[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
ell m7wmator cl COASTAL Z'* 0 N 975 EVEL' W#A ENT'@ Y/ AND COA$"' * ,TA L?tpotlc I A, SOUTKt'R@-' N C ALIPORNW/ A TWG A 4fOLYSIS R @HE S 0 u T K@"(: 0 A-S " @z 1 4@ - Oto 11 v Of IS I @j Al. ITO Al MARK"S. 'R@tNTR'AUB RqBEr WARREN DAviD GOULD TERI, 1z' Al V c' All 171 Zlq GC 57.2 6 S no. 6-75 CJ 14 SEA GRANT PROGRAM UNIVg@RSJTY OF S86THERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE DEVELOPMENT AND COASTAL POLICY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: A TWO YEAR ANALYSIS OF THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION by Mark S. Rosentraub, Robert Warren and David Gould Sea Grant Program School of Planning and Urban Studies University of Southern California August, 1975 USC-SG-6-75 ET CUM U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 dt ca Property of CSC Librow This work is a result of research sponsored by the NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce, under Grant # 04-5-158-36 to the University of Southern California. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon. USC-SG-6-75 TaMdAll *;Bo to VS%qq0-xII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank Mrs. V. Pohlmeyer for her secretarial help and patience. We also want to thank the cormnissioners and staff of Region V for their cooperation. PREFACE The development of the coastal lands of Los Angeles and Orange Counties has been subject to the control of the South Coast Regional Commission since the beginning of 1973. Between that time and now it has received and acted upon over 3,500 applications to develop new structures and facilities or modify existing ones in the coastal portions of the two counties. In order to provide information about the regulation of coastal development to the public and interested parties, the Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program, University of Southern California, in cooperation with the South Coast Regional Commission, has established a system for reporting the number, type and disposition of permit requests. Permit activities are periodically reviewed so that 26 categories of information pertaining to each application and its history are recorded and stored on computer tapes.* These tapes can be used to ask and answer a variety of questions concerning the nature of the permit requests, their location, decisions by the commission and appeals to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. This is the second report produced that has utilized the above data to analyze trends and patterns as well as provide a detailed breakdown of permit requests and commission actions between February 1973 and December 1974. This report differs from the first year study in two respects: 1) both Counties will be examined and 2) individual permit activity for sub-regions of Los Angeles and Orange Counties are not reproduced. Individuals wishing tables detailing develop- ment in any sub-region are invited to complete the order blank at the end of this report. A list of the information categories utilized in the reporting system is included in Appendix A. -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The South Coast Regional Commission and the Permit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Commission and the Coastline of Southern California: Permit Activity, 1973-74 . . . . . . . 11 The Commission and the Coastline of Los Angeles County: Permit Activity, 1973-74 . . . . . . . . . 25 The South Coast Regional Commission and the coastline of Orange County . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 The Commission and the Coastal Zone: Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The Coastal Commission and the Local Areas . . . . . 87 A Concluding Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Appendix A: Scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Appendix B: Order Blank for Subregional Print-out 93 INTRODUCTION California's coastline stretches almost 1,100 miles from the Mexican border on the south to the Oregon state line on the north. Concern among citizens and groups over the future of this ecologically fragile land-water inter- face began to coalesce in the 1960's around the idea of some type of regulatory agency to exercise control over coastal development. As support for such a mechanism grew, attempts were made to gain passage in the state legislature for a coastal zone management system which would require greater attention be given to environmental values. These efforts, however, failed in the 1970, 1971 and 1972 sessions of the California legislature. After this series of defeats, environmental groups organized to take the issue directly to the voters of the state through the initiative process. The necessary petition signatures were obtained to put a measure, Proposition 20, on the statewide ballot in November, 1972. In turn, the Coastal Zone Conservation Act was approved by 55 percent of the voters and became the law of the state. Under provisions of the Act, a State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six Regional Commissions became operative on February 1, 1973. These agencies were given the responsibility for regulating the use and establishing a plan for the 1,072 miles of mainland shorelines, excluding San Francisco Ba -, and coastal islands. The six commissions, Y" each including one or more coastal counties, possess authority to regulate coastal land-use through a permit system. The Act states that all developments or modifica- tions on structures or land from the mean high tide line, landward for 1,000 yards, requires a 11permit authorizing such development from the regional commission and, if required by law, from any city, county, state, regional or local agency" (Section 27400). This new set of agencies added an additional step to the pre-existing process of approving land- and water-use permits in the coastal zone. For example, a developer seeking to build an apartment complex within the permit zone still must satisfy all zoning and other requirements of the city or county territory where the project is located. After approval by the city or county, an application for development can be made to a A separate agency, the Bay Area Conservation and Develop- ment Commission, is responsible for-regulating land fill and diking in a 100 foot zone around the Bay. regional commission. Yet another step is possible under the Act. Appeals from either favorable or unfavorable decisions by a regional commission can be taken to the State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. A great deal of controversy existed during the 1972 campaign on Proposition 20 about the effect on coastal devel- opment and regional economies of a set of agencies mandated to take environmental considerations into account in consid- ering land-use permit applications. Even though the six regional commissions and a state commission have been operat- ing for more than two years, their impact is still a matter of speculation. No studies have been made to identify the patterns of development within the 1,000 yard permit strip. Not even detailed tabulations or permit requests and their disposition are readily available to allow comparisons among different portions of the state's coast. The South Coast Regional Commission activities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties constitutes one exception to this data gap. As a starting point in devising methods of describing and analyzing,coastal development and policy under the regulations of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, this report will look in detail at permit activities within Los Angeles and Orange Counties during 1973 and 1974. It is hoped that the design of this study will provide a format that can be of use in other regions of the state and for the state as a whole. In addition, the report will provide baseline data for Los Angeles and Orange Counties against which both past and future years can be compared. Three scales of analysis will be used in the study. Initially, data are reported for the coastal permit zone of both counties. This will provide an over-all picture of the developments that were approved or denied during the year and the type of procedures used by the commission in making its decisions. This will be followed by a description of permit actions in terms of the boundaries of each county. A third scale of analysis will involve a condensed discussion of permit activity in each coastal city and major unincorpo- rated communities of the counties. The initial section of this report, as in the first year study, is designed to familiarize readers with the South Coast Commission and the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act. This will be followed by the reporting of data for both counties combined. Additional sections will look at Los Angeles and Orange Counties separately, policy issues raised by the data, and a summary of sub-regional permit activity. -2- 1.0 THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION AND THE PERMIT PROCESS The South Coast Regional Commission's authority extends for more than 100 miles. From Pt. Dume to San Clemente, landward for 1,,000 yards and seaward for three miles, the commission is jointly responsible for the development of an area commonly designated as the coastal zone. The jurisdic- tion of the South Coast Commission involves two counties with a population of more than 8 million people. 1.1 The Commission and Their Staff The South Coast Regional Commission is served by 12 commissioners and 12 staff members. Article One of the Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative established the following qualifications and procedures for the selection of commission members from six categories. 1. One Supervisor from each county (2) 2. One city councilman from the City of Los Angeles selected by the president of such city council 3. One city councilman from Los Angeles County from a city other than Los Angeles (1) 4. One city councilman from Orange County (1) 5. One delegate to the Southern California Association of Governments (1) 6. Six representatives of the public (6) Commission members 12 All county supervisors were selected by the board of supervisors which they represent. City council represen- tatives were chosen by the city selection committee except for the representative of the Los Angeles City Council. Delegates from the regional agencies were chosen by their respective agencies. Public representatives were selected equally by the Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly of the California State Legislature and the Governor. The following individuals were appointed commissioners for the coastal zone of Los Angeles and Orange Counties with their tenure in office set to expire on January 1, 1977. -3- Name Appointed by Representing Donald B. Bright,* Governor public chairman representative Ralph A. Dietrich*,* Board of Orange County Supervisors Rimmon C. Fay Senate Rules public Committee representative James A. Hayes Board of Los Angeles Supervisors County Arthur J. Holmes City Selection City Council, Committee San Clemente Louis R. Nowell L.A. City Council City Council, Los Angeles Donald W. Phillips* Governor public representative Robert F. Rooney Senate Rules public Committee representative Judy Rosener Speaker of public Assembly representative Russ Rubley City Selection City Council, Committee Long Beach Carmen Warschaw Speaker of public Assembly representative Donald E. Wilson** So. Calif. Associ- So. Calif. Associ- ation of Gov'ts ation of Gov'ts Proposition 20, the Coastal Zone Conservation initiative, charged the state and regional commissions with two main responsibilities: developing a comprehensive plan for the coastal zone and regulation of development through a permit process. To assist the South Coast Regional Commissioners with their responsibilities, a 12 member staff has been retained. Captain M. J. Carpenter (U.S.N. ret.) serves as the Executive Director of the commission; he is aided by the assistant director. In addition to these individuals, 10 planners are on the staff. Their activities are divided between the two major responsibilities of the commission. Four planners are involved with the development of the comprehensive plan. The remaining staff planners are During the period covered by this report, both Mr. Bright and Mr. Phillips were coastal commissioners. In addition, Mr. Bright served as chairperson. ** Mr. R. Dietrich replaced the deceased County Supervisor, Ronald Caspers, and Mr. Wilson replaced Mr. J. Reidy. -4- primarily responsible for reviewing and processing permit applications. Upon receipt of an application it is examined to insure all pertinent supporting documents are included. If the application is complete, it is accepted for initial screen- ing. In the initial screening process the assistant director@ checks the application to see if geological, soil, or environmental impact reports are needed. It is at this juncture where an application is classified as a public hearing, consent calendar, or administrative item. After classification, a commission hearing on the application is required within 90 days. Staff members make another review of all applications at least seven days before the scheduled hearing date. The permits are checked for any remaining questions concerning the documentation, and pertinent local agencies are contacted to insure no new regulations or building code changes have occurred. If problems emerge, the planners contact the applicant. Prior to the permit hearing by the commission, the entire staff meets to discuss all applica- tions and make their recommendation to the commissioners. The South Coast Regional Commission met more than 70 times to discuss and vote on permit applications between February, 1973 and December, 1974. Most of the meetings were held in Long Beach, but other sites have been used. In 1974, Long Beach was used for permit meetings, but hearings on drafts of the planning elements were held in all sections of the commission's jurisdiction. Permit meetings usually take a full day. Working sessions lasting nine hours are frequent. The Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative established several specific criteria to guide regional and state commission action on permit applications. Section 27402 declared that no project may: 1. have a substantial adverse environmental/ ecological impact on the coastal zone; or 2. restrict access to publicly owned or used land or facilities. All projects must also ensure: 1. "access to publicly owned or used beaches, recrea- tion areas and natural reserves is increased to -5- the maximum extent possible by appropriate dedica- tion; 2. adequate and properly located public recreation areas and wildlife preserves are reserved; 3. provisions are made for solid and liquid waste treatment, disposition, and management which will minimize adverse effects upon coastal zone resources; 4. alterations to existing land farms and vegetation, and construction of structures shall cause minimum adverse effect to scenic resources and minimum danger of floods, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake." 1.2 The Permit Approval Process The area over which the coastal commissions in California have authority to review, deny and approve permits for development is identified as the Coastal Zone. Proposi- tion 20 gave each local coastal commission the power to grant permits within a 1,000 yard strip of land that extended from the mean high tide line, landward. Within the 1,000 yard boundary, the local coastal commissions actually share authority for development with the local city or county whose boundaries include the coastal area and the state coastal commission. All applications to the local coastal commissions must first be approved by the appropriate local government agencies. This means, for example, developments in Los Angeles or Santa Monica must have the approval of zoning offices in those cities. If the local city approves a devel- opment proposal in concept, an application can be made for a permit from the coastal commission. There are four separate procedures an application could follow in seeking approval from a coastal commission; 1.2.1 Public Hearing Procedures--The public hear- ing process can extend for a period of 150 days. The procedure begins with the submission of an application. Within 90 days a public hearing on the project must be held. At least 15 days before the hearing the executive director of the commission must prepare a summary of the application and deliver it to all parties concerned with the application. Sixty days after the public hearing, the commissioners must decide whether to grant or deny the application. 