1989 01 23 PCA G E N D A
PLANNING COMMISSION o CITY OF LA QUINT
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
OF
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly -scheduled 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission meeting for January 24, 1989, has been
cancelled.
A Regular STUDY SESSION to be held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado,
La Quinta, California
JANUARY 23, 1989 - 3:00 P.M.
1. REVIEW OF UNIT MIX PLAN FOR PARC LA QUINTA (BAR CON
DEVELOPMENT) FOR COMMISSION DETERMINATION
2. DISCUSSION OF LAGUNA DE LA PAZ DWELLING UNIT DESIGN
3. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS
4. IDENTIFICATION OF FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS
:MR/AGENDA.614
/P AAWAMEI
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 18, 1989
SUBJECT: UNIT MIX PLAN FOR PARC LA QUINTA - DENNIS FREEMAN
BACKGROUND
Conditions of subdivision approval require the
Applicant/Developer to obtain Planning Commission approval for
the dwelling unit mixture and for any two story units to be
constructed along the north, east, and south tract boundaries.
Condition #18 specifies:
Dwelling units in excess of 21 feet (one story in height)
shall not be permitted on Lots 1 (20), 2 (21), 3 (22), 4
(23), 97 (10), 98 (11), 110 (23), 111 (24), 147 (16), 148
(17), 149 (18) and 150 (19)*. Dwelling units with
building heights of up to 28 feet (two stories) may be
permitted along north, east , and south tract boundaries,
subject to review and approval by the Planning
Commission."
* number in parenthese represents lots as numbered on final
map.
On May 9, 1988, the Commission approved the unit mix plan for
Phase I with minor modifications.
REQUEST
The Applicant/Developer has submitted a unit mix plan which
reflects the approval for Phase I. The request now before the
Commission is for approval of the remaining phases.
10
AATAT_VCT C
la The units adjacent to Sagebrush (southern tract boundary)
are all proposed to be two units. The property on south
side of Sagebrush across from this tract is within the
SR Zoning district, which limits homes to single story
17 feet).
2. The units along Washington Street are identified as
single story dwellings in the submitted unit mix plan.
3. The height limitation along Washington Street can not be
changed unless Condition #18 is amended. This requires
agenda notice and hearing before the Commission and City
Council.
COMMISSION ACTION
With the limitations of the original approval conditions the
Commission may determine to accept the submittal as presented
or grant modified approval of the mixture.
At a minimum it is recommended that the units along Sagebrush be
limited to one story, as opposed to all two story units as
proposed in the submitted plan.
zi
a —I
2:i
U
m
r
w
w W ¢ a EY
J Z � h- a
3z0 0
w a ware n
❑ o =�cr
0
z > zwu z w
z
a w Za w
w
w
❑ > w ►—�
►- z o z uj
J O f_z= J
a U �4wtOi W ea I
Q Q OWH LU ® !
m �Za Z
Z
zto u
c1.
cc Nf
I
Ea ' ! B
�!100��
a ^I
1 � I
it
30 a1C a
STREET
WASHINGTON ��
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
MEMORANDUM
THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE :PLANNING
COMMISSION
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JANUARY 24, 1988
DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS
On January 3rd, the City Council completed the second reading of
the Village Zoning Text. Included in the amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance was the Design Review Chapter (9.183). The
ordinance amendment takes effect February 3rd, 1989. The
solicitation of technical members of the Design Review Board has
begun and will receive further exposure in the February City
Newsletter.
The adopted version of the Design Review Text omits the language
of the Design Review Standards included in earlier drafts. In
place of this section is a statement:
"Design Review Standards shall be developed and adopted
and/or amended by a Resolution of Council upon a
recommendation of the :Planning Commission."
This mechanism was selected to permit a closer scrutiny of the
standards before adoption as well as a greater adaptability over
-t ime .
PLANNING COMMISSION CHARGE
As a result of the statement in the ordinance amendment, the
Planning Commission is charged with the development of a
recommendation to the City Council on the language of Design
Review Standards. To begin this process, in study session on
January 23rd, the topic will be introduced for discussion. In
preparation for this discussion, two items are provided. The
first is a redrafted version of the Design Review Standards
which were omitted from the adopted text. The second is a
recent article in Zoning News (APA) entitled "Drafting Urban
Design Guidelines".
