[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
coastal zone 16. A@ informat'on Z Center 04,izi All COASTAL :Z.ON,FluREV,,,EL,04'PME--t4T',I't4z)A.7 4o /-S ,@ a /1 0 1 " A, A4, rv A.V LOS ANGUES 4 C a C) (@- CG A,S`T,*N AN A,NALVS@- 1&4*0 F T- -V-sou/ 0/10 A* *:, N 4.4 REMO' L S M- I S'ibN ($1 fO fD C, A, .00 0, 0 00 f 00 0 io .4":, / AV " / io 41 0 A) ,4(1 4%,,@ @v 'v & I-V ,A@ 4L 4c, / 4. Q7 V, / n.)M4R,K' S.'W-SENTRAUB 7 A. A%p // 0 / I-V / , SA, _RCPERT WARREN @Ap ell 4@0 4L I -'V A 1 0) j 0, ev ko vo1 00 0 A, V. 0,10 @ 1*v 'AV 0 @v 3@ A) 4, 4b 0 0 4 I'# IN 0 A, OA, AIM 0 O-V *4w Q C, 0 41V @,) 100 0 0* " Qj I, .. A* -V &V 0 "') 0 < 'N A, I C)o 1-4 14V 0 A, 0 00 I-V 0, Av kv 0 I *IV / I 0c) / 0 C) AV Z) A, Al 00 00 > Cf, 117, A,, 0,3 47 .11 Ak4 Al AV %W *-, 6.4 4u -if Ak GC 57.2 A, " I W06, 'Ai la@ro iIl .L6 no. 10-74 4@1 SEA GRANT PROGRAM - UNIYERSITY OFWUTHERN CALIFORNIA @3 3 U DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COAS' I AL SE R VICES CENT ER 2234 SOUTH HOESON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 COASTAL ZONE DEVELOPMENT IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION'S FIRST YEAR by Mark S. Rosentraub and Robert Warren School of Planning and Urban Studies University of Southern California Sea Grant Program University of Southern California October, 1974 USC-SG-10-74 z4- C72 C" Property of CSC Libravy LU LA- This work is a result of research sponsored by the NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce, under grant # 04-03-158-45 The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwith- standi ng.any copyright notation- that may appear hereon. USC-SG-10-74 V"zd ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the following people who have helped us in the production of this report: Byron Washom, for computer and research assistance, as well as several valuable technical sugges- tions; Philip J. Symonds and Marvia V. Rood for critical reviews of the document; Ramona Soto and Lucille Ortner for their patient typing and secretarial support. We also wish to thank the Staff and Commissioners of Region Vfor their cooperation in this research effort. PREFACE The development of the coastal lands of Los Angeles and Orange Counties have 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 2, 000 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 inter- ested 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,re- corded 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 report, drawing from the above data, has been designed to ana- lyze trends and patterns, as well as provide a detailed breakdown of permit requests and Commission actions during the first year of its operations. A list of the information categories utilized in the reporting system is included in Appendix A. -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledge me nt s ....................................... i Preface ................... ............................. ii Introduction ............................................. 1 The South Coast Regional Commission and the Permit Process ....................................... 4 The Commission and the Coastline of Los Angeles County ..................................... 14 Demographic Snapshot ..................... o ........ 14 Summary of Permit Activity: 1973 ...................... 14 The Commission and the Coastal Zone: Policy Issues ....... o.... o....... o .......... 36 The Coastal Commission and the Local Areas .................................. ... 49 A Concluding Note ............................... o.. 54 Appendix "A": Scorecard ........................ o ........ 56 Appendix "B": Local Area Tables ......................... 57 ------------------------------------- K E-R-N -------I------ @@2 --------- - --------------- ------ zas ------------ A'PZd ccei C 0. 5 14 6': 0' Ulu % jo 0 i z @jz Z:. Is @1- 5 O:z 0 0 Reseda 5 Burbank Altadena 101 101 1 Glendale Pasadena Arcadia Hollywood 10 101 Alhambra Pacific Pa I is ad es 10 West Mpntrrey Covina ar Malibu 10 Santa Monica Pt. Dume 5 A LN08E L E S 19 39 I ngl ewood Whittier Playa Del LOS A E ANGELES COUNTY Rey 11 7 60 CO. LOS El Segundo (2@ MAJOR FREEWAYS & HIGHWAYS kyrtwood L E G E N D Gardena Compton Norwall Manhattan 91 91 U. S. (10 Interstate Hermosa Route Highway Redondo Torrance State Highway Palos Verdes miles Estates scale in 0. 1 2 3 4 5 67 Rolling Hills San Lon cartography by Pedro Be C Santa Ana S. Garboushfan INTRODUCTION California's coastline stretches almost 1100 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 ecologi- cally fragile land-water interface 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 state-wide 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 main- land shoreline, excluding San Francisco Bay* and coastal islands. The six commissions, 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 modifications on structures or land from the mean high tide line, landward for 1000 yards requires a "permit authorizing such development from the regional commission and, if re- quired 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 regional commission. Yet another step is possible under the Act. Appeals from either favorable or unfavorable decisions by a A separate agency, the Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission is responsible for regulating land fill and diking in a 100 foot zone around the Bay. -2- 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 development and regional economies of a set of agencies mandated to take environmental con- siderations into account in considering land-use permit applications. Even though the six regional commissions and a state commission have been operating for almost 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 tabu- lations 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. The 1973 Annual Report of the State Commission indicates that 6,236 permit applications were filed with the regional commissions during that year. just under 40 percent of these, or 2,456, were sub- mitted to the South doast agency. A total of 958 or 39 percent were filed for developments in Los Angeles County. As a starting point in devising methods of describing and analysing coastal development under the.regulations of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, this report will. look in detail at permit activities within Los Angeles County during 1973. It is hoped that the design of this study will pro- vide 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 1973 baseline data for Los Angeles County against which both past.and future years can be compared. Two scales of analysis will be used in the study. Initially, data is reported for the coastal permit zone of Los Angeles County as a whole. Thi.s 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 coastal cities and major unincorporated communities of 'the county. A look at these subareas, over which ten city governments and the county board of super- visors previously exercised final land use control, will allow a com- parison of the 1973 permits with the existing character.of each area and a comparison among various sections of the coast for similarities and differences in permit patterns. The first part of the report, treating the permit zone of Los Angeles County as the unit of analysis, will include several sections. -3- A description of the Commission, its work force, and permit applica- tion procedures is presented to familiarize readers with the South Coast Regional Commission. A second section reviews the number and type of permits received by the Commission; the location of projects within the permit area; the present use of land in permit application; and the procedures used in granting permits. This review is followed by an analysis of the permit data. The County analysis is followed by a discussion of permit activity within the 10 cities and 3 unincorporated regions of Los Angeles County. A complete breakdown of permit activ- ity, project type, present use of land, and decision procedures for each city is included. THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION AND THE PERMIT PROCESS The South Coast Regional Commission's authority extends for almost 50 miles. From Pt. Dume to Long Beach, landward for 1000 yards, and seaward for 3 miles, the Commission is jointly responsible for the development of an area commonly designated as the Coastal Zone. The jurisdiction of the South Coast Commission includes 200,000 people and an area within the territorial boundaries of ten cities and three unincor- porated areas of the County. 1.0 The Commission and Their Staff The South Coast Regional Commission is served by 12 Commis- sioners 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 6 categories. I One Supervisor from each county (2) 2. One city councilman from the City of Los Angeles selected by the president of such city council (1) 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 representatives 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 -4- 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 County with their tenure in office set to expire on January 1, 1977. Name Appointed By Representing Donald B. Bright, Governor public represen- chrmn tative Ralph A. Dietrich* Board of Super- Orange County visors Rimmon C. Fay Senate Rules public represen- Committee tative James A. Hayes Board of Super- Los Angeles visors 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 represen- tative Robert F. Rooney Senate Rules public represen- Committee tative Judy Rosener Speaker of public represen- Assembly tative Russ Rubley City Selection City Council, Committee Iong Beach Carmen Warschaw Speaker of public represen- Assembly tative Donald E. Wilson* So. Calif. Assoc- So. Calif. Assoc- iation of Gov'ts iation of Gov'ts Proposition 20, the Coastal Zone Conservation initiative, charged the state and regional commissions with two main Mr. R@ Dietrich replaced the deceased County Supervisor, Ronald Caspers, and Mr. Wilson replaced Mr. J. Reidy. Both the late Mr. Caspers and Mr. Reidy were members of the Coastal Commission in 1973-the year this report is largely concerned with. -5- 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 respon- sibilities, a 12 member staff has been retained. Captain M. Carpernter (U.S.N. ret. J serves as the Executive Director of the Commission. He is assisted by a Deputy. In addition to these individuals, 10 planners are on the staff. Their activities are di- vided between the two major responsibilities of the Commission. Five planners are involved with the development of the comprehensive plan. The remaining staff planners are 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 screening., In the initial screening process the Deputy 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, Commission hearing on the application is required. within 90 days. Staff members make another review of all applications at least 7 days before the scheduled hearing date. The permits are checked for any remaining questions concerning the documentation, and per- tinent 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 applications and make their recommendation to the Commissioners. The South Coast Regional Commission met 42 times to discuss and vote on permit applications between February and December, 1973. 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 9 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 -6- 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, recreation areas and natural reserves is increased to the maximum extent possible by appropriate dedication; 2. adequate and properly located public recreation areas and wildlife preserves are reserved; 3. provisions are made for solid and liquid waste treat- ment, disposition, and management which will mini- mize 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. " 2.0 The PermitApproval 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. Proposition 20 gave each local coastal commission the power to grant permits within a 1000 yard strip of land that extended,from the mean high tide line, landward. Within the 1000 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 development 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: 2.1 Public Hearing Procedures - The public hearing process can extend foc 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 execu- -7- tive director of the commission must prepare a summary of the appli- cation 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. A fee of $250 per public hearing application is required. 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 & regional 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 2. 1. Applications placed on the consent calendar require a $50 filing fee. 2.3 Administrative Permits - Administrative permits are appli- cations approved by the executive director of the coastal commission. An administrative permit must satisfy at least ONE of the following conditions: 2.3.1 Repairs and maintenance worth less than $25,000 to existing facilities; 2.3.2 Other, developments costing less than $10,000. (An application fee of $25 must accompany all administrative permit applications). 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 6ommission chairperson prior-to action. Following the executive director's approval, a formal application following one of the three procedures stated above must be filed within five working days. 3. 0 Appeals to the State Commission Section 27423 of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act* provided any person "aggrieved by approval of a permit by the Regional California Public Resources Code, Division 18, California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. -8- Commission" with the right to appeal to the State Commission. This same protection is afforded applicants 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 substan- tial issues. 4.0 The Framework of this Report 4.1 Boundaries - All of the permit application 's discussed in this report were submitted for work in Los Angeles County. The boun- daries of Los Angeles County used for this report were the territorial limits of the County. In the analysis of the permit decisions of the South Coast Regional Commission in Part II, involving sub-areas of the county, the boundaries of 9 cities and 3 unincorporated areas are utilized. These.sub-areas are identified by a map on pages 12-13, and include the following places: Unincorporated Communities Municipalities Los Angeles County Santa Monica Malibu El Segundo Marina del Rey* Manhattan Beach El Porto Hermosa Beach Redondo Beach Municipalities Torrance Palos Verdes Estates** Los Angeles City Rancho Palos Verdes Pacific Palisades Long Beach Playa del Rey Venice San Pedro Wilmington Marina del Rey - the data for Marina del Rey includes not only the area unincorporated administered by the County, but the area within the City of Los Angeles, East of Lincoln Boulevard to the 1000 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. -9- 4.2 Definitions For purposes of analysis, a series of terms are used in this report to describe various aspects of Commission activity. A short description of each term is presented here to familiarize readers with the terminology used. 