1.2.2 Consent Calendar--Applications that will have a minor impact on the environment of the coastal zone can be grouped and handled as one application by the regional -6- commission. The executive director prepares the consent calendar and only by request of three commissioners can any item be removed from the consent calendar. Items removed then become public hearing applications and follow the procedures outlined in section 1.2.1. 1.2.3 Administrative Permits--Administrative permits are applications approved by the executive director of the coastal commission. An administrative permit must satisfy at least ONE of the following conditions: 1.2.3.1 Repairs and maintenance worth less than $25,000 to existing facilities; 1.2.3.2 Other developments costing less than $10,000. (An application fee of $25 must accompany all administrative permit applica- tions.) 1.2.4 Emergency Permits--Emergency permits are granted when life or property is threatened and immediate corrective action is dictated. The executive director can grant the permit, and, if possible, is required to consult with the commission chairperson prior to action. Following the executive director Is approval, a formal application following one of the three procedures stated above must be filed within five working days. 1.3 Appeals to the State Commission Section 27423 of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act* provided any person flaggrieved by approval of a permit by the Regional Commission with the right to appeal to the state commission. This same protection is afforded appli- cants who have had their applications rejected by a regional coastal commission. The state commission has the authority to "affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the regional commission." The state panel can also refuse to review any appeal "that it determines raises no substantial issues." California Public Resources Code, Division 18, California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. -7- 1.4 The Framework of This Report 1.4.1 Boundaries--All of the permit applications discussed in this report were submitted for work in Los Angeles or Orange Counties. The boundaries of Los Angeles and Orange Counties used for this report were the territorial limits of the counties. In the analysis of the permit decisions of the South Coast Regional Commission in Part III involving sub-areas of both counties, the boundaries of 16 cities and 9 unincorpo- rated areas were utilized and include the following: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Unincorporated Communities Unincorporated Communities Malibu Sunset Beach Marina del Rey* Emerald Bay El Porto South Laguna Laguna Niguel Municipalities Dana Point Los Angeles City Capistrano Beach Pacific Palisades. Playa del Rey Municipalities Venice Seal Beach San Pedro. Huntington Beach Wilmington Newport Beach Santa Monica Costa Mesa El Segundo Laguna Beach Manhattan Beach San Clemente Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Torrance .Palos Verdes Estates'* Rancho Palos Verdes** Marina del Rey--The data for Marina del Rey include not only the area unincorporated administered by the County, but the area within the City of Los Angeles, East of Lincoln Boulevard to the 1,000 yard limit from the mean high tide line. This small area was included for ease of analysis and actually allows a more thorough examination of the area commonly labeled as Marina del Rey. ** Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes--The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated during the first year of the Coastal Commission. All permit applications received -8- 1.4.2 Definitions For purposes of analysis, a series of terms are used in this report to describe various aspects of commis- Sion activity. A short description of each is presented here to familiarize readers with the terminology used. 1.4.2.1 Present Use and Project Type Each application to the South Coast Regional Commission must contain information not only describing the nature of the project planned, but the existing use of the land listed in the applications. The description of the nature of the project is identified as project type. Nine categories to catalogue project type were created: commercial; industrial; single family resi- dence; multi-family residence; public utility; recreation; dredging; demolition; and other. Existing use of land at the time of a permit applica- tion is identified in the report as the present use' of the land. These categories are the same as those used for project type with two exceptions. "Dredging" and "demoli- tion" are dropped and "vacant" and "agricultural" are added. The categories are defined in the following manner: 1.4.2.2 Commercial--Commercial projects include all businesses not involved in a manufacturing process. Examples of commercial projects reviewed by the commission include shopping centers, office buildings, banquet halls, restaurants, hotels and laundries. 1.4.2.3 Industrial--Any land or project used in a manufacturing process is classified as an indus- trial project. Examples of industrial projects include storage facilities, petroleum refineries, factories, pumps, piping, observation wells, and oil platforms. before incorporation were joined with applications from the City of Palos Verdes Estates and labeled "Palos Verdes Peninsula." This cataloguing necessarily limits certain, but not all, observations for the Cities of Palos Verdes Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes. -9- 1.4.2.4 Multi-Family Residences--Structures with more than one separate living unit are classified as multi-unit residences. 1.4.2.5 Public Utilities--All activities designated by a city, county, state, or federal agency as a public or private utility were considered utilities in this .report. Water and power projects, street maintenance programs, etc., are examples. The utility projects reviewed by the South Coast Regional Commission were, for the most part, improve- ments of minor additions to existing facilities. New traffic signs, pipes, poles, storm drains, and street improvement projects describe the vast-majority of permits classified as public utilities. 1.4.2.6 Recreation--Any public or private requests for development of projects designed for leisure activities were classified as recreational use or projects. These proposals may include a private tennis court, a bike path, recreational vehicle park, or the extension of a pier. 1.4.2.7 Agricultural--Any parcel of land which is currently tilled is considered agricultural land. 1.4.2.8 Vacant--Land, not involved in any process and/or upon which no structures are standing, is classified as vacant land. 1.4.2.9 Demolition--Demolition projects involve the destruction of existing buildings. 1.4.2.10 Dredging--Any filling,.diking or dredging of any land mass, submerged or not submerged, was considered a dredging project. 1.4.2.11 Other--This final project type cate- gory was created to classify all residual proposals not described by the other existing classifications. Examples include signs, construction of structures used by religious organizations, relocation of homes, and guide posts on off- shore facilities. _10- 1.5 Missing Observations This report is concerned with 3,558* applications acted upon by the coastal commission. In some tables data on fewer than 3,558 applications are presented. These missing observations are a function of error from at least three sources. Some of the missing observations are a result of mistakes in recording information. In other instances, applications may have been incomplete. Some of the informa- tion presented in this report was not required for completed applications to the commission and other categories became requirements after February, 1973. Despite these sources of error, the number of permits with a complete set of informa- tion still allows for a discussion and analysis of outcomes. 2.0 THE COMMISSION AND THE COASTLINE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: PERMIT ACTIVITY, 1973-74 The South Coast Commission has reviewed more than 3,500 applications for permits since February 1, 1973. The following tables and descriptions outline the number, type, size and cost of projects submitted and their disposition by the commission. 2.1 Summary of Commission Action Table 1 is a summary review of permit activity in 1973 and 1974. More than two-thirds (67.7%) of all permit appli- cations concerned single- and multi-family residences. . Commercial (10.2%), public utilities (6.8%), and industrial permits (411%) accounted for more than one-fifth of the total number of applications received by the commission. The other four permit categories accounted for the remaining 11%. Housing, by far, was the dominant type of development in terms of the number of permit requests. Recreational development was involved with less than 5% of applications. The probability of a permit application being approved was high (94.5%). Only 195 of the 3,558 applications were denied. The denials were clustered, with 93.3% concentrated in three classifications: multi-family residences (135), commercial (26), and single family residences (21). Even so, the overwhelming majority of applications in these categories were still approved at the levels of 85.9%, 92.7%, and 98.3% " 1 This report does not consider commission action on claims of exemption from the coastal zone initiative. TABLE 1 SUMMARY TABLE OF SOUTH COAST COMMISSION ACTION Review Procedures Project Applica- Adminis- Consent Public Type tions Acres Approved Denied trative Calendar Hearing No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Commercial 358 912.6 332 92.7 26 7.3. 118 33.1 128 36.0 110 30.9 Industrial 145, 354.9 144 99.3 1 0.7 47 32.4 47 32.4 51 35.2 Single Family 1,366 367.0 131343 98.3 21 1.5 238 17.4 13P032 75.7 94 6.9 Multi-Family 12016 699.9 873 85.9 135 13.3 84 8.3 466 46.3 457 45.4 Public Utility 240 260.7 236 98.3 3 1.3 63 26.6 Ill 46.8 63 26.6 Recreation 147 165.3 144 98.0 3 2.0 50 34.0 62 42.2 35 23.8 Dredging 16 40.5 15 93.8 1 6.3 1 6.3 8 50.0 7 43.7 Demolition 123 244.5 120 97.6 2 1.6 40 32.8 72 59.0 10 8.2 Other 103 87.9 99 96.1 3 2.9 28 27.7 46 45.5 27 26.7 Total 3,514 32133.3 32306 94.4 195 5.5 669 19.1 1,972 56.4 854 24.4 respectively. It should be noted that this analysis of the number of approvals and denials from administrative records does not deal with questions of whether the small number of rejections is due, in part, to such factors as (1) changes being made in application specifications to meet stated or implied questions about the acceptability of projects by staff members before a final submission is made; or (2) applicants have submitted only those proposals which they expected to be approved and have withheld others. The summary table also provides a breakdown of the application review procedures used in reaching a decision to grant or deny a permit. The consent calendar was the most frequently utilized process (56.4%) and, in combination with the administrative calendar, accounted for three- fourths of all decisions. 2.2 Location of Permit Applications The spatial distribution of permit applications between the mean high tide line and the landward 1,000 yard boundary is described in Table 2. Without dealing with policy ques- tions at this time, several observations can be made. The vast majority of applications and permits (67.4%) were more than 100 yards from the mean high tide line. Permits were fairly evenly distributed up to the inland boundary, with one-half of those approved at least 250 yards from the beach and one-third over 500 yards away. Denials followed a similar pattern. Twenty-eight percent were concentrated in the first 100 yards of the commission's jurisdiction, and 3r/. were for developments located at least 500 yards from the water's edge. Table 3 indicates that recreation (33.6%) and industry (15.1%) are the two largest use categories for permits approved from the mean high tide line seaward. These primarily involved maintenance or additions to existing recreational boating or industrial facilities. The use distribution of permits adjacent to the beach or within 50 yards of the mean high tide line followed a quite different pattern. Single (42.3%) and multi-family residences (12.6%) together accounted for 54.9% of all permits approved. None of the remaining classifications exceeded 10% of the total within these two zones, with commercial.recrea- tion, industry and utilities at 6.3%, 7.6%, 9.2% and 9.4% respectively. -13- TABLE 2 APPLICATIONS: APPROVED AND DENIED, BY DISTANCE FROM MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE Location by Site Action by Commission from Mean High Tide Line Approve Deny No. % No. % Seaward 119 4.1 4 2.3 Adjacent to Beach 193 6.7 7 4.1 Less than 50 yards 336 11.7 17 9.9 50 to 100 yards 292 10.1 20 11.7 100 to 250 yards 467 16.2 38 22.2 250. to 500 yards 546 18.9 32 18.7 500 to 750 yards 386 13.4 32 18.7 750 to 11,000 yards 543 18.8 21 12.3 Total 2@882 100. 