The Planning Commission should address the refinement of Design
Review Standards between now and February 28th, so that the
standards can be approved by Council in March and be ready to
hand to the newly appointed Design Review Board in early April.
- 1 -
BJ/MEMOTB.057
DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS
In keeping with the requirement in Chapter 9.183 Desi n
Review, Section 9.183.060 Design Review Standards, the
following standards shall be adopted and/or amended by a
Resolution of Council upon a recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
I. The review of the design of a proposed project plan shall
be conducted in comparison to an adopted set of standards
and criteria. Standards and criteria may be contained in
one or a combination of the following:
1.
A
Specific
Plan for the area.
2.
A
manual of
design standards for the area.
3.
A
manual of
landscape standards for the area.
4. A zone or subzone requirement for the area.
5. The Building or Fire Codes or any other Municipal
Code.
E. Engineering standards.
7. The standards of another district or jurisdiction
applying to the area.
8. Basic design standards applying to all development
in the City, as described in the following section.
II. All development, construction, and use of land in the City
shall exhibit superior quality design, complying with the
following basic standards. The standards are phrased as
questions which may serve as a checklist for the use of
the Staff, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission,
and which are to be considered by applicants for City
approvals in the development of their plans.
A. Site Suitability:
1. Is the site suitable for the proposed use and
structures in terms of its size, shape,
configuration of structures, location, access,
or any other design consideration?
2. Has adequate consideration been given to the
slope characteristics of the site (if any)?
3. Are there soils on the site which are not
suitable for the proposed development due to
instability, seismic risk, or other factors,
which must be given special design
consideration? Has the design resolved the
soil problems, if any?
2
BJ/MEMOTB.057
4. Has the grading plan been adequately developed
so that on -site drainage is accommodated, and
off -site negative impacts are minimized?
5. Have any significant topographic features,
landmarks, or existing major plant materials
been preserved or incorporated into the design?
B. Site Design:
1. Does the site design show due consideration of
the site location with respect to its
surroundings:
a. Views toward the site and vistas behind
the site which development may obscure;
b. Vistas and views from the site;
C. Neighboring uses or open spaces?
2. Does the site design lessen or adequately
internalize on -site negative aspects of the
development?
3. Does the site design compensate for off -site
impacts?
4. Does the access pattern in the site design
show adequate consideration of the following:
a. Intersection spacing;
b. Well designed traffic flows using a
hierarchy of routes, each meeting the
engineering standards applicable;
C. Well conceived parking arrangements;
d. Safe and well placed pedestrian
arrangements;
e. Provisions for emergency access;
f. Provisions for refuse pick-up, general
loading and servicing;
g. Provisions for bikeways and bike routes;
h. Public transit?
5. Does each portion of the access system perform
its function without interfering with the
other portions and without creating a negative
influence?
- 3 -
BJ/MEMOTB.057
6. Does the site
consideration of
in terms of:
design show adequate
the placement of structures
a. Structural orientation;
b. Structural configuration;
C. Setbacks;
d. Walls and gates;
e. Security concerns;
f. Internalizing negative aspects of the use;
g. Emergency/disaster response concerns such
as earthquake, fire, flood, public panic,
emergency access, etc.?
C. Structural Design:
1.
Do the structures appear to belong in the
desert, in terms of:
a. Architectural style/period;
b. Colors;
C. Materials?
2.
Are the structures compatible in all major
respects with:
a. The character of adjacent and surrounding
developments;
b. The character of development in the City
as a whole?
3.
Does the architectural style constitute an
example of excessive variety in the context of
the City`s existing developments?
4.
Does the architectural style constitute an
example of monotonous repetition of existing
developments within the City?
5.
Does the architectural design adhere to
thematic requirements of a particular area
and/or general community criteria for
acceptability of design?
6.
Does the architectural design show adequate
consideration and consistency of the following
matters:
- 4 -
EJ/MEMOTE.057
a. Scale;
b. Proportions, height, shapes, bulk, and
masses;
C. Exposed and shaded forms;
d. Open areas;
e. Roof form;
f. Openings in the building such as doors,
windows, entry ways;
g. Features, details, ornamentation;
h. Parts of structures, such as walls,
screens, towers;
i. Accessory structures;
j. Integration of signage.
