HomeMy WebLinkAbout76-73 - Urging Amendment to Senate Bill 1579, Coastal LegislationRESOLUTION NO. 76-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, URGING THE STATE LEGIS-
LATURE TO ADOPT CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL
1579 REGARDING COASTAL LEGISLATION.
WHEREAS, State authority to make land use decisions should be
limited to areas of Statewide concern and highly localized planning
decisions should remain a local government matter; and
WHEREAS, comprehensive planning should occur along the coast
without unnecessary duplication of existing local General Plan Elements;
and
WHEREAS, local government should not be required to bear the cost
of a Statewide program consistent with existing law under Senate Bill
90; and
WHEREAS, the present duplication between State and regional
commissions should be eliminated with respect to reviewing local coastal
plans and developments; and
WHEREAS, this duplication creates two additional governmental
layers which add to the cost of government; and
WHEREAS, a State Coastal Commission composed of officials from
appropriate State agencies and public members would eliminate possible
duplication in the reviewing of plans and development and result in
greater expertise on the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Resource Management Zone in Costa Mesa is arbitrary,
ignores existing development patterns, and disregards physical features
which restrict access to the coast;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Costa Mesa that it urges the State Legislature to adopt amendments to
Senate Bill 1579 as follows:
The successor State Coastal Commission should have development
review (permit authority) only in those specific geographical
areas within the present permit zone which are of Statewide
significance. Areas of Statewide significance should include
marshes, dunes, wetlands, agriculture resources, forest
resources, special ecological preserves, and coastal dependent
recreation areas. Cities and counties should submit maps
which identify these areas within their jurisdiction. The
State Commission would be allowed to deny a map by a majority
vote accompanied with findings justifying such actions.
2. A Coastal Element of the General Plan should be required for
those areas of cities and counties lying within the coastal
resource management area. The planning policies contained in
the Legislation should not duplicate existing State policy or
overlap the duties of, or policies of, other existing State
agencies. Changes to a City's General Plan Elements should be
considered where needed. Coastal Elements should not contain
implementing devices, nor should such devices be required to
be reviewed by the Coastal Commission. A local Coastal
Element could be denied in whole or part by the Coastal
Commission only by a majority vote accompanied by findings
justifying a denial.
The State should be responsible for all costs incurred by
local agencies in preparing local Coastal Elements and ac-
quiring land.
4. The regional commissions should go out of existence January 1,
1977, as provided under existing law. A successor State
Commission should be established with staff offices in each of
the present six regions.
5. The successor Coastal Commission should be composed of heads
of various State agencies which have a role in land use and
environmental planning, in addition to members from the
private sector:
* Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board
* Chairman of the Air Resources Board
* Chairman of the Energy Resources and Conservation
Commission
* Secretary of the Resources Agency
* Director of the Office of Planning and Research
* City and County government officials
* Public members from the private sector (such as
labor, finance, real estate, development, and environ-
mental groups) appointed by the Governor, Assembly,
and Senate.
6. Appeals to the State Commission on projects within a City's
Resource Management Zone should be prohibited after the City's
Coastal Element has been approved by the State Commission.
7. The Resource Management Zone in Costa Mesa is arbitrary,
ignores existing development patterns, and disregards physical
features which restrict access to the coast. The Resource
Management Zone boundary should be reconsidered.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 1976.
Mayorof he = off osta Mesa
ATTEST:
a Mesa
City Clerk of the City of `C/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby certify that the above and
foregoing Resolution No. 76-73 was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th
day of June, 1976.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal
of the City of Costa Mesa this Nth day of June, 1976.
City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk the
City Council of the City of Cosy Mesa