171 100. -14- TABLE 3 PROJECT TYPES AND DISTANCE FROM MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE Distance from Mean High Tide Line Project Type Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to to than to to to to to M.H.T. Beach 50 100 250 500 750 lX0 Total yds yds yds yds yds yds Commercial 10 12 21 27 52 68 40 53 283 % Row 3.5 4.2 7.4 9.5 18.4 24.0 14.1 18.7 - % Column 8.4 6.3 6.9 9.3 11.2 12.6 10.5 9.8 9.9 Industrial 18 11 37 17 22 11 5 12 133 % Row 13.5 8.3 27.8 12.8 16.5 8.3 3.8 9.0 - % Column 15.1 5.8 11.1 5.8 4.8 2.0 1.3 2.2 4.7 Single Family 11 93 139 105 184 211 183 250 % Row 0.9 7.9 11.8 8.9 15.6 17.9 15.6 21.2 - t.n % Column 9.2 49.2 41.6 36.1 39.7 39.1 47.9 46.1 41.1 Multi-Family 4 20 46 81 141 185 ill 160 748 % Row 0.5 2.7 6.1 10.8 18.9 24.7 14.8 21.4 - % Column 3.4 10.6 13.8 27.8 30.5 34.3 29.1 29.5 26.2 Public Utility 10 17 35 31 25 28 17 21 184 % Row 5.4 9.2 19.0 16.8 13.6 15.2 9.2 11.4 - % Column 8.4 9.0 10.5 10.7 5.4 5.2 4.5 3.4 6.4 Recreation 40 21 19 10 13 8 12 10 133 % Row 30.1 15.8 14.3 7.5 9.8 6.0 9.0 7.5 - % Column 33.6 11.1 5.7 3.4 2.8 1.5 3.1 1.8 4.7 Other* 26 15 37 20 26 28 14 36 202 % Row 12.9 7.4 18.3 9.9 12.9 13.9 6.9 17.8 - % Column 21.8 7.9 11.1 6.9 5.6 5.2 3.7 6.6 7.1 *Includes demolition and dredging projects. Missing Observations: 416 2.3 Present Use of Land at Time of Permit Application A majority of all permits (1,812 or 56.5%) were located on land that was previously vacant. Residential facilities accounted for 1,484 or 81.9% of these permits. However, in terms of total acreage, single family residences utilized only 26% of all open space developed in 1973 and 1974. Commercial projects developed 46.1% of all open spaces acre- age while industrial development accounted for less than 1%. Table 4 also illustrates that a general and strong pattern exists involving an intensification of already developed sites for similar purposes. Although 37.2% of all commer- cial permits involved vacant areas, 57.8% redeveloped land was already used for commercial activities. This pattern of redevelopment is also found for industrial permits (66.9%), public utility permits (67.5%), and recreational permits (43.7%). Residential projects are the only cases in which this does not hold. One-quarter of all single units and 15% of multi-unit residential permits were located on sites where housing already existed. Even so, the present use data seem to indicate; to a substantial extent, that only land that was vacant is changed. The use to which other parcels were put in the past suggested the use of the land in the future. 2.4 Construction Costs The commission reviewed $1,038,239,125 in construction cost re uests in 1973 and 1974.* A total of $828,475,125, or 79.81 of all dollar requests, were approved. Single and multi-unit residential development together accounted for $442,509,000, or more than 50% of the total. Multi-family residences, alone valued at $265,155,125, exceeded the amount invested in any other category. The mean construc- tion cost for multi-family homes, howeverI was $336,919, less than the mean for industrial projects ($480,828) and commercial projects ($456,210). Recreational construction costs over the two years were @30,670,688; greater only than the expenditures for demolition projects. * The figure reported here includes only the values listed on permit applications; construction costs involved with appeals of exemption are not. Further, no estimation of values for any missing observations has been included in the total. -16- TABLE 4 PROPOSED PROJECT TYPE BY PRESENT LAND USE P r e s e n t U s e o f L a n d Project Type Agricul- Single Multi- Commer- Indus- Recrea- Public Vacant tural Family Family cial trial tional utility Total Commercial 121 0 6 3 188 3 2 2 325 % Row 37.2 1.8 0.9 57.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 100. Industrial 41 2 1 0 1 95 0 2 142 % Row 28.9 1.4 0.7 0.7 66.9 1.4 100. Single Family 976 1 313 17 4 0 0 2 1)313 % Row 74.3 0.1 23.8 1.3 0.3 0.2 100. Multi-Fainily 508 1 197 127 7 5 2 2 849 % Row 59.8 0.1 23.2 15.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 100. Public Utility 58 0 1 3 2 7 5 8 234 % Row 24.8 o.4 1.3 0.9 3.0 2.1 67.5 100. Recreation 57 0 12 2 2 0 62 7 142 % Row 40.1 8.5 1.4 1.4 43.7 4.9 100. Other* 33 2 49 16 29 9 14 22 164 % Row 20.1 1.2 29.9 9.8 17.7 5.5 8.5 13.4 100. Total 1,794 6 579 168 233 119 85 195 3,179 % Row 56.4 0.2 18.2 5.3 7.3 3.7 2.7 6.1 100. *Includes demolition and dredging projects. TABLE 5 CONSTRUCTION COSTS: APPROVED PROJECTS, 1973-74 No. of Sum Total % of All Mean Project Type Projects Costs Projects Cost Commercial 316 $144,162,438 17.4 $456,210 Industrial 133 63,950,172 7.7 480,828 Single Family 1$276 177,354s3l3 21.4 138,992 Multi-Family 787 265,155,125 32.0 336,919 Public Utility 180 652061,102 7.9 361,450 Recreation 131 30,670$668 3.7 234sl27 Other* 199 82,111,307 9.9 412,619 Total 3$022 $828,475,125 100.0 *Includes demolition and dredging projects. Missing Observations: 284 -18- 2.5 Acreage Used More than six of every ten permits were developing lots less than .2 of an acre in size. A total of 441 permits involved sites smaller than .1 of an acre. only 10.7% of all permits were involved with lots greater than 1.0 acre in size. Although vacant land was involved with several appli- cations, 65.7% of permits involving vacant land developed parcels that were less than .2 of an acre in size. Less than 10% of permits granted involving vacant land were for parcels exceeding 1.0 acre in size. 2.6 Application Decision Procedures To this point, the descriptive data have addressed physical characteristics of permits. Equally important in any discussion are the administrative aspects involved with each application. There are three main procedures used in approving and denying permit applications. Admin- istrative and consent calendar procedures were used for 2,,641 or 75.3% of all applications reviewed by the commission. The administrative and consent calendar procedures usually involve a substantial savings in time for commis- sioners. Administrative procedures are followed for projects involving less than $25,000 in repairs to existing structures or new @rojects with construction costs under $10,000. The regiona executive director approves administrative permits. A total of 682 permit applications were considered as administrative items, single-family residences accounting for 35.6% of all such permits. Commercial projects were the second most frequent with 17.6%. Consent calendar procedures can be used for any project that is believed to have a low potential for impact on the environment of the permit zone. The executive director prepares the consent calendar, and there is no limit on construction costs for applications considered as consent calendar items. Table 7 indicates that 19.6% of all projects with construction costs above $200,000 and 16.1% of projects with construction costs above $300,000 were part of the consent calendar. The public hearing process is utilized for any project, regardless of anticipated construction costs, if the pro- posed development has a hi h potential for raising 9 , a public policy or environmental question. Permits involving _19- TABLE 6 SIZE OF PROJECT BY PROJECT TYPE Type of S i z e i n A c r e s Project 0-.09 .1-.199 ..2-.5 .51-.75 .76-.99 1.0-2.0 2.1-10.0 Total Commercial 23 31 38 9 5 9 18 133 % Row 17.3 23.3 28.6 6.8 3.8 6.8 13.5 100. Industrial 6 7 3 2 0 4 13 35 % Row 17.1 20.0 8.6 5.7 11.4 37.1 100. Single Family 215 335 195 32 7 25 18 827 % Row 26.0 40.5 23.6 3.9 0.9 3.0 2.2 100. Multi-Family 190 289 95 21 8 18 35 656 C) % Row 30.0 44.1 14.5 3.2 1.2 2.7 5.3 100. Recreational 2 4 7 1 0 1 12 27 % Row 7.4 14.8 25.9 3.7 3.7 44.4 100. Other* 12 16 15 3 1 3 18 68 % Row 17.6 23.5 22.1 4.4 1.5 4.4 26.5 100. Total 448 682 353 68 21 60 114 1,746 *Includes demolition and dredging projects. Missing Observations: 1,544 TABLE 7 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS: APPROVED PERMITS R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Construction Costs Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar EmergencV Hearing Total Below $10,000 298 114 16 428 % Row 69.6 26.6 3.7 100. $l0X0-$26$000 277 160 1 31 469 % Row 59.1 34.1 0.2 .6.6 100. $261000-$50.1000 3 676 2 76 757 % Row 0.4 89.3 0.3 10.0 100. $51)000-$100,000 2 669 146 817 % Row 0.2 81.9 17.9 100. $101X0-$150.1000 1 110 71 182 % Row 0.6 60.4 39.0 100. $151$000-$200@000 1 23 31 55 % Row 0.2 41.8 56.4 100. $20131000-$3005000 18 35 53 % Row 34.0 66.0 100. More than $300,000 4 36 1 182 223 % Row 1.8 16.1 0.4 81.6 100. multi-family residences constituted 28.8% of all applications but 53.5% of all items reviewed in the public hearing process. Industrial permits, with a mean construction cost of $480,828, accounted for 6.0% of all public hearing per- mits. The substantial number of requests for multi-unit residential development involved with the public hearing process suggests that factors other than construction costs may be involved in classifying these applications as public hearing items. 2.7 Staff Recommendations Prior to the presentation of a permit application to the commissioners, staff members meet to discuss the appli- cation and make recommendations. Looking first at the overall picture, the staff recommended approval for 1 2,573 applications. The commissioners followed the staff s opinion for 99.1% or for 2,550 applications. The staff issued 219 recommended denials and 62.r/. or 136 of these recommendations were supported by the commissioners. Each application placed on the consent calendar or sub- mitted to the commissioners as administrative permits carried staff recommendations for approval. However, examin- ing the public hearing items separately yields slightly different observations. The staff made 447 approval recom- mendations and the commissioners followed 430 or 96.2%. The commissioners supported only 61.3% of the staff's 204 denial recommendations for public hearing items. 2.8 State Review of Regional Commission Decisions The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act gave any citizen the ability to appeal a regional commission's deci- sion to the state commission. Appeals to the state level actually involve a two-step process. First, the arguments made by any appellant must raise substantial environmental or public policy issues. The evaluation of the significance of the question raised in an appeal is made by the commission's staff. Second, if a substantial issue is raised, the state commission will review the decision of a regional commission. Appeals in 1973 and 1974 ranged from an oil tanker terminal to several residential projects and a bicycle path. in 1973 and 1974, 115 appeals of South Coast Commission decisions were made. The state commission staff found no substantial public policy or environmental issues raised in 63 cases or 54.8%. The state commissioners did review 33 permits granted by the South Coast Commission and reversed -22- TABLE 8 STAFF RECONNENDATION AND COMMISSION ACTION: ALL APPLICATIONS, 1973-74 A c t i o, n Staff Approve Recommendation Pending Approve Deny Withdrawn Reconsidered Total Pending 5 365 2 3 0 375 % Row 1.3 97.3 0.5 0.8 0 100. Approve 0 2,550 19 2 2 2,573 % Row 0 99.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 100. Deny 1 78 136 4 0 219 % Row 0.5 35.6 62.1 1.8 0 100. Approve with Conditions 0 351 39 0 1 391 % Row 0 89.8 10.0 0 0.3 100. TABLE 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COMMISSION ACTION: PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS) 1973-74 A c t i o n Staff Approve Recormuendation Pending Approve Deny Withdrawn Reconsidered Pending 5 8 2 2 % Row 29.4 47.1 11.8 11.8 - Approve 0 430 15 1 1 % Row 96.2 3.4 0.2 0.2 Deny 1 74 125 4 0 % Row 0.5 36.3 61.3 2.0 - Approve with Conditions - 174 29 1 % Row 85.3 14.2 0.5 20 of these decisions. An additional 11 permits had condi- tions for development attached. Only two permits reviewed were.not changed. The state commission received 54 appeals of applica- tions which were denied by the South Coast Commission. The statecommissioners reviewed 15, or 27.8%, of these decisions. In two cases, a permit for development was granted; and in seven other cases development, if specific conditions were satisfied, would be allowed. The state commission sustained the South Coast Commission's decision for the other six appeals. In order to get another view of the dimensions of state commission actions, it may be useful to identify those appeals made by developers and environmental organi- zations. Development interests appealed 53 negative decisions of the South Coast Commission. The state commission staff ruled that 39 appeals, or 73.6%, raised no substantial issues. Of the 14 appeals reviewed, the state commission granted eight permits for development with conditions attached to seven of these permits. Environmental groups sought state commission review for 35 permits granted by the South Coast Commission., No substantial issue was found to exist for eight of the appeals, or 22.9%, and, of the 27 permits reviewed, 15 were revoked and nine others had conditions attached. This separation between developers and environmental groups appears to indicate environmentalists had greater success at the state level. Their appeals were heard more often., and almost half (42.9%) resulted in a reversal of the regional commission-decision. Only seven or 13.2%.of the appeals by developers resulted in a permit being granted. 3.0 THE COMMISSION AND THE COASTLINE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY: PERMIT ACTIVITY, 1973-74 3.1 Summary of Permit Activity: Los Angeles County,, 1973-74 The summary table (Table 13) presenting a synopsis of permit activity in Los Angeles County indicates that 93.6% of all applications were successful in receiving a permit Residential development was involved with 907 of the 1,60i approved permits. There were 200 commercial, 136 indus- trial, and 73 recreation projects. These 1,603 projects developed 2,271.6 acres. -25- TABLE 10 STATE COMMISSION REVIEW OF SOUTH COAST COMMISSION DECISIONS South Coast Commission Action Approve with State Action Approve Deny Conditions Total Approve 2 2 1 5 Deny 20 6 1 27 Approve with Conditions 11 7 2 20 Review Refused 24 39 0 63 Total 57 54 4 115 -26- TABLE 11 STATE COMMISSION REVIEW OF SOUTH COAST COMMISSION DECISIONS: IDENTIFIED DEVELOPERS State Action South Coast Action Deny Approve 1 % Column 2.0 Deny 6 % Column 11.3 Approve with Conditions 7 % Column 13.2 Review Refused 39 % Column 73.6 Total 53 -27- TABLE 12 STATE COMMISSION REVIEW OF SOUTH COAST COMMISSION DECISIONS: IDENTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS South Coast Action State Action Approve with Approve Conditions Approve 2 Deny 14 1 Approve with Conditions 9 1 Review Refused 3 Total 28 2 -28- TABLE 13 SUMMARY TABLE: LOS ANGELES COUNTY., 1973-74 Review Procedures Project Applica- Adminis- Consent Public Type tions Acres Approved Denied trative Calendar Hearing No. % No. % Commercial 217 878.5 200 92.2 17 7.8 87 67 62 Industrial 137 342.6 136 99.3 1 0.7 44 46 47 Single Family 636 179.6 617 97.0 19 3.0 125 455 56 Multi-Family 356 309.7 290 81.5 62 17.4 45 ill 197 Public Utility 155 159.3 154 99.4 1 0.6 48 64 42 Recreation 74 77.1 73 98.6 1 1.4 28 27 19 Dredging 9 40.0 8 88.9 1 11.1 1 3 5 Demolition 71 226.9 69 97.2 2 2.8 28 38 5 Other 58 57.9 56 96.6 2 3.4 .17 24 17 Total 1,713 [email protected] 1)603 93.6 106 6.2 423 835 450 The consent calendar review procedure was used for 48.9% of all applications. Public hearing items accounted for slightly more than one-quarter (26.3%) of all applica- tions. 