EPA-600/5-75-018
June 1975
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE
MALIBU WATERSHED: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Washington Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into
five series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in
related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconotnic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONQMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This aeries describes research on the socio-
economic impact of environmental problems. This covers recycling
and other recovery operations with emphasis on monetary incentives.
The non-scientific realms of legal systems, cultural values, and
business systems are also involved. Because of their interdis-
ciplinary scope, system evaluations and environmental management
reports are included in this series.
This report is available to the public through ttie National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/5-75-018
June 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE MALIBU WATERSHED:
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
by
W. David Conn
University of California
School of Architecture and Urban Planning
Los Angeles, California 90024
Grant No. R802836-01-0
Project Officer
Alan Neuschatz
Washington Environmental Research Center
Washington, D.C. 20460
WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Washington Environmental Research
Center, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report examines the institutional framework for environmental man-
agement in the Malibu Watershed area, Los Angeles County, California.
On the basis that the nature and scale of permitted development is like-
ly to be the major factor shaping the future environment of the study
area, an attempt is made to identify and assess the roles of both those
agencies that play a positive role in promoting development and those
that constrain and regulate development.
Following a brief description of the study area, the report examines the
roles of particular government agencies in planning and decision-making
processes affecting different "elements" of the environment,(e.g., land-
use, coastal resources, air quality, etc.). It then approaches the sub-
ject from a different perspective, studying the involvement of a number
of institutions in particular projects or sets of projects (e.g., the
installation of sewage treatment facilities, the construction of a pri-
vate university, etc.).
The information presented is discussed, and conclusions are drawn about
current institutional roles in environmental management. Several prob-
lems are pointed out, and tentative recommendations are made for possi-
ble solutions worthy of further study.
This report was submitted by the Regents of the University of California
in fulfillment of Grant No. R802836, which was partially sponsored by
the Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of December
1974.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ill
List of Figures vi
Acknowledgements vii
Sections
I Conclusions and Recommendations 1
II Introduction 5
III Description of Study Area 7
IV Institutions and Processes Involved in
Environmental Management 12
V Case Studies 47
VI Discussion 66
VII Glossary of Abbreviations 74
VIII Appendices 76
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1. Location of the Study Area in the State 8
2. Local Map of the Study Area 9
3. Matrix of Key Agencies 14
4. Elements of a General Plan 16
5. Actions Affecting the Las Virgenes Municipal Water
District 48
6. Actions Affecting Pepperdine University 55
7. Actions Affecting Mulholland Highway 61
AI. Districts of the Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles
County 85
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mary Ann Dewey, until recently a graduate student in the U.C.L.A. Urban
Planning Program, is thanked for her valuable assistance in the prepar-
ation of this report. Thanks are also due to the many individuals who,
either in their professional capacities or as private citizens, provid-
ed advice and information.
Public Service Publications, Inc., kindly gave permission for extracts
from the 1974/75 Public Service Guide, compiled by Barbara Rosien, to be
reproduced in Appendix A.
The project was carried out under the auspices of the U.C.L.A. Institute
of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology (Professor Malcolm S. Gordon,
Director).
vii
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I.I CONCLUSIONS
The study confirms that, at least in the Malibu Watershed area, a wide
variety of government institutions are instrumental, either directly or
indirectly, in determining the nature and scale of development and the
attendant impacts on the environment.
Although constraints on local actions are increasingly being applied by
special-purpose agencies concerned with particular elements of the en-
vironment (such as air and water quality), the Board of Supervisors and
the Regional Planning Commission retain the broadest discretionary pow-
ers to guide development; the General Plan, specific zoning designa-
tions, and all public development projects (e.g. roads, flood control
measures, etc.) are subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors, who
also appoint the Planning Commissioners. The Coastal Commissions have
significant discretionary powers too, but their jurisdiction is limited
to a small (though Important) geographical area. The availability of
services such as water supply and sewage treatment can be an important
factor in promoting or constraining development; however, these services
are allegedly provided solely in response to perceived "need", the latter
being determined in large part by the pattern of development permitted by
the General Plan and zoning map which the Board of Supervisors have
adopted.
There are several problems with environmental management as currently
practiced in the study area. These include (i) the fact that policy-
makers at the local level are inadequately responsive to the public; (ii)
the fact that local agencies responsible for administering regulations
-------
governing sanitation, fire protection, etc., are poorly coordinated and
do not always know each other's requirements; (iii) the fact that no
mechanism exists for ensuring adequate coordination between the various
speciial-purpose plans currently being prepared, and in particular for re-
solving tradeoffs between conflicting objectives and policies; and (iv)
the fact that delays in the preparation of plans and the implementation
of new controls give time for actions to be taken now that might consid-
erably reduce the effectiveness of those plans and controls in the
future.
1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is beyond the scope of this study to explore specific solutions to
these problems. However, it is tentatively recommended that considera-
tion be given to the following possibilities: (i) The various single-
purpose agencies concerned with different elements of the environment
might be brought under the aegis of a single umbrella institution organ-
ized at the state level; this would take over the role of comprehensive
planning and generally coordinate each agency's activities. The new in-
stitution might be modeled in some respects after the existing Coastal
Zone Conservation Commission: plans for each region would be prepared
by regional offices (possibly existing regional governments such as SCAG
could fulfill this role), and these plans would subsequently be incor-
porated into a statewide plan for adoption by the Legislature. Appro-
priate provision would have to be made for ensuring citizen input into
the planning process.
The proposed institution could possibly be given permit power over most
new development,equivalent to that currently possessed by the Coastal
Commission; this would give the organization real teeth and might make
its planning more effective. However, the political ramifications of
bringing about such a major shift of power are obviously tremendous, and
it may not be considered feasible at the present time.
-------
(ii) In view of the fact that the Santa Monica Mountains can be claimed
to have special environmental significance (if only because they oc-
cupy the last large undeveloped area contiguous to the shoreline within
the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region), a special agency might be
established for their protection. In the 1973/74 session of the Cali-
fornia Legislature, a bill (A.B. 1254) was introduced to create a Ventura-
Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Commission; this would be responsible
for developing a plan and implementation program for development of the
mountains and adjacent coastal zone. To ensure implementation of the
plan, all development (with prescribed exceptions) would be subject to
permit approval from the Commission.
The findings of this report lend strength to the case for establishing
the commission* as soon as possible.
(iii) As long as the Board of Supervisors and Regional Planning Comm-
ission retain the major controlling power over development, there is a
need for reforms at the local level to provide the checks and balances
that are currently lacking. Long-awaited action on proposals to increase
the number of Supervisors and to appoint a Chief Executive should improve
the situation. A new method of appointing Planning Commissioners might
be sought which would increase their accountability to the public.
The rules governing the procedures used by the Board and the Commission
in adopting plans and processing applications for zone changes, vari-
ances, etc., might bear alteration to ensure that appropriate considera-
tion is given to environmental factors, and to increase the opportunities
* The Legislature failed to act on A.B. 1254 before the end of the ses-
sion. A new bill (A.B. 163) has now been introduced which is similar in
most respects to the old bill, except that the new institution would be
called the Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Planning Commission.
-------
for citizen input into the planning process. Citizens' Advisory Com-
mittees might be given a more effective role in decision-making.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
In the past few years, with increasing public interest in environmental
concerns, new laws and regulations have been enacted at all levels
of government in an attempt to solve existing environmental problems
and to avoid or mitigate potential problems in the future. New institu-
tions have been created, and the powers of existing ones have been
changed.
The present report investigates where this process has led so far by
examining the institutional framework for environmental management in
the Watershed of the Malibu Creek, Los Angeles County, California. Al-
though this particular geographical area is used as a model, most of
the findings will undoubtedly have significance for the remainder of
the county, and many for the rest of the state.
On the assumption that the nature and scale of permitted development is
the major factor shaping the future environment of the Malibu Watershed,
the study set out to identify and assess the roles of both those agen-
cies whose activities tend to promote development and those that con-
strain and regulate development. It has been pointed out* that environ-
mental effects may be second-or-third-order consequences of those activ-
ities which might be perceived as promotion or regulation; however, this
does not absolve the agencies concerned of the responsibility to consid-
er them. Indeed, legislation increasingly requires that higher order
consequences of development be taken into account at an early stage in
the decision-making process.
* By an anonymous reviewer of the project proposal.
-------
The report proceeds by giving a brief description of the study area
(section III) and then examining the role of particular governmental
agencies in planning and decision-making processes affecting different
"elements" of the environment, e.g. land-use, coastal resources, air
quality, etc. (section IV). The subject is next approached from a
different perspective, by examining the involvement of a number of in-
stitutions in particular projects or sets of projects, e.g. the instal-
lation of sewage treatment facilities, the construction of a private
college, etc. (section V). Based on the information presented, a dis-
cussion follows which reviews the major institutional processes involved
in environmental management, with mention of some of the current prob-
lems (section VI). Conclusions and recommendations are given earlier
in the report.
One problem with a study of this kind, which looks at current proces-
ses, Is that the information collected can rapidly become obsolete as
new events take place. With the very limited resources available for
the project, it has not been possible to continuously up-date the data
(most of which are, however, valid at least until July 1974). Further-
more, this same limitation on resources has meant that much reliance
has necessarily been placed on secondary sources, albeit those thought
most likely to be accurate.
-------
SECTION III
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The Malibu watershed covers an area of approximately 110 square miles
in the southwestern corner of Los Angeles County and the southeastern
corner of Ventura County (see maps, figures 1 and 2). Malibu Creek and
its tributaries drain a large interior basin comprised of the Simi Hills
to the north, the valley low-lands of the Ventura Freeway Corridor and,
to the south,'the northern slopes of the Santa Monica Mountains. The
creek discharges into Santa Monica Bay through a rugged gorge cutting
through the highest part of the Santa Monica range. Except for the low
passes at each end of the Ventura Freeway corridor, the watershed is
separated from the rest of the populous areas of Southern California
by rugged mountain ridges (1).
The land occupied by the Coastal Malibu community overlaps only slight-
ly with the watershed; the area of overlap consists of a small coastal
plain and alluvial delta. A portion of the delta is publicly owned (the
Malibu Lagoon State Beach) and the State Department of Parks and Recre-
ation expects to expand this park with funds approved in a recent bond
issue (June 1974).
Malibu Creek is crossed by Pacific Coast Highway just north of the la-
goon. County administrative offices and commercial facilities are lo-
cated in the coastal area, the remainder of the plain being in low den-
sity residential use with very high land values per acre. The terraces
have some intense development: Pepperdine University is completing the
first phase of construction of their new Malibu campus; Hughes Research
Center and the Serra Retreat are located on the lower slopes on either
side of the canyon.
-------
Figure 1
Location of the Study Area in the State
OREGON
San Francisco,
PACIFIC
OCEAN
ARIZONA
MEXICO
-------
Figure 2
Local Map of Study Area
VENTURA
COUNTY
|LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
Ventura
Freeway
Pacific
Coast
Highway
PACIFIC OCEAN
-------
Both the Simi Hills and the Santa Monica Mountains are characterized
by large areas of open space and dispersed low density residential de-
velopment, with a few areas of medium density development in the moun-
tain basins. Steep slopes and unstable soil conditions have thus far
preluded development in large areas of the Santa Monica Mountains and
the Calabasas-Las Virgenes Hills. Recreational use of the mountainous
areas is favored by federal, state, and county parks departments and
by many residents' groups. The Los Angeles County Parks Department
currently operates Tapia Park adjacent to Malibu Creek and plans de-
velopment of Calabasas Park north of the Ventura Freeway. In January
1974, the state acquired the 2,600 acre Century Ranch, located 4 miles
inland on either side of Malibu Creek, at cost of $5.8 million. The
park will be developed for a variety of recreational uses with funds
authorized by the passage of the June 1974 bond issue, $1 million of
which was specified for the Century Ranch.
The inland basin, traversed by the Ventura Freeway corridor, has exper-
ienced considerable development since the completion of the freeway in
1965. Suburban development of the valley is spreading into the surround-
ing low hills and canyons. . The highest densities of development in the
hills occur around artificial bodies of water created for recreational
use. In Westlake Village, for example, construction began in 1966 and
there are now some 4000 dwelling units on 12000 acres of land. Current
population is about 15000, and is continuing to grow (2).
Even with the recent slowdown in population growth in Los Angeles County
as a whole (3) the inland basin area, already provided with freeway
access, water, and sewers, can be expected to continue developing at a
rapid rate.
REFERENCES
1. Walton, M. Description of the Malibu Creek Watershed. Undated.
. 25p.
10
-------
2. Westlake Village Information Center. Personal Communication, July
1974.
3. Zeman, R. L.A. County Population Drops for the First Time in 123
Years. Los Angeles Times. June 1974.
11
-------
SECTION IV
INSTITUTIONS & PROCESSES INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
This section starts to explore the institutional framework for environ-
mental management in the Malibu watershed by examining the role of par-
ticular government agencies in planning and decision-making processes
affecting:
land use
coastal resources
air quality
water quality
flooding
soils
seismic safety
wildlife
recreation
transportation
In dealing with each "element", the approach taken (whenever appropri-
ate) is to provide a brief, general background before tying the discus-
sion more specifically to the study area. In order to assist the read-
er in keeping track of the many institutions that are mentioned, a ma-
trix is included (figure 3) which lists the key agencies, indicating
some of their functions that are relevant to this study. Brief formal
descriptions of each agency are given in Appendix A.
A note on the environmental impact reporting process is included at the
end of the section.
IV. 1 LAND USE
The planning and control of land use has traditionally been a function
12
-------
of local institutions; as will become apparent in this report; how-
ever, actions taken at regional, state, and federal levels, commonly by
single-purpose agencies, are increasingly having an impact on local de-
cisions.
Land Use Planning
Long term plans for land use are embodied in various elements of the
General Plan which (under state law) is prepared by the planning agen-
cy (i.e., the Regional Planning Commission - RPC) and adopted by the
legislative body (i.e., the Board of Supervisors - BS). The law re-
quires that the plan consist of a statement of development policies and
that it include the elements shown in figure 4. Under current guide-
lines pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an environ-
mental impact report is required for adoption or amendment of the Gen-
eral Plan (1).
In Los Angeles County, the General Plan Policy Review Board (GPRB),
which is composed of representatives from county departments and spe-
cial districts, coordinates the inputs to the General Plan from the var-
ious branches of county government. In addition, the BS receive advice
on the development of the General Plan from the Los Angeles County Cit-
izens' Planning Council (CPC). This Council was created to satisfy a
condition attached to the receipt of federal Housing and Urban Develop-
ment funds, and it is supposed to represent a broad cross-section of
county residents.
History of the General Plan for Los Angeles County - On October 1, 1970
the BS adopted a document entitled the Environmental Development Guide
(EDG) as a preliminary General Plan for Los Angeles County. Anticipa-
ting a population of 9.2 million in 1990, the EDG designated 173 square
miles of land for urban expansion, but set aside extensive areas of
open space in the coastal strip, the Santa Monica Mountains, and
13
-------
Figure 3
Matrix of Key Agencies
(Indicating Relevant Functions)
FUNCTIONS
AGENCIES
Federal
Dept. of Agriculture (Soil Cons. Serv.)
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development
Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
State
Air Resources Board
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
Dept. of Finance (population proj. )
Dept. of Parks & Recreation
Dept. of Transportation
Dept. of Water Resources
Transportation Board
Water Resources Control Board
gJ?
•H a
ia o
-rt N
^
•H »
•a c
.a o
M 43
cd
• fa
M43
S3
•a c
i-l -H
•H S
JK ^
w «a!