7. Does the overall design exhibit a consistency
of;
a. Composition;
b. Treatment;
C. Harmony of materials;
d. Harmony of colors;
e. Consistent treatment of those sides of a
structure which are visible at the same
time?
8. Does the design show an honesty of
presentation, with consistency between the
uses of the structure and its forms.
9. Does the design demonstrate design integrity?
Or does the design rely on significant use of
any of the following:
a. Artifice, false fronts or facades;
b. Veneers or simulated materials;
C. Imitation (nonstructurally related)
features or contrivances such as addon,
stickon, or popout;
d. Other unnecessary, non -genuine or
unauthentic embellishment?
- 5 -
BJ/MEMOTB.057
D. Construction Design:
1. Has adequate attention been given to the
longevity of the design?
2. Have maintenance considerations been taken
into account?
3. Have construction methods been chosen which
are
suitable for this type of structure?
4. Are
the choices of the following
items
suitable for their application?
a.
External facade treatment;
b.
Quality and durability of materials;
C.
Colors and the form of coloration
(e.g.,
integrally colored materials versus
paint
and matte colors versus glaring and
shiny
surfaces)?
E. Setting:
1. Are
the following external features
appropriate
in terms of their concept,
selection,
location, orientation, scale,
materials,
functions, and impacts:
a.
Landscaping and its water efficiency;
b.
Irrigation to properly maintain the long
term health and appearance of landscaping;
C.
Paved surfaces;
d.
Use of water features;
e.
External furnishings such as lights,
benches, signs, hydrants;
f.
Shade (with regard to desert climate
conditions, especially for a portion of
the parking and for pedestrians;
g.
Lighting and shielding adjacent areas
from glare;
h.
Signage program and external use of
graphics;
i.
External equipment, utilities, and their
screening;
- 6 -
BJ/MEMOTB.057
j. Fences, walls, and other screening or
buffering measures;
k. Optimum use of opportunities for views or
vistas inward or outward?
F. Overall:
1. Is the design of the development one which the
residents of our City - both today and future
generations - can be proud of?
2. Does the design of the development provide an
environment conducive to the health, safety,
and welfare of its occupants and visitors?
- 7 -
BJ/MEMOTB.057
SEPTEMBER 1988
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
V
i is ..L4---
Crafting Urban Design Guidelines
The following article is an edited excerpt from a study, Design
Guidelines and Community Character Compatibility, by Reiko
Habe, with Josephine Tan and John Jakupcak, of the School of
Urban and Regional Planning of the University of Southern
California. It is based on a 1987survey of 147communities-
88 in California and 59 in other states. The purpose of the
survey was to examine the state of the art of design guidelines
and to help other communities that are considering, creating,
or revising existing guidelines. Sixty-six communities (a
response rate of 44.9 percent) returned the questionnaire.
Samples of design guidelines manuals were collected from 37
communities, and 21 others provided copies of design review
ordinances and codes. The study is available from Professor
Reiko Habe, School of Urban and Regional Planning,
University of Southern California, University Park, Los
Angeles, 90087-0042, for $20.
General Survey Findings
Amid debates on the pros and cons of public design controls,
an increasing number of local communities have adopted or
are considering adoption of some controls. The design review
system is usually a part of the development permit process.
Sometimes, the design review system relies on expert
judgment by review board members without any published
standards or design guidelines. But, increasingly, the trend is
toward establishing a design manual to improve the
effectiveness of the design review function.
A design manual spells out the criteria and standards that a
development is expected to satisfy. Most often, these criteria
and standards refer to the aesthetic quality of the built
environment. In some cases, however, they go beyond
aesthetic concerns and address functional, economic, social,
or psychological factors.
There have been many criticisms of design review. Some
claim that design review makes development more expensive,
imposes a monotonous uniformity on building appearance, and
restricts free expression. Critics are also skeptical of the
reliability of review functions, including the qualification of
review board members, the appropriateness of standards and
criteria, the lack of clear guidelines, and the reliance on the
discretionary judgment of selected review board members.
