandated by Proposition 20 and isnot necessary
for accomplishment of its objectives. Design of
Page 3 •
structures and signs, setback requirements and the .like
are local concerns, not regional or statewide.
3) The regional amplification, for the South Coast Region,
of Policy No. 65 on Page 112, states that all publicly -
owned land "shall be maintained in public ownership."
Some publicly -owned land may not be suitable or desirable
for public use; therefore, this policy should not
categorically prohibit the sale of publicly -owned land.
4) Policy No. 75 on Page 119 would prohibit development of
shoreline property until the "potential of each shoreline
property for possible recreational use" is evaluated.
Major "left -unanswered" questions with the implementation
Of this policy include: Who will do the 'evaluation? When?
How will the property owner be compensated? Does this
policy apply to all shoreline property, including small
vacant waterfront lots?
In terms of "carrying out the Coastal Plan", the City of
Newport Beach has gone on record as strongly opposed to the
continuation of the current coastal commission structure and
the resulting inefficiency, confusion, and "double -permitting."
We believe that it is necessary and important to find a method
of implementing the plan which will assure that major purposes
of the Act are carried out as well as assuring that the
functions of government in providing services to the people are
not unnecessarily impaired, that the rights o-f individual
property owners are adequately protected, and that the economy
of the region and the state is enhanced.
O � •
Page 4
We in the City of Newport Beach feel very strongly that the
"successor agency" must be general. -purpose local government
and that the necessary assurance of local government
compliance with the adopted Coastal Plan can be accomplished
within the current State agency organization. For example,
the legislature can adopt legislation mandating consistency
of local general plans with the adopted Coastal Plan; and
existing State agency, such as the Council on Intergovernmental
Relations, cap be charged with reviewing and approving local
general plans and regulations to assure consistency.,
Currently, State law requires local governments to adopt
several mandatory general plan elements; these elements are
reviewed by the Council on Intergovernmental Relations for
consistency with"State law. In addition, local zoning must be
consistent with the adopted General Plan Elements. A similar
process could be utilized to provide an efficient means of
implementing the Coastal Plan. Enforcement would be under the
State Attorney General, as it now is.
Thus, implementation of the Coastal Plan does not demand the
continuation bf the State and regional coastal commissions
and does not require a continuing irrational and wasteful
"double permit" process. Local government, under State law
and existing State agencies, can be legally mandated to serve
as the "successor agency."
In this way, local government may remain responsible for local
decision making, within certain regional constraints
established by the Coastal Plan, and there will be no need
Page 5 •
to perpetuate a form of government that is alien to our
democratic system: an agency with total land use decision -
making authority but with no responsibility for the provision of
services and the general welfare, and with only partial (and
indirect) accountability to the people.
Thank you for considering our concerns and suggestions. We
hope that they will be helpful in the development of a
Coastal Plan which will carry out the objectives of Proposition 20
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISION TO THE POWERS, FUNDING AND GOVERNMENT
ELEMENT
(Relating to Policy Recommendations 3 and 4) Increase the
proportion of elected officials serving on the State and regional
commissions. Perhaps the State commission could consist of the
six members representing each regional commission, which members
must be selected from the elected officials serving on the
regional commission, with the remaining six members consisting
of members from existing State commissions with statewide
concerns (e.g., th—e State Lands Commission, the Council on
Intergovernmental Relations, the State Highway Commission,
the State Energy Commission, and the Water Resources Control
Board).
The regional commissions could consist of all elected officials,
including Supervisors, and Cou.ncilmen', (two of. which could be
delegates to SCAG, as proposed).
(Relating to Policy Recommendation 9). There should be no
"Critical Coastal Resource Zone"; instead, the Coastal
Management Zone should extend from the mean high tide line.
3. ,(Relating to Policy Recommendation 21). There should be a
continuing coastal permit process in the Coastal Management
Zone, but only where local general plans are not approved
or on appeal of local decisions which have a significant
regional impact.
The State and Regional Coastal Commissions should center
their efforts on programs of natural coastal resource preservation
and land acquisition, with review of local plans for consistency.
The costly and redundant "double permit" process in urbanized
coastal communities is unnecessarily for the accomplishment
of major coastal conservation objectives.
TC:jmb
Community
1-31-75
Development Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
'CALIFORNIA
city Ball
3300 Newp Dlvd.
(714)673 2110
January 31, 1975
South Coast Regional Commission
666 East Ocean Boulevard
Suite 3107
Long Beach, CA '90801
Gentlemen:
RE: Powers, Funding and Government Element
The second'draft.of the Powers, Funding and Government Element,
in many respects, represents a signifi'c.ant improvement over
the first draft, particularly in that it reduces the amount
of wasteful "double -permitting". 'But, this draft,, although'
,h-eaded in the 'right direction, stops far short of the
optimum.
to in the City of Newport Beach feel very strongly that the
"successor agency" must be general-purpose local goverhment
and that the necessary assurance of local g-overnme,ni
compliance with the adopted Coastal Plan can be accomplis'heil
within the current State agency organization. For example,
the legislature can adopt legislation mandating cohsistency
of local general plans with the adopted Coastal Plan; an
existing State agency, such as the'Council on Intergovernmental
Relations, can be c'harged with reviewing and approving local
general pl,ans'and regulations to assure consistency'
Currently, State'law requires local governments to adopt several
mandatory general,plan elements; these Elements are reviewed
by the Council 'on Intergovernmental Relations for consistency
with State law. In -addition,, local zoning must be consistent
with the adopted General Plan Elements. A similar process could
be utilized'to provide an efficient means of implementing the
Coastal Plan.. Enforcement would be under the State Nt,to.rney
General, as, it now.is.
Thus, implementation of the Coastal Plan does not demand the
continuation of,the.State and regional' coastal commissions
and does not require a continuing irrationa•1, and wasteful'
"double permit" process. Local government, under State law
and existing State agencies, can be legally mandated to serve
as the "successor agency".
South Coast 'Regional Commission
Page 2
January 31, 1975
In this way, local government may remain responsible for local
decision ma -king, within certain regional constraints
established by the Coastal Plan, and there will be no need
to perpetuate a, form of government that is' ali.eh to o-u,r
democratic, system; a,n age-ncy with total decision -making
authority but with no responsibility for the pro.visi-on of services
and the general welfare, and with only partial (and indirect)
accountabi 1 i ty to, t-he'.pe.opl e.
Thank you fo.r cons•iderat=ion of our suggestions. We hope
that they will be helpful in the develop.ment of a Coastal
Plan implementation program that is both politically acceptabTe
and economically efficient.
Respectfully su.bmitted,
Milan M. Dostal, Mayor P-ro Tempore
MMD: TC: j,mb
aa.Oy
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
December 16, 1974
South Coast Regional Commission
666 East Ocean Boulevard - Suite 310.7
Long Beach, California 90801
Re: Powers; Funding and Government Element
Gentlemen:
92660
City Ball
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714)673 2110
The proposed Powers, Funding and Government Element of the
Coastal Zone Plan suggests a change in philosophy of regulation
of land use in the State of California. We believe it is unwar-
ranted and unnecessary to carry out the intent and purposes of
the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act. We believe that
it is necessary and important to find a method of implementing
a plan which will assure that major purposes of the Act are
carried out as well as assuring that the functions of govern-
ment in providing services to the people are not unnecessarily
impaired, that the rights of individual property owners are
adequatelyprotected, and that the economy of the region and
the state is enhanced.
