Can Regulation Work?: The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative

392 Pages·1983·11.15 MB·English

by  Paul A. Sabatier, Daniel A. Mazmanian (auth.)

CAN REGULATION WORK?
The Implementation of the 1972
California Coastal Initiative
ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT,
AND PUBLIC POLICY
Aseries of volumes under the general editorship of
Lawrence Susskind, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
ENVIRONMENTA L POLICY AND PLANNING
Series Editor:
Lawrence Susskind, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
THE LAND USE POLICY DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES
edited by Judith I. de Neufville
CAN REGULATION WORK? The Implementation of the 1972
California Coastal Initiative
Paul A. Sabatier and Daniel A. Mazmanian
PATERNALISM, CONFLICT, AND COPRODUCTION
Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in
Western Europe
Lawrence Susskind and Michael Elliott
Other subseries:
CITIES AND DEVELOPMENT
Series Editor:
Lloyd Rodwin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
PUBLIC POLICY AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Series Editor:
Gary Marx, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
CAN REGULATION WORK?
The Implementation of the 1972
California Coastal Initiative
Paul A. Sabatier
University of California, Davis
Davis, California
and
Daniel A. Mazmanian
Pomona College
Claremont, California
PLENUM PRESS • N EW YORK AND LONDON
Lihrary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Sahatier, Paul A.
Can regulation work?
(Environment, development, and puhlic poHcy. Environmental poliey and planning)
Bibliography: p.
lncludes index.
1. Coastal zone management-Califomia. I. Mazmanian, Daniel A.,
11. Title, 1II. Series.
HT393.C3S21983 333.91711'09794
ISDN 978-1-4684~1157_7 ISDN 978-1-4684-1155-3 (cßoQk)
001 10.10071978- 1-4684- 1155-3
@ 1983 Plenum Press, New York
Softcover rcprint ofthc hardcovcr 1s I cdition 1983
A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation
233 Spring Street, New York, N.Y, 10013
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, slored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, meehanical, photocopying, mierofilming,
recording, OT otherwise, withoul written perm iss ion from the Publisher
Dedicated to Dolores,
without whose skill and dedication
this book would never have come to fruition.
PREFACE
Although loeal governments have traditionally exereised almost exclusive regula-
tory eontrol over land development within their jurisdictions, throughout the
1970s state governments began to amass eonsiderablc authority over loeal land
use deeisions. Studies of the implementation of these new programs, however,
have generally had the drawbacks of not being integrated into theoretieal litera-
tures in the soeial seien ces and suffering from substantial mcthodologieal prob-
lems. On the basis of a review of literatures on poliey making by regulatory
ageneies, the implementation of federal soeialldistributive programs, and the
situational variables affecting ageney behavior, in this study we develop a general
eoneeptual framework of the implementation proeess of regulatory statutes. The
framework is then applied to the implementation of one of the more novel and
eomprehensive state-levclland use statutes, the California Coastal Zone Conser-
vati on Act of 1972.
In this undertaking we reeeived eonsiderable assistanee in the design stage
and later in review of preliminary drafts of our report from aNational Advisory
Committee eomposed of persons actively involved in the implementation ofland
use poliey, representatives of groups affected by land use regulation, and seholars
in the field. For serving on the eommittee we are indebted to James Carroll,
California Couneil for Environmental and Eeonomie Balance; Paul Culhane,
Department of Politieal Seience, U niversity of Houston; Grant Dehart, Office of
Coastal Zone Management, Washington, D.C.; Erwin Hargrove, Institute for
Publie Poliey, Vanderbilt University; Hclen Ingram, Department of Politieal
Seience, University of Arizona; Kar! Kurtz, National Conferenee of State Legis-
latures, Denver, Colorado; Rob MaeDougall, National Conferenee of State
Legislatures, Washington, D.C.; Daniel Mandclker, Scl1001 of Law, Wash-
ington University, St. Louis; H. Milton Patton, Couneil of State Governments,
Lexington, Kentueky; Donald Priest, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.;
Lettie Wenner, Department of Politieal Seience, University of Illinois at Chi-
eago Circle; and Lawrenee Susskind, Department of Urban Studies and Plan-
ning, Massaehusetts Institute of Teehnology.
Vll
Vlll PREFACE
The extensive interviewing and data collection central to the study would
not have been possible without the cooperation of the California Coastal Com-
missions, their staff, related governrnent agencies, concerned groups and cit-
izens, and the sampie of the public surveyed. While it is impossible to mention
individually all who cooperated, we would particularly like to acknowledge thc
invaluable assistance of Bob Brown, Joseph Bodovitz, Melvin Carpenter, Nor-
bert Dall, David Dubbink, Bruce Haston, Donald Hedrick, Jack Lahr, Melvin
Lane, Celia von der MuhlI, Don Peterson, Joseph Petrillo, Rick Rayburn, Jack
Schoop, Stan Scott, Bob Testa, Bill Travis, Lucille Vinyard, and, especially,
Peter Douglas and Judy Rosener.
Finally, we are grateful for the dedication and resourcefulness of our con-
sultant on economic impacts, Robert Kneisel; our research assistants, who
worked with us at various stages of the study, Dana Aiden, Dean Curry, Jack
Meek, and Sara Wyant; and our sccretaries, Dolores DuMont, Susan Reames,
Jane RusselI, Beverly Biedenbach, and Penny Arns.
This report is based upon research supported by the National Science Foun-