Proponents argue that, by establishing a design review
system, communities improve objectivity, consistency, and
predictability in the development evaluation process. Planners
like the idea because they can save significant time in
conferring with developers and their consultants and can
provide consistency when reviewing proposals. Design
professionals are divided between those who resent added
restrictions on their freedom and those who can appreciate the
authority of such regulations, which can help persuade their
Reiko Habe is an urban design consultant and an assistant professor of Urban
and Regional Planning.
clients that certain design solutions are preferable to others.
Even some developers, according to public planners, have
come to like the system's higher predictability in the permit
process.
Effectiveness of Controls
Public planners' overall assessment of the effectiveness of
their design review system was very positive-73.8 percent
believed their controls were effective; 21.5 percent thought
they were inconsistent; and only 1.5 percent thought they were
ineffective.
The majority of respondents claimed that their design
control measures improve the overall quality of the built
environment in their community. Many public planners
believe that design guidelines also increase objectivity in a
potentially "subjective" review process.
Predictability in the Design Control Process. In
communities where no design guidelines exist, public planners
attributed ineffectiveness of their design review system to lack
of consistent direction from the design review board. While
some public planners feel that design guidelines make the
permit process more predictable, others feel that lack of
specificity in design guidelines has resulted in uncertainty for
developers. Where the design guidelines and the review
system improved predictability in the permit system, planners
reported satisfaction with the overall efficiency of the process
in terms of staff time, cost, and compliance rate.
Enforcement of Design Standards. When asked what
deficiencies might exist in the design control system, 52.3
percent of the planners cited the problem of crafting design
guidelines. Specifically, they said that design guidelines are
being too broadly defined (30.8 percent). Others cited political
problems in implementing the controls (20 percent),
deficiency in the control mechanism itself (20 percent), and
various other reasons.
Effectiveness of enforcement is affected by the legal status
of a regulation. While some planners think that leaving design
guidelines outside formal legislation will give everyone
involved more flexibility, others insist that, without legal
teeth, enforcement will not be effective. Christopher
Duerksen, in Aesthetics of Land Use Controls (PAS Report
399), found that developers pay little heed to voluntary or
advisory design guidelines. Regulations must give planners
some statutory authority to require changes.
Creating an Identiffiable Community Image. An analysis of
design guidelines manuals reveals that, with the exception of
some historic districts and districts with distinctive natural
features (e.g., riverbanks, waterfronts), many manuals do not
identify the various characteristics of their communities.
Despite emphasis on compatibility with community character,
the design guidelines of many communities do not spell out
what constitutes the community character they are trying so
hard to protect. Most of these communities only provide a
general characterization of the community, such as suburban,
rural, small town, closely knit, ethnically diverse (or
homogeneous), low -density, slow-paced, upper -middle class,
and so on.
Design guidelines of small town or rural communities
appear to be very much like those of urban communities. Like
their urban counterparts, small towns place heavy emphasis on
architectural design details, rather than maintaining
harmonious relationships between the natural landscape and
man-made structures.
Interpretation of Compatibility and Harmony. There are a
number of ways that communities have tried to use design
criteria and standards to ensure compatibility with community
character. Arcata, California, seeks a "sensitivity to existing
architecture." Concord, California, requires the cornice lines,
openings, and materials of new structures to be similar to
those of adjacent buildings; Honolulu, Hawaii, limits new
residential development to that which is compatible with the
existing character and lifestyle, in both rural areas and built-up
neighborhoods; and Norfolk, Virginia, requires that "If a
covered porch is being constructed and if at least one adjacent
building has a covered porch, then the height of the cornice or
soffit line of the porch should be consistent with the height of
the adjacent porch(es)."
Most design standards overemphasize "similarity" when
expressing the concept of harmony and compatibility. The
compatibility standards in some communities attempt to make
a new development conform to the design vocabularies
adopted by existing developments communitywide, while
others require compatibility within the same block. Building
scale and massing, trees, and landscaping are the elements
most often required to be compatible with the adjacent
structure or development. (See the codes of Antioch, San Jose,
and Norfolk, California). Such overemphasis on similarity of
design discourages innovative design.
Some communities (e.g., New Castle, New York, and
Pacifica, California) are known to have ordinances that
include both compatibility requirements and anti -look -alike
regulations (Duerksen 1987). The communities in this survey
also attempt to incorporate the concept of contrasting
relationships into their compatibility requirements. As
described below, a few communities attempt to cope with the
problem of "too much compatibility."