The element proposes the establishment of a permanent; totally
appointed, State Coastal Commission. We believe that the pro-
liferation of Government bureaucracy is inconsistent with
responsive and responsible government. Any successor commission
should be responsible and accountable to the Electorate concerned
with the actions taken. We believe that the people o•f our State
believe in the democratic process and the right to elect - and -
dismiss - their public servants. Any attempt to do otherwise
runs contrary to the basic concepts and ideals upon which our
nation was founded'.
Consideration should be given to assigning the responsibility
for the plan's implementation to an existing agency or agencies
We believe that existing elected general purpose governmental
agencies are capable of implementing the plan without the
creation of additional special purpose bodies.
+ K
South Coast Regional Commission - 2.
December 16, 1974
In the section "Approval and Certification of Local Land Use
Programs," provision is made for the review and approval of
local government programs. We concur with the intent of this
section to delegate to local governments the implementation of
the plan. The requirements placed on local governments in this
section are stringent and detailed sufficiently to assure that
the proposed plan will be adequately implemented. Prime consider-
ation should be given to assuring that the final p-roduct - the
California Coastal Plan - is easily and readily understood,
accepted by the majority, and administered at the local level
by representatives responsible to the Electorate.
The proposal establishes new geographical jurisdiction without
reference to those elements of the plan which have already been
adopted. Then it goes on to expand not only the permit zone
into the new "Coastal•Management Zone," but it expands the number
of activities requiring permits. This expansion of the permit
area and the activities requiring permits, is not only inconsistent
with previous policies adopted by the Commission, bu•t is entirely
unjustified and unwarranted.
Control of the acquisition or sale of land by other governmental
agencies and the change in powers of local•agencies would require
changes in other State laws and amounts to an usurpation of
powers now vested in other agencies that hardly seems necessary
or desirable for the purpose •of carrying out the Coastal Plan.
In the proposal for plan amendment•, at least two problems a.re
created. First, the State Commission is given authority to amend
a plan which has been approved by the Legislature. That in
itself removes control of the contents of the plan from a body
responsible to the concerned Electorate. Secondly, although this
amendment power is provided, it requires a two-thirds vote which
could easily mean that the adopted plan, with any imperfections
it may have, could remain in effect in spite of needed reform.
A more democratic process for making changes in the plan should
be provided.
There is nowhere within the plan a method for appealing the
decisions of the successor agency. Governmental jurisdictions
and the agencies of the State should have the authority to take
appeals to the Legislature when they feel that necessary govern-
mental activities are being unduly restricted.
There are many ideas and statements in the proposal with which
we can agree. However, we are in total disagreement with having
the authority for land use regulation placed in the hands of an
South Coast Regional Commission - 3.
December 16, 19,74
appointed body not composed of elected officials responsible
to the people whose rights and property are directly affected.
It is the intent and desire of the City of Newport Beach to
participate in future hearings on this element of the Coastal
Plan. We hope that we can be helpful in the development of an
element which will assure that the intent and provisions of the
plan can be carried out with t'he active and cooperative parti-
cipation of local government at the most reasonable cost to the
taxpayers of the state.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MIL N'M. DOST L, Vice Mayor
MMD/kk
t • -
City of Newport Beach
3300 I:ewport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660
714/673.2110
December 9, T974
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
South Coast Regional Commission
666 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
Long Beach, CA 90601
Gentlemen:
RE: Powers, Funding, and Government Element
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach, at their meeting
of December 9, 1974, adopted the following "position" on
the preliminary draft of the Powers, Funding, and Government
Element:
"The City of Newport Beach is strongly opposed to
the proposals of the Powers, Funding, and Government
Element which would result in total control of
local planning and development regulations by an
appointed state commission. This.usurpation of
the traditional city responsibility for self-determina-
tion results in the decision -making responsibility
being far removed from the citizens. It is unlikely
that the new decision makers, as proposed, would
be responsible to the citizens of the community.
It is the City's position that this Element should
be rewritten to accomplish the following:
1. The method of appointment and operation of
the proposed state coastal zone conservation
commission should be revised to assure greater
responsibility of the commission to the
legislature. An annual report to the legislature,
with annual review of the commission's operation,
should be a requirement. Provision should be
made for appeal of the state commission's
decisions.
2. The continuing "permit system" should be revised
to require a coastal com>fiission permit only
for projects which are of a size or type which
would have regional significance.
-Ir.
Ye
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 2
December 9, 1974
3. The proposed state commission's authority for
review and approval of local "land use programs"
should be clearly limited to the review of the
regional and statewide implications of local
General Plans, development programs, and land
use regulations. Local decision making should
be left to local government.
4. The implications of the state commission's
revocation of a local "land use program" should
be delineated.
5. Provision should be made for coordination of
coastal commission decisions with other state
and federal agencies having authority for
major development decisions; the resolution of
conflicts between the coastal commission and
other agencies should be addressed."
Thank you for your considering these comments; I would hope
for a major revision to the Powers, Funding,•and Government
Element which will ameliorate our concerns.
Yours very truly,
Donald A. McInnis, Mayor
DAM: jmb
City ®f Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660
714/673.2110
December 5, 1974
FILE COPY
Do NOT REMOVE
Mr. Melvin J. Carpenter
Executive Director
South Coast Regional Commission
666 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
Long Beach, CA 90801
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
Thank you for your invitation to comment on the preliminary
draft of the Powers, Funding, and Government Element.
The Newport Beach City Council has scheduled a discussion of
this element for their Study Session on Monday, December 9, 1974.
A detailed response from the City of Newport Beach will be
prepared based on the City Council's discussion, and a
representative of the City will be present at the South Coast
Regional Commission public hearing on December 16, 1974.
My initial response to this element is that the concept of local—
administration of the coastal plan is a major improvement over
the current coastal permit process. However, it appears that the
detailed proposals in this Element would lead to nearly total
control of local activities. Certainly this level of control
is unnecessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of
Proposition 20. It is apparent that regional and statewide
coastal conservation objectives do not require the coastal
commission to oversee every single activity of local government.
The City of Newport Beach appreciates your solicitation of local
government input on this important Element of the coastal plan,
and we look forward to participating in the public hearings.
rs very truly,
]
�Ro e4 L'. Wynn"
LV,%,
City Manager
RLW:TC:j
1%0
a,
Cityof Newport Be � h
3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 9^660
714/673.2110
December 3, 1974
Southern' California Association of
Governments
Executive Committee
1111 West Sixth Street, Suite 400
Los Angeles, California 90017
Gentlemen:
RE: Regional Transportation Plan -- Public Hearing
I would like to comment on the SCAG Regional Transportation
Plan, for which I understand a public hearing has been scheduled
on December 9, 1974. Please accept this letter as testimony
and enter it into the public hearing record.
