Review of California Coastal Plan

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
I lpformation
Center

MAY 18 1976

REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAN

VOLUME II SUPPORTING DOCU MENTS

APRIL 1976

LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

925 L STREET, SUITE 650

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
76-7

GB460
k2
R48
1976
v.2

PRINTING OF THIS REPORT HAS BEEN LIMITED PRIMARILY TO
ANTICIPATED LEGISLATIVE NEEDS. PERKISSION IS GRANTED
TO REPRODUCE IT FOR OTHER PURPOSES AS DESIRED.
F
RINTIN
TIC P
P7
A
N

TABLE OF CONTENTS

j*4,

A. "Assessing the Impact of the California Coastal
Plan on Commercial and Residenti-al Development:
Summary Report" prepared by ICF Associates.

B. "The California Coastal Plan: Economic Indicators
of the Effects of the Appearance and Design Policies
in Open Coastal Areas," prepared by ENVIRON/MENTAL.

"The California Coastal Plan: Alternative Waste
Management Strategies for Undeveloped Coastal
Areas to Implement the Coastal Water Quality
Policies" prepared by ENVIRON/MENTAL.

C. "The Costs of Local Implementation of the Coastal
Plan" prepared by the Office of Planning and Research.

D. Letter from the Real Estate Services Division,
Department of General Services dated February 9-,
1976 on the acquisition of.development rights.

E. Letter from the Office of the Attorney General
dated December 29, 1975-concerning the doctrine
of inverse condemnation.

F. "Analysis by State Agencies of Individual Coastal
Plan Policies" compiled by'the Le.gislati,ve Analyst

(Note: Each of the above Supporting Documents is
paged separately.)

A.I [I. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE :KOAA
COAST AL SERVICE@-' CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
c= 29405-2413
t@"- CHARLESION, SC

f C5C Library
property 0
OD

Supporting Document A

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE ChLIFORNIA COASTAL
PLAN ON COMMERCIAL AND RESID ENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Fina 1 Report Prepared for:

The Staff of the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee

March 1, 1976

Prepared by:

ICF Associates
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Contract: CJLBC #1

TA13LE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
organization of Thi s Report . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DEVELOPMENT AREA ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ANALYSIS OF POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Application of Policies Within Development
Areas. ' * " * * * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Findings and Conclusions Related to
Applicable Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DEVELOPMENTS UNDER COASTAL PLAN POLICIES . . . . . . 12

Types of Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Interim Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

ANALYSIS OF COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Description of Cost Categories . . . . . . . . . . 16
Costs Related to Types of Developments . . . . . . 17
Costs Relative to Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . 29

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Study Limitations . . . . . . . . . . .. I. . . . . 32

Appendix A: ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES . . . 34

Appendix B: LARGE SCALE--REDEVELOPMENT
HYPOTHETICAL CASE . . . . . . . . . . . 57

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

INTRODUCTION

Background

Under Senate Resolution 41, 1975-76 Session, the Legislative Analyst
was directed to review and study the California Coastal Zone Plan to
determine generally the costs, economic effects, and benefits of the Plan.
Subsequently, as a part of the overall effort to comply with Senate
Resolution 41, ICF Associates was commissioned by the Legislative Analyst's
office, under a contract with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, to
conduct an initial study of the impact of Coastal Plan policies on residen-
tial and commercial development in the coastal zone. This report and its
summary, under separate cover, present the results of that study.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study was to perform an initial assessment of the
impact of recommended Coastal Plan policies on residential and commercial
developments. impact is defined as the costs that accrue to a residential
or commercial developer in putting his product on the market and benefits
that accrue to the public as a result of these costs.

This study does not attempt to analyze the Coastal Plan impact on:

* Industrial developments;

* Large scale commercial developments (e.g., major regional
shopping centers);

* Development within areas designated as "special coastal
communities or neighborhoods" (e.g., Mendocino, La Jolla); or

* Development beyond the urban fringe but within the Coastal
Resource Management Area that would require the conversion
of significant amounts of raw land (agricultural or open)
to developed land.

The term "subject development" will be used in the remainder of this study
to describe a commercial, residential, or combined development that meets
the above criteria,

This study does not attempt to analyze the amount of commercial or
residential development that migh@ take place under the recommended
Coastal Plan policies. Thus, we do not attempt to estimate the number
of units of housing or the square footage of commercial space that could

be developed should implementation of the Plan take place.

Instead, this study concentrates on assessing the impact of Coastal Plan A.
policies on potential residential and commercial developments within existing
urbanized areas that are within the area defined as The Coastal Resource
Management Area in the Coastal Plan. In effect, Policy 59, which calls
for the concentration of development within already developed areas; and
Policy 32, which establishes "urban boundaries," are assumed to provide
the overriding constraints for this study. The term "development area"
is used in the remainder of this study to designate areas which fall
within the limits and intent of Policies 59 and 32.

This study assesses costs to the developer of residential and commercial
developments and benefits to the general public that accrue as a result of
these costs, but it is no 't what is commonly called a "cost-benefit analysis."
It differs from a typical cost-benefit analysis in two ways: 1) it does
not attempt to relate who pays to who benefits or determine the equity
of any imbalance, and 2) it does not attempt to relate levels of costs
to progressive levels of benefits. To overcome these differences requires
a considerably greater level of effort than is intended in this initial
assessment.

Methodology

To accomplish the purposes of this project two major tasks were undertaken.

1. Development of a general framework within which to realis- -
tically assess impact.

The framework is based on a series of1progressively
more specific assumptions related to:

e The development area in which subject developments
might take place.

e The Coastal Plan policies that apply to subject develop-
ments within the development area.

o The specific characteristics of the subject developments
against which to assess and realistically illustrate
the impact of Coastal Plan policies.

2. Analysis of specific cos ts that affect subject developments and
benefits that accrue from them.

Within the framework developed above, alternative types of
developments were analyzed to determine cost and benefits of
Coastal Plan policies. Estimates were made of the types of
costs that would be incurred. Where data were readily available,
these estimates were quantified. Lastly, estimates were made

-2-

of the types of benefits that would accrue as a result of
each type of development. Where data were readily available,
these were also quantified.

Findings and conclusions were developed based on the-results of these tasks.

The first task involved a thorough analysis of proposed Coastal Plan
policies. It also involved the testing of assumptions concerning develop-
ment areas and.types of developments and interpretations of policies
against the-judgment of a variety of individuals experienced in the fields
of coastal zone planning, land use planning, housing and commercial develop-
ment, and environmental protection. A brief literature search was conducted
and relevant material was reviewed in order to obtain an appropriate
perspective on the Coastal Plan and to determine the applicability of-related
studies to this study.

The second task involved an examination of existing literature on subjects
.related to: 1) costs of development under coastal zone management and
other forms of development control and 2) savings or benefits that accompany
various forms of development. In addition this task involved a limited
number of interviews of developers, local governmental officials, and
planners who are or would be involved in development decisions under the,
policies of the Coastal Plan.

ion of This Report
Organizat

This report was prepared in two parts. The first part, a summary, is included
as a chapter in the report of the Legislative Analyst to the Legislature
under the requirements of Senate Resolution 41. This report presents the
complete results of the study in six remaining sections as follows:

* Development area assumptions--presents a set of assumptions
about the area in which the kinds of residential and commercial
development with which we are concerned will occur.

a Analysis of policies--presents an analysis of the recommended
Coastal Plan policies relative to subject developments within
development areas.

9 Developments within the coastal zone--presents a description
of the characteristics of the kinds of development which are
likely to occur within the coastal zone under the Coastal Plan.

o Analysis of costs--presents an-analysis of costs relative to
subject developments that will result from the implementation
of the Coastal Plan.

o Analysis of benefits--presents an analysis of the benefits that
will accrue to the public as a result of implementation of-Coastal
Plan policies that affect developments.

a Conclusions--presents the overall findings and conclusions of
this study and the limitations placed on their interpretation.

-3-

DEVELOPMENT AREA ASSUMPTIONS

The first step in the development of an analytical framework is to develop
a set of assumptions about the area within which a subject development would
be located. The following characteristics define such a geographic area:

� Area Boundaries: The development area is bounded on one side by
the coastline and on the other by the Coastal Resource
Management Area boundary.

� Land Use and Use Pressures: The predominant land uses in the
area are residential and commercial. The area contains a minimum
of industrial development, second homes or commercial recreational
development. In other words, the area is not generally used for
vacation or resort activities or as a major industrial center.

The area is under considerable developmental pressure of two
types: first, the area is desirable from a residential stand-
point. Housing prices are generally rising, demand exceeds
supply, and there is pressure for increasing density. Second,
there is increasing pressure for recreational use of the coast
primarily on weekends and during the summer months. Such
pressure is mostly from the surrounding urbanized area. A
minimum of this rcessure is created by vacationers or people
desiring second homes.

� Existing Development: The area is almost completely developed,
consisting of a mix of single family residential housing, low-
rise and mid-density multi-family housing, spot and strip com-
mercial and downtown commercial development. Some of the older
areas have been privately renovated or redeveloped to higher
densities but this has been generally on a haphazard basis.
"Completely developed" does not mean that the area is developed
in accordance with the maximum densities permitted by the
current zoning for the area. Rather, it means that most land
is developed to some level.

Structures in the area exhibit a wide range of ages and types
with ages averaging between 15 and 25 years. Past development
has occurred on generally a grid basis in traditional subdivision
fashion. Lots are generally smaller than in developments further
inland and the ownership of property is extremely diverse.
In general, past development of the area has been largely un-
controlled and determined primarily by economic considerations.
The area exhibits'a wide range of housing values and neighbor-
hood qualities. Some neighborhoods are very expensive and very
well maintained, while others are in general disrepair. Pe ople
with a wide disparity in income populate the area, though median
incomes tend to be higher on the average than in inland communities.

-4-

Utilities and Transportation: The utility infrastructure
is in place to serve the existing development. Some utilities,
though not all, were developed based on optimistic growth
plans and are thus under-utilized. There is a minimum of
public transportation within the area. Automobiles are the
primary mode of transportation and are generally required
for even a moderate degree of mobility and access to points of.
employment or commercial development. In addition, the area
is intersected by streets and highways which carry travelers
through the area without an origin or destination in the area.

Governmental Structure: Generally, the area is contained
within the boundaries of a city government, though many local
jurisdictions may criss-cross it. The area is most likely a
suburb of a larger urbanized area.

� Geography and Scenic Characteristics: The area under considera-
tion is generally flat without a great deal of natural or highly
scenic value. The area contains a minimum of valuable natural
resources, such as mineral deposits. Historically, the area
may'have had geographic or physical characteristics of high
natural or scenic value but past development has eliminated
most of them.

� Public Ownership of Land: There is a minimum of public owner-
ship of land within the area including typical municipal parks
and immediate ocean frontage. Some of the beach may be privately
,owned. Although the beach itself may be publicly owned, access
to the beach at peak usage times is restricted by the quantity
and type of existing development.

Not all development areas need have all characteristics. In addition, not
all of the area within a particular political boundary, a coastal city,
or a coastal county, would necessarily qualify as a development area.
The following list of coastal areas is provided as an illustration of the
communities in which one would find areas that meet the above character-
istics. Those areas, from north to south, are as follows:

San Francisco
Pacifica
Santa Cruz
Monterey
Santa Barbara
Ventura
Oxnard
Los Angeles coast from Santa Monica to Palos Verdes and Long Beach
Orange County coast from Seal Beach to San Clemente
San Diego coast from Oceanside to Imperial Beach

ANALYSIS OF POLICIES

Application of Policies Within Development Areas

The purpose of this section is to analyze the policies contained within
the Coastal Plan to determine the degree of their applicability to a
subject development within a development area as described above.

Attempting to sort out 162 policies of a necessarily general plan in a
way that classifies each by the degree to which it will affect residential
or commercial development is a difficult task. This is so for three
reasons: first, the policies are not consistent in their content or
specificity. Some policies are statement of goals, others are constraints,
others are courses of action, and some represent implementation procedures.
In addition, some policies cover subject matter that is extremely signifi-
cant while others are less so. In general, the relative weight and priority
of different policies are not clear.

Second, policies often form a hierarchy in which a series of.subsequent
policies flow from an earlier policy. For example, Policies 45 through
55 are derived from the goal articulated in Policy 44 "Design development
to protect coastal viewshed." In some instances it is most useful to
estimate the,impact of policies in groups rather than individually,

Third, policies contain varying degrees of ambiguity or uncertainty. In
many instances, the intent of policies are clear and the actions or con-
straints which result from them are fairly obvious. In others, the intent
is vague and the potential action or constraint may vary signficantly
depending on how it is interpreted at the time of implementation.

Despite these problems we have class'ified all the Coastal Plan policies
as: 1) Direct, 2) Indirect, and 3) Not Applicable, depending upon their
relationship to subject developments within development areas. Each
classification is described in greater detail below.

Policies that have a DIRECT irr!2act: Policies in this category
directly Affect subject developments. These policies will
require a developer to incorporate planning, design, or con-
struction features into a project that would not be incorporated
were the Coastal Plan policies.not in effect. This is assumed
to be the case even though many of the,individual policies may
already be requirements in certain local jurisdictions. For
,c example, the policy concerning runoff (No. 14) is an affirmation
of existing federal requirements and, as such, may already be
incorporated in the regulations of some local jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, for the sake of consistency we assume that Coastal
Plan policies are not now in force.

-6-

There are two different types of direct policies:

--Those that are enerally Applicable. That is, they affect
all developments within the development area.

--Those that are project or site specific. That is, they
would only affect certain projects, depending upon the
presence of specific features of the site of the subject
development.

* Policies that have an INDIRECT impact: Policies in this classi-
fication affect all projects on an aggregate basis by affecting
the amount or scale of development permitted. The impact on
the developer is indirect in that such policies usually require
concurrence, approval, or action by governmental authorities
prior to the decision to develop. In other words, policies under
this classification are likely to affect the decision to develop
or not develop rather than the costs of a specific development.
At this time it is impossible to determine how these policies
will affect a specific development. The ultimate impact will
depend largely upon how the policy is interpreted and implemented
by local government. For example, the policy concerning water-
shed management (No. 21) requires the development of local
policies and regulations by local governments before an area's
capacity for development is established.

* Policies that are NOT APPLICABLE: Policies in this classifica-
tion are either too broad or too vague to provide a basis for
determining the causal relationship between the policy and the
impact, or are policies that are totally unrelated to the subject
of this study.

Exhibits I and 2 summarize the direct and indirect policies. Each policy is
identified with respect to its classification, number, and title. Appen-
six A contains a listing of all the Coastal Plan policies placed within
one of the three classifications with a short explanation of the rationale
for each classification.

Findings and Conclusions Related to Applicable Policies

The analysis and classification of Coastal Plan policies above leads to a
number of preliminary findings and conclusions which, in combination,
affect 1) the determination of specific development situations to analyze
that will provide the most useful information concerning the impact of
Coastal Plan policies; and 2) the determination of how specific policies
or groups of policies should be applied to these development situations.
The two major findings which affect the direction of these later tasks are
as follows.

-7-

First, the full impact of direct policies will occur in larger developments.
The combined "Direct" policies, both those which are generally applicable
and those which are site or project specific (see Exhibit 1) are more likely
to have an impact the larger the development (say, over 3 acres of land
and more than 50 units). Direct policies call for such actions as: providing
adequate and unobtrusive on-site parking (Policies 105 and 106), incorporating
recreational facilities within the development so as not to increase demand
for public facilities (Policy 141), and minimizing the rate and the adverse
quality of water runoff (Policy 14). Such requirements are more difficult
to incorporate into smaller developments even though some of the direct
policies, such as the design requirements (Policies 47-55) could be incorpor-
ated into smaller developments.

Second, in determining the impact of policies on subject development, the
indirect" policies cannot siT21y be assumed away. The examination of the
indirect policies demonst2.,ates that a significant number of individual
policies and combinations of related policies could have a major impact on
the decision to develop and on the scale of development. Further, the
indirect policies not only place a new burden on local land use planning
decisions and processes but also are likely to require plan implementation
mechanisms which generally are foreign to most local governments. The ,
cumulative impact of the "Indirect" policies, if their intent is ultimately
carried out at local level, may well create governmental involvement in the
development process that is much more similar to the processes followed
under urban renewal programs than those followed in traditional development.
One cannot, then, simply assume these policies have been complied.with and
concentrate only on "Direct" policies.

These findings lead to an interim conclusion that the implementation of the
Coastal Plan policies classified as "Indirect" will follow a continuum in
which the scenarios described below represent the extremes.

Minimum interpretation and iTplementation of the policies. A local community
meets the minimum requirements intended by the policies. Development occurs
within the development area in accordance with constraints and regulations
that are little changed from-the present. Private development occurs on a
small scale, filling in vacant, usually already subdivided, parcels. Some
private redevelopment and rehabilitation will take place on a spot basis,

This scenario can occur either as a result of an enthusiastic implementation
of poficies on the part of a local government or, more likely, as a result
of the fact that existing development is acceptable and gene-rally meets the
intent of the policies. The San Francisco Sunset District is an example
of the latter.

Maximum interpretation and implementation of the policies. The Coastal
Plan policies clearly call for more than the minimum effort on the part of
local government where development is proposed to be concentrated and where
existing development does not comply with the intent of Coastal Plan policies,.
Under this scenario a local community, financially assisted by other levels
of government, conducts the planning and institutes the programs that will
meet the policies in the Plan. Local government becomes an active participant
in the development process. Plans for redevelopment of appropriate sections
of the development area are prepared and programs are instituted to assemble
the necessary land, make necessary alterations to the infrastructure,
provide permanent and temporary relocation for-residents, and prepare the
land for development. Developments would be "planned" by local government
possibly in cooperation with a selected developer and would likely contain
a variety of residential types, including neighborhood commercial. Coastal
Plan policies would affect the development from the outset and provide
the constraints-and guideline's for the development plans. Sections of the
cities of Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Redondo Beach, where the Coastal
Plan calls for the concentration of development, represent examples of
where this scenario might be appropriate.

-9-

POLICIES THAT HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT Exhibit I
ON RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

GENERALLY APPLICABLE POLICIES

MARINE ENVIRONMENT
14. Runoff and Coastal Waters Degradation 3()23t .30 1

COASTAL LAND ENVIRONMENT
43. Coastal Developments and Air Quality

COASTAL APPEARANCE AND DESIGN
47. Design Review Process &0_@e
49. Design Guidelines: Compatibility with Natural Environment
50. Design Guideline: Coastal View Protection
51. Design Guideline: Scale, Height, Materials and Colors
52. Design Guideline: Landscaping
53. Design Guideline: Natural Landform Alteration
54. Design Guideline: Signs
55. Design Guideline: Utility Structures

ENERGY AND THE COAST
72. Energy Conservation in New Developments
75. Solar Heating and Cooling Systems

TRANSPORTATION
105. Parking Facilities Z "2,
106. New Development Parking tA)

RECREATION
141. New Development On-Site Recreation S'0?_6-Z(6)

COASTAL RESOURCES RESTORATION
154. Lot Resubdivision or Consolidation oo&n)

SITE OR PROJECT-SPECIFIC POLICIES

COASTAL LAND ENVIRONMENT
Y028. Development Controls Near Significant and Fragile Habitat Areas
3tw7,5 ?Oo@29. Development to Minimize-Habitat Damage
34. Criteria for Maintaining Non-Prime Agricultural Lands in Production
7,qj 35. Only Agriculturally Related Development Permitted on Agricultural
Lands
?&?-L(I 36. Division of Land Limited in Agricultural Areas
@Ozqi 37. Development and Land Division Regulation Near Agricultural Areas

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
'Jov5,5(t)70. Bluff and Cliff Geologic Safety Regulations

PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COAST
122. Guarantee for Public Access
Al 123. Public Accessways,to the Coastline
Ell 111126. Coastal Access for Low-and Moderate-Income Persons

COASTAL RESOURCES RESTORATION
3

VM152. Restore Degraded Coastal Resources
153. Environmental Damage to be Offset by Restoration

_10-

Exhibit 2

POLICIES THAT HAVE AN INDIRECT IMPACT
ON RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MARINE ENVIRONMENT
7. Maintain, Manage and Restore ocean Water Quality

COASTAL LAND ENVIRONMENT
21. Establish Comprehensive Watershed Management
22. Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Preparation and Implementation
23. Coastal Watershed Management Plans Related to Development and Water
supply Decisions
32. Urban-Rural Boundaries
33. Use Designation of Agricultural Parcels Within Highly Developed Areas
34. Criteria for.Maintaining Non-Prime Agricultural Lands in Production
35. Only Agriculturally Related Development Permitted on Agricultural Lands
36. Division of Land Limited in Agricultural Areas
37. Development and Land Division Regulation Near Agricultural Areas
40. Coastal Soil Resources Protection

COASTAL APPEARANCE AND DESIGN
45. Protect Quality of Highly Scenic Areas
46. Local Design Procedures and Standards

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT---
59. Development Concentrated in Developed Areas
61. Public Service and Transportation Facilities Regulations
62. Coastal-Dependent Development to Have Priority
65. Statewide Geologic Safety
66. Filing of Geologic Hazards Information
67. Geologic Safety Review and Regulation for New Developments

TRANSPORTATION
101. Land Use Decisions and Transportation Capacity
102. Coastal Road Expansion Criteria
103. Transportation Routes
104.--Coastal Road Recreational--and Scenic Values
108. Priority of Transit Over New Roads

PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COAST
121. Coastal Access
122. Guarantee for Public Access
123. Public Accessways to the Coastline
125. Lower-Cost Tourist Facilities
128. Public Access and Institutional Development

RECREATION
131. Coastal Recreation and Resource Protection
132. Oceanfront Land Recreational Potential and other Uses
133. Commercial Recreation Has Priority Over Private Development
134. Shoreline Areas Reserved.for Water-Dependent Recreation
140. Development, Open Space, and Recreation

COASTAL RESOURCES RESTORATION
154. Lot Resubdivision or Consolidation

_11-

DEVELOPMENTS UNDER COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Types of Developments

Based on the analysis and interim conclusions of the previous section
there are three kinds of residential and commercial development that are
most likely to occur under Coastal Plan policies and would be'worthwhile
to analyze in the remainder of this study. These are characterized
generally as "small scale--traditional," "large scale--negotiated," and
"large scale--redevelopment". Each is explained below.

Small-Scale--Traditional

This type of development is defined as that which could take place within
land use, infrastructure, and regulatory constraints that are little
changed from present conditions within the development area. This kind of
development is compatible with the "minimum impact" scenario discussed
above. The development process here is not much different from current
or traditional methods; i.e., a developer acquires or obtains an option
or a subdivided parcel of a small number of parcels of land, designs a
project that meets land use limitations, seeks and obtains governmental
approvals, prepares the site, contracts for the construction of the improve-
ment, and sells or rents the end product. The Coastal Plan policies
classified as "Direct" affect this development at the time governmental
approvals are sought. Governmental involvement is regulatory, ensuring
that current land use, design, and construction regulations are met.

A small scale--traditional development can be one of three types: single
family, townhouse, or low-rise apartments. It involves usually much less
than two or three acres of land developed at densities of less than 20
units per acre. It contains the minimum on-site amenities and requires mini-
mum modifications to public infrastructure (i.e., utilities, streets, and
sidewalks, that serve the site). The San Francisco Sunset District is
an area where this type of development will likely take place.

Large-Scale--Negotiated

This type of development will occur in areas where urban boundaries
established under the Coastal Plan will include substantial vacant land
area appropriate for development (i.e., of no agricultural value), but that
have not yet been developed. Such areas are located on the urban fringe,
and, in rare cases, in an already developed area. "Large scale --negotiated"
development represents what will occur in the middle of the continuum re-
presented by the minimum and maximum scenarios described in the previous
section. If such an area was not covered by the Coastal Plan, development
would occur in more or less traditional fashion. However, because of the

-12-

combined impact of the policies of the Coastal Plan, the traditional
developmental approach will no longer apply. We use the term "negotiated"
to describe the process which will replace the traditional development
approach under the Coastal Plan. it refers to a process wherein a developer
and a local government will arrive at an agreement as to what, how and
when development will occur on land controlled by the developer. As in-
terpreted here, the Coastal Plan cannot be implemented through traditional
land use control mechanisms such as zoning and building code ordinances.
The Plan polici es call for a significant degree of latitude in interpretation
which will be difficult, if not impossible, to codify. The end result of a
"negotiated" development process will be a project which satisfies the
minimum economic requirements of the developer and achieves, to the degree
possible, the purposes of the combined direct and indirect Coastal Plan
policies.

A large scale development would likely be a mix of residential housi
ing
types ranging from single-family to high rise. Net density could be higher
than small scale developments (over 20 units per acre) and more acreage
(at least 5 acres per development site) will be required. Amenities, pleasing.
design features, and public access, where appropriate, would be included.
The Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Northern San Diego County areas are
examples of where such development will likely take place.

Large Scale--Redevelopment

This type of development will substantially modify the present characteristics
of a development area in which development along the coast is to be concentrated
under plan policies. It corresponds to the maximum interpretation scenario
described in the previous section. Such development requires alterations to
the infrastructure in the form of the relocation, modification and likely
upgrading of streets, and utilities. The undertaking of such development
depends upon a significant governmental participation and financial commit-
ment from the earliest stages of development. Local government would likely
be responsible for such development functions as land assemblage, resident
relocation, site clearance, and modification to the infrastructure. At this
point, a developer would take over by purchasing the land or development
rights from the implementing agency. He would then construct improvements
and sell or lease them in accordance with a development plan established bV
the implementing agency and made a condition of disposition of the land to
a private developer. In this manner the implementing agency would be responsible
for compliance with plan policies and some or all of the cost of complying
with them would be subsidized by the governmental agency.

In such a development the developer becomes a partner of government in the
development process.. The developer takes over when the ground rules are cleart

-13-

and does what he can do best: arrange financing, construct the improvements,
and sell or lease what has been built. Examples of communities where such
development would likely take place are Santa Monica, Long Beach and Redondo
Beach.

Interim Conclusions

There are a number of conclusions which are evident as a result of the
analysis to this point. These relate to the quantity and timing of each
type of development in development areas and the character of such development.
Each of these are discussed below.

Quantity and timing of types of development: Assuming that the Coastal Plan
is adopted, what can be said about the timing and quantity of each of the
three types of development described above? This question cannot be answered
in specific quantifiable termswithout an area by area analysis and until
local areas comply with the sub-regional planning process called for in the
plan. Nevertheless, based on our general analysis we can draw a few
conclusions. First, it is likely that during the period immediately after
passage of legislation implementing the plan, that "small scale--traditional"
will be the predominant type of development. During this period
local implementation plans will be developed and the development experience will
be similar to that encountered duri'ng the 1972-74 period in which the current
plan was developed.* most observers estimate that the development and cert-
ification process for local plans will take, on the average, three years.

Second, the "large scale--negotiated" type of development is likely to be
much less prevalent prior to the certification of sub-regional plans. Such
development will occur but only in instances where the negotiation process
has already begun and in areas where it is obvious that the development will
not conflict with the expected outcome of the on-going planning process.

After completion of the planning and certification process, "large scale--
negotiated" development will accelerate. It will then be the most prevalent
type of development until all vacant land identified for such development
will have been utilized.

*The development experience in the South Coast Region during 1973 and
1974 period supports this point. Mark S. Rosentraub, Robert Warren, and
David Gould, Coastal Zone Development and Coastal Policy in Southern
California: A Two-Year Analysis of the South Coast Regional Commission
(Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California, August 19@5).

-14-

Third, the "large scale--redevelopment" type of development activity
is likely to be. minimal during the sub-regional planning and certification
process and immediately after certification. However, as land available
for the first two types of development is utilized there will be increasing
pressure for this.type of development. A long term view (10 years) of the
impact of Coastal Plan policies must recognize that "large scale--redevelop
ment" type of development will be the primary method of satisfying developmental
demand in areas identified for the concentration of development on the coast-@.

General character of future development: The two major characteristics
of development examined here are housing type and density. Under "small
scale--traditional" development these two characteristics will be largely
unaffected. This type of development will continue existing densities,
and housing types will be little changed from what now exists.

Under "large scale--riegotiated" and "large scale-redevelopment" types. of
development, housing types and densities will be significantly affected.
The combined impact of the plan's policies related to air quality, trans-
portation, energy conservation, concentration of development, equality
of access and subdivision consolidation, will require that these develop-
ments offer a variety of housing types and higher net densities in "planned
unit developments." New single-family housing on subdivided lots which
typically require net densities of 4 to 7 units per acre will be the least
likely housing type to be developed. More likely are mixed developments
combining high-rise and low-rise apartments (as condominiums) and townhouses
(as fee simple or condominium), achieving net densities for the planned
development of 15 to 20 units per acre.

ANALYSIS OF COSTS

The purpose of this section is to examine the costs of complying With
Coastal Plan policies. We will focus on the individual residential and
commercial real estate developer. We will also focus on costs to government
to the extent that government participates in the development process. We
will not examine the governmental costs of developing land use plans or
administering regulations which control development.

Description of Cost Categories

Below seven categories of costs are described which will be analyzed rela-
tive to each of the three development types likely to occur under coastal
policies and to the policies that affect such developments.

The primary criteria for selecting the cost categories was that they could
eventually be measured by empirical study if and when the Coastal Plan
policies go into effect. There are a number of other costs related to
implementation of Coastal Plan policies that would be extremely difficult
to measure and/or to relate solely to the Coastal Plan. These are dis-
cussed at the end of this section. The seven cost categories are:

Costs to the Private Developer:

Regulation:* Includes costs related to complying with the regula-
tory process. It includes such costs as processing fees paid to
regulatory bodies, legal fees, engineering study and other consulting
fees, performance bond costs, etc.

Delay:* Includes all costs related-to delay caused by compliance
with regulations and procedures established pursuant to implementa-
tion of Coastal'Plan policies. It includes land holding costs such
as interest paid on loans to purchase land (or the opportunity cost
of using money elsewhere that is tied up in land), taxes, assessments,
insurance, and property maintenance. It also includes administrative
or overhead costs to the developer incurred while awaiting develop-
me nt. This cost category does not include inflation, since inflation
is considered to be a general economic condition that affects both
costs and incomes, including the incomes of those who would purchase
the products of a developer.

*T'he first four costs are essentially the same as those used in the
recent study of the costs and benefits of the California Environmental Quality
Act. Report on the California Environmental Quality Act for the Assembly
Committee on Local Government, 3 vols., by John T. Knox, Chairman -
(San Diego, California:, Environmental Analysis Systems, Inc., November 1975).

"The cost of delay is the only cost category on which much applicable
data currently exists. Most studies appear to concur that., exclusive of
inflation, delay costs between @ to 1% per month in the ultimate price of
the end product produced (see Cost of Delay Prior to Construction, Report on
the California Environmental Quality Act, and Cost of Environmental Protec-
tion listed in bibliography).

-16-

Uncertainty: Includes the cost of the loss of potential revenue or
actual land value from a project which is abandoned or never is
undertaken because of the implementation of Plan policies.

Mitigation: Includes the cost of complying with the requirements of
specific policies, such as, alterations to the design of structures, or.'
changes in their location on the specific site..

Scarcity: Includes the costs associate-I with the reduced opportuni-
ties to develop. This cost is reflected in higher land prices or
greater difficulty in obtaining or tyihg up specific parcels for
development.

Costs to Gove rnment as Developer:

Investment: Includes the costs incurred by government (any level) as
a result of its participation in the development process. It includes
such costs as acquiring land, preparing sites for development, provid-
ing lower or moderate income housing, etc'.

Compensation: Includes costs to a governmental agency to fully or
partially compensate a developer for public access rights, combined
public or private facilities, or significant changes in land use
which are judged to be confiscatory either by the governmental
agency or by the courts. (It should be noted that the latter is
currently the subject of public debate and court determination as
to when a governmental "take" actually occurs or requires compensa-
tion.)

In the following sections, each of these categories of costs are related
to the three types of development expected to occur within the development
areas and the policies which we have defined as directly or indirectly
affecting such developments.

Costs-Related-to Types-of-Developments

This section relates the seven cost categories above to the three types
of development which can be expected to occur within the development areas.
This is accomplished in Exhibit 3 which contains a matrix that arrays the
types of development against each cost category.; The cells of the matrix
contain a short ex'planation.of the degree to which the particular cost
category will affect costs of the particular type of development. The
degree of cost impact in the matrix is described generally at four levels:

None--meaning that the cost category will probably not result in any
costs for the particular type of development.

-17-

Minimal--meaning that the cost impact is likely to be very minor.
For example, a developer may be required to make minor design changes
to a structure which he could easily make in the normal course of
preparing final drawings.
14, Modera*te--meaning that costs have a measurable impact on the cost of
the development, but the cost can easily be absorbed by the developer
or passed on to the consumer in the end product. For example, a
development which would incur a four to six month delay could absorb
the additional three to four percent increase in ultimate prices of
the end product he would produce.

Substantial--meaning that the costs of complying with the Coastal
.Plan policies are of paramount consideration in the development. The
cost impact is such that the developer is forced continually to
re-evaluate whether or not to continue the development.. In some
cases, developments are actually abandoned.

From Exhibit 3 it is evident that there are substantial differences between
the kinds of costs that one would expect to incur given the kinds of
development undertaken. From the standpoint of both the developer and a
governmental agency as a developer, the "small scale--traditional" develop-
ment has the least impact. From the standpoint of the private developer
alone, the "large.scale--negotiated" has the overall greater impact. From
the standpoint of the government as a participant in the development process,
the "large scale--redevelopment" type of development has the greatest impact.

From an overall standpoint, "large scale--redevelopment" is the most costly.
However, earlier we concluded that this kind of development would be the
most likely in the long run and,therefore, we have included an analysis of
a hypothetical example of a redevelopment in Appendix B. This example
shows how a typical redevelopment would take place and how costs are in-
curred by the sponsoring governmental agency. In summary, this analysis
produces the following conclusions:

The redevelopment process requires the successful completion of
complex functions such as large scale property acquisition
(land assemblage), resident relocation, and site preparation.
The process can be extremely time consuming; we estimate that
a five-year time frame from start to finish may be optimistic
for a ten-acre site containing 180 housing units and a small
neighborhood commercial facility.

e The cost of redevelopment to government is substantial. In the
hypothetical case, it costs approximately $18,000 per unit to sub-
sidize the redevelopment process to produce 180 units of housing
.which has an average market value of $45,000 per unit, 20 percent
of which is subsidized for lower or moderate income families, and
15,000 square feet of commercial space valued at $30 per square
foot. The amount of the subsidy is derived by calculating the

difference betweefi the costs of providing a developable site
and the low to moderate income housing, and revenue produced
by the residual land value to a developer for such a site.

Lastly, we stated earlier that there are a number of costs which, because
they are extremely difficult if not impossible to measure, we have not
included in the detailed analysis above. However, there are-two such
costs which deserve mention here. First, there may be a cost associated
with the implementation of Coastal Plan policies that relate s to the types
of developers who will be able to carry on development within the coastal
zone. The types of development that we have described favor two kinds of
developers: the very large and the very small. The very large developer
will be able to participate in the "large scale--negotiated" and the "large
scale--redevelopment" types of development. A very large developer who
has a number of projects going at one time is able to spread the costs of
complying with the Coastal Plan policies over a number of projects. A
medium sized developer, who at any time typically has one large project
under way and possibly one being planned, will find it extremely difficult
to operate under the coastal policies. On the other hand, the very small
developer who builds or rehabilitates one or two parcels at a time will be
able to survive in the coastal zone by doing "small scale--traditional"
development.

Second, another difficult to measure cost is related to the kinds of skills
required by developers to carry out the types of development we have identi-
fied. It is clear that "small scale--traditional" development will not
require very many new skills on the part of the developer. However, the
"large scale--negotiated" and the "large scale--redevelopment" require
skills that developers today generally do not have. Most developers who
could be called successful today acquired their skills carrying out "large
scale--traditional" suburban subdivision development. Many are not prepared
or equipped to carry on "large scale--negotiate-d" development. Fewer are
skilled in "large scale--redevelopinent" which requires the ability to
successfully develop in partnership with government. There is a cost
associated with established developers acquiring and internalizing new
skills and with a differert kind of developer coming into this market,
but measuring such a cost is extremely difficult. J

_19-

Exhibit@i3

COST IMPACT BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT

Type of Development

Small Scale--Traditional Large Scale--Negotiated Large Scale--Redevelopment

To Private Developer:
Regulation Minimal--some new information Moderate--specific engineering Moderate - -developer V. -of iedevelopment
will have to be provided, but studies will be required. Con- projects will nave to meet a variety
not a great deal. sultant and legal fees will be of new requirements, such as more
measurable. complicated legal arrangements with
the governmental agency.

Delay Minimal--most requirements Substantial--caused by the None--by the time a developer obtains
could be incorporated into potential length of the negoti- the site from government, most
existing procedures. ating process. A major cost potential delays should have been
factor. overcome.

Uncertainty None--once a subregional plan Substantial--some developers Moderate--any project carried out
is certified, a developer will abandon projects because in cooperation with a governmental
can be quite certain about of the uncertainty of the agency produces a certain amount
what he can and cannot do. negotiation process. Uncer- of uncertainty caused by such events
tainty is caused by the large as a change in the political environ-
number of individuals and ment. Some developers, for this and
groups who affect the decision- and other reasons, will not parti-
making process. cipate in redevelopment.

Mitigation Moderate-- meeting design, Substantial--costs could be Minimal--most requirements will
parking, site coverage, and high depending upon the site be part of the disposition of land
similar requirements will location and the outcome of agreement with the governmental
increase costs. the negotiation process. agency and be reflected as part
Costs could include major of the land sale price.
changes in design to protect
viewshed, on site storm water
processing facilities, and the
like. See Appendix A.
rt

Exhibit 3 (Continued)

COST IMPACT BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT

Type of Development

Small Scale--Traditional Large Scale--Negotiated Large Scale--Redevel2Ment'

Scarcity Substantial--prices of sites Substanti4l--same as under small None--land prices will be largely
appropriate for this type of scale--traditional. set by governmental agency in order
development will increase as to ensure the appropriate level of
availability decreases. development.

To Government:

Investment None--requires no additional Minimal--government may parti- Substantial--government incurs the
investment by government. cipate with the developer in costs of.acquisition, relocation,
constructing infrastructure or
site preparation, housing subsidi-
public facilities on or related zation, and others to bring site to
to the development site. developable level (see Appendix B).

Compensation None--current sites will not Moderate--depending upon the None--land use decisions are made
be greatly affected by new outcome of the negotiation in the redevelopment process and
land use regulations. process, government would be compensation occurs at time of
required,.or would agree, to site assembly.
compensate for accessways, open
space, lower densities, etc.

Costs Relative to Policies

The purpose of this section is to relate the policies that will have an
impact on development to the cost categories defined above. It is not
possible to relate individual policies directly to each of the cost
categories. In general, costs are potentially created within these cate-
gories by combinations of policies. Policies can be analyzed individually
only to the extent that they affect the "mitigation" or "compensation"
categories of cost.

Below we explain the relationship between each cost category and the aggre-
gate of direct and indirect policies. Appendix A contains an analysis and
classification of each of the policies of the plan as they affect residential
and commercial developments. The explanations of each classification pro-
vide examples of the kinds of mitigation or compensation costs implied by
the policy. These specifics will not be repeated below.

Cost categories are related to policies as follows:

Regulation : All direct policies affect the cost of complying
with the regulatory process. Some, for example those requiring
analysis of geologic hazards, will require developers to conduct
site-specific studies. Depending on how the indirect policies
are implemented by local government these too could result in
specific regulatory requirements. Here it is important to note
that the ultimate cost of the regulatory process to a developer
(and also.to government) will be a function more of how the poli-
cies are implemented than of the content of individual policies.
A good implementation program could keep such costs relatively
low.

Delay: Direct policies affect'costs of delay to the extent that
the policies are applied to the specific project or development.
For example, projects which are adjacent to natural habitat
areas will require that a developer invest the time in understanding
the relationship between his project-and the natural habitat and -
be able to defend his proposal for preserving the habitat with
governmental agencies and in the public forum. Importantly, many
of the requirements of the direct policies are already incorpora ted
in the Environmental ImPact Review Process and to this extent may
not cause additional delay beyond that already encountered. Indirect
policies.will affect delay first because they require an initial
period of bringing the local governmental plan and planning proces-
ses into compliance with the Coastal Plan. Most knowledgeable
observers estimate that this can be accomplished within a three-
year period after the enactment of coastal.zone legislation. Beyond
this period, the combined impact of indirect policies on delay is
very uncertain. Again, the degree of impact depends upon the degree
to which specific planning issues are resolved in the initial plan-
ning process, and the degree to which the implementation procedures
can be integrated with existing developmental approvals. In general,
however, it is likely that the process will be lengthened as a result
of the new Plan requirements.

-22-

mitigation: Direct policies are classified in Appendix A as "direct"
primarily because they require a development to incorporate charac-
teristics and features that it might not otherwise incorporate. The
types of mitigation actions required are briefly explained in the
Appendix. Indirect policies could also affect mitigation but the
way in which this might occur is unclear at this time. It can be
expected, however, that additional requirements for development would
result from the creation of new local plans that are in compliance
with coastal zone legislation.

Uncertainty: The combined impact of the indirect policies creates
the greatest potential cost of uncertainty. During the process of
developing subregional plans, uncertainty will be the highest.
Depending upon the outcome of this process (for example, if it results
in a very specific definition of what can and cannot be done with
specific parcels of land) the degree of uncertainty could be signifi-
cantly eliminated.

Scarcity: The degree to which the indirect policies are resolved
in the subr6gional planning process will also affect the degree to
which scarcity affects the cost of development. During the subregional
planning process, land prices will most likely be affected by uncer-
tainty (see above). Once the land'use planning issues related to
the indirect.p6licies are resolved, then land prices should stabilize.
It can be expected that the amount of land designated for development
by this process will be less than what is now included within the
potential development area. Therefore, the land selected for develop.-
ment will obtain a scarcity value and its price will rise. The
determination of what parcels shall be developed and which will not
will be the subject both of public debate and speculator interest.

Investment: The impact of the combination of indirect policies and
the way these policies are implemented will determine the amount of
governmental investment required by a participant in the development
process. The most significant policies affecting this cost category
are those relating to concentration of development, transportation,
and air quality. The amount of investment required will be a function
of the extent to which a local jurisdiction actively attempts to deal
with these requirements. A "business as usual" approach by local
government will not in general achieve the intent of the coinbination
of these policies in areas where development is to be concentrated.'

Compensation: The Coastal Plan endorses the policy that land owners
ould be properly compensated for land which is taken for public use.
The direct policies related to ensuring public access to the coast
will require compensation for the purchase of right-of-way. The
indirect policies.may also affect compensation depending upon what

-23-

land is ultimately designated as public for open space or recreational
purposes. Lastly, there is likely to be disagreement (and possibly
court action) resulting from the determination of how privately
owned land will be used and whether or not compensation will result.

-24-

ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS

The purpose of this section is to examine the benefits which accrue from
residential and commercial developments-complying with Coastal Plan policies.
Our focus here is the general public or the citizen of the State of California
who desires to have access to and the opportunity for enjoying the unique
resource of the California coastline. Benefits, then, are presumed to accrue
to the "general welfare." As we stated earlier we will not attempt to relate
benefits directly to the individuals or organizations which would incur the
cost of complying with Coastal Plan policies in residential or commercial
developments.

This section will not attempt to address the major overall benefits of
the Coastal Plan or Coastal Plan legislation. The major benefits of the
Coastal Plan will not be realized through changes in the way residential
or commercial development will be carried out, but rather through the
Plan's intent to protect the remaining undeveloped portion of this unique
natural resource. We will not, therefore, attempt to restate the benefits
of conserving natural resources improving the aesthetics of development
in the coastal area, increasing public access to the coastline, etc. These
are the benefits of the overall Coastal Plan and they are well articulated
in the document itself. In this section we will concentrate on the specific..
benefits associate'd with the kinds of development which are likely to occur
within the coastal zone under the Coastal Plan policies. Within this context
we have identified three specific benefits.

Mor.-, efficient use of common resources: The concentration of development
in already developed areas will, without question, create a more efficient
u@;e of common resources. By common resources we mean public infrastructure,
such as existing streets, transportation systems, school buildings, etc;
public utilities, such as electrical distribution systems, waste water treat-,
ment facilities, storm drainage systems, etc; and, established and experienced
governmental institutions which provide police, fire, recreation, education,
and other public services.

The recent study, The Costs of Sprawl*'illustrated some 'of these points.
The Costs of Sprawl was concerned primarily with alternative types of
community development on the "urban fringe.". That study concluded that
there were substantial developmental and community cost savings associated
with concentrating development in higher density housing types (such as high@.
rise, walk-up apartments, or cluster townhouses) given a fixed land area.

*Real Estate Research Corporation. The Costs of Sprawl; Environmental
and Economic Costs of Alternative Residential Development Patterns at the
Urban Fringe. 3 Volumes. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
April 1974).

-25-

In other words, it was determ--ied that a high density planned development
was approximately 40 percent less costly to the developer and to government
than a single-family (sprawl) type of development, given that land area
and the number of dwelling units are held constant. This study also found,
however, that when.one holds the number of units constant and increases
31
density (as is implied in the "concentration of development".policy) that
there are also considerable savings. The savings are greatest in construction
costs per unit. Typically.walk-up or high-rise apartments cost the developer,
and the local government, who must provide services to these developments,
approximately one half -the cost of the same number of units of single-
family housing. Townhouse development costs fall in between.

Annual operating costs are also lower for higher density development,
though the differences are not nearly as great. (For example the govern-
mental operating costs of servicing walk-up apartments is approximately
15 percent less than providing the same services to single-family housing.)
Major operational savings for governmental services occur only with high-
rise apartments. For high-rise apartment units, governmental operating
costs are one-third of that required to support a single-family housing unit.

The applicability of this analysis, however, is limited for this study
because it was not concerned with the more efficient use of an existing
infrastructure. Typically, local communities have not established balanced
levels of service for the wide range of services they provide. For example,.
one would expect to find (as Sorensen and Dickert found in their study of
Half Moon Bay*) that the capacities of different public utilities and.
governmental services are based on extremely varied assumptions about future
levels of population. To our knowledge, no study has yet been conducted to
measure the overall benefit of an "efficient" provision of public services
and utilities. By "efficient" we mean that the capacities of all the
public utilities and infrastructure are pegged to a consistent and agreed
upon level of population. We st,spect that there are substantial potential
benefits to this approach to providing public services. It is likely that
given current high costs of providing governmental services and the growth
consciousness of many citizens that such analyses will soon be undertaken
and one will be able to-quantify this benefit.---

The benefit of developing in an area that already has governmental institutions
in place to serve a larger population is also difficult to measure. Dependi
on the local community, some will undoubtedly see this benefit more as a cost.
In other words, the development of a new community on the suburban fringe
offers an opportunity to start anew and avoid the problems and structural

*Thomas Dickert and Jens Sorensen, Sub-Regional Planning Within the
Coastal Zone: Half Moon Bay Case Study, Working Outline. (Berkeley,
California: University of California, May 15, 1975).

-26-

impediments of an existing governmental institution. However, in recent
years it has become increasingly expensive to ignore existing governmental
institutions and establish new ones. We would suspectethough it would be
difficult to quantify, that there are substantial net benefits to capital-
izing on established and experienced institutions and working to make these
perform better rather than attempting to establish new ones from scratch.

Higher demand for existing and newly developed housing and commercial space.,.
Coastal Plan policies will benefit property owners and developers within
the coastal zone in that the policies will, in combination, create a higher
demand for what exists and what is built. A higher demand for what exists
will encourage those who want to live in the coastal zone to purchase marginal
properties and make substantial improvements to them. Developers, whether
private developers or governments as participants in the development process@,,
will benefit, in that once a project is approved for development and
developed, a substantial demand will exist for the ultimate product. This
benefit has the byproduct of providing the "carrot" to ensure that developers.
will conscientiously comply with the developmental process defined by the
implementation of the Coastal Plan. Without the assurance of a high level
of demand for the product of development, it would be extremely difficult
to implement the kinds of policies called for in the Coastal Plan. This is,
especially so for offsetting the high public costs and risks of redevelopment.

In all fairness, we must recognize the other side to this benefit. Some
would argue that unsatisfied demand will substantially raise housing prices
in the coastal zone,contributing to the inflationary spiral in housing and
reducing housing opportunities for the lower and moderate income persons.
The former may indeed be a cost but it will be hard to separate the impact
on housing prices resulting from Coastal Plan policies from the general trend-
in housing prices given the statewide and nationwide housing situation. The
latter can be dealt with and is proposed to be dealt with, in the Coastal
Plan, with specific programs. To provide lower and moderate income housing,
in the coastal zone will require subsidization. (We have identified this
cost in our cost analysis section above.)

Increased public voice in development: Under the Coastal Plan policies, the
public, both directly and through its governmental representatives, will have
a significant voice in development decisions and in affecting the physical
makeup of their communities. This can be viewed as a benefit to the extent
that the ultimate physical design and appearance of a community benefits all
residents and users of the community rather than benefiting an individual
developer or the occupants of a specific development. Implementation of the
Coastal Plan will surely put major development decisions in the hands of
the community which heretofore were,dictated by economic incentives as they
related to individual developers. This shift away from individual develop-
ment decisions toward collective development decisions is occurring more or@

-27-

less rapidly in many communities throughout the country, not only in the
coastal zone. However, the Coastal Plan, if implemented, would make this
shift complete.

The ultimate extension of this shift in responsibility is characterized above
as "large scale--redevelopment" in which the public through its governmental
agencies becomes an active participant in the development process. Because'
of the less than successful history of inner-city redevelopment programs,'
funded by the Federal Urban Renewal Program, many people express an aversion
to this process. However, if the benefit of public participation in the
development.process is to be fully realized, a redevelopment process (not
necessarily an urban renewal process) is a long-range requirement. The
challenge is to learn from the past history of redevelopment and to modify
and improve the process so that it better serves the public's role as developer.
If this can be done, an increased public voice in development will be a
significant benefit.

-28-

CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This section of the report summarizes the-conclusions of this study and
the.limitations that must be placed on interpreting the conclusions.

Conclusions

The following statements summarize the conclusions which can be drawn from
the anslysis presented above.

General Implication of Policies

* The impact of the 28 policies that directly affect subject
developments is likely to be greater the larger the develop-
ment. Small scale development (less than two or three
acres and 50 units) will be affected, but in a minor way.

* 35 policies "indirectly" affect subject development within
the coastal zone. These policies are primarily the respon-
sibility of local government to interpret and implement.
Ultimate costs and benefits of development will be determined
by the way they are interpreted and implemented.

o Depending upon the current characteristics of a development
area and the way in which policies are implemented, some areas
will be greatly affected by coastal legislation (Santa
Monica, Long Beach, and Redondo Beach), and some will be
minimally affected (Sunset Distric@ of San Francisco).

Types of Development Under Coastal Plan Policies

o Three types of development are likely to occur under the
implementation of Coastal Plan policies. These are:

--Small scale--traditional: such development will fill
in existing subdivided sites with development that is
comparable with existing development. It involves the
development of two or three individual housing units
or a small apartment building.

--Large scale--negotiated: this type involves develop-
ment of the large existing undeveloped parcels of
land that are determined to be within the "urban
boundary." The type of development that will ulti-
mately occur will be negotiated between the developer
who controls the land and the responsible governmental
agency to ensure compliance with coastal zone policies
and to establish the timing of the development.

-29-

--Large scale--redevelopment: This kind of development
will occur in areas that are identified for concentra-
tion of development and where current levels of develop-
ment are incompatible with.Coastal Plan policies and
below rehabilitation potential. In this type of
development, government actively initiates and partici-
pates in the development process in order to achieve
the objectives of the Coastal Plan.

9 In the short run (five to seven years after approval of the Plan)
"small scale--traditional" and "large scale--negotiated" types of
development will predominate. But in the long run, the Coastal
Plan policies will be achieved only through "large scale--re-
development."

* "Small scale--traditonal" type of development will not greatly
affect the character of the development area. On the other hand,
"large scale--negotiated" and "large scale--redevelopment" will.,
have to incorporate a variety of housing types and higher net
densities in "planned unit developments" to achieve the intent
of Coastal Plan policies. Net densities per residential acre,
to achieve the objectives of the Plan, must be between 15 and 20
units as opposed to 4 to 7 per acre commonly associated with single
family detached housing.

Cost Impact of Coastal Plan Policies

� From the standpoint of the private developer and government as a
participant in development, the least costly type of development
is "small scale--traditional." The developer incurs few costs
over present practices and the government merely regulates
development.

� From the standpoint of the private developer, the most costly
type of development is "large scale--negotiated." Here the
developer must make substantial investments in land, development
plans., legal fees, etc., which could be jeopardized by the outcome
of the negotiation process.

*,-From an overall standpoint, "large scale--redevelopment" is the
most costly to a partnership of private developer and government
as a developer. Here the government undertakes the costly
responsibilities of land acquisition, relocation, and site
preparation for development. In such a development process,
government would have to provide subsidy of between 60 and 80
percent of the costs of preparing a redevelopment site. If
such a development were to double existing densities, providing
housing at reasonable average prices, and, incorporating 20.

-30-

percent housing for lower or moderate income, then one could
expect a governmental subsidy of between 30 and 40 percent
of the ultimate value of housing units produced.

9 An intangible cost of irolementing Coastal Plan policies may
be incurred in that very large and very small developers will
benefit from the combined impact of the Coastal Plan policies;
the former doing "large scale--redevelopment" and "large scale--
negotiated" projects, and the latter doing "small scale--
traditional projects. Medium sized developers, who typically
can carry out one large project at a time, will find it difficult
to develop within the coastal zone.

.0 Another intangible cost is related to the current level of
developer skills. By and large, most developers have little
experience with "negotiated" or "redevelopment" kinds of
projects. New skills may have to be developed and acquired.

Benefits of Coastal Plan Policies

e Implementation of Coastal Plan policies would encourage more
efficient use of existing public utility systems; existing public
infrastructure, such as streets, storm drainage systems, and
school buildings; and would take advantage of established and
experienced governmental institutions. The benefits could be
substantial given the high cost of expanding governmental
services and constructing new infrastructure.

* Coastal Plan policies will ensure a high level demand for
existing development and new development. This will be of
benefit in that marginal properties will be developed or reha-
bilitated. In addition, there will be substantial demand
for privately or governmentally sponsored new development.
High demand will ensure the ability to require developer dom-
pliance with policies.

9 Coastal Plan policies will provide the public with a substantial
voice in the determination of the physical character of their
communities.. The potential of public participation extends
beyond what has been experienced even in recent past. Partici-
pation extends beyond merely regulating development through
governmental institutions, but actually will place the public
through governmental agencies in the role of a participant
in the development process.

In summary, the impact of the Coastal Plan on development is to create a
new kind of development process in which the public, through its governmental
institutions, is involved in the development process, either through
negotiation or through actual participation as a developer. Such processes
can have significant costs associated with them. However, the potential

-31-

benefits to the public are significant. The question of whether or not
benefits exceed costs cannot be determined in quantifiable terms; and to a
great extent the determination depends upon whether or not governmental
institutions at the state, local and regional levels will properly
implement Plan policies and assume the responsibilities that they imply.

Study Limitations

The purpose of this section is to summarize the limitations that must be
placed on the interpretation of the results of this study. Specifically,
three factors limited the methodology and affected the degree of specificity
of the findings and conclusions. These are explained below.

Empirical data are scarce. Because of the newness of coastal zone planning
and management, and state land use planning, there are very little relevant
data available for analyzing the impact of policies similar to those con-
tained in the California Coastal Plan. Data which are available relate to
the interim permit processing experience during which coastal plans were
being developed. Experience under the interim permit process cannot be
simply extrapolated to what might occur under the Plan itself. In places,
this study uses such data recognizing its inherent limitations.

Empirical data are also very scarce for determining the impact of similar
kinds of regulation in areas other than a coastal zone. Such data, where
available and appropriate, can be extrapolated to the coastal zone experi-
ence. In general, very little recorded experience exists under land use
plans that 1) are as comprehensive as the proposed California Coastal Plan,
2) involve the degree of regulation called for in the Coastal Plan,
and 3) require multiple governmental levels to participate in the land use
planning process. The California Coastal Plan, if implemented, will be
unique in the nation, and as it progresses it will be continually breaking
new ground. (For this reason, it may be appropriate to consider the
establishment of an ongoing evaluation, monitoring and reporting process
so that lessons learned from this experience are not lost.)

A consistent base line from which to evaluate the impact of Coastal Plan
policies does not exist. During the past ten years. the State of California
has been a national leader in advancing more comprehensive and rigorous
land use planning at local and regional levels. The land use picture
throughout the state is in considerable flux. In many ways, the policies
called for in the Coastal Plan could very well become part of local and
regional land use policy under current planning law. The degree to which
this is or is not so is dependent upon the progress of individual local 4'
planning processes. One would find it extremely difficult to establish a
base line that represents the current land use planning situation of all
communities along the coast. A different situation exists within each
community and common denominators are hard to find. For these reasons it
is extremely difficult to determine what will result incrementally from
implementation of the Coastal Zone Plan.

-32-

The study was limited by resource constraints and thus is intended to
provide only a preliminary assessment. The time and budget constraints
under which the Legislative Analyst's Office carried out its charge under
Senate Resolution 41, combined with the extent and comprehensiveness of
the proposed Coastal Plan itself, made it impossible to conduct a rigorous
study that would produce extensive empirical data to support a series of
findings and conclusions. To conduct.such a study would have consumed
four to five times the resources available for this study and would have
taken six months to a year to complete. Nevertheless, this study has
intended to provide a.preliminary assessment to tl@e extent possible within
the existing constraints. Further study of the subject of this study is
needed in order to more thoroughly document and test the findings and con-
clusions contained herein.

-33-

@22endix A

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

1. Basic Goals for Coastal Zone Not Applicable This policy expresses the overall subject goals for
Conservation and Development coastal zone planning. It clearly affects subject
developments but is stated so broadly that therelationship
between the policy and a development is unclear. Other
policies more specifically define the very broad statements
of this policy.

MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Ocean Resources Management

21. Protect, enhance, and restore
marine resources.

3. Maintain healthy marine organisms
populations.
-Not Applicable These policies apply directly to ocean life and ocean
4. Criteria for aquaculture. water quality.

5. Upgrade commercial fishing
facilities.

6. Expand ocean water quality and
research and regulatory program.

M
7. Maintain, manage, and restore Indirect This policy requires that waste water treatment be at such QJ
ocean water quality. a level so as not to degrade ocean water quality. The X
development of a discharge management program and/or the
construction of additional waste treatment facilities could
affect the quantity of subject development in the develop-
ment area.

!@p@endiX A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

8. Waste water reclamation.
..Not Applicable These policies relate to waste water reclamation and
9. Vessel waste discharge regulation. waste discharge from seagoing vessels.

Heated and Cooled Discharges

10. Avoidance of adverse effects Not applicable This policy applies to the discharges from industrial
of th'ermal discharge and facilities only.
entrainment.

Oil and Toxic Spills

11. Oil and Toxic substance release
prevention.

12. State oil spill liability Not Applicable These policies apply to oil and toxic substance spills in
measures. ocean waters.

13. National oil spill liability
fund.

Runoff

14. Runoff and coastal waters Direct, Implementation of this policy will directly affect subject
degradation. Generally developments. The policy requires that subject develop-
Applicable ments be planned and designed in a way that will minimize
runoff and ensure that that runoff does not contain sub-
stances or materials that would degrade; Goastal waters.
.The policy could require such actions as minimizing lot
coverage, constructing storm water control and treatment
facilities on site or contributing to public construction
of holding and treatment facilities.

M MM M M M M I= M M M M M M

Appendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

Coastal Waters, Estuaries and
Wetlands

15. Special estuary and wetl .and
protection.

16. Limit dredging, diking, and
filling to protect other coastal Not Applicable These policies are concerned with protecting estuaries
waters. and wetlands and controlling, dredging, diking, sea wall
construction and sand supply. They generally do not apply
17. Replacement areas required to the subject developments within the development area.
0) for diked or filled areas. Policy 19 probably represents the limits of the "not
applIicable" category as defined here in that one could
18. Regulation of.permitted envision a development which proposed a structure that
dredging. directly affected the.beach or protruded into the ocean.
In such a case this policy would be applicable. However,
.19. Seawall, breakwaters, and the continued thrust of other policies makes the occurrence
shoreline structures criteria. of such a situation very remote for subject developments.

20. Positive programs to restore
sand supply.

Appendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

COASTAL LAND ENVIRONMENT

Coastal Streams and watershed
Management

21. Establish comprehensive water- Indirect These policies can be taken together and viewed as a
shed management. group. Policy 22 carries out Policy 21. Policy 23
specifically applies Policy 21 to development. These
22. Comprehensive watershed manage- policies taken together establish limits on the quantity
ment plan preparation and and type of development to go on within a development area.
implementation. They create a governmental responsibility to develop a
watershed management plan and use that plan to control the
23. Coastal watershed management quantity and type of development within the development
plans related to development area.
and water supply decisions.

24.- Review of major projects Not Applicable These policies apply primarily to the preservation and
affecting coastal streams. maintenance of coastal streams and the life within them.

25. Special protection for anadromous
fish streams.

Natural Habitat Areas

26. Significant natural areas and
rare species preservation. Not Applicable These policies apply generally to existing natural areas
27. Fragile.habitat areas protection. with contain animal and wildlife habitat.

Appendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

28. Development controls near
significant and fragile habitat.- Direct, Site These policies can be taken together as affecting subject.
areas. Specific development. But they only affect those developments which
are adjacent to habitat areas.
29, Development to minimize habitat
damage.

Agriculture

30. Protect agricultural economi
c
viability. Not Applicable These policies apply to statewide agricultural policy
a)
in areas of agricultural economic viability and maintenance
31. Statewide programs for mainte- of statewide agricultural lands.
nance of agricultural lands.

32. Urban-rural boundaries. --Indirect These policies can be taken together in that they establish
boundaries for urban expansion and designate the use of
33. Use designation of agricultural agricultural parcels within and adjacent to urban boundaries.
parcels within highly developed These policies are a significant governmental responsibility.
areas. They affect subject developments by placing limits on the
location of developments and creating pressures on
increasing the usage of already developed parcels or parcels
available for development.

LlUendiX A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policii@s Classification Explanation

34. Criteria for maintaining non- .-Indirect/Direct, Thesepolicies can be taken together in that they affect
'thin the urban
prime agricultural lands in Site Specific the kinds of development that can go on wi
production. boundary on or adjacent to agricultural land. These
poliLes have the effect both of requiring public action
35. Only agriculturally related to determine whether or not the lands will be permitted to
development permitted on be developed and if so the kinds of development that will
agricultural lands. be permitted. Inladdition, these policies could affect
specific projects in that they may-be applied on a project-
36. Division of land limited in by-project basis in order to determine if there is
agricultural areas. economic or other justification for the conversion of agri-
cultural or open space land to a developed use.
37. Development and land division
0 regulation near agricultural
I
areas.

Forestry

38. Coastal resources protection. .-Not Applicable These policies eatablish criteria for using and maintaining
forest resources. If developed areas were adjacent to
39. Taxation to encourage sustained forests then these policies would have the same effect as
yield. those applying to agriculture. Since this is not the case,
these policies are classified as not applicable.

Soil and mineral Pesources

40. Coastal soil resources Indirect This policy requires that the local governmental agency
protection. determine what kinds of building and grading can be carried
out within the developmentarea that would have a minimum
impact on depletion or degradation of existing soil conditions.

Appendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

41. Mining regulations. Not Applicable These policies apply to mining regulation and control
of mineral deposits which have been assumed not to exist
42. Mineral deposits inventory.. within development areas.

Air Quality

43. Coastal developments and air Direct, Generally This, policy directly affects the design and operation-of
quality. Applicable subject developments in order to ensure minimal adverse.
affect on air quality. It is aimed at both direct and
indirect sources of potential air pollution. The policy
could affect development in numerous ways such as requiring
0
phased development commensurate with public transit
improvement, project design to encourage pedestrian or bicycle
traffic over automobile, reduction in parking spaces per
unit to encourage use of public transit or off-site parking
using shuttles to and from the site.

COASTAL APPEARANCE AND DESIGN

Coastal Viewshed

44. Development design and coastal Not Applicable. This policy will affect the subject developments within
viewshed. the development area but this statement of the policy is
too broad to interpret by itself. The policy is made more
specific by policies 45 through 56.

@Mendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policigs Classification Enlanation
45. Protect quality of highly Indirect This policy is classified as having an indirect impact on
scenic areas. subject developments even though in defining the development
area we assumed a Iminimum of highly scenic qualities.
The determination of what is highly scenic will require
governmental action prior to determining the amount,
location, and scale of development within the development

area.
46. Local design procedures and Indirect This policy establishes design standards and procedures
standards. that local government will follow in reviewing development
projects to-'determine if a proposed development project
meets established standards. The process, as a governmental
responsibility, has an indirect impact on subject develop-
ments.
47. Design review process. Direct, Generally This policy establishes the procedure to implement
Applicable Policies 49 through 56 below and in combination with them
have a direct affect on subject development.
48. Litter reduction in coastal Not Applicable This policy applies to the implementation of a statewide
areas. litter control program and does not apply specifically to
subject developments.

M @`Im JIM low W, W /am go

Ap22 IdiX A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification EMlanation

Design Guidelines for Viewshed
Development

49. Design guidelines: compatability
with natural environment.

50. Design guideline: coastal view .-Direct, Generally These policies represent the specific standards of the
protection. Applicable design review process called for in Policies 46 and 47
above. These guidelines have a direct impact on each
51. Design guideline:' scale, height, project in that they affect the materials used in construc-
materials and colors. tion, etc.

52. Design guideline: landscaping.

53. Design guideline: natural
landform, alteration.

54. Design guideline: signs.

55. Design guideline: utility
structures.

56. Design guideline: major public Not Applicable This policy establishesdesign guidelines for major
service, commercial, and commercial and industrial facilities which are not within
industrial facilities. the definition of subject developments.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

Development Affecting Natural Resources

57. Development to complement Not Applicable This policy applies to development.outside the development
natural and scenic resource area (non-utbanized areas).

areas.

(Continued)
idix -A

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Ex2lanation

Special Coastal Communities and
Neighborhoods

58. Protect and enhance special .-Not Applicable The development area has been assumed not to be a "special
coastal communities and community or neighborhood."
neighborhoods.

Development Concentrated in Urban
Areas

59. Development concentrated in Indirect This policy clearly affects development. It depends pri-
developed areas. marily on public decisions related to land use planning
and implementation. The policy will require governmental
land use decisions which will affect the total amount,
scale, and location of development within the development
area.

60. Rural land division criteria. Not Applicable This policy affects the division of land in rura.1 areas--
not the subject-of this study.

61. Public service and transporta- Indirect This policy is aimed at local governmental land use
tion facilities regulations. planning and regulation. It requires that local government
provide balanced levels of public utility service and
transportation facilities to support the level of develop-
ment and population called forwithin local plans. This
policy is aimed at establishing a balance between public
facilities and ultimate development as a means of both
minimizing wasteful overcapaicty of facilities and ensuring
appropriate limits to overall development and population.

M, We an

am OW, Vn 'NMI low 1MV SM Im
4V 4) .1 ..
@2@ndix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

62. Coastal-dependent development Indirect This policy is aimed at local governmental land use
to have priority. planning and regulation. It calls for priority to be given
to coastal-dependent development over other kinds of
development. It requires local governmental decisions
before the location, scale, or quantity of subject develop-
ments can be determined.

63. Industrial development location Not Applicable This policy applies to local land use planning criteria
criteria. for industrial development location. It is not applicable
to the subject development.

Hazardous Areas

64. Flood hazard areas development Not Applicable It is assumed here that federal flood control legislation
restrictions. currently being implemented is adequate and that this policy
is therefore redundant.

65. Statewide geologic safety. --Indirect These three policies can be taken together as a statement
of geologic hazard policy and the regulations to implement
66. Filing of geologic hazards that policy. Most of the development Areas identified
information. within which subject development could take place are in
areas that are subject to geologic (earthquake) hazard.
67. Geologic safety review and The determination of limits and controls on development is
regulation for new develop- a governmental responsibility which can affect the scale,
ments. location, and amount of subject development in the
development area.

@&endix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

68. No public subsidy for hazardous Not Applicable Thispolicy relates specifically to one means for'imple-
developments. menting geologic hazard policy.

69. Safety measures for t!JUftiami' Not Applicable This policy requires local community development of safety
occurrence. measures for tsumami occurrences within the 100-year
tsumami runup zone.

70. Bluff and cliff geologi c Direct, Site This policy calls for specific site analyses.for subject
safety regulations. Specific developments occurring on bluffs and cliffs. The purpose
I. of the analyses is to determine the geologic stability
Ln
of the site to both avoid destruction of cliffs and bluffs
and ensure safety of the development.

ENERGY AND THE COAST

Energy Conservation

71. Restructure utility rates to Not Applicable. This policy applies to establishing utility rates which
encourage energy conservation encourage energy conservation.

72. Energy conservation in new Direct, Gener- This.policy directly affects subject developments within the
developments. ally Applicable development area. It calls for project designs.which mini-
mize energy usage and implements this policy by calling for
energy-budgets on new developments.

73. Additional energy conservation Not Applicable. This policy applies to a general statewide energy conser-
recommendations vation program. To the extent that the recommended policies
are implemented on a statewide basis the policy would
affect all development equally and not be peculiar to the
coastal zone.

MW low, a im, RM:

@Uendix A (ContinueAd)

ANALYSIS OF COASTA:_ PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

Alternative Energy Sources

74. Development of alternative Not Applicable This policy calls for the statewide development of alterna-
energy sources. tive energy sources.

75. Solar heating and cooling Direct, Gener- This policy calls for the advancement in the use of solar
systems ally Applicable heating and cooling systems. Specifically, it affects
subject developments in that it requires structural and
design capability to convert to solar energy usage when
such systems are economically viable.

Energy Facilities Siting and Design

76. Statewide agency to plan and Not Applicable This policy applies to statewide control of energy facility
certify energy facilities. siting.

Power Plant

77. Coastal agency role in power
plant siting.

78. Ongoing site identification. ..Not Applicable. These policies apply to the Coastal Agency role in power
plant siting, site identification, design and the removal
79. Siting and design criteria. of power plants from coastal areas.

80. Outmoded power plants on
beaches.

@Uendix A (Continued)

ANALYsis or coAsTAL PrAN POLICIES

Policies Classification @Lxelanation

Petroleum Development

81. offshore petroleum development.

82. Petroleum exploration and pro-
duction.

83. Petroleum facilities siting .-Not Applicable These policies call for regulation of petroleum related
and'design criteria. development, exploration, and production.

4. 84. oil recovery efficiency.

85. Exploration and production
data.

86. Federal OCS petroleum
development.

Refineries

87. Refinery siting. --Not Applicable These policies apply to refinery siting and design
criteria.
88. Coastal refinery siting and
design criteria.

W, 400 AW xw@ a
@ T, A!"' (C @Vi
d @X J "--
nue

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

Tanker Terminals

89. Tanker terminal planning.

90. Tanker terminal siting. --Not Applicable These policies apply to tanker terminal planning, siting,
and operations.
91. Existing tanker facilities.

92. Criteria for new or enlarged
terminals.

93. Tanker technology and operations.,
C10

L.iquified Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities

94. LNG facility siting.

95. LNG facility siting and design. .-Not Applicable These policies apply to the siting, designi and operation
of LNG facilities.
96. LNG marine operations.

97. LNG on-shore facilities.

98. Liability for accident damage.

TRANSPORTATION

99. Coastal concerns in tra.nsporta- -Not'Applicable These policies call for the involvement of the coastal
tion plans. agency in transportation planning in local and regional
areas. The administrative structure and the governmental
100.@ Transportation plans and coastal interrelationships established for transportation planning
resources. are not the subject of this study, although the content of
transportation policy is. Later policies dealing with funding
or administration of transportation are also classified as "not
applicable."

!@p@ndix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Ex planation

Land Transportation

101. Land use decisions and Indirect These policies can be taken together as a group in that
transportation capacity. they affect the relationship between land use and streetsil
roads and highways. The policies call for relating land
102.@ Coastal road expansion criteria. use decisions to public road capacity, establishing criteria
for coastal road expansion, minimizing transportation
103. Transportation routes. routing through coastal zone areas and preserving the scenic
value of Highway 1. These policies are aimed at the local
104. Coastal road recreational and government decision-making process related to land use
scenic values. planning. In combination, they affect the scale, location,
and the amount of subject development that can go on within
the development area.

Parking

105. Parking facilities. Direct, Gener- These two policies combined affect all subject developments.
ally Applicable They require that parking facilities be planned, designed,
106. New development parking. and constructed in as tasteful and unobtrusive manner as
possible, while at the same time providing adequate on-site
parking for new developments.

Public Transit

107. Coastal zone transit funding. Not Applicable This policy applies to priorities given to and the means
of funding transit needs.

1@ 4, 14-
NO MW M1
An 40, go/ Mal ism" 9W 10-W off

M-1) NOW AW 'WIV WO W-M) Oft A W1 M MW fro

Lkaendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Eulanation

108. Priority of transit over new Indirect This policy relates to local transportation planning and
roads. implementation and is closely related to the street and
highway planning required under Policies 101 through 1.04.

109. Transit in urban areas. --Not Applicable These policies spell out the means by which local transpor-
tation plans will be implemented.
110. Rail service.

111. Transit usage.

Air Transportation
0
112. Future airport siting.

113. Coastal airport expansion. --Not Applicable These policies apply to air transportation within the
coastal zone.
114. Public access in airport buffer
land.

115. Air-related transportation and
coastal access.

WaterTransportation

116. major port areas.

117. maximize existing port use. --Not Applicable These policies apply to water transportation and port
development and operation.
118. Port development dredging and
filling criteria.

119. Navigational safety, .

120. Coastal ferry service feasibility

@p2endix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COAST

121. Coastal access. Indirect This policy applies indirectly to subject development in
that it requires local planning to incorporate maximum
accessibility of the coastline in local land use and
transportation planning. The means by which this is
achieved through local land use planning and regulation
will affect the scale, the location, and the quantity of
development.

The Right of Public Access

122. Guarantee for public access. Indirect/Direct These policies implement Policy 121; they require the
Site Specific more specific statement and enforcement of the public's
123. Public accessways to the right of access to the coastline in planning and land use
coastline. decisions. These policies also implement Policy 121 by
requiring that where the policy is applicable, new develop-
ments shall incorporate public access-ways within them,
grant easements for such use or deed right-of-ways to
public agencies.

124. Manage public access. Not Applicable This policy specifies that public accessways and areas will
be properly managed and maintained.

Quality of Access

125. Lower-cost tourist facilities. Indirect. This policy requires that local land use designations
and regulations incorporate adequate low cost tourist
facilities in near coast areas.

am) 1W MW 1W. OW -mom W *a W
)PIN

Appendix A (Continued)
ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PIAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

126. Coastal access for low- and Direct, Project This policy calls for new residential developments to
moderate-income persons. Specific incorporate some percentage of moderately priced housing
unitt. This policy will affect specific developments to
the extent that 1) development displaces existing low
income housing and is required to incorporate housing for
similar income groups; or 2) that low or moderate income
housing is called for to achieve a local housing mix and
funds are available to subsidize such housing.

Access Through Multiple Use of
Coastal Lands

127. Surplus lands. Not Applicable This policy applies to retention of ownership of surplus
public land.

128. Public access and institutional Indirect This policy gives priority to institutional public and
development. quasi-public development in the near coast area as a means
of ensuring the maximum of public access and the minimum
of private control of that area. This policy indirectly
affects development in that it becomes an element of local
land use decisions which affect the scale, location, and
quantity of subject development in the development area.

129. Public use of federallands. ..Not Applicable. These policies encourage maximum use of federal lands and
multiple use of private property in order to ensure maximum
130. Multiple use in major facilities. access to near coast areas.

RECREATION

131. Coastal recreation and Indirect This policy is a general statement of recreation policy for
resource protection. coastal areas. It will indirectly affect development depending
upon land use planning decisions related to open space and
recreational use..of coastal lands including- those..with,in
developed areas. Implementation of this policy will affect the
scale, location, and the amount of development permitted within
the development areas.

Appendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Exl2lanation

Optimum Coastal Recreational Use

132. Oceanfront land recreational -indirect These policies further refine Policy 131 and call for
potential and other uses. miximum. recreational use of the ocean front, the-priority of
commercial recreation over private development and the use
133. Commercial recreation has priority of the shore line for water dependentrecreation. These
over private development. policies affect local land use planning decisions and through
them the quantity, scale, and location of subject development.
134. Shoreline areas reserved for
water-dependent recreation.

135. Alterations of coast for
recreation restricted.

136. Use of upland areas. --Not Applicable These policies relate to a variety of specific considerations
in implementing the overall recreational Policy 131.
137. Variety of recreational
facilities.

138. Overnight reservation,system.

139. Equity in recreational facility
maintenance costs.

Recreation and Develament

140... Development, open space, and Indirect This policy also is part of the implementation of Policy 131
recreation. and calls for the correlation of open space and recreational
use plans with proposed development. Implementation of this
policy is accomplished through local land use planning and
administrative processes and generally will affect the amount,
scale, and location of private development.

Appendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

141. New development on-site Direct, Gener- This policy calls for the incorporation of on-site recreational
recreation. ally Applicable fa@t:ilities and opportunities in order that new development
will.not place additional burdens on public open space and
recreational facilities. This requirement directly affects
the design and the amenities required in subject developments.

Recreation and Resource Protection

142. Access and recreational use -Not Applicable These policies propose various controls to ensure that
limitations. recreational use of coastal areas will not damage the
environment.
143. Off-road recreational vehicle.use.

144. Long-range recreational re-
sources protection program.

Coastal Trails System

145. Coastal trails system. Not Applicable This policy calls for the development of a coastal trail
system.

MarinAs

146. Boating facilities and coastal --Not Applicable These policies apply to boating facilities and usage.
resources.

147. Boating facility use.

148. Public access to marinas.

Appendix A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC USE

.145. Coastal environment education. Not Applicable This policy encourages coastal environmental education.

Coastal Reserve System

150. Coastal reserve system. Not Applicable This policy calls for the establishment of a coastal reserve
system to properly manage coastal reserves.

Historical and Prehistoric
Resources

151. Historical and prehistoric. Not Applicable This policy calls for the protection of historical and
resource protection. prehistoric resources. The development area assumptions
exclude significant historical and prehistoric resources.

RESOURCES RESTORATION

152. Restore degraded coastal Direct, Site This policy calls for the restoration of significant coastal
resources. Specific resources when new development takes place. Implementation
of this policy could require that a redevelopment project
incorporate the restoration of significant land forms, wet
lands, etc. at the time of-redevelopment and thus would affect
certain projects.

153. Environmental damage to be Dir ,ect, Site This policy calls for the restoration of the environment if a
offset by restoration. Specific development requires damage to the environment. The implemen-
tation of this policy would apply to specific developments
that would degrade important natural coastal resources.

AppendiX A (Continued)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Policies Classification Explanation

154. Lot resubdivision or con- Indirect/Direct This policy affects the, means by which governmental agencies
solidation. Generally carry out land use and redevelopment plans. The implementa-
Applicable tion.of this policy could have-an affect on the scale, location,
and the type of development within the development area.
-This policy also directly affects all potential development
in the area in that it encourages land assemblAge,consolida-
tion of small lots,and the elimination of fragmented subdivisions.

COASTAL LAND PUBLIC ACQUISITION

155. Public acquisition priorities.

156. Techniques for expanding
public use of the coast.

157. Protect potential acquisition. --Not Applicable These policies specify the criteria for and the means by
which public land will be acquired along the coastline.
158. Coastal recreational facilities
funds.

159. Existing state acquisition
authorities.

160. Interagency coordinating
council.

FUTURE PLANNING STAGES

161. Coastal plan to be carried out --No@ Applicable These policies are procedural and call for and specify the
by regional and local.plans. means of developing and carrying out reg-ional, subregional,
and local plans.
162. Subregional plans.

Appendix B

LARGE SCALE REDEVELOPMENT

HYPOTHETICAL CASE

The purpose of this hypothetical case is to explain the kinds of costs that
are incurred in the redevelopment process and indicate the "order of magni-
tude" of such costs which are likely to be incurred by a governmental agency
in carrying out a large scale redevelopment project. We believe that this
case.in varying degrees provides a typical example of what is necessary for
large-scale redevelopment in areas identified in the Coastal Plan for
concentration of development, In the following sections we describe the
redevelopment site, describe the current level of development, set forth
the redevelopment objective, analyze the cost of the redevelopment, and
state the conclusions which can be drawn from this case.

Redevelopment Site

The site selected for redevelopment is, most importantly, in an area where
it is appropriate to concentrate develbpment under the Coastal Plan. It is
located within the boundaries of a city that is part of a larger metropoli-
tan area. The site consists of four cont -iguous rectangular blocks at 2.25
acres per block. It is bounded on one side by a main traffic artery and
on other sides by neighborhood collector streets. The site is not on the
beach but the beach is within walking distance.

Bus service is available along the main traffic artery. All utility trunk
lines touch the site. Major shopping facilities, employment centers, and
schools are all,within easy access by short automobile or bus ride.

The neighborhood in which this site is located is in generally poor mainte-
nance conditi6n,but is not "blighted" as that term is used to describe
inner city ghetto areas. Area residents are in lower to moderate income
brackets and are typically employed in blue collar occupations..

Cur.'rent Level of Development

The redevelopment site was originally subdivided for small single family
-.,X@Sidential homes on 5,000 square foot lots (20 lots per block). Subse-
quently, spot commercial development has occurred along the major traffic
artery and small apartment buildings have been constructed on a spot basis
where a developer could assemble two or three lots and obtain higher
density zoning. most of the area is still zoned for single family but the
most recent city general plan (now being updated) shows the area as the
location of walk-up or low-rise apartment development.

The original quality of housing construction was not high. Existing housing
offers little attractiveness for upgrading or'rehabilitation. Private re-
development would take the form of assembling two to four parcels, removing

-57-

the single family housing and replacing it with a small two or three story
apartment building. A higher level of zoning is required for this to occur.

A summary of the assumptions related to current development are as follows:

Approximate Average Housing Approximate
Number of Net Density Square Feet Units Acres by Type
Type of Improvement Parcels Per Acre Per Parcel Total of Use

Single-Family
Residences 50 9 5,0.00 50 5.7

Walk-Up Apartments 8 18 12,500 40 2.3

Commercial 5 - 10,000 1.1
9.1
Streets .9

TOTAL@ 10.0

Redevelopment Objectives

In order to meet the requirements of the coastal zone legislation, a local
community's plan calls for the redevelopment of the area in question to
twice its current residential density-and including the following:

- a varie ty of housing types ranging from high-use to townhouse;

- some neighborhood commercial facilities;

- a 20 percent provision of housing for lower and moderate income
families; and

- on-site recreational amenities.

The plan calls for closing of the three streets which cross the site, creating
a large parcel of approximately 10 acres. In accomplishing this objective,
the development plans will meet the Coastal Plan policies relating to site
coverage, parking facilities, design, and energy conservation.

The Costs of Redevelopment

The following table sets forth a summary of costs to a governmental agency
to achieve the hypothetical redevelopment objective set forth above. Each
cost item is explained following the table.

-58-

Property acquisition:
- Single-family residential 1,500,000
- Apartment residential 680,000
- Commercial 720,000

2,900,000

Relocation:
Residents 906,000
Businesses 150,000

1,050,000

Site preparation 500,000

Subtotal 4,450,000

Administration and other costs 670,000

Total Redevelopment Cost 5,120,000

Less: Land sale to developer (1,740,000

Net Redevelopment Cost 3,380,000

Capitalized Housing Subsidy 400,000

Total Governmental Cost 3,780,000

Proj,,erty Acquisition: All purchases are assumed to be at fair market value
using the concept of highest and best use. Single-family residences are
assumed to be purchased at an average price of $30,000 per unit. Apartments
are assumed to be purchased at $17,000 per unit, a price which equates to
monthly rents of about $200. The five commercial parcels are assumed to be
purchased for $15,0,000 each. This price equates to a monthly rent for
commercial space of $.40 a square foot per month and assumes that each property
contained 5000 square feet of rentable space.

Relocation: Relocation costs are assumed to be incurred in accordance with
current practices in federally sponsored or subsidized projects. This means
that the majority of relocation expenditures are for assisting the relocatee
in the purchase or rental of "comparable" housing. We have assumed that re-
location will cost $10,000 per residential unit and $30,000 for each business.

_59-

The relocation expense total amounts to 36 percent of the purchase price.
Depending upon the area, redevelopment officials use estimates as high as
60 percent of purchase prices.

Site Preparation: This item includes demolition of structures, removal
of streets, modifications to utilities, etc., and is estimated at $50,000
per acre.

Administrative and Other: These costs include staff and consultant time
to conduct site planning, perform engineering and market studies, carry
out citizen participation, and perform administrative tasks. They are
estimated at.15 percent of all other program costs. To carry out this
project over a three to five year period then will cost approximately
$170,000 to $220,0.00 per year.

Land Sale to Developer: This item represents revenue that is used to
offset the costs of the program. The revenue is determined by the land
value for the proposed development. In this case we have assumed 180 units
of housing,and Approximately 15,000 square feet of commercial space would
be constructed. The market value of this development is $8,700,000 assuming
that the 180 housing units have an average market value of $45,000 each
and the commercial space a market value of $30 a square foot. The land
value in this development was assumed to be 20 percent of the market value.

Capitalized -Housing Subsidy: This item estimates the cost'to provide lower
and moderate income housing'. We have capitalized the cost here to show it
as a one time cost on a comparable basis with other costs, even though it
is likely that such a cost will be incurred in annual subsidies. The basis
for this estimate is as follows: We have assumed that the least expensive
unit in this development has a market value of $35,000 and that the lower
and moderate income families who would occupy these units earn $10,000 per
year. Based on the rule of thumb that one should not pay more than 25
percent of income on housing, this family can afford to pay $2,500 per year.
To own a $35,000 house would cost approximately $3,500 per year at today's'
interest rates and including upkeep. Therefore, a subsidy of $1,000 per unit
per year, or $36,000, is required to provide such housing. Assuming this
housing program is administered on an annual basis, we can add an administrative
cost of 10 percent resulting in an annual cost of $40,000. Capitalizing this
annual expenditure at 10 percent yields a one time cost of $400,000.

Conclusions

This case is hypothetical. Each of the numbers used above may be-quite
different in the analysis of a specific case. Nevertheless, in the aggregate,
the relationships shown above are representative of actual redevelopment

-60-

experience. From. this kind of analysis we can draw two general conclusions
as follows:

� First, redevelopment is a long and complex process. Completing
a project such as that described above will take five years from
start to finish under optimistic assumptions. It simply takes
that long to properly acquire parcels, relocate existing residents;
and prepare the site on such a scale.

� Second between 60 and 80 percent of the costs of redevelopment
are no@ recoverable from land sale. They must be subsidized
by government and paid for through outright grant, tax increment
financing, or some other mechanism. in this hypothetical case,
it cost about $18,000 per unit to provide all the housing and
subsidize 20 percent of it for lower and moderate income families.

-61-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashley Economic Services, Inc. Summary Report on the Fiscal Impact of
Urban Growth; California C se Studies. Sacramento, California:
The California Builders Council, nid.

California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions. California Coastal Plan.
San.Francisco, California: California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission, 1975.

California Land-Use Task Force. The California Land Planning For People.
Sacramento, California: Planning and Conservation Foundation, 1975.

Construction Industry Research Board. The Cost of Delay Prior to Construc-
tion. Los Angeles, California: Construction Industry Research
Board, April 1975.

Dickert, Thomas, and Sorensen, Jens. Sub-Regfonal Planning within the.
Coastal Zone: Half Moon Bay Case Study, Working outline. Berkeley,
California: University of California, May 15, 1975.

McCoy, Margarita, and Walecka, Carla. Marine del Rey Subregional Plan.
Los Angeles,'California: University of Southern California, August 8,
1975.

Real Estate.Research Corporation. The Costs of Sprawl; Environmental and
Economic Costs of Alternative "Residential Development Patterns at the
Urban Fringe. 3 vols. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, April 1974.

Report on the California Environmental Quality Act for the Assembly Committee
on Local Government 3,vols., by John T. Knox, Chairman. San Diego,
California: Environmental Analysis Systems, Inc., November 1975.

Report on the Economic Aspects of the Proposed Co@!stal Plan for the Joint
Rules Committee of the California Legislature. Economics Research
Associates and Alvin H. Baum Associates, October 10, 1975.

Richardson, Dan K. "The Cost of Environmental Protection: Regulating
Housing in the Coastal Zone." New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey CL976]

Rosentraub, Mark S.; Warren, Robert; and Gould, David. Coastal Zone
Development a Ind Coastal Policy in Southern California: A Two-Year
Analysis of the South Coast Regional Commission. Los Angeles,
California: University of Southern California, August 1975.

Security Pacifi-c Bank. An Area Profile; California Coastal Zone Economic
Study. 2 vols. [Los Angeles, California] Security Pacific Bankf
April 1975.

_62-

Supporting Document B

THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAN:

(1).BCONOMIC I&DICATORS OF THE EFFECTS
OF THE APPEARANCE AND DESIGN
POLICIES IN OPBN.COASTAL AREAS;

-(2) ALTBRNATIVE'WASTE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES FOR UNDEVELOPED.
COASTAL AREAS TO IMPLEMENT THE
COASTAL WATER QUALITY POLICIES

..Edited by Jerry Yudelson

Prepared For. The

OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

Sacramento., California

February 1976

ENVIRON/MENTAL
3004 Dana Street
Berkeley CA-94705

Acknowledgements

This study was prepared by ENVIRON/MENTAL for the Office of
the Legislative Analyst, Joint Legislative Budget Committee,
California5tate Legislature, Sacramento. Mr. Donald Benedict
served as project coordinator for the'State; his assistance is.
gratefully acknowledged. Jerry Yudelson served as project direc-
tor and general editor for ENVIRON/MENTAL.

Contributions to the analysis of visual policies were made
by the following people: Nancy Abodeely, transportation planning;
Gerry Finn, transportation planning and engineering; Joanna
Kaufman, environmental design; Lynn Nelson, social analysis;
Barbara Rusmore, visual impact analysis;. Irene Torrey, planning
and environmental design; Mark Trembly, environmental planning
and design; Gerry Wolff, environmental planning; and William
Ziefle, economic analysis.

Contributions. to the development of alternative waste manage-
ment strategies were made by the following people: Patrick
Ferraro, sanitary engineering; Dr. Peter Warshall, recreational
waste management and water conservation; and Dr. J. T. Winneberger,
on-site sewage disposal systems.

The valuable assistance of many State and local governmental
officials, private firms, and individuals is also acknowledged.
Persons contacted for information during the course of the study
are listed at the end of each section.

The consultant team has used its best efforts to prepare
this report, but it wishes to acknowledge that the study is but
an initial effort, limited by significant time and budgetary
constraints. While it is axiomatic with many people that more
time and more money produce better research, we feel that this
work indeeddoes provide important insights into theoverall
effects of the Coastal Plan policies studied.

Section 1

THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAN:

ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF THE EFFECTS
OF THE APPEARANCE AND DESIGN POLI-
CIES IN OPEN COASTAL AREAS

Edited By Jerry Yudelson

Contributions By:

Nancy Abodeely
Gerry_Finnf
Joanna Kau man
Lynn Nelson
Barbara Rusmore
Irene Torrey, AIP
Mark Trembley
Gerry Wolff, AIP, ASLA
William Ziefle

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I

THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAN:

ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF THE EFFECTS
OF THE APPEARANCE AND DESIGN
POLICIES IN OPEN COASTAL AREAS
Page

I. SUMMARY

II. INTRODUCTION
A. The Visual Policies
B. Analytical Approach
C. Study Design

7
III. POLICY ANALYSIS
A. Constraints Affecting Development
B. Interpretations
C. Application Modes
D. Relation to Other Policies

IV. DESIGN RESPONSES 017
A. Design Analysis of Policies
B. Generic Design Responses
V. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 21
A. Basic Cost/Benefit Indicators
B. Evaluation of Economic Consequences
VI. CASE STUDIES .24
A. Design Review Process on the North,Coast
B. Recreational Travel in Marin County
C. Transportation, Access and Parking at Recreational
'Beaches:
(1) San Gregorio State Beach
(2) Hoover Ranch Acquisition, Big Basin Redwoods
State Park
D. Housing Development on the Sonoma County Coast,
including the Sea Ranch Area
E. Undergrounding of Utilit)r-,@Uistribution Facilities
VII. PERSONS CONTACTED 54

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. SUMMARY

This report explores the economic effects of applying the
Coastal Plan's Appearance and Design policies to developments in
essentially open,@undeveloped, non-urban coastal areas. Most of
these areas are along the central and northern coastline. The
study considers the economic effects of the policies on design
review for public agencies and private parties, highway develop-'.
ment, public recreational facilities development, coastal zone
housing, beach access and parking and utility undergrounding.
Indicators of these effects are developed through a series of
exemplary case studies.

The basic study methodology was to identify which policies
were binding for various development types, in a range of coastal
situations; to identify design, planning and actionresponses
available to meet the policy goals; and to assess the economic
effects and benefits of such responses. Costs were not assessed
for the litter reduction and sign control policies or for the
effects of any policies on public special districts.

The cumulative costs of adopting these policies were not
evaluated. Several carefull 'y chosen special case studies were
used to illustrate the major categories of economic impact. The
major concern was the magnitude of effect on costs.

The study's primary geographic area of concern is the
"Coastal Resource Management Area," especially the "nearcoast
areall and primarily the land areas seaward of either the Coast
Highway or the road nearest the coast. Finally, the study
focuses more on the costs of protecting the visualexperience than
on the detailed design of individual units, .since it was felt that
overall building clusters and height were more important visual
features than exterior design, except perhaps for some very special
situations.

The study's basic conclusion is that the Coastal Plan's
visual policies may increase costs of public facilities and
private developments, in certain limited situations, up to 5%
10% over a baseline of no Coastal Plan and no really creative
design responses to coastal situations. Even in cases of appar-
ently higher costs, caused by responses to the visual policies,
many of these costs will be short-term, and will begin to de-
crease if the Plan becomes an accepted and integral fact of life
in coastal development design decisions.

The basic reason that the Coastal Plan's visual policies
have few discernible significant economic effects is that
other factors constrain public and private coastal development
before the vi-suar-po-f-i-cies begin to play a role. These other
factors include: (1) development driving forces such as the

market demand for private facilities (economic and financial
feasibity),and capital outlay plans for'public facilities;
(2) existing "commitments to development" exemplified in current
County General Plans, including the general restrictions of land'
use and zoning elements, conservation elements and seismic safe-
ty elements, and design restrictions of scenichighway elements;
(3) existing public service infrastructure capacity (water, waste
disposal, power, roads); (4) expressions of adverse community
attitudes during the project review/planning process, resulting
in political decisions for development permit denial; (5) the en-
vironmental impact reporting process resulting from the Califor-
nia Environmental Quality Act and subsequently promulgated guide
lines often leading to measures to mitigate adverse visual effects
of development designs; (6) currently accepted design practices
.especially for public facilities; and (7) other Coastal Plan poli-
cies, which are expected to take precedence over visual policies,
in the areas of development, recreation, transportation and access.

An analysis of the visual policies was made to evaluate
design responses available under the policies. The design res-I.-I
ponses evaluated the appropriateness of each policy,with respect
to the interaction of varying landforms and development types and
with respect to the effects of each policy on observers. It was
concluded that design guidelines should be based on viewer perspec-
tives, supported by a detailed coastal visual inventory, rather
than based strictly on landforms categories used in the Plan,
which tend to break down as one moves away from the beach areas.

A variety of design responses to visual policies is avail-
able. Such responses include relocating -and partially under-
grounding buildings; clustering development units; reducing
overall development densities; creative use of landscaping tech-
niques; aesthetic treatment of structure exteriors; relocation
of roads; screening parking lots from view; and undergrounding'
utility connections. Methods of evaluating the economic effects
stemming from such design responses are discussed briefly. Then,
a series of case studies is presented to elucidate some.of these
economic effects, as discussed below.

(1) Prospective design review costs were investigated for
Del Norte, Humboldt and Mendocino "Counties, with local govern-
ment estimates of incremental costs for such review set at
$33,060 and $2,820 per year, respectively. In addition,
design review will generate costs to private parties. Develop-
ment of a handbook of appropriate design responses would probably
serve to make the desigh review process more efficient.

(2) Recreational travel in Marin County was examined to
assess conflicting and complementing relationships between visual
policies and access/recreation policies. No costs for recreationa..1
facilities development were found attributable to.appl.:*@cation of
the visual policies.

(3) The relationship of the visual policies to beach
transportation, access and parking problems was evaluated for
San Gregorio State Beach (San Mateo County) and the Hoover Ranch
State Beach (currently being acquired by the State Dept. of Parks
and Recreation as an addition to Big Basin Redwoods State Park in
Santa Cruz County). At San Gregorio State Beach, current and
proposed parking arrangements were examined. The basic conclu-
sion reached was that proposed parking development conformed, for
the most part, to the visual policies, even though design work
was completed in late 1972, long before these policies were de-
veloped. The extra cost to achieve compliance with the visual
policies was estimated to be about 2% of the total construction
monies proposed for ultimate development of the beach. In
addition, it was noted that the size of proposed parking facili-
ties seemed inadequate to handle the design capacity for recrea-
tional use, especially at "ultimate development."

Hoover Ranch, along Waddell Creek, is currently being ac-
quired for the State Park-System. Preliminary development de-
sign was attempted, to see whether conflicts existed between
visual policies and beach development, especially for parking
areas. In this case, lower Waddell Creek Valley has important
seasonal and permanent wetlands, plus very sensitive and valuable
ecological areas which greatly hinder parking site development.
Parking costs were estimated for a variety of locations. The
cheapest parking development (for 375 cars) is on the ocean side
of Highway,l, in a very visible area. Other inexpensive parking
sites appear to be located too close to the wetlands to be
desirable. The only ecologically and visually acceptable park-
ing area is hidden on coastal bluffs (not scheduled for acqui-
sition), has a small capacityj is not too accessible from the
beach, and is three to five times as expensive to develop (per
parking space) as other lowland parking areas. In the Hoover
Ranch beach area, then, a strict application of visual policies
to parking site development probably would create significantly
adverse economic, physical impacts, and would also have to in-
clude ecological considerations.'

(4) Development costs of individual homes related to appli
cation of the visual policies along the Sonoma County coast were
investigated. The development factors most seriously affected
were structure design, land acquisition (need for larger parcels)
and public administrative activities. Extremely strict appli-
cation of design guidelines, similar to those privately imposed
by the Sea Ranch Association on Sea Ranch residential develop-
ment, which have considerable effect on structural design,
could raise individual residential unit costs by up to 10% per
unit. This is probably the maximum level of impact attribut-
able to strict application of the visual policies to residential
development.

The study recommends detailed mapping of significant viewsY
in order to develop a more rational design review process,
rather than attempting to control bulk, height and placement of.
structures in a piecemeal fashion. If the natural scenery areas
are plotted and controlled, the regulation of the placement of -44
structures will generally not be necessary on a parcel-by-par-.
cel basis.

(5) Undergrounding of utility distribution facilities was
examined for cost implications. For the most part, existing
rules and, regulations of the State Public Utilities Commission
and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (in North-ern Califor-
nia) currently control most undergrounding costs. For new fa-
cilities, application of the Coastal Plan's utility underground7-
ing policy would affect only isolated individual structures lo-
cated more than 1J.000 feet from a designated Scenic Highway.
The costs would be directly dependent on the length of underground
lines. For existing facilities, costs of undergrounding are very
high and would fall most heavily on local residents. For this
reason, conversion of existing overhead utility connections to
underground lines is likely to, be very gradual.

II. INTRODUCTION

A. THE VISUAL POLICIES
This study, toiiberns- itself with 'analy''In thj-,-`@-conoviip
effects of applying' Coastal Plan "Appearance an Wesign' Policie's
(Po licies 44-56)* in essentially undeveloped coastal areas.
The study is exploratory in nature and details of applications
are given only for selected case studies. Basic attention was
given to-costs to public agencies for design review, highways
and recreational facility development and costs to the private
sector for residential development and utility undergrounding.
The study asks three basic questions:

(a) which of the visual policies are binding, on
which development types, in which places?

(b) when the visual policies are binding, what design,
planning and action responses can be undertaken
to meet the visual goals?

(c) what is the economic effect of these responses
to. binding visual policies*,: (who benefits and
who pays, and how much)'?

B. ANALYTICAL APPROACH

As the study developed, it became apparent that a number
of key assumptions would have to be made, in order for the
analysis to proceed. These are:

(1) The Plan will be adopted substantially as is;

(2) The Plan will be implemented by local government.
Thedesign review process will be designed to
expedite the permit/development process by making
design standards and criteria clear and by allowing
for early concept approval of development designs;

(3) Visual policies are applied primarily in the
Coastal Resource Management Area, especially the
nearcoast area, and primarily in the land areas
oceanward of either the Coast Highway or the
road(s) nearest the Coast.

-K-S-ee AppendiR-A for detailed text of policies.

(4) Visual policies are applied "at the end,"
following all other important Coastal Plan
policies (e.g., recreation, development,
transportation, access), which will take
precedence;

(5) The effects of the Coastal Plan visual policies
in essentially undeveloped areas gre,-4'a!�sessed
against a baseline of the "no Planlll@alternative,
where the policies are fairly unambiguous;
in other cages, the costs of a range of potential
interpretations are given;

-%@'-not evaluated, because it was felt that
(6) Cumulative costs of applying the policies

several carefully chosen case studies would
adequately illustrate major economic effects
and that it was important to know what extra
costs would accrue to public and private
developments, whenever they might be built;

(7) Costs of litter reduction and sign control
(Policies 48 and 54) do not receive detailed
treatment in this study; and

(8) Costs to public special districts other than
counties are not assessed.

The basic emphasis of the study is on how to implement
the goal of the visual policies, namely, how to protect the
structure of the visual experience (the relationship between cul-
tural-features. and natural scenery) rather than on the control
of individual structure design.

C. STUDY DESIGN
The report proceeds with a further analysis of the visual
policiesi identifies'a set of appropriate design responses to
the policies, and presents modes of economic evaluation of the
effects of the design responses. In all this work, there is
an attempt to separate that which is forced by the policies
from that which is recommended (but still optional) and to
focus on the costs of the forcing policies. In practical terms,
a policy which doesn't force anything to occur is free ' for
the most part a nice statement which may lead to but not
guarantee achievement of the policy objective.

III. POLICY ANALYSIS
to

A. CONSTRAINTS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT

Before the Coastal Plan visual policies begin to affect
private or public development, a number of other constraints
operate first. These include:

(1) Development driving forces such as financial and
economic feasibility (market demand) for private
facilities and proposed capital outlay plans for
public facilities;

(2) Existing "commitments to development" in current
County General Plans, including:

- Land Use and Zoning elements
- Conservation and Scenic Hiahway elements
S-e-i-smic - Sa f-ety/Na-tur-a-l--Ha,z. ard.s element;

(3) Existing@public seTvice infrastructure capacity
(roads, water supply, waste disposal, power);

(4) Expression of adverse community attitudes during
the planning/project review process, leading,to
political denial of development permits and plans;

(S) The California Environmental Quality Act's Environ--
mental Impact Report process, often leading to
mitigation measures in development designs;

(6) Currently accepted design practices for public
facilities;

(7) Other Coastal Plan Policies, such as"

Recreation
Development
-'Ttansportation
Access$
4' These constraints caused by applying Coastal Plan,..-.,,
visual p6licies lead to"'Iph-y-s-'l-ca-l--a--'n'cl-economic-changes in designs
and development processes, such as:

Prohibition of coastal development plans
Extra land purchases required
Extra land development work

- Extra design work
- Extra time in permit processing & design review
- Relocation of facilities to less desirable or
more costly locations
- Conflicts between Coastal Plan policies.

B. INTERPRETATIONS

Basically, this study interprets the visual policies
view, .i.e., how'one would try
from the designer's point of % -I
to work out the implementation of the policies to build various
facilities. Some of the policies are quite explicit; others
can be understood only through examination of a variety of
scenarios, relating geographic location (including landform
type) to development type. The scenario appro.ach was used in
this study to choose the case studies, as representative indi-
cators of the variety of situations where the visual policies
would be applied in essentially open, undeveloped coastal areas....
From this effort, it became clear that specificity of economic
effects was directly dependent on narrowing the range of policy-
interpretations. Thus, many of the case study conclusions
appear to represent "worst case" cost estimates resulting
from very strict policy applications,inot likely to occur in
many situations, especially if t,he-Coastal Plan is implemented
largely by local (in this case, County) government.

The emphasis of the policies on regulating development
for various landforms leads to further problems of interpretation.
The,.C-oastal Zone contains many composite landforms, with varying
visual impact boundaries and areas of influence. Landforms
have not been mapped and probably cannot be adequately defined
for enough relevant decision situations. Landforms do not
regulate development adequately, because observer position
and attitude.varies so much and because the key policies are
really not too different for each landform.

C. APPLICATION,MODES

One of the basic problems in applying the visual
policies is that they are designed to enhance a subjective
experience, which depends as much on the attitude, behavior
and background of the viewer as on the physical view. Thus,
the policies are remiss in specifying whose view is to be
preserved or enhanced. The visual pol'icies are a long way
from the actual living experience of riding, walking, hiking
and otherwise traveling and otherwise just being in the coastal
zone. The policies do not seriously consider the psychological
re-creation aspect of coastal recreation and do not distinguish

between such.,varying ob.s@exver viewpoints as resident-transient,
urban resident vs. rural inhabitant '-* ethnic, age and economic
class differences. Since our society is culturally so.varied
and seemingly always in transit, multiple transitory experiences
should be respected. This point of view argues for a separation
of policy applications into areas which can be heavily or
extensively developed and those which will be left essentially
alone. Then, careful,.clever design on the more intensively
developed areas can be used to create-adequate visual experiences
there, while allowing very creative experiences, those which
really work on,people's lives, to be available to those who
seek them.

D. RELATION TO OTHER POLICIES 441

1. Recreation and Access Policies t_

a. Policy Analysis

The provision of transportation and recreational
facilities and access are both opportunities and constraints in
the conservation and development of coastal visual resources and
views. Policies for coastal access and recreational management
will also affect the visual qualities of the coast and the kinds
of issues likely to occur under Coastal Plan implementation.

Relationships between the appearance and design policies and
transportation and recreation within the viewshed are detailed in
the following tables. Table 1 is a listing of appearance and de-
sign policy statements having relevance to the overall development
and conservation of coastal visual resources as well as those
which refer to the planning and design of transportation and re-
creation improvements. Relevant policy elements.are grouped
according to their implications for the location, design, and
planning of coastal recreation and transportation. The policies
refer more to the recreational facilities and roads within pro-
posed new developments than to specific siting or design of
independent facilities. Most of the policy elements const-itute
design guidelines for approved development rath'er than specific
requirements,for planning and location of facilities and uses
within the coast. Policy application is referred to a process of
design evaluation and local planning interpretation and imple-
mentation.

b. Design and Planning Response
The focus of the appearance and design policies
on project-level decisions and plans limits their relevance to
issues suggested by coastal transportation and recreation

policies.' While the policies and ensuing procedures and standards
apply to acceptable private development decisions under the current
permit system and future design review, their application to the
design and planning of coastal recreation and transportation is
not addressed directly, although it is within their scope of con-
cern, i.e., protection of coastal visual resources, scenic areas,
and views (See Policies 44, 45, and 50).

The design response to the appearance and design policies
would be limited to the project-level and site-specific considera-
tions in Table 1, emphasizing visually compatible structures.
which minimize damage to coastal landforms. In addition, more
compact and efficiently designed facilities are called for to
minimize the number and scale of physical improvements. A mini-
mum of facilities,clustered near existing features, scaled and
designed to protect landforms, views, and coastal visual quality-
are @also specifi0d-@,-. Undesirable facilities, billboards, and
signs would be removed.

The planning response to the appearance and design policies
is more likely to determine their impact on coastal recreation
and transportation. Besides local design elements and review
boards, the policies call for the preparation of plans for signi-
ficant new developmen-t, including all those over 3 acres and
15-20 units, -afid-plaJhs_which demQnstr ate po I igy- P914p I i_a - . and coo rdi-
qcq
nate open space, circulation, design, and view protection ele .ments.
Preparationof the local design procedures and standards are to
address open space preservAtion, protection of view corridors and
natural features, non-motor access systems, circulation patterns,
and structural controls. The design elements, in turn, must be
coordinated with transportation, land use, utility, and recrea-
tional planning.

c Economic Consequences

Outside of the coastal transportation and recrea-
tional policies.,and local planning and development contexts, the
appearance and design policies are not likely to involve signifi-
cant changes or costs. Their role and influence on coastal re-
creation and transportation will be determined through subsequent
interpretation and incorporation in implementation level planning.
Policy impacts will be affected by the following factors:

(1) Relationships between appearance and design policies and
transportation, access, and recreation policies and their
relative importance in coastal planning and decision-making

(2) Local coastal issues and policy conflicts

(3) Local plantling and-implementation,@context':
- attitudes toward Coastal Plan and coastal visual
resources
- existing coastal controls and policies.

TABLE 1

APPEARANCE & DESIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR COASTAL
RECREATIONAL USE & TRANSPORTATION ACCESS

No. Policy Design Response Planning Response

44 Design devt. to protect coast- Design physical improvements to
al viewsheT. preserve scenic areas.
.Protect vi7sual quality of Provide attractive improvements
coast as resource of public to enhance.viewshed quality.
importance, especially areas Remove undesirable elements to
which can be seen from major restore visual quality.
access roads, trails, vista
points, and recreation areas,
and the shoreline.

45 Protect the visual quality of Design new development to pro-
-highly scenic areas. tect and be visually subor-
.Special considei@ation to pro- dinate in highly scenic areas.
tection of designated highly
scenic areas.

16 Establish local design pro- Prepare design procedures and
cedures and stanTa-r-Js. standards as part of local gen-
- eral plans.
Develop areawide guidelines to
coordinate development proposals
in order to preserve open space,
protect view corridors and
natural features; link open
space systems with bikeways and
paths, avoid duplicating circu-
lation, and minimize intrusion
of structures.
Coordinate transportation, land
use, utility, and recreational
planning with preparation of
design procedures and standards

TABLE 1 (cont.)

No. Policy Design,Response Planning_Response

47 Establish a design review pro- .Establish design review boards.
cess. Submit area and detailed design
plans,for coordinating open
space, circulation, design, and
view protection elements and
comply with visual and.other
coastal policies.
49 Design guidelines. Compati- Clustering of new structures Minimize,pedestrian and vehicu4
-bility with natural environ- near other features. lar traffic in fragile dune
ment. Mitigate visual damage and areas.
strict improvements on increase recreational oppor-
beaches and wetlands, where tunities from channelization
they would conflict with dune through landscaping, trails,
ridgelines and movement, or and.linear parks.
where landforms would be Design public accessways in
significantly altered. estuary areas to respect
their fragility.
Locate coastal roads on in-
land side of estuaries. -Screen private roads on
Minimize number and locate headlands.
bridges as far inland as Minimize driveway connections
possible. to highways and canyon bridges.
50 Design guideline: Pro- Prevent inappropriate land use
f-e-ction of coastal views. through zoning and development
.F-rotect coastal views from plan approval controls.
key viewing points and
within new developments.
53 Design guideline: Altera- Design necessary hillside roads
tion of natural landforms. to be as narrow as safely
.Prohibit facilities which possible and conform to natural
require grading, cutting, contours.
and.filling which signifi-
cantly and permanently
alter the appearance of
landforms.

54 Design guideline: Sign Design simple, harmonizing infor-
controls. mational and directional signs.

2. Highways

a. Identificati-on 'of 'any.New Roads and/or..New Costs
Incurred BedA .u.s.eIof Erifor'celAeht of thb* Visuar
Pblicies

The California.-Coastal-Plan will not require
the construction of any new-roads. In factthe-thrust of the Plan's
policies is to reduce demands on highway capacities by encouraging
transit and thereby reduce the need to construct new highway
facilities. It is conceivable that compliance with the Visual
Policies of the Plan could increase the costs of providing trans-
portation facilities, but it is felt that the Plan's p*olicies
only reinforce already existing guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Protec-
tion Act. The result of this is th9t costs attributable to the
Visual Policies of the Plan are minimal to nonexistent.

In the near future, there will be few opportunities available
to determine what extra costs due to compliance with the Plan's
Visual Policies might be necessary on major highway projects,
because of the current uncertain state now being ex- @
perienced in California as a result of the Governor's freeze on
highway construction and the return of the''California Transporta-
tion Plan to the California Department.of Transportation tor
major revisions. However, there is one cost easily separated
from the bids received on the few highway projects let recently,
and that cost is roadside landscaping.

The present cost for extensive landscaping of four lane
divided -ro-ads has averaged approximately $275,000 per mile of
highway. This average low bid price has been for projects whose
plans and spec 'ifications require landscaping which would more than
adequately comply with the Coastal Plan's Visual Policies. The
point to be noted here is that this landscaping was being done.in
conformance with other guidelines and policies, not those of the
Coastal Plan, as the projects were being constructed in California
in areas not within the CoastAl Zone. This fact reinforces the
already expressed opinion that any costs of compliance with the
Plan's Visual Policies will be minimal, as,the requirements of
these policies are for the most part already covered by other
existing laws and current design practices.

b. Problems and Costs Involved in Moving Highways
up Ridges,_etc.

Given a choice,most agencies would prefer to
build highways on relatively level ground rather than on hills,
ridges, etc. because it is cheaper. The following quote.exempli-
fies thi.s philosophy, "...clLoices between possible routes and
decisions regarding design alternatives must be made. These
should lo.o.k. toward the 'Cheapest overall cost, in the long run.1?l
1. Oglesby,an-d :Hewes, 1973, p. 130.'

The siting of highways and roads along the level coastal.
terrace without regard for other considerations, environment,
aesthetic, etc., is a result of this narrow policy. It is anti-
cipated that this policy would be changed if the Coastal Plan
were enacted. This policy change will probably result in high-
ways being moved to higher grounds along ridges and/or their
faces with an attendant increase in construction costs.

Most of the increased costs will come about because road
construction in hilly terrain normally requires more earthwork
and more and larger retaining walls. Another element which
might increase costs is the storm drainage system because of the
need for more sophistication in hilly terrain. Policy 49c speci-
fically addresses this latter problem.

IThe extra costs brought about by construction of a road in
hilly terrain rather than in flat terrain are unique to each
project and any attempt to provide even a rough rule of thumb
for estimating those extra costs is doomed to failure because
of the extremely wide variety of conditions existing along the
California coastline. The best that can be said is that'the
costs of each project's alternative alignments must be individual-
ly evaluated, and that, all other things being equal, construc-
tion in hilly terrain will cost more than construction in flat
terrain.

c. Preliminary Planning/Policy Analysis: Design/.
Cost Responses for Effects of Visual Policies
on Trans2ortation Elements and Related Publir-c-,
9-er-vice Elements (shown in Table 2)
Policy Table 2 Cost Factors

44 Increased costs of design and construction
45 Same as 44
46 Initial increase in planning, design and
construction may be offset later because
of coordinated planning and design savings
47 Same as 46
Higher initial and perhaps also maintenance
costs
49a May require rerouting of proposed facilities
and increase construction costs
49b Same as 49a
49c Increased storm sewer costs, may require
rerouting
49d/e May have similar effect as 49c
49f Increased construction costs for roads
49g/h May require rerouting of roads, etc.
50a/b Limit parcel development in important scenic
areas
51 No effect
52 Increased initial landscaping costs, but
may reduce maintenance costs
53a Higher planning and design costs, but
may reduce construction costs
53b Higher earthwork and landscaping costs
54a No effect
SO Increased costs for turnouts, kiosks, etc.
54c No effect
54d Small cost increases for placing new signs
55a-d Higher costs to utilities, passed along to
consumers
56 Increased planning, design and construction
costs, particularly in landscaping.