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 residence; multi-family residence; public utility; recreation; dredging; demolition; other. Existing use of land at the time of a permit application is iden- tified in their report as the "present use" of the land. These cate- gories are the same as those used for project type with two exceptions. "Dredging" and demolition" are dropped and "vacant" and "agricultural" are added. The categories are defined in the following manner: 4.2.2 Commercial - Commercial projects include all businesses not involved in a manufacturing process. 4.2.3 Industrial - Any land or project used in a manu- facturing process is classified as an industrial property. 4.2.4 Multi-Family Residences - Structures with more than 1 separate living unit are classified as multi-unit residences. ** 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 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. The error is being corrected, and the two year report will completely separate all of the preincorporation permits. _10- 4.2.5 Public Utilities - All activities designated by a city, county, state or federal agency as a public utility or private utilities were considered utilities in this report. Water and power projects, street maintenance programs, etc. , are examples. 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 pri- vate tennis court, a bike path, recreational vehicle park, or the extension of a pier. 4.2.7 Agricultural - Any parcel of land which is currently tilled is considered agricultural land. 4.2.8 Vacant - Land, not involved in any process and/or upon which no structures are standing, is classified as vacant land. 4.2.9 Demolition - Demolition projects involve the destruction of existing buildings. 4.2. 10 Dredging - Any filling, diking or dredging of any land mass, submerged or not submerged, was considered a dredging project. 4.2.11 Other - This final project type category was created to classify all residual proposals not described by the other existing classifications. 5.0 Missing Observations This report is concerned with 931 applications acted upon by the Coastal Commission. In some tables data on fewer than 931 appli- cations is presented. These missing observations are a function of error from at least 3 sources. Some of the missing observations are a result of mistakes in recording information. In other instances, appli- cations may have been incomplete. Some of the information 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 information still allows for a discussion and analysis of outcomes. S.. Culver L.A.County Santa City M LOS ANGELES onica ...... .... E. Marina Del Rey(LACY) C .......... N Venice :X . K@i Marina 7: Del Rey Westchester (LA City) Pla@La Del Rey A CITY) E I Segundo X 1,000 YARD PERMIT ZONE Tract 6202 So. COAST REGIONAL COASTAL COMMISSION (LACO) CENTRAL PORTION LOS ANGELES COUNTY Manhattan LEGEND Beach E3 1, OC YA11 IOUNDAI OF COASTAL COMMISSION Hermosa -11.9-phy by Beach -Y .1 R-1. P.,@. Carson V11d., rp.,,i,a ju- 1973) King H k, Redondo B at, e h Torrance clifton (L.A. City) Harbor City(L.A.CIW) Wilmington (L.A.C@TY) Palos Verdes Rollini Hillis Estates Est tes INSERT MAP OF K*K:i*f NOR-ESTERN AREA X.: Rol ling Hills Rancho Palos Verdes s Verdes Peninsu 1. Palo San 1 2 .."A Pedroc-CITY) -X. .... ..... "X. X - x 1 0 0 0 Y A R D P E R M I T Z 0 N E SO. COAST REGIONAL COASTAL COMM I S S 1 0 N SOUTHERN PORTION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Lakewood L.A. County Carson Lo@ Alamitos L.A. County -:77N .......... LONG Rossmoor A BEACH ::3 Wilmington ii:iq ....... ........ (City of L. 7@ ...... ... .. ........... .......... v ............ Be ............ ................. Long Beach a seal rbor B ach V San 'fEiiii' L. A. Pedro Harbor .A. (CitY .1 L.A.) LEGEND .......... of co stdi ommission scale in miles 0 1/4 112 *4 9 1 y- ftogyaPhy J, CA y S. G.1b...hi.n -13- THE COMMISSION AND THE COASTLINE OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1.0 A Pemoqrapj@iq_Spap_ shot* The portion of Los Angeles County over which the South Coast Commission regulates coastal development contains 200,000 residents. This population is located within the boundaries of ten cities and 3 unincorporated communities. The cities range in population size,from Los Angeles with 2,816,061 and Long Beach with 358,633 to El Segundo with 15,620 and Palos Verdes Estates with 13,641. From another perspective, as Table 1. 1 indicates, there are substantial differences in the percentage of a city's total population within the 1,000 yard permit zone, varying from 2 percent in Los Angeles to 70 percent in Hermosa Beach. Similar variations exist among cities in the proportion of their total land area located in the permit zone. In racial composition, 2. 2 percent of the population is Negro and 10.6 is of Spanish Heritage. Both figure s are well below their percent- ages of the overall county population which are 10. 8 and 18. 5 respec- tively. Median family income along the coast is $11,924 but ranges from $23,938 in Palos Verdes Estates to $8,388 in the Venice district of Los Angeles City. A comparable range is also present in housing and rental values. These differences are not randomly distributed but reflect signi- ficant variations in how cities have "packaged" their coastal areas. Some communities, such as Palos Verdes Estates, are almost exclusively residential. The port section of Los Angeles is heavily industrialized. Hermosa Beach has a distinct bea ch- recreation orientation. Portions of Long Beach and Marina del Rey have intensive commercial- marine recreation-residential mixes. -Chus the coastal zone over which the Commission exercises its permit authority varies from the rest of the county in a number of socio-economic characteristics and, equally important, sections of the coast differ substantially from one another. 2.0 Summary of Permit Activity: _1973 2.1 Number and Types of. Permit Applications All demographic and census information cited in this report is from Symonds, Warren, and Stallard's Statistical Handbook of Coastal Zone Socio-Economic and Housing__ Characteristics - Los Angeles County, USC Sea Grant Program: 1974. -14- 1"NZ MARINE ADVISORY PROGRAM * SEAGRANTPROGRAM a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Public Participation Encouraged for EIS Review Editor's Note: Within the near future, the Advisory Program requested the Office 1) By what means, methods and Bureau of Land Management will be re- of the Mayor of Los Angeles, Seashore mechanisms, can individuals effectively leasing its First Draft, Environmental Im- Environmental Alliance (SEA), Western participate in the Review and Comment pact Statement concerning Southern Oil and Gas Association, and the Bure- processes afforded by the.Environmental California Offshore Leasing for hydrocar- au of Land Management to respond to Review devices? bon production for public scrutiny. In an the following topics:" 2) What concepts, procedures, topics I. andlor data do you suggest that the par- attempt to stimulate and facilitate public "For maximum currency and impact it ticipants carefully consider during their participation in the approaching review should discuss the question of how the period, Lawrence Leopold, Resources public can best address themselves to two own evaluation and input?" Specialist of the USC Sea Grant Marine major points. Office of the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, The Honorable Tom Bradley by Norman Emerson, ExecUtive Assistant to the Mayor Mayor Bradley has asked me to answer America's offshore reserves. An effective program for citizens must the questions you have raised concerning Recent events have demonstrated that a seek greater and greater numbers of well- oil development on the Outer Continental single-minded federal government in informed and active participants. There is Shelf off the coast of Southern California. Washington desperately needs balancing no substitutefor numbers if you are seeking You asked how individuals can participate by other levels of government, and above to influencethe many levels of government. in bringing scrutiny to bear on this matter, a//, by the people themselves. While we in In turn, a growing effort s.pawns better and and what specifics they might stress in their localgovernmentcan call forconscionable better information-the truth can only be eff orts. federal policies concerning the exploita- obscured by exclusivity and hasty action by Early last summer, Mrs. Shirley Solomon tion of national resources, we will only be those who would impose their judgment was rallying citizens in Southern California heard if we are speaking in behalf of an upon it. under the banner of the Seashore En- articulate and widespread public opinion. As to what specifics citizens might best vironmental Alliance (SEA). She had re- in informing and focussing this opinion, concern themselves with, the Mayor feels quest&d that Mayor Bradley permit his you are performing a role essential to the that there is a unique important role for name to appear on the organization's let- interests of -all the people of Los Angeles. them to play.Citizens can think "unthinka- terhead. The Mayor declined the request, Together We may succeed in bringing ble thoughts" out loud, and often these very sending the following letter. reason to b Iear on this matter of such great thoughts reveal the heart of the matter. "I am writing you to commend the role that importance to the citizens of Southern Once expressed, they cannot be hidden S.E.A. is playing in the question of drilling California." away again. Therefore, public hearings on the outer continental shelf off Southern There is a clear distinction between the have recently taken on a new importance in California. As you know, I am equally con- roles to be played by local government and American decision-making. cerned that current federal plans to open by the citizens themselves; and the citizens Finally, citizens should not be disheart- our offshore areas to drilling may be mov- most probably carry the greatest potential ened by the prospect. of weighing many ing more quickly than circumstances merit. influence. Parallel efforts by both can con- volumes of technological data. Often the V6 are most concerned with potential im- tribute to enhanced effectiveness but an crux of the real issue lies outside such pacts on the California coastline before the isolated effort by local government, alone, studies, and will reveal itself to any compe- Coastal Zone Conservation Commission would be unlikely to succeed without citizen tent person after a thoughtful and honest can adopt its plan, under the provisions of support-while citizen movements often consideration of the various simplified ma- Proposition 20, and the lack of a national succeed in spite of a contrary local gov- terials now available, representing the policy and priorities for exploitation of all of ernmental posture. spectrum of opinion on the matter. VOLUME 1 NUMBER 3 NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 1974 Western Oil & Gas Association - by Arthur 0. Spaulding, Petroleum Consultant The United States Department of the I n- These projections give eff ect, oci the one current prices, the outflow of dollars will be terior is currently involved in the steps re- hand, to reduced growth rates in consump- measured in tens of billions, and more infla- quired by the National Environmental Pol- tion brought about by conservation meas- tion is inescapable as dollars are printed to icy Act precedent to the sale of federal oil ures and higher prices and, on the other make up deficits. It is inevitable that most of and gas leases off the Southern California hand, to the effects of natural gas supply us will be working for oriental potentates coastline. With nodelays, thesale maytake shortages. In the next decade, as natural who may choose at will to disrupt our place in mid-1 975, a year and a half after it gas supplies diminish, natural gas markets economy by shutting off our oil supplies. began. must be converted to fuel oil. On the other hand, we may choose to Most ofthe publicity about the impending The demand projections outlined above solve our dilemma by resorting to two de- sale has related to the opposition which the should be compared with supplies availa- vices: first, by being conservative with our sale has engendered, and the ways and ble from domestic sources. In the future, diminishing energy supplies, and second, means by which the sale might be forestal- Alaska may be counted on to provide 1.6 by developing new supplies as fast as we led or, at the very least, delayed. Very little million B/ D in 1980 and 2.2 million B/ D in can. In the energy markets of the United has been written on why the sale is consid- 1985. The other principal western source is States, there is no substitute for petroleum ered, by some, absolutely essential to the California, where production is estimated at for at least the next decade, so our efforts welfare and economy of the United States. 800,000 B/ D in 1980, and 650,000 B/ D in must be aimed at saving fuel and finding - Since 1970, United States dependence 1985. If these supply sources are combined new oil and gas fields. The Outer Continen- on foreign oil has risen from 23% to 38%, with other supplies of lesser importance, a tal Shelves of the 0nited States are the last largely as a result of diminishing internal shortage of 700,000 B/D in 1980 and remaining frontiers where truly vast new supplies and accelerating demand. As a 800,000 B/D in 1985 from domestic oil supplies may be found; hence the impor- consequence, the United States now finds reserves is obvious. tance of Outer Continental Shelf lease itself in the embarrassing and subservient sales. position of relying upon others for an ap- The question may then be asked, "What To conclude, the reason why the sale of preciable part of its very lifeblood--energy. are we going to do to satisfy this demand?" OCS leases has been proposed is that a The Arab embargo of last winter brought Are we going to continue to buy oil'trom very serious energy supply problem has the implications of such dependence and others, chiefly the Arabs and other Middle developed in the United States since 1970. its attendant hazards and discomforts Eastern nations, or are we going to make Without new supplies, the U.S. is in grave squarely into focus. up our supply deficits from our own danger of becoming a fourth rate power in Current demand for oil in the United sources, or must we curtail our use of pe- international relationships. The reason why States is about 16.5 million barrels per day, troleum to the point of economic stagna-, an OCS lease sale has been proposed off of which about six million B/D come from tion? The choices are that simple. Southern California is that the area pos- foreign sources. In the western United . If we rely upon foreign countries, the re- sesses the promise of containing oil and States, demand is now averaging about 2.4 sults are predictable. By 1985 the Unjted gas reserves of such size that our depend- million B/D; in 1980 it is expected to rise to States will be de 'pending upon others for ence on foreign oil should be materially re- 3.4 million B/D and in 1985 to4 million B/D. half or more of her energy requirements. At duced. Position Paper from SEA The Seashore Environmental Alliance - making process. This citizen participation offshore drilling. Additionally SEA has suc- SEA is a coalition of citizens and citizens' has also taken the form of a grassroots cessfully participated in efforts resulting in groups who are concerned about protect- watchdog agency overseeing the role and the introduction and passage of resolutions ing and preserving our California Coastline performance of the many levels of public of support by many local and statewide as the unique recreational resource it pres- agencies involved with the issue of off shore legislative entities. In September a sub- ently is. SEA's position with regard to the drilling. SEA's efforts have resulted in the committee of the United States Senate held proposed development of the Southern initiation of litigation undertaken by the hearings in Los Angeles concerning the California Outer Continental Shelf is that State of California against the Department need for offshore drilling. These hearings the oil and gas reserves which may be of Interior, the object of which is to enjoin were held at least partially in response to under the shelf represent a finite amount of further action on the outer continental shelf the public outcry generated by SEA's ef- potential energy supply which should only leasing program until N.E.P.A.