The Highway Element of the Regional Transportation Plan indicates
one segment of the freeway system which is at variance with
the Newport Beach. General Plan. In Figures 1 and 2, the Corona --
del Mar Freeway is shown paralleling MacArthur Boulevard,
continuing to Pacific Coast Highway (as also shown on the
Cal Trans Plan). The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan calls for a realignment of this freeway segment to
approximately follow Bohita Canyon Road, leading southeasterly
down the coast. (A copy of the Circulation Element Master Plan
of Streets and Highways is enclosed.)
It is the position of the City of Newport Beach that this
realignment will provide for a more efficient freeway system
and be much less disruptive to the community. With the deletion
of the Pacific Coast Freeway, the route previously adopted by
Cal Trans for this freeway segment is no longer rational or
necessary.
I would respectfully ask that the Executive Committee, in
adopting the Regional Transportation Plan, amend the alignment
of Route 73 (Corona del Mar Freeway) on the freeway system
plans (Figures 1 and 2) of the Highway Element to correspond
to the realignment called for in the Newport Beach General
Plan.
If this is not feasible at this time, I would ask, as an alterna-
tive, that the segment of the Corona del Mar Freeway from
Bonita Canyon Road to Pacific Coast Highway be designated as a
Southern California Association of
Governments
Page 2
December 3, 1974
"route that requires further study" similar to the treatment
given several other freeway segments under Item 1 on Page 34.
Specifically, I would suggest that the following wording be
added under Item 1 of the recommendation:
"Route 73, Corona del Mar Freeway -- segment from
Bonita Canyon Road to Pacific Coast Highway
requires further study and possible realignment."
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
rs very truly,
Robert L. Wynn
City Manager
RLW:TC:jmb
Enclosure
® MAJOR ROAD 0 INTERCHANGE
SIX LANE DIVIDED m ADOPTED
PRIMARY ROAD FREEWAY
FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROUTES
PRIMARY ROAD BRIDGok
MODIFIED
4, SECONDARY ROAD FOUR LANE UNDIVIDEDROUTES THAT REQUIRE FURTHER
COORDINATION .
m
g n N ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 11,1974
it
•I
scale"in feet
r
•
pity of Newport Beau.
3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660
714/673.2110
November 14, 1974
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Members of the Commission:
RE: Appearance and Design Element
In reviewing the statewide Appearance and Design Element,
I was most pleased to note the inclusion of the concept
of "Coastal Commission approval of local design elements
with local administration of design review".
I do have a concern with the proposed design guidelines
for signs. Policy 8.d. on Page 39 and 40 lists several•
types of signs which would be "specifically prohibited",
including "signs that are located on a roof" and "statues"..
This unconditional prohibition is unnecessary and may
preclude the most acceptable design solution in many cases.
As a case in point, in the Corona del Mar commercial
district of Newport Beach, Coast Highway is lined with
low -branching, mature street trees which obscure the
building fronts. The -only way to provide effective
business identification in this business district, short
of drastic pruning of the trees, is to use roof signs.
The proposed new sign ordinance for the City of Newport .
Beach, now in public hearing before the Planning Commission,
provides that the Planning Commission may approve roof signs
only "when no other sign configuration can reasonably
serve the needs of the business establishment" and requires
that the Planning Commission make the following findings
in approving any roof sign:
(a) All other possible sign configurations
would not be visible from the public
right-of-way. r
r
(b) Other remedies' such as trimming street
trees would be less desirable. `
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
Page 2
November 14, 1974
(c) The proposed roof sign would not be
in any way detrimental to the area
and would not obstruct a desirable
view.
(d) The proposed roof sign would be no
larger than the minimum necessary,
to serve the business, and in no
case larger than the total sign area
or 50 sq. ft.
(e) The height of the proposed sign would
exceed neither ten feet above the
roof (directly below) nor the height
limit for the district.
Also, several businesses in Newport Beach have used "statuary"'
(actually sculptural symbols) as a means of visual identifi-
cation. These are attractive, effective, and provide a
certain "artistic" character.
I would specifically suggest that the last sentence of
Policy 8.d. be revised as follows:
"The following kinds of signs are
specifically prohibited, unless
regiona
signs that are ... (same
This additional wording would allow the flexibility often
required for the "best" design solution while, at the same
time, assuring consistency with Coastal Commission Policies.
Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT;
RVH
u
I
0 r m
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 92660
city Hell .
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673-2110
November 7, 1974
South Coast Regional Commission
666 East Ocean Boulevard
Suite 3107
Long Beach, CA 90801
Members of the Commission:
RE: Intensity of Development Element
The purpose of this letter is to ask that the Intensity
of Development Element not be adopted in its present form,
but that certain revisions be made, which I feel are
necessary to insure that the proposed policies are
effective, practical, and consistent.
A major concern is with Policy No. 6 on Page*,45, Which
includes the statement that "Within the primary p
boundary, the coastal agency must exercise permit
responsibility." This wording appears to preclude the
concept of "Coastal Commission approval of local plans
and regulations, with local administration of those
plans and regulations." This concept was adopted by the
South Coast Regional Commission as the means of implementing
the Appearance and Design Element, and is now included
in the adopted statewide version of the Element. The
inclusion of this concept in the Intensity of Development
Element would certainly be consistent with your previous
actions and would provide for more effective and efficient
implementation of the Coastal Plan.
I would urge you to revise the third sentence of Policy
No. 6 to read as follows:
"Within the primary permit boundary, the
coastal agency must exercise permit
responsibility, except where the local
government's plans and regulations are
approved b� the coastal agency as being
consistent with the 'Coastal Plan."
This suggested wording would allow the coastal agency flexi—
bility in terms of maintaining direct control where necessary
and indirect control where the coastal permit process is
South Coast Regional Commission •
Page 2
November 7, 1974
unnecessary for the accomplishment of the Coastal Plan
objectives.
I have two concerns with the map immediately following
Page 45, entitled "Recommended Planning and Management
Zone and Primary Permit Zone". The first concern, is with
the recommended expansion of the primary permit zone
in the eastern portion of Newport Beach. Although I.
was pleased to see the recommended reduction in the size
of the primary permit zone in other sections of Newport
Beach, I fail.to understand the recommended expansion
in this one area. The concept of "varying the primary
permit boundary• according to location and need for
regulation", which resulted in the primary permit zone
reduction in other areas, does not support this recommended
expansion. I would urge that, in the area east of the Upper
Bay, this map be revised to align the primary permit
boundary with Jamboree Road, rather than with MacArthur
Boulevard. The area between Jamboree Road and MacArthur
Boulevard does not contain significant coastal resources
and is not directly'coastal-oriented.
My second concern with the map is that the "Planning and
Management Zone" inland of Newport Beach is so reduced as to
exclude a major portion of the Upper Bay watershed. Certainly
the development of the'watershed will have a profound effect
on the Upper Bay._
In addition,'I'would suggest, as a clarification, that Policy
No. 1 on Page 36 be revised to read:
"Upper Newport Bay and adjoining undeveloped
upland areas should be publicly acquired
for a wildlife preserve and open space
for public recreation."
(The Newport Beach General Plan designates the adjoining
up lands as "public recreational open space" related to the'
Upper Bay Wildlife Preserve, but the uplands would not be wild-
life preserves per se.)