3.2 Number and Type of Permit Applications The coastal commission received 1,738 applications for development in Los Angeles County. These applications represented 48.8% of all permit requests reviewed by the commission in 1973-74. More than half of the requests, 57.9% or 992, were for residential development. The commis- sion received 217 co,.nmercial applications, 137 requests for industrial development, and 74 recreational development proposals. A clear differentiation exists between Los Angeles and Orange Counties in terms of the concentration of particular types of applications. A majority of the commercial projects (60.2%) reviewed by the commissioners were for development of land in Los Angeles County. Almost all ,industrial applications (94.4%), half of all recreational projects, but only 41.7% of all residential developments approved by the South Coast Commission were also for Los Angeles County. The percentage figures do not indicate the total number of residential units actually created. Looking at the number of units developed in each county indicates that Los Angeles had 1,623 more units approved for development. The multi-family projects planned for Los Angeles County tended to be larger than those approved for Orange County. A total of 8,889 units in Los Angeles County and 7,266 in Orange County were approved. 3.3 Approval and Denial of Permits Although the probability of a permit application being approved was very high in both counties, there was a slight concentration of denials. A total of 106 applications from Los Angeles County were denied. This represents 54.4% of all denials. The pattern of denials for applications in.Los Angeles is similar to the distribution for the two county region as a whole. Multi-unit residences accounted for 58.5% (62) of all denials. When added with single family projects denied (19) and commercial developments refused (17), 92.4% of all denials are accounted for. -30- TABLE 14 PERMIT ACTIVITY: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1973-74 N a t u r e o f P r o j e c t Applica- Commer- Indus- Single Multi- Public Recrea- Dredg- Demoli- tions cial trial Family Family Utility tion ing tion Other Total Received 217 137 636 356 155 74 9 71 58 1,713 % Row 12.7 8.0 37.1 20.8 9.0 4.3 0.5 4.1 3.4 Approved 200 136 617 290 154 73 8 69 56 12603 % Row 12.5 8.5 38.5 18.1 9.6 4.6 0.5 4.3 3.5 % Column 92.2 99.3 97.0 81.5 99.4 98.6 88.9 97.2 96.6 93.6 Denied 17 1 19 62 1 1 1 2 2 106 % Row 16.0 0.9 17.9 58.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.9 1.9 % Column 7.8 0.7 3.0 17.4 o.6 1.4 11.1 2.8 3.4 6.2 Missing Observations: 25 3.4 Location of Permit Applications More than six of every ten permits (62.8%) were between 100 and 1,000 yards from the beaches of Los Angeles County. The distribution in the location of denied applications was even more pronounced, with 70.2% at least 100 yards from the mean high tide mark. A pattern of residential,development near the coastline was also evident for Los An eles County. Single family developments accounted for N.9% of all permits granted for work on property adjacent to the beach; and 54.2% of all per- mits granted for work adjacent to the beach were residential in nature. Of 69 recreation projects approved in Los Angeles County, 52.1% were within 50 yards of the beach. Commercial projects were concentrated in the area at least 100 yards from the mean high tide line. Only 30% of all commercial development was less than 100 yards from the mean high tide line. There was a concentration of industrial pro@ ects (75 or 51.6%) in the first 100 yards of the commission s authority. 3.5 Present Use of Land at Time of Permit Application Vacant land was not involved with a majority of appli- cations planning developments in Los Angeles County. This is a notable difference from the figures reported for the region as a whole. Only 48.7% of all applications and 48.2% of granted permits planned to develop open space. However, looking at the number of acres planned to develop open space involved indicates that 1,318.3 acres of vacant land was developed in 1973-74. For the same period, 533.3 acres of vacant land was developed in Orange County, indicating a -more rapid utilization of open space in Los Angeles County. When vacant land was utilized for development in Los Angeles County, it usually involved residential development. More than three-quarters of all parcels of open space (75.6%) were used for this purpose. This rate is still below the figures reported for the region, indicating that open space in Orange County is used more often for residential develop- ment. Table 18 indicates a pattern of redevelopment is evident in Los Angeles County. Although 31.6% of all commercial projects were built on land that was previously vacant, 63.3% of all commercial projects were redevelopments of land already involved in commercial operations. Of 134 -32- TABLE 15 PROXIMITY TO THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1973-74 Distance from Mean High Tide Line Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to to than to to to to to M.H.,T. Beach 50 100 250 500 750 12000 Total yds yds yds yds yds Vds Approved 52 110 206 157 226 264 159 234 1)408 % Row 3.7 7.8 14.6 11.2 16.1 18.8 11.3 16.6 Denied 3 5 7 11 19 11 23 13 92 % Row 3.2 5.3 7.4 11.7 20.2 11.7 24.5 13.8 Total 55 115 213 168 245 275 182 247 1,500 % Row 3.7 7.7 14.2 11.2 16.3 18.3 12.1 16.5 Missing Observations: 213 TABLE 16 NATURE OF PROJECT AND DISTANCE FROM THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1973-74 Distance from Mean High Tide Line Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 Project Type to to than to to to to to M.H.T. Beach 50 100 250 500 750 13%000 Total yds yds Vds yds Vds yds Commercial 6 7 15 22 30 38 16 33 167 % Row 3.6 4.2 9.0 13.2 18.0 22.8 9.6 19.8 - % Column 11.5 6.5 7.3 14.1 13.5 14.6 10.3 14.1 12.0 Industrial 17 11 37 17 21 11 4 8 126 % Row 13.5 8.7 29.4 13.5 16.7 8.7 3.2 8.7 - % Column 32.7 10.3 18.0 10.9 9.5 4.2 2.6 3.4 9.1 Single Family - 48 70 51 74 108 75 119 545 % Row 8.8 12.8 9.4 13.6 19.8 13.8 21.8 - LO % Column 44.4 34.1 32.7 33.3 41.5 48.1 50.9 39.2 Multi-Family 1 10 21 29 62 59 36 30 248 % Row 0.4 4.o 8.5 11.7 25.0 23.8 14.5 12.1 - % Column 1.9 9.3 10.2 18.6 27.9 22.7 23.1 12.8 17.8 Public Utility 5 8 23 20 15 25 11 16 123 % Row 4.1 6.5 18.7 16.3 12.2 20.3 8.4 13.0 - % Column 9.6 7.5 11.3 12.8 6.8 9.6 7.1 6.8 8.8 Recreation 11 12 13 7 9 4 6 7 69 % Row 15.9 17.4 18.8 10.1 13.0 5.8 8.7 10.1 - % Column 21.2 11.2 6.3 4.5 4.1 1.5 3.8 3.0 5.0 Other* 12 11 26 10 11 15 8 21 114 % Row 10.5 9.6 22.8 8.7 9.6 13.2 7.0 18.4 - % Column 23.1 10.3 12.7 6.4 5.0 5.8 5.1 9.0 8.2 Total 52 107 205 156 222 260 156 234 1,392 % Row 3.7 7.7 14.7 11.2 15.9 18.7 11.2 16.8 - *Includes demolition and dredging projects. Missing Observations: 311 TABLE 17 PRESENT USE CHARACTERISTICS: ALL APPLICATIONS@ LOS ANGELES COUNTY3@ 1973-74 P r e s e n t U s e 0 f L a n d Agricul- Single Multi- Commer- Indus- Recrea- Public Vacant tural Family_ Family cial trial tional utility Total All Permits 808 5 300 98 162 109 53 124 1@659 % Row 48.7 0.3 18.1 5.9 9.8 6.6 3.2 7.5 100. Approved 750 5 276 88 151 109 53 123 1,555 % Row 48.2 0.3 17.7 5.7 9.7 7.0 3.4 7.9 100. Denied 56 0 23 10 11 0 .0 1 101 % Row 55.4 0 22.8 10.0 10.9 0 0 1.0 100. Missing Observations: 79 TABLE 18 CONVERSION OF LAND USE: ORANGE COUNTY1 1973-74 P r e s e n t U s e o f L a n d Nature Agricul- Single Multi- Commer- Indus- Recrea- Public Vacant tural Family Family cial trial tional utility Total Commercial 62 2 3 124 3 1 1 196 % Row 31.6 1.0 1.5 63.3 1.5 0.5 0.5 100 % Column 8.4 0.7 3.4 83.8 2.8 1.9 0.8 12:8 Industrial 36 2 1 93 2 134 % Row 26.9 1.5 0.7 69.4 1.5 100. % Column 4.9 40.0 0.7 85.3 1.6 8.7 Single Family 428 1 157 11 3 2 602 % Row 71.1 0.2 26.1 1.8 0.5 0.3 100. 12.5 1.6 39.2 % Column 57.9 20.0 57.5 2.0 Multi-Family 131 1 80 64 4 1 2 283 % Row 46.3 o.4 28.3 22.6 1.4 0.4 0.7 100. % Column 17.7 20.0 29.3 72.7 2.7 1.9 1.6 18.4 Public Utility 43 1 1 2 4 3 98 152 % Row 28.3 0.7 0.7 1.3 2.6 2.0 64.5 100 % Column 5.8 0.4 1.1 1.4 3.7 5.8 79.7 9:9 Recreation 24 3 1 40 3 71 % Row 33.8 4.2 1.4 56.3 4.2 100. % Column 3.2 1.1 1.1 76.9 2.4 4.6 Other 15 1 30 8 14 9 7 15 99 % Row 15.2 1.0 30.3 8.1 14.1 9.1 7.1 15.2 100 % Column 2.0 20.0 10.9 9.1 9.5 8.3 13.5 12.2 6:4 Total 739 5 273 88 148 109 52 123 1,537 % Row 48.1 0.3 17.8 5.7 9.6 7.1 3.4 8.0 1006 Missing Observations: 97 industrial permits, 69.4% were for land whose use was already classified for this purpose, and more than half of all recreational permits were for land already used for recreational activities. Almost 30% of all multi-family projects were redevelopments of previous single family homes. 3.6 Construction Costs During 1973 and 1974 the coastal commission approved $457,748,861 in construction costs for development in Los Angeles County. This figure represents 55.3% of all construction dollars approved by the coastal commission. 3.7 Acreage Used More than half of all projects planned for Los Angeles County (51.2%) were .2 of an acre or smaller. This was 10% less than the figure reported for the region as a whole, indicating slightly larger parcels of land are involved with developments planned for Orange County. Almost 10% of all permits were developing land at least two acres in size. Twelve,single family development projects were approved involving lots greater than two acres, and 14 multi-family projects were on parcels of land larger than two acres. The size of vacant lots involved in permits granted in Los Angeles County was also larger than the figures reported for the entire region. Only 53.5% of all open space was less than .2 of an acre in size. This was 14.2% below the figure reported for the commission. A total of 36 parcels of open space larger than 2.0 acres were involved in permits approved for Los Angeles County. 3.8 Permit Decision Procedures The distribution of applications among the hearing procedures for permit requests in Los Angeles County closely parallels the tabulation for the region. Approximately three-quarters of all applications are part of the consent calendar or receive administrative permits. In Los Angeles County, as in the region as a whole, numerous costly projects were part of the consent calendar. Projects with construction costs in excess of $150,000 (30%); one-quarter of all projects with costs above $200,000; and 21% of proposals with costs above $300,000 were consent calendar items. -37- TABLE 19 CONSTRUCTION COSTS: APPROVED PROJECTS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY Nature Sum Percent Mean Commercial $129,209,938 28.2 683$650 Industrial 62)8321PO74 13.7 498,667 Single Family 41@377,750 9.0 70@132 167,938 24.5 439,874 .qulti-Family 1129 Public Utility 213107651020 4.6 1682608 Recreation 17,678)379 3.9 2679854 Dredging 44,091s000 9.6 7,348,500 Demolition 23,354,020 0.5 36,782 Other 26,961,742 5.9 627,017 Total $457,748,861 100.0 Missing Observations: 176 -38- TABLE 20 SIZE OF PROJECTS: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1973-74 Type of S i z 'e i n A c r e s Project 0-.09 .1-.199 .2-.5 .51-.75 .76-.99 1.0-2.0 2.1-10.0 Total Conmercial 11 16 19 3 4 6 12 71 % Row 15.5 22.5 26.8 4.2 5.6 8.5 16.9 100. Industrial 6 6 3 1 4 11 31 % Row 19.4 19.4 9.7 3.2 12.9 35.5 100. Single Family 78 115 113 24 7 19 12 268 % Row 21.2 31.3 30.7 6.5 1.9 5.2 3.3 100. Multi-Family 73 58 42 15 4 6 14 212 % Row 34.4 27.4 19.8 7.1 1.9 2.8 6.6 100. Public Utility 1 2 3 1 2 4 13 % Row 7.7 15.4 23.1 7.7 15.4 30.8 100. Recreation 1 2 5 1 8 17 % Row 5.9 11.8 29.4 5.9 47.1 100. Other* 7 7 4 2 1 3 12 36 % Row 19.4 19.4 11.1 5.5 2.7 8.3 33.3 100. Total 177 206 189 45 17 41 73 *Includes dredging and demolition projects. Missing Observations: 904 TABLE 21 USE OF LAND: LOS ANGELES COUNTY., 1973-74 Present Use S i z e i n A c r e s of Land 0-.09 .1-.199 .2-.5 .51-.75 .76-.99 1.0-2.0 2.1-10.0 Vacant 110 154 124 32 12 26 36 % Row 22.3 31.2 25.1 6.5 2.4 5.3 7.3 Agricultural 1 2 % Row 33.3 66.7 Residential 53 34 39 10 4 6 7 % Row 34.6 22.2 25.5 6.5 2.6 3.9 4.6 Commercial 3 5 12 2 1 5 5 C> % Row 9.1 15.2 36.4 6.1 3.0 15.2 15.2 Industrial 5 5 1 1 1 2 13 % Row 17.9 17.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 7.2 48.4 Recreational 1 2 2 5 % Row 10.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 Public Utility 1 3 3 1 1 5 % Row -7.1 21.4 21.4 7.1 7.1 35.7 Total 173 202 181 46 18 42 73 Missing Observations: 920 TABLE 22 APPLICATION APPROVAL PROCEDURES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1973-74 R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar Emergency Hearing Total Number of Applications 423 835 4 450, 1@712 % Row 24.7 48.8 0.2 26.3 100. Missing Observations: 26 TABLE 23 REVIEW PROCEDURES AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1973-74 R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Construction Costs Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar Hearing Total No. % No. % No. % No. % $0-$10,000 187 78.2 45 18.8 7 2.9 239 100. $11,000-$26,000 167 60.9 93 33.9 14 5.1 274 100. $26,000-$50,000 3 1.1 238 87.8 30 11.1 271 100. $51,000-$100,000 1 0.3 283 80.6 67 19.1 351 100. $101,000-$150,000 1 10.3 60 61.9 36 37.1 97 100. $151,000-$200,000 12 37.5 20 62.5 32 100. $201,000-$300,000 14 42.2 19 57.8 33 100. $300)000+ 2 1.4 29 20.6 110 78.0 141 100. Missing Observations: 200 Table 24 indicates that while multi-family projects account for 55.3% of the projects reviewed as public hearing items in Los Angeles County, more than half of all multi-family residence developments were actually reviewed as part of the consent calendar. These observations are similar to the distributions reported for the region as a whole and indicate the concentration of all types of projects in the consent calendar review procedure. 4.0 THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION AND THE COASTLINE OF ORANGE COUNTY 4.1 Summary of Permit Activity: Orange County, 1973-74 The summary table (Table 25) describes permit activity in Orange County for 1973 and 1974. A total of 1,801 applications were received, and 1,703 or 94.6% were granted permits. Residential development involved 1,309 of the permits while 132 were commercial, 9 industrial, and 71 recreational. The approved applications involved 794.6 acres. Consent calendar review procedures were used in 63.6% of all applications and only 22.6% of all applications were public hearing items. 4.2 Number and Type of Permit Application Residential development dominated the applications submitted to the South Coast Commission for Orange County. A total of 1,390 residential applications were received. This group represented 77.1% of all permit requests from Orange County. No other category of permit type accounted for more than 8% of the applications. Recreational devel- opment was involved with 73 applications, or 4.1% of the applications received. The percentage of residential applications for Orange County exceeds the observation for the region. Not only is the percentage greater, but the actual numbers involved indicate residential development within this permit zone of the South Coast Commission was more concentrated. 