- required forts to alert Southern Californians to the be developed in the case of a national comparative .environmental studies are un- threat posed to their shoreline by offshore emergency declared by the Congress. dertaken and completed. SEA has also drilling. This record of accomplishment es- SEA's approach to the entire question of glavanized public opinion throughout tablished in approximately four months is offshore drilling in Southern California Southern California. During the Labor Day especially noteworthy in view of the fact has been to maximize citizen awareness, weekend alone over 200,000 signatures knowledge and participation in the decision- were gathered on petitions opposing (Continued on page 3) 2 SEA. RESPOfJSIE (Continued from page 2) that every singl'&hour of effort expended on, umn of scientists and oil drilling experts to The conclusion is therefore inevitable behalf of SEA has been volunteered time. testify at public hearings and to submit ex- that SEA can most effectively participate in Much of this volunteer effort has drawn tensive and technical reports as input is not the Review and Comment process by doing upon the time of scientists, businessmen for lack of desire or motivation to participate that which it can do best-providing a means and lawyers all of whom have given freely in the reviewing process in a meaningful by which the interests of the people of of their time and expertise. However, the fashion-it is simply for lack of ability to hire Southern California can express theirviews wholly volunteer nature of SEA and other the necessary expertise. and their desires with respect to offshore similar grassroots citizens'groups imposes This inability to make effective use of the drilling. SEA will digest and analyze the rather severe and strict limitations upon the kind of professional expertise needed for draft E.I.S. and compare its contents with means, methods and mechanisms availa- meaningful and effective participation in the the extensive list of subjects for inclusion ble by which they can effectively participate Review and Comment processes presents which we submitted to the B.L.M. early in in the Review and Comment processes af- the reviewing agency-in this instance-the August. Rather than approaching the E.I.S. forded by Environmental Review devices. Bureau of Land Management of the De- in a narrow technical context, SEA will di- Published reports have indicated that the partment of Interior with a unique and dif- rect its efforts toward ensuring that the Western Oil and Gas Association has had a ficult situation. How can the technical input broad questions of the need for immediate budget in excess of $400,000 available to it of the Western Oil and Gas Association, to development of our O.C.S. and the exis- for its use in preparation of an independent the effect that drilling is necessary and rela- tence of alternatives to such development Environmental Impact Statement. tively safe, be evaluated with and com- have been treated extensively and in dis- $400,000 can pay for the 'salaries of many pared to the essentially non-technical input positive fashion from a national public relations experts as well as the con- of SEA to the effect that any measurable perspective-for until questions of energy sulting fees of scientists, engineers and threat to our shoreline should be elimi- supply, demand and availability are geologists. SEA has not had sufficient fund- nated prior to development of the O.C.S.? evaluated nationally, a decision regarding ing to hire a typist much less scientists, Such a comparison of apples and oranges drilling off Southern California's shoreline petroleum engineers and geologists. Such may create a satisfactory fruit salad, but it would be premature and without proper. is often the plight of grassroots citizens' does little to provide a basis for resolving legal basis. efforts and their failure to send forth a col- the basic issue to drill or not to drill? Bureau of Land Management, Pacific OCS Office by Harold R. Martin, Acting Manager Thank you for your letter of September ignee to review our work and to provide held on the draft 'statement thus providing 6th regarding our program, specifically the input into our studies. The private organi- still another opportunity forcitizen participa- activities associated with the preparation of zations include conservation, environmen- tion. the draft environmental impact statement. tal and other interested groups. In terms of the timeframe for the impact Their designees have expertise in the The public input should fall into two statement and any lease offerings, we feel subject areas addressed by the environ- groups. Pirst, all are asked to review the it will take approximately ten months to mental impact statements. The public or- working outline of the draft statement and to. complete all phases. The draft environmen- ganizations include all levels of govern- comment as to its adequacy, comprehen- tal impact statement will be sent to ment ranging from affected federal agen- siveness, and completeness. Secondly, Washington, D. C. in December, and vAll be cies, state organizations, regional offices to the designees will review the written text published sometime in the late winter. county and local governments. Again, staff and discuss it with the responsible staff Hearings will be held in the spring resulting specialists have been appointed as con- member. in an issuance of the final environmental tacts. impact statement in the late spring. Adeci- Editor's Note: Accompaying this response sion as to whether or not to hold a sale will All designees from both the public and from the BLM were maps and a working not be made until at least by the summer of private organizations will review the pro- outline for their Draft Environmental Impact 1975. ject, provide input and will also review the Statementdue laterthisyear. Itwouldhave In answer to your question regarding draft statement in our office prior to sending been imi6?acticai to present this appended individual involvement in the review and it to Washington, D.C. data within the confines of this newsletter. comment phases of the draft environmental Therefore, these documents are available impact statement, we are pleased to inform True this approach has not been directed for public review at our Marina del Rey you that the processes are already in oper- to the unrepresented citizen, but public office loated at 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite ation. To date we have contacted both meetings on the program have been held, 1102. (213) 822-1648. They are also avail- private and public organizations and have and other meetings are planned within ' the able from the Los Angeles Office of the requested that they appoint an off i1cial des- near future. A public hearing will also be Bureau of Land Management. 3 ofit Org. e 75 Marine Advisory Program Sea Grant Program University of Southern California Los Angeles, California 90007 New Criteria For Approving State Coastal Management Plans Issued by NOAA Proper management of the nation's coastal governments and regional bodies. major step forward in building the kind of areas has been and will continue to be of Another provision is that States designate shared partnership' between the federal, the utmost concern to Federal, State and areas of particular concern within their State and local governments that is vis- local governments, as well as to the af- coastal boundaries, such as areas with his- ualized in the Coastal Zone Management fected public. To this end, the National torical or scenic; value, as well as ones of Act." Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration significant ecological importance. Addi- If and when the Secretary approves (NOAA), a component of the Department of tional consideration should also be given to California's Program in 1976, our State be- Commerce, has created a key set of criteria coastal areas vulnerable to natural disas- comes eligible for additional funds to assist to which these coastal areas can direct their ters or of high recreational potential and in its implementation, and then, any Fed- attention in the composition of their indi- urban concentration. eral activity within or affecting our coastal vidual State Coastal Zone Management These criteria then are applicable.to Para- zone must be conducted in a manner con- Programs to elicit the approval of the Sec- graph 306 of the 1972 Act and will come to sistent with that Program. Mr. Knecht put it retary of Commerce and, thereby, the fi- bear on California when its Coastal Com- this way: "Coastal States are encouraged nancial backing of the Federal Govern- mission presents its Management Program to submit Coastal Zone Management Pro- ment. for Federal, review and approval in 1976. grams meeting the criteria established by These criteria outlining basic elements to Hecent proposals oy ine uepanmeni OT ine the Secretary of Commerce. In exchange, be included in the State Programs were first Interior., Bureau of Land Management, to the Federal Government is commiting itself published in Draft form in the August lease Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas to conform Federal actions to the approved 21,1974 Federal Register, and were 'open of the U.S.. (approximately 1.56 million State Program." for comments, suggestions and criticism by acres of southern California OCS ) for ex- For further information, contact: all interested parties until October 15, 1974. tensive oil and gas production have served Office of Coastal Zone Management, For instance, within the new criteria there is to intensify interest in wise coastal zone NOAA the provision.that the Management Prog- management. U.S. Department of Commerce ram describe how the State will exercise' The Director of NOAA's Office of Coastal 11400 Rockville Pike control over the use of coastal resources of, Zone Management, Mr. Robert W. Knecht, Rockville, Maryland 20852 Statewide interest in cooperation with local stated that the new criteria "represent a USC SEA GRANT PUBLICATIONS US -C-SG-8-74 Soule, Dorothy F. and Mikihiko Oquri (eds.), "Marine Studies of San Pedro Bay, California, Part VII: $5.00 Sediment Investigations." Rood, Marcia. "The Urban Marina: The Development and Management of Marina del Rey." $3.00 USC-SG-6-74 Symonds, Phillip. "A Statistical Handbook of Coastal Zone Socio-Economic and Housing Charac- $3.00 teristics: Los Angeles County." USC-SG-7-74 Soule, Dorothy F. and Mikihiko Oguri (eds.). "Marine Studies of San Pedro Bay, Califofnia, Part VI: $5.00 Circulation Investigations." USC-SG-9-74 Patterson, Mary M. "Interticial Macrobiology of Selected Sandy Beaches in Southern California." $1.00 USC-SG-10-74 Rosentraub, Mark and Robert Warren. "Coastal Zone Development in Los Angeles County: $3.00 An Analysis of the South Coast Regional Commission's First Year." Of it I 0, USC-SG-Special Report 1-74 Leopold, Lawrence C. and Shirley J. Hudgins. "Outer Continental Shelf Development Hearings: Observations and Review of U.S. Senate Commerce Committee National Ocean Policy Study." Table 1. 1: Summary of Socio-Economic Characteristics Median Percent Family Percent Median Median Median Median Years Total Percent Spanish Median Median Below Housinq Contract Persons Rooms Occupied Place Populatioa Negro Heritage Age Income Poverty Value' Rent Per Unit Per Unit Unit Los Angeles County 7,032,075 10.8 18.5 28.6 $8,361 8.2 @24.27n @Jnq 1.9 4.0 3.3 Coastal Zone 199,747 2.2 10.6 33.1 7,341 7.3 34,697 121 1.3 3.3 2.2 Los Anqeles County Malibu 3,840 .4 4.1 31.9 14,707 5.1 50,000 260 1.8 4.3 3.1 Marina del Rey 3,184 .8 6.2 37.4 10,798 2.7 18,124 254 1.0 2.6 1.0 Los Angeles City 2,8-16,061 17.9 18.4 29.6 7,430 9.9 26,662 ln5 1.7 3.7 3.1 Pacific Palisades 7,126 .2 5.6 37.2 15,969 3.3 48,010 216 1.8 5.0 4.6 Venice 18,536 9.5 20.1 27.9 4,985 16.0 21,193 102 1.2 2.8 1.7 Playa del Rey 4,959 .3 4.8 31.0 11,889 4.4 46,729 207 1.8 4.5 3.1 San Pedro 103,805 4.9 33.9 26.3 7,657 11.6 22,546 87 2.n 3.8 2.9 Santa Monica 88,289 4.8 12.1 36.8 7,085 7.3 36,276 131 1.3 3.1 2.3 Santa Monica Coast 20,417 2.1 10.4 40.6 5,79n 7.1 399325 lA4 1.0 2.7 1.6 El Segundo 15,620 1 7.5 28.2 9,831 4.2 30,099 128 1.9 3.8 3.2 El Segundo Coast 1,583 0.0 6.9 28.1 9,511 4.3 28,923 128 1.8 3.8 3.2 Manhattan Beach 35,352 .1 5.8 28.2 10,720 2.7 31,116 170 1.9 4.3 3.7 Manhattan Beach Coast 13,644 .2 6.4 28.5 9,316 2.2 34,232 174 1.5 3.8 2.5 Hermosa Beach 17,412 .2 8.9 27.9 7,900 6.3 28,939 135 1.5 3.5 1.9 Hermosa Beach Coast 12,165 .2 8.0 27.5 7,8n8 6.4 30,580 135 1.4 3.4 1.9 Torrance Coast 134,584 8.5 8.5 27.4 11,801 3.3 29,501 151 2.2 4.4 3.9 Torrance Coast 4,247 4.4 4.4 36.6 14,147 3.3 41,901 156 1.7 4.1 4.5 Redondo Beach 56,075 .1 13.7 25.5 9,556 6.3 23,991 139 2.1 3.9 2.3 Redondo Beach Coast 11,969 .1 8.4 32.5 9,663 4.9 27,656 133 1.4 3.5 2.2 Palo s Verdes Estates 13,641 .1 2.7 33.1 22,684 1.0 50,000 265 2.9 6.2 4.8 Palos Verdes Estate Coast 7,068 .1 2.8 33.4 23,002 .7 50,000 269 2.9 6.4 4.5 Long Beach 358,633 5.3 7.3 35.6 6,786 8.2 22,983 99 1.5 3.6 2.*8 Long Beach Coast 51,754 .3 4.9 49.2 5,743 7.0 32,479 Q8 1.0 2.9 2.1 TABLE 2.1 "Permit Activity" Commer- Indus- Single Multi Public Recrea- Dred- Demo- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging lition Total Rec'd* 110 62 345 197 96 39 2 21 909 % Row 6.8 37.8 22.0 10.5 4.3 .2 2.3 4.1 100. Approved 105 62 341 170 96 39 2 21 37 873 % Row 12.0 7.1 1 39.1 19.5 11,0-- 4.5 2 2-4 4-2 100- % Column 99M 100. 98.9 86.3 100.0 100.0 100. 100. 1()0. 96.04 Denied 5 0 4 27 0 0 0 0 0 -36 % Row 3.9 son ---- 11.1 75.0_1 ------ ------ ----- ino- % Column 5.0 1 ---- ---- 3.96 Does not include applications, classified as "pending" and not acted upon by December 31, 1973. Number of Missing Observations: 18 E 110 105 An absolute majority of permit applications (59. 8%) concerned single and multi-unit residences. Within this category there were twice as many permits received relating to single unit facilities. Commercial, 12%, public utilities, 10. 5%, and industrial 6. 891. permits accounted for approximately one-third of the total. The remaining four categories collectively accounted for just over 10% of all applications. Housing by far was the dominant type of development in terms of the number of permit requests. 