Again, thank you for considering my suggestions.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
n,� ctor
RVH:TC:jmb
U
r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 22, 1974
South Coast Regional Commission
666 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite
Long Beach, CA 90801
Members of the Commission:
CALIFORNIA
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
3107
RE: Intensity of Development Element
92660
city Hall -
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 613-2110
In reviewing the revised draft of the Intensity of Develop-
ment Element, I was pleased to note that some of my previous
concerns (as expressed in my letter of August 22, 1974)
have been ameliorated. I particularly am pleased to see
that the policy calling for a "continuous band of public
ownership paralleling the coast" (Policy No. 4) has been
clarified and now provides for some flexibility. .
My major remaining concern is with Policy No. 2 on Page 36,
which states that the "undeveloped land at the Santa Ana
River mouth should be maintained in open space for public
recreation". This policy could be interpreted as pre-
cluding the development of a small -craft harbor in this
location. (Although, I would maintain that a small -craft
harbor is "open space for public recreation".)
As previously discussed in regard to the Recreation
Element, I would suggest that this policy be revised to
make it clear that a small -craft harbor in this location
is a possibility.
Specifically, I would suggest that Policy No. 2 on Page 36
be revised to read as follows:
"A major portion of the undeveloped land at
the Santa Ana River mouth should be maintained
in open space for public recreation; the
development of a small -craft harbor in
conjunction with the recreational open space
uses will be considered as further studies
-are made, with the final, decision on the use
of this area left to the Coastal Commission
or its successor agency."
kw 0
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 2
October 22, 1974
In addition, I would suggest, as a clarification, that
Policy No. 1 on Page 36 be revised to read:
"Upper Newport Bay and adjoining undeveloped
upland areas should be publicly acquired,
for a wildlife preserve and open space
for public recreation."
(The Newport Beach General Plan designates the adjoining
uplands as "public recreational open space" related
to the Upper Bay Wildlife Preserve, but the uplands
would not be wildlife preserves per se.)
Again, thank you for considering my suggestions.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
an, ctor
RVH:TC:jmb
f
0
t
4
October 16, 1974
{
Mr. Melvin J. Carpenter, Executive Director
South Coast Regional Commission
P.O. Box 1450
Long Beach, California 90801
Dear Mr. Carpenter:
Attached you will find a copy of Resolution 8374 authoriz-
ing the City staff to withhold the •issuance of City build-
ing permits until a permit is obtained from the South Coast
Regional Commission. It_would be appreciated if you would
take the necessary steps to inform your Commission that the
City staff will immediately comply with the attached resolu-
tion.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
ROBERT L. WYPIN
City Manager
P,LW:mm
Attachment
Z: Mr. Richard Hogan
Community Development Director.
COUNCILMEN
MINUTES
CALL ma9yZa
m October 15 1974 INDEXROLL
10. The following Budget Amendment was approved:
BA-19, $3,000 transfer of Budget Appropriations for
appraisal of State of California Parcel Numbers 41339
and 41339A located in the City from Unappropriated
Contingency Reserve to Nondepartmental, Services -
Professional] Technical, etc.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motion
K
1. A letter from Uncle Hubert's Royal Caboose requesting
In -lieu
Ayes
K
X
x
x
x
x
N
refund in connection with in -lieu parking fees was
Parking
referred to staff for review and approval.
ADDITIONAL BUSSNESS:
-
1. A report fro the City Hall Planning Committee re-
Council
grading propos new Council Chambers to be built in
Chambers
front of the exi ing City Hall, Contract No. 1670,
was presented.
Resolution No. 8373, authorizing the execution of an
R-8373
agreement with Kermit Dosius and Associates, Archi-
tects, Incorporated, for arbhitectural services and
authorizing execution of an a�reement for landscaping
Motion
x
in connection with the plans and�pecifications for
Ayes
x
x
x
x
the proposed new Council Chamber, was adopted.
2. It was agreed that The Coves developmdnt, particularly
The
the wall, would be discussed at the October 29 Study
Coves
Session with The Irvine Company respresen'6tives
involved in the project.
3. A report from the Community Development Dep\tt
Environ-
to the City Manager regarding Council Policy State \
mental
ment setting forth both gross and net densities of
Quality
residential projects was presented.
Act
��uncil
Council Policy K-3, "Implementation of the California
Policy
Motion
x
Environmental Quality Act" was amended to include a
Ayes
x
x
x
x
statement setting forth both gross and net densities
of residential projects.
4. A report was presented from the Community Develop-
Building
ment Department regarding Building Permit Policy_of
Permit
cities within the South Coast Regional Coastal Com-
Policy/
mission erm t Zone Area.
Coastal
Comsn
Resolution No. 8374, directing the Community Develop-
R-8374
ment Director to establish procedures to insure com-
pliance with the permit requirements of the California
Coastal -Zone Conservation Act of 1972 prior to the
Motion
x
issuance of any grading, demolition, building or other
Ayes
C
X
x
x
x
x
x
construction or development permit, was adopted.
Volume 28 - 255
M • RESOLUTION NO. 8 37 4 •
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES
TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMIT REQUIRE-
MENTS 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 PERMIT
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 authorizing such development from the Regional Commission
having jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City -of Newport Beach desires to cooperate
with the South Coast Regional Commission by insuring that any•
land development or construction projects within the City of.
Newport Beach comply.with the requirements of the California
Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
V
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 11000 yard coastal permit 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
Act of 1972.
ADOPTED this 15th 'day of October , 1974.
t,
Mayor
i�
ATTEST:
City Clerk +
DDO/bc
nz-
• City Council lating October 15, 1974
October 9, 1974
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council
Department of Community Development .
STUDY. SESSION
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
We have contacted the cities in the permit area of the Coastal
Commission to determine whether they were withholding building
permits until after coastal permits have been obtained for pro—
posed projects.
In both Orange and Los Angeles Counties, outside the corporate limits
of cities, permits are not issued until after coastal permits have
been obtained. In four of the six o.ther cities of Orange County
having property in the permit area, coastal permits are required
before building permits are issued. The same thing is true in four
of the nine cities in�the permit area in Los Angeles County.
The cities and the policy followed are listed below: -
Laguna Beach
Costa Mesa
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
Huntington Beach
Seal Beach
ORANGE COUNTY CITIES
Requires Coastal Permit first
Does not require Coastal Permit
11 II 11 11 It
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITIES
Manhattan Beach
Hermosa Beach,
E1 Segundo
Rancho Palos Verdes
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Santa Monica
Redondo Beach
Palos Verdes Estates
Requires Coastal Permit first
Does not require Coastal Permit
TO: City Council - 2.
Building permits in San Juan Capistrano and in Rancho Palos Verdes
are processed under contract with their respective counties and,
consequently, are processed in accordance with county policy.
Respectfully submitted,
DEPARTMFXT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RVH/kk
I
ti
0* A.
aa. oaf
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 11, 1974
South Coast Regional Commission
666 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
Long Beach, CA 90801
Members of the Commission:
RE: Transportation Element
CALIFORNIA gam
City Hall
.3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673-2110
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
In reviewing the preliminary draft of the Transportation Element,
I noted that Policy No. 16 would require the South Coast Regional
Commission to continue to "exercise approval over the planning,
design, construction, and improvement of coastal roadways".