4.3 Approval and Denial of Applications- There were fewer denials in Orange County than in Los Angeles County, and the pattern of denied applications was also slightly different. Multi-family residences accounted -43- TABLE 24 PROJECT TYPE AND PERMIT PROCEDURES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY2 1973-74 R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Nature Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar Emergency Hearing Total Commercial 87 67 0 62 216 % Row 40.3 31.0 0 28.7 100. Industrial 44 46 0 47 137 % Row 32.1 33.6 0 34.3 100. Single Family 125 455 0 56 636 % Row 19.7 71.5 0 8.8 100. Multi-Family 45 ill 3 197 356 % Row 10.6 31.2 0.8 55.3 100. Public Utility 48 64 1 42 155 % Row 31.0 41.3 0.6 27.1 100. Recreation 28 27 0 19 74 % Row 37.8 36.5 0 25.7 100. Other* 46 65 0 27 138 % Row 33.3 47.1 0 19.6 100. *Includes demolition and dredging projects. Missing Observations: 26 TABLE 25 SUMMARY TABLE: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 Review Procedures Project Applica- Adminis- Consent Public Type tions Acres Approved Denied trative Calendar Hearing No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %- Commercial 141 30.7 132 93.6 9 6.4 31 22.1 61 43.8 48 34.3 Industrial 8 6.5 8 100.0 0 0 3 37.5 1 12.5 4 50.0 Single Family 730 160.4 726 99.5 2 0.3 113 15.5 577 79.3 38 5.2 Multi-Family 660 362.3 583 88.3 73 11.1 39 5.9 355 54.3 260 39.8 Public Utility 85 98.3 82 96.5 2 2.4 15 18.1 47 56.6 21 25.3 Recreation 73 88.2 71 97.3 2 2.7 22 30.1 35 47.9 16 21.9 Dredging 7 0.5,2 7 100.0 -0 0 5 71.4 2 28.8 Demolition 52 17.6 51 98.1 0 0 12 23.5 34 66.6 5 10.0 Other 45 30.1 43 95.6 1 2.2 11 25.6 22 51.2 10 18.9 Total 12801 794.6 12703 94.6 89 4.9 246 12137 404 TABLE 26 PERMIT ACTIVITY: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 N a t u r e 0 f P r o j e c t Applica- Commer- Indus- Single Multi- Public Recrea- Dredg- Demoli- tions cial trial Family Family Utility tion. ing tion Other Total Received 141 8 730 660 85 73 7 52 45 11801 % Row 7.8 0.4 40.5 36.6 4.7 4.1 o.4 2.9 2.5 100. Approved 132 8 726 583 82 71 7 51 43 1,703 % Row 7.8 0.5 42.6 34.2 4.8 4.2 0.4 3.0 2.5 % Column 93.6 100. 99.5 88.3 96.5 97.3 100. 98.1 95.6 94.6 Denied 9 0 2 73 2 2 0 0 1 89 % Row 10.1 0 2.2 82.0 2.2 2.2 0 0 1.1 % C 0 lumn 6.4 0 0.3 11.1 2.4 2.7 0 0 2.2 4.9 Missing Observations: 13 for 73, or 82% f all denials. Commercial projects were involved with i0ounsuccessful applications, and only two, single family applications were denied. This meant that 99.5% of all applications for single family residence development were approved. 4.4 Location of Permit Application The distribution of permits within the permit zone of Orne County indicates the vast majority of the commis- sion s actions involved land more than 100 yards from the mean high tide line. Almost three-quarters of all permits (71.9%) and 71.5% of all denials involved property at least 100 yards from the beach. Table 28 indicates that land nearest the water has been used for residential development. Single family development accounted for 54.9% of all projects on land adjacent to the beach, while recreational projects were concentrated in the area around the mean high tide line. of the 64 recreational projects, 44 or 68.8% were in the 50 yards nearest the beach. Cormnercial projects were concentrated in the area at least 100 yards from the mean high tide line. Only 17.2% of all commercial projects were located within the 100 yards nearest the water. 4.5 Present Use of Land at Time of Permit Application A total of 1,062 permits containing 553.3 acres (320 missing observations) were granted for open space in Orange County with only 56 applications denied. For every denial., 19 applications developing open space were approved. Residential development overwhelmingly dominated the use of vacant space. While a total of 925 residential projects utilized open space, only 3.1% of the other applications involving vacant land erected recreational facilities. The pattern of redevelopment was not as evident in Orange County as it was in Los Angeles County. Although 49.6% of all commercial projects and 73.6% of all public utility permits were redevelopments, industrial redevelop- ment accounted for only 25% of the eight industrial permits. The conversion of multi-unit residences from single family homes accounted for only 20.7% of all multi-unit develop- ments. -47- TABLE 27 APPLICATIONS: APPROVED AND DENIED, BY DISTANCE FROM MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 Location by Site Action by Commission from Mean High Tide Line Approve Deny No. % No. % Seaward 67 98.5 1 1.5 Adjacent to Beach 83 97.7 2 2 .3 Less than 50 yards 103 92.0 9 8.0 50 to 100 yards 135 93.8 9 6.3 100 to 250 yards 241 91.6 19 8.4 250 to 500 yards 282 92.5 21 7.5 500 to 750 yards 227 97.0 7 3.0 750 to 1,000 yards .309 97.2 8 2.8 Total 12474 95.0 77 5.0 Missing Observations: 19 -48- TABLE 28 NATURE OF PROJECT AND DISTANCE FROM THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 Distance from Mean High Tide Line Seaward Adjacent Less 50 loo 7707 500 750 Project Type to to than to to to to to M.H.T. Beach 50 100 250 500 750 11000 Total yds Vds vds vds Vds yds Commercial 4 5 6 5 22 30 24 20 116 % Row 3.4 4.3 5.2 4.3 19.0 25.9 20.7 17.2 - % Column 6.0 6.1 4.7 3.7 9.1 10.8 10.6 6.5 7.9 Industrial 1 - - - 1 - 1 4 7 % Row 14.3 14.3 14.3 57.1 - % Column 1.5 o.4 o.4 1.3 0.5 Single Family 11 45 69 54 110 103 108 131 631 % Row 1.7 7.1 10.9 8.6 17.4 16.3 17.1 20.8 - % Column 16.4 54.9 53.5 40.0 45.6 36.9 47.8 42.5 43.0 Multi-Family 3 10 25 52 79 126 75 130 500 % Row 0.6 2.0 5.0 10.4 15.8 25.2 15.0 26.0 - % Column 4.5 12.2 19.4 38.5 32.8 45.2 33.2 42.2 34.1 Public Utility 5 9 12 11 10 3 6 5 61 % Row 8.2 14.8 19.7 18.0 16.4 4.9 9.8 8.2 - % Column 7.5 11.0 9.3 8.1 4.1 1.1 2.7 1.6 4.2 Recreation 29 9 6 .3 4 4 6 3 64 % Row 45.3 14.1 9.4 4.7 6.3 6.3 9.4 4.7 - % Column 43.3 11.0 4.7 2.2 1.7 1.4 2.7 1.0 4.4 Other* 14 4 11 10 16 13 6 15 89 % Row 15.7 4.5 12.4 11.2 18.0 14.6 6.7 16.9 - % Column 20.9 4.9 8.5 7.4 6.6 4.7 2.7 4.9 6.1 Total 67 82 129 135 241 279 226 308 1)468 % Row 4.6 5.6 8.8 9.2 16.4 19.0 15.4 21.0 *Includes dredging and demolition projects. Missing Observations: 31 TABLE 29 PRESENT USE AT TIME OF APPLICATION: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 P r e s e n t U s e o f L a n d Agricul- Single Multi- Commer- Indus- Recrea- Public Vacant tural. Family Family cial trial tional utility Total All Applications 1,123 1 327 85 88 11 36 76 1,747 % Row 64.3 0.1 18.7 4.9 5.0 o.6 2.1 4.4 100. C) Approved 11062 1 306 80 85 10 34 72 1,650 % Row 64.4 0.1 18.5 4.9 5.2 o.6 2.1 4.4 94.4 Denied 56 0 20 3 3 1 2 3 88 % Row 63.6 0 22.7 3.4 3.4 1.1 2.3 3.4 5.0 Missing Observations: 67 TABLE 30 CONVERSION OF LAND USE: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 P r e s e n t U s e o f L a n d Nature Agricul- Single Multi- Commer- Indus- Recrea- Public Vacant ture Family Family cial trial tional utility Total Commercial 59 4 64 1 1 129 % Row 45.7 3.1 49.6 0.8 0.8 100 % Column 5.6 1.3 75.3 3.0 1.4 7:9 Industrial 5 1 2 8 % Row 62.5 12.5 25.0 100 % Column 0.5 0.3 20.0 0:5 Single Family 548 156 6 1 711 % Row 77.1 21.9 0.8 0.1 100. Ln % Column 51.9 51.0 7.5 1.2 43.3 Multi-Family 377 117 63 3 5 566 % Row 66.6 20.7 11.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 100. % Column 35.7 38.2 78.6 3.5 50.0 3.0 34.5 Public Utility 15 2 3 2 60 82 % Row 18.3 2.4 3.7 2.4 73.2 100. % Column 1.4 2.5 30.0 6.1 83.3 5.0 Recreation 33 9 1 2 22 4 @71 % Row 46.5 12.7 1.4 2.8 31.0 5.6 100. % Column 3.1 2.9 1.3 2.4 66.7 5.6 4.3 Other 18 1 19 8 15 7 7 75 % Row 24.0 1.3 25.3 10.7 20.0 9.3 9.3 100. % Column 1.7 100. 6.2 10.0 17.6 21.2 9.7 4.6 Total 1,055 1 306 80 85 10 33 72 1,642 Missing Observations: 75 4.6 Construction Costs The coastal commission approved projects costing $358,936,882 for Orange County in 1973-7.4. This figure represents 43.3% of all construction dollars reported in permit applications approved by the South Coast Regional Commission. 4.7 Acreage Used More than 7 of every 10 permits for property in Orange County involved parcels less than .2 of an acre in size. Less than 5% of.the applications involved parcels larger than two acres. The majority of the vacant lots in developers' proposals were small, with more than 90% of all vacant lots consisting of less than .5 of an acre. When compared to the size of approved projects, the utilization of these small lots for residential development becomes clear. The vast majority of single family units (95.9) were built on lots less than .5 of an acre. 4.8 Application Decision Procedures The distribution of applications within the four review procedures followed closely with the observations made for the region. There was an interesting difference, however, in the classification of applications by construction costs. Look- ing at projects above $151,000 found 71.9% of the applica- tions classified as public hearing items. Almost 90% of the projects with a construction cost over $200,000, and 91% of those projects with construction costs in excess of $300,000 were public hearing items. The concentration of multi-unit housing as public hear- ing items was also evident in Orange County. Multi-unit homes accounted for 64.4% of the items reviewed in the public hearing process. -52- TABLE 31 CONSTRUCTION COSTS: APPROVED PROJECTS IN ORANGE COUNTY Nature Sum Percent Mean Commercial $14,952,117 4.0 270)015 Industrial 1)118@100 0.3 159,729 Single Family 135@976,750 36.7 198)217 Multi-Family 152,987,188 41.3 287,570 Public Utility 43@9851082 11.9 799,729 Recreation 12,992,289 3.5 199,881 Dredging 44,400 0.02 7,400 Demolition 3)303,200 0.9 68@817 other 5,367,188 1.5 167,725 Total $370,726,314 Missing Observations: 168 -53- TABLE 32 SIZE OF PROJECTS: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 Project Type S i z e i n A c r e s 0-.09 .1-.199 .2-.5 .51-.75 .76-.99 1.0-2.0 2.1-10.0 Commercial 12 15 19 6 1 3 6 % Row 19.4 24.2 30.6 9.7 1.6 4.8 9.7 Industrial 1 1 2 % Row 25.0 25.0 50.0 Single Family 137 220 82 8 6 .6 % Row 29.8 47.9 17.9 1.7. 1.3 1.3 Multi-Family 117 231 53 6 4 12 21 % Row 26.4 52.0 11.9 1.4 0.9 2.7 4.7 Public Utility 2 1 % Row 66.7 33.3 Recreation 1 2 2 1 4 % Row 10.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 40.0 Other* 5 9 11 1 6 % Row 15.6 28.1 34.4 3.1 18.8 Total 272 478 167 22 5 23 46 % Row 26.9 47.2 16.5 2.2 0.5 2.3 4.5 *Includes dredging and demolition projects. Missing Observations: 717 TABLE 33 USE OF LAND: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 Present Use S i z e i n A c r e s of Land 0-.09 .1-.199 .2-.5 .51-.75 .76-.99 1.0-2.0 2ol-10.0 Total Vacant 155 393 123 13 4 16 38 742 % Row 20.9 53.0 16.6 1.8 0.5 2.2 5.1 100. Agricultural 1 1 % Row 100. 100. Residential 108 60 27 2 4 3 204 % Row 52.9 29.4 13.2 loo 2.0 1.5 100. U, Cn Conmercial 5 9 9 5 1 1 1 31 % Row 16.1 29.0 29.0 16.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 100. Industrial 5 5 % Row 100. 100. Recreational 2 2 4 % Row 50.0 50.0 100. Public Utility 1 1 1 2 1 6 % Row 16.7 16.7 16.7 33.3 16.7 100. Total 268 468 162 21 5 23 46 993 % Row 27.0 47.1 16.3 2.1 0.5 2.3 4.6 100. Missing Observations: 738 TABLE 34 APPLICATION DECISION PROCEDURES: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar Emergency Hearing Total Number of Applications 251 1 141 10 408 1 810 % Row 13.9 63.0 0.6 22.5 100. Missing Observations: 4 TABLE 35 REVIEW PROCEDURES AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973-74 R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Construction Costs Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar Hearing Total No. % No. % No. % No. % $0-$10,000 111 58.7 69 36.6 9 4.8 189 100. $11,000-$26,000 110 56.7 67 34.5 17 8.8 194 100. $26X0-$50,000 438 90.1 46 9.9 484 100. $51,000-$100,000 1 0.3 386 82.8 79 16.9 466 100. $101,000-$150,000 50 58.8 35 41.2 85 100. $151,000-$200,000 1 4.3 11 47.8 11 47.8 23 100. $201,000-$300,000 4 20.0 16 80.0 20 100. $300,000+ 2 2.5 7 8.6 72 88.8 81 100. Missing Observations: 181 TABLE 36 PROJECT TYPE AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES: ORANGE COUNTY@ 1973-74 R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Nature Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar Emergency Hearing Total Commercial 31 61 1 48 141 % Row 22.0 43.3 0.7 34.0 100. Industrial 3 1 0 4 8 % Row 37.5 12.5 0 50.0 100. Single Family 113 577 2 38 730 % Row 15.5 79.0 0.3 5.2 100. 00 Multi-Family 39 355 2 260 656 % Row 5.9 54.1 0.3 39.6 100. Public Utility 15 47 2 21 85 % Row 17.6 55.3 2.4 24.7 100. Recreation 22 35 0 16 73 % Row 30.1 47.9 0 21.9 100. Other* 23 61 3 17 104 % Row 22.1 58.7 2.9 16.3 100. Total 246 11137 10 404 1,797 *Includes demolition and dredging projects. Missing Observations: 17 5.0 THE COMMISSION AND THE COASTAL ZONE: POLICY ISSUES Regulation of the future development of the coastal zone is a field in which public policy is emerging rather than settled. The data presented in this report and its predecessor attempted to describe the patterns of permit applications and commission decisions. These reports are seen as a necessary information gathering phase that must come before an examination of the effects of commission action and policy. However, observations made at the conclusion of the first report seem important enough to reassess in light of the additional data and the addi- tional time the commission has had to articulate its policies in the 3,500 decisions made in two years. 5.1 Application Review Procedures, Information Levels and Uniformity The procedure selected for making a decision about an application--public hearing, consent calendar or adminis- trative--is determined by the characteristics of the project, particularly in terms of potential environmental impact and public policy importance. Consequently there should be identifiable similarities among projects within a particular decision procedure and differences among those in each of the three categories. In assigning permit applications to one of these three decision procedures, South Coast Commission staff members have identified six variables as important in assessing the need for more or less detailed scrutiny: construction costs; undeveloped land; proximity to the water; project area size; number of units in residential projects; and the conversion of residential facilities to higher-density housing. These criteria are utilized in large part because of their potential impact. With these criteria and the three procedural options available in mind, it is possible to examine whether projects with similar characteristics are consistently assigned to the same review procedure. The following section will look at how applications are .assigned for review in terms of the six criteria noted above. 5.2 Project Characteristics and Decision Procedure 5.2.1 Construction Costs--The construction cost associated with a project is one criterion used by commis- sion staff to estimate the potential environmental impact. Table 7 indicates that 19.6% of all approved projects with construction costs above $200,000 and 16.1% of permits -59- with costs above $300,000 were part of the consent calendar. Separating 1973 and 1974 indicates reliance on the consent calendar is decreasing, but a number of costly projects are still reviewed on the consent calendar. In 1973, 22.5% of all permits with construction costs above $200,000 were part of the consent calendar. This decreased by 8.5% to 14.0% in 1974. In the $3001000 or more category, there was a 5% decline in utilization of the consent calendar: 18.6% to 13.3%. The observation can be made that numerous costly projects are reviewed under consent calendar procedures, but this percentage has declined over the two years reviewed. 