Avoiding Monotony and Excessive Uniformity. A small
number of communities stress the avoidance of sameness,
because of the potential damage caused by lack of innovation.
For example, Poway, California, encourages greater variety
in housing design for multiple -family residential development,
while Imperial Beach and West Hollywood, California,
suggest that harmony can also be achieved by means of
contrast. Nevertheless, seldom does a community successfully
present in their guidelines how harmony or compatibility can
be implemented without copying existing styles, much less
how innovation or creativity in design might be achieved. The
cities of Arcata and Chino, California, are among the few
exceptions to this tendency. Both make an effort in this
respect.
Recommendations
Although public design control measures have been criticized
as just another means of social exclusion, this study was based
on the belief that most communities and their residents are
mainly motivated by their quest for maintaining or creating a
sense of community.
2
The study focussed on the crafting of effective and
appropriate design guidelines rather than design review
mechanisms. Based on a qualitative evaluation of existing
design guidelines, the following recommendations for
improvements are made.
1. Design guidelines should clearly define what each
community means by compatibility with community
character or harmony with existing surroundings. Legal
problems involving public design control often center
around the issue of arbitrariness. The courts have criticized
local codes for having "vague standards that are beyond
any real definition or interpretation" but have validated a
community's ordinance if it contains narrowing standards.
2. A citywide urban design study should precede the
determination of community character or image that is
to be protected, enhanced, or created. Citywide urban
design policy, although ignored by the majority of
communities responding to the survey, has an important
role to play; it helps to integrate the different
characteristics of special districts. A community's physical
setting, on a regional as well as local scale, should be
studied before establishing criteria to judge compatibility
with community character.
3. Survey(s) of citizens' perceptions of the character or
image of the community should be conducted to form a
basis for design guidelines. A consensus between citizens,
the business sector, and developers on what matters in
terms of community character can lay the political basis for
support of a design review system.
4. Application of public design control should be limited to
specially designated community areas. Public design
controls that are applied to carefully determined areas are
more flexible, effective, and appropriate than those applied
communitywide or to an entire zoning district. An
exception may be made made for very small communities
with a high degree of sociocultural and physical
homogeneity.
S. Content and organization of design guidelines should
be simple and focussed, with clear priorities for
agenda, criteria, and standards. An illusion exists that
design guidelines with many control elements and a high
specificity in standards are more comprehensive. Design
criteria responding to the interests of a broad segment of
the community's population should receive emphasis. An
identifiable character may be submerged by guidelines
that emphasize all elements of control equally by
assigning the same degree of specificity.
6. The level of specificity of guidelines, criteria, and
standards should be controlled. To avoid monotony or
an unreal or stage -set image, limit the specificity of
controls. One way to increase articulation without
resorting to higher specificity in design standards might
be to provide more alternative design solutions as
examples.
7. Design guidelines should include more behavioral or
nonaesthetic criteria/standards. People's perception of
community character is affected by their sense of
security, physical safety, comfort, convenience,
friendliness, ambience, presence or absence of certain
activities, and so on. These are issues more adequately
expressed in behavioral criteria. Sets of behavioral -based
design criteria have been prepared by many social
scientists, but, in general, their application has been
limited to specific projects.
8. When it is necessary or desirable to regulate the visual -
physical characteristics of a development's design (or
architecture), emphasis should be on the "format" of
design, rather than the style of design (or
architecture). With the exception of historic districts,
compatibility with community character or harmonious
relationships between existing and new developments
should be interpreted as adopting a prevalent and
significant "format" of physical design. This might
include the relationship between people and enclosure,
continuity of form, or continuity of meaning. This is
preferable to copying a specific architectural style, such
as Victorian, Early Californian, Gold Rush, Spanish, and
so on.
9. Descriptive design criteria and standards should be
illustrated. Care should be taken that the inclusion of a
drawing of a particular style or detail does not give the
impression that matching the style depicted in the drawing
is a prerequisite for development approval. Many
alternative illustrative examples should be presented for
each item.