IV. DESIGN RESPONSES

A. DESIGN ANALYSIS OF POLICIES

The essential objective of the following sequence of
analytical steps is to lead to determination of the cost and
benefit consequences of Coastal Commission Policies 44-56.if
they were instituted as presently stated. Because it is
methodologically difficult to isolate the effects of these
policies from those stemming from other Commission Policies,
or to anticipate the scale and location of future development,
it will be necessary, in most casesi to state effects in orders
of magnitude: "two times current grading costs" would be one
example of expressing costs relative to prevailing state-of-
the-art design and construction techniques.
The following diagram illustrates the sequence and
relationships between the four main stages as.conceptualized
for this approach:

Design Analysis Application of
of Polices Policies:
44-56 - Findings of Impacts
- Evaluation of Impacts

\y
II IV

Case Studies Recommendations for Further
of Policy Analysis and Policy
Impacts Clarification

The first two stages are diagnostic, while the latter two are
analytical and prescriptive. The following outline describes
the process and products of each stage:
(1) Desijzn Analzsis of Policies
Stage I begins initiallT -as an 'a priori' examination
of each policy from a design point of view. This stage
is later refined by the empirical findings of Stage
The format of presentation is one of gr aphic annotation
The sketches and comments pji e ollowing page, in-
Figur@i -1-,----s-E-co-w---an-e--x-a--m--p-l-,e-- of -S-t_a--e__I f-orin-a-f. - Thro--u-gh de-
9
duct-ion, past experience, and sub sequent__ -f indings-1 rom
Stake-11-, the- design-er- cah-see, where

MPRESCINITATION OF STAGE I - GRAPHIC ANNOTATION - Figure
Policy Statement 49a: "No permanent structures shall be permitted on the open beach
itself except facilities necessary for public health and safety ... or structures
found to be necessary for public welfare. Other structures or other Improvements
shall be located inland from the open beach."

lilt

H*Y

Policy Statement 49hi "Development that would significantly hamper natural dune movement,
that would conflict with the visual form of dune ridgelines, or destroy dune-
stabilizing vegetation, shall not be permitted. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic
In fragile sand dune areas shall be minimized."

Y I
r

Put-

_Z:

4A@ -

10[4

Yly
V-P 5U4<r-14 r-W,577-5-
r

LJ n+-T

r. 7ZV- 0a7c"m-aff,
18 i M-OW EVC-72 SIN V--/
--TV7n., U1, IV. I+iA,1.11,-

(a) How, tILrougIL,thumbnail sketches, each policy,
as stated', will most likely he interpreted by
affected agenci.es;

(b) What the likely first-.order cost. or benefit
'consequences are, stated as an expression of
prevailing practices;

C d) The appropriateness of each policy with respect
to each development type and landform; and

(6.) How a particular type of user (beach-goer,
sightseer) is likely to be affected by the
policy.
(2) Ap plitation of Policies
The results of Stage and II will be used to show:

(a) Types of design responses to policies by affected
agencies;

(b) Which policies are most difficult to interpret
and apply;

(c) Which policies have the most and least effects
in terms of long and short-term costs/ benefits
according to development type and landforms;

(d) The magnitude of impacts on affected agencies; and

(e) A means of assigning different weights to polities
for resolving conflicts and establishing prioritios.

B. GENERIC DESIGN RESPONSES

Application of the design analy-sis approach-'to policy
interpretation generated a variety of generic desi.gn responses
to the visual policies, as shown below:

(1) Set back buildings away from ridgelines, view
corridors, public views; partial undeTgrounding
of buildings may be necess7ary; custom'site design
may be required; conformance to existing building
lines;

(2) Clustering of development units (especially housing),
. relocate housing on building sites;
(3) Lower overall development density, but with
higher density in certain areas; minimize overall
land alteration;

(4) Landscaping: screening by vegetation, plantings,
earth berms, partial undergroundingi

(5) Aesthetic treatment of buildings , fences and
other structures (e.g. with weathered woo-den
siding); custom building design may be required;

(6) Relocate roads to hide or eliminate cuts and
fills; lengthened access roads may be necessary;

(7) Parking lots partially undergrounded or screened,
otherwise hidden, dispersed, unobtrusiVe.

(8) Underground of utility.connections;

(9) Design review process may be costly, but can be
@made to run smoothly if design concepts are approved
before detailed building designs are made.

... . ....
20

V. ECONOMIC ANALYSI&

A BASIC BENEFIT/COST INDICATORS.'-

The basic problem in evaluating the economic.effects of
design responses to the Coas't'al" Plan visual policies is that
the benefits are mostly diffuse a-n-J-qualitative, while the costs
are concentrated and mostly quantitative. Thus, discussion of
economic effects tends to focus more on costs than on offsetting
benefits. In a sense, the C'
oastal Initiative was a first,
rough statement that the social benefits of development regu-
lation in the Coastal Zone exceeded the potential economic
costs. The Coastal Plan policies represent an attempt to
define that point of view in much more detail. This study,focuses
mainly on costs of policy implementation, but the reader should
not forget-that each policy statement is an attempt to secure
substantial social and environmental benefits. The real question,
then,is,: what are the real costs, and are these benefits worth
the costs@needed to secure them?

Some basic methodological points are the following:

1. It is not possible to make a determination of the
actual economic impacts of the policies in the-Plan because
(1) future development patterns are not certain either with or
without the Coastal Planjand (2) limitations are severe on
obtaining data which have the area within the Coastal Zone as
a basis.

2. The methodology used in this study focuses on
certain geographic areas and segments of the Plan and describes
in detail the implications of relevant visual and design policies
in each of the case studies selected.

3. Economic analysis consists of two processes:

a) identification of impacts of a specific policy
(as defined clarified by the study);@-@d

b) evaluation of those impacts in terms of who is
affec_t_e7_,N2w, how much, and for how long.,
4. Some of the principal economic impacts observable
from analysis of the case studies include:

changes in tax bases of local and state govern-
ments resulting from changes in property values
and incomes, which in turn result directly from
policies which restrict "inappropriate" development,

increased capital improvement and maintenance
costs- of local and state. governments-

increased planning and administrative costs of
local governments-resulting from design rev Iiew
requirements and requirements for monitoring and
enforcement

increased (:but perhaps also decreased) private
construction costs resulting from requirements
regarding grading, landscaping and exterior appear-
ance

increased design and construction costs to the
State government for highways and recreational
facilities which- must be located so as to have
the minimum adverse effect on the visual quality
of the area

increased costs to industry and the public for
undergrounding utility lines.

A system of cost/revenue accounts should be used in each
case to record the fiscal impacts of the applicable policies on
each sector of interest.

The economic functions used in the system of cost/
revenue accounts will be used to classify the impacts-of some
policies as major or minor (costs/benefits) when the exact value
of the impact cannot be determined; el;4g-2 with a real tax rate of
2%, property values would have to fall by $50,000 in order to
reduce local tax revenues by $1,000. If it is determined that
a particular policy will lower total property values by less
than $20,000, we may classify the impact as a minor cost to
local government and give that policy less concern than one which
is likely to lower property.values by $100,000.

These economic functions are particularly useful in
estimating the net impact of a policy which may induce a cost
,to one party and a benefit to another- e.g., where the state
purchases a parcel of land from an individual, this 11- purchase
represents a benefit (increased income) to the landownera, '' @e
cost to the state government (purchase price) and a cost to t
local government (reduced value of property on the tax rolls).

B.- EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES

Basic issues in economic evaluation of Coastal* Plan
visual policy effects are mentioned below. The study FaT -neither
time, resources nor mandate to investigate this area more thoroughly.

1. Social and environmental benefit quantification is
needed;

2. Cumulative costs; magnitude of effects, into the
future, determined by "buildout rate," and discounted
by an appropriate interest rate to derive net.
present value of economic effects;

3. Distributive effects: who benefits and wko pays in
terms of socioeconomic or geographic groups;

4. Government sector costs,may not increasej if service
levels for c,ounty public services outside the
Coastal Zone are decreased;

5. Macroeconomic effects revolve chiefly around the
issue of substitutability: -to the extent that invest-
ment opportunities denied in the coastal zone are
available elsewhere in the State and are actually
pursued, net macroeconomic costs are reduced, and
the main costs are distributive rather than economic.
In this sense., all fiscal eTf-ects are distributional
depending on which income groups pay relatively
more or less in taxes to support government activities;

6. There will always be some real gross private economic
costs to government regulation (even if there are
offsetting public benefits), because there is never
perfect substitutability due to lack of perfect
information; discontinuities in scale and timing
of investment opportunitiei; entropic costs of
maintaining the regulatory system; uniqueness of
some coastal zone investments (e.g., weatheri--.. .
coastal views, psychological value of being at
land/ocean interface, ocean fishing, scientific
study of coast, etc.); poor private market functioning;
and activity capacity limits elsewhere.

VI. CASE STUDIES

A. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS ON THE NORTH COAST*

1. Policy Analysis (Policies 46 and 47):

Remote and sparsely populated counties such as Del
Norte County may set criteria and standards that differ from those
of more urban areas of California, although consistent in general
with appearance and design policies of the Coastal Plan;.and within
counties those criteria and standards may differ ac ing to local
community preferences. I

According to the Coastal Plan, the State Coastal Agency shall
have the following responsibill-t-11-es: 1) carry out the planning and
research necessary to keep the Coastal Plan up to date in light of
changing conditions; 2) assist local governments in Plan imple-
mentation; and 3) through the appeals process, monitor the deci-
sions on proposed coastal conservation and development. There-
fore, the State Coastal Agency may assist the North Coast Region
(Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino Counties) in selecting guidelines,
criteria, and standards for design review, based on county and
local preferences.

Regional design review boards may serve areas such as Del
Norte County whi_ch,____due to itsspArsepopulation of 14,600 resi-
dents and its- remoteness, maynot be able to supply the-------
professional talent for its local (volunteer) design review board.
Careful selection,must be made of board members. A design review
board with just planners, engineers or zoning administrators, and
no designers, is missing the whole point of having a design review
board. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commis-
sion (BCDC), for example, requires its seven-member board to
include at least one architect, one'landscape'architect, and one
engineer.**@

Case study by Gerry Wolff, ASLA, AIP.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
Bay Plan Evaluation Pro@ect: Appearance, Design and Public
Access, June, 1974, p. 8.

2. Design Responses

a. Del Norte County

As Del Norte County is a county of "individual-
ists," there@is a resistance to regulations imposed from outside the
county.* There is specific opposition to the California Coastal
Plan due to concern of potential loss of local control to state and
Te--c7eral agencies . **

Consistent with-this expressed attitude, there are no plans
for design procedures and standards, and no plans for a design
review process to be included in the county general plan and or-
dinances. Also, there will be no design guidelines unZess they
are part of the permit process.*,"

in contrast, the incorporated area of Crescent City has a
design review committee in order to guide rebuilding to replace
destruction resulting from the 1964 tsunami.

b. Humboldt County

The idea of a design review board is not favored
in Humboldt County due to the time and energy that would be con-
sumed. The staff feels that the same objectives can be accomplished
through the staff administrative process. As the Board of Super-
visors is not in full agreement with the Coastal Plan, and due to
budgetary problems, Humboldt County is not likely to form a design
review board on its own initiative. The design review activity is
considered arbitrary, and less efficient than staff review.****

The County intends to meet the other directives of the Coastal
Plan because they are considered needed anyhow, not just bec e
tF_eState requires them (Garberville already has general design
guidelines encouraging the use of wood, western theme, and "good
design" in general). Design standards differ among communities
within the county, determined by county staff based on local
preferences. There is a critical lack of public information in
Humboldt County. Communications are needed in all phases of the
planning process (specific ordinances, code enforcement, etc.).
Design guidelines can be a part of this effort.***,;,
Ernest Perry-, Del Norte County Planning Dept., tel. communication.
Supervisor William L. Erickson Co. of Del Norte, letter of 9/16/75",
in opposition to Coastal Plan to Members of CSAC Executive Committe-
Larry Henderson, Humboldt County Planning Dept., tel. communi.catio

c. Mendocino County

The area of Mendocino (unincorporated) within
Mendocino County has a historic review board, a kind of design
review board. The idea of a design review board for the county has
been discussed, and favored by two-thirds of the Planning Commis-
.sion. The Planning Commission would sit as design review board at
regular meetings, or special meetings if required. Meetings are
now.two full days per month. A design guidebook is favored.*

3. Economic Cost Indicators

a. Del Norte County

For design review processing, the Planning Depart-
ment might use another person half-time at $850/month, depending on
area of Coastal Zone to be reviewed: 1) 1000 yards, less than half
person, 2) five miles, half person or more.** The increase in staff
cost would be $425/month.

b. Humboldt County
Design review would-be assi8,ted by a staff m'ember
at $885/month, who would also be responsible for other tasks. it
is estimated that the Planner I work load would increase threefold.***
At $885, the threefold increase would be $2755/month.

c. Mendocino County

Plan review is now conducted by Planner I and
Planning Technician under the supervision of the Zoning Adminis-
trator; the staff time would probabl increase about 20%-30%.****
Additional staff cost would average L18-252 per month.

It may be that the State Coastal Agency can absorb the cost
of design guidelines,""* criteria, and standards based on county
and local values and preferences, thus making less costly any new
development to the county or city agency and owner/developer,
while benefiting the general public.

4. Recommendations for Implementation

In sparsely populated counties, such as those in the

Larry Mitchell, Mendocino County Planning Dept., tel. communication.
I'V Ernest Perry, Del Norte County Planning Dept., tel. communication
2/19/76.
Larry Henderson, Humboldt County Planning Dept., tel. communication,
2/19/76.
Larry Mitchell, Mendocino County Planning Dept., tel. communication
2/19/76.
See first page of this section.

the North.Coast Region, a local design review board may be without
meaning if there is not ample skilled professional design talent
(architects, landscape arch-itects, engineers) to choose from.
Therefore, a regional design review board, to be appointed by the
State Coastal Agency, would be appropriate. The regional design
review board should draw from the regional talent pool of archi-
tects, landscape architects, engineers, urban designers, artists,
sculptors, etc.; mixed with an adequate proportion of local persons
knowledgeable in local (county and coastal).' history, aesthetics',
cultute, and goals of the coastal communities.

After the Regional Commissions have gone out of existence,
the State Coastal Commission would assist local governments in
carrying out planning and research necessary, to keep Ithe Coastal
Plan up to date, and with the implementing of the Plan.* Ther6-
fo-re, the State Commission's staff would be availab-f-e- to local
governments for assitance in formulation of design procedures,
standards and guidelines based on county goals and local
preferences.

The goals of the counties and thelocal coastal communities
are most important in this Atandards formulation process, and
should be formalized by means of citizens meetings, etc. The
State input would be in th.e form of labor and talent -required for
organizing local goals, with. professional guidance, not the imposi-
tion of strict rules from the outside.

Strict standards are apt to produce sterile results, and thus
should be avoided. Standards should allow for choice--a range of
solutions--and for exceptions. The conclusion of BCDC, for
example, was that specific criteria would not be desirable because
they would inevitably be applied as the maximum that an applicant
would provide and not the minimum as intended."

Flexibility of guidelines can give imaginative de 'signers the
freedom -to arrive at innovative solutions as well as stimulate a
high degree,of interest on the part of the volunteer design review
board members. It seems to be the intention of the Coastal Plan
to regulate. only scale and placement (not actual design) of new
structures in most areas, to satisfy the call for design review.***

astal Plan, p. 13
**BCDC, Ba-y--Plan Evaluafion Project: Appearance, Design and Public
*California Co

Access, p. 8.
example, letter of Michael P. Fischer, Executive
Director, North Central Coast Regional Commission, to Marin
County Planning Director and Stinson,Beach Planning Group.,
February 17, 1976.

B. RECREATIONAL TRAVEL IN MARIN COUNTY*

Ma:rin County Aay be considered a "model area" for
implementation of Coastal.Plan policiies. There is a high degree
of involvement in coastal conservation and management, and coastal
recreation and transportation have been particular policy and
planning concerns for some time. The Marin Coast is almost entire-
ly under public ownership and management, with nearly 60% within
the National Park System and federal control. The National Park
Service is responsible for the 64,000-acre Point Reyes National
Seashore and the two-county Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
Both are administratively designated as "recreation,areas," a
management category emphasizing use over the more typical "natural
area" designation. Under the theme "Parks to the People," the
National Park Service is developing a parkwide plan for park use
and faciliti6s in cooperation with the 2-year Golden Gate Recrea-
tional Travel Study of improved public access to and within national
park areas.

The influence and fiscal consequences of Coastal Plan policies
are assumed to be based on the relevance of the Plan policies to
coastal recreation and transportation issues in the county and to
its particular planning and implementation context. Accordingly,
a survey of 'responsible coastal planning and implementation
agencies was conducted to investigate the following:

1) Recreational and transportation coastal issues
2) Policy conflicts/Planning opportunities
3) Design and planning response to Coastal Plan policies
4) Policy impacts on coastal recreation and trans-
portation and associated costs

1. Coastal Issues

The major recreation and transportation coastal
issue in Marin is the balancing of coastal recreational access and
use with resource conservation. West Marin attracts over 5 million
visitors annually. There are four east-west lateral routes to West
Marin, and weekend and holid-ay recreational traffic, plus local
trips, produce considerable congestion and community disruption
along these routes. Alternatives aimed at redistributing traffic
and inducing modal shift are being sought in lieu of highway im=
provements. Meanwhile, recreational visitation is increasing,
capacities are b.eing held to 1973 levels, and local community
pressure is mounting to restrict access further. Recreational
alternatives are concerned with establishing acceptable levels of
recreational use consistent with resource protection and access
@policies.
*Case s_tudy_by Nancy Ab-odeely,
U.S. National Park Service,, 1975, p.3.

The second major coastal issue in Marin is the provision of
visitor facilities. 'Public'programs-h-ave.generally emphasized
day-uge facilities. Commitments to recreational development by
the County and State are being shi-fted to populated inland areas,
and coastal activities are limited to maintaining existing
facilities. The National Park Service provides facilities and
programs geared to day use, w-ith- a limited amount of space for-
overnight stays. Increased emphasis will be placed on walk-in
campsite facilities and similar accomodations. Pressures for
expansion-an'd development of commercial visitor facilities and
overnight accomodations has become an-important county issue.
West Marin communities, already impacted by non-local traffic
problems, oppose such development, because of increased attraction
of coastal visitors and travel.

2. P-olicy Conflicts/Planning Opp'ortuAities

a. Access

Access issues are being addressed through. the
Golden Gate Recreational Travel Study and National Park Service
planning program now in progress. Involved agencies are awaiting
completion 'of these two plans and the outcome of the various
test programs established to promote transit usage and service
and re-route traffic during congested periods. Existing access
policies and implementation programs are aligned with Coastal
Plan policies, and no additional costs would be incurred by the
Plan itself.

b. Facilities

Facility development within the coast will be
limited by existing policy and environmental controls. The County
supports scenic roadway development, but opposes official route
designation,.to avoid excessive visitor attraction. Coastal
appearance and design policies are most likely to reinforce
scenic roadway development and provision of roadside amenities
and services. The type and extent of facilities to be permitted
for recreational visitors and overnight accomodation is a plan-
ning issue to which the appearance and design policies are likely
to be addressed, particularly in the determination of appropriate
sites and design approaches. No significant costs are indicated.

c. Planning

Existing policies, park development and travel
planning programs, and county zoning (A-60) applying to the coast
are already aligned with coastal appearance and design policies 41
according to survey informants, and few conflicts seem to come
within exclusive purview of the Plan. Physical devel-ppment pre:_
sures on the coast are limited by the large extent of public owner-
ship, conservative management policies, and existing commitments to
balancing recreational access with environmental c arrying capacities

and local community needs. Non-structural alternatives are
favored by the County and National Park Service for bo.th-access
improvements and recreational Site development.

To somedegree, federal pres'ence in Marin has pre-empted
local planning initiative with respect to the coast. County
policy emphasizes community planning and resources and efforts
are mostly concentrated in inland communities. State coastal
recreation sites are maintained, but resources are also eommitted
more to populated local areas.

Another consequenc e of federal ownership of most of the
coast has been intensified development pressures elsewhere on the
coast and in the County. Private development proposals motivated
County land,acquisition from the Bolinas Harbor District and
State acquisition of property at Tomales Bay. It is likely that
such actions could be mediated through application of coastal
appearance and design policies, rather than through public land
purchase.

The role and impact of the Coastal Plan policies in Marin
will be determined by local interpretation and the implmentation
program the County develops. A pilot project funded by the Federal
Office of Coastal Zone Management is underway in Marin,County and
in selected California coastal cities to develop an im@liementatlbn
program for the Coastal Plan. Given the latitude of Coastal Plan
policies, the County's current strong coastal environmental
controls, and the emphasis on the community planning process,
ot project,
a range of responses is likely. Following the pil t ad
ministrative costs would be borne by the agencies having a role
in policy implementation and project planning and review. Staff-
ing commitments equivalent to one full-time coastal planning po-
ordinator and liason person to the Coastal Commission regional
office would be required during the three-year period designated
for the development of a local implementation program and'transi-
tion from the permit and appeal process of Plan ad*inistration to
one of coastal land use management. Continuing requirements would
then be integrated with on-going planning and implementation
functions. No specific response to appearance and design policies
is anticipated beyond what is now occurring, and the Local Implementa-
tion Program will consider these policies in the-context of other
policy areas.

C. TRANSPORTATION, ACCESS AND PARKING AT RECREATIONAL
BEACHES

San Gregorio State 'Beach

ultimate development of San Gregorio State Beach. This propo sed
The following case study is of the proposed

development provides for the construction of 66 overnight camp-'
sites, 60 family picnic sites, 5 comfort stations,.day-use parking
sufficient to accomodate 279 automobiles and 6 busses, plus
other necessary support facilities including the development of an
dn-site 22,000 gallon per day water supply. These proposed
facilities would be constructed in stages. The first-stage con-
struction will provide all of the proposed parking facilities and
some minor support facilities. In addition the first-stage also
calls for removal of the existing parking on the beach and some
minimal landscaping (hydromulch plantiiag),.of the sitie...,

The analysis of this proposed development vis-'a-vis the
Coastal,Plan's,,-Visual Volicies and some of the transportation
Volicies was done considering the ultimate site development
proposed. The method choseft for this analysis was to take the
proposed design for each element of the project and compare that
design with the requirements of each policy in turn, and then
decide if the design was in Good, Fair, or Poor compliance with
that policy.

If compliance was not Good an estimate was made of the extra
costs required, if any, to bring about Good policy compliance.
Basic to this approach is the assumption that all project design Is
guidelines were reached without consideration of the Coastal Plan
Policies. This is a valid assumpti.on, since_t@hese designs were
developed in late 1972, whenthe Coastal Plan's policies had not
yet been promulgated. A display of this analysis and-cost estimate
is given in Table 3.**

The basic conclusion to be derived from this analysis is that
this proposed development, for the most part, does conform to the
visual Policies of the Coastal Plan. This was accomplished not
because of any considerati-an of Coastal Plan policies,: which
were non-existent when this project was designed, but because of
conformance to the then existing guidelines of the Department of
Parks and Recreation, the Office of Architecture and Construction,,
and the California Environmental Quality Act, to name a few.

The extra costs for Good compliance with the Coastal Plan's
Policies would be $25,000-$30,000, or less than 2% of the total
construction monies spent for the ultimate development of this
beach. Even this small increase in costs might not be needed if
the visual 1policiies had been used as a factor in the planning
and design process.

During the analysis of this project some points of concern
other than conformance to 'visual 'policies were noted. The major
.point noted was the discrepancy between sizing of the pai-king
*Case* st-4dy -by G@rry-,Finn,;@,

..31

TABLE 3

Project Compliance Extra Costs Re-
with Policies quired for Goal
Policy Compliance Comments

Good Fair Poor Yes No

44 Extra costs would be on order
of 2% of Total Construct Price
($25,000)

45 Land was purchased to comply
with State's Park & Recreation
Policies
46 VIIII, Amount of extra costs for
planning not estimable, but
possibly could be offset by
reduced implementation costs.
48 WOO About $2,000 cost

49 Same costs as for Policy #44

49a
49c V-001

49d

49g Same costs as for Policy #44
49h Wo'00' Facilities could be located
elsewhere at no extra cost

50a Facilities provided because of
State's Park & Recreation
Policies
5 Ob Y-'

51 uncertain A change of construction ma-
terials will not necessarily
increase construction or
maintenance costs
52 V-1001- ve-100 Same costs as for Policy #44

TABLE 3 (contd.)
Project Compliance Extra Costs?

Good Fair Poor Yes No Comments

53
53a W/

53b

54 No extra costs involved with
this

54d
55a W-,*'
55b V-' Already included as part of
State Architect's guideline s
56 W-000 Same costs as for Policy #44
99b Vol" Provision of bicycle safe-
keeping facilities for 20
bicycles - about $1,000.
Additional parking will cost
approximately $250/space (aull)

104d Extra costs..would come about
if expanded parking, etc.
to provide greater access
105 V100", Same as for Policy #44

105a
105b Vol Same as for Policy #44

_411

facilities and design capacity of this park. The present design
capacity of San GregIorio,State Beach is 1,380 persons,,* yet the
capacity of the proposed parking facilities is only 279 auto
mobiles and 6 busses, or 1,193persons if the figures 3.2 per
vehicle for.recreational trips and 50 persons per bus are used in
the calculations. This means that with the parking lot at 100%
capacity the recreational facilities can only be utilized at 86%
Of present capacity, and when the ultimate development is reached,
utilization of the recreational facilities will be at only 60%
of the tht-n 1,@84 person capacity. The preceding analyses
assume,that the local "no parking" laws will be strictly enforced
and do not account for bicyclists.

The disturbing part of this revelation is the seeming lack
of consideration of existing studies which point up the fact that
parking capacity, not highway capacity, is the limiting factor in
the provision of recreational opportunities along the San Mateo
Coast Corridor. This attitude would be understandable if transit
service were available or if transit service would be available in
W the future, but neither case exists here.

There are two basic strategies available which would relieve
the parking problem and not require more area for parking. The
first is an increase in the number of parking spaces, and the
second is an increase in the number of persons per vehicle using
the parking facilities.

It might be possible to increase the number of parking spaces
available by reducing the minimum area per parking space for some
percentage of the spaces. This strategy reflects the present
changes in automobile size and the increasing percentage of compact
cars in use. In this same vein a more intensive design review
process could possibly produce a more efficient parking lot pattern
with an attendant increase in the number of spaces av ailable. A
10% increase in@available spaces could result in 95% utilization
of present day recreational facilities and 68% utilization of the
ultimate recreational facilities.

The second strategy available, increasing the number of persons
per car, could be accomplished by not allowing vehicles to use the
parking facilities if they had less than some minimum number of
occupants (say 2 or 3). It is also possible to raise the per
vehicle occupancy rate by increasing the number of bus spaces
available. However, the problem with this approach is that the
major portion of the facilities to be provided at this beach will
be sized for families, not large groups, which, in turn, limits
the need for bus parking. If a 10% increase in the number of
spaces available due to implementation of the first strategy is
assumed then for parking capacity and recreational capacity to be

*Hammond, Recreafion Travel Analysis, p. 22.

equal, an occupancy rate of 4.3 persons per automobile is required
upon completion of stage one-and an Occupancy rate of 5.5 persons
pet automobile is required wh-en t.h-e ultimate development is reache

Both of these automobile occupancy rates seem too high to
ever be realized. The conclusion is that if parking and recrea-
tional facilities are to be equivalently sized, either more on-.site
parking must be provided or parking along Highways 1 and 84 must
be allowed. On-site parking is the' more desirable of the two,
as it does not decrease highway capacity and increase associated
traffic safety problems.

To equalize parking capacity and recreational capacity after
stage one is,completed will require the construction of approx-
imately 110 more parking spaces than now planned, and when ultimate
development is reached, another 125 parking spaces will be required.
These two additions will bring the total number of parking spaces
available up to 514 auto spaces, 6 bus spaces, and 12 camp-site
spaces, or parking capacity sufficient for 1,984 persons. The cost
for each auto parking space is approximately $300, but this cost
should not be charged to any of the Coastal Plan's ':,-Policies;
rather it should be charged to the concept of balanced design which
should have been included in the original plans.

A minor point of concern is the lack of any provisions for
bicycle safekeeping. Although the number of bicyclists now using
the facility is small, those using transport modes other than
auto should not be discouraged in that use by lack of suitable
facilities, particularly when the costs for providing their needs
is so small and the shift of transportation modes is encouraged
by Policy 99b.

In sum this project, San Gregorio State Beach, conforms
quite well to the Coastal Plan's Visual policies in spite of the
fact it was designed before those policies had been promulgated..
In those instances where conformance is lacking or not quite
complete, a relatively small cost, @% or less of total construction
cost, will bring about the required conformance to the Visual
policies. On future projects, this percentage might be reduced,
as the policies would then be included in the design criteria,
and not be an afterthought as they now are.

2.. Hoover Ranch Acquisition for
Big Basin Redwoods State-nrk*

a. Problem

The problem for the Hoover Ranch case study was
defined as follows: apply visual, parking, and trail policies-
of the Coastal Plan to the site to identify alternative parking
ana comfort station locations for greater beach use. The pro-
posed State Park acquisition.@area is shown in Figure 2.

b. Analysis

Based on the Wadie:U Creek Report by Hecht and
Rusmore and a site visit, it was determined that the lower Waddell
Creek Valley is a highly sensitive ecological area. Views of the
site and the beach from Route 1 in both directions were noted,
and 6 alternative sites for parking were identified. The alterna-
tives were compared according to physical convenience, economic
feasibility, and environmental compatibility. Table 4 shows the
evaluation of alternative parking sites and Table 5 presents cost
estimates for parking site development. The alternative parking
sites are shown in Figure@3.

Alternative A: (On both sides of western road, near the entrance
to the west 70ad - see.sketch - close to Route 1; on level ground;
could accomodate up to 100 cars).

This site would.be second-best in terms of physical conven-
ience to the beach, would risk some disturbance of the tule
marsh to the north east (paving, water run-off containing chemi-
cal pollutants from vehicles, foot traffic), and would be fairly
visible to travelers on Route 1, both north and south. Screening
(i.e., landscaping and/or earth berming) would improve the visi-
bility (from Route 1) problem somewhat, but would not eliminate
it completely.

Alternative B: (old quarry site; away from Route 1; next to
western road; on level ground; approximately 50 cars).

This site would not be as convenient to the beach because
of its distance (1/4 mile from the beach), and would accomodate
only approximately 50 cars. This site would not present as
many environmental problems because of its distance from the
creek and tule marsh, and would be preferable in terms of
achieving low visibility from Route 1. Costs would be higher
since there would have to be access road improvements over a
longer -distance.

Al ternative C: (meadow site; away from Route 1; next to western
road; on leTe-,l.groUnd; approximdt.ely-250 cars).
*Case study by Irene Tor ey, AIP, and Barbara Rusmore.

FIGURE 2

@-oo

*90,
.0
00

01.1
4h

tu top

OL X
3e C@- <
Prom

opp-

'Ooo,

Table 4. Alternative Parking Site Evaluation
(see Figure 3)

Sites Physical Economic Environmental

A + +

B +

E + +

F +

G + + +

Note: The denotes a relatively more beneficial effect,
and the "-" denotes a relatively more adverse effect.

This site is even further away (3/4 of a mile) than B, but
would accomodate up to 250 cars. Environmentally, there may be
negative impacts caused by paving (destruction of surface vegeta-
tion and wildlife habitat) and polluted water run-off going into
the creek. This site would not be visible from Route 1. This
site would also have higher road improvement costs.

Alternative D: (meadow site.; away from Route 1; next to eastern
road; approximately 250 cars; not within area presently proposed
for acquisition).

Same physical features and impacts as C, but on east side
of the creek, and closer to Route 1 and therefore more convenient.
This site is. outside of the area presently proposed for acquisi-
tion.

Alternative E (on the east side of the creek; near Route 1;
served by eastern road; approximately 75 cars; not within area
presently proposed for acquisition).

This location would be'the most appropriate for the main
entrance (including a ticket gate and park office facilities)
because of the desired visibility (from the road) of these facili-
ties. The parking location would be second-best (equal to that
of A, in terms of convenience to drivers), and would accomodate
up to 75 cars, using mostly minor extensions of existing paved

Table S.. Parking Site Cost Comparison*
(see Figure 3)

Alternatives A B C D E F G

Number of ca rs 100 50 250 250 - 75 75 375

Base cost [on-grade] 144,000 22,000 110,000 110,000 73,000 3.3,000 286,000
parking lot construc-,
tion

Roadway section costs 264,000 386,000 264,000 264,000
(for 2 lane access
road)
Special roadway em- - - - 75,000
bankment costs
Landscaping 25,000 12,500 62,500 62,500 18,750 18,750 93,750

Additional costs NA NA NA NA
for areas not pre-
04 ;
to sently proposed for
acquisition V/ V11"
Additional costs for
travel to site (labor
& materials)

TOTAL 169,000 298,500 558,500 436,500 91P750 390,750 379,750
Costs/Parking stall 1,690 5P970 2,234 1,746 1,223 5,210 1,012

For cost estimate of comfort stations and park office facilities (park entrance and
ticket gate), refer to State Dept. of Parks and Recreation.

Source: Building Cost Index,.1975 edition.

A-

Irk

.4 Ail A
bk

k*'A
10 A-
0

+
& 00
va,
* '4 -k TWE MARSA

logo& v SrftRNO
#to
Jk
ik -t f4O*AT6RWf VINE

SCRUB-
490
',4A 0 *1

At
40
&A*#
low RIPARtAN WMPW:kk4O
Jw

6w Ar.?Lr-- 024OPfRD

SCALE

WADDELL 4i
del if Jf
CREEK
FIGURE, 3
VALLEY /A 14u, vta4i ve Pa r k 1'"
j
4-e,,s (Desi
S
&Y-ce 101, i-efter-tee-'Fle-1
OL.
40

surfaces. Water run-off into the creek and tule marsh can be ex-
.pected. This site would be quite visible from Route 1, both north
and south.

Alternative F: (small box canyon; near Route 1; next to existing
extension of eastern road; approximately 75 cars; not in area
presently proposed for acquisition).

This site would accomodate up to 75 cars; it would be physi-
qally convenient to motorists and well screened by existing vege-
tation and land form. Access would be off the main entrance road
and would require additional paving and embankments for the park-
ing entrance road itself. Some run-off into the nearby tule
marsh could be expected and the new paving would involve more
surface vegetation destruction than Site E, which uses mostly
existing paved surfaces. This site is not within the presently
proposed acquisition.

Alternative G: (beach side of Route 1; very close to Route 1;
high 71-sibility; 250-375 cars; within area now proposed for ac-
quisition).

This alternative would accomodate several hundred cars (more
than 250), and would be the most convenient in terms of direct
beach access. Parking here would be the cheapest (in per space
costs), since the lot already exists (and is presently heavily
used by trailers). However, this site is objectionable from the
point of view of visibility, because it is a highly visible site
and vehicles on it would block views of the ocean. Screening
would not be desirable as it would serve to block more views of
the ocean. The most desirable coastal view is that of waves
breaking against the rocks and beach. Therefore, screening of
visual distractions (which also hide this view) is not desirable.
Run-off into the mouth of the creek would be less objectionable
here than in the fresh water part of the creek. This alternative
and its me-rits should be compardd to any one or all (because of
its site) of the previous alternatives (A - F).

Two finalcomments on the evaluation of parking areas are
worth making:
1. All parking schemes could have a drop-off/pick-up zone
on the seaward side of Highway 1 to make picking up and
dropping off of passengers easier.
2. There is 'an inherent danger in having to walk across T
Highway 1 and make left turns into all parking areas on
the landward side of Highway 1. Therefore, all plans
for parking areas on the landward side would need
pedestrian crosswalks and other appropriate traffic
regulating devices and warnings for drivers and pedestrians.

Co mfo rt Stations:
For the convenience of beach users, these have to be close
to the beach (i.e.: on beach side of the highway). To reduce
visibility, the comfort station structure(s) could be placed,
into the ground on the mudstone, and earth berms a few'feet high
could be created around the exterior walls. Below grade place-
ment on the.beach isusually not feasible, due to occasional
inundation,'dr.ifting sand and difficulty of access for handi-
capped persons.

Within the existing proposed acquisition, the sites which
would best respond to the visual policies would be B, C, and D.
If, however, acquisition were to be considered to the.east side
of the creek, site_F would have a higher preference, because it
would be-concealed from-the road _an& very-c-onveni-ent.- However,
this alternative would also be quite costly per space, because
of the roadway improvements and embankments required.

it should be noted that some of the costs which would be
attributed to the Coastal Plan visual policies would be incurred
even if the Plan did not exist, and a policy of "good design"
were to prevail. For example, screening of parking areas on the
land side of Route I and making the comfort stations unobtrusive
in appearance in the beach side of Route 1 would be "good design"
practice, normally followed, even if the Plan did not exist.

c. Evaluation

The Hoover Ranch offers a wide variety of coastal
landforms including the beach strand and creek mouth, sand dunes
rising to coastal bluffs, an,::undisturbed freshwater marsh and
steep, wooded hillsides surrounding the valley pasturelands. This
diverse environment contains an uncommonly rich mixture of plant
and animal life. The marsh and wetlands provide one of the fe "w
remaining healthy environments for many species of resident and
migratory birds. Coast HigWay 1 crosses the valley mouth and
two small dirt roads lead up the valley, joining a mile upstream.

Development of visitor facilities must be carefully located
and designed to minimize disruption of the''Aife processes in the
marsh area. In this case, the need to maintain the fragile na-
tural ecosystem may need to outweigh the desire to conform with
the visual policies and guidelines of the Coastal PI'an. Though
the least visible parking sites would be located up the valley,
increased foot and vehicular traffic along the existing dirt
roads would make the marsh uninhabitable for many species of
waterfowl. A pedestrian trail could be built on the west.side of
the valley that would provide bird watching areas while being
screened by the pine forest. This trail would link up with the
existing Chalks fire trail and would provide foot access to the
upper valley and Big Basin. The existing roads should be re-
served. for service vehicles.

4.2

Minimal facilities, parking areas, and restrooms could be
located alongside Highway 1 north of the valley. This area en-
compasses from five to six acres and is on a shelf of Santa Cruz
Mudstone, ranging in height from two to ten feet above the beach.
It is currently used for parking-and at the southern end provides
vehicular access onto the sand dunes and beach. It is highly '
visible from the road, and at the southern end, the waves can be
seen across the lot. Parking could be restricted to the northern
area, and earthen berms could be constructed from landslide ma-
terials available across the highway to the north. With appro-
priate landscaping, the parking area could be largely screened
from view. The loss of a hundred yards of ocean view and an
occasional glimpse of parked cars is a small tradeoff for main-
taining the marsh area intact.

Facility development may present a problem. A water system
would have to be developed from up the valley. Sewerage and
wastewater disposal probably could not be handled by conventional
means due to the close proximity of the ground water table. How-
ever, a dry, digester-type toilet system, minimal water use fa-
cilities and a storage tank that would be periodically pumped
out could minimize this problem.

If extensive visitor facilities are desired at the beach end
of Big Basin State Park, the coastal bluffs to the south of the
valley, served by Last Chance Road, provide the best location.
The bluffs are a relatively stable ecological environment, adapt-
able to intensive human use. Access into Hoover Ranch and Big
Basin as well as the coastal strand could be easily provided.
The area however, has not been included in the State Park acqui-
sition, and perhaps consideration should be given to extending or
revising the acquisition area.

D. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON THE SONOMA COUNTY COAST, INCLUDING
SEA RANCH*

1. Policy Analysis
Listed below in Table 6,-in' 4 eneral'. waX,,fre Shose poli-
cies which would most likely have a cost im#act on sp ic e-
velopment activities as related to housing construction.
Table 6 Housing Costs
Development Policies Ukely to
Cost Fa ctors Cause Higher -Costs

Design Costs 44-49, 49c-50a, 55, 55b-d, 56
Land Costs 46, 49a-50b, 53, 53b
Site Preparation 49a-h, 50a, 52, 53-55b, 56
Construction Methods 51, 53, 53a
Construction Materials 49c-49g, 51
Landscaping Methods 49a,b, 49h-50a, 51-53a,b
Landscaping Materials 49b-50a, 51-52
@Utilities Costs 47b,c, 49a-h, 53-56
Accessibility (roads) 49-49f, 50-50a, 53a
Administrative Costs 44-49, 49c-56
(zoning, permits)

Without knowing the magnitude or location of a particular project,
the effects listed here are intended as potential impacts. It is
clear,,even after cursory analysis, that des* n, .land acquisition,
To
and administrative activities- will be theTeve pment tactors
more seriously affecteU than other construction activities, in
terms of cost increase. This will be especially true.in relation
,to the more general, broadly stated policies, as opposed to the
more specific, location-oriented policies.

In an attempt to focus on specific policy impacts on housing
development, two interviews were conducted with knowledgeable
public and private officials in Sonoma County. The interview
parties were:
1. Mr. Wesley Vail, Senior Planner, Current Planning,
Sonoma County Planning Department, and
2. The Sea Ranch Association
a. Warren G. Haight, President, Oceanic Properties, Inc.:
b. Mary N. Allen, Assistant Secretary and Project Manager,
Oceanic California, Inc.
c. William E.,Rand, Staff Consultant, Sea Ranch Associa-
tion
The---res.ults of t,@e'se interviews were recorded on detailed forms,,
and some of the main findings are hi-ghlighted below.

*Case study By Mark Trembley.

2. Reactions and Economic Consequences
11 . -@ I
a. The biggest cost to government will be staffing
forthe design review process as well as field inspection. For
example, 2 designers (landsca e architect and architect) will
cost each local agency about 340,000 a year. It is not likely.
that people with these skills will make long-term, time-consuming
commitments on a volunteer basis.

b. Design guidelines will require citizen builders
to hire professional designers rather than relying on contractors.

c. Local government desperately needs a more de-
tailed set of design standards from the state to facilitate inter-
pretation of policies.

d. Policies should promote clustering, although this tech-
nique is not as appropriate in rural areas as in urban areas where
economies of scale and infrastructure cost savings are greater.

e. Many of the Coastal Plan policies confirm exist-
ing local policies, e.g.,undergrounding utilities in subdivisions.
Others are too inflexible and should use "should" rather than
"shall." Sea Ranch design policies are more restrictive, on the
whole, than the Coastal policies.

f. Sea Ranch policies result in about a '10% in-
crease per unit of residential design and construction costs.
Presen-t costs run up to $45/square foot, as compared to an
average of $30/sf in the surrounding area.

9. In general, there is a reluctance to express
benefits in other than broad qualitative terms. For example,
design policies will induce a more attractive, higher-valued
housing product which would yield greater tax revenues. On the
other hand, such policies would decrease the volume of construc-
tion and exacerbate the high construction unemployment rate
along the coast.

h. Apparent quantitative cost effects should not
necessarily take precedence over benefits that can only be stated
in qualitative terms. For example, it may not be possible to
assess the revenues generated by increasing numbers of tourists
who will be drawn to the coast as a scenic attraction in the
long-range future.

3. Recommendations

a. Visual Analysis Mapping

It is imperative that phrases like "significant

views," "key viewing points," and "highly scenic areas" be
clearly defined and located as mapped expressions. The current
vagueness regarding these issues may result in highly subjective
and capricious interpretations onthe part of local governments
which will undermine the whole intent of the visual policies
section of the Plan. Several illustrative examples regarding
the above concepts are indicated on the following maps. As demon-
strated, a clearly defined system of visual analysis should be
employed to.record and identify essential visual attributes.
From this analysis, a mapped expression of policies relating to
the identification of important corridors should be determined (See
Figures 4 and 5. -It is critical to use such a method to form the
basis of a rational open space system designed to preserve de-
sired visual qualities.

To put the objective here in more straightforward and collo-
quial termsk if the voids are controlled, the solids will fall
into place. It woulU-'5-eentirely inappropriate to Attempt to
implement visual preservation on the Coast by controlling the
solids (structure, bulk, height, placement) in a parcel-by-parcel
piecemeal fashion. The result following such practices will be
left-over, uncoordinated "negative" spaces that conflict with
the Plan's original objectives.

The recommended visual mapping, as suggested on the attached
maps, orsimilar methods, should be carried out by landscape
architects who are trained in visual analysis. It is estimated
that such a preliminary program for the entire California coast
could be carried out in 4 to 6 months at a cost of $50,000 -
$100POOO.

b. Additional Guidelines for Polity Interpretation

Fences: The existing policies do not restrict
the type, height or color of fences. Since these structures
could be the most visually prominent or disruptive elements as
viewed from the Coast Highway, restrictions regarding fences
should be specified. Concrete block w'dils should be excluded.
Fences should be lowt open, preferably of unpainted wood, left
-to weather naturally. They should not conflict in heig4t_with,,_..__
important views, from the road.
L aii&s cap ing ve-g-e t -ation--c a-n- enh ance- _p o r- t-i- 6n___s__o_f the c-oa-st-a-1
area, but height of plant materials should be controlled so that
important views are not blocked.

*The "voids" are not re-allydevoid,, but denote natural scenery

V C
TIRE 4
rill,
COUNTY
Gualala U"' L'@ONQMA COUN"'TY

sea Ranch -A

4104
401*
Note: Whereas
this map is for con-
ceptual purposes, actu a 1
field analysis would use
a base map scale of no less
than 1'1-20001. Viewing sta- 10,
tions would be selected at Stewart nt 0
mile intervals in combination
with dominant viewing points.
A continuous viewing sequence
could, in part, be'recorded by
Richardson, Krus
using stereo/pair air photos. Ranches

57EVEWD 140r;41101i AHP%J-Y5,IS, 10

fVr0AIe44NV (44-1 rf I-) yIF'%W
we446r raw H P, (r

Salt Point
14
ean Cove

illwater Cove

Kilometers;
Scale i Q5,000 Cootour 10i,rv1
Miles: @J lw- 47
r7@1
Depth curves at lj()- lattlom interval

I6URE:
QD

MENDOCINO COUN'
TY
Gualala tONOMA COUNTY

4b"

Stewarts Point 0

Richardson, Kruse

Salt Point

ean Cove'

tillwater Cove

Kilometers: . =23
Scale1125,000 Contowwl-v.fl@k@o
48
Miles: 2 @,I LX'
Depth curves at iw- woom interval

E. UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITY DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
ItJ
Policy 55, "Design Guideline: Utility Structures," deals
partly with undergrounding of distribution facilities (55b), and
these present two cases: new and existing. The impacts of the
policy on the two cases will be considered separately. Only .
power lines will be dealt with in this assessment, but the infor-
mation is also valid for telephon e and other utility lines.

1. New Facilities

a. Polia- "New distribution facilities and ser-
vice connections -s-F-aTl be placed underground except where under-
grounding would be inconsistent with sound environmental planning
or where the cost of undergrounding would be so high as to deny
service"',(Coastal Plan, p. 74). Distribution facilities include:
- distributio-n-Ilnes which ca"rry power from the utility's
distribution center throughout its service area;
- service connections which carry power to the customer's
buildings from the utility's distribution line.

Response: Undergrounding is currently required
by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for all-new
distribution facilities:
- to residential subdivisions (5 or more lots) and to
residential developments (5 or more dwelling units in 2
or more buildings located on a single parcel of land)
(PG&E Rule #15.1), except when the minimum parcel size
is 3 acres or more and no more than one single-family
dwelling is allowed on each parcel of 3 acres or less
(PG&E Rule #15);
- to commercial and industrial developments; and
?tin proximity to any highway designated a State Scenic
Highway ... and which would be visible from such scenic
highways if erected above ground" (Section 302, Public
Utilities Code: See PExhib!.V A).
These regulations imply that the only facilities which Policy 55b
would requireto be undergrounded which are not required to be
undergrounded by the PUC are new distribution facilities.to in-
dividuals who are not within 1000 feet of a designated State
Scenic Highway-

PG&E has been recommend ing that any new distribution facili-
ties in proximity to any section of a.highway which is being con-
sidered for designation as a State Scenic Highway also be consi-
dered for undergrounding. In response to the passage of the
California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20),
the Regional Coastal Commissions have been requiring, as a
matter of course, that all new distribution facilities be under-
grounded which are:
- within 3000 feet of the coast; or
- seaward of Highway 1.

*Case study by William Zi le.

Since the requirement for undergrounding new distribution facili-
ties may be lifted if the California Coastal Plan is not adopted
and the mandate of.Proposition 20 expires, it is appropriate to
attribute the costs of undergrounding these facilities to the
Coastal Plan.

The, two qualifying clauses in the policy statement regarding
environmental and economic costs of undergrounding reduce the
impacts of the policy considerably. The North Central Coast
Regional Commission has allowed PG&E to install a number of new
overhead facilities to individuals when the lines could be
easily camouflaged in wooded areas. Installation of overhead
facilities also has been allowed in some instances when an indiv-
idual's property was far from the utility's nearest distribution
line and undergrounding would have been quite expensive.

In those instances where undergrounding would be required by
Policy 55b,,the individual customer would be required to pay
three-fourths of the difference between the cost of installing
the undergrounding facilities and the cost of installing overhead
facilities (PG&E Rule 15). The utility absorbs the remaining
one-fourth of the cost. When more than one utility shares the
trench, the trenching costs are shared by the utilities equally
on a per-foo.t-used basis.,

C. Economic Indicators

The indicators of the costs which would be incur-
red as a resIult of implementing the first part of Policy 55b are
of two types:
- factors which contribute to the cost of undergrounding
facilities on a given site, and
- the number of.sites to which the policy would apply.
Site factors include:
- trenching costs,
- distance from existing distribution facility,
- distance from the utility's service center, and
- materials costs (type of facilities: primary or secondary).

Trenching costs vary tremendously from site to site depend-
ing principally upon the type of soil located on the site. '
Trenching costs range from less than $3 per foot to more'than
$20 per foot depending upon how rocky the soil is and, conse-
quently, the type of machinery needed to dig the trench; the
number of men needed to run that machinery; whether the soil can
be used to cover:the conduit in the trench or whether it must be
hauled away and backfill must be hauled to the site; whether
paving must be removed and replaced; and whether the trench must
cross a drainage.ditch. Undergrounding costs may be very high
if an individual.is far from the utility's nearest distribution
line. High transportation costs may result if the individual's,
property is located far from the utility's service center. The
materials used in underground facilities are usually significantly

more expensive than materials used in overhead facilities. Pri-
mary lines carry higher voltages than secondary lines and require
more expensive materials when undergrounded than,..do secondary
lines.

The number of sites to which the policy would apply canno 't
be determined accurately. To the extent that new development
will occur in locations which already are serviced by distribu-
tion facilities, costs will be substantially less than if devel-
opment occurs in areas not currently served. Thus, only sites
outside of subdivisions and developments would be subject to
additional costs.

d. Cost*Assessment: It is notpossible to assess
the overall costs which. would re ult from this part of Policy 55b.
However, the following conclusions can be drawn:
- The'policy will not result in any additional direct costs
to individuals who locate in residential subdivisions
or developments or within 1000 feet of a Designated
Scenic Highway.
- In virtually all cases where undergrounding is required
by this policy, the facilities would be more costly
than overhead facilities.
- Three-fourths of the difference between the costs of under-
grounding and of installing overhead facilities would be'
paid by the individual(s)'receiving the service. The
other one-fourth of the difference will be shared by all
ofthe customers of the utility.
- Costs to an individual could range from a few hundred to
several thousand dollars.
- The costs resulting from the policy may be partially
offset in the future by savings to the customer when the
utilities underground their existing facilities.

2. Existing Facilities
a. Poli@z: "Cities and counties shall develop pro-
grams for undergr-o-u-n-cTing existing distribution facilities and
service connections in scenic and highly visible coastal areas
as part of subsequent planning." (Coastal Plan, p. 74)

b. Response: The decision as to which facilities
would be undergrounded under the provisions of this policy de-
pends upon which sites would be designated as scenic and highly
visible and these are somewhat at the discretion of local govern-
ment. In accordance with the directives included in Proposition
20, the Regional Coastal Commissions have considered requiring
that certain existing distribution facilities which will serve
new developments be'undergrounded. The undergrounding of exist-
ing' facilities has, however, received considerably less emphasis
than has the undergrounding of new facilities. The design/
review process described in Policy 47a would offer an alternative

to undergrounding in those situations where distribution lines
could be relocated to out-of--site locations. Undergrounding of
existing facilities can have significant environmental impacts,
for example, when trees must b .e cleared and kept out of the path
of an underground trench.
c. Economic Indicators: As in the case of under-'
grounding new facilities, the indiTators of the costs which
would be incurred as a result of implementing the second part of
Policy 55b include site factors and the number of sites subject
to the policy.
Site factors are much the same, except that un dergrounding
would require additional cost, to remove existing poles, lines,
etc. Costs of $100,000 to $200,000 per mile are common.. A
recent study-by PG&E indicated that the undergrounding of four
secondary power lines over a distance of 0.45 miles in the
Timber Cove development would cost approximately $110,000. Under-
grounding 1.75 miles of the primary line would cost about $300,000.
The cost of undergrounding 0.5 miles of primary and secondary
lines in the Gleason Beach Assessment District is about $100,000.
It should be noted that the per-unit-distance cost of underground-
ing varies greatly within each site. The costs stated above
should only be considered as representative of the order of magni-
tude of costs and should not be generalized to estimate costs at
other sites.

The number of sites at which undergrounding would be required
is somewhat at the discretion of the local.government, which can
designate scenic and highly visible areas. The polity also only
calls for the consideration of undergrounding in local planning
efforts, so the schedul-e--oT compliance is at the discretion of
the local governments.
When undergrounding is required, the county in which the
area is located must form an assessment district composed of
those properties in which facilities are to be undergrounded. In
some instances the assessment district may receive some funds
from the county to help pay the costs of.the undergrounding.
These funds, given to the counties by PG&E, are apportioned
among the counties on the basis of the number of utility customers
in the county. When these funds are not available from the county,
for example because the development does not meet certain speci-
fications, the landowners within the assessment district are
assessed for the costs of the undergrounding. Hence, as with
new distribution facilities, the costs are borne by the indivi-
duals receiving the service and the other customers of the
utilities. d. .Cost Assessment: The overall costs ofund .er-
grounding existing facilities as required by Policy 55b cannot
be determined. However, the following conclusions are pertinent:

- Costs nre likely to be very high for any under rounding of
existing facilities. Costs on the order of 1100,000 to
$200,000 per mile are typical.
- Costs are very sensitive to characteristics-of the site.
- Some discretion is allowed the local governments as to
which facilities would be undergrounded.
- Low populations in most coastal areas imply that under the
current allocation scheme, assessment districts in the
areas would receive very few funds from PG&E and thus the
burden of undergrounding would fall very heavily on the
local residents unless an alternative cost allocation
scheme is created.

EXHIBIT A

Section 320, Public Utilities Code

320. The Legislature hereby declares that it is the policy
of this state to achieve, whenever feasible and not inconsistent
with sound environmental planning, the undergrounding of all
future electric and communication distribution facilities which
are proposed to be erected in proximity to any highway designated
a state scenic highway pursuant to Article 2.S (commencing with
Section 260) of Chapter 2 of Division 1 of the Streets and
Highways Code and which would be visible from such scenic highways
if erected above ground. The commission shall prepare and adopt
by December 31, 1972, a statewide plan and schedule for the under
grounding of all such utility distribution facilities in accordance
with the aforesaid policy and the rules of the commission relating
to the undergrounding of facilities.

The commission shall coordinate its activities regarding the
plan-with local governments and planning commissions concerned.

The commission shall require compliance with the plan upon
its adoption.

This section shall hot-apply to facilities necessary to the
operation of any railroad.@'

VII. PERSONS CONTACTED

A. California State Legislature, Office of the Legislative
Analyst, Sacramento
- Donald Bene-Fi-ct, Principal Program Analyst
- Richard Byfield
Wayne Keithley, Program Analyst

B. State of California

1. CALTRANS, District 4, San FranciIs.co
- Virginia Prudhomme, Landscape Department
- Environmental Planning Section Staff
- Design Section Staff

2. Office of the State Architect Sacramento
Sam Kaneko, Landsca e Architect

3. Department of Parks and Recreation,'Sacramento
- Samuel Halstead, Deputy Director
- Ken Mitchell,, Landscape Architect
- Jack Hesemeyer, Area Manager, Marin Area (Corte Madera"
- Wayne Caulkins, Lon Spharler, Bruce Dunbacher

4. Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco
Erwin Endres, Senior Electrical Utilities Engineer

S. California Highway Patrol
Officer G.H. Hildrin, San Mateo County

6. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions
a. State Commission, San Francisco
- William Travis, Assistant Chief of Planning
- Roderick J. Meade
- Judy Anderick, Librarian
b. North Coast Regional Commission Staff
c. North Central Coast Regional Commission
- Phyllis Faber, Commissioner
- Michael Fischer, Executive Director
- David Dubbink, Chief Planner
- Bob Brown, Planner
- Gary Holloway, Senior Planner
7. Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
San Francisco
R-en-t--W-atson., Landscape Architect

8. UniversitZ of California, Berkele
TN-omas Dickert, Institute of an & Regional
Development

- Jens Sorensen., Sea Grant Program
- George Goldman, Cooperative Extension

C. Local Government

1. San Mateo County, Redwood City
George Miller, Planning
- Bill Kritikos, Planning
- Roman Gankin, Planning
- Road Department Staff

2. Santa Cruz County, Santa Cruz
-7Jbhn Gilchrist, Planning
Henry Baker, Planning

3. Marin County, San Rafael
- Bob Harrison, T-ransit District
- Brian Whittenkiller, Parks and Recreation
- Kathy Ohlson, Planning
- Public Works Staff

41. Sonoma County, Santa Rosa
Wes Vail Senior Planner
John Sci@orski, Public Works-Civil Engineer
S. Mendocino County, Ukiah
Larr Mitchell, Planner

6. Humboldt County, Eureka
Larry Henderson,Associate Planner

7. Del Norte County, Crescent City
Ernest Perry, Planner

8. Metropolitan Tran.sIportation Commission, Berkeley
Margaret Woodring, Golden Gate Recreational
Travel Study (GGRTS)
Margot Parke, Citizen Liaison Consultant, GGRTS
Nancy Hammond
John Warren, Planning and Analysis Program
Manager

9 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transit District,
San Francisco
- Bruce Richard

10. Association of Bay@ Area Governments, Berkeley
Chris Hartze 12 Land Resources Division

D Federal'Government

S. V.
1. National Park er. ice, San Fr7arkc is co:-
Douglas Nadeau, Planning Coordina r, GGNRA

E. Private Sector

1. Pacific Gas and Electric Compa
- Dav Waterworth, Industrial er Engineer, San
Francisco Division
- Steve Brodnansky, District Marketing Supervisor,
North Bay Division
- Donald E. Marquardt, Land Planning Analyst,
North Bay Division
- Robert W. Figone, District Representative,
North Bay Division
_Claude Parker, Marketing Manager, Humboldt
Division
- John Ulrich, Commercial Analyst, San Francisco'
- John Torrene
Ray Sullivan, North Bay Division
2. Pacific Tele@hon Iea.nd Telegraph Company
- Larry Roberts, Communications Special-i-st
- Bob George, Engineering Manager
- Ray Nordell, Engineering Manager, Peninsula
District

3. Sea Ranch
Mary A n, 'Manager of Se,@t RdAch
William Rand, Staff Consultant to Sea Ranch
Warren Haight, President, Oceanic Properties, Inc.