This policy appears to run counter to the concept of "General Plan
and Ordinance approval by the South Coast Regional Commission
with individual project approval by appropriate local agencies".
I suggested this concept at the public hearing on the Appearance
and Design Element and was most pleased to see it incorporated
into the Element.
I would submit that this concept should also apply to transportation
system projects. If the South Coast Regional Commission participates
in the regional transportation planning process, and approves
regional and local transportation plans as they affect the Coastal
Zone, I see no reason for continuing the project -by -project review
process. Certainly, both local and regional agency efficiency
would be greatly increased if unnecessary regional project -by -
project review were discontinued.
Specifically, I would suggest that the first sentence of Policy
No. 16 be revised to read as follows:
"The South Coast Regional Commission shall provide
input to, and exercise approval over, regional
and local transportation plans as they affect the
Coastal Zone; however, individual transportation
projects which are consistent with the approved
plans need not be reviewed on a project -by -project
basis."
Consistent with this proposal, I would also suggest that the;
last sentence of Policy No. 16 be deleted, since this sentence
�y
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 2
October 11, 1974
again calls for South Coast Regional Commission review of each
highway project on a project -by -project basis.
Thank you for the opportunity to.comment and your consideration
of my suggestions.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GR.1- . H g-ap, 'rector
RVH:TC:jmb
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CA-LIFORNIA 926o
City Hall -
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673-2120
October 10, 1974
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
South Coast Regional Commission
666 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
Long Beach, CA 90801
Members of the Commission:
RE: Recreation Element
My letter of September 12, 1974 discussed the major concern of the
City of Newport Beach with the preliminary draft of the Recreation
Element. I note with some disappointment, that the revised draft
which you are considering at your October 11, 1974 public hearing
does not include our suggestion for revision of the policy
regarding boating facilities, as it affects the lowlands at the
mouth of the Santa Ana River.
Again, I would suggest that this policy (Policy No. 12, Page xxvi
be revised to provide for the possibility of additional small -
craft harbors. This would allow further study and development
of several alternative plans for the use of the lowland area
at the mouth of the Santa Ana River. These alternative plans
could then be presented to the South Coast Regional Commission
for discussion.
Specifically, I would suggest that the first portion of Policy
No. 12, on Page xxvi, be revised to read as follows:
"To minimize the environmental damage caused
by the alteration of the marine environment
for boating facilities, the dredging or filling
of coastal wetlands to accommodate new boating
facilities shall be prohibited, except where
it can be demonstrated that a net public
environmen
result from such dredginq or filling, ana
eveiooment of ooa
roves
eans o
An additional suggestion is that Policy 18.b. on Page xxxi provide
for.the distribution -of archeological site.records and maps .to
FW, A- ___
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 2
October 10, 1974
city -level, as well as county -level, professional planning staffs.
Thank you for considering these suggestions.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RVH:TC:jmb
I
1-1
a R. Cq
.. Wt,
October 4, 1974
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
"ILE C®PY
04 Now REM'QVE
California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
ATTN: Mr. E. Jack Shoop, Chief Planner
Gentlemen:
WSW
city Hall
$300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673-21I0
RE: Proposed Revised Statewide Policy No. 7, darted
September 26, 1974.
As requested we have reviewed the proposed policy, referenced
above, and generally concur with its intent. However,
several technical items probably should be revised to be
in conformance with the Business and Professions Code.
Lines 9 and 10, Page 1, refer to an evaluation, in the area
of demonstration, by a registered geologist or certified
engineering geologist. Items of Consideration (a) through
(c), (Line 10, Page 1; Lines 1 and 2;. Page 2,) are within
the area of expertise of a geologist. However, Items of
Consideration (d) and (e) should include an evaluation by a
Soil Engineer, a registered civil engineer, who specializes in
soils engineering, as well as a geologist, Our suggested
revision is attached for your convenience.
The City of Newport Beach currently requires a similar ev-aluation
for sites as defined in your proposed policy, although the
area of demonstration has usually been restricted•to the site
or sites in question.
We would also like to suggest that your "regional amplification"
for the "south coast" provide a clear definition of the 'limits,
of the Irvine Coast. That would eliminate a great deal of
confusion in the coastal communities in our area.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
H oy.an , D ireo-ro r
RVH:T:TC:jmb
CALIF(COASTAL ZONECOI4dSEftt�ATfOi �AISSiON
1540 Marhet Street, Saa Francisco 94102—(415) 557-1001
RECEIVED
' Cort;a•nnftY
September 26, 1974 S Devep
Dept.'
D
SEP 3 0197a
TO: State Commissione-rs
Regional Coastal Commissions cfl'OF
N�PCAL.fF. AGF .
Geology Element Reviewers
FRO24: E. Jack: Sehoop, Chief Planner
�. 1 ao --'.-, T er.. i,
SIJ�•r ; T: lficrosad rcv� lion of G J , -- n.e ; Pv^7 ^y I
[Comments must be mailed by OCGob'er L8.]
On September 17: the Statte Corr^ission adopted most of the Gcolo�.1
s � t .21•draft,. the Septsmber 3.0 •revi.si.ons? and
k�elmasit bas.,o d'oii'�I_e A'- asp •
• •
several other minor char, es•made at the maetin�, bat the Commission deferred
action on:Policy. 7, " aforce, Guieelines on, Ocean Bluff and Cliff Area .
Development!!:
Based on the discussion at the State Coremission'September 17 meeting,.
the staff histdrafted the -revised policy below. It•autempt6-to meat the
objections to the'•earlier'versions,. but because it includes some rely nererial,
wo are seeking commants on.it. i4e' needyour comments by October 21--•c_n the
State Commission office (mail no later than October 18) if they- are to be ;
included in the final revisions of this•c[raft policy, which is scheduled '
to be submitted t6_'the State .Corunissio-n for adopti on on November 6, _ if you
have major suggestions that Brill. require further technical research,'please
phone them to us as- soon as possible.
Prorosed Revised Statet:ri.de Policv_7- ;
7• EVALUATE' ALM RrGLZATE OCEAN BLUFF -AND CUFF AREA DEMOPi' -WIT
1 To avoid future need for bluff protectioni*to prevent.property
2
2 damage and threats to human.safety,'and Lo protect the geologic
2
3 integrity•of coastal bluffs and cliffs, new bluff,'and cliff 'develop--
3
i 4' ments shall be,permitted only if it can be demonstrated that design and
4
5 setback are adequate to fissure stability and strugtural integrity for
5
6 the 11fespan of the development aid that, the development (including
6
•7 run-off, irrigation, --and septic talks) L'rill not contribute to erosional
7
8 problems or geologic instability of the site or surrounding area.