5.2.2 Vacant Land--Several earlier tables reported the extent to which vacant land has been developed during the two years under consideration. To evaluate the extent to which applications proposing the development of open spaces are placed in public hearing procedures, it is useful to look at all nine categories of present use of land at time of application and identify whether items within each category are classified as part of the consent calendar or as public hearing items. Table 37 indicates only 23.3% of all applications utilizing vacant land were public hear- ing items. Seven of the nine other categories had greater percentages of their applications reviewed as public hearing items. Only applications developing land involved with commercial uses are less frequently part of the public hear- ing process. A closer look at the conversion of vacant land indi- cates that over 80% of such permits were for residential use. However, residential developments, particularly single family houses, normally take a small amount of land. The 1.,203 permits for housing on previously vacant land consumed slightly more than 800 acres. Even though such conversions typically involve small lots, the absence of public hearings in most cases of open space development means that, unless some form of administrative monitoring exists,, the cumulative environmental effect of open space utilization may not be identified and taken into account in each subsequent individ- ual permit decision. 5.2.3 Project Size--The more acreage involved in a project the greater the possibility that development can have a significant impact on the environment. Reflecting this belief, the majority of all projects greater than 1.0 acre in size were reviewed as public hearing items. Table 38 indicates that 71.3% of projects larger than 1.0 acre were public hearing items; virtually all the remaining applica- tions were consent calendar items. As with the data on construction costs, while there is a concentration of larger -60- TABLE 37 PRESENT USE AND APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES: 1973-74 Consent Public Adminis- Nature No. Calendar Hearing trative Agriculture 6 33.3 66.7 - Industrial 120 36.7 31.7 31.6 Public Utility 200 52.2 29.0 18.5 Recreation 89 34.8 27.0 38.2 Multi-Family 155 30.3 26.5 43.2 Duplex 28 21.4 25.0 5.3.6 Single Family 627 41.3 24.9 33.8 Vacant 1,929 68.6 23.3 8.1 Commercial 250 38.6 20.4 42.8 Total 3,404 56.2 24.3 19.1 Missing Observations: 154 -61- TABLE 38 NET ACRES AND APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Net Acres Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar Emergency@ Hearing Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % .001-.099 22 4.6 336 69.6 125 25.9 483 100. .1-.199 20 2.7 564 76.5 153 20.8 737 100. .2-.5 9 2.3 244 61.3 1 0.3 144 36.2 398 100. .51-.75 38 46.9 43 53.1 81 100. .76-.99 1 3.8 11 42.3 14 53.1 26 100. 1.0-2.0 1 1.4 30 41.1 42 57.5 73 100. 2.0-10.0 1 0.7 29 20.3 112 78.3 143 100. Missing Observations: 1,617 projects handled through public hearings, a significant number of applications involving large parcels of land are reviewed as part of the consent calendar, or occasionally, given administrative permits. 5.2.4 Number of Units in Residential Projects-- Table 39 indicates a relationship between the number of units in a residential project and application review process used. As the number of units in a project increases, the more likely it is the application will be reviewed as a public hearing item. A significant increase in use of the public hearing process occurs if a project plans six or more units. Under six units, the public hear- ing process is used for only 15.1% of all applications. Above six units, 90.7% of all applications are part of the public hearing process. Only three of 131 redevelopments of single family homes to residences with more than six living units were part of the consent calendar. The remaining 128 applica- tions intensifying residential density were reviewed as public hearing items. The consent calendar review process was used for 92, or 56.8%, of the projects converting single family homes to residential facilities for two to five families. 5.2.5 Proximity to the Water--Projects placed nearer to the water are normally presumed to have the most profound impact on the environment of the coastal zone. Table 40 indicates the percentage of projects reviewed as public hearing items does decrease the further from the water the proposed development is located. Of 989*projects less than 100 yards from the water, 27.7% were public hearing items. In no other category was the percentage greater than 25%. The public hearing process was not used for 72% of the projects located less than 100 yards from the water; and even for those within this category immedi- ately adjacent to the beach, only 41.8% were public hearing items. The above discussion indicates that the probability of a project being reviewed as a public hearing item is much higher if the project involves significant construction costs, is above a minimum size in acreage of units, or involves a residential conversion. However, there are still significant percentages of projects with similar attributes which are placed on the consent calendar or are treated as administrative applications. The data indicate that some projects which may be comparable in variables used as measures of potential impact and policy importance are -63- TABLE 39 NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES R e v i e w P r o c e, d u r e s Number of Administrative Consent Calendar Public Hearing Total Units No. % No. % No. % No. % 1 193 14.8 11018 78.2 90 6.9 1 31301 100. a, 2-5 36 5.0 464 64.9 215 30.1 715 100. 6-10 5 4.8 14 13.5 85 81.7 104 100. 11-25 4 4.8 6 7.2 73 88.0 83 100. 26-50 3 7.3 2 4.9 36 87.8 41 100. 51-75 1 5.0 19 95.0 20 100. 76-100 1 7.1 13 92.9 14 100. 100+ 29 100. 29 100. TABLE 40 PROXIMITY TO THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE AND REVIEW PROCEDURES R e v i e w P r o c e d u r e s Location Adminis- Consent Public trative Calendar Emergency Hearing Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Less than 100 yards from water 210 21.2 501 52.7 4 0.4 274 27.7 989 100. 100-250 yards 94 18.5 289 56.9 2 0.4 123 24.2 508 100. Cn 250-500 yards 113 19.6 327 56.7 137 23.7 577 100. 500-750 yards 79 18.9 247 59.2 3 0.7 88 21.1 417 100. 750-1,000 yards 40 7.1 396 69.8 1 0.2 130 22.9 567 100. Missing Observations: 496 reviewed by different procedures. This being the case, an exploration of the amount of information delivered to the point of decision by each review procedure would be in order to determine whether projects with similar characteristics are acted on with different levels of information available. 5.3 Information Model for Public Hearings Information usually undergoes substantial changes in amount and, at times, meaning, as it flows through an admin- istrative organization from the point of entry to the point of decision. In a hierarchical structure, information flow- ing upward is normally subject so substantial reduction. This occurs in the commission through the selection, conden- sation and synthesis of data by the staff before transmission to the decision-makers. Staff recommendations may become substitutes for detailed information in some cases. It is also possible that the amount of information in the system can be increased prior to a decision. The commissioners may request clarification or further data from the staff or applicant, the applicant may wish to add information or, in the case of a public hearing, third parties have the oppor- tunity to provide additional information. When the infor- mation comes directly from applicants or third parties to commissioners, it is not subject to the reductive process normally performed by the staff. The information base upon which public hearing items are reviewed begins with a completed application submitted by an applicant. The application is reviewed by the staff, and 15 days before the public hearing, a summary is distrib- uted. At the hearing the staff report and recommendation is presented to the commissioners. The applicant has an oppor- tunity to amplify any points, and individuals opposing the project may also address the commission. Schematically, the information flow is described in Figure 1. The information flow can be seen to involve two main stages: reduction and addition. The reductive aspect of the flow involves the staff's condensation, synthesis, and recommendation presented to the commission and all inter- ested parties. But before the decision point is reached, an additive phase is entered where commissioners can receive additional inputs from the applicant or any individual wish- ing to discuss the-project. The additive aspect of the system essentially provides three separate components of the information base used for decision-making in the public hearing process: staff reports, applicant amplification, and third party participation. -66- FIGURE I -STAFF ANALYSIS APPLICATION REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S -COMMISSIONER -DECISION- - - DECISION REPORT TO COMMISSION THIRD APPLI- PARTIES CANT *Width of arrows drawn to indicate relative measure of amount of information transmitted. -67- 5.4 Information Model for Consent Calendar Items The information base used to make decisions involving items on the consent calendar differs significantly from that used for public hearing. The applicant submits a completed form to the commis- sion's staff. If. after staff review, the application is placed on the consent calendar, it is grouped with other consent calendar items and presented to the commission. Although three commissioners can ask for any item among those combined to be removed from the consent calendar and the audience is free to comment on any project, the adversary framework of the public hearing process is absent. The information flow appears in Figure 2. The amount of acces- sible information for each item on the calendar is substan- tially reduced from point of entry. 5.5 Information Model for Administrative Permits The information flow for administrative permits could also be described as an information reduction process. The executive director can recommend the applicant be granted an administrative permit if the proposed development meets the established cost criterion--$10,000 for new developments and $25,000 for work on existing structures. The list of admin- istrative recommendations is presented to the commissioners by the executive director. In most instances, no other information about individual applications is given to commissioners. This section has sought to consider ways in which the day-to-day records and a general knowledge of a coastal commission's procedures can be used to monitor its operations from a policy perspective. The data indicate that a number of projects which are similar in terms of such variables as construction costs, proximity to the water, lot size, etc. are decided by procedures which substantially vary in the amount of information provided to decision-makers. The evaluative mechanism has allowed the identification of this anomalie, but clearly determining its implications would require further investigation. One of the important func- tions of this technique is to raise signals when dysfunc- tional situations may exist. One obvious step in this case would be to make a finer analysis to determine whether apparently similar projects handled through different procedures are actually comparable in environmental impact and policy importance. If they are, then there is need for either a better method for determining -68- FIGURE 2 APPLICA- APPLICA- APPLICA- TION TION TION A B C STAFF ANALYSIS REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A B c EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO PLACE ITEM ON CONSENT CALENDAR REPORT TO THE COMMISSION A B C COMMISSIONERS TE Cl � I (TN - - - - - - - @Aj UB JC@ @A -69- FIGURE 3 STAFF ANALYSIS APPLICATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE ,DIRECTOR'S CON24ISSION DECISION DECISION PRESENTATION TO COMISSION BASED ON CRITERIA -70- the type of review to be used or an investigation of the reasons for the differential treatment of applications. A second type of inquiry is also suggested concerning the validity of the assumptions that are made about the flow and levels of information available for decision in each of the three procedures. If the procedures of the commission assume that public hearings provide a substan- tially higher level of information concerning a permit's characteristics and probable effects, several questions can be asked for evaluative purposes. For example, a more detailed study would be necessary to determine if public hearings: (1) increase the amount and variety of informa- tion in general; (2) increase information for some, but not other classes of applications; or (3) increase infor- mation on a random basis. If either of the latter two were found to exist, corrective steps would be necessary. 5.6 Spatial Distribution of Projects and Public Access to the Coast The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act declared the coastal zone "a district and valuable natural resource belonging to all the people . . ." (Section 27001). Reflecting the sentiments of this phrase, the coastal commission and several other interested groups have been concerned with expanding and improving the opportunities for public use of the coast. In attempting to open or maintain areas for the public to enjoy coastal resources, there is a conflict between the market mechanism and public accessibility. The most profitable use of land on or near the shoreline does not usually include mass recrea- tion, and frequently prices out large percentages of the population. The availability of public recreation facili- ties on land nearest the water normally requires public investment. When there is little or no public investment, one may find few increases in the opportunities for public access to the beach. To continue to explore the policy problem of public access, it would seem useful to look at the spatial distribution of permits in the format utilized in the first year report. Dividing the approved projects into four zones--less than 100 yards from the mean high tide line; between 100 and 250 yards, 250 and 500 yards, and 500 to 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line--identifies the potential different impact projects can have on public access by virtue of their location within the permit area. Less than one-third of the permits granted by the South Coast Commission (32.6%) were within 100 yards of -71- the mean high tide line. Within this group, 53.5% were for residential development. Single family home development accounted for 37.3% of all permits granted in the first zone. Almost 10% of the permits in the zone nearest the water were developing recreational land; 8.9% were for industrial purposes; and conunercial development accounted for 7.5%. Residential permits also dominated development in the second zone, accounting for 70.2% of all permits issued for land 100 to 250 yards from. the mean high tide line. Commer- cial development was the next most frequent with 11.2%; industrial development accounted for 4.8% of the permits; and recreation, 2.8%. Residential development accounted