$
0*
0
^
43
•H
i-|
3
&
ft
•H
«*
0
0*$
0*$
0*
0
0
^
ft
a
c5
fa
4^
W
cd
!S
o*$
0*
0
0
0*$
43
a
m
&
a>
C
o
(—1
•H
O
CO
0
0*
^
43
4)
cd
00
o
•H
B
u
•H
0)
0*
*
•a
C
cd
0) G
O O
CdtH
CO a)
OK
0
0*
0
o*$#
0
c
o
id
4^
O
O.
aj
a
a
I,
&
0 $
0*
0
o*$#
0
-------
Regional
South Coast Regional Commission
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Southern Calif. Assoc. of Governments
Local - Los Angeles County
Air Pollution Control District
Board of Supervisors
Dept. of County Engineer
Dept. of Forester & Fire Warden
Dept. of Health Services
Dept. of Parks & Recreation
Flood Control District
General Plan Policy Review Board
Regional Planning Commission
Road Department
Sanitation Districts
Other Local
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Topanga-Las Virgenes Res. Cons. Dist.
0*
0
*
*
*
*
*
0
0*
0
0*
0
0*
*
0
0*
0*
0*
0
*$
*
*
0
0*
o*$#
0
0*
0*
0
*$
* #
0*
0
0*
0* f
0*$#
0
0*
0
0
*$
0* #
o*$#
0
0*
* #
0*
0
*
* #
*
0*
0
0*
0
0*
0
*
0*
0
0*
0* #
0*
0
*$
*
0*$#
0
0*
0
0*
0
*$
0
0*
o*$#
KEY: 0 = RESEARCH & PLANNING; * = STANDARDS & REGULATIONS; $ = FUNDING; # = CONSTRUCTION
Based on matrix designed by Potomac Planning Task Force, reproduced in Ackerman, E. A. et al., Land-Use
Institutions in the Washington-Baltimore Region - A Mirror for Metropolitan America, in McAllister, D.M.,
(Ed.), Environment: A New Focus for Land-use Planning, National Science Foundation, 1973.
-------
Figure 4
Elements of a General Plan
A General Plan must include the following elements:
land use
circulation
housing
conservation
open space
seismic safe'ty
noise
scenic highway
safety (fires & geologic hazards)
In addition, it may include these elements:
recreation
transportation
transit
public services and facilities
public building
community design
redevelopment
as well as others that (in the judgment of the planning agency) re-
late to physical development of the county or city.
Source: California General Statutes Annotated
16
-------
Antelope Valley. The Plan was not at that time legally binding.
State law (Open Space Land Act and Amendments) required the adoption
of an interim open space plan by mid-1972, with a final plan to follow
in 1973. In,,September, 1972, the Center for Law in the Public Inter-
est (CLIPI) filed suit against the BS on the grounds that the County
had failed to comply with the requirement to adopt an interim open
space plan (and in the hope that the BS would be forced to adopt the
EDG for this purpose). The suit resulted in an injunction (Eagelson's
injunction) enjoining the County from all regulatory activities in
open and rural areas. Regulatory activities included the issuing of
building permits, the approval of subdivision tract maps, and zoning
changes. The "freeze" took effect on September 22, 1972; however,
procedures were developed for individuals to file for exemptions on the
basis of hardship. Although the injunction was applicable to large
areas of the Santa Monica Mountains, it apparently had little effect
on development there because Judge Eagelson ruled to grant exemptions
whenever a project was already underway. According to a staff assis-
tant at CLIPI (2), only two permits were denied exemption in the Malibu
watershed during the freeze, one a mobile home park in the mountains.
Pepperdine University was allowed to build because grading had already
begun.
In May, 1973, the BS adopted an interim open space plan and the injunc-
tion was lifted. The fact that no environmental impact report (EIR)
had been prepared for this interim plan led to the filing of another
suit by CLIPI, but the suit became moot when the BS soon afterwards
adopted amendments to the EDG as the official General Plan for the
County; the latter contained an open space element and was accompa-
nied by an EIR. As well as the open space element, the currently adopt-
ed Plan includes land use, housing, transportation, public services and
facilities, and conservation elements, while public hearings are yet to
17
-------
be held on proposed noise, seismic safety, scenic highway, and safety
elements.
The BS are once again being challenged in court by CLIPI, this time
in a suit alleging (i) that the EIR for the General Plan is inadequate,
and (ii) that the Plan itself does not meet certain statutory require-
ments (3). The suit is still in litigation (at the time of writing).
The amendments contained in the adopted General Plan represent a con-
siderable departure from the EDG. The General Plan designates more
than twice as much land for urban expansion as did the EDG (351 square
miles compared with 173 square miles), despite a revision downward of
the projected 1990 population from 9.2 million to 7.7 million. The
overage factor, or excess zoned capacity in relation to projected pop-
ulation, has been estimated approximately at 1500% (4).
Provisions Affecting the Study Area - The General Plan contains sever-
al provisions of major significance for the Malibu watershed. It des-
ignates large areas of the watershed with slopes of 50% or greater as
"Watershed Conservation Areas", permitting a maximum density of one
dwelling unit per two acres; however, it states that "with the clas-
sification, increased densities may be allowed by compliance with devel-
opment standards..." (i.e., conditional use permits for cluster develop-
ment (5). In the EDG, these steeply sloped areas had been designated
as open space.
According to the CLIPI Brief (3), the RPC staff undertook two studies
of the environmental implications of the General Plan, prior to its
adoption (although these did not appear in the EIR). One study indi-
cated that on some 99.25% of the land area designated for urban expan-
sion, there would be "conflicts" with natural resource factors such as
prime soils, watershed, significant ecological areas, flood hazards,
etc. Furthermore, up to 10% of identified "significant ecological
18
-------
areas" in the Santa Monica Mountains appear in urban expansion classi-
fications on the Plan's land use maps. The second study showed that
on the basis of land suitability criteria used by the RFC itself (e.g.,
slope, geological stability, access, etc.), some two out of every three
acres designated in the General Plan for urban uses are least suitable
for urban uses, while there is an almost equal amount of land designa-
ted for rural uses which is available and more suitable for urban uses.
Plan Implementation
Zoning regulations provide the principle tool for implementing the pro-
visions of the General Plan relating to land use. State law (AB 1301)
now requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with the General Plan
and makes it difficult to alter the latter merely as a reflection of
changes in zoning. (It may be noted that CLIPI, in its present suit
against the BS, contends that the County has adopted a Plan that con-
forms to existing zoning patterns, rather than bringing existing zoning
into conformity with the goals and policies of a coordinated, compre-
hensive General Plan (3) ).
The "checkpoint" at which it is determined whether or not a project rep-
resents a permitted use within a given zone comes at the time of appli-
cation to the County Engineer for a building permit (the separate
approval of the RPC is not automatically required for all projects).
When a project does not fall in the permitted use category, the build-
ing permit is denied unless there is a successful application to the
RPC (or, on appeal, to the BS) for a change in zoning. Such an appli-
cation must be accompanied by an EIR. Certain kinds of projects are
permitted only on receipt of a "conditional use permit" from the RPC,
in which case the Commission has additional discretion in approving or
disapproving the project and in attaching conditions.
19
-------
IV. 2 COASTAL RESOURCES
Passage of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (ap-
proved as a statewide initiative, Proposition 20) led to the establish-
ment of the State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (SCZCC) and six
Regional Commissions. The purpose of these agencies is to protect the
"coastal zone" (which, in Los Angeles, is defined to extend inland
from the seaward limits of state jurisdiction to "the highest elevation
of the nearest coastal range or five miles from the mean high tide line,
whichever is the shorter distance") by means of "a comprehensive, co-
ordinated, enforceable plan for orderly, long-range conservation and
management"; in addition, while the plan is being prepared, a permit
system is being used to regulate development withir a more narrowly de-
fined area, extending inland to 1000 years from the mean high tide line
(1).
The Permit System
The South Coast Regional Commission (SCRC) requires that a permit be
obtained for "most types of development", except repairs and improve-
ments to existing single-family residences costing $7,500 or less (6).
Development is defined in the law to include almost every type of in-
tervention.
The SCRC has had to process a vast number of permits with a small staff,
largely in the absence of clear planning guidelines (7). Late in 1973
interim guidelines were adopted but the decisions often require detailed
knowledge of impacts and an overall picture of how other parts of
the coast are to develop. Without the broader picture, individual pro-
jects appear to have small impacts.
In February, 1974, the University of Southern California Sea Grant Ad-
visory Service issued the results of its analysis of SCRC actions on
permit applications: this showed that 96% of the applications submitted
20
-------
in 1973 were approved (8). Generally, the smaller units with less den-
sity were approved while large residential projects were more likely to
be denied. The Sea Grant analysis indicated that development was most
intense in Los Angeles County, Malibu, and Venice. In the Malibu area,
of 215 applications, 197 were approved and 9 were denied, adding 398
units to the area (8). According to the Sea Grant Co-ordinator of
Marine Advisory Services, Malibu alone accounted for 21.2% of all per-
mit activity in the County. 82% of the development in Malibu was res-
idential (7).
The State Commission has appeal power over the Regional Commissions.
In the year and one-half since the State Commission was established, it
has interpreted its function somewhat more broadly than the SCRC, us-
ing appealed cases as a vehicle for demonstrating the state policy of
prefering "land uses that allow for the most people to enjoy the coast-
al zone" (9). A number of cases from the SCRC have been reversed by
the State Commission on appeal; none of the appealed cases, however,
have had a direct impact on the study area.
Planning
As part of the preparation of the overall Coastal Zone Plan, the Re-
gional Commissions are required to produce long-range plans for their
regions, covering a number of elements specified at the state level.
Preparation of the long-range plan by the SCRC was long-delayed be-
cause of the deluge of applications and general disorganization asso-
ciated with the setting up of a new, independent agency. Planning is
now proceeding, however, and conservationists are more pleased with
the emerging plans than with the results of the permit function of the
Regional Commission. The planners have proposed preservation of much
of the undeveloped Malibu coast and inter-agency cooperation in control-
ling land use around Malibu Lagoon.
21
-------
IV. 3 AIR QUALITY
The Institutional framework for controlling air pollution is three-
tiered, involving federal, state and local agencies. These are the
federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state Air Resources
Board (ARB), and the county or regional Air Pollution Control Districts
(APCDs). Both federal and state air pollution laws are currently in
force, the most important being the federal Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1970 and California's Mulford-Carrell Air Resources Act of 1967.
Each requires (among other things) the establishment of ambient air
quality standards; where these differ, the most stringent requirements
always apply. The EPA and the ARB, respectively, are ultimately re-
sponsible for Implementing the federal and state air pollution control
programs; however, the former delegates significantly responsibility
to the states, and the latter to local agencies.
Within California, the APCDs administer stationary source controls and
may set local standards for non-vehicular emissions; however, these
cannot be less stringent than statewide standards set by the ARB, and
the state agency may take over enforcement when an APCD fails to exert
sufficient control. Vehicular emissions are solely the concern of the
ARB (1).
The 1970 federal legislation called upon each state to submit for EPA
approval an implementation plan describing in detail the controls to
be used in meeting the newly established national ambient air quality
standards; however, where a state failed to produce an acceptable plan,
the EPA was required to develop one of its own.
Development of the California Implementation Plan
Over the past few years while a control strategy has been developed for
California, there have been continuous disputes and examples of non-
22
-------
cooperation between government agencies as well as some manipulation
of technical data. The situation has been well described in a recent
doctoral thesis (10), and only the key points are summarized here.
The ARB has had the responsibility of coordinating the effort to pre-
pare a state implementation plan. So far its submissions to the EPA
have proved unacceptable because they have not included measures that
would ensure compliance with the present law within the prescribed dead-
lines, particularly in "critical air basins" such as the one containing
Los Angeles (the South Coast Air Basin - SCAB). Indeed, the ARB be-
lieves that this objective is impossible to achieve using controls that
are politically and economically acceptable (10). The Los Angeles Air
Pollution Control District (LAAPCD), which is the largest and most exper-
ienced of the six control districts in the SCAB region, maintains the
position that the present ongoing program of extending controls on motor
vehicle emissions combined with the existing stationary source controls
will be sufficient to meet the national standards by 1980 (11). While
the ARB has been uncooperative with the EPA in its efforts to comply
with the Clean Air Act, the LAAPCD has made a determined attempt to dis-
credit the federal control programs as unwarranted and unnecessary.
Despite the lack of cooperation, the EPA has proceeded to develop its
own control strategy for the Los Angeles region. It is convinced that
land use and transportation controls are essential if the standards are
to be reached and maintained, and both are included in the "final" reg-
ulations that have now been promulgated. These will remain in effect
unless the law is changed or a further revision of the ARB plan (cur-
rently being prepared) proves acceptable to the EPA. However, both the
ARB and the LAAPCD have expressed resentment at the federal imposition
of enforcement responsibilities, and the ARB has questioned the legality
of this imposition (12).
23
-------
Impact of Control Measures on the Study Area
Of the new measures currently in force, the ones likely to have the
most significant impact on land-use decisions in the study area are the
controls on parking facilities and on "indirect sources," i.e. facili-
ties such as highways*, shopping centres, sports stadiums, etc., which
tend to generate vehicular traffic and thereby increase atmospheric
emissions. Effective July, 1975, proposals for the construction or mod-
ification of such facilities will be subject to review to ensure that
they will not result in emissions preventing the attainment or mainten-
ance of the federal standards. It is intended that the reviews will
ultimately be carried out by designated state or local air pollution
control agencies (14), but initially they will be done by the EPA it-
self. In the event of failure to demonstrate compliance with the stan-
dards, a project may be prohibited; however, it is understood that out-
right rejection would only come after an opportunity has been given to
mitigate the adverse effects (15).
There is currently some uncertainty as to whether these controls can be
successfully implemented, particularly in view of the difficulty of re-
lating projected emissions to ambient air quality (16). Furthermore,
pollution levels in the Los Angeles area are so far in excess of the
national standards at the present time that a strict interpretation of
the regulations could lead to a ban on almost all new development in the
air basin, on the grounds that most new construction is likely to cause
some increase in emissions, exacerbating an already intolerable situa-
tion.
* It may be noted that the Federal Aid Highway Act specifically requires
that any new federally aided highways must be consistent with applicable
implementation plans under the Clean Air Act (13).
24
-------
Air Quality Inputs into Plans Affecting the Study Area
Agencies that are primarily responsible for air quality are increasing-
ly contributing to the preparation by other agencies of a variety of
plans, both comprehensive and special-purpose. Examples include the
General Plan, the Coastal Zone Management Plan, and the Regional Water
Quality Control Plan.
General Plan (Los Angeles County) - Representatives of the LAAPCD sit
on committees preparing elements of the General Plan. The agency has
apparently persuaded the Regional Planning Commission to adopt its at-
titude that the ongoing program of reductions in vehicular emissions will
eventually be sufficient to meet federal and state regulations, as the
air pollution impact of land use decisions appears to have been virtu-
ally ignored in preparing both the Environmental Development Guide and
the General Plan.
Asked to comment on the contribution of open space areas to the protec-
tion of air quality, an LAAPCD official responded that "open space is
desirable in any area since it contributes to lower pollution levels
there; however, clean air requirements can be met almost everywhere
in the County without specifically designating open space for air pol-
lution control purposes" (17). However, the official specifically men-
tioned the value of designating small natural basins as open space to
prevent serious pollution problems from developing in them; such basins
are prevalent in the Santa Monica Mountains, and yet this recommendation
is not reflected in the General Plan.
The General Plan gives sparsely populated areas, including parts of the
Malibu watershed, land use designations with sufficient slack to permit
considerable population growth; however, the Environmental Impact Re-
port for the Plan fails to assess the impact on air quality of the in-
evitable urban expansion and the concomitant increase in vehicle miles
travelled.