F3
9 The demonstration shall. include an on --site evaluation�by a registered _
9
10 geologist,or'certified engineering geologist ,.considering (a) base
10
I
erosion (cliff retreat), (b) cliff geometry, (c) geologic conditions,
1i
2
including soil and rock characteristics, (d)•the various forces
2
3
acting on the cliffs, such -as groundwater and earthquakes," and (e) - 3
4
the effects of the proposed development, and shall allow"for a- 4
5
minimum safety factor of 1.5 against site failure under normal'. 5
6
condi.tior_s (that is t1he'c1_ff should be at least 1+:S
,ti stronger f,
7
than necessary to support the proposed development without failing) 7,
$
and "a minimum :, -.• ; ,•.-
safety factor of 1.1 for. all foreseeable 'hazard con--, 8�
9
ditior_s, including groundwater level changes and seismic: "force`_g
10
81.
(that is, the cliff should be 10 per cent stronger than necessa.`'s.";.;• :1Q
11
to remain intact under".the force of •potential.ground shW' dz for12 ':
:
example) throughout the. lifespan of the development. Design:.,..:'`;.,.
13
solutions: shall i-n 'no- case include destruction' of aliifs 'auc� bluffs =" ' -' `
14
•1'�
by excavation , or other means, and may include" bluff protection : ;•-," ;; • .:.;:..':.alp.{
15
works only if it can be demonstrated that such meet',the'M '
16 "
,works
exlUria•'set • forth in Policy 8.. No new lot: shall be created or
17
structure -built that trould increase -the need for- bluff protection
1$
works..
' 19
_'. As a general ruler. the .area" of demonstration Yshal7 anclude tSie 1' ;;:'tg
...20
base,' face, and,top of all bluffs and cliffs, (of 10 feet
21
or greater) extending" inland. to a'?line "formed" by a 20 ;degree `angle:. A �VY21
22
from the base of the cliff or bluff or 50 feet from the top of'tht_- -'. _ :V V.
23
cliff,' whichever is, greater. ' However, the Commission magr designate
24
a lesser area of demonstration in specific areas"of known geologic
25
stability (as determined by adequate geologic evaluation) or where'...:•-::
26,
adequate protective works already exist, and may designatea greater.*
'27
' area of demonstration and/or -an area of absolute "development e,xc7.uei.ari . • ; `_ ??
2$
in areas of known high instability. ;^• <:T",;'; e. �•`.: '�/%Yjy/y[[
'-{ .y,-.� ._... � i.v is ."�:• f -_
:i
_ i l
Department of Community Development
DATE: September 23, 1974•
FILE Copy -
DO NOT REMOVE
TO: Orange County Coastal Zone Cities
FROM: City of Newport Beach Department of Community Development
SUBJECT: Joint Cities Meeting on Coastal Plap
The next "joint cities" meeting has been scheduled
for Friday, October 4, 1974, at 2:00 p.m., in the
Newport Beach City Council Chambers.
Discussion will include:
1) Transportation Element (set for hearing on
October 11, 1974).
2) Recreation Element (set for hearing on
October 11, 1974).
3) Revised draft of the Intensity of Development
Element (set for hearing on October 25, 1974).
4) (Time Permitting) Energy Element (second
hearing set for October 25, 1974).
Members of the Coastal Commissi.on staff will again be in
attendance.
Please notify Joanne Bader, of my office, at 673-2110,
ext. 261, if you plan to attend (or have a representative
attend) the October 4, 1974 meeting.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Hogan, Di ector
By
m Cowe•71 ,
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
0
i` t,
A,a- oy
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
September 12, 1974
South Coast Regional Commission
666 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
Long Beach, California 90801
Members of the Commission:
RE: Appearance and Design Element
92660
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673-2110
The revised draft of the Appearance and Design Element
represents a significant improvement over the preliminary
draft, both in terms of acceptability to local government
and practicability for the Commission.
We are pleased to note the incorporation of our suggestion
that local government be given the option of controlling
local community aesthetics, with an overview by the
Coastal Commission. The concept of Coastal Commission
approval of local "Appearance and Design Elements",
and the establishment of local "Design Review Boards"
to implement the local and regional design policies,
appears to be workable. However, we are concerned that
the specific wording on Pages 45 and 46 may be taken
literally, when, in fact, this wording is intended as
an example of a possible approach, as stated at the top
of Page 45.
To eliminate possible confusion on this point, we would
ask the Commission to add the following sentence at the
top of Page 45 (beneath the heading "Design Review Boards):
"This policy is intended only as an example
of a possible approach to design review.
The actual, detailed procedures shall be
developed in the future."
In addition, we would suggest that the concept of local
design regulation, with Coastal Commission overview, be
extended to signs (as may be intended). The addition
of the following sentence at the top of Page 43 is suggested:
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 2
September 12, 1974
"The control of signing in the permit area
may be assigned to local government,
with Coastal Commission approval of
local sign ordinances, and overview of their
enforcement, to assure consistency with
Coastal Commission design objectives."
Also, we feel that two of the sign policies on Page 43,
should be more general, with the understanding that more
detailed sign regulations will be developed in the
future (local, regional or both). We would suggest
the following revisions on Page 43: 1.) The policy
under "Restoration" should be revised to delete "not to
exceed five ears". 2.) The
s ould be revised to read:
alternate sin lacement is
i oars on the roofs of,
non -conforming."
second policy under "Enhancement"
sible, on -site signs or
ngs shall be considered
Another, more general concern, .is with the possible
confusion resulting from the use of the term "Coastal
Zone" throughout the Appearance and Design Element in
reference to Coastal Commission permit policies. In
discussing this concern with the Coastal Commission staff
it was determined that the intent is that the permit
policies apply only ta.th,e'."Permit Area", not the entire
Coastal Zone. We would suggest that, in adopting this
Element, for the sake of clarity, the Coastal Commission
make the following revision: "Wherever the term "Coastal
Zone" is used relative to permit Dolicies, the term
In terms of more specific policies, we are generally
concerned with the "categorical" nature of the prohibitions
and proposals, which would not allow for deviation even
in the case where its universally agreed that the
particular policy should not be applicable. In this light,
we suggest the following revisions:
1. Page 34, first policy under "Preservation",
revise to read: "Land now in public ownership
in the Permit Area, which has a demonstrable
s ace,,sna
use, exce
are su000r
not De so
ve
or private
ses that
2. Page 34, first policy under "Restoration", revise
last sentence to read: "In aid of the acquisition
program, properties in the Permit Area which
V �III / 0 •
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 3
September 12, 1974
constitute non -conforming uses according
to local zoning ordinances and which
have a significance as regional recreation
or environmental open space, shall be
acquired at such time as their time
limitations expire or they suffer damages
totalling 50% or more of their replacement
value."
Page 34, last policy under "Restoration"
and last policy under "enhancement", we
suggest that the last two sentences of each
policy..be'"d'eleted. (An arbitrary percentage is not
necessary and may not be practicable;
low and moderate income housing is not
an "appearance and design" consideration.)
4. Page 37, last policy under "Preservation",
replace with the following: "No construction,
with the exception of lifeguard stations,
erosion control devices, navigational aids,
and other structures which are necessary
for public health, safety, and convenience;
shall be permitted on any sand beach within
200 feet of the mean high tide line."
5. Page 38, last policy under "Preservation",
reword the first sentence to read: "Auto-
mobile parking shall be prohibited on streets
which provide major view corridors to the
sea where such parking obscures or limits
the view and where the reduction of Parking
on -street parking were prohibite on all
view corridor streets in Newport Beach, a
major portion of beach parking would be lost,
thus, in effect, limiting public access to
the beach.)