10. The interpretation of compatibility with community
character or harmony should be broad enough to
include various contextual relationships between new
and existing developments (e.g., contrast,
assimilation, adoption of format, similarity, etc.). Not
all existing development, architecture, or man-made
features deserve to be emulated. Design by contrast,
however, requires a strong visual tension that emerges
from juxtaposing a new structure against an existing
structure or surroundings. The important point is that this
tension should be conscious. A new development should
possess characteristics that are intentionally opposite to
one or a few of the most prominent attributes of the
existing structure. Therefore, before selecting a design
strategy, it is necessary to analyze the visual
characteristics of existing surroundings and to identify the
most prominent attribute(s) of that design. Only then can
an "intelligent" contrast be planned.
Contrast may be achieved by manipulating color; form;
texture; scale; layout; visual movement; and
vegetation/planting. Contrasting the type of use, activity,
and economic class is more difficult and controversial.
High Court Strikes Down
News Rack Controls
A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down a
Lakewood, Ohio, ordinance that gave the city's mayor
"unbridled discretion" over the placement of news racks on
public property. In a 4-3 decision, Justice Brennan wrote of
the danger of unlimited discretion, concluding that "it is not
difficult to visualize a newspaper that relies to a substantial
extent on single -issue sales [vending machine sales] feeling
significant pressure to endorse the incumbent mayor in an
upcoming election, or to refrain from criticizing him, in order
to receive a favorable and speedy disposition on its permit
application." The decision came in Plain Dealer Publishing
Company v. City of Lakewood, 108 S. Ct. 2138.
The decision stemmed from a dispute between Lakewood
and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The Plain Dealer had
challenged an earlier ordinance that totally banned newspaper
vending machines from city -owned property. In 1984,
Lakewood amended the ordinance and gave the mayor the
power to grant news rack permits subject to the "terms and
conditions deemed necessary." In addition, the ordinance
required approval of news racks by the city's architectural
board of review and required publishers to have insurance to
cover the city's liability for accidents involving news racks.
Writing for the majority, Justice William J. Brennan said
that the mayor's broad discretionary power to grant or deny
permits raised the danger of "content and viewpoint
censorship." Such censorship would violate freedoms
protected by the First Amendment. The high court did not
decide other challenges to the ordinance but asked the federal
appeals court to review these remaining issues.
The decision was lees than a major victory for the
newspaper industry. The New York Times reported that Justice
Brennan's opinion suggested that "cities may regulate the
locations and perhaps other aspects of news racks for safety
and aesthetic reasons as long as they do not discriminate based
on the content of the publications." Moreover, the court
declined to rule on the question of whether a city may impose
an outright ban on news racks.
Henry B. Fischer, a lawyer for Lakewood, said that the city
is now considering its options in light of the Court's decision.
He thinks that the city council could ban news racks on public
property altogether. Fischer stressed, however, that neither
side of the dispute is inclined to litigate the issue any further. It
is likely that the city will amend the current ordinance to
include explicit limitations on the mayor's authority.
Oregon Reaffirms Public
Access to Beach
Whose beach is it anyway? This question has arisen in
virtually every coastal state in the nation. In August, a decision
by the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the public's right of
recreational use and lateral access to all beaches in the state.
The case, involving a dispute between two private property
owners, reaffirmed a landmark 1969 Oregon Supreme Court
ruling that guaranteed recreational access along the entire
coast between the median high -tide line and the visible line of
vegetation. Last months's decision came in McDonald v.
Halvorson, 92 Or. App. 478.
At issue in the case was whether the privately owned Little
Whale Cove, which is separated from the ocean by a small
ridge of rock, fell within the boundaries of the public easement
for recreation. Although the court found that there was no
physical means of access to the tiny cove and that the area was
not part of the "dry -sand beaches" recognized in the 1969
decision, it still fell within the area protected for public
recreation.
The state of Oregon intervened in the case in order to protect
the rights of the public to use beaches. This right is spelled out
in Chapter 601 of Oregon's statutes, a statute known as the
"beach bill." This law states that the public has the right to use
the "dry -sands" portion of the coastline. Since the passage of
the beach bill, the state has tried to avoid a "tract -by -tract"
analysis of the public interests in the shore, but it intervened in
this case because there are more than 60 miles of privately
owned coves, inlets, and rock formations similar to Little
Whale Cove.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Nollan v.