25
-------
Coastal Land Environment Technical Report - The LAAPCD was asked to re-
spond to the Coastal Land Environment Element of the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Plan, prepared by the planners at the South Coast Regional Commis-
sion. The report includes a section on air resources in which the Com-
mission staff state that: air pollution in the Coastal Zone is at a
critical level; freeways as a pollution source are a potential hazard
for humans and other living resources; coastal sources are the origin
of emissions that are moved inland by the winds and either settle
against the mountains or contribute to photochemical smog in other in-
land areas; building design and use of open space can mitigate the im-
pact of air pollution (18).
The LAAPCD has contested several of these findings. According to an
LAAPCD memorandum (19), there is no evidence that transportation corri-
dors, such as freeways, are a hazard to health because of air contamin-
ant emissions. Freeways are major line sources of emissions, it argues,
but the vehicle emission control program continues to lessen their im-
pact. The South Coast Region does have a severe air pollution problem,
but the Coastal Zone enjoys cleaner air than any other part of the Re-
gion. While encouraging the use of open space to mitigate emissions im-
pact the LAAPCD does not believe land use and transportation planning
will make "an important contribution to the existing air pollution con-
trol programs."
Thus the LAAPCD concludes that the Commission staff recommendations to
"remove "non coastal related1 pollution sources from the Coastal Zone,"
and refrain from locating "intense pollution-generating development,
such as power plants and freeways in the Coastal Zone," are not ration-
ally-based policies for achieving air quality (19). Furthermore, remov-
al of "non-coastal related" pollution sources is considered to be abso-
lutely impractical and unjustifiable. In a subsequent memorandum (20)
to the Coastal Commission, the LAAPCD expressed a little impatience and
26
-------
indignation at the Commission's pre-emption of LAAPCD concern for air
quality stating that the "APCD does not approve any installation that
would prevent the attainment or maintenance of [national] standards."
The LAAPCD further questioned the sources for many of the assertions in
the report and challanged the planners to provide data in defense of
their land use proposals for improving air quality.
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - The EPA is responsible for
the requirement that Series E-0 population projections of the State De-
partment of Finance (signifying relatively slow growth) are used in the
planning of water resources in critical air basins, on the grounds that
growth must be limited if the air quality standards are to be reached
and maintained. According to a LAAPCD official, the local agency was
unaware of this provision in the Los Angeles Basin Plan (21).
IV. 4 WATER QUALITY
The control of water quality in California is governed by both federal
and state legislation. In essence, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA) of 1972 lays down certain minimum requirements for an accep-
table water quality program; as long as a state meets these require-
ments, federal involvement (other than providing money for funding) is
kept to a minimum. At the present time California's water quality pro-
gram, established largely by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act of 1969, has federal approval; indeed, parts of it provided a model
on which the federal legislation was based (1),
The program in California is largely administered by the nine Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), with coordination and supervi-
sion provided by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Key
features of the program are a "continuous planning process" and a waste
discharge permit system; in addition, grants are given for waste col-
lection, treatment and disposal projects (22).
27
-------
The Planning Process and Permit System
The planning process generates areawlde waste management plans indi-
cating priorities for the construction or improvement of treatment facil-
ities, and regional water quality plans (basin plans) establishing water
quality objectives to protect beneficial uses and prevent pollution.
The permit system provides one of the means of implementing the plans.
Under the system, all discharges to navigable and non-navigable waters*
require a permit from a RWQCB. To assist in enforcement, local govern-
ments are required to notify the appropriate regional board of applica-
tions for approval of a sub-division map or for a building permit when-
ever these might result in the discharge of waste (other than to a sew-
er) ; discharges from dwelling units of five units or less must also be
notified (1).
According to a member of the los Angeles RWQCB (23), the "permit" no-
menclature is somewhat confusing as the board does not issue anything
corresponding to (for example) a building permit; instead, it lists a
set of waste discharge requirements which specify the conditions to be
maintained in the receiving waters and place limits on the quantity and
quality of effluent released. It is the County Engineer who issues the
building permit, although the board's requirements (which might, for ex-
ample, necessitate connection to a sewerage system) may have the effect
of prohibiting the operation of a facility or making it uneconomical.
However, the RWQCB does not have the power to prescribe alternatives;
it lacks both the authority and the staff to review each application to
discharge in detail and negotiate for the best system in conformance
with federal, state and regional water policy. The RWQCB member suggests
* Control over non-navigable waters is required by state, not federal
legislation.
28
-------
that the County Engineer does not fulfill this function either, and that
there is often a lack of communication between the various county depart-
ments reviewing applications for building permits (e.g., the County En-
gineer is not always fully aware of state and county health department
requirements, with the result that rejection of a project may come at
the last minute, causing expensive delay or restructuring) (23).
Once waste discharge requirements have been issued, the RWQCB is empow-
ered to prevent violations through the use of cease and desist orders
and other legal means. Civil fines andyor criminal penalties may be in-
voked (1).
Project Funding
In co-operation with the regional boards, the SWRCB reviews and has
approval power over waste collection, treatment, and disposal project
applications for grants under the FWPCA. The state board determines if
proposed projects conform to adopted policy for water quality control
and to applicable area wide and regional plans. Priority lists are then
established on the basis of financial and water pollution control needs.
Special consideration is given to applicants proposing facilities that
incorporate water reclamation, which is specifically encouraged in state
policy (22).
An approved project may draw from federal funds up to 75% of the total
cost of that part which is eligible; in the past, the state has been
able to contribute up to an additional 12 1/2%. With the passage of
the Clean Water Bond issue of $250 million in June 1974, the state will
now be able to raise the amount of its contribution from 12 1/2% to 25%.
This means that a project of high priority might in future receive 100%
funding from a combination of federal and state sources (24).
29
-------
Water Quality Planning in the Los Angeles Area
The Basin Plan, issued in June 1974, was prepared with the cooperation
of local and state agencies. The Plan establishes regional water qual-
ity objectives and a program of implementation to the year 2000, incor-
porating federal regulations and timetables and subsuming all previous
regional plans*.
The plan evaluates physical, hydrological and climatic features, pres-
ent and projected population and water needs, water resources quality
and quantity problems, beneficial uses to be protected, facility needs;
and financial and institutional conditions. Detailed descriptions of
proposed and recommended projects are included.
Population projections were prepared by the California State Department
of Finance (Population Research Unit) and geographical allocations of
population were made by the Southern California Association of Govern-
ments (SCAG). Series E-0 projections (assuming a fertility of 2.11 and
zero net immigration) were used as the basis for all planning in order
that the water quality plan should complement the state plan for air
quality prepared by the California Air Resources Board. Almost the en-
tire area covered by the plan (excluding areas above 3,000 ft.) coincides
with the designated "critical air" zone. Series E-0 projections were
used as baseline projections in "an attempt to limit the growth-inducing
effect of proposed water and wastewater facilities in 'air critical'
areas" (26). Projects financed by federal or state funds must conform
to capacity limitations based on the Series E-0 projections. Capacity
in excess of Series E-0 projections can still be developed, however,
through local funding.
IV. 5 FLOODING
Local drainage requirements are controlled by the County Engineer, and
* It may be noted that no area-wide waste management plan yet exists for
the Los Angeles area, nor is one currently being prepared (25).
30
-------
developers must remove the flood hazard by Installing the necessary
drainage improvements to his satisfaction. Major watercourses are con-
trolled by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). Pro-
posals for flood control projects are subject to review and approval by
the County Board of Supervisors, which may authorize the sale of bonds
for projects of area-wide benefits. Projects of primarily local bene-
fits may be paid for by taxes on the affected properties in the area.
Flood Control in the Study Area
In 1967, LACFCD, together with the County Engineer and the Regional Plan-
ning Commission, prepared a master plan of storm drains for the Malibu
area (27). The plan was funded in part by HUD. Planning Commission pop-
ulation projections and the 1965 Malibu master plan were used as a guide
for future growth in outlining the drainage system. The Malibu Master
Plan of Storm Drains proposed channelization of all drainage areas of
Malibu Creek, Liberty Creek, and Triunfo Canyon. Few channels existed
in the area at the time except for small projects by developers.
At the time the plan was completed, three general bond issues had been
passed in Los Angeles County authorizing the LACFCD to construct storm
drains in critical flood prone areas of the County. Channelization of
Malibu Creek was a high priority project expected to draw on funds from
these general bonds. However, there was no implementation plan asso-
ciated with the Master Plan of Storm Drains, and the latter was never
officially adopted as the program for either the County Engineer or
LACFCD. Channelization plans for the area have subsequently been re-
vised in accord with revised population projections and open space des-
ignations. According to a LACFCD official (28), the agency now has no
plans for projects in the Malibu watershed other than completion of a
channel from Malibu Civic Center to Malibu Creek, which was authorized
by passage of the 1970 Storm Drain Bond issue for the entire flood con-
trol district. Both the Los Angeles River Basin Plan and the Environmental
31
-------
Impact Report for the General Plan state that there are no plans for
further channelization In the vatershed area.
However, local drainage improvements will continue as development pro-
ceeds, and Malibu residents are currently opposing the County Planning
Commission's promotion of cluster development on rural and agricultural
designated lands since concentration of development is more likely to
necessitate stream channelization in the future (29).
IV. 6 SOILS
As well as being on interest to the appropriate County or City Engineer,
soil conservation may also be the concern of a local conservation dis-
trict. Such a district has no regulatory authority, but it can act as
an intermediary between regulatory agencies and members of the public;
furthermore, it provides the only channel for certain federal benefits
(30). If needed, a district can operate resource conservation facili-
ties.
A resource conservation district does not have its own technical staff
but instead relies on the personnel and facilities of federal and state
agencies (31). The Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture provides the most significant contribution and is the only
agency that receives federal funds earmarked by Congress for direct tech-
nical assistance to conservation districts; it provides each district
with the services of a District Conservationist (not necessarily full-
time) (30).
Soil Conservation in the Study Area
In 1967, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the Topanga-Las Virgenes
Resource Conservation District(TLVRCD), and the County Engineer issued
a report on the Soils of the Malibu Area (32) which contained suitabil-
ity guidelines for development and soil limitation ratings. A large
32
-------
portion of the land in the Malibu area was rated as having a very high
erosion hazard, with 80% in the severe classification. Most of the land
was classified as having great limitations for use as septic tank filter
fields, with 95% of the land in the severe category. The survey recom-
mended that the land be used for range, woodland, watershed, wildlife,
and recreation purposes, rather than urban development or agriculture.
The report is the only existing comprehensive soil survey of the Malibu
area and it was presumably used by the County in preparing the General
Plan, although the recommendations appear to have been lost in the trans-
formation of the Environmental Development Guide into the amendments to
the General Plan.
In 1970, the TLVRCD resolved to comment on any zoning proposals that in-
volve conservation goals in the conservation district and adjacent Mal-
ibu area (33). The District receives advance notices of hearings on
zone changes, variances, and conditional use permits within this area
before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the County Regional
Planning Commission and/or its Zoning Board.
IV. 7 SEISMIC SAFETY
Planning and regulation for seismic safety are conducted at all levels
of government and responsibility is divided by the major categories of
earthquake problems, i.e., buildings, dams, roads, land use planning
(34).
The Los Angeles County Planning Commission staff is preparing a Seismic
Safety Element to the General Plan which attempts to coordinate the re-
search, planning, and regulatory efforts of the many agencies into a
statement of policy and a land use planning program for L.A. County.
The element will incorporate the workof the State Geologist delineating
special studies zones that encompass areas of earthquake hazard accord-
ing to specified criteria, within which special development approval
33
-------
must be granted by cities and counties (35). This earthquake protection
program was authorized by the passage of S.B. 520 (known as the Alquist-
Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act) in December 1972. No portion of the
Malibu Creek watershed is included within these hazard zones (35).
IV. 8 WILDLIFE
The U.S. Department of the Interior and the California Department of
Fish & Game both have an interest in endangered species of wildlife.
Under the 1966 Endangered Species Preservation Act, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to publish a list of native animals threatened
with extinction and to provide federal programs of research and protec-
tion. In California, the 1968 Ecological Reserve Act gives the State
Department of Fish & Game authority to acquire land and water to be set
aside as Ecological Reserves; the 1970 California Species Preservation
Act requires the same Department to keep inventories and report bienni-
ally to the Legislature on the status of rare and endangered species of
native fish and wildlife (36). Federal and state lists of threatened
species have now been prepared, but as yet they do not include plants.
Neither the federal nor the state agency has the power to halt a devel-
opment that will have an adverse impact on wildlife habitats, even when
a rare or endangered species is likely to be affected. Where a project
involves the use of federal funds, the developer may be "prevailed upon"
to change his plans or otherwise mitigate the adverse impact, but he is
not necessarily bound to do so. Although probable effects on wildlife
must be identified in the environmental impact reporting process, only
an agency with discretionary authority over a project can force a de-
veloper to take action in the interest of species preservation (e.g.,
by attaching conditions to the issuance of a permit). In appropriate
situations, the State Department of Fish & Game intervenes to argue for
just such conditions to be imposed. Its only other recourse is to ac-
quire the critical habitat, taking the site into public ownership and
34
-------
setting it aside as an Ecological Reserve; however, limited funds re-
strict the use of this approach, to rare occasions C37).
IV. 9 RECREATION
The division of responsibility for the planning and provision of parks
and other public recreational facilities is relatively straightforward:
those considered to be of national importance are the concern of the
federal government; those of statewide or regional importance are the
concern of the state government; while those of only local importance
are the concern of the local government.
Planning and Acquisitions in the Study Area
Federal - In September, 1970, the Secretary of the Interior requested
the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to examine the outdoor recreation po-
tential of the Santa Monica Mountains. The report concluded that even
though local government was unlikely to exercise the necessary land use
controls for preserving the area as open apace, establishment of the
area as a national recreation area could not be justified. It was rec-
ommended that a conservation and development commission be established
by legislative mandate with responsibility for preparing and implement-
ing a plan for the mountains. Federal grants-in-aid and technical assis-
tance should be used to reinforce state and local involvement in this
process (38).
The report has provided substantial background information on the study
area and has been used to strengthen state and local park proposals and
legislation.
State - The California State Department of Parks and Recreation (SDPR)
generally establishes its acquisition priority lists on the basis of
statewide surveys of local park and recreation departments, recommenda-
tions of citizen advisory committees, and studies conducted by the
35
-------
Department and other state and federal agenciis involved in recreation
planning. Acquisitions and site development are dependent on the bud-
get provided by the Legislature or through bonds, and the SDPR has in
practice been extremely limited in its effectiveness due to shortages
of funds. In fiscal year 1972, for example, the state had zero appro-
priation for acquiring new parkland. There has been a heavy reliance
on full or partial donations used as the state share to match federal
grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, passage of
a new bond issue in June 1974 has considerably improved the situation.
In June, 1973, William Penn Mott, Director of the SDPR, established the
Santa Monica Mountains State Park Advisory Committee to recommend an
acquisition plan for the mountainous Malibu-Las Virgenes area. The De-
partment favored a "chain of parks" concept, providing a large number
of recreational experiences. The Committee concluded that Century
Ranch was the key unit in the Santa Monica Mountains and based their en-
tire acquisition plan around Century Ranch (39). The Department could
only purchase the property with funds provided either by the Leg-
islature or by a voter-approved statewide bond issue. The Stevens Bill
(S.B. 1194), authorizing the acquisition of Century Ranch, was passed
in the fall of 1973 and the property was purchased in January 1974 at
a cost of $5.8 million.
Currently awaiting legislative approval by the State Senate is the pro-
posed acquisition of Barbeque Flats (an addition to the existing 50 acre
Mallbu Lagoon State Beach) and also of the Bob Hope Ranch (adjacent to
Malibu Creek, several miles upstream) (40).