2.2 Approval and Denial of Applications The probability of a permit application being approved was very high during 1973. Only 36 permits or 4% of the requests were denied. All denied applications involved only three of the nine categories used to describe permit applications.. A total of 27 multi-unit residential applications accounted for 75% of all denials in 1973. There were 5 commercial permits denied and 4 applications for development of single-unit structures were also denied. With so few denied appli- cations, the percentages can be misleading. For example, while multi-unit residences accounted for three-quarters of all denials, 86.3 percent of all permits in this category were still approved. In addition, it should be noted than an analysis of the number of approvals and denials of applications does not attempt to deal with questions of whether the small number of rejections is due, in part, to either (1) changes being made in application specification to meet stated or implied questions about the acceptability of projects before a final submission is made; or (2) applicants have submitted only those pro- posals which they expected to be approved and have withheld others. 2.3 Location of Permit Applications The spatial distribution of permit applications between the mean high tide line and the 1, 000 line inland is described in Table 2. 3. 1. Without going into detail at this point, two things can be noted. A majority of the permits filed and approved, approximately 55%, were between 100 and 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line with a significant proportion, 23%, beyond 50 0 yards. The second point related to commission decisions. Almost one-half A4. 8%) of the permit denials were located 500 yards or more from the water and two- thirds of the rejections involved sites at least 250 yards from the mean high tide line. Table 2. 3. 2 indicates that 43. 8% of all projects involved with land adjacent to the beach were single family residences. More than half of all permits, 53.2%, seeking to develop land adjacent to the beach, developed residential facilities. -17- TABLE 2.3.1 "Proximity to the Mean High Tide Line" Seaward to Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 Missing Wan High to than to to to to to Observations Total Tide Line Beach 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Approved 27 99 96 84 102 108 71 81 186 854 Percent 3.2 11.6 11.2 9.8 11.9 12.6 8.3 9.5 21.8 100.0 00 Denied 0 1 5 4 2 9 4 4 33 Percent 3.0 15.2 12.1 6.1 27.3 12.1 12.1 100.0 4 12 -@l Table 2.3.2 "Project Types and Distance From Mean High Tide Line" Seaward Adj@ Less 50 100 250 500 750 Missing to to than to to to to to Observations M..H.T. Beach 50 Yards 100 250 500 750 1,000 Commercial 3 6 10 14 15 12 9 6 29 % Row 2.9 5.8 9.6 13. 14.5 11.5 8.7 5.8 % Column 11.1 6.3 10.5 16. 14.9 11.2 13.0 7.4 Industrial 10 10 19 7 2 1 10 % Row 16.1 16.1 30.6 11.3 3.2 3 .2 1 .6 1.6 % Column 37.0 10.4 20.0 8.4 2.0 1.9 1.41 1.2 1 Single Family 0 42 20 29 38 48 29 48 66 % Row 13.1 6.3 9.1 11.9 15.0 9.1 15.0 % Column 43.8 21.1 34.9 37.6 44.9 42.0 59.3 Multi-Family 1 9 12 20 28 24 22 12 35 % Row .6 5.5 7.4 12.3 17.2 14 .7 13.5 7.4 % Column 3.7 9.4 12.6 24.1 27.7 22.4 31.9 14.8 Recreation 5 12 6 1 5 1 2 3 4 % Row 12.8 30.8 15.4 2.6 12.8 2..6t 5.1 7.7 % Column 18.5 12.5 6.3 1.2 5.0 .9 2.9 3.7 Public Utility 2 6 16 11 8 .16 5 8 21 % Row 2.2 6.5 17.2 11.8 8.6 17.2 5.4 8.6 % Column 7.4 6.3 16.8 13.3 7.9 15.0 7.2 9.9 ther 6 11 12 1 5 4 1 3 % Row 14.0 25.9 30.0 2.3 11.6 9.3 2.3 7.0 15 % Column 21.21 11.5 12.7 1.2 5.0 3.7 1.4 3.7 a a z _J *Includes demolition and dredging projects ]2 11 5 8 5 1 J2 -4] 91 The data in Table 2.3.2 also shows that 59% of all recreational projects were within 50 yards of the mean high tide line. Recreational development accounted for 12. 5% of all permits involved with the beach front. Commercial development accounted for 6.3% of all permits involved with land adjacent to the beach and 10. 5% of all permits developing land within 50 yards of the beach. Industrial permits accounted for 10.4% of all permits developing beach front property, and 20.0% of all permits developing land in the 50 yards closest to the coast. Public utility permits accounted for 6.3% of all permits involved with land adjacent to the beach and 16. 8% of all permits developing land within the first 50 yards of the Coastal Commission's permit authority. 2.4 Present Use of Land at Time of Permit Application A majority of all development, 50. 4%, of the coastline involved vacant land. A total of 415 permits planned to construct facilities on land that was previously considered open space. Residential develop- ment would be involved with 319 permits, 76.9%, that described land as vacant. Single family homes were built on almost 6 of every ten parcels of vacant land. Although vacant land is involved with many permits, table 2.4.2 illustrates an interesting pattern of redevelopment for many categories of permit type. Although 31. 7% of all commercial development involved vacant area, 65.3% of all commercial permits were actually redeveloping land already used for commercial purposes. This pattern of redevelop- ment is also involved with industrial permits, 68.9%, public utility permits, 59.4%,and recreational permits 71. 1%. Almost 25% of all single unit permits were redevelopments of existing homes. Multi-family per- mits were redevelopments of existing residential facilities in 47.2% of all permits and may indicate an intensification of land use. The present use data seems to indicate, to a large extent, only land that is vacant is changing. The use to which other parcels were put in the past suggests the use of the land in the future. 2.5 Construction Costs Multi-family residences, with total construction costs of $84, 65 8, 813, exceeded the costs associated with any other category of development in 1973. The mean construction cost of a multi-unit structure was $556,966. The mean for industrial project construction costs was $648,529 and 25 projects classified as other had a mean construction cost of $967,676. A total of 318 single-family residence -20- Table 2.4.-l "Present Use Characteristics All Applications" Vacant Agricul- Single Multi Commer- Indus- Recrea- Public Total - ture Family Family cial trial tional utility All Permits* 438 - ? - ---- 1 2 ;Wq 0 @ ON. IN Percen= 50.9 .2 15.9 5".'5 9.4 6.4 4.0 7.7 100. Approved 415 2 132 44 .44 Percent 50. 4 .2 16.0 5.3 9.,l 6.7 4.1 8.0 100. Denied 21 0 4 3 0 n q4 Percent @61.8 11.8 8.8 17. --- --- --- 100. Note: Applications classified as pending at the end of-1973 or withdrawn are not included. Number of Missing Observation5: 71 0 -,0 1-7`1 Table 2.4.2 "Present Use of Land at Time of Permit Applications" Commer- Indus7 Single Multi, Public Rec, Agr. Vacant Total Type of Permit cial tial Family Family Utility Commercial 66 1 0 1 1 1 0 32 102 % Row 64@7 .9 .98 .98 .98 31.7 % Column 88.0 1.8 0 1.9 1.5 2.9 7.7- Industrial 1 42 0 0 0 0 18 61 % Row 1.6 68.9 29.5 % Column 1.3 76.4 --- --- 4.3 Single Family 0 5 2 0 239 327 % Row .31 24.5 1.8 .61 --- 73.1 % Column 1.3 60.6 11.3 3.0 57.6 Multi-Family 2 0 45 32 2 1 1 80 1631 % Row 1.2 27.6 19.6 1.2 .61 .61 49.1 % Column 2.7 1 29.3 60.4 3.0 50. 19.3 19.3 1 0 Public Utility 4 .1 57 2 0 31 961 % Row 1.0 4.2 1.0 59.4 2.1 ---- 32.3 5,9 --- Column 1.3 7.3 1.9 86.4 7.5 0 Recreation 0 0 1 0 27 10 38 % Row 2.6 ---- 171.1 ---- 26.3 1 % Column .8 79.4 2.4 Dredging ---- ---- 7-- % Row ---- 100 ---- ---- ---- ---- Demolition 3 6'___ ro- 5 4 0 2 ---- ---- % Row 15.0:1 30-0 25.0 20.0 ---- 10.0 Other 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 5 15 % Row 6.7 6.7 6.7 26.7 6-7 6-7 31-5 __"i Total 75 55 132 53 66 34 2 415 823 % Row 9.1 6.7 16.0 6.4 j -8. 0 4.1 2 50.4 Table 2,5 "Construction Cost's,! Approved Permits" Number Sum Mean Commercial 102 $ 54r2661883 $ 547,746 Industrial 52 33,723,488 648,529 Single Family Residence 318 17,308,883 54,430 Multi-Family Residence 152 84,658,813 556,966 Public Utility 72 9,214,930 127,985 Recreation 34 14)223,191 418,329 Demolition 18 296,470 16,471 Other 25 24,191PS98 967,676 Missing Observations: 127 -23- permits had a mean of $54,430. Recreational construction costs in 1973 was $14, 223, 191 greater only than expenditures for demolition and public utilities. 2.6 Acreage Used Most development involved parcels of land less than . 1 of an acre in size. A total of 576 permits, 69.2%, involved sites smaller than . I of an acre. When combined with development of lots less than .2 of an acre, 81. 7% of all approved permits are accounted for. Only 4. 3% of all permits involved lots greater than 1. 0 acre. Table 2. 6. 1 also describes the present use of land at the time of permit application. Vacant land was involved with 423 permits, but the majority, 57.2%, of the vacant parcels were less than l.of an acre in size. Almost three quarters, 73. 7%, of all vacant land was in lots under one-fifth of an acre in size. The environmental implications of the development of a number of vacant lots is not certain. For example, particular parcels of vacant land could either be environmentally valuable open space or lots in a residential area which would normally be expected to be sites for construction of homes. Information about the location, size, and characteristics of the area would be necessary before making any con- clusions about the impact of development on open space. Table 2.6.2 discusses the type of projects approved by the Commission and the number of acres involved, Of permits involved with lots larger than .2 of an acre, 76. 9% were residential. By comparison, residential development was involved with 54.4% of the permits approved for parcels of land less than .2 of an acre in size. 2.7 Permit Decision Procedures There are 3 main procedures used in approving and denying per- mit applications. Administrative and consent calendar procedures were used for 681 or 73.3% of all permits decided by the Commission. The procedures used for each application is described in Table 2. 7. 1. The administrative and consent calendar procedures usually involve a substantial savings in time for commissioners. Adminis- trative procedures are followed for projects involving less than $25,000 in repairs to existing structures or new projects with construction costs under $ 10, 000. The regional executive director approves adminis - trative permits. A total of 260 permit applications were considered as -24- TABLE 2.6.1 "Project Type and Acres Used" Acres Project Type Commer- Indus- Single Multi Public Recre- Demo- Other* Total cial trial Family Family Utility ation liti-on 0-.099 85 210 88 91 28 20 31 605 % Row 14.0 34.7 14.5 15.0 4.6 3.3 5.2 % Column 81.0 61.6 51.8 94.8 71.8 95.2 79.5 69.3 ..10-.199 7 4 59 31 3 2 1 1 108 % Row 6.5 3.7 54.6 28.7 2.8 1.9 .9 .9 % Column 6.7 6.5 17.3 18.2 3.1 5.1 4.8 2.5 12.4 ciA .2-.99 9 0 66 42 1 4 0 2 124 % Row 7.3 53.2 33.9 .8 3.2 1.6 % Column 8.6 19.4 24.7 1.0 10.3 5.1 14.2 1.0+ 4 6 6 9 1 5 0 5 36 % Row 11.1 16.7 16.7 25.0 2.8 13.9 13.9 % Column 3.8 9.7 1.8 5.3 1.0 12.8 12.8 4.1 t - I I I *includes dredging projects 269] 81 TABLE 2.6.2 "Present Use and Acres Used" Acres Present Use Agricul- Single Multi- Commer- Indus- Recrea- Public Total Vacant ture Family Family cial trial tional Utility 0-.099 242 103 35 65 44 29 58 576 % Row 42.0 17.9 6.1 11.3 7.6 5.0 10.1 % Column 57.2 .76.9 79.5 85.5 80.0 87.8 89.2 69.1 .10-.199 77 13 3 4 3 2 2 104 % Row 73.0 12.4 2.9 3.9 2.9 1.9 1.9 % Column 18.2 9.7 6.8 5.3 5.5 6.1 3.1 12.5 .2-.99 85 18 4 6 1 1 3 118 % Row 72.0 15.3 3.4 5.1 .8 .8 2.5 % Column 20.1 13.4 9.1 7.9 1.8 3.0 4.6 14.1 1.0+ 19 2 2 1 7 3 2 36 % Row 52.8 5.6 5.6 2.8 19.4 8.3 5.6 % Column 4.5 100. 4.5 1.3 12.7 9.1 3.1 4.3 Table 2.7.1 "Application Approval Procedures" Permit Type Adminis- Consent Emergency Public Total trative Calendar Hearing All Applications 260 421 4 245 930 Percent 28.0 45.3 .4 26.3 100. Missing Observations: 1 Table 2. 7.2 "Permit Approval Procedures and Construction Costst, Below $11- $26- $51- $101- $151 $201 More than Total $10k 26k 50k 100k 150k -200k 300k $300.000 Administrative i3b 104 3 1 1 0 0 - 0 245 7o - Row .55.5 42.4 1.2 .4 .4 30.0 Consent Calendar 16 44 105 149 30 6 10 17 377 % - Row 4.2 11.7 27.9 39.5 8.0 1.6 2.7 4.5 46.1 L Emergency % - Row 100.0 .12 Public Hearing 3 6 23 41 20 18 16 67 194 C10 % - Row 1.5 3.1 11.9 21.1. 10.3 9.3 8.2 34.5 23.7 L L Number of Missing Observations: 114 Table 2. 7.3 "Project Type and Approval Procedures" Adminis- Consent Emergency Public Row trative Calendar Hearinr, Total Commercial 57 218 0 25 110 % Row 51.8 25.5 0 22.7 % Column 22A 6,7 0 10.5 12.1 Industrial 22 17 0 23 62 7o Row 35.5 27.4 0 37.1 % Column 8.6 4.1 0 9.7 6.8 Single Family 75 239 0 31 345 % Row -21.7 69.3 0 9.0 % Column 29.4 57.7 0 13 1 37.9 Multi-Family 23 66 3 106 198 % Row 13.5 38.8 1.8 45.9 % Column 9-0 15.9 75.0 44.7 21.6 Public Utility 39 35 1 21 96 % Row 40.6 36.5 1.0 21.9 % Column 15.3 8.5 25.0 8.9 10.5 Recreation 12 13 0 14 39 % Row . 30.8 33.3 0 35.9 % Column 4.7 3.1 0 5.9 4.3 Dredging 0 0 0 2 2 % Row 0 0 0 100 % Column 0 0 0 .2_ Demolition 15 5 0 21 % Row 71.4 23.8 0 4.8 % Column 5.9 1.2 0 .42 2.3 Other 12 11 0 14 37 % Row 32.4 29.7 0 37.8 % Column 4.7 2.7 0 5.9 4.1 Withdrawn 3 M.O. 18 Table 2.7 .4 "Selected Comparison: Construction Costs and Permit Approval Procedures" Mean No, of 70 % Construct.Cost Permits Public Hearing Consent Calendar Administrative Commercial $ 533,352 110 22.7 25.5 51.8 Industrial 648,529 62 37.1 27.4 35.5 Multi-Family Residences 607,066 198 45.9 38.8 13.5 Single-Family Residences 54,430 318 9.0 69.3 21.7 Recreation 418,329 34 35.9 33.3 30.8 administrative items. Single family residential applications ac- counted for 29.4% of all permits approved through administrative procedures. Commercial projects were the second most frequent administrative permits, involved with 22.4% of the 260 projects approved by the regional director. Consent calendar procedures can be followed for any project that probably will have slight impact on the coastal zone. The exec- utive director prepares the consent calendar. In 1973, 421 or 45.3% of all permits were classified as consent calendar items. There is no limit on construction costs for applications considered under consent calendar procedures. Table 2. 7. 2 indicates 24 .5% of all projects with construction costs above $200,000 and 20.2% of applications with construction costs greater than $301,000 were part of the con- sent calendar in 1973. Almost 25% of all applications with con- struction costs exceeding $151,000 were part of the consent calendar. Table 2.7.3 indicates that permits planning multi-family resi- dence development constituted 21.6% of all applications and 44.7% of all permits heard under the public hearing process. Industrial per- mits with a mean construction cost of $648,529 accounted for 9.7% of all public hearing permits. The substantial number of requests for multi-unit residential development involved with the public hearing approval process suggests factors other than construction costs may be involved in classifying these applications as public hearing items. 2.8 Staff Recommendations Prior to the presentation of a permit application to the Commis- sioners, staff members meet to discuss the application and make recommendations. All applications classified as consent calendar or administrative permits carried staff recommendations for approval and were approved by the Commission. A total of 202 public hearin g permits are described in Table 2.8. For 158 of these applications the Commission staff recommended approval. The Commissioners followed the staff suggestions for 96. 