[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
tai Zone mation enter q CENTER TIOU Ak lyy! 0*j" JIEV@W @z ALI Kg !x Is sp 4 r---777-1 54 00OWT. 15F, I @7771 @Urm k j Alf, AAr 77, -)F2, Wly@- 4@ Mw -Ar- A, -A@ 4 "Awk Q 7 IC Ap. 'W;A 4r Z@, 'r "k, 7-6r-,-4- -40 7160 ks -W A 91@', 4060"A@. !! 7@i -qh *Ao Z jp@ A gki AS P" U g GB 458.8 .R43 1974 CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION' CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION RECREATION 4�0 Part of a Study of the Cal 'ifornia Coastal Zone Summary of the Report, "Recreation", compi-led by SEP 91974 State and Regional Commission Staff -2-1 jo with extensive assistance from: MAY 14 ISF, Phillip Farrell, Kirk Gothierg and Patricia Weesner University of California, Berkeley Michael Kennedy and Steve Phillips San Diego Coast Regional Commission Staff William J. Herron, Jr. California Marine Parks & Harbors Association, Inc. Jim Matsueda California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development Frederick G.,Styles California Assembly Office of-Research Susan Drews and G' Coull csC Library irily ProPertY Of University of California Extension The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, (Proposition 20 at the election of November 7, 1972) created the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six Regional Commissions, and directed them to prepare a comprehensive, enforceable plan for the preservation, pro- tection, restoration, and enhancement of the coastal zone. This is one of a series of informational reports designed to help-the Central Coast Regional Commission carry out this responsibility. Using these reports, the Regional Commission will develop recommendations to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission on statewide policy. These recommendationsq together with the recommendations of the other five Regional Commission, will be the basic materials the State Commit- sion will use in planning for the future of the California Coast. .Each report focuses on a specific aspect of'the Coastal Zone@ The rela- tionship of this report to others in the same series may be teen at a glance on the next page. This summary report was prepared by the State Commission staff, and modified by the Regional Commission staff to focus on and modify the .most important Coastal planning considerations suggested by the more ex- tensive technical report. Recommended Planning Policies are included with this document. These are only tentative,. since the conclusions based on this report will need to be considere& later, after other reports on different aspects of the Coastal Zone have been completqd. Cover Photo: Jack McDowell SION' - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA CENTRAL COAST RMIONAL COMMISS Santa Cru zy California CC)ASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE August 23, 1974 ("HARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 Background Re-ports for Planning the Future of the California Coast Marine Environment Geology Coastal Land Environment Appearance and Design Recreation Energy- Transportation Intensity of Development Powers, Funding, and Government TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary Report-Recreation II* Beach Access III, Archae,ology: General Findings and Suggested Policies,and Guidelines IV. California Coastline Landscape Preservation Projects Ve 1974 Park Bond Program, Coastal Province vie Other Current State Park Projects and Proposals VII. National Historic and Natural Landmarks VIII. Assembly Bill 3611 (Public Beach Fund) (Legislative Counsel's Digest) IX. Visitor Attendance, Central Coast Region State Beaches and Parks X, Coastal Recreation Use - 1969 - 1980 XI. Projections of Future Recreation Activity Map CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION Charles B. Kramer Chairman Grace McCarthy Vice Chairman Philip W. Harry State Representative Ruth R. Andresen Julian Camacho Warren Church Gerald F. Day B. Joseph Dolan Victoria Gibson Samuel H. Halsted James Hughes Frank J. Lodato Herbert Rhodes Norman As Walters Ilene Weinreb Lorette M. Wood Edward Y. Brown Executive Director This summary is abstracted from an extensive technical report cover- ing statewide and regional issues. Copies of the technical report are available for review at the Commission office or at the following public and school libraries: San Jose State University University of California Main Library Santa Cruz 125 - 7th Street Library San Jose, California 95M Santa Cruzl,.California Cabrillo College Monterey Peninsula College Library Library 6500 Soquel Drive 98O.Fremont Aptos, California Monterey, California Hartnell College Skyline College Library Library 156 Homestead Avenue 3300 College Drive Salinas, California San Bruno, California San Mateo County Library Monterey.City Library Central Branch Madison & Pacific Streets 25 Tower Road Monterey, California Belmont, California Santa Cruz Public Library Monterey County Public Library Main Branch .26 Central Avenue 224 Church Street Salinas, California Half Mbon.Bay Branch Pacific Grove Library Public Library Central Avenue & Fountain Avenue 620 Correas Avenue Pacific Grove, California Half Moon Bay, California Emerson Branch Library Watsonville Public Library Elm Avenue & Imperial 310 Union Seaside, California Watsonville, California Daly City Public.Library Pacifica Branch Public Library Westlake Main Branch Hilton Way & Palmetto Avenue 275 Southgate Avenue Paclfica, California Daly City, California Harrison Memorial Public Library Ocean Avenue & Lincoln Carmel, California SUMMARY REPORT-RECREATION The California coast offers recreational enjoyment, inspiration, and rejuvenation to million s of people from California and other states, and foreign nations. People come to the coast to swimg sunbathe, beach- combg and surf; to sail and waterski; to fish from shore, piersq and boats; to dive with and without SCUBA; and to picnic, campy hikeg ride, and drive in scenic splendor. They utilize the more than 21 State Park System units along the coast of the Central.Coast Region, as well as the many local parksg beaches and recreation areas and the Los Padres National Forest. Private hotelsq resorts, campgrounds9 lodges, restaurants and other developments round out the myriad facilities which cater to the coastal visitor. The beauty and variety of the coast provide outstanding recreational opportunities on which the population of California depends for its well- being an&high quality of life. But the value of the coast for recrea- tional pursuits can be destroyed by other uses which block off9 build over, or degrade recreation areas. And,natural resources can be damaged by overuse and abuse from recreational activities themselves. Recreation Demand There is no question that people want more recreational opportunities than are now available, especially at certain seasons, locations, and for particular kinds of activities. Polls and statistical studies demonstrate the existing gap between recreation supply and demand. It can also be readily seen in personal experiences: the boater who is overjoyed at getting a berthing space hours from his home after two years on a waiting list; the family outing which ends in disappointment because there is no place to park, picnic, or camp near the beach; the swimmer who feels imperiled by power boats, surfers or polluted water. Using many assumptions about the demand for recreational activities by various segments of the population, it is estimated that the demand for most forms of recreation will-risedramatically in the next decade. Ocean swimming, wading, and sunbathing combined are one of the largest and fastest-growing uses, and developed camping facilities are expected to be increasingly popular. Presentlyp less than half of the demand for campsites along the coastline is being met. Many other activities, such as fishing, underwater diving, nature study, photography and.painting, and walking, hiking, riding, and bicycling, will experi ence rapid rises, assuming that the demand can be met. Boating alone is so popular that all the new berthing spaces planned for the next five to ten years will barely cover the existing demand. The methods for statistically determining demand may ]@ @derestimate how many people would participate in activities if they were more readily available to them. Moreover, the projections also do not take into account the fluctuations which can come from fadsq new technology, and changing life-styles. Camper vehiclest for example, are a relatively new rage which grew spectacularly in popularity, then rapidly declined in sales due to gasoline shortages, but are now once again as popular as ever* SCUBA diving and hang-gliding are examples of new activities stemming from technological advances. It is difficult to predict the activities which will be enjoyed ten or twenty years from now. It is nearly certain, though, that the demand for all forms of mote traditional recreation will remain.very high. -2- Meeting the Demand It may not be possible to meet all recreation demandsp but the goal of recreation planning is to make maximum use of the potential for recrea- tion that exists in the coastal zone. This does not mean a maximum intensity of recreational use should be accommodated in every coastal recreation area. Instead, a wide variety of recreational opportunities should be provided. This variety includesthe Ventana Wilderness Area where a few hardy hikers can feel alone in untouched naturev large open areas such as Big Sur where sightseers can enjoy scenic vistas of land and watert natural habitat areas such as Elkhorn Slough where wildlife can be observed, historic areas such as Old Monterey where our cultural heritage can be appreciated. To accomplish this, the beaches and recreational facilities along the coast in the San Diego, Los Angelest and San Francisco metropolitan areas are generally expected to accommodate the heaviest use and the most intensive activities; this would include the San Mateo and Santa Cruz County beaches. On the other handt the rural portions of the central and northern California coastline are most appropriate for low-density recreation use. In addition, the few remaining substantial open spaces in southern California (including Camp Pendleton, the Santa Monica Mountainsv and the Channel Islands) should be protected for wilderness and low-desnity recreation use. The attempt to meet the rising demand for many different kinds of activities poses several problems. Recreational resources must be developed, but they must also be protected from overdevelopment which would harm the environment, degrade the recreational experience, or reduce the essential variety of the coast itself and the activities it accommodates. The areas of potential conflict are: (1) between various types of recreation; (2) between recreation and other uses; and (3) between the recreational use and the environment, the user, or the facilities provided (i.e. internal conflicts). -3- Conflicts Between Recreational Activities One problem is the inherent conflict between certain types of recrea- tional pursuits. The most striking examples occur when one use completely transforms the environment to meet its needs, such as the filling of a water area for a golf course, while other activit,iesv such'as surfing, skindivingg and boating, are displaced. Other recreational conflicts may not involve physical alterations but rather incompatible uses, such as surfing which can preclude swimmingg power boating which sometimes disrupts small sailing craft and fishing, or dunebuggying which displaces sunbathers. In planning for evei-nincreasing demands for different recreational activities? and with the uncertainty of future needs and desires, any q -1 .......