In the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles River Basin (pre-
pared by the Regional Water Quality Control Board) there is provision
for salt water flushing of Malibu Lagoon in order to mitigate the effects
of dumping treated effluent from the Las Virgenes sewage treatment plant;
however, this provision was apparently included without the knowledge
36
-------
of the Department of Parka and Recreation (41)• Meanwhile the South
Coast Regional Commission has proposed in its recently adopted "marine
element" of the Regional Coastal Plan that an inter-agency control com-
mittee be set up to regulate the use of the Lagoon and surrounding land
(42).
Local - In July, 1965, the CDPR together with the County Regional Plan-
ning Commission, issued a Regional Recreation Areas Plan, a part of the
Recreational Element of the General Plan. The Plan proposed the addi-
tion of several county-owned regional parks to the existing 3,000 acre
Tapia Park in the Malibu watershed area, notably Triunfo Regional Park
(600 acres) and Calabasas Regional Park (528 acres). The 1965 General
Plan was not legally binding, however, and it is now obsolete.
The CDPR has participated in preparing various elements of the current
General Plan (which is legally binding) and, as a member of the Techni-
cal Committee, reviews all sections of the Plan during the development
process. It has made a major contribution to the preparation of the
Scenic Highways Element, but as yet no work has begun on an up-to-date
Recreation Element.
Park acquisitions by the CDPR are dependent on appropriations from the
county budget, approval of county-wide park bonds, and for funds provi-
ded through the passage of state-wide bonds which are distributed to
local park and recreation departments. No county acquisitions in the
Malibu watershed area are currently pending.
IV. 10 TRANSPORTATION
Federal, state, regional, and local agencies all have an interest in
land transportation systems (i.e. highways and mass transit). The fed-
eral influence is manifested in statutory and regulatory conditions
attached to the funding of transportation projects. Such funding may
be channelled through the state (notably for highway construction) or
37
-------
through regional or local agencies (e.g. for the construction of mass
transit systems).
Echoing recent changes in policy at the federal level, the state in 1972
passed AB 69 signalling the end of a single-purpose program of highway
development in California and the start of a thrust toward a balanced,
multi-modal system of transportation. Protection of the environment was
made an explicit goal of state policy. The law provided that this and
other goals are to be achieved through a coordinated planning process;
at the same time, however, there is to be maximum reliance on existing
local and regional transportation agencies and plans.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the State's
principal transportation agency. Highways, mass transportation, and
transportation planning, are the responsibilities of three of its six
divisions; however, state priorities of an earlier era are reflected
in the fact that "as a matter of administrative reality, the Division
of Highways is predominant in terms of personnel and finance" (1). This
Division continues to be responsible for the design and construction of
all major highways.
Under Caltrans' guidance, an assemblage of regional transportation plans
is being prepared for adoption by the State Transportation Board as the
California Transportation Plan, to be submitted subsequently to the
Legislature.
The Plan will supersede the State Master Plan of Highways, originally
drawn up in 1959. The Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) has been designated a Regional Transportation Planning Authority,
and as such is responsible for preparing the plan for its region; this
task is being carried out with the collaboration of local agencies. An-
other important responsibility that has been given to SCAG is that of
reviewing most applications for financial assistance (for transportation
38
-------
projects) submitted by local agencies to the state and federal govern-
ments
Transportation Planning in the Study Area
The study area is crossed by two major highways which come under the
planning jurisdiction of the federal and/or state transportation de-
partments; these are the Ventura Freeway (which bisects the watershed)
and Highway 1, known as Pacific Coast Highway (which briefly passes
through the watershed at the mouth of Malibu Creek). Responsibility
for the remaining transportation network (other than these highways) re-
sides at the local level, primarily with the Los Angeles County Road De-
partment.
The Southern California Rapid Transit District is also involved, for al-
though the direct impact of public mass transportation on the study area
is relatively minor now (and is thought likely to remain so for the
forseeable future), significant pressures for growth could result in-
directly from the increase in accessibility provided by a proposed rail
terminal in nearby Santa Monica.
Nevertheless, highway construction poses the major issues in current
planning for the study area. The 1959 State Master Plan of Highways in-
cluded not only the Ventura Freeway but also two freeways in Coastal
Malibu, namely the Pacific Coast Freeway and the Malibu-Whitnall Free-
way (through Malibu Canyon). A Reseda-to-the-Sea Freeway was to be
built to the east of Topanga Canyon in Los Angeles City, just outside
the watershed. The Los Angeles County Master Plan of Highways, prepared
in 1968, proposed an inland. Mulholland Parkway and a cross-mountain
parkway, the Red-Rock-Bayview Parkway.
Both the Malibu Freeway and the Pacific Coast Freeway have since been
deleted from the State Master Plan in response to citizen pressure.
39
-------
The Ventura Freeway was completed in 1565 and corridor development has
ensued. Growth projections for the mountainous and coastal areas have
been revised downward and the public has acquired major parcels in the
area. However, the extent and type of access to the mountainous and
coastal areas of the watershed remains a critical issue.
In 1971, the California Division of Highways (then part of the Depart-
ment of Public Works), issued a study of Pacific Coast Highway detail-
ing the level of congestion on the coast road and discussing the larger
issue of public access to the area (43). The study concluded that Pacif-
ic Coast Highway must be improved in order to provide for minimum safe-
ty. Congestion would be only temporarily improved. The state agency
still favored freeway development along the coast but proposed a re-
striping program and building pedestrian overpasses in the interim.
Traffic tie-ups of colossal proportions were foreseen in the near fu-
ture. The Improvement was delayed by the Coastal Commission because of
the growth-inducing implications of increased traffic flow in the Mal-
ibu area but it was underway by mid-summer 1974.
The County Road Department is currently preparing the transportation
element of the County General Plan (44). The Environmental Development
Guide contains the most recent statement by both the Road Department and
the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) on the proposed road system for
the watershed area, and it incorporates the 1968 County Road Department
Master Plan. Public access to the beaches and mountain parks is given
high priority by the Road Department, and there is a proposal to improve
and develop cross-mountain roads that would permit inland residents
to travel from the Ventura Freeway to the Coast. The major issue is
whether the roads will be two-lane recreational roads or four-lane high
speed roads. Parking at the beach poses an additional problem. Resi-
dents of the. Malibu coastal and mountain regions are urging development
of two-lane scenic roads, with wide scenic corridors and slow speeds
40
-------
(41, 45). They would like to see a de-einphasia on private automobile
access, replacing it with, public transit. They have proposed a park-
and-ride system from major points inland to the beach by bus as veil as
mini-buses along the coast and a bus service to the mountain parks.
Developers in the area favor four-lane roads with few curbs on corri-
dor development.
The County Road Department looks to the zoned capacity and projected
land use of an area in determining the need for road improvement (46);
thus the decisions of the RFC in this regard are critical. Present
zoning will permit considerable development in the study area, and the
extent of this likely development will dictate to the Road Department
the width of the roads.
In the meantime, the City has re-opened the possibility of developing
the Reseda-to-the-Sea Freeway, and a cross-mountain route (the Dume-
Kanan Road) is nearing completion without any recreation highway desig-
nation (47). The June, 1974, Primary Bond Issue of Parks will fund the
development of Century Ranch and the extension of Malibu Lagoon State
Park and Beach. The County Road Department cites all of these develop-
ments j in addition to swelling beach crowds, to indicate an ever—increas-
ing volume of traffic and the consequent "need" for more roads (46).
IV. 11 A NOTE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTING PROCESS
Under the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, any agency of the fed-
eral government that proposes legislation or plans to undertake an ac-
tion "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" must
file an environmental impact statement (EIS) with the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, The California Environmental Quality Act, passed
in 1970, requires the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR)
for any discretionary project that is to be carried out or approved by
a public agency and is likely to have a "significant effect on the en-
vironment". The term "discretionary" signifies that the agency
41
-------
exercises judgement rather than simply conforming to prespecified reg-
ulations.
Although many projects have been hilted or modified as the result of
the passage of NEPA and CEQA, this has generally been the consequence
of a failure to comply with the appropriate procedural requirements.
It is important to realize that an EIS or EIR is solely an information-
al document, albeit one that must be considered by any public agency
prior to approving or disapproving a project. The fact that an adverse
environmental impact is identified in a report does not mean that a pro-
ject application must necessarily be turned down. It follows that the
impact reporting process does not by itself provide protection for the
environment; it merely serves as an aid toward better (i.e., more in-
formed) decision-making.
IV. 12 REFERENCES
1. California Planning Statutes at the State, Regional and Local Lev-
els. Submitted to the California Land Use Task Force by Sedway/
Cooke, Urban and Environmental Planners and Designers, with I.M.
Heyman and C. Silak. Undated. 160p.
2. Kostohryz, P. (Staff Assistant, Center for Law in the Public Inter-
est). Personal communication, July 1974.
3. Petitioners' Trial Brief. Coalition for Los Angeles County Plan-
ning in the Public Interest, et al., Petitioners and Plaintiffs, v.
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, et al., Re-
spondents and Defendants. Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles, July 1974. 94p.
4. Pre-trial Brief. Coalition for Los Angeles County Planning in the
Public Interest v. The Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County.
Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, July 1973.
42
-------
5. Amendments to the Los Angeles County General Plan. Adopted by Board
of Supervisors, June 1973.
6. Information for Permit Applicants. Issued by the California Coast-
al Zone Conservation Commission, South Coast Regional Commission.
7. Ferderber, S. Coastal Conservation Moves Toward Reality. Los
Angeles Times. January 1974.
8. Sweeney, J. 96% of Permits OKd by Coastal Commission. Los Angeles
Times. February 1974.
9. Fradkin, P. Social Values to Influence Its Decision, Coastal Board
Hints. Los Angeles Times. January 1974.
10. Leong, E.Y, Air Pollution Control in California from 1970 to 1974:
Some Comments on the Implementation Planning Process, Doctoral
thesis, Environmental Science & Engineering Program U.C.L.A. 1974.
11. Hamming, W.J., R.L. Chass, J.E. Dickinson, W.G. MacBeth. Motor Ve-
hicle Control and Air Quality: The Path to Clean Air in Los Angeles
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District. (Presented at
66th Annual Meeting, Air Pollution Control Association. Chicago,
Illinois. June 24-28, 1973). 19p.
12. Meade, G. (Ex-Member, Air Resources Board). Personal communication,
July 1974.
13. Federal Register. J38 (240): 34464, December 1973.
14. Federal Register. 39 (38): 7270-7276, February 1974.
15. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, Personal communi-
cation, October 1974.
16. Conn, W.D. Forecasting Ambient Air Quality: A Weak Link in Pollu-
tion Control. Submitted for Publication, September 1974. 25p.
43
-------
17. Memorandum on the Relationship of Open Space Areas and Air Quality.
Submitted to R.G. Chase, Chairman, Conservation and Open Space Com-
mittee, Los Angeles County General Plan Policy Review Board, by
J.S. Nevitt, Senior Air Pollution Analyst, Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District. January 1973.
18. Draft Coastal Land Environment Technical Report. Prepared by the
Staff of South Coast Regional Commission. 1974.
19. Comments on the Summary of the Coastal Land Environment Element ^i
the South Coast Regional Commission. Prepared by the Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District. April 1974.
20. Comments on the Coastal Land Environment Technical Report of the
South Coast Regional Commission. Prepared by the Loa Angeles Coun-
ty Air Pollution Control District. April 1974.
21. Nevitt, J.S. (Senior Air Pollution Analyst, Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District). Personal Communication, June 1974.
22. Dewsnup, R.L. and D.W. Jensen (eds.). A Summary Report of State
Water Laws. National Water Commission, May 1973.
23. Yakub, H. (Member, Regional Water Quality Control Board). Person-
al Communication. July 1974.
24. The Challenge of the Environment: A Primer on EPA's Statutory
Authority. Washington B.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
25. State Water Resources Control Board. Personal Communication,
September 1974.
26. Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles River Basin 4B. Prepared
by State Water Resources and Regional Water Quality Control Board.
June 1974. 4 vols.
27. Malibu Master Plan of Storm Drains. Prepared by Los Angeles County
Flood Control District, County Engineer, and Regional Planning
Commission. 1968.
-------
28. Poindexter, L. (Los Angeles County Flood Control Disr-ict). Per-
sonal communication, July 1974.
29. Duryee, G. (Monte Nido Valley Property Owners Association). Per-
sonal communication, July 1974.
30. America's Conservation Districts. Prepared by National Associa-
tion of Conservation Districts. Undated.
31. Douphner, E. (Clerk of the Board, Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource
Conservation District). Personal communication, March 1974.
32. Soils of the Malibu Area. Prepared by U.S. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District, and Los
Angeles County Engineer. 1967.
33. Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District, Resolution No.
163, (1970).
34. Sefaim, M. Fragmentation of Responsibility for Seismic Safety.
Preliminary draft. December 1973.
35. Sefaim, M. (Planning Staff, Regional Planning Commission). Per-
sonal communication, March 1974.
36. At the Crossroads 1974. Prepared by the California Department of
Fish and Game. January 1974.
37. California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication,
November 1974.
38. Santa Monica Mountains Study. Prepared by Bureau of Outdoor Rec-
reation, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973.
39. Report on Desirable Areas of Expansion to the State Park System.
Submitted to William Mott, Director, State Department of Parks and
Recreation, by Santa Monica Mountains State Park Citizens' Advi-
sory Committee (Malibu-Las Virgenes). 1974
45
-------
40. Felty, R. (Southern California Office, State Department of Parks
and Recreation). Personal communication, June 1974.
41. Hove, F. (President, Malibu Township Council). Personal commun-
ications, June/July 1974.
42. Sweeney, J. Coastal Board OKs Proposal to Conserve Marine Resour-
ces. Los Angeles Times. Date unknown.
43. Pacific Coast Highway: Route 1, Report on Proposed Improvements
from Robert E. McClure Tunnel, Santa Monica, to Las Posas Road,
Ventura County. Prepared by California Division of Highways. 1971.
44. Biennial Report of Los Angeles County Road Department, 1971-73.
45. Cappel, T. (Study area resident). Personal communication, July
1974.
46. Campbell, G. (Engineer, Los Angeles County Road Department). Per-
sonal Communication, July 1974.
47. Fradkin, P. Critics Fear Impact of New Highway. Los Angeles Times
March 1974.
46
-------
SECTION V
CASE STUDIES
The analysis of the previous section dealt in succession with the insti-
tutions responsible for managing individual components or "elements" of
the total environment. A different perspective will now be given by
means of a case study approach, examining the involvement of a number of
institutions in particular projects or sets of projects. In this way,
some of the points of interaction between different agencies, many of
which have single-purpose objectives, will hopefully become apparent.
V.I LAS VIRGENES (WATER AND SEWAGE)
This case study looks at the development of water supplies and sewage
collection and treatment services by the Las Virgenes Municipal Water
District (LVMWD), examining the extent to which these tend to promote or
constrain growth. A flow diagram indicating many of the actions affect-
ing the District's provision of services is presented as figure 5.
Water
In 1960, the LVMWD was annexed to the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (SCMWD) for supplemental imported water supplies.
LVMWD engineers master-planned a system that would be able to serve any-
one in the area who might choose to connect. Some lines were deliber-
ately made over-sized in anticipation of considerable growth. In a
tributary valley of Triunfo Canyon, Westlake reservoir was completed in
1971.
