CRMC 



purpose is to designate the existence of resources so as to determine what 

 local zoning changes are needed in order to accomplish common goals of CRMC and 

 the community. 



Fundamentally then, state agencies, including CRMC, are unwilling to 

 pass favorably on an application which would be rejected locally, and are 

 wary of appearing to intrude on the carefully guarded land-use control 

 purview of local jurisdictions. As a result, CRMC generally has authority 

 to establish more stringent permit conditions than DEM or towns, but rarely 

 if ever exercises its authority in such a way as to test the land-use 

 jurisdiction of a local government. 



Recommendations 



***Revise CRMP regulations to specifically broaden jurisdictional 

 coverage to provide for override of local zoning authority where resources 

 of statewide concern are held in the public trust and are affected by land 

 use. The jurisdictional definition should provide CRMC authority as necessary to protect 

 coastal ecosystem function, and to ensure long term resource viability. As such, planning, 

 management, and regulatory jurisdiction should encompass areas as defined by the law in 

 its broadest sense, based on the statements of intent in the CRMC enabling legislation. 



COUNCIL DECISION-MAKING AND INTERACTION WITH CRMC STAFF 



Findings and Concerns 



The management structure of CRMC is unusual and contributes to the 

 agency's difficulties in taking a pro-active role in resource planning and 

 management According to staff interviewed, only 9 of the 17 Council members play an 

 active role in agency activities. Members serve as volunteers, and have other 

 professional responsibilities, so that only retired Council members are able to 

 participate fully in daytime subcommittee deliberation and review. 



Although some Council members have educated themselves as to the principles of 

 coastal zone management, members' appointments (except for ex-officio members) are not 

 based on technicd qualifications. Because no forum exists for staff to work 

 directly with the Council in evaluating technical aspects of project review, 

 and because staff must present evidence as "witnesses" before the Council, 

 decision-making has tended to be unpredictable, and has sometimes reflected 

 individual members' biases rather than a balanced review of scientific evidence. 



The subcommittees themselves have no set charge established by 

 regulatory language. Although staff made an effort in 1987 to rationalize subcommittee 

 jurisdiction, formal allocations have not been made. Projects frequendy fall within multiple 

 subcommittee jurisdictions, and must be reviewed sequentially. Separate reviews, 

 however, serve a more procedural than technical purpose, as the same Council members 

 serve on multiple subcommittees. 



Subcommittees are not supported by specifically assigned technical 

 staff. Assigned staff could concentrate their effons on working with local governments in 



182 