- substantial alteration of the natural coastal environment for a specific pursuit should be discouraged. Furthermore, a variety of areas should be ------------------ provided so that conflicting uses can be accommodated in separated areas. When a particular type of recreation1which is in demand can be accommodated it only a few places, those areas shou-Id be reserved for that purpose, with other activities permitted only to-the extent that they do not conflict with the primary activity. Conflicts Between Recreation and Other Uses Because of the attraction of the coast for many usesi potential passive and active recreational opportunities are commonly lost to expensive and private residential developments, general commercial uses, industrial complexes, and transportation facilities. Residential developments have been and continue to pose the greatest threat because they use up large tracts of coastal land and permanently concentrate more people along the coast, who in turn place further demands on existing public parklands. Residential developments can also restrict public access to the coastq either-directly (by erecting,,buildings or fenc-,sj or indirecITY-my- overtaxing available parking and road systems). In some cases, residenfLal -4- and other developments cause additional harm to recreation resources by cutting off views, degrading the visual environment, polluting. the air and waterv or disturbing wildlife habitat areas. Many such developments can be found in this region. There are many areas which are simply too beautifulg environmentally sensitiveg hazardousq or valuable for special uses to allow general development. MarV of these have been identified in previous Central Coast Region planning elements. Such. areas - also serve as important recreational resources, even if only in the form of visual open*space. Where development is acceptable, it must not be allowed .to displace or degrade potential,recreational resources; public and multiple-purpose commercial recreational uses should have priority over developments having less important public benefits. Where residential development is appropriate? densities, open space, and access should be regulated to-ensure that coastal area residents wil-1 not deprive inland residents. of the right to enjoy the coast's special recreational assets. Internal Conflicts As Californians seek to.enjoy the recreational opport unities of the coast, they may destroy or congest the very attractions they want to use. To deal with this probleml,recreation planners seek to establish the "recreational carrying capacity" of each area. This carrying capacity has been defined as the "character of use that can be suppoilled over a specified time by an area developed at a certain level without causing permanent damage to the physical environment and without excessively degrading the experiencecf the visitor". This overall carrying capacity is limited by acombination of environmental, social, and facility capacity factors. The environmental carrying capacity (also known as physical or biological carrying capacity) is the limit of use beyond which the natural resources of an areas will be unacceptably altered. Deter- mining what is "unacceptable" is not always easy, as almost any acti- vity alters the natural environment to some extent. Fragile, highly productive, or rare and unique environmental areas,are all considered to have a very low tolerance for alteration. Some areas are more resilient, but can still be threatened when use is excessive. Archaeologic research has the potential of being a most valuable toolin determining the intensity of human alteration that natural systems are Adapted to accept; such research could well be the key to determining not only the most reasonable approach to managing wildlife populations-particularly in the case of the sea otter and the abalone but also the means to fix acceptable visitor impact limits for fragile coastal lands such as Pescadero Marshp the Monterey Bay dunes, the old- growth Monterey Cypress groves, and the Channel Islands. Therefore, for this reason alone,. it is essential that there be no further preventable loss of archaeologic site information* The social capacity is the tolerance of the people themselves to the quality of the experience. Meditation on a rocky point or in a redwood forest may be disturbed by nearly any other activity in the vicinity, while beachcombing may only be degraded when there is finally no more room to walk or lie down on the sand. Facility capacity is based on management decisions as to the amount and type of man-made improvements provided in an area. General access to the area is one very important limitation on its capacity. Along rural portions of the coastline, the limited access to the coast imposed by the constraint of road capacity generally results in a relLtively low density of use which adds immeasurably to the quality of the recreation experience. More immediate facility capacity factors are the amount of -6- parking providedl the number of people that can be handled by restrooms, picnic tables and camping sites, the number of hotel rooms in a tourist resort, and similar considerations. This type of capacity is obviously not fixed permanentlyq but can be extremely useful in keeping a limit on use consistent with social or environmental carrying capacity. All of these factors.must be considered together in evaluating whether the total recreational carrying capacity of an area may be exceeded. Such evaluations are hampered by the complex, in terrelated, and often subjective factors involved. Site characteristics such as climate, location, water, and access, human valuesl and time and type of activity all play an important role in determining how much use an area can be expected to get, and how much it can tolerate. The capacity of the natural environment must be considered as an ------------------- absolute limit to recreationasl use in order to protect coastal resources* Consequentlyp the sensitive tide pools and the highly productive wetlands should only be subjected to the most limited recreational uses. Other important natural habitat areas, particularly the small remnants of unaltered old growth Monterey Cypress forest on the shores of Carmel Bay, comprise only a few acres altogether, and thus must be considered, by virtue of scarcity alone, as especially sensitive-a single accident or unwise development action could forever and irretrievably compromise the essential integrity of these botanic treasures. Some areas such as marine mammal and seabird rookeries are highly intolerant of any human intrusionp but only on a seasonal basis. Ano Nuevo Island and Lobos Rocks are examples. Likewise, fragile indigenous dune plant habitats found in the Marina and.Asilomar areas can probably SUrV3-ve more recreational use during the dormant season than during the balance of the year. In more resilient@areasl such as beaches, bays, bluffs and headlands, broader recreational uses can be provided, but environmental abuse such as excessive grading for facility construction, -7- soil compaction and destruction of vegetation from vehicle use, or dredging and filling of coastal waters for marinas must still be controlled. In other areas, social or facility capacity may be the determing limit. No additional facility capacity should be provided if the social or environmental capacity of an area is already exceeded. Similarlyv expansion of recreational usesp such as restaurants and amusements, should not be permitted if parking and road access facilities are already at capacity. On the other hand, since the goal is to serve as much of the demand for recreation as possible, facilities should be added and ex- panded in areas which can accommodate increased use. This is one means for avoiding the excessive use of areas which may already be overtaxed. Other ways to avoid exceeding the carrying capacity are to encourage more use at non-peak times; to divert recreationists to activities or areas which are not used to capacity; to provide means of access other than the auto to urban beaches; to radonvisitation by reservation system, limiting of parking spaces, and other measures; to educate the public to the kinds of recreational use which will not degrade the environment or the quality of experience of others; to improve inter- pretive programs.so that the visitor appreciates-and:respects-the value of the resource; and where necessary, to institute regulatory programs which permit limitedv controlled uses-such as the naturalist- supervised guided walks at Pt. Lobos State Reserve-in sensitive areas. Another very important approach to increasing designed capacity without degrading or displacing recreational uses. is to provide other means of access to urban beaches than the automobile. If all recrea- tionists must arrive at the shoreline by automobile, carrying capacity. will be limited to the amount of parking and road capacity provided; to meet growing needs, more land area (needed for recreation) will be paved over for roads and parking, and air pollution in the vicinity of recrea- tional areas will increase. By providing more effective transit systems to serve the urbanized portions of the coastline, its unique recreational resources can be preserved while, at the same time, made available to more people. Moreover, as many and as great a variety of recreational opportunities as possible should be made available so that the ever-increasing demand can be satisfied without over-running existing resources. Thus, the Big Sur coast (from Carmel River to San Simeon) and the coastline between Half Moon Bay and Santa Cruz should be protected for low-intensity recrea- tional activities and the remaining open spaces along the s6uthernCalif- ornia coastline should likewise be preserved. Although much study and constant reevaluation is required to plan for optimum long-range recreational usesy there is much that can be done immediately to expand opportunities available to Californians on their coastline. Coastal resources utilization should be maximized by main- taining the full range of recreational opportunities in multiple-use recreation areas (e.g. Los Padres National Forest); by reserving adequate areas, remote from prime open space, for the development of recreational support facilities; and by ensuring access for the general public to the recreational opportunities of the tidelands and immediate shoreline to the extent consistent with preservation goals. MultiRle Use Recreational Areas In all recreational developmentsl,it is vital that a variety and balance of recreational needs be met* Los Padres National Forest- Monterey Ranger District illustrates how a variety of uses including swimming and picnicking, camping and hiking, hunting and fishing, re- creational motoring and even underwater rockhounding areas (Jade Cove), as well as open space areas usable by chi-ldren and the elderly, can all be provided in a single recreation area. However, as recreational needs and population growth increase, there is often a tendency to shift to- wards intensive commercial recreational and residential uses in some areas not as well protected, which may actually reduce overall recrea- tional opportunities available to the general public (e. g., the typical growth patterns around urban marinas). Before vital remaining coastal land and water resources are committed to any uses, all recreational needs must be assessed and a balance provided including both public and commercialv passive and active uses. Sy .aort Areas Because the shoreline itself is a finite resource subject to ever-increasing recreational demands, it is important tP_xLae=za_ appropriate,areas along the cgAo-t (but-generally back from the immediate shoreline)for necessary recreation and suppo rt facilj@. One appli- cation of this idea is the siting of parking lots and maintenance facilities upland so that the immediate shoreline can be reserved for shoreline-dependent recreational activities. Some other types of recreation not requiring shoreline location can also be p rovided inland, such as recreational-vehicle camping facilities, golf and field sportsp and higher-intensity commercial recreation including hotels, motels,.. restaurants, and shops. Where appropriatev the sensitive and cautious development of such support facilities increases the overall rocreational potentialcf the shoreline and adds to the variety and abundance of overall recreational opportunities available to the public. From concentrated nodes of inland support facilities, small-scale transportation systems and pedestrian and bicycle trails can be used to link these areas with the shoreline. Nevertheless, the bulk of coastal uplands in rural areas yield their greatest recreational benefits when they remain undeveloped* As produc- tive open space lands-such as agricultural and forest lands-they prc(vide visual reflief from the urban environment, and offer a setting for pleasur- able drivingg hiking, and riding. When they are intensively developed- _10- for whatever use-the scenic value of these dwindling resources is lost forever. Public Access The California Constitution guarantees the right of the public to get to and use the publicly-owned tidelands; the entire coastline has traditionally and historically been used by the public for recreation, but gradually this use has been denied as private developments have cut off public access with buildings and fences along the 60 percent of the coastline th t is in p*rj e ownership. However, the Coastal Commission and local governments now have