The initial facilities to import water from the SCMWD were funded by
District-wide general obligation bonds, whereas the further expansion of
the water system was supported by the formation of some nine local assess-
ment districts. Each district's first phase of pipeline extension
47
-------
Figure 5 Actions Affecting the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
w
OO
i
ISCMWD | I BS
0<2^
a££^ aP1
voter ^* foi
approval of
of general loc
obligation ass
bonds dis
+
LVMWD 1
SCMWD
1960
TAPIA
P
iroval
•mation
9
sal
.essment
stricts
r COMPLETI
ISTRUCTION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM *. OF WE STL
RESERVOI
1965 1970
| EPAj
ON
AVT?
R
1975
State
IRWQCB] J SWQCB | Health Dept.
n
o
(4-1
30Z funding 80% funding a>
Federal State and n
Federal -«
* i §
PLANT , r PLANT (
CONSTRUCTED
o
•H
J-l
CO
O
0)
u
PROP<
j RWQCB |
o
•^ s
co n)
(13 rH
.n A
DSED
RECLAMATION
FACILITIES
0.5 mgd
2 mgd
3 mgd
-------
generally tried to provide service to those properties whose
owners were at that time asking to connect; later phases anticipated
the connection of other properties thought likely to be developed in the
future (1). During the construction period "between 1964 and 1970| exten-
sive growth was both expected and actually experienced! but since 1972
the growth rate has slowed considerably (to about 5%). Construction of
the Malibu Freeway has been cancelled, development plans have been com-
ing under increasing scrutiny, and environmentalists have been challeng-
ing the decisions of planning and zoning officials.
At the present time, landowners within the assessment districts are forced
to carry a heavy burden of taxation. Some 54% of the tax base is open
land, and many landowners must pay very high rates even though they are
not connected to the water system. This situation tends to have a growth-
inducing effect. Some landowners have chosen to sell out to developers,
rather than to pay the taxes. The LVMWD maintains that without growth,
the debt on the water system cannot be paid at current tax rates. While
the District has not officially taken a stance against any proposed leg-
islation that would inhibit growth, it has pointed out the potential fis-
cal problems that might result from the establishment of a Ventura-Los
Angeles Mountain and Coastal Commission (proposed in A.B. 1254); de-
velopment would generally become more difficult (as it has in the coast-
al region since the Coastal Conservation Commission was established),
leading to a drop in the value of undeveloped land and, possibly, a tax-
payers' revolt. If land were reduced in value, or taken off the tax
rolls, the remaining land in the district would face higher taxes (2,3).
Sewage Treatment
History of the system - In 1965, LVMWD constructed its first sewage
treatment plant (the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility) adjacent to Malibu
Creek, several miles inland from the ocean. Secondary treatment employ-
ing activated sludge was provided for an initial capacity of 0.5 million
49
-------
gallons per day (mgd). There were virtually no discharge requirements
to be met at the time; it was simply required that most of the waste
water be sprayed on the grounds of the plant.
In 1968, the secondary (activated sludge) treatment capacity was enlarged
to 2 mgd and as the additional waste water could not be absorbed on
the plant grounds, the District applied for a permit for run-off into
Malibu Creek. In granting the permit, the Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Board (RWQCB) imposed stringent standards and required monitoring
facilities. According to the present plant manager, the Tapia plant was
able to meet these requirements (1).
Meanwhile, the residents of Coastal Malibu were becoming embroiled in a
controversy over the provision of sewage treatment for their area. Coast-
al Malibu lies outside the Malibu watershed except for a small area on
either side of the Malibu Creek between the ridge of Santa Monica Moun-
tains and the coast. In February, 1964, the voters of Coastal Malibu re-
jected a bond issue for financing a sewer district (County Sanitation
District #33) preferring instead to maintain septic tanks. Two more
bond issues were defeated in 1966 and 1968, and another was proposed un-
successfully in 1971. A majority of the residents have been against the
installation of a sewage system on the grounds that it would remove an
effective obstacle to development in the coastal area, namely the threat
of contamination of the beaches. Restrictions on discharges imposed by
both the State Public Health Department and the RWQCB have indeed slowed
development in the area. On the other hand, the Chamber of Commerce, the
large landowners and developers, and the County Engineer have all favored
the formation of a sewer district* (23).
In the midst of this controversy, the Las Virgenes permit to release sec-
ondary effluent under controlled conditions into Malibu Creek was brought
* See page 58.
50
-------
into question. The RWQCB determined that there was a threat of undue
algae proliferation in Malibu Creek, and Las Virgenes was prohibited
from releasing any waste water except under conditions where the ground
was well saturated by rainfall and unlikely to absorb the effluent.
The action was taken under the broad provision of the "threat to vio-
late" section of the 1969 Porter-Cologne Act (1).
It seems possible that the Coastal Malibu sewage treatment controversy
may have been the cause of the permit re-examination and subsequent re-
strictions on effluent discharge. The Chamber of Commerce/developer
coalition, in raising the issue of the Las Virgenes permit, may have
hoped to force the District to construct an ocean outfall instead of
releasing effluent into Malibu Creek, thereby setting a precedent and
strengthening the position of the pro-development faction in their pro-
motion of a treatment facility with ocean outfall for Coastal Malibu.
Tests conducted by the RWQCB staff found that there was as much algal
growth upstream from the plant (due to agricultural and livestock run-
off) as below it, and LVMWD officials concluded that plant effluent was
not the cause of the algal proliferation. However, the RWQCB claims
that political pressure played no part in the permit re-examination, and
that It was the result of ever-tightening and explicit federal, state,
and regional controls.
In any event, the District opted for a reclamation system rather than
an ocean outfall. It had been developing a reclamation system that in-
volved the pumping of treated effluent out of the immediate area, and
this system was operative within six months of the permit revocation.
In 1971, the Tapia plant and the reclaimed water system were expanded
to a capacity of 8 mgd.
The Present System - The treatment plant is currently being used well
under capacity, the flow being about 4 mgd.; however, the wastewater
reclamation facilities are already being strained. The reclamation
51
-------
system operates with a five mile land outfall ending at a 29 acre-foot
reservoir within the Headquarters complex of the LVMWD, some 400 feet
above the Tapia Plant (which is itself about 450 feet above sea level).
The reservoir is used for fish cultivation while reclaimed water from
the reservoir is used to irrigate alfalfa and other crops in the Las
Virgenes Valley, as well as to irrigate the Hope Ranch, Claretville
Seminary and the Twentieth Century Fox site. Additional water is con-
veyed to Pepperdine University (1).
Surplus wastewater presents a problem, especially during the winter when
demands for irrigation are at their lowest. The water is presently
sprayed on unused areas of land, but as the flow increases, other means
of disposal will become essential. LVMWD is committed to reclamation
and it is currently preparing plans for utilizing the extra water through-
out the District. In principle the latter could be used for irrigation,
for lake filling, to maintain greenbelt areas (as a form of fire pro-
tection), or for maintaining a continuous stream flow in the creeks. A
$3 1/2 million expansion of the reclamation facilities appears on the
1974/75 funding priority list of the RWQCB. Should this system be
funded, treated wastewater will be pumped to Calabasas Park and West-
lake Village, serving all adjacent properties in-between (1).
Funding - The Tapia WRF currently treats sewage from three sanitation
districts, namely the UI and U2 improvement districts (within LVMWD)
and the Triunfo County Sanitation District (TCSD) in Ventura County.
The UI district covers the Malibu drainage basin within Los Angeles
County, the U2 district covers the Calabasas drainage basin, and the
TCSD covers the Malibu drainage basin within Ventura County. It is
expected that an additional district (U4) within LVMWD will be connect-
ed to the plant within 1 1/2 years or so; this will serve a small area
generally south of Mulholland, near Westlake Boulevard, at the western
end of Los Angeles County.
52
-------
The original plant, used by the UI and Triunfo districts only, was fi-
nanced by general obligation bonds. Some 30% support from federal sour-
ces was obtained for the 1968 expansion to 2 mgd. The 1971 expansion
to 8 mgd was largely funded (80% of the eligible cost) from state and
federal sources, the local share being financed by improvement bonds.
The U2 district joined the system in 1973, paying an initial fixed
amount for capacity. All connected districts contribute to expenses on
a pro-rata basis. (1).
It is noteworthy that as long as the plant is operating within its de-
sign capacity, it is in the interest of those connected to the system
to encourage further connections (e.g. by development) as this causes
the debt (in the form of a property tax) to be spread among a larger
group.
Water, Sewage, and Future Growth
The availability of water is such that at this time, it does not appear
to represent a constraint on growth in the study area; on the contrary,
it has been shown that method used to finance the existing water supply
tends to have a growth-inducing effect. Sewage treatment, however,
poses a greater problem for those wishing to develop, in view of strin-
gent water quality and public health regulations.
The Los Angeles Basin Plan (prepared by the RWQCB) discusses the future
of the sewage treatment system, stating that under E-0 growth rates
(used to maintain consistency with air quality planning) "the Reclama-
tion Plan envisions the Tapia Water Reclamation Facility's 8 mgd capac-
ity as sufficing throughout the planned period" (up to the year 2000)
(4). In order to fully utilize this existing capacity, new means of
disposing of the wastewater will have to be developed (as discussed
earlier).
However, the Basin Plan points out that the LVMWD and the TCSD (co-
53
-------
partners in the Tapia facility) strongly believe that significantly
higher growth rates will be experienced. LVMWD flow projections, baaed
largely on the growth permitted by the General Plan, Indicate the
need for a 300% expansion of the Tapia plant capacity by the end of the
planning period. According to the Basin Plan, this would necessitate
the construction of a 20 mgd ocean outfall (4).
V. 2 PEPPEKDINE UNIVERSITY (PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT)
Pepperdine University is located in the Coastal Malibu area, on the edge
of the Malibu Creek watershed. It lies to the north of Pacific Coast
Highway, in the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains. A large por-
tion of the site was donated to the University by the Adamson Company,
one of the largest landowners in the Coastal Malibu area. The Univer-
sity acquired several other parcels through donations, and bought front-
age on Pacific Coast Highway. Funding was received from the U.S. De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, under the program of grants
made for the development of new colleges.
In the development stages prior to the September 1972 opening, the Un-
iversity was involved in a confusing tangle of non-communicating public
agencies. Most of the controversy centered around the provision of
water and sewers, and inadequate solutions to sewage problems still
threaten to severely curtail the University's development plans. A
flow-sheet indicating some of the key actions affecting the University's
development to date is presented as figure 6.
Initial Planning Approval
Construction of the University began after building permits for the in-
itial phase of the development had been applied for and received. Sub-
sequently, however, the Zoning Division of the County Regional Planning
Commission (RFC) was alerted to the construction and Pepperdine was in-
formed that a conditional use permit was required. Neither the Engineer's
54
-------
"Figure 6 Actions Affecting Peppexditie University
1965
1970
1975
LA County
Engineer
funding
for colleges
building
permit
Wl
LAND ACQUISITION-
(donation by
Adamson Company)
public hearings
on conditional
use permit
building
freeze
1
t
•CONSTRUCTION
WATER
-^•OPENING-
SEWER
LA County
Water
District
#29
LVMWD
ROADS
i
i
LA County
Road
Dept.
I
i
LA County
Fire
Dept.
WASTE WATER
•DISPOSAL ON-
CAMPUS
t
CAPACITY
REACHED
"•FOR-
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
LA County
Health
Dept.
ISCMHD [
-------
Department (which had granted the building permits) nor the University
had apparently been aware of this requirement. In mid-construction,
Pepperdine filed for the appropriate permit. Public hearings were held
and considerable opposition to the development was voiced; nevertheless,
approval was granted. Inevitably opponents have argued that the deci-
sion was influenced by the fact that construction was already under way
(5).
Water
Pepperdine obtains water from Los Angeles County Water District #29,
supplied under the Southern California Metropolitan Water Plan. The
University was required to build the system and dedicate it to the Coun-
ty. In order to accommodate future development, they constructed a 3
million gallon tank well above the campus in the Santa Monica Mountains,
at a cost of nearly $800,000. The County Water District advised them to
use extra heavy pipe because of the high water pressure that would re-
sult from the high elevation of the water tank. In addition to the heavy
pipe, the. University installed pressure reducers at each building. Both
the County Water District and the County Fire Department were aware of
the development of the Pepperdine water system and the Water District
gave it formal approval.
On opening day, the Fire Department came to examine the system for its
own approval. The University was told that the hydrant pressure was too
great and that an expensive system of pressure reducers would have to be
installed. Had the University previously been aware of the need for
these reducers, they would not have installed the extra heavy pipe. As
it was, they were forced to pay for a dual system (5).
Sewage
In its initial development plans, Pepperdine had agreed to jointly
56
-------
construct a treatment facility with its neighbor developer, Alcoa.
Alcoa, together with the Adamson Company, was planning a major develop-
ment of recreational facilities, single family homes, and one and two-
story apartments in the area to the west of Pepperdine, known as South
Winter Mesa. Plans for the 200,000 gallon treatment plant, requiring
bonding of $1,250,000 with the County, were not initiated in time for
completion by the anticipated opening day. Coastal Malibu is served
principally by a system of individual septic tanks, and residents had
several times defeated bond proposals for the formation of a sewer dis-
trict; thus ?epperdine could not rely on the approval of a local sys-
tem even though both the County Engineer and the County Sanitation Dis-
tricts, together with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, were
strongly advocating its development.
As an interim measure, so that the University could be assured of open-
ing on schedule, Pepperdine proposed a system of 34 septic tanks to serve
the campus. However, the proposal was not approved by the County Sani-
tation Districts and the Regional Water Quality Control Board due to the
threat of possible rising water downward of leach fields, in the vicin-
ity of Pacific Coast Highway. As a temporary solution, the University
contracted with the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (LVMWD) to
treat sewage from the campus. The Las Virgenes system, with a capacity
of 8 mgd, was only treating 3 mgd in 1972. The University, as part of
the agreement, had to buy back treated effluent (at $15 per acre foot)
because the Las Virgenes system is compelled to dispose of Its treated
effluent on land and there had been insufficient demand for spray irri-
gation, particularly in rainy winter months. Two A inch pipes (one for
transporting sewage to the plant, and one for returning the treated
effluent) were installed over the 5 mile distance under Malibu Canyon
Road, together with the necessary pumping facilities.
However, it took a long time for the County Health Department to develop
57
-------
standards for the intermingling of effluent pipes and domestic water
lines (to protect against the possibility of cross-connection), so that
only in April 1974 was Pepperdine first able to dispose of the treated
effluent on the campus in accordance with the contract. Currently the
University sends approximately 90,000 gallons of sewage to the Las
Virgenes plant daily.
The University has now reached the reliable capacity of the 4 inch pipe
and all new construction has been suspended by the County Regional Plan-
ning Commission until additional sewage capacity is obtained. However,
new construction is very important to the campus because the high cost
of land and housing in the Malibu area currently forces most students
and faculty tc commute over considerable distances. This is contribut-
ing both to the congestion of major roads in the area and to air pollu-
tion, as well as being contrary to the University's residential philos-
ophy. The adjacent Alcoa/Adamson development has been held up by sewer
problems as well; however, a septic tank system was recently approved
for the development. Alcoa has now been able to sell the prepared lots,
but the prices vary from §30,000 to $90,000, well outside the financial
range of most Pepperdine students or faculty (5).
A proposal for a sewer plan that would have circumvented the necessity
of obtaining local voter approval was recently made by some of the major
landowners in the Coastal Malibu area, in cooperation with the County
Engineer. It was thought that by forming an assessment district of 60%
of the landowners, a sewage system could be built and would qualify for
state and federal assistance. However, this system (known as 2550 M),
while supported by the RWQCB, has been denied grants by the SWRCB and
the EPA, and the LVMWD has now been instructed to prepare a sewage mas-
ter plan for the Malibu Coast. The study is scheduled for completion
in late 1975.