U<
0<
00
z
_4Z

1-k
3!:

Ln
N 0

ir
w 0
0 6 z
LL
(Or,_Z 0 E M z z
x a: D w 2 w
x J 0 F-
0 0 x 0.1
I z 1P 10. 1> 10 Lit Z_

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABAG/MTC, "San Mateo Coast. Corridor Evaluation." Berkeley, Oct. 1,
19751.

American Association of State Highway Officials, "A Policy on
Geometric Design of Rural Highways," Washington, D.C., 1971.

Appleyard, Donald, "Environmental Planning and Social Science:
Strategies for Environm6ntal Decision-Making," -Working
Paper No. 217, Institute of Urban & Regional Development,
University of California, Berkeley, Sept. 1973.

Arcata, "Gene ral Plan 1985," Simpson, Stratta,-and Associates,
San Francisco, October 1966.

Barnett, Jonathan, Urban Design as Public Policy,.Mc Graw Hill,
New Yorki 1974.

Bobb, D.C., D. Wormhoudt and J. Sorensen, "Identification and
Mapping of California's Coastal Viewshed Corridor," Insti-
tute of Urban and Regional Development, University of
California, Berkeley, August 18, 1975.

California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission,''California
Coastal Plan,' San Francisco, December, 1975.

California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, "Summary Status
of Appeals as of January 1, 1976," San Francisco.

California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation,
"Resource Inventory: San Gregorio State Beach," Sacramento,
September, 1973.
California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation,"
"Major Construction Request - San Gregorio State Beach,"
Sacramento, October 30, 1975.

Caltrans, California Transportation Plan, a Draft, Vol. I,
Sacramento, July, 1975.

Caltrans, Standard'Plans, Sacramento, January.. 197S.

Caltrans, Standard Specifications, Sacramento., January, 1975.

Del Norte County, '.'General Plan and Recreation Development Plan,"
Crescent City., 1965.

Del Norte County, "Zoning Enabling Ordinance, County Ordinance
No. 67-10," Crescent City, 1967.

Del Norte County, Letter from Supervisor Wm. L. Erickson, to ,A-
Members of CSAC Executive Committee (in opposition to Pre-
liminary Coastal Plan), Sacramento, September 16, 1975.

Del Norte County, portions of Del Norte County's Labor Market
Newsletter, prepared by Health & Welfare Agency of Califor-
nia, Sacramento, December, 1975.

Del Norte County, Planning Department, Discussion of Mapping
Errors in the Coastal Plan,
a) communication to the Board of Supervisors, Dec. 10, 1975;
b) communication to Mr. E. Jack Shoop, Chief Planner, CC&C -
Dec. 10, 1975.
Dickert, Thomas and Jens Sorensen, "Sub-Regional Planning Within
the California Coastal Zone - Half Moon Bay Case Study,"
University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional
Development, Berkeley, May 15, 1975.

Dickert, Thomas and Jens Sorensen, State-Local Collaborative
Planniu for the Coastal Zone, 2 vols., Institute of Ur-ban
and Regional Development, 'Univers.ity of California, Draft,
Berkeley, February 1976.

Economics Research Associates, Visitor Enterprise and Economic
Development,Technical Report. Prepared for Marin County,
Los Angeles-, 1971.

Economics Research Associates, Golden Gate Recreational Travel
Study. Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Information
Systems, Fort Mason, San Francisco, April 1975.

Economics Research Associates/Alvin H. Baum and Associates.
"Economic Impacts of the Proposed Coastal Plan - A First
Report and Further Proposals',' Prepared for the Joint Rules
Committee of the California Legislature, San Francisco,
October 10, 1975.

Golden Gate Recreation Travel.Study, San Francisco.
a) "Summary Report: Preliminary Transportation Alternatives,"
Dec., 1974.
b) "The Golden Gate Recreational Travel Model," Sept., 1975.
c) "Staff Report 1: Auto Travel in the Golden Gate Recrea-,
tional Travel Study Area," April, 1975.

Golden Gate Transit District, "Take a Weekend Recreation Bus,"
San Francisco, 1975.

Golden Gate Transit District, "Report From the Office of Planning
and Research: Special Summer Weekend Recreation Service,"
San Francisco, November 14, 1975.

58 1

Goldman, G. and D. Strong, "Half Moon Bay Case Study: An Analysis
of Public Service Agencies' Costs and Revenues Associated
with Land.Use Alternatives," Draft Copy, Cooperative Exten-
sion, University of California, Berkeley, November, 1975.

Goodrich/Solnit, "The Golden Gate Recreational Travel Mode,"
San Francisco, September, 1975..

Hammond, Nancy, "Recreation Travel Analysis for the San Mateo
Corridor Evaluation," Metropolitan-Transportation Commission,
Berkeley, ..May'9, 1975.

Hammond, Nancy, "Travel Patterns Analysis for the San Mateo Coast
Corridor Evaluation," Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Berkeley, March 20, 1975.

Hecht, Barry and Barbara Rusmore Waddell Creek: The Environment
Around Big Basin, Environmental Studies Center, Universit
of California, Santa Cruz, 1973.

Humboldt Coun,ty, General Plan 1965, Eureka.

Humboldt County, "Southern Humboldt County G eneral Plan Report
1968," James Campbell, Consultant, Menlo Park.

Humboldt County, "Northern Humboldt County General Plan and
Recreation Plan, Karl Baruth and Associates, San Francisco.

Humboldt County, Zoning Ordinance No. 519, Eureka.

Humboldt County, "Summary of Proposed Revised General Plan for
Humboldt County," Eureka, 1976.

Institute of Traffic Engineers, Traffic Engineering Handbook,
Third Edition., Washingto n, D.C., 1970.

Liskamm., William H., "Appearance and Design," Draft, Prepared
for the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions,
San Francisco, June 3, 1974.

Litton, R.B.,Jr., "Forest Landscape Description and Inventories
A Basis-for Land Planning and Design,'! USDA Forest Service,
Research,Paper PSW,49, Berkeley, 1968.,

Marin County Planning Department, A Transportation Plan for
Marin: Balanced Trans2ortati-o-n--Vrogram. Phase III,
San Rafael,.June-, 1972.

Marin County Transit District., The B cycle Plan for Marinj
San Rafael, November, 1975.

Maudep, "Proceedings of the Pedestrian/Bicycle Planning and
Design Semin ar San Francisco, 19721,1 Berkeley, July, 1973.

Mendocino County, "Summary of Planning, Economic & Conservation
Studies 1.965-1973," Prepared by Williams & Mocine/City and
Regional Planning, San Francisco, 1973.
Mendocino County, "Fort Bragg Zoning Ordinance," Ukiah, n.d.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Regional Transportation
Plan, Berkeley, July, 1973.

Muller., Thomas, "Fiscal Impacts of Land Development: A Critique,
of Methods and Review of Issues," The Urban Institute,
Washington D.C., 1975.
North Central C:ast Regiorial Commission, "Preliminary Coastal
Plan - Regional Supplement," San Rafael, March, 1975.

Oglesby, C.H. and L.I. Hewes, Highway Engineering, 2nd Edition,
New York, N.Y., June, 1973.

Pepper, James, et al., "Highway 1 Scenic View Analysis: Santa
Cruz Count-y" University of California, Santa Cruz, 1975.

Pragnell, R.C ., "Scenic Road - A Basis for its Planning, Design,
and Management," U.S. Forest Service, Engineering Technical
information Service, T.R. ETR-7700-21, Washington, D.C.,
1969.

Reitze, Arnold W., Jr. Environmental Planning: Law of Land and
Resources, Washington, D.C., 1974. , I

Ross, C.G., "The Urbanization of Rural California," Center for
Real Estate and Urban Economics, Special Report 11, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, 1975.

San Francisco City and County, Department of City Planning,
"Transportation: Conditions, Problems, Issues," San Fran
cisco, January, 1971.

Steinman, Norman, "Analysis of Transportation Capacity and its
Effect on Population Growth," Berkeley, May 15, 1975.

Sullivan, Edward, "Expected Impacts of Recreational Travel Trends
on Rural Road Programs.." Institute of Transportation and
Traffic Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
1973.

Torluemke, D. "R. Dowling and W. Kittleson, "The North Central
Coast Region Transit Study," Berkeley, February, 1975.

U.S. National Park Service, "Golden G ate National Recreation Area
Alternatives, Preliminary Working Draft," San Francisco,
March, 1974.

U.S. National Park Service, Planning Opportunities: Point Reyes
National.Seashore/Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
San Francisco, Summer,. 1975.

VTN Consolida,,@ted, Inc./Midwest Research Institute, National Re-
creation Acce'ss Study. Summary Report, Kansas City, Mo.,
May, 1D'75.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Bay Conservation and Development Commission, "Bay Plan. -Evaluation-
Project: Appearance, Design and Public Access$ " June 1974,
San Francisco.

California Office of Planning and Research,."The Costs of Local
Implementation of the Coastal Plan,," prepared for the State
Legislative Analyst, February 18, 1976, Sacramento.

California Public Utilities Commission, "Rule No. 15," San
Francisco.

Oceanic Properties, Inc., "The Sea Ranch Restrictions," The
Sea Ranch, Sonoma County, California.

Sea Ranch Association, "Sea Ranch*Design Brochure," The Sea
Ranch, Sonoma County, California.

U.S. National Park Service, New England River Basins Commission,
and Ray Mann Associates Inc PeoIp.le and the Sound: Shore-
line @pearance and Des:19n A Planning handbook., Apri 75,
Cambridge, Massachusett

Section 2

THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL PLAN:

ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES FOR UNDEVELOPED
COASTAL AREAS TO IMPLEMENT THE
COASTAL WATER QUALITY POLICIES

Edited By Jerry Yudelson

Contributions By:

Patrick Ferraro
Peter Warshall 'Ph.D.
J.T. Winneberger, Ph.D.

Section 2

THE CALIFORNIA,COASTAL PLAN:

ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR
UNDEVELOPED COASTAL AREAS TO IMPLEMENT
THE COASTAL WATER QUALITY POLICIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY

II. INTRODUCTION 3

III. WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES FOR RECREATIONAL 5
FACILITIES
A. Sewage Quantities
B. A Brief Review of Water-saving Equipment
C. Re-use of "Waste" Waters
D. Policy Guidelines
E. The Bolinas Sewer Farm
F. References

IV. WATER CONSERVATION IN THE HOUSEHOLD SECTOR 17
A. Sources of Water Use
B. Water Conservation Techniques
C. Impact of Water Conservation on Wastewater
Treatment Costs
D. Exemplary Public Water Conservation Programs
E. References

V. SUITABILITY OF ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ALONG 25
CALIFORNIA'S COAST
A. Introduction to On-Site Disposal
B. Public Responsibility for Subsurface Disposal
C. References

VI. REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL FACILITIES FOR MAJO R 30
COASTAL RECREATION AREAS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
A. Analysis of Coastal Plan Policies Relevant to
Comprehensive Water Management
B. Case S.tudies of Two Parks
f (1) Russian Gulch State Park
(2) Angel Island State Park
C. References

VII. PERSONS CONTACTED 40

I. SUMMARY

This report analyzes the California Coastal Plan Is water
quality and watershed management policies in essentially open,
undeveloped areas. For these areas, the primary concerns are
water use and wastewater management for recreation areas of vary-
ing size and for individual homes and small housing developments
(up to 40 units). The report assesses the technical and economic
feasibility of improved waste conservation and wastewater manage-
ment practices in the coastal zone through analysis of the rele-
vant Coastal Plan policies, development of design responses to
these policies and evaluation of economic effects of alternative
low-discharge, low-energy-use waste disposal methods.

Since the Coastal Plan policies under discussion do not pro-
vide direct guidance or guidelines, the procedure adopted for
this study was to develop some promising alternatives for policy
implementation and to study some of the effects of adopting these
alternatives.

For reducing costs of public and private facilities and for
improving water quality, the basic design responses available are
water conservation (reducing sewage quantities); source separation
of sewage (into "black" water, that directly contaminated by fecal
matter, and "grey" water, from laundering, dishwashing, and hand-
washing, etc.); changes in waste handling methods (use of dry
storage or composting-type toilets forAndividual homes or remote
low-intensity recreational areas); water reclamation and recycling
through above-ground land disposal of partially treated sewage
(especially for'recreational areas); and use of on-site subsurface
disposal systems (septic tanks and leachfields) for individual
homes, subdivisions and moderately used/road-accessible recrea-
tional devel,opments.

For wate r conservation, the most acceptable, usable and
.economic systems, roughly in order of priority, are: faucet
aerators; pressure-reducing valves; flow-limiting showerheads
and valves; toilet-tank volume reducers, reduced flush devices;
low-flush systems and dual-cycle toilets; flow-limiting valves
for sinks; vacuum toilet flush systems for multiple homes;
restrictions on garbage disposal use; and washwater-recycl-e.-
toiletflushing systems. In-water-short areas of the open coast-
al tone, it___i-s_s*u`g_ge__sted that these devices -and systems could
be made mandatory, especially for public recreational facilities.
In addition, various public relations aspects of exemplary public
agency water conservation programs should be used to develop
water conservation practices in public recreational facilities.

One alternative to full-scale sewage treatment is to filter
and recycle wastewater ("grey" water) from sinks, showers,
kitchens and laundromats at heavily used recreational facilities.
This grey water can be-recycled for landscape watering,

fire protection, storage and air-conditioning. Separation of
grey water from toilet water should always be considered in
planning for public recreational development.

Use of dry toilets (especially well-vented pit privies)
should be allowed for remote areas of recreational developments,
especially where service for septic tanks, chemical toilets or'
sewer pipe installation would require cutting new roads or en-
larging existing trails. This procedure would both save public
money and prevent intrusion of roads into remote areas of the
coastal zone. Coastal zone waste management should also be
flexible enough to allow dry toilets, especially composting
toilets, for use in low-density residential developments. Pro-
perly constructed, the composting privy is a sanitary, leak-
proof method of treating and recycling human waste.

In recreational facilities, especially at.public parks and
beaches, every effort should be made to minimize water use in
landscaping, by use of native, or naturalized (low-water-using)
plant materials and by recycling treated wastewater for irriga-
tion (either through subsoil drain fields; small treatment la-
goons; or Active spray, flood or drip-irrigation systems). Above-
ground land disposal recycling of sewage effluent was shown to
create a significant cost savings over other standard treatment
and disposal systems proposed for Angel Island State Park. Adop-
tion of a-land disposal system would probably have saved consider -
able public funds compared to the expensive system of secondary
treatment with ocean discharge used to serve Russian Gulch State
Park.

Use of an on-site wastewater disposal system (septic tanks
and leach fields) is a proven low-cost, low-energy, moderate-
maintenance sewage management technique, which is widely applica-
ble for coastal zone use in single homes, subdivisions up to
1,000 units and recreational facilities of moderate area and land
use intensity. Failures of septic-tank/leach field systems are
due more to unreliable construction and poor maintenance than to
poor soils. In fact, serviceable soil-absorption systems can be
constructed in many areas where existing soil maps show 11poor"
suitability for such systems. Public responsibility for waste-
water disposal practices, through septic tank management districts,
can make on-site disposal systems workable in most undeveloped
(and also-developed) coastal areas.

Implementation of Coastal Plan water quality policies should
seek to minimize extensive, expensive, high-energy-use sewage
treatment plants (with ocean or stream disposal) and maximize use
of lower-cost, on-site, above-ground and.subsurface treatment and
disposal systems. In addition, federal requirements for "zero
discharge" of wastewater within ten years make further investment
in sewered wastewater treatment and disposal systems financially
unwise for public recreational facilities in the open coastal zone
areas, since on-site disposal systems may soon be required in any
case.

II. INTRODUCTION

The Coastal Plan policies to maintain, manage and restore
ocean water quality (Policies 7a-d, 8) call for upgrading exist-
ing discharges'. phasing out discharges to enclosed water bodies,
requiring adequate treatment for new or enlarged discharges to,
other coastal'waters, controlling discharges from new .or expanded
non-sewered development and restricting expansion of substandard
sewage systems.

In addition, the Plan stresses reclamation and reuse of
wastewater as a preferred alternative to discharges'into coastal
waters (Policy 8). The Plan also states the need to offset the
continued depletion of coastal zone water supplies (Policy 8) and
stresses water conservation by reclaiming wastewater and reducing
water use (Policy 23d) .

However, the Plan policies are not specific enough to assess
how well their purposes can be met, especially with conventional
sewage treatment and disposal techniques4 In addition, the rela-..
tionships between sewage generation, water use and water quality
are not clearly spelled out for a necessary variety of coastal
situations.

This study assesses the technical and economic feasibility
of improved wastewater management practices in the coastal zone
and suggests policies, programs and procedures to integrate water
conservation and waterquality management in the coastal zone.,-
for recreational areas and for small subdivisions--.-- The-s-e
policies a.re intended to further develop@,and supplement related
policies contained in the Coastal Plan and referred to above.

Chapter III describes available water conservation
practices for recreational facilities in Northern California.
It reviews the use of water-saving toilets and other appliances.
Consideration is given to water savings in landscaping practices,
and the use 'of land disposal of sewage to recharge groundwater
t-ab-les is discussed briefly.

Chapter JV_ discusses water conservation in the household
sector of coastal development. It discusses residential indoor
water use, available water conservation technologies, impact of
water conservation on sewage treatment costs, and presents two
exemplary public water conservation programs.,--

ChapterV describes the suitability of on-site wastewater
disposal systems along California's coast. It explains basic
principles for implementing such systems, problems associated
with current regulatory practices and positive directions for
public management of coastal wastewater disposal.

chap_@e__r_____VIreviews waste management facilities for pajor
coastal recreation areas in Northern California. It analyzes
Coastal Plan policies relevant to comprehensive wastewater manage-
ment, discusses the effect of Federal and State water quality
control regulations on sewage treatment planning and discusses
the role of wastewater reclamation in coastal water quality main-
tenance. The Chapter presents case studies of wastewater manage-
ment at Russian Gulch State Beach and Angel Island State Park
to illustrate ways in which sewage treatment, costs can be cut and
water quality improved.

III. WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Coastal Plan Policies (7, 8 and 9) which pertain to pollu-
tion caused by sewage are closely related to Policies 23 b-d .
which call for water conservation, recycling and limitations on
water importing. Most sewage in the coastal zone is 99% water
and only 1% feces, urine, and dirt. By reducing the amount of
water (which simply transports the feces, urine and washing),
the costs of treatment and disposal and the chances.of pollution
can be reduced drastically. In addition, small volumes of
sewage are easier to treat, store and recycle. It is only large
volumes that require outfall pipes into streams, rivers, lakes
and oceans.. Finally, reduced water use for toilet flushing and
other appliances reduces the need to import water and dam wild
rivers. The policies of the-Coastal Plan mentioned above can be
successfully applied together in the following manner: reduce
water use, reduce sewage volumes, reduce the expense and scale
of treatment, recycle the treated wastewater, reduce the need for
new dams and water imports, and thus protect the natural water-
sheds of California.

A. SEWAGE QUANTITIES

Coastal parks and facilities include boat access sites
(public and.private moorings and parking spots associated wi.th
launching ramps); developed camp-sites with auto access (both
tent and trailer); developed camp-sites by walk-in, bicycles or
horseback; day use areas such as beaches and picnic grounds, as
well as overnight facilities such as recreational campgrounds,
hostels, and hotels. The differences in water use and sewage
volumes vary tremendously with each location. A wilderness hiker
will use stream water and a stick to bury feces. A recreational
vehicle campground might have individual water connections,
centralized shower rooms and centralized flush toilets. Country
clubs and summertime beaches use lots of water for showers
Hardly anyone showers at the beach in winter. Rough,estimates
m e an are 1. le
of sew-age quantiti-e-s have been ad d li-s- t e7di@n___'T @h

The major. problem in planning recreational facilities is
peak use overloading. On July 4th or Labor Day, water use and
sewage volumes sky-rocket, only to be reduced to a trickle the
next day. This problem may be most cheaply handled by a small-
scale sewage tTeatm6nt system with portable toilets kept for
rusH days, or by a-system using holding tanks to retain peak
flows. These holding tanks would feed sewage slowly and evenly
to the treatment facility du'ring--n-o-M-peak perio ds.

Table III-1. Sewage Quantities (Ref. 6

Gallons per person per day - unless otherwise noted) J_
Type of Establishment Quantity

1. Bathhouses and swimming pools 10

2. Camps:
Campground with central comfort stations 35
With flush toilets, no showers 25
Day camps (no meals served) 15
Resort camps (night and day) with limited so
plumbing
Luxury camps 100
Cottages and small dwellings with seasonal 50
occupancy

3. Dwellings:
Multiple family dwellings (apartments) 60
Single family dwellings 75
Hotels with private baths (2 persons per room) 60
Laundries, self-service (gallons per wash, so
i.e., per customer)
Motels with bath, toilet, and kitchen wastes so
(per bed space)
Motels (per bed space) 40

Picnic parks (toilet wastes only)(per picnicker)' 5
Picnic parks with bathhouses, shower, and 10
flush toilets
Restaurants (toilet and kitchen wastes per 10
patron).
Travel trailer parks without individual water 50
and sewer hook-ups (per space)
Travel trailer parks with individual water 100
and sewer hook-ups (per space)

B. A BRIEF REVIEW OF WATER-SAVING EQUIPMENt

1. Toilets
Three kinds of toilets are most commonly available:
dry toilets like pit privies and compost privies that receive,
treat and virtually dispose of sewage in one unit,water toilets,
like the everyday flush toiletwhich receive feces and urine,
but for which additional apparatus (pipes, treatment plant, dis-
posal sites) are needed; and chemical toiletes which receive
wastes, but always require special trucks to transport wastes to
an adequate treatment and disposal site. Chemicals complicate
treatment because they contain bio-toxins like zinc and copper.
Chemical toilets must be considered with ultimate treatment and
disposal costs and location in mind. Production of chemical
media, as well as maintenance, uses lots of energy. Relative
advantages of different waste treatment systems are shown in
Table 111-2.

a. Dry Toilets
Dry toilets have the great advantge of being
self-contained units using no water. They reduce feces by decom-
position and treat sewage by soil filtration and adorption.
There are two major kinds of dry toilets: pit prives and com-
post privies. A well-placed (away from water), well vented and
fly-proofed pit privy cannot pollute or be unsanitary. Pit
privies are the most reliable, easily managed and replaced,
cheapest and least polluting of all on-site sewage treatments.
When water is scarce or the water system is not presurized, the
pit privy is the only device that makes sense. Two imitations
for park use are: high water tables and such a heavy use that
new holes must be dug every few weeks. Pit privies have few
overloading problems on peak days.

The compost privy's advantages over the pt privy are that
it can be placed in almost any habitat (groudwater is unimpor- ndwat
tant; heat improves the process) and when well managed, it does
not need replacing until materials wear out. The
disadvantages of compost privies are: (1) overloading: the
home-style Clivus Multrum cannot function when daily use exceeds
ten persons per day, and the Farallones Institute model (See
Figure III-1) overloads when use exceeds about 15 persons each day;
(2) management: the compost privy needs much more careful man-
agement than the pit privy (usually a weekly basis, and trained
personnel must be available; and (3) costs: certain models like
the Clivus Multrum are very expensive, compared to a pit privy.

b. Water Toilets
The common everyday flush toilet isan extra-
vagant waster of water. Five gallons of perfectly good drinking
water are used to flush feces and/or urine. These "wastes" must
then be re-separated from the water -- sometimes within a few

Table 111-2. Comparison of Alternate
Waste Disposal SK@tems

FITPRIVY COMPOST PRIVY SEPTIC TANK/ AEROBIC UNIT
DRAINMLLD

A!robic &aniviobic Mostly aerobic com-
@Xmposfinq wqth some Settling, floatation, & Aerobic digestion Least 4
RELIA- posting. Stable when anaerobic digestion in stable due to "shock"
WilLration. Very stable. proper carbon/nitrogen tank. Aerobic & anaerobic loading and'mechanical
BILITY balance maintained. filtration and digestion in complexity.
drainfield. Very stable if
not overloaded.

lir Y easy. Minimal Not so easy. Proper Easy. Labor minimal. Difficult. Many
MAINTEN_ 4or. amounts of vegetable Needs checking for mechanical parts needi@g
matter must be added to pumping about every specialist labor. outside
ANCE feces. Manual labor two to four years. If energy source can be a
required weekly in some dua)-field, needs yearly problem. Needs cleaning
models. Manual switching. each year.

61TIAL: Very in- INITIAL: INITIAL: Pretty expen- INITIAL: Very expen-
COSTS expensive ($50). Grey (a) Farallones model sive ($800 to $2,000) sive ($1,600 to
Arater system may be (about $150). Home depending on size, con- $3,000+). Drain
i-quired. made. tractor, and materials. included. Filtration and
-(b) Clivus ($500 to $1,700) chlorination not included,
PERATION: None (c) Mendocino ($50 to Grey water system used
SAINTENANCE: None $100). Home made. to advantage. Grey water system used
Grey water system may OPERATION: Woter to advantage.
be required. costs. OPERATION: Water
MAJNTENANCE@ Pump- costs. Electric.
OPERATION: None ing every 3 to 10 years
MAINTENANCE: None ($40 to $85). OPERATION: Water
costs. Electricity costs
($150+ each year).
Filtration and chlori-
nat ion ($300+ each year).

Al:#0u t 10 years for a As long as materials 10 to 7 5 years depend. Less than 10 years before
LIFESPAN faiNly of four. last. (a) 20 years ing on soils and design. major parts replacement
(b) 60 years (?) necessary.
(c) 10 to 15 years

POLLUTION 0 near or in water, No pollution. No Larger pollution & Larger pollution & sani-
- Ilution or sanitary sanitation when com- sanitation problems tation problems because
& p r C@,Pb 1e rn s. posting is maintained, because of water feces of water-feces mix. "Shock"
SANITATION Mix. Soils, gIOUndwater, loadings, mechanical break-
slope and over-load can down, power bla ck-out &
be problems. Negligible inadequate treatmen,
be problems. If abovt Can
problems out@ide pro- '-soil
perty line because of discharge, more dangers than
in-soil discharge. t ban in -soil . I n -soil
has negligible pollution
potential outside pro.
Pe rty tine.

Ultimately by burial & G reat fertilizer for SL11) irrigation in drain- Water is recycled ABtOVE
a ic
RECYCLING plriting a tree. Adds gardens, etc. field uftimately: ferti. SOIL by spray irriga ion
nutrients & humus. tizes plants & may or in water course by
re-charge water supplies. pipe. Nutrients NOT
recycled. Used in aerobic
Acco-1 odated bi- unit.
n Can accomodate hi. Low densities only -- Low densities with in-
COMMUNITY, dens@ties in cities - densities in cities. Need need green space for soil discharge. High-
if away from water. pick-up of compost. drainfield(s), Rural use. density with above -
P01Wcally, not available Politically, new to city Accepted home-site soil discharge. Rare iy
for cty use. Discouraged & rural Health Depart- .1
even;n rural areas. ments. Rarely accepted system but many badly accepted by Health
designed. Depts. because of erratic
with ease. behavior.

email miam gowwwor million Mb@
mmpw, I -

Av-soer Aqeaq@
-14WWPr 14(.@ de
?w4ar 101-RdsAw 7v@ Cate vl..VA.L rAwle"Waff

-,Wa&@p AccosS @,q"546
-Qqel@o
--V*@
N -cw JV.M
,vosocr Ae Y49A.r rV.-W
PLAN SCALE: 1- 3' Log -w-?r wl4Ao aV
xoooo%1WM I I\ I I
w -k ,,Cap
SX/Z VOCA/r .,y,,
w/jyjarv) Ale=3-
AA000 AN&MOW

.41
5-ft

r 0
COMPOSTING PRIVIES cryp)

looalz 42 AQWelr.C) - If,
SECTION
ELEVATION ELEWITION
A40, SCALE@ 1'.S
SCALE: 1*- 3:

DRUM COMPOST SYSTEM

DRUM PRWY a;
ASIA @.A,
A
J@
8,yAl

ow"r PPAW
Laj&Q aWPOST PILE
(M" - 40 zd:c@&4w
DRUMS IN "Zg,@@g

f)
ADC44W04110" Z-A AAMP10er AWa0kW 'ne&" Ao
4 R@
2,

@sne, -wr.@

HOMEMADE COMPOS'P.NG SYSTEMS
FOR RECYCLING NUTRIEN7i 5 & ORGANIC MATTER UNrTED STAND
FROM HUMAN EXCREfA FARALLOWS MTrruT@E CCMP=
RURAL INST17UTE RESEARQi
OCT. 1976
=14X

FIGURE.-

seconds of'!5eing- mixed., In domestic homes, toilet flushing
accounts for 40-50% of home water use. In many recreational
facilities-, the percent is-greater.
Note that the-quality of w alter needed to flush toilets is
very low. There is no need to t.al@e good water, pay for treating
it and then use high quality_dr-i-nking water simply to flush. In
sum, one should strive to avoid th'@',@ standard flush toilet for
most coastal uses. There are many,,ways to reduce the volume need
ed to flush toilets. In many recreational facilities, men can
use urinals with very small flushes@. So far, no urinal has been
invented for women..-

Water can be saved with flush toilets by (1) use of flow-
reducing devices in already existing toilets; (2) use of dual-
flush toilets in-women's facilities; (3) use of shallow-trap
toilets in both men's and women's ro(@,ms; (4) use of vacuum toilets;
and, (5) use of grey-water toilets.
The full five gallons in the toilet tank are not needed to
make-the-bow-4 clean. In already exist-ii. facilities, a public
ageincy could buy hard-f1red bric - w ig would be _pTaced in the
-tanks (reducing tank volume). Usually,1, no more than two bricks
will fit. Similarly, the float-bob can,,be bent clown. In areas
of heavy water use,-this re-sults in la 'r@e yearly water and
sewage volume and cost savings. There re also mechanical de-
vices (baffles) that can be put inside oilet tanks to reduce
flush volumes or produce'a dual-flush (@
OTall for urine; large for
feces). These devices can save 2S to S , of the water compared
to standard toi-lets. They can only be i@ serted into certain
toilet design-� (Ref. 2).

In all new recreational fac1-1-ities-, the appro-
priate public agency could nimally requtre shallow-trap toilets.
These have reported savings of 25% or more over the standard 5-
gallon flush. They cost slightly more than the standard toilet.
(It is not worth replacing already existing toilets because of
this expense.)

In larger developments, where many toile@ts are needed, va-
cuum toilets become very attractive as water.2@avers and sewage
quanti_ty-r__e'Uucers.They are already in use 17 some California
State Parks (e.g.,__Ru@ssian -Gulch). They use lbout 1-1/4 quarts
(vs. 5 gallons) per flush.-. Their main disad is their
V'Lintage
need for electrical 'power and some m'a'3':-n-t-enanc of the vacuum
pump. This is a worthwhile expense when wate is costly or
scarce or where waste treatment facilities cat, be significantly
reduced in cost by being scaled down.

In coastal areas with m lt' 1 utilities, recycli
u ip e ' - ling of
lightly polluted wastewaters from sinks, showers or jaundromats
is highly attractive. Essentially the "grey" water (waste-water
without feces) is collected in a tank, filtered and chlorinated,
then pumped to the toilets. Excess grey water can.go to treat-
ment plant or be used for landscape watering (see below) or stored
for extra fire protection. The use of grey water to flush toilets
has been in operation at Grand Canyon National Park for over 25
years (Ref. 1).

Toilets to Avoid: The Space Age has brought--to Earth an-in-
credible variiT_ty_-o_f_appliances and contraptions for receiving
human wastes and disappearing them. There are freeze toilets that
turn wastes into ice-blocks to be trucked away. There are "Destro-
lets" that burn everything and pollute the air. Any high-techno-
logy, energy-intensive toilet should be avoided, since it is
usually incredibly sensitive to over-loading, easily breaks down,
needs specialized maintenance, has high energy costs, needs fre-
quent cleaning and still has sludge or other disposal problems.
Only the vacuum toilet and the grey water toilet (among those
which require pumps) appear to be usable for large visitor popu-
lations.

2. Other Water-Saving :@ppliances

Some coastal recreation facilities will have sinks,
showers, kitchens and'laundromats. The wastewater produced by
these facilities is not nearly as hazardous to health as toilet
water containing feces. This grey water can be recycled easily
for landscape watering, fire protection storage, or even air-
conditioning. Separation of grey water from toilet water should
always be considered in the planning for a recreational develop-
ment.

Water use varies with pressure. Approximately 33% more
water flows at 80 PSI than at 45 PSI. Much of this water is
wasted in showers or washing hands or shaving. Pressure valves
are recommended for all large-scale recreational faciliti-e-s--w-N-ere
water pressure exceeds 50 PSI.

In addition, water is wasted while waiting for water to be-
come hot. Showers and sinks that run without being used waste
large amounts of water. To reducethis kind of waste, hot water
heaters should be placed so that pipe runs are minimal. Pipes
should also be insulated. Specifically, each utility has its
water-saving gadget:
Sinks: Install hot water only where necessary. Use pressure
releasing faucets that slowly turn off after being pushed down.
Showers: Use flow controls on all showers. This will save water
and heating costs. Flow control should be set at 3.5 gpm. Less
than this will produce complaints. In Yellowstone National Park,,
cold showers are free but hot showers must be paid for. In

addition, the hot showers-have timing devices. This might be a
requirement for some coastal recreational facilities.(public or
private) .7
Kitchens (restaurants): Flow control devices on faucets, no
gar5age gr-l-n-J-ers and (where applicable) recycling dishwashers.
Garbage grinders utilize large quantities of water and place
heavy burdens on water-transport sewage systems. Recycling dish-
washers use the rinse water of one cycle for the dishes of the
next cycle.
Laundromats: Front-load washers use half the water of top loaders.

C. RE-USE OF "WASTE" WATERS

1. Lands cap ing/ I rrigation

By reducing wastewater flows, most coastal recrea-
tional facilities should be able to re-cycle all their water.
The most common recyclers are sub-soil drainfields. These drain-
fields can be used to water trees, fire breaks or lawns. They
can be used to re-charge groundwater and re-fill lakes. Every
working septic tank/drainfield is, in fact, a'small-scale irriga-
tion project. Winneberger's inter-laced drainfield (Ref. 4) is
recommended., Small lagoons which both store as well as treat
wastewaters are espec-i-a-1-1-y-useful when -s-o-TI-dreas are small or
precious. (See Section E below on the Bolinas Sewer Farm).
Combined with spray, drip, or flood irrigation, lagoons make-for
an extremely economical recycling-system. Water is commonly
sprayed onto. golf courses.
Drought-resistant plants can dramatically reduce the need
for watering (Ref. 10). Use of drought-resistant plants, with
grey-water irrigation, is an attractive planning tool for many
parks and small utilities districts (e.g. Bolinas and North
Marin). In summer months, grey water which needs minimal treat-'
ment can be immediately recycled. The treatment facilities can
thus remain small.

2. Environmental Return

Septic tanks are known to be useful as rechargers
of ground water in certain parts of the United States. Small-
scale sewage plants in the coastal zone can simply use treated
sewage water for groundwater recharge, as called for on page 48
of'the Coastal Plan. Similarly, groundwater recharge can help
reduce salt water intrusion.

Because of heavy human use, many streams and coastal rivers
have artificially reduced flows. Treated sewage water can be
used to augment stream flow.

3. Recreational Uses

San Diego's sewage treatment (the Santee Project)
has demonstrated how sewage can be treated by infiltration galler-
Al ies and fed to lakes for fishing and swimming. Any recreational
facility that has a swimming pool nearby or has fishing poiid!@'.
should consider using recycled water.

4. Fire Protection

The great advantage of the integrated pond system
(e.g. the Bolinas system) is that the stored water is being
treated simultaneously. These purifying ponds can be used as
back-up fire protection either by direct use or creating a land-
scaped pond system.

D. POLICY GUIDELINES

To encourage these practices, the State should consider
implementing the Coastal Plan policies as follows, for coastal
zone building permits:

----!Y--R-equ-:ire-app-1-1--c-a-nt to demonstrate that appliances in his/her
plan create the smallest sewage volumes possible. Any use
of "luxury" and "water-wasting" appliances like the five-
gallon flush toilet must be justified.

2) Require State and local Parks and Recreation Departments to
utilize toilets and other appliances that create the smallest
sewage volumes.

3) Prohibit the use of chemical toilets as permanent facilities
within the coastal zone.

4) Prohibit the use of the standard five-gallon flush toilet in
the coastal zone for all developments.

5) Prohibit use of electricity-dependent toilets in coastal
recreational areas with the exception of grey-Lwater toilets
for individual homes and vacuum toilets for larger develop-
ments.

6) Require applicant to have no direct effluent discharge into
natural water bodies except for stream augmentation and
marsh restoration.

7) Write guidelines for applicants that encourage waterless
toilets on-site sewage treatment and disposal and water-
saving a$ppliances.

8) Require applicant to estimate landscaping water needs and to
integrate on-site disposal with plant varieties.

1ff_.____T_HE B-6-LIN-A-6 SEWER FARM

In November 1971, the voters of Bolinas voted for a
new Board of Directors for the Utilities District. This Board
was given a.mandate by voters to find a sewage treatment and
disposal system that woald:,(-I) allow no pollution of the ocean
or lagoon; (2) recycle the water and nutrients from.the town's
sewage to complete the ancient feces-fertilizer-food-feces cycle;
and (3) -, use as low a scale of-technology as possible 'so that
outside sources of energy aye minimally relied upon, mainten-
ance and operation costs are ___ k-ep __t__ down, and the small number of
mechanical parts reduce replacement The resp onse
to this charge was the Bolinas Sewer Farm, completed in the fall
of 1975, and described below.

1. The Integrated Pond System
---,----While ponding has been practiced in connection with
fish culture for hundreds of years, little scientific work
was-.-done on ponds as sewage treatment devices until the last
two decades. Since 1950, intensive research programs at the
University of California and Texas, together with government
agency work, have led to an increasing realization of the . po-
tential importance of ponds as complete treatment and storage
facilities.

Ponds have lower costs than activated sl udge or trickling
filter systems. Ponds provide multiple benefits not shared by
other processes: they provide opportunities for both treatment
and storage of liquid wastes within the same astem.

In Bolinas, all of the town's sewage produced during the
winter months is stored in a series of four ponds. As the sewage
sits in the ponds, it is treated (cleaned) by bacteria and algae.
The engineering "trick" (different from previous pond designs)
was to make the ponds deep like a lake. This meant the ponds
stratified into three distinct layers. The bottom layer is
anaerobic (without oxygen) and slowly and stably consumes the
solids. This layer produces the odors normally associated with
sewage. The top layer has sunlight and algae and oxygen. It
uses some of the sewage nutrients and transforms the bad odors
into odorless gases. The middle layer acts as a buffer between
top and bottom and changes in width according to weather.

By creating a series of ponds (not one big pond), the treat-
ment process is greatly aided. Each@,,pond,- in series further
treats the water until a secondary or even tertiary treated
quality water is produced in the fourth pond. This last pond,
which further purifies water, is also a storage pond.

The clean water is sprayed out onto town-owned irrigation
fields (the Farm) to grow fodder crops for local domestic animals
that are then butchered and sold to local stores and residents.

__0
is pr duces organic beef at reduced prices, a@ well as saving
the District the labor costs of planting and harvesting the
grasses. By the end of the dry season, the last three ponds have
been emptied in preparation for winter collection and storage.
The sewage has been disposed of by evaporation, evapotranspira-
tion and a small amount of percolation.

Pond systems have these additional advantages. They can be
used as shellfish and fish propagation ponds. These fish can be
consumed after the State is assured that purification is ade-
quate. The ponds are immediately usable as a bird sanctuary_and
have provided an inland resting and feeding place for shore--
birds and dabbler ducks, as well as the white-tailed kite and
other hawks. The purchase of the pond/irrigation field took 90
acres of developable land and assured the town of open space. In
this way, money was spent to control.land use as well as provide
good sewage treatment. It was a wiser expenditure than buying
fancy, hi tech equipment that provides no side benefits. The
stored water can also be used for emergency fire protection, and
there are thoughts of recycling the water into the town laundro-
mat where drinking quality water is not necessary. If the water
quality is high enough, there are also plans for a town swimming
hole.

The only mechanical equipment in this system is a grinder,
a pump to get the sewage from the houses to the ponds, and the
irrigation pumps. (In large operations, the sewage can be flood-
irrigated rather than sprayed.) There are emergency aerators and
chlorinators, in case the system falters.

2. Final Note

The Bolinas system had the advantage of being small-
scale (treating waste from 200 houses plus a commercial area). How-
ever., the integrated pond system is applicable to much larger
systems with some variations. The best source on this subject is
Reference 3.

F. REFERENCES

1. Current and Recommended Practices for-Subsurface Waste Water
Disposal Systems in Arizona, 1973, J.T. Winneberger and others@.
School of Engineering, College of Engineering Sciences, Arizona
State University, Tempe, Arizona.

2. Stop the Five Gallon Flush! (A Survey of Alternative Waste
Disposal Systems). 1973; 60'pp. Minimum Cost Housing Group,
School of Architecture, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

3. Clean Wa ter. 1974, Leonard Stevens. 289 pp. E.P. Dutton &
Co., N.Y.

4. Septic Tank Practices: A Guide to. the Conservation and Re-Use
of Household Wastewaters. Peter Warshall (Box 42, Elm Road,
Bolinas, Calif. 94924).

5. Excreta Disposal for Rural Areas and Small Communities, 1958,
E.G. Wagner and J.N. Lanoix. Available from Q Corporation,
49 Sheridan Ave., Albany, N.Y. 12210.

6. Wastewater Treatment Systems for Rural Communities, 1973,
S.N. Goldstein and W.J. Moberg, Jr., 335 pp. Information
Clearing House, 221 N. LaSalle St., Chicago, Illinois, 60601.

7. Demonstration of Waste Flow Reduction From Households, 1974 "
National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
Springfield, VA. 22151.

8. Water Conservation Opportunities in New Residential Growth,
North Marin Water District, Novato, Calif.

9. Interceptor Sewers and Suburban Sprawl, No. PB 236 477/AS,
National Technical Information Service, Dept. of Commerce,
Springfield, VA. 22151.

10. Water Conserving Gardening, Marin Municipal Water District,
Corte Madera, Calif.

IV. WATER CONSERVATION IN THE COASTAL HOUSEHOLD SECTOR*

A. SOURCES OF WATER USE

Residential and commercial water consumption can be
generally divided into'indoor and outdoor use. Indoor use in-
cludes all water uses through indoor plumbing fixtures and
water-using appliances. outdoor use includes lawn and garden
irrigation and vehicle washing; public or institutional uses'.
such as park and golf course irrigation and public fountains;
and general municipal uses, such as main flushing and fire fighting.

Residential water use data have been compiled from a number
of sources. In a detailed study of many localities throughout
the country undertaken for the Federal Housing Administration in
1967 (Reference 1), it was found that indoor water consumption
can range from over 90% of total residential consumption in some
apartment areas to 40 to 45% in some single-family residential
areas in the West. Evaluation of all water use data gathered from
the western United States indicates that average household use
ranges from approximately 41 to 80 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd), and total residential use ranges from 90 to 166 gpcd.
Details of residential indoor water use data from several studies
are summarized in Table IV-1.

Table IV-1. Residential Indoor Water Use
(Gallons per. capita per__J`a-yT

References

Function 2 4 5 6

Water closet 25 25 34 25
Cooking and drinking 7a 3 4 2
Bathing and shower 20 20 23 19
Lavatory 3 3
Laundry 9 15 14
Dishwashing - 4

TO TAL 64 65 76 60

a Includes dishwashing

Although extensive research- has been conducted to examine
residential water consumption and water conservation methods, the

*This section is based on the draft of a document, Water Savings,
prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District-Ty-Metcalt 4
Eddy, Inc., Engineers, February, 1976. References cited are as
they appear in the original document. The section was prepared
by Patrick Ferrars, Sanitary Engineers, Water Brothers, San Jose.

commercial sector is seldom discussed separately in the litera-
ture. This is.primarily because the manner in which water is
physically used by commercial customers is not significantly
different, except that the quantity used in some cases may be
greater. Therefore, the water-saving methods discussed in this
section apply to both residential and commercial users. The
discussion covers indoor and outdoor methods, including specific
devices or practices that by their nature reduce water consumption
and incentives that encourage general water use reduction, includ-
ing house-to-house metering of water use and water pricing re-
visions by the distribution agency.

B. WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES

Various alternatives for saving water used for residential
purposes have been identified and evaluated in terms of their ef-
fectiveness, ease of implementation, costs, and potential benefits.

Water consumption in households may be reduced by using various
water-saving appliances and plumbing devices and by restrictions
on the use of appliances that tend to increase water use. The
flow reduction methods, devices, and systems investigated are listed
in Table IV-2.

Table IV-2. Indoor Water-Saving Devices and Systems

Flow-reducing devices
-Toilet flow reduction
Single-batch flush valve
Dual-batch flush valve
Urinal with batch-flush valve
Toilet and urinal with batch-flush valves
Water saver toilet
1hal-cycle toilet
Dual-cycle tank inserts
Reduced-flush devices
Brick in toilet tank
-Sink faucet flow reducers
Faucet aerator
Flow-limiting valve
Thermostatic mixing valve
"Instant" hot water
-Shower flow reduction
Flow-limiting valve
Flow-limiting shower head
Thermostatic mixing valve
"Instant" hot water
-Pressure-reducing valve
Single home
Multiple homes

Table IV-2 (contd.)

Flow-increasing devices
Automati c clotheswasher
Automatic dishwasher
Garbage disposal
Flow-reducing szstems
Vacuum flush toilets
Single home
Multiple homes
Recirculating mineral oil toilet
Washwater recycle for toilet flushing

In February, 1973, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commis-
sion (WSSC) published the results of a study in which it evaluated
the performance of reduced-flush toilet inserts, flow-limiting
shower heads, and pressure-reducing valves in terms of their
ability to diminish household water consumption (Reference 10).
The conclusions indicated that if the appliances are properly
installed and adjusted they can aid in accomplishing a signifi-
cant decrease in household water consumption; if not, difficulties
with the household water system and increased water consumption
can result. Specific findings were as follows:

1. Reduced-flush toilet inserts can diminish water con-
sumption by 12 to 20%.

2. Flow-limiting shower heads can decrease household water
consumption by approximately 12%.

3. Pressure-reducing valves installed in high-pressure
areas (70 to 120 psi), which limit household pressure
to 50 psi, can lead to water savings of 16 to 24%.

McLaughlin (Reference 13) estimated that wastewater flow can
be reduced by as much as 39% by recycling tub, shower, laundry,
and lavatory water for use in toilet flushing. This conclusion
was based on tests performed on a home recycle system consisting
of a 50-gallon storage tank, a 20-square foot swimming pool
filter, a water-saving toilet, and a small recirculating pump.
The total installed cost of this system in June, 1973, was ap-
proximately $600.

The use of a compost privy with waterless toilets in rural
areas has suggested that the individual waste disposal system
could also achieve the water-saving purpose. The Clivis Multrum
system, a Swedish invention introduced into the United States in
1974P claimed a saving of 40 to 50% in household water use
(Reference 14). Although this particular system has been -approved
in Maine, it is still under investigation by health authorities.

The overall acceptability and ease of installation of each
of the devices studied (Reference 6) was evaluated. The devices
are ranked in order of overall utility in Table IV-3.

Table IV-3. Water-Saving Devices Ranked in Order
oT -Overall Utility (Reference 6)-a

Sink faucet aerator
Single-home pressure-reducing valve
Flow-limiting shower head
Multiple-home pressure-reducing valve
Brick in the toilet tank
Reduced-flush device
Water-saver toilet
Dual-cycle toilet insert
Flow-limiting valves on shower
Multiple-home vacuum flush toilet system
Single-batch flush valve on toilet
Level control on clotheswasher
Restrictions on garbage disposal
Dual-batch flush valves on toilet
Washwater recycle toilet flushing system
Toilet plus urinal with batch-flush valves
Urinal with batch-flush valve
Single-home vacuum flush toilet system
Recycling mineral oil toilet system
Restrictions on automatic dishwasher
a Ranked in approximate decreasing order, devices in
nearby positions may be considered equal.

C. IMPACT OF WATER CONSERVATION ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS

The reduction of water use will result in a reduction.of
wastewater flows. How will this change affect sewage treatment
costs? Because per capita contributions remain the same, no notice-
able change will be observed in the wastewater solids and organic
loadings. To the treatment plants, this means a smaller hydraulic
loading and similar solids and organic loading on unit processes.

Without changes in solids and organic loading, biological
treatment processes will remain the same with similar oxygen re-
quirements. The decrease in flow will result in longer detention
time for each unit process, which in nearly all cases will improve
the treatment efficiency. With this higher efficiency, less
chlorine will be required to achieve the same discharge require-
ments. Further, pumping costs will also be reduced because less
flow must be transported.

Therefore, the impact of the implementation of a water con-
servation program will not have adverse effects on the wastewater
treatment facilities. The advantage of this will be minor savings
in power and chlorine costs.

D. EXEMPLARY PUBLIC WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
To provide information on implementing the Coastal Plan
water conservation policies in coastal areas, a number of water
agencies in California that have initiated water conservation pro-
grams were investigated. Detailed information on the programs of
two agencies is presented here. Included are descriptions of each
program's objectives, implementation, costs, and results and
effectiveness.

1. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland,
California

EBMUD is a public utility agency providing water and
sewerage services to the metropolitan area east of San Francisco
Bay. Water is sold directly to 301,000 customers (residential,
54%; commercial, 12%; and industrial, 24%). Average daily water
consumption for the total system in 1974 was 210 mgd.

a. Objectives

In 1972, a water management plan was developed
by EBMUD (Reference 15). It was reported that-the present water
Supply will become inadequate between 1982 and 1986 on the basis
of the latest projections of water demand and the current estimate
of a reliable Mokelumne supply under drought conditions. In
addition to finding more water to meet future demands, EBMUD
considered water conservation as one way of managing the system
to meet future needs by stabilizing the increase in per capita
water demand.

b. Implementation

To expand EBMUD?s water conservation efforts, a
water conservation committee was formed. The committee developed
an extensive water conservation program with 47 recommendations
(Referen'ce 16). The program consists of two phases: (1) a public
education program to encourage voluntary conservation of water by
homeowners, business and industry, and public authority users; and
(2) a regulatory program if experience proves that voluntary measures
are inadequate to meet the basic goal of the water conservation
program. The recommendations are in three broad categories:
(1) those aimed at all or major segments of the district?s resi-
dents; (2) those aimed at much smaller, specifically identified
categories of users; and (3) those which are primarily modifica-
tions of EBMUD procedures or regulations.

2. Marin Milnicipal Water District - Corte Madera,
C a 1 17-orn i a

The Marin Muncipal Water District provides water

directly to approximately 170,0.00 consumers located in a
140 square mile Area of Marin County. Rainfall provides the
District's source of water supply and is distributed after treat-
ment for domestic and commercial use, light industry, and some
agricultural demands. Annual average water consumption is 4
presently 10 mgd.

a. Objectives

In mid-1973, the District's board of directors
determined that a threatened water shortage,conditi-on existed. A
moratorium was enacted prohibiting an incirdase in demand on the
available supply by limiting additions to the district's distribu-
tion system. A bond issue for the Sonoma-Marin Aqueduct, de-
signed to provide the necessary supply to meet the 1980's population
projected by,the Marin countywide plan, was defeated in November,
1973. In the aftermath, a water supply task force was organized
to take another look at the possible alternatives to augment
the present supply and to reduce consumption, with.the overall
objective of developing a water supply program in 3- to 5-year
increments so as to keep 9upply and demand in balance.

b. Implementation

The water conservation program has included
three main approaches to date: a public information program, a
policy regarding water conservation in conjunction with new
development; and making flow reduction devices available to
present customers.

The public information/education program has consisted of
the following activities:

I,. Continued use of billing inserts regarding water con-
servation practices;

2. Distribution of pamphlets on domestic water-saving
methods and on water conservation gardening; and

3. Establishment of a garden at the civic center to display
various native low-water-consumption plants.

The District staff, with the assistance tf-.an,:autAide-te-U-
nical advisory committee, issued a proposed water conservation
policy in conjunction with new development in late 1974. The
policy should provide for the use of low-volume toilets and
shower heads, pressure-reducing valves, hot water system insula-
tion or recirculation, and landscaping and irrigation practices.
While the present new service moratorium remains in effect, new
service will be provided only to developments that make maximum
use of the proposed water-saving methods. The District is working
with local regulatory agencies .toward.adoption of code changes
requiring water-saving devices and fixtures.

E. REFERENCES

1. Linaweaver, F.P., Jr.,.J,C. Geyer, and J.B. Wolff L�tudy
of Resid'ehtial Water' Use, Federal Housing Administration,
Technical Studies Program. 1967.

2. Linaweaver, F.P., Jr., J.C. Geyer, and J.B. Wolff, Residential
Water Use Reseatch-P ojectY Report V, Phase Two, BY1@timore,
Johns Hopkins University. 19bJ.

3. Howe, C.W. and W.J. Vaughn, "In-House Water Savings,"
AWWA Journal, 64:118, January, 1972.

4. Sharpe, W. Special Circular 1843, "Water Conservation and
Wasteflow Reduction in the Home." College Park, The
Pennsylvania State University, College of Agriculture,
Extension Service, and the Institute for Research on Land
and Water Resources.

S. Nelson, J.O., "Water Conservation in New Residential
Development," Presented at the Annual Watercare Conference.
San Rafael. June 24-25, 197S..

6. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., "Assessment of Technologies and Costs
for Public Owned Treatment Works Under PL92-500," (Draft),
National Commission on Water Quality, Washington, D.C.

7. Wolfff J.B., F.P. Linaweaver, Jr., and J.C. Geyer, Report
on the Commercial Water Use Research Proj .ect, Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins University, June, 1966.

8. Bailey, J., et al. "A Study of Flow Reduction and Treatment
of WastewatETY T-rom Households," Report No. 11050 FKE, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December, 1969, Washington,
D.C.

9. Cohen., S. and H. Wallman, "Demonstration of Wasteflow Reduc-
tion from Households," Report No. 670/2-74-071, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, September, 1974, Washington,
D.C.

10, The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission'. "Final and
Comprehensive Rbport for Cabin John Drainage Basin Water-
Saving, Customer Education, and Appliance Test Program,"
February, 1973.

11. Watson, K.S., "Water Ri-.quirements of Dishwashers and Food
Waste Disposers," Journal of the WPCA, 55:555-559, 1963.

12. Anderson, J.S. and K.S. Watson, "Patterns of Household Water
Us,ages," AWWA Journal, 59:1228-1237, October,.1967.

13. Waller, D.H. "Experience with Grinding and Pumping of Sewage

from Buildings. .1 Appendix A; Summary of a Recycle System
for Conservation of-Water in Resid#nces by@ E.R...McLaughlin,"
in: ASCE 'COIffined 'S'e*WeY Sep aIrIat'i*o.n. P. r.oj. eIct , Technic al
MemoranUtm N'o.' 3A, New York., ASCE,,March, 1968.

14. Boston Globe, news article by Ken Botwight, August 12,
1974.

15. East Bay Municpal Utility District, East Bay Water/Waste
Management Plan, 1972, Oakland.

16. Lattie, J.E., B.V. Jacolick, and R.G. Eaneman, "Water
Conservation: Ri@port and Recommendations," East Bay
Municipal Utility District Committee., Oakland...19.72.

V. SUITABILITY OF ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ALONG
CALIFORNIA'S COAST*

A. INTRODUCTION TO ON-SITE DISPOSAL

The septic-tank system is the most common kind of on-
site wastewater treatment and disposal system, and it consists of
a septic tank followed by a subsurface disposal field. The
septic tank is one of many kinds of pretreatment devices, but it
is the most common because of reliability and low cost. Dispos--
al fields have a variety of names describing different geometries
and construction. Essentially, a subsurface disposal field is a
covered hole in the ground, Where effluent from a pretreatment
device is to be absorbed by soils (for simplified terminology,
see Ref. 1).