for almost three- quarters of the permits in the third zone. A total of 73.4% of all permits 250 to 500 yards from the mean high tide line were developing either single or multi-family residences. Commercial projects accounted for 12.6% of all permits; industrial development involved 2.0%; and recreational development accounted for 5.2% of all pen-nits in this zone. In the zone furthest from the mean high tide line, 924 permits were granted. A total of 704 or 76.2% were for residential development. Commercial and industrial develop- ment accounted for 110 permits or 11.9% of all permits at least 500 yards from the mean high tide line. Recreational facilities were involved with 22 or 2.,V1. of the permits. Similar to the patterns present in the first year report, the concentration of commercial and industrial development decreases in the landward zones. The concentra- tion of residences, although high in all areas of the permit zone, is greater in the zones further from the mean high tide line. Recreational permit concentration is again greatest in the zone nearest the water. The similarities in the pattern of distribution and the concentration of projects in the first 100 yards of the permit zone observed in the first year report and this second year follow-up, again focuses attention on all recreational permits to see if the small number of'projects can significantly influence access opportunities. Table 4 indicates 40.1% of all recreational permits were developing vacant land. Only 43.7% of the recreational permits were improving existing recreational facilities. This observation differs substantially from the trend iden- tified in the first year report and suggests additional -72- TABLE 41 RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: 1973-74 Private 38 Boat Facilities 6 Maintenance 2 Swimming Pools 21 Tennis Courts 6 Other 3 Public 109 Beach Facilities 10 Bike Paths 9 Boat Facilities 37 Campgrounds 5 Golf Course 1 Maintenance 35 Tennis Courts 5 Other 7 -73- attention be directed towards all recreational permits to see what type of development has occurred. Of 147 recreational projects, 38 involved private facilities. A total of 21 applications to construct private swimming pools were approved. Looking separately at public and private recreational development, 5.3% of permits for private recreation involved maintenance of existing facili- ties; but 32.1% of all permits developing public recreational facilities were for maintenance of existing structures. Five new public tennis courts, 5 permits developing public campgrounds, and 9 new bike paths were ap roved. It is also interesting to note that one-third (33.9%@ of all permits for public recreation involved marina-related development. Although these projects were public and undertaken by municipal or county governments, their benefits were primar- ily limited to those citizens able to utilize marina facilities. The California coastal commissions, in expressing interest in expanding public recreational facilities, have come into conflict with the free market and may not have the tools to compete with the pressures of the market. The commissions do not have the financial resources to fund recreational development, nor do they have the political power to order specific developments. If it is more profit- able to develop residential facilities, it may be unrealistic to expect any significant change in the number or type of recreational programs approved by coastal commissions. The long-run consequence of a short-run reliance on private investment funds for development of land nearest the coastline may be the maintenance of existing recreational facilities and limited expansion of new, mass public facili- ties. Private investment funds will continue to be attracted to more profitable outlets in the land nearest the water. If more recreational development is to be forthcoming, the initiative must come from other governmental units with greater financial or political strength. These observations based on data developed for two years of operation of a regional commission would seem to be of particular importance in light of the plan for the future of the coastline recently released by the state commission. The Preliminarv Coastal Plan (Hearing Draft, March 1975) cites the ed for expanded recreational facilities (p: 117). The review of the actions of the South Coast Commission suggests any system of coastal management similar to the existing model may be capable of expanding recreational and access opportuni- ties through the attachment of conditions to permits granted. -74- Larger agencies, with greater financial and political strength, will have to provide the resources for more substantial recreational developments. 5.7 The South Coast Commission and the Coastline of Southern California: Two Year Trends The South Coast Regional Commission has had primary responsibility for development along the coastline of Los Angeles and Orange Counties for two years. During the early months of its tenure, the commissioners and commis- sion staff encountered numerous institutions, procedures and policies for the first time. There was a new law, a permit process to deal with, and the development of relationships with the state coastal commission. In light of these pressures, there would appear to be great value in looking at outcomes in 1973 and 1974 separately to examine whether trends in 1973 were carried forward into 1974. 5.7.1 Permit Types and Permit Action The mix of project developments in applications and approved permits appears to have varied only slightly in the two years of the commission's authority. In 1973, 69.8% of all applications and 69.2% of all permits were developing residential property. The second year saw a decline both in the percentage of applications seekint, to develop homes (65.3%) and residential permits (64. 0). The decline was mostly in multi-family residential development. As a percentage, all permits--conmercial, industrial, recreation, dredging, and demolition--increased in 1974, but in no case were the changes significant. And, although the percentages may have increased in 1974, the real number of permits in each category declined,as 1974 saw 312 fewer applications for permits. It is interesting to note that in percentage terms, the commission denied many more applications in 1974. For 1973, the 70 denials represented 3.7% of all applica- tions reviewed, the 125 refusals in 1974 accounted for 7.8% of the reviewed applications. 5.7.2 The Development of Vacant Land In 1973, 1,008 approved applications developed 617.1 acres of vacant land. This declined by 200 to 804 permits in 1974, but a total of 1,254.5 acres were still- developed. The amount of vacant land developed according to commission records more than doubled., but this may have -75- TABLE 42 PERMIT ACTIVITY: 1973 N a t u r e o f P r o j e _c t Applica- Commer- Indus- Single Multi- Public Recrea- Dredg- Demoli- tions cial trial Family Family Utility tion ing tion Other Total Received, 183 68 756 580 144 76 6 29 71 1,913',, % Row 9.6 3.6 39.5 30.3 7.5 4.0 0.3 1.5 3.7 100. Approved 175 68 751 517 143 75 6 29 69 1,833 % Row 9.5 3.7 41.0 28.2 7.8 4.1 0.3 1.6 3.8 - % Column 95.6 100. 99.3 89.1 99.3 98.7 100. 100. 97.2 95.8 Denied 8 - 4 56 - 1 - - 1 70 % Row 11.4 5.7 80.0 14 1.4 % Column 4.4 0.5 9.7 1.3 1.4 3.7 *Includes 10 applications classified as pending on 12/31/73. TABLE 43 PERMIT ACTIVITY: 1974 N a t u r e o f P r o j e c t Applica- Commer- Indus- Single Multi- Public Recrea- Dredg- Demoli- tions cial trial Family Family Utility tion ing tion Other Total Received 175 77 610 436 96 71 10 94 32 1)601 % Row 10.9 4.8 38.1 27.2 6.0 4.4 0.6 5.9 2.0 100. Approved 157 76 592 356 93 69 9 91 30 1,473 % Row 10.7 5.2 40.2 24.2 63 4.7 0.6 6.2 2.0 - % Column 89.7 98.7 9M 81.7 96.9 97.2 90.0 96.8 93.8 92.0 Denied 8 1 17 79 3 2 1 2 2 125 % Row 14.4 0.8 13.6 63.2 2.4 1.6 0.8 1.6 1.6 % Column 10.3 1.3 2.8 18.1 3.1 2.8 10.0 2.1 6.3 7.8 been a result of better record keeping. In any event, a sub- stantial amount of vacant land was developed in 1974. There has been only a slight change in the future use of open space. In 1973, 83.4% of the permits developing vacant land planned residential construction. For 1974, 81.9% of those permits describing the present use of land as vacant planned residential development. The overwhelming use of open space in the coastal zone appears to be for resi- dential construction. 5.7.3 Location of Permits Changes in the location of projects within the permit zone in 1973 and 1974 allow several comparisons. During the first year of commission action, 39.2% of the permits granted were within 100 yards of the mean high tide line. For 1974, only 26.4, of approved applications were less than 100 yards from the water. The increase in permit activity in 1974 was in the area of the permit zone 500 yards or more from the -nean high tide mark. In fact, in .1974, there were more permits in the 500 to 1,000 yard cate- gory than in the zone nearest the water. This is a signifi- cant change from 1973 when permits in the first 100 yards outnumbered permits in the last 500 yards of the permits by almost 200. There is also an interesting pattern of denied applica- tions between 1973 and 1974. In 1973, the 18 denials in the 100 yards nearest the water were greater in number than the denials in any other zone. But in 1974, the zone furthest from the water, 500 to 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line, had more denials than any of three other zones. For 1974, at least, there was far greater commission activity and application denials in the land at least 500 yards from the water than in the area nearest the water. The exact meaning of this concentration of activity in the zone furthest from the water is not clear, but does seem to indi- cate the management of the coastal zone of Los Angeles and Orange Counties is involving land further from the water rather than property nearest the coastline. There has been a change in the mix of projects proposed and approved for land nearest the coastline. In .1973, 56.8% of all approved projects less than 100 yards from the mean high tide line would develop residential facilities. For in 1974, 48.5% of all approved projects in the zone nearest the water planned residential development. The proportion of projects developing recreational facilities increased from 8.6% to 11.4%. This, as already summarized, did not neces- sarily mean an increase in public access opportunities as -78- TABLE 44 PROXIMITY TO MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE: 1973 Distance from Mean High Tide Line Action Less than 100 to 250 to 500 to 100 yards 250 yards 500 yards 1,000 yards Total Approved 563 245 254 374 1,436 % Row 39.2 17.1 17.7 26.0 - Denied 18 11 11 15 55 % Row 32.7 20.0 20.0 27.3 TABLE 45 PROXIMITY TO MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE: 1974 Distance from Mean High Tide Line Action Less than 100 to 250 to 500 to 100 yards 250 yards 500 yards 1,,000 yards Total 00 Approved 377 222 292 555 1,446 0 % Row 26.1 15.4 20.2 38.4 - Denied 30 27 21 38 116 % Row 25.9 23.2 18.1 32.8 - many recreation projects were private in nature. The frequency of commercial and industrial projects located in the 100 yards nearest to the water remained unchanged: 16.47, There was a slight increase in public utility projects located nearer the water in 1974 (10.3%) than in 1973 (9.7%). 5.7.4 Application Review Procedures There has been no substantial change in the utilization of the public hearing review procedure during the two years of commission activity. In 1973, 19.6% of all applications were reviewed as public hearing items. For 1974, 19.8% of all applications were classified as public hearing items. There was a substantial shift in applications reviewed as administrative or consent calendar items. In 1973, almost one-quarter (23.7%) of all appli- cations were given administrative-permits. In 1974, only 15% of all applications were administrative permits. The shift away from administrative permits has meant an increase in the frequency with which consent calendar procedures are utilized. In 1973, 56.5% of all applica- tions were consent calendar; for 1974, 65.2% of all appli- cations were reviewed as part of the consent calendar. 5.7.5 Staff Recommendation and Commission Action The number of cases in which the commission did not follow staff recommendations for denying an applica- tion increased when 1974 is co-npared to 1973. In 1974, the staff's recommendations for denials were followed in 60.8% of all cases; while they were sustained 64.5% of the time in 1973. The commission continues to follow the staff's recommendations for approval with virtually no exception. In 1974, 99% of all applications with staff approval received permits and the figure was 99.2% in the preceding year. 5.8 The South Coast Regional Commission and the Coastline of Los Angeles County: Two Year Trends 5.8.1 Permit Activity and Commission Action There have been slight changes in the mix of project types approved in permits for Los Angeles County when 1973 and 1974 are examined separately. In 1974, there was an increase in the frequency of commercial (1.0%) and industrial (3 17) rojects, and.a decrease in residen- tial development i4.-2%5 -81- TABLE 46 PERMIT ACTIVITY: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1973 N a t u r e o f P r o j e c t Applica- Commer- Indus- Single Multi- Public Recrea- Dredg- Demoli- tions cial trial Family Family Utility tion ing tion Other Total Received* 110 62 345 197 96 39 2 21 37 909 % Row 12.0 6.8 37.8 22.0 10.5 4.3 0.2 2.3 4.1 100. co Approved 105 62 341 170 96 39 2 21 37 873 % Row 12.0 7.1 39.1 19.5 11.0 4.5 2 2.4 4.2 100. % Column 95.0 100. 98.9 86.3 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 96.04 Denied 5 0 4 27 0 0 0 0 0 36 % Row 13.9 - 11.1 75.0 - - - - - 100. % Column 5.0 1.1 13.7 3.96 *Does not include applications, classified as "pending" and not acted upon by 12/31/73. Missing Observations: 18 TABLE 47 PERMIT ACTIVITY: LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1974 N a t u r e 0 f P r o j e c t Applica- Commer- Indus- Single Multi- Public Recrea- Dredg- Demoli- tions cial trial Family Family Utility tion ing tion Other Total Received 107 74 291 155 59 35 7 50 21 799 % Row 13.4 9.3 36.4 19.4 7.4 4.4 0.9 6.3 2.6 100. Approved 95 73 276 120 58 34 6 48 19 729 % Row 13.0 10.0 37.9 16.5 8.0 4.7 0.8 6.6 2.6 % Column 88.8 98.6 94.8 77.4 98.3 97.1 85.7 96.0 90.5 91.2 Denied 12 1 15 35 1 1 1 2 2 70 % Row 17.1 1.4 21.4 50.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.9 2.9 % Column 11.2 1.4 5.2 22.6 1.7 2.9 14.3 4.0 9.5 8.8 Missing observations: 7 There has also been a substantial change in the denial rate of applications. In 1973, for each denial, 24.25 applications were approved. In 1974, for each denial, 10.4 permits were granted. 5.8.2 Development of Vacant Land As with the figures reported for the region, there has been an increase in the number of vacant acres developed in Los Angeles County. In 1973, 266.4 acres were developed; in 1974, 1,051.9. Again it is possible better record keep- ing is responsible for part of the increase. Nevertheless, it is clear substantial amounts of open space are being utilized. The predominant future use of vacant land would appear to continue to be residential development. 