Any new proposal that might emerge for the construction of a sewage
58
-------
system is likely to receive close scrutiny from local residents, who
sense that the lack of sewerage is currently the major constraint on
development in the area. The State Coastal Commission has expressed
concern for the growth inducing impacts of providing public services in
the Malibu area, as evidenced by the recent delay in approving the High-
way Department's proposal to widen Pacific Coast Highway.
Despite recommending the proposed sewage system, the RWQCB caution in
the Los Angeles Basin Plan that it "will encourage urbanization in the
Malibu district because it will enable developers to create single and
multiple family divisions. Urbanization would both alter the character
of the district and upset the native coastal chapparal ecosystem" (4).
Pepperdine's Future
Future development of the campus is largely dependent on the development
of an adequate sewage treatment system. The University is included in
the General Plan, and the land is appropriately zoned, yet construction
has been halted at an awkward stage because a key environmental constraint
had been inadequately anticipated (perhaps reflecting a lack of co-
ordination between the RPC and the utilities). In addition, the persis-
tent delays have given time for the local community to build up a sig-
nificant opposition to any development at all, including housing for
Pepperdine students and faculty.
V. 3 MULHOLLAND HIGHWAY (ROADS)
Mulholland Drive (in the City of Los Angeles, extending from Hollywood
to Topanga Canyon Boulevard) and Mulholland Highway (in the County of Los
Angeles, extending from Topanga Canyon Boulevard to Pacific Coast High-
way just south of the Ventura County line) comprise a 53.5 mile roadway
traversing the crest of the Santa Monica Mountains. Mulholland thus
divides the Malibu Creek Watershed. As development has extended out from
59
-------
Pacific Coast Highway and the Ventura Freeway, there has been pressure
to provide access both to and across the Santa Monica Mountains. A
flow-sheet indicating actions affecting Mulholland is provided as fig-
ure 7.
Present Development of Mulholland - The present development of the high-
way varies from unimproved dirt road to two lanes of asphalt paving and
dirt shoulders, to the standard of an urban highway with concrete curbs
and medians. Many proposals have been advanced for the comprehensive
development of the road since the City section was dedicated in 1924, on
federal, state, county, city and more local levels. Proposals range
from freeway development to designation as a recreation drive connecting
a chain of parks and developed only to two lanes with dirt shoulders.
The City of Los Angeles has jurisdiction over the eastern area crossed
by Mulholland. Currently, the land around Mulholland is in scattered
residential use but some large-scale residential development with ex-
tensive grading has been permitted and in the last few months the City
has been considering whether or not to allow a hotel complex at Mul-
holland and Coldwater. The 30 miles of County road to the south and
west are also in scattered residential use but maintain a more rural
character than the City section (6).
The primary issues concern the width of the road and the protection of
a scenic corridor. The Road Departments have taken the position that
Mulholland should be developed to whatever extent is dictated by current
zoning and projected growth (7); the Recreation Departments think that
Mulholland should itself be a recreation resource; the Planning Depart-
ments have taken a wait and see approach, leaving the planning function
to Citizens' Advisory Committees for the present.
Mulholland as a Scenic Highway
In October, 1971, Mulholland Drive (the City portion) was designated the
60
-------
Figure 7 Actions Affecting Mulholland Highway
1970
LA County
Road Dept.
county
*• *•
plan of
highway
1
HIGHWAY
WITHIN
DESIGNATED
MAJOR
HIGHWAY
1975
• •
LA Citv Council] — ^Citizens' Citizens1 MBS |
Advisory Advis
Planning
Commission
/
\
Committee Comma
jory
ittee
Report Report |RPC j
Due
Sept.
A
r
HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT CENTURY
WITHIN ADJACENT TO RANCH
DESIGNATED *
SCENIC
HIGHWAY
* WITHOUT ADJACENT
1974 1
scenic
element
1
1
| ^
|^^^
^^^^
. fc
SCENIC TO MULHOLLAND ' ^
SETBACKS A
report
recommends
2-lane recreational
road
Ventura-Los Angeles
Mountain-Coastal
Study Commission
other Mulholland
state Scenic
acquisi- Highway
tions (?) Bill
I
SDPR
_l
I
|U.
S. Senate
-------
first City Scenic Parkway by the Los Angeles City Council. A Citizens'
Advisory Committee, set up to assist in shaping plans, design criteria
and standards, recommended that the roadway be two lanes, with no median,
with dirt shoulders and no sidewalks. Scenic loops and vista points
should be provided but no commercial facilities. They further recommend-
ed that the City take steps to secure a scenic corridor or "ribbon park"
along the Mulholland Scenic Parkway. In March, 1972, the final report
of the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coastal Study Commission also
endorsed this concept for the entire length of Mulholland (8).
The County has moved more slowly. The 1971 Environmental Development
Guide designates most of the Santa Monica Mountains for conservation and
proposed an unspecified type of improvement for Mulholland for the 1975-
1990 period. Mulholland is to be specifically discussed in the Scenic
Highways Element of the General Plan, which is currently in preparation.
According to the Head of the Environmental Design Section, the plan is
being prepared in cooperation with the County Road Department and the
County Department of Parks and Recreation. In addition, a Citizens'
Advisory Committee was appointed by the Board of Supervisors (BS) in
September 1973 to assist in drawing up criteria and guidelines for the
development of Mulholland. The committee was patterned after the one
set up earlier by the City.
Shortly after the committee was formed, it was asked to prepare interim
criteria for the Supervisors to use in guiding zoning decisions prior to
completion of the final plan. Although these interim criteria were pre-
pared, a dispute arose as to whether they should be approved by the BS
or the Regional Planning Commission (RFC); the County Administrative
Officer decided the guidelines should be reviewed by all interested agen-
cies, and the issue was dropped. As a result, for the time being, no
policy guides exist for current decision-making;' the proposed guidelines
are circulating through technical committees, gathering comments, while
62
-------
the Committee prepares its final statement, due in September 1974 (9,
10).
In the meantime, however, the County Road Department has given a spec-
ific classification to Mulholland. Their "Major Parkway" designation
denotes a minimum 80 foot right-of-way with four traffic lanes. It
appears that Mulholland was designated a Major Parkway in order to allow
flexibility in the design, so that it may divide around natural features
and the type of curb may vary. According to an engineer in the Road
Department (7), the parkway will not be constructed until it is warrant-
ed by land development. It is departmental policy to supply road im-
provements if they are clearly needed, and "need" is determined through
traffic counts. Currently, however, anyone developing land along Mul-
holland is required to build and dedicate a road of Major Parkway pro-
portions, in accord with the County Master Plan of Highways.
A four lane highway, scenic or otherwise, could have significant impact
on the development potential of the area around Mullholland. Only a
small amount of the area recommended for state park acquisition (11) has
as yet been acquired and considerable development could occur under ex-
isting zoning. A final plan for Mulholland is not expected from the
County for several months; some observers fear that development permit-
ted in the meantime will irrevocably set the pattern for the future and
thereby constitute "de facto" planning.
Possible Federal Intervention
As a result of the delays in effective planning at the local level, and
in order to avoid possible inconsistencies between City and County plans
for Mulholland, Congressman Bell has introduced a bill (HR 11163) which
would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to designate the"Mulholland
National Scenic Parkway, thus turning over responsibility for the coor-
dination of plans and assemblage of land to the federal government.
63
-------
Considerable funds would be made available for development of the Park-
way. It is specified in the legislation that the program would augment
and not supersede present City, County, and State programs in the Santa
Monica Mountains adjacent to the Parkway; howevers it is also specified
that the road "would not be designed for heavy traffic use" (12). At
the time of writing, the bill has been referred to the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs.
V. 4 REFERENCES
1. Hedenland, L. and Christian F.R. (Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dis-
trict). Personal communications, June/July/September 1974.
2. Duryee, G. (Monte Nido Property Owners Association). Personal com-
munication, July 1974.
3. Cappel, T. (Study area resident). Personal communication, July 1974.
4. Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles River Basin 4B. Prepared by
State Water Resources and Regional Water Quality Control Board. June
1974. 4 vols.
5. Hudson} J. (Vice-Provost, Pepperdine University). Personal commun-
ication, June/November 1974.
6. Report on the Mulholland Scenic Parkway. Prepared by ttie MuIEiollaTid
Parkway Citizens' Advisory Committee, 1972.
7. Campbell, G. (Engineer, Los Angeles County Road Department). Per-
sonal communication, July 1974.
8. Final Report. Prepared by the Ventura-Los Angeles Mountain and Coast-
al Study Commission. March 1972.
9. Hove, F. (President, Malibu Township Council). Personal communica-
tion, July 1974.
64
-------
10. Feuer, M. (Consultant to Mulholland Scenic Highway Citizens' Ad-
visory Committee). Personal communication, July 1974.
11. Report on Desirable Areas of Expansion to the State Park System.
Submitted to William Mott, Director, State Department of Parks and
Recreation, by Santa Monica Mountains State Park Citizens' Advi-
sory Committee (Malibu-Las Virgenes). 1974.
12. H.R. 11163 (October 1973). Referred to Committee on Interior and In-
sular Affairs.
65
-------
SECTION VI
DISCUSSION
This section contains a brief discussion, based on the information pre-
sented so far, of the major institutional processes involved in manag-
ing the Malibu Watershed environment. It is clear that the processes
are very complicated, with many different agencies engaged in inter-re-
lated activities; furthermore the situation is a dynamic one with some
new controls yet to take full effect, and others being re-assessed in
the light of changing events (e.g. the energy "crisis").
The section begins with a summary of the regulatory controls on develop-
ment, which may ultimately determine whether or not a project can pro-
ceed. Next to be discussed is the importance of the availability of
services, the presence or lack of which can be significant in determin-
ing the rate of development. The discussion then focuses on the role
of planning in environmental management, examining first the activities
of special-purpose agencies, and then those, of local planners. The lack
of responsiveness to the public of local planners for the study area is
pointed out. Finally, attention is drawn to some other problems not yet
included in the discussion.
VI.1 REGULATORY CONTROLS ON DEVELOPMENT
Development projects may be subject to a variety of regulatory controls,
involving the granting or withholding of permits.
Building permits - Construction is permitted by the County Engineer's
Department only if a set of local requirements (relating to sanitation,
fire protection, etc.) are met, and if the use of the land is permitted
under zoning. The latter can be changed or a variance granted at the
66
-------
discretion of the Regional Planning Commission (or on appeal to the
Board of Supervisors) although consistency with, the General Plan must
be maintained.
Coastal Commission permits — Development is permitted within the desig-
nated permit zone at the discretion of the South Coast Regional Commis-
sion (or on appeal to the State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission).
There currently exist only interim planning guidelines; a comprehensive
long-range plan is in preparation.
Air quality controls - Certain kinds of development (notably designated
parking facilities and other indirect sources) will soon require a per-
mit from the Environmental Protection Agency; the test is whether the
development will cause interference with the attainment and maintenance
of the national ambient air quality standards.
Indirect controls, in the form of emissions limitations, already apply
to stationary sources and are administered by the Air Pollution Control
District; variances may be granted by the Air Pollution Hearing Board
(subject to revocation by the Air Resources Board).
Water quality controls - Development is controlled indirectly, in that
a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board is required for
certain kinds of discharge.
VI.2 THE AVAILABILITY OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES AS A FACTOR AFFECTING DE-
VELOPMENT
Without the adequate provision of services such as water supply, sewage
treatment, and access roads, permission for development is likely to be
withheld. The lack of such services can thus act as an important con-
straint on development, at least in the short term (e.g. the expansion
of Pepperdine University is currently constrained by inadequate sewage
treatment facilities). In most cases, however, the suppliers of services
state that they simply meet "needs" and that it is not their intent
67
-------
to be anything but neutral with respect to development.
Nevertheless, in practice, their actions frequently do have implications
for development, either constraining or promoting it. Due to long lead
times and in order to take advantage of scale economies, it is common
when constructing new service facilities to install capacity in excess
of that immediately required, in anticipation of possible future needs.
Once the extra capacity has been provided, there may be pressures to
fully utilize it - in effect, to make the forecasts self-fulfilling -
if, for example, the debt will thereby be spread among a large number
of people (as is the case with the Las Virgenes sewage treatment system).
It follows that the forecasts on which the provision of services is based
can themselves play a significant role in guiding development. Al-
though there is now an attempt in water resources planning to place ex-
plicit constraints on forecasts in order to produce consistency with
regional plans for improving air quality, so direct an incorporation of
environmental considerations is unusual; it is more common for local
projections to be based largely on the zoned capacity of the land which,
in the study area at least, seems to have been established without much
attention being paid to the environmental implications.
VI.3 THE EFFECTS OF PLANNING ON DEVELOPMENT
The Role of the Special-Purpose Agencies
At the present time comprehensive planning remains primarily a function
of the local government. However, local planners are increasingly being
constrained by requirements imposed at the regional, state, or national
levels by special-purpose agencies established to protect a critical re-
source (e.g. the coastline, the air, the water) or to perform a particu-
lar function (e.g. to provide a statewide transportation system). Since
the different elements of the environment are inextricably woven together,
68
-------
it is inevitable that the plans drawn up by the special-purpose agen-
cies should have over-lapping spheres of influence; in practice, for
example, they all have implications for land-use. Indeed, in the ab-
sence of any effective comprehensive planning process beyond that at
the local level, some of the special-purpose agencies are finding them-
selves taking on a de facto land-use planning role; this is especially
true of the agencies preparing the transportation plan (as transporta-
tion is such a key factor in determining land-use).
It is of course questionable as to whether this role is appropriate
(whether or not it is even desired by the agencies concerned). A major
problem is that no mechanism exists to establish priorities between the
objectives of the different agencies so that trade-offs can be made
when conflicts arise. Some measures serve more than one objective (e.g.
the preservation of open space to enhance the coastline may prove bene-
ficial to air quality) but others are conflicting (e.g. the construction
of a new road to serve the transportation system may generate air and
water pollution). There is no means to ensure effective coordination
between the plans; for example, although the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act calls for inter-governmental cooperation, it does not re-
quire that the state water agency consider other plans. As a result,
it seems almost inevitable that, when all the plans are completed, they
will be found to contain important inconsistencies. How these will be
resolved is yet to be seen.
The Role of Local Planners
Although constraints are increasingly being imposed by special-purpose
agencies to safeguard particular elements of the environment (such as
air and water quality), local planners are still left with a great deal
of discretion in guiding development and its attendant environmental
impacts. Only the Coastal Commission has discretionary powers of control
69
-------
over development comparable to those exercised by the Regional Planning
Commission (or ultimately the Board of Supervisors), and the former's
jurisdiction is limited to a small geographical area.
The actions of local planners can have far-reaching consequences for
the environment. They are in effect the principal guardians of many el-
ements that are not specifically protected by special-purpose controls;
for example, in designating permitted land-uses, they play a key role in
determining whether wildlife habitats are likely to be preserved, and
whether development will take place in areas prone to serious erosion
and sedimentation. In establishing the zoned capacity of the land, they
signal to other agencies the "need" for new sewage treatment plants,
flood control projects, roads, etc., all of which generate further im-
pacts on the environment.
Furthermore, they have control over many "small" developments whose in-
dividual impacts may seem insignificant (and may not be covered by
special-purpose controls) but whose cumulative impact could be major. The
establishment of precedents can be crucial in this context; for example,
the granting of permission to build a single hotel adjacent to Mulholl-
and Highway might in itself have a minor effect, but it could initiate
a pattern of development that would ultimately transform the environ-
ment of a large part of the Santa Monica Mountains.