the power to require public access in new.coastal developments, but they do not always exercise it. By amending -the State Subdivision Map Actto require that such access be-dedicated to the State, the interests of future generations could be protected. The objections most often raised are that the private owners should not have.to.bear maintenance costs and liability for public access areas, that they should not be subjected to loss of privacy and security, and that the coastline is too fragile to be open to the general public. Despite these objections, experience indicates that public access ways can be provided without undue hardship to private property owners. Where access ways are dedicated to a public agency, liability and maintenance costs are assumed by that agency. If the landownership in areas where the public use is so limited that it does not warrant public dedication, liability is strictly limited by recent legis@ationj and the costs of maintenance will be low. Although public access ways may sometimes reduce privacy and securityp just as public streets do, the careful design of new projects can minimize any problems. In extremely fragile areas, all access (and perhaps all development) may have to be restricted. There are several other means, in addition to the regulatory power, to ensure and augment the public's recreational use of the shoreline, It has been suggested that whereaccess ways are not feasible or desirable in a proposed development, (because ofterrain, already adequate access, or other factors)v the regulatory agency could collect "in-lieu" fees and use these to purchase access in other areas through the power of eminent domain. State agencies could be empowered to collect feesl exercise eminent domain in access acquisition, and to receive access way dedications into public ownership. One of the greatest problems is that existing, de facto access is rarely documented. Areas.where public access has been cut off can be restored to the public where appropriate, and an agency should be specifically charged with the job of documenting and enforcing Ahese rights for the general public. Finally, the right of the public to continue to use the shoreline itself should be guaranteed. While the tidelands are public property, the dry sand beaches and immediate shoreline wheM there is no beach, which have traditionally been used by the publicp are often considered to be "private", Oregon and Texas have guaranteed public access to larger portions of their coastline.through state legislationt and Congress is considering a similar law. California, too, should assert the right of its people to use the shoreline for traditional recreational uses con- aistent with the preservation of the coastal resources* S2ecific Recreational Uses The growing demand for nearly all forms of recreation-from beach- combing to wilderness backpacking, and from SCURA diving to hang-gliding- has already been mentioned. There are, howevert several uses-in such demand and requiring the provision of special areas-that warrant separate discussion. These are: small craft boating facilities, a coastal trail system, and educational and research preserve areas* -12- Small-Craft Boatla& Facilities Recreational boaters engaged in sailing, fishing, water-skiing, and vacation cruising make heavy use of coastal waters. California boating activities have already increased five-fold in the past 20 yearsl and the demand for boating facilities on the coast is expected to continue to rise@ The facilities serving this boating activity range from small launching ramps to multi-purpose harbor? which include residentialv commercial, and other recreation uses as well as boating. Planned additions to boat slip facilities (from about 30,000 to 40,000) over the next five or ten years will only meet the existing demand. Within our region there are presently four major small craft harbor facilities: Pillar Point in San Mateo Countyt Santa Cruz Yacht Harbor, Moss Landing Harbory and the City of Monterey Harbor. In addition there are launching fac&Uities on the Municipal Piers in Santa Cruz and Capitolaq and protected harbor capacity at Stillwater Cove in Carmel Bay (a private yacht club),@,,as well as a protected anchorage at Ano Nuevo Bay* Presently all of the improved facilities are at capacity. Santa Cruz Yacht Harbor has 600 pleasure craft and 215 full or part time commer- cial araft. The plans of the Harbor District do not include expansion within the next 10 years* Moss landing Harbor presentlyfunctions as the primary commercial fishing boat harbor in our region* It presently has 286 berths of which 85fo are used@,for commercial vessels and 15fo for recreational craft. The District presently has plans to complete 104 additional berths Li the near future. Monterey Harbor, owned and operated by the City of Monterey, presently has 408 berths with sharing bringing the capacity to 426. The City has plans for expansion but feels that it is unlikely that there will be any in the near future* Pillar Point Harbor presently accommodates some 200 moorings. It has no improved berthing facilities. Plans call for the development of 1,200 units over the next ten years but are subject to obtaining sufficient financing. The present demand for recreational and commercial berthing far exceeds the planned expansion in our region. The development of dry storage in conjunction with our established har- bor facilities may help to reduce the shortage but will not meet the projected demand. Options to provide additional harbors and marinas are not readily available without adversely affecting the critical coastal recources in our region, although lower Watsonville Slough has been noted as a possibility and deserves further study. The most critical adverse environmental impact from boating is the extensive alteration of the marine environment-especially-of coastal wetlands-by dredging and filling for boating facilities. However, it appears possible to accommodate increased boat@ng activity without ser@ous environmental damage by encouraging more thorough use of existin bogts ar4 boating facilitiest by developing more dry storage areas and launching facilities.and by building new marinas in less fragile areas rather than in wetlands. To this end, the expansion of existing harbors, and the construction of new harbors, should not be at the expense of sensitive natural habitats (e.g. wetlands and dune areas); areas suitable for dry storage and launching I should be developed near boating facilities, and should not be committed to other uses; natural harbors, low-level dry land areasq and other areas where there is no significant additional danger of environmentaldamage which could be dredged out for the development of new boating facilities with minimal environmental impacts should be reserved for future needs; and boat rental and lease programs should be developed. -14- Coastal Trails System Traveling along the coastline is already recognized as an enjoyable and popular recreational experience', but large segments of the coast are presently inaccessible for recreational travelv and the accessible portion is heavily oriented toward the automobile traveler. A coastal trail system for hikersv bicyclistsl,and equestrians would be a valuable recreational resource, especially as the present supply of trails can meet only 46 percent of the demand in the north coast, 14 percent in the central coast, and a mere 2 percent in the south coast. ion living within 30 miles of the coastq a coastal trails system would provide millions of people *ith the opportunity for riding, bicycling, or walking through the scenic and refreshing environment of the.coastal areas. Seg.nents of a coast trails system are already being pl anned and developed by various governmental agencies-from local to Federal. Within the Central Coast Region all of the Recreational Plans by local governmental agencies-provide for a sy stem of trails within the Coastal Zone. Although the priorities vary as to when their trail systems will be developed.9 it is anticipated that their plans will be incorporated in the Coastal Trail Systemo Howeverp a coordinated overall plan is also neededo The California Department of Parks and Recreationv.working with the Coastal Commissions, the California Department of Transporationi, the general public, and localp Statel and Federal agenciesv should establish appropriate routes. The appropriate agency should be funded and auth- orized to acquire trails to connect the indivIdual segments of the coastal trails system and manage the overall system. The Collier-Keene State Hostel Facilities Act of 1974 authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to provide hostel facilities in speci- "I ----------------- - - -- fied state park system units within San Franciscot San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo and other coastal counties. This Act also appropriates over two million dollars to develop the hostels and establish ,ronnecting-trails; therefore some of the necessary legislation for the creation of a Coastal Trail system is already in effect. In planning the coastal trails system, all agencies should be sensi- tive to the different needs of bicyclists, hikers, and equestrians. Where possible, none should be relegated to an edge of the automobile roadway, but rather each should have a separate, enjoyable traill making use of ridgetops, abando ed --- rnqd.s and railways beds9 and other such features. Theconceptual draft of the California Recreational Trails System Plan also recognizes waterway "trails" (e.ge streams of value for rafting, kayaking, and canoeing). During the sprin& float trips - as well as fishing - have been popular on the Carmel Rivert and in varying degrees on the San Lorenzo, Soquel Creek, Pajarog Salinasl Little Surt and Big Sur rivers as well. So far, the recreational potential.of these waterway corridors has received relatively little attention in basin planning. Education and Research Preserves Many of the natural and historic areas required by scientists, educatorsv and students for study are threatened. Just as some species are in danger of extinction as urban and recreational uses alike encroach on themtso too are many unique, delicate, and outstanding natural and historic areas. Research and education are in many senses recreational experiences, in their own right, but in addition they are vital to planning and understanding man's future role in his natural surroundings. -16- A publicl@-owned system of natural and historic preserves should, therefore, be established along the coast, with a board of educatorsv planners, and scientiststo determine the areas to be included, to manage them appropriately, and to advise all regulatory agencies so that areas can be protected from development prior to public acquisition. Direct acquisition and prot.ection'by various educational and scientific institutions has already proven to beafeasible technique. Present and potential examples include the Younger Lagoon-.Terrace Pt. area (University of California ); dune and saltmarsh habitats near Moss Landing Marine Laboratories; the dune botanic areas of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey; and tidal areas at Hopkins Marine Station (Stanford University) and Granite Creek Laboratory (Dept. of Fish and Game), In certain areas, such as Del Monte Forest, private preservation efforts represent an alternative to public acquisition. In addition, both state-and privately-owned areas can receive recognition and extra protection through designation as National Historic and Natural Landmarks; more than 120 unique archaeologic, historic, geo- logic, scenicp and biologic sites have already been designated or recom-- mended for further study within Californiap including at least two dozen in the Central Coast Reg.ion. Howevert at least 50% of all areas nominated are eventually rejectedp either by State Historic Preservation Officer or the National Park Servicep for reasons such as lack of national or sceintific importance. Designation, *hile serving to identify the importance of the site and creating an obligation to consider its landmark status within any Environmental Impact Statement relating to the areav does not provide further protect ion except through enactment of state statutes. Asan examplej the McHugh-Bianchi Building in Santa Cruz, while nominated to the National Register of Historic Landmarks, was recently demolished amidst considerable controversy but with perfect legality. -17- Economics of Coastal Recreation The economic benefits of recreation and tourism in the coastal zone are substantial. Statewide, tourism is the third largest