On-sit e wastewater disposal systems offer flexibility.
They permit a planner to locate a residence at
any distance from its neighbors. A lonely,,singie resi-
dence can be tucked away among a grove of ees' Sewers, on the
other hand, connect neighbors and because of expense of sewers,
neighbors are many and separating distances are necessarily
short. Communities developed with sewers present at the onset
generally have a distinctively regular geometry, and the hill-
sides of many coastal areas usually require heavy cuts to accom-
modate homesites in rows.

Suitability of California's coast for on-site disposal
systems is the interest at hand, as is reasonable conservation
of what aesthetic resources remain.

On-site wastewater disposal along California's coast is
governed by codes. Historically, code practices have been aimed
toward.- identifying soils which would tolerate common, simplistic
designs, rather than directed toward- finding designs suitable
for whatever soil situations happened to be found. The situation
has been analogous to one's trying to find a river suitable for
a certain bridge design, rather than finding a bridge design to
suit whatever river needed to be crossed.

1 . The Basic Question

The question at hand is, "what service could on-site
wastewater disposal systems be in implementation of the December
1975 California Coastal Plan of the California Coastal Zone Con-
servation Commission?"

AJohn Timothy Winneberger, Ph.D., Consultant, On-Site Wastewater
Disposal, Berkeley, California. Dr. Winneberger has eight years
of research and ten years of consulting experience in this field.

At the onset, it could be stated that on-site systems could
serve essentially anywhere along California's coast: if latest
technologies were appli control of construction were estab-
lished;_ and, if proper maintenance were prov-1-d-ed. Those needs are
not customarily met in California's on-site disposal practices.
Authorities are generally unaware of latest researches, engineers
are both untrained and disinterested in on-site systems, and the
ubiquitous code approach precludes much rational thought. Conse-
quently, there is no easy way to evaluate soils of California's
coast through soils maps (or whatever) for suitability to on-
site systems.

On-site disposal systems are a combination of a technical
device and a soils system. Historically, the approach has been
to investigate'the suitability of the soils system for the tech-
nical device. Thus, whenever a large land mass such as Coastal
California is considered for appropriateness of the combination
of technical devices and soils systems, the overwhelming tendency
is to investigate the soils systems through use of soils maps,
perhaps investigations by untrained engineers, and other such
ineffective means. Here, the effort is to ask the reader to
realize that the question at hand could competently be answered
only by the following sequential proceduresi

One: Evaluate Available On-Site Practices

Two: Survey Soil Capabilities

Three: Execute the Derived Plan

It cannot be overemphasized that on-site wastewater disposal
is unknown to most technicians dealing with wastewater manage-
ment and the quality of the recommended effort would have much to
do with the quality of the person chosen to do the work. In
short, our institutions are far more limiting than soils systems
for wastewater disposal.

I
B. PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL

On-site disposal systems and public sewers are simply
devices which are frequently confused with private management
versus public management. The issue of "septic tanks versus
sewersil . when a community seems to be poorly served by the former,
is not a matter of devices. Rather, the real question is, "when
has a community developed such that public management of all waste-
water disposal practices is needed?" (2).

1. Evolvement of "Septic-Tank" District Concept

On-site systems studied at the University of Wisconsin
led researchers to believe that public management of on-site

systems would be a practical step toward improvement of practices
(4). A part of project work included thorough legal analyses of
approaches (5).

Researches on on-site systems begun in 19S8 at the Univer-
sity of California, translations of research results to practical
applications since 1965, lectures and preaching since, faith and
tolerance of authorities, all led to grass-roots development of
public entities in California, charged with responsibility for
total management of all wastewaters. The "Total Management
Concept" included both on-site systems and public sewers (6).
The concept is growing rapidly, offers great savings for the
public beleaguered by proposals of sewers, and delights imagina-
tive planners who recognize a heretofore unavailable tool for
planning low-density developments with hope for permanence (7).

There now are a variety of districts in California. Some
serve new large developments. Others serve an older, existing
community. A district also suited to small subdivisions or even
lot splits is the county-wide district in Santa Cruz County,
California (8).
2. Improvement of Practices Through the District
Concept
The necessary innovation required is a "Septic Tank
Management District". These districts should have the capability
of collecting funds. Those funds could be used to introduce ad-
vances in on-site wastewater disposal practices to the field.
For example, the principle of alternation of fields might be
difficult to suddenly impose upon a county's populace, but through
district control, its accomplishment would be easy (9).
In ad-di-fil-o-n f-o -solving hard pro'UTems- , retained -consultants
could introduce sophisticated devices. For example, inverted
sand filters are known to be superior in certain applications
(10). Winneberger suggested their use in Stinson Beach (3).
Customary practices are greatly lacking sophistication, where
individual attention in construction is needed beyond the auth-
ority and responsibility of health departments.

Researches at the University of Wisconsin have formalized
guidelines for the design and construction of mounds (16).
Mounds are above-ground devices which have been constructed in
certain areas in the United States where conventional subsurface
systems proved to be troublesome. One of California's coastal
counties describes what amounts to a pseudo-mound in customary
practices. Unfortunately, design of those pseudo-mounds does not
conform to latest knowledge and those devices are sometimes
troublesome. The district approach could have brought in experts
versed in the technology of mounds.

Sometimes the question arises, how big can an on-site dis-
posal system be? There is no limit to size provided proper
expertise is brought to bear on design-, con;truction and main-
tenance of large systems. Through the district approach, it
would be possible for consultants to design on-site systems,
utilizing septic tanks and subsurface disposal fields.. Such
systems could be used to advantage where above-ground, devices
serving a multiplicity of dwellings would be undesirable. As for
size, one on-site system exists in California which on one
occasion managed an estimated 200,000 gallons per day.
S-till another benefit that could be realized from the dis-
trict concept is avoidance of unnecessary waste of financial and
material resources. Typically, public sewers eventually come,
not because on-site systems could not serve indefinitely, but
because those systems are neglected to the point of.terminal
failure. Researchers are beginning to realize that on-site sys-
tems can serve indefinitely and that short.lifespan phenomena are
expressions of poor design and neglect.

C. REFERENCES

1. Winneberger, J.H.T.:"Manual of Grey Water Treatment Practice,
Part 1, On-Site Treatment and Subsurface Disposal,"
Monogram Industries, Inc., 100 Wilshire Blvd., Santa
Monica, Calif. 90401, 1974.

2. Winneberger, J.T.j and J.S. Klock: "Current and Recommended
Practices For Subsurface Waste Water Disposal Sy-stems in
Arizona,"Rpt.. No. ERC-R-73014. Engineering Research
- Center, College of Engineering Sciences, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ. 85281, July, 1973.

3. Winneberger, J.T.: "Private Management of Wastewaters-and a
Proposal to The Stinson Beach County Water District For
Development of Public Man 'agement,,,Office of Winneberger,
Berkeley, Calif., 28 June 1974.

4. Otis, R.J. and D.E. Stewart: "An Alternative Wastewater
Facility For Communities in Rural America," Dept. of
Civil & Envt. Engineering, and Univ. Ext., Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisc., not dated.

5. Stewart, D..E.: "Central Management of Non-Central Systems
Special Purpose Districts and Other Entities, "Small
Scale Waste Management Project, Univ. of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisc. May 1975.

6. Winneberger, J.T. and W.H. Anderman, [email protected] Public Manage-
ment of Septic-Tank Systems,"Journal of Environmental
Health"35(2):145-146, Sept./Oct. 1972.

7. Murphy, R.F.: "Comparis on of Economics of Normal Sewage
'Collection and Disposal vs. Ground Disposal,"presented
to the National Assoc. of Env. Health, Indiv. Sewage
Disposal System Workshop, Cincinnati, Ohio, 22 June 1974,'
reproduced in"On-Site Waste Management"Volume IV, Hancor,-
Inc., P.O. Box 1047, Findlay, Ohio 45840.

8. Anon.: "Ordinance No. 1927, Ordinance Amending the Santa
Cruz County Code, Chapter 8.03 Septic.-Tank System Main-
tenance District,11(address inquiries to: L. Raynor
Talley, R.S., Director of Environmental Health, Santa
Cruz County Health Services Agency, 701 Ocean St., Room
400, Santa Cruz, Cali.f. 95060.

9. Winneberger, J.T.: "The Principle of Alternation of Subsur-
face Wastewater Disposal Fields, On-Site Waste Manage-
ment"Volume V, Hancor, Inc., P.O. Box 1047, Findlay, Ohio
45840, 1 January 1976.

.10. Studies at the Univ. of Calif. provided bases for the devel-
opment of inverted sand filters. Winneberger has design-
ed installations at residences of Messrs. Niemi and Pauer
in St. Helena and Scotts Valley, respectively.

11. Anon.: "Alternate Sewage Manual,"Section of Plumbing and
Fire Protection Systems, P.O. 309, Madison, Wisc. 53701,
June 1975.

VI REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL FACILITIES FOR MAJOR COASTAL,
RECREATION AREAS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA*

A. ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO COMPREHENSIVE
WATER MANAGEMENT

The Coastal Plan policies to maintain manage, and restore
ocean water quality (pages 31-32) call for tipgrading existing dis-
charges to enclosed water bodies, requiring adequate treatment
for new or enlarged discharges to other coastal waters, control-
ling discharges from new or expanded non-severed development, and
restricting expansion of substandard sewage systems (policy 7 a-e).

In addition, the Plan stresses reclamation and reuse of
wastewater as a preferred alternative to discharges into coastal
waters (page 32, Policy 8). The Plan also states the need to
offset the continued depletion of coastal zone water supplies
(page 32, Policy 8) and stresses water conservation by reclaiming
the wastewater and reducing water use (Policy 23d, page SO).-

However, the Plan policies are not specific enough to assess
how well their purposes can be met, especially with conventional
sewage treatment and disposal techniques. In addition, the re-
lationships between sewage generation, water use, and water quality
are not clearly spelled out for the existing variety of coastal
situations.

This section discusses the relative role of innovative
versus conventional approaches to wastewater management in ex-
isting and proposed coastal recreation areas. Recreational
development which will occur between now and 1980 and beyond
will be faced with stringent water quality criteria, promulgated
by the State of California and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

A great deal of the federal appropriations for construction
grants from PL 92-500 will have been expended by this time.
Without similar new legislation, state and local agencies may
experience the heavy burden of the capital improvement program
necessary to meet these water quality requirements.

Due to staffing problems at most Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, it has been a general policy to reduce the number
of point discharges into receiving waters and c.onsolidate the
waste streams at a regional water pollution control facility.
This policy results in plans for massive conveyance systems
thr ough force mains, adding a large energy cost to a system

*Pat-r.ick-T.,Fe,rr P.Sanitary Engineer, is also a member of the
Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
San Jose.

which normally operates on gravi-ty to reach the treatment plant.
In addition, the* concentr@ation of larger,volumes of wastewater
at one point usually requires higher Aevels of treatment in order
to keep the mass emission rate CMER) of pollutants within the
natural assimilative capacity of the receiving water. In
general, this basic approach requires higher operation and main-
tenance costs, which are seldom completely offset by the economy
of scale achieved in building one large treatment plant.

The elimination of discharge xequirements or goals for many
of the coastal regions does not always act to the detriment of
cost-effectiveness when comprehensive water planning is con-
sidered. Policies No. 8 and 23 both stress reclamation and reuse
of adequately treated wastewater for agricultural, industrial,
recreational., fish and wildlife, and marsh enhancement uses as a
preferred alternative to discharge into coastal waters.

Reclamation systems are the most economical when they can be
achieved on a local level, either in an up-sewer "scalping plant"
(water is drawn off the sewer system, purified,-and the residuals
returned to the collector) or when a market is found or developed
by proper planning in the vicinity of the local wastewater treat-
ment plant.

Most of the proposed consolidation plans,for regional treat-
ment plants give mention to reclamation as a potential option
despite the enormous capital investment in conveyance systems.
Comments concerning reclamation usually are positive but alw-ays
state.that since time will be required to develop markets and
institutional arrangements to deliver the water, it will be
necessary to build the costly consolidated'disposal plant now while
someone else--not usually mentioned--develops the reclamation
markets and attempts to get still additional funding into the
area to finance the additional capital improvements.
Since most of the water quality control plans in all major
river basins are still in the process of being approved, the
stated policies on reclamation in 'the Coastal Plan Aould be inte-
grated with the basin plans where, possible. Most of the-systems
recommended in the basin plans accept disposal-oriented plans and
not reclamation projects, except where they are noted as long-
range options.
In the major recreational areas of the coastal zone, the
unit cost of sewering the park's comfort station and residential
units is usually 20 to 40 times the [email protected] cost of urban
areas due to the small daily volumes which are encountered.
Conveyance of these flows several miles to a municipal treatment
system (in some cases) raises these costs even further and creates
a long-term indebtedness for the recreational agency.

Many parks..which. have already.connected to munic al systems
will begin to experience a greater economi& burden as @@tJrose:
municipalities are required to instail the'h.igh&r levels of

treatment required in the. time sclLedules set down in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act CPL 92-500)-.. In the end,
these municipal system's may be required to cease discharge
completely, either due to state an-d federal regulations or by
virtue of the availability of the effluent stream as the only
viable source of supplemental water. Since the goal of "no dis-
charge of pollutants" was set in 1972 with the passage of PL 92-
500, it seems better to consider the apparent trend and n sp--
large sums of money to convey wastewater a long distance for '
disposal, when the ultimate goal of no discharge could probably
be met within or nearby the park right-of-way by means of land
disposal using the soil as a I'livinig filter" to purify the wastes.

B. CASE STUDIES OF TWO PARKS

This section will describe wastewater treatment facili-
ties in two major recteational areas on the Northern California
coastline. Both facilities are state parks and were selected
because of the information readily available for this report
(Reference 1). The choices do not imply that these case studies
are the best or worst examples of wastewater management strategies
for recreational facilities. Numerous major federal, state,
regional, county, and local public and private facilities could
also have served as examples to demonstrate the philosophy of
comprehensive water management inherent in this report. .

The first case study is Russian Gulch State Park, which
was chogen as an example of a recently constructed wastewater
system in a major recreational facility. The second study is
Migial Island '. State Park, which was chosen for the apparent
ne6d for improvement in its wastewater management facilities.
Investigations conducted on the new facilities included projected
wastewater flows, conveyance system and treatment processes, water
conservation measures, and capital and operating costs reduced to
a "per visitor" cost. Similar analysis was performed in the
second study, with special emphasis given to water conservation
possibilities and related cost savings. Also discussed are the
alternatives available for improving the wastewater system on
Angel Island, concentrating specifically on land disposal versus
secondary treatment and Bay discharge.

I., Russian-Gulch State Park*

Russian Gulch S tate Park is located two miles north
of the City of Mendocino and 10 miles south of Fort Bragg on
'Highway 1. The park bounds Russian Gulch Creek Canyon from the
Pacific Ocean inland for three miles. Campgrounds are available
in the canyon for 30 families, and a group facility accomodates
up to 40 people. Appurtenant structures nearby provide piped
drinking water, restrooms, hot showers, and laundry tubs. Ap-
proximately 10 miles of hiking, biking, and equettrian-1-trails-are
key elements of the park development. Restrooms are situated
along these trails in areas of heaviest travel.
Some special local conditions affected waste treatment costs in
this case, but the overall analysis and conclusions have general
validity. -
32

A newly constructed.sewage collection system conveys waste-
water out of the park to the Mendocino Community Services Dis-
trict CMCSD) collection system for is water pollution control
plant. Th.e park collection system consists of 5700 feet of 4"
vitrified clay pipe gravity sever, 8300 feet of 411 force main,
four lift stations, a holding station, a "blower house" which
contains air pumps and a chlorine and hydrogen peroxide injection
system. The system discharges into an MCSD manhole where it flows
in a gravity sewer for approximately 500 feet into a district-
owned lift@station and is.conveyed 2500 feet by force main to
the treatment plant.

The MCSD treatment plant, constructed last year, is a standard
activated sludge process followed by sand filtration and chlorina-
tion with final disposal to the Pacific Ocean through a 600-foot
outfall/diffuser pipe. Note that the State Park is thus directly
discharging partially treated sewage to the Coastal Zone. The
plant has a design capacity of 300,000 gallons per day (0.3 mgd)
to accomodate the average dry weather flow.. The treatment plant
was designed in conjunction with the Community of Mendocino's
first collection system by J.M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers.
The acceptance of the park's sewage flows into the municipal
system was obviously anticipated throughout the design. Construc-
tion cost of the MCSD's collection and treatment system was $2.2
million.

The average dry weather sewage flow from Russian Gulch State
Park is estimated at 25,000 gallons per day (gpd). D@ring wet
welather, when park usage is practically nil, the flow rate ex-
perienced averages 30,000 gpd and is attributed almost entirely
to infilltration. A memo dated December 10, 1975,,from John
QuisenberTy, Associate Civil Engineer, to Noah Tilghman, Office
of the State Architect, documents that a daily infiltration of
30,000 gallons is possbbly leaking in through a crack in the new
holding tank near Lift Station No. 3, adjacent to Russian Gulch
Creek. On February 16, 1976, the second day of a local rain
storm, the writer observed flow rates out of the tank into the
lift station which approximated those documented in the memo
described.

The operator of the MCSD treatment plant, Mr. Don Waldman,
claims that the District's collection system, being newly con-
structed, experiences little if any infiltration, indicating that
all peak flows above the average dry weather flows are attributed
to infiltration from the park's collection system.

The entire collection system has not yet been accepted by the
Office of the State Architect (O.S.A., formerly O.A.C., Office of
Architecture and Construction), as of mid-February, 1976. Lift
Station No. 4, which serves two one-unit comfort stations on the
west s-Ide of Highway 1, has not been installed clue to problems
with th.e pump specifications. This portion of the wastewater
system is still connected to a nearby septic tank system which

is not experiencing any difficulty in operation at present, and
no history of problems with.th-ese units was ascertained. In
addition, the probability.of a crack in-the holding tank at Lift
Station No. 3 has caused O.S'.A. to withhold payment on that
$9,000 item. Location of the tank so close to the Creek may be
a questionable procedure, due to gooundwater pressures.

The total construction cost of the park collection system
was estimated at $487,200. Revenues available for construction
of the project totaled $507,201. In addition to these costs,
the park has reserved 8% of MCSD treatment plant's capacity and
a portion of a gravity sewer, pump station, and force main
beyond the terminus of-the park's conveyance system. The State's
participation in the District's facilities represents an addi-
tional capital investment of $80,000.

Operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs of the park collec-
tion system include power, chemicals, routine check of lift
stations, and report preparation. Maintenance of the lift sta-
tions has been performed thus far by the staff of MCSD at a rate
of $3740/quarter (three months). 0 & M costs of the District
collection system and treatment plant are also apportioned to
the State. A complete cost summary is provided in Table VI-1.
Using the average annual visitor figure for the park, the
total cost of wastewater management for Russian Gulch State Park
is $1.10 per visitor.* This,is an extremely high figure, and it
is certainly possible that an on-site land disposal system would
have resulted in a significant cost s..avings to the State.

Water conservation systems in use in the park at present
consist of low-volume toilets in the comfort station midway
along the line leading to Lift Station No. 3. Six units requir-
ing a two-quart flush as opposed to a normal five-gallon flush
unit represent an estimated saving of 540 gallons per day, assum-
ing a usage of 20 per day/unit. This is only about 5% of the
total water use, indicating large potential savings in water use
and sewage volumes still exist.

2. Angel Island State Park"

Angel Island State Park is located off the tip of
Tiburon, overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge. The island, site of
various military installations since the Civil War, has been a

*Wastewater management costs for similar systems proposed at Angel
.Island State Park ranged from $.15-$.50.per visitor.
"Based on a field trip February 6, 1976,.with representatives of
the Office of the State Architect and the Department of Parks and
Recreation.

Tabl,e,-,VI-1. Cost Summary, Russian Gulch- State Park

Capital C-osts:

Park Collection & Transmission System $487,200.

Mendocino City Community Services-
District Treatment Plan and Collection
System--Park-agreed share 80's-0,00.

Total 567P200.

1. Debt Retirement:

20 yrs @ 8% (CRF=.10185) 57,800/yr.

2. Operation & Maintenance Costs:

a. Park Collection System
Power 100.
Chemicals/Testing 1,500.
Labor @$42/day 15,300.
Equip. replacement
(5% of $487,200) 24,400.
Subtotal 41,300.

b. District Treatment Plant
& Collection System
Power 10,200.
Chemicals 2,700.
Labor 13,600.
Equip. replacement
(5% of $1.6 million) 80,000.
Subtotal) 1UT-,nT

8.3% of Subtotal 8,840.

Total 0 & M 50,140.

3. Total Annual Cost (1+2) $107,940.

(4.861 Million Gallons; Cost/1000 Gallons=.$22.21)

state park since 1960. Its major recreational use is by. boaters,
picnickers, hikers., and blcycli@ts, Visitors are transported to
the island via.ferry or private..boat, landing at th-e only
presently developed dock andmoorings at Ay ala Cove.

Approximately 90% of the 150,000 to 175,000 visitors per year
to the island never venture beyond the area of Ayala Cove. Two
comfort stations are provided in this areaeto accomodate the peak
capacity of the park, rated at 3300 per Isons per day.

The existing wastewater management system at Angel Island
includes a 5000 and 10,000 gallon septic tank and 10,000 gallon
holding tank an the Ayala ICove area. The septic tank supernatant
overflows into the holding tank and is chlorinated prior to dis-
charge to the San Francisco Bay through an outfall extending two
feet below mean-lower low water about five feet from Point lone.

About 20 persons reside in the buildings of the North and
East Garrisons. Wastewater from three residents at Quarry Point
is sewered and discharged through the seawall at the south side
of the point. Two residences plus the Fire House are also
sewered and discharged into the Bay at Simpton Point.

Six non-water carriage comfort stations (pit toilets) are
presently in use: two at the picnic grounds near the old hospital,
two at the West Garrison; and two near the summit of the i4land.

Park usage varies from 0 to 27,700 people per month, with
peak days of up to 3300 people. Taking into consideration the 30
residents and employees, the estimated sewage flow, at the present
level of park development, is 27,000 gallons-on -the makimum d-,ay.
Since 90% of the usage is in the Ayala Cove area, it is estimated
that 24,000 gpd would originate from the facilities around the
Cove.

Projections of expanded future park development vould in-
crease the maximum daily wastewater volume to 50,000 gpd, if no
water conservation measures and fixtures are developed in the
island's water and sanitation systems. If future development
allowed higher use of the island at the East and North Garrisons,
half of the total usage would be generated there and the Ayala
Cove area flows would be increased to a maximum of 25,000 gpd.

The wastewater management system at Angel Island has been
under study for several years (Reference 2). On July 10, 1973,
the Department of Parks and Recreation filed with the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for a NPDES (National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, but has only re-
ceived a "Draft of a Proposed Tentative' Order" incorporating the
objectives and effluent limitations of the Tentative Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin. Basically, these
objectives would require convential secondary treatment or better
if continued discharge is desired. The stated goals of PL 92-500,

the 197.2 amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act, indicate'
that increasingly higher treatment requirements will become
mandatory in the next 10years until the 1985.goal of "no dis-
charge of pollutants" is enforced.

Studies.by Kennedy Engineers, Inc., Consulting Engineers
(References.3 and 4), and-Bi@o-@Kinetics, Inc., have recommended.
several alternative treatment systems, all essentially designed
to process the wastewater to today's anticipated requirements
for discharge. The alternatives generally involve construction
of 3000 to 9500 feet of gravity and pressure sewers and one or
two secondary treatment plants sized at 50,000 gpd or two at
25,000 gpd. The alternatives range in capital cost from-$1.35,865
to $718,455. Annual. costs range foom $39,225 to $74,565 (about
$.2S-$.50 per visitor). The highest annual cost corresponds to
the lowest capital cost, based on a proposal of Bio-Kinetics,
Inc., to provide the treatment unit.

Neither the consultants nor the Parks and Recreation Depart-,
ment gave serious consideration to land treatment and disposal
of the wastewater effluent. On February 6, 1976, a field in-
vestigation was conducted by the State Architect, with members
of his staff, several consultants including the author of this
report, and several staff members of the State Department of
Parks and Recreation. During this tour, it was determined that
a combination of water conservation fixtures,and land disposal
of liquid wastes would be a viable and preferred alternative
to those previously developed for discharge to the San Francisco
Bay. An abandoned Nike Missile site near the East Garrison was
selected as a suitable site for residual solids disposal, with
potential for acceptance of raw sewage flows from existing and
future facilities in the areas outside Ayala Cove. Detailed
studies are currently underway to assess the technical feasi-
bility of the proposed land disposal system; it certainly appears
a promising alternative.

The land disposal system would be situated in the 32-acre
watershed above the wastewater reservoir of the abandoned quarry.
A 15-foot concrete-core dam will serve to capture any -runoff from
the irrigated area and allow it to be resprayed. This system
would require 2000 feet of 4" force main, two pump stations, and
the sprinkler irrigation system. Estimated capital and operating
costs are listed in Table VI-2. These costs are approximately $.Is
per visitor, indicating a significant cost savings for the land
disposal system, in addition to a reduction of the sewage outflow
to the Bay.

With the possibility of development of docking facilities on
the east side ofthe islaAd. the installation of water conservation
fixtures would save both capital and 0 & M costs for expansion of
the water system and wastewater treatment facilities. The land
disposal site would have capacity to treat the additional super-
natant from the east-side treatment plant located in the abandoned

Nike Missile site. Connection of th-is site to the land disposal
system would require 300 feet of 411 force main and a pump station,
with an estimated 1975 cost of $50-1,000. This would be a fixed
cost and would not be reduced with. the installation of water
conservation fixtures.

Table VI-Z. Estimated Costs 'of Land' Di*sp'o'sal_ System

Capital Costs :
2000 feet 4" forcemain @$10/foot $20,000
Ayala Cove Lift Station & Chlorination 56,000
Sprinkler system for 32 acres @ $500/ac 16,000
Recirculation system from reservoir 5,000
Site work 4,000
Electrical work 3,000
$104,000
Contingencies (10%) 10,400
Total Capital $114,4TU

Debt Retirement 20 yrs @8% CCRF .10185) 11,650

Operating -Costs:
Chemicals 1,800
Power 200
Maintenance 6,000
Equipment replacement (5% cap. cost/yr) 5,700
Sludge hauling (9 truck loads @ $100) 900
Total 0 & M T17-,6-0-T

Total Aurm. al --C@os t$ Id , 250
(2.133 Million gallons; Cost/1000 Gallons=$12.31)

Comfort 9tation facilities in Ayala Cove had urinals and
toilets., flushed by high-pressure valves, which typically use
2.5-3.0 gallons per flush, when in proper adjustment. Clearly,
a lot of wastewater is being generated beyond need.

Low-flush (two-quart) water closets represent an 80%-90%
reduction in water usage over standard toilet units. Since 60%
of the present water usage is by park visitors using comfort
stations, with a potential for this figure to increase to 75%
with new docking on the east side of the island, low flush toi lets

could reduce water use and wastewater volumes by up to 2.27
million gallons per year. Unit volume Costs for treatment'and
disposal would rise as axesult, but overall costs, of power and
chemicals would be reduced, repres.enting an annual savings of
$1080 per ye ar at the existing level of development, and $2340
per year with development of'the east side of the island.

C. REFERENCES

1. California Department of Parks & Recreation, Statistical
Report FY 74-75, Sacramento, 197S.
2. Personal Communication, Michael Brown, Department of Parks
& Recreation.
3. Kennedy Engineers, Inc., "Concept Planning Report for Waste-
water Treatment and Disposal at Angel Island State Park,
Marin County, California," prepared for State office of
Architecture and Construction, January 1975, San Francisco.
4. Brown, Michael, "Supplement to Kennedy Engineers' Report,"
California Department of Parks & Recreation, June 1975,
Sacramento.

VI I. PERSONS CONTACTED (Section 2)

A. State of California, Sacramento

1. Office of the' Legislative Analyst
- Donald tenedict, Principal Program Analyst
- Wayne Keithley, Program Analyst

2. Office of the State Architect
- Sim van der Ryn, State ArcNitect
- Irving Schultz, Senior Civil Engineer

3. Department of Parks and Recreation
- Jack Hesemeyer, Area Manager, 7a-rin Area
- James White, Associate Civil Engineer
- Michael Brown, Civil Engineering Associate
- Len Algeri, Mendocino Area Parks Maintenance
Superintendent

4. state.Water Resources Control.Board, Sacramento
Gil Wheeler

B. Local Government

1. Mendocino County Health Department, Ukiah
- David Long, Director

2. Mendocino Community Service.s District., Mendocino
Don Waldon, Treatment Plant Operator

3. Sonoma CountX Health Department
R.O. Logsdon

4. Marin Countz Health Department
James Jurik

5. San Mateo County Health Department
Gareth Ott

6. Santa Cruz County Health Department
L. Raynor Talley, Director of Environmental
Health

Supporting Document C

THE COSTS OF LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE COASTAL PLAN

Prepared,by the Office of Planning and'Research
At the Request of the State Legislative Analyst's
Office in Response to SR-41/1975

February 18, 1976

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number

Preface I

Introduction and Summary 2

The Costs of Local Implementation of the
Coastal Plan 5

Implementation - First Phase 6

Existing Government Planning F ramework 6

Tasks Required by the Coastal Plan 8

The Costs of Preparing for Certification 15

Implementation - Second Phase 18

Local Government Planning and Regulatory
Procedures 18

Tasks Required by the Coastal Plan 19

The Costs of Carrying Out the Plan
Following Certification 22

Appendix A - Coastal Plan Policies Analysis

Appendix B - Local Implementation Program Analysis

Appendix C - Local Government Survey

PREFACE

This report was prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. for

the Legislative Analyst's Office as part of a study, required by Se-

nate Resolution 41, of the costs of implementing the proposed Califor-

nia Coastal, Plan.

The purpose-of this report is to analyze the implementation program

required of local governments by the Coastal Plan and to determine the

costs associated with local governments carrying out the prescribed

implementation program. This report covers the planning and regulatory
activities of 1ocal general purpose governments (cities and counties)

directly affected by the Coastal Plan.

In preparing this report, the Office of Planning and Research con-

sulted with the staffs of the State Coastal Commission, the Regional

Coastal Commissions, the Sea Grant Program at the University of Cali-

fornia, Berk eley, and seventeen local governments directly affected

by the Coastal Plan.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

To accomplish the purpose of this report, three specific efforts were

undertaken. First, it was necessary to identify the aspects of local

government planning and regulatory activity affected by each of the

policies in the Coastal Plan. The results of this analysis are inclu-

Aed as Appendix A. Secondly, the precise tasks required of local govern-

ments--in preparing or revising plans, ordinances, zoning, codes and

programs for certification by the Coastal Commission--were identified.

This analysis is included as Appendix B. Finally,'the direct costs

to local governments of implementing the Coastal Plan were identified.

This consisted of a survey of five coastal counties and twelve coastal

cities, the results of which are included as Appendix C.

The results of this research are summarized below.

1. Several factors minimize the number of tasks to be performed

by local government due to Coastal Plan requirements:

a. Existing federal, State or regional agency responsi-
bilities.

b. Existing local planning requirements of other authority.

c. Plans, information and assistance to be provided by
State agencies as part of Coastal Plan implementation.

d. Existing information and technical assistance.

2. The exact scope of each jurisdiction's implementation program

would be determined by several factors unique to each juris-

diction:

-2-

a. Local conditions (the number of coastal issues to be
addressed).

b., Relationship of the jurisdiction to the Coastal Re-
source Management area.

C. Consistency of existing local plans and programs with
theCoastal Plan.

di. Number and type of existing special local government
functions.

3. Generalizations, about the costs to local government of pre-

paring plans and programs for certification are difficult to

make. However, the survey of local governments did indicate

that:

a. The total cost for all 75 affected jurisdictions to
develop certifiable plans and programs may well exceed
the $2 million to $2.5 million estimate in the Coastal
Plan.

b. There appears to be a minimum cost to each jurisdiction
in the range of $10,000 to $20,000.

c. The upper limit Gost to any jurisdiction, except in rare
cases, appears to be about $100,000.

d'. Jurisdictions which have worked closely with the Coastal
Commission in recent years, will not be faced with signi-
ficant costs in preparing for certification.

e. More detailed guidelines for implementation and.an exami-
nation of local plans and programs are required for an
accurate estimate of costs.

4. Following certification, implementation of the Coastal Plan may

involve additional responsibilities on the part of local govern-

ments. These increased.responsibilities might result from:

a. An increase in the number of permits which may be
required to be issued by local government.

b. More complex or involved analysis of project proposals.

c Amendment of local plans following Coastal Plan amendment.

d. Litigation as a result of decisions made by local govern-
ments pursuant to certified plans or policies.

e. Appeals of local decisions to the State Coastal Agency.

5. The cost associated with 4a and 4b could be largely covered
by applicant fees, and costs associated with 4c, 4d and 4e

cannot be estimated at this time.

6. The survey indica ted that roughly half of the jurisdictions

felt the costs to local government of implementing the

Coastal Plan following certification would be significant

while the other half felt they would be minor.

-4-

THE COSTS OF LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COASTAL PLAN

Primary responsibility for carrying out the Coastal Plan is charged to

local government. The basic rationale and the general procedure for

local implementation is presented most concisely in Part I of the Plan

as follows:

Because city and county government is accessible and
accountable to its constituents, because statewide
coastal concerns should be reflected in local plan-
ning and regulation, and because Plan implementation
should be streamlined to reduce costs and delays, pri-
mary responsibilities for carrying out the Coastal
Plan should rest with local governments. Within three
years of the effective date of State legislation to
carry out the Plan, local governments along the coast
should be required to bring their general plans into
conformity with the Coastal Plan. Local governments
would submit their plans to the Regional and State
Coastal Commissions for certification as to conformity
with the Coastal Plan. After all the local plans in
a region had been certified, the Regional Commission
would go out of existence. Local governments would
then control coastal conservation and development,
subject to a system of limited appeals to the State
Commission to insure that approved local plans and
thus the Coastal Plan were being followed in day-to-
day decisions.

Thus, implementation of the Coastal Plan by local government consists

of two aspects or phases. During the first phase, commencing immedi-

ately following the effective date of the legislation carrying out the

Coastal Plan and terminating in certification of the local implementa-

tion program by the Regional and State Coastal Commissions, local govern-

ment would modify its plans, ordinances, zoning, codes and programs in

preparation for certification. In the second phase, commencing with

certification, local government would administer the certified plans,

ordinances, zoning, codes and programs through normal local governmental

procedures.

-5-

Implementation First Phase

During the first phase of implementation, local governments along the

coast would be required to bring their general planand other long-range

development plans for that portion of their jurisdictiontlying within

the Coastal,,Resource Management Area into conformity with the Coastal

Plan. Local governments would also prepare ordinances and zoning changes

necessary to implement the Plan, including capital.improvement programs,,

spec ific programs for acquisition of open space and recreational faci-

lities, appearance and design guidelines, and restoration programs fjor

natural ormanmade resources. Once revised, these plans,.ordinances,

codes and.programs would be presented to the Coastal Commission for cer-
tification. This first phase of implementation is to be accomplished

within three years of the effective date of legislation carrying out

the Coastal Plan.

Existing Local Government Plannin2 Framework.

California State law requires each city and county to establish a plan-

ning agency and planning process to guide growth and change in accor-

dance with 6 framework of officially adopted goals and policies. It is

primarily throu gh this planning framework that local governments will

implement the Coastal Plan.

The primary poli'py statement for local planning is the comprehensive,

long-range general plan required by Section 65302 of the Government Code.

Nine elements are required in the general plan: land use, circulation,

-6-

housing, conservation, open space, seismic safety, noise, scenic high-
ways and safety. While many cities and counties are still preparing
the four latter elements, all cities and counties are required to have
adopted all nine elements by December 31, 1976. In addition to the nine@
mandated elements, provision is made in Section 65303 of the Govern*ment
Code for inclusion in the general plan of optional elements, such as an
historical preservation element, a public services element and a recre-

ation element.

To carry but the general plan and regulate land use, the State p lanning

and zoning law enables cities and counties to establish zoning proce-

dures. By.requirement of Government Code Section 65860, zoning must be

consistent with the general plan. Under the local zoning ordinance,

conditional use permits are granted for development and uses consistent

with requirements and standards@ of the specific zones.

Government Code Section 66410 requires cities and counties to adopt a

subdivision ord inance, consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act,

for the regulation of land divisions by subdivision map or parcel map

(in the case of four or fewer parcels).

As a guide for the expenditure of public funds for capital improvements,

Government Code Sections 65401 and 65402 require that cit ies and counties

prepare annual capital improvement programs which are consistent with

the adopted general plan. These capital improvement programs specify

the nature and location of capital improvements and priorities for fund-

ing.

-7-

Tasks Required by the Coastal Plan

The actual content of the local implementation program consists of the

specific requirements for local government contained in the Coastal P Ian

Policies (Part II) and the maps and notes included within Part IV of

the Coastal Plan. In Part III of the Plan an effort has been made to

outline the content of the local implementation program. This local

implementation program outline includes sixteen components:

A. @Community Development
B. ,Shoreline Recreation
C. Recreational Support
D. Streams, Estuaries and Wetlands
E. Agricultural Resources
F. Forestry Resources
'G. Scenic Resources
H. Man-Made Resources
I. Wildlife and Plant Communities
J. Hazards
K. Low- and Moderate-Income Housing
L. Water and/or Wastewater Service System
M. Energy Facilities and Conservation
N. Transportation System
.0. Minerals and Soils
P. National Interest Facilities

It should be noted that there is much overlapping among these components

and that local implementation would in reality be carried out as part

of the jurisdiction's normal planning process. In general, this plan-

ning process would involve a number of steps or phases including:
1) Comparing the Coastal Plan with the local general plan, ordi-

nances, zoning, codes and programs;

2) Identifying conflicts and inconsistencies;
3) Undertaking basic research into the physical environment, the
physical infrastructure and land use, preparatory to a general

plan revision;

-8-

4) Drafting proposed general plan revisions;

5) Holding public hearings on the proposed general pl an revisions;

6) Drafting or revising ordinances, zoning, codes and programs con-

sistent with the revised general plan;

7) Cond ucting public hearings on the proposed or revised ordinances,

zoning, codes and programs;

8) Presenting the proposed, revised general plan, ordinances, zoning,,

codes and programs to the Coastal Commission for certification.

Taken at face value the local implementation program as outlined in

Part III of the Coastal Plan and as more fully detailed in the Plan poli-

cies, appears to require an enormous planning effort by local government.

However, much of what is mandated on local government is already re-

quired by existing State and federal law. In addition, much of the infor-

mation necessary to carrying out the first phase of implementation is

available or will be provided by State agencies as part of State imple.-

mentation of the Coastal Plan. The following is a summary of factors

discussed in Appendix B, which circumscribe the work program to be carried

out by local government as part of the first phase of implementation:

1. Existing federal, State or regional authority:

The local implementation program prescribes local programs for

the control of a number of activities over which federal, State

and regional agencies already have regulatory authority. Where

this is the case, local government would only be responsible

for developing programs to supplement the existing federal,

-9-

State and regional programs. For example, much of what is re-

quired by the F orestry Resources Component is already being

achieved through Division of Forestry regulation of timber har-

vesting under the Forest Practice Act. The local implementation

program in this area would only-need to address those aspects

required by the Coastal Plan but not covered by the Forest Prac-

tice Act.

In add:ition to existing authority, the Coastal Plan calls for

legislation to expand the activities and/or regulatory authority

of several State agencies, which would serve to further limit

the amount of local responsibility for certain aspects of imple-

mentation.

2. Local Planning required by other authority:

Many federal and State requirements already exist which mandate

that local government carry out planning and regulation in areas

addressed by the local implementation program. For example,

the.State planning and zoning law already requires that local

general plans inc,lude many considerations mentioned in the Coastal

Plan as part of the local implementation program. It is impor-

tant to note i-n this regard that for the first time local gene-

ral plans will,.through the certification process, be re viewed

by a State agency for adequacy. Heretofore, only complianc e

with the requirement for adoption of certain general plan ele-

ments was monitored by the State. Other examples of existing

_10-

requirements for local planning include the National Flood In-

surance Program, the Colby-Alquist Flood Plain Act, the Alquist-

Priolo Special (Seismic) Studies Zones Act, and the Surface

Mining and Reclamation Act.

3. Plans, information and assistance to be provided by State agen-

cies as part of Coastal Plan implementation:

Local government implementation of some requirements of the

Coa stal Plan is dependent on plans, information or assistance

to be provided by State agencies should the Coastal. Plan poli-

ci6s regarding these agencies be implemented and adequate funds

be made available. These plans, information and assistance

can be grouped into three categories:

a. Areawide plans in the form of comprehensive watershed

management plans, covering the entire coastal area, and

subregional plans, "where cumulative impacts of develop-

ment has the potential for adversely affecting resources

or coastal access", are called for in the Coastal Plan.

Specific responsibility for the preparation of these plans

is not assigned 1n the Coastal Plan, but in many cases

lead responsibility for preparing the plans would reside

with a State agency.

b. Model ordinances, standards and criteria are required

to.be prepared by State agencies for local government.

These include a model ordinance for control of runoff,

erosion and silt; criteria for determining archaeologi-

cal significance; and design standards and safety criteria

for coastal trails.

CI Other kinds of information are to be provided to local

government by State agencies, including the assignment

of uses for remaining road capacities; designation of

.State coastal trail routes; wetlands restoration priority

list; survey of archaeological and paleontological sites;

and identification of important or significant coastal

11natural living communities".

4. Existing information and technical assistance:

A great deal of the information needed for the implementation

program is already available in the form of maps and reports,

prepared through the earlier efforts of local government, or

by.State and federal agencies and universities as part of on-

going programs, or by private organizations such as the Cali-

fornia Native Plant Society and the California Roadside Coun-

cil. Some of these agencies and organizations can be called

upon during the first phase of implmentation to assist in the

preparation of plans, ordinances, codes and programs.
Beyond those factors which serve to circumscribe the amount of work re-
quired of local government in general are a number of other factors unique
to each jurisdiction which will determine the exact scope of the work
program each jurisdi ction will need to undertake to achieve certifica-

tion by the Coastal Commission. 'These include:

-12-

Local Conditions:

The most obvious factor determining the scope of a local govern-

ment's work program is the number of issues or concerns addressed

by the Coastal Plan which are relevant to the jurisdiction.

Forestry resources, for example, is an important consideration

for jurisdictions with forests. In the same way, agricultural

resources, flood and seismic hazards, and wetlands are unevenly

distributed along the coast and are therefore significant con-

cerns to some jurisdictions while not to others.

The type and scale of local development within a jurisdiction

would also affect the scope of the work program. Some juris-

dictions have recreational development along the coastline while

others do not. Some jurisdictions are substantially built out

to planned or zoned potential while others contain large areas-.,

of underdeveloped land. Some jurisdictions are basically

rural in character while others are densely populated.

The point here is that the scope of each jurisdiction's
implementation program will be determined by the numberof
concerns relevant to the jurisdiction and the degree to

which these concerns are significant.

2. Relationship of Jurisdiction to the Coast Resource Management

Area:

The Coastal Resource Management Area (CRMA) is the area within

which local plans and programs would be brought into confor-

mity with the Coastal Plan. It extends from the mean high

tide line inland to include: (1) all significant coastal

-13-

resources (including natural, man-made and recreational re-

sources) and (2) areas where development could directly or cumu-

latively affect public access to the coastal recreation. areas.

The width of the Coastal Resource Management Area varies along

the coast from less than a mile to as much as ten miles. Some

coastal cities lie entirely within the CRMA, while many others

li6only partly within the CRMA.. All the affected counties

,lie only partly within the CRMA. Since it is only within the

CRMA that local jurisdictions have to prepare implementation

programs, the amount of the jurisdiction lying within the CRMA

would'have some bearing on the magnitude of the program a local

government woul d have to carry out.

3. Consistency of Existing Local Plans and Programs With the

Coastal Plan:

The greater the consistency of existing plans and programs,
theless effort will be required of the jurisdiction. A number
of cities and counties in the coastal area have recently been
or still are in the process of revising their general plans to

meet changing local conditions and-needs. Some of these juris-

dictions have worked closely with the Regional Coastal Commis-

sions to assure that revised plans reflect the concerns.of the

Coastal Commission; where this is the case, local plans are

likely to be generally consistent with the Coastal Plan. The

kinds of programs already instituted by local government wil.1

_14-

also affect the amount of work to be done. For example, many

jurisdictions already have a design review process which satis-

fies the Coastal Plan requirements, while other jurisdictions

either have no design review process or have a design review

process which would have to be modified prior to certification.

4. Number and Type of Special Local Government Functions:

Many of the Coastal Plan policies relate specifically to special

local government functions, including the provision of water,

sewerage, transit, power, and the management of airport and

harbor facilities. In some areas these functions are the respon-

sibility of special districts which have their own revenue

sources. To the extent that any city or county has responsi-

bility for any of these special functions, there will.be special

planning efforts to be undertaken by the jurisdiction to meet

the requirements of the Coastal Plan.

The Costs of Preparing for Certification

In trying to determine the local costs of the first phase of implemen-

tation, OPR surveyed five counties and twelve cities (see Appendix C).

Each jurisdiction, after a discussion of the requirements of the local

implementation program, was asked to estimate the total cost to the juris-

diction of revising plans, ordinances, zoning, codes and programs for

certification. This cost e.stimate was to include staff time, consultant

fees, materials and special meetings of the planning commission and legis-

lative body directly related to implementation of the Coastal Plan. The

cost estimates varied widely. Some of the estimates were based on a

thorough understanding of the Coastal.Plan and previous discussions with

the Regional Coastal Commission staffs, while other estimates were based!

only on a limited understanding of what the Plan requires and how the

particular jurisdiction would be affected. Two jurisdictions surveyed

did not attempt estimates. In general, jurisdictions had difficulty making

these estimates due to uncertainty about how specific Coastal Plan poli-

cies will be interpreted, who will have responsibility for various aspects

of planning and regulation, how much assistance will be provided by State

agencies and the Coastal Commission staff, what standards might be estab-
lished for the adequacy of local implementation programs, and how CEQA

will apply to the various decisions to be made by the jurisdiction in

connection with the local implementation program.

Because ofthe wide divergence in the estimates, generalizations about

costs are difficult to make. However, several observations based on

the survey can be made:

There appears to be a minimum cost.to each jurisdiction for the

first phase of implementation in the range of $10,000 to $20,000.

Included in this $10,000 to $20,000 amount, would be the expenses
in staff time or consultant fees of reviewing all local plans,

ordinances, codes and programs for consistency with the Coastal

Plan, making whatever changes, however minor, to achieve consis-

tency, and preparing the implementation program package for re-
view and certification by the Regional and State Coastal CO'mmis-

sions.

-16-

A general upper limit cost to any jurisdiction to carry out the

first phase of implementation appears to be about $100,000. Only

in the event that a jurisdiction's existing plans were substan-

tially inconsistent with the Coastal Plan, and/or where a juris-

diction has responsibility for several special functions, would

Ahe cost likely exceed $100,000.

Jurisdictions which have worked closely with the Coastal Commis-

sion during the lastseveral years in revising local plans will
not be faced with significant costs in the first phase of imple-

mentation.

The average of the cost estimates of those jurisdictions sur-

veyed for the first phase of implementation is about $45,000.

If this simple average is multiplied by the 75 jurisdictions

the Coastal Commission has indicated will be directly affected,

the total cost would be approximately $3.4 million. However,

the Coastal Commission estimated that, based on preliminary dis-

cussions with planning officials in coastal cities and counties,

total cost for the first phase of'implementation will be $2

million to $2.5 million, or about $700,000 to $800,000 per year.

The costs of the first phase of implementation cannot be accurately

estimated by jurisdictions until more implementation quidelines

are developed and local general plans, ordinances, zoning, codes

and programs are examined for consistency with the Coastal Plan.

-17-

Implementation Second Phase

Following certification of the local implementation program, the "per-

mit function" now performed by the Regional Conunission would be tra@ns-

ferred to local government and implementation of the Coastal Plan carried

out through local governmental procedures.

Local Government Planning and Regulatory Procedures

Local governments have a set of procedures based on State law through

which they.regulate land use. The first of these is the use permit

procedure. Under the State planning and.zoning law, cities and counties

can require conditional use permits for the use or development of property

consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Conditional

use permits are discretionary permits in that they are issued pursuant

to a judgement or decision by a local official, a designated body such

as the planning commission or the legislative body (city council or board

of supervisors).

The State Subdivision Map Act requires that local governments establish

by ordinance subdivision procedures to regulate the division of land by

subdivision map or parcel map (in the case of four or fewer parcels).

Approval of a subdivision or parcel map is also a discretionary act re-

quiring a decision by the legislative body.

Discretionary decis ions are subject to the provisions of the Califor-
nia Environmental Quality Act and the State EIR Guidelines. All pro-

ject applications, except those specifically exempted by the State EIR

-18-

Guidelines, and all public project proposals acted upon by the legis-
lative body are required to be reviewed for possible adverse envir6n-
mental effects. Where there is the possibility of a significant adverse
effect, an environmental impact report is required to be.prepared. The
environmental impact report is only an informational document and as

such conveys no regulatory authority.

In addition to the discretionary permits, cities and counties issue

several types of non-discretionary permits, such as building permits

which only require that the applicant demonstrate compliance with rele-

vant standards.

Tasks Required by the Coastal Plan

The additional responsibilities to be assumed by local government in

the second phase of implementation will vary from jurisdiction to juris-

diction. Additional responsibilities required as part of the "permit

function" following certification might result either from an expansion

of discretionary control over private devel opment or from an increase

in the number of considerations required by the Coastal Plan in the local

project proposal review process.

Some jurisdictions exercise broad discretionary control over private
development through use permit procedures, while other jurisdictions

exercise limited discretionary control. In the latter case many pro7

jects are subject only to building permits. As a result of the certi-

_19-

fication process, local governments may have to expand their discretionary

control through the requirement of more conditional use permits as a

means of more effectively controlling development. However, it is not

clear that this kind of broadened discretionary control will be needed

to effectively carry out the Coastal Plan. In the event that more con-

ditional use permits are required as part of a jurisdictions implementa-

tion program, the current planning (project proposal review) workload

would be increased.

The Coastal Plan sets forth criteria for review and approval of certain

kinds of project proposals which may require a.more .involved analysis

of project proposals by local staff. Some jurisdictions may not pre-

sently have the staff or staff expertise to carry out such analysis and

would need to hire additional staff or contract with a consultant to

handle the additional considerations.

The Coastal Plan also requires what may be new procedures for a juris-

diction. Policy 46, as an example, specifically requires the establish-

ment of "local design procedures". Design review procedures at the

local level are not presently required by State law, and more than half
of the jurisdictions surveyed indicated they do not have design review
procedures or have procedures which would not meet the requirements of
the Coastal P11 an. Whether design review is .carried out by a special
committee, by the planning commission, or by staff, the establishment
of design review procedures consistent with the Coastal Plan requirements
will require additional work of local governments presently without such

procedures.

-20-

Beside project proposal review, the "permit function" entails-inspec-

tion and enforcement to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval.

Because there may be additional use permits or additional conditions

of project approval following certification, there may be increased re-

sponsibility for local government in the,area of inspection and,enforce-

ment.

In terms of sheer volume, the increase in the current planning work asso-

ciated with the permit function would depend on the degree to which exist-

ing local project proposal review procedures were adequate to meet the

requirements of the Coastal Plan and the amount of development activity

wit hin the jurisdiction.

The "permit function", however, is not the only activity which may affect

the local government workload as part of the second phase of implemen-

tation. Several additional fact ors have been identified as potentially

requiring increased local government activity following certification.

First, the Coastal Plan may be amended from time to time following adop-

tion, and this may necessitate a further revision of local plans, ordi-

nances, zoning, codes and programs. Secondly, litigation which may be

time-consuming and costly, might result from decisions made by local govern-

ment in accordance with plans, ordinances or zoning adopted pursuant to

the Coastal Plan. And finally, if the basis of appeal of local decisions

to the State Coastal Agency is not restricted, jurisdictions may become

involved in preparing for time-consuming appeals hearings before the

State Coastal Agency.

-21-

The Costs.of Carrying Out the Plan Following Certification

All of the factors mentioned above could mean increased responsibility
and increased costs to local government following certification. How-

.ever, since the last three factors mentioned are highly speculative

in nature, comments in this section relate only to the permit function.

OPR as part of the survey of local governments asked each jurisdiction

to estimate (on a scale of."major", "significant", "minor", and "none")

the increase in the jurisdiction's workload which might be expected fol-

lowing certification. Thi's question had two parts: the current plan-'
ning function (project proposal review) and inspection/enforr,666 n t

On the part of the question related to current planning, the jurisdic-

tions surveyed,were almost evenly divided between those who felt,there

would be a minor increase and those who felt there would be a signifi-

cant increase.

The jurisdictions had difficulty making these estimates due to the un-

certainty about how the "permit function" would be carried out following'

certification.

It should be noted that cities and countie s charge fees for processing

use permits, vari ances, rezoning applications, subdivision and parcel

maps, and in some cases design review applications. These fe es seldom

cover the actual costs involved. In fact, it is typical that these fees

cover less than 5Wof the expense incurred by theJurisdiction in pro-

_22-

cessing the applications. Many of the jurisdictions indicated they had

been studying the problem and were proposing revised fee schedules to

more completely reflect actual costs.

Cities and counties also recover much, if not all, of the cost of con-

ducting environmental reviews and processing environmental impact re-

ports purs uant to CEQA for private projects by charging fees of the

applicant.

Any increase in the current planning workload due to an increased number
of applications required to be processed following certification would

therefore be paid for out of application and permit fees to the extent

that the fee structure reflected actual processing costs.

Any increase in the number of new permits to be processed as part of

the certified implementation program would be accompanied by an increase

in the inspection and enforcement workload, probably in direct proportion.

Inspection and enforcement is an on-going activity of local government

and is therefore not tied directly to the payment of fees. In the sur-

vey, the respons es were again roughly split between those that felt the

increase in the inspection/enforcement workload would be significant

and those that felt it would be minor.

In summary, the- additional responsibilities local governments will have

to assume as part of the.second phase of implementation will not be known

until the Coastal Commis sion develop s more specific guidelines for imple-

mentation and local go vernments begin developing plans and programs for

certification.

-23-

APPENDIX A

Appendix A consists of an analysis of the possible implications of each

Coastal Plan policy for local government in terms of planning and regu-

latory activity. Indication is made after each policy showing which

level(s) of government.has some responsibility for implementation. Where

there appears to be some responsibility for local government implemen-

tation, indication is made of which local general plan elements, ordi-

nances, procedures and programs are likely'to be potentially affected.

Such indications do not necessarily imply revision is required, only that

the indicated general plan element, ordinance procedure or program should

be reviewed for consistency with the Coastal Plan policy and revised as

necessary. An (X) in the "no analysis" 'column indicates that the policy is

general in nature or that its provisions are more fully detailed in other
policies and therefore analysis was not considered appropriate. Under'

"level of government" special districts include water and sewer districts,

airport and port districts, power districts and school districts. In

some areas the functions of these special districts are part of the city's

or county's responsibilities. Under "general plan" other elements in-

clude historic preservation (HP), and coastal design (CD). Under "or-
dinan@es% other possible ordinances not spe cifically identified include

a parking ordinance, a design review ordinance and a condominium con-

version ordinance.

-Summary Comments

Appendix A includes an analysis of all 162 policies in Part II of the

Coastal Plan. One hundred and one of the policies appear to have some

direct significance for local government (including special functions)

in terms of implementation responsibility. Not all of these 101 poli-

cies relate exclusively to local government, since some of the policies

(56) have implications for more than one level of government. Where

multiple responsibility is indicated, it either means that the policies

have several parts, each of which relates to a different level of govern-

ment, or that there is some overlap In responsibilities between levels

of government.