VI.4 THE RESPONSIVENESS OF LOCAL PLANNERS
In view of the crucial importance of their discretionary powers, it is
arguable that local planners should be especially responsive to the pub-
lic whom they "serve". Indeed, a major argument against federal, state,
or even regional intervention in planning generally is that planners at
these levels are too distant from the people most affected by the plans.
However, the responsiveness of local planners for the study area has his-
torically been very poor. The Regional Planning Commission is appointed
by the Board of Supervisors, and Commissioners can serve indefinitely;
70
-------
there is no direct accountability to the public.
The Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County has long been criticized
for its failure to provide truly representative government. The Board,
which has just five members, has the exclusive right and duty subject
only to constitutional and statutory restrictions to formulate the
policies and promulgate the laws that will guide and determine the fu-
ture growth and development of the county (1). The organizational struc-
ture of county government in Los Angeles has remained substantially un-
altered for over 60 years even though the breadth and importance of the
decisions being made have increased significantly.
An Ad Hoc Committee of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury concluded in
its Final Report for 1973 that:
(i) County government is not as responsive to the people as it should
be, for many and varied reasons.
(ii) Small county government where everyone knows his Supervisor is
different from government in a large county where each Supervis-
or is expected to represent 1,500,000 people in both legislative
and executive functions.
(iii) The people of Los Angeles County need a system which will separ-
ate the executive and the legislative branches of government and
provide checks and balances.
(iv) An untenable situation exists when the Board of Supervisors has
the sole power to determine whether or not voters have the oppor-
tunity to decide on issues (such as having an elected Chief Ex-
ecutive) .
(v) The State Legislature should make it possible for any county in
California over a certain size to have an elected Chief Execu-
tive so the people may vote on the issue without having to wrest
the right to obtain such a referendum from the Supervisors in
office.
71
-------
(vi) The Board of Supervisors should be enlarged to minimize opportun-
ities for one or two Supervisors to obstruct the wheels of govern-
ment, to make it less possible for them to influence the Board,
and to broaden the representation of the people. The awesome
power of the Supervisors seems dedicated to retaining the status
quo.
A large part of the study area falls within the 5th Supervisorial Dis-
trict which also includes the North County area (Simi Valley, Antelope
Valley, Saugus-Newhall) and the foothill communities north of the San
Gabriel Valley (see map, page 85). This is a vast area containing a wide
diversity of social and ecological communities. Citizen access to the
Supervisor is inevitably very limited. On some issues, the advice and
suggestions of specially-appointed Citizens' Advisory Committees are
sought by the Board, but there is no way for these committees to ensure
that their recommendations are given due weight in the decision making
process.
VI.5 SOME OTHER PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY
Attention will be drawn here to two further problems relating to current
environmental management procedures, not yet mentioned in the discus-
sion.
Local agency coordination - The first problem concerns the lack of co-
ordination between the different local agencies responsible for admin-
istering regulations regarding sanitation, fire protection, etc. It is
evident from the experience of Pepperdine University that several agen-
cies are unaware of each other's requirements (and occasionally, one
suspects, even their own). Furthermore, ~< ~. would appear that the pro-
cedure for checking that all requirements are met before construction
is permitted does not always perform adequately.
Environmental management in transition - The second problem arises
72
-------
because much of the current legislation affecting the environment has
been passed only recently, and it takes a significant amount of time for
plans to be prepared and controls implemented. Furthermore, delays may
be caused deliberately by those wishing to avoid anticipated controls.
At present, parts of the General Plan have not yet been adopted (and
other parts are being challenged in court); the Coastal Plan is still
in preparation; although an EPA- prepared plan for implementing the
Clean Air standards is currently in force, it is likely to be supersed-
ed by a modified version of the plan produced by the state; the Water
Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for Los Angeles already exists, but
as yet no work has begun on preparing an areawide waste management plan;
and the State Transportation Plan is still being prepared.
In this transitional situation, decisions are being made that could have
a profound effect on the future environment, even though the decision-
makers lack the benefit of a long-term perspective. The Coastal Commis-
sions, for example, have made most of their decisions so far on an ad_
hoc basis, without even interim guidelines from which to work. The
danger clearly exists that actions taken now could seriously prejudice
the future effectiveness of the plans once adopted. As an extreme ex-
ample, it is possible that by the time that plans for Mulholland are
finally settled and assuming that it is designated a scenic highway,
there may be no scenes left worth preserving!
VI.6 REFERENCE
1. Final Report of Ad Hoc Committee on Governmental Organization. Los
Angeles County Grand Jury, 1973.
73
-------
SECTION VII
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
APCD
ARB
Air Pollution Control District
Air Resources Board
ES
Board of Supervisors
CDPR County Department of Parks & Recreation
CLIPI Center for Law in the Public Interest
CPC Citizens' Planning Council
EDG
EIR
EIS
EPA
Environmental Development Guide
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
FHA Federal Highway Administration
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
GPPRB
General Plan Policy Review Board
HUD
Department of Housing & Urban Development
LAAPCD Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District
IACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LVMWD Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
74
-------
RFC Regional Planning Commission
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCMWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
SCRC South Coast Regional Commission
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SCZCC State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
SDPR State Department of Parks & Recreation
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCSD Triunfo County Sanitation District
TLVRCD Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District
UMIA
Urban Mass Transportation AdTninistration
75
-------
SECTION VIII
APPENDICES
Page
A. Brief Descriptions of Selected Government Agencies 77
B. Note on the Availability and Accessibility of 92
Information
C. Postscript: Outcome of Litigation Affecting the 95
County General Plan
76
-------
APPENDIX A
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
A.I. FEDERAL AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture; Soil Conservation Service
The Department of Agriculture, through the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), "has responsibility for developing and carrying out a national
soil and water conservation program in cooperation with landowners and
operators and other land users and developers, with community planning
agencies and regional resource groups, and with other agencies of gov-
ernment - Federal, State, and local. The SCS also assists in agricul-
tural pollution control, environmental improvement, and rural community
development.
The soil and water conservation program is carried on through technical
help to locally organized and operated conservation districts; local
sponsors of watershed protection projects and resource conservation and
development projects; and consultive assistance to other individuals
and groups" (1).
Department of Housing and Urban Development
"The overall purpose of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) is to assist in providing for sound development of the Nation's
communities and metropolitan areas" (1). The Department's activities
include the provision of Comprehensive Planning Assistance. "HUD assists
State and local governments and areawide organizations in dealing with
community development and growth for urban and rural areas; provides
grant assistance to State and local governments and areawide multi-
77
-------
jurisdicticmal organizations to encourage State, local and area-wide
officials to improve executive planning, decision making, and manage-
ment capability; encourages community planning and management as a con-
tinuous process" (1).
Department of the Interior
"The jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior includes...the con-
servation and development of mineral and water resources..- the conser-
vation, development, and utilization of fish and wildlife resources...
the coordination of Federal and State recreation programs" (1).
Within the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
has the responsibility of assuring prompt and effective action at all
levels of government in coordinating, planning, and financing public out-
door recreation; it also encourages and assists all governmental and
private interests to conserve, develop, and utilize outdoor recreation
resources for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations
(1).
Department of Transportation
"The Department of Transportation was created for the purposes of devel-
oping national policies and programs to achieve safe, efficient, econom-
ical, convenient and integrated transportation, with due regard for the
Nation's environment and national defense" (1). Activities of the De-
partment include developing transportation policy, protecting and improv-
ing the environment, and developing improved transportation systems.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) and the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Administration (DMTA) are part of the Department of Transportation.
The FHA carries out the Department's highway transportation programs, in-
cluding the federal-aid program of financial assistance to the States for
78
-------
highway construction. The missions of UMTA are "to assist in the de-
velopment of improved mass transportation facilities, equipment, tech-
niques, methods; to encourage the planning and establishment of area-
wide urban mass transportation systems; and to provide state and local
governments with help in financing such systems" (1).
Environmental Protection Agency
"The Environmental Protection Agency was created to permit coordinated
and effective governmental action on behalf of the environment. EPA en-
deavors to abate and control pollution systematically, by proper inte-
gration of a variety of research, monitoring, standard setting, and en-
forcement activities. As a complement to its other activities, EPA co-
ordinates and supports research and anti-pollution activities by State
and local governments, private and public groups, individuals, and edu-
cational institutions. EPA also reinforces efforts among other Federal
agencies with respect to the impact of their operations on the environ-
ment, and it is specifically charged with making public its written com-
ments on environmental impact statements and with publishing its deter-
minations when those hold that a proposal is unsatisfactory from the
standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. In all,
EPA is designed to serve as the public's advocate for a livable environ-
ment" (1).
A.2. STATE AGENCIES
Air Resources Board
The Air Resources Board (ARB) "is responsible for the quality of air
breathed by Californians and attempts to combat air pollution on a state-
wide level. It sets standards for control of vehicle pollution and tests
systems to be applied to trucks, buses, and autos. Stationary sources of
pollution are also scrutinized. The. Board sets standards of air quality
79
-------
in each of the state's air basins and records sources of air pollution
in these basins. It also conducts studies to ascertain the effect of
air pollution on humans" (2). The ARE currently has five members, all
of whom are appointed by the Governor and serve "at his pleasure."
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
The State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission was established for a four-
year period with the passage of Proposition 20 (California Coastal Zone
Conservation Act) in November, 1972. The Commission is charged with pre-
paring a comprehensive, coordinated, enforceable plan to preserve, pro-
tect and, where possible, restore the resources of the coastal zone. The
Commission has permit power in the coastal zone area (subject to speci-
fied exceptions) between the seaward limits of state jurisdiction and
1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line. The planning area ex-
tends to the crest of the closest coastal mountain or five miles inland,
whichever is closest (3).
The law called for the creation of six Regional Commissions (q.v.) to
implement the provisions within their region. Since the establishment
of the Regional Commissions, over which it has appellate power, the State
Commission has taken on a reviewing and coordination function.
Department of Finance
"The Department of Finance is in charge of State Fiscal policies, includ-
ing the development and presentation of a State budget, financial audit-
ing and program compliance by the specific State departments" (2). It
regularly develops and publishes population projections for the State.
Department of Fish and Game
The Department of Fish and Game "has responsibility for protection, pres-
ervation, propogation, and enhancement of California's wildlife resources
80
-------
(birds, fish, mammals, mollusks, crustaceans, and amphibia); enforces
laws and regulations and issues licenses; cooperates with and aids lo-
cal and other governmental agencies in acquiring and developing projects
for recreation and conservation" (2).
Department of Parks and Recreation
The Department of Parks and Recreation, under policy direction of the
State Park and Recreation Commission, is responsible for the acquisition,
development and operation of the state park system, and the administra-
tion of grants for recreation to local govermne.nt (4) .
Department of Transportation
Created by AB 69 in 1972, the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) is intended "to provide the institutional repository and stim-
ulus for a balanced, multi-modal system" (5). Caltrans has six internal
divisions, one each responsible for highways, mass transportation, trans-
portation planning, aeronautics, legal services, and administrative ser-
vices.
Department of Water Resources
"The Department of Water Resources is charged with the administration,
development, conservation, control, and utilization of California's vi-
tal water resources. . .It has responsibility for planning, constructing,
and operating the State water projects. It is also concerned with flood
control, water quality, production of hydro-electrical energy, safety of
dams, underground water, runoff forecasts, drainage, and many other prob-
lems" (2).
Transportation Board
The State Transportation Board, given an expanded and independent role
81
-------
by AB 69 in 1972, is intended to "advise and assist the Legislature and
Business and Transportation Agency in formulating and evaluating state
transportation policy and plans" (5). Its responsibilities include fi-
nancial review, planning review, and adoption of the State Transporta-
tion Plan prior to its submission to the Legislature.
Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has a legislative man-
date to exercise the adjudicatory and regulatory functions of the State
in the field of water resources. It Is the designated water pollution
control agency for all purposes stated in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA). It functions through nine regional boards (q.v.)
over which it has supervisorial and appellate jurisdiction. In addi-
tion, its duties include administration of statewide programs of research
into technical aspects of water quality control, coordination of water-
related investigations conducted by other state agencies, adoption of
regulations regarding the use of chemicals in cleaning up oil spills,
regulation of liquid waste transportation and disposal, and administra-
tion of all Clean Water Grant Programs. The SWRCB is composed of five
full-time members appointed by the Governor for four-year terms (6).
A.3. REGIONAL AGENCIES
South Coast Commission (Los Angeles and Orange Counties)
The South Coast Regional Commission (SCRC) is one of six regional commis-
sions formed to implement the provisions of the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Act, 1972. The SCRC issues permits for development within
the coastal zone (subject to appeal to the State Commission) and is re-
sponsible for preparing recommendations for incorporation into the state-
wide plan (7).
82
-------
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles)
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in Los Angeles is one
of nine such boards, each of which is responsible for the formation and
adoption of a water quality control plan within its region, and for im-
plementation of the plan through adoption of waste discharge requirements
(6).
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was formed un-
der a Joint Powers Agreement as a coordinating governmental body for the
six county Southern California region. Membership of cities and coun-
ties in SCAG is voluntary. The principal function of SCAG's staff is the
preparation of plans for matters of regional importance. Members do not,
however, have to comply with the plans. SCAG does have review authority
over applications of member governments for Federal or State funding for
selected grant programs (notably in transportation).
The Executive Committee of SCAG consists of one Supervisor from each
county and one representative from each city except Los Angeles which
has three representatives. SCAG is financed through the federal Urban
Planning Assistance Grant Program which offers funds for urban planning
to regional planning agencies on a 2/3, 1/3 basis; in addition it re-
ceives membership dues paid by the cities and counties (8).
A.4. LOCAL AGENCIES - LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Air Pollution Control District
The Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District (LAAPCD) "develops and
enforces measures to control air contaminating emissions from stationary
sources; administers air monitoring, research, source testing, instru-
ments and methods development, meteorological and control engineering
83
-------
services in support of this basic mission; performs air monitoring pro-
jects for State and Federal agencies; provides atmospheric radio-logical
monitoring and protection services to the County of Los Angeles" (2).
The Evaluation and Planning Division "is the 'think tank1 section of the
District that translates scientific and engineering facts into terms that
will assist policy and determine action; provides work in air quality
analysis, studies trends of atmospheric pollution; provides technical
assistance to other agencies" (2).
In California, local air pollution control districts are primarily re-
sponsible for stationary source control, while the State Air Resources
Board has the main responsioility for controlling motor vehicle emis-
sions .
Board of Supervisors
The County Board of Supervisors (BS) "serves as the governing body of
the County and many special districts, including Flood Control, Air
Pollution Control and Fire Protection Districts; enacts ordinances
and rules; determines County and special district policies; supervis-
es activities of the Chief Administrative Officer, County departments
and special districts; adopts annual budgets; fixed salaries" (2).
The Board is composed of b members, one from each of the five districts
of the County (see ligure Al). The members serve 4-year staggered terms;
they may be elected to an indefinite number of consecutive terms.
Department of County Engineer
"The County Engineer performs engineering services in the unincorpora-
ted areas of the County and in contract cities as directed by the Board
of Supervisors. The major responsibilities of the Department include
the design and supervision of the construction of County-owned facili-
ties, plan checking and inspection of private construction, sewer and
84
-------
Figure AI
Districts of the Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County
PACIFIC OCEAN
ORANGE COUNTY
85
-------
storm drain design, industrial waste, plan checking and inspection,
sewer maintenance, mapping, survey services for all County departments,
administration of County Waterworks Districts and allocation of assess-
ments for local improvements. The County Engineer is also Director of
Aviation for the County" (2).
Department of the Forester and Fire Warden
As part of its duties, the Fire Prevention Division "performs fire and
life safety inspections in most occupancies including places of public
assembly and institutions; sets requirements and checks plans for water
storage facilities, hydrants, fire protection and life safety systems"
(2).