industry. Although there are no current, adequate data to determine the direct amount of spending of all recreationists along the coast, using various assumptions and deriving information from tourism data or from room tax revenues, it can be velZ conservatively estimatedthat at least $600 million is spent annually for recreational goods and services (food, lodging, gasolinev gear, and entertainment) in the coastal areas. If anything, the flaws in these methods lead to underestimation of actual spending. Because each dollar spent on recreation creates additional, indirect economic benefits, the tourist industry probably contributes well over $1.5 billion to the State economy. Coastal recreation also provides jobs-between 280$000 and 3509000 directly in the tourist industry, and at least ;* times that in other jobs indirectly serving or created bythe recreational econ omy, Financing Coastal Recreational Facilities Coastal recreation provides economic benefits, but it also involves financial obligations. One of the difficulties in providing public recreational facilities along the coast is to determine equitable means of finan@ing them. In many areas local cities and counties have exten- sive park and beach facilities. In populated urban areas, it is appro- priate that area residents, who make the most use of local facilities, would contribute to their acquisition and maintenance. However, inland recreationists and local tourist-oriented businesses receive an unpaid- for benefit. One method for correcting this inequitable arrangement is for the State government to assist in paying these maintenance costs where it can be established that most of the users of a local beach come from inland areas. This would allow coastal communities to invest -18-- more of their general funds for often desperately needed new recrea- tional facilities. Of coursep all of the burden for providing public recreational facilities should not and does not fall on local municipalities. Most of the coastal recreational resources are of value to the entire State and some are of national significance. The public investment required to acquireq protectand develop needed coastal recreational facilities between now and 1980 has been estimated at over $1 billion. Unfortu- natelyg many State and Federal funding programs, which have traditionally been inadequate, are being cut back even further, since the enactment of the Federal Revenue Sharing Act of-1972* Federal contributions to recreation-either in the form of national parks and preserves or in grants to State and local programs-are now minimal. Nonetheless, there is some hope for the future. The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund has been significant in the pastj financing park projects such as Point Reyes National Sea- shoreq and providing local grants. The Fund has been reduced from $14, million annual spending in California from 1970 to 102, to only $2.6 million in 1974. However, much of its revenues are derived from royal- ties paid for the extraction of minerals from offshore Federal lands- that is, from resources of the coastal zone. The Federal government could reasonably increase the mineral extraction royalties whichgo into this fund and could then earmark the additional monies for spending on coastal projects. On the State level, special new funding programs should be developed, such as a bond act to chase large portions of the coast7 with a pur leaseback of those areas not needed for recreation to pay off the bond; tapping revenues-generated by mineral extraction in State-owned offshore lands; and a special land acquisition surcharge collected from recrea- tional motorists at a parkway entrance gate. _19- Conclusions Recreation is vital to the well-being of all people. For some, gazing at farm and forest lands from a car or train window is a rewarding pleasure in life. For othersdiving through an oncoming breaker may be the ultimate experience. Whatever form it takesv people want and need more recreational opportunitiesp as the population and pressure of modern living grow each year. The coast, with its unique scenic and water resources, is a precious environment for recreation. But portions of it have been lost to other uses, closed off to the public, and degraded by abuse and overuse. Short-sighted compromises and individual interestsmust not be allowed to gradually dwindle away our coastal recreational resources.. Through both public andprivate efforts, we must act now to protect and enhance the opportunities available to our own and future generations. -20- SOUTH CENTRAL COAST July 26, 1974 REGIONAL COASTAL COMMISSION 330 E. CAHON PERDIDO SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 BEACH ACCESS (Prepared by Carl C. Hetrick for South Central Coast Regional Commission) Introduction Today, as in the past, the major portion of California's population. is clustered along, the coastline. More than 13 million people live within an hour's drive of the ocean, and by 1980 this population is expected to reach 20 million (Committee on Ocean Resources, page 161). Eighty-five percent of the State's population lives within 30 miles of the ocean. This population clustering combined with increased disposable income, leisure time, and mobility places and will continue to place tromendous demands on the State's coastal recreational re- sources. As described earlier, the available coastline is heavily used for such recreational activities as swimming, surfing, fish- ing, sunbathing, and picnicking. Many of these recreational uses of the coast require little more than public access to the beach and adjacent coastline. Historically, the public has enjoyed virtually free and un- limited use of the coastal beaches and certain adjacent upland areas to the extent that people have come to regard them as a "commons", open to the use of all. Various early accounts document this public use of the coast- line as a commons. During the Spanish period, numerous reports indicate that California's coastline was treated as a public commons and was regularly used by the citizenry for commerce, recreation and other public purposes. William Brewer, describing his experiences in Up and Down California, 1860-1864, writes of his travels, nature study, camping experiences and scientific experimentation along the coastline, and provides accounts of numerous public uses of the beach which lie encountered along the way. Some 50 years later, J. Smeaton Chase travelled by horseback on beach and coastal trails from Mexico to Oregon and in California Coast Trails he describes the fishing, duck hunting, clamming, and other public activities he saw on his trip. One need only to go to the beach. on any sunny day to realize that increasing numbers of people engage in these and other activi- ties along the State's coast. Similarly, one need not search his own memory very far to think of areas which until recently have been open to general public use, but which are now closed due to the effects of coastal development and other causes. Thus, it would seem clear that Californians have long enjoyed the enjoyed the use of the coastline for many public recreational activities. This right of public access to the State's navigable waters is guaranteed by the California Constitution. ' It has long been recognized in California that suchnavigable waters are held in trust.for the public. The trust also includes the tidelands tip to the mean high tide line,. Prior to statehood, under Spanish law the public's right ex- tended to the line of the highest high tide. Unfortunately, the effect of this historic right has been eroded in recent:years by coastal. development which blocks access not only' to the dry beach area and adjacent coastal lands but also.to the publicly held tide- lands. Public access through privately owned lands is necessary to make full public use of the.coa'stline.* This chapter explores the legal and practical issues involved in-maintaining 'and-increasing this' access. Legal Foundation for Public Access The California Constitution declar es that: No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or,tida,l lands or a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or avigable water in -this State, shall other n, be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or*obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall always be attainable for the people thereof. (California Constitution, Article XV,Section 2). In interpreting this constitutional.provision, California Courts have, recognized that recreation is among .the "public pur- poses" intended. The California Supreme Court in the 1970 decision in Gion V. City.of Santa Cruz, Die@z v. King, considered itself bouH_d_t_O' '_oliserve the strong policy expressed in the Constitution and the statutes of this State of encouraging public use of shore- line recreation areas" and further found "...we should. encour.age public use of shoreline areas wherever that can be done consistently with the Federal Constitution" (Gion,-pp. 42-43). -2- In two recent actions the State Legislature has established additional means of preserving access to tidelands. In 1969, it enacted the McAteer-Petris Act and approved the San Francisco Bay conservation and Development Plan, which requires'that "maximum feasible opportunity for pedestrian access to the waterfront shouldbe included in every new development in the Bay or on the shoreline" (BCDC, p. 29). Of statewide significance, the Legislature enacted the 1970 Dunlap Act empowering local governments to require the dedication of shoreline access as a prior condition in the approval of new subdivisions (Business and Professions Code, Section 11610.S). Unfortunately, the Dunlap Act contains at least four diffi- culties which have made its implei-Rentation,less thorough going than one might have hoped. First, the Act allows the city or county in question to make "a finding-that such reasonable public access is otherwise available within a reasonable distance from the subdivision." If the local jurisdiction makes such a determination the subdivider is freed from the obligation of providing public acce-ss to the shore. SecondY these local determinations are not subject t-o 'review by a State agency. Third, the Act applies only to subdivisions of land, but not to lot splits. What this has meant in practice is that the Dunlap Act has gone uninforced in. many of the local jurisdictions in this lZogion. Finally, the Act allows the access dedications to lapse if they are not accepted by a governmental entity within three years of the approval of the final subdivision map. In 1972, the voters of the State expressed their strong desire for the enforcement of public access rights by approving Proposition 20.1 the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act. This Act requires that the Coastal Zone Conservation Plan shall include: a public access element for maximum 'visual and physical use and enjoyment of the coastal zone. by the public. (California Public Resources Code, Section 27304) In addition, the Act stipulates that during the interim permit period: all permits shall be subject to reasonable terms and conditions in order to,ensure (that) access to publicly owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is increased to the maximum extent possible by appropriate dedication ... (Secticn 27304) -3- Thu.,,., the legal intent to preserve the public's right to shoreline access is clearly established in California statute. The Dunlap Act, the Coastal Zone Conservation Act and the BCDC Plan all provide means by which public agencies may require dedi- cation of access by landowners requesting permits for land develop- ment. In addition to methods enabling direct government 'al exercise of the police power to ensure beach access, the California Supreme Court has recognized that access may be-guaranteed through private lands if access by the general public has historically existed for any period of five years or more without members of the public. having asked for or received permission.from the,owner. In situa- tions such as this the Court has ruled that a property owner's intent-to make a public dedication of beach access is to. be implied. In Gion & Diotz...the Court held that there had been an implied dedl-c-:71-tion not only of several tracts of beach property and an access road leading to one of.the tracts, but of the dry sand beach itself. While in principle.the doctrine of implied dedication is a use- ful tool for preserving beach access and public rights to the dry sand area, its practical utility is-considerably limited. For each individual section of the,coast.under,dispute, a public