6. Page 39, last policy under "Preservation",
replace with the following: "Prese.rvation
of existing views and provision of view
corridors, to the fullest extent practicable,
shall be encouraged in all developments within
the Permit Area." (Stating that "no, new
structure shall elimigate views" is equivalent:
to outright prohibition of development on
many lots.)
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 4
September 12, 1974
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Element and
want to thank both the Commission and staff for the serious
consideration given to our previous suggestions. I hope
you find these additional suggestions to be helpful in your
task of developing an effective Coastal Conservation Plan.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
V. Ho ctor
RVH:TC:jmb
M
w�
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport .Boulevard Newport Beach, Californla 92660
DO NOT REMOVE
September 12, 1974
South Coast Regional Commission
666 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
Long Beach, Califo.rn'ia 90801
Members of the Commisgioii:
The prelimin,a•ry draft of the, Recreation Element is an
impressive document in terms of its scope and comprehen-
siveness. This report is obviously the 'result of hard
work on the,part of your staff and the •oth.ers who
assisted in its development.
My only major concern is with Policy No. 11 on Page xxiv
in relation to the area at the mouth of'the Santa Ana
River. It appears that this policy wou-ld preclude
consideration of a small -craft harbor at that location.
I note that Policy No. 12 leaves some room for discussing
a harbor of a smaller scale, and would ask that Policy
No,. 11 be revised to at least provide for the possibility
of a small -craft ,harbor.. I am not asking for endorsement
of a harbor at this location; in fact, the economic
feasibility. of developing a harbor at this location is
not yet totally proven. I am asking, that the door not
be closed at th.is time so that further harbor studies may
be conducted and so that various alternate plans may
be developed and prevented to the South Coast Regional
Commission. ,
I would suggest that the first portion of Policy No. 11
be revised to read'as follows:'
"---the dredging or filling of coastal
wetlands to accommodate new boating
facilities shall be rohibited exce
where it can_Si eaohstrate t at a
er
re
n
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 2
September 12, 1974
This policy, as reworded above, would then provide for
the possibility of a small -craft harbor, with public
access, associated recreational and environmental
open space, and wetlands rehabilitation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your
consideration of this suggestion.
Yours very truly,
COMMUNITY 'DEVELOPM•ENT DEPARTMENT
R.V. garirector'
RVH:TC:jmb
A
0
0
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
as 04
Deportment of Community Development �E,n�,Y; ut-�
September 5, 1974
DO NOT RER70VE
Orange County Coastal Zone Cities
Community Development Director - City of Newport Beach
Joint Cities Meeting on Coastal Plan
At the "Briefing Session" meeting held on August 22, 1974,
several cities indicated a desire to continue with a
series of meetings for the purpose of jointly reviewing
Coastal Plan elements and discussing their implications
for the Coastal Zone cities in Orange County.
Although a tentative date of September 6, 1974 was
set, we have had to reschedule the next meeting to
September 10, 1974 at 2:00 p.m. in the Newport Beach
City Council Chambers. Discussion will include:
1) the second draft of the Appearance and Design Element,
and, 2) the first draft of the Recreation Element.
Both of these elements are set for public hearing on '
September 13, 1974.
Please notify Kay Kamm, of my office, at 673-2170,
ext. 261 if you can attend the September 10, 1974
meeting.
Yours very truly,
RVH:TC:jmb
3a i'a'3
TITLE
CITY
&Alf !/"
SG��! / laeaC�C
�CIr YS fi>/%.s
Mi..•-r �..vr t�' s✓w/..r
Se¢%
1�b`�
1 01 L (. Uri:
.V\t��1v t hi n1i
n ttVte� eGe�
N/,_T/�4T- SItI.ViPR�" MtC1ER /N h?l
u C�
C'
CL04 S%J4
V17
/►
/7`�/✓t/•/I /` ��
ti J_
�' S�rM..n S7�/"
�
J �
?11.41 ru/ /✓t7
i
•
• +....� we 8
August 22, 1974
J"
ti
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
South Coast Regional Commission
666 E. Ocean Boulevard -
Suite 3107
Long Beach, California 90801
Gentlemen:
CALIFORNIA 92660
city Hall
3300 Newport Blvd.
(714) 673-2110
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
RE: Preliminary Draft of the Intensity of Development Elemeht.
The preliminary draft of the Intensity of Development Element
is obviously the result of considerable effort on the part of
your staff and they are to be commended for the amount of
information which they have assembled and analyzed in such
a short time with a limited staff.
While I agree with many of the proposed general policies and
the need for a regional growth policy, I must express my
concern with the methodology suggested for accomplishing
regional growth control and with several of the more -specific
proposed policies.
On the topic of regional growth control, the draft element,
on Page 82, suggests that "the adopted SCAG regional population
allocations be set as the interim 'maximum desirable population
densities' for the coastal zone, and that the issuance of
permits for added housing units be in accordance with these
allocations". This suggestion raises the following questions
which I feel should be addressed prior to the adoption of
such a proposal:
1. How will the Coastal Commission determine whether a
residential permit application is in accordance with
the SCAG allocation?
2. How will this proposal for desirable population densities
in the "Coastal Zone" be implemented when the Commission's
control of residential development is limited to the
Permit Area?
3. How will the SCAG regional allocations be scaled -down
to the Permit Area?(Or - Will the Permit Area be scaled -
up to include the entire Coastal Zone?)
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 2
August 22, 1974
4. Will the limitation of residential permits within the
Permit Area serve any purpose in terms of growth
control for the "region"? (Will it adversely impact
another portion of the "region", or coastal zone?)
In short, I would suggest that the Coastal Commission's permit
authority does not lend itself to the effectua.tion of a
regional growth control policy.
In terms of other general policy proposals, I have the
following concerns:
1. Page 58, first sentence -- Does the proposal for "estab-
lishmen-t of continuous area of public ownership between the
mean high tide and the first public road paralleling the
coast" suggest that all beach front, and harbor front,
homes would be purchased by the State? (If not,
perhaps a rewording is in order.)
2. Page 61, first full sentence -- Would this prohibit any
further development? What is meant by traffic problem?
What level of traffic service i.s acceptable? (If this
policy is to assist the Commission in their decision -
making task, a'more-precise wording and definition is
required..)
In terms of those proposed policies which are directed specifically
to the City of Newport Beach (on Page 113), I am particularly
concerned with the implications of tentative Policy Number 2.
Implicit in this policy, as interpreted by the Coastal Commission
staff, is the decision that the "best" use of this undeveloped
area is "open space for public recreation" and that a small -
craft harbor, as proposed in the adopted Newport Beach General
Plan, is not a desirable use. I would suggest that this
decision against the development of a small -craft harbor not
be made at this time. This issue certainly is too large to be
decided without a more in-depth study of the property in
question and the recreational needs of the .citizens. I would
submit that the small -craft harbor, (including public access,
adjacent public open space, ridin and hiking trails; as envisioned
by the Newport Beach General Plan may prove to be the best
use of this area in terms of both recreational needs, and
governmental economics.