Department of Health Services
The Environmental Management Program of the Department of Health Ser-
vices "is responsible for the enforcement of public health laws relating
to environmental health. An essential task is the control and preven-
tion of environmental disease in the population and the maintenance of
an environment free from pests and of nuisances. The program contains
a section of General Services, Specialized Services, Program and Training
Services, Dairy Services, and an Entomology Consultant" (2).
Included in the Specialized Services are (i) the Cross Connection and
Water Pollution Control Section which "investigates and approves permits
for the disposal of industrial wastes where such wastes are not carried
away by public sewers; conducts connection surveys in industrial plants
and commercial buildings to ensure that no dangerous connections exist
which could lead to the introduction of toxic chemicals or sewage into
the domestic water system;" (ii) the Mountain and Rural Sanitation Sec-
tion which is "responsible for the environmental health functions in the
86
-------
mountainous areas of the county, all of the Antelope Valley, the Malibu
area, Angeles National Forest, Catalina Island (with the exception of
Avalon), and all of the San Fernando Health District;" and (iii) the
Water and Sewerage and Subdivision Control Section which "carries out
such inspections to ensure that the water meets the physical, chemical,
and bacteriological standards of the U.S. Public Health Service" (2).
Department of Parks and Recreation
The County Department of Parks and Recreation "plans, operates, and
maintains County Parks, playgrounds, golf courses, landscaped areas
around County buildings, and riding trails, bicycle paths, hiking trails;
issues permits for planting, removing, and trimming of roadside trees;
provides administrative services for the County Fish and Game Commiss-
ion" (2).
Flood Control District
The Flood Control District is "responsible for the control and conserva-
tion of flood, storm and other waste waters; constructs, operates and
maintains flood control dams, channels, storm drains, debris basins,
pumping plants, spreading grounds and other flood control and water con-
servation facilities" (2).
General Plan Policy Review Board
The General Plan Policy Review Board (GPPRB) advises the Regional Plan-
ning Commission on development policies and priorities and coordinates
the goals, policies, programs, and projects of individual County depart-
ments which affect the General Plan (9). The GPPRB is composed of the
following members:
1. Agricultural Commissioner
2. Air Pollution Control Officer
87
-------
3. Assessor
4. Director of Beaches
5. Chief Administrative Officer
6. County Engineer
7. Chief Engineer of the Flood Control District
8. Forester and Fire Warden
9. Director of Health Services
10. Executive Director of the Human Relations Commission
11. Director of Parks and Recreation
12. Director of Planning
13. Director of Public Social Services
14. Director of Real Estate Management
15. Road Commissioner
16. Director of Urban Affairs.
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Los Angeles County
Under the 1963 Knox-Nisbett Act, the State Legislature created in each
county a local agency formation commission to review and approve or dis-
approve all proposals to incorporate cities, to form special districts,
or to annex territory to cities or special districts. In 1965, the com-
missions' review powers were extended to include consolidations, dissolu-
tions, detachments and mergers. The Los Angeles commission consists of
five members: two county officers are appointed by the Board of Super-
visors, two city officers are appointed by a city selection committee,
and a. representative of the general public is appointed by the other four
members (10).
Regional Planning Commission
The Regional Planning Commission (RPC) "establishes a master plan for Los
Angeles County; maintains orderly and effective administration of exist-
ing plans; provides comprehensive and precise zoning for unincorporated
88
-------
areas" (2). After adoption of the master plan (the General Plan) and
zoning ordinances by the Board of Supervisors, the Commission enforces
zoning standards. It serves as a hearing board for special use and var-
iance requests, and is also responsible for approving subdivision maps.
The EPC is composed of five members, each nominated by one Supervisor.
Commissioners may serve an indefinite term; in the past, re-elected
Supervisors have generally re-nominated the same commissioner.
Road Department
The County Road Department is responsible (among other things) "for plan-
ning, designing, construction, maintaining, and repairing County highways,
roads, bridges, and culverts, and for making the related surveys; de-
sign, installation and maintenance of traffic signals, administration,
construction and maintenance of County Lighting Districts" (2).
Sanitation Districts
The Sanitation Districts "are special districts responsible for the build-
ing, operation and maintenance of sewage works, water pollution control,
and water purification plants. They are also responsible for the oper-
ation of landfill areas in the County." (2).
A. 5. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
The Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (LVMWD), established in 1958,
has responsibility for the provision of water and sewage treatment through-
out some 78,000 acres of unincorporated county area including the small
city of Hidden Hills. The District is divided into five divisions, each
of which elects one director to the governing board. Not all of those
who are eligible to vote currently receive water supply or sewage ser-
vice from the District (11),
89
-------
Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District
The conservation districts are advisory agencies organized under the
State Public Resources Code. The Topanga-Las Virgenes District (TLVRCD)
is "authorized and directed to conduct research in and to advise and
assist other public agencies and private individuals in the fields of
land use planning, pollution control, and conservation of soil, water,
woodlands, wildlife and other natural resources" (12). The TLVRCD is
governed by a board of five elected, non-salaried directors and operat-
ing funds are drawn from a minimal tax (2 cents per $100 valuation on
land only) (13).
A. 6. REFERENCES
1. United States Government Manual 1973/74. Issued by Office of the
Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, and General
Services Administration. Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1973.
2. Rosien, B. 1974/75 Public Service Guide. Los Angeles, Public Ser-
vice Publications, Inc., 1974.
3. California Public Resources Code, Coastal Zone Conservation Act
(1972).
4. 1974/75 Budget Supplement. Submitted by Ronald Reagan, Governor, to
California Legislature. 1974.
5. California Planning Statutes at the State, Regional and Local Levels.
Submitted to the California Land Use Task Force by Sedway Cooke,
Urban and Environmental Planners and Designers, with I.M. Heyman and
C. Silak. Undated. 160p.
6. Dewsnup, R.L. and D.W. Jensen (eds.). A Summary Report of State
Water Laws. National Water Commission, May 1973.
90
-------
7. Proposed Outline for Coastal Zone Planning. Memorandum to State
Commission Members from Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director.
March 1973.
8. Regional Coastline Plan Program: Summary Report, First Year. South-
ern California Association of Governments. 1972.
9. Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report, Proposed Amendments
to General Plan of Los Angeles County. Prepared by Regional Plan-
ning Commission. 1974.
10. Gladfelder, J. California's Emergent Counties. Sacramento, County
Supervisors' Association of California, 1968.
11. Christian F.R. (Las Virgenes Municipal Water District). Personal
communications, June/September 1974.
12. What is a Conservation District? Issued by Topanga-Las Virgenes Re-
source Conservation District. Undated.
13. Douphner, E. (Clerk of the Board, Topanga-Las Virgenes Resource Con-
servation District). Personal communication, March 1974.
91
-------
APPENDIX B
NOTE ON THE AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF INFORMATION
The depth and accuracy of information given by the studied agencies var-
ied from agency to agency. State and regional agencies, for the most
part, were the most cooperative both in telephone and personal interviews
and in sending requested material. The depth and accuracy of the infor-
mation from state and regional agencies, however, varied with the age of
the agency, the individual contacted, and the degree of controversy over
the questions. State and regional agencies have published information
on major issues of planning and regulation, and have personnel assigned
to the task of handling public enquiries. On the other hand, county and
local agencies generally are not prepared to handle information requests,
and accurate information was most difficult to obtain at this level.
Only one federal agency was contacted directly as federal programs are
well documented in the literature and federal monies and regulations are
most often transmitted through state, regional, or local agencies; how-
ever, the one federal agency contacted (the EPA) was helpful in answering
questions and sending written material.
At the county level, the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Reg-
ional Planning Commission were the most difficult agencies from which to
obtain information. Members of the planning staff of the Department of
Parks and Recreation simply refused to return calls and had no printed
information available to the public. The Regional Planning Commission
posed problems of a different sort: the agency is divided into many dif-
ferent sections with a major split between the planning staff and the
zoning administration division. Staff members were reluctant to give
information which overlapped with areas covered by other staff and, as
92
-------
a result, no one seemed able to provide a cohesive view of an Issue. A
particular question often involved transfers from office to office.
Even staff charged with providing information were ill-informed and
evasive.
For example, an attempt was made to determine the status of a particular
large parcel of land adjacent to Mulholland Parkway. Four different an-
swers were given by four different individuals in the zoning, open space
planning, long range planning and scenic highways divisions. In addi-
tion, staff presumably in charge of the transportation element were un-
able to describe their relationship to the County Road Department. De-
termining relationships such as this was a continual problem.
It may be noted that at the county level, the APCD, the Flood Control
District and the Sanitation Districts were cooperative and responsive.
At the local level, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District staff continu-
ally provided inaccurate and misleading information. Information given
in an interview with one particular staff engineer proved to be inaccu-
rate in several areas. On discovering these inaccuracies and contacting
the agency again, it was learned that the engineer was no longer with
the agency. No one in particular was charged with giving information
and every subsequent contact required verification of the information
provided. The District's financing arrangements were particularly dif-
ficult to sort out. In addition, the District's major planning documents
were only available at the office and could not be copied or borrowed*.
The inadequate availability of copies of environmental impact reports
deserves special mention as these are supposedly information documents.
* Mr. H.W. Stokes, General Manager and Chief Engineer of LVMWD, was asked
to check relevant portions of the draft final report for their fac-
tual accuracy; he made a number of corrections which have since been
incorporated in the report.
93
-------
It was particularly difficult to obtain such reports from the Regional
Planning Commission; typical responses to requests were either that
there were no more copies available or that the reports were "in pro-
cess". The same responses were often received several weeks later. Re-
ports were generally not readily accessible at libraries; often there
was just one library copy available and this was typically kept in
downtown Los Angeles. Copies supposedly distributed to branch librar-
ies were not always received by them.
94
-------
APPENDIX C
POSTSCRIPT: OUTCOME OF LITIGATION AFFECTING THE
COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
Immediately prior to completion of the final manuscript of this report,
on March 12, 1975, Superior Court Judge David A. Thomas announced his
decision in the lawsuit hrought by the Center for Law in the Public In-
terest against the Board of Supervisors regarding the County General
Plan adopted in 1973 (see page 18).
The following is taken from a press release issued by CLIPI on March 13,
1975:
In a 23-page memorandum filed in Coalition for Los Angeles
County Planning in the Public Interest v. Board of Supervi-
sors, Judge Thomas ruled that the EIR prepared on the 1973
Plan is legally inadequate and that the Plan and its open
space element do not meet statutory requirements. Zoning
Ordinances Numbers 10709 and 10710 adopted to implement the
Plan were also invalidated. These ordinances designate zon-
ing in. 210,000 acres of the unincorporated area in Los Angeles
County, including portions of Coastal Malibu, in the Santa
Monica Mountains, Antelope Valley, East Los Angeles, and San
Gabriel Valley.
Defendants in the suit are the County Board of Supervisors
and the Regional Planning Commission. Plaintiffs include
the Coalition for Los Angeles County Planning in the Public
Interest, the Sierra Club, and the Malibu Township Council.
After a two-week trial, and upon extensive written and oral
testimony, Judge Thomas granted judgment for the plaintiffs
95
-------
on all causes of action.
Highlights of the ruling are:
Under provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Plan's EIR is invalid as it gives no justification
for the plan. The EIR did not provide the Board with an ad-
equate discussion of the factual hases for the Plan, of al-
ternatives and the reasons for rejection, or of the RPC's re-
sponse to public criticism of the Plan.
The EIR was ruled "woefully inadequate" by the court, term-
ing it "no more than a sterile declamation of unsupported gen-
eralities almost entirely failing to convey any factual infor-
mation."
The EIR failed to discuss the conflict between the Plan's
addition of 178 square miles for urban expansion over that
allowed by the 1970 plan and the decrease in projected popu-
lation for 1990. Nor did it reveal RFC staff studies showing
that the area designated for urban expansion are least suit-
able for urban use. Nor did it reveal that these urban expan-
sion areas conflict with significant ecological areas in the
County.
The Open Space Element of the Plan fails to meet the re-
quirements of the Open Space Lands Act. The court concluded
that the Plan's designation of the additional 178 square miles
for urban expansion constitutes a "premature and unnecessary
conversion of open space land to urban uses."
Judge Thomas found that the Plan's elements are internally
inconsistent. For instance, the addition of 178 square miles
of urban expansion to the 1990 Land Use Maps was made before
the revised and substantially reduced 1990 population projec-
tion was made, and the 1990 Maps further conflict with the
96
-------
Plan's open space goals and policies.
The General Plan conforms to pre-existing zoning patterns
rather than making zoning conform to a plan for development
established by other means. This is in violation of the State
Planning and Zoning Law.
Zoning Ordinance No. 10709 is invalid because its EIR is
legally inadequate. Ordinance No, 10709 implements the open
space zoning of the plan, and the EIR failed to discuss the
many alternatives to accomplish this goal.
Zoning Ordinance No. 10710 is invalid because neither an
EIR or a Negative Declaration was prepared prior to its adop-
tion. Ordinance No. 10710, also implementing the Plan, failed
to qualify for an exemption from the EIR requirement as the
County has asserted.
The ruling voids the 1973 Plan Amendments and Zoning Ordin-
ances Nos. 10709 and 10710. Judge Thomas ordered that a new
plan and EIR be adopted. In the interim, the 1973 Plan, In
so far as it is consistent with the Board's legally adopted
1970 Environmental Development Guide (EDG), may remain in
effect.
However, Judge Thomas, recognizing potential danger to the
environment, and therefore to the residents of the County,
placed other restrictions on the County until a new plan is
adopted. Until that time, the Board is enjoined from en-
acting zoning ordinances, density regulations, or issuing
building permits in:
— the 178 square miles of additional urban expansion (ex-
cept as permitted by the EDG);
— the "Open Rural and Agricultural Land" designation areas
97
-------
in the EDG (except as permitted by the EDG); and
— those areas of the County designated "significant ecolog-
ical areas."
(The EDG had permitted a maximum density of one dwelling unit
per acre in the 178 square miles at dispute.)
98
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/5-75-018
I. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN THE MALIBU WATERSHED:
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
5. REPORT DATE
June 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
W. David Conn
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
University of California
School of Architecture and Urban Planning
Los Angeles, California 90024
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HA098; ROAP 20AAG; Task 07
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-802836
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Washington Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report examines the institutional framework for environmental management in the
Malibu Watershed area, Los Angeles County, California. On the basis that the nature
and scale of permitted development is likely to be the major factor shaping the
future environment of the study area, an attempt is made* to identify and assess the
roles of both those agencies that play a positive role in promoting development and
those that constrain and regulate development.
Following a brief description of the study area, the report examines the roles of
particular government agencies in planning and decision-making processes affecting
different "elements" of the environment (e.g., land-use, coastal resources, air
quality, etc.). It then approaches the subject from a different perspective, studyin
the involvement of a number of institutions in particular projects or sets of project
(e.g., the installation of sewage treatment facilities, the construction of a private
university, etc.).
The information presented is discussed, and conclusions are drawn about current
institutional roles in environmental management. Several problems are pointed out,
and tentative recommendations are made for possible solutions worthy of further study
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
DESCRIPTORS
*Management, *Planning, *Regulations,
Organizations, Control, Environments,
Urbanization, Local government, Land
use, Air pollution, Water treatment,
Flood control, Soil conservation,
Recreation, Roads, Transportation
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
*Institutions, *EnvironmenfaT~
control, Comprehensive planning,
Institutional constraints, Legal
aspects, Wildlife conservation,
Water pollution control, Scenic
highways, Malibu Watershed,
*California, Coastal resources,
Seismic safety
COSATI Field/Group
6E
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS {This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
107
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
99
U. $. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: "975-657-695/5336 Region No. 5-11
------- |