entity or a member of the general public must bring an action against the holder of the underlying fee. The costs of such litigation aresufficiently high so as to discourage most private individuals from seeking.an implied dedica- tion in favor of the public generally. For quite, different reasons local jLirisdictions have been notably reluctant to press the public's access rights under the doctrine of implied dedication. The result has been that a cons.iderable amount of beach access has boon lost by default to development and after the fact efforts on the part of property owners to extinguish implied dedications across their land. Finally, the strength of Gion & Dietz has been eroded by subsequent legislative enactments w71--cT p'r_o_vT`_J_e relatively simple means by which coastal landowners can avoid future implied dedications to the public (Civil Code Section 813, 1008, 1009). The State of Oregon has employed the most sweeping and poten- tially useful approach to assuring public use of the shoreline. The Oregon approach to,public use of the coast has two principal com- ponents: the 1967 Beach Bill (ORS 390..605'et se .) and the 1969 State Supreme Court decision in the case-of State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay (462 P. 2d 671) . -4- The chief importance of the Beach Bill is that it served as the basis for the subsequent litigation which in turn established the entire Oregon ocean shore below the "vegetation line" as a public commons. The Bill declared it to be, 11(l) ... public policy of the State of Oregon to forever preserve and maintain the sovereignty. of the.state heretofore legally existing over the ocean shore of the state from the Columbia River on the north to the Orego'n-'.California line on@the-south so that,.the public may have the free and uninterrupted use thereof. (2) The Legislative Assembly recognizes that over the years the.public-has made fre- quent and uninterrupted-use of the ocean shore and recognizes, further,.that where such use has been legally.sufficient to create rights or easements in the public through dedication, prescription, grant or otherwi'se,.that it is *in the public interest to protect and preserve the public rights or easements as a permanent part of Oregonl,s recreational resources.- (3) Accordingly, the Legislative Assembly hereby declares that all public rights or ease- ments legally acquired in those lands doscribed in.subsection (2) of this section are confirmed and declared vested exclusively in the State' of, Oregon and shall be held and administered as state recreational areas." By itself, this language did little more than provide a frame- work for subsequent case-by-case determinations.of the p'ublic's right to use the shoreline. The other important feature of the Oregon Beach Bill was that, it established a permit requirement for any construction activity on the ocean side of the vegetation line* It was this permit requirement which gave rise to the liti- gation terminating in the Thornton decision. Mr. and Mrs. I-lay., owners of a beachfront motel, were enjoined from constructing cer- tain-fences and other improvements on the-dry sand area adjacent to their motel. As formulated by the State Supreme Court "the only issue in this case,..is the power of the State to limit the record owners use and enj@inment of the dry sand area, by whatever boundar- ies the area may be described." .In affirmingthe trial Court's finding that the public had acquired a recreational easement as to the dry sand area, the Court noted that, "The dry-sdnd area in Oregon has been enjoyed by the general public as a recreational adjunct of the wet-sand or foreshore area since the be- ginning of the state,ls political history. The first European settlers on these shores found' the aboriginal inhabitants using the forpshorefor 9 clam-digging and the dry-sand area for t]-'ieir cook- ing fires. The newcomers continued these customs after statehood. Thus, from the time of the earliest settlement to the present day, the general public has assumed that the dry-sand area was a part of the public beach, and thepublic has used the dry-sand areas for picnics,-gathering wood, building warming fires, and generally as a head- quarters from which to supervise children or to range out over the foreshore as the tides advance and recede." In support of its finding of a public recreational easement to all of th.e State's beaches, the Court passed over both the doctrines of implied dedication and the doctrine of prescription. Instcad, the English common law doctrine of customary use was em- plo),cd. The Court explained its reliance upon the customary use. doctrine by noting the unique nature and historic patterns of pub- lic use of the beach area. The customary use doctrine allowed the Court to deal uniformly with all beaches in theState rather than merely with the specific property which was before the Court. The Court noted that "ocean-front lands from the northern to the southern border of the State ought to be treat .ed,uniformly." Thus., with one judicial act the public rights to the use of both the dry- sand and wet-sand areas were acknowledged. This same concept is reflected in the pending National Open Beaches Act (FIR 10395) HR 30881 HR 2120 and companion bills), now before Congress. These bills would recognize the public's right to use the dry-sand area of the Nation's beaches up to the vegeta- tion line or 200 feet inland where there is no vegetation line. Thus, there.would appear to be adequate legal precedent for the introducticn of State legislation reasserting and confirming the right of public access to the dry-sand areas that Californians have historically enjoyed and that are guaranteed in other coastal States. -6- Reasons for Loss of Public Acco'ss Despite a legal foundation seemingly guaranteeing the right of public access to the entire California coastline, large segments of the coast have become inaccessible for reasons described in the California Coastline Preservat'i'6n and Recrea:tion Plan: Structures are beingdeveloped at the ocean's edge at@the expense of both visual and physi- cal access. Views of the ocean along whole seg- ments of the coast are.now obliterated by resi- dences.-industrial developments, parking lots, campgrounds, commercial establishments, and billboards. Hundreds of miles of the publicly- owned tidelands. 'have been walled off from people by freeways, private clubs, residential and @industrial developments, and military ownership. All of these uses severly restrict the shoreline visitor's access to, and use.of,..the st I ate-owned sovereign lands. (CCP&PR, p.13). Table #S catalogs the division of ownership of the California. coatline and offshore islands. Of the 1"072 miles of mainland coastline, 164 miles are Federally owned, of which 75 miles are, not available for general public use because they are, for the most part, in mi.litary reservations. Two hundred six miles.are State- owned, 34 miles are county-owned, and 29.miles are owned by. local municipalities. The remaining 64.0 miles, 60 percent of the total coastline, are in private ownership. Included in these vast private holdings are over two-thirds of the lands adjacent to the State's sandy beaches. Thus., most of that coastal shoreline type most.desirable for recreational use is privately owned. Public access across these lands to the public tidelands is often denied by one or both of the two following means. First, the upland owners often claim superior legal rights to the dry sand areas which, they assert, allow them to prohibit the public from using this area., even though Californians have historically used much of the dry sand areas as a public commons. Second, public access to the coast is often prevented by the ,erection of physical barriers. Fences or other construction fre- quently block off portions of the shoreline areas for private use. Continuous lines of construction along the roadway may also prevent access to the ocean and coastal lands. -7- C) tn 11 1-3 Pj e) C/) 1-1 'E' 0rT00 0 C:0 m mm 0 pi 0r- r-. rr t. :j cf) c- c- rIr =1 C: C) C-I CL rr P-. :j C:0C- -I" ;:s rrnC.) Ci :3 rr CN0 ri P-- :1 rTr0 !@j0 rr0PI PI P.- 0rT 0P-1"* )-- 0 rT (D ri 1% rr i-,- ri ri rr @, - 1-1. ci r-i rr ". @< @a 010 ro 10 ra 0 0 M m 0 rr rr 03 C? cr C-3 f-. r) 0 0 ri0 0 00C: C: (n F-40 C) U) 0 :3 0' Ci pd 9 C-00PJ 40% 0 LI) P-0 a% Li N) -i Wr,) W 0-j 03 rr r-) C-0 kO -4 -J T-1 C3 .41 C) 03 a% C) w N)0 %D co .1.1 0, vi co a) r-r 47' r-rM1-4 CD-C. %D *NJ N,3 @4 @4 @O t;l =1 I-- 0al ra 0- 0 cn ra rr Cj kn @-4 C3 C) 0-40:1 1.- oo P-- -4 ko J.&A P, LnwLj r? @O @O L3 :@4 @j @A ZI ;@ I-A "D 0 V) ci C-- 03 C@-j- ("I 0t-W rr r) 0-1 C-W0 k.A C13 P, @.n r4 ).-- > > (7% 4t- NJ -1 c\ C) co Ln WW rt rr :3 r, ::r 'D 0in cr oC-) C-) n rr a0 0 c @ij" a% W I." C) (n 0 P-4 Ln Ln k-n US k.A LA oo C) C) td 03 kA 4-n -4 I-A rr f-r LI ucl WLn %.o co -,j lu @4 t-n I'j (ON o0 03 0 @I 'Ll) :,4 '"00 0' P0 n t-I C3 c 0,4 rT0tl CA 0 0 () :J :J @-4 1 N3 a% 1- r@j @-A 1 4- LA 4- :3 C: H. ?10^jQ t_n "a C30 tIj C)0 1 I_n P, c1% C% CD 000 1 ON CIN0%.D0 rT :j rj@o . . . . . . z - . . . . . . C/I :3 . "0 0 @100C a %-0 03 0(D 1-" ri ca U1--0(a 14 1-." 0 :3 PA. 03 4P- r-j ON U3 c: 0 C3 00 4- '1 a GQ cy, '0 '1 P-0 c t- C %.0 00 %.0 @O ;..I @j c 0I-A 1.4 v 0 Cf) t cm @-A U) -4 LJ "N) W C% w 0% 0 m co C:aul . . . . . . . . . . . . m -4 C) a% C) -4"C) ;::r0 Oq mci :1 0 ri :j En CL P--4 ZY w W t -4 r-. 0 (n 03 0 Ln low ko o F-73@0 a 00 00. 0 -4 W 0W @) 0 0 ;,.., @, L-@@ @3 6 L@ ;3 C?0 0 Lit )-4 W kA 0 0 -j C)00 -c- C) Un 4.- 000 0 0) z Z, C) CL a0 0C) .0 (n F@ w PQ Li r.- 0. 0 4.- a 4- Ul LO ?.-A @j %@O -4 "03 %D 110 00 -.1 Ul %.0 C% ON ko co G\ C:) Thus., the public may be able to reach the publicly-held tidelands adjacent to privately owned land only by long treks along the shoreline. Where natural barriers exist, the public tidelands often become, in effect, private property. Private control of the public tidelands seems particularly unjust when it is recognized that the entire public, through their taxes, pay for the erosion controLstructures, fisheries management programs, and other coastal protection programs that benefit these private coastal land6w'ners. As explained in the previous section, public-access across some of this private property can be regained through lawsuits brought under Gion and Dietz decisions, but e.ach decision would apply only to a specific parcel along the coastline. Public access can also be assured through the subdivision and development control process. Nevertheless, much of 'the already developed area along the coast and portions in private ownership, but not pro- posed for new development,.may remain,virtually closed off to the public. This situation can be partially remedied in those areas which are proposed for development by the requirement of public access to the shoreline as a condition in the qpproval of-permits issued by the Coastal Corunission and other regulatory agencies. This access can by guaranteed by requiring 'the permit applicant to convey fee title or an easement in an access way to a public agency which would then take on the Yes Iponsibility formaintenance and liability of the area. Given these powers, requiring access is a relatively simple matter when the developer and the regulatory agency agree on the sizo and design of the access area and when a public agency is willing to accept the dedication. However, the' experience of the Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commissions (BCDC) has shown that complications arise when a public agency cannot be found to accept the dedication (neither the Coastal Commission nor BCDC is empowered to own or receive property), or when the permit applicant is reluctant to provide access through his property. The attitude of some landowners is typified by the testimony of Warren Haight before the California Assembly Subcommittee on Conservation and Beaches. Speaking of a large second home sub- division developed1by his company, he stated: -9- We have always resisted unrestricted public p access through corridors, and felt this approach, would make the Sea Ranch program impossible. Weneed the continui.ty of our common areas., we do feel that unrestricted and unpatrolled public access through corri- dors would cause the despoilment of.its natural characteristics, the natural plants that are already'in the ground. We've all seen samples of this. Even if they were, pedestrian wal ,kways only, they would require restroom facilities.. Security is a problem. These are not only expensive, but they de- stroy beauty. The privacy invasion, we are certain., would scare off buyers. That is one of.the main -reasons that they,have bought lots at. the Sea Ranch, and whether fortunately or unfortunately the buyers are,the peopl-e, that make this program possible. The-Sea Ranch is dedicated to conservation, and we feel that unrestricted public access is con- trary to conservation. Thus-, propertIy owners and to a surprisingdegree, the public agencies that are asked to accept the dedication of public access areas resist the requirement that public access to the coastline be guaranteed across private lands forfour basic reasons: (1) they do not want to assume the liability in the event someone should be injured on the property' (2) they do not want to assum 'e the cost of maintaining the access areas; (3) they believe the security and privacy of the nearby residents will be compromised if public access were permitted through the development; and (4) they contend some areas along the coast are.too fragile to be ex-- posed to general public access. Each of these issues is dealt .with in the following section. 