5.8.3 Location of Permits There has been a substantial shift in permit appli- cations from the area nearest the water toward the landward 1,000 yard boundary. In 1973, 45.8% of all permits were granted for land less than 100 yards from the mean high tide line. In 1974, only 20% of all permits were within this area and 33.7% were-more than 500 yards from the coast. The mix of projects nearest the water is also changing. The distribution of denied applications in 1974 in Los Angeles County is similar to the observation made for the region as a whole. For Los Angeles County, 39.7% of all denials were at least 500 yards from the mean high tide line. In 1973., 44.2% of the denials were in this last zone. 5.9 The South Coast Regional Commission and the Coastline of Orange County 5.9.1 Permit Activity and Commission Action The change in the mix of permits has been less pronounced in Orange County. For 1973, residential develop- ment accounted for 79% of all permits while in 1974, 74.2% of permits developed residential facilities. There was an increase of 5% in demolition projects, but no appreciable rise in other categories. For every application rejected in 1973, 28.2% were approved by the commission for Orange County. In 1974, for each denial, only 13.5 applications were approved. -84- TABLE 48 PERMIT ACTIVITY: ORANGE COUNTY, 1973 N a t u r e 0 f P r o e c t Applica- Commer- Indus- Single Multi- Public Recrea- Dredg- Demoli- tions cial trial Family Family Utility tion ing tion, Other Total Received 73 5 411 379 48 37 4 8 34 999* % Row 7.3 0.5 41.1 37.9 4.8 3.7 0.4 0.8 3.4 100. If Approved 70 5 410 347 47 36 4 8 32 959 % Row 7.3 0.5 42.8 36.2 4.9 3.8 o.4 0.8 3.3 - % Column 95.9 100. 99.8 91.6 97.9 97.3 100. 100. 94.1 96.0 Denied 3 - - 29 - I - - 1 34 % Row 8.8 85.3 2.9 -2.9 - % Column 4.1 7.7 2.7 2.9 3.4 *Includes 6 applications classified as pending on 12/31/73. Missing observations: 12 TABLE 49 PERMIT ACTIVITY: ORANGE COUNTY, 1974 N a t u r e o f P r o j e c t Applica- Contmer- Indus- Single Multi- Public Recrea- Dredg- Demoli- tions cial trial Family Family Utility tion ing tion Other Total Received 68 3 319 281 37 36 3 44 11 802* % Row 8.5 o.4 39.8 35.0 4.6 4.5 o.4 5.5 1.4 100. co Approved 62 3 316 236 35 35 3 43 11 744 % Row 8.3 o.4 42.5 31.7 4.7 4.7 o.4 5.8 1.5 - % C o lumn 91.2 100. 99.1 84.0 94.6 97.2, 100. 97.7 100. 92.8 Denied 6 - 2 44 2 1 - - - 55 % Row 10.9 3.6 80.0 3.6 1.8 - % Column 8.8 0.6 15.7 5.4 2.8 6.9 *Includes 3 applications classified as "pending" on 12/31/74. 5.9.2 Development of Vacant Land In contrast to the activity in Los Angeles County, development of vacant land in Orange County actu- ally decreased between the two years. In 1973, 350.7 acres were developed; this dropped to 202.6 acres in 1974. The future use of vacant land is still overwhelmingly residential. In 1974, 87.2% of all permits developing open space, planned residential facilities. This was down slightly from 88.r/. in 1973. 5.9.3 Location of Projects In 1974, 42.9% of all approved projects were 500 yards or more from the mean high tide line and 25.2% of the permits were 100 yards or less from the water. In 1973, 29.2% of the permits were in the zone furthest from the water; 31.1% in the zone nearest the water. This is similar to the shift inland found in Los Angeles County. Almost one quarter (24.5%) of all denied applications in 1974 were at least 500 yards from the water. This was an increase of 16.3% over 1973. The overwhelming use of land nearest the water in Orange County is for residential development. In 1974, 59.2% of all projects within 100 yards were residential. In 1973, 55% of all projects were residential. The two- year trend indicates an increasing concentration of resi- dential development in land near the water. 6.0 THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND THE LOCAL AREAS The South Coast Regional Commission has final authority for development of coastal land and water that lies within the territorial boundaries of 16 cities and 9 unincorporated communities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Each of these sub-regions had final authority for development of coastal land and water prior to 1973 and exercised that authority in attempting to package development of the coastal zone in accordance with local preferences. This fragmented process produced a coastal zone in southern California that varied from exclusive residences to indus- trialized ports to mixed residential and commercial areas. During the two years in which permits from the coastal commission were required, the new developments tended to reflect the pre-existing community patterns in terms of land use. In order to survey permit activity at the commu- nity level, the data have been organized for each sub-area in much the same way the information for the commission and -87- each county was presented. A complete set of information on each community is available upon request. Interested indi- viduals are invited to complete the order form at the end of the study for information from any one community. This section highlights the sub-area data. 6.1 Permit Activity The City of Newport Beach was the community in which permit activity was the greatest. In two years, 480 applica- tions for development of coastal property in Newport Beach were received by the commission. More than 95% of these applications (459) were approved. Residential development was the object of two-thirds of the permits granted for Newport Beach. The next most active community in terms of the number of applications and permits granted was the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County, Malibu. A total of 334 applications were filed, with residential use accounting for 80%. Of the 265 applications planning to develop residential facilities, 246 were approved. The second most active areas in terms of permits issued in each county were San Clemente and Long Beach. The incor- porated community of San Clemente was the location of 290 applications and 273 permits. Residential development was involved with 85% of these permits. Of the four most active cuimmunities,, residential develop- ment was the most frequent object of permits in all sub-areas except the City of Long Beach. Here it accounted for only 36% of the 252 permits granted. Industrial development in Los Angeles County and the South Coast Region was concentrated in the City of Long Beach. During 1973 and 1974, 134 industrial permits for Los Angeles County and 145 for the South Coast Region were processed. More than four-fifths (81.9%) of all industrial permits granted by the commission were for development in Long Beach. Commercial development in the permit zone is more dispersed than industrial activity. Thirteen sub-areas (9 in Los Angeles County) had more than 10% of their permits involved with commercial development. Long Beach had the greatest number of commercial permits (36), but the 28 commer- cial permits in Marina del Rey accounted for 45.9% of all permits in that community. Similarly, the 24 commercial projects in Redondo Beach represented 31.6% of all permits granted for property in Redondo Beach. -88- Four Orange County communities had more than 10% of their permits involved with commercial development--Sunset Beach, Seal Beach, Laguna Beach, and the unincorporated areas of Dana Point. The greatest number of commercial projects were found in Newport Beach, but these 39 permits accounted for only 8.5% of all permits. The 30 commercial projects in Laguna Beach meant 12.4% of all development in Laguna Beach was commercial in nature. In terms of the number of residential units developed in 1973 and 1974, Long Beach was the most active area. Although 304 residential permits were granted for Newport Beach, the 92 permits in Long Beach developed 2,304 units. Newport Beach, with the greatest number of residential permits, had 758 units developed, fewer than six other areas. Following Long Beach in terms of most residential units developed were: Marina del Rey, 1,953; Laguna Niguel, 1,769; San Clemente, 1,765; and Huntington Beach, 1,340. Recreational development in Los Angeles County was concentrated in Malibu (23 permits) and Long Beach (18). In Orange County, Newport Beach (43) had the most recrea- tional permits. Huntington Beach had the second greatest number of recreational permits of any community in Orange County with six permits. The following areas had no recreational development in 1973 or 1974: El Segundo, El Porto, Seal Beach, Costa Mesa and Emerald Bay. 6.2 Use of Vacant Land In 1973 and 1974, 1,813 permits were granted that would involve the development of vacant land. By number of permits developing open space, vacant land was developed most frequently in the City of San Clemente with 222 permits. In Malibu, 215 permits planned to develop vacant land. These areas were followed by Huntington Beach (195), Newport Beach (166), Laguna Beach (121), and Capistrano Beach (116). Looking at the acreage of vacant land developed, San Pedro leads all communities with 801 acres. Long Beach was second with 157.8 acres of open space developed, followed by Dana Point, 150.7; Malibu, 109.8; and Laguna Niguel, 100.2. Several communities had less than 1.0 acre of open space developed. These included Torrance, Wilming- ton, and Emerald Bay. -89- 6.3 Spatial Distribution As noted earlier,, the physical configuration of land and pre-existing land use patterns can influence the location of projects within the permit area. With this relationship in mind, it is interesting to look at the spatial distribution of projects in the different areas of the region. In four communities, at least 40% of the development occurred within 100 yards of the mean high tide line. Of all permits granted for the unincorporated community of Malibu, 31% were within 50 yards of the water. In Marina del Rey, 43% of all permits developed land less than 100 yards from the mean high tide line. The City of Long Beach had 48% of its permits within 100 yards and 28.5% of its permits less than 50 yards from the mean high tide line. In Orange County, the City of Newport Beach had the most intense development near the water, with 45% of its permits within 100 yards of the mean high tide line. Examining the permits granted for development of land in the first half of the permit zone reveals that Playa del Rey had 19% of its permits concentrated within 100 yards of the water and 57.4% of development was situated within 500 yards of the mean high tide line. This pattern of concentration of development in a middle zone at least 100 yards from the beach was evident in Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Laguna Beach, South Laguna, Capistrano Beach, and San Clemente. 6.4 Construction Costs More construction dollars were approved for Long Beach ($171,874,125) than for any other community in the South Coast Region. The area with next greatest level of-approved construction dollars was Dana Point with $92,746,000. Laguna Niguel and Laguna Beach each had more than $60,000,000 in approved construction costs. 6.5 Permit Review: Approvals and Denials The South Coast Regional Commission denied 196 applica- tions- during 1973 and 1974." A majority of these denials (63.8%) came during 1974:.: Although 48.1% of all applicatlons in 1973 and 1974 were for development of land in Los Angeles County, 54.6% of all denials were for applications from Los Angeles County. The distribution of denied applications was not uniform. Malibu had 25 denials, or 13% of all denied applications. -go- Huntington Beach had more denied applications than any other co-mnunity (27). Newport Beach (19) and San Clemente (17) accounted for 50.7% of all denials from Orange County. The three areas--Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and San Clemente--accounted for 88.7% of all denials in Orange County. Venice had 19 applications denied and Redondo Beach and Santa Monica each had 10 applications denied. The four areas of Los Angeles County with more than 10 denials --Malibu, Venice, Santa Monica, and Redondo Beach-- accounted for 60.4% of all applications denied for Los Angeles County. 7.0 A CONCLUDING NOTE This two-year review of permit activity, the second in a three-part series of studies based on the "Scorecard" information system, had two main objectives: to provide information on the permit actions of the South Coast Commission and explore the possible implications of the observable trends. The information contained in sections 2.0 and 3.0 raised several important issues revolving around at least two major points: the classification of applications in review procedures and increasing public access opportuni- ties in the coastal zone. The analysis suggests there is reason for concern and further research designed to create a better match between applications raising environmental or policy questions and information levels.involved in hearing procedures and to develop public recreational opportunities. Within this latter concern it appears more discussion and research will be needed to produce a governmental mechanism with the financial capacity to expand recreational facilities. _91- Appendix A The "Scorecard" project places 26 categories of infor- mation pertaining to each application received by the South Coast Regional Commission into computer formats. The following list describes the information set produced through the Scorecard project. I. Physical Location A. city B. sub-region C. census tract D. proximity to mean high tide line II. Physical Characteristics A. nature of project B. present use of land C. total square footage D. lot size E. number of residential units F. bedrooms G. parking space H. building height I. net acreage III. Economic Characteristics A. anticipated rent B. anticipated sales price C. construction costs IV. Administrative Characteristics A. date of permit application submission B. type of permit C. California Environmental Quality Act Classification D. staff recommendations E. commission action F. conditions for approval (if imposed) G. state action if appealed H. date of decision on application -92- Appendix B Order Blank for Subregional Print-out Those individuals requesting the print-out of partic- ular con=nities and cities, please complete the form below. Three free print-outs will be allowed if the book is purchased. There will be a charge for any additional print-outs. Name Street Address city State Zip Code Number of Print-outs LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Unincorporated Communities Unincorporated Communities Malibu Sunset Beach Marina del Rey Emerald Bay El Porto South Laguna Municipalities Laguna Niguel Dana Point 'Los Angeles City Capistrano Beach Pacific Palisades Playa del Rey Municipalities Venice Seal Beach San Pedro Huntington Beach Wilmington Newport Beach Santa Monica Costa Mesa El Segundo Laguna Beach Manhattan Beach San Clemente Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Torrance Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes RETURN FORM TO: Sea Grant Program Marine Advisory Services University of Southern California SSW-308 Los Angeles, California 90007 -93- T 7FM 7 P. ok 11TER 3 6668 00002 4531