Certainly public purchase of the entire lowland area at the
mouth of the Santa Ana River will be a costly endeavor. The
public expenditure required to obtain, and the need for,
pure "open space for public recreation" in this location
may be somewhet questionable in view of the adjacent beaches
and the nearby proposed Upper Newport Bay Wildlife Preserve
with associated public park areas. Also, I would suggest
that a small -craft harbor is a more "coastally-dependent" use
0
0
South Coast Regional Commission
Page 3
August 22, 1974
than a public park and that this site is one of the f
opportunities for harbor development. In addition, I
refer you to Page 67 of this,draft Element, where the
policy states that the Commission should "provide the
for recreational travel by automobile, bicycle, boat
other modes". (Underscore added).
ew remaining
would
last
facilities
and
At any rate, I would ask the Commission to consider rewording
Tentative Policy Number 2 on Page 113 to prove the option
for possible development of a small -craft harbor, should this
use prove to be in the best interests of the public.
Tentative Policy Number 3 on Page 113, again suggests that
"no intensification of uses should be permitted in areas
severely impacted by traffic congestion". I would again
suggest the need for clarification. If this policy is intended
literally, no development permits would be granted.
Thank you for your consideration of my -comments.
Very truly yours,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
f . V\
�an 'rector
RVH:jmb
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 92660
' •;CAL •--«-: ��T City Ball
V 3300 Wev port Blvd.
m,
(714) 673-2110
August 6, 1974
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
South Coast Regional Commission
666 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107
Long Beach, California 90801
ATTENTION: Mr. Praveen Gupta
Gentlemen:
RE: Preliminary Draft of the Appearance and Design
Element.
This letter is intended as an expansion and clarification
of my verbal presentation made on August 2, 1974 at the
public hearing on the preliminary draft of the Appearance
and Design Element. It is hoped that these comments
are construed as constructive criticism and will prove
helpful in the difficult task before you.
My main concern with this proposed element is with the,
apparent intent to replace local control with regional
control over something as subjective and variable as
the design of -structures. I feel that the establishment
of a regional "design review board" is both unreasonable
and unworkable. Certainly it was not the intent of
the Coastal Zone Conservation Act to remove local
authority and responsibility for community aesthetics,
except perhaps in those limited cases where a primary,'
regional visual resource may be threatened. The
objectives of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act may-
be better served and the potential logistics problem
resolved, by leaving detailed aesthetic considerations
to local governments and requiring that local govern-
ments provide evidence that their General Plans, Specific
Plans, and development regulations provide for adequate
protection of major coastal aesthetic resources.
Although these .major aesthetic resources have been
discussed in the draft Appearance and Design Element,
they could perhaps be summarized in the form of a
listing with a "remarks" column describing the aesthetic
values which should be preserved.
TO: South Coast Regional Commission
Page 2
August 6, 1974
Following are more detailed comments on the individual
policies contained in the draft. (For the most part
these comments result from a concern with categorical
prohibitions which, if applied literally and consistently,
could work counter to the objectives of the Coastal
Zone Conservation Act in many cases. Perhaps many of
these categorical prohibitions can be modified to
provide for exceptions where appropriate to the objectives
of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act.)
On Page P-4, under "Preservation", the outright prohibition
of highways and buildings within 25' of the top and 50'
from the toe of a bluff may .prohibit such projects as
scenic drives (Backbay Drive as an example) and scenic
overlooks (some structure such as a railing, deck or
informational kiosk, and a paved access road and parking
area may be desirable). Also, the proposed extension of
University Drive (on the north, end of Upper Bay) may,
of necessity, be near or on the slope (in order to keep
the highway out of the Wildlife Preserve). Also, the
next policy on Page P-4, under "Beaches" should provide
for beach structures necessary for public convenience
and safety (e.g., restrooms, erosion control structures,
and navigational aids).
On Page P-5, under "Preservation", it should be clarified
whether the prohibition of sanitary landfills applies to
the permit area or the planning area. (Should there be
a "blanket" prohibition even for the permit area?)
Also, the next policy, prohibiting channelization of
rivers and streams, perhaps should provide for an
exception where public safety demands channelization for
flood control. The policy under "Restoration" on this
same page, regarding grading appears to be unreasonable
and unworkable; perhaps rewording and clarification of,
the intent is needed.
On Page P-6, the prohibition of ALL filling of wetlands
should provide for an exception where such filling would
result in a benefit to the natural and man-made enbironment.
On Page P-7, the last policies under the "Restoration"
and "Enhancement" columns, regarding renewal and redevelop-
ment projects, would undoubtedly effect an abrupt halt
to any.redevelopment activity. Also, there is the question
of the definition —of the terms"Renewal" and "Redevelopment
Project". (Would this apply to the redevelopment of one
house on one lot, a duplex, two houses on two lots,...?)
TO: South Coast Regional Commission
Page 3
August 6, 1974
On Page P-8, the last policy under "Preservation", would
prohibit on -street parking on certain streets; in many
cases, this may be unreasonable and create new problems
(e.g., in the already -developed older sections of
Newport Beach).
On Page P-11, the second policy under "Restoration",
requiring "design review board approval for alterations"
would result in an untenable logistics burden for the
Commission and/or the "design review board" and, as previously
discussed, does not appear to be necessary for fulfillment of
the objectives of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act:
On Page P-12, the last policy under "Restoration" would
require "design review board approval" for nearly all
projects, public and private. Again, is this workable,
desirable, or necessary?
Again, on Page P-12, under "Enhancement", would the
prohibition against medium -rise and high-rise buildings,
pending completion of a "skyline study" app.ly to the
permit area or the planning area? What is the definition
of "medium -rise" and "high -'rise"?
Regarding the "General Sign Policies" on Page P-13, the
City of Newport Beach is in the process of developing a
new sign ordinance which we feel will provide reasonable
and effective sign control. The General Sign Policies
would conflict with both our existing and proposed sign
ordinance and the prohibition against signs perpendicular
to the right-of-way would result in motorist confusion
and traffic accident potential. Again, I would suggest
that, except perhaps for billboards, sign control be left
with local government, possibly with Coastal' Commission
review of local sign ordinances for. adequacy in terms
of fulfilling the aesthetic objectives of the Coastal
Zone Conservation Act. '
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that we in
the City of Newport Beach are proud of our City's
character and appearance and are very much concerned with the
preservation and enhancement of the visual assets which
make our City unique. As an indication of this concern,
I would like to cite the following examples of City efforts:
1. The adopted height limit ordinance, which severely
limits the height of structures.
2. The sign ordinance which is currently being developed.
3. The adopted Residential Development Standards ordinance,
.which limits building bulk and requires additional
open space.
TO: South Coast Regional.Commission
Page 4
A
ugust 6, 1974
4. The commitments made in the Newport Beach General
Plan for view parks, scenic drives, and the
preservation of scenic areas.
5. The several Specific Area Plans now being developed
for various portions of our City, which will include
provisions for aesthetic preservation and
enhancement of both public and private property.
I appreciate having had this opportunity to comment on
the -preliminary draft of the Appearance and Design Element
and trust that my criticisms and suggestions will be taken
as a• sincere effort_•to be helpful.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Yours very truly,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RVH:jmb