1. Liability Property owners in California may,be held liable for injuries thatoccur on their land (that is, a court may require the owner to pay the injured'person for the expenses caused by the injury). Newspapers frequently carry reports of large monetary awards for such injuries. It is therefore.easy to understand the concern of property owners, whether private or public, over potential injury on their land. _10- A lando wner's liabili@y would depend on whether his property was designed or maintained in such a way that it was the' cause of the injury to the person. Prior to 1968 an owner owed a legal duty to keep his land safe for persons entering upon the property for business purposes of the owner or occupier. A substantially lesser duty was owed to social guests, trespassers, and thos.e on .the land for purposes of their own. In this latter group would be those permitted to cross-the. property for access-to the shore-. line. In 1968J.,in the landmark case of Rowland v. Christian, the California Supreme Court decided that the duty oT-an-owner or occupier was not necessarily reduced because of the status of the person injured and that a high standard of care was owed to all types of users of the property. One effect of this,decision was a serious concern that landowners who allowed their properties. to be used by the public for recreation and access purposes would now be liable for injuries on their land. In response to this legi- timate concern, in 1970 the California Legislature enacted laws to limit the liability of landowners. One of these Government Code Section 831.4, provides immunity for a public entity, public employee and, most importantly, the grantor of an easement to a public Ientity for any injury caused by the condition of a trail -US-ed-_ any purpose or an unpaved road (other than a street or highway) used for access to fishing, hiking, camping, riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas. Thus where a developer (or any property owner) has dedicated an easement and it has been accepted by a public entity, neither the public body nor the grantor of the access can be held liable for the in- jury due to the natural condition of the acces-s way whore uniinproved, or if improved, for the design and construction if done with proper approval. If the public entity improperly maintains the access way that has been improved or allows through its negligence an un- natural condition to develop on an access way other than a trail or unpaved road, liability might arise. Also in 1970, the Legislature limited the liability of all landowncrs iii the State when their lands are used for fishin@, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, riding or sightseeing. Civil Code Section 846 provides that an owner of any estate in land owes no duty of care to keep his premises safe for use by others for those purposes stated above. This Section does not limit liability for a willful or malicious failu 're to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, or for an injury to a person paying a fee for the us,e of the land., or for persons expressly invited rather than merely per- mitted to use the land. While this statute offers less complete protection against liability, it clearly protects a large segment of the access ways likely to be dedicated. Prior to 1970, public entities were made immune from liability for injuries caused by a: natural condition of any unimproved public property, including but not limited to any' natural condition of any lake, stream, river or beach"(California Government Code Section 831.2). In addition, any public entity was immune from liability for the design of a construction or improvement to public property where the design or plan was approved in advance by the legislative body, of the public entity or an employee urith the discretionary power to approve such plans (Government Code Section 830.6). Thus, the concerns of.landowners and public.bodies over liabili,ty appear to be considerably greater than they need be. In addition to the statutes which either limit or immunize those providing and receiving access, liability insurance is avail- able to protect those areas still open to risk. The cost of such insurance varies, Public agencies and large corporate landowners invariably.h.ave comprehensive insurance policies, and the addi- tional risk created by adding or opening an acc Iess way may be in- significant. For example, East Bay Regional Park District, which has received dedications from BCDC permit applicants, must pay only an additional $2S per year for each new access way. In conclusion, the concerns expressed by public entities over liability for injury are not justifiable reasons for refusing a dedication of access. The o .nly area of rish. not protected by immunity statutes discussed above appears to be injuries arising. out. of negligent maintenance. In all likelihood this area will be co.vered by the agency's insurance policy., Liability-limiting statutes pr otect the private landholder permitting access across his land. However, the protection is not as complete as for the public entity. Insurance costs for the grantor's residual liability should be borne by the public entity accepting the access rather than by the private individual. The Commission should therefore continue its policy of attempting to find a public entity to accept the dedication. 2. Maintenance Concerns over maintenance of shoreline access ways often plays a pivotal role in the,process of preserving access. The adjacent landowners may fear that some members of the public will leave the mark of their presence--litter and damage to the access way itself--ardthat they will bear some or all of the upkeed burden. The public entity (.city, park district or State agency), though repared to maintain and repair the public property it already owns and controls., may not wish to add a particular parcel to its hold- ings due to'cost or-inconvenience'of maintaining it, When a public entity has agreed to accept a conveyance of an easement or complete -12- owner.ship of an access way, the landowner's concerns, are largely met if the conveyance is properly drawn. In deciding whether to accept a public acces.s dedication, local agencies often consider the cost.of maintenance. The cost of maintaining a small parcel not adjacent to any of the other holdings of a public agency may be.greater than otherwise because maintenance crews.may be re *quired to travel longer distances to a relatively isolated site, To resolve this difficulty, the Powers, Funding, and Govern- ment Organizat:kn Element will propose new legislation to create a State agency to serve, as a recipient f6r public access, dedica- tions. The agency should be charged with, accepting any dedication offer approved by the Coastal Commiss,ion or successor agency, with providing maintenaiice as necessary, and bringing the liability for injuries, if any, on the access way under the umbrella of the pub- lic entity immunity sections discussed above, as well as under State liability insurance cover Iage. An entirely new d,e.Partment of State government doe's not appear to be needed. Rather, one of the agencies already owning and maintaining land for the State (such as the Department of General Services, Parks and Recreation, or the State Lands Division) could be used. The access ways could be held. indefinitely or until another State or local agency is pre- pared to integrate the access way into its park ortrail system. _@3. Security and PriYLCY Landowners sometimes cite their fear of a loss of security (and increase in vandalism, theft, and personal attacks) and re- duced privacy as reas 'ons for precluding.the general public from new devolopments. These concerns raise basicy deeply felt questions that pervade our society and are not exclusive to the coastal zone. As such, the problems must be dealt with at their source and cannot be resolved by blocking offmiles of the shoreline with exclusive residential developments. If anything, such a practice would aggravate the frustration that may cause so-me of the problems that are of concern. .Through sensitive design it may often be possible to channel public access to the coastline through ravines and gullies so that .there is a physical and -visual separation between the public and private areas. Similarly, by clustering the required public access into a single open space of substantial size, the remainder of a large development could be closed off to the general public while the public would enjoy the benefit of a major coastal recreational area. -13- 4. Damage to Fragile Areas Occasionally, per mit applicants have suggested that general public access should not be permitted through their properties because the coastalareas they propose to develop are so fragile that unrestricted use by the public would destroy the area's deli- cate environment. As discussed in.the chapters on Carrying Capacity, and Education and Research, there are many places along the coast- line that are., in fact, susceptible to irreversible enVironmental damage.if subjected to unrestricted public access. H6wev6r, in most cases these resources would be subjected to an even greater potential danger by the-proposed development than by general public access. In those few cases where a project could be developed nearby a fragile coastal resource it is par- ticularly important that at least selected members of the public (such as scientists and educators) be provided withaccess to the coastline. The control and restrictions of access should be regu- lated by a public agency empowered with the protection of the re- source rather than by the private landowner, for there-ds no assur- ance that limiting the use of a fragile coastal area to the residents of a private development would protect the area from over-use. Means of Increasing Public Access The California Public-Res&urces Code states that: it is essential to the health and well-being of all citizens of this State that public access to public natural resources be,in- creased. It is the intent of the Legislature to increase public access to public natural resources. (Section 10002). In addition to the requirement of access as a condition of subdivision or development approval, the State can use the power of eminent domain which is particularly valuable in areas where access has already been preempted by development or in areas which will probably not be subdivided or developed for some time. The Code of Civil Procedure defines eminent domain as "the right of the people or government to take private property for public use" (Section 1237). The Code further requires that landowners whose property is taken for public purposes must be justly compensated. The Californ@a Constitution provides that "the right of eminent domain is hereby U-cclared to exist in.the State to all frontages on the navigable waters of this State" (Article XV, Section 1). The variety of public uses for which the State may exe .rcise this power of eminent domain include: -14- Public mooring for watercraft; public.parks, including parks and othErplaces covered by water,... paths, roads for the use of bicycles, tricycles, motorcycles:..public transporatation ... (Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1238). Thus, the State may provide almost any type of access way to or alongI the coastline by use of eminent domain. But in order to use eniient domain,- a State-agency must be specifically empowered to do so with enabling legislation. Unfortunately, the State Department,of Parks and Recreation which might be expected,to acquire trails and other rights-of-way to and along the coastline is not empowered to.use eminent domain