ORANGE COUNTY VOICES : Public Use of Prime Land Must Come Before Private

California coastal communities are continually caught in a tug-of-war between protecting a natural resource and exploiting one. With population increasing and available land decreasing, the pressures on local governments are formidable.

The leasing of public lands for commercial uses adds money to local city coffers, but the price is paid by everyone whose natural resources are diminished. The heart of the conflict is land-use and who makes the decisions. At issue is the conversion of public land to private use.

Huntington Beach is a perfect example. Since 1986, the city has been embroiled in civil war over a proposed “Pierside Village” commercial development on beachfront property just south of the Huntington Beach pier.

The struggle over this property dates back to 1932 when the city sued landowners for the beachfront property. A settlement granted the city public access and a beach recreation easement, leaving title held by private interests and the city steward for the public trust. Since then, much of the sandy beach and bluff top was paved over for parking and concessions; restrooms and showers were added.

In the mid-1980s, the city, looking for a spark to ignite downtown redevelopment, proposed massive commercial building on its beachfront that would reopen the door to its development. “Pierside Village” was approved, but coastal permits have since expired and the project is up for reconsideration.

The State Lands Commission and the attorney general’s office, reluctant to see public land converted to a private use, resisted the city’s efforts to clear title. It was then that the public recreation easement was uncovered.

The state of California is not the only formidable opponent fighting beach development. Citizens groups have reared up in revolt. When our elected officials fail to look after public interests, citizens take the initiative. In Huntington Beach, a local group called Save Our Parks qualified a Charter amendment (Measure C) which, if passed in November, would give voters the power to approve or deny projects of the scale of “Pierside Village.” But this project is on the fast track to be approved before the November election.

So who decides when public land will be available for private use? Local government is supposed to be the most responsive, but it is also the most controlled by special interests. Usually the control is financial. State government sees a bigger picture, yet some recent Coastal Commission appointees are members of the same financial fraternity that controls local government. The final decision may take place in a courtroom, but it shouldn’t have to be that way.

Planning guidelines clearly give priority to coastal recreational uses. No government has ever defined restaurants as recreation. Yet all along the coast, developers would have the public believe that “power dining” at pricey restaurants with an ocean view is the highest form of coastal recreation. In Huntington Beach, there is more than enough room for restaurants on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway. If public beach uses are to be served and public views are to be protected, then commercial opportunities are extremely limited.

When it comes to the development of public lands, the public needs to be involved early in the planning process--before the plans are drawn up, before money is invested and before expectations are inflated. Public recreational uses must be given priority. Instead of figuring how much commercial development can be squeezed onto public lands, the planners should maximize public recreation uses. Then and only then should commercial opportunities be considered.