dation under Grants No. DAR77-14589, DAR77-14589 AOI, and DAR77-
20077. We gratefully acknowledge the encouragement and assistance of our
program manager, Terry Sopher. All opinions, findings, and conclusions ex-
pressed in the study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation.
Paul Sabatier
Daniel Mazmanian
CONTENTS
1. The Prospeets for Effective Irnplernentation of Regulatory
Poliey ................................................ .
I. Governmental Regulation of Economic Behaviar, with
Special Reference to Land Use Control ............... . 2
11. Criteria for Effective Implementation of a Regulatory
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III. Selection of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative as a Case
Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
IV. Synopsis of Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2. The California Coastal Cornrnissions: Genesis and a Prelirninary
Irnplernentation Assessrnent ............................. . 27
I. Perceived Coastal Land Use Problems and Possible
Solutions, c. 1971-1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11. The Struggle for Coastal Regulation: Frustration in the
Legislatme 1970-1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
III. The Struggle for Coastal Regulation: The 1972 Coastal
Initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
IV. Prospects far Effective Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3. Beyond the Reaeh of the Coastal Act: External Faetors Affecting
the Coastal Cornrnissions ................................ . 69
I. Needs and Resomees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
11. Publie Opinion and the Mass Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
UI. Citizen Activists and Interest Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
IV. Agency Sovereigns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
IX
x CONTENTS
V. Peer Agencies and Their Local Counterparts. . . . . . . . . . . . 87
VI. Summary......................................... 90
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4. The Internal Proeess of Poliey Implementation: Poliey
Preferenees and Relationships among Ageney Offieials. . . . . . . . . 95
I. The Selection Process and Policy Preferences of Coastal
Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
11. Personal Characteristics, Appointing Authority, and
Commissioner Behavior-A Preliminary Look. . . . . . . . . . . 102
III. The Background, Selection, and Policy Preferences of
Commission Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
IV. Internal Commission Dynamies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
V. Relations Between the State and Regional Commissions . . . 117
VI. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5. Permit Review by the Coastal Commissions: Deeisions and the
F actors Affecting Them ................................. . 131
I. Permit Review: A Descriptive Overvicw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
11. Consistency of Permit Decisions with Statutory Objcctivcs . 141
III. A Model of Commissioner Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6. Impacts-Regulation to What End? ...................... . 193
I. Compliance with the Coastal Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
11. Access and Acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
III. Wetlands......................................... 204
IV. Housing.......................................... 206
V. Conclusions. ......... .......... ..... .............. 210
N otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
7. The Califomia Coastal Plan: Its Development and Consisteney
with Statutory Objectives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
I. The Strategy of Plan Devclopmcnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
11. The Planning Process in Operation ............... _. _. . 219
CONTENTS XI
III. The 1975 Coastal Plan: Consisteney with Statutory
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
IV. Summary......................................... 242
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
8. Evaluation and Refonnulation of the Commissions' Mandate:
The 1976 Legislative Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
1. The Politieal Context of the 1976 Legislative Session:
Publie and Elite Opinion and Resourees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
11. The 1976 Legislative Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
III. The Reformulation of the Commissions' Mandate: A
Comparison of the 1976 Coastal Act with the 1972
Initiative and the 1975 Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
9. Epilogue: Sustaining Coastal Conservation in a Different
Political Environment, 1977-198l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
1. An Overview of the Implementation Proccss, January
1977-June 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
11. The Commissions' Performance on Selected Major Issucs. 317
III. Conclusions....................................... 340
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
10. The Implications of the California Coastal Commissions for the
Effective Implementation of Regulatory Policy . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
1. Applieation of the Framework to the Califomia Case . . . . . 353
11. Implieations of the Case Study for the Adequaey of the
Coneeptual Framework and the Possibility of Effectivc
Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Appendiees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
A. Prineipal Data Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
B. The Califomia Coastal Zone Conservation Aet of 1972 .. . 377
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385