to@do so. In instances where access is to be-obtained by eminent domain, this, right should be exercised as soon as possible, before rising land prices fu ,rther limit the ability of the State to finance coastal access. This point is clearly illustrated by the case of the Point Reyes National Seashore where a delay in making eminent domain purchases allowed the land to increase so much in. specula- .tive cost that Congress had to approve supplemental funding to com- plete the purchase. Other means for increasing public access could be provided if enabling legislation were passed to expand the State's powers under some of the existing laws. For exampl.o*, California could follow the lead of Oregon and 'declare all its dry sand beaches to be a commor)s. . Bocause of the differences between the, Oregon and Calif- ornia Coiistitutkns,1,special care would have to be taken in drafting tho statute to accomplish this goal. However, the're is subsunitial. ,cvj.dcnce dating from the Spanish period to the present that both the public and many coastal landowners have-treated at least the dry sand area of'the coastline as public commons open to,usc. by all.. Moreover, the State should aggresively bring suit on behalf of the public to enforce the public's rights under the implied dedica- tion decisions. The Coastal Commission and other regulatory agencies could re- quire the payment of a fee in lieu of the dedication of access in theapproval of developments where it is determined that access is desirable (e.g., where the development is along a bluff that does not permit safe beach use or where adequate access exists nearby). The amount of the fee could be set by determining the cost of obtaining access at fair market value across the applicant's property. There is ample precedent for such a requirement in the Quimby Act (Business and Professions Code, Section 11S46), which allows local, jurisdictions to collect a recreation fee in lieu of land dedications in new subdivisions. The fees so raised could be used for acquiring access to and long the coast in previously developed areas where access is insufficient or in rural areas for the acquisition of a coastal right-of-way. Finally, the Dunlap Act should beamended in the following ways.: (1) local determinations that "reasonable public access is otherwise avail- able within a reasonable distance from the subdivision" should be made subject to review by an appropriate State agency; (2) the provisions, of the Dunlap Act should be extended to include not just subdivisions, but all divisions of land; (3) the three-year statute of. limitations on government acceptance of access dedica- tions should be extended beyond the present three years. Other, more ambitious methods of guaranteeing maximum access to the coast are examined in the Powers, Funding and Government Organization Plan Element. -16- ARCHAEOLOGY General Finding and Suggested Policies and Guidelines GENERAL FINDING (Courtesy of North Central Coast Regional Commission) Many of the attractions of the coast that lure-people to the shoreline today were attractive to people even in pre-historic times. The coast has been a place of human settlement for thousands of years. Archaeo- logical sites are among the most fragile scientific resources on the coast. When lost? they are utterly non-renewable* Sites are valuable because: they are the only record left of thousands of years of human experience. they contain evidence of social and cultural changes thatmay be studied. to improve our understanding of human behavior. they record environmental and geologic changes over great periocbof time. they provide valuable clues to the environmental (physical) carrying capacity of coastal recreation areas. they contain cemetaries and other places of religious significance to native Americans. Sites are protected to some extent by existing laws but even with.these laws, sites are lost due to lack of knowledge of the location of all sites and carelessness in the construction and approval of new coastal development. In order to properly protect sites they must,first be identified and recorded. Steps are then necessary to protect the sites from disruption. Sites that cannot be protected should be excavated by a qualified archaeologist to salvage as much information as possible. Since archaeological knowledge is of value to all Californians@ financial resources are needed to plan and support such research. Suggested Policies and Guidelines for the Protection of the Archaeological Resources of the Coastal Zone le The State shall endeavor to protect and preserve the diminishing archaeo- logical resource of the Coastal Zone. 2. In order to plan wisely and adequately for the preservation of archaeo- logical sites, the State Historic Preservation Officer should be directed, in conjunction with the Society for California Archaeology, to develop a method, timetable, and funding for the systematic archaeological surface reconnaissance of the entire coastal zone. The "Survey Plan" shall designate highest priority areas for surveying according to the following criteria: a) those areas of substantial recorded sites requiring a systematic overview (Monterey Peninsula). b) those areas of identified'anthropologicalg cultural, geologic, or ecologic "sensitivity", or those most likely to yield significant new information (Escalen cultural areat many creek areas)* c) those unsurveyed areas located within "urban limit lines", tfurban service areas", or zoned and designated for near-future development (Live Oak, Carmel Valley, Half Moon Bay). 3. In order to facilitate the environmental review process,, archaeological liaison shall be maintained between local and state environmental planning staffs and professional archaeologists in the region, At least one'set of site records and maps shall be made available to professional planning staff at all times., Site maps may be kept in county planning offices, but are presumed to be for staff use only, and will be updated annually by the District Representative of the Society for California Archaeology* All archaeological impact reports, etc., received by the public agency shall also be filed with the S.C.A. 4& Representative and unique doastal Indian sites shall be preserved in the public domain, and should be integrated with recreational and other cultural facilities where feasible. 5. In order to preserve the educational value of the sites, encourage their wise use, and prevent vandalismg public access to coastal archaeological sites should be limited, and concentrated in areas where interpretive facili- ties and supervision are available* 6. Archaelogical surface reconnaissance and impact assessment shall be required for all developments Proposed on or adjacent to known archaeological sites. NOrmally part of the environmental impact report, these surveys shall be con- ducted by qualified archaeologists. 7. Large (5-acre +) parcels proposed for development shall, regardless of previous survey activityg be systematically surveyed by a professional archaeo- logist as @art of the EIR. 89 Where a development would adversely affect a known archaeological site, the adverse impacts must be mitigated in one of the following ways (in order of preference): a) modification, redesign or relocation of the project to avoid destruction of the archaeological resource. b) inclusionof the archaeological site in the project design to avoid disturbance of the site; might include use of the site as a landscaped area (surface vegetation only), or coverage of the site with sufficient soil to prevent,disturbance without co mpaicting the midden. C) excavation of the site for adequate recovery of archaeological information. Such excavation may be accomplished only after other options 6re foregone and shall be carried out by a professional archa6ologist and with the Prior knowledge of the District Represent- ative of the S.C.A. Adequacy of the propo sed mitigation measures'will be determined by the public agency responsible for project approval@ in cooperation.with professional archaeologists*;@ 9. Potential (indirect) impacts on archaeological.sites must also be mitigated, by protecting the sites against vandalism and erosion. For in- stance, fences or.bamouflaging vegetation may be used, or in the case of erosion, drainage improvements or retaining structures placed so as to pre- vent or diminish the adverse impact. 10. All developments approved in the coastal zone will carry a condition that should artifacts or other archaeological evidence be discovered during con- struction, work will cease and a written report of the findings will be made to the public agency responsible for project approval, the State Department of Parks and Recreation (on State land), an'd the District Representative of 2 the Society for California Archaeology. These authorities will undertake an evaluation of the findings and suggest mitigation to the builder @nd the local or state agency within fifteen days. Construction may recomence after mitigation is completed, or where it would be unaffected by mitigation measures, immediatelye 3 0 0 f t a -4 .0 go m 3r e a zi 4 00 c 0 > gm cl 0 CD 31. C, m m C> =2 C) c:p c+ CD > > g =c M M 0 :3 0 < @a 0 z c+ (D r 0 (D STATEPARK 0) SYSTEM LANDS C+ NATIONAL PARK 0 0 Q 0 0 SYSTEM LANDS OTHER PU13LIC cy LANDS 'M TOTAL OFFSHORE AREA c- 0 1 NEWAREASOR ADJACENT LANDS < CD INHOLDINGS > m ol r m c* T TOTAL CD > 20 TOTAL: LAND ACRES loj a TOTAL: PROJECT AREA (LAND ACRES +OFFSHORE) PUBLIC LANDS PRIVATE LANOS ADDITIONS PROPOSED Z TOTAL: PROJECT b L, MILES NATURAL PRESERVE (LAND ACRES) OTHER FEATURES WARRANTING PROTECTION SUITABLE Ti C v, FOR DEVELOPMENT 91 V. Projects Recommended for Acquisition from the 1974 Park Bond Program COASTAL PROVINCE New Projects and Additions to Existing State Park Units ($27,900,000) 1. Little Sur River - Monterey County This is a new project area located in southern Monterey County, approxi- mately seven miles north of Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park. The project covers 780+ acres with 4,500+ lineal feet of ocean frontage, and hasan ocean beach, fresh water lagoon, coastal grassy meadows which blend into.-a pine and red- wood forested area in the upper or inland reaches of the project. Potential uses include picnicking., camping, hiking and beach usage. 20 Ano Nuevo State Reserve - San Mateo County This proposed addition of 550+ acres and 9,000 lineal feet of ocean frontage extends northward, or upcoast of the existing state reserve. the area could .be 'characterized as a large gently sloping uplifted sea terrace covered by stabilized and shifting dunes. Much of the coastline consists of sandy beaches with adequate uplands for multiple uses. 3* Purisima Ranch San Mateo County This is a new project area just south of the community of Half Moon Bay, consisting of 1,770+ acres with 16,000+ lineal feet of ocean frontage. The project has beaches backed by.bluffs, and+flat'uplands. Inland of the Coast Highway, which passes through the project, are rolling coastal hills, bisected by Purisima Creek. The project will support camping, day use, hiking, and fishing. 4- Garrapata Beach - Monterey County This is a new project area approximately five miles south,of Point Lobos State Reserve. It consists of 60+ acres, with 4,000+ lineal feet of ocean frontage. This is one of the most popular beaches in the Big Sur Area and would support picnicking, fishing., and other beach uses. 5. San Gregorio/Pomponio State Beaches - San Mateo County This proposed addition consists of 600+ acres with 2,500+ lineal feet of ocean frontage and will connect the two state beaches. The ocean frontagiz, consists of sandy beach backed by a bluff. The lands inland of the Coast Highway are primarily grass and chaparral covered coastal uplands, as well as riparian areas along Pomponio and San Gregorio Creeks. Uses may include camping, picnicking, beach use and trails primarily along,the ocean and adjacent to the two streams. .60 Marina Beach - Monterey County This is a new project area located just north of the City of Monterey near the community of Marina. It consists of 180+ acres with 6,000+ lineal feet of ocean frontage. The project has a-fine sandy beach -which would support sun bathing, fishing and other beach uses. The upland area behind the beach could support picnicking and limited camping. Pescadero State Beach - San Mateo County This acquisition of 340+ acres will complete acquisition of the Pescadero Marsh of which a little over 50% is presently in State' ownership. The proposal includes upland area to serve as buffer and protection and includes the confluence of Pescadero and Butano Creek Just prior to their combined mouth in the Pacific,Oce'an. The site has potential.for develop- ment as an excellent bird education centei. Development would consist of trails for observation of the over 160 species of shore birds, waterfowl and water-associated birds which utilize the marsh. 