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Level of Government General Plan Ordinances roject
Review

a) c 00 U W U >1 6 to W 00aC: 0) WN C W W 04 0 a @r 00 W -
a 4
cc CdU 0 0 U 0 C: W W U C 00 U z 0 U @4 0(V WboW C: 0
I'#" @;) ., Cd M 4 0 S W C @1; 0) r -HH r -H -Ha 0 U) It U3W@4 14 .,aW
0 W 0. U (n U) 0 (U= = M C: U) CO -0W0 caC 0> UW > -0U 0. W :3N
K " ed En M 2 0 .@40z U be 44 0C 0 C 0a4 .0 '1 MW 0WV aa a*
00 W C > 0 Cn W W (n N W > 4 0 004 'k0W U
, W W X
9=1 J U (V (V k a 9W co
W 0. 0) a 0
0 -H 0 C
z U 0 rn

1. Basic Goals for Coastal tone X

MARINE ENVIRONMENT
2. Protect, Enhance, and-ge-store
Marine Resources X

3. Maintain Healthy Marir.e Organisms X

4. Criteria For Aquaculture X

5. Upgrade Commercial Fishing X X X X X

6. Expand Ocean Water Quality X X X
7. Maintain, Manage and Restore
Ocean Water Quality X X X X X X X X

8. Waste Water Reclamation X X X X X

9. Vessel Waste Discharge Regulation X X X
10. Avoidance of Td-verseEffects of
Thermal Discharge X X X
11. Oil and Toxic SuBstance Release
Prevention X X X X X X X

12. State Oil Spill Liability Measures X

13. National Oil Spill Liability Fund. X
14. Runoff and Coastal Waters
Degradation X X X.
15. Special Estuary.and Wetland
Protection X X X X X X X X

16. Limit Dredging, Diking, and Fillin X X X X X X X
17. Replacement Areas Required fdr
Diked or Filled Areas X. X
18. Regulation of Perm 4@ X
itted Dredging A +XXXX X LX X

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Level of Government General Plan Ordinances Project
Review

M r. to >1 0 :1- W U >, EA 00 (U 00 a r (U 00 0( CQJ 0 -4 3t En r- 00 4) r:
cc M CaU 0 0 V 0 C: 4J H AJ rA -4 W W C:U C to0 CC: 0 U W Ce lu U) 00 C: a
r. U -HH D _H M -H " W e 0 -H C :k 4) - C: @4 @4 C @ C 0) M1H 0)H 0 2 S@
W 1W 0 c UW " 0. " (M _ 0 0 W 4 @Z 0 ca C En M aW W Ca C 0> V W > U 'I.N
4 .Z 4) "a 0 ul ca Z IV 1-4 M Z U N 0 r_ 0 C CaV -4 C: aW 0 W 0) 0 Cr 0
00 " C: 14 > 0 rA W Ln En H %s. 0)> 0Cd W Q 0, -,4 1. U
W tn -4 M ;J c W P ,I Z
W W 0 IV W PQ
93. 0
0 0 r :5 Z
Z Q 0 CA 0
19. Seawall, Breakwaters, and Shoreline
Structures Criteria
`@ositlve Programs to Restore
Sand Supply x x x

COASTAL LAND ENVIRONMENT
21. Establish Comprehens1v-e
Watershed Management x
22. CWM Plan Preparation and
implementation x x x x x x __X_ x x x
23. CWM Plans Related to Development
and Water Supply Decisions x x x x x x x x x x X
24. Review of Major Projects
- Affecting Coastal Streams x x x x x x x
25. Special Protection for Anadromous
Fish Streams x x
26. Significant Natural Areas and
Rare Species Preservation X X x x x x x x

27, Frazile.Hab-itat Areas Protection X x x x
28. Development Controls Near Significan
and Fragile Habitat Areas x X__ x x X
29. Development to Minimize
- Habitat Damage
30. Protect Agricultural Economic x
Viabilit
31. Statewide Programs for Maintenance
QL_A&LUm1=_r@l Lands x x
32. Urban-Rural Boundaries x x x X. x x x x Ix x x
33. Use Designation at AgrIcultural
Parcels Within Highly Devel. Areas I.X I
34. Criteria T-or Maintaining Non-Prime
Agricultural Lands in Production x
35. Only Agric. TFelated D-e-ve-Eo-pment
Permitted on Agricultural Lands x x x
36. Division of Land Limited in
Agricultural Areas x

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Level of Government General Plan Ordinances Project
I -Review
U) -4 W -4 @-j W C: W r. W >1 U > 0 U >1 U) 00 W 00 a C qJ 00 W C a) 0 -4 3tW W a nit to 4J r:
,4 ct IsU (n 0 U 0 r_ 4J W 'n H M W 0 z 0 U W CaW" W0aW C 'a to
a) ca :a M .1 .'4 W C W 4 Z 3t CU r H C 0 00HW W 0 1.
c UW W 0 - 0 0) a C rM z W Cc M of In ca @z V W =1 U
0 > U0> U
M W -4 W ca CA M :3 M z Q t1c C)C 0 r M 10 " C: " 0.0 00)W 0* G
0 di 00 9%W 0 -4 > 0 Cn W W Cn H 0 N H W W > 0 0Cd WinW U -
V) -I cd M: 11L

0 0 r_
z

37. Development and Land Division Regu-
lation Near Agricultural Areas x x x x x

L18. Coastal Resources Protection x x x x x x x x x x

39. Taxation to Encourage Sustained Yielc x

40. Coastal Soil Resources Protection X x X x x X X x x x
41. Mining Regulations x x x x x x x X, x

42. Mineral Deposits Inventory x X x X X X X
43. Coastal Developments and
Air Ouality x x x x x _x x x x

COASTAL APPEARANCE AND DESIGN
44. Development Design and Coastal CD
Viewshed x x x x x x x x x x X IX x
45. Protect Quality of Highly Scenic CD
Areas x X x x x x x 'x x x x x
46. Local Design Procedures and CD
Standards x x x x x x X x
CD
47. Design Review Process I x Ix x I I x X_
48. Litter Reduction in Coastal Areas x .1 1
49. Design Guidelines: Compatibility CD
With Natural Environment x x x x x
50. Design Guideline: Coastal View CD
Protection x x x x x
51. Design Guideline: Scale, Height, CD
Materials and Colors x x x X x
CD
52. Design Guidgline: Landscaping x x x X
53. Design Guideline: Natural,
-Landform Alteration I x X x
54. Design Guideline: Signs x x A x

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Level of Government General Plan Ordinances Project
I Review

Z W >1 U > 0 U > 0 00 0J 00 a C (V 00 CA r. al W @4 3 r4 rn r. W aj - S
0 C @ W @4 M W C U.ZW U C 0 U W C" 4) &0 W W C:a 0
U) W Cd r. (U E (U - Z 3Q ."r , r- - - - C: a) W, W 0 , - 0 W
>1 W " 0 C 0 -4 .0 0 W =C CMr. V) fu 10 0( 'AM Jc 0> 'i U) > a U CL N M ti
-14 @: :3 ca 4 0 Z U 01 4J 0C0 r. CO M 4 Z 4J 0.W 0 0W 9 0 0
00 P.W > 0 Cn W En tn q0 NqN 14 W > H 0 0W k 92 Pd lm4
4d W V
(n 0 0
0 0 C: cc C
Z U 0
5. Design Guideline: CD
Utilitv Structures x x x x x x
56. Design Guideline: Major Public Serv. CD
Commercial, and Industrial Facilitiei x x x x x x x
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT F 1
57. Development to Complement Natural
and Scenic Resource Areas x x x xx I x
58. Protect anT Enhance SpeciW@1_Coas@tal CD
Communities and Neighborhoods x x x HP Xx x x
59. Development Concentrated In
I Developed Areas x X. x x xx x x x
60.' Rural Land Division Criteria x x xX x x x
61. Public Service and Transportation Ix x
Facilities Regulations x x x x
62. Coastal-Dependent Development
to Have Priority x x xx x
63. Industrial Development Location
Criteria x x xx x x
64. Flood Hazard Areas Development
Restrictions x x x x x x x x Ixx I x x x
65. Statewide Geologic Safety x I x I I x x X1 x I Ixx I X _JL_ _L x
66. Filing of Geologic Hazards
I formation x x x
67. Geologic Safety Review and
Regulation for New Developments x x x X
No Public Subsidy for Hazardous
Developments x
69. Safety Measures for Tsunami
Occurance x x x
70. Bluff and Cliff Geologic Safety
Regulations x IxI _x_ _X_ y 7
x
[XX tx

EIIERGY AND THE COAST
Reatru ture Utility Rates to X X J[7
Encourage Enorgy Conservation x

POLICY T LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTA ION 'I
Level of Government General Plan Ordinances Project
Review

U) @4 (V .q ,-I C: (V z 00 >1 U >1 w U > En to (Uw a = 41 w N r, a) M -4 3t W bo 4) r=
'a @; 9
. 0 M M U o u o r: U) ci r. .00 U C: c: o U 4) rA .00 (0 C: 'a f@
@4 (d V .14 (D E d) a) r4 r .14 @4 r i- 4 r. W (n" W w4 4 0
W r_
0 C U w (n - 0 (V r- J-- r. rsZ V) (d It$w fn M 4 0> U > It$ U0. 01
A
V tn M W M V M .14M z U W 0 r-0 r-M a C 0.W 0 4) 4 U, 0
0) 00 0. 0 r. > 0 V) w En Cn Eli .11N W (U> 14 0 0W w:4 Cd " V %@
(U U I., CL@ :I @c P.
a. no
C
0
0 rn

rvat x x x x
72. Energy Conse ion in New E4vel.
73. Additional Energy Conservation
Recommendations x
74. Development of Alternative
Energy Sources x
75
75. Solar Heating and Cooling Systems x
76. Statewide Agency to Plan and
Certify Energy Facilities x
77. Coastal Agency Role in Power
Plant Siting x

78. Ongoing Site Identification x

79. Siting and Desio Criteria x

80. Outmoded Power Plants on Beaches

81. Offshore Petroleum Development X

82. Petroleum Exploration and Production x
83. Petroleum Facilities Siting and
Design Criteria x

84. Oil Recovery Efficiency x f

85. Exvloration and Production Data x

86. Federal OCS Petroleum Development x

-87. RefineEy Siting x x
88. Coastal Refinery Siting and
Design Criteria x

erminal Planning x x
90. Tanker Te rminal Siting
89. Tanker T

x x

.4ft

POL I Cy IMPLEMENTATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Level of Government General Plan Ordinances Project
lReview
14 W 0 00 >1 V (D U > 0 bo QJ bo a a 1 00 61 @J 0) 3.1 WU) r- E
0 ta OL 0CJ co 0 U 0 C: 1JC 0, 4 00 W 4
$4 C U Cq IV a (V r: 3 (y r- 1. 2. C 41 4) " 4
(U 0 C U 0. U) 0 0) = a Z En CU -0W W 0 0 > V 0) > -J 01 0 U
"0 V1 -H 4) cc U) M n - M z U bc 0 0 r- 0 r_ 0. rd 04) Q) E 0 170
to bo M > 0 Ef) Q) V) U) W > @4 2 14 Cd L)
a) M cd .0 U 'V 91,
@4 @4 w
C) 0
z 0

91. Existing Tanker Facilities x x x
92. Criteria for New or Enlarged
Terminals

93 Tanker Technology and Operations x x

94. LNG.Facility Siting x x x x

95. LNG Facility Siting and Design x

96. LNG Marine Operations x x

97. LNG On-Shore Facilities x
98, Liability ;or Arcidpnr x

TRANSPORTATION
99. Coastal Concerns in Transportation
Plans x x x x
100. Transportation Plans and Coastal
Resources x
101. Land Use Decisions and
Transportation Cap-acity x x x x x Ix 1
102. Coastal Road Expansion Criteria x x x x x
103. Transportation Routes x x x I x x
104. Coastal Road Recreational and
Scenic Values x x x X x x x x
105. Parking Facilities x x x x X X IX
106. New Develo x x Ix I I I

107. Coastal Zone Transit Funding

x x
108. Priority of Transit Over New Roads t+x H
pment Parking
Fx@ -x

POLICY IM PLEMENTATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Level of Government General Plan Ordinances roject
.1 Review
W @4 d) -4 -4 @-4 4j W c 00 >1 Q > CU U > 0 WQj W a r. aj W W d) M -4 3C 04 WC: 31 00 W - E - E
Cd cc ejU W 0 U 0 r. W H 14 `4 co k CUC 00 Li r- r_ 0 U $4 m w tn r3o 4) C j 0 rt 0 r:
.14 -@4 ,r -4 z , H .14C W (n -HW .14 -4 -1
to P M C,I Q :3 (V 6 4 C: D; a) - ;@ 0) - 0 k 1@ I.
W " 0 C U 93. U@ 0 0 W J--X aj rz En (a 10 01 U) M C 0> j0 > a U 0. 04 :3 CA
V Cn 0) "d th (0 :3 M -H 0 z ri ot 0 0 r- a _j - a M(V 0Q 0 E 0
W d) 0 Cn W W U) .110 N > 0 0W WIm W k U J@
0 r1r4 W a. 0@
Ce. 4) 4) W go
G6 (n 0 0 -
0. 0 r.
z U 0 Q

109. Transit in Urban Areas X, x x x x

.110. Rail Service x x

111. Transit Usage x

-112. Future Airport Siting X
113. Coastal Alreort Expansion X I x x x x

114. Public Access in Airport Buffer Land x x -x x x
115. Air-Related Transportation and
Coastal Access x x x x x

116. Major Port Areas Y.

117. Maximize Existing Fort Use x x x
118. Port Development Dredging and
Filling-Criteria x X I X X I x x

119. Navigational Safety x

120. Coastal Ferry Service Feasibility I I X

PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COAST

121. Coastal Access x

122. Guarantee for Public Access x x x
123. Public Accessways to the
Coastline x x x x x x x X x

124. Manage Public Access x x x

x x
125. Lower-Cost Tourist Facilities x x 2L
r6-,@oasfal Access tor Low- and x
moderate-Income Persons x x x
x

X X

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Level of Government General Plan Ordinances Project
lReview
M 14 w -4 "-4" w C w C fto U > w U >1 U) bo ci 00arzw 00U r- W rn '4 3r Ix En c:3
M cE ccu 0 v 0 C (4 _H W w r.u r_ t1oU C r_ 0 U ca 4)
- u, oo
@4 W W - 4
r U W :3 rA
0 c uW cn @4 0 0 w @a _r. M - tn M 'a bf w M 0> u 'A >
@4 In M M M ;I M -H M z v oc 0C 0 0 'd *0 -H r_ 0.w 0 w cu 0 a,
w -4 ;- 0 En W rn W -,4 0 N N w > 0ed 93 C4 5. (J
Ln" z 0 w x W cu z) C6 -@c r_
In J V IV w PQ
CL
0 14 to r_
z L) 0 En

127. Surplus Lands x x x
IZU. Public Public Access and
Institutional Development x x x x x x

129. Public Use of Federal Lands X
130. Multiple Use in Major Facilities x X* x x x

RECREATION
131. Coastal Recreation 'and
Resource Protection x
132. Oceanfront Land Recreational
.Potential and Other Uses x x x x x x
133. Commercial Recreation has Priority
Over Private Development x x x x x
134. Shoreline Areas Reserved for
Water-Dependent Recreation x x x X_ x x x
135. Alterations of Coast for
Recre!3tion Restricted x X X x IX. x x
136. Use of Upland Areas x x x x x x

137. Variety of Recreational Facilities x x x x x x x

138. Overnieht Reservation System x
139. Equity in Recreational Facility
D:t2ll,a,,e Costs
140. pment, Open Space, and
Recreation x x x x x lix x x
141. New Development On-Site
Recreation x X I x IX
142. Access and Recreational Use
Limitations x x ix x
143. Off-Road Recreational
X

Vehicle Use x
Long-R-an-g-e-Recreationai Te-sources
Protection Program x

@A t.A %A @.A ZI

> >
= h
M = 0 Q6 1 4
0 " = @-- PC 0
.n 0 (A M 0 = @-h
M r M
C: 0 -4 r 0
n
--4
>
n M. C 0 M M n
n M CA M 0 0 n 0 0 m M rA tV ;a
W X 0 z M M I- M
n z " r- 10 0 S'n n 6%
OQ LA W < r- M n M
M M M (D M
M D;.0 ju 0 W M 0 0- 0 =
M 9) M M I.- (a :3 M ;a M
0 "V " 11. Z "a 'A
M W. (A
M M r) 0 M :3 rt rt
CL rn rf
-V 0 14 rA
0 (A (A i- M Cn (A M 1<
n a M 14 n C W M
0 QQ 0 = :1 ;r w rt "
@L if (A r?
M M P) M M PI M
CL 14 M (A W M
@-h 01 CII rt rt --I r? 19
ft :3 0 lu CD 0 03
1-1
0
10 r? LM
0 M --4 n rr CI)
0
n 1.4
M M
n W

No Analysis

Federal r-
(D

>4
x X x State
0 M
Ih M
Regional M
4
>4 x >4 >4 x x >4 x 1,0CA 1 CD
C@
>4 x District

>4 Land Use r-
C)

x Circulation

C>
>4 Open Space @z
rn

Conservation

Housing
M
0
Safety r-
M
Seismic M
'Safety
zi
Noise CI

Scenic
Highwav
Others
W

M Zoning
Ordinance
x Zoning
Map
Sign
Ordinance
Grading
'Dredging
Subdivision
Ordinance

Others

x >4 x x Proposal
Review <
EIR Fo'
Process :F
Design rt
Review

Building
1din g
ui Code
>4 x x Cap. Impro.
r m
Program
Acquis.
x La nd

0
It

4) 0 g.

I.- m

m a)
m rn

No Analysis

Federal

State
0 m
--h X
Regional A
M =
0 --1
< 3-
T,ncA 1 CD --4
"I
= C)
Special-- 23
m
District =3

Land Use

Circulation

CD
Open Space

Conservation m

Housing
m
ra
Safety m
SeismTc--- m
Safety
Noise
c@

Scenic
Highway
Others

Zoning
Ordinance
Zoning
map
Sign
Ordinance m
Grading
Dredging
Subdivision
Ordinance

Others

Proposal
Review < 0
@- c-
EIR M
Process
Design
Review

Building
Code
Cap. Tmpro.
Propram
Land Acquis.
Prowram

APPENDIX B

Appendix B consists of an analysis of each of the local government im-

plementation program components outlined in Part III of the Coastal Plan

(pages 182-183). The purpose of this analysis is to translate the local

implementation program as outlined in Part III of the Plan and as de-

tailed in the Plan policies into a set of specific tasks and thereby

ascertain the total effort required of local government by the Coastal

Plan. It should be pointed out that no single jurisdiction would have

to carry out all of the work indicated, however, since local coastal

issues vary from area to area and many local government plans and pro-

grams already are consistent with the Coastal Plan.

Explanation of the Headings

Existing Requirements for Related Planning

Existing State and federal requirements for local government planning

and regulation in areas of concern addressed by the program component.

Type of Information Req@ired for Associated Planning Activities

Types of.information necessary for local governments to carry out re-

vision of plans, ordinances, zoning, codes and programs as required

by the program component.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant
to the Coastal Plan

Requirements or recommendations contained in the Coastal Plan policies

for State agencies to prepare plans or provide information which will

be essential or useful to local governments in the implementation pro-

gram.

Information Already Available

Information either contained in the Plan.or known to be already avail-

:able which will beessential or useful to local governments in the im-

plementation program.

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Assist-Loc-al Governments
Implementing the Coastal Plan

List of agencies and organizations which have information or can pro-

vide technical assistance to local governments in the area of concern

addressed by the program component. Although references to the Office

of Planni ng and Research are not included under this heading, OPR will

be available,to assist local governments with Coastal Plan implementa-

tion through direct and/or general technical assistance programs.

Commentary

General comments regarding existing regulatory authority of State, fe-.

deral andregional agencies and factors which have some bearing on the

scope of the local government implementation program.

Generalized Work Program

An outline, based on the above analysis, of the specific work tasks which
must be undertaken in connection with the implementation program com-

ponent. (To the extent that existing plans, ordinances, zoning, codes

and programs already are consistent with the Coastal Plan, and tathe-
extent that the concerns addressed by the program component ire irrele-
vant to a. jurisdiction, specific tasks can be deleted from the list).

Summary Comments

The following comments represent the summary observations of OPR rela-

tive to what is required of local governments in connection with each-

of the implementation program components.

A. Community Development

Jurisdictions with a substantial amount of vacant land designated

for urban use may be involved in a major effort in connection with

this component.

B. & C. Shoreline Recreation and Recceation Support

Much of what is required by this component is already being atcom-

plished,through local general plans and by the State. However,

jurisdictions with extensive coastal frontage and/or a significant

potential for remaining recreational development will need to do

the most in connection with this component.

.D. Streams, Estuaries and Wetlands

Since most of what is required in this component is already being

carried out or will be carried out under other authority, what is

required of local goyernments in connection with this component does

not appear to be significant.

E. Agricultural Resources

For jurisdictions where agriculture is a major issue, the effort

required in connection with this component may be significant.

However, if AB 15, now pending in the Legislature is enacted, much

of what is required by this component will be required of all Cali-

fornia jurisdictions.

F. Forestry Resources

Since many aspects of commercial forestry are already regulated

by the State, local government responsibility in this area should

not be significant.

G. Scenic Resources

Where design review procedures already exist, o nly minor revision

of local,procedures will be necessary. The protection of coastal

viewsheds and the restoration of degraded visual resources may

necessitate a substantial effort by many jurisdictions.

H. Man-Made Resources

Many jurisdictions already have historical preservation programs

which substantially meet the requirements of this component. Those

jurisdictions which do not have programs may need to do a signi-

V ficant amount of program development in connection with this com-

ponent.

I. Wildlife and Plant Species
Since the'information necessary for this component is already avail-

able or will be made available, jurisdictions will only have to

develop protection measures.

J. Hazards.

Since most of the requirements of this component are satisfied by

existingmandated plans and programs, the additional effort

required appears minor.

K. [email protected] Moderate-Income Housing

This component does not appear toindicate a major effort by juris-

dictions.

L. Water and/or Wastewater Service System

Due to uncertainty about the role of watershed management plans and

Section 208 plans, it is difficult to say what will have to be done

by jurisdictions in connection with this component.

M. Energy Facilities and Conservation

If the Warren-Alquist Act is fully implemented, additional effort

requi red in connection with this component will be negligible.

N. Transportation System

Unle ss the statewide transportation pl'an now being prepared satis-

fies much of what is required by the Coastal Plan in the area of

transportation, jurisdictions will have to do a significant amount

of planning in connection with this component.

0. M+nerals and Soils

Most of what is required by this component is already being carried

out under existing authority. There may be minor work for juris-

dictions in connection with this component.

P. National'Interest Facilities

With the exception of military installations, all the concerns of

this component are addressed in other implementation program com-

ponents. No additional responsibilities for local government are

indicated.,

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

A. Community Development

A program to encourage more efficient use of existing developed
areas and the concentration of new development in already
urbanized areas that can accommodate it, to control development
that may singly or cumulatively have an adverse impact on coastal
resources, to reserve appropriate shoreline areas for water-related
activities and to protect coastal neighborhoods.
(Policies 57-63, 154)

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:

- Government Code Section 65302 (a) requires that local general
plans contain a land use element which designates the proposed
general distribution and general location and extent of the uses
of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including
agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of
scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid
and liquid waste, disposal facilities and other categories of
public and private uses of land.

- The California Environmental Quality Act and the State EIR
Guidelines require consideration of the cumulative, adverse
impacts of new development.

Type of Information Reg9ired for Associated Planning Activities:

- Existing land use, environmental, service and utility infor-
mation as needed for a general plan revision in order to com-
ply with the policies related to this program.

- Criteria for subdivision of land.

Identification of special coastal communities and neighbor-
hoods for special development consideration.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant
to the Coa_@tal -Plan.

Information Already Available:

Some of the special coastal communities and neighborhoods are
identified in the Coastal Plan. (Part IV)

The Coastal Plan contains the criteria for land division (Policy 60).

Existing Technigl Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments
Implementing the Coast I Plan:

Coastal Plan1ocal Implementation
Program, . . I
A. Community Development
Page 2

COMMENTARY:

In jurisdictions where there remains a substantial amount of vacant
lan d designated for urban uses, the requirement for concentrated devel-
opment may necessitate @ significant general plan revision. For commu-
nities substantially built out to planned potential, this requirement
has less significance.

Policy 58 requires the identification of special coastal communities
and neighborhodds and prescribes certain planning considerations
for their protection and enhancement. To a large extent the intent
of this requirement is carried out through other Coastal Plan poli-
cies,,.such as those.relating to design review and historical resources.

Genralized Work Orogram:

- Revise general plan to provide for concentrated development
in already developed areas.

- Revise zoning ordinance and map and capital improvement program
accordingly.

- Revise general plan to give priority in the coastal area to
coastal dependent developments.

- Revise zoning ordinance and map accordingly.

- Develop a program to re-divide or consolidate certain lots.:

- Revise minimum lot sizes as necessary to meet criteria in
natural (non-urban) areas.

- Designate special coastal communities and neighborhoods for
special development and design treatment.

14-

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT!

B and C. Shoreline Recreation and Recreational Support

A program to acquire and maintain accessways, open space lands,,
beaches, parks, and Preserves, and to provide ample public
recreational.opportunities. This should include regulations
that require dedication of,public access to the coast as a
condition of development in appropriate areas, that give
priority to recreational developments adjacent to the coastline
over other kinds of development, and that require new develop-
ments to provide adequate open space and recreational amenities.

A program to protect upland areas for recreational support
facilities and coastal-oriented commercial recreational
amenitiese'
(Policies f22-148).

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:

Government Code Section 65302 (a) requires that local general
plans contain a land use element which designates the proposed
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the
land for open space, recreation and other categories of
public and private uses of the land.

Government Code Sections 65302 (e) and 65560 et. seq. requires
that local general plans contain an open space element for
the preservation of open space for outdoor recreation, including
areas particularly suited for park and recreation purposes
(including access to beaches).

Section 66478.11 of the State Subdivision Map Act specifies
that "no local agency shall approve either the tentative or the
the final map of any subdivision fronting upon the coastline
or shoreline which subdivision does not provide or have avail-
able reasonable public access by fee or easement from public
highways to land below the ordinary high-wat6r mark on any ocean
coastline or bay shoreline shoreline within or at a reasonable
distance from the subdivision".

Type, of Information Required for Associated Planning Activities:

- Model ordinance for dedication of accessways through new
developments.

- Identification of areas appropriate for bluff top paths and
linear parks.

- List of areas recommended for public acquisition by any
federal agency, by the State Department of Parks and Recreation,
by local agencies and by the Coastal Plan.

- Open space and recreational facilities standards.
- Identification of route for State trial system

'Determination of areas.acceptable under the Coastal Plan for
small craft marinas, harbors of refuge, etc.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant
to the Coastal Plan:

The State Department of Parks and Recreation is to develop
Planning concepts, design standards and safety criteria for
coastal trails. Qolicy 145)
The State Department of Parks and Recreation shall designate
State Coastal trail routes. (Policy 145)

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Pr gram
8 and C. Shoreline Recreation.and
Recreational Support
Page 2

Information Already Available

- Areas recommended for acquisition are contained in California
rT7-
@Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan and'in the 4 State
Park Bond Act program.

- The Coastal Commission is nearing completion of its recommenda-
tions for acquisition.
- The National Recreation and Parks Association has adopted stan-
dards for open space and recreational facilities.

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments Imple
menting the Coastal Plan:

Department of Parks and Recreation - expertise in the area of
planning for recreational facilities and information on coastal
resources and related recreation needs.

Department of Navigation and Ocean Development - expertise in
the area of recreation harbor development.

CommentarV:

Much of what is required in this component is already being accom-
plished through local general plans and by the State. However,
jurisdictions with extensive coastal frontage and/or a signifi-
cant potential for additional coastal recreational development
will need to do the most work in connection with this component.

Generalized Work Programs:

Prepare ordinance to provide for the dedication of public access
through new developments.

Revise general plan to indicate areas of public access

Develop plans for a system of bluff top paths, trails and linear
parks, and revise general plan land use, open space and circulation
elements accordingly.

Revise general plan to give priority along coast to water or
toastal-dependent development.

Revise general plan to provide for non-water dependent recreation
or recreational support in upland areas.

Revise general plan open space/recreation element to provide for
correlation of open space and recreational facilities with devel-
opment.

Revise park acquisition and development program based on above.

Prepare ordinance to require adequate open space and recreational
facilities in new residential developments.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

D. Streams, Estuaries and Wetlands.

A program for the protection of coastal estuaries and wetlands, including
criteria for control or erosion, septic tanks, and wastewater discharges,
and of runoff and silt entering coastal waters; and (2) restrictions
on diking, filling and dredging of coastal, waters and on the construc-
tion of stream-blocking structures.

(Policies 7-18, 24)

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:
Government Code Sections 65302 (e) and 65560 et. seq. require that local
general plans contain an open space element for the preservation of open
space for natural resources, the managed production of resources, out-
door recreation and public health and safety.
Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code establishes standards to control
erosion.

Section 66411 of the State Subdivision Map Act requires that local
Subdivision ordinances "...shall specifically provide for proper
grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimen-
tation or damage to off-site property".

Type of Information Reqyired for Associated Planning Activities:

-Model ordinance for control of runoff, erosion and silt control.

-identification of wetlands for protective action.

-Wetlands restoration priority list.

-Comprehensive estuarine plans (should development be proposed in wet-
lands - required prior to development).

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant to
the Coastal Plan:

A runoffi erosion and silt control model ordinance shall be developed
by the coastal agency, SWRCB, Division of Forestry and other involved
agencies. (Policy 14)

A restoration priority list and schedule shall be developed by the
coastal agency, Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission
and other State, federal and local agencies. (Policy 15)

Comprehensive watershed management plans are.to be prepared pursuant
to the Coastal Plan by an agency to be designated. (Policy 21)

Information Already Available:

The State's nineteen most productive wetlands are identified in A@! @ui-
sition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California and the April.,
1974, report prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life.

-Department of Fish and Game maintains an inventory of coastal wetland
resources.

--Department of Parks and Recreation Coastline Preservation and Recrea-

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
D. Streams, Estuaries and Wetlands
Page 2

- Coastal Commission studies of streams, estuaries and wetlands.

- Criteria for dredging is contained in the Coastal Plan (Policy 16).

- Cr iteria for projects that would alter natural streams is contained
in the Coastal Plan (Policy 24).

Existing technical Assistance Available to Local Governments Implementing-
The Coastal Plan:

Department of Fish and Game - information on coastal wetland re-
sources.

Resource Conservation Districts - expertise in the area of control
of runoff and erosion.

Division of Forestry - expertise in the area of watershed protec-
tion, including control of runoff, erosion and siltation.

Commentary:

The Coastal Plan policies associated with this program involve numerous'
State, federal,regional and local agencies. Many of the policy re-
quirements are already being carried out under existing authority or
will be satisfied by on-going planning, such as development of water-
shed management plans pursuant to the Coastal Plan and water quality
planning under 208 of the 1972 Federal Water Quality Act. Agencies
which already have statutory authority for control of development and
discharges affecting streams, estuaries and wetlands, include-U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, State Lands Commission, State Water Resource
Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Department
of Navigation and Ocean Development and Division of Forestry. Those
ar*eas in which local governments will have to develop programs are
listed below-.

Generalized'Work Program:

- Revi se general plan land use and open space elements to provide
protection for streams, estuaries and wetlands.

- Revise zoning ordinance and map accordingly.

- Revise or prepare new ordinance for control of dredging (where
not already controlled by the State).

- Revise or prepare a new ordinance for control of diking and fil-
ling (where not already controlled by the State).

- Prepare an ordinance to control stream-blocking structures (Where
not already controlled by the State).

- Adopt a runoff, erosion and silt control ordinance developed pur-
suant to the Coastal Plan.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

E. Agricultural Resources

A program for the protection of agricultural lands, inc luding (1) the
identification of agricultural lands; (2) a determination of overall
land area and of the minimum size parcels in long-term production;
(3) the prohibition of divisions of land or other development inconsis-
tent with continued agricultural use; (4) the establishment of buffer
areas on the urban fringe to'protect agricultural lands from urban.in-
trusion; and (5) limitations of special assessments of agricultural
lands for public services (e.g., sewer and water) to serve urban needs
not generated by the agricultural lands themselves.

(Policies 30-37)

Existing.Requirements for Related Planning:

- Government Code Section 65302 (a) requires that local general plans
contain a land use element which designates the proposed general distri-
bution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for hous@-
ing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture and other
categories of public and private uses of the land.

- Government Code Sections 65302 (e) and 65560 et. seq. requires that
local general plans contain an open space element for the preservation
of open space for managed production of resources, including range and
agricultural lands and areas of economic importance for the production
of food or fiber. '

Type of. Informati on Required for Associated Planning Activities:

- id'6ntification of soils suited to agricultural use.

- Identification of agricultural land currently under production.

- Study of subregional agriculture economy to determine minimum area
and parcel sizes for long term economic viability of agriculture.

- Information on the service potential of the sewer system, water system,
road system, etc.

- Identification of the parcels of land on the urban fringe which should
remain in agriculture and those that may be convertea.

- Criteria f or designation of remaining agricultural parcel s within highly
developed areas to remain in agriculture.

- Identification of the parcels within highly developed areas to remain
in agriculture.

- Criteria for maintaining non-prime agricultural lands in production.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pur@uant to
the Coastal Plan:

In some areas, not yet designated, subregional plans may provide much
of the information required for this program. (Policy 162).

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
'Program
E. Agricultural Resources
Page 2

Information Already Available: A
Open space elements of general plans shoul-d contain an identification
of productive agricultural lands.

information on soils and suitability for agriculture and agricultural
resources is available from U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Department
of Water Resources, Office of Planning and Research, local agricultural
extention and county agricultural commissioners.

Criteria for designation of remaining agricultural parcels within highly
develo ed areas to remain in agriculture is contained in the Coastal
Plan, Mlicy 33).

Criteria for maintaining non-prime agricultural lands in production
is contained in the Coastal Plan (Policy 34).

Exis ting Technical Assistance Available to Local Governments Implementing
-the coastal Plan:

U.S. Soil Conservation Service - information on soils and soils capa-
bility.

Department of Food and Agriculture - assistance to local governments
in administering the Williamson Act.
-.University of California Agricultural Extention.
Department of Conservation - administration of the Williamson Act and
the Open Space Subvention Program.

Commentary:

,Because agriculture is an areawide activity and concern, the general
background research and planning necessary for implementation of this
program will likely be carried out within the context of a subregional.
planning effort at least where such planning is justified by the amount
of.-land in the area devoted to.agriculture. This subregional-plan should
pr6vide local governments with much of the necessary information. The
degree to which local governments would have to supply the information
for the subregional plan is not known.

Currently pendin in the State Legislature is AB 15 (Agricultural Lands:
State Regulati 0 n? which would require mapping in cities and counties
of prime agricultural soils and require cities and counties to amend
or adopt plans, policies, ordinances and regulations to limit the sub-
division of agricultural lands. This bill, if enacted into law, would
satisfy much of what is required as part of this implementation pro-
gram component.

For those jurisdictions Where agriculture is a significant conside .r-
ation, the amount of time and planning effort required to carry out
this component may be significant.

Genralized Work Program:

- Identify areas with prime soils and areas currently in production.

- Study of subregional agriculture economy to determine overall land area,
and minimum size parcels in long-term production.

- Establish stable urban/rural boundaries by re vising general plan, desiq-
nating areas to remain in agriculture, and designating areas for conversion
of agricultural lands to urban uses.

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
E. Agricultural Resources
Page 3

Identify agricultural parcels within hi.ghly developed areas and desig-
nate which are to remain in agriculture.

Revise zoning ordinance a nd map accordingly.
Revise zoning ordinance and map to permit only agriculturally related
developments on agricultural lands.

Revise zoning ordinance and map to provide for minimum lot sizes in
agricultural areas to maintain economic viability.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLLMENTATIUrl PRUGRAM COMPONENT:

F. Forestry Resources

A program, consistent with the Forest Practice Act, for the
protection of forestry resources through policies on conversion
or subdivision of forest lands, the protection of coastal streams,
and the preservation of highly scenic coastal timberlands.
(Policy 38)

LEX-isting Requirements for Related Planning:

- Government Code Section 65302 (d) requires that local
general plans contain a conservation element for the
conservation, development and utilization of natural
resources, including forests.

- Government Code Sections 65302 (e) and 65560 et. seq. require
that local general plan contain an open space element
for the preservation of open space for managed production
of,resources, including forest lands.,

Type of Information Required for Associated Planninq Activities:

- Model ordinance for the control of timberland conversion
to other uses.

- Model ordinance for the control of timberland subdivision.

- Model ordinance for the control of the visual impact of
logging activities.

information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant to
the Coastal Plan:

Comprehensive watershed management plans which should
provide for the management of forestry resources (Policy 38).

Information Already Available:

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments
Implementing the Coastal Plan:

Division of Forestry

(.oastal Vian Locat ImplemenLation
Program
F. Forestry Resources
Page 2

'C@@nt@ar

The Forest Practice Act of 1973 provides for the regulation of
commercial forestry through review of Timber Harvest Plans and
regulation of conversion of timberland to other uses. Timber
Harvest Plans must provide for erosion control methods and
protection of unique areas. However, aesthetic considerations,
to the extent called for in the Coastal Plan, are not required
as part of Timber Harvest Plans.

Policy 38 provides that. .."forestry resources shall be managed
as part of comprehensive watershed management /-
plans7, as set
ferth in Policies 21-25." The implic-itions of this-for local
governments are not clear.

It appears that implementation of Policy 38 would require revi-
sion of the local general plan (possibly) and ordinances as
outlined below.

Generalized Work Program:

- Revise General Plan land use, open space and conservation
elements to provide for the long term protection of forestry
resources.

- Revise or prepare ordinance for the control of the conversion
of timberlands to other uses.

Revise or prepare ordinance for the control of the division
of timberlands into un-economic units (e.g., minimum parcel
size requirement in areas zoned for forestry).

Revise ordinance to require buffer areas to screen new
logging operations from public view and to provide for
other aesthetic controls on logging activites.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

G. Scenic Resources

A program for the designation of highly scenic areas and coastal view-
sheds, and procedures and standards to review the design of new devel-
opment consistent with the design policies of the Coastal Plan.

(Polities 44-56, 152)

Existing requirements for Related Planning:

- Government Code Sections 65302 (e) and 65560 et. seq. require that
local general plans contain an open space element for the preser-
vation of open space for outdoor recreation, including areas of
outstanding scenic value.
- Goverrent Code Section 65302 (h) requires that-local general plans
contain a scenic highway element for the development,'establish-
me nt and protection of scenic highways.

Type of Information Required for Associated Planning Activities:

- Identification of highly scenic areas and coastal viewsheds.

- Guidelines, criteria and standards to be used in the design review
1@procedure.

- "Detailed studies of the oceanfront area to be used as.a basis for
'definitive design criteria' for improving the appearance of the
shoreline." (Policy 46.).

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State.Agencies Pursuant to
the Coastal Plan:

Information Already Available:

- The Coastal Plan sets forth design criteHa, guidelines and
standards to be used in local design review procedures.
(Policies 47, 49-56).

- The California Roadside Council can provide local government with
information on sign control programs.

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments
Implementing the Coastal Plan:

CALTRANS expertise in the development of scenic highway plans.

Coastal Plan Local Implementatlon
Program
G. Scenic Resources
Page 2

Commentary:

Policy 46 requires that local governments within the coastal viewshed
shall prepare and implement design procedures and standards as, part
of their general plans. The most appropriate vehicle for implementation
of this requirement within general plans appears' to bea coastal design
element which sets forth the criteria and standards for appearance
and design within the coastal area. Beyond this, however, local govern-
ments would have to adopt a design review ordinance further specifying
criteria and standards and providing for design review of project pro-
posals. Design review could be carried out by staff or by a design
review board as suggested in Policy 47.
Policy 41 call for ..."definitive design criteria for improving the
appearance of the shoreline based on detailed studies of the ocean-
front area carried out by cities and counties". This apparent require-
ment for an active aesthetic rehabilitation program is reinforced
by Policy 154, which requires "... the coastal agency, working with
local municipalities and citizens, to prepare a long-range plan for
the restoration of desired visual quality'and character of degraded
coastal areas". There is insufficient information in Policies 47
and 154 to determine the scope of this aesthetic rehabilitation program
and the role of local government in carrying out such a program.

Generalized Work Program:

- Identify highly scenic areas and coastal viewsheds.

- Revise general plan land use and open space elements for the pro-
tection of these areas.

- Establish design review procedure and standards.

o
- Conduct study of oceanfront area and develop.program for improving
the appearance of the shoreline.

-.Revise or prepare a sign ordinance consistent with Policy 54.

Prepare in cooperation with public utilities (specifically telephone
and electricity) a program for undergrounding utility lines.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

H. 14a n@Made Resources

A program for the protection of man-made resources, such as sites of
unique.cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological signi-
ficance.

(Policies.44, 45, 151)

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:
- Government Code Sections 65302 (e) and 65 560 et. seq. requires that
local general plans contain an open space element for the preservation
of open space for outdoor recreation, including areas of outstanding
scenic, historic and cul-tural value.

- Government Code Section 65303 provides for the optional inclusion
of a hi.storical preservation element as part of local general plans.

- California Environmental Quality Act and State EIR Guidelines.

Type of Information Required for Associated Planning Activities:

- Inventory of archaeological and paleontological sites.

- Inventory/survey of historical resources.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant to the
Coastal Plan:
- Th@e State Historic Preservation Officer shall survey archaeological and
paleontological sites along the coast. (policy 151)

- The leg islature, or an appropriate State agency designated by the legi s-
lature., is,urged to (1) formulate criteria for determining which.re-
sources are "significant" and (2) develop a program for protection
and, where appropriate, professional evaluation and study of resources.
(Policy 151).

Information Already Available:

Archaeo logical resources:
- University of California and State universities
- Department of Parks and Recreation

Historical Resources:

- National Register of Historic Sites
- Department of Parks and Recreation (California History Plan)

- Local historical societies

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
N. Man-made Resources
Page 2

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Local Governments Implementing
the Coastal Plan:

University of California and State universities and the Department
Iof Parks and Recreation - information on known archaeological sites.

The Office of Planning and Research is publishing a handbook on pre-
paration of a historical preservation element to the local general
plan. (Available by mid 1976).

Commentary:

Ultimately, according to the Coastal Plan, archaeological resources
would.be surveyed by the State Historic Preservation Officer and pro-
tected by strengthened State law. In the interim, the Plan calls for
a systematic survey of known or suspected archaeological sites which
would be affected by proposed development. This interim policy could
be carried out through locally adopted procedures pursuant to CEQA.

The requirement for the protection of historically or architecturally
significant resources is contained in Policies 44-45. Since most cities
within the coastal area are already involved in some sort of histori-
cal preservation program, the Coastal Plan requirements involve little
more than a continuation of current efforts. However, in jurisdictions
where programs have not been developed, this program component may
necessitate considerable work.

Generalized Work Program:

Identify historical resources and develop a program for the protec-
tioh and enhancement of these resources.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM:

1. Wildlife and Plant Communities

A program for the protection of areas designated as important or sig-
nificant coastal natural living communities (as identified by appro-
priaIte State and federal agencies or in the Coastal Plan), including
controls on the use and development of such areas and immediately adja-
cent lands.

(Policies 26-29)

Existing Requiremerfts for Related Planning:

Government Code Section 65302 (e) and 65560 et. seq. require that local
general plans contain an open space element for preservation of natural
resources, including areas required for the preservation of plant and
animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species; are 'as
required for the ecologic and other scientific study purposes;.rivers,
streams, bays and estuaries; and coastal beaches, lake shores, banks
of rivers and streams, and watershed lands.

The California Environmental Quality Act and the State EIR Guidelines
require consideration of how projects affect rare or endangered species
of animal or plant, or habitat of such a species (Section 15081 of the
EM Guidelines).

State Public. Resources Code Section 5001.5 provides protection for rare
and endangered living communities.

Ty2e of Information Reggired for Associated Planning Activities:

- Identification of rare and endangered wildlife species.

- Identification of rare and endangered plant species.

- Identification of important or significant habitat areas.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant to
the Coastal Plan:

- State and federal agencies are to identify important or significant
coastal natural living communities (beyond those already identified
in the Coastal Plan). (Policy 150).

Information Already Available:
- At the Crossroads Department of Fish and Game, - listinq by location
of rare and endagered wildlife species.
- The Cal.ifornia Native Plant Society maintains a list by area of rare
and endangered plant species.

- Certain habitat areas are identified in the Coastal Plan as'in need
of protection. (Part IV)

Coastal Plan Locai Implementation
Program
1. Wildlife and Plant Communities
Page 2

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Local Governments Implementing
thg Coastal Plan:

- Department of Fish and Game - information on fragile habitat areas
and rare and endangered wildlife and plant species.

- Department of Parks and Recreation - information on fragile habitat
areas and rare and endangered wildlife and plant species.

California Native Plant Society - information on the location of rare
and endangered plant species.

Commentary:

The information concerning the location of rare and endangered plant
and wildlife species and fragile habitat areas is for*the most part
already available or will be made available by State and federal agen-
cies in conjunction with further coastal planning activities. The work
remaining for local governments in implementing this program is there-
fore basically linited to the development of protection measures.

Generalized Work Program:

- Revise general plan to provide protection for identified habitat areas.

- Revise zoning ordinances and map for the protection of identified
habitat areas,and the banks of rivers, streams and lagoons.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

J... Hazards

A program for the avoidance of risks and public costs in areas of high
geologic- or flood-hazard.
(Policies 64-70)

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:

-Government Code Section 65302 (a) requires that local general plans
contain a land use element which identifies areas subject to flood-
ing.

-Government Code Section 65302 (f) requires that local general plans
contain a seismic safety element which includes an identification
and appraisal of seismic hazards, including surface rupture, ground
shaking, ground fracture, mud slides, land slide (slope stability)
and seismically-induced waves such as tsunami and seiches.
-Government Code Section 65302 (i) requires that local general plans
contain a safety element for protection of the community from fires
and geologic hazards including features necessary for such protec-
tion as evacuation routes, peak load water supply requirements, and
geologic hazard mapping.

-City and county participation in the National Flood Ir-surance Pro-
gram (Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973) requires mapping df
flood-prone areas and land use controls within the flood-prone area.

-The Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Act now requires establishment of-
;;ilood plain regulations as a condition of State contributions toward
the costs of land, easements and rights-of-way for local flood con-
trol projects.

-The Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zones Act requires the delineation
of special study zones along known active faults and requires geo-
logic investigations within these zones prior to development.

-The Field Act requires the abatement of hazardous school buildings.

-Local governments are required to adopt building codes consistent
with Chapter 23 (earthquake resistant structures) and Chapter-70
(grading) of the Uniform Building Code.

,Ty2e ef Information Required for Associated Planning Activities:

-Identification of flood-hazard areas.
-Identification of areas'of geologic hazard (i.e., areas subject
to surface faulting, ground failure, land slide, mud slide, ground
shaking and tsunami run up.)

-Inventory of existing high-occupance buildings within areas of high
geologic hazard.

-Standards for demon@tration of stability report.

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
J. Hazards@
Page 2

Information.and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant to the
Coastal. Plan:

It is recommended that the State Division of Mines and Geology be
enpowered and funded to designate geologic risk areas, ...impose appro-
priate land use and building regulations related to the areas,
establish project review criteria. (Policy 65)

Infnrmation Already AVailable:

-Maps,of flood-prone areas are available from Amy C orps of Engineers,
USGSP HUD.

-Seismic safety elements should contain all necessary information on
geologically hazardous areas.

-USGS has mapped tsunami run-Up areas along much of the coast.

-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has mapped possible-tsunami run up in South-
ern.California.

-Divisio n of Mines has mapped slope stability in many coastal areas.

-Standards for bluff and cliff development are contained in the Coastal
Plan (Policy 70).

Existinq.Technical Assistance Available to Local Governments Implementing
the Coastal Plan:

- The State Seismic Safety Commission - expertise in the area of abate-
ment,of hazardous structures.

- The Office of Emergency Services - expertise in the area of disaster
preparedness plans.

- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - information on flooding.

- U.S. Geological Survey - information on all forms of geologic hazards.

- Division of Mines and Geology - information on all forms of geologic
hazards.

Commentary:

Existing State and federal requirements are considered adequate to carry
out Most of the requirements of the Coastal Plan policies regarding
development in hazardous areas. Those aspects addressed in the 6astal
Plan but.not covered by known existing State and federal requirements
are outlined below.

Generalized Work Program:

Revise disaster preparedness plan to include an ei-aergency warning
system for tsunami occurance

-Revise ordinances for the protection of cliff and bluffs.
-Identify high occupancy structures within areas of high geologic hazard
and develop a program to phase these structures out or otherwise pro-
tect them.

Prepare ordinance to control reconstruction of structures rendered
-&.I@ &__ K@ -All%nir inct;%hilitip%_

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

K. Low@ and Moderate-Income Housing.

A program for the protection and, where necessary, rehabilitation of
existing low- and moderate-income housing, and provision, to the extent
available in federal, State, or local housing programs, for a signi-
ficant amount of such housing opportunities in new developments.

(Policy 126)

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:

Government Code Section 65302 (c) requires that local general pl ans
contain a housing element which shall make adequate provision for the
housing needs of all economic segments of the community.

Citi es and counties participating in Community Development Block Grant
prog ram (Housing and Community Development Act of 1974) are required
to prepare Housing Assistance plans which identify and provide for the
housing needs of low- and moderate-income people.

Type of Information Required for Associated Planning Activities:

- Survey of housing stock in coastal neighborhoods (by unit type, tenure,
cost)i

- Information on the distribution of low and moderate income people in
coastal neighborhoods.
- Information on implementation measures and sources of housing financing.

- Model ordinance for condominium conversion.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant to the
Coastal Plan:

Information Already Available:
- 1970 federal census for information on housing and population.

- Special State census (conducted in recent years in many jurisdictions)..

Housing Assistance Plan (prepared for the Community Development Block
Grant Program).

- Adopted housing element.

- Criteria for condominium conversion is contained in the Coastal Plan
(Policy 126 0.

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
K. Low- and Moderate-Income Housing
Page 2

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Local Governments Implementing
the Coastal Plan:

Department of Housing and Community Development - information prepara-
tion of housing studies, rehabilitation, neighborhood preservation.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Housing Finance Agency.

Commentary:

The existing St6te requirement for a housing element and federal require-
ment for a Housing Assistance Plan for cities and counties receiving
funds through the Community Development Block Grant program, generally
address the need for new and rehabilitated ,housing for low- and moderate-
income people. The emphasis in Policy'126 is on coastal neighborhoods.
This new emphasis may require revision of the housing el ment in some
jurisdictions.

Generalized Work Program:

- Revise.general plan housing element to provide for housing in coastal
neighborhoods for low- and moderate-income people.

- Revise or prepare condominium conversion ordinance consistent with
Policy 126 (c).

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATI ON PROGRXI COMPONENT:

L. Water and/or Wastewater Service System

e
but not limited to a water management program, imper vious surface
Programs for (1) the conservation of wat r supplies, including

limitations, and other development standards to protect ground
water and drainage areas; (2) the reclamation and reuse of waste
.water*, and (3) the correlation of development with approved
water'management plans. (Policies 21-24)

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:
Government Code Section 65302 (d) requires that local general
plans contain a conservation element for the conservation of
natural resources including water and its hydraulic forces.
It also requires that the conservation element shall be
developed in coordination with any county-wide water agency
and with all district and city agencies which have developed,
served, controlled or conserved water for any purpose for the
county or city for which-the plan is prepared.

Governitent Code Section 65302 (e) and 65560 et.. seq.,requires
that local general plans contain an open space element for the
preservation of open space for natural resources, the managed
production of resources and public health and safety, specifically
including rivers,.streams, bays and estuaries, coastal beaches,
lake shores, banks of rivers and streams, watershed lands, areas
required for recharge of ground water basins and areas required
for the protection of water quality.

Type of Information Reqyired for Associated Planning Activities:

- Information contained in the watershed management plans.

- Information on available water supplies.

Model. ordinances for limitation of imperious surfaces and
devel-opment standards for protection of ground water and
surface drainage area.

Model building code sections requiring water conservation
measures.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant
to the Coastal Plan:

Comprehens,ive watershed management plans are to be prepared
under the direction of a lead agency to be designated by the
legislature. (Policy 21)

Information Already Available:

- Regional water quality control plans.

- Areawide waste tr eatment management plans under section 208
of the 1972 Water Quality Act will provide much information
on non-point p 'ollution sources, waste discharge.and other
water quality related matters.

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
L. Water -an1d/or Wastewater Serv. System
Page 2

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments
Implementing,the Coastal Plan:

- Department of Water Resources - information on land use,
population and present and future water needs.

- State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water
Quality Control Boards.

Countywide wateragencies.

Department of Fish and Game information on water quality
problems resulting from logging, road construction, dredging
and other activities.

Summary and Comments:

The Coa stal Plan requires that comprehensive watershed management
plans be prepared and that these be incorporated into local
government coastal plans. The comprehensive watershed managemen 't
plans are broad in scope and will address many areas of concern ..
to local government. Although it appears that watershed management
plans will provide much of the information necessary to local
government implementation planning efforts, there are at least
two.@problems: (1) the level of detail in the wate 'rshed management
plans'may be insufficient for direct local implementation, and (2)
these plans are not required to be completed for four years.following
Coastal Plan enactment while local governments must develop local
'plans for certification within three years.
Another program affecting local implementation of this component
is the water,quality planning being carried out regionally and,
statewide under section 208 of the Federal Water Quality Act of
1972.: Many, but not all of the concerns included in the watershed
management plans will be addressed in 208 plans. Although the
governmental mechanism for implementing 208 plans has not yet been
specified by the federal government, local governments will eventually
have to comply with these plans and thereby satisfy many of the
requirements of the policies related to this implementation program.

Generalized Work Program:

Because of the uncertainty about the role of local governments,
i1n the,preparation of watershed management plans, it is im-.
possible to specify'amount of work to be done in subject areas
covered by the watershed management plan.

Revise general plan and ordinances pursuant to the watershed,
management plan.

Revise general plan to bring population and land use allocations
into accord with the limits of the water supply (for water supply
agencies this would involve inventory of water.supplies and
revision of water supply plans consistent with the watershed
management plans),

Develop or revise ordinances controlling imperious surface, flood
plain development, and.development standards designed to protect
groundwater and surface drainage areas.

Revise conservation element of general plan to provide for water
conservation.

Revise building code to incorporate water conservation resources.

Implement programs for water reclamation and monitoring of private

PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

M. Energy Facilities and Conservation

Programs for (1) the siting of energy facilities, reflecting
national, State and local interests; (2) the protection of
areas surrounding such facilities from incompatible uses;
(3) energy conservation measures in new developments to the
extent these may not be required if not part of a statewide
program.: (Policies 71-98)

Existing Requirements for Related Planning

- The'Warren-Alquist Energy Act provides that the Energy
Commission shall prescribe energy conserving construction
standards which shall be adopted by local governments.

- SB'277 and SB 144 require insulation in residential and
nbn-residential development for conservation of enerqy.
- Since January, 1975, energy conservation is a required
consideration in all Environmental Impact Reports.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant
to the Coastal Plan:

The Coastal Plan recommends that a State4inanced program I
directed by the Department of Housing and Community Development
beAnstituted to provide in-service training for building
inspections to administer the energy budget code. (Policy 72).

Information Already Available:
The lo cations of existing proposed and potential coastal
energy facilities are identified in the Coastal Plan.

The Coastal Plan contains re commended energy conservation spe-
cification standards. (Policy 72).

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments
Implementing the Coastal Plan:
A number of State agencies are involved in the siting of
energy facilities, including the Energy Commission, State
Lands Commission, Public Utilities Commission, Air Resources
,Board, Regional Air Pollution Control District, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Division of Oil and Gas,

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
Page 2

Local governments, while rdsponsible for.land use planning within
their jurisdiction, are only one of many agencies involved in the
siting of energy facilities. For this reason there is little that
local governments can do independent of these other.agencies to
plan for the siting of energy facilities. Once decisions are
made,regarding the location of new facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, local land use decisions can be made regarding
the general plan and zoning and provision made for compatible land
use adjacent to the facilities.
The Warren-Alquist Act provides that the Energy Commission will
establish energy conserving construction standards in new
developments which shall be adopted by local governments. This
Act, "if carried out in a ti'mely and effective manner, will achieve
the goals of..." Policy 72. Only in the event that an energy
conservation program is not in effect statewide by July 1, 1977,
will local governments have to implement a local energy conserva-
tion program.

Generalized Work Program:

-Re vise General Plan to reflect the location of new energy
facilities or the expansJon of existing energy facilities
and to provide for compatible land use surrounding such
facilities.

-Revise zoning ordinances and map accordingly.

-Enact energy budget code as part of building codes in the
event that an energy conservation program pursuant to the
Warren-Alquist Act is not in effect statewide by July 1, 1977.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

N. Transportation System

Programs for (1) the correlation of development with the capacities
of existing future transportation systems; (2) the provision of recrea-
tional access to the coast; (3) the protection of air quality through
transportation systems that reduce pollution; and (4) requiring, in
certain areas, the payment of fees by developers (in lieu of parking
spaces) for the purpose of constructing central parking facilities or
establishing other transportation systems.

(Policies 99-120)
Existing Requirements for Related Planning:
Government Code Section 65302 (b) requires that local general plans
contain a circulation element consisting of the general location and
extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation
routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities,
all correlated with the land use element of the plan.

Government Code Section 65302 (h) requires that local general plans neral plans
contain a scenic highway element for the development, establishment
and protection of scenic highways.

Type of Information Required for Associated Planning Activities;

- Traffic counts, and trip end generation figures for revision of the
transportation plan/circulation element to include consideration of
weekend, holiday and special event travel.

- Identification of appropriate locations for bike paths and lanes,

- Capacity budget (including existing capacity, existing level of usage,
remaining capacity).

- Needs assessment for new or expanded roads.

- Study of parking needs and access to the coast.

-- Study of expansion of public transit systems.

-- Expansion needs/plans of airports and ports.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant to the
Coastal Plan:

- CALTRANS and regional transportation planning agencies are to partici-
pate in revising transportation plans/circulation elements to include
consideration of weekend, holiday and special event travel.(Policy 99).

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
N. Transportation System
Page 2

The Coastal Agency and Caltrans are to assign uses for the remaining
capacity of the road system. (Policy 101).

Caltrans shall designate Highway I and all eligible State highways and
county roads within the zone as part of the State Scenic Highway program.
(Policy 104).
Port dredging and filling will be approved by Caltrans/DNOD/Coastal Agency.
(Policy 118).

Information Already Available:

Traffic count data and trip end generation rate studies available from
Caltrans.

-State designated scenic highways.

- Scenic highway element of local general plan.

- Each port will be required to prepare a master plan.

Existing Technical Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments
Implementing the Coastal Plan:

tommentary:

This implementation program is quite involved and affects all forms
of transportation and transportation-related facilities.

Of particular significance to local government is the land use impli-
cations of road capacity budgeting. Following the determination by
the Coastal Agency and CALTRANS of remaining capacity and the assign-
ing of uses for that capacity, local general plan land use elements
and zoning will have to be brought into accord. .

The California Transportation Plan is now being drafted, and it is not
kndwn to what extent the trans@ortation policies of the Coastal Plan
will be satisfied by the Transportation Plan.

This program is one of the most significant of the implementation pro-
gram-components in terms of the magnitude of the local planning effort
necessary to revise plans, ordinances, zoning, programs and procedures.

Generalized Work Program:

- Revise circulation element to recoqnize weekend, holiday and special
event travel-needs.

- Develop bike path and lane section of general plan circulation element.

- Revise circulation element consistent with standards for new or expanded
roads.

- Revise general.plan land use element to reflect the constraints imposed
by the road system.

- Revise capital improvement program accordingly.

- Revise scenic highway element where necessary.

- Revise zoning ordinance and map to provide for protection of scenic
qualities of roadway scenic corridors.