8% of the cases when the staff recommended approval, The-staff also made 44 denial motions to the Commission. In this case the Commis- sioners followed 70.5% of the staff recommendations. 2.9 State Action Despite the rather open appeal process virtually allowing al- most anyone to appeal a decision of the regional commission to the -31- Table 2,8 "Staff Recommendations and Commission Action: Public Hearing Applications" Staff Recommendation Commission Action Approve Deny Approve Reconsidered Total Approve 153 4 1 158 Percent 96.8 2.5 .6 100. Deny 11 31 2 44 Percent L 25.0 70.5 4.5 100. state commission, only 3% of all decisions on permit applications for Los Angeles County's Coastal Zone were appealed. A total of 902 decisions by the Regional Commission went unchallenged. To analyze the appeal process it would seem appropriate to actually divide the appeals into two groups: those approved regionally .and those denied by the regional commission. Permits approved at the region level would seem to represent actions by forces opposing or objecting to the development plans. Negative actions by a regional commission would seem to be most frequently appealed by developers. The State Commission has the authority to review or refuse to review any appeal it receives. It is within this power that one first notices a difference in the treatment of the two categories of appeals. Only one appeal (10%) of a permit denied by the South Coast Regional Commission was not accepted by the State Commission for review. By contrast, 7 or 41.1% of the permits approved by the regional commis- sion and appealed were not even reviewed by the State Commission. In dealing with the 10 appeals of applications denied by the regional commission, table 2.9. 1 illustrates an interesting pattern. Of the 10 appeals filed, 6 actually were successful in eventually receiving permits. Five of the permits had conditions attached, but 609/. of all appeals of regional rejections were granted permits for development. Appeals of permits approved by the South Coast Regional Commis- sion did not receive as favorable treatment as the permit applications denied at the regional level. Table 2. 9. 1 indicates that 7 appeals of approved permits, 41%, were not accepted for review by the State Commission. In addition, only 8 of the appeals to the State for pro- jects approved by the Regional Commission were changed. Four per- mits granted by the South Coast Regional Commission were denied by the state commission; four others were permits, were not denied, but had conditions attached to the original permit. The type of projects appealed range from multi-unit buildings, to recreational parks and bike pathways, to public utility power plants. Multi-unit residences were involved in almost 50% of all appeals. Table 2.9.2 describes the various projects appealed. While the number of total appeals is small one can still observe certain patterns from the initial group of appeals. The State Commis- sion tends to support decisions made by the regional commissions. When reversals do occur, they are more often involved with projects denied by the regional commission. -33- Table 2. 9. 1 "Appeal of Regional Commission Action: Applications Denied in Los Angeles County, State Action Refused Approved w/ Deny Review Approved conditions Number 1 1 5 3 Percent 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 Permit Granted in Los Angeles County" State Action - Refused Approve w/ Review Approve conditions Deny Number 7 2 4 4 Percent 41.1 11.9 23.5 23.5 -34- Table 2, 9,2 "Description of Appealed Projects" Regional Area Commission Action Description 1. Venice Approve 10 unit residence 2. Point Dume Approve Exemption,; 100 unit residence 3. Venice Approve 12 unit residence 4. Santa Monica Denied 35 unit residence 5. Port of L.A. Approve dredging 6. Long Beach Approve 151 unit residence 7. Santa Monica Deny 639 unit residence 8. Malibu Deny 200 space recreational vehicle campground 9. El Segundo Approve drainage system 10. L.A. County Approve Division of Highways- maintenance 11. Playa del Rey Approve 153 unit residence- 12. Hermosa Beach Deny 10 unit residence 13. Marina del Rey Approve extend bikeway 14. Santa Monica Approve office building 15. Long Beach Approve 46 unit residence 16. Topanga Canyon Approve demolition 17. Venice Deny 11 unit residence 18. Playa del Rey Approve power generator 19. Venice Approve 12 unit residence 20. San Pedro Deny 5 unit residence 21. Los Angeles Deny gas station Missing Observations: 6 -35- 2. 10 Workload of South Coast Regional Commission The Annual Report of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission indicated that 6,236 permit applications were filed for, all regions of the State. The State Coast Retional Commission with responsibilities for Los Angeles and Orange Counties, processed a total of 2,456 in 1973. This total represents 39% of all applications filed within the State and is double the workload of any other Regional Commission. Los Angeles County alone had more applications for development than the North Coast Regional Commission, the North Central Coast Regional Commission, the Central Coast Regional Commission and the South Central Regional Commission. In light of the different workloads between the South Coast Regional Commission and the other regional commissions, it might be interesting to examine the frequency with which each commission denied applications. The South Coast Commission denied applica- tions more frequently than four other regional commissions. The South Coast Commission also exceeded the State-wide rejection rate of 2. 7/10 0 by 1. 2. 2. 11 Summary Table Table 2. 11 is a summary table designed to present several crit- ical bits of information to individuals concerned with the South Coast Regional Commission. The nine separate permit categories are listed with the number of applications, number of permits granted, total land area involved in the permits, and the approval. 3.0 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 the preceeding sections represents an effort to describe the patterns of permit applications and decisions during the first year's experience with a permit system in the state's largest county. The report is intended as a necessary information gathering step prior to the undertaking of an examination of the effects of the Commission's activities rather than a policy analysis itself. Even so, several points appear to be worth examining in more detail at this point con- cerning the level of information available about permit applications, permit application fees and the spatial distribution @olf approved projects. -36- Table 2.10 "Workload of Regional Commissions" Applications Approved Denied Total Percent Received Action Denied North 4A 1:) -37 12 439 442 .67% North Central 303 260 13 273 4.76% Central 945 827 18 845 2.13% South Central 878 731 6 737 .814% South 2,456 1,892 77 1,969 3.91% Los Angeles 958 873 36 909* 3.967o Orange 1,498 1,019 41 1,060 3.87% San Diego 1,212 1.042 29 1,171 2.701% Totals 6,236 5,191 @146 5,337 2.735% Source: "Annual Report-197311, California CoastAl-Zone- Conservation Commissions, San Francisco, pp. 111-12; Sea Grant *Number of Missing Observations: 18 -37- Table 2. 11 "Summary Table" Decision Proee Adminis- Consent Public Applica- Approved Denied % Acres trative Calendar Hearing Permit Type tions Commercial 110 105 95.5 5 4.5 42.729 57 28 25 Industrial 62 62 100.0 26.758 22 17 23 Single Family 345 341 98.9 4 1A 61.536 75 239 31 co Multi-Family 198 171* 84.6 27 15.1 187.127 23 66 109 Public Utility 96 96 100.0 6.316 39 35 21 Recreation 39 39 100.0 42.848 12 13 14 Dredging 2 2 100.0 18.600 2 Demolition 21 21 @100.0 .115 15 5 1 Other 1- 37 37 1100.0 145.9251- 12 11 14 Note: 3 applications were withdrawn 18 missing observations. includes one permit approved with conditions. Ell 3.1 Permit Procedures and Information Levels One fourth of the 931 permit applications heard by, the Commis- sion in 1973 were handled as public hearing items. The great major- ity were acted on through either the consent calendar (45%) or adminis- trative procedures (28%). This 73 percent included a number of high value and structurally complex projects. For example, 20 percent of all applications with construction costs above $200,000 were part of the consent calendar. Under public hearing procedures the merits of each proposal are presented in an adversary framework. Ideally, supporters of the appli- cation and opponents bring alternative opinions before C@ommission members for them to evaluate. In consent calendar and administrative procedures the Commission relies on the information provided by the applicant and the staff. Under these circumstances several types of problems could exist with the adequacy of information available to the staff and Commission. The large number of permits handled without public hearings and the limited size of the staff means that a high de- gree of reliance must be placed upon information provided by the appli- cant as required by the permit procedure. This is particularly true for the majority of the permits if staff time is disproportionately devoted to the larger and more complex applications. A more detailed study of the amount and quality of information available from the applications and how staff time is allocated is obviously necessary before an accu- rate assessment can be made of the adequacy of the present methods of providing information for decision making. However, if data gaps and unevenness are found, several possible actions could be considered. One is to determine whether additional types and more precise data might be required from the applicants. Additional staff may be necessary to varify permit information and to directly gather additional data. A third step to expand Commission information could be to process more of the larger and complex projects through public hearings, perhaps by requiring this of all applications above a specified vallue. This would, however, be appropriate only if it-can be established that public hearings do provide information beyond what is available from either the application itself or staff reports, 3.2 Spatial Distribution of Projects and Access The location of projects within the 1, 000 yard permit area is an important subject for analysis when considering the question of public access to the coast and the interrelationship of public and private facilities. In attempting to open or maintain areas for the public to enjoy coastal resources, there is a conflict between the market -39- Table 3.2. 1 "Redevelopment of Recreational Facilities" Present Use Vacant Single Family Recreational Total Recreational Permits 10 1 27 38 Percent 26.3 2.6 71.1 100. Number of Missing Observations: 1 Table 3.2.2 "Recreational Permits" Public Private Tntnl No. Column No. Column No. Beach, Park, or Club Improvements 18 51.4 2 50 20 New Facilities 13 37.1 2 50 15 Support Services (Restrooms, concess- 4 11.4 4 ions, etc.) - Total 135 1 4 39 mechanism and public accessibility. The most profitable use of land on or near the shoreline does not usually include mass recreation and frequently prices out large percentages of the population. The avail- ability of public recreation facilities on land nearest the water normally requires public investment. When there is little or no public invest- ment, one may find no or marginal increases in the opportunities for public access to the beach. To provide a format in which to explore the question of public access it may be useful to look at the spatial distribution of permits for Los Angeles County in 1973 in terms of 4 zones! less than 100 yards from the mean high tide line; between 100 and 250 yards from the mean high tide mark; between 250 and 500 yards from the line; and beyond 500 yards. This zone approach recognizes the different impact projects can have on public access to the water by virtue of their location within the permit area. It is also important to note that in some areas of the County, the physical configuration of the coast as well as past development patterns can influence the distribution of land uses. The coastline of Los Angeles County involves high palisades and extensive public beaches. Both characteristics can influence the future use of land in their areas. With these qualifications in mind, it is now possible to discuss the spatial location of projects and their potential impact on public access to the coast. Table 2.3.2 indicated 301 permits for development of land and water within 100 yards of the mean high tide line were granted. Resi- dential development accounted for 44.2% of the permits. Single family homes were involved with 30.2% of the permits, or 91. Commercial and industrial development within the first 100 yards accounted for 26. 3% or 79 permits. A total.of 24 recreation permits accounted for 8% of the permits less than 100 yards from the mean high tide mark. In the second zone, 100-250 yards from the mean high tide line, 65.3% of the 101 permits were involved with residential development. Single family development accounted for 37. 6% of the permits. A total of 17, 16.9%, permits developed commercial and industrial properties. Five permits, 5%, for recreational development were located between 100 and 250 yards from the mean high tide line. Residential development accounted for 67.3% of the 107 permits for development between 250 and 500 yards from the mean high tide line. Commercial and industrial projects were involved with 13. 1% of the permits; recreation projects with .9%. In the final zone, residential development -42- accounted for 74% of all permits; commercial and industrial develop- ment 11.3%; and recreational development, 3.3%. The distribution of projects within the permit authority allows several interesting observations. The concentraticn of commercial and industrial projects decreases the further one goes from the mean high tide line. The concentration of residential projects increases in the zones further from the mean high tide line. Recreational permit con- centration is greatest in the zone nearest the shore. The pattern of distribution and the concentration of recreational projects in the first 100 yards focuses attention on all recreational permits to see if the small number of projects can significantly influence access opportunities. The original definition of recreation for classifi- cation of projects made no mention of public or private or whether the permit was for maintenance of existing facilities or development of new projects. Table 3. 2. 1 indicates 71. 