80 Manresa State Beach - Santa Cruz County This proposed addition consists of 70+ acres of marine terrace overlooking the existing Manresa State Beach. It will provide a mid-point access to the state beach as well as developable upland for camping, picnicking and day use facilities relating to the beach use. 9. Zmudowski/Jetty State Beaches Monterey County This proposed addition of 100+ acres with 2,700+ lineal feet of ocean frontage lies between the two existing state beach units. It contains sand dunes and marsh areas, and has preservation values as well as some camping, day use and fishing potential. 10* New Brighton State Beach - Santa Cruz County This proposed addition to this heavily used state beach would consist of 95+ acres and 1,540+ lineal feet of ocean frontage. The project has an excellent sandy swimming and sunbathing beach backed by a relatively steep bluff and upland which is heavily wooded. Development would consist of camping in the upper forested areas and day use facilities relating to the excellent sandy beach. Pomponio State Beach - San Mateo County This inholding located adjacent to Horseshoe Gulch and consisting of 14.7+ acres is surrounded on three sides by the existing state beach and on the fourth side by Highway 1. The property is presently for sale and its acquisition will eliminate an administrative problem as well as provide area for public access and day use facilities relating to beach use. 12o Sunset State Beach - Santa Cruz County This proposed addition of 13+ acres is a complete inholding within the existing Sunset State Beach. The property consists primarily of open fields. Acquisition of this parcel will remove an administration problem as well as provide additional upland for development of day-use oriented facilities. 13o Thornton State Beach - San Mateo County This proposed addition would add 36+ acres with 1,000+ lineal feet of ocean frontage north or upcoast of _@he.existing Thornton State Beach. The parcel contains excellent sandy beach backed.by bluffs and upland areas. Proposed developments could include a more aesthetic park entrance, additional beach access trails and added beach-related day use facilities. 14. Julia P. Burns State Park Monterey County There are three inholding parcels within this park which are proposed for acquisition. The first parcel is an L-shaped 120+ acre area near the northern boundary of the state park. The second parcel consists of 50+ acres with 2,500+ lineal feet of ocean frontage and is a complete inhcld- ing along Highway l.. The third parcel is a complete inholding and con- sists of 40+ acres in McWay Canyon. Acquisition of these parcels will eliminate private arcess and administrative vroblems. 15. Big Basin Redwoods State Park San Mateo/Santa' Cruz County There are presently 4,660+ acres Iof privately owned land within'the approved boundaries of Big Basin Redwoods State Park. These parcels are' located in the Wadd@ll Creek, Finney Creek, Ano-'Nuevo.Creek, and Last Chance Creek drainages, as well as the Pine Mountain and Little Basin areas. A specific amount will be set Aside for acquisition of those areas which are most critical or'are threatened by'immin6nt de- velopment. 16*. Monterey State Historic Park Monterey County There are two additions at this unit. The first includes the Old Whaling Station and the Old Brick House located on Decatur Street; and the second consisting of a small area known as the Hidden Village south of the Casa del Oro on Olivier Street. The Whaling Station is one of the most attractive adobes in Monterey and the Brick House is the first of its kind in California. Located near the Custom House Plaza, they will provide an architectural buffer and historical interpretive values required to supplement the Department's interpretive program. The Hidden Village is required as a buffer betweenthe historical complex which makes up the lower Alvarado Street, Olivier Street and Pacific Street area, and the planned hotel-conference center.building soon to belconstructed to the south. The amount of property involved totals 2.7+ acres. 17, Santa Cruz Mountain Trail Various trail acquisitions, easements,, etc... to connect major and minor State Park units in the Santa Cruz Mountains (Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Santa Clare Counties) and to expand an existing 45-mile trail system now connect ing Castle Rock State Park with Big Basin Redwoods State Park. It is proposed to use 1974 Park Bond Act funds to extend this existin Ig trail system. VI. Other Current State Park Projects and Proposals San Mateo CoMtZ San Pedro Beachq Pacifica Santa Crut County Waddell Creek (also see Big Basin entry on 1974 State Park Bond Act table) Wilder Ranch MontereX County Carmel Bay Carmel River State Beach/Pt. Lobos State Reserve additions (Odello west, Hudson tracts) TABLE VII I. National Historic and Natural Landmarks San Francisco Bay Discovery Site Monterey Old Town Historic District U. S. Custom House, Monterey Royal Presidio Chapel, Monterey Larkin House, Monterey Carmel Mission Pt. Lobos II. Other coastal zone candidate areas nominated, or recommended. for further study by the National Park Service theme studies (edited list): James Johnston House, Half Moon Bay Pigeon Pt. Franklin Pt. Ano Nuevo Pt. (and Island) Sand.Hill Bluff Archaeologic Areaq Santa Cruz north coast Monterey Bay dune complex Elkhorn Slough Monterey Submarine Canyon Stevenson.House, Monterey El Castillo, Presidio of Monterey Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove Huckleberry Hill botanic area, Del Monte Forest Carmel Bay (including the Pinnacles.9 Monastery Beachv. and the Carmel Submarine Canyon) Soberanes Pt.-Granite Creek scenic area, Monterey County Big Sur canyon Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park (including Partington Canyon) Cone Peak natural area III0 Additional possibilities noted by staff (various sources): Pescadero Marshq San Mateo County Davenport whaling area, Santa Cruz County Old Royal Presidio site (entire area), Monterey Cooper-Molera Adobe, Monterey Pacific House, Monterey Colton Hall, Monterey Whaling Station, Monterey Hovden Cannery, Monterey Butterfly Trees, Pacific Grove Pt. Pinos-Asi-lomar dunes botanic area Pte Cypress botanic area (including Crocker Grove and Midway Pt, "Lone Cypress") .Costanoan bedrock.mortars archaeologic site, Macomber Tractv Del Monte Forest TABLE VII(cont'd,) Tor House, Carmel Ichxenta Village archaeologic site, near Pt. Lobos Notley's Landingg Big Sur coast Pt. Sur Light.Station Note: National Landmarks are natural and historic features which are identified as being worthy.of national recognition.but are not federally-owned units of the National Park Systeme AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 18,1974 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 22,1974 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 9,1974 CALIFORNIA LEGISI.ATURE-1973-74 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 3611 Introduced by Assemblymen Burke, Badham, Cullen, Arnett,. Beverly, Bond, Craven, Deddeh, Kapiloff, Keene, MacDonald, MacGillivray, Murphy, Nimmo, Papan, Priolo, Wilson, and Wood April 4, 1974 REFERRED TO COINIMMEE ON REVENUE AND TAXATION An act to amend Section 6217 of, and to add Section 5162.5 to, the Public 1?eSOurCeS Code, relating to the disposition of revenues from leases of state lands, and in this connection to create a public beach fund, andmaking an appropriation therefor. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB ^0611, as arriended, Burke (Rev. & Tax.). - Local public beaches. Creates the Public Beach Fund, administered1by the Direc- tor of Finance. Requires the transfer of $3,000,000 each fiscal year of certain revenues, moneys, and remittances received by the State Lands Commission to the fund, appropriates such moneys to the Director of Finance without regard to fiscal year, and requires annual apportionment of such moneys to cities and counties administering and providing public beach- related services, and meetinR specified criteria. Requires the director to promulgate specified rules and regulations. Au- thorizes the director to challenge and, after public hearing, revise computations and cost figures submitted by cities and counties. Declares legislative intent. Requires the transfer of $50,000,000 for the-1974-75 fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, of such revenues, moneys, and remittances received by the commission to the Capital Outlay Fund for Public Higher Education, rather than transferring to such fund the balance of such revenues, moneys, and remittances received in excess of specified distri- butions. Provides that the balance shall be transferred to the General Fund. Vote: %; Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes. State- mandated local program: no. :r V) LIO) U) @f) zo N P r)> 10 C-4 L-1 co s :z@ :3: -4 cn u) cn (n Z p Ln rt rt r+ 000 p0 @tc0 W. rt CD r@ X. (DWW PP) rt w .< r+0 0 w z:z CD 1-- ;7' CL orq (D :E: f@.. ww I-- C+= 0) ::10 L,) 0rt r+ r,+ rt C+ rt P. H. :3 pi 0 ;j (A r) cl H. 0-1 r+ (,D CD CD f+ CD (D 00 (D @-hW CD cn (D '--w= 0 m =:4 Ct HH i5 H H) t- rt W W(A wC CD t- CU CD A) (D CD "0 C) Ln C-t CD 0 w CD (D P-h f+ N CD (n 0 cr 1- 0C+ 0 > 0 :3- (D ca 00 n 0 0 0En (n l< ($) to I.- r+ En (AUV4 to C) (AW CD CO P-h <D (D 0w 0 Lf) H CD 06 ;v (D OQ P-h 0 V) CD cn w 03 00 H CD 4X LA Q V) 4 H. En W CA U) rt to *v ).a.W 0 CA EA to t1ol C% NJ w w 14 j- oo1 4a-A 0 ("4 1.-wI (7@ C7% 14 OD (n (A w 0% ID to ul -4 t%) Lq Ln t1a (A 00 CA 0t1i 1-4 QW 1 14 @4 60 @o6 to N3 tlj N) -i Ln K) @o fli 0\ t) 14 L-401 001 Ln tji t,) tD -j i 1 00 Ln C\ C\ cyll w 4@. Ln Ln 4@1 00 -4 @13 to to Ln CN to 0 0\ (Jq 14 c7s ID t1i CP\I @-j1 0.- a@ a% W qDI wa\ (D I I C@ Lq C\ ID 14 0\ Co 4-1. -4 00 0 00 C\ -4 Ln00\ CA 4@-- 14 N) I 14 @o w (.n W to Ln Ln I.- ON t'4) 00 t-J 00 0 0 4@- K)1 00 Ln0 1 1 j-j @o Ln11 41- 00 a, tD -1 00 (7% 4b- tQ .46 A. I 4 C-) < C) 00 P. -4 @n Zn 0 @> t- En t1i t%) 0 0 v C) \.A ;o iLn IQ -4 W .-4 t-iN u t") Ln p. ;... a@ toW1 (7%t to 00 Ln I tj P. I I 0-@ 14 w ON 1 00 Lq oo W 14 C\ IQ to 0 14 Ch .4. 000 -4 W W 1 -.0 > C\ tD to t1a N) v u (D FA C-) Ln @-4 (7% C\ trl C\ 00l 0 1 1 Ln I I-J 14 Ln I I 0\1 W 0 1 0 tD ul U4N ILn 46 tA0.4. Ln -4 14 :13 ZA co En Nj ON Ln tl) LA 0% C\ L4 tQ K) w I LA C\ ?o @A .!Q C) to tQ -11 --4 4@- Oo -4 K) @-4 0\ Ln Ul Oo (7\ toI 4@-. 1 1 4@-- 0\ Ln I Ln oo 0 C) 00 to (AI t,) as oo ul to ul ON ul .9b. 0 C\ @o 00 to N) 0\ 00 00 0% Ul Oo (.n to -13 @4 @j ?o @n I." c Cl) Cl) Cl) C+ CA C3 r- C02 ce C3 CD to z '"d 0 > CL C7 c co ic -M F-J A C.)0 1 R. a B ID v L2 ca a a go cr Go cn 0 cn C+ @,O CD 130 ca 4lb C3 Ick *c* o. 'u-1 o. -.Am rb cc cc cii C" M C" III& cm C3 to 421b M m CA co -4 to cc ca cm co -ob C4 CD C.3 C;6 C* C* > W C" to 19 9 CD C" Tj 003 C-; Z! Ilb Cc -4 CM CC 4r- M 4@- CC "C." 4h@ 14 Ul -4 CY) cc C" = to -4 CD 4= C= C" -4.Co C" to Cn Cn 4@- C" cc W w m 0 CP cy) tb 4 Cq Co 1114 4-- -W 4= -.1 cm cc 40 C= cm 4= cm C2 = m cm C2 Cl C* 4= (a ca C2 cm CD cz C2 C2 CD CD cm C* 41= C+ (D lid Fj .6 CD C" ED ..4 Mb cc Ca M C." C" (D A- C" Cr -4 CC a* W Ob Ca g w co cc C" -.iw w CZ C* cc cr CO co 03 4m cc co a) !113 p !Q cn -4. -c= co -4 = C" C" C" W Cc cco", mcc C"M La pb ca Co cm co C3 c" 10, cc fft, @Q CC 4b. Co Ijb 14 1-. "cc "Cr "-j w cn C,,, - " z T. ,,o C2 C" C" *ft V4 cn cm In 4= 03 ca S 8 B 8 8 8 TABLF, XI PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE RECREATION ACTIVITY BY.CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS 1970, 1975 and 198,5- (Millions of participation days) ACTIVfTy 1970 1975 198S Walking for Pleasure S71.3 6S9.6 882.6 Driving for Pleasure 480.2 554.4 741.9 Picnicking 110.1 127.2 170.3 Nature Walks 50.1 57.8 77.2 Sightseeing 233.3 269.4 360.3 Bicycling 1191.8 221.5 296.2 Horseback.Riding 56.1 64.7 86.5 Swimming 325.6 37S.9 502.9 Camping 48.5 55.9 75.0. Hiking 34.2 39.5 52.8 Fishing 69.9 80.7 107.9 All Other 801.4 925.3 1238.3 Total 2972.5 3431.9 4591.9 Source: California State Dept. of Parks and Recreation LENIN 4ko, I XISTING STATE PARK OR BEACH P"ESERVATION PROJECT41TH A* HICREA110N nESOURCES LANI)fCAPE PRFqf.RVATION MAIIIIX INDI.,X NUMBER SEE 'FABLE 8 I XISTING. STATE PARK OR BEACH W TH CAMPING POTENTIAL V PLANNIC CAMPIfIlS - IM 4 RECREATION PHOJECT WIYH A;j NATURAL VALUES FLOERAL AREAS WIT14 E -1 IIECRE ArJON PorEN,rIAL to Iwo Eyt > V) 000" I I I r COASTAL ZONE' WOMMA-71 M CENTER . , 3 6668 00001 9382 :