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
' Program
N. Transportation System
Page 3

Study and revise bus routing and scheduling to provide transportation
from existing centralized parking lots to the coast, and to serve the
needs of recreational users.

Develop new parking standards and parking structure design standards.

Develop in-lieu fee system for parking requirements in new developments.

Uvise general plan to accommodate expansion of airport and port
facilities.

Revise zoning map accordingly.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM.COMPONENT:

0. Minerals and Soils

A program for the protection of soil and mineral resources (including
sand and gravel) through regulations on building, grading, runoff,
erosio.n, dust, waste materials and spoils disposal, and the reclama-
tion of extractive sites.

(Policies 40-42)

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:

Government Code Section,65302 (d) requires that local general plans
contain a conservation element for the conservation, development and
utilization of natural resources including soils, minerals and other
natural resources.

Government Code Sections 65302 (e) and 65560 require that local general
plans contain open space elements for the preservation of open space
used for the managed production of resources, (including agricultural
lands. and areas containing majormineral deposits).

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 will require cities
and counties to establish mineral resource management policies to be
incorporated into their general plans. (However, this State policy
does not include aspects of regulating surface mining operations which
are solely of local concern such as noise, dust, fencing and purely
aesthetic considerations.)

California Environmental Quality Act and the State EIR Guidelines.

Type of Information Required for Associa'ted Planning Activities-

- Location of mineral deposits and productive soils.

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agenci es Pursuant to the
Coastal Plan:

It is recommended that uniforin statewide regulations be adopted and
enforced to provide appropriate standards for mining-related noise,
dust, surface water pollution, waste materials and spoils disposal
and reclamation of extractive sites. (Policy 41).

Comprehensive watershed management plans shall include designation
of appropriate mining sites. (Policy 42).
Information Already Available:

- Soils information is available from the Soil Conservation Service, and
the Department of Water Resources.

- The open space and conservation elements of the general plan should
contain identification of producti.ve soils.

Coastal Plan Local Implementation
Program
0. Minerals and Soils
Page 2

- The open space and conservation elements of the general plan should
contain identification of major mineral deposits.

- Under S8756 the Division of Mines and Geology will be inventorying
mineral resources within urban and urbanizing areas.

Existinq Technical Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments
Implementing the Coastal Plan:

- The Williamson Act and Open Space Subvention programs through the
Department of Conservation provides incentives for preservation of
productive agricultural lands.

- Resource Conservation Districts (covering most of the coast)
expertise in the area of soils surveys, runoff confrol and erosion
control.

-Department of Navigation and Ocean Development - expertise re-
qarding the problems of beach erosion and the means of stabili-
zation of beach and shoreline areas.

Commentaryi

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SB756) provides for
the identification of mineral deposits and conservation and develop-
,ment of identified mineral deposits, and control of the impacts of
mining operations. Local governments are required to adopt mining
regulations developed by the Division of Mines and Geology.

The Regional Water Quality Control Boards have authority over mining
operations, including dredging and spoils disposal.

The Regional Air Pollution Control Districts have authority over mining
operations as point sources of air pollution.

For the most part, the policies related to minerals and soils compo-
nent are being carried out under existing authority.

Generalized Work Program:

Revise or prepare ordinances to control grading, runoff, erosion, dust,
waste materials and spoils disposal and reclamation of extractive sites
to the extent that these are not controlled by the Division of Mines
and Geology under S8756, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards,
and Regional Air Pollution Control Districts.

COASTAL PLAN LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM COMPONENT:

P. National Interest Facilities

A program for the consideration of the siting of facilities in
the national interest, including but not limited to national
defense installations, energy production facilities, and resources
production areas, and the protection of areas surrounding such
facilities from incompatible uses.

Existing Requirements for Related Planning:

Government Code Section 6530Z (a) requires that local general
plans contain a land use element which designates the.proposed
general distribution and general location and extent of the uses
of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including
agriculture,. natural resources,. recreation, and enjoyment of
stenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid
and liquid waste disposal facilities and other categories of
public and private uses of land.

-Type of Information Required for Planninq Activites:

Information and Assistance to be Provided by State Agencies Pursuant
to the Coastal Plan:

Information Already Available:

Existing'Technical Assistance Available to Assist Local Governments
Implementing the Coastal Plan:

Commentary:

With the exception of military installations all the concerns of this
component are adressed in other implementation program components
(e.g., E, F, M, 0).

APPENDIX C

Appendix C is a summary of a survey conducted by the Office of Planning

and Research. The five counties and twelve cities surveyed were selec-

ted as a cro^ss section of jurisdictions lying entirely or partly Within
kV the Coastal Resource Management Area. The staff of each jurisdiction
(in most'cases the planning director) was asked a series of questions

about the jurisdiction, the effect of the Coastal Plan on the Jurisdic-

tion, and the amount of work that appeared to be required of the juris-

diction to implement the Coastal Plan.

Under Survey Questions, the first five questions relate to the existence

of plans or programs specifically mentioned in the'Coastal Plan. The

existence of these plans would reduce the effort required of a juris-

diction as part of the implementation program. The second five questions

relate to special functions which may or may not be part of the juris-

diction's responsibility of the jurisdiction, the scope of the juris-

diction's implementation program is likely to be larger.

Under Degree of Impact, all sixteen of the local implementation program

components outlined in Part III of the Coastal Plan are listed. The

"impact" in this case is the relative importance of the issues addressed
by ea@h component to the jurisdiction. Since local plans and programs

may be in basic conformity with the Coastal Plan, a "significant" indi-

cation does not necessarily mean that a significant level of added re-

sponsibilities or tasks will be required, only that starting anew would

require a great deal o f staff effort.

Under Implementation (Second Phase), the responses are based on a four-

choice scale of "major", "significant", "minor" and "none".

0
ts t:I to "d 0
US rA C-_H z W
N 1@4 0 W z
03 0 Of C: 0 0
0 M
n C71
M

-4
4.- 47- 41 0% am 0@ 1.- 41 Ln h3
S- OD L" 41 Population (1975 Department of Finance.
-4 W to zo 6 @O Estimate)
01 C31 0 4=1 C@ oo 01 0 -8 0 GO CI 0 0 0
a 40 40 01 C31 CO 0 %A a 0 0 Ln 0 01
0- to to tA am 10 tA I-- I- V,
ta N 0 1
0% W <> LA Miles of Coastline
T +

C1 C31
I I I Percentage of Developable Land Developed
%0 1 01 %0 CD -J I OD
40 C@ %0 0 4A 01 %A C@ U1 (Cities)
am " .4 " a-4
tn

a, C31 M %0 at OL Nusber in planning
I Dept.-
M S- 5 Al S, W of professional planners

Does jurisdiefion already have design-review
z Wd z z *4 94 process?
Does jurisdiction already have a sign
04 .4 9< 04 .4 1< ordinance?
Does seis.7-saf. element contain Ident. of
2: &C 94 9&4 1z z .4 04 @4 WC Iz 1-4z z exist. high occupstruct. within haz. areas?
Does jurisdiction have a Disaster Preparedness
.4 94 z 1.4 1-4 .4 -4 04 .4 .4 .4 9< .4 .4 .4 z Plan?
- - Wis _Iurlsd. dev. a hous. assis. plan for the
04 *4 &4 1.4 .4 14 1z 14 .4 2: 1z z .4 -< .4 .4 C.D. Block Gratit-Program?
-- Does jurisdiction act as a water agent
z .4 04 z -4 .4 .4 14 $4 z -4 Z- 14- z
(retailer)?
ri sdiction operate sewage facilities?
z I= -4 04 1 JDoes ju
Does jurisdiction operate a bus service? -
P4 !is z z z 04- -< P4 Iz z @4 z z z z
Does jurisdiction-.operate/own an airport?
z 04 z 04 z z .4 Iz 0< z 04'z z -1 14
Does jurisdiction operate/own a port or
-Z -04 z &9 z z z z z -0 1 -.4 marina facility?

M M M FA CA to CA CA w TA rA cA w rA cA cn rA A. Community Development
I to M M X rA M rA TA M tA M B. Shoreline Recreation
I CA tA U3 M [a CA &n 1En rA -cA rA rA rA C. Recreational Support
FA :K M W In rA
D. Streams. Estuaries and Wetlands

4n I CA I I M I I W I Cn Ca Cn
x - Agricultural Resources

F. FDrestrZ Resources

r.- scraic Resources

H. Manmade Resources
Z L aldlife and.Plant Comunities

-T- Hazarda
I CA V3 Ca U3 CA W V1 rA 1W w rA w rA W En En K. Low- and Moderate-income Housing

L. Water and/or Wastewater Service System
CUM @L Energy Facilities and Conservation

:x M 2: z z :K :9 W N: (D z
N. Transportation System

0.- Minerals and Soils -

I En I Cn P. National Interest Facilities

Ln 0- 41 Ln :3 lc@ 0% Ln Estimate of costs for preparing implementat
to a @D 0 0 0 V1 kn Ck a 0 C) 0 Ln Q
I C' I I ., 0 1 for certifification (staff, consul
M C, a, I Z, , @D 0@ programs
0 a 0 a C) C> C@ 0 0 0 L" Ln tants, meetings, materials).
Q C> 0 0 C@ C)k . - 40 Q '
0 C> C, C, C,
C> 0 C> Q C) <3 CO
a 0 0 C@ Q 0 C@
PO
Estimate of increase in current planning
(IQ 0 :3 0 0 0 :3 - - 8 - -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V T c@ (@ T (permit function) work load following
11 n
certification.

P@ FC2 Estimate of Increase in inspection/enforcem.
P CQ :1 Do :3 00 OQ :3 V :1 OQ work load following certification.
0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n n n M M

Supporting Document D

LETTER ON THE ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

Prepared by
Real Estate Services Division
Department of General Services

February 9, 1976

STATE OF CALIFORN(A EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
-REAL ESTATE SERVICES DIVISION
650 Howe Avenue
@@Sacramento, CA 95825
'(916) 445-0160

February 9, 1976

Mr. Donald W. Benedict
Principal Program Analyst
Legislative Budget Committee
925 "L" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Benedict:

At your requestwe have evaluated the relative merits of purchasing
scenic easements and/or development rights in conjunction with "fee"
acquisitions as proposed by the Coastal Plan submitted to the Legislature.
The purpose, presumably, for acquiring less than fee title is to reduce
the cost of implementing the Coastal Plan, and to ameliorate the impact
of this program on the local tax base.

Past Experience

The National Park Service and the State of Wisconsin are the only two
public agencies with any substantial experience in the use of scenic
easements.

The National Park Service acquired scenic easements in conjunction with
the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Natchez Trace Parkway. This experience
was s@ unsatisfactory that only fee simple acquisitions were considered
for a subsequent project, the Ozarks River National Monument. The
reason given was that the previous 20 years experience with scenic
easements resulted in misunderstandings between the Service and the
servient land owner, administrative difficulties, difficulties in en-
forcing the scenic easement, and the cost of scenic easements was only a
little less than fee simple.

Subsequently, the National Park Service again changed its procedure and
was very successful in obtaining scenic easements over 3,000 plus acres
in conjunction with Cumberland Gap National Historic Park, Harpers Ferry
National Historic Battlefield Park, and the Piscataway Park opposite Mt.
Vernon. By far, the bulk of these scenic easements were donations and
not purchases. This leads one to the conclusion that it may be easier
to obtain scenic easements by donation rather then by purchase.

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -2- February 9, 1976

The State of Wisconsin has made significant use of scenic easement ac-
quisitions in conjunction with their highway program and, more recently,
with their Resource Development and Outdoor Recreation program. Scenic
easement acquisitions were acquired on the assumption that the local tax
base would not be substantially reduced and the State would save a great
deal of money by not purchasing the full fee simple.

Wisconsin's use of the scenic easement acquisition technique apparently
went through the same administrative "growing pains" as the National
Park Service. However, Wisconsin officials took cognizance of these
problems and resolved them by modifying the easement documents as
circumstances warranted. It appears Wisconsin is successful in acquiring
scenic easements because, first of all, it is determined to do so and,
secondly, because its officials have been flexible. On the average, the
cost of Wisconsin's scenic easements appears to be approximately 50% of
the fee simple value and condemnation was necessary in approximately 10%
of the parcels acquired.

Definition of Rights to Be Acquired

A great deal of confusion exists in the definition and application of
scenic easements and development rights. The following definitions
apparently have wide use:

SCENIC EASEMENT DEFINED - "a conveyance of those ownership
rights in property which will permit a public body to ef-
fectively preserve (protect or restore) the scenic beauty
of the property when viewed from public lanis, reserving to
the grantee all other beneficial interest."

DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DEFINED - "a conveyance of those owner-
ship rights in property relating to the type and density
of improvements allowed by zoning ordinances and that which
actually exPts, reserving to the grantee all other beneficial
interests."

In researching this subject, it appears that in all practicality, both
terms are synonymous. Another term, conservation easement, is in common
use that overlaps in meaning the terms scenic easement and development
right. From a valuation standpoint, each of these terms implies a
conveyance of certain property rights. This conveyance of rights may or
may not affect the."market value" of the estate involved.

In any event, assuming the proposed acquisition program is made subject
to the Property Acquisition Law, the confusion in definitions will not
pose a problem.

1 Wisconsin Division of Highways
2 Paraphrased from the Economics of Development Rights Transfer
by: Jared B. Shlaes, M.A.I.

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -3- February 9, 1976

Valuation

The process of determining compensation in the acquisition of scenic
easements or development rights is well established through use of
generally accepted principles and techniques as applied to real estate
appraising. The measure of compensation for any property is the dif-
ference between the value of the property with all its rights intact as,
of the date of valuation and the value of the same property if limited
to those uses remaining after the conveyance of the scenic easement or
development right. The difference is determined by the appraisal methods
used in the valuation of partial takings under eminent domain.

As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the process of determining
compensation is well defined; however, the lack of comparable market
data and legally established and relevant zoning ordinance and planning
criteria make the task of establishing compensation more of an educated
guess than an exact science. As a result, wide differences of opinion
may exist as to the proper compensation due an owner for a conveyance of
development rights or a scenic easement.

Factors Influencing Compensation

One can generally assume that the owner of property affected by a con-
veyance of development rights or a scenic easement is entitled to compen-
sation in proportion to the extent of thoseownership rights conveyed.
For example, if the conveyance of development rights prohibits all
construction of allowable new improvements, the compensation may be much
greater than a limited amount of allowable development that would not
interfere with the objectives of the public.

The character of the property involved and its location on the north
coast or south coast will be an important factor in determining if
11rights" in property or fee title should be acquired. Wet lands or
estuaries along the north coast may have a relatively nominal fee value
while similar properties along the south coast may have a high fee
value. The difference between the two areas is directly related to the
demand for that type of property. In one situation, it may be reasonable
to acquire the fee title while in the other situation a less costly, but
satisfactory, scenic easement or development right may be logical.

Clearly, the implementations of a land acquisition program envisioned by
the Coastline Commission with limited dollars must involve an analysis
of each parcel of land proposed to be acquired and a determination of
the extent of ownership rights required by the public. The cost of
these rights can then be related to the value of the total parcel. In
this way, a basis can be established for determining the best option
available to the public.

Discussion of Scenic Easements/Development Rights

To place the discussion in perspective, it is believed that some general
classification system of the lands involved should be developed. It is

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -4- February 5 1976

estimated that there could be numerous classifications and subclas-
sifications of California coastal properties, depending upon the degree
of accuracy required in estimating their potential for various uses.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, it is estimated that the
lands or properties can be reasonably divided into four broad classifi-
cation.

These classifications are as follows:

I. Lands with little or no use or development potential.

A. These would include swamps; lagoons, mud flats, beaches
and other lands subject to tidal flooding; lands subject
to flooding through action of coastal streams; land with
such topography as to make it economically unfeasible to
useo

.1. These properties would tend to show a low or nominal
value in the market place,

II. Lands with strictly agricultural potential.

A. These include those lands with a highest and best use for
agriculture at present and in the foreseeable future.

1. These properties would tend to reflect a maximum of
$4,000-$6,000 per acre* in the market place. Certain
qualifications will be made with regard to this land
type later an in the discussion.

Ill. Vacant lands with a potential higher than agriculture.

A. These would include subdivision, planned unit development,
commercial, industrial, and high potential recreational
lands.

1. Values would generally fall above the $4,000-$6,000 per
acre* range in the market place.

IV. Land that is already developed to its highest and beat use.

A. Developed to potential uses shown in Category III.

1. Values would be similar in range to those indicated
in Category Ill.

*This range is necessarily very general and Is basically for illustration
purposes. Specific property values could very widely within this range,
depending upon a number of factors. However, it is not believed to be
realistic to characterize very much land in the $5,000 to $6,000 per
acre range as agricultural lando

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -5- February 9, 1976

Using the above classification system, it is then possible to analyze
each general classification with consideration given to two elements
believed to be most important at this time. The two elements considered
will be:

1. Dollar impact.

2. Relative difficulty in facilitating acquisition.

I. Lands with Little or No Use or Development Potential

Because of their general lack of utility, properties in this general
category tend to have a relatively low market value. In terms of total
dollars expended, in many instances, there probably wouldn't be a great
amount of difference between purchasing a partial interest (scenic ease-
ment) and the full fee interests in the land. In other instances where
larger amounts of land are involved (see example below) substantial
savings could probably be realized.

This agency has not had a great amount of experience in the acquisition
of this type of property for park purposes. However, we have been in a
position of making valuations and/or approving transactions for the
Wildlife Conservation Board. One particular W.C.B. case involved the
purchase of the fee of certain portions of lands around upper Tomales
Bay. The properties were valued in the $200 - $300 per acre range for
approximately 480 acres of land that was basically unusable for most
purposes. Total fee value was within the range of from $96,000 to
$144,000. It would seem logical that, if scenic easement rights could
be negotiated on this land for, say, 25% of fee, then the total amount
paid would be in the range of from $24,000 to $36,000. Such a saving,
if it could be achieved, would certainly warrant the time and effort to
,bring the transaction to a conclusion. In other instances, the acreage
involved might be too small to make a significant difference between the.
two types of acquisition.

As a general observation, it is believed that acquisition of scenic
easements or development rights would present the fewest number of
problems for this type of property. In the first place, it is believed
that property owner acceptance would be greater here than on any other
type of property. This would be especially true if owners were given
some form of reduction in assessed valuation after transferring these
rights. Secondly, there is a great incentive-for property owners to
transfer such partial rights to a governmental agency for preservation
of certain natural elements in exchange for the approval to develop a
contiguous ownership of better quality land. Third, property owners of
this type of land, in this day and age of ecological movements, are less
apt to regard their land as holding some great speculative potential.

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -6- February 9, 1976

In sum total, it is estimated that acquisition of scenic easements or
development rights would work well with this type of property, even
though, in most cases, the dollar saving to the taxpayers would be small
in comparison with purchasing the full fee. 40

II. Lands with Strictly Agricultural Potential

It should be pointed out that lands of this type are basically few and
far between in the California coastal zone. Past experience in completing
appraisals and acquisitions in every county on the coast indicates that
there are very few properties in the zone that are not influenced in
some way by speculation. Because of this speculative influence, the
lands on the coast, with few exceptions, can no longer be regarded as
strictly agricultural land. Basically, it is believed that most of the
agricultuial@properties in this class fall somewhere in between those
properties with strictly agricultural potential and those lands in
Category III which already have a recognized potential for development
beyond agriculture.

Because lands in this category reflect relatively high values, it is
believed that if scenic easement rights or development rights can-be
negotiated across them, there can be a significant dollar impact in
terms of actual cost savings.

A possible example of agricultural land with some speculative potential
wherein a scenic easement type of acquisition could come into play are
certain agricultural parcels located at the Wilder Ranch on the northerly
Santa Cruz County coast (Rossi or Nolte Parcels). These parcels have a
recent appraised market valuation between $3,500 and $4,500 per acre
with total acreage of ocean front land amounting to approximately 175
acres. In general terms, the fee acquisition of these lands runs in the
neighborhood of $750,000. Certainly, if development rights or a scenic.
easement could be obtained at 50% or less of fee, then a large amouht of
acquisition funds would be saved.

However, we must keep in mind that, as we move into these agricultural
type properties, the problen involved in completing the acquisition
process willincrease. If the property is regarded by the owner as
having little in the way of speculative poteution and if the owner wants
to keep it that way, then acquisition will present fewer problems. If,
on the other hand, the land is close to urban centers or near previous
developments, the speculative potential is going to be obvious to the
knowledgeable owner, and he may be very reluctant to sign away his
rights to such potential for 50% or lose of full fee value. There are
owners of this type of land, however, who are motivated toward preserving
land in its agricultural state. This motivation can be enhanced by
providing a reduction in assessed valuations which would help to keep
the agricultural use incentive going. It is also believed that,, if this
type of partial acquisition io to succeed with agricultural properties,
the owner will need to retain the flexibility required to maximize his
agricultural profits from the land. This means the right to change uses

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -7- February 9, 1976

or crops planted to meet changing demands or market situations. The
opportunity to leave the owner with some form of partial development
rights or use potential is also present to one degree or another, de-
pending on the property involved. While there does appear to be more
options with this category of property, it should be emphasized that,
with each option used, new problems will arise for solution before an
agreement can be reached.

By and large, it is believed that properties in this category present
the best hope for achieving a workable balance between retention of
highest and best use and the need to preserve desirable natural and
scenic qualities. In addition, the possible dollar saving over the cost
of purchasing full fee would seem to warrant the effort required to
obtain scenic easements or development rights.

III. Vacant Land with a Potential Higher than Agriculture

These lands tend to be located close to previously developed properties
or on the fringe of urbanized areas along most parts of the California
coast. In Southern California, they include most of the undeveloped
lands within the coastal zone. However, as you move northward, they
become interspersed with Category I and II lands, and they diminish in
number as you move toward the Oregon border.

Because of their relatively high value, the dollar impact of obtaining a
scenic easement across them at 50% or less than full fee value can be
quite significant.

The Hudson property south of Carmel in Monterey County is perhaps a
prime example of a property in this category. The full market value of
approximately 48.8 acres, based upon staff and fee appraisals made
between 1972 and 1974, ranged from $1,750,000 to $2,750,000; or $35,860
to $56,352 per acre, including the single dwelling on the property. In
terms of total dollars expended, it can readily be seen that if a scenic
easement could be obtained across the property at even 50% of fee value,'
a large dollar savings could be realized. As a practical matter though,
the history of the attempts by the State to acquire this very scenic
property only serves to point up the tremendous problems encountered in
trying to purchase full fee interests in the parcel. It is believed
that the Hudson property clearly shows what the attitude of an owner of
this type of property would be if we were to approach him and offer to
purchase what he regards as a high development potential at considerably
less than full fee value.

Essentially, we have moved up several more steps on the relative value
scale. By so doing, the potential for acquisition of partial rights in
a clean and expeditious manner is further diminished.

Reduction in assessed value will hardly be an incentive to the property
owner if he is asked to sign away the highest and best use for the
property. While there may even be some interim use (agriculture) taking
place on the property at present, income from such uses is usually only
enough to pay the taxes and nothing more.

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -8- February 9,, 1976

With few exceptions, it is believed that property owner incentive to
encumber their properties in this category with scenic easements would
be extremely low. In many instances the land owner is already moving
toward the realization of his properties potential with actual expendi-
tures of fund s.

It would be most difficult to find many reasons to give up that potential
for the sake of say, view preservation. The financial loss would tend
to be great, and very often would come close to the full fee value of
the property.

In general, it is believed that properties in this category would present
the least potential for such partial acquisitions, both from a dollar
impact and from a practical standpoint. With perhaps rare exceptions,
the cost in time, effort and dollars would closely approximate fee
acquisition. In addition, and as the example cited above (Hudson)
illustrates, the property owner is able to sell this point of view in a
court of law and thus obtain a maximum value award for this type of
speculative coastal property.

IV. Land That Is Already Developed to Its Highest and Best Use

Because the'value of these properties include the value of the economic
improvements on them, they tend to fall into the higher valuation ranges
when compared to other properties on an incremental basis. The purchase
of scenic easements or development rights across this type of.property
is necessarily limited by the improvements on the property itself. Be-
cause of this factor, each property would generally have to be treated
on an individual basis. The main emphasis here would revolve around
maintaining the properties in their present state and, at the same time,
an attempt would be made to insure that further development did not take
away any scenic values that might remain.

If scenic easements or development rights could be purchased across
properties of this type, it is certain that there could be substantial
savings over the cost of full fee acquisition..

A wide variety of examples could be used to illustrate the various
possibilities for acquiring scenic easements or.development rights over
improved properties. Undoubtedly, these examples would present an equal
number of variables to be dealt with in making the acquisition. However,
for purposes of this analysis, it is felt that an improved parcel proposed,
for acquisition at Leo Carrillo State Beach may serve as a reasonable
example (Parcel 2143 - Griffin). This parcel consists of a single
family residence located on a 39,000� square foot lot. The residence is
so constructed on the lot that it is generally below the level of the
upper portion of the lot adjacent to the existing Coast Highway grade.
Because of this, the existing view from the highway is relatively unob-
structed and the existing improvements are considerably less noticeable
than if they had been built on the upper portions of the lot adjacent to
the highway. Our most recent appraisal report indicates a highest and
beat use for this parcel as single family residential. The property has

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -9- February 9, 1976

been valued at $136,000, including all improvements. Now, under the
existing conditions, it is not unreasonable to assume that, if we just
want to preserve the view over this property, the purchase of a scenic
easement or the rights to future development on the property would cost
less than a full fee purchase.

However, we must consider that logistics of making such an acquisition
would be somewhat complicated. All of the ground rules would have to be
pretty well defined. This is especially true with regard to what rights
the property owner would retain. A reduction in assessed value would
also help as an additional motivation for the property owner.

Basically, it is believed that there is a good possibility for buying
these partial rights on improved properties on the California coast.
However, it is believed that parcels in this category would present the
greatest challenge with regard to the variety of problems presented.
Therefore, each parcel would have to be analyzed on the basis of its own
merits. In addition, any dollar saving under the cost of purchasing the
full fee would also depend upon the individual situation and the problems
involved in reaching a satisfactory settlement with the owner.

Conclusion

In summary, the acquisition of scenic easements - development rights
would appear to be a useful technique for implementing the proposed
Coastline Plan. To be effective, this technique will require a great
deal of coordination and flexibility between the program planners and
the valuation staff.

Acquisition of less than fee title will be most effective where there
will be no public access on the serviett landowner's property and where
it involves wetlands, floodplains, and areas where the scenic restrictions
do not interfere with the continued use of land for agricultural purposes.
It may also prove to be a useful tool, even where the development potential
of the land is for other than agricultural uses.

Based on the experience of the National Park Service and the State of
Wisconsin, the key to the successful implementation of a scenic easement
program is a strong desire to pursue this approach and a willingness to
be flexible in determining those rights that are to be acquired by the
public.

Trends in Coastal Property Value

Recent trends in real estate value for California coastal property can
beat be discussed in terms of property classification.

Finished lots or sites have experienced marked increases in value,
particularly where Coastal Commission approval is virtually assured. It
is not unusual to find increases ranging from 10-15% per annum.

Mr. Donald W. Benedict -10- February 9, 1976

There is also a strong demand for improved property, particularly single
family residential. Buyers are generally willing to pay a premium to
avoid the additional cost and delays inherent in securing public agency
approvals. In some areas, values are increasing 15% per year*.

Acreage property has shown little or no increase in value as evidenced
by the marked absence of sales in this category. This situation is
directly attributable to the existence of the Coastal Commission. For
the most part, the Commission favors lower densities and stringent open
space requirements to the extent that development becomes unfeasible.

ERT C. BIVEZ 4f517 (7J. R. CRONE
Senior Land Agent Senior Land Agent

RCB:JRC:wp:RE-16
64MTLC. BI Z

Supporting Document E

io.

LETTER CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF INVERSE CONDEMNATION

Prepared by
Office of the Attorney General

December 29, 1975

EVELLE J. YOUNGER STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Oppartwnt of Ansfirr

STATE BUILDING, SAN FRANCISCO 94102

(415) 557-0285

December 29, 1975

Mr. A. Alan Post
Legislative Analyst
Joint Legislative Budget Committee
California Legislature
925 L Street,, Suite 650
Sacramento, California 95814

Re: Senate Resolution 41

Dear Mr. Post:

By letter of November 25, 1975, you requested our
advice regarding case law under the Coastal Zone Conservation Act
which may affect the costs of implementing the Coastal Zone
Conservation Plan. As we understand the request, it seeks advice
primarily concerning the doctrine of inverse condemnationt and the
effect of that doctrine as it may be applied either to the Coastal
Plan or to its enabling legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal constitution
provides that no state may deprive a person of his property without
due process of law; the California Constitutiont Article I,
section 19, somewhat similarly provides that private property
may be taken for public use only when just compensation is paid.
Both together and separately, these constitutional provisions
provide the basis for the doctrine of inverse condemnation.

Inverse condemnation is, generally, the remedy by which
a property owner may assert a claim for compensation on the ground
that governmental action has constituted a taking of his property
for public use. The doctrine thus provides a basis on which a
property owner may institute judicial proceedings in order to obtain
the benefit of a constitutional guarantee. In large part, inverse
condemnation actions brought by a property owner and eminent
domain actions brought by a governmental agency are different means
to reach the same constitutionally required end. As the California

-2-

Supreme Court has indicated: "The principles which affect the
parties' rights in an inverse condemnation suit are the same as
those in an eminent domain action." Breidert v. Southern Pacific
Company, 61.Cal.2d 659, 663 n. 1 (1964). 8

For purposes of this analysis, we set to one side those
instances in which unintended physical damage is caused to property 4
by a public undertaking which otherwise would be well within the,
powers of government; those cases have not arisen under the
Coastal Act,.and they are likely to be of little concern in
implementation of the Coastal Plan. To the extent that they might
arise, they will occur as a result of physical actions taken by
state agencies, perhaps in constructing and maintaining and operating
park facilities. However, we have no basis for predicting the
frequency of their occurrence, or the potential cost therefrom.
We also set ...to one side those cases in which a landowner claims
some form of intangible detriment resulting from the construction
of public improvements; those cases likewise have not arisen under
the Coastal Ac t, and are likely to be of little concern in implementa-
tion of the Coastal Plan. To the extent that such cases arise, they
too will occur As a result of physical construction undertaken by
state agencies, perhaps in the construction of transportation
facilities to allow full access to coastal areas. Cf. BaPich v.
Board of Control, 23 Cal.2d 343 (1943). We similarI-y h7a'v-eno basi s
To_rpr_eUi-cting the frequency of such cases, or their potential
fiscal impact.

Of more pertinent concern are those cases in which a
landowner claims that landuse regulations imposed by a governmental
agency so restrict his use of the property that they constitute a .
deprivation of the property, or a use of the property by the publice
Those cases have arisen under the Coastal Act, and will undoubtedly
arise under the Coastal Plan. For the reasons expressed below,
however, we are of the opinion that such cases will not result in
judgments against the state, and thus will not result in an
economic cost to the state.

Case law dealing with inverse condemnation as a result
of regulatory activities under the Coastal Act is not particularly
pertinent to regulation under the Coastal Plan, because of the
interim nature ofthe Coastal Act. As you will recall,, the Act
will expire on January 1, 1977 (Public Resources Code, �27650), and
the permit requirements of the act will thereafter be of no force@
or effect.

In CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission, 4 a App-.=T6U7T97TT9--tFe--Co-urt--o-E-Ap-pe--aT-rejected
a clai at the provisions of the Act on their face constituted
an unlawful taking of private property for public use without

-3-

compensation. The Court, relying on a prior Supreme Court decision
which we discuss below, concluded that the claim was without merit,
because of the. interim nature of the permit requirements. The
Court recognized, as have. numerous other courts in analogous
circumstances (see, e.g.,, Candlestick Propertiest v. San Francisco
EaLr Conservation etc. Com., 11 Z!91.-App d 557 (1970), and
Hunter v. Ad=, 8=0 C=aApp. 2d 511 (19 58) . that a temporary
reStr3p*Cti(:)7n on the use of property pending the adoption of a com-
prehensive plan involving the property so restricted does not
compel compensation.

In State of California v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d
237 (1974) J, o7r-higlfi-court rea-aied a slMar result. There,
the Coastal Commission denied a permit to a developer for a proposed
project on its lands; the developer subsequently filed an action
asserting that the Commission had denied the permit so that "its
land would remain undeveloped and devoted to, and held for, public
use as open space", and that the denial of the permit on that ground
accordingly constituted a taking of its property. The Supreme,
Court rejected the argument, concluding that a temporary statute
designed essentially to preserve the status quo pending adoption of
a comprehensive plan did not amount to -acon;T11"tutional deprivation
of property.

III

Because of the particular interim nature of the Coastal
Act, the cases dealing withinverse condemnation under it thus
are not of great guidance in resolving similar questions under the
Coastal Plan. A more recent Supreme Court decision, however,
is highly instructive as to the result which would occur under
a permanent regulatory scheme.

In HFH Ltd. v. S@uperior Courte 15 Cal. 3d 508 (1975),
Cie City of Cg-r-riEo-shad changed the zoning of a parcel of land
from commercial to residential. The landowner had purchased the
land when it was regulated by the commercial designation and
had anticipated developing it for commercial purposes. After
the "downzoning" by the City, the landowner filed an action in
part in inverse condemnation, seeking compensation for the decline'
in market value caused by the regulatory action of the City; the
allegations of the complaint asserted that the land was valued at
$400,000.under the commercial designation, was "useless" for single
family residential purposes, and was valued at only $75,000 under
the residential designation.

The Supreme Court rejected the claim of inverse condemnation
holding:

of
.[A] zoning action which merely decreases
the market value of property does not violate the constitu-

-4-

tional provisions forbidding uncompensated taking or
damaging . . . ." ".1

As a result of this decision, we do not believe that
actionschallenging regulation under the Coastal Plan on the sole
basis of a diminution of market value will be successful.

A second aspect of the Supreme Court's holding is also
of significance. The Court indicated not only that compensation
is not available to an owner whose property has decreased in
value as a result of a landuse regulation, but also that the
remedy of inverse condemnation is not available to a landowner
w
Fo-
challenges the validity of a landuse regulation. This
distinction is of considerable importt since the Court's opinion
indicates that even were a regulatory activity to amount to
an unconstitutional action by a governmental agency,7 the
appropriate means by which to remedy that action is invalidation
of the governmental action, rather than judicially forced
compensation.

In reaching this latter conclusion, the Court relied
upon Selby RealLy Co. v. Cj@Z of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal.3d 110
(1973T. The Court there Held ih-a"E a landowner could not utilize
the rerniedy of inverse condemnation to challenge a zoning ordinance
which required him to dedicate a portion of his land to the city as
a condition to receiving a building permit. As the Court stated:

"The sixth c ause of action'sounds in inverse
condemnation and alleges that the city has 'taken'
plaintiff's property without conpensation. . . .
The appropriate method by which to consider such
a claim is by a proceeding in mandamus under section
1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure." 10 Cal.3d
at p. 127-128.

Similar results 'I'lave been reached recently by other courts. Seeo,
e.g., Union Oil Co. v. Morton, 512 F.2d 743 (9th Cir. 1974)
[suspe'nsion -3f-o-1T-drilT1n-g=eases in order to protect environment];.
Gaebel v. Thornbury Township, 303 A.2d 57 (Penn. 1973) [down-
-z-o-Fil-ng) ; Mailma Development Corp. v. 21:@y of Hollywoods, 286
So. 2d 614 (Via: 1974) LdownzoniR-q-1.

There is one further point in the HF11 opinion which
nerits discussion. The Court explicitly not-0-that its decision
did not decide the question of entitlement to compensation in the
event a landuse regulation prohibited substantially 211 use
of the land in question. Despite this caveaty howeverp we do
not believe the point.to be of substantial concern.

First, the discussion above concerning the proper remedy
of a landowner is equally applicable to a regulation which

-5-

Prohibits substantially all use of land; in such instances,
the likely response of the courts would be to invalidate the
regulation, rather than to require compensation. second, there
are few, if any, instances in which a regulation actually prohibits
all substantial use of.land; even the most stringent regulations
which have been considered by the California courts have allowed
some form of reasonable use of land. See, e.g.f McCarthy v.
Manhattan Beach,, 41 Cal.2d 879 (1953). In,fact, we are not
aware of an reported California appellate case which upholds
a claim ofconstitutionally compelled compensation as against
a landuse regulation. As one recent study has put it, "[t1he
'myth' of the taking clause has always lured landowners to expect
more from it than prior precedents really justify." Bosselman,
Callies and Banta (Council on Environmental Quality, 1973), The
Taking Issue. Finally, those instances, if any there be, in--wMich
the regulation effectively precludes substantially all use of land
will most likely be those in which a significant environmental
aspect is present. In those instances, the current trend of case
law is to sustain such regulation, against claims of inverse
condemnation. See, e.g., Just v. Marinette Count o, 101 N. W. 2d
761 (14isconsin, 1972) (reg=ation o? weElan- s itmiting use of
property to its natural use); Sibson v. State, 336 A. 2d 239
(New Hampshire 1975) (regulation of sal rsh, and denial of permit to
alter and fill). Indeed, one California court has already noted
that landuse regulation designed to "control or prevent uses
harmful to the environment or to the natural resources of the
state" stands on a different constitutional footing than traditional
zoning regulations. CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation
Corm.ission, supra, 43-C"a.App.1a 166r-M-

As a result of these and similar cases, we believe that the
following results will occur under the Coastal Plan. First, any
regulation of the Plan which results in even a substantial diminution
of property value will not result in inverse condemnation and
liability to the state. Second, even as to actions which concern
arbitrary regulatory action or as to regulations which exceed the
constitutional powers of the state, the courts will simply
invalidate the regulation as it applies to the affected property,
rather than requiring the state to tender compensation. Accordingly,
we do not believe that the doctrine of inverse condemnation, insofar
as that doctrine is applied to landuse regulation under the
Coastal Plan..will result in increased costs to the state.

There are two further classes of cases which, depending
14 upon future actions undertaken by the Coastal Commissions, could
result in some fiscal liability to the state. The first concerns
cases which challenge inequitable public actions, including landuse
regulations, which are designed to result in a decrease in the value
of property, prior to its purchase by a public agency. The
second concerns landuse regulation designed to evade the requirement
that land actually Wed by the public must be acquired in eminent
domain proceedings.

-6-

There are California cases supporting a remedy in
inverse condemnation under such circumstances; these involve
damages caused by undue delay after a conderination announcement
(Xlop@ing v. Whittier, 8 Cal.3d 39 (1972)), inequitable landuse
restrictions designea to lessen the value of property which the
government intended to condemn (Peacock v County of Sacramento,
271 Cal.App.2d 845 (1969)), and a zoning @rM.nance-enacte2l to
allow actual public use of a landowner's property. Sneed v.
County of Riverside, 218 Cal.App.2d 205 (1963). In HFM Ltd. v.
@'upqrj@or court, supra, 15 Cal.2d 508, the Court recognize=t at
these circumstances could properly give rise to inverse condemnation.

We are not awake of any provisions in either the
Coastal Plan or the proposed coastal legislation which would allow
a landowner to claim inverse condemnation under the theories of
these cases. Again, we cannot state that legal actions based on
these cases will not be filed, but we do believe that any such
actions will not be successful. Insofar as these cases might
support a landowner, they would first require inequitable
action taken by the Coastal Comission or a successor agency under
the legislation and Coastal Plan adopted by the-Legislature; we
shall continue to work with any such agency to ensure that
such a result does not occur.

CONCLUSION

For each of the above reasonsf we are of the opini,on that
inverse condemnation actions based on regulati on under the Coastal
Plan and coastal legislation will not result in a fiscal impact on
the State of California. To the extent that any such impact does
occur, it will be the result only of the costs incurred by this
office in defending any such actions.

If there is any further assistance which we can provide,
please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yourse

EVELLE J. YOUNGER
Attorne General

CARL BO KAY
Assistant Attorney General
71, , L'I (f - , 0
RICHARD C. COBS
Deputy Att ey General

RCJ.-gj
J C013S
Ge3
@ey

Supporting Document F

ANALYSIS BY STATE AGENCIES
OF INDIVIDUAL COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Compiled by
Legislative Analyst

March 1976

Analysis by State Agencies
of Individual Coastal Plan Policies

Compiled by
Legislative Analyst

Part If of the Coastal Plan as published on December 1, 1975

contains 162 policies which form the basis for the proposed management

of coastal resources. A large number of these policies propose new,

revised or expanded programs or work for the existing departments, boards

and commissions of state government. With the cooperation of the Admini-

stration, many of these departments, boards and commissions were asked to

provide information for purposes of the SR 41 study on the effect-these

policies would have on them. Specifically, the agencies were asked to

estimate the increment of costs over their present activities which the

individual policies propose and to describe any benefits.

An incremental approach was necessary because the variotts-policies

propose a wide variety of new or changed activities. The responses became

so complex, however, that extensive simplification of the analytical approach

became urgent. Accordingly, in such areas as housing and industrial develop-

ment, data was.not collected because initial inquiries indicated that

existing state agencies did not have the ability to estimate these policies.

in the form expressed. _In addition, where agency responses indicated no

cost or savings or where the policy was in the nature of a "truism" or

vague or not otherwise subject to analysis, the policy was not included

in this analysis. Finally, if the policy was found to be essentially state-

wide or national in irts application, it was not included because the policy

was not basically a coastline issue.

The departments, boards.and commissions of the Resources Agency

have indicated for each of those plan policies that affect,their re-
sponsibilities, (1) whether the policy, has federal, state, state man-
dated costs, local costs, or private sector impact, (2) the increment of

costs orsavings and nature of economic effects and (3) benefits, dis-

advantages and comments pertaining to the policies.

The responses of the individual departments, boards and commissions

have been integrated in the attached material. The material is intended

for use as a reference or information document. It is essentially resources
oriented. In some cases the material from the agencies has been condensed4,

but a special effort was made not to change the meaning of any response.
__T hme.. b- - - f - 11 6y- -he
rie title of the policy is s own t number assiqned to

it.in the p urther description of the policy must be secured fr m
0'.

plan itself many instances a policy has subparts which are labeled
alphabetically as in the plan. These also are shown. The individual responsesl

follow And are shown by abbreviation of agency titles.

It was hoped that sufficient similarity of responses in the "Incre-

ment of Cost" column could be secured to permit summarizing the material

into some more useful form. However, the wide scope of the policies, the

differences in planning and analytical capabilities precludeddeveloping

sufficient similarity in the responses to permit direct summarizing.

Several comments will assist in the use of the material. In only

a few inst anceswas it poss ible to estimate costs or impacts in dollars

and approxi mati ons were theref ore used. Where the terms "mi noy%,

"significant" or "major" costs are used, the appropriate context is the

size of the existing program which is addressed by the policy and not an

arbitrary value that applies to all programs. Responses where possible

show policies which are judged to be labor intensive, capital intensive,

long or short-term, growth retarding, or energy intensive. This was done

because these terms are indicators of economic impacts (and in some re-

spects benefits) of the policies. Note that the State Lands Commission may

approach a policy with respect to the tide and submerged lands under its

jurisdiction while the Department of Conservation may consider private

range, brush or timber lands. Each department, board or commission has

used its own perspective in responding. Each agency was asked to provide

the information on an objective basis without regard to whether the agency

agreed or disagreed with the policy.

Several observations can be made regarding the material:
1. -The co-sts-ar-e high and the benefits arelarge. __ T-his shouIId __b-e

e scope o e po icies an their s r g n
expected because 0 -tli- _f -th -------- d___ t in-e cy. Note

in particular that the hIgh-co-sts- estim-ated by the State Water Resources-
Control- Board must b-6--limite-d -by the premi'�e-s stated by the board.

2. The state mandated local costs (SB 90) can become an important

consideration, particularly where an existing regulatory agency such as

the State Water Resources Control Board antedates or is exempt from the

requirements for state payment of local mandated costs and a new coastal

regulatory agency would likely not be exempt.

3. Where a policy has the prospect of duplicating work among

several state agencies, or it is not clear how the work would be performed

iii

by individual departments, boards or commissions, that condition tends to be

indicated by the number and type of responses.made by the individual

agencies. (See for example, policy 22).

4. The material in the responses primarily covers governmental

costs. Note, however, the frequency that "private sector impact" has

been checked even though there is not much information available on the

extent or nature of the impact. For this reason, much of the material

prepared by the consultants' studies approaches the policies from the

perspective of the private sector. This was done in an effort to con-

sider both the governmental and private sector impacts.

The following abbreviations have been used:

DC - Department of Conservation

DFG,- Department of Fish and Game

DNOD Department of Navigation and Ocean Development

DPR Department of Parks and Recreation

DWR Department of Water Resources

ERCDC Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission

SLC State Lands Commission

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page I
Location of I pact f
Policies 44 re Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
U #a 0
and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4J
.v _J U
4, S_

3a Effective marine resource
management

Department of Fish and Game Major annual cost to DFG from F G Preser- Labor intensive if DFG were provided more
(DFG) X vation Fund and General Fund. Resource funds to more properly manage the state's
conserving. marine resources. Increase private in-
vestment it the department were proviled
adWit-T-onal funds and manpower to better
manage the state's marine resources which
in turn would attract private investment
in harvesting the resources. Policy
would help the department. However, a
disadvantage would be that the depart-
ment and the Coastal Commission would
have to come to an agreement over per-
formance objectives. This could be a
hindrance to the department's operations.
Reference to a commercial fishing academy
is vague and does not take into account
the existence of Humboldt State Univer-
sity's fishery program nor the past pro-
grams of the state's university and
community colleges.
4. Criteria for aquaculture
(DFG) X Unknown capital or annual costs. However, Policy would put undue strain on DFG funds
depending upon interpretation, we see ex- if the department is required to expand
penditures of about $600,000 for research its mariculture operations. Alternative
from F A G Preservation Fund. sources of funds should be provided to
accommodate the expansion. Labor in-
tensive, increases private investment,
resource conserving. Advantage of
policy is that it could make the depart-
ment's mariculture operations better
known which could result in additional
funding if needed. Stimulates develop-
ment of mariculture operations. Cost
estimate based upon research and lab
facility construction.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 2

lo ation of I Dact
4V Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4J (0 4J %-
Policies to M a and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
a) 4J 4J 41
V) 4-; 'MV _J U

4. (cont.)
State Water Resources Control Minor recurring federal and state cost in SWRCB currently has no policy on
Board administration and monitoring of aquaculture aquacul tu re.
(SWRCB) X X waste discharge.

5a Reserve adequate space for
commercial fishing facilities X X Unknown capital or annual costs. Labor and capital intensive. Advantage
DFG would be to ensure that the commercial
fishing industry has adequate facilities
Department of Navigation & Major depressant to growth of recreational for effective operation.
Ocean Development (DNOD) X X X boating industry. Restricts potential for
increased property tax revenue-to local govt.
5b Allow for needed commercial Unknown annual costs. Policy too vague. Labor and capital intensive. Advantage
fishing facilities X X Increases public or private investment. of policy is that commercial fishing
DFG interests generally have been ignored
in favor of pleasure craft. Commercial
fishing industry is a coastal dependent
industry and needs the proposed protec-
tion. Protects commercial fishermen.
Requires revision of local general
harbor plans.

6 Expand ocean water quality
research and regulatory
program
DFG X Minor unknown costs to OFG. Resource Provides added protection to marine
conserving. resources. Will help department protect
the state's fish and wildlife and their
habitat. Will add emphasis to need to
protect living marine resources from the
adverse effects of waste discharges. Re-
quires SWRCB to be more cognizant of fish
and wildlife protection.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 3

Location of IQDact

% Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 4J M'a to 4J
W .0 ZGJ U as 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
+J 4J 0
4J
U

6. (cont.)
SWRCB X X X X X Significant increased recurring costs to Minor benefit from additional ocean
federal, state, and local government and the water quality research and regulatory
private sector. The determination of whether activity beyond existing state pro-
any of the increased costs to local govern- grams.
ment are "state mandated costs" is difficult
to make in the present context. (See foot-
note #1).

7. Maintain, manage and restore Approximately $348 million in additional The SWRCB would be required to set waste
ocean water quality capital costs and approximately $75 million discharge standards appropriate to assure
SWRCB X X X X in additional annual maintenance and opera- compliance with the objectives of main-
tion costs for municipal wastewater facilities taining, managing, and where necessary,
in the Coastal Resource Management Area. If restoring "the natural quality of ocean
these increased capital costs were considered water appropriate to the maintenance of
grant eligible under federal law and regula- optimum populations of marine organisms
tions and state law and regulations, these and for the protection of public health
capital costs would be allocated approximately ..." Although the SWRCH is authorized
as follows: Federal - 75%; State - 12.5%; to use either EPA or SWRCB standards
Local - 12.5%. If, however, these increased (whichever are more stringent), those
capital costs were not-grant eligible under standards would be considered a minimum
either federal or state law, then the local requirement. The authority for
government would be financially responsible SWRCB to set more rigorous standards
for these costs. At this time it is impossible is explicit in the policy. Implicit,
to determine whether these costs would be eli- however, is the Coastal Agency's author-
gible. Annual maintenance and operation costs ity to require more rigorous standards
would be financed solely by local government. than the SWRCB deems appropriate for
achieving the policy's objectives. Even
if the authority to fix standards were to
remain with the SWRCB, the Coastal Agency
could, in actuality, impose stricter
standards by virture of its authority
to "... approve, modify or disapprove
development proposals and plans ... to
assure that the objectives of this policy

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 4

Location of ImDact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4J &-
Policies M M: 0) U (a 0
41 4J 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41
V)

7. SWRCB (cont.) will not be fruttrated..." The vagueness
of policy terms such as "natural quality"
and "optimum populations" assure, that.
many differences will occur between
agency interpretations of what standards,
and hence what levels of wastewater treat-
ment, are necessary for achieving the
stated objectives. The estimated addi-
tional costs that could result from this
policy were derived by extrapolation to
all coastal municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants of an actual case example-
one in which the Coastal Commission re-
quired treatment beyond conventional
secondary for a southern California
plant to effect a reduction in effluent
nitrogen (ammonia-nitrogen) which, in
the Commission's opinion (not in the
SWRCB's), was necessary to protect
marine life.
7c. Require adequate treatment Major capital costs to federal, state and See Policy 7 "Benefits ..." statement.
for new or enlarged dis- local government, and private sector. For
charges to other coastal details, see Policy 7 statement.
waters
SWRCB X X X X

7e. Restrict expansion of sub- No incremental costs. Minor incremental benefits. Policy
standard sewage systems would assist the state board in con-
SWRCB trolling proposed developments and
plans which could impact adversely
on water quality.

7f. Require source control No incremental costs. Minor incremental benefits. Policy
SWRCB would assist the state board in con-:
trolling proposed developments and plans
which could impact adversely on water
quality.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 5

Location of I act

W Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies - M .0 'Z,
go X: a; U to0
W 4J 4J 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
v) _J U

8. Stress reclamation of waste- Major capital and recurring costs to federal, Benefits from conservation of the state's
water state and local govermnent and private sector. limited freshwater resource. See
SWRCB X X X X The following examples illustrate the poten- "Increment of costs" column for dis-
tial economic impact on municipal wastewater advantages.
systems if implementation resulted in a man-
date for wastewater reclamation in the Coastal
Resource Management Area.

1. City of San Diego: Additional capital costs
up to $49 million. Additional annual main-
tenance and operation costs up to
$3,300,000.
2. City of Los Angeles: Additional capital
costs up to $78 million. Additional annual
maintenance and operation costs up to
$5,280,000.
3. Los Angeles County (County Sanitation Dis-
tricts of Los Angeles County): Additional
capital costs up to $200 million. Addi-
tional annual maintenance and operation
costs up to $15 million.
4. City and County of San Francisco: Addi@
tional capital costs up to $29 million.
Additional annual maintenance and operation
costs up to $2 million.

These costs do not include those for necessary
delivery systems-to distribute reclaimed water
to actual users where users can be found. It
is probable that beneficial uses exist or could
be developed for only a limited amount of re-
claimed water generated. Capital costs would be
allocated approximately as follows: Federal -
75%; State - 12.5%, Local - 12.5%. Annual main-
tenance and operation costs would be financed
solely from local sources. The capital costs
may.not be grant eligible (See Footnote #2)

Page 6
ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Location of I act
0J I - W Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
41 M 41
Policies M ai U M
a) 4J 41 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4)
V) Id _J U
4, 'D

8. DWR (Department of Water X X X $50,000/yr above ongoing program, resource Protects estuaries, reduces need for im-
Resources) conserving impact. Additional local and pri- ported.water. Assumed DWR is a coopera-
vate sector construction cost forwastewater tor with SWRCB, Public Health and local,
reclamation facilities. Increase public and agencies in an augmented program.
private investment if they are required to
reclaim their wastewater.

10. Avoid adverse effects of Because the magnitude of the restoration pro- Minor incremental benefits. Present
thermal discharge and en- gram is not specified, additional costs could plans and programs are adequate.
trainment range from minor to major. Costs incurred by
SWRCB X X X X federal, state and local government, and by
the private sector.
Energy Resources Conservatior
& Development Commission Substantial increased costs to utility com- The economic considerations of any one
(ERCDC) X X panies. Slight increase for commission to policy needs to be considered in relation
determine conformance - $6,250. to various benefits and tradeoffs

10a Criteria for permitting Major capital costs to private sector. These Present plans and programs are adequate.
thermal discharges costs might exceed the benefits.
SWRCB X
10b Prohibit all harmful dis- Additional costs could range from minor to Minor to significant incremental benefits
charges into areas of special significant depending on magnitude of pro- in areas of special biological importance
biologic importance hibition program. The costs would be incurred which are not already so protected.
SWRCB X X X X by whomever was subject to the prohibition
ruling, i.e., federal, state, and/or local
government, and/or the private sector.
10c Study marine system at future No costs to DFG. Resource conserving. Labor Protects marine resources by providing
sites of seawater using In- and capital intensive. background information. DFG could be
dustrial or power plants contracted as an independent marine ex-
DFG X pert. Disadvantage is that the developer
would be prohibited from conducting his
own baseline studies or from hiring com-
petent consultants to provide the infor-
mation. Developer should have preroga-
tive to make this choice as long as the
"baseline" studies are carried out in a
manner acceptable to DFG & SWRCB.

0. ail)
min

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Location of ImDact

(U Increment of Cost (Savings)
4. W Z
Policies M X: a) U M0 and Nature of Economic Effects
W 41 4J 0
41

11. Prevent release of oil and
toxic substances by. strict Added annual cost of $50,000 $100,000 if Bulk of wo
regulation SLC given major authority.
State Lands Commission (SLC) X

11a Site, design and operate pe- Minor annual cost to DFG. Resource con- Protects li
troleum facilities to pre- serving. oil spills.
vent adverse impacts protect fis
DFG X X However, th
probably co

Ilb Research and regulation en- Major unknown annual costs to DFG. Resource Protects ma
forcement. conserving. could be de
DFG X and hazardo
responsibil
be a tremen
of policy p
tion of cos
tion Fund m
for this ef

SWRCB X X X X Significant recurring costs to public and Due to fund
private sectors for research and regulation is not bein
enforcement. research is
heavy metal
12. Enact state oil spill lia- State - minor recurring cost. Industry - $100
bility measures million one time, plus incremental offsets as
SLC X X needed.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 8

Location of lim)act

W Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
41 7; 41 &_
Policies M U M0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
a, 41 41 0 -

14. Control runoff that degrades Minor capital and annual state cost. Signi- Policy will protect marine resources,
coastal waters. ficant capital and annual state mandated estuaries,agricultural lands,.shoreline,
local and private sector costs Principal wildlife, coastal lowlands, and design
Department of Conservation costs will be to implement mea;ures to pro- quality. Additional costs wi.11 be in-
(D.C.) X X X X X tect against pollution and erosion. Amount curred to control pollution and runoff
,(Includes policies 14a, b and source of funding unknown. and for necessary land use adjustments
& C) Policy will be growth retarding and resource and regulatory programs on forest and
and land conserving in coastal watersheds, but watershed lands. as well as urban and
the reverse elsewhere.. Overall economic effect agricultural lands.
will probably balance. Effect on private sec- Policy overlaps the authority of the Board
tor will depend on severity of restrictions of Forestry in the area of forest.practice
placed on builders by ordinances; cost regulation and Chapter 70 of Uniform
probably will be passed on to consumer. Building Code.
A state or local regulatory program to
control coastal erosion and pollution
would probably cost about the same as
the present forest practice program
($2 million/year). See also Urban
Geology Master Plan for costs to private
sector
SLC X X Minor state costs. Local cost undetermined. Major impact point - local.

SWRCB X Significant incremental recurring costs to Policy would assist the board in protect-
the private sectors. ing the state's waters from oil and toxic
spills or discharges. -Policy would pro-
vide financial disincentives for irre-
sponsible actions by an operator and pro-
vide a fund to clean up any spills or
discharges that might occur.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 9

Lo" afion of Im6act

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4J M 10 M 4J
Policies to
and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4J 4J 0 4J
4
a _J T
; UW

14b Treat polluted and contamin- Minor recurring costs for stormwater runoff Minor incremental benefits insofar as
ated runoff at source monitoring to both the public and private additional pretreatment of polluted and
sectors. contaminated runoff would reduce the
SWRCB X X X X
need for additional treatment of re-
ceiving waters.

14c Adopt ordinances to control Minor unknown annual cost to DFG. Resource Protects estuaries. Protects anadromous
runoff, erosion and silt. conserving. fish streams. Vagueness of policy pro-
DFG X 6ibit�meiningful cost.evaluation.

15. Give special,protection to
estuaries and wetlands
S.L.C. X $50,006 per year.

D.C. X X X X Federal, state, local and private sector
costs would be minor. Program could be
accomplished by shifting priorities and
grants from federal government.