1% of all permits for recreational development were actually redevelopment. Only 10 of the permits listed vacant land as the present use of land in applications for recreational development. Table 3.2.2 lists the different type of projects actually described in permit applications. Four permits were merely for rest- rooms or concessions. Eighteen projects involved sand replacement and maintenance of existing facilities. Five recreational permits were for im- provements to small craft harbors. Although these projects were public and undertaken by municipal governments or the County, their benefits were primarily limited to those citizens able to afford small boats. The Coastal Commissions have entered into the conflict between public access and the market mechanism and may not have the tools to compete with the pressures of the market. The Commissions cannot order specific developments, but must respond to initiatives of other governmental units. Frequently, recreational development involves state agencies. The Coastal Commissions do not have funds to stim- ulate investment or the power to provide incentives for private develop- ment of public recreation. If it is more profitable to develop resi- dential 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 tlie coastline may be the maintenance of existing recreational facilities and limited expansion of new, mass public facilities. Private 'investment funds will continue to be attracted to more profitable outlets, notably resi- dential, commercial, and industrial development, in the land nearest -43- the water. If more recreational development is to be forthcoming, the initiative must come from other governmental units with greater financial strength, Although the regional commissions are dependent to a large extent on the initiative of other units of government for expansion and increases in the number of recreational facilities, the coastal commission can con- tinue to carefully analyze implications for access of any pattern of per- mits in relationship to the proximity of the project to the water. Remedies for restricted access by any project should be sought. Another possible policy approach for the regional commissions revolves around the location of recreational projects within the permit zone. Projects placed near the 1000 yard boundary would seem to require closer coordination with exist- ing local governments to insure development of parallel policies for maximum utilization. For instance, if the Coastal Commission approves a park 950 yards from the beach, and the neighboring local government places a 400 unit housing project 51 yards from the park, there may be access problems for non-residents. Placing the same park 50 yards from the beach insures Coastal Commission control over land surrounding the park that could be put to a use that increases, rather than reduces, accessability. 3.3 The Commission's First Year The year reviewed was the first year of the South Coast Regional Commission. For the Commission and their staff there were numerous and complex problems to deal with. There was a new law, a permit process to deal with, and the development of relationships with local governments and the State Coastal Commission. Given these pressures, the data generated from permit activity perhaps should be regarded as merely a base for comparison with future years and not as a support for policy discussions. A comparison of 1973 permit activity with permit activity in the first half of 1974 however indicates only minor changes in the outcomes observed during the first year of the Coastal Commission. Tn 1973, residential development was involved with 58. 6% of all permits; in 1974, 54. 1% of all permits would develop residences. Recreational develop- ment was the goal of 4.5% of the permits in 19731- in 1973 only 6.2% of the permits would develop recreational facilities. Open space is again the most common present use characteristic of land in developers' applications with substantial redevelopment still taking place. In 1974, Commission Staff recommendations are usually followed in the case of approval recommendations. More than 30% of all negative -44- Table 3.3.1 "Nature of Projects: Approved" (in Percentages) Commer- Indus- Single Multi Public Recrea- Dred- Demoli- Other cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging tion 1974 17.6. 9io 36,7 17.4 8,3 6,2 @2 2.1 2.4 1973 10.2 7.1 39,1 19.5 11,0 4.5 2 2.4 4.2 "Nature of Projectsi Denied" (in Percentages) Ln 1974 11.1 19.4 .63.9 1973 13.9 '11.1 75.0 Table 3.3.2 "Present Use Comparison: 1973 and 1974" Vacant Agricul- Single Multi Commer- Indus- Recrea- Public tu re Family Family cial trial tion Utility 1974 45.1 .2 20 7.5 13.3 5.8 2.9 5.3 1973 50.4 .2 16 4.0 9.1 6.7 4.1 8.0 Note- all values in percentages Table 3.3.3 "Commission Action and Staff Recommendations" Commission Action Approve Staff Recommendation Approve Deny with conditions Withdrawn Approve 367 .1 %'@ Row 99.7 .3 Deny 30 5 % - Row 30,2 69,8 9.6 1974 Approve w. conditions 47 5 % - Row 90.4 9.6 Approve 818 4 1 % - Row 99.4 .5 .1 1973 Deny 11 32 2 Row 1 24.4 r7l.1 4.4 Approve w/ conditions 61 1 % Row 98.4 1.6 Table 3.3.4 "Permit Approval Procedures" Permit Types 1974 1973 Adminis- Consent Public Adminis, Consent Public trative Calendar Hearing trative Calendar Hearing 0-50,000 142 107 19 245 165 32 % - Row 53.0 39.9 7.1 55.3 37.2 7.2 51-100,000 50 20 1 149 41 % @ Row 71 .4 28.6 .5 78.0 21.5 101-150,000 14 @9 1 30 20 CO % - Row 60.9 39.1 58.8 39.2 151-200,000 2 2 6 18 rIn 25.0 75.0 % - Row 0 50.0 201,000 + 7 26 27 83 % - Row 20.6 76.5 24.5 75.5 staff recommendations were reversed by the Commission. Tn 1973 the Commissioners approved 7 1. 1% of all projects with a negative staff endorsement. One-fifth of all projects with construction costs exceeding $20 1, 000 in 1974 were still approved under consent calendar Procedures. This very brief review of certain aspects of the permit activity for 1974 suggests the outcomes observed for 1973 may be occurring in 1974. If this is the case, then the policy questions raised are from a valuable data base and deserve careful attention. 4.0 The Coastal Commission and the Local Areas The ten cities and three designated unincorporated communities with shorelines in Los Angeles County have developed their coastal areas in a variety of ways. Some are similar and others differ consider- ably. The "Demographic Snapshot" on page 14 briefly noted some of these variations . During the first year in which permits from the Commission were required, the new developments tended to reflect the pre-existing community patterns in terms of type of land use. In order to survey permit activity at the community level, the data have been organized for each sub-area in much the same way they have been for the county as a whole. The complete set of information for each community is included in Appendix B. The discussion in this section will highlight selected points. 4.1 Permit Activity In total number of permits issued, the unincorporated community of Malibu with 179 and the City of Long Beach with 135 were by far the most active. The contrast between the mix of permit types in the two areas provides a striking example of the extent to which differences exist along the coast. Eighty-five percent of the Malibu permits were for residential developments. No other use amounted to more than 3.7 percent of the permits. In Long Beach, four uses accounted for at least 10 percent of the permits: commercial, 11.9; industrJLal, 20; residential, 33; and public utilities, 14. 8. Further, recreation and demolition were both over 5 percent. Beside Long Beach, only two other areas had more than 10 percent .of its permits for industrial use: Wilmington with 41 and El Segundo with 23 (this, however, included only three permits). Commercial ac- tivity was more dispersed. Eight communities exceeded 10 percent and ranged from 10 percent of the permits for such use in both Hermosa Beach and Venice to 32 and 54 percent in Redondo Beach and Marina del Rey respectively. -49- TABLE 4. 0 "Summary Table: Approved Permits in Local Areas" Total Total Total Acreage donstruction Housing Used - No. Costs - No. Units -No. El Porto 1.0 1 139,000 2 6 2 El Segundo 11.0 6 6,582,797 11 64 9 HerTnosa Beach 9.0 6 1,109,700 46 52 30 Long Beach 62.5 29 91,491,813 124 1273 48 Malibu 170.12 92 16,136,887 188 398 160 Manhattan Beach 18.0 11 2,671,400 55 74 45 Marina del Rey 14.56 7 766,738 26 -885 5 Pacific Palisades 6.0 4 1,603,000 14 10 10 Palos Ver-des Est. 62.0 36 4,496,297 64 118 68 Playa del Rey 9.0 8 50,647,000 26 29 28 Rancho. Palos Verdes 4.0 2 425,000 15 4 4 Redondo Beach 20.95 12 13,374,191 41 559 20 San Pedro 18.0 11 12,806,344 31 539 18 Santa Monica 26.0 17 10,855,777 32 201 25 Torrance 3.0 1 420,000 4 187 5 Venice 35.1 22 25,686,367 54 740 41 Wilmington 7.0 3 26,732,661 34 00 00 The percentage of single family resident permits is significant in almost every community and goes over 50 percent in six, including Malibu. Even so, the importance of multi-family residents must be noted. In six cases, the number of permits issued exceeded those for single family facilities: Santa Monica, Marina dEd Rey, Long Reach, Redondo Beach and Venice. Further, in almost all cases with substantial housing activity the majority of'the total number of dwelling units, as distinct from permits, are to be found in buildings with two or more units. Residential development in Long Beach was involved with 1, 2 73 living units in 1973. Five residential permits for Marina del Rey were involved with development of 885 units. The Venice and San Pedro district of Los Angeles City had permits developing 7.40 and 559 units respectively. The City of Redondo Beach had the next highest number of developed units, 559. Five communities had multi-family develop- ments with at least 100 units. Long Beach had three such projects; Marina del Rey, two. Eight communities had at least one project involved with a 50-unit multi-family residence. One third of all multi- family residences in Long Beach and Redondo Beach were developments of at least 50 units. The Venice district had 32 multi-family projects approved, but only one developed more than 50 units., The limited scope of the recreational developme-nt that took place in Los Angeles County was concentrated in two areas: Long Beach, 11 permits, and Malibu, 6 permits. In no community did recre- ational permits account for more than 2 of an area's permits. Several areas -- Rancho Palos Verdes, Torrance, El Segundo, El Porto and Santa Monica -- had no recreational permits filed in 1973. The scope and distribution of recreational development both raise different ques- tions for public access to the coast. An apparent concentration in one area can still leave many residents of the County far from a coastal recreation facility. 4.2 Use of Vacant Land The pattern of development of land that was previously vacant varied considerably from area to area. In six communities, vacant ,land was the present use description for more than 551% of the permits. In Palos Verdes Estates, 83.3% of the permits were developing open space. More than 7 of every 10 permits in Malibu removed vacant land. The high utilization of open space in some communities is con- trasted by the high degree of redevelopment in other areas of the County. Only 22.5% of the Redondo Beach pen-nits were involved with vacant land. Six communities -- Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, Wilmington, Marina del Rey, Long Beach and Hermosa Beach -- had fewer than 50% of their permits involved with open space. 4.3 Spatial Distribution As noted earlier, the physical configuration of land and pre- existing land use patterns 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 County. In 4 communities at least 50% of all permits involved land less than 100 yards from the mean high tide line. In Long Beach, 66.3% of all permits involved land within the first 100 yards, and 41. 1% of all permits were* less than 50 yeards from the mean high tide line. A majority of Marina del Rey permits, 57. 1%, developed land less than 50 yards from the mean, high tide mark. Malibu permits were also con- centrated in the area near the coast with 56. 8% within 100 yards and 47.3% within 50 yards of the mean high tide mark. Wilmington was the other area with a concentration of permits, 57. 1%, in the 100 yards nearest the beach. Six communities had 33% or more of all permits at least 500 yards from the mean high tide line. In Santa Monica, for example, 50% of all projects were at least 500 yards beyond the mean high tide line. The percentages for the other areas were: San Pedro,. 3 5%; Pacific Palisades, 41.7%; El Segundo, 70%; Playa del Rey, 37.5%; and Torrance, 50%. The remaining communities seem to have a more disperse devel- opment pattern with some individual concentrations, Manhattan Beach, for instance, had 11 or 26. 8% of its permits between 250 and 500 yards and 24.3% between 100 and 250 yards from the mean high tide line. 4.4 Permit Approval Procedures Denied permit applications were to be found in 9 different commu- nities.. However, there was a concentration of these denied permits in three different areas. Malibu's 9 denied applications represent 26.5% of all rejected applications in Los Angeles County. Venice with 10 denials and Santa Monica with 8 denials accounted for respectively. 29.4% and 23.5% of all denied applications. -52- Table 4.4 "Construction Costs and Permit Type-All Areas" Mean Construction Costs of Permits Permit TY]2-. % Consent Area Approved No. Denied - NoI Wublic Hearing Calendar Malibu $ 85,835 188 $ 343,714 7 23.7 56.1 Pacific Palisades 114,500 14 21.4 50.0 Santa Monica 339,243 32 2,182,857 7 48.9 31.9 Venice 475,673 54 445,125 8 52.1 25.4 Marina del Rey 766,738 26 3,200,000 2 37.1 17.1 Playa del Rey 1,947)961 26 67,500 2 16.1 71.0 Cn El Segundo 598,,436 11 ------------ 35.7 50.0 El Porto 69@500 2 ------------ 33.3 33.3 Manhattan Beach 48,.570 55 200,000 1 18.6 40.7 Hermosa Beach 24,124 46 ------------- 8.0 46.0 Redondo Beach 326,200 41 625,000 1 37.5 14.6 Torrance 105,000 4 ------------ 40.0 60.0 Palos Verdes Es. 70,255 64 ------------ 8.3 79.2 Rancho Palos Ver. .28,333 15 56,000 1 15.0 50.0 San Ppdro 413,100 31 116,000 1 22.5 52.0 Wilmington 786Y256 34 ------------ 20.0 40.0 Long Beach 737,837 124 ------------ 25.2 43.0 It is difficult to pinpoint the reason for the concentration of denied applications in these three areas. Santa Monica had an unu- sually high number of applications classified as public hearing items, but Malibu had only 22% of its applications classified as public hear- ing items; 54. 8% of all applications in Santa Monica were public hearing items. Construction costs were not the factor responsible for denied permit applications. Several areas had mean construction costs in excess of the figures reported for either Santa Monica, Malibu, or Santa Monica and fewer denied permits. It is possible that active citizens' groups are responsible for denied applications. These three areas do have active citizens' groups that may be arguing for denials or forcing issues onto public hearing agendas. It is also possible that the projects submitted for develop- ment in these three areas raised significant environmental questions not raised by most projects planned for the other communities. The only conclusion immediately possible is that there is an unequal distri- bution of denied applications in the sub-areas of the County. 5. 