ONOD (See policy #5)
15a Restrict new development in [email protected]"146 existing and'26'orop'o's'ed treat- Policywould be extremely beneficial be-
wetlands ment facilities within the Coastal Resources cause it would provide greater protection
SWRCB X X X X MAna efitWea-(fi0.iAhcl6difig 1976-77 Project than presently exists for the state's
st3em t
Li . The otal gr:nt cost for modification valuable and limited wetland resources.
Wexistifi� fAdiliti s --and"c6hstruction"of
proposed new facilities is about $1.2 billion.
Coficeivably@@-thii ipolicy'-@could- ihcrias6,_sub-'--
stantially ihei@cson:st@utti66'dost@s:,6f@th'e'se.
facilititsl4s,ifiditated beldW:

P
01 could,,T0_61t in significant,i6creases
in ca0iiat Costs if-treatment facil'iti6s pro-
posed-for-construction in-or--near existing-
iTt in-stead
or restorable wetlands must be bu
-most;economical
in areas Jar,removed frommthe
locations.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 10

Location of I act

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 41 S_
M Z:a) U0 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41 4J 0
4J
V) _j U
4@ 'a
Jn_

15a SWRCB (cont.) If replacement areas must be provided for
those lands diked or filled for construction
of treatment facilities or if an in-lieu fee
sufficient to provide an equivalent area is
assessed, the capital costs would.be increased.

Increase in cost due to longer pipelines.

Higher land acquisition costs.

Policy would be growth reducing and ultimately
population stabilizing.

DFG X X Unknown capital or annual costs. Resource Protects coastal wetlands. Because
conserving. coastal wetlands are scarce and ex-
tremely valuable to numerous fish and
wildlife resources, including rare or
endangered species, it is of great ad-
vantage that the policy is included in
the plan. Vagueness of policy prohibits
sound economic analysis.
15a(4) Restriction on energy May be slight increase to utility companies. Does not sound unreasonable but ERCDC
facilities development in Minimal fiscal impact on commission. $12,500 should make decision and not be limited
wetlands (.5 man years per year) per siting. in terms of siting.
ERCDC X X

15b Restore degraded wetlands
SWRCB (Same analysis as
policy 15a)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 11

Location of IflDaCt

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies W (0 0 and Nature of Economic Effects
4' 4J 1 4J and Comments
I V)

15b DFG X X Minor unknown annual DFG costs. Resource Protects estuaries. If DFG must become
conserving. actively involved, then a major expendi-
ture of Fish and Game Preservation Fund
monies will be required. The policy is
unclear in this regard. See policy 15a
for advantage of policy.

15c Prepare and implement com- Minor recurring costs to federal, state, and Policy would assist the board by en -suring
prehensive estuarine plans local government, and to the private sector. that proposed projects within wetlands
Costs are minor primarily because there are and estuarine areas give adequate con-
SWRCB X X X X relatively few estuaries in California. It sideration to enviroranental impacts,
should be noted that the existing Water including water quality.
Quality Control Plans, adopted by the
regional boards and approved by the state
board, were prepared at the reconnaissance
level of planning. In contrast, the compre-
hensive estuarine plans described in Policy
15c would be prepared at the feasibility level
of planning and therefore would be more de-
tailed. In addition, the comprehensive es-
tuarine plans would be broader in scope than
the Water Quality Control Plans. It also
should be noted that EIR's and EIS's are not
as detailed as the proposed comprehensive
estuarine plans.

DFG X X Significant unknown DFG cost. Resource Protects coastal wetlands. See policy
conserving. 15a for advantages. Vagueness of policy
prohibits meaningful cost evaluation.
Department of Parks and Planning $10,000 yearly. Local costs DPR would not participate except on
Recreation (DPR) X X indeterminate. individual projects.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 12

Lo ation of Impact

4J W Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies
and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41 4J 0
LL V) .0 _J
4J
-61 QI ---01
16. Protect other coastal waters Significant additional capital costs to Significant benefits would accrue because
by limiting dredging, federal, state and local government and to this policy would provide greater pro-
diking and filling private sector. These costs would arise tection than presently exists for
SWRCB X X X X because the policy might require the use of coastal waters.
more expensive sites for building structures
than otherwise would have been built on
filled land or within diked areas.

SLC X Minimal state cost.
17. Require replacement areas Significant capital costs to federal, state Major benefits from providing greater
for diked or filled areas X X X and local government, and to the private sec- protection than presently exists for
tor with most of the costs being borne by the the state's wetland resources.
local and private sector. With regard to the
Federal and State Clean Water Grant Program,
see general comments in Policy 15a which re-
lates to the number of existing and proposed
wastewater treatment facilities within the
Coastal Resource Management Area and the cost
of upgrading present treatment facilities and
the cost of.construction of proposed facili-
ties. If replacement areas must be provided
for those lands diked or filled for construc-
tion of treatment facilities or if an in-lieu
fee sufficient to provide an equivalent area
is assessed, the capital costs for such con-
struction would be significantly increased.
Essentially, the policy might dictate double
land acquisition.
SLC X Private costs for restoration sites
undeterminable.

Iowa-

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 13

Location of ImDact
Policies Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4@ M 4j
M to0
4) 4J and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
L' tn _j 'Pu
4-0

17. (cont.)

X X X Unknown capital and annual DFG costs. Re- Protects coastal wetlands. Cost
source conserving. Displaces local taxes. evaluation not feasible because of
vagueness. Advantage to fish and
wildlife resources because it would
replace valuable wetlands that would
be destroyed by development. The
operating and maintenance costs could
be significant if the in-lieu fees
were turned over to DFG for purchase
of land.

18. Regulate permitted dredging
SWRCB X X X X Signifi -cant recurring costs to federal, state, Minor incremental benefits in maintain-
and local government and to the private sec- ing beaches in this manner.
tors. These costs would be associated with
beach replenishment activity, with a substan-
tial portion of the expense resulting from
the energy intensive act of transporting
dredged sediments to appropriate disposal sites

19. Criteria for seawalls,
breakwaters, and other
shoreline structures
SWRCB X X X X Possible significant capital costs to federal, Significant benefits insofar as this
state, and local governments and to private policy would help to minimize marine
sector. water quality problems.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 14

Location of I Dact
W rl_ - W Increm ent of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
41 m 'a m 4J &_
Policies 'a M X: 0i U M0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4) 4J 41 0
4J 0

20. Initiate positive programs to
restore sand supply
SWRCB X X Significant additional recurring costs to Minor incremental benefits resulting from
federal and state government. a new program to restore sand supplies to
California's beaches, but such a program
would most likely be energy intensive.

SLC X X X Costs could be considerable dependent on scope
of program adopted.

DC ? X X Annual state cost of $300,000 - $1,500,000 per Protects marine resource (mineral). Aids
year for ten years. Lead agency (state, fed- in erosion protection of beaches and
eral, local) not identified. Resource con- coastal headlands. Requires time-con-
serving. Cost based on CIT and Scripps esti- suming study of large geographic area
mates for a similar smaller sediment study in and use of specialized equipment. Diffi-
Southern California. Their costs estimated cult environment for research. Policy
at $100,000 - $300,000 for ten years. vague as to exactly what agency would
conduct research, detail of work, and
expected time for completion.

DPR X X K One-half OPR Planner - $10,000. DPR would.realize greater use of beaches
for recreation.

DWR X X X DWR: $50,000/yr. Minor local and private Maintains and enhances beaches, minimize
cost. Resource conserving. costs of groins, jetties, etc. DWR
would cooperate with DNOD, Corps of
Engineers, et al.

==Mm

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 15

Locationof Impact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disa
Policies 4J M 4J dvantages
0) 0
X: U M and Nature of Economic Effects
41 41 0 -1 and Comments
.M _J 4
U
41 S_
22. Prepare and implement com- Significant capital costs to federal and state The policy implies that much of the com-
prehensive watershed manage- government to prepare plans. Major recurring prehensive management planning will be
ment plans costs to federal,state and local government satisfied by the present programs of the
and to the private sector to'implement the state board under Section 201, 208, and
SWRCB X X X X plans. Since development within the coastal 303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution
resource management area must be in confor- Control Act. This implication is not
mance with the comprehensive watershed manage- completely accurate and the relationship
ment plan and since such a plan could impose and output of these three planning pro-
additional requirements on the performance, grams of the state board should be
location, design of wastewater treatment briefly explained. (See footnote #3).
facilities, such plans could force the state
board to restructure its present statewide
priority for distribution of the funds avail-
able through the Federal and State Clean
Water Grant Program. See also Policy 8.

DWR X X X $100,000/yr. Major amounts of staff services Protect and enhance resources for bene-
to furnish local input to plans. Resource fit of the public. Basis for control of
conserving and enhancement. development.
DC X X X X X Substantial short-term private costs will be Policy will protect marine resources.
incurred as a result of land use adjustments estuaries, forest and agricultural lands,
and mitigation of watershed damage and in- shoreline, wildlife and design quality,
creased operating costs. Significant public and will encourage judicious use of re-
sector costs will be incurred to plan and sources and land. Policy will restrict
implement. Major costs will be incurred by commercial and residential development
the private sector in terms of opportunity and cause land use displacement. This
costs, mitigation of watershed damage and land policy will be difficult to implement
use adjustments. since it suggests extensive multi-agency
participation through all levels of
Implementation could generate major savings government and suggests strong land use
in the area of watershed protection and the control and regulatory authority over
management and utilization of forest and land management practices.
.rangeland resources in coastal watersheds.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 16

location of Impact
M @a 4J L. Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies M M: W U M a
4, 41 410 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4J
ro _J V

22. DC (cont.) The watershed plans could provide the basis
for land use adjustments and management prac-
tices that would reduce the cost of watershed
fire protection and associated damage and re-
habilitation. The potential savings to state
and local government could exceed $10 million
annually. Substantial costs will be incurred
in the public sector for actual watershed
planning. Past experience has shown that
small watershed plans involving several hundred
square miles have cost several hundred thousand
dollars, while large plans involving 20,000
to 30,000 square miles have cost $1-@ million
to $2 million. It is estimated that these
costs will be more than offset by future
savings. Policy will be growth retarding
and resource and land conserving within
coastal watersheds, but may stimulate growth
and resource use in other areas. Policy
should reduce property taxes in coastal
watersheds.

22a Procedure for preparation
and implementation of water-
shed plans
UFG X X Significant unknown annual costs to DFG from Protects habitat of living marine re-
F & G Preservation Fund. Resource conserving. sources. Advantage is that it will make
the SWRCB or other lead agency more cog-
nizant of including fish and wildlife
needs in these plans. Fish and wildlife
will benefit through habitat protection.
Alleviates,possibilities of conflicts
between F & G Commission, DFG rules and
regulations and local rules and regula-
tions.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 17

Location of Impact
Policies 4J 4J Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4-P 4@ 0 > 4J
4-; U

23. Relate development and water Minor annual and capital costs to state, Some additional protection.would be
supply decisions to coastal local and private sector. State mandated afforded to forest, brush and grass
watershed management plans costs unknown. Funding source unknown. covered lands in coastal watersheds.
Minor additional costs would be incurred to Minor restrictions would be imposed
D.C. (Includes policies a, X X X X X provide additional watershed protection, with respect to land use and associated
b, c and d) chiefly in fire protection and regulatory development activities. This policy
programs. Policy would have minor resource could be implemented with respect to
and land conserving impacts. If possible, forest practice regulition and fire
would make large future savings in capital protection through increases in existing
cost of water development at federal and programs. New authorities and programs
state levels. would be necessary to provide additional
watershed protection on brush and grass
covered lands.

DWR X X X $200,000/yr. Local significant amount of Control development. Protect surface
staff services. Private - Minor. Impact streams and groundwater basins. DWR
resource conserving. specified in policy 23d to take lead
role In-providing a coordinated program.

23a Conform water supply plans
to watershed plans
SWRCB X X X X Possible major capital and/or recurring costs If the water supply plans were used for
to federal, state, and local government and to purpose of protecting coastal resources.
the private sector. major benefits could accrue to the
people of the State of California.
Policy is growth reducing and population
stabilizing.

23b Development shall not adver- Major recurring costs to federal, state, and Significant benefits insofar as this
seley affect local water local government and to the private sector. policy would provide additional pro-
resources Significant recurring costs to local agencies tection for water recharge areas.
SWRCB X X X X that carry out flood plain zoning. Policy is growth reduc, Ing and population
stabilizing.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 18

Location of Impact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4J M 'D 1Z
Policies M X: W U w 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4, 41 4@ 0 > 4J
(n 4; _J T: U
I A-
23c Avoid need for future water
importation.
SWRCB There would be no incremental costs. Significant benefits insofar as this
policy would encourage more prudent
utilization of our natural resources.
Policy is growth reducing and population
stabilizing.
23d Water management shall Major incremental capital costs to federal, Significant benefits. However, this
stress conservation state, and local government and to private policy would hinder the board's efforts
SWRCB x x x x sector. to upgrade the state's water quality by
placing water reclamation projects at a
cost-effective advantage over similar
projects inland. The resulting re-
structuring of funding priorities could
frustrate the state board's efforts to
maintain and protect water quality in
California. The situation would be
aggravated if Policy 23d were applied
only to the coastal zone or coastal re-
source management area. On the other
hand, if this policy were applied state-
wide it would assist DWR in carrying out
its mandate to conserve the state's
freshwater resource and an affirmative
program for water conservation is needed.

-Amps,,

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 19

location of I bact

Increment
Policies 4J M 4J %_ of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
_C; M V M0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
0, 4J 4@ 0 4J
4;

24 Review major projects affect-
ing coastal streams
D.C. (Includes policies a, X X X X X Minor state cost. Significant state mandated Policy will provide additional protec-
b, c and d) and local level annual cost. Major cost tion to marine resources, estuaries,
could be incurred in the private sector to shoreline, coastal lowlands, and design
implement land use adjustments and project quality. If rigorously enforced, it
mitigation measures to comply with policy could severely restrict commercial and
objectives so as to obtain.-permits. Policy residential development and greatly in-
could be growth retarding and resource and crease the cost of these activities.
land conserving in coastal watersheds, but Neither benefits nor costs can be pre-
the reverse elsewhere. Major costs could be cisely quantified because they will vary
incurred by the private sector and significant in proportion to the scope of this effort.
costs to implement policy would be incurred This policy extends interim permit
by the public sector. However, this policy authority of the successor coastal agency
is not much stronger than present federal and far inland. Full implementation could
state law (e.g.. PL 92-500 Sec. 208, 404, etc.) increase the cost of timber harvesting
under which this type of regulation may be on several million acres of inland water-
required. Partly implemented by CEQA. sheds. Under special circumstances,
large timber harvesting operations could
be curtailed or prohibited. (See
"economic effects".)

DWR X $150,000/yr. Local - minor amount of staff Provide.basis for orderly development
time in review process. Private - minor. theough projected analysis of environ-
Impact - growth control that is in best inter- mental impact reports for a large
est of the public. number of small projects.
24a Project review procedure for If the state and each regional board were There would not be any incremental
major projects affecting designated as the agencies to issue the benefits. Present programs and policies
coastal streams interim permits, then the administrative adequate.
SWRCB X X X X costs would be almost nonexistent. If, how-
ever, another state agency were required to
implement a new permit program, It could re-
sult in a significant increased incremental
cost.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 20

Location of Impact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 41 M -, 1@; +J &_
Im lu U and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
W 41 4J 0
4J
L@ U
4@ -a

24a SWRCB (cont.) Federal, state, or local government or the
private sector might incur a significant
capital cost resulting from the inability,
to use the least expensive streamside site.

24b Criteria for projects that,
would alter natural streams
SWRCB X X X X Federal, state and local governments would Minor incremental costs.
incur significant capital costs resulting from
necessary redesign of highways and roads.

DFG X Significant unknown annual savings to F & G Protects anadromous fish habitat.
Preservation Fund. Resource conserving. Could save the department a goodly sum
of money by prohibiting alteration of
stream channels. Presently, the depart-
ment expends a great deal of effort on
enforcement of Sections 1601 and 1602
of the Fish and Game Code on coastal
streams alterations. A survey two
years ago showed that the deportment
expended 8 to 9 man-years of effort
statewide. A major portion of this
effort was conducted on coastal streams.

24c Approved projects must miti-
gate damage
SWRCB X X X X Significant capital costs to federal, state Minor incremental benefits resulting
and local government and to the private sector from requiring projects to be designed
as it concerns sand transport capability. to maintain sand supplies to Califor-
nia's beaches. However, policy should
only allow maintenance of sand transport
when such action would not impair water
quality and a demonstrated need exists
for beach replenishment.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 21

Lo ation of I pact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies M 41 1-
W U and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
a, 41 41 0
41
z

24d Provide interim protection of
sand supply Minor recurring costs of these studies would Significant benefits from the protection.
SWRCB x x x x be incurred by federal, state and local govern- of natural sand supply and transport
ment and the private sector. Also, the pri- mechanisms.
vate sector would incur the costs of a bond.

25 Provide special protection for
anadromous fish streams
DFG (includes policies a & b) x Significant unknown annual costs to the F & G Protects anadromous fish habitat. Policy
Preservation Fund. General Fund augmentation would help to increase anadromous fish
to DFG needed. Resource conserving. Policy population through restoration of habi-
too vague to provide meaningful cost estimate. tat. The added funds would help the
department to conduct necessary stream
surveys to identify critical spawning
areas, habitats to be restored and the
size of fish runs. Commercial (salmon
only) and sports fishermen will benefit.
DC (Includes policies a & b) X x X, x x Minor state and local cost. Significant This policy will protect marine resources,
capital and annual cost to private sector. coastal streams, and estuaries. It may
Significant costs may be incurred for addition- restrict commercial and residential
al mitigation to protect against pollution development activities and increase
and erosion from timber harvesting, road operating costs in certain coastal water-
construction and certain agricultural acti- sheds. This policy will require addi-
vities. (For benefits, see Fish and Game) tional regulation of forest practices
Resource conserving. but could have minor in certain areas and could require
growth retarding impacts. additional regulation of certain
agricultural practices.

SWRCB x x x x There would be significant costs to federal, There would be significant benefit in
state and local government and the private protecting this resource.
sector for habitat restorative measures.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 22

location of ImRact
4@ M -0 '@; 4J S_ Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies T; M X: Q) L' Mo and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
0) 4-- 410
4J
__J U
4"0 (U

26. Preserve significant natural
areas and rare species
DFG X X Major unknown 6pital and annual costs from Protects fish and wildlife habitat and
F & G Preservation Fund if DFG required to would ensure the sustenance and main-
restore such areas. Significant operating and tenance of threatened living plant and
maintenance costs. Would require augmented animal resources.
funds from the General Fund. Resource conserv-
ing. Reduces property taxes. Increases pri-
vate and public investment. Displaces local
tax base. Cost estimate not available be-
cause policy is vague.
DPR X X X Costs indeterminate. Conservation easement could affect
private.sector.

D.C. (Includes policy 27, X X X X X Significant costs at the state and local levels Policies will protect significant natural
fragile habitat) for acquisition, maintenance and protection. areas and rare speciesand indirectly pro-
Significant costs might be incurred in the vide minor watershed protection benefits.
private sector as a result of land use ad- Will restrict to a minor degree timber
justments and mitigation measures. Amount harvesting activities and certain agri-
and source of funding unknown. Policies cultural practices. Policies can be
growth retarding and resource and land conserv- implemented to a significant degree under
ing in the coastal resource management area, the present authority of the Forest
but may stimulate growth and resource use in Practice Act on timberlands and William-
adjacent areas. son Act for scenic easements, preserves,
etc. Acquisition, management and regu-
latory costs based on expansion of exist-
ing programs. Private sector costs
based on past experience.

SLC (Includes policies 26-29 X $200,000 over two-year period. Total costs
natural habitat areas) would be dependent on land purchases to be
made in final acquisition list.

"Aw W M'= M W! M
4r

Location of ImDact f ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 23

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies q, U 40 0
4J and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4J
V)

27. Protect fragile habitat areas
DPR X Cost indeterminate.

28. Control development adjacent Minor added cost at state level for regulatory Policy will protect marine resources,
to significant and fragile programs. Significant public costs could be estuaries, shoreline, wildlife, and de-
habitat areas. incurred at the local level for administration sign quality, and result in minor addi-
and regulation. Significant private sector tional watershed protection. It will
D.C. (Includes policies a, X X X X X costs as a result of land use adjustments and restrict certain commercial and residen-
b & c) necessary mitigation measures. Policy re- tial development and increase public and
source and land conserving and minor growth private operating costs in limited areas.
retarding. These effects may be compensated On forested areas, this policy can largely
elsewhere. be carried out through extension of
existing forest practice regulations.
Williamson Act could be used.

29. Minimize habitat damage
wherever development is
permitted

D.C. X X X Minor increases in governmental costs. Private Additional protection provided for marine
sector unknown. resources. estuaries, shoreline, wildlife,
coastal lowlands, and design quality.
Minor increases in commercial and resi-
.dential development and operating costs
will be incurred.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 24

Location of I pact

I
a - OJ Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4J 10 'V M 41 1-
Policies la X:W U M0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41 41 0
.@! 41
_J U

30 37 Basic Policy: Protect
agriculture

D.C. X X X X Significant state, local and private sector Policies will provide for the protection
cost. Local tax losses resulting from assess- of agricultural, forest, brush and grass
ment at other than market value could exceed covered watershed lands from nonconform-
state reimbursements under the Open Space ing development activities. Development
Subvention Program (except see AB 2222). could take place in less desirable areas
Policies could result in a significant cost resulting in greater costs. The Open
to the private sector. Tax savings would re- Space Subvention-Program could be in-
sult through assessing under the provisions creased significantly. Local losses or
of Art. XIII of the Constitution and William- tax shifts could exceed state reimburse-
son Act. Policies partially funded under ments. The extent of agricultural lands
Provisions of Williamson Act and Open Space to be preserved and the extent of non-
Subvention Act. Tax shifts would occur. conforming uses of highly productive
forest and rangelands have not been
evaluated. Special consideration should
be given to the maintenance of agricul-
tural land through means other than ac-
quisition,. Economic losses may occur to
forest and rangelands.

38a Protect coastal forest re-
sources. Restrict conversion
of productive timberlands
D.C. X X X X Minor government cost. Significant private Policy will protect timberland from non-
sector costs will be incurred because of land conforming uses and encourage continued
use adjustment and increased development costs. production of forest products. Secon-
Policy growth retarding and resource and land dary benefits will include protection of
conserving in the coastal, zone, but would be watersheds, wildlife, downstream coastal
offset elsewhere. resources and design quality. This
policy could generate significant sav7
ings within the coastal zone for public
services and associated costs. However,
these savings will be offset since de-
velopment activities and conversion will
take place on adjacent or on other forest
lands.
0,

low

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 25

Location of I pact

I
Policies 4J M Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
(U and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41 41
V)

38a D.C. (cont.) General estimates of private sector.,
costs are based on recent conversion
practices on coastal forest lands.
Legislation to clarify timberland
conversion requirements desirable.
38b Protect scenic qualities of
timberlands
D.C. X X X X Minor costs. Principal cost will be to im- Policy will protect design quality on
plement measures to protect scenic quality the coast, but will restrict timber har-
which could involve prohibition or delay of vesting and increase associated costs-
timber harvesting in limited areas. Also, Private sector costs will be increasl@@
minor increases in operational costs would to provide necessary protection of scenic
be involved. Significant growth retarding qualities. Minor increases in forest
and resource and land conserving effects practice regulatory programs at the
could result. state and local levels. Policy over-
laps existing authority of the Board
of Forestry in forest practice regula-
tion. Much of this policy can be im-
plemented through extension of this
authority.

38c Protect water quality from
adverse effects of logging
D.C. X X X X Minor government cost. Also, costs will be Protect marine resources, estuaries,
incurred to implement additional measures for shoreline, coastal lowlands, streams and
erosion protection. Minor growth retarding design quality. It will result in minor
and resource conserving impacts in coastal restrictions in timber harvesting acti-
watersheds. vities and minor increases in operating
costs. Policy can be largely implemented
through existing forest practice regula-
tion.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 26

Location of I Pact

I
W c Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4j 0-0 S_
Policies T; M 2: Q)U o
0, 41 41 0 4@ and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
U_ V) . 'a _j U
41'0

40. Protect coastal soil re- Minor federal and state capital costs. Sig- This policy will provide for information
sources nificant federal and state annual costs. Sigv- that is essential in determining land
nificant annual savings at local level and in capabilities; land use planning and the
D.C. X X X X private sector. Federal funds through the protection of the soil resources. De-
Soil Conservation Service are available on a tailed mapping of large geographic areas
cost-sharing basis. Yearly appropriations would be required. This mapping could be
are made to the Department of Conservation completed through participation by all
for the completion of soil-vegetation surveys. levels of government, either on their
Policy will provide for a knowledge of soils own or through cost-sharing arrangements
and land capabilities. This knowledge will with other levels, i.e., federal and
enhance the economic use and development of local and state. The cost of soil
coastal lands. surveys under programs administered by
the Soil Conservation Service ranges
from $0.80 to $1.00 per acre exclusive
of map compilation and the publishing
of reports. The cost of soil-vegetative
surveys is comparable. Much of the
coastal area has been surveyed, North
coast area includes mapped vegetation.

40-42 Policies on soil and
mineral resources
SLC X Additional costs undeterminable until inven-
tory made. Costs of inventory depend on de-
tail required. Probably $160,000 to $200,000.
41 Regulate mining $100,000 annual state cost for surveys. Sig- Preserves and restricts use of mineral
D.C. X X X nificant local and private sector cost. In- resources. Could contribute to more
creased cost to mine operator would be passed .1environmentally wise" mining operations.
along to consumer. Resource conserving. If Chapter 1131, Statutes of 1975, covers
resource cannot be mined, local agencies could many of the same general concepts. De-
suffer tax loss, both on revenues and property. pending on the types of additional re-
quirements which might be placed on
mining in the coastal zone, the cost to
D.C. might range from slight to great.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 27

Lo ation of I act

Policies 4J M 10 M 4J Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
W M X: 0 U M0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4J 41 0
4J
_J U
-Aa-

42. Inventory and reserve mineral
deposits Depending on the manner in which implemented, Increase awareness of potential mineral
and the exact provisions of Chapter 1131 resources. Protects and restricts use
D.C. X costs could vary from slight to great for of mineral resources. Chapter 113 LI
state, local jurisdictions and private sector.. speaks to same topic. Inventory re-
Resource conserving and may have major long- quirements for this policy should be
term economic savings. modified to match and make use of
Chapter 1131 in order to avoid wasteful
duplication of effort. Division of Oil
and Gas has a program of research and
development of ordinances and regula7
tions concerning oil and gas extraction
in urban areas which matches thrust of
this policy.
43. Design and operate coastal
developments to protect
air quality X Could result in substantial costs to utility
ERCDC companies in limiting fossil fuel site options
to more distant sites. $12,500 (.5 man years
per siting).
45. Protect the visual quality
of highly scenic areas.
DPR X X X Shared responsibility, Higher responsibility
for DPR on existing projects.
46-47 Establish local desig@ pro- Minor state and local cost. Significant in- Policies will protect coastal scenic
cedures and standards and creases in private sector costs of timber resources, but will restrict and limit
a design review process harvesting if the design standards require timber harvesting activities. Policies
D.C. X X X X substantial changes in forest practice regu- can be implemented through existing
lations to protect scenic resources. Policies forest practice regulation.
will be growth retarding and resource con-
serving.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 28

Location of I Dact

41 4J Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 10 M: JUU M 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
QJ A, 4.,0
U_

48. Reduce litter in coastal areas
DPR X X X Ongoing program for DPR.
49. Design guidelines: compatibi-
lity with natural environ-
ment

DPR X X X X Local government will have major responsi-
bility.
49f, g & h & 52 Design guidelines State cost unknown. Significant local and Policies will protect coastal scenic
headlands, hillsides and private sector annual cost. Possible in- resources, but may restrict timber pro-
canyons; upland terraces and creases in timber harvesting costs due to duction, increase fire hazard and con-
plains; rivers & streams; restriction of harvest and increased logging flict with existing fire hazard laws.
landscaping costs. Policies may be growth retarding and Significant timber resources could be
D.C. X X X X X resource and land conserving in coastal affected by these policies and prohi-
watersheds, but may be offset in adjacent bition or restriction of timber har-
areas. Policy too vague to estimate benefits vesting and increased associated
to protection costs. operational costs might be significant.
Increases in fire protection costs and
potential damage are based on current
experience.

50. Design guideline: protection
of coastal views X X X X Additional local government controls needed.
DPR
51. Design guideline: scale,
height, materials & colors X X X X Some local governments have existing activities
OPR
52. Design guideline: landscaping
DPR X X X X

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 29
Location of I pact f

4J M @; 41 Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies a, M X:W U ca 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4J 41 0
.@: 4J

53. Design guideline: alteration
of natural landforms
DPR (Includes policies a & b) X X X X

53b Design guideline: restore
natural contours
D.C. X X X X Minor state and local cost. Significant pri- Policy will protect scenic coastal re-
vate sector costs to restore landscape to sources, but will restrict commercial
natural forms following timber harvesting. timber harvesting activities. Policy
Growth retarding and resource conserving, but vague. Private sector cost is based on
might restrict production of timber in criti- past experience related to timber.har-
cal areas. vesting, road construction and excava-
tion costs and potential area affected.
Only minor administrative costs were
considered.
54. Design guideline: signs
DPR X X X X
55. Design guideline: utility
structures
DPR X X X X

55a Avoid duplication of utility
facilities
ERCDC X X Reduces costs. No additional costs. Already in effect where possible.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 30

Location of impact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4@ ed "C 41
Policies M M cu M
W 41 41 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4J
V) (0 U
4@ 'a

55b Undergrounding of distribution
facilities

ERCDC X X Substantial cost to utilities. Some cost to ERCDC controls transmission facilities
PUC and ERCDC. from the plant to the grid.

55d Design of above-ground facili-
ties

ERCDC X X May be substantial cost to utilities. Slight
cost if any to ERCDC to evaluate conformance.
$@5,000 (I man-year per year) per sitinj.

56. Design guidelines: major
public service, commercial
and industrial facilities X Increased costs to utilities. Slight increase Using the environment as the sole cri-
to ERCDC to ensure conformance and full eval- teria for siting a non-water or ocean
uation of alternatives $2,000 (1 man-month site energy facility is too narrow.
per year) for siting. Proximity to customers may reduce costs
of powerplants and provide energy needed
for commercial and industrial growth
that would otherwise not be available.

SWRCB X X X Related to wastewater treatment facilities,
the policy might result in major capital costs
to federal, state and local government. Policy
could affect certain grant projects where
visual obstrusiveness or esthetics are major
design considerations involving construction
costs not normally sanctioned by the SWRCB.
Possible increase in cost if underground
construction or extensive screening of
facilities is required.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 31

Location of ImDact

Policies 4. 1; 4J Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
M X: 0)U Ma and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4@ 4J 0
.@: 4J
V) U

59, 61-63 Concentrate public
service facilities

DWR X X X State: $50,000/yr. Local: Some increases Encourage land conservation in best in-
and decrqases. Net effect on private sector terest of the public. DWR would provide
unknown. Resource conserving, retains agri- a large amount of available data on land
cultural land in production and preserves classification, water development and
open space. use, etc., on a cooperative effort with
all concerned agencies.
61. Regulate new or expanded
public service and transpor-
tation facilities

SWRCB X X X Policy would hinder the board in awarding Policy is redundant to other public
grants for wastewater treatment and collection service policies and should be deleted.
facilities because the determination of pro-
ject consistency with other Coastal Plan
policies is so vague as to result in con-
siderable delay and confusion. Policy growth
reducing and ultimately growth stabilizing.

64. Restrict development in flood-
hazard areas.

D.C. (Includes policies a, X X X X X Major long-term savings at all levels of the This policy will protect marine resources,
b c) public,sector may be generated through re- estuaries, forest and agricultural lands,
duced damage to capital improvements and re- shoreline, wildlife, and design quality,
duction in the cost of protection and services and will encourage judicious use of
Significant state mandated costs will be in- resources and land. Disadvantages will
curred at the local level to implement this include restriction of commercial and
policy, but these costs will be more than residential development and land use
offset by the savings generated. Major costs displacements which will generate minor
will be incurred by the private sector in temporary increased deamnds for energy
terms of increased cost of construction and and resources. This policy was analyzed
operation. These will be more than offset an the basis of protection from "fire-
by major savings generated through protection flood sequence" problems only. This
from damage and reconstruction. policy has great potential for savings

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 32

Location of Impact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 41 41
M and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41 4@ 0
.M _J
4-V

64. D.C. (cont.) Policy will be growth retarding and resource in terms of damage, protection and
and land conserving within coastal watersheds, services in coastal watersheds. See
but may stimulate growth and resource use in Federal Flood Protection Law. Estimates
adjacent areas. Policy may reduce state and of potential savings in damage and the
local property taxes over the long term cost of protection and services were
through a reduction in damage as well as the based on general estimates of past
need for protection and services. This "fire-flood sequence" damage to public
analysis addressed "fire-flood sequence" and private sector improvements in
damage potential which is most serious in coastal watersheds. In the past 5
coastal watersheds. Even though additional years these costs have been several
development may occur in flood plains outside million dollars annually.
the coastal zone, this development would be
located in areas generally less prone to
"fire-flood sequence" type damage.

DWR X X X State: $150,000/yr. above present pro ram. Reduce future flood damage to develop-
Local and Private: Prevent future proglem ment in flood plains and prevent loss
areas as a result of floods. of life from floods. Detailed investi-
gation would be needed to police flood
plains.

65. Improve statewide geologic
safety measures.
D.C. X X X X State annual costs could exceed $100,000 to Reduction in loss of property value and
Division of Mines and Geology. Policy too life loss by avoiding geologic hazards.
vague to price state mandated and local cost. Cost estimate based on expenses during
Savings to State of California could be in current geologic hazards study for
many millions of dollars as indicated by the counties in Central and Southern
CDMG - Urban Geology Master Plan for Califor- California and Alquist-Priolo zoning
nia analysis. for geologic hazards throughout state.

SWRCB X X X X Minor to significant benefits.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 33

Location of Impact

Policies 41 4J Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
10 M 0
4, 41 0 4J and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
L' V) eu _j U
4@ -0 S_W
_K;

66. Require filing of geologic
hazards information Minor cost to state, local and private sector. Data should be available to potential
D.C. x x x Could result in fewer losses ' to private sector owners. Should lead to a reduction in
and a reduction in lawsuits brought against property and life loss and increased
public agencies. Could be growth retarding. public awareness. Requires centralized
filing and development system for dis-
tribution of reports. Cost estimate
based on current cost of filing Alquist-
Priolo hazard reports. Would require
legislation.

67. Review and regulate new
development for geologic
safety

SWRCB x x x x Minor recurring costs to federal, state and Significant benefits from requiring an
local government and to the private sector. initial geologic and soils study in
coastal areas of high geologic hazards
prior to the construction of structures.
However, this policy is not needed as
it relates to the board because the
planning for wastewater facilities
funded under the Clean Water Grant
Program must be in accordance with the
State Guidelines for Consideration of
Geologic Factors in Environmental Im-
pact Report Preparation. (Clean Water
Grant Bulletin No. 28, August 8, 1975)

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 34

Location of Impact

GJ
Policies 4@ Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
M 2: Q) U ro0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41 4J 0 -
I V) . '. U
4J

67c Review and regulate new State: Significant annual cost to review Quality control for geotechnical reports
developments for geologic all projects. If local agenciesare involved, aids in reduction of property and life
safety. Division of-Mines costs to them could be significant. Minor loss. Cost estimate based on those for
& Geology to assist. private sector cost. Could be growth re- EIR, hospital site, and Alquist-Priolo,
D.C. X X tarding but should result in long-term review. Cost to private sector based
savings. on cost of geologic reports presently
being incurred for subdivision size pro-
jects. Cost about $50.00 (1972) per
unit of housing. Geologic report costs
for individual units investigated as a
result of Alquist-Priolo requirements
approximately $1 million. Policy is
ambiguous as to responsibility for re-
view and regulation.
70. Regulate bluff and cliff de- Minor annual cost to state and private sector. Additional geologic safety. Additional
velopments for geologic Annual local cost eventually could be signi- cost per unit of housing or other devel-
safety ficant for those jurisdictions with bluff and opment. Additional burden of review
cliff areas facing developmental pressure. placed on CDMG. Ultimately should be
D.C. X X X Could be growth retarding. Should have shifted to local jurisdictions when they
long-term benefit. have developed expertise.

72. Recommendations for statewide If Coastal Commission invoked authority to ERCDC has promulgated or will promulgate
energy conservation measures set conservation standards serious duplication conservation standards for space and
in new developments of ERCDC efforts could occur with consequent water heating, certain building designs,
increased costs to the taxpayer. Local pilot light ignition systems, and
ERCDC government will need to inspect new construc- appliance efficiency standards.
tion for compliance. Construction will be
more expensive.
74. Encourage development of ERCDC is now undertaking such a program. Highly beneficial for the entire state.
alternative energy sources 1975-76 state and federal budget level at
about $6.8 million. If implemented new
ERCDC X X X industries will develop..

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 35

Location of I Dact

a Increment
Policies 41 4, of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4'DJ and Nature of Economic Effects
41 4J and Comments
W Ln M _J U
4J '0

75. Recommendation for implement- ERCDC is recommending to the Legislature that Generally, this Policy is beneficial
ing solar beating and cool- in the 1975-76 fiscal year the commission ex- to the state.
ing systems pend $3.645 million (state and federal) for
solar energy related projects. Many are re-
ERCDC X X X X lated to solar heating and cooling. If re-
sults are fully implemented, new industries
will be created and there may be increased
local government inspection requirements.

75a Recommendation to determine Currently Jet Propulsi on Laboratory is
when delivery system exists working on first phases of this activity.
Projected that by July 1, 1977 ERCDC will
ERCDC X have this activity accomplished. ERCDC will
expend budgeted funds for certification
process.
75b Recommendation to require Substantial costs to the private sector. Alternatives (i.e., insulation, building
alternative heating and Rapid developmAt of a new industry. Local design, might negate benefits.)
cooling systems building criteria would be revised. $175,000
ERCDC X X X staff (9 person years) per fiscal year.

75c Recommendation to require Substantial costs to private sector in Alternatives such as better insulation
capability to incorporate duplicating energy systems in anticipation and building design might be more bene-
solar collector system of technological breakthroughs. $50,000 ficial in terms of life-cycle costs
ERCDC X X X (2 person years) per fiscal year. than requiring the solar alternative.

75d Recommendation for testing & Testing and certification would involve sub- This should be done.
certification; retrofitting stantial costs, particularly if development
of solar heating systems; costs are underwritten by testing facility.
"sun rights" ordinances $500,000 (10 person years) and $1.2 million
ERCDC X in consultant contracts.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 36

Location of I pact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 4j S_
M X: CU U M o and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4@0
V) -M _j U
4@ 0

76. Establish a statewide agency Substantial increased costs to ERCDC in Giving ERCDC authority over additional
to plan and certify all developing competent staff to site facilities. power related facility siting is logical.
energy facilities of different technological expertise than now Authority should be centralized in one
exists. $25,000 (one man-year) per notice of entity.
ERCDC X intent, one man-year per application. Total
$50,000 per siting. Additional costs re-
flected in Policies 79, 87-88, & 94.

76-80 Energy facilities, plan & State: $100,000/yr. Local: minor. Private Provides control over design quality
power plant siting consider cost dependent on restriction of location, of developments, esthetics, and conserves
ations design esthetics, etc. If power plants are shoreline for public access. Requires
moved inland, it would retain 4gricultural development of water supply to replace
DWR X X X X land in production, reduce local tax base sea water for cooling. Requires greater
and require greater use of fresh water for number and intensity of EIR's. DWR
power plant cooling even with use of waste would be a participant with applicant,
water reclamation. Energy Commission, Coastal Commission,
et al, to furnish data and expertise
for various propo 'sals for energy facili-
ties, i.e.' sources of cooling water for
inland sites.

77. Coastal agency role in
siting coastal power plants
Duplication of work most likely will occur,
ERCDC X X thus causing substantial cost increases to
Coastal Commission.

78. Coastal agency role in on-
going site identification
process Duplication of effort will result in addi-
tional costs to Coastal Commission.
ERCDC X X

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 37

Location of Impact

Increment of Cost (Savings)
41 M3 'Z 4J Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 10 M: ro
a, 41 4@1 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
LL 41
V) __J U
4110 S_

79. Criteria for siting and de- Additional costs to the utility. Some addi- Safety and environmental protection are
sign of Coastal power plants tional cost to ERCDC to provide conformance. serious concern of ERCDC in siting
$75,000 (3 man-years) per notice of intent power plants.
ERCDC X X and application. Total - $150,000 per notice
of intent.

SWRCB X Significantly increase capital and recurring The policy would encourage the use of
costs to the private sector to conform new or inland sites over coastal sites. Cooling
expanded powerplants to these requirements. water for inland plants would be supplied
by fresh water, wastewaters, or natural
inland brackish waters. The availability
of freshwater for powerplant cooling is
complicated by competing uses (municipal,
industrial, and agricultural, as well as
in-stream uses), projected demands with
differing assumptions, anticipated water
resources development, and annual hydro-
logical fluctuations. However, regard-
less of the variability in each one of
these factors, the outlook for expanding
consumption of freshwater is not good,
either on a near or long-term basis.
Excluding the north coast streams from
further immediate considerations, in
accordance with statutory mandates,
California is stretching its fresh-
water supply capabilities to environ-
mental limits. In fact, much of the
present water resources attention is
devoted to resolving and-mitigating the
previous over-commitment of freshwater
use, especially in terms of maintaining
or restoring viable aquatic habitats in
our streams and rivers. Further, con-
sumptive use of these waters beyond
existing demand projects would only delay
and perhaps permanently prevent implemen-
tation of these measures.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 38

Location of Imvact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 41
0) U 0 and Comments
1 0 .11 and Nature of Economic Effects
LL 11)

80. Remove outmoded powerplants
from beach areas
Some cost to utilities, but generally in
ERCDC. X conformance with current business practices. Valuable policy.
81-86 Policies for petroleum
development

SLC X Minor new costs to SLC. Substantial new costs for other state
agencies.
82a(3) SLC must approve explora-
tion program

D.C. X X The Division of Oil and Gas would review all
drilling programs for compliance with
regulations. If accelerated development of
state offshore occurs, cost to the state would
be $40,000 annually for additional staff for
offshore well surveillance. Private sector
would be paying for additional.engineers
through increased assessments on oil and gas
production.

83b Assure geologic safety in
siting of petroleum facilities
D.C. X X Three additional engineers will be required The Division of Oil and Gas recommends a
to evaluate all proposed drilling sites. Cost rewording of the policy that in effect may
would be about $60,000 per year. Private require one engineer. rather than three.
sector would pay cost through increased Benefits: lessen possibility of a pollu-
assessment on oil and gas production. tion incident.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 39

Location of Impact
CU .1 Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 41 M -0 +5 S_
M M: a) oo
a) 41 41 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41
V)

83c Consolidate drilling, pro-
duction, and processing
sites

D.C. X Small savings in consolidation of facilities. Benefit: maximize oil and gas production.
In addition, esthetic benefits would be
derived.

83e Platforms preferred over
islands; minimize impact of
platforms Cost, if any, unknown. See policy 119.

87. Coastal agency role in re-
finery siting

SLC X Minor cost to SLC. Major cost statewide.

87-88 Siting and design of coast-
al refineries

ERCDC X X New costs to ERCDC in identifying list of Refinery siting should be a state
possible sites and consequent certification. responsibility.
There may be a reduction in cost to local
government because of state preemption.
Estimate of $2 million, ERCDC only.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 40

Location of I i)act
Policies 41 M 'a a) Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
to X: 0) U W 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4J 4J 0
4@
_J
4

92. Criteria for new or enlarged Private sector would incur unknown increased Benefits:unknown.
tanker terminals capital costs.

SWRCB x
89-93 Policies for tanker Minor cost to SLC, although may go to $340,000 Duplicative layering of responsibilities.
terminals if aggressive program undertaken. Major cost
SLC x due to Coastal Commission and Energy
Commission involvement.

94. Coastal agency role in LNG
facility siting

ERCDC x Increased cost to ERCDC. Costs reflected in Statewide agency should have responsi-
Policy 88 above. bility for siting in this area.

94-98 Policies for LNG facilities

SLIC x No new costs to SLC if minor augmentation
made for tanker terminals.

95. Criteria for siting and de-
sign of LNG facilities

SWRCB Costs unknown. The board currently has no policy on
LNG facility siting.
98. Research and development per- ERCDC is currently conducting research and Very beneficial to interests of the
taining to LNG safety development in this area and will make rec- state.
ERCDC x ommendations to the Legislature January 1,
1977. Our current funding level is $80,000.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 41

Location of I pact

a Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 4- 10-10 41 $_
ro X 4) U ro0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
Q) 41 4-)0
M _j

102. Criteria for new or expanded
coastal roads
SWRCB Increased capital and recurring costs to fed- Minor to significant benefits would
X X X eral, state and local sectors. accrue from additional protection of
coastal wetlands and estuaries in
California.

104b,c,d & e Maximize recrea- Minor cost increases to provide additional Policy will provide for better recrea-
tional and scenic value of fire protection may be incurred at all levels tional use of coastal highways.
Highway 1 and other coastal in the public sect& and in the private Additional fire risk will result.
roads sector. Economic impact on forest, brush and
watershed resources will be minor if effec-
D.C. X X X X tive fire protection is provided. Minor in-
creases in state and local taxes may be
required.

105a Parking policy: Use shuttle
from remote parking areas
if possible

DPR X X X X Costs dependent upon degree of implementation.

116-120 Water transportation
policies
SLC X Costs to $150,000 annually if SLC required to Costs to Coastal Commission would be
greater. Potential conflict with
increase involvement with Port grantees. federal Maritime Commission jurisdic-
119. Recommendation for naviga- tion over ports.
tional safety X DNOD indicates initial cost of $205 million
to establish system recommended by U.S.
Coast Guard.
0,

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 42

Lo ation of Impact

W r Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 41 +1
M (0 0
ej 41 4, > and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
U_ V) 4@;M 7

121-130 Policies for public
access to coastline Substantial added cost to research, document,
and litigate access rights. Enforcement costs
SLC X would be added on top of these costs. Costs of
an expanded program could exceed a million
dollars annually.
121a & b Public access to coast- Minor cost increases to provide additional Policy will provide for better recrea-
125 & line and establish a fire protection may be incurred at all tional use of coastal highways. Addi-
145 coastal trails system levels in the public sector as well as in the tional fire risk will result.
private sector. Economic impact on forest,
D.C. X X X X brush and watershed resources will be minor
if effective fire protection is provided.
Minor increases in state and local taxes may
be required.

123c Provide blufftop paths and
linear parks

OPR X X X X Could be $2,500,000 annual cost to local Relates to Policy 145 on Trails.
agencies if they wished to participate in Coordination needed at all levels.
trails program. Should be state coordinated.

123e Authorize state agency to ac
quire and maintain access-
ways

DPR X X X Additional authority needed for state agency.

125 Provide lower-cost tourist
facilities in the nearcoast
area

DPR X X X X Low cost camping could be provided.. Increased recreation opportunities.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 43
Location of Impact F
Policies 41 41 Increment of Cost (Savings)
T; Benefits, Disadvantages
LL and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments

130. Multiple public-oriented
uses in major facilities No cost increase. Will be done as part of-ERCDC evalua, tion
ERCDC X of siti-ng applications.

134. Reserve shoreline areas for
recreation activities that
need access to water
DPR X X X X This policy could exclude recreation
uses that are legitimate.
135. Restrict substantial altera -
tions along the coast for
recreation

DPR X X X X This policy could harm legitimaAe devel-
opments. RV's are appropriate in cold
windy areas.
136. Reserve upland areas for
recreational support State and local moderate to high costs at im-
plementation stage, assuming this applies to
DPR X X new projects only.
137. Provide a variety of recrea-
tional facilities near'me-
tropolitan areas Federal, state, local minor costs if low Standard policy for most recreation
DPR X X X X intensity recreation. agencies.
140. Balance development with
open space and recreation
facilities
DPR X Balanced costs. Local control required. Private sector and government combination.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 44

Location of Impact

';4 Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4' z
Policies 10 M: (UU 100 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41 +1 0 4-
.M _J

142. Limit access & recreational
use where necessary
DFG, DPR involvement. Standard practice on
DPR X X X existing units.

143. Restrict off-road recreation
al vehicles along the coast

DPR X X X-' X

144. Establish long-range pro-
gram to protect recrea-
tional resources

DPR X X X X Part of most existing programs.

145. Establish a coastal trails A $10 million annual program for acquiring Benefits would accrue to bicyclists,
system and developing recreation trails along coast hikers and horse riders.
should be initiated including cooperative
DPR X X projects with local agencies near urban
concentrations.
146. Accommodate new recreational
boating facilities without
degrading coastal resources

DNOD X X X Major depressant to growth of recreational
boating industry. Restricts potential for
increased property tax to local government.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 45

Lo ation of Impact

Policies 41
to X: U 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
41 .41 0 41
M _j U
S_
Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages

149. Encourage education on the
coastal environment

DPR X X Costs indeterminate,

SWRCB X X X X Minor increased capital and recurring costs Significant benefit.
to federal, state and local government
150. Establish a coastal reserve A $300 million bond program should be Preservation of resources, recreation
system established to acquire the most endangered uses, educational and other values
coastal reserve properties that have been Resources Agency might take lead.
DPR X identified. DPR, DFG, others.

150d Establish a coordinating
committee to review acqui-
sition and management of
the reserve system
DFG X Unknown minor annual costs. Resource conserv- Protects estuaries and shoreline species
ing. but reduces public access. Existing law
essentially covers policy. Vagueness of
policy does not allow for cost evaluation.
150e Manage reserves for resource
protection

DFG X Unknown minor annual costs. Resource conserv- Protects estuaries and shoreline species
ing. but reduces public access. Existing law
essentially covers policy. No advantage
to hunters and fishermen if department is
not allowed to make decision.as to whe-
ther hunting or fishing will be allowed
in reserves. A conflict could develop
between reserve system operations and
DFG and F & G Commission.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 46

Location of I Dact

4J Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies M X Gi U M 0 and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
0) 41 41 0 > 4J
(n 4@; 'a _J T:U

151. Protects historical and A program for the systematic archaeological A survey based on this program will
prehistorical resources and paleontological survey of the coastal enable the establishment of programs
zone would cost $127,500. to preserve and study endangered ar-
DPR X chaeological sites to greatly increase
our knowledge of prehistorical resources.
Tax relief portions could be a ballot
issue.

D.C. Williamson Act could handle.

152. Restore degraded coastal
resources

SWRCB X X X X Significant increased capital costs to federal, Significant benefit derived from re-
state and local government and to the private storing wetlands, wildlife areas and
sector. public recreation areas.
DFG X Major unknown capital or annual costs from Protects estuaries. Encourages land
F & G Preservation and General Funds. Re- conservation. Protects coastal lowlands
source conserving. Growth retarding. Limits but restricts addition of marinas. Would
urban sprawl. require tremendous undertaking by DFG if
given authority to do so. Policy is
vague as to whom would conduct the
restoration work.

156. Use appropriate techniques Private sector capital and operating costs Policy will protect marine resources,
for expanding public use could be increased through acquisition or less- estuaries, forest and agricultural lands,
of the coast than-fee management contracts to provide ex- shoreline, wildlife, and design quality.
pansion of public use of coastal timberlands. It will, however, restrict commercial
D.C. X X X X Policy would be resource and land conserving and residential development, cause land
within coastal watersheds, but may be offset use displacements and cause minor re-
elsewhere. Policy would reduce local tax base ductions in timber production.
in coastal areas.

7@4'

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 47

Location of Impact

Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
Policies 41
and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
4-1 41 0
.@: 4J
10 _j U

156, D.C. (cont.) With respect to preservation and pro-
tection of forest and watershed re-
sources, the least costly and perhaps
most desirable, from a cost-benefits
standpoint, are the proposed various
less-than-fee management contracts.
Additional private sector cost in-
creases are based on past economic
impacts of timber acquisition by
state and federal government.

159. Expand the authority of
existing state acquisition
agencies

DFG X Unknown capital or annual costs. Resource Protects valuable fish and wildlife
conserving. Displaces local tax bases. habitat. Policy is in error in that
DFG (WCB) has authority to acquire
options. Section 1348 of F & G Code.
However, the $2,000 level would be
desirable, but not enough. The limit
should be raised.

160. Create an interagency co-
ordinating council

DFG X Minor unknown annual costs from F & G Preser- Recommends state agency coordination on
vation Fund. Resource conserving. purchase of coastal lands. Costs would
be minor because priorities could be
shifted to handle this slight proposed
additional workload. Policy vague as
to who will be the lead agency.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES Page 48

Lo ation of Impact
I
r_ aj Increment of Cost (Savings) Benefits, Disadvantages
4J 41
Policies 10 0
4j 41 C) > 4) and Nature of Economic Effects and Comments
L' Ln 4.; 'a _j T:U

162. Prepare subregional plans Significant unknown costs to the F & G Pre- Protects coastal resources through
for some coastal areas servation Fund. Resource conserving. Unknown coordinated planning. Cost estimates
significant local costs. (See policy 162d). were based upon the fact that DFG would
DFG X be.caTTed upon to provide input to plans.
Past experience has shown that local
governments have little expertise in
fish and wildlife matters. Would benefit
fish and wildlife by protecting habitat.
Lack of data prevents determing costs.

162d Provide state funding for
sub-regional planning
programs

DFG X X Significant unknown costs from General Fund. Protects significant fish and wildlife
Resource conserving. Reduce cost demand on habitat areas. Does not indicate if
F & G Preservation Fund., state agencies could be recipients of
grants.

ANALYSIS OF COASTAL PLAN POLICIES

Footnotes to Policy Analysis

Footnote #1 from page 3 Footnote #2 from page 5

A recent opinion of the Attorney General (No. SO 73/17) The estimated additional costs shown for these
indicates that an increased cost to local government is examples are based upon published cost curves
not state mandated if such cost can be financed from (and other sources) for unit treatment processes
sources other than through an increase in property required by the State Health Department for secon-
tax. In most instances, sewering agencies, including dary treatment effluent (i.e., for effluent that
general purpose local governments and special districts, has already received the level of treatment man-
have the authority to finance an increased level of dated by EPA for ocean 'dis-posal) that would be used
treatment by an increase in special sewer assessments. for spray irrigation of food crops or in a nonre-
Accordingly, if the legislation implementing the coast- stricted recreational impoundment (Wastewater
al plan mandated an increased level of treatment on Reclamation Criteria, Title 22, Division 4,
sewering agencies, the cost-of such treatment conceiv- California Administrative Code). It is probable
ably could be financed by these sewer assessments and, that most of the effluent from the cited waste-
therefore, there would not be any state mandated costs. water systems, as well as much other municipal
However, it presently is difficult to anticipate all effluent from the Coastal Resource Management
ways in which the successor coastal agency could man- Area, would have to receive the level of treat-
date an increased level of service or new service on ment required by those reclaimed water uses if
local governments and whether such increased level reclamation is mandated. Wastewater reclaimed
of service or new service could be financed under for purposes other than those indicated above
the present statutory authorizations for these would not require treatment as extensive; effluent
special sewer fees. Consequently, while we be- from many of the smaller municipalities in the
lieve that in most instances the increased level Coastal Resource Management Area could perhaps
of service or new services mandated by legisla- be used for such purposes.
tion implements the Coastal Plan would not result
in "state mandated" costs to local government, we The federal and state grant funds available for
cannot conclude categorically that this would be building and upgrading treatment facilities are
the result. While we have not indicated that limited. The State Water Resources Control, Board
there would be any "state-mandated costs" through- through its various policies and administration
out the remainder of the present analysis, we do of the Federal and State Clean Water Grant Program
so with the foregoing understanding. has attempted to provide a statewide priority for
distribution of these funds.

Page 50

Footnotes to Policy Analysis (continued)

Footnote #2 from page 5 (continued)
The principal impact of the Coastal Plan on the In contrast with Section 303(e) planning, Section
Grants Program would be the restructuring of the 201 planning is concerned with finding a specific
funding priorities established by the State Board solution to a specific water quality problem asso-
with a definite bias toward the Coastal Resources ciated with the disposal of municipal wastewaters.
Management Area. In essence such a change in Section 201 solves specific water quality problems
funding priorities would result in a reduction by providing federal grants for the planning, de-
of available funds for treatment works in non- sign and construction of wastewater treatment
coastal areas of the state such as San Francisco facilities. Presently, nearly all the municipal
Bay, Lake Tahoe, and the Central Valley. Thus, wastewater treatment facilities in the state are
the channeling of additional funds to coastal at least in the planning stage and may have pro-
areas made necessary by the mandated water quality gressed to the design or construction stage.
goals of the Coastal Plan would result in delays
to many projects which are necessary to satisfy Under federal law, the existing Section 303(e)
public health requirements and other concerns. plans will be updated by 1978 to conform with the
requirements of Section 303(e) and Section 208 of
Footnote #3 from page 15 the Federal Act.

A principal role of planning under Section 303(e) For those areas in California which the State Board
is to identify past, present and probable future has identified as having complex urban-industrial
beneficial uses of the surface and underground problems, local agencies must prepare such plans.
water of the state and to specify water quality The scope of each plan largely will be determined
objectives which would maintain these uses. In by the environmental concerns in the particular area.
addition, among other things, Section 303(e) plans For nondesignated areas of the state, the State Board
will identify water quality problems associated will undertake planning under Section 208. Section
with the disposal of municipal wastewater and 208 planning for nondesignated areas will not be as.
recommend some possible alternative solutions to extensive as for designated areas because of the
such problems that would be further analyzed nature of the problems involved.
under Section 201 planning.
Regardless of the scope of Section 208 planning, it
Recently, plans in conformance with the require- will not duplicate existing Section 201 planning.
ments of Section 303(e) of the Federal Act and
with state 14w were adopted by the regional It is highly unlikely that the Section 208 plans
board, approved by the state board, and approved will be as all encompassing as the.-comprehensive
by EPA. watershed management plans contemplated by this
policy. For example, the following issues have

3 6668 00002 2105