0 A Concluding Note Previous sections of this report have addressed selected policy questions raised by the analysis of permit activity in the Coastal Zone of Los Angeles County for 1973. The more central task of the report, however, has been to assemble an information set that describes land use and isolates any observable patterns. In items of policy questions, the land use patterns and permit approval procedures raised several important issues revolving around at least three major points: the process of permit approval; the impact of project location on public access to the water; and the question of public investment for mass recreational projects. The analysis seems to indicate there is reason for concern and further investigation into each area. Permit hearing procedures may not be conducive for pro- ducing a satisfactory level of information for decision making. The placement of certain projects in close proximity to the beach can raise important long run implications for public access. And private invest- ment funds appear to be attracted to residential, industrial, and commercial development of the Coastal Zone with recreational develop- ment a low priority. From a data perspective, the emphasis of this report was placed on making primary land use information available for the first time. No attempt was made to do a more detailed or fine tuned analysis or pursue seemingly interesting relationships between variables and within -54- individual projects. These tasks will be performed by a two-year, more comprehensive analysis of permit activity for both Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The two-year examination will produce a larger and more refined data base from which an expanded review can be made of the policy ramifications of the permit system and permit decision-making for coastal development. -55- Appendix "A" The "Scorecard" project places 26 categories of information 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. 1. 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 1. net acreage III. Economic Characteristic 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 -56- Appendix "B" The tables in Appendix "B" describe permit activity in the 17 communities in Los Angeles County. As with the tables pre- sented for the County as a whole, certain different totals will appear due to missing observations. As noted earlier, the number of complete permit applications allows for a thorough examination and analysis. _-57- EL PORTO I Permit Activity CQmmer- Indusr Single Multi, Public Recrea, Dred, Demol- Otber Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 % - Row 100 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % - Row Total 0 0 0- 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 % - Row 100 II. Present Use, Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total F-amily Family Utility tion "lture 00 2 Approved 1.0 % - Row 50 50.0 Denied % - Row 1 1 2 Total % Row 50.0 50.0 EL PORTO III. Approval Procedures Less $llr $26@ $51,,- $101, $151r. $201- Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative % - Row 100.0 Consent Calendar 100.0 % - Row Emergency % - Row Public Hearing % - Row IV. Residential Units in Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved. 2 Row 100.0 Denied % -.Row EL PORTO V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action S ta f f Re c omm eb d'at ib, n Commission' Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approye 3 3 Deny Pending Approve w/ conditions Total 3 3 EL PORTO Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial % Column Industrial % Column Single Family % Column Multi-Family 2 1 7o Column 100.0 100.0 Public Utility Column Recreation % Column Other* Column Total 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 *includes demolition and dredging projects M.O.= missing observation EL SEGUNDO I Permit Activity Commer@ Indus.,z Single Multi- Public Recrea, Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 0 3 4 5 -- 1 0 0 0 0 13, % - Row 23.1 30 8.5 7.7 Denied 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % - Row Total 0 3 4 5 -1- 0 0 0 0 13 Row 23.1 30.8 7.7 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total F-amily Family Utility tion lture 8 13 Approved 0 2 3 0 0 0 7o - Row 15.4 23.1 61. ---------- Denied 0 0 .0- 0 __0 0 0 0 % - Row Total 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 R 13 % - Row 15.4 23.1 61.5 EL SEGUNDO III. Approval Procedures Less $11, $2&- $51,,z $101, $151r $201- Greater than tban 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $101C -2 Administrative 100.0 % - Row 4 1 Consent Calendar 66.7 16.7 % - Row Emergency Row I f I 1 2 Public Hearing 33.3 66.7 % - Row IV. Residential Units in.Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 3 1 1 % - Row 44.4 33.3 11.1 Denied % Row EL SEGUNDO V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staf f Recommendation Commission'Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approve 12 2 14 Deny Pending Approve w/. conditions 01 Total 12 2 EL SEGUNDO Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial % Column Industrial 2 1 % Column 100.0 Single Family 3 1 % Column 42.9 Multi-Family 4 % Column 57.1 Public Utility 100.00 % Column Recreation % Column Other* % Column Total 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 3 *includes demolition and dredging projects M.O.= missing observation HERMOSA BEACH I. Permit Activity Commer, Indus.,r $ingle Multi-, Public Recrea,- Dred, Demol- Other Total cial. trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 5 0 19 12 9 2 0 1 1 49, % - Row 10.2 - 38.8 24.5 18.4 4.1 0 2.0 2.0 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % - Row Total 5 0 19 12 9. 2 0 1 -1 49 Row 10.2 38.8 24.5 18.4 4.1 2.0 2.0 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion .-lture cr) Approved 5 0 in 6 6 4 19 50 1 Of 38.0 Row 10.0 20.0 12.0 12.0 8.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -a Denied % - Row Total 5 0 10 6 - 4 19 50- 70- Row 10.0 20.0 12.0 12.0 8.0 38.0 HERMOSA BEACH III. Approval Procedures Less $11, $26, $51,7 $101, $151.7 $201- Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative 12 10 % - Row 54.5 45 . 5 Consent Calendar 3 15.0 20.0 55.0 10.0 % - Row Emergency % - Row Public Hearing 50.0 50.0 % - Row IV. Residential Units in Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 16 11 % - Row 57.1 39.2 3.6 Denied Row L L HERMO SA BEACH V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staff Recommendation Commission'Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total ApproVe 50 50 Deny Pending Approve w/ conditions CO Total 50 50 IL HERMOSA BEACH Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250- 500 750 1000 Commercial 1 1 2 1 % Column 11.1 11.1 33.3 Industrial Column Single Family 1 5 3 3 1 2 4 7o Column 50.0 55.6 33.3 42.9 16.7 100.0 Multi-Family 1 3 1 @3 2 2 7o Column 50.0 33.3 11.1 42.91 33.3 Public Utility I 1 2 1 1 3 7o Column 50.0 .1.1.1; 22.2 14.3 16.7 Recreation .2 3 % Column 22.2 Other* 2 Co lumn Total 0 2. 2 9 9 7 6 2 15 *includes demolition and dredging projects .1.0.= missing observation LONG BEACH I. Permit Activity Comer, IndusT Single Multi, Public Recrea, Dred,- Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 16 27 15 30 -20 11 0 7 9 135 % - Row 11.9 20.0 11.1 22.2 14.8 8.1 5.2 .6.7 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 % - Row Total 16 27 15 30 20 11 0 7 9 % - Row 11.9 20.0 11.1 22.2 14.8 8.1 5.2 6.7 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion lture Approved 13 25 17 6 13 7----- 49 131 % - Row 1-971 13.0 4.6 9.9 5.3 .8 37.41 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- % - Row - -- Total 13 25 17 6 13 7 1 49 131 % - Row 9.9 19.1 13.0 4.6 9.9 5.3 .8 37.4 LONG BEACH III. Approval Procedures Less $Ilr $26, $51, $101, $151r $201- Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative 20 18 2 1 Row 48.8 43.9 4.9 2.4 4 7 14 15 5 2 2 1 Consent Calendar 8.0 14.0 28.0 30.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 % - Row Emergency % - Row 2 1 4 4 1 3 2 12 .Public Hearing 6.9 3.4 13.8 13.8 3.4 10.3 6.9 41'.4 % - Row IV. Residential Units in Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 18 16 1 3 4 1 1 3 % - Row 38.3 34.C 6.4 8.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 6.4 Denied % - Row LONG BEACH V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action St*af f Recomrrie@ndation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total ApproVe 128 2 9 139 Deny Pending A prove w/ p conditions 2 9 139 Total 128 LONG BEACH VI. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 1 3 1 3 1 7 Column 6.7 21.4 3.3 23.1 1,12.5 Industrial 6' 4 14 1 2 Column 40.0 28A 46.7 7.7 Single Family 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 Column 14.3 6.7 7. 7 10. 0 50. 0 37.5 Multi-Family 2 3 6 3 4 2 8 016 Column 23.1 60.0 50.0 50.0 16.7 Public Utility 2 5 4 1 6 2@ 7b Column 13.3 .16.7 30.8 10.0 50.0 Recreation 4 1 1 1 3 1 % Column 26.7 3.3 71.7 10.0 25.0 Other* 2 5 5 1 1 2 % Column 13.4 35.7 @16.7 10.0 8.3 Total 14 14 30 13 10 6 8 12 25 *includes demolition and dredging projects M.O.= missing observation MALIBU 1. Permit Activity Commer@ Indus,,z- 5ingle MultiT- Public Recrea, Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 7 0 145 15 6 6 0 2 7. 188 Row 3.7 77.1 8. 3. 2 1.1 3.7 2 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 Denied Rbw 22.2 44.4 33.3 9 0 149 18 6 6 0 2 7 197 Total -. -w - 7o -- Row 4.6 75.6 9.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 3.6 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Yamily Family Utility tion 'lture Approved 7 0 4 0 129 179 7o - Row 3.9 15.6 3.3 2.8 .2.2 72.-l 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 9 Denied Row 66. Total 8 0 -29 r7 5 4 0 135 188 % Row 4.2 33.7 7.8 2.7 2.1 71.4 9 L!4 .6@ @2 8@ 5 .6 3.3 MALIBU III. Approval Procedures Less $1.1, $26- $51.7 $101, $151, $201, Greater than than 26k 50k 1001c 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative 23 16 59.0 41.0 % - Row 3 7 37 46 10 3 Consent Calendar 2.8 6.6: 34.9 43.4 9.4 2.8 % - Row Emergency % - Row Public Hearing 3 7 18 5 2 6 % - Row 7.3 17.1 43.9 12.2 4.9 14.6 cn IV. Residential Units in Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 141 10 3 1 1 1 % - Row 89.8 6.4 1.9 .6 .6 .6 Denied 2 4 1 % - Row 2.- 8.6 57.li- 14.3 MALIBU V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staff Recommendation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approve 151 2 154 Deny 1 7 8 Pending Approve w/ 0 conditions Total 152__ 9 1 1 -1 162 MALIBU Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 1 1 2 1 2 % Column 2.0, 5.0 14.3 7.7 Industrial % Column Single Family 39 13 8 13 13 11 14 27 % Column 78.0 65.0 57.1 76.5 100.0 84.6 95.0 Alulti-Family 4 1 1 2 5 % Column 8.0 5.0 7.1 11.8 Public Utility 1 3 1 1 7o Column 2.0 21.4 7. 7 5.0 Recreation 2 4 % Column 4 .0 20.0 Other* 3 1 2 2 % Column 6.0 5.0 11.8 tal 0 50 20 14 17 13 12 20 36 L *includes demolition and dredging projects 1,.I.O.= missing observation MANHATTAN BEACH 1. Permit Activity Commerr.- Indusz Single Multi- Public Recrea, Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 5 0 30 16 4 1 0 0 1 57, % - Row 8.8 52.6 28.1 7.o 1.8 1.8 Denied 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 100. Tot a 1 - 5 0 30 17 4 0 Row 8.6 51.7 29.3 6.9 1.7 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion 'lture -,3 00 Approved 3 0 17 6 1-- 1 0- 2 % - Row 5.7 32.1 11.3 1.9@ 1.9 47.2 Denied 0 0 0 0 % - Row 100. Total 3 0 .17--- 7 1 1 0 2.9 .9A- Row 5.6 -31.5 13.0 1.9 1.9 46.3 MANHATTAN BEACH III. Approval Procedures Less $Ilr $26, $51.7 $101, $151r $201- Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k 7 Administrative 29.2 70.8 % - Row 2 8 9 1 1 Consent Calendar 9.5 38.1 42.9 4.8 4.8 % - Row Emergency % - Row 1 3 3 1 1 Public.Hearing 11. 1.] 33.3 33.3 11.1 11. 1 % - Row IV. Residential Units in Singl Ie and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 28 15 1 % - Row 63.6 34.1 2.3 Denied 1 100.0 % Row L I MANHATTAN BFACH V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staff'Recommebdation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approve 56 2 58 Deny Pending Approve w/ conditions CO Total 56 2 59 ---J. MANHATTAN BEACH VI. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 3 1 % Column 25.0 8.3 Industrial % Column Single Family 1 5 8 2 4 10 % Column 25.0 41.7 66.7 50.0 100.0 00 Multi-Family 2 1 3 3 2 1 4 % Column 40.0 100.0 75.0 25.01 16.7 25.0 Public Utility 3 1 % column. 60.0 8.3 Recreation 1 % Column 25.0 Other* Column 8.31 tal 0 5 1 4 12 11 4 4 15 *includes demolition and dredging projects 1,,.I.O.= missing observation MARINA DEL REY I Permit Activity Commer@ lndus,;z@ @$ingle Multi- Public Recrea., Dred@ Demol- Other Total' cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 17 1 0 5 3 1 0 0 4 1 31 % - Row 54.8 3.2 16.1 9.7 3.2 12.9 Denied 0 0 0 2 0 0__ 0 0 0 2 % - Rbw 100 0 T6'tal 17 1 0 7 - 3. 1 0 4 Row' 51.5 3.0 21-2 9.1 3.0 12.1 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion 1ture co Approved 12 0 3 0 8 ___2_9 % Row .41.4 10.3 --6.9 _101.3 3.4 27.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Denied % - Row 100.0 Total 12 3 2- 3 1 0 1-0 31 Row 38.7 9.7 6.5 9.7 3.2 32.3 MARINA DEL REY 111. Approval Procedures Less $llr $26,@ $51,z $101, $151r $201, Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k .$301k $10k Administrative 9 3 1 % '_ Row 69 . 2 23.1 7.7 1 1 2 1 Consent Calendar 20.0 20.0 .40.0 20.0 % - Row - Emergency % - Row 2 1 5 Public Hearing 25. 12.5 62.5 % - Row CO Residential Units in Singl e and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 2 1 % - Row 40.( 20.0 40.0 Denied 1 1 Row A 50.0 50.0 MARINA DEL REY V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staf f Recomrn'endatibn Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approve 28 1 3 32 Deny 3 3 Pending Approve w/ conditions CO Total 28 4 3 35 MARINA DEL REY Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT, to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 1 5 1 2 2 2 4 % Column 25.0 62.5 100.0 50.0 100.0 200.0 Industrial 1 % Column 251.0 Single Family % Column co 2 3 Multi-Family 50. C % Column Public Utility 1 2 1% Column 12.5 Recreation % Column 25.0 Other* 1 2 % Column 25.0 25.0 Total 0 4 8 1 4 2 0 2 9 *includes demolition and dredging projects 11.0.= missing observation PACIFIC PALISADES I. Permit Activity CQmmer-7 Indusr Single Multi-, Public Recrea, Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 0 1 11 0 0 1 o 0 1 14, % - Row 0 7.1 78.6 0 0 7.1 0 0 7.1 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- % - Row I I I. Total 0 1 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 14 7o - Row 7.1 78.6 7.1 7.1 II. Present Use Commercial.Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Yamily Family Utility tion lture co Approved 0 0 4 0 -0 1 0 7- 19 % - Row 33.3 8.3 58.3 Denied 0 0 --O,__ 0- 0 0 Row Total 0 0 4 .0 0 1 0 7 12 Row 33.3 8.3 5 8.3 @0 PACIFIC PALISADES III. Approval Procedures Lesa $11, $26,-! $51.,7 $10ir $1517 $201- Greater than tb,in 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k -3 Administrative 25.0 75.0 % - Row 6 Consent Calendar 14.3 85.7 % - Row Emergency Row 1 2 Public Hearing 33.3 66.7 Row cc, IV. Residential Units in Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 10 % - Row 00.6 Denied Row PACIFIC PALISADES V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staff Recommendation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approv.e 14 14 Deny Pending Approve w/ conditions CC) CO Total 14 14 PACIFIC PALISADES Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Coinmercial Column Industrial % Column 50.0 Single Family 2 2 1 1 3 1 % Column 100.0 100.0 50.01 50.0 100.0 CO LO Multi-Family % Column Public Utility 100.0 To Co I umn Recreation % Column Other* % Column 50.0 tal 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 3 1 *includes demolition and dredging projects H.O.= missing observation PALOS VERDES'ESTATES I. Permit Activity Commer- Indusz, 8ingle Multi,- Public Recrea, Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 0, 0 63 4 2 2 0 0 1 72, % - Row 0 87.5 5.6 2.8 2.8 0 0 1.4 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % - Row 63 791 Total 0 0 1 4 2. 2 0 Row 87.5 5-6 2.8 2.-8 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single.Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion -1ture Ck 2 1 60 72 Approved 0 6 % - Row 1.4 8.3 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 83.3 Denied 0 0 0 7o - Row Total 0 6 1 2 1 1 60, 72 Row 1.4 8.3 i 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 83.3 . @3 _0 PALOS VERDES ESTATES III. Approval Procedures Less $11, $26, $51,z $lol@ $151r $201- Greater than than 26k 50k look 150k 200k 300k $301k $101" Administrative 6 0 1 22.2 66.7 11.1 % - Row Consent Calendar 1 7 40 2 1 2.0 13.7 3.9 2.0 % - Row Emergency % - Row 2 1 1 Public Hearing 50.0 25.0 25.0 % - Row IV. Residential Units in'Singl .e and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 63 3 2 % - Row 92.6 4.4 2.9 Denied % Row PALOS VERDES ESTATES V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staf f Recommendation Coininissibn Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Appro,ve 72 72 Deny Pending Approve w/ conditions Total 72 72 PALOS VERDES ESTATES VI. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 10-00 Commercial % Column Industrial 7o Column Single Family 4 4 7 14 4 8 4 % Column 100.0 100.0 63.6 87.51 66.7 100. 0 1 1 2 Multi-Family 9.1 6.3 33.3 % Column Public Utility 2 70 Column 18.2 1 Recreation 9.1 7c Column Other* 6.3 % Column Total 0 0 4 4 11 16 6 8 5 *includes demolition and dredging projects M.0.= missing observation PLAYA DEL REY I. Permit Activity Commer- Indus.,z. Single Multi- Public Recrea" Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family utility tion ging ition Approved 2 2 - 14 5 2 2 0 0 1 28 % - Row 7.1 7.1 50.0 17.9 -7. 1 .1 0 q A Denied 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 % - Row 50.0 0 0 50.0 0 0 .0 0 0 Total 3 2 14 6 2 2 0 0 1 30 % - Row 12.5 8.3 58.3 8.3 8.3 4.2 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion 'lture Approved 0 2 3 0 2 0- 16 26 % - ROW 7.7 11.5 7.7 11.5 61.5 Denied 1 0 0 0 0 0 0- 1 2 Row 50.0 50.0 Total 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 17 28 % - Row 3.6 7.1 10.'7 7.1 1 0.7 60.7 P 2 l 7. 0 PLAYA DEL REY III. Approval Procedures Less $llr $26, $51, $101, $151r $201- Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k r Administrative 3 1 % - Row 75.0 25.0 9 6 4 1 Consent Calendar 1 42.9 28.6 19.0 4.8 4.8 % - Row - - Emergency Row --A Public Hearing 33.31 33.3 33. Row CA IT. Residential Units in Singl .eand Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 14 5 7, - Row 73.1 26.3 Denied 1 % - Row 100.01 PLAYA DEL REY V. Staff.Recommendation@and Commission Action Staff Recommendation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approve 29 29 Deny 2 2 Pending Approve w/ conditions Total 29 2 31 PLAYA DEL REY VI. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 1 1 % Column 25.0 14.3 Industrial 1 % Column 100.0 14.3 Single Family 1 3 1 3 2 4 % Column 33.3 LOO.0 100.0 42.9 100.0 Multi-Family 1 2 2 % Column 33.3 50. 0 28.6 Public Utility 1 1 % Column 25.0 Recreation 2 % Column 66.7 Other* I % Column 33.3 Total 3 3 3 1 4 7 2 L *includes demolition and dredging projects I...I.O.= missing observation RANCHO PALOS VERDES I. Permit Activity Commer- Indus.,r Single Multi, Public Recrea,- Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging it:Lon Approved 1 0 4 0 13 0 0 1 0 19 % - Row 5.3 .0 217 0 68.4 0 0 5.3 0 Denied 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 0-- D 0 3 % - R@w 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 T6t a 1 2 0 4 0 13 _ 0 1 0 20 Row 10.0 0 20.0 0 65.0 0 0 5.0 0 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total 1.10 F-amily Family Utility tion -1ture co Approved 1 0 0 C) % - Row 5.3 -5-..3 26.3 5.3 57.9 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 Row - - 1 0 1 0 5 1 0 12 20 Total Row 4.8 4.8 23.7. 4.8 61.9 RANCHO PALOS VERDES III. Approval Procedures L e,,,3 s$llr $26, $511,-, $101, $151r $201- Greater than I than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k 5 1 Administrative 83.3 16.7 7o - Row 1 3 1 3 Consent Calendar 12.5 37.5 12.5 37.5 % - Row Emergency % - Row 2 Public Hearing 100.0 % - Row IN. Residential Units in- Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 4 % - Row 100.c Denied % - Row I RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staff Recommendation Commission' Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Appro,Ve 19 19 Deny Pending Approve w/ conditions Total 19 1 20 RANCHO PALOS VERDES Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial % Column Industrial % Column Single Family 1 1 2 11 10.0 50.0 Column Multi-Family % Column Public Utility 2 9 1 Column 100.0 90.0 50.0 Recreation % Column Other* 1 % Column 100.0 Total 1 0 2 0 0 10 1 1 3 *includes demolition and dredging projects M.0.= missing observation REDONDO BEACH I. Permit Activity Commer- Indus-.z. Single Multi-r Public Recrea-t- Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 15 -4 15 5 1 0 1 4 46 % - Row 32.6 2.2 8.7 32.6 1,0.9 2 2,@2_ S. 7 Denied 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 % - Row 100 Total 15 1 4 17 5 1 0 1 4 48 % - Row 31.1- 2.1 8.3 35.4 10.4 2.1 2.1 8.3 II. Present Use: Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion 1ture Approved 0 11 4 3 2 0 q 40-- % - Row 27.5 27.5 10.0 7.5 .5.0 22.5 Denied 0 0 1 0 0 0 -0 1 2 Row 50.0 Total 11 0 12 4 3 2 0 10 7o Row 26.2 28.6 9.5 7.1 4.8 23.8 REDONDO BEACH III. Approval Procedures Less $117 $26,7 $51v- $101,r $151r $201, Greater than than 26k .50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative 13 -8- 61.9 38.1 Row 1 1 3 1 Consent Calendar 16.7 16.7 50. 0 16.7 % - Row Emergency Row Public Hearing 7.1 7.1 7.1 78.6 % - Row IV. Residential Units'in Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5. 6-10 .11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 5 2 3 5 47- - % - Row 25.C 10.0 15.0 25.0 20.0 5.0 Denied 2 100.0 % - Row REDONDO BEACH V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action StAf f Recommendation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approve .3 41 2 46 Deny 2 2 Pending Approve w/ conditions Total 41 4 3 48 REDONDO BEACH VI. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 2 1 3 3 % Column 66.7 33.3 37.5 37 . 5 50. 0 25.0 Industrial % Column 1 1 2 Single Family 12 .5 150.0 50.0 % Column CD 1 4 Zn Multi-Family 2 1 1 5 25.0 % Column 50.0 50.0 33.3 62.5 12.5 1 1 2 1 Public Utility 50.0- 33.3 25.0 % Column Recreation 25.0 % Column 2 Other* 33.3 25.0 12.5 % Column Total 3 4 2 3 8 9 2 4 12 *includes demolition and dredging projects 1.1.0.= missing observation SAN PEDRO I. Permit Activity Commer- Indus-,r Single Multi,. Public Recrea, Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 5 2 12 5 4 2 0 4 4 38 % - Row 13.2 5.3 31.6 13.2 10.5 5.3 0 10.5- 10-5 Denied 0 0 0- 1 0 0 0 0 0 /0 - Row .100 Total 5 2 12 6 4 2___ 0 4- 4 39 % - Row 12.8 5.1 30.8 15.4 10.3 10.3 II. Present Use: Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion lture CD Approved 1 3 2 9 1 - 2 0 15 36 7o - Row 8.3 5.6 25.0 --2.8 -11.1 5.6 41.7 Denied 0 0 0 0 __0 0 0 1 1 % - Row - 100.0 Total 3 2 9 1 4 2 0 16 37 % - Row 8.1 5.6 24.3* 2.7 10.8 5.4 43.2 4 5.1 10. 3:@ SAN PEDRO III. Approval Procedures ,Less $llr $26, $51,,z $101., $15lr $201- Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative 10 100.0 % - Row I Consent Calendar 7.1 14.3 21.4 35.7 14.3 7.1 % - Row Emergency % - Row 2 2 Public Hearing L- 33.3 33.3 33.3 % - Row '-13 IV. Residential Units in Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+. Approved 12 2 3 5.6 % - Row 66.7 ll.-. 16.7 Denied 1 % - Row 100.0 SAN PEDRO V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action S t a f f Re c offiffiend at I o n Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total ApDroVe 39 39 Deny 1 Pending Approve w/ conditions co Total 40 .40 SAN PEDRO Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 2510 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 2 1 1 % Column 40.0 25.0 20.0 Industrial 2 % Column Single Family 2 2 1 2 5 % Column 100.0 40.0 20.0 66.7 CD Multi-Family 1 2 2 % Column 20.0 50.0 40.0 Public Utility 1 1 1 1 % Column 50.0 25.0 20.0 Recreation 1 % Column 50.0 Other* 1 1 5 % Column iob.o 100.0 33.0 Total 1 -2 1 2 5 4 5 3 14 *includes demolition and dredging projects M.O.= missing observation SANTA MONICA I. Permit Activity Commer@ Indus-,r Single Multi, Public Recrea, Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 7 R -1 4 0 0 0 1 36 % - Row 19.4 0 25.0 41.7 11.1 0 0 0 2.8 Denied 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 Row 0 0 0 100. 0 0 0 0 0 T6tal 7 0 9 15 4 0 0 0 1 44 % .- Row 15.9 20.6 52.7 9.1 2.3 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion _lture 0 13 33 1 Approved 6 0 9 0 4 .1 ___ % - Row 18.2 27.3 12.1 3.0 39.4 Denied 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 6 I % - Row 33.3 0 __16.7 16.7 q.4 q.1 8 0 10 1 4 1 0 15 39 1 Total Row 20.5 25.6 2.6 10.7 2.6 38.5 SANTA MONICA III. Approval Procedures Less $11r $26@ $51,,z $101, $15lr $201- Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k :3 -2 Administrative 60.0 40.0 % *_ Row 2 2 3 2 4 1 Consent Calendar 14.3 14.3 2..4 14.3 28.6 7.1 % - Row Emergency % - Row 1 2 1 14 4 11 Public Hearing 4.3 8.7 4.3 7.4 17.4 47.8 % - Row IV. Residential Units in Single and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 9 2 6 6 0 1 0 0 % - Row 37.5 8.2 25.0 25.0 4.2 Denied 2 3 2 25.0 37.5 25.0 12.5 Row SANTA DIONICA V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action St'af f Recommendation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approve 36 36 Deny 6 8 2 Pending Approve w/ conditions Total 44 1. 38 6 SANTA MONICA Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 1 2 7o Column 100.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 Industrial 1 3 3 1 1 % Column 50.0 75.0 60.0 12.5 Single Family Column 1 6 4 1 Multi-Family 20.0 75.0 33.3 7o Column Public Utility 1 % Column 12.5 Recreation % Column Other* % Column Total 0 1 1 2 4 5 8 5 6 *includes demolition and dredging projects 11.0.= missing observation TORRANCE I. Permit Activity Commer- Indus.,z. Single Multi.:- Public Recrea.,- Dred., Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 % - Row 4-0 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % - Row Total 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 % - Row 60 4-0- II. Present Use' Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total Family Family Utility tion lture 2 Approved Row 25.0 Denied Row 2 Total % Row 25.0 25.0 TORRANCE III. Approval Procedures Less $11r $26,7 $51,,z $101, $151r $201- Greater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative % '- Row 2 1 Consent Calendar 66.7 33.3 % - Row Emergency % - Row Public Hearing % - Row IV. Residential Units in Singl e and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 .11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 3 % - Row 60.0 20.C 20.0 Denied % Row TORRANCE V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staff Recommendation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total ApproVe 5 5 Ddny Pending Approve w/ conditions 5 Total 5 TORRANCE Vi. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 '750 1000 Commercial % Column Industrial % Column Single Family % Column 100.0 100.0 Multi-Family % Column .1.00.0-100.0 Public Utility % Column Recreation % Column Other* 7o Co lumn Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 *includes demolition and dredging projects 11.0.= missing observation VENICE TII. Approval Procedures Less $llr $26, $51, $101, $1517 $201- Gre ater than than 26k 50k 100k 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative 10 5 % - Row 66.7 33.3 2 1 4 7 1 2 Consent Calendar 11.8 5.9 23.5 41.2 5.9 11.8 % - Row Emergency % - Row 2 8 6 5 3 6 Public Hearing 6.7 26.7 20.0 16.7 -0 20.0 % - Row CO IV. Residential Units in Singl e and Multi-Family Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Approved 7 17 8 5 1 1 % - Row .17.9 43.E 20.5 12.8 2.6 2.6 Denied 1 1 5 1 % Row L 12.. 2 1. _62. 5 12.5 1 L18 VENICE I. Permit Activity CQmmer- Indua.,- Single Multi- Pu blic Recrea, Dred@ Demol- Other Total cial. trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 6 2 6 33 6 4 0 1 1 59, % - Row 10.2 3.4 10.2 !@5- -9 10. 2 6.8 0 1.7 1.7 Denied 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10- .7o - Row 10.0 0 0 90.0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 7 2 6 42 6 4 0 1 1 69 % - Row 10.1 2.9 8.7 60.9 8.7 5.8 0 1.4 1.4 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total F-amily Family Utility tion 'Iture 3 0 Approved 4 1 8 9 3 % - Row 7.0 1.8 14.0.---. 15.8 8.8 5.3 47.4 Denied 0 1 0 --0 0 0 10 7o - Row 10.0 10.0 Rn n Total 5 1 9 9 3 .3 0- 35 65 % Row 7.7 1.5 13.8 13.8 4.6 4.6 53.8 @ 0@42 6 .9@] 4774 8 VENICE V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action Staf f Recommendat'ibn Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Ai)prov.e 55 60 Deny 0 10 10 Pending Approve w/ conditions Total 71 56 14 VENICE VI. Proximity to Mean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 1 2 1 1 1 % Column 11.1 15.4 33.3 25.0 Industrial 1 % Column 7.7 25.0 Single Family 1 1 1 2 1 7c, Column 11.1 7.7 9.11 50.0 Multi-Family 6 6 6 7 1 6 7o Column 100.0 85.7 66.7 46.2 63.6 33.3 Public Utility 1 1 1 2 1 76 Co 1 umn 14. 3 11.1 7.7 18.21 Recreation 1 % Column 50.0 7_7 9.11 33.3 Other* 1 1 % Column 50.0 7,7 Total 1 2. 7 10 12 11 3 4 9 IL *includes demolition and dredging projects 11.0.= missing observation WILMINGTON I. Permit Activity Commer- Indusv Single Multi, Public Recrea-.- Dred, Demol- Other Total cial trial Family Family Utility tion ging ition Approved 10 14 0 0 6 0 1 2 1 34 Row 29.4 41.2 -01 2.9 5.9 2.9 Denied 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 .0 n n % - R'bw I I f 1 1 Tibtal 10 14 0 0 C, ____0 2 1 34 2.9 Row 29.4 41.2 II. Present Use Commercial Industrial Single Multi Public Recrea- Agricu- Vacant Total F-amily Family Utility tion lture 4 16 0 0 Approved 0 % - Row 12.1 48.5 15.2 24.2 Denied 0 0 0 n Row 4 16 0 0 5 0 0 8 33 Total - % - Row 12.0 48.5 15. 2 24.2 WILMINGTON III. Approval Procedures Less $11, $2&- $51,,@ $101, $151, $201- Greater than than 26k 50k look 150k 200k 300k $301k $10k Administrative 10 3 % '- Row 76.9 23.1 1 7 1 1 1 2 Consent Calendar 7.7 53.8 7.7 7.7 717 15.4 % - Row Emergency % - Row 1 4 Public Hearing 20.0 8O..Q % - Row I,V- Residential Units in Single and Multi-Fami-ly Residences 1 2-5 6-10 11-25 26-50,-51-75 76-100 100+ Approved % - Row Denied % Row A WILMINGTON V. Staff Recommendation and Commission Action St'af f Recommendation Commission Action Approve Deny Pending Approve Conditionally Total Approve 34 35 Deny Pending Approve w/ conditions Total 34 1 35 WILMINGTON VI. Proximity to M ean High Tide (MHT) Line: Approved Permits Seaward Adjacent Less 50 100 250 500 750 to MHT to Beach than to to to to to M.O. 50 Yds. 100 250 500 750 1000 Commercial 1 1 3 1 4 % Column 16.7 50.0 60.0 100.0 Industrial 2 1 2 3 1 1 4 % Column 100.0 100.0 66.7 50.0 50.0 20.0 Single Family Column CA Multi-Family % Column Public Utility 2 % Column .3.3.31 16.7 100.0 Recreation % Column Other* % Column 16.7 20.0 Total 2 1 3 6 2 5 1 *includes demolition and dredging p rojects 11.0.= missing observation - COASTAL ZONE -NFQWjTfGN CENTEk -